Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 6: It Is Explained What Properly Is the Sacrament of the Eucharist
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).
The error of the sectaries being confuted, we shall now briefly explain what the Sacrament of the Eucharist is. And it is to be observed, first, that a Sacrament can be taken in three ways. First, the word Sacrament being taken in its most ample sense, for every sign of a sacred thing. Secondly, a little more strictly, for a sign of a sacred thing sanctifying the soul. Thirdly, properly and most strictly, for a sign not only signifying but also effecting the sanctity of the soul: in which way the word Sacrament does not agree except with the Sacraments of the new law properly so called.
Secondly it is to be observed that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist many things can be considered, namely the consecration, the reception, the species of bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ: and finally the Eucharist itself can be considered either as the Sacrament of religion, or as spiritual nourishment, or as a pledge of divine love, or as the victim and sacrifice of the new law. And these foundations being laid, the whole matter will be explained in a few propositions.
First proposition: “The consecration of the Eucharist can be called a Sacrament in the first way, but not in the second or third.” For it is a sign of a sacred thing, namely of the body of the Lord, yet it is not a sign, nor the cause, of the grace sanctifying the soul.
Second proposition: “The reception of the Eucharist can be called a Sacrament in the second way, but not in the third.” For that external eating signifies indeed the internal eating and refreshment, but is not the cause of that internal refreshment: for the cause of the internal refreshment, or of the grace inwardly refreshing us, cannot be our action, but ought to be the action of God through the Ecclesiastical minister. And so that reception concurs as a condition without which this divine nourishment would not be applied to us, nor act upon us; but not as a cause properly so called.
Third proposition: “The species of bread and wine alone do not have the entire nature of a Sacrament.” It is proved: for those species signify indeed spiritual food, but are not themselves the spiritual food; and therefore they do not refresh nor sustain the soul, and therefore are not the cause of grace. For the Lord, John 6, said not of the species, but of the flesh and blood: “My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink.” Then, the Sacrament of the Eucharist excels all the Sacraments, and is adored with the worship of latria, according to that of the Ecclesiastical hymn: “So great a Sacrament, therefore, let us venerate, bowed down.” But those species neither excel the other Sacraments, nay are inferior to all, since they are pure accidents, nor can they be adored.
Finally the holy Fathers so speak of this Sacrament that they openly indicate that by this Sacrament they do not understand the species alone. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 34, says that the Eucharist consists of an earthly and a heavenly thing. Augustine, Book 1 on the merits and remission of sins, chapter 24, says that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is rightly in the Punic tongue called Life, because it is the living bread which descended from heaven.
Fourth proposition: “The body and blood of the Lord, without an order to the species, do not have the nature of a Sacrament.” It is proved: for a Sacrament is an external and sensible sign; but the body and blood of the Lord, without an order to the species, is not of that kind.
Fifth proposition: “Although both the species of bread and wine, and the body and blood of the Lord, pertain to the essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, yet the nature of a Sacrament agrees more with the species, as they contain the body, than with the body of Christ, as it is under the species.”
For the understanding of this conclusion, it is to be observed that this is the difference between the other Sacraments and the Eucharist, that the others consist of an external element and a divine power impressed upon it, that they may be able to be signs and causes. The Eucharist consists of the element, or external species, and the body and blood of the Lord, which are in the place of that impressed power; and hence appears the singular excellence of this Sacrament, that in place of the power, and that a transient one, which is in the others, here there is permanently Christ Himself, who is the very power and might of God. Hence, then, we have that all those things are of the essence: but as to the mode of speaking, we say that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought rather to be called the species, as they contain the body of the Lord, than the body, as it is under the species. For so speaks the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 3; for it says that this is common to the Eucharist with the other Sacraments, that it is an external symbol and the visible form of invisible grace. But certainly to be a visible form agrees more with the species than with the body of Christ. Then in the other Sacraments, although the external sign and the operative power concur, yet no one ever said that the Sacrament is the operative power as it is in the sign, but on the contrary the sign as it is operative; and the reason is that in the definition of a Sacrament the sign is as it were the genus, the operative power as the difference: in natural instruments too, no one says that a sword is the power of cutting existing in the iron, but is the iron having the power of cutting. So therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the species containing the body of the Lord, not the body of the Lord under the species, if we wish to speak properly.
Sixth proposition: “The nature of a sacrifice, as well as of a pledge and of divine nourishment, agrees more with the body of the Lord, as it is under the species, than with the species, as they contain the body of the Lord.” The reason is clear: for what is offered to God the Father is not the species of bread, but that which was offered on the cross: and likewise the pledge of love, and the nourishment, consist not in the signification, but in the thing itself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Explicatur quid proprie sit Sacramentum Eucharistix. Errore sectariorum confutato, nunc bre¬ viter explicabimus, quid sit Sacramentum Eucharistiae. Est autem observandum, pri¬ mo, Sacramentum tribus modis accipi posse. Primo, amplissimo vocabulo Sacramenti ac¬ cepto pro omni signo rei sacra). Secundo, paulo strictius pro signo rei sacra) sanctifi¬ cantis animam. Tertio, proprie et strictissi- CAPUT VI. ' 213 me pro signo non solum significante, sed efficiente etiam anima) sanctitatem : quo¬ modo vox Sacramenti non convenit nisi Sa¬ cramentis nova) legis proprie dictis. Secundo observandum est, in Sacramento Eucharistia) multa considerari posse, nimi¬ rum consecrationem, sumptionem, species panis, et vini, corpus, et sanguinem Christi : et denique ipsam Eucharistiam considerari posse, vel ut Sacramentum religionis, vel ut alimentum spirituale, vel ut pignus amoris divini, vel ut victimam, et sacrificium nova) legis. His autem fundamentis positis, res tota paucis propositionibus explicabitur. Prima propositio : « Consecratio Eucha¬ ristiae Sacramentum dici potest primo modo, non autem secundovel tertio. » Nam signum est rei sacra), nimirum corporis Domini, non tamen est signum, neque causa gratia) san¬ ctificantis animam. Secunda propositio : « Sumptio Euchari¬ stia) Sacramentum dicipotest secundo modo, non autem tertio. » Nam significat quidem illa externa manducatio internam manduca¬ tionem, et refectionem, sed non est causa internae illius refectionis : causa enim inter¬ nae refectionis, sive gratiae interius nos refi¬ cientis, non potest esse actio nostra, sed esse debet actio Dei per ministrum Ecclesiasti¬ cum. Itaque illa sumptio concurrit, ut con¬ ditio sine qua non applicaretur nobis, neque in nos ageret divinum hoc alimentum; non autem ut causa proprie dicta. Tertia propositio : « Solae species panis et vini, non habent integram Sacramenti ra¬ tionem. » Probatur : nam species illae signi¬ ficant quidem cibum spiritualem, sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis; et proinde non reficiunt, nec sustentant animam, atque i- deo non sunt causa gratiae. Dominus enim Joan. vu. non de speciebus, sed carne, et sanguine dixit : « Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. » Deinde, Sacramentum Eucharistiae excellit omnibus Sacramentis, et adoratur cultu latriee, juxta illud hymni Ecclesiastici : « Tantum ergo Sacramentum veneremur cernui. » Atque species illae neque excellunt aliis Sacramen¬ tis, imo sunt inferiores omnibus, cum sint pura accidentia, neque adorari possunt. Denique SS. Patres ita loquuntur de hoc Sacramento, ut aperte indicent, se per hoc Sacramentum non intelligere solas species. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. dicit, Eucharistiam constare ex re terrena et ccelesti. Augusti¬ nus lib. i. de peccatorum meritis, et remisr cap. 24. dicit, Sacramentum Eucharistiae recte lingua punica dici vitam, quia est pa¬ nis vivus qui de coelo descendit. Quarta propositio : « Corpus Domini, et sanguis sine ordine ad species, non habet rationem Sacramenti. » Probatur : nam Sa-t cramentum est signum externum, ac sensi¬ bile ; non est autem ejusmodi corpus Domi¬ ni, et sanguis sine ordine ad species. Quinta propositio : « Etsi tam species pa¬ nis et vini, quam corpus, et sanguis Domini ad essentiam Sacramenti Eucharistia) perti¬ neant ; ratio tamen Sacramenti magis con¬ venit speciebus, ut continent corpus, quam corporis Christi, ut est sub speciebus. » Hujus conclusionis intelligenda) gratia, ob¬ servandum est, hoc interesse inter Sacra¬ menta esetera, et Eucharistiam, quod alia constant ex elemento externo, et virtute di¬ vina illi impressa, ut possint esse signa, et causa). Eucharistia constat ex elemento, seu speciebus externis, et corpore et sanguine Domini qme sunt loco impressa) illius virtu¬ tis ; et hinc apparet singularis hujus Sacra¬ menti excellentia, quod pro virtute eaque transeunte, quae est in caderis, hic est per- manenter Christus ipse, qui est ip; a virtus, et potentia Dei. Hinc igitur habemus illa omnia esse de essentia: sedde modo loquen¬ di dicimus Sacramentum Eucharistia) debere potius dici species, ut continent corpus Do¬ mini, quam corpus, ut est sub speciebus. Nam ita loquitur Concilium Tridentinum ses. xiii. cap. 3. dicit enim hoc esse com¬ mune Eucharistia) cum aliis Sacramentis, ut sit symbolum externum, et visibilis forma invisibilis gratia). At certe visibilem esse formam magis convenit speciebus , quam corpori Christi. Deinde in aliis Sacramentis licet concurrant signum externum, et virtus operativa, tamen nemo unquam dixit, Sa¬ cramentum esse virtutem operativam, ut est in signo, sed e contrario signum, ut est ope- rativum ; et ratio est, quia in definitione Sa¬ cramenti signum est tanquam genus, virtus operativa, ut differentia : in instrumentis e- tiam naturalibus, nemo dicit gladium esse vim scindendi in ferro existentem, sed esse ferrum habens scindendi virtutem. Ita igitur Sacramentum Eucharistia) sunt species cor¬ pus Domini continentes, non corpus Domini sub speciebus, si proprie loqui velimus. Sexta propositio : «Ratio sacrificii, nec- 210 LIBER IV. non pignoris, el alimonii divini, magis con¬ venit corpori Domini, ut est sub speciebus, quam speciebus, ut continent corpus Do¬ mini. a Ratio perspicua est : Nam quod of¬ fertur Deo Patri, non sunt species panis, sed id quod in cruce fuerat oblatum : et simili¬ ter pignus amoris, et alimentum non in si¬ gnificatione, sed in re ipsa consistunt.