Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 37: Testimonies of the Fathers of the Twelfth Age: Euthymius and St. Bernard
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).
In the twelfth age also very many wrote most plainly and most copiously of this matter, as Peter of Cluny, Peter Lombard, Hugh and Richard of Saint Victor, Euthymius Zigabenus, Saint Bernard, and others. But it will be enough for us to set down two testimonies, one of Saint Bernard for the Latins, the other of Euthymius for the Greeks.
Saint Bernard, in the life of Saint Malachy: “There was,” he says, “a certain cleric, of probable life, as is reported, but not so of faith; this half-learned man, wise in his own eyes, presumed to say that in the Eucharist there is only the Sacrament, and not the thing of the Sacrament, that is, only the sanctification, and not the truth of the body.” So he. Where he subjoins a notable miracle, by which that man was compelled by blessed Malachy, even unwilling, at length to embrace and confess the truth.
Euthymius, on chapter 26 of Matthew: “He did not say,” he says, “These are signs of my body and my blood, but, These are my body and blood.” And below: “Just as He deified, if it be lawful so to speak, the flesh supernaturally assumed, so also He ineffably transmutes these into His very life-giving body.” See also his Panoply, title 21, where he proves at length, from the Fathers Nyssen and Damascene, the transmutation of the bread into the flesh of the Lord.
Peter Martyr yet dares to produce testimonies from Bernard, in his book against Gardiner, objections 252, 253, and 254. For Bernard writes, sermon 33 on the Canticle: “I too have the Word, but in the flesh; and to me the truth is set before, but in the Sacrament. The Angel is fed on the fatness of the wheat, and is satisfied with the naked grain. Me it behooves meanwhile to be content with a certain husk of the Sacrament, the bran of the flesh, the chaff of the letter, the veil of faith.” And below: “But with however great abundance these things grow fat, not by an altogether equal judgment are the husk of the Sacrament and the fatness of the wheat received; faith and reality; memory and presence; eternity and time; the countenance and the mirror; the image of God and the form of a servant.” The same Bernard too, in his sermon On the Supper of the Lord, compares the Sacraments to a ring and a staff, by which, as by signs, some dignity or possession is conferred.
These they produce, from which we gain altogether much. For there can be no doubt of the opinion of Saint Bernard, both from the testimony cited by us a little before, and from very many others which could be adduced; and because it is established that he was most closely joined to the Roman See, which had condemned the heresy of Berengarius in many Councils; and was most friendly to Hugh of Saint Victor and Peter of Cluny, who had written of set purpose on the Sacrament against the heresy a little before arisen; and finally, because Peter Martyr at the end of objection 252 says that Bernard did not think rightly of this matter, because those times were marvelously darkened with shadows. Since these things are so, it is necessary that his words, which are cited by the adversaries, have a Catholic sense, whatever at length they signify.
From which we understand that it ought not to seem wonderful if the more ancient Fathers—Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others—before the heresy arose, wrote certain things which could be drawn to a bad part, since we see Bernard, after the heresy arose and was condemned, writing certain things which are seized by the adversaries to establish their heresy. Wherefore it behooves us, from the open and plain words of the holy Fathers, to expound those things which seem obscure and doubtful in other Fathers, since it is established that they all thought the same.
That I may answer, then, to the passage of Bernard from the Canticle: Bernard compares the manner in which the Angels enjoy the eternal Word in heaven with that by which we enjoy the same on earth, and says that the Angels are far happier, because they see it openly and clearly, but we have it veiled and hidden in the husk of the Sacraments, in the bran of the flesh, in the chaff of the letter, in the veil of faith. By which words he does not say that we have only the husk, bran, chaff, and veil, but that we have also the Word itself, but hidden in these coverings, as it were; whence these things fight nothing against the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist.
But that which he adds a little below, that the Angels have presence, we memory—which Peter Martyr most urges—is most easily solved. For by presence he understands sight; for he calls that present which is beheld, that absent which is not beheld. And this is clear from this, that he speaks not of the presence of the flesh of the Lord, but of the presence of the eternal Word. For he says that it is present to the Angels, because it is beheld by them face to face; but he says it is absent to us, and in memory, not in presence, because we do not behold it as it is, but only occupy ourselves with it in thought; although otherwise the Word of God, since He is God, is everywhere. Nor is this manner of speaking alien from the Scriptures; for the Scriptures testify that God is everywhere, and yet exhort us to seek Him while He can be found. If He is everywhere, certainly He is present; and yet if He is to be sought, in some manner He is absent.
In the same manner we understand what Bernard says in the same place, that we have the husk, the Angels the fatness; for he signifies that the Angels enjoy the fatness itself, because they behold the Word face to face, but that we have in sight only the husk of the Sacrament. For we see nothing but the species of bread and wine; but yet that within that husk the fatness too lies hidden, Bernard had said above. Finally, it ought to suffice that (as I said before) he speaks not of the flesh of Christ, of which is our question with the adversaries, but of the presence or enjoyment of the eternal Word.
But in his sermon On the Supper of the Lord, Bernard does not say that through the Sacrament of the Eucharist the flesh of Christ is given as by a sign, as some dignity is given by a staff and a ring; but he says that the grace of God is given through the Sacraments as through signs; for he speaks thus: “In this manner the Lord, approaching His passion, took care to invest His own with His grace, that the invisible grace might be given by some visible sign.” So he. Now how the Sacraments are not bare signs, but also instrumental causes of grace, we explained in the disputation on the Sacraments in general, where we also treated this passage of Saint Bernard.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXVII. Testimonia Patrum XII vetatis Euthymii , et S. Bernardi, In cctate XII. plurimi quoque de hac re apertissime, effusissime scripserunt, ut Pe¬ trus Cluniacensis, Petrus Lombardus, Ilugo, et Richardus de S. Victore, Eutbymius Zi- gabenus, S. Bernardus, et alii. Nobis autem satis erit duo testimonia ponere, unum S. Bernardi pro Latinis, alterum Euthymii pro Graecis. S. Bernardus iii vita S. Malachite : « Fuit, inquit, quidam clericus, probabilis, ut fer¬ tur, vita:, sed fidei non ita : is sciolus in oculis suis praesumpsit dicere, in Euchari¬ stia esse tantummodo Sacramentum, et non rem Sacramenti, id est, solam sanctificatio¬ nem, et non corporis veritatem. » Haec ille. Ubi subnectit insigne miraculum, quo ille a B. Malae hia coactus est, vel invitus verita¬ tem tandem amplecti et confiteri. Euthymius in cap. xxvi. Matth.« Non dixit, inquit, hfec sunt signa corporis mei, et san¬ guinis mei, sed, haec sunt corpus, et sanguis meus. » Et infra : « Quemadmodum super- naturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit, si ita loqui liceat ; ita et haec ineffabiliter trans¬ mutat in ipsum vivificum corpus suum. » Vide etiam Panopliam ejusdem tit. 21. ubi Patribus Nysseno, et Damasceno fuse probat, transmutationem panis in carnem Domini. Audet tamen Petrus Martyr testimonia ex Bernardo proferre in lib. contra Gardine- rum , object. 252, 253 et 254. Scribit enim Bernardus sermon. 33. in Cantic.« Habeo et ege Verbum, sed in carne; et mihi, appo¬ nitur veritas, sed in Sacramento. Angelus ex adipe frumenti saginatur, et nudo satiatur grano. Me oportet interim quodam Sacra¬ menti cortice esse contentum, carnis furfure, littera: palea, velamine fidei. »Et infra : « At quantalibet sane abundantia pinguescant ista; non pari omnino judicante sumitur cor¬ tex Sacramenti, et adeps frumenti ; fides et opes : memoria et praesentia : aeternitas, et tempus: vultus, et speculum : imago Dei, et forma servi. » Idem quoque Bernardus in serm. de ccena Domini , comparat Sacra¬ menta annulo et baculo, quibus tanquam signis confertur dignitas aliqua , vel pos¬ sessio. Haec illi proferunt, ex quibus nos multum omnino lucramur. Nam dubitari non po¬ test de sententia S. Bernardi, tum ex testi¬ monio a nobis paulo ante citato ; et ex aliis plurimis, quae afferri possent, tum quia constat eum fuisse conjunctissimum Roma- life sedi quae multis Conciliis damnaverat hseresim Berengarii : necnon amicissimum Hugoni de Sancto Victore, et Petro Clunia- censi, qui ex professo scripserant de Sacra¬ mento contra haeresim paulo ante exortam ; tum denique, quia Petrus Martyr in fine ob¬ jecti 252. dicit, Bernardum non recte de hoc negotio sensisse, quod illa tempora te¬ nebris essent mirabiliter obfuscata. Qua: cum ita sint, necesse est, verba ejus, quae CAPUT XXXVIII. ab adversariis citantur, Catholicum sensum habere, quidquid tandem significent. Ex quo intelligimus , non debere videri mirum , si antiquiores Patres, Ambrosius , Hieronymus, Augustinus, et alii, ante exor¬ tam hamesim quaedam scripserint, quai pos¬ sent trahi in malam partem, cum videamus Bernardum post hteresim exortam ct dam¬ natam , quasdam scribere , quae ab adver¬ sariis ad suam hairesim stabiliendam ra¬ piuntur : quare oportet ex verbis apertis, ct perspicuis sanctorum Patrum exponere ea, quai videntur obscura et dubia in aliis Pa¬ tribus, cum constet cos omnes idem sen¬ sisse. ^ Ut igitur ad locum Bernardi ex Canticis respondeam, confert Bernardus modum, quo Angeli fruuntur Verbo aeterno in coelo, cum eo, quo nos eodem fruimur in terris, ac di¬ cit, Angelos esse longe feliciores, quod il¬ lud aperte, et perspicue videant, nos autem habeamus velatum, et occultatum in cortice Sacramentorum in furfure carnis, in palea litterae, in velamine fidei. Quibus verbis non dicit nos habere solum corticem, furfurem, paleam ct velamen ; sed habere ipsum etiam Verbum, sed occultatum in his quasi invo¬ lucris : unde nihil ista pugnant contra veri¬ tatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Quod vero paulo infra adjungit, Angelos habere praesentiam, nos memoriam ; quod maxime urget Petrus Martyr, facillime sol¬ vitur. Nam per praesentiam intelligit, con¬ spectum ; id enim appellat praesens, quod cernitur, id absens quod non cernitur. Id vero inde patet, quia non loquitur de prae¬ sentia carnis Domini , sed de praesentia Verbi aeterni. Illud enim dicit esse Angelis praesens, quia facie ad faciem ab illis cerni¬ tur : nobis vero dicit esse absens, ct in me¬ moria, non in praesentia, quia non cerni¬ mus illud ut est, sed tantum cum eo cogi¬ tatione versamur ; licet alioqui Verbum Dei, cum Deus sit, ubique sit. Neque est hic mo¬ dus loquendi alienus a Scripturis : Scri¬ pturae enim Deum ubique esse testantur, ct hortantur tamen, ut eum quaeramus, di m inveniri potest. Si ubique est, certe praesens est ; et tamen si quaerendus est, aliquo modo absens est. Eodem modo intelligimus quod ibidem Ber¬ nardus dicit, nos habere corticem, Angelos, adipem : significat enim Angelos frui ipsa adipe, quia facie ad faciem intuentur Ver¬ bum, nos autem in conspectu non habere Tom. IV. 129 nisi corticem Sacramenti. Nec enim vide¬ mus aliud, quam species panis et vini : sed tamen intra eum corticem, laitere etiam adi¬ pem, supra dixerat Bernardus. Denique id sufficere deberet, quod (ut ante dixi) non loquitur de carne Christi , de qua nostra quaestio est cum adversariis ; sed de prae¬ sentia, seu fruitione Verbi alterni. In sermone autem de coena Domini, non dicit Bernardus per Sacramentum Eucha¬ ristiae dari carnem Christi, tanquamper sig¬ num, ut datur dignitas aliqua per bacu¬ lum, et annulum ; sed dicit gratiam Dei, dari per Sacramenta ut per signa ; sic enim loquitur : « In hunc modum appropians pas¬ sioni Dominus, de gratia sua curavit inve¬ stire suos : ut invisibilis gratia signo aliquo visibili praestaretur. » Haec ille. Quomodo autem Sacramenta non sint nuda signa, sed etiam causae instrumentales gratiae, explicui¬ mus, in disputatione dc Sacramentis in ge¬ nere, ubi etiam hunc locum sancti Bernardi tractavimus.