Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 30: The Objections 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).
It remains that we resolve the objections of the adversaries. First, Luther, in his book to the Waldenses, objects that in the Sacraments we ought chiefly to attend to the sacramental words: and thence he gathers that men ought not to be occupied about adoration, lest, namely, intent on adoration, they forget the words.
I answer: This argument rests on that rotten foundation, that the Sacraments were instituted to instruct the mind and excite faith, which has already been refuted a thousand times. Then adoration arises from the words: for we are thence moved to adore, because we hear that this is the body of the Lord. Whence the one is helped by the other, so far is it that the one should hinder the other.
Secondly, the same objects. Adoration ought to proceed from faith; but faith rests on the Word of God. But the Word of God does not say that Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored.
I answer: The Word of God sufficiently admonishes and commands that Christ ought to be adored in the Eucharist, when it teaches that He is truly God and is in the Eucharist: and elsewhere it bids God be adored.
Thirdly, Calvin objects. The Apostles, when they first communicated, are not read to have adored the Sacrament prostrate on the ground.
I answer: The Apostles did not owe greater honor to Christ hidden under the species of bread than to Christ visibly present in human form: but they could not always deal with Christ prostrate, and especially at the supper, when it was necessary for them to recline with Him. And so at certain times they adored Him prone, but at other times venerated Him by mind and heart, acknowledging Him the true Son of God. The remaining arguments of Calvin, from the Nicene Synod, and from that preface, Lift up your hearts, and from certain other passages, were resolved above in the second book.
Fourthly, others argue. If the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored because Christ is there, then every creature will have to be adored, because in every creature God is.
I answer: Christ is in the Eucharist, and God is in other things, in a far different way. For in the Eucharist there is only one suppositum, and that a divine one; all the rest pertain to it, and make one thing with it, although not in the same way: therefore that whole is rightly adored together, as we said before of the clothed Christ. But in other things God is indeed present, but is not one suppositum with them; nor can God, and the creature in which God is, be called one thing.
Fifthly, this adoration is exposed to a manifest danger of idolatry; for it can happen that an impious priest feign that he consecrates, and yet really not consecrate: therefore it is to be omitted.
I answer: If the argument were valid, not only adoration but also Communion would have to be omitted. For Communion is exposed to the danger of receiving mere bread for the body of Christ. But there is no danger of idolatry in him who simply and in good faith adores the Sacrament: for adoration depends chiefly on the intention. Wherefore, just as he who should do injury to unconsecrated bread, thinking it consecrated, would sin most gravely against Christ: so also, on the contrary, he who adores that same bread, because he certainly believes it to be not bread but Christ, he properly and formally adores Christ, not bread.
Sixthly, Honorius III instituted that the Sacrament be adored; and a little after Urban IV added a festal day and a solemn procession: therefore this whole rite is new, and devised by human ingenuity.
I answer: Honorius, as can be understood from the chapter Sane on the celebration of Masses, did not first institute the adoration of this Sacrament, but only admonished that the prelates of the Church should take pains that so great a Sacrament be not defrauded of its due honor. But Urban IV did indeed first institute the feast of the body of the Lord, and that solemn procession, and his decree was confirmed by Clement V, with the whole Council of Vienne, as is had in the single Clementine constitution on the relics and veneration of the Saints; but that institution can in no way be reprehended. For either it would have to be reprehended because new, and without a mandate of God, or because introduced without just cause. Novelty cannot be reprehended: for all feasts were once new, nor are any found in the New Testament instituted or commanded by Christ Himself. There are also examples of the old law. For the feast of Lots was instituted by Mardochai and Esther without any mandate of God, and received by the whole Synagogue, as is clear from Esther 9. Likewise the feast of Judith's victory was instituted by the Hebrews without any precept of God, Judith 16. Finally the feast of the Encaenia, instituted by the Maccabees, 1 Maccabees 4, the Lord Himself willed to celebrate after the custom of the Jews, John 10, that we might understand that it is lawful for the Church to introduce new feasts.
And that there were excellent reasons for introducing that feast is clear from the Clementine above cited; but two seem chief. The first is that the Christian people might give thanks to God for so great and so singular a benefit bestowed on us; which is the reason of all feasts, both those instituted in the Old Testament and those in the New. Wherefore, unless one deny that in this Sacrament a singular benefit is bestowed on us by God, or at least think that thanks are not to be given to God for benefits, I do not see by what reason he can reprehend this feast.
The other cause is that the people may be instructed concerning the mysteries of our faith, and assiduously recall them, and especially when those mysteries are attacked by heretics: for the ruder sort more easily learn and retain the mysteries of the Lord's incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the like, from the celebration of feasts which recur every year, than from books or sermons. By like reason the ruder sort better learn that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is truly present, and therefore that the doctrine of the heretics is false, from the public adoration of the whole Church, and from that exceptional honor which is exhibited to this Sacrament, than from many sermons. Wherefore if this feast were not yet instituted, it would be plainly expedient that at this time it be instituted, both that the faithful might be instructed, and also that they might really confute heresy and by deed protest the true faith.
Seventhly, Kemnitz objects an argument (as he thinks) insoluble, against the procession and carrying about of the venerable Sacrament. For in 1 Kings 4 we read that the children of Israel, with a good intention indeed, but without a mandate of God, brought the ark of God into the camp, thinking that by that carrying about of the ark they would win a victory over their enemies. But the contrary happened; for both the army was routed, and the priests killed who had brought the ark, and the ark itself was captured by the enemies.
I answer: The cause of so many evils was not the bringing of the ark into the camp, but the past sins of the Israelites, and especially of the priests Ophni and Phinees, sons of Heli; as God Himself testifies, 1 Kings 2 and 3. For otherwise the ark was in the camp when Saul won a notable victory, 1 Kings 14, and again was in the camp when Joab overcame the sons of Ammon, 2 Kings 11. And when the Israelites, Numbers 14, were conquered by the Amalekites, the Scripture thought it should be noted that the ark of God was not then with those who fought.
Finally, that the honor bestowed on the ark in a solemn procession and carrying about pleased God, whether He had commanded it or not, is clear from various testimonies of divine Scripture. In Joshua 6, the solemn carrying about of the ark, celebrated for seven days, brought it about that Jericho was captured without the blood of the Hebrews; and that procession indeed was commanded by God. But in 2 Kings 6 and 7, and 3 Kings chapter 8, most solemn and most pleasing processions to God are read, when the ark of the Lord was carried from place to place, which nevertheless the Lord had by no means bidden be made. And let these things concerning the whole controversy suffice, for the brevity of our design.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXX. Solvuntur objectiones. Superest ut objectiones adversariorum di¬ luamus. Primo, Lutherus in lib. ad Walden- ses objicit, in Sacramentis praecipue ad ver¬ ba sacramentalia attendere oportere : et in¬ de colligit, non debere homines occupari cir¬ ca adorationem, ne videlicet adorationi in¬ tenti obliviscantur verborum. Respondeo : Nititur hoc argumentum fun¬ damento illo putrido, quod Sacramenta sint instituta ad instruendum animum, et exci¬ tandam fidem, quod millies jam refutatum est. Deinde adoratio ex verbis oritur : inde enim movemur ad adorandum, quia audi¬ mus illud esse corpus Domini. Unde unum juvatur ex altero, tantum abest, ut unum al¬ terum impediat. Secundo, objicit idem. Adoratio ex fide procedere debet ; fides autem nititur Yerbo Dei. Sed verbum Dei non dicit, Christum in Eucharistia esse adorandum. Respondeo : Verbum Dei satis monet, et priecipit, Christum adorari debere in Eucha¬ ristia, cum docet, illum vere esse Deum, et esse in Eucharistia : et alibi jubet Deum adorari. Tertio, objicit Calvinus. Apostoli cum pri¬ mum communicarent, non leguntur prostrati in terram adorasse Sacramentum. Respondeo : Apostoli non debuerunt ma- 294 LIBER IV. jorem honorem exhibere Christo in specie panis latenti, quam in forma humana visibi¬ liter praesenti : non autem poterant semper prostrati cum Christo agere, et praesertim in ccena, quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse erat. Itaque certis vicibus illum pro¬ ni adorabant, alias autem mente, et animo venerabantur agnoscentes verum Dei Filium. Reliqua Calvini argumenta ex Nicaena Syno¬ do, et ex illa praefatione : « Sursum corda » , et ex aliis quibusdam locis supra soluta sqnt in ii. lib. Quarto, argumentantur alii. Si ideo Sa¬ cramentum Eucharistiae adorandum est, quia ibi Christus est, igitur omnis creatura ado¬ randa erit, quia in omni creatura Deus est. Respondeo : Longo aliter est Christus in Eucharistia, et in aliiis rebus Deus. Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum suppositum est, idque divinum ; caetera omnia ad illud perti¬ nent, et cum illo unum quid faciunt, licet non eodem modo : ideo recte totum illud simul adoratur, ut ante diximus de Christo vestito. At in aliis rebus Deus quidem est, sed non est unum suppositum cum illis ; ne¬ que dici possunt unum quid Deus, et creatu¬ ra, in qua est Deus. Quinto, ista adoratio exposita est mani¬ festo periculo idololatriae ; fieri enim potest, ut impius Sacerdos fingat se consecrare, nec tamen reipsa consecret : igitur omittenda est. Respondeo : Si argumentum valeret, omit¬ tenda esset non solum adoratio, sed etiam Communio. Nam Communio exposita est pe¬ riculo accipiendi merum panem pro corpore Christi. Sed nullum est periculum idololatriae in eo, qui simpliciter, et bona fide Sacra¬ mentum adorat : adoratio enim ex intentione potissimum pendet. Quare sicut is, qui panem non consecratum injuria afficeret, putans consecratum esse, gravissime peccaret in Christum : sic etiam contra, qui panem eum- dem adorat, quod certo credat non esse pa¬ nem, sed Christum, is proprie, et formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. Sexto, Honorius III instituit, ut Sacra¬ mentum adoraretur ; et paulo post Urbanus IV addidit festum diem, et solemnem pro¬ cessionem : ergo totus iste ritus novus est, et ab humano ingenio excogitatus. Respondeo : Honorius, ut excap. Sane de celebratione Missarum, intelligi potest, non instituit primus Sacramenti hujus adoratio¬ nem, sed monuit solum, ut praesides Eccle¬ siae operam darent, ne tantum Sacramentum debito honore fraudaretur. Urbanus autem IV instituit quidem primus festum corporis Domini, et solemnem illam processionem, et ejus decretum confirmavit Clemens V, cum universo Concilio Viennensi , ut habetur in Clementina unica de reliquiis et ve¬ neratione Sanctorum ; sed ea institutio nullo modo reprehendi potest. Nam aut reprehen¬ denda esset, quia nova, et sine Dei manda¬ to, vel quia sine justa causa introducta. No¬ vitas non potest reprehendi : omnia enim festa aliquando fuerunt nova, nec ulla inve¬ niuntur in Testamento novo ab ipso Christo instituta, vel imperata. Exstant etiam exem¬ pla legis veteris. Nam festum fortium a Mar- docheo, et Esther sine ullo Dei mandato, in- stituum fuit, et ab omni Synagoga receptum ut patet Esther ix. Festum item victoriee Ju- dith, institutum fuit ab Hebraeis sine ullo Dei praecepto, Jud. xvi. Denique festum Encenio- rum, institutum a Machabaeis, I Machab. iv, ipse etiam Dominus celebrare de more Ju¬ daeorum voluit, Joan x., ut intelligeremus li¬ cere Ecclesiee nova festa introducere. Fuisse autem optimas rationes ejus festi introducendi, patet ex Clementina supra ci¬ tata ; sed duae videntur praecipuae. Prima est, ut populus Christianus Deo gratias age¬ ret, ob tantum et tam singulare beneficium nobis impensum ; quae ratio est omnium fe¬ storum , tum in veteri Testamento, tum in novo institutorum.' Quare nisi quis neget, in hoc Sacramento singulare beneficium a Deo nobis praestitum, aut certe non putet, Deo pro beneficiis gratias esse agendas, non vi¬ deo qua ratione possit hoc festum reprehen¬ dere. Altera causa est, ut populus instruatur circa mysteria fidei nostrae, et eorum assidue recordetur, ac praesertim, quando ea my¬ steria ab haereticis oppugnantur : facilius enim rudiores discunt, et retinent mysteria incarnationis Domini, Passionis, Resurrectio¬ nis, Ascensionis, et similia, ex celebratione festorum, quae singulis annis recurrunt, quam ex libris, vel concionibus. Pari ratione melius discunt rudiores in Eucharistiae Sa¬ cramento vere esse Christum praesentem, et •proinde falsam esse hereticorum doctrinam ex publica adoratione totius Ecclesiae, et honore illo eximio, qui huic sacramento ex¬ hibetur, quam ex multis concionibus. Quare si hoc festum nondum institutum esset, ex¬ pediret plane, ut hoc tempore institueretur, CAPUT XXX 295 tum ut fideles instituerentur, tum etiam ut reipsa haeresim confutarent, et fidem veram facto protestarentur. Septimo objicit Kemnitius argumentum (ut ipse putat) insolubile, contra processio¬ nem, et circumgestationem venerabilis Sa¬ cramenti. Nam I Reg. iv legimus filios Israel bona quidem intentione, sed absque Dei mandato, adduxisse arcam Dei in castra, exi¬ stimantes per eam arca) circumgestationem se victoriam de hostibus relaturos. Sed con¬ tra accidit ; nam et exercitus -fusus est, et Sacerdotes occisi, qui arcam adduxerant, et ipsa arca ab hostibus capta fuit. Respondee : Causa tot malorum non fuit arca) adductio ad castra, sed peccata praete¬ rita Israelitarum, et praecipue sacerdotum Ophni et Phinees filiorum Heli ; ut Deus ipse testatur, I Reg. n. et m. Nam alioqui arca erat in castris, quando insignem victo¬ riam retulit Saul, I Regum xiv, et rursus erat in castris, quando Joab superavit filios Am¬ nion, II Regum xi. EtcumIsraelitae,Num. xiv, ab Ainalecitis victi sunt, Scriptura monen¬ dum putavit, non fuisse tunc arcam Dei cum illis, qui praeliabantur. Denique placuisse Deo, honorem arcae impensum in solemni processione, et circum- gestatione, sive ipse id mandasset, sive non, perspicuum est ex variis Scripturae divinae testimoniis. Josue vi. solemnis circumgesta- tio arcae septem diebus celebrata, efficit, ut Hierico sine sanguine Hebraeorum caperetur et illa quidem processio a Deo mandata fuit. Sed II Reg. vi. et vn. et III Reg. cap. vm. solemnissimae, et Deo gratissimae leguntur processiones, cum arca Domini referretur de loco in locum, quas tamen Dominus minime fieri jusserat. Atque haec de tota controver¬ sia pro instituti brevitate sufficiant. CONTROVERSIARUM DE EUCHARISTIA