Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 19: The Objections 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).
Now the arguments of the adversaries are to be resolved. And first Luther uses this argument, that Christ said: I came not to call the just, but sinners: and that while He lived here on earth He offered Himself to be touched by all, even by sinners.
I answer: Christ, when He first calls to Himself, calls sinners: for none can be just without Him. But those whom He has called to Himself, and by faith and penance and Baptism has justified and regenerated, and made His sons, or rather His members, then at length He nourishes with the food of His body. And so when the Lord says that He calls sinners, He speaks of the first calling to faith and penance; not of the invitation to the Eucharist. And that the same Lord suffered Himself to be touched by sinners while He lived here, He did this because He conversed with men after the human manner, by speaking, hearing, dealing, and that converse could be useful to sinners. But in the Eucharist the Lord does not so exist that He is seen, speaks, and teaches after the human manner, but exists after the manner of food, and of food useful only to well-disposed minds: wherefore it would bring no benefit to sinners. Add that if this argument concluded anything, it would make it that the Eucharist ought to be given also to heathens and heretics and children; for the Lord conversed also with such, and permitted Himself to be touched by them.
Another argument Calvin proposes, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 42. If he who is to approach the communion of the Eucharist must be purged from all sin, then as many men as ever were or are on earth will be excluded from this Sacrament. I answer: It does not follow.
He proves it in this way. For if this is the point, that we seek our worthiness from ourselves, it is all over with us. I answer: This is not the point, that our worthiness be sought from ourselves, but from the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord: for He left in the Church the power of reconciling sinners by true penance.
But Calvin objects on the contrary: Even if anyone try to expiate his sins by contrition, confession, and satisfaction, yet he will never be certain that he is without sin; therefore if none but the pure and purged can approach, no one ought to dare to approach.
I answer: God does not require that he who approaches the Sacrament be certain that he has no sins, but only that he do what the Apostle bids, 1 Corinthians 11, namely that he prove himself, and do what in him lies that his sin be purged. For those approach worthily who morally do what in them lies; not indeed by a worthiness of equality, or even of merit, as if they merited so great a gift, as Kemnitz lies that we say; since we rather confess in the very approach to Communion our unworthiness, saying with that pious Centurion: Lord, I am not worthy, etc.; but by that worthiness which God exacts from our weakness, which is rather non-unworthiness than worthiness. But those approach unworthily, not who have sins, but who have the affection or the consciousness of sin not yet expiated. Wherefore blessed Thomas, Part 3, question 79, article 3, teaches that he who perhaps has mortal sin, but has not the affection nor the consciousness of it, because after diligent examination it does not occur to him, and if it did occur he would without doubt take pains that it be expiated by the Sacrament: and has sorrow for all his sins, although that sorrow be not perfect contrition; he, I say, St. Thomas says, approaches not unworthily nor uselessly, nay plainly usefully. For although this Sacrament is not instituted to remit mortal sins, yet it confers sanctifying grace, and consequently blots out even mortal sins, if it find any in him who approaches not unworthily: for grace and sin can in no way remain together.
The third argument of Kemnitz is in the Examination, chapter 2. The Son of God calls the Eucharist the New Testament, Luke 22. But in the New Testament is included a pact concerning the remission of sins, as is clear from Jeremiah, chapter 31. And the argument is confirmed, because in the very institution of the Sacrament open mention is made of the remission of sins, when it is said: This is the blood which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.
I answer: The New Testament is taken in various ways. First for the will of the testator, and in this way the Eucharist is not called a Testament. Secondly for the inheritance, or the goods bequeathed by the testator, and in this way too the Eucharist is not a Testament. Thirdly for the public instrument, which is at once both a sign of the will of the testator and an instrumental cause of applying the inheritance: and in this way we confess that the Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, can be called the New Testament. And indeed if the Eucharist be called the New Testament because it is a sign of the will of the testator, there is no difficulty. For the Eucharist, because it is a sign and representation of the death of Christ, is also a sign of the will of the testator and of all the goods promised to us, and therefore also of the remission of sins. Nor does any of us deny that in the Eucharist is contained the remission of sins, inasmuch as by it is represented the shedding of the Lord's blood, by which all sins are remitted. And hence is resolved the confirmation of the Kemnitzian argument. For those words which are said in the institution, Which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins, do not signify that the blood is drunk unto the remission of sins, but that it was shed unto the remission of sins, and that this is represented by the Eucharist. But if the Eucharist be called a Testament as an instrumental cause of applying the inheritance, then we answer that the Eucharist is indeed a Testament in this way too, but that by it the inheritance is applied in another way than by the other Sacraments, and therefore that by it are applied the merits of Christ and the grace of God, which is the inheritance, not properly to remit sins, but to nourish the soul and preserve it from sins. Which is clear from the very nature of the Sacraments. For in Baptism the merits of Christ are applied by way of a laver, to wash away stains; in the Sacrament of Penance they are applied by way of a plaster or medicine, to cure wounds: but in the Eucharist they are applied by way of food and drink, to refresh and nourish and preserve from diseases.
It could also be said that the Eucharist applies the inheritance even as regards the remission of sins, but only then when it is necessary, namely when those who approach not unworthily have some mortal sins of which nevertheless they have not consciousness.
The fourth argument of the same Kemnitz, in the same place: In all the Liturgies are had prayers by which God is asked that He make the Sacrament to be for us unto the remission of sins.
I answer: For many causes it is prayed that the reception of the Sacrament may be unto the remission of sins. First, because it profits for blotting out mortal sins of which we have not consciousness, as we said above. Secondly, because it profits for taking away the punishment which remains to be paid even after the fault is remitted: whence also we pray for the sins of the departed in the Mass. Thirdly, because it profits for blotting out venial and daily sins, which do not extinguish the charity and life of the soul.
But against this is the fifth argument of the same Kemnitz, in the Examination, both chapter 2 and also chapter 7. If the Eucharist blots out venial sins, why can it not also blot out mortal? Is the power of the Lord's blood in this Sacrament so slight that it can blot out no sins but venial? Then if a man can approach the Sacrament with venial sin, why not also with mortal?
I answer: We do not deny that the power of the most holy Eucharist is so great that it can blot out mortal sins: for since it confers grace, by that very fact it can blot out sins, whatever it find that fight with grace, and sometimes it even does this. But we say that by the proper nature of the Sacrament it is not ordered to take away mortal sins, but to preserve spiritual life; because it is food, not a laver or a plaster: and by the same nature it belongs to it to take away venial sins. For venial sins in some way weaken the spirit, and induce a certain languor and weariness of the mind: but food has this property, that it refreshes the strength, and brings gladness and alacrity. Wherefore blessed Ambrose, Book 5 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, says that this Sacrament is called daily bread, because it is a medicine against daily sins. From the same reason we understand why it is lawful to approach with venial sins, and not with mortal, because namely the weak are wont to eat, the dead are not wont: and mortal sins kill the soul, venial do not kill, although, as I said, they in some way weaken it. Wherefore blessed Augustine, tract 26 on John: “Bring innocence to the altar; the sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly.”
Someone will say: If food does not profit the dead, as reason evidently teaches; then the Eucharist, which is a kind of food, will not profit those who are in mortal sin, although they have not consciousness of it. For food does not profit those who are not known to be dead, if they be really dead, any more than those who both are and are known to be dead.
I answer: The Eucharist is such a food that it not only nourishes the living, but also has power of raising the dead, as is clear from this, that it confers sanctifying grace, as we have often said. Nor yet ought those to approach it who have consciousness of mortal sin, because such approach unworthily, and by approaching sin, and therefore it does not profit, but even harms: and they approach unworthily, because they approach against the order prescribed by God. For God instituted this Sacrament after the manner of food, that it be received only by the living, and by friends and sons; and for the remission of mortal sins He instituted other remedies.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Solvuntur objectiones adversariorum. Nunc argumenta adversariorum dissol¬ venda sunt. Ac^primum Lutherus illo argu¬ mento utitur, quod Christus dixerit : Non veni vocare justos, sed. peccatores (1) : et quod dum hic in terris viveret, sesc tangendum omnibus exhibuerit etiam peccatoribus. Respondeo : Christus cum primum ad sc vocat, peccatores vocat: nulli enim sine ipso justi esse possunt. At quos ad se vocavit, et per fidem, et poenitentiam, ac Baptismum justificavit, et regeneravit, ac filios suos, seu potius membra sua fecit, tum demum illos cibo corporis sui alit. Itaque cum Dominus dicit se peccatores vocare, loquitur de prima vocatione ad fidem, et poenitentiam; non de invitatione ad Eucharistiam. Quod autem idem Dominus se tangi passus fuerit a pec¬ catoribus, dum hic viveret, id faciebat, quia versabatur cum hominibus more humano, loquendo, audiendo, tractando, et ea conver¬ satio utilis peccatoribus esse poterat. At in Eucharistia Dominus non ita existit ut videa¬ tur, loquatur, et doceat more humano, sed existit per modum cibi, et cibi utilis soluni mentibus bene dispositis : quare peccatori¬ bus nullum commodum afferret. Adde, quod si argumentum hoc aliquid concluderet, effi¬ ceret etiam dandam esse Eucharistiam eth¬ nicis, et luercticis, et pueris ; nam Dominus etiam cum talibus versabatur, et ab eis tangi se permittebat. Aliud argumentum proponit Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. xvii. §.42. Si ab omni pec¬ cato purgatum esse oportet, qui accessurus est ad communionem Eucharistia;, quotquot in terris unquam fuerunt, aut sunt homines ab hoc Sacramento arcebuntur. Itespondco : Non sequitur. Probat ille hoc modo. Nam si hoc agitur, ut nostram a nobis dignitatem petamus, actum de nobis est. Respondeo : Non hoc agitur, ut a nobis dignitas nostra petatur, sed a gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Domi- (I) Matth. IX, 13. 256 LIBER IV. num nostrum : ipse eniin reliquit in Ecclesia potestatem reconciliandi peccatores per ve¬ ram poenitentiam. Sed contra objicit Calvinus : Etiamsi quis contritione, confessione, et satisfactione pec¬ cata sua expiare conetur, tamen numquam certus erit, se esse sine peccato ; ergo si non nisi puri, et purgati accedere possunt, nemo audere debet accedere. Respondeo : Non requirit Deus, ut qui ac¬ cedit ad Sacramentum, certus sit se non ha¬ bere peccata, sed solum u* faciat, quod Apostolus jubet I Corinth. n. nimirum, ut probet seipsum, et faciat, quod in se est ut peccatum purgetur. Illi enim digne accedunt qui moraliter faciunt , quod in se est ; non quidem dignitate aequalitatis, vel etiam meriti, quasi mereantur tantum donum, ut Kenuiitius mentitur nos dicere ; cum potius fateamur in ipso accessu ad Communionem nostram indignitatem, dicentes cum pio illo Centurione : Domine non sum dignus , etc. sed dignitate illa, quam Deus a nostra imbe¬ cillitate exigit, queo potius est non indignitas quam dignitas. Illi autem indigne accedunt, non qui habent peccata, sed qui habent af¬ fectum vel conscientiam peccati nondum expiati. Quare beatus Thomas 3. par. qu. Lxxrx. art.3. docet eum, qui forte habet pec¬ catum mortale, sed non habet affectum, neque conscientiam, quia post diligens exa¬ men non ei occurrit, et si occurreret, sine dubio daret operam, ut per Sacramentum expiletur : et dolorem habet omnium pecca¬ torum suorum, licet non sit is dolor perfecta contritio, eum, inquam, dicit S. Thomas non indigne, nec inutiliter accedere, imo plane utiliter. Quia etsi hoc Sacramentum non sit institutum ad peccata mortalia remittenda, tamen gratiam confert gratum facientem, et consequenter delet etiam peccata mortalia, si qusc inveniat in eo, qui non indigne accedit: gratia enim cum peccato simul manere nullo modo potest. Tertium argumentum Kcmnilii est in Exa¬ mine 2 cap. Filius Dei Eucharistiam vocat Testamentum novum, Luc. xxii. Sed in novo Testamento includitur pactum de remis¬ sione peccatorum, ut patet ex Hicremia, cap. xxxi. Et confirmatur argumentum, quia in ipsa institutione Sacramenti fit aperta mentio remissionis peccatorum, dum dicitur : Hic est sanguis qui pro multis effundetur in re¬ missionem peccatorum (1). (1) Mattii. XVII, 28. Respondeo : Testamentum novum accipi¬ tur variis modis. Primo pro voluntate testa¬ toris, et hoc modo Eucharistia non dicitur Testamentum. Secundo pro hse re ditate, seu bonis a testatore legatis, et hoc etiam modo Eucharistia non est Testamentum. Tertio pro instrumento publico, quod simul sit, et signum voluntatis testatoris, et causa instru- mentalis applicanda) heereditatis : et hoc modo fatemur Sacramenta, et maxime Eu¬ charistiam dici posse Testamentum novum. Et quidem si Eucharistia dicatur Testamen- mentum novum, quia est signum voluntatis testatoris, nulla est difficultas. Nam Euchari¬ stia, quia est signum, et repraesentatio mortis Christi, est etiam signum voluntatis testa¬ toris et omnium bonorum nobis promisso¬ rum, atque adeo etiam remissionis peccato¬ rum. Neque ullus nostrum negat in Eucha¬ ristia contineri, remissionem peccatorum quatenus per eam repraesentatur effusio san, guinis Domini, per quam omnia peccata remittuntur. Et hinc solvitur confirmatio ar¬ gumenti Kemnitiani. Nam illa verba, quae dicuntur in institutione : Qui pro multis effun¬ detur in remissionem peccatorum , non signifi¬ cant, bibi sanguinem in remissionem pecca¬ torum, sed effusum fuisse in remissionem peccatorum, et hoc per Eucharistiam reprae¬ sentari. Si autem dicatur Eucharistia Testa¬ mentum, ut causa instumentalis applicanda) hsereditatis, tum respondemus esse quidem Eucharistiam etiam hoc modo Testamen¬ tum sed applicari per eam heereditatem alio modo, quam per alia Sacramenta, et ideo applicari per Christi merita, et gratiam Dei, qua) est hsereditas, non proprie ad peccata remittenda, sed ad animam nutriendam, et prteservandam a peccatis. Id quod 'patet ex ipsa ratione Sacramentorum. Nam in Bapti¬ smo applicantur Christi merita per modum lavacra, ad abluendas maculas ; in Sacra¬ mento Poenitentia) applicantur per modum emplastri, vel pharmaci ad curanda vulnera : in Eucharistia autem applicantur per modum cibi, et potus ad reficiendum, et nutriendum et praeservandum a morbis. Posset etiam dici, Eucharistiam applicare heereditatem etiam quantum ad remissionem peccatorum, sed tum solum, cum ea est ne¬ cessaria, nimirum, cum ii qui non indigne accedunt, habent aliqua peccata mortalia, quorum tamen conscientiam non habent. Quartum argumentum ejusdem Kemnitii, CAPUT XX. ibidem ; in omnibus Liturgiis habentur pre¬ ces, quibus oratur Deus, ut faciat Sacramen¬ tum nobis esse in remissionem peccatorum. Respondeo : Multis de causis oratur, ut Sacramenti perceptio sit in remissionem pec¬ catorum. Primo, quia prodest ad delenda peccata mortalia, quorum non habemus con¬ scientiam, ut supra diximus. Secundo, quia prodest ad tollendam poenam, quse remanet luenda etiam post culpam dimissam : unde etiam pro peccatis defunctorum oramus in Missa. Tertio, quia prodest ad delenda pec¬ cata venialia, et quotidiana, qua; charitatem et vitam animae non extinguunt. Sed contra hoc est argumentum quintum ejusdem Kemnitii in Examine tum. 2. cap. tum etiam 7. Si Eucharistia delet peccata venialia, cur non etiam mortalia delere pot¬ est ? num est tam exigua virtus sanguinis Domini in hoc Sacramento, ut delere non possit peccata, nisi venialia? Deinde si pot¬ est homo accedere cum peccato veniali ad Sacramentum, cur non etiam cum mortali? Respondeo : Non negamus tantam esse virtutem sanctissima; Eucharistia;, ut pec¬ cata mortalia delere possit : nam cum gra¬ tiam conferat, eo ipso peccata delere potest, qmnecumque invenerit, quae cum gratia pug¬ nent, et aliquando etiam id facit. Sed dici¬ mus ex propria ratione Sacramenti, non ordi¬ nari ad peccata mortalia tollenda, sed ad vitam spiritualem conservandam; quia cibus est, non lavacrum, vel emplastrum : et ex eadem ratione convenit ei peccata venialia tollere. Nam peccata venialia debilitant quo¬ dammodo spiritum, et languorem quemdam animi, ac lassitudinem inducunt : cibus au¬ tem id proprium habet, ut vires reficiat, et Isetitiam, atque alacritatem afferat. Quare B. Ambrosius lib. v. de Sacramentis cap. 4. dicit, Sacramentum hoc dici panem quoti¬ dianum, quia medicina est contra peccata quotidiana. Ex eadem ratione intelligimus, cur liceat accedere cum peccatis venialibus, et non cum mortalibus, quia nimirum homi¬ nes debiles comedere solent, mortui non so¬ lent : et peccata mortalia occidunt animam, venialia non occidunt, licet, ut dixi, aliquo modo debilitent. Quare beatus Augustinus tract. 26 in Joan. : n Innocentiam, inquit, ad altare portate, peccata etsi sunt quotidiana, vel non sint mortifera. » Dicet aliquis : Si mortuis cibus non prod¬ est,, ut ratio evidenter docet; non igitur Eucharistia, qua; cibus quidam est, proderit Tome IV. 267 iis, qui sunt in peccato motali, licet conscien¬ tiam ejus non habeant. Non enim magis prod¬ est cibus iis, qui mortui esse nesciuntur, si vere mortui sint, quam iis, qui et sunt, et sciuntur esse mortui. Respondeo : Eucharistia ejusmodi cibus est, ut non solum nutriat viventes, sed etiam vim habeat mortuos excitandi, ut ex eo patet quod gratiam gratum facientem confert, ut scope diximus. Nec tamen ideo ad eam acce¬ dere debent, qui habent conscientiam pec¬ cati mortalis, quia tales indigne accedunt, et accedendo peccant, et proinde non prod¬ est, sed etiam nocet : indigne autem acce¬ dunt, quia contra ordinem a Deo preescri- ptum accedunt. Deus enim instituit hoc Sa¬ cramentum per modum cibi, ut non nisi a viventibus, et amicis, et filiis sumeretur ; et pro remissione peccatorum mortalium alia remedia instituit.