Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 20: On the Antiquity 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).
It remains now that we speak of the antiquity. And first, the levity of Kemnitz seems laughable, who page 828 says that it is trifles and smoke, that the Council wrote that the Canon of the Mass was instituted many ages before, and yet page 826 the same Kemnitz affirms that the Canon was completed within the first six hundred years from the birth of Christ, and page 827 writes that the author of the Canon lived about the year of the Lord 590, which he also repeats page 828, where he makes Gregory the last author of the Canon in the year 590. For if the Canon was completed in the year of the Lord 590, who does not see that it was instituted almost ten centuries ago, and accordingly that what the Council says is true, and that Kemnitz is contrary to himself on the same page? Then it should be asked of these men, who deny that our Canon is ancient, that they show the antiquity of their own Canon: for what a thing is it, that they contemn our Canon as new, which they confess was published nearly a thousand years ago; when they themselves have a Canon, if indeed it deserves to be called a Canon, published in this very century of ours?
But these things being omitted, let us show the true antiquity of our Canon. First, therefore, this is established, that our whole Canon, as we now have it in the Missals, was in use in the Church before the year of the Lord 800. For it is extant in the Roman Order, not far from the beginning, which Order Alcuin and Amalarius cite, who lived in the time of Charlemagne. Then Alcuin in his book on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter on the celebration of the Mass, expounds the whole Canon word for word: and thenceforth by all the other later writers the same Canon entirely is expounded, as by Amalarius, Hugh, Rupert, Innocent, and the rest. Further, the Roman Order did not institute the Canon, but relates it as a thing used and celebrated in the Church. Wherefore it is necessary that the Canon be still more ancient than the Roman Order.
But although there is perhaps no other book more ancient than the Roman Order where the whole Canon is had, yet there are extant books much more ancient where parts of the Canon are had, from which a conjecture can be made about the rest.
And first in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapters 5 and 6, is had, with the words little changed, that part of the Canon: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, approved, ratified, etc.” And that: “Who the day before He suffered, etc.” And that: “Wherefore also, being mindful, etc.” And that: “Upon which vouchsafe with a propitious, etc.” Which are the four chief parts of the whole Canon: for two immediately precede, two immediately follow the consecration. And since Saint Ambrose did not first institute these parts of the Canon, but alleges them from the ancient rite of the Church to confirm that which in that place he was treating, about the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist: it follows necessarily that their institution preceded the age of Ambrose, and accordingly was in use more than 1200 years ago. The same Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, openly makes mention of the first prayer of the Canon, where prayer is made for the Church and for the king, though he does not set down the very words: of the same Optatus too makes mention, Book 2 against Parmenian, where he says that it is lawful that offering be made for the Catholic Church. But of that prayer where the Saints are named and invoked, and of that where prayer is made for the dead, Augustine makes mention, treatise 84 on John; nay of these prayers very many Fathers make mention, whom we have brought forward above in their proper places. And so the whole Canon, partly as to the sense, partly also as to the words, is found in authors who flourished 1100 or 1200 years ago.
To these are added some notable conjectures to prove the antiquity of the Canon. The first conjecture is, because in the whole Canon no mention is made of Confessors, or of Virgins who are not Martyrs, but of Martyrs only, whether men or women: which Augustine also noted, in his book on holy Virginity, chapter 45. But there is no other cause of this thing than that which Innocent gives, Book 3, chapter 10 on the mysteries of the Mass, namely because the Canon was composed at that time when the holy Confessors had not yet begun to be publicly worshipped in the Church. For it is certain that the Martyrs began to be publicly invoked, and festival days to be kept in their names, and Basilicas to be erected, plainly from the beginning of the Church: but the Confessors merited this honor in the Church much later. But it is established from the Council of Mainz, celebrated under Charlemagne, canon 36, that the feasts of the Confessors were already in use in the year 800: since in the catalogue of festival days are set the feast days of Saint Martin and Saint Remigius: therefore it is necessary that the Canon was composed before the year of the Lord 800.
The second conjecture is, because the ancients diligently noted certain few words which some Pontiffs added to the Canon. In the life of Leo I the author of the Pontifical writes that those words were added by Leo to the Canon: “A holy sacrifice, an immaculate host”; of which thing, as very notable, Strabo also makes mention, chapter 22, and the other authors who write of the Mass. That Gregory I added to the Canon those few words: “And dispose our days in Thy peace, etc.,” not only Strabo noted in the cited place, and like authors, but also Bede, Book 2 of the English History, chapter 1, and John the Deacon, Book 2 of the life of blessed Gregory, chapter 17. But this is a most certain argument that the Canon is more ancient than Leo and Gregory, and was always held in the greatest veneration: for otherwise why would the historians have so diligently noted one or another word added by Leo or Gregory, if the Canon were recent, and instituted by some private man who was called a Scholastic?
The third conjecture is the very ignorance of the author of the chief parts of the Canon. For those prayers of which Ambrose makes mention, “Which oblation,” and “Wherefore also, being mindful,” and the rest, if they had been composed by some Roman Pontiff, certainly some historian would have made it known: for if they did not omit who added some little parts, how much more would those who wrote the lives of the Pontiffs not have omitted who composed almost the whole Canon? It remains, therefore, that the Canon is more ancient than all memory, and came to us from the Apostles, like many other things, by the tradition of hand. Nor does it stand in the way that in the Canon mention is made of the Apostles and Martyrs who flourished in the first three hundred years: for that these names were afterward gradually added cannot be doubted.
The fourth conjecture is of Walafrid, chapter 22, who thence gathers that the Canon is most ancient, because when the Apostles are enumerated, the order is not kept which is in the Gospels emended by Jerome: for this is an argument that that part of the Canon was composed before the Latin codices of the Gospels were corrected by Jerome to the old Greek exemplars; for Jerome himself in the preface to the Gospels to Damasus testifies that there was great confusion in the ancient Latin codices.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX.
De antiquitate Canoni s.
Supcrcst nunc, ut de antiquitate ('ica¬
mus. Ac primum, ridenda videtur Kemnitii
levitas, qui pag. 828, nugas, et fumos cssc-
clicit, quod Concilium scripserat, Canonem
Missa; multis ante sfeculis institutum, et ta¬
men pag 820. idem Kemnitius affirmaret
Canonem absolutum intra primos sexcentos
a Christo nato annos et pagina 827. scribit,
Canonis auctorem vixisse circa annum Do¬
mini 590. quod etiam repolit pag. 828. i;b
ultimum auctorem Canonis facit Gregorium
anno 590. Nam si Canon anno Domini 590.
absolutus est, quis non videt eum ante de¬
cem propemodum stoeula institutum , et
proinde verum esse, quod ait Concilium, et
Kemnitium sibi ipsum esse contrarium in
eadem pagina? Deinde quserendum esset ab
istis, qui negant, Canonem nostrum esse
antiquum, ut' ipsi sui Canonis vetustatem
ostenderent : quale enim est, ut ii Canonem
27
LIBER VI.
418
nostrum tanguam novitium contemnant,
quem ante annos prope mille editum esse
fatentur ; cum ipsi Canonem liabeant, si ta¬
men Canon dici meretur, hoc ipso nostro
Sceculo editum ?
Sed his omissis, veram antiquitatem no¬
stri Canonis ostendamus. Primum igitur illud
constat, Canonem nostrum integrum, ut eum
nunc in Missalibus habemus, fuisse io usu
Ecclesia} ante annum Domini 800. Nam ex-
tat in Ordine Romano, non procul ah initio,
quem Ordinem citant Alcuinus, et Arnala-
rius, qui tempore Caroli Magni vixerunt,
Deinde Alcuinus in lib. de officiis Ecclesia¬
sticis, cap. de celebratione Missse, totum
Canonem verbatim exponit : ac deinceps ab
omnibus aliis posterioribus idem omnino
Canon exponitur, ut ab Amalario, Hugone,
Ruperto, Innocentio, et cseteris. Porro Ordo
Romanus non instituit Canonem ; sed refert,
ut rem usitatam et celebrem in Ecclesia.
Quare necesse est Canonem esse adhuc anti¬
quiorem, quam sit Ordo Romanus.
Quamvis autem non exstet fortasse alius
liber Ordine Romano antiquior, ubi totus
Canon habeatur, tamen exstant libri multo
antiquiores, ubi habentur partes Canonis,
ex quibus conjectura fleri potest de reli¬
quis.
Ac primum apud Ambrosium, lib. iv. de
Sacrament. cap. 5. et 6. habetur verbis pa¬
rum mutatis illa pars Canonis : « Quam
oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, queesumus,
benedictam, adscriptam, ratam etc » Et illa :
(! Qui pridie, quam pateretur etc. » Et illa :
« Unde et memores etc. » Et illa : « Supra
quee propitio etc. » Quee sunt quatuor partes
potissima} totus Canonis : dua} enim proxime
praecedunt, dua} proxime sequuntur conse¬
crationem. Et quoniam S. Ambrosius non
primus instituit has partes Canonis, sed eas
allegat cx antiquo ritu Ecclesia} ad confir¬
mandum id, quod eo loco tractabat de veri¬
tate corporis Domini in Eucharistia : sequi¬
tur necessarip, ut earum institutio Ambrosii
a}tatem preecesserit, proinde ante 1200. an¬
nos in usu fuerit. Idem Ambros. lib. iv. de
Sacramentis, ca£, 4. aperte meminit primae
orationis Canonis, ubi oratur pro Ecclesia,
et pro rege, licet ipsa verba non ponat :
ejusdem etiam meminit Optatus, lib ii. con¬
tra Parmenianum, ubi dicit, Legitimum
esse, ut offeratur pro Ecclesia Catholica. Il¬
lius autem orationis, ubi nominantur et in¬
vocantur Sancti, et illius, ubi oratur pro
defunctis, meminit Augustinus tract 84.
in Joannem; imo earum orationum men¬
tionem faciunt plurimi Patres, quos supra
in propriis locis adduximus. Itaque totus
Canon partim quoad sententiam , partim
etiam quoad verba, invenitur in auctoribus,
qui ante 1100. vel 1200. annos floruerunt.
His accedunt aliquot conjecturae insignes
ad probandam Canonis antiquitatem. Prima
conjectura est, quia in toto Canone nulla fit
mentio Confessorum, aut Virginum non Mar¬
tyrum, sed Martyrum tantum, seu virorum,
seu heminarum : quod etiam notavit Augu¬
stinus, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 45.
Hujus autem rei causa nulla est alia, nisi
quam reddit Innocentius, lib. in. cap. 10.
de mysteriis Missa}, quia videlicet eo tfm-
pore Canon compositus est, quo nundum
coeperant publice coli in Ecclesia sancti
Confessores. Siquidem certum est, Martyres
coepisse publice invocari, et eorum nomini¬
bus dies festos coli, et Basilicas erigi, ab
initio plane Ecclesiie : Confessores autem
multo serius hunc honorem in Eccclesia
meruisse. Constat autem ex Concilio Mo-
guntino, sub Carolo Magno celebrato, can.
36. festa Confessorum jam in usu fuisse an¬
no 800. Siquidem in Catalogo festorum die¬
rum ponuntur dies festi S. Martini, et S.
Remigii : igitur ante armum Domini 800.
Canonem compositum fuisse necesse esse.
Secunda conjectura est, quia veteres dili¬
genter annotarunt pauca quaedam verba,
quae aliqui Pontifices ad Canonem addide¬
runt. In vita Leonis I. scribit auctor Pontifi¬
calis, addita fuisse a Leone illa verba ad
Canonem : « Sanctum sacrificium, immacu¬
latam hostiam » ; cujus rei, ut valde notabi¬
lis, meminerunt etiam Strabo, cap. 22. et
reliqui auctores, qui de Missa scribunt. Gre-
gorium I. addidisse ad Canonem pauca illa
verba : « Diesque nostros in tua pace dispo¬
nas etc. » non solum annotarunt Strabo loco
citato, et similes auctores, sed etiam Beda
lib ii. histor. Anglicana}, cap. i. et Joannes
Diaconus lib. ii. vitee B. Gregorii, cap. 17.
Hoc autem est argumentum certissimum,
Canonem esse antiquiorem Leone et Grego-
rio, et habitum semper in maxima venera¬
tione : alioqui enim cur tam diligenter hi¬
storici annotassent, unum, vel alterum ver¬
bum a Leone, vel Gregorio additum, si
Canon esset recens, et ab aliquo privato
homine, qui Scholasticus diceretur, institu¬
tus?
CAPUT XXI.
419
Tertia conjectura est, ipsa ignoratio au¬
ctoris praecipuarum partium Canonis. Nam
orationes illae, quarum meminit Ambrosius :
« Quam oblationem », et : « Unde et me¬
mores», et ceeterae, si fuissent ab aliquo
Romano Pontifice compositae, certe aliquis
historicus id prodidisset : si enim non omi¬
serunt, quis aliquas particulas addiderit,
quanto magis non omisissent, qui vitas Pon¬
tificum scripserunt, quis totum fere Cano-
nem composuerit ? Relinquitur igitur, ut
Canon sit omni memoria antiquior, et ab
Apostolis, ut multa alia, per manus tradi¬
tionem ad nos devenerit. Neque obstat,
quod in Canone fit mentio Apostolorum, et
Martyrum, qui primis trecentis annis flo¬
ruerunt : nam ea nomina postea paulatim
addita fuisse, dubium esse non potest.
Quarta conjectura est Walfridi, cap. 22.
qui inde colligit Canonem esse antiquissi¬
mum, quia dum enumerantur Apostoli, non
servatur ordo, qui est in Evangeliis per Hie¬
ronymum emendatis : id enim argumento
est, eam partem Canonis prius fuisse compo¬
sitam, quam a Hieronymo Evangeliorum
codices Latini ad vetera exemplaria Greeca
corrigerentur ; ipse enim Hieronymus in
praefatione Evangeliorum ad Damasum, te¬
statur magnam fuisse in antiquis Latinis co¬
dicibus confusionem.