Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 13: What the Heretics Think Concerning the Ceremonies of the Mass
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).
Of ceremonies in general it was disputed at the end of the second book on the Sacraments: now only those things are to be treated which properly pertain to the ceremonies of the Mass. Two things chiefly are to be explained in this place. First it must be opened what the adversaries think of the ceremonies of the Mass, and what is in controversy. Secondly the truth must be proved, and at the same time the objections refuted.
But of the ceremonies and parts of the Mass many authors have written. The first seems to have been Gelasius, whose book on the solemnities of the Masses Gregory I abridged, as John the Deacon writes, Book 2 of the life of Gregory, chapter 17, and he himself makes mention of that book, Book 7, letter 63. The second was Isidore, after the year of the Lord 600, whose two books on the divine offices are extant. The third was the author of the Roman Order, who seems to have flourished after the year of the Lord 700. The fourth was Alcuin, in the same century, whose book on the ecclesiastical offices is extant. The fifth Amalarius, in the same century, whose books of the same title are also extant. The sixth was Rabanus Maurus, after the year of the Lord 800. The seventh, in the same century, Walafrid Strabo. The eighth, after perhaps the year 900, Solitarius in his book on the gem of the soul. The ninth Micrologus, after the year 1000. The tenth Rupert of Deutz, after the year 1100. The eleventh Hugh of Saint Victor, in the same century. The twelfth Innocent III, after the year 1200. The thirteenth Bonaventure, in the same century. The fourteenth William Durandus, after the year 1300. The fifteenth Thomas of Walden, after the year 1400. The sixteenth Conrad Brunus, after the year 1500, in which century George Cassander also wrote a Rhapsody, and Beatus Rhenanus some things in his annotations on Tertullian's book on the soldier's crown: which author yet must be read cautiously; but the former, even though he was a heretic, yet seems to have added nothing of his own. It is reported that John Garetius and James Pamelius also collected many things on the Liturgy: but their books I have not yet been able to see.
These things being premised, let us come to those which we proposed. As to the first, the Calvinists execrate almost all the ceremonies of the Mass, and think they should be abrogated. For neither do they use them in their administration of the Lord's Supper: and Calvin generally reprehends them in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 43, where he admits that they are most ancient, nay writes that they began not far from the age of the Apostles; but he calls them the rust of the Lord's Supper, and says they arose from the wantonness of human confidence, which cannot contain itself from playing and being lascivious in the mysteries of God.
But Luther and the Lutherans do not altogether reject ceremonies. For they both keep some in their churches, and Philip in the Apology of the Confession, article on the Mass, at the beginning, says that among them the accustomed ceremonies are kept in the Mass: which is true of some, not of all.
Further, Luther in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, writes three things about ceremonies. First, that the Mass is the more Christian the simpler it is and the more like the Mass of Christ, in which there was no pomp of vestments, gestures, chants, and other ceremonies; by which words he obliquely reprehends the ceremonies.
Secondly he adds that the whole Church, which adorned and amplified the Mass with many other rites and ceremonies, is not therefore to be calumniated: and in his book on the form of the Mass he permits lights and incense and some other things of the kind. But this second saying does not much cohere with the first. For if the pomp of ceremonies made the Mass less Christian, as the first saying has it, deservedly the Church, which introduced that pomp, could and ought to be reprehended, the contrary of which this second saying asserts.
Thirdly, he says that ceremonies without faith are incitements of impiety rather than offices of piety. But if Luther spoke of the Catholic faith, by which we believe that in the Eucharist the body of the Lord is truly present, and truly offered to God in sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, he would not have said ill, that ceremonies without faith are incitements of impiety: but because he speaks of a certain special faith, by which he will have us certainly believe that our sins are remitted, therefore that saying of his is rightly condemned in the Council of Trent, session 22, last canon. For ceremonies serve to excite devotion and reverence, even in those who do not certainly believe that their sins are remitted; but of this faith it must be disputed elsewhere.
Now Kemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 852, sets a fourfold division of the ceremonies of the Mass. For he says that some have a divine mandate and examples of Scripture, and are substantial, as to take bread, to bless, to eat, to announce the death of the Lord. Some, which, though they have no express mandate nor are altogether necessary, yet are pious and good, if they be employed for edification, as psalms, lessons, prayers, the confession of faith by the recitation of the creed. Some are of themselves superstitious and impious, as the oblation for the living and the dead, the invocation of the Saints, satisfaction for the souls of Purgatory, the private Mass, the consecration of salt, the blessing of water. Others finally are indifferent (adiaphora), as vestments, vessels, and the other ornaments, which are not repugnant to the word of God. Of these he teaches that those of the first kind are altogether to be kept; those of the third altogether to be abrogated; those of the second and fourth to be retained, but with liberty, and as least necessary.
We agree with Kemnitz in the first kind, dissent from him in the third; in the second and fourth we partly agree, partly dissent. But all these things are not of this place: for we do not dispute in this place of any ceremonies whatever, but only of those which are outside the essence of the sacrifice, of which the Council of Trent speaks; wherefore we do not dispute of the first kind. Then we dispute of ceremonies properly so called, not of all the parts or causes or effects of the Mass; further, psalms, lessons, prayers are not properly ceremonies, and by this we do not treat of the second kind. By like reason the oblation for the living and the dead, the invocation of the Saints, satisfaction, the private Mass, and the like, are not ceremonies, nor do we now dispute of them. Only, therefore, of the fourth kind is now the question, with the addition of blessed water, which Kemnitz had placed in the third kind.
Further, about that fourth kind we differ from Kemnitz and the other Lutherans in three things. First, that they employ very few, we more ceremonies in the Mass. Secondly, that they in no way admit that ceremonies are necessary, or can be commanded by the Church: we, though we confess that they are not necessary of themselves, yet judge that they can be commanded, and this precept being set, cannot be omitted without sin. Thirdly, that they attribute no power to any ceremony, and deride the consecrations of water, salt, incense, candles, etc.; we attribute a certain power to certain ceremonies from the consecration and prayers of the Church. But of these two last questions we have said enough in the second book on the Sacraments in general, and in other places: therefore only this must be shown in this place, that not only those few ceremonies which the Lutherans admit, but all the others which the Catholic Church uses in the Mass, are ancient and pious.
But before we come to our ceremonies, the lies must be refuted with which the disputation of Kemnitz plainly abounds. First, page 853, he says that the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 5, without distinction approves all ceremonies, whether they be pious or superstitious. But the Council speaks only of those ceremonies which the Church instituted, as is clear from the very text of the Council, and which pertain to the fourth kind set by Kemnitz; which the same Kemnitz confesses to be not superstitious.
Secondly, in the same place he says that it is defined by the Council that all the ceremonies which are employed in the Mass are from Apostolic tradition: and he himself proves this to be false, because the Lord in the last Supper did not employ them, nor does Paul make mention of them, when he describes the Apostolic Synaxis, 1 Corinthians 11. But the Council does not say that all, but that many, are from Apostolic tradition: and the proof of Kemnitz is most inept. For Apostolic tradition began after the ascension of the Lord, and therefore it is no wonder if in the last Supper of the Lord the ceremonies were not employed: because forsooth the Apostles had not yet instituted them. Further, Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, does not relate the whole Apostolic Synaxis, but only narrates what he received from the Lord.
Thirdly he says that the Pontificials heaped up the ceremonies of the ancients with many idle and superstitious rites mixed in. But that this is most false is clear from the Liturgy of the Greeks, and from the Ambrosian, which the Pontificials did not institute, and yet have more ceremonies than our Roman, which Kemnitz calls Pontifical.
Fourthly he says that among the Catholics the observance of ceremonies is esteemed so necessary that they pronounce that those sin mortally who have neglected anything in them. But this too is a lie: for among us not any negligence whatever is a mortal sin, but contempt, or notable negligence in grave matters.
Fifthly he says that the Pontificials scarcely believe that the Lord's Supper is rightly celebrated, if that whole apparatus of ceremonies be not employed. But if by that "rightly" he understand essential rightness, as he seems to understand, it is a most open lie: for the Catholics constantly teach that the whole essence of this sacrifice was instituted by Christ, and accordingly without these ceremonies which the Church afterward added no one doubts that the sacrifice is celebrated, true and valid. But if Kemnitz by that "rightly" understand accidental rightness, he says nothing: for who doubts that that is not rightly done, in the doing of which some things are omitted which ought not to have been omitted?
Sixthly he says that to those ceremonies and rites, of themselves and absolutely, peculiar merits are attributed by the Catholics. But this is a most impudent lie: for the Catholics acknowledge no merits without faith and charity, nor would anyone but one plainly foolish say that to lift up the hands, or to bend the knees, and other things of the kind, are of themselves and absolutely meritorious.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII.
De caeremoniis Missae quid haeretici sentiant.
De caeremoniis in genei*e disputatum est
in ii. lib. extremo de Sacramentis : nunc ea
solum tractanda sunt, qua; proprie ad Missae
caeremonias pertinent. Duo potissimum hoc
loco explicanda sunt. Pi*imo apei*iendum
erit quid adversarii sentiant de cairemoniis
Missae, et quid in controversia sit. Secundo
probanda erit veritas, et simul i*efellcndae
objectiones.
Sciabunt autem de caeremoniis, et partibus
Missae multi auctores. Primus videtur fuisse
Gelasius, cujus librum de Missarum solern-
niis coai*ctavit Gi*egorius I. ut scribit Joan-
nes Diaconus lib. ii. vitae Gregorii, cap. 17.
et ipse ejusdem libri meminit lib. vn. epist.
63. Secundus fuit Isidorus post annum Do •
mini 600. cujus libri duo extant de divinis of¬
ficiis. Tertius fuit auctor Ordinis Romani,
qui floraisse videtur post annum Domini
700. Quartus fuit Alcuinus eodem saeculo,
cujus extat liber de officiis Ecclesiasticis.
Quintus Amalarius eodem saeculo, cujus
etiam libri extant ejusdem tituli. Sextus fuit
Rabanus Maurus post annum Domini 800.
Septimus eodem saeculo Walfridus Sti*abo.
Octavus post annum fortasse 900. Solitarius
in lib. de gemma animae. Nonus Micrologus
post annum 1000. Decimus Rupertus Tui-
tiensis pos annum 1100. Undecimus Hugo de
S. Victore eodem saeculo. Duodecimus Inno¬
centius III. post annum 1200. Decimus tertius
Bonaventura, eodem saeculo. Decimus quar¬
tus Guillielmus Durandus post annum 1300.
Decimus quintus Thomas Waddensis post an¬
num. 1400. Decimus sextus Gonradus Brunus
post annum 1500. quo saeculo scripsit etiam
CAPUT XIII.
399
Uapsodiam Georgius Cassandcr, et non¬
nulla Beatus Rhenanus in annotationibus ad
librum Tertulliani de corona militis : qui ta¬
men auctor caute legendus est ; superior
autem, etiamsi haereticus fuerit, nihil tamen
de suo addidisse videtur. Feruntur etiam
multa collegisse de Liturgia Joann. Garetius
et Jacobus Pamelius : sed eorum libros non¬
dum videre potui.
His praemissis, ad illa, quae proposuimus
accedamus. Quod ad primum attinet, Cal-
vinistae omnes fere caeremonias Missae exe-
crantur, et abrogandas censent. Nam nec
illis utuntur in sua Ccenae Domini admini-
stratione : et Calvinus generatim eas repre¬
hendit in lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 43. ubi
admittit antiquissimas esse, imo scribit
non longe ab aetate Apostolorum coepisse ;
sed eas rubiginem Ccenae Domini appellat, et
ait natas esse ex procitate humanae confiden¬
tiae, quae se continere non potest, quin in
Dei mysteriis ludat, et lasciviat.
At Lutherus, etLutherani non omnino cae¬
remonias rejiciunt. Nam, et in suis Ecclesiis
aliqua servant, et Philippus in Apologia
Confess. art. de Missa in principio, dicit
apud suos servari in Missa caeremonias con¬
suetas : quod est verum de quibusdam, non
de omnibus.
Porro Lutherus in lib. de captivit. Baby¬
lon. cap. de Eucharistia, tria de caeremoniis
scribit. Primo, Missam eo esse magis Chri¬
stianam, quo est simplicior, et similior
Missae Christi, in qua nulla fuit vestium,
gestuum, cantuum, aliarumque caeremonia¬
rum pompa ; quibus verbis oblique caeremo¬
nias reprehendit.
Secundo addit, non esse propterea calum¬
niandam universam Ecclesiam, quae multis
aliis ritibus, et caeremoniis Missam ornavit,
et ampliavit : et in libro de formula Missae,
permittit lumina, et incensum, et aliqua alia
ejusmodi. Sed hoc dictum secundum non
valde cohaeret cum primo. Nam si pompa
caeremoniarum faceret Missam minus Chri¬
stianam, ut habet primum dictum, merito
Ecclesia, quae pompam illam invexit, repre¬
hendi posset, ac deberet, cujus contrarium
asserit hoc secundum dictum.
Tertio, dicit caeremonias sine fide esse ir-
ritabula impietatis potius, quam officia pie¬
tatis. Quod si Lutherus de fide Catholica lo¬
queretur, qua credimus in Eucharistia vere
esse praesens corpus Domini, et vere in sa¬
crificium Deo offerri pro peccatis vivorum,
et mortuorum, non male dixisset, caeremo¬
nias sine fide esse irritabula impietatis : sed
quia loquitur de fide quadam speciali, qua
vult nos certo credere remissa esse peccata,
ideo dictum illud ejus jure damnatur in Con¬
cilio Tridentino, sess. 22. can. ult. Caeremo¬
niae enim devotioni, et reverentiae excitandae
serviunt, etiam in iis, qui non certo credunt
sibi remissa esse peccata ; sed de hac fide
alibi disserendum est.
Jam vero Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam.
pag. 852. ponit quadrimembrem partitionem
caeremoniarum Missae. Quasdam enim esse
dicit, quae habeant mandatum divinum, et
exempla Scripturae, et quae substantiales
sint, ut accipere panem, benedicere, mandu¬
care, mortem Domini nuntiare. Quasdam,
quae licet non habeant expressum mandatum
neque omnino necessariae sint, tamen pias,
et bonas esse, si ad aedificationem usurpen¬
tur, ut psalmos, lectiones, preces, confessio¬
nem fidei per symboli recitationem. Quas¬
dam per se superstitiotias, et impias, ut
oblationem pro vivis, et mortuis, invocatio¬
nem Sanctorum, satisfactionem pro anima-
bus Purgatorii, Missam privatam, consecra¬
tionem salis, benedictionem aquae. Alias
denique adiaphoras ut vestes, vasa, orna¬
menta caetera, quae verbo Dei non repugnant.
Ex his docet eas, quae sunt primi generis,
omnino servandas ; quae sunt tertii om¬
nino abrogandas, quae sunt secundi, et
quarti retinendas esse, sed cum libertate, ac
ut minime necessarias.
Nos cum Kemnitio in primo genere conve¬
nimus, in tertio ab illo dissentimus ; in se¬
cundo et quarto partim convenimus, partim
dissentimus. Sed non sunt ista omnia hujus
loci : nam non disputamus hoc loco de qui¬
busvis caeremoniis, sed solum de illis, quae
sunt extra essentiam sacrificii, de quibus
Concilium Tridentinum loquitur, quare non
disputamus de primo genere. Deinde dis¬
putamus de caeremoniis proprie dictis,
non de omnibus partibus, vel causis, vel ef¬
fectis Missae ; porro psalmi, lectiones, preces,
non sunt proprie caeremoniae, et per hoc non
agimus de secundo genere. Pari ratione
oblatio pro vivis, et mortuis, invocatio San¬
ctorum, satisfactio, Missa privata, et simi¬
lia, non sunt caeremoniae, neque de illis nunc
disputamus. Solum ergo de quarto genere
nunc quaestio est, adjuncta aqua dcnedicla,
quam in tertio genere Kemnitius posuerat.
Porro de isto quarto genere, in tribus dis-
L1BE11 VI.
iOO
sidemus a Kemnitio, et cederis Lutheranis.
Primo, quod illi paucissimas, nos plures cte-
remonias in Missa adhibemus. Secundo,
quod illi nullo modo admittunt caeremonias
esse necessarias, vel posse imperari ab Ec¬
clesia : nos etsi fateamur non esse ex se ne¬
cessarias, tam em judicamus imperari posse,
et hoc praecepto posito, non posse sine pec¬
cato omitti. Tertio, quod illi nullam vim
tribuunt ulli caeremoniae, et irrident consecra¬
tiones aquae, salis, thuris, cereorum etc. nos
quibusdam caeremoniis vim quamdam tri¬
buimus ex consecratione, et precibus Eccle¬
siae. Sed de his duobus postremis quaestioni¬
bus satis multa diximus in 2. lib. de Sacra¬
mentis in genere, et in aliis locis : idcirco
solum hoc loco ostendendum erit, non so¬
lum paucas, illas caeremonias, quas Luthe-
rani admittunt, sed omnes alias, quibus Ec¬
clesia Catholica in Missa utitur, esse antiquas
et pias.
Sed antequam ad caeremonias nostras ve¬
niamus, refellenda sunt mendacia, quibus
plane scatet Kemnitii disputatio. Primo pag.
853. dicit, Concilium Tridentium sess. 22.
cap. 5. sine distinctione omnes caeremonias
approbare, sive pire, sive superstitiosae sint.
At Concilium non loquitur nisi de his caere¬
moniis, quas Ecclesia instituit, ut ex ipso
textu Concilii patet, et quae ad quartum ge¬
nus a Kemnitio positum, pertinent ; quas
idem Kemnitius fetetur non esse supertitio-
sas.
Secundo ibidem dicit, a Concilio definiri,
omnes caeremonias qute in Missa adhibentur,
esse ex traditione Apostolica : et probat
ipse hoc esse falsum, quia Dominus in ulti¬
ma corna, eas non adhibuit, neque earum
meminit Paulus, cum describit Synaxim
Apostolicam I Corinth. xi. At Concilium
non dicit omnes, sed multas esse ex Aposto¬
lica traditione : et probatio Kemnitii ineptis¬
sima est. Nam traditio Apostolica coepit
post ascensionem Domini et ideo non mirum
si in ultima corna Dominicae caeremoniae non
fuerint adhibitae : quia videlicet nondum
eas Apostoli instituerant. Porto Paulus {
Cor. xi. non refert totam Synaxim Apostoli¬
cam, sed solum narrat quid a Domino acce¬
perit.
Tertio dicit Pontificios veterum caeremo¬
nias cumulasse multis admixtis otiosis, et
superstitiosis ritibus. At hoc falsissimum
esse patet ex Liturgia Graecorum, et ex Arn-
brosiana, quas non instituerunt Pontificii, et
tamen plures caeremonias habent, quam
nostra Romana, quam Kemnitius Pontifi¬
ciam vocat.
Quarto dicit, apud Catholicos ita necessa¬
riam existimari caeremoniarum observan¬
tiam, ut pronuncient mortaliter peccare, qui
aliquid in illis neglexerint. At hoc etiam
mendacium est : non enim apud nos quae¬
libet negligentia peccatum est mortale, sed
contemptus, aut notabilis negligentia in re 7
bus gravibus.
Quinto dicit, Pontificios vix credere recte
celebrari Ccenam Domini, si non adhibeatur
totus ille caeremoniarum apparatus. At si per
illud, recte, intelligat rectitudinem essentia¬
lem, ut videtur intelligere, mendacium est
apertissimum : constanter enim Catholici
docent, totam essentiam hujus sacrificii a
Christo institutam, et proinde sine his caere¬
moniis, quas postea Ecclesia addidit, nemo
dubitat sacrificium celebratum esse, verum et
ratum. Si autem Kemnitius per illud «recte »,
intelligat rectitudinem accidcntariam, nihil
dicit : nam quis dubitet non recte fieri id, iit
quo faciendo aliqua omittuntur, quae omit¬
tenda non erant ?
Sexto dicit, cteremoniis iliis, et ritibus per
se et absolute, tribui a Catholicis peculiaria
merita. At hoc impudentissimum est men¬
dacium : Catholici enim sine fide, et charl-
tate nulla merita agnoscunt, neque ullus
nisi plane insipiens diceret, attollere manus,
vel curvare genua, et alia id genus, esse per
se, et absolute meritoria.