Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 9: On Private Masses
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).
There follows the controversy on private Mass, of which after Luther there wrote Brentius in the Wirtemberg Confession, chapter on the Eucharist, and Kemnitz in the second part of the Examination, page 858 and following, and Philip both in the Augsburg Confession and in the Apology, in the article on the Mass. Which controversy we shall so treat that first we teach that in six ways a Mass can be called private, and that in all ways it is lawful. Then we shall refute the objections of the adversaries.
First, therefore, a Mass can be called private by reason of place; for those which are celebrated in some private oratory or chapel can be called private, if they are compared to those which are celebrated in a public temple. And of these there is no great controversy; for even though the adversaries hatefully traduce those Masses and call them, by way of contumely, "cornered," yet we have of these most manifest examples of antiquity. For first the Lord instituted and celebrated the first Mass in a private house: and the Apostles at the beginning broke bread from house to house, Acts 2. And then the holy Pontiffs in the time of persecution performed the sacred rites not only in private houses, but also in crypts and holes of the earth: nay Saint Lucian sacrificed in prison, and used his own breast for an altar, when he lay loaded with chains and could not raise himself. Nicephorus relates this, Book 8 of the History, chapter 31.
Nor was it only on account of persecutions, but also for other causes, that the ancients sometimes offered sacrifices in private places. That Gregory Nazianzen made the sacred rites in a tiny cell, an oratory being built there, Sozomen testifies, Book 7 of the History, chapter 3, which place Kemnitz also cites. Saint Ambrose, as Paulinus testifies in his life, being asked by a certain most illustrious woman, offered the sacrifice in her house. Saint Augustine, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, testifies that a certain man had the sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord offered by his presbyters in a country house. Theodoret in the Religious History, chapter 20, writes that he celebrated the sacred mysteries in the cell of the anchorite Maris. Gregory, homily 37 on the Gospels, writes that Cassius, Bishop of Narni, a most holy man, sometimes celebrated Mass in the oratory of the bishop's house, because forsooth, hindered by sickness, he was unable to go down to the church; and Book 15, letter 43, to John, Bishop of Syracuse, he bids that he not forbid Masses to be celebrated in the house of the patrician Venantius. Saint John the Almsgiver, as Leontius writes in his life, when he saw the people going out of the church at the time he celebrated the sacred rites, turning to them said: “I, my children, go down to the church for your sake, for I could make the Masses for myself in the bishop's house.” Finally (to pass over other examples), John Damascene in the history of Barlaam and Josaphat writes that blessed Barlaam was a presbyter, and was wont to offer the sacrifice of the Mass in his own cell, Josaphat alone being present.
Secondly, a Mass can be called private from time; so that that is public which is celebrated on festival days, private which is celebrated on non-festival days. And although the adversaries make the sacred supper only very rarely, and almost only on Sundays or greater feasts, yet they do not openly reprehend the use of the daily Mass: and certainly it can in no way be reprehended. For first, therefore it is called the continual sacrifice, Daniel 12, because it ought to be celebrated continually and daily.
Then it cannot be denied that of old the Masses were celebrated in many places on each day. For Cassius celebrated Mass on each day, as Gregory testifies in the cited place, homily 37. Augustine, letter 23, says that Christ, once immolated on the cross, is immolated every day to the peoples in the Sacrament. Chrysostom, homily 3 on the Epistle to the Ephesians, writes that a daily oblation was wont to be made in his time. Jerome on chapter 1 to Titus says that the priests daily sacrifice for the sins of the people and their own. Hippolytus the Martyr, in his oration on Antichrist, writes that Christ will say on the day of Judgment: “Come, ye Pontiffs, who daily immolated my precious body.” Finally Saint Andrew, as we read in his history, daily sacrificed the immaculate lamb. But neither about this matter do the adversaries now labor much.
Thirdly, a Mass can be called private from its end, because forsooth it is celebrated for some particular man or business, as for this or that departed one, for this or that necessity. And indeed if some Mass were applied to one alone, excluding all other men, then it could truly be called private: but there is no such, nor was there ever in the Church. For every Mass is offered by a public minister, and in the public name, for the whole Church, both that which is on earth, and that which is in heaven or in purgatory: for mention of all these is had in every Mass. But if a Mass be applied peculiarly to one, yet so that the rest are not excluded, then it can be called private, and will be, if it be compared to others which are applied to no particular person.
Nor is there any doubt that private Masses of this kind were in use in the ancient Church, and are lawful. For in the Old Testament very many sacrifices were made for particular persons. Leviticus 4 and 5, sacrifices are prescribed for the priest, for the prince, for any private person, for the synagogue. Job 1, we have a sacrifice for the sons of Job; and Job 42, a sacrifice for the friends of Job; 2 Machabees 3, for Heliodorus.
In the New Testament the Masses on the birthdays of the Saints, which we defended above, were all private in this third way: and we have a notable example, besides those which were brought above, in Bede, Book 4 of the History, chapter 14, where the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, appearing to a certain man, commanded Masses to be celebrated on the day of Saint Oswald the king, in memory of the same Saint Oswald; and that that vision was most true manifestly appeared from the wonderful event of the things which the same Apostles had foretold would be. By like reason the Masses for the dead were for the most part particular and private: for thus writes Augustine of the death of his mother, Book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 12: “When the sacrifice of our price was offered for her, the body being now placed beside the sepulchre, etc.” Finally that sacrifice offered by a presbyter of the same Augustine for the liberation of a house from the vexation of demons, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, and other things of this kind, were without doubt private, nor can they be reprehended, unless all antiquity be reprehended.
Fourthly, a Mass can be called private from the fewness of those who are present; so that that is called public which is done before the people, such as the Mass which is wont to be parochial or conventual, which is not celebrated unless the people be present: but private, that to which the people is not awaited, but which is held at the discretion of the priest, whether many be present or few. These Masses so private the adversaries not rarely are wont to reprehend. Certainly Philip in the Apology of the Confession fetches arguments from here and there, to prove that only one Mass ought to be made, namely that at which the people is present: yet others of the adversaries do not wish to contend about this matter. For Brentius in the Wirtemberg Confession, chapter on the Eucharist, is content that Mass be celebrated if at least two be present, one who consecrates and ministers the Sacrament, and another to whom it is held forth. And this very thing is proved by the testimonies brought for private Masses by reason of place; and of these private Masses Saint Gregory speaks, Book 4, letter 43, to Castorius, where he forbids public Masses to be made in a monastery, lest, as he says, in the retreats of the servants of God there be popular assemblies. From which place it is gathered that those are called public Masses at which a multitude of the people is present; but private those which are celebrated without an assembly of the people within monasteries, or elsewhere.
Wherefore Melanchthon is most openly deceived in the Apology of the Confession, when he says that before the times of Gregory no mention is made of private Masses. For if in Gregory those are reckoned private Masses which are celebrated without an assembly of the people, as is clear from this place, then that was a private Mass which was said by the presbyter of Augustine in a country house, as he himself testifies, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8; and by Ambrose in the house of a certain matron at Rome, as Paulinus testifies; and by Theodoret in the cell of Saint Maris; and by Lucian in prison; nay by the Apostles when they broke bread from house to house, as we cited above; and by Christ Himself, who did not call together the people, but only the chief twelve disciples.
Fifthly, those can be called private Masses which are said in the same temple, on the same day, besides one. For there is wont to be only one public and solemn Mass, which is said at the high altar; the rest which are said at the lesser altars on the same day can be called private, though sometimes many hearers be present. And indeed this multiplication of Masses all the adversaries greatly hate and reprehend, but we prove it to be lawful. First from the Old Testament, in which very many sacrifices were offered on the same day and place.
Secondly, there were many priests in the same church. For in the time of Saint Cornelius the Pope there were at Rome forty presbyters, as he himself writes to Fabius, as Eusebius testifies, Book 6 of the History, chapter 33; and thenceforth the multitude of priests always grew more and more. But many celebrated daily: therefore either all the others ceased from offering the sacrifice, or many made the sacred rites on the same day and place. But that there were those who offered the sacrifice daily cannot be doubted; for this is clear from the testimonies cited above, where we treated of the private Mass on the part of time.
Thirdly the same is proved by the testimony brought above from Bede, Book 4 of the History, chapter 14; for there the Apostles command Masses to be celebrated on the day of Saint Oswald throughout all the oratories of the monastery. Like is what Eusebius writes, Book 4, chapter 45, on the life of Constantine, that the bishops invited to the dedication of the temple celebrated the festival day, unbloody sacrifices being offered to God.
Fourthly the same is proved by the most ancient custom which is in the Church, that on the day of the Nativity of the Lord each priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass three times, of which rite Gregory makes mention in the homily on the Nativity of the Lord, and before him Telesphorus in a decretal letter. But if one priest can offer the sacrifice three times in one place on the same day, why cannot many offer single sacrifices?
Fifthly the same is proved by the multitude of altars in the same church. Ambrose, letter 33: “To rush upon the altars, etc.”, and he speaks of one Basilica. Gregory, Book 5, letter 50, to Palladius, writes that in one church there were thirteen altars, and William the Abbot in the life of Saint Bernard, Book 1, chapter 12, that in the church of the monastery of Saint Bernard there were three altars, one in memory of the blessed Virgin, another of Saint Laurence, the third of Saint Benedict. See also Peter Damian at the beginning of the life of Saint Romuald. But to what purpose so many altars, if the sacrifice could be offered only once in a day in one church?
Finally Prosper, in his book on the predictions of the half-time, chapter 6, writes that twice within a few hours the sacrifice was offered in one place. Leo, letter 81, to Dioscorus, warns that at Alexandria the Roman rite be observed of repeating the sacrifice on the same day.
Lastly, that can be called a private Mass in which the priest alone communicates: and this is the private Mass about which the adversaries chiefly wrangle, and which they in no way admit. But that it is lawful is proved first by the reason of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 6, which is such: The Masses in which the priest alone communicates, even though they could be called private by reason of those who communicate sacramentally, yet absolutely are not private, but public and common; therefore they ought not to be rejected and condemned as private. The antecedent is proved by the Council in two ways. First, because in Masses of this kind often many communicate spiritually, and accordingly the fruit is public and common: and by this also the Mass is on this part public and common. Secondly, because the priest is a public Minister, and offers the sacrifice for the whole Church.
This whole reason Kemnitz attempted to refute, page 868 and following: but he did not so much refute the reason of the Council as demonstrate himself a liar and inept. First, he wonders why the Council dares to call these Masses common and to deny that they are private, since through many centuries of years they have been called private by the Catholics, and since in Gregory's register frequent mention is made of private Mass, and since the Gloss on the Canon, Et hoc attendendum, on consecration, distinction 1, calls them private.
But this whole thing is a lie: for in Gregory the word "private Mass" nowhere occurs. There occurs indeed once the word "public Mass," Book 4, letter 43; but, as we said above, Gregory does not call those public in which communion is made, but in which a multitude of the people is present, and to these he opposes the Masses in which the people is not present, whether some communicate in them or none. In the same way the word "public" and "peculiar," or "private," Mass is taken in the Canon, and in the Gloss cited.
Secondly, Kemnitz attacks the argument of the Council drawn from spiritual Communion; and because he could not deny spiritual Communion, he attributes with a new lie to the Council itself that it affirmed that by spiritual Communion satisfaction is made to the institution and precept of Christ concerning the receiving of the Eucharist.
But nothing of the kind is found in the Council: nay session 13, canon 9, the Council teaches that the adult faithful are bound at least once a year to sacramental Communion, namely that in this way they may satisfy the institution and precept of Christ.
Thirdly, he attacks the other argument of the Council, taken from this, that the priest is a public Minister, and says the argument is not valid, since the minister of the word is also a public Minister, and yet cannot preach unless the people be present; and he who baptizes is a public Minister, and yet cannot baptize unless someone be present to be baptized.
But these are mere ineptitudes. For in one way the priest is a public Minister by sacrificing, in another by preaching and ministering the Sacraments. For by sacrificing he directs his action to God for the people; by preaching and ministering the Sacraments he directs his action to the people for God's sake.
And hence arises another reason from the nature of the sacrifice: for if the adversaries granted that the Mass is not only a Sacrament, but also a sacrifice, perhaps in this matter they would easily agree: since for the sacrifice, as it is a sacrifice, it makes no difference whether many, or few, or none be present or communicate, since the sacrifice is offered to God for the people; for the priest can offer for the people, even though the people be neither present nor communicate. And it is confirmed from the old law; for when sacrifices were offered for sin, he for whom it was offered ate nothing of it, as is clear from Leviticus 6 and 7, and yet it profited him. And it is confirmed again from a likeness; for the sacrifice is like prayer, as we said above, nay is a certain real and most efficacious prayer. Further, that prayer profits him for whom it is made, even though he be not present nor know what is being done, is certain and explored.
Thirdly it is proved from the custom of the ancients. For even though we nowhere expressly read that a sacrifice was offered by the ancients without the Communion of someone, or of some, besides the priest himself: yet we can easily gather this from conjectures. The first conjecture is from the Council of Nantes, chapter 30, which is cited by Ivo in the Decretals, part 3, chapter 70, where the presbyters are bidden not to celebrate Mass alone, unless they have at least one with them to respond. From which we understand that some were wont to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass plainly alone: and accordingly without communicants. Likewise from the Twelfth Council of Toledo, canon 5, where certain priests are gravely reprehended, who, offering the sacrifice, did not communicate: “What will that sacrifice be,” says the Council, “of which not even the sacrificer himself is known to have partaken?” Which words sufficiently openly indicate that in a sacrifice of this kind there was no one at all who communicated; and yet the Council does not require anything but that the priest himself communicate: accordingly it admits, as valid, and as it appears, customary, sacrifices in which the priest alone communicates. But this Council was celebrated about 900 years ago.
The second conjecture. Some were initiated into the sacred orders without any certain cure of souls, who accordingly could not administer any Sacrament, and yet without doubt celebrated Masses. We have an example in Saint Paulinus of Nola, who was ordained presbyter, as he himself writes, letter 6 to Severus, into the priesthood of the Lord, but bound to no certain church.
The third conjecture. Very many priests celebrated daily, as we showed above, and yet the people in many places communicated very rarely, as can be known even from that complaint of Chrysostom which is had, homily 3 on the Epistle to the Ephesians: “In vain,” he says, “is the daily oblation held, when there is no one to partake together.” And homily 17 on the Epistle to the Hebrews he writes that very many approached the Communion of the Sacrament only once a year. Ambrose too, Book 5 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, says that the Greeks were wont to communicate after a year.
The fourth conjecture. Many sacred rites were made for a cause so particular that it is in no way likely that Communion was ministered in sacred rites of this kind: as for example, when Augustine writes, Book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 12, that the sacrifice was offered for his mother, the body being placed beside the sepulchre; and when he writes, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, that one of his presbyters offered the sacrifice in a country house, to free the same house from the vexation of malignant spirits. But let us resolve the arguments of the adversaries.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. De Missis privatis. Sequitur controversia de Missa privata, de qua post Lutherum scripserunt Brentius in Confessione Wirtembergensi. cap. de Eu¬ charistia, et Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 858. et seqq. et Philippus tum in Con- fess. Augustana, tum in Apologia in art. de Missa. Quam controversiam ita tractabimus, ut primum doceamus sex modis posse Mis¬ sam dici privatam, et omnibus modis esse licitam. Deinde objectiones adversariorum refellamus. Igitur primo' dici potest Missa privata ra¬ tione loci; quse enim celebrantur in privato aliquo oratorio, seu sacello, dici possunt pri¬ vata!, si comparentur ad eas quse celebran¬ tur in publico templo. Ac de his non est ma¬ gna controversia ; nam etiamsi adversarii eas Missas odiose traducant, et angulares per contumeliam vocent : tamen habemus de his exempla manifestissima antiquitatis. Nam in primis Dominus primam Missam in¬ stituit, ac celebravit in privata domo : et Apostoli initio frangebant circa domos pa¬ nem, Act. ii. Ac deinde sancti Pontifices tempore persecutionis, non in domibus tan¬ tum privatis, sed etiam in cryptis, et forami¬ nibus terra! sacra faciebant : imo S-: Du¬ cianus in carcere sacrificavit, et suo ipsius pectore pro altari usus est, cum jaceret onu¬ stus catenis, nec erigere seipsum posset. Refert id Nicephorus lib. vm. histor. cap. 31. Nec solum ob persecutiones, sed etiam aliis de causis aliquando veteres in privatis locis sacrificia offerebant. Gregorium Na- zianzenum in exigua cellula extructo ora¬ torio sacra fecisse ibidem, Sozomenus te¬ statur, lib. vii. histor. cap. 3. quem locum Kemnitius etiam citat. Sanctus Ambrosius, teste Paulino in vita ipsius, in domo clarissi¬ mae cujusdam fcemina! ab ea rogatus, sacri¬ ficium obtulit. Sanctus Augustinus lib. 22. de civit. Dei, cap. 8. testatur quemdam a suis presbyteris in domo rustica sacrificium corporis, et sanguinis Domini obtulisse. The- odoretus in historia religiosa, cap. 20. scri¬ bit, se in cellula Maris anachoreta! sacra ' mysteria celebrasse. Gregorius homil. 37. in Evangelia, scribit, Cassium Narniensem E- piscopum, virum sanctissimum, aliquando in Episcopii oratorio Missam celebrasse, quod videlicet ad Ecclesiam morbo impedi¬ tus descendere non valeret ; etlib,xv. epistol. 43. ad Joannem Syracusanum Episcopum, jubet ut uon prohibeat in domo Venantii pa- tritii Missas celebrari. S. Joannes Eleemosy- narius, ut in ejus vita scribit. Leontius, cum populum de Ecclesia egredi videret, quo tempore sacra celebrabat, ad illos conversus ait : « Ego filii propter vos ad Ecclesiam descendo, nam mihi ipse in Episcopio Missas facere poteram. » Denique (ut alia exempla praetermittam) Joannes Damascenus in hi¬ storia de Barlaam, et Josaphat, scribit, B. Barlaam presbyterum fuisse, et in sua cel¬ lula, solo pimsentc Josaphat, Missa! sacrifi¬ cium offerre solitum Secundo, Missa privata dici potest a tempore; ut publica sit, qum festis diebus ; privata, quse profestis celebratur. Et quam¬ quam adversarii non nisi raro admodum, ac fere solum in Dominicis, aut majoribus festis sacram ccenam faciunt; tamen non aperte reprehendunt usum Missa! quotidianae : et certe nullo modo reprehendi potest. Nam in primis, ideo juge sacrificium appellatur, Danielis xn, quia jugiter et quotidie celebrari deberet. Deinde negari non potest, quin olim singu¬ lis diebus in multis locis Missa! celebrarentur. Nam Cassius singulis diebus Missam celebra¬ bat, teste Gregorio loco cit. homil. 37. Au- gustinus epis. 23. dicit, Christum semel in crucc immolatum, omni die in Sacramento populis immolari. Chrysostomus hom. 3. in episfc. ad Ephesios scribit, quotidianam obla¬ tionem suo tempore fieri solitam. Hierony¬ mus in cap. i. ad Titum dicit, sacerdotes quotidie pro peccatis populi, ac suis sacrifi¬ care. Hyppolitus Martyr in oratione de An- tichristo scribit, Christum in die Judicii di¬ cturum : « Venite Pontifices, qui pretiosum corpus meum quotidie immolastis. » Denique S. Audreas, ut in ejus historia legimus, sin- 388 LLBEK Yb gulis diubus agnum immaculatum sacrifica¬ bat. Sed neque de hac re jam adversarii multum laborant. Tertio dici potest Missa privata a fine, quia nimirum pro aliquo particulari homine, vel negotio celebretur, ut pro hoc vel illo defuncto, pro ista, vel illa necessitate. Et quidem si Missa aliqua uni soli applicaretur, excludendo omnes alios homines, tum vere privata dici posset : sed talis nulla est; aut fuit unquam in Ecclesia. Nam omnis Missa offertur a ministro publico, et publico no¬ mine pro tota Ecclesia, tum quee in terris, tum qufe in codis, vel in purgatorio est : nam horum omnium in qualibet Missa men¬ tio habetur. Si autem Missa applicetur uni peculiariter, sic tamen ut non excludantur caderi ; tum privata Missa dici poterit, et erit, si comparetur ad alias, quie nulli par¬ ticulari applicantur. Neque dubium est, ejusmodi Missas priva¬ tas fuisse in usu antiqua? Ecclesia), et licitas esse. Nam in Testamento veteri sacrificia fiebant plurima pro particularibus. Levitici lv. et v. proscribuntur sacrificia pro sacer¬ dote, pro principe, pro quolibet privato, pro synogoga. Job i. habemus sacrificium pro filiis Job ; et Job xlii. sacrificium pro amicis Job: II Machalxeor. m. pro He¬ liodoro. In Testamento novo Missa) in natalitiis Sanctorum, quas supra defendimus, omnes erant privata) hoc tertio modo : et habemus insigne exemplum, p rador ea qua) supra al¬ lata sunt, apud Bcdam lib. iv. lristor. cap. 14. ubi sancti Apostoli Petrus et Paulus cui¬ dam apparentes, jusserunt Missas celebrari in dic sancti Osvaldi regis, in memoriam ejusdem S. Osv aldi, et visionem illam fuisse verissimam manifeste patuit ex mirabili eventu rerum, quas iidem Apostoli futuras praxlixerant. Pari ratione Missa? pro defun¬ ctis, ut plurimum particulares erant, et pri¬ vata; : sic enim scribit Augustinus de obitu matris sua; lib. ix. Confess. cap. 12 : « Cum offerretur pro ea sacrificium pretii nostri, jam juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere ote. » Denique sacrificium illud a presb\ tero ejus¬ dem Augustini oblatum pro liberatione do¬ mus a decmonum vexatione lib. 22. de civit. Dei cap. 8. et alia id genus, sine dubio pri¬ vata erant, nec reprehendi possunt, nisi tota antiquitas reprehendatur. •Quarto Missa privata dici potest a pauci¬ tate eorum qui intersunt ; ut dicatur publica, qua? fit coram populo, qualis et Missa qua? solet parochialis, vel conventualis, qua? non celebratur, nisi populus adsit : privata au¬ tem, ad quam non exspectatur populus sed pro arbitrio sacerdotis habetur, sive multi adsint, sive pauci. Has Missas ita privatas adversarii non raro reprehendere solent. Certe Philippus in Apolog. Confess. aecersit hinc inde argumenta, ut probet, non debere fieri nisi unam Missam, nimirum eam cui populus intersit : tamen alii ex adversariis non volunt de hac re contendere. NamBren- tius in Confessione Wirtembergensi cap. de Eucharistia contentus est, ut Missa celebre¬ tur si duo ut minimum adsint, unus qui consecret et ministret Sacramentum, et alter cui porrigatur. Et hoc ipsum probant testi¬ monia allata pro Missis privatis ratione loci; et de his Missis privatis loquitur S. Gregorius lib. iv. epistol. 43, ad Castorium, ubi pro¬ hibet in Monasterio fieri Missas publicas, ne, ut ipse dicit, in secessibus servorum Dei fiant conventus populares. Ex quo loco col¬ ligitur Missas publicas vocari, quibus inter- est populi multitudo ; privatas autem qua? sine conventu populi intra Monasteria, vel alibi celebrantur. Quare fallitur apertissime ^felanchthon in Apologia Confess. cum dicit, ante Gregorii tempora nullam fieri mentionem privatarum Missarum. Nam si apud Gregorium privato? Missa? censentur, qua? celebrantur absque populi conventu, ut ex lioc loco perspicuum est, Missa privata erat, qua? dicta est a pres¬ bytero Augustini in domo rustica, ipso teste lib. 22. de civit. Dei cap. 8. et ab Ambrosio in domo eujusdam matrona? Roma?, teste Paulino,et a Theodoreto, in cellula S. Maris et a Luciano in earccre; imo ab Apostolis cum circa domos frangebant panem, ut su¬ pra citavimus : et ab ipso Christo, qui non convocavit populum, sed tantum primarios discipulos duodecim. Quinto Missa? privata; dici possunt, qua? dicuntur in eodem templo, eodem dic, pra?- ter unam. Nam una tantum solet esse Missa publica et solem nis, qua? dicitur in summo altari, eictcra? qua? dicuntur in minoribus altaribus eodem dic, et privata? dici possunt, licet multi interdum adsint auditores. Et quidem hanc multiplicationem Missarum valde oderunt, ac reprehendunt omnes ad¬ versarii, sed nos probamus licitam esse. Primum ex Testamento veteri, in quo plurima offerebantur sacrificia eodem die et loco. CAPUT IX. 389 Secundo, multi erant in eadem Ecclesia sacerdotes. Nani tempore S. Cornelii Papae lloma} erant quadraginta Presbyteri, ut ipse scribit ad Fabium, teste Eusebio lib. vi. bist. cap. 33. ac deinceps semper magis, ac magis crevit sacerdotum multitudo. Multi 'lutem quotidie celebrabant : ergo vel omnes alii cessabant a sacrificio offerendo, vel multi eodem die et loco sacra faciebant. Fuisse autem, qui quotidie sacrificium offe¬ rent, dubitari non potest ; id enim perspi¬ cuum est ex testimoniis supra citatis, ubi egimus de Missa privata ex parte temporis. Tertio idem probat testimonium supra al¬ latum ex Reda, lib. iv. Histor. cap. 14. ibi enim Apostoli praecipiunt in die S. Oswaldi celebrari Missas per omnia Monasterii ora¬ toria. Simile est quod scribit Eusebiuslib. iv. cap. 45. de vita Constantini, Episcopos invi¬ tatos ad templi dedicationem incruentis sa¬ crificiis Deo oblatis, diem festum celebrasse. Quarto idem probat antiquissima consue¬ tudo, quae est in Ecclesia, ut in die Natalis* Domini singuli sacerdotes Missae sacrificium ter offerant, cujus ritus memini t Gregorius in homilia de Natali Domini, et ante eum Telesphorus in epistola decretali. Quod si potest unus sacerdos uno in loco ter sacrifi¬ cium eodem dic offerre, cur non poterunt multi singula offerre sacrificia? Quinto idem probat altarium multitudo in eadem in Ecclesia. Ambrosius epist. 33 : a Irruere in altaria etc. » et loquitur de una Rasilica. Gregorius lib. v. epist. 50. ad Pal¬ ladium, scribit in una Ecclesia trcdecim alta¬ ria fuisse, et Gulielmus Abbas in vita S. Ber- nardi lib. i. cap. 12. in Ecclesia Monasterii S. Bernardi fuisse tria altaria, unum in me¬ moriam B. Yirginis, alterum S. Laurentii, tertium S. Benedicti. Yide etiam Petrum Damiani initio vitee S. Romualdi. Quorsum autem tot altaria, si semel tantum in die sacrificium offerri poterat in una Ecclesia ? Denique Prosper in libro de praedicationi¬ bus dimidii temporis, cap. G. scribit, bis intra paucas horas uno in loco sacrificium obla¬ tum. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscorum, monet ut Alexandriae servetur Romanus ritus de ite¬ rando sacrificio eodem die. Ultimo privata Missa dici posse, in qua so¬ lus sacerdos communicat : et haec est Missa privata, de qua potissimum adversarii alter¬ cantur, et quam nullo modo admittunt. Sed eam licitam esse, probatur primo ratione Concilii Tridentini. sess. 22. cap. 0. quae talis est : Missre, in quibus solus sacerdos communicat, etiamsi privatae dici possent, ratione communicantium Sacramentalitcr, tamen absolute non privatae, sed publicae et communes sunt; ergo non debent ut privatae rejici, et damnari. Antecedens probatur a Concilio dupliciter. Primo, quia in ejusmodi Missis saepe multi communicant spirituali- ter, proinde fructus est publicus, et commu¬ nis : et per hoc etiam Missa est ex hac parte publica, et communis. Secundo, quia sacer¬ dos publicus est Minister, el pro tota Eccle¬ sia sacrificium offert. Hanc totam rationem refellere conatus est Kemnitius pag. 868. et sequentibus : sed non tam rationem Concilii refutavit, quam se mendacem, et ineptum demonstravit. Primo, miratur cur Concilium audeat vocare has Missas communes, et negare esse privatas, cum per multas annorum centurias sint a Catholicis appellatae privatae, et cum apud Gregorium in registro crebra fiat mentio pri¬ vata: Missse? et cum Glossa in Ganonem, et hoc attendendum, de consecrat, dist. 1, eas privatas appellet. Atqui hoc totum est mendacium : nam apud Gregorium nusquam exstat vocabulum Missa: privatae. Exstat quidem semel voca¬ bulum Missae publicae lib. 4. epist, 43. sed ut supra diximus, non vocat publicas Grego¬ rius, in quibus communicatur, sed in quibus adest populi multitudo, et iis opponit Mis¬ sas, in quibus non adest populus, sive in iis communicent aliqui, sive nulli. Eodem modo accipitur vocabulum Missae publicae, et pe¬ culiaris, seu privatae in Canone, et in glossa citata. Secundo, Kemnitius oppugnat argumen¬ tum Concilii ductum a spirituali Communio¬ ne ; et quia non poterat negare spiritualem Communionem, affingit novo mendacio ipsi Concilio, quod affirmaverit per spiritualem Communionem satisfieri institutioni, et prae¬ cepto Christi de sumenda Eucharistia. Sed nihil ejusmodi in Concilio reporitur : imo sess. 13. can. 9. Concilium docet te¬ neri fideles adultos saltem semel in anno ad Communionem Sacramentalem, nimirum, ut eo modo saitisfaciant Christi institutioni, et praecepto. Tertio, oppugnat alterum argumentum Concilii, sumptum ex eo quod sacerdos est publicus Minister, ac dicit argumentum non valere, quoniam Minister verbi, est etiam publicus Minister, et tamen non pofest con- 390 LIBER VI. cionari nisi populo praesente ; et qui baptizat est publicus Minister, et tamen non potest baptizare, nisi aliquis adsit baptizandus. Sed haec sunt merae ineptiae. Aliter enim est sacerdos Minister publicus sacrificando, aliter concionando, et Sacramenta minis¬ trando. Nam sacrificando dirigit actionem suam ad Deum pro populo ; concionando, et Sacramenta ministrando, dirigit actionem suam ad populum propter Deum. Et bine nascitur alia ratio ex natura sa¬ crificii nam si adversarii concederent Missam non solum esse Sacramentum, sed etiam sacri¬ ficium, fortasse in hac re facile convenirent: siquidem ad sacrificium, ut sacrificium est, nihil refert, si multi, vel pauci, vel nulli in¬ tersint, aut communicent, cum sacrificium offeratur Deo pro populo ; potest enim sacer¬ dos pro populo offerre, etiamsi populus nec adsit, nec communicet. Et confirmatur ex lege veteri ; cum enim sacrificia offerebantur pro peccato, nihil inde manducabat is, pro quo offerebatur, ut patet Levit. 6. et 7. et ta¬ men illi proderat. Et confirmatur rursus a simili ; nam sacrificium simile est orationi, ut supra diximus, imo est qusedam realis et efficacissima oratio. Porro orationem pro¬ desse ei, pro quo fit, etiamsi ille non adsit, nec sciat quid agatur, certum et exploratum est. Tertio probatur ex consuetudine veterum. Nam etiamsi nusquam expresse legamus a veteribus oblatum sacrificium sine Commu¬ nione alicujus, vel aliquorum, praeter ipsum sacerdotem : tamen id possumus ex conje¬ cturis facile colligere. Prima conjectura ex Concilio Nannetensi, cap. 30. quod citatur ab Ivone in decret. par. 3. cap. 70. ubi ju¬ bentur presbyteri non celebrare soli Missam, nisi habeant saltem unum secum, qui respon¬ deat. Ex quo intelligimus quosdam plane solos celebrare solitos Missae sacrificium : et proinde sine communicantibus. Item ex Concilio Toletano XII. can. 5. ubi graviter reprehenduntur quidam sacerdotes, qui sa¬ crificium offerentes non communicabant : « Quale erit, inquit Concilium, illud sa¬ crificium, cui nec ipse sacrificans partici¬ passe dignoscitur ? » Quae verba satis aperte indicant, in ejusmodi sacrificio nullum om¬ nino fuisse, qui communicaret ; et tamen Concilium non requirit, nisi ut sacerdos ipse communicet : proinde admittit tanquam rata, et ut apparet, usitata sacrificia, in qui¬ bus solus communicat sacerdos. Est autem (l)Luc. XXIF, 19. hoc Concilium ante annos circiter 900. cele- qratum. Secunda conjectura. Quidam initiabantur sacris absque ulla certa procuratione anima¬ rum, qui proinde non poterant ulli Sacra- mentun administrare, et tamen sine dubio Missas celebrabant. Exemplum habemus in S. Paulino Nolano, qui presbyter ordinatus fuit, ut ipse scribit epist. 6. ad Severum, in sacerdotium Domini, sed nulli certae Eccle¬ siae alligatus. Tertia conjectura. Plurimi sacerdotes quo¬ tidie celebrabant, ut supra ostendimus, et tamen populus in multis locis raro admodum communicabat, ut vel ex illa querimonia Chrysostomi cognosci potest, quae habetur homil. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. « Frustra, inquit, habetur quotidianra oblatio, cum nemo sit, qui simul participet. » Et homil. 17. in epist. ad Ilebr. scribit, plurimos tan¬ tum semel in anno ad Sacramenti Commu¬ nionem accessisse. Ambrosius etiam lib. v. de Sacrament. cap. 4. dicit, Graecos post annum communicare solere. Quarta conjectura. Multa sacra fiebantpro causa ita particulari, ut non sit ullo modo verisimile, ministratam fuisse Communio¬ nem in ejusmodi sacris : ut exempli causa, cum scribit Augustinus libro ix. Confess. cap. 12. oblatum sacrificium pro matre sua, cadavere juxta sepulchrum constituto ; et cum scribit, lib xxn. civit, cap. 8. unum e suis presbyteris sacrificium obtulisse in domo rustica, ad eamdem domum a malignorum spirituum vexatione liberandam. Sed adver¬ sariorum argumenta solvamus.