Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 11: The Various Opinions on the Mode of the Existence of the Lord's Body in the Eucharist Are Reported
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).
The most grave controversy concerning the real presence of the Lord's body being dispatched, there follows another concerning the manner and mode by which the body of the Lord begins to be present in the Eucharist. And indeed the Catholic Church has always taught that by the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord — which conversion was afterward called transubstantiation — it comes about that the body and blood of the Lord are truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But besides this opinion, which alone is most ancient and most true, there have arisen in all seven opinions of erring men.
The first was that of Berengarius and his disciples, as is gathered from Books 1 and 3 of Guitmund. For they, convicted by the arguments of the faithful, since they could not defend that the Eucharist is nothing else but a sign of the Lord's body, departed indeed from that error, but did not attain to the truth: for they taught that true bread and wine, together with the true body and blood of the Lord, exist together in the Eucharist. And although Guitmund calls this thing the impanation of Christ, yet he does not openly declare whether according to their opinion the bread was hypostatically assumed by the Word or not; nay, he so attacks them as if they had taught only that the body of Christ is simply mixed with the bread.
The second opinion was of others who, as Guitmund there says, asserted that the bread was partly changed into the body of the Lord and partly not changed: which they asserted for this cause, because they thought it altogether improbable that the true body of the Lord should be received by the impious. And so they wished that part of the bread which was to be received by the pious to be turned by consecration into the body of the Lord, but that part which was to be received by the impious not to be converted. The authors of which opinion, Guitmund says, were enemies of Berengarius, and yet were wont to use almost the same arguments to establish their own dogma.
Here can be referred two other opinions like to this one. For as these taught that an integral part of the bread is converted and a part is not converted, so Durandus taught that one essential part, that is, the form of the bread, is converted, and the other part, that is, the matter, is not converted. For Durandus holds, in Book 4, distinction 11, question 3, that the bread is converted into the body of the Lord by consecration, but in such a way that, the form of the bread departing, the matter of the bread remains informed by the soul of Christ, altogether in that manner by which food is converted into our flesh by nutrition.
Others, however (that no error might be lacking), on the contrary taught that the matter of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, but that the substantial form of the bread remains the same. This error, without the name of the author, St. Thomas relates in Part 3, question 75, article 6.
The fifth opinion is that of Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, who was about 40 years later than Guitmund. Rupert, then, taught that the bread of the Eucharist is hypostatically assumed by the Word, in that very mode by which human nature was assumed by the same Word. This is clear from Book 6 on John, where, expounding those words, The bread which I will give is my flesh, he says that the eternal Word by the Incarnation became man not by destroying or changing, but by personally assuming, humanity; and in the same way, by the consecration of the Eucharist, the same Word becomes bread not by destroying or changing, but by personally assuming, bread. Where he openly confesses that Christ is said to be, and is, bread once the consecration is made, just as He is said to be, and is, man through the Incarnation. The same author, in Book 2 on the divine offices, chapter 2, teaches this same thing at length: where he declares that the bread itself becomes the body of Christ, not because it is turned into the flesh of the Lord, but because it is assumed by the Word. From which it follows that the bread is the body of Christ, but a body not human nor fleshly, but bready; and far different from that which was taken from the Virgin. In the same place he teaches that these two bodies can be called one, because there is one suppositum of both, or one is the Christ who assumed both: and in express words he says that those bodies, the bready and the fleshly, are one, because the same Christ above, that is, in heaven, is in flesh, below, that is, on the altar, is in bread. Finally, in the same Book 2, chapter 9, he teaches many like things, and adds that the impious in holy Communion receive nothing but the bready body; but the pious receive both bodies. For because the same Lord is above in flesh, below in bread, therefore only in the bread is He received by the bodily mouth, which is common to the pious and impious; but in the flesh, which is above, He is not received except by the spiritual mouth, which the impious lack.
This error Alger noted and refuted, Book 1 on the Sacraments, chapter 6, where he says that this is a new and most absurd heresy: for Alger lived at the same time as Rupert. Since Rupert was living in the year 1124, as Trithemius testifies; and Alger lived and died in the time of Peter of Cluny, as the same Peter testifies in his letter to Albero, Bishop of Liege: and Peter of Cluny was a contemporary of St. Bernard, who flourished about the year 1140. And Peter notes in the same place that Alger most accurately refuted the error of certain moderns concerning the body of the Lord.
Hence can be refuted a common error indeed, by which at this time very many are held concerning the author of this heresy. For, as Thomas Waldensis testifies, tome 2 on the Sacraments, chapters 47, 65, and 93, there existed of old a certain book on the divine offices without the name of the author, by which John Wyclif marvelously triumphed and harassed the Catholics, vending that book now under the name of Ambrose, now of Isidore, now of Fulgentius. Wherefore the Catholics long sought the true author of that book, and at length certainly ascertained that its author lived in the time of St. Anselm and was refuted by Anselm himself: and by I know not what conjectures they suspected that author to have been Walram, or Waleram, to whom stand two little works of St. Anselm, one on unleavened bread, the other on the diversity of the Sacraments. Hence Dominic Soto, Claude Sainctes, William Allen, and others who write on the Eucharist make Waleram the first author of impanation. But neither was he the first, since the Berengarians preceded; nor was it Waleram, but Rupert of Deutz: from whose books his opinion is to be dug out, which indeed Dominic Soto wrongly expounds in Book 4, distinction 9, question 2, article 2.
But that Rupert is the author of those books on the divine offices, in which these errors are contained, can in no way be doubted. For all the opinions which Wyclif cited in Waldensis are found word for word in the second book of Rupert on the offices, chapter 9. The beginning too of the books on the offices in Waldensis is: “Those things which through the circuit of the year”; and this same is the beginning of the books of Rupert. Finally, these errors of the books on the divine offices agree with others of the same Rupert in his commentary on Exodus and on John. Whence not without cause did these books of Rupert lie without honor and title for nearly 400 years; for in our age they first freely beheld the light. Nor can there be any doubt whether these books on the divine offices are of the same Rupert whose are all the other works ascribed to him: for in the prologue of these books on the divine offices he himself enumerates all his other works.
The sixth opinion, or rather heresy, is that of a certain John of Paris, who (as Thomas Waldensis relates, tome 2 on the Sacraments, chapter 65) openly attacked the preceding heresy and devised another: for he taught that the bread is assumed by the Word, but by the mediation of the body as a part, that is, by the mediation of the body of Christ, as body is taken for a part of a man, not as it is taken for the whole man. And he said by the mediation of a part of the man, not by the mediation of the whole, lest he be compelled to admit that God is bread. For just as an Ethiopian is not called white absolutely, because whiteness is not in his whole body but only in his teeth: so he held that God ought not to be called bread absolutely, because the bread is joined to God only by the mediation of a part of His humanity.
The seventh opinion, or heresy, is that of the Lutherans, which is contained in four heads. Luther, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, says two things. First, that it is not an article of faith whether the bread remains or does not remain with the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, but that either can be defended without danger of heresy. And in this the Lutherans are greatly distinguished from the Calvinists. For the Calvinists say that transubstantiation is a wicked heresy and a thing utterly impossible: the Lutherans say that it is possible and does not openly fight with the faith. Whence also Brenz, in the Wurttemberg Confession, chapter on the Eucharist, and Kemnitz, in Part 2 of his Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 4, reprehend the Catholics more for making transubstantiation an article of faith than for defending it. Secondly, he says that it seems to him more probable and more conformable to the Scriptures — and this too all the Lutherans received — that the bread remains. Thirdly, he adds that the proposition The bread is the body of Christ is true, on account of the union of the bread with the body, just as Christ the man is God is true: where he insinuates the impanation of Rupert or of John of Paris; yet he does not explain it more openly. And Martin Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, on chapter 4, session 13 of the Council of Trent, says in express words that the Lutherans do not posit a personal union of Christ with the bread: whence also the other Lutherans adhere more to the first of the cited errors than to the fifth or sixth. Fourthly, the same Luther, in his sermon on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and in the book “That the words of Christ, This is my body, still stand firm,” and in the book entitled “The Confession of Martin Luther concerning the Lord's Supper,” explains the mode or manner by which the body of the Lord is joined with the bread, and says that the body of the Lord, through its union to the Word, has attained this, that it is wherever the Word is, that is, everywhere: and if it is everywhere, certainly it was also in the bread of the Lord's Supper.
And this opinion of Luther afterward followed John Brenz, in his Apology for the Wurttemberg Confession, in the treatise on the Lord's Supper, and in the book on the two natures of Christ and the Ascension and session at the right hand, and in the book on the Majesty of Christ the man. Matthias Illyricus, in the book on the Ascension of the Lord. Jacob Schmidlin, in his Theses on the Majesty of Christ the man. Martin Kemnitz, in the book on the two natures of Christ. John Wigand, in the book on the communication of idioms. John Tilemann, in the book which he calls a Farrago of opinions. Finally almost all the Lutherans, as appears from the Book of Concord lately published. And so the Lutherans at this time for the most part follow this fourth saying of Luther concerning Ubiquity. If, however, there are any who shrink from it, they follow the three former, and therefore the first error above cited of the Berengarians: and in this number seems to be Kemnitz in his Examination, session 13, chapter 4, where he says that the foundation of the presence of the Lord's body is not ubiquity, although there in the book on the two natures he openly enough maintains ubiquity.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. De modo exislentiae corporis Domini in Eucha¬ ristia, sententiae variae referuntur. Gravissima controversia de reali praesen¬ tia Dominici corporis expedita, sequitur alia de ratione, et modo, quo corpus Domini in Eucharistia adesse incipit. Et quidem Catho¬ lica Ecclesia semper docuit per conver¬ sionem substantiae panis, et vini in corpus, et sanguinem Domini, quae conversio post- modum transubstantiatio appellata est, fieri, ut corpus et sanguis Domini, vere ac realiter in Sacramento Eucharistiae praesentia sint. Sed praeter hanc sententiam, quae sola est antiquissima, et verissima, septem omnino exstiterunt errantium opiniones. Prima Berengarii, et discipulorum ejus fuit, ut ex lib. i. et m. Guitmundi colligitur. Illi enim convicti fidelium argumentis, cum defendere non possent, Eucharistiam nihil esse aliud, nisi signum corporis Domini, ab isto quidem errore recesserunt, sed ad veri¬ tatem non pervenerunt : docuerunt enim verum panem et vinum, simul cum vero corpore et sanguine Domini in Eucharistia consistere. Et licet impanationem Christi rem istam Guitmundus appellet, non tamen aper¬ te declarat, an panis hyspotatice a Verbo assumeretur ex illorum sententia, an non ; imo ita illos impugnat, ac si solum docuis¬ sent , misceri simpliciter Christi corpus pani. Altera sententia aliorum fuit, qui, ut ibi¬ dem Guitmundus ait, panem asserebant partim mutari in corpus Domini, partim non mutari : id quod ea de causa asserebant, quia putabant omnino improbabile, ut verum corpus Domini ab impiis sumeretur. Itaque volebant eam panis partem, quae a piis su¬ menda erat, verti per consecrationem in corpus Domini, eam vero, quae ab impiis erat accipienda, non converti. Cujus sen¬ tentiae auctores, Guitmundus dicit, Beren¬ garii hostes fuisse, et tamen iisdem fere argumentis ad suum dogma stabiliendum uti consuevisse. Huc referri possunt duae aliae sententiae (i)Matth. III, 17; XVIII, 18, f CAPUT XI. 165 isti similes. Nam ut isti docebant, partem integrantem panis converti, et partem non converti, ita Durandus docuit, partem unam essentialem, id est, formam panis converti, partem alteram, id est, materiam non con¬ verti. Existimat enim Durandus in iv. dist. ii. qucest. 3. converti panem in corpus Do¬ mini per consecrationem, sed ita, ut forma panis recedente, materia panis ‘maneat in¬ formata Christi anima, omnino ad eum mo¬ dum quo cibus convertitur in carnem no¬ stram per nutritionem. Alii autem (ut nullus error deesset).e con¬ trario docuerunt, materiam panis mutari in corpus Christi, sed formam panis substan¬ tialem remanere camdem. Refert hunc erro¬ rem sine nomine auctoris, sanctus Tliomas 3. par. qucest. lxxy. art. 6. Quinta sententia est Ruperti Abbatis Tui- tiensis, qui circiter 40. annis Guitmundo pos¬ terior fuit. Rupertus igitur docuit, panem Eu- charistice hypostatice assumi a Verbo, eo prorsus modo, quo natura humana ab eodem Verbo assumpta est. Id patet ex lib. vi. in Joan. ubi exponens illa verba : Panis quem ego dabo , caro mea est (1), dicit Verbum ceter- num per Incarnationem factum hominem non destruendo, vel mutando, sed assumen¬ do personaliter humanitatem, et eodem mo¬ do per consecrationem Eucharistia?, idem Verbum fieri panem non destruendo, vel mutando, sed assumendo personaliter pa¬ nem.. Ubi aperte fatetur, Christum dici, et esse panem facta consecratione, sicut dici¬ tur, et est homo, per Incarnationem. Idem auctor in ii. lib. do divinis officiis, cap. 2. fuse idipsum docet : ubi declarat ipsum pa¬ nem fieri corpus Christi, non quia vertatur in carnem Domini, sed quia assumatur a Verbo. Ex quo sequitur panem esse corpus Christi, sed corpus non humanum, neque carneum, sed panaceum ; et longe diversum ab illo, quod de Virgine sumptum est. Ibi¬ dem docet, ha?c duo corpora posse dici unum, quia unum est suppositum utriusque, sive unus est Christus, qui utrumque as¬ sumpsit : et disertis verbis dicit, illa corpo¬ ra, panaceum, et carneum, esse unum, quia idem Christus sursum, id est, in coelo, est in carne, deorsum, id est, in altari, est in pane. Denique in eodem lib. ii. cap. 9. multa simi¬ lia docet, et addit impios in Communione sacra nihil accipere, nisi corpus panac um ; pios autem accipere utrumque corpus. Nam quia idem Dominus sursum est in carne, deorsum in pane, ideo solum in pane sumi¬ tur ore corporali, quod est commune piis, et impiis ; in carne autem, qua? est sursum, non sumitur nisi ore spirituali, quo carent impii. Hunc errorem notavit, et refutavit Alge- rus, lib. i. de Sacrament. cap. 6. ubi dicit, hanc esse novam heeresim, et absurdissi¬ mam : Algerus enim vixit eodem tempore, quo Rupertus. Siquidem Rupertus vivebat anno 1124. teste Trithemio; Algerus autem vixit, et obiit tempore Petri Cluniacensis, ut idem Petrus testatur in epistola ad Albero- nem Episcopum Leodiensem : Petrus autem Cluniacensis a?qualis sancti Bernardi fuit, qui floruit circa annum 1440. Et notat ibi¬ dem Petrus, Algerum refutasse accuratissi¬ me modernorum quorumdam errorem de corpore Domini. Hinc refelli potest communis quidem er¬ ror, quo hoc tempore plurimi tenentur de auctore hujus heeresis. Nam ut testatur Tho- mas Waldensis, tom. ii. de Sacrament. cap. 47, 65, et 93. exstabat olim quidam liber de divinis officiis sine nomine auctoris, quo Joannes Wiclefus mirabiliter trimphabat, et Catholicos vexabat, nunc Ambrosii, nunc Isidori, nunc Fulgentii nomine eum librum venditans. Quare Catholici diu quaesierunt auctorem verum ejus libri, et tandem certo deprehenderunt cum auctorem, vixisse tem¬ pore sancti Anselmi, et ab ipso Ansclmo re¬ futatum: et nescio quibus conjecturis suspi¬ cati sunt auctorem illum fuisse Walramum, seu Valeramum, ad quem exstant duo opu¬ scula S. Anselmi, unum de azymo, alterum de diversitate Sacramentorum. Hinc Domi¬ nicus a Soto, Claudius Sanctius, Gulielmus Alanus, et alii, qui scribunt de Eucharistia, primum auctorem impanationis faciunt Va¬ leramum. Sed nec ille fuit primus, cum pree- cesserint Berengariani ; nec fuit Valeramus, sed Rupertus Tuitiensis : ex cujus libris eruenda est ejus sententia, quam sane per¬ peram exponit Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 9. queest. 2. art. 2. Esse autem Rupertum auctobem illorum librorum de officiis divinis, in quibus isti er¬ rores continentur, dubitari nullo modo po¬ test. Nam sententia? omnes, quas citabat Wiclefus apud Waldensem, inveniuntur ad (I) Joan. VI, 52. 166 LIBER III. verbum in secundo libro Ruperti db officiis, cap. 9. Initium quoque librorum de officiis apud Waldensem est : « Ea, quse per anni circulum » ; et idipsum est initium librorum Ruperti. Denique conveniunt isti errores li¬ brorum de officiis divinis cum aliis ejusdem Ruperti in comment. in Exodum, et in Joan- nem. Unde non sine causa libri isti Ruperti sine honore et titulo jacuerunt annis ferme 400. nam te tat e nostra primum lucem libere aspexerunt. Neque dubium esse potest, an libri isti de officiis divinis ejusdem Ruperti sint, cujus sunt omnia alia opera, qua) eidem adscribuntur : nam in prologo horum libro¬ rum de officiis divinis enumerat ipse omnia alia sua opera. Sexta opinio, 'seu potius hseresis est cujusdam Joannis Parisiensis, qui (ut refert Tliomas Waldensis, tom. n. de Sa¬ cramentis, cap. 65.) palam oppugnavit hse- resim preecedentem, et aliam excogitavit : docuit enim panem assumi a Verbo, sed me¬ diante corpore parte, id est, mediante cor¬ pore Christi, ut corpus accipitur pro parte hominis, non ut accipitur pro toto homine. Dixit autem mediante parte hominis, non mediante toto, ne admittere cogeretur, Deum esse panem. Quomodo enim Hithiops non dicitur albus absolute, quia non est candor in toto ipsius corpore, sed solum in dentibus : ita existimabat Deum non debere dici panem absolute, quia non conjungitur Deo panis, nisi mediante parte humanitatis ejus. Septima opinio, seu hseresis, Luthcrano- rum est, qua) quatuor capitibus continetur. Lutherus in lib. de captivit. Babylonica cap. de Eucharistia, duo dicit. Primo, non esse articulum fidei, utrum panis maneat, vel non maneat cum corpore Domini in Eucharistia, sed utrumque posse defendi sine periculo hseresis. Et in hoc valde distinguuntur Lu- therani a Calvinistis. Calvinistse enim dicunt, transubstantiationem, sceleratam esschcerc- sim, et rem prorsus impossibilem : Luthe- rani dicunt, esse possibilem, et non pugna¬ re aperte cum fide. Unde etiam Brentius in confcss. Wirtemberg. cap. de Eucharistia, et Kemnitius in 2. part. Examen. Concilii Trident. sess. xiii. cap. 4. magis reprehen¬ dunt Catholicos, quod transubstantiationem faciant articulum fidei, quam quod eam de¬ fendant. Secundo dicit, videri sibi probabi¬ lius, et conformius Scripturis, et hoc etiam receperunt omnes Luthcrani, ut panis ma¬ neat. Tertio, addit veram esse propositionem, Panis est corpus Christi ; propter unionem panis cum corpore, sicut est vera, Christus homo est Deus : ubi insinuat impanationem Ruperti, vel Joan. Parisiensis; tamen non apertius id explicat. Et Marti nus Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. ad cap. 4. sess. xiii. Con¬ cilii Trident. disertis verbis dicit, Luthera nos non ponere unionem personalem Christi cum pane : ‘unde etiam- cceteri Luthcrani magis adhaerent primo errori ex citatis, quam quinto, vel sexto. Quarto idem Luthe¬ rus in serm. de Sacrament. coeme Domin. et in Libro « Quod verba Christi : Hoc est corpus meum, adhuc firmiter stent », et in libro qui inscribitur : « Confessio Ma-rt. Lu- theri, de coena Domini », explicat modum seu rationem, quo corpus Domini cum pane conjungitur, ac dicit, corpus Domini per unionem ad- Verbum id assecutum esse, ut sit ubicumque est Verbum, id est, ubique : quod si ubique est, certe etiam in pane coe¬ na) Domini erat. Atque hancLutheri sententiam secuti pos¬ tea Joan. Brentius in Apologia pro Confess. Wirtemberg. in tractatu de coena Domini, et in lib. de duabus naturis Christi, et As¬ censione, et sessione a dextris, et in libro de Majestate Christi hominis. Matthias Illyricus in lib. de Ascensione Domini. Jacobus Schmidclinus in Thesibus de Majestate Christi hominis. Martinus Kemnitius in libro de duabus Christi naturis. Joan. Wigandus in libro de commun. idiom. Joan. Tilmannus in libro quem vocat Farraginem sententia¬ rum. Denique fere omnes Luthcrani, ut ap¬ paret ex libro Concordiee nuper edito. Ita¬ que Luthcrani hoc tempore maxima ex par¬ te sequuntur quartum hoc dictum Lutheri de Ubiquitate. Si qui tamen sunt qui ab eo abhorreant, ii sequuntur tria priora, et proinde primum errorem supra citatum Bercngarianorum : et in hoc numero vide¬ tur Kemnitius in Exam. sess. 13. cap. 4. ubi dicit fundamentum pra) senti 8e corporis Domini, non esse ubiquitatem, tametsi ibi idem in libro de duabus naturis satis aperte ubiquitatem tueatur.