Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 14: The Objections of the Greeks and Latins Against the Form of Consecrating the Eucharist 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).
Now let us come to their arguments. And first the Greeks draw an argument from the Liturgy of St. Clement, which is had in Book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 12 (otherwise 17), of St. James, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom, in which, after the words of the Lord are recited, Take, eat, this is my body, etc., there is had that prayer: “Make, O Lord, this bread the body of Thy Christ, etc.” for those holy Fathers would not call it bread, nor ask that it be changed into the body of the Lord, if this had already been done by the words of the Lord recited before.
I answer: Three solutions can be given to these passages. The first is that perhaps the order of those Liturgies has been changed, and that this prayer, “Make this bread, etc.,” ought to be placed before the words of the Lord, not after them. That some thought so Bessarion testifies in his book on the words of consecration; and there can be no light conjecture of this change, that in the Roman Liturgy a similar prayer is had before the words of the Lord. For thus we say: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, ascribed, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who the day before He suffered, etc.”; in which order all these things are recited also by Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5. And it is not likely that Ambrose and Basil, who were contemporaries, were wont to celebrate the Liturgy in so diverse an order.
The second solution is that which Bessarion touches in the place cited, that by that prayer of the Greeks is not asked, as the words seem to sound, the change of the bread into the body of the Lord, since it is already made; but is asked the confirmation and stability of the thing already done, not that the priest fears lest the gift already consecrated should vanish, but that he may show his desire and love toward the presence of the Lord's body. A similar expression is in Mark 5, where to the woman who had already been healed by the touch of the Lord's hem, Christ says: Thy faith hath made thee whole, go in peace, and be thou whole of thy affliction. Where that, Be thou whole, does not signify, I will that thou be healed; for she was already healed: but it is the same as if He had said, It pleases me that thou art healed: I ratify what is done. A similar expression is in Luke 7, where first it is said of Magdalen: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much; and yet afterward the Lord says to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee; as if then first they were forgiven, whereas they had already been forgiven before.
The third solution, and that the most solid of all, is that by those words is asked, not absolutely that the bread become the body of the Lord, but that it become so for us, that is, that that consecrated bread, which really is already in itself the body of the Lord, may become, through the effect of spiritual nourishment, the body of the Lord for us too: for they who eat unworthily, as Paul says, 1 Corinthians 11, eat judgment to themselves. That this is the true understanding of those prayers can be proved in many ways. First, because in the Liturgy of Clement and of Basil it is not said, “Make this bread the body of Christ,” but “Show this bread to be the body of Christ, etc.” Nor is there any doubt that the Liturgies of James and of Chrysostom, which have “Make,” wished to signify the same: and moreover Show the bread to be the body of the Lord signifies, Show by a saving effect in our minds that this sanctified bread is not common bread, but heavenly.
Secondly the same is clear from similar but clearer prayers which are had in the Latin Liturgy. For before consecration (as we noted above) it says: “May it become for us the body and blood”; and not, may it become simply; and after consecration we again ask the same by those words: “Bid these things be carried up by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thy sublime altar, etc.” where we ask this alone, that the sacrifice be useful to us.
Thirdly and finally the same is clear from the confession of many Greeks, who in the last session of the Council of Florence, being asked by the supreme Pontiff Eugenius why after the consecration of the Eucharist they said those prayers by which consecration seems to be asked, answered that they doubted not that the consecration was made by the words of Christ; but that those prayers were added, that usefulness to us from so great a sacrifice might be asked of God, in the way in which the Latins ask the same by that prayer, “Bid these things be carried up.”
Two other solutions to the same argument are in Bessarion; but these seem less solid.
The second argument they take from the testimony of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who in his book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, after those words, Do this in commemoration of me, sets the consecration of the Eucharist. But the words of the Lord, This is my body, are said before those, Do this in commemoration of me; therefore, according to the testimony of Dionysius, the consecration is not made by the words of the Lord, This is my body.
I answer: Dionysius does not explain by what words the consecration is made, nor what was said before those words, Do this; nor even what was said after them: wherefore it is uncertain what Dionysius means. But it is probable that in the Liturgy which Dionysius used those words, Do this, were had twice, once in a certain prayer in which the priest excuses himself for daring to undertake so great an office, because the Lord Himself bade it, saying, Do this, and of this prayer Dionysius makes mention in that place; and again afterward in its proper place, the consecration being accomplished, as they are had in all the Liturgies.
The third argument they take from John Damascene, who, Book 4, chapter 14, says that Basil in his Liturgy calls the bread of the Eucharist the antitype of the Lord's body before consecration, but not after consecration: the same has that Epiphanius who in the Seventh Synod, action 6, disputes for the Catholics against the Iconoclasts. But in Basil that word antitypa is had after the words of the Lord, This is my body, not after that prayer by which the more recent Greeks think the consecration is made; therefore Damascene and Epiphanius thought that the consecration is made not by the words of the Lord, but by that prayer which is recited after the words of the Lord.
I answer: Some suspect that in the time of Damascene and Epiphanius the Greek Liturgy had a different order from that which it now has, and that those words, where the bread of the Eucharist is called the antitype of the Lord's body, and God is asked to make it the body of the Lord, were placed before the recitation of those words of the Lord, This is my body, etc., and therefore that Damascene and Epiphanius rightly said that the bread is called by Basil the antitype before consecration, not after. But this solution seems to have no place. For St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was a contemporary of Damascene and Epiphanius, in his contemplation of Ecclesiastical things, expounding the Liturgy which in his time was in use, openly indicates that that Liturgy had the very order which it now has: wherefore if a change was made, as we said above it is not improbable, certainly it was made before the times of Damascene.
Another solution, then, can be given, according to what we said in the second solution to the first argument of the Greeks. For as we said that those words, “Make this bread the body of Thy Christ,” do indeed sound the change of the bread into the body as future, yet really signify nothing but the confirmation of the thing done, as we explained there; so also it must be said that the word (antitypa), according to the opinion of Damascene and Epiphanius, was used by Basil in that place because he spoke of the bread as if it were not yet consecrated, although really it was consecrated, and was no longer an antitype, but the very truth. What Damascene and Epiphanius say, then, that it is called antitype before consecration, is to be referred to the mode of speaking, not to the real consecration itself: for even though the consecration was then made, yet as to the mode of speaking it was signified as future.
The fourth argument is that of Nicholas Cabasilas, who contends that from our Mass it can be proved that the consecration is made after the words of the Lord. For he says that those words, “Bid these things be carried up by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thy sublime altar, etc.,” signify that the bread is carried up by the hands of Christ, who is the Angel of great counsel, to the sublime altar, that is, that it may be the body of the Lord, etc.
We answer that this is a depravation, not an exposition, of our canon: for no one ever so expounded it, but all understand that by those prayers it is prayed that the sacrifice which is visibly offered by the hands of the priest may be offered in heaven invisibly by the hands of Christ, and that our ministry and devotion may be acceptable to God.
The fifth argument is: The Fathers everywhere write that the Eucharist is consecrated by prayers and the invocation of God, as is clear from the testimonies cited against the Lutherans. But those words, This is my body, this is the blood, do not have the form of prayers or of invocation; therefore the Eucharist is not consecrated by those words, but by the prayer following, as the Greeks will.
I answer that for a twofold cause the Fathers call the consecration prayers, or invocations, or even the giving of thanks, or a blessing. One cause is that by consecration they sometimes understand the whole Liturgy, or certainly the whole action which we call the canon; and because in that action there are prayers, thanksgivings, blessings, invocations, etc., therefore the Fathers now from one part, now from another, denominate the whole action. But when they wish to indicate by the power of what words the consecration is made, then they separate the Evangelical words of the Lord from the other words of prayers and invocations which are employed in the Mass, as is clear from Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, and from Augustine, Book 6 against the Donatists, chapter 25, and elsewhere. The other cause is that even the very words of the Lord, This is my body, and the forms of all the other Sacraments, as they are uttered by the priest with the intention of making the Sacrament, contain implicitly the invocation of the divine power, which is the primary cause of the Sacramental effect: for the priest intends by those words, as instruments of God, to effect the consecration.
The sixth argument for the Greeks. Words can be said in two ways, either narratively and recitatively, or significatively. As for example, when we recite from the Gospel that the Jews said of Christ, He blasphemeth, those words (He blasphemeth) were said by the Jews significatively, for they wished to signify that Christ was a blasphemer: but by us they are not said significatively, but only narratively, for we do not wish to signify that Christ was a blasphemer, but that the Jews said this. This distinction being laid down, this is the argument. Those words, This is my body, are said by the priests either recitatively or significatively. But in neither way can they be the form of the Sacrament; therefore those words are not the form of the Sacrament. The assumption is proved. For if those words were said recitatively, first, it would follow that by that This is pointed to the bread which was in the hands of Christ, not this which is in the hands of the priest, and therefore that the bread which is set on the altar to be consecrated would not be consecrated. Secondly, it would follow that nothing could be consecrated by these words. For words consecrate while they make what they signify; but these signify nothing, since they are said only materially, and not significatively. But if they were said significatively, first, that, This is my body, would point to the body of the priest, not of Christ: and one would have to say, This is the body of Christ. Secondly, all the preceding words cry out that they are not said significatively or recitatively, since we read: “He took bread into His holy and venerable hands, etc.” And below: “He blessed, broke, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take, etc.”
I answer that those words are said in both ways, both recitatively and significatively; for the sake of which three things are to be noted. The first is that in the action of the Liturgy the priest sometimes acts his own person, sometimes the person of Christ. For when he confesses his own sins, when he prays, when he praises Christ, he acts without doubt his own person, not Christ's; when he says, This is my body, he acts the person of Christ. Wherefore those sacred vestments partly signify the passion of Christ, whose person the priest acts, partly also the virtues necessary to a priest.
The second is that in this action the priest acts the person of Christ far otherwise than in the other Sacraments. For in the others he acts indeed as the minister of Christ, yet speaks in his own person, as when he says: I baptize thee, I absolve thee; in the way too that a magistrate, although he be the minister of the king, yet speaks in his own person when he pronounces sentence from the tribunal. But in the consecration of the Eucharist the priest not only acts as the minister of Christ, but altogether puts on the person of Christ, and speaks as if he himself were Christ; in the way in which, Exodus 3, the Angel says, I am the God of thy father. And sometimes the legates of kings, bearing the person of their princes, admit the honors which are due to the kings themselves.
The third is that the priest in the action of the Liturgy, up to those words, “Who the day before He suffered,” acts his own person, not Christ's, as is clear; because thus far he prays or praises: but from those words to the end of the consecration he acts his own person and Christ's, and therefore pronounces the words at once recitatively and significatively; for he intends to recite what Christ did and said, and at the same time to imitate all things in the person of Christ, as if Christ through his ministry again did and said all things, as really it is invisibly done. And hence it is that when he says, “He took bread,” he himself at the same time takes bread, and when he says, “Lifting up His eyes to heaven,” he too lifts his eyes to heaven, and when he says, “He blessed,” he too blesses, and when he says, This is my body, he intends that, as Christ of that bread which He once took said, This is my body, and by saying made it to be so, so also of this bread which is now taken, the same Christ through the mouth of the priest says, This is my body, and by saying effects it. Wherefore those words are said in the canon of the Mass in a far different manner than they are recited by the same priest in the epistle of blessed Paul on the feast of the body of the Lord, or in the Gospel on Palm Sunday: for in the canon they are said significatively; but at other times only narratively and historically. And hence are resolved all the arguments: for the former proved that they are not said only recitatively, the latter proved that they are not said only significatively.
The seventh argument is that of Calvin, in the place above cited. The Lord, when He said, Take and eat, This is my body, did not address the bread, but the Apostles: therefore those words are referred not to the bread to be consecrated, but to the faith to be instructed. He adds that for the bread to be transmuted by the power of words is a species of magical incantation.
But to this last we have already often answered: and indeed it is an intolerable blasphemy to call magic that which we say is done by the words of Christ by the institution of Christ Himself: and if this were magic, much more ought it to be called magic when the Lord healed the blind man with clay and spittle. But these things omitted, to the first I answer that the words of the Lord were said to the Apostles, but of the bread and over the bread, and therefore were efficacious about the bread, not about the Apostles. It is similar in Luke 7: the Lord said to Simon of Magdalen: Wherefore I say to thee, Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. These words are said to Simon, and yet were efficacious about Magdalen, who was then freed from her sins. And in John 4, when the Lord says to the ruler, Go, thy son liveth, the words are said to the ruler, but were efficacious upon his son, not upon the ruler himself.
The eighth argument, of Bucer: Nowhere is it written that the priests ought to say, This is my body; therefore it suffices to bless and break the bread.
I answer, we have already shown above that the Lord commanded those words to be said, when He said, Do this.
The ninth argument, of Kemnitz and other Lutherans. Nothing ought to be added to or taken from the words of the Lord. But the Catholics add and take away much: for they added to the words of the chalice many things: likewise they took away, Take and eat, and, Which shall be delivered for you.
I answer, and I say two things. First, that the words which are simply necessary for consecration are only those, This is my body, and, This is my blood, or, This is the chalice of my blood; all the rest, although they ought to be said according to the Canon instituted by the Church, and cannot be omitted without sin, yet are not so necessary that without them the consecration cannot be made. This is proved in two ways. First, because these few words sufficiently express the effect of consecration. Nor is there need that they express the action of the minister, as is done in the other Sacraments: for the other Sacraments consist in an action; but this in a permanent thing. Secondly, because these are had in all the Liturgies, and in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul; but the rest are varied. And there is no doubt that the form of this Sacrament is sufficiently expressed by each Evangelist: for otherwise it would follow that those did not have a true Eucharist who had only one Gospel.
And if anyone say that the Evangelists did not wish to deliver the entire forms of the Sacraments, but only a brief history of the Lord's passion, and that the forms are had from tradition: we shall press the argument from the Liturgies. For it is certain that in the Liturgies the entire forms are set down, and at the same time it is certain that those had a true Sacrament who used the Liturgy of St. Clement, St. James, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, and yet all those Liturgies vary, and there is none which has all those words which are had in our Roman Liturgy. For those words, “Of the new and eternal Testament,” and, “The mystery of faith,” are found in none but ours. Hence, then, we answer Kemnitz that if anything is added to or taken from the form of the Sacrament, it does not pertain to the essence of that form.
Secondly I answer that not without reason and example was taken away, or added, whatever in our form is added or taken away. Which I thus show. First, they calumniate that those words are taken away, Take and eat. I answer that they are not taken away; for they are pronounced by us: but they are separated from the parts of the essential form, because those words signify a precept given about the use of the Sacrament, but do not pertain to the sanctifying of the bread; wherefore even if they were absolutely omitted, yet the Sacrament would be made. It is similar in those words of Luke 7: I say to thee, Many sins are forgiven her, in which words that (I say to thee) does nothing to the effect of the remission of sins. So also John 4: Go, thy son liveth, that (Go) works nothing in the healing of that boy. Add that in Luke 22 those words are omitted, Take and eat. And in 1 Corinthians 11 those are omitted, Take and drink; wherefore even if with us they were altogether omitted, we could by no means be reprehended.
Secondly, they calumniate that those words are taken away from the consecration of the bread: Which is delivered for you, or, which is broken. I answer that those words are not had in Matthew and Mark: nor in Justin, Apology 2, Cyril, Catechesis 4 of the Mystagogics, and Eusebius of Emesa, homily 5 on the Pasch, whereas all these report the form of consecration. And just as we cannot reprehend these authors, so no one ought to reprehend our Mass: especially since our Liturgy is more ancient, if it proceeded from St. Peter, as St. Thomas teaches, Part 3, question 78, article 2, reply 5, and before him Leo IX, in his letter to Michael, chapter 5, than the Gospel of Luke and the epistle of Paul, who added those words, Which is broken for you.
Thirdly, they calumniate that those words are added: “Lifting up His eyes to heaven to Thee, O God, etc.,” which are had in no Gospel, nor in Paul. I answer that those words are had in the Liturgy of St. James, and of St. Clement, Book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 17, and in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5. For all read: “He looked up to heaven.” And moreover, as Innocent III argues, chapter Cum Marthae on the celebration of Masses, the Lord was always wont to lift His eyes to heaven when He gave thanks to the Father, as is clear from Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9, John 11. Wherefore there can be no doubt that in this last thanksgiving too He lifted His eyes to heaven.
Fourthly, they calumniate the particle (for) added to the form of consecrating the bread; and likewise those words, Of it all, when it is said, Eat of it all. For these are not had in the Scriptures. I answer that all those particles are had in the form of the chalice, Matthew 26: Drink, He says, of it all, for this is the blood, etc. From which we understand that those particles are understood in the consecration of the bread: for the reasoning of each form is the same. But what absurdity is there, if that be clearly expressed which otherwise would have to be understood? Whence Ambrose too, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5, expresses all those things as they are expressed in our Liturgy.
Fifthly, they calumniate those things added in the form of consecrating the chalice: “Of the new and eternal Testament,” and, “The mystery of faith”: for in the Gospel there is had only (of the new Testament). I answer that those particles are had from St. Peter by tradition; and therefore cannot be reprehended: moreover that they are most true, and are gathered from the Scriptures. For that the Testament of Christ is eternal, in distinction from the Old Testament, which was temporal, is clear from that of Psalm 109: Thou art a priest forever. And from Paul, expressly proving this in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7. Likewise that the chalice of the Lord's blood is rightly called the mystery of faith cannot be doubted, since in no other thing more and more frequently is faith to be exercised, all the senses crying out against it, than in this.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI Y.
Solvuntur objectiones Graecorum et* Latinorum
contra formam consecrationis Eucharistiae.
Nunc ad argumenta ipsorum veniamus.
Ac primum Graeci argumentum petunt ex
Liturgia S. Clementis, quae habetur lib. vm.
constitut. Apostol. cap. 12. alias 17. S. Ja-
cobi, S. Basilii, et S. Chrysostomi, in qua
post verba Domini recitata : Accipite, man¬
ducate , hoc est corpus meum , etc. habetur illa
oratio : « Fac Domine, panem istum corpus
Christi tui etc. » non enim panem appella¬
rent sancti isti Patres, neque peterent mu¬
tari in corpus Domini, si id jam esset factum
per verba Domini antea recitata.
Respondeo : Tres solutiones dari possunt
ad haec loca. Prima est, fortasse mutatum
esse ordinem istarum Liturgiarum, et hanc
orationem : « Fac panem istum etc. » debere
collocari ante verba Domini, non post ea. Ita
sensisse aliquos testatur Bessarion in suo lib.
de verbis consecrationis ; et conjectura non
levis esse potest hujus mutationis, quod in
Liturgia Romana habeatur similis oratio ante
verba Domini. Sic enim nos dicimus : « Quam
oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, quaesumus,
benedictam, adseriptam, ratam, rationabi¬
lem , acceptabilemque facere digneris, ut
nobis corpus, et sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii
tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui pridie
quam pateretur etc. » quo ordine ista omnia
recitat etiam Ambrosius lib. iv. de Sacra¬
mentis, cap. 5. Non est autem verisimile,
Ambrosium et Rasilium, qui coaetanei fue¬
runt, tam diverso ordine Liturgiam cele¬
brare consuevisse.
Secunda solutio est, quam attingit Bessa¬
rion loco citato, oratione illa Graecorum non
peti, ut verba sonare videntur, mutationem
panis in corpusDomini, quippe quae jam facta
est; sed peti confirmationem, et stabilitatem
rei jam factae, non quod sacerdos timeat,
ne evanescat munus jam consecratum, sed
ut ostendat desiderium suum, et amorem
erga praesentiam Dominici corporis. Similis
locutio est Mare. 5. ubi mulieri, quae sanata
jam fuerat per contactum fimbriae Domini,
Christus ait : Fides tua te salvam fecit , vade
in pace, et esto sana a plaga tua. Ubi illud :
Esto sana , non significat , Yolo ut sane¬
ris ; jam enim sana erat : sed idem est, ac
si dixisset, Placet quod sanata sis : ratum
habeo, quod factum est. Similis locutio est
Luc vii. ubi primum dicitur de Magdalcna :
Remittuntur ei peccata multa , quoniam dilexit
multum ; et postea tamen Dominus eidem
dicit : Remittuntur tibi peccata tua (1) ; quasi
tunc primum dimitterentur, cum tamen an¬
tea jam remissa fuissent.
Tertia solutio, caque omnium solidissima
est, per ea verba non peti absolute, ut panis
fiat corpus Domini, sed ut nobis fiat, id est,
ut panis ille consecratus, qui revera jam est
in se corpus Domini, fiat per effectum nutri-
tionis spiritualis etiam nobis corpus Domini:
Qui enim indigne manducant , ut Paulus ait i.
Corinth. xi. judicium sibi manducant (2). Hanc
esse veram intelligentiam illarum precum,
probari potest multis modis. Primo, quia in
Liturgia Caementis et Basilii, non dicitur :
« Fac panem istum corpus Christi, » sed
« Ostende panem ipsum corpus Christi etc. »
Neque dubium est, quin Jacobi, et Chryso¬
stomi Liturgke, quee habent {Fac) idem si¬
gnificare voluerint : porro Ostende panem
esse corpus Domini \ significat, Ostende per
effectum salutarem in mentibus nostris, istum
panem sanctifieatum, non esse panem vul¬
garem sed coelestem.
Secundo idem patet ex similibus precibus,
sed clarioribus, quae habentur in Liturgia
Latina. Nam ante consecrationem (ut supra
notavimus) dicit : « Fiat nobis corpus, et san¬
guis : )> non autem fiat simpliciter ; et post
consecrationem iterum petimus idem per illa
verba : « Jube haec perferri per manus S.
Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum etc. » ubi
id solum petimus, ut sacrificium nobis sit
utile.
Tertio denique idem patet ex confessione
multorum Graecorum, qui in ultima sess.
Concilii Florentini interrogati a summo Pon¬
tifice Eugenio, cur post consecrationem Eu¬
charistiae dicerent illas preces, quibus vide¬
tur peti consecratio, responderunt se nihil
(l).Lue. VII, 47 et 48. - (2) 1 Corinth. XI, 20.
CAPUT XIV.
241
dubitare, quin consecratio fieret per verba
Christi; illas autein preces addi, ut peteretur
a Deo nobis utilitas ex tanto sacrificio, eo
modo, quo Latini idem petunt per illam ora¬
tionem : « Jube ha3C perferri. »
Duse alise solutiones ad idem argumentum
sunt apud Bessarionem ; sed esc minus soli-
dse esse videntur.
Secundum argumentum sumunt ex testi¬
monio S. Dionysii Areopagitse, qui in lib. de
Ecclesiastica hierarchia, cap. 3. post illa
verba : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem ,
ponit consecrationem Eucharistiae. At verba
Domini : Hoc est corpus meum , dicuntur ante
illa : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem ;
ergo ex Dionysii testimonio, consecratio non
fit per verba Domini : Hoc est corpus meum.
Respondeo : Dionysius non explicat quibus
verbis fiat consecratio, neque quid ante illa
verba : Hoc facite , dictum fuerit; neque etiam
quid post illa : quare incertum est, quid sibi
Dionysius velit. Probabile autem est, in Li-
turgia, qua utebatur Dionysius, bis fuisse illa
verba : Hoc facite , semel in oratione qua¬
dam, quse se excusat Sacerdos, quod audeat
tantum munus aggredi ; quia Dominus ipse
id jussit dicens : Hoc facite , et hujus ora¬
tionis meminit eo loco Dionysius ; et rursus
postea in loco proprio peracta consecratione,
ut in omnibus Liturgiis habentur.
Tertium argumentum sumunt ex Joannc
Damasceno, qui lib. iv. cap. 44. dicit Basi-
liuminLiturgia vocare panemEucharistise, an-
titypa corporis Domini ante consecrationem,
non autem post consecrationem : otidem ha-
betEpiphanius ille, qui in VII. Synodo, actio.
0. disputat pro Catholicis contra Iconomachos.
Apud Basilium autem habetur illa vox :
avTtTUTra post verba Domini : Hoc est corpus
meum, non autem post illam orationem, qua
Graeci recentiores existimant fieri consecra¬
tionem; ergo existimarunt Damascenus, et
Epiplianius, consecrationem non fieri per
verba Domini, sed per illam orationem, qua)
post verba Domini recitatur.
Respondeo : Aliqui suspicantur tempore
Damasceni, et Epiphanii, Liturgiam Graecam
alium ordinem habuisse, quam modo habeat,
et illa verba, ubi panis Eucharistiae vocatur
antitypum corporis Domini, et rogatur Deus,
ut illum efficiat corpus Domini, fuisse posita
ante recitationem illorum verborum Domini:
Hoc est corpus meum etc. et ideo recte dixisse
Damascenum et Epiphanium, panem vocari
a Basilio antitypum ante consecrationem,
Tome IV.
non postea. Sed haec solutio non videtur ha¬
bere locum. Nam S. Germanus Patriarcha
Constantinopolitanus, qui fuit Damasceni, et
Epiphanii aequalis; in theoria rerum Eccle-
siastic. exponens Liturgiam, quae suo tem¬
pore erat in usu, aperte indicat habuisse eam
Liturgiam illum ipsum ordinem, quem modo
habet : quare si mutatio facta est, ut supra
diximus : improbabile non esse, certe facta
est ante tempora Damasceni.
Alia igitur solutio dari potest, juxta ea,
quae diximus in 2. solutione ad primum ar¬
gumentum Graecorum. Nam quemadmodum
diximus verba illa : « Fac panem istum cor¬
pus Christi tui, » sonare quidem mutationem
panis in corpus tamquam futuram : tamen
revera non significare nisi confirmationem
rei facta), ut ibi explicuimus; sic etiam di¬
cendum est, vocem (antitypa) ex sente hia
Damasceni, et Epiphanii usurpatam esse a
Basilio eo loco, quia loquebatur de pane, ac
si nondum consecratus esset, licet revera
esset consecratus, et non esset amplius anti¬
typum, sed ipsa veritas. Quod igitur Dama¬
scenus, et Epiplianius dicunt, antitypa vocari
ante consecrationem, referendum est ad mo¬
dum loquendi, non ad ipsam realem conse¬
crationem : nam etiamsi tunc facta esset
consecratio, tamen quoad modum loquendi
significabatur ut futura.
Quartum argumentum est Nicolai Cabasi-
la), qui contendit ex nostra Missa probari
posse, consecrationem fieri post verba Do¬
mini. Dicit enim illa verba : « Jube liaic per¬
ferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime
altare tuum, etc. » significare panem trans¬
ferri per manus Christi, qui est magni con¬
silii Angelus, in sublime altare, id est, ut sit
corpus Domini, etc.
Respondemus, hanc esse depravationem,
non expositionem canonis nostri : nullus
enim unquam ita exposuit, sed omnes intel-
ligunt, orari illis precibus, ut sacrificium,
quod visibiliter offertur manibus Sacerdotis,
offeratur in coelo invisibiliter per manus
Christi, et sit Deo acceptum ministerium, et
devotio nostra.
Quintum argumentum est; Patres passim
scribunt Eucharistiam precibus, et invoca¬
tione Dei consecrari, ut patet ex testimoniis
citatis contra Lutheranos. Sed illa verba :
Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis, non ha¬
bent formam precum, neque invocationis ;
ergo non consecratur illis verbis Eucharistia,
sed prece consequente, ut Grecci volunt.
1G
242
LJBER IV.
Respondeo duplici de causa Patres conse¬
crationem vocant preces, vel invocationes,
vel etiam gratiarum actionem, aut benedi¬
ctionem : Una causa est, quia per consecra¬
tionem interdum accipiunt totam Liturgiam,
vel certe totam actionem, quam nos cano-
nem vocamus ; et quia in ea actione sunt pre¬
ces, gratiarum actiones, benedictiones, invo¬
cationes, etc., ideo Patres nunc ab una parte,
nunc ab alia totam actionem denominant.
Quando autem indicare volunt, quorum ver¬
borum virtute fiat consecratio, tunc separant
verba Domini Evangelica ab aliis verbis pre¬
cum, et invocationum, qua) adhibentur in
Missa, ut patet ex Ambrosiolib.iv.de Sacra¬
mentis, cap. 4. et ex Augustino lib. vi. con¬
tra Donatistas, cap.. 2o. et alibi. Altera causa
est, quia ipsa etiam verba Domini : lloc est
corpus meum , et omnium aliorum Sacramento¬
rum forma), ut proferuntur a Sacerdote cum
intentione Sacramentum faciendi, continent
implicite invocationem divina) virtutis, qua)
est causa primaria effectus Sacramentalis :
intendit enim Sacerdos per illa verba ut in¬
strumenta Dei, consecrationem efficere.
Sextum argumentum pro Greecis. Possunt
verba duobus modis dici, aut narrative, ac
rccitative, aut significative. Ut exempli cau¬
sa, cum ex Evangclio recitamus, dixisse Ju-
daeos de Christo : Hic blasphemat , illa verba
(hic blasphemat) a Judaeis dicebantur signi¬
ficative, id enim significare volebant, Chri¬
stum esse blasphemum : a nobis autem non
dicuntur significative, sed tantum narrative,
non enim significare volumus Christum bla¬
sphemum, sed Judaeos hoc dixisse. Hac dis¬
tinctione posita, est hoc argumentum. Verba
illa : Hoc est corpus meum , vel dicuntur a
Sacerdotibus recitati ve, vel significative. Sed
neutro modo possunt esse forma sacramenti;
igitur non sunt ista verba forma Sacramenti.
Probatur assumptio. Nam si verba ista dice¬
rentur recitative. Primo, sequeretur per illud,
Hoc , demonstrari panem qui fuit in manibus
Christi, non istum, qui est in manibus Sacer¬
dotis, ac proinde non consecraretur panis, qui
consecrandus proponitur in altari. Secundo,
sequeretur non posse consecrari quidquam
his verbis. Nam verba consecrant, dum fa¬
ciunt, quod significant; ista autem nihil signi¬
ficant, cum dicantur materialiter tantum, et
non significative. Si autem dicerentur signi¬
ficative, primo illud : Hoc est corpus meum,
demonstraret corpus Sacerdotis, non Christi :
ac dicere oporteret, Hoc est corpus Christi.
Secundo, omnia verba praecedentia clamant
non dici significative, seu recitative, cum
legamus : « Accepit panem in sanctas ac ve¬
nerabiles manus, etc. » Et infra : « Bene¬
dixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens :
Accipite, etc. »
Respondeo, verba illa dici utroque modo,
et recitative, et significative; in cujus rei
gratiam notanda sunt tria. Primum est, in a-
ctionc Liturgise, Sacerdotem aliquando agere
personam suam, aliquando personam Christi.
Nam quando confitetur peccata sua, quando
orat, quando laudat Christum, agit sine du¬
bio personam suam , non Christi ; quando
dicit : Hoc est corpus meum , agit personam
Christi. Quare vestes illa) sacrae partim signi¬
ficant Christi passionem, cujus personam
Sacerdos agit, partim etiam virtutes Sacer¬
doti necessarias.
Secundum est, in hac actione longe ali¬
ter Sacerdotem agere personam Christi ,
quam in aliis Sacramentis. Nam in aliis agit
quidem, ut Christi minister, tamen loquitur
in persona sua, ut cum dicit : Ego te ba¬
ptizo, ego te absolvo ; quomodo etiam pra)-
tor, licet sit minister regis, tamen in per¬
sona sua propria loquitur, cum sententiam
dicit pro tribunali. At in consecratione Eu¬
charistia), Sacerdos non solum agit, ut mi¬
nister Christi, sed induit omnino Christi
personam, et loquitur, ac si ipse esset Chri¬
stus ; quomodo Exod. in. Angelus dicit:
E(jo sum Deus Patris tui. Et aliquando le¬
gati regum referentes personam principum
suorum, admittunt honores, qui regibus ip¬
sis debentur.
Tertium est, Sacerdotem in actione Litur-
gia), usque ad illa verba : « Qui pridie quam
pateretur » , agere personam suam , non
Christi, ut patet; quia eousque orat , vel
laudat : ab illis autem verbis, usque ad fi¬
nem consecrationis, agere personam suam
et Christi, et ideo recitative simul, et signi¬
ficative verba pronuntiare ; intendit enim
recitare, qnid Christus egerit, et dixerit, et
simul omnia imitari in persona Christi, ac si
Christus per ipsius ministerium iterum om
nia faceret, et diceret, sicut revera invisib
liter ita fit. Et hinc est, quod cum dicit
« Accepit panem » , ipse simul accipit pa •
nem, et cum ait : « Elevatis oculis in coe¬
lum », et ipse elevat oculos in coelum, et
cum ait : « Benedixit », et ipse benedicit, et
cum ait: Hoc est corpus meum , intendit,
quod sicut Christus de pane illo, quem olim
CAPUT XIV.
243
accepit, dixit : Hoc est corpus meum , et di¬
cendo fecit, ut esset : ita etiam de pane
isto, qui nunc accipitur, idem Christus per
os Sacerdotis dicat : Hoc est corpus meum ,
et dicendo efficiat. Quare longe alia ratione
dicuntur ista verba in canone Missae, quam
recitentur ab eodem Sacerdote in epistola
B. Pauli in festo corporis Domini, vel in
Evangclio in die Palmarum : in canone enim
dicuntur significative ; alias autem solum
narrative, et historice. Atque hinc solvun¬
tur omnia argumenta : nam priora proba¬
bant, non dici solum recitative, posteriora
probabant, non dici solum significative.
Septimum argumentum est Calvini, loco
supra citato. Dominus cum ait : Accipite et
manducate , Hoc est corpus meum , non allo¬
quebatur panem, sed Apostolos : ergo ver¬
ba illa non referuntur ad panem consecran¬
dum, sed ad fidem instruendam. Addit, vir¬
tute verborum, transmutari panem, speciem
esse magicae incantationis.
Sed ad hoc ultimum saepe jam respondi¬
mus : Et sane intolerabilis blasphemia est
vocare magiam id, quod Christi verbis ex
ipsius Christi instituto fieri dicimus : et si
haec magia esset, multo magis magia dici
deberet, cum Dominus luto et sputo cascum
sanavit. Sed his omissis, ad primum re¬
spondeo, verba Domini dicta esse ad Aposto¬
los, sed de pane, et super panem, et proinde
circa panem efficacia fuisse, non circa Apo¬
stolos. Simile est Luc. vn ; Dominus dixit ad
Simonem de Magdalena : Propter quocl dico
tibi , remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam
dilexit multum. Hasc verba dicuntur ad Si¬
monem, et tamen efficacia fuerunt circa
Magdalenam, quas tunc liberata est a pec¬
catis. Et Joan. iv. cum Dominus ait Regulo :
Vade, filius tuus vivit (I) , verba dicuntur ad
Regulum, sed in filium ejus, non in ipsum
Regulum efficacia fuerunt.
Octavum argumentum Buceri : Nusquam
scriptum est debere Sacerdotes dicere : Hoc
est corpus meum ; ergo sufficit panem bene¬
dicere, et frangere.
Respondeo, jam supra ostendimus, Domi¬
num prasccpisse, ut illa verba diceretur,
cum ait : IJoc facite.
Nonum argumentum Kemnitii, et aliorum
Luthcranorum. Oportet nihil addere, vel de¬
trahere verbis Domini. At Catholici multa
addunt et detrahunt : nam addiderunt ad
verba calicis multa : item detraxerunt : Ac¬
cipite, et manducate , et : Quod pro vobis tra¬
detur.
Respondeo, ac dico duo. Primo, verba
quas simpliciter necessaria sunt ad conse¬
crationem, esse illa tantum : Hoc est corpus
meum. Et : Hic est sanguis meus , vel, Hic est
calix sanguinis mei , reliqua omnia, etsi dici
debeant juxta Canonem ab Ecclesia in¬
stitutum , et sine peccato omitti non pos¬
sint, tamen non esse ita necessaria, ut sine
illis consecratio non possit fieri. Probatur
hoc dupliciter. Primo, quia hsec pauca verba
sufficienter exprimunt effectum consecra¬
tionis. Neque est opus, ut exprimant actio¬
nem ministri, ut in aliis Sacramentis fit :
nam alia Sacramenta in actione consi¬
stunt ; hoc autem in re permanente. Secun¬
do, quia haec habentur in omnibus Liturgiis,
et apud Matthaeum , Marcum, Lucam, et
Paulum ; reliqua autem variantur. Non est
autem dubitandum, quin forma Sacramenti
hujus sufficienter expressa sit a quolibet
Evangelista : alioqui enim sequeretur non
habuisse veram Eucharistiam eos, qui non
habuerunt nisi unum Evangelium.
Quod si quis dicat, Evangelistas non vo¬
luisse tradere integras formas Sacramento¬
rum, sed solum historiam brevem passionis
Domini, formas autem haberi ex traditione:
urgebimus argumentum ex Liturgiis. Cer¬
tum enim est in Liturgiis poni integras for¬
mas, et simul certum est verum Sacramen¬
tum habuisse eos, qui utebantur Liturgia
S. Clementis, S. Jacobi, S. Basilii, S. Am¬
brosii, S. Ghrysostomi, et tamen ista) omnes
Liturgia) variant, et nulla est, qua) habeat
illa omnia verba, qua) habentur in nostra
Romana Liturgia. Nam illa verba : « Novi,
et aeterni Testamenti, » et, a Mysterium fi¬
dei, » in nulla inveniuntur praeterquam in
nostra. Hinc ergo Kcmnitio respondemus, si
quid additum, aut detractum est in forma
Sacramenti, id non pertinere ad essentiam
ejusmodi formae.
Secundo respondeo, non sine ratione, et
exemplo detractum esse, vel additum quid¬
quid in nostra forma additum est, vel de¬
tractum. Quod sic ostendo. Primo, calum¬
niantur detracta esso illa: Accipite etman -
ducate. Respondeo, illa non. esse detracta ;
nam pronuntiantur a nobis : separari autem
a partibus formae essentialis, quia illa verba
✓
(1) Luc. VII, 47 ; Joan. IV, 50.
244
LIBER IV.
significant praeceptum elatum dc usu Sa¬
cramenti, non autem pertinent ad panem
sanctificandum ; quare etiamsi absolute
omitterentur, tamen Sacramentum fieret.
Simile est in illis verbis Lue. vn : Dico tibi ,
remittuntur ei peccata multa , in quibus ver¬
bis, illud ( Dico tibi) non facit quidquam ad
effectum remissionis peccatorum. Sic etiam
Joan. viii : Vade , filius tuus vicit , illud (Va-
de) nihil operatur insanitate pueri illius. Ad¬
de, quod Lue. xxn, omittuntur illa verba :
Accipite, et manducate. EtICor. xi. omittuntur
illa : Accipite, et bibite ; quare etiamsi apud
nos omnino omitterentur, reprehendi mini¬
me possemus.
Secundo, calumniantur detracta illa verba
ex consecratione panis : Quod pro vobis tra¬
ditur , vel, frangitur. Respondeo, illa verba
non haberi apud Matthaeum, et Marcum :
nec apud Justinum Apol. it. Gyrillum Cafe-
ches. 4. mystag. et Eusebium Emissenum
hom. 5. dc Paschate, cum tamen ii omnes
referant formam consecrationis. Et sicut hos
auctores reprehendere non possumus, ita nec
nostram Missam reprehendere ullus deberet :
praesertim cum antiquior sitLiturgia nostra,
si a S. Petro prodiit, 'ut S. Thomas docet, 3.
part. quaest. lxxviii. art. 2. ad. o. et ante
eum, Leo IX. epist. ad Miehaclem cap. 5.
quam Evangelium Lucie, et epist. Pauli, qui
addiderunt illa verba : Quod pro vobis fran¬
gitur.
Tertio, addita calumniantur illa : « Ele¬
vatis oculis in coelum ad te Deumctc. » quae
non habentur in ullo Evangclio, nec apud
Paulum. Respondeo, illa verba haberi in Li-
turgia sancti Jacobi, etS. Clementis lib. viii.
const. cap. 17. et apud Ambros..lib, iv. de
Sacramentis, cap* o. Omnes enim legunt:
<( Suspexit in coelum. » Et praeterea, ut ar¬
gumentatur Innocentius III, cap. Cum Mar-
thae dc celebratione missarum, semper Do¬
minus consueverat oculos in coelum tollere,
cum Patri gratias ageret, ut patet Matth.
xiv. Marci vi. Lue. ix. Joan. xi. Quare du¬
bium esse non potest, quin etiam in hac ul¬
tima gratiarum actione oculos in coelum le¬
vaverit.
Quarto, calumniantur particulam (enim.)
additam ad formam consecrationis panis ;
et similiter ea verba : Ex eo omnes; cum
dicitur: Manducate ex eo omnes. Non enim
ista habentur in Scripturis. Respondeo, illas
omnes particulas haberi in forma calicis,
Matth. xvi. Bibite , inquit, ex eo omnes, hic
est enim sanguis , etc. Ex quo intelligimus il¬
las particulas subintelligi in consecratione
panis : eadem enim ratio est utriusque for¬
mio. Quid autem absurdi est, si exprimatur
perspicue id, quod alioqui subintelligcndunr
esset? Unde Ambrosius etiam lib. iv. dc Sa¬
cramentis cap. 5. illa omnia exprimit, ut in
nostra Liturgia exprimuntur.
Quinto, calumniantur addita illa in forma
consecrationis calicis : « Novi, et icterni Te¬
stamenti, » et: «Mysterium fidei » : Nam in
Evangclio non habetur, nisi ( novi Testa¬
menti). Respondeo, istas particulas a S. Pe¬
tro ex traditione haberi ; proinde reprehen¬
di non posse : praeterea verissimas esse, et
ex Scripturis colligi. Nam Testamentum
Christi icternum esse ad distinctionem Te¬
stamenti veteris, quod fuit temporale, patet
ex illo Psalm. cix : Tu es Sacerdos in aeter¬
num (1). Et ex Paulo ex professo hoc pro¬
bante in epist. ad 'Hebraeos cap. vir. Item
mysterium fidei recte vocari calicem san¬
guinis Domini, dubium esse non potest, cum
nulla in re alia magis, et frequentius exer¬
cenda sit fides reclamantibus omnibus sen¬
sibus, quam in hac.