Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 27: The Last Objection Is Resolved, and It Is Explained in What Part of the Mass the Essence of the Sacrifice Properly Consists
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).
In the last place a certain objection is to be resolved, which the heretics partly make to impugn the Mass, and the Catholics partly make to explain the matter better. If the Mass were a sacrifice properly so called, certainly in some part of it would be found the nature of a sacrifice properly so called, and explained above in the definition; but that there is no such part is thus shown. After the Mass of the Catechumens, in which it is certain that the nature of a sacrifice does not consist, five parts are found. First, the oblation of bread and wine. Second, the consecration and transmutation of the bread into the body and of the wine into the blood of the Lord. Third, the oblation of the body and blood by express words. Fourth, the fraction and commixture of the Sacrament. Fifth, the distribution and consumption of the same. That the sacrifice of the Mass does not consist in the oblation of bread and wine is beyond controversy: for earthly things cannot be that one sacrifice which the Fathers affirm to flourish in the Church in place of all the ancient sacrifices.
In the consecration, which is the second part, there appears no oblation, which yet is of the intrinsic nature of a sacrifice. Moreover in the consecration there is made no sensible change of the thing which is offered: which change seems altogether to pertain to the nature of an external sacrifice.
The oblation of the body and blood, namely the third part, which follows upon the consecration, cannot pertain to the essence of the Mass; and accordingly neither ought the nature of the sacrifice to be constituted in it. For the Lord Christ, whom we have as the author of this sacrifice, after the consecration immediately distributed the Sacrament and commanded it to be eaten. For thus He says: Take and eat, this is my body. There was, therefore, no time in which the Lord could offer the consecrated bread to God. Then, if it is true, as Saint Gregory writes, Book 7, letter 63, that the Apostles added only the Lord's prayer to the words of consecration, certainly they too did not make that oblation which we make after the consecration: therefore that oblation does not pertain to the essence of the sacrifice.
Further, the fraction, which is the fourth part, without doubt does not have the Lord for its author. For the Lord indeed broke the bread, but broke it either before the consecration, as many will have it, or immediately after the consecration, that He might distribute it to the disciples. But our fraction is made after the consecration, with many other actions interposed, and is not made for distributing, but for signifying a certain mystery.
Finally the eating, or consumption, does not seem properly a sacrifice, since it is not done by the priest alone. And although it pertained to the essence of the sacrifice, yet the whole essence of the sacrifice cannot be constituted in it alone: for without a preceding oblation and dedication there can be no sacrifice. And this is the reason why among the Catholics on the Friday of Holy Week the sacrifice of the Mass is not reckoned to be properly celebrated, though a true host be present and be broken and consumed: because forsooth the consecration and oblation are lacking.
I answer: That we may explain the whole matter easily and briefly, two things are to be opened. First, what is properly the sacrifice of the Mass, taking sacrifice for the thing which is sacrificed. Then, what is properly the sacrifice of the Mass, taking sacrifice for the action of sacrificing. And each will be clear from the following sentences or propositions.
First proposition: It ought not to be denied that bread and wine are in some way offered in the Mass, and accordingly pertain to the thing which is sacrificed. This is clear first from the very Liturgy. For when before the consecration we say: “Receive, holy Father, this immaculate host”, certainly the pronoun “this” points out to the sense that which we then hold in our hands: and that is bread. And there are in the Liturgy not a few like sentences, which most openly show that bread is offered.
Then the ancient Fathers passim teach the same. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 32, says that the Church offers to God a sacrifice of creatures, that is, of bread and wine. Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3, says that Christ offered to the Father the chalice mixed with wine and water; and in his sermon on almsgiving, reprehending the rich women who did not bring the bread to be consecrated: “Wealthy and rich, thou comest into the Lord's house without a sacrifice, and takest part of the sacrifice which the poor man offered”; where by sacrifice he understands the bread which was to be sacrificed to God by the priests. Saint Gregory, Book 2 of the Dialogues, chapter 23, speaking of Saint Benedict: “With his own hand he gave the oblation, saying: Go, and cause this oblation to be offered to the Lord for them, and they shall no longer be excommunicated. And when the oblation had been immolated for them, etc.” And Book 4, chapter 55: “Offer for me this bread to almighty God.” Like sentences are found passim.
Second proposition: The body and blood of the Lord are that sacrifice which in the Mass is properly offered and sacrificed. This is most certain, and proved by very many testimonies.
Third proposition: The bread and the body of the Lord, the wine and the blood of the Lord, are not two sacrifices, but one. For we do not offer to God bread simply, but bread to be consecrated and transmuted into the body of the Lord: nor do we offer the body of the Lord absolutely; for then either the sacrifice would have to become bloody, or in truth there would be no sacrifice; but we offer the body of the Lord in the species of bread, and made from bread. And so, just as among the Hebrews a living sheep was offered, and also offered dead, and although the living and the dead differ in species, if nature be regarded physically, yet it was one sacrifice, not two sacrifices; for the living sheep was offered to be consecrated to God by death, and then to be consumed by fire: so also, although the bread and the body of the Lord are things most diverse, if their nature be considered, yet they make one sacrifice, which is the bread transmuted into the body of the Lord, or the body of the Lord offered to God in the species of bread. And hence it is that in the Mass the bread is not offered as a perfect sacrifice, but as a sacrifice begun and to be perfected, as is clear from those words: “Bless this sacrifice prepared for thy holy name.” And in the secrets we several times read: “We offer the gift to be hallowed to thee.” Whence Irenaeus most rightly, Book 4, chapter 32, said: “He confessed the chalice to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Testament.” Where the oblation of the New Testament is properly called the wine changed into the blood of the Lord.
To this purpose are all the places of the Fathers who teach that there is one sacrifice of the Church, which succeeded the whole multitude of the ancient sacrifices: Leo, sermon 8 on the Passion of the Lord; John Chrysostom on Psalm 95; and Augustine in the book on the Spirit and the letter, chapter 11; Book 3 against the Donatists, on Baptism, last chapter; Book 1 against the adversary of the Law and the Prophets, chapter 20; Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 25; and Book 8 of the City of God, last chapter.
Hence it is clear that the opinion of Gaspar Casalius, Book 1 on the sacrifice, chapter 20, is improbable, who affirms that there are two sacrifices of the Eucharist, one of bread and wine, the other of the body and blood of the Lord.
Fourth proposition: The oblation of bread and wine preceding the consecration pertains to the integrity and fullness of the sacrifice, but not to the essence. That it does not pertain to the essence seems to be beyond controversy. For vocal oblation, as we showed above, is not necessary for a sacrifice: for he sufficiently shows to God that he offers something, who really offers. And although some oblation is necessarily required for the essence of a sacrifice, yet it is not necessary that it precede the immolation: for the very immolation can be an oblation. But that it pertains to a certain integrity is clear from this, that in all the Liturgies, however ancient, whether Greek or Latin, the oblation of the things to be consecrated is a part of the action. And although the Lord did not offer the bread to be consecrated in the same words with which we now offer it, yet that He offered it in some way Cyprian openly writes, Book 2, letter 3, and it is gathered from that ceremony of lifting up the eyes to heaven and giving thanks, which the Lord premised to the consecration, as partly the Evangelists, partly the most ancient Liturgies testify.
Fifth proposition: The oblation which follows the consecration likewise pertains to the integrity of the sacrifice, not to the essence. That it does not pertain to the essence is proved, both from this, that the Lord did not employ that oblation; nay neither did the Apostles at the beginning, as was demonstrated from Gregory; and from this, that the words of this oblation are not said in the person of Christ, but in the person of the Minister himself and of the Church; as is clear from those words: “Wherefore, we thy servants, being mindful, etc.” But the sacrifice is principally offered in the person of Christ. And so that oblation following the consecration is a certain testification that the whole Church consents to the oblation made by Christ, and together with Him offers. But that it pertains to the integrity is clear from the most ancient Liturgies, which without doubt draw their origin from the Apostles. For although the Apostles at the beginning are said to have added only the Lord's prayer, yet afterward the same ordained the rite of celebrating, and added many other things, as can be understood from the Liturgy of James and of Clement.
Sixth proposition: The fraction of the Sacrament does not pertain to the essence, but only to the integrity. That it does not pertain to the essence is clear from the very usage of the Church. For if perhaps, while the sign of the cross is expressed with the Sacrament itself over the chalice, the consecrated bread should fall into the chalice, it is not wont to be broken, but is left whole until the consumption: nor yet is the sacrifice believed to be void or essentially changed. Add that the Lord does not seem to have used this ceremony, as we said at the beginning. But that it pertains to the integrity is clear from all the Greek and Latin Liturgies.
Seventh proposition: The consumption of the Sacrament, as it is done by the people, is not a part of the sacrifice; but as it is done by the sacrificing priest, it is an essential part, but not the whole essence. As to the people's reception, the thing is most certain: for those who eat the victims are partakers of the altar, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 13. But it is not the same to offer the sacrifice and to partake of the altar. But the consumption which is done by the sacrificing priest is not so much an eating of the victim as a consummation of the sacrifice; and it is reckoned properly to correspond to the burning of the holocaust. And so it was always judged so necessary by the Church that, if perhaps the priest die before the consumption, or in another way be hindered from the consumption, another priest must succeed him and consummate the sacrifice, as is clear from the Twelfth Council of Toledo, canon 3, and the rubrics of the Missal.
But that it is an essential part is proved from this, that in the whole action of the Mass, as we shall presently show, there is no other real destruction of the victim except this: and that a real destruction is required was proved above, when we constituted the definition. Whence the Patriarch Abraham, although he had already bound his son and set him upon the altar and lifted his hand to slay him, yet because a real slaying was lacking, is not said to have sacrificed him except in will. Nor does it stand in the way that this consumption does not seem to be done in the person of Christ, who yet is the primary Priest. For Christ indeed does not eat Himself, nor immediately consume the Sacrament: yet He can be said to consume, because He delivers it to be consummated. As also in the sacrifice of the cross Christ truly sacrificed Himself, because He offered Himself to be slain, though He did not slay Himself. For also in the Old Testament the burning was of the nature of a holocaust, which yet was done immediately not by the priest, but by the fire: but the priest was truly said to burn the victim, when he put fire under it.
Eighth proposition: The consecration of the Eucharist pertains to the essence of the sacrifice. This opinion, so proposed in general, has many authors. For among the Greeks Nicholas Cabasilas openly teaches it in his explanation of the sacred Liturgy, chapter 32; and among the Latins Ruard in the defense of article 16 of the Louvain doctors, Jodocus Tiletanus in the answer to the Apology of Illyricus, chapter 13, Gaspar Casalius, Book 1 on the Sacrifice, chapter 20, Alan, Book 2 on the Sacrifice, chapter 13, and others; but not all expound it in the same way.
Some think that the essence of the sacrifice consists in the consecration because through the consecration is made a true and real change of the bread into the body of Christ: but a true sacrifice requires such a true and real change, whereby the thing ceases to be for the honor of God.
But this opinion has against it no light arguments. For first, if it be true, it follows that properly the wheaten bread alone is sacrificed. For that is properly said to be sacrificed which is really changed, so that it ceases to be: but the bread alone is changed. But that this is most absurd, no one can deny; because if it were so, the Church would have an inanimate sacrifice, and far viler than the Hebrews once had. Then the change, which is set as the form of the sensible and external sacrifice, ought to be external and sensible. But the change of the bread into the body of Christ is altogether internal, and perceptible by no sense, but by faith alone. Thirdly, the sacrifice of the Church and the sacrifice of the cross would not be the same as to the thing offered: nor would it be true, what the Fathers say, that in the sacrifice of the Mass the sacrifice and the Priest are the same; nor that which Chrysostom, Ambrose, Primasius, and others note on chapter 10 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the sacrifices of the Hebrews were many, because today they offered one lamb, tomorrow another; but that ours is one, because we always offer the same Christ; for we too, if we speak of the bread, do not always offer the same.
Others will have the essence of the sacrifice to consist in the consecration because through it Christ is truly, though mystically and unbloodily, immolated. For since by the force of the words, This is my body, the body of Christ alone, without soul and blood, begins to be on the altar, and by the force of the other words, This is my blood, the blood alone begins to be, and separately from the body, on the altar: and where there is a true body separated from the blood, there is a certain true immolation: certainly it follows that, by the force of the whole consecration, Christ is truly immolated: and yet the immolation is unbloody, because the natural concomitance hinders that the blood or soul be truly separated from the body.
This opinion does not seem so to satisfy that the mind altogether rests. For first, a true and real sacrifice requires a true and real death or destruction of the thing immolated. But the consecration effects not a true and real death, but only a mystic one. Nor do they seem to answer sufficiently who say that the consecration of itself brings a true death, but that through the natural concomitance it comes to pass that death does not really follow. For if the natural concomitance hinders death, by this very thing it hinders the sacrifice. Certainly, if in the time of the Old Testament a priest about to immolate a sheep gave a blow which of itself could have slain it, but by some intervening impediment the sheep was not slain, the slaying would not be said to be really accomplished, but by will alone.
Moreover, if through the consecration a true and real change were made, yet it would not be made on the altar, but in heaven. For the immolation is said to be made there where the living animal is slain, or where the division of the body from the soul and blood is made; now the division of the body of Christ from the soul and blood, if any is made through the sacramental words, is not made on the altar, but in heaven. For the division must be made there where the thing preexists before the division: but Christ before that division preexists in heaven, not on the altar. And so according to this opinion the immolation is not made on the altar, but only the parts of the immolated thing are placed on the altar after the immolation. But who would grant that the immolation, which is the sacrifice of the Christian religion, is celebrated not on earth, but only in heaven?
Finally, either in the Mass there is made a true and real slaying and killing of Christ, or there is not. If there is not, the sacrifice of the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice; for a true and real sacrifice exacts a true and real slaying, when the essence of the sacrifice is placed in the slaying. But if there is, then it will be true to say that by the Christian priests Christ is truly and really slain: but this seems to be a sacrilege, not a sacrifice.
These things, therefore, being omitted, I judge the matter should be thus explained. In the consecration of the Eucharist three things are done, in which the nature of a true and real sacrifice consists. First, a profane thing is made sacred: for the bread, otherwise an earthly and common thing, is by consecration turned into the body of Christ, namely the most sacred of all things.
You will say: From this it seems to follow that the bread alone is properly sacrificed: which we said above to be absurd. For that which is made sacred from profane is properly sacrificed; if therefore the bread is made sacred from profane, the bread will be properly sacrificed.
I answer: That which is so made sacred from profane that it remains, is without doubt properly sacrificed: and therefore among the Hebrews the sheep was consecrated, and the same sheep was sacrificed, because it remained the same even after death, at least as to the material part, and the sheep was called both living and dead. But the bread does not remain while it is consecrated, but is turned into another thing: and therefore not the bread, but that which is made from the bread, is properly sacrificed.
Secondly, in the consecration that sacred thing, made from profane, is offered to God, while it is placed on the altar of God. For, as we said above, to place a victim on the altar is really to offer it to God, and because by the force of the consecration it comes to pass that the body and blood of Christ begin really to be upon the altar by means of the hand of the priest, therefore by the words of consecration a true and solemn oblation is celebrated. Nor is it repugnant to this that the sacrifice was sometimes celebrated without an altar. For we do not here dispute of a stone altar; but we call every thing an altar on which the victim made by the words of consecration is received. Nor does it stand in the way that it seems to be an oblation of an invisible thing, since an external and sensible victim is required in an external and properly so-called sacrifice. For the body of Christ is not a victim in the sacrifice of the Mass absolutely, but as it is in the species of bread: but in the species of bread it is fully visible.
Thirdly, through the consecration the thing which is offered is ordained to a true, real, and external change and destruction, which was necessary to the nature of a sacrifice. For through the consecration the body of Christ receives the form of food: but food is ordained to eating, and through this to change and destruction. Nor does it stand in the way that the body of Christ suffers in itself no injury, nor loses its natural being, when the Eucharist is eaten: for it loses its sacramental being; and accordingly ceases really to be on the altar, ceases to be a sensible food.
This seems to me to be the opinion of Saint Thomas, who in the third part, question 85, article 3, when he taught that it pertains to the nature of a sacrifice that something be done about the thing offered, as when animals were slain and burned for the honor of God, did not add that that which is done in the sacrifice of the Mass consists in the conversion of the bread into the body of the Lord, but in the fraction, blessing, and eating of the bread.
This explanation being premised, our eighth and last proposition is proved. First, because the sacrifice of the Mass is offered in the person of Christ: but the priest does nothing so clearly in the person of Christ as the consecration, in which he says: This is my body, etc.
Secondly, because Christ Himself either sacrificed by consecrating and consuming, or in no way sacrificed: for, as we showed, there is no other action of Christ which can be called a sacrifice, either before or after the consecration.
Thirdly, because the Apostles at the beginning, if they added nothing to the words of consecration except the Lord's prayer, must have sacrificed by consecrating: for the Lord's prayer cannot be called a sacrifice.
Fourthly, because in the consecration consists the representation of the sacrifice of the cross, as Saint Thomas teaches, third part, question 80, article 12, to the third. But the real sacrifice and the representative sacrifice ought to be at the same time: since the very real one is representative of another.
Fifthly, because this is the opinion of the ancient Fathers. For Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 32, says that Christ then taught the oblation of the New Testament, which the Church throughout the world frequents, when He said: This is my body. Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, says that when by the words of consecration the bread is blessed, then the Eucharist becomes at once a medicine and a holocaust. Chrysostom, in his homily on the betrayal by Judas, says that the words of the Lord, This is my body, give firmness to the sacrifice until the consummation of the world. Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 58, when he says that in the very hour of immolation, at the voice of the priest, the choirs of Angels are present, heaven is opened, the lowest are joined to the highest, one thing is made of the visible and the invisible, openly teaches that the immolation is perfected by the consecration. For that is the hour in which, at the voice of the priest, Christ truly begins to be on the altar under the species of bread; for this is for the lowest to be joined to the highest, earthly things to be associated with heavenly, and one thing to be made of the visible and invisible; nor is there any doubt that, on account of the presence of Christ, the Angels come from heaven to earth. And these things have been said concerning the first controversy.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII. Solvitur ultima objectio , et explicatur in qua parte Missa; proprie consistat essen¬ tia sacrificii Postremo loco solvenda est objectio quae- dam, quam partim haeretici faciunt ad Mis¬ sam oppugnandam : partim etiam Catholici ad rem melius explicandam. Si Missa sacri¬ ficium esset proprie dictum, certe in aliqua ejus parte inveniretur ratio sacrificii proprie dicti, et supra definitione explicati, nullam autem ejusmodi partem esse, sic ostenditur. Post Missam Cathecumenorum, in qua cer¬ tum est non consistere sacrificii rationem, quinque partes inveniuntur. Prima oblatio panis, et vini. Secunda consecratio, et trans¬ mutatio panis in corpus, et vini in sangui¬ nem Domini. Tertia oblatio corporis, et san¬ guinis per expressa verba. Quarta fractio, et commistio Sacramenti. Quinta distribu¬ tio, et consumptio ejusdem. In oblatione pa¬ nis, et vini sacrificium Missae non consiste¬ re, extra controversiam est : non enim res v terrenae esse possunt illud unicum sacrifi¬ cium, quod iu Ecclesia vigere pro omnibus veteribus sacrificiis Patres affirmant. In consecratione, quae est secunda pars, non apparet ulla oblatio quae tamen de in¬ trinseca ratione sacrificii est. Praeterea non fit in consecratione ulla sensibilis immutatio rei, quae offertur : quae mutatio ad rationem externi sacrificii omnino pertinere videtur. Oblatio corporis et sanguinis, tertia vide¬ licet pars, quae sequitur ad consecrationem, • ad essentiam Missae pertinere non potest; proinde neque in ea ratio sacrificii constitui debet. Nam Dominus Christus, quem sacrifi¬ cii hujus auctorem habemus, post consecra¬ tionem continuo Sacramentum distribuit, ac manducari praecipit. Sic enim ait : Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus meum. Nullum igitur fuit tempus, in quo Dominus conse¬ cratum panem Deo offerre potuerit. Deinde, si verum est, quod sanctus Gregorius scri¬ bit lib. vn. epistol. 63. solummodo oratio¬ nem Dominicam Apostolos addidisse ad ver¬ ba consecrationis, certe nec ipsi faciebant il¬ lam oblationem, quam nos post consecratio¬ nem facimus : non igitur illa oblatio ad essen¬ tiam sacrificii pertinet. Porro fractio, quae quarta pai's est, sine dubio non habet Dominum auctorem. Domi¬ nus enim fregit quidem panem, sed fregit vel ante consecrationem, ut multi volunt, vel statim a consecratione, ut distribueret eum discipulis. At nostra fractio fit post consecrationem multis aliis actionibus in¬ terjectis, et non fit ad distribuendum, sed ad certum mysterium significandum. Denique manducatio, seu consumptio non videtur proprie sacrificium, cum non fiat a solo Sacerdote. Et quamvis ad essentiam sa¬ crificii pertineret, non potest tamen in ea sola tota essentia sacrificii constitui : nam sine oblatione, et dedicatione praecedente, sacrificium esse non potest. Atque haec est ratio cur apud Catholicos feria sexta majoris hebdomada; non censeatur sacrificium Missae proprie celebrari, licet vera hostia adsit et frangatur, et consummetur : quia videlicet consecratio, et oblatio deest. Respondeo : Ut rem totam facile, et bre¬ viter explicemus, duo aperienda sunt. Pri¬ mum, quid sit proprie sacrificium Missae, CAPUT XXVII. 365 accipiendo sacrificium pro re, qusc sacrifi¬ catur. Deinde quid sit proprie sacrificium Missse, accipiendo sacrificium pro actione sacrificandi. Utrumque autem ex sequenti¬ bus sententiis, seu propositionibus patebit. Prima propositio : Negari non debet, pa¬ nem, et vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri, et proinde pertinere ad rem, quae sacrifica¬ tur. Haec patet primum ex ipsa Liturgia. Nam cum ante consecrationem dicimus : <c Suspice sanctae Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam » , certe pronomen « hanc » , demon¬ strat ad sensum id, quod tunc manibus te¬ nemus : id autem panis est. Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucse sententiae, quae panem offerri apertissime demonstrant. Deinde veteres Patres passim idem tra¬ dunt. Irenaeus lib. iv. cap. 32. dicit, Eccle¬ siam offerre Deo sacrificium ex creaturis, id est, ex pane et vino. Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3. dicit, Christum obtulisse Patri ca¬ licem vino et aqua mixtum, et in sermone de eleemosyna, reprehendens divites femi¬ nas quae non afferebant panem- consecran¬ dum :«Locuplex, inquit, et dives in Domini¬ cum sine sacrificio venis, et partem de sa¬ crificio, quod pauper obtulit sumis » ; ubi per sacrificium, panem intelligit, qui per Sacer¬ dotes Deo sacrificandus erat. Sanctus Grego- rius lib. n. Dialog. cap. 23. de S. Benedicto loquens : «Manu sua, inquit, oblationem de¬ dit dicens : Ite, et hanc oblationem pro eis offerri Domino facite, et ulterius excommu¬ nicat» non erunt. Quse dum oblatio pro eis fuisset immolata etc. » et lib. iv. cap. 55. « Omnipotenti Deo, inquit, pro me offer hunc panem. » Similes sententiae passim inveniun¬ tur. Secunda propositio : « Corpus, et sanguis Domini sunt id sacrificium, quod in Missa proprie offertur, et sacrificatur. » Heec cer¬ tissima est, et probata plurimis testimoniis. Tertia propositio : « Panis, et corpus Do¬ mini, vinum, et sanguis Domini, non sunt duo sacrificia, sed unum. » Non enim offe¬ rimus Deo panem simpliciter, sed panem consecrandum, et transmutandum in corpus Domini : neque offerimus corpus Domini ab¬ solute ; tunc enim aut cruentum fieri deberet sacrificium aut revera sacrificium nullum esset, sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis, et ex pane confectum. Itaque sicut apud Hebraeos offerebatur ovis viva, et offerebatur etiam mortua, et licet specie differant vivum, et mortuum, si natura physice spectetur, ta¬ men unum erat sacrificium, non duo sacrifi¬ cia ; nam ovis viva offerebatur consecranda per mortem Deo, et deinde per ignem absu¬ menda. Sic- etiam, licet panis et corpus Do¬ mini res sint diversissimae, si natura eorum consideretur, unum tamen sacrificium fa¬ ciunt, quod est panis in corpus Domini tran- smutatus, sive corpus Domini in specie panis Deo oblatum. Atque hinc est, quod in Mis¬ sa non offertur panis, ut sacrificium per¬ fectum, sed ut sacrificium inchoatum, et perficiendum, ut patet ex illis verbis : « Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto no- • mini praeparatum. » Et in secretis aliquoties legimus : « Sacrandum tibi munus offeri¬ mus. » Unde rectissime Irenseus lib. iv. cap. 32, dixit : « Calicem, sanguinem suum con¬ fessus est, et novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem. » Ubi oblatio novi Testamenti proprie vocatur vinum in sanguinem Domi¬ ni commutatum. Huc faciunt omnia loca Patrum qui docent, unicum esse Ecclesiae sacrificium, quod suc¬ cessit toti multitudini veterum sacrificiorum; Leonis sermone 8. de passione Domini, Jo- annis Chrysostomi in Psalm. 95. Et Augu¬ stini libro de Spiritu et littera cap. 11. lib. iii. contra Donatistas, de Baptismo capit, ult. lib. i. contra adv. Leg. et Proph. cap. 20 ; lib. i. contra Cresconium, cap. 25. et lib. vm. de civit.Dei cap. ult. Hinc patet, improbabilem esse sententiam Gasparis Cassalii lib. i. de sacrificio cap. 20. qui affirmat duo esse sacrificia Eucharistiae, unum panis et vini, alterum corporis et san¬ guinis Domini. Quarta propositio : « Oblatio panis, et vi¬ ni consecrationem praecedens, ad integrita¬ tem et plenitudinem sacrificii pertinet, non tamen ad essentiam. » Quod ad essentiam non pertineat, extra controversiam esse vi¬ detur. Nam oblatio vocalis, ut supra osten¬ dimus, non est ad sacrificium necessaria : satis enim Deo se demonstrat aliquid offerre, qui reipsa offert. Et quamvis oblatio aliqua ad essentiam sacrificii necessario requiratur, non tamen necesse est, ut ea immolationem prsecedat : ipsa enim immolatio, oblatio esse potest. Quod autem ad integritatem quamdam pertineat, inde patet, quod in omnibus Litur- giis, quantumvis antiquis, seu Graecis, seu Latinis, pars actionis est oblatio rerum con¬ secrandarum. Et quamvis Dominus non iis¬ dem verbis panem consecrandum obtulerit, quo nos modo offerimus, tamen obtulisse ali- LIBER V. ^6(5 quo modo aperte scribit Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3, et colligitur ex illa caeremonia ele¬ vandi oculos in coelum, et gratias agendi, quam Dominum consecrationi praemisisse, partim Evangelistae, partim antiquissimae Li- turgiae testantur. Quinta propositio : « Oblatio quae sequitur consecrationem ad integritatem sacrificii si¬ militer pertinet, non ad essentiam. » Quod non ad essentiam probatur, tum ex eo, quod Dominus eam oblationem non adhibuit ; imo nec Apostoli in principio ut ex Gre- gorio demonstratum est; tum ex eo quod verba hujus oblationis non dicuntifr in per¬ sona Christi, sed in persona ipsius Ministri, et Ecclesiae ; ut patet ex illis verbis : « Unde et memores nos servi tui etc. » Sacrificium autem in persona Christi, principaliter offer¬ tur. Itaque ista oblatio consecrationem sub- sequens, est quaedam testificatio, quod tota Ecclesia consentiat in oblationem a Christo factam, et simul cum illo offerat. Quod au¬ tem ad integritatem pertineat, patet ex an¬ tiquissimis Liturgiis, quae sine dubio ab Apostolis originem ducunt. Nam etsi Apo¬ stoli initio solam orationem Dominicam addi¬ disse dicantur, tamen postea iidem ordina¬ verunt ritum celebrandi, et multa alia addi¬ derunt, ut ex Liturgia Jacobi, et Clementis intelligi potest. Sexta propositio : « Fractio Sacramenti ad essentiam non pertinet, sed solum ad in¬ tegritatem. » Quod non ad essentiam, per¬ spicuum est ex ipso usu Ecclesia}. Nam si forte dum cum ipso Sacramento signum cru¬ cis exprimitur super calicem, panis conse¬ cratus in calicem decidat, non solet frangi, sed relinquitur ita integrum, usque ad sum¬ ptionem : nec tamen sacrificium irritum, au essentialiter immutari creditur. Adde quod hac eseremonia Dominus non videtur esse usus, ut initio diximus. Pertinere autem ad integritatem, perspicuum est ex omnibus Liturgiis Grtecis et Latinis. Septima propositio : « Sacramenti con¬ sumptio ut a populo fit, non est pars sacri¬ ficii ; ut autem fit a Sacerdote sacrificante, pars est essentialis, sed non tota essentia}. » Quod attinet ad populi sumptionem, res cer¬ tissima est : qui enim edunt victimas, par¬ ticipes sunt altaris, ut Apostolus ait, I. Co- rinth. 10. et Ilebr. 13. Non est autem idem, sacrificium offerre, et de altari participare. Consumptio autem, qiue fit a Sacerdote sa¬ crificante, non tam est comestio victimae. quam consummatio sacrificii ; et proprie combustioni holocausti respondere censetur. Itaque adeo necessaria semper judicata est ab Ecclesia, ut si forte Sacerdos ante con¬ sumptionem moriatur, vel alio modo a con¬ sumptione impediatur, oporteat alium Sa¬ cerdotem illi succedere, et sacrificium con¬ summare, ut patet ex concillio Toletan. 12. can. 3. et regulis libri Missalis. Quod autem sit pars essentialis, inde pro¬ batur, quia in tota actione Missa}, ut mox os¬ tendemus, nulla est alia realis destructio vi¬ ctima} preeter istam : requiri autem, realem destructiones supra probatum est, cum defi¬ nitionem constitueremus. Unde Abraham Pa¬ triarcha, licet filium jam colligasset, et super aram constituisset, et manum ad mactandum sustulisset, quia tamen defuit realis occisio, non dicitur eum nisi voluntate sacrificasse. Neque obstat, quod ista consumptio non vi- decitur fieri persona Christi, qui tamen est primarius Sacerdos. Nam Christus quidem non se ipse manducat, neque immediate con¬ sumit Sacramentum : tamen ipse dici pot¬ est consumere , quia ad consummandum tradit. Quemadmodum etiam in sacrificio crucis, Christus vere se ipse sacrificavit, quia occidendum obtulit, licet non se ipse occi¬ derit. Nam etiam in Testamento veteri de ratione holocausti erat combustio, qua} ta¬ men immediate non a Sacerdote, sed ab igne fiebat : sed vere dicebatur Sacerdos cre¬ mare victimam, quando ignem illi subji¬ ciebat. Octava propositio : « Consecratio Eucha¬ ristia) ad essentiam sacrificii pertinet. » IIccc sententia ita generatim proposita, multos habet auctores. Nam ex Grmcis eam aperte docet Nicolaus Gabasilas in explicatione sa¬ cra} Liturgia) cap. 32. et ex Latinis Ruardus in defensione artic. 1G. Lovaniensium, Jodo- cus Tiletanus in responsione ad Apologiam Illyrici capite 13. Gaspar Casalius, lib.i. de Sacrificio cap. 20. Alanus lib. n. de Sacri¬ ficio cap. 13. et alii ; sed non omnes eo¬ dem modo illam exponunt. Aliqui existimant ideo in consecratione consistere. sacrificii essentiam, quia per con¬ secrationem fit vera, realisquc mutatio panis in corpus Christi : sacrificium autem verum requirit ejusmodi veram, et realem mutatio¬ nem, qua res desinat esse ad Dei honorem. Sed ha)c sententia habet contra se non le¬ via argumenta. Nam in primis, si ea vera sit, sequitur proprie solum panem triticeum CAPUT XXVII. 367 sacrificari. Id enim proprie sacrificari dici¬ tur, quod realiter mutatur, ita ut desinat esse : at solus panis mutatur. Id autem absur¬ dissimum esse, nemo negare potest ; quia si ita esset, haberet Ecclesia sacrieifium inani¬ mum, et vilius multo, quam habuerint olim Ilebrau. Deinde mutatio, qua} ponitur quasi forma sacrificii sensibilis, et externi, debet esse externa, et sensibilis. At mutatio panis in corpus Christi, est omnino interna, et nul¬ lo sensu, sed fide sola preceptibilis. Tertio, non esset idem sacrificium Ecclesia}, et sa¬ crificium crucis, quoad rem oblatam : nec esset verum, quod Patres dicunt, in sacrifi¬ cio Missae eumdem esse sacrificium, et Sacer¬ dotem ; neque illud, quod Chrysostomus, Ambrosius, Primasius, et alii notant in cap. 10 epistolae ad Hebr. sacrificia Hebraeorum fuisse multa, quia hodie unum agnum, cras alium offerebant : nostrum autem esse unum, quia semper eumdem offerimus Christum ; nam et nos, si de pane agamus, non semper eumdem offerimus. Alii volunt ideo in consecratione sacrificii essentiam consistere, quod per eam vere, licet mystice, et incruente, immoletur Chri¬ stus. Nam cum vi verborum, Hoc est corpus meum , solum Christi corpus sine anima et sanguine incipiat esse in altari, et vi aliorum verborum, Hic est sanguis, incipiat sanguis solus, et seorsim a corpore esse in altari : et ubi est verum corpus a sanguinem separatum, ibi sit vera qua}dam immolatio : certe se¬ quitur, vi totius consecrationis, vere immo¬ lari Christum : et tamen incruenta est im¬ molatio, quia naturalis concomitantia im¬ pedit, quo minus vere sanguis aut anima a corpore separentur. IIa}c sententia non videtur ita satisfacere, ut omnino animus conquiescat. Nam in pri¬ mis verum, et reale sacrificium, veram, et rcalcm mortem, aut destructionem rei im¬ molata} desiderat. Consecratio autem, non veram, et real em mortem ; sed mysticam tan¬ tum efficit. Neque satis respondere, videntur, qui dicunt consecrationem ex se veram mor¬ tem afferre, sed per naturalem concomitan- tiam fieri, ne mors revera sequatur. Nam si naturalis concomitantia impedit mortem, hoc ipso impedit sacrificium. Certe, si tem¬ pore veteris Testamenti Sacerdos immolatu¬ rus ovem, ictum adhiberet, qui ex semactare posset, sed aliquo impedimento interveniente 0} is non mactaretur, non diceretur paracta reipsa mactatio, sed voluntate sola. Praeterea, si per consecrationem vera, et realis immutatio fieret ea tamen non fieret in altari , sed iu coelo . Nam immolatio ibi fieri dicitur, ubi animal vivum occi¬ ditur, sive ubi divisio fit corporis ab anima, et sanguine ; porro divisio corporis Chri¬ sti ab anima, et sanguine, si qua fit per verba Sacramentalia , non fit in altari, sed iu coelo. Ibi enim fieri debet divisio, ubi praeexistit res ante divisionem : Christus au¬ tem ante divisionem istam, in coelo, non in altari praeexistit. Itaque secundum hanc sententiam immolatio non fit in altari, sed tantum partes rei immolatae post immolatio¬ nem in altari collocantur. At quis concede¬ ret immolationem, quae est sacrificium Chri¬ stianae religionis, non in terra, sed in coelo tantummodo celebrari ? Denique vel in Missa fit vera, et realis Christi mactatio, et occisio, vel non fit. Siuon fit, non est verum, et reale sacrifium Missa ; sacrificium enim verum, et reale, veram, et realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisio¬ ne ponitur essentia sacrificii. Si autem fit; ergo verum erit dicere, a Sacerdotibus Chri¬ stianis vere, et realiter Christum occidi : at hoc sacrilegium, non sacrificium esso vi¬ detur. . His igitur omissis, ita rem explicandam arbitror. In consecratione Eucharistiae tria fiunt, in quibus sacrificii veri, et realis ratio consistit. Primum, res profana fit sacra : panis enim res alioqui terrena, et commu¬ nis, per consecrationem vertitur in corpus Christi, rem videlicet omnium sacratissi¬ mam. Dices : Ex hoc sequi videtur, ut panis so¬ lus proprie sacrificetur : quod esse absur¬ dum supra diximus. Nam quod fit sacrum ex profano, id proprie sacrificatur ; si ergo panis fit sacer ex profano, panis proprie sacrificabitur. Respondeo : Quod ita fit sacrum ex profano, ut maneat, id sine dubio pro¬ prie sacrificatur : atque ideo apud He- brseos ovis sacrabatur, et eadem ovis sa¬ crificabatur, quia manebat eadem etiam post mortem, saltem quoad partem mate¬ rialem, et ovis tam viva, quam mortua dice¬ batur. At panis non manet dum sacratur, sed in aliud vertitur : et ideo non panis, sed id quod ex pane actum est, proprie sacri¬ ficatur. Secundo, in consecratione res illa sacra ex profana effecta, Deo offertur, dum in 36& LIBER V. altari Dei collocatur. Nam, ut supra diximus, victimam in altari ponere, est reipsa illam Deo offerre, et quia vi consecrationis fit, ut corpus Christi, et sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare mediante manu Sacerdotis, ideo verbis consecrationis vera et solemnis obla¬ tio celebratur. Neque his repugnat, quod aliquando sine altari celebratum est sacrifi¬ cium. Nam non disputamus hic de altari la¬ pideo ; sed in omne vocamus altare, ubi re¬ cipitur victima per verba consecrationis ef¬ fecta. Neque obstat, quod videatur esse oblatio rei invisibilis ; cum tamen externa, et sensibilis victima requiratur in externo, et proprie dicto sacrificio. Nam corpus Christi non est victima in sacrificio Missae, absolute, sed ut est in specie panis : in specie autem panis plene visibile est. Tertio, per consecrationem, res quae offer¬ tur, ad veram, realem et externam mutatio¬ nem, et destructionem ordinatur, quod erat necessarium ad rationem sacrificii. Nam per consecrationem, corpus Christi accipit for¬ mam cibi : cibus autem ad comestionem, et per hoc ad mutationem, et destructionem ordinatur. Neque obstat, quod corpus Chri¬ sti nullam in se laesionem patiatur, neque es¬ se suum naturale amittat, cum manducatur Eucharistia: nam amittit esse Sacramentale; et proinde desinit realiter esse in altari, de¬ sinit esse cibus sensibilis. Haec mihi S. Thomae sententia esse vide¬ tur, qui in xxii quaest. 85. art 3. cum do¬ ceret ad sacrificii rationem pertinere, ut cir¬ ca rem oblatam aliquid fieret, ut cum ani¬ malia occidebantur, et cremabantur ad Dei honorem, non addidit, id quod fit in sacrifi¬ cio Missae, consistere in conversione panis in corpus Domini, sed in fractione, benedictio¬ ne, et manducatione panis. Hac explicatione praemissa, probatur no¬ stra propositio octava, et postrema. Primo, quia sacrificium Missae offertur in persona Christi : nihil autem facit Sacerdos tam perspicue in persona Christi, quam conse¬ crationem, in qua dicit : Hoc est corpus me¬ um etc. Secundo, quia Christus ipse aut conse¬ crando et consumendo sacrificavit, aut nullo modo sacrificavit : nam ut ostendimus, non est adia Christi actio, qua? sacrificium dici possit, neque ante, neque post consecratio¬ nem. Tertio, quia Apostoli initio, si nihil adde¬ bant ad verba consecrationis praeter Domi¬ nicam orationem ; necesse est, ut conse¬ crando sacrificarent : neque enim oratio Dominica sacrificium dici potest. Quarto, quia in consecratione consistit repraesentatio sacrificii crucis, ut S. Thomas docet, in. par. quaest. 80. art. 12. ad 3. At simul esse debent sacrificium reale, et sacri¬ ficium repraesentativum : 'siquidem ipsum reale est alterius repraesentativum. Quinto, quia haec est sententia veterum Patrum. Nam Irenaeus lib. iv. cap.32. dicit, Christum tunc docuisse oblationem novi Testamenti, quam Ecclesia per orbem terrae frequentat, cum ait : Hoc est corpus meum. Cyprianus in sermone de coena Domini, di¬ cit, cum verbis consecrationis panis benedi¬ citur, tunc Eucharistiam fieri medicamentum simul, et holocaustum, Chrysostomus homil. de proditione Judee, dicit verba Domini : Hoc est corpus meum , usque ad mundi con¬ summationem praestare sacrificio firmitatem. Gregorius lib. iv. Dialogorum, cap. 58. cum ait in ipsa immolationis hora ad Sacer¬ dotis vocem Angelorum choros adesse, coe¬ lum aperiri, ima summis conjungi, unum ex visibilibus et invisibilibus fieri, aperte do¬ cet immolationem consecratione perfici. Illa enim est hora, qua ad Sacerdotis vocem Christus vere in altari esse incipit sub spe¬ cie panis ; nam id est ima summis conjungi, terrena coelestibus sociari, et unum quid ex visibilibus et invisibilibus fieri ; neque du¬ bium est, quin ob Christi praesentiam, An¬ geli de coelo in terram veniant. Atque haec prima contro de versia dicta sunt.