Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 5: The Second Difficulty Is Proposed and Explained: That a Body Not Occupy a Place
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). 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).
Before we come to the proof of the second proposition, two things must be observed. The first is that two particular opinions, false and erroneous, were devised in the Schools on account of the greatness of this mystery, which also gave some occasion to the heretics of this time of objecting subtler arguments against the truth of the faith. One was that of Durandus, on Book 4, distinction 10, question 2, who thought it probable that in the Eucharist the substance of the body of Christ is without magnitude; and he made arguments to prove this, which are now also made by the Sacramentarians, as that it is of the essence of magnitude to occupy a place, and others which we shall afterward adduce. The other opinion is of certain ancients, which Albert, on Book 4, distinction 13, article 10, relates and refutes without a name, and which Ockham afterward seems to have followed, on Book 4, question 4; who say that there is indeed in the Eucharist the magnitude of the body of Christ, which they think is not really distinguished from the substance, but they add that the individual parts so penetrate one another with all the rest that there is no figure in the body of Christ, nor distinction and order of the parts of the body.
But the common opinion of the Schools and of the Church is that in the Eucharist the whole Christ exists with magnitude and all accidents, except the relation to the heavenly place which He has as He is in heaven, and those things which follow existence in that place; and, on the contrary, that in heaven the whole Christ exists with magnitude and all accidents, except the relation to the species of bread which He has as He is in the Eucharist; and besides, that the parts and members of the body of Christ do not penetrate one another, but are so distinct and disposed among themselves that they have the figure and order befitting a human body. So teach Albert, Saint Thomas, Bonaventure, Richard, Scotus, and others, on Book 4, distinction 10, mystery 7, article 2, and others. And that this is the doctrine of the Church cannot be doubted. For the whole Church, as is clear from the Council of Trent, session 13, canon 1, teaches that not only the body and blood, but also the soul and divinity, and so the whole Christ, is in the Eucharist. But it is certain that the soul and the divinity are not in the Eucharist by the force of consecration, but by natural concomitance; because where one thing is, there must be whatever is united with it. But magnitude and figure are united to the body of Christ, and that naturally and inseparably; therefore they too are present.
Besides, when the Lord said, Take ye and eat, this is my body, which shall be delivered for you, He gave the same body to be eaten which was to be delivered to death the following day; but a body was not to be delivered to death without magnitude and figure and the other accidents which are founded in the magnitude itself.
Add to this: in the Eucharist, under the species of bread, the flesh of the Lord is properly contained, according to that of John 6: The bread which I will give is my flesh. And again: My flesh is meat indeed. And that of the Church’s hymn: “The Word made flesh makes true bread flesh by a word.” But certainly a substance without quantity and a certain complexion of accidents cannot be called flesh.
Finally, in the Eucharist not flesh alone, but also the soul is contained, as was proved above from the Council of Trent. But the soul cannot be in a body unless it be disposed and organized; and without quantity there can be no disposition, no organization; therefore it cannot be that the opinion of Durandus be easily reconciled with the doctrine of the Church. But these things we leave to the scholastics to be treated more at length.
Secondly, it must be observed, that the opinion of the Church may be more plainly understood, that three things belong to magnitude, of which one follows from the other. The first is to be extended in itself, and to have part outside part, and consequently a certain intrinsic position, and order, and disposition of parts; and this first is altogether essential to magnitude. For what is a line but extension in length? What is a surface but extension in length and breadth? What is a body but extension in length, breadth, and depth? If, then, you take away extension and parts, you take away magnitude equally. The second is to be coextended with place, or commensurate with place, and to have an extrinsic position in relation to place; and this is posterior, and follows from the first, and therefore can be separated from it. For the supreme heaven is really extended in itself, and yet occupies no place, since it is surrounded by no body. The third is to thrust another body out of place, or not to tolerate with itself another magnitude in a place adequate to it; and this is posterior to the second, and follows from it. For one body does not tolerate another with itself for this reason, that it fills the whole place. Because, however, the posterior can always by the power of God be separated from the prior, so that the prior remain without the posterior—not the contrary, because the prior does not depend on the posterior—hence it is that, according to the Catholics, one body can occupy a place and yet not expel another; which is properly called the penetration of bodies.
These things being noted, the common opinion of the Catholics is that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole magnitude of the body of Christ is truly present, but has the first condition, which (as we said) is essential, but not the second and third, which are separable. And although in the Sacrament there is properly no penetration of bodies, since the second condition is wanting, yet we think that even a penetration can be given by the power of God, so that some body have the first and second condition without the third. Which, because they seem to the adversaries impossible, we now undertake to prove from a twofold kind of arguments. Of which the one is taken from the omnipotence of God, which the Scriptures proclaim; the other from examples, both from Scripture and sought elsewhere.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Proponitur , et explicatur secunda difficultas } quse in eo posita est , quod corpus non occu¬ pet locum. Antequam ad probationem secundi pro¬ nuntiati veniamus, duo sunt observanda. Primum est, duas opiniones particulares ialsas, et erroneas excogitatas fuisse in Scho¬ lis, ob hujus mysterii magnitudinem ; quas etiam nonnullam occasionem dederunt has- reticis hujus temporis, argumenta subti¬ liora contra veritatem fidei objiciendi. Una fuit Durandi in iv. dist. 10. qusest. 2. qui probabile esse putavit in Eucharistia sub¬ stantiam corporis Christi esse absque magni¬ tudine : et argumenta fecit ad hoc proban¬ dum, quse nunc etiam a Sacramentariis fiunt, ut quod de essentia magnitudinis sit occu¬ pare locum, et alia, quas postea afferemus. Altera sententia veterum quorumdam, quam sine nomine refert, et refellit Albertus in iv. dist. 13. art. 10. et quam postea secutus videtur Okam in iv. q. 4. qui dicunt esse quidem in Eucharistia magnitudinem cor¬ poris Christi, quam ipsi a substantia distin- tingui reipsa non putant, sed addunt, ita penetrari singulas partes cum omnibus aliis, CAPUT V. ut nulla figura, sit in corpore Christi, nec distinctio, et ordo partium corporis. At sententia communis scholarum, et Ec - clesise est in Eucharistia totum Christum existere cum magnitudine, et omnibus acci¬ dentibus, excepta relatione ad locum coele¬ stem, quam habet, ut est in coelo, et iis, qua) ad existentiam in eo loco consequuntur : et contra in coelo totum Christum existere cum magnitudine, et omnibus accidentibus, ex¬ cepta relatione ad species panis^ quem ha¬ bet, ut est in Eucharistia : et praeterea corpo¬ ris Christi partes, et membra non se pene¬ trare, sed ita distincta esse et disposita inter se, ut figuram, et ordinem habeant corpori humano convenientem. Ita docent Albertus, S. Thomas, Bonaventura, Ricardus, Scotiis, et alii, in iv. distinet. 10. myst. 7. artic. 2. et alii. Et hanc esse doctrinam Ecclesiae du¬ bitari non potest. Nam Ecclesia universa, ut patet ex Concilio Trident. session. xm can. i. non solum corpus, etsanguinem, sed etiam animam, et divinitatem, atque adeo totum Christum in Eucharistia esse docet. Certum autem est animam, et Divinitatem non esse in Eucharistia ex vi consecrationis, sed ex naturali concomitantia ; quia ubi est unum, ibi esse necesse est quidquid cum illo est uni¬ tum. At magnitudo et figura, unita sunt cor¬ pori Christi, et quidem naturaliter, et inse¬ parabiliter ; igitur et illa adsunt. Preeterea cum Dominus ait : Accipite , et comedite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vo¬ bis tradetur (1), idem corpus manducandum dedit, quod ad mortem tradendum fuerat se¬ quenti die : ad mortem autem non fuerat tradedum corpus sine magnitudine, et figu¬ ra, et aliis accidentibus, quas in ipsa magni¬ tudine fundatur. Ad hasc, in Eucharistia sub specie panis caro Domini proprie continetur, juxta illud Joan. vi. Panis , qum ego dabo , caro mea est. Et rursus : Caro mea vere est cibus. Et illud Eccle¬ siasticum : « Verbum caro panem verum verbo carnem efficit. » At certe substantia sine quantitate, et complexione quadam ac¬ cidentium caro dici non potest. Denique in Eucharistia non sola caro, sed etiam anima continetur, ut supra ex Conci¬ lio Tridentino probatum est. Atqui anima in corpore esse nequit, nisi disposito, et orga- nizato : sine quantitate nulla esse potest dispo¬ 113 sitio, nulla organisatio : non igitur fieri potest, ut Durandi opinio cum Ecclesia) doctrina facile concilietur. Sed haec fusius tractanda scholasticis relinquimus. Secundo, observandum est, ut Ecclesia) sententia planius intelligatur, magnitudini tria quaedam convenire, quorum unum ex altero sequitur. Primum est, extensam esse in se, et partem habere extra partem, ac proinde situm quemdam instrinsecum, et or¬ dinem, ac dispositionem partium ; et hoc primum omnino essentiale magnitudini est. Quid enim est linea, nisi extensio in longitu¬ dinem? quid superficies, nisi extensio in longitudinem, et latitudinem ? quid corpus, nisi extensio in longitudinem, latitudinem, et profunditatem ? Si tollas itaque extensio¬ nem, et partes, tolles pariter magnitudinem. Alterum est, coextendi loco seu commensu- rari loco, et habere situm extrinsecum in ordine ad locum; atque hoc posterius est, et ex primo sequitur, et ideo separari potest ab illo. Nam supremum coelum revera extensum est in seipso, et tamen nullum occupat lo¬ cum, cum a nullo corpore ambiatur. Ter¬ tium est, extrudere aliud corpus ex loco, seu non pati secum aliam magnitudinem in loco sibi adeequato : et hoc est posterius secundo, et ex illo sequitur. Ideo enim cor¬ pus unum non patitur alterum secum, quia replet totum locum. Quia tamen semper po¬ sterius per Dei potentiam separari potest a priore, ita ut maneat prius sine posteriore : non contra, quia non pendet prius a poste¬ riore : inde est, quod secundum Catholicos, potest unum corpus occupare locum, et ta¬ men non expellere aliud ; quse dicitur pro¬ prie penetratio corporum. His notatis, Catholicorum communio sen¬ tentia est, in Sacramento Eucharistiee vere adesse totam magnitudinem corporis Christi, sed habere primam conditionem, qua) (ut diximus)essentialisest, non autem secundam, et tertiam, qua) saparabiles sunt. Et quam¬ vis in Sacramento, nulla sit proprie corpo¬ rum penetrario, cum desit secunda condi¬ tio : tamen existimamus posse etiam per Dei potentiam dari penetrationem, ita ut, corpus aliquod habeat primam, et secundam con¬ ditionem sine tertia. Qua) quia adversariis impossibilia videntur, nunc ea probare aggredimur a duplici argumentorum genere. (1)1 Cor. XI, 24, — (2) Joan. VI. 52 ct 56. UBER 111. Ut Quorum alterum sumitur ab omnipotentia Dei, quam Scriptura) praedicant. Alterum ab exemplis, tum a Scriptura, tum aliunde petitis.