Chapter I. On the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Sacrifice taken generally is thus commonly defined: An external oblation of a sensible thing, with its destruction or alteration, made to God alone through a lawful Minister in protestation of His supreme dominion ¹.

¹ Perhaps not the generic notion of sacrifice, but the special definition of a holocaust is handed down in these words. But these things pertain better to Scholastic Theology.

347. Principles. - I. The Mass is the true Sacrifice of the New Law. For it is an oblation instituted by Christ, in which Christ Himself is mystically slain and is offered as a victim to God the Father in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. This is also established from the definition of the Church in the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 1: If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is not offered to God, or that what is offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass perfectly contains the characters of all the sacrifices of the Old Law. For it is: 1. Latreutic, insofar as it is offered especially to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. 2. Eucharistic, insofar as it is offered to God in thanksgiving for benefits conferred by Him. 3. Propitiatory and satisfactory, or expiatory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining both pardon of sins and remission of the punishment due to them. 4. Finally, impetratory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining benefits from Him through the merits of Christ. This is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 3.

348. III. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is assuredly the same as the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not only because the same victim is offered, but also because the same formal character of Sacrifice is present, namely, through the declaration of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Therefore, the Sacrifice of the Altar differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross not essentially, but only accidentally, namely, as regards the manner of offering. 1. For in the Sacrifice of the Cross a real death took place; but in this one only a mystical death. 2. The Redeemer offered the former by Himself upon the altar of the Cross; but He offers the latter through the ministry of priests. 3. The former was meritorious, because in it the price of our redemption was paid; but through the latter the merits of Christ are applied.

349. Questions. - QUESTION 1. In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist? ²

² These matters contribute little to practice, except perhaps where the precept of hearing Mass is in question. But since scarcely more than probable opinions are adduced concerning them, hardly anything can be deduced from them even as regards that precept.

Reply. It is disputed. More probably, it consists in the consecration alone, because in the consecration alone are found all the things required to constitute a Sacrifice, namely, an oblation and the mystical destruction or immolation of the victim. - Thus more commonly. Nevertheless, not a few hold that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the consecration and partly in the consumption, because in the consecration the victim is set forth, and in the consumption it is consumed. St. Lig., no. 305, regarded this opinion as the more probable.

QUESTION 2. For whom can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

Reply 1. It is certain that this Sacrifice can be offered for all the faithful, living and dead, and also for sinners who are not excommunicated, but only as regards the fruit of impetration ³. This is established from the Council of Trent. the gift of penance, and consequently forgives even great crimes and sins. It is manifest, however, that the Sacrifice is offered for sinners in order that this fruit may be received.

³ Here perhaps the fruit of impetration is confused with the fruit of propitiation, which consists in this: that God, appeased by the Sacrifice, grants grace and

Reply 2. More probably, it is lawful to celebrate Mass even for tolerated excommunicates, because although the Church grants them nothing, nevertheless the faithful are not prohibited from communicating with them even in divine things, as will be stated in the Treatise on Censures. The same is also to be held concerning infidels ⁴. - St. Lig., no. 309.

⁴ Benedict XIV (Const. In Superiori, March 8, 1755, sec. 27), speaking of the discipline of the Orientals, who make commemoration of the king in the sacred liturgy even though he is an infidel, has the following: If anyone should ask by what reasoning this can be tolerated, when it is certainly established that those kings for whom they pray and of whom they make commemoration in the liturgy are infidels, the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine would answer him (as in fact he did answer...) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the matter, as the theologians say, to pray in the Mass even for infidels, since the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. And indeed St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 12, q. 2, art. 2, q. 2, ad 4, teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in the book On the Origin of the Soul that the Sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, nevertheless this opinion must be understood so as to include all those who either already are members of Christ or can become such. Therefore the same Cardinal adds that the whole matter must be measured according to the prohibition of the Church: it is certain from the nature of the matter, if there is no prohibition of the Church, that it is lawful to offer for men of this kind; he is speaking of infidels. And since a prohibition of this kind exists with regard to excommunicates, and thus with regard to heretics and schismatics, but not with regard to infidels, who are not bound by excommunication, he says that this is sufficient for commemoration of them to be made in the Mass, and even for the Sacrifice to be offered for them, according to the manifest tradition on this matter and the Apostolic Constitution. But someone will ask whether, if a king is an infidel, as in Greece, where the Turk rules, and in India and Japan and among the Chinese, where pagans reign, it is lawful for priests who are there expressly to offer for the king. I answer: I think it is lawful, provided that that king is not excommunicated, as heretical kings are, but is a pagan or heathen. For this tradition, and indeed the Constitution, is Apostolic, as we showed a little above. Nor, so far as I know, does any manifest prohibition of the Church exist. To these considerations the text of Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, ch. 2, which occurs as follows, may usefully be added: We sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor, but to our God and his, and as God has commanded, with pure prayer; for God, the Creator of the universe, has no need of anyone's honor or blood. But leaving assertions of this kind in their probability, etc. Thus far Benedict XIV.

Reply 3. It is not lawful to offer the Sacrifice in the name of the Church for excommunicates who are to be avoided, because this is specially prohibited by Canon Law, c. 2, De sententia excommunicationis. A priest may, however, lawfully offer Mass for them in his own name. - St. Lig., no. 308. - Lacroix, no. 33. - Suarez, etc.

350. QUESTION 3. How many kinds of fruit are there from the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Reply. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold head, namely, on the part of the offerer and on the part of the victim.

I. On the part of the offerer. Since there is a twofold offerer, namely, Christ and the priest, there is therefore a twofold kind of fruit of the Mass on the part of the offerer. The first proceeds from Christ offering, and is called ex opere operato, because it is received in consideration of the merits of Christ and His promise.

The other proceeds from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in consideration of the merit and devotion of the celebrating priest, and is called the fruit ex opere operantis. Hence it follows that the Sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, does not profit more than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the Sacrifice, considered in this way, is the work of Christ, and its fruit flows solely from the merits of Christ. Therefore, 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 the contrary must be said if the merit ex opere operantis is considered; for the worthier the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes.

351. II. On the part of the victim. Under this head a threefold fruit of the Sacrifice is distinguished, namely, general, special, and most special.

1. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the Sacrifice insofar as it is a work performed by the priest as he acts in the name of the whole Church. And all the faithful, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit; but it is granted to them only by way of impetration ⁵, and not, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of Sacrifices that are offered daily, every just person, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of an immense punishment, which appears incredible. Those who are present at the Sacrifice, and a fortiori those who cooperate in it, for example, those serving the priest, etc., share in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special manner. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is more abundant in proportion as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating are greater. Hence, although several persons hear Mass or serve at it, each will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his devotion, just as if he alone were hearing or serving at it.

⁵ Here also understand impetration in such a way that it includes propitiation as well.

2. The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the Sacrifice. They share ex opere operato in the Sacrifice insofar as it is impetratory and propitiatory; and indeed also, provided that nothing prevents it, insofar as it is satisfactory.

3. The most special fruit is that which comes to the offering priest insofar as he offers as a private person. For if every cooperator receives from the Sacrifice a fruit altogether special to himself, much more ought the priest who sacrifices to receive this fruit. Whether the priest can apply this fruit to others, however, is uncertain ⁶. - St. Lig., no. 312.

⁶ This, however, is certain: the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another in such a way that he receives another stipend on that account; yet understand this unless it is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend.

352. QUESTION 4. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Reply 1. It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ Himself in this Sacrifice is at once the victim and the principal offerer. Therefore, the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price made by Christ as the primary offerer, Who has infinite merit.

Reply 2. It cannot be infinite with regard to its application made to individual men, or with regard to its effect or fruit. The reason is that creatures are not capable of receiving an infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or less according as the disposition or capacity of the one to whom it is applied is greater or less.

It is disputed, however, whether the application of the fruit of the Sacrifice is restricted to a certain degree or is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered.

The first and much more probable opinion contends that the application is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered. And this is the opinion most commonly received today, says St. Lig., no. 312. The reason is that the value of the Sacrifice is infinite in itself; hence, of itself, it can be applied to innumerable men without being capable of exhaustion. Therefore, if the Sacrifice is offered for one hundred or one thousand persons, each one will receive as much fruit as the single person would receive for whom alone it was offered ⁷. The second opinion holds that the fruit of the Mass is restricted to a certain degree. The reason adduced is that, although the Mass in itself and with regard to sufficiency is of infinite value, nevertheless its effect is limited and restricted to a certain quantity by the will of Christ, Who instituted this Sacrifice so that ex opere operato it would produce a certain effect, or a certain degree of satisfaction, independently of the disposition of men. Nevertheless, the patrons of this opinion concede that this degree of fruit can be increased ex opere operantis, that is, according to the greater devotion of the offering priest and of the person for whom it is offered ⁸. For the rest, they assert entirely without grounds that a restriction of this kind was made by Christ.

⁷ Although, according to this most common opinion of the more recent authors, a priest can apply one and the same Sacrifice for several persons, nevertheless it is not lawful for him to receive several stipends. For this has been prohibited by decrees of the Church; and St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 312) adds the reason: because the stipend is given for the support of the minister; therefore, as often as his support is furnished to the minister, the title for receiving another stipend is lacking. Indeed (as the same St. Alphonsus rightly warns), since the opposite opinion is not altogether lacking in at least some extrinsic probability, a priest who receives a stipend from one person ought not to apply the same Sacrifice for others except under the condition, namely, that nothing be withdrawn from the one furnishing the stipend. Nevertheless, the addition of this condition, which St. Alphonsus suggests for the sake of greater security, can and ought by no means to prevent the priest from also applying the same Sacrifice for others, or even from being able, through the application of the same Sacrifice, to satisfy some obligation to another which he contracted otherwise than by an accepted stipend, and therefore under a title other than that of justice. On this matter Cardinal de Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 19, no. 249) has the following: It does not appear why a priest would not satisfy his debt by conforming himself to that opinion which the adversaries admit to be probable; just as one who has promised a fast would satisfy by fasting in this or that manner, even if there were a question, under a probable opinion, whether that was a fast, provided nevertheless that it was probable that it was a fast. Therefore, one who has promised (from liberality) to apply a Mass for someone will satisfy by applying it with a probable application. For since elsewhere (vol. 1, no. 80), according to the most common opinion of the Doctors, it was established that one who has probably satisfied an obligation that is not from justice requiring equality is thereby freed from the obligation, so that he is bound to nothing further; and since the opinion that the same Sacrifice avails equally for others besides the one offering the stipend is now much more probable and most commonly received, the reason is evident why Cardinal de Lugo said that an obligation of Sacrifice arising under a title other than that of justice, for example, from a gratuitous and liberal promise, and furthermore from a debt of mere fidelity, can be satisfied in this manner. See also the following note.

⁸ Moreover, these Doctors also concede that the diverse fruits of the Sacrifice, namely, the latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and satisfactory fruits, can validly be divided by the celebrant, or be applied to diverse persons. And they teach that this can even be done lawfully in a free Mass, that is, one which the celebrant is bound to offer for no one in particular.

But in a Mass that is owed solely from fidelity and a liberal promise, they consider that division altogether lawful if the Sacrifice of the Mass was liberally promised to diverse persons for diverse ends. The reason is that a liberal promise is to be interpreted so that it is as little burdensome as possible to the one promising, as is said in L. 99, Quidquid adstringendae, ff., De verborum obligationibus.

Finally, in a Mass owed solely from obedience, whether by command of a Superior or by a statute of an Order, it is lawful to divide the fruits that do not tend directly to the prescribed end. The reason is that, according to the common opinion of the Doctors from Cap. Intelligentia, De verborum significatione, the obligation of a law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, when a Superior or the statute of an Order prescribes a Mass precisely in honor of the Most Holy Trinity, or of some Saint, or in thanksgiving, the satisfactory fruit, and in the last case also the impetratory fruit, can be freely applied by the priest for another, as Gobat and Sporer, with others, teach on the authority of St. Francis Borgia, who, when he was Superior General of the Society of Jesus, wrote to his subjects in the year 1564 in these words: When Superiors enjoin Masses for purposes other than for the dead, it is clear that the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest.

353. QUESTION 5. Does the Mass benefit the dead by an infallible promise of Christ?

Reply. Affirmatively. For the Mass is profitably offered for the dead, as is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, ch. 2 and Can. 3. Moreover, this cannot be done except by the promise of Christ, which is declared in Matt. 26:28: This is My Blood... which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. This is also established from the words of the form in the conferral of Orders: Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. Nevertheless, temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a fixed law, but it profits them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall please God to accept it. - See Perrone, vol. 8, no. 282.

QUESTION 6. Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

Reply. Negatively, as regards the substance, or on the part of the Sacrifice; but affirmatively as regards the accidental elements, or on the part of the prayers, the deficiency of which devotion can supply. - St. Lig., no. 309, after St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, art. 9. It must be noted here that a Requiem Mass and a Mass in black vestments can be applied for a living person, provided that the one who gave the alms has not expressly declared the contrary. - S. C. of Rites, Nov. 29, 1856.