Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 15: The Error of Rupert 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).
The fifth error, which we said was Rupert's, is refuted first because it is repugnant to the most open words of the Lord. For the Lord says, John 6, The bread which I will give is my flesh. But that bread assumed by the Word is indeed the body of Christ, but not the flesh of Christ; for by that assumption it does not change its species: and bread is a body, but is not flesh. Again the Lord says, Matthew 26, This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. But that bready body was not delivered for us; therefore the body given to the Apostles by Christ to be eaten in the Last Supper was not bready, but fleshly. Or if you contend that the bready body was given to the disciples, it will be necessary also to confess that a bready body was crucified for us, as Tertullian wittily deduces in Book 4 against Marcion.
It might be answered that of the bready body, on account of the hypostatic union, the fleshly body is predicated; and therefore it could have been said, This bread is that body which shall be delivered for you, and This bread is my flesh for the life of the world; just as we say, This man is God, and This God is man.
But it cannot be so answered. For the predication of diverse natures on account of the hypostatic union does not hold except in those things which are signified as certain whole and integral supposita. Whence we do not say, The body is the soul, or, The man is the soul; nor do we say, This God (Christ) is the body of Christ, or the soul of Christ, but only, He is man. In the same way, therefore, the hypostatic assumption of the bread by the Word being posited, it would be lawful to say, This bread is God, or is Christ, or is man; yet it could not be said, This bread is the flesh of Christ, or, This bread is the fleshly body of Christ: for flesh, or the fleshly body, is signified as a part of human nature, not as an integral suppositum. Nor can it be said that flesh and body in John 6 and Matthew 26 are taken for a suppositum, or for a total thing, at least by a figure of understanding, in the way we read, All flesh had corrupted its way, Genesis 6, and, The Word was made flesh, John 1. For the pronouns added in both places compel us to take flesh and body for a part, not for the whole. For thus the Lord says, The bread which I will give is my flesh; and This is my body, where my does not permit those to be taken for the whole, or the suppositum.
Someone might again answer for Rupert that the fleshly body of Christ is in the Eucharist by natural concomitance together with the bready body of Christ, since those bodies are united in the same suppositum: and therefore it could be truly said of the Eucharist, This is my body, which shall be delivered for you.
But neither is this answer solid. For the hypostatic union does not draw with it the concomitance of one nature with the other; otherwise, wherever the Word is with its Divinity, there too would be the humanity of Christ by natural concomitance: which all Catholics teach to be false against the Ubiquitarians. Add that Rupert himself does not admit that concomitance: for in Book 2 on the divine offices, chapter 2, he says that the same Christ is above, that is, in heaven, in flesh; below, that is, on the altar, in bread.
Secondly, this error could be refuted by almost all the testimonies of the Fathers which were adduced above throughout Book 2: for all with one voice cry that in the Eucharist is given to us the fleshly body of Christ taken from the Virgin and stretched on the wood of the cross, etc.
Thirdly, it can be refuted by reason. For no cause at all can be rendered why Christ willed to assume bread hypostatically: for why He assumed man, the whole cause was that He might free man. For neither an Angel nor any other nature did He assume, because the other things either did not need freeing or could not be freed: man alone was capable of, and in need of, freeing. To what purpose then would He assume bread, which needed no freeing?
Add that it is altogether improbable that a hypostatic union of God with a creature should daily be made and daily destroyed: for God gave nothing greater and more wonderful to creatures than His own personality, when the Word was made flesh. But who would bear that so singular a gift should daily be communicated with bread, and again a little after taken away?
Add lastly that this opinion without cause makes our faith odious and ridiculous to the infidels, and gives an occasion, with foundation, of blaspheming. For the absurdities which the heretics falsely gather, when they say that Christ in the Eucharist can fall to the ground, be gnawed by mice, go into the privy, be burned, etc., would according to this opinion be most true. For if the material bread by the hypostatic union is the body of Christ, and so Christ Himself, how could it be denied that Christ, or His body, falls, is gnawed, rots, goes into the privy, is burned, when that bread falls, is gnawed, rots, goes into the privy, is burned?
But for this opinion certain testimonies of the Fathers seem able to be adduced. For Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, comparing the Eucharist with the Incarnation, says thus: “Just as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the Divinity lay hidden, so into the visible Sacrament the divine essence infused itself.” Remigius of Rheims, on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians: “The flesh which the Word of God the Father assumed in the virginal womb into the unity of His person, and the bread which is consecrated in the Church, are one body. For the fullness of the Divinity which was in that flesh fills this bread also.” The like has Haymo in his commentary on the same place; and Damascene, Book 4, chapter 14. Hither too could be drawn the testimonies of Theodoret in the first and second Dialogue; and of Gelasius in the book on the two natures of Christ, who seem to will that bread and the body of the Lord are so united in the Sacrament as the Divinity and the humanity are united in Christ.
But all these can easily be resolved. For Cyprian, Remigius, and Damascene, when they say that the Divinity infuses itself into the bread, understand that it so infuses itself as to convert the bread into the body of the Lord by its omnipotence, not as to join it to itself hypostatically. For Cyprian says there openly that the bread is changed as to its nature, and so becomes flesh by the omnipotence of the Word. Remigius too (whom Haymo followed) says that the consecrated bread and the body from the Virgin are the same body, because the bread is turned into the body. So also Damascene in many words teaches and proves the conversion of the bread into flesh. Moreover Theodoret and Gelasius compare the Eucharist with the Incarnation on account of a certain likeness, not because they are equal in all things: and the likeness lies in this, that just as in the Eucharist there are the species of bread, and there is also the flesh of Christ, and these are not confounded nor mingled; so in Christ there are two natures unconfused and unmingled. But as to what pertains to the substance of the bread, they do not deny that it is changed. For they themselves too in the same place (as we taught above) openly mention the change of the earthly bread into a heavenly thing, that is, into the glorious flesh of Christ. But Rupert goes by the contrary way, since in chapter 6 of John he most openly teaches that the bread is made a body by Christ, not by changing or destroying the bread, but by assuming it to His person.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Refellitur error Ruperti. Quintus error, quem Ruperti esse diximus, refellitur primo, quia repugnat apertissimis verbis Domini. Dominus enim ait Joan. vi. Panis quem ego dabo , caro mea est. At panis ille assumptus a Verbo , est quidem corpus Christi, sed non caro Christi ; neque enim per assumptionem illam speciem suam mu¬ tat : panis autem corpus est, caro non est. Rursus Dominus ait Matth. xxvi : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur (1). At corpus illud panaceum non fuit pro nobis traditum; corpus igitur datum Apostolis a Christo manducandum in ultima coena, non fuit panaceum, sed carneum. Vel si conten¬ das corpus panaceum datum discipulis ; o- portebit etiam fateri corpus panaceum pro nobis fuisse crucifixum, ut facete deducit Tertullianus lib. iv. contra Marcionem. Responderi posset do corpore pauaceo propter unionem hypostaticam prtcdicari corpus carneum ; ac proinde dici potuisse ; Hic panis est corpus illud, quod pro vobis tradetur, ct hic panis est caro mea pro mun¬ di vita; sicut dicimus ; Hic homo est Deus, et hic Deus est homo. At non potest ita responderi. Nam praedi¬ catio diversarum naturarum propter unio¬ nem hypostaticam non valet, nisi in iis, quae significantur ut tota quaedam, et integra sup¬ posita. Unde non dicimus, Corpus est ani¬ ma, vel homo est anima : neque dicimus, Hic Deus ( Christus ) est corpus Christi, vel anima Christi, sed tantum, est homo. Eodem igitur modo posita assumptione hypostatica panis a Verbo, liceret dicere, Hic panis est Deus, vel est Christus, vel est homo ; non tamen posset dici, Hic panis est caro Christi, vel hic panis est corpus carneum Christi : caro enim, seu corpus carneum significan¬ tur, ut partes natura} humanae, non ut inte¬ gra supposita. Nec potest dici, carnem et (I) Joan. VI, 22 ; Matth. XXVI, 26. 170 LIBER III. corpus Joan. vi. ct Matth. xxvi. accipi pro supposito, seu pro re totali, saltem per figu¬ ram intellectionis, quomodo legimus : Omnis caro corruperat viam suam, Gen. vi. et Ver¬ bum caro factum est , Joan. i. (1). Nam pro¬ nomina addita in utroque loco cogunt, ut accipiamus carnem et corpus pro parte, non pro toto. Sic enim Dominus ait : Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est ; et Hoc est corpus me¬ um, ubi, mea , et meum , non permittunt ut illa accipiantur pro toto, seu supposito. Posset quis rursus pro Ruperto respon¬ dere, corpus Christi carneum per concomi- tantiam naturalem esse in Eucharistia simul cum corpore Christi panaceo, quandoquidem unita sunt illa corpora in eodem supposito : et ideo vero dici potuisse de Eucharistia: Hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis trade tur. At neque heec responsio solida est. Nam unio hypostatica non trahit secum concomi- tantiam unius naturee cum altera; alio qui ubicumque est Verbum cum sua Divinitate, ibi etiam esset humanitas Christi per natu¬ ralem concomitantiam : quod falsum esse docent omnes Catholici contra Ubiquistas. Adde, quod Rupertus ipse non admittit is¬ tam concomitantiam : namlib. ii. de officiis divinis, cap. 2. dicit, eumdem Christum sur¬ sum, id est, in coelo esse in carne; deorsum, id est, in altari, esse in pane. Secundo posset hic error refutari omnibus ferme testimoniis Patrum, queo supra toto lib. 2. adducta sunt : omnes enim una voce clamant, nobis in Eucharistia dari corpus Christi carneum de Virgine sumptum, et in ligno crucis extensum etc. Tertio ratione refelli potest. Nam nulla omnino causa reddi potest, cur panem hypo¬ statice Christus assumere voluerit : cur enim hominem assumpserit, tota causafuit, ut ho¬ minem liberaret. Ideo enim neque Angelum, neque naturam aliam assumpsit, quia res CcCteree aut non egebant liberatione, aut non poterant liberari : solus homo capax, et in¬ digens liberationis erat. Quorsum igitur pa¬ nem assumeret, qui nulla liberatione egebat. Adde, improbabile esse omnino, ut unio hypostatica Dei cum creatura quotidie fiat, et quotidie destruatur : nihil enim majus, et mirabilius Deus creaturis donavit , quam suam ipsius personalitatem, cum Verbum caro factum est. At quis ferat, donum tam singulare quotidie cum pane communicari, et 'iterum paulo post auferri ? Adde ultimo, quod heec opinio fidem no¬ stram sine causa facit odiosam, ct ridiculam infidelibus, et dat ansam cum fundamento blasphemandi. Nam absurda, quee haeretici falso colligunt, cum dicunt, Christum in Eu¬ charistia posse cadere in terram, rodi a mu¬ ribus, ire in secessum, comburi etc. secun¬ dum hanc sententiam verissima essent. Si enim panis materialis per unionem hyposta¬ ticam est corpus Christi, atque adeo Christus pse : quomodo negari posset, Christum, sive ejus corpus cadere, rodi, putrescere, ire in secessum, cremari, cum panis ille cadit, ro¬ ditur, putrescit, in secessum abit, crema¬ tur ? Sed pro hac sententia adduci posse viden¬ tur quaedam Patrum testimonia. Nam Cy¬ prianus in serm. decoena Domini comparans Eucharistiam cum Incarnatione , sic ait : « Sicut in persona Christi humanitas vide¬ batur, et latebat Divinitas, ita Sacramento visibili divina sese infudit essentia. » Remi- gius Remensis in cap. x. prioris ad Corinth. « Caro, inquit, quam Verbum Dei Patris as¬ sumpsit in utero virginali in unitate suse per¬ sona}, et panis, qui consecratur in Ecclesia, unum corpus sunt. Divinitatis enim plenitudo, quee fuit in illa, replet et istum panem. » Si¬ milia habent Haymo in comment. ejusdem loci ; et Damascenus lib. iv. c. 14. IIuc etiam trahi possent testimonia Theodoreti in 1. et 2. Dialogo ; et Gelasii in lib. detluabus natu¬ ris Christi, qui videntur ita vello panem, et corpus Domini uniri in Sacramento, quomodo uniuntur in Christo Divinitas, ethumanitas. Sed heee omnia facile solvi possunt. Nam Cyprianus, Remigius, et Damascenus cum dicunt, pani sc infundere Divinitatem, intel- ligunt ita se infundere, ut convertat panem in corpus Domini omnipotentia sua, non au¬ tem, ut hypostatice sibi conjungat. Nam Cy- pianus dicit ibidem aperte panem mutari, quoad naturam, et sic fieri carnem omnipo¬ tentia Verbi. Remigius quoque (quem Haymo secutus est) dicit esse idem corpus panem consecratum, ct corpus ex Virgine, quia pa¬ nis in corpus vertitur. Sic etiam Damascenus multis verbis conversionem panis in carnem docet et probat. Porro Theodoretus et Gela- sius comparant Eucharistiam cum Incarna¬ tione propter quamdam similitudinem, non (1) Gen. VI, 12 ; Joan. I, 14. CAPUT X1Y. 171 quod in omnibus paria sint : similitudo au¬ tem in eo sita est quod sicut in Eucharistia sunt species panis, et etiam est caro Christi, et non confunduntur ista, nec permiscen¬ tur ; ita in Christo sunt duec naturae incon¬ fusae, et impermistae. Quod autem attinet ad substantiam panis, mutari illam non negant. Nam etiam ipsi ibidem (ut supra docuimus) aperte meminerunt mutationis terreni panis in rem coelestem, id est, carnem Christi glo¬ riosam. At Rupertus contraria via ingredi¬ tur, quippe qui in cap. vi. Joannis apertis¬ sime docet, a Christo panem fieri corpus, non mutando vel destruendo panem, sed as¬ sumendo ad personam suam. i