Article V: On the Value of the Sacrifice and the Quantity of Its Effects

S. Th. III, q. 79, a. 5; a. 7, ad 3; Suppl., q. 71, a. 13, ad 2.

358. The value and the effect of the sacrifice differ. - Value is the quantity of virtue and efficacy which the sacrifice has for producing effects from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered; but the effect is that which follows from that dignity or is given in view of it. Value can be considered in itself, i.e., in first act or as to sufficiency; and in second act, as to efficiency or application, i.e., together with the effects in fact produced.

359. The value of the sacrifice from diverse aspects is infinite or finite. - The sacrifice can be considered as it is offered by the Church and the faithful, or by Christ, according to itself or as to application, with respect to God or to us. Now:

A. The value of the sacrifice, if it is considered from the work of the priest, of the faithful, and of the Church working, is finite: for although the thing offered is infinitely worthy, nevertheless the act of offering it has finite dignity, and indeed greater according to greater sanctity.

B. The value of the sacrifice ex opere operato, or from the work of Christ:

1. Considered in itself, is infinite, both from the dignity of the thing offered and of the one offering, and because it applies the infinite merits of the cross.

2. Considered as to application with respect to God, it is infinite: for Christ gives to God a worship infinitely worthy of adoration and thanksgiving.

3. Considered as to application with respect to us, it is finite:

a) intensively, both because man is incapable of the infinite good which is limited by his disposition, and because the infinite punishment of hell is not remitted by the sacrifice; nevertheless the fruits can increase indefinitely according to the quantity of our devotion;

b) also extensively as to the general and most special fruit, because the number of the faithful or of priests concelebrating is finite; nevertheless that fruit increases indefinitely according to the number of the faithful or of those concelebrating: for the faithful, or priests celebrating the same sacrifice together, do not perceive lesser fruits because their number is greater;

c) especially as to the special fruit: for this does not seem to increase, but on the contrary the more persons to whom it is applied, the less is given to each. This at least seems to us the truer opinion.

For 1. the priest has the power of limiting the special fruit to one person, which power would not be understood if that fruit were extensively infinite; 2. in the Church there flourishes the practice of the faithful who ask for a peculiar application for themselves to a peculiar end, or a particular application for a particular deceased person; but that practice would be harmful if the fruit were extensively infinite: for it would be much better that all sacrifices be offered for all the living and the dead.

360. Disputed question. - The last opinion is not admitted by all. For many theologians judge that the special impetratory fruit, and several that the strictly propitiatory fruit, is extensively infinite, so that it is not diminished in individuals if it is applied to several, but on the contrary profits each one as much if applied to several as if applied to one.¹

¹ That the fruits of the sacrifice are extensively finite is taught by St. Bonaventure, in IV, d. 45, a. 2, q. 3, Scotus, Paludanus, D. Soto, Suarez, Lugo, St. Bellarmine, Pasqualigo, and many more recent authors, among whom are Lambrecht and Billot. On the contrary are Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, Habert, Tournely, Gonet, Wigandt, and several Thomists; nevertheless the matter is doubtful, says Billuart. St. Alphonsus held the infinity in Th. M., l. VI, n. 312; but, as Gaude notes, after the year 1769 in the little work De Caerem. missae, and In Trid., sess. 22, n. 22, he changed his opinion. Concerning the mind of St. Thomas they dispute: in III, q. 79, a. 5, he seems to favor infinite extension; on the contrary in IV Sent., d. 45, q. 2, a. 4, qc. 3, ad 2, and qc. 2, sed contra, and in Suppl., q. 71, a. 3, ad 2. Some hold limitation for the satisfactory fruit, infinite extension for the impetratory: thus, among others, Lehmkuhl and Cappello.

This opinion is probable, whence if someone offers a Mass by a merely gratuitous title for someone, he can follow that opinion and apply to him a second intention, under the condition that it be done without prejudice to him for whom he is bound to celebrate by reason of an onerous title; nevertheless he cannot licitly apply it for a stipend and at the same time under another due title, for instance of obedience or fidelity (can. 825, 2). A fortiori he cannot apply one Mass for two intentions owed from justice, because then he is bound to a certainly valid application; but by acting thus he would expose the other application to the danger of nullity; whence the Church prohibited this in the condemned proposition 10 by Alexander VII,² and can. 825, 2 and 3. Besides, in the case of a second stipend the title of support is lacking.

² "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice."

361. Observation. - The limitation of the fruits of the sacrifice is not explained by all in the same way. Several say that it arises from the mere will of Christ, who limited the fruits so that the faithful would more frequently procure celebration; or from the will of God, because according to the order of His providence He ordains determinate causes to determinate and limited effects. Others, perhaps better, say that the measure of the fruits depends chiefly upon two things: upon the perfection of the application and upon the dispositions, so that in parity of dispositions and in parity of application the sacrifice produces the same effects; but just as the fruit is limited intensively by the required dispositions, so extensively from the fact that the application is not equally perfect if it is offered for several as if for one. For application is a human act of the priest determining the intention to one person and one end; but a human act, the more it tends toward many objects, the less determinately it is borne toward the several objects; whence the application is less perfect, or the intention less determinate, and accordingly a Mass offered for several does not profit the several as much as if it were offered for one.

On the contrary, for the general fruit, for which no special application is required: since the several faithful in some way offer through the priest and with the priest, the oblations are multiplied and accordingly their fruits.