Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 15: The Lies of Kemnitz Concerning the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist
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 objections, some lies of Kemnitz too are to be noted in this disputation on the form of consecrating the Eucharist, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 1. The first is on pages 336 and 337: that the Catholics dispute much among themselves what are the words by which the Eucharist is to be consecrated: and that the Council of Trent was unwilling to determine what those words are, although it was asked of it by many. But that these are the grossest lies is clear from all the Missals, where the words of consecration are inscribed in large and often red letters, so that no one can be ignorant of them. Nor did anyone ask this of the Council, nor did the Council treat of it, because it knew that the matter was most well known, and already sufficiently explained before in the Council of Florence. I am not ignorant that Scotus, in Book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 8, question 2, article 2, raised the question whether by those words alone, This is my body, the consecration is accomplished. But the same Scotus affirms that those alone pertain to the essence of the form: nor does he deny that all and only those things are to be recited in the mystery of the Eucharist which are prescribed in the Missals.
The second is on the same page 336, where he says that certain Theologians taught that only four words are of the substance of the form in the consecration of the bread, namely those, This is my body; but that St. Thomas thought some other things necessary. But he lies against his own head: for St. Thomas, Part 3, question 78, article 2, on the form of consecrating the bread, dissents in nothing from the others.
The third is on page 337, where he says that the men of Cologne in their Antididagma, and Lindanus, publicly write that the bread and wine are not consecrated by the words of Christ alone, unless the other prayers of the papistical Canon be added. That this too is a lie is clear from the authors themselves. For in the Antididagma, under the title Whether the Sacrament is consecrated without the canonical prayer of the Church, and in the Panoply of Lindanus, Book 4, chapter 41, it is only taught that those do not truly consecrate who recite the words of the Lord only in the reading of the epistle to the Corinthians, which is most true, and is not wont to be denied by Kemnitz.
The fourth is in the same place, where he says that among the Catholics it is doubted whether for the consecration of the Eucharist a sacred altar, sacred vestments, a sacred minister, and the rest of the panoply of the Papal Mass are necessary. But the Catholics never doubted of these things. For all teach that for the essence of consecration nothing is required but the matter, the form, and the minister: the rest indeed are to be employed, nor can be omitted without sin: yet do not pertain to the essence.
The fifth is on page 339, where he lies that the Canon of the Mass is patched together out of what is corrupt and what is entire, nay out of many corrupt things. But he ought to have noted even one little word which savored of any corruption.
The sixth is on page 340, where he says that Lindanus attributes to Basil that the consecration of the Eucharist is made by words, not writings. But Lindanus does not say this, as is clear from the noted place: but only says that the ancient Fathers were not content with the words of consecration when they performed the sacred rites, but added other things not written. Which truly stands in Basil, in his book on the Holy Spirit, chapter 27.
The seventh is on page 346, where he says that the Catholics think that by the words of institution alone the consecration cannot be made, unless those things be employed which are added in the Canon of the Mass. But this too is a mere lie. For the Catholics require indeed the whole Canon, that the consecration may be made duly and without sin; yet they confess that the consecration is true which is made by the words of institution alone.
The eighth on page 347, where he says that a certain Proclus feigns that the Apostles, within the day of the Ascension and Pentecost, composed the Canon, that it might be the form of consecration. But St. Proclus is one of the ancient and Orthodox Fathers, since he was, a little after Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople. There stands his little book on the tradition of the divine Liturgy, in which he does not say that the Apostles composed the Canon before the day of Pentecost, as Kemnitz lies, which is in no way true at all: but he says that they, after the Ascension of the Lord, before they were divided into various regions, were wont to gather themselves wholly to prayer, and especially to celebrating the sacrifice, always having in memory that, This is my body.
The last is in the same place, where he says that the Catholics attribute the consecration not only to the recitation of the words, but to various gestures of the little priest, the spreading of the hands, the elevation, the inclination of the neck, the turning of the body, the transposition of the book. But these are mere trifles, for no one of the Catholics places in these the essence of consecration; although all deservedly venerate the ceremonies themselves.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Mendacia Kemnitii de forma Sacramenti Eucharistiae. Praeter objectiones notanda sunt etiam aliquot mendacia Kemnitii in hac disputa¬ tioni! de forma consecrationis Eucharistiae in 2. part. Examinis Trid. Concilii sess.xm. cap. I. Primum est pag. 336. 337 : Catho¬ licos multum inter se disputare, quae sint verba, quibus Eucharistia consecranda est : et Concilium Tridentinunr noluisse deter¬ minare, quae sint illa verba, cum a multis id ab eo petitum esset. Sed mendacia esse ista crassissima, patet ex omnibus Missalibus, ubi litteris magnis et siepe rubeis adseribun- tur verba consecrationis, ut nemo illa igno¬ rare possit. Nec ullus id a Concilio petiit, neque Concilium id tractavit, quia sciebat rem esse notissimam, et jam antea suffi¬ cienter explicatam in Concilio Florentino. (1) Psal. CIX, 4. CAPUT XV. 243 Non ignoro Scotuni in iv. senfc. dist . 8. qu. 2. art. 2. quaestionem movisse, an solis illis verbis : Hoc est corpus meum , consecratio perficiatur. Sed idem Scotus affirmat, illa sola ad forma) essentiam pertinere : neque negat omnia, et sola illa recitanda esse in mysterio Eucharistiae, quce in Missalibus praescribuntur. Secundum est eadem pag. 336. ubi dicit, quosdam Theologos docuisse quatuor tantum verba esse de substantia formae in consecra¬ tione panis, nimirum illa : Hoc est corpus meum; sed S. Thomam existimasse alia quaedam esse necessaria. At mentitur in ca¬ put suum : nam S. Thomas 3. par. queest. lxxviii. art. 2. de forma consecrationis panis in nulla re dissentit ab aliis. Tertium est pag. 337. ubi dicit, Colo- nienses in suo Antididagmate, et Lindanum publice scribere, panem et vinum persola Christi vem non consecrari; nisi addantur reliquae preces Canonis Papistici. Hoc etiam esse mendacium patet ex ipsis auctoribus. Nam in Antididagmate, tit. An sine prece canonica Ecclesiae consecretur Sacramen¬ tum : et in Panoplia Lindani lib. iv. cap. 41. solum docetur eos non vere consecrare, qui verba Domini solum recitant in lectione epi¬ stolae ad Corinthios, quod est verissimum, neque a Kemnitio negari solet. Quartum est ibidem, ubi dicit, apud Ca¬ tholicos dubitari, an ad consecrationem Eu¬ charistiae sit necessarium altare sacrum, sa¬ crae vestes, sacer minister, et reliqua Papa- lis Missee panoplia. Sed Catholici, nunquam de his rebus dubitarunt. Omnes enim do¬ cent ad essentiam consecrationis non re¬ quiri, nisi materiam, formam, et ministrum: reliqua adhibenda quidem esse, neque sine peccato omitti posse : tamen ad essentiam non pertinere. Quintum est pag. 339. ubi Canonem Missa} ex corrupto , et integro , imo ex multis corruptis consarcinatum mentitur. Sed debuisset, vel unum verbulum notare, quod corruptionem aliquam redoleret. Sextum est pag. 340. ubi dicit, Linda¬ num Basilio tribuere Eucharistia) consecra¬ tionem fieri verbis, non scriptis. At Linda- nus hoc non dicit, ut ex loco notato patet : sed solum ait veteres Patres non fuisse con¬ tentos ve ibis consecrationis, quando sacra faciebant, sed addidisse alia non scripta. Id quod vere exstat apud Basilium lib. de Spiritu sancto cap. 27. Septimum est pag. 346. ubi dicit, Catho licos existimare per sola verba institutionis non posse fieri consecrationem, nisi adhi¬ beantur ea, qua) addita sunt in Canone Mis¬ sae. Sed et hoc merum mendacium est. Ca¬ tholici enim requirunt quidem universum Canonem, ut rite, et sine peccato consecra¬ tio fiat ; fatentur tamen veram esse conse¬ crationem, qua) solis verbis institutionis fieret. Octavum pag. 347. ubi dicit, Proclum quemdam fingere Apostolos intra diem A- scensionis, et Pentecostes composuisse Ca¬ nonem, ut esset forma consecrationis. At S. Proclus unus est ex antiquis et Orthodoxis Patribus ; quippe qui paulo post Chrysosto- muin, Episcopus fuit Constantinopolitanus. Ejus exstat libellus de traditione divinae Li¬ turgis}, in quo non dicit Apostolos Cano¬ nem composuisse ante diem Pentecostes, ut Kemnitius mentitur, quod nec ullo modo ve¬ rissime est : sed dicit eos post Ascensionem Domini , antequam dividerentur in varias regiones, totos se ad orationem colligere so¬ litos, et maxime ad sacrificium celebran¬ dum, semper in memoriam habentes illud : Hoc est corpus meum. Ultimum est ibidem, ubi dicit, Catholicos tribuere consecrationem non solum recita¬ tioni verborum, sed variis sacrificuli gesti¬ bus, expansioni manuum, elevationi, incli¬ nationi cervicis, conversioni corporis, libri transpositioni. Sed ha) sunt merae nuga), ne¬ mo enim Catholicorum in his ponit essen¬ tiam consecrationis; etsi caeremonias ipsas merito omnes venerentur. •