Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 12: The Second Error of the Berengarians Is Refuted
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 confirming the opinion of the Church, we must refute the errors of those who rave: and this as briefly as possible can be done, because those errors, except the first and the last, are already extinct and buried; and the last, which is on Ubiquity, has been diligently confuted by us in another place; but the first is to be confuted by the same arguments by which the true opinion is to be confirmed.
Therefore the second error (for the first we shall defer to another place) can easily be refuted. First, because (as Guitmund writes in Book 3) the foundation of this error was that the body of the Lord should not be given to the unworthy. But this foundation fights with the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11: He that eateth unworthily eateth judgment to himself, etc. which passage we expounded above in Book 1, where also we showed the consent of the Fathers in the same doctrine, and answered the testimonies of Augustine which are brought forth on the contrary by Calvin, and of old were brought forth by the authors of this second error.
Secondly, when the priest alone is to communicate, as often happens, if he chance to be unworthy, either the bread will be consecrated and converted into the flesh of the Lord, the impious priest himself acting, or not. If it will be consecrated, then the impious man will receive the body of the Lord; if it will not be consecrated, then the consecration depends on the goodness and malice of the minister, which is the ancient heresy of the Donatists, long since exploded by the Catholic Church of Christ.
Thirdly, if that opinion were true, we should never know whether any host is truly consecrated; nor could the priest, except rashly, say, The body of the Lord Jesus Christ; nor would it be lawful to venerate any host. For no one knows who are the just, who the sinners; and according to this opinion no host is truly consecrated except that which the just receive.
Fourthly, a new and continual miracle of God would have to be present in the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist, whereby it would come about that, the priest consecrating, either no part would be consecrated, if all who were to communicate were unworthy; or the whole would be consecrated, if all were worthy; or part would be consecrated and part not consecrated, if part of the communicants were worthy, part unworthy: and again in the distribution there would be need of a new miracle, whereby it would come about that the priest would not err in the distribution, although he were ignorant which are the parts truly consecrated, and who are the men truly worthy. But to assert miracles of this kind without any foundation of Scripture, Councils, or Fathers is mere folly. But of these things enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Refellitur Secundus error Bercngarianorum. Antequam ad sententiam Ecclesia) confir¬ mandam veniamus, refellendi sunt s errore CAPUT XII. 167 delirantium : idque quam brevissime fieri poterit, quod errores illi, excepto primo et postremo, extincti ac sepulti jam sint : po¬ stremus autem, qui est de Ubiquitate, a no¬ bis alio loco diligenter fuerit confutatus ; primus autem iisdem argumentis confutan¬ dus sit, quo sententia vera confirmanda. Igitur secundus error (primum enim dif¬ feremus in alium locum) facile refutari po¬ test. Primo, quia (ut Guitmundus scribit lib. iii.) fundamentum hujus erroris erat, ne da¬ retur indignis corpus Domini. At hoc funda¬ mentum pugnat cum Apostolo, i. Gorinth. ii : Qui manducat indigne , judicium sibiman- ducat etc. quem locum supra lib. i. exposui¬ mus, ubi etiam ostendimus consensum Pa¬ trum in eamdem doctrinam, et respondimus testimoniis Augustini, quae contra a Calvino afferuntur, et olim ab auctoribus hujus se¬ cundi erroris afferebantur. Secundo, cum Sacerdos solus communica¬ turus est, ut s®pe accidit, si is forte indi¬ gnus sit, vel consecrabitur panis, et conver¬ tetur in carnem Domini, ipso impio Sacer¬ dote agente, vel non. Si consecrabitur ; ergo impius sumet corpus Domini, si non conse¬ crabitur ; ergo pendet consecratio a bonitate, et malitia ministri, queo est antiqua hceresis Donatistarum, jamdudum explosa a Catho¬ lica Christi Ecclesia. Tertio, si esset vera ea sententia, num- quarn sciremus an aliqua hostia sit vere consecrata ; nec posset Sacerdos, nisi teme¬ re, dicere : Corpus Domini Jesu Christi ; nec liceret ullam hostiam venerari. Nam nemo scit, qui sint justi, qui peccatores; et secun¬ dum hanc sententiam non est hostia vere consecrata, nisi quam justi accipiunt. Quarto, oporteret novum et continuum miraculum Dei in consecratione, et distri¬ butione Eucharistia) adesse, quo fieret, ut Sacerdote consecrante, vel nulla pars con¬ secraretur, si omnes communicaturi essent indigni, vel totum consecraretur, si omnes essent digni ; vel partim consecraretur, et partim non consecraretur, si pars communi¬ cantium digna esset, pars indigna : et rur¬ sum in distributione opus esset novo mira¬ culo, quo fieret, ut Sacerdos non erraret in distributione, licet ignoraret quee sint par¬ tes vere consecrat®, et qui sint homines vere digni. At ejusmodi miracula sine ullo fundamento Scriptura), Conciliorum, Pa¬ trum asserere, mera stultitia est. Sed de his satis.