V. On the Nature and Power of the Sacrifice of the Mass

What is a sacrifice? - A sacrifice is: The offering of a sensible thing made to God, by the ministry of a priest, by which, in destroying or changing that thing, we profess that God is Lord of life and death. Trent sess. 22, ch. 3; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 86, a. 1.

Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and what kind? - Resp. It is clear from Trent sess. 22, ch. 1, can. 1, that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. - And from the same Trent ib., ch. 2, it is clear that this sacrifice is essentially the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, and differs from it only accidentally. For the Victim of each is the same; the Priest is the same, Christ offering in the Eucharist by the ministry of priests; each is effected by the pouring out of blood; only the manner of offering is different. For in the former the pouring out of blood was real and Christ was immolated bloodily; in the latter the pouring out of blood is mystical and Christ is immolated bloodlessly. Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5.

But the sacrifice is latreutic, because it is the most absolute act of latria. For it is offered to God in recognition of His supreme dominion. It is eucharistic, because it pertains especially to giving thanks to God for benefits conferred. It is propitiatory, because it is offered to God for obtaining pardon of sins. It is expiatory or satisfactory, since it is offered to God for obtaining also the remission of punishment due to sins, namely temporal punishment; for the remission of eternal punishment is not the effect of this sacrifice, since it is not remitted except when mortal sin has been destroyed. It is impetratory, for it is offered to God also for obtaining other necessities and benefits. Trent ib., chs. 2, 3, cans. 3, 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 1. - The Eucharist, as sacrifice, is customarily called Mass, from the word mittere, either because at the end of the celebration of this sacrifice the people are dismissed with those words, Ite, Missa est, or because Christ in it is the Host sent by God. - E. M.

Note: The Mass does not have the power of remitting sins per se immediately, nor of immediately effecting an increase of sanctifying grace, but only of obtaining helps for penance by which they are remitted, and of obtaining helps for performing acts by which grace already acquired is increased; and also of obtaining other goods, both spiritual and temporal. But it does have power per se immediately to remit the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, and also for souls dwelling in Purgatory. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, can. 3; sess. 25, Decree on Purgatory, at the beginning; Lugo disp. 19, n. 153; L. 311.

As satisfactory, the Sacrifice is infallibly efficacious, if there is no obstacle in the subject, yet in that mode and measure in which the fruit belongs to it from divine institution, and more or less according to the dispositions of the subject. As impetratory, it is also infallibly efficacious, but with the limitations and conditions which impetration has. Hence the fruit of propitiation, which is by way of impetration, can be impeded by the obstacle of the bad disposition of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, and by the freedom of the man himself. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And from the greater or lesser guilt of fault it can well happen that God is not altogether appeased unless the sacrifice is offered to God several times. But impetration, as regards other gifts of the natural and supernatural order conducing to eternal salvation, is not infallible unless the ordinary conditions are present both in the one for whom it is sought through the sacrifice, and in the thing which is sought, and in the manner of seeking. Impetration through the sacrifice, for this reason, consequently is not infallible. - Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, a. 7 ad 2. "We must not confuse the power which the sacrifice of the Mass has for expiating and purging from sins with the power for merely obtaining.... That power for obtaining has a formally different term from that which the power for satisfying or expiating has. For the former tends to move the liberality of God, from whom it obtains goods; but the latter tends to clemency, or to appeasing God, lest He be angry, indignant, and bring evil.... For God is appeased by the sacrifice, not as impetratory, but as propitiatory; for precisely as such it tends to appease. Therefore we admit that God granting help for contrition is moved also by the sacrifice as it is impetratory; nevertheless we say that some effect intervenes there which corresponds to the same sacrifice as it is propitiatory. For because of sins, God, retaining just indignation and aversion, was deservedly denying those helps, at least more abundant ones, for contrition; but when the sacrifice has been offered He is appeased, and, indignation having been laid aside through clemency, He grants from liberality the helps which He would deny while unappeased. Hence the sacrifice as propitiatory indirectly contributes to obtaining helps, insofar as it directly removes the obstacle of indignation which stood in the way of their being granted. Therefore it contributes to destroying sins not by obtaining only, but by propitiating and appeasing, which is the proper effect of sacrifice as it is propitiatory." Lugo disp. 19, n. 141.

What are the principal parts of the Mass? - There are three: the Oblation, by which the sacrifice is as it were prepared; the Consecration, in which the essence of the sacrifice is had, for in it is had the mystical slaughtering of the victim, Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5; and the Consummation, by which the sacrifice is completed and perfected. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4.

Hence none of these can be omitted without enormous sacrilege. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 1, 2. - Wherefore if the priest has omitted the oblation, he must mentally supply it before the consecration. Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 18, n. 5. If either species has not been consecrated, before the consummation of the other it must altogether be consecrated; after the consummation of the other, each must be consecrated, if this can be done without any scandal and within a brief time, i.e., within about an hour; otherwise it would not seem to be the same sacrifice. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; L. 335. Cf. 323, 329 seqq. Finally, if the celebrant dies or is affected by some illness before the consummation of the wine, or after the consecration of the bread, and cannot continue the sacrifice within a brief time, the Mass must be completed by another priest, even one not fasting or one to be avoided, from that place where the other ceased, if this can be done within a brief time, within an hour, and without most grave inconvenience. But if the one who consecrated recovers, even after several hours he can continue and complete the sacrifice. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3, says: "If after the consecration of the bread the priest dies, another priest can proceed to the consecration of the wine, beginning where the former left off, or even begin from the beginning over other matter." Yet when one whole hour has elapsed, the obligation of seeking another priest ceases, since it is no longer judged the same sacrifice. But if the priest has failed before the consecration or after the consummation, there is no necessity of supplying or continuing anything, because in the first case the sacrifice has not yet been begun, and in the other it has already been completed. Rubrics of the Missal ib., tit. 10, n. 3. - La Croix 548; L. 305, 354, 355; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4; q. 83, a. 4, 6 ad 1, ad 3; Suarez disp. 71, sect. 3; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10.

Note: These things are in the Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 4, n. 8: "If the matter which would have to be placed, by reason of a defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had, if this is before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is detected when the one has already been consecrated, then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet so that the words and signs which pertain to the deficient species are omitted. But if by waiting for some little while it can be had, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain imperfect." Hence Gavantus here, and Azor, note that if the deficient species could be had only with very great difficulty, and a notable offense of the people would arise from this, the Mass must be completed, because the natural law of avoiding scandal prevails over the positive divine law of making the sacrifice integral. L. 306. But what must be done if a fly or spider, or something else poisonous or which provokes vomiting, has fallen into the chalice, you have in the Rubrics de Defectibus, tit. 10, nn. 5-7.

For whom can the sacrifice of the Mass be offered? - It can be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, unless the Church forbids it for someone. For "the fruits of the bloody oblation are most abundantly received through this unbloody one." Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Wherefore it can be offered: 1. For baptized wayfarers; also infants, or energumens, or sinners not excommunicated, even for unbelievers, not only generally for all, but also for individual unbelievers, even for kings, insofar as it is propitiatory, expiatory, and impetratory. Trent ib. - 2. For souls in Purgatory, to whom it is profitable from the infallible promise of Christ, insofar as it is expiatory. Trent ib. and sess. 25, Decree De Purgatorio. Nevertheless the satisfactory fruit is not infallibly applied to that soul for whom the priest celebrated Mass. S. C. Indulg., July 28, 1840, n. 283. And how far it helps each one is among the divine secrets. Cf. n. 619. - 3. For the Blessed, insofar as it is eucharistic.

Trent sess. 22, ch. 3. - But it is forbidden to offer it for the excommunicated. Benedict XIV, Const. Ex quo, Mar. 1, 1756, § 27. Yet for an excommunicated tolerated person, a priest can licitly offer Mass both in his own name, as a private person, and more probably in the name of the Church as a minister of the Church. The reason is that it is granted to the faithful to communicate with them, even in divine things.

But for an excommunicated person to be avoided, a priest can still licitly offer Mass in his own name or ex opere operantis; but by no means in the name of the Church, or ex opere operantis of the Church herself, whose application of fruit would be illicit and invalid, and ex opere operato of the sacrifice of the Church, whose application of fruit would be illicit but not invalid, if he is capable, since the priest has this power by force of order. - It is forbidden to apply Mass for heretics, whether now dead or living, unless for the living it is applied to obtain their conversion to the true faith. Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1767; Apr. 19, 1837; Apr. 7, 1875. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Mass is by no means to be offered publicly for those who are alien from the communion of the Church by profession of heresy. - C. 28, 38, de Sent. excomm.; La Croix 33; L. 308, 309; St. Thomas 4, dist. 12, q. 2, a. 2, q. 2 ad 4; E. M.

How many kinds of fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass are there? - The fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass can be considered in three ways: 1. on the part of the cause, 2. on the part of the good itself which is to be obtained through the Mass, 3. on the part of the person for whom such a good is obtained, or to whom the Mass is applied.

On the part of the cause, one is ex opere operantis, namely that which is conferred in view of the prayer, devotion, and merit of the celebrant and of others cooperating; another is ex opere operato, which is conferred in view of the merits of Christ and by force of His promise. From this it happens that a sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is not more profitable than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the sacrifice, viewed thus, is the work of Christ, and the fruit flows only from the merits of Christ, and in this respect the priest does not bear his own person, but Christ's. Wherefore in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But otherwise it must be said if merit ex opere operantis is attended to; for the more worthy the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed while he performs the rites and prayers of the Church, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes. But the priest offers the sacrifice bearing the person of the whole Church, since "he consecrates the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the whole Church." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 2. And thus under the name of the celebrating minister also comes the Church, insofar as she herself offers through the minister. "Whence I infer," says Suarez disp. 79, sect. 2, dictum III, "that this value proceeding from the Church is better called ex opere operantis, as Cordoba and others speak, than ex opere operato, as Scotus and others speak.... And hence it is inferred that this value can increase and diminish, according as there have been holier persons in the Church." Therefore the priest offers the Sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ, the principal offerer; in the name of the Church, to whom Christ left this sacrifice; and in his own name, as a private person. Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 2. "After the priests, all the faithful offer the sacrifice mediately through the hands of the priests, in three ways indeed: 1. in a general way, namely through the priests, who, by offering the sacrifice as public ministers, are said to offer for any faithful person whatever; 2. in a more special way, by procuring that priests celebrate for themselves; 3. by assisting at the sacrifice." St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 307.

On the part of the thing, one fruit is meritorious, namely the merit which is had from it by the priest celebrating and by those assisting; another is propitiatory, and is the remission of sins, not indeed per se and immediately, but through the obtaining of help for penance by which sins are remitted, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2; another is satisfactory or expiatory, insofar as it per se immediately remits the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, both in this life and in Purgatory, Trent sess. 25, ch. 1, not the whole at once, but according to the measure established by God and corresponding to the dispositions of the man; finally another is impetratory, and is first the obtaining of helps for performing acts by which sanctifying grace is increased in us; moreover it is the obtaining of other spiritual goods, and also temporal goods, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And this impetration, insofar as it is from Christ, is ex opere operato; insofar as it is from the sacrificing priest and the offering Church, it is ex opere operantis. Suarez disp. 79; Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9.

On the part of the subject, or of those to whom it is applied, one fruit is general, another special, another most special. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, as he works in the name of Christ and in the name of the whole Church. Trent sess. 22, ch. 6. And all the faithful indeed, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit ex opere operato; but it is attributed to them only by way of impetration, insofar as impetration also includes propitiation; not however, as seems more common and more probable, by way of satisfaction, because from thousands of sacrifices which are offered daily, every just man, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of immense punishment, which appears incredible. But there are not lacking those who judge that some part of the fruit ex opere operato, even satisfactory, corresponds to all the faithful, and that all the just obtain ex opere operato some remission of punishment through each and every sacrifice, by this alone, that they are said to offer insofar as they are members of the Church offering through priests, even if they themselves have no act concerning the sacrifice, nor the priest by a special intention applies the fruit of the sacrifice to them. Yet the sole denomination of offering through a certain remote and extrinsic relation does not seem sufficient for receiving the fruit of satisfaction ex opere operato. "For the fruit of the Passion of Christ is not applied ex opere operato except either through some proper action, or sensible reception, or through the special application of another. But in the present case this fruit is not given through the special application of another, as is supposed; nor here do those offering in this way receive anything through which such fruit is applied to them; nor do they do anything, because they are called offerers only habitually or extrinsically. Hence that denomination is not founded in any act of man which per se pertains to the worship of God, so that it could avail for the merit or satisfaction of the one so offering." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Secundo. "Although all the faithful in some way are offerers in each Mass, insofar as the priest offers by commission of the Church, and offers in her name, which consists of all and each of the faithful, nevertheless this does not suffice so that from each Mass the just should have the fruit of remission of punishment ex opere operato. Yet it brings the effect of impetration ex opere operato, because all pray through the priest, and he also prays and offers for obtaining for all." Lugo disp. 19, n. 237. "And in this sense we say that he truly offers for all the faithful, living and dead, for whom we also wish to obtain the condonation of due punishment by way of impetration." Lugo l. c., n. 222.

Of this general fruit, those standing by at the sacrifice participate in a more abundant or more special way, and a fortiori those cooperating with it, e.g., those serving the priest, giving alms; and it is more abundant according as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating is greater. Wherefore they can be offerers in various ways, according as actually they join themselves to the priest offering, or by the intention of the Church alone. The priest in the Canon prays for those standing around and says: "for whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee." Hence those who are offerers and offer must be distinguished from those for whom it is offered. The reason is "because the oblation of this sacrifice is fruitful ex opere operato. Therefore it is consonant with reason that all who truly concur in it through their own act or moral concurrence participate in this kind of fruit of such oblation. Secondly, because from this concurrence of many offerers with the minister there results as it were one moral offerer with greater devotion, reverence, and dignity. Therefore a greater fruit corresponds to it ex opere operato, other things being equal.... Therefore for this reason, some part of that fruit corresponds to individual offerers, as they are such, according to each one's devotion. Thirdly, just as the use of a sacrament consists in reception, so the notion of sacrifice consists in oblation. But all who receive a sacrament participate in its fruit. Therefore similarly all offerers through some proper concurrence or action participate in the fruit of the sacrifice." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Quarto.

Hence Suarez infers that a twofold fruit corresponds to the priest himself ex opere operato: one to him as he is a private person, the other as he offers in the name of Christ and in His person.

The former increases from the better disposition of the offerer; the latter is always equal, because it always corresponds to Christ offering. But in reality it seems that only the oblation of the priest brings fruit ex opere operato, precisely insofar as he acts in the name of Christ. For Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, founds the efficacy of this sacrifice on this, that now the same Host and the same one offering by the ministry of priests is present, who offered Himself on the cross. "Therefore, because the priest alone offers in the person of Christ, it follows that the oblation has this kind of power and efficacy, not insofar as it is from the person of the priest, but insofar as it is from Christ." Lugo disp. 19, n. 233; Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 6. And, although several hear Mass or minister at it, each one will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his oblation and devotion, no otherwise than if he alone were hearing or ministering. And thus this general fruit is extensively infinite or indefinite. And for those ministering and assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass in this way, there comes not only a fuller fruit of impetration ex opere operato, but also satisfactory fruit. But since, as is clear from the Offertory, it is offered also for souls existing in Purgatory, this satisfactory fruit is applied from the oblation of the Church's sacrifice of the Mass also for them, whether they are fewer or more.

The special fruit is that which comes to him or those to whom the priest specially applies the sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the sacrifice as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing obstructs, as it is satisfactory. This special fruit is customarily also called ministerial and middle.

The most special or personal fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators whatever receive from the sacrifice their own wholly special fruit, much more must the priest who sacrifices receive this. Moreover, "the oblation of the priest, as it is made by him representing the person of Christ, is properly the actual sacrifice, or the sacrificing itself. Therefore to it especially corresponds the fruit ex opere operato, because as such the oblation is properly sacrificial, infinite in its own kind and always clean and pleasing to God." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, p. Tertio. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain. Yet this is certain: that the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another so as to receive another stipend from this; understand this, however, unless this very thing is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend. - Lugo disp. 19; Suarez disp. 79; L. 311, 312; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 6; E. M.

Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints? - Resp. In the negative as regards the substance, or on the part of the sacrifice; but certainly as regards accidentals, or on the part of the prayers, the defect of which can be supplied by the devotion of the one who says the Mass or orders it to be said, or by the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass. - L. 309; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, a. 9; E. M.

Is the value and fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass infinite? - "It must be noted that one thing is the value, another the fruit of the Mass. The value is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered, for conferring goods on the one offering and on those for whom it is offered. But the fruits are the goods themselves which God confers in view of the sacrifice. Hence value differs from fruit as cause from effect." L. 312. Wherefore here fruit is taken for the fruit which is actually received. - Now the value of the sacrifice of the Mass on the part of the Church offering and on the part of the priest celebrating is certainly finite, for their dignity, in which it is founded, is finite. On the part of Christ, the principal priest offering and the victim, there is no doubt that the value of the Mass, like the value of the sacrifice of the Cross, is truly infinite, since Christ Himself is the host and the one offering now by the ministry of priests. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Hence the Mass can cause a fruit always greater intensively, according as someone needs more and is better disposed, and extensively insofar as it can benefit infinite men without anything being detracted from individuals, whether it is applied for only one, or for several and all.

There is dispute about this actually received fruit, how much someone really receives. But the question is not about the fruit of impetration on the part of the Church and the offerers. As regards this fruit, it is clear that it always comes to all, although there are several offerers. Nor likewise is the question about the fruit ex opere operato, by force of the sacrifice of the Mass itself, but general, coming to all the faithful; for since the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, the fruit of this sacrifice comes to all the faithful, and therefore in this way that general fruit is extensively indefinite; and likewise intensively it also is indefinite, insofar as greater fruit comes to those who are more joined with the priest celebrating. But the question concerns the special fruit coming ex opere operato to those to whom the Mass is applied, or for whom the sacrifice of the Mass is offered. It concerns the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit which comes to men. For the latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit with respect to God, by reason of Christ the priest and victim, is actually infinite, and fully satisfies the adoration, thanksgiving, and propitiation and satisfaction owed to God.

The first opinion, more probable to St. Alphonsus, holds that this fruit is infinite, or rather indefinite, or to be received indefinitely, both intensively insofar as less or more is really received, according to the measure of the disposition of the man, and extensively, insofar as it really benefits one as much as several. Wherefore, if this fruit, afterward actually received, is always finite, this certainly is not because from divine institution only so much fruit and no greater is to be received, but it is only from the finite capacity of the men for whom it is offered, each of whom receives richer fruit according to his own disposition and that of the offerer; yet the Mass always benefits individuals equally when applied to several as if it were applied to one. The reason for this opinion is that the eucharistic sacrifice does not differ from the sacrifice of the Cross except only by the different manner of offering. Therefore, as the sacrifice of the Cross works after the manner of a universal supernatural cause according to the capacity of the subjects, so also the eucharistic sacrifice. The abundant redemption of Christ is thus applied, with no limit placed except that which arises from the finite capacity of men. And for this opinion St. Alphonsus affirms that St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, clearly stands.

The second opinion, which the same St. Alphonsus calls probable, holds that the fruit actually to be received is finite from the very institution of this sacrifice, because namely a certain and individual degree was determined by Christ in each sacrifice, and therefore the more it is distributed among several, the less comes to each. The reason for this opinion is taken from the usage and sense of the Church, while Masses for one and the same person and thing are repeated and multiplied, which is a sign that it does not have an indefinite effect, but a certain and limited one from the will of Christ. And Christ so established it, that He might compel men to offer the sacrifice continually. If it were otherwise, the special application itself of the fruit of the Mass would be useless, and the usefulness of the Church herself would require that all Masses always be celebrated for all the faithful, living and dead. But the reason of the sacrifice of the Cross, by which the whole price of Redemption was paid, is one thing; the reason of the eucharistic sacrifice, by which the application of that price is had, is another. And St. Thomas 4, dist. 45, q. 2, a. 4, q. 2 ad 2 seems to favor this opinion. But this does not prevent the fruit which comes to the faithful insofar as they are offerers from being extensively indefinite, because a proper corresponding fruit belongs to each oblation. The same must be said of the fruit which comes to all the faithful, insofar as the sacrifice of the Mass is offered by the Church for all, because whether they are more or fewer, the Church's sacrifice is always offered for the whole Church, for all Christian faithful, living and dead, indeed even for the salvation of the whole world. Thus the Offertory of the Mass. - Suarez disp. 79, sects. 11, 12; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 5, c. 8, n. 6; c. 9, n. 4.

613 bis. Note: The fruit of expiation, or remission of punishment, in relation to the dead is infallible, because they oppose no obstacle to it; but in relation to the living it is not always infallible in act and effect, because the state of grace and the remission of sins, which is necessarily presupposed to the remission of punishment, is not always in them. But the fruit of propitiation, or remission of sins, likewise is not always infallible in act and effect; for actual help for justification is indeed conferred, and thus indeed the fruit of the sacrifice is infallibly had, but man does not always cooperate with it; and, with attention to his unworthiness, there would be need of several and greater helps, for obtaining which the sacrifice of the Mass would have to be repeated several times. Likewise the fruit of impetration of other graces is not always infallible, because those graces are not always expedient for the glory of God and eternal salvation, to which the sacrifice offered to God is ordered.

Is application of the Mass necessary for receiving the fruit of the sacrifice? - Application of the Mass is the intention by which the priest wills that the fruit of the sacrifice yield to the advantage of a certain person. - Now the application of the priest is not required that part of the general fruit be received; but it suffices that he wish to celebrate according to the mind of the Church, for such application is always implicitly included in the general intention of the celebrant. And it is expressly contained in several places of the whole Mass. Likewise, that the most special fruit come to the priest himself, it is not necessary that he wish to apply it specially to himself; for this is always applied to him per se. Indeed there are some who think this fruit so proper to him that it cannot be applied to another. L. 318. - But the application of the priest is required so that the special or ministerial fruit come to someone. For the priest, and indeed he alone, bears the person of Christ; therefore just as he alone offers the sacrifice for others in the person of Christ, so also he alone applies the fruit of the same sacrifice.

• A priest, although he has promised to celebrate Mass for no one, must make some application of the special fruit of the sacrifice. The reason is: 1. because in his ordination he received from Christ's institution the power of confecting the sacrifice, and consequently of applying its fruit, as is clear from the very words of ordination: "Receive the power of offering sacrifice both for the living and for the dead." But that power would remain useless if the priest did not use it. 2. If no application is made, there is no reason why it should benefit one more than another; therefore the unapplied fruit remains in the general treasury of the Church, and consequently becomes less useful. "If it is applied to no one, or to one incapable, the fruit remains in the treasury of the Church, as Suarez teaches, or it yields to the priest himself, or to those for whom he is bound specially to offer, because he is judged implicitly to have intended this," Busembaum cited by St. Alphonsus 336, or to those for whom in the name of the Church he generally offers the sacrifice in the offertory. - Suarez disp. 78, sect. 5; Lugo disp. 9, sect. 10; E. M.

Second intention: In the application of the Mass there is a certain conditioned intention, so that if perhaps the Mass cannot be applied to him for whom it is celebrated by the primary intention, for satisfying one's own obligation, another application may be substituted for this application. Moreover it also has this force, that, if perhaps the opinion about the intensively infinite fruit of the Mass is true, the Mass is applied also according to this second intention. Finally, the second intention has the force of a certain special Memento. 613.

When must the application of the fruit of the Mass be made? - It must be made at least before the consecration. For the application of the Mass made after both consecrations is not valid. The reason is that the sacrifice has already been perfected, and a past action already made for one end, or for no end, can no longer be offered for some determinate end. For a past action made for some end in general, and for an end afterward determined, cannot be understood. But an application made before the consecration is valid, although it is better to make it before Mass, or at the beginning of Mass. The reason is that, since the sacrifice is situated in the consecration, and in it alone, it can well be offered before the consecration. Indeed, according to several, the application made between the two consecrations is also probably valid. The reason is that the sacrifice is perfected by the consecration of the chalice, and consequently the priest is then said to sacrifice, and therefore before the consecration of the chalice he can still apply the sacrifice. Tamburini, Methodus celebrandi missam, c. 2, § 10; L. 336.

Must the application of the fruit of the Mass be actual? - Resp. In the negative; but it suffices that it be habitual, namely that once made it is not retracted. The reason is that this application is made by way of donation, and therefore through an intention once had, the priest has already donated the fruit of his sacrifice, and consequently it is owed to him to whom he donated it, and when the Mass is celebrated, it comes to the same unless the donation is revoked. Cf. vol. 1, n. 21; L. 335.

If a priest has accepted stipends from ten persons, does he satisfy by celebrating with a confused and indeterminate intention? - Resp. Altogether in the negative, because a determinate intention is required, at least to a certain person; otherwise there is no reason why the Mass should be applied to one rather than another, and thus it would be applied to no one. Nevertheless, if he intended to apply each Mass to those ten persons, by applying to each one a tenth part of each Mass, he would satisfy the obligation, because the fruit of the sacrifice is divisible, and what is owed to each one is attributed to him. For each one, receiving in each of the ten Masses a tenth part of the fruit, when the tenth sacred rite has been done, has now obtained the whole fruit owed to him, or even will receive the whole fruit from each of the ten Masses. If this is done, however, the Masses are not to be delayed beyond the due time. Sacred Penitentiary, Dec. 7, 1852. - L. 335.

How is the application to be determined when stipends are given by many unknown persons, as usually happens in pious pilgrimages? - The intention is to be made for those who gave the earlier stipends. This easily succeeds when the same priest is going to satisfy all the obligations; nor does it obstruct that he perhaps distributes part of the Masses to be celebrated to other priests, because he can distribute them in the same order in which he received them; and thus the application seems sufficiently determinate. Thus also the sacristan or another who collected many stipends from different persons and distributes the confused money to several priests can distribute it successively in the same order; nor can anything else often be done morally than that distribution and application be made according to the order of time, to the intention of the giver, according to the axiom: He who is prior in time is stronger in right; namely unless a graver cause is present for interrupting this order, e.g., if a greater stipend is given for this reason, that the sacred rite not be deferred, etc. Indeed it is not necessary that the priest explicitly and reflexively attend to this; since he is judged to wish to act thus when he accepts the stipend in the aforesaid manner. For natural equity requires this.

Is an application valid when made for a living person whom you believe dead, if you would have had to celebrate for him only when already dead? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that the obligation falls on an application to be made for the deceased, for relieving his soul from the punishments of Purgatory; but that end is not obtained while the sacrifice is offered for a living person. Nor is it valid to say that the satisfactory fruit of the sacrifice can benefit even a living person and exempt him from the punishments of Purgatory, nor that a living person is capable and becomes participant also of those fruits of which the dead are not capable. For the will of the one giving the alms stands in the way, who wants the Mass applied not to himself living, but to himself dead. Moreover, the impetratory and propitiatory fruit can also benefit the soul of the deceased, for obtaining that God may remit His just anger and stir up other faithful to offer prayers and other satisfactory works for it.

Is the application of Mass valid when made for the first person who will give a stipend? - An oblation made for the first person who will give a stipend is per se valid, but illicit, as prohibited by Clement VIII, Nov. 15, 1605. But often such application of Mass is also invalid, both because of the uncertain intention and because it often happens that the Mass is said for a cause not yet existing, e.g., if the one who will offer a stipend is going to ask a Mass for deliverance from an illness which has not yet been contracted; for the effect of the Mass would have to remain suspended, which cannot be admitted. "For according to the ordinary law, to which the tradition of the Church bears witness, God does not customarily punish or reward men, or confer on them the grace of the sacraments or the fruit of the sacrifice, according to foreknowledge of future contingent and free effects, but only according to the present state and condition of men." Laymann l. 5, tr. 5, c. 2, n. 14. Nevertheless, "if a priest foresees that Masses will be requested for some deceased person, he can well offer them now and afterward receive the stipend, because in this case they would already be offered for a determinate person." L. 337.

In the application of Masses, is it licit to divide the fruits of the sacrifice and apply them for various ends and persons? - Resp. In the negative, if someone, by obligation from justice, must apply a Mass for another. For that person is always judged to ask for himself the whole fruit of the sacrifice. Nor is it certainly clear that the sacred rite offered for several benefits each as much as when applied for one alone. Wherefore one cannot receive a double or triple stipend for one and the same Mass.

And this is clear also from props. 8 and 10 condemned by Alexander VII. - But as regards Masses altogether free, namely those which the celebrant is bound to apply for no one, or those which he is bound to apply from fidelity alone and a liberal promise, or from obedience alone, or by command of a superior or statute of an order, it is per se licit to divide the fruits, namely latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, impetratory, satisfactory. The reason in the first case is that the Mass has all these fruits, and the celebrant has the power of applying the fruits of the sacrifice, which, since they tend to different ends, can be applied for those various ends. The reason in the second case is that every liberal promise is always understood as least burdensome to the one promising. Hence one who is bound by only a gratuitous promise and by no title of justice can also apply one and the same sacrifice for several, according to the opinion concerning the indefinite application of the fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass. The reason in the third case is that every obligation of law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, if, e.g., a superior commands Mass for others rather than for the dead, the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest, as St. Francis Borgia, Superior General of the Society of Jesus, declared for his subjects in 1654. Wherefore, if Mass had to be celebrated in thanksgiving, the application of the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit remains free. - E. M.