Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 29: On the Veneration of This Sacrament
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 last controversy remains, concerning the veneration of the most holy Sacrament; which indeed will be disputed most briefly, because it depends in great part on those things which have already been said.
As to adoration, then, the Sacramentarians all deny that the Sacrament is to be adored, and call adoration of this kind idolatry, as is clear from Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 35, and elsewhere. Nor ought this to seem a wonder, since they do not believe that Christ is really present, and that the bread of the Eucharist is really nothing but bread from the oven. Wherefore Clebitius, in his book on the victory of truth and the ruin of the Saxon Papacy, part 3, argument 9, teaches that from the opinion of the Lutherans, who acknowledge in the Eucharist the true body of Christ, it necessarily follows that adoration must be granted. And the ministers of Zurich, in their Apology published in the year 1545 against the last confession of Luther, openly confess that they would faithfully adore the Sacrament with the Catholics, if they believed the true body of the Lord to be there.
Moreover the Lutherans distinguish concerning adoration: for either adoration is made in the use of the Lord's Supper, or outside it, as when the Eucharist is carried for the sake of honor through the streets with torches and hymns. And indeed outside the use, almost all cry out that that adoration is idolatry. Whence Luther, in his book to the Waldenses, vehemently argues against the procession which is made on the feast of the body of the Lord.
But concerning adoration in the use, they do not all speak in the same way. For some simply condemn that adoration, even though they believe the body of the Lord to be there truly, as Luther in his book on the Eucharist to the Waldenses; Philip in his Judgment on the Lord's Supper, which he published in the year 1559, when he had already for the most part become a Sacramentarian. Likewise Illyricus in the Confession of Antwerp, and the Apology of the same Confession, chapter 14.
Others, however, contend that in the use of the Supper the body of Christ is to be adored, as the same Luther in his formula of the Mass, and in his book on the words, This is my body, and elsewhere; Bucer in the Acts of the Colloquy of Ratisbon; John Brenz in his Apology for the Wurttemberg Confession, pericope 2; Kemnitz in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 5, where nevertheless after his manner he mixes in a notable lie, that there is no one who doubts whether the body of Christ in the Supper is to be adored, except one who with the Sacramentarians either denies or doubts that Christ is truly present in the Supper. But this lie Illyricus abundantly refutes, with others, who, while they most sharply attack the Sacramentarians, yet deny that Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored.
And although these latter authors grant that Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored, yet, that they may dissent from the Catholics, at least in the mode of speaking, they deny that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored, and on that ground reprehend the Catholics, as if they taught artolatry, because we say that the Sacrament itself is absolutely to be adored. See Kemnitz and Brenz, in the cited place, and Tilmann Heshusius, in his book on the errors of the Papists, title 17, errors 21 and 22.
But this is mere calumny. For the Catholics, since they deny that the bread remains in the Sacrament, how could they assert artolatry, that is, adoration of the bread? Nor is there any Catholic who teaches that the external symbols themselves are, per se and properly, to be adored with the worship of latria, but only to be venerated with a certain lesser worship, which agrees with all the Sacraments: but with the worship of latria we say that Christ is, per se and properly, to be adored, and that this adoration pertains also to the symbols of bread and wine, inasmuch as they are apprehended as something one with the very Christ whom they contain. Just as those who adored Christ clothed on earth adored not Him alone, but in a certain way also His garments; for neither did they bid Him be stripped of His garments before they adored, nor did they by mind and thought separate Him from His garments when they adored: but they simply adored Christ as He then was; although the reason of adoring was not the garments, nay not even the humanity itself, but the divinity alone.
As to the mode of speaking, we confess that the Sacrament itself is said to be adored, as the Council of Trent speaks: but this is expounded in two ways. For those who hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the body of Christ as it is under those species, grant also that the Sacrament is formally said to be adored; but those who teach that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the species of bread and wine as they contain Christ, they teach consequently that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is materially to be adored. But whatever be the case with the mode of speaking, the state of the question is only whether Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored with the worship of latria.
These things being premised, it is proved that Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored by this argument. To the true God is due the adoration of latria, Deuteronomy 6 and Matthew 4: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve. But Christ, as He is in the Eucharist, whether in the use or outside, is true God, as all confess; therefore He is to be adored with the worship of latria.
To this argument Luther, Illyricus, and Calvin answer. First, by denying the consequence; because Christ is indeed to be adored, but where He Himself bids Himself be adored, or where He is that He may be adored: namely in heaven. But in the Eucharist He is not that He may be adored, but that He may be eaten; for He does not say, Take and adore, but, Take and eat.
Secondly they answer that Christ indeed is in the Eucharist Christ, but that the body of Christ is not the same thing as the body of Christ and Christ.
But these are frivolous. For first the adoration of God is not bound to a certain place, as is clear from John 4, but everywhere Christ can and ought to be adored, when we ought to deal with Him: for adoration befits Him not because He is in heaven, or in another place, but because He is God. Moreover Christ was not once in the manger that He might be adored, but that His members might rest, and yet the Magi adored Him in the manger, Matthew 2. So also when He walked on earth, He did not walk that He might be adored, but that He might teach, and yet He was everywhere adored, as in Matthew 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, John 9, and elsewhere. And when here on earth princes journey somewhere, they do not go to that end, that they may be saluted by those who meet them, and yet no one meets them but he prostrates himself before them and reverently salutes them. Wherefore the adversaries make more of an external prince, nay of any friend of theirs, than of Christ, since they receive Christ alone without any honor, nor deign to rise for Him, unless it be expressly commanded them. Add that although it is not the primary reason of the institution of the Sacrament that Christ be there adored, yet this too was a certain reason, that we might have Christ more present, and honor Him as present: whence Eusebius of Emesa, homily 5 on the Pasch, says that this Sacrament was instituted that Christ might be continually worshipped through the mystery.
The other solution is plainly impious and Nestorian. For even if there were nothing but the body of Christ in the Eucharist, yet it would still have to be adored by those who receive the mystery of the incarnation: for that body would be united to the divinity hypostatically, even if it were torn from the soul and blood, as it was when it lay in the sepulchre. Add that we have sufficiently proved above that the whole Christ is under each species of the Eucharist.
Secondly, adoration is proved from the tradition of the Fathers, and since very many passages were adduced and expounded in the second book, here it will be enough to note the passages themselves. See Dionysius, on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, part 3; Clement, Book 2 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 61; Origen, homily 3 on various passages of the Gospel; Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 3 of the Mystagogics; Ambrose, Book 3 on the Holy Spirit, chapter 12; Eusebius of Emesa, homily 3 on the Pasch; Theodoret in his second Dialogue; Nazianzen in his oration on holy Gorgonia; but let us hear two for all. St. John Chrysostom, homily 61 to the people of Antioch: “If thy garments are pure,” he says, “adore and communicate.” See the same, homily 83 on Matthew, homily 24 on 1 Corinthians, homily 3 on the epistle to the Ephesians, and in his homily on the Encaenia, and in another on St. Philogonius. Augustine, on Psalm 98: “No one,” he says, “eats that flesh, unless he have first adored.” See the same, letter 118, chapter 3; letter 120, chapter 27; on Psalm 21, discourse 1.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIX. De veneratione hujus Sacramenti. Postrema controversia restat de venera¬ tione sanctissimi Sacramenti ; quse quidem brevissime disputabitur, quod magna ex parte dependeat ab his, quse jam dicta sunt. Quod igitur ad adorationem attinet, Sa- cramentarii omnes negant, Sacramentum adorandum, et idololatriam appellant ejus¬ modi adorationem, ut patet ex Calvino lib. iv. Instifc. cap. 17. §. 3o. et alibi. Neque id mi¬ rum videri debet, cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse preesentem, et panem Eucharistise reipsa nihil esse, nisi panem ex furno. Quare Clebitius in lib. de victoria (1 ) I Cor. XI, 34. 292 LIBER IV. veritatis, et ruina Papatus Saxoniei 3. par. arg. 9. docet ex Lutheranorum sententia, qui agnoscunt in Eucharistia verum Christi corpus, necessario sequi adorationem esse concedendam. Et ministri Tigurini in Apo- logia, edita anno 1545, contra ultimam Lu- theri confessionem, aperte fatentur, se cum Catholicis fideliter adoraturos Sacramentum, si crederent ibi esse verum Domini corpus. Porro Lutherani distinguunt de adora¬ tione, vel enim fit adoratio in usu coenae Domini, vel extra eum, ut cum defertur Eucharistia honoris gratia per plateas cum facibus, et hymnis. Et quidem extra usum, omnes fere clamant idololatriam esse illam adorationem. Unde Lutherus in lib. ad Wal- denses vehementer agit contra processionem, quae fit in festo corporis Domini. De adoratione autem in usu, non eodem modo loquuntur emines. Nam alii simpliciter damnant eam adorationem, etiamsi credant ibi esse corpus Domini vere, ut Lutherus in lib. de Eucharistia ad Waldenses, Philippus in judicio suo de coena Domini, quod edidit anno 1559, quando jam Sacramentarius magna ex parte factus erat. Item Illyricus in Confessione Antuerpiensi, et Apologia ejus¬ dem Confessionis, cap. 14. Alii tamen in usu coenae contendunt Christi corpus esse adorandum, ut idem Lutherus in formula Missae; et in lib. de verbis : Hoc est corpus meum , et alibi. Bucerus in actis Col¬ loquii Ratisponensis, Joannes Brentius in Apologia pro confessione Wirtembergensi pericope 2. Kemnitius in 2. par. Examin. Tridentini Concilii, sess. xm. cap. 5. ubi tamen more suo insigne mendacium admi¬ scet, nullum esse, qui dubitet an Christi cor¬ pus in ccena sit adorandum, nisi qui cum Sacramentariis aut neget, aut dubitet in ccena vere Christum esse praesentem. Sed hoc mendacium redarguit abunde Illyricus cum aliis, qui cum Sacramentarios acerrime oppugnent, negant tamen Christum in Eu¬ charistia esse adorandum. Tametsi autem posteriores isti aucto¬ res concedant Christum in Eucharistia esse adorandum : ut tamen a Catholicis, saltem in modo loquendi dissentiant, negant Sa¬ cramentum Eucharistiae esse adorandum, et eo nomine Catholicos reprehendunt, qua si apxoXocTpsiav doceant, quia Sacramentum ipsum absolute dicimus adorandum. Vide Kemnitium et Brentium, loco cit. et Tilman- num Heshusium in lib. de erroribus Pontifi¬ ciorum, tit. 17. errore 2 i. et 22. Sed haec mera calumnia est. Catholici enim cum negent panem in Sacramento remanere, quomodo possent asserere apto- Xatpsexv, id est, panis adorationem ? Neque ullus Catholicus est, qui doceat ipsa symbola externa per se, et proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae, sed solum veneranda cultu quo¬ dam minore, qui omnibus Sacramentis con¬ venit, cultu autem latriae dicimus per se, et proprie Christum esse adorandum, et eam adorationem ad symbola etiam panis, et vini pertinere, quatenus apprehenduntur ut quid unum cum ipso Christo, quem continent. Quemadmodum, qui Christum in terris ve¬ stitum adorabant, non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adorabant, neque enim jubebant eum vestibus nudari, antequam adorarent, aut animo, et cogitatione separa¬ bant a vestibus, cum adorarent : sed simpli¬ citer Christum, ut tunc se habebat, adora¬ bant ; tametsi ratio adorandi non erant ve¬ stes, imo nec ipsa humanitas, sed sola divi¬ nitas. De modo autem loquendi, fatemur Sacra¬ mentum, ipsum dici adorandum, ut Conci¬ lium Tridentinum loquitur : sed hoc exponi¬ tur dupliciter. Qui enim sentiunt Sacramen¬ tum Eucharistiae formaliter esse cornus JL Christi, ut est sub illis speciebus, concedunt etiam formaliter Sacramentum dici adoran¬ dum; qui autem docent Sacramentum Eu¬ charistiae formaliter esse species panis et vi¬ ni, ut Christum continent, illi docent conse¬ quenter Sacramentum Eucharistiae materia¬ liter adorandum. Sed quiquid sit de modo loquendi, status quaestionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae. His praemissis, probatur Christum in Eu¬ charistia esse adorandum hoc argumento. Deo vero debetur adoratio latriae, Deuteron. vi. et Matth. iv : Dominum Deum tuum, ado¬ rabis , et illi soli servies (1). Christus autem ut est in Eucharistia, sive in usu, sive extra, est Deus verus, ut omnes fatentur ; igitur ado¬ randus est cultu latriae. Ad hoc argumentum respondent Lutherus Illyricus et Calvinus. Primo negando conse¬ quentiam ; quia Christus adorandus quidem est, sed ubi ipse jubet se adorari, sive ubi est (1) Deut. VI, 13 ; Matth. IV, 60. CAPUT XXX. 293 ut adoretur : nimirilm in ccelo. In Euchari¬ stia autem non est ut adoretur, sed ut man¬ ducetur ; non enim ait : Accipite et adorate, Sed : Accipite et manducate. Secundo respondent, Christum quidem esse in Eucharistia Christum , sed corpus Christi nec esse idem corpus Christi et Chri¬ stum. Sed ista frivola sunt. Nam in primis ado¬ ratio Dei non est alligata certo loco, ut patet Joan iv. sed ubique Christus adorari potest et debet, quando cum eo tractare debemus : non enim convenit illi adora tio, quia in coe¬ lo est, vel in alio loco , sed quia est Deus. Praeterea non erat Christus quondam in prse- sepi, ut adoraretur, sed ut membra ejus re¬ quiescerent, et tamen Magi illum in praesepi adorarunt, Matth. ii. Sic etiam cumatnbula- ret in terris, non ambulabat ut adoraretur, sed ut doceret, et tamen passim adorabatur, ut Matth. vm. ix. xiv. xv. xx. Joan. ix. et alibi. Et quando hic in terris principes ali¬ quo proficiscuntur, non eunt ad eum finem, ut ab occurrentibus salutentur, et tamen ne¬ mo illis occurrit, quin se eis prosternat, ac reverenter salutet. Quare adversarii pluris faciunt principem externum, imo quemli¬ bet amicum suum, quam Christum, cum solum Christum sine ullo honore excipiant, nec di¬ gnentur ei assurgere, nisi expresse id eis preecipiatur. Adde, quod licet non sit prima¬ ria ratio institutionis Sacramenti, ut Christus ibi adoretur, tamen etiani ista ratio quaedam fuit, ut haberemus Christum magis prae¬ sentem, et ut praesentem honoraremus : unde Eusebius Emissenus hom. 5. de Pas- chate, dicit institutum esse Sacramentum hoc, ut coleretur Christus jugiter per my¬ sterium. Altera solutio plane est impia et Nesto ria- na. Nam etiamsi non esset nisi corpus Chri¬ sti in Eucharistia, tamen adhuc adorari de¬ beret ab iis, qui recipiunt mysterium incar¬ nationis : illud enim corpus unitum esset di¬ vinitati hypostatice etiamsi ab anima , et sanguine divulsum esset, ut fuit, quando jacuit in sepulchro. Adde, quod satis proba¬ vimus supra totum Christum esse in quavis Eucharistise specie. Secundo, probatur adoratio ex traditione Patrum, et quoniam loca plurima in n. lib. adducta, et expansa sunt, hic satis erit loca ipsa annotare. Vide Dionysium de Ecclesiast. hierarch. cap. 3. par. 3. Clementem lib. n. constit. Apostol. cap. 61. Origenem homil. 3. in diversa loca Evangelii ; Cyrillum Hie¬ rosolymitanum cafcech. 3. mystag. Ambro¬ sium lib. m de Spiritu sancto cap. 12 Euse- bium Emissenum homil. 3. de Paschate ; Theodoretum in ii Dialogo ; Nazianzenum in oratione de sancta Gorgonia ; sed duos pro omnibus audiamus. S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 61. ad populum Antiochenum : «Si pura sunt vestimenta, inquit, adora et com¬ munica ». Vide eumdem homil. 83. in Matth. homil. 24. in I ad Corinth. hom. 3. in epist ad Ephes. et in hom. de enceniis, et in altera de S. Philogonio. Augustimus in Psalm. xcvm : «Nemo, inquit, illam carnem mandu¬ cat, nisi prius adoraverit». Vide eumdem epist. 118. cap. 3. epistol. 120. cap. 27. in Psalm. 21. conc. i.