Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 17: On the Effect of the Eucharist, and on the Preparation for Communion: The Opinions of the Heretics
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 question of the effect of the Eucharist is so joined with the question of the preparation for Communion, especially according to the opinion of the adversaries, that they can in no way be separated. We therefore will first faithfully report what the adversaries think of each question. Then we will explain and prove the truth. Thirdly we will resolve their objections. Fourthly we will add something about the less principal preparation.
As to the first, then, Luther, the sower of new paradoxes to the ruin of many thousands of souls, taught three things. First, that the primary effect of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the remission of mortal sins. Secondly, that for a worthy preparation for Communion it is not required that one be not conscious to himself of mortal sin; nay, the more and the greater sins he is conscious of, the more apt he is for the Eucharist. Thirdly, that for the preparation for the Eucharist it is not required that one be justified from his sins by confession and penance, but that it is enough to have faith by which he certainly believes that in that Sacrament all his sins are to be remitted to him.
That this is the opinion of Luther is clear from many of his testimonies. In his sermon on the worthy preparation for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, delivered in the year 1518: “The best disposition,” he says, “is none but that by which thou art worst disposed, and on the contrary, thou art then worst disposed when thou art best disposed.” And he proves it, because Christ even in this Sacrament came not to call the just, but sinners: and in the same place he persuades to do penance not before Communion, but after. In the same place he says that it is a pernicious error if anyone approach relying on that confidence, that he has confessed, and that he is not conscious to himself of sin, and that he has premised prayers and other things. For all these, he says, receive the body of the Lord unto judgment, because by these preparations they are not made pure, but rather more polluted; but they are made pure by faith, which he says is the sole and highest disposition. The like he has in his sermon on confession and the Eucharist, delivered in the year 1519, where he says that he is most apt for Communion who has fallen into foul crimes which ill affect the mind. In his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, published in the year 1520: “We conclude,” he says, “from all these things, for whom the Mass is prepared, and who worthily communicate, namely those alone who have sad, afflicted, disturbed, confused, and erring consciences. For the word of the divine promise of this Sacrament, since it exhibits the remission of sins, whoever is vexed by his sins, whether by their biting or their tickling, safely approaches.”
And here in passing it is to be noted that within a few lines a most open contradiction is found in the words of Luther: for a little below, that is, in the last words of that chapter, he has thus: “Faith alone is the peace of conscience, unbelief alone the disturbance of conscience.” So he. And yet in the same place, in the midst of the sentences alleged, he exhorts Christians to approach with undoubted faith. Which indeed in no way cohere. For if those alone worthily approach who have a disturbed conscience, and unbelief alone is the disturbance of conscience; then those alone worthily approach who lack faith; for those who have faith have (as he himself says) a peaceful conscience, not a disturbed one. Let him then see how one must approach both with faith and with unbelief, with a peaceful and with a disturbed conscience.
In his book on abrogating the Mass, published in the year 1521, he teaches that it is madness to make oneself clean before Communion by preparatory confessions and prayers, since none ought to approach except those who need the remission of sins. In his treatise on the Communion of the people, published in the year 1523, he teaches that none ought to be admitted to Communion except those who say that they approach because they are vexed by the conscience of mortal sin. By which testimony Luther excommunicated the Blessed Virgin and all the Apostles after they had received the Holy Spirit: for these could not say that they were vexed by the conscience of mortal sin. In his sermon on the Eucharist, delivered in the year 1526, he says that he is most apt to communicate who before and behind is most contaminated with sins: and that none ought to approach without mortal sins. Finally he has the like in his book against the articles of Louvain, published in the year 1545, a little before the end of his life. And these things concerning the opinion of Luther.
Martin Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, session 13, chapters 2 and 7, admits and defends with all his might the first assertion of Luther, that the primary effect of the Eucharist is the remission of mortal sins. The other two he not only does not openly affirm, but rather teaches the contrary, at least as to the mode of speaking. For he will that for a worthy preparation for the Eucharist penance and the purpose of not sinning be required: and he adds too that among his own it is the custom that those who are to approach Communion be first examined and absolved. Which is had also in the Augsburg Confession, chapter on Confession and chapter on the Mass, where they say that they admit no one to Communion unless first examined and absolved.
But (as we shall presently see) that doctrine of Kemnitz fights with itself: for these things can in no way cohere, that the Eucharist be received for the remission of mortal sins, and yet that no one be permitted to approach unless he have first been absolved from his sins.
Kemnitz adds that he does not deny that there are also other effects of the Eucharist, as that it nourishes the soul, strengthens it, and communicates all the goods of Christ: and thence he complains of the Council of Trent, that in canon 5 it condemns the Lutherans, as if they thought there is no other effect of Communion than the remission of sins.
But Kemnitz complains without cause. For the Council in canon 5 neither names the Lutherans, and speaks under a distinction. For these are the words of the Council: “If anyone shall say that either the chief fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that from it no other effects proceed, let him be anathema.” Since therefore Kemnitz confesses that only the former part of this canon is against him, let him take what is his, and leave the rest to others.
Moreover Kemnitz, after his manner, mixes in many lies, which it would be long to report. One only I shall note most briefly, which is in the Examination, chapter 2, page 359, where he says that the Catholics so divide the grace of justification between the sacrifice of the Mass and the reception of the Eucharist, that to the sacrifice of the Mass they attribute, by the work worked, the remission of mortal sins without any trouble or danger of the sinner to whom that remission is made: but to the reception of the Eucharist they attribute only the remission of venial sins, and that not without great danger to the receiver, who, unless he approach pure, receives unto judgment. And hence he says it comes about that men among the Catholics are drawn back from Communion, and driven to buying Masses.
But this is a most impudent lie. For no one of the Catholics ever wrote that the sacrifice of the Mass, by the work worked, remits mortal sins without any trouble of the sinner, nor is there in the Church any custom of asking, much less of buying, Masses for the remission of sins. Nay, we attribute much more to the reception of the Eucharist, which we say confers by the work worked sanctifying grace, than to the sacrifice of the Mass, as it is offered for some sinner, which we only teach obtains for the sinner some special help, by which he may gradually return to his mind, and, not without any trouble, as Kemnitz lies, but by true contrition, confession, and satisfaction, at length come to the remission of sins.
John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, §§ 40, 41, and 42, says many things which seem altogether to fight among themselves, and on account of which the opinion of Calvin is not taken in the same way by all. For in § 40 he says thus: “This spiritual food, if it fall upon a soul polluted with malice and wickedness, precipitates it into a greater ruin.” So he. Where he seems to deny what the Lutherans say, that by the Eucharist mortal sins are remitted, and to require with the Catholics that a man be first justified by penance before he approach the Sacrament. Moreover in § 42 he says that faith and charity are required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist, and reprehends some for requiring a faith and charity too perfect and absolute, to which nothing can be added: whom he says err not in the thing, but in the manner. And so in these two places Calvin seems to think with the Catholics. But those whom Calvin reprehends for requiring a most perfect faith and charity are not Catholics, but Anabaptists. For of the Anabaptists Augustine Marlorat relates, in the exposition which he collected from various writers on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, that they protest before Communion that they have as great charity as Christ had hanging on the cross.
Moreover the same Calvin, in § 41, openly reprehends the Catholics for requiring, for a worthy preparation, that a man be in the state of grace: and for defining to be in the state of grace to be pure and purged from all sin. And in § 42 he most openly testifies that the Eucharist remits mortal sins, and that unless sins be present it is received in vain, as Luther said: “Let us remember,” he says, “that these sacred banquets are a medicine to the sick, a solace to sinners, a bounty to the poor; which to the healthy, the just, and the rich, if any such could be found, would bring no benefit.” And below: “Since it is given for life, we understand that without it we are plainly dead in ourselves.” So he.
Which two assertions of Calvin, according to true theology, manifestly fight among themselves. For that the soul be not polluted with wickedness, and have faith and charity, which in the first assertion Calvin requires, constitute a man without doubt just, living, and healthy: and yet in the second assertion the same Calvin requires that a man be not just, but a sinner; not healthy, but sick; not living, but dead; otherwise, he says, the Eucharist profits him nothing. But although these fight among themselves according to the principles of true Theology, yet according to his own principles they in some way cohere. For when he says that the soul ought not to be polluted, but endowed with faith and charity, he signifies, as he himself expounds, that it ought not to have the purpose of sinning, or of persevering in sin, but rather the desire of living well and the confidence of remission. Wherefore a man will at once be unclean and dead, because he really has mortal sins; and yet will be not unclean, because he has not the affection nor the purpose of remaining in them.
Now the Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, session 13, chapters 2 and 7, and canons 5 and 11, teaches two things. First, that the chief effect of the Eucharist is not the remission of mortal sins, but the nourishment of the soul and preservation from sins, and other things which follow from the increase of grace and charity which this Sacrament brings with it. Secondly, it teaches that the preparation for the Eucharist is not faith alone, but true penance and confession of sins, if anyone after Baptism has fallen into mortal sins.
And because concerning the other effects of the Eucharist the adversaries agree with us, as Kemnitz confesses, the whole question is reduced to this article: Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist exhibits the remission of mortal sins of which a man has consciousness: or (and it is the same) Whether for communicating worthily it is required that a man have not consciousness of mortal sin. For all the Catholics teach that the Eucharist does not remit sins of that kind of which a man has consciousness, and therefore that it is required that they be first purged. But the heretics think the contrary: nor can they think otherwise, if they wish to follow the principles of their doctrine. For they acknowledge no other justification than the remission of sins: for they will not that grace be infused which makes a man really just before God, or juster. But they will that all the Sacraments be instruments of justification; wherefore they are compelled to say that all the Sacraments remit sins, and that this is their proper effect.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. De effectu Eucharistiae, et de praeparatione ad Communionem : sententiae haereticorum. Quaestio de effectu Eucharistiae auleo con¬ juncta est cum quaestione de praeparatione ad Communionem, praesertim ex sententia adversariorum, ut nullo modo separari que¬ ant. Nos igitur primum fideliter referemus quid adversarii de utraque quaestione sen¬ tiant. Deinde explicabimus, et probabimus veritatem. Tertio solvemus eorum obje¬ ctiones. Quarto addemus aliquid de praepa¬ ratione minus principali. Quod igitur ad primum attinet, Lutherus novorum paradoxorum in perniciem multo¬ rum millium animarum seminator, tria do¬ cuit. Primo effectum primarium Sacramenti Eucharistiae esse remissionem mortalium peccatorum. Secundo, non requiri ad dig¬ nam praeparationem Communionis, ut quis non sit sibi conscius peccati mortalis, imo quo plurium , et majorum sibi conscius est, eo esse aptiorem ad Eucharistiam. Ter¬ tio, ad praeparationem Eucharistiae non re¬ quiri, ut quis per confessionem, et pceni- tentiam a peccatis justificetur, sed satis esse fidem, qua certo credat sibi in eo Sacramen¬ to omnia peccata esse remittenda. Hanc esse Lutheri sententiam patet ex multis ejus testimoniis. In concione de digna praeparatione ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae, habita anno 1518 : « Optima, inquit, dispo¬ sitio est, nonnisi ea, qua pessime es dispo¬ situs, et e contrario, tunc pessime es disposi¬ tus, quando optime es dispositus. » Et pro¬ bat, quia Christus etiam in hoc Sacramento non venit vocare justos, sed peccatores : et ibidem suadet poenitentiam non agere ante Communionem, sed postea. Ibidem dicit esse perniciosum errorem, si quis accedat nixus ea fiducia, quod sit confessus, et quod non sit sibi conscius peccati, et quod orationes, et alia praemiserit. Hos enim omnes dicit, in judicium accipere corpus Domini, quia his praeparationibus non fiunt puri, sed magis polluuntur; fiunt autem puri per fidem, quam dicit esse solam, et summam dispositionem. Similia habet in concione de confessione et Eucharistia, habita anno 1519. ubi dicit, il¬ lum esse aptissimum ad Communionem, qui in foeda crimina prolapsus est, quae ma¬ le afficiunt animum. In lib. de Captivit. Ba¬ bylonica cap. de Eucharistia, edito anno. 1520 : «Concludimus, inquit, ex omnibus his, quibusnam Missa parata sit, et qui digne communicent, nempe soli illi, qui tristes, afflictas, perturbatas, confusas, et erroneas habent conscientias. Nam verbum di vi me promissionis hujus Sacramenti, cum exhi¬ beat remissionem peccatorum, secure acce¬ dit, quicumque peccatorum suorum vexatur, sive morsu, sive titillatione. » Est autem hic obiter notandum, intra paucas lineas apertissimam contradictio¬ nem inveniri in verbis Lutheri : nam paulo infra, id est, in ultimis verbis illius capitis, sic habet : « Fides sola est pax conscientiae, infidelitas sola turbatio conscientiae. » Haec ille. Et tamen ibidem in medio sententia¬ rum allegatarum, hortatur Christianos, ut cum fide indubitata accedant. Quae sane nullo modo cohaerent. Nam si illi soli digne acce¬ dunt, qui habent turbatam conscientiam et sola infidelitas turbatio conscientiae est; ergo soli illi digne accedunt, qui carent fide ; qui enim fidem habent, pacatam (ut ipse di¬ cit ) conscientiam habent, non perturba¬ tam. Viderit ergo ipse, quomodo et cum fide, et cum infidelitate, cum pacata, et cum turbata conscientia accedendum sit. In lib. de abroganda Missa, edito anno 1521. docet furorem esse praeparatoriis con¬ fessionibus, et orationibus se mundos red¬ dere ante Communionem, cum non debeant accedere, nisi qui egent remissione peccato¬ rum. In tractatu de Communione populi, edito anno 1523. docet non debere admitti ad Communionem, nisi eos, qui dicunt se accedere, quia vexantur conscientia peccati 230 LIBER IV. mortalis. Quo testimonio Lutherus B. Virgi¬ nem, et omnes Apostolos post acceptum Spiritum sanctum excommunicavit : neque enim isti dicere poterant, se vexari conscien¬ tia peccati mortalis. In sermone de Eucha¬ ristia, habito anno 1326. dicit illum esse a- ptissimum ad communicandum qui ante, et retro est peccatis contaminatissimus : et sine peccatis mortalibus nullum debere accedere. Denique similia habet in lib. contra articu¬ los Lovanienses, edito anno 1345. paulo ante vita3 ipsius finem. Atque heee de Lutherisen- tentia. Martinus Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis, sess. xm. cap. 2. et 7. admittit, et propugnat pro viribus primum Luth eri pronuntiatum, effectum primarium Eucharistiae esse remis¬ sionem peccatorum mortalium. Alia duo non solum non aperte affirmat, sed potius contrarium, saltem quoad modum loquendi docet. Vult enim requiri ad dignam praepa¬ rationem Eucharistiae poenitentiam, et pro¬ positum non peccandi : et addit etiam apud suos in more positum esse, ut prius exami¬ nentur, et absolvantur, qui accessuri sunt ad Communionem. Quod habetur quoque in Confessione Augustana cap. de Confessione, et cap. de Missa, ubi dicunt, neminem se ad¬ mittere ad Communionem, nisi antea dis¬ cussum, et absolutum. Sed (ut mox videbimus) doctrina ista Kem- nitii ipsa secum pugnat : nec enim ullo mo¬ do ista cohserere possunt, ut Eucharistia accipiatur ad remissionem mortalium pec¬ catorum, et tamen nemo accedere permittatur nisi prius a peccatis fuerit absolutus. Addit Kemnitius, se non negare alios esse etiam effectus Eucharistiae, ut quod animam nutriat ; roboret, et omnia Christi bona com¬ municet : et inde queritur de Concilio Tri- dentino, quod can. 5. damnet Lutheranos, quasi sentiant, nullum esse alium effectum Communionis, nisi remissionem peccatorum. Sed immerito Kemnitius conqueritur. Nam Concilium canon. 5. neque Lutheranos no¬ minat; etsub distinctione loquitur. Haec enim sunt verba Concilii : « Si quis dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum sanctissimae Euchari¬ stiae esse remissionem peccatorum, vel ex ea non alios effectus provenire, anathema sit. » Cum igitur Kemnitius solam priorem partem hujus canonis contra se esse fateatur, acci¬ piat quod suum est, reliquum dimittat aliis. Multa praeterea pro more suo mendacia admiscet Kemnitius, quae longum esset re¬ ferre. Unum tantum quam brevissime anno tabo, quod est in Examine cap. 2. pag. 359. ubi dicit Catholicos ita dividere gratiam justificationis inter Missae sacrificium, et sumptionem Eucharistiae, ut Missae sacrificio tribuant ex opere operato remissionem pec¬ catorum mortalium sine ullo negotio vel pe¬ riculo peccatoris, cui fit illa remissio : sum¬ ptioni Eucharistiae tribuant solum remissio¬ nem venialium, et eam non sine magno periculo sumentis, qui nisi purus accesserit, in judicium sumet. Atque hinc fieri dicit, ut homines apud Catholicos retrahantur a Communione , et allidantur ad emendas Missas. Sed hoc impudentissimum est mendacium. Nullus enim Catholicorum unquam scripsit, sacrificium Missae ex opere operato remit¬ tere peccata mortalia sine ullo negotio pec¬ catoris, nec ullus in Ecclesia est usus pe¬ tendi, nedum emendi missas pro remissione peccatorum. Imo multo amplius tribuimus sumptioni Eucharistiae, quam dicimus ex opere operato conferre gratiam gratum fa¬ cientem, quam sacrificio missae, ut pro pec¬ catore aliquo offertur, quod solum docemus impetrare peccatori aliquod speciale auxi¬ lium, quo is pausatim ad mentem redeat, et non sine ullo negotio, ut Kemnitius menti¬ tur, sed per veram contritionem, confessio¬ nem, et satisfactionem ad remissionem pec¬ catorum tandem perveniat. Joannes Calvinus lib. iv. Inst. cap. 17. §. 40. 41. et 42. multa dicit, quae videntur inter se omnino pugnare, et ob quae non eodem modo ab omnibus accipitur Calvini sen¬ tentia. Nam. §. 40. sic ait : « Cibus hic spiri¬ tualis si in animam inciderit malitia, nequi¬ tiaque pollutam, majore illam ruina praeci¬ pitat. » Haec ille. Ubi videtur negare, quod Lutherani dicunt, per Eucharistiam remitti peccata mortalia, et requirere cum Catho¬ licis, ut homo ante per poenitentiam justifi¬ cetur, quam ad Sacramentum accedat. Prae¬ terea §. 42. dicit requiri fidem, et charita- tem ad dignam sumptionem Eucharistiae, et reprehendit quosdam, quod requirant fidem, et charitatem nimis perfectam, et absolu¬ tam, cui nihil addi potest : quos dicit errare non in re, sed in modo. Itaque in his duobus locis videtur Calvinus cum Catholicis sentire. Quos autem reprehendit Calvinus, quod re¬ quirant perfectissimam fidem, et charita¬ tem, ii non sunt Catholici, sed Anabaptistec. Nam de An abaptistis refert Augustinus Mar- CAPUT XVIII. 251 loratus in expositione, quam ex variis scri¬ ptoribus collegit in cap. xi. prioris ad Corin¬ thios, eos ante Communionem protestari, se habere tantam charitatem, quantam habuit Christus in cruce pendens. Porro idem Calvinus, §. 41. aperte Catho¬ licos reprehendit, quod requirant ad dignam prceparationem, ut homo sit in statu gra¬ tiae : et in statu gratia? esse definiant, purum, ac purgatum esse ab omni pec¬ cato. Et §. 42. apertissime testatur, Eucha¬ ristiam remittere peccata mortalia, et nisi peccata adsint, frustra sumi, ut Lutherus dicebat: «Meminerimus, inquit, has sacras epulas aegrotis esse pharmacum, peccato¬ ribus solatium , pauperibus largitionem ; quae sanis, justis, et divitibus, si qui repe- riri possent, nullum afferent operae pre¬ tium. » Et infra : « Cum in vitam detur, in- telligimus nos sine ipso in nobis plane mor¬ tuos esse. » Haec ille. Quae duo Calvini pronuntiaita secundum veram theologiam inter se manifeste pug¬ nant. Nam animam non esse pollutam ne¬ quitia, et habere fidem, et charitatem, quae in primo pronuntiato Calvinus requirit, ho¬ minem sine dubio justum, vivum, et sanum constituunt : et tamen in secundo pronun¬ tiato requirit idem Calvinus ut homo non sit justus, sed peccator; non sanus, sed aegro¬ tus ; non vivus, sed mortuus ; alioqui nihil ei prodesse dicit Eucharistiam. Sed quamvis haec inter se pugnent, secundum principia vera? Theologiae, tamen secundum principia ipsius aliquo modo cohaerent. Nam cum dicit, animam non debere esse pollutam, sed fide, et charitate pra?ditam, significat, ut ipse se exponit, non debere habere proposi¬ tum peccandi, seu perseverandi in peccato, sed desiderium potius bene vivendi, et fi¬ duciam remissionis. Quare simul erit homo immundus, et mortuus, quia revera peccata mortalia habet ; et erit tamen non immun¬ dus, quia non habet affectum, nec propo¬ situm permanendi in illis. Jam vero Catholica Ecclesia in Concilio Tridentino, sess. xiii. cap. 2. et 7. etean. 5. et 11. duo docet. Primo, effectum Eucha¬ ristiae pra?cipuum non esse remissionem peccatorum mortalium, sed nutritionem ani¬ mal, et preeservationem a peccatis, et alia qua? sequuntur ex augmento gratia?, et cha- ritatis, quam secum affert hoc Sacramen¬ tum. Secundo docet, pra?parationcm ad Eu¬ charistiam non esse solam fidem, sed veram . poenitentiam, et confessionem peccato rum si quis post Baptismum in peccata mortalia lapsus sit. Et quia de aliis effectibus Eucharistia? con¬ veniunt nobiscum adversarii, ut Kemnitius fatetur, tota quaestio ad hunc articulum re¬ vocatur : Utrum Sacramentum Eucharistiee exhibeat remissionem peccatorum morta¬ lium, quorum homo conscientiam habet : sive (et est idem) Utrum ad digne commu¬ nicandum requiratur, ut homo non habeat conscientiam peccati mortalis. Catholici enim omnes docent, Eucharistiam non remit¬ tere ejusmodi peccata, quorum homo con¬ scientiam habet, et ideo requiri ut antea purgentur. Hairetici autem contrarium sen¬ tiunt : nec possunt aliter sentire, si sequi ve¬ lint principia suae doctrina?. Nam illi non agnoscunt aliam justificationem, quam re¬ missionem peccatorum : non enim volunt infundi gratiam, quae hominem reipsa ju¬ stum coram Deo, vel justiorem efficiat. Vo¬ lunt autem Sacramenta omnia esse instru¬ menta justificationis; quare coguntur dicere, Sacramenta omnia remittere peccata, eum- que esse proprium illorum effectum.