Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 7: On the Matter of the Eucharist: Whether the Sacrament Is to Be Confected in Unleavened or Leavened 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).
It follows now that we explain the matter of this Sacrament: concerning which it is sufficiently agreed between us and the adversaries that wheaten bread and wine of the vine are to be taken for the matter, but two controversies remain. One concerning the bread; the other concerning the wine.
The former controversy is whether the bread ought to be unleavened or leavened: which controversy indeed arose about the year of the Lord 1053, as Pope Leo IX testifies in his letter to Michael, Bishop of Constantinople, chapter 5. For then first the Greeks began to reprehend the Latins for taking unleavened bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whence also they dared to call us Azymites; in which opinion they persevere to this day. For in the censure which Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, lately published on the Confession of the Lutherans, chapter 10, which is on the Lord's Supper, he affirms that Christ consecrated leavened bread, and that this Sacrament cannot be confected in unleavened bread, because the unleavened is not true bread, and because unleavened bread pertains to the figures of Judaism.
But the Lutheran and Zwinglian heretics do not dispute of the necessity of leaven (since they hold even far graver matters for things indifferent); yet both by words and by deeds they prefer the custom of the Greeks to the custom of the Latins, and think leavened bread more apt for confecting the Sacrament than unleavened. For first Illyricus with his colleagues, Centuries, book 11, chapter 8, describes the schism of the Greeks and Latins on account of the question of unleavened bread, but so describes it that he plainly enough attributes the victory to the Greeks. Then John Calvin, Institutes Book 4, chapter 17, § 43, says three things. First, that it does not much matter whether we use unleavened or leavened bread. Secondly, he adds that it is established from the histories that until the times of Pope Alexander the whole Church used leavened bread. Thirdly, he says that Pope Alexander ordained that the Sacrament be confected in unleavened bread, and that he did this for no other reason than that by that new spectacle he might draw the people into admiration; where he plainly enough reprehends the use of unleavened bread. Martin Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 7, agrees with Calvin, that it is all one to use unleavened or leavened, just as it is all one to use white or red wine. Finally the Calvinists use leavened bread after the manner of the Greeks, which certainly they would not do unless they judged that custom to be better.
But because the chief foundation both of the Latins and of the Greeks is the deed of Christ (for it cannot be doubted that that is better and to be done which Christ did), therefore this question depends on another, whether the Lord instituted the Sacrament on the first day of unleavened bread, when leaven could be found in none of the borders of Israel, or before that day. For if the Lord instituted the Sacrament on the first day of unleavened bread, it will be certain that unleavened bread was used in that institution. For in Exodus 12 and 13 it is commanded under pain of death that no leavened bread be found in the houses, or in any other place of the children of Israel. If He instituted it at another time, the matter will not be altogether certain.
St. Thomas, in Book 4, distinction 11, question 2, article 5, question 3, writes that at whatever time Christ instituted the Sacrament, it can always be shown that the Sacrament was instituted in unleavened bread. For before the institution of the Sacrament He ate the Pasch, as all the Gospels testify: but the Pasch could not be eaten without unleavened bread, as is clear from chapter 12 of Exodus.
And indeed St. Thomas rightly judged that the use of unleavened bread began from the immolation of the Pasch; but yet certain of the more learned Greeks hold on the contrary that the immolation of the Pasch could be anticipated, although the use of unleavened bread in the rest of the diet were not anticipated. And so Euthymius, in his commentary on chapter 26 of Matthew, and after him Nicephorus, Book 1 of his history, chapter 28, say that Christ ate His legal Pasch before the first day of unleavened bread, and therefore ate indeed the Paschal lamb by that rite which the law prescribed, that is, with unleavened bread and the other necessary things: yet, that legal supper being finished, the unleavened bread being set aside, He returned to common bread, of which it was lawful to eat, because the days of unleavened bread had not yet come, and therefore instituted the Sacrament in common, that is, leavened bread. For two distinct precepts concerning unleavened bread are found. One, that the Paschal lamb be eaten with unleavened bread. The other, that for seven days only unleavened bread be eaten in any banquet. The Lord, therefore, according to the opinion of the Greeks, observed the first precept, because He was bound to it, since He wished to eat the lamb: the second He did not observe, because the time had not yet come in which it began to bind. Wherefore this question must necessarily be disputed concerning the time in which Christ instituted the Sacrament, that no escape at all be left to the Greeks.
There are, then, concerning the present question four opinions. The first is that of the Greeks, who affirm that the Lord ate His Pasch and instituted the Sacrament on the 13th day, or the 13th moon, of the first month: but on the following day, after the death of Christ, at sunset, the Paschal time of the Jews and the casting out of leaven began. So teach Euthymius and Nicephorus above cited.
For it is to be observed that among the Hebrews all the months are numbered from the new moon, and it is the same with them the first moon, the second moon, etc., and the first day of the month, the second day of the month, etc. Moreover, according to the law of Exodus 12, on the 14th day of the first month, that is, on the 14th day from the new moon, after sunset, the days of unleavened bread began, and lasted seven days, that is, up to the 21st day inclusive. All which days were Paschal, and were called the days of unleavened bread; yet the first and the last, that is, the 15th and the 21st, alone were solemn and festal, so that it was not lawful on them to do servile works, as is clear from Leviticus 23. The Greeks say, then, that on the 3rd feria (Thursday), at the Lord's Supper, it was the 13th day of the month among the Hebrews; and therefore the time of unleavened bread had not yet begun: but on the 6th feria (Friday), on which the Lord died, they say it was profane, not festal; but on that very day after sunset the time of unleavened bread began, because that was the 14th day; and afterward on the Saturday was the 15th day, and most solemn.
The second opinion is that of Rupert, in his commentary on Leviticus chapter 23 and Matthew chapter 26, where he teaches that the Hebrews, from a certain tradition of their fathers, were never wont to celebrate two festal days in a row, and therefore, when the feast of unleavened bread fell on the sixth feria, it was wont, from that tradition, to be deferred to the following Sabbath, yet in such a way that the celebration of the Pasch was never changed. From which he gathers that in the year in which the Lord died, on the Thursday it was indeed the 14th moon, against the opinion of the Greeks, and on that very day at evening both the Lord and the Hebrews ate their Pasch; but the Friday was not the feast of unleavened bread, but a profane day, as the Greeks too will; but it was profane because, according to the aforesaid tradition, that feast was deferred to the Sabbath.
This opinion of Rupert seems to me not only false, but also does not answer to the chief foundation of the Greeks. For if the days of unleavened bread began on the Sabbath, then on the Thursday at evening, after the Paschal lamb was eaten with unleavened bread, it was lawful, according to the opinion of the Greeks, to return to leavened bread and use it the whole following day: therefore it cannot be shown that the Sacrament was instituted in unleavened bread according to Rupert's opinion, unless it be first shown that with the immolation of the lamb, whenever it took place, began the use of unleavened bread to be continued for seven days.
The third opinion is that of Paul of Burgos, in his addition to Lyra, in his commentary on chapter 26 of Matthew, whom many of the more recent follow. And among them is Calvin, who on that of Matthew 26, You know that after two days, etc., so defends this opinion that he says its arguments can be eluded by no cavil. This opinion does not differ from the opinion of Rupert, except in this, that Rupert said that from the tradition of the elders the feast of unleavened bread was sometimes deferred to the following day, but the celebration of the Pasch was never changed. But Burgos says that both were deferred, and thence gathers that in the year in which the Lord died the Hebrews ate their Pasch on the Friday at evening, but Christ on the Thursday at evening.
But this opinion too is not approved. For it is to be known that that change of days among the Hebrews from the tradition of the fathers, which flourished for many years and now flourishes, is not to be so understood, as if the 15th day of the moon, or month, sometimes falls on a Friday, and they then transfer the feast to the 16th day, that is, to the Sabbath: for this is false and most absurd. But those who preside over the Calendars among the Hebrews so accommodate the new moons, especially at the beginning of the year, that it never happens that the first day, and consequently the 15th day, of the first month is on the 2nd, 4th, or 6th feria; and this is what they commonly say, that is, the Pasch does not fall on the 2nd, 4th, and 6th day. Nor does this custom seem bad: nor does it openly fight with the law commanding the feast of unleavened bread to be celebrated on the 15th day, not according to the astronomical calculation, known to very few, but according to the common and vulgar reckoning of the Calendars of the whole people: and according to the vulgar reckoning of the common Calendars, that is always observed, that the feast of unleavened bread be kept on the 15th day of the month. Nor is the custom among us dissimilar, who for the Paschal term have the 14th moon after the vernal equinox, and yet in finding the equinox and the 14th moon itself we do not observe the true motion of the sun and moon, but observe the days noted in the Calendar, which not rarely somewhat differ from the true motion: but it cannot be done otherwise, if some fixed rule is to be kept. Nay, before the correction of the Calendar made by the command of Gregory XIII, the day of the equinox set in the Calendar differed from the true equinox by a whole ten days, and the new moons noted in the Calendar differed by five days from the true new moons, and yet it was better to follow that Calendar, however uncorrected, than to have no common rule for finding the feasts. From which it follows that if in the time of Christ there had been such a Calendar as the Hebrews now have, it would not have been lawful or free for anyone to celebrate the festal days otherwise, not even under the pretext of an erring Calendar: otherwise each would have had to fabricate his own Calendar and number the days of the months in his own way, which would have been intolerable, and openly evil and unlawful.
Wherefore, this opinion being posited, it would necessarily have to be said that Christ ate the Paschal lamb on the 13th day of the month, as the Greeks say, and did this not to change the order of the feasts, but that in some way (though out of time) He might eat the Paschal lamb, because the next day He was to die and could not eat the lamb with the rest: and therefore He was not bound to the use of unleavened bread (except in the eating of the Paschal lamb), because the days of unleavened bread had not yet come, and therefore could institute the Sacrament in leavened bread. You see, then, that by this opinion the foundation of the Latin Church is utterly taken away.
The fourth opinion is the common one of the Theologians in Book 4, distinction 11, that Christ instituted the Sacrament at that very time in which, according to the law and according to the custom of the Hebrews (who then were living), leaven was cast out of the whole of Israel, so that it was in no way lawful to use it, which was the 14th day of the first month: for on that day at evening the days of unleavened bread began, and the following day, the 15th, was the solemn day of unleavened bread. Which opinion is most true, and alone evidently convinces the Greeks: wherefore it is to be briefly proved, and at the same time all the others refuted.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. De materia Eucharistiae , sitne azymo pane, an fermentato Sacramentum *hon fidendum. Sequitur nunc, ut materiam Sacramenti hujus explicemus : de qua satis constat inter nos, et adversarios, panem triticeum, et vi¬ num ex vite ad materiam assumendum esse, sed duae restant controversiae. Una circa pa¬ nem ; altera circa vinum. Prior controversia est, utrum panis azy¬ mus, an fermentatus esse debeat : quae sane controversia, circa annum Domini 1053. est exorta, ut Leo Papa IX. testatur in epist. ad Michaelem Episcopum Constantinopolita- num, cap. 5. Tunc enim primum Graeci re¬ prehendere coeperunt Latinos, quod azymum panem in Sacramento Eucharistiae assume¬ rent, unde etiam azymitas nos vocare ausi sunt ; in qua sententia ad hanc usque diem perseverant. Siquidem in censura, quam nu¬ per edidit Ilieremias Constantinopolitanus Patriarcha ad Confessionem Luthcranorum cap. 10. quod est de ccena Domini, affirmat Christum fermentatum panem consecrasse, nec posse in azymo hoc Sacramentum confici, quod azymus non sit verus panis, quodque azyma ad Judaismi figuras pertineant. Haeretici autem Lutherani, et Zwingliani non disputant de necessitate fermenti (quip¬ pe res etiam longe graviores pro adiaphoris habent) tamen, et verbis, et factis Graecorum consuetudinem Latinorum consuetudini an¬ teponunt, atque fermentatum panem aptio¬ rem esse censent ad Sacramentum conficien¬ dum, quam azymum. Naminprimis Illyricus cum suis collegis centur. xi. cap. 8. descri¬ bit schisma Graecorum et Latinorum propter quaestionem de azymo, sed ita describit, ut satis aperte victoriam Graecis tribuat. Deinde Joannes Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. §. 43. tria dicit. Primo, non multum referre azvmone. an fermentato utamur, Secundo, addit ex historiis constare, usque ad tempo¬ ra Alexandri Papae totam Ecclesiam pane fermentato usam. Tertio, dicit Alexandrum Papam instituisse, ut in azymo Sacramen¬ tum conficeretur, idque eum fecisse, non alia ratione, nisi ut novo illo spectaculo populum in admirationem traheret ; ubi satis aperte usum azymorum reprehendit. MartinusKem- nitius in 2. par. Examinis Concilii Tridentini sess. xxn. cap. 7. Calvino assentitur, perinde esse uti azymo, vel fermentato, sicut perinde est uti vino albo, vel rubro. Denique Calvi- nistae, fermentato pane utuntur Graecorum more, quod certe non facerent, nisi morem illum meliorem esse judicarent. Quia vero praecipuum fundamentum, tum Latinorum, tum Graecorum est factum Chri¬ sti (neque enim dubitari potest, quin illuti sit melius, et faciendum, quod Christus fecit) ideo ista quaestio ab alia pendet, utrum Do¬ minus Sacramentum instituerit primo die azymorum, quando fermentum inveniri non poterat in omnibus finibus Israel, an vero ante cum diem. Si enim Dominus Sacramen¬ tum instituit in primo die azymorum, cer¬ tum erit, azymo pane usum fuisse in ejus¬ modi institutione. Nam Exod. xn. et xm. praecipitur sub poena mortis, ne fermentatus panis inveniatur in domibus, aut in ullo alio loco filiorum Israel. Si alio tempore instituit, res non erit omnino certa. S. Thomas in iv. dist. 11. quaest. 2. art. 5. quaest. 3. scribit, quocumque tempore Chri¬ stus Sacramentum instituerit, semper posse convinci in azymo Sacramentum institutum fuisse. Nam ante Sacramenti institutionem Pascha manducavit, ut omnia Evangelia te¬ stantur : Pascha autem sine azymis mandu¬ cari non poterat, ut patet ex cap. xii. Exo¬ di. Et quidem S. Thomas recte judicavit, ab immolatione Paschae incipere usum azymo¬ rum, sed tamen Graeci nonnulli ex doctiori¬ bus contra sentiunt potuisse anteverti immo¬ lationem Paschae, licet usus azymorum in reliquo victu non anteverteretur. Itaque Eu- thymius in comment. cap. xxvi. Matth. et post eum Nicephorus lib. i. hist. cap. 28. dicunt, Christum comedisse suum Pascha legale ante primum diem azymorum, et ideo manducasse quidem agnum Paschalem eo ritu, quem lex praescribebat, id est, cum azymis, et caeteris rebus necessariis : tamen ea ccena legali finita, dimissis azymis rediis- se ad panem communem, quo vesci licebat. CAPUT VII. 217 quia nondum advenerant dies azymorum, et proinde in pane communi, id est, fermentato Sacramentum instituisse. Duo enim praece- pta distincta de azymo inveniuntur. Unum, ut agnus Paschalis, cum azymis comedatur. Alterum, ut septem diebus sola azyma edan¬ tur in quovis convivio. Dominus igitur ex Graecorum sententia servavit primum prae¬ ceptum, quia ad illud obligabatur, cum ag¬ num manducare vellet : secundum non ser¬ vavit, quia nondum venerat tempus, quo illud obligare inciperet. Quare necessario quaestio ista disputanda est de tempore, quo Christus Sacramentum instituit, ut nullum omnino Graecis effugium relinquatur. Sunt igitur de praesenti quaestione senten¬ tiae quatuor. Prima est Graecorum, qui affir- mant Dominum manducasse suum Pascha, et Sacramentum instituisse die 13. seu luna 13. mensis primi : sequenti autem die post Christi mortem ad occasum solis, incanpissc tempus paschale Judaeorum, et fermenti ab¬ jectionem. Ita docent Euthymius, et Nice- phorus supra citaiti. Est enim observandum aqud Hebraeos menses omnes numerari a novilunio, et idem esse apud eos primam lunam, secundam lu¬ nam, etc. et primum diem mensis, secun¬ dum diem mensis etc. Porro secundum legem Exodi xii. die 14. primi mensis, id est, die 14. a novilunio, post solis occasum, incipie¬ bant dies azymorum, et durabant septem diebus, id est, usque ad diem 21. inclusive. Qui omnes dies erant Paschales, et azymo¬ rum dies vocabantur, tamen primus, et ulti¬ mus, id est, 13 et 21. soli erant solcnmes, et festivi, ita ut non liceret in eis opera servilia facere, ut patet Levitic. xxm. Dicunt ergo Grseci feria 3. in Gcena Domini fuisse diem •13. mensis apud Hebraeos; et proinde nondum incepisse tempus azymorum : feria autem G. in qua Dominus mortuus est, dicunt fuisse profanum, non festivum sed illo ipso die post occasum solis coepisse tempus azymorum, quia ille erat dies 14. et postea die Sabbati fuisse 15. diem, et solemnissimum. Secunda sententia est Ruperti in commen¬ tario Levitic. cap. xxm. etMatth. cap. xxvi. ubi docet Hebraeos, ex quadam traditione Patrum suorum, nunquam solitos fuisse ce¬ lebrare duos dies festos continuos, et ideo quando festum azymorum occurrebat feria sexta, ex illa traditione differri solitum in Sabbatum sequens, sic tamen, ut celebratio Pascha; nunquam mutaretur. Ex quo colli¬ dit eo anno, quo Dominus mortuus est, die Jovis fuisse quidem 14. lunam, contra Oil¬ eorum opinionem, et ille ipso die ad vespe¬ ram, tum Dominum, tum Hebraeos comedis¬ se suum Pascha ; diem autem Veneris non fuisse festum azymorum, sed diem propha¬ num, ut etiam Graeci volunt ; sed propha¬ num fuisse, quia secundum praedictam tra¬ ditionem dilatum fuerit illud festum in diem Sabbati. Haec sententia Ruperli non solum falsa mihi videtur, sed etiam non respondet ad potissimum Cnecorum fundamentum. Nam si dies azymorum incipiebant die Sabbati ; ergo die Jovis ad vesperam post agnum paschalem manducatum cum pano azymo licebat ex sententia Graecorum, redire ad fermentatum, et illo uti toto sequenti die : non ergo convinci potest Sacramentum in azymo pane institutum secundum Ruperti sententiam, nisi prius ostendatur cum im¬ molatione agni quandocumque illa fieret, coepisse usum azymorum per septem dies continuandum. Tertia sententia est Pauli Burgensis in additione ad Lyranum in commentario cap. xxvi. Mattii, quem auctorem multi re- centiores sequuntur. Et in iis est Calvinus, qui in illud Matthaei xxvi : Scitis quia post biduum etc. (1), ita hanc sententiam defendit, ut dicat nullo cavillo posse eludi ejus argu¬ menta. Haec sententia non differt a sententia Ruperti, nisi in eo, quod Rupertus dicebat ex traditione majorum differri festum azy¬ morum aliquando in diem, sequentem, ce¬ lebrationem autem Pascha; numquam mu¬ tari. Burgensis autem dicit utrumque dif¬ ferri, et inde colligit eo anno, quo Dominus mortuus est , Hebraeos manducasse suum Pascha die Veneris ad vesperam, Christum autem die Jovis ad vesperam. Caeterum haec etiam sententia non pre- batur. Sciendum est enim mutationem illam dierum apud Hebraeos ex traditione Pa¬ trum, quae a multis annis viguit, et modo viget, non sic esse intelligendam, quasi dies 15. lunae, seu mensis aliquando occurrat die Veneris, et ipsi tunc transferant festum in diem 16. id est, in Sabbatum : id enim fal¬ sum est, et absurdissimum. Sed qui Kalcn- dariis praesunt apud Hebraeos, ita accom- (t)Matth. XXVI. 2. 21& LIBER 17. modant novilunia, praesertim initio anni, ut nunquam accidat diem primum, et conse¬ quenter diem 45. primi mensis esse feria 2. vel 4. vel 6. et hoc est quod ipsi fiOS Yt3£P vulgo dicunt, id est, non contingit Pascha dio 2, 4 et 6. Neque videtur mala ista consue¬ tudo : neque pugnat aperte cum lege prae¬ cipiente festum azymorum celebrari die 15. secundum calculum astronomicum, paucis¬ simis notum, sed secundum computum com¬ munem et vulgarem Kalendariorum totius populi : secundum computum autem vul¬ garem communium Kalendariorum, semper illud servatur, ut festum azymorum agatur die 15. mensis. Neque absimilis est apud nos consuetudo, qui pro termino Paschali habemus lunam 14. post aequinoctium ver¬ num, et tamen in aequinoctio, et in ipsa luna 14. inveniendis non observamus motum ve¬ rum solis et lunae, sed observamus dies in Kalendario notatos, qui non raro nonnihil discrepant a vero motu : sed aliter fieri non potest, si certa aliqua regula tenenda est. Imo ante correctionem Kalen darii Gregorii XIII. jussu factam, distabat dies aequinoctii in Kalendario positus ab aequinoctio vero totis decem diebus, et novilunia in Kalendario notata distabant quinque diebus a veris no- viluniis, et tamen melius erat Kalendarium illud quamvis incorrectum sequi, quam nul¬ lam habere communem regulam festorum in¬ veniendorum. Ex quo sequitur, quod si tem¬ pore Christi fuisset tale Kalendarium, quale modo Hebraei- habent, non fuisset licitum, nec liberum ulli aliter festos dies celebrare, nec etiam praetextu errantis Kalendarii : alioqui debuisset quisque sibi suum Kalen¬ darium fabricare, et suo modo numerare dies mensium, quod intolerabile fuisset, et aperte malum et illicitum. Quare posita hac sententia, necessario di¬ cendum esset Christum manducasse agnum paschalem die 13. mensis, ut dicunt Graeci, idque fecisse, non ut mutaret ordinem festo¬ rum, sed ut quoquo modo (licet extra tempus) manducaret agnum paschalem , quia se¬ quenti die erat moriturus, et non poterat cum caeteris agnum comedere : proinde non tenebatur ad usum azymorum (nisi in co¬ mestione agni paschalis) quia nondum vene¬ rant dies azymorum, et idcirco potuisse in fermentato Sacramentum instituero. Vides igitur ox hac sententia fundamentum Eccle¬ siae Latina) funditus tolli. Quarta sententia est communis Theologo¬ rum in 4. dist. ii. Christum Sacramentum instituisse illo ipso tempore, quo secundum legem, et secundum Hebraeorum (qui tunc vivebant) consuetudinem abjiciebatur fer¬ mentum ex toto Israele, ita ut non licuerit ullo modo co uti, qui erat dies mensis primi 14. illo enim die ad vesperam inchoabantur azymorum, et sequens dies 15. erat dies solemnis azymorum. Quae sententia veris¬ sima est, et sola Graecos evidenter convincit: quocirca breviter probanda est, et simul omnes aliae refellendae.