Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 13: The Testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem
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).
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, whose praise is in the second general Synod, flourished at the same time as Saint Hilary, as is clear from his epistle to the Emperor Constantius. And he speaks of the sacrament of the Eucharist so properly and plainly that he could not have spoken more openly had he lived in our times. Wherefore the heretics have nothing which they may object to us from him; but we have many and most firm testimonies against them.
First, then, at the beginning of Catechesis 4 Mystagogical, and in nearly the whole catechesis, he exhorts us not to doubt of the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist; which certainly would be superfluous if the Eucharist were only a sign of the body of the Lord; for no one is wont to doubt of such things as have no difficulty. Thus, then, he speaks: “This doctrine of blessed Paul is sufficient to make you most certain concerning the divine mysteries,” and so forth. And below: “Since Christ Himself so affirms and says of the bread: This is my body; who shall thereafter dare to doubt? And He Himself likewise confirming and saying: This is my blood; who, I say, shall doubt and say it is not His blood?” Now that he says Christ affirmed of the bread that it was His body does not signify that material bread is the body of the Lord, but the consecrated bread, which in external appearance is material bread, but as to substance is heavenly bread; that bread, I say, he affirms to be the body of the Lord.
Secondly, in the same catechesis Cyril openly sets down a transmutation of the bread into the body of the Lord, and that only the species of bread remain after that transmutation: “He once,” he says, “changed water into wine, which is akin to blood, at Cana of Galilee by His will alone; and shall He not be worthy that we believe He changed wine into blood? Wherefore with all certainty let us receive the body and blood of Christ; for under the species of bread the body is given thee, and under the species of wine the blood is given.” These are so plain that I altogether know not what can be feigned for their perversion.
Thirdly, in the same place he says that the body of Christ is truly joined, not only to our souls, but also to our bodies, through the Eucharist: “Thus,” he says, “we shall be Christ-bearers, that is, bearing Christ, when we have received His body and blood into our members; and, as blessed Peter says, we shall be made partakers of the divine nature.” So he. Nor can this passage be understood of a symbolic body, as though we received only bread into our members; for he speaks of that body of which he had immediately before said that the body of the Lord is received under the species of bread, where the body is distinguished from the bread.
Fourthly, he admonishes in the same place that our senses are deceived concerning the Eucharist, and that they are not to be obeyed: “Do not, then, consider it as bare bread and bare wine; for it is the body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord Himself. For although sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith confirm thee, that thou judge not the matter from the taste.” And below: “Knowing this, and holding it for most certain, that this bread, which is seen by us, is not bread, even though the taste perceive it to be bread, but is the body of Christ; and that the wine, which is beheld by us, although to the sense of taste it seem to be wine, is nevertheless not wine, but the blood of Christ.” What can be said more clearly?
Nor can it be answered that it is not called bare bread because it has an adjoined signification, and that the senses are deceived in this, that they judge it to be bare bread. For the senses do not judge whether the bread signifies or does not signify, but judge the thing to be that which is wont naturally to be under the accidents which are perceived. And besides, Cyril does not say that the senses are deceived because they do not judge the body of Christ to be under the species of bread, but because they judge that thing which they perceive to be bread, when it is not. But in truth it would be bread if only a signification were added; the senses, therefore, would not be deceived, as Cyril says. Finally, in the following catechesis near the end, he admonishes the communicants to provide with the greatest diligence lest any crumb of the Eucharist fall or be lost; which, as we said above, is a great argument of the truth; and in the same place he commands that they approach the Eucharist with bended knee and after the manner of adorers.
But someone will object that the same Cyril, Catechesis 3 Mystagogical, on the holy Chrism, says that it is not bare ointment after the consecration, just as in the same place he says of the bread after consecration. But this confirms our opinion; for Cyril does not speak in the same manner of the Chrism and of the Eucharist. For of the Eucharist he says that after consecration it is not common bread, but the body of Christ; but of the Chrism he says indeed that it is not common ointment, but he does not add that it is the Holy Spirit or the body of Christ, but that it is the Chrism of Christ, or sanctified oil.
This concerning Cyril, whose testimony alone ought to suffice; for it is of a holy and most ancient man, and from his undoubted work, and most clear and most plain, so that it can in no way be perverted; and it is from a Catechesis, in which all things are wont to be explained properly and simply; and finally no one ever reproved Cyril of any error concerning the Eucharist.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. I Testimonium S. C grilli Hierosolymitani. Sanctus Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, cujus laus est in I!. Synodo generali, eodem tem¬ pore floruit, quo S. Hilarius, ut patet ex epistola ejus ad Constantium imperatorem. Ac de sacramento Eucharistise tam proprie, et perspicue loquitur, ut non magis aperte loqui potuerit, si vixisset temporibus nostris. Quocirca nihil habent haeretici, quod ex illo nobis objiciant : nos vero multa, et firmis¬ sima testimonia contra illos habemus. Primum igitur initio catechesis 4 mysta¬ gogi cae, et in tota fere catechesi, hortatur ad non dubitandum de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia : quod certe supervacaneum esset, si Eucharistia esset solum signum cor¬ poris Domini; nemo 'enim dubitare solet do ejusmodi rebus, quse nullam habent difficul¬ tatem. Sic ergo loquitur : « Hsec B. Pauli doctrina satis potest efficere vos certissimos de divinis mysteriis etc. » Et infra : « Cum Christus ipse sic affirmet atque dicat de pane : Hoc est corpus meum ; quis deinceps audeat dubitare ? ac eodem quoque confirmante, et dicente : Hic est sanguis meus; quis, inquam, dubitet, et dicat non esse illius sanguinem?» Quod autem dicit de pane, Christum affir¬ masse illum esse suum corpus, non significat panem materialem esse corpus Domini, sed panem consecratum, qui figura externa panis materialis est ; sed quoad substantiam panis coelestis est ; illum, inquam, panem, corpus Domini esse confirmat. Secundo, in eadem catechesi aperte ponit Cyrillus transmutationem panis in corpus Domini, et solas panis species remanere post eam transmutationem : « Aquam, inquit, aliquando mutavit in vinum, quod est san¬ guini propinquum, in Cana Galilese sola voluntate ; et non erit dignus cui credamus, quod vinum in sanguinem transmuta vit ? Quare omni cum certitudine corpus, et san¬ guinem Christi sumamus : nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus, et sub specie vini datur sanguis ». Heec sunt tam perspicua, ut omnino nesciam, quid fingi possit adeorum perversionem. Tertio ibidem dicit, Christi corpus, non solum animis nostris, sed etiam corporibus vere conjungi per Eucharistiam ; « Sic, in¬ quit, Christophori erimus, id est, Christum ferentes, cum ejus corpus et sanguinem in membra nostra receperimus, atque ut B. Petrus dicit, divinse naturse consortes effi¬ ciemur. » Hcec ille. Neque potest intelligi hic locus de corpore symbolico, quasi solum panem in membra nostra recipiamus : nam de illo corpore loquitur, de quo imme¬ diate antea dixerat, corpus Domini sub * (1) .Toan. XVII, 22. CAPUT XIV. 91 specie panis sumi, ubi distinguitur corpus a pane. Quarto monet ibidem, sensus nostros falli circa Eucharistiam, neque esse illis obtem¬ perandum : « Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem, et nudum vinum ; corpus enim est, et sanguis Christi, secundum ipsius Domini verba. Quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit; tamen fides te confirmet, no ex gustu remjudices. » Et infra: «Hoc sciens, et pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui vide¬ tur a nobis non esse panem, etiamsi gustus pane messe sentiat; sed esse corpus Christi : et vinum, quod a nobis conspicitur, tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur; non tamen vinum, sed sanguinem Christi esse. » Quid clarius dici potest. Neque enim potest responderi, non vocari nudum panem, quia habet adjunctam signi¬ ficationem, et sensus in eo falli, quod nudum panem, esse judicant. Nam sensus non judi¬ cant, utrum panis significet, vel non signifi¬ cet, sed judicant rem eam esse, qum solet naturaliter esse sub accidentibus, qute sentiuntur. Et praiterea Cyrillus non dicit falli sensus, quia non judicant esse corpus Christi sub specie panis, sed quia judicant rem illam, quam sentiunt, esse pa¬ nem, cum non sit. At revera panis esset, si solum adderetur significatio : non igitur sen¬ sus fallerentur, ut Cyrillus dicit. Denique in sequenti catechesi prope finem, monet com¬ municantes, ut summa diligentia provideant, ne mica ulla Eucharistice cadat, nove amit¬ tatur : quod, ut supra diximus, magnum est argumentum veritatis : et ibidem jubet, ut flexo genu, et in adorantium morem accedant ad Eucharistiam. Sed objiciet aliquis quod idem Cyrillus Catech.m. mystagogica de sancto Chrismate dicit, non esse nudum unguentum post con¬ secrationem ; sicut ibidem dicit, panem post consecrationem. Atqui id confirmat sententiam nostram : nam Cyrillus non eodemmodoloquitur de Chrismate, et Eucha¬ ristia. De Eucharistia enim dicit, post con¬ secrationem non esse panem communem, sed corpus Christi , de Chrismate autem dicit quidem non esse commune unguentum, sed non addit esse Spiritum sanctum, vel corpus Christi, sed esse Chrisma Christi, seu sancti- ficatum oleum. Ha)c de Cyrillo, cujus testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet : est enim hominis sancti, et antiquissimi, et ex opere ejus in¬ dubitato, et clarissimum , atque apertis¬ simum, ut nullo modo perverti possit, et est ex Catechesi, in qua solent omnia proprie et simpliciter explicari : et denique nemo un¬ quam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujus circa Eucharistiam.