Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 22: That the Whole Nature of the Sacrament Is Found in One 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).
It is asked, then, secondly, whether in one species the whole nature of the Sacrament is found. For hence the heretics greatly inveigh against the Catholics, that they mutilate the Sacrament of the Lord, and give it thus mutilated and imperfect to the laity. For either the bread and the chalice are two Sacraments, or one. If two, then they defraud the people of an entire Sacrament, who deny them the chalice. If one, then a halved Sacrament is given to the laity. And the argument is confirmed. For the Eucharist is a spiritual banquet: but for a banquet food does not suffice, but drink too is required; wherefore they treat the people uncivilly, who invite them to the sacred feast, and give them only food without drink.
That this question may be easily and clearly explained, it must be recalled to memory that the Eucharist can be considered in three ways. First, as a sacrifice. Secondly, as a pledge of divine love. Thirdly, as a Sacrament. Of each we shall briefly explain whether they can be preserved in one species alone, although our chief question is about the Sacrament.
Let this, then, be the first proposition: “The Eucharist, as it is a pledge of love, can excellently be preserved in either species.” For the Eucharist is a pledge inasmuch as it signifies and exhibits Christ present: and this either species does. Whence also the Catholic Church exhibits only one species to be beheld outside the sacrifice, and carries it about in procession.
Second proposition: “In one species the nature of a sacrifice is not perfectly and entirely had, but both are necessary.” For the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, signifies the Passion of Christ: for it is a certain imitation of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross. But the species of bread alone does not exactly represent Christ as dead, unless from the other part the blood be beheld as shed. And likewise the species of wine alone does not sufficiently represent Christ as immolated; for the blood alone is not the victim. Moreover in the sacrifice of the Mass there ought to be really what was in type in the sacrifice of Melchisedech, since Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, Psalm 109. But Melchisedech offered bread and wine, Genesis 14. Finally the sacrifice is properly ordered to the remission of sins; whence it is called propitiatory: but without the shedding of blood there is no remission, Hebrews 9. It was necessary, therefore, that the shedding of blood be clearly represented.
The same is gathered from the custom of the Church, which never allowed in any case the sacrifice to be offered without both species, if both species could be had. For in the Seventh Council of Toledo, canon 2, it is ordained that if a priest after the sacrifice begun, that is, after one species is consecrated (as that decree is commonly expounded), begin to fall so sick that he cannot proceed, another priest succeed and complete the sacrifice. And St. Thomas, Part 3, question 83, article 6, adds that if a priest after one species is consecrated remember that he is not fasting, or is in mortal sin, or excommunicate, or hindered by another bond, he grieve in his heart with the purpose of doing afterward what he ought, and in no way leave the sacrifice imperfect. And so the necessity of the two species, which the adversaries do not notice, pertains chiefly to the sacrifice.
Third proposition: “In either species is found the whole essence and nature of the Sacrament: so that the consecrated host, as it is preserved in the churches, and as it is received by the laity, without the species of wine, ought absolutely, truly, and properly to be called the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not a mutilated or halved Sacrament.” Which opinion is had expressly in the Council of Trent, session 21, chapter 3, where it is defined that under one species not only the whole Christ is received, but also a true Sacrament.
Now this opinion is proved. For in every Sacrament are required signification and causality: for a Sacrament is a sign and cause of grace. But these are found in either species, that is, both in the species of bread and in the species of wine taken separately. Since the signification of the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, is twofold, according to its twofold effect. The first is the signification of the internal refreshment. The second is the signification of the union of the faithful among themselves and with Christ. Of the first it is said, John 6: My flesh is truly food, etc. Of the second, 1 Corinthians 10: We being many are one bread and one body, who partake of the one bread.
But each signification is found in either species. For in the species of bread the refreshment of the soul is sufficiently signified, even if the species of wine were not added, and likewise in the species of wine, even if the species of bread were not added. For although the species of bread does not signify spiritual refreshment except by way of food, and the species of wine does not signify the same refreshment except by way of drink: yet that something may be called absolutely and truly a Sacrament, it is enough if it signify some spiritual refreshment, and really effect the same. Wherefore those two signs, namely the species of bread and the species of wine, seem to be not so much essential as integral parts of this Sacrament: from which it follows that the Eucharist under one species is a true and entire Sacrament essentially, although it can also be called a part of the Sacrament, if the material parts of the external symbol be considered. And I said (on the part of the external symbol), for on the part of the thing signified, that is, on the part of the spiritual refreshment, nothing is lacking to either species: since in spiritual refreshment food and drink are not distinguished, but it is one and the same thing that both nourishes, which is the office of food, and refreshes, or waters and inebriates the mind, which is the office of drink. And so in the divine writings justice and wisdom and the like are said to be hungered and thirsted for, as food and drink, Matthew 5: Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be filled. You see the same justice is both food and drink. And Ecclesiasticus 24: They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst. And Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, in express words says that the spiritual food and drink pertain to the same nature: and the like Augustine teaches on that of the Psalm: That bread may strengthen the heart of man. Wherefore in John 6, although the Lord says, My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink, yet in the same place He says: He that eateth this bread shall live forever; and he that eateth me shall live by me.
Now as to the other signification, it is manifest that in the species of bread alone the union of the faithful with Christ, and among themselves, is excellently signified. For bread, inasmuch as it consists of many grains reduced into one, signifies the union of the faithful; inasmuch as it consists of flour and water, it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, as Cyprian testifies, Book 2, letter 3 to Caecilius. Wherefore blessed Paul, when he had said, We are one body who partake of one bread, did not think it should be added, and we drink of one chalice; because namely he understood that from the species of bread alone this union is sufficiently signified. The same can be said of the species of wine. For wine, which flows together from many grapes, designates the union of the faithful among themselves; and that in the sacred chalice water is mixed with wine, the same Cyprian witnessing, represents the union of Christ with the Church. As to this signification, then, nothing can be desired in either species for a true and entire Sacrament.
Now as to the causality, or efficiency, the same is found in either species of this Sacrament: for the whole efficiency arises from Christ Himself, who is contained under those species, as we said above when we disputed of the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But Christ is the same and whole both under the species of bread and under the species of wine, as was demonstrated in the preceding chapter: wherefore the same efficiency is in the species of bread which is in the species of wine; and the same in each severally which is in both taken together.
To this is added that each species has its own matter, its own form, and, what is more, is confected by a certain proper action and consecration, nor does one species in any way, that it be a Sacrament, depend on the other. For the Lord first under the species of bread confected the Sacrament and gave it to be eaten, and then, the eating being finished, under the species of wine confected the Sacrament and delivered it to be drunk. And the Catholic Church, not without cause, after the species of bread is consecrated, exhibits the Sacrament to the people to be adored before it sets about consecrating under the species of wine.
There is added too the common consent of the faithful: for no one seeing the consecrated host says that it is a part of the Sacrament, or a mutilated Sacrament, but all call it a Sacrament simply.
Finally are added the types and figures of the Old Testament. For those figures which were of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, consisted in the eatable species alone, or in the species of drink alone; as is clear of the loaf of proposition, of the paschal lamb, and of the manna, which were given without drink: and in the water gushing from the rock, which was given without any mystical food. For although the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10, joins the spiritual food, that is, the manna, and the spiritual drink, that is, the water from the rock: yet those two figures are distinct, and given at different times. For the manna was given in the desert of Sinai, Exodus 16, and afterward the water at Rephidim, Exodus 17. Wherefore the Lord, John 6, where He compares the manna with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, makes no mention of water; and there the Lord, as a sign of the same thing, multiplied loaves by a notable miracle, but did not multiply wine or water.
Fourth proposition: “The two species of the Sacrament, when they are received together, are not two Sacraments, but one.” Note that the two species of the Sacrament can be received in two ways. First, together, as they are now received by the priests in the Mass. Secondly, not together, but at different times, as if anyone today received the species of bread alone, another day the species of wine alone. And if they be received in the second way, that is, at different times, then without doubt they are two Sacraments distinct in number. For each of itself is an entire Sacrament, as we showed in the preceding proposition: and there are there two diverse refreshments, not otherwise than if anyone communicated under the species of bread at two different times. But if they be received together, as the priests do, then they are not two Sacraments, but one, because they are ordered to one refreshment, and signify one thing, and produce one effect. Something similar we discern in bodily banquets: for if anyone set three, or four, or more dishes at the same time on the table, all these will make one banquet: but if two only be set today, and the rest tomorrow, then there will be two banquets. Likewise in Baptism, if anyone at the same time be immersed thrice, there will be one Baptism: but if at different times with a threefold repetition of the form, there would be three Baptisms. And in the Sacrament of the altar, if anyone at one time receive two or more particles, he receives one Sacrament; but if at different times, there will be several Sacraments. For although each particle contains an entire Sacrament, yet when it is joined to another, the Sacraments are not multiplied, but only that which is material in the symbol is increased.
From these things we answer the argument of the adversaries made at the beginning, that an entire Sacrament is given to the people, not a mutilated or halved one; since in either species separately is found the nature of a true and entire Sacrament.
You will say: If that which the layman receives is entire, then there are two entire Sacraments which are received by the priest. I answer: The consequence is denied. For the two species taken together do not make two Sacraments; just as neither do two consecrated particles joined together, nor two chalices of blood existing on the same altar, nor three immersions three Baptisms.
To the confirmation I answer that to the people is given spiritual food, which is the entire and total refreshment, and virtually contains food and drink, as we showed above. Nor does it stand in the way that by the priests, in the very sacrifice, the Eucharist is received distinctly by way of food and by way of drink: for this is done chiefly on account of the integrity of the sacrifice, not of the Sacrament. Nor does the people thereby lose anything; for that same which the priest receives under a twofold symbol, the people receives under one: just as if to someone were given in one schedule a hundred gold pieces to be received from a merchant, and to another as many gold pieces, but in two schedules.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. Totam Sacramenti rationem in vini specie inveniri. Quaeritur igiiur secundo , num in una specie tota Sacramenti ratio inveniatur. Ilinc enim valde in Catholicos haeretici invehun¬ tur, quod Sacranae itu n Domini mutilent, et sic mutilatum, et imperfectum laicis porri¬ gant. Nam vel panis, et calix sunt duo Sa¬ cramenta, vel unum. Si duo ; ergo popuhim integro Sacramento fraudant . qui calicem ei negant. Si unum ; ergo dimidiatum Sacra¬ nae itum laicis datur. Et confirmatur argu¬ mentum. Nam Eucharistia est convivium spiritua1^ : ad convivium autem non sufficit c bus, sed requiritur etiam po us ; quare po¬ pulum parum civiliter tractant, qui ad sacras epulas eum invitant, et solum cibum sine po¬ tu illi tribuunt. Ut qum^tio ista facfie, et perspicue expli¬ cetur, revocandum est ad memoriam, Eucha¬ ristiam tribus modis considerari posse. Pri¬ mo, ut sacrificium. Secundo, ut pignus divini amoris. Tertio, ut Sacramentum. De singulis breviter explicabimus, utrum in una tantum specie salvari possint, tametsi praecipua no¬ stra quaestio de Sacramento sit. Sit igitur prima propositio: «Eucharistia, ut est pignus amoris, potest optime in quavis specie conservari ». Nam Eucharistia est pig¬ nus, quatenus significat, et ex! libet Chri¬ stum praesentem : id autem quaelibet species facit. Unde etiam Ecclesia Catholica unam tantum speciem exhibet spectandam, extra sacrificium, et in processione chcumfert. Secunda propositio : « In una specie non habetur perfecte, et integre sacrificii ratio, sed utraque necessaria est ». Nam Euchari¬ stia, ut sacrificium, significat Christi passio¬ nem : est*enim quaedam imitatio sacrificii in cruce peracti. Sola autem species panis non repraesentat exacte Christum, ut mortuum, nisi ab altera parte conspiciatur sanguis, ut effusus. Et similiter sola species vini non re¬ praesentat sufficienter Christum, ut immola¬ tum ; non enim solus sanguis est victima. Praeterea in sacrificio Missae debet essereipsa quod fuit in typo in sacrificio Melchisedech, cum sit Christus Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, Psalm. cix. Melchisedech au¬ tem obtulit panem et vinum, Genes, xiv. De¬ nique sacrificium proprie ordinatur ad re¬ missionem peccatorum ; unde dicitur propi- tiatorium : sine sanguinis autem effusione, non ht remissio, Heb. jx. Necesse igitur fuit, ut perspicue repraesentaretur sanguinis effu¬ sio. Idem colligitur ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, quae n mquam passa in ullo casu est sacrifi¬ cium offerri sine utraque specie, si utraque species haberi possit. Nam in Concilio Toiet. VII, caa. 2. statuitur, ut si Sacerdos post in¬ choatum sacrificium, id est, post consecra¬ tam unam speciem (ut coni uuniter exponitur iliud decretum) adeo aegrotare incipiat, ut prosequi nequeat, alius Sacerdos succedat, et perficiat sacrificium. Et S. Thotnas3. par. quaist. Lxxxm. artic. d. addit, si Sacerdos po t consecratam unam spici- m, recordetur se non esse jejunum, aut esse in peccato mortali, a it excommunicatu n, aut alio vin¬ culo impeditum, doleat corde cuin proposito 1 faciendi postea, quod debet, et nullo modo imperfectum sacrificium r linquat. Itaque duarum specie rum necessit is, q iod non ad¬ vertunt adversarii, potissimum ad sacrifi¬ cium pertinet. Tertia propositio : « In qualibet specie in¬ venitur tota essentia, ac ratio Sacramenti : ita ut hostia consecrata, ut conservatur in templis, et ut a laicis sumitur, sine specie vini, absolute, vere, et proprie dici debeat Sacramentu m Eucharistiae, non Sacramen¬ tum mutilatum, aut dimidiatum ». Quae sen¬ tentia habetur expresse in Concilio Trident. sess. xxi. cap. 3. ubi definitur, sub una spe¬ cie non solum totum Christum sumi, sed etiam verum Sacramentum. Probatur jam haec sententia. Nam in quo¬ libet Sacramento requiritur significatio , et causalitas . est enim Sacramentum signum, e, causa gratiae. Haec autem reperiuntur in qualibet specie, id est, tam in specie panis, quam in specie vini seorsim sumptis. Siqui¬ dem significatio Eucharistiae, ut Sacramen¬ tum, duplex est, juxta duplicem ejus effe¬ ctum. Prior est significatio internae refectio¬ nis. Posterior est sign ficatio unionis fidelium inter se, et cum Christo. De priore dicitur Joan. vi. : Caro mea vere est cibus etc. De po¬ steriore I Corinth. x. : fimis panis , et unum & JJBER IV. 2G4 corpus multi sumus, qui da uno pane participa¬ mus (1). Utraque autem significatio in qualibet specie reperitur. Nam in specie panis signi¬ ficatur sufficienter refectio animae, etiamsi non adderetur species vini, et similiter in specie vini, etiamsi non adderetur species panis. Nam etiamsi species panis non signi¬ ficet refectionem spiritualem, nisi per mo¬ dum cibi ; et species vini non significet cam- dem refectionem, nisi per modum potus : tamen ut aliquid dici possit absolute, et vere Sacramentum, satis est, si significet refe¬ ctionem aliquam spiritualem, et eamdem re¬ vera efficiat. Quocirca duo illa signa, species videlicet panis, et species vini, non tam es¬ sentiales, quam integralcs partes hujus Sa¬ cramenti esse videntur : ex quo sequitur, ut Eucharistia sub una specie sit verum, et in¬ tegrum Sacramentum essentialiter, licet e- tiam pars Sacramenti dici possit, si partes materiales symboli externi considerentur . Dixi autem (exparte symboli externi), nam ex parte rei significatae, id est, ex parte re¬ fectionis spiritualis, nihil deest ulli speciei: siquidem in spirituali refectione non distin¬ guuntur cibus, et potus, sed una, et eadem res, et nutrit, quod est cibi officium, et re¬ frigerat, sive irrigat, et inebriat mentem, quod est officium potus. Itaque in divinis lit¬ teris justitia, et sapientia, et similia dicuntur esuriri, et sitiri ut cibus, et potus Matth. v : Beati , qui esuriunt, et sitiunt justitiam, quo¬ niam ipsi saturabuntur. Vides eamdem justi¬ tiam, et cibum esse, et potum. Et Eccles. xxiv. : Qui edunt me, adhuc esurient , et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient (2). Et Cyprianus sermone de ccena Domini disertis verbis di¬ cit, ad eamdem rationem pertinere cibum, et potum spiritualem : et similia docet Augu¬ stinus in illud Psalm. cui : Panis cor hominis confirmet. Quare Joan. vi. licet dicat Domi¬ nus : Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus, tamen ibidem ait : Qui mandu¬ cat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum; et qui manducat me, vivet propter me (3). Jam quod attinet ad aliam significatio¬ nem, manifestum est in specie panis etiam sola, optime significari unionem fidelium cum Christo, et inter se. Nam panis quate¬ nus constat ex multis granis in unum reda¬ ctis, significat unionem fidelium; quatenus constat ex farina et aqua, significat unionem Christi cum Eclcesia, ut Cyrianus testatur lib. 2. epist. 3. ad Caecilium. Quocirca bea¬ tus Paulus cum dixisset : Unum corpus sumus qui de uno pane participamus , non putavit esse addendum : et de uno calice bibimus ; quia nimirum intelligebat ex sola panis spe¬ cie sufficienter significari hanc unionem. Idem dici potest de specie vini. Vinum enim, quod ex multis uvis confluat, unionem fidelium inter se designat ; quod autem in sacro calice aqua vino admisceatur, eodem Cypriano teste, unionem Christi cum Eccle¬ sia repraesentat. Quod ergo ad hanc signi¬ ficationem attinet, nihil desiderari potest in qualibet specie ad verum et integrum Sacramentum. Jam vero quantum ad causalitatem, seu efficientiam, eadem reperitur in qualibet specie Sacramenti hujus : nam tota efficien¬ tia nascitur ex ipso Christo, qui sub illis speciebus continetur, ut supra diximus, cum de natura Sacramenti Eucharistia} dis¬ putaremus. Christus autem idem et totus est tam sub specie panis, quam sub specie vini, ut capite superiore demonstratum est : quare eadem efficientia est in specie pa¬ nis, qua; in specie vini ; et eadem in singui- lis, quae in utrisque simul sumptis. Huc accedit, quod quaelibet species habet propriam materiam, propriam formam, et quod est amplius, propria quadam actio ne, et consecratione conficitur, nec ullo modo, ut Sacramentum sit, una species pendet ab alia. Nam Dominiis prius sub specie panis Sacramentum confecit, et manducandum de¬ dit, ac deinde manducatione absoluta, sub specie vini Sacramentum confecit, et biben¬ dum tradidit. Et Ecclesia Catholica, non sine causa post speciem panis consecratam, Sa¬ cramentum popu!o adorandum exhibet an¬ tequam sub specie vini consecrare aggredia¬ tur. Accedit etiam communis fidelium consen¬ sus : nemo enim hostiam consecratam vi¬ dens, dicit esse partem Sacamenti, aut Sacramentum mutilum, sed Sacramentum simpliciter omnes appellant. Accedunt denique typi et figurse Testa¬ menti veteris. Quae enim figurae erant Eucha¬ ristiae, ut Sacramentum est, in sola specie manducabili consistebant, vel in sola specie (I) Joan VI. 56; I Cor. X, 17. — (2) Matth. V, 6; Eccl. XXIV, 29. — (3) Psal. CIII, 15: Joan. VI, 56, 59 et 58. CAPUT XXIII. 20.'» potus ; ut patet de pane propositionis, de agno paschali, et de manna, qua} sine potu data sunt : et in aqua de petra scaturiente, quse sine cibo aliquo mystico data est. Nam etiamsi Apostolus conjugat, I Corinth. x., cibum spiritualem, id est, manna, et potum spiritualem, id est, aquam de petra : tamen illrn dua? figura? sunt distinctae, et diversis temporibus datae. Manna enim datum est in deserto Synai, Exod. xvi, et postea aqua in Raphidim, Exod. xvn. Quare Dominus Joan. vi. ubi comparat manna cum Sacramento Eucharistiae, nullam mentionem facit aquae ; et ibidem Dominus in signum ejusdem rei multiplicavit panes insigni miraculo, vinum vel aquam non multiplicavit. Quarta propositio : « Duae species Sacra¬ menti cum simul sumuntur, non sunt duo Sacramenta, sed unum ». Nota duas species Sacramenti duobus modis posse sumi. Pri¬ mo, simul ut jam sumuntur a Sacerdotibus, in Missa. Secundo, non simul, sed tempori¬ bus diversis, ut si quis hodie solam speciem panis sumeret, alio die solam speciem vini. Et siquidem sumantur secundo modo, id est, temporibus diversis; tunc sine dubio sunt duo Sacramenta numero distincta. Nam quaelibet per se est integrum Sacramentum, ut superiore propositione ostendimus : et sunt ibi dua? diversae refectiones, non secus ac si quis sub specie panis duobus diversis temporibus communicaret. At si sumantur simul, ut Sacerdotes faciunt, tunc non sunt duo Sacramenta, sed unum, quia ad unam refectionem ordinantur, et unam rem signi¬ ficant, et unum effectum producunt. Simile quid cernimus in conviviis corporalibus : si quis enim tria, vel quatuor, vel plura fer¬ cula eodem tempore ponat in mensa, illa omnia unum convivium facient : si vero duo tantum ponantur hodie, et cras reliqua, jam erunt duo convivia. Similiter in Baptismo, si quis eodem tempore ter mergatur, unus erit Baptismus : si autem diversis tempori¬ bus cum trina repetitione formae, tria essent Baptismata. Et in Sacramento altaris, si quis uno tempore sumat duas, vel plures parti¬ culas, unum Sacramentum accipit ; si autem diversis temporibus, plura Sacramenta erunt. Licet enim quadibet particula integrum Sa¬ cramentum contineat, tamen cum adjungitur alteri, non multiplicantur Sacramenta, sed solum augentur, quod est materiale in sym¬ bolo. Ex his ad argumentum adversariorum ini¬ tio factum respondemus, populo dari inte¬ grum Sacramentum, non mutilum, vel di¬ midiatum; siquidem in qualibet specie seor- sim invenitur veri atque integri Sacramenti ratio. Dices, si est integrum quod accipit laicus ; ergo sunt duo integra Sacramenta, qua? ac¬ cipiuntur a Sacerdote. Respondeo: negatur consequentia. Nam dua? species simul sum¬ pta? non faciunt duo Sacramenta ; sicut nec dua? particula? consecrata? simul juncta?, vel duo calices sanguinis in eodem altari exi- stentes, nec tres mersiones sunt tria Bapti¬ smata. Ad confirmationem respondeo, popule datur cibus spiritualis, qui est integra, et totalis refectio, et virtualiter continet cibum et potum, ut supra ostendimus. Neque ob¬ stat, quod a Sacerdotibus in ipso sacrificio distincte sumatur Eucharistia per modum cibi, et per modum potus : id enim fit po¬ tissimum ob sacrificii non ob Sacramenti in¬ tegritatem. Neque inde aliquid populus per¬ dit ; nam idipsum, quod sumit Sacerdos sub duplici symbolo, sumit populus sub uno : quemadmodum si uni alicui darentur in una schedula 100 aurei a mercatore accipiendi, altari darentur totidem aurei, sed in schedu¬ lis duabus.