Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 27: The Objections from Reason Are Refuted
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).
Besides the testimonies of Scripture and the Fathers, the adversaries object some reasons drawn from the Scriptures, which we shall briefly resolve. The first reason from a figure. All the Hebrews in the desert drank water from the rock, Paul saying, 1 Corinthians 10: And all drank the same spiritual drink. Therefore in the desert of this life all ought to drink the blood of the Lord: for those things happened to them in figure.
I answer: They did not drink that water from the rock together with the spiritual food, as we showed above, but in a different place and time: wherefore both that food and that drink were a sign of the Eucharist to be received under one species.
The second reason from the institution. Christ instituted the Supper under a double species: therefore it is to be received under a double species, otherwise it will not be the Lord's Supper, but a part of it.
I answer: If we wish to speak properly and according to the Gospel, the Lord's Supper consists of one species only; for in Matthew 26 we read thus: As they were at supper, Jesus took bread, etc. And Luke 22: In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped. And 1 Corinthians 11: In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped. And so in the supper He gave only the Eucharist under the species of bread, which properly answers to the Jewish supper and the paschal lamb: but after the supper He gave the chalice. Whence also Cyprian, in his fifth sermon on the lapsed, says that the chalice was wont to be offered to those present after the solemnities were completed, that is, the Mass being now finished. Then, even if the supper under one species contains the thing of both species, the supper would be as entire under one species as under both; for the only difference would be in the vessels in which the foods are brought in. Yet the two species pertain to the perfection of the sacrifice, as we have often said; but it is not necessary that the sacrifice, as to all its signs, be received by all, for it is enough if it be offered for all.
The third reason from the example of the Lord and the Apostles. The Lord gave the chalice to all present: the Apostles too gave it to all. Whence 1 Corinthians 10: You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils. And 1 Corinthians 12: We have all been made to drink of one Spirit.
I answer: Examples prove that the thing is not unlawful by divine right, not that it is commanded or necessary; otherwise we should be bound to receive the Eucharist after other foods, and at night, and after the washing of feet: for all these the Lord did. And that passage, We have all been made to drink of one Spirit, is wrongly adduced, and very often inculcated by Kemnitz: for there it is not a matter of the drink of the Lord's blood, but of the drink of the Spirit, which we draw in Baptism.
The fourth reason from the Testament. Christ, near to death, made a testament, and by it bequeathed to all His sons His body and blood, as is clear from Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11. Therefore they corrupt the testament, and unjustly defraud the sons of God of their paternal inheritance, who deny the blood of the Lord to the laity.
I answer: The inheritance left to us is not bread nor wine, but the body and blood of the Lord, which two are given both under one and under a double species; this only is the difference, that those who drink from the chalice receive the inheritance in two schedules: those who do not drink receive that same in one schedule. But this difference is of no moment as regards partaking of the inheritance.
The fifth reason from the end of this Sacrament. The end of this Sacrament is that we commemorate the death of Christ. But the death of Christ is not entirely signified by one species; therefore those ought to receive both who wish to commemorate the death of Christ by this Sacrament. But all are bound to commemorate the death of the Lord when they receive this Sacrament, as Paul witnesses, 1 Corinthians 11; therefore all are bound to receive both species.
I answer: In the Sacrament the death of Christ is commemorated in two ways. In one way by representation and signification. In the other way by memory and narration. For a victory is commemorated in one way in a play, where all things are represented to the life; in another way when one recalls that victory, and narrates it to others, and thence rejoices. In the former way the commemoration of the Lord's death is made not by eating and drinking, but by consecrating and offering the Eucharist to God: for the imitation of the Lord's death is that separation of the body from the blood in the sensible signs. Whence Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 58, and other Fathers everywhere place in the immolation the representation of the Lord's death: and for perfectly expressing this representation we confess that both species are required. In the latter way the commemoration can be made by eating and drinking: for those who partake of this sacrifice ought to recall with thanksgiving the death of the Lord, which is represented in that sacrifice. But for this it is not required that both species be received. For he who receives one species has already learned from the consecration and oblation that by it the body is represented as dead; and so, by receiving that one, he can and ought to recall to memory the death of Christ. Wherefore Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, said of each species separately: Do this in commemoration of me.
The sixth reason from the fruit. For Kemnitz said that a most sweet consolation is received from the chalice, of which those must necessarily be deprived who communicate under one species only. I answer: There is no doubt that in the drink of excellent wine the palate and throat are very sweetly delighted: but the Catholics do not seek in the Sacraments that bodily consolation of the palate and throat. If they say that they speak of the chalice as it contains the blood of the Lord in an invisible and insensible manner; we answer that the same blood is contained whole under the species of bread, and therefore that the laity are not deprived of the most sweet consolation of the spirit which is received from the Lord's blood.
The seventh reason from a likeness. If a part of the Eucharist can be taken from the laity, then also a part of Baptism or of Penance. I answer: If it be a matter of the essential parts, no part of any Sacrament can be taken away: but the species of wine is not an essential part, but a material one, and only an integral part of the Eucharist. If it be a matter of the integral parts, some part can plainly be taken away, even in the other Sacraments. For Baptism was of old done by immersion, now generally by aspersion; and certainly aspersion washes much less than immersion; nay the faithful sometimes used triple immersion, sometimes only single.
The eighth reason. If the chalice can be taken away, then also the bread, and so the laity could be deprived wholly of the Sacrament. I answer: The bread can be taken away, if the chalice be given: but both cannot be taken away at once, because we are bound to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The ninth reason from the greater. Remission of sins is given to the laity; therefore the sign of that remission cannot be denied them: but the chalice is the sign. I answer: The argument would be valid in the contrary way. The sign of remission is given, therefore remission cannot be denied, because otherwise the sign would be false. But why can remission not be given without the sign? Moreover the sign of remission is not properly the chalice, but Baptism and Absolution: for the chalice is a sign of the price by which sins were remitted, and of the spiritual drink by which our souls are refreshed.
The tenth reason, likewise from the greater. The blood of the Lord is given to the laity; therefore the symbol of that blood, which is far viler, ought not to be denied. I answer: If they have the very blood of the Lord, why do they contend so much for the sign? Certainly he who has already received money promised by a schedule does not labor much about the schedule. Then the symbol is denied, because that most precious thing is given more safely under one than under two symbols. And these things concerning the little reasonings of Luther and his followers: from which it is manifestly gathered that they have no just cause to complain so much of the Church on account of the taking away of the chalice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII. Refelluntur objectiones ex ratione. Praeter testimonia Scripturae et Patrum, objiciunt adversarii aliquot rationes ex Scri¬ pturis depromptas, quas breviter diluemus. Prima ratio a figura. Hebraei omnes in deser¬ to biberunt aquam de petra, dicente Paulo I Gorint. x : Et omnes eumdem potum spiritua¬ lem biberunt. Ergo in deserto hujus vitae de¬ bent omnes bibere sanguinem Domini : illa enim in figura contigerunt illis. Respondeo : Non biberunt illi aquam de petra simul cum cibo spirituali, ut supra ostendimus, sed diverso loco, et tempore : quare tam cibus ille, quam potus signum fuit Eucharistiae sub una specie sumendae. Secunda ratio ab institutione. Christus in¬ stituit ccenam sub duplici specie : ergo sub duplici sumenda est, alioqui non erit crena Domini, sed pars ejus. Respondeo : Si proprie, et secundum Evangelium loqui velimus, crena Domini non constat, nisi ex una specie ; nam Matth. xxvi, sic legimus : Ccenantibus illis accepit Jesus panem , etc. Et Luc.xxii : Similiter et ca¬ licem postquam coenavit. Et I Corinth. xi : Si¬ militer et calicem postquam coenavit (1). Itaque in crena non dedit nisi Eucharistiam sub specie panis, quae proprie respondet crenae Judaicae, et agno Paschali : post crenam au¬ tem dedit calicem. Unde etiam Cyprianus in serm. 5. de lapsis, dicit, calicem offerri solere praesentibus post expleta solemnia, id est, finita jam Missa. Deinde etiamsi crena ex una species continet rem utriusque spe¬ ciei, tam esset integra crena ex una specie, quam ex duabus ; sola enim differentia esset in vasis, quibus inferuntur cibi. Pertinent tamen duae species ad sacrificii perfectionem, ut saepe diximus, sed non est necesse, ut sae¬ pe diximus, sed non est necesse, ut sacrifi¬ cium, quoad omnia signa sumatur ab omni¬ bus, satis enim est, si pro omnibus offera¬ tur. Tertia ratio ab exemplo Domini, et Apo¬ stolorum. Dominus calicem omnibus praesen¬ tibus dedit : Apostoli quoque omnibus da¬ bant. Unde I Cor. x : Non potestis bibere calicem Domini, et calicem daemoniorum. Et I Cor. xn : Omnes in uno Spiritus potati sumus. Respondeo : Exempla probant rem non esse illicitam jure divino, non autem esse praeceptam, vel necessariam ; alioqui tene¬ remur sumere Eucharistiam post alios cibos, et noctu, et post lotionem pedum : haec enim omnia Dominus fecit. Locus autem ille : Omnes in uno Spiritu potati sumus , perperam adducitur, et saepissime inculcatur a Kem- nitio : non enim ibi agitur de potu sangui¬ nis Domini, sed de potu Spiritus, quem hau¬ rimus in Baptismo. Quarta ratio a Testamento. Christus pro¬ ximus morti, testamentum condidit, et eo legavit omnibus filiis suis corpus, et sangui¬ nem suum, ut patet Luc. xxii. et I. Cor. 14. Ergo testamentum corrumpunt, et "injuste filios Dei fraudant paterna haereditate, qui laicis negant sanguinem Domini. Respondeo : Haereditas nobis relicta, non est panis, neque vinum, sed corpus et san¬ guis Domini, quae duo dantur tam sub una, quam sub duplici specie ; hoc solum interest, quod qui bibunt ex calice, accipiunt haere- ditatem in duabus tabulis : qui non bibunt, accipiunt illud idem in una tabula. Sed haec differentia nullius momenti est, quod attinet ad participandam haereditatem. Quinta ratio a fine hujus Sacramenti. Fi¬ nis est Sacramenti hujus, ut commemoremus Christi mortem. Sed non significatur Christi mors integre per unam speciem ; ergo de¬ bent utramque sumere, qui volunt Christi mortem per hoc Sacramentum commemo¬ rare. Tenentur autem omnes mortem Do¬ mini commemorare, dum Sacramentum hoc percipiunt, teste Paulo I Cor. xi. ; ergo te¬ nentur omnes utramque speciem sumere. Respondeo : Dupliciter commemoratur in Sacramento Christi mors. Uno modo per re¬ praesentationem, et significationem. Altero modo per memoriam, et narrationem. Aliter enim commemoratur aliqua victoria in co¬ moedia, ubi omnia repraesentantur ad vivum ; alio modo cum quis ejus victoriae recordatur, et aliis narrat, et inde laetatur. Priore modo commemoratio mortis Domini, non fit man¬ ducando et bibendo, sed consecrando et offerendo Deo Eucharistiam : imitatio enim mortis Domini est illa separatio corporis a sanguine in signis sensibilibus. Unde Grego- rius lib. iv. Dialog. cap. 58. et alii Patres (1) Matth. XXVI, 26; Luc. XXII, 20 : I Cor. XI, 25. — (2) I Cor. X, 16. Tome IV. ' 19 290 LIBER IV. passim in immolatione constituunt reprae¬ sentationem mortis Dominicae : atque ad hanc repraesentationem perfecte exprimen- * dam fatemur requiri utram que speciem. Posteriore modo commemoratio fieri potest manducando, et bibendo : qui enim partici¬ pant de hoc sacrificio, recordari debent cum gratiarum actione mortis Domini, quae in eo sacrificio repraesentatur. Sed ad hoc non re¬ quiritur ut utraque species sumatur. Qui enim unam speciem sumit, jam didicit ex consecratione, et oblatione per eam reprae¬ sentari corpus ut mortuum; atque ita illam unam sumendo, in memoriam revocare potest 'et debet Christi mortem. Quare Pau¬ lus I Corinth. xi. de utraque specie seorsim dixit : Hoc facite in meam commemoratio¬ nem (1). Sexta ratio a fructu. Dixit enim Kemnitius dulcissimam consolationem sumi ex calice, qua necesse est privari eos, qui sub una tan¬ tum specie communicant. Respondeo : Non dubium est, quin in potu optimi vini valde dulciter palatum et gula oblectentur : sed Catholici non quserunt in Sacramentis istam corporalem palati et gulae consolationem. Si dicant se loqui de calice, ut invisibili, et in¬ sensibili modo sanguinem Domini continet ; nos respondemus eumdem sanguinem totum in specie panis contineri, et ideo non privari laicos dulcissima consolatione spiritus, quae ex Domini sanguine percipitur. Septima ratio a simili. Si potes laicis tolli pars Eucharistiae, ergo et pars Baptismi, vel Poenitentiae. Respondeo : Si agatur de parti¬ bus essentialibus, nulla par Sacramenti ullius tolli potest : non est autem pars essentialis species vini, sed materialis, et integratis tan¬ tum Eucharistiae. Si agatur de integralibus, plane tolli potest pars aliqua, etiam in aliis Sacramentis. Nam Baptismus olim fiebat per immersionem, nunc plerumque per asper¬ sionem ; et certe multo minus abluit aspersio, quam immersio ; imo trina mersione ali¬ quando utebantur fideles , aliquando una duntaxat. Octava ratio. Si potest tolli calix, ergo et panis, et ita poterunt laici privari penitus Sacramento. Respondeo : Potest tolli panis, si detur calix : utrumque autem simul tolli nequit, quia tenemur Sacramentum Eucha- ristise percipere. Nona ratio a majori. Datur laicis remissio peccatorum, ergo non potest eis negari sig¬ num illius remissionis : signum autem calix est. Respondeo : Argumentum contrario modo valeret. Datur signum remissionis, ergo remissio negari non potest, quia alioqui signum esset falsum. At remissio cur non potest sine signo dari ? Praeterea sigmun remissionis proprie non est calix, sed Ba¬ ptismus, et Absolutio: calix enim signum est pretii, quo peccata remissa sunt, et spiri¬ tualis potus, quo anima) nostrae reficiuntur. Decima ratio, item a majori. Datur laicis sanguis Domini, ergo negari non debet sym¬ bolum ejus sanguinis, quod est longe vilius. Respondeo : Si habent ipsum Domini sangui¬ nem, cur tantopere litigant pro signo ? Certe qui pecunias per schedulam promissas jam accepit, non multum laborat de schedula. Deinde negatur symbolum, quia tutius datur res illa pretiosissima sub uno, quam sub duobus symbolis. Et haec de ratiunculis Lu- theri, et sectatorum ejus : ex quibus mani¬ feste colligitur nihil eos habere justse causae, cur tantopere de Ecclesia querantur ob cali¬ cis ablationem.