Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 34: Testimonies of the Fathers of the Ninth Age: Theophylact and Paschasius
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).
Theophylact flourished, by the consent of all, after the year of the Lord 800, and wrote of the truth of the body of the Lord, imitating Chrysostom, most plainly and most copiously. On chapter 26 of Matthew: “Now by saying, This is my body, He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the very body, and not a corresponding figure. For He did not say: This is a figure, but, This is the body; for by an ineffable operation it is transformed, although it seem bread to us.” See also the same on chapter 14 of Mark, and on chapter 6 of John, and on chapters 10 and 11 of the first to the Corinthians; in which last place, explaining those words, Not discerning the body of the Lord, he says thus: “If we were more certain who and how great is He who lies before us in our sight, we should need scarcely any other help, but He alone would procure for us both continence and vigilance.”
But they found in Theophylact one word which the adversaries might seize for themselves. For on chapter 13 [14] of Mark Theophylact says that the bread is transmuted into the power of the flesh of Christ; from which they wish to expound what he has on chapter 26 of Matthew and on chapter 6 of John, that the bread is transmuted into the flesh of the Lord. And so they wish the sense of all those passages to be that the bread, by a sacramental change, becomes an instrument of the divine power, by which, namely, our minds are stirred to faith. So Peter Martyr disputes in his book against Gardiner, objection 13.
But it is excessive impudence to dispute about the testimonies of Theophylact, since he himself on chapter 6 of John expressly says that there is not bread after consecration, although it seem so to the eyes; and that it is transformed by an ineffable operation (but no ineffable operation is required for it to be an instrument of exciting faith); and that it is not a figure, but the very body; and that the bread is so turned into the flesh of Christ by consecration as it was of old turned by nutrition, when the Lord lived here on earth; and finally that in receiving the Eucharist one must believe simply, and not say, How can this be done? and so forth. That Theophylact, then, says the substance of bread is changed into the power of the flesh of Christ, signifies that it is changed into the essence of the flesh of Christ, which has the power of nourishing souls, as the substance of bread has the power of nourishing bodies; for it is the same as if he had said: under the species of bread there was before a certain power of nourishing bodies, namely the substance of bread; now there is a certain power of nourishing souls, namely the substance of the flesh of Christ. Add that, if Theophylact had meant to say that the bread becomes an instrument of the divine power, he would not have said that it is changed into the power of the flesh of Christ, but into the power of the Holy Spirit; for it is the Holy Spirit (as Peter Martyr says in the same place) who in the sacred function uses the Sacrament as an instrument; nay, he would not have said ‘transelemented’, but ‘made’. For who would speak so absurdly that, if he wished to say that a pen must be prepared to become the instrument of a scribe, he would say that the pen is transelemented into the power of the writer?
In the same century flourished Paschasius, Abbot of Corbie, who wrote a most careful book On the Body of the Lord nearly two hundred years before the Berengarian heresy was born. In it he says thus, chapter 1: “All things whatsoever the Lord willed He did in heaven and on earth; and because He willed it, although the figure of bread and wine be here, yet altogether nothing else than the flesh of Christ and blood is to be believed after consecration”; and below he proves this at length. The same in his epistle to Frudegard proves the same of set purpose; and again in his little book On the Institution of the Sacrament: “Nor,” he says, “did He so say when He broke and gave them the bread: This is, or, In this mystery is, a certain power, or a figure of my body; but He said, not feignedly, This is my body; and therefore it is that which He said, not what anyone feigns.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXTV. Testimonia Patrum IX aetatis Thenphy lacti et Paschasii. Thcopliylaetus post annum Domini 800. om¬ nium consensu floruit, ac de veritate corpo¬ ris Domini Chrysostomum imitatus apertissi¬ me et copiosissime scripsit.In cap.xxvi. Matth. «Porro dicens, Hoc est corpus meum, ostendit quod ipsum corpus est panis, qui sanctifica¬ tur in altari, et non respondens figura. Non enim dixit : Hoc est figura, [sed, Hoc est cor¬ pus: ineffabili enim operatione transformatur, etiamsi nobis videatur panis ». Yide etiam eumdern in cap xiv. Marci, et in cap. vi. Joan. et in cap. x. et ii. prioris adCorinth. in quo ultimo loco explicans illa verba : Non diju¬ dicans corpus Domini, sic ait : « Si certiores essemus, quisnam, et quantus sit illo, qui nobis in conspectu adjacet, nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus, sed solus ille, et continentiam nobis, et vigilantiam compa¬ raret. » Sed invenerunt in Theophylacto unum verbum, quod pro se arriperent adversarii. Nam in cap. 13. Marci, dicit Theophylactus, panem transmutari in virtutem carnis Christi; ex quo exponi volunt, quod idem habet in cap. xxvi. Matth. et in cap. vi. Joannis, panem transmutari in carnem Domini. Itaque sen¬ sum esse volunt omnium istorum locorum, panem per mutationem Sacramentalcm fieri instrumentum di vi me virtutis, quo nimirum animi nostri excitentur ad fidem. Ita Petrus Martyr disputat libro contra Gardinerum , objecto 13. At nimia impudentia est de Theophylacti testimoniis 'disputare, cum ipse in cap. vi. CAPUT XXXV. 127 Joan. diserte dicat non esse panem post con¬ secrationem , licet oculis videatur ; et trans¬ formari ineffabili operatione (nulla autem ineffabilis operatio requiritur ut sit instru¬ mentum exetandae fidei) et non esse figuram, sed ipsum corpus; et ita verti panem in carnem Christi per consecrationem, ut vertebatur olimper nutritionem, cum Dominus hic in terris viveret : et denique oportere in Eucha¬ ristia sumenda simpliciter credere, et non dicere, Quomodo potest id fieri? etc. Quod ergo Theophylactus dicit mutari substantiam panis in virtutem carnis Christi, significat mutari in essentiam carnis Christi, quae vim habet nutriendi animos, ut substantia panis vim habet nutriendi corpora: idem enim est, ac si dixisset, sub speciebus panis antea erat vis quaedam nutriendi corpora, nimirum substan¬ tia panis, nunc est vis quaedam nutriendi ani¬ mos, nimirum substantia carnis Christi. Ad¬ de, quod si Theophylactus dicere voluisset panem fieri instrumentum divinae virtutis, non dixisset mutari in virtutem carnis Christi, sed in virtutem Spiritus sancti : nam spiritus sanctus est (ut ibidem ait Petrus Martyr) qui n sacra functione utitur Sacramento tan- quam instrumento ; imo nec dixisset, trans- elementari, sed fieri. Quis enim tam ab¬ surde loqueretur, ut si dicere vellet, calamum aptari oportere : ut fiat instrumentum scribae, diceret calamum transelementari in virtutem scriptoris? Eodem saeculo floruit Paschasius Abbas Gorbeiensis, qui librum accuratissimum scripsit de corpore Domini ducentis ferine tinnis, antequam Berengariana hseresis na¬ sceretur. In eo sic ait cap. 1. « Omnia qute- cumque voluit Dominus fecit in coelo, et in terra, et quia voluit, licet figura panis, et vini hic sit, tamen oinmino nihil aliud, quam caro Christi, et sanguis post consecra¬ tionem credenda sunt » , et infra prolixe id probat. Idem in epist. ad Frudegar- dum ex professo idem probat : et rursus in libello de institutione Sacramenti : « Nec, inquit, ita dixit cum fregit, et dedit cis pa¬ nem. Ilsec est, vel in hoc mysterio est quee- dam virtus, vel figura corporis mei : sed ait non ficte, Hoc est corpus meum, et ideo, hoc est quod dixit, non quod quisque fingit. »