Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 14: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from Chapter 10 of First Corinthians
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).
The last argument of those which are sought from the Scriptures is in the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10: Flee, he says, from the service of idols. I speak as to wise men; judge ye yourselves what I say. The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Lord? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What then? do I say that what is offered to idols is anything, or that the idol is anything? But the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils.
From these words three arguments are gathered. One from the comparison of the table of the Lord with the table of the Gentiles and of the Jews. For the Apostle most openly compares the table of the Lord, whence we take the Eucharist, with the altar of the Gentiles, where they immolated to idols, and with the altar of the Hebrews, where carnal sacrifices were immolated to the true God. And thence it follows that the table of the Lord is also a certain altar, and accordingly that the Eucharist is a sacrifice: for an altar properly so called is never erected except for sacrifices properly so called. Some indeed think, as Haymo and some other grave authors, not improbably, that the table of the Lord is expressly called an altar, Hebrews 13, in those words: We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle: yet because there are not lacking Catholics who in that place understand by the altar the cross, or Christ Himself, I do not press that passage.
The second argument is taken from the comparison of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the Gentiles and Hebrews. For the Apostle most openly says that we the faithful so take from the table of the Lord the body and blood of the Lord, as the Jews take the victims, and the Gentiles the meats offered to idols, from their altars or tables. Which comparison must necessarily be inept, and wrongly brought by the Apostle, if the Eucharist is not a sacrifice immolated to God, just as those of the Jews and Gentiles are sacrifices immolated to God or to idols.
The third argument is taken from the comparison of the society which we have with God through the eating of the Eucharist, with the society which the Gentiles had with idols through the eating of the meats offered to idols. For Paul teaches that those who eat things offered to idols are so joined with the idols that they are reckoned true idolaters, for therefore at the beginning he said: Flee from the service of idols. He uses therefore this argument: He that eats things offered to idols is made a partaker of the altar of idols: therefore he consents to the sacrifice of idols, nay is made a fellow of those who immolate to idols. Therefore he is an idolater; for a sacrifice is the proper act of latria. Wherefore if Paul's comparison is apt, it will be necessary to argue thus also concerning the Eucharist: He that eats the Eucharist is made a partaker of the table of the Lord, therefore he consents to the oblation of the Eucharist made to God, nay is made a fellow of those who offer it; therefore by this oblation he honors God with the worship of latria.
To these arguments Kemnitz answers in Part 2 of the Examination, page 767. And first, after his manner, he conducts himself very impudently and scurrilously in so sacred a matter: “From the sacrifices of the heathen,” he says, “which are offered to devils, they are not ashamed to summon a support for their deplorable Mass: not in a manner unlike him in Virgil who says: Be ye good to me, O Manes, since the will of the gods above is turned away.” Nor does the impious heretic perceive that in this way he mocks the Apostle himself and insults him. For if we are reckoned to seek support from the gods of the dead, because we prove the sacrifice of the Mass from the comparison of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the Gentiles: much more will Paul be reckoned to have sought aid from the gods of the dead, who proved that things offered to idols must not be eaten from the same comparison of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of idols. But away with impious trifles, or rather blasphemies: for not from the gods of the dead, but from the words of divine Scripture, and from a comparison set in the same Scripture, we demand support.
Then Kemnitz answers seriously, and says two things. First, that the table of the Gentiles, with which the Apostle compares the table of the Lord, is not the altar of idols, but a common table, at which they were wont to feast. This he proves, because it was not the custom of the Gentiles to recline at the altars, but to prepare a banquet in their own homes from the remains of the immolated things, and to invite their friends to it. But blessed Paul speaks of a table at which things offered to idols were eaten; therefore he does not speak of an altar, but of a common table. Moreover it was not the question of blessed Paul whether it was lawful for Christians to be present at the sacrifices of the Gentiles at their altars, and to sacrifice to devils, for that was most well known to the Christians: but whether it was lawful to go to the banquets of the Gentiles, where things offered to idols were set out to be eaten.
This first solution of Kemnitz is of little force. For first it is false that the Gentiles were not wont to recline at the altars of idols. For what, I ask, is it that the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 8: If any man see him that hath knowledge sitting at meat in the idol's temple? for what is the idol's temple but the place where the idol is? Nor does it stand in the way that the same Paul says, 1 Corinthians 10: If any of them that believe not invite you, and you be willing to go, eat of anything that is set before you; but if any man say, This has been sacrificed, eat not of it, etc. For both are true, for the Gentiles were wont both to recline at the altars of idols, and also to prepare a banquet in their homes from the remains of the immolated things. Wherefore Kemnitz wrongly proposes the question of the Apostle. For although it was not a question whether it was lawful to sacrifice to idols: yet neither was it a question whether it was lawful to be present at the banquets of the Gentiles; but whether it was lawful to eat things offered to idols, and especially in the idol's temple: and Paul denies it to be lawful, because this is to be made a fellow of devils, and interpretatively to sacrifice to devils.
Then even if the Gentiles were not wont to recline at the altars of idols, as Kemnitz falsely says, yet the table of devils, to which the table of the Lord is compared, would still signify the altar itself, not a common table. For the Apostle, where he names the table of devils, does not speak of the table where it was eaten, but of the table where it was immolated, and whence the immolated foods were carried to the common table, as is manifestly clear from the comparison with the altar of the Jews: Behold, he says, Israel according to the flesh, are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
Then the same is gathered from this, that the Apostle calls the table of the Gentiles the table of devils: for he calls it the table of devils because it was sacred to devils. For he would not call the table of devils the common table of the Gentiles, to which he permitted even the faithful to approach. Moreover he would not compare it to the table of the Lord, if he spoke of a common and profane table, unless Kemnitz wishes the table of the Lord to be a common and profane table.
Besides, the Apostle, when he dissuades from the table of devils, says the cause is that they may flee the worship of idols: therefore he speaks of the table at which they immolated to idols, from which those who took food were reckoned idolaters.
Finally the same Paul in the same chapter says it is lawful to go to the tables of the Gentiles, and there to eat things offered to idols, if one is ignorant that those foods are sacrificial: and at the same time says: You cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils: therefore, unless the Apostle fights with himself, he cannot by the table of devils understand the table of the Gentiles, where things offered to idols are only materially eaten. But what Kemnitz says, that the Apostle writes that it is indeed free, yet not fitting, that the faithful be at the same time partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils, is most absurd and most false. For the Apostle does not say it is free, but says absolutely: You cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils. And what more absurd can be said than that it should be free for the faithful to partake of the table of devils, and to be made fellows of devils?
Add lastly that even if we could not convince that by the table of devils is understood the altar of idols, yet our argument would be solid from the comparison of the table of the Lord with the altar of the Jews, which the Apostle expressly names.
But Kemnitz was not so dull as not to see that his solution could be refuted in this way; therefore at the end he added a second solution, and says that those who take the Eucharist partake of the sacrifice performed on the cross; just as those who ate things offered to idols partook of the sacrifice performed at the altar of idols.
But neither by this way will he be able to escape. For the Apostle does not compare the table of devils with the cross, but with the table of the Eucharist; accordingly he wishes the table of the Eucharist to be a true altar erected for sacrificing: and in this the comparison is placed, that just as the Gentiles ate the things immolated on the altar, so we eat that which is immolated on the table of the Eucharist. Then, as we said above, the sacrifice made by immolation on the cross was once, and afterward ceased to be, nor can it be made again except by a new immolation. And thus far concerning the testimonies of the Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Probatur sacrificium Missx ex cap. x. prioris ad Corinthios. Argumentum postremum ex his quae pe¬ tuntur a Scripturis, est apud Apostolum I Cor. x : Fugite . inquit, ab idolorum cultura. Ct prudentibus loquor ; vos ipsi judicate quod dico. Calix benedictionis , cui benedicimus , nonne communicatio sanguinis Domini est? et panis, quem frangimus , nonne participatio corporis Domini est? quoniam unus panis, et unum corpus mulli sumus qui de uno pane par¬ ticipamus. Videte Israel secundum carnem: non¬ ne qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris ? quid ergo ? dico quod idolis immolatum sit ali¬ quid, aut quod idolum sit aliquid? Sed quae immolant Gentes, dxmoniis immolant, et non Deo : nolo autem vos socios fieri daemoniorum. Non potestis calicem Domini bibere , et calicem daemoniorum : non potestis rncnsx Domini par¬ ticipes esse, et rncnsx dxmoniorum (•!). Htec ille. Ex his verbis tria argumenta colliguntur. Unum ex comparatione mensae Domini, cum mensa Gentilium, et Judaeorum. Apertissimo enim comparat Apostolus mensam Domini, undo sumimus Eucharistiam, cum altari Gentilium, ubi immolabantur idolis, et cum - altari Hebraeorum, ubi immolabantur sacrifi¬ cia carnalia Deo vero. Inde autem sequitur mensam Domini esse etiam quoddam altare, et proinde Eucharistiam esse sacrificium : nunquam enim altare proprie dictum erigi¬ tur, nisi ad sacrificia proprie dicta. Existi¬ mant quidem aliqui, ut Ilaymo, et alii non- nulli graves auctores non improbabiliter men¬ sam Domini expresse vocari altare, Heb. xm. in illis verbis : Habemus altare, de equo edere non habent potestatem qui tabernaculo deser¬ viunt (2) : tamen quia non desunt ex Catho¬ licis, qui eo loco per altare intelligant cru¬ cem, aut ipsum Christum, non urgeo ipsum locum. Alterum argumentum sumitur ex compa¬ ratione Eucharistia} cum sacrificiis Genti¬ lium, et Hebraeorum. Apostolus enim aper¬ tissime dicit, ita nos fideles sumere de mensa Domini corpus, et sanguinem Domini, ut sumunt Judici hostias, ct Gentiles idolothyta ex suis altaribus seu mensis. Qua) comparatio inepta sit necesse est, et perperam ab Apo¬ stolo adducta, si Eucharistia non est sacrifi¬ cium Deo immolatum, sicut sibi illi Judaco- rum, et Gentilium sunt sacrificia Deo, vel idolis immolata. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex compa¬ ratione societatis, quam habemus cum Deo per manducationem Eucharistia}, cum socie¬ tate quam habebant Gentiles cum idolis per manducationem idolothytorum. Paulus enim docet eos, qui manducant idolothyta ita con¬ jungi cum idolis, ut censeantur veri idolo¬ latra}, ideo namque initio dixit : Fugite ab idolorum cultura. Utitur igitur hoc argu¬ mento : Qui manducat idolothyta, fit parti¬ ceps altaris idolorum : ergo consentit in sacrificium idolorum, imo fit socius immo¬ lantium idolis. Ergo est idololatra ; sacrifi¬ cium enim est proprius actus latria}. Quare si apta est Pauli comparatio, oportebit etiam circa Eucharistiam ita argumentari : Qui manducat Eucharistiam, fit particeps altaris Domini, ergo consentit in oblationem Eucha¬ ristiae Deo factam, imo fit socius eam offe¬ rentium; ergo Deum hac oblatione cultu latritc honorat. Ad haec argumenta respondet Kemnitius in 2. parte Examinis pag 7G7. Ac primum more suo impudenter admodum, et scurri¬ liter in re tam sacra se gerit : « Ex ethnico¬ rum, inquit, sacrificiis, qua} daemoniis offe¬ runtur, deplorata) Missae suae subsidium accersere non verentur : non dissimili ratione sicut ille apud Virgilium inquit : Vos rr.ilii Manes Este boni, quoniam Superis aversa voluntas Haec ille : nec animadvertit impius haere¬ ticus, se hoc modo Apostolum ipsum irridere, illiquo insultare. Si enim nos a diis mani¬ bus censemur subsidium petere, quia proba¬ mus sacrificium Missae ex comparatione Eu- charistiaejad sacrificia Gentilium : multo ma¬ gis Paulus censebitur a diis manibus auxilium petiisse, qui probavit non esse manducanda idolothyta ex eadem comparatione Euchari¬ stia) ad sacrificia idolorum. Sed facessant impiae nugae, vel hlasphemiac potius : non enim a diis manibus, sed a verbis divinae (Q I Cor. X, U et scq. — (2) TTob. XTT, 10. 342 LIBER V. Scripturae, et a comparatione in eadem Scri¬ ptura posita, subsidium flagitamus. Deinde Kemnitius serio respondet, ac duo dicit. Primo, mensam Gentilium, cum qua Apostolus comparat mensam Domini, non esse altare idolorum, sed mensam commu¬ nem, in qua convivari solebant. Id probat, quia non erat consuetudo Gentilium, ut ad aras discumberent, sed ut de reliquiis immo¬ latorum domi suae convivium instruerent, et ad illud amicos suos invitarent. Loquitur autem B. Paulus de mensa, in qua comede¬ bantur idolothyta; ergo non loquitur de altari, sed de communi mensa. Praeterea non erat quaestio B. Pauli, an liceret Chri¬ stianis apud aras Gentilium interesse ipsorum sacrificiis, et sacrificare daemoniis, id enim Christianis notissimum erat : sed an liceret ire ad convivia Gentilium, ubi edenda appo¬ nebantur idolothyta. Haec -prima solutio Kemnitii parum valet. Nam in primis falsum est non consuevis¬ se Gentiles ad aras idolorum discumbere. Quid enim, quaeso, est quod ait Apostolus I Corinth. vm : Si quis uder it eum, qui habet scientiam , recumbentem in idolio ? quid enim est idolium nisi locus ubi est idolum? Neque obstat quod idem Paulus dicit I Cor. x. Si quis vocat vos infidelium , et vultis ire, omne quod vobis apponitur , manducate; si quis di¬ xerit., Hoc immolatum est , nolite manducare , etc. (1). Nam utrumque est verum, solebant quippe Gentiles, et ad aras idolorum dis¬ cumbere, et etiam de reliquiis immolatorum domi suae convivium instruere. Quare male proponit Kemnitius quaestionem Apostoli. Nam etsi non erat quaestio, an liceret idolis sacrificare : tamen nec erat quaestio, an lice¬ ret in conviviis Gentilium interesse ; sed an liceret vesci idolothytis , et praesertim in idolio : et Paulus negat licere, quia hoc est socium fieri daemoniorum, et interpretati ve sacrificare daemonibus. Deinde etiamsi non consuevissent Gentiles ad aras idolorum discumbere, ut falso dicit Kemnitius, tamen mensa daemoniorum, cui comparatur mensa Domini, adhuc altare ipsum, non mensam communem significaret. Apostolus enim ubi mensam daemoniorum nominat, non loquitur de mensa, ubi come¬ debatur, sed de mensa, ubi immolabatur, et unde cibi immolati ad mensam communem deferebantur, ut manifeste patet ex 'colla¬ tione cum altari Judaeorum : Videte, inquit, Israel secundum carnem , nonne qui edunt ho¬ stias, participes sunt altaris ? Deinde idem colligitur ex eo, quod Apo¬ stolus vocat mensam Gentilium mensam dae¬ moniorum : vocat enim eam mensam daemo¬ niorum, quia sacra erat daemoniis. Non enim vocaret mensam daemoniorum, men¬ sam communem Gentilium, ad quam per¬ mittebat etiam fidelibus accedere. Praeterea non compararet mensae Domini si loqueretur de mensa communi et profana, nisi velit Kemnitius mensam Domini esse mensam communem, et profanam. Adhaec Apostolus, cum dehortatur a mensa daemoniorum, dicit causam esse, ut fugiant cultum idolorum : ergo loquitur de mensa, in qua immolabatur idolis, ex qua qui sume¬ bant cibum, censebantur idololatrae. Denique idem Paulus in eodem capite dicit, licitum esse ire ad mensas Gentilium, et ibi manducare idolothyta, si quis ignoret cibos illos esse immolatitios : et simul dicit : Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, et mensae daemoniorum : ergo nisi secum ipse pugnet Apostolus, non potest per mensam daemoniorum intelligere mensam Gentilium, ubi solum materialiter comeduntur idolo¬ thyta. Quod autem Kemnitius dicit Aposto¬ lum scribere, liberum quidem esse, tamen non convenire, ut fideles simul mensae Do¬ mini, et mensae daemoniorum participes fiant, absurdissimum , et falsissimum est. Non enim Apostolus dicit liberum esse, sed abso¬ lute dicit : Non potestis mensae Domini, et mensae daemoniorum participes esse. Et quid absurdius dici potest, quam ut liberum sit fidelibus mensae daemoniorum participare, et daemoniorum socios fieri? Adde ultimo, quod etiamsi non possemus convincere per mensam daemoniorum intel- ligi altare idolorum, tamen argumentum nostrum esset solidum ex comparatione mensae Domini cum altari Judaeorum, quod Apostolus expresse nominat. Sed Kemnitius non fuit tam hebes, quin viderit hoc modo refelli posse solutionem suam ; ideo ad finem addidit secundam so¬ lutionem, ac dicit, eos qui sumunt Euchari¬ stiam, participare de sacrificio peracto in cruce ; sicut ii, qui manducabant idolothyta, participabant de sacrificio peracto in altari idolorum. (i) ICor. VIII. 10; X, 27 et 28. CAPUT XV. 343 At neque hac via evadere poterit. Nam Apostolus non comparat mensam dsemonio- rum cum cruce, sed cum mensa Eucharistiae, proinde vult esse mensam Eucharistiae verum altare ad sacrificandum erectum : et in hoc sita est comparatio ; quod sicut Gentiles manducabant immolata in altari, ita nos manducamus id quod immolatur in mensa Eucharistiae. Deinde, ut supra diximus, sa¬ crificium ex immolatione factum in cruce fuit aliquando, et postea desiit esse, nec pot¬ est rursum fieri nisi per novam immolatio¬ nem. Atque hactenus de testimoniis Scri¬ pturarum.