The Mass a true sacrifice

THE Council of Trent teaches that the Eucharist is not only a sacrament but is also a sacrifice, instituted by our Lord at the Last Supper to represent and perpetuate the memory of the sacrifice which he was about to offer on the Cross, and to apply its fruits to the souls of men. “ He therefore, our God and Lord, though he was about to offer himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that his priesthood was not to be extinguished by his death, in the last supper, in the night in which he was betrayed —that he might leave to his own beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit—declaring himself constituted a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec, he offered up to God the Father his own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and under the symbols of those same things he delivered (his own body and blood) to be received by his Apostles, whom he then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.”¹’4 A sacrifice is defined to be an offering of some visible object made to God by the performance of a sacred action on the part of a priest or publicly deputed minister, by which we confess the supreme lordship of God. A sacrifice, therefore, differs from an ordinary offering in that it is an act of public worship paid to God alone by a duly authorized minister, who, by slaying the victim or in some way changing it, proclaims the supreme dominion of God over all things.

The sacrifice of the Eucharist is called the Mass, and it may be offered for all the ends for which the various sacrifices of the Old Law were instituted by God. It is the supreme act of worship which we pay to God, and under this respect it is called latreutic; it is eucharistic, inasmuch as through it we render thanks to God for his graces and benefits; it is impetratory, inasmuch as it placates the anger of God, which has been roused against sin and the sinner; and it satisfies the justice of God and thus remits the punishment due to sin.

The introductory portion, up to the offertory, is called the Mass of Catechumens, the principal parts of the Mass being the offertory, the consecration, and the communion. There is much difference of opinion among divines as to what constitutes the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. Some place its essence in the communion, others in the consecration, others in the consecration together with the communion. More probably the consecration of both species, by which the death of Christ is mystically represented by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, contains the whole essence of the sacrifice. The question belongs rather to dogmatic than to moral theology.

¹ Trent, sess. xxii, c. I.

The Mass is a representation and a reproduction in an unbloody manner of the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross.

The principal minister, Jesus Christ, is the same; the victim is the same; the only difference is the manner of offering, as the Council of Trent teaches. A rightly ordained priest is the secondary minister, who in the name of Christ and of the Church offers the sacrifice to God. In so far as it is the action of Christ, the Mass produces its effect like the sacraments ex opere operato, and does not depend for its efficacy on the holiness or other dispositions of the priest. But it is also the action of the priest, and of the faithful in whose name he acts; and under this respect it produces its effect ex opere operantis.

All the faithful, by virtue of the Communion of saints, but especially those who assist at Mass, partake of its fruits and benefits. Those fruits are, as we have seen, latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory; so that in the Mass we have a most excellent means of fulfilling all the ends of religion. By it and through it we offer to God the highest act of worship which it is in our power to offer; we give him thanks for his continual benefits to us, we ask in the most efficacious manner for what we and others stand in need of, we propitiate his just anger, and make satisfaction for our sins.

The priest who celebrates performs an action in the highest degree pleasing to Almighty God and meritorious for himself. Moreover, just as prayer may be offered for a special intention, and as the sacrifices of the Old Law were offered for the needs of those who presented the victim, so the Mass also may be celebrated by the priest for some definite intention. The special or ministerial fruit of the Mass is thus applied by the priest according to the intention with which he offers it.

I. The existence of the sacrifice of the Mass. In the Mass a true and properly so-called sacrifice is offered; this proposition is of faith from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to be eaten, let him be anathema."¹

¹ Session 22, canon 1.

II. The essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. It suffices to note briefly the principal things which pertain here:

1. The victim to be sacrificed is Christ as existing under the species. It is said:

a) Christ; this the Council of Trent teaches in these words: "In this divine sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated unbloodily who once offered Himself bloodily on the altar of the cross."¹

b) As existing under the species. For the Mass is a true and properly so-called sacrifice, and therefore the offering of a visible victim, namely a visible sacrifice. But Christ is not visible to us, nor can He be visibly sacrificed by us, except insofar as He exists under the species. Hence the Council of Trent says: "Our Lord... at the Last Supper, on the night on which He was betrayed, in order that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, as the nature of human beings requires,... offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the symbols of those same things commanded the Apostles... and their successors in the priesthood to offer them."²

Note. Bread and wine are only the matter from which the victim is confected. But the species of bread and wine are not constitutive or essential parts of the victim, but are the condition without which the victim is not given.

2. The principal offerer is Christ Himself; the secondary offerer is the priest.³ Co-offerers are added, that is, the Church or the whole faithful people, the minister, and those assisting (St. Alphonsus, VI, 307).

3. What the sacrificial action is, or the constitutive act, or the properly so-called essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, is not one opinion among authors. Now:

a) According to the opinion of all today, consecration pertains to the sacrificial action; and according to the more common opinion, the consecration of both species. It is disputed whether Communion also pertains to the essence. Those who deny this admit that it is an integral part of the sacrifice.

b) Of those who judge that the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass is constituted by consecration alone, some formally place the sacrificial action in consecration insofar as it places Christ in the more abased state of food and drink; others place it in consecration insofar as in it there is a mystical destruction, either because the words of themselves tend toward the real separation of body and blood, or because the sacramental species exhibit a sacramental representation of that separation.

¹ Session 22, chapter 2.

² Session 22, chapter 1.

³ Session 22, chapter 2.

III. The character of the sacrifice of the Mass. The sacrifice of the Mass is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice: absolute, insofar as considered in itself it has all the elements of a true sacrifice; relative, insofar as it essentially says relation to the sacrifice of the cross, or insofar as it is essentially representative and commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross¹ (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 7; q. 83, a. 1).

¹ Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1.

IV. The agreement of the Mass with the sacrifice of the cross, and its difference from it.

1. Both sacrifices agree as regards substance, namely as regards the victim and the principal offerer. Therefore the Mass, by reason of substance, is identified with the sacrifice of the cross, so that this sacrifice is truly repeated as often as Mass is celebrated.

2. They differ:

a) In the fact that the sacrifice of the cross was absolute, as it is called, while the Mass is essentially also relative, or is referred to the sacrifice of the cross.

b) By reason of the secondary offerer, namely, on the cross there was only the principal offerer, namely Christ; in the Mass there are the principal offerer, namely Christ, and the secondary offerer, namely the priest.

c) By reason of the mode of offering, which was bloody on the cross, but is unbloody in the Mass.

d) By reason of the end and effects, insofar as the sacrifice of the cross perfected satisfaction and merits, whereas the Mass applies them to us.

348. III. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is assuredly the same as the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not only because the same victim is offered, but also because the same formal character of Sacrifice is present, namely, through the declaration of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Therefore, the Sacrifice of the Altar differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross not essentially, but only accidentally, namely, as regards the manner of offering. 1. For in the Sacrifice of the Cross a real death took place; but in this one only a mystical death. 2. The Redeemer offered the former by Himself upon the altar of the Cross; but He offers the latter through the ministry of priests. 3. The former was meritorious, because in it the price of our redemption was paid; but through the latter the merits of Christ are applied.

1. SACRIFICE AS A RELIGIOUS ACT.—Sacrifice (oblatio, sacrificium) is an element of natural religion that is as old as humanity itself. It is an essential part of divine worship and, together with prayer and adoration, constitutes the most ancient and universal form of latria.

Broadly speaking, a sacrifice is a religious act by which we segregate a material gift from the rest of our possessions and alter it for the purpose of relinquishing its use and returning it to God.

Every sacrifice is inspired by the conviction that we are indebted to God for whatever we are and possess and by the intention of showing Him the homage and reverence due Him.¹

¹ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 1: “Natural reason dictates to man that he should be subject to some superior because of the defects which he feels in himself, in which he needs to be assisted and directed by some superior; and whatever that may be, this is what among all is called God. Just as in natural things inferiors are naturally subject to superiors, so also natural reason dictates to man, according to his natural inclination, that he should exhibit sub- jection and honor, according to his manner, to that which is above man. Now it is a manner suited to man that he use sensible signs to express certain things, because he receives knowledge from sensible things. And therefore it proceeds from natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, offering them to God as a sign of due subjection and honor, after the likeness of those who offer certain things to their lords in acknowledgment of dominion. But this belongs to the nature of sacrifice. And therefore the offering of sacrifice belongs to the natural law.”

Sacrifices therefore, can be offered only to God, to whom man owes his being and in whom he has his last end.²

² St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. X, c. 4: “Of those things which belong to the service of religion by which God is worshipped, there is surely no man who would dare to say that sacrifice is owed to any but God.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 281).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 2: “The offering of sacrifice is made to signify something. Now the sacrifice offered outwardly signifies the inward spiritual sacrifice by which the soul offers itself to God (Ps. L, 19), because outward acts of religion are ordered to inward acts. But the soul offers itself to God in sacrifice as to the principle of its creation and as to the end of its beatification.... And therefore, just as we owe the offering of spiritual sacrifice to the supreme God alone, so also to Him alone ought we to offer outward sacrifices.” Cfr. 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 3.

The primary and essential object of sacrifice is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion over His creatures. Since the Fall there is also a secondary object, namely, to appease the divine wrath. This secondary object, though in itself purely accidental, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the sin of our first parents.³

³ Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, p. 287.

“Man has need of sacrifice for three reasons,” says St. Thomas. “First, to obtain forgiveness of his sins, which separate him from God.... Secondly, in order that he may persevere in the state of grace by always adhering to God.... Thirdly, that his soul may be perfectly united with God.”⁴

⁴ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: “Man has need of sacrifice for three reasons: first, to obtain remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God.... Secondly, that man may be preserved in the state of grace, always adhering to God.... Thirdly, for this, that the spirit of man may be perfectly united with God.”

That the human race was always conscious of being in a state of grievous sin, appears from the fact that precious objects, such as the blood of beasts, and even of men, were offered as sacrifices to God at a very early date. Human sacrifices were no doubt a terrible aberration, but they clearly indicate that even before Christ appeared on earth, man felt that he could atone for his guilt only by sacrificing himself or his fellowmen.⁵

⁵ A. Stöckl, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen und seiner Geschichte, Mayence 1861; A. H. H. Kamphausen, Das Verhältnis des Menschenopfers zur israelitischen Religion, Leipsic 1896; E. Mader, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer, Freiburg 1909.

The acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion over His creatures culminates in adoration; the effort to appease His wrath centres in contrite expiation, for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of sin. Hence the distinction between sacrifices of praise and sacrifices of propitiation. And since man is indebted for many benefits to God, sacrifices have the additional purpose of thanksgiving and petition.

The imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament were merely types foreshadowing the one perfect sacrifice of the New Dispensation, which was offered by Jesus Christ upon the Cross. “Being in themselves imperfect and inefficacious,” says Pohle, “the sacrifices of the Levites could effect ‘a legal cleansing of the flesh,’ but no remis- sion of sins. Their very insufficiency made them prophetic types of the perfect sacrifice of the New Law. If sins were forgiven in the Old Testament, it was not by the blood of goats or calves, but by the blood of the promised Redeemer. Hence the variety of the Levitic sacrifices and their incessant repetition. They were mere types, expressing the constant need of propitiation through the bloody sacrifice of the Cross.”⁶

⁶ Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 291 sq.

Hence sacrifice may be adequately defined as the external offering of a sensible gift, which is destroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate transformation, by an authorized minister, in recognition of God’s supreme dominion and in order to appease His anger.⁷

⁷ Op. cit., p. 286.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 3, ad 2: “Man’s good is threefold. The first is the good of the soul, which is offered to God in a certain interior sacrifice through devotion and prayer and other interior acts of this kind, and this is the principal sacrifice. The second is the good of the body, which in a certain way is offered to God through martyrdom and abstinence or continence. The third is the good of external things, concerning which a sacrifice is offered to God, directly indeed when we immediately offer our possessions to God, but mediately when we communicate them to our neighbors for God’s sake.”—Ibid., ad 3: “Sacrifices are properly so called when something is done to things offered to God, as animals were killed and burned, and bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And the name itself signifies this, for sacrifice is so called from the fact that man makes something sacred. But an oblation is directly so called when something is offered to God, even if nothing is done to it, as coins or loaves are said to be offered on the altar, concerning which nothing is done. Hence every sacrifice is an oblation, but the converse is not true.”—Cfr. qu. 86, art. 1; 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 3; 3a, qu. 22, art. 2; qu. 48, art. 3, where St. Thomas says: “Sacrifice is properly said of something done in the honor properly due to God in order to appease Him.”

There is but one such sacrifice under the New Dispensation, namely, the perfect sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ. “By one oblation he hath per- fected for ever them that are sanctified.”⁸

⁸ Heb. X, 14.—St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. XVIII, c. 20, n. 2: “For by all the sacrifices and oblations [of the Old Testament] His [Christ’s] body is offered and is ministered to the participants.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 556).

“Christ,” says St. Thomas, “in His human capacity, as man, was not only a priest, but also a perfect gift or victim, i. e., a sacrificial gift for sin, a peace offering, and a burnt offering.”⁹

⁹ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: “Christ Himself, inasmuch as He was man, was not only a priest, but also a perfect victim, being at once a victim for sin, a peace offering, and a holocaust.”

His whole life was a continuous sacrifice of humiliation and self-abasement (exinanitio),¹⁰ which reached its climax when He died on the Cross.¹¹ It is by this supreme act that He redeemed the human race from sin.

¹⁰ Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 95 sqq.

¹¹ Phil. II, 8; Col. II, 14; Heb. X, 5–10.

This sacrifice is continued in the Mass, which is intrinsically and essentially a representation and commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,¹² the pivot and centre of Catholic worship, and the only liturgical act in which every member of the Church is in duty bound to participate at regular intervals.

¹² Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 332 sqq.—Conc. Lateran. IV, c. 1: “In which [the Church] the same One is both priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 430).—Conc. Trident., Sess. 22, c. 1, can. 1–4.—N. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 4th ed., St. Louis 1914.—J. Grimault, La Doctrine de la Sainte Messe, Paris 1905.—For additional literature on the Mass see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 273 sq.

Sacred Scripture censures the heathen, not because they offered sacrifices, but because they sacrificed to idols instead of to the one true God, and says their sacrifices were rejected because they were inspired by a wrong intention and therefore could not be pleasing to God. To perform acts of external worship without due regard to the moral law of nature, is not to honor God, but to dishonor Him.¹³

¹³ 1 Kings XV, 22; Ps. XXXIX, 7; L, 18; Os. VI, 6; Am. V, 21–27; Mich. VI, 6 sqq.; Is. I, 10–17; Matt. IX, 13; 1 Cor. X, 19 sq.; Heb. X, 5.—M. Wiener, Die Anschauungen der Propheten von der Sittlichkeit, Berlin 1909.

2. THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICE.—Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for men, and spiritual self-immolation is the essence and climax of every Christian’s life. External gifts, even though they consist of the very life-blood of the giver, are worthless if unaccompanied by interior contrition and penitence. To participate in the benefits of the Redemption, the individual must add to the objective sacrifice offered once for all by Jesus Christ on the Cross, a subjective and interior sacrifice, by entering into and adopting as his own the intention and purpose for which our Lord laid down His life.¹⁴

¹⁴ Gen. IV, 4; 1 Cor. XI, 26; XIII, 1–8.

This interior union with the sacrificial intention of Christ may manifest itself in various external acts, which are called sacrifices in a figurative sense, but partake of the true sacrificial character only in so far as they are consciously referred to the Sacrifice of the Cross.

In this sense, sacrifice consists in humbly sub- mitting to the will of God and patiently accepting the sufferings and tribulations of everyday life, which are not inappropriately called the “daily cross” of the Christian believer.

If one has this disposition, it is not sinful for him to wish conditionally that a certain thing may or may not happen in some particular case,¹⁵ and the expressions of pain or impatience that sometimes escape the lips of even pious persons, when sorely tried, are signs of weakness rather than sins. Resignation to God’s will is a duty, and to refuse it deliberately, or wilfully to entertain feelings of positive repugnance, is a mortal sin.

¹⁵ Matt. XVI, 24; XXVI, 38 sq.; Luke XXIV, 27; Heb. XII, 1 sq.

The sacrificial intention which every Christian must harbor in his soul manifests itself, secondly, in voluntary works of self-denial and humiliation, submission to the will of God, abstention from licit pleasures, in various works of mercy, and, generally, in doing good. These are all sacrifices acceptable to God, provided they come from a pure, or at least from a contrite heart, and are inspired by charity for one’s fellowmen.

One of the noblest sacrifices a man can offer to God is a meek and grateful disposition even in adversity. The verbal manifestation of this disposition has fittingly been called the language of the Saints and it ought to be in the mouth of every Christian without exception.¹⁶

¹⁶ Tob. II, 10, 14; Matt. V, 23 sqq.; Eph. IV, 2; V, 20; Col. III, 15, 17; 1 Thess. V, 18.—St. Jerome, Comment. in Epist. ad Ephes., l. III, c. 5.

The oft-repeated dictum: It is the Mass that matters! was coined by Augustine Birrell, a Baptist. “The Mass,” he says, “is a mystery so tremendous, so profoundly attractive, so intimately associated with the keystone of the Christian faith, so vouched for by the testimony of Saints ... If the Incarnation be indeed the one divine event to which the whole creation moves, the miracle of the altar may well seem its restful shadow cast over a dry and thirsty land, for the help of man who is apt to be discouraged if perpetually told that everything really important and interesting happened once for all, long ago, in a chill, historic past. It is the Mass that matters. It is the Mass that makes the difference, so hard to define—so subtle is it, yet so perceptible—between a Catholic country and a Protestant one, between Dublin and Edinburgh, between Havre and Cromer.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Nineteenth Century, Apr., 1896; quoted by H. T. Henry, Catholic Customs and Symbols, N. Y. 1925, pp. 133 sq.

On the duty of attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on Sundays and holydays of obligation, see infra, pp. 336 sqq.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85–87.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Freiburg 1904, pp. 325 sqq.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, Freiburg 1881, pp. 478 sqq.—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 277 sqq.

— Mass, more anciently called missio, first designated the dismissal of catechumens before the offertory, and of the faithful after the consummation of the sacrifice. After the former dismissal had been removed by use, it began to designate the whole ceremony whose end it of itself announced.

Therefore it is sometimes taken for the sacrifice itself, and then Mass can be defined: "the sacrificial oblation of the body and blood of Christ" (Mysterium Fidei, p. 319). But more properly it is that sacred ceremony in which the sacrifice of the New Law is offered (Trent, s. 22, can. 1).

While in the sacrament we passively receive the gift of God, in the sacrifice we act, we offer the victim; the sacrament immediately infuses grace into us, while the sacrifice intercedes for us before God. In the sacrament, the effect ex opere operato is owed to God as principal cause, to the sacrament as instrumental cause; in the sacrifice, the effect ex opere operato is had because God, in view of the sacrifice itself as such, with consideration of our devotion omitted, is prepared to concede to us, yet with fitting reason, the goods for obtaining which the sacrifice is offered (Mysterium Fidei, p. 321).

In the eucharistic sacrifice also there can be distinguished sign only, reality and sign, reality only. Sign only is attended to in the species, which constitute a certain apparent sacrifice, not a true one, of bread and wine, designative of the true sacrifice, not an apparent one, concerning the body and blood of Christ. Reality and sign is the true sacrifice itself concerning the body and blood of Christ, designated by the apparent sacrifice of bread and wine. For the species, together with the words, avail to signify the division of body and blood made in the Passion for the redemption of the human race. Therefore in the Mass they represent the past immolation of the Cross, just as in the Supper they pre-signified the imminent immolation of the Cross. But in that very pre-signification consisted the oblation which Christ made, ritual and sensible, of his death; and likewise in the representation of death consists the oblation which we make of Christ, who by his Passion and death was left in the state of a victim consummated forever by heavenly glory. This oblation, from what has been said, is wholly perfected in each consecration; in this, therefore, as the more common opinion holds, the essence of the Mass is to be placed. But Communion is not oblation, but participation of the offered victim. A few have thought that either consecration suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. This opinion is judged improbable by Lehmkuhl, II, 229, but not by Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theolog., IV, 989; and it must be called improbable by all for whom it is certain that the sacrifice of the Mass is essentially representative, and that the oblation of the body and blood of Christ is so true and real that nevertheless it consists in a certain symbol of death, which is called mystical immolation. Finally, reality only is our interior worship signified by the oblation of that divine victim, or our internal immolation.

— The primary and essential end of the Sacrifice, the end of the work, is latreutic: it is offered in recognition of the supreme dominion of God and as sign of our servitude. Wherefore sacrifice also is offered to God alone. But since thanksgiving for benefits received also pertains to the due honor of God, the end of praise and thanksgiving, or the eucharistic end, is closely joined with the former. In our present condition, divine worship also contains the postulation of benefits of every kind. Hence sacrifice becomes impetratory. Finally, from our condition after the fall of Adam, God must be placated, lest the benefits of him, liberal and merciful, be impeded by our sins. Wherefore sacrifice is offered as propitiatory. Propitiation of itself says: a) compensation for a misdeed, by which fault is redeemed and the offended one is rendered as it were unharmed; and b) the punishment of vindicative justice is supplied by which satisfaction is made to him. In the former way the offended one is placated; in the latter, the penal debt is extinguished. Therefore propitiation comprehends two things; but propitiation strictly so called regards laying aside wrath or placation, while extinction of punishment is more properly called satisfaction.

Distinct sacrifices were deputed to these ends in the Old Law, while, from the very law of its institution, the sacrifice of the Mass is at the same time latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory (Trent, s. XXII, c. 1, end of c. 2).

Moreover, the propitiatory sacrifice itself is of itself latreutic, eucharistic, and impetratory. Cf. Mysterium Fidei, Elucidation I.

By a certain secondary reason it is also offered, not indeed to the saints, but to God in honor of the saints (Trent, s. 22, c. 3).

The victim of this sacrifice is Christ himself, who because of our conjunction with him has been made our victim, whom we can offer.

— The principal offerer is Christ, at least insofar as he himself offered the sacrifice of redemption and commanded its perpetual renewal, competent power having been given for this end to priests who, by virtue of the Lord's oblation once made, would themselves offer the victim of Christ.

We say at least, because according to the opinion of Suarez (in 3 p., q. 83, art. 1, d. 77, s. I), which very many after him embrace, the priest so "confects in the person of Christ and as his legate representing him" (St. Thomas) that Christ concurs with the individual sacrifices as actual offerer. Yet that opinion, already disapproved by Vasquez (in 3 p., q. 19, a. 4, d. 76, c. 1, n. 6) and then by several others, does not please all even today. Thus it is rejected in the work Mysterium Fidei, Elucidation XXIII, p. 276 ff. Wherefore, that we might omit this controversy, which belongs to the dogmatic theologians, we have made Christ the offerer at least by that reason which all Catholics admit.

Therefore the priest is minister of Christ insofar as he is endowed by Christ with instrumental power for offering the sacrifice; but he is minister of the Church as its procurator and mandatary.

Therefore the priest bears a public person; the spiritual society sacrifices through him as through a Superior.

The celebrant is besides offerer, just as a singular private person who stands by the sacrifice can be an offerer.

The remaining faithful are offerers, both mediately through the Church, if they are its members, and immediately, if morally, by a peculiar reason, they are joined with the sacrifice itself and cooperate in some active way toward this sacrifice: whether they pay a stipend, minister, or assist at Mass. Contrary to what Noldin thinks, p. 166, the merely mental union by which someone joins himself with Masses which are celebrated cannot constitute an offerer, since sensible participation is desired, and sacrifice is a sensible oblation. Cf. Suarez, Euchar., d. 77, s. 3, n. 3.

Therefore the celebrating priest, besides his own person, represents Christ and the Church; as offerer, he disposes concerning the impetration of Christ and concerning the impetration of the Church. But as performing the consecration, just as in the confection of any sacrament, he is the ministerial cause of Christ alone, who principally operates. Cf. Palmieri, IV, 992.

— a) The fruit of the Mass, or the reward, gift, effect which, on account of the celebrated sacrifice, comes either to the priest, or to those for whom it is offered, or to others, is distinguished as one from ex opere operato, another from ex opere operantis. The former belongs to the sacrifice especially on the part of Christ, who, although now he can neither merit nor satisfy, nevertheless annexed his infinite merits and satisfactions to that sacrifice, and impetrated benefits of every kind for us through it. In some measure also the value which arises from the impetration of the Church, always, though in varying degree, the beloved spouse of Christ and pleasing to God, is said to be ex opere operato, because it does not depend on the devotion of the minister.

The fruit ex opere operantis belongs to that sacrifice from the disposition or fervor of the priest celebrating and of those who, by requesting the sacrifice, ministering, or assisting, actively cooperate toward this sacrifice. For through this good work they merit and satisfy, and through this most worthy prayer they impetrate various things for themselves or for others.

b) On the part of the principal impetratory cause, that is, Christ, the effect of the Mass is absolutely infallible; on the part of the object, if there is question of an actual help that someone dispose himself to grace, or of remission of temporal punishment, it is again infallible; if concerning other things, it is necessary that they be expedient for salvation and be according to the ordinary laws of Providence.

On the part of the subject, apt disposition is required. And as regards remission of punishment, it is required and suffices that, fault having first been blotted out, the state of grace be had.

c) On the part of the mode by which the fruit is acquired, the sacrifice profits both those who offer it and those for whom it is applied by the offerers, that is, by way of suffrage; and it can profit by a twofold title at the same time. But the faithful can offer the sacrifice immediately by joining themselves with the celebrating priest; and they can also do so through the celebrant, as he who pays the stipend and thus is as it were cause of the celebrated Mass.

But every priest, with Christ alone excepted, first offers for himself, then can offer for all with whom he is joined by charity (Hebrews 5:3). From the very institution of Christ and of the Church, the celebrant offers for all living and dead Christians; for the salvation of the whole world (Order of Mass, at the offertory). Finally, by perpetual usage it is certain that it is in the power of the priest to make a special application to a definite intention. Cf. proposition 30 condemned by the Constitution Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, Denzinger, 1530. Wherefore, besides the merit which each one necessarily obtains for himself through the good act of offering or participating in Mass, there is distinguished the general fruit, or common or universal; the special, or middle and ministerial; and the most special, which some call special, others personal.

The general fruit comes, without peculiar intention, to all for whom, from the institution of Christ and of the Church, the sacrifice is offered. Even those who are disposed, or who are impeded by no obstacle, participate in this fruit unequally, so that the participation is greater of those who are more joined with the priest. Therefore those who are present at Mass participate in the benefits more than the absent; the faithful more than those who are outside the Church; indeed certain persons, in punishment, are deprived of direct participation by excommunication.

The most special fruit comes of itself and without necessity of any intention to the priest, and cannot be communicated with others. Yet insofar as it is of impetration, he is not prohibited from using it for others.

The special fruit is in the power of the offerer, and it yields to him who is designated by the intention of the priest. Therefore this application demands the definite will of the priest.

Suarez, De Sacramentis, 3 p., d. 78, s. 2, n. 3, thinks that the general fruit is circumscribed by impetration.

— On the Value of the Mass. 1. Principles. On the part of the victim offered, the Mass is of infinite dignity and infinite value: it contains an infinite treasure. But insofar as it is our oblation of an infinite thing, now its value is not infinite, but it has measure principally from the devotion and affection of the Church, which, although always holy and the beloved spouse of Christ, nevertheless can vary in degree of sanctity; secondarily, from the devotion and fervor of the other offerers, who indeed can subtract nothing from the value which the Church confers, but can add something to the same.

But the application can be impeded or diminished by an obstacle or lesser disposition of the subject to whom it is made.

In the living, dispositions are easily desired: thus affection for venial sin impedes application of satisfaction to the penal expiation of that sin. In the dead, present dispositions are indeed best; but in this application, which is made by way of suffrage, several contend that the past dispositions of souls are also attended to. Cf. Schmid, S.J., Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, Innsbruck, 1893, p. 297 ff., De applicatione per modum suffragii; and Genicot, II, n. 222.

— 2. Corollaries. a) A Mass offered for several profits each one less, since the total fruit, which is exacted according to the devotion of the offerers, must be divided among several;

b) A Mass offered by several titles for one and the same person will profit him more than if it is applied to the same by one title alone. Therefore he who, according to the intention of Titius, is present at the Mass which at the same time he ordered to be celebrated for Titius, profits Titius more than if he had merely paid the stipend; and the utility for Titius grows if several offer the Mass for him by assisting at it, than if the author of the stipend alone were present;

c) The more persons are present at the sacrifice, the more, of itself, or other things being equal, the value of the Mass grows;

d) The value of the Mass is not diminished for individuals because there are more distinct concelebrating priests, or others offering. For from the inexhaustible treasure, a thousand offer just as well as one.

Yet do not gather thence with Cajetan (Opuscula, tom. II, tr. 3, q. 2) that a Mass which a priest celebrates for two stipends profits each offerer equally as if two Masses were celebrated.

For, after an agreement has been made with one offerer concerning a fitting stipend, no other can now be an offerer of the same sacrifice through a stipend; but if another has contributed something, "that will be found outside the ambit of the matter corresponding to the celebration of that sacrifice. The reason of this is because, where something is adequate not only materially but also formally, that is, given and accepted as such, nothing will accede, while such a pact stands, except what is altogether extrinsic. Just as tribute cannot be paid twice; but after tribute has been rendered, whatever is spent over and above has another account. If therefore the priest sacrifices according to the intention of Titius formally giving the integral stipend, he cannot at the same time sacrifice according to the intention of Caius as one giving a stipend" (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 352).

Observe that the case is altogether diverse of one who offers a richer alms for Mass. For he is judged from greater devotion to stand forth more liberal with respect to one sacrifice; and therefore he will receive greater fruit.

Thus also solemn Mass profits more than private Mass. Yet several Masses repeat acts of devotion of the celebrant and those standing by. Therefore it is difficult to establish what of itself profits the deceased more: whether a solemn sacred rite be offered for him, or, for the same sum of money, several private Masses. Therefore it will be more satisfactory to accommodate oneself to received usages. Thus also de la Taille, l. c., in the note.

e) The faithful in general are at once offerers and subjects for whom Mass is offered. But the more numerous the offerers are, the more the total value of the offered Mass grows. Therefore the diminution which follows the division of total value among several is of itself compensated by the total value increased;

f) Besides the limitation which the devotion of the offerers brings to the value of the Mass, another is had from the disposition of him to whom the application is made.

— In this plainer way the controverted question concerning the infinite or finite force of efficacious application seems to be solved. Several admitted that the efficacy is intensively infinite, insofar as if nothing were lacking to the application and disposition of the subject, the effect of impetration or propitiation would be circumscribed by no certain breadth, and one sacrifice would avail for impetrating every benefit. There have also been those who contended that the efficacy is extensively infinite, insofar as application made for several would profit each one equally as if Mass had been celebrated for only one; this was defended by St. Alphonsus himself in his Moral Theology. Yet from that opinion, as we are taught by the editor P. Gaude in l. 6, n. 312, he receded in various little works, such as De caerimoniis missae, etc.; and he propounded, as the more common, the opinion which said that the fruit was intensively and extensively finite.

But indications of limitation are both the common custom in the Church of offering the sacred rite for individual persons, whether living or dead, and not generally for all; and the prohibition lest someone attempt by one Mass to satisfy an obligation arisen from stipend, vow, precept of a Superior, etc. But others seek the finite efficacy from a positive will of God which would have attached the infinite satisfactions of the Cross to individual sacrifices not infinitely, but according to a certain mode. Better, as it seems to us, a will of this arbitrary kind is excluded.

— That priests can validly concelebrate is sufficiently certain from episcopal consecration, in which the consecrator with the consecrated, and from presbyteral ordination, in which the new priests with the one ordaining, concelebrate. It is certain also from the usages of the Oriental rite. And they admit also that it is lawful for individual concelebrants to receive a stipend for their oblation.

Yet the explanation of the matter is not so easy, so that Cajetan, in 3 p., q. 82, art. 2, after difficulties had been proposed, attending only to the concelebration of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration, denied that the new priests truly consecrate, but thought that they merely recite the Mass together with the bishop; but he admitted that the consecrated bishop truly consecrates the bread and wine with the consecrator, because physical simultaneity in the pronunciation of the form could then be obtained. This opinion of Cajetan, as regards the new priests, cannot be composed with the practice and sense of the Church.

Concerning the matter itself, these things besides can be established as certain: a) that priests truly concelebrate, there is need that each one efficaciously influence the consecration. For in each consecration itself the essential oblation consists; b) that each one efficaciously influence, it is necessary that transubstantiation not happen before all have pronounced the essential form. For words cannot influence into a transubstantiation already performed. From St. Thomas, q. 82, art. 2, we can gather only this: that no consecration is repeated, but one consecration is made by the concelebrants, since the intention of all is borne toward the same instant of consecration; and that the plurality of celebrants is not superfluous, because all consecrate in the person of Christ, in whom all are one.

An explanation seems able to be attempted in two ways. Since the instrumental causality of the consecrating priest is not properly physical, in order that the concelebrants efficaciously influence into one consecration, which God as principal cause operates by total causality, it suffices that they morally pronounce the essential words at the same moment. In this explanation, therefore, a proper action of consecrating is ascribed to each. Or all are said, from agreement, to consecrate in solidum as one individual presbyterium, so that all utterances constitute only one sacramental sign and therefore one form of consecration, which is not complete until all have completed their recitation. This latter explanation is proposed in Mysterium Fidei, p. 354 ff.

In the former explanation, since all things have themselves as if each one made a separate consecration, the individual priestly oblations are manifestly worthy of stipend. In the other explanation, each is judged to take a quota part of the total stipend, which is to be fitted to the number of celebrants. And since the fruit grows from the number of those devoutly offering, concelebrants can also then apply the Mass for the separate stipend which they have received.

But the words uttered in the Mass of ordination, "Have the intention of consecrating with the Reverend Bishop," do not signify: "Have the intention of consecrating then when the Bishop has pronounced the words, whether your pronunciation has already been completed or is still to be completed"; but it is a simple admonition that they strive as much as they can to pronounce the words together with the Bishop, and that by moral conjunction they will to perform one consecration with the Bishop.

— I. Mass, which is sometimes taken for the sacrifice itself of the New Law, is strictly the sacred ceremony in which the sacrifice of the New Law is offered.

The essence of that sacrifice is commonly placed in each consecration of bread and wine; and it is at the same time latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory.

The principal offerer is Christ, at least insofar as he himself offered the sacrifice of the Cross and commanded its perpetual renewal in the Church, suitable power having been given to priests. The Church offers the sacrifice through the ministry of the priest deputed by her; the celebrant also offers, as he is a private person; the remaining faithful offer mediately through the Church and immediately if morally, by a peculiar reason, they are joined with the sacrifice. The celebrant is minister of the Church as offerer; minister of Christ and instrument of God as performing the consecration.

The fruit of the Mass is distinguished as one from ex opere operato, which belongs to it on the part of Christ and in some measure also on the part of the impetration of the Church; another from ex opere operantis, from the disposition of the celebrant and of those who actively cooperate with the sacrifice; with at least the impetratory fruit attended to, general, which comes to all for whom it is offered from the institution of Christ and of the Church; special, which is in the power of the offerer, and therefore demands a definite will of the celebrant; most special, which comes to the priest.

The fruit is infallible on the part of Christ and on the part of the object, if it is an actual help for disposing oneself to grace, or remission of temporal punishment, or if the thing is expedient for salvation and is according to the ordinary laws of Providence; but on the part of the subject it requires an apt disposition. For remission of punishment it suffices that, fault having been blotted out, the state of grace be had. Application is made to the dead by way of suffrage, and perhaps their past dispositions are attended to.

From the offered victim, the sacrifice of the Mass is of infinite value. Yet the efficacy of the application is finite both intensively and extensively. Intensively, insofar as, although the thing offered induces a value far surpassing our acts, nevertheless the devotion of the offerer is also to be considered: hence the value of the application is fitted principally to the devotion of the Church offering commonly through the priest, and to the devotion of those offering more specially, that is, of the celebrant, of the one giving the stipend, and of those assisting. Extensively, insofar as, when applied for many, application to each individual becomes less perfect. But the fruit is not diminished because of a greater number of concelebrants, offerers, or faithful.

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

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

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

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

It is proved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. From the use of the primitive Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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