Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 20: The Question Is Proposed, and the Opinion of the Adversaries on Communion Under One or Both Species
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).
Those things being explained which pertained to the nature and causes of this Sacrament, it follows now that we dispute of its use. And the primary use is the very communication or participation of the Eucharist; concerning which there is one principal controversy: namely whether the Eucharist must necessarily be participated under both species, or whether it be enough under one. And this question is to be diligently explained, because the heretics object nothing more often, nor anything more invidious, when among their own they accuse the Roman Church, than that against the express command of God it has deprived the people of the use of the chalice.
There will be six parts of this controversy. In the first we shall report the opinions of the heretics, and who have written at length on this subject. In the second we shall treat whether the whole Christ be in each of the two species; for this is the first root why both species may seem necessary. In the third we shall treat whether the whole nature of the Sacrament be found in one species. In the fourth, whether every fruit which is had from both species can be had also from one alone. In the fifth we shall treat whether by any divine precept the reception of both species is commanded. In the sixth we shall treat whether the Church has for just causes forbidden the laity the use of the chalice.
As to the first, the controversy on Communion under both species arose at Prague in Bohemia about the year of the Lord 1412, its authors two Germans, Peter of Dresden and Jacobel of Meissen. For, as Aeneas Sylvius writes in his history of the Bohemians, chapter 35, that Peter of Dresden, when he had lighted upon those words of the Lord, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you, John 6, wondered why, against so open a command of the Lord, all the laity were defrauded of the use of the chalice. And so he admonished Jacobel, who was then a preacher at Prague, and impelled him to instruct the people in a sermon that they could not be saved unless they drank of the chalice of the Lord. This article pleased all the heretics vehemently, as Aeneas testifies, because they saw that they had at length found an express passage of the Gospel against the use and doctrine of the Roman Church.
Then in this our age the Lutheran heretics succeeded, who, although they do not think that in John 6 the Sacrament of the Eucharist is treated of, and therefore do not make much of the foundation of the Hussites for Communion under both species; yet in opinion they nearly agree with them, and heap up not a few arguments from elsewhere.
And first Luther wrote various things on this article, as is clear from the Seven-Headed of John Cochlaeus, chapter 23, and from the table of Caspar Querhamer, where 38 contradictions on this one article are noted; but there are three chief changes of his, from which it appears how he always proceeded for the worse. For at the beginning of his Apostasy he wrote a certain declaration on a sermon on the Eucharist which he had delivered, where he speaks thus: “I have not said, nor advised, nor is it my intention, that one or several Bishops of their own authority begin to give both species to anyone, unless it be so instituted and commanded in some general Council.” Then a little after, in his Assertion, article 16, he thus changes that opinion: “It now seems advised to me that not only through a Council, but through every diocese any Bishop whatever, even against the will of the Pope, following Christ in the Gospel, should again give both species to the laity.” But last, in his formula of the Mass, he wrote thus: “If any Council should ordain or permit both species, we would by no means wish to use both, but in contempt of the Council and its statute would wish to use either one or neither, and least of all both, cursing all who by the power or statute of the Council should use both.”
He makes a similar progress as regards the communicating laity themselves. For in the cited sermon on the Eucharist he openly says that it is not necessary that both species be given to the laity. Afterward, however, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, he proves at length that by divine right the priests are compelled to give both species to the laity, if they wish it; yet he adds that it is free to the laity to receive one, or both, or even neither. But in his Assertion, article 16, he says that those who cannot obtain both species, if they omit at least to desire it, are impious, and that Christ is denied by them: and in his book on the Saxon Visitation he plainly condemns Communion under one species.
John Brenz, in his Apology for the Wurttemberg Confession, in the second part of the second pericope, disputes at length for the necessary use of both species; and the same Philip does in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession: but most fully of all whom I have seen, Martin Kemnitz in Part 2 of the Council of Trent, session 21, and Hermann Hamelmann in his book on Communion under both species: and of the Sacramentarians, Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, §§ 47, 48, 49, and 50, and in his Antidote to the Parisian articles, article 7.
Of the Catholics many have written copiously and learnedly: and among them Ruard Tapper in his explanation of article 13 of the Louvain articles; Albert Pigge in the Ratisbon controversies, controversy 7; John Eck in his homilies on the Sacraments; Cardinal Hosius in his Dialogue on Communion under both species; John Fisher of Rochester in his refutation of article 16 of Luther; Aeneas Sylvius in letter 130; Thomas Cajetan on Part 3 of St. Thomas, question 80; Dominic Soto on Book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 12, sole question, article 12; the Censure of the men of Cologne against the errors of Monheim, article 27, to which ought to be joined he who most eloquently defended that censure against Kemnitz, Diego Payva, in his seventh book, which is on the Lord's Supper; John of Louvain in his book on Communion under both species, where he chiefly refutes the book of a certain consultor who published without the name of the author a book on this matter, but afterward it was known that that author was George Cassander; Jodocus Tiletanus in his Apology for the Council of Trent. Lately too have written Claude Sainctes in his last repetition on the Eucharist: and William Allen, Book 1 on the Eucharist, chapter 39 and following, to the end of the book.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Proponitur quaestio , et sententia adversa¬ riorum de Communione sub una , vel utra¬ que specie. Explicabis iis, qua; ad naturam, et causas Sacramenti hujus pertinebant, sequitur nunc ut de usu disputemus. Usus autem primarius est ipsa communicatio, seu participatio Eu¬ charistia; ; de qua una est controversia prin¬ cipalis ; Utrum videlicet necessario partici¬ panda sit Eucharistia sub utraque specie, an satis sit sub altera. Est autem ha;c qua;- stio diligenter explicanda, quia hseretici nihil sa;pius, nec aliquid magis invidiosum obji¬ ciunt, cum apud suos Romanam Ecclesiam accusant, quam quod contra expressum Dei madatum privaverit populum usu calicis. Erunt partes sex hujus controversia;. In prima referemus htereticorum sententias, et qui de hoc argumento fuse scripserint. In secunda tractabimus, utrum totus Christus sit in quavis duarum specierum ; nam ha;c est prima radix, cur necessaria videri possit utraque species. In tertia tractabimus, an tota ratio Sacramenti in una specie reperia- tur. In quarta, an omnis fructus, qui ex utra¬ que specie habetur, haberi possit etiam ex altera tantum. In quinta tractabimus, utrum divino prsecepto aliquo preeeipiatur sumptio 17 LIBER IV. 258 utriusque speciei. In sexta tractabimus, utrum Ecclesia justis de causis prohibuerit laicis usum calicis. Quantum ad primum, controversia de Communione sub utraque specie, exorta est PragEe in Bohemia circa annum Domini 1412. auctoribus duobus Germanis, Petro Dresdensi, et Jacobello Misnensi. Nam ut scribit dEneas Sylvius in historia Bohemorum cap. 33, Petrus ille Dresdensis cum incidisset, in illa verba Domini : Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sangui¬ nem, non habebitis vitam in vobis (1), Joan. VI. miratus est cur contra tam apertum prae¬ ceptum Domini, laici omnes fraudarentur usu calicis. Itaque monuit Jacobellum, qui tum Pragae concionator erat, atque illum impulit, ut pro concione populum instrueret non posse eos salvari, nisi de calice Domini biberent. Placuit vehementer hic articulus omnibus haereticis, ut dEneas testatur, quod se invenisse tand un aliquando viderent ex¬ pressum locu n Evangelii contra usum, et doctrinam Romanae Ecclesiae. Successerunt deinde hoc nostro saeculo hae¬ retici Lutherani, qui licet non existiment Joan. vi. tractari de Sacramento Euchari¬ stiae, et ideo n ic magni faciant fundamentum Hussitaram pro Communione utriusque spe¬ ciei ; tamen in seut mitia cum idis fere conve¬ niunt, et aliunde argumenta non pauca co¬ acervant. Ac [trimum Lntherus varia scripsit de hoc aiticu'0, ut patet ex Septicipite Joannis Coch asi cap. 23. et ex tibula Gasparis (Juer- hameri, ubi notantur 38. contradictiones de hoc uno artic no ; sed tres sunt praecipuae ejus mutationes, e\ qmbus apparet quomodo seni: er in pejus prol. ceret. Nam initio suse Apostasiae scripsit dec. arationem quamdam }n sermonem de Eucharistia a se habitum; ubi sic loquitur : u Non dixi, inquit, neque consului, nec est intentio mea, ut unus, aut aliquot Epi copi propria auctoritate incipiant alicui utramque speciem porrigere, nisi ita in- sti, meretur, ac praeciperetur in aliquo generali Concilio. » Deinde paulo post in Assert. art. 16. ita mutat illam sententiam : « Gonsu tum mihi videtur nunc, ut non modo per Conci¬ lium, sed per quamque dioecesin! qui ibet Episcopus etiam invito Papa, Christum secu¬ tus in Evangelio, rursum utramque speciem laicis daret. » Sed postremo in formula Missae ita scripsit : « Si quod Concilium statueret^ aut permitteret utramque speciem, nos ne¬ quaquam utraque uti vellemus, sed in despe¬ ctum Concilii, ejusque statuti autuna, autneu- tra, et minime utraque uti vellemus, male¬ dicturi universos, qui ex potestate, aut statu¬ to Concilii utraque uterentur. » Similem progressum facit, quod attinet ad ipsus communicantes laicos. Nam in sermone citato de Eucharistia aperte dicit, non esse neeesse dari utramque speciem laicis. Post¬ ea tamen in 1 b. de captiv. Babyl. cap. 1. fuse probat, jure divino compelli sacerdotes, ut dent laicis utramque speciem, si ipsi eam velint; tamen addit liberum esse laicis unam, vel utramque, vel etiam neutram sumere. Sed in Assert. art. 16. dicit eos, qui non pos¬ sunt impetrare utramque speciem, si omit¬ tant saltem eam desiderare, impios esse, et Christum ab eis negari: et in libro de Saxo- nica visitatione, damnat plane Communio¬ nem sub una specie. Joannes Brentius in Apologia pro Confes¬ sione Wirtembergensi in 2. par. secundee pe- ricopes, prolixe disputat pro usu necessario ut.iusque speciei; et idem facit Philippus in Apologia Confessionis Augustana? : sed fusis¬ sime omnium, quo.-> viderim, Martinus Kem- nitius in 2. par. Concilii Tri dentini sess. xxi. et Hermannus Hamelmannus in lib. de Com¬ munione sub utraque specie : et ex Sacra- mentariis Calvinus lib iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 47. 48. 49. et 39. et in Antidoto articulo¬ rum Parisiensium art. 7. Ex Catholicis multi copiose, et docte scri¬ pserunt : et in iis Ruardus Tapper in explica¬ tione articuli 13. Lovaniensium, Albertus Pighius in controversiis Ratisponensibus con¬ troversia 7. Joannes Eckius in homiliis de Sacramentis. Cardinahs Ilosius in Dialogo de Cornmun one sub utraque specie. Joannes Rotfensis in refutatione art. 16. Lutheri. ./En eas Sylvius in epist. 130. Thomas Cajeta- nus in 3. par. sancti Thomse qusest. lxxx. Dominicus a Soto in iv. sentent. dist. 12. qusest. unica art. 12. Censura Co'oniensium contra errores Monhemii art. 27. cui adjun¬ gi debet, qui eam censuram contra Kemni- tium eloquentissime ’ propugnavit, Dieghus Payva in lib. vn qui est de ccena Domini. Joannes a Lovanio in lib. de Communione sub utraque specie, ubi pra?cipue refellit librum cujusdam consultoris, qui sine nomi- 4 ( i') Joan. VI, 54. CAPUT XXI. ne auctoris librum edidit dehac re, sed post¬ ea cognitum est, auctorem illum fuisse Georgium Cassandrum. Jodocus Tiletanus in Apologia pro Conciiio Tridentino. Scripse¬ runt etiam nuper Claudius Sainctes in ulti¬ ma repetitione de Eucharistia : et Wilhelmus Alanus lib. i. de Eucharistia cap. 39. et se¬ quentibus, usque ad finem libri.