Chapter Second. On the Eucharist as Sacrifice

Question First. On the Nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

The eucharistic sacrifice is also customarily called the sacrifice of the Mass, by which name is signified the sacred rite according to which the eucharistic sacrifice must be offered by precept of the Church. Concerning the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice, in this place only those points of doctrine from dogmatic institutions are indicated which are necessary to know for solving moral questions.

162. Declarations. 1. Sacrifice in general can be defined: The offering of a sensible thing, legitimately instituted and made to God, by which through the alteration of that same thing we profess that God is the supreme Lord of all things and of our life and death.

a. Sacrifice in an improper sense is taken for any offering made to God, or for any internal or external act by which God is worshiped; thus it is said: a sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit,² and: offer to God the sacrifice of praise.³ Properly it is taken for a special offering or for a special act of religion, by which some external thing under a certain rite is offered to God and altered in attestation of His supreme dominion over the life and death of all.

b. Sacrifice by its own nature is a sign by which we signify that God, the absolute Lord of life and death, is worthy that our life should be destroyed in His honor; but we signify this by the destruction of that thing which is offered to God in sacrifice. This thing must be sensible, because sacrifice was instituted for exhibiting external worship to God. Public sacrifice must be instituted either by God or by public authority, because it is a common sign, which can be instituted only by legitimate and public authority. Through alteration: for the thing offered to God by an external rite must be altered either wholly or in part (by shedding, breaking, consumption), so that by this alteration the supreme dominion of God over our life may be signified.

2. In the Mass there is offered to God a true and properly so called sacrifice, which is called eucharistic: If anyone should say that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God . . . let him be anathema.⁴ Besides, in the sacrifice of the Mass all the conditions concur which are required for a true and properly so called sacrifice, as the dogmatic theologians show at length.⁵

The sacrifice of the Mass, by reason of the thing offered, does not differ from the bloody sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross: for in both the same body and blood of Christ is offered; but by reason of the manner of offering, the two differ. In the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered through consecration, i.e., the sacrificial action by which Christ is offered is consecration. But whether consecration is a sacrificial action for this reason, that through it the body and blood of Christ are placed separately under the species of bread and wine, or for this reason, that through it Christ is placed in the state of food and drink, dogmatic theologians dispute.⁶

¹ Benedict XIV, De sacrosancto sacrificio missae; N. Gihr, Das heilige Messopfer, 7th ed. (Freiburg, Herder, 1902).

² Ps. 50:19.

³ Ps. 49:14.

⁴ Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 1.

⁵ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 852 ss.

⁶ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 902 ss.

163. The essence of the eucharistic sacrifice. Theologians ask in what action the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice consists, namely whether its essence is had in consecration alone, or in consecration and reception together. Many were of this opinion, that not only consecration but also communion pertains to the essence of this sacrifice; yet today the opinion is almost common among theologians which teaches that consecration alone pertains to the essence, but communion to the integrity and perfection, of the eucharistic sacrifice. The reasons of the first are:

a. In consecration alone all things are already perfectly had which, from the definition of sacrifice, are required for the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice: for in consecration a sensible thing is offered to God by its proper minister according to legitimate institution through the alteration of the victim for acknowledging the supreme dominion of God.

b. The sacrifice of the Mass must be offered in the person of Christ, who is the principal offerer; but consecration alone is performed in the person of Christ, whereas reception is exercised by the priest in his own name, not in the person of Christ.¹ Yet communion pertains to integrity, because Christ under the eucharistic species is placed in the manner of food and drink; therefore communion is commanded by divine law: for after Christ in the Last Supper had said: take and eat, He added: do this in commemoration of Me,² by which words the reception of the Eucharist also is commanded. Therefore communion can never be omitted without grave sin.

a. The solution of this question has practical importance insofar as from it one must determine how long someone must assist at Mass in order to be said to have been present at it as to its substance. Namely, he who was present at the consecration was present at the sacrifice of the Mass as to its substance and becomes participant in the fruits of the sacrifice; nevertheless he does not satisfy the precept of the Church of hearing Mass, because the whole Mass is commanded. Besides, from this same solution is solved the question whether he who on a feast day comes to church after the consecration has been completed must assist at the remaining part of the Mass. Finally, the question is solved whether the application of the Mass made after consecration still avails.

beta. Since, therefore, not only consecration but also, by the precept of Christ, at least as an integral part, communion pertains to the eucharistic sacrifice, the celebrant must always communicate from his own sacrifice; nor is it licit for him to receive a host consecrated in another Mass or by another, and, for example, to place in the monstrance the host consecrated by himself. The same also must be said concerning the liturgical fraction of the host, which is a preparation for eating, namely that the same host which was consecrated together with the sacred chalice must be broken in the due manner and received by the celebrant, so that the integrity of the sacrifice may be perfect. Universally, all the ceremonies of the Mass ought of themselves to be performed with one and the same host, which the perfect integrity of the sacrifice demands and the rubrics of the Missal manifestly suppose. Therefore of itself the host just consecrated, not another consecrated beforehand, must be elevated to be adored.

gamma. Without a most grave cause it is not licit to take from the altar before communion the particles consecrated in the Mass, in order that they may be distributed to those about to communicate, both because they ought to remain on the altar until communion, and because from the same sacrifice first the celebrating priest and then the faithful ought to communicate. If, however, there were question of administering viaticum, when preconsecrated particles are lacking, it is licit to carry to the sick person before communion a particle consecrated in the sacred action itself.³ Likewise particles consecrated in the Mass are not to be placed away earlier, but are to be left on the altar until communion has been completed, because (although not essentially) they pertain to the sacrifice, which is completed only when communion has been completed.

¹ The chief reason of those who think that communion is necessary for the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice is this: because otherwise in the sacrifice of the Mass that destruction would not be found which is required for every sacrifice. It is clear that this reason has no weight. Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 897 ss.

² 1 Cor. 11:24.

³ Cf. Gury, Casus conscientiae, II, n. 262; Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., II, n. 130.

164. On the consecration of both species. In the same way they ask whether for the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass the consecration of both species is required, or whether the whole nature of the eucharistic sacrifice is had even in the consecration of one. The opinion seems to be true according to which it is affirmed that for the essence of the sacrifice the consecration of both species is required. And indeed, it belongs to the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice that it be the unbloody representation of the bloody sacrifice on the cross; but the representation of the bloody sacrifice is not a Mass except through the consecration of both species: for the sacrifice of the Mass represents the sacrifice of the cross by this, that the body and blood of Christ are placed under different species, namely the body separated from the blood and as it were dead, and the blood of Christ separated from the body and shed; for by the force or sword of the words the blood is separated from the body.¹

a. This question has practical importance where he who accepted a stipend for a Mass consecrated only one species and could not supply the defect. Therefore, from this opinion, in a case of this sort, he who accepted the stipend does not satisfy his obligation of celebrating for him who gave the stipend; wherefore he must either celebrate the Mass again or seek condonation from the Holy See.

b. But since, on the authority of St. Alphonsus (n. 306), the opinion according to which the essence of the sacrifice is had even in the consecration of one species alone is probable, he who has celebrated for a stipend in such a case probably satisfies his obligation; but he who probably has already satisfied his obligation is not bound to fulfill it again, provided he holds this opinion with St. Alphonsus as probable.

¹ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 886 ss.; Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1892, p. 97.

165. The end and effects of the Mass. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass is one by reason of the thing offered, but by reason of its end it is fourfold: latreutic, insofar as it is offered for worshiping God; eucharistic, insofar as it is offered for giving thanks to God for benefits received; impetratory, insofar as it is offered for obtaining benefits; and satisfactory, insofar as it is offered for obtaining the remission of temporal punishments which are still owed for sins already remitted. In this way it happens that the sacrifice of the Mass contains in itself alone the differences of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

The celebrating priest can explicitly intend one or another or even all of these ends, and laudably does intend them; yet this is not necessary: for the intention of them is always had implicitly whenever the priest intends to perform the sacred action as Christ instituted it or as the Church wills and intends; but this implicit intention is always had in one about to celebrate.

2. To the fourfold end for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered from its institution there corresponds a fourfold effect, which the same sacrifice produces in reality. It exhibits to the most holy Trinity the most perfect worship of latria, pays the debt of thanksgiving for benefits received, obtains benefits of every kind, supernatural and natural, insofar as these conduce to salvation, and finally obtains from God remission for sinners as to punishment; therefore it produces a latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and satisfactory effect.

It is clear that some of these effects are produced with respect to God, others with respect to men: the worship of latria, the payment of the debt of gratitude, and the placation of the divine majesty are referred to God; but the remission of punishments and benefits of diverse kind (the impetratory and satisfactory effect) are referred to men.

166. The various offerers. Several offerers of the sacrifice can be distinguished, who nevertheless do not all offer the sacrifice in the same way. To clarify this, it must be noted that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered principally by him in whose name and by whose authority it is offered, who therefore is the principal agent in its offering; ministerially (immediately) it is offered by him who sacrifices in the name and by the power of the principal offerer; ministerially (mediately) by him who in some way joins himself morally to the offering minister, which can happen in two ways, either because by act someone joins himself to him, or because only from the intention of the Church he joins himself to him.

a. The principal offerer is Christ the Lord, who Himself offers the sacrifice of the Mass and thus through priests, as through His ministers, daily renews the sacrifice of the cross in an unbloody manner.

For according to the Council of Trent, the same one is now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross.¹ And indeed, Christ in instituting the sacrifice willed that it always be offered through priests in His name; wherefore He conceded to priests in ordination the power of offering the sacrifice of the Mass in His name.

b. The ministerial (immediate) offerer is the priest alone, who, although he offers in the person of Christ, nevertheless is not a mere executor of another's will, but also himself sacrifices in his own name.

Christ, as the Council of Trent has (loc. cit.), now offers Himself by the ministry of priests. But because the sacrifice of the Mass is offered through consecration, and only the priest is distinguished by the power of consecrating which is handed over in priestly ordination, therefore only the priest can offer the sacrifice of the Mass as ministerial (immediate) offerer.

c. The general offerer is the universal Church, to whom Christ left this sacrifice, so that it might be offered daily in place of the sacrifices of the Old Testament; therefore the Church chooses and consecrates priests so that through them, as through her delegates, she may offer to God the sacrifice of the Mass. Wherefore the priest sacrifices not only as minister of Christ, but also as minister and delegate of the whole Church.

That the faithful, and indeed all of them, offer the sacrifice ministerially (mediately) is gathered from the rite of the Mass: We offer to Thee, O Lord, etc.; Therefore, most clement Father, we humbly ask and beseech, etc.; This offering, therefore, of our service and also of Thy whole family, etc. Therefore, from the intention of the Church, all the faithful offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

d. Special and accessory offerers are the faithful who in some way actually join themselves to the offering priest. Among these the first place is held by those who join their labor with the celebrant, therefore those who either provide a stipend or founded Masses, supply the utensils necessary for Mass, or serve the sacrificing priest; the second place is held by those who are present at Mass in reality, who therefore participate by their will and by their presence; finally, the third place is held by those who are present at Mass in mind and spirit and therefore join themselves to the offerer only by their will, although actual.

¹ Sess. 22, c. 2.

167. The sacrifice and the offerer can be considered triply. 1. Therefore the eucharistic sacrifice can be considered in a threefold way: a. insofar as it was instituted by Christ and is offered by the same Christ; b. insofar as it is offered by the Church, which is the spouse of Christ, in which there always exist many faithful of eminent holiness; c. insofar as it is offered by this determinate priest with this disposition, devotion, and attention. If the sacrifice of the Mass is considered in the first way, it always pleases God the Father infinitely and always produces the same effect, by whatever priest it is offered, whether holy or sinful, whether devout or distracted. If it is considered in the second way, it likewise always pleases God the Father and produces its effect independently of the holiness of the celebrating priest. If it is considered in the third way, it pleases God the Father more and produces a greater effect, the greater the holiness and devotion of the priest is.

2. Likewise the priest offering the sacrifice can be considered triply: a. insofar as he bears the person of Christ, the first offerer and consecrator, of whom the priest is as it were the instrument and ministerial cause; b. insofar as he is the public minister of the Church, in whose name he offers the sacrifice and in whose person he pours forth the prayers which are recited in the Mass; c. insofar as he is a private person offering and praying also in his own name.

a. From these things it is concluded that the sacrifice of the Mass is always a public act of religion, never merely private, and that all the prayers pertaining to the rite of the Mass are poured forth by the priest as he is minister of the Church and a public person. Nor therefore does the character of a private person cease in the priest: for the priest also prays and sacrifices for himself and in his own name.

b. From these things it is concluded that the Mass of a good priest, speaking absolutely, is worth more than that of a bad priest.¹ As to the substantial fruit, which comes ex opere operato from the offering of the sacrifice made in the person of Christ, and as to the fruit which the sacrifice produces insofar as it is offered in the name of the whole Church, the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as that of a good one, since that fruit is independent of the disposition of the minister. Besides this twofold substantial fruit, the Mass of a bad priest profits nothing further, whereas the Mass of a good priest produces other fruits besides from the work of the one working. For insofar as the priest as a private person recites the liturgical prayers in his own name and prays in both Mementos, his prayers are heard as those of a friend of God, but the prayers of a bad priest are not heard by God. But the liturgical prayers are also made in the name of the Church. Now a good priest is accustomed to pray with greater attention, fervor, and confidence than a bad priest; but the more attentively and fervently someone prays, the more he obtains for himself and others. Therefore, even if the prayers which are made in the name of the Church by a bad priest have their fruit, nevertheless insofar as they are made by a good priest with due disposition and devotion, they profit more, especially as to the impetratory fruit, because the prayers of the Church which are poured forth by a good minister please God more and move Him, in view of the holiness of the minister, to grant ampler goods.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 82, a. 6; Gobat, Exper. theol., tract. 3, n. 111 ss.; Sporer-Bierbaum, III, q. 2, n. 320 ss.; Dicastillo, De sacram., tract. 5, n. 190 ss.