Sacrifice of the Mass

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The wordMass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in theWest after the time ofPope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the earlyChurch having used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis) or "liturgy" (Acts 13:2,leitourgountes); theGreek Church has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries.

There were current in the early days ofChristianity other terms;

With the name "Love Feast" (agape) theidea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected. Etymologically, the wordmissa is neither (asBaronius states) from aHebrew, nor from the Greekmysis, but is simply derived frommissio, just asoblata is derived fromoblatio,collecta fromcollectio, andulta fromultio. The reference was however not to a Divine "mission", but simply to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as was also customary in theGreek rite (cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv:apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phraseIte missa est. This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced by theChurch as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary language of the day, as is shown byBishop Avitus of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199):

In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts,Missa est is said when the people are released from attendance.

In the sense of "dismissal", or rather "close ofprayer",missa is used in the celebrated "Peregrinatio Silvae" at least seventy times (Corpus scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) andRule of St. Benedict places afterHours,Vespers,Compline, the regular formula:Et missae fiant (prayers are ended). Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice, the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an application is found inAmbrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P.L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our consideration of the Mass in itsexistence,essence, andcausality.

The existence of the Mass

Before dealing with theproofs ofrevelation afforded by theBible andtradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that theChurch intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate theidea that the sacrifice is identical withHoly Communion. That is the sense of a clause from theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass atrue and propersacrifice is not offered toGod; or, that to be offered is nothing else but thatChrist is given us to eat; let him beanathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). WhenLeo XIII in thedogmaticBull"Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of theAnglican form ofconsecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, theAnglicanarchbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with thepriest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared hisbelief that not oneAnglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both theReal Presence and the sacrifical power of thepriest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only.Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the wholeChristian past, had in mind in the above-mentionedBull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of thetrue Body and Blood ofChrist" on thealtar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with theAnglican form of celebration.

The simple fact that numerousheretics, such asWyclif andLuther, repudiated the Mass as"idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of thetrue Body and Blood ofChrist, proves that theSacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. Intruth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of thepriest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of thesoul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorifyGod byadoration, thanksgiving,prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one isGod, who receives the sacrifice of Hisonly-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the EucharisticChrist is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved inmonstrance andciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention:communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.

The definition of theCouncil of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are inChristendom figurative and unrealsacrifices of various kinds, such asprayers of praise and thanksgiving,alms,mortification, obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to inHoly Scripture, e.g. inEcclesiasticus 35:4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and inPsalm 140:2: "Let myprayer be directed asincense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real andtrue offering, just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors — a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Hosea 14:3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews 13:15) — expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of theOld Law bears witness. It istrue that we may and must recognize withSt. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as theprincipale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit ofprayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates thesoul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect beforeGod. Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice toGod is an afflicted spirit" (Psalm 51:18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous inChristianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross,Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to theOld Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the morenecessary forChristianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil itsduty of showing outwardhonour toGod in the most perfect way. Thus, theChurch, as themystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that ofGolgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers andsacrificially applied to them.

If the Mass is to be atrue sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory ofsacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history ofreligions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:

In contrast withsacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up toGod. As regards theperson offering, it is not permitted that any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account. In therevealedreligion, as in nearly allheathenreligions, only a qualifiedperson (usually calledpriest,sacerdos, lereus), who has been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the community. AfterMoses, thepriests authorized by law in theOld Testament belonged to thetribe of Levi, and more especially to the house ofAaron (Hebrews 5:4). But, sinceChrist Himself received and exercised Hishigh priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call, there is still greater need thatpriests who represent Him should receive power and authority through theSacrament of Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the New Law. Sacrifice reaches its outward culmination in the sacrificial act, in which we have to distinguish between the proximate matter and the real form. The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete destruction of the sacrificial gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it may be transformed. Even where a real destruction took place, as in the sacrificial slayings of theOld Testament, the act of destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas the proper oblation, consisting in the "spilling of blood" (aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of thepriests. Thus the real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers nor in an imaginary self-destruction on the part ofJesus, but in Hisvoluntary surrender of His blood shed by another's hand, and in His offering of His life for thesins of the world. Consequently, the destruction or transformation constitutes at most the proximate matter; the sacrificial oblation, on the other hand, is the physical form of the sacrifice. Finally, the object of the sacrifice, as significant of its meaning, lifts the external offering beyond any mere mechanical action into the sphere of the spiritual and Divine. The object is thesoul of the sacrifice, and, in a certain sense, its "metaphysicial form". In allreligions we find, as the essentialidea of sacrifice, a complete surrender toGod for the purpose of union with Him; and to thisidea there is added, on the part of those who are insin, the desire for pardon and reconciliation. Hence at once arises the distinction betweensacrifices of praise and expiation (sacrificium latreuticum et propitiatorium), andsacrifices of thanksgiving and petition (sacrificium eucharisticum et impetratorium); hence also the obvious inference that under pain ofidolatry, sacrifice is to be offered toGod alone as the beginning and end of all things. Rightly doesSt. Augustine remark (City of God X.4): "Who ever thought of offering sacrifice except to one whom he eitherknew, or thought, or imagined to beGod?".

If then we combine the four constituentideas in a definition, we may say: "Sacrifice is the external oblation toGod by an authorizedminister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least through its real transformation, in acknowledgement ofGod's supreme dominion and of the appeasing of His wrath." We shall demonstrate the applicability of this definition to the Mass in the section devoted to thenature of the sacrifice, after settling the question of itsexistence.

Scriptural proof

It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say, with greatercertainty by means of theOld Testament than by means of the New.

1. Old Testament

TheOld Testament prophecies are recorded partly in types, partly in words. Following the precedent of manyFathers of the Church (seeBellarmine, "De Euchar.", v, 6), theCouncil of Trent especially (Sess. XXII, cap. i) laid stress on the prophetical relation that undoubtedly exists between the offering ofbread andwine byMelchisedech and theLast Supper ofJesus. The occurrence was briefly as follows: AfterAbraham (then still called "Abram") with his armed men had rescued his nephewLot from the four hostile kings who had fallen on him and robbed him,Melchisedech, King of Salem (Jerusalem), "bringing forth [proferens]bread andwine for he was apriest of theMost High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: Blessed be Abram by theMost High God . . . And he [Abraham] gave him thetithes of all" (Genesis 14:18-20).Catholictheologians (with very few exceptions) have from the beginning rightly emphasized the circumstance thatMelchisedech brought outbread andwine, not merely to provide refreshment for Abram's followers wearied after the battle, for they were well supplied with provisions out of the booty they had taken (Genesis 14:11, 16), but to presentbread andwine as food-offerings toAlmighty God. Not as a host, but as "priest of the Most High God", he brought forthbread andwine, blessedAbraham, and received thetithes from him. In fact, the very reason for his "bringing forthbread andwine" is expressly stated to have been hispriesthood: "for he was apriest". Hence,proferre must necessarily becomeofferre, even if it weretrue that the Hiphil word is not an hieratic sacrificial term; but even this is not quite certain (cf.Judges 6:18 sq.). Accordingly,Melchisedech made a real food-offering ofbread andwine.

Now it is the express teaching of Scripture that Christ is "apriest for ever according to the order [kata ten taxin] ofMelchisedech" (Psalm 109:4;Hebrews 5:5 sq.;7:1 sqq.).Christ, however, in no way resembled hispriestly prototype in His bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but only and solely at HisLast Supper. On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation ofbread andwine, namely the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms ofbread andwine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the "good things to come" would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual repetition, commanded byChrist Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at theLast Supper, it follows that the Sacrifice of the Mass partakes of the New testament fulfilment of the prophecy ofMelchisedech. (Concerning thePaschal Lamb as the second type of the Mass, seeBellarmine, "De Euchar.", V, vii; cf. also von Cichowski, "Das altestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhaltnis zum Opfer Christi",Munich, 1849.)

Passing over the more or less distinct references to the Mass in otherprophets (Psalm 21:27 sqq.,Isaiah 66:18 sqq.), the best and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that ofMalachias, who makes a threatening announcement to theLevitepriests in the name ofGod: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the down, my name is great among theGentiles [heathens, non-Jews], and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great amongGentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). According to the unanimous interpretation of theFathers of the Church (seePetavius, "De incarn.", xii, 12), theprophet here foretells the everlasting Sacrifice of the New Dispensation. For he declares that these two things will certainly come to pass:

AsGod's determination to do away with thesacrifices of theLevites is adhered to consistently throughout the denunciation, the essential thing is to specify correctly the sort of sacrifice that is promised in their stead. In regard to this, the following propositions have to be established:

It is easy to show that the sacrifice referred to byMalachias did not signify a sacrifice of his time, but was rather to be a future sacrifice belonging to the age of theMessiah. For though the Hebrew participles of the original can be translated by the present tense (there is sacrifice; it is offered), the mere universality of the new sacrifice — "from the rising to the setting", "in every place", even "among the Gentiles", i.e.heathen (non-Jewish) peoples — is irrefragableproof that theprophet beheld as present an event of the future. Wherever Jahwe speaks, as in this case, of His glorification by the "heathen", He can, according toOld Testament teaching (Psalm 21:28;71:10 sqq.;Isaiah 11:9;49:6;60:9,66:18 sqq.;Amos 9:12;Micah 4:2, etc.) have in mind only the kingdom of theMessiah or the futureChurch of Christ; every other explanation is shattered by the text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of theprophet himself be thought of. Nor could there be anyidea of is a sacrifice among the genuineheathens, as Hitzig has suggested, for thesacrifices of theheathen, associated withidolatry and impurity, are unclean and displeasing toGod (1 Corinthians 10:20). Again, it could not be a sacrifice of the dispersedJews (Diaspora), for apart from the fact that the existence of suchsacrifices in theDiaspora is rather problematic, they were certainly not offered the world over, nor did they possess the unusual significance attaching to special modes of honouringGod. Consequently, the reference is undoubtedly to some entirely distinctive sacrifice of the future. But of what future? Was it to be a future sacrifice among genuineheathens, such as theAztecs or the native Africans? This is as impossible as in the case of otherheathen forms ofidolatry. Perhaps then it was to be a new and more perfect sacrifice among theJews? This also is out of the question, for since the destruction ofJerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), the whole system of Jewish sacrifice is irrevocably a thing of the past; and the new sacrifice moreover, is to be performed by apriesthood of an origin other than Jewish (Isaiah 66:21). Everything, therefore, points toChristianity, in which, as a matter of fact, theMessiah rules over non-Jewish peoples.

The second question now presents itself: Is the universal sacrifice thus promised "in every place" to be only a purely spiritual offering ofprayer, in other words a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, such asProtestanism is content with; or is it to be atrue sacrifice in the strict sense, as theCatholicChurch maintains? It is forthwith clear that abolition and substitution must correspond, and accordingly that the old real sacrifice cannot be displaced by a new unreal sacrifice. Moreover,prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from being a new offering, for they are permanent realities common to every age, and constitute the indispensable foundation of every religion whether before or after theMessiah.

The lastdoubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no fewer than three classicsacerdotal declarations referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of interpreting it metaphorically. Especially important is a substantiveHebrew for "sacrifice". Although in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody included (cf.Genesis 4:4 sq.;1 Samuel 2:17), it was not only never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as aprayer offering), but even became the technical term for an unbloody sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice which is given the name ofSebach.

As to the third and last proposition, no lengthy demonstration is needed to show that the sacrifice ofMalachias cannot be formally identified with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This interpretation is at once contradicted by theMinchah, i.e. unbloody (food) offering. Then, there are other cogent considerations based on fact. Though a real sacrifice, belonging to the time of theMessiah and the most powerful means conceivable for glorifying the Divine name, the Sacrifice of the Cross, so far from being offered "in every place" and among non-Jewish peoples, was confined toGolgotha and the midst of the Jewish people. Nor can the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by theSaviour in person without the help of a human representativepriesthood, be identified with that sacrifice for the offering of which theMessiah makes use ofpriests after the manner of theLevites, in every place and at all times. Furthermore, he wilfully shuts his eyes against the light, who denies that the prophecy ofMalachias is fulfilled to the letter in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In it are united all the characteristics of the promised sacrifice: its unbloody sacrificial rite as genuineMinchah, its universality in regard to place and time its extension to non-Jewish peoples, its delegatedpriesthood differing from that of theJews, its essential unity by reason of the identity of the Chief Priest and the Victim (Christ), and its intrinsic and essential purity which noLevitical or moral uncleanliness can defile. Little wonder that theCouncil of Trent should say (Sess XXII, cap.i): "This is that pure oblation, which cannot be defiled by unworthiness and impiety on the part of those who offer it, and concerning whichGod has predicted throughMalachias, that there would be offered up a clean oblation in every place to His Name, which would be great among theGentiles (seeDenzinger, n. 339).

2. New Testament

Passing now to theproofs contained in theNew Testament, we may begin by remarking that many dogmatic writers see in the dialogue ofJesus with theSamaritanwoman at Jacob's well a prophetic reference to the Mass (John 4:21 sqq.): Woman believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain [Garizim] nor inJerusalem, adore the Father.... But the hour cometh and now is, when thetrue adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and intruth." Since the point at issue between theSamaritans and theJews related, not to the ordinary, private offering ofprayer practised everywhere, but to the solemn, public worship embodied in a real Sacrifice,Jesus really seems to refer to a future real sacrifice of praise, which would not be confined in its liturgy to the cityJerusalem but would captivate the whole world (seeBellarmine, "De Euchar., v, 11). Not without good reason do most commentators appeal toHebrews 13:10: We have an altar [Thysiastesion, altare], whereof they have no power to eat [Phagein, edere], who serve the tabernacle." SinceSt. Paul has just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) andChristian altar food, the partaking of which was denied to theJews, the inference is obvious: where is an altar, there is a sacrifice. But the Eucharist is the food which theChristians alone are permitted to eat: therefore there is a Eucharistic sacrifice. The objection that, in Apostolic times, the termaltar was not yet used in the sense of the "Lord's table" (cf.1 Corinthians 10:21) is clearly a begging of the question, sincePaul might well have been the first to introduce the name, it being adopted from him by later writers (e.g.Ignatius of Antioch died A.D. 107).

It can scarcely be denied that the entirely mystical explanation of the "spiritual food from the altar of the cross", favoured bySt. Thomas Aquinas,Estius, and Stentrup, is far-fetched. It might on the other hand appear still more strange that in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ andMelchisedech are compared, the two food offerings should be only not placed in prophetical relation with each other but not even mentioned. The reason, however, is not far to seek: parallel lay entirely outside the scope of the argument. All thatSt. Paul desired to show was that thehigh priesthood of Christ was superior to theLeviticalpriesthood of theOld Testament (cf.Hebrews 7:4 sqq.), and this is fully demonstrated by proving that Aaron and hispriesthood stood far below the unattainable height ofMelchisedech. So much the more, therefore, must Christ as "priest according to the order ofMelchisedech" excel theLeviticalpriesthood. The peculiar dignity ofMelchisedech, however, was manifested not through the fact that he made a food offering ofbread andwine, a thing which theLevites also were able to do, but chiefly through the fact that he blessed the great "Father Abraham and received thetithes from him".

The main testimony of theNew Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words ofconsecration spoken over thechalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words ofconsecration spoken over thechalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words ofconsecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English:

The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing

The present form of the participleekchynnomenon in conjunction with the presentestin establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule ofNew Testament Greek, that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, "Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch", p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as when Christ says earlier (John 14:12): I go (poreuomai) to the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in reality, as, for instance,Matthew 6:30: "And if the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon)God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more you, O ye of littlefaith?" For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but of something occurring every day. When theVulgate translates the Greek participles by the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in thechalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancientcodices. The accuracy of thisexegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke:to poterion . . . ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in thechalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it istrue, have assumed that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Lukeerroneously connects the "shedding" with thechalice (poterion), instead of with "blood" (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were aschool boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents.

As to the establishment of our second proposition,believingProtestants andAnglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to shed one's blood for others unto the remission ofsins" is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf.Leviticus 7:14;14:17;17:11;Romans 3:25,5:9;Hebrews 9:10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at theLast Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the doubleconsecration ofbread andwine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in achalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize theLast Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the "pouring out of thechalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As, however, it really reads "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission ofsins," the double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testament", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of theOld Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with thetrue blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Exodus 24:8): "This is the blood of the covenant (Sept.:idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you".St. Paul, however, (Hebrews 9:18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of thechalice: This is My Blood of the new testament". It follows therefore thatChrist had intended Histrue Blood in thechalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission ofsins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in theChurch, is also established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament.Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is established in HisChurch.St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me".

We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper senseChrist's words ofconsecration over the bread. Since only St. Luke andSt. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is My Body", it is only on them that we can base our demonstration.

Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical "giving of the body" (in organic unity of course with the "pouring of blood" in thechalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in theChurch. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for tosoma he adds the present participle,didomenon by which he describes the "giving of the body" as something happening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.

The readingklomenon inSt. Paul is disputed. According to the best critical reading (Tischendorf, Lachmann) the participle is dropped altogether so thatSt. Paul probably wrote:to soma to uper umon (the body for you, i.e. for yoursalvation). There is good reason, however, for regarding the wordklomenon (fromklan to break) as Pauline, sinceSt. Paul shortly before spoke of the "breaking of bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16), which for him meant "to offer as food thetrue body of Christ". From this however we may conclude that the "breaking of the body" not only confinesChrist's action to the strictly present, especially as His natural Body could not be "broken" on the cross (cf.Exodus 12:46;John 19:32 sq.), but also implies the intention of offering a "body broken for you" (uper umon) i.e. the act constituted in itself atrue food offering. Alldoubt as to its sacrificial character is removed by the expressiondidomenon in St. Luke, which theVulgate this time quite correctly translates into the present: "quod pro vobis datur." But "to give one's body for others" is as truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice (cf.John 6:52;Romans 7:4;Colossians 1:22;Hebrews 10:10, etc.) as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood".Christ, therefore, at theLast Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through theChurch is clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 32:19;1 Corinthians 11:24).

Proof from Tradition

Harnack is of opinion that the earlyChurch up to the time ofCyprian (d. 258) the contented itself with the purely spiritualsacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not possess the sacrifice of the Mass, asCatholicism now understands it. In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, aCatholicpriest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from othertheologians, that the earlyChristians confined the essence of theChristian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharisticprayer of thanksgiving, tillIrenaeus (d. 202) brought forward theidea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially ofbread andwine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely newidea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements) which up to that time the earlyChurch had formally repudiated.

Were this assertion correct, thedoctrine of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii), according to which in the Mass "thepriests offer up, in obedience to the command ofChrist, His Body and Blood" (seeDenzinger, "Enchir", n. 949), could hardly take its stand onApostolic tradition; the bridge between antiquity and the present would thus have broken by the abrupt intrusion of a completely contrary view. An impartial study of the earliest texts seems indeed to make this much clear, that the earlyChurch paid most attention to the spiritual and subjective side of sacrifice and laid chief stress onprayer and thanksgiving in the Eucharistic function.

This admission, however, is not identical with the statement that the earlyChurch rejected out and out the objective sacrifice, and acknowledged as genuine only the spiritual sacrifice as expressed in the "Eucharistic thanksgiving". That there has been an historical dogmatic development from the indefinite to the definite, from the implicit to the explicit, from the seed to the fruit, no one familiar with the subject will deny. An assumption so reasonable, the only one in fact consistent withChristianity, is, however, fundamentally different from the hypothesis that theChristianidea of sacrifice has veered from one extreme to the other. This isa priori improbable and unproved in fact. In theDidache or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", the oldest post-Biblical literary monument (c. A.D. 96), not only is the "breaking of bread" (cf.Acts 20:7) referred to as a "sacrifice" (Thysia) and mention made of reconciliation with one's enemy before the sacrifice (cf.Matthew 5:23), but the whole passage iscrowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy ofMalachias, which referred, as is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv). The earlyChristians gave the name of "sacrifice"; not only to the Eucharistic "thanksgiving," but also to the entire ritual celebration including theliturgical "breaking of bread", without at first distinguishing clearly between theprayer and the gift (Bread and Wine, Body and Blood). WhenIgnatius of Antioch (d. 107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the Eucharist: "There is only one flesh ofOur Lord Jesus Christ, only onechalice containing His one Blood, one altar (en thysiasterion), as also only onebishop with thepriesthood and thedeacons" (Ep., ad. Philad. iv), he here gives to theliturgical Eucharistic celebration, of which alone he speaks, by his reference to the "altar" an evidently sacrificial meaning, often as he may use the word "altar" in other contexts in a metaphorical sense.

A heated controversy had raged round the conception ofJustin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (c. 117) he characterizes "prayer and thanksgiving" (euchai kai eucharistiai) as the "one perfect sacrifice acceptable toGod" (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai). Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior realsacrifice of the Eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same "Dialogue" (c. 41) he says the "food offering" of thelepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf.Leviticus 14), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the Eucharist, whichJesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings." He then goes on: "of thesacrifices which you (theJews) formerly offered,God throughMalachias said: 'I have no pleasure, etc.' By thesacrifices (thysion), however, which weGentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of Eucharist and likewise of thechalice Eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him". Here "bread andchalice" are by the use oftoutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in theidea of theChristian sacrifice. If the other apologists (Aristides,Athenagoras,Minucius Felix,Arnobius) vary the thought a great deal —God has no need of sacrifice; the best sacrifice is theknowledge of the Creator; sacrifice and altars are unknown to theChristians — it is to be presumed not only that under the imposed by thedisciplina arcani they withheld the wholetruth, but also that they rightly repudiated all connection withpaganidolatry, the sacrifice of animals, andheathen altars.Tertullian bluntly declared: "we offer no sacrifice (non sacrificamus) because we cannot eat both the Supper ofGod and that ofdemons" (De spectac., c., xiii). And yet in another passage (On Prayer 19) he callsHoly Communion "participation in the sacrifice" (participatio sacrificii), which is accomplished "on the altar ofGod" (ad aram Dei); he speaks (De cult fem., II, xi) of a real, not a mere metaphorical, "offering up of sacrifice" (sacrificium offertur); he dwells still further as aMontanist (On Pudicity 9) as well on the "nourishing power of the Lord's Body" (opimitate dominici corporis) as on the "renewal of the immolation of Christ" (rursus illi mactabitur Christus).

WithIrenaeus of Lyons there comes a turning point, in as much as he, with conscious clearness, first puts forward "bread and wine" as objective gift offerings, but at the same time maintains that these elements become the "body and blood" of the Word throughconsecration, and thus by simply combining these two thoughts we have theCatholic Mass of today. According to him (Against Heresies IV.18.4) it is theChurch alone "that offers the pure oblation" (oblationem puram offert), whereas theJews "did not receive the Word, which is offered (or through whom an offering is made) toGod" (non receperunt Verbum quod [aliter, per quod] offertur Deo). Passing over the teaching of theAlexandrine Clement andOrigen, whoselove of allegory, together with the restrictions of thedisciplina arcani, involved their writings in mystic obscurity, we make particular mention ofHippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment Achelis has wrongly characterized as spurious. He writes (Fragm. in Prov., ix, i, P.G., LXXX, 593), "The Word prepared His Precious and immaculate Body (soma) and His Blood (aima), that dailykath'ekasten) are set forth as a sacrifice (epitelountai thyomena) on the mystic and Divine table (trapeze) as a memorial of that ever memorable first table of the mysterious supper of the Lord". Since according to the judgment of evenProtestant historians ofdogma,St. Cyprian (d. 258) is to be regarded as the "herald" ofCatholic doctrine on the Mass, we may likewise pass him over, as well asCyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) andChrysostom (d. 407) who have been charged with exaggerated "realism", and whose plain discourses on the sacrifice rival those ofBasil (d. 379),Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394) andAmbrose (d. 397). Only aboutAugustine (d. 430) must a word be said, since, in regard to thereal presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is cited as favouring the "symbolical" theory. Now it is precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a merely spiritual interpretation.

ForAugustine nothing is more certain than that every religion, whethertrue orfalse, must have an exterior form of celebration and worship (Reply to Faustus XIX.11). This applies as well toChristians (l. c., xx, 18), who "commemorate the sacrifice consummated (on the cross) by the holiest oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ" (celebrant sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (City of God X.20), the "highest andtrue sacrifice" (summum verumque sacrificium), Christ being at once "priest and victim" (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio) and he reminds theJews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the sacrifice ofMalachias is now made in every place (in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He relates of his mother Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked forprayers at the altar (ad altare) for hersoul and had attended Mass daily. FromAugustine onwards the current of theChurch's tradition flows smoothly along in a well-ordered channel, without check or disturbance, through theMiddle Ages to our own time. Even the powerful attempt made to stem it through theReformation had no effect.

A briefer demonstration of the existence of the Mass is the so-calledproof from prescription, which is thus formulated: A sacrificial rite in theChurch which is older than the oldest attack made on it byheretics cannot be decried as "idolatry", but must be referred back to theFounder of Christianity as a rightful heritage of which He was the originator. Now theChurch's legitimate possession as regards the Mass can be traced back to the beginnings ofChristianity. It follows that the Mass was Divinely instituted byChrist. Regarding the minor proposition, theproof of which alone concerns us here, we may begin at once with theReformation, the only movement that utterly did away with the Mass. Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men likeZwingli, Karlstadt andOecolampadius should tear down the altars, for they deniedChrist's real presence in the Sacrament.Calvinism also in reviling the "papistical mass" which the Heidelbergcatechism characterized as "cursedidolatry" was merely self-consistent since it admitted only a "dynamic" presence. It is rather strange on the other hand that, in spite of hisbelief in the literal meaning of the words ofconsecration,Luther, after a violent "nocturnal disputation with the devil", in 1521, should have repudiated the Mass. But it is exactly these measures ofviolence that best show to what a depth the institution of the Mass had taken root by that time inChurch and people. How long had it been taking root? The answer, to begin with is: all through theMiddle Ages back toPhotius, the originator of the Eastern Schism (869). ThoughWycliffe protested against the teaching of theCouncil of Constance (1414-18), which maintained that the Mass could beproved from Scripture; and though theAlbigenses andWaldenses claimed for thelaity also the power to offer sacrifice (cf.Denzinger, "Enchir.", 585 and 430), it is none the lesstrue that even theschismatic Greeks held fast to the Eucharistic sacrifice as a precious heritage from theirCatholic past. In the negotiations for reunion atLyons (1274) andFlorence (1439) they showed moreover that they had kept it intact; and they have faithfully safeguarded it to this day. From all which it is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long beforePhotius, a conclusion borne out by the monuments ofChristian antiquity.

Taking a long step backwards from the ninth to the fourth century, we come upon theNestorians andMonophysites who were driven out of theChurch during the fifth century atEphesus (431) andChalcedon (451). From that day to this they have celebrated in their solemn liturgy the sacrifice of the New Law, and since they could only have taken it with them from the oldChristian Church, it follows that the Mass goes back in theChurch beyond the time ofNestorianism andMonophysitism. Indeed, the firstNicene Council (325) in its celebrated eighteenth canon forbadepriests to receive the Eucharist from the hands ofdeacons for the very obvious reason that "neither the canon nor custom have handed down to us, that those, who have not the power to offer sacrifice (prospherein) may giveChrist's body to those who offer (prospherousi)". Hence it is plain that for the celebration of the Mass there was required the dignity of a specialpriesthood, from which thedeacons as such were excluded. Since, however, theNicene Council speaks of a "custom that takes us at once into the third century, we are already in the age of theCatacombs with theirEucharistic pictures, which according to the best founded opinions represent theliturgical celebration of the Mass. According to Wilpert, the oldest representation of the Holy Sacrifice is the "Greek Chapel" in theCatacomb of St. Priscilla (c. 150). The most convincing evidence, however, from those early days is furnished by theliturgies of the West and the East, the basic principles of which reach back to Apostolic times and in which the sacrificalidea of the Eucharistic celebration found unadulterated and decisive expression (see LITURGIES). We have therefore traced the Masses from the present to the earliest times, thus establishing its Apostolic origin, which in turn goes back again to theLast Supper.

The nature of the Mass

In its denial of thetrue Divinity of Christ and of everysupernatural institution, modern unbelief endeavours, by means of the so-called historico-religious method, to explain the character of the Eucharist and the Eucharist sacrifice as the natural result of a spontaneous process of development in theChristian religion. In this connection it is interesting to observe how these different and conflicting hypotheses refute one another, with the rather startling result at the end of it all that a new, great, and insoluble problem looms of the investigation. While some discover the roots of the Mass in the Jewish funeral feasts (O. Holtzmann) or in JewishEssenism (Bousset, Heitmuller, Wernle), others delve in the underground strata ofpaganreligions. Here, however, a rich variety of hypotheses is placed at their disposal. In this age of Pan-Babylonism it is not at all surprising that the germinalideas of theChristian communion should be located in Babylon, where in the Adapa myth (on thetablet of Tell Amarna) mention has been found of "water of life" and "food of life" (Zimmern). Others (e.g. Brandt) fancy they have found a still more striking analogy in the "bread and water" (Patha and Mambuha) of theMandaean religion. The view most widely held today among upholders of the historico-religious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of thePersian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). "In theMandaean mass" writes Cumont ("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p. 118), "the celebrantconsecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of divine service".Tertullian inanger ascribed this mimicking ofChristian rites to the"devil" and observed in astonishment (De prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et panis oblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these wild creations of an overheatedimagination. Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night, as long as men refuse tobelieve in thetrue Divinity ofChrist, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements ofbread andwine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass.

The physical character of the Mass

In regard to the physical character there arises not only the question as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter question as much the more important,Catholics andbelievingProtestants alike acknowledge that asChristians we venerate in the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for thesalvation of the world. And this indeed istrue in a double sense first, because among all thesacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and unity in itself; second because every grace, means of grace and sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish,Christian orpagan economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the Cross. The first consideration implies that all thesacrifices of theOld Testament, as well as the Sacrifice of the Mass, bear the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are necessarily related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second consideration it follows that all other Sacrifices, the Mass included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and so long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due to the suffering) of the Crucified. Let us deal briefly with this double relationship.

Regarding the qualification of relativity, which adheres to every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of the Cross, there is nodoubt that thesacrifices of theOld Testament by their figurative forms and prophetic significance point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle to the Hebrews (viii-x) in particular develops grandly the figurative character of theOld Testament. Not only was theLeviticpriesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint type of thehigh priesthood ofChrist, but the complex sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured the one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal "cleansing of the flesh" theLeviticalsacrifices could effect notrue "forgiveness ofsins"; by their very inefficacy however they point prophetically to the perfect Sacrifice of propitiation onGolgotha. Just for that reason their continual repetition as well as their great diversity was essential to them, as a means of keeping alive in theJews the yearning for thetrue sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring. This longing was satiated only by the single Sacrifice of the Cross, which was never again to be repeated. Naturally the Mass, too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice must be in accord with this inviolable rule, no longer Indeed as a type prophetic of future things, but rather as the living realization and renewal of the past. Only theLast Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfilment, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of the body" and the "Shedding of the Blood" were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at theLast Supper would be inconceivable. TheFathers of the Church, such asCyprian (Ep., lxiii, 9),Ambrose (De offic., I, xlviii),Augustine (Reply to Faustus XX.28) andGregory the Great (Dial., IV, lviii), insist that the Mass in its essential nature must be that whichChrist Himself characterized as a "commemoration" of Him (Luke 22:19) andPaul as the "showing of the death of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power,Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternalredemption" (Hebrews 9:12). This does not mean thatmankind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence inParadise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits ofredemption. Otherwise children would be in no need ofbaptism nor adults of justifyingfaith to win eternalhappiness. The "completion" spoken of byPaul can therefore refer only to the objective side ofredemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled theinfinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst afterjustice must come with theirchalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objective and subjectiveredemption, which belongs to the essence ofChristianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunatelyCatholics andProtestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice ofJesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ tomankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as thesacraments do it without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced.

The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in this: that the latter applies to the individual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific offering. In both, theChurch draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one Sun, that gives life, light and warmth to everything; thesacraments and the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the central body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one whit less than thesacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as, conceivably the sun without the planets. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the reproach that "the Mass is ablasphemy against or a derogation from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf.Denzinger, "Enchir.", 951). Must not the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments also? Does it not apply tobaptism and communion amongProtestants? And how canChrist Himself putblasphemy and darkness in the way of His Sacrifice on the Cross when He Himself is theHigh Priest, in whose name and by whose commission His human representative offers sacrifice with the words: "This is my Body, this is my Blood"? It is the express teaching of theChurch (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very nature a "representation" (representatio), a "commemoration" (memoria) and an "application" (applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed theRoman Catechism (II, c. iv, Q. 70) as a fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition (instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application of the merits of the Passion. Just as theChurch repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of bothsacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice — the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii): "Una enim eademque est hostia idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa offerendi ratione diversa". In as much as the sacrificingpriest (offerens) and the sacrificial victim (hostia) in bothsacrifices areChrist Himself, their same amounts even to a numerical identity. In regard to the manner of the sacrifice (offerendi ratio) on the other hand, it is naturally a question only of a specific identity or unity that includes the possibility of ten, a hundred, or a thousand masses.

The constituent parts of the Mass

Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of the liturgy of the Mass in which the real sacrifice is to be looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief parts: theOffertory, the Consecration and the Communion. The antiquated view ofJohann Eck, according to which the act of sacrifice was comprised in theprayer "Unde et memores . . . offerimus", is thus excluded from our discussion, as is also the ofMelchior Canus, who held that the sacrifice is accomplished in the symbolicalceremony of the breaking of the Host and its commingling with the Chalice. The question therefore arises first: Is the sacrifice comprised in theOffertory? From the wording of theprayer this much at least is clear thatbread andwine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of the Mass, since thepriest in thetrue language of sacrifice, offers toGod bread as an unspotted host (immaculatam hostiam) and wine as thechalice ofsalvation (calicem salutaris). But the very significance of this language proves that attention is mainly directed to the prospectivetransubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements. Since the Mass is not a mere offering ofbread andwine, like the figurative food offering ofMelchisedech, it is clear that only the Body and Blood of Christ can be the primary matter of the sacrifice as was the case at theLast Supper (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i, can. 2;Denzinger, n. 938, 949). Consequently the sacrifice is not in theOffertory. Does it consist then in thepriest's Communion? There were and aretheologians who favour that view. They can be ranged in two classes, according as they see in the Communion the essential or the co-essential.

Those who belong to the first category (Dominicus Soto, Renz, Bellord) had to beware of theheretical doctrine proscribed by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1), viz., that Mass and Communion were identical. In American and English circles the so-called "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord once created some stir (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, 258 sq). According to that view, the essence of the sacrifice was not to be looked for in the offering of a gift toGod, but solely in the Communion. Without communion there was no sacrifice. RegardingpagansacrificesDöllinger ("Heidentum und Judentum",Ratisbon 1857) had already demonstrated the incompatibility of this view. With the complete shedding of bloodpagansacrifices ended, so that the supper which sometimes followed it was expressive merely of the satisfaction felt at the reconciliation with gods. Even the horrible humansacrifices had as their object the death of the victim only and not a cannibal feast. As to theJews, only a fewLeviticalsacrifices, such as the peace offering, had feasting connected with them; most, and especially the burnt offerings (holocausta), were accomplished without feasting (cf.Leviticus 6:9 sq.). Bishop Bellord, having cast in his lot with the "banquet theory", could naturally find the essence of the Mass in the priests' Communion only. He was indeedlogically bound to allow that the Crucifixion itself had the character of a sacrifice only in conjunction with theLast Supper, at which alone food was taken; for the Crucifixion excluded any ritual food offering. These disquieting consequences are all the more serious in that they are devoid of any scientific basis.

Harmless, even though improbable, is that other view (Bellarmine,De Lugo, Tournély, etc.) which includes the Communion as at least a co-essential factor in the constitution of the Mass; for the consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, being a kind of destruction, would appear to accord with the conception of the sacrifice developed above. But only in appearance; for the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on thealtar, and not in the body of the celebrant, while the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial and not the sacrificial death of Christ. TheLast Supper also would have been atrue sacrifice only on condition thatChrist had given the Communion not only to His apostles but also to Himself. There is however no evidence that such a Communion ever took place, probable as it may appear. For the rest, the Communion of thepriest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice, it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice. And this integrity is also preserved absolutely even in the so-called "private Mass" at which thepriest alone communicates; private Masses are allowed for that reason (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. 8). When theJansenistSynod of Pistoia (1786), proclaiming thefalse principle that "participation in the sacrifice is essential to the sacrifice", demanded at least the making of a "spiritual communion" on the part of the faithful as a condition of allowing private Masses, it was denied byPius VI in hisBull"Auctorem fidei" (1796) (seeDenzinger, n. 1528).

After the elimination of theOffertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which thetrue sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such byChrist's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The OrientalEpiklesis cannot be considered as the moment ofconsecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (seeE). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears asHigh Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. Thepriest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at theOffertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant. While the Consecration as such can be shown withcertainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of thetwofoldconsecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only oldertheologians such asFrassen,Gotti, and Bonacina, but also latertheologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when one of theconsecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or cider, theconsecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable inidea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofoldconsecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in theconsecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on thealtar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the doubleconsecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the doubleconsecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice.

The metaphysical character of the Sacrifice of the Mass

The physical essence of the Mass having been established in theconsecration of the two species, the metaphysical question arises as to whether and in what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is realized in this doubleconsecration. Since the threeideas, sacrificingpriest, sacrificial gift, and sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding, the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so much in the form of this act as in the matter, since the glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility, cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation of theidea of destruction, the post-Tridentinetheologians have brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which, however, we can discuss only the most notable and important. But first, that we may have at hand a reliable, critical standard wherewith to test the validity or invalidity of the various theories, we maintain that a sound and satisfactory theory must satisfy the following four conditions:

With the aid of these four criteria it is comparatively easy to arrive at a decision concerning the probability or otherwise of the different theories concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.

(i) TheJesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported byPerrone in the last century, requires for the essence of an absolute sacrifice only — and thus, in the present case, for the Sacrifice of the Cross — atrue destruction or the real slaying ofChrist, whereas for theidea of the relative sacrifice of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the Cross be visibly represented in the separation of Body and Blood on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de Lugo, who, appealing to theTridentine definition of the Mass as atrue and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez for reducing the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. WereJephta to arise again today with his daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar., disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes a living dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the fashion of a tragedy, we would undoubtedly see before us not atrue sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the former bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a relative sacrifice, but certainly not the notion of the Mass which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in opposition to the merely relative) sacrificial moment. If the Mass is to be something more than an Ober-AmmergauPassion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His realpersonality on thealtar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar. The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the first condition which we have named above.

To a certain extent the opposite ofVasquez's theory is that of Cardinal Cienfuegos, who, while exaggerating the absolute moment of the Mass, undervalues the equally essential relative moment of the sacrifice. The sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic Christ he would find in thevoluntary suspension of the powers of sense (especially of sight and hearing), which the sacramental mode of existence implies, and which lasts from theconsecration to the mingling of the two Species. But, apart from the fact that one may not constitute a hypothetical theologumenon the basis of a theory, one can no longer from such a standpoint successfully defend the indispensability of the doubleconsecration. Equally difficult is it to find in theEucharistic Christ'svoluntary surrender of his sensitive functions the relative moment of sacrifice, i.e. the representation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. The standpoint of Francisco Suárez, adopted byScheeben, is both exalting and imposing; the real transformation of the sacrificial gifts he refers to the destruction of the Eucharistic elements (in virtue of thetransubstantiation) at their conversion into the Precious Body and Blood of Christ (immulatio perfectiva), just as, in the sacrifice ofincense in theOld Testament, the grains ofincense were transformed by fire into the higher and more precious form of the sweetest odour and fragrance. But, since the antecedent destruction of the substance ofbread andwine can by no means be regarded as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood ofChrist, Francisco Suárez is finally compelled to identify the substantial production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the same. Herein is straightway revealed a serious weakness, already clearly perceived byDe Lugo. For the production of a thing can never be identical with its sacrifice; otherwise one might declare the gardener's production of plants or the farmer's raising of cattle a sacrifice. Thus, theidea ofkenosis which in the minds of all men is intimately linked with the notion of sacrifice, and which we have given above as our third condition, is wanting in the theory of Francisco Suárez. To offer something as a sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this self-divestment may finally lead to exaltation.

InGermany the profound, but poorly developed theory ofValentin Thalhofer found great favour. We need not, however, develop it here, especially since it rests on thefalse basis of a supposed "heavenly sacrifice" ofChrist, which, as the virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, becomes a temporal andspatial phenomenon in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, as practically all othertheologians teach, the existence of this heavenly sacrifice (in the strict sense) is only a beautifultheological dream, and at any rate cannot be demonstrated from the Epistle to the Hebrews.

(ii) Disavowing the above-mentioned theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass,theologians of today are again seeking a closer approximation to the pre-Tridentine conception, having realized that post-Tridentinetheology had perhaps for polemical reasons needlessly exaggerated theidea of destruction in the sacrifice. The old conception, which our catechisms even today proclaim to the people as the most natural and intelligible, may be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional view; its restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567 sqq.). Since this theory refers the absolute moment of the sacrifice to the (active) "sacramental mystical slaying", and the relative to the (passive) "separation of Body and Blood", it has indeed made the "two-edged sword" of the doubleconsecration the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is — not indeedin specie propria, butin specie aliena — sacramentally slain, we have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation of Body and Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the Cross.

While this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we do not think it right to reject offhand the somewhat more elaborate theory ofLessius instead of utilizing it in the spirit of the traditional view for the extension of theidea of a "mystical slaying".Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old explanation by adding the notuntrue observation that the intrinsic force of the doubleconsecration would have as result an actual andtrue shedding of blood on thealtar, if this were notper accidens impossible in consequence of the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ. Sinceex vi verborum theconsecration of the bread makesreally present only the Body, and theconsecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the doubleconsecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement ofSt. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance ("Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil." in P.G., XXXVII, 282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [anaimakto tome] thou separatest [temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [phonen echon to Xiphos]." As an old pupil ofCardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1887), the present writer may perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently combatted theory of Cardinal De Hugo, whichFranzelin revived after a long period of neglect; not however that he intends to proclaim the theory in its present form as entirely satisfactory, since, with much to recommend it, it has also serious defects. We believe, however, that this theory, like that ofLessius, might be most profitably utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional view. Starting from the principle that the Eucharistic destruction can be, not a physical but only a moral one,De Lugo finds this exinanition in thevoluntary reduction of Christ to the condition of food (reductio ad statum cibi el potus), in virtue of which the Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves himself at the mercy ofmankind. That this is really equivalent to atruekenosis no one can deny. Herein theChristianpulpit has at its disposal a truly inexhaustible source of lofty thoughts wherewith to illustrate in glowing language thehumility andlove, the destitution and defencelessness ofOur Saviour under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonour, and sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even today that fire of self-sacrifice which once burned on the Cross, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious manner from theHeart of Jesus to our altars. While, in this incomprehensible condescension, the absolute moment of sacrifice is disclosed in an especially striking manner, one is reluctantly compelled to recognize the absence of two of the other requisites: in the first place, the necessity of the doubleconsecration is not made properly apparent, since a singleconsecration would suffice to produce the condition of food, would therefore achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the reduction to the state of articles of food reveals not the faintest analogy to the blood — shedding on the Cross, and thus the relative moment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, therefore, of no service in this connection. It renders, howover, the most useful service in extending the traditionalidea of a "mystical slaying", since indeed the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be nothing else than the preparation of the mystically slain Victim for the sacrificial feast in the Communion of thepriest and thefaithful.

The causality of the Mass

In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effectus) of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically coincide with the various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely adoration, thanksgiving, impetration, and expiation; (b) the manner of its efficacy (modus efliciendi), which lies in part objectively in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself (ex opere operato), and partly depends subjectively on the personal devotion andpiety of man (ex opere operantis).

The effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

TheReformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and ofChristendom and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, andMelanchthon resented the charge thatProtestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was theCatholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient. Here theCouncil of Trent interposed with a definition offaith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead forsins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him beanathema" (Denzinger, n. 950). In this canon, which gives a summary of all the sacrificial effects in order, the synod emphasizes the propitiatory and impetratory nature of the sacrifice. Propitiation (propitiatio) and petition (impetratio) are distinguishable from each other, in as much as the latter appeals to thegoodness and the former to the mercy ofGod. Naturally, therefore, they differ also as regards their objects, since, while petition is directed towards our spiritual and temporal concerns and needs of every kind, propitiation refers to oursins (peccata) and to the temporal punishments (poenae), which must be expiated by works of penance or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in this life, or otherwise by a corresponding suffering inpurgatory. In all these respects the impetratory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is of the greatest utility, both for the living and the dead.

Should a Biblical foundation for theTridentinedoctrine be asked for, we might first of all argue in general as follows: Just as there were in theOld Testament, in addition tosacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, propitiatory and impetratorysacrifices (cf.Leviticus 4 sqq.;2 Samuel 24:21 sqq., etc.), theNew Testament, as its antitype, must also have a sacrifice which serves and suffices for all these objects. But, according to the prophecy ofMalachias, this is the Mass, which is to be celebrated by theChurch in all places and at all times. Consequently, the Mass is the impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice. As for special reference to the propitiatory character, the record of institution states expressly that the Blood of Christ is in thechalice "unto remission ofsins" (Matthew 26:28).

The chief source of ourdoctrine, however, is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory value of the Sacrifice of the Mass. According toTertullian (Ad scapula, ii), theChristians sacrificed "for the welfare of the emperor" (pro salute imperatoris); according toChrysostom (Hom. xxi in Act. Apost., n. 4), "for the fruits of the earth and other needs".St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as follows (Mystagogical Catechesis 5, no. 8): "After the spiritual Sacrifice [pneumatike thysia], the unbloodyservice [anaimaktos latreia] is completed; wepray toGod, over this sacrifice of propitiation [epi tes thysias ekeines tou ilasmou] for the universal peace of the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of help wepray and offer up this sacrifice [tauten prospheromen ten thysian]. We then commemorate thepatriarchs,prophets, apostles,martyrs, thatGod may, at theirprayers and intercessions graciously accept our supplication. We afterwardspray for the dead . . . since we believe that it will be of the greatest advantage [megisten onesin esesthai], if we in the sight of the holy and most awesome Victim [tes hagias kai phrikodestates thysias] discharge ourprayers for them. The Christ, who was slain for oursins, we sacrifice [Christon esphagmenon yper ton emeteron amartematon prospheromen] to propitiate the mercifulGod for those who are gone before and for ourselves." This beautiful passage, which reads like a modernprayer-book, is of interest in more than one connection. It proves in the first place thatChristian antiquity recognized the offering up of the Mass for the deceased, exactly as theChurch today recognizes requiem Masses — a fact which is confirmed by other independent witnesses, e.g.Tertullian (De monog., x),Cyprian (Ep. lxvi, n. 2), andAugustine (Confess., ix, 12). In the second place, it informs us that our so-called Masses of the Saints also had their prototype among the primitiveChristians, and for this view we likewise find other testimonies — e.g.Tertullian (De Cor., iii) andCyprian (Ep. xxxix, n. 3). By a Saint's Mass is meant, not the offering up of the Sacrifice of the Mass to a saint which would be impossible without most shamefulidolatry, but a sacrifice, which, while offered toGod alone, on the one hand thanks Him for the triumphalcoronation of thesaints, and on the other aims at procuring for us thesaint's efficacious intercession withGod. Such is the authentic explanation of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII cap, iii, inDenzinger, n. 941). With this threefold limitation, Masses "inhonour of thesaints" are certainly no base "deception", but are morally allowable, as theCouncil of Trent specifically declares (loc. cit. can. v); "If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses inhonour of thesaints and for obtaining their intercession withGod, as theChurch intends, let him beanathema". The general moral permissibility of invoking the intercession of thesaints, concerning which this is not the place to speak, is of course assumed in the present instance.

While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which relate toGod alone, the success of impetration and expiation on the other hand reverts to man. These last two effects are thus also called bytheologians the "fruits of the Mass" (fructus missae) and this distinction leads us to the discussion of the difficult and frequently asked question as to whether we are to imputeinfinite or finite value to the Sacrifice of the Mass. This question is not of the kind which may be answered with a simple yes or no. For, apart from the already indicated distinction between adoration and thanksgiving on the one hand and impetration and expiation on the other, we must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyonddoubt that, in view of theinfinite worth of Christ as the Victim andHigh Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as ofinfinite value, just as the sacrifice of theLast Supper and that of the Cross. Here however, we must once more strongly emphasize the fact that the ever-continued sacrificial activity of Christ inHeaven does not and cannot serve to accumulate fresh redemptory merits and to assume new objective value; it simply stamps into current coin, so to speak, the redemptory merits definitively and perfectly obtained in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sets them into circulation amongmankind. This also is the teaching of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII cap. ii): "of which bloody oblation the fruits are most abundantly obtained through this unbloody one [the Mass]." For, even in its character of a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, the Mass draws its whole value and all Its power only from the Sacrifice of the Cross which Christ makes of unceasing avail inHeaven (cf.Romans 8:34;Hebrews 7:25). There is, however, no reason why this intrinsic value of the Mass derived from the Sacrifice of the Cross, in so far as it represents a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, should not also operate outwardly to the full extent of itsinfinity, for it seems inconceivable that the Heavenly Father could accept with other thaninfinite satisfaction the sacrifice of Hisonly-begotten Son. ConsequentlyGod, asMalachias had already prophesied, is in a trulyinfinite degreehonoured, glorified, and praised in the Mass; throughOur Lord Jesus Christ he is thanked by men for all his benefits in aninfinite manner, in a manner worthy ofGod.

But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value asinfinite, since it is the sacrifice of theGod-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited. Just as a tiny chip of wood can not within it contain the whole energy of the sun, so also, and in a still greater degree, is man incapable of converting the boundless value of the impetratory and expiatory sacrifice into aninfinite effect for hissoul. Wherefore, in practice, the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as limited as is its propitiatory and satisfactory value. The greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally depend very much on the personal efforts and worthiness, the devotion and fervour of those who celebrate or are present at Mass. This limitation of the fruits of the Mass must, however, not be misconstrued to mean that the presence of a large congregation causes a diminution of the benefits derived from the Sacrifice by the individual, as if such benefits were after some fashion divided into so many aliquot parts. Neither theChurch nor theChristian people has any tolerance for thefalse principle: "The less the number of the faithful in the church, the richer the fruits". On the contrary the Bride of Christ desires for every Mass a crowded church, being rightly convinced that from the unlimited treasures of the Mass much more grace will result to the individual from a service participated in by a full congregation, than from one attended merely by a few of thefaithful. This relativeinfinite value refers indeed only to the general fruit of the Mass (fructus generalis), and not to the special (fructus specialis) two terms whose distinction will be more clearly characterized below. Here, however, we may remark that by the special fruit of the Mass is meant that for the application of which according to a special intention apriest may accept a stipend.

The question now arises whether in this connection the applicable value of the Mass is to be regarded as finite orinfinite (or, more accurately, unlimited). This question is of importance in view of the practical consequences it involves. For, if we decide in favour of the unlimited value, a single Mass celebrated for a hundredpersons or intentions is as efficacious as a hundred Masses celebrated for a singleperson or intention. On the other hand, it is clear that, if we incline towards a finite value, the special fruit is dividedpro rata among the hundredpersons. In their quest for a solution of this question, two classes oftheologians are distinguished according to their tendencies: the minority (Gotti,Billuart, Antonio Bellarini, etc.) are inclined to uphold thecertainty or at least the probability of the former view, arguing that theinfinite dignity of theHigh Priest Christ can not be limited by the finite sacrificial activity of his human representative. But, since theChurch has entirely forbidden as a breach of strictjustice that apriest should seek to fulfil, by reading a single Mass, theobligations imposed by several stipends (seeDenzinger, n. 1110) thesetheologians hasten to admit that their theory is not to be translated into practice, unless thepriest applies as many individual Masses for all the intentions of the stipend-givers as he has received stipends. But in as much as theChurch has spoken of strictjustice (justitia commutativa), the overwhelming majority oftheologians incline even theoretically to the conviction that the satisfactory — and, according to many, also the propitiatory and impetratory — value of a Mass for which a stipend has been taken, is so strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it accruespro rata (according to the greater or less number of the living or the dead for whom the Mass is offered) to each of theindividuals. Only on such a hypothesis is the custom prevailing among the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for the deceased or for their intentions intelligible. Only on such a hypothesis can one explain the widely established "Mass Association", apious union whose membersvoluntarily bind themselves to read or get read at least one Mass annually for the poorsouls inpurgatory. As early as the eighth century we find inGermany a so-called "Totenbund" (see Pertz, "Monum. Germaniae hist.: Leg.", II, i, 221). But probably the greatest of suchsocieties is theMessbund of Ingolstadt, founded in 1724; it was raised to a confraternity (Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception) on 3 Feb., 1874, and at present counts 680,000 members (cf. Beringer, "Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen u. ihr Gebrauch", 13th ed., Paderborn, 1906, pp. 610 sqq.). Tournély (De Euch. q. viii, a. 6) has also sought in favour of this view important internal grounds of probability, for example by adverting to the visible course ofDivine Providence: all natural andsupernatural effects in general are seen to be slow and gradual, not sudden or desultory, wherefore it is also the most holy intention ofGod that man should, by his personal exertions, strive through the medium of the greatest possible number of Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The manner of efficacy of the Mass

Intheological phrase an effect "from the work of the action" (ex opere operato) signifies a grace conditioned exclusively by the objective bringing into activity of acause of thesupernatural order, in connection with which the proper disposition of the subject comes subsequently into account only as an indispensable antecedent condition (conditio sine qua non), but not as a real joint cause (concausa). Thus, for example,baptism by its mere ministration produces ex opere operato interior grace in each recipient of the sacrament who in his heart opposes no obstacle (obez) to the reception of thegraces ofbaptism. On the other hand, allsupernatural effects, which, presupposing the state of grace are accomplished by the personal actions and exertions of the subject (e.g. everything obtained by simpleprayer), are called effects "from the work of the agent"; (ex opere operantis). we are now confronted with the difficult question: In what manner does the Eucharistic Sacrifice accomplish its effects and fruits? As the early scholastics gave scarcely any attention to this problem, we are indebted for almost all the light thrown upon it to the later scholastics.

(i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories ofpersons really participate.

At the head of all stands of course theHigh Priest,Christ Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us and to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice, which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of theChurch, the celebrant or the faithful present at the sacrifice, and is for these anopus operatum.

Next after Christ and in the second place comes theChurch as a juridicalperson, who, according to the express teaching of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the hands of her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission to ordain constantlypriests and to have celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This intermediate stage between Christ and the celebrant may be neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoralpriest, as anecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own sacrifice — which indeed could only be impure — but the immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can be soiled by no wickedness of the celebrant. But to this special sacrificial activity of theChurch, offering up the sacrifice together with Christ, must also correspond a special ecclesiastico-human merit as a fruit, which, although in itself anopus operantis of theChurch, is yet entirely independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful and therefore constitutes for these anopus operatum. When, however, asDe Lugo rightly points out, anexcommunicated or suspendedpriest celebrates in defiance of the prohibition of theChurch, thisecclesiastical merit is always lost, since such apriest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of theChurch. His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by virtue of hispriestlyordination, he celebrates in the name ofChrist, even though in opposition to His wishes, and, as the self-sacrifice ofChrist, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and untarnished sacrifice beforeGod. We are thus compelled to concur in another view ofDe Lugo, namely that the greatness and extent of thisecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or lessholiness of the reigningpope, thebishops, and theclergy throughout the World, and that for this reason in times ofecclesiastical decay and laxity ofmorals (especially at thepapal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of theChurch, might under certain circumstances easily be very small.

With Christ and HisChurch is associated in third place the celebratingpriest, since he is the representative through whom the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice. If, therefore, the celebrant be a man of great personal devotion,holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit which will benefit not himself alone, but also those in whose favour he applies the Mass. The faithful are thus guided by soundinstinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their intentions by an upright andholypriest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in addition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this special fruit which springsex opera operantis, from thepiety of the celebrant.

Finally, in the fourth place, must be mentioned those who participate actively in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g., the servers,sacristan,organist, singers, and the whole congregation joining in the sacrifice. Thepriest, therefore,prays also in their name:Offerimus (i.e. we offer). That the effect resulting from this (metaphorical) sacrificial activity is entirely dependent on the worthiness andpiety of those taking part therein and thus results exclusivelyex opere operantis is evident without further demonstration. The more fervent theprayer, the richer the fruit. Most intimate is the active participation in the Sacrifice of those who receiveHoly Communion during the Mass since in their case the special fruits of the Communion are added to those of the Mass. Should sacramental Communion be impossible, theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. vi) advises thefaithful to make at least a "spiritual communion" (spirituali effectu communicare), which consists in the ardent desire to receive the Eucharist. However, as we have already emphasized, the omission of real or spiritual Communion on the part of the faithful present does not render the Sacrifice of the Mass either invalid or unlawful, wherefore theChurch even permits "private Masses", which may on reasonable grounds be celebrated in achapel with closed doors.

(ii) In addition to the active, there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are thepersons in whose favour — it may be even without theirknowledge and in opposition to their wishes — the Holy Sacrifice is offered. They fall into three categories: the community, the celebrant, and theperson (orpersons) for whom the Mass is specially applied. To each of these three classes correspondsex opere operato a special fruit of the Mass, whether the same be an impetratory effect of the Sacrifice of Petition or a propitiatory and satisfactory effect of the Sacrifice of Expiation. Although the development of the teaching concerning the threefold fruit of the Mass begins only withScotus (Quaest. quodlibet, xx), it is nevertheless based on the very essence of the Sacrifice itself. Since, according to the wording of theCanon of the Mass,prayer and sacrifice is offered for all those present, the wholeChurch, thepope, thediocesanbishop, the faithful living and dead, and even "for the salvation of the whole world", there must first of all result a "general fruit" (fructus generalis) for allmankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately in the will of Christ and HisChurch, and can thus be frustrated by no contrary intention of the celebrant. In this fruit even theexcommunicated,heretics, and infidels participate, mainly that their conversion may thus be effected. The second kind of fruit (fructus personalis, specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the celebrant, since it wereunjust that he — apart from his worthiness andpiety (opus operantis) — should come empty-handed from the sacrifice. Between these two fruits lies the third, the so-called "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis, medius, orministerialis), which is usually applied to particular living or deceasedpersons according to the intention of the celebrant or the donor of a stipend. This "application" rests so exclusively in the hands of thepriest that even the prohibition of theChurch cannot render it inefficacious, although the celebrant would in such a casesin through disobedience. For the existence of the special fruit of the Mass, rightly defended byPius VI against theJansenisticSynod of Pistoia (1786), we have the testimony also ofChristian antiquity, which offered the Sacrifice for specialpersons and intentions. To secure in all cases the certain effect of thisfructus specialis, Francisco Suárez (De Euch., disp. lxxix, Sect. 10) givespriests the wise advice that they should always add to the first a "second intention" (intentio secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will take its place.

(iii) A last and an entirely separate problem is afforded by the special mode of efficacy of the Sacrifice of Expiation. As an expiatory sacrifice, the Mass has the double function of obliterating actualsins, especially mortalsins (effectus stricte propitiatorius), and also of taking away, in the case of those already in the state of grace, such temporal punishments as may still remain to be endured (effectus satisfactorius). The main question is: Is this double effectex opere operato produced mediately or immediately? As regards the actual forgiveness ofsin, it must, in opposition to earliertheologians (Aragon, Casalis,Gregory of Valentia), be maintained as undoubtedly a certain principle, that the expiatory sacrifice of the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of mortalsins otherwise than by way ofcontrition and penance, and therefore only mediately through procuring the grace of conversion (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. ii: "donum paenitentiae concedens"). With this limitation, however, the Mass is able to remit even the most grievoussins (Council of Trent, 1. c., "Crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit"). Since, according to the present economy ofsalvation, nosin whatsoever, grievous or trifling, can be forgiven without an act of sorrow, we must confine the efficacy of the Mass, even in the case of venialsins, to obtaining forChristians the grace ofcontrition for less serioussins (Sess. XXII, cap. i). It is indeed this purely mediate activity which constitutes the essential distinction between the sacrifice and the sacrament. Could the Mass remitsins immediatelyex opere operato, likeBaptism orPenance, it would be a sacrament of the dead and cease to be a sacrifice (seeS). Concerning the remission of the temporal punishment due tosin, however, which appears to be effected in an immediate manner, our judgment must be different. The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction betweensin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation and sorrow of the sinner, all forgiveness ofsin byGod is impossible; this cannot however be said of a mere remission of punishment. Oneperson may validly discharge thedebts or fines of another, even without apprising the debtor of his intention. The same rule may be applied to a justperson, who, after hisjustification, is still burdened with temporal punishment consequent on hissins. It iscertain that, only in this immediate way, can assistance be given to the poorsouls inpurgatory through the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they are henceforth powerless to perform personal works of satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, de purgat.). From this consideration we derive by analogy the legitimate conclusion that the case exactly the same as regards the living.

Practical questions concerning the Mass

From the exceedingly high valuation, which theChurch places on the Mass as the unbloody Sacrifice of theGod-Man, issue, as it were spontaneously all those practicalprecepts of a positive or a negative nature, which are given in the Rubrics of the Mass, in Canon Law, and in Moral Theology. They may be conveniently divided into two categories, according as they are intended to secure in the highest degree possible the objective dignity of the Sacrifice or the subjective worthiness of the celebrant.

1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice

(a) One of the most important requisites for the worthy celebration of the Mass is that the place in which the all-holy Mystery is to be celebrated should be a suitable one. Since, in the days of the Apostolic Church, there were no churches orchapels, private houses with suitable accommodation were appointed for the solemnization of "the breaking of bread" (cf.Acts 2:46;20:7 sq.;Colossians 4:15;Philemon 2). During the era of the persecutions the Eucharistic services inRome were transferred to thecatacombs, where theChristians believed themselves secure from government agents. The first "houses ofGod" reach back certainly to the end of the second century, as we learn fromTertullian (Adv. Valent., iii) andClement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1). In the second half of the fourth century (A.D. 370),Optatus of Mileve (De Schism. Donat. II, iv) could already reckon more than fortybasilicas which adorned the city ofRome. From this period dates the prohibition of the Synod ofLaodicea (can. lviii) to celebrate Mass in private houses. Thenceforth the public churches were to be the sole places of worship. In theMiddle Ages thesynods granted tobishops the right of allowing house-chapels within theirdioceses. According to thelaw of today (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, de reform.), the Mass may be celebrated only in Chapels and public (or semi-public)oratories, which must beconsecrated or at least blessed. At present, privatechapels may be erected only in virtue of a specialpapal indult (S.C.C., 23 Jan., 1847, 6 Sept., 1870). In the latter case, the real place of sacrifice is theconsecrated altar (oraltar-stone), which must be placed in a suitable room (cf. Missale Romanum, Rubr. gen., tit. xx). In times of great need (e.g.war,persecution ofCatholics), thepriest may celebrate outside the church, but naturally only in a becoming place, provided with the mostnecessary utensils. On reasonable grounds thebishop may, in virtue of the so-called "quinquennial faculties", allow the celebration of Mass in the open air, but the celebration of Mass at sea is allowed only bypapal indult. In such anindult it is usually provided that the sea be calm during the celebration, and that a secondpriest (ordeacon) be at hand to prevent the spilling of thechalice in case of the rocking of the ship.

(b) For the worthy celebration of Mass the circumstance of time is also of great importance. In theApostolic age the firstChristians assembled regularly onSundays for "the breaking of bread" (Acts 20:7: "on thefirst day of the week"), which day the "Didache" (c. xiv), and laterJustin Martyr (I Apol., lxvi), already name "the Lord's day".

Justin himself seems to be aware only of theSunday celebration, butTertullian adds the fast-days on Wednesday and Friday and the anniversaries of themartyrs ("De cor. mil.", iii; "De orat.", xix). AsTertullian calls the whole paschal season (untilPentecost) "one long feast", we may conclude with somejustice that during this period the faithful not only communicated daily, but were also present at the Eucharistic Liturgy. As regards the time of the day, there existed in theApostolic age no fixedprecepts regarding the hour at which the Eucharistic celebration should take place. TheApostle Paul appears to have on occasion "broken bread" about midnight (Acts 20:7). But Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (died A.D. 114), already states in his official report toEmperor Trajan that theChristians assembled in the early hours of the morning and bound themselves by asacramentum (oath), by which we can understand today only the celebration of the mysteries.Tertullian gives as the hour of the assembly the time before dawn (De cor. mil., iii:antelucanis aetibus). When the fact was adverted to that the Saviour'sResurrection occurred in the morning before sunrise, a change of the hour set in, the celebration of Mass being postponed until this time. ThusCyprian writes of theSunday celebration (Ep., lxiii): "we celebrate theResurrection of the Lord in the morning." Since the fifth century the "third hour" (i.e. 9 a.m.) was regarded as "canonical" for the Solemn Mass onSundays and festivals. When the Little Hours (Prime,Terce,Sext,None) began in theMiddle Ages to lose their significance as"canonical hours", theprecepts governing the hour for theconventual Mass received a new meaning. Thus, for example, theprecepts that theconventual Mass should be held afterNone on fast days does not signify that it be held between midday and evening, but only that "the recitation ofNone in choir is followed by the Mass". It is in general left to the discretion of thepriest to celebrate at any hour between dawn and midday (ab aurora usque ad meridiem). It is proper that he should read beforehandMatins andLauds from hisbreviary.

The sublimity of the Sacrifice of the Mass demands that thepriest should approach the altar wearing thesacred vestments (amice, stole,cincture,maniple, andchasuble). Whether thepriestly vestments are historical developments fromJudaism orpaganism, is a question still discussed by archaeologists. In any case the "Canones Hippolyti" require that at Pontifical Mass thedeacons andpriests appear in "whitevestments", and that thelectors also wear festive garments. Nopriest may celebrate Mass withoutlight (usually two candles), except in case of urgent necessity (e.g. toconsecrate a Host as theViaticum for aperson seriously ill). Thealtar-cross is alsonecessary as an indication that the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than the unbloody reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Usually, also, thepriest must be attended at the altar by a server of the male sex. The celebration of Mass without a server is allowed only in case of need (e.g. to procure theViaticum for a sickperson, or to enable thefaithful to satisfy theirobligation of hearing Mass). Aperson of thefemale sex may not serve at the altar itself, e.g. transfer themissal, present thecruets, etc. (S.R.C., 27 August, 1836).Women (especiallynuns) may, however, answer the celebrant from their places, if no male server be at hand. During the celebration of Mass a simplepriest may not wear any head-covering — whetherbiretta,pileolus, or full wig (comae fictitiae) — but thebishop may allow him to wear a plain perruque as a protection for his hairless scalp.

(c) To preserve untarnished thehonour of the most venerable sacrifice, theChurch has surrounded with a strong rampart of special defensive regulations the institution of "mass-stipends"; her intention is on the one hand to keep remote from the altar all baseavarice, and on the other, to ensure and safeguard the right of thefaithful to the conscientious celebration of the Masses bespoken.

By a mass-stipend is meant a certain monetary offering which anyone makes to thepriest with the accompanyingobligation of celebrating a Mass in accordance with the intentions of the donor (ad intentionem dantis). Theobligation incurred consists, concretely speaking, in the application of the "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis), the nature of which we have already described in detail (A, 3). Theidea of the stipend emanates from the earliest ages, and its justification lies incontestably in the axiom ofSt. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:13): "They that serve the altar, partake with the altar". Originally consisting of the necessaries of life, the stipend was at first considered as "alms for a Mass" (eleemosyna missarum), the object being to contribute to the proper support of theclergy. The character of a purealms has been since lost by the stipend, since such may be accepted by even a wealthypriest. But the Pauline principle applies to the wealthypriest just as it does to the poor. The now customary money-offering, which was introduced about the eighth century and was tacitly approved by theChurch, is to be regarded merely as the substitute or commutation of the earlier presentation of the necessaries of life. In this very point, also, a change from the ancient practice has been introduced, since at present the individualpriest receives the stipend personally, whereas formerly all theclergy of the particular church shared among them the total oblations and gifts. In their present form, the whole matter of stipends has been officially taken by theChurch entirely under her protection, both by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, de ref.) and by the dogmaticBull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) ofPius VI (Denzinger, n. 1554). Since the stipend, in its origin and nature, claims to be and can be nothing else than a lawful contribution towards the proper support of theclergy, thefalse and foolish views of theignorant are shown to be without foundation when they suppose that a Mass may besimoniacally purchased with money (Cf. Summa Theologica II-II:100:2). To obviate all abuses concerning of the amount of the stipend, there exists in eachdiocese a fixed "mass-tax" (settled either by ancient custom or by an episcopal regulation), which nopriest may exceed, unless extraordinary inconvenience (e.g. longfasting or a long journey on foot) justifies a somewhat larger sum. To eradicate all unworthygreed from among bothlaity andclergy in connection with a thing so sacred,Pius IX in his Constitution"Apostolicae Sedis" of 12 Oct., 1869, forbade under penalty ofexcommunication the commercial traffic in stipends (mercimonium missae stipendiorum). The trafficking consists in reducing the larger stipend collected to the level of the "tax", and appropriating the surplus for oneself. Into the category of shameful traffic in stipends also falls the reprehensible practice of booksellers and tradesmen, who organize public collections of stipends and retain the money contributions as payment for books, merchandise, wines, etc., to be delivered to theclergy (S.C.C., 31 Aug., 1874, 25 May, 1893). As special punishment for this offence,suspensio a divinis reserved to thepope is proclaimed againstpriests, irregularity against otherclerics, andexcommunication reserved to thebishop, against thelaity.

Another bulwark againstavarice is the strict regulation of theChurch, binding under pain of mortalsin, thatpriests shall not accept more intentions than they can satisfy within a reasonable period (S.C.C, 1904). This regulation was emphasized by the additional one which forbade stipends to be transferred topriests of another diocese without theknowledge of their ordinaries (S.C.C., 22 May, 1907). The acceptance of a stipend imposes under pain of mortalsin theobligation not only of reading the stipulated Mass, but also of fulfilling conscientiously all other appointed conditions of an important character (e.g. the appointed day, altar, etc.). Should some obstacle arise, the money must either be returned to the donor or a substitute procured. In the latter case, the substitute must be given, not the usual stipend, but the whole offering received (cf. Prop. ix damn. 1666 ab Alex. VIII inDenzinger, n. 1109), unless it be indisputably clear from the circumstances that the excess over the usual stipend was meant by the donor for the firstpriest alone. There is tacit condition which requires the reading of the stipulated Mass as soon as possible. According to the common opinion of moraltheologians, a postponement of two months is in less urgent cases admissible, even though no lawful impediment can be brought forward. Should, however, apriest postpone a Mass for ahappy delivery until after the event, he is bound to return the stipends. However, since all theseprecepts have been imposed solely in the interests of the stipend-giver, it is evident that he enjoys the right of sanctioning all unusual delays.

(d) To the kindred question of "mass-foundations" theChurch has, in the interests of the founder and in her high regard for the Holy Sacrifice, devoted the same anxious care as in the case of stipends. Mass-foundations (fundationes missarum) are fixed bequests of funds or realproperty, the interest or income from which is to procure for ever the celebration of Mass for the founder or according to his intentions. Apart from anniversaries, foundations of Masses are divided, according to the testamentary arrangement of the testator, into monthly, weekly, and daily foundations. Asecclesiastical property, mass-foundations are subject to the administration of theecclesiastical authorities, especially of thediocesanbishop, who must grant hls permission for the acceptance of such and must appoint for them the lowest rate. Only when episcopal approval has been secured can the foundation be regarded as completed; thenceforth it is unalterable for ever. In places where the acquirement ofecclesiastical property is subject to the approval of the State (e.g. inAustria), the establishment of a mass-foundation must also be submitted to thesecular authorities. The declared wishes of the founder are sacred and decisive as to the manner of fulfillment. Should no special intention be mentioned in the deed of foundation, the Mass must be applied for the founder himself (S.C.C., 18 March, 1668). To secure punctuality in the execution of the foundation,Innocent XII ordered in 1697 that a list of the mass-foundations, arranged according to the months, be kept in each church possessing such endowments. The administrators ofpious foundations are bound under pain of mortalsin to forward to thebishop at the end of each year a list of all founded Masses left uncelebrated together with the money therefor (S.C.C., 25 May, 18).

The celebrant of a founded Mass is entitled to the full amount of the foundation, unless it is evident from the circumstances of the foundation or from the wording of the deed that an exception is justifiable. Such is the case when the foundation serves also as the endowment of abenefice, and consequently in such a case the beneficiary is bound to pay his substitute only the regular tax (S.C.C., 25 July, 1874). Without urgent reason, founded Masses may not be celebrated in churches (or on altars) other than those stipulated by the foundation. Permanent transference of such Masses is reserved to thepope, but in isolated instances thedispensation of thebishop suffices (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI de ref.; Sess. XXV de ref.). The unavoidable loss of the income of a foundation puts an end to allobligations connected with it. A serious diminution of the foundation capital, owing to the depreciation of money orproperty in value, also thenecessary increase of the mass-tax, scarcity ofpriests, poverty of a church or of theclergy may constitute just grounds for the reduction of the number of Masses, since it may be reasonably presumed that the deceased founder would not under such difficult circumstance insist upon theobligation. On 21 June, 1625, the right of reduction, which theCouncil of Trent had conferred onbishops,abbots, and the generals ofreligious orders, was again reserved byUrban VIII to theHoly See.

2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant

Although, as declared by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), the venerable, pure, and sublime Sacrifice of theGod-man "cannot be stained by any unworthiness or impiety of the celebrant", stillecclesiastical legislation has long regarded it as a matter of special concern thatpriests should fit themselves for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by the cultivation of integrity, purity of heart, and other qualities of a personal nature.

(a) In the first place it may be asked: Who may celebrate Mass? Since for the validity of the sacrifice the office of a specialpriesthood is essential, it is clear, to begin with, that onlybishops andpriests (notdeacons) are qualified to offer up the Holy Sacrifice (seeE). The fact that even at the beginning of the second century the regular officiator at the Eucharistic celebration seems to have been thebishop will be more readily understood when we remember that at this early period there was no strict distinction between the offices ofbishop andpriest. Like the "Didache" (xv),Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., xl-xlii) speaks only of thebishop and hisdeacon in connection with the sacrifice.Ignatius of Antioch, indeed, who bears irrefutable testimony to the existence of the three divisions of thehierarchy —bishop (episkopos),priests (presbyteroi) anddeacons (diakonoi) — confines to thebishop the privilege of celebrating thanksgiving Divine Service when he says: "It is unlawful tobaptize or to hold theagape without thebishop." The "Canones Hippolyti", composed probably about the end of the second century, first contain the regulation (can. xxxii): "If, in the absence of thebishop, apriest be at hand, all shall devolve upon him, and he shall behonoured as thebishop ishonoured. "Subsequent tradition recognizes no other celebrant of the Mystery of the Eucharist than thebishops andpriests, who are validlyordained "according to thekeys of the Church," (secundum claves Ecclesiae). (Cf. Lateran IV, cap. "Firmiter" inDenzinger, n. 430.)

But theChurch demands still more by insisting also on the personal moral worthiness of the celebrant. This connotes not alone freedom from allecclesiastical censures (excommunication, suspension,interdict), but also a becoming preparation of thesoul and body of thepriest before he approaches the altar. To celebrate in the state of mortalsin has always been regarded by theChurch as aninfamous sacrifice (cf.1 Corinthians 11:27 sqq.). For the worthy (not for the valid) celebration of the Mass it is, therefore, especially required that the celebrant be in the state of grace. To place him in this condition, the awakening of perfect sorrow is no longer sufficient since theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. vii inDenzinger, n. 880), for there is a strict eccleciastical precept that the reaction of theSacrament of Penance must precede the celebration of Mass. This rule applies to allpriests, even when they are bound by their office (ex officio) to read Mass, e.g. onSundays for their parishioners. Only in instances when no confessor can be procured, may they content themselves with reciting an act of perfect sorrow (contritio), and they then incur theobligation of going to confession "as early as possible" (quam primum), which in canon law, signifies within three days at furthest. In addition to thepious preparation for the Mass (accessus), there is prescribed a correspondingly long thanksgiving after Mass (recessus), whose length is fixed by moraltheologians between fifteen minutes and half an hour, although in this connection the particular official engagements of thepriest must be considered. As regards the length of the Mass itself, the duration is naturally variable, according as a Solemn High Mass is sung or a Low Mass celebrated. To perform worthily all the ceremonies and pronounce clearly all theprayers in Low Mass requires on an average about half an hour. Moraltheologians justly declare that thescandalous hastenecessary to finish Mass in less than a quarter of an hour is impossible without grievoussin.

With regard to the more immediate preparation of the body, custom has declared from time immemorial, and positive canon law since theCouncil of Constance (1415), that thefaithful, when receiving the Sacrament of Altar, andpriests, when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, must befasting (jejunium naturale) which means that they must have partaken of no food or drink whatsoever from midnight. Midnight begins with the first stroke of the hour. In calculating the hour, the so-called "mean time" (or local time) must be used: according to a recent decision (S.C.C., 12 July, 1893), Central-European time may be also employed, and, in North America, "zone time". The movement recently begun among the Germanclergy, favouring a mitigation of the strict regulation for weak or overworkedpriests with theobligation of duplicating, has serious objections, since a general relaxation of the ancient strictness might easily result in lessening respect for theBlessed Sacrament and in a harmful reaction among thoughtless members of thelaity. The granting of mitigations in general or in exceptional cases belongs to theHoly See alone. To keep away from the altar irreverent adventurers and unworthypriests, theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) issued thedecree, made much more stringent in later times, that an unknownpriest without theCelebret may not be allowed to say Mass in any church.

(b) A second question may be asked: "Who must say Mass?" In the first place, if this question be considered identical with the enquiry as to whether a generalobligation ofDivine Law binds everypriest by reason of hisordination, the oldScholastics are divided in opinion.St. Thomas, Durandus,Paludanus, and Anthony of Bologna certainly maintained the existence of such anobligation; on the other hand,Richard of St. Victor,Alexander of Hales,Bonaventure,Gabriel Biel, andCardinal Cajetan declared for the opposite view. Canon law teaches nothing on the subject. In the absence of a decision, Francisco Suárez (De Euchar., disp. lxxx, sect. 1, n. 4) believes that one who conforms to the negative view, may be declared free from grievoussin. Of the ancienthermits weknow that they did not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in thedesert, andSt. Ignatius Loyola, guided by high motives, abstained for a whole year from celebrating. CardinalDe Lugo (De Euchar., disp. xx, sect. 1, n. 13) takes a middle course, by adopting theoretically the milder opinion, while declaring that, in practice, omission through lukewarmness and neglect may, on account of thescandal caused, easily amount to mortalsin. This consideration explains the teaching of the moraltheologians that everypriest is bound under pain of mortalsin to celebrate at least a few times each year (e.g. atEaster,Pentecost,Christmas, theEpiphany). Theobligation of hearing Mass on allSundays and holy days ofobligation is of course not abrogated for suchpriests. The spirit of theChurch demands — and it is today the practically universal custom — that apriest should celebrate daily, unless he prefers to omit his Mass occasionally through motives of reverence.

Until far into theMiddle Ages it was left to the discretion of thepriest, to his personal devotion and hiszeal forsouls, whether he should read more than one Mass on the same day. But since the twelfth century canon law declares that he must in general content himself with one daily Mass, and thesynods of the thirteenth century allow, even in case of necessity, at most a duplication (seeB). In the course oftime this privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice twice on the same day was more and more curtailed. According to the existing law, duplication is allowed, under special conditions, only onSundays and holy days, and then only in the interests of thefaithful, that they may be enabled to fulfil theirobligation of hearing Mass. For thefeast of Christmas alone havepriests universally been allowed to retain the privilege of three Masses, inSpain andPortugal this privilege was extended toAll Souls' Day (2 Nov.) by special Indult ofBenedict XIV (1746). Such customs are unknown in the East.

This generalobligation of apriest to celebrate Mass must not be confounded with the specialobligation which results from the acceptance of a Mass-stipend (obligatio ex stipendio) or from thecure of souls (obligatio ex cura animarum). Concerning the former sufficient has been already said. As regards the claims of thecure of souls, theobligation ofDivine Law thatparishpriests and administrators of aparish should from time to time celebrate Mass for their parishioners, arises from the relations ofpastor and flock. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) has specified thisduty of application more closely, by directing that theparishpriest should especially apply the Mass, for which no stipend may be taken, for his flock on allSundays and holy days (cf.Benedict XIV, "Cum semper oblatas", 19 Aug., 1744). Theobligation to apply the Masspro populo extends also to the holy days abrogated by theBull ofUrban VIII, "Universa per orbem", of 13 Sept., 1642; for even today these remain "canonically fixed feast days", although thefaithful are dispensed from theobligation of hearing Mass and may engage in servile works. The sameobligation of applying the Mass falls likewise onbishops, aspastors of theirdioceses, and on thoseabbots who exercize overclergy and people a quasi-episcopaljurisdiction. Titularbishops alone are excepted, although even in their case the application is to be desired (cf.Leo XIII, "In supremacy", 10 June, 1882). As theobligation itself is not only personal, but also real, the application must, in case of an impediment arising either be made soon afterwards, or be effected through a substitute, who has aright to a mass stipend as regulated by the tax. Concerning this whole question, see Heuser, "Die Verpflichtung der Pfarrer, die hl. Messe fur die Gemeinde zu applicieren" (Düsseldorf 1850).

(c) For the sake of completeness a third and last question must be touched on in this section: For whom may Mass be celebrated? In general the answer may be given: For all those and for those only, who are fitted to participate in the fruits of the Mass as an impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory sacrifice. From this as immediately derived the rule that Mass may not be said for the damned inHell or the blessed inHeaven, since they are incapable of receiving the fruits of the Mass; for the same reason children who die unbaptized are excluded from the benefits of the Mass. Thus, there remain as the possible participants only the living on earth and the poorsouls inpurgatory (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. iii; Sess. XXV, decret. de purgat.). Partly out of her great veneration of the Sacrifice, however, and partly to avoidscandal, theChurch has surrounded with certain conditions, whichpriests are bound in obedience to observe, the application of Mass for certain classes of the living and dead. The first class are non-toleratedexcommunicatedpersons, who are to be avoided by the faithful (excommunicati vitandi). Although, according to various authors, thepriest is not forbidden to offer up Mass for such unhappypersons in private and with a merelymental intention, still to announce publicly such a Mass or to insert the name of theexcommunicatedperson in theprayers, even though he may be in the state of grace owing to perfect sorrow or may have died truly repentant, would be a "communicatio in divinis", and is strictly forbidden under penalty ofexcommunication (cf. C. 28, de sent. excomm., V, t. 39). It is likewise forbidden to offer the Mass publicly and solemnly for deceased non-Catholics, even though they were princes (Innoc. III C. 12, X 1. 3, tit. 28). On the other hand it is allowed, in consideration of the welfare of the state, to celebrate for a non-Catholic living ruler even a public Solemn Mass. For livingheretics and schismatics also for theJews,Turks, andheathens, Mass may be privately applied (and even a stipend taken) with the object of procuring for them the grace of conversion to thetrue Faith. For a deceasedheretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when thepriest has good grounds forbelieving that the deceased held hiserror ingood faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceasedcatechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire ofBaptism and are inpurgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for thesouls of deceasedJews andheathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are inpurgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT