Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 22: The Same Truth Is Proved from the Congruity of Reason
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 lastly the same truth is to be proved from the congruity according to reason. For, it being posited that God willed the body of Christ to be truly and really communicated to the faithful to be eaten, as the Lutherans (with whom we now dispute) grant, reason indeed indicates that it was altogether fitting that this should be done not only in bread and wine, which is the most common and best food and drink, but also that the substance of the bread should depart and the accidents remain.
And first, that it was fitting that the substance of the bread should be absent, is proved by these reasons. The first reason is that the body of the Lord, as we said above, remains under the accidents of the bread not as in a vessel or in a place, but plainly in that manner in which the substance of the bread remains under its accidents, excepting the informing: for therefore by the nature of the thing it is moved at the motion of the accidents, and ceases to be sacramentally at the ceasing of those accidents. And if the substance of the bread remained with the body of the Lord, then two substances would have an order to the same accidents, and would be pointed out by the same accidents as by external signs. And because the substance of the bread would be informed by those accidents, but not the body of Christ, the primary order to those accidents would be of the substance of the bread, but the secondary of the body of Christ, and consequently the accidents themselves would primarily point out and signify the bread, but secondarily the body of Christ; which indeed would be absurd. For if anyone asked what it is that is on the altar, one would have to answer: It is wheaten bread, and also the body of Christ; and if anyone asked, what do those accidents signify? one would have to answer that the substance of the bread is there, and at the same time the body of Christ; and if another asked, What does the priest break and distribute with so great reverence to the communicants? we should say, wheaten bread, and at the same time the body of Christ. Much more fitting, therefore, it was that only the body of Christ should have an order to those accidents, and that they should serve the body of Christ alone.
The second reason is on account of the veneration of the Sacrament. For if together with the body of the Lord the substance of the bread were contained under the same accidents, there would be danger lest the simpler folk should adore the bread: for they do not distinguish, but simply adore what is contained under those species.
The third reason is on account of dignity; because it does not seem consonant to reason that there should remain together the food of the belly and the food of the mind, earthly bread and heavenly bread.
The fourth reason is that, if the substance of the bread were present, the body of the Lord could not be received without breaking one's fast; from which it would follow that no one could communicate more than once on the same day; since by the decree of the Apostles, as Augustine testifies in Epistle 118, chapter 6, the body of the Lord can be rightly received only by those who are fasting. And yet it is established that for a thousand years past it was the custom in the Church that priests should celebrate the sacred rites thrice on the day of the Lord's Nativity, as is clear from Gregory, homily 8 on the Gospels; and moreover outside that day, for certain causes, the canons permit that one presbyter perform the sacred rite more than once on the same day, and receive the body of the Lord.
Now that it was fitting, nay even necessary, that the accidents of the bread should remain, can be proved by many reasons; which are to be noted, since both Luther, and Peter Martyr, and Kemnitz, and others wonder why, as we say that the bread is transubstantiated, we do not also say that it is transaccidentated.
The first reason, then, is that if the accidents too were absent, there would be no sensible sign in the Eucharist; and therefore there would be no Sacrament. The second, that the saying of the Lord could in no way be true, This is my body, if the whole were so changed into the whole that nothing common remained in either term. The third, that in this way the merit of faith is greater. The fourth, that it would be a horror to eat human flesh in its proper species.
Which reason Peter Martyr undertook to attack in his book against Gardiner in many places, but most of all in part 3. First, because although the flesh of Christ is veiled by the species of bread, yet it is not therefore roasted, but still remains raw: and by this the horror is not taken away. Secondly, because the horror of the mind is greater than that of the eyes; for he shudders who knows he is to be killed, even though he does not see the sword with his eyes. And certainly one would shudder more if he had to eat a pie which he knew was made of human flesh, even though he saw only that covering of bread, than if he were bidden to eat true bread, but conformed to the likeness of a human body. Thirdly, because God is not wont to spare the senses when something is useful to us: whence He sets before His faithful the chalice of passion and death, full of horror. But these can easily be resolved.
To the first I answer that by those species of bread the flesh of Christ is not roasted, nor in any way cooked; yet the horror is more taken away than if it were roasted. For the cause of horror in eating human flesh is the harming of the flesh itself: for man naturally shudders to feed on and be nourished by human flesh, because he shudders to tear and destroy the flesh of his own species. But if anyone could receive his friend whole and entire, without any harm to him, into his own breast, he would most gladly do it. For that this is desired out of vehement love, the closest embraces of those who greatly love each other testify; and in this mode of eating the mind shudders more to receive roasted flesh than raw and living flesh: since it knows that it cannot be roasted without harm. Now therefore, because in the species of bread Christ is received whole and living, and without any harm to Him, and with the highest usefulness to us, hence it comes that the mind does not shudder.
To the second I say that the horror of the mind is greater than that of the senses; but by the species of bread and the doctrine of faith both horrors are taken away in receiving the Eucharist.
To the third I say that God does not spare the senses when it is a matter of punishment alone; but He spares them when the horror of the senses would be joined with a crime: and it would be a crime to receive the flesh of Christ in its proper species, because it would necessarily have to be torn and destroyed. Then in this Sacrament God desired to console His own, not to afflict them: whence He had to take away the horror in this matter, even though in other matters He sometimes does not take it away.
Add that this reason taken from horror is not that of St. Thomas and the Schoolmen alone, but of many of the ancient Fathers: Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, and Book 6, chapter 1; Cyril, in his letter to Calosyrius; Gregory, in Paul the Deacon in his life; Damascene, Book 4, chapter 14; Theophylact, on chapter 6 of John; and Augustine, in Gratian, on consecration, distinction 2, canon Utrum.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. Probatur eadem veritas ex convenientia rationis. Nunc ultimo probanda est eadem veritas ex congruentia secundum rationem. Nam posito quo Deus voluerit, corpus Christi vere ac realiter communicari fidelibus manducan¬ dum, ut Lutherani (cum quibus nunc dispu¬ tamus) concedunt, ratio profecto indicat omnino conveniens fuisse, ut non solum in pane et vino, qui est cibus et potus commu¬ nissimus et optimus, id fieret, sed etiam ut substantia panis recederet, et accidentia re¬ manerent. Ac primum congruum fuisse, ut substantia panis abesset, probatur his rationibus. Pri¬ ma ratio est, quia corpus Domini, ut supra diximus, manet sub accidentibus panis, non ut in vase, aut in loco, sed plane ad eum modum, quo substantia panis manet sub ac¬ cidentibus suis, excepta informatione : nam ideo ex natura rei movetur ad motum ac¬ cidentium, et desinit esse sacramentaliter ad accide litium illorum desitionem. Quod si CAPUT XXII. 187 cum corpore Domini maneret substantia pa¬ nis, tunc dua) substantia; haberent ordinem ad eadem accidentia, et ab iisdem accidenti¬ bus, tanquam externis signis, demonstra¬ rentur. Et quia substantia panis informare¬ tur illis accidentibus, non autem corpus Christi, primarius ordo ad illa accidentia esset substantiae panis, secundarius autem corporis Christi, et consequenter ipsa acci¬ dentia per se primo demonstrarent, et signi¬ ficarent panem, secundario autem corpus Christi ; quod sane absurdum esset. Nam si quis peteret, quid sit quod est in altari, o- portcret respondere : Est panis triticeus, et etiam corpus Christi; etsi quis quaereret, quid significant illa accidentia ? respondendum esset, substantiam panis illic esse, et simul corpus Christi ; et si alius interrogaret : Quid frangit Sacerdos, et communicantibus tanta religione distribuit ? diceremus, panem triticeum," et simul corpus Christi. Profecto igitur multo convenientius fuit, ut solum Christi corpus ad illa accidentia ordinem haberet, et illa soli Christi corpori deservi¬ rent. Secunda ratio est ob venerationem Sacra¬ menti. Nam si una cum corpore Domini substantia panis sub iisdem accidentibus contineretur, periculum esset, ne simplicio¬ res adorarent panem : illi enim non distin¬ guunt, sed simpliciter adorant, quod sub illis speciebus continetur. Tertia ratio est ob dignitatem ; quia non videtur rationi consentaneum, ut simul ma¬ neant cibus ventris et cibus mentis, panis terrenus, et panis coelestis. Quarta ratio est, quia si panis substantia adesset, non posset corpus Domini sumi, quin solveretur jejunium ; ex quo sequere¬ tur, ut nemo posset eodem die saepius com¬ municare ; siquidem ex decreto Apostolo¬ rum, teste Augustino in epist. 118. cap. G. non nisi a jejunis corpus Domini rite sumi potest. Et tamen constat ante 1000 annos, fuisse in Ecclesia morem, ut Sacerdotes ter sacra celebrarent in die Natalis Domini, ut patet ex Gregorio, homil. 8. in Evangolia, et pixeterea extra eum diem certis de causis permittunt canones, ut unus 'presbyter ssc- pius eodem dio sacrum faciat, et corpus Domini sumat. Jam vero congruum fuisse, imo etiam necessarium, ut panis accidentia maneant, multis rationibus probari potest; quee no¬ tandae sunt, quoniam et Lutherus, et Petrus Martyr, et Kemnitius, et alii mirantur, cur sicut dicimus, panem transubstantiari, non etiam dicamus transaccidentari. Prima igitur ratio est, quia si etiam ac¬ cidentia abessent, nullum esset in Euchari¬ stia signum sensibile; proinde nullum esset Sacramentum. Secunda, quia non posset ullo modo vera esse Domini sententia ; Hoc est corpus meum , si ita mutaretur totum in totum, ut nihil in utroque termino commune remaneret. Tertia, quia hoc modo majus est meritum fidei. Quarta quia horror esset humanam carnem in propria specie mandu¬ care. Quam rationem oppugnandam sumpsit Petrus Martyr in lib. Contra Gardiner. multis in locis, sed maxime par. 3. Primo, quoniam etsi Christi caro velatur speciebus panis, tamen non propterea assatur, sed ad¬ huc remanet cruda : ac per hoc non tolli¬ tur horror. Secundo, quia major est horror mentis, quam oculorum ; hoiTet enim qui scit se occidendum, etiamsi oculis non vi¬ deat gladium. Et certe magis horreret quis, si deberet comedere artocream, quam sciret ex carne humana confectam, etiamsi non videret, nisi panaccum illud tegmen ; quam si juberetur comedere verum panem, sed ad humani corporis similitudinem conforma¬ tum. Tertio, quia Deus non solet parcere sensibus, quando aliquid nobis utile est : unde proponit fidelibus suis calicem passio¬ nis et mortis, horroris plenum. Sed licec fa¬ cile solvi possunt. Ad primum respondeo, per illas species panis Christi, carnem non assari, neque ullo modo coqui ; tamen magis tolli horrorem, quam si assaretur. Nam causa horroris in carne humana comedenda est la3sio ipsius carnis : horret enim naturaliter homo vesci, et nutriri carne humana, quia horret lace¬ rare, et destruere carnem suee speciei. At si quis posset amicum suum totum et integrum sine ulla ejus laesione intra pectus suum re¬ cipere, libentissime faceret. Nam ex vehe¬ menti amore hoc desiderari, testantur am¬ plexus arctissimi eorum, qui se valde dili¬ gunt ; et in hoc modo comedendi magis horret animus assam carnem, quam crudam, et vivam recipere : siquidem novit sine lae¬ sione assari non posse. Jam igitur, quia in specie panis sumitur Christus integer, et vi¬ vus, et sine ulla ejus la3sione, et nostra sum¬ ma cum utilitate, inde fit, ut animus non horreat, m LIBER III. Ad secundum dico, majorem esse horro¬ rem mentis, quam sensuum ; sed per species, panis, et doctrinam fidei, tolli utrumque hor¬ rorem in Eucharistia sumenda. Ad tertium dico, Deum non parcere sensi¬ bus, quando agitur do sola poena ; parcere autem quando horror sensuum cum scelere conjungeretur : scelus autem esset, Christi carnem in propria specie sumere, quia debe¬ ret necessario lacerari, et destrui. Deinde in hoc Sacramento Deus consolari suos cupie¬ bat, non affligere : unde debuit in hac re tollere horrorem, etiamsi in aliis rebus ali¬ quando non tollat. Adde, quod haec ratio sumpta ab horrore, non est solius S. Thomae, et Scholasticorum, sed inultorum veterum Patrum ; Ambros. lib. iv. de Sacrament. cap. 4. et lib. vi. cap. 1. Cyrilli in epist. ad Calosyrium; Gre- gorii apud Paulum Diaconum in ejus vita ; Damasceni liv. iv. cap 14, Theophylacti in c. vi. Joan. et Augustini apud Gratianum, de consecrat, dist. 2. can. Utrum.