Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 20: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Conjunction of Law and Sacrifice
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).
I come now to the arguments which can be sought from the very reasoning of the Scriptures and the reading of the Fathers. The first reason is drawn from the conjunction which is between religion, or the law, and sacrifice: and it can be concluded by this syllogism: So great is the conjunction between the law, or religion, and an external sacrifice properly so called, that it is altogether necessary either that law and religion be not truly and properly found in the Church of Christ, or that an external sacrifice, properly so called, be also found in the Church of Christ. But there is none, if you take away the Mass: therefore the Mass is an external sacrifice properly so called.
The first proposition is proved. First from this, that nearly all religion, whether true or false, in every place and time, always employed sacrifices for the worship of God. For hence is gathered that this proceeds from the light and instinct of nature, and is a certain first principle implanted in us by God. For it is most false what Kemnitz says, to elude this argument, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 743, that this is an instinct of corrupt nature, which is the fount and root of all superstitions. For although corrupt nature is indeed and was the fount of idolatry and of all other superstitions: yet when all nations agree in some one principle, that without doubt proceeds not from the corruption of nature, but from the good of nature, that is, from that light which God implanted in it: for those things which proceed from corruption are not the same among all. And so that God exists, that He is to be worshipped, that He is to be invoked, that sacrifices are to be offered to Him, and like things, which in general are and always were the same among all, are from the good of nature. But that there are many gods, that idols are to be worshipped, that men are to be sacrificed, and other things which are variously diversified, are from corruption. Moreover that which proceeds from corrupt nature is not common to the good and the bad, nor is approved by God. But that sacrifice is to be offered, many most excellent and most holy men judged, as Noe, Abraham, Job, Melchisedech, and God Himself approved sacrifices, and even commanded them to be made: not therefore does the instinct of sacrificing arise from the corruption of nature.
The same proposition is proved secondly. Sacrifice was born together with religion itself, and is extinguished with it; there is therefore between them a certain conjunction plainly necessary. The antecedent is clear. For the first men who are read to have worshipped God were the sons of Adam, Cain and Abel; and they are read to have offered sacrifices, Genesis 4. Then, the world being abolished by the flood, when religion was again renewed, at the same time sacrifices were renewed by Noe, Genesis 8; and then when, on account of various persecutions, true religion was brought into danger, the prophets lamented nothing more than the cessation of sacrifices. 3 Kings 19, says Elijah: The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, they have destroyed thy altars, and slain thy prophets. 2 Paralipomenon 15, says Azarias: Many days shall pass in Israel without the true God, and without a priest, a teacher, and without the law. Daniel 3, say the three holy Children: There is at this time no prince, and leader, and prophet, nor holocaust, nor sacrifice, nor oblation, nor incense, nor place of firstfruits before thee, that we may find thy mercy. And Daniel 12, Antichrist is said to be about to take away the continual sacrifice, namely that he may utterly abolish religion. Finally the Apostle, Hebrews 7, says that the people under the Levitical priesthood received the law, and then adds that, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law also be made.
It is proved thirdly. A sacrifice properly so called is the worship proper to God, that is, which is due to Him alone by the consent of all: for all other kinds of honor are in some way common with creatures, as was proved above; therefore there can be no religion without a sacrifice properly so called. For religion is instituted for the worship of God: but he does not worship God, but rather affects Him with ignominy, who does not employ toward Him the worship due to Him alone. Certainly among men, if anyone did not attribute to a king the title of honor which befits kings alone, namely Majesty, even though he preserved all the inferior titles, he would be judged not only not to honor the king, but even to affect him with contumely.
Now is proved the minor of the first syllogism, namely that, the sacrifice of the Mass being taken away, no sacrifice properly so called remains in the Church of Christ; for if any could be assigned, it would be the sacrifice of the cross: for this alone the adversaries assign, and this they will have to be the sole and true sacrifice of the Christian religion. But we shall prove that the sacrifice of the cross, although it was a most true sacrifice, is not of such a kind as is required for constituting and preserving a law or religion, such as Christ willed to be on earth until the consummation of the world: and therefore, if we have no other, it plainly follows that we have no religion.
It is proved therefore first, because the sacrifice of the cross is not proper to the Christian religion, but common to all true religions which have been from the beginning of the world. For both in the law of nature and in the written law, all sacrifices looked to this one thing, and professed this one thing, and as many as were just from the beginning of the world were just on account of the participation of this sacrifice: not therefore is the Christian religion distinguished from the ancient ones by the sacrifice of the cross.
Secondly, the sacrifice of the cross was once accomplished, and then ceased to be, nor did it afterward remain except by its effect and power, as is known; nay it never was in the time of the Christian religion, for that properly began after the death of Christ. But the sacrifice proper to a religion ought to accompany it perpetually, as was proved above.
Thirdly, any religion requires an external and visible sacrifice, to the performing of which the men of that religion assemble, and which can be frequented by them. But nothing of this kind is found in the sacrifice of the cross. For it is, in respect of the Christians, invisible, since it is discerned by faith alone, not by the eyes, whence neither can the peoples assemble to it, nor even, if it were discerned, could it be frequented by the Christian people or priests, for it would not be lawful that the Christians should so often slay Christ.
Fourthly, the sacrifice of the Christian religion ought to be a certain rite commanded to the Christians by God, pertaining to that worship which is called latria, as Augustine rightly affirms, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21. But the slaying of Christ, which is called the sacrifice of the cross, can neither be called a rite, since it was the very truth which all rites foreshadowed; and much less can it be called a rite commanded to the Christians, unless one wishes the highest crime, namely the slaying and death of Christ, to be commanded us by God. And finally least of all can it be called the worship of latria, since rather to slay Christ ought to be called the highest sacrilege.
Let there be added the testimonies of the Fathers, whom we cited above in explaining the definition of Sacrifice, who say that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the sole and singular sacrifice of the Christians.
Let there be added finally the testimony of Cyprian in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, where he says that if the Eucharist were consumed by eating, it would come to pass that no sacrifice would remain to us, and through this the whole religion would perish.
You will say: Why then does blessed Paul, Hebrews 7, when he says that, the priesthood being translated, the law also ought to be translated, not say that the Levitical priesthood was translated from Aaron and his successors to Saint Peter and his successors, but only to Christ? I answer: The Apostle does not say that the Levitical priesthood was translated from Aaron to Christ, but that the Levitical priesthood was translated into the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, which priesthood must be eternal and perpetually flourish in the Church. Whence when he afterward names Christ a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, he does not consider Him precisely as He offered the sacrifice of the cross, but as through His ministers He perpetually sacrifices Himself in the Eucharist: for in this way alone, as we showed above, He has a perpetual priesthood.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Probatur sacrificium Missae ex coni unctione legis , et sacrificii. Venio nunc ad argumenta, quae ex ipsa ra¬ tione Scripturarum, et Patrum lectione in¬ structa peti possunt. Prima ratio desumitur ex conjunctione, quae est inter religionem, seu legem, et Sacrificium : et hoc syllogismo concludi potest : Tanta conjunctio est inter legem, seu religionem, et sacrificium exter¬ num, ac proprie dictum, ut omnino necesse sit, aut legem, et religionem vere et proprie in Christi Ecclesia non reperiri ; aut sacrifi¬ cium quoque externum, et proprie dictum in Christi Ecclesia reperiri. Nullum autem est, si Missam tollas : est igitur Missa sacri¬ ficium externum, et proprie dictum. Propositio prima probatur. Primo ex eo, quod fere omnis religio, seu vera,- seu falsa omni loco et tempore, semper ad cultum Dei sacrificia adhibuit. Hinc enim colligitur id prodire ex lumine, et instinctu naturae, et esse primum quoddam principium a Deo no¬ bis ingenitum. Falsissimum enim est, quod dicit Kemnitius, ut hoc argumentum eludat in ii. par. Exarn. pag. 743. hunc esse instin¬ ctum natur te corruptae quae est fons et radix omnium superstitionum. Nam et si natura corrupta revera fons est, ac fuit idololatriae, et aliarum omnium superstitionum : tamen cum omnes Gentes in uno aliquo principio conveniunt, id sine dubio non ex corruptio¬ ne naturae, sed ex bono naturae, id est, ex eo lumine prodit, quod Deus illi inseruit : quae enim ex corruptione prodeunt, non sunt ea¬ dem apud omnes. Itaque Deum esse, colen¬ dum esse, invocandum esse, illi sacrificia deferenda, et similia, quae in genere apud omnes sunt, et semper fuerunt eadem, ex bono naturae sunt. At Deos esse multos, co¬ lenda idola, sacrificandos homines, et alia quae multipliciter variantur, ex corruptione sunt. Praeterea id quod ex corrupta natura prodit, non est commune bonis, et malis, nec a Deo probatur. At sacrificandum esse, multi optimi, et sanctissimi viri censuerunt, ut Noe, Abraham, Job, Melehisedecb, et Deus ipso sacrificia approbavit, et jussit etiam fieri : non igitur ex corruptione natu- raj oritur sacrificandi instinctus. Probatur secundo eadem propositio. 5u~ t CAPUT XX. rificiura cum ipsa religione natum est, et cum illa cxtinguitur; est igitur inter ea con¬ junctio qu redam plane necessaria. Antecedens patet. Nam primi homines, qui Deum coluis¬ se leguntur, Filii Adami fuerunt Cain, et Abel ; illi autem sacrificia obtulisse leguntur Genes. 4. Deinde mundo pcrdiluvium abolito, cum iterum renovaretur religio, simul reno¬ vata sunt sacrificia per Noe Genes. 8. et de¬ inde cum ob varias persecutiones, religio vera in periculum adduceretur, nihil pro¬ pheta? magis lamentabantur, quam sacrificio¬ rum cessationem. III Reg. xix, inquit Elias : Dereliquerunt pactum tuum filii Israel, altaria tua destruxerunt , et Prophetas occiderunt (1). II Paralip. xv, inquit Azarias : Transibunt multi dies in Israelabsque Deo vero, et absque Sacer¬ dote, doctore et absque lege (2). Danielis III, in¬ quiunt tres. S. Pueri : Non est in tempore hoc Princeps, et Dux, et Propheta, neque holocaus¬ tum, neque sacrificium , neque oblatio, neque incensum, neque locus primitiarum apud te, ut pOssimus invenire misericordiam tuam (3) . Et Daniel, xii. dicitur Antichristus ablaturus juge sacrificium, nimirum, ut religionem penitus tollat. Denique Apostolus. Hebr. 7. dicit, populum sub sacerdotio Levitico accepisse legem, et deinde addit translato sacerdotio necesse esse, ut et legis translatio fiat. Probatur tertio. Sacrificium proprie di¬ ctum est cultus proprius Dei, id est, qui soli illi omnium consensu debetur : nam alia omnia genera honoris sunt aliquo modo com¬ munia cum creaturis, ut supra probatum est ergo nulla esse potest religio sine sacrificio proprie dicto. Nam religio ad colendum Deum instituitur : non autem colit Deum, sed potius ignominia illum afficit, qui cultum illi soli debitum, ei non adhibet. Certe inter homines si quis regi non tribueret titulum honoris, qui solis convenit regibus, Majesta¬ tem videlicet, etiamsi conservaret omnes infe¬ riores titulos, non modo regem non honorare, sed etiam contumelia afficere judicaretur. Probatur nunc assumptio primi syllogi¬ smi ; sublato videlicet sacrificio Missae, nul¬ lum restare in Ecclesia Christi sacrificium proprie dictum, nam si ullum assignari pos¬ set, id esset sacrificium crucis : id enim unum adversarii assignant, atque id esse vo¬ lunt unicum, et verum Christiana? religionis sacrificium. Sed nos probabimus, sacrificium crucis, quamvis verissimum sacrificium fuerit, odo non esse ejusmodi, quale requiritur ad legem seu religionem constituendam, et conservan¬ dam ; qualem in terris, usque ad mundi con¬ summationem Chlrstus esse voluit : et ideo si nullum aliud habeamus, plane sequi, ut nullam habeamus religicnem. Probatur igitur primo, quia sacrificium crucis, non est proprium Christianee religio¬ nis, sed commune omnibus veris religio¬ nibus, quse ab initio mundi fuerunt. Nam, et in lege naturae, et in lege scripta, omnia sacrificia in hoc unum respiciebant, et hoc unum profitebantur, et quotquot justi fue¬ runt ab initio mundi, ob hujus sacrificii par¬ ticipationem justi fuerunt : non igitur distin¬ guitur Christiana religio ab antiquis, per sa- cricifium crucis. Secundo, sacrificium crucis semel pera¬ ctum est, ac deinde desiit esse, neque mansi t postea nisi per effectum, et virtutem, ut no¬ tum est; imo nunquam fuit tempore Chri¬ stiana? religionis ; ea enim post Christi mor¬ tem proprie coepit. At sacrificium proprium religionis debet ipsam perpetuo comitari, ut supra probatum est. Tertio, religio quaevis sacrificium exter¬ num, ac visibile requirit, ad quod homines illius religionis peragendum conveniant, et quod ab ipsis frequentari possit. At nihil hu¬ jusmodi in sacrificio crucis reperitur. Est enim respectu Christianorum invisibile, cum sola fide non oculis cernatur, unde nec ad illud conveniri potest a populis, nec etiam si cerneretur, a populo, vel sacerdotibus Chri¬ stianis frequentari posset, non enim fas esset ut Christum Christiani toties interficerent. Quarto, sacrificium Christiana? religionis debet esse ritus quidam a Deo Christianis prseceptus, pertinens ad illum cultum, qui latria dicitur, ut recte Augustinus, affirmat lib. 20. cont. Faustum cap. 21. At Christi occisio, qua? dicitur sacrificium crucis, ne¬ que ritus dici potest, cum fuerit ipsa veritas, quam omnes ritus adumbrabant ; et multo minus ritus Christianis pra?ceptus dici potest, nisi quis velit nobis a Deo imperatum sum¬ mum scelus, Christi videlicet instcrsectionem, et mortem. Et denique minime omnium cul¬ tus latria? dici potest cum potius Christum-oc- cidere summum sacrilegium dici debeat. Accedant testimonia Patrum, quos supra citavimus in explicanda definitione Sacrificii, qui dicunt sacrificium Eucharistia? esse uni- (1) III Reg. XIX, 107. — (2) II Paral. XV, 3. — (3) Dan. III, 38. Tome IV. 23 LIBER V. 354 cum , et singulare sacrificium Christiano¬ rum. Accedat denique testimonium Cypriani in serm. de Goena Domini, ubi dicit, si Eucha¬ ristia manducando consumeretur, fore ut nul¬ lum nobis remaneret sacrificium, et per hoc tota religio interiret. Dices: Cur ergo 13. Paulus ad Hebr. 7. cum dicit, translato sacerdotio debere etiam transferri legem ; non dicit translatum esse sacerdotium Leviticum ab Aaronc, et suc¬ cessoribus in S. Petrum, ‘et successores ; sed solum in Christum ? Respondeo : Apostolus non dicit translatum esse Leviticum sacer¬ dotium ab Aarone in Christum, sed transla¬ tum esse sacerdotium Leviticum in sacerdo¬ tium secundum ordinem Melcliisedech, quod sacerdotium aeternum esse, et in Ecclesia perpetuo vigere debet. Unde cum postea nominat Christum sacerdotem secundum or¬ dinem Melcliisedech, non ipsum considerat ut praecise obtulit sacrificium crucis, sed ut per ministros suos perpetuo sacrificat scip- sum in Eucharistia : hoc enim solo modo, ut supra ostendimus, perpetuum habet sacer¬ dotium.