Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 22: On the Truth of the Second Prayer 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).
The second prayer of the Canon begins in those words: “This oblation therefore of our servitude, etc.,” in which are contained four petitions. The first, that God, appeased, accept our oblation. The second, that He dispose our days in His peace. The third, that He deliver us from eternal damnation. The fourth, that He number us in the flock of the elect.
Against this prayer is the first objection of Luther: “Here again,” he says, “he offers bread and wine, that the faithful may be freed from eternal damnation. So great an efficacy they attribute to bread and wine: for to this redemption the death and passion of the Son of God is of no moment.”
I answer: Calumnies, not arguments, are what are here objected by Luther: for the priest does not pray that by the oblation of bread and wine we be freed from eternal damnation, but prays God to accept the oblation of bread and wine as the matter of the future sacrifice, and namely to bless and sanctify it. Then he adds the other three petitions enumerated above, and does not pray them to be fulfilled by the oblation of bread and wine, but by the same Christ our Lord.
The second objection is of Kemnitz, the sixth with him: “The old Church,” he says, “offered to God in the celebration of the Eucharist prayers for obtaining through Christ temporal and eternal benefits: to this sacrifice of prayers these words could conveniently be referred: This oblation, being appeased, mayest Thou accept, etc. But the Pontifical Canon transfers these to the mimic representation of the little priest, of the bread not yet consecrated, and prays that God so accept it that on account of it He dispose our days in His peace and snatch us from damnation.”
I answer: That the old Church offered to God prayers for benefits to be obtained through Christ is most true, and the same our Church does in this very prayer of the Canon. For it is a most open lie of Kemnitz and Luther that here we ask benefits on account of the oblation of bread: for the prayer itself is not obscure, nor ambiguous, nor contains anything but four petitions: “Through Christ our Lord.”
But that Kemnitz says that that, “This oblation,” can be conveniently referred to the sacrifice of prayers, is both against Kemnitz himself and against the truth. Against Kemnitz himself, because he in the first objection referred to almsdeeds those words of the first prayer: “These gifts, these presents, etc.” But of the same oblation the Canon speaks in the first and in the second prayer, as is clear from that particle "therefore": “This oblation therefore, etc.” Wherefore if in the first prayer it treated of almsdeeds, and in this second it treats of almsdeeds: accordingly Kemnitz contradicts himself. But this whole thing is against the truth, because of the same oblation it treats in the first, second, and third prayer of the Canon. But in the third it is clearly shown that by "the oblation" is to be understood the oblation of the bread to be consecrated, since it is expressly said that it may become for us the body and blood, etc.: not, therefore, to almsdeeds, nor to prayer, but to the sacrifice of the Eucharist is to be referred whatever is said in these prayers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. De veritate secundse orationis Canonis. Altera oratio Canonis incipit in illis verbis : « Ifanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae • etc. » in qua continentur quatuor petitiones. Prima, ut oblationem nostram Deus placatus accipiat. Secunda, ut dies nostros in sua pace disponat. Tertia, ut ab aeterna damna¬ tione nos eruat. Quarta, ut in electorum grege nos numeret. Contra hanc orationem est prima objectio Lutheri : « Hic rursus », inquit, « offert panem, et vinum, ut fideles liberentur ab aeterna damnatione. Tantam efficaciam pani? et vino tribuunt : nam ad hanc redemptio¬ nem nullius est momenti mors, et passio Filii Dei. » Respondeo : Calumniae sunt, non argu¬ menta, quae hic a Luthero objiciuntur : non enim sacerdos orat, ut per oblationem panis, et vini liberemur ab alterna damnatione, sed orat Deum, ut ipsam oblationem panis, et vini accipiat, ut materiam sacrificii futuri, et eam videlicet benedicat, et sanctificet. Deinde adjungit alias tres petitiones supra enumeratas, et non precatur eas impleri per. oblationem panis, et vini, sed per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Secunda objectio est Kemnitii, seitfa apud ipsum : « Yetus Ecclesia » , inquit, « obtulit Deo in celebratione Eucharistia?, preces pro impetrandis per Christum bene¬ ficiis temporalibus, et aeternis : ad hoc sa¬ crificium precum commode referri potuerunt haec verba : Hanc oblationem placatus acci¬ pias etc. Pontificius vero Canon haec trans¬ fert ad mimicam sacrificuli repraesentatio¬ nem panis nondum consecrati, et orat, ut Deus illam ita accipiat, ut propter illam dies nostros in sua pace disponat, et a damnatione nos eripiat. » Respondeo : Quod vetus Ecclesia obtulerit Deo preces pro beneficiis per Christum im¬ petrandis, verissimum est, et idem nostra Ecclesia in hac ipsa oratione Canonis facit. Mendacium enim est apertissimum Kemnitii, et Lutheri, quod hic petamus beneficia pro¬ pter oblationem panis : ipsa enim oratio non est obscura, neque ambigua, neque aliud continet , nisi quatuor petitiones : « Per Christum Dominum nostrum. » Quod autem Kemnitius dicit, illud : « Hanc oblationem » , posse commode referri ad sa¬ crificium precum, et contra ipsum Kemni- tium, et contra veritatem est. Contra ipsum Kemnitium, quia ipse in prima objectione referebat ad eleemosynas illa verba primae orationis : « Haec dona, haec munera etc. » At dc eadem oblatione loquitur Canon in prima et in secunda oratione, ut patet ex illa particula (Igitur) « Hanc igitur oblatio¬ nem etc. » Quare si in prima oratione age¬ batur de eleemosynis, et in hac secunda agi¬ tur de eleemosyna : proinde Kemnitius sibi ipse repugnat. Est autem id totum contra veritatem, quia de eadem oblatione agitur in prima, secunda, et tertia oratione Cano¬ nis. In tertia autem perspicue ostenditur, per oblationem intelligi debere oblationem panis consecrandi, cum expresso dicatur, ut fiat nobis corpus, et sanguis etc. non igitur ad eleemosynam, nec ad orationem, sed hd Eucharistiae sacrificium referendum est , quidquid dicitur in his orationibus.