Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 10: The Arguments Against Private Masses Are Resolved
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).
The first objection of Kemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 862 (for what he fables about the origin of private Mass, since he proved it by no argument, I omit), is taken from those words of Luke 22: Do this in commemoration of me. For Christ commands that we do what He Himself did; but He not only consecrated, but also gave the Sacrament to those who were present to be eaten; wherefore to consecrate and not to distribute is to profane the Lord's Supper itself.
I answer: The Lord commanded that to be done which He Himself did, but according to place, time, and persons: for such is the force of affirmative precepts. And without doubt He did not command the Sacrament to be dispensed to the unwilling or unworthy. Wherefore if perhaps there be none who wish or can communicate, we are not bound to minister the Sacrament, nor yet are we therefore forbidden to cease from the celebration.
You will say: If it is lawful to divide the actions which the Lord by His example joined, and sometimes to consecrate the Sacrament and minister it to no one, it will also be lawful to consecrate or minister and not to receive.
I answer: The reason of all those actions is not the same. For the consecration and the consummation are of the essence of the sacrifice, therefore they can in no way be omitted: but the dispensation is neither of the essence nor of the integrity, but necessary only by the affirmative precept of the Lord; and therefore it is indeed to be done, but according to place and time, as we said.
The second objection. The Synaxis of the Apostles is described, Acts 2, by the breaking of bread; therefore the distribution and dispensation of the Sacrament was in use in the primitive Church in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
I answer: Nothing more true can be said; but it does not thence follow that the sacrifice can never be offered without dispensation. For among us too in all the temples the Synaxis is celebrated with the dispensation of the Sacrament, and yet not therefore are condemned the sacred rites which are celebrated in private oratories or chapels without such dispensation.
The third objection. Blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 10, describing the rite of the Lord's Supper, openly writes that the body of the Lord is communicated and distributed to the faithful, and that the faithful are partakers of the table of the Lord, not by watching one eating, but by eating.
I answer: The Apostle in that place does not describe the rite of the Lord's Supper to declare what the celebration of this mystery is, or in what it chiefly consists, but only to show that those who take the Eucharist are partakers of the table of the Lord, and are made fellows of Christ: just as they are made fellows of devils, and partakers of the altar of idols, who knowingly eat things offered to idols. From which it does not follow that Mass without the Communion of the people is unlawful, or that those who are present at Mass and do not communicate receive nothing of usefulness. For that affirming proposition is most true, and is gathered from Paul: He who really eats the Eucharist is joined with Christ: but that denying one is false, nor is it had in Paul: He who does not really receive the Eucharist, but only by vow and desire, is in no way joined with Christ, or is present in vain at the sacrifice.
The fourth objection. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11, opposes to each other the Lord's Supper and the private supper; and that so, as to confirm that where the private supper is held, there the Lord's Supper cannot be celebrated. But he defines the private supper as where one privately eats that which is of the Lord's Supper, forestalling the others who do not partake together: and he says it is not unlike as if such a supper were prepared where one was filled, but the other compelled to hunger: “This passage certainly, as a thunderbolt,” says Kemnitz, “prostrates the private Masses of the Pontificials, in which the celebrating priest alone communicates sacramentally: and most clear is the opinion of Chrysostom on that passage of Paul: That which is of the Lord they made private; for the Supper of the Lord ought to be common, etc.”
I answer: First, when Paul opposes the Lord's Supper to the private supper, he does not speak of the Eucharist, but of the banquet which was of old wont to be made in the Church for the refreshment of the poor, which banquet he calls the Lord's Supper, as Chrysostom interprets, because it was made to represent the last Supper of the Lord with the disciples; and also because it was made in a sacred place; and finally because it was joined with the communication of the Eucharist. But that by the Lord's Supper is understood that banquet is clear from those words: “One is hungry, and another is drunk.” For in the communication of the Eucharist hunger or drunkenness could not be found, since it is the food of the mind, not of the belly. Then the same is clear from the purpose of Paul. For he wishes (Chrysostom and all other expositors so understanding) to reprehend the Corinthians, because they no longer make those banquets as they ought, but the rich feast apart and sumptuously, and the poor also apart, and are scarcely refreshed to satiety: and this abuse he reprehends in those words: “It is now no longer to eat the Lord's Supper; for every one taketh before his own supper, etc.” That is: Your banquets, as they are now celebrated, no longer represent the Lord's Supper. For the Lord reclined together with the disciples at the same table, even though He was the Lord and they servants; but you exclude your brethren from your table because they are poor, etc. All which things pertain to those banquets, not to the Eucharist: for as regards the Eucharist, all feasted equally soberly and equally sumptuously, since to all the body of the Lord was given in a small species of bread. And so the whole argument of Kemnitz labors in equivocation.
Secondly, even if blessed Paul spoke of the Eucharist, when he opposes the common supper to the private, as Theodoret and some other of the ancients probably teach, nothing could thence be gathered for the adversaries. For Paul reprehends the private supper from which others are excluded, not that to which they are not compelled. Further, our Masses do not exclude those who communicate; nay, as the Council of Trent affirms, session 22, canon 6, the Church desires that in each Mass those who are present communicate; but if there be none who wish to communicate, it is no fault of the priest, nor can he be reprehended, as if he wished alone to partake of the Lord's Supper.
The fifth objection. In the ancient Church always in the action of the Lord's Supper there was made a distribution of the Sacrament, as is clear from the description of all the Liturgies which are extant among the Fathers.
I answer: The contrary is gathered from the many examples which we brought above. Further, in the Liturgies mention is made of distribution, because, as we said, the distribution of the Sacrament can and ought always to be made in the Mass of those priests who by office bear the cure of souls, if there be any prepared to communicate. But not therefore is the sacrifice to be ceased from, if there be none who wish to communicate.
The sixth objection. The fiction, that the celebration of the Lord's Supper profits those who do not communicate, but only are present and hear, and with devotion behold what the priest does, is not only unknown to antiquity, but is seriously and gravely reprehended by the ancients. Chrysostom, 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 below: “Whoever is not a partaker of the mysteries stands by shameless and wicked.” And again: “If anyone,” he says, “invited to a banquet, wash his hands indeed and recline, and yet taste none of the foods, does he not bring contumely on the host by whom he had been invited? were it not better that such a one had not appeared at all?” “Thou hearest,” subjoins Kemnitz, “not words, but thunderbolts against the Pontifical persuasion about the spectacle of private Masses.”
I answer: That the usage of assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass, and yet not communicating sacramentally in it, was not unknown to the ancients, is clear from the Council of Agde, celebrated more than 1000 years ago. For canon 18 all the laity are commanded to communicate at least thrice a year, at the Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost: and yet canon 47 the same laity are commanded to be present at Mass every Sunday, and that until the priest's blessing, which is given at the end of Mass. Moreover, that the ancients did not doubt that the Mass profits those present, though they did not communicate, is most certain from what we said above about the Masses for the dead, and for any necessity. For if the Mass profits the dead, as all the Fathers with one mouth confess, and also the living, the absent, the sick, travelers, nay even infidels and heretics, how much more will it profit the faithful present, and at the same time offering by vow and desire?
To the passage of Chrysostom I say that those words, “In vain is the daily oblation made,” do not signify that the oblation is made absolutely in vain, but in vain inasmuch as it is ordained to Communion. For since the celebration of Mass is partly ordained to offering the sacrifice to God, partly to refreshing the people with that sacred bread, when there are none who communicate, it is made in vain inasmuch as it is ordained to the latter end, but is not made in vain inasmuch as it is ordained to the former end. And so Chrysostom, even though he says it is made in vain, did not therefore omit to sacrifice daily: which he certainly would have done, if he had thought it made absolutely in vain.
But to that which Chrysostom says, that it is better not to be present at the sacrifice than to be present and not communicate, I say that Chrysostom, as in certain other things, spoke thus by excess, since he only desired to exhort men to communicate frequently and worthily. For because he saw men excuse themselves from Communion, saying they were unworthy and unprepared, he, perceiving that negligence and sloth was the cause of all that loss, vehemently reproved them, and said that they are even unworthy to pray together with the rest, nay worthy to be cast out of the Church at the time of the sacrifice, as the penitents and Catechumens are cast out; and that they would do better if they did not come, and other things of the kind, which it is certain were said for the sake of amplification. Like is what the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 6: Set them to judge who are the contemptible in the Church. For blessed Paul does not really command that the contemptible be set as judges; but he speaks thus, because he would desire that there be no lawsuits in the Church, or that all Christians be so wise and good that even the least would suffice to decide temporal controversies.
Further, that Chrysostom was not of that opinion, to think that the sacrifice profits nothing those who are present and do not communicate, cannot be doubted, both from the many places cited above, where he writes that the sacrifice profits the dead and the living absent; and also from homily 3 on the incomprehensible nature of God: where he gravely reprehends his hearers because, the sermon being ended, they departed and were not present at the sacrifice. Where he says nothing of Communion, though he knew that very many did not communicate except most rarely; but only exhorts that they remain, and pray together, and behold Christ, who shows Himself in the mysteries.
The seventh objection. That in the ancient Church private Masses, in which the priest alone communicates, were forbidden, Chrysostom testifies, homily 18 on Second Corinthians, where he writes that in the celebration of the Eucharist it is not done as it was done in the Old Testament, where the priest alone ate certain things.
I answer: Chrysostom in that place places the difference between the sacrifices of the Old and New Testament only in this, that in those either the priest alone ate the victims, or he obtained the greater part and the people the lesser of the immolated things: but in these the priest eats the whole victim, and the people the whole, namely the same and entire body and blood of Christ. But this does nothing against private Masses: for that now often the priest alone eats the victim is not the fault of the priests, or the nature of the sacrifice, but the negligence of the people.
The eighth objection. The tenth canon of the Apostles commands to be excommunicated those who do not remain in the church until the Mass is performed, and do not receive holy Communion: and this canon is renewed in the Council of Antioch, chapter 2, and there is also extant a decree of Anacletus in letter 1, and in Gratian, canon Peracta, on consecration, distinction 2: “The consecration being performed, let all communicate who do not wish to be deprived of the ecclesiastical thresholds: for so both the Apostles ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds.” Therefore private Masses were then forbidden.
I answer: First, those canons command that the faithful communicate at Mass; but they do not forbid the priest to sacrifice, if the people be not present, or refuse to communicate. Then the canon of the Apostles is so explained in the Council of Antioch that we understand that not those are condemned who absolutely do not communicate, but those who from a certain cause, namely on account of some superstition or perverse opinion, turn away from holy Communion. But the decree of Anacletus, if his letter be consulted, and not only the fragment which is in Gratian, obliges only the clerics solemnly ministering to the bishop sacrificing on solemn days: wherefore if on some non-solemn day, or without the solemn ministry of other clerics, anyone sacrifice, he is not compelled by this decree to give Communion. Finally it is certain that these decrees, which without doubt were not of divine but of human right, if they pertained to the people, were abrogated in the progress of time; for it is established that in the time of Ambrose and Chrysostom, as we cited above, the Greeks were wont to communicate only after a year.
The ninth objection. Humbert against Nicetas writes that that Mass is imperfect in which there are not made together the consecration, the fraction or distribution, and the communication; Walafrid in his book on ecclesiastical things, chapter 22, likewise teaches that that is a lawful Mass in which are present a priest, a respondent, offerers, and communicants. To the same are cited two decrees, one of Pope Soter in Gratian, canon Hoc quoque, on consecration, distinction 1, the other of the Council of Nantes in Ivo, part 3 of the Decretals, chapter 70.
I answer: If the Mass be taken precisely for the sacrifice, it is established that it is perfect and lawful even without communicants, provided the sacrifice be consumed by the priest: yet because, as we said, the celebration of the Mass is ordained not only to offering the sacrifice to God, but also to nourishing the people with spiritual food, therefore on this part it cannot be denied that the Mass is more perfect and lawful where communicants are present than where they are lacking, and this alone the cited authors mean. Further, those decrees of Pope Soter and the Council of Nantes do not pertain to the matter: for they do not command that there be present those who communicate; but only that there be present those who respond to the priest. Where in passing is to be noted the lie of Kemnitz: for Kemnitz writes that that Council judged it ridiculous that what pertains to the people should be whispered by the priest to the walls and partitions. But the Council makes no mention of the people, but commands that at least one be present to respond in the Mass, lest the priest seem to say to the walls: “The Lord be with you,” and “Pray, brethren.”
The tenth objection. It is mockery that in a Mass in which none communicate the priest says: “As many of us as shall receive of this participation of the altar, and the Sacraments which we have received.” Likewise, that the host is broken: for the fraction is ordained to distributing, as Augustine teaches in letter 39 to Paulinus.
I answer: Those words are said in the plural number, both on account of the present communicants, if any be present; and also on account of those who communicate elsewhere: for since we are one body, we pray for all, not only the present, but also the absent. Like is in the Lord's prayer, which anyone can recite even alone in his chamber, and yet it is so composed as if it were to be said only by an assembled multitude.
As regards the fraction, it is ordained not only to distributing, but also to signifying. For in the Mass of Chrysostom there is made a breaking into four parts in the manner of a cross, and one of those particles is put into the chalice with a certain recitation of words: as the Latins also do. Wherefore Kemnitz, when he calls the ceremony of the fraction a mockery, and openly derides it, derides the ancient and true Church, Greek and Latin. And thus far of the objections of Kemnitz.
The eleventh objection is of John Brentius in the Wirtemberg Confession, chapter on the Eucharist: where, besides those things which are common to him with Kemnitz, he makes this argument: “Christ instituted His supper, not that it should be a private action of a little priest, but common to the whole Church; not therefore are those private Masses lawful, in which the priest reads for himself alone the words of the Supper, and consecrates the Eucharist.”
I answer: The Mass of the Catholics is never a private action of the priest, but is always common to the whole Church, since it is offered by a common minister for the common usefulness of all: accordingly there is always in the Mass the communion of the Church, if by communion you understand the common fruit of the sacrifice. But if by communion you understand the eating of the Eucharist: we confess that Christ instituted the Supper that it should be at once both a sacrifice and a communion, but did not command that those two should never be separated, as if the sacrifice could not be offered to God when there are none present who wish to communicate.
The twelfth objection is of Philip in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the article on the Mass, where he produces a certain letter of Saint Francis to all his brethren, in which he commands that only one Mass be celebrated in one place, even if many priests be present.
John Eck answers, in the Enchiridion, that that letter is not acknowledged by the brethren of the Order of Minors as a true letter of Saint Francis. He adds moreover that the author of that letter speaks only of the Tuesday in the Lord's Supper (Holy Thursday), not of other days; and certainly if that letter spoke of any day whatever, it would contain a most open falsehood. For the author of the letter writes that according to the usage of the Roman Church only one Mass is celebrated in one place. But Pope Honorius III, who sat at Rome in the time of Saint Francis, chapter Cum creatura, on the celebration of Masses, commands that the anniversary sacred rites for the dead be not omitted on account of an occurring feast or feria, but that both sacred rites be celebrated on the same day.
The last objection is of others, which Eck recites from Basil on Psalm 113 near the end, where he says: “I will not sacrifice hiding in dens, but will exhibit to Thee a public sacrifice.” And below he says that there is one altar of the Church. And it is confirmed from Jerome on chapter 3 of Amos, where he says that there is one altar in the Church.
Eck rightly answers that Basil by the hidden sacrifice understands the sacrifice of schismatics, who separate themselves from the Church and presume to offer sacrifices in their conventicles, and therefore also acknowledges one altar, that is, one priesthood, one rite, etc. For Basil subjoins in the same place: “Hear, you who forsake the Church, and, dwelling in public houses, make miserable rendings of the precious body.” And below: “Thou erectest an altar over against the altar constituted for thee by the Fathers.” Just as also Augustine, Optatus, Cyprian, and others passim describe schismatics, when they say that some erect an altar against an altar. Jerome too distinguishes the one altar of the Church from the many altars of the heretics, because, as he says, they have as many altars as schisms. Otherwise, that there were many material altars in the Church we showed above from Ambrose, Gregory, and others: whence Tertullian in his book on penance sets among the other ceremonies of penitents, to kneel at the altars of God.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Solvuntur argumenta contra Missas privatas. Prima objectio Kemnitii in 2. par. Exam. pag 862. (nam quae ipse fabulatur de ori¬ gine Missae privatae, quia nullo argumento , probavit, omitto) sumitur ex illis verbis Luc. xxii \Hoc facite in meam commemorationem (1). Jubet enim Christus, ut faciamus quod ipse fe- ciet ; ipse autem non solum consecravit, sed etiam dedit Sacramentum, iis qui aderant manducandum ; quare consecrare, et non distribuere, est ipsam Coenam Domini pro¬ fanare. CAPUT X. 391 Respondeo : Jussit Dominus fieri quod ipse fecit, sed pro loco, tempore, personis : ea enim est vis affirmativorum prajceptorum. Et sine dubio non jussit Sacramentum dis¬ pensari invitis, aut indignis. Quare si forte nulli sint, qui velint, aut possint communi¬ care, non tenemur Sacramentum ministrare, nec tamen ideo prohibemur a celebratione cessare. Dices : Si licet dividere actiones, quas Dominus exemplo suo conjunxit, et Sacra¬ mentum aliquando consecrare, et nemini ministrare, licebit etiam consecrare, vel ministrare, et non sumere. Respondeo : Non est eadem ratio omnium illarum actionum. Nam consecratio et con¬ summatio, de essentia sacrificii sunt, ideo nullo modo possunt omitti : at dispensatio, nec est de essentia, nec de integritate, sed solum affirmativo Domini praecepto neces¬ saria ; et ideo facienda quidem est, sed pro loco et tempore, ut diximus. Secunda objectio. Apostolorum Synaxis describitur Act. ii. per fractionem panis ; ergo distributio, et dispensatio Sacramenti fuit in usu primitiva! Ecclesia! in celebra¬ tione Ccena! Domini. Respondeo : Nihil verius dici potest ; sed non inde sequitur non posse unquam sacri¬ ficium sine dispensatione offerri. Nam et apud nos in templis omnibus celebratur Synaxis cum dispensatione Sacramenti, et tamen non ideo damnantur sacra, quae in privatis oratoriis, vel sacellis sine tali dis¬ pensatione celebrantur. Tertia objectio. B. Paulus I Corint. x. de¬ scribens ritum Ccena! Domini, aperte scri¬ bit, corpus Domini communicari, et distribui fidelibus, et fideles participes esse mensai Domini, non spectando unum manducantem, sed manducando. Respondeo : Apostolus eo loco non descri¬ bit ritum Ccena! Domini, ut declaret quid sit ipsa celebratio hujus mysterii, vel in quo pra!cipue consistat, sed tantum ut ostendat, eos qui Eucharistiam sumunt, participes esse mensa! Domini, et socios Christi fieri : quem- madmodum fiunt socii daemoniorum, et par¬ ticipes sunt altaris idolorum, qui scienter manducant idolothyta. Ex quo non sequitur, Missam sine Communione populi esseillicitam vel eos, qui Missa! intersunt, et non commu¬ nicant, nihil utilitatis capere. Nam ista affir¬ mans propositio verissima est, et ex Paulo colligitur •. Qui reipsa Eucharistiam mandu¬ cat, cum Christo conjungitur : ista autem negans falsa est nec habetur in Paulo : Qui non sumit reipsa Eucharistiam, sed solo voto ac desiderio, nullo modo cum Christo jungitur, aut frustra interest sacrificio. Quarto objectio. Apostolus I. Corinth xi opponit inter se Dominicam Ccenam, et pri¬ vatam Coe nam ; et quidem ita, ut confirmet, ubi privata Ccena agitur, ibi non posse Do¬ minicam Ccenam celebrari. Definit autem privatam Ccenam, ubi quis privatim, quod Coense Dominica! est, manducat, praeoccu- pat non simul participantibus aliis : et dicit, non dissimile esse, ac si instrueretur talis ccena, ubi unus saturaretur, alter vero co¬ geretur esurire : « Hic certe locus tanquam fulmen, » inquit Kemnitius, « prosternit privatas Pontificiorum Missas, in quibus so¬ lus Sacerdos celebrans sacramentaliter com¬ municat : et clarissima est Chrysostomi sen¬ tentia in illum Pauli locum : Quod Domini¬ cum est, privatum fecerunt ; Ccena enim Dominit debet esse communis etc. » Respondeo : Primum cum Paulus oppo¬ nit Ccenam Domini ccenae privatae, non lo¬ quitur de Eucharistia, sed de convivio, quod in Ecclesia oliin in pauperum refrige¬ rium fieri solebat, quod convivium, vocat Cce¬ nam Domini, ut Chrysostomus interpretatur quia fiebat ad repraesentandam Ccenam Do¬ mini ultimam cum discipulis ; et etiam quia fiebat in loco sacro, et denique quia conjun¬ gebatur cum Eucharistiae communicatione. Quod autem per Ccenam Domini intelligatur convivium illud, perspicuum est ex illis ver¬ bis : a Unus esurit, alius autem ebrius est» . Non enim in communicatione Eucharistiae poterat esuries, aut ebrietas inveniri, cum illa sit cibus mentis, non ventris. Deinde idem patet, ex proposito Pauli. Yult enim ipse (Chrysostomo, et omnibus aliis expo¬ nentibus) Corinthios reprehendere, quod non amplius convivia illa faciant, sicut oportet, sed divites seorsim et laute conviventur, pauperes autem etiam seorsim , et vix ad satietatem reficiantur : hunc autem abu¬ sum reprehendit illis verbis : « Jam non est Dominicam Ccenam manducare; unus quisque enim suam ccenam praesumit, etc. » Hoc est : Vestra ista convivia, ut nunc cele¬ brantur, non repra!sentant amplius ccenam Dominicam. Dominus enim simul cum dis¬ cipulis in eadem mensa accubuit, etiamsi ipse Dominus, illi servi essent; vos autem fratres vestros, quod pauperes sint, a mensa 39 2 UBER 4'I. vestra excluditis otc. Qua) omnia ad convivia illa pertinent, non ad Eucharistiam : nam quod attinet ad Eucharistiam, omnes ceque sobrie, et ceque laute epulabantur, cum om¬ nibus daretur corpus Dominicum in modica specie panis. Itaque totum argumentum Kemnitii in cequivocationo laborat. Secundo, etiamsi B. Paulus de Eucharistia loqueretur, cum camam communem privat® opponit, ut Theodoretus, et aliqui alii vete¬ rum probabiliter docent : nihil inde colligi posset pro adversariis. Paulus enim repre¬ hendit comam privatam, aqua excluduntur «alii, non ad quam non coguntur. Porro Mis- s® nostr® non excludunt communicantes ; imo ut Concilium Tri dentinum affirmat sess. 22. can. 6. optat Ecclesia, ut in singulis Mis¬ sis, qui adstant, communicent ; sed si nulli sunt qui communicare velint, nulla cul¬ pa est sacerdotis, nec potest reprehendi, quasi solus participare velit coenam Domini¬ cam. Quinta objectio. In veteri Ecclesia semper in actione Ccen® Domini fiebat distributio S«u- cramcntijUt patet ex descriptione omnium Li- turgiarum, qu® apud Patres exstant. Respondeo : Contrarium colligitur ex tam multis exemplis, qu® nos supra attulimus. Porro in Liturgiis fit mentio distributionis : quia, ut diximus, semper fieri potest, ac de¬ bet Sacramenti distributio in Missa eorum sacerdotum, qui curam animarum ex officio gerunt, si sint aliqui parati ad communican¬ dum. Sed non ideo cessandum est a sacrifi¬ cio, si nulli sint, qui communicare velint. Sexta objectio. Commentum, quod celebra¬ tio Ccen® Dominic® prosit illis, qui non com¬ municant, sed tantum intersunt, et audiunt, et cum devotione spectant quod sacerdos agit, non tantum ignotum est antiquitati, sed serio, et graviter a veteribus reprehenditur. Chrysostomus hom. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. : « Frustra , inquit, habetur oblatio quoti¬ diana, cum nemo sit, qui simul participet.» Et infra : « Quisquis mysteriorum consors non est, impudens, et improbus adstat. » Et rursum : « Si quis, inquit, ad convivium vocatus, manus quidem laverit, et accubue¬ rit, et tamen nihil ciborum gustaverit, non¬ ne infert contumeliam convivatori a quo fue¬ rat vocatus? an non satius* fuerit, eum qui ta¬ lis est, prorsus non comparuisse ? Audis, subjungit Kemnitius, non verba, sed ful¬ mina contra Pontificiam persuasionem de spectaculo privatarum Missarum.» Respondeo, veteribus non fuisse incogni¬ tum usum assistendi Miss® sacrificio, et t«a- men in iis non communicandi Sacrament, ali¬ ter, perspicuum est ex Concilio Agathensi ante 1000. annos celebrato. Nam can. 18. jubentur omnes laici saltem ter in anno com¬ municare, in Natali, Pascha, et Pentecoste : et tamen can. 47. jubentur iidem laici singu¬ lis diebus Dominicis Miss® interesse, idque usque ad sacerdotis benedictionem, qu® da¬ tur in fine Miss®. Pneterea non dubitasse veteres, Missam prodesse adstantibus, licet non communicarent, certissimum est ex iis, qu® supra diximus de Missis pro defunctis, etpro qualibet necessit ate. Si enim Missa prod¬ est defunctis, ut omnes Patres uno ore fa¬ tentur, nec non viventibus, absentibus, ®gro- tis, iter facientibus, imo etiam infidelibus, et h®reticis, quanto magis proderit fidelibus prffisentibus, et simul voto, ac desiderio offe¬ rentibus ? Ad locum Chrysostomi dico, illa verba : a Frustra fit oblatio quotidiana », non significare absolute oblationem frustra fieri, sed. frustra quatenus ordinatur ad Commu¬ nionem. Nam cum celebratio Miss® partim ordinetur ad sacrificium Deo offerendum, partim «ad populum sacro illo pane reficien¬ dum, cum nulli sunt, qui communicent, fru¬ stra fit, quatenus ordinatur «ad posteriorem finem, sed non fit frustra quatenus ordinatur ad finem priorem. Itaque Chrysostomus, etiamsi dicat, frustra fieri non tamen pro- pterea omittebat quotidie sacrificare : quod certe fecisset, si absolute frustra fieri existi¬ masse);. Ad illud autem quod Chrysostomus dicit, melius esse non interesse sacrificio quam in¬ teresse, et non communicare, dico Ghryso- stomum, ut quffidam alia, per excessum ita esse locutum, cum solum hortari cuperet ho¬ mines ad frequenter, et digne communican¬ dum. Nam quia videbat excusare se homines a Communione, quod se indignos, et impa¬ ratos dicerent, ipse animadvertens negligen- ti.am, et desidiam totius illius damni causam esse, vehementer illos arguit, ac dicit, indi¬ gnos etiam esse, qui simul cum c®teris orent, imo dignos, qui ab Ecclesia ejiciantur tem¬ pore sacrificii, quomodo ejiciuntur pceniten- tes, et Catechumeni ; et melius facturos si non venirent, et alia id genus, qu® certum est, dicta esse amplificandi gratia. Simile est quod ait Apostolus I Corinth. vi: Contempti¬ biles qui sunt in Ecclesia, bos constituite a>l CAPUT X. judicandum (1). Non enim revera jubet B. Paulus, ut contemptibiles judices constituan¬ tur ; sed ita loquitur, quia cuperet in Ecclesia nullas lites, aut tam sapientes, et bonos esse omnes Christianos, ut etiam minimi suffice¬ rent ad dijudicandas temporales controver¬ sias. Porro Chrysostomum non fuisse in ea sen tentia, ut putaret nihil prodesse sacrificium iis, qui adsunt, et non communicant, dubi¬ tari non potest, tum ex tam multis locis su¬ pra citatis, ubi scribit sacrificium prodesse defunctis, et viventibus absentibus ; tum eti¬ am ex liom. 3 de incomprehensibili natura Dei : ubi graviter reprehendit auditores suos quod finita concione recederent, et sacrificio non interessent. Ubi nihil de Communione dicit, cum tamen sciret plurimos non com¬ municare nisi rarissime ; sed tantum horta¬ tur ut maneant, et simul orent, ac spectent Christum, qui in mysteriis se ostendit. Septima objectio. In veteri Ecclesia pro¬ hibitas fuisse Missas privatas, in quibus solus sacerdos communicat, testatur Clirysosto- mus hom. 18. in II. ad Corinth. ubi scribit in celebratione Eucharistia) non fieri, sicut fiebat in Testamento veteri, ubi solus sacer¬ dos qutedam comedebat. Respondeo : Chrysostomus eo loco in eo solum ponit discrimen inter sacrificia Testa¬ menti veteris et novi, quod in illis, aut solus sacerdos edebat victimas, aut ipse majorem partem, populus minorem obtinebat ex im¬ molatis : in his autem totam victimam sacer¬ dos, et totam populus edit, idem videlicet, et integrum Christi corpus, et sanguinem. Sed nihil hoc facit contra Missas privatas: quod enim nunc ssepo sacerdos solus victi¬ mam edat, non est culpa sacerdotum, aut natura sacrificii, sed populi ncgligentia. Octava objectio. Canon decimus Apostolo¬ rum jubet excommunicari cos, qui non per¬ manent in Ecclesia usque dum Missa peragi¬ tur, et non accipiunt sanctam Communionem: atque hic canon renovatur in Concilio Antio¬ cheno, cap. 2, et exstat etiam decretum Ana- cleti in epistol. i. et apud Gratianum, caii. Peracta, de consecr. disf. 2. : « Peracta con¬ secratione omnes communicent, qui nolue¬ rint Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus : sic enim , et Apostoli statuerunt, et S. Romana (enet Ecclesia. » Ergo prohibita) tunc erant Missa) privata). Respondeo : Primum isti canones jubent, ut fideles communicent in Missa; sed non prohibent sacerdoti sacrificare, si populus non adsit, aut communicare nolit. Deinde ca¬ non Apostolorum ita explicatur in Concilio Antiocheno, ut intelligamus non damnari eos, qui absolute non communicant, sed eos, qui de certa causa, nimirum ob aliquam super¬ stitionem, aut pravam opinionem aversantur sacram Communionem. Decretum autem Anacleti, si epistola ejus consulatur, et non solum fragmentum, quod est apud Gratia¬ num, solos obligat clericos Episcopo in die¬ bus solemnibus sacrificanti solemniter mini¬ strantes : quo circa si die aliquo non solemni, aut sine aliorum clericorum solemni ministe¬ rio quis sacrificet, non cogitur ex hoc decre¬ to Communionem dare. Denique certum est, decreta ista, qua) sine dubio non divini, sed humani juris erant, si ad populum pertine¬ bant progressu temporis abrogata fuisse ; constat enim tempore Ambrosii, et Chryso- stomi, ut supra citavimus, Gra)cos nbn nisi post annum communicare solitos esse. Nona objectio. Humbertus contra Nicetam scribit, imperfectam esse Missam, in qua non simul fit consecratio, fractio, seu distribu¬ tio, et communicatio ; Walfridus in libro de rebus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 22., similiter docet illam esse legitimam Missam, in qua adsunt sacerdos, respondens, offerentes, et commu¬ nicantes. Ad idem citantur, duo decreta, unum Soteris Papa) apud Gratianum, can. Hoc quoque, de consecrat, dist. i. alterum Concilii Nannetcnsis apud Ivonem par. 3. de¬ creti cap. 70. Respondeo : Si Missa prsecisc accipiatur pro sacrficio, perfectam, 'et legitimam esso constat, etiam sine communicantibus, modo sacrificium a sacerdote consumatur : quia ta¬ men, ut diximus, Missa) celebratio non solum ad sacrificium Deo offerendum, sed etiam ad populum nutriendum spirituali pabulo ordi¬ natur, propterea ex hac parte negari non pot¬ est, quin sit magis perfecta, et legitima Mis¬ sa, ubi communicantes adsunt, quam ubi de¬ sunt, et hoc solum volunt auctores citati. Porro decreta illa Papie Soteris, et Concilii Nannetensis ad rem non pertinent : non enim jubent, ut adsint qui communicent ; sed tan¬ tum ut adsint, qui sacerdoti respondeant. Ubi obiter notandum est mendacium Kcmnitii : scribit enim Kemnitius, Concilium illud ri- (1) T Corinth. VI, 4. 394 LIBER VI. diculum judicasse, muris, et parietibus a sa¬ cerdote insusurrari, qua? ad populum perti¬ nent. At Concilium non meminit populi, sed jubet, ut saltem unus adsit, qui respondeat in Missa, ne videatur sacerdos parietibus di¬ cere: « Dominus vobiscum » et, « Orate fra¬ tres. » Decima objectio. Ludibria sunt, quod in Missa, in qua nulli communicant, dicat sa¬ cerdos : (i Quotquot ex hac altaris participa¬ tione sumpserimus, et Sacramenta, quae sum¬ psimus. » Item, quod hostia frangatur : fra¬ ctio enim ad distribuendum ordinatur, ut Au¬ gustinus docet in epist. 39 ad Paulinum. Respondeo : Illa verba dicuntur in nume¬ ro multitudinis, tum propter praesentes com¬ municantes, si qui adsint ; tum etiam pro¬ pter eos, qui alibi communicant : cum enim unum corpus simus, non solum praesentes, sed etiam absentes pro omnibus oramus. Si¬ mile est in oratione Dominica, quam quisque potest etiam solus in suo cubiculo recitare, et tamen ita composita est, ac si dicenda esset solum a multitudine congregata. Quot attinet ad fractionem, ea non solum ad distribuendum, sed etiam ad significan¬ dum ordinatur. Nam in Missa Chrysostomi fit confractio, in quatuor partes in modum cru¬ cis, et una ex illis particulis, in calicem immit¬ titur cum certa verborum recitatione : ut etiam Latini faciunt. Quare Kemnitius cum caeremoniam fractionis ludibrium appellat, et aperte irridet, antiquam, et veram Eccle¬ siam, Graecam, et Latinam irridet. Atque hactenus de objectionibus Kemnitii. Undecima objectio, est Joan. Brentii in Confess. Witembergensi cap. do Euchari¬ stiae : ubi praeter ea, quae illi sunt communia cumKemnitio, facit hoc argumentum : «Chri¬ stus instituit ccenam suam, non ut esset pri¬ vata actio sacrificuli, sed communis totius Ecclesiae ; non igitur licitae sunt privatae illae Missae, in quibus sacerdos sibi soli legit ver¬ ba Coeme, et Eucharistiam consecrat. » Respondeo : Missa Catholicorum nunquam est privata actio sacerdotis, sed semper est communis toti Ecclesiae, qui a communi mi¬ nistro pro communi omnium utilitate offer¬ tur : proinde semper est in Missa communio Ecclesiae, si per communionem intelligas fru¬ ctum communem sacrificii. Quod si per communionem intelligas Eucharistiae man¬ ducationem : fatemur Christum instituisse Ccenam, ut esset simul et sacrificium et com¬ munio, sed nonjussisse ut illa duo nunquam separarentur, quasi non possit Deo sacrifi¬ cium offerri, quando nulli adsunt, qui com¬ municare velint. Duodecima objectio est Philippi in Apolo- gia Confess. Augustanae in articulo de Missa, ubi producit epistolam quamdam sancti Fran- cisci ad omnes fratres suos, in qua jubet unam tantum Missam uno in loco celebrari , etiamsi plures adsint sacerdotes. Respondet Joannes Eckius in Enchiridio, epistolam illam non agnosci a fratribus Ordi¬ nis Minorum, pro vera sancti Francisci Epi¬ stola. Addit praeterea, auctorem illius episto¬ lae loqui solum de feria 3. in Coena Domini, non de aliis diebus ; et sane si epistola illa de quovis die loqueretur, falsum apertissime contineret. Scribit enim auctor epistolae, se¬ cundum usum Romana! Ecclesiai unicam Mis¬ sam duntaxat uno in loco celebrari. At Ho¬ norius Papa III, qui sedit Romae tempore sancti Francisci. cap. Cum creatura, de ce¬ lebrat. Missarum, jubet non omitti anniver¬ saria sacra pro defunctis, ob festum, vel fe¬ riam occurrentem, sed utraque sacra eodem die celebrari. Ultima objectio est aliorum, quam recitat Eckius ex Basilio in Psal. 113. prope finem, ubi dicit : « Non in latebris dilitescens sacri¬ ficabo, sed publicum exhibebo tibi sacrifici¬ um. » Et infra dicit : unum esse altare Eccle¬ siae. Et confirmatur ex Hieronymo in cap. 3. Amos, ubi dicit unum esse altare in Ecclesia. Respondet recte Eckius, Basilium per sa¬ crificium occultum intelligere sacrificium schismaticorum, qui se ab Ecclesia segre¬ gant, et in suis conventiculis sacrificia offer¬ re praesumunt, et ideo etiam unum altare agnoscere, id est, unum sacerdotium, unum ritum etc. Nam subjungit ibidem Basilius : « Audite qui Ecclesiam relinquitis, et in pu¬ blicis domibus versati, miseras facitis corpo¬ ris pretiosi scissuras. » Et infra : «Tu aram erigis ex adverso altaris tibi a Patribus con¬ stituti. » Quemadmodum etiam Augustinus, Optatus, Cyprianus, et alii passim schisma¬ ticos describunt, cum dicunt, quosdam eri¬ gere altare contra altare. Hieronymus quo¬ que distinguit unum altare Ecclesia! a mul¬ tis altaribus haereticorum, quia ut ipse dicit, tot habent altaria quot schismata. Alio qui multa fuisse in Ecclesia altaria materialia, supra ostendimus ex Ambrosio, Gregorio, et aliis : unde Tertullianus in libro de poeniten¬ tia, ponit inter alias pcenitentium caeremo- nias, aris Dei aggeniculari. CAPUT XII. 395