Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 1: On the Word Mass
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First Book). 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).
[Preface to Book V.] About to dispute of the most holy and most divine sacrifice of the MASS, against the heretics of this time, I have thought it convenient to divide the whole disputation into as many controversies as there are canons concerning the same sacrifice in the Council of Trent. The first controversy, then, will be whether the Mass is a sacrifice truly and properly so called. The second, what sort of sacrifice it is, whether propitiatory, or only of praise and thanksgiving. The third, to whom it profits, whether to the living only, or also to the dead. The fourth, whether it be lawful to celebrate Masses in honor and memory of the Saints. The fifth, of the mode and rite of celebrating, whether private Masses be lawful. The sixth, whether the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue. The seventh, whether the things which are read in the Mass ought all to be read in a loud voice. The eighth, of the ceremonies of the Mass, which consist in the action or in things. The ninth, of the truth and antiquity of all those things which are read in the Mass.
But before all these questions two things must be premised. One, concerning the word Mass. The other, concerning the word, nature, definition, and division of sacrifice. For these being explained, the state of the principal question will be understood, whether the Mass is a true sacrifice; which state the adversaries, and Kemnitz especially, of set purpose wrongly explain. The authors who treat of the sacrifice you have at the end of the fifth chapter.
To begin, then, from the words: concerning the name of the Mass four things are to be said — what is its antiquity, what its etymology, what its significations, and in what sense it is taken by the Catholics when they say that the Mass is a sacrifice.
That this word is most ancient and most usual in the Latin Church cannot be doubted. For it stands in Ambrose, Book 5, letter 33: “I,” he says, “remained at my office, I began to say Mass, to pray to God in the oblation that He would help.” It stands in Augustine, sermon 91 on the season: “In the lesson,” he says, “which is to be read to us at the Masses, we are about to hear, etc.” The same word stands in Victor of Utica, Book 2 of the history of the Vandal persecution; in Cassian, Book 3 on the canonical order of the divine prayers and psalms; in Leo, letter 81 to Dioscorus, and 88 to the Bishops of Germany and Gaul; in Felix IV, in letter 1; in St. Benedict, in his Rule, chapter 17; in Gregory I, Book 1, letter 12, and Book 4, letter 10, and everywhere else. Finally in the most ancient Councils, as in the Roman under Sylvester I, in the Second of Carthage, canon 3, in the Fourth of Carthage, canon 84, of Lerida canon 4, of Valence canon 1, of Agde canon 47, the First of Orleans canon 28; all which testimonies were written about a thousand years ago and more.
As to the etymology, the Lutherans with their usual impudence derive it from the Hebrew word Mahuzim, which is had in Daniel 11, where we read of Antichrist: But he shall worship the god Maozim in his place. And so the adversaries, and first of all Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, at the very beginning of the disputation on the sacrifice of the Mass, will have it that the Mass is the god, or the fortress and strength, of the Roman Antichrist, that is, of the Pope: and this they prove because it seems to have come about by divine providence that the Mass should agree in word with that god of Antichrist.
But we, from this very passage of Daniel, prove that the god Maozim has nothing in common with the Mass, and is rather some idol, if it be lawful to play in the divine writings after the manner of the Lutherans. For in the same chapter we read that that king who worships the god Maozim is the king of the North, and that against him the king of the South will come to battle, and by name that the Romans will fight against that same king: for those Hebrew words St. Jerome in his commentary testifies are expounded by the Hebrews as the Romans and the Italians. And if the Southerners, and by name the Romans, fight with the king who worships the god Maozim, certainly the god Maozim is not the god of the Romans, nor is he the Mass, unless they will have the Mass now attacked by the Romans and defended by the Northerners.
Moreover that king who worships the god Maozim, as we read in the same chapter, worships no other gods, nor the gods of his fathers, but rises up against all deities. But the adversaries assert that the Romans worship innumerable gods and very many idols, namely all the Saints, and their relics and images. But our adversaries themselves openly rise up against images, relics, and even the Saints themselves; they ought, therefore, if they wished to speak consistently, ingenuously to confess that the god Maozim is theirs, not the Papists'.
Besides, if the god Maozim is a god fabricated and set up by Antichrist, and Antichrist was born after the year of the Lord 600, as the Lutherans commonly teach, how can that god Maozim be the Mass, which is far more ancient, as we have already shown from Ambrose, Augustine, and other more ancient Fathers?
Finally, Antichrist will worship the god Maozim not openly, but secretly. For thus are reconciled the words of the same Prophet, which seem to fight among themselves, when he says that by Antichrist all gods are to be despised, that he alone, as the Apostle declares to the Thessalonians, may be held for God; and yet in the same chapter presently subjoins: He shall venerate the god Maozim in his place. For these words do not fight among themselves, because Antichrist will openly attack all gods, but secretly, in a certain most fortified fortress (for this is what Maozim properly signifies), will worship the Devil for God, by whose arts he will come to that power, that he may be believed God, and will work lying signs and prodigies. Wherefore if the god Maozim is to be worshipped only in a most hidden and secret place, who does not see how far they wander from the truth who interpret Daniel of the Mass, since the Mass is celebrated in the whole world, publicly, in the midst of the churches, the peoples looking on?
These trifles, then, being omitted, I shall come to the opinions of the Catholics. Very many try to show that the name Mass is Hebrew, and signifies a voluntary oblation; for the word is had in Deuteronomy 16 in that signification. And not only Catholics, but even Philip Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in his disputation on the word Mass, acknowledges this etymology and signification, and tries to wrest it to his purpose.
But this Hebrew word does not seem to have been in use with the Apostles, and much more probable is the opinion of those who teach that Mass is a Latin word, and was first used by the Latins in the celebration of the mystery of the Eucharist. For if that Hebrew word had been in use with the Apostles, certainly the Greeks and Syrians and other nations would have retained it too, as they retained other similar words, as Amen, Alleluia, Sabaoth, Hosanna, Satan, Sabbath, Pasch. For the Hebrew words came to us through the Greeks, since the Apostles themselves and the first Doctors of the Church wrote in Greek. But among the Greeks there is no mention of this word Mass, but instead of it they say leitourgia. And leitourgia is a public office or ministry; and although by the Greek Fathers it is scarcely taken otherwise than for the ministry of offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, yet the word itself of itself is more extensive. For Demosthenes too, in his oration against Leptines, most frequently uses this word for a public office; and the Apostle himself, Philippians 2, calls Epaphroditus the leitourgos of his necessity. Add that the Syrians, as the Maronites, who celebrate the divine sacrifice in the Chaldean tongue, have not the word Mass, but instead of it say Qurbono, that is, holy or sacred. And yet if the Hebrew word ought to have been preserved among any, it ought most of all among those who always used that tongue, though somewhat corrupted. Add that men learned in the Hebrew tongue, as Origen, Epiphanius, Justin, Jerome, never use this word, which might deservedly seem to be wondered at, if that word were Hebrew. Add lastly that if that word were Hebrew, it ought to be said not Missa, but Missah; in which way, however, no one writes or speaks.
Those who will have it a Latin word do not all expound it in the same way: for some will have it called Mass because the oblation and prayers are sent (mittantur) to God. So Hugh of St. Victor, Book 2 on the Sacraments, part 8, last chapter. Others less probably, because an Angel is sent from God to assist the sacrifice and carry it to God, as the Master in Book 4, distinction 13, and St. Thomas, Part 3, question 83, article 4.
Others, and these for the most part heretics, will have it that Mass was called among the ancients from the gifts sent and brought forward into the midst, as certain symbols, whence the sacred Supper was made and a feast given to the poor; whence also they will have that the Mass was the same as what the Greeks call agape. So John Calvin briefly, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 16, and Peter Martyr on chapter 5 of the first to the Corinthians, and more fully Philip Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in his disputation on the words of the Mass. Which exposition has no testimony from antiquity, and is altogether false, inasmuch as it confounds the Mass with the agape. For the agape was a banquet of the Christians devised chiefly for the refreshment of the poor, as can be gathered from Tertullian's Apology, chapter 39, and Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21, sober indeed and temperate, but yet human and civil. But by the Mass, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, and all the others whom we cited, always understand a sacred and mystical action, and one in which the chief part of our religion should consist.
Most probable is the opinion of those who will have it that Mass is called from the mission or dismissal of the people, so that Mass is the same as Mission, just as among the ancients collecta and collectio are the same, and in Greek syllexis and syllogisms, and the remission of sin, remissa and remissio; for Cyprian everywhere uses remissa, Book 3, letter 8, in his book on the good of patience, in his letter to Jubaianus, and elsewhere. This opinion is that of Isidore, Book 6 of the Origins, of Rabanus, Book 1, chapter 32 on the Instruction of Clerics, and of Alcuin, in his book on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter on the celebration of the Mass. Hugh too, in the noted place, and other more recent authors admit this etymology.
But although the Mass be called from the mission, yet it does not signify that alone, but the word has been transferred thence to signify other things. There are, then, five acceptations of Mass among the ecclesiastical writers.
First, it is taken simply for the mission (dismissal): so it is taken in the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 84: “Let the Bishop forbid no one, until the Mass of the Catechumens, neither Jew nor Gentile, to enter the church and hear the word of God.” In which place Mass cannot be taken for the sacrifice or sacred Supper: for that was not of the Catechumens, but of the faithful only. Nor can it be taken for the Gospel and the Lessons, which were recited in the presence of the Catechumens: for the Council willed that these be heard even by the unbelievers. Wherefore Mass in that place cannot be taken except for the dismissal of the Catechumens. In the same way that word is taken in the Council of Lerida, canon 4, where the incestuous are forbidden to remain in the church except until the Mass of the Catechumens. So Augustine in the same sense, sermon 237 on the season (which is without doubt Augustine's): “Behold,” he says, “after the sermon the Mass is made to the Catechumens, the faithful will remain, etc.” In the same way Mass is taken in Cassian, Book 2 on the canonical manner of prayers and psalms, chapter 7, and in the title of chapter 15, where he calls the Mass of prayer the dismissal when the prayer is finished. And Book 3, chapter 7, where he calls the Mass of the congregation the dismissal of the congregation, and chapter 8 calls the Mass of the vigils the dismissal after the vigils. In which way too are taken the Masses which are bidden to be made by St. Benedict in his Rule, chapter 17, after each nocturn. Finally in this way it is taken in our Liturgy, when it is said by the deacon: “Ite, Missa est,” for, as Alcuin rightly expounds in the cited place, the sense is: Now there is the dismissal of the congregation, all may depart.
Secondly, Mass is taken for the divine office of lessons, prayers, and other things of the kind, which is celebrated in the church before the dismissal of the Catechumens. And indeed those words of the most ancient Council of Valence, chapter 1: “This we have thought should be observed, that the most holy Gospels, before the offering of the gifts, be read afterward in the order of the lessons in the Mass of the Catechumens, etc.,” cannot be understood of the dismissal of the Catechumens, but of the divine office at which they were present.
Thirdly, it is taken for that part of the Liturgy which is from the Offertory to the end, which is properly called the Mass of the faithful, as Alcuin witnesses in the noted place. So Mass is taken by Ambrose, Book 5, letter 33: “I remained at my office, I began to say Mass, to pray in the oblation, etc.”
Fourthly, it is taken for the whole celebration of the divine office in which the Eucharist was consecrated, so that both the Mass of the Catechumens and of the faithful are comprised together. So it is taken in the cited places of Leo, Gregory, Felix IV, and the Councils of Agde and Orleans: and this is the most common acceptation among all later authors.
Fifthly, it is taken for the collects, or prayers, which are said in the Liturgy: so it is taken in the Council of Milevis, canon 12.
But the fourth signification is that in which the name of Mass is taken when we ask, Whether the Mass is a sacrifice; for the sense of the question is: Whether that sacred action, in which the Eucharist is confected, with many preceding and following prayers and ceremonies, is a sacrifice. Nor do we understand the question to be whether each of those rites is of the essence of the sacrifice, but only whether among those rites there be some one which ought properly to be called the sacrifice, to which all the rest are referred.
From which is refuted the imposture of Kemnitz. For in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 717, he proposes to be explained what that is in the Mass which the Pontificials properly understand the sacrifice, and says that it is most clearly explained by John Eck, Book 1 on the sacrifice of the Mass, chapter 10, and at length, certain words of Eck being cited, thus concludes, page 719: “The sacrifice of the Mass, then, for which the Pontificials contend, consists in this, that the little priest, with certain ornaments and instruments, over the bread and wine of the Eucharist uses various gestures, motions, and acts: as often to genuflect, to bow, with hands pressed together, now to stretch out, now to draw back the arms, from time to time to turn himself, now to be loud, now with great silence to mutter certain things, to look upward, to be prone, to stand in one place, now to the right, now to the left part of the altar to move, etc.”
But this is a marvelous fraud of that new evangelist. For John Eck, a most learned man, and who always triumphed over Luther and his followers, says indeed that in the Mass the Passion of Christ is represented by various acts, gestures, ornaments, rites, etc. But he does not say that in that representation and those gestures consists the essence of the sacrifice of which we dispute, as Kemnitz impudently lies, but teaches that the sacrifice properly consists in the oblation of the body and blood of the Lord, which is made by the priest to God. For at the end of that tenth chapter cited by Kemnitz he makes a fourfold division. For there is a certain action which is a sacrifice, and not a representation of a sacrifice: a certain one which is a representation, and not a sacrifice. And this is twofold: for one is a simple representation, such as is wont to be when something is seen painted, or a history is recited from a book: the other is a representation to the life by various actions, as when a battle or a triumph is represented on the stage by actors, where both persons, and garments, and arms, and the very actions are seen, and words are heard. A certain one, finally, is a sacrifice, and a representation of a sacrifice.
To the first member pertains the true death of Christ on the cross: for that was a sacrifice, and not a representation of any sacrifice. To the second member pertains the eating of the Eucharist. For those who do this simply commemorate the Passion of Christ; but they neither properly offer a sacrifice, nor even represent to the life the sacrifice of the cross. To the third member pertains the divine office which is performed in the Church on Good Friday; for in it the Passion of Christ is accurately represented by various gestures, motions, words, garments, instruments, etc., but there is not in that whole office any action which is properly a sacrifice. To the fourth member pertains the Mass, in which both the sacrifice of the cross is represented by various gestures and actions, and at the same time the true and proper sacrifice of the body of the Lord is offered to God.
This is the doctrine of Eck, and of all the Catholics, from which it clearly is established that the sacrifice does not properly consist in those various gestures and motions: for otherwise on Good Friday a true sacrifice would be offered, since in the office of that day very many gestures and motions of the kind are made, which nevertheless Eck in express words denies.
Add that Eck, when he wishes to prove the sacrifice of the Mass, in that whole work directs all his arguments to proving that in the Mass an oblation is made to God: but not to proving that various gestures and motions ought to be made. He did not, then, understand by the sacrifice gestures and motions, as Kemnitz calumniates, but the oblation of the body and blood of the Lord. So much for the first point.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. De voce, Missa. Ut igitur a vocibus incipiamus, de nomine Missae, quatuor dicenda sunt, quee sit ejus antiquitas, quae etymologia, quae significatio¬ nes , et quo sensu accipiatur a Catholicis, cum dicunt Missam esse sacrificium, Antiquissimam, et usitatissimam in Ec¬ clesia Latina esse hanc vocem, dubitari non potest. Exstat enim apud Ambrosium lib. v. epist. 33 : « Ego, inquit, mansi in munere, Missam facere ccepi , orare in oblatione Deum, ut subveniret » . Exstat apud Augu¬ stinum serm. 91. de tempore: <c In lectione, inquit , quae nobis ad Missas legenda est , audituri sumus, etc. » Exstat idem vocabulum apud Victorem Uticensem lib. n. hist. de persecutione Wandalica, apud Cassianum lib. m. de canonico divinarum orationum. CAPUT I. 297 / et psalmorum ordine : apud Leonem epist. 81. ad Dioscorum, et 88. ad Episcopos Ger¬ maniae et Galliae : apud Felicem IV, in epist. i. apud S. Benedictum in regula cap. 17. Apud Gregorium I, lib. i. epist. 12. etlib. iv., epist. 10. et alibi passim. Denique in anti¬ quissimis Conciliis, ut in Romano, sub Syl- vestro I, in Carthagincnsi II, can. 3. in Carthaginensi IV. can. 84. Ilerdensi can. 4, Valentino can. i, Agathensi can. 47, Aure- lianensi I, can. 28. quae omnia testimonia ante annos circiter mille, et eo amplius con¬ scripta sunt. Quod vero attinet ad etymologiam, Luthe- rani solita impudentia deducunt a voce He¬ braica QVijra quae habetur Dan. xi. ubi de Antichristo legimus : Deum autem Mahuzim colet in loco suo (1). Itaque volunt adversarii, atque in primis Kemnitius in 2. part. Exam., Concilii Tridentini, in ipso principio disputa¬ tionis de sacrificio Missae, Missam esse Deum, seu arcem, et robur Antichristi Romani, id est, Papae : idque probant, quia divina pro¬ videntia factum videtur, ut Missa in voce congrueret cum Deo illo Antichristi. Sed nos ex hoc ipso loco Danielis, proba¬ mus Deum Mahuzim nihil habere commune cum Missa, et esse potius idolum aliquod, si in divinis litteris ludere liceat, Luthera- norum. Nam in eodem cap. legimus, regem illum, qui colit Deum Mahuzim, esse regem Aquilonis, et contra eum in praelium ven¬ turum regem Austri , et nominatim Roma¬ nos contra eumdem illum regem pugna¬ turos : nam voces illas hebraicas et STlS testatur S. Hieronymus in commen¬ tario, ab Hebraeis exponi, Romanos et Italos. Quod si Australes , et nominatim Romani pugnant cum rege qui colit Deum Mahuzim; certe Deus Mahuzim non est Deus Roma¬ norum, neque est Missa, nisi velint jam Missam a Romanis oppugnari, ab Aquilo- naribus defendi. Praeterea Rex ille , qui colit Deum Ma¬ huzim, ut in eodem capite legimus, non colit ullos alios Deos, neque Deos Patrum suorum, sed contra universa numina consurgit. Porro Romanos adversarii asserunt colere Deos innumerabiles, et plurima idola , nimirum omnes Sanctos, et Sanctas, et eorum reli¬ quias atque imagines. Ipsi autem adversarii nostri contra imagines, reliquias , et ipsos etiam Sanctos aperte consurgunt ; deberent igitur, si consequenter loqui vellent, ingenue confiteri, suum esse Deum Mahuzim, non autem Papistarum. Adhaec si Deus Mahuzim est Deus ab An¬ tichristo fabricatus, et erectus, et Antichri- stus natus est post annum Domini 600, ut communiter Lutherani docent , quomodo potest Deus ille Mahuzim esse Missa, quse longe est antiquior, ut jam ostendimus ex Ambrosio, Augustino, aliisque Patribus ve¬ tustioribus. Denique Deum Mahuzim non palam, sed clam Antichristus colet. Sic enim conci¬ liantur verba ejusdem Prophetae, quae inter se pugnare videntur, cum dicat ab Anti¬ christo omnes Deos contemnendos, ut solus ipse , ut Apostolus declarat ad Thessaloni- censes, habeatur Deus ; et tamen in .eodem capite mox adjungat : Deum Mahuzim vene¬ rabitur in loco suo. Nam haec verba ideo non pugnant inter se quia Antichristus palam Deos omnes oppugnabit, sed clam in arce quadam munitissima (id enim significat pro¬ prie Mahuzim) Diabolum pro Deo colet, cujus artibus ad illam potentiam deveniet, ut Deus credatur, et signa, et prodigia mendacia pa¬ trabit. Quare si Deus Mahuzim solum in ab- ditjssimo loco , atque occulto colendus est,, quis non videt, quam longe a veritate aber¬ rent, qui de Missa Danielem interpretantur, cum Missa in toto orbe terrarum, publice, in mediis templis, spectantibus populis ce¬ lebretur ? His ergo nugis omissis, veniam ad senten¬ tias Catholicorum. Plurimi conantur osten¬ dere nomen Missa esse Hebraicum, et obla¬ tionem voluntariam significare ; habetur enim Deuter. xvi. vox in ea significa¬ tione. Nec solum catholici, sed etiam Philip¬ pus Melanchthon in Apologia Confessionis Augustanse in disputatione de vocabulo Mis¬ sae agnoscit Etymologiam hanc, et signifi¬ cationem, atque eam ad suum propositum detorquere conatur. Sed non videtur Apostolis in usu fuisse lioc vocabulum Hebraicum, multoque proba¬ bilior est eorum sententia, qui docent Mis¬ sam, vocem esse Latinam, et a Latinis pri¬ mum usurpatam in celebratione mysterii Eucharistiae. Nam si vox ista Hebraica in usu Apostolis fuisset , certe retinuissent eam etiam Graeci, et Syri atque aliae nationes, ut retinuerunt alias similes voces, ut Arnen, (1) Dan. XI, 38. 298 LIBER V. Alleluia , Sabaoth, Hosanna, Satan, Sabba¬ tum, Pascha. Vocabula enim hebraica per Griecos ad nos devenerunt ; cum ipsi etiam Apostoli, et primi Ecclesiae Doctores grsece scripserint. Porro apud Graecos , nulla est mentio hujus vocis Missa, sed pro eo Xet- Toupytav dicunt. Est autem XeiToupyi'* munus seu ministerium publicum ; et quamvis a Patribus grsecis vix aliter accipiatur, quam pro ministerio sacrificii Eucharistiae offe¬ rendi, tamen vox ipsa ex se latius patet. Nam et Demosthenes in oratione contra Leptinem, frequentissime hanc vocem u- surpat pro publico munere ; et ipse etiam A- postolus Philip, ii. Epaphroditum vocat tov XeiTCjpyov necessitatis suae. Adde, quod Syri, ut Marronitae, qui chaldaica lingua celebrant divinum sacrificium, non habent Missae vo¬ cabulum, sed pro eo dicunt fitDTp, id est, sanctum, seu sacrum. Et tamen si Hebraica vox apud ullos conservari debuit, apud eos maxime, qui semper ea lingua , licet non¬ nihil corrupta, usi sunt. Adde, quod viri docti linguae hebraicse, ut Origenes, Epi- phanius , Justinus , Hieronymus hac voce nunquam utuntur , quod merito admiran¬ dum videri posset, si ea* vox esset hebraica. Adde ultimo, quod si vox illa esset hebraica, non Missa, sed Missah dicendum esset : quo modo tamen nemo scribit, aut loquitur. Qui latinam vocem esse volunt, non eodem modo omnes exponunt : alii enim Missam dici volunt, quod oblatio, et preces ad Deum mittantur. Ita Hugo de S. Victore lib. n. de Sacramentis part. 8. cap. ult. Alii minus probabiliter, quod Angelus a Deo mittatur qui sacrificio assistat, et illud ad Deum de¬ ferat, ut Magister in iv. dist. 13. et S. Thom. 3. par. qusest. 83. art. 4. Alii, et ii ut plurimum haeretici, dictam esse volunt Missam apud veteres a mittendis, et conferendis in medium muneribus, quasi symbolis quibusdam, unde fieret sacra Gce- na, et epulum daretur pauperibus, unde etiam volunt, idem fuisse Missam, et quam Graeci dicunt aYot7r^v. Ita Joannes Calvinus breviter lib. iv. Instit. cap. 18. §. 18. et Petrus Martyr in cap. v. prioris ad Corin¬ thios, et fusius , Philippus Melanchthon in Apologia Confess. Augustanae in disputa¬ tione de vocabulis Missae. Quae expositio nullum habet ab antiquitate testimonium, et falsa est omnino, quatenus confundit Missam cum d y a7rr) . Erat enim ayuirr) convivium Christianorum ob refrigerium pauperum po¬ tissimum excogitatum , ut ex Tertulliani A- pologetico cap. 39. et Augustino lib. xx. contra Faustum cap. 21. colligi potest, so¬ brium quidem, et temperatum, sed tamen humanum, et politicum. Per Missam autem Ambrosius, Augustinus, Leo, et c ac teri omnes quos citavimus, semper accipiunt actionem sacram , et mysticam , et in qua praecipua pars religionis nostrae consisteret. Probabilissima est eorum sententia , qui Missam dici volunt a missione , seu dimis¬ sione populi, ut idem sit Missa, quod Missio, sicut idem sunt apud veteres collecta, et collectio, et graece guXXoy^i et ffuXXdju; , et pec¬ cati remissa , et remissio ; remissam enim passim usurpat Cyprianus lib. m. epist. 8. lib. de bono patientiae, in epist. ad Juba- janum, et alibi. Haec sententia est Isidori lib. vi. originum, Rabani lib. i. cap. 32. de Instit. Clericorum, et Alcuini lib. de officiis Ecclesiasticis cap.. de celebratione Missae. Hugo etiam loco notato, et alii recentiores hanc etymologiam admittunt. Quamvis autem a missione Missa dicatur, non tamen eam solam significat, sed tra¬ ductum est inde vocabulum ad alia signifi¬ canda. Sunt igitur quinque Missae acce¬ ptiones apud scriptores ecclesiasticos. Primo, accipitur simpliciter pro missione : ita accipitur in Concilio Cartaginensi IV. canon. 84. « Episcopus nullum prohibeat usque ad Missam Catechumenorum, neque Judaeum, neque Gentilem Ecclesiam ingredi, et audire verbum Dei. » Quo loco Missa non potest accipi pro sacrificio, seu ccena sacra : nam illa non erat Catechumenorum , sed fidelium tantum. Neque potest accipi pro Evangelio, et Lectionibus, quae recitabantur praesentibus Catuchemenis : nam Concilium volebat ea ab infidelibus etiam audiri. Quare non potest Missa eo loco accipi, nisi pro missione Catechumenorum. Eodem modo accipitur ea vox in Concilio Ilerdensi canon. 4. ubi prohibentur incestuosi permanere in Ecclesia, nisi usque ad Missam Catechume¬ norum. Sic Augustimus in eodem sensu serm. 237. de tempore (qui absque dubio est Augustini) : « Ecce, inquit, post sermo¬ nem fit Missa Catechumenis , manebunt fi¬ deles etc. » Eodem modo accipitur Missa apud Cassianum lib. n. de canonico oratio¬ num, et psalmorum modo cap. 7. et in titulo cap. 15. ubi Missam orationis, vocat dimis¬ sionem finita oratione. Et lib. m. cap. 7. ubi vocat Missam congregationis , dimis- CAPUT I. 290 sionem congregationis, et cap. 8. vocat Mis¬ sam vigiliarum , dimissionem post vigilias. Quomodo etiam accipiuntur Missae , qua; jubentur fieri a sancto Benedicto in Regula cap. 17. post singulos nocturnos. Denique hoc modo accipitur in nostra Liturgia, cum dicitur a diacono : « Ite Missa est, » ut enim recte exponit Alcuinus loco citato, sensus est : Jam dimissio est congregationis, abire omnibus licet. Secundo, accipitur Missa pro divino offi¬ cio lectionum, precum, et aliorum id genus, quod celebratur in Ecclesia ante dimissionem Catechumenorum. Et sane illa verba Concilii antiquissimi Valentini, cap. i : «Hoc esse censuimus observandum, ut sacrosancta E- vangelia ante munerum illationem in Missa Catechumenorum in ordine lectionum post legantur ctc.» non possunt intelligi de dimis¬ sione Catechumenorum, sed de officio di/Vi- no, cui ipsi intererant. Tertio, accipitur pro illa parte Liturgia?, qua? est ab Offertorio usque ad finem, quae proprie dicitur Missa fidelium, teste Alcuino, loco notato. Ita accipitur Missa ab Ambrosio lib. v. epist. 33 : « Ego mansi in munere, Missam facere coepi, orare in oblatione, etc.» Quarto, accipitur pro tota celebratione di¬ vini officii, in quo Eucharistia consecraba¬ tur, ut comprehendi simul Missam catechu¬ menorum, et fidelium. Ita accipitur in locis citatis, Leonis, Gregorii, Felicis IV, et Con¬ ciliorum Agathensis et Aurelianensis : et haec est communissima acceptio apud omnes posteriores auctores. Quinto, accipitur pro ipsis collectis, seu precibus, qua? dicuntur in Liturgia : ita ac¬ cipitur in Concilio Milevitano can. 12. Sed quarta significatio est, in qua accipi¬ tur nomen Missae, cum quaerimus : Utrum Missa sit sacrificium ; est enim sensus quae¬ stionis : Utrum actio illa sacra, in qua confi¬ citur Eucharistia, multis pra?cedentibus, et sequentibus precibus et caeremoniis, sit sa¬ crificium. Nec intelligimus quaestionem esse, an singuli illi ritus sint de essentia sacrificii, sed solum, an inter illos ritus sit aliquis, qui proprie sacrificium dici debeat, ad quem re¬ liqui omnes referantur. Ex quo refellitur impostura Kemnitii. Nam in 2. par. Examinis Tridentini Concilii pag. 717. proponit explicandum : Quid illud sit in Missa, quod Pontificii proprie intelligunt sacrificium, ac dicit illud clarissime explica¬ ri a Joan. Eckio lib. i. de sacrificio Missae cap. 10. et tandem citatis quibusdam verbis ( Eckii, ita concludit pag. 719 : « Sacrificium igitur Missae, de quo Pontificii dimicant, in eo consistit, quod sacrificulus certis orna' mentis, et instrumentis, super panem, et vi¬ num Eucharistiae variis utitur gestibus, mo¬ tibus, et actibus : ut saepius geniculari, in¬ clinari, strictis manibus, modo distendere, modo reducere brachia, subinde se conver¬ tere, nunc esse clamosum, nunc magno si¬ lentio quaedam demurmurare, suspicere in altum, esse pronum, consistere uno in loco, nunc in dextram, nunc in levam altaris par¬ tem commigrare etc. » Sed haec est mira fraus novi istius evan- gelistae. Nam Joannes Eckius vir doctissi¬ mus, et qui semper de Luthero, et ejus se¬ ctatoribus triumphavit, dicit quidem in Missa repraesentari Christi passionem variis acti¬ bus, gestibus, ornamentis, ritibus etc. Sed non ait in illa repraesentatione, et illis gesti¬ bus consistere essentiam sacrificii, de quo disputamus, ut Kemnitius impudenter men¬ titur, sed docet, sacrificium proprie consi¬ stere in oblatione corporis, et sanguinis Do¬ mini, quae a Sacerdote fit Deo. Nam in fine illius capitis decimi a Kemnitio citati, facit quadrimembrem divisionem. Est enim quae¬ dam actio sacrificium, et non repraesentatio sacrificii : quaedam repraesentatio, et non sa¬ crificium. Et haec duplex est : nam alia est simplex repraesentatio , qualis esse solet cum aliquid cernitur pictum, aut ex libro hi¬ storia recitatur : alia est repraesentatio ad vi¬ vum per varias actiones, ut cum praelium, vel triumphus in scena ab actoribus reprae¬ sentatur, ubi et personae, et vestes, et arma, et ipsae actiones cernuntur, et verba audiun¬ tur. Quaedam denique sacrificium, et reprae¬ sentatio sacrificii. Ad primum membrum pertinet mors Chri¬ sti vera in cruce : illa enim fuit sacrificium, et non repraesentatio alicujus sacrificii. Ad secundum membrum pertinet manducatio Eucharistiae. Qui enim id faciunt simpliciter, commemorant Christi passionem; sed nec sacrificium proprie offerunt, nec etiam sa¬ crificium crucis ad vivum repraesentant. Ad tertium membrum pertinet officium divi¬ num, quod in Ecclesia agitur in die Para- sceves ; in illo enim repraesentatur accurate passio Christi variis gestibus, motibus, ver¬ bis, vestibus, instrumentis etc. sed non est in toto eo officio ulla actio, quae sit proprie sacrificium. Ad quartum membrum pertinet 300 LIBER Y. Missa, in qua et repraesentatur variis gesti¬ bus, et actionibus sacrificium crucis, et simul offertur Deo verum, et proprium sacrificium corporis Domini. Haec est Eckii doctrina, et omnium Catho¬ licorum, ex qua perspicue constat, sacrifi¬ cium non consistere proprie in illis variis gestibus, et m >tibus : nam alioqui in die Pa- rasceves verum sacrificium offerretur, cum in officio ejus diei plurimi ejusmodi gestus, et motus fiant, quod tamen Eckius disertis verbis negat. Adde quoji Eckius cum probare vult sa¬ crificium Missae, in toto illo opere omnia sua argumenta dirigit ad probandum in Missa fieri oblationem Deo : non autem ad proban¬ dum fieri debere varios gestus, et motus. Non igitur ille per sacrificium intellexit ge¬ stus, et motus, utKemnitius calumniatur, sed oblationem corporis, et sanguinis Domini. Haec de primo.