Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 21: The Same Is Proved from the Definition and Consent of the Church for Five Hundred Years
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).
Now the same truth is to be proved from the definition under anathema, and from the consent of the whole Church, at least for five hundred years. Which proof is to be employed for two causes. First, because the adversaries, although they confess that from the time of Innocent III the opinion of transubstantiation was brought into the Church, yet Kemnitz in the cited place contends that it was not defined under anathema until this our age, by the Council of Trent; and this he proves because the Greeks in the Council of Florence would not assent to this dogma, and the Latins were reconciled with them notwithstanding that discord. Peter Martyr too, in his book against Gardiner, objection 84, says that the Greeks always abhorred transubstantiation, and proves this from the same Council of Florence. We therefore, God willing, will most easily demonstrate that in six Councils before this our age the truth of transubstantiation was defined under anathema; of which two were celebrated more than five hundred years ago. From which it follows that at least for five hundred years, that is, from the time of the Berengarian heresy, the dogma of transubstantiation was established under anathema, and that the Greeks themselves too always marvelously agreed with the Latins in this matter.
Secondly, this proof is to be employed because, this foundation being laid, two reasons can be gathered why this truth ought not to be doubted. For first it cannot come about that the universal Church for so many ages was engaged in a most grave error. Then in this very time, in which this truth was cultivated as a most certain dogma, and indeed as an article of faith, there flourished in the Church very many most holy men, most illustrious in innocence of life, in miracles, and in other divine gifts, whom no reasoning allows to have been both most dear to God and at the same time gravely erring in the faith.
The first, then, general Council of Rome, under Nicholas II, which was celebrated about the year of the Lord 1060, compelled Berengarius to abjure in these words: “I, Berengarius, anathematize that heresy of which I have hitherto been defamed, which tries to establish that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, only a Sacrament, and not the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This abjuration and anathematization most openly signifies that the matter was defined by the Council under anathema: for none are compelled to abjure and anathematize doubtful opinions, but only those which are condemned by the Church as proven heresies. And that this general Council, when it bade the bread after consecration to be believed the body of the Lord, understood it to be a body not by remaining bread, but by ceasing to be bread through a change into the body — and therefore defined that the bread is transubstantiated into the body — is testified by three excellent men who lived in those times, Lanfranc, Guitmund, Anselm, of whom one was present at the Council itself, and perhaps two were present.
Lanfranc, then, who was present at the Council, in his book on the body of the Lord thus addresses Berengarius: “Pope Nicholas, learning that thou didst teach that the bread and wine of the altar remain after consecration, without material change, in their former essences, license to answer being granted thee, since thou didst not dare to answer anything in defense of thy party, moved by piety at thy prayers, ordered a writing to be delivered to thee. Its beginning is: I, Berengarius, etc.” And so the Council willed (as Lanfranc affirms) by that confession to destroy the heresy which asserts that the bread, unchanged, remains in the Sacrament.
Guitmund, who seems to have been present at the same Council, thus speaks of the same Council in Book 3 on the body of the Lord: “That the bread and wine of the altar of the Lord are substantially converted into the body and blood of Christ — not, as Berengarius raves, that they are only figures and shadows of the body and blood of the Lord, or that they cover Christ lying hidden within themselves — was strengthened by the consent of the universal Church.” And there he uses this argument: If what the whole Church holds is to be deemed Apostolic, even though it be fortified by no Councils, how much more will that be deemed Apostolic which the whole Church holds, and is strengthened by Councils?
Finally St. Anselm, who also lived at the same time, in his epistle on the body of the Lord, says thus: “That the substance of the bread remains on the altar after the consecration of the Lord's body, Christian piety has always abhorred, and lately condemned in Berengarius of Tours and his followers.” You see, therefore, openly defined by the Church at the very time of Berengarius, that is, five hundred years ago, that the substance of the bread does not remain in the Eucharist, and therefore transubstantiation defined as Catholic truth.
The second Council was the Roman, celebrated under Gregory VII, in the year of the Lord 1079, in the month of February, as Thomas Waldensis relates, tome 2 on the Sacraments, chapter 43; in which another clearer possession of the faith was set forth on account of the various frauds by which the Berengarians were wont to deprave that former profession set forth under Nicholas II. So, then, the later confession of faith runs: “I, Berengarius, believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer, substantially converted into the true and proper and life-giving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.” Nothing new, therefore, if the thing itself be considered, did the Lateran Council decree, and much less the Tridentine.
The third is the general Lateran Council, celebrated under Innocent III, in the year of the Lord 1215, in which the adversaries do not deny that this our dogma was confirmed even under the name of transubstantiation: but some of them, as Kemnitz and certain others, deny that it was defined under anathema, and as a decree of faith from which it is not lawful to dissent without danger of heresy. But this can be demonstrated without any trouble. For the beginning of chapter 1 of that Council thus begins: “Firmly we believe, and simply we confess.” And then is subjoined an entire confession of faith concerning the Trinity, the creation of the world, the Incarnation of the Word, the Church, and the Sacraments; and then in chapter 3 the same Council speaks thus of the aforesaid confession: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that exalts itself against this holy, orthodox, Catholic faith which we have set forth above.” Behold, then, the anathema which Kemnitz required. And what of it that Luther himself, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, acknowledges that in the chapter Firmiter, which is taken from this Council, transubstantiation was defined as an article of faith? Since these things are so, the lie and rashness of Kemnitz fights not only with our very Council, but even with his own prophet and apostle.
The fourth Council is the general Roman, celebrated in the year of the Lord 1413, in which were condemned as heretical the articles of John Wyclif, of which the first is: “The substance of material bread, and likewise the substance of material wine, remains in the Sacrament of the altar.” The second is: “The accidents of the bread do not remain without a subject in the same Sacrament.” This Council John Cochlaeus mentions, and recites the decree itself, in Book 1 of the history of the Hussites.
The fifth Council is the general Council of Constance, celebrated in the year of the Lord 1414, in whose session 8 the opinion of the Roman Council is confirmed, and again by name and under anathema the articles of John Wyclif are condemned, and the condemnation itself at the end of the Council is again approved by Martin V, a true and lawful supreme Pontiff.
The sixth and last Council is the general Council of Florence, in whose last session, celebrated in the year of the Lord 1439, with the whole Council of the Latins and Greeks consenting, an instruction was given to the Armenians concerning the faith and the Sacraments: in which instruction we have thus concerning the Eucharist: “The substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and of the wine into the blood.” From these, then, it evidently appears how openly and impudently Kemnitz lies.
But what Peter Martyr, and the same Kemnitz, object concerning the Greeks, is another lie, and an imposture plainly worthy of those men who follow that author who is named by Truth itself the father of lies. For, as can be known from the acts of the Council itself, there was never a question between the Latins and Greeks whether the bread is truly and substantially changed into the body of the Lord, but the question was, and still is, concerning the words by which that ineffable change is made. For the Latins held, as they always will hold, that that change is made by the words of Christ alone; the Greeks on the contrary seemed to hold that that change is made not by the words of Christ alone, but by certain other prayers composed by men. And that this alone was the question is clear, both from the Council itself near the end, and from the Greek authors who wrote at that time on this very question, who are Bessarion, Cardinal of Nicaea, Nicholas Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus.
And that the Greeks never abhorred transubstantiation (as the Pseudo-martyr boldly lies) is gathered first from the ancient authors above cited, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, Theophylact, and Euthymius.
Secondly, from the more recent authors, Nicholas of Methone, Samonas of Gaza, Nicholas Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, and Bessarion, whose little works stand lately printed, who all most openly confess that change of which we speak.
Thirdly, from the Lateran Council under Innocent III, above cited: since the Patriarchs of the Greeks too were present, and chapter 4 of that Council indicates that at that time the Greeks had returned to the obedience of the Roman Church.
Fourthly, from the Council of Florence. For in the instruction of the Armenians this change of the substance of bread into the body of Christ is set down in express words. And that the Greeks too consented to that instruction is clear from the beginning and the end of that instruction; for at the beginning it is said to have been made with the sacred Council approving, and at the end it is said to have been given in a public synodal session. But what some say, that the Greeks departed from the city of Florence before the Armenians arrived, is false, as is clear from the last words of the Council, which run thus: “But while these things were being done, the legates of the Patriarch of the Armenians came to the Synod itself”; and below: “Together with the Greeks they departed from Florence.”
Fifthly, it is clear from this, that although the Greeks, in the time of Leo IX and thereafter, objected many things to the Latins on account of which they said they dissented from them, yet they never objected this concerning the change of the bread into the body of Christ, which they could not be ignorant was taught by the Latin Church as a dogma of faith.
Sixthly and finally, it is clear from the censure of the Orientals upon the Augsburg Confession: for by divine providence it came about that the Lutherans, to their own everlasting confusion, made our enemies the judges of the controversies which they have with us. And so they sent the Augsburg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who sent back a censure instead of an approbation, and, while he reprehended them in other articles, especially did so in article 10, which is on the Lord's Supper. For thus it stands in that censure, chapter 10: “Many things in this part are reported of you (Lutheran Confessionists) which can in no way be approved by us. This, therefore, is the judgment of the holy Church: that in the sacred Supper, after consecration and blessing, the bread passes and is changed into that very body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into that blood, by the power of the Holy Spirit.” And a little below they say: that the body of Christ does not descend from heaven in order to be present in the Eucharist, but becomes present by the transmutation and transition of the bread into the body. And a little after they say: that under the species of bread the true body of the Lord is contained. Let the Pseudo-martyr, then, cease to say that the Greeks always abhorred transubstantiation: let Kemnitz too cease to lie, that the Greeks in the Council of Florence would not admit that change of the bread into the body of the Lord. For behold, our enemies are the judges; they it is who both reprehend the Calvinists for acknowledging only a sign of the Lord's body in the Eucharist, and at the same time accuse the Confessionists for confessing the true body of the Lord, but without a change of the bread, in the same Sacrament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI. Probatur idem ex definitione , et consensu Ecclesix ab annis quingentis . Nunc probanda est eadem veritas ex defi¬ nitione sub anathemate, et consensu totius Ecclesiae, saltem ab annis quingentis. Quae probatio duabus de causis adhibenda est. Primo, quia adversarii, etsi fateantur a tem¬ pore Innocentii III, invectam esse opinio¬ nem transubstantiationis in Ecclesiam, ta¬ men Kemnitius loco citato contendit, non fuisse definitam sub anathemate, nisi hoc nostro 'saeculo a Concilio Trident., idquepro- bat, quia Graeci in Concilio Florentino no¬ luerunt huic dogmati assentiri, et Latini, cum eis non obstante ea discordia, reconci¬ liati sunt. Petrus etiam Martyr in lib. contra Gardiner. object. 84. dicit. Grsecos scmper a transubstantiatione abhorruisse, et ex eo¬ dem Concilio Florentino id probat. Nos igi¬ tur Deo volente, facillime demonstrabimus in sex Conciliis ante hoc nostrum saeculum fuisse sub anathemate definitam veritatem transubstantiationis ; quorum duo ante an¬ nos quingentos celebrata sunt. Ex quo se¬ quitur, saltem ab annis quingentis, id est, a tempore hieresis Berengarianre dogma transubstantiationis sub anathemate stabili¬ tum, et ipsos etiam Graecos cum Latinis in hac re scmper mirifice consensisse. Secundo, adhibenda est haec probatio, quia hoc fundamcndo posito, duae rationes colligi poterunt, cur de hac veritate dubitari non debeat. Primum enim fieri nequit, ut Ecclesia universa tot saiculis in gravissimo errore versata sit. Deinde hoc ipso tempore, quo haec veritas tanquam certissimum dog¬ ma, atque adeo ut fidei articulus colebatur, floruerunt in Ecclesia plurimi sanctissimi ** viri, vitae innocentia, miraculis, aliisque di¬ vinis donis clarissimi, quos nulla ratio ad¬ mittit, ut et Deo amicissimi fuerint, et simul in fide graviter erraverint. Primum igitur generale Concilium Roma¬ num, sub Nicolao II, quod celebratum est circa annum Domini 1060, Berengarium ab¬ jurare coegit illis verbis : « Ego Berenga- rius anathematizo eam haeresim, de qua hactenus infamatus sum, quae astruere co¬ natur, panem et vinum, quae in altari po¬ nuntur, post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum, et non verum corpus, et san¬ guinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse. » Haec abjuratio, et anathematizatio apertissi¬ me significat rem a Concilio definitam sub anathemate fuisse : nec enim conguntur ulli abjurare, et anathematizare sententias du¬ bias, sed eas tantum, quae damnantur ab Ecclesia, tanquam haercses exploratae. Quod autem Concilium hoc generale, cum jussit credi panem post consecrationem esse cor¬ pus Domini, intellexerit non esse corpus, ma¬ nendo panem, sed desinendo esse panem per mutationem in corpus : ac proinde definierit transubstantiari panem in corpus, testantur tres optimi viri, qui illis temporibus vixe¬ runt, Lantfrancus, Guitmundus, Anselmus, quorum unus ipsi Concilio interfuit, et for¬ tasse etiam duo interfuerunt. Lantfrancus igitur, qui Concilio interfuit, in lib. de corp. Domini sic alloquitur Beren¬ garium : a Nicolaus Papa coinperiens te do¬ cere, panem vinumque altaris post conse¬ crationem sine materiali mutatione in pri¬ stinis essentiis remanere, concessa tibi re¬ spondendi licentia, cum non auderes pro tute partis defensione aliquid respondere, pie¬ tate motus ad preces tuas prsecepit tradi scripturam tibi. Ejus principium est : Ego Berengarius etc. » Itaque voluit Concilium (ut Lantfrancus affirmat) illa confessione destruere lucrcsim, quse asserit, panem non mutatum in Sacramento remanere. / Guitmundus, qui eidem Concilio videtur interfuisse, sic de eodem Concilioloquitur lib. iii. de corpor. Domini. « Panem et vinum altaris Domini in corpus et sanguinem Chri¬ sti substantialiter converti, non sicut delirat Berengarius, corporis et sanguinis Domini figuras tantum esse, et umbras, aut intra se latentem Christum tegere, universalis Eccle- siae consensione roboratum est. » Et ibidem utitur hoc argumento : Si quod universa Ec¬ clesia tenet, Apostolicum censendum est, ctamsi nullis sit munitum Conciliis, quanto CAPUT XXL 185 magis illud Apostolicum censendum erit, quod universa Ecclesia tenet, et Conciliis roboratum est? Denique S. Anselmus, qui etiam eodem tempore vixit, in epistola de corpore Domi¬ ni, sic ait : « Panis substantiam post Domini corporis consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana, nuperque damnavit in Berengario Turonensi, ejusque sequacibus. » Vides igitur ab Ecclesia aperte definitum ipso tempore Berengarii, id est, ante annos quingentos, non remanere sub¬ stantiam panis in Eucharistia, ac proinde definitiam transubstantiationem, ut Catholi¬ cam veritatem. Secundum Concilium fuit Romanum, sub Gregorio YII celebratum, anno Domini 1079, mense Februario, ut refert Thomas Wal- densis, tomo ii. de Sacrament. cap. 43. in quo alia fidei possessio clarior edita est pro- pterfraudes varias, quibus Berengariani prio¬ rem illam professionem editam sub Nicolao II. depravare solebant. Sic igitur habetposte- rior fidei confessio : « Ego Berengarius, corde credo, et ore confiteor, panem et vi¬ num, quae ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis, et verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram, ac pro¬ priam, et vivificatricem carnem, et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi etc. » Nihil igitur novi, si de re ipsa agatur, statuit Concilium Lateranense, et multo minus Tridentinum. Tertium est Concilium generale Latera¬ nense, sub lnnocentio III celebratum, anno Domini 1215, in quo non negant adversarii hoc nostrum dogma etiam sub nomine tran- substantiationis confirmatum : sed negant aliqui eorum, ut Kemnitius, et quidam alii, definitum sub anathemate, atque ut decre¬ tum de fide, a quo non liceat dissentire sine periculo haereseos. At hoc nullo negotio de¬ monstrari potest. Nam initium capitis i. ejus Concilii sic incipit : « Firmiter credimus, et simpliciter confitemur » . Ac deinde subne¬ ctitur integra confessio fidei de Trinitate, de creatione mundi, de Incarnatione Verbi, de Ecclesia, et Sacramentis ; et deinde cap. 3. de praedicta confessione sic loquitur idem Concilium : « Excommunicamus, et anathe¬ matizamus omnem haeresim extollentem se, adversus hanc sanctam, orthodoxam, Catho¬ licam fidem, quam superius exposuimus ». Ecce igitur anathema, quod Kemnitius re¬ quirebat. Quid quod Lutherus ipse in lib. de captivit. Babyl. cap. i. agnoscit in cap. Fir¬ miter, quod ex hoc Concilio sumptum est, transubstantiationem, ut articulum fidei de¬ finitam ? Quae cum ita sint, Kemnitii menda¬ cium, et temeritas non modo cum ipso no¬ stro Concilio, sed etiam cum suo propheta, et apostolo pugnat. Quartum Concilium est Romanum gene¬ rale, celebratum anno Domini 1413, in quo damnati sunt tanquam haeretici articuli Joan. Wiclefi, quorum primus est: «Substantia panis materialis, et similiter substantia vini materialis manet in Sacramento altaris. » Secundus est : « Accidentia panis non ma¬ nent sine subjecto in eodem Sacramento. » Hujus Concilii meminit, et decretum ipsum recitat Joannes Cochlceus lib. i. histor. Hus- sitarum. Quintum Concilium est Constantiense ge¬ nerale celebratum anno Domini 1414, in cujus sess. viii. confirmatur sententia Romani Concilii, et rursus nominatim, et sub ana¬ themate damnantur articuli Joan. Wiclefi, et damnatio ipsa in fine Concilii iterum ap¬ probatur a Martino Y vero, ac legitimo sum¬ mo Pontifice. Sextum denique Concilium est Florenti¬ num generale, in cujus sessione ultima cele¬ brata anno Domini 1439, consentiente uni¬ verso Concilio Latinorum et Griecorum, da¬ ta est instructio Armenis de fide, et Sacra¬ mentis : in ea instructione sic habemus de Eucharistia : « Substantia panis in corpus Christi, et vini in sanguinem convertuntur.» Ex his ergo evidenter apparet, quam ap- perte, et impudenter Kemnitius mentia - tur. Quod autem Petrus Martyr, et idem Kem¬ nitius objiciunt de Greecis, aliud est menda¬ cium, et impostura plane digna iis homini¬ bus, qui auctorem illum sequuntur, qui pa¬ ter mendacii ab ipsa Veritate nominatur. Nam ut ex ipsius Concilii actis cognosci po¬ test, nunquam fuit qutestio inter Latinos et Gimcos, an panis vere et substantialiter mu¬ taretur in corpus Domini, sed quiestio fuit, et adhuc est de verbis, quibus fit illa ineffa¬ bilis mutatio. Latini enim sentiebant, ut etiam semper sentient, solis Christi verbis fieri il¬ lam mutationem; Gncci contra sentire vide¬ bantur, non solis Christi verbis, sed quibus¬ dam aliis precibus ab hominibus compositis mutationem illam fieri. Hanc autem solani fuisse qusestionem patet, tum ex ipso Conci¬ lio prope finem, tum ex auctoribus Grajcis, qui de hac ipsa queestione illo tempore seri- 186 LIBER III. pserunt, qui sunt Bessarion Gardin. Nicse- nus, Nicolaus Cabasilas, Marcus Ephesius. Quod autem Greeci nunquam abhorrue¬ rint a transubstantiatione (ut Pseudomartyr audacter mentitur) colligitur primo ex anti¬ quis auctoribus supra citatis, Gyrillo Hiero¬ solymitano, Gregorio Nysseno, Joanne Chry- sostomo, Gyrillo Alexandrino, Joan. Dama¬ sceno, Theophylacto, et Euthymio. Secundo, ex auctoribus recentioribus, Ni¬ colao Methonensi, Samona Gazensi, Nicolao Cabasila, Marco Ephesio, et Bessarione, quorum opuscula exstant nuper impressa, qui omnes apertissime confitentur mutatio¬ nem istam, de qua loquimur. Tertio, ex Concilio Lateranensi, sub Inno- centio III, supra citato : siquidem interfue¬ runt Graecorum etiam Patriarchae, et cap. 4. ejus Concilii indicat Innocentius eo tempore Graicos ad obedientian Romanae Ecclesiae rediisse. Quarto, ex Concilio Florentino. Nam in instructione Armenorum disertis verbis po¬ nitur haec mutatio substantiae panis in cor¬ pus Christi. Consensisse autem in eam in¬ structionem etiam Graecos, patet ex initio, et fine illius instructionis ; initio enim dicitur facta sacro 'approbante Concilio, et in fine dicitur data in publica synodali sessione . Quod autem quidam dicunt, Graecos disces¬ sisse ex civitate Florentina, antequamArme- nii advenirent, falsum est, ut patet ex ultimis verbis Concilii, quae sic habent : Dum autem haec gerebantur, Armeniorum Patriarchae legati ad Synodum ipsam venerunt; et infra : Una cum Graecis Florentia discesserunt. Quinto, patet exeo, quod cum Graeci tem¬ pore Leonis IX, et deinceps multa objece¬ rint Latinis, ob quae ab illis dissentire se di¬ cerent, nunquam tamen hoc objecerunt de mutatione panis in corpus Christi, quam aib Ecclesia Latina doceri, ut dogma fidei, igno¬ rare non poterant. Sexto, denique patet ex censura Orienta¬ lium ad Augustanam Confessionem : divina enim providentia factum est, ut Lutherani ad suam ipsorum sempiternam confusionem, judices facerent controversiarum, quas no- biscum habent, inimicos nostros. Itaque mi¬ serunt Augustanam Confessionem ad Pa¬ triarcham Constantinopolitanum, qui censu¬ ram remisit pro approbatione, et cum in aliis articulis eos reprehendit, tum potissi¬ mum in art. 10. qui est de ccena Domini. Sic enim habetur in ea censura, cap. 10 : « Multa in hac parte de vobis (Lutheranis Confessionistis) referuntur, quae nobis nullo pacto probari possunt. Ecclesiae igitur san¬ ctae illud judicium est. In sacra Ccena post consecrationem, et benedictionem, panem in illud ipsum corpus Jesu Christi, vinum au¬ tem in illum sanguinem, virtute Spiritus sancti transire ac immutari. » Et paulo infra dicunt : Corpus Christi non descendere de coelo, ut in Eucharistia praesens adsit, sed fieri prassens per transmutationem, et trans¬ itionem panis in corpus. Et paulo post di¬ cunt : Sub specicbus panis verum corpus Do¬ mini contineri. Desinat igitur Pseudomartyr dicere, Graecos semper a transubstantiatione abhorruisse : desinat etiam Kemnitius men¬ tiri, Graecos in Concilio Florentino admittere noluisse mutationem istam panis in corpus Domini. Ecce enim inimici nostri sunt judi¬ ces ; ipsi sunt, qui et Calvinistas reprehen¬ dunt, quod solum signum corporis Domini in Eucharistia agnoscant, et simul Confessio- nistas arguunt, quod verum corpus Domini, sed sine panis mutatione in eodem Sacra¬ mento confiteantur. » •'