Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 11: The Arguments of the Adversaries Are Resolved
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 remains now that we answer the trifles of Luther and Kemnitz. The first objection of Luther and Kemnitz, in the place cited, is of this kind: “The mixture of wine with water has a worst signification, for in Isaiah 1 it is said: Thy wine is mixed with water: which signifies, as Jerome witnesses on that passage, that the sincerity of the Scripture and of the word of God was corrupted by the Pharisees through the mixture of human traditions.”
I answer: In the Scriptures one and the same thing, considered in one way and another, has now a good, now a bad, signification. The lion, on account of his strength, signifies Christ, Genesis 49, The whelp of the lion is Judah, and Apocalypse 5, The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed. The same lion, on account of his cruelty, signifies the devil, Psalm 90, Thou shalt trample under foot the lion and the dragon, 1 Peter 5, As a roaring lion goeth about seeking whom he may devour. So therefore the mixture of wine with water, if the likeness be taken from those who sell wine, signifies fraud and corruption: for he is deceived who buys, for pure wine, wine mixed with water. And of this is treated in Isaiah 1, where Jerome reads: Thy tavern-keepers mix water with the wine. But if the likeness be taken from those who drink, that mixture has a most excellent signification: for it signifies sobriety and temperance. Whence Proverbs 9, Drink the wine which I have mixed for you. Since therefore in the chalice wine is mixed with water, not for selling, but for drinking, it is most excellently done, and has a most excellent signification.
The second argument of Luther and Kemnitz is against that reason concerning the blood and water which flowed from the side of Christ. “That reason does not prove that water is to be mixed in the chalice: and yet it is brought forward by the Catholics as one of the chief foundations; therefore the Catholics do not solidly prove their opinion.” The proposition the adversaries prove. First, because that water was not mixed with the blood, but flowed separately by itself: for otherwise how could it have been discerned? therefore it does not pertain to this mixture of water with wine. Secondly, that shedding of blood and water signified two diverse Sacraments, namely Baptism and the Eucharist, as Augustine, tract 120 on John, and other Fathers say: therefore that water pertains not to the Eucharist. Thirdly, from figures and mystical senses no solid argument is drawn.
I answer: The primary reason, and the true and solid foundation of our opinion, is the example of Christ and the custom of the whole Church; the other reasons are brought forward to confirm and declare that which we already believed ought to be done. But yet the arguments of the adversaries conclude nothing.
To the first I say: Although the blood and water were unmixed while they flowed, yet if they had been received into some vessel, they would exist in that vessel only mixed. But we represent in the chalice that whole which flowed from the side, not the manner in which it flowed; and therefore we place in the chalice wine mixed with water.
To the second: It is one thing to be represented and signified, another to represent and signify: for these are diverse and do not hinder each other. We, then, do not say that the blood and water signified the mixture of wine and water in the chalice; but on the contrary that by this mixture of the chalice is signified and represented whatever that shedding of blood and water signified. Wherefore Augustine and Theophylact, who say that the blood and water signify two Sacraments, the same affirm that thence is gathered that water is to be mixed in the chalice of the Eucharist.
To the third I say: There is here no figure or mystical sense: for (as we said) we do not attend to what those things signified; but we represent those things which really were done.
The third argument of the same men is against another reason of ours, concerning the union of the Church with Christ. For first, we do not commemorate in the Eucharist the union of Christ with the Church, but the Passion of Christ only; therefore that signification is sought in vain. Secondly, we are not united to Christ except after the shedding of His blood; for that shedding was the cause of our union: therefore not rightly before the shedding, nay before the consecration of the Lord's blood, is water mixed with wine to signify the union. Thirdly, the blood of Christ alone redeemed us without any mixture with ours: therefore in the chalice, in which the Passion of Christ and our redemption is represented, water ought not to be mixed, lest we seem to wish to join our works with the labors of Christ, as if these had not sufficed. And in this place, after his manner, Kemnitz calumniates the Catholic Church, as if it chiefly intended in that mixture of water this, that not Christ alone, but also the people, be presented to God the Father when the sacrifice is offered.
I answer: In vain do the adversaries try to shake that reason which so many holy Fathers, very many, made. To the first proof I say that it is false that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the union of the Church with Christ is not commemorated: for Paul openly says, 1 Corinthians 10: We being many are one bread and one body, who partake of the one bread. And so principally indeed the Passion of Christ is commemorated in that Sacrament: but there is also commemorated secondarily the effect of that Passion, which was that we all should be made one body with Christ.
To the second: water is not placed in the chalice before consecration that it may then signify the union of the people with Christ, but that it may signify it in its own time, namely the consecration being made. For by the testimony and consent of the adversaries, and especially of Luther in his sermon on the Eucharist, and of Kemnitz in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 4, the consecrated bread was made of many grains, that thereby might be signified the union of the faithful who partake of that one bread: and yet the bread is made of many grains before consecration, and does not signify that union except after consecration.
To the third: signs by convention are to be interpreted according to the mind of him who imposes them. The water, therefore, which is placed in the chalice signifies various things by various actions. For inasmuch as it is offered with wine before consecration, it does not signify the people, but represents that water which flowed from the side of the Lord with the blood: but inasmuch as the water is united with the wine and incorporated into it, it signifies the union of the people with Christ, which followed His Passion.
Add that the chief oblation which is made in the Mass is neither of the wine nor of the water, neither in reality nor in sign (for that oblation of bread and wine with water which is made before consecration is not properly the sacrifice of the Mass, but only the oblation of the thing to be consecrated, and therefore the preparation of the sacrifice), but is the oblation of the true body and true blood of the Lord. For that is offered which is really in the chalice, not whatever is there by way of signification: but really in the chalice is not the people, but the blood of Christ alone, yet not separated from the body, soul, and divinity. Although, therefore, the water signifies the people, yet neither it nor the people is offered to God the Father for our redemption, but the Passion of Christ alone. And that the adversaries may understand that they reject the water from the Sacrament without cause, let them consider that the same reasoning holds of the bread mixed of water and flour as of the chalice mixed of water and wine. For Cyprian, whose is that reason, Book 2, letter 3, says that the same is signified by the flour and water in the bread as by the wine and water in the chalice. If therefore they reject the water from the chalice, lest the people seem to be offered with Christ to God the Father, let them reject the water also from the bread, lest the same disadvantage follow. Or if among them there is no oblation, no sacrifice, but only a communion of the body and blood of the Lord, let them not fear that disadvantage of signification, which is none where there is no oblation.
Besides these arguments, Kemnitz brings forward six other objections against the Council of Trent in the matter of the mixture of water with wine, which press not so much the Council as Kemnitz himself. First, he accuses the Council for fighting so keenly for water in the chalice, while meanwhile it took the whole chalice from the people against the command of God. But of this matter we shall have to dispute below: meanwhile we observe only this, that the adversary lacked something to say about the matter proposed, and therefore made a digression to other things.
Secondly, he accuses the Council for falsely charging the Lutherans with asserting that the mixture of water fights with the institution of Christ. But the Council does not name the Lutherans, but generally condemns those who assert this: and that there were not lacking those who asserted it I showed above from Nicholas Villegagnon.
Thirdly, he accuses the Council for, on account of an indifferent thing, such as is the mixture of water with wine, anathematizing those who hold the contrary. But the Council does not anathematize (as is clear from canon 9) except those who deny that that mixture ought to be made, as fighting with the institution of Christ; and it is not an indifferent thing, but a necessary dogma and pertaining to faith, that the Church teach nothing fighting with the institution of Christ. Then, although to place water in the chalice may of itself perhaps be an indifferent thing, because without it the Sacrament could subsist; yet after it is expressly commanded, either by God immediately, or through the Councils and the Church, that it be done, it is not an indifferent thing, but necessary.
Fourthly, he accuses the Council and the whole Church for making that mixture of water with a false opinion, as if it were necessary and commanded, whereas it is a free thing. But we have already said that what is expressly commanded through the Church is not free. For God did not leave it free to obey or not obey the Church, but plainly commanded, when He said, Luke 10, He that heareth you heareth me.
Fifthly, he accuses the Church for thinking that there cannot be the chalice of the Lord unless water be present, and this he calls a false opinion necessarily to be censured. But that opinion, as to the mode of speaking, is St. Cyprian's, Book 2, letter 3. As to the thing, it is not the Catholic Church's, perhaps not even St. Cyprian's: for, as we said above, the greater part of the Theologians teach that water is not of the necessity of the Sacrament.
Lastly, he accuses the Church for attributing to the mixture of water with wine that which was to be attributed to the communion, namely to unite the faithful with Christ. But Kemnitz was too gross, if he could not understand that the union of the people with Christ is made by the mixture of water with wine, not really, but only as to signification. But of these things thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum. ■ Superest nunc, ut ad nugas Lutheri et Kemnitii respondeamus. Prima objectio Lu¬ theri, et Kemnitii loco cit. est hujusmodi : « Yini cum aqua permixtio pessimam habet significationem, nam Isai. i. dicitur : Vinum tuum mixtum est aqua : quod significat, teste Hieronymo in eum locum Scripturee, et verbi Dei sinceritatem corruptam fuisse a Phari- sseis per admixtionem humanarum traditio¬ num. » Piespondeo : In Scripturis una, et eadem res alio, et alio modo considerata, nunc bo¬ nam, nunc malam habet significationem. Leo propter fortitudinem Christum significat, Genes, xlix. Catulus leonis Juda, et Apocal. V. Vicit leo de tribu Juda. Idem leo propter crudelitatem diabolum significat, Psalm. xc. Conculcabis leonem et draconem, i. Petr. v. Tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem devoret (1). Sic igitur mixtio vini cum aqua, si sumatur similitudo ab iis, qui vinum ven¬ dunt, significat fraudem, et corruptionem : decipitur enim qui pro vino mero emit vi¬ num mixtum aqua. Et de hac re agitur Isaiae i. ubi Hieronymus legit : Caupones tui mi¬ scent vino aquam. Si autem sumatur similitudo ab iis, qui bibunt, habet optimam significa¬ tionem illa mixtio : nam sobrietatem, et tem¬ perantiam significat. Unde Proverb. ix. Bi¬ bite vinum, quod miscui vobis (2). Quoniam igitur in calice vinum miscetur aqua, non ad vendendum, sed ad bibendum, optime fit, et optimam habet significationem. Secundum argumentum Lutheri, et Kem¬ nitii est contra rationem illam de sanguine, et aqua, quae profluxerunt ex latere Christi. « Ea ratio non probat, miscendam aquam in calice : Et tamen adducitur a Catholicis, tanquam unum ex praecipuis fundamentis ; igitur non solide probant Catholici suam sen¬ tentiam. » Propositionem probant adversarii. Primo, quia non fuit aqua illa mixta cum sanguine, sed seorsim per se fluxit : nam alioqui quomodo discerni potuisset ? non er¬ go pertinet ad istam mixtionem aquae cum vino. Secundo, illa effusio sanguinis et aquae significabat duo Sacramenta diversa, nimi¬ rum Baptismum, et Eucharistiam, ut Augu¬ stinus tract. 120. in Joan. et alii Patres di¬ cunt : non igitur illa aqua ad Eucharistiam pertinet. Tertio, ex figuris, et mysticis sensi¬ bus non sumitur solidum argumentum. Respondeo : Primaria ratio, et verum, et solidum fundamentum nostrae sententiae est Christi exemplum , et Ecclesiae universae consuetudo ; reliquae rationes afferuntur ad confirmandum, et declarandum id, quod jam credidimus esse faciendum. Sed tamen argumenta adversariorum nihil concludunt. Ad primum dico : Licet sanguis et aqua impermixta fuerint dum fluerent, tamen si in vas aliquod recepta fuissent, non nisi per¬ mixta in illo vase existerent. Nos autem re¬ praesentamus in calice id totum, quod ex la¬ tere fluxit, non autem modum, quo fluxit ; et ideo vinum aqua mixtum in calice poni¬ mus. Ad secundum : Aliud est repraesentari, et significari ; aliud repraesentare, et significa¬ re : haec enim sunt diversa, nec se invicem impediunt. Nos igitur non dicimus, sangui¬ nem et aquam significasse mixtionem vini, et aquae in calice ; sed e contrario significari, (1) Genes, XLIX, 9 ; Apoc. V, 5 ; P*al. XC, 13 ; I Petr. V, 8. — (2) Prov. IX, 5. LIBER TY. 232 et reprcesentari per hanc mixtionem calicis, quidquid tandem significaverit illa effusio sanguinis et aqua?. Quare Augustinus et Tlieo- phylactus, qui dicunt, sanguinem et aquam significare duo Sacramenta, iidem affirmant, inde colligi, miscendam esse aquam in calice Eucharistia?. Ad tertium dico : Nullam hic esse figu¬ ram, aut mysticum sensum : nam (ut dixi¬ mus) non attendimus, quid illa significave¬ rint ; sed ea nos repraesentamus, qua? revera facta sunt. Tertium argumentum eorumdem, est con¬ tra aliam rationem nostram de unione Ec¬ clesia? cum Christo. Nam primo , non com¬ memoramus in Eucharistia unionem Christi cum Ecclesia, sed Passionem Christi tan¬ tummodo ; ergo frustra quaeritur illa signifi¬ catio. Secundo, non unimur Christo, nisi post sanguinis ejus effusionem ; illa enim ef¬ fusio causa fuit nostra? unionis : non ergo recte ante effusionem ; imo ante consecra¬ tionem sanguinis Domini miscetur aqua vino ad significandam unionem. Tertio , solus Christi sanguis nos redemit sine permixtione cum' nostro : non igitur in calice, in quo Christi Passio, et nostra redemptio reprae¬ sentatur, oporteret aquam miscere, ne vi¬ deamur velle conjungere nostra opera cum Christi laboribus, quasi illi non suffecissent. Et hoc loco more suo Kemnitius calumniatur Ecclesiam Catholicam, quasi hoc praecipue intendat in ista mixtione aqua?, ut non solus Christus, sed etiam populus Deo Patri sista¬ tur, cum sacrificium offertur. Respondeo : Frustra conantur adversarii eam rationem concutere, quam tot sancti Patres plurimi fecerunt. Ad primam proba¬ tionem dico, falsum esse non commemorari in Sacramento Eucharistiae unionem Eccle¬ sia? cum Christo : nam Paulus aperte dicit, I ad Corinth. x. : Urnis panis, et unum corpus multi sumus , qui de uno pane participamus (1). Itaque principaliter quidem commemo¬ ratur in eo Sacramento Christi Passio : sed commemoratur etiam secundario effectus il¬ lius Passionis, qui fuit, ut omnes unum cor¬ pus cum Christo efficeremur. Ad secundam, non ponitur aqua in calice ante consecrationem, ut tunc significet unio¬ nem populi cum Christo, sed ut significet suo tempore, nimirum facta consecratione. Nam testimonio, et consensu adversario¬ rum, et maxime Lutheri in sermone de Eu¬ charistia, et Kemnitii in 2. par. Examinis Concilii Tridentini sess. xm. cap. 4. panis consecratus factus est ex multis granis, ut inde significetur unio fidelium, qui de illo uno pane participant : et tamen panis fit ex multis granis ante consecrationem, et non significat illam unionem nisi post consecra¬ tionem. Ad tertiam, signa ad placitum, interpre¬ tanda sunt juxta mentem imponentis. Aqua igitur, quie in calice ponitur, varia signifi¬ cat id variis actionibus. Nam quatenus offer¬ tur cum vino ante consecrationem, non si¬ gnificat populum, sed repreesentat aquam illam, qua? ex latere Domini fluxit cum san¬ guine : quatenus autem aqua unitur cum vino, et illi incorporatur, significat unionem populi cum Christo, qua? consecuta est ipsius Passionem. Adde, quod oblatio pra?cipua, qua? fit in Missa, non est vini, neque aqua?, neque re ipsa, neque in signo (illa enim oblatio panis, et vini cum aqua, qua? fit ante consecratio¬ nem, non est proprie sacrificium Missa?, sed tantum oblatio rei consecranda?, et proinde praeparatio sacrificii) sed est oblatio veri corporis, et veri sanguinis Domini. Id enim offertur, quod reipsa est in calice, non au¬ tem quidquid est ibi significative : reipsa autem non est in calice populus, sed solus Christi sanguis, non tamen a corpore sepa¬ ratus, et anima, et divinitate. Licet igitur a- qua significet populum, non tamen offertur, vel ipsa, vel populus Deo Patri in redem¬ ptionem nostram, sed sola Christi Passio. Ac ut intelligant adversarii, se sine causa reji¬ cere aquam ex Sacramento ; cogitent eam- dem rationem esse de pane mixto ex aqua, et farina, qua? est de calice mixto ex aqua, et vino. Nam Cyprianus, cujus est ista ratio lib. 11. epist. 3. dicit, idem significari per fa¬ rinam, et aquam in pane, quod per vinum, et aquam in calice. Si igitur aquam rejiciunt ex calice, ne populus cum Christo offerri Deo Patri videatur, rejiciant etiam aquam ex pane, ne idem incommodum consequatur. Yel si apud eos nulla fit oblatio, nullum sa¬ crificium, sed sola communio corporis, et sanguinis Domini, non timeant illud incom¬ modum significationis, quod nullum est, ubi nulla oblatio est. Prteter hiec argumenta Kemnitius sex obs- (!) 1 Cor. N, -10. CAPUT XII. jectioncs alias profert contra Concilium Tri- dentinum in materia mixtionis aquae cum vino, quae non tam Concilium premunt, quam ipsum Kemnitium. Primo, accusat Concilium quod tam acriter pugnet pro aqua in calice, cum interim totum calicem contra Dei man¬ datum populo abstulerit. Sed de hac re infra disputandum erit : interea id solum observa¬ mus, defuisse adversario, quod de re pro¬ posita diceret, et idcirco ad alia digressionem fecisse. Secundo, accusat Concilium, quod falso insimulet Lutheranos, qui asserant, mixtio¬ nem aquae pugnare cum Christi institutione. At Concilium non nominat Lutheranos, sed generatim damnat eos, qui id asserunt : non defuisse autem qui id assererent, supra os¬ tendi ex Nicolao Yillagagnonio. Tertio, accusat Concilium, quod propter rem indifferentem, qualis est mixtio aquee cum vino, anathematizet eos, qui contrarium sentiunt. At Concilium non anathematizat (ut patet ex can. 9.) nisi eos, qui negant eam mixtionem fleri debere tamquam pugnantem cum institutione Christi, non est autem res indifferens, sed dogma necessarium, et ad fidem pertinens, quod Ecclesia nihil doceat pugnans cum Christi institutione. Deinde, licet ponere aquam in calice, ex se fortasse sit res indifferens, quia sine illa Sacramen¬ tum constare posset; tamen posteaquam expresse imperatum, vel a Deo immediate, vel per Concilia et Ecclesiam, ut id fiat, non est res indifferens, sed necessaria. Quarto, accusat Concilium, et totam Eccle¬ siam, quod istam mixtionem aquee faciant cum opinione falsa, quasi id esset necessa¬ rium et prseceptum, cum sit res libera. At jam diximus, non esse liberum, quod per Ecclesiam expresse praecipitur. Deus enim non reliquit liberum obedire, vel non obedire Ecclesiae, sed plane jussit, cum ait Luc. x. Qui vos audit , me audit (1). Quinto, accusat Ecclesiam, quod existimet non posse esse calicem Domini, nisi aqua ad¬ sit, et hanc vocat falsam opinionem necessa¬ rio taxandam. At opinio illa, quod attinet ad modum loquendi, S. Cypriani est lib. n. epist. 3. Quod ad rem attinet, non est Eccle¬ siae Catholicae, fortasse etiam nec S. Cypriani : nam, ut supra diximus, major pars Theolo¬ gorum docet, non esse aquam de necessitate Sacramenti . Ultimo, accusat Ecclesiam, quod tribuat mixtioni aquae cum vino id, quod erat tri¬ buendum communioni, nimirum unire fide¬ les cum Christo. At Kemnitius nimis crassus fuit, si intelligere non potuit unionem populi cum Christo fieri per mixtionem aquae cum vino, non reipsa, sed solum quoad significa¬ tionem. Sed de hiswhactenus.