Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 19: On the Author of the Canon
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).
Now, as regards the author, the whole Canon of the Roman Mass is not of one author, but, as the Council of Trent rightly teaches, session 22, chapter 4, it consists partly of the words of the Lord, partly of Apostolic tradition, partly of the institution of the holy Pontiffs.
The first indeed who gave to the Roman Church some form of celebrating the sacrifice, namely with certain prayers and rites joined to the words of the Lord, was Saint Peter, as Isidore testifies, Book 1 on the offices, chapter 15; but afterward diverse Pontiffs added diverse prayers, up to Gregory I, who was the last of those who added anything to the Canon, as can be gathered from Walafrid, book on ecclesiastical observances, chapter 22.
Where this too is to be observed, that although one Liturgy is called Basil's, another Chrysostom's, another Ambrose's, another Gelasius's or Gregory's, namely our Roman, another Isidore's: yet those authors did not compose the Liturgy entirely, but only reduced to a better form that which was in use in their time, either by taking away, if anything less fitting had crept in, or by adding something according to the variety of the times, or finally by subtracting something thence to avoid tedium, yet so that the substantial parts of the Liturgy instituted by the Apostles remained entire. For Saint Gregory abridged the Gelasian codex, as John the Deacon writes, Book 2 of the life of Gregory, chapter 17; and he himself, letter 63, Book 7, asserts that he restored in the Mass the ancient customs, and took away certain things which had afterward crept in: and so he was the author not of the institution, but of the reformation of the Liturgy. Gregory VII likewise again emended the ecclesiastical office, but (as he himself testifies, canon In die, on consecration, distinction 5) he did not institute a new one, but brought back the ancient: which in our days Pius V also did, both in restoring the Breviary and the Missal, whence it is called the Missal of Pius V, or the new Missal, when yet it is not absolutely new, but an emendation and restoration of the ancient.
But in these things which we have said of the author, Kemnitz first reprehends that we have a Canon composed by many authors.
But that reprehension is empty. For the Apostolic Creed too is one simple confession of faith, and yet was composed by the twelve Apostles, each adding his own sentence, as Saint Leo writes in letter 13 to Pulcheria, and before Leo Rufinus in the explanation of the Creed, and Augustine, sermon 115 on the season. And then the same Creed was augmented, or explained, in the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople, whence at last proceeded that fuller creed which is properly called the Constantinopolitan. The book of Psalms likewise has many authors, if we believe Saint Jerome, in his letter to Sophronius, and in another to Cyprian, when yet it is reckoned one book. Finally this is most to be admired and commended, that the Canon of the Mass is of many authors, and yet all the parts are so aptly joined and cohere among themselves that it seems to be of one author.
Secondly Kemnitz objects the testimony of Saint Gregory, Book 7, letter 63, where he writes two things seemingly contrary to our opinion. One is, that the Apostles were wont to consecrate the Eucharist with the Lord's prayer alone; from which is seemingly refuted what we said, that the author of our Canon was blessed Peter, and that many things are had in the Canon from Apostolic tradition. The other is, that the Canon was composed by a certain Scholastic: and that "Scholastic" is the proper name of some man, Kemnitz proves from the same Gregory, Book 2, letter 54, and Book 9, letter 14. But if a Scholastic was the author of the Canon, then it is not true, what we said with the Council of Trent, that the Canon was composed partly by Christ and the Apostles, partly by the holy Pontiffs: for there was no Apostle or Pontiff who was called by the proper name Scholastic.
This argument Kemnitz took almost entirely from Beatus Rhenanus in his annotations on Tertullian's book on the soldier's crown: but it will not be difficult to answer. And first, there are not lacking those who deny that the Apostles ever celebrated the mystery of the Eucharist with the Lord's prayer alone. For Gregory seems to have taken this from Jerome in his book against the Pelagians: but Jerome says that the Apostles, by the Lord's precept, employed the Lord's prayer at the celebration of the Eucharist, but does not say that they employed the Lord's prayer alone.
But whatever be of this (for what Saint Gregory wrote is not easily to be repudiated, nor is it likely that so great a man did not notice what Jerome wrote before), I answer, what we have more than once taught above, that the Apostles at the beginning were wont to add only the Lord's prayer to the words of consecration in the mystery of the Eucharist, yet afterward the same Apostles added many other things: for certainly that the prayer for the dead in the sacrifice of the Mass descends from Apostolic tradition, Saint John Chrysostom constantly teaches, homily 3 on the Epistle to the Philippians, and elsewhere.
But what Gregory writes of the Scholastic does not fight against our opinion. For first it is not established that "Scholastic" in that place is a proper name: for because in the time of Gregory some were called by the proper name Scholastics, therefore wherever this name is found it is not to be so taken as if it were proper to someone; nay rather it is far more probable that by "Scholastic" in that place is understood a man notable in erudition and eloquence. Thus Jerome, in his book on Writers, on Serapion, writes that Serapion, a most learned man, on account of the elegance of his genius, obtained the surname of Scholastic. Saint Gregory, Book 10, letter 2, calls Matthew a Scholastic, a most illustrious man: and Gennadius in his Catalogue of writers calls Prosper "in speech a Scholastic," that is, excelling in eloquence and erudition: and Honorius in his Catalogue of Writers calls Alcuin "in office a Scholastic." In the same sense Saint Augustine takes "Scholastic" in his treatise on Psalm 44. Such were certain most learned presbyters who were of old set over the Christian school, to instruct those who came to the Church from the Jews or Gentiles: such as were Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Finally even today in certain churches both the name and dignity of Scholastic continues, though the function itself has almost ceased.
Now, therefore, if in Gregory the name of Scholastic be taken for a most learned man in general, we can admit that the whole Canon, except the words of the Lord, was composed by a Scholastic, because forsooth both Saint Peter and the other holy Pontiffs can be called Scholastics. Nor is this foreign to the opinion of Saint Gregory: for he does not speak of the Scholastic by way of contempt, but when he opposes him to Christ, as a man to God, as if he said: If a prayer composed by a man is recited over the oblation, how much more ought a prayer composed by God Himself to be recited?
But if Gregory by "Scholastic" understand some certain man who lived in his own age, as the adversaries contend, then we are compelled to answer that Saint Gregory does not speak of the Canon, when he says that the prayer of the Scholastic is recited over the oblation, but of some other extraordinary prayer, such as are those three which are said before Communion, after the “Lamb of God,” which, as Micrologus writes, chapter 18, are not of the Canon, nor prescribed by the ordinary, but are recited by the custom of religious men. But that this is so is certain, because the prayers which are in the Canon are found for the greatest part in Ambrose, as we shall presently demonstrate, and accordingly it cannot be that they were composed in the time of Gregory, who was two hundred years later than Ambrose.
Nor does this explanation shrink from the words of Saint Gregory: for he writes that he was accused of having commanded the Lord's prayer to be recited immediately after the Canon; and he answers that he did this because he esteemed it unworthy that a prayer composed by a Scholastic should be said over the oblation, and the very prayer of Christ should not be said over His body: by which words Gregory indicates that he does not treat of the Canon, but of the prayers which were said after the Canon. And indeed before his times, after the Canon, before Communion, it seems to have been in use that some prayer composed by a Scholastic should be said: but the Lord's prayer was either said after Communion, the oblation being consumed, or was not said. But Gregory changed this order, and willed that the Lord's prayer should be said immediately after the Canon, the body of the Lord being still present on the altar, and the prayer of the Scholastic should follow. Of these two opinions each is probable, and neither makes against us.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. De Auctore Canonis. Jam vero, quod attinet ad auctorem, non est unius auctoris totus Canon Missae Roma¬ nae, sed ut Concilium Taeideminum recte do¬ cet, session. 22. cap. 4. partim constat ver¬ bis Domini, partim Apostolica traditione, partim sanctorum Pontificum institutione. Primus quidem, qui formam aliquam sa¬ crificii celebrandi, adjunctis nimirum ad verba Domini certis precibus, et ritibus, Ro¬ manae Ecclesiae dedit, S. Petrus fuit, ut Isi- 416 LIBER VI. durus testatur lib. i. de officiis cap. 15. sed postea tamen diversi Pontifices preces di¬ versas addiderunt, usque ad Gregorium I. qui fuit ultimus eorum, qui ad Ganonem aliquid adjunxerunt, ut ex Walfrido colligi potest, lib. de observationibus Ecclesiasticis cap. 22. Ubi illud etiam est observandum, quod licet quaedam Liturgi a dicatur Basilii, alia Chrysostomi, alia Ambrosii , alia Gelasii, neu Gregorii, nostra videlicet Romana, alia Isidori : non tamen isti auctores Liturgiam de integro composuerunt, sed solum eam, quae suo tempore erat in usu, ad meliorem formam redegerunt, vel detrahendo, si quid irrepserat minus conveniens, vel addendo aliquid pro temporum varietate, vel denique ob taedium vitandum aliquid inde subtra¬ hendo, sic tamen, ut substantiales partes Liturgiai ah Apostolis institutae, integrae per¬ manerent. Nam S. Gregorius Gelasianum codicem coarctavit ; ut scribit Joannes Dia¬ conus, lib. ii. vita) Gregorii cap. 1/. et ipse epist. 73. lib vii. asserit, se restituisse in Missa antiquas consuetudines, et sustulisse quaedam, quae postea irrepserant : itaque fuit auctor non institutionis, sed reformatio¬ nis Liturgiae. Gregorius item VII. iterum emendavit officium Ecclesiasticum, sed (ut ipse testatur, canone In die, de consecrat, distinet. 5.) non novum instituit, sed anti¬ quum reduxit : quod nostris diebus fecit etiam Pius V. tum in Breviario, tum in Mis- sali restituendo, unde dicitur Missalc Pii V. seu Missale novum, cum tamen non sit ab¬ solute novum, sed antiqui emendatio, et re¬ stitutio. Sed in his quae diximus de auctore, Kem- nitius primo reprehendit, quod habeamus Ganonem ab auctoribus multis composi¬ tum. At inanis est ista reprehensio. Nam etiam Symbolum Apostolicum est una simplex fi¬ dei confessio, et tamen composita est a duo¬ decim Apostolis, singulis sententiam suam adjicientibus, ut S. Leo scribit in epist. 13. ad Puleheriam, et ante Leonem Iluffinus in explicatione Symboli, et Augustinus ser- mon. 115. de tempore. Et deinde idem Sym¬ bolum auctum, sive explicatum fuit in Con¬ cilio Nicaeno, et Constantinopolitano, unde tandem prodiit , symbolum illud plenius, quod proprie Constantinopolitanum vocatur. Liber item Psalmorum inultos auctores ha¬ bet, si sancto Hieronymo credimus, in epi- stol. ad Sophronium, et in alia ad Cypria¬ num, cum tamen unicus liber censeatur. De¬ nique id est maxime admirandum, et com¬ mendandum, quod Canon Missa) sit mullo¬ rum auctorum, et tamen ita apte partes om¬ nes inter se jungantur, et cohaereant, ut unius auctoris videatur. Secundo objicit Kemnitius S. Gregorii testimonium lib. vii. epist. 63. ubi duo qua)- dam scribit sententia) nostrae, ut apparet, contraria. Unum est, Apostolos ad solam Dominicam orationem Eucharistiam conse¬ crare solitos ; ex quo refelli videtur, id quod nos diximus, auctorem nostri Canonis fuisse Beatum Petrum, et multa in Canone haberi ex Apostolica traditione. Alterum est, Cano- nem compositum a Scholastico quodam : Scholasticum autem esse nomem proprium adicujus hominis, probat Kemnitius ex eo¬ dem Gregorio lib. n. epist. 54. et lib. ix. epistola 14. Quod si Scholasticus auctor Canonis fuit, non igitur verum est, quod nos cum Tridentino Concilio diximus, Cano- nem partim a Christo, et Apostolis, partim a sanctis Pontificibus compositum fuisse : nul¬ lus enim Apostolus, aut Pontifex fuit, qui proprio nomine Scholasticus diceretur. Hoc argumentum pene totum accepit Kemnitius ex Beato Rhenano in annotaitio- tionibus ad librum Tertulliani de Corona militis : sed non erit difficile respondere. Ac primum non desunt, qui negent Aposto¬ los unquam ad solam Dominicam orationem Eucharistia) mysterium celebrasse. Videtur enim Gregorius id accepisse ex Hieronymo in lib. contra Pelagianos' : sed Hieronymus dicit, Apostolos Dominico praecepto ad ce¬ lebrationem Eucharistite adhibuisse oratio¬ nem Dominicam, non autem dicit solam Dominicam orationem adhibuisse. Sed quidquid de hoc sit (non enim facile repudiandum est, quod S. Gregorius scri¬ psit, neque est verisimile tantum virum non animadvertisse, quid Hieronymus ante scri¬ pserit) respondeo, quod non semel supra docuimus, Apostolos initio solam Domini¬ cam orationem ad verba consecrationis iu mysterio Eucharistia) addere solitos, tamen postea eosdem Apostolos multa alia adjun¬ xisse : nam certe orationem pro defunctis iu sacrificio Missa) ex Apostolica traditione de¬ scendere, constanter docet S. Joannes Ghrysostomus, horni! . 3. in epist. ad Phi¬ lippenses, et alibi. Quod autem de Scholastico Gregorius CAPUT XX. 417 scribit contra sententiam nostram non pug¬ nat. Nam in primis non Constat, Scholasti¬ cum eo loco esse nomen proprium : non enim quia tempore Gregorii aliqui nomine proprio dicebantur Scholastici, ideo ubicumque inve¬ nitur hoc nomen, ita accipiendum est, ac si alicui esset proprium ; quin potius longe probabilius est, per Scholasticum eo loco intelligi virum insignem eruditione, et elo¬ quentia. Sic Hieronymus lib. de Scriptori¬ bus in Serapione, scribit, Serapionem virum doctissimum, ob ingenii elegantiam, Schola¬ stici cognomen adeptum. Sanctus Gregorius lib. x. epist. 2 vocat Matthamm Scholasti¬ cum virum clarissimum : et Gennadius in Catalogo scriptorum vocat Prosperum ser¬ mone Scholasticum, id est, eloquentia erudi¬ tione praestantem : et Honorius in Catalogo Scriptorum, vocat Alcuinum officio Scho- asticum. In eodem sensu accipit Scholasti¬ cum in tractatu super Psalmum xliv, sanctus Augustinus. Tales erant presbyteri quidem doctissimi, qui praeficiebantur olim scholae Christianae, ad eos erudiendos, qui ex Judaeis, aut Gentibus ad Ecclesiam venie¬ bant : quales fuerunt Pantenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, et alii. Denique ad¬ huc hodie in quibusdam Ecclesiis, et noiucn, et dignitas Scholastici perseverat, licet ipsa functio pene cessaverit. Jam igitur si apud Gregorium accipiatur Scholastici nomen pro homine doctissimo in universum, admittere possumus, totum Co¬ nonem, exceptis verbis Domini, a Schola¬ stico compositum, quia nimirum et S. Pe¬ trus, et caoteri sancti Pontifices Scholastici dici possunt. Neque hoc est alienum a sen¬ tentia S. Gregorii : ille enim non loquitur de Scholastico per contemptum, sed cum op¬ ponit Christo, ut hominem Deo, ac si dice¬ ret : Si oratio ab homine composita super oblationem recitatur , quanto magis reci¬ tari debet oratio composita ab ipso Deo ? Si vero Gregorius per Scholasticum intel- ligat certum aliquem hominem, qui fetate ipsius vixerit, ut adversarii, contendunt, tum respondere cogimur, S. Gregorium non loqui de Canone, cum dicit, precem Scho¬ lastici recitari super oblationem, sed de ali¬ qua alia prece extraordinaria, quales sunt tres illa;, qua) dicuntur ante Communionem, post « Agnus Dei », qua3 ut scribit Microlo- gus, cap. 18, non sunt de Canone, neque ex ordinario praescribuntur ; sed ex consuetu¬ dine religiosorum recitantur. Id autem ita Tom. IV. esse, certum est, quia orationes quae sunt in Canone, inveniuntur magna ex parte apud Ambrosium, ut paulo post demonstrabimus, et proinde non potest fieri, ut composita) fuerint tempore Gregorii, qui ducentis annis Ambrosio posterior fuit. Neque hfec explicatio abhorret a verbis S. Gregorii : nam ille scribit se accusatum fuisse, quod jussisset orationem Dominicam recitari mox post Canonem ; et respondet id se fecisse, quia indignum existimabat ora¬ tionem a Scholastico compositam super ob¬ lationem dici, et ipsam Christi orationem super corpus ejus non dici : quibus verbis indicat Gregorius se non agere de Canone, sed de orationibus, qua; dicebantur post Canonem. Et quidem ante ipsius tempora post Canonem ante Communionem videtur in usu fuisse, ut diceretur aliqua oratio a Scholastico composita : oratio autem Domi¬ nica vel diceretur post Communionem, obla¬ tione consumpta, vel non diceretur. Sed Gregorius hunc ordinem mutavit, et voluit, ut oratio Dominica diceretur mox post Ca¬ nonem, adhuc in altari corpore Domini prsc sente, oratio autem Scholastici sequeretur. Ex his duabus sententiis utraque probabilis est, et neutra contra nos facit.