Article I. On the Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Preliminary note. Concerning the nature of the sacrifice of the Mass, we touch upon only those heads of doctrine which are necessary for resolving moral questions; we leave the rest to be treated in Dogmatic Theology.

229. Notion of sacrifice in general. Sacrifice is an external act of the virtue of religion; for it serves to render to God the worship due to Him. Sacrifice is taken either in a broad or in a strict sense. In a broad sense, sacrifice is any good act which in any manner pertains to the worship of God. Hence that saying: "A contrite spirit is a sacrifice to God."²⁶⁷ But sacrifice accepted in the strict sense is distinguished from the other acts of religion. For it is a legitimately instituted offering of a sensible thing, by which, through a certain destruction of that same thing (whether physical or moral), men profess the supreme excellence of God and His supreme dominion over the life and death of every creature. This definition belongs to no other act of religion, whether internal or external, because in no other act is the destruction of the offered thing necessarily required.

Certain modern authors²⁶⁸ place the genuine notion of sacrifice either in banquets, by which man is, as it were, united with God (the banquet theory), or in the representation of the one true bloody sacrifice accomplished by Christ, or in praises and thanksgivings rendered to God. But these new theories, as Lehmkuhl²⁶⁹ rightly says, gain for themselves a certain appearance of truth from very few and obscure sayings of the early Fathers, but are refuted by the most abundant and clearest sayings of the other Fathers and by the authentic doctrine of the Church itself. Therefore, the notion of sacrifice most commonly handed down by all authors is to be retained.²⁷⁰

²⁶⁷ Psalm 50:19.

²⁶⁸ G. Renz, Gesch. des Meßopferbegriffes (Freising, 1901); Wieland, Mensa und Confessio (Munich, 1906); Götsmann, Das euchar. Opfer (Freiburg, 1901); Jac. Belford, The Eccl. Review (Philadelphia, 1903).

²⁶⁹ Theol. mor. II, n. 236, note.

²⁷⁰ Cf. Rauschen, Eucharistie u. Bußsakr., § 5.

230. The conditions required for a true sacrifice are four:

1. On the part of the matter, the sacrifice must be a sensible substance over which man has dominion, for a sacrifice is a sensible sign.

2. On the part of the form, it is required that the offered thing be destroyed or at least changed. For through sacrifice the supreme dominion of God over all created things is acknowledged, and this acknowledgment and signification are most fittingly manifested by the destruction of the thing, since thus we profess that God can at will reduce all things to nothing. The destruction or change of the thing can be physical, as, for example, the killing of an animal; or moral, that is, by taking away its native use, as, for example, the pouring out of wine or oil. Certain authors²⁷¹ teach that the destruction of the matter is not required for the essence of sacrifice, but that consecration suffices. This opinion indeed is little probable, since in consecration alone perfect subjection toward the divine majesty is not sufficiently signified.²⁷²

3. On the part of the minister, it is required that he be a man legitimately deputed, namely, a priest. In the law of nature, that is, from Adam to Moses, such persons were deputed by a special divine instinct or by tradition, such as fathers of families and Melchizedek; in the Mosaic law Aaron and his sons were deputed for sacrificing, and therefore King Oseas, since he was not a priest, was rebuked when he wished to sacrifice and was punished by infection with leprosy.²⁷³ In the New Law priests alone can sacrifice. Hence the Apostle admonishes: "Neither does anyone take the honor [of the priesthood] to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron was."²⁷⁴

4. On the part of the end, it is required that it be offered to God alone in testimony of His supreme dominion over our life and death. Sacrifice, therefore, is in the genus of a sign, for it signifies the supreme dominion of God,²⁷⁵ while the sacraments principally signify grace. Sacrifice is the most proper act of latria, or adoration.

²⁷¹ Suarez, De relig., disp. 73, sect. 5, n. 5; Viva, Curs. theol., disp. 5, q. 1, a. 2.

²⁷² Billuart, De relig., diss. 3, a. 2.

²⁷³ 2 Chronicles 26:18. Authors think in diverse manners concerning the immolation of the paschal lamb; cf. Billuart, loc. cit.

²⁷⁴ Hebrews 5:4.

²⁷⁵ St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 85, a. 2 ad 2.

231. Thesis. The Mass is a) a true sacrifice and b) a real, unbloody presentation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross.

a) This is defined against the Reformers of the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent,²⁷⁶ and is established from the prophecies of the Old Testament²⁷⁷ and from the words of the institution of the Eucharist in the New Testament.²⁷⁸ The reason is that in the Mass all the conditions required for a true sacrifice are present. For:

1. On the part of the matter, there is the offering of a sensible thing, namely, of the Body and Blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine. 2. On the part of the form, there exists a destruction, both mystical and real. For by force of the words, under the species of bread the Body of Christ alone is placed, and under the species of wine the Blood of Christ alone, and thus there occurs a certain mystical separation of the Blood from the Body, or destruction, although the whole Christ is really present under each species. Moreover, by the consecration in the Mass Christ receives a new being, namely, sacramental being, which He loses again in Communion when the species have been dissolved. 3. On the part of the minister, only a rightly ordained priest can offer the sacrifice of the Mass. 4. On the part of the end, the Mass testifies to the supreme dominion of God and is offered to Him alone. Hence the Council of Trent says:²⁷⁹ "Although the Church has sometimes been accustomed to celebrate some Masses in honor and memory of the saints, nevertheless she does not teach that sacrifice is offered to them, but to God alone, who crowned them; hence neither is the priest accustomed to say: I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter or Paul; but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that those whose memory we keep on earth may deign to intercede for us in heaven."

b) The Mass, from the institution of Christ, is essentially a sacrifice representative of the sacrifice of the Cross. Therefore Christ, instituting the sacrifice of the Mass, says: "Do this in commemoration of Me,"²⁸⁰ and St. Paul says: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall announce the death of the Lord until He comes."²⁸¹ This representation pertains to the essence of the Mass, and therefore it can and must rightly be said that the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass do not differ essentially. For "one and the same is the Victim, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner of offering alone being different."²⁸²

But the Mass differs accidentally from the sacrifice of the Cross: 1. because on the Cross Christ was offered mortal and passible, but in the Mass immortal and impassible; 2. on the Cross the sacrifice was bloody, but in the Mass unbloody; 3. on the Cross Christ offered Himself, but in the Mass He offers through the ministry of priests; 4. on the Cross the price of our redemption was paid, but in the Mass that price is applied and communicated to us.

²⁷⁶ Session 22, cann. 1 and 2 on the sacrifice of the Mass (Denz., n. 948 sq.). "If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God ... let him be anathema."

²⁷⁷ Genesis 14:18; Psalm 109:1.

²⁷⁸ Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 ff.

²⁷⁹ Session 22, c. 3 on the sacrifice of the Mass (Denz., n. 941).

²⁸⁰ Luke 22:19.

²⁸¹ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

²⁸² Council of Trent, session 22, c. 2 on the sacrifice of the Mass (Denz., n. 940).

232. The essence of the Mass. Theologians do not agree in precisely which action the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass is situated. The essence of the sacrifice of the Mass does not consist: a) in an oblation either preceding or following the consecration; nor b) in the elevation of the host; nor c) in the fraction and commingling of the species; nor d) in distribution; nor e) in either one of the consecrations; but in the consecration of both species, with an order, however, to consumption as to an integral part. Thus the more common and truer opinion.²⁸³ The reason is that in the consecration of both species alone the four conditions required for the essence of sacrifice are verified. Nor should anyone object against this opinion: Therefore, if someone on Sundays was present at both consecrations alone, he satisfied the Sunday precept; which is false. For this precept obliges one to hear the entire Mass, and not its essence alone. From this doctrine concerning the essence of the Mass certain very practical conclusions follow.

²⁸³ Cf. Billuart, De euchar., diss. 8, a. 2.

233. You resolve:

1. It is not lawful to make or change the application of the Mass after both consecrations have been completed. For the essence of the sacrifice has then already been completed.

2. Particles consecrated in the pyx must remain upon the altar until after the Communion of the celebrating priest. The reason is that the Communion of the priest is not indeed of the essence of the Mass, but is an integral part of it. Therefore, a priest cannot consume a host consecrated in another Mass and place the host alone consecrated by him in this Mass in the monstrance; likewise, he must not replace the consecrated particles in the tabernacle, nor even hand them over to another distributing the Eucharist, until after his own Communion.²⁸⁴ Nevertheless, several authors rightly judge this last thing lawful if some necessity is present, for example, of administering Viaticum.

3. One who perceives at Communion that water is in the chalice and is unable to consecrate wine anew cannot receive a stipend for a Mass celebrated in this manner. Likewise, one who in good faith celebrated Masses with falsified wine unfit for consecration does not seem to have satisfied the stipends accepted for these Masses. Hence he must say them again or obtain a remission from the Holy See. There are, however, authors, for example, Gury,²⁸⁵ Berardi,²⁸⁶ and Génicot,²⁸⁷ who think that in this case the priest satisfied his obligation. For the opinion placing the essence of the Mass in one consecration is still in some measure probable. Therefore, the priest probably satisfied and consequently is bound to nothing according to the principles of pure probabilism. They add another reason: Since the stipend is given for the support of the priest, it can be presumed that he who gave it demands nothing more than that the priest celebrate a certain number of Masses, ordinary diligence being employed that all things be performed validly. Nevertheless, this opinion does not seem safe in practice, because: a) the arguments adduced are very weak; and b) the contrary practice exists. Hence even Génicot himself²⁸⁸ says: "Nevertheless, it is to be advised that, if few Masses have been said in this manner, they be repeated; if many, compensation be sought from the Holy See."

4. Because in the Mass of the Presanctified no consecration is had, a priest cannot receive a stipend for this Mass.

²⁸⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 11, 1878 (Decr. auth., n. 3448 ad VIII).

²⁸⁵ Cas. consc. II, n. 236.

²⁸⁶ Praxis confess., n. 3529.

²⁸⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 234.

²⁸⁸ Ibid.

234. Scholion. On the word Mass. The word Mass is derived neither from the Hebrew word Missah, which signifies an offering, nor from the Greek word μύησις (blessing), but from the Latin word mittere. It is called Mass for a threefold reason, because: a) through the Mass our offerings and prayers are sent to God; b) Christ is sent to us; c) at the end the people are dismissed with the words: Ite, missa est. St. Thomas writes to the point:²⁸⁹ "For this reason it is called Mass, because through an angel the priest sends prayers to God, as the people do through the priest; or because Christ is the Victim sent to us by God; hence also at the end of Mass on feast days the deacon dismisses the people, saying: Ite, missa est, namely, the Victim [has been sent] to God through the angel, namely, that it may be acceptable to God."

The Mass is called by the Greeks by diverse names, for example: μυσταγωγία, initiation, the accomplishment of the mystery; σύναξις, assembly; λατρεία, worship; εὐλογία, blessing; ἱερουργία, sacrifice; θυσία, victim; λειτουργία, the office of public worship. The name Mass was employed already from the most ancient times,²⁹⁰ but not always in the same sense; thus, for example, it was sometimes taken also for the Canonical Hours.²⁹¹

²⁸⁹ S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 4 ad 9.

²⁹⁰ Cf. St. Ambrose, Ep. 20 and Sermon 25.

²⁹¹ Cf. above, II, n. 360.