Question One: On the Existence of the Sacrifice

310. State of the question. - That the Mass truly is a sacrifice, besides the Albigensians, all the Reformers denied: not only those who denied the real presence, as the Sacramentarians, Calvinists, and many Anglicans, but also those who retained it, as Luther with his followers.

For they admit no sacrifice except the spiritual sacrifice of good works, and they say that Christ instituted nothing except a sign or bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, or a mere supper in which He hands Himself over to us to be eaten. But the liberal critics, progressing further, deny the very historicity of the institution of the Eucharist, as we have already said, n. 239, B. Indeed the Modernists say that the doctrine of the sacrifice of the cross is not evangelical but Pauline, and that the Christian supper gradually assumed the character of a liturgical action (prop. 38, 45, 49). And certain Catholics, such as Renz and especially Wieland, whose works were placed on the Index January 2, 1911, said that for nearly two centuries the notion of sacrifice was hidden from the Church, and that by the influence of paganism the notion of sacrifice was applied in Irenaeus. On the other hand, in our days, among Anglicans, the Ritualists again admit both the real presence and the truth of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

But Catholic doctrine holds that in the Mass there is celebrated a true and properly so-called sacrifice, which at the same time is essentially representative of the sacrifice of the cross, not however a mere image, representation, or commemoration of it.

311. Thesis. The celebration of the Eucharist is a true and properly so-called sacrifice of the New Law. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1, can. 1 and 2.

It is proved:

A. From the Scriptures: 1. From the prophecy of Malachias I, 10-11: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts; and I will not receive an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificed and offered to My name a clean oblation."

Concerning these words it must be noted: a) the occasion of this prophecy was the evil priests who, in the time of the prophet, neglected, contemned, and polluted their sacrifices, whom he rebukes by the words adduced; b) the words there is sacrificed and offered are of the present tense and yet signify the future, according to the custom of the prophets, who are so certain of future things that they describe them as present, and, without respect to time, see them as it were present; c) the words there is sacrificed and offered a clean oblation, by force of the Hebrew word and the usage of Scripture, designate a sacrifice properly so called, and especially an unbloody one.

By the aforesaid words the prophet announces that the sacrifices of the Jews are to be abolished, and that there must be substituted for them a new and true and properly so-called sacrifice; which cannot be anything other than the Eucharistic sacrifice.

And indeed: a) A new sacrifice is announced, for to the Hebrew worship is opposed another worship to be rendered in every place of the Gentiles by a clean oblation, and this precisely is the reason why God does not receive the offering of the priests of the Jews: for from the rising of the sun...; therefore the sacrifice of the Jews displeases God not only by reason of those offering, but by reason of the sacrifice itself, and therefore it is to be abolished.

b) It is a sacrifice properly so called, both because the Hebrew words signify this, and because it is opposed to sacrifices properly so called, for which it is to be substituted, and because a sacrifice improperly so called or spiritual sacrifice is not new, but is in use in all times; whence also in chapter III the ministers are already designated who are to offer it and for whom the Lord will have special care (coll. Is. LXVI, 18).

c) It can be nothing other than the Eucharistic sacrifice: for it is not the Aaronic sacrifice, because that is not new and is precisely said to be reprobated; not a pagan sacrifice, since the prophets abhor sacrifices of this sort; not the sacrifice of the cross, which, offered only once, is not offered in every place nor among the Gentiles. Therefore it is the Eucharistic sacrifice, to which alone the characters of the sacrifice announced perfectly belong: for it is new, universal, clean, to be offered by a diverse priesthood, and from it there proceeds a great glorification of the name of God among all the Gentiles.

This is confirmed: 1. from the interpretation of the Fathers from the beginning of the Church: Didache, 14; Justin, Dial. 41; Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 17; Tertullian, adv. Iud. 5; Eusebius, dem. ev. I, 10; Chrysostom, adv. Iud. V, 12; Augustine, de Civ. D. XVIII, 35; John Damascene, de F. orth. IV, 14;

2. from the authentic interpretation of the Council of Trent itself, sess. 22, c. 1, which says concerning the sacrifice of the Mass: "This is that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those offering, which the Lord through Malachias foretold was to be offered clean in every place to His name, which was to be great among the Gentiles."

2. From Psalm CIX, 4, explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews V, 5, 6: "Christ did not glorify Himself that He might become high priest, but He who spoke to Him: You are My Son, today I have begotten You; as also in another place He says: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech."

Concerning these things it must be noted: a) priesthood is conferred upon someone in order to sacrifice, and per se and primarily regards sacrifice, as the epistle testifies, V, 1: "Every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things which pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins"; b) Christ is said to be priest, not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order, i.e., according to the likeness, manner, rite, of Melchisedech, who, as Gen. XIV, 18 testifies, brought forth bread and wine; c) Christ is said to be priest forever, and therefore His sacrifice in some way remains.

And so three things are announced concerning Christ: a) that He would offer a true sacrifice, since He is a priest; b) that He is a priest according to the order or rite of Melchisedech; c) that He is a priest forever and therefore His sacrifice will always endure. But Christ, according to the rite of Melchisedech, could not offer sacrifice except at the last supper, when He placed His body under the species of bread and wine, and this is renewed daily in the Eucharist by the precept of Christ commanding: Do this in commemoration of Me. Therefore the Eucharist is a true sacrifice; but if it were not, Christ would not truly be, as priest, or in the priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech.

This is confirmed: 1. Although under other aspects also Melchisedech bore the type of Christ, both because he was at once king and priest, and because by force of his name he is king of justice, and because he was king of Salem, i.e., of peace, and because in Scripture he appears "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life," and thus prefigures the perpetuity of Christ the priest; and although the Epistle to the Hebrews attended only to such considerations, nevertheless through this Christ would not formally be priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

2. Whence the Fathers understand Christ's priesthood according to Melchisedech concerning the Eucharist: Cyprian, ep. 63; Clement of Alexandria, strom. IV; Eusebius, dem. ev. V, 3; Lib. de Sacr. V, 1; Chrysostom and Theodoret, in ep. to the Hebrews; Ambrose, de myst. VIII, 16; Jerome, ep. 73; Augustine, de Civ. D. XVI, 22; XVII, 20; XVIII, 35; ep. 177, n. 12.

3. And thus the Council of Trent declares, sess. 22, c. 1.

It is understood, moreover, that in the Epistle to the Hebrews no mention is made of the sacrifice of Melchisedech, since it could in no way serve the intended purpose, which was to prove the excellence of His priesthood over the Levitical priesthood: for the Aaronic priests offered equal sacrifices, indeed more excellent ones, as being bloody.

3. From the words of institution, Luke XXII, 17-20; I Cor. XI, 24-25: "This is My body which is given for you (or, will be handed over)... This chalice is the new testament in My blood, which shall be poured out for you"; or Mark XIV, 22-24 and Matt. XXVI, 26-28: "This is My body... This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be poured out for many," and Matthew adds, "unto the remission of sins."

Concerning these things it must be noted: a) the words to be given or handed over and to be poured out for you or for many, i.e., for your benefit or the benefit of many, from received usage signify a true sacrifice; - b) the words which shall be poured out for you, in Luke and Paul, are not referred grammatically to the blood but to the chalice, which is clear from the Greek, so that the sense is: this chalice is poured out; where by metonymy the container is put for the content; whence the sense is that the blood is poured out insofar as it is in the chalice or has relation to the chalice, or that the blood in the chalice has relation to pouring out; - c) the verb shall be poured out in the Greek text is put in the present: is poured out, just as is given, is handed over, are in the present; so that it is readily understood of the present handing over and pouring out, although it can also be understood of what is proximately future. In the first case it is directly affirmed that the body now is handed over and the blood now is poured out, and is placed in the state of immolation which will really be consummated on the cross, which it mystically shadows forth; in the other case there is directly signified the body to be handed over and the blood to be poured out on the cross, which nevertheless already are presented under the aspect of a body handed over and blood poured out.

Therefore in the institution of the Eucharist Christ, under the species of bread and wine, placed and offered His body and blood in an external state of immolation, namely of a body handed over and blood poured out, for us unto the remission of sins. But the handing over of a body and pouring out of blood for others unto the remission of sins manifestly declare a sacrifice. Therefore the placing of the body and blood of Christ under the species in the state of immolation is declared to be a sacrifice. Now Christ commanded that the same thing which was done at the supper be done perpetually, saying: Do this in commemoration of Me. Therefore the celebration of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ as a perpetual sacrifice.

This is confirmed: 1. from the fact that Christ substituted the supper for the Jewish Passover, and the blood of the New Testament for the blood poured out in confirmation of the ancient covenant (Ex. XXIV, 8);

2. from the interpretation of the Fathers, for example Cyprian, ep. 63; and the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1.

4. From the use of the primitive Church.

It is indicated positively in Acts XIII, 2: As they were ministering (Greek λειτουργούντων), i.e., exhibiting sacrificial worship; likewise I Cor. X, 18-20, where the chalice and table of the Lord are opposed to the chalice and table of demons, i.e., to sacrifices offered to the demon, as is established from the word θυσία (v. 18), which indicates a true sacrifice; likewise it is insinuated in Heb. XIII, 10; - but negatively it is established from the fact that after Christ all other sacrifices ceased.

The several arguments made from the Scriptures do not always provide sufficient certitude singly, but all do together.

B. From Tradition, which is manifestly established from the Fathers, Liturgies, and decrees of the Church.

1. At the beginning the Fathers testify that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice: Didache, 14 and 15; Justin, Dial. 41, 70, 117; Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 17; Tertullian, de or. 19; Hippolytus, in Cant. III, 4; Cyprian, ep. 63; Origen, hom. 9, in Lev.; c. Cels. VIII, 33; Chrysostom, hom. 17 in Heb.; Eusebius, dem. ev. I, 10; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XXIII, 7-10; Gregory of Nyssa, or. cat. 18; likewise the Liturgies, in which everywhere the words occur: oblation, immolation, sacrifice, victim. They say that by this sacrifice all sacrifices are consummated, and that the prophecy of Malachias is fulfilled, and that its antitype is the sacrifice of Melchisedech; as we have already said above.

2. Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 18; Origen, c. Cels. VI-VIII; Hippolytus, in anaph.; Cyprian, ep. 63; Gregory Nazianzen, or. 4 and ep. 171; Gregory of Nyssa, in Ch. res. or. 1, explain in some measure the notion of sacrifice, and insist upon this: that by the consecration of bread and wine there are offered to God the body and blood of Christ, once handed over for us on the cross; the memory of whose death is thus always renewed among the faithful, so that the whole sacrifice consists in the oblation of the victim once handed over to death, by which death is vividly represented.

3. The great Fathers, Ambrose, in Luke I, 28; de Off. I, 48; in Ps. XXXVIII, 25; Chrysostom, de Sacerd. III, 4; Augustine, ep. 98; ep. to Boniface; Gregory, dial. IV, 58, more fully explain the notion of sacrifice and of the representation of the sacrifice of the cross; for this they often use the words "of immolation in sacrament"; by which indeed they do not understand a merely symbolic and bare representative sacrifice, but one at once symbolic and real, and really containing that of which it is figurative.

4. This doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice is also found among the separated Eastern Churches, and several times has been authentically confirmed by the Church: thus by Innocent III in the profession of faith for the Waldenses; by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1; in the Second Council of Lyons, profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus; and the professions of faith of Pius IV, Gregory XIII, and Benedict XIV.

C. By reason: sacrifice must be offered by the precept of natural law (II, n. 693), whence there has never been any nation or religion without sacrifice; therefore in the true religion founded by Christ there must be a sacrifice to be offered. But there would be none unless the celebration of the Eucharist were a sacrifice.

Whence also in it all the conditions of sacrifice are verified, as we shall show.

312. Protestants object: from the Epistle to the Hebrews, that there is one priest, Christ (VII, 23-25); and likewise one sacrifice (VII, 27; X, 12-14). Therefore in the New Law there is only the one sacrifice of the cross.

Resp. To the first, I distinguish: there is only one principal priest, I concede; there is only one ministerial priest, I deny: for the apostles and their successors are ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God (I Cor. IV, 1), who offer the sacrifice from the precept of Christ commanding: Do this in commemoration of Me (ibid. XI, 24).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews there are excluded priests who succeed one another in the way the Levitical priests did, so that they are independent of one another, equal, and offering in their own name; but not secondary and ministerial priests, essentially subordinated and dependent, and vicars of Christ the priest forever, who uses their ministry. Whence in the same epistle the sacrifice of the altar is suggested (XIII, 10).

To the second, I distinguish: there is only one sacrifice simply and as to substance, I concede; there is only one as to the mode of offering and relatively, I deny.

The sacrifice of the New Law is one, so that there will not be a new victim nor a new real immolation, because by the one immolation of His cross Christ acquired infinite merit and abundantly satisfied for sins. Whence there will never be a new sacrifice propitiatory of itself; but nothing prevents the same victim from being offered again in a sacrifice of praise and adoration, which essentially is commemorative and applicative of the merits and satisfactions of the cross. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sacrifices of the Old Law had to be repeated, as insufficient in themselves and inefficacious for condign satisfaction; but with a satisfaction more than sufficient having been furnished by a real immolation of infinite virtue and perpetual efficacy, a sacrifice is no longer to be offered for satisfying, as if in supplement to the sacrifice accomplished; yet nothing prevents the immolation of the same victim from being symbolically renewed in a sign, so that its fruit may come to us and be applied more and more.