Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 12: By What Words the Consecration of the Eucharist Is Made
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).
Concerning the form, which is the other cause of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, there are five controversies, but of these four have been explained in other places. The first controversy is whether any words are necessarily required for confecting the Eucharist. The second, whether those words ought to be consecratory or homiletic, that is, whether they ought to be said to instruct the people, or rather to consecrate the matter. The third, whether they ought to be certain and determinate words. And these three were explained accurately enough in the book on the Sacraments in general, chapters 19, 20, and 21. The fourth is what those words are, or whether those words alone, For this is my body, For this is the chalice, etc., pertain to the form in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And this question alone is to be explained in this place: from whose explanation the other three too will remain explained, as is known. For if those words alone constitute the form of the Sacrament, certainly it follows that some words are required, which was asked in the first question: and that those words are consecratory, not homiletic, which the second question demanded; and that the words are certain and determinate, of which was the third question. A fifth question could be about the sense of those words: but of this we treated most fully in the first book on the Eucharist, where we diligently sifted the several words.
The question, then, to be treated in this place is whether those words alone, For this is my body, and For this is the chalice of blood, etc., pertain to the form of this Sacrament. And indeed the Catholic Church with great consent teaches that those words alone pertain to the form. For so we have in the Council of Florence in the instruction of the Armenians, and in the Catechism of the Council of Trent: and the same teach the Theologians with the Master of the Sentences, Book 4, distinction 8, and the Jurists in Gratian, distinction 2 on consecration, and on the chapter Cum Marthae, in the Decretals, on the celebration of Masses. For although the Theologians dispute, and do not altogether agree among themselves, whether the several words which are had in the form of consecrating the chalice in the Latin Missals are of the essence of the form, yet all agree that all those words are of the integrity of the form, so that without sin none of them can be omitted, and the consent in this matter suffices that we may have something certain in the consecration and confection of so great a Sacrament.
But we have against this truth a great number of adversaries. The more recent Greeks contend that the Sacrament is confected not by those words alone, but by certain other prayers. So expressly teach Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, in his book on the words of consecration, and Nicholas Cabasilas in his explanation of the Liturgy, chapters 29 and 30, where he tries to convince the Latins even from the Latin Liturgy which we all use. The same opinion Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, briefly indicates in his Censure on the Augsburg Confession, chapter 10.
The heretics of this time have as yet been able to establish nothing certain, since they greatly dissent among themselves, and agree in this only, that they do not fully admit the opinion of the Catholic Church: I shall therefore briefly report the opinions. The first is of those who altogether reject words from the confection of this Sacrament; which opinion Kemnitz reports, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 1, and Joachim Westphal in the book entitled The Right Faith concerning the Supper. That opinion seems to have Martin Bucer for its author: for he, on chapter 26 of Matthew, openly writes that it is not necessary that the words be recited, because no Scripture teaches it; for the Lord bade the bread be broken and eaten, but did not bid it be said over the bread, This is my body.
The second opinion is of others, who will indeed that the words be recited, but by way of a sermon or reading to instruct the faith, not to consecrate the element. So Calvin teaches, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 39. For the Lord did not address the bread, but the Apostles, when He said, Take, eat. This is my body, etc. Wherefore in his formula of administering the Sacraments Calvin prescribes a reading from chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, and a sermon of the minister, and certain few little prefaces. This opinion the Lutherans everywhere reject, and especially Kemnitz in the noted place, although the Sacramentarians seem to have drawn it from Luther. For Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Baptism, openly wrote that it matters little by what words the Sacrament is confected, provided the faith of the receiver be present: for the Sacraments consist in the promise, which is not received except by faith.
The third is the opinion of others, who, as to the mode of speaking, come nearest to the truth, yet really dissent little from Calvin and much from the Church. These say that certain words are required for consecration, which are employed not only historically, or to instruct, but also to consecrate. This is the opinion of Kemnitz in the place cited, which, as he himself expounds it, differs in four things from the opinion of the Catholics. First, he thinks that to the essence of the form pertain all the words which the Lord spoke in the institution, namely, Take and eat, etc., and thence he reprehends the Catholics for having greatly mutilated the form of consecration. In which, however, he is either deceived or lies; for we too in the Mass say those words, Take and eat, etc., although we distinguish them from the words which are of the essence of the form. Wherefore we do not mutilate the words of the Lord, but only indicate which in those words pertain to the essence of the form.
Secondly he says that the words of Christ alone ought to be pronounced; from which he argues against the Catholics that they added certain things, as is clear from the canon of the Mass. But in this too he is deceived or lies. For all the words which we say are Christ's, although they are not had from the same passage, as we shall show below; and moreover those words which are added, as for in the form of consecrating the body, and the mystery of faith in the form of consecrating the blood, we do not think pertain to the essence of the form.
Thirdly he affirms that the words of consecration are indeed pronounced by the minister, but do not depend in any way on the quality of his person, as his consecration or intention. And hence he distinguishes his opinion from the opinion of the Catholics, namely because he himself says that the consecration is done by God through the mouth of the minister; but the Catholics think that consecration is the work of man, and therefore consider whether the priest be consecrated, and whether he have the intention, etc. But in this third point Kemnitz is greatly and openly deceived. For the Catholics do not deny that consecration is the work of God through the minister, but say that God does not use human ministry in this matter in the way He would use the ministry of a magpie, or of Balaam's ass, but uses the ministry of a man, as he is a man, in the way princes use the ministry of legates or judges; and therefore that not anyone can be the minister, but he alone who is ordained by God for this. Of which matter we disputed at length in the books on the Sacraments in general.
Fourthly he says that the Sacramental words ought not to be recited merely historically, as namely the Calvinists do; nor even so that they seem to sound something magical, as namely the Catholics do, but so that, God working, they be efficacious to bring it about that the bread be, and be called, the body of Christ, and the wine be, and be called, the blood, which by their nature did not agree to them. And here it is diligently to be noted that the words of Kemnitz sound one thing and signify another. For on purpose he speaks obscurely, because he could not easily recede from Calvinism without coming into the opinion of the Catholics; nor, on the contrary, recede from the Catholic opinion without slipping into Calvinism. But really he slips into Calvinism, although in his mode of speaking he seems most alien from it.
When, therefore, he says, and often repeats, that by the Sacramental words the bread becomes a body and the wine becomes blood, he does not affirm the same which the Catholics are wont to by like words. For we Catholics say that the Sacramental words, by divine institution, are true instruments of consecration, so that they have power, as instruments of God, of converting the bread into the body of the Lord, and the wine into the blood of the Lord, and this those men impiously and blasphemously call magic and incantation; but he will have the words to be efficacious, as instruments of God, not to make the conversion of the bread into flesh, but to signify the presence of the body of Christ with the bread. For that he attributes this alone to the Sacramental words is clear: first, because they do not believe that the bread is changed into the body of the Lord; therefore they do not attribute to the words a true efficacy of changing the bread into the body of the Lord; secondly, they hold (as we showed above) that the body of Christ is everywhere; therefore the words do not bring it about that the body of Christ begins to be present. Thirdly, John Brenz, from whom in this matter Kemnitz does not dissent, openly teaches that the words of consecration do not make, but only announce, the presence of the body of Christ. For in his book against Henry Bullinger, which is entitled Recognition, he proves by that argument that the Lutherans ought to believe the Ubiquity of the Lord's body, because otherwise they could not prove the presence of the Lord's body except by the efficacy of the papistical consecration; and thus they would be compelled to confess that the words of the Lord not only announce the presence of the Lord's body, but also make it. Fourthly, if Kemnitz attributed to the Sacramental words a true efficacy of changing the substance of the bread, without doubt he would not object to us magical incantation, unless he wished it to be common to himself too. Fifthly and finally, the same Kemnitz in the same place, when he explains how by those words the bread becomes the body of Christ, says nothing else than that we are made certain by those words that in the Lord's Supper the true body and blood of Christ is distributed: therefore according to his opinion by the words the bread becomes a body, because the presence of the Lord's body is signified and announced, as others more clearly said.
Hence we have that Kemnitz in words indeed admits that the words of the Lord are consecratory, but really acknowledges no true consecration, but only an instruction of faith: which opinion was refuted in the books on the Sacraments in general. We therefore in this place shall try to prove, against the Greeks and others, whether schismatics or heretics, that the words of the Lord, For this is my body, and For this is the chalice of blood, etc., are both necessarily required and alone sufficient for confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist: and therefore that the rest which is pronounced in the action of the Liturgy, whether they be readings or prayers, are indeed usefully employed to prepare souls for so great a mystery, yet that there is in them no power for confecting the Sacrament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Quibus verbis fiat consecratio Eucharistia. De forma, quae est altera causa Sacramen¬ ti Eucharistiae, quinque sunt controversiae, sed ex iis, aliis in locis explicatae sunt qua- tuor. Prima controversia est, utrum aliqua verba necessario requirantur ad Euchari¬ stiam conficiendam. Secunda, utrum ea verba debeant esse consecratoria, an concionalia, id est, utrum dici debeant ad populum in¬ struendum, an potius ad materiam conse¬ crandam. Tertia, utrum certa quaedam, et determinata verba esse debeant. Ac tres istae satis accurate explicatae sunt in lib. de Sa- mentis in genere, cap. 19,20 et 21. Quarta est, quaenam sint illa verba, sive utrum illa sola verba : Hoc est enim corpus meum, Hic est enim calix etc. pertineant ad formam in Sacramento Eucharistiae. Atque ista sola quaestio hoc loco explicanda est: ex cujus explicatione manebunt etiam aliae tres expli¬ catae, ut notum est. Si enim illa sola verba constituant formam Sacramenti, certe sequi tur, verba aliqua requiri, quod petebatur in prima quaestione : et verba illa esse conse¬ cratoria, non concionalia, quod secunda quaestio postulabat ; et verba esse certa, et determinata, de quo erat quaestio tertia. Quin¬ ta quaestio esse posset de sensu illorum ver¬ borum : sed de hac re fusissime egimus pri¬ mo libro de Eucharistia, ubi singulas voces diligenter excussimus. Est igitur quaestio hoc loco tractanda, utrum illa sola verba : Hoc est est enim cor¬ pus meum, et, Hic est enim calix sanguinis, etc. ad formam Sacramenti hujus pertineant. Et quidem Ecclesia catholica magno consen¬ su docet, illa sola verba ad formam pertinere. Ita enim habemus in Concilio Florentino in instructione Armenorum, et in Catechismo (1) Luc. X, 16. 234 LIBER IV. Concilii Tridentini : et idem docent Theologi cum Magistro sententiarum lib. iv. dist. 8. et Jureconsulti apud Gratianum distinet. 2. de consecratione ; et super caput, CumMarthse, extra, de celebratione Missarum. Et si enim Theologi disputent, nec inter se omnino conveniant, utrum singulae voces, quae ha¬ bentur in forma consecrationis calicis in Latinis Missalibus, sint de essentia formae tamen omnes conveniunt, omnes illas voces esse de integritate formae, ita ut sine pecca¬ to nulla earum omitti possit, et consensus in hac re sufficit, ut habeamus aliquid certi in consecratione, et confectione tanti Sacra¬ menti. Habemus autem contra hanc veritatem magnum numerum adversariorum. Graeci recentiores contendunt, non solis istis verbis, sed quibusdam aliis precibus confici Sacra¬ mentum. Ita ex professo docent, Marcus Episcopus Ephesinus in lib. de verbis conse¬ crationis, et Nicolaus Gabasila in explica¬ tione Liturgiae cap. 29 et 30. ubi conatur Latinos convincere ex ipsa etiam Latina Li- turgia, qua nos omnes utimur. Eamdem sen¬ tentiam breviter indicat Hieremias Patriar¬ cha Constantinopolitanus in Censura ad Au¬ gustanam Confessionem cap. 10. Haeretici hujus temporis nihil adhuc certi statuere potuerunt, cum inter se valde dissen¬ tiant, et in hoc solo conveniant, ut non inte¬ gre admittant Ecclesiae Catholicae senten¬ tiam : referam igitur breviter opiniones. Prima eorum est, qui verba omnino rejiciunt ab hujus Sacramenti confectione quam sen¬ tentiam referunt Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. Concilii Tridentini. sess xm. cap. 1 et Joa- chimus Westphalus in lib. qui inscribitur : Recta fides de Coena. Videtur ea sententia Martinum Bucerum habere auctorem : is enim in cap. xxvi. Matth. aperte scribit, non esse necessarium, ut recitentur verba, quod nulla Scriptura id doceat ; Domiilus enim jus sit panemfrangere, et manducare, sed non jussit dici super panem : Hoc. est corpus meum. Secunda sententia est aliorum , qui verba quidem recitari volunt, sed per modum con¬ cionis, : eu lectionis ad instruendam fidem, non ad elementum consecrandum. Ita Calvi¬ nus docet lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. § 39. Do¬ minus enim non alloquebatur panem, sed Apostolos, cum ait : Accipite, etc. manduca¬ te. Hoc est corpus meum et Quocirca in formula Sacramentorum ministrandorum praescribit Calvinus lectionem ex cap. ii. prioris ad Corinth. et concionem ministri, et paucas quasdam praefatiunculas. Hanc sen¬ tentiam Lutherani passim rejiciunt ac prae¬ sertim Kemnitius loco notato, licet eam ex Luthero hausisse Sacramentarii videantur. Lutherus enim in lib. de Captivit. Babyl. cap. de Baptismo, aperte scripsit, parum referre quibus verbis Sacramentum conficiatur, mo¬ do adsit fides accipientis : Sacramenta enim consistere in promissione, quae non accipi¬ tur nisi fide. Tertia est aliorum sententia, qui, quoad modum loquendi, proxime accedunt ad ve¬ ritatem, tamen reipsa parum dissentiunt a Calvino, et multum dissentiunt ab Ecclesia. Hi dicunt, verba certa requiri ad consecra¬ tionem, quae non historice tantum, sive ad instruendum, sed etiam ad consecrandum adhibeantur. ITaec est Kemnitii sententia lo¬ co citato, quae in quatuor, ut ipse eam expo¬ nit, differt a sententia Catholicorum. Primo enstimat ipse, ad essentiam formae pertinere omnia verba, quae Dominus in institutione locutus est, nimirum : Accipite et mandu¬ cate etc. et inde Catholicos reprehendit, quod formam consecrationis valde mutila¬ verint. In quo tamen, vel fallitur, vel men¬ titur ; nos enim in Missa etiam illa verba di¬ cimus : Accipite et manducato etc. licet ea distinguamus a verbis, quae sunt de essentia formae. Quare non mutilamus verba Domini sed tantum indicamus, quae in eis verbis ad essentiam formae pertineant. Secundo dicit, sola Christi verba debere pronuntiari ; ex quo arguit Catholicos, quod quaedam addiderint, ut ex canone Missae pers¬ picuum est. Sed in hoc etiam fallitur, aut men¬ titur. Nam verba omnia quae dicimus, Chris¬ ti sunt, licet non ex eodem loco habeantur, ut infra ostendemus ; et praeterea verba illa, quae adduntur, ut enim, in forma consecra¬ tionis corporis, et, mysterium fidei , in forma consecrationis sanguinis, non putamus ad essentiam forma; pertinere. Tertio affirmat, verba consecrationis pro¬ nuntiari quidem a ministro, sed non pendere ullo modo a persona; ipsius qualitate, ut consecratione, vel intentione. Et hinc distin¬ guit suam sententiam a sententia Catholi¬ corum, quod nimirum ipse dicat, consecra¬ tionem fieri a Deo per os ministri ; Catholici autem existiment consecrationem esse opus hominis, et ideo considerent an sacerdos sit consecratus, et an intentionem habeat etc. Sed CAPUT XI 11. 233 in hoc tertio valde Kemnitius aperte fallitur. Catholici enim non negant, consecrationem esse opus Dei per ministrum, sed dicunt Deum non uti ministerio humano in hac re, quomodo uteretur ministerio picee, aut asi- nee Balaam, sed uti ministerio hominis, ut homo est, quomodo utuntur Principes mini¬ sterio legatorum, aut judicum ; et proinde non posse quemlibet esse ministrum, sed eum solum, qui Deo ad hoc ordinatus est. De qua re disputavimus fuse in libris de Sacra¬ mentis in genere. Quarto dicit, verba Sacramentalia non de¬ bere recitari mere historice, ut nimirum Calvinistae faciunt ; nec etiam ita ut magi¬ cum quid sonare videantur, ut videlicet Ca¬ tholici faciunt, sed ita ut Deo operante effica¬ cia sint ad faciendum, ut panis sit, et dicatur corpus Christi, et vinum sit, et dicatur san¬ guis, quod ex natura sua illis non convenie¬ bat. Est autem hoc loco diligenter notandum verba Kemnifcii aliud sonare, aliud significa¬ re. Nam dedita opera obscure loquitur, quia facile non poterat a Galvinismo recedere, quin in sententiam Catholicorum veniret ; neque contra, a sententia Catholica recede¬ re, quin in Calvinismum laberetur. Revera autem in Calvinismum labitur, licet in modo loquendi ab eo alienissimus videatur. Cum igitur dicit, ac saepius repetit, per verba Sacramentalia panem fieri corpus, et vinum fieri sanguinem, non idem affirmat quod similibus verbis Catholici solent. Nam nos Catholici dicimus verba Sacramentalia ex divina institutione esse vera instrumenta con¬ secrationis, ita ut vim habeant tannuam in- strumenta Dei, convertendi panem in corpus Domini, et vinum in sanguinem Domini, et hoc illi impie etblaspheme magiam, et incan¬ tationem vocant ; ipse autem vult verba esse efficacia, ut instrumenta Dei, non ad facien¬ dam conversionem panis in carnem, sed ad significandam praesentiam corporis Christi cum pane. Nam quod hoc solum tribuat verbis Sacramentalibus, perspicuum est primo, quia ipsi non credunt mutari pa¬ nem in corpus Domini; ergo non tribuunt ver¬ bis efficaciam veram mutandi panem in corpus Domini ; secundo , sentiunt ipsi (ut supra ostendimus) corpus Christi esse ubique ; ergo verbA non faciunt, ut corpus Christi insipiat esse praesens. Tertio, Joan- nes Brentius, a quo in hac re non dissentit Kemnitius, aperte docet, verba consecratio¬ nis non facere, sed annuntiare solum prae¬ sentiam corporis Christi. Nam in libro con¬ tra Henricum Bullingerum, qui inscribitur Recognitio, illo argumento probat oportere Lutheranos credere Ubiquitatem corporis Do¬ mini, quia alioqui non possent probare prae¬ sentiam corporis Domini, nisi per efficaciam consecrationis papistiese ; atque ita coge¬ rentur fateri, verba Domini non solum an¬ nuntiare praesentiam corporis Domini, sed etiam facere. Quarto, si Kemnitius veram effipaciam mutandi substantiam panis tribue ret verbis Sacramentalibus, sine dubio non objiceret nobis magicam incantationem, nisi etiam sibi eam communem esse vellet. Quinto denique, ipse ibidem Kemnitius cum expli¬ cat quomodo per verba illa panis fiat corpus Christi, nihil aliud dicit, nisi nos certos red¬ di per ea verba, distribui in ccena Domini verum corpus, et sanguinem Christi : ergo ex ejus sententia per verba panis fit corpus, quia significatur, et annuntiatur praesentia corporis Domini, ut alii clarius dixerunt. Hinc habemus, Kemnitium verbis quidem admittere verba Domini esse consecratoria, reipsa autem non agnoscere ullam veram consecrationem, sed solam instructionem fidei : quae sententia refutata est in libris de Sacramentis in genere. Nos igitur hoc loco probare conabimur, contra Greecos, et alios sive schismaticos, sive haereticos, verba Do¬ mini : Hoc est enim corpus meum , et Hic est enim calix sanguinis etc.c t necessario requiri, et sola sufficere ad Sacramentum Eucharis¬ tiae conficiendum : proinde reliqua, quae in Liturgiae actione pronuntiatur, sive sint lec¬ tiones, sive preces, utiliter quidem adhiberi ad praeparandos animos ad tam magnum mysterium, non tamen in eis vim ullam ines- se ad Sacramentum conficiendum.