Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 27: On the Lord’s Prayer and the Following Prayers
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).
After the Canon follows the Lord's prayer, and certain other prayers by which we are prepared for Communion, and here begins the fourth part of the Mass. For although Innocent and other more recent writers include within the Canon also the Lord's prayer and some other things, yet Gregory, Book 7, letter 63, and Strabo, chapter 22, write that the Lord's prayer is read after the Canon. Further, the Lord's prayer is had in all the Liturgies, and moreover that it ought to be read at Mass is clear from Cyril, catechesis 5, mystagogical; from Ambrose, Book 5 on the Sacraments, chapter 4; from Jerome, Book 3 against the Pelagians; from Augustine, letter 59 to Paulinus; from Gregory, Book 7, letter 63; and from the Fourth Council of Toledo, canon 17. After that prayer is subjoined a certain prayer which begins: “Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, etc.,” which Kemnitz reprehends in objection 14, because in it mention is made of the intercession of the Saints; but of this matter enough has been said, chapter 8. Add that this prayer is had in Alcuin and other ancients, and accordingly is most ancient.
Then follows another prayer, while the host is broken and the body of the Lord is commixed with the blood: “The peace of the Lord, etc.,” and “This commixture and consecration.” And indeed the “Peace of the Lord” does not displease Luther and Kemnitz; but that which follows greatly displeases them: “This commixture and consecration, etc.”
And first Luther objects that it is blasphemous what is here said of the commixture of the body of Christ with the blood, since Christ is one and undivided.
I answer: The Catholics do not understand that the body and blood are commixed in their own species: for they know that this cannot be done unless Christ be again wounded; but in the species of bread and wine. For as by reason of the species He is said to be seen, touched, and broken, so also by reason of the same He can be said to be commixed.
Secondly he objects that it is absurd that the consecration is said to be made by this mixing, since the consecration was already before made by the words of the Lord.
I answer: That word, “Consecration,” is not had in Amalarius, Book 3, chapter 31, and in Innocent, Book 5, but only: “Let the commixture of the body be made, etc.” Wherefore some believe it to be superfluous. But the Roman Order distinctly has: “Commixture and consecration”; and in the same way Micrologus reads, chapter 18; and the author of the Roman Order was more ancient than Amalarius, and Micrologus than Innocent. Nor has that word anything inconvenient, if it be well understood: for we do not ask that the consecration be now made, but that the consecration before made be for us saving unto eternal life. It could also perhaps conveniently be answered that in this place there is treated of a certain new consecration, which now first arises from the commixture. For in the Liturgy of James, where the ceremony of commixture is made, these words are read: “It is united and sanctified.” Further, this consecration is nothing else but a certain new sacramental signification: for as that is said to be consecrated which acquires a sacramental signification, so also that is said to be again consecrated which acquires another sacramental signification. But by that commixture is signified the resurrection of the Lord, as Amalarius, Book 3, chapter 31, and all others write: for in the resurrection the flesh of the Lord was again joined with His blood. And so in that commixture a new consecration is made, while those species which, being divided, represented the death of Christ, now, joined among themselves, represent the resurrection of the Lord.
Thirdly the same Luther objects that the power of conferring eternal life is not rightly attributed to that commixture: for since that commixture is our work, if it has the power of conferring salvation, certainly we obtain salvation by our work.
I answer: It is not absurd if we are said to attain our salvation by our work proceeding from the aid of divine grace; for Paul too has: With fear and trembling work out your salvation, Philippians 2; and, With the mouth confession is made unto salvation, Romans 10. But in this place, yet, we are not said properly to acquire salvation by the commixture and consecration, as those are our works. For the commixture and consecration are said to be made for our salvation, not that the very action of commixing and consecrating saves us, but because the things themselves, commixed and consecrated, when they are devoutly received by us, much profit to salvation; whence here we say: “May it be to us who receive it unto eternal life.”
Fourthly Kemnitz objects (and it is his fourteenth objection) that the Canon of the Mass, when it commands this commixture to be made, not only does not agree with Scripture and the Fathers, but not even with the ancient Roman Pontiffs: for there is extant a prohibition of Pope Julius in Gratian, canon Cum omne, on consecration, distinction 2.
I answer: Pope Julius does not forbid the commixture which is made in the Mass, but that which some made when they wished to hold forth the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the people. Whence Micrologus, chapter 18, describes the commixture which is made in the Mass as most ancient and lawful: then chapter 19 he reprehends that commixture which Julius reprehended. The Fourth Council of Toledo, canon 17, makes mention of the commixture which is made in the Mass, and approves it: but the Third Council of Braga, canon 1, forbids the commixture which Julius forbids. But it is not likely that in the same Spain, at almost the same time, contrary decrees were made: for it is established that those Councils were celebrated at almost the same time, about the year of the Lord 650. Finally the commixture which is made in the chalice is had in all the Greek Liturgies, and in the Roman Order, and also in Alcuin, Amalarius, and all others. But who would believe either that Julius condemned the usage of all the Churches, or that all the Churches, and the Roman first of all, refused to obey Julius?
There follows afterward: “Lamb of God, etc.,” which Walafrid, chapter 22, Micrologus, chapter 18, and all others relate to have been instituted by Pope Sergius more than 900 years ago. Nor does it displease the adversaries.
Then follow three prayers before Communion, which (as we noted above from Micrologus, chapter 18) the ancient order of the Mass did not prescribe, but the devotion of religious men introduced. The first of them Luther reprehends, on account of those words: “Look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church.” For he says that by these words the priests condemn themselves, in that they affirm that they treat this Sacrament without faith, unworthily, after the manner of dogs: and that hence it came to pass that the Papists think this sacrifice pleases God from the work worked, without the good movement of the user.
But here Luther sins thrice. For first the priest does not say that he has not faith, but only that he has sins. But one can have not only faith, but also charity, and yet acknowledge himself a sinner: otherwise no just man could say in the Lord's prayer: “Forgive us our debts.” The priest, therefore, confesses himself a sinner, and not to have so great faith as this mystery would require: whence also a little after he says: “Lord, I am not worthy”; and therefore he prefers that God look to the faith of the Church rather than to his own. For a twofold worthiness is distinguished about this Sacrament. One which the Sacrament necessarily requires, and this consists in this, that one have not the consciousness of mortal sin: and those who lack this are called unworthy, 1 Corinthians 11, and most gravely sin by approaching. The other worthiness is that which the Sacrament would require, if we regard not our weakness, but its excellence: and this is placed in this, that we be purer than the rays of the sun, and than the very Angels; and of this the priests speak, when they confess themselves unworthy.
Then it is false that the Catholics think this sacrifice pleases God without the good movement of the user. For even if the offering minister himself perhaps be evil and lack a good movement, yet Christ the principal offerer does not lack a good movement: nay therefore here we pray that God regard the faith, that is, the good movement of the Church, because we think that without the good movement of some offerer the sacrifice will by no means please God. But if perhaps Luther treats of the good movement of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, a distinction must be made between the immediate effect of the sacrifice, which is to appease God, and the mediate, which is to justify man. For if the former be treated, it is not absurd that the sacrifice profits without the good movement of him whom it profits. For as we can pray for one sleeping, and undevout, or even impenitent, so also offer the sacrifice; and as prayer, so also the sacrifice can profit him, though he be ignorant of what is done. But if of the latter, it is false that the sacrifice profits without his good movement, since to this chiefly the sacrifice is offered, that God, appeased by this sacrifice, may inspire in him a good movement, that is, conversion.
Finally Luther is deceived, when he opposes the work worked, in the opinion of the Catholics, to the good movement, as if it were the same, that the sacrifice profits from the work worked, and that it profits without the good movement of the user. For all Catholics teach that the Sacraments have power from the work worked: and yet they require a good movement, that is, faith and penance, on the part of the receiver.
There follows that prayer: “What we have received with the mouth, etc.” And that: “Thy body, O Lord, which I have received”; which Luther also approves in the form of the Mass, but reprehends only the Collects, because in them mention is made of a sacrifice; but of this matter enough has been said.
There follows: “Go, it is the dismissal (Ite missa est)”; which dismissal the Greeks also use, but by those words: “Let us go in the peace of Christ”; and it is responded: “In the name of the Lord,” as is clear from the Liturgies of James, Basil, and Chrysostom. Further, “Go, it is the dismissal,” as Alcuin rightly teaches, signifies nothing else than, Go, the dismissal is granted, of which matter we disputed at the beginning of the first book. Why in certain Masses it is not said, “Go, it is the dismissal,” but “Let us bless the Lord,” Micrologus gives the cause, chapter 64. For he writes that on festal Masses the people always assemble at the Masses, and therefore at the end the dismissal is publicly announced: on ferial days for the most part none assemble but the clerics and monks, to whom it is not to be said, “Go,” but rather they are to be invited to remain in the praises of God, since their office is to be occupied in the prayers and praises of the Lord. Yet there are certain solemn Masses, and to which the people flock, and yet in them it is not said, “Go, it is the dismissal,” but “Let us bless the Lord,” as on the Sundays of Advent and Lent. But this is done only to signify the sadness of that time: for it seems to bear I know not what mournful appearance, that the dismissal is not publicly announced, but each departs by himself.
There follows afterward: “May it please Thee, O holy Trinity.” Which prayer Luther accuses, because he says that in it again prayer is made for Christ: but this was resolved above in the second objection of Luther against the fourth prayer of the Canon.
The same prayer Kemnitz condemns in objection 16, where he says that here is proposed to God the representation of the priest for a propitiatory sacrifice. But Kemnitz always sticks in the same mud: for we commend to the Lord not our representation, but the sacrifice of the body of the Lord, really offered; that He may benignly accept it, and grant it to be propitiable for us.
There follows the Blessing: “May He bless you, etc.” which usage that it is most ancient is clear both from the Greek Liturgies and from the Council of Agde, canon 47, where the people are commanded to be present at the celebration of Mass on the Lord's days, and not to depart thence before the priest's blessing. Of this blessing see Micrologus, chapter 21, where he proves that not to bishops alone, but also to presbyters, it is lawful to bless the people after Mass; and to the letter of Parnasius on the ornament of a bishop, and to canon 44 of the Council of Agde, where this seems to be forbidden to presbyters, he answers that those decrees are either to be understood of the blessing of a presbyter in the presence of a bishop, or certainly were at last abrogated by usage. And let these things concerning the sacrifice, according to the brevity intended, suffice to have been said.
THE END OF THE BOOKS ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, TO THE HONOR OF GOD.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII. De oratione Dominica , et sequentibus orationibus. Post Canonem sequitur oratio Dominica, et queedam aliae orationes, quibus ad Commu¬ nionem praeparamur, et hic incipit quarta pars Missae. Quamvis enim Innocentius, et alii recentiores, includant intra Canonem etiam orationem Dominicam, et aliqua alia tamen Gregorius lib. vn. epist. 63. et Strabo cap. 22. scribunt, orationem Dominicam le¬ gi post Canonem. Porro Dominica oratio ha¬ betur in omnibus Liturgiis, et praeterea legen¬ dam esse ad Missam, perspicuum est ex Cy- rillo catechesi 5. mystagogica, ex Ambrosio lib. v. de Sacramentis, cap. 4. ex Hierony¬ mo lib. m. contra Pelagianos, ex Augustino epistol. 59. ad Paulinum, et ex Gregorio lib. vii. epist. 63. et ex Concilio IV. Toletano, can. 17. Post eam orationem, subjungitur oratio quaedam, quae incipit : « Libera nos, qua;sumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis etc. » quam reprehendit Kemnitius objectione 14. quia in ea fit mentio intercessionis Sancto, rum ; sed de hac re satis multa dicta sunt cap. 8. Adde, quod haec oratio habetur apud Alcuinum, et alios veteres, proinde antiquis¬ sima est. Sequitur deinde aliaoratio dum hostia fran¬ gitur, et commiscetur corpus Domini cum san¬ guine : « Pax Domini etc. » et, «Haec commix¬ tio, et consecratio. » Et quidem : « Pax Do¬ mini », Luthero, et Kemnitio non displicet ; displicet autem valde id quod sequitur : « Haec commixtio, et consecratio etc. » Ac primum objicit Lutherus, blasphemum esse, quod hic dicitur de commixtione corpo¬ ris Christi cum sanguine, cum unus sit Chri¬ stus et indivisus. Respondeo : Non intelligunt Catholici, cor¬ pus et sanguinem in propria specie commi¬ sceri : id enim sciunt fieri non posse, nisi (1> Coloss. I, 12; Joan. XIII, 8. LIBER YI. 432 Christus iterum vulneretur ; sed in specie pu¬ nis, et vini. Quemadmodum enim ratione spe- cicrum, dicitur videri, tangi, et frangi, ita etiam ratione carumdem dici potest commi¬ sceri. Secundo objicit, absurdum esse ut dicatur cum ista mixtione fieri consecrationem, cum jam antea per verba Domini facta sit conse¬ cratio. Respondeo : illud verbum, « Consecratio, » non habetur apud Amalarium lib. m. cap. 31. et apud Innocentium lib. v. sed solum : <f fiat commixtio corporis etc. » Quocirca non¬ nulli supervacaneum esse credunt. At ordo Romanus distincte habet : « Commixtio, et consecratio » ; et eodem modo legit Microlo- gus, cap. 18. et fuit auctor Ordinis Romani antiquior Amalario, et Micrologus Innocen- tio. Neque habet aliquid incommodi ea vox, si bene intelligatur : non enim petimus ut nunc liat consecratio, sed ut consecratio an¬ tea facta, sit nobis ad vitam aeternam saluta¬ ris. Posset etiam fortasse commode responde¬ ri, agi hoc loco de nova quadam consecra¬ tione, quae ex commixtione nunc primum ex- urgit. Nam in Liturgia Jacobi, ubi fit caere¬ monia commixtionis, leguntur haec verba : « Unitum est, et sanctificatum. » Porro haec consecratio nihil est aliud, nisi nova quaedam significatio Sacramentalis : ut enim consecrari dicitur, quod acquirit Sacramen- talem, significationem ; ita etiam dicitur iterum consecrari, quod acquirit aliam signi¬ ficationem Sacramentalcm. Significatur au- tem per illam commixtionem, resurrectio do¬ mini, utAmalarius lib. 3. caip. 31. et omnes adii scribunt : nam in resurrectione iterum caro Domini cum sanguine suo conjuncta fuit. Itaque in illa commixtione, nova fit con¬ secratio, dum species illae, quae divisae, Christi mortem repraesentabant, nunc inter se conjuncta), resurrectionem Domini re¬ praesentant. Tertio objicit idem Lutherus, non recte tribui isti commixtioni vim conferendae ae¬ ternae vitae : cum enim commixtio illa opus nostrum sit, si ea vim habet sadutis confe¬ renda), certe opere nostro salutem conscquc- mur. Respondeo;'' non esse absurdum, si dica¬ mur opere nostro ex divinae gratiae auxilio procedente, salutem nostram adipisci ; nam ct Paulus luibet : Cum timore, et tremore salutem vestram operamini , Philip, ii. et, Ore autem confessio fit ad salutem , Roman. x. (I). Sed hoc loco tamen non dicimur pro¬ prie salutem acquirere per commixtionem, et consecrationem, ut illa opera nostra sunt. Nam commixtio, ct consecratio dicuntur fieri in nostram salutem, non quod ipsa a- ctio commiscendi, ct consecrandi nos salvet, sed quia res ipsae commixtae, ct consecratfc dum a nobis devote suscipiuntur, multum prosunt ad siilutem ; unde hic dicimus : « Fiat sumentibus nobis invitam a)ternam ». Quarto objicit Kemnitius (et est ejus ob¬ jectio decima quarta) Canonem Missae, dum istam commixtionem fieri jubet, non solum non convenire cum Scriptura, et Patribus, sed neque cum antiquis Romanis Pontifici¬ bus : extait enim prohibitio Julii Paipse apud Gratianum, canone, Cum omne, de conse¬ cratione, distinet. 2. Respondeo : Julius' Papa non prohibet commixtionem quae fit in Missa, sed eam, quam nonnulli faciebant, cum populo Sacramen¬ tum Eucharistiae porrigere volebant. Unde Micrologus cap. 18. describit commixtionem, quae fit in Missa, ut antiquissimam, ct legi¬ timam : deinde cap . 19. reprehendit com¬ mixtionem illam, quaun Julius reprehendit. Concilium Toletanum IY. can. 17. meminit commixtionis, quae fit in Missa, camquc pro¬ bat : Concilium autem Bracarense III. can. i. prohibet commixtionem, quam Julius pro¬ hibet. Non est autem verisimile in eadem Hispania, eodem fere tempore, contraria decreta condita fuisse : Concilia enim illa eodem fere tempore circa annum Domini 650. celebrata esse constat. Denique com¬ mixtio, quae fit in cadice, habetur in omni¬ bus Liturgiis Graecis, et in Ordine Romano, nec non apud Alcuinum, Amalarium, et omnes alios. Quis autem credat, aut Julium damnasse usum omnium Ecclesiarum aut omnes Ecclesias, et Romanam in primis, obtemperare Julio noluisse ? Sequitur postea : «Agnus Dei etc. » quod a Sergio Papa ante annos 900. institutum referunt Walfridus cap. 22. Micrologus cap. 18. et omnes alii. Neque adversariis displi¬ cet. Tum sequuntur tres orationes ante com¬ munionem, quas (ut supra notavimus ex Micrologo, cap. 18.) non praescripsit ordo antiquus Missae, sed devotio religiosorum in- (I) Philip., II, 12 ; Rem. X, 10, CAPUT XXVli. -433 vexit. Earum primani reprehendit Lutherus, ob illa verba : « Nun respicias peccata mea, sed fidem Ecclesia; tine. » Dicit enim liis verbis, sacerdotes damnare seipsos, quod affirment se sine fide indigne, instar canum, tractare hoc Sacramentum : et hinc factum esse, ut Papistai sentiant, hoc sacrificium placere Deo ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis. At hic ter peccat Lutherus. Primum enim non dicit sacerdos se non habere fidem, sed tantum se habere peccata. Potest autem quis non solum fidem, sed etiam charitatem habere, et tamen agnoscere se peccatorem : alioqui nemo justus posset dicere in oratione Dominica : «Dimitte nobis debita nostra». Sacerdos igitur fatetur se peccatorem, et non habere tantam fidem, quantam hoc my¬ sterium requireret : unde etiam paulo post dicit: « Domine, non sum dignus ; » et ideo mavult, ut Deus ad fidem Ecclesia:, quam ad suam propriam respiciat. Duplex enim dig¬ nitas circa hoc Sacramentum distinguitur. Una quam Sacramentum necessario requirit, ct haic in eo consistit, ut quis non habeat conscientiam peccati mortalis : ct qui ista carent, dicuntur indigni I. Corinth. n. et gravissime peccant accedentes. Altera digni¬ tas est, quem Sacramentum requireret, si non nostram imbecillitatem, sed ejus excel¬ lentiam respiciamus : et haec in eo posita est, ut solis radiis, et ipsis etiam Angelis pu¬ riores simus ; et de hac loquuntur sacerdotes, cum se indignos fatentur. Deinde falsum est, Catholicos existimare sacrificium hoc placere Deo, sine bono motu utentis. Nam etiam si ipse minister offerens forte sit malus, et careat bono motu, tamen Christus principalis offerens non caret bono motu : imo ideo hic oramus, ut Deus re¬ spiciat fidem, id est, bonum motum Ecclesia: , quia existimamus sive bono motu alicujus offerentis sacrificium Deo minime placitu¬ rum. Quod si forte Lutherus agat de bono motu ejus, pro quo sacrificium offertur, dis¬ tinguendum est, de effectu sacrificii imme¬ diato, qui est placare Deum, et de mediato, qui est justificare hominem. Nam side priore agatur, non est absurdum, sacrificium pro¬ desse sine bono motu ejus, cui prodest. Quemadmodum enim orare possumus pro dormiente, et indevoto, vel etiam impee- nitente , ita etiam sacrificium offerre ; et sicut oratio, ita et sacrificium illi prodesse poterit, licet ignoret quid agatur. At si de Tom. IT. posteriore, falsum est, sacrificium prodesse sine bono motu ejus, cum ad hoc potissimum sacrificium offeratur, ut Deus hoc sacrificio placatus, bonum illi motum, id est, conver¬ sionem inspiret. Denique fallitur Lutherus, cum opus ope¬ ratum ex sententia Catholicorum, opponit bo¬ no motui, quasi idem sit, sacrificium prodesse ex opere operato, et prodesse sine bono mo¬ tu utentis. Nam Catholici omnes docent, Sacramenta vim habere ex opere operato : et tamen requirunt bonum motum, id est, fidem, et poenitentiam ex parte suscipien¬ tis. Sequitur illa oratio : « Quod ore sumpsi¬ mus etc. » Et illa : « Corpus tuum Domine, quod sumpsi » ; quas Lutherus etiam appro¬ bat in formula Missee, Collectas autem so¬ lum reprehendit, quod in eis fiat mentio sacrificii, sed de h?c le satis multa dicta sunt. Sequitur : «Ite Missa est; » qua etiam di¬ missione utuntur Crocei, sed per illa ver¬ ba : « In pace Christi eamus » : ct respon¬ detur : « In nomine Domini », ut patet ex Liturgiis Jacobi, Basilii, et Chrysostomi. Porro : « Ite Missa est » , ut Alcuinus recte docet, nihil aliud significat, nisi, Ite, dimis¬ sio conceditur, de qua re initio primi libri disseruimus. Cur in quibusdam Missis, non dicatur, « Ite Missa est », sed, « Benedicamus Domino », causam reddit Micrologus, cap. 64. Scribit enim, in Missis festivis populum semper ad Missas convenire ; et ideo in fine publice dimissionem denuntiari : in diebus ferialibus non convenire, ut plurimum, nisi Clericos, et Monachos, quibus non esse di¬ cendum, « Ite », sed potius invitandos ad permanendum in Dei laudibus, cum ipsorum officium sit, in precibus, et laudibus Domini occupari. Sunt tamen Missio quiedam so- leinnes, et ad quas, populus concurrit, et tamen in eis non dicitur : « Ite Missa est, » sed, «Benedicamus Domino», ut in Domi¬ nicis adventus, et Quadragesima;. Sed hoc fit solum ad significandam maestitiam illius temporis : videtur enim nescio quid lugubre prm se ferre, quod non publica denuntiatur dimissio, sed unusquisque per se discedit. Sequitur postea : « Placeat tibi sancta Trinitas». Quam orationem arguit Luthe¬ rus, quod dicat in ea rursus orari pro Chri¬ sto : sed hoc solutum est supra in 2. ob¬ jectione Lutheri contra 4. orationem. Cano¬ nis. 28 LIBER VI. 434 Earadcm orationem damnat Kemnitius objectione 16. ubi elicit, hic proponi Deo repraesentationem sacerdotis pro sacrificio propitiatorio. Sed Kemnitius semper haeret in eodem luto : non enim reprsesentationem nostram, sed sacrificium corporis Domini, reipsa oblatum, Domino commendamus ; ut illud benignus accipiat, et nobis propitia¬ bile esse concedat. Sequitur Benedictio : « Benedicat vos etc. » quem usum esse antiquissimum patet, tum ex Lithurgiis Greecis, tum ex concilio Agathensi, can. 47. ubi populis imperatur, ut diebus Dominis Missse celebrationi inter¬ sint, neque inde ante Sacerdotis benedictio¬ nem recedant. Do hac benedictione vide Micrologum, cap. 21. ubi probat non solis Episcopis, sed etiam Presbyteris licere post Missam populo benedicere; et ad epistolam Parnasi de cor episcopi, et ad canonem 44. Concilii Agathensis, ubi id Presbyteris interdictum esse videtur, respondet ea de¬ creta, aut intelligenda esse de benedictione Presbyteri, Episcopo praesente, aut certe usu tandem abrogata fuisse. Atque haec de sacrificio, pro instituta brevitate, sint di¬ cta. FINIS LIBORUM DE SACRAMENTO EUCUARISTLE AD HONOREM DEI