Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 2: It Is Proved That the Sacrifice of the Mass Is Propitiatory
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second 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).
Therefore that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory is proved. First, by the testimonies of the Old Testament. For the Scripture of the Old Testament openly teaches that there were in the law of nature and of Moses propitiatory sacrifices. For Job chapter 1, we read that holy Job, who lived in the law of nature, daily sacrificed to God for the sins of his sons, and Job last chapter, that God Himself commanded the friends of Job to sacrifice for their sin. Leviticus 4, 5, and 6, various sacrifices for sin are described.
These and like testimonies prove in two ways that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory. First, because those sacrifices were types and figures of this our sacrifice, as was proved above.
Secondly, because if the sacrifice of the cross, which is singularly propitiatory, does not hinder those ancient ones from having been propitiatory in their manner, neither ought it to hinder the sacrifice of the Church from being propitiatory. For the sacrifice of the cross had power from the beginning of the world to its consummation; and therefore, if it hindered our sacrifice from being propitiatory, it would hinder also those; and on the contrary, if it did not hinder those, neither ought it to hinder ours.
Thirdly, because our sacrifice is a sacrifice truly and properly so called, no less than the ancient ones, as was demonstrated in the preceding book: it is also commemorative of the Lord's passion, as those were, nay more expressly than those; finally it contains a host more pleasing to God than those contained; what cause, therefore, can there be why those could be called propitiatory, and this could not?
Calvin answers, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 13, that those ancient ones were called propitiatory sacrifices, not that they truly expiated sins or appeased God, but that they foreshadowed and signified the sacrifice of the cross sometime to come, by which sins would be truly purged.
But even if the ancient sacrifices had been nothing else than types and shadows, still the solution of Calvin would not satisfy: for they were types and shadows not of the sacrifice of the cross alone, but also of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Whence Augustine, question 57 on Leviticus: “By those sacrifices,” he says, “was signified this one sacrifice, in which is made the true remission of sins; from the blood of which sacrifice, to be taken as nourishment, not only is no one prohibited, but all are rather exhorted to drink.” Then, if those sacrifices only signified a future purgation, and did not also in some way purge, the words of Scripture, Leviticus 4, which are often repeated, will be false: Let him offer the sacrifice, and the priest shall pray for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. And likewise it would be false, what we read, Job last chapter, that the Lord willed His anger to be appeased by sacrifices. Those sacrifices, therefore, did not expiate sins as to the guilt before God, as if they justified and truly made men friends of God from the work worked; for the Apostle rightly says, Hebrews 10, that it is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of goats and calves: but yet they expiated legal defilements, and also propitiated God as to temporal punishments, and even as to faults from the faith of the offerers, of which faith those sacrifices were protestations.
The second argument is taken from the words of the institution. For those words: This is the blood, which is shed for you unto the remission of sins, most openly teach that Christ offered in the Supper a sacrifice for the sins of the Apostles. But our sacrifice is the same as that which was offered in the Supper; for the Lord commanded the Apostles to frequent the same afterward.
Moreover, the sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice applying the promises of the New Testament: for therefore also, Luke 22, it is called the new Testament, as we expounded above. But among the promises of the New Testament one is concerning the remission of sins, as is clear from Jeremiah 32 and Hebrews 8.
Finally the Lutherans confess, or rather contend, that the Eucharist was instituted for the remission of sin: wherefore it is necessary that it remit sins, either as a sacrifice or as a Sacrament. And indeed as a Sacrament it is not properly instituted for the remission of sin, but for the conservation of spiritual life. For, as a Sacrament, it profits none but him who receives; but the receiver is bidden to prove himself beforehand, nor can he approach with the consciousness of sin, unless he wishes to eat and drink judgment to himself, 1 Corinthians 11. It follows, therefore, that the Eucharist was instituted for the remission of sin as it is a sacrifice. And truly the adversaries do not understand what they say, when they will have the Eucharist instituted for the remission of sin, and yet contend that it is only a Sacrament, and not also a sacrifice.
The third argument is taken from the Apostle, who Hebrews 5 says thus: Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin; where we see that the chief office of every priest is to offer for sin. If therefore, as was demonstrated in the preceding book, we have in the Church a priesthood and a sacrifice, it is necessary that we have them for purging sins. Moreover, as the Apostle says, Hebrews 10: Where there is remission of these, there is now no oblation for sin: so we on the contrary can say: Where remission is not yet made, there still remains a host for sin. But perfect remission is not yet made, but is made daily, and will be made until the consummation of the world; therefore there still remains, and will remain until the consummation of the world, a host for sin.
Secondly it is proved by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. James in the Liturgy: “We offer,” he says, “to Thee an unbloody sacrifice for our sins and the ignorances of the people.” Justin, in the Dialogue with Trypho, says that the sacrifice of the heifer, which was offered for lepers, was a figure of the Eucharist, which is offered for the expiation of sins. Origen, homily 13 on Leviticus, when he had brought forward the words of the Lord, by which we are bidden to confect the mystery of the Eucharist in memory of Him: “This is,” he says, “the only commemoration which makes God propitious to men.” Athanasius in his sermon on the departed, which Damascene cites in his sermon on the same argument: “The unbloody oblation of the host,” he says, “is a propitiation.” Basil in the Liturgy, not far from the beginning: “Make us worthy,” he says, “to stand with a pure heart before Thee, and to minister to Thee, and to offer this reverend sacrifice for the abolishing of our offenses, and for the sin of Thy people, etc.” Cyril, catechesis 5, mystagogical, calls the Eucharist a host of propitiation, and afterward says: “We offer Christ slain for our sins, that we may render Him, who is most benign, propitious both to us and to them.”
Chrysostom, Book 6 on the priesthood: “The priest,” he says, “intercedes as a legate for the whole world, and is a deprecator before God, that He may be propitious to the sins of all men, not only the living, but also the dead.” The same in the Liturgy: “Make us fit,” he says, “to bring to Thee gifts and sacrifices for our sins and the ignorances of the people.” The same, homily 3 on the Epistle to the Ephesians, often calls the sacrifice of the Eucharist a saving host. Finally Damascene, Book 4, chapter 14, says that by this sacrifice the filth of sins is purged.
Of the Latins, Cyprian in his sermon on the Lord's Supper says that the Eucharist is a holocaust for purging iniquities. Ambrose, Book 1 on the offices, chapter 48, speaking of the Eucharist: “Christ offers Himself as it were a priest, that He may forgive our sins.” And in his exhortation to virgins, in the last words, he calls the sacrifice which is offered on the altar a saving host, through which the sin of this world is abolished. Jerome in his commentary on chapter 1 of the Epistle to Titus: “If it is commanded to laymen that for the sake of prayer they abstain from the company of their wives, what is to be thought of the bishop, who daily is to offer to God spotless victims for his own and the people's sins?” See the same in the letter to Damasus on the prodigal son, and in the letter to Fabiola on the priestly vestment. Augustine, question 57 on Leviticus: “In the many sacrifices which were offered for sins, this one sacrifice of ours is signified, in which is made the true remission of sins.” And Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 23, he writes that the sacrifice for sin is offered in the Church until the day of Judgment, but not beyond, because after that day there will be none whose sins can be remitted; and Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 23, he calls the sacrifice of the Eucharist the one sacrifice for our salvation. Sermon 2 on the Saints, which is the fourth on the Innocents, speaking of the altar: “There,” he says, “for sinners the blood of Christ is shed.” Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 58: “This victim singularly saves the soul from eternal destruction.” See also homily 37. Bede, Book 4 of the History of his nation, chapter 22: “This saving sacrifice,” he says, “avails for the eternal redemption of soul and body.”
Let there be added the Third Council of Braga, which it is established was celebrated before the times of Bede, canon 1, where we read thus: “Since every crime and sin is blotted out by sacrifices offered to God, what shall henceforth be given to the Lord for the expiation of offenses, when in the very oblation of the sacrifice there is error?”
Let there be added finally all the testimonies to be brought in the following controversy, by which we shall prove that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is propitiatory for the dead. For those who assert this sacrifice to be propitiatory for the dead, necessarily assert it to be propitiatory: which alone we have now undertaken to demonstrate. So much for the testimonies of the Fathers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Probatur sacrificium Missor propitia- toriurn esse. Igitur sacrificium Missae propitiatorium esse probatur. Primum, testimoniis veteris Testamenti. Scriptura enim Testamenti ve¬ teris aperte docet, fuisse in lege naturae, et Moysis sacrificia propitiatoria. Nam Job cap. i. legimus S. Job, qui in lege naturae vivebat, quotidie pro peccatis filiorum suo¬ rum sacrificasse Deo, et Job ult. Deum ipsum jussisse, ut amici Job sacrificarent pro peccato suo. Levit, iv, v et vi, describun¬ tur varia sacrificia pro peccato. Haec, et similia testimonia dupliciter pro¬ bant sacrificium Missae esse propitiatorium. Primo, quia illa sacrificia erant typi, ac fi¬ gurae hujus nostri sacrificii, ut supra proba¬ tum est. Secundo, quia si sacrificium crucis, quod est singulariter propitiatorium, non impedit, quo minus illa vetera fuerint suo modo pro¬ pitiatoria, nec impedire debet, quominus sacrificium Ecclesiae sit propitiatorium. Nam sacrificium crucis vim habuit ab initio mundi consummationem ; ac propterca si impedi¬ ret sacrificium nostrum, quo minus esset propitiatorium, impediret etiam illa; et con¬ tra, si illa non impedivit, nec nostrum impe¬ dire debet. Tertio, quia, sacrificium nostrum est, vere ac proprie dictum sacrificium, non minus quam vetera, ut libro superiore demonstra¬ tum est : est etiam commemorativum pas¬ sionis Domini , ut illa , imo expressius quam illa, denique continet hostiam Deo gratiorem, quam illa continerent ; quee igi¬ tur causa esse potest, cur illa propitiatoria dici possent, hoc non possit ? . Respondet Calvinus lib. iv. lnstitut. cap. 18. §. 13. illa vetera dicta esse sacrificia propitiatoria, non quod vere expiarent pec¬ cata, Dcumve placarent, sed quod adumbra¬ rent, ac significarent futurum aliquando sa¬ crificium crucis, quo peccata vere purgaren¬ tur. At etiamsi sacrificia vetera nihil aliud, quam typi, et umbra? fuissent, adhuc solutio Calvini non satisfaceret : namjnon solius sa¬ crificii €ruois, sed etiam sacrificii Eucharistiae typi, et umbra? erant. Unde Augustinus queest. 57. in Leviticum : « Illis, inquit, sa¬ crificiis unum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera fit remissio peccatorum a cujus sa¬ crificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo, non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortantur. » Deinde, si illa sa¬ crificia tantum significabant futuram purga¬ tionem, non etiam aliquo modo purgabant : falsa erunt verba Scriptura?, Levit, iv. qua? sa?pe repetuntur : Offerat sacrificium et ora¬ bit Sacerdos pro peccato ejus , et dimittetur ei (1). Et similiter falsum esset, quod legi¬ mus Job ult. Dominum placari voluisse iram suam sacrificiis. Illa igitur sacrificia non expiabant peccata quoad culpam coram Deo, quasi justificarent, et homines vere Dei ami¬ cos efficerent ex opere operato ; recte enim Apostolus dicit, Hebr. 10. impossibile esse sanguine hircorum, et vitulorum auferri -peccata : sed tamen expiabant maculas le¬ gales, et etiam Deum propitiabant, quoad poenas temporales, et etiam quoad culpas ex offerentium fide, cujus fidei protestationes erant sacrificia illa. Secundum argumentum sumitur a verbis institutionis. Nam illa verba : Hic est sanguis , qui pro vobis funditur in remissionem pecca¬ torum, apertissime docent, Christum obtu¬ lisse in coena sacrificium pro peccatis Aposto¬ lorum. Idem autem est sacrificium nostrum cum illo,, quod in coena oblatum fuit ; jussit enim Dominus Apostolis, ut idem postea fre¬ quentarent. Praeterea, sacrificium Missa? est sacrificium applicans promissiones Testamenti novi : nam ideo etiam Luc. xxn. Testamentum no¬ vum appellatur, ut supra exposuimus. At inter promissiones novi Testamenti una est de remissione peccatorum, ut patet Hier. xxxii et Hebr. vm. Denique fatentur Lutherani, vel potius con¬ tendunt, Eucharistiam institutam esse ad peccati remissionem : quare necesse est, ut peccata remittat, vel ut sacrificium, vel ut Sacramentum. Et quidem ut Sacramentum, non est proprie instituta ad peccati remis¬ sionem, sed ad vita? spiritualis conservatio¬ nem. Nam, ut Sacramentum, non prodest nisi sumenti : sumens autem probare se antea jubetur, nec potest cum conscientia peccati (l)Levi. IV, 20. CAPUT II. 371 accedere, nisi judicium sibi manducare velit, et bibere, I Corinth. n. Sequitur igitur ut ad remissionem peccati instituta sit Eucha¬ ristia, ut sacrificium est. Et sane adversarii non intelligunt quid loquantur, cum Eucha¬ ristiam ad peccati remissionem institutam volunt, et tamen Sacramentum tantum, non etiam sacrificium illam esse contendunt. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex Apostolo, qui Hcbr. v. sic ait : Omnis Pontifex ex ho¬ minibus assumptus pro hominibus coustituitur in his, qux sunt ad Deum, ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro peccato (1) ; ubi videmus prae¬ cipuum munus Sacerdotis cujuslibet esse offerre pro peccato. Si ergo, ut in superiore libro demonstratum est, habemus in Eccle¬ sia sacerdotium, et sacrificium : necesse est, ut ad peccata, purganda illa habeamus. Prae¬ terea sicut Apostolus dicit, Hebr. x : Ubi est horum remissio, jam non est oblatio pro pec¬ cato (2) : ita nos e contrario dicere possumus: Ubi nondum facta est remissio, adhuc relin¬ quitur hostia pro peccato. At remissio per¬ fecta nondum facta est, sed quotidie fit, et fiet usque ad mundi consummationem ; ergo manet adhuc, et manebit usque ad mundi consummationem hostia pro peccato. Secundo probatur testimoniis antiquorum Patrum. Jacobus in Liturgia : « Offerimus, inquit, tibi incruentum sacrificium pro pec¬ catis nostris, et ignorantiis populi. » Justinus in Dialogo cum Triphonc, dicit sacrificium vaccas, quod offerebatur pro elephantiacis, fuisse figuram Eucharistiae, quae offertur pro expiatione peccatorum. Origenes liomil. 13. tn Leviticum, cum adduxisset verba Domini, quibus jubemur mysterium Eucharistiae con¬ ficere in memoriam ejus : « Ista est, inquit, commemoratio sola, quae propitium facit Deum hominibus. » Athanasius in sermone de defunctis, quem Damascenus citat in ser¬ mone ejusdem argumenti : « Incruenta, in¬ quit, hostiae oblatio, propitiatio est. » Basi¬ bus in Liturgia non procul ab initio : « Dignos, inquit, efficito nos, qui puro corde stemus coram te, tibique ministremus, et offeramus sacrificium hoc reverendum ad abolenda de¬ licta nostra, et pro piaculo populi tui etc. » Cyrillus catechesi 5. mystagogica, vocat Eu¬ charistiam hostiam propitiationis, et postea dicit : « Christum pro nostris peccatis mac¬ tatum offerimus, ut et nobis, et illis eum, qui est benignissimus, Propitium reddamus. » Chrysostomus lib. vi. de sacerdotio : « Sa¬ cerdos, inquit, pro universo orbe terrarum legatus intercedit, deprecatorque est apud Deum, ut hominum omnium non viventium modo, sed etiam defunctorum peccatis pro¬ pitius fiat. » Idem in Liturgia : « Idoneos, inquit, nos redde ad inferenda tibi dona, et sacrificia pro peccatis nostris, et populi igno¬ rantiis. » Idem liomil. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. saipe vocat sacrificium Eucharistiae, hostiam salutarem. Denique Damascenus lib. iv, cap. 14. dicit hoc sacrificio sordes peccatorum purgari. Ex Latinis Cyprianus in sermone de ccena Domini, dicit, Eucharistiam, esse holocau¬ stum ad purgandas iniquitates. Ambrosius lib. i. de officiis, cap. 48. do Eucharistia loquens : a Offert, inquit, Christus seipsum quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat. » Et in exhortatione ad virgines in ultimis ver¬ bis vocat sacrificium, quod in altari offer¬ tur, hostiam salutarem, per quam peccatum mundi hujus aboletur. Hieronymus in com- ment. cap. 1 . epist. ad Titum : « « Si laicis, in¬ quit, imperatur, ut propter orationem absti¬ neant se ab uxorum coitu : quid de Episcopo sentendium est, qui quotidie pro suis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est victimas. Vide cumdem in epist. ad Damasum de filio prodigo. Et in epist. ad Fabiolam de veste sacerdotali. Augustinus queest. 37. in Levit. : « In multis, inquit, sacrificiis, qum pro pec¬ catis offerebantur, unum hoc nostrum sacri¬ ficium significatur, in quo vera fit remissio peccatorum. » Et lib. xx. de civit. Dei, cap. 23. scribit, sacrificium pro peccato offerri in Ecclesia usque ad diem Judicii, sed non ul¬ terius, quia post eum diem non erunt, qui¬ bus peccata remitti possint; et lib. i. contra Cresconium, cap. 23. vocat sacrificium Eu- charistise, unicum sacrificium pro salute no¬ stra. Serm. n. de Sanctis, qui est 4. de Inno¬ centibus, de altari loquens : « Ibi, inquit, pro peccatoribus Christi sanguis effunditur. » Gregorius lib. iv. Dialog. cap. 38. : a Ileec victima singulariter ab adorno interitu ani¬ mam salvat. » Vide etiam liomil. 37. Bcda lib. iv. histor. gentis sua), cap. 22 : « Sacri¬ ficium, inquit, hoc salutare ad redemptionem valet animse, et corporis sempiternam. » Accedat Concilium Bracarcnso III, quod ante Bcda) tempora celebratum fuisse con¬ stat, can. I. sic legimus: « Cum omne cri- (t)lleb. V, I. —(2) Ileb. X, 18, 37-1 LIMER Vi. mcn atque peccatum oblatis J )oo sacrificiis deleatur, quid dc ca?tero pro delictorum ex¬ piatione Domino dabitur, quando in ipsa sacrificii oblatione erratur? » Accedant denique omnia testimonia in se¬ quenti controversia adducenda, quibus pro¬ babimus sacrificium Eucharistia.' esse propi- tiatorium defunctis. Nam qui asserunt hoc ‘sacrificium propitiatorium esse defunctis; ne¬ cessario asserunt esse propitiatorium : quod nunc tantum demonstrandum suscepimus. Ilsee de testimoniis Patrum.