Article I: On the Action by Which Christ Is Offered

S. Th. III, q. 83, a. 1 and 4; q. 79, a. 5 and 7; q. 82, a. 4; a. 10 and ad 1; q. 80, a. 12, ad 1 and 3.

315. Thesis I. The whole essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice consists in the consecration; and indeed in the consecration of each species. - It is the far more common opinion.

The first part is proved: The whole essence is in the consecration alone.

1. From the words of Christ: Christ, in the words of consecration, which are effective and practical, declares that His body is broken or handed over, and that His blood is poured out unto the remission of sins. But these things, according to the manner of speaking of the Hebrews, signify the immolation of sacrifice. Therefore the sacrifice is perfected in the consecration.

2. From the authority of the Fathers and Theologians, by name Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 18; Chrysostom, hom. 1 in prod. Iud., 6; Gregory of Nyssa, or. 1 in res.; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XXIII, 8; and St. Thomas, who among other things has:

"Insofar as in this sacrament the passion of Christ is represented, by which Christ offered Himself as a victim to God, it has the notion of sacrifice," q. 79, a. 7. But "the representation of the Lord's passion is enacted in the consecration itself of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood," q. 80, a. 12, ad 3. Therefore "in the consecration of the Eucharist sacrifice is offered to God," q. 82, a. 10, ad 1; but "the consecration... of another matter is not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is," q. 82, a. 4, ad 1.

3. By reason: a) Christ is the principal offerer, and the priest visibly offers in His name (I Cor. XI, 24-25; Luke XXII, 19); but in the consecration alone the priest explicitly acts in the name of Christ, so that, as if forgetful of his own personality, he acts and speaks as if he were Christ Himself, saying: this is My body...; therefore.

b) The celebration of the sacrifice of the altar is essentially representative of the sacrifice of the cross; this does not mean that some action or circumstance added to the sacrifice represents the cross, but that this is done through the sacrificial action itself. But this representation is made only in the consecration. Therefore in the consecration the sacrificial action of the altar is perfected.

c) The principal power of a priest is to consecrate. But in the ordination of a priest it is not said: receive the power of consecrating, but: receive the power of offering sacrifice. Therefore to consecrate itself is to offer sacrifice; otherwise it would not appear when the power of consecrating was handed over.

If these arguments are considered together, and together with those by which other opinions are excluded, the thesis must at least be called most probable, if not morally certain.

The second part is proved: For the essence of the sacrifice each consecration is required.

1. Christ is said to be priest according to the order of Melchisedech, i.e., according to the rite of offering of Melchisedech, as tradition has understood it, who alone sacrificed in both, namely bread and wine.

2. The sacrifice of the altar is an express representation of the bloody sacrifice of the cross. But on the cross the blood was poured out and separated from the body. Therefore also on the altar the blood ought to be represented as separated from the body and poured out; which would not be unless by the species of wine separated from the bread the blood were represented as poured out from the body.

"The representation of the Lord's passion is enacted in the consecration itself of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood," q. 80, a. 12, ad 3. For "the blood consecrated apart from the body expressly represents the passion of Christ," "because the separation of the blood from the body was through the passion," q. 78, a. 3, ad 2 and 1.

Therefore, although the consecration of one species of itself could seem sufficient for sacrifice and for the symbolic immolation of the victim, nevertheless it does not suffice for the sacrifice which was instituted by Christ, who, in honor of God, instituted nothing else except the representation of His death through the pouring out of blood (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 1). And this is the far more probable opinion.

316. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows that these do not pertain to the essence or integrity of the sacrifice:

1. The actions which precede the consecration or follow communion, because they are not concerned with the body and blood of the Lord, but are a mere preparation for the sacrifice or thanksgiving.

2. Likewise the actions which are placed between the consecration and communion, such as the elevation or verbal oblation of the victim, the breaking of the host, and the mixing of the species, both because they were not instituted by Christ nor are done in the person of Christ; and because according to the Missal they can sometimes be omitted (de defectibus, tit. 3 and 4); and because they do not represent the passion except according to a certain circumstance, and would be said in vain to be employed for immolating Christ, since they do not change Him except at most locally.¹

¹ Several theologians, such as Melchior Cano, Estius, and Valentia, said the breaking of the host was essential; others, such as St. Bellarmine, held it as an integral part of the sacrifice. Both are manifestly opposed to St. Thomas, q. 83, a. 4; a. 5, ad 7; a. 6, ad 6.

3. Likewise the communion of the people: a) because the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 8, declares that Masses in which the priest alone communicates are licit (cf. Council of Nicaea I, can. 18; prop. 28 of the Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI); b) because communion is not always distributed by a priest, but sometimes by a deacon, indeed formerly by laymen; therefore it is not a sacrificial action; c) because reception is participation in the sacrifice (I Cor. X, 16; Heb. XIII, 10), whence it supposes the victim already offered and immolated.²

² St. Thomas, q. 79, a. 7, ad 3.

317. Thesis II. The communion of the species consecrated in the same sacrifice, made by the celebrant, is not of the essence of the sacrifice; nevertheless it is of its integrity.

The first part is proved: Communion is not of the essence of the sacrifice.³

³ Several taught the contrary: certain moderns, such as Bellord, said that it was the whole essence, because they suppose that sacrifice is nothing other than a banquet with the divinity; which nevertheless is false, since in a holocaust there is no eating of the victim, and nevertheless it was the more perfect sacrifice; - others placed the essence in the consecration and communion together, but principally in communion, which the consecration prepares: thus St. Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus; - others, however, principally in the consecration, although partially in communion, as Dominic Soto, Lugo, and the Salmanticenses.

1. From the authority of the Fathers and Theologians: Cyprian, de laps. 26; Chrysostom, hom. 1 in prod. Iud. 6; Gregory of Nyssa, or. 1 in res.; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XXIII, 7-10; Council of Toledo XII, a. 681, c. 5; and St. Thomas, q. 79, a. 5 and q. 82, a. 4.

2. Eating is an action unapt for sacrifice: for nothing is offered to God, nor is anything withdrawn from human use to be deputed in honor of God, by an action by which something is consumed by man for his own utility. In other words, consumption for one's own utility is not a symbol of our subjection toward God.

3. Sacrifice is offered in the name of Christ; but communion is not done in the person of Christ, for Christ is not made food for Himself, nor does He eat Himself through another.

Nor should you say: Christ hands Himself over for communicating, as He handed Himself over for crucifixion. - For the killers to whom He handed Himself over were not ministers immolating in His name, whereas the priest is His true minister, who ought to act in the name of Christ.

4. The sacrifice of the altar is essentially representative of the passion of Christ; but communion does not represent the passion; therefore.

Nor does I Cor. XI, 26 stand in the way; for by communicating we announce the death of Christ, not insofar as the reception itself would be an imitation of the cross, but insofar as we are made participants of the passion of the victim immolated on the cross and now again offered in memory of the death.

5. In communion no action is present which affects the victim itself, but it affects only the species; whence it would be said erroneously that Christ Himself is changed, destroyed, or immolated by it.

The second part is proved: The communion of the celebrant is an integral part. Thus St. Thomas, q. 79, a. 7, ad 3; q. 82, a. 4; q. 83, a. 6.

1. From the practice of the Church, which so urges communion in every circumstance that it is never licit to omit it, and, in default of the celebrant, it must be done by another priest, even not fasting (Missal, tit. 10, n. 3).

2. In this sacrifice Christ is prepared in the notion of food and drink; but this bespeaks a natural order to reception, which the Fathers acknowledge: Chrysostom, hom. 3 to the Ephesians; Augustine, in John XXVI, 13; Gregory, dial. IV, 58; therefore reception is the part completing the integrity of the sacrifice.

3. The sacrifice of the altar is a propitiatory and peace-making sacrifice, in which the priest customarily participates in the sacrifice as a sign of peace and fellowship between God and men.

Whence without reception the Mass would be a true sacrifice but incomplete, as a man without an arm is a true man but incomplete. Hence the Mass on Parasceve is denied by the Fathers and Theologians to be a sacrifice; but if by others it is called a sacrifice, they understand this in an imperfect sense concerning participation in the sacrifice.

318. They object: In sacrifice two things are required: the preparation or bringing-in of the victim, and its immolation. But in the consecration there is not immolation but only the placing of the victim: for nothing is changed or destroyed insofar as it is placed; but if a change of Christ then took place, it would not take place on the altar but in heaven. Therefore communion is further required so that Christ may be immolated or destroyed.

It is answered that those two things are required as distinct if the victim is offered in its proper species, because then it will not be placed in the state of a victim except through an action which touches and changes it; but if it is offered in an alien species, it can be placed in the state of a victim through an action which really changes something else into it. Nevertheless it does not follow that Christ is immolated insofar as He is changed in heaven, or precisely insofar as He is placed here, but insofar as He is placed in the state of a victim; which action, although physically it is a placing and not a change, nevertheless is equivalent to this according to the estimation of men, because Christ, through an action which changes bread and wine into Himself, is placed here in the external state of immolation and of a victim. Whence the same action under a diverse aspect is a presentation and, as it were, bringing-in of the victim through transubstantiation, and at the same time an oblation and immolation.

319. Practical corollaries. - From the doctrine set forth several things follow which must be attended to in practice:

1. A special application of the Mass must necessarily be made before the consecration, so that if made afterward it is invalid and of no value.

2. He who is present at the consecration is present at the sacrifice as to its essence and becomes a participant in its fruits; although he does not satisfy the precept of the Church of hearing Mass on a feast day, since the Church commands the whole Mass.

3. The celebrant is bound to communicate from his own sacrifice, nor can he receive a host consecrated in another Mass or by another priest, and place in the pyx or in the monstrance the host consecrated by himself.

4. The same host also, which was consecrated together with the chalice, and not another, must be broken and received by the celebrant; for the liturgical breaking of the host is a preparation for reception.

5. Likewise the host just consecrated, and not another previously consecrated, ought to be elevated, that it may be adored; and all the ceremonies per se ought to be performed with one and the same host, as the perfect integrity of the sacrifice requires.

6. Without a most grave cause, it is by no means licit to take from the altar before the communion of the celebrant particles consecrated in the Mass, so that they may be distributed to the faithful who are to communicate, because first the celebrant, then the faithful, ought to communicate from the same sacrifice.

7. Likewise hosts consecrated in the Mass are not to be placed away before communion has been completed, but are to be left upon the altar until then, because in a certain way they pertain to the sacrifice which is completed by communion.