The fruits of the Mass

172. Declarations. It is asked whether the value of the sacrifice of the Mass is infinite or finite. In order that this question can be suitably solved, several things must be noted beforehand.

a. The value of the sacrifice of the Mass is understood first of all as the moral dignity which belongs to this sacrifice by its own nature, without respect to the effects which it produces. Moreover the dignity of the sacrifice depends on the dignity of the offerer and of the victim. Therefore the dignity of the eucharistic sacrifice is simply infinite, since Christ Himself, who at the same time is offerer and victim, is of infinite dignity.

b. Then by the name value is understood the power which the sacrifice of the Mass has from its own nature and dignity for producing certain effects, whether with respect to God or with respect to men, both in the offerers and in those for whom it is offered. Therefore the value and fruits of the Mass are related to each other as cause and effect.

c. This value or power of the eucharistic sacrifice can be considered in first act, i.e., as to the sufficiency which, on account of its own nature and dignity, it has from itself and in itself for producing certain effects; and in second act, i.e., as to the efficacy which, from the will and institution of Christ, it has in reality for producing certain effects. To the value in first act correspond the effects which of itself it can produce; to the value in second act correspond the effects which from the will of Christ it in reality produces.

d. The value of the sacrifice of the Mass can be infinite intensively and extensively. The value which can cause an effect always greater and more perfect is called intensively infinite; the value which can cause effects always more numerous and indeed in subjects always more numerous is called extensively infinite.

e. It is clear that the value of the sacrifice of the Mass, insofar as it is latreutic, eucharistic, and propitiatory, is infinite in second act: for by reason of the eminent offerer and of the thing offered, the act of adoration and thanksgiving is simply infinite, and it fully satisfies the right which belongs to the infinite majesty of God of demanding from His creatures infinite adoration, thanksgiving, and expiation. But it is asked how great the value of the sacrifice of the Mass is for producing impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit in men; or it is asked how great the applicative power of the sacrifice of the Mass is.

173. The value of the Mass. 1. The value of the sacrifice of the Mass in first act is intensively and extensively infinite. For the sacrifice of the Mass is of the same value as the sacrifice of the cross; therefore, just as the sacrifice of the cross is of infinite value because it is of infinite dignity, so the sacrifice of the Mass, as it is the sacrificing action of Christ, is of infinite dignity, and therefore of itself has infinite applicative power, or has the power of producing indefinitely intense effects in innumerable men.

2. The value of the sacrifice of the Mass in second act, as to the special fruits, is extensively infinite: for the fruits which the secondary offerers receive are not diminished in individuals in proportion to the number of those concurring in the sacrifice and assisting at it, but however much their number is increased, the individuals receive the same fruits as if only one were assisting. And indeed, for receiving these fruits on the part of men, nothing else is required except that they themselves offer the sacrifice; but this condition is fulfilled in the same way whether many or few offer.

3. The value of the sacrifice of the Mass in second act, as to the ministerial fruits, is intensively and extensively finite.

a. The ministerial fruits which those receive for whom the Mass is applied are finite in reality: for these fruits by reason of quantity depend on the capacity and number of the men for whom the Mass is offered; but not only their number, but also the capacity of each one, is limited and finite.

b. But it is asked whether these fruits by right, from the will of Christ, are limited to a certain measure, even if the number and capacity of those to whom they are applied is greater, or whether they are limited only by their number and capacity. Now the opinion of some, hardly probable, is that in any sacrifice of the Mass indefinite fruits, both intensively with respect to the same person and extensively with respect to diverse persons for whom it is offered, are applied. Wherefore, if a Mass is offered for many, it profits each one as much as if it were offered for one.¹ But it must altogether be held that the value of the sacrifice of the Mass is limited from the will and institution of Christ. Therefore, if a Mass is offered for many, the fruit determined from the will of Christ is divided among them, and therefore is the smaller the more numerous they are for whom the sacrifice is offered.

The arguments by which the opinion concerning the finite value of the sacrifice of the Mass is especially proved are these. a. The effect which the sacraments produce, according to the opinion of some, is finite, not only because of the capacity of the subject, which is always finite, but especially from the institution and will of Christ (n. 3); but there is no reason to establish otherwise concerning the effect which the sacrifice of the Mass produces: for God has determined all things according to certain laws in the supernatural order equally as in the natural order; therefore the Mass also produces only a finite effect determined from the will of Christ.

b. This doctrine is confirmed by the practice of the Church, which is the infallible interpreter of the institutions of Christ. For the Church has always been solicitous not only that several sacred actions be offered for obtaining the same effect, but also that for individual deceased persons sacred actions be said, and finally that several be said for the same soul of a deceased person; but if the Mass were of infinite value and therefore profited many equally as one, any Mass whatever would have to be applied for all the living and dead.

c. From the opinion of the adversaries consequences follow which cannot be admitted. And first, a priest could satisfy several obligations, not indeed from several stipends, but from one stipend, and from other titles validly contracted in law. Then it would follow that the practice which even pious priests everywhere observe in applying Masses is opposed to Christian charity: for they ought to apply every sacred action not only for those who give a stipend, but for all at once, since all would receive the same fruit, and nevertheless he who gave the stipend would suffer no loss.²

d. God willed that grace be distributed through the means of salvation depending on the application of means made on the part of men; moreover, He willed that men be incited to use the means of salvation frequently and to repeat acts of virtues more often. Now, to obtain this end better, He disposed the matter in such a way that to one application of any means of salvation there corresponded not an indefinite effect, but only a determinate effect.

¹ It is not licit, however, to accept several stipends for one Mass, because the stipend is given for the support of the minister, which is one; therefore there exists no title for accepting several. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 313.

² Cf. Suarez, disp. 79, sect. 12, n. 7; Lugo, disp. 19, n. 246.

Infinite is the worth and dignity of the sacrifice of the Mass, for it is the same as the sacrifice on Calvary, which was capable of redeeming innumerable worlds. This is acknowledged by all theologians, but they are not agreed as to whether the actual fruit derived from a Mass is also infinite. Those fruits are, indeed, greater or less in proportion to the dispositions of the person to whom they are applied. But while St Alphonsus and others are of opinion that a Mass offered for any number of intentions will benefit each one as much as if it were offered for him alone, others hold that the fruit of a Mass is determinate in quantity, and that if it is offered for many each one receives less than he would do if it were offered for him alone. The latter seems the preferable opinion, as it explains better the practice of the Church according to which Mass is offered for individuals, living and dead. If the first opinion were correct, charity would require that every Mass should be offered for all who are in need, for no individual would be the loser; everyone would derive all the benefit from the Mass of which he was capable. This opinion, too, is more in keeping with the nature of the sacraments, of which the fruits seem to be limited in quantity. Otherwise there would be no use in administering several sacraments to a dying person when out of his senses, as is the practice of the Church. -Whichever opinion be true, it is against justice to offer only one Mass in satisfaction of the obligation of saying several, when several stipends have been received. Alexander VII condemned the following proposition: “It is not against justice to receive stipends for many Masses and to say only one. Neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise on oath to him who gives a stipend that I will not offer the Mass for anyone else.”

Nothing, however, prevents the priest from having a second intention, as it is called, even when he says Mass for a stipend. By this second intention the priest intends that if for any reason the Mass cannot benefit him for whom the first intention offers it, then the fruit may go to the second. Or, if in fact it be true that the fruit of a Mass is infinite, and capable of equally benefiting any number of persons, then the priest by his second intention desires that others should benefit by his 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.

350. QUESTION 3. How many kinds of fruit are there from the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Reply. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold head, namely, on the part of the offerer and on the part of the victim.

I. On the part of the offerer. Since there is a twofold offerer, namely, Christ and the priest, there is therefore a twofold kind of fruit of the Mass on the part of the offerer. The first proceeds from Christ offering, and is called ex opere operato, because it is received in consideration of the merits of Christ and His promise.

The other proceeds from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in consideration of the merit and devotion of the celebrating priest, and is called the fruit ex opere operantis. Hence it follows that the Sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, does not profit more than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the Sacrifice, considered in this way, is the work of Christ, and its fruit flows solely from the merits of Christ. Therefore, in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But the contrary must be said if the merit ex opere operantis is considered; for the worthier the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes.

351. II. On the part of the victim. Under this head a threefold fruit of the Sacrifice is distinguished, namely, general, special, and most special.

1. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the Sacrifice insofar as it is a work performed by the priest as he acts in the name of the whole Church. And all the faithful, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit; but it is granted to them only by way of impetration ⁵, and not, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of Sacrifices that are offered daily, every just person, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of an immense punishment, which appears incredible. Those who are present at the Sacrifice, and a fortiori those who cooperate in it, for example, those serving the priest, etc., share in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special manner. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is more abundant in proportion as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating are greater. Hence, although several persons hear Mass or serve at it, each will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his devotion, just as if he alone were hearing or serving at it.

⁵ Here also understand impetration in such a way that it includes propitiation as well.

2. The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the Sacrifice. They share ex opere operato in the Sacrifice insofar as it is impetratory and propitiatory; and indeed also, provided that nothing prevents it, insofar as it is satisfactory.

3. The most special fruit is that which comes to the offering priest insofar as he offers as a private person. For if every cooperator receives from the Sacrifice a fruit altogether special to himself, much more ought the priest who sacrifices to receive this fruit. Whether the priest can apply this fruit to others, however, is uncertain ⁶. - St. Lig., no. 312.

⁶ This, however, is certain: the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another in such a way that he receives another stipend on that account; yet understand this unless it is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend.

Since the matter of this article is sufficiently extensive, we divide it into two paragraphs, namely: 1. on the value and effects of the Mass in general; 2. on the fruits of the Mass in particular, insofar as they are participated.

Notions. For the sake of clarity, it must first be explained what is meant by these terms: the value, dignity, effects, and fruits of the Mass, lest confusion arise, especially since these terms are not understood in one manner by diverse authors. Then it must be said briefly who the diverse offerers are in the sacrifice of the Mass.

235. The value of the Mass includes two things: dignity and efficacy (power); or, as St. Alphonsus says:²⁹² "Value is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the offerer and of the thing offered for conferring goods upon the offerer and upon those for whom it is offered."

²⁹² Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 312.

236. The effects of the Mass are all those things which are actually produced by it with respect both to God and to the world.

The effects of the Mass are five, namely: 1. the latreutic effect: for the Mass produces adoration and the most excellent worship of God; 2. the eucharistic effect, insofar as the Mass renders thanks to God for benefits received; 3. the impetratory effect, because the Mass most efficaciously obtains goods, both temporal and spiritual; 4. the propitiatory effect, because the Mass renders God propitious to us, so that He remits sins;²⁹³ 5. the satisfactory effect, because the Mass causes the remission of the punishments due for sins.

It must be noted that a meritorious effect does not belong to the Mass insofar as it is a sacrifice accomplished in the person of Christ or in the name of the Church. For Christ merits nothing further through the Eucharistic sacrifice, since He Himself is outside the state of meriting and the redemption was completed on the Cross; neither does the Church merit anything through the sacrifice of the Mass, since every merit supposes a personal act. But if the Mass is considered as a personal good act of the priest, then he certainly merits ex opere operantis an increase of grace and glory. Moreover, since not only the celebrating priest, but also the faithful who assist or who give the stipend for the Mass offer the Mass, all of them merit an increase of grace and glory, provided, however, that they place no obstacle. For all who are in the state of mortal sin can properly merit no good, as was said above in I, n. 139. Therefore, a priest offering Mass in the state of mortal sin merits nothing and obtains no good effect; on the contrary, he commits a grave sacrilege. But the faithful who are in the state of mortal sin and who offer Mass with the priest indeed merit nothing, but they can obtain other good fruits, for example, impetratory and propitiatory fruits.

²⁹³ Council of Trent, session 22, c. 2 and can. 3 (Denz., nn. 940 and 950).

237. The fruits of the Mass are taken indiscriminately by some theologians for the effects of the Mass, but they are better understood as only those effects which the Mass produces for men (and not for God). For we call the fruits of a thing those effects which we enjoy. Therefore, the fruits of the Mass are only a determinate part of the effects of the Mass, namely, the propitiatory, satisfactory, and impetratory effects.

238. There are several offerers in the Mass, who nevertheless do not all properly sacrifice, since priestly order is required for sacrificing, whereas a moral conjunction with the sacrificing priest suffices for offering. Now the following offer:

1. Christ, who is the principal offerer, not only because He Himself instituted the sacrifice of the Mass, but also because He offers through priests as through His vicars, who therefore pronounce the words of consecration in the person of Christ: "For this is My Body, etc."

2. The Church, which has appointed the priest to offer the Mass to God.

3. The priest himself, who indeed sacrifices in the name of Christ and of the Church, but also offers the Mass as a private person.

4. All the faithful, but especially those who serve at or assist at the Mass, or who have given a stipend. Hence these words also are recited in the Canon: "This oblation, therefore, of our service and also of Thy whole family"; and: "Remember, O Lord, Thy servants ... for whom we offer unto Thee, or who offer unto Thee, this sacrifice of praise."

239. Principle 1. The dignity of the sacrifice of the Mass is infinite.

The reason is that in the sacrifice of the Mass both the principal offerer and the victim itself (namely, Christ God) are of infinite dignity. Moreover, the sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, which certainly is of infinite dignity.

Principle 2. The value of the Mass (that is, its efficacy or power) is infinite: a) as regards sufficiency; b) as regards the latreutic, eucharistic, and propitiatory effects; c) as regards the so-called special fruits.

The first part of this principle is clear from the fact that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, which certainly is sufficient for conferring infinite graces because of the infinite dignity of the offerer and of the victim.

The second part is evident from the fact that the principal offerer in the Mass is Christ, who by sacrificing causes an infinite act of adoration, thanksgiving, and propitiation. For such worship is exhibited to God through the Mass that no greater worship can be exhibited absolutely.

The third part is easily understood from the notion of the special fruits, which - as will be explained more fully below - are those which all who assist at the sacrifice of the Mass receive. Now this fruit is received by all, however many assist, and it is not diminished even if innumerable men are present at the same Mass and participate in its fruit.

240. Principle 3. The fruits of the Mass actually produced are limited; this limitation seems to arise both from the disposition of the man receiving and from the will of Christ instituting.

All theologians indeed teach that the fruits of the Mass (taken in the strict sense explained above) are actually finite, because otherwise it would follow that one Mass would suffice for the salvation of the whole world and would empty all purgatory, and that it would not be lawful to say several Masses for one and the same deceased person. But the difficult question arises: whence does this limitation of the fruits of the Mass arise, when the Mass in itself is of infinite value? There are two opinions.

The first asserts that this limitation arises from the will of Christ alone, who so established it. The reason for this will is that Christ commanded that this sacrifice be celebrated not once but repeatedly. Therefore, He did not will an infinite effect. Hence it is also the practice of the Church that several Masses are celebrated for one deceased person. Moreover, it is not apparent why the Church permits stipends to be accepted for the offering of Masses, and indeed one for each individual Mass, if those who do not give stipends have an equally great share of the fruit. This opinion, which Noldin²⁹⁴ calls altogether to be held, is commonly held by modern authors of the Society of Jesus, for example, Chr. Pesch,²⁹⁵ Lehmkuhl,²⁹⁶ Génicot,²⁹⁷ and also by several others.²⁹⁸ Among the ancients, St. Bonaventure,²⁹⁹ Suarez,³⁰⁰ and Lugo³⁰¹ are cited for this opinion.

The other opinion teaches that the limitation of the fruits of the Mass arises principally from the condition of the man offering or receiving, but that in itself the value of the Mass is extensively and intensively infinite. Hence, according to this opinion, one Mass applied for several persons profits them equally as much as if it were applied for one. For if the value is infinite and the fruit is measured according to the capacity of the man, nothing is taken away from one if it is also bestowed upon others; for an infinite treasury cannot be exhausted. St. Thomas seems to favor this opinion, saying: "Although ... this oblation from its quantity suffices to satisfy for every punishment, nevertheless it becomes satisfactory for those for whom it is offered, or also for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment."³⁰² According to this text must be explained the words which St. Thomas wrote when younger: "Although the power of Christ, which is contained under the sacrament of the Eucharist, is infinite, nevertheless the effect to which that sacrament is ordained is determinate";³⁰³ and: "If, therefore, a suffrage made for many were of as much value to each individual as if it were made for one alone, it would seem that the Church ought not to have instituted that Mass or prayer be made for someone individually, but that it should always be said for all the faithful departed; which is manifestly false."³⁰⁴ For in that entire question the Angelic Doctor is not treating specially of the Mass, but of the suffrages of the Church in general. Moreover, it is readily conceded that even the Mass, insofar as it is a suffrage instituted by the Church, has a finite effect, and therefore, the more persons to whom it is applied, the less it assists each individual. For the Wycliffite proposition (19) was condemned: "Special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious profit that person no more than general prayers, other things being equal."³⁰⁵

The foundation of this opinion is the infinite efficacy not only of the thing offered but especially of Christ, the principal offerer, which ought not to be limited by the finite oblation of the priest. St. Alphonsus³⁰⁶ calls this opinion, speculatively speaking, the more probable,³⁰⁷ and cites for it Gonet, Cajetan, the Salamancans, Cano, Concina, Wigandt, Holzmann, etc. Among the moderns, the disciples of St. Alphonsus hold it, such as Marc, Aertnys, etc. Billuart writes of this controversy:³⁰⁸ "Each [opinion] is probable; and although I seem to incline toward the second, nevertheless I acknowledge that neither is certain, but that each suffers its own difficulties. Hence, for practice, it is advisable that the celebrant offer specially, insofar as he can and ought, for those for whom he is bound to offer from justice; but for those for whom he offers at the same time from charity, piety, friendship, or another gratuitous title, let him offer as much as he can."

From all that has been said it seems to follow that the fruit of the Mass is indeed limited in fact, but that the principal proximate cause of this limitation is unknown. For the rest, it is not unfittingly said that the fruit of the Mass is limited because Christ, knowing the insufficient disposition of the recipient, so established it.

²⁹⁴ De sacr., n. 173.

²⁹⁵ Prael. dogm. VI, n. 934.

²⁹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 251.

²⁹⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 218.

²⁹⁸ Cf. Gihr, Das hl. Meßopfer, § 17, p. 118 ff.

²⁹⁹ In 4, dist. 45, a. 2, q. 3 ad 4. The mind of the Holy Doctor seems to be doubtful.

³⁰⁰ De relig., disp. 79, sect. 12, n. 7.

³⁰¹ De sacr. euchar., disp. 19, n. 246.

³⁰² S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 5.

³⁰³ In 4, dist. 45, q. 2, a. 4, sol. 3 ad 2.

³⁰⁴ Loc. cit., quaestiunc. 2, arg. "Sed contra."

³⁰⁵ Denz., n. 599.

³⁰⁶ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 312.

³⁰⁷ Gaudé (in the new edition of St. Alphonsus, note on loc. cit.) says: "Later, however, namely in the year 1769, both in the little work De caerem. Missae, part 3, De abus. in accipiendis Missis, n. 26-28, and in his work on Trent, session 22, n. 22, the Holy Doctor called the former opinion the more common and defended it."

³⁰⁸ De euchar., diss. 8, a. 5.

241. The manner of producing the effects. 1. The latreutic and eucharistic effects are produced ex opere operato. For Christ Himself adores God the Father and renders thanks to Him in the sacrifice of the Mass.

2. The impetratory effect or fruit of the Mass proceeds: a) ex opere operato, insofar as Christ Himself obtains for us by offering His merits to the Father; b) from the action of the Church, which sacrifices and supplicates; c) ex opere operantis on the part of the priests or the faithful. Any good whatsoever, whether temporal or spiritual, can be obtained through the sacrifice of the Mass. For the Mass is a most efficacious prayer; nevertheless, the good petitioned is obtained neither immediately nor always, because an obstacle can be present on the part of the recipient, just as other prayers also are not heard immediately and always.

3. The propitiatory effect or fruit renders God, who is angered because of our sins, propitious to us. And this in a twofold manner: a) Since in the sacrifice of the Mass the merits of the sacrifice of the Cross are applied to us, God is appeased, granting more abundant graces so that man can elicit acts of charity and contrition necessary for obtaining the remission of sins. This propitiatory fruit is indeed produced ex opere operato, but not infallibly, because God never remits actual sins without the conversion of man, which is sometimes lacking. b) Because of the prayers of the Church and of the sacrificing priest. Nothing occurs so frequently in the prayers of the Mass as: Be propitious, O Lord; Be appeased, O Lord; etc. This second manner is almost referred to the impetratory fruit. For the first object of prayers to be presented to God ought to be the remission of every fault. For what profit are other goods if God is offended with us because of our sins? Therefore, the propitiatory effect seems to precede the impetratory effect. For as long as God is hostile to us and not yet propitious or appeased, we obtain no graces, or few graces (ordinarily at least).

It is self-evident that the sacrifice of the Mass does not directly and immediately destroy mortal sins, since this remission is reserved to the sacraments. For the sacrifice was instituted directly for the worship of God and not for the remission of sins. But neither are venial sins remitted directly through the Mass insofar as it is a sacrifice. Thus holds the far more probable opinion. The reason is the same. It remains, therefore, that mortal and venial sins are said to be remitted through the sacrifice of the Mass insofar as more abundant actual graces are granted for eliciting contrition or for worthily receiving the sacraments.

242. 4. The satisfactory effect or fruit of the Mass is the remission of the temporal punishment due for sins committed and not yet discharged. Hence the Council of Trent³⁰⁹ teaches that souls detained in purgatory are assisted chiefly by the sacrifice of the altar. The reason for this fruit is the sacrifice of the Cross itself, which is renewed and applied in the Mass and which washes away not only sins but also the punishment of sin. The satisfactory fruit is produced ex opere operato, as is evident, and that infallibly and immediately; but it does not always destroy the whole punishment, but only such a part of it as the faithful are worthy to receive. Therefore, if the Mass is offered for some deceased person, it is certain that he draws some relief from it. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that wealthier deceased persons, for whom very many Masses are offered, are in a better condition than the poor, for whom no Mass is specially applied; for the poor, if God so disposes, perhaps participate more in all the other Masses, since in each of them prayer is made for all the departed; but the wealthy, on account of their incapacity and unworthiness, are perhaps greatly limited in receiving the fruits.

³⁰⁹ Session 25, on purgatory (Denz., n. 938).

243. All the fruits enumerated up to this point are customarily distinguished fourfold according to the persons to whom they accrue: 1. the general fruit; 2. the special fruit; 3. the most special fruit; 4. the ministerial fruit. Some authors, however, distinguish only three fruits: the general, the special or ministerial, and the personal. The dispute is about words, since all theologians agree on the matter itself.

1. The general fruit of the Mass accrues to the whole Church, that is, to all the faithful, living and deceased, provided they place no obstacle. For the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass in the name of Christ and of the Church; and just as Christ and the Church pray for all, so also the priest must apply this general fruit to all, without being able to make any other disposition of it. All theologians concede that this general fruit is propitiatory and impetratory; but some doubt whether it is also satisfactory, since it seems incredible that each just person always receives the remission of temporal punishment from so many thousands of sacrifices offered daily.³¹⁰ For the rest, the matter is entirely hidden from us. Certainly, not all always receive the satisfactory fruit, since some most holy men do not need it, inasmuch as they have already satisfied in another manner for the punishments due.

2. The special fruit is that which is received by the faithful who assist at Mass, who, as it were, co-sacrifice with the celebrating priest. Hence it is said of them in the Canon: "who offer unto Thee ... for themselves and all their own." This fruit arises both ex opere operato and ex opere operantis, and nothing prevents the faithful from assigning this fruit to others. In this sense one can say to another: I will hear Mass for you. It is self-evident that such an application produces excellent fruits. If someone is present in a church in which several Masses are being said at the same time, and if he then joins himself spiritually with each of the celebrating priests, he seems to receive the special fruits of all those Masses.

3. The most special fruit (which is also sometimes called personal) is that which the celebrating priest himself receives. For it seems equitable that the priest who bears the person of Christ and accomplishes the sacrifice should acquire a special fruit for himself. Whether the priest can apply this personal fruit to another is not certain, nor do theologians agree.³¹¹ Nevertheless, no solid reason is adduced why this should be impossible or unlawful. Moreover, nothing concerning this matter is found in Sacred Scripture, in tradition, or in the definitions of the Church. Alexander VII, on September 24, 1665, indeed condemned the proposition: "A priest can licitly accept a double stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner also the most special part of the fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this even after the decree of Urban VIII."³¹² But from this condemnation it follows only that the priest cannot accept a stipend for the application of the personal fruit; it by no means follows that the priest cannot apply this fruit gratuitously to another. For a stipend is not the price of any fruit whatsoever of the Mass, since this would be putrid simony, but it is a contribution for the support of the priest, as will be said below.

4. The ministerial fruit (which is called special or intermediate by others) is intermediate between the general and the personal fruit and accrues to those for whom the Mass is applied. For just as it is lawful to pray for a determinate man or for a special intention, so also nothing prevents the Mass from being efficaciously offered for a special intention. This ministerial fruit seems to have a threefold effect, namely, propitiatory, satisfactory, and impetratory.

³¹⁰ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 173.

³¹¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 318.

³¹² Denz., n. 1108.

244. Scholion. On the value of a Mass celebrated by a bad priest. Theologians ask whether the Mass of a bad priest produces lesser effects than that of a good priest. The answer is: If the Mass is considered insofar as it is celebrated in the name of Christ or of the Church, it produces fruits ex opere operato, and accordingly is independent of the goodness of the priest. But if the Mass is regarded as a personal work of the priest, then a good priest can communicate more abundant fruits than a bad one.³¹³ Since, however, the fruit of the Mass proceeding ex opere operato is principal, it does not matter so greatly by which priest the Mass is said for the faithful.

³¹³ Cf. St. Thomas, In 4, dist. 13, q. 1, a. 1, solut. 5, and S. theol. 3, q. 82, a. 6.

341. General principle. - The sacrifice of the New Law succeeded all the earlier ones, and therefore "embraces all goods signified by those, as the consummation and perfection of all" (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 1); whence it is offered for the four ends of sacrifices, and is at once latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and impetratory. And therefore it has effects corresponding to the fourfold end. Concerning these it now comes to be said.

S. Th. III, q. 79, a. 5 and 7.

342. Principle I. The sacrifice of the altar, with respect to God, is latreutic and eucharistic; with respect to us, it is impetratory and propitiatory. - Thus the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 3.

The sacrifice of the altar was instituted for four ends, and therefore has a fourfold effect:

A. With respect to God: 1. It is latreutic. For every sacrifice is offered in honor of God and in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion and of our servitude.

This moreover is clear in the case from Mal. I, 11, and from several words of the Mass. To this end corresponds the first effect, the most excellent worship of latria, which procures infinite honor for God.

2. It is also eucharistic, because it is offered for benefits received from God, especially for the benefit of redemption.

This is clear from the very name Eucharist (Matt. XXVI, 27; I Cor. XI, 24) and from several words of the Mass. To this end corresponds the second effect: thanksgiving.

B. With respect to us it is propitiatory, as the Council of Trent defined, sess. 22, c. 1 and 2, can. 3; not indeed as the sacrifice of the cross, which paid the price of redemption of itself sufficient for repairing all sins, but insofar as it obtains the application of the satisfactions and merits of the cross, for obtaining which it was instituted.

According to the etymon of the word and according to the manner of speaking of the Council, the sacrifice is propitiatory because it has power not only negatively to placate God, i.e., to remove His indignation, lest He inflict evils for sins; but also consequently positively to incline and move God to favor, that He may concede remission of sin and reconciliation, and other goods which it befits Him to give to friends. For a) in every hypothesis, an impetratory sacrifice is given for obtaining benefits or graces; b) but with sin supposed, by which we incur the indignation of God, we must first obtain that God's indignation be removed, and thus impetration becomes propitiation, and an impetratory sacrifice becomes propitiatory. In other words, propitiation includes impetration, and adds something, namely that it is also done for placating God offended and repairing sin. Whence these two are not to be considered as two ends adequately distinct and separated.

Hence: 1. The sacrifice is propitiatory in the strict sense, and is offered for sins.

This is established: a) from the doctrine of the Apostle, Heb. V, 1-3, saying that the office of a priest is to offer for sins; but the priest offers no other sacrifice besides the Mass;

b) from the words of Christ saying that in the Eucharist His body is handed over, His blood poured out for many unto the remission of sins (Matt. XXVI, 28; Luke XXII, 19-20);

c) from tradition which is conserved by the Fathers: Origen, hom. 13 in Lev. 3; Tertullian, de cor. mil., 3; Ambrose, de off. I, 48 and exh. ad virg. 14; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XXIII, 8-9; Chrysostom, hom. 69 to the people of Antioch; hom. 3 on the Epistle to the Philippians, 4; Jerome, in Tit. I, 8; Augustine, conf. IX, 11-12, and enchir. 110;

d) from the liturgies, even ancient ones, such as those which are called of St. James, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and the Syriac.

To this end corresponds the third effect: remission of sins, punishments, and satisfactions.

2. It is also impetratory, and is offered for obtaining graces.

This is established: a) from the words of the Fathers, Councils, and Liturgy;

b) from the fact that Christ not only merited for us on the cross the remission of sins, but also other benefits; but the merits of the cross are to be applied in the Mass;

c) if the Mass has value for the remission of sin and for grace to be restored to enemies, how much more for goods lost by sins to be restored and other goods to be bestowed upon friends.

To this end corresponds the fourth effect: the obtaining of goods both spiritual and temporal conducing to salvation.

343. Observation. - The sacrifice of the altar participates in all forms of sacrifice: in the holocaust, because the mystical oblation of so precious a life signifies the debt of our servitude toward God much more perfectly than that total burning of an animal which was made in the burnt-offering of bulls or rams; in the peace-offering also, because it does not have the horror of blood; finally in the sacrifice for sin, because it represents the expiatory death of Christ, and through this is apt to obtain for those for whom it is offered the application of the general satisfaction presented to God on the cross.¹

¹ Billot, de Ecclesiae Sacramentis, I, de sacrificio, § II.

344. Principle II. The sacrifice of the altar is offered to God alone; nevertheless it can be offered in honor of the Saints. - It is offered to God alone, as is clear from an inspection of the four ends. And nevertheless we celebrate it in honor of the Saints; i.e., 1. for giving thanks to God for the sanctity, victories, virtues, and other marvelous things or goods of the Blessed which God has worked in them or through them, who therefore is praised in them (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 3); - 2. we offer it for obtaining that the cult of the Saints here on earth may be increased, for example by canonization or by the institution of a feast or by a more solemn celebration; - or 3. for obtaining the patronage of the Saints as an end, that they whose memory we keep on earth may deign to intercede for us in heaven, namely, we ask from God that through the sacrifice we may obtain this grace, that the Saints pray for us in heaven (ibid., c. 3 and can. 5); - 4. we also offer it through the Saints, imploring their patronage, namely, we ask from them that the sacrifice may please God; not indeed as it is offered by Christ or the Church, for thus it always pleases God; but insofar as it is offered by us, that it may be made acceptable to God by the intercession of the Saints.

S. Th. III, q. 82, a. 6 and a. 7, ad 3.

345. General principle. - The effects of the sacrifice do not so much depend upon the dignity of the thing offered and upon the mode of offering as upon the dignity of the one offering (Gen. IV, 4; Luke XXI, 3; Mark XII, 42); whence, according as the offerers are diverse, the effects are diverse. Hence there can be considered:

1. Effects from the work of the one working, both of the priest and of the faithful offering. For by the sacrifice, as by other good works, they can merit, satisfy, and impetrate according to the degree of their devotion; these effects are greater in a holier or good priest than in a less holy or bad one.

2. Effects from the work of the Church working. She cannot merit or satisfy, because she does not have an actual will but only a habitual one, while merit supposes a personal action; nevertheless through the priest she can impetrate goods for the faithful, and indeed better than by other prayers, because the Mass is more excellent than these. But if the priest is not a member of the Church, as a public heretic or schismatic, or an excommunicated person to be avoided, he does not obtain these effects, because he does not act in the name of the Church.

3. Effects from the work of Christ working, who offers Himself and applies the merits of the cross. These are ex opere operato (i.e., from the dignity of the thing offered and of the principal minister) with respect to the other offerers and to the Church; and concerning these we shall treat at present.

The two latter effects are the same whether the sacrifice is offered by a good priest or by a bad one: for Christ and the Church are always holy and pleasing and acceptable to God.

346. Principle I. The effects of the sacrifice, insofar as it is latreutic and eucharistic as regards God, are had immediately, infallibly, and at once after the consecration. - For from the very immolation of Christ, honor and thanksgiving spontaneously arise and are presented to God.

347. Principle II. The effects of the sacrifice, insofar as it is propitiatory for us and impetratory, are had some immediately, others mediately. - For the same thing must be said of the effect of the impetration of the sacrifice as of the effect of every other prayer.

And indeed:

1. There is not given immediately:

a) the remission of mortal sins: for according to Catholic doctrine no one is justified except from the work of the one working, or ex opere operato through the sacraments;

b) the remission of venial sins: for these are not remitted except through acts of contrition or charity, which include their retractation;

c) habitual grace making one pleasing: for this is not immediately caused or increased except from the work of the one working, or by the sacraments; but if it were given by the sacrifice, it would follow that a baptized little child, for whom many sacrifices were offered, could be holier than he who had passed a long life in the practice of all virtues, which is contrary to the common sense of the Church.

Nevertheless these are obtained mediately: for sins can be the cause why God, from just anger, does not grant more abundant graces, which He would grant if sins did not stand in the way; through the sacrifice the just anger of God is placated, lest as a punishment He deny graces to the sinner; indeed His goodness is moved to give more abundant graces; whence "the Lord, being placated, grants grace unto repentance," i.e., unto contrition or unto the fitting reception of the sacrament of penance, and through these mediating, not only venial sins but "even enormous ones He forgives" (cf. C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 2). In a similar way the sacrifice obtains actual graces for meritorious works or for the reception of the sacraments, through which as mediating habitual grace can be obtained and increased.

2. Immediately there are given, as can happen by other prayers:

a) relaxation of satisfactions to be performed by the living for remitted sins: for the sacrifice can be substituted in place of satisfactions to be performed by the living, or of works of penance by which punishments are redeemed;

b) remission of temporal punishments to be discharged by the living or the dead for remitted sins: for Christ paid the debts of the punishment of sins, and God, accepting the payment made on their behalf, condones them, so that the faithful now need not suffer or make satisfaction for them;

I. QUESTION I. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite? ANSWER. There is a twofold value: one ex opere operato, which proceeds from the work itself immediately instituted by Christ; another ex opere operantis, which is the effect of the merit and dignity of the minister. Theologians dispute on either side whether the value ex opere operato be infinite: for that the other is finite we all maintain. In few words I resolve the question. If the value be regarded absolutely, and inasmuch as it expresses power and sufficiency, without doubt it is infinite: since the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as regards sufficiency as the Sacrifice of the Cross; the manner only of offering is diverse. But if it be regarded as it is offered by ministers and in second act, thus it is limited and finite. What of this, that the Sacrifice of the Cross itself as regards the application produces a limited effect in us, because the disposition of the subject is finite? If the effect of the Sacrifice of the Mass were infinite, it would profit all equally as much as one or another; a single Mass would free all the souls of Purgatory; and yet the Church never ceases from offering sacrifices for the dead.

II. QUESTION II. What are the effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 2, teaches here that the Sacrifice of the Mass is rightly offered, according to the tradition of the Apostles, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the living faithful, but also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged. Since the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory, it avails for the pardon of sins and for satisfaction, as the same Council in the same place, canon 3, defined. Through the Sacrifice sins are remitted mediately, inasmuch as God bestows upon the sinner actual graces by which he is stirred up and disposed to penitence. Upon the just it confers an increase of grace, and profits them for the remission of venial sins. By this Sacrifice also we obtain temporal goods, inasmuch as the use of them conduces to eternal life. The Sacrifice of the Mass therefore is ordained to temporal goods not as to an end, but as to means whose use marks out the way to the end.

III. QUESTION III. To whom and for whom is the Sacrifice of the Mass offered? ANSWER. All Catholics teach that the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God alone, and that as temples and altars are erected and consecrated to God alone, as Trent defined, session 22, chapter 3.

IV. But the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for all men — pagans, Jews, schismatics, heretics, the excommunicated — but especially for catechumens, and for the faithful. And this is drawn from St. Paul himself, who in 1 Timothy 2 says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Christ suffered for all: therefore for all the Sacrifice can be offered. By a stronger right it is offered for the faithful, who are joined to Christ by the bond of faith. That the sacrifice is not to be offered for the damned all teach. Neither is sacrifice offered for the saints reigning with God, because there is nothing to be sought in them.

V. QUESTION IV. Can the Sacrifice be offered for the pious souls detained in Purgatory? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and this is gathered from the perennial tradition of the Church and from holy Scripture, especially from 2 Maccabees, chapter 12. And this Trent defined, session 22, chapter 2: that the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the living faithful, but also for the dead, rightly, according to the tradition of the Apostles. This same it declared in canon 3. The testimonies of the Fathers and of other councils I pass over for brevity's sake.

VI. QUESTION V. Who is the minister of the Sacrifice of the Mass? ANSWER. That priests alone are the ministers of this Sacrifice the Catholic Church has always taught, and against the innovators Trent defined, session 7, canon 10: If anyone shall say that all Christians have power in the word and in administering all the sacraments, let him be anathema. And again, session 22, canon 2, it adds: If anyone shall say that by those words, "Do this for a commemoration of me," Christ did not institute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood, let him be anathema. Christ the Lord, as the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech, is the principal offerer. Priests offer as ministers and vicars of the same Christ. They offer indeed as true priests ordained to this ministry, but ministerially. The faithful people offers by desire, by will, and by spiritual conjunction with the offerer.

VII. QUESTION VI. Do wicked priests — heretics, schismatics, the suspended, the excommunicated, the degraded — validly perform the sacrifice? ANSWER. That priests stained with mortal sin validly consecrate all Catholics teach. That the others recounted also validly perform the Sacrifice all theologians teach with St. Thomas, III, q. 82, art. 7, reply 3. Since although the exercise of the order can be suspended by a lawful superior, the power of the order nevertheless cannot be blotted out. It is not lawful nevertheless either to assist at the Sacrifice or to seek communion from excommunicated, suspended, degraded, heretical, or schismatic priests.

VIII. Private Masses, in which the priests alone communicate, are lawful, as the Council of Trent defined, session 22, chapter 6, against the innovators.