Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 18: The Opinion of the Church Is Explained
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 errors being confuted, the truth is to be explained and confirmed. The opinion of the Church, then, is that the proximate and proper reason why the true body of the Lord is in the Eucharist is not the assumption of the bread to the person of the Word, nor Ubiquity, nor a simple and as it were local union of the bread with the body, nor a partial change of the bread into the body, but the total conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord. And although in this the Theologians agree, on account of the authority of the Councils and of the Church, yet in the mode of explaining it they somewhat differ. And I shall follow, in explaining this mystery, the more common and safer way of St. Thomas and of the other weightier Theologians.
There are, then, three things to be observed. The first is that for a true conversion four conditions are required. The first, that something cease to be: for it is not intelligible that one thing be converted into another unless that which is converted cease to be what it was before. Hence Augustine, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 48, teaches that those conversions were not true which the Gentiles boasted were done by their magicians or gods — of the Arcadians into wolves, of the companions of Diomede into birds, of the companions of Ulysses into various beasts, of Iphigenia into a hind, and other like ones. For since Iphigenia was found alive elsewhere after her conversion into a hind, it could be understood that she was not truly converted, but suddenly brought thence by the art of a Demon, and a hind substituted in her place.
If you object that in the conversion of Lot's wife into a statue of salt no part of the substance of that woman perished, but only her soul was translated to another place, and into her matter was introduced the form of salt: and yet that was a most true conversion. I answer: A conversion does not require that anything cease to be except that which is converted. Wherefore if that which is converted be some composite, it is enough if the composite itself cease to be, even though perhaps some part, or even all, remain after the dissolution of the composite. So therefore the conversion of Lot's wife was a true one, because that composite, that is, that fleshly body and that rational animal, truly ceased to be: in the way the philosophers truly say that water is converted into air, although the matter remains; because that which is converted is water, not matter, and truly after the conversion there does not remain anything which is water, or which was water. But if that which is converted be not only a composite but also its parts, then the parts too must simply cease to be; and this happens in the Eucharist. For therefore the Council of Trent said that the conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread, that is, both of the form and of the matter.
The second condition is that something succeed into the place of that which ceases to be; otherwise it would not be a conversion, but a corruption or annihilation, if the term of that action were the non-being of the thing. And this we signify when we say that one thing is converted into another, or that what was one is now another: for by these expressions we indicate that one has succeeded the other.
Hence we understand that vain and superfluous was the subtlety of Cajetan, in his commentary on St. Thomas, Part 3, question 75, article 4, where he grants indeed that no part of the substance of the bread remains after consecration, and yet teaches that there remains that which was bread, namely so that it may be truly said, That which was bread is now the body of Christ. But there was no need of that speculation: for it can truly be said, That which was bread is the body of Christ, although absolutely nothing remain which was bread. For those expressions, by the common mode of speaking, signify only that that which is converted does not cease into nothing, but into something which succeeds it. For in this way, without any mystery, the philosophers say of natural changes, That which was wood is now fire, and That which was water is now air: and yet nothing remains which was formerly wood or water; for the matter which remains was never wood or water.
The third condition is that there be a certain connection and dependence between the ceasing of the one and the succession of the other, so that the one cease in order that the other may succeed, and by force of the ceasing the succession comes about. For if these were not connected, there would not be one action which could be called a conversion, but there would be two actions accidentally accompanying each other, of which one would be called annihilation, the other creation. As, for example: if God had annihilated Lot's wife, and then, where she had been, had created a statue of salt, there would be no conversion there. But it was a conversion, because that very action by which Lot's wife ceased to be introduced into her place the statue of salt.
And hence it can be understood why the bread in the Eucharist is not really annihilated, although nothing of it remains after consecration, because namely the action by which the bread ceases to be is not terminated at nothing, but at something, namely at the body of the Lord; but annihilation is an action which is terminated at nothing. Which same we discern also in natural transmutation. For when water is turned into air, nothing at all of the form of water remains, and yet that form is not annihilated; because the action by which it is destroyed is not terminated at the non-being of that form, but at the being of the form of air: for by the same agent, by the same action, and by the same dispositions one is expelled and the other introduced, nay one is expelled in order that the other may be introduced. For what some say, that the form of water is not annihilated because it remains in the potency of the matter, is empty. Since in the potency of the matter there remains indeed the form which is then corrupted when air is generated: for that remains nowhere except in the objective potency of God. But this does not impede annihilation, otherwise nothing could be annihilated.
The fourth condition is that both the term from which and the term to which be truly positive. For in this a perfect conversion is distinguished not only from creation and annihilation, but even from natural conversion; for although out of one thing another comes to be, as out of water air, and therefore each term is in some way positive: yet because the form of air is not introduced into the matter of water unless it be first disposed by certain qualities, hence it is that the privation of the form of air in the matter of water precedes the very introduction of the form of air: for the matter is then said to be deprived when it has the disposition to the form. And so the term from which in such a conversion is not so much water as the privation of air, and therefore the term from which is not positive, but privative, properly speaking. But in supernatural conversions, such as was that of Lot's wife into a statue of salt, and of water into wine in Cana of Galilee, and of the rod into a serpent in the time of Moses, each term was properly positive. For God did not dispose the matter of Lot's wife to receive the form of salt, or the matter of the water to the form of wine, or of the rod to the form of the serpent, but in a moment effected that one should cease in order to the succession of the other: and thus that statue, or the wine, or the serpent, was made not out of matter having privation, but out of matter having a contrary form.
From which we understand that the conversion of the bread into the body of the Lord is a most perfect conversion, and is distinguished from all other changes, but is nevertheless more like the supernatural conversions already mentioned than any others: for it is distinguished from these only in two things. First, that in those conversions it is probable that the first matter remained under each term, but in this it is certain that it does not remain. Secondly, that in those the accidents, either all or some, were changed with the substantial form, but in this all the accidents remain which were before, the substance alone being changed. Let these things, then, be said concerning the conditions and nature of conversion.
Secondly, it must be noted that for a true conversion it is not required that that into which something is converted be newly produced, but it is enough if one succeed the other (as we said), whether it be then produced, or brought from elsewhere, or come about in some other way. For in three ways a conversion can come about. For if the term to which does not exist, by force of the conversion it will necessarily be produced, and thence that conversion is called by some productive; such was the conversion of water into wine in Cana of Galilee, and very many others. But if the term to which exists, but not in that place where the term from which is, then by force of the conversion it will be brought to that place, and thence that conversion is called adductive: such almost is the conversion of food into a man by nutrition, as regards the introduction of the soul: for although the flesh which is made from the food be truly produced, yet the soul is not produced, but only by nutrition it comes about that it begins to be in that matter where before was the form of the food. If finally the term to which exists, and in the very same place where the term from which is, as for example if two equal bodies penetrate each other, and one is by divine power totally turned into the other, then by force of the conversion the term to which will neither be produced nor brought, but only preserved, and thence that conversion is called conservative: for since two bodies cannot naturally be together, if God should destroy one in order naturally to preserve the other there, one would be said to be converted into the other, from the fact that one ceased to be in order that the other might remain in being.
From these we gather that the conversion of the bread into the body of the Lord is neither productive nor conservative, but adductive. For the body of the Lord pre-exists before the conversion, but not under the species of bread: the conversion, therefore, does not make the body of Christ simply begin to be, but begin to be under the species of bread. Moreover we call this conversion adductive, not because the body of Christ by this adduction leaves its place in heaven, or because by local motion it is brought hither from heaven, but only because by it it comes about that the body of Christ, which before was only in heaven, now also is under the species of bread, and is under them not only by a simple presence or coexistence, but also by a certain union, such as was between the substance of the bread and the accidents of the bread, excepting however inherence: of which matter we shall say more below.
But someone will object. If by that conversion the body of Christ is not produced, but only becomes present, then the term to which is not a substance but an accident; therefore that conversion is not substantial but accidental.
I answer that the term to which too is a substance. For by that conversion the presence is not made (for relations are not made, but follow), but it comes about that the body of Christ succeeds the bread: therefore substance passes into substance, and substance succeeds substance; for the bread is not converted into the presence of the body of the Lord, but into the very body of the Lord.
Thirdly, it must be noted that the subject in which the divine action of this conversion is received is partly the bread, partly the body of Christ. For that action, as conversion, is received in the bread; for it is the bread which is converted, and therefore the bread alone is substantially changed. But that same action, as adductive of the body of Christ, is received in the very body of Christ: for it is that which is brought, that is, acquires being under the species of bread, which before it did not have.
And what St. Thomas and others say, that the body of Christ begins to be in the Sacrament not by a change of itself, but by the change of the bread into it, is true, but ought to be understood of a deperditive change, not of every change. For truly the body of Christ which is in heaven changes neither its substance nor any accidents nor even its place; yet it acquires something which it did not have, namely Sacramental being, which cannot be understood without some change. For if, without any conversion into it, the same body of the Lord, remaining in heaven, were placed by God also on earth — which we taught above can be done, nay which we proved was done, from the apparitions of the Lord after the Ascension — certainly it could not be denied that the action of God, by which that body would be placed on earth, would be received in the very body as in a subject, and therefore the very body would in some way be changed. In the same way, then, when by the conversion of the bread the same body is placed in the sacred host, that action is received in the body of the Lord, not indeed as it is conversion, but as it is adduction. Moreover the body of the Lord by that conversion acquires a new and real relation of presence to the species of bread and to the altar: there is required, therefore, some foundation of that relation, which indeed can be imagined to be no other than some change. Finally, conversion, inasmuch as it destroys the bread, is not so much an action as a negation of action: for God destroys the bread when He ceases to preserve it. But by a negation nothing can be made positively and really; therefore the placing of the body of the Lord under those species, which is something positive, is not made by that conversion as it is in the bread, but as it is, and is received, in the body of Christ.
You will say: If the bread is destroyed by a negation of action, and the body of the Lord is placed in the Eucharist by a positive action, then transubstantiation is not one action, but contains two things, namely a negation of action and an action. I answer: Transubstantiation is one action, because it is a certain will, or volition, of God, by which He wills not to preserve the bread, in order that in its place may be placed the body of the Lord.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. • r Explicatur sententia Ecclesiae. Erroribus confutatis, explicanda, et confir¬ manda est veritas. Ecclesiae igitur sententia est, rationem proximam, et propriam cur sit in Eucharistia verum Domini corpus, non esse assumptionem panis ad personam Verbi, neque Ubiquitatem, neque simplicem, et quasi localem unionem panis cum corpore, neque mutationem partialem panis in corpus, sed totalem conversionem substantiae panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Domini. Et quamvis in hoc Theologi conveniant ob Con¬ ciliorum, et Eccclesise auctoritatem, tamen in modo explicandi nonnihil discrepant. Sequar autem in hoc mysterio explicando commu¬ niorem, et tutiorem viam S. Tliomse, atque, aliorum graviorum Theologorum. Igitur tria sunt observanda. Primum est, ad veram conversionem quatuor conditiones requiri. Prima, ut aliquid desinat esse : non enim est intelligibile, ut unum convertatur in aliud, nisi id quod convertitur, desinat esse, quod antea erat. Ilinc Augustinus lib. 18. de civit. Dei, cap. 48. docet, non fuisse veras conversiones illas, quas Gentiles jactabant factas a suis magis, vel diis, ut Arcadum in lupos, sociorum Diomedis in aves, sociorum Ulyssis in varias bestias, Iphigeniae in cervam, et alias similes. Nam cum Iphigenia inventa esset alibi viva, post conversionem in cer¬ vam, intelligi potuit non eam vere conversam fuisse, sed Daemonis arte subito inde addu¬ ctam, et in ejus locum cervam substitutam. Si objicias, in conversione uxoris Loth in statuam salis, nulla pars substantiae illius f ce minee periit, sed tantum translata est ani¬ ma in alium locum, et in materia ejus intro- 174 LIBER III. ducta est forma salis : et tamen ea verissima conversio fuit. Respondeo ; Conversio non requirit ut desinat esse, nisi id, quod conver¬ titur. Quare si id quod convertitur, sit ali¬ quod compositum, satis est si desinat esse ipsum compositum, etiamsi forte pars ali¬ qua, vel etiam omnes, post dissolutionem compositi maneant. Ita igitur vera conversio fuit uxoris Loth, quia illud compositum^ id est, illud corpus carneum, et illud animal rationale, vere desiit esse : quomodo philoso¬ phi vere dicunt, converti aquam in aerem, licet materia remaneat; quia quod convertitur est aqua non materia, et vere post conver¬ sionem aon remanet aliquid, quod sit aqua, vel quod fuerit aqua. At si id quod conver¬ titur, non solum sit compositum, sed etiam partes ejus, tunc etiam partes debent sim¬ pliciter desinere esse ; et hoc fit in Euchari¬ stia. Nam ideo Concilium Trident. dixit, con¬ versionem fieri totius substantia} panis, id est, tam forma}, quam materia}. Secunda conditio est, ut aliquid succedat in locum ejus, quod desinit esse ; alioqui non esset conversio, sed corruptio, vel annihila- tio, si terminus illius actionis esset non esse rei. Atque hoc significamus cum dicimus, unum converti in alterum, sive quod fuit unum, nunc esse alterum : indicamus enim his sententiis unum alteri successisse. Hinc intelligimus inanem, et supervaca¬ neam fuisse Cajetani subtilitatem, in com- ment. S. Thomse iii. par. qusest. lxxv. artic. 4. ubi concedit quidem nullam partem sub- stantiee panis remanere post consecrationem, et tamen docet remanere id quod fuit panis, nimirum ut vere dici possit ; Quod fuit pa¬ nis, nunc est corpus Christi. Sed non erat opus ista speculatione : vere enim dici po¬ test : Quod fuit panis, est corpus Christi; licet nihil omnino maneat, quod fuerit panis. Nam illee sententiee ex communi modo lo¬ quendi , significant solum id quod conver¬ titur, non desinere in nihil, sed in aliquid, quod ei succedit. Hoc enim modo, sine ullo mysterio , dicunt de naturalibus mutationi¬ bus philosophi : Quod fuit lignum, nunc est i^nis , et quod fuit aqua, nunc est aer : et tamen nihil manet, quod prius fuerit lignum, vel aqua ; materia enim quae manet, nun¬ quam fuit lignum, vel aqua. Tertio conditio est, ut sit connexio quse- dam et dependentia inter definitionem unius, et successionem alterius, ita ut unum desi¬ nat, ut alterum succedat, et vi desitionis fiat successio. Nam si ista non essent connexa, non esset una actio, quee dici posset conver¬ sio, sed essent duee actiones per accidens se concomitantes, quarum una annihilatio, al¬ tera creatio diceretur. Ut exempli gratia; Si Deus annihilasset uxorem Loth, et deinde ubi illa fuerat, *creasset statuam salis, nulla esset ibi conversio. At conversio fuit ; quia illa ipsa actio, per quam desiit esse uxor Loth, introduxit in ejus locum statuam salis. Atque hinc intelligi potest, cur panis in Eucharistia, revera non annihilatur, licet nihil ejus remaneat post consecrationem, quia nimirum actio per quam panis desinit esse, non terminatur ad nihil , sed ad ali¬ quid , nimirum ad corpus Domini ; annihi¬ latio autem est actio, quae terminatur ad nihil. Id quod etiam cernimus in naturali transmutatione. Nam cum aqua vertitur in aerem, nihil prorsus remanet forma aqua}, et tamen ea forma non annihilatur; quia actio, qua illa destruitur, non terminatur ad non esse illius formai, sed ad esse formse aeris : num ab eodem agente, eadem actio¬ ne, et iisdem dispositionibus una pellitur, et alia introducitur, imo ideo uno pellitur, ut alia introducatur. Quod enim quidam dicunt, non annihilari formam aquee, quia remanet in potentia materiee, inane est. Siquidem in potentia materiae manet quidem forma qua} tunc corrumpitur, cum generatur aer : illa enim nusquam manet, nisi in potentia Dei objectiva. Sed hoc non impedit annihilatio- nem, alioqui nihil annihilari posset. Quarta conditio est, ut tam terminus a quo, quam terminus ad quem, sit vere posi¬ tivus. In hoc enim distinguitur perfecta con¬ versio, non solum a creatione, et annihila- tione , sed etiam a naturali conversione ; nam licet ex uno fiat aliud , ut ex aqua aer, et proinde sit aliquo modo uterque terminus positivus : tamen quia non introducitur for¬ ma aeris in materia aquee, nisi prius ea dis¬ posita sit per certas qualitates ; inde est quod preecedit privatio forma} aeris in materia aqua}, ipsam introductionem forma} aeris : tunc enim materia dicitur privata, cum ha¬ bet dispositionem ad formam. Itaque termi¬ nus a quo in tali conversione, non tam est aqua, quam privati emeris, et proinde termi¬ nus a quo non est positivus, sed privativus proprie loquendo. At in conversionibus su- pernaturalibus , qualis fuit uxoris Lflth in statuam salis, et aqua} in vinum in Cana Ga- lilrese, et virgee in draconem tempore Mosis; CAPUT uterque terminus proprio positivus erat. Non enim Deus disposuit materiam uxoris Loth, ad formam salis recipiendam, aut aqure ma¬ teriam ad formam vini, aut virgee ad for¬ mam draconis, sed in momento olfecit, ut , unum desineret in ordine ad alterius succes¬ sionem : atque ita non fuit facta statua illa, aut vinum , aut draco ex materia habente privationem, sed ex materia habente for¬ mam contrariam. Ex quo intelligimus conversionem panis in corpus Domini esse perfectissimam conver¬ sionem, et distingui ab omnibus aliis muta¬ tionibus, sed similiorem tamen esse conver¬ sionibus supernaturalibus jam dictis, quam ullis aliis : solum enim in duobus ab his distinguitur. Primo, quod in illis conversio¬ nibus probabile est materiam primam man¬ sisse sub utroque termino, in hac autem cer¬ tum est non manere. Secundo, quod in illis accidentia , aut omnia , aut aliqua mutata sunt cum forma substantiali, in hac autem omnia accidentia remanent, qute prius erant, sola substantia mutata. Haac igitur dicta sint de conditionibus, et natura conversionis. Secundo notandum est. Ad veram conver¬ sionem non requiri, ut id, in quod aliquid convertitur , de novo producatur, sed satis esse si unum alteri succedat (ut diximus) sive id tunc producatur, sive aliunde adducatur, sive alio modo id fiat. Tribus enim modis fieri potest conversio. Nam si terminus ad quem non existat, vi conversionis, necessa¬ rio producetur, et inde vocatur a quibusdam ea conversio productiva; qualis fuit conver¬ sio aquee in vinum in Cana Galilaeae, et alia) permulta). Si vero terminus ad quem existat, sed non in eo loco , ubi est terminus a quo, tunc vi conversionis adducetur ad eum lo¬ cum, et inde vocatur ea conversio addu- ctiva : talis fere est conversio cibi in hominem per nutritionem, quod attinet ad introdu¬ ctionem animee : quamvis enim caro, qute fit ex cibo, vere producatur ; tamen anima non producitur, sed tantum per nutritionem fit ut incipiat esse in ea materia, ubi antea erat forma cibi. Si denique terminus ad quem existat, et in ipso loco eodem, ubi est ter¬ minus a quo, ut verbi gratia, si duo corpora tequalia se penetrent, et unum divina vir¬ tute totaliter vertatur in aliud, tunc vi con¬ versionis non producetur, neque adducetur terminus ad quem, sed solum conservabitur, et inde dicitur ea conversio conservativa : nam cum non possint naturaliter duo cor- XVIII. 175 pora simul esse, si Deus unum interimeret, ut alterum naturaliter ibi servaret, diceretur unum in alterum converti, ex eo quod unum desineret esse , ut alterum permaneret in esse. Ex his colligimus conversionem panis in corpus Domini non esse productivam, nec conservativam, sed adducti vam. Nam cor¬ pus Domini praeexistit ante conversionem, sed non sub speciebus panis : conversio igi¬ tur non facit, ut corpus Christi simpliciter osse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub specie¬ bus panis. Porro adductivam vocamus istam conversionem, non quia corpus Christi per hanc adductionem deferat suum -locum in coelo, vel quia per motum localem huc de coelo adducatur, sed solum quia per eam fit, ut corpus Christi, quod antea solum erat in coelo, jam etiam sit sub speciebus panis, et non solum sub illis sit per simplicem pive- sentiam, sive coexistentiam', sed etiam per unionem quamdam, qualis erat inter substan tiam panis , et accidentia panis, excepta tamen inhaerentia : de qua re plura infra dicemus. Sed objiciet aliquis. Si per conversionem istam non producitur corpus Christi, sed tantum sit praesens ; ergo terminus ad quem non est substantia, sed accidens ; ergo con¬ versio ista non substantialis, sed accidenta¬ lis est. Respondeo, etiam terminus ad quem, est substantia. Non enim per conversionem istam fit praesentia (relationes enim non fiunt, sed consequuntur) sed fit, ut corpus Christi suc¬ cedat pani : proinde substantia in substan¬ tiam transit, et substantia substantiae suc¬ cedit; non enim panis convertitur in prae¬ sentiam corporis Domini, sed in ipsum cor¬ pus Domini. Tertio notandum est. Subjectum in quo recipitur actio divina hujus conversionis, partim esse panem, partim corpus Christi. Nam illa actio, ut conversio, in pane reci¬ pitur; panis enim est, qui convertitur, proin¬ de panis solus mutatur substantialiter. At illa eadem actio, ut adductiva corporis Chri¬ sti, in ipso Christi corpore, recipitur : illud enim est, quod adducitur, id est, acquirit esse sub speciebus panis, quod antea non habebat. Quod autem S. Thomas, et alii dicunt, corpus Christi incipere esse in Sacramento, non per mutationem sui, sed per mutatio¬ nem panis in ipsum, verum est, sed intelligi I 176 LIBER III. clcbet de mutatione deperditi va ; non autem de omni mutatione. Nam vere corpus Christi quod est in cado, non mutat, nec substan¬ tiam, nec ulla accidentia, nec ipsum etiam locum ; tamen acquirit aliquid quod non ha¬ bebat , nimirum esse Sacramentale , quod sine aliqua mutatione intelligi nequit. Nam si absque conversione ulla in ipsum, idem corpus Domini in cado manens, poneretur a Deo etiam in terra, quod fieri posse nos su¬ pra docuimus ; imo et factum esse probavi¬ mus ex apparitionibus Domini post Ascen¬ sionem : certe negari non posset, quin actio Dei, qua illud corpus in terra poneretur, in ipso corpore , tanquam in subjecto recipe¬ retur, et proinde ipsum corpus aliquo modo mutaretur. Eodem igitur modo, cum per con¬ versionem panis, idem corpus in sacra hostia ponitur, actio illa in corpore Domini recipi¬ tur, non quidem ut conversio, sed ut addu¬ ctio est. Praeterea corpus Domini per illam conversionem acquirit novam, et realem re¬ lationem praesentiae, ad species panis, et ad altare : requiritur igitur aliquod fundamen¬ tum illius relationis, quod sane aliud fingi non potest praeter mutationem aliquam. De¬ nique conversio, quatenus panem destruit, non tam est actio, quam negatio actionis : Deus enim destruit panem, dum desinit eum conservare. At per negationem nihil posi¬ tive, et realiter fieri potest; ergo positio cor¬ poris Domini sub illis speciebus , quae est quid positivum, non fit ab illa conversione, ut ea est in pane, sed ut est, et recipitur in corpore Christi. Dices: Si panis destruitur per negationem actionis, et corpus Domini ponitur in Eucha¬ ristia per actionem positivam; ergotransub- stantiatio non est una actio, sed continet duo quaedam, nimirum negationem actionis, et actionem. Respondeo : Transubstantiatio est una actio, quia est quaedam voluntas, seu volitio Dei, qua ipse vult non conservare panem, ut in ejus locum ponatur corpus Domini.