The Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

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.

n. 3.

Apart from special prohibitions, the Mass may be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, and whom it can benefit. It may be offered for all the faithful living and dead. The Council of Trent defined that the souls in purgatory are helped by the sacrifices of the faithful, and it is at least theologically certain that the fruits of the Mass are to some extent, which is known to God, applied to them ex opere operato, when Mass is said for that intention. It may also be offered for the conversion of infidels, and in thanksgiving for all the graces and glory which God has bestowed on the blessed in heaven. The damned in hell can receive no benefit from our prayers or sacrifices. According to the new Code, Mass may be offered for anybody, living or dead, but only privately, and with precautions to avoid scandal for excommunicates, and, moreover, only for their conversion, if they are to be avoided as excommunicates (Can. 809; 2262, sec. 2, ii).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. I, Section I. On the Existence and Essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. I, Section II. On the Efficacy and Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. II, Section I. On the Person Offering

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.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 10 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. I, Section I. On the Existence and Essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 200.

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.

n. 201.

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

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.

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).
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.

n. 202.

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.

n. 203.

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

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.
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.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. I, Section II. On the Efficacy and Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 204.

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.

n. 205.

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.

n. 206.

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

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.
Immediately and mediately, according as the effect proceeds not through an intermediate effect, or through an effect of this kind.
Infallibly and fallibly. Now:

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.

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.

n. 207.

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:

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.
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.
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).

n. 208.

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.

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.
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).
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

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.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. II, Section I. On the Person Offering

n. 209.

I. The principal minister is Christ the Lord. "It is the same one," says the Council of Trent, "now offering through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross."¹

II. The secondary minister is every and only priest. "If anyone says," the same Council of Trent says, "that by those words: Do this in 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."²

III. In some sense all the faithful can be called ministers of the sacrifice of the Mass, namely insofar as they contribute something to the sacrifice. They do this insofar as they are members of the Church, in whose name the priest celebrates; insofar as they assist at the sacrifice and conform themselves to the intention of the principal and secondary minister; and insofar as they causally concur in the sacrifice, for example by giving a stipend or by serving the priest celebrating (St. Alphonsus, VI, 307).

Corollary I. Several priests can indeed offer the sacrifice of the Mass together, but this is illicit except in the Mass of the ordination of priests, and in the Mass of the consecration of bishops according to the Roman Pontifical (canon 803; n. 20).

Corollary II. A priest who is a stranger to a church, that is, not assigned to the church in which he asks to celebrate, can be admitted as follows:

If he shows authentic and still valid commendatory letters from his Ordinary if he is secular, or from his superior if he is religious, or from the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church if he is of an Oriental rite, he is to be admitted to the celebration of Mass, unless meanwhile it is clear that he has committed something on account of which he ought to be repelled from the celebration of Mass (canon 804, § 1).
If he lacks those letters, but his probity is very well known to the rector of the church, he can be admitted. But if he is unknown to the rector, he can still be admitted once or twice, provided that, clothed in ecclesiastical dress, he receives nothing, under any title, from the celebration from the church in which he sacrifices, and signs his name, office, and diocese in a special book (canon 804, § 2). It is said provided that he is clothed in ecclesiastical dress, that is, provided that the stranger, by the form of his dress, manifests that he is a priest.
Special norms concerning this matter, given by the local Ordinary, with the prescriptions of this canon saved, must be observed by all, even exempt religious, unless it concerns admitting religious to celebrate in a church of their own religious institute (canon 804, § 3).

¹ Session 22, chapter 2.

² Session 22, canon 2.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 6 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Sacrifice · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmation; the Eucharist; the Sacrifice of the Mass

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Sacrifice

n. 2178.

Definition of Sacrifice

Definition of Sacrifice.—Sacrifice is the offering to God and a real changing of a sensible thing, made by a lawful minister, in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him.

(a) It is an offering or oblation; that is, one makes a gift directly to God Himself. Thus, sacrifice differs from contributions of the people made for the clergy or the church.

(b) It offers a sensible thing, that is, some object perceptible by the senses or hidden under sensible species; for sacrifice is an outward sign of the inner offering, by which the soul itself is subjected to God.

(c) It is made by a lawful minister, for sacrifice is a public act performed in the name of the community, and hence it may be offered only by those who represent the community. St. Paul declares that a high-priest is chosen from men to offer sacrifice, and that no one may take the honor to himself unless he is called as Aaron was (Heb., v. 4).

(d) It is made to God alone, since God alone is our First Beginning and Last End: “He who sacrifices to other gods besides the Lord shall be put to death” (Exod., xxii. 20). Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints means that sacrifice is offered God in thanksgiving for their merits or in petition that we may imitate their virtues. Oblations may be made to men, but sacrifice may be offered only to God.

(e) It is through a real change of the thing offered, which thus becomes the victim of sacrifice; for the supreme act of worship reserved to God acts upon the substance itself of an external thing to signify that the worshipper offers his own being to God. The change in the thing sacrificed consists in its being made sacred, or set apart as the central object in the supreme act of worship.

(f) It is made in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him; that is, it is an act whose direct and proper end is the exercise of the virtue of religion. Thus, sacrifice differs from acts of self-sacrifice such as continence, abstinence, martyrdom, even when they are offered in honor of God, for the direct and proper end of these acts is some other virtue than that of religion. The act of sacrifice may have no purpose except worship, but other virtuous acts have their own ends to make them praiseworthy, even when they are used as acts of worship.

n. 2179.

The Essentials of Sacrifice

The Essentials of Sacrifice.—(a) The outward sign may be said to consist of matter and form. The matter is some sensible thing used as victim, whether it be inanimate (e.g., the bread and wine of Melchisedech), or animate (e.g., the paschal lamb), or human (e.g., Our Lord in His passion). The form is some sensible action that makes the victim sacred by dedicating it to sacrificial oblation (e.g., the breaking of bread, the libation of wine, the offering of the slain lamb, the voluntary and visible acceptance of death by Our Lord). In the Mass Christ is sacrificed, not as existing under His own appearances, but as present under the sacramental species and offered through His representatives; and hence in the Mass the Victim is sensible by means of the species that signify and contain Him, while the dedication by the Supreme Priest is made sensible through the words of the ministering priest who acts for Christ.

(b) The inner thing that is signified in sacrifice is primarily the offering of self to God, in recognition that from Him we have our being and in Him is our happiness. But secondarily it signifies the fruits we derive from union with God (e.g., the benefits of redemption and salvation). Thus, the sacrificial death of Christ is also a symbol of man’s death to sin and life in God (I Peter, iv. 1).

n. 2180.

The Obligation of Sacrifice

The Obligation of Sacrifice.—(a) The internal or spiritual sacrifice is obligatory for all, since all are bound to offer God devotion of will, communion of mind, recognition of His supremacy. (b) The external sacrifice improperly so called, which consists in the practice of works of virtue, is obligatory for all in so far as commanded acts are concerned, but not when virtuous deeds are of supererogation. (c) The external sacrifice properly so called, which consists in an outward sign indicative of internal worship of God, is by natural law necessary, for reason itself shows to man that he is an inferior and dependent being, and so should acknowledge the superiority of God and his own submission by acts suitable to his nature as a being composed of body and soul, and for whom sensible things are signs of spiritual truths.

n. 2181.

Exemptions Based on the Natural Law

Exemptions Based on the Natural Law.—Though the external sacrifice strictly so called is obligatory from natural law, it is not a primary precept of nature, nor does nature determine its details.

(a) Hence, the fact of the obligation may be unknown to an individual, since (though reason indicates it) it is not evident and rests upon a number of premises from which it has to be reasoned out. Unlike the duty of honoring parents, which is immediately inferred from natural principles, the duty of offering sacrifice is only remotely inferred, and hence admits of invincible ignorance (see 320).

(b) The manner of fulfilling the obligation, since not defined by natural law, has to be determined by positive laws, or, in the absence of these, by suitability to the circumstances in which one lives. Before the positive divine law was given, there was no obligatory rite for sacrifice and the oblation was not entrusted to any special body of men, and hence we read that in the times of the patriarchs there was great freedom as to the ceremonies and the ministry employed in sacrifice. But under the Mosaic Law the manner of sacrificing was minutely prescribed and its office entrusted to the sons of Aaron, even to the exclusion of monarchs; while under the law of Christ there is but the one sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated in the Mass in an unbloody manner, and the ministers who have power to offer sacrifice are only the bishops and priests.

n. 2182.

Is Sacrifice Superior to All the Other Acts of Religion?—(a) Sacrifice is not superior to the internal act of religion, for devotion or the internal sacrifice is the soul that animates and moves the external rites (see 2149): “The multitude offered victims and praises and holocausts with a devout mind” (II Par., xxix. 31); “Obedience is better than sacrifice” (I Kings, xv. 22).

(b) Sacrifice is preeminent among the external acts of religion. Some acts of religion are optional (e.g., vows, oaths, adjurations), but sacrifice is a natural obligation. Some acts of religion are obligatory, but marks of respect similar to them may also be shown to creatures (e.g., customary offerings, praises), whereas no kind of sacrifice may be offered to a creature. Some acts of religion are reserved to God, but they have no rite that is peculiar to the worship of God and that may not be exercised by all (e.g., acts of adoration), whereas sacrifice has a service reserved to God and which only priests can perform. Sacraments are primarily for the welfare of man; sacrifice is primarily for the honor of God. Non-sacrificial acts of religion may be performed in the name of an individual (e.g., adoration), whereas sacrifice is in the name of the community; other acts of religion may signify dependence on God for temporal and corporal things (e.g., offering of first-fruits), but sacrifice signifies the dependence of the soul itself on God for existence and beatitude.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmation; the Eucharist; the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 2688.

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism.—(a) Before Baptism.—Baptismal water should be blessed, added to or renewed, as the ritual regulations of one’s place require; the faithful should be frequently admonished in sermons of the serious duty of having their infants baptized as soon as possible (Canon 770); the people should also be told (especially midwives, physicians and surgeons) how lay Baptism is to be given validly (Canon 743).

(b) At the Time of Baptism.—Converts preparing for Baptism should be well instructed in the principal religious truths (viz, those contained in the Creed), and precepts (viz., the laws of the Decalogue and of the Church, see 914 sqq.), and prayers (viz, the Our Father, the acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition); and they should learn the nature and effects of Baptism. The parish-priest may delegate a deacon to baptize solemnly in his place, if there is a sufficient reason, as when he himself is impeded by sickness, absence, or occupation (Canon 741).

(c) After Baptism.—The pastor in virtue of his office has the responsibility of attending to the registration of baptisms in the proper book (Canon 777). The registration should be made without delay—that is, before the sponsors have departed, or immediately after the ceremony, or at least on the same day, if possible; the entry should be made accurately and legibly. The duty of keeping proper baptismal records is considered grave, since important evils would follow on their neglect.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 3 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Eucharist

On the Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

“5. It is not founded in the Gospel that Christ ordained the Mass.” Proposition of John Wyclif condemned by the Council of Constance.

“45. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice in no other sense than that general one by which every work that is done so that man may adhere to God in holy fellowship is a sacrifice.” Proposition of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“I profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice is offered to God for the living and the dead.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. The same is contained in the same words in the Profession of Faith for Easterners prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 17 passages

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, V. On the Nature and Power of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 605.

What is a sacrifice? - A sacrifice is: The offering of a sensible thing made to God, by the ministry of a priest, by which, in destroying or changing that thing, we profess that God is Lord of life and death. Trent sess. 22, ch. 3; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 86, a. 1.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, Second Part. On the Eucharist as Sacrifice · Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, Second Part. On the Euchar…, Chapter I. On the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and what kind? - Resp. It is clear from Trent sess. 22, ch. 1, can. 1, that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. - And from the same Trent ib., ch. 2, it is clear that this sacrifice is essentially the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, and differs from it only accidentally. For the Victim of each is the same; the Priest is the same, Christ offering in the Eucharist by the ministry of priests; each is effected by the pouring out of blood; only the manner of offering is different. For in the former the pouring out of blood was real and Christ was immolated bloodily; in the latter the pouring out of blood is mystical and Christ is immolated bloodlessly. Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5.

But the sacrifice is latreutic, because it is the most absolute act of latria. For it is offered to God in recognition of His supreme dominion. It is eucharistic, because it pertains especially to giving thanks to God for benefits conferred. It is propitiatory, because it is offered to God for obtaining pardon of sins. It is expiatory or satisfactory, since it is offered to God for obtaining also the remission of punishment due to sins, namely temporal punishment; for the remission of eternal punishment is not the effect of this sacrifice, since it is not remitted except when mortal sin has been destroyed. It is impetratory, for it is offered to God also for obtaining other necessities and benefits. Trent ib., chs. 2, 3, cans. 3, 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 1. - The Eucharist, as sacrifice, is customarily called Mass, from the word mittere, either because at the end of the celebration of this sacrifice the people are dismissed with those words, Ite, Missa est, or because Christ in it is the Host sent by God. - E. M.

n. 607.

Note: The Mass does not have the power of remitting sins per se immediately, nor of immediately effecting an increase of sanctifying grace, but only of obtaining helps for penance by which they are remitted, and of obtaining helps for performing acts by which grace already acquired is increased; and also of obtaining other goods, both spiritual and temporal. But it does have power per se immediately to remit the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, and also for souls dwelling in Purgatory. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, can. 3; sess. 25, Decree on Purgatory, at the beginning; Lugo disp. 19, n. 153; L. 311.

As satisfactory, the Sacrifice is infallibly efficacious, if there is no obstacle in the subject, yet in that mode and measure in which the fruit belongs to it from divine institution, and more or less according to the dispositions of the subject. As impetratory, it is also infallibly efficacious, but with the limitations and conditions which impetration has. Hence the fruit of propitiation, which is by way of impetration, can be impeded by the obstacle of the bad disposition of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, and by the freedom of the man himself. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And from the greater or lesser guilt of fault it can well happen that God is not altogether appeased unless the sacrifice is offered to God several times. But impetration, as regards other gifts of the natural and supernatural order conducing to eternal salvation, is not infallible unless the ordinary conditions are present both in the one for whom it is sought through the sacrifice, and in the thing which is sought, and in the manner of seeking. Impetration through the sacrifice, for this reason, consequently is not infallible. - Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, a. 7 ad 2. "We must not confuse the power which the sacrifice of the Mass has for expiating and purging from sins with the power for merely obtaining.... That power for obtaining has a formally different term from that which the power for satisfying or expiating has. For the former tends to move the liberality of God, from whom it obtains goods; but the latter tends to clemency, or to appeasing God, lest He be angry, indignant, and bring evil.... For God is appeased by the sacrifice, not as impetratory, but as propitiatory; for precisely as such it tends to appease. Therefore we admit that God granting help for contrition is moved also by the sacrifice as it is impetratory; nevertheless we say that some effect intervenes there which corresponds to the same sacrifice as it is propitiatory. For because of sins, God, retaining just indignation and aversion, was deservedly denying those helps, at least more abundant ones, for contrition; but when the sacrifice has been offered He is appeased, and, indignation having been laid aside through clemency, He grants from liberality the helps which He would deny while unappeased. Hence the sacrifice as propitiatory indirectly contributes to obtaining helps, insofar as it directly removes the obstacle of indignation which stood in the way of their being granted. Therefore it contributes to destroying sins not by obtaining only, but by propitiating and appeasing, which is the proper effect of sacrifice as it is propitiatory." Lugo disp. 19, n. 141.

n. 608.

What are the principal parts of the Mass? - There are three: the Oblation, by which the sacrifice is as it were prepared; the Consecration, in which the essence of the sacrifice is had, for in it is had the mystical slaughtering of the victim, Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5; and the Consummation, by which the sacrifice is completed and perfected. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4.

Hence none of these can be omitted without enormous sacrilege. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 1, 2. - Wherefore if the priest has omitted the oblation, he must mentally supply it before the consecration. Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 18, n. 5. If either species has not been consecrated, before the consummation of the other it must altogether be consecrated; after the consummation of the other, each must be consecrated, if this can be done without any scandal and within a brief time, i.e., within about an hour; otherwise it would not seem to be the same sacrifice. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; L. 335. Cf. 323, 329 seqq. Finally, if the celebrant dies or is affected by some illness before the consummation of the wine, or after the consecration of the bread, and cannot continue the sacrifice within a brief time, the Mass must be completed by another priest, even one not fasting or one to be avoided, from that place where the other ceased, if this can be done within a brief time, within an hour, and without most grave inconvenience. But if the one who consecrated recovers, even after several hours he can continue and complete the sacrifice. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3, says: "If after the consecration of the bread the priest dies, another priest can proceed to the consecration of the wine, beginning where the former left off, or even begin from the beginning over other matter." Yet when one whole hour has elapsed, the obligation of seeking another priest ceases, since it is no longer judged the same sacrifice. But if the priest has failed before the consecration or after the consummation, there is no necessity of supplying or continuing anything, because in the first case the sacrifice has not yet been begun, and in the other it has already been completed. Rubrics of the Missal ib., tit. 10, n. 3. - La Croix 548; L. 305, 354, 355; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4; q. 83, a. 4, 6 ad 1, ad 3; Suarez disp. 71, sect. 3; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10.

n. 609.

Note: These things are in the Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 4, n. 8: "If the matter which would have to be placed, by reason of a defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had, if this is before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is detected when the one has already been consecrated, then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet so that the words and signs which pertain to the deficient species are omitted. But if by waiting for some little while it can be had, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain imperfect." Hence Gavantus here, and Azor, note that if the deficient species could be had only with very great difficulty, and a notable offense of the people would arise from this, the Mass must be completed, because the natural law of avoiding scandal prevails over the positive divine law of making the sacrifice integral. L. 306. But what must be done if a fly or spider, or something else poisonous or which provokes vomiting, has fallen into the chalice, you have in the Rubrics de Defectibus, tit. 10, nn. 5-7.

n. 610.

For whom can the sacrifice of the Mass be offered? - It can be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, unless the Church forbids it for someone. For "the fruits of the bloody oblation are most abundantly received through this unbloody one." Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Wherefore it can be offered: 1. For baptized wayfarers; also infants, or energumens, or sinners not excommunicated, even for unbelievers, not only generally for all, but also for individual unbelievers, even for kings, insofar as it is propitiatory, expiatory, and impetratory. Trent ib. - 2. For souls in Purgatory, to whom it is profitable from the infallible promise of Christ, insofar as it is expiatory. Trent ib. and sess. 25, Decree De Purgatorio. Nevertheless the satisfactory fruit is not infallibly applied to that soul for whom the priest celebrated Mass. S. C. Indulg., July 28, 1840, n. 283. And how far it helps each one is among the divine secrets. Cf. n. 619. - 3. For the Blessed, insofar as it is eucharistic.

Trent sess. 22, ch. 3. - But it is forbidden to offer it for the excommunicated. Benedict XIV, Const. Ex quo, Mar. 1, 1756, § 27. Yet for an excommunicated tolerated person, a priest can licitly offer Mass both in his own name, as a private person, and more probably in the name of the Church as a minister of the Church. The reason is that it is granted to the faithful to communicate with them, even in divine things.

But for an excommunicated person to be avoided, a priest can still licitly offer Mass in his own name or ex opere operantis; but by no means in the name of the Church, or ex opere operantis of the Church herself, whose application of fruit would be illicit and invalid, and ex opere operato of the sacrifice of the Church, whose application of fruit would be illicit but not invalid, if he is capable, since the priest has this power by force of order. - It is forbidden to apply Mass for heretics, whether now dead or living, unless for the living it is applied to obtain their conversion to the true faith. Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1767; Apr. 19, 1837; Apr. 7, 1875. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Mass is by no means to be offered publicly for those who are alien from the communion of the Church by profession of heresy. - C. 28, 38, de Sent. excomm.; La Croix 33; L. 308, 309; St. Thomas 4, dist. 12, q. 2, a. 2, q. 2 ad 4; E. M.

n. 611.

How many kinds of fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass are there? - The fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass can be considered in three ways: 1. on the part of the cause, 2. on the part of the good itself which is to be obtained through the Mass, 3. on the part of the person for whom such a good is obtained, or to whom the Mass is applied.

On the part of the cause, one is ex opere operantis, namely that which is conferred in view of the prayer, devotion, and merit of the celebrant and of others cooperating; another is ex opere operato, which is conferred in view of the merits of Christ and by force of His promise. From this it happens that a sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is not more profitable than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the sacrifice, viewed thus, is the work of Christ, and the fruit flows only from the merits of Christ, and in this respect the priest does not bear his own person, but Christ's. Wherefore 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 otherwise it must be said if merit ex opere operantis is attended to; for the more worthy the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed while he performs the rites and prayers of the Church, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes. But the priest offers the sacrifice bearing the person of the whole Church, since "he consecrates the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the whole Church." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 2. And thus under the name of the celebrating minister also comes the Church, insofar as she herself offers through the minister. "Whence I infer," says Suarez disp. 79, sect. 2, dictum III, "that this value proceeding from the Church is better called ex opere operantis, as Cordoba and others speak, than ex opere operato, as Scotus and others speak.... And hence it is inferred that this value can increase and diminish, according as there have been holier persons in the Church." Therefore the priest offers the Sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ, the principal offerer; in the name of the Church, to whom Christ left this sacrifice; and in his own name, as a private person. Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 2. "After the priests, all the faithful offer the sacrifice mediately through the hands of the priests, in three ways indeed: 1. in a general way, namely through the priests, who, by offering the sacrifice as public ministers, are said to offer for any faithful person whatever; 2. in a more special way, by procuring that priests celebrate for themselves; 3. by assisting at the sacrifice." St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 307.

On the part of the thing, one fruit is meritorious, namely the merit which is had from it by the priest celebrating and by those assisting; another is propitiatory, and is the remission of sins, not indeed per se and immediately, but through the obtaining of help for penance by which sins are remitted, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2; another is satisfactory or expiatory, insofar as it per se immediately remits the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, both in this life and in Purgatory, Trent sess. 25, ch. 1, not the whole at once, but according to the measure established by God and corresponding to the dispositions of the man; finally another is impetratory, and is first the obtaining of helps for performing acts by which sanctifying grace is increased in us; moreover it is the obtaining of other spiritual goods, and also temporal goods, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And this impetration, insofar as it is from Christ, is ex opere operato; insofar as it is from the sacrificing priest and the offering Church, it is ex opere operantis. Suarez disp. 79; Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9.

On the part of the subject, or of those to whom it is applied, one fruit is general, another special, another most special. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, as he works in the name of Christ and in the name of the whole Church. Trent sess. 22, ch. 6. And all the faithful indeed, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit ex opere operato; but it is attributed to them only by way of impetration, insofar as impetration also includes propitiation; not however, as seems more common and more probable, by way of satisfaction, because from thousands of sacrifices which are offered daily, every just man, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of immense punishment, which appears incredible. But there are not lacking those who judge that some part of the fruit ex opere operato, even satisfactory, corresponds to all the faithful, and that all the just obtain ex opere operato some remission of punishment through each and every sacrifice, by this alone, that they are said to offer insofar as they are members of the Church offering through priests, even if they themselves have no act concerning the sacrifice, nor the priest by a special intention applies the fruit of the sacrifice to them. Yet the sole denomination of offering through a certain remote and extrinsic relation does not seem sufficient for receiving the fruit of satisfaction ex opere operato. "For the fruit of the Passion of Christ is not applied ex opere operato except either through some proper action, or sensible reception, or through the special application of another. But in the present case this fruit is not given through the special application of another, as is supposed; nor here do those offering in this way receive anything through which such fruit is applied to them; nor do they do anything, because they are called offerers only habitually or extrinsically. Hence that denomination is not founded in any act of man which per se pertains to the worship of God, so that it could avail for the merit or satisfaction of the one so offering." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Secundo. "Although all the faithful in some way are offerers in each Mass, insofar as the priest offers by commission of the Church, and offers in her name, which consists of all and each of the faithful, nevertheless this does not suffice so that from each Mass the just should have the fruit of remission of punishment ex opere operato. Yet it brings the effect of impetration ex opere operato, because all pray through the priest, and he also prays and offers for obtaining for all." Lugo disp. 19, n. 237. "And in this sense we say that he truly offers for all the faithful, living and dead, for whom we also wish to obtain the condonation of due punishment by way of impetration." Lugo l. c., n. 222.

Of this general fruit, those standing by at the sacrifice participate in a more abundant or more special way, and a fortiori those cooperating with it, e.g., those serving the priest, giving alms; and it is more abundant according as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating is greater. Wherefore they can be offerers in various ways, according as actually they join themselves to the priest offering, or by the intention of the Church alone. The priest in the Canon prays for those standing around and says: "for whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee." Hence those who are offerers and offer must be distinguished from those for whom it is offered. The reason is "because the oblation of this sacrifice is fruitful ex opere operato. Therefore it is consonant with reason that all who truly concur in it through their own act or moral concurrence participate in this kind of fruit of such oblation. Secondly, because from this concurrence of many offerers with the minister there results as it were one moral offerer with greater devotion, reverence, and dignity. Therefore a greater fruit corresponds to it ex opere operato, other things being equal.... Therefore for this reason, some part of that fruit corresponds to individual offerers, as they are such, according to each one's devotion. Thirdly, just as the use of a sacrament consists in reception, so the notion of sacrifice consists in oblation. But all who receive a sacrament participate in its fruit. Therefore similarly all offerers through some proper concurrence or action participate in the fruit of the sacrifice." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Quarto.

Hence Suarez infers that a twofold fruit corresponds to the priest himself ex opere operato: one to him as he is a private person, the other as he offers in the name of Christ and in His person.

The former increases from the better disposition of the offerer; the latter is always equal, because it always corresponds to Christ offering. But in reality it seems that only the oblation of the priest brings fruit ex opere operato, precisely insofar as he acts in the name of Christ. For Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, founds the efficacy of this sacrifice on this, that now the same Host and the same one offering by the ministry of priests is present, who offered Himself on the cross. "Therefore, because the priest alone offers in the person of Christ, it follows that the oblation has this kind of power and efficacy, not insofar as it is from the person of the priest, but insofar as it is from Christ." Lugo disp. 19, n. 233; Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 6. And, although several hear Mass or minister at it, each one will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his oblation and devotion, no otherwise than if he alone were hearing or ministering. And thus this general fruit is extensively infinite or indefinite. And for those ministering and assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass in this way, there comes not only a fuller fruit of impetration ex opere operato, but also satisfactory fruit. But since, as is clear from the Offertory, it is offered also for souls existing in Purgatory, this satisfactory fruit is applied from the oblation of the Church's sacrifice of the Mass also for them, whether they are fewer or more.

The special fruit is that which comes to him or those to whom the priest specially applies the sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the sacrifice as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing obstructs, as it is satisfactory. This special fruit is customarily also called ministerial and middle.

The most special or personal fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators whatever receive from the sacrifice their own wholly special fruit, much more must the priest who sacrifices receive this. Moreover, "the oblation of the priest, as it is made by him representing the person of Christ, is properly the actual sacrifice, or the sacrificing itself. Therefore to it especially corresponds the fruit ex opere operato, because as such the oblation is properly sacrificial, infinite in its own kind and always clean and pleasing to God." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, p. Tertio. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain. Yet this is certain: that the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another so as to receive another stipend from this; understand this, however, unless this very thing is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend. - Lugo disp. 19; Suarez disp. 79; L. 311, 312; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 6; E. M.

n. 612.

Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints? - Resp. In the negative as regards the substance, or on the part of the sacrifice; but certainly as regards accidentals, or on the part of the prayers, the defect of which can be supplied by the devotion of the one who says the Mass or orders it to be said, or by the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass. - L. 309; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, a. 9; E. M.

n. 613.

Is the value and fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass infinite? - "It must be noted that one thing is the value, another the fruit of the Mass. The value is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered, for conferring goods on the one offering and on those for whom it is offered. But the fruits are the goods themselves which God confers in view of the sacrifice. Hence value differs from fruit as cause from effect." L. 312. Wherefore here fruit is taken for the fruit which is actually received. - Now the value of the sacrifice of the Mass on the part of the Church offering and on the part of the priest celebrating is certainly finite, for their dignity, in which it is founded, is finite. On the part of Christ, the principal priest offering and the victim, there is no doubt that the value of the Mass, like the value of the sacrifice of the Cross, is truly infinite, since Christ Himself is the host and the one offering now by the ministry of priests. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Hence the Mass can cause a fruit always greater intensively, according as someone needs more and is better disposed, and extensively insofar as it can benefit infinite men without anything being detracted from individuals, whether it is applied for only one, or for several and all.

There is dispute about this actually received fruit, how much someone really receives. But the question is not about the fruit of impetration on the part of the Church and the offerers. As regards this fruit, it is clear that it always comes to all, although there are several offerers. Nor likewise is the question about the fruit ex opere operato, by force of the sacrifice of the Mass itself, but general, coming to all the faithful; for since the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, the fruit of this sacrifice comes to all the faithful, and therefore in this way that general fruit is extensively indefinite; and likewise intensively it also is indefinite, insofar as greater fruit comes to those who are more joined with the priest celebrating. But the question concerns the special fruit coming ex opere operato to those to whom the Mass is applied, or for whom the sacrifice of the Mass is offered. It concerns the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit which comes to men. For the latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit with respect to God, by reason of Christ the priest and victim, is actually infinite, and fully satisfies the adoration, thanksgiving, and propitiation and satisfaction owed to God.

The first opinion, more probable to St. Alphonsus, holds that this fruit is infinite, or rather indefinite, or to be received indefinitely, both intensively insofar as less or more is really received, according to the measure of the disposition of the man, and extensively, insofar as it really benefits one as much as several. Wherefore, if this fruit, afterward actually received, is always finite, this certainly is not because from divine institution only so much fruit and no greater is to be received, but it is only from the finite capacity of the men for whom it is offered, each of whom receives richer fruit according to his own disposition and that of the offerer; yet the Mass always benefits individuals equally when applied to several as if it were applied to one. The reason for this opinion is that the eucharistic sacrifice does not differ from the sacrifice of the Cross except only by the different manner of offering. Therefore, as the sacrifice of the Cross works after the manner of a universal supernatural cause according to the capacity of the subjects, so also the eucharistic sacrifice. The abundant redemption of Christ is thus applied, with no limit placed except that which arises from the finite capacity of men. And for this opinion St. Alphonsus affirms that St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, clearly stands.

The second opinion, which the same St. Alphonsus calls probable, holds that the fruit actually to be received is finite from the very institution of this sacrifice, because namely a certain and individual degree was determined by Christ in each sacrifice, and therefore the more it is distributed among several, the less comes to each. The reason for this opinion is taken from the usage and sense of the Church, while Masses for one and the same person and thing are repeated and multiplied, which is a sign that it does not have an indefinite effect, but a certain and limited one from the will of Christ. And Christ so established it, that He might compel men to offer the sacrifice continually. If it were otherwise, the special application itself of the fruit of the Mass would be useless, and the usefulness of the Church herself would require that all Masses always be celebrated for all the faithful, living and dead. But the reason of the sacrifice of the Cross, by which the whole price of Redemption was paid, is one thing; the reason of the eucharistic sacrifice, by which the application of that price is had, is another. And St. Thomas 4, dist. 45, q. 2, a. 4, q. 2 ad 2 seems to favor this opinion. But this does not prevent the fruit which comes to the faithful insofar as they are offerers from being extensively indefinite, because a proper corresponding fruit belongs to each oblation. The same must be said of the fruit which comes to all the faithful, insofar as the sacrifice of the Mass is offered by the Church for all, because whether they are more or fewer, the Church's sacrifice is always offered for the whole Church, for all Christian faithful, living and dead, indeed even for the salvation of the whole world. Thus the Offertory of the Mass. - Suarez disp. 79, sects. 11, 12; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 5, c. 8, n. 6; c. 9, n. 4.

613 bis. Note: The fruit of expiation, or remission of punishment, in relation to the dead is infallible, because they oppose no obstacle to it; but in relation to the living it is not always infallible in act and effect, because the state of grace and the remission of sins, which is necessarily presupposed to the remission of punishment, is not always in them. But the fruit of propitiation, or remission of sins, likewise is not always infallible in act and effect; for actual help for justification is indeed conferred, and thus indeed the fruit of the sacrifice is infallibly had, but man does not always cooperate with it; and, with attention to his unworthiness, there would be need of several and greater helps, for obtaining which the sacrifice of the Mass would have to be repeated several times. Likewise the fruit of impetration of other graces is not always infallible, because those graces are not always expedient for the glory of God and eternal salvation, to which the sacrifice offered to God is ordered.

n. 614.

Is application of the Mass necessary for receiving the fruit of the sacrifice? - Application of the Mass is the intention by which the priest wills that the fruit of the sacrifice yield to the advantage of a certain person. - Now the application of the priest is not required that part of the general fruit be received; but it suffices that he wish to celebrate according to the mind of the Church, for such application is always implicitly included in the general intention of the celebrant. And it is expressly contained in several places of the whole Mass. Likewise, that the most special fruit come to the priest himself, it is not necessary that he wish to apply it specially to himself; for this is always applied to him per se. Indeed there are some who think this fruit so proper to him that it cannot be applied to another. L. 318. - But the application of the priest is required so that the special or ministerial fruit come to someone. For the priest, and indeed he alone, bears the person of Christ; therefore just as he alone offers the sacrifice for others in the person of Christ, so also he alone applies the fruit of the same sacrifice.

A priest, although he has promised to celebrate Mass for no one, must make some application of the special fruit of the sacrifice. The reason is: 1. because in his ordination he received from Christ's institution the power of confecting the sacrifice, and consequently of applying its fruit, as is clear from the very words of ordination: "Receive the power of offering sacrifice both for the living and for the dead." But that power would remain useless if the priest did not use it. 2. If no application is made, there is no reason why it should benefit one more than another; therefore the unapplied fruit remains in the general treasury of the Church, and consequently becomes less useful. "If it is applied to no one, or to one incapable, the fruit remains in the treasury of the Church, as Suarez teaches, or it yields to the priest himself, or to those for whom he is bound specially to offer, because he is judged implicitly to have intended this," Busembaum cited by St. Alphonsus 336, or to those for whom in the name of the Church he generally offers the sacrifice in the offertory. - Suarez disp. 78, sect. 5; Lugo disp. 9, sect. 10; E. M.

Second intention: In the application of the Mass there is a certain conditioned intention, so that if perhaps the Mass cannot be applied to him for whom it is celebrated by the primary intention, for satisfying one's own obligation, another application may be substituted for this application. Moreover it also has this force, that, if perhaps the opinion about the intensively infinite fruit of the Mass is true, the Mass is applied also according to this second intention. Finally, the second intention has the force of a certain special Memento. 613.

n. 615.

When must the application of the fruit of the Mass be made? - It must be made at least before the consecration. For the application of the Mass made after both consecrations is not valid. The reason is that the sacrifice has already been perfected, and a past action already made for one end, or for no end, can no longer be offered for some determinate end. For a past action made for some end in general, and for an end afterward determined, cannot be understood. But an application made before the consecration is valid, although it is better to make it before Mass, or at the beginning of Mass. The reason is that, since the sacrifice is situated in the consecration, and in it alone, it can well be offered before the consecration. Indeed, according to several, the application made between the two consecrations is also probably valid. The reason is that the sacrifice is perfected by the consecration of the chalice, and consequently the priest is then said to sacrifice, and therefore before the consecration of the chalice he can still apply the sacrifice. Tamburini, Methodus celebrandi missam, c. 2, § 10; L. 336.

n. 616.

Must the application of the fruit of the Mass be actual? - Resp. In the negative; but it suffices that it be habitual, namely that once made it is not retracted. The reason is that this application is made by way of donation, and therefore through an intention once had, the priest has already donated the fruit of his sacrifice, and consequently it is owed to him to whom he donated it, and when the Mass is celebrated, it comes to the same unless the donation is revoked. Cf. vol. 1, n. 21; L. 335.

n. 617.

If a priest has accepted stipends from ten persons, does he satisfy by celebrating with a confused and indeterminate intention? - Resp. Altogether in the negative, because a determinate intention is required, at least to a certain person; otherwise there is no reason why the Mass should be applied to one rather than another, and thus it would be applied to no one. Nevertheless, if he intended to apply each Mass to those ten persons, by applying to each one a tenth part of each Mass, he would satisfy the obligation, because the fruit of the sacrifice is divisible, and what is owed to each one is attributed to him. For each one, receiving in each of the ten Masses a tenth part of the fruit, when the tenth sacred rite has been done, has now obtained the whole fruit owed to him, or even will receive the whole fruit from each of the ten Masses. If this is done, however, the Masses are not to be delayed beyond the due time. Sacred Penitentiary, Dec. 7, 1852. - L. 335.

n. 618.

How is the application to be determined when stipends are given by many unknown persons, as usually happens in pious pilgrimages? - The intention is to be made for those who gave the earlier stipends. This easily succeeds when the same priest is going to satisfy all the obligations; nor does it obstruct that he perhaps distributes part of the Masses to be celebrated to other priests, because he can distribute them in the same order in which he received them; and thus the application seems sufficiently determinate. Thus also the sacristan or another who collected many stipends from different persons and distributes the confused money to several priests can distribute it successively in the same order; nor can anything else often be done morally than that distribution and application be made according to the order of time, to the intention of the giver, according to the axiom: He who is prior in time is stronger in right; namely unless a graver cause is present for interrupting this order, e.g., if a greater stipend is given for this reason, that the sacred rite not be deferred, etc. Indeed it is not necessary that the priest explicitly and reflexively attend to this; since he is judged to wish to act thus when he accepts the stipend in the aforesaid manner. For natural equity requires this.

n. 619.

Is an application valid when made for a living person whom you believe dead, if you would have had to celebrate for him only when already dead? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that the obligation falls on an application to be made for the deceased, for relieving his soul from the punishments of Purgatory; but that end is not obtained while the sacrifice is offered for a living person. Nor is it valid to say that the satisfactory fruit of the sacrifice can benefit even a living person and exempt him from the punishments of Purgatory, nor that a living person is capable and becomes participant also of those fruits of which the dead are not capable. For the will of the one giving the alms stands in the way, who wants the Mass applied not to himself living, but to himself dead. Moreover, the impetratory and propitiatory fruit can also benefit the soul of the deceased, for obtaining that God may remit His just anger and stir up other faithful to offer prayers and other satisfactory works for it.

n. 620.

Is the application of Mass valid when made for the first person who will give a stipend? - An oblation made for the first person who will give a stipend is per se valid, but illicit, as prohibited by Clement VIII, Nov. 15, 1605. But often such application of Mass is also invalid, both because of the uncertain intention and because it often happens that the Mass is said for a cause not yet existing, e.g., if the one who will offer a stipend is going to ask a Mass for deliverance from an illness which has not yet been contracted; for the effect of the Mass would have to remain suspended, which cannot be admitted. "For according to the ordinary law, to which the tradition of the Church bears witness, God does not customarily punish or reward men, or confer on them the grace of the sacraments or the fruit of the sacrifice, according to foreknowledge of future contingent and free effects, but only according to the present state and condition of men." Laymann l. 5, tr. 5, c. 2, n. 14. Nevertheless, "if a priest foresees that Masses will be requested for some deceased person, he can well offer them now and afterward receive the stipend, because in this case they would already be offered for a determinate person." L. 337.

n. 621.

In the application of Masses, is it licit to divide the fruits of the sacrifice and apply them for various ends and persons? - Resp. In the negative, if someone, by obligation from justice, must apply a Mass for another. For that person is always judged to ask for himself the whole fruit of the sacrifice. Nor is it certainly clear that the sacred rite offered for several benefits each as much as when applied for one alone. Wherefore one cannot receive a double or triple stipend for one and the same Mass.

And this is clear also from props. 8 and 10 condemned by Alexander VII. - But as regards Masses altogether free, namely those which the celebrant is bound to apply for no one, or those which he is bound to apply from fidelity alone and a liberal promise, or from obedience alone, or by command of a superior or statute of an order, it is per se licit to divide the fruits, namely latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, impetratory, satisfactory. The reason in the first case is that the Mass has all these fruits, and the celebrant has the power of applying the fruits of the sacrifice, which, since they tend to different ends, can be applied for those various ends. The reason in the second case is that every liberal promise is always understood as least burdensome to the one promising. Hence one who is bound by only a gratuitous promise and by no title of justice can also apply one and the same sacrifice for several, according to the opinion concerning the indefinite application of the fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass. The reason in the third case is that every obligation of law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, if, e.g., a superior commands Mass for others rather than for the dead, the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest, as St. Francis Borgia, Superior General of the Society of Jesus, declared for his subjects in 1654. Wherefore, if Mass had to be celebrated in thanksgiving, the application of the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit remains free. - E. M.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 31 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, Second Part. On the Eucharist as Sacrifice

The Eucharist has not only the character of a Sacrament, but also of a Sacrifice. Concerning this matter the Roman Catechism, On the Eucharist, n. 71: But these two characters differ very greatly from one another. For the Sacrament is perfected by consecration; but the whole force of Sacrifice is in this, that it be offered. Wherefore, while the sacred Host is contained in the pyx or carried to the sick, it has the character of a Sacrament, not of a Sacrifice.

Then also, insofar as it is a Sacrament, it brings to those who receive the divine Host a cause of merit and all those benefits which were commemorated above. But insofar as it is a Sacrifice, it contains not only the efficacy of meriting, but also of making satisfaction; for as Christ the Lord in His Passion merited and made satisfaction for us, so those who offer this Sacrifice, whereby they communicate with us, merit the fruits of the Lord's Passion and make satisfaction.

The Eucharist, as a Sacrifice, is called Mass from the verb to send, because Christ there is the Victim sent by God; or, according to others, because at the end of the Sacrifice the people are dismissed, the Priest or Deacon saying: Go, the Mass is ended.

We must treat: 1. of the nature and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 2. of the application of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 3. of the obligation of celebrating Mass; 4. of the time and place of celebration; 5. of the manner of celebrating.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, Second Part. On the Euchar…, Chapter I. On the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Sacrifice taken generally is thus commonly defined: An external oblation of a sensible thing, with its destruction or alteration, made to God alone through a lawful Minister in protestation of His supreme dominion ¹.

¹ Perhaps not the generic notion of sacrifice, but the special definition of a holocaust is handed down in these words. But these things pertain better to Scholastic Theology.

n. 347.

Principles. - I. The Mass is the true Sacrifice of the New Law. For it is an oblation instituted by Christ, in which Christ Himself is mystically slain and is offered as a victim to God the Father in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. This is also established from the definition of the Church in the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 1: If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is not offered to God, or that what is offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

n. 347.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass perfectly contains the characters of all the sacrifices of the Old Law. For it is: 1. Latreutic, insofar as it is offered especially to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. 2. Eucharistic, insofar as it is offered to God in thanksgiving for benefits conferred by Him. 3. Propitiatory and satisfactory, or expiatory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining both pardon of sins and remission of the punishment due to them. 4. Finally, impetratory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining benefits from Him through the merits of Christ. This is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 3.

n. 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.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist? ²

² These matters contribute little to practice, except perhaps where the precept of hearing Mass is in question. But since scarcely more than probable opinions are adduced concerning them, hardly anything can be deduced from them even as regards that precept.

Reply. It is disputed. More probably, it consists in the consecration alone, because in the consecration alone are found all the things required to constitute a Sacrifice, namely, an oblation and the mystical destruction or immolation of the victim. - Thus more commonly. Nevertheless, not a few hold that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the consecration and partly in the consumption, because in the consecration the victim is set forth, and in the consumption it is consumed. St. Lig., no. 305, regarded this opinion as the more probable.

QUESTION 2. For whom can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

Reply 1. It is certain that this Sacrifice can be offered for all the faithful, living and dead, and also for sinners who are not excommunicated, but only as regards the fruit of impetration ³. This is established from the Council of Trent. the gift of penance, and consequently forgives even great crimes and sins. It is manifest, however, that the Sacrifice is offered for sinners in order that this fruit may be received.

³ Here perhaps the fruit of impetration is confused with the fruit of propitiation, which consists in this: that God, appeased by the Sacrifice, grants grace and

Reply 2. More probably, it is lawful to celebrate Mass even for tolerated excommunicates, because although the Church grants them nothing, nevertheless the faithful are not prohibited from communicating with them even in divine things, as will be stated in the Treatise on Censures. The same is also to be held concerning infidels ⁴. - St. Lig., no. 309.

⁴ Benedict XIV (Const. In Superiori, March 8, 1755, sec. 27), speaking of the discipline of the Orientals, who make commemoration of the king in the sacred liturgy even though he is an infidel, has the following: If anyone should ask by what reasoning this can be tolerated, when it is certainly established that those kings for whom they pray and of whom they make commemoration in the liturgy are infidels, the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine would answer him (as in fact he did answer...) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the matter, as the theologians say, to pray in the Mass even for infidels, since the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. And indeed St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 12, q. 2, art. 2, q. 2, ad 4, teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in the book On the Origin of the Soul that the Sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, nevertheless this opinion must be understood so as to include all those who either already are members of Christ or can become such. Therefore the same Cardinal adds that the whole matter must be measured according to the prohibition of the Church: it is certain from the nature of the matter, if there is no prohibition of the Church, that it is lawful to offer for men of this kind; he is speaking of infidels. And since a prohibition of this kind exists with regard to excommunicates, and thus with regard to heretics and schismatics, but not with regard to infidels, who are not bound by excommunication, he says that this is sufficient for commemoration of them to be made in the Mass, and even for the Sacrifice to be offered for them, according to the manifest tradition on this matter and the Apostolic Constitution. But someone will ask whether, if a king is an infidel, as in Greece, where the Turk rules, and in India and Japan and among the Chinese, where pagans reign, it is lawful for priests who are there expressly to offer for the king. I answer: I think it is lawful, provided that that king is not excommunicated, as heretical kings are, but is a pagan or heathen. For this tradition, and indeed the Constitution, is Apostolic, as we showed a little above. Nor, so far as I know, does any manifest prohibition of the Church exist. To these considerations the text of Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, ch. 2, which occurs as follows, may usefully be added: We sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor, but to our God and his, and as God has commanded, with pure prayer; for God, the Creator of the universe, has no need of anyone's honor or blood. But leaving assertions of this kind in their probability, etc. Thus far Benedict XIV.

Reply 3. It is not lawful to offer the Sacrifice in the name of the Church for excommunicates who are to be avoided, because this is specially prohibited by Canon Law, c. 2, De sententia excommunicationis. A priest may, however, lawfully offer Mass for them in his own name. - St. Lig., no. 308. - Lacroix, no. 33. - Suarez, etc.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

QUESTION 4. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Reply 1. It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ Himself in this Sacrifice is at once the victim and the principal offerer. Therefore, the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price made by Christ as the primary offerer, Who has infinite merit.

Reply 2. It cannot be infinite with regard to its application made to individual men, or with regard to its effect or fruit. The reason is that creatures are not capable of receiving an infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or less according as the disposition or capacity of the one to whom it is applied is greater or less.

It is disputed, however, whether the application of the fruit of the Sacrifice is restricted to a certain degree or is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered.

The first and much more probable opinion contends that the application is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered. And this is the opinion most commonly received today, says St. Lig., no. 312. The reason is that the value of the Sacrifice is infinite in itself; hence, of itself, it can be applied to innumerable men without being capable of exhaustion. Therefore, if the Sacrifice is offered for one hundred or one thousand persons, each one will receive as much fruit as the single person would receive for whom alone it was offered ⁷. The second opinion holds that the fruit of the Mass is restricted to a certain degree. The reason adduced is that, although the Mass in itself and with regard to sufficiency is of infinite value, nevertheless its effect is limited and restricted to a certain quantity by the will of Christ, Who instituted this Sacrifice so that ex opere operato it would produce a certain effect, or a certain degree of satisfaction, independently of the disposition of men. Nevertheless, the patrons of this opinion concede that this degree of fruit can be increased ex opere operantis, that is, according to the greater devotion of the offering priest and of the person for whom it is offered ⁸. For the rest, they assert entirely without grounds that a restriction of this kind was made by Christ.

⁷ Although, according to this most common opinion of the more recent authors, a priest can apply one and the same Sacrifice for several persons, nevertheless it is not lawful for him to receive several stipends. For this has been prohibited by decrees of the Church; and St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 312) adds the reason: because the stipend is given for the support of the minister; therefore, as often as his support is furnished to the minister, the title for receiving another stipend is lacking. Indeed (as the same St. Alphonsus rightly warns), since the opposite opinion is not altogether lacking in at least some extrinsic probability, a priest who receives a stipend from one person ought not to apply the same Sacrifice for others except under the condition, namely, that nothing be withdrawn from the one furnishing the stipend. Nevertheless, the addition of this condition, which St. Alphonsus suggests for the sake of greater security, can and ought by no means to prevent the priest from also applying the same Sacrifice for others, or even from being able, through the application of the same Sacrifice, to satisfy some obligation to another which he contracted otherwise than by an accepted stipend, and therefore under a title other than that of justice. On this matter Cardinal de Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 19, no. 249) has the following: It does not appear why a priest would not satisfy his debt by conforming himself to that opinion which the adversaries admit to be probable; just as one who has promised a fast would satisfy by fasting in this or that manner, even if there were a question, under a probable opinion, whether that was a fast, provided nevertheless that it was probable that it was a fast. Therefore, one who has promised (from liberality) to apply a Mass for someone will satisfy by applying it with a probable application. For since elsewhere (vol. 1, no. 80), according to the most common opinion of the Doctors, it was established that one who has probably satisfied an obligation that is not from justice requiring equality is thereby freed from the obligation, so that he is bound to nothing further; and since the opinion that the same Sacrifice avails equally for others besides the one offering the stipend is now much more probable and most commonly received, the reason is evident why Cardinal de Lugo said that an obligation of Sacrifice arising under a title other than that of justice, for example, from a gratuitous and liberal promise, and furthermore from a debt of mere fidelity, can be satisfied in this manner. See also the following note.

⁸ Moreover, these Doctors also concede that the diverse fruits of the Sacrifice, namely, the latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and satisfactory fruits, can validly be divided by the celebrant, or be applied to diverse persons. And they teach that this can even be done lawfully in a free Mass, that is, one which the celebrant is bound to offer for no one in particular.

But in a Mass that is owed solely from fidelity and a liberal promise, they consider that division altogether lawful if the Sacrifice of the Mass was liberally promised to diverse persons for diverse ends. The reason is that a liberal promise is to be interpreted so that it is as little burdensome as possible to the one promising, as is said in L. 99, Quidquid adstringendae, ff., De verborum obligationibus.

Finally, in a Mass owed solely from obedience, whether by command of a Superior or by a statute of an Order, it is lawful to divide the fruits that do not tend directly to the prescribed end. The reason is that, according to the common opinion of the Doctors from Cap. Intelligentia, De verborum significatione, the obligation of a law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, when a Superior or the statute of an Order prescribes a Mass precisely in honor of the Most Holy Trinity, or of some Saint, or in thanksgiving, the satisfactory fruit, and in the last case also the impetratory fruit, can be freely applied by the priest for another, as Gobat and Sporer, with others, teach on the authority of St. Francis Borgia, who, when he was Superior General of the Society of Jesus, wrote to his subjects in the year 1564 in these words: When Superiors enjoin Masses for purposes other than for the dead, it is clear that the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest.

QUESTION 5. Does the Mass benefit the dead by an infallible promise of Christ?

Reply. Affirmatively. For the Mass is profitably offered for the dead, as is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, ch. 2 and Can. 3. Moreover, this cannot be done except by the promise of Christ, which is declared in Matt. 26:28: This is My Blood... which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. This is also established from the words of the form in the conferral of Orders: Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. Nevertheless, temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a fixed law, but it profits them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall please God to accept it. - See Perrone, vol. 8, no. 282.

QUESTION 6. Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

117. On the Minister and Subject of the Eucharist · 119. Rite of the Celebration of Mass

Reply. Negatively, as regards the substance, or on the part of the Sacrifice; but affirmatively as regards the accidental elements, or on the part of the prayers, the deficiency of which devotion can supply. - St. Lig., no. 309, after St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, art. 9. It must be noted here that a Requiem Mass and a Mass in black vestments can be applied for a living person, provided that the one who gave the alms has not expressly declared the contrary. - S. C. of Rites, Nov. 29, 1856.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 42 passages (filed under the subtopics)

117. On the Minister and Subject of the Eucharist

Xaverius, a parish priest, very occupied at Easter time in hearing confessions, commits communion to be distributed to the people to Stephen the deacon. For otherwise he himself would have to distribute it, not without inconvenience to the parishioners, whose confessions he would often have to defer to another day, since no other priest is present in that parish.

Quaer. Whether rightly?

R. Togni, Instruct. etc. p. 1. c. 6., seems to deny it. For although generally he first says that a deacon can administer the Eucharist by delegation in a case of necessity, nevertheless afterward he raises the question: "Can a deacon dispense the Eucharist when a presbyter is present?" And he answers: "By no means; for this is forbidden to him by Can. 15 of the Second Council of Arles and Can. 38 of the Fourth Council of Carthage." Likewise he raises the question: "Are the sick to be refreshed with the Eucharist by a deacon?" And he answers: "Negatively, except in a case of necessity, namely, if a priest is lacking and the sick man is in danger of life."

But these things are against the common doctrine; and therefore the proposed question must be answered: Affirmatively. For a deacon can, in grave necessity and by commission, distribute communion to the people, according to the common opinion of the doctors. I. M. 527. Pavone aptly has these things, Spicilegio, dissert. 9. num. 208: "The deacon can touch the Eucharist when, serving the priest, he either exposes it in the Ostensorium, or replaces the particles in the pyx, or in need administers it to the people. The words of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 399, Can. 35, related Dist. 93. C. Praesente 18, are: Diaconus, praesente presbytero, eucharistiam... populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus eroget, 'Let the deacon, in the presence of the presbyter, if necessity compels, distribute the Eucharist to the people when ordered.' And earlier, in canon 14 of the Council of Nicaea, it was established concerning deacons that si non fuerit in praesenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter, tunc ipsi proferant, 'if neither bishop nor presbyter is present, then they themselves may bring it forth.' This canon is thus reported by Rufinus, priest of Aquileia: Si vero presbyter nullus sit in praesenti, tunc demum etiam ipsis licere dividere, 'But if no presbyter is present, then at last it is lawful also for them to distribute.' Conc. Nic. I. A.D. 325, apud Labbé in amplis. collect. Gelasius I spoke in the same way when writing to the Bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily: deacons, he said, Sacri Corporis prorogationem sub conspectu Pontificis seu presbyteri, nisi his absentibus, ius non habeant exercendi, 'do not have the right of exercising the distribution of the Sacred Body in the sight of the Pontiff or presbyter, unless these are absent.' Labbé ibid. a. 492. Epist. 9. c. 8. Therefore, when the priest is present, the deacon, besides necessity, needs his commission in order to dispense the Eucharist; but when he is not present, necessity alone is enough. Then the priest can give him such a commission when he himself is impeded. Colet, speaking of the deacon, who cannot indiscriminately, says: ut quilibet sacerdos, sed tantum, vel absente sacerdote, vel, eo quidem praesente sed iustas ob necessitates, sacram synaxim dispensare potest, 'as any priest can, but only when the priest is absent, or when he is indeed present but because of just necessities, can he dispense the sacred synaxis.' Th. Mor. c. 5. de Min. euch. art. 2. And this, he continues to say, is lawful even in places where it has never before been practiced; because, since such commission was always given to deacons in the first centuries in the East and in the West, although this custom has ceased because of the multitude of priests, nevertheless when need occurs in the present time, the same commission can be given; potest enim Ecclesia quidquid olim potuit, 'for the Church can do whatever it once could.' And in order not to cause scandal to the people, who have not yet seen communion administered by deacons, it is necessary to instruct them that this is lawful. But what is the necessity that makes it lawful? When there is no commission of the priest, the only case of necessity would be the administration of Viaticum, which cannot be deferred until a priest comes; because although, as we have seen, the Council of Nicaea and Pope Gelasius permitted this without necessity, for the absence of the priest alone, nevertheless today, because of the change of discipline, all the sacred doctors restrict it to the said necessity. But when the said commission is present, the just cause is, as Suarez writes, quod sacerdos sit debilis vel infirmus, 'that the priest be weak or ill,' de Sacr. euch. d. 72. s. 1.; and according to the opinion of Leander adopted by Amort: Si sacerdos sit debilis, infirmus, aut aliis exercitiis impeditus, aut si non possit communicare tot homines, et non sit alius sacerdos, qui id velit vel commode possit efficere, 'If the priest is weak, ill, or impeded by other exercises, or if he cannot communicate so many people, and there is no other priest who would wish or could conveniently accomplish this.' Th. Mor. disp. 5. de Euch. § 6. quaest. unic. § 3. For example, says Cavalieri, si sacerdos sit occupatus in audiendis confessionibus, 'if the priest is occupied in hearing confessions.' To. 4. decr. 13. c. 4. n. 6."

Lugo, de Sacr. euch. d. 18. n. 27., says: "It is doubted secondly: whether in fact a priest can now commit to a deacon that he minister the Eucharist. The answer is that he can in necessity, which is not restricted to the sole case of giving Viaticum to a dying person, but extends more broadly, as if the priest is impeded and cannot distribute the Eucharist to the people." Cf. also ibid. n. 2. seqq.

St. Alph., l. 6. n. 237. q. 1., says: "There is no doubt that a deacon can minister the Eucharist in necessity... They commonly say that grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister... In extreme necessity, when the priest is absent, the deacon will be able and will be bound to minister Viaticum, even without commission... When the deacon ministers the Eucharist, he ought to be clothed with surplice and transverse stole."

"Several times it has been asked of us whether a deacon can lawfully expose the Eucharist, not indeed by serving the priest, which is already known to be lawful, but by himself alone, as principal. This doubt is not read among the Moralists, but there is a very valid reason for resolving that it is not permitted to him to do this, except in the case in which every priest is lacking. For Diaconum enim oportet ministrare ad altare, 'it belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar,' says the Roman Pontifical; and later: Comministri et cooperatores estis Corporis et Sanguinis Domini, 'You are co-ministers and co-operators of the Body and Blood of the Lord.' Therefore, when priests are present, it belongs to them to act as principals, and to the deacons to assist them and to perform the part of co-ministers and co-operators. But in the absence of priests, they can indeed supply, and expose the Venerable Sacrament with their express or tacit commission. Thus, both when they expose it and when they administer it in communion, they ought to wear the stole hanging from the left shoulder and bound under the right. When communion is finished, they cannot give the usual blessing to the people, as the doctors warn; and if, when a priest is lacking, they make the exposition, they will not be able to bless the people with the Sacrament." Pavone, Spicilegio, diss. 9. c. 1. n. 209.

But the following Decision of S. R. C. is present:

"Can a deacon who, by mandate of his vicar, carries sacred Viaticum to the sick, make sprinklings of holy water, say Misereatur, Indulgentiam, sign the sick person or himself, say Dominus vobiscum with the prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Most Holy Sacrament?

R. If a presbyter is lacking, and with the concurrent license of the apostolic vicar, affirmatively in all." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1853. n. 3074.

n. 3.

"Can a bishop by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. In churches or public chapels which do not enjoy a parochial title, even if they serve the utilities of the parish; 2. In public chapels of pious Communities, that is, those whose door opens onto a public street, or into an area communicating with a public street, and which are opened to all inhabitants; 3. In chapels or interior oratories of pious Communities, when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense explained, as, for example, in seminaries.

n. 3.

R. An indult from the Holy See must be implored as regards all the requests." S. R. C. 8 March 1879. n. 3484., I. M. 549.

Sebastian, a parish priest, denies the Eucharist to all whom he himself judges to be of rather rude understanding. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively, "unless they are altogether incapable of this mystery." Clement IX, C. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669. But they will be capable where they discern spiritual food from bodily food. And this has place even if it is a question of ministering Viaticum, as is drawn from the following Decision of S. I. C.

"Whether Viaticum is to be administered to those neophytes who, in the article of death, having been baptized by Christians, are ignorant.

R. Viaticum is not to be administered to these neophytes unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host." S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

Robertinus, a confessor, very rarely permits communion to his penitents outside Easter time; because, he says, penitents very rarely have that necessary preparation or devotion by which one ought to approach sacred communion. But he permits frequent communion to scarcely anyone, since there is scarcely anyone who is free not only from mortal sins, but even from venial sins.

Quaer. What is to be said about Robertinus's manner of acting?

R. Robertinus's manner of acting is altogether to be disapproved. The necessary preparation by which one can approach sacred communion is indeed that, and no other, concerning which the Apostle says: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

The Council of Trent, sess. 13. cap. 7., says concerning this necessary preparation of the soul: Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept, namely of the Apostle, must be recalled: But let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession having first been made. But in cap. 8 immediately following, it exhorts the faithful to receive that supersubstantial bread frequently. And finally, sess. 22, de Sacr. missae, cap. 6, it speaks thus: The holy Synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.

Therefore, if from these judgments of the Tridentine Fathers taken together we search out their mind thoroughly, we shall certainly have this as explored: that those indeed are to be removed altogether from the Eucharistic table who, oppressed by consciousness of mortal sin, are judged unworthy of so great and so singular a gift of God. Wherefore, if from indications of sorrow and from amendment of new life the confessor does not doubt that sacramental absolution can be imparted to his penitents, neither ought he to hesitate that the same are now sufficiently disposed for eating the Lord's bread. Nor indeed can such penitents, thus disposed and prepared, be repelled from sacred communion indiscriminately and without grave cause, namely, if they have been held worthy of the benefit of sacramental absolution. Indiscriminately and without grave cause; for, for those who are accustomed to commit grave sins, and who, since they have contracted disordered habits and are careless of their own salvation, easily slip afterward into graver crimes to be committed, the salutary remedy of medicinal severity can sometimes be applied.

Moreover, from the cited texts of Trent it is clear that the Tridentine Fathers persuade the faithful to frequent use of the Eucharist; indeed, that they desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by become participants from the Eucharistic table. But it would be altogether useless to exhort the faithful to frequent communion; and the daily communion of the same faithful could not only not be desired, but not even hoped for, if those alone were refreshed by the Eucharistic bread who were free from every stain even of lighter fault. Wherefore all those who are not yet free from venial sins are not indiscriminately to be barred from frequent communion.

If confessors diligently weigh these things, they will certainly see that the custom of those is not to be praised who, in order to permit communion to their penitents, demand, because of the dignity of the sacrament of the Eucharist, certain singular and scarcely to be hoped-for dispositions, and far greater ones than those which suffice for obtaining absolution in the sacrament of penance. - And as regards granting frequent communion, certainly greater devotion of the faithful is to be stirred up; they are to be more sharply inflamed to detestation of past crimes; and those inclined to venial sins are to be efficaciously stirred up to detestation also of these; then a certain hunger, as it were, and vehement desire for Eucharistic food is to be stirred up, so that with the greatest reverence and piety they can receive it. But just as the strength of the body is sustained by food itself, so the languor and infirmity of the soul is driven away and strengthened by this spiritual food by which we are fed. Whence Augustine says in Serm. de verb. Apost.: Daily you sin, daily receive. And if anyone attends diligently, he will discover that the opinion of all the Fathers who have written concerning this matter was the same. Catech. Roman. n. 60., Instr. S. C. de P. F. 19 Apr. 1784., Collectan. n. 719., Ferrar. Supp. v. Communio, Gennari Sulla Comun. freq. I. M. 579.

Aloysius, a priest, has already for a year been hearing the confessions of Stanislaus, a nine-year-old boy, commendable for keen intelligence and innocence of morals. Now Aloysius, after first obtaining the consent of the parents, leads him, duly imbued with the rudiments of faith and very desirous of receiving the Eucharist, to the parish priest, so that, after prior examination, he may admit him to first communion. Nevertheless the parish priest refuses because Stanislaus has not yet attained the legitimate age. For he has it as a custom not to admit boys to first communion unless they have at least reached twelve years, relying, as he himself says, both on the common practice of the other parish priests and also on the congruity of the matter itself, for which congruity he brings forward a twofold reason: namely, 1. because of the greater reverence for so great a sacrament; then 2. because of the more abundant fruit of the one receiving. But Aloysius, making little of the reasons brought forward by the parish priest, with the precept of Easter communion urging, administers the Eucharist to Stanislaus on Easter day itself. When the parish priest learns this, he has recourse to the bishop against Aloysius, as though Aloysius had usurped the privative right of parish priests. But the bishop, having been made more certain about the whole matter, proposes the case to be resolved by his vicar general.

Quaer. 1. What discretion is to be required in the present matter; and when do boys have this discretion? - 2. Whether admitting boys to first communion belongs exclusively to the parish priest? - 3. What is to be said of the Case?

R. To the first. The discretion required in the present matter is described thus in the Roman Catechism 57: namely, that the faithful "discern table from table, this sacred table from other profane tables, this heavenly bread from common bread. And this happens when we believe with certainty that the true Body and Blood of the Lord is present, whom the Angels adore in heaven, at whose nod the pillars of heaven tremble and fear, of whose glory heaven and earth are full. This, namely, is to discern the Body of the Lord, which the Apostle admonished." And the same Roman Catechism n. 62 says that it is not fitting to minister the Eucharist to boys not yet using reason, and it adds this reason: "For these neither know how to discern the sacred Eucharist from common and profane bread, nor can they bring piety of soul and religion to receiving it. And this also seems most alien from the institution of Christ the Lord. For he says, Take and eat; but it is sufficiently clear that infants are not suited to receive and eat." And the doctrine of the Sacred Congregations is the same; they require discretion by which one discerns spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 568.

Moreover, boys do not have this discretion immediately when they obtain the use of reason; for then they have the first discretion of good and evil, but they certainly do not have this more perfect discretion unless they first have obtained a more perfect use of reason and have been duly instructed in the matters of faith. When precisely, then, do they have this discretion? From the more common opinion of the doctors and from the general rule, boys are not obliged to communion before the ninth or tenth year of age; but beyond the twelfth year communion is not to be deferred for them. I. M. 560. Wherefore at this age, from the general rule, boys conveniently instructed certainly have the discretion required for communion. But this general rule certainly does not prevent boys in particular cases, by reason of a precocious development of the use of reason, and of better and more accurate instruction, from having, even before this age, sufficient discretion for receiving communion. And this age, as is clear, is varied in the aforesaid particular cases, according to the various circumstances.

To the second. In the first communion of boys, two things can be considered. The first is the communion itself; the other is that external ceremony which is customarily used in the first communion of boys. As regards the communion itself, two things can be attended to in it: one is admission to first communion, the other the place of first communion. Although admission to first communion can, in particular cases, pertain also to the parish priest, it certainly does not belong exclusively to the parish priest, nor does it belong to the parish priest per se and principally. For admission to first communion belongs per se to him to whom it belongs to judge concerning the sufficient instruction, and concerning the sufficient disposition of soul, of the boy for receiving first communion. And this judgment belongs per se and principally to the parents, to whom the education and due instruction of the boy belongs by force of paternal authority, and to the confessor, before whom the boy confesses his sins. And thus the judgment of Easter communion itself, whether someone ought to receive it or ought for a time to abstain from reception of this kind, belongs, from Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, to one's own priest, that is, to the confessor. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 6. seqq., I. M. 560.

But as regards the place, no place is prescribed by common Law for first communion. A place in communion is not found determined in the Law except only for Easter communion. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 7. seqq. Therefore, if boys make first communion during Easter time and so that they may satisfy the Easter precept, then certainly, speaking per se, that communion seems to be received in the parish church.

As regards the exterior ceremony of first communion and its solemn form, this indeed belongs to the parish priest by right and obligation together, because of the good of the parish itself, which he is bound to promote; but it is established by no general law that this exterior ceremony and solemn form belongs exclusively to the parish priest. Indeed, the contrary is positively established from the Declarations of the Sacred Congregations, since a public ceremony of this kind is asserted to be of exclusively parochial right only in those places where legitimate prescription and custom vindicates this for itself. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 560. And, if it does not belong to the parish priest by exclusive right to admit boys to first communion, and first communion is not per se to be received in the parish church, how can the exterior ceremony and solemnity, which accompanies the first communion of boys, belong to the parish priest by exclusive right?

To the third. The custom of the parish priest of not admitting to first communion unless the boys are twelve years old cannot be approved, and consequently, speaking per se, the common practice of the other parish priests cannot be approved. For if boys of this kind are duly disposed, already before this age, from the Lateran Council, C. Omnis utriusque sexus, they can and ought to approach the sacred synaxis; and if they are duly disposed, as is supposed, they will receive it with due reverence and with fitting fruit. From this it appears that the practice of the other parish priests invoked by the parish priest, and the twofold reason of congruity which he brings forward, have altogether no force.

But as regards Aloysius, in that he himself, Stanislaus's confessor, after first obtaining the parents' consent, admitted Stanislaus to first communion, he acted altogether rightly, following in this matter the doctrine of the Roman Catechism n. 63. But in that he himself privately gave communion to Stanislaus during Easter time, he also does not seem to be blameworthy; but then Stanislaus is bound to receive communion again in the parish church, since he is now bound by the precept of Easter communion in his own parish. Finally, because Aloysius gave communion to Stanislaus on Easter day itself, generally speaking, he seems blameworthy; since on Easter day it is commonly prohibited to distribute communion to the people in other churches besides parochial ones. I. M. 528. But in the Case there can be no difficulty concerning the exterior ceremony and solemn form; for this regards the first communion of several boys together. M. E. v. 10. p. 2. p. 22.

Leonard, a presbyter, returning from a journey with other friends, very fatigued, sits down at table at half past the eleventh hour of the night, so that he may be briefly refreshed. But while talking and eating with his friends, time flows by as quickly as possible, so that, astonished, he notices while drinking that midnight has already passed. Nevertheless, since on the following feast day he cannot omit Mass without offense to the people, he celebrates Mass without scruple.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Leonard, who cannot omit Mass except with scandal or offense of the people, can probably celebrate, because it is better to avoid the greater evil, or scandal of the people; for it is a lesser evil to celebrate Mass than for the whole people to be offended with scandal, and to be deprived of Mass on such a day. Thus grave theologians against others. See La-Croix n. 582." Thus Fr. Gury 294. 299. 300., I. M. 595.

Nevertheless, the following Decision of the Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874, must be attended to: "Whether, by reason of scandal or wonder, the second Mass after the first can ever be celebrated when the fast has already been broken? - R. Negatively." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 793., E. M. 595.

n. 8.

Ferdinand, a missionary, doubts whether he can minister sacred communion by way of Viaticum to Francis when he is not fasting, concerning whose illness it is doubted whether it is mortal or not.

n. 8.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

n. 8.

R. Ferdinand can minister Viaticum; for while that doubt stands, although Francis is not in the article of death, nevertheless he is in danger of death. For there is danger of death when there is a probable doubt, and death is often accustomed to happen in such a Case. But if the doubt is merely negative, because namely neither could a physician be questioned about the gravity of the disease, nor is the sick man himself or the missionary capable of forming a judgment, then Viaticum is still to be administered, and one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 285. dub. 3. in fine., I. M. 596. Indeed, often it cannot be established whether the disease is truly lethal or not; and then the Church, a pious mother, is rightly presumed to wish in such a doubt to favor the sick person, especially since daily experience establishes that many sick persons, beyond everyone's expectation, die without Viaticum. This has force especially when the sick person is far distant from the church, or when, in mission places, the missionary cannot return again to the sick person, because then he is exposed to the greater danger of dying without being refreshed by the sacraments. G. 306., Lig. H. A. 46.

119. Rite of the Celebration of Mass

n. 10.

Mass without a Minister - On a Sunday, about to celebrate Mass in a certain public oratory, into which many had come together to hear it, the chaplain finds no one who knows how to serve Mass, nor is it easy then to find someone suitable for this; for the oratory is distant from the parish, and it is near midday.

…and 2 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 4 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Eucharist

n. ¶106.

N. 384. - On Mass on the Night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

"Whether on the night of the Nativity, after the first Mass has been sung, it is lawful immediately to celebrate the other two, and communicate the faithful? Resp. By no means is it lawful, but it is altogether to be prohibited." S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1641; 7 Dec., 23 March 1686, etc.

n. ¶107.

"Whether on the night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ it is lawful for any Priest whatever to celebrate private Mass before dawn, without an indult of the Apostolic See in the case? And insofar as negatively, whether a contrary practice, where it wished to be introduced or had already been introduced, must be declared an abuse and directly opposed to the laws of the Church, so that it is to be cut off by the Bishop? Resp. To the 1st, it is not lawful. To the 2nd, that the contrary custom is an abuse, and let the Bishop take care that it be cut off." S. R. C. 18 Sept. 1781.

n. ¶108.

"On the day of the Nativity of the Lord, can this priest celebrate three Masses of the Blessed Virgin?" namely, a priest "to whom by reason of illness, or another reasonable cause, power has been made by the Holy See of celebrating a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin." Resp. negatively according to decrees at other times. S. R. C. 28 Apr. 1866.

n. ¶109.

"Whether a priest can celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Resp. Affirmatively, or that a Priest can according to his own judgment celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, and thus it declared on 19 June 1875." S. R. C. "A Priest who celebrates only one Mass should read the Mass which corresponds approximately to the hour according to the peculiar Rubrics of the same day. And thus it rescripted and commanded to be observed." S. R. C. 19 June 1875.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 24 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. IV, Pt. II, Chapter I: Sacrifice

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.

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. IV, Title I: On the Sacrosanct Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. III, Bk. III, Tr. II, Appendices, To n. 279. - Appendix IV. Historical-Liturgical Appendix on the Sacrifice of the Mass

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.”

n. ¶11.

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).

n. ¶12.

“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.”

n. ¶13.

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.

n. ¶14.

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.

n. ¶15.

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.

n. ¶16.

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.

n. ¶17.

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.

n. ¶18.

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.

n. ¶19.

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.

n. ¶20.

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.

n. ¶21.

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.

n. ¶22.

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.

n. ¶23.

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

n. ¶24.

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.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 6 passages

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. IV, Title I: On the Sacrosanct Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 278.

— Utility.

Choir of the new Jerusalem, applaud, And marvel what this victim is, Which Melchisedech the priest foresaw, Offering in praise, on the way, While mystically he met Abraham: Christ is figured, who is believed The living bread and fixed on the cross, Who rising again dies no more, Who, assumed, gives life to the mind; And into bread the wood is transformed, While the wood of the cross slays this one.

That excellent Prose of the Breviary of Bourges, which we borrow from the work of R. P. de la Taille, p. 74, wonderfully joins, in one context, the figure, the celebration in the Supper and on the Cross, and the consummation in the heavens of the sacrifice of infinite value by which Christ enriched the economy of the New Law, when through the Holy Spirit, that is, through the eternal power of divinity, he offered himself immaculate to God (Hebrews 9:14; cf. op. cit., p. 76).

But dogmatic theology vindicates to itself the solemn exposition of the mystery of our redemption, nor does it leave to moral theology except humble parts, almost canonical, which contain the disciplinary laws concerning the celebration of Mass and concerning its application. Yet daily use, and difficulties of conscience, which arise in great number, for example by occasion of stipends, sufficiently demonstrate the utility of accurate knowledge.

n. 279.

— Appendix IV belongs to this section. Historical-Liturgical concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. Cf. Appendix IV.

Vol. III, Bk. III, Tr. II, Appendices, To n. 279. - Appendix IV. Historical-Liturgical Appendix on the Sacrifice of the Mass

I. Notions and Divisions

Although principally it is sacrifice and communion, nevertheless the Mass is not only this. For the Mass (the Mass itself, and not merely the external ceremonies, as someone might say) consists also of mutual salutations (Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo, etc.), exhortations (Oremus, Sursum corda, etc.), lessons (epistle, Gospel, etc.), hymns and canticles (introit, Gloria in excelsis, gradual, etc.), and very diverse prayers (collects, the eucharistic prayer, that is, the canon with its preface, the Lord's Prayer, etc.). Whence the Mass, if it is taken integrally, appears as the solemn rite of those assemblies by which the faithful of the Church are gathered, of which the divine sacrifice itself is only a part, yet the principal part.

According to the varied degree of solemnity, there is distinguished the papal Mass, pontifical Mass, solemn Mass, and low Mass. From the papal Mass, especially as it was celebrated in ancient times, the others arose, which therefore must be explained from it. Thus many things in low Mass are explained by this: that the celebrant by himself alone is accustomed, according to his powers, to do and sing all those things which in solemn Mass are sung or done either by the celebrant, or by the sacred ministers, or by the choir. Why, for example, must the priest hold the book while he reads the Epistle, but not while he reads the Gospel, except because the subdeacon reading the Epistle, but not the deacon singing the Gospel, holds the book in solemn Mass? Why, when the lessons or parts to be sung by the choir are recited by the priest, must the book be placed at the corner of the altar? Why, while saying Munda cor meum, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, does he not impose hands on the altar, except because these did not originally pertain to the ministry of the priest in solemn Mass? But that now he recites the same things in a low voice even in solemn Mass proceeds from this, that the solemn Mass itself has again been somewhat changed by the very rite of low Mass.

To solemn Mass also (or at least sung Mass) and conventual Mass, which is part of the choral office and of itself must always be sung, private Mass is opposed.

But since all Masses contain the same sacrifice, are offered equally in the name of the whole Church, and at the same time can be offered by special offerers; and since private Masses themselves are not rarely read before a frequent assembly of the faithful, imitate solemn Masses by their rite, and historically have gradually flowed from the use of those Masses, we shall more truly deny that private Masses are of a different nature from solemn ones, so that all Masses are to be called formally or virtually public. Wherefore the exterior participation of the people (which nevertheless sometimes, on account of circumstances, will not be expedient) seems more congruent with the nature even of private Mass.

Every Mass is divided into two continuous parts. The former is brought to the end of the Gospel or Creed; the latter is led from the following Dominus vobiscum all the way to the end. The former consists of lessons and chants; the latter of the oblation (offertory) and consecration of the gifts, besides communion with thanksgiving. The former is didactic, the latter sacramental. The former is called the Mass of the catechumens, the latter the Mass of the faithful, because even catechumens could be present at the former, but only the faithful at the latter. Hence perhaps moralists did not judge the former part, if omitted by the faithful on a feast day, to be a grave sin.

II. Evolution of the Ordinary of the Roman Mass

The Ordinary is called the whole structure of the Mass with the parts common to all Masses, excluding those things which vary with the various feasts.

How it has varied, while being substantially the same, we shall sketch in a few words.

From the first beginnings up to the reform of Pius V (a. 1570), five ages must be distinguished in the formation of the Mass.

Before the peace of the Church, i.e., in the first, second, and third centuries, the affinity between the Eastern liturgies and the Roman seems to have been much stricter than today; not only did the whole structure consist of the same principal parts, but the principal prayers and rites were the same; the same arguments of prayers were developed in the same way, indeed sometimes in the same words.

In the Roman church already in the second century (in other churches, at least in the fifth century) the Mass of the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful were joined, although perhaps in the beginning they had been separated. For it is probable enough that the Mass of the catechumens arose from the rite observed in the sabbatical assemblies of the synagogues, and soon used by Christians in solemn vigils and in the assemblies which they had on individual Sundays before light. On the contrary, the Mass of the faithful seems to be the exemplar of the Last Supper celebrated by Christ and of the eucharistic institution. These were the principal parts of the Mass of the catechumens: the entrance of the celebrant to the altar; his salutation to the people; lessons from the epistles of St. Paul and of the other Apostles and Fathers; the chant of psalms; litanic prayers (such as are made today in that part of the litany of all Saints in which the response is Libera nos Domine or Te rogamus audi nos); the dismissal of the catechumens. But in the Mass of the faithful: the oblation of gifts made by the faithful, i.e., of bread, wine, and water and of other things, which immediately after the canon were blessed at the words per quem haec omnia; solemn prayers (almost as today in the Mass of Friday in Parasceve); the eucharistic prayer with its preface; within this prayer, the "sanctification" or consecration of the bread and wine with water into the body and blood of Christ, effected through the narration of the institution (Qui pridie); then the commemoration of the passion of the Lord and of his resurrection and ascension (Unde et memores); the calling forth of the Holy Spirit or of the Word upon the consecrated oblations (Supplices te rogamus)⁽¹⁾; intercession for the living and the dead; the solemn elevation of both species; after the eucharistic prayer had been recited, the rite of fraction and commixture; the chant of the Lord's Prayer; the kiss of peace; communion of the celebrant and ministers and of the whole clergy and people; the prayer of thanksgiving; the dismissal of the faithful proclaimed by the deacon.

⁽¹⁾ Epiclesis is called an invocation by which the Holy Spirit, or even the Word, is suppliantly entreated that he descend upon the offerings and transmute them into the body and blood of Christ. That there was once in the Roman Canon an epiclesis of the true name is denied by some.

From the beginning of the fourth century to the year 600, the history of the liturgy is more obscure, and there is no document by which we have an integral description of the Mass. In this age the canon of the Mass was reduced to its present form. Besides, the order of the whole Mass was completed by the chant of psalms and antiphons at the introit, at the offertory, and at communion. But the gradual chant and alleluia after the Epistle seem to be more ancient. The hymn Gloria in excelsis (a Greek morning hymn translated into Latin by St. Hilary (?)) began to be sung in certain Masses. From the fifth century two lessons were read; whether already before this there were two alone or more is in controversy. The prayers at the beginning of the Mass of the faithful fell into desuetude. A trace of them subsists in the word Oremus, which today is said before the offertory.
In the seventh century and the following centuries up to the middle of the eleventh, because of the great number of liturgical books and treatises, the liturgy is much better known. In the first part of the ninth century these were the solemnities of Masses. At the entrance of the celebrant an antiphon was sung by the choir, then immediately Kyrie eleison was recited by the clergy (a vestige of the ancient litanies). Gloria in excelsis was sung much more often. The people having been greeted with these words, Pax vobiscum (in place of today's salutation Dominus vobiscum), the celebrant sang the collect, which the people concluded with the word Amen. Then the lector read the canonical lesson; the cantor sang the gradual and alleluia. Then the deacon read the Gospel. The Nicene Creed followed (at Rome not before the eleventh century). After this, oblations were brought by the whole people and by the celebrant himself, while the choir sang the offertory. Then the corporal was spread upon the altar, and on it were placed the paten and one chalice. In these soon there was arranged by the deacon that number of offered breads, and that quantity of wine was poured in, which would suffice for the communion of all. After he had washed his hands, the celebrant, the secrets having been recited, sang the preface, and after the hymn Sanctus had been sung by the choir, "entered into the canon." The things which follow were done almost as today, except that immediately after the consecrations no elevation was made, nor adoration, and before communion the solemn breaking of the breads was made; this rite, because of the custom of using small hosts, was necessarily abolished. The final blessing was given before the proclamation of dismissal, so that this truly terminated the Mass.

This is the description of solemn Mass; but the use of celebrating private Masses, and several of them in a day, had become very strong. Yet these do not seem to have had a special rite.

From the year 1050 to 1200 extends the age which reaches from the reign of Gregory VII, defender of the ancient Roman liturgy, to Innocent III, who himself also deserved well of the liturgy. In all Masses, yet especially, as is fitting, in private ones, it was gradually conceded to celebrants that they add various prayers recited privately, for devotion, both at the beginning of Mass, and at the offertory and at communion. A great number of these prayers existed in books, and from them the celebrant chose the ones he wished. New rites also were introduced, for example the rite of today's oblation of bread and wine. Yet the structure and principal parts remained intact. Thus it happened that several varieties were born in the Roman rite itself (e.g., the rite of Paris and of the Dominicans; the rite of Lyons and of the Carthusians; the rite of Liege). This new form of the Mass, born in Gaul and in Germany, thence transferred to Rome, was there admitted in some measure into the pontifical Curia itself.

The following are chiefly to be noted: the priest was accustomed to say Psalm Introibo with its antiphon when he was going to the altar, but to make the confession at the altar itself. Among the prayers which could be said at the offertory and communion, today's prayer Suscipe sancta Trinitas was already present and had very many and diverse formulas for the diverse "intentions" of Masses.

In the thirteenth century the order of Mass as it was celebrated in the Roman Curia was conceded to the Friars Minor, who soon diffused it through almost the universal Church. Although this order was already very similar to ours, nevertheless private prayers and certain secondary rites did not yet have fixed structures. This brought it about that soon a great variety again penetrated into the new rite itself. In the same thirteenth century there was introduced the custom of elevating the host immediately after the consecration, then the use of elevating the chalice, soon genuflections and the striking of the little bell and of the bells.

Finally, in the year 1570 Pius V took care that the Roman Missal, restored by decree of the Council of Trent, be published; Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII, and Pius X were content to review it, with few things which pertain to the Ordinary changed in it.

On the Canon

The present Canon takes its beginning from the words Te igitur and is completed by the doxology Per quem haec omnia... omnis honor et gloria, Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen. But in antiquity the preface was often counted within the limits of the canon, so that the canon or eucharistic prayer, after the conclusion of the Secret (Per omnia. Amen) and the salutation (Dominus vobiscum), began from the acclamations Sursum corda, etc. (which are most ancient and common to all liturgies). The text and order of the canon already at the end of the seventh century were almost the same as today. Yet in the prayer Te igitur, the words et Antistite nostro N. are omitted in several manuscripts; the words et omnibus orthodoxis... fidei cultoribus likewise are more often lacking and certainly are interpolated. In the Memento of the living, no space is left for inserting names; the words pro quibus tibi offerimus either are always omitted.

In the prayer Hanc igitur, according to a certain more recent recension, after the words familiae tuae these are added: quam tibi offerimus in honorem... The Memento of the dead is lacking in several manuscripts, because it had a place only in Masses of the dead; yet it must certainly be numbered among the more ancient parts of the canon. The place for inserting names is always indicated by express words; but between the words pacis and ipsis no space is left. From diverse documents it can further be concluded that the Roman Canon had already at the beginning of the fifth century been reduced to the present order and contained several of today's prayers, namely: Quam oblationem. Qui pridie. Unde et memores. Supra quae (besides the words sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam, added by St. Leo the Great). Supplices. Memento defunctorum (to be said in certain Masses); the final doxology; indeed, although less certainly, Te igitur and the Memento of the living; this, however, without any names of the living, but on the contrary offering the faculty and space of commemorating all those saints whom anyone wished. Therefore the prayers which were lacking were added in the following centuries, chiefly, as it seems, in the fifth century. The last words of the prayer Hanc igitur, diesque nostros, etc., are reported to have been added by St. Gregory the Great. Finally, the words mysterium fidei seem to have been taken from the Gallican liturgy into the Roman; perhaps formerly they were said not by the priest himself but by some minister.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. II, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. II, Ch. I, Article I. On the Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

On Communion

With the oblation communion is closely connected; for through it the sacrifice is extrinsically consummated. For through communion with the victim the faithful participate in its state; but by the sacrifice they were already professing that they wished to enter upon this state. Therefore the integral notion of communion is not had where Christ, whose body and blood we eat in it, is not considered as he is the victim offered in the Mass. Every communion, even received outside Mass, preserves this relation to the sacrifice.

I. M. H., S.I.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 8 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. II, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. ¶33.

We divide this chapter into three articles: 1. on the nature of the sacrifice of the Mass; 2. on its value, effects, and fruits; 3. on the application of the Mass.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. II, Ch. I, Article I. On the Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. ¶34.

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

n. 229.

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

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

²⁶⁷ Psalm 50:19.

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

²⁶⁹ Theol. mor. II, n. 236, note.

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

n. 230.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁷⁴ Hebrews 5:4.

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

n. 231.

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁷⁷ Genesis 14:18; Psalm 109:1.

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

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

²⁸⁰ Luke 22:19.

²⁸¹ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

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

n. 232.

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

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

n. 233.

233. You resolve:

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

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

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

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

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

²⁸⁵ Cas. consc. II, n. 236.

²⁸⁶ Praxis confess., n. 3529.

²⁸⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 234.

²⁸⁸ Ibid.

n. 234.

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

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

²⁸⁹ S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 4 ad 9.

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

²⁹¹ Cf. above, II, n. 360.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 17 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Chapter I: On the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass Considered in Itself · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article I: On the Notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article II: On the Value and Fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article III: On the Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Chapter I: On the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass Considered in Itself

Three things are to be investigated here: 1. what the true notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass is; 2. what its value and fruit are; 3. how its application is made.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article I: On the Notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. ¶1586.

DEFINITION. Sacrifice, taken in the broad sense, is every action which redounds to the glory of God, as prayer, almsgiving, etc., according to that Ps. 6: "Offer to God the sacrifice of praise"; and Ps. 50: "A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit." But strictly it is defined: An oblation made to God through the alteration of some thing as a sign of supreme dominion, from legitimate institution. Thus commonly with Suarez, etc.²

"It is said 1. Oblation for the genus, in which it agrees with other oblations. 2. Made to God, because sacrifice is offered to God alone, not to the Saints. 3. Through the alteration of some thing; for alteration distinguishes sacrifice from other oblations. 4. As a sign of supreme dominion; for by such a sign we signify that we and ours can be destroyed by God as by the supreme lord, just as the thing offered is altered. 5. From legitimate institution; but this institution requires three things: that the sacrifice be made by public authority, that it be made in the name of the whole people, and that it be made by a priest as legitimate minister."³

DIVISION. "On the part of the end, sacrifice is distinguished into latreutic, which is offered merely in homage to God; eucharistic, in thanksgiving; propitiatory or expiatory, unto remission of fault or punishment; impetratory, for obtaining goods from God."⁴

n. ¶1587.

Principles. I. The Mass is a true and properly so-called SACRIFICE, by which the BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST is offered to the divine Majesty, under the species of bread and wine. - This is clear 1. from Trent, which, sess. 22, can. 1, defined thus: "If anyone has said that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice, or that to be offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." - It is clear 2. from reason; for all the conditions of a true sacrifice are verified; for the Mass is: 1. an oblation made to God, since Christ Himself is offered to God the Father; 2. this oblation is made through the alteration of some thing; for through consecration and through consumption, as will be said below n. 1589, q. 1, 4th opinion, Christ is mystically slain, and thus there is had the alteration required for sacrifice;⁵ 3. it is made besides as a sign of supreme dominion; for the Sacrifice of the altar is principally ordained to this end; 4. it is made from legitimate institution; for it was instituted by Christ with respect to that which pertains to the essence of the Sacrifice.⁶

"But the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, instituted in the law of grace, by which all ancient sacrifices ceased, perfectly contains the meanings of all of them: for it is latreutic in recognition of divine excellence; it is eucharistic in thanksgiving; it is impetratory of graces through the merits of Christ; it is expiatory of sins, because through it God is moved to mercy."⁷ See a fuller proof and exposition of this doctrine among the Dogmaticians.

n. ¶1588.

II. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is THE SAME IN SPECIES as the bloody Sacrifice OF THE CROSS, both because the same victim is offered by the same highest and eternal Priest, and "because the formal reason of sacrifice is the same, since it is offered in protestation of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Therefore the Sacrifice of the altar, as Trent says, does not indeed differ essentially from the Sacrifice of the cross, but only accidentally, with respect to the manner of offering, namely because: 1. In that of the cross real death intervened; in this mystical death intervenes. 2. That was offered by the Redeemer Himself on the altar of the cross; this is offered by the ministry of priests. 3. That was meritorious, because there the price of our redemption was paid; but this is not meritorious, since here only the merits of Christ are applied."⁸

n. ¶1589.

Questions. Q. 1. In what does the ESSENCE of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. Several opinions are present. The FIRST says that it consists in consumption alone, because in that alone is found destruction or alteration of the victim. The SECOND says that it consists in the oblation which follows the consecration, with these words: "Whence also mindful," etc., since sacrifice is nothing other than oblation. These two opinions do not seem probable. - The THIRD teaches that it consists in consecration alone, because in consecration all things required for sacrifice are present, namely the oblation, which is already made in exercised act, and the destruction or alteration of the victim, while by force of the words the Body is now separated from the Blood of Christ. But the consumption pertains to the integrity of the sacrifice, and therefore is prescribed by divine law. "This opinion," says St. Alphonsus, "is indeed very probable and more common, but the FOURTH opinion seems to me more probable, although in Tome I I adhered to the third, which Bellarmine, Tournely, etc., hold. This opinion says that the essence of the Sacrifice consists partially in consecration and partially in consumption; for in the consecration the victim is placed, and in the consumption it is consumed." The principal reason is "because true and real sacrifice requires the true and real destruction of the thing offered, which is not had except through the consumption of the priest, by which the sacramental existence of Christ is destroyed."⁹

Q. 2. Whether for the essence of the Sacrifice the consecration OF EACH species is required?

Resp. It is controverted. - The first opinion denies, because through the consecration of one species whole Christ is placed and offered, and at the same time the death of Christ is already represented, and there is had the oblation and slaying of the victim. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, affirms; and the reason is that, from Trent, sess. 22, cap. 1, the Sacrifice of the Mass ought to be commemorative of the bloody Sacrifice of the cross, according to that saying of Christ the Lord: "Do this in commemoration of me." Now, if only one species were consecrated, although by force of the words the bloodless body would be placed, or although by consumption the slaying would be had, nevertheless the shedding of blood would not be expressed, which happens only through the consecration of each species, through which the separation of blood from body is properly signified, according to the saying of St. Cyril: "By the sword of the words the blood is separated from the body." - By this very reason, each species ought to coexist at the same time upon the altar: wherefore, from the Rubric, if each cannot be had, the Mass is to be interrupted, unless one species has now been consecrated.¹⁰

Q. 3. Who is the OFFERER of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. 1. The principal and primary minister is Christ, since, as Trent teaches in the cited place, cap. 2, it is the same one offering through the ministry of priests who offered Himself on the cross; nor otherwise could Christ be called a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

The secondary minister and one subject to Christ, who nevertheless truly and properly offers, is every and only validly ordained priest, although a heretic, excommunicated, degraded, etc.¹¹
But the Church and the faithful concur in the Sacrifice either generally or specially; whence they can be said morally to offer it.

And indeed the Church offers generally through priests, as her delegates; whence in the Canon it is said: "This therefore the oblation of our service, and also of Thy whole family," that is, of the Christian people. - But the faithful concur specially in the Sacrifice when they promote it in a special manner, for example by ministering, or assisting, and most of all by giving a stipend.¹²

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article II: On the Value and Fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. ¶1590.

"VALUE is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered, for conferring goods on the one offering and on those for whom it is offered. But the FRUITS are the goods themselves which, in view of the Sacrifice, God confers. Whence value differs from fruit as cause from effect."¹³

The fruits or effects of the Mass are distinguished from a threefold head: 1. on the part of the thing; 2. on the part of the cause; 3. on the part of those participating.¹⁴

n. ¶1591.

I. On the part of the THING, the EFFECT of the Mass is fourfold: namely adoration and thanksgiving in relation to God; remission both of sins and of punishments, and impetration of goods in relation to men. It is clear from the definition of the Church in Trent, sess. 22, can. 3, where it is said thus: "If anyone has said that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory; or that it profits only the one consuming, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema" (cf. n. 1599).

Moreover, concerning the effects of the Mass, or concerning the fruits in relation to men, let the following be noted: 1. Remission of sins, whether mortal or venial, is not made immediately through the Sacrifice of the Mass, but only mediately, insofar namely as "God is immediately placated in view of this Sacrifice, and then is moved to conceding the gift of penance, through which sins are immediately deleted."¹⁵ 2. Remission of punishments is conceded immediately to just men for whom the Sacrifice is offered. For the Tridentine Synod teaches that "the souls detained in Purgatory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the altar." But the dead cannot be helped in another way than by immediate remission of punishments.¹⁶ 3. The impetration of goods regards especially spiritual goods: actual graces are immediately obtained for performing acts by which habitual grace increases. Secondarily temporal goods are obtained, insofar as these profit the soul.¹⁷

It is asked: Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass produces its effects INFALLIBLY?

Resp. Affirmatively, unless there is an obstacle in the subject. But it works according to the measure of the good disposition which is in the man; or, if it concerns a Mass for the dead, according to an ordination of divine Wisdom unknown to us.

n. ¶1592.

II. On the part of the CAUSE, a twofold FRUIT is distinguished: namely ex opere operato, and ex opere operantis. The fruit ex opere OPERATO is that which is conferred in view of the merits of Christ: it is the principal fruit, independent of the probity of the celebrant, and it is conceded equally whether the Mass is celebrated by a good or by a bad priest. And the same must be held concerning the prayers which are said in the Mass: they avail, although they are said by a priest who is a sinner; for he prays in the name of the Church, which is always pleasing to God. The fruit ex opere OPERANTIS is that which is conferred in view of the merit and devotion of the celebrant: it is an accidental fruit, and is greater or lesser according to the holiness of the celebrant. Hence Pope Alexander says: "The more worthy priests have been, the more easily they are heard for those for whom they cry out."¹⁸

n. ¶1593.

III. On the part of those PARTICIPATING, a fourfold FRUIT is had, namely: most general, general, special, and most special.

The most general fruit, called general by others, is that of which all the faithful, both living and dead, somehow become participants. For since the minister, in any Sacrifice whatever, acts in the name of the Church, the Sacrifice profits the whole Church.
The general fruit, included by others under the special, is that which falls to the faithful who assist at the Sacrifice, or concur in it by ministering vestments, lights, hosts, etc. This fruit does not depend on the intention of the celebrant, but on the devotion of the faithful, who by their own peculiar work become, in a certain way, offerers.
The special or ministerial fruit is that which falls to those to whom the Mass is applied. This is ordinarily intended where speech is made simply of the fruit of the Mass.
The most special fruit is that which falls to the priest alone celebrating, and it is altogether proper to him.¹⁹

n. ¶1594.

It is asked: Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass has INFINITE value?

Preliminary note. It is certain that the Sacrifice of the Mass in itself, and with respect to sufficiency, is of infinite value, by reason of the infinite dignity of Christ, who in this Sacrifice is victim and principal offerer.

But the question is whether the Mass, even from the institution of Christ, has infinite efficacy or virtue of working?

Resp. A twofold opinion is present. - The first, probable, denies, and teaches that the Sacrifice was instituted by Christ in such a way that it produces a determined effect, namely so that, applied for several, it profits each less than if it were applied for only one. It is proved from the prohibition of the Church, which forbids that satisfaction be made by one Sacrifice for several asking for Mass. But the second opinion, more probable, affirms, and holds that the VIRTUE of the Sacrifice of the Mass is infinite both intensively and extensively. It is called intensively infinite insofar as it can cause a greater and lesser fruit according to the measure of the disposition of the man; but extensively insofar as it can produce infinite effects, and profit one alone and infinite men in this way. But with respect to EFFECT, the Sacrifice of the Mass is said to be finite, not now from its institution, but from the finite capacity of men for whom it is offered. The reason of this opinion is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same, although offered in a diverse manner, as the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was of infinite value. Whence, according to this opinion, the Mass profits equally when applied for several as if it is applied for one. But the prayers of the Mass instituted by the Church profit someone more if they are applied to him singly than if by the priest to several: as is evident from the Council of Constance, where this article of Wyclif was condemned: "Special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious do not profit the same more than general prayers, other things being equal."¹

n. ¶1595.

Let it be noted for practice: 1. However much this second opinion seems true, nevertheless it is not licit by one Mass to satisfy several stipends; for the stipend is not given as the price of the fruit of the Mass, but for the support of the minister; whence, since he already has support from one stipend, the title fails why he should receive another. The same is evident from proposition 10 condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices, and to offer one Sacrifice."²

The probability of the first opinion standing, the priest cannot, for a certain stipend, apply an uncertain fruit of the Mass. Yet, the Mass having been applied for him who gave the stipend, he can apply it at the same time for himself, or from charity for others, not indeed absolutely, but under condition: namely with the right of him preserved for whom he is held to apply the Mass³ (cf. n. 1601, q. 10).

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Ch. I, Article III: On the Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. ¶1596.

APPLICATION is the intention of the mind by which the priest designates the person whom he wishes to become participant in the fruit of the Sacrifice. Concerning this application THREE things are asked: 1. whether it is required, so that the Sacrifice may profit the faithful; 2. what sort it ought to be; 3. for whom it can be made. Hence the following:

n. ¶1597.

Principles. I. That the special fruit of the Mass fall to him for whom it is offered, the application of the celebrant is NECESSARY. - The reason is that this fruit, proceeding from the Sacrifice insofar as it is the action of Christ, is strictly owed to no one; therefore, unless it is specially applied, it comes to no one.⁴

It is said 1. that the special fruit of the Mass; for the most general and general fruit, as also the most special, does not require application, since the faithful and the priest, insofar as they are offerers, certainly always perceive it.⁵

It is said 2. the application of the celebrant is necessary. For application is altogether proper to the celebrant, because it is an act of the power of Order. "Whence, if a Religious applies a Mass against the will of the Superior, he indeed applies illicitly, but validly; because the subject, with respect to the power of Order which he then uses, does not lie under the Prelate."⁶

It is asked: Whether the priest can apply the MOST SPECIAL fruit to others?

Resp. It is controverted, but authors more commonly deny. Therefore, since the application of this fruit is very uncertain, the following proposition was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII: "A doubled stipend can licitly be accepted by a priest for the same Mass, by applying to the one asking a part even of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII."⁷

n. ¶1598.

II. That application of the Mass be valid, it ought to be made before consecration, through an INTENTION at least habitual, and in some way determined. Thus commonly. - Therefore THREE CONDITIONS are required, namely:

It ought to be made before consecration, at least of the second species, lest it be exposed to danger of nullity; because the Sacrifice produces its effect while it is being completed, nor is that effect suspended.⁸ But it is probable that the Sacrifice is completed by consecration alone, as we said above (n. 1589, q. 1).
An intention at least habitual is required; for just as interpretative intention does not suffice, so neither is actual or virtual required, but habitual suffices, that is, had and not revoked. "The reason is that application of Mass has itself after the manner of a verbal donation, which, once made, is valid until it is expressly revoked."⁹ Here it can be asked: what application is to be judged valid if the priest, unmindful of the prior intention, elicits a new one? Resp. That one which is recognized as predominant. Therefore if the prior application was more universal and revocatory of the later, it is valid. If each were equal, the later would prevail, as happens in a testament. In doubt, it suffices that the priest on another occasion apply the Sacrifice to him to whom it was not applied the first time. For it is certain that one or the other application was valid.¹⁰
A determined intention is required, at least implicitly; for otherwise there would not be a reason why the fruit would fall to one rather than to another. But implicit determination suffices, because this, by some general term, already reaches persons in particular.

n. ¶1599.

Hence: 1. The application is valid if you say: "I offer this Sacrifice for him who gave the stipend"; "for whom the Superior wishes the Mass to be made"; "for whom the foundation requires"; "for the greatest sinner"; "for the soul afflicted by the graver temptation"; "for the soul of Purgatory more deserted than the rest, or more pleasing to God"; "for all the souls of Purgatory"; "for him to whom I am held to apply"; "for the person, or intention written or determined in the mind, at the beginning of the week," etc. - On the contrary, that application is not valid: "I offer that God, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, may apply, or may wish to apply, this Mass"; the reason is that, from the institution of Christ, it belongs to the priest, not to God or the Blessed Virgin Mary, to apply or determine the Sacrifice.¹¹

If someone accepts a stipend from ten persons for as many Masses, he does not seem to satisfy by applying individual Sacrifices for individuals indeterminately. But if he intended to apply each Mass to all those ten persons, by applying to each one the tenth part of each Mass, he satisfies well; because the fruit is divisible.¹²
If stipends have been received confusedly from diverse persons, the application is sufficiently determined if it is made according to the order in which the stipends were accepted, according to the axiom: "he who is prior in time is stronger in right." Whence, if you have accepted twenty stipends in this way, no other care is incumbent upon you, except that you make Mass twenty times, to the intention of the giver. Yet interruption can intervene, provided the Masses are celebrated within the due time.
Application under a condition already fulfilled is valid, for example: if Peter is dead, I apply for his soul; but not under a future contingent condition, for example: I apply to him for whom Titius, when asked, shall have wished.¹³

It is asked: Whether application to the intention of him who is going to offer the first stipend is valid?

Resp. Such application is certainly illicit, from the prohibition of Clement VIII, which Paul V promulgated on November 15, 1605, forbidding this custom "as dangerous under several names, liable to scandals of the faithful, and excessively aberrant from the ancient custom of the Church." Indeed, not rarely it would be invalid, for example if afterwards a stipend were offered for liberation from an illness, etc., which did not yet exist while the Mass was being applied; for, that this application be valid, the fruit of the Sacrifice would have to remain suspended until the existence of the illness, which does not seem credible. Nevertheless, if the priest foresees that shortly Masses are going to be requested from him for a deceased person, he can apply them meanwhile, and afterwards receive the stipends; because in this case they are already offered for a determined person.¹⁴

n. ¶1600.

III. The Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered both for the faithful LIVING, whether just or sinners, and for the DEAD in Christ and not yet fully purged. Thus Trent.¹⁵ - It is said: for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged; for it can be offered neither licitly nor validly for the damned, who are irrevocably separated from the Body of Christ. And the same must be said of children dead without Baptism, because these also have been constituted in an immutable state.¹⁶ But neither can it be offered for the Blessed, since they have already attained the end to which the fruits of the Mass are ordained. Yet it is licit to celebrate Masses in their honor, namely to this end, that thanks may be paid for the benefits which have been conferred on them by God, and that their patronage may be implored, or in other words, that they may deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we keep on earth.¹⁷

As regards the living, Mass, by reason of itself and with respect to valid application, can be offered for all human beings, no otherwise than the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. But if it ought not to be applied for some, this must be referred solely to the prohibition of the Church. Wherefore let there be the following:

n. ¶1601.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the EXCOMMUNICATED?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. It is not licit for excommunicated persons to be avoided. Yet licitly "a priest can offer the action of sacrificing, insofar as it depends on the private merit of the one operating, for such an excommunicated person, or remember him in particular in the Memento."¹⁸

It is licit for tolerated excommunicated persons, according to the more probable opinion. "The reason is that favorable laws are to be understood with every breadth. Therefore when it was conceded to the faithful to communicate with the tolerated, it was also conceded to offer public prayers for them; for to communicate imports this also, as is had from cap. 28 and cap. 38, de sent. excomm."¹⁹ - And these things are valid both for the living and for the dead.

Q. 2. Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for INFIDELS, HERETICS, and SCHISMATICS?

Resp. 1. For these LIVING persons, especially for their conversion, it can be offered; for they are capable of at least impetratory fruits, and the certain prohibition of the Church extends itself only to excommunicated persons to be avoided, among whom the aforesaid are not to be numbered. It was requested: "Whether it is licit for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other Infidels, and to accept alms from them for the application of the Mass? - And the S. C. S. OFF. responded, July 12, 1865: "Affirmatively, provided scandal is not present, and nothing is specially added in the Mass, and, with respect to the intention, it is clear that nothing evil, or of error, or of superstition underlies in the Infidels bringing the alms."²⁰

Resp. 2. But indeed it is not licit publicly or solemnly to celebrate Mass for these same DEAD persons, even if the condition were added: if perhaps they died in good faith in only material heresy. "For these more secret mysteries of divine grace by no means pertain to the external judgment of the Church."²¹ And the general rule is that to those to whom ecclesiastical burial has had to be denied, other public suffrages of the Church are also denied. But it is licit privately to pray for them under the Memento of the dead in solemn Mass, or even secretly to apply the Mass of the day, not of Requiem, provided scandal is avoided. Thus, for example, a priest to whom a stipend for some heretic in particular is offered will be able to respond that he can apply the Mass of Requiem for all the faithful departed, with the intention of helping also the soul of that deceased person, if this is accepted before God.

Q. 3. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the FAITHFUL who died in the act of sin?

Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless, if ecclesiastical burial is to be denied to someone, Mass ought not to be celebrated publicly, that is, with the people knowing, for him. - Recall the things said at n. 1387.

Q. 4. Whether the Mass profits the DEAD from the infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Some deny; but others more truly and more commonly affirm. The reason is that, since it is of faith from Trent that Mass is usefully offered for the dead, this cannot happen except ex opere operato, that is, from the promise of Christ, which indeed is had in those words: "This is my Blood of the new Testament, which will be poured out for many unto remission of sins."¹

Q. 5. Whether a Mass OF REQUIEM profits the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

St. Thomas responds:² "On the part of the Sacrifice offered, it profits the deceased equally, of whatever Mass it is said; but on the part of the prayers, that one profits more in which there are prayers determined for this; yet this defect can be recompensed through the greater devotion either of him who says the Mass, or of him who orders it to be said, or again through the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass."

Q. 6. Whether, on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, Mass can be applied for SOME particular deceased person?

Resp. Affirmatively, from the decrees of the S. R. C. on August 4, 1663, and September 2, 1741,³ where it was said that on that day "Sacrifices can be applied at will by priests celebrating, namely either for all the faithful departed, or for some only." Wherefore nothing prevents a stipend from being accepted for that Mass.⁴

Q. 7. Whether one celebrating satisfies by a Mass OF REQUIEM to the intention of the giver, if what this is is wholly unknown?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the declaration of the S. R. C. on November 29, 1856.⁵ Hence it is concluded that a Mass of Requiem is validly applied for a living person; which also will be done licitly if a sufficient reason accedes, for example if other vestments are not had.

Q. 8. Whether a priest satisfies if, thinking him for whom he ought to celebrate as dead to be now dead, he celebrates for him while still living?

Resp. Negatively; because the error is essential. For each person, while he lives, can provide for his soul in various ways, for example by gaining indulgences, etc.; not likewise after death.⁶

Q. 9. Whether the fruits of the Mass can be DIVIDED, so that the impetratory fruit is applied to one, the satisfactory fruit to another?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion of the Doctors. Therefore in gratuitous Masses, the priest can divide the fruits at will. In Masses owed from obedience or fidelity, he can do this for that part of the fruit which he is not held to apply. Hence, for example, if a Mass is to be celebrated for thanksgiving, he can apply the satisfactory and impetratory fruit at will. But in Masses owed from stipend, this is not licit, since the whole applicable fruit is owed to the one giving the alms.⁷

Q. 10. What if the application is made TO NO ONE, or to one INCAPABLE?

Resp. The fruit, in this case, remains in the treasury of the Church. "But in practice, when it is doubted whether he for whom we offer is capable of the fruit or not, in gratuitous Masses it is advised to apply them either to ourselves, or to another under condition: if the person to whom they are applied is not capable. But in Masses owed from stipend, because probably the fruit falls to the benefit of the relatives of the one offering, from his implicit will, therefore then we cannot apply the fruit to whomever we wish, except under condition, lest prejudice be done to him to whom the obligation of applying is present."⁸

NB. Concerning Mass celebrated ON A PRIVILEGED ALTAR, see below, n. 1743.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 3 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, PART SECOND: ON THE EUCHAR…, CHAPTER I: ON THE NATURE AND VIRTUE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

Sacrifice taken generally is thus commonly defined: The external oblation of a sensible thing with its destruction or change, made to God alone through a legitimate Minister, in protestation of his supreme dominion.

n. ¶1316.

1316. Principles. - I. The Mass is a true Sacrifice of the new law.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass perfectly contains the characters of all the sacrifices of the old law, or it is latreutic, etc.

III. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is certainly the same as the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not only because the same victim is offered, but also because the formal character of Sacrifice is the same, namely through protestation of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Wherefore the Sacrifice of the Altar differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross not indeed essentially, but only accidentally, namely as regards the manner of offering.

These principles are proved and more broadly explained in Dogmatic Theology.

n. ¶1317.

1317. Questions. - Query 1° In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. It is controverted. Not a few hold that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consecration and partially in the Consumption, because in the Consecration the victim is placed, and in the Consumption it is consumed. St. Alphonsus holds this opinion as the more probable.¹

Query 2° For whom can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

It must be premised. In offering Sacrifice the priest acts in three ways, namely in the name of Christ, in the name of the Church, and in his own name. Those things which he does in the name of Christ comprise the essence of Sacrifice properly so called; but in the name of the Church he performs the ceremonies and pours forth the prayers which the Church prescribes for the celebration of this Sacrifice; but he acts in his own name insofar as the good and meritorious work which he places by sacrificing pertains to his person as such. - These things having been premised:

Resp. In general it can be offered for all for whom, at least as impetratory, it can be of profit. Hence:

1° Validly, at least in the name of Christ and in one's own name, it is offered for all, whether living or dead, except only the damned and infants dead without Baptism.

2° Validly and lawfully it is offered, and this in the threefold manner which we have described, for all living faithful, even for sinners not excommunicated, but for these only as regards the fruit of impetration.

3° As regards living excommunicated persons: a) Certainly it is lawful indirectly, even in the name of the Church, e.g. for their conversion, for the propagation of the Faith, etc., "insofar as their good results in the enlargement of the Church," as Lugo says. b) If there is question of the Sacrifice to be offered directly and in particular for some excommunicated person, distinguish between those to be avoided, or nominally excommunicated, and the tolerated. - For those to be avoided it is lawful in one's own name, but not in the name of Christ or of the Church.² - But for the tolerated, of itself, it is more probably lawful even in the name of the Church, because the faithful are permitted to communicate with them, even in divine things.³ I said: of itself; because, if there is question of heretics and schismatics, several Responses of the Holy See prove that in practice this is not lawful, by reason of scandal, etc.⁴

4° In the name of the Church, neither publicly (as is clear of itself and all admit) nor secretly (as almost all hold) is it lawful to offer for the dead to whom ecclesiastical burial is to be denied, for instance for notorious heretics and schismatics. For under the name of burial are understood whatever suffrages are customarily made by the Church for the dead; but among these, Masses celebrated in the name of the Church, even secretly, hold the first place.¹

Note. What has been said concerning tolerated excommunicated persons holds more probably also concerning unbelievers.² It is confirmed from the following Response of the Holy Office, which, to the proposed doubt: "Whether it is lawful for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other unbelievers, and to accept from them alms for the application of Mass?" on Wednesday, 12 July 1865, responded: "Affirmatively, provided that scandal is not present, and nothing is added specially in the Mass, and as regards the intention it is established that nothing of evil, or error, or superstition underlies the unbelievers offering the alms."³ (10) p. 418.

Query 3° Of how many kinds is the fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold head, namely on the part of the one offering and on the part of the victim.

I. On the part of the one offering. Since the one offering is twofold, namely Christ and the priest, hence there is a twofold kind of fruit of the Mass on the part of the one offering. The first comes from Christ offering, and is said to be ex opere operato, because it is received in view of the merits of Christ and his promise. The other comes from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in view of the merit and devotion of the priest celebrating, and is called fruit ex opere operantis. - Hence it happens that a Sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is not of more profit than if it were offered by an unworthy Minister; because the Sacrifice, considered thus, is the work of Christ, and fruit flows only from the merits of Christ. Wherefore 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 otherwise it 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, by so much the greater does the fruit of the Mass become.

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

1° The general fruit is that which corresponds to the Sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, according as he operates in the name of the whole Church. And indeed all the Faithful, both living and dwelling in purgatory, perceive this fruit; but it is assigned to them only by way of impetration (by force of which contrition and thus also remission of sins can be obtained), not however, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of Sacrifices which are offered daily, any just man, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of immense punishment, which appears incredible. - Those assisting at the Sacrifice, and a fortiori those cooperating in it, e.g. those serving the priest, etc., participate in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special manner. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is the more abundant, the greater the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating. Thus Gury; but St. Alphonsus calls the fruit accruing to those assisting and cooperating special (others call it middle or ministerial), nor does he distinguish between opus operatum and operantis. - But, as ministerial:

2° The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the Sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the Sacrifice as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing stands in the way, as it is satisfactory.

3° The most special fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators perceive from the Sacrifice a fruit entirely special, much more ought the priest who sacrifices to perceive this. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain.¹

Query 4° Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Resp. 1° It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ himself in this Sacrifice is at the same time the victim and the principal one offering. Wherefore the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price, made by Christ as primary offerer, who has infinite merit.

Resp. 2° It cannot be infinite as regards the application made to individual men, or as regards the effect or fruit. The reason is because creatures are not capable of perceiving infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or lesser, according as the disposition or capacity of him to whom it is applied has been greater or lesser.

But it is controverted whether the application of the fruit of the Sacrifice is restricted to a certain degree, or is made indefinitely according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered.

The sentence today, says St. Alphonsus, most common, and which speculatively seems more probable, contends that the application is made indefinitely according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered. - The reason is because the value of the Sacrifice is in itself infinite; hence of itself it can be applied to innumerable men, without being able to be exhausted. Otherwise the holy Doctor teaches in the work contro gli eretici pretesi riform., where he teaches that the fruit, from the will of Christ, is restricted to a certain degree.¹

Query 5° Is the Mass of profit to the dead from an infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Affirmatively. For Mass is usefully offered for the dead, as is established from Trent.² Moreover this cannot be done except from the promise of Christ, which is related in Matthew:³ This is my Blood ... which shall be poured out for many unto the remission of sins. It is established also from the words of the form in the conferral of Order: Receive the power of offering Sacrifice to God, and of celebrating Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. - Nevertheless temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a certain law, but it is of profit to them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall have pleased God to accept it. - See Perrone.⁴

Query 6° Is a Mass of Requiem of more profit to the dead than a Mass of the Saints?

Resp. Negatively as regards the substance, or on the part of the Sacrifice; but certainly as regards accidentals, or on the part of the prayers, whose defect devotion can supply. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ after St. Thomas.⁶

It must be noted here that a Mass of Requiem and in black can be applied for a living person, provided that he who gives the alms has not expressly declared the opposite.⁷

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 314 passages

Vol. II, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Cardinal …, Fifth Part: On the Virtues…, Section B: On the Acts of …, Ch. III, Question One: On Sacrifice

S. Th. II-II, q. 85 and q. 86, a. 1; I-II, q. 102, a. 2, 3, 4.

692. Sacrifice (offer) is said from making sacred, and therefore signifies an act by which man makes something sacred; hence:

in the broadest sense it signifies an act or work of any virtue whatever, done in honor of God, and commanded by religion, for example, works of mercy or obedience (Heb. XIII, 15-16; Ps. L, 19);

in a stricter sense it is every act elicited by the virtue of religion, namely, one which has no other goodness except because it is done in honor of God; in this sense internal sacrifice (Ps. XLIX, 14; I Pet. II, 5, 9), by which the soul offers itself to God, is more sacrifice than external sacrifice: for exterior worship is nothing except the expression of the interior;

in the strictest and proper sense it is the principal act of external and public worship, distinct from all others, most solemn and most excellent, because it more perfectly testifies to the supreme dominion of God and the full dependence of all things upon Him; hence it is to make sacred by excellence (Os. VI, 6; I Reg. XV, 22).

Consequently, by extension and improperly, sacrifice also designates the term of the sacrificial action, namely, the thing sacrificed or victim, the host, insofar as by sacrifice it has been offered to God and made sacred; or the sacred thing made itself.

693. Sacrifice strictly so called is of natural law. - It is proved:

If the excellence of the person to be worshiped differs from the excellence of others not only in degree but in order, then in society special signs of honor must be exhibited and reserved to him for testifying to his excellence.

But such is the excellence of God, who is the first principle and last end, from whom all things have being and acting, and who is the supreme lord of all things, who can create all things and also destroy them.

Therefore in external and social worship special signs of honor must be exhibited and reserved to Him, by which we testify to His supreme dominion and our subjection.

Now that God is the first principle and end, the supreme lord of all things, and has the power of destroying all things just as of creating them, we signify most fittingly by sacrifice, especially because no other external sign of oblation or adoration exists which of its nature represents the supreme dominion of God and our dependence in every mode, and in fact is reserved to God.

Therefore this sign, which is sacrifice, must be exhibited and reserved to God. - History proves that this has been done at every time among all peoples (Cf. C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 1).

It is confirmed: External and public worship is ordered so that a right estimation of God may be formed in us, and so that we may be stirred up to a special reverence of God. But for this a special worship reserved to God is required. "We see this," says St. Thomas, q. 85, a. 2, "observed in every republic, that they honor the supreme ruler with some singular sign, which, if it were offered to anyone else, would be the crime of lese-majesty."

694. Sacrifice strictly so called is defined: The external oblation of a sensible and permanent thing, through some alteration or destruction of it, made by a priest to God, for testifying to His dominion and our subjection. In this definition there is indicated:

The genus to which sacrifice pertains: oblation, by which something is offered to God to be deputed to divine worship; and indeed external oblation, because it pertains to external and public worship. Thus it differs from devotion and from merely internal sacrifice.

The matter: of a sensible and permanent thing; sensible, indeed, because sacrifice is a sensible sign, since it is made for signifying the internal oblation of the mind, by which man offers and subjects himself to God as supreme Lord; and permanent also, namely, something apt both for signifying the permanent dominion of God over man and over all creation, and for representing man himself, who hands himself over to God.

Through this, oblation differs from adoration, because the latter exhibits to God a transient action, for example, genuflection, while the former exhibits to God a permanent thing, which in sacrifice is offered as the substitute of our sensible and permanent substance; hence it is understood why especially those animals and other things were employed for sacrifices which serve for the sustenance of man.

The form: through some alteration or destruction, by which, namely, in order to signify God's supreme dominion over all things, the thing is withdrawn from every human use and totally and in perpetuity passes into the dominion of God, and thus is made sacred: whether it be said that the oblation is made to God formally through the alteration itself, which seems truer; or whether it be said that the alteration is a condition prerequired for sacrificial oblation, as pleases some more.

It is not required that the alteration always be had through real or physical destruction, but an equivalent can suffice, namely, one which as to exterior form or according to human estimation is equivalent to a real alteration in the order of signifying: thus a thing which is rendered unfit for natural uses, such as wine poured out, or is placed on the way of destruction, and whatever bears the appearance of destruction so that it is apt for expressing the signification proper to sacrifice. These things are customarily explained more where the Mass is treated.

By destruction or alteration sacrifice is distinguished from all other oblations: in a simple oblation the thing, while it is offered, remains whole, although afterward it can be consumed; in sacrifice the oblation itself is made formally through destruction. Hence St. Thomas, q. 86, a. 1: "The name of oblation is common to all things which are exhibited for the worship of God, so that if something is exhibited for the worship of God, as to be consumed in some sacred thing which ought to be made from it, it is both an oblation and a sacrifice; but if it is exhibited so that it may remain whole, to be deputed to divine worship or to be expended for the use of ministers, it will be an oblation, not a sacrifice." And again, q. 85, a. 3, ad 3: "They are properly called sacrifices when something is done concerning the things offered to God, as that animals were killed and burned (bloody sacrifice), that bread is broken and eaten and blessed (unbloody sacrifice). And this is what the name itself sounds forth, for sacrifice is said from the fact that man makes something sacred. But oblation is directly said when something is offered to God, even if nothing is done concerning 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 not conversely."

The efficient cause, namely, the minister: by a priest. To express the public sense of religion in the name of society, a public person is required, that is, one who enjoys public authority or is legitimately deputed by it, so that he may act for all or in the name of all.

Thus, before cities and kingdoms were constituted, when there were only families and tribes, the father of the family or the firstborn were as it were naturally indicated for offering sacrifice; afterward kings also sometimes did this, as Melchisedech; but for the most part distinct ministers were designated for this: for it is fitting that in society there be ministers separated from the people, permanently instituted for this, who in the strict sense are called priests; once these have been instituted, such an act of sacrifice would be attempted invalidly by others. But since Christ was constituted the head of all men, He was naturally the priest of all humanity. But if God reserves to Himself the ordering of all worship, as was done in the supernatural order, no other can institute sacrifice or priesthood (Heb. V, 1-4).

The end of sacrifice, both the end to whom: made to God, for sacrifice is an act of religion; and the end which: for testifying to His supreme dominion and our subjection.

n. 695.

695. Diverse species of sacrifice. - Every sacrifice is essentially and primarily latreutic, because it is made in honor of God, to testify that He is the first principle upon whom man totally depends and by whom he is whatever he is. From this it follows that man has from God whatever he has, and awaits whatever he will receive, and, if he turns himself away from God by sin, is worthy of the penalty of death; sacrifices can also be offered for acknowledging these things. Hence by reason of the end, sacrifice is divided into latreutic (huldeoffer), which is specially offered for the worship of God; and eucharistic (dankoffer), for benefits received; and impetratory (smeekoffer), for benefits to be received; and propitiatory (zoenoffer), which is also specially made for placating God offended and repairing sin.

n. 695.

In the Old Law, by reason of form and end, there were distinguished: the holocaust, which was a latreutic sacrifice; the host for sin or for offense, which was offered more specially for sins; and the pacific host for benefits received or to be received.

696. The sacrifice of the New Law is more eminent than all others. - Sacrifice, although considered in common it is of natural law, nevertheless is not so as a particular sacrifice to be offered in such a thing or in such a mode. But by human or divine institution, in various times and among various peoples, sacrifices have been diverse. Under the law of nature they were determined from the choice of men; under the Mosaic law, by God; under the new Christian law there is only one sacrifice: the death of Christ on the cross and symbolically renewed in the Mass, which is proved in the treatise on Redemption and on the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The sacrifice of the New Law differs from the ancient sacrifices:

in dignity, by which it is infinitely distant from them: a) on the part of the one offering, who is the Son of God made man, and b) on the part of the thing offered, which is His body and blood;

in end, because it is offered at the same time for the fourfold end;

in efficacy: it is not only of value from the work of the men offering, but by intrinsic dignity is always acceptable to God, whom it infallibly honors; hence from the work worked it not only removes legal uncleanness, but, as far as is of itself, also infallibly obtains grace;

in perfection and stability, because it prefigures, announces, and prepares no other, but itself is prefigured by all others, which therefore, when it came, had to cease (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 1).

697. The sacrifice of the New Law exists under a twofold form: as bloody on the cross and as unbloody in the Mass. - The sacrifice of the New Law is simply and substantially one, that is, by reason of the principal offerer, by reason of the thing offered, and by reason of the merits and satisfactions; modally and secundum quid, that is, by reason of the form under which the victim is offered, it is diverse (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 1 and 2):

a) The bloody oblation of the cross (Mt. XXVI, 28; John XVII, 19), whose victim was the Son of God made flesh so that He might be substituted for men (Heb. II, 11, 17; I Tim. II, 5, 6; Rom. V; Eph. V, 2); - the form was not so much the material killing as the voluntary laying down of the soul and disposition of His own life, made in honor of God, and externally manifested in the free permission of death; - the minister was not the killers themselves, but Christ, who voluntarily admitted the death being inflicted, while He could have impeded it (John X, 17, 18); - the value (namely, the honor of God, merit, and satisfaction) was infinite. Hence there will never be a new sacrifice, meritorious and satisfactory, because Christ satisfied for the sins of all and merited for all the graces of salvation as to sufficiency (Heb. VII, 27; IX, 25-28; X, 10, 14); but as to efficacy, the application of the merits and our own cooperation are required.

b) The unbloody sacrifice of the altar, which is made both for acknowledging the supreme dominion of God, and for applying to us the merits and satisfactions of the cross, and consequently is not a blasphemy against the sacrifice of the cross nor does it derogate from it (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 2, can. 4).

Yet they differ:

Christ on the cross was the sole offerer; but in the Mass the minister offers in the name of Christ as head, and of the faithful as members of the Church (C. Trid., c. 1).

Christ on the cross was the sole one offered; in the Mass the Church also is offered, which is represented by the victim who is its head: Christ.

Christ on the cross was offered in His own species, mortal, passible, bloodily; in the Mass He is offered under the species of bread and wine, immortal, impassible, and unbloodily; there real death intervened, here symbolic death intervenes.

The sacrifice of the cross was meritorious and satisfactory de condigno, and indeed infinitely, on account of the dignity of the one offering and of the one offered; hence it was offered once. The sacrifice of the Mass only applies the merits and satisfactions of the cross; hence it is to be offered until the consummation of the age.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 7. Intention to Consecrate · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 8. Doubtful Consecration · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 9. Mass for a Non-catholic · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 14. Masses for the Dead

The sacrifice of the cross was offered directly for all; the sacrifice of the Mass is offered directly only for the members of the Church.

…and 274 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 9 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XIV, Pt. II, Chapter I. On the Nature and Virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 703.

I say. The Mass is not only a true and properly so-called sacrifice of the new law, but also perfectly contains the diverse aspects of the sacrifices of the old law. The first is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 1, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that to be offered is nothing other than that Christ is given to us to be eaten, let him be anathema." But the other is established from can. 3 of the same session; and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is latreutic, insofar as it is specially offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion; it is eucharistic, insofar as it is offered in thanksgiving for benefits conferred by God; it is propitiatory and satisfactory, insofar as through it we obtain both pardon of sins and remission of the punishment owed to them; finally, it is impetratory, insofar as it is offered to God for benefits to be obtained from Him through the merits of Christ. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 17, p. 316. - Lehmkuhl, n. 164.

n. 704.

Questions

Question 1. Whether and how does the Sacrifice of the Mass differ from the Sacrifice of the Cross?

Resp. It does indeed differ, but only accidentally; for since the victim is the same, the formal nature of the sacrifice is the same, and the principal offerer or priest is the same, there certainly cannot be an essential difference. But several accidental differences are assigned; the principal ones are, on the one hand, from the part of the victim, which in the Mass is immortal and on the altar of the Cross was mortal; and, on the other hand, from the part of the offerer, because on the Cross Christ offered the sacrifice through Himself, but in the Mass He offers it through the hands of ministers. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 15, Scholion, p. 293.

n. 704, Q. 2.

Question 2. In what properly does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. Theologians dispute much about this matter, but more probably it must be said to consist in the consecration alone, because only in the consecration is the mystical slaying of the victim properly found; although this is explained in a diverse way by the patrons of this opinion, especially by Suarez and Cardinal de Lugo. - But St. Alphonsus held as more probable the opinion which places the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass also in communion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 305. - De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 16, p. 298. - Lehmkuhl, n. 165.

It is unlawful, even when extreme necessity urges, to consecrate the one matter without the other, or even both, outside the celebration of Mass (Can. 817).

n. 704, Q. 3.

Question 3. Can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered for all indiscriminately?

Resp. It is permitted to apply Mass for any persons whatsoever, both living and also the dead expiating their offenses by the fire of purgatory, with due regard for the prescription of Can. 2262, §2, n. 2. (Can. 809). This prescription has itself thus: "Nevertheless Priests are not prohibited from applying Mass privately and with scandal removed for him (i.e. an excommunicated person); but, if he is one to be avoided, only for his conversion." This power is indeed most ample, for any persons whatsoever, living as well as dead, expiating their offenses by the fire of purgatory; and although an excommunicated person does not become a participant of indulgences, suffrages, and the public prayers of the Church, priests are not prohibited from applying Mass privately and with scandal removed for him; but if he is one to be avoided, only for his conversion; therefore for any living excommunicated persons it is lawful so to apply it, indeed for one to be avoided, provided it is only for his conversion; for all souls of the dead, provided they are purging. We see, therefore, the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine confirmed, which Benedict XIV explains in the Constitution Ex quo primum: "Now heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication. But the sacred Canons of the Church forbid public prayer for excommunicated persons. For this reason the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine writes most excellently to our matter: 'Someone asks whether at this time it is lawful to offer the Sacrifice for the conversion of Heretics or of some Infidels. The reason for doubting is that the whole Liturgy of the Latin Church, which is now in use, is referred to the faithful, as is clear from the prayers of oblation both outside and within the Canon. I answer. I judge that this is lawful, provided nothing is added to the Mass, but the Sacrifice is applied only through the intention of the priest to the conversion of infidels or heretics: for pious and learned men do this, whom we cannot reprehend, nor does there exist an express prohibition of the Church.'" But Cardinal Bellarmine here speaks of the application of Mass in the ordinary sense. Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff makes this doctrine of Bellarmine his own. And what pious and learned men did at that time, many pious priests do even today, that is, secretly apply the special fruit in diverse cases, without public announcement and without a special liturgical prayer. Nor do various recent responses demonstrate that this is illicit. The following cases are resolved thus.

For tolerated excommunicated persons, a secret celebration can be made, both for their conversion and, according to others and not improbably, for any other honest end; nor is secret application forbidden for those same persons when dead, if their good faith and repentance are probable. Cf. Wernz, v. 3, n. 542. Gasparri, n. 483. Concerning heretics and schismatics, living and dead, the same must be said: secret celebration is permitted for the conversion of the living or for other honest ends, and for the rest of the dead if their good faith is probable. Concerning living infidels, these things certainly seem able to be rightly established: for their conversion and any other honest intention, secret celebration is licit; for those same persons dead in infidelity, secret celebration is licit provided before death they gave probable signs of repentance. But in all these cases scandal must be avoided, communication with one to be avoided must be avoided, the stipend from him must be avoided, etc., lest men judge that the Church esteems faithful and pious sons and heretics, excommunicated persons, or other outcasts by one and the same valuation; furthermore, if there is any other special law in this matter, it must be diligently observed.

And therefore it is not lawful to say Mass and to accept alms from a heretic or schismatic for their intention, unless it is established that the alms are offered by them for obtaining conversion. - Cf. Response of the Holy Office, 19 April 1837. On the other hand, we can celebrate Mass for the intention of infidels and accept alms from them, provided there is no scandal and nothing is added in the Mass, and as regards the intention it is established that nothing evil or erroneous or superstitious underlies it in the infidels offering the alms. Holy Office, 12 Jul. 1865. Therefore stipends are licitly accepted from infidels, and Mass is applied for their liberation from illness, etc. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 March 1848. But it is not lawful to accept stipends for infidels or heretics or schismatics or excommunicated persons dead in manifest infidelity, heresy, schism, or contumacy: this prohibition is valid not only when an application of this kind would be known to many, but also when it would be known only to the priest and to him who gives the alms. Holy Office, 7 April 1875. Marc, n. 1601. A priest to whom a stipend is offered for some heretic in particular will be able to respond that he can apply Mass for all the faithful departed, with the intention also of helping that soul, if it is acceptable before God. It is not illicit sometimes to pray publicly and say Mass for living infidel, heretical, or schismatic kings as governing the state; but to do the same for those same persons when dead is forbidden by the old and new discipline of the Church. Gregory XVI to the Bishops of Augsburg, 16 Feb. 1842. - Cf. Gasparri, nn. 478 and following. "Il Monitore Eccles." v. 13, p. 132. - Wernz, v. 3, n. 542. - Genicot, n. 221. - Bulot, nn. 375 and following. - Sebastiani, n. 453.

n. 704, Q. 4.

Question 4. How manifold is the fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold heading, namely from the part of the offerer and from the part of the victim.

I. From the part of the offerer. - Since the offerer is twofold, namely Christ and the priest, hence from the part of the offerer the fruit of the Mass is of a twofold kind. The first proceeds from Christ offering and is called ex opere operato, because it is received in view of the merits of Christ and His promise. The other proceeds from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in view of the merit and devotion of the celebrating priest, and is called fruit ex opere operantis. Hence it happens that the sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is of no more benefit than if it were offered by an unworthy Minister; because the sacrifice, considered thus, is the work of Christ and the fruit flows only from the merits of Christ. Wherefore 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 it must be said otherwise if the merit ex opere operantis is attended to; for the more worthy the priest is and the more endowed with devotion, so much the greater does the fruit of the Mass become.

II. From the part of the victim. - Under this heading a threefold fruit of the sacrifice is distinguished, namely general, special, most special.

1st. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, as he operates in the name of the whole Church. And indeed all the faithful, although the priest does not think of them, perceive this fruit; but it is attributed to them only by way of impetration, not indeed, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of sacrifices which are offered daily, any just man, even unknowingly, would obtain remission of an immense punishment, which appears incredible. Those standing by at the sacrifice, and a fortiori those cooperating with it, for example, those serving the priest, etc., participate in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special way. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is the richer in proportion as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating is greater. Hence, although several hear Mass or minister at it, each one will perceive the whole fruit proportioned to his devotion, not otherwise than if he alone were hearing or ministering.

2nd. The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the sacrifice, as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing stands in the way, as it is satisfactory.

3rd. The most special fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators perceive from the sacrifice their own altogether special fruit, much more must the priest who sacrifices perceive this. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain, although it is certain that the priest cannot receive a stipend in order to apply this most special fruit to another. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 312. - Ballerini, note (b), p. 241.

n. 704, Q. 5.

Question 5. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Resp. It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ Himself in this sacrifice is at once victim and principal offerer. Wherefore the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price, made by Christ the primary offerer, who has infinite merit. Nevertheless it is not, nor can it be, infinite as to the application made to individual men, or as to the effect or fruit, because creatures are not capable of perceiving infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or lesser according as the disposition or capacity of him to whom it is applied has been greater or lesser.

n. 704, Q. 6.

Question 6. Is the application of the fruit of the sacrifice restricted to a certain degree, or is it made indefinitely according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered?

Resp. It is much controverted among theologians. For many contend that the application is made indefinitely according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered, and St. Alphonsus says this opinion is most commonly received. The reason for it is that, on the one hand, since the value of the sacrifice is infinite in itself, it can be applied to innumerable men without being exhausted; but on the other hand, nowhere is found some restrictive law of this application, if from another source there is capacity for receiving. Wherefore, they say, if the sacrifice is offered for one only or for a hundred, each of these will perceive as much fruit as that one. But several other theologians hold that the fruit of the Mass is restricted to a certain degree, because although the Mass in itself and as to sufficiency is of infinite value, nevertheless its effect is limited and restricted in a certain quantity from the will of Christ, who instituted this sacrifice so that ex opere operato it would produce a certain effect or a certain degree of satisfaction, independently of the disposition of men. Nevertheless, the patrons of this opinion concede that this degree of fruit can be increased ex opere operantis, that is, according to the greater devotion of the offering priest and of the person for whom it is offered; and that the fruit itself ex opere operato is not restricted extensively as regards those offering, that is, as regards the priest, ministers, and assistants, so that however great their number is, it is as great in each as it would be in one who alone offered. Besides, these theologians also concede that the diverse fruits of the sacrifice can validly be divided by the celebrant or applied to diverse persons. And they teach that this can indeed also licitly be done both in a free Mass and in a Mass which is owed from fidelity alone and was promised to diverse persons for diverse ends.

Since the second opinion is truly probable, at least extrinsically, seeing that most illustrious theologians hold it, such as Bellarmine, de Sacrif. Missae, lib. 2, cap. 4, prop. 4; Suarez, disp. 79, sect. 12, n. 7; Cardinal de Lugo and Cardinal Bona, who both call it the more common and truer opinion, St. Alphonsus rightly warns that it is not lawful for a priest who accepts a stipend from one person to apply the same Mass at the same time for him and for others, to whom he owes nothing by force of a stipend, unless at least under condition, namely provided that he from whom he accepted the stipend is not defrauded. Yet the placing of this condition, given the solid probability of the first opinion, cannot or ought in any way prevent a priest, through the application of the same sacrifice, from being able to satisfy some obligation to another person which he contracted otherwise than through an accepted stipend. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 312 and following. - Lugo, disp. 19, n. 249. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 242; and note (a), p. 243.

n. 704, Q. 7.

Question 7. Does Mass benefit the dead from the infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Affirmatively, for Mass is usefully offered for the dead, as is established from Trent, sess. 22, can. 3; but this cannot be done except from the promise of Christ, which is reported in Matt. xxvi, 28: "This is My Blood ... which will be poured out for many unto the remission of sins." This is also established from the words of the form in the conferral of Orders: "Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead in the name of the Lord. Amen." - Nevertheless, temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a certain law, but it benefits them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall have pleased God to accept it. - Cf. Perrone, n. 282.

n. 704, Q. 8.

Question 8. Does a Mass of Requiem benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

Resp. Negatively, as to the substance or from the part of the sacrifice; but affirmatively as to accidentals or from the part of the prayers, the defect of which devotion can supply. - Note here that a Mass of Requiem and in black vestments can be applied for a living person, provided he who gives the alms has not expressly declared the opposite. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310, after St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 72, art. 3. - S. C. Rit., 29 Nov. 1856.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 8 passages

Diss. IV, Chapter I — The notion of sacrifice, and its necessity

n. I.

I. QUESTION I. What is a sacrifice, and of how many kinds is it? ANSWER. Sacrifice in its ample signification comprehends every good work, whether internal or external, which is directed to the glory of God. The notion of sacrifice strictly taken is this: an external oblation, made to God alone, by which, in recognition of his supreme dominion, some sensible and permanent thing is consecrated by a lawful minister with a mystical rite. Oblation holds the place of the genus. It is called external or sensible, because it is an act of religion in which men come together. But they cannot come together save by sensible signs, by which they manifest that which inwardly they bear in mind. It is called a sacrifice of a sensible thing, that it may be distinguished from the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Made to God alone. For God alone is the founder and governor of men, the beginning and the end. In recognition of his supreme dominion. By this exterior sacrifice a man protests his servitude to God, and that he has received from him whatever of good he has. For the primary end of sacrifice is the worship exhibited to God. By a lawful minister the oblation must be immolated, namely by a person designated to this office.

n. II.

II. Sacrifice is divided, first, by reason of the matter, which is either solid, as an animal, which was offered in the old law after a victory gained over the enemy: therefore it was called hostia, from a victim of victory. Solid things also are bread, salt, incense, ears of corn, and wheat. Another matter is liquid, as wine, oil, blood, and water, which were sometimes offered and were called a libation. Second, by reason of the form it is distributed into holocaust, and into a sacrifice or victim for sin, and a peace-offering. The most perfect of all sacrifices was the holocaust, which was wholly consumed. The sacrifice for sin was partly consumed, and part passed to the use of the priests. Third, by reason of the end it is divided into latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory.

n. III.

III. QUESTION II. Is it a dogma of faith that the Mass is a sacrifice? ANSWER. By various names the Sacrifice of the Mass is called. First, it is called Liturgy. Second, Synaxis, or the conjunction of the faithful with Christ. Third, Oblation, which is offered in expiation of sins. Fourth, Collect, or the congregation of the faithful people. Fifth, it is called Missa from the verb to send, either because Christ is the victim sent to us by God, or because the sacrifice was made from the gifts sent by the faithful people, or because, the sacrifice being performed, the people is sent away, the deacon singing: Go, it is the dismissal.

n. IV.

IV. By a threefold canon Trent defined, session 22, that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. Canon 1: If anyone shall say that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, and so forth, let him be anathema. Like things are had in canons 3 and 4. By these three canons Trent routed the errors of the innovators. There is added the perpetual tradition of the Church and the consent of the Fathers, whose testimonies I have given in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 2.

n. V.

V. QUESTION III. Is the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass set in the oblation? ANSWER. The oblation which precedes the consecration is a mere preparation for the sacrifice: for it is an oblation of bread and wine. But bread and wine are not the victim of the sacrifice; but the victim is Christ the Lord himself. The oblation which follows the sacrifice similarly does not pertain to the essence of the sacrifice, since it was not instituted by Christ but by the Church, as also was the first.

n. VI.

VI. The oblation made in the consecration constitutes the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. For a sacrifice consists in the oblation and immolation of a sensible victim. Further, it is certain that in the consecration there is a true oblation. Since indeed Christ by force of the consecration is placed upon the altar as a true lamb and victim under the species of bread and wine, and is constituted in a certain state of death, inasmuch as, through the spiritual sword of the words, under diverse and separated species he is immolated and offered to God the Father. But this mystical separation, which is made by force of the words, of the body and the blood, aptly represents the bloody separation of the blood from the body accomplished on the cross.

n. VII.

VII. The communion of the priest is at least an integral part of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as all confess. Some maintain that it is an essential part. Since the Sacrifice of the Mass is the most perfect of all, and obtains the character of a holocaust. Further, as in a holocaust the whole victim was consumed, so in the Sacrifice of the Mass by the communion of the priest the whole victim is consumed. But that disagreement is of small moment. For the consumption of the sacrifice is of divine right. Wherefore if a priest die after the consecration, another priest, even one not fasting, ought to consume the sacrifice. Therefore the consecration is essentially ordained to the consumption. Similarly the consecration of both species pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, as all theologians affirm. For in the consecration is made the representation of the Lord's passion. Therefore the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. Hence if a priest die after the consecration of the bread, another priest is to be substituted who may complete the sacrifice begun.

n. VIII.

VIII. If after the consecration poison be detected, it ought not to be taken, but ought to be preserved in a fit little vessel, and other wine to be consecrated and taken. If an animal should fall in, it ought cautiously to be taken and washed and burned, and together with the ashes sent into the sacrarium, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 83, art. 6, reply 3.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 43 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 7. Intention to Consecrate

Caius, a priest doubtful whether he had given consent to an evil thought, anxiously began to celebrate Mass. While celebrating Mass he judged now that he had consented and now otherwise; occupied with his doubts, he did not notice that the server, since the Most Holy Sacrament was not reserved on the altar, had placed on the corporal a small host for Communion. After receiving Communion and hearing the Confiteor recited by the server, he looked and saw the small host on the corporal. At first he did not know what was to be done, but soon, remembering that some years before he had formed the intention of consecrating at Mass whatever capable of being properly consecrated was placed on the altar, although afterwards, having forgotten the intention, he had never renewed it, he gave the host to the server for Communion. Afterwards, however, tormented by doubts, he asked a confessor whether he had sinned by celebrating without previous confession or contrition, and whether he ought to have given the host to the server. Hence it is asked:

What is required for a valid consecration of the Eucharist?

How does a priest sin by celebrating in mortal sin?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

What is required for the valid consecration of the Eucharist?

The proper matter must be physically present and must be determined by the intention of the priest when he utters the words of consecration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 84.

How does a priest sin who celebrates in mortal sin?

He commits several mortal sins: by consecrating the

Holy Eucharist in sin, by communicating in sin, and by administering Holy Communion to himself though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it.²

2 Ibid., p. 33.

The case. Caius should have made up his conscience finally before saying Mass as to whether he had sinned or not. Frequently this can be done in such cases by means of presumptions. If more frequently than not he consents to such bad thoughts when attacked by them, he should presume that he consented in this doubtful case, and should go to confession. If he does not usually consent, the presumption is in his favor, and he may conclude that he did not consent in this doubtful case. If he can not make up his mind but remains in doubt he should at least elicit an act of contrition before saying Mass. He should not have given the host for Communion to his server, for it could hardly have been consecrated under the circumstances. An actual or at least virtual intention is required for the validity of the consecration. He had not an actual intention, for he had not noticed the small host until the communion. Nor had he a virtual intention, for the purpose which he had formed many years before of consecrating whatever was capable of being consecrated with decency had not been renewed, and had been forgotten. It could not then continue to have an influence on the act of consecration, and some influence is required for a virtual intention. We must, then, conclude that the small host was not consecrated and it should not have been given for communion.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 8. Doubtful Consecration

A certain Bishop had ordained twelve new priests, but after his Communion it was noticed that a ciborium containing hosts for communicating the new priests had inadvertently been left on the credence table at the side of the altar. As the master of ceremonies doubted what was to be done, one person advised that it should be suggested to the Bishop that here and now he consecrate the ciborium conditionally and distribute the consecrated particles; another insinuated that they had without doubt already been consecrated by virtue of the virtual intention certainly possessed by the Bishop; a third suggested that one of the new priests ought to pronounce the words of consecration over the ciborium so that it would certainly be consecrated; finally, a fourth suggested that as many hosts should be taken from the tabernacle so that the new priests might complete the Mass celebrated by each of them simultaneously with the Bishop. Hence it is asked:

What is required for a valid consecration in Mass?

What is required for a lawful consecration?

What is to be done by the Bishop in the case, and what is to be said of the various means suggested to the master of ceremonies?

Solution

The first question was answered above, p. 129.

What is required for the lawful consecration of the Eucharist?

For the lawful consecration of the matter of the Eucharist the hosts must be whole, clean, and of the usual size and shape, the chalice and ciborium must be on the corporal and uncovered, and the consecration must be in Mass as it is prescribed to be said, and under both kinds.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 85.

The case. The first suggestion is altogether inadmissible, if followed it would mean that the bishop was to say Mass again without following the order prescribed by the Church, and was to consecrate under one species alone. I

The bishop could hardly have had an intention to consecrate the ciborium according to the second suggestion, for if he had thought of it at all he would have noticed that it was not on the altar. It is true that it might have been validly consecrated on the credence table, but unless the bishop actually intended to do it this should not be assumed.

The third suggestion has all the inconveniences of the first, for the newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the bishop.

n. ¶11.

The reason given for the fourth suggestion is incorrect, for the hosts in the tabernacle were consecrated in another Mass and can not be used to integrate this Mass. However, this suggestion seems to be the best, for thus the new priests can at any rate receive Holy Communion, though the hosts were not consecrated in this Mass as they should have been.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 9. Mass for a Non-catholic

Caius, an old missionary in England, recently indeed poured forth private prayers to God for the deceased Queen, but thought it would be a sin to do anything else. Not therefore without astonishment did he hear that in a neighboring Catholic church an evening memorial service, as it is called, had been held with a special sermon; that in another a Mass had been privately applied, as the priest there afterwards publicly announced; and that in another a Requiem Mass had been publicly celebrated for the soul of the deceased. Wondering, therefore, Caius consulted a theologian about what was to be judged concerning the aforesaid things. Hence it is asked:

Is it prohibited by divine or natural law to pour forth prayers publicly or privately, or to apply Mass, for any persons whatsoever?

What is prohibited in this matter by ecclesiastical law?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

Is it forbidden by divine or natural law to pray publicly or privately or to apply Mass for any one?

Apart from scandal or other extrinsic reasons we are not forbidden by divine or natural law to pray or to offer Mass for any one whom it will benefit. It is useless to pray or to offer Mass for the damned.

What is forbidden in this matter by ecclesiastical law?

The Church by her sentence deprives excommunicated persons of a share in the public suffrages offered by her ministers in her name. All acknowledge that by this law it is forbidden to pray or offer Mass publicly for those who are to be avoided as excommunicates. Some hold that it does not prohibit public prayer for those excommunicates who are tolerated. Some think that it is a law which has force only in the external forum, and that privately we may offer Mass for all whom it will benefit, as we may and certainly should pray for all men privately.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 116.

The case. The wonder felt by Caius at an evening memorial service with sermon being held in a Catholic Church for one who had died out of her communion, was not without grounds. Such a thing savors of heterodoxy, not of Catholicism, which does not allow such things to be introduced into her public worship by private authority. If the priest who said Mass privately for the dead Queen had kept it to himself, nothing could have been said against him, but when he announced publicly that he had done it, it was much the same as if he had publicly announced beforehand that he was going to do it, and this is not tolerated by the usage of the Church. The Requiem Mass publicly offered for the dead Queen was contrary to the practice of the Church, which we should follow in all things, and against the express declaration of Gregory XVI, 16 Feb. 1842: “By both ancient and new discipline it is forbidden that persons who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies be honored with Catholic rites.”

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 14. Masses for the Dead

Caius, a priest of a certain religious Order, hears that Julius, a companion of the same Order, has recently died and is to be buried on that very day. The following day is of the double rite; if it is lawful by ecclesiastical laws, Caius and the other priest-companions who serve the same church would like to celebrate a Requiem Mass for the soul of Julius. Caius therefore asks whether this is lawful either by the decree of May 19, 1896, or by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of Dec. 11, 1897, by which the Rubric of the Missal On Masses of the Dead, no. 2, is changed in this manner: in place of the words—“except on double feasts and Sundays”—the following are read: “Private Masses for the Dead, as on the day of death or burial, may be celebrated even on doubles when the body is present and unburied, or even when it has been buried for not more than two days; except on doubles of the first class, days excluding doubles of the first class, and feasts of precept.” Hence it is asked:

When is a funeral Mass permitted and prohibited?

When is a private Mass for the Dead permitted and prohibited?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

On what days may a solemn or sung Mass for the dead be said?

In the presence of the body it can be celebrated on any day, provided that the conventual Mass, where it binds, or the parish Mass, if it is a Sunday or feast day, and the divine offices are not impeded, and a great solemnity of the day does not prevent it.¹

1 De Herdt, Sacra lit. Praxis, n. 56.

A list of the days on which according to this rule solemn or sung Mass for the dead is forbidden is usually given in the Ordo.

When may a private Mass for the dead be said?

It is prohibited on all Sundays and double feasts;