Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 24: The Objections of Luther Are Resolved
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).
Now at last the objections of the adversaries, of Luther, Calvin, and Kemnitz, are to be resolved; for the rest bring scarcely anything new. First, therefore, Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, and in his book on abrogating the Mass, proposes two arguments, and confidently opposes them to all the testimonies of all the Saints, and to the consent of the whole world and of all ages. The first argument is taken from the words, the second from the example of Christ.
The first is of this kind: The Lord's Supper is a Sacrament and Testament of Christ; for thus He Himself says: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood; therefore it cannot be a sacrifice. For the nature of a sacrifice altogether fights with the nature of a Sacrament and Testament. For a sacrifice is something which we offer to God: but a Sacrament is given to us by God, and likewise a Testament contains a promise of an inheritance made to us. Moreover the promise of a Sacrament and Testament is received by faith; a sacrifice on the contrary proceeds from faith. A Sacrament and Testament descend to us from God; a sacrifice ascends from us to God. Likewise, as prayer and that which is received by prayer cannot be the same, so a Testament and a sacrifice cannot be the same. Finally, as it is ridiculous to say that by a testament something is given to the testator by the heir, since on the contrary something is given to the heir by the testator: so also it ought to seem ridiculous if anyone should say that by the Sacrament of the Eucharist we offer something to God, since rather He promises and gives something to us. This argument Luther turns over through many pages, and says it is the foundation of his whole doctrine in this matter: and on account of ignorance of this thing he pronounces all priests and bishops, with all their ancestors, to be idolaters.
I answer: Luther's argument sins in three ways. First, because it assumes that a sacrifice is a work which we exhibit to God, and opposes it, as our action, to the action of Christ. But we do not say this, but assert that both the Sacrament or Testament and the sacrifice are the work and action of Christ: for the same Christ who offers Himself to us for food through the Eucharist, the same offered Himself through the Eucharist to the Father, and daily offers Himself in sacrifice through His ministers. Nay, among the other goods which Christ dying left us in His Testament, one was His own body and blood, which we should use, both that we might offer them to God, and that our souls might thence be refreshed. Nor is it unlike what pious men do when they make their testaments: for first they give something to God for the use of the churches or of the poor, then they leave the inheritance to their children.
But even if this sacrifice were altogether our work, still Luther's argument would not conclude: for it sins secondly, because it confounds the promise with the seal of the promise. For in the Sacrament and Testament of Christ there must be distinguished, in Luther's doctrine, the promise, which consists in the words Take, eat, etc., and the seal, which is the very body and blood of the Lord under the species of bread and wine: of these two the promise is not a sacrifice. And this Luther's argument proves, if it proves anything. For it is one thing that something be promised to us by God, another that we offer something to God. But there is no reason why the seal of the promise cannot be a sacrifice: for why cannot God take a victim offered to Him, by His institution and command, as a seal of the promise? nay in fact in the old law God did so. For He sealed the Old Testament, Exodus 24, with the blood of a victim then immolated to Him, Moses saying: This is the blood of the Testament which God hath sent to you. So also all the sacrifices of the old law were both true sacrifices, and yet were seals of the promise of Christ to come and to die. What wonder therefore if the blood of the Lord, existing on the altar, is by consecration at the same time the blood of a victim offered to God, and the seal of the divine promise.
Thirdly Luther's argument sins, because it does not distinguish the formal natures of the Sacrament or Testament, and of the sacrifice. For the argument proceeds as if we said that a sacrifice, as it is a sacrifice, is a Sacrament or Testament, and the contrary; or that to give is the same as to receive; to ask the same as to promise. But we are not so dull or rude as to say these things: but what we say is this: that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, inasmuch as it is an external and visible sign of the invisible grace and refreshment which is conferred on us while we rightly take the Eucharist: that the same is a Testament, inasmuch as it is a public and authentic instrument of the divine will and promise; that the same is a victim and sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered to God. Nor is it repugnant that one and the same thing be received and given; nor is that consequence of any force: We receive the Eucharist from God, therefore we cannot offer the same to Him. For we have nothing at all to offer to God except what we have received from Him; according to that of David, 1 Paralipomenon 29: All things are thine, and we have given thee what we received of thy hand.
Luther's second argument is taken from the example of Christ, who in the last Supper is read to have sat at table, and to have distributed the Sacrament to the disciples, but not to have offered it to the Father.
I answer: The example of Christ most favors us. For even though the Evangelists did not expressly say that Christ offered Himself to the Father in the Supper, yet neither did they expressly say that He did not offer Himself. And moreover we know, from the circumstances of that passage, from the figures and prophecies of the prophets, from the express testimony of the most ancient Fathers, that Christ offered Himself to the Father in the Supper in sacrifice; and commanded this very thing to be done, when He said: Do this. Nor is this new in the mysteries of the faith. For no Evangelist writes that in the last Supper Christ immolated the paschal lamb, and ate it with loins girt and with staves in hand; nay the Evangelists do not even expressly write that He ate the paschal lamb: and yet no one doubts that all these things were done, since the Lord was most observant of the law, and had commanded the Pasch to be prepared. Nor do the Evangelists say expressly that Christ put wine in the chalice which He called the chalice of His blood; for those words, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, we showed above were said of the chalice which the Lord gave to be drunk after the eating of the paschal lamb, not of the chalice of the Eucharist: and yet who at this time would deny that there was wine in that chalice? for all writers teach it. Wherefore if Luther desires to prove from the example of Christ that the Mass is not a sacrifice, let him bring some certain testimony where we may read that Christ did not offer Himself in the Supper. For those negative arguments, "It is not had expressly in Scripture, therefore it was not done," are now ridiculous even to children.
Besides these arguments, the same Luther has a notable imposture at the beginning of his book on abrogating private Mass, where he says that the Pope, entering into the decretal letters, cites as a foundation those words of Paul: The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law be made; and thence deduces that after Christ's ascension the priesthood was translated from Christ to Peter, then from Peter to the Pope, and from the Pope to his successors. Which imposture of Luther Illyricus again repeats in the Apology of the Antwerp Confession, in the chapter on the Mass, where he also adds that the Pope speaks of the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech.
But here are three lies. The first, that the Pope says these things, entering into the decretal letters, and lays them as a foundation. For that canon, The priesthood being translated, is not had in the first title, but in the second, nor at the beginning of that title; for two other canons precede.
The second lie is that the Pope says these things. For in that whole canon there is not the name of Christ, nor of Peter, nor of the Pope, but the very words of Paul are set down with a certain little annotation of Saint Augustine, which only contains that the law and the priesthood are altogether connected.
The third lie is that in that canon the priesthood of Christ or of Melchisedech is treated. For it expressly treats of the Levitical priesthood, as the gloss twice notes. And so they are mere dreams of Luther, that the priesthood was translated from Christ to Peter, or from Peter to the Pope.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Solvuntur objectiones Lutheri. Nunc demum solvendae sunt adversario¬ rum objectiones, Lutheri, Calvini, Kemnitii; nam reliqui vix aliquid novi afferunt. Pri¬ mum igitur Lutherus in lib. de captivit. Ba¬ byl. et in lib. de abroganda Missa, duo argu¬ menta proponit, eaque confidenter opponit omnibus omnium Sanctorum testimoniis , et 0) Matth. XVI, 18; Luc. I, 33. CAPUT XXTY. totius orbis terrae, atque omnium saeculorum consensui. Primum argumentum sumitur a verbis, secundum ab exemplo Christi. Primum ejusmodi est : Ccena Domini est Sacramentum, ac Testamentum Christi ; sic enim ipse ait : Hic calix novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine; ergo sacrificium esse non potest. Nam sacrificii ratio cum ratione Sacramenti, et Testamenti omnino pugnat. Sacrificium enim est aliquid, quod nos Deo offerimus : at Sacramentum datur nobis a Deo, et similiter Testamentum continet pro¬ missionem haereditatis nobis factam. Prae¬ terea Sacramenti, et Testamenti promissio fide accipitur; sacrificium contra ex fide pro¬ cedit. Sacramentum, et Testamentum ad nos a Deo descendunt ; sacrificium a nobis ad Deum ascendit. Item sicut non possunt idem esse oratio et quod oratione accipitur; ita non possunt idem esse Testamentum, et sa¬ crificium. Denique sicut ridiculum est dicere per Testamentum dari aliquid testatori ab haerede, cum e contrario detur aliquid hae¬ redi a testatore : sic etiam ridiculum videri debet, si quis dicat per Eucharistiae Sacra¬ mentum nos Deo aliquid offerre, cum ipse potius nobis aliquid promittat, et donet. Hoc argumentum per multas paginas versat Lu- therus, ac fundamentum esse dicit totius doctrinae suae in hac materia : ac propter hujus rei ignorantiam, pronuntiat idololatras esse omnes Sacerdotes, et Episcopos, cum omnibus suis majoribus. Respondeo : Tribus modis peccat argu¬ mentum Lutheri. Primo, quia assumit, sacri¬ ficium esse opus, quod nos Deo exhibemus, et illud opponit, ut nostram actionem, actioni Christi. At nos non hoc dicimus, sed asse¬ rimus tam Sacramentum, seu Testamentum, quam sacrificium esse Christi opus, et actio¬ nem : idem enim Christus, qui nobis seipsum per Eucharistiam prsebet in cibum, idem seipsum per Eucharistiam Patri obtulit, et quotidie per ministros suos se offert in sacri¬ ficium. Imo inter alia bona, qua3 nobis Chri¬ stus moriens Testamento suo reliquit, unum fuit corpus ipsius, et sanguis, quo uteremur, tum ut illa Deo offerremus, tum ut inde ani¬ mae nostrae reficerentur. Neque dissimile est quod agunt homines pii, dum Testamenta sua condunt, primum enim aliquid donant Deo in usum Ecclesiarum, aut pauperum, deinde haereditatem filiis relinquunt. 357 Sed etiamsi hoc sacrificium esset omnino opus nostrum, adhuc argumentum Lutheri non concluderet : nam peccat secundo, quod confundit promissionem cum signaculo pro¬ missionis. Siquidem in Sacramento, et Te¬ stamento Christi, distinguenda sunt in do¬ ctrina Lutheri promissio, quae consistit in verbis : Accipite , manducate ete ., et signa¬ culum, quod est ipsum corpus Domini, et sanguis sub specie panis, et vini : ex his duo¬ bus promissio non est sacrificium. Et hoc probat, si quid probat, argumentum Lutheri. Aliud enim est promitti nobis aliquid a Deo, aliud, nos Deo aliquid offerre. At signaculum promissionis, nulla est ratio cur sacrificium esse non possit : cur enim non possit Deus victimam sibi oblatam, instituto et 'mandato suo, assumere in signaculum promissionis ! imo reipsa in lege veteri sic Deus fecit. Nam Testamentum vetus Exod. 24. obsignavit sanguine victimae, tunc sibi immolatae, di¬ cente Moise : Hic est sanguis Testamenti , quod misit ad vos Deus (1). Sic etiam omnia sacrificia legis veteris , et vera sacrificia erant, et tamen signacula erant promissio¬ nis Christi venturi, et morituri. Quid igitur mirum, si sanguis Domini in altari existens, per consecrationem simul sanguis sit victi¬ mae Deo oblata;, et signaculum promissionis divinae. Tertio peccat argumentum Lutheri, quod non distinguat rationes formales Sacramenti seu Testamenti, et sacrificii. Ita enim argu¬ mentum procedit, ac si nos diceremus, sacri¬ ficium, qua sacrificium est, esse Sacramen¬ tum, vel Testamentum, et contra ; vel dare , idem esse quod accipere; petere, idem quod promittere. At non ita sumus hebetes, aut rudes, ut ista dicamus : sed quod dicimus, hoc est ; Eucharistiam Sacramentum esse; quatenus est signum externum, et visibile invisibilis gratiae, et refectionis, quae nobis confertur, dum Eucharistiam rite sumimus : eamdem esse Testamentum, quatenus est in¬ strumentum publicum, et authenticum divi¬ nae voluntatis, et promissionis, eamdem esse victimam et sacrificium, quatenus Deo offer¬ tur. Neque repugnat,- unum et idem accipi, et dari; neque valet quidquam illa conse¬ quentia : Accipimus a Deo Eucharistiam, ergo non possumus eamdem illi offerre. Nam nihil omnino habemus quod Deo offeramus, nisi quod ab eo -accepimus; juxta illud Da- (1) Exod. XXIY, 8. f.IBRn Y. r»8 vidis in lib. J Paralip. xxix. Tua sunt om¬ nia , et quse de manu tua accepimus , dedimus tibi (1). Secundum Lutheri argumentum sumitur ab exemplo Christi, qui in ultima ccena legi¬ tur in mensa sedisse, et Sacramentum disci¬ pulis distribuisse , non autem illud Patri obtulisse. Respondeo : Christi exemplum nobis ma¬ xime favet. Nam etiamsi Evangelistae non expresse dixerint, Christum se Patri in coena obtulisse; tamen neque expresse dixerunt, non se obtulisse. Et praeterea nos ex loci illius circumstantiis, ex figuris, et vaticiniis pro¬ phetarum, ex testimonio expresso antiquis¬ simorum Patrum scimus, Christum se Patri in coena in sacrificium obtulisse ; et hoc ipsum fieri mandasse, cum ait : Hoc facite. Neque est id novum in mysteriis fidei. Nam nullus Evangelista scribit, in ultima coena Christum immolasse agnum paschalem , et eumdem commedisse accinctis renibus, et cum baculis in manu ; imo neque expresse scribunt Evan¬ gelistae, illuni comedisse agnum paschalem : et tamen nemo dubitat ista omnia facta esse, cum esset Dominus observantissimus legis, et Pascha parari jussisset. Neque dicunt ex- presse Evangelistae, Christum in calice, quem sanguinis sui calicem appellavit, posuisse vinum ; nam illa verba : Non bibam ex hoc genimine vitis , supra ostendimus dicta esse de calice, quem bibendum dedit dominus post agni paschalis manducationem, non de calice Eucharistiae : et tamen quis hoc tempore infi- ciaretur, in illo calice fuisse vinum? id enim omnes scriptores tradunt. Quare si Lutherus ab exemplo Christi probare cupit, Missam non esse sacrificium ; certum aliquod testi¬ monium afferat, ubi legamus Christum non se obtulisse in coena. Nam illa argumenta negativa : non habetur expresse in Scriptura ; ergo non est factum, jam ipsis etiam pueris ridicula sunt. Praeter haec argumenta, habet idem Luthe¬ rus insignem imposturam in principio libri de abroganda Missa privata, ubi dicit, Pa¬ pam ingressurum in epistolas decretales, pro fundamento citare illa verba Pauli : Trans¬ lato sacerdotio necesse est , ut legis translatio fiat; et inde deducere, post Christi ascensio¬ nem translatum fuisse sacerdotium a Christo in Petrum, deinde a Petro in Papam, et a Papa in suos successores. Quam Lntheri im¬ posturam iterum repetit Illyricus in Apolo- gia Confessionis Antuerpiensis, cap. de Missa, ubi etiam addit Papam loqui de sacerdotio secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Sed hic tria sunt mendacia. Primum, quod Papa ista dicat ingressurus in decretales epi¬ stolas, et pro fundamento jaciat. Nam ille Canon : Translato sacerdotio, non habetur in 1. titulo, sed in 2., nec in principio illius ti¬ tuli ; nam duo alii canones praecedunt. Secundum mendacium est, quod Papa ista dicat. Nam in toto illo canone, non est no¬ men Christi, nec Petri, nec Papae, sed po¬ nuntur ipsa verba Pauli cum quadam anno¬ tatiuncula S. Augustini, quse solum continet, legem et sacerdotium esse omnino connexa. Tertium mendacium est, quod in eo ca¬ none agatur de sacerdotio Christi, vel Mel¬ chisedech. Nam expresse agitur de sacerdo¬ tio Levitico, ut glossa bis notat. Itaque mera sunt Lutheri somnia, translatum esse sacer¬ dotium a Christo in Petrum, vel a Petro in Papam.