Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 1: What Properly Is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and Whether Outside Its Use the Body of the Lord Is Truly Present Under the Species of Consecrated Bread
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. 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).
Hitherto we have discoursed of the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, which was the foundation of all the controversies concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now we shall discourse of the Sacrament itself, and shall explain those controversies which exist concerning the very nature of the Sacrament, and concerning its causes and parts, that is, concerning the matter, form, end, and efficient cause, and finally concerning its use.
The first question, then, is what properly is the Sacrament of the Eucharist — the consecration of the bread and wine, or the consecrated thing itself, or rather the reception and eating; on which question depends another question: Whether the body of the Lord is in the Eucharist only while it is received, or whether it remains in it while those consecrated species are preserved. For since the body of the Lord is not in the species of bread except inasmuch as they are for the Sacrament, the body of the Lord will not be in those species when they are preserved in a pyx, or when they are carried to the sick, etc.; on which question in turn depend in some way the other controversies concerning the adoration of the Eucharist and concerning the sacrifice, as is known. And in this order I shall explain the present controversy. First, I shall report the opinion of the adversaries. Secondly, I shall refute it, and answer their objections. Thirdly, I shall explain the opinion of the Catholics.
As to the first, the Lutherans and Calvinists and other heretics of this time are of this opinion, that they think the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a permanent thing, but a transient action: whereas on the contrary all Catholics hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is properly a permanent thing, namely the consecrated host. The first author of the adversaries' opinion was Martin Bucer: for (as John Cochlaeus writes, Book 3 of the Miscellanies, treatise 8) in the year of the Lord 1536, on the 23rd of May, Bucer persuaded Luther that the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist except while it is received, and therefore that the reception itself is properly the Sacrament. Bucer devised this opinion that by it he might reconcile among themselves the Lutherans and the Zwinglians: for it seemed a certain tempering, and as it were a middle, between the extreme opinions of those men. But although the concord did not succeed, yet both the Lutherans and the Zwinglians gladly seized on this opinion, because they saw that by it the adoration of the Eucharist was destroyed, and some other things which were in use among the Catholics. And so Philip Melanchthon among the Lutherans defends it in his Common Places, in the place on the Lord's Supper; John Brenz in the Wurttemberg Confession, chapter on the Eucharist; Matthias Illyricus in the Apology for the Confession of Antwerp, chapter on the Lord's Supper; and Martin Kemnitz, who treats of this matter most verbosely, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapters 3 and 6. Of the Zwinglians, John Calvin, Institutes Book 4, chapter 18, §§ 37 and 39, and Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objections 88 and 132, and elsewhere.
But it must be observed that this use of the Sacrament is not explained in the same way. For Calvin, and Martyr, and Illyricus contend that the bread and wine are a Sacrament only while it is eaten and drunk, just as the water of Baptism is a Sacrament only when it washes: whence they deny that it remains a Sacrament if it be carried to the sick. But Kemnitz, that he may elude the testimonies of the Fathers, teaches that in the whole action of the Lord's Supper the Sacrament and the body of the Lord remain, that is, while the bread is blessed, broken, distributed, and even while from the Supper itself it is immediately carried to the sick or to the absent, that they may eat it, not that they may keep it. Some too have gone so far as to say that the Eucharist can be kept for three whole days for the sake of the sick, and that during that whole space of time it is a Sacrament, and in it the body of the Lord really remains, as Claude Sainctes reports from Lindanus, repetition 4 on the Eucharist, chapter 12, at the end. But truly, they who grant three days — it is a wonder why they do not also grant four days, and eight days, and by the same reasoning a whole month or year.
Moreover the foundations of the adversaries are three. The first, the institution of the Lord, who says, Take, eat. The second, the likeness of Baptism and the other Sacraments, which all consist in an action. The third, certain testimonies of the ancients, who bade that the remains of the Lord's Supper be either burned or given to little children to eat, lest anything be left over.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. Quid sit propria Sacramentum Eucharistiae, et num extra usum sit vere corpus Domini sub specie consecrati panis. Hactenas de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia disseruimus, quod erat funda¬ mentum controversiarum omnium do Sacra¬ mento Eucharistiae. Nunc dc Sacramento ipso disseremus, atque eas controversias ex¬ plicabimus, quffl de ipsa natura Sacramenti, deque ejus causis, et partibus, id est, de ma¬ teria, forma, fine, et efficiente, et denique de usu ejus existunt. Prima igitur quaestio est, quid sit proprie Sacramentum Eucharistiae, consecratione panis, et vini, an res ipsa consecrata, an po¬ tius sumptio, et manducatio, ex qua quae¬ stione pendet alia quaestio ; Num corpus Do¬ mini sit in Eucharistia solum, dum sumitur, an vero permaneat in ea, dum servantur species illae consecratae. Nam cum Domini corpus non sit in specie panis, nisi quatenus illae ad Sacramentum sit, non erit corpus Domini in illis speciebus, quando servantur in pyxide, vel quando deferuntur ad aegro¬ tos etc. ex qua quaestione rursus pendent ali¬ quo modo aliae controversiae dc adoratione Eucharistiae, et dc sacrificio, ut notum est. Hoc autem ordine praesentem controversiam explicabo. Primo, referam adversariorum sententiam. Secundo, eam refutabo, et res¬ pondebo ad eorum objectiones. Tertio, ex¬ plicabo sententiam Catholicorum. Quod ad primum attinet, Lutherani, ct. Calvinistae, aliique hujus temporis haeretici in ea sunt opinione, ut existiment, Sacra¬ mentum Eucharistiae non esse rem perma¬ nentem, sed actionem transeuntem : cum c contrario Catholici omnes sentiant, Sacra¬ mentum Eucharistiae proprie rem perma¬ nentem esse, nimirum hostiam consecratam. Auctor primus sententiae adversariorum Martinus Bucerus fuit : nam (ut scribit Joan- nes Cochlaeus lib. m. Miscellaneorum tract. 8.) anno Domini 1536. 23 die Maii, persuasit Luthero Bucerus, corpus Domini non esso in Eucharistia, nisi dum sumitur, ct proinde ipsam sumptionem proprie Sacramentum esse. Excogitavit hanc sententiam Bucerus, ut per eam conciliaret inter se Lutheranos ct Zwinglianos : videbatur enim tempera¬ mentum quoddam, et quasi medium quid inter extremas illorum sententias. Sed quam- visconcordianon successerit, tamen hanc sen¬ tentiam libenter arripuerunt, tum Luthera¬ ni, tum Zwingliani, quod viderent per eam destrui adorationem Eucharistiae, ct alia nonnulla quae in usu erant apud Catholicos. Itaque Philippus Melanchthon ex Lutheranis eam tuetur in locis communibus, loco do ccena Domini. Joannes Brentius in Confes- sion. Wirtembergens. cap. dc Eucharistia. Matthias Illyricus in Apologia pro Confess. Antuerpicnsi cap. de Coena Domini, et Mar- tinus Kemnitius , qui verbosissime dc hac CAPUT 1. 203 re tractat, in 2. part. Examinis Tridentini Concilii sess. xm. cap. 3. et 6. Ex Zwinglia- nis, Joannes Calvinus lib. 4. Institut. cap. 18. §. 37 et 39. et Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 88. et 132. et alibi. Sed observandum est, non eodem modo usum istum Sacramenti explicari. Nam Cal¬ vinus, et Martyr, et Illyricus contendunt tunc solum panem et vinum esse Sacramen¬ tum, dum comeditur, et bibitur, sicut aqua Baptismi tunc solum est Sacramentum, cum abluit : unde negant manere Sacramentum, si deferatur ad aegrotos. At Kemnitius, ut eludat testimonia Patrum, docet in tota ac¬ tione crenae Domini Sacramentum, et corpus Domini manere, id est, dum panis benedici¬ tur, frangitur, distribuitur, et etiam dum ex ipsa Crena immediate defertur ad aegrotos, vel ad absentes, ut illum comedant, non ut servent. Quidam etiam eo usque progressi sunt, ut dicerent toto triduo posse servari Eucharistiam propter aegrotos, et toto illo spatio temporis esse Sacramentum, et in ea reipsa manere corpus Domini, ut ex Linda- no refert Claudius Sanctes, repetitione 4. do Eucharistia cap. 12. extremo. Sed profecto qui concedunt triduum, mirum est, cur non etiam quatriduum, et octiduum, et eadem ratione integrum mensem, vel annum con¬ cedant. I*orro fundamenta adversariorum tria sunt. Primum institutio Domini, qui ait : Ac¬ cipite, edite. Secundum similitudo Baptismi, et aliorum Sacramentorum , qui omnia in actione consistunt. Tertium testimonia quae¬ dam veterum, qui jubebant reliquias crenae Domini, vel comburi, vel dari puerulis eden¬ das, ne quid superesset.