Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 23: On the Truth of the Third 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 third prayer of the Canon begins at those words: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, in all things”; and is continued to the end of the consecration.
The first objection of Luther is in the place noted above; who objects that here we pray for Christ, and make ourselves mediators between Christ and the Father, and ask God to bless and sanctify the body and blood of Christ.
But Luther does not seem to have been mindful of the words of the Canon when he wrote these things: for we do not pray for the consecrated Eucharist, but for the bread and wine to be consecrated, nor do we ask that God bless and sanctify the body and blood of Christ, but that He bless and sanctify the bread and wine, that by that blessing and sanctification it may become the body and blood of the Lord.
The second objection is of the same Luther in the same place, against those words: “Vouchsafe to make it blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable”: “Those portents of words,” he says, “neither I understand, nor that stupid man who wrote them.”
But those same words are had in Ambrose, Book 6 on the Sacraments, chapter 5, and are expounded in many and various ways most elegantly by Alcuin, Amalarius, Rupert, Hugh, Innocent, Bonaventure, and others. The literal exposition, as is gathered from Alcuin, Hugh, and Innocent, seems to be this: We ask of God that He, by consecrating, make our oblation blessed from profane; that, by approving, He make it approved (adscriptam), that is, ascribe and number it among the gifts which are approved by Him; that, by confirming, He make it ratified, that is, stable and firm, so that it may bring back to us a certain and perpetual fruit; that He also make it reasonable, that we may offer not only good things, but also well, reasonably, and prudently, and that our service may be reasonable, according to the Apostle, Romans 12; finally that He make it acceptable, that is, so on every side well disposed, not only on the part of the gift, but also on the part of the offering Minister, that it may be worthy to be accepted by God. See more in the cited authors.
The third objection is of Kemnitz, the seventh with him. Kemnitz writes that this prayer is indeed had in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5, and in Augustine, as Gratian relates, canon Utrum, on consecration, distinction 2; but that these words have one sense in Ambrose and Augustine, and another among the Pontificials: for among them they are referred to the reception of the Sacrament, among us to the representation.
But Kemnitz sins in many things. First, because he does not prove that which he undertook to prove. For he wished, as we noted above, to demonstrate errors of the Canon; but what he now brings does not fight against the Canon, but against the sense in which the Pontificials take it.
Secondly, he wrongly alleges Augustine; for those things nowhere exist in Augustine, but partly in Ambrose in the noted place, partly in Paschasius in his book on the body of Christ, chapter 4, although in this matter Gratian too seems to have been deceived.
Thirdly, he is openly deceived, when he writes that Augustine interprets those words, “blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, etc.,” of the reception of the Eucharist, as if, according to the error of the Lutherans, Augustine thought that in the reception alone the bread becomes the body of Christ, by which we are blessed and ascribed in heaven. For Augustine, as I said, nowhere has anything of the kind. But Ambrose, from whom Paschasius and Gratian took it, expounds all those things not of the reception, but of the consecration, as is clear to one reading chapter 5, Book 4 on the Sacraments. Nor do those words of the same Ambrose stand in the way, which Kemnitz falsely attributes to Augustine: “Because in Baptism we also take a likeness of His flesh and blood.” For those are said by Ambrose in another place, namely chapter 4, Book 4, and to another end.
Fourthly, Kemnitz lies that the name of oblation in that prayer of the Canon, “Which oblation do Thou, O God, etc.,” is wrested by the Pontificials to the action of the little priest, when in truth it is said of the bread and wine. For no one was ever so absurd or stupid as not to see that the name of oblation in this place can be referred to the bread and wine, not to the action; since we ask of God that He so bless this oblation that it may become for us the body and blood of Christ. For who even in a dream would say that the action ought to become the body of Christ? But Kemnitz did well, when he feigns these lies about the Catholics, in that he cites no one, nor indicates the book of anyone by name, lest forsooth the lie be at once detected.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII. CAPUT XXIII. De veritate tcrtix orationis Canonis. Oratio tertia Canonis incipit ai) illis ver¬ bis : « Quam oblationem tu Deus in omni¬ bus » ; et continuatur usque ad finem conse¬ crationis. Prima objetio Lutheri est loco supra no¬ tato ; qui objicit nos hic orare pro Christo, et mediatores nos facere inter Christum, et Patrem, ac Deum rogare, ut benedicat, et sanctificet corpus, et sanguinem Christi. At Lutherus non videtur memor fuisse verborum Canonis, cum ha?c scriberet : non enim oramus pro Eucharistia consecrata, sed pro pane, et vino consecrando, neque petimus, ut Deus benedicat, et sanctificet corpus, et sanguinem Christi, sed ut bene¬ dicat, et sanctificet panem, et vinum, ut per eam benedictionem, et sanctificationem fiat corpus, et sanguis Domini. Secunda objectio est ejusdem Lutheri ibi¬ dem contra illa verba : « Benedictam, ad- scriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabi- lcmque facere digneris : « Portenta», inquit, « illa verborum, neque ego intelligo, nec stolidus ille, qui scripsit. » At ista eadem verba habentur apud Am¬ brosium lib. vi. de Sacramentis cap. 5. et exponuntur multis, et variis modis elegan¬ tissime ab Alcuino, Amalario, Ruperto, IIu- gone, Innocentio, Bonaventura, et aliis. Lit¬ teralis expositio, ut cx| Alcuino, et Hugone at¬ que Innocentio colligitur, haec esse videtur : Petimus a Deo, ut ipse oblationem nostram consecrando benedictam ex profana effi¬ ciat; eamdem approbando, faciat adseriptam, id est, adseribat, et numeret inter dona, 'quae ipsi probantur; confirmando ratam efficiat, id est, stabilem, et firmam, ut fructum cer¬ tum, et perpetuum ad nos referat : rationa¬ bilem quoque faciat, ut non solum bona, sed etiam bene, rationabiliter, et prudenter offe¬ ramus, ac sit rationabile obsequium nostrum, juxta Apostolum Rom. xir. Denique accepta- bilem faciat, id est, ita undique bene se habentem, non solum ex parte doni , sed etiam ex parte Ministri offerentis ut digna sit, qua? a Deo acceptetur. Vide plura apud auctores allegatos. 423 Tertia objectio est Kemnitii septima apud ipsum. Scribit autem Kemnitius hanc oratio¬ nem haberi quidem apud Ambrosium lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 5. et apud Augustinum referente Gratiano canon. Utrum, de conse¬ crat. dist. 2. sed alium sensum habere ista verba apud Ambrosium , et Augustinum , alium autem apud Pontificios : apud illos enim referri ad sumptionem Sacramenti , apud nos ad repraesentationem. Sed in multis peccat Kemnitius. Primo, quod non probat id, quod se probaturum suscepit. Yolebat enim, ut supra notavimus, demonstrare errores Canonis ; quae autem nunc affert, non pugnant contra Canoncm, sed contra sensum, in quo illum Pontificii accipiunt. Secundo, perperam allegat Augustinum ; nusquam enim illa exstant apud Augustinum, sed partirn apud Ambrosium loco notato, partim apud Pascliasium in lib. do corpore Christi, cap. 4. quamvis in hac re Gratianus quoque videatur fuisse deceptus. Tertio, fallitur aperte, cum scribit, Augu¬ stinum illa verba : « Benedictam, adseriptam, ratam, rationabilem etc. » interpretari de sumptione Eucharistia?, quasi, juxta errorem Lutheranorum, in sola sumptione putaverit Augustinus panem fieri corpus Christi, per quod benedicimur, adseribimur in ccelo. Nam Augustinus, ut dixi, nusquam habet aliquid ejusmodi. Ambrosius autem, ex quo Paschasius, et Gratianus acceperunt ; non de sumptione, sed de consecratione illa omnia exponit, ut patet legenti cap. 5. lib. iv. de Sacramentis. Neque obstant illa verba ejus¬ dem Ambrosii, qua? falso Kemnitius Augu¬ stino tribuit : « Quia in Baptismo similitudi¬ nem quoque carnis, et sanguinis ejus suma¬ mus. » Nam illa dicuntur ab Ambrosio alio loco, nimirum cap. 4. lib. iv. et ad alium fi¬ nem. Quarto, mentitur Kemnitius, nomen obla¬ tionis in ista oratione Canonis : « Quam obla¬ tionem tu, Deus, etc. » a Pontificiis detor¬ queri ad actionem sacrificuli, cum revera de pane, et vino dicatur. Nullus enim tam fuit unquam absurdus, vel stupidus, ut non vide¬ ret nomen oblationis hoc loco ad panem, et vinum, non ad actionem posse referri; siqui¬ dem a Deo petimus, ut hanc oblationem ita benedicat, ut ea fiat nobis corpus et sanguis Christi. Quis enim vel per somnium diceret, actionem debere fieri corpus Christi? Sed bone fecit Kemnitius, cum ista mendacia de 426 LIBER VI. Catholicis fingit, quod nullum citat, neque librum ullius nominatim indicat, ne videlicet mendacium statim deprehendatur.