Section II. On the Efficacy and Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

By the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Mass is understood the very power of effecting which it has by reason of the thing offered and of the principal offerer. Now it is clear that this efficacy is infinite. But if it is asked whether the effects produced are themselves also infinite, one must distinguish. The effects which directly regard God, namely the latreutic and eucharistic effects, are infinite; in other words, the sacrifice of the Mass exhibits to God infinite or condign adoration, praise, and thanksgiving. But the effects which directly regard man, namely the propitiatory and impetratory, are limited.

As regards the effects of the Mass, we shall investigate further what the effects of this sacrifice are, in what way they are produced, in what measure different effects come to different persons, and what is required so that a special fruit may come to someone.

I. The effects of the Mass correspond to its ends. Hence, just as the end is fourfold, so also the effect is fourfold, namely latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and impetratory; in other words: 1. it renders adoration and praise to God; 2. it gives thanks to God for benefits received; 3. it placates offended divine justice and obtains remission of guilt and punishment; and 4. it obtains other spiritual and temporal goods.

Of the said effects, those which directly tend to our utility, namely the propitiatory and impetratory, are customarily indicated by the name fruits.

II. The mode by which the effects are produced. The effects of the Mass can be understood to be produced in three ways:

1. Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis, according as the effect proceeds by reason of the sacrifice itself, that is, by reason of the victim offered and the principal offerer, or by reason of the work of the co-offerers, that is, of the Church, the minister, and the faithful.

2. Immediately and mediately, according as the effect proceeds not through an intermediate effect, or through an effect of this kind.

3. Infallibly and fallibly. Now:

1. The latreutic and eucharistic effects are produced:

a) Ex opere operato, and indeed immediately and infallibly.

b) Ex opere operantis, and indeed immediately, and: 1. certainly and infallibly from the work of the Church co-offering; 2. whether or not, and how much, from the work of the other co-offerers depends on their disposition.

2. The propitiatory and impetratory effects are produced:

a) Ex opere operato; moreover ex opere operantis, namely of the Church co-offering, which moves God in a special way; likewise of the other co-offerers, the priest and the faithful, who can contribute to the aforesaid effects according to greater or lesser disposition.

b) Immediately are produced the placation of divine justice, relaxation of temporal punishment after guilt has been remitted, actual graces, and other spiritual and temporal goods. Mediately are produced remission of guilt, namely through the grace of repentance, and increase of habitual grace, namely through actual graces.

c) Some remission of temporal punishment after guilt has been remitted is produced infallibly, if the Mass is offered for the just. Other fruits are produced fallibly, because something can stand in the way either on the part of Christ, or on the part of the subject placing an obstacle. Nevertheless, it can be said that all fruits are produced infallibly in first act, insofar as the impetration of Christ is of itself always heard.

III. The measure according to which the effects come to those for whom Mass is offered.

Preliminary note I. Here the discussion concerns the effects which directly regard our utility, in other words, the propitiatory and impetratory effects, which effects, as we have already noted, are called fruits.

Preliminary note II. By reason of those to whom the fruits of the Mass come, a threefold fruit is distinguished, namely general, special or middle or ministerial, and most special or personal. The general fruit is that which comes to the whole Church; namely, since the priest always offers in the name of Christ and of the Church for the whole Church, it cannot happen that every sacrifice does not produce a fruit coming to the whole Church. The special fruit is that which comes to the one or ones to whom the priest specially applies the Mass. The most special fruit is that which comes to the celebrant. Namely, it cannot happen that a peculiar fruit does not come ex opere operato to the one offering worthily. But more commonly they judge that the priest cannot yield this fruit. To this fruit is referred that which comes to those contributing to the sacrifice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 312, 318). These things having been noted beforehand, I say:

1. The measure according to which the general fruit is distributed seems to be judged from the greater or lesser dignity and holiness of the members of the Church, and from the special commemoration made by the priest.

2. The measure of the most special fruit, insofar as it comes to the celebrant, is greater to the degree that the disposition and devotion of the priest are more perfect. Insofar as this fruit comes to the co-offerers, it will be greater or lesser according to the measure of cooperation in the sacrifice, disposition, and devotion. Nor is this fruit diminished by the greater number of co-offerers.

3. The measure of the special fruit is determined by these things:

a) It will be more abundant to the degree that the disposition of the one for whom Mass is offered is more perfect. Since this disposition can be increased indefinitely, the special fruit, equally with the general and most special fruit, is therefore called intensively indefinite.

b) It is disputed whether the special fruit is extensively infinite; in other words, whether the same measure comes to each one, whether Mass is offered for one or for several. Now some simply affirm. Others affirm with respect to the impetratory fruit, and deny with respect to the propitiatory. Others simply deny;¹ and we agree with them. For the Church approves and commends the practice of celebrating for a determined person. But if the opinion of the adversaries were true, a determination of this kind would be useless, because in it, with respect to the determined person, it would not matter whether the celebration were made for one or for all. Indeed it would be altogether better always to celebrate for all, because by the application of a determined person the rest would lack the fruit, without utility for that determined person.

¹ As regards St. Alphonsus, in the moral work, n. 312, he says both opinions are probable, but the first seems to him more probable. But in two later works, namely in the work In Tridentinum, session 22, n. 22, and in the little work on Mass stipends, whose title is De abusibus in acceptandis Missis, nn. 26-28, he teaches the second opinion absolutely and calls it common. Whence he seems to have changed his opinion (Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, vol. II, n. 185).

IV. The application of the special fruit. I said of the special fruit; for the general and most special fruits do not need application. The former, by the very fact that the sacrifice is offered, comes to the whole Church; the latter, by the very fact that he offers worthily, comes to the priest offering. But the special fruit needs the application of the priest; hence something must be said about it.

1. The notion and division of application. Application is the intention of the priest of specially offering Mass for some cause or causes, or for some person or persons. Application can be distinguished as twofold, public and private. Public application is had when the faithful are publicly advised of the Mass to be offered for such a one, or when someone's name is inserted into the prayers. Private application is had when neither are the faithful publicly advised nor is a name inserted into the prayers.

2. The power of applying. The priest can apply the special fruit; this is clear both from universal practice and from the condemned doctrine of the Synod of Pistoia.¹ If the application is positively excluded, the special fruit remains in the treasury of the Church. If it is applied expressly to no one, or to one incapable, according to some the fruit remains in the treasury of the Church; according to others, it comes to the priest himself or to those for whom he is specially bound to offer, because they judge that the priest implicitly intended this (St. Alphonsus, VI, 336).

3. The persons for whom application can be made. It is permitted to apply Mass for any of the living, and also for the dead expiating their sins in the fire of purgatory, with the prescription of canon 2262, § 2, n. 2 saved (canon 809). Therefore:

a) As regards the living, Mass can be applied for all. Nevertheless: 1. it is permitted only privately, and scandal being removed, to apply it for the excommunicated; heretics and schismatics are regarded as such by the external judgment of the Church, but not unbelievers. Hence, if scandal is absent, it can also be applied publicly for these;² a fortiori catechumens are not excluded from it. 2. For an excommunicated person to be avoided, it is permitted to apply it only privately and for his conversion alone (canon 2262, § 2, 2).

b) As regards the dead, the damned being excluded, Mass can likewise be applied for all. Nevertheless for those excluded from ecclesiastical burial (canon 1240), it is permitted to apply it only privately; for any funeral Mass, even anniversary, and other public funeral offices must be denied to these (canon 1241).

Note 1. Let the priest take care that there is not something of evil, error, or superstition in unbelievers offering alms.³

Note 2. Even if someone were excluded by the Church from application, nevertheless the priest could pray for him by private intention in the Memento of the living; likewise he could apply to him the fruits coming to the priest ex opere operantis, insofar as this is of the priest, but not the fruits ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis insofar as this is done in the name of the Church.

Note 3. Masses can also be offered or applied in honor of the Saints; this is clear from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that it is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honor of the Saints and for obtaining their intercession before God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema."⁴ In what sense, or for what end, this is done, the same Council teaches in these words: "And although the Church has sometimes been accustomed to celebrate certain 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 you, Peter or Paul; but giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, so that they may deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we make on earth."⁵

4. The requisites for valid application are:

a) That it be made by the celebrant himself, who cannot leave it to be made by anyone, not even Christ. Namely, Christ, who conferred upon the priest the power of applying, is judged to have committed its exercise to the priest alone. Hence the application would be invalid: "I apply the Mass to him to whom Christ applies it." It must be said otherwise of this application: "I apply the Mass to him to whom Christ is more pleased that it be applied" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 334).

b) That it be made before the sacrifice is perfected as regards its essence; hence according to some, before the consecration of the blood; according to others, before every consecration. In practice, so that every danger of frustration may be guarded against, let it be made before the consecration. Indeed, it is better to make it before the Offertory, or rather before Mass, so that both the Offertory and the other liturgical prayers and actions may benefit the one giving the stipend.

c) That it be made through at least a habitual intention, that is, one made and not retracted. A habitual intention suffices, because application is made by way of donation, which obtains its effect even if time or acts intervene between the conceived intention and the execution given to it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335). Nevertheless, it is advised that application not be extended for too long a time, and that at least sometimes, for example at the beginning of the month for the whole month, it be determined. An interpretative intention, since it does not truly exist, does not suffice.

d) That it be determined as regards the person or cause. Hence if someone has received a stipend from five persons, or five stipends for different deceased persons, the intention of applying for one of the five does not suffice if no one has been determined explicitly or implicitly. Nevertheless an implicit determination suffices, for example the intention: 1. of applying for him who offered the stipend, or who has been assigned by the celebrant in the booklet for this day; 2. of applying according to the mind of him who transmitted the stipend, provided that he formed the intention; 3. of applying according to the order established by another, for example by a superior or by the rector of the church. It is no obstacle that the celebrant perhaps does not know the intention or errs about it. Likewise a disjunctive determination suffices, as if someone says: "I say Mass for the intention of the pastor, if he has established one for me; otherwise for that intention" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335).

If a priest has collected a heap of stipends and does not know in what order they were given, the intention of celebrating according to the order in which they were in fact given or accepted suffices; or, with respect to several stipends given at the same time for different persons, according to the order in which they were destined by the one giving, if the designation occurred; otherwise, in proportion to the right of each one comprehended in the number. All these things are at least known to God. Likewise the intention of applying all and each Masses, in proportion to the right, to all for whom they were given suffices. Namely, since the fruit of the Mass is divisible, after all the Masses have been celebrated each one has obtained his own.

If the priest himself did not collect the Masses but received a heap from another, for example from a bishop or from the administrator of a pious place, it is per se the part of the distributor to set the order beforehand, and of the celebrant to apply according to the order set beforehand. But if the distributor did not set the order beforehand, the priest can celebrate according to either order explained above (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335).

e) That it not be made under a suspensive condition, for example for the intention of him who will first offer the stipend. For an application made in this way regards a future intention, and therefore would involve suspension of the effect. Hence canon 825, 1: "It is never permitted to apply Mass to the intention of one who, after an alms has been offered, is going to ask for the application, but has not yet asked, and to retain the alms given afterward for a Mass previously applied." Nevertheless this does not prevent a Mass from being celebrated, for example, for a deceased person for whom it is foreseen that a Mass will be requested; and afterward, if a Mass is requested, from signifying that some Mass has been said, and from accepting the stipend if it pleases the one asking. Such an application does not depend on a future intention, and therefore does not suspend the effect (St. Alphonsus, VI, 337), nor does it depend on the intention of the one who will ask for the application. For the rest, an intention under a condition about the past or present is always valid, except in the case about which we are now going to speak.

f) That it not be made under a condition not naturally knowable; since God, who has disposed things conformably to a human mode of acting, is not judged to have conferred upon the priest the faculty of applying dependently upon such a condition. Hence the application seems invalid: "I apply the Mass for you, if you are predestined."

What if someone has elicited two contrary intentions?

Response 1. The later prevails, if he conceived it while mindful of the prior intention.

Response 2. If he conceived the later while forgetful of the prior intention, the later likewise prevails, unless, as it seems must be said, he made the prior intention in such a way that he willed it to prevail even if through forgetfulness he were going to elicit another. For the rest, in doubt which intention prevails, afterward let Mass be celebrated for the intention which did not prevail, and thus all things are safe.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1530.

² Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 11 March 1848 (Collectanea, n. 1028); Holy Office, 12 July 1848 (Collectanea, n. 1274).

³ Holy Office, 12 July 1865 (Collectanea, n. 1274).

⁴ Session 22, canon 5.

⁵ Session 22, chapter 3.