CHAPTER 7 How The Sacrifice Of The Mass Is Carried Out

How The Sacrifice Of The Mass Is Carried Out



HAVING proved that the sacrifice of the Mass exists, having considered its intrinsic nature, and finally the fruit of the sacrifice, we must now carefully consider how the sacrifice is effected, asking ourselves what precise action of ours is required to bring about the sacrifice.

Here two questions arise, first, is the sacrifice fully accomplished by the consecration, or is anything besides the consecration needed for this?

If nothing else is required, we must ask ourselves, secondly, what is the nature of the action whereby the consecration is brought about?


What we have to say here is meant rather to clear away the slightest vestige of doubt than to give a formal proof that the sacrifice is fully and completely accomplished by the consecration, which from what we have already said about the sacrifice should, we think, be taken as quite certain. Against this sufficiency of the consecration fully to constitute the sacrifice, two objections have been raised, some holding that besides the consecration the communion enters essentially into the constitution of the sacrifice, while others hold that the breaking of the bread is an essential constituent of it. For convenience we have left this second view for consideration here; the first we have already dealt with. For we have shown why the communion cannot be considered to enter into the sacrifice as a constituent element, because the offering of the Victim and the partaking of the Victim are two things quite distinct. The sacrifice is merely consummated by the communion, in so far as, already constituted before the communion, it attains to its end by the communion; which end is the sanctification of the faithful, cf. Th. I (Vol. I) and XXIV.

Hence it only remains for us at this place to consider the breaking of the bread, for some theologians held that the breaking of the sacrament entered into the sacrificial action, and even essentially so, since they held that by this breaking and by it alone is signified the torment of the Passion. Thus Cano writes: "Since, according to the institution of Christ, we must represent His death in the symbols of real things, if our sacrifice is complete and true, and a perfect copy (absolutum exemplar) of that Victim which Christ exhibited on the Cross; and since before the species ARE BROKEN, mingled and consumed, there is no such symbol in real things, we can take this as a most certain argument, that before the breaking the sacrifice is not yet completed" (De locis theologicis, 1, 12, c. 12, Cologne, 1585, fol. 426a).

But against this position there are not a few objections of considerable moment. In the first place, all modern theologians hold with Suarez (disp. 75, sect. 3) that even if the breaking were omitted by any chance the sacrifice would still be integral, complete.

Secondly, at times, in the earlier Liturgies, there appears to have been no such breaking of the bread, or at any rate it was not considered as of any importance. We read nothing of it in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, or in the Liturgy of the Testamentum D.N.J.C.[533] In other very ancient Liturgies, as in that of Serapion, of St. James, of St. Mark, it is found, but without any indication that it signifies the death of our Lord; and indeed, in the Liturgy of Serapion in particular the accompanying prayer indicates clearly enough that the real reason for the dividing of the sacrament in that Liturgy is to provide particles for a number of communicants.[534]

In the Greek Liturgy of St. James a ritual breaking of the host (klasij) takes place, preliminary to the breaking of the host into many small pieces or particles (melismoj): but this first breaking is made simply to provide a small particle of the consecrated bread for immersion in the consecrated wine in the chalice (B. 62, cf. 581): in which action practically every exponent of the Liturgies sees a symbol of the Resurrection rather than of the Death.

Later on various symbolisms were added to the breaking in some of the Liturgies, very few, however, and these were related mainly to the Passion, as in the Liturgy of St. James (B. 97-99; cf. Max Saxon., Missa syriaca antiochena, pp. 37-38); at times also the fragments were arranged in the form of a cross (present Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, B. 393; Liturgia mozarabica. P.L. 85, 557-558); or the bread was cut (at the prothesis) with a lance in the form of a cross (present Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, b. 357358).

But these symbolisms are adventitious, devised with the passing of the centuries, to increase devotion and throw light on the Liturgy. Neither the Scripture nor the early Fathers witness to or support them.

As regards the Scripture, we note in the first place that the critics commonly reject the word klwmenon, which we read in the textus receptus of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (XI, 24: touto mou estin to swma to uper umwn klwmenon = this is my body which was broken for you).[535] the Vulgate reading instead quod pro vobis tradetur = which shall be delivered for you. Secondly, so far from the Scripture hinting that there is any symbolism of the Passion in the breaking of the bread, we may say that it excludes it, declaring that just as in the paschal lamb so in Christ no limbs were broken. As regards the Fathers, though Chrysostom is sometimes appealed to as favouring this symbolism, it is plain enough that he is opposed to it for two reasons: firstly, from the fact that he remarks that in the Passion there is no breaking corresponding to the fractio or breaking of the Eucharist; secondly, because he speaks distinctly of the breaking of this sacrament, as made for its distribution in communion. For speaking of the words of St. Paul the bread which we break, he says: "Why did he add which we break? For this breaking we can see in the Eucharist, but not on the Cross, rather quite the contrary. For the Scripture says: a bone shall not be broken. But WHAT HE DID NOT SUFFER ON THE CROSS, He does suffer for you in the offering, and He permits Himself to be broken THAT ALL MAY BE FILLED" (In II Cor., hom. 24, n. 2. P.G. 61, 200).[536]

St. Augustine indicates no other reason for the breaking but the distribution, where commenting on I Tim., II, 1, he says: "Let us understand the supplications here mentioned (Aug. supplicationes. Vulg. operationes) as the prayers which we say in the celebration of the mysteries (sacramentorum) before what is on the table of the Lord begins to be blessed; and the prayers (orationes) here mentioned as those said when it is being blessed and sanctified, and broken into small particles (comminuitur) FOR DISTRIBUTION" (Ep. 149, 16. P.L. 33, 636).

St. Gregory the Great likewise: "For there His Body is consumed, HIS FLESH IS DIVIDED (partitur) for the salvation of the people; there His Blood is not poured out now upon the hands of infidels, but it is poured into the mouths of the faithful" (Dial. 4, 58. P.L. 77, 425).

In the breaking of the consecrated bread by our Lord at the Last Supper, Bede sees a presignification of the freedom of the Passion: "He Himself breaks the bread which he hands to the disciples, to show that the breaking of His own Body would not occur without His own free will and dispensation" (in Marc., XIV, 22. P.L. 92, 272; cf. in Luc., XXII, 19, col. 596).

In one place, it is true, St. Paschasius says that the Passion is commemorated in our breaking of the sacrament: "It seems that the mystery is a figure when it is broken—Figuram videtur esse[mysterium], dum frangitur—and he means a commemorative figure, for he goes on to add: "a remembrance of the sacred Passion" (Lib. de corp et sang Dmni., 4, 1. P.L. 120, 1278). In many places, however, he says that the essential reason for the breaking is to divide the sacrament for distribution as food: "He breaks, because had He not broken the little ones would remain without food" (ibid., 15, 2, col. 1323), "The body is broken to be eaten by the people, and is distributed to the faithful" (ibid., 19, 3, col. 1328).

Among the Latin exponents of the Mass, who from this time onward became very numerous, most of them either passed over the fractio or gave no explanation.[537] Others, like Innocent III (De sanct. alt. myst., 6, 2), say that the fractio is made after the fashion of the supper at Emmaus where the disciples knew our Lord in the breaking of bread.

Meantime Cardinal Humbert (A. D. 1054), while contending against Michael Caerularius, that though the Trinity co-operates in the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is not commemorated in it, separates the elements of the Eucharistic rite in such a way—as to make the consecration the action of the Trinity, while the breaking of the sacrament and the partaking of it is the commemoration of the Passion of Christ: "The whole Blessed Trinity cooperates in the consecration of the Eucharist, but only the death of Christ is commemorated in the breaking and partaking" (Adversus Graecorum calumnias, c. 31. P.L. 143, 950).

That is, if I am not mistaken, the first clearcut and distinct statement in the Latin writers of a connection between the breaking of the bread and the commemoration of the Passion of our Lord.

Shortly afterwards (between 1063 and 1070), Lanfranc, the champion and defender of Humbert, in his work against Berengarius on the Body and Blood of the Lord, proclaimed this same connection in words much more vivid and better known than those of Humbert: "For sacraments always bear the likeness of those realities of which they are the sacraments or symbols, just as in the sacrament concerning which this question is discussed, WHEN THE HOST IS BROKEN, when the Blood of the chalice flows on the lips of the faithful, WHAT ELSE IS DESIGNATED BUT THE IMMOLATION OF THE BODY OF THE LORD ON THE CROSS and the pouring forth of the Blood from His side?" (Lib. de corp. et sang. Domini, c. 13. P.L. 150, 423.)[538]

After the time of Lanfranc we find some other writers on the Mass attaching the signification of the Passion to the breaking.[539]

Among the Greek Fathers, though, St. Eutychius, Confessor and Pontiff, a contemporary of St. Gregory the Great, had already written: "The breaking of the venerable bread signifies the death" (De Paschate et sacrosancta Eucharistia, n. 3. P.G. 86 bis, 2396), the expounders of the Byzantine Liturgy, except Bessarion (De sacram. Eucharistiae. P.G. 161, 512) who notes no significance in the fractio, but considers it merely "necessary for distribution", held that both the breaking of the bread within the action and the cutting with the lance which in this Liturgy has been already done at the prothesis, is a figure of the Incarnation[540] rather than of the Passion.[541]

Dionysius Bar Salibi, the Syrian exponent of the Mass (twelfth century), clearly holds that the Passion is symbolised in the breaking of the Host.[542] Who will not see that in such a mass of varied interpretations, and these, too, late inventions, nothing can be found certain or solid; no dogmatic teachings, but mere flights of fancy? Even if such scholastic masters as Albert the Great (4 D. 13, E. 15), St. Thomas (3 S. 77, 7; 83, 5, 7m; in II Cor. II, lect. 5); Biel (Sacr. can. miss. expos., lect. 80); Suarez (disp. 84, sect. 1, n. 6), etc.,[543] did say that the Passion was represented in the breaking, they merely said this inter alia, by way of pious comment.[544] They in nowise taught that the breaking was, in the strict sense, sacramental.

As a matter of fact the breaking was not introduced because of itself or by itself to signify anything. Christ simply broke the bread to distribute it. Such is the essential meaning or intrinsic intention of His act. Later the Church did the same thing: in the first place for the same end, distribution in communion; secondly, even when this reason failed (for example, when a priest said a Mass at which he alone communicated, or when with the large host a number of small hosts were consecrated at the same time, for distribution), in imitation of Christ;[545] and finally for the mingling of the species, when the particle procured by this breaking is immersed in the consecrated wine, by which, as the Liturgies sufficiently attest, and the liturgists confirm, the Resurrection (at which the Blood was again united to the Body) is designated, just as the Passion was designated before by the separate consecration of the species.[546]

On the other hand, the comparison between the breaking and the Passion, except for the solitary statement of St. Eutychius, C. P., is a rather tardy arrival. Fugitive and rather uncertain indications of it in Bede and Paschasius, followed later by a more definite statement of it by Humbert and Lanfranc, gave origin among the later theologians and liturgists, to an opinion which was first rather rare, but then became more common, but always was arbitrary: that by the breaking the Passion was commemorated. But in actual truth the Passion, already sufficiently commemorated by the consecration itself, is not commemorated sacramentally by the breaking which, so far from being an intrinsic part of the sacrifice, does not even pertain to its ceremonial expression, but to the rite of communion.

It is true that in the earliest days of Christianity, the liturgical celebration was called the breaking of bread—fractio panis (Acts, II, 42), but it no more follows from this that the sacrifice is constituted by the breaking (of the bread) than it follows from the other name given by St. Paul to the celebration, the Lord's Supper (I. Cor., XI, 20), that the sacrifice is constituted by eating and drinking. But just as our sacrifice was at times called the Supper from the purpose of partaking of the Supper (communion) to which the offering of the Victim is ordained, so the Supper itself was called the fractio or breaking of bread, from the preparation of the food for distribution which was made in the breaking. Hence the whole foundation for the opinion of Cano falls to the ground. It is in truth an opinion held by himself alone,[547] contradicted, moreover, by St. Thomas when he says that the sacrifice is completed before the breaking (3 S. 83, 4), so much so, indeed, that the omission of the breaking would not cause "any imperfection in the sacrifice" (3 S. 83, 6, 6m). I would have preferred not to have entered upon this discussion, did it not afford an opportunity for a close study of a particular rite of the Church, for winnowing the true from the false, or at least distinguishing various grades of the truth.[548]


From what we have said, here and elsewhere, it should be now abundantly clear that the sacrifice is accomplished by the consecration alone, and that the consecration itself is carried out by an oral action, by spoken words which effect the consecration. A further question, however, still remains: what is the precise tenor of this consecrating prayer? What context of words is necessary in it to induce the consecration?

This question resolves itself into two which chiefly concern us.

Firstly, does the consecration occur in answer to some petition for it; that is, do you consecrate by the fact that you ask for the transmutation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, or, is the epiclesis efficacious or necessary? Secondly, if this epiclesis or petition for the transmutation is not efficacious or necessary, by what context of spoken words is the consecration brought about? And first of all, what are the formal words of consecration? This having been determined, we ask again whether besides the formal words of consecration, other words of the narrative of institution are required. If this is so, we ask, finally, whether, besides the formal words and the words of the narrative, any words of interpellation—words addressed to God—are necessary.

We shall take these questions in order.

A. The Epiclesis

(A) The Epiclesis Is Neither Efficacious Nor Necessary

When we come to consider the first question, which concerns the epiclesis,[549] we at once meet with an indisputable fact: that in many Liturgies, after the words of our Lord, this is my body, this is my blood, have been said over the bread and wine, a petition is made for the transubstantiation. For this is the plain sense of numerous Eastern,[550] Gallican,[551] and Mozarabic formulae,[552] and, as we have seen, of the Roman prayer Supplices te rogamus also.

None the less, it is clear that this petition contributes in no way, either by way of a cause or a condition to the effecting of the consecration itself.

It would influence it by way of cause if the consecration did not occur until this prayer was said, and it finally effected the consecration, as is the teaching of the Greek schismatics of a later period,[553] following Nicholas Cabasilas (Liturg. Expos. 27-29. P.G. 150, 425-433) and Symeon of Thessalonica (Exp. de divino templo, c. 88, P.G. 155, 733-740)[554] Among Latin theologians, Catherinus[555] and Cheffontaines agree with them.[556]

There are three objections to this.

(1) The faith of the Church, which is that the consecration has already taken place before the epiclesis. See the error of the Armenians condemned under Benedict XII, 8th July 1729 (Mansi, 25, 1242); the decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, approved by Benedict XIII, 8th July 1729; the letter of Pius VII to the Patriarch of Antioch (Acta et Decreta S. Concil. Rec. Collectio Lacensis, t, 2, p. 440 and 551); the letter of Pius X de negotio Max. Saxoniae, 26th December 1910.

(2) The teaching of the early Fathers,[557] both of the West,[558] and of the East,[559] at least before St. John Damascene:[560] that the consecration is caused in the Mass by the words of Christ pronounced by the priest.

(3) The precept of Christ: Do this for a commemoration of me, namely do the same thing that I have done. Now it is admitted on all sides that Christ did not consecrate by an epiclesis (that is, by a petition for consecration), but by His own manifest power.[561] Therefore neither must we consecrate by an epiclesis, but by imitating Christ, while we carry out in the person of Christ what Christ Himself did. And indeed this parity and this similarity, asserted by Christ Himself, between His manner of consecrating and ours, seems to have been the corner stone of all tradition in this matter.

Hence it is that those who considered that Christ consecrated by intimating what was being done by Himself in regard to the bread and wine concluded from that, without any fear of error, that therefore we, too, induce the effect of consecration by intimating it. Thus, for example, Hugo de Mauritania: "The form of this sacrament is the COMMEMORATION of those words which Christ said in the Supper, when He gave His Body and Blood to the disciples, saying: Take ye, this is my body; And JUST AS by His word He then changed that bread and chalice into the true Body and true Blood, so we firmly believe that these words, pronounced in that order and with that intention by the priest, change the bread and wine into the true Body and true Blood of Christ (Summa Sententiarum, tr. 6, c. 4. P.L. 176, 140-141).

Moreover, so much did they take for granted the parity between our rite and that of Christ, that they considered it quite sufficient, in refutation of the view of those few theologians who held that. before pronouncing the words, Christ consecrated by a silent blessing, to argue back from our mode of consecration to that of our Lord. Innocent III himself, who held that Christ consecrated before saying the words, attests this where, before giving His own opinion, he says in reference to the opinion of others (which we adopt): "SEEING THAT the priest consecrates (conficiat, lit. makes the sacrament = consecrates) at the uttering of the words: This is my body, this is my blood, THEY THINK THEY HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING that Christ also consecrated by saying the words" (loc. cit.).

St. Albert the Great is quite definite in the matter: "Some say that He transubstantiated the bread into His Body by a secret blessing, and these say that He consecrated (confecit) by blessing, and that afterwards, saying: This is my body, He instituted the use of the sacrament. And this is not probable BECAUSE in this way the Church would celebrate the sacrament otherwise than Christ gave us the example—formam" (meaning "the example") (Enarrationes in evangelium Marci, XIV, 22).

On the part of the priest, therefore, the efficient cause of the consecration is the pronouncement according to due rite and intention of the words: This is my body, etc., and so the epiclesis in no way enters into the consecration by way of efficient causality, as actually effecting the consecration. One may ask, however, whether the epiclesis could be considered, not indeed in the light of an efficient cause, but in the light of a moral cause, by way of impetration, if the OPERATIVE VIRTUE though reserved indeed for our pronouncement of the words of our Lord, only then, and just then, had its effect when the IMPETRATORY VIRTUE OF the epiclesis concurred with it, as Dom. Touttee thought (De doctrina Cyrili, dissert. 3, c. 12, n. 97. P.G. 33, 283): "In this sacrament there are two things which the Church must provide. First, she must recite the words of Christ, so that just as formerly on His lips at the Last Supper they operated the wonderful conversion of the Eucharist, so, too, now these words on the lips of His ministers who bear His person may operate the same conversion of the Eucharist; and she must express her desire that Christ according to His promise may not be wanting to His sacrament. As she cannot provide these two things in the same moment, she is compelled to separate them in time. But the sacrificial action, though composed of these two parts, is one, and the unity of the action makes it of little import which part precedes or follows the other. Nevertheless it seems more appropriate that the impetratory cause which is in the prayers, should precede and introduce the efficient cause, which we place in the words of Christ." This kind of moral causality, however, would be little more than a condition of the consecration, and so this opinion is sufficiently answered in what we have to say immediately on the view that the epiclesis is a condition of the consecration.

We might regard the epiclesis as a condition of the consecration in three main ways. In the first place, if the epiclesis which I am making here and now, after the pronouncement of the form, were a condition, which, being given, the form already pronounced beforehand, becomes now and now only effective, as Renaudot (op. cit., passim) and Le Brun (op. cit., vol. 3, p. 223 et seq. especially pp. 263 and 267) thought. Against this opinion stands the Catholic dogma that the consecration has already taken place when I pronounced the form.

In the second place, the epiclesis would be a condition, if the epiclesis which I am soon to make were either actually, or in intention, a condition of the consecration, which I, uttering the form, am here and now making.[562]

There are two objections to this: (1) Nothing is an actual condition (conditio in re) of the existence of something else if that other thing, already having been brought into existence, would not be nullified (transiret in infectam) by its omission. Now it is impossible for a consecration once made to come to be nullified, no matter what happens in respect of the epiclesis.

(2) That is not a condition in intention (in proposito, that is, by the intention of doing it in the future) of what I here and now do when I perform the consecration, if, even without that intention, not only the matter of the consecration is at hand, but the form also is complete in its signification as form, and there is an absolute intention of applying the form to the matter. Now in the case at issue, these last two conditions are present without any further intention, of reciting the epiclesis: for in the first place, unless the form were in every way complete as form, before the pronouncing of the epiclesis, it would not operate before the epiclesis was said, as even our adversaries admit that it does; and secondly, it is one thing to intend the future recitation of the epiclesis, and quite another to intend the application of the integral form of consecration to the proper matter of it; nor does the defect of the one intention (of the epiclesis) make void the other (of the consecration).

In the third place, it might be a condition in this way, that the generally received usage of the Church would publicly determine the sense of the form: whence the consecration would be said to be conditioned by the epiclesis, not understood determinately and individually (as if my consecration now were to depend on my epiclesis now), but considered indeterminately and universally-my consecration depending on the common usage existing in the Church, of making an epiclesis. There would be this advantage in such an explanation of the epiclesis, that no matter how deficient my epiclesis may be (either actually or in intention), my consecration would nevertheless not be deficient.

Against this explanation, however, stands the plain fact that the public determination in the Church, of the form, would remain sufficient even if the epiclesis were universally abolished. For taking as actually given the positive command of our Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me—that is, what I Myself have done—it is sufficient for the understanding of what is done by us that the indicative words This is my body should be pronounced in such manner that they cannot be understood as said of our body, as though they were said in our own person, but plainly as said in the person of Christ of His Body. From this it will at once follow that the same thing is signified and effected by us, as was signified and effected at the Supper.

(B) The Suitability Of The Epiclesis

Now that we have concluded that the epiclesis is not efficacious or necessary, the question at once arises: what purpose does the epiclesis serve? The consecration is over and yet it is still prayed for. If the consecration has taken place, surely to ask for it is either sheer infidelity, as though one did not believe it had occurred, or at the very least it is useless? Either then the epiclesis is repugnant, or at the least it is pointless.[563] We maintain that the epiclesis is neither repugnant nor pointless.

It is not repugnant for the following reason: it has been the common opinion of our doctors and theologians that in the rites of the Church what is really effected in one indivisible time duration, should, in its solemnisation, be distributed in time, and be, so to speak, diffused and expanded in a series of ceremonial actions, in the various phases of the Liturgy, so to secure a salutary adaptation of the faith and devotion of those concerned to the various actions and benefits of the one essential action, more fully explained by these different ceremonies.[564] Hence it is the custom of the Church after a sacrament has been conferred—Holy Orders or Extreme Unction, for example—to enunciate the production of the various sacramental effects, as if they were only there and then produced; whether this be done by the indicative words, as in the celebration of the Mass, the ministration of the sacrament of penance, the ordination of priests, or by words of prayer, as when after one sufficient anointing the others are supplied. Why should one consider that a mode of action is repugnant in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is not repugnant in the ministration of various sacraments?

To justify the epiclesis, then, we have only now to show how, in line with the various ceremonies in the solemn conferring of the sacraments, it serves a useful purpose, explanatory of the essential action, and so, to come to our second point, that it is not otiose, functionless. Now the consecration, the essential action round which all turns, is appropriately declared and explained in the prayer after the consecration, in which we invoke either God Omnipotent, or the Trinity, or the Word and His angelic company, or the Holy Spirit. To make this clear, we shall consider, firstly, the position of the epiclesis in the Liturgy; secondly, the invocation in it of the Person of the divinity.

(i) The Position of the Epiclesis is Appropriate.

In the one action of our sacrifice three things are effected—commemoration, offering, consecration; for in the commemoration of the sacrifice of our Lord we offer the victim of the sacrifice of our Lord through the consecration of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood. These three things are done at the same time in the Supper narrative spoken over the bread and wine, but in the narrative not all of them are equally evident. The commemoration is without doubt self-evident, for to narrate is to commemorate; but the offering and the consecration are not so explicitly expressed in the narrative. Hence we look for a further elucidation of these last two after the narrative, in which alone all three—commemoration, offering, consecration—are effected: unless such elucidation should have already preceded the narrative.

There are three reasons why the narrative has come appropriately to be placed first. For since our Lord after the Supper gave the precept Do this, etc., the Apostles quite naturally and spontaneously, when doing what Christ did, not only imitated the substance of what He did, but also, as far as was possible, all its accidentals; that is, they imitated the very liturgy of Christ Himself. And so, because Christ immediately after giving thanks to God the Father (II Cor., XI, 24)—where the great Action commences—pronounced the sacramental words over the bread and wine, the Apostles followed the same order as Christ and, the latreutic and eucharistic character of the whole Action having been signified by the praise and thanksgiving, they immediately went on to the utterance of the sacramental words: all the more because the narrative of the actual Supper (wherein was offered the sacrifice of the Redemption), rightly claimed for itself the last and chief place in the thanksgiving; because the Supper coupled with the Passion was the last and the greatest benefit for which the thanksgiving was made. As the command of the Lord, Do this for a commemoration of me, was the last part of the narrative, quite suitably there followed at once the enumeration of the mysteries—Passion, Resurrection, Ascension—the commemoration (anamnesis) of which was implied in the action; hence comes at once after the narrative in our Mass the prayer unde et memores. After this it remained that the offering and the consecration, certainly involved in the commemoration of the Supper, but not yet sorted out, should be brought into clearer evidence. But in what order? Should this manifestation of the offering come before that of the consecration, or vice versa? In this connection two remarks are necessary. In the first place, every sacrificial offering has, as its goal, its acceptance by God. Hence the natural order of things demands that if we are setting out to distinguish the formal concepts of sacrifice, we should first declare the offering as coming from us, and then a prayer should be made for its acceptance, or as Virgil often says, that God be invoked on our vows or sacrifices (invocetur Deus votis)—invoked, that is, not through the sacrifices, but on to the sacrifices.

Secondly, because our sacrifice is sacramental, apparently a sacrifice of bread and wine but really the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, it is accepted by God in so far as the apparent victim passes into the true Victim of the eternal sacrifice, in the fullest sense finally and irrevocably accepted in glory by God.[565] Acceptance therefore is effected by the transubstantiation.[566]

Transubstantiation indeed is a special kind of acceptance in the same way as our sacrifice is a special kind of sacrifice within the common genus of sacrifice. Hence, just as, generally speaking, acceptance of the offering would logically be prayed for after the enunciation of the offering, so, too, with us Christians, transubstantiation, a special kind of acceptance, is logically asked for after the enunciation of the offering. Moreover, since for us, in the Mass, acceptance and transubstantiation are in effect the same, a petition for acceptance could be made in two ways: either for acceptance in general, or especially for transubstantiation. It is made in general if we merely invoke God on our sacrifice, it is made in a special way if He is invoked as the worker of the transubstantiation. In whatever way we make the petition we always ask for the same thing, as for us there is only one way or kind of acceptance by God of our offering. The Liturgies, therefore, may pray in vague terms (as in the Testamentum D.N.J.C., in the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae or the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae, and in the Latin version of the Apostolikh Paradosij) for the divine approach, or they may ask more expressly for the transubstantiation (as in the numerous eastern or western Masses already cited); but in every case they ask for one and the same thing, the acceptance of the victim, which consists in the transubstantiation, just as both the offering of our sacrifice and the commemoration of the sacrifice of our Lord consist in the transubstantiation.[567] Therefore, once we admit as legitimate the principle of ceremonial expansion through the successive parts of the Liturgy, we have a reasonable explanation of petitioning for the consecration after the enunciation of the offering has been made, and this has been preceded by the commemoration of the Supper,[568] the order being the commemoration of the Supper. enunciation of the offering, prayer for the consecration. These three elements of sacrifice were naturally displayed in our ritual, and in this order, like so many blossoms from a tree (effloruerunt), from our consideration of the manner in which Christ gave thanks to the Father, of which thanksgiving the special theme, from beginning to end, was supplied by the Supper of the Lord.[569]

Moreover, the complete liturgical celebration of early times consisted in these three, to which, as we have said, the Lord's prayer was immediately added; it was only at a later period that anamneses, proscomidae and epicleses (commemorations, offerings, invocations) crept in as preliminaries, as, for example, in the more recent portion of the Roman Mass, which extends from the dismissal of the catechumens to the beginning of the preface.

In addition to these intrinsic reasons for the structure of our Liturgy, the example of Christ Himself commends it, and perhaps, too, helps somewhat to explain it historically.

For in the cenacle and, be it noted, after the Supper, Christ prayed in express words for the acceptance of His sacrifice when He addressed the Father: Father, the hour is come, GLORIFY THY SON (John, XVII, 1). In these words He asked for the acceptance of His Sacrifice, because clearly the actual (external) glorification of the Son was the acceptance by the Father. In this same sacerdotal prayer Christ expressly speaks of the sanctification which is His, by reason of His being made a Victim sacred to God, whereby we are sanctified (John, XVII, 19). Here note the similarity to the epiclesis, in which a petition is made for the sanctification of the gifts, in order to our sanctification by means of communion.[570]

What we have said shows that the words which we use in the Liturgy about the consecration, not of course the words of consecration, but the later reference to it in the Canon, should take the form of petition and not the form of affirmative statement: for as the consecration or transubstantiation is considered as the divine acceptance of the Victim, it would not be congruously explained by us in our Liturgy by indicative words, which are more suited to those things which come from us, whereas acceptance as such comes from God. Therefore just as what comes from us is rightly explained by words of affirmation, so we quite properly use the language of petition when elucidating what comes from God.

(ii) The Invocation of the Divinity is Appropriate.

It is fitting that the invocation should be either of God without distinction of Person (cf. Irenaeus, adv. Haeres., 4, 18, 5. P.G. 7, 1028), or of the Trinity, for the consecration is the work of the whole Trinity. As a matter of fact the Trinity is invoked in the Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi (p. 43; cf. p. 188, where the editor gives a better punctuation).[571]

Appropriately also the Father is invoked to send another Person, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or both. First, then, let us consider the sending of the Son, then the sending of the Holy Spirit.[572]

The petition for the sending of the Son is plainly appropriate for it was the Son who first consecrated by His own power. And so we find such a petition in the Anaphora Serapionis (and such a petition seems also to be approved by Athanasius, if he is the author of the Sermo ad baptizandos. P.G. 26, 1325), and in the Mass of the Presanctified in the Jacobite rite (published in J. T. S., V. 4, p. 75), also in a number of Mozarabic post-pridie prayers (V. g. P.L. 85, 117), and, as we have said, in all the epicleses which contain the petition that the proffered gifts be borne by the holy Angel of God to the sublime Altar of God.

That Christ is the sublime Altar of God has been shown elsewhere, in Ths. XIII (Vol. I), XVII and XXI. Furthermore, it would appear that Christ is here the holy Angel of God, because here by the word Angel or Envoy (Missus) no mere creature can be meant but an Uncreated Divinity; and that not the Person of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Person of the Son of God.

That a mere creature does not suffice is evident from the fact that, as we have seen above, the petition for transubstantiation itself is petitioned for under the name of one for translation, carrying, being borne to the sublime Altar (Jube haec perferri): the one therefore who carries the gift to the sublime Altar is none other than the one who works the transubstantiation. But the transubstantiation is not the work of any mere angelic spirit, but of the priest, both the ministerial priest and the principal Priest, as also of the whole Trinity. Therefore the petition is made by the ministerial priest to the Father either that Christ or the Holy Spirit be sent (thus L. A. Hoppe, Die Epiklesis der griechischen and orientalischen Liturgieen, 1864, 171-172).

It is unsatisfactory, however, to identify here the Angel with the Holy Spirit. For in the first place the Holy Spirit is never called an angel in the Scriptures nor in the Mass liturgies, as far as I remember.[573] No exponent of the Mass that I know of has ever said that the Holy Spirit was indicated here. Hence when Hoppe (op. cit., pp. 172-191) says that the Holy Spirit is meant here, his interpretation has little or no support from liturgical literature. His view, moreover, rests on an argument which is quite ineffective: that Christ cannot be designated here under the name of Angel, because He is designated under the name of Altar. But it is no more inconsistent to speak of Christ as at the same time Altar and Priest than to speak of Him as Priest and Victim, or Victim and Altar. Hence the Fathers speak time without number in the same breath of these three functions in Christ—Priest, Victim, Altar.[574] Now the name Angel is here, as we have said, applicable to Christ as Priest. Hence no inconsistency is involved.

On the other hand, in holy Scripture Christ is called the Angel of the Testament (Mal., III, 1), and that, too, in His relation to the worship of the temple. Hence the name Angel would be quite appropriate to Him who functions here by His sacerdotal power, as liturgus of the holies and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, not man (Hebr., VIII, 2), that is, as Chief Priest (antistes) of the true supernal Altar, both sacrifice and temple. Furthermore, in the Septuagint (the text which the early Christians followed), in Isaias, IX., 5, He is called the "Angel of great counsel". And so in the oldest of all the Liturgies preserved for us the Canon commences with these words: "We give thee thanks, O God, through thy beloved servant (puerum), Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent in these latter days to us, as Saviour, Redeemer and ANGEL OF THY WILL " (Apostolikh Paradosij of Hippolytus, Canon.....reliq., ed. Hauler, p. 106; and cf. the cognate Liturgies).

The Fathers, moreover, freely bestowed the name of Angel on Christ.[575]

Finally the early exponents of the Mass have handed on to us this interpretation. The better-known examples of these testimonies have been collected by Hoppe (p. 170), in addition to the few, out of many, quoted by us in Th. XXI. Nevertheless, here the Angel of the sacrifice is not Christ alone, rather it is Christ as Chief, as Prince of the holy angels who minister to the liturgy of the heavenly Priest, Victim, and Altar. To Him they are guards of honour; to us they are protectors. It will not be out of place while on this subject, to point out how and for what reason the ministry of the angelic hosts is associated in these epicleses, with the uncreated Angel—the Word of God.

Long ago Justin had linked together in rather an astonishing manner (miro modo) the angelic army and the divine Word, in a passage where he enumerates the three divine Persons, explaining to the pagans, not so much the Christian faith as the Christian worship: "We admit that we are atheists in our attitude towards the false gods your imagination conjures up, but not in our relations to the most true God, Father of justice and clemency, and all other virtues, and free from all evil; but Him[God the Father] we worship and adore, and the Son who came from Him and who instructed us in these things, also THE ARMY OF THE OTHER (twn allwn) V) GOOD ANGELS who follow in His train and are likened to Him, and we worship (sebomeqa) and adore (proskunoumen) the prophetic Spirit, paying honour (timwntej) in reason and in truth" (Apol., 1, 6. P.G. 6, 336).

There are two reasons why the angelic choir should accompany Christ in what we may call His liturgical descent to us and His ascent to heaven.

Firstly, in the theophanies (= appearances, manifestations, showing of God to man) of the Old Testament the angels frequently stood by (stetere pro, accompanied) the Word; and they will be present at the theophany of the Last Judgment when Christ will come from heaven in glory.…with His angels (Matth., XVI, 27; cf. St. Mark, VIII, 38), nay in his majesty and that of his Father and of the holy angels (St. Luke, IX, 26). It is fitting, therefore, that the angels should assist, not indeed visibly but spiritually, AT THE THEOPHANY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH IS CONSTANTLY RECURRING IN THE SACRAMENTAL SHOWING FORTH OF THE GLORIFIED CHRIST, the Mystery of Faith.

That there is a Theophany in the Sacrament is indicated first of all by the words of the epiclesis in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions: "Mayest thou send down thy Holy Spirit on to this Victim, that it may show this bread to be the Body of thy Christ" (Katapemyvj to agion sou Pneuma epi thn qusian tauthn, opwj apofhnv ton arton touton swma tou Xristou sou k. t. l.) (Const. Apost., 1, 8, c. 12. F. D. 1, 510). Here transmutation is unquestionably what is petitioned for, but it is called a showing ("opwj apofhnv—that it may show"), because it is precisely by the transubstantiation that the sacramental signification in respect of the Body and Blood of Christ is made truly demonstrative, demonstrates or shows that Christ is truly present. This is the demonstration or showing (anadeicij) which Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, c. 66. P.G. 32, 188) ascribes to the bread and wine of the eucharist: "The words of the epiclesis at the showing of the bread of the thanksgiving (eucharist) and the cup of benediction (eulogia)—ta thj epiklhsewj rhmata epi tv anadeicei tou artou thj euxaristiaj kai tou pothriou thj eulogiaj" The ancient Liturgy of St. Basil is also in accord: "We beg of thee, that thy Holy Spirit may come....on these proffered gifts, and bless them and sanctify them, and show forth this bread to be the precious Body itself of our Lord and God, and Saviour Jesus Christ" (Se parakaloumen elqein to Pneuma sou epi ta prokeimena dwra tauta, kai euloghsai auta kai agiasai kai anadeicai ton men arton touton auto to timion swma tou kuriou kai qeou kai swthroj hmwn Ihsou Xristou (B. 329-330). Basil is not here speaking of a showing or manifestation of a presence already presupposed, but still latent, not yet manifested, as if the consecration had previously taken place, and afterwards at the epiclesis there was some kind of manifestation of it; but the reference is undoubtedly to the showing which obtains in the transubstantiation itself.[576] For by the transmutation Christ is shown to the eyes of faith as present, as Dom Maranus (P.G. 32, 187-188) wisely remarked in a note on the passage cited from Basil. Theodorus Andidensis is clearly in agreement where, in his Brevis Commentatio, 27. (P.G. 140, 453), he uses indiscriminately the words, metapoihsij and anadeicij (=transmutation and showing forth) for one and the same action; similarly, too, the author of a sermon interpolated in the Historiae ecclesiasticae et mysticae contemplatio, where in one and the same sense he says the Holy Spirit does two things: "He shows forth the divine power (upodeiknuei thn qeian energeian); and He transmutes and perfects the proffered gifts (metaballei kai teleioi ta upokeimena dwra)" (P.G. 98, 437). And there can be no doubt whatever, that this writer, in his explanation of the epiclesis, had in mind a theophany when he wrote (ibid. P.G. 98, 437): "The bowed head of the priest performing the divine mystery indicates that he speaks invisibly with God alone. So it is that (unde) he perceives the flash of light streaming from the divinity (qeian fwtofaneian), and is filled with joy at the splendour of the glory of the face of God, and withdraws in fear and reverence, as Moses, when he saw God on the mountain in a flame of fire, went back and hid his face, for he feared to see in its glory the face of God."

Admitting, then, such a theophany in the Eucharist, we can easily see how suitable it is that the angels should be associated with the Word in the epiclesis. For the angels, as we have said, were the accompanying ministers at the theophanies of the Old Testament, and those theophanies were types of the theophanies to come, which under the law of grace we have beneath the veils of the sacrament, showing Christ really present to us, enjoying His sacerdotal and sacrificial glory, until the glory of the Word of God will be consummated in the kingdom, where in the very Flesh which He assumed He will be revealed to us face to face in his majesty, and that of his Father, and the holy angels. The place of the angels, therefore, is appropriate in the fulfilment of the type of the theophanies of the Old Testament, and at the consummation of which, on the last day, they, too, are to be present.

Secondly, mention in the epiclesis of the angels is appropriate for another reason, that an ascent and descent of the angels on Christ is commemorated, typically in Genesis and literally in the Gospel. For Jacob saw a ladder by which the angels ascended to heaven, and descended from heaven on to the stone, which, on rising from sleep, he erected into a title, pouring oil upon it, to consecrate the first Altar, the first type of the true Altar, which is Christ (Gen., XXVIII, 11-18). And Christ Himself said to Nathaniel and Philip: Amen, amen, I say to you, you shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John, I, 51).

Surely, it seems to me, we have just such an example of this flitting to and fro of the angels on the Son of Man in the post-pridie prayer of the Mozarabic Mass, "pro quinto dominico Paschae," that is, for the fourth Sunday after Easter: "We confess, O Lord, we confess and believe, that in thy body thou didst submit to the punishment of death for our sins, and that, having overcome the destruction (interitu; perhaps should be imperio, sway) of death for the salvation of mankind, thou didst return with the triumphant angels to the heavenly mansion of the Father, whence thou hadst come. Hence, O Omnipotent God, we pray and beseech thee, to make acceptable to thyself the sacrificial offerings (libamina) of our servitude made in thy sight; and when accepted, WITH THE FLITTING TO AND FRO OF THY HOLY ANGEL, distribute them sanctified to us" (P.L. 85, 590).[577]

The same may be said of the "archangelic liturgy of God" mentioned in the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark cited by us above (Thesis XXI), in its anticipated petition, at the beginning of the anaphora, for the translation of the gifts unto the altar of God, and of angelic ministrations so often mentioned in all the better-known Liturgies of this kind. Finally, too, we see why the Fathers (not to mention the theologians of the Middle Ages) so frequently stressed the presence of the thronging angelic hosts at the time of our invocation. They ascend from and descend upon the celestial altar which has been made ours. They ascend from and descend upon our gifts placed on our heavenly altar, and in turn transmitted to us.[578]

So much for the sending of the Son with His angels. We must now consider the sending of the Holy Spirit.

The petition for the sending of the Holy Spirit is the most common of all and very appropriate.[579]

For sacred Scripture appropriates to the Holy Spirit the forming of the Body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee (epeleusetai),[580] and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee (Luke, I, 35). Similarly, therefore, and appropriately, the Holy Spirit may be invoked to provide (ad conficiendum) the Eucharistic Body of Christ.[581]

This explains the form of the epiclesis presented in the Oratio eucharistica Domini et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi (Le Brun, 2, 573): We beseech thee to send THE HOLY SPIRIT AND POWER (ut mittas Spiritum Sanctum et Virtutem) on this bread and chalice, that it may become the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."[582]

Furthermore, St. Paul (Rom., XV, 15-16) seems to favour such an invocation of the Holy Ghost where he writes: that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost. For though I think that the Apostle is speaking here of the internal rather than of the external sacrifice of the faithful, nevertheless it is not without allusion to the external sacrifice, from which his words seem to be borrowed. Moreover, the visible sacrifice is made in order to the invisible sacrifice, and the sanctification of the victim is made in order to the sanctification of all those who partake of the victim. Now Sacred Scripture commonly attributes all sanctification of the faithful to the Holy Ghost. It was natural, therefore, to attribute to the Holy Ghost the sanctification of the sacrifice from which our sanctification flows.

Again instruction in matters of faith and the manifestation of truth is the appropriate function of the Holy Spirit, who descended on the Church on the day of Pentecost,[583] hence it is appropriate that the Holy Ghost, through the transubstantiation, should place before the eyes of faith the presence of Christ, not merely signified, but also contained in the sacrament: so that the symbol is verified by the presence of the true reality itself. And, as we said above, such a petition was made expressly for this to the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions (F. D. 1, 510) and in the ancient Liturgy of St. Basil.[584]

The introduction, or at all events the bringing into common use, of this invocation to the Holy Ghost was helped to a large extent, it seems to me, by the reading dia pheumatoj agiou (per Spiritum Sanctum, by the Holy Ghost), which already, at any rate in the fourth century, had crept into the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, IX, 14, instead of the genuine reading dia pneumatoj aiwniou (by the eternal Spirit), the genuine text being: dia pneumatoj aiwniou eauton proshnegken amwmon tw qew (who by the eternal Spirit offered himself unspotted unto God).[585] We certainly find this reading in Chrysostom (in h. 1. P.G. 63, 120), as well as in a few codices (according to Nestle): 'aleph' (the hardcopy text has the Hebrew letter here) of third hand; D of the first hand, and P; and the Vulgate invariably has its Latin equivalent (per Spiritum Sanctum). Finally, the petition for the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit together, such as we find in the Vetus Missale Gallicanum, in the post-secret prayer of the Mass of St. Germanus[586] and of the Missa de Adventu (in Mabillon, De liturgia gallicana, lib. 3. P.L. 72, 342 and 345), is also quite appropriate. For what is appropriate to each one of the two by Himself is also appropriate to both in combination.[587]


The petition for acceptance of a victim is implicitly included in every offering of a victim. But, from the very beginning of this work we have been constantly showing that there is involved an offering of Christ our Victim which is certainly not merely enunciative, by words that announce it merely, tell of its occurrence, but pragmatic, by words which effect it, in the actual rite of the Last Supper, in what Christ then did: and that by the narration of what Christ did then we repeat that offering. Therefore our Supper narrative implies a pragmatic petition for acceptance of the Victim, or for transubstantiation. And it was thus that the holy Fathers could and did unanimously say that we sacrifice by prayer. And because that petition or prayer, just as the offering in which the petition is implied, is made in the name of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for this reason they could and did say that it was only by the ecclesiastical prayer, by the prayer of the true Church, that either the Holy Spirit is invoked or the Body of Christ is consecrated. And because every petition of the Church is made through Christ and with Christ and in Christ, and most of all that greatest of all petitions, in which we are united with the High Priest, securing by His prayer in the past the eternal acceptance of His Victim: for this reason our doctors say that our sacraments are made (confici) by the prayer of Christ Himself: Since at THE INVOCATION OF THE HIGH PRIEST they are made (perficiantur), not by human power, but ineffably by the majesty of the Holy Spirit" (St. Agobardus, De privilegio et jure sacerdotii, c. 15. P.L. 104, 142-143).[588]

This is clearly indicated by the striking words of the post-pridie prayer in the Mozarabic Mass for Easter: "Now we pray thee, O Lord, holy eternal Father, Omnipotent God, that JUST AS our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son, when, in that action of ineffable thanksgiving, HE OFFERED HIMSELF for us [note here the offering], when about to submit to our death (suscepturus mortem nostram), WAS HEARD [note the divine acceptance]; so now MAY WE ALSO BE HEARD, we who seek Himself and His life, by carrying out as His ministers what He instituted: that this bread and this chalice OFFERED TO THEE MAY BE ENRICHED UNTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THY SON, AND BEING INFUSED WITH THE ABUNDANT SPIRIT OF THY LIPS may pour forth on us pardon for all our sins, and grace" (P.L. 85, 485).

Here is indicated in what our being heard, or the acceptance of our offering consists: in the transubstantiation, whereby the sanctified bread becomes sanctifying.

Hence the reply to the two following objections: Firstly. Nevertheless it is very strange that in every one of the Liturgies, a petition for the transubstantiation is made, when the transubstantiation, as you say, has already actually taken place. Does not this suggest, whatever theologians may say, that it is precisely at the epiclesis, and not until then, that the transubstantiation is effected (or at least was so effected in past times)?[589] We reply. The ORAL OFFERING (that is, in words openly declaring the offering) of our Victim is made just as universally in the Liturgies, after the sacerdotal offering has been PRAGMATICALLY made in the consecration. It is no more strange, therefore, that after the invocation of God has been PRAGMATICALLY made in the consecration, our ORAL and ceremonial invocation, declarative of it, should then be made.

Secondly. But still it is strange that numbers of the Fathers said more or less expressly that the consecration is enacted by the invocation of God on to the gifts, in order to secure the transubstantiation. We reply. The Fathers spoke truly in respect of the invocation which is pragmatically made by the words of consecration. For the petition for transubstantiation is implicitly contained in our consecrative words, even though no petition is expressed in so many words. The petition is contained in our words of consecration, in as much as these words have the character of an oblative action, but the oblative action is itself a pragmatic petition for acceptance, and the acceptance of our sacrifice is found precisely in the transubstantiation.



B. The Context Of Words Needed For The Consecration

(A) The Formal Words

It is quite certain, as all admit, that the words: This is my body, This is the chalice of my blood (or other equivalent words), by which is demonstrated the presence of the Body and the Blood of Christ under the appearance of the bread and the wine, are essential to the form of consecration. But a further question arises: whether, in addition to this indication of the Body and the Blood of Christ, there is necessary, as a part of the form, and as an essential part of it, a determination of the propitiatory end in view, as, for example, by words which indicate that what is enacted in symbol is done for us, unto the remission of sins.

St. Thomas, after Innocent III (whose words are quoted below), in 3 S. 78, 3, and more positively still in II Cor., II, lect. 6,[590] together with all his early disciples, whom the Salmanticenses quote with approval, maintains that such words are essential (De euchar. sacram., disp. 9, dub. 3, para. 2, n. 22).[591] Modern theologians for the most part, following St. Bonaventure (4 D. 8, 2, 1, V, deny that such words are essential.[592]

Two main arguments are given for this denial: one resting on intrinsic principles; the other drawn from positive dogmatic sources.

The first line of reasoning is as follows: the conversion of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood is quite sufficiently signified without any further determination of the kind mentioned: therefore it is effected without this further determination; because in the sacraments the words effect what they signify.

The second reason is this: neither the Scripture narratives nor the Liturgies agree as to the precise tenor of these determinative words. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the form.[593]

However, neither of these reasons seems convincing.

Taking the second argument first, we find a sufficient refutation of it in the following fact: in every one of the Liturgies, with the exception of a few very corrupt Ethiopian ones[594] (some of which are known aliunde to be invalid), as well as some very degraded productions of the Syrian schismatics, we find invariably conveyed, besides the separate demonstration of the Body and Blood, an indication of the propitiatory intention for which the symbolic separation of Body and Blood, or the blood-shedding designated by it, is made. So we have, in every case, an equivalent sense in the formulae; and this, we maintain, is all that is necessary to secure the necessary uniformity of the form, as will be sufficiently proved by what we have to say immediately in refutation of the first objection proposed above, by the development of our own intrinsic argument, derived from the nature of things.

Coming, then, to the first argument of our adversaries, we think that it is sufficiently refuted by the development of our own argument. But first we must presuppose that there is no question here of what Christ could have done, if He willed, but only of what He did will to do. And it is quite plain that He willed to offer sacrifice. Again the question is not, here, whether the indication of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine would of itself sufficiently signify (and accordingly would avail, if our Lord so instituted, to accomplish effectively) some real presence or not; but the question is: would such an indication signify a real presence in the condition of immolation whereby the sacrifice would be enacted? And this, it seems, we must deny. For the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ could undoubtedly be realised by the actual effective words without any sacrifice whatever; just as Christ could, without sacrifice, change into His Body and Blood any other kind of material (corporeas) substances, such as stones, water and so on.[595] Certainly, just as Christ could have died without His death having the proper character of a sacrifice (as is the case with the martyrs); so, too, He could have left us some symbol of His death in His Body and Blood, even to be partaken of by us at a common banquet by way of food, for instance for the sole purpose of fostering charity amongst us, and all this without dedicating a victim to God, or without any propitiatory action. But Christ did in fact will that this conversion of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood should be a sacrifice; by transubstantiation He willed to offer sacrifice, He willed to offer the transubstantiation sacrificially. And so He willed not to make just a transubstantiation, but to make a transubstantiation whence He Himself would issue as God's Victim or Theothyte.

This being His will, the mere indication of His Body and Blood would not suffice for His purpose in the line of sacramental form: for it would not express this purpose, as we have said above; it was necessary that a further determination should be added to this demonstration of the Body and Blood, by which it would be plain that what was done was sacrificial, immolative. And for this it would be sufficient if the work done were plainly designated as propitiatory.

That is to say, it would suffice if it were plainly indicated that for us the Blood was asked from the Body, and that the death so brought about availed for us before God unto the remission of sins, whether this be expressed as in the formula of our Missal (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), or by any other equivalent formula, as already explained by us in III (Vol. I).[596] But this which we have shown to be sufficient to indicate the propitiatory intention is also absolutely necessary for the completion of the form: for, meantime, until this designation is given, the formula does not yet express all that must be expressed, and so does not accomplish anything: for here in reality the effect and what is signified by the formula are indivisible.[597] It is necessary, therefore, that this propitiatory determination should be found within the form itself. And it would be found more appropriately in reference to the chalice than to the Body. For by the consecration of the chalice there is induced the mystical shedding of the life-blood from the Body, upon which, and not before it, the sacrificial character of the action, bound up with the slaying, appears.[598] To sum up: the Eucharistic form must be immolative;[599] for the Eucharist is not a sacrament except in so far as it is a sacrifice. But the form is not immolative,[600] unless it includes the designation of a propitiatory intention; failing this, we have neither an ilasthrion (victim of propitiation) nor a euxaristhrion (victim of thanksgiving), nor any victim whatever;[601] nothing in the nature of a theothyte is provided by what we do, there is present no victim offered to God; nothing is directed towards or destined for God, indeed no final terminus of any such destination or direction is manifested; it is, however, manifested if it is indicated that God is to be appeased by what we do, and if there is placed before God the real thing offered, manifested to us after the manner of a gift or victim directed to and destined for God as its final term. For this signification or manifestation is practical or pragmatic, and effective of what is signified by it.

Against our contention it does not avail to say: any words indicating conversion are sufficient to render the form immolative, for, as a matter of fact, nothing besides the transubstantiation is required for the sacrifice, as is clear from our examination of the Mass, where we saw that we offer the sacrifice precisely by effecting the transubstantiation. This argument, I say, does not avail against us, for it is easily answered as follows: we sacrifice in transubstantiating, only because we transubstantiate in sacrificing. That is to say, transubstantiation does not of its own nature constitute sacrifice, but only in the Mass, because of the special manner in which it is accomplished. Most certainly bread and wine could be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ without any sacrifice: for instance, were the conversion to be made by the divine omnipotence without any intervention of man; or again, were it to be made by a human act of Christ without words, but simply by the power of His will to command. Moreover, why could not Christ transubstantiate by words, even by demonstrative words, without thereby offering sacrifice? We see no reason why He could not do this; indeed, the contrary is plain, as we have said. If, however, in the manner and moment of transubstantiating He showed His Body as destined to be drained of its life blood as a propitiatory offering ilasthrion for sin, then He could transubstantiate sacrificially only. For then in that moment He declared Himself and made Himself Theothyte—God's Victim. This point escapes the notice of those modern Protestants who say that the Supper was merely a prophetic parable of the death or something similar. For in very truth what was then pre-announced, His death, that very thing was then and there offered to God, in as far as there was induced in the sight of God the symbol of His expiatory death (and assuredly, not an empty symbol, but one full of its underlying truth, the Flesh dedicated to God).

Nor again does it avail against us to say: even if the rite used by Christ did not in itself indicate a sacrifice, nevertheless it would be quite sufficient for the purpose if Christ subsequent to the rite gave us some indication by which He made known to us the intention which He had had of sacrificing, and thus the sacrifice would be enacted in the transubstantiation, even in the absence of immolative determination there and then at the time of the transubstantiation. For we answer: to argue so is to lose sight of the most essential point, that sacrifice is in the nature of a sign, and of a sensible sign, which by manifesting itself to the senses indicates some other thing of which it is the sign. Hence if the sign is not evident in itself, it is incompetent, ineffective as a sign. In other words, if the external act of giving to God, the sign itself, is not self-evident, how will the internal dedication be made known by that sign?[602] Certainly the mere intention of Christ, or such an intention together with the subsequent intimation of that intention, could not suffice to confer on the sign its aptitude and its meaning;[603] but, of itself; the "visible word", to use the expression of Augustine,[604] that is, the compound of material things and formal words must manifest itself sufficiently to the minds of those present that by such manifestation it may be able to lead their minds to a knowledge of the other thing of which it is a sign. And so it was necessary for Christ when He was actually sacrificing sacramentally to place within the rite itself the determination of propitiatory intention, and this He did in fact place, not in the matter of the sacrament, but in the form.

This, be it carefully noted, must not be considered a trifling question, as it has to do with the intimate essence of our sacrifice, and indeed of the sacrifice of Christ. Scotus (loc. cit.) considered that any error admitted here would be most dangerous; moreover, St. Pius V, because of the importance of the subject, ordered a statement in the Commentaries of Cajetan to be deleted, as being opposed to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor; and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pars. 2, De Euchar., c. 21-23, coll. c. 20) warns us that in priests ignorance in this matter would be shameful, while at the same time it included within the limits of the sacramental form the whole formula, both the demonstrative words, and the determinative words of which we have been speaking.

(B) The Words Of The Narrative

Theologians of every school are agreed in this: that at the Last Supper the form and the adequate form of the consecration consisted in the actual words of our Lord: This is my body, etc. But now arises another question which is still freely discussed amongst Catholics: are our Lord's words, left to themselves, our form at Mass, or, is a preamble putting them on the lips of Christ REQUIRED;[605] such a preamble as is found in all the Liturgies, when it is NARRATED THAT CHRIST said: This is my body?

This question was not introduced into the theological schools until a comparatively late period, and I have not read anything before the ninth century which directly touched it. In the thirteenth century we find St. Thomas denying that any such preamble was required; and the greater number of the scholastic theologians followed his teaching in the matter. Hence the opinion against the necessity of narrative words in our form enjoys the highest extrinsic authority, so that it would be very rash indeed not to admit its probability.

At the same time, however, it is no more injurious to St. Thomas to defend, as solidly probable, the opposite opinion of Scotus (given in 4 D. 8, 2, n. 4, and at greater length in the Reportata, 4 D. 2, n. 4), than it would be to desert the teaching of St. Thomas, as some have done, on the essential form of the consecration of the chalice. Moreover, no other point in the theology of St. Thomas has any immediate logical dependence on the solution of the question before us; though I must confess that, in my opinion, the teaching of Scotus seems to harmonise better with the principles of St. Thomas on the causality of the sacraments, Scotus teaching, as will be explained below, that the words of the form will not produce their effect unless they are uttered in such manner as ritually to signify their effect.

Quite a number of theologians, and these not only Scotists, have consistently followed the opinion of Scotus in this matter up to the present time. Gerson (d. 1429) mentions, while not naming them, some early followers of Scotus' opinion (Compendium theologiae. De septem sacramentis, de sacramen, euchar., Opera, Paris, 1606, t. 2, col. 82); but apart from these the following can be cited: Thomas of Walden, of whom below; Angelus in his Summa angelica (s. V. Eucharistia, c. 1, n. 24, Paris, 1502, fol. 141b); Pelbartus de Temesvar (fl. 1490) in the Aureum sacrae Theologiae Rosarium (tom. 3, s. V. Eucharistia II, de forma, parag. 1, Venice, 1586, p. 100); Salmeron, S.J., in his Commentarii in evangelicam historiam. (t. 9, tr. 13, Cologne, 1614, p. 85);[606] Joannes de Rada (d. 1608),[607] Archbishop of Trani, later Bishop of Patti (Controversiarum Theologicarum inter S. Thomam et Scotum, super quartum Sententiarum librum, Controvers., 5, art. 3, Venice, 1617, p. 163);[608]; Philippus Faber, "a truly learned theologian" (Hurter, Nomenclator, 2), who in his Disputationes theologicae in Quartum Sententiarum (disp. 33, n. 3-17, Venice, 1614, pp. 134-137) discusses the matter most competently and at length; Cardinal Laurentius Brancatus de Lauraea (in Quartum Librum Sententiarum Mag. Fr. Joannis Duns Scoti, tom. 1, Rome, 1653, disp. 19, art. 1, n. 10-42, pp. 492-499), a leader among his contemporaries, in high esteem with four pontiffs, who died, says Hurter, "leaving behind him a lasting memory in his writings";[609] the Theatine Zacharias Pasqualigo,[610] a in his work De sacrificio Novae Legis, (Quaest. 323, n. 4-5, Rome, 1707, tom. 1, p. 292), which Hurter says (Nomenclator) is an outstanding work of a classic author; Antonius Arbiol, "a very learned man" (Nomenclator), in his Selectae disputationes scholasticae et dogmaticae (disp. 4, art. 2, Saragossa, 1725, pp. 322-326), etc.[611]

Some, though they consider that the opposite opinion (of St. Thomas) is more probable, nevertheless assert that the opinion of Scotus is at least probable. Such are Hickey (in Scotum, 4, D. 8, 2, n. 9), Poncius,[612] Mastrius (in 4 Sent., disp. 3, q. 6, art. 1, n. 137-138) and many others.[613] Moreover, the Church instructs all in practice to follow this teaching. For in the Rubricae Generales, De defectibus in celebratione missarum occurrentibus (c. 3, n. 5, 6, 7; c. 4, n. 3 and 4; c. 10, n. 3 and 13) we find that, should any defect be discovered in the consecration of the sacrament through want of proper matter, or for any other reason, the priest is always directed to resume the prayer from the words: Qui pridie or Simili modo. So we read in c. 3, n. 5: LET HIM BEGIN FROM THE CONSECRATION (a consecratione incipiat), NAMELY, FROM THE WORDS: Qui pridie."

Even before Scotus there were some who maintained this teaching. St. Thomas (loc. cit.), without mentioning any names, refers to some of them when he says: "SOME have said that this sacrament cannot be consecrated by pronouncing these words and omitting the others." Who those were whom the saint had in mind we do not know, but we can quote some of these earlier writers who favoured the opinion of Scotus.

Florus of Lyons (De expositione missae, n. 60, on the words: Who on the day before He suffered took bread, etc., down to: As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me) comments thus: IN THESE words, WITHOUT WHICH no tongue, nor nation, nor state, that is, NO PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, CAN MAKE (conficere), THAT IS, CONSECRATE the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Lord Himself gave to the Apostles the manner in which the universal Church celebrates the memory of her Redeemer, and the Apostles handed on the same to the whole Church in general" (P.L. 119, 52).[614] Here when he says THESE WORDS he must be referring to the whole sequence of the sentences of which we are speaking. For he does not mention any particular words except those which we have transcribed from him. Not even once here did he mention distinctly the words of our Lord: This is my body.

Nor can any objection be raised from the fact that Florus immediately goes on to say: "Therefore the consecration is and always will be by the power and by the words of Christ. It is His words that sanctify the celestial sacraments. He speaks daily in His priests" (ibid.). Here Florus certainly refers to our own pronouncement of the words of our Lord, and declares them to be efficacious. For it is only in so far as we introduce Christ as saying these words, that the words of Christ are effective on our lips, and Christ signifies His Body through us priests, when we say: This is my body. Wherefore Florus continues: "Hence it is that the Church, when consecrating ACCORDING TO TRADITION with these words the mystery of the sacred Body and Blood of the Lord, SAYS IN EXPRESS WORDS (designanter) THAT THE LORD SAID TO THE APOSTLES: Take ye all of this, for this is my body" (col. 53).[615]

For a proper understanding of the mind of Gerhoh of Reichersberg two things should be carefully noted.

We must admit that he considered as non-essential the ceremonies which accrued to the pristine rite of the Mass: "For the sacrifice is not thereby holier than it formerly was, WHEN IT WAS CONSECRATED AT THE SOLE WORDS OF THE LORD and at the Lord's prayer alone" (Tract. adv. Simon., c. 17. P.L. 194, 1352).[616] But from these words one must not jump to the conclusion that in the past the consecration was made by the sole words of the Lord, left to themselves. For it may well be that Gerhoh was simply giving here the teaching of Gregory the Great, according to whom the Apostles consecrated "simply and solely at the prayer of the offering"—(ad solam orationem oblationis)—XXXI, above), by which he meant the anaphora alone, embracing the words of the thanksgiving, the offering and the invocation, which were followed by the Lord's prayer.

On the other hand, it is quite certain that Gerhoh himself was not satisfied with only the words of our Lord.[617] For in the first place he says quite clearly: "Those words of the Lord, woven from beginning to end into one single whole (desuper contexta per totum) IN WHICH CHRIST HIMSELF IS INTRODUCED AS SPEAKING WITH HIS OWN LIPS, AND SAYING: Take ye all and eat of this: for this is my body. Take ye all and drink of this, for this is the chalice of my blood, down to: Do this for a commemoration of me, these words, I say, uttered over the bread and wine, by the addition of which to the element of the bread and wine (mingled with water) the sacrament is made (fit), represent the likeness of that coat woven from top to bottom in one piece, which not even those who crucified Christ were permitted to rend. That is the word comprising and consummating the integral whole, which is in the sacrament of the bread and wine, if these words have been applied to the same element, to which Christ applied them, NAMELY IN THE RITE OF THE CHURCH, WHICH WE KNOW TO BE HANDED DOWN BY CHRIST HIMSELF (C. 18, col. 1352). Hence the words of our Lord are sufficient, according to Gerhoh, but only on the condition that (1) in the recital Christ is introduced (inducatur) as uttering them by His own lips; or, which comes to the same thing (2) if they are applied by the rite of the Church, according to which rite they really are uttered, as uttered by Christ in His Supper.

Secondly, he goes on to say: "If....when sacrificing, and reciting all the things which are appointed by the holy Fathers, WE DO NOT INTRODUCE CHRIST SPEAKING IN THE SUPPER, what we effect (agimus) cannot be termed the sacrament" (c. 18, col. 1353). But how shall we introduce Christ speaking IN HIS SUPPER, except by giving a narrative of the Supper? How introduce Him as speaking if we do not declare that this or that was said by Him? In keeping with this teaching are the words of Innocent III, where, in the profession of faith prescribed for the Waldenses, he says that three things are essential for the consecration (confectionem) of the sacrament: the order of the priesthood, right intention, "and those solemn words which are expressed in the Canon BY THE HOLY FATHERS" (D. 424). Under this last designation the Pontiff evidently includes something more than the actual words of our Lord.[618] His treatise De sacro altaris mysterio seems to favour this interpretation; for though we read there "at the uttering of these words: This is my body, the bread is changed into the Body" (1, 4, c. 17 and 18. P.L. 117, 868-869), nevertheless earlier in the same work (in the same book, c. 1 and 5, cols. 851-858), when addressing himself to the explanation of the words: Qui pridie, etc., he says: "We are entering into the very heart of the divine SACRIFICE." And in the course of the explanation he notes that there are three elements in the narrative not commemorated by the Evangelists: with his eyes lifted up to heaven (elevatis oculis in coelum), and eternal (novi et aeterni testamenti, whereas the Gospels only give novi testamenti), and the mystery of faith (mysterium fidei); and these he considers must be derived from Christ and the Apostles, for "Who would be so presumptuous and daring as to insert these things out of his own devotion? In truth, THE APOSTLES RECEIVED THAT FORM OF WORDS FROM CHRIST HIMSELF, and the Church received it from the Apostles themselves".[619] And, moreover, it should be noted that, of these three elements, the phrase with his eyes lifted up to heaven[620] is placed in our Canon, not among the words of our Lord, but in the narrative preamble. Therefore Innocent believes that the narrative is to be recited according to the institution of Christ: which is a very suasive argument that the narrative is necessary for the consecration of the sacrament; not indeed as the sacramental form, for the form is comprised in the words of the Lord, but as a condition, failing which, those words of our Lord would not be the form, in our celebration, as without the narrative they would not have their due sense, in our celebration.

We find then positive support for the opinion of Scotus, not only after but even before this time; on the other hand, I, at least, HAVE FOUND NO EXAMPLE OF THE CONTRARY TEACHING BEFORE THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.[621]

The opinion of Scotus, therefore, is by no means wanting in extrinsic probability. Its chief support, however, is found in the intrinsic reasons which favour it, and which we shall now consider.

The following statement may be taken as a fixed principle: every sacramental form must signify its own proper effect, not only from the subjective intention of the minister who pronounces the form, but also from the actual objective tenor of the words pronounced. For the form causes by signifying, and signification is of itself something objective and external; it must be interpreted according to the received rules of human speech in general, as well as the rules of the particular idiom used. Now in the making or production (confectione) of the sacraments, the intention is only concerned with the application of the form, complete in itself as form, to the matter of itself sufficient. One thing, however, the intention can never do. It can never confer on the form a signification which the form in itself does not possess. In other words, should the signification of the form in itself be in any way deficient, the intention will not supply this deficiency.

Therefore it may not be said that such and such a form would not by virtue of the words show such and such a signification, unless the minister intended to utter it in that particular sense or signification, but if the minister intends to utter it in such a sense it does have such a signification. On the contrary, I repeat, the intention of the minister does not correct or govern the sense of the form, it simply causes the form to have effectively that sense which, in given circumstances, it has naturally.

This principle, I think, should be accepted by every theologian. It underlies the decision of Leo XIII on Anglican Orders. The Pontiff, having shown what is the obvious meaning in the Anglican communion of the words of the adulterated Ordinal, goes on to say: "By this same argument, even taken alone—eodem porro argumento vel uno (that is, from the meaning of the words)—is refuted the contention of those who say that the prayer at the beginning of the ritual action: Omnipotens Deus, omnium bonorum largitor, CAN SUFFICE to make the form of the Order legitimate: though we admit that the form might perhaps be regarded as sufficient in some Catholic rite of which the Church had approved."

So here in the Anglican ordinal we have a form which CAN SUFFICE in other circumstances, namely, where from the received use of the Church it has a Catholic meaning; but it cannot suffice in the Anglican Church where the words priest and bishop and similar words have a different received meaning.

Having established this principle, we now ask: Do the words This is my body, pronounced by me with the omission of the other words, give the sense which the sacrament requires? Now, what sense of these words does the sacrament require? Plainly that the Body of Christ be signified by them. It is necessary, therefore, that the possessive my should be referred to Christ as its possessor, not to myself who now speaks at the altar. Now if these words are left to themselves, that is, without any preamble, by every rule of speech, the objective and outward meaning of the word my will not be such as it should be, denoting Christ as the person to whom the word my refers, but clearly and obviously it will be referred simply to me: the sense of the words then being: this is the body of myself who am now speaking. And in matters sacramental my intention cannot change this, as has been said. Hence in order that the word my may connote Christ, that word must of necessity be uttered as coming from the lips of Christ. This will not be done if Christ Himself is not introduced as saying: This is my body. Only then will the words mean the Body of Christ and not that of the priest who utters the words; and only then will they have their proper force and character as the form of the sacrament.

Scotus argued as follows: "The sacramental words must signify by virtue of the words (ex VI verborum) that which is effected by virtue of the sacrament. But by virtue of this consecration the effect is that the true Body of Christ is there; therefore the words, sufficient by their own proper virtue, must signify that the true Body of Christ is contained there. But these words: This is my body, uttered without what goes before, do not absolutely signify this, because the pronoun my signifies that the body is referred to the person of the one speaking. For even though the minister may intend to speak in the person of Christ, this would not have the effect of making these words signify that the pronoun my would indicate the Body of Christ, and not the body of the speaker."

The force of this argument may be illustrated by an example. Suppose that a king, having conquered his enemies, addresses his soldiers thus: "Divide with me, for half of your booty is mine. Make this known to your fellow soldiers." Suppose that the -soldiers went away, and each one of them said to his fellow soldiers: "Divide with me, for half of your booty is mine." Would not the king be angry and consider himself mocked? They should have said: "THE KING SAID TO HIS SOLDIERS: divide with me for half of your booty is mine. Make this known to your fellow soldiers."[622] When this had been done, the command of the king would have been properly obeyed; because the king's words would have been made known in the sense in which he had said them, being placed by the promulgator on the lips of the king.

For the priest it is the same. Before pronouncing the words of the Lord, it must be made known that it is the Lord who is speaking. If the priest omits this preliminary indication, he is not doing what Christ did. For although materially he applies the same words, formally he does not, that is, he does not pronounce them as signifying what they should signify. For in the case of the priest my of itself signifies my own, that is, it signifies (the body of) Peter or Paul or John who is speaking; just as in the case of Christ speaking at the Supper, it signified My own—the Body of) Myself, Christ, who speaks: this last it will never signify when we say the words, unless we then and there introduce Christ as saying the words. Hence one can easily see the error in the following objection; in the Supper Christ consecrated without the narrative. He consecrated simply by the words: This is my body. Therefore if we also omit the narrative, we still consecrate simply by the same words: This is my body. For Christ said: Do this, namely, what I Myself did.....I reply: precisely because we must do what He did, we must pronounce the words in the SAME SIGNIFICATION. We cannot do this unless in our formula Christ is introduced as speaking the words. Not that any of the words introducing Christ as speaking is the form. For those introductory words do not signify that the Body of Christ is present under the appearance of bread,[623] but they are a condition without which our uttering of the words of our Lord would not have that necessary signification.[624] Given this condition, however, our utterance of the words has that signification.

Perhaps you may say: it is sufficient if the words are uttered in the person of Christ. But they can be uttered in the name of Christ without prefixing any narrative, and without any mention being made of Christ. Just as when we absolve penitents we absolve them in the name of Christ, saying: "I absolve thee," yet the name of Christ is not mentioned.

To this I reply: when one is said to speak in the person of another there are two ways in which we may understand this expression. The first way is when that person is understood to intimate something in virtue of the power which he has received from another. Thus a prefect appointed by a king may say: "I command you to do such and such a thing." Here he commands in virtue of the royal authority delegated to him. And it is thus that the priest absolves in the name of Christ, saying: "I absolve thee." For he intimates this to the penitent in virtue of the power of the Lord delegated to him. In a second way, one speaks in the person of another, if the words are said by him, not as his own, but as the words of another. For instance, a person may say to you: "These are the words of the king: I command you to do this." In the use here of the words "I command" there is no intimation of the speaker's command, but only of the command of the king. Clearly these two ways of speaking in the person of another are totally different,[625] so that the one can exist without the other. For example, when the captain says to the soldier: "I order", he is giving his own order, not the order of the king, although the actual source of his power to give such an order is in the royal authority (passed on, delegated to him). The captain therefore, as delegate, speaks in the person of the king in the first way, but not in the second. In our case when we say: "I absolve thee," it is the same. But when a man tells his friend that Caius said: "I am well," he does not say this in his own person, for he himself may even be unwell, he says it in the person of Caius who says that he (Caius) is well. For although he says the words: "I am well," nevertheless he puts the words on the lips of Caius. Meantime he does not speak with any authority received from Caius, as if Caius gave him a mandate to make something known to others, he is speaking on his own authority only; that is to say, narrating a fact, he speaks in the person of Caius in the second way only. It is just the same when we say that Christ said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

These two modes of speech can also co-exist, as when one acts both as narrator and delegate, as in the example cited above of the soldiers delegated to declare the royal will to their fellow soldiers. They not only narrate what the king said, but they are also the bearers of the royal command with the power conferred by the king. Therefore they speak there in the person of the king in two ways. Suppose they did not make any narration, for example by saying: "The king said," but merely repeated the words of the king: "Divide with me, " in that case they would not speak in the person of the king in either way, for then they would neither speak in the person of the king by way of narrative putting the words "Divide with me" on the lips of the king, nor would they speak ministerially as delegates using the power of the king. Indeed they would be acting contrary to the royal commitment and royal command, as we have seen when we considered this example.

Now in the consecration of the Eucharist, we speak in the person of Christ in both these ways: we not only place the words on His lips, but, authorised to do so, we convey His intimation to the bread and wine in our hands.

From the narrative preamble, therefore, our locution has the historic or narrative sense or, as the early theologians (V. g. St. Thomas, 3 S. 78, 5, c.) say, the "recitative sense", whereby the word my is adapted to designate not my body but the Body of Christ.

Furthermore, from the power given to us, our locution has the demonstrative or, as the early theologians say (St. Thomas, ibid.), the "significative sense", in respect of our Eucharist here and now, so that it shows, demonstrates, or signifies the Body of Christ here and now present.[626] No opposition exists here[627] between the historic and the demonstrative sense; indeed, the historic sense underlies the demonstrative. If the historic sense failed, the demonstrative sense would be falsified, but not vice versa.[628]

Another objection may be raised against our contention: the priest can speak in the person of Christ in both ways, not only as using His power, but also as placing the words on His lips, without the narrative preamble, provided that it is outwardly manifest, from any other source, that the priest utters the words, not as his own, but as the words of Christ, and spoken by Christ. Certain outward circumstances, for instance, place, time, gesture, sacred vestments particularly, could indicate this.[629]

To this I reply: it is oral action and oral action only that consecrates the Eucharist. Call to mind the countless sayings of the Fathers, insisting that our sacrifice is enacted only by prayer (prece, oratione, that is, by word of mouth). Therefore the words of consecration from the objective meaning which they have in their oral context, from their objective tenor, must be significative in respect of the Body of Christ, without invoking the aid of anything else to make them significative. Therefore we may not appeal to vestments, gesture, ornament, or any such thing. For all these things, not being oral, cannot be numbered among those things that can affect the validity of the consecration.

Moreover, what could be more strange, unheard of, than to say that the consecration depends on vestments, stones, or anything of this kind? What the priest can do with vestments, he can do just as validly without vestments. If the priest could consecrate at the altar simply by uttering the words: This is my body, without any narrative words, he could do the same away from the altar. (One must never forget that the true altar of our sacrifice is not an altar of stone, it is the living Altar—the Body of Christ.)

Besides, once you admit that, apart from the uttering of the words of our Lord, something external is required, the much-vaunted fundamental principle of our adversaries falls to the ground: that for the validity of the sacraments nothing is required beyond the intention of the minister, the matter, and only—the actual words, the ipsissima verba of the sacramental form. We, on the other hand, hold that something else is required in order that the words of the form may be effectively formal, or sacramental, or significative. And I cannot see how anyone who holds with us in this can fail to reach our conclusion, that in our sacrifice the requisite addition from which the words of the form secure their proper sense is the narrative. This will be admitted all the more readily if one notes how constantly the Fathers teach that our sacrifice is carried out by no other than verbal action, spoken words. We must not therefore appeal to gesture, to standing at the holy table, to the assembly of the faithful. All this is corporal activity as distinct from speech. Take these away and the sacrifice which is carried out with them will be effected without them.[630]

(C) Interpellative Words, Words Addressed To God

Further and last of all it can be asked, should the narrative which includes the words of our Lord be made by way of a prayer directed to God, or at the very least be connected with or be continuous with some such prayer, so that it shares the very nature and character, so to speak, of that prayer? This question and that of the epiclesis are poles apart. There we asked whether the consecration should be made or be induced or be completed by words in which a petition is made for the consecration, and we answered in the negative to the question, effectively exploding that view.

But what we are asking now is whether our Supper narrative must be addressed to God, or, at least, whether we must introduce the Supper narrative by words addressed to God, from which the narrative flows in natural sequence: by thanksgiving for instance, or such like; so that eventually the Supper narrative would be understood as addressed to God.

Neither does this question have anything to do with that other question as to the place in the Canon or the moment of time in which the consecration has place; for that question is already settled, and there is no doubt that the consecration takes place immediately on the utterance of our Lord's words, no other words after these being required. We are concerned here merely with the trend of the words which precede the words of our Lord: should they be of such a nature as to clothe the form itself with the semblance of a prayer, of words addressed to God?

As a matter of fact, in the Liturgies the Supper narrative is usually addressed to God. The interpellative words, the words of address, are either interwoven with the narrative, as in the Roman Canon: and with his eyes lifted up to heaven TO THEE, GOD, his almighty Father, also giving thanks to THEE (elevatis oculis in coelum ad Te Deum omnipotentem....item Tibi gratias agens)—similar words occur in the Greek Liturgy of St. James and of St. Mark, in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. Basil, in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Apostolikh Paradosij of Hippolytus, etc—or, at least, the narrative forms a part, a logical and grammatical integrant of some longer discourse addressed to God (so in the Test. D.N.J.C., in the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae, in the Anaphora Serapionis, in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, etc.).

In the Mozarabic rite, however, the narrative is not directed in either of these two ways to any divine Person. It is true that the priest addresses Christ immediately before the narrative, but in the narrative itself he does not address Christ, because Christ is named there in the third person; neither is there any sign of address to any other in the narrative. The passage is as follows: "Be present, O Jesus, good Pontiff, be present in our midst, as thou wert in the midst of thy disciples: and sanctify this oblation, that we may partake of what is sanctified through the hand of thy holy angel, O holy Lord, eternal Redeemer. Our Lord Jesus Christ on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, blessed and broke, saying: Take ye and eat, etc.....Likewise the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This is, " etc. (P.L. 85, 550-551). But everyone knows that in this place the Canon is mutilated, because the prayer which we call the Postpridie follows immediately, and yet there is no Qui pridie before the narration. The Qui pridie which once existed in this Liturgy has been removed,[631] an element which had, as in our Mass, the force of including the narrative in words of address to God. Meantime, however, the liturgy without the Qui pridie is extant and in use, and there is no doubt about it being used validly. Therefore there is no necessity whatever for the narrative to be addressed grammatically at least to God.[632] But the question still remains to be answered: whether it is necessary to have at least some preamble by way of interpellation or address directed to God, words of prayer or thanksgiving for instance, preparing the way for the narrative of the Supper. This is AT LEAST the custom of the universal Church; hence it is well to know whether this practice which is de facto universal is de jure necessary. The reasons for affirming this necessity are drawn from the example of Christ, patristic authority and theological reasoning.

In the first place, there is the example of Christ. He did not merely say: This is my body, this is my blood; but did this giving thanks to God, as St. Paul and St. Luke note in respect of the bread, and all the sacred writers in respect of the chalice.[633] And why so, unless the consecration form was to be interwoven with prayer, thus receiving a religious and particularly a Eucharistic virtue of thanksgiving? Cyril of Alexandria seems to urge this in his exposition of St. Luke, XXII, 19: and taking bread he gave thanks and brake, and gave to them saying: This is my body: He gives thanks, says Luke, that is, IN THE FORM OF PRAYER (en sxhmati proseuxhj) HE ADDRESSES GOD THE FATHER, as though showing that the Father is associated with Him in the giving, and with Him approves of the giving of the life-giving eulogia to us. For every grace and every perfect gift comes to us from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost. FURTHER, THIS ACTION GAVE US THE MODEL OF THE PRAYER WHICH WE WERE TO OFFER (thj sfeiloushj prosanateinesqai lithj), as often as we were to give thanks for the mystic and life-giving gift; and this in fact it is our custom to do. For having first given thanks and at the same time praising the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit, so do we approach to the holy table" (P.G. 72, 908; cf. similar words on Matth., XXVI, 27, col. 452).[634] Like Cyril, Symeon of Thessalonica[635] stresses the necessity of the thanksgiving for the consecration of the sacrament: "Christ Himself left us the example of how we should sacrifice BY PRAYER (to dia twn euxwn ierourgein). For He took bread, and looking up to heaven, as it is written, giving thanks, he broke and gave to His disciples, saying: Take ye and eat, and Drink ye an of this, etc.; and so He, that needs not prayer, being the omnipotent God, OFFERED THIS SACRIFICE BY PRAYER (auta dia twn euxwn ieroughsen), showing that the power of the Trinity is one, and that He Himself has the Father and the Holy Spirit as co-operators with Him in the sacred action" (Expositio de divino templo, 87. P.G. 155, 737).

Secondly, we have the authority of the Fathers. Every one of the earliest Fathers affirmed that we OFFER THE SACRIFICE BY PRAYER;[636] but not only the earliest Fathers, but those who followed them, constantly spoke in the same manner.[637] Now where will the prayer be if there are no words addressed to God? But if the words of our Lord are linked up and interwoven with words directed to God, they will undoubtedly have the appearance and possess the character of a prayer: and so what the Fathers insist upon will be secured.

Thirdly, the following theological reasoning may be advanced. Our theological narrative should differ from a merely historical narrative, ordained to inform the hearers of what Christ did; for in such a mere historical narrative there can be no sacrificial virtue, as it has no semblance of a religious action. For the religious character of our sacrificial activity must be outwardly manifested, because the external sacrifice is a sensible sign of internal religious sentiment. Therefore the very tenor of our narrative or of its context must be religious, so that thereby the utterance of the words of our Lord may be clothed with the outward appearance of a religious action. But no words can be by their very tenor religious unless they bespeak divine worship.[638] Hence it is not surprising to find theologians even of a later period teaching that the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by the utterance of the Lord's words, even if these are inserted in the Supper narrative, unless they be either interwoven with or preceded by some form of prayer in which God is addressed.

Thus the Canons of the Chapter of Cologne express themselves in the Antididagma (1549) against their heretical Archbishop Hermann de Wied as follows: "Urgent need compels us to point out the sheer insanity of those who think that the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ can be consecrated without the Catholic prayer which we call the Canon....but merely by the recital or reading of the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians (II Cor., XI): The Lord Jesus Christ on the same night on which He was betrayed, etc. For there the Apostle simply narrates the actions of Christ historically; and not in such a way as to supply any form of consecration, whereby the priest, the minister of the Church, with the invocation of the divine name, blesses and sanctifies the gifts set on the altar (proposita), not indeed by his own words, but by the omnipotent words of our Lord Jesus Christ.....It is not difficult to prove this in similar cases in reference to the other sacraments. Christ taught the Apostles to baptise, saying: Go and baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Now who could be stupid enough to say that a priest who merely recited or read these words of the Gospel on the institution of baptism, and did not pronounce the words of the essential form of baptism: I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, would truly and ritually baptise a child?....In just the same way we must hold, that should any one simply recite, or merely read over the story of the institution of this sacrament, as set down by St. Paul, and neither invoke, as minister of the Church, the name of God on the proffered gifts of bread and wine, nor likewise direct the words of consecration to the Victim there present, such a one would not consecrate at all, nor effect the true sacrament according to the Catholic sense and tradition of the Church. Quite other was the teaching and practice of the holy Fathers, both of the East and of the West, and indeed of the Apostles too. For as ministers of the Church they invoked the name of God on the Victim, and consecrated it with solemn prayer" (fol. LXXIII-LXXIV).

And again: "And what most of all fills us with horror is that in this book[639] is found a new Mass devised and instituted by him in accordance with his own views, in which there is no consecration with the invocation of the divine name. From this it necessarily follows that all the subjects of our most clement Prince, in all places where they have been forced to accept this doctrine, are being deprived in a most cruel and impious manner of the Body and Blood of Christ. See fol. 110, page 2, of this book, where it is enjoined on the priest that, after having sung the hymn Sanctus, he is at once, without any invocation or canonical prayer, to recite with singular gravity the words of Paul the Apostle, in which he narrates the institution of this sacrament, namely: The Lord Jesus Christ, etc. And then forthwith, when the people have answered: Amen, he is to chant in like manner the Pater noster, and then give communion to the people" (fol. LXXIX). Thus spoke the Canons of Cologne. And you would be far from understanding their mind were you to think that here, by the invocation of the divine name, they meant the epiclesis. For they did not have the epiclesis in mind, but were merely claiming that the consecrative words should have some outward appearance of a prayer. This being secured, the invocation of the divine name is at once secured, for the divine name is invoked in all prayer. Combefisius and Le Quien seem to be of the same mind as the Canons of Cologne where they say: "We could not conceive (nec forte) that the power was granted by the Lord in such a way that any priest could thoughtlessly babble the words of the Lord WITHOUT ANY RELIGIOUS RITE OF WORSHIP AND DUE ORDER (nullo religioso cultu ac ordine). Were he to do so, his action would not be sacred, rather it would be mere play-acting and desecration" (P.G. 94, 1142).

The teaching of these writers, understood in this way, has the undoubted support of Salaville, among our own contemporaries, when he writes: "It seems to me that there is nothing to prevent a Catholic from embracing this fifth opinion, which takes more account of the liturgical rites and prayers than does that of St. Thomas" (D. T. C., art. Epiclese, col. 203).[640]

However, it may still be doubted whether the reasons given above are sufficiently cogent to prove the necessity, for the consecration, of some distinct address to God. One may ask: could not our own consecration, just as well as the consecration of Christ, be possessed of the force and character of prayer, and yet without any words of direct address to God? For, to speak in the first place of the example of Christ in the Supper, the words of Christ addressed to the disciples: This is my body, This is my blood, with the added expression of propitiatory intention, have on the face of them a practical sense, indicating something done; they enunciate what is effected and effect what is enunciated. But what was effected by this intimation of Christ had the force of a pragmatic expiatory offering, as we have often said. By its very signification then the discourse of Christ implied an oblative action. For this reason it had the force of directing something to God; namely, the victim to be dedicated fully and finally by immolation. The discourse then reflected in the highest degree divine worship, having a religious character far and away beyond any oath or vow. Hence it is rightly called prayer, in so far as any words expressing worship of God, any words of divine praise, are called a prayer. We might say that even in the narrower specific sense of a prayer of petition our Lord's discourse is most appropriately termed prayer; for just as the pragmatic offering was implied in the words of our Lord, so also was implied the pragmatic petition for acceptance, and the impetration, or obtaining by prayer, as we have explained above, of grace and pardon. Christ therefore showed Himself quite sufficiently, even without addressing God directly by name, in the act of religious prayer. Before and after the words of consecration, He certainly chose to add some express words of thanksgiving and petition particularly; but these could be explained as said for the clearer indication to us of what He did, just as we explained the prayers of offering, the prayers asking for acceptance, which we find after the consecration in the Mass, as a ceremonial expansion by way of explanation of the essential act.

The same line of reasoning is applicable to the Mass. For since we pronounce the words of Christ, not merely recitatively, but also demonstratively or significantly, as we have already explained, they have the same practical sense with us, that is, as of something done, not merely said, in respect of the same oblative action; they therefore exhibit the same religious character; they have the same force of petition and prayer. And perhaps nothing further is required to satisfy the Fathers,[641] where they all agree in placing sacrificial action either of our Lord Himself, or of ourselves, in the Mass.

Against this, however, it might be objected: first, that in the Supper itself our Lord's demonstrative words (This is my Body; This is the chalice, etc.) had the character of an offering, and hence, too, of a petition, only through their connection, already presupposed, with His words of worship and thanksgiving, whence the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood would receive the religious and sacrificial character, discussed above by us in Thesis III (Vol. I). Hence the parity between the Mass and the Supper, so far from removing the necessity of this connection of prayer properly so called, with consecration in the Mass, positively argues for that necessity.

But one might reply: although the words of worship and thanksgiving at the Supper had already inculcated and declared the latreutic and eucharistic virtue of the Action, this latreutic and eucharistic character was nevertheless sufficiently evident to the mind enlightened by faith, even without those words; it was evident particularly from the declaration of the propitiatory intention (by the words "which will be shed", for example), in which was implied the direction of the gift to placate God, which is sacrificial offering in the most formal sense, as was explained in section 2, and in Thesis III (Vol. I).

Hence the praise of God (eulogia) and the thanksgiving (euxaristia), made expressly by our Lord, was indeed most opportune, but it is not evident that it was simply necessary. This will apply equally to the Mass and the Supper.

But it might be objected in the second place: the mind of the Fathers seems to be, not that our sacrifice is at the very least some kind of prayer (all sacrifice is that), but that the words be so said, that those words themselves are some kind of prayer. Wherefore the prayerful character of the words is not to be inferred from the fact that a sacrifice is carried out, but rather that our own sacrifice eventuates, such as the Fathers describe it, because the words are prayerful. It is necessary, therefore, that the prayerful character be inherent in the words themselves before we consider the possibility of any sacrifice being carried out by them.

But whether or not the Fathers did or did not so expressly teach the need just alleged, I would prefer others than myself to decide. I do not wish to assert more than what I plainly see that I must assert regarding a point which still remains obscure. Hence I leave pronouncements on this last point to wiser men, and will gratefully accept their judgment.


1It is no surprise, therefore, to find, even back as far as the sixteenth century, the learned Matthaeus Galenus Vestcapellius writing in his work De sacrificio missae commentariam (c. 13, p. 159): "Judging at least from what I have heard or read, up to the present time, the Gospel (of the Last Supper), as given by the three evangelists and St. Paul, places the divine institution of these mysteries beyond all doubt in the mind of anyone." Suarez, however, writing about the same time, mentions several earlier writers who did deny the divine institution (De sacramen., disp. 39, sect. 1).

2Shortly before, in the beginning of the eleventh century, the Synod of Arras under Gerard I of Cambrai was convoked against some Manichaeans who lived in northern France. Gerard thus describes their heresy: "They said that the mystery of baptism and the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord were null, and therefore to be rejected, unless administered merely for appearance sake" (Geraldi epistola. P.L. 142, 1270).

3The Council of London (A. D. 1382) also condemned the sixth among the ten heretical propositions of Wycliffe: "There is no foundation in the Gospel for the statement that Christ instituted the Mass" (Mansi, Concil., 26, 696). We may note here that Luther, endeavouring to find a via media between the teaching of those earlier heretics and the teaching of Catholics, held that Christ did not give a command by the words Do this, but merely left it to the will of each one, saying: " as often as you do this, you shall do it in memory of me" (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesammtausgabe, 6 Bd. Weimar 1888, p. 507, 7-10. De captivitate babylonica Ecclesiae praeludium). And again he wrote, in A. D. 1522: "Love is necessary and of strict obligation (Die liebe ist eyn ding das seyn muss und soll), but not so the reception of the sacramental species, but man may leave this aside and keep to the exact word of Scripture, for Christ has not ordered us to partake of the sacrament, but has left it free to anyone who wishes so to partake" (Von beider Gestalt des sakraments zu nehmen, in the same edition of Luther's works, bd. 10, 2, p. 30, 22-25, with the older form of spelling).

4True, if we take into account their ability and erudition, it would be foolish to compare the heretical theologians of our time with the earlier authors of these stupid heresies. Modern writers for the greater part are men of high literary attainments, skilled experts in the science of criticism in reference to things merely human And yet the bad habit of clinging to preconceived opinions, and even more to a bad philosophy, has led those of the critical school so far astray that, though quite contrary, they have opened up a broad and easy way, hardly more wise or more sane than the old Gnostics or Manichaeans. For though the critics of the rationalist. school were intent on reaching only sober conclusions, they nevertheless gave origin to a brood far worse than themselves, and these (of the rationalist school) can well find some excuse for their ravings on the very principles laid down by the rationalists.

5While holding that 19b-20 is genuine, some deny the historical fact of the institution, thus Julicher (below). Others, though denying that these verses are genuine, admit that the institution is historically true, so Eric Haupt (Ueber die ursprungliche Form und Bedeutung der Abendmahlsworte, Halle, 1895, p. 27) and Franz Dibelius (Das Abendmahl, 1911, p. 92 and passim), as well as many Anglican writers.

6R. A. Hoffman, Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, p. 28 et seq. compiled a careful account of those of our time who before 1892 denied the historical fact of the precept of the Lord.

7Julicher, op. cit,. p. 287: "Were I obliged to admit any germ of premeditation in the action at the Last Supper, it would lose, to my mind, what is best in it." "Jesus wished here to do nothing whatever for a Church of the future. He gave no injunction, He instituted nothing" (op. cit. pp. 244-245, cf. p. 235).

8Ibid., p. 240. Though it was from Weizsacker himself that Julicher borrowed the word parable, Weizsacker himself is in nowise to be reckoned amongst those who deny the institution by our Lord of our Supper, for he writes in plain terms as follows: "This celebration rests on the institution of Jesus Himself.....Any explanation of it as arising first in the congregation of the disciples, out of the remembrance of their companionship at table with Him, and from the need of a memorial of His death, is excluded. Rather the celebration must have been universal from the beginning" (Weizsacker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, 2, 1892, p. 574). Even Harnack, too, at this time roundly affirmed: "The Lord instituted a memorial of His death" (Dogmengeschichte 2, p. 139; in Julicher, op. cit., p. 236).

9"He was not concerned with a memorial of Himself. He who could say the words of Matthew, xxvi, 29 did not reckon on a long enough separation for that. All He did was, that following His habit and attaching the deepest significance to a customary act, in itself insignificant, He took leave of His friends, that He gave them clearly to understand that His death was at hand, and at the same time indicated to them that His death was to be a source of blessings. In this way, too, He also relieved His own heart; He pronounced these words not only for His disciples, but also for Himself" (op. cit., p. 245).

10Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, Bd. 1, 1893; Die Urchristlichen Traditionen uber Ursprung und Sinn des Abendmahls, p. 284; cf. p. 333.

11op. cit., p. 287: "As these words were not premeditated but welled up spontaneously from the depths of His Messianic consciousness, they were not intended to introduce an institution which Jesus wished to bequeath to His followers."

12op. cit., p. 282; cf. p. 338: "I fail to see any institution by Jesus of a celebration of any memorial of His death among the congregation of His followers.....Instead of this, it seems to me that the primitive intention of the words of the institution is indicated by the discourse of Jesus as a foreshadowing of the final Messianic banquet, in which man hoped to feast without limit on the spiritual gifts of the Messias Himself."

13Such an eschatological interpretation, that is as referring to the final condition of man, was also maintained by A. Schweitzer (Das Abendmahl im Zusammenhang mit dem Leben Jesu und der Geschichte des Urchristentums, 1901 Heft. I, p. 61) though he, too, united with this a foretelling of death, as a condition previous to future joys: "Jesus spoke to His own, not of His death alone, but of His death and a future reunion with Him not to be long delayed, at the banquet in the new kingdom." In his subsequent works, this author seems to insist more exclusively on the eschatological significance of the words of Christ (Von Reimarus zu Wrede, Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 1906, p. 377, and Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 1913, pp. 625-626). However, in his opinion, though Christ did not formally command the repetition, He intended it nevertheless indeed He instituted it at least virtually or implicitly, seeing that He gave His bread and His chalice over to them after the manner of a sacrament, that is the symbol or sacrament of final joy (Das Abendmahl, p. 30 et seq.; and Von Reimarus, p. 377). Strictly speaking, then, Schweitzer is not one of our opponents here.

14Ibid., p. 87

15All the words that are recited in the declaration cannot be primitive, for the mere indication of the wine as blood introduces the notion of death.....What is primitive, therefore, is: that the Lord distributed the bread to the disciples with the words: This is my body, and that He sent the wine in the chalice round the circle without attaching any signification to it." Even before J. Hoffmann, W. Brandt while equating the bread with the Body, had denied, as Hoffmann did, any comparison of the wine with the Blood. He writes as follows (Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums, 1893, pp. 292-294): "When dealing with the bread, Jesus had in mind at one and the same time the entire man (the whole Body both Flesh and Blood) when after that He took the chalice in His hands, it was only to invoke a blessing upon it. The chalice of benediction then at the Last Supper was a last drink, taken in thanksgiving for the meal that had been eaten" (p. 294). He also considers, however, that a social fellowship was signified by Christ in the distribution of the bread: "We can hardly avoid the conclusion that in this very way He made use of the common meal of all together as a sign of a common fellowship, those who eat together of the same bread make up the one family" (pp. 292-295). After J. Hoffmann, Goguel (L'eucharistie des origines a Justin Martyr, p. 86) also restricted the words of our Lord to the bread alone

16op. cit., pp. 87-89

17op. cit., p. 93.

18op. cit., pp. 79 and 93.

19op. cit., p. 93

20"The ceremony at once made a deep impression on the sympathetic disciples. The paschal solemnity and celebration remained afterwards in the minds of the disciples of Jesus, the most unforgettable moment of their lives in common with Him, it was the sublimest point of this existence of theirs. He had never shown Himself more sublime to them than when, in this reverential manner, in an atmosphere of holy tranquillity, He definitely announced to them His coming death" (op. cit., pp. 245-246). As though there were not countless more striking events in their life with Jesus than a foretelling of His death by way of parable!

21"Each time, therefore, when at their repast the bread would be divided and the chalice passed round and drained by them, they could hardly do otherwise than repeat to themselves what had been said" (op. cit., p. 246). As though the repetition of such a prediction of Christ by way of parable could have any sense unless it rested on some other force and signification of the Last Supper! But what was it, and how did it accrue to the Last Supper? (See Batiffol, op. cit., p. 63.)

22" Nor would many decades of years be necessary to produce such a development at times, when the pulse of religious life beats as strongly as it did then, there was a fabulous crop of prophecies, tales and legends springing up quickly in rich abundance" (op. cit., p. 245).

23"The first Supper had no further aim than to announce the death of the Lord (in Greek in Latin text), and this aim was not lost sight of later on.....Hence, then, against the wish of Jesus, and without any commission from Him, these daily reunions, at which they commemorated His death, these celebrations so soon stereotyped....would certainly be perpetuated. It would be a miracle if very soon the words Do this in commemoration of me (Greek in original), or something similar were not inserted in the account of the first Supper" (op. cit., p. 247). Rather would it be a miracle to find anyone giving credence to such a fairy tale!

24op. cit., p. 301: "According to the popular view which reaches back to the early days of Christianity, and was already then firmly held."

25op. cit., p. 289

26" op. cit., p. 290: " It could not stop at such a mere repetition of the first celebration of the Supper. Of necessity NEW ELEMENTS entered into it, elements which instituted a process by which the Supper would become a Christian paschal repast an announcing of the death of Jesus."

27op. cit., pp. 290-292

28op. cit., p. 292: "One can easily see everywhere indications of a special disposition towards a visionary state of mind: most of all at their meetings together in the evening, "

29op. cit., pp, 292-293.

30op. cit., p. 292: "This paschal supper taken all in all and enriched with new import, MUST have appeared to them in the light of a new institution, "

31op. cit., pp. 292-294,

32op. cit., p. 295

33op. cit., p. 294: "By the interpretation (in accordance with the rite of the paschal supper) of the words used by Jesus at the Last Supper, the whole came to be conceived as an institution of Christ."

34op. cit., p. 101

35op. cit., pp. 107-108.

36op. cit., pp. 107-108.

37op. cit. p. 112.

38op. cit. pp. 112-113.

39op. cit., pp. 113

40op. cit., pp. 114-115.

41op. cit., p. 115.

42op. cit., pp. 115-116: "The very fact that they now saw plainly a significant difference between the two suppers caused them to turn their minds back to the Lord's Supper. The result was that they involuntarily exerted themselves to establish a relationship between the two."

43op. cit., p. 116: " This kinship between the two suppers was now so obvious that it would be very strange had they not discovered it."

44op. cit., p. 116: "Assuming that Jesus had symbolically announced His death, as He broke the bread and distributed the wine, they could not but have this before their minds whenever they carried out the same actions, namely at each of their daily meals."

45op. cit., p. 117.

46op. cit., pp. 119-121

47op. cit., p. 121

480 p. Cit., p. 121

49op. cit., p. 122

50op. cit., pp. 123-163.

51Compare what Loisy has to say about the genesis of the Mass, L'Evangile et l'Eglise, 2, p. 227- Autour d'un petit livre, p. 244- and later more distinctly in the Revue d 'Histoire et de Litt. Relig., mai-juin 1914, L'initiation chretienne, pp. 210-213. Meantime we are pleased to note that Protestant critics, even those of the liberal school, have finally admitted a complete consonance between the mind of St. Paul and the constant tradition of the Church concerning the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and not a mere symbolical or virtual presence, but a real presence. In addition to Hoffman and Goguel on this subject, we have also W. Bousset in II Cor. X, 16 et seq., and J. Weiss in Mark, XIV, 22-25 (Schriften des N. T., 3, bd. 2 pp. 121-122, and bd. I, p. 203).

52According to him, the original words of the Lord were: Take ye and eat: Amen I say to you, that I will not eat of it until, etc. Take and distribute this among you. Amen I say to you, that I win not drink of this fruit of the vine until, etc.

53For those writers who, during the course of the nineteenth century, and before these critics, denied that the Supper took place, see R. A. Hoffmann, Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, p. 47

54Before Reinach, P. Gardner (The Origin of the Lord's Supper, 1893) had submitted, not by way of positive statement but tentatively, that the Eucharist might owe its origin partly to the influence of the Eleusinian mysteries. For as Paul had lived close to them at Corinth for eighteen months, possibly this Apostle may have introduced the sacrament of the Eucharist after the manner of these mysteries, as a means of communion with the divinity, and as a pledge of the resurrection (pp. 18-19). Later, however, he rejected this hypothesis, as we learn from Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des N. T., 1909, p. 188, or Lebreton (op. cit. p. 1551). Clemen afterwards speaks of Butler adopting a similar theory in an article, The Greek Mysteries and the Gospel Narrative, in Nineteenth Century, 1905, vol. 57, p. 492 et seq.

An hypothesis that the oriental mysteries had some influence on the origin of the Eucharist was proposed by A. Dietrich (Eine Mithrasliturgie 2, 1910, p. 106 et seq.) and Reitzenstein (Die Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910 pp. 50-53 and 204). A refutation of these views may be seen in Schweitzer (Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung, 1911, p. 150 et seq.—though Schweitzer should be read with caution-and earlier in Clemen (op. cit., pp. 201-207). But really such an hypothesis could be described not as a "playing with possibilities" in the words of Reitzenstein (ein Spiel von Moglichkeiten), but rather, and from every point of view, "a playing with impossibilities" (ein Spiel von Unmoglichkeiten).

More recently in the Revue d'Histoire et de Litterature Religieuse, Jan. -Feb. 1913, A. Loisy made the most he could of certain affinities which he saw between the mysteries of Dionysus, the Eleusinian mysteries, those of Attis, Isis, Mithra and the Eucharist, the mystery of the Christian faith. It was a vain task for, altogether apart from other wide discrepancies, there is one fact that will always be a fatal obstacle to any fundamental comparison between the Eucharist and these mysteries: that in the mysteries of pagan superstitions there is no foundation in history for the myth which is represented and commemorated by the rite. Hence even Loisy is compelled to say: "In the sphere of reality the rites come before the myths, the divine fact, the supposed foundation of the faith, never existed; it is the faith itself that conjectures and creates this divine activity, as an explanation of the rites and a satisfaction for itself, etc." (op. cit., p. 14 et seq.). In the mystery of the Christian faith on the other hand, the historical fact of the expiatory death of Christ and His glorious resurrection is a reason for the existence of the rite, and not conversely; in other words the historical fact is the exemplary cause, or the exemplar imitated by the rite. Moreover, considering the matter from another point of view, the institution of Christ gives us the reason for our rite, in so far as it is the efficient cause, or actually produced it. In a word we commemorate symbolically the death and the resurrection of Christ, because as a fact of history Christ died for many unto the remission of sins, and He rose again to the newness of a celestial life, and because as a fact of history He willed that we should make the symbolic commemoration of His death and resurrection. No such thing as this is found in the pagan mysteries. In spite of all this, Loisy, at the end of his disquisition, having admitted that the pagan mysteries had no influence on the origin of the Christian Supper, nevertheless maintains that they did influence the interpretation of the Supper (op. cit., Sept. Dec. 1914, p. 440). "The first Christians did not institute the Supper in imitation of any mystery, but very soon they began to interpret ever more and more the Supper after the manner of the rites of mystic communion among the pagans." The real truth, however, is that the Christians were not influenced at all by the pagan mysteries—Eleusinian, Mithraic, or any other—in this matter, there is no trace whatever of any such influence, indeed there are. many arguments in the opposite direction. On the contrary, they looked upon the Supper as a sacrificial banquet of the death of Christ, after the manner of the sacrificial banquets in common use with all peoples Jews and Gentiles. This explains the opposition (implying as such a comparison) which St. Paul made between things sacrificed to idols and the Flesh of Christ sacrificed to God

There is a still more recent article on the comparison between the pagan mysteries and the Eucharist, written by E. Jacquier Mysteres paiens et saint Paul, in the Dict Apologet., t. 3, pp. 1008-1010. What kind of a mystery the Eucharist is we shall say definitely at the end of this work.

55Among others, compare Arthur Bohtlingk, Zur Aufhellung der Christusmylhologie, 1910

56For example, a critic, influenced by a preconceived opinion, might argue as follows: Christ was not God, hence He could not think of a Church that was to come into existence after His resurrection, and of giving sacraments to that Church, therefore He merely presignified His death. Indeed, seeing that He was just a mere man, and so could not know of His death beforehand, He had in mind something else when He took bread and wine in His hands for example, the joys of heaven or fraternal charity. Indeed, because now any declaration whatever of the Body and Blood in bread and wine is contradictory (to the same hypothesis that Christ is a mere man), it must be rejected, and so the Last Supper must go by the board. But then we must look to something earlier as the origin of our Eucharistic rite and of the Gospel narrative of the Last Supper. Does it matter whether this is Jewish Greek or Barbarian? And thus we advance from one error to another, and the first lapse of the critics leads on to the final absurdities of the myths..

57Besides the Catholic writers cited above, we find even in the liberal camp a vigorous demonstration (Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu, 1896, pp. 103-115) of the impossibility of explaining the Eucharist without a precept of the Lord. More recently, too, F. Dibelius (Das Abendmahl, 1911, p. 5), after describing the manner of the origin and development of the Eucharist, as delineated by W. Heitmuller (art. Abendmahl, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, bd. 1, 1909, pp. 20-52), and which was little different from the suggestions proposed by others, goes on to say: " One feels at once that most of the propositions advanced are not explanations but merely other settings of the same problem. They are for the greater part simply the same questions that have arisen before, but now changed from the form of queries to that of assertions. Nothing can be gained by this."

58There is no proof that in this passage St. Paul intended to appeal to the teaching of the Lord as immediately revealed to himself, for here the distinction of mediate or immediate revelation to St. Paul is of little or no importance. His language however, does appear to make a distinction between the worldly judgments of the Corinthians and the divine faith of the Apostle. He seems to be saying to them: You do such and such a thing (Do I praise you?). Is it right as you seem to think or is it wrong? I say it is wrong (In this I do not praise you); for what appears good to you—wise with the wisdom of the flesh and the world—I, who am taught (whether mediately or immediately it matters not) by God who does not deceive know that you do this to your own damnation: for you profane the Body and Blood of the Lord when you approach to that supper without fraternal charity, in that Supper nothing else is given to you (the Lord is the witness) than His own Flesh and Blood, the sacrament of our oneness in the Body of Christ slain for us; by this profanation you merit for yourselves your own condemnation, and signs are not wanting in the infirmities sent by the Lord. Condemn yourselves, therefore, that is admit you have been wrong, and correct your evil deeds. Compare a little further on in the same Epistle (XV, 3) a similar expression (For I have delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how, etc.) used referring to what could not be the object of private revelation to himself, where the saint refers to the apparitions with which he and the other Apostles were favoured. If, however, you think that in the eleventh chapter (verse 23) the revelation (I have received from the Lord) must be immediate, this does not affect our argument: for in the first place the reasoning we have advanced will remain intact to the letter secondly, we know for certain that St. Paul compared his teaching (most of all it would seem in what refers to the mystery of the Redemption) with the teaching of Peter, James and John, with which it was found to be conformed in all things (Gal., II, 2-9). All that we have said in this note is directed against those who, like Andersen and Goetz, think that by appealing to an immediate revelation, given to St. Paul himself, they deprive the narrative of its historical value.

59Robertson and Plummer, Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1901, p. 245: "The authority of St. Paul was quite inadequate to this immense result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have sufficed to produce it"

60Ruch, loc. cit., cols. 1086-1087.

61See note at end of Chapter III, Vol 1.

62"In the traditional account of the institution, the distributing of the chalice is just as important, and the figurative language accompanying this is even more appropriate, than in the case of the bread. For the Blood of Jesus did actually flow, as the water or the wine in the chalice did; whereas His Body was not broken as the bread was. How then can we explain that the sacred action was never called after the distribution of the chalice (die Darreichung des Bechers) or the pouring of the wine (das Weingiessen)? Surely because the name of the celebration (breaking of bread) remained on from a time when the breaking of bread was not merely half of the whole rite, but much more" (Brandt, op. cit., p. 293).

63In my opinion the breaking of the bread at Emmaus could not be a sacrament. Not so in the Acts

64Note especially Matth., XXVI, 28: for this is my blood, etc

65And so we find even Loisy saying, when speaking of St. John as well as of St. Matthew and St. Mark: "In the Gospels we find the equivalent of the formal precept in Paul" (L'initiation chretienne, loc. cit., p. 211).

66We must note very carefully, as we have often said, that we enter into a (spiritual) communion with the divinity to whom the sacrifice is offered by a (corporal) communion with the victim of the sacrifice. Thus, when the pagans partook of the sacrifices to idols, they also communicated with the devils ("though forbidden to communicate with the devils, by partaking of this very victim sacrificed to the idols you entered into communication with the devils": Chrysostom, in Tim., IV, 5. P G 62, 559). Thus the Christians, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ given over to God, enter into communion with God whose Victim the Body and Blood is, and so they drink of the chalice of God and recline at the table of the Lord (verses 20-21) as often as they drink of the chalice of the Blood and eat of the Body of Christ (verse 16), so, too, the pagans, eating the sacrificial food of the idols, drank of the chalice of the devils and reclined at the table of the devils. Hence there are two aspects of communion, and these aspects must be very carefully distinguished-communion with the Victim and communion with the divinity. It is because of this communion with the divinity, that the Apostle condemns all partaking of the sacrifices to idols, as involving a spiritual relationship with the devils, repugnant to our fellowship with God. From the other aspect of communion, that is communion with the Victim, we prove the sacrificial condition of the Body and Blood of Christ (cf. Origen, Contra Cels., 1, 8, n 24, 30, 31, P.G. 11, 1553, 1560, 1562).

67That St. Paul here considers Christ to be a Theothyte (primarily at least) from the Passion, just as obviously the flesh of the victims was taken to be dedicated to the idols from the immolation, is confirmed from II Cor., V, 7: Christ our pasch is sacrificed: and II Cor., XI, 26- You shall show the death of the Lord. Hence not inaptly in Kommentar zum N. T., bd. 7, 1905 (Leipzig), in h. 1., p. 346, P. Bachmann remarked: "The Body and Blood of Christ are here considered by Paul as the organs of the saving death of Christ."

68So with Vasquez (Paraphrasis in h. 1.) and Cornelius a Lapide (in h. 1.). I think we should interpret meats here, against nearly all the ancient interpreters who say that the distinction made here is one between clean and unclean foods. The other interpretation is not satisfactory, because: (1) if it were merely a question of clean and unclean meats, St. Paul should not have forbidden as useless the meats themselves, but rather the abstention from them; (2) the verse would be inconsistent with the passage immediately following on the partaking of the altar and of the sacrifice of Christ. Modern interpreters and a number of non-Catholics agree with us, as B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 5, 1906, in h. 1.; B. Weiss, in h. 1., 1897 in the commentary published by Meyer- E. Riggenbach, in h. 1. in the commentary published by T. Zahn, 1913

69St. Paul compares the passion unto death with the burning of the victims and not with the offering of the sacrifice, which of course was not without the camp, but took place previously in the tabernacle. Here, therefore, he certainly is not describing the offering of the sacrifice of our Lord as having been made on Calvary. Indeed he evidently presupposes it as having been made elsewhere, namely within the city. THEREFORE HE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CROSS AS THE ALTAR ON WHICH THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST WAS OFFERED. So that the words of Emil Dorsch, though written for another reason, are to the point here: "Nowhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews, nor in his whole exposition of the matter does the Apostle speak of the Cross as an altar" (Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie, Innsbruck, 1909, p. 46).

70From this parity between the victims offered for sin in Levit., XVI, 27, and Jesus who suffered on Calvary, the Apostle in his rabbinical manner concludes that it is not permitted to the priests of the Law to eat our sacrifices, for in the sacrifice for sin in the Law no food was reserved for the Aaronic priesthood. This is implied in the word therefore (Hebr. XIII, 13) as Vasquez shrewdly remarks in his Paraphrasis (in h. 1.). This hindrance, however, does not pass on to us who have nothing to do with the Aaronic priesthood and so eat of our great sacrifice for sin.

71Some Protestants, even of the liberal school, are also of the same mind. See K. G. Goetz (Die heutige Abendmahlsfrage 2, pp. 195-197) and others cited by him in the same place.

72Besides other testimonies to be quoted below, read the commentary wrongly attributed to Oecumenius on the Epistle to the Hebrews (in h. 1. P.G. 119, 445): " If He is become Victim for all, how is He not Altar, too?" And indeed, even apart from the fact that in the Apostolic period the Cross is not usually called an altar, it cannot be so meant here, for the Apostle Paul is speaking of an altar here present to us- We have an altar. But we certainly have not the Cross here present to us though here present we have the Body of Christ, the living Altar which it is lawful for us to serve!

73Other writers may be added in the same sense, among them Peter of Tarantasia (Innocent V) in the Postilla, which was published under the name of Peter of Gorham, in h. 1.: " We have an altar, that is the Body of Christ." Cf. Peter Lombard in h. 1. (P.L. 192, 513), etc.

74Among Protestants we find K. G. Goetz in substantial agreement with us (loc. cit.): We....know that in the New Testament the Supper is, as a matter of fact considered by Paul, and other Scripture writers also to be a sacrifice, and at the same time in a manner as the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, though in a spiritual form. Especially consonant with this view is the fact that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews certainly indicates Christ as offering His Body once only while nevertheless he accentuates the fact that His Blood procures for us at all times an entry into heaven and his Body is the living way thereto. For this reason he can quite well have held that the single offering of Christ on earth comes to be spiritually set forth and partaken of ever afterwards by His own at the Supper,"

75" that the calves of our lips are our promised sacrifices" (Benedictus Justinianus in h.l.).

76Matthaeus Galenus Vestcapellius had written, I think before Salmeron, in his Commentario in D. Pauli ad Hebraeos epistolam (Andreas Croquet, Louvain, 1599): "By him let us offer. Here, I think, the Apostle refers to the Mass, which is called in sacred Scripture more than once the sacrifice of praise.....But why is the Mass called the sacrifice of praise? Because it was first offered by Christ to God the Father in thanksgiving and praise, and Christ decreed and commanded that we should do the selfsame, saying: Do this....the fruit of lips. The words seem to be an allusion to the fourteenth chapter of Osee, where prayers and thanksgiving are called the calves of lips the expression being used to preserve the secret[of the Eucharist]. The sacra are called fruit of lips, because they are uttered with the lips" (fol. 230-231). After Salmeron we find Ludovicus Tena writing (in h. 1.): "I infer that the words here do not point to just any kind of sacrifice; they point particularly to that which is enacted in the Mass." Cornelius a Lapide: "By Him, therefore, namely by Christ our Pontiff and Mediator, who bestowed all these good things on us, and who offers our vows to God, let us offer the sacrifice of praise, because it was first offered by Christ the Lord to God the Father in thanksgiving and praise, and Christ decreed and commanded us to imitate the selfsame, and for this reason it is called the Eucharist, that is thanksgiving. Evidently the Apostle harks back to the Eucharistic altar which he dwelt on in verse 10.....Let us offer hymns, psalms and thanksgiving to God with our lips, whereby we confess the name of God. Therefore we should always give honour to God by such hymns and praise, and particularly in the Mass which, as Galenus justly says, is properly the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." We find similar words of the authors of the commentary inserted in the Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, published by Migne, in h. 1.: "By the sacrifice of praise we can also well mean the most holy Eucharist which is before all else the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving it is also the fruit of lips confessing his name, that is the acts of priestly lips blessing the name of God, and this meaning seems to be required by verse 10; We have an altar, " Nor are there wanting some among the liberal Protestants of today who admit that this is the true interpretation of the passage. Thus K. G. Goetz: "He certainly speaks in the following verse only of the everlasting offering of the sacrifice of praise to God through Jesus, that is the fruit of lips which confess his name, and of the obligation to do good and impart it to others as of a sacrifice well pleasing to God. Here, too, there could well be, as Spitta notes, a reference to the Supper as a sacrifice, since the concept of sacrifice was already before, at the Supper, quite closely bound up with such things as confession of the name of Jesus, praise and thanks, good service and imparting to all" (op. cit., pp. 196-197). Notice, too, how Augustine explains by reference to our Eucharistic sacrifice the cognate verses 9, 14, 25 in Psalm 49 in De Gratia N. T.: "Announcing that those things which were then offered in figure of the future were to be changed, he says: I will not take the calves out of thy hand, nor he-goats of the flock." And a little further on, pointing to THE SACRIFICE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, when these things would have been brought to a close: " Offer to God the sacrifice of praise and pay thy vows to the Most High. And at the end of this same psalm: The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and there is the way by which I shall show him my salvation" (De Gratia N. T., Epist. 140, n. 46. P.L. 33, 557). A little later, in n. 48, he explains what he means above (n. 46) by the sacrifice of the New Testament, when he says: "There is a great sacrament in the sacrifice of the New Testament, where, when, and how it is offered, you will discover when you are baptised" (col. 558). Florus Diaconus (P.L. 119, 420) explains Hebr., XIII, 15, by simply referring to these words of Augustine on the sacrifice of praise. Hesychius in Psalm 49, 23: " The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and there is the way by which I shall show him the salvation of God. For what is this way, and of what kind is it? It is surely the communication of the Body and Blood of the Lord the way which the Lord Himself first began to show us in Sion" (In Psalm 49, 23. P.G. 93, 1197). We may note how Verecundus, bishop of Junca (546-552) explains a similar saying of Jonas the prophet. He remarks that the words But I with the voice of praise and confession will sacrifice to thee (Jonas, II, 10) refer to the Mass: "There are numerous sacrifices of various kinds to be presented to the Lord. First, there is the spiritual sacrifice of praise and confession to God. There is also another internal sacrifice to be immolated to God to appease Him.....But we must also see here something more profound, for he did not say: but I will sacrifice to Thee in words (in voce) of praise and confession, but in keeping with another order of which he had just got a glimpse (nuper ostenso) But I will sacrifice to Thee with, to the accompaniment of, words of praise and confession. It is thus that he points TO ANOTHER SACRIFICE which was to be offered ACCOMPANIED BY WORDS OF PRAISE AND CONFESSION: doubtless this is the sacrifice of which we partake in THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD, to be offered by us to the accompaniment of hymns and canticles" (Commentarius super cantica ecclesiastica, 1, 8, c. 16, Spicilegium Solesmense, t. 4, p. 108).

77Theophylactus (in h. 1. P.G. 125, 396): "By Him, or by the pontiff according to the flesh, we offer the sacrifice of praise to the Father, that is the giving of thanks, the Eucharist.....This Eucharist then is the fruit of lips confessing, that is, professing His name."

78It matters little whether the verb in the original Greek text is of the imperative or indicative mood. If the latter (which is more probable), the present tense, (since the reference is plainly universal, to all times of eating, and drinking the sacrament-as often as you shall eat—which are of the future), is not badly translated in the Vulgate by annuntiabitis—and then in the Douay version we have, as above you shall show, also future tense. We may note that Funk translates similarly a parallel passage in the Constitutiones Apostolorum (8, 12, 37. F. D. 1, 509)

79In the language of the schools, we would say that the death is signified in recto or directly, the Resurrection and the Ascension in obliquo, or indirectly. Hence with the death, the Resurrection and the Ascension are co-signified in their own way. "Therefore you are taught (audis) that as often as the sacrifice is offered, the death of the Lord, the Resurrection of the Lord, the Ascension of the Lord is signified" (Ps. -Ambrose, De Sacramentis, 5, 4, 25. P.L. 472, 3).

80Relying on five liturgical documents, A. Resch (Agrapha 2, 1906, pp. 86-87) does not hesitate to include this precept among the unwritten words of our Lord. Against this, read J. H. Ropes, D. B., Ext., art. Agrapha, pp. 344 and 347

81The exceptions among the liturgies are very few, the most important being the Anaphora Serapionis, which has no anamnesis whatever. The Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae (B. 190) and the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae (F. D. 2, 100) in the Reliquiae....Canonum (ed. Hauler, 1900, p. 107=the Apostolika Paradosis of Hippolytus) and the Canon Universalis Aethiopum (R. I. 517) have an anamnesis, but there is no mention in them of any such precept of our Lord. That in some of the liturgies, even those of the highest authority, there is no injunction to commemorate the mysteries, nor indeed an anamnesis, does not itself prove that there was no precept of the Lord (if it were a precept) to commemorate the death, Resurrection and Ascension. For our Lord did not actually command an oral commemoration, but one that was real or pragmatic, included in the rite itself. The anamnesis is merely the verbal declaration of this active or pragmatic remembrance

82"For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you announce (or perhaps, announce—imperative) my death until I come."

83" For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you announce the death of the Son of Man until he comes."

84"As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you announce my death and confess my resurrection and ascension until I come."

85"As often as you shall do this, you shall celebrate my resurrection."

86"Commanding also and saying to them: as often as you shall do this, you will do it in memory of me; you shall preach my death you will announce my resurrection, you will hope for my coming, till I come to you again from heaven."

87"As often as you do this, you will preach my death, you will announce my resurrection, you will hope for my coming, till I come to you again from heaven."

88"You will preach my Passion, you will announce my resurrection, you will hope for my coming, until I come again to you from heaven."

89"He Himself having enjoined on us to commemorate His death" (Const. apost. 7, 25, 4. F. D. 1, 412). The Chaldean Liturgy of a later date than this had, and still has, the following words in the offertory: "He was offered for our salvation AND HE COMMANDED US TO SACRIFICE in memory of His Passion, Death and Burial, and Resurrection" (Le Brun, Explication de la messe, vol. 3, 1778, p. 482; cf. Max Saxon., Missa Chaldaica, p. 18). In what Catholics called the third anaphora, but which schismatics wrongly called the anaphora of Nestorius, we note these words: "In place of this[the legal pasch], He instituted before His death His own Pasch, of which we now make the memorial, AS HE HANDED DOWN TO US, UNTIL HIS RETURN FROM HEAVEN (Max Saxon, ibid., p. 32). Numerous examples can be added from the Ethiopic liturgy (cf. A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopic Liturgy, Milwaukee, 1915, pp. 263-264); especially the anaphora of S. Gregory the Armenian: And THOU DIDST SAY TO THEM: as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth my death, and believe in my resurrection."

90This is conveyed to us in the first definition ever given of our Eucharist "The Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His love raised from the dead" (Ignat., Ad Smyrn., 7, F. P. I 280). Cf. Th. XXII below, where the same link between the Passion and the Resurrection is copiously proved from the Fathers and Doctors. Note meantime the wise words of S. Johnston (Bishop Bellord's view of sacrifice, Ecclesiastical Review, Nov. I, 1905, vol. 33, n. 5, pp. 514-515): "We are said[commonly] stand on Calvary when we come to the Holy Sacrifice, but we sometimes forget that while it must bring in the Cross and death of Our Lord and Saviour most beautifully and wonderfully, the Mass means a very great deal more. SELDOM IF EVER DO WE SEE IT POINTED OUT in treatises or books of devotion that the Mass is offered up in memorial of the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, as well as of His Passion, though we know that the Church insists upon this in the Liturgy and in more places than one."

91The whole passage is quoted by us later Th. XIX

92We deny absolutely that the partaking of the inanimate Body would be unseemly or less effective than partaking of the living Body. Apparently Peter of Poitiers thought otherwise. He was misled very likely by the same false opinion which John the Teuton was to declare later (loc. cit.) in the following words: "Were the transubstantiation to take place then it would pass into a dead and inanimate body and thus would be fruitlessly partaken of. FOR HOW COULD A DEAD BODY VIVIFY OR CONFER LIFE?" (Thomas Manrriq, Master of the sacred apostolic palace, on August 22nd, 1572, commanded these words to be expunged from all the codices of the Decree, until a new edition augmented with explanatory notes should be published- cf. Censura in glossas et additiones juris canonici....Rome, 1572, p. 18). Naturally we do not subscribe to this error (cf. infra, XXII), though at the same time we retain the testimony of Peter on the usual teaching of his contemporaries in respect of the inability of the Apostles to consecrate during the three days of death. The teaching does not depend on this error, but on the words of the institution properly understood.

93Besides the testimony of Peter of Poitiers, I think we may add that of Ermengaudus, writing against the Waldenses: "The words of Christ as often as you shall do this, do this for the commemoration of me indicate that Christ did not desire that this great and most holy sacrament should end there- rather He commanded the Apostles and their successors to consecrate this sacrament forever AFTER HIS PASSION RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION, in memory of His Passion and in the hope of eternal salvation" (Opusculum contra haereticos, c. 11. P.L. 204, 1251).

94Pallavicini, in the 113th of the 178 theses which he undertook to defend in the Roman College in 1628 (de Lugo was then in the chair of theology), had defended practically the same thing: "It is probable that to priests was given the power to consecrate only while Christ was living; for they consecrate not as His successors but as His substitutes and mandatories, through whom, as through His proper organs or instruments, Christ speaks as principal priest" (De universa theologia a marchione Sfortia Pallavicino post theologicam lauream publice asserta in Collegio Romano Societatis Jesu Libri IX ad Urbanum VIII Pont. Max., Rome, 1628, p. 144).

95"Remarkable and most important works" (Hurter, Nomenclator, 2

96Although I have no recollection of any writers cited by him other than John the Teuton and de Lugo

97However, we could allow with these theologians that the dead Body of Christ could have been in the Eucharist during the triduum mortis in a different hypothesis to theirs, and one which could have certainly been verified. Suppose that a particle of the Eucharist consecrated by Christ remained over during the three days of death from the Supper. In this supposition, in that particle there would be the Body consecrated by Christ, but not now living, but dead, for Christ was now dead. This fits in completely with our teaching, which in no way implies that the living Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist by virtue of the words of consecration, but by concomitance.

98If the sacerdotal character can continue after the resurrection of the body at the last day while the effective power to consecrate would not remain after that date the question arises whether this same sacerdotal character could not exist in the Apostles for some time during which they would not have the effective power to consecrate, even while on earth, and after the Resurrection. Later (XXVI) we shall have something to say about the opinion that this power of the Apostles was suspended until the day of Pentecost, an opinion merely hinted at in Th. XII (Vol. I).

99On Protestants, who before Wieland held this opinion, see Kattenbusch Realencyklopadie f.p. T. u. K., art. Messe, pp. 676-677. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 4, 1, 233, approves of Wieland's pamphlet

100Against Wieland's view one may consult, among other writers, Johannes Brinktrine, Der Messopferbegriff in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1918, and H. Lamiroy, De essentia SS.. Missae sacrificii, Louvain, 1919, pp. 235-315.

101Harnack, op. cit., assents to this argument: " From the investigations of Wieland Mensa und Confessio, 1906, it appears that until the end of the second century it is hard to find a priest, and there is yet no altar" (p. 459)

102Wieland writes: "If in Irenaeus the Eucharistic Christ were the sacrifice, He should not have been compared to an altar, but straightway be given the name of sacrifice" (Der vorirenaische Opferbegriff, p 52). The expressions used by writers of the Church in the many passages cited already by us, Th XIII (Vol. I) and XVII, which clearly set before us Christ as Victim and Altar both in the Mass and in the Supper are enough to show how far Wieland has wandered from the truth. Later it will be even clearer when we explain the significance in the Mass of the Canon prayer: Supplices te in XXI

103On Irenaeus, see Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, pp. 52-53; Der Vorirenaische Opferbegriff, pp. 145-149, and p. xxii.

104Read J. Kramp, S.J., to the contrary, Die Opferanschaungen der romischen Messliturgie (Ratisbon, 1920). He thinks that the bread and wine are the subject of immolation in such a way that Christ Himself is not immolated either mystically or really

105Der vorirenaische Opferbegriff, pp. xxii and 149

106See below

107We have an example of this mode of expression in reference to Christ in the Eucharist in a much later writer, well aware of the Catholic teaching regarding the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ: I refer to the Commentary attributed to St. Sophronius. Christ the Victim of expiation is here presented to us as arising from the substances of bread and wine, "as the first fruits and the sacrifice chosen from all the fruits ". For, says this writer: " As the immaterial God took flesh from a virgin, and was perfect God and perfect Man in the one hypostasis or person, like to us in all things save sin, so too the deacon and priest cut, as it were, with a lance, as we said above, a new body from the womb and the flesh and the blood of a virgin body, that is from pure bread. And thus in a manner peculiarly hypostatic, they consecrate from out of that womb. Therefore first appears the bread of the offering, then appears the Redeemer, having assumed to Himself the whole mass of human nature, offered to God and the Father, as the first fruits and the sacrifice chosen from all the fruits" (Commentarius liturgicus, 10. P.G. 87, ter. 3989).

108Wieland tries, in a very strange way, to prove that, according to Irenaeus, the Body of Christ is only made present and not offered. His argument is that Irenaeus speaks of the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ in such manner that we must understand it to be made by the consecration, but in the consecration there is not a word to tell us that a gift is offered thereby (Der vorirenaische Opferbegriff, pp. 148-149). His words show that he does not know that the sacrificial offering is not made by a formal enunciation of it, but by an action. It is by the words of consecration that Christ offered Himself to God to be immolated, for then, slaying Himself sacramentally or in symbol, under the appearance of bread and wine, He disposed and presented Himself to be slain really, in order to make atonement to God. Such was His sacrificial action accomplished by the words indicative of the immolation of His Body and Blood.

109There is another interpretation of the words of Irenaeus, according to which by the earthly element (res terrena) in the Eucharist he means the Body and Blood of Christ, and by the heavenly element (res coelestis) the divinity. This interpretation is derived from D. Massuet, who used it when attacking the Calvinist teaching of a merely virtual presence of Christ in the Eucharist (In Irenaei libros dissertatio 3, n. 84. P.G. 7, 334). Lately some other Catholics have been attracted by this interpretation (P. Batiffol, Et. d'Hist. et de Theol. Posit., 2e Serie 3, 153-154; Jansen, art. Eucharistiques[Accidents] in D. T. C., col. 1371; and later again P. Batiffol, Eucharistie, 5, 177-178). This interpretation we reject for the following reasons: (I.) In the mind of Irenaeus the Body of Christ is just as celestial as the altar on which our offering is presented.

(II.) The very nature of the controversy of Irenaeus with the Gnostics demanded that by the earthly element he would mean something of the nature of bread and wine. For the Gnostics did not admit anything earthly in the body which Christ assumed in their opinion it was of a nature completely free from matter (cf. Adv. Haeres 1, 5, 5, and 1, 7, 2). Hence Irenaeus, wishing to convict them of inconsistency (by an argument ad hominem), could not call the Body of Christ here an earthly thing for the obvious reply of the heretics in that case would be that they were not inconsistent, because when they offered the Body of Christ to the heavenly Father their offering was not of anything alien to His creation or disfigured in it, but of a thing absolutely immaterial. However, every such loophole of escape was closed to them were the earthly thing, in the mind of Irenaeus, the bread and wine, that is the sensible element, interwoven with the celestial thing, the Body and Blood of Christ. Nor can our opponents in fairness invoke against us this other passage of Irenaeus "What, therefore, is earthly? The plasm (plasma). What heavenly? The spirit'; (Adv. Haeres., 5, 9, 3, col. 1145). For, in the first place, Irenaeus is not speaking of Christ here, he is speaking of the rest of men led from an earthly life, which is according to the plasm of the flesh, into the heavenly life which is according to the Spirit of God secondly, he is speaking of them as on the way to that heavenly life as viatores not yet possessing it as comprehensores. Here, therefore, by the word earthly Irenaeus could very well mean body, though he certainly could not mean body were his arguments directed against the Gnostics with regard to the Body of Christ, and according to the custom of that period he could not have spoken so under any circumstances, were he speaking of the glorified or the Eucharistic Body of Christ, as we shall see shortly.

(III.) The early Fathers always called the Eucharistic or the glorified Body of Christ spiritual, intelligible, celestial, as in St. Paul (II Cor., XV, 44), but never earthly. Of this we have abundant evidence in the many passages to be quoted later from Clement, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, etc., and there are places without number, in the Greek Fathers especially, where the victim of our sacrifice is called intelligible, etc. For the present we shall just give one instance of this style from Didymus, In Act., II, 25. P.G. 39, 1660: "The Flesh restored to life after the resurrection is a spiritual and incorruptible body."

The first and, as far as I know, the only one of the Greeks to call the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in a manner earthly was the Greek Macarius Magnes in the fourth century (Macarii Magnetis quae supersunt ex inedito codice edidit C. Blondel Paris, 1876, c. 23, p. 106). He notes, first, that both the human body and the bread and wine are from the earth so that for this reason the human body (of Christ in the Eucharist) could be called earth, and the bread and wine be called the flesh and blood of earth: and thus it happens that bread and wine is not inappropriately termed the flesh and blood of the human body (seeing that earth and the human body are the same); he notes, secondly, that the earth, as the creature of Christ, is the property of Christ. And hence he says Christ could say, not only this is a human body and this is human blood, but this is my flesh, and this is my blood; because it is the flesh and blood of the same body which is the property of Christ, namely the earth. Such language could not be fittingly and properly used by one to whom the earth did not belong. Having established these two principles, he introduces Christ addressing us as follows: "The earth is my creature; from the earth spring up alike both the body and this my mass (bread). Therefore signing with the cross the bread and the chalice, I give them to you from the union or complex (sumplokhj = A) in which I the Holy One (o Agioj = God) have been united with the earthly thing, decreeing them to be my Body and Blood." He then remarks that if the words of the Supper were uttered by any other than the Creator, they would be reprehensible for two reasons: firstly, as false and ambitious, for only the Creator, because of His dominion over the earth, could call the bread His body and secondly, because the food and the drink would not then be life-giving, " because in this complexus or union (sumplokh = B) it would not have the living Word, and therefore, seeing that the earthly thing (ghinon) would not have been proclaimed (Xrhmlpsan text has Xrhmatisan) the Body of God, it would not lead the partakers into eternal life".

Therefore he mentions union or complexus (sumplokh) twice. In the first case (A) because of the words just preceding, in which he speaks of Christ as sprung from the earth, the more probable interpretation appears to be that the union (or sumplokh) here is that of the Incarnation and may be understood of the hypostatic union of the Word with the earthly body, that is sprung from the earth, to which He united Himself (sumplokh) at the Incarnation. It is less probable, though this could be argued, that the word union in the first instance means the Eucharistic union between the Holy One, that is the Word, and the earthly thing, the manner of which union is clear from the second instance in which union (sumplokh) is mentioned. For in the second passage (B) he is certainly speaking of the Eucharistic union of the Word with that earthly thing—of the nature of bread and wine (panea et vinea)—which, for the above reason, is called or is pronounced to be the Body of God. So that in neither passage (A or B) is the true Body of Christ, such as we believe it to be present in the Eucharist, called earthly; in the first excerpt it is possibly the Body of Christ, but as assumed in the Incarnation long ago; in the second, the bread or wine, not changed, by a mere figure of speech is called by the name of Body and Blood of Christ; representing that Body, so to speak, and exercising its power (not, however, without some immediate influence of the Word). Anyone can see how far this teaching is opposed to Catholic dogma: since: (1) it excludes from the Eucharist everything of the true Body of the Lord born of the Virgin Mary, merely retaining the Body by an extrinsic title of some kind, and that title a frivolous one; and (2) it would only admit some kind of union of the Word with the bread and wine; for though he insists that the bread and wine is not merely in a "figurative sense the Body and Blood, as some have stupidly fancied, but truly the Body and Blood of Christ", the only reason he gives is "because the Body is from the earth, so is the bread and the wine", as Christ the Word implies, when He says this is my body, etc.; as if the actual bread (even with the influx of the Word) could really and properly be called the human body, by reason of its origin from the earth, and in turn could really and properly be called the Body of Christ by reason of Christ's dominion over the earth! This is just what he says, and nothing more softening the expression "eat my flesh and drink my blood" to suit the tender feelings of some at Capharnaum who were horrified at these words of Christ. His words are certainly very ancient, for he represents himself as writing three centuries after Christ and St. Paul. Otherwise we know nothing about him. His words have no bearing on the question under review, and even if they had, as the fruit of fantasy they may well be left aside. At the same time I must admit that Rev. L. Duchesne (De Macario Magnete, Paris, 1876, p. 31 et seq.) is more lenient in his judgment of these words of Macarius, misled, I think, by what Magnes has to say on the food of immortality, and by another expression which will be considered later in XXXVIII (Vol. III). Meantime, however, he gives no proof for his more lenient interpretation.

Among Western writers, I have no remembrance of having met the expression earthly or material of the Flesh of Christ, until I first found it in Gulielmus a Sancto Theodorico (De Sacram. altar., c. 9. P.L. 180, 356).

All this has been said ad abundantiam. As far as our controversy with Wieland goes, it matters little which way you interpret Irenaeus. Far otherwise, though, when considering the sacramental efficacy of the Body and Blood of the Lord see below Th. XXII; also XXXVIII (Vol. III).

110As a matter of fact, the teaching of Irenaeus on the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ is so plain that Wieland who in his first book had written: "This purely spiritual teaching of the above Fathers on the Christian sacrifice is further amplified by Irenaeus, when he says that a concrete expression of it is our offering to the Creator of THE ELEMENTS OP THE BREAD AND WINE DESTINED FOR THE EUCHARIST, as the first fruits of the whole redeemed creation" (Mensa und Confessio, p. 52), was later in his third book compelled to confess "that the Body and Blood of Christ, and indeed in so far as they are the first fruits of the creation to which we belong are called by Irenaeus gifts offered by us to God, does not need proof" (Der vorirenaische Opferbegriff, p. 146). But misled by his own false opinion that there is no oblative force in the consecration, when he comes to the summing up of his doctrine this is how he attempts to reconcile his two statements: "Irenaeus did not wish to consider the consecration as the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, as of gifts rendered to God, in any but a symbolic sense" (Ibid., p. XII). That is to say, according to Irenaeus, the Body and Blood of Christ are not really offered to God, but the common elements of bread and wine are offered, and in offering these we appear to be offering the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, we have a sacrifice of the bread and wine, not an apparent but a real sacrifice, and we have also a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, not real but only apparent. Could one imagine a more forced and perverse interpretation?

111"Origen makes a strict distinction between to offer and to consecrate " (Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, p. 56).

112That all sacrifice is the visible symbol of our inward homage to God is well known from the common teaching on sacrifice. Hence Origen says very properly that the Eucharist is the symbol of our gratitude. The explanation of this passage given by Renz (op. cit., bd. 1, p. 199) is utterly fantastic. He says that what Origen means is this: that the bread of the Eucharist is not the symbol of our gratitude, but the symbol of the Eucharistic prayer. He thus easily infers that Origen does not consider the Eucharistic bread as our gift offered to God.

113Text has xaristia

114See hom. 2, in Psalm 37, n. 6 (P.G. 12, 1386) Hom. 18, in Jerem. n. 13 (P. G 13, 489); cf. Contra Celsum, 8, 22 (P.G. 11, 1552), etc.

115The word qusiasthrion occurs for the first time in the sense of the Christian sanctuary in the nineteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea (between A. D. 343 and 381), although Dom. H. Leclercq (Hist. des Conciles, t. 1, 2nd part 1907, p. 1010) translates the words eisienai eij qusiasthrion "to approach the altar", which is a fairly probable rendering. We then find the same use in Socrates, H. E. 1, 37 (P.G. 67, 176), although Valesius again translates the words eij to qusiasthrion eiselqwn, upo thn ieran trapezan eauton epi stoma ekteinaj as follows: "having approached the altar, he prostrated himself with his face to the ground, beneath the sacred table" (ibid., col. 175); this rendering is somewhat favoured by a corresponding passage of Sozomen, H. E. 2, 29 (P.G. 67, 1017): eisduj upo to qusiasthrion. The third place we find this use is in Procopius Monodia in Sanctam Sophiam. (P.G. 87 ter, 2836); although Combefis understands the altar only to be meant here, and with a certain amount of probability (ibid. 2835). Besides these three passages mentioned by both Sophocles (Greek Lexicon of the R. and B. period, 1904, s. V. qusiasthrion) and Westcott (op. cit., p. 461) we can now advance another whose meaning is not open to doubt, from the commentary De Sacra Liturgia, attributed by Cardinal Pitra to John the Faster (Spicilegium Solesm., t. 4, p. 441): "Olon gar qusiasthrion legetai, dia to taj qusiasthrein legetai para pasi kai bhma The whole is called the thusiasterion, because it keeps guard over the sacrifices- it is also commonly called the bema." Now bema is the common word for sanctuary, as can be seen in Sophocles (op. cit., p. 307) and in B., pp. 476, 480, 571, 587, 595, where a few examples of this meaning are found, to which the two following can be added: Nazian., Or. 43, n. 52. P.G. 36 565, A- and Expositio Officiorum Ecclesiae, of uncertain authorship, commonly attributed to George of Arbela (see Connolly's translation, C. S. C. O., 91, 91).

116Ignatius stretches this symbolism to its extreme limits. Writing to the Romans IV, I (F.P. I, 256), he says that he is " the wheat of God " and he desires to be made "the pure bread of Christ". We, on the other hand, usually call Christ our bread and Christ Himself the wheat of God. But the martyrs are most perfectly incorporated with the death of Christ unto the life of glory. In martyrdom therefore especially, the Eucharist has its effect, that we be made the body of Christ and, so to speak, Eucharistic bread. Hence by martyrdom we become the bread and the corn not indeed of man but of Christ and God, to whom we are immolated and to whom we are presented as holocausts. This has been well explained by an anonymous English Cistercian monk, author of Distinctiones Monasticae (XII-XIII century lib. 2, c. 94, Spicil Solesm., t. 3, p. 466): "Christ is the wheat, and so He says: Unless the grain of wheat falling on the ground die, etc. Hence it is plain that they who have risen from that grain are the wheat: therefore conscious of the grace conferred on him, Ignatius says: I am the wheat of God, may I be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so as to be made pure bread."

117In view of what Ignatius has to say in the Epistle to the Magnesians, 7, 2 (below) this acceptance appears to be the more probable. We have already said that in this Epistle Christ is plainly meant by the word altar. Moreover, the expression " within the altar" would have no sense if he were speaking here of the table of a material altar, or even of our material sanctuary in the usual meaning of the term qusiasthrion at a later period. Why should Ignatius want all the Christians to be together in the sanctuary and leave the rest of the sacred edifice empty? Then again the Christians of that time did not profess that they had sanctuaries, any more than they professed to have (material) altars, or temples (naoj); the word Church even was not yet in use to signify a temple. It was only later on that the use of the words naoj and qusiasthrion for Christian temple and sanctuary became common. If we take altar here to be the Body of Christ, the interpretation is in every way satisfactory, because it is the sacrament which makes for ecclesiastical unity and so when we are said to be within it we are accounted members of the ecclesiastical body. The corresponding passage from the Epistola ad Trallianos, 7, 2, which we quote directly, strongly suggests the same interpretation. To confirm our view we may accept here an argument from Wieland (M. u. C. p. 41): "If Ignatius had in mind a material altar, when he commended ecclesiastical unity, by way of union with the altar, why did he not write something like this: "Be mindful and do not erect an altar over against the legitimate altar, " as later Cyprian often did? (Ep. 40, 3-65 3. P.L. 4, 336 and 396, Ep. 76, 1. P.L. 3 1139; De unitate Ecclesiae, 17. P.L. 4, 513). His reason was, that he had in mind the altar not made with hand, the living Altar—Christ—and so it would be absurd for him to condemn a conflict of altars, which is possible only where material altars are in question.

Meantime, we must not be disturbed here by the implication that Christ as Altar underlies Christ as Victim. For in the first place as we have said Th. XIII (Vol. I) in spiritual sacrifice, such as is the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, this mutual relation is not inconsistent; and secondly, there are many passages in which writers of later centuries exhibit this mutual relationship. We have already mentioned some, we shall refer to others later in various places.

If this interpretation of the Epistola ad Ephesios is admitted, I think it will easily apply to the Epistola ad Philadelphenses, because of the same link between the altar and the banquet. Hence the meaning of the passage will be: Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians to make use of only one Eucharistic celebration or synaxis (Let us be careful to use one Eucharist), giving force to his exhortation by stressing that well-known triple unity (which he does not invent, but merely declares as a fact), namely the unity of the Victim (the Flesh is one....and one is the chalice) OF THE ALTAR (the altar is one), and of the Priesthood in Christ. We have seen, and shall see again this triple unity inculcated in the same christological sense by Fathers and Doctors without number, most clearly of all by the Eucharistic Doctor, Paschasius Radbertus.

It is not at all unlikely that the term altar, in its christological sense, of Christ the Altar, commonly used by Ignatius, was derived from that very old Ascensional epiclesis, in which the priest prayed that the gifts be carried to the heavenly altar (to Christ) by the fact that they were changed, cf. XXI; so the words of Ignatius would be already intelligible to the faithful.

118What we mean is this: the second excerpt does not say that the sacrifices are offered (prosferesqai), it says they are made (ginesqai, ginomenaj). The difference between the force of the two expressions is this: when we say a sacrifice is offered, the words are more apt to suggest the thing that is offered in sacrifice; when we say it is made, or carried out or enacted, they apply more aptly to the sacrificial action.

119Euxai kai euxaristiai tw Patri kai poihth twn dlwn ginontai. It is amazing that a man can be so carried away by his own preconceptions, as to dare to say prayers and thanksgiving alone are the sacrifices of the Christians, because Justin says "they are offered to the Father and Creator of all things, through the name of Jesus Crucified" (dargebracht werden) (M. u. C., p. 51. D. V. O., 129). For Justin does not say are offered (prosferontai), he says are made (ginontai). The prayers are made, by which is offered "the bread of the Eucharist and likewise the chalice of the Eucharist."

120Quite lately Edmund Bishop (in T. a. S., V. 8, n. 1; The Moment of Consecration, p. 158 et seq.) has suggested that the Greek of Justin di, euxhs logou tou par autou should be translated by the prayer of the Word which is from Him (God and the Father). The probability of this interpretation is so slight that it might well be passed over. Still out of regard for so eminent an authority I submit three remarks: firstly, the elegancies of grammar will not justify our referring the word him (autou) back to the word God (qeon), far separated from it, but to the Word of God, or Christ, to whom all the intervening words refer secondly, the parallelism in the mind of Justin is this: as the Incarnation was made by the Word of God, so the making of the Eucharist (eucharistiatio) is made by the word of the Word, which word is immediately described as below; and thirdly, our interpretation, which is the usual one, is confirmed by a comparison with the mysteries of Mithra, where the imitation of the mysteries of Christ is formed indeed in the bread and the cup, but "with the addition of certain words". However, it matters little for our present purpose which of these two interpretations you adopt.

121kata metabolhn by the change; cf above Th. IX (Vol. I).

122Justin indicates fairly well what these words are, where he immediately continues "For in their commentaries, which are called the Gospels, the Apostles handed down to us that Jesus gave orders to them as follows: namely, that He, having taken the bread, when He had given thanks, said: Do this for a commemoration of me. This is my body. And having taken the chalice likewise, and having given thanks, He said: This is my blood (ibid.).

123See above (Origen) Contra Celsum, 8, 33, and In Matth., tom. 11, n. 14, "of the bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (P.G. 13, 948), where he alludes to I Tim., IV, 5, just as St. Gregory of Nyssa did later in Or. Catechet., 37. P.G. 45 97. Edmund Bishop (op. cit., p. 156) proposes his own translation: "By the word of God and prayer " of the words of Origen and Gregory as he had already done for similar words of Justin, as we saw. His reasons for his choice are very weak, and W. J. Tyrer, in The Eucharistic Epiclesis, London, 1917, pp. 4146, 50-52, assailed them in the opposite sense, by far more convincing arguments.

124"When Antichrist comes the victim and the libation which is now offered to God in every place shall be swept away" (auferetur) (Fragmenta in Danielem, n. 22. P.G. 10, 656). In reference to this passage, we have an example of how Renz (op. cit., bd. I, p. 234) thinks he can escape the admission of an offering in the strict and proper sense of the Body and Blood of Christ, by noting that the offering of which Hippolytus is here speaking is represented in another place in Sacred Scripture (In Prov., IX., 2, a doubtful verse, certainly for his purpose), as the preparation of food. As if it would follow from this that the whole essence of the offering consists precisely in the preparation of food as such! By such a process of reasoning, it would be a very easy matter to prove that Catholics always taught and do teach now the doctrine which Renz defends—for we certainly do hold that the sacrificial action of the Eucharist is at the same time also a preparation of food and drink for us. Recall what we said above, in Thesis I (Vol. I).

125Even Wieland admits this (Die Schrift) M. u. C.; u. P., Em. Dorsch, p. 102) after supporting the opposite teaching in his first work (M. u. C., p; 51); for the nonce his memory failed him (M. u. C., p. 115).

126Our conclusion is true as to the mind of Hippolytus, even if we pass over, as of doubtful authority, this brief commentary on Prov., IX, 5: " Come eat of my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you: He gave us His Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk unto the remission of sins" (P.G. 89, 593).

127Tertullian seems here to indulge in a little play of wit, on account of the ambiguous sense attached to the expression "if you stand at the altar of God", for animals awaiting immolation were usually said to stand at the altar.

128Note what we have said repeatedly: at times perhaps too often, the word immolation or mactation is used for the sacrificial action, or the offering of the victim, either offered to immolation, or by immolation, or offered immolated, and this especially when speaking of the image of immolation, as happens in the Eucharist.

129The authority of Petavius may be quoted against our interpretation of this passage, for he interprets the words " You offer" differently in his treatise De potestate consecrandi et sacrificandi (caps. 1 and 2, ed. Barr. Duc., t. 8, p. 7 et seq.). He is of opinion there was a custom at that time that after the Eucharist had been consecrated and offered in sacrifice by a priest there would be private assemblies of the Christians, at which, as no priest was available, there was a merely ceremonial offering of the Eucharist, carried out by any layman, or even woman. However, this conjecture is not supported by any historical fact, there is no proof whatever of it in literature, and the Liturgies show no trace of it. We have even contrary indications in the Canons of Hippolytus (can. 181 in the Appendix to Duchesne's Orig. du culte chretien, 3, 537; cf. parallel passages from other decrees of the Apostles, in Dom. P. Cagin, L'Eucharistie, pp. 264-267), where we read that even at the distribution of the ordinary bread of the exorcism, at the commencement of the agape, not even the semblance of a liturgical action was permitted to the laity, and this, too, even when no priest or deacon was present. Hence the conjecture of Petavius is gratuitous, and even incredible in itself. It is still more incredible that Tertullian is alluding here to any such custom, for his aim is to prove by as forceful an argument as he can command that the distinction between the priest and the layman rests merely on the law of the Church, to the total exclusion of the divine law (cf. d'Ales, Theologie de Tertullien, 493). His argument would be futile if, according to the divine law, there was as great a difference between the efficacy of the layman and the prerogative of the priest, as exists between a merely ceremonial action and a sacrificial action properly so called.

In another treatise, De poenitentia et reconciliatione (c. 3, t. 8, p. 683), Petavius urges the objection, that Tertullian could not, when a Montanist, have favoured teaching that he condemned, when a Catholic, in the heretics (De praescriptione, c. 41). This argument is of little value, for we know that Tertullian changed his teaching in very many matters. However, even if one could admit the interpretation of Petavius, on his own confession it could not stand without the presupposition of a true sacrificial offering of the Body of Christ.

To my mind Tertullian's claim that the laity had the power to consecrate is opposed not only to the faith we hold, but to the faith of all the Catholics of his time. Against this it might be objected with Hugo Grotius (In Petav., De potestate cons. et sacr.. p. 10), that Tertullian, when a Montanist and in conflict with Catholics could not prove the obligation of only one marriage from the sacrificial power of the laity, unless the Catholics admitted the laity had this power, seeing that "an argument with others based on what is not believed by them is futile". The answer is simple: he could not argue from the sacrificial power as simply assumed, he could however, argue from that power as proved, as he thought, by the testimony of Apoc., I, 6.

So much for the passage under review.

However, we find also another place of some interest in the work De exhortatione castitatis, where the expression "for you will offer for two wives" occurs. Here it is plain that Tertullian refers to those offerings which the layfolk make for the celebration of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and at the same time for the sustenance of the poor. In virtue of this offering (somewhat similar to the present-day stipend), the laity have a just claim to be considered offerers of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Not only have they the title of offerers which is common to every member of the Church, but they have also a very special title, which makes the sacrifice to be very intimately their own as will be seen in the course of this work, Th. XXVII. These are the words of Tertulllan—"In the second marriage two wives stand beside the same husband; one in the spirit, the other in the flesh: for you cannot have ill-will towards the former; indeed you will entertain a more religious affection for her, as already welcomed by God; you pray for her spirit; you make annual OFFERINGS for her. Will you stand before God with as many wives as those for whom you pray? Will you OFFER for the two? Will you recommend them both THROUGH A PRIEST ordained after only one marriage, or even consecrated from virginity, surrounded by virgins and by wives of one man, and WILL YOUR SACRIFICE HAVE THE IMPUDENCE to ascend up before God?" (De exhortatione castitatis, 11. P.L. 2, 926-927).

We must give a similar interpretation to the expression "SHE OFFERS" in De monogamia, 10. P.L. 2, 942: "The wife prays for his soul[the departed husband's], and meantime begs respite for him, and for reunion in the first resurrection, and she OFFERS on the anniversary of his death."

130"I offer Him a richer and a greater VICTIM, the victim He Himself demands, PRAYER from pure flesh, from an innocent soul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not grains of incense to the value of one as, or the sap dripping like tears from an Arabian tree, or the blood of a wretched ox, already wishing for death, and then, after all this filth, an unclean conscience, so much so that I often wonder, when your vile priests pass for approval the victims for your sacrifices, that it is not the entrails of the sacrifice rather than of the victims that are examined by you. And so let nails pierce us whose hands are outstretched to God; let us be hung on the cross let fires lick our flesh, let the sword sever our heads from our bodies, let beasts make sport on us, the Christian with the habit of prayer is ready for any torture." Though not referring to the Eucharist, these words inculcate merely what the other Fathers have over and over again stressed—that the visible sacrifice avails nothing without the invisible sacrifice, and the whole efficacy of the invisible sacrifice is found in prayer and the adoration of the devout soul.

131Here desiring us to offer to God "a full prayer as our best victim", he writes as follows: " For this is the spiritual victim which abolished the ancient sacrifices.....We are true adorers and true priests; we pray in spirit, in spirit WE MAKE SACRIFICE OF PRAYER proper to God and acceptable to Him, namely the prayer which He asked from us, which He provided for Himself[this may be the Eucharistic prayer, but it is more likely the Lord's prayer, as Tertullian undertook to explain this in the beginning of the book, c. 1-8, as the 'new form of prayer of the New Testament']. We should BRING TO THE ALTAR OF GOD this prayer, full of all our heart's devotion, nourished with faith, tended with truth, undefiled in innocence, clean with chastity, crowned with the agape, with the glory of good works, with hymns and psalms, the prayer which will obtain all things from God for us."

132In the sect of Marcion, opposed to the God of the Old Testament, there is retained, together with the sign of the Cross, the clean sacrifice foretold by the prophet of the Old Testament, THE GIVING OF GLORY, AND. BLESSING AND PRAISE AND HYMNS. Seeing that you, too, have all these things, and the sign on your forehead the sacraments of the Church, and THE CLEANNESS OF THE SACRIFICES, you, too, should cry out and proclaim that the Spirit of the Creator has spoken in prophecy of His Christ". Quite possibly we have here a vague reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice (cf. Adv. Marcion., I, col. 362).

133The offering prescribed in the Law from those cleansed from leprosy presignified "that man, once a sinner, now cleansed by the word of God, must OFFER HIS GIFT TO GOD in the temple of God, NAMELY, THE PRAYER AND THANKSGIVING IN THE CHURCH, through Jesus Christ, who is for all men in the world (catholicum), the Priest of the Father." This prayer and thanksgiving appear to indicate the Eucharist this interpretation is all the more feasible, seeing that in the first book of this same work Tertullian describes the Eucharist celebrated by a Marcionite, in these words: "He discharges the office of thanksgiving over an alien bread to another God" (Adv. Marcion., 1, 23. P.L. 2, 274).

134Just as when we say, as others have before us, the Eucharist for the Body of Christ.

135"....It is spiritual not earthly sacrifices that we must offer to God, for thus we read in the Scriptures: a humble and contrite heart is a victim to God. And in another place: Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows to the Most High.....We must ask ourselves whether we are still to wait for the giver of the new law, the heir of the New Testament and priest of the new sacrifices, the purifier of the new circumcision, the observer of an eternal sabbath, who is to restrict the old, and found the New Testament.....We must ask whether the Giver of the New Law, the observer of the spiritual sabbath, the pontiff of the eternal sacrifices, the eternal Ruler of the eternal kingdom, has already come or not."

136Adv. Jud., 14, cols. 640-641: "The second goat offered for sin, and given as food to the priests of the temple only, marked a further signification, according to which the priests of the spiritual temple, that is of the Church, freed from all sin, should share as food (visceratione) IN THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE GRACE OF THE LORD, while others fasted from the boon of salvation" (Compare Adv. Marcion., 3, 7, P.L. 2, 331).

137See Emil Dorsch, Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie, Innsbruck, 1909, p. 230 on an old reading of this passage, more in our favour, which runs: "....if we blame those who offer the gifts of the episcopate."

138".. We are not atheists, we worship the creator of this world, and while we hold, as we have been taught, that He does not require blood, libations and incense as far as we are able we praise Him in words of praise and thanksgiving (FOR IT IS HANDED DOWN TO US THAT THIS IS THE ONLY HONOUR WORTHY OF GOD: NOT TO DESTROY BY FIRE WHAT HE CREATED FOR NUTRIMENT, BUT TO OFFER IT FOR OUR OWN ADVANTAGE AND FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE POOR, and to show Him too the gratitude of our souls with our lips, in processions and hymns) for creation, for all the safeguards of our health, for all kinds of creatures, for the change of the seasons and sending up prayer to Him, that by faith we may rise to incorruptibility...."

139Though we might well find in these words a reference to the ordinary offerings made to the president by the faithful at the offertory of the Mass, in which case what could we say of the bread or the wine, but that they were offered, and not in the sense certainly of their being set before the president to eat (vorlegen). -which rather would correspond to the word protiqetai used clearly in that sense by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 10, P.L. 8, 744, when speaking of the last supper: "The Saviour taking bread, first spoke and blessed it—then breaking the bread, He handed it to them (proeqhken), of course that we may eat it."

140Hence an Anglican writer justly said: "When Clement of Rome speaks of the oblations and gifts, which it is the presbyter's office to present....he doubtless includes among them....THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS AND ELEMENTS" (H. B. Swete, Eucharistic Belief in the 11 and 111 Centuries, J. T. S., V. 3, p. 163.

141The author of De Aleatoribus (c. 4. P.L. 4, 830), quoting the Doctrina, supports our interpretation in the words "....let not your PRAYER be defiled". However we shall find examples of a later period, see XXXIII, where even saints called the Eucharistic Body and Blood of an illegitimate celebration heretical bread, or some such name.

142Di euxhj tiuwuen ton qeon kai tauthn thn qusian aristhn kai agiwtathn meta dikaiosunhj anapempomen tw dikaiotatw Logw gerairontej di ou paralamdanomen thn gnwsin, dia toutou docazontej a memaqhkamen (7, 6).

Wieland gives a different translation to this passage: " We honour God by prayers and this is the most excellent and most holy sacrifice, which we send up in justice, with most just speech making Him an honourable gift " (M. u. C., p. 49; Die Schrift M. u. C., p. 90). We cannot accept this translation, for: (1) The prayers are the words of consecration, as Wieland admits, so one finds it difficult to see why they should be called most just speech (justissimo sermone) omitting the definite article the (omitted by Wieland in the translation), which surely has significance. (2) By logw here it would certainly appear that the Word of God, the divine Word is meant not simply speech or words of some kind (hence in the Greek text we have given Ligw with a capital). For this is suggested by the explanatory words which follow oi oi. = per quem, and dia toutou = per illum (you will find a very feeble attempt to escape from this argument in Wieland, D. V. O. 132-133), as also by the use of the word gerairontej It is evident that the phrase should be translated making honourable gift to the most just Word, especially if we take into consideration the words which follow: through whom, etc., as also because of the use of the word gea rairontej (honouring). For this word meant, primarily and in its origin, not merely giving some sign of honour, but one of a properly sacrificial kind. So in Athens the fourteen priestesses, called gerarai or gerairai offered up funeral sacrifices once a year, on the third day of Anthisteria, at fourteen altars in honour of Dionysus torn by the Titans into fourteen different pieces. So they were said to give an honourable offering to Dionysus. Hence Clement chooses this word most aptly in reference to an offering "giving honour" to the most just Word; in memory of His death, the sacrificial offering made by prayer. Such a description suits our Eucharistic offering at all points. Hence we think it necessary to consider that the dative tw Logw is governed by the verb participle gerairw = showing honour to. Whether one might consider that this dative is also dependent on the word anapempwmen = offer up, so that we should be said to offer up to the Word, as we likewise are said to give honour to the Word, is by no means evident. The word anapempw does usually take the dative of destination (cf. Sophocles Greek Lexicon, s. V.), and we have, moreover, an example of such use from Justin he sends up (or offers up) praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost (Apologia, 1, 65. P.G. 6, 428). But the word anapemow can also be used without any dative signifying the destination. Hence we translate here: we send up sacrifice, honouring the Word. This minor difficulty, however, has no bearing on. the present question.

143"Stolen waters are sweetest, and hidden bread is more pleasant (Prov., IX, 27). Here, by referring to (hidden) bread and (stolen) water, Scripture clearly brands those heresies which in the offering use bread and water otherwise than the canons of the Church enjoin; for there are some who make their thanksgiving of water only."

144We may not deny, " says Wieland, "that the word offering can be referred especially to the giving of thanks, so that in this case the giving of thanks (eucharistiatio) actually means offering to God. Here then we should have the first trace of the sacrificial concept, gradually gaining ground in the east" (D. V. O., p. 120).

145Stromata, 4, 25. P.G. 8, 1369

146As Wieland did, D.V.O., 113

147See Appendix B.

148See Appendix C.

149Emil Dorsch (op. cit., pp. 236-239) has some useful remarks regarding Athenagoras

150Zeno, however, at once goes on, at the end of Chapter 6, to speak of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, forbidding that the divine sacraments should be contaminated, that is, profaned, and adds: " Let each one then see to it, how he partakes of or how he offers the sacrifice, for just as it is sacrilege to offer unworthily, so it is mortal to partake unworthily" (col. 369; cf. lib. 1, tractatus, 5, c. 8, col. 309). We thought it advisable to mention this here, because some Protestants, whom the brothers Balleriniani mention and quote in their notes on St. Zeno, have said that Zeno did not approve of any sacrifice other than an inward affection of the soul. Here we have an example of the evil effects of a preconceived opinion: for what could we imagine more improbable than that a man who was in his prime after the middle of the fourth century could teach what they say? No argument could obscure the plain meaning of the other Fathers whom we have quoted above.

151Thereby showing clearly that the early Christians did not consider that the natural substances of bread and wine were offered, but the Body and Blood of Christ into which they were really changed

152The author of the Consultationes Zacchaei Christiani et Apollonii Philosophi (1. 2, c. 7. P.L. 20 1120), somewhat after the middle of the fourth century (cf. A Reatz, Das theologische System der Consult Zacch. et Apollon., Freiburg in Breisgau; 1920, p. 149), speaks in this sense of the "spiritual sacrifice".

153Dom Leclercq has some useful remarks on Gelasius of Cyzicus in the Hist. des Conciles, t. 1, p. 392.

154The same expression aqutwj quouenon is found in Theodorus Andidensis, Brevis commentatio, c. 28. P.G. 140, 456

155Nicholas Cabasilas, the distinguished Greek liturgist of the fourteenth century is, among others, very lucid on this point, where he says in his Liturgiae Expositio c. 51 P.G. 150, 485: "For this reason the priest calls the sacrifice oral worship because it does not include any external work[opus—such, e. g., as would be killing an animal], but he offers this oblation by simply uttering the consecrative words.....Although the Victim is truly the result of a completed action in the past (opus et factum), nevertheless, as he does nothing to it (circa ipsam), but only uses words he says rightly that he is offering not an active but a verbal worship."

156The summary of the whole teaching contained under these heads will be found in Cyril of Alexandria, in the ninth and tenth books of the work Contra Julianum P.G. 76, 968-1049.

157Cf. Bellarmine, De Missa, 1, 1, c. 11.

158There is a resemblance in the saying of Theophilus Alexandrinus, in the Epistola heortastica of the year 401 (n. 17) disputing against Origen: " We do not call corporal substance mere vanity, as he does, thus falling into the heresy of Manichaeus: let us not attribute vanity to the BODY of Christ, FEASTING ON WHICH, EVERY DAY, WE DAILY PONDER ON HIS WORDS: Unless one eats of my flesh, and drinks of my blood, he shall not have part with me" (P.L. 22, 787). But it would be much more reasonable to conclude that Theophilus speaks here of this ruminating on the words of Our Lord just to indicate the efficacy of Christ's words which preclude any "emptiness" in the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Hence we have here a theological argument of Theophilus for the sacramental reception of the true Body in the Eucharist, rather than for union with Christ by contemplation.

159It is one thing to base to a certain extent the sacrificial character of our celebration on the sacramental representation in it of true sacrifice; it is quite another thing to say that the concept of representation and the concept of sacrifice are in this case so interchangeable that the Eucharist should be called a sacrifice only in the sense that it is the image of a sacrifice. Although this last view appealed to Renz (passim, bd. 2, pp. 484-485), it is neither safe nor true. For the Eucharist is not a sacrifice by a mere figure of speech, it is a sacrifice in the true and proper sense.

160I beg the student to bear in mind once for all (one cannot be constantly making these distinctions) that in excluding all present immolation from the Mass I mean to exclude real immolation and not what is merely representative. So far are we from excluding present representative immolation, that we do not believe that a Catholic could deny that representative immolation is repeated as often as Mass is said. Nay, more, our offering of the Victim of the Passion (which we shall prove to be present and real) consists simply and solely in that symbolic immolation: which symbolical immolation, as we have said, in dealing with the Last Supper Th. III (vol 1), is the offering of a real immolation in blood.

161Cyprian, who says that the Passion is offered in our Eucharistic sacrifice, often says also that the Eucharistic sacrifice consists in this, that the Body and Blood of Christ is offered. For he not only says that Christ offered His Body and Blood in the Supper (n. 4, col. 376), but he also holds that the priest who truly officiates in the place of Christ is the one "who imitates what Christ did" (n. 14, col. 386) and he openly teaches that "the Blood of Christ is offered" by us (n. 9, col. 381). Here, then, we find expressions which, besides implying death, as we have often said are used by Cyprian as synonymous with that other expression of his in which the offering of the Passion in our Eucharistic sacrifice is asserted.

Accustomed as we are to the words of the catechism from our infancy we easily fail to appreciate the true meaning and the full force of the words the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But imagine the feelings of those who were the first to hear them, and for the first time. What else could they mean to them but the sacrifice in which the death of Christ was offered? And so the Latin Fathers use the expression the sacrifice of the Body and Blood indiscriminately for our bloodless sacrifice and for the bloody sacrifice of the Lord (which ended on Calvary). We notice the same thing among the Greek Fathers-Eusebius (Dem. evangel., 1, I, c. 10), for example, for whom the following two statements have absolutely the same meaning: "to celebrate the memorial OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST" "to offer the memorial of the SACRIFICE" enacted in the Passion (cols. 89 and 92).

He also holds that this offering stands for us "as a sacrificial action" (pro sacrificatione), not, however, in the sense that our offering is empty of sacrifice but that it is our sacrificial action in such a way that in it are carried out " the august sacrifices of the table of Christ". Hence he concludes: "Therefore we sacrifice to the Most High God a sacrifice of praise, we sacrifice a full, adorable and sacrosanct sacrifice. We offer sacrifice in a new manner according to the New Testament; we offer a clean sacrifice" (col. 92). Hence a true victim is sacrificed by us by an action or rite in which nevertheless we do nothing else than make a commemoration of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ once fulfilled (peracti) on the Cross. Hence here and now there is carried out no present immolation, and yet an immolated victim is offered. From these expressions of Eusebius, I am not inferring, though his words are quite consistent with such a view, that Eusebius held that in the sacramental commemoration of the Passion, we offer that very Victim the memorial of which is made; that is to say, the Body and Blood of Christ slain. However, the words of Eusebius found later on in the same work (Dem. evangel, 5, 3, col. 365) strongly suggest this interpretation: "Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, according to the order of Melchisedech carries on even now amongst men His sacerdotal once, through His own ministers. For just as Melchisedech the priest of the gentiles DID NOT OFFER CORPORAL SACRIFICES, blessing Abraham in bread and wine alone, so, too our Lord and Saviour, Himself first, and after Him all priests throughout the whole world, carrying out according to the statutes of the Church THE SPIRITUAL FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD REPRESENT[that is, carry out by acts of meaning obscure to all but the initiated] THE MYSTERIES OF HIS SAVING BODY AND BLOOD in bread and wine." That is, now we have in place of the sacrifice in blood the sacramental memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ, or the representation of the Passion, which far excels the legal worship in which it was necessary " to worship God in a corporal rite, by the victims and blood of irrational animals" (ibid.).

162I take the words "for our sins" uper twn hmeterwn amarthmatwn as modifying, directly, the slaying (esfagiasmenon), not the offering (rposrferomen). For, in the first place, it is Cyril's thesis and the argument of his discourse that the end and scope of our sacrificial offering is wider than the advantage only of OURSELVES (the living), and extends to the dead also. Secondly, he indicates this in the words which immediately follow: "making propitiation to God who loved men on behalf of them (the dead) and ourselves". Now, if we connect "for our sins" with "slain" (that is, with the Passion of Christ), then "for our sins" (that is, sins of us who are men) is "for the sins of all men". But if it is connected with "we offer" (that is, with our active offering), "our sins" should have the same restricted sense, "the sins of us who offer"-which is certainly unsuitable.

163This punctuation seems to us far more probable than that which leaves out the comma between "propitiation" and "we invoke" and places it between "worship" and "on". Because those are in error who think that in this passage Cyril refers to the epiclesis, or invocation of God on the sacrifice. For (1) in that case, he would not have used after the preposition, the genitive case, but the accusative. (2) Because the epiclesis is never said to be made for the Church, for the world and kings. (3) Because in a former chapter he had already dealt with what pertained to the epiclesis, so that clearly here in the tenth chapter his words presuppose ("after") that the sacrifice is complete, so that now there is place for intercession (that is the prayer on behalf of the Church, etc). It would be erroneous, too, to say that Cyril intended the prayer to be made over the victim as though suspended in air over it, to God, for the Church, etc. We have no example of such a sense among ancient writers—and, besides, I scarcely think that it would be in accordance with good grammar to take these two propositions, as here, depending on the one verb. Hence the sentence should be translated: "after having completed the sacrifice", as above.

164According to Basil (that is, if Basil is the author of the commentaries on Isaias) while God disdains the Jewish sprinkling of blood round about the altar, He rejects the blood of animals, but not the Blood of Christ, poured out in these latter days for the unique redemption of the world, and as the unique expiation for sin—Christ by His own Blood is become the one Victim, the true Lamb whose sacrifice is offered by us every day, whose Flesh is our food. Hence the mind of the author seems to be as follows: just as the Jews made a true offering of the blood poured out at the altar so, too, a true offering is to be made by us of the Blood shed in the Passion, and this is done in our Eucharistic sacrifice. "I do not demand[says God] that the blood of goats or bulls be poured round about the altar.....Take note that He did not say that He does not demand any blood. For He would not have said that He did not wish for THE BLOOD WHICH IS POURED OUT IN THESE LATTER DAYS[when we celebrate the Eucharist] UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS, and which cries louder than the blood of Abel; but He exchanges these victims for something spiritual: because there is also to be a change in the priesthood. The Aaronic stock, therefore, is excluded in order to make way for a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. No longer is there a constant succession of victims, no longer are there those victims which were offered on the day of propitiation; no longer are there ashes of a heifer for the cleansing of the defiled. For there is one Victim, Christ, and the mortification of the saints in His image. One aspersion, the laver of regeneration. ONE EXPIATION FOR SIN THE BLOOD SHED FOR THE SALVATION OF THE WORLD[that is, shed by the Jews of old in the Passion]" (In Isaiam, c. I, n. 26. P.G. 30, 1693. "....In the fulfilment of time, Christ the true Lamb is offered in sacrifice[by us Christians], whose Flesh is food indeed" (ibid., n. 27, col. 172). Here the indication of our teaching is slight, I must admit, but there it is.

In addition to the passage quoted in Thesis. III (Vol. I), on the close connection between Christ's Supper and His Passion, St. Gregory Nazianzen also indicates in another place that the Passion of Christ is bound up with and contained in our Eucharistic sacrifice, where he sets before us the staff of the Hebrews who partook of the paschal lamb, as presignifying the firm faith of Christians: "The law prescribes a supporting staff for you, lest you waver in mind when you hear of the BLOOD AND OF THE PASSION AND OP THE DEATH OF GOD.....Rather you must eat of the Body without shame and without doubt, drink of the Blood if you wish to attain to life, not throwing away your faith while you talk of the flesh, nor bringing damnation to yourselves while you discuss THE PASSION" (Or., 45, in 5. Pascha, 19, P.G. 36, 649). Here the blood which we are told we must drink seems to be the Blood of the Passion (we shall have more to say in XX on this kind of argument). In his earlier Invectiva Contra Julianum he is more explicit, plainly teaching that by our sacrifices we are made sharers of the Passion to which Christ submitted in order to make us sharers of His divinity. "Julian washes his hands lest they be defiled by the bloodless SACRIFICE, by which with Christ we are sharers both OF HIS SUFFERINGS AND HIS DIVINITY (Or., 4, 52. P.G. 35, 576). And again in his hymns he tells us that by the offering of our sacrifice we are made sharers of the sufferings of the Incarnate God: " Our offerings mean this: partnership in the Incarnation of God and in the sufferings of God" (Carmen I, I, sect. 2. poem 34, V. 238-239. P.G. 37, 962-964). "And when stricken with illness, he complains that he can no longer take his part in (misceri) the sufferings of Christ by the sacrifice: 'No longer do I lift up my hands to the holy sacrifices, Taking my part in (admixtus) the dread sufferings of Christ'" (Carmen, 1, 2, sect. 1, poem 50, V. 49-50. P.G. 37, 1389).

This realistic language of Gregory helps us not a little to understand his mind in this matter, which seems to be this: that we take part in the Passion of Christ by our Eucharistic offering, because we hold in our hands the slain Body and Blood of the Incarnate Word, offering it to God as our victim, by a slaying in symbol while "with a bloodless cutting we separate the Body and Blood of the Lord" (Ep. 171. P.G. 37, 280, 281).

165The repetition of offerimus here means simply "yes", according to common later (and Greek) idiom—therefore, "Yes, indeed we do."

166These words of Chrysostom, wrongly attributed to Ambrose, are to be found and quoted in testimony of Catholic teaching by practically every mediaeval writer.

167Chrysostom does not say that the oneness of the Victim consists formally in the material oneness of the Body, but rather proves the formal oneness of the Victim by an argument a pari, on the same principle whereby the oneness of the Body is safeguarded, arguing as follows: the continued repetition of the sacrifice no more militates against the oneness of the Victim, than does the simultaneous multiplication of the sacrifice in different places militate against the material oneness of the Body.

168Were offering used here intransitively, meaning when we offer, or make the offering, our interpretation would halt. But I think that in this clause, if we are to take one of the verbs as intransitive, it would be proclaim rather than offer. For proclaiming (Latin, praedicantes) might well be taken to refer to the recital of the Canon, where the verb is used intransitively, as in the Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne t. 1, pp. 126-127: "He ordained seven deacons to accompany the bishop as he proclaimed—praedicantem—the Canon[while he recited the Canon]." "He has shared the Passion with them in the proclaiming—praedicatione—of the priests[in the Canon] whenever Mass is celebrated." There are other passages from Ambrose to be quoted later, Thesis XXI.

169St. Augustine says here that the reality promised in the olden figures was "given" or rendered (redditam) by Christ in the Passion, just as St. Jerome says that the same reality was "given" in the Last Supper. To such an extent do the Passion and the Supper fuse into one sacrifice, that in the Supper the bloody immolation of the Passion was bloodlessly given, offered into God's hand (redditam). That is to say, just as in the figures of old it was pledged to God, so in the sacrament it is given over into His dominion, in the sacrament which contains the Flesh and Blood which it signifies. The words of Jerome are: "Desiring to put an end to the carnal festival of the pasch, and with the fading of the figures, TO GIVE THE REAL PASCH, He said: With desire have I desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed" (In Matth., XXVI, P.L. 26, 190).

170As it was by Renz, op. cit" 1, pp. 259-260,

171Velut consortio quodam illic occisi[or occisis] est tumulus constitutus, ubi occisiones membra, etc. The reading occisis brings out more easily the parallelism between this passage illic occisis....ubi, and the former one ibi martyribus....ubi; and so we adopt it

172The words are slightly altered in a passage of Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto, 1, 1, Prolog., n. 4. P.L. 16, 704).

173Hence Florus justly remarks later (ibid., col. 70), following Etherius and Beatus (ad Elipand. P.L. 96, 1010): "Nevertheless a victim could not have been offered by us had not Christ been made a Victim for us."

174Of Alger it is to be noted that not only does he praise, with very many writers of that period (De sacr. corp. et sang. Dmni., 1. 16. P.L. 180, 786-787), the words of Chrysostom (In Hebr., hom. 17, 3), cited above, but he also stresses the oneness of our sacrifice and the sacrifice of the redemption, to such an extent that he seems clearly to teach the oneness of the victimal condition once imposed on Christ by the Passion and repeatedly offered by us in the Mass. These are his words: "With the coming of His own real sacrifice, our loving Lord not only dispelled the shadows of the olden figures as superfluous, but also by His one sacrifice he did away with the multiplicity of sacrifice among the ancients. He lessened the external observances, but multiplied the grace of His benefits for us, REDEEMING us AND BRINGING US FORGIVENESS BY HIS ONE UNIQUE SACRIFICE, and by progress in faith and other virtues leading us on to eternal life.....In His sacrifice, therefore, God provides for us a wondrous and most excellent sacrament in which He conceals His true Body and Blood hidden under the appearances of bread and wine" (De sacr. corp. et sang. Dmni., 2, 3. P.L. 180, 818-819).

175Here evidently the word oblatio means the thing offered, not the act of offering Hence Albert says: (1) Christ, who was once offered, remains always offered, and (2) that He also remains to be offered. That He remains always offered implies that He is an eternal Victim. That He remains to be offered, naturally by us, implies that this eternal Victim is made ours, to be offered in sacrifice as our very own. Albert's words are vigorous and powerful.

176"For this entails....the sinful act of the Jews, or the Passion as inflicted by them: thus it was not to be repeated."

177This, of course, in our sense of the term, where immolation does not directly mean offering.

178Quite in agreement with this are the words of St. Thomas a little later on: "The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of the Passion of the Lord, as containing CHRIST HIMSELF WHO HAS SUFFERED (3 S. 73, 5, 2 m).

179Consult here also the passage from 4 D. 12, on the Last Supper, in so far as it refers to the Mass. cited above, Th. III (Vol. I).

180In the above quotation it is evident that the word sacrament means the res et signum-the thing signified by the sacrament as well as the sacrament or symbol, just as the first word sacrifice means what is offered and not the sacrificial action.

181This book, as we have already said IX, (Vol. I), was published in the name and with the authority of the Chapter of Cologne against a pamphlet of the heretical Archbishop Hermann de Wied, inscribed Consultatio quomodo Reformatio aliqua....sit instituenda (1543).

182Another "strenuous apologist for the Catholic faith....against the heretics" (Hurter, Nomenclator, 2) was John Fabri, O.P., of Heilbronn, and, in perfect agreement with the Cologne canons, he wrote (Missa Evangelica, Paris, 1558): "Therefore by the ministry of his priests at the altar WE OFFER to God the Father THAT VERY BODY WHICH HE GAVE FOR US, AND THE BLOOD WHICH HE SHED FOR OUR SALVATION, with the power and the efficacy OF THAT SACRIFICE ENACTED on the Cross....and we beg of the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation to grant that THIS BLOODY VICTIM OF THE CROSS MAY BENEFIT US, wretched and abandoned sinners that we are....BY EXHIBITING TO GOD THE BODY OF CHRIST NAILED TO THE CROSS FOR US, AND HIS BLOOD SHED THERE FOR US, WE BEG HIM TO GRANT (velit) THAT THEY BENEFIT US (fol. 38). And later: We take the CHALICE OF SALVATION, THAT IS THE PASSION OF CHRIST, or THE WORK OF REDEMPTION, and by command of Christ who said: Do this for a commemoration of me, WE PRESENT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD THAT BY WHICH He makes us partakers of that unique Victim offered on the Cross" (fol. 148). What, therefore, do we present in the sight of God? What do we exhibit or offer to God? The Passion of the Lord, the Body and Blood of the Crucified, the unique Victim of the sacrifice in blood.....And so it is effected, that by the sacrifice of the altar we take hold of the effect of the sacrifice of the Cross: because in a bloodless manner we transmit (admovemus) to God the Victim of the bloody sacrifice. "By this bloodless offering, first made (inchoatam) by Christ in the Supper and commanded to be done after His example according to the order of Melchisedech, we make ourselves partakers of the bloody sacrifice once offered on the Cross, not because the Victim of the Cross is insufficient, but that we may be made partakers of that satisfaction accomplished and secured for us, through the Body and Blood of Christ which Christ Himself left to us, and which we set before and offer to God the Father as the Victim of the Cross to be commemorated by us with thanksgiving;....seeing that in the Body and Blood of Christ offered for us on the Cross and really present on the altar, we have no doubt that there lies the efficacy and the efficiency of our redemption and salvation" (fol. 41). Why should we doubt it "since what we now offer is that same Blood formerly shed on the Cross, and the efficacy of that Blood?" (fol. 44). Here we have truly expressed the oneness of our sacrifice with the sacrifice of the Redemption, both in respect of the victim and in respect of the fruit of the sacrifice. These men were in daily conflict and at close quarters with the enemies of the faith and they considered it necessary to prove conclusively this oneness from the documents of the Catholic faith, in order to combat the arguments of the reformers in the most effective manner possible.

183Note how evidently he assigns to Christ at the Supper the offering of His death, since Christ gave no other command, and entrusted no other power, but that of doing what He Himself did. Do this.

184The words of Cardinal Gaspari Contareni in his treatise De Sacramentis have more or less the same meaning (Opera, Paris, 1571, p. 350): "The sacrament is one, made up of two parts, that is bread and wine, in which Christ JUST AS HE SUFFERED IS CONTAINED and is signified to us.

185Meanwhile he had demolished in the following way an objection raised from St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Some object that the words of Gregory of Nyssa present a serious difficulty, where he says that Christ could not be received by communicants before being immolated, as if he meant by this that a new, distinct and proper immolation should have preceded in each case before our communion. But we must understand the Father here to refer to the merely mystic slaying which takes place at the moment of the consecration, not the real slaying which occurred in the past in truth and reality on the Cross" (ibid., p. 112). Here he means that in the Mass there is only a symbol of real immolation, that is of the immolation which truly occurred before on the Cross, and by which Christ passed into the condition of victim. Later on he draws up the following definition of the Mass, to be understood in accordance with his earlier exposition: " The Mass is a sacrifice in which the bread and wine mingled with water being changed by transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of the Lord, HIS OWN SON CRUCIFIED AND IMMOLATED ON THE CROSS IN THE PAST is offered to God and the Father, both in memory of His sufferings and for those who are living as well as for those who have died in the Catholic faith."

In his fine treatise De la sainte Messe (1. 3, t. I, p. 325), written against the innovators in his native tongue, Louis Richeome, S.J., expresses the true and genuine concept of the Eucharistic sacrifice as follows: "We say that THE OBLATION OF THIS CRUCIFIED BODY IS REPEATED, as an offering always pleasing to God." In his wisdom he does not teach any (effective) immolation of what is offered except the sufferings on the Cross, and in our mystic immolation he sees no force but one of offering; by our mystic immolation we offer the Victim.

186That is to say, before theologians began racking their brains to answer the ill-conceived question: after what manner is the victim destroyed or impaired in the sacrifice of the Mass 7 They would never have put this question had they first dealt fully with the Supper, and if they had not considered the Supper apart from the Passion with which it is closely knit.

187I would not advance the testimony of a layman—Florimundus Raymundus-but for the fact that it is of great utility as giving us the convictions of the Catholics of his time in this matter: "To say Mass is nothing else than to take bread, give thanks, consecrate and convert the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, by virtue of the sacramental words. The same Mass is a sacrifice and a sacred action in which the cause of the people is pleaded before God, by the intervention of prayers and the OFFERING of the Body and of the DEATH of our Saviour." (In the Latin version published at Cologne, A. D. 1655, under the title: Floremundi Raymundi, v. Cl., olim consiliarii regis Galliarum, ex calviniano catholici; Synopsis omnium hujus temporis controversiarum....sive Historia memorabilis....aucta, et illustrata ex scriptis R. D. Gaspari Ulenbergii, Lippensis, ex lutherano catholici, lib. 7, cap. 14, parag. 2, Pars. 2, p. 261.)

188This work, which for the clergy became a classic work and an ecclesiastical library to all intents and purposes, is the result of a wide reading of pious books, of the Fathers, Doctors and casuists" (Biographie Universelle (Michaud), Paris 1880, s. V. Choin). Another previous work in catechetical form was Institutiones Catholicae ad formam catechismi (tertia pars, sect. 2, c. 6, parag. 9, Venice, 1769, t. 2, p. 648) by F. A. Pouget.

189On the same argument compare our remarks below, Thesis XXI, from Francois Babin, Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Angers. Meantime Basil Balthasar may be consulted, Mysterium mysteriorum in augustissimo altaris sacramento, Pars. IV. De sacrosancto missae sacrificio in seipso. The title of Punct. IV is: "The sacrifice of the Cross is offered." And the conclusion of it is: " Therefore the sacrifice which was once enacted on the Cross is the same as the sacrifice which is daily immolated in the sacrament" (St. Gall, 1770, pp. 300 311). Nevertheless during that period, due I think to the prevailing authority of the great theologians of the sixteenth century, a concise and clear declaration on this point is rarely to be found, except amongst the Jansenists. Because of their heresy I omit them purposely. It is a surprise, however, to find in the meantime the anonymous work of the Jansenist Francis Plowden, Traite du sacrifice du Jesus-Christ (Paris, 1778), causing great commotion and dissension among the sectaries themselves. Michaud in Biographie Universelle tells us (under the name Plowden) that they attacked as a doctrine new and unheard of by them, the teaching which the author champions throughout the whole work (particularly t. 1, pp. 378-381): that no real immolation underlies the Mass except that derived from Calvary; while, nevertheless, it was the definite teaching of a number of bishops who were favourably disposed towards the sectaries such as Rastignac (Instruction pastorale de M. I 'Archeveque de Tours, sur la justice chretienne par rapport aux sacrements de penitence et d'eucharistie 22 Feb. 1749). Caylus (Mandement de M. I'Eveque d'Auxerre portant permission de manger des oeufs pendant le careme de la presente, annee 1750); and also the well-known theologian L. Habert (Theologia dogmatica et moralis, De Eucharistia ut sacrificium est, cap. 6 ed. Venice, 1717, t. 5, pp. 643-646).

190Clearly in the passive sense, meaning what is offered.

191In our Roman Missal the Secret of the Missa de s. cruce (which was already found in the Liber Sacramentorum of Alcuin, c. 6. P.L. 101, 454) expresses the same idea: "We beseech thee, O Lord, that this offering may cleanse us from all our sins, EVEN as it took away the sin of the whole world on the altar of the Cross."

192Likewise he has the following Ad infantes, or the recently baptised, in the third of the Sermones published by Michael Denis (n. 3. P.L. 46, 827): " Do not look upon yourselves as of little worth—drink your ransom." Shortly before he had said: "Confess this in the bread, that it hung on the Cross, this in the chalice, that it flowed from His side." The best of recent critics consider these Sermones to be genuine works of Augustine, and this third one in particular (cf. Portalie, art. Augustan in D. T. C., 2306). The authentic character of these discourses appears to be confirmed by the Epistola ad Frudegardum (P.L. 120 1352), of St. Paschasius Radbertus, in which he writes: "Otherwise the great and holy Augustine would be inconsistent, when, as I remember, he says in his discourses to the neophytes: Receive in the bread that which hung on the Cross; and of the chalice he says: Receive in the chalice that which flowed from His side." It is true that J. Turmel (Histoire de la theologie positive depuis l'origine jusqu' au concile de Trente, 2nd ed. p. 436) remarks on this passage of St. Paschasius: " Unfortunately, on this matter of the highest importance, the erudition of the Abbot of Corbie is at fault. The Sermo ad Neophytos was the work of an unknown writer of the eighth or ninth century who had adopted the formulae of the Mozarabic liturgy." Such are his words, but he advances no argument and no authority for his statement, nor does, he give any reference to any passage whatever, augustinian or pseudo-augustinian, except to the Epistola ad Frudegardum of Paschasius. That there were many sayings of this kind in the Missale Mozarabicum is common knowledge. For instance, in the Mass for Holy Saturday we have: " We beseech thee, that in the bread may gleam forth that which hung on the Cross, and in the chalice that may sparkle which flowed from His side" (P.L. 85, 517). But this does not by any means prove that the words in the discourse Ad Infantes are interpolated (I take it that the discourse which Paschasius terms Ad Neophytos is the Ad Infantes which we are referring to), nor does it prove that the whole discourse is spurious. Turmel's assertion has been repeated by writers of the highest literary culture, like Batiffol (Et. d'Histoire de la theologie positive, second series, 3rd ed., pp. 367-368) and F. Vernet (art. Eucharistie du IX siecle a la fin du XI siecle, in D. T. C. 1230), though they give no authority for their assertion than that of Turmel himself. Actually it would not be surprising if this discourse had at times escaped the knowledge or at least the close attention of the critics, for the Denis collection of the Sermones which was edited after the whole Benedictine edition of the works of St. Augustine is not to be found in the Patrologia of Migne until the end of Vol. 46 after the general index.

The ninth of the Sermones inediti, published lately by G. Morin (Munich, 1917 De secunda feria Paschae, n. 2, p. 31), can now be added to the Denis collection and in this we find the words: "Drink what you have shed."

193On this point Karl Adam (Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Augustin, 1908, p. 75) says: "Hence by predilection Augustine describes communion AS AN EATING FROM THE CROSS, or simply AS AN EATING OF THE CRUCIFIED."

194"He wished souls to be sanctified by His own precious Blood BY MEANS OF THE IMAGE OF HIS TRUE PASSION (ibid.).

195 (1) Cf. Prosper Schepens, Un traite a restituer a saint Quodvultdeus eveque de Carthage au V siecle, in R. S. R., May-September, 1919, p. 230 f.

196Of the Body baked or roasted (torridum) on the altar of the Cross, bear in mind our remarks above, Th. XIII (Vol. I).

197Hincmar also gives poetic expression to the same doctrine in his Ferculum Salamonis (P.L. 125, 1202): "For on the Cross His Body's fixed His Blood is also shed His Blood which on the Supper night Christ gave unto his friends. The story we unworthy sinners tell at His command While He, Redeemer, makes our gift the price of us redeemed."

Not only does he link up the Supper with the Cross in such manner that the eating of the sacrament by the disciples at the Last Supper was a tasting beforehand of the blood victim, but, moreover, after the manner of St. Augustine, he describes the Victim of our sacrifice as the very price of our Redemption. Cf. the Explanatio in Ferculum Salamonis. P.L. 125, 832.

198All these expressions apparently come to us from the very ancient Hymnus in Resurrectione Domini. In this hymn the Blood of Christ is said to flow to us, that we may drink of it from the roasted Body of Christ (A. H. 51, 87. It is found in countless Hymnaries, Rituals, Breviaries, in German, French, English, Italian, Irish and Spanish manuscripts of the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries. Cf. J. Mearns, Early Latin Hymnaries. An Index of hymns in Hymnaries before 1100, Cambridge, 913, p. 1): "Equipped FOR SUPPER of the Lamb (Ad coenam agni providi) And clothed in robes of white The crossing of the red sea past We sing to Christ, our King. HIS SACRED BODY, see, is there HOT BAKED ON ALTAR OF THE CROSS: (in ara crucis torridum) We taste the red Blood streaming thence And tasting live to God."

With regard to the antiquity of this hymn, which is much earlier than the eighth century see A. H. 51, 90. Perhaps H. A. Daniel is not far wrong (Thesaurus Hymnoiogicus, Halle, 1841, tom. 1, p. 89) in suspecting that "the hymn Ad coenam Agni used to be sung in the early Church after the baptised catechumens were being strengthened according to rite with the Body and Blood of the Lord in communion."

199Other examples of this description of the Eucharistic bread as baked or cooked (cocti) on the wood of the Cross will be found at the end of this §I.

200Not deserving of positive censure (non damnandum), I say, because there are other places where William clearly taught the absolute numerical identity of the Body which suffered and rose to glory and the Eucharistic Body, indeed he forcefully championed it. See his controversy with Rupert below, Th. XXIV.

201We could continue indefinitely giving examples—slighter testimonies of our doctrine—of this kind. One such occurs in a will, attributed by Flodoardus to St. Remigius. In this will he bequeathed a chalice wrought from a lump of gold, presented to himself " by the most Christian king " Clovis, on which was the following inscription: "Let men drink (hauriat) life FROM SACRED BLOOD herein Caught up from WOUND of ever living Christ."

(In Flodoardum, Historia Ecclesiae Remensis lib. 1, c. 10 and 18. P.L. 135, 44 and 62.) But such language is, I fear, a little too eloquent.

202Our feasting from the death of Christ is finely described in the Responsorium in festo corporis Christi: "The grain is driven from the chaff It falls to earth and dies; But from it springs the harvest wheat From which the bread is made, On which from Altar's threshing floor The Christian people feast." (A. H. 5, 31, ex. cod. Praedicatt. Vindobon. signo anni 1462.)

203Peter the Venerable in the same sense (Rythmus in laude Salvatoris, A. H. 48 244; cf. the text, not amended as below, in P.L. 189, 1012): "From the tree of death The Blood is shed Which in faith we take From the Body of Christ," etc.

204We could go on indefinitely quoting hymns of this kind. For example we have this one in which both food and drink together are set before us as derived from the Cross (Hymnus de corpore Christi, by Joannes a Jenstein, Archbishop of Prague, fourteenth century, A. H. 48, 431): "Flesh of the CRUCIFIED Cruelly wrung In death of Cross so dire Grant us joys of light.

"Blood of Christ that dripped In shower of sacred dew Within, without, us cleanse And join to choirs of love."

The same more briefly in (Hymnus de corpore Christi, ex Antiphonario ms. Villariensi saec. XIII, A. H. 12, 33): "Thy Flesh is meat indeed Thy Blood is drink indeed Victim of Redemption Pasture of thy sheep," etc.

205See also hom. 63, n. 3 and 4, quoted above.

206We can have no certainty that Procopius meant the same thing when he wrote: "He desires TO GIVE UP HIS BODY TO US TO BE OUR FOOD (suum corpus nobis cedere in alimenta). FOR THIS REASON HE PERMITS THE BLOOD TO FLOW. The participation by which we partake of Christ now contains the confession of His Passion" (In Exodum XII, 8. P.G. 87, 568-569). For in view of the context it would appear that the words might be taken in another sense: since Christ wished to give us His Flesh in food and it could be food for those only who were cleansed, it was necessary that His Blood should be shed, that, washed in it, we should be cleansed. If this is the meaning, the passage has no bearing on the present matter.

207Cf. Heterius and Beatus, Ad Elipandum epist., 1, 1, c. 68. P.L. 96, 936-937: "The wood of the Cross baked (coxit) that bread, which is the Body of Christ." Cf. Hincmar, cited above.

208See above Thesis XVII, the conclusion drawn from Scripture.

209We necessarily use the word sacrifice here in its passive sense, for THAT WHICH was handed over and assigned to God, and which is permanent, not for the sacrificial action, which is transient.

210Following Scheeben (Handbuch d. kath. Dogm., 3, n. 1459-1508) as is their wont, J. Wilhelm and T. B. Scannell (A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. 2, London 1898, pp. 204-205) touched on this point in their discussion of Christ the Redeemer although later, in their explanation of the Mass (possibly because here they lacked the guidance of their master), they derive nothing useful or helpful from this consideration. Thus Wilhelm and Scannell (loc. cit.): "In the whole-burnt offerings of the Old Testament the smell of the victim is said to ascend to God as an odour of sweetness, which expression is also applied to the sacrifice of Christ. THE ODOUR OF SWEETNESS OF THE SAVIOUR IS HIS GLORIFIED SELF ASCENDING INTO HEAVEN, and as the Lamb slain, standing in the midst of the throne before God, AS AN ETERNAL SACRIFICE OF ADORATION AND THANKSGIVING. From His heavenly throne Christ through His ministers on earth, continually sacrifices and consecrates in His Church MAKING HIMSELF THE SACRIFICE OF THE CHURCH HE THUS BRINGS DOWN TO EARTH THE PERENNIAL SACRIFICE OF HEAVEN, in order to apply its merits to mankind, and at the same time enables the Church to offer with Him and through Him a perfect sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving."

211The words "we heard" indicate that the offering of the Blood was made at the Supper: for it was only at the Supper that Christ offered in words that is, in the words of the consecration. True, the offering was not directly indicated in these words, but still by them was enacted the sacramental immolation in which the pragmatic offering of the Victim to the immolation in Blood actually consisted.

212We must interpret the word grace here as opposed to shadow, as it connotes the saving reality foretold by the shadow of the figurative sacrifices, in much the same way as Christ is said by St. John to be full of grace and truth, that is, full of the saving reality which the Law promised but did not possess. Hence we must not construe the words as if grace here designated the effect of the Passion the genitive here (grace of the Passion) is explanatory: the grace which is the Passion of the Lord that is, the saving reality of the Passion of the Lord.

213The first altar was on earth whence Christ bore His victim to the second altar to the Holy of Holies, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the sense is that from an earthly and passible condition the victim of our Priest passed into a heavenly and incorruptible state.

214Among the spurious works assigned to St. Thomas is an Expositio missae of which P. Mandonnet says nothing in his disquisition Des ecrits authentiques de saint Thomas d'Aquin, 2, c. 11, Des ecrits apocryphes. On reading it, one sees at once that it is a compilation of passages from the Libellus de canone mystici libaminis (Parma, 1864, t. 17, p. 334) with here and there words interpolated or slightly changed.

215Cajetan does not here make a strict distinction between offering and immolation.

216Call to mind, furthermore, some words in the same sense already quoted in Th. XIX, from the Antididagma: "This sacrifice is, and remains, in the sight of God, " etc.

217A German edition of this work was printed earlier.

218He means: we deny that it is the intention of the priest to give to the Body and Blood of our Lord the condition of victim, as if the Body and Blood of our Lord were here and now at Mass made a victim, whereas they were not a victim before. We deny, therefore, that in the Mass Christ passes from the state of non-victim into that of victim.

219"First and chief editor of a much esteemed and widely read course of theology entitled Conferences Ecclesiastiques du Diocese d'Angers. In the eighteen volumes which came from his pen we see admirably displayed the varied signs of a special talent for teaching, profound and exact knowledge, etc. These different qualities the fruit of a long and brilliant period of teaching, attracted to the new publication the attention of the French clergy, who, on the death of the author, requested its continuation.....The whole work offers the advantages of a Summa Theologica of real worth" (D. T. C., 2, 4, s. V. Babin).

220We find the same, word for word, in the Vetus Missale Gallicanum (29) published by Mabillon, De liturgia Gallicana, 1, 3. P.L. 72, 374.

221Quoted in Theses XIII (Vol. I) and XVII especially.

222We might also mention that St. Jerome (In Oseam, 8, 11. P.L. 25, 888) treats the trilogy of the Epistle to the Ephesians, IV, 5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism as equivalent to this other: "The Apostle teaches that there is one altar, one faith one baptism." Here he plainly substitutes altar for Lord.

223Even those whose knowledge of liturgical usage is only slight are aware that here the word vows (vota) means sacrifices offered to God at the request of the faithful. Hence the words of the Canon: "....who pay their vows to thee, the living and true God." Hence, too, the very name and rite of votive Masses. Suffice the following specimen from the Missale Bobiense: " O Lord, to whom Abel offered gifts to whom Abraham decreed to offer a holocaust, TO WHOM JACOB VOWED A SACRIFICE (votum vovit) AND OFFERED IT, have mercy on thy servant N., who in honour of Saints N. N. OFFERS THE GIFTS OF SACRIFICES (votorum) with the intercession of the prayers of thy saints.....For thou, O Lord, who willest that none should be lost to Thee, but to all givest great things for small, dost give life for death, glory for punishment dost render eternal rewards for the SERVICE OF SACRIFICES (votorum) through Christ our Lord" (Contestatio missae votivae tertiae. P.L. 72, 542-543. See also three other Missae votivae singulares in the same place cf. also the Missa votiva singularis mozarabica, with the one which follows pro itinerantibus. P.L. 85, 991-997).

224The belief that Christ was our Altar was so well known and commonplace even as late as the sixteenth century that there were men of letters who applied it by way of doxology, as did Henricus Stephanus. We have, for example, "Bernonis Abbatus Libellus de officio missae quem edidit Romae, editus denuo per Jacobem Fabrum apud Henricum Stephanum Parisiis, " 1518. And at the end of the book we read-here translating the Latin: "From the printing house of Henricus Stephanus in the year of Christ our SAVIOUR WHO IS OUR ALTAR, VICTIM AND SACRIFICE, MOST BLESSED (superbenedictus) FOR EVER AND EVER, Amen.

225Among recent authorities who see in this prayer an epiclesis are L. A. Hoppe Die Epiclesis der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgieen und der romische Consekrationskanon, 1864, p. 121 et seq. where most of the authorities to be quoted below are to be found Duchesne, Origines du culte chretien, 3, pp. 181-182 Cabrol D. A. C., art. Anamnese, col. 1885; "In spite of all opinions to the contrary, this Supplices te represents the ancient Roman epiclesis" (although later, unfortunately in t. 2, col. 1893, the eminent liturgist had changed his opinion) Salaville, D. T. C. art. Epiclese, cols. 219-220.

226The prayer within the offertory in the Greek Liturgy of St. James is: "Grant us, O Lord, to offer thee, in fear and with a pure conscience, this spiritual and bloodless Victim, and when it is taken unto thy HOLY, SUPERCELESTIAL AND INTELLIGIBLE ALTAR, in the odour of sweetness, do thou in turn send upon us the grace of the Holy Spirit" (B. 47).

227In the present Liturgy of St. Chrysostom (B. 360) the Basilian prayer has taken the place of the above invocation: by which interchange the equivalence of the formulae is shown once more.

228This dual epiclesis—one by the priest, the other by the people—would be meaningless if? as the Schismatics say? the epiclesis supervening on the Supper narrative had the power of consecration (as if then and there, by the epiclesis, the virtue of the words of the Lord was applied to the oblata, and so the Consecration was not effected until the epiclesis was said): for the priest consecrates, not the people. The difficulty vanishes? however? if? as Catholics know well, the virtue of the epiclesis and the reason for its existence? is to petition for things which are known to have been already effected: because the Church sees fit throughout the succeeding parts of the Mass to dwell on and to develop various phases and aspects of the one indivisible Great Action which has taken place at the very moment of the utterance of the words used by our Lord? as will be explained later, Th. XXXIV. There is no reason whatever why the priest may not say or the people may not say? or be instructed to say, any prayer of this kind which is by no means consecrative; cf. J. Sarug., op. cit., p. 452.

229A propos Duchesne? loc. cit.: " It is not really the Holy Spirit who comes down on the offering, but the offering which is borne up to heaven by the angel of God But in the one case, as in the other? it is after its conjunction, its communication with the divine power, that we speak of the oblation as the Body and Blood of Christ."

230Perhaps Irenaeus indicates such a twofold liturgical use when in one and the same chapter of his work he speaks of the direction of the oblata to the celestial Altar (Adv. Haeres., I, 4, c. 18, parag. 6. P.G. 7, 1029), and of the invocation (ibid. parag. 5, where the common reading ekklhsin should more probably be epiklhsin cf. 1, 1, c. 13, parag. 2, col. 580: ton logon thj epiklhsewj; see F. D. 2, 175, not. 15). of God on to the oblata.

231The holy and learned Cardinal Orsi passes the following judgment on his argument: "I willingly admit that the sense conveyed by our prayer (Jube haec perferri) and by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which is usual with the Greeks is the same, and Cabasilas has proved this by arguments which cannot be lightly set aside all through that chapter" (De invocatione Spiritus Sancti in liturgiis Graec. et Or., Milan, 1731, t. 1, p. 122).

232The unknown author of the compilation attributed to the venerable Hildebert of Tours makes the words of Paschasius his own. In his comment on these words of the Canon, he says: "The Body of Christ is not made[to be in the sacrament]-efficitur-by the merit of the consecrating priest, but by the word of the Creator and by the power of the Holy Spirit. For just as it is God who baptises, so it is God Himself who MAKES this bread HIS OWN FLESH, and MAKES this wine HIS OWN BLOOD. For WHY does the priest pray; for those things to be carried into the sight of the divine majesty, IF HE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE THINGS ARE DONE IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT PRIESTHOOD? " (De Expositione Missae. P.L. 171, 1168). He teaches quite as clearly as do those to be cited later by us that a prayer for transubstantiation is implied by these words.

It might be noted, however, that, like Paschasius, he sees an equivalence between the action of the Holy Spirit and the bearing of the sacrifice to the altar of God. He thus confirms our remarks above on the equivalence of the ascensional and descensional epiclesis, i. e. the prayer for the taking up of the gift to the altar, and that for the descent upon it of the Holy Spirit. We also find something similar to those words of Paschasius in the Glossa Ordinaria on the Decretum de consecr., 2 72, Rome, 1584, t. 2, p. 1814, cited there under the name of Augustine. Later we shall quote another passage from the same Glossa. Meantime compare the following prayer in the Liber Ordinum (ed. Ferotin, col. 269): "May He who commanded us to offer[that is, Christ] CARRY THE SACRIFICE TO THEE."

233We may mention here a truly extraordinary teaching of an uncertain author a teaching never heard of before. This writer holds against Paschasius some kind of duality between the historical and the Eucharistic Body of Christ. He thinks that the Eucharistic Body is consecrated at the words of our Lord This is my body, and later " at the petition of the priest " transferred " into the Body of the Lord born of the Virgin": joined to and made one with it by the divinity of the Word: whence it comes to us again from the hand of Christ! (Read the Epistola ad Egilem Prumiensem, wrongly ascribed to Rabanus Maurus, n. 3, 4; 7. P.L. 112, 1513-1514, 1517, 1518). We shall see more of this in Thesis L. (Vol. III). Meantime, compare this strange view with that other of Odo of Cambrai, to be cited directly.

234The words of St. Gregory, most familiar to everyone in the Middle Ages, are: " For can any one of the faithful doubt that in the very moment of the immolation, at the words of the priest, the heavens are opened, the choirs of angels assist at the mystery of Jesus Christ, earth is joined to heaven, infinity to nothingness, the visible and the invisible become one?" (loc. cit. P.L. 77, 428).

235Odo of Cambrai says something similar, but in language which is, to say the least, unguarded, where he speaks as of a union made between the Eucharistic Flesh and God: "In the same place that which was bread is made the Flesh of the Word: nevertheless IT IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ALTAR to heaven, because IT IS TRANSFERRED FROM BREAD TO GOD. But seeing that God is everywhere, it is not by change of place that the FLESH made from bread Is JOINED TO GOD (Expositio ill canonem missae, dist. 3a, on the words of the Canon Supplices te....divinae majestatis tuae. P.L. 160, 1067).

Still another writer, author of the little work De sacrificio missae, attributed, I think wrongly, to Alger, introduces some kind of union between the bread and the Body of our Lord: "The priest meanwhile is suppliantly praying to the Lord, to command these gifts to be borne by the hands of the holy angel unto His sublime altar, that in this instant the sacrament may be manifest: that is, that the BREAD here IS UNITED TO THE BODY OF THE LORD, and joined to It by the communion of one substance" (De sacrificio missae. P.L. 180, 856).

Better, possibly, is the interpretation of Isaac de Stella, that in these words (of the Supplices te) a petition is made for a union between the Melchisedechian species and the Body of Christ: "He commemorates....the offering of Melchisedech the priest who showed forth[that is, typically foretold] the select species in bread and wine.....He prays that by the hands of the angel HIS SACRIFICE MAY BE BORNE THITHER[that is, " to that most high sublime altar in the sight of the divine majesty where the eternal High Priest stands in the sight of the Father"] AND BE UNITED TO THE BODY OF CHRIST IN HEAVEN (Epistola de officio missae. P.L. 194, 1894-1895).

236About the same time Helinandus, after having used the prayer Jube haec perferri to prove the multilocal presence of the Body of the Lord, in as much as by it the dwelling of Christ in heaven is and must be reconciled with our eating Christ on earth, goes on to say: "For these words are not to be interpreted merely, AS SOME HAVE WRONGLY UNDERSTOOD IT, as representing the devout aspirations of the faithful, but also to refer directly to the actual Flesh of Him who said: Doth this scandalise you?" (Sermo 3. P.L. 212, 509). These words "as some have wrongly understood it" are explained by the fact that at this time the tradition of the Fathers regarding our heavenly sacrifice was gradually beginning to be obscured, as will be seen directly.

237Meantime, Gerardus Lorichus Hadamarius (De missa publica proroganda racemationum libri tres, 1536, lib. 2, fol. M. 5-6), a writer of lesser note and prudence still a well-read Catholic, makes two remarks on this subject. He first quotes the Glossator of the Decretum with approval, and continues then in his own name: " This prayer of the Canon is odious to the heretics, particularly for the reason that they do not believe in the transubstantiation.....But the Church which does believe in the transubstantiation... guards jealously this prayer also.....This prayer is almost the pivot of the whole sacrifice.....The sense of these words is so well known that only one who is a malevolent person, who through his perversity wishes to rage against Catholics, could take the slightest offence at it.....For in this prayer the Church in suppliant manner asks the Holy Trinity to deign to send the heavenly messenger on the victim to consecrate it." Hence this prayer was assailed by Protestants and defended by Catholics as declarative of the transubstantiation.

238Meantime, Dom Leonard de Massiot, O.S.B. (Traite du sacerdoce et du sacrifice de Jesus-Christ, Poitiers 1708, p. 603), had revived the rather abstruse interpretation of Odo of Cambra.

239That here under the name of angel Christ was really meant we shall see at length later in Th. XXXIV.

240In this, following Buchwald, Fortescue agrees with him, The Mass, 1914, p. 352.

241"May the odour of sweetness ascend in the sight of thy divine majesty from this thy sublime Altar by the hands of thy angel; and may there descend on these solemnities thy Holy Spirit, to sanctify the offerings and the sacrifices of the faithful who assist, and of the faithful who offer"

242We may note here the distinction drawn by St. Augustine (Ep. 55, c. 18, n. 34. P.L. 33, 221), between the prayer said by the bishop and the proclaiming by the deacon of the prayer to be said in common by the faithful.

243Some words of Gelasius suggest that at one time the invocation of the Holy Spirit was customary in Rome: "How will the Holy Spirit come WHEN INVOKED, when he who prays for His presence is a reprobate loaded with sin?" (Elpidio Episcope. P.L. 59, 143). There is still clearer indication of this in the Apostolkh Paradosij of Hippolytus, even though it is not certain that it contains the authentic Liturgy of the Roman Church. Nor should I be surprised if at times the Roman epiclesis to the Holy Spirit had a form more or less resembling what we find in the post-secret prayer of the Mass in Circumcisione Domini in the Missale Gothicum (P.L. 72, 237., ed. Bannister, p. 18). It would be an appropriate explanation of the origin, as the conclusion of a prayer, of the words in our Roman Canon: Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, etc., now separated from the epiclesis (or Supplices te), and even coming after the Nobis quoque: " We suppliantly pray that thou wouldst deign to accept and bless and sanctify this sacrifice, that it may become for us a legitimate Eucharist, in thy name and in the name of thy Son and of the Holy Spirit, to be transformed into the Body (in transformationem Corporis, etc.) and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Only-Begotten. By whom thou dost create all things, dost bless them when created, dost sanctify them when blessed, dost bestow them when sanctified, O God, who in perfect Trinity livest and reignest for ever and ever" (cf. Dom Cagin, Eucharistia, 1912, 57-61).

244It is quite well known that in many of the ancient Masses, which if not Roman are at least Latin, we find epicleses very similar both in form and position to the epicleses of the East, which petition for the descent of the Holy Spirit. Some of them will be indicated later in Th. XXXIV. Meantime, see the post-secreta prayer in the Missa tertia monensi (P.L. 138, 869).

245Here, just as in Thesis XXI, we must understand celestial sacrifice in the passive sense. Hence no one would be justified in inferring from a comparison of the titles of this and the last Thesis, with the titles of Theses XIX and XX (on our offering and partaking of the blood sacrifice): "Therefore the celestial sacrifice is a blood sacrifice!!! " Such inference would be sheer blasphemy, suggesting that some kind of a rite in blood has place in heaven. Meantime, however, one must remember that the (passive) sacrifice of heaven was a blood sacrifice on earth, which is very true, just as the same is true of the Victim or the passive sacrifice in our Mass.

246See Th. XIX, above.

247Here we are not attempting to prove that the Eucharist begets immortality though this will be proved by many arguments in the proper place in XXXVIII (Vol. III). We are simply showing here that the Fathers, looking for the cause of the life-giving efficacy of the Eucharist, as presupposed, found it in the glory of the celestial Victim imparted to us.

248This is clearly expressed by St. Thomas in the office of the Feast of Corpus Christi: "LIVING bread and bread life-giving " (panis vivus te vitalis), and by the Church: "Living bread that givest life to man (panis vivus vitam praestans homini). "It is indeed life-giving, it gives life, precisely because it is living.

249For in the order of efficient causality the Resurrection was an effect of the Incarnation, as Cyril maintains times without number teaching that the Word raised up the Body, which it had assumed as its own, by the divinity by which It had assumed that Body.

250Practically all the Fathers proclaimed with one voice that the Incarnation reached its climax in the Resurrection in which the Son of God and Man now in every sense passed from a human into a divine condition, without destruction of the humanity without being assumed anew or further assumed, but by this, that the uncreated light of divine glory now finally irradiated the humanity with all its active and passive powers, whereas until then it had rested hidden, so to speak, in the innermost substance of the humanity, only bursting forth through the mind at its highest point to arouse the beatific vision (though by its divinity it sustained all the time the whole fabric of the Soul and Body). These testimonies have been collected by Thomassinus De incarn., Verbi Dei, 1, 8 c. 11. See, too, our remarks above in XIV (Vol. I), on Christ's promotion, as it were, to His dignity and condition of Lord (kuriothta). Though all this is true, we do not by any means deny that the Flesh of Christ, did Christ will it so, could be vivifying even independently of His Resurrection. On the contrary, by virtue of the Incarnation alone (apart from the Resurrection proper) it could most certainly give life to us both in soul and body, and none the less than it does now, and will do in the life to come. But it could not do this, AS THE FLESH OF THE SACRIFICE, independently of the Resurrection: because it is only by the Resurrection that the Flesh of Christ as Victim is sanctified or made sanctifying, is consummated or accepted by God to be given to us. Furthermore, it was decreed in the free counsel of God that Christ should vivify us only by way of the sacrifice given to death for the life of the world, and given back by God to men as the bread of life.

251Cf. this with Rom. 1, 3: Who was definitely established[that is, plainly exhibited for all to see, definitely constituted as such, in distinction to all others] as Son of God in power[that is, in that power of majesty or glory of which we read in Matt. XXIV, 30, and Luke, XXI, 271 according to the spirit of sanctity, by His Resurrection from the dead. That is to say: by the Resurrection the place proper to the Son of God is finally settled, marked out and defined within all its limits. Not without reason does St. Paul call the Spirit from which this exaltation is derived the spirit of sanctity, because it was in His vivification (after His death) and glorification that Christ received the divine consummation of His immolative sanctification, His sanctification as a victim.

252Meantime, see how Cardinal Franzelin (De SS. Eucharistia, 1868, pp. 286 288) also, in explaining the sacramental efficacy of the Eucharist to vivify our bodies appeals to the state of glory in Christ: " The mystic union of our own flesh with the Flesh of Christ receives its fuller consummation and its sacramental consecration so to speak, through THE CONJUNCTION OF HIS GLORIFIED BODY AND BLOOD with our own bodies, in which conjunction are celebrated the nuptials of the Lamb with His spouse the Church, still a pilgrim in each one of her members.....Thus therefore from this sacramental conjunction arises that singular affinity whereby Christ the Bridegroom regards the flesh of those worthily eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood, as His own Flesh by a special title. AND FOR THIS REASON He makes our flesh like to His own glorious and incorruptible Flesh, here in exile it is be conformed to our Model Himself in the glory of the resurrection."

253The teaching of the Church today, therefore, is the continuation of the very same teaching found in the oldest documents of the Christian faith, as, for example we find in the exhortation of Fabricius Maternus to pagans: " For us who spurn the Eleusinian banquets, there is another food, a food that bestows life and salvation....a food which enriches the dying with the emblems of eternal immortality. Seek after the bread of Christ, seek after the cup of Christ, that man's substance scorning its earthly frailty, may be feasted WITH THE FOOD OF IMMORTALITY.....Seek the grace of this saving food, and drink THE CUP OF IMMORTALITY. Christ in His banquets welcomes us back to the light, He gives new life to the joints which are rotting with deadly poison, and to our torpid limbs. Restore lost man WITH THE FOOD OF HEAVEN, so that whatever in you is already dead may, by the divine bounty be born again" (De errore profanarum religionum, c. 19. P.L. 12, 1022-1025).

254Practically all this which was common knowledge with the Fathers was embodied in a sermon De Nativitate Domini by an unknown author, wrongly attributed to St. Augustine. The author lays down three principles: (1) The Eucharist is the Supper of the nuptials of Christ and the Church which were initiated in the Incarnation. (2) The food and drink of this Supper was prepared in the Passion being the Body and Blood of the Lamb that was slain. (3) Christ finally completed His nuptials when He sealed by the Resurrection and the Ascension the nuptial bond with an eternal impress. "For today He has come forth from the sacred bridal chamber, that is, from the hidden and spotless recess of a virgin womb. He came forth thence the Son of a virgin, the Spouse of a virgin: The Son of Mary, the Spouse of the Church. For when the Apostle said: I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ, he spoke to the whole Church. To these nuptials, to such nuptials....the great multitude of men of every race has been invited; this multitude has filled the Church, from the table of the Lord, they have received no common food, no ordinary drink—but-rather THEY HAVE TASTED THE VERY FLESH OF THE PASTOR HIMSELF, CHRIST SLAIN. THE INNOCENT LAMB WAS SLAIN FOR HIS OWN NUPTIALS, AND WHOMSOEVER HE INVITED HE FED WITH HIS OWN FLESH. SLAIN HE PREPARED THE BANQUET. RISING FROM THE DEAD HE CELEBRATED THE NUPTIALS. Submitting to the Passion of His own free will He was slain: RISING FROM THE DEAD HE TOOK TO HIMSELF HIS BETROTHED BRIDE. In the womb of a virgin He took human flesh, as a pledge of the betrothal. On the Cross He shed His own Blood, as a priceless dowry; IN THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION HE SEALED THE BOND OF HIS ETERNAL ESPOUSALS (Inter opera Augustini, Sermo 372, c. 2. P.L. 39 1662). Here we have the causes of the Eucharistic espousals in the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection. Whoever the author may be, he certainly does say: that just as the Eucharist is the climax of the Incarnation, so it is the fruit of the Passion and the gift of the Resurrection, namely, the divine Victim, slain in the past, now in glory and from glory refreshing man.

255See also many other passages from Cyril: "The partaking of the mystic eulogia is a declaration of the death and the RESURRECTION of Christ " (Glaphyr. in Leviticum. P.G. 69, 576). ' Declaring His death, as I have said AND INDEED HIS RESURRECTION ALSO, we accomplish the adorable mystery" (Glaphyr. in Deuteron. P.G. 69, 649).

256The whole passage has been already quoted in Th. VII, (Vol. I).

257There were a few early writers who said that Christ gave His immortal and incorruptible Body to the Apostles. Thus the author of the Glossa ordinaria (In Matth., XXVI, 2, P.L. 114, 143); Manegoldus (Contra Wolfelmum, 18. P.L. 155 166), Anselm of Laon (In Matth., XXVI, 26. P.L. 162, 1470); Alger (De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Dominici, 1, 1, c. 9. P.L. 180, 768); and Hugo of St. Victor (De Sacramentis christianae fidei, 1, 2, pars. 8, c. 3. P.L. 176, 462 464). Strange to say, Thomassinus (Incarn., 1, 10, c. 31) revived this long antiquated opinion. The argument of those early theologians was not drawn from the vivifying efficacy of the sacrament, but in most cases from the fact that the Flesh remained entire, in no way affected by the teeth of the partakers. Following Ivo of Chartres (Ep. 287, P.L. 172) and Cardinal Robert Pullen (Sententiarum, 1, 8, c. 4. P.L. 186, 964) Innocent III answered them quite sufficiently: "In my judgment it is incredible that He should be at the same time both mortal and immortal according to the same nature"; hence he concludes: "It is safely held according to faith, that what He had He gave, namely, a body that was mortal and passible. Not a body that could suffer in the sacrament[that is, by the tearing of the species which did not affect the Body] but a body that was capable of suffering under the sacrament[as itself still passible] " (De sacramenti altaris mysterio, 1, 4, c. 12. P.L. 217, 864, cf. Alanus de Podio De fide catholica contra haereticos, I, I, c. 58. P.L. 210, 632). Later in the Summa, St. Thomas (3 S. 81, 3) gave this solution more fully and more forcefully.

Thomassinus plainly taught that the state of glory was necessary in that flesh which was to beget immortality in the partakers: "Was mortal flesh the seed of immortality? Was the Flesh which had not yet attained to the Resurrection a suitable pledge of the promised resurrection? Rather all the hope of attaining to immortality would have been rendered nugatory[for the Apostles at the Supper] if Christ had only been able to give them there a pledge and sanction of it with His mortal Body" (loc. cit.). How absurd, however, it is to conceive that the Flesh of Christ can at the same time be differently affected in the Eucharist and outside of it will be abundantly shown by us later, Thesis L (Vol. III) when we deal with the transubstantiation.

258Call to mind, among others, the early author of the work De solemnitatibus quoted above Thesis IV, (Vol. 1).

259Cf. I and V (Vol. I) above with XXXIV, on the acceptance of our sacrifice in the transubstantiation.

260We must always keep in mind the ever valid principle of sacramental theology: the sacraments cause what they signify, see XLVIII (Vol. III). If, therefore, the Eucharist at the Supper—and so before the death and the Resurrection—could signify our vivification, it could effect it also.

261Cardinal James Vitriaco (d. about 1241) is lost in admiration at this inversion of order: "Although after His Passion and Resurrection He is eaten by the faithful every day in the Church, and remains whole and entire in an ineffable manner, He showed a far greater miracle on the night of the Supper, WHEN, NOT YET BAKED ON THE FIRE OF THE CROSS, SO TO BE. PREPARED AS FOOD FOR US (ut esset esibilis) AND, NOT YET MADE IMPASSIBLE AND IMMORTAL, He gave His own Body, such as it then was, that is, passible and mortal" (Sermones in Epistolas et Evangelia dominicalia totius anni, Sermo III. In coena Domini, Antwerp, 1575, p. 344).

262We infer from this that the vivifying efficacy of the sacrament would be no less if reserved from the Supper, it were consumed by a follower of Christ, during the triduum mortis.

263Now that we have dealt in detail with the positive doctrine of the Church regarding what we offer and what we partake of in the Eucharist, it seems opportune to point to an a priori reason, why it would be unseemly on our part to present to God or to partake of any victim other than the eternal and indefectible Theothyte of the Cross. Once that great Victim was presented to God by the great High Priest there was no further room for the offering of any other atoning gift whatever. For this would imply either that the price paid by Christ was insufficient, or the blasphemous supposition that in addition to the all-sufficient and superabundant payment of our debts, God was grasping after the usurer's gain or unearned interest. For in very truth there is nothing further owing from us but that we offer to God that ransom complete to the last farthing and procured for us by Christ; with a mind, of course, free from any ferment of hypocrisy. Such is the mental attitude that should accompany any protestation of internal sentiment, so that as the azym of sincerity and truth, it may merit to be associated with the sacrament of our Redemption. Nay more, if God were to wish (an irrational supposition) for something more from us by way of propitiatory gift (which the Greeks call ilasthrion), this—be it what it may—could never add anything to the supreme gift of immolative satisfaction—see XLI (Vol. III) whereby Christ reconciled the world to God. Hence although before the death of Christ many libations, gifts, sacrifices, imitations, and so to speak, sketchy outlines of that great Theothyte, were possible, after the completion of the work of the Redemption, when the truth now disperses the shadow, perfection replaces defect, plenitude removes all possibility of further increase there remains only one Victim to be offered in sacrifice, which can never more be offered, except by way of the liturgical offering which is contained in the mystic or symbolic immolation of our daily sacrifices.

264Cf. Th. VI (Vol. I).

265The Salmanticenses, De Eucharistiae Sacramento, disp. 13, dub. 3, n. 49 and 50: "But the question arises whether Christ Himself immediately offers, by a new special elicited act, in each one of the sacrifices which we offer.....We think that by far the truer and more general opinion is....the opinion which holds that just as Christ in His humanity concurs instrumentally in each and every individual conversion or transubstantiation which is made in the Church, so, too, He thinks of EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL SACRIFICE, He wishes them, AND OFFERS THEM TO GOD, and for this reason in His special character of Priest HE IS THE IMMEDIATE OFFERER BY A FORMAL, ACTIVE, AND ELICITED OFFERING (cf. Suarez, disp. 77, sect. 1, n. 6).

266Salmanticenses, ibid., dub. 6, n. 111 and 116.

267Cano explained this clearly against the Lutherans: "We should note very carefully that offering is not to be understood here simply and in one way only. For there is a universal offering and a particular one.....The one general or universal offering of Christ was not only the adequate cause of human redemption, but it was also at all points perfect and absolute in itself, so that in its own order nothing can be added to or taken away from it. But there are many particular offerings by which the universal efficacy of that offering is canalised, to produce particular effects.....In this last way we offer in order THAT WE MAY HAVE A PART IN CHRIST'S OFFERING " (De locis theologicis, 1, 12, c. 12, Cologne, 1585, pp. 421-422).

268Anyone can see that this question is closely akin to that other regarding the intercession of Christ, dealt with in XIV (Vol. I): and so to be consistent we must hold that the objections advanced there against any prayer properly so-called of Christ in heaven have equal force against any new offering of sacrifice on the part of our Lord. To the authorities quoted there, add Rupert, De divinis officiis, 9, 3. P.L. 170, 243-245, a passage which we omitted inadvertently.

269The whole passage is quoted in Th. XXI.

270He says when treating of the meeting of Melchisedech with Abraham: " That was the first appearance of the sacrifice WHICH IS NOW OFFERED TO GOD by Christians throughout the world, and so FULFILLING that about which, long after this event, the prophet spoke when he addressed TO CHRIST, who was yet to come in the flesh, these words: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Civitat., Dei, 16, 22. P.L. 41, 500). Afterwards discussing the change of the priesthood from Aaronic to Melchisedechian: "Seeing that now in every place, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, we see this sacrifice (foretold by Malachias) offered to God THROUGH THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST according to the order of Melchisedech (and they cannot deny that the sacrifice of the Jews has ceased), why do they still await another Christ?" (ibid., 18, 35, 3. P.L. 41, 594). But meantime in the same work he had already said: "The Psalmist continues: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech; now from the fact that no longer anywhere, is there now any priesthood and sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, and everywhere is offered under Christ the PRIEST, what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham, can any one doubt of whom these things were said?" (ibid., 17, 17. P.L. 41, 551. Compare De diversis quaestionibus, 83, quaest. 61, n. 2. P.L. 40, col. 45-50).

271The following saying of William of Paris somewhat suggests the same: "If Christ were not OFFERED daily in His Church AND BY THE SAME CHURCH, He would not in Himself fulfil IN HER THE OFFICE OF PRIEST (De sacramento Eucharistiae c. 2, t. I, p. 436). In other words, Christ's priesthood, ever present with us does not mean that He Himself offers in His own person, but that He is offered by us in whom, as we are His (His mystic Body), He exercises the priestly office.

272When Vasquez speaks of the opinions of His adversaries, he uses the word merit not in the strict and proper sense, but in a broader sense, for all and every propitiatory activity.

273Jesuit theologians who agreed with Vasquez were his contemporaries, Henricus Henriquez (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1, 9, De vero missae sacrificio c. 19, n. 6) and Azorius (Inst. Mor., I, 10, c. 18), and later Becanus (Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tract. de sacramentis, c. 25, q. 9, Lyons, 1679, p. 863) and Franciscus Amicus (De Sacramentis, disp. 33, 94 et seq.) whom we cite below. Thus Henricus: "We say that Christ offers now through the celebrating priests ONLY IN THIS WAY that by His institution He authorised priests to offer sacrifice in the name of Christ and gave them the capacity and efficacious power of applying in this way or that (conferendi) the effect which the sacrifice has ex opere operato."

Azorius: "He now offers Himself daily to the Father IN 50 FAR AS priests offer every day according to the command, the institution, authority, and in the name of Christ the Lord Himself. He, therefore, is the principal priest, but the other true priests are His ministers or agents for the carrying out and offering of the sacrifice consecrated and empowered for this by the authority of the Church" (Lyons, 1602, col. 1117).

Becanus lessens the part played by Christ even more, and in my opinion too much so, when he says: " We do not say that Christ is the principal offerer in the sacrifice precisely because through His humanity, as through a divine instrument, He concurs physically in the sacrificial action. Because in the first place there are many who deny this physical concurrence, and it is very difficult to defend it.....We say that Christ is the principal offerer in the sacrifice of the Mass, because the minister offers in the person of Christ. For in this mystery the minister acts like the legate of a prince, he takes His place and represents His person." It is quite true to say that Christ does not offer by a new act, through His active concurrence in effecting the consecration—at the same time, however, I do not think that the active concurrence of the humanity of Christ in effecting the Consecration is to be denied. Because the humanity does really intervene in the consecration, under the first uncreated cause as instrument, an instrumentum conjunctum, an instrument united with the first cause, acting as a real, efficient, instrumental cause. Nevertheless (as will be explained later), no present offering of our Lord added to that of the past can be inferred from this

274Cf. in the same sense Antonius Ruteus 0. Minim. De fructu et applicatione sacrificii missae, lib. 1, disp. 4, quaest. 1, dub. 1, Antwerp, 1634, p. 70. et. seq. Similarly Raphael Aversa a Sanseverino, Theat., De eucharistiae sacramento et sacrificio, q. XI, sect. 8, etc may be read with profit.

275Amicus (loc. cit., n. 97): " If Christ together with the priest were TO OFFER THE SACRIFICE ACTIVELY.. this sacrifice, not only as it was offered by Christ in the Last Supper and on the Cross, but also as it is now offered, would be of infinite worth and merit. The consequence is false, therefore the antecedent is false" (loc. cit., n. 97, in Cursu theologico, tom. 7, Douay, 1640, p. 440). He then goes on to develop this argument part by part, and to confound the arguments advanced by his opponents.

276Matthaeus Galenus Vestcapellius, no mean authority, saw clearly the inconvenient inferences to be drawn from the supposition we have just rejected, for he issued the following warning to some Catholic apologists who were not sufficiently cautious in their explanation of the words Christ offers in the Mass: "We find very many, " he says, "making use of this expression, but very rarely do we see it properly explained and interpreted.. There are some PRESENT-DAY teachers of the faith who interpret the words very narrowly, almost as though they imagined Christ standing at the altar as priest. They say that even now at our Masses He would Himself do everything through the priest. He would petition, give thanks, offer, while meantime the sacrificing priest would be absolutely idle, merely lending his person, shape, appearance, and so on, to Christ, for the purpose of the rite. We find theologians of repute taking refuge in this view TO SAFEGUARD WHAT THEY IMAGINE IS THE INFINITE WORTH (the expression is their own) OF THE MASS. For since say they, the Fathers tell us that it is Christ Himself who offers Himself....who may deny that His action is of infinite worth and efficacy? AS IF THIS REPETITION IN HIS OWN PERSON. WERE NOT AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION OF HIS UNIQUE OFFERING, and as if SUPPLICATION were now proper to Him FOR WHOM ALL THINGS ARE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED. For these theologians, ill-informed and not quite circumspect in this matter, do not shrink from imagining that Christ in heaven is even now a suppliant before the Father....because St. Paul says He makes intercession, and St. John says that He is an advocate with the Father.....The Greek liturgical interpreters have followed more carefully in the footsteps of their own holy Fathers. They hold that all this is to be referred back to the superabundant merits and the infinite ransom of the Cross, and that it is IMPIOUS to twist the words of St. Paul and St. John to any other sense. For it is precisely because there already exists the most ample price and ransom (antilutron) of the Redemption, once paid out and ever sufficient, and the most copious merit, that rightly and according to custom Christ is said to merit, to ask, or petition for, nay to obtain in His own right whatever is received or asked for on those grounds (ideo) " (De sacrificio missae Commentarius, 1574, c. 13. pp. 160-161).

277See below XXVIII.

278Even Suarez approves of this solution where he says: "One of the requisites for the sacerdotal offering in this sacrifice is, that he who offers the sacrifice concurs in the sacrificial action: nevertheless this does not of itself suffice, FOR THE EFFICIENT CAUSE AND THE OFFERER ARE RELATED TO THE SACRIFICE IN DIFFERENT WAYS; for God effects the same[sacrificial] action and yet He does not offer the sacrifice" (disp. 77, s. 1, n. 6).

279Thus first of all Chrysostom in a very famous passage: "Christ is there present; it was He who prepared the table in the past; it is He who prepares this table now. For it is not man, it is Christ Himself who was crucified for us, who changes what is set on the table into the Body and Blood of Christ. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands uttering these words; but the power and the grace is of God. This is my body he says. These words transform what is set on the altar. And just in the same way as the words Increase and multiply and fill the earth, though uttered only once confer on our nature for all time the power to procreate the race; so, too, THESE WORDS, UTTERED ONLY ONCE, ENACT, in the Churches, at every altar (mensa) FROM THAT TIME UNTIL NOW, AND UNTO HIS SECOND COMING, the perfect sacrifice (De proditione Judae, hom. I, n. 6. P.G. 49, 380., cf. hom. 2, n. 6, cols. 389-390). Similarly St. John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 13. P.G. 94, 1140-1141) and Samonas Gazensis (Disceptatio cum Achmed Saraceno P.G. 120, 829). It is true that later on Nicholas Cabasilas (Liturgiae Expositio, 29. P.G. 150 428 433) and Symeon of Thessalonica (Expositio de div. Templo, c. 88. P.G. 155 737) interpreted this comparison in a perverse manner, considering that the words of our Lord were effective, not by way of our utterance of the same words, but by way of the epiclesis. But by so rejecting the principle laid down by the early Fathers, in their eagerness to defend their own peculiar view regarding the epiclesis, Cabasilas and Symeon merely condemned themselves as holding a view contrary to the common Catholic teaching. St. Thomas clearly vindicates this principal causality of the words of our Lord where he writes: "From the utterance of Christ Himself these words have acquired a consecrative power, by whatever priest they are said, just as if Christ uttered them present at each Mass (ea praesentialiter proferret) " (3 S. 78, 5. c). Thomas of Walden (op. cit., tit. 4, c. 38, fol. 92) expresses the relationship between our utterance of the words and our Lord's utterance of the same words, in a striking manner, when he says: "These words of divine and heavenly authority are set before us to be promulgated, with the deepest devotion of the soul. The pronouncement of Christ: This is my body, IS PROMULGATED AND ALWAYS EFFECTIVE. That our words of consecration are a promulgation of the ever effective words of Christ is confirmed by the fact that in the Canon we say taking also THIS excellent chalice into his holy and venerable hands, so suggesting that when Christ consecrated He spoke, demonstratively, of this bread and this chalice of ours.

280Our teaching has at least the partial support of Christian Pesch, an eminent theologian of the present day. He writes: "How the Mass is a true sacrifice is easily explained. The victim is there present, Christ Himself. There is present also the physical destruction of the victim, carried out once on the Cross, in the physical order this is long since passed, but in the MORAL ORDER it is inseparable from the sacrifice of the Mass. We have also the sensible offering, because when by virtue of the words we have the Body of Christ under the one species, and the Blood of Christ under the other, we have the mystic slaying WHEREBY THE PHYSICAL SHEDDING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ENACTED ON THE CROSS is sensibly represented and OFFERED to give worship and to make atonement to God. Therefore nothing indispensable for a true sacrifice is wanting" (Praelectiones dogmaticae, 1896, t. 6, n. 914). This explanation we accept as in every way complete, except perhaps that it leaves us in doubt as to the ground of this connection which is said to be moral only, between the offering of the Mass and the immolation of the Passion: is it the real and true continuance of a sacrificial state, originating in the Passion and lasting forever (the author does not say a word about this), or is it rather a mere relation of an image or a memorial to the exemplar enacted and perfected in the past? If so, the author's teaching does not really differ from that of the others which we are to review, and which fail to explain the existence of a true victim in the Mass. Some further remarks of the author do not minimise our doubt, rather they increase it: "In this way, too we can solve this other objection: that it is not clear how Christ is on the altar in the condition of victim. For He is in the condition of victim in as much as the physical slaying of the Cross is made MORALLY PRESENT and is offered to God for the salvation of man" (ibid., n. 915).

To me, these words appear to point not to a real permanence of a true sacrificial condition, but to a mere intentional one. This certainly does not suffice to give us a true offering here and now of what is here and now a true victim. But although we do not quite agree with him in this, it must be acknowledged that the author approaches more closely to the genuine teaching of antiquity than most theologians of our time. Indeed, though his words leave us in doubt, it is not certain in my mind that he would exclude the permanent condition of immolation which we maintain. The moral nexus which he advocates could be understood in this way.

But this favourable interpretation cannot be very well applied to the words of W. J. Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, London, 1903 p. 291: " The one immolation made on Calvary still continues as an element of sacrifice in the Mass.....To constitute a sacrifice it is not necessary that the thing offered in sacrifice should be there and then put to death, but it is sufficient that there should be an oblation to God of the thing which is about to be immolated or which already had been immolated. There is no need of actual co-existence, but ONLY OF A MORAL UNION between the offering and the immolation, and this moral union DEPENDS UPON THE INTENTION OF THE PRIEST who offers the sacrifice." Unfortunately such a moral union as the author suggests could not be interpreted as safeguarding the present reality of the condition of immolation, seeing that it is said to depend on my intention. Besides, he had already said: "The sacrifice of Calvary was effected once only, and the Victim of that sacrifice SOON CEASED TO BE A VICTIM (ibid. p. 243). Against this we hold most emphatically that Christ is an eternal Theothyte as a result of His sacrifice.

Cardinal Manning, to my mind, fully realised this truth when he wrote: "Christ is Altar, Victim and Priest, by an eternal consecration of Himself.....One sacrifice has forever redeemed the world, and is offered continually in heaven and on earth; in heaven by the only Priest before the Eternal Altar on earth by the multitude and succession of priests who are one with Him as partakers of His priesthood....This is the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (The Eternal Priesthood, 17, c. 1, n. 2, p. 4).

On my return from the war, I found that the most distinguished Alexis Maria Lepicier, Prior General of the Order of Servites B. V. M. (De sacrosancto sacrificio eucharistico Rome, 1916, pp. 109-115), has come close to expressing our teaching, in so far as he maintains that we offer Christ slain in the Passion. However, I do not clearly see what is the nature of the influence (and that physical) of the Cross on the Mass, or what is the nature of the derivation of the sacrificial form in the Mass from the Cross that he constantly asserts, over and beyond the never-failing perseverance of Christ's state of immolation.

Much of what he had written was anticipated by the Rev. A. A. Paquet, Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Quebec, in the Laval University (Disputationes Theologicae seu Commentaria in Summam Theologicam Divi Thomae, De Sacramentis, disp 8, q. 1, a. 4, Quebec, 1900, pp. 458-460).

281Cano rightly assumed as a fixed principle, when setting out to dispute with the Protestants on the sacrifice of the Mass: "Then only is there sacrifice when some sacred thing is offered to God, for where there is no oblation there can never be sacrifice" (De locis theologicis, 1, 12, c. 12, Cologne, 1585, fol. 407b).

282"The death of Christ is not represented in the consecration, on the contrary, the consecration has place in order to the immolation which is in the partaking for the partaking is the image of the death and burial of Christ. And in the drinking of the Blood the image of its shedding is given" (4 D. 13, q. 2, a. 1).

283Strange to say, Cano considered that the breaking of the Host as well as the communion pertained essentially to the constitution of the sacrifice of the Mass (op. cit., fol. 426a). Of this we shall speak later (XXXIV).

284"That the communion of the priest is an essential part of the Mass is proved from this: that in the whole action of the Mass, as we shall show directly, there is no other REAL DESTRUCTION. But when we established the definition of sacrifice, we proved that real destruction is required" (De Missa, I, I, c. 27).

285Of which below.

286De venerabili eucharistiae sacramento, disp. 19, sect. 5, n. 68.

287De sanctissimo eucharistiae sacramento, disp. 13, dub. 2, parag. 3, n. 29-39. See also Gabriel a S. Vincentio of the same order of Discalced Carmelites (Tract. de sacramentis, pars 2, De sacros. missae sacrif., q. 4, ed. 1656, p. 579 et seq.), according to whom the communion integrates the whole sacrifice, to such an extent that the offering of the victim consists (1) in the communion, exclusive of the consecration (p 579 et seq.) and (2) hence the Mass of the presanctified is a true sacrifice (p. 583).

2883 S. 83, 4, cf. 3 S. 83, 6, 6m.

2893 S. 79, 7, 3m.

290In Joann. 6, lect. 6: "Nevertheless if a layman receives this sacrament it is not beneficial to others ex opere operato.....Hence it is clear that the laity who receive the Eucharist for the souls in purgatory are in error" (cf. Suarez, De sacramentis in genere, disp. I, sect. I, n. 6, and De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 1, n. 4, and Commentarius, in 3 S. 79, 7). Though Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, 4, t. 1, p. 539) seems at first sight in the kindness of his heart to soften these words of St. Thomas, he plainly corroborates them, where he writes (ibid, p. 604): "Of course what is consumed by us is not offered in the very act of consuming and vice versa."

The venerable authors of the Antididagma under the leadership of John Gropper held the same opinion in their day against the Lutherans: "In respect of the sacrament Blessed John Chrysostom says, commenting on the l5th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that just as one person cannot be baptised for another especially if the other is dead, so, too, no one can receive the Body and Blood of Christ for another, especially if the other is dead, ' (hom. 40, n. 1. P.G. 61, 347). The passage of Chrysostom is, however, of doubtful authenticity. "....This perhaps is all that can be said....that between all the members of Christ (that is to say among all the saints and believers who were from the beginning of the world who now are and will be to the end of time), there exists a communication which has an analogy to the communication between the members of the body, each member sharing in the well-being of the other members, and so any good that accrues to one member becomes common to every other member of the body", (fol. LVIIb).

Theophile Raynaud, S.J., De communione pro mortuis (a treatise approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Index) says much the same (similiter legendus est) Opera omnia, Lyons, 1665, t. 6, pp. 633-652; and Heteroclita Spiritualia, sect. 2 punct. I, t. 15, pp. 393-394.

Nevertheless, though the reception of communion by a member of the faithful cannot have effect ex opere operato for another, the desire of the faithful to assist their neighbour by holy communion should be encouraged. Because by receiving the Eucharist we atone for our sins, and thus become less deserving of punishment (which good state of ours is beneficial also to others still living, in as much as by reason of our social oneness my debt of punishment can be extended to the social body of which I am a member), and in particular we become better disposed to pray for favours (this will benefit others, even the dead, on whom we are endeavouring to invoke blessings). Moreover, by communion we can gain indulgences which may be applied to the dead. Nevertheless of itself, my communion does not benefit others directly in the same manner as my Mass does or my alms or my prayer.

2911t is not easy to determine which of the two first propounded this doctrine. It seems probable that each wrote independently of the other.

292Gonetus, Clypeus, pars 2, tract. 11, disp. 3, art. 3, n. 17, ed. 6, Lyons, 1681, t. 4 p. 377. Although in the Manuale he wrote otherwise as below.

293Though Suarez (disp. 53, sect. 3, n. 4) and Vasquez (disp. 191, c. 3, n. 28) undoubtedly held this same view as regards the condition of Christ existing in the Eucharist, they did not place the victimation in this.

294In some respects J. de Ulloa (Theologia Scholastica, t. 4, disp. 8, n. 8 and 9 Augsburg and Gratz, 1719, pp. 290-291) goes even further than Raynaud, asserting that by the transubstantiation considered in itself, not only the life but the very Body and Blood are virtually destroyed: "As often as the whole Body of Christ and the whole Blood are placed in relation to each other in one point of space, each is so affected....THAT WHILE THIS CONDITION REMAINS, THE CONTINUANCE OF THE LIFE AND OF THE BODY AND OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE. Because whoever should try to restrict that whole Body and Blood of Christ within a much lesser space than is naturally due to them, even though that is larger than one point of space, would destroy, in so far as in him lay, all these THREE. But whenever a Catholic priest consecrates, in that consecration he places in relation to each other the whole Body and the whole Blood of Christ....within one point of space.....Therefore whenever a priest consecrates, etc.....Therefore, seeing that the whole present difficulty is centred on this: that of its very nature sacrifice demands the destruction of the victim....and since this destruction is found sufficiently in the consecration itself alone....because by virtue of the consecration as instituted by God the whole Body and the whole Blood of Christ is placed in such a condition of compression (in statu et coarctatione) that while that persists (in sensu composito) the continuance of natural life is impossible....Hence it is that in the consecration alone we have the whole manner (ratio) and essence of this bloodless sacrifice." According to him, therefore, the consecration is a production which is (virtually) destructive of what is produced.

295This is the foundation of the very singular structure of the sacrifice as built up by Cardinal Cienfuegos (Vita abscondita, disp. 5, sect. 3, parag. 1, Rome, 1728, p. 359): It is this: after the words of consecration are pronounced, Christ in the Eucharist is first living (miraculously, indeed) with actual sensitive life. Then "after He has elicited under the species some acts of the life of the body" Christ Himself "as High Priest IMMOLATES alone and OFFERS at the same time" this His actual life "in so far as by the command of His human will He suspends or removes the vital acts so far miraculously produced, and decrees to elicit no such further act....until as if by a resurrection... visibly represented and effected in an imitation of it, in the mingling of the Body and Blood He resumes His actual life., ' But he does not tell us what would follow, if the priest should chance to omit this mingling. Meantime this is his explanation of the epiclesis: " Why then is the descent petitioned for in devout and heartfelt supplication? For no other end than for the restoration of the actual life of Christ sacrificed by the aforesaid immolation: since the Holy Spirit is the true and proper life giver., '

296However, another possible interpretation of this passage has been proposed in the Histoire Litteraire de la France, t. 11, p. 555 (cf. P.L. 170, 784): that Christ is bereft of the sensitive life, not in Himself, but in relation to us: "Rupert has no doubt whatever that the Body of Christ is living in the Eucharist, but it is not living in a manner which is sensible TO US." In this there would be nothing contrary to Catholic belief.

297Certainly of course Christ in the Eucharist has, precisely because of that Eucharistic presence, no local motion, but He has in the Eucharist every vital movement of His faculties, exactly the same as He has in heaven. Cf. L (Vol. III).

298"This offering is daily repeated, though Christ, suffering once only in the flesh redeemed the world by that same Passion unto death; and the same Christ rising again from the dead dies no more, death shall no more have dominion over him; in very truth we do make the daily offering because the wisdom of God the Father made this provision, which for many reasons was necessary.....It is just because we fall into sin every day, that Christ is mystically immolated for us every day, and THE PASSION OF CHRIST is given to us IN THE MYSTERY.....His Body is not slain, nor is His Blood shed at the hands of infidels to their own destruction, if it is received on the lips of the faithful for their own salvation. In the Law the paschal Iamb was a perfect figure of this. Once it freed the people from the servitude of Egypt, and it had the power, by its immolation every year, in commemoration of that liberation, to sanctify the same people until He Himself should come, to whom that lamb gave testimony, and He, after the paschal lamb had been offered (oblato agno), being Himself offered to the Father for us as a victim in the odour of sweetness, SHOULD TRANSFER THE MYSTERY OF HIS PASSION TO OTHER CREATURES, BREAD AND WINE (in creaturam panis vinique transferret), being made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, by Himself approaching to make intercession for us. And so our Redeemer even until today carries on (peragit) through the daily and blessed commemoration of that same Passion, all that which He did once only at the time of the Passion, this I consider above all else the chief reason (imprimis praecipuam) why we repeat the commemoration of His holy death, immolating every day without fail (assidue) on the altars which we have erected (super altaris aram), the Body and Blood of Christ" (ibid. c. 9, n. 1-2, cols. 1293-1295).

299Moreover, Paschasius rebutted this charge in his Expositio in Matthaeum, 1, 12. P.L. 120, 891.

300"He gives Himself today, just as He did at the Paschal Supper, He ordered that this should be done till the end of the world this is A TRUE SACRIFICE" (Hugh of Amiens, Tractatus de memoria, I, I, c. 14. P.L. 192, 1305). Although there is no detriment whatever in Christ in the Eucharist, nevertheless the sacrifice of the Eucharist is true, because the sacrifice or the victim is from the Cross to which He offered Himself, from which we have received Him. Cf. the words from Hugh above,

301To understand aright the terminology of that time and to avoid equivocation it is important to note how Peter speaks of the breaking of the Host: " This breaking and this dividing can be said to be made not in the substance of the Body, but sacramentally in the form of the bread; so that the true breaking and dividing is there only; IT IS NOT MADE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BODY, BUT IN THE SACRAMENT THAT IS, IN THE SPECIES, (ibid., n. 5, col. 865). This, then, is what is meant by the words in the sacrament as distinct from in Himself. On the breaking of the Host compare what Bandinus has to say of the breaking (col. 1096) just before the passage we quote.

302It is not surprising that, when considered under different aspects, the Mass can be said to be either an essentially relative sacrifice or an absolute sacrifice. For in a similar fashion my being is absolute, in as much as I am not part of another being, I subsist in myself, nevertheless my being is essentially relative to the subsistent Being (God), for it receives all that belongs to it as being from a many-sided and intrinsic relation to that subsistent Being.

303In the work De sacrificio missae commentarius, c. 7 Galenus Vestcapellius gave a compendium of all these restrictions: "If we impute to Christ now glorious and immortal a new, daily and almost continuous change (tantum non assiduam), we must appear to approve of the error of those who attribute to the sacrifice of the Mass a value peculiar to itself, in no way derived from the sacrifice of the Cross. For just as such change of existence in Christ Himself triumphant, equal in omnipotence to the Father, and in all other aspects of glory and beatitude, would constitute for us a sacrifice distinct from the sacrifice of the Cross so it would necessarily possess an efficacy of its own, distinct and different from that of the sacrifice of the Cross.....What reply will these theologians make to the heretics who, up to the present at least, teach and maintain with the Catholic Church that the Cross is the power of God, and that by its one " foolishness, ' it pleased Him to save the world which had rushed to ruin by its own wisdom? What reply will they make to St. Paul, who says repeatedly that all grace, redemption and salvation is obtained from the one offering of Christ and the sacrifice of the Cross?... What is left now of the principle laid down by all the early interpreters who declare: that the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with the Cross, and in no way another sacrifice with it, as it derives all its virtue from the same source...? Again, how are these theologians going to prove that the constant celebration of Mass does not conflict with the one fully completed immolation of Christ? Finally, it is for them to show how a change in Christ, who exists in beatitude and glory, does not imply some kind of humiliation, or, at the very least, something inglorious" (pp. 116-117). Vestcapellius well appreciated the difficulty of defending the faith, if we admit in the sacrifice of the Mass such conditions and qualifications.

304Will you urge that Christ has said: My flesh is meat INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED? Referring to these words, J. B. Sasse (De Eucharistia, 1897, tom. 1, p. 542) writes: It is of faith that the Body and Blood of Christ IS TRULY AND REALLY constituted by the consecration in the status of food and drink." This is unquestionably most true, provided it is understood reasonably. For it is only in the species that Christ is corporal food and drink. In His true reality He is spiritual nutriment The true Body and true Blood of Christ, really present in the Eucharist, is the true food and true drink of the soul, appearing to our eyes through the species, as though it were corporal food. If the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist were real corporal food there would be real true intrinsic exinanition of Christ in the Eucharist. But to be the food of the soul requires no exinanition in Christ, since the divinity itself is the true pabulum of the soul, especially of the blessed. By reason, therefore, of the food condition, Christ is in a state of exinanition only in appearance, as far as the species is concerned, but by no means in Himself.

305Needless to say, these theologians, though restricting the immolative condition to the species, do not restrict the presence of Christ to the mere species, as though He were not really present. Indeed, it is only in the supposition of the real presence of Christ that they maintain that figurative immolation without true immolation constitutes the true sacrifice.

306It is sufficiently obvious that our internal dedication can be signified in many other ways besides that of sacrifice. For instance, I may say by way of oral intimation: My God, I consecrate myself to Thee. My internal dedication is then indeed signified, but still there is no true sacrifice, because in true sacrifice this signification is made by way of action, not by word only. Again, this signification may even be made by way of action without sacrifice, as when I genuflect before an image of Christ, imitating the feudal homage given to earthly kings. Here again there is no sacrifice because in sacrifice the aforesaid signification may not be exhibited by any action whatsoever indiscriminately, but only by an action whereby a true victim is placed before God, because sacrifice is first of all the offering of a victim, with, secondly, the intention, also essential to sacrifice; of signifying thereby the internal offering of ourselves. A real victim, therefore, is the very foundation of sacrifice, be the signification what it may.

307We mean here propitiation properly so called, that is, actual compensation for sin, not merely propitiation in the broad sense in which one sometimes finds the word used, for the mere impetration of pardon for sin, already prepared for us by another sacrifice (of the Cross), which was truly propitiatory in the proper sense. Cardinal Billot (op. cit., pp. 616-617) in a very skilful argument claims for the Mass this propitiation improperly so called. We, on the other hand, while not claiming for the Mass any propitiation other than that of the Passion, nevertheless maintain that the element of propitiation is intrinsic to the Mass, because therein is offered to God the everliving Victim of the Passion.

308For evidence of this truth, see below (XXV).

309With whom E. Hugon, O.P., agrees in his admirable book, La Sainte Eucharistie (Paris, 1916, pp. 324-328).

310These theologians seem to be considerably misled by the expression that VI verborum (by virtue of the words) THE BODY ALONE is present under the species of bread, and THE BLOOD ALONE under the species of wine. For this does not mean that the words of the form as uttered by us (while Christ is living) would be effective to make present the Body by itself alone (that is, without the Blood or the Soul) were not this power impeded by some kind of superior influence; on the contrary the form, from its own signification, has the power to make the Body present JUST AS IT HAPPENS TO EXIST. If, therefore, the Body is actuated and informed by the Soul the words then possess the power of making the Soul present. If the Body exists through the EXISTENCE of the Word, the words of consecration have the power of making the Word present, as actuating the Body in respect of its existence. The genuine meaning of the expression, quite alien to such exclusion as these authors understand it, is simply this: that the power of the words is not such as to make present UNCONDITIONALLY, anything besides the Body in the one case, the Blood in the other. Hence the consecration formula has not unconditionally the power to effect the presence of the Soul: for, if Christ were dead, the Body made present then in the Eucharist by the consecration formula would not be the Body informed by the Soul. Similarly, were the hypostatic union dissolved, the same Body in the Eucharist would cease to be actuated in its existence by the Word. But it by no means follows from this proper sober understanding of these expressions that the words of consecration would have any power (no matter how much they were left to themselves) of inducing a separation of the Body and Blood, but only, if such separation existed before the words were pronounced, of not abolishing that separation; and should the separation supervene after the pronouncement of the words, of not impeding that. Hence there is no ground whatever in the teaching of the vis verborum for the sacrificial theory in question. Briefly, VI verborum (by the virtue of the words) that practically is made present which the words formally convey. But in themselves the words do not strictly or formally convey a lifeless rather than a living victim, Cf, below, Thesis. L, (Vol. III).

311The same objection of unreality may be urged against Cardinal Franzelin (op. cit., pp. 387-388) and Raynaud (loc. cit., p. 228). For they hold that the vital activity of the senses, impeded by virtue of the sacramental state, is restored, nevertheless, in the sacramental Christ by a new miracle. Thus they run counter to their own principle (which we also maintain with them): that in the Eucharistic Christ there must be a true victimal condition. For on the one hand they maintain that this state of Christ is a lowered status, and on the other they do away with this lowered status by a miracle. Hence they have to meet the objection urged by their leader, De Lugo (disp. 19, s. 4, n. 61), against Lessius: "If in a sacrifice a sheep were struck with a sword, and yet by a miracle of God the sword were to pass through the throat of the animal, in such a way that no cutting or wounding would result the sheep could not be said to be truly sacrificed, for though of itself the blow would suffice to slay, in actual fact slaying did not follow. It is the same also in the present matter." Moreover, anyone can see that it is quite repugnant that Christ, if unextended, should have the use of any organic faculty. Even by a miracle God could not do what in itself is absurd. He cannot, for instance, make Himself or make an angel (both pure spirits) have sensation.

312"The identity of what we offer with what was offered elsewhere in true sacrifice contributes nothing to make our present action a true sacrifice UNLESS A TRUE STATE OF VICTIM IS HERE AND NOW INDUCED, which is certainly not induced by a sacrificial action elsewhere enacted. Suppose, for instance, that Jephte and his daughter were to return to life, and were to give in honour of God a dramatic representation of the sacrifice offered long ago, such a representation, as Cardinal de Lugo rightly observes, would contain none of the characteristics of a true sacrifice" (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 369). If for the phrase "a true state of victimhood is here and now induced" we substitute "a true state of victimhood here and now present", this passage would have our unconditional approval, because on the one hand it is now impossible to induce a state of victimhood in Christ, and on the other it is sufficient that the condition induced in Him in the past continues. Therefore, since that condition is present here and now in Christ, we may offer as Victim Him who is here and now invested with the full reality of victimhood induced in Him long ago, and ever persisting.

313The effect of propitiation properly so called is distinctly enunciated by Cyprian in De lapsis (c. 16. P.L. 4, 479). He severely censures those who, after a lapse and before they have done fitting penance, dare to touch the Body of Christ (at that time the priest placed the host on the upturned palms of the faithful who then placed it on their tongues). "Before purifying THEIR CONSCIENCE BY THE SACRIFICE, and by the hand of the priest, before PLACATING AN ANGRY and threatening LORD for THEIR OFFENCE, they offer violence to the Body and Blood, and now they sin more against the Lord with hands and mouth than when they denied the Lord." In the Anaphora of Serapion of Thmuis: "O God of truth, we pray thee TO BE APPEASED AND TO BE RECONCILED WITH ALL OF us (katallaghqi pasan hmin kai ilasqhti (F. D., 2, 174). In the Anaphora ordinis Ecclesiae sanctae catholicae romanae of the present-day Maronites, the deacon arouses the attention of the faithful in these words: "The living and Holy Spirit hovers and descends and moves over THIS EUCHARIST, which is placed in the home of the sanctuary FOR OUR RECONCILIATION." And again, after the commemoration of the living and the dead, the deacon says, turning to the priest: "Bless us, O Lord, again and again by this pure and holy sacrifice, BY THIS VICTIM OF RECONCILIATION WHICH IS PRESENTED TO GOD THE FATHER, sanctified and fulfilled and perfected, and on which the holy living Spirit descends." Finally the priest himself says: "O God, LOOK UPON OUR CRIMES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME LOOK UPON THE SACRIFICE WHICH Is OFFERED FOR THEM, because much greater is the sacrifice and the Victim than the guilt" (Max. Saxon., Missa Syro-Maronitica, pp. 39, 45, 48). The Roman Missal abounds in such examples: " May this Victim....wash away our sins" (Secret of third Sunday after Epiph.). "May this Victim purge our frailty from all evil (Secret of fourth Sunday after Epiph.). "Receive....the sacrifice by the immolation of which thou hast vouchsafed to be appeased....that we being cleansed by its operation, " etc. (Secret of Saturday before first Sunday in Lent). "By this holy intercourse, loosen the bonds of our sins" (Secret of Wednesday after second Sunday in Lent). "By these sacrifices may our sins be cleansed" (Secret of Wednesday after the fourth Sunday of Lent). "Be appeased by our offerings... which thou hast accepted" (Secret of Saturday before Passion Sunday). "May these gifts break the bonds of our iniquity " (Secret of Passion Sunday). "From all our sins mercifully free us, whom thou hast deigned to make partakers of the great mystery" (Secret of Saturday before Palm Sunday), etc. etc.

Note the distinction made by Hugo of Amiens, Bishop of Rouen, between the " remission of sins " given to the faithful who are not yet absolved and the " expiation of punishment" given to those who are already absolved from sin: "The one Jesus Christ, God and Man, made like unto us in all things save sin, the Victim of salvation for us, the universal reconciliation, being offered to God the Father on the Cross, redeemed from sin all His faithful living and dead alike, PURGED THEM FROM GUILT, GRACIOUSLY ABSOLVED THEM FROM PUNISHMENT. And so seated at the right hand of God the Father....He gives Himself on the altar by the ministry of the priest UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS in those of His faithful who are living, UNTO THE EXPIATION OF PUNISHMENT for the holy dead, who are freed from sin within the Church', (Contra haereticos sui temporis, sive De Ecclesia et ejus ministris, I, I, c. 14. P.L. 192, 172). Innocent III speaks indiscriminately (not making distinction between the classes of sinners) of the remission of sins: "By the immolation of the Victim of salvation, our sins being remitted, we are reconciled to the Most High" (De sacr. alt. myst., 6, 5. P.L. 217, 909). The Council of Trent strongly favours this teaching: "In truth the Lord Is APPEASED by the offering of the sacrifice, granting grace and the gift of penitence, and even FORGIVING VERY GREAT CRIMES AND SINS.

Clearly, then, those many theologians fail to appreciate the power of this great sacrifice who hold that apart from impetration its only virtue is to make satisfaction for the punishment still due for sin already remitted as to its guilt, and to remit venial sins. It is true that the sacrifice of the Mass does not justify as an efficient cause, but, nevertheless it does undoubtedly propitiate even for very grave sins not yet forgiven APPEASING GOD that He may condone these by the infusion of penance and by the grace conferred by the power of the sacraments.

314One must be careful not to make too sharp a division between these various fruits, as though they could be materially, and, so to speak, mechanically cut off and separated one from another. Suppose, for example, that two sacrifices were offered, each one equal to the other in every respect: one offered for a person capable of obtaining benefits by impetration but without any need of satisfaction the other for a person requiring both benefits. There are theologians who say that both will obtain equal benefits by way of impetration, but while one receives in addition benefits by way of satisfaction, the other will not, thus eventually the sacrifice will be a greater boon for one than for the other, indeed more beneficial to the less deserving than to the more deserving. They fail to realise that all these variations of the fruit of the sacrifice are part of, and come to us by virtue of, the bounteous generosity which corresponds to the love with which Christ gave Himself to the Father for us, cf. I and II (Vol. 1). This love of our Priest was the one primary source and fount from which relief of every possible need flowed, whether it be the need of paying the debt due to divine justice or to divine vengeance, or the need of some good thing which we lack and have not merited. If the fruit of the sacrifice is not so necessary by way of propitiation in the strict sense, or by way of satisfaction, then it will be all the greater by way of impetration; the sacrificial love of Christ—as far as we are capable of receiving it—directs its whole stream through the one single channel, so to speak, of impetration. So, too, on the other hand, where the need of satisfaction is greater, and of impetration less, as in the Mass for the holy souls, the active virtue of our sacrifice, and the whole of it, will be by that one way of satisfying compensation.

This organic way of considering the sacrificial fruit is neither mechanical nor artificial, for it is founded on the very nature of the Mass. Against this view one may read the learned dissertation of Galtier, La Messe en seconde intention (Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Feb. 1907, pp. 86-87). But meantime it should be noted that the fruit of the Mass must not be confounded with the source of that fruit. Thanksgiving and adoration being given by man to God is not the fruit of the Mass, and yet it is a necessary condition for the fruit: for the Mass is fruitful just in so far as it presents to God, as from us, supreme worship and thanksgiving; whereupon, through the generosity of God, it becomes for us a source of benefits. But that benefit, as far as we are concerned, is all confined in the threefold boon of propitiation, satisfaction, and impetration. And for this reason Christ, as Himself the fount of benefits, did not personally acquire fruit by way of the sacrifice though He certainly did in His own name give thanks and adore; all the fruit of the sacrifice itself of Christ was for us.

315Here, of course, we use the word sacrifice in the active sense—our own offering of the victim, for if the word sacrifice were used in the passive sense for the victim offered it could not be separated from the sacrament.

316This fruit, this immense boon, so obviously transcends all possible effect of ANY WORK OF ANY MERE INDIVIDUAL AGENT (opus operantis individui), for example, the priest celebrating, or even of THE WORK OF ANY COLLECTIVE AGENT (opus operantis collectivi), that is the whole Church offering, that most fittingly we say the effect is due to the work in itself, or ex opere operato.

317This Suarez admits. For, speaking of the remission of punishment due to sins already absolved, which he holds to be the sole effect ex opere operato of the sacrifice, he writes: "The effect is not positive and physical, but moral, because it does not consist in the inflowing of any quality or physical entity, but is merely a moral condonation of a debt, which moral condonation can only be morally caused; nevertheless in its own order it will be said to be conferred, EX OPERE OPERATO, IF BY VIRTUE OF THE SACRIFICE APART FROM ANY MERIT AND SATISFACTION OF THE AGENT IT IS INFALLIBLY CONFERRED ON A PERSON NOT PLACING AN OBSTACLE TO IT (disp. 79, sect. 1, n. 3; cf. sect. 6, n. 1).

318In this he is consistent: for once admit the repetition at every Mass by our Lord of His offering by an elicited act, as Suarez (XXIII) does then not only must the Mass be devoid of limit in respect of what is offered, but it is also without limit in respect of the offerer. Hence, failing an intrinsic basis for the restriction of the fruit, there only remains that the limit be imposed from without by divine decree.

319Moreover, in all the works of God, however finite they may be, there is never a limit as from God, for, as pure activity He simply pours forth activity. Hence whatever limit there is must come from the side of the potentiality which receives the act. To God the creation of a potentiality is nothing other than the diffusion of act; for instance, it is the same to God to make an essence or quiddity as to make it exist, or to give it existence, actuality. The words of our venerable Father Lancicius (De meditationibus rerum divinarum recte peragendis praesertim in recollectione octiduana, cap 6, ed. Cracow, 1883, p. 86) are much to the point here where he quotes with approval from the Commentary De Divinis moribus, wrongly attributed to St. Thomas, but worthy of the highest praise: "God communicates to His creatures whatever is communicable to them, and whatever they are capable of receiving. Even at every moment He communicates, when He finds receptivity" (Vide inter opuscula S. Thomae, Ed. Parma, opusc., 55, tom. 17, p. 286).

320Hence St. Thomas in another place (In Psalm 19), speaking quite in general, says: "The more devoutly a person offers a sacrifice, the more acceptable it is, however great the sacrifice may be." Bellarmine puts the whole matter very clearly: "Although good disposition on the part of the offering priest is not necessary for the sacrifice of the Mass, nevertheless some good disposition on the part of some offerer is of necessity demanded.....That what is offered in the sacrifice of the Mass is in itself most pleasing to God is not inconsistent with this conclusion. For strictly it is not what is offered but the offering of it that is a sacrifice; because sacrifice is an action, not a permanent object. Furthermore, ALTHOUGH IN ITSELF THE THING OFFERED BE PLEASING, NEVERTHELESS THE OFFERING OF THAT THING IS NOT PLEASING, IF THE OFFERER IS NOT PLEASING, AND PLEASING TO GOD IN PARTICULAR WHO NEEDS NOTHING.....Still other things being equal, the offering of the nobler thing is the more pleasing, and hence the offering of the Body of the Lord, the noblest of all things, is the most pleasing" (Bellarmine, De Missa, 1, 2, c. 4). Cf. with Irenaeus, to be cited later.

321Bellarmine: "It must be noted that the whole Church offers all the sacrifices that are offered by all priests, but not in the same way. For there are some members of the Church who offer by an habitual intention only, that is to say, those who are absent from the Mass and do not even think of the sacrifice, but their constant state or habit of mind is such that they wish it to be offered; some offer actually, those who are present at the sacrifice and offer it with an actual present intention, many too, offer in a causal way, in so far as they are the cause of the sacrifice being offered.....Finally, the minister himself offers, but as a true priest and officially." The rest of the theologians speak similarly.

322When we say here that the Church is the chief offerer, this must be understood in the light of the conclusions we reached regarding the relation of Christ to our individual offerings (XXIII). Christ is undoubtedly the principal offerer in His own pre-eminent way, by virtue of His one offering never to be repeated what we mean and only mean here is that, among all those who OFFER ANEW, the Church holds the principal place. Now it is only of these new offerers that we speak here, where we investigate the limits of the fruit of the Mass and their cause, as is evident from Thesis XXV. Later on, when we come to speak of the priest as minister of the Church this will certainly not be to the exclusion of the other consideration that he is the minister of Christ also. But the ministry of the priest in respect of Christ is by virtue of the instrumental power derived from Christ's one offering. In respect of the Church, on the other hand, the ministry of the priest is that of one empowered and commissioned as her representative to offer constantly suppliant prayers and sacrifice. Hence, (consequent on the principles established in XXIV and XXV) when we consider the measure which limits the fruit of the Mass we have in mind only this second ministry of the priest.

323Such a mental attitude, as Suarez remarks (disp. 76, sect. 3, n. 7), might be found in the case of priests tainted with the Lutheran heresy which says that our Lord is present in the sacrament, while it denies the sacrificial action of the Church

324Suarez implicitly admits this principle when he says: "The consecration and the offering of the sacrifice are so necessarily linked together by the institution of Christ that, if one be given, it is impossible for the minister by his will or intention to take away the other" (disp. 76, sect. 3, n. 7). The Salmanticenses state it explicitly and rightly, too, following de Lugo (disp. 19, n. 103): "Should he refuse to act according to the intention of the Church, but wish to stop at the sole consecration of the matter in no way acting sacrificially or offering sacrifice, in that event, just as he refuses to act sacrificially or to offer sacrifice, so, too, he would not consecrate; for the consecration of this sacrament is essentially the sacrificial action or the offering of the sacrifice....: hence one who simply does not wish to offer sacrifice is convicted of not wishing to consecrate: hence he effects neither of the two" (disp. 13, dub. 2, parag. 2, n. 28). The Theatine, Raphael Aversa a Sanseverino (De Eucharistiae sacramento et sacrificio, q. 11, sect. 1, Bologna, 1642, pp. 229-230) writes in the same sense. Cf., too, our remarks below (XXXIII and XXXV).

325This helps to explain the view of many theologians that in the celebration of one Mass by many priests there is one consecration and multiple offering. We think it more correct to say that in this case the offering is formally one, as the collective offering of a body of men, though it is virtually and equivalently multiple.

326The passage from Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., in book 4, 8, 3, if genuine, must be interpreted in this sense: " For all the just have the priestly order." So also the saying of St. Jerome (Dial. contra Luciferianos, c. 4. P.L. 23, 158): "The priesthood of the laity, that is baptism." But the saying of St. Augustine (Civit. Dei, 10, 10. P.L. 41, 676) particularly: "We say that all Christians are priests, seeing that they are the members of the one Priest."

Similarly among the Greek Fathers, St. John Chrysostom in Homil. 3, in III Cor. (P.G. 61, 417): "Thou wert made a priest in baptism." As to how we are made priests in baptism according to Chrysostom, because then we offer ourselves in sacrifice with Christ immolated, see below, Thesis. XLVI, (Vol. III) where the whole passage is quoted.

327In this sense is to be understood what de Lugo has to say on the impetratory value of the sacrifice by the ministry of the priest considered as a representative of the faithful: "The the same will wherewith they wish to become members of the Church and to be obedient to her laws, wish also implicitly to ratify whatever has been done by the prelates of the Church for the common utility, and consequently they ratify the appointment of official spokesmen (oratorum) and ministers made to plead the cause of all with God. God therefore can accept these prayers as the prayers of each of the faithful now living and offering them to God through their official spokesman (oratorem) " (Disp. 19, s. 9, n. 127). Note the fine expression of de Lugo—the priest is the official spokesman (oratorem) of the faithful. Gerardus Loricus Hadamarius in the sixteenth century, though elsewhere a rather careless writer, expresses this at least very well: "To hear Mass is to show one's agreement with the priest who is sacrificing, that is, offering to God the desires of the Church.....Because when the priest as THE MOUTH OF THE CHURCH, representing all those present, gives thanks to God for the death of Christ, then, too, he commends to God the desires of the faithful" (De missa publica proroganda racemationum libri tres, 1536, 1, 1, c. 5, fol. F 2; cf. F 5, "he is the mouth of the people")

The ancient Syrians of whatever persuasion, Jacobite or Nestorian, were wont to make practically the same comparison between the sacrificing priest and the tongue of the body of the Church. Thus in the fifth century, Narsai, disciple of Iba of Edessa and founder of the Nisibene school, says in his Mysteriorum expositio translated by R. H. Connolly (The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, p. 12): "The bright robed priest, THE TONGUE OF THE CHURCH, opens his MOUTH (!) and speaks in secret with God as a familiar." Similarly, Gregory, Bishop of the Arabians (d. 724) "a most learned writer conversant with literature of every kind, ' (Hurter), in his Mysteriorum expositio, edited by R. H. Connolly and H. W. Codrington (Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy, Oxford, 1913, pp. 16 17), uses the same metaphor, though rather more consistently: "THE PRIEST....IS THE TONGUE WHICH IS IN THE HEAD OF THE BODY OF THE CHURCH. Later (ninth century), Moses Bar Kepha repeated it in his Explanatio Mysteriorum Oblationis (ibid., p. 35).

328A priest, therefore, who deliberately excludes the intention of offering on behalf of the Church, does not validly consecrate, for he thereby implicitly excludes the intention of offering sacrifice, and without the intention of offering sacrifice there is no consecration, as we have already said.

329Gabriel Biel, a distinguished disciple of Scotus, expressed this teaching very clearly: "For though the priest be very sinful, and have nothing in himself to make his sacrifice pleasing to God, and accepted by Him so that spiritual benefits be conferred, yet because the priest is the spokesman (nuncius) and deputy of the Church, beloved of God in this offering, which is incumbent on him in virtue of his office, God looks upon the Church, the principal offerer and the principal suppliant, notwithstanding the unworthiness of her deputy who offers. In the impossible event of not one soul within the whole Church militant being pleasing to God, the supplication of this sacrifice would as an oblation impetrate nothing from God: because then there would be in the Church no offerer or no suppliant pleasing to Him so that thereby that offering could be dear, pleasing and accepted by Him; for the offering of the sacrifice has efficacy through the merit of the Church offering it" (Gabriel Biel, Sacri canonis missae tum mystica tum literalis expositio, apud Johannem Clein s. 1. s. a. lect. 27, fol. 38). Earlier, however, in the same work in lect. 26a (fol. 36), the same author, making with Scotus a distinction between the offering of the sacrifice as such and the consecration of the sacrament as such, while teaching that the devotion of the Church measures or limits the fruit of the offering of the sacrifice, he at the same time assigns an absolute value of its own to the consecration of the sacrament from the institution of Christ. If this value is taken to be, as I think the author intended, that which the Eucharist has to sanctify those who receive it in communion, nothing can be said against it. If, however, it were taken to mean a sacrificial efficacy, for example of propitiation or impetration, it would make the author inconsistent both with himself and Scotus, who assigned no such sacrificial value to the consecration of the sacrament as such, but reserved it all to the sacrifice, and measured it by the devotion of the Church.

330Biel elucidates this point also: " And from this it may appear to one that the Mass is more efficacious and more acceptable to God at one time than at another. And it may be taken as a rule that the Mass of a holy priest (whose personal merit is a portion of the total merit of the Church) is better, than if the priest were without grace." He then proves each of these conclusions, because " the merit of the Church is not something standing by itself, like a universal platonic 'idea" nor is it a merit abstracted and now existing in itself outside and apart from individual men, but it is the merit of the persons and the members who constitute the Church" (Canonis missae expositio, lect. 26, fol. 36).

Among the Jesuit theologians, Fagundez has, we think, given the best expression to the same idea: " The fruit of the Mass ex opere operato, corresponding as it does to the work of the whole Church offering, increases or decreases accidentally with the greater or lesser number offering sacrifice in the Church militant in different periods of time, and with their greater or lesser sanctity: for this fruit increases accidentally with the better disposition of the whole sacrificing Church" (Tractatus in quinque Ecclesiae precepta, praecept. 1, 1, 3, c. 6, n. 20, Lyons, 1632, p. 149). Later (ibid., n. 14) he explains lucidly how this variability in no wise precludes the derivation of the fruit ex opere operato. We shall explain this further in Th, XXVII,

331Archbishop Sheehan's translation of this striking passage.

332Recall what we have said above regarding the three days of our Lord's death, Th. XVII. The arguments advanced there to prove that the sacrifice could not be offered during this triduum prove equally that the Apostles could not offer the sacrifice before the Ascension, when Christ entered into holies, so to attain to the perfection of His own sacrifice and priesthood, and to purchase for us the gift of the Holy Spirit with the price of eternal redemption found by Him for us. Because in the first place, what was enjoined on us was: the celebration of the sacrifice when and only when it was already ratified and efficacious, and, secondly, because the commemoration of the Ascension as well as the Resurrection is intrinsic to the Mass as is shown by the words of St. Paul, You shall show the death of the Lord UNTIL HE COME (from heaven), and is shown also by the interpretation of our Lord's command in the Liturgies.

333It is true that the Blessed Virgin was then on earth at that intermediate time also and her sanctity excelled all the sanctity of all the ages of the Church. But then great though that sanctity was, it was still the individual sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, it was not the social and collective dowry of any organic body. Such a compact body formed from the multitude of the faithful the Church was to be. (And to this body alone the sacrifice of the Eucharist was to be entrusted.) Hence the measure or the amount of sanctity was not wanting, whilst the Blessed Virgin was on earth even before Pentecost; what was lacking still was the diffusion of sanctity throughout the Church; until a Society made up of priest and people, indefectibly united in faith and charity, would be confirmed by the Spirit of truth and strength.

334We must take it as certain that the Kingdom of God foretold so often and so solemnly by the prophets, and of which Christ Himself spoke to the Apostles (Acts I, 3) appearing to them for forty days, was not fully established on earth until the day of Pentecost. The same may be said of the New Covenant or the New Testament, as Cyril of Jerusalem rightly teaches in his Catechesis, 17, c. 29. P.G. 33, 1000, that in His coming the Holy Spirit "established in the Catholic Church the New Testament, in agreement with the Father and the Son."

335Shortly before this passage Paschasius (c. 12, n. 1, cols. 1310-1311) had written that we consecrate in the priesthood of Christ (XXI) now he writes that we consecrate in the newness of the Spirit come down from Heaven on the day of Pentecost. In the former statement he is safeguarding the necessity of the conferring of the sacrificial power by Christ on the Apostles in the Supper; now he is upholding the necessity of the Church being fitted to begin the offering of the sacrifice.

336Hesychius also, it seems to me (In Levit., IX, 1-6 and XXIII, 9-14. P.G. 93 889-891 and 1083-1087), had implicitly taught the same.

337Hence the anecdote of St. Peter Damian in his work, De bono suffragiorum, c. 6 and 7, must be taken with a grain of salt. He is giving an illustration of his own opinion that alms given to the poor is more fruitful than the Mass celebrated by a carnal priest (P.L. 145, 568-569).

338In reading the Fathers and Church writers, we must distinguish between the case of heretical priests (with whom by Church law are grouped priests who are simoniacs), or priests who are schismatical, excommunicated, or at least degraded or repudiated by the Church (of whom later), and the case of simply bad priests. We must also distinguish the question of the validity of the consecration from the other question of the efficacy of the sacrifice. Speaking of bad priests only, none of our theologians deny that they can consecrate the Body of Christ. This is true even of Origen, in spite of what he says in his Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos, 9, 42. P.G. 14, 1249, for there he is plainly speaking of the sanctification of UNCLEAN FOODS by the word of God and by prayer-I Tim., IV 5 (to the contrary see Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme, 1909, p. 370). It is true also of Etherius and Beatus, who say in the treatise Adversus Elipandum (I, 1, c. 67. P.L. 96, 936): "This sacrifice cannot be offered by just any priest whatsoever, but only by the just and holy priest." For the context shows that they are speaking of Christ the High Priest only: "Who therefore so just and so holy a priest as the only Son of God" "who offered the sacrifice of His mortal Body for us, '"on whose behalf He offered", "for the cleansing of our sins" whence the Victim is present for us not only " to be partaken of lovingly (amabiliter) ", but also to be offered acceptably (grate): "What can be so acceptably offered and so lovingly received as the Flesh of our sacrifice, the perfect Body of Christ our Priest? " (ibid, c. 67 and 68)—to the contrary see Baluze, Notae in Cyprianum (P.L. 3, 1023). Of course, it is undeniably true that indefectible acceptability with God for the Victim of our sacrifices was purchased first of all by the offering of our High Priest. Cyprian in the Epistola de Basilide et Martiale, n. 2 and 3. P.L. 3, 1022-1023 (cf. Batiffol, op. cit., pp. 453-454) at first sight does indeed appear to deny the efficacy of the sacrifice in the case of bad priests. However, he may very well have regarded the libellatici (priests who, to avoid persecution, bought a certificate that they had sacrificed to the gods) of whom there was question here, as apostates or deserters from the faith, and so heretics, notorious heretics, too, who had made shipwreck of their faith. For it was not one dogma but the whole fabric of the Christian faith that was assailed by such a libellaticus: so here Cyprian would have in mind, not the want of probity, but the deficiency of their faith publicly known, notorious, in the case of the libellatici. Even apart from such a view which Cyprian might well have taken of them, they had, as a matter of fact, been repudiated by the Church law as priests. This being so there was question here not merely of personal unworthiness, but also of the loss of legitimate status and alienation from the Church. This last question however will recur later in Th. XXXIII.

339And in this sense are to be understood the words of St. Jerome, in Sophon, 3. P.L. 25, 1375: "Priests also who serve the Eucharist and distribute the Blood of the Lord to His people act impiously against the law of Christ when they think that the words, and not the life of him who prays, make the Eucharistic sacrifice (euxaristtian facere), that only the customary prayer is required, and not the merits of the priest." For Jerome himself immediately adds: "Although they act thus....nevertheless the Lord is merciful and just. Merciful because He will not abandon His Church: just because He renders to everyone according to his merits."

340Although in the same place he endeavours to adapt that interpretation to his way of thinking.

341The Epistle of the pseudo-Alexander, as the work of an unknown author, has really no authority save in so far as it was accepted long ago by our forefathers, who accordingly did not detect in it anything contrary to faith.

342Cf. in the same sense a very beautiful passage inserted in the Decretum Gratiani from some unknown author (pars 2, Caus. 1, q, 1, c. 84. P.L. 187, 516).

343Cf. the ancient Liturgy of St. Basil, where, among other fervent and lengthy petitions to God, we find the following: " Remember also, O Lord, in the richness of thy mercies, my own unworthiness; forgive every deliberate sin of mine (omne delictum voluntarium), and do not, because of my crimes, turn away the grace of thy Holy Spirit from the gifts here offered to thee" (mh dia taj emas amartiaj kwlushj thn xarin tou agiou sou pneumatoj apo twn prokeimenwn) (B. 336). Such a prayer said after the consecration indicates that the priest, though full of trust in God, is anxious for the perseverance of what Chrysostom calls the "really stupendous" miracle, lest anything should weaken the sanctifying virtue of his Eucharist. This is secured by the grace of God, so that no more fruit is obtained by communicating at the sacrifice of the holiest priest than at that of the most abandoned. This is surely something worthy of note, a stupendous fact for our contemplation!

344Cf. Thesis XLV (Vol. III).

345There were, it would appear, in days long past some bishops who thought that their own Eucharist was better than the Eucharist of the ordinary priest, since they disliked partaking of the latter. The very early author of the Epistola de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae (c. 6), published among the works of St. Jerome (P.L. 30 155-156), censures them severely.

346In the matter of the sacrifice the expression ex opere operato savoured of novelty even at the time of the Council of Trent. This is evident from the Judicium (pronouncement at the Council) of Josse Ravestyn of Tielt (Tiletanus), ad articulos I[Lutheri] et IX[Calvini] de sacrificio missae propositos (Le Plat, Monumentorum....Concilii Tridentini, tom, 4, Louvain, 1784, p. 352): "This is what the Catholics teach regarding the value and the virtue of the sacrifice of the Mass:....the offering of the Mass made on behalf of others avails them for the remission of sins, both as to guilt and punishment, and this value and virtue is in the sacrifice of the Mass, not from the dignity, condition and quality of the person who performs the action (operantis), in celebrating the sacrament, but from the quality, condition and nature of that which is offered. This being Christ Himself....wins the grace of the Father for those on whose behalf it is offered, unless they show themselves unworthy of the mercy and clemency of the Father: and SOME RECENT THEOLOGIANS, DESIRING TO EXPLAIN THIS, HAVE SAID THAT THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS BENEFITS OTHERS, not ex opere operantis BUT EX OPERE OPERATO, not indeed without good motions on the part of these[those who receive the benefit], but when they are disposed and prepared by motions of faith and repentance, as we shall explain more at length directly." Then, finding no fault with this terminology, he finally accepts it.

347It is true that Hickey (Lyons, 1639, tom. 8, p. 849), commenting on this passage, says that the subtle Doctor is not concerned here with what we call the value ex opere operato. The contrary, however, is evident, as Suarez admits (disp. 79, s. 8, n. 10).

348I admit that this writer went too far when, carried away by his zeal for priestly sanctity, he maintained that the sacrifice of the Mass offered by a Catholic priest though validly offered, was in no way fruitful or beneficial if that priest were in sin and offered the sacrifice alone, that is, where no good person either had the Mass said, or was present at it, or served at it: " Even then[that is, though the priest is in sin] we must believe that if he celebrates with the Catholic rites there will be a true sacrifice of the Mass, but we deny absolutely that it will benefit anyone, particularly if he does this alone, and no devout persons unaware of his sacrilege are present" (De sacrificio missae, c. 19, p. 245). The origin of the error was that this austere man did not think that the unworthiness of the minister could be outweighed by the sanctity of the whole Church, which, he says, "is not of such great power as to secure anything from God by prayer, through just any person" (ibid. p. 243). While rejecting the overstatement of the case by Galenus, we retain what is correct in his teaching.

349V. g. In a humble spirit and contrite heart, may we be received by thee, O Lard, and may our sacrifice so be offered up in thy sight, that it may be pleasing to thee, O Lord God.

May my worship and bounden duty be pleasing to thee, O Holy Trinity: and grant that the sacrifice I have offered all unworthily in the sight of thy divine majesty may be received by thee, and win forgiveness from thy mercy for me, and for an those for whom I have offered it up.

Note, too, how the people pray for the priest: " May the Lord receive the sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of His own name, to our benefit and to that of all His holy Church."

In the Eastern Liturgies we find numberless prayers of the priest for himself, as officially offering the sacrifice; V. g. in the ancient Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, B. 316-320.

350The priest therefore gives the formal element to the symbolic immolation, the person who proffers the stipend supplies the material element, and it is only from the combination of both of these that there arises what we have said to be the symbol only of the sacrifice by reason of which symbol men make the sacrifice of our Lord their own. It should be noted, however, that the appearances of bread and wine do not become sacramental except through the priest, who therefore alone is competent to confer on the elements the character of sign or symbol. Hence from this point of view the priest himself is the author of the sacramental material.

351Hence St. Martin of Leon well says: "For the oblations are not offered to the priest only, but also to Jesus Christ the High Priest" (Sermo 24, in resurrect. Dom. P.L. 208, 922).

352In the first place, these are, by a title of imperfect justice, or religious debt, not only the priests but also the inferior clergy who serve the priest in the mysteries secondly, by a title of mercy or pious liberality, the poor who are the care of the Church. Strictly, therefore, sustenance for the clergy suffices for the offering; but at the same time, sustenance for the poor, if this be added, is in no sense outside the scope of the offering in question; rather such sustenance of the poor is itself in a sense liturgical (cf. Canones Hippolyti, 159-185 and 214-216, in Duchesne Origins du cult chret., 3rd ed., 536-539., also the prayers in the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries collected by Dom Leclerq, D. A. C., 1, 834 835), so much so that the poor, loaded as it were with the offerings of the faithful, were in the past often called the altars of the Church (cf. XIII, Vol. 1). This liturgical comparison may explain the language, suggestive of liturgical reference, in which St. Paul speaks of the alms of the churches to be sent to Jerusalem, for the support of the poor and to be distributed there in the Eucharistic agape: Because the administration of this office doth not only supply the want of the saints, but aboundeth also for many Eucharists to the Lord, etc. (h diakonia thj leitourgiaj tauthj ou monon estin prosanaplhrousa ta usterhmata twn agiwn, allo kai perisseuousa dia pollwn euxaristiwn tw tew, ktl) (II Cor., IX, 12-15). Hence even where the offering is more than strictly sufficient for the sustenance of the clergy, still, because what is over and above is in no way considered apart from the rest, the whole offering assumes the character and the virtue not merely of ordinary alms, but also of true and proper latria, or divine worship. Still, however, seeing that only what justice strictly requires is to be demanded, hence, even if what is necessary for the sustenance of the poor is lacking in the gift, nevertheless that must be accepted which suffices for the sustenance of the clergy alone—so much so that should anyone by compact give a stipend sufficient for the sustenance of the clergy alone, he must be considered in so far to be the author of the whole sacrifice, and thus a priest may not putting two stipends together, offer one sacrifice for the two stipends, as will be seen later in our discussions against Cajetan.

353Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus, c. 4, art. 6, n. 6, indicates the time round about which money began more or less to take the place of gifts of food, given by the faithful for the offering of a Mass.

354cf., St. Augustine (Epist. 111, 8. P.L. 33, 426): "For they[Christian women captured by the barbarians], in the land of their captivity, are in the same condition as the Hebrew captives in that land where they could not offer their customary sacrifices to the Lord: so, too, neither can they bring the offering to the altar of God, nor find a priest through whom they may offer to God."

355Clearly the offerings spoken of here by Caesarius, and Cyprian, and repeatedly by many of the Fathers, must be understood to be not strictly individual offerings, like the stipends usual at the present time. They were, according to the custom of the time, collective offerings made by a number at the same time, just as would be the case today were all present at Mass, or the greater number, to unite in giving one stipend.

356Petavius mentions also other instances not so striking as this of the Nicene Council of the restriction of offering. But we can give other clear examples as well. In the Epistola ad Hincmarum Rhemensem, Nicholas I imposes a penance on a man who had murdered a monk who was a priest. Among other things we read: " During the remaining space of seven years, HE MAY RECEIVE THE COMMUNION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD on the greater feast days, BUT ON NO ACCOUNT MAKING OFFERINGS" (P.L. 119, 1122-1123). A fortiori the following is true: "Those to whom sacramental communion was denied were never permitted to offer" (Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus, I, I, c. 4, art. 6, n. 5).

357From Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 1, 5, c. 17. P.G. 82, 1236) it is evident that the "faculty to sacrifice" is here that power of offering the sacrifice through the priest, which was exercised in particular by presenting the gifts to the sacred table. For he is telling us how first the Emperor, after having completed his penance, fulfilled such an office of bringing gifts for the sacrifice. He is not speaking of that mode of offering which is common to all assisting by their presence at the sacrifice, but rather of the mode of offering which is proper to those who give a stipend.

358In this connection the Sacramentarium Bobiense has four votive Masses worthy of consideration, the following Secret from the third votive Mass in particular: "All powerful and all merciful God, to whom vows are rendered in Jerusalem, hear the prayers of thy servant; be mindful of his sacrifice, may his holocausts be rich" (P.L. 72 542). Again in the Mozarabic Missa votiva singularis we find the following blessing before the communion: " May your vows (vota) and sacrifices bountifully receive the grace of the merciful God" (P.L. 85, 994). Cf. our remarks above (XXI) on the vows (vota) of the sacrifices.

359However, he conforms his intention to theirs BY THE VERY FACT that he presents the sacrifice, AS PROMOTED in the first instance by them, by giving the priest a stipend to say the Mass for their intention. For in the nature of things the declared intention of the author, in this sense, of the sacrifice is included in the sacrifice. No further action, prayer or wish of the priest is required to comply with this intention. Indeed no matter what the priest may desire, he cannot substitute any other intention than mine when offering my sacrifice. He cannot, for instance, transfer to my friend or any other the fruit of my sacrifice for my brother.

360The teaching of the later school of theologians in regard to the offering of the Mass by the faithful may be found in Suarez (disp. 79, s. 8, n. 5), Vasquez (disp. 226, c. 2) and de Lugo, who writes: "It cannot be doubted that those persons[who assist at Mass] offer the sacrifice in a certain sense, mediately at least, and the sacrifice is not merely offered for them, ' (disp. 19, 11, n. 230).

361"It is the priest or the bishop who invites the people to recollection; the people respond and become attentive. The pontiff then takes up a formula of prayers, while the faithful listen devoutly....the whole prayer ends with a doxology to the glory of the Father by the Son, in the unity of the Spirit, as in the Roman Canon: By to thee, God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory for ever and ever. And to this doxology the people reply, as we do today: Amen, thus associating themselves with the whole sacrifice and the prayer of the Canon" (Dom. Cabrol, art. Amen in D. A. C., 1, 1558; cf. t. 2, 1851 and 1899).

362The Anaphora Serapionis does not actually give the dialogue but appears to presuppose it, as it begins with the words: " It is meet and just, etc...." (F. D. 2, 1 72).

363Unless we should read here olive branch of peace (elaion eirhnhj) as the older editions have (P.G. 63, 915).

364Similarly James of Edessa, a Monophysite writer of the seventh century, explaining the Syrian Liturgy in the Epistola ad Thomam presbyterum (in Dionysius Bar Salibi, Expos. Liturg., Labourt's translation, p. 38), writes: "The priest says to the people: Let your hearts be lifted up; they respond: We have lifted them up to the Lord. Then once more he says aloud to them: Let us give thanks to the Lord; they reply: What you have said is meet and just. And since by those first three things which we have already mentioned, that is, by this that he gave them the peace and that he signed them with the sign of the Cross and that they suitably answered him; furthermore by these two last, namely, that he gave them an injunction, and THAT THEY ASSENTED TO IT, and pronounced what he said to be just; when BY THESE, I say, THEY WITH HIM AND HE WITH THEM HAVE BEEN MADE ONE BODY OF CHRIST AND ONE MIND, then the priest turns to God immediately, commencing with THE WORDS TO WHICH THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR ASSENT AND IN ACCORD WITH THE MIND OF THE PEOPLE, directs his words to God the Father, to whom the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Only-Begotten is offered in propitiation for the souls of the faithful." Call to mind here our previous remarks on the expression " the tongue of the Church" as found in the Syrian documents.

365It is true that later on the Amen crept into other parts also of the anaphora in all the Liturgies. Still we have abundant evidence for the earlier custom, where the Amen came only at the end, as, for example, in the Anaphora Serapionis (F. D. 2, 176), Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae (B. 189-190), Liturgia Constitutionem Apostolicarum (F. D. 1, 514), and the Apostolikh paradosij of Hippolytus (ed. op. cit., p. 107), the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae (F. D. 2, 99-100) Canonum... reliquiae (ed. Hauler, p. 107) and the Testamentum D. N. Jesu Christi (Ed. Rahmani, 1899 pp. 39 45). Rahmani writes apropos of the Liturgy of the Testamentum (p. xlvi): "The Liturgy seems to harmonise perfectly with the description of St. Justin Martyr..... The whole Liturgy properly so called is one Eucharistic prayer, long drawn out, but uninterrupted, and it is only at the end of the Eucharistic prayer that the people cry out Amen."

366"The bread and the cup of wine and water are brought to the president of the brethren: and he, having received them, gives praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and at some length gives thanks for the graciousness whereby we have received these things from Him. And after he has concluded the prayers and the giving of thanks[Eucharistic prayer], all the people cry aloud: Amen. Now Amen in the Hebrew has the same sense as the Latin fiat, so be it. When the president has finished the prayers, and all the people have acclaimed them, those who are called among us deacons distribute the wine and water over which the Eucharistic prayer has been said, to each one of those present, to be partaken of by them" (P.G. 6, 428). "The bread, wine and water are brought, and with the greatest possible devotion, the president offers up the prayers and the thanksgivings[Eucharistic prayer], and the people signify their approval by crying aloud (acclamat): Amen; there is a distribution and a communication of those things over which the Eucharistic prayer was said, to each one present" (col. 429).

367It is very doubtful whether the Amen of which Tertullian speaks in his De Spectaculis, c. 25, is applicable to the offering of the sacrifice, or to the communion: " For, what a thing is signify your approval of a gladiator with the same lips with which you have said Amen to the Sanctum[the Holy Thing—the Sacrament?1." Though some kind of a comparison with the doxology of the Canon may well be suggested by the words which follow after: "Do you say (Eij aiwnaj ap aiwnoj), per omnia saecula saeculorum to any other but Christ God?, ' (P.L. 1, 657).

368Theodoret seems to have this in mind when commenting on III Cor., I, 20 "Through the Son Himself we offer the Eucharistic hymn to God. And not without cause did the Epistle add Amen here: to teach us that it is not the celebrating priest alone who offers the hymn, but that he, too, who says Amen is a sharer in the offering of praise" (P.G. 82, 384).

369Hence also Justinian (123. P.L. 72, 1026) censures as a novelty the custom already then creeping in of reciting the Canon in a low voice: "We command all bishops and priests alike to make the sacred offering and to say the usual prayers in holy baptism, not silently to themselves (tacito modo) but in a clear voice, so as to be heard by the faithful, thus urging them on to greater devotion in singing the praises of the Lord God. For this is the teaching of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Corinthians: Else if thou bless only with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say Amen to thy thanksgiving to God, because he knoweth not what thou sayest", and we certainly have unquestionable evidence from the words of Justin and Dionysius, already quoted by us, that of old in Rome and Alexandria the Canon was said in a loud clear voice, in spite of what Le Brun says to the contrary (Explication de la messe, t. 8, Paris, 1778, vol. 3). Indeed it could hardly be otherwise as long as the Liturgy had not yet been reduced to set formulae such as we are familiar with today (cf. A. Fortescue, The Mass, a Study of the Roman Liturgy, 1914, pp. 113-115). Much was left to the choice and devotion of the celebrant, even in the Canon, and so the only way of making it known to the faithful was for them to hear it. How could the congregation give assent to the prayer if they did not know what the prayer was that had just been said? But when the formulae had become well defined, the faithful could then ratify the prayer by their assent without hearing it; as, for example, if they were instructed by those who knew the prayer, for instance the deacon, who in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions explained to them the invocation and the intercession. So a stage was reached finally when public recitations of the mystery were no longer necessary, indeed hardly possible, were the deacon meantime to intervene with his explanation. Hence the pristine custom could fall into disuse. It was asserted by Remigius of Auxerre (De celebratione missae et ejus significatione. P.L. 101, 1256, though the passage may not be by Remigius, but a later interpolation), and after him by Beleth (Rationale divinorum officiorum, c. 44 and 46. P.L. 202, 52-54), that the silent recital was introduced "lest such sacred words pertaining to the great mystery should be cheapened, when, as nearly every one knew them by constant usage, they might be sung in the highways and byways, and in other most unsuitable places" (Rem. of Aux.), both these authors alleging in confirmation of their view a tale narrated by Joannes Moschus in Prato Spirituali (c. 196. P.G. 87 ter., 3080-3084, and P.L. 74, 225-226). But this assertion is quite frivolous, based on no certain foundation whatever (cf. Le Brun, loc. cit., pp. 105-108 and 158-173). The conjecture of Edmund Bishop (Silent recitals in the Mass, in T. a. S., vol. 8, n. 1, 1909, p. 124) also rests on a very weak foundation and need not detain us. He says that the recital in a low voice was probably of Syrian origin, since Narsai tells us that in his time, towards the end of the fifth century, the Canon used to be recited in secret in his own Church (of Nisibis). This fact in itself, however, could not prove any influence of the East on the West in this matter, for the same causes, liturgical, as above, and psychological (as would easily occur to anyone who gave the matter a thought) could easily lead the East and the West independently, now here, now there, to the recital of the Canon in a low voice.

While we are on this subject it is interesting to note that in the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae, according to the Coptic version (G. H. Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles, or Canones Ecclesiasticci London, 1904, p. 309), which in the judgment of R. H. Connolly (The So-Called Egyptian Order and derived documents in T. a. S., vol. 8, n. 4, Cambridge, 1916, p. 65) presents the truer reading of the text, the bishop is not bound to say the Eucharistic prayer from memory, but if he is capable, he may extemporise: "Now (de) the bishop shall give thanks (eukhariston) according to things which we said before. It is not altogether (ou pantos) necessary for him to recite the same words which we said before, as if learning to say them by heart in his thanksgiving (eu.) to God; but according to the ability of each one he is to pray" (Horner, op. cit., p. 309).

370Cf. Dom Cabrol, art. Baiser, D. A. C., 2, pp. 118-127.

371Mediaeval writers, Liturgists, like Innocent III (De sacr. alt. myst., 6, 5, P.L. 217, 909), or Canonists, like Gratian (De consecrat., dist. 2, c. 9), accepted this explanation of the pax.

372The saintly Abbot Guerric goes too far, then, when he writes in the fifth sermon, De purificatione Beatae Mariae (n. 16. P.L. 185, 87): "It is not the priest alone who offers sacrifice (sacrificat), it is not he alone who consecrates, but the whole congregation of the faithful who are present consecrate with him, offer sacrifice (sacrificat) with him." At the same time these words of the saintly Catholic writer should not be taken too literally, as he certainly knew that priests alone have received the power to consecrate the Eucharist. Hence we must infer that he does not use the word consecrate in a technical but in a wide sense, meaning to set apart or present or offer, or at the very least that the words consecrate and offer sacrifice must be taken together as an hendiadys, the two together simply meaning that the sacrifice which is enacted by the consecration is offered. The faithful do indeed offer the sacrifice with the priest, but in such manner that they offer it through the priest. For the priest and the faithful do not offer independently, in a parallel fashion, neither are the two offerings distinguished by a greater and a less power or oblative activity in the one and the other respectively, but by this that they differ in the manner or the mode of offering: the priest offers in one way, the faithful in another. For the priest himself, as we have said, is the one and only organ of the active oblation. No matter how the faithful intervene, they offer only through that organ, in so far as with him they constitute the one organic body. Nevertheless they do offer through him, in such manner that the sacrifice is rightly imputed to them and hence its fruit is enhanced by their devotion.

373Hence Bossuet writes, in his Maniere de bien entendre la messe, on the Orate fratres "This part of the Mass is most important....the priest, on the point of entering upon the action of the sacrifice, turns round to tell the congregation that he is about to offer in their name, he also asks them to join their prayers with his in the sacrifice WHICH THEY MUST OFFER WITH HIM" (cf. also his remarks on the Offertory in this same work: "It must be remembered that the priest offers in the name of the whole Church, and that IN HIM AND BY HIM all those who assist must offer to God THEIR SACRIFICE"). The fact that these words, and other like expressions, are introduced as centring upon the gifts which the celebrant as well as the faithful will offer for consecration (Batiffol, Lecons sur la messe, p. 23), in no way militates against interpreting them, as well as other prayers of similar style, in reference to our true and unique sacrifice which is really that of the Body and Blood of Christ, though it appears to be that of the bread and wine.

374Apropos, Le Brun writes ( la messe, vol. 1, 1777, pp. 441442): " Quite a number of old missals make it clear that these words of our servitude refer to the priest, and the expression thy whole family to the faithful who make up the family or the assembly during the Mass, of which the priest is regarded as the father or the president. In some of these old Masses in which the prayer Hanc igitur is at times more lengthy, the priest specially stresses at this place more distinctly his own particular offering, saying: this oblation of my humility, or: this oblation which thy servant offers to thee (Hanc oblationem humilitatis meae, Missal Illyr. Hanc igitur oblationem quam tibi offero ego famulus tuus hodie, Cod. sacram. Thom.). And so when he says: our servitude, our means my, as for several centuries writers have remarked (Servitutis nostrae, id est: meae, Durandus, 1, 4, c. 39, n. 1). We find in these Masses just as distinctly the explanation of the other words and of thy whole family, as signifying the actual assembly of those assisting. For example, in the Mass for the dedication of a church, the priest in the prayer Hanc igitur adds; all thy family earnestly gathered together in this holy place of prayer (Cunctam familiam tuam ad aulae huius suffragia concurrentem, In Dedicat. Basil. Cod. Sacram. Thom.)... We are also confirmed in interpreting thy whole family as referring to the priest and those assisting, rather than to the whole Church, by the fact that they pray to God that their oblation be favourably received, in consideration of the universal Church to which they are united", etc. (cf. ibid., p. 491). The expression of our servitude (servitutis nostrae), with the plural pronoun, originally signified a number of concelebrants.

375Moreover, the celebrant may also stand in the place of the person giving the stipend, as, for example, when he has not received a stipend for the Mass, and furnishes the table of the sacrifice from his own resources.

376Franciscus a Victoria: "The FRUIT OF THE MASS is also increased by the presence of those who hear Mass: FOR THE ASSISTING FAITHFUL OFFER THE SACRIFICE.....Hence as a rule the Mass is more fruitful WHEN THERE ARE A NUMBER PRESENT than when there are few" (Summa Sacramentorum Ecclesiae, 1594, fols. 47-48). Dominicus Soto writes expressly of the lesser ministers and the assisting faithful: "In the sacrifice the greater the number of offerers the greater is THE FRUIT OF THE SACRIFICE not indeed in each individual, but in all together, because each one offers the same Victim" (4 D. 13, q. 2, a. 1).

377We are not here dealing with the case where a number of persons combine together, to make up by their own individual contributions one stipend for a Mass, no matter whether or not the sum total of the individual offerings be equal to or in excess of what is usual. We are considering the case only where a number of persons, each separately, ask for a Mass, each for his own intention, each giving an adequate stipend for a Mass. The other case will be dealt with later.

378According to Galtier (La messe en seconde intention in the Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Feb. 1907, p. 84), Cajetan makes a distinction between those who ask for a Mass in this way, and those for whose benefit such a person asks that it be said, and teaches that the fruit of the Mass is not lessened, in the case under review, in respect of the former, though it is lessened in respect of the latter. But apart from the fact that such an interpretation is improbable a priori, in so far as it would destroy the parallelism constantly taught by St. Thomas, between the fruit of the Mass coming back as it were reflexly to the offerer of the Mass, and the fruit procured for another by way of suffrage, a posteriori it is disallowed by the plain words of Cajetan himself: " Hence we should reason with and instruct people who through ignorance request or demand that a whole Mass be given to themselves or TO THEIR DEAD in return for their alms: for THE DEAD FRIEND Will receive no less if a thousand others ask for the same Mass for themselves, or FOR OTHER DEAD, than if it were to be celebrated for himself alone" (In 3 S. 79, 5). Where Cajetan uses above the expression "for himself" he must be taken to mean exactly what we do, when we, according to common custom, say that a man has a Mass said for himself, that is, for his intention, whether this intention reflects back to himself, or extends to others.

379The case would be quite different were another person to give one stipend a hundred times greater than each one of those offered by the person above. Such a man would be more generous, indeed a hundred times more so in respect of his one sacrifice, than the other in respect of each of his individual sacrifices. The devotion implied by this liberality, a hundred times greater than the other's (and still in no way inordinate), will be estimated to be, other things being equal, a hundred times more operative, more intense in active exercise, so to speak. And so the value of this one Mass might accumulate and reach a hundred times the value of one of the others. Thus it might come about finally, that this last man who asked for one Mass would receive as much fruit from one Mass as the other who asked for a hundred would receive from the hundred. Thus we see how it comes about that one solemn Mass de requie is usually more fruitful than several private Masses, as Zacharias Pasqualigo (De Sacrificio Novae Legis, q. 131, n. 10, Rome, 1907, tom. I, p. 133) says: "It must be said that the sacrifice solemnly offered is more efficacious EX OPERE OPERATO in respect of its fruit of propitiation, satisfaction and impetration." On the other hand, the more Masses are said the more often will occasion be giver; for the exercise of private devotion, both on the part of the priest and of the faithful assisting, and so more honour will be given to God, and more spiritual advantage for the Church. Hence all things considered, let each one follow in this matter the approved good customs of the Church, suited to the conditions, times, places persons and circumstances. What we have said about one person giving a generous stipend applies also where many people make a contribution to a common generous stipend, each contribution being of an amount sufficient to constitute by itself an adequate stipend for a Mass.

380These condemnations were wisely anticipated by the Council of Lambeth A. D. 1281 (c. 2, De annalibus celebrandis et anniversariis, Mansi, 24, 406): "The celebrant must not think that by saying one Mass he can satisfy for two persons for each of whom he promised to celebrate specially and entirely."

381The advocacy of Walafrid Strabo (De eucharisticarum rerum exordiis et incrementis, c. 22. P.L. 114, 948) in the Middle Ages might be claimed for this teaching: "In this there appears to be a grievous error, that some think they cannot make a full commemoration of those on whose behalf they offer unless they make separate offerings for each, or consider that the sacrifice should not be offered at the same time for the living and for the dead; while we truly know that One died for all, and that it is the one Bread and the one Blood that the whole Church offers. Should it please anyone to offer separately for each one, let him do this out of devotion and the consolation he gets by the multiplication of his prayers, but not through a foolish opinion that the one sacrament of God is not a general remedy for all. Such a one is somewhat weak in faith, who thinks that the Lord does not know what is needful for each one, when in one petition many are prayed for—or on the other hand if he thinks that God is wearied if the same oblation is presented, now for one, now for another."

382The Council of Lambeth also rejects this teaching: " Far be it from any Catholic to believe that one Mass devoutly celebrated will be as beneficial through its intention for a thousand people for whom it may be possibly said, as a thousand Masses would be, were they said with a similar devotion on their behalf" (Council of Lambeth, loc. cit.).

Moreover, if put into practice this teaching would nullify the condemnation of Pius VI pronounced against the 30th proposition of the Synod of Pistoia (1). 1530) that in every sacrifice the offering is made for all faithful Christians living and dead and therefore there will be no less fruit for any one of them than for any other on whose particular behalf the priest intends to offer. The condemnation runs as follows: "The teaching of the Synod....thus understood that....the special offering or application of the sacrifice, which is made by the priest, is not more beneficial, other things being equal, to those for whom it is applied, than for any others false, rash, etc."

383We hail Gregory of Valentia (Commentariorum theologicorum, tom 4, disp 6, q. 10, punct. 2, Venice, 1608, col. 1104) as patron of this interpretation of St. Thomas and this opinion: "It is the teaching of St. Thomas....that all newly ordained priests who celebrate with the bishop, consecrate, though some may finish before others, provided that they refer their intention to one and the same instant of the consecration, namely, to that moment in which the last one, or the last ones together, finish the utterance of the words. I prefer this teaching to any other., ' Since this opinion has no slight authority, it would be most imprudent for anyone to traduce it as erroneous or improbable.

384For this sole reason it was proper for the Blessed Virgin to offer the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ first for herself, and then for others, thereby, and rightly so, impetrating for herself her own consummation in the beatific vision.

385Cajetan: "For since the priest prays and offers in the person of the Church, and each one of the faithful is a member of the Church, it follows that each one prays and offers through the actions of the priest, and thus each one concurs as a cause in the sacrifice: and for this reason every single Mass benefits each one of the faithful, by way of satisfaction also, according to the devotion which each one of them has in the common prayers and sacrifices of the Church" (Opusc., tom. 2, tr. 3, q. 2).

386Should a person offer not especially for another, but for himself only, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, he will reap greater fruit for himself from the sacrifice, both of propitiation and impetration, than if he had offered it for another. For although the person who offers for another also offers for himself, still in that case his offering is such that it is actually an offering for two. And the measure of the fruit for each, when divided between two, is lessened, as we saw in a former section. Once more bear in mind that we are here speaking only of the fruit of the sacrifice ex opere operato, which is by way of propitiation and impetration. Were we speaking of the fruit ex opere operantis, the merit of grace and glory coming from his offering, as from any meritorious work of any individual, it would be quite a different matter, for any one who in the state of grace offered for his neighbour would acquire special merit by such an act of fraternal charity.

387Most, not to say all of the scholastic theologians with the Salmanticenses (De sacrament. Euchar., disp. 13, dub. 3, n. 52, coll. dub. 4) carefully observed this distinction between the two ways of participating in the fruit of the sacrifice. Let de Lugo (De sacrament. Euchar. disp. 19) speak for the rest: "Sect. 10: On those who can receive the effects of this sacrifice, in as much as it is offered for them. A person can partake of the fruit of the sacrifice in two ways firstly, when it is offered for him; secondly, when he himself offers" ' etc. "Sect. 11: On those who receive the fruit of this sacrifice, as offerers.....Among these, the immediate minister that is, the celebrating and consecrating priest, holds the first place, afterwards come the assistant ministers the deacon, the subdeacon and the other assistant ministers—then the rest of the congregation—those likewise who gave a stipend to the priest, or in any other way concur in the offering of the sacrifice.....It cannot be doubted that all these persons, except the priest, offer mediately[through the priest], and it is not merely offered for them." Joannes a Sancto Thoma in 3 S. 83, disp. 32, art 3, ultimo inquires, and Pasqualigo, De oblatione sacrificii, tom. I, q. 136, n. I, 9 and 10 may also be read with profit.

388That satisfaction is made by the Mass for the debt of punishment not yet paid by the souls in Purgatory is beyond controversy, as part of the Catholic faith. A more subtle question has been raised turning on the guilt of sin, as distinct from the debt of punishment for sin already remitted as to its guilt. Could compensation be made by the sacrifice offered for the dead, so that not only would satisfaction be secured, but even propitiation? Could not the sacrifice of the Mass propitiate for the departed in retrospect, so to speak, seeing that the sacrifice of Christ our Lord not only obtained propitiation with God for all those who lived then, or were to live in the future, but also for all the dead of all ages past? It was in this sense that Franciscus a Victoria (or Thomas a Chaves) wrote: "Because in the Last Supper Christ offered Himself....for the living and the dead, FOR THIS REASON MASS CAN BE OFFERED for the living and the dead." (Summa Sacramentorum Ecclesiae, from the teaching of R. P. F. Franciscus a Victoria. To this edition many questions are added from the decrees of the Sacred Councils, in particular of the Council of Trent....carefully prepared and edited by R. P. F. Thomas a Chaves, 1594, fol. 53).

A similar argument had already been advanced by Hugo of Amiens. "Tell me, was not the Victim, which the Son of God offered to the Father on the Cross, offered for the faithful departed? That common Victim certainly did atone for those who lived in the past, as well as for those living at present and to live in the future... And so the Church has maintained this custom of offering in the present day, for the dead, Him without whom neither the living nor the dead can be forgiven" (Dialogorum, 1, 5, c. 20. P.L. 192, 1213). Every Catholic does of course know that no one who has died in the state of sin can be justified after death. And so no one can say, in consonance with the Catholic faith, that the Mass has the power of transferring a person who is dead from the state of sin to the state of grace. Nevertheless it would not be against faith to assert that God, in view of sacrifices to be celebrated after the death of a certain person (offered as it were by way of compensation by the Church FOR THE SINS of her dead members), could, BEING PROPITIATED, have shown mercy to such a one before his death, so that he actually was converted, before his death, and so was saved. For the death of Christ did not at the very moment of its happening transfer the ancient patriarchs who were already dead from sin to grace' though we must believe that His death made propitiation to God for their sins; because it is only by the death of Christ that atonement was made to God at any time. However this may be, one now dead can receive NO PRESENT EFFECT from my present sacrifice (for present justification or increase of grace is no longer possible for one who is dead), and so we usually and rightly say that the sacrifice of the Mass can only assist the dead (so as to produce any change in them here and now) by way of satisfaction.

But what we have said on the matter of compensation for the sins of the dead in retrospect, cannot be extended to the impetration (for ourselves or others), in retrospect, of past benefits: for unlike the payment of a debt, impetration of its very nature is only concerned with things which we hope to secure, and hence not yet obtained, but yet to come, as we hope. Hence in His sacerdotal prayer Christ did not ask for gifts which were conferred long before that time on the Patriarchs. He only prayed for gifts to be bestowed on those who then believed or would later believe in Him. And so pious women are not to be commended if they make petitions to God for the Immaculate Conception or for the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin, or the like. But, on the other hand, an affectionate mother should be encouraged to make propitiation for the sins of her dead son, by offerings of the Holy Sacrifice, by alms, and every kind of atoning act of devotion, in union with the sacrifice of the Mass.

389From our remarks above' infer that, other things being equal, the suffering soul will obtain a greater measure of the fruit of satisfaction from the Masses which she herself provided for, than from those celebrated on her behalf by the mandate of another

390The blessed in heaven are excluded from the offering of the sacrifice for the same reason; they are also excluded for other reasons, this one especially, that they are now no longer pilgrims on earth, on the way to their final destiny, but at the term of their pilgrimage, in heaven. For every sacrificial action signifies a motion of giving by which our own very substance passes in gift from us into the hands of God. But since the saints have already reached God, already are God's, in the special sense envisaged by sacrifice, they can no longer be transferred to God, having already reached that goal. Again, every sacrifice involves a contract, and the blessed in heaven who have already entered into possession of the eternal heritage have nothing they can pledge by contract with God. In the case of the angels there is the still further reason that the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ was never made theirs, it was offered by our High Priest, not theirs, it was offered for our Redemption, not theirs, and was to be offered, under Christ, by the ecclesiastical body of Christ of which we are members, while they are not. Hence it is not easy to understand how Vasquez can say that "the angels can offer the sacrifice of the Mass to God with that devotion" (Vasquez, disp. 226, c. 2, n. 10) with which the faithful of the Church militant offer it in common. On the contrary, an angel has no more power to offer our sacrifice in any way than he has to impart sacramental absolution or to contract marriage.

391What Suarez has to say (De poenitentia, disp. 48, sect. 6, n. 5) of the INFALLIBLE application of indulgences by way of suffrage to the souls in purgatory is the same and rests on the same principle. And Zacharias Pasqualigo (De sacrificio Novae Legis, q. 74, n. 3 and 4, Rome, 1707, tom. 1, p. 78), speaking of the Mass itself, quotes theologians without number in favour of his teaching, which is ours too: "This sacrifice infallibly remits punishment for the souls in Purgatory." This, he says, is "the common teaching of theologians".

392Bear in mind our remarks above in Thesis XXVII on the person giving a stipend and the partaking in the offering, koinwnia meta prosforaj..

393Even in such a case if the priest took upon himself no obligation in justice, but a mere obligation of FIDELITY to his promise, such a contract would be illicit, for even such "gratuitous compensation for a spiritual benefit" (1)., 1195), would bear the taint of simony.

394D., 1195.

395Perhaps the same interpretation may be placed on the reply of the Sacred Congregation De Propaganda Fide, to the following question: " May a missionary accept alms for a Mass, and apply it according to the mind or intention of a pagan offerer, who wishes the favour of recovery from illness or release from prison or from impending capital punishment?" The reply given on 11th March, 1848 was "Yes".

396I think that the words of J. Bucceroni (Institutiones theologicae Moralis, 5, t. 2, n. 632, p. 223) in another case may apply here: "Money may be accepted freely, and in turn Masses may be promised freely, in such a manner that this last promise does not imply compensation, or return for stipends so to speak, the money being received merely under the title of alms, so that the offerer of the money distinctly understands, that it cannot be accepted under any other title, and that he gives it on this understanding." In theory this might be true in the present case also. Any one can see, however, how serious might be the danger of abuse, if such a practice became common.

397Really no more can be inferred from the principles of Bellarmine (De Missa, I 6, c. 6) to be found in the Instructio added at the place just indicated. For he is not treating there of those who benefit by the sacrifice as offerers, but of those for whom the sacrifice is offered by another. Hence he is not speaking of those who procure the sacrifice for themselves by giving a stipend, but of those who receive the fruit by the suffrage of the offerer. See below, XXXI, on Canon 809 of the Code.

398In the case of an excommunicated person overtaken by death before absolution Innocent III wrote: " The judgment of God is always founded on truth which neither deceives nor is deceived. The judgment of the Church, on the other hand, sometimes rests on a reasonable conjecture or opinion; and it happens often enough that these opinions are deceptive. Hence it also happens that he who is bound in the eyes of God is loosed in the eyes of the Church, and he who is free in the eyes of God is bound by a sentence of the Church" (Regest., 1, 2, Ep. 61. P.L. 214, 600; cf. cap. A Nobis., Decret. I, 5, tit. 39, c. 28: see below).

399Dealing with this subject J. Grassi (Universa Theologia Moralis juxta doctrinam S. Alphonsi Ligorio, tom. 3, 1854, p. 121) rightly says: "Therefore, although the priest can offer the sacrifice to God in respect of the fruit of impetration for catechumens and for the unbaptised, that God may grant them the grace of faith, enrich them with benefits, deliver them from the evils of this life nevertheless he cannot accept a stipend for a Mass for them, that thereby they should become partakers and offerers in the oblation of the sacrifice; it is the same here as for the excommunicated person, because the priest communicates with those whom he wishes to be partakers of the sacrifice, such as are those who desire that through their giving of an alms the sacrifice be communicated to themselves."

400Whether it may be offered for them by way of suffrage will be discussed later.

401And this is what we call offering affectively.

402As long, that is to say, as this baptismal profession is not denied (explicitly or implicitly) by subsequent open infidelity which separates from the Church.

403The Salmanticenses mention a few others who after Vasquez held the same view (disp. 13, dub. 4' para. 2, n. 58).

404Though Serapion of Thmuis did not actually pray expressly for infidels in his anaphora, he prefixed to the Supper narrative the following significant words: "Thou art reconciled to all, and thou dost draw all to thee by the visitation of thy beloved Son', (F. D. 2, 172).

405On the interpretation of the words "pure prayer" see above (Thesis XVIII).

406It is hardly worth while piling up authorities for the offering of sacrifice for living heretics, because it is difficult to find anyone who opposes it Yet we may just quote Hilary. He writes to Constantius Augustus, who was an Arian, requesting him to permit Catholics to have Catholic bishops, evidently taking it for granted that it was the custom for Catholics to pray for Constantius within the sacred mysteries: " Let your gracious majesty permit the people to hear the teachers whom they desire whom they consider suitable, whom they have chosen, and so let them celebrate together (concelebrent) the divine solemnities of the mysteries, and offer the prayers for your welfare and happiness, ' (ad Constantium Augustum, I, I, c. 2. P.L. 10 559).

407The meaning of this passage is: we who assist at the sacrifices kiss one another in charity, in order to pass into the oneness of Christ. However, the force and the fruit of our charity is not restricted merely to those who have the right and the power to assist; it passes on to all those who cannot assist, like the catechumens, because the law does not allow it, the sick who are physically incapable of assisting—indeed it is competent to relieve all the needs of all mankind: such is the wide scope of the common prayers of the initiated who are present at the mysteries.

408Cf. that other passage where quite evidently he is speaking of the sacrifice of the Mass: " Who ever heard the priest of the faithful standing AT THE ALTAR....saying in the prayers: I offer the sacrifice to thee? Peter? etc." (Civ. Dei, 8, 27, 1. P. L, 41, 255).

409The word supplicare signifies here sacrificial activity, just as supplicium signifies sacrifice. Moreover, does not this uniform rite of celebrating the sacraments of prayers, that rite handed down by the Apostles, and in the following of which the priests fulfil the office committed to them, at once suggest to us the sacrifice of the Mass?

410Note the separate part played by those who offer the sacrifice with the priest, and those for whom he offers—he offers the sacrifice with the Catholic Church for the whole human race.

411It is a well-known fact that the Good Friday Liturgy has remained fixed and unchanged more than all others, and so in it has been transmitted to us the early custom, which, in the Liturgy of the Masses properly so called (there is no real Mass on Good Friday), ceased, in all probability, with the conversion of the whole Roman world to the faith; for then, idolatry having been overthrown, the faithful were no longer in close touch with paganism; there were no serious opponents to Christianity, which the Church had to meet, except the Saracens, fierce enemies to be crushed and destroyed (see the Roman Missal, Missa CONTRA paganos) or the Jews who were merely to be curbed, and in view of their inveterate perfidy to be left to the divine judgment and to remain under the curse, until their time should come.

412Anyone reading these Masses will see at a glance that those to be "saved" and "cleansed" are here the elect catechumens, since both those Masses are inscribed Pro scrutinio (for those who are listed as having passed the examination or scrutiny of catechumens),

413See L. B. 1, 317.

414There is no doubt whatever that all those in their agony, whether Christians or infidels, are included in this intention, for we read in these charts, in the Latin and French version respectively: (Latin) "About 140, 000 people die every day throughout the world" (French) "For the 140, 000 who die each day, " and ecclesiastical approval is given to both Latin and French versions. So the Bishop of Angers gives his approval in Latin for the Latin chart, and in French for the French.

"Visum, approbatum et valde commendatum.

+ Josephus, Episc. Andegavensis."

"Approuve et tres recommande. + Joseph, eveque d'Angers."

415Cf. Isaias, XI, 12; St. Matth., XXIV, 31. We find a remnant of this formula of the Didache in this from the Apostolikh paradosij "We pray that thou wouldst send thy Holy Spirit upon the offering of the holy Church, that, gathering them together into one, thou mayst give to all the saints who receive..." etc. (Hippolytus Apostolikh paradosij, cf. Canonum qui dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum reliquiae., ed. Hauler, 1900, p. 107).

416However, the words of Gregory the Great (Ep. 1, 9 and 12, ad Joann Syrac. P.L. 77, 956-957), which are considered by many to indicate an actually apostolic origin for this custom, cannot be so interpreted if the right punctuation and construction of the sentence on which they rely is observed: "The reason why we say the Lord's prayer JUST AFTER the Canon—orationem dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus-is because it was the custom of the Apostles to CONSECRATE THE VICTIM ONLY AT THE VERY PRAYER OF THE OFFERING (mos fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent). And it would appear to me to be very unseemly, that we should say over the offering a prayer which a scholar had composed, and should not say over His Body and Blood the traditional prayer which our Redeemer composed."

So we translate the text of Gregory, supplying a comma, if needed for clearness, between oblationis and hostiam in the Latin. If we took oblationis hostiam as object of the verb consecrarent, any Latin student will easily see that we would make Gregory say that it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the victim of the oblation only at the Lord's prayer (for orationem would then, from the context= orationem dominicam). This would indeed be a portentous statement from the lips of Gregory. On the other hand, all is plain and simple, as we construe the Apostles consecrated the Victim only at the prayer of the offering, nor is there anything to prevent us using the expression orationem oblationis (= precem; = canonem; = anaphoram; euxhn prosforou, which according to the title of chapter 12 of the Sacramentarium Serapionis. F. D. 2, 172; = " orationem oblationis, " as we see from Marius Victorinus, Adv. Arium 2, 8. P.L. 8, 1094, where we have the words: "Oratio oblationis....precatu;, '-"the prayer of the said. ', Nor does the fact that the expression oblationis hostia is found in Gregory Dial, 4, 57. P.L. 77, 425, as also in the Gregorian Sacramentary, ad dominica octavas (sic) Pentecostes, in the prayer super oblata, P.L. 78, 116, in any way disprove our contention).

If we admit this punctuation, Gregory's argument is: we should rather take away a prayer composed by some mere scholar and added at the end of the Action (the Lord's prayer, meanwhile, not being found, in such a case, anywhere in the series of prayers said over the Body of our Lord), and instead of that prayer, follow the Canon immediately by the Lord's prayer. That is to say, if anything is inserted between the Canon and the communion, it is absurd to choose the words of some private individual rather than the words of the prayer handed down by our Lord.

Such is the argument of Gregory. According to him, then, we conclude that the Apostles said the Canon only, and did not insert the Lord's prayer midway between the consecration and the distribution of the Eucharist.

Amalarius, in the ninth century, misled by a false reading of this sentence of Gregory ("ad ipsam solummodo orationem DOMINICAM oblationis hostiam consecrarent", cf. Mabillon In ordinem romanum commentarius, c. 12. P.L. 78, 897), in the first edition of his work De ecclesiasticis officiis, 1, 4, c. 26, attributed to the saint the false opinion that the Eucharist could be consecrated by the sole words of the Lord's prayer! However, he corrected this error in the subsequent edition of the same work (P.L. 105, 1210), following the corrected reading of Gregory given by us at the beginning of this note, omitting dominicam above, between orationem and oblationis. In our own time, distinguished liturgists have revived this false reading of Amalarius. Thus Duschesne (Origines du culte chret., 3, p. 1 84): "One is not obliged to believe' notwithstanding the authority of this text of Gregory that the apostolic Liturgy knew of no other formula than the Pater; but it is difficult to contest that Gregory thought so." A. Fortescue understood the passage in the same way (The Mass, 1914, pp. 362-363). On the other hand, the right interpretation is given by Probst, Die abendlandische Messe vom funften bis zum achten Jahrhundert 1896, p. 185, Rauschen, L'Eucharistie et la penitence, French translation, 1910 p. 108; Most Reverend P. Batiffol, Eucharistie, 5, 352-353.

417Although another satisfactory interpretation of the words of Jerome might be: that the Apostles were taught by our Lord, not indeed to insert the Lord's prayer in the sacrifices, but to say it themselves and hand it on to us believers, so that we now say it by fixed ritual custom in the Mass itself. In other words, He taught the Apostles to pray thus generally, so that now the faithful every day, believing make bold to say in the Mass: Our Father.

418This is in accord with the prayer of our Saviour in John, XVII, 20: Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their words shall believe in me. In these words of His sacerdotal prayer He declared His sacrificial intention ' not that Christ did not intend the salvation of all or did not provide for it, as far as in Him lay; but that only in those who would believe, would the sacrifice of Christ secure its ultimate effect which is the salvation of man. For this reason not only could Christ, but he must have sacrificed for all those for whom His sacrifice was to be actually beneficial unto eternal life. Though Vasquez notes that the words for many embrace the whole human race, he denies that they enter into the designation of what is done by us, or was done by our Lord in the Eucharist (disp. 199 c. 2, n. 14). But in St. Matthew, XXVI, 28 and St. Mark, XIV, 24 do we not read which shall be shed for many to peri pollwn ekxunnomeuon—to ekxunnomenon uper pollwn? and beyond all doubt in each case the expression must refer to the chalice, as we have shown above in III (Vol. I): whence it follows that the Eucharistic sacrifice is said by our Lord to be offered for many. We see here how a preconceived opinion can lead astray even men of great learning and mental acuteness!

419"The effect of this sacrament[i. e. of the Eucharist] is the acquisition of grace and glory, and the remission of venial sin at least. Therefore were this sacrament to have effect on others than those who receive it, it would be possible for a person to attain to grace and glory and the remission of sins, without any active or passive concurrence of his own, when another received this sacrament[that is, in communion] or offered it[that is, in sacrifice]" (3 S. 79, 7, 2m).

420" Hence also in the Canon of the Mass we do not pray for those who are outside the Church" (ibid, ad 2m).

421We certainly cannot pray' in the same way as we do for the faithful, for those in respect of whom the final issue of our suffrage is not considered to be infallible as we have said. Hence not inappropriately does the Church follow the instruction of St. John in her manner of prayer: He that knoweth a brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death There is a sin unto death; for that I say not that any man should ask (I John, V, 16).

422"Hence Augustine also says: who would offer the Body of Christ except for those who are members of Christ?" (3 S. 79, 7, ad 2m).

423Bucceroni' Institutiones theologiae moralis 2, t. 2, n. 610, in our own time wrote: " The sacrifice of the Mass can be offered... for infidels ' not only for all of them in general, but also for individual as much as it is propitiatory, expiatory and impetratory."

424As we have already remarked, propitiation properly so called implies compensation for the injury, that is, for the guilt of sin; satisfaction which comes next implies punitive payment, that is, it blots out the debt of punishment.

425Everyone admits that any of the laity assisting, any celebrating priest also-mentally, however, in his own private name just like any of those assisting—can commend to God in the sacrifice any and every one, even those who are excommunicated. But here we are dealing with the special offering only, either of the member of the faithful who provides for the sacrifice or the priest as official minister presenting it: whether these are two distinct persons or one.

426See some of the Eastern diptychs of the living in Brightman (op. cit.): the ancient Byzantine (sixth century), pp. 528-529, the later Byzantine (fifteenth century), p. 552 the early diptychs of Jerusalem (thirteenth century), p. 501, the present-day diptychs of Jerusalem, p. 503. While this work was in the press, Most Reverend F Cabrol published an Essay, Diptyques (Liturgie), in D. A. C., 4, where we read these very true words: " To be inscribed in these diptychs is a proof of communion with the Church and of orthodoxy.....The inscription in the diptychs (of the dead) is equivalent to a kind of canonisation (....canonizare, to put in the Canon, that is to say, to put in the diptychs) "—col. 1057-1058.

427On this matter see the letter of Benedict XIV to the Orientals of the Greek rite, I March 1756, parag. 23. Opera omnia, 1846, t. 3, pars. 2, p. 308.

428In keeping with this are the words we find in the diptychs in the Irish Stowe Missal: "With all the holy and venerable priests who offer throughout the world our senior and presbyter offers the spiritual sacrifice to God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost'" etc. (ed. G. F. Warner, V. 2, p. 14).

429See Micrologus, c. 23. P.L. 151, 993, and c. 13, col. 885, cf. L. B. 1, 420-423.

430Though there are not a few teachers who think otherwise, through not paying sufficient attention to the force and meaning of our liturgical prayer.

431Although If a priest does not mention such a man's name, but merely' at that place in the Mass, TACITLY forms or renews his intention of offering in favour of such a man, he does not sin.

432Cardinal Gotti had anticipated his confrere by a few years in expressing the same opinion (Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica, Tract. de euchar. ut sacrificium est quaest. 2, dub. 2, parag. 2, Bononia, 1733, tom. 14, p. 198).

433An explanation of the chapters A nobis and Sacris of the Corpus Juris Canonici will be given in XXXII; when truly interpreted, they are found to refer not to the living but to the dead. Meantime note that the chapter Si quis episcopus on heretics, in Causa XI, q. 3, ch. 91, according to the expressed judgment of the Roman Correctors, is restricted to the dead alone.

434Understand "votive Mass" (missa votiva) here in the strict sense, meaning a Mass which a person asks to have said, at his mandate, for himself, in accordance with the old liturgical meaning of the expression.

435Francis Sylvius (in 3 S. 83, I, quaeritur IX) had even in the seventeenth century given the full solution: "The probable answer is that the sacrifice can be lawfully offered for all the faithful, even if they are such manner however, that' when the excommunicated persons are of the number of those who in accordance with the Chapter Ad evitanda should be shunned (hence called vitandi) two things are to be observed:" (1) their names are not to be proclaimed, (2) the sacrifice is not to be offered for them as for members of the Church, for example, by the celebration of a votive Mass (in the old liturgical sense, a Mass at the mandate of the person who asks for it). Cardinal Gasparri explains this very clearly: " However, when applying Mass for an excommunicated person, we must be careful if he is vitandus, NOT TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM; hence, for example, we CANNOT ACCEPT FROM HIM AN ALMS FOR THE APPLICATION of the Mass (op. cit., n. 483, p. 345; coll. n. 484, foll. p. 346).

436St. Augustine's Libri de baptismo contra Donatistas were written (A. D. 400) twenty years before his De anima et ejus origine (A. D. 420); in the Retractationes, 1, 2, c. 18. P.L. 32, 638, he in no way condemns this teaching of his former work, but merely questions the fitness of the example drawn there from the case of the good thief.

437Hence' and particularly in view of the reasons to be submitted below, it would appear to be sinful to mention the name of any unbaptised dead person in the Commemoratio pro defunctis. The same should be said of a heretic, a schismatic, or a person excommunicated by name and not absolved from the excommunication: for in the external judgment of the Church such ones do not "sleep in the sleep of peace".

438There were, however, certain dead persons who were considered as offerers or authors of the sacrifice, for instance those who built a Church, or such like. So we find Chrysostom using the following words hoping to induce some one of his hearers to found a church at his country house: "Tell me, I ask you, is it a matter of small moment to have your name mentioned always in the sacred offerings, and to have daily prayers sent up to God for your household?" (In Act., hom. 18, n. 5. P.G. 60, 148).

439The following words of St. Augustine in Sermo 172, c. 2. P.L. 38, 936, also suggest the same thing: "For the universal Church observes the tradition of the Fathers, that those who have departed IN THE COMMUNION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, be prayed for, when at the appropriate place within the sacrifice itself commemoration is made of them, and that it also be commemorated that this sacrifice is offered for them." Since Augustine did not say "in the body of Christ" but "in the communion of the Body and BLOOD", he evidently had in mind the baptised who had been competent while living to assist at and share in the offering of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.

440His Catechesis prima ad illuminandos, n. 1. P.G. 49, 223-224 presents a similar line of thought: "Before you enter into that sacred bridal chamber[that is, of the Church, the spouse of Christ], I proclaim you blessed—not only do I proclaim you blessed, but I praise you also for your prudent forethought: because you are not like those negligent people who come to baptism only at their last breath...." Cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. adv. eos qui differunt baptismum: "I cannot hope for anything good for those who are not initiated in the mysteries. For what pardon could in justice be shown to those who have treated the grace of the king with contumely, not being ready to admit the cancelling of their debts[that is, by baptism] nor embracing that liberty which of its own accord has come down to them from heaven, and by their contempt of the gift offering insult to the one who gave it?" etc. (P.G. 46, 424). Read also Greg. Nazian., Or. 40, In S. Baptisma, especially n. 23. P.G. 36, 389, and Severianus Gabalensis, In S. Baptisma, n. 8 (a disputation wrongly attributed to Basil in P.G. 31, 441).

441It is evident that it is by way of satisfaction in the strict sense of the word that the souls of the departed are helped and relieved. Thus a fresh argument is added to those which led us to the conclusion we reached above, in respect of the living that our sacrifice is not merely beneficial to living unbaptised persons by way of impetration. For if satisfaction is provided by the Mass ex opere operato for the unbaptised faithful departed, there is no conceivable reason why the same benefit should not be available for all persons living without baptism, if they are in the state of grace. "As regards the fruit of satisfaction, the sacrifice of the Mass is beneficial to the souls of catechumens in purgatory.... Therefore in like manner as regards the fruit of satisfaction, the sacrifice of the Mass can be beneficial to catechumens living in the state of grace" (Salmanticenses, disp. 13, dub. 4, parag. 2, n. 60).

442Cf. what we said above (XXVII) in reference to this argument.

443Suffice to name leading theologians such as Bellarmine, De missa, 1, 6, c 6 coll. c. 7; De Lugo, disp. 1 9, sect. 10, n. 192; Vasquez, disp. 226, cap. 5; Suarez, disp 78, sect. 3, The Salmanticenses (Theol. Mor.), De sacrificio missae, cap. 2 punct. 3 and the Cursus Theologicus, De Euchar., disp. 1 3, dub. 3, n. 52, and dub. i, Billuart De almo Euchar. sacram. disp. 8, art. 4; St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, De Euchar., c. 3, dub. 1, n. 310. The introductory words of Vasquez are—"The last class of men for whom the sacrifice can be offered are the dead. Of the dead, some are in hell, some in purgatory, others in heaven: we shall treat of them separately and in order" (loc. cit.). Suarez, loc. cit., commences with the same words: "Let us distinguish three classes of the dead", etc. So all the scholastics down to our day See, for example, Sasse, Institutiones theologicas de sacramentis Ecclesiae, Freiburg Brisg., 1897, tom. 1, p. 575 et seq: "It remains for us to say a few words on the offering of the sacrifice for those who have departed from this life. They are in three categories", etc.

444Regarding this last category we find at times lengthy discussions. For example P. A. Persico (De primo ac praecipuo sacerdotis officio, I, 2, c. 4, d. 6, Naples, 1639 p 544 et seq.): Pasqualigo (op cit., tom. I, q. 156 and l57, pp. 159-161); or Tournely (Theol. Mor., De Euchar., pars 2, cap. 8, art. 2, Venice, 1751, pp. 754-758). Indeed ancient examples of Masses for the damned are to be seen in P.L. 40, 284, and in A. Franz, Die Messe im Deutschen Mittelalter, Frib. Brisg., 1902, p. 225.

445Hence it immediately follows that if I offer Mass in general for the souls in purgatory it will benefit in general every soul that needs cleansing. There are some who would deny that this applies in the case of souls in purgatory who were not baptised, but wrongly so, as we see from what we have said above in this Thesis, and also in XXXI.

446I say, when the question arose, because (I think) the law forbidding celebration for a dead non-Catholic was so evident to them that they never dealt with the question professedly, they simply spoke casually of the teaching as never called in doubt. For example see St. Alphonsus Opus dogmaticum contra hareticos pseudo-reformatos, disp. 10 n. 24 (tr. lat. A. Walter, Opera dogmatica, Rome, 1903, t. I, p. 622), where he definitely makes this pronouncement (that the Mass may not be offered for a dead non-Catholic); although in the place cited above he had already written: " It is certain that the Mass is offered lawfully and beneficially for the souls in purgatory."

447Still even St. Augustine makes an exception (in a passage to be cited directly) of those cases where adhesion to Christ was publicly expressed before death, as in the case of the good thief; catechumens would reasonably be included in this class, as above.

448That is, this application of the Mass is not forbidden only FOR INFANTS who died without baptism.

449"In accordance with CATHOLIC FAITH and ecclesiastical regulations, on no account is it allowed to offer the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ for unbaptised men of any age as though by this office of piety on the part of their friends they might be assisted to attain to the kingdom of heaven."

Apparently we must interpret in the same manner the words of Gregory III (Epistola ad Bonifatium archiepiscopum, from Jaffe, Mon. Mogunt., p. 93, in Aemilius Friedberg, Corpus Juris Canonici, second Leipzig edition, 1879, tom. 1, col. 728) inserted in the Decretum (2, causa 13, q. 2, c. 21), permitting the sacred mysteries "for the truly Christian dead" only, for "dead Catholics", not for others. It is scarcely worth while to quote in the same sense the chapter Si quis episcopus (causa 11, q. 3, c. 91), as no Pope or Doctor is its author, it being merely an excerpt from the Canones Poenitentiales attributed wrongly to St. Jerome (P.L. 30, 441).

450The following instruction is added: "It will also be your duty carefully to place this our epistle in your episcopal archives, and see that it be kept there as a reminder to POSTERITY" (op. cit., p. 200).

451"The fact that there was question of public supplications makes no essential difference, for the grounds alleged by the Pope remain essentially the same; all supplications, all suffrages, even the least solemn, are to be offered only for those who have died in communion with the Church."

452One should also note, as we have said before, that the special application for a particular dead person by name (even if the name is not mentioned in the Canon), no matter how secret it de defacto, is always public, de jure.

453" Supplications for the spirits of the departed are not to be omitted; the Church has taken care that these supplications should be made under one general commemoration, for all the departed in Christian and Catholic unity; and without mentioning any names—in order that those who have not parents or children or relatives or friends to have the sacrifice offered for them (desunt ad ista parentes, etc.) should be remembered in them by the one common loving mother" (St. Augustine, loc. cit.).

454"Insisting, therefore, on the most holy laws of the Church, we reply that the intention OF OFFERING THE DIVINE SACRIFICE or other prayers for all the departed of a Catholic royal family is by no means sufficient to justify the granting of public obsequies, asked for on behalf of a non-Catholic person by name, and celebrated on the day of his death or anniversary.....For we cannot permit any evasion whatever", etc., as above (op. cit., p. 222).

455Obsequies (funus) here means Requiem Masses, as the context plainly shows.

456The Sacred Congregation of Rites refers to this letter of Gregory when answering the following question: "Is it lawful to celebrate Mass on the anniversary of the death of a protestant princess, under the title of relief (in levamen) for the departed of a royal family?" The reply given on May 23, 1859, was: "It is not lawful, in accordance with the precedent established by the letter given in the form of a Brief of Gregory XVI, on July 9, 1842."

457It may be that these theologians would admit that some such manifestation is necessary, as evidence of good faith, in which case there would be no room for difference between themselves and us, for we freely admit that Mass can be offered even specially for the departed who have manifested such a desire.

458The Reply (otherwise difficult to understand) of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide given on September 12, 1645, must, I think, be understood in this sense. The question was: "Will it be lawful for Christians in that kingdom[China] to pray and to OFFER THE SACRIFICE to the Lord our God for their own dead who depart from this life in their infidelity?" The reply was: "If they truly die in infidelity, it is BY NO MEANS lawful." For it is very improbable that the sense of the answer was as follows: the offering of the sacrifice would be unlawful if real infidelity or the absence of saving faith existed in the dead persons in question; but it would be lawful if the infidelity was only apparent, and faith was really present. For such a condition, which had to do with something completely hidden or invisible so that the petitioners could not know whether it was fulfilled or not, would not help the petitioners in any way, as a practical guide. The answer, however, would make sense if the condition required was a wish, manifested in some way, of entering the Church; if this were lacking those in question could not be reputed publicly among the faithful, if it were present they could be numbered with the catechumens even if it so happened that, overtaken by death, they were unable to give their names to the Church authorities to be formally enrolled in the list of the catechumens, and because such enrolment did not take place, they were still listed as infidels. Cardinal Gasparri (Tractatus canonicus de SS. Eucharistia, n. 480, Paris, 1897, tom. I, p. 341) seems to interpret the Reply in this way, for just before quoting it he says:[" From its very nature the Mass cannot be applied] for a departed infidel unless he has shown positive and particular signs of CONVERSION before death."

To a clearer understanding of the Reply, one should note that the word to pray (orare) in the question proposed must certainly be taken to refer to public prayer. This is shown by the context which couples prayer with the sacrifice, indicating also the existing conditions in China, where the public cult of the dead was the question at issue. Add to this that private prayer is always de facto permitted (apart from divine revelation) for any dead person, because it is not subject to the same law of legal presumption as is the sacrificial action which from its very nature is public.

459On this point the Canon goes further than some of the Scholastics, Vasquez for example. As Vasquez taught that the Mass cannot be offered for the unbaptised his exclusion applies equally both to the living and to the dead if unbaptised. If one rejects this exclusion of the unbaptised, as we have done above, and as the Canon has done in the words for any of the living....the whole reason for the restriction in question here as regards the souls in purgatory falls to the ground. Hence the Canon is perfectly consistent in allowing the celebration of the Mass for all in purgatory. And in accordance with the principles of juridical presumption already established, we at once infer that it is right to celebrate Mass specially for departed catechumens.

460I have heard some Canonists say that even if Canon 809 established the right in question, there was still room for doubt as to whether it absolutely decided the case on its intrinsic merits or merely gave a practical ruling, applying reflex principles. For they say the Canon could proceed in two quite different ways. It could give at once a practical and a theoretical decision, resting on the actual merits of the case or the arguments pro and con. Or, leaving to either of the opposing sides a theoretical probability for their opinion, it could issue a purely practical instruction, by virtue of which, as the question now stands, it would be lawful to celebrate with a safe conscience for a departed non-Catholic by name, under proper conditions. In this latter supposition the Code would be proceeding in the same manner as it did in regard to matrimony in Canon 1068, paragraph 2: "If an impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the DOUBT IS OF LAW or of fact, the marriage must not be prevented." By virtue of this Canon it is now lawful for a woman to marry after the removal of the uterus, even though a doubt remains whether such a marriage is not invalid by divine law, and therefore illicit. But to tell the truth, I see little probability in this solution. The reason is plain from the disparity between Canon 809 and Canon 1068. In this latter Canon (regarding a marriage question) the Legislator says, that WHILE THERE IS A DOUBT, a certain manner of action is allowed in practice. Hence if (even every) juridical doubt were ever removed by authentic decisions, Canon 1068 would not need to be changed, but could be left as it is. For even then the principle declared in the Canon would remain sound and true. On the other hand, if Canon 809 were interpreted in similar manner, it would have to be changed in some future time, if by an authentic decision of the Church the doubt of law were removed in such a manner as to decide the question in favour of those who would not permit the offering of the Mass. There is no parity then, between the case of the one and the other Canon if viewed as giving merely a guide to practice.

Another explanation, not an absurd one either, would be that Canon 809 permits the sacrifice to be offered, even specially and by name, for all who are JURIDICALLY PRESUMED to be in purgatory. This would also include catechumens. Whence it would follow that Canon 809 really meets and solves the very question discussed in the first part (A).

461Your prayer ex opere operantis, as coming simply from you, asks that your friend may receive ample assistance from the Mass ex opere operato.

462We here take for granted two points of doctrine already discussed by us, and proved from the early Fathers and Doctors. The first: that Christ does not intervene in our sacrifices by any new oblative act of His own, but all that is new in the sacrifice comes from us who are the earthly offerers. The second: that among earthly offerers the whole Church by divine institution, holds chief place, for to her the Eucharistic sacrifice was given (Trent., sess, 22, c. 1—D. 938) to be offered by her through her priests (ibid.), as the public ministers of the ecclesiastical Society (c. 6; D. 944); hence the only power granted by Christ to the priests is that of presenting the sacrifice of the Church who, as the bride of Christ, alone has the power over the Body of Christ to offer It to God, presenting the sacrifice from her own goods. The Fathers and the theologians to be cited in this discussion will confirm this teaching, both those who say that priests cut off from the Church, or deprived of their office, have this sacrificial power, and those who deny it to them; for they all hold that union with the Church is necessary for validity of the sacrifice, those maintaining validity holding that sufficient union persists for it, those who deny validity holding that such union is lacking.

463In disputing the acceptability of such a sacrifice, we do not question the value in itself of the Victim (for wherever our Victim is its value is infinite), but ask: what is the value before God of our offering of that Victim. Because sacrifice (in the active sense) is not the victim offered, but the offering which is made of the victim. Hence it is that in estimating the value of the sacrifice we consider rather the good will of the giver (as is the way among men), than the value of the gift as Catholic theologians have remarked: St. Thomas, 3, S. 79, 5, c.; Scotus, Quodlib. 20—Bellarmine, De Missa, 1, 2, c. 4, etc.

464In this connection there is no exact parity between the sacraments (baptism for instance) and the sacrifice. Baptism can be conferred by a person who never was or never will be in the Church; in baptism it is Christ, not the Church, who acts through the person baptising. Not so in the sacrifice. The reason for the distinction is that m the sacrament as such it is not man who acts towards God, but God who, through His ministers, acts towards man, imparting a certain sanctification to him; this action, as an action of God, will be always holy, and, if the necessary conditions are present, always effective. But in the sacrifice as such it is not God who acts towards man, but man who acts towards God: he offers something to God. And in order that this action of his may be acceptable to God, it must come from a man who is himself acceptable to God: all the more because, as we have said, in the Mass there is no oblative action elicited here and now by Christ, but only from us mortal men. We must then find an acceptable offerer among ourselves. The fact that our sacrifice is also a sacrament does not militate against this disparity. Because (logically) the sacrament of the Eucharist presupposes the sacrifice and not conversely. For the Body and Blood of Christ is in the sacrament only in so far as it is the Victim of the sacrifice which we are to partake of by way of banquet in communion. Moreover, the transubstantiation is caused by the rite of consecration, and it is formally in the rite of consecration that our sacrificial action consists. Of itself, therefore and necessarily in the case of the Eucharist, the concept of sacrifice comes before the concept of sacrament.

465Even Cyprian does not raise this question, and I think Saltet in his fine work Les Reordinations, 1907, pp. 28-33, and following him Batiffol, in his otherwise excellent treatise L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme 1909, pp. 453-454, interpret him rather too strictly. For Cyprian thought that Basilides, Martialis and Fortunatianus also had lapsed into public apostasy, which is a profession of heresy, and indeed the worst of its kind, and which therefore implied that they were cut off from communion with the Church. Moreover such men (apostates) were considered by positive ecclesiastical law (Epist. Synod. ad cler. et pleb. Hisp., n. 6. P.L. 3, 1028-1031) as unauthorised to offer sacrifice. They were thus within the categories to be reviewed immediately of priests degraded or cut off, and not merely as bad priests. It would be well to keep in mind here the arguments we have already advanced on this subject (XXVII). The inferences to be deduced from the present discussion should also be noted.

466The infection or spoiling of the sacrifice here should be understood as such as would affect the validity of the sacrifice. One or two Catholic theologians, e. g. Matthaeus Galenus (XXVII), thought that, even if the sacrifice were validly offered, its value could be affected by the bad conscience of the minister.

467He touches more or less on our subject in his comments on the writers we consider here under the numbers: 1, 4, 6, 9, 15-21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38.

468Pope Cornelius, a contemporary of Cyprian, dealing with the sacrifices of the priest Novatian, who certainly was without the Church after his invasion of the episcopate, makes use of language which goes to show that he had little doubt about the validity of his sacrificial action (Ep. Cornelii ad Fabium Antiochensem, apud Eusebium. H. E. 6, 43. P.G. 20, 625-628; cf. Saltet, op cit., p. 11.)

469Likewise he says that when Novatian " erects an altar and sacrilegiously attempts to offer sacrifice he arrogates to himself, outside the fold of the Church, the image of the truth" (Ep. 73, Ad Jubaianum, c. 2. P.L. 3, 1111). cf. Ignat., Smyrn., 8. (F.P. 1, 282).

470I do not agree with Batiffol (op cit., p. 454) where he says: " Cyprian here confuses the liceity of offering and the power of orders: no matter how sinful a bishop is, he does not thereby lose the power to consecrate the Eucharist validly and to offer the sacrifice validly; the Church can only withhold from him the right to exercise this power, AND THIS IS THE DOCTRINE PROFESSED AT ROME, CONFIRMED BY A DECISION OF POPE CALLISTUS" (Philosophumena, 9, 12). For the question between Callistus and Hippolytus to which this passage refers was not, it seems to me' what a bishop removed from his office could do, but what bishops were to be EJECTED from the episcopacy. What Callistus did was to deny THAT ALL SINNERS SHOULD BE EJECTED FROM THE EPISCOPACY. Hence the teaching of Callistus would, we admit, be a condemnation of the teaching of Cyprian, if Cyprian had taught that the sacrifices of a bishop guilty of any sin are "false", vain, and the like, by the simple fact that he is or was at the time guilty of sin. For then, according to Cyprian's teaching, any bishop guilty of sin should be rightly ejected from the episcopacy. Here, however, Cyprian is not speaking merely of a sinful bishop, but of the bishop either cut off by heresy, or at least deprived of the priestly office by Church law. Hence his words do not imply that all sinners must be cast out, but simply that if any are cast out they cannot offer holy and true sacrifices. See above. Again in Eucharistie 5, p. 246, Batiffol makes the same mistake, as it appears to us' when he gives us' as follows, what he considers to be the teaching of Cyprian: "The power to sanctify the offering is a power which the unworthy minister has lost by his own unworthiness." This conclusion appears to me to go beyond what is vouched for by the known facts of the case.

471Unguntur oleum in altare sanctificatum. Thus all the codices, except a secondary one which shows OLEO IN ALTARI SANCTIFICATO If the reading OLEUM did not make sense, it could not be received. However, if it is susceptible of a reasonable meaning the reading will be preferable, for two reasons: (1) Because of the external authority of the codices; and (2) because of its intrinsic difficulty: for copyists are not prone to increase the difficulties of the text, but rather, if they change anything, to smooth these over. Now a reasonable meaning seems possible indeed absolutely the same as that from the easier reading. In evidence of this it should be known that Cyprian used the ancient Latin version of the Sacred Scriptures. The old Latin generally translates the Septuagint literally. Now we never find aleifesqai elaiw = ungi in the Septuagint, while the expression aleifesqai elaion = ungi oleum occurs four times (II Kings, XIV, 2; IV Kings, IV, 2; Mich., VI, 15; Dan., X, 3). Hence it is quite probable that the old Latin version had ungi oleum not ungi oleo. This inference is, however, only probable, as we have no evidence of this reading in the old Latin text, in those places, from Oesterley (The old Latin texts of the prophets, in J. T. S., Jan. 1904, p. 252), or from Sabatier (Latinae versiones antiquae). On the other hand, neither have we any compelling evidence to the contrary. It IS true that Sabatier quotes two of the texts: Mich., VI, 15 and Dan. X, 3, with the ablative oleo, not with the accusative oleum. But the ablative oleo is from St. Jerome's recension in one case, and in the other from Tertullian's work De Jejunio contra Psychicos, which latter is in none of the codices, only in the published texts and so really nothing can be adduced from these witnesses against our inference. Moreover, in the Septuagint, besides aleifesqai elaion, we have also the expression xrein elaion = ungere oleum, in Deuteronomy XXVIII, 40 and in Psalm XLIV, 8. I have found no Latin version exactly corresponding to the Greek of the former passage, though H. H. Jeannotte, P. S. S. (Gregorianum, 2, 116), gives an exact Latin version of the second, which is probably a pre-Jerome reading to be found in the codex Sangermanensis (as given by Sabatier), and in a few codices of the Tractatus super Psalmos of St. Hilary (followed by the editor, Zingerle, 1891 p. 432): Unxit te....oleum. This is of course a confirmation of our inference in regard to all the other passages.

If Cyprian was quite familiar with this expression in the Scripture versions he had at hand, then certainly he would naturally write: unguntur oleum.

472This exposition is no more forced than the interpretation which Saltet (op. cit. 10, 11) himself gives of some words of Cornelius in his letter to Cyprian. Saltet thinks, whether rightly or wrongly let the reader decide, that one cannot find a positive denial of the validity in the description, given by Cornelius, of the ordination of Novatian, not to the priesthood' but the episcopacy. Cornelius says that hands were imposed on Novatian " AS IF on a bishop (quasi in episcopum) " (Ep. Cornelii ad Cyprianum, c. 1. P.L. 3, 719), and also that three bishops were forced "trembling and overcome with wine to confer the episcopate on him BY A PRETENTIOUS AND INANE imposition of hands" (Epist. Cornelii ad Fabianum in Eusebius, H. E. 6, 43. P.G. 20, 620).

Cornelius appears to have advisedly stressed drunkenness and the duress to which these three bishops were subjected, and this would be sufficient to prevent their performance of a true human act, and so invalidate ordination quite independently of schism

473At the same time one should not hastily conclude that Cyprian erred regarding the validity of the consecration of the Eucharist because he erred regarding the validity of baptism in a similar case.

For in the first place, no matter what logical connection there may be between one error and another, speaking generally, the fact of a theologian making the one error does not justify us in imputing the other to him. It often happens that regarding one matter an erroneous statement is made, precisely because we overlook something else which it implies—and were this implication detected, this erroneous statement would not have been made. In the present instance, however, I must admit that Cyprian would probably not have been shifted from his erroneous position regarding baptism by any conclusion which might have been drawn from it regarding the Eucharist.

Secondly, in respect of baptism in particular, Cyprian could have been influenced by an argument which might appear to him not to militate against the validity of consecration. His special reason for rejecting baptism conferred by heretics was that baptism incorporates with the Church and it did not seem possible to him that one who was without the Church could incorporate any one with the Church (Ep. 74, ad Pompeium, c. 6-8. P.L. 3, 1132-1134—cf. Firmilian., Ep. ad Cyprianum c. 17. P.L. 3, 1169). As to whether he did or did not see that the same difficulty could be urged against the consecration of the Eucharist by heretics, it is not easy to reach a certain conclusion. To me it seems that in itself any such difficulty if it occurred in baptism should be stressed even more in reference to the consecration of the Eucharist. For though baptism does incorporate with the Church, it does not follow from this, according to Catholic faith, that it must come from the Church. Sacrifice, however, is not only offered on behalf of the universal Church, but is must also be offered by the universal Church.

474This inconsistency on the schismatics, part in the valid offering of the sacrifice will be dealt with in the third paragraph of this chapter.

475On baptism, Aubespine (Albaspinaeus) wrote: "As far as I know, Optatus did not think heretics could baptise" (P.L. 2' 899). Louis Ellies du Pin (Dupinius) is more guarded: "Apparently he was convinced that baptism administered by heretics was not ratified, not because it requires faith in the minister, but because it presupposes faith as a necessary condition in the recipient" (P.L. 11, 765).

476You may urge that Optatus not only denied the validity of baptism but also that of confirmation and the Eucharist in the case of heretics, where he wrote: "....In the Canticle of Canticles Christ indicates that His dove is one, and the same is His spouse who is one, and this garden enclosed and fountain sealed up likewise one; so that none of the heretics HAS THE KEYS[to that garden], which Peter alone received; nor has any the seal with which we are told the fountain IS SEALED UP; nor is any of them to be found among those to whom that garden belongs, in which God plants TREES" (I, I, C. 10, col. 900 903, cf. c. 12, col. 907). We know that in the earlier writers, among the Keys was reckoned baptism, by which sin is remitted; the seal suitably represents confirmation; the trees of the garden call to mind the tree of life, by the fruit of which man was to be nourished into immortal life, man who is now nourished by the Eucharist, the fruit of the true tree of eternal life. Hence quite possibly this trilogy of sacraments is indicated here, as it was a constant theme among the early writers. If this is so, would it not appear that Optatus held that heretics could not validly consecrate? One could hardly say that he merely meant, by these words, to exclude fruitful offering of sacrifice or reception of sacrament, for so the difference actually noted here by Optatus between heretics (who have not the treasures of the Church) and schismatics (who have them) would be missing: for no one could maintain that these sacraments could be fruitful to the schismatic as such. I reply: all this, though not improbable rests on a rather weakly grounded conjecture, especially as regards the Eucharist ("trees").

477Meantime Innocent I creates no difficulty for us in this matter. The only question is, whether he did or did not admit the validity of orders conferred by Bonosus who was once a Catholic bishop, but lapsed into heresy, and by his followers (Ep. 17, c. 3, n. 7, and c. 5, n. 12. P.L. 20, 530-531 and 534-535). On the evidence it is most probable that he did admit the validity.

478Praedicatio here means the recital of the words of the Canon of the Mass. Cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, t. I pp. 126-127.

479This is probably the origin of the saying which passed into common use among later writers, especially of the Middle Ages, that the Lamb is not available to us outside the one household which is the Church. The same teaching, however, is indicated by the earlier Fathers. Thus in Athanasius (Ep. heortastica, 5, 4. P.G. 26 1382): "Finally we are the nurslings of the sects, for we do not rend the garment of Christ, but partake of the Pasch of the Lord in the one household, that is in the Catholic Church" (see also Ep. heortastica, 19, 8. P.G. 26, 1429 cf. also both passages with the treatise of Cyril of Alexandria (?), adv. Anthropomorphitas, c. 12. P.G. 76, 1097). Indeed the very early Syrian writer Aphraates spoke even more plainly. He said that the Eucharist was one in the one household just as one paschal lamb was to be eaten in one household (Demonstrationes, 12 9, P. S. pars, 1, tom. 1, p. 526). Even before them we find Origen speaking though more vaguely, in the same sense? commenting on Exodus, XII, 43-46 (P G. 12, 286-287).

480Discussing such sayings of the Fathers generally, Alger, with his customary clarity, gives the following explanation: "It should be noted that the sacraments are said to be void, or even to be condemned, OR NOT TO BE TRUE, not in themselves for even when celebrated by heretics THEY ARE TRUE AND HOLY' but because they bring down judgment upon the perfidious ones who give them unlawfully and because they do not confer the Holy Spirit on those who receive them from such, for this reason we call them void and not true: that is, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EFFECT WHAT THEY PROMISE AND SHOULD EFFECT. Hence therefore they are to be condemned so that the giving of them by, or the reception of them from, heretics is not only not approved of, but positively forbidden. In themselves they are not defiled, though they are said to be defiled by heretics, ' (De misericordia et justitia, pars. 3, c. 54 P.L. 180, 956). This explanation of Alger is the same as that which we have already given: although in their sacraments they have that which is the sign only, the external symbols, as well as that which is the sign and the reality, the symbol and the thing symbolised (the Body and Blood of Christ), the holy thing, nevertheless they have not that which is further symbolised and promised by this second element, that is the reality only, union with Christ, the all holy, in the Church,

481The passages we give here from St. Augustine were collected together as early as the ninth century by the priest Bernoldus in his Tractatus de sacramentis Excommunicatorum. P.L. 148, 1061 et seq., and again in the Tractatus de reordinatione vitanda etc, P.L. 148, 1260.

482Cf. also Prosper's Enarr. in Psalm, CXV, n. 18 col. 332, which is a compendium of the parallel passage from St. Augustine cited above. The Sententia delibata given above seems to be a still more compressed compendium of it.

483Indeed St. Anselm of Lucca in the eleventh century, writing to Guibert the antipope, used this Epistle of Leo as a defence against the recriminations of the schismatics who complained that the Catholics treated their sacraments with disrespect: "We detest not the sacraments of the Church, as you falsely allege, but the schismatics and sacrilegious persons, before whose parricidal hands the divine sacraments have withdrawn; and with our mother the Catholic Church I will pursue her enemies and not turn back until they submit. The Church venerates her holy sacrament (sanctum), which you who are outside her possess, and which you have received to your own damnation, for you have lost the good odour, but she will pursue you, as Sara did the bondwoman, although she conceived and bore fruit of the seed of Abraham, ' (Contra Guibertum antipapam. P.L. 149, 450).

The words of Anselm here are a composite of those of Leo and Augustine.

484Translator's note: Conficit is the usual word for " making" or " production" of a sacrament, through the union of its matter and form at the hands of the minister. But, though we would like a word-for-word and completely literal translation of the word in this early document, both "make" and "produce" are harsh here unless one takes "corpus Domini" as equivalent to the whole sacrament of the Eucharist' including signum tantum, res et signum, and res tantum. Though de la Taille does interpret the mind of Pelagius, as excluding the res tantum from the Eucharist of the schismatic and so one might, we think, take "corpus Domini" here as a synonym for the whole sacrament, a common use, still "make the Body of Christ" is excessively harsh, insinuating at first sight at least the making anew of the Body, and the same is true of "produce", as de la Taille takes pains to show in L (Vol. III) against the productionists. English writers, we have found, rather fight shy of translating "conficere" in relation to the "Body of the Lord" directly by one word, or fall back on "consecrate" as a translation, especially seeing that "consecrat" and "conficit" are used indifferently, at any rate after St. Thomas, for conficit. The objection to "consecrates" here is that "conficit" and "consecrat" immediately suggest different concepts. However, the priest effects the sacrament of the Eucharist by the consecration, per medium of the transubstantiation, and therefore consecration and effecting the sacrament really coincide. Another objection to "consecrates" here is that we are discussing the validity of the consecration, and translate as though Pelagius here wrote "consecrat',. However, conficit implies "consecrat, ' here. We will translate the word elsewhere by various suitable words giving the Latin word in brackets.

485Another reading is "they cannot have the Body of Christ as a sacrifice (corpus Christi sacrificium habere non possint) ".

486The great Alger (De sacramento corporis et sanguinis dominici, 1, 3, c. 12. P.L. 180, 487), whom we cannot sufficiently admire, long ago explained this finely: "When it is said that it is not the Body of Christ that the schismatic consecrates (conficit) because among the schismatics the Eucharist cannot be made (confici) it must not be taken to mean that the schismatic does not consecrate (conficit) the true Body of Christ essentially in the sacrament; the sense is: that since on the altar THE CHURCH IS CONCORPOREAL AND CONSACRAMENTAL WITH CHRIST IN BODY AND SACRAMENT the schismatic does not consecrate (conficit) the universal body of Christ, that is, the Head with the members, because, as he is outside the Church, he does not unite himself with Christ and the Church in the sacrament of both. For since the sacrifice of the altar by signifying the oneness of Christ Himself and the Church is the sacrament of the universal body' Christ is not consecrated (conficitur) there where He is not consecrated as universal." Alger then quotes from St. Augustine the two passages which we shall submit directly.

487Saltet (op. cit., p. 82) writes in reference to Pelagius: "The word congregare is perfectly chosen and best expresses the mind of St. Augustine. It is quite otherwise with the word conficere. In the first place, we do not find this last in Augustine; it expresses the Eucharistic teaching of St. Ambrose." This contrast between Ambrose and Augustine, if we mean contrast precisely in their doctrine, has been stressed over-much by Protestants, as, for example, Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4, bd. 3, p. 158, to say nothing of Catholics. As far as the actual doctrine goes, we find no true ground for contrasting one with the other; all that we can say is not, as some say, that the teaching of Ambrose is more realistic than that of Augustine, but that the doctrine of Augustine elucidates more points than does that of Ambrose. In the writings of St. Augustine both the elements of the sacrament are clearly exhibited—the individual proper Body of Christ which hung on the Cross (XIX and XX above), and the Body of Christ integrated into a further whole by the addition of the adopted members, which are ourselves. This second element is not so clearly indicated by Ambrose.

Even if the contrast is restricted to terminology this must not be pressed too far.

For, first, just as you will never find the exact words conficere corpus Christi in Ambrose, so neither will you find congregare corpus Christi in Augustine.

But, second, we find in both Ambrose and Augustine expressions with practically the same sense as "conficere corpus Christi." Thus in St. Ambrose (De Mysteriis c. 9, n. 53. P.L. 16, 407): "That which we by our action make present (conficimus) is the Body from the Virgin." Here we have two statements: (I) we make present something—and (2) this thing is the very Body of Christ. Whence, though not expressly stated, it surely follows: that the Body of Christ is consecrated.

In St. Augustine we read that something is consecrated (confici), and that what is consecrated by us is the Body of Christ: for the sacrament or the Eucharist is made (conficitur) and the sacrament or the Eucharist is stated to be the very Body of Christ Note the following two parallel passages from Augustine: "He suffered the traitor with such great patience that He gave to him, just as He gave to the other Apostles, THE FIRST EUCHARIST MADE (confectam) IN HIS OWN HANDS AND ENTRUSTED TO THEM with His own lips" (Enarr. in Psalm, 10, n. 6, P.L. 36, 135). "Surely those do not abide in Christ of whom the Apostle says: they eat and drink judgment to themselves WHEN THEY EAT THE VERY FLESH AND DRINK THE VERY BLOOD? Surely the impious Judas who sold and betrayed his Master did not abide in Christ and Christ in him, even though with the other Apostles HE ATE AND DRANK THAT FIRST SACRAMENT of His Flesh and Blood made (confectum) IN HIS HANDS, as the Evangelist St. Luke openly states?" (Sermo 71 c. 11, n. 17. P.L. 38, 453). Note that here we have (I) explicit mention of an eating by Judas of the very Flesh, and a drinking of the very Blood which is in no way to be confounded with spiritual incorporation with Christ which is excluded here; and (2) the Flesh eaten by the unworthy and the Blood drunk by them is identified in the process of the argument with the sacrament (or the Eucharist) made in the hands of Christ, and given to Judas to be eaten and drunk. In this way we are reminded implicitly that what is partaken of is the Body of Christ. St. Augustine, moreover, in the third of the sermons ad infantes, published by Michael Denis, states more openly and more explicitly that this Eucharist is Christ Himself: "You did not know that the Eucharist is the Son" (Sermo 3 n. 3. P.L. 46, 828). And Augustine is even more explicit when he says that the bread B MADE, or becomes, the Body of Christ: "When the word is pronounced that bread is made (fit) the Body and Blood of Christ" (Sermo Denisian., 6, n. 1, col. 835) Cf. Sermo 234, 2. P.L. 38, 1116: "The bread....receiving the blessing of Christ becomes (fit) the Body of Christ., ' Indeed, we find words even more immediately suggesting the expression conficere corpus Christi where he says absolutely that the very Body and the very Blood is made: "Then comes what is done in the (Canon) prayers, which you are to hear, that when the word is added THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IS MADE (fiat corpus et sanguis Christi), (ibid., n. 3, col. 836). I would not advance in this sense book 3 De Trinitate c. 10. n. 21. P.L. 42, 881 where we find the words: "whence or how it is made (conficiatur)." For I think the context shows that these words should be interpreted as referring to the making of the visible element from wheat and not to the making of the Body of Christ from the bread (to the contrary see Portalie, D. T. C., art. Augustin, col. 2421).

Third, in the writings of contemporaries of both Augustine and Ambrose we find the words conficere corpus Christi not exactly found in either Augustine or Ambrose.

A contemporary of St. Augustine the African author of Liber de promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei (I, 39, 56. P.L. 51, 765), probably St. Quodvultdeus (cf. Schepens, Un traite a restituer a S. Quodvultdeus, R. S. C., May-Sept. 1919, p. 234), did undoubtedly speak of "the Flesh of Christ consecrated (confectam) in the Passion" (the meaning here is not disfigured or destroyed—conficio also can have this sense—but constituted in the sacrament). How closely this author follows Augustine in his Eucharistic terminology is shown by many examples, for instance if we compare Augustine's Enarr. in Psalm 33, Sermo 1, n. 10, and Sermo 2, n. 2. P.L. 36 306 and 308, and another passage from the same work of our African author, 2, 25 54. P.L. 51 798: "The Lord Jesus Christ was carried in His own hands; when holding in His hands His own Body in the sanctified bread, He said: This is my body."

But we should note especially that St. Jerome, fourteen years before Ambrose, had written to Heliodorus of priests "WHO CONSECRATE (conficiunt) THE BODY OF CHRIST WITH SANCTIFIED LIPS, (Ep. 14, n. 8. P.L. 22, 352 ' cf. Ep. 146, 1, col. 1193: " whose prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated[conficitur]. Hence it is much to be desired that men of learning should cease to speak of an " Ambrosian" style, where the style in question is not Ambrosian but Catholic. We could add a Greek example bearing on this point, taken from a fragment of a sermon attributed with a certain amount of probability to St. Anthanasius, Ad baptizandos (P.G. 26 1325).

Fourthly, perhaps even the so-called "Augustinian" as contrasted with the " Ambrosian" style, is already found in Ambrose, where he writes: " Giving to that spittle (which is the human race) the substance of that good Body (Christ) deigned to congregate all the nations into the one body of the Church" (Enarr. in Psalm, 1, n. 50. P.L. 14, 948). In this passage the substance of a good body given as a gift to the human race may be fittingly interpreted of the Eucharist congregating the human race into the one body of the Church. Although I admit (I) the passage is disputed; and (2) even as it stands it admits of another and better interpretation that when it is said the substance of a good body is given to the spittle, the sense is that Christ gave substance and existence after the manner of a body to that spittle or dust (that is, dust mingled with spittle), by congregating all the nations in the one body of the Church. But even If this interpretation were chosen, it could not be said to have no allusion to the Eucharist.

488So much may be said regarding the SACRAMENTAL RELATION OF THE BODY OF THE LORD TO THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, whatever is to be thought of the symbolism which the African Fathers, and other writers before or after them, saw in the reduction to one whole of the many grains of wheat and the many grape berries. With this latter we shall deal in the third book. Meantime it is clear why we cannot agree with Saltet when he writes: "THIS PREOCCUPATION WITH THE MYSTIC BODY OF CHRIST IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST, and with the symbolism of the bread and wine, was suggested to St. Augustine by St. Cyprian and the African tradition. Such a preoccupation suited well the theology of St. Cyprian, according to which Outside the Church there are no sacraments, though it is slightly out of place in the sacramental theology of Augustine for whom the sacraments can exist without the Church. At this point St. Augustine draws on past theologians" (op. cit., p. 83). It is certainly true that St. Augustine knows and we also know that sacraments can exist outside the Church, but not where there is no connection whatever with the Church. Nor does the Eucharist of heretics lack all sacramental symbolism in respect of sacramental unity. But that sacramental symbolism (I am not speaking of the symbolism of the grains and berries, but that between Christ and the Church) is part of Catholic dogma, as will be seen later in, XXXVII (Vol. III).

489For an earlier example of similar teaching see XXXVII (Vol. III), in St. John Damascene, De fide orth., 4, 14. P.G. 94, 1153.

490Agobardus, Bishop of Lyons, only gives us a few slight indications of his own view. He does' however' say very decidedly that the sacrifices of unworthy priests are profitable to the faithful (De privilegio et jure sacerdotii, c. 3 and 15. P.L. 104, cols. 128, 1 32-1 34, 142), though perhaps he makes an exception in the case of heresy and schism, when he writes: "You will never find that sacrifices for others are rejected, even if he who has offered is unworthy, if only he offers in the household and in the faith[namely, not a heretic], or if he offers in the household[therefore not a schismatic] in which the Lamb is to be eaten. Rather should we weigh the hearts of those who offer through priests, of whatever kind those priests may be as can be proved in many ways" (c. 3, col. 104). These last words convey that only those who knowingly entrust the offering of their sacrifices to heretics or schismatics are deprived of the fruit. This is undoubtedly true. Possibly the same explanation may apply to the words of Florus above.

491"Of such priests, though they are full of hatred, are adulterers, homicides and have done much work of the devil, PROVIDED THAT WHEN THEY OFFER THE SACRIFICE THEY ARE NOT CUT OFF YET BY THE EVANGELICAL SCYTHE, we are not to think who and of what kind they are, but what they give, or what he receives who with faith communicates, and not to think who it is that has the power to consecrate but rather of what he has in his hands (quid habea-) " (col. 1313). The question is not completely solved by what is stated in parenthesis "provided that when they offer sacrifice... ', etc.; for even now we today, who maintain the validity of such sacrifices, can and must apply such restriction, when it comes to the practical question of what we are to do about the sacrifice of the priest who is cut off. For we too, must pause and consider, whether it is a lawful act for us to partake of communion from such a sacrifice, no matter how valid it be, or whether it is not rather an act of heresy or schism.

492It is by no means certain, however, that Guido himself wrote these words. The matter is still sub judice. The only writer to cite them is Bernoldus (Ep. ad Adalbert., A, D. 1076. P.L. 148, 1159). It should be noted that in the passage where they are found they are given as part of an Epistle of Pope Paschal to the Church in Milan. However, some years later the same Bernoldus wrote in the Tractatus de sacramentis excommunicatorum ad Bernhardum, P.L. 148, 1066: "This letter of Guido the musician which you have honoured by attributing it to Pope Paschal must not be considered as the pope's", etc. We find another even more clear testimony from Bernoldus, apparently, in a note to the letters of Bernhardus, given to us by F. Thaner (M. G., Libelli de lite, t. I, p. 2): "It was a certain Guido, who composed music, not Paschal who wrote this letter to the Church in Milan. This is stated by very reliable men who investigated the matter by questions put to his disciples. Yet this same Epistle is cited under the name of Pope Paschal or Paschasius, WITH THE OMISSION HOWEVER OF THE WORDS QUOTED FROM BERNOLDUS, not only by Cardinal Deusdedit (Libellus contra invasores et simoniacos. P.L. 149, 470, cf. Libelli de lite t. 2, p. 318-319) and Ivo of Chartres (Decretum, pars. 2, c. 84. P.L. 161, 179-181) and some few others, but by Gerhohus also not only in his Tractatus adversus Simoniacos, c. 27 (P.L. 194 col. 1363-1364—cf. Libelli de lite, t. 3, p. 729), but also in his Commentarius in Psalm 25, 4. P.L. 193, 1160. Moreover, the same words of Bernoldus are absent not only from all the manuscripts which Baluze had at hand (P.L. 151, 637), but also from the more numerous manuscripts which Thaner followed (Libelli de lite, t. I, p. 4, col. p. 627). Meantime D. Mansi (a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of Frederic Thaner) had published this same Epistle without the fragment of Bernoldus, as he found it in one codex (which is possibly the same as the fifth mentioned by Thaner, Libelli de lite, t. l, p. 4), thinking that he was the first to print it, and strangely enough knowing nothing of the work of Baluze (see P.L. 102, 1091-1904).

Bearing all this in mind, in setting out to discover who the author was, we must distinguish between two sections of this letter: First, the fragment of Bernoldus (= B). Secondly, the remainder of the Epistle, omitting a few variations or additions (= A).

In respect of the supposed authorship of Guido de Arezzo, therefore, we find four hypotheses—(I) Guido wrote neither A nor B, (2) he wrote A and B—(3) he wrote A not B; (i) he wrote B not A.

Now Mansi had no hesitation in attributing the Epistle according to his recension (= A) to Paschal I, neither had the Roman Correctores of the Decretum of Gratian (causa I, q. 3, c. 7), remarking that this Epistle stands practically in its original condition in the manuscript codex of the pontifical decrees after the decrees of Hadrian II. In the Libelli de lite, t. 3. p. 729, we read: "Goetz (Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Kirchenrecht, bd. 1, p. 30-59) endeavoured to prove that it should not be attributed to Arezzo but really to Pope Paschal I." (I do not know whether the reference is to both. parts A and B, or one part only.) The question of authenticity must be left to experts. Meanwhile we should like to ask them one question: might not the Epistle A be Paschal, s, and the fragment B be inserted by Guido who made a few other changes also (for instance he could have substituted "excellentia" (Your Excellency) for "fraternitas" (Your Fraternity), so converting the Epistle of the Pope to the Archbishop of Cologne, into his own Epistle to the Archbishop of Milan?

493Jaffe Regesta, 2, 4431—cf. Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, t. 4, 2, p. 1 192. Later under Alexander II, the same decrees were published in the Roman Council of A. D. 1063' can. 3—Jaffe, Regesta, 4501.

494Evidently, then, Peter Damian, and a few theologians after his time, attributed to the Church some power of INHIBITION with regard to the conferring of the order of the priesthood. In this he was wrong, for it is only in the power of the Church to prohibit ordination not to inhibit it. However, one must not be shocked beyond measure by this error, as though it would completely overturn the whole dogma of the Church on the efficacy of the sacraments in themselves ex opere operato. For as a matter of fact the Church has such power of inhibition in regard to the administration by priests of the sacrament of confirmation, not to speak of the diriment impediments of matrimony fixed by the Church, or the approbation required for the valid hearing of confessions, even when neither order nor jurisdiction is lacking, as happened in the case of regulars, according to the earlier, though not the present, legislation of the Church. Now what are we to say of the power which seems to have been delegated ad libitum in the past, but not now, to certain priests (for instance, to some abbots of the Cistercian order), of conferring all the orders lower than the priesthood? You may say that it is doubtful whether the Bull Exposcit tuae devotionis is genuine. Quite so. But what then is to be said of the Bull of Boniface IX, Sacrae Religionis, published from the Vatican archives by Egerton Beck in the English Historical Review (Jan. 1911, p. 125 et seq), and unquestionably authentic? (cf. ibid., pp. 124 and 126). In this Bull it is granted to the abbot (who appears to have been not more than a priest, p. 124) "Of the Monastery of St.. Peter and Paul and St. Osithe, Virgin and Martyr, in Essex, of the Order of St. Augustine of the diocese of London, that the same abbot and his successors forever, abbots of the same monastery for the time being, have the power freely and lawfully to confer on all and each of the present and future canons of the same Monastery all the minor orders, as well as the Subdiaconate, DIACONATE AND PRIESTHOOD, at the times appointed by Cannon Law" (Feb. 1, 1400). Will you say that Boniface IX was not a legitimate Pope, being successor to the doubtful Pope Urban VI, or at any rate that he exceeded the limits of the power divinely entrusted to him? This may be. But meantime, can there be any doubt whatever that in A. D. 1400 the common and solemn teaching of the Church, regarding the efficacy of the sacraments in themselves, or ex opere operato, was known to the Roman Curia (even if perhaps not to Boniface IX who was not a very learned man)? Hence both the petitioners in this Bull and its authors may well have conceived the power of the priesthood as susceptible of extension within certain limits at the will of the Church, without considering that in this way they infringed on the work of the sacrament itself, the opus operatum.

495The historical origin of this false persuasion is twofold, remote and proximate. The proximate origin was in the wrong interpretation of the Epistle of Innocent I to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch (Ep. 24, c. 3, n. 4. P.L. 20' 550). This letter declared that whoever were ordained by the Arians were unworthy of the priestly honour. But in the Epistle there was no question of the validity of their ordination. The remote origin was the nineteenth canon of the Council of Nice in which the baptism of the Paulinists was declared null, so much so that those converted from their sect were ordered to be rebaptised. The reason was (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, t. I, p. 615) that in baptising they pronounced the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, while their belief was that there was no Trinity, hence the public signification of the whole formula was changed, hence also the virtue or the force of the form was no longer there. Later Alger opportunely corrected this teaching of St. Peter Damian, rejecting the sacraments of the Paulinists (De misericordia et justitia, pars 3, c. 8. P.L. 180, 936) but considering the ordinations of the Arians valid. "The Simoniac ordains Simoniacs, just as the Arian ordains the Arians and the Donatist Donatists" (ibid., c. 32, col. 946).

496Regarding the question which we deal with in this chapter, I have not been able to discover any definite teaching of Cardinal Humbert, the colleague and contemporary of the saint.

497I say " insinuated '" for neither here nor in his Apologia contra eos qui calumniantur missas conjugatorum sacerdotum, Libelli de lite, t. 2, pp. 437 448, does he dare in plain explicit terms to make this charge against the pontiff.

498The crime, therefore, must not be attributed to Gregory "if the laity often trampled on the Body of the Lord consecrated by married priests, and deliberately poured out the Blood of the Lord, ' (Sigeb. Gembl., col. 218).

499This would be the key to the interpretation of the author of the Libellus de offendiculo, very doubtfully attributed to Honorius of Autun. In chapter 36 he writes in harsh terms: "Those who live publicly in FORNICATION cannot offer the sacrifice to God, NOR DO THEY CONSECRATE (conficiunt) THE BODY OF CHRIST, because (qui-perhaps quia) they are outside the Church. For the place of sacrifice is in the Catholic Church only. Know then that they are expelled and have no share in the Church from the words: The fornicator and the defiled shall not have part in the kingdom of God and of Christ. But these are fornicators and defiled, and so have no part in the kingdom of God, which is His Church. For this reason they remain without the Church" (Libelli de lite' t. 3, p. 50). He seems to consider that these words show that the unworthy as such are incapable, by divine law as it were, of consecrating; so, too, in chapter 41: "Neither is there truth in their masses, nor is the virtue of the sacrament effected (conficitur) by them....they presume to carry out a mere pretence of masses.....If one were to receive their polluted bread as a sacrament, it is as if he took bread defiled by the mouth of a dog" (pp. 51-52).

Meantime he had further elucidated his meaning. For immediately after chapter 36 he goes on to say: "Christians must avoid them, BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCOMMUNICATED.....What the Apostles have bound is bound, and what they have loosed will be loosed. BUT THE APOSTOLIC SEE HAS EXCOMMUNICATED ALL MARRIED PRIESTS. But these are married. Therefore they are excommunicated" (c. 37' pp. 50-51). And immediately before chapter 41 he had written: " because married priests who have wives contrary to law and justice are proved to be without the Church and excommunicated, to hear their masses or to partake of their sacraments, not only does not benefit but is most harmful" (c. 40, p. 51).

Hence we can see the meaning of his distinction between public and private concubinage in reference to the validity of the sacrament.

"You will say, the sacrament does not depend on the merit of the offerer, but on the grace of Him who confers the blessing, especially seeing that we read that Judas preached and baptised with the other Apostles. I answer: the priest in secret sin is tolerated by the Church, and his case is reserved to the Searcher of hearts as we have said, and all the sacraments given by him will be ratified, as if they were given by the holiest of men, especially since they are made no better by the best man and no worse by the worst. But the priest who, contrary to the law of God and the Church, wallows in impurity, and even goes so far as to defend his shamelessness must be regarded as the heathen, and all that he has provided (fecit) must be scorned AND TRAMPLED ON" (C. 42, pp. 52—53). Hence in his mind only those who are publicly known fornicators are excommunicated (thus c. 36 above). Hence he thinks that such only are deprived of the power of providing (conficiendi) the sacrament.

He thinks that simoniacal priests, like those living in concubinage, or even more so, are outside the Church and heretics (c. 44, p. 63). Hence he uses even stronger words against their Eucharist: "What they receive or what they give is not a sacrament, but an offering to idols" (c. 46, p. 54). However, both the style and the teaching of this writer are so unlike what we find in the writings of Honorius of Autun (of whom later) that it is most surprising that some have been found to confuse two such dissimilar men.

500In his works Gerhoh frequently insists on this same teaching, appealing in support of it to his contemporaries, Bruno of Segni and Rupert of Dietz (cols. 1 395 and 1397-1398). See also the Epistola de vitanda missa uxoratorum sacerdotum, c. I et seq. (Libelli de lite' t. 3' p. 2 et seq.) of unknown authorship and written about the same time. Even before the time of Manegoldus, Nicholas II incidentally called married priests Nicolaites. He writes to the bishops of Gaul "About the heresy of the Nicolaites that is, about married priests, deacons' and clergy" (Ep. 7 A. D, 1059. P.L. 143, 1314). However, it is not clear whether in this connection (hic) he used the word heresy in the strict sense of the word, as many did later.

501The Libellus contra invasores et simoniacos is wrongly reckoned amongst the works of St. Anselm as his second book, Contra Guibertum antipapam: see P.L. 149, 470 et seq. Only the first, shorter edition of this Libellus is found in the Patrologia Latina. A longer one, written after 1089, will be found in M. G., Libelli de lite, t. 2, see p. 318 et seq.

502From this you can judge what is true and what is false in the recriminations of the antipope Guibert (Clement III) against the supporters of Urban: "Nevertheless they say that THE SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD Jesus Christ the sacrament of the consecration of the chrism, and all that pertains to the priestly and episcopal office, as celebrated by those who are not in communion with their sect, ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT SACRAMENTS, and that they bring nothing but damnation on those who receive them. For they say with blasphemous lips that that bread which comes down from heaven in which our whole life and salvation consists is defiled rather than consecrated" (Synodica ad clerum universum, A. D. 1089. P.L. 148, 384).

Urban himself certainly said nothing of the sort, though some of his followers did. However' the following declaration of the antipope contains nothing but the truest teaching: " We declare that not only with us who by the grace of God are Catholics but also with the schismatics and heretics, all these sacraments are ratified" (ibid., col. 835).

Right' too, was the teaching of one who at the time adhered to schism, Waleramnus Naumbergensis, or, as the authorship is not certain, of whoever was the author of the work entitled De unitate Ecclesiae conservanda: "Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood are sacraments (Isid., Etymol I, 6, 19).....For if anyone, even a heretic, consecrates any sacrament (quod libet sacramentum) by the words of the Gospel in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, that sanctity of the sacrament consecrated with the Gospel words will remain truly unimpaired, although his faith, seeing in these same words something different to what the Catholic truth teaches, is not unsullied but defiled by fabled falsities.....Pope Clement therefore condemns those who believe otherwise than this about the very sacraments of Christ and the Church, who assert that outside the Church these are not sacraments, who also, though they themselves have not the Catholic faith, call themselves Catholics, while others whose beliefs are far more true they condemn as heretics and schismatics" (De unitate Ecclesiae conservanda, 1, 3, c. 2-9: Libelli de lite, t. 2, p. 283).

Less happy we must confess, was the argument of a monk whose name we do not know in defence of the legitimate Pope. Waleramnus rejects his teaching, enunciated as follows: "It should be known that Guibert asserts that Catholics say that those are not sacraments which are made outside the Church, and that they confer nothing but damnation. Against this he maintains that all these are ratified and true, both within and without the Church, defending his teaching by the words of St. Augustine found in a treatise written on the Gospel of St. John against those who rebaptise Therefore, says Augustine, neither without any more than within the Church can anyone who is in sin defile, either in himself or in another, the sacrament which is of Christ. And we also, they say, faithfully adhering to this teaching, reply THAT AUGUSTINE SAID THIS OF THE SACRAMENT OP BAPTISM ONLY, of which he was treating at the time ', (see Waleramnus ibid., p. 284).

503His words in 1, 8, c. 6, col. 968, do not help us much, for there he deals only with the consecrations made by the unworthy: "The sacraments of the altar are not made (conficiuntur) by any but priests, and not by those if they act contrary to the statute laid down by the Church. Those of UNWORTHY LIFE can indeed make the sacrament (conficere), but they must observe the rite of the Church. For though the unworthy do indeed make the sacrament (conficiunt), though to their own damnation, still they can only do this if they conform to the rite prescribed for the consecration (conficiendi). This is my view." He plainly states that the effective power to consecrate is not removed by an unworthy life. But whether it is or is not removed by any other cause, for instance by heresy or schism, by which a priest alienated from Church unity is no longer within but without the Church, this he does not make clear. Hence J. de Ghellink seems to go too far, or at least to stretch quite gratuitously the meaning of this passage, when he writes: " Robert Pullen recognised the consecrations of all priests as valid" (D. T. C., art. Eucharistie au XII s. en Occident, col. 1285). Indeed Robert Pullen gives us here nothing but what has always been the unanimous teaching of all Catholic theologians.

504Meantime he maintains the two following propositions: (I) A priest once ordained who is later on deprived of his office, is not to be reordained after his office has been restored to him (col. 1229). Indeed he even considers that an ordination conferred by one deprived of office can be ratified by a dispensation of the Church presumably by some kind of sanatio in radice (Dial., loc. cit., col. 1204). (2) Apart from excommunication or disauthorisation, the exercise of order is not affected by any unworthiness of the minister. (Ep., col. 1228.)

505Again with St. Augustine, In Joann., tr. 26, n. 11. P.L. 35, 1611.

506Gerhoh means not a secret heretic, but a manifest, condemned heretic (Lib epist., col. 1403; Tract. adv. Simoniac., c. 26, col. 1362).

507Saltet does not seem to have understood fully the teaching of Gerhoh on this point (op. cit., p. 278), hence he did not clearly grasp what Gerhoh goes on to say about the Eucharist in particular (ibid.).

508I say immediately signifying, that is, not indirectly, or mediately, by way of the Body of Christ contained in the Eucharist, which according to Gerhoh is not a sacrament or sign at all, even in respect of our incorporation with Christ (Tract. adv Simoniacos, c. 29, cols. 1366-1367). On the other hand, Gerhoh considers that the bread and the chalice directly and of themselves signify our incorporation into Christ in the Church, because of the plurality of the elements reduced to one bread and wine. We shall deal with this question in XLIII and L (Vol. III). In parallel fashion he admits that the sensible element signifies not only ecclesiastical unity but, equally, the real proper Body of Christ. Hence, as he calls the sacrament made by the heretic the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, so, too, he calls it the sacrament of the Body of Christ. Such a sacrament alone he grants to heretical priests—"Indeed, as far as the species go, and the sacrament (specietenus et sacramentotenus), it can be called. the Body of Christ" (Liber contra duas haereses, c. 6. P.L. 194, 1183—cf. 1154). In the theology of Gerhoh, therefore, there can be a real sacrament of the Eucharist not containing the Body of Christ, but nevertheless endowed with its proper and sacramental signification both in respect of the building up of Church unity and of the Body and Blood of Christ given to us as food. Such a sacrament alone will he admit that heretical priests have.

509What he says against the sacrifice of heretics he denies absolutely about that of bad priests tolerated by the Church. See how he refutes the calumnies of his adversaries regarding the administrations of unworthy priests (Lib. epist., cols. 1406-1407). Hence we see in what sense he considers that the sacrifices of fornicators are to be detested.

510Although they have not the real Body of Christ, in his mind they are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord (Tract. adv. simoniac., c. 27, cols. 1363-1364). Indeed "it is plain that they are guilty of a greater sin" than merely unworthy partakers of the Body and Blood of the Lord. See how he differs from Bernoldus, cited above.

511Clearly' then, as far as the celebration of the Eucharist is concerned, the unauthorised are on the same level with the excommunicated, according to Gerhoh. This is not surprising, seeing that in the third book of that work (cols. 1172-1175) he cites the Epistle of Hugo of Amiens to Matthaeus Albanensis, mentioned above.

512However' in the Commentarius in Psalm 25, 4 he says: "Whether or not the Body of Christ is or is not consecrated (conficiatur) in their Masses, it is superfluous to examine, for it is well known that all such Masses are forbidden under pain of excommunication (sub excommunicatione) " (P.L. 193, 1160; cf. in Psalm 10. P.L. 193, 789-792).

513" Of the unity of the Church which offers her daily vows (vota = sacrifices of the Body and Blood of Christ) ' the Psalmist says: The poor shall eat and they shall be filled" ' etc. (ibid.).

514Saltet (op. cit.) cites some of these from still unpublished sources.

515He is speaking of the prayer Unde et memores....offerimus, etc.

516See J. Dietrich and Boehmer, Libelli de lite, t. 3, p. 110.

517Migne gives "dum intus est nomine sacramenta conficit, sed non vita." I think it should read "dum intus est nomine, sed non vita, sacramenta conficit, etc." (We read it so; in the other form it is very obscure—Trans.).

518Cf. c. 9, col. 848: "Outside the unity of the Church there is no place for the offering of the sacrifice of unity. ',

519"If the office of procurator[agent' representative] is revoked WHOLLY, then evidently everything which was ratified by the law, provided that he did it, is by the revocation made null and void" (ibid.). William does not put on an equal footing unauthorised priests' deposed or degraded' and priests who are suspended or even excommunicated—He says that, as such' the ministry of the suspended or excommunicated priest is not nullified, it is simply forbidden.

520"This solution is common', (loc. cit.).

521Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica, p. 4, q. 10, n. 5, a. 1, parag. 6.

522Hickey, in his Quaestio on this text of Scotus, wrongly contends that here offering means merely ceremonial and not sacrificial offering. But such a supposition would stultify the reasoning of the Doctor. Renz (Geschichte des Messopfer-Begriffs, 1901, t. I, p. 791) rightly says: "It is Hickey, not Scotus who makes the distinction between ceremonial and real oblation., ' Indeed in his solution and line of argument Scotus depends on Peter Lombard and the other earlier theologians just mentioned. Still I will not deny that Scotus appears to have thought that the verbal offering which we say is merely ceremonial, was truly sacrificial. A few theologians whom we shall cite later (XXXIV) agreed with him in this.

523Not all agree that a priest sacrifices by the mere fact that he consecrates, for, as Suarez (disp. 76, sect. 3, n. 7) remarks: "The theologians who hold that the essence of the sacrifice consists in the communion, or in any other action which takes place after the consecration, necessarily admit that the making or compounding (confectionem) of the sacrament can be separated really from the sacrifice" (cf. XXIV above, XXXIV below). But this kind of separability which they maintain does not imply, in the celebrations of heretics any more than in that of Catholics, any necessity of separation between the consecration and the act of sacrifice.

524His agency is irrevocable and his commission cannot be lost because, although induced by the ordination conferred by men (that is, by the prelates of the Church either immediately in the case of the legitimately ordained, or mediately in the case of those ordained outside of unity), it is nevertheless given UNDER THE SEAL. OF GOD. That seal and CHARACTER, once impressed, cannot be effaced by man. Hence the charter appointing one an agent or representative of the Church, in other words, appointing him priest, is eternal.

525Or must wish, to use another common expression, to do what the Church does: that is to say, to do what, according to the faith of the Church, should be intended by her agent. We have already explained that no one offers sacrifice validly, except in so far as he intends to offer it on behalf of the Church.

526It is by no means improbable that such a state of mind has been found at times in heretical priests, as known facts seem to prove. Optatus of Milevis throughout the whole of the sixth book of De schismate Donatistarum relates many indignities offered to the sacraments of the Catholics' as when' for example (ibid., 1. 2, c. 19. P.L. 11, 972; cf. Augustine, Ep. 139, 1. P.L. 33, 535), they threw the Eucharist to the dogs. We have also the testimony of Innocent III referring to certain Greeks apparently before his time: " For after the Church of the Greeks, with some of their followers and accomplices, withdrew from the obedience of the Apostolic See, the Greeks began to abominate the Latins to such an extent that they perpetrated many impious acts to show their contempt for them. For example, when the Latin priests had celebrated on their altars, the Greeks, as though the altars had been defiled thereby, refused to offer the sacrifice on them before they had been washed" (In Concil. Later, 4 D. 10, 435). Undoubtedly Nicephoras, sacristan to Michael Caerularius, trampled on the Eucharist of the Latins, though this was more through the hatred of the azyms or the unleavened bread used by the Latins than of the Roman name (P.G. 120 744 and P.L. 143, 1214-1215).

527It was according to this principle that William of Paris interpreted the harsher expressions of the Fathers to the effect that the sacrifices of heretics were cursed by God: it is to be assumed that they took it that the heretic acted as a heretic, rejecting the ministry of the Catholic Church, and exclusively and ostentatiously adopting the ministry of his perverse sect.. In such a case the celebrant is certainly not conformed to the mind and the intention of the Catholic Church, and for this reason we can say that he abandons THE FORM of the Church and follows one which is alien to it (see De sacramento ordinis, c. 4, pp. 534-535). We would not say that this exposition of these Fathers is improbable, especially seeing that the Fathers hardly ever had in mind merely material, but always formal heresy; and besides some, especially among the Africans, were rather prone to lose sight of that perverse facility, deep-rooted in our imperfect minds, for inconsistency and self-contradiction and showing itself not rarely but quite often, by what may be called " a want of logic in practice, '.

528Possibly these words are hardly quite consistent with what Suarez had already written: "It is by virtue of the commission of the Church that a priest prays, intercedes and OFFERS in her name; for this reason, too, the Church can prevent the cut-off priest from offering the sacrifice IN HER NAME. For, since he has this office by commission of the Church, he can be deprived of it by the Church" (disp. 77, s. 2, n. 6 cf. Commentarius in 3 S. 82, 7). We notice, however, that Suarez adds a restrictive clause when later on he explains this point, and says that the Church "is not in accord with him, and does not wish, AS FAR AS LIES IN HER, to offer through him". These restrictive words might easily suggest that in this matter the will of the Church is not absolute and efficacious, but signified as a preference on her part, for this rather than that. I think, however, that the Eximius Doctor found it rather hard to make a decision in the matter. For on the one hand, he himself thought that the concept of the offering of the Church could be sufficiently distinguished from that of the offering of our Lord, so that the latter would in itself suffice, without the offering of the Church' to validate our ministerial act of sacrifice (not adverting to the fact that the offering of our Lord and the offering of the Church are one organic whole). On his supposition the validity of the sacrifice of the priest cut off from the Church could be explained as follows: they offer although the Church does not offer through them. On the other hand, however, he was confronted by the authority of the theologians, ascribing every Eucharistic sacrifice to the universal Church, as well as by the true teaching regarding the sacerdotal character, by which a person is not a mere member of the Church, but is raised to the dignity of minister and organ of the ecclesiastical body. Hence he seems merely to have submitted in a tentative way the different solutions proposed by others, making one of them his own' as when he says: " the sense of the second opinion may be'" " another explanation might be", the one solution separating the sacrifice from the Church, the other connecting it with her. Cf. De censuris, disp. 11, s. 2, n. 11: where one might conclude that he maintained his first solution—they offer though the church does not offer through them—" I think it to be the truer view", except that here he is speaking rather of the prayers of the Mass than of the sacrificial offering.

Among the few theologians who have dealt with this point, Hickey holds the chief place in his sixth Quaestio on the Commentarius of Scotus in 4 D. 13, 2 (pp. 831-834). His conclusio 2a is especially worthy of notice: "The heretical priest also OFFERS THE SACRIFICE IN THE PERSON OF THE CHURCH AND OF CHRIST, IF HE OBSERVES THE UNIVERSAL INTENTION, ALTHOUGH THROUGH HIS ERROR HE HAS HIMSELF AN ERRONEOUS PARTICULAR INTENTION....because as long as the sacerdotal character remains he can perform acts competent with that character, and the power granted by Christ and by the Church for such an act remains; hence in exercising these acts he can represent the person of Christ and of the Church offering the sacrifice....because of the power conferred by them, by which he is deputed minister for such acts." Cf. Conclusio 5a.

5293 S. 82, 7: "Those who are separated from the Church by heresy, schism or excommunication commit sin making the consecration....and for this reason they do not participate in the fruit of the sacrifice."

5304 D. 13, a. 1, q. 1: "The cut-off and the heretical priest consecrate TO THEIR OWN PERDITION AND TO THE PERDITION OF THOSE WHO ASSIST."

531Gabriel Biel Sacri canonis missae tum mystica tum literalis expositio (see Joannes Clein s. a., s. I, lectio 27, fol. 38-41) deals with this teaching at length. He applies indiscriminately to heretics and to unworthy priests the principle that, although the priest has nothing in himself to render his sacrifice acceptable to God, "NEVERTHELESS BECAUSE THIS OFFERING AND PRAYER IS NOT HIS PRINCIPALLY, BUT BELONGS TO THE CHURCH, THE BRIDE OF CHRIST, BETWEEN WHOM AND CHRIST HE IS AN AMBASSADOR, carrying her prayer on his lips, presenting it to the Father of mercies to be heard by Him, hence it follows that his personal malice does not render that prayer hateful and execrable in the sight of God" (fol. 38).

532"The Host which has been consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and, if reserved, can be lawfully partaken of by a legitimate priest, ' (St. Thomas, 3 S. 82, 9, 1m), cf. St. Theodore of Studium, cited above, and St. John Damascene to be quoted later in Th. XXXVII (Vol. III).

533In the Byzantine Liturgy of the ninth century there is no breaking within the action. The breaking of the bread before the action cannot by any means be considered as an intrinsic part of the sacrifice.

534"O God of truth, deign to bestow on us this communion (Dignare nos et hac communione[donare]) and grant us chastity in body and understanding and knowledge in our minds; and make us truly wise, O God of mercies, by the receiving of the Body and Blood", etc. (F. D. 2, 176-178).

535Although nearly all the Liturgies in the Supper narrative represent our Lord as using this word. Among others, see the Greek Liturgy of St. James, the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark, the Anaphora of Serapion, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, the, Apostolikh paradosij of Hippolytus, the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae, with other more ancient Ethiopian Liturgies, the Mozarabic Liturgy according to the Missale mixtum, the Gallican Liturgy according to the Stowe Missal.

536Goetz rightly interprets these words of Chrysostom, "which rather exclude than support a reference to the breaking of the bread as significant of the death on the Cross', (Die heutige Abendmahlsfrage, 1907, p. 176).

537For example, Walafridus Strabo (De ecclesiast. rer. exord. et increm., c. 22 P.L. 114, 950), Rabanus Maurus (De clericorum institutione, I, I, c. 33. P.L. 107, 324). Amalarius (De ecclesiasticis officiis, 1, 3, c. '31. P.L. 105, 1152), Florus of Lyons (De expositione Missae, 89, P.L. 119, 71); Remigius of Auxerre (De celebratione missae. P.L. 101, 1270); John of Rouen (De officiis ecclesiasticis. P.L. 147 36), Odo of Cambrai (Expositio in canonem missae. P.L. 160, 1070), Robertus Paululus (De officiis ecclesiasticis 1, 2, c. 39. P.L. 177, 436). Joannes Beleth (Rationale. c. 48. P.L. 202, 54-55); the author of the Micrologus, c. 17. (P L 151 988); Richardus Weddinghusanus (Libellus de canone mystici libaminis. P.L. 177 468); and many others, the leader of all being Isidore of Seville (De ecclesiasticis officiis, I, 15. P.L. 83, 752). Meantime, however, after Amalarius (op. cit., c. 35, col. 1154), mediaeval writers had much to say of the "triform Body of the Lord", designated by the three particles of the broken bread. This explanation of the three particles of the broken bread, after it was first vigorously condemned by Florus (Opusc. adv. Amalarium, 1, 4 and 2, 5. P.L. 119, 74 and 81), was finally attributed to Pope Sergius by the Decretists (Ivo of Chartres, Panorm. 1, 140, and Gratian De consecr., dist. 2, c. 22)! Hence we can understand easily enough how, unfortunately, it crept into the writings of the leaders of the schools, as, for example, Albert the Great (De sacrificio missae, tract. 3, c. 21) and St. Thomas (3 S. 83, 5, 8m).

538Goetz (op. cit., pp. 175-176) may well cease to complain that he has not been able to find these words in the Liber Sententiarum Prosperi. For the Roman Corrector when dealing with part 3 of the Decretum dist. 2, c. 37, had already noted long ago that Lanfranc, not Prosper, wrote them. Besides this passage and the words of Chrysostom and Augustine recorded above, Goetz (ibid.) also quotes Dionysius Bar Salibi, whom we cite below.

539Ivo of Chartres (De convenientia veteris et novi sacrificii. P.L. 162, 559), Honorius of Autun (Gemma animae, 1, 1, c. 63. P.L. 172, 563), Ps. Alger (De sacrificio missae. P.L. 180, 856), the unknown author of the Liber de expositione missae, attributed to Hildebert. P.L. 171, 1165, Sicard of Cremona (Mitrale 1, 3, c. 6. P.L. 213, 129 and 138); Durandus of Mende (Rationale, 1, 4, c. 51, n. 4). Meanwhile Baldwin of Canterbury (De sacramento altaris. P.L. 204, 657) a man of practical turn of mind first points to the advantage of the dividing ("the breaking of the host serves for the distribution. He broke in order to give to a number") he then builds up a number of mystical explanations, among which the designation of the Passion finds a place. In addition to these liturgists, there are a few theologians who say much the same thing, like William of St. Theodoric (De sacramento altaris, c. 9. P.L. 180, 356) Alger (De sacramento, I, I, c. 18. P.L. 180, 792), also exegetes like Anselm of Laon (In Matth., XXVI. P.L. 162, 1470) ' and preachers like Jacobus de Vitriaco (Sermones, Sermo III in coena Domini, Antwerp, 1575, p. 335), etc.

540On the comparison between the cutting of the host at the prothesis and the Incarnation, see Theodorus Andidensis (Brevis commentatio, n. 9. P.G. 140, 429) and Symeon of Thessalonica (De sacra liturgia, c. 92. P.G. 155, 273-2763. On the comparison between the fractio and the Incarnation, Theodorus (op. cit., n. 38 col. 465? may be read. Ps. Dionysius (De Eccl. Hier. 3, 12. P.G. 3, 444), explaining the Syrian Liturgy, indicates no signification in the fractio other than that of the Incarnation

541On the comparison between the cutting of the host at the prothesis and the Passion, see Nicholas Cabasilas (Liturgiae Expositio, c. 8. P.G. 150, 384-385).

542When the priest has taken the host in his hands, as we have said, while he breaks it in two parts, he shows that the Word truly suffered in the Flesh, and that it was sacrificed and broken on the Cross. (Expositio liturgiae, c. 16, C. S. C. O., 93, 89.) Earlier in the same work, referring to the breaking of the bread by our Lord in the Last Supper, after speaking of the practical utility of this division (if the reading here is genuine), the author goes on: "In the breaking He declares to us His Passion Crucifixion and slaying, His being pierced with a lance and His death. Furthermore in the breaking He mystically signifies that He has slain and divided Himself, and that propitiation flows from Him" (Ibid., p. 73).

543Vasquez thinks that Christ broke the bread, for no other end than that, divided among many who would eat of it, "it should signify the peculiar effect of the sacrament....namely, union, in that they would all eat of the same bread, just as they all would drink of the same chalice" (disp. 196, c. 3, n. 19 and 26).

544Note especially the second and the third passages cited from St. Thomas above where three things are said to be signified at the same time by the breaking of the host. See also Albert the Great, In Matth., XXVI, 26, where the breaking (breaking down, abating) of the divine anger is said to be signified first, and then we are sent far back and told that it is for the fulfilment of a figure of Moses.

545Cardinal Humbert had this in mind when he wrote urging that an integral Mass should be said every day, not a mutilated celebration with the reserved sacrament as was the custom of the Greeks: " For the Lord did not bless only and reserve the sacrament to be broken on the morrow, nor, having broken it, did He reserve it, but He at once distributed the sacrament He had broken. Hence....if any one of these ceremonies is done without the other, that is to say, the blessing without the breaking and the distribution, or the breaking without the blessing and the distribution, it does not represent a perfect memorial of Christ, no more than would the distribution without any breaking or blessing" (Responsio sive contradictio in libellum Nicetae, c. 23. P.L. 143, 994). The imitation of the action of Christ in the breaking of the host is shown especially in the Liturgy of the Copts, according to the anaphora of St. Mark or St. Cyril, where the bread is broken during the Supper narrative, and at the actual words which recount this breaking of the bread by Christ (B. 177). See also in the Ethiopic Liturgy the anaphora Apostolorum (B. 232).

546But even this mingling of the species was not introduced originally for a symbolic purpose. It arose out of the custom of reserving the sacrament from a former Mass, or of receiving it when sent by the bishop in sign of communion with him; in such cases it was immersed in the wine in the chalice, probably simply for convenience of consumption, as it was hard and dry. When this custom became obsolete, the present rite of putting a particle of the consecrated bread in the chalice within the same Mass took its place. Cf. Corblet Histoire du sacrament de l'Eucharistie 1886, t. 2, p. 11."

547Still far more singular, stupid indeed, and, in the light of present dogma, heretical, was the opinion of the Abbot Abbaudus (De fractione Corporis Christi. P.L. 166, 1341-1348) and of Walter of St. Victor (Contra quatuor Labyrinthos Franciae, I, 3, c. 11. P.L. 199, 1153-1154), both of whom taught, and vigorously maintained, that the Body of Christ in Its substance is broken by the breaking of the sacrament. But, even so, neither of them concluded from this that the immolation of Christ was to be placed in the breaking. On the contrary, Abbaudus (col. 1346) takes pains to say that all the "pieces" (particulas) of the broken and dismembered Christ are still living. I hope the reader will pardon me for not passing over in silence (which perhaps would be sufficient) such fanciful nonsense.

548I think that the prudent reader will not look for an examination OI the teaching of Henricus Henriquez (Summa Theologiae Moralis, I, 9, c. 9, n 3 and 9; cf. c. 8, n. 6), who says that the sacrifice is constituted by three essential elements, the consecration, the communion, and the verbal offering in the prayer " Unde et memores....OFFERIMUS", etc. This opinion was also adopted by Azor (Institutionum Moralium, lib. 10, c. 19, Lyons, 1602, col. 1117), Bonacina (Tract. de sacramentis, disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 2, n. 5 and 6) and Bassaeus (Flores theologiae practicae, s. V. missa, 2, 5), besides others whom they mention. This teaching, formulated by Henriquez, but already in germ in Peter Lombard and Scotus, as we saw above (XXXIII), has been lately revived not too happily by an otherwise reliable writer, J. Grivet, La messe de la terre et la messe du ciel (Paris, 1917).

549Most of the documents on this subject have been collected by Salaville (Epiclese eucharistique, D. T. C., t. 5, cols. 194-300) and Cabrol (D. A. C., 142-184).

550It is true that the petition for transubstantiation is not very explicit in a few of these Liturgies, for example in the, Apostolikh paradosij of Hippolytus (Canonum qui dicuntur Apost. et Aegypt. reliquiae, ed. Hauler, 1900, pp. 106-107) or in the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiop. (Ludolf, Ad suam Hist. Aethiop.....comment., p. 324; cf. B. 190), or in the Constitutiones Eccles. Aegypt. (F. D. 2, 100) and in the Testamentum, D.N.J.C. (p. 43). This, however, does not weaken the force of the explicit and definite petition which is made in other very ancient Liturgies; for instance in the Constitutions of the Apostles (F. D. 1, 510), the Greek Liturgy of St. James (B. 54-54) and St. Mark (B. 134), the Anaphora of Serapion (F. D. 2 174-176) then later in the Liturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom (B. 329-330) in the Oratio Eucharistica D. et Salvatoris nostri J. C. (L. B. 2, 573) in the Canon Universalis Aethiopum (R. 1, 517; cf. B. 233), etc. etc. Among the Greek Fathers who testify to this liturgical usage, note particularly Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 23, n. 7. P.G. 33 1113-1116) and Chrysostom (De coemeterio et cruce, 3. P.G. 49 397-398), who say expressly that a petition is made for the transmutation itself.

551See the post-secret prayer in the Miss monensis, 3 and 5 (P.L. 138, 869 and 871) the post-secret prayer in the Gothic Mass of the Assumption, and of St. Leudegarius (Mabillon, De liturgia Gallicana, 1, 3. P.L. 72, 246 and 304 305).

552See innumerable post-pridie prayers in this sense, V. g. of the third Sunday after the Epiphany, the fifth Sunday in Lent, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday, the Tuesday after Easter, etc. (P.L. 85, 250; 376; 474; 485; 491-492).

553On these theologians see Salaville (259-265).

554According to Cabasilas and Symeon, the uttering long ago by our Lord of the demonstrative words: This is my body, effects the transmutation as the principal cause, and our petition here and now for the transmutation, as the instrumental cause. So Cabasilas: "We believe that what effects the mystery is indeed the word of God, but through the instrumentality of the priest, through his intercession and prayer.....The words once uttered by the Lord, by the very fact that they were uttered by Him as they are creative, so, too, they are always operative, ' (Cabasilas, cols. 429 and 433). Symeon writes in similar fashion (col. 737). Both institute a comparison between the words whereby all things were created and have life and vigour' and our Lord's utterance now giving life, not to the demonstrative words uttered by us in the person of our Lord, but to our words of petition.

555Tractatus de consecrationis forma of Catherinus, re-edited by Cheffontaines, Paris, 1586, fol. B. 1: "To us[Latins] who have already prayed, Christ is at once present when we have recited His words. To the Greeks who pray after the words of Christ are pronounced' He deigns to be present at the conclusion of that prayer." Cf. Quaestio quibusnam verbis Christus confecit divinum eucharistiae sacramentum, Rome, 1551, pp. 182-188.

556Christophorus de capite fontium (Cheffontaines' Archbishop of Caesarea, at one time Minister General of the whole order of Friars Minor, in his Varii tractatus et disputationes (fols. 33-51), says that we effect the consecration by the petition for transubstantiation' and that Christ did the same at the Supper: "Because the blessing by which He blessed the bread was sacerdotal.....His blessing was the prayer with which He invoked on the bread the change into His own blessed Flesh" (fol. 33 b). Later he developed this view at greater length in his work De veteri ritu celebrandi Missam (Paris 1586). Cf. also De la vertu des paroles par lesquelles se fait la consecration du Saint Sacrement de l'autel. "I maintain that the consecration is made by the prayers of the priest and the words of God recited in these prayers" (Paris, 1586).

557Though the Syrian Narsai is not indeed to be classed among orthodox Fathers, still, as his testimony is very ancient (fifth century), we may well refer readers to what he has to say in Narsai, An exposition of the mysteries (trans. by R. H. Connolly, T. a. S., 8, I, pp. 20-23. Cf. Edmund Bishop, Appendix, n. 6; ibid., pp. 126-127.)

558Justin (Apol., 1, 65. P.L. 6, 428), for where he speaks of "the word of prayer handed down by Christ", by which "the food is made the Eucharist (eucharistiatur) ", he certainly seems to refer especially to our Lord's words: This is my body, there quoted. Ambrose, Enarrationes in duodecim psalmos davidicos (in Psalm 38, 25 P.L. 14, 1051): "He Himself whose word sanctifies the sacrifice which is offered is manifested as offering the sacrifice in us." Again De Myster. 9, 52—"The very words of the Lord our Saviour effect the sacrifice (operantur) " (P.L. 16, 406). Finally De benedictionibus Patriarcharum, 9, 38 (P.L. 14, 686): "Christ Himself gives us that bread which the priest every day consecrates with Christ's own words." The author of a kindred treatise De Sacramentis, 4, 14: "By what words is the consecration[made], in whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus.....When the time comes for the making (ut conficiatur) of the venerable sacrament, then the priest does not use his own words, but the words of Christ. The words of Christ therefore effect, bring about (conficit) this sacrament" (P.L. 16, 440). Cf. ibid, 5, 4: "I said to you that before the words of Christ what is offered is called bread, WHEN THE WORDS OF CHRIST HAVE BEEN UTTERED (deprompta), THEN IT IS NOT SAID TO BE BREAD BUT IT IS CALLED THE BODY (col. 452). Read the whole chapter copied in Sermo 84 of the appendix to the sermons of St. Augustine in Migne (P.L. 39, 1907, et seq.). This last fact, however, is no proof that we should attribute this sermo 84, in view of its style, to a follower of Augustine (as Salaville thinks, p. 242) rather than of Ambrose. Augustine, Serm. 227: "The bread which you see on the altar sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ" (P.L. 39, 1100). Isidore (?0, Epist. 7 Ad Redemptum Archidiaconum, c. 2: "Of the substance of the sacrament are the words of God, pronounced by the priest in the sacred mystery, namely, This is my body, as also wheaten bread and wine" (P.L. 83, 905). St. Agobardus, Contra libros quatuor Amalarii, c. 13. (P.L. 104, 347), and after him all the rest.

559St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. Catechet., c. 37: "This bread is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer; it is not by the eating and drinking that it comes to be the Body of the Word (proficiat in corpus Verbi) ' but by being changed at once into the Body of the Word, according to what was said by the Word: This is my Body" (P.G. 45, 97). Chrysostom, in both editions of his homily de proditione Judae n. 6: "The priest stands uttering these words: but it is the power and the grace of God[which effects all]. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the proffered gifts (ea quae proposita sunt) " (P.G. 49, 380, and 389): an excellent interpretation of this sermon of Chrysostom is supplied by the heretical Severus Antiochenus in his Epist. ad Misaelem; cf. P. de Puniet Revue d, Hist. Eccl., 1912, 1, p. 57). Hesychius, In Levit., IX, 6: Do it, and his glory will appear to you. "Do it, this is clearly the mystic rite regarding which the Lord enjoined: Do this for a commemoration of me.....The dispensation of this mystery is wholly by WORDS, particularly BY THE WORD OF THE LORD WHICH CHANGES (transferente) those things which are apparent to sense into another thing greater than them and known by the intellect (intelligibile) ", (P.G. 93, 891). It is quite true that these and many other Greek Fathers, as well as not a few Latin Fathers, did say that the consecration was effected by some kind of invocation of God, for example an invocation of the Word or more commonly of the Holy Spirit; but such a view is in no way repugnant to our thesis, for, as we shall see later, there can be no consecrative narration of the Supper which does not contain an implicit petition for transmutation.

560St. John Damascene, on the one hand, in perfect harmony with the Fathers just cited, teaches that (I) in the Supper Christ effected the transmutation by the actual intimation of the real presence (rei), hence by the words: This is my body (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 13. P.G. 94, 1140' cf. Petrus Mansur (?) ' De corpore et sanguine Christi, 2. P.G. 95, 408, B.)—and (2) that even now also the sacrament is made or brought about (confici) by virtue of that intimation of our Lord (loc. cit.). On the other hand, however, he holds that the same antitype (antitupa) was given by Basil to the offering before the consecration only (and here the Fathers of the II Nicene Council followed him, Mansi, 13, 261-265, and Nicephorus, Confessor and Pontiff, Antirrh. 2, adv. Const. Copr., 2. P.G. 100, 336): while at the same time we know that in the Liturgy of Basil, after the Supper commemoration, this word was given to the sacrament at the beginning of the epiclesis. Hence either one of the two conclusions is forced upon us; either St. John Damascene was in error in thinking that we consecrate in a different manner (that is, by the epiclesis) to what Christ did (that is, by the words: This is my body) although Christ says: Do this, that is, what I did. This is what Salaville thinks (247-250). Or, we must interpret Damascene as saying: Basil only uses the word antitype for the offering when it is not yet REGARDED AS CONSECRATED. And indeed although the bread and the chalice have been consecrated before the epiclesis, still they are evidently regarded as though not consecrated, when we are asking God to effect the consecration. This interpretation of Damascene appeals to me more than the other: (I) because it is sufficient for his purpose; and (2) because it makes the different statements of Damascene consistent one with the other, as also with the sayings of the other Fathers, particularly of Chrysostom. For though he does assert repeatedly that the consecration is effected by the invocation and descent of the Holy Spirit, in this he does not differ from the Fathers mentioned above.

561561 (l) The Fathers and theologians have asserted, almost with one voice, that Christ consecrated by the demonstrative words: This is my body. Let us glance at a few of the earlier writers. The anonymous author of the Tractatus de solemnitatibus, c. 5 (Spicil. Solesm, I, 11;. cf. XI-XII): "[The Lord acted thus] lest having eaten the[legal] pasch with His disciples, if He had not afterwards changed the sacrifice saying: This is my body, it might be believed that the obligation to eat the legal pasch would still continue" (the full text is quoted in IV (Vol. I). So Christ changed the rite of the sacrifices by these words (This is my body); but this can only mean that by these words He instituted and celebrated the new sacrifice. Therefore He sacrificed by these words, hence He consecrated by them. St. Ephraem: "He called the bread His own living Body, and He filled it with Himself and with the Holy Spirit....What I have called my Body, that it really is.....He offered[the chalice] in sacrifice (sacrificavit), declaring that it was His own Blood which was to be shed, ' (Sermo in hebdomadam sanctam, 4, 4-6, ed. Lamy, 1, 416 and 422). The author of the Homilia de corpore et sanguine Christi, c. 2 (P.L. 30, 272): "By His word, by His secret power, He converts visible creatures into the substance of His Body and Blood saying—Take ye and eat, this is my body. And repeating the sanctification He says: Take ye and drink, this is my blood." St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, 4; 13 (P.G. 94, 1140): "Can He not make bread His Body and wine and water His Blood? It was He who said in the beginning: Let the earth bring forth green herb and to this day, with the advent of rain, it brings forth its fruits, roused to activity and made fruitful by the divine command. God said: This is my body and This is my blood and Do this for a commemoration of me, and by His omnipotent command this is done until He come. For this is what He said: until he come; and, by reason of the invocation on this new corn comes the rain: the overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost." Petrus Mansur (?), De immaculato corpore, 2 (P.G. 95, 408): "He said: This is my body; and replacing the economy of nature, at His word bread and wine with water became His Body and Blood., ' Samonas of Gaza, Discept. cum Achmed Saraceno (P.G. 120, 825): "Seeing therefore that He Himself was God by nature, by His divine power and grace He at once (illico) sanctified that bread saying This is my body, having in Himself the Father and the Holy Ghost, and thus He converts the bread into His own Body: nor had He need of any greater than Himself to sanctify that bread. For what is inferior is blessed by the superior, so Christ Himself as He was not inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost, by His own power effected whatsoever He willed."

(2) Although a few mediaeval writers thought that Christ did not consecrate by these words but before He said them, even they consider that the consecration came not in answer to a petition of Christ for it, but at the signification of His command. As far as I recall the first was Odo of Cambrai who writes: "Clearly the Blood was made by the blessing. For the blessing took place first, then he added: This is the chalice of my blood" (Expositio in canonem missae. P.L. 160, 1063). Shortly before he had written in a similar strain about the bread (cols. 1601-1602). Next came Stephen of Autun Tractatus de sacramento altaris, c. 14 (P.L. 172 1293): "When He blessed the bread He made His may well be (potest) that it was while He was actually giving His Body to the disciples' after the blessing, that He said these words." Then came Baldwin of Canterbury (Lib. de sacramento altaris (P.L. 204, 655): "It is difficult to prove that Christ made the change by these words. But we must firmly believe that Christ said these words, and that the bread and wine were substantially changed, either when He said these words or before, when He willed and as He willed." It was not until after this time that Innocent III (De sacr. altaris mysterio, 4, 6. P.L. 217, 859) wrote: "We may safely say that Christ made the sacrament (confecit) by the divine power, and then gave expression to the form under which those who were to come after would bless. For He Himself, of Himself, blessed by His own power. But we bless by the power which He conferred on the words., ' These doctors certainly held that we at all events consecrate by the words of our Lord. It was quite otherwise with Catharinus and Cheffontaines later on. They held that neither did Christ consecrate by the power of the words, nor do we so consecrate; indeed Cheffontaines, as we said above, even stated, with daring singularity, that just as we effect the consecration through the epiclesis, so, too, Christ obtained it by prayer (impetrasse).

The opinion of John Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, 1896, pp. 3, 8, 20 21, etc.), who assigns not only the consecration of our Lord, but ours also to the blessing signified by the hand movements, may well be passed over. For when he wrote this he was not numbered amongst Catholic theologians but, as a schismatic, was in the present matter a plain heretic.

562In one or other of these ways, perhaps rather the latter, it would seem that we should understand Combefisius in a marginal note of his to the homily of St. John Damascene in Sabbatum sanctum (c. 35. P.G. 96, 637-638), the corrected text of which we submit: "....that is to say, this transmutation is not made WITHOUT RELATION to the invocation which is either antecedent (as with the Latins), or consequent (as with the Greeks), to the words of the Lord, in which words nevertheless the actual virtue is, we always effecting the very same thing which the words of Christ once said by Christ did." Le Quien commends these words and makes them his own (in note 79 to book 4 de Fide orthodoxa, c. 13. P.G. 94 1142) and after him even Cardinal Pitra (strange to say) warmly approves of them (Spicileg. Solesm t. I, p. 441): "No one seems to have explained this rite[of the epiclesis] more lucidly than Combefisius."

563Such is the opinion of Rauschen, L'Eucharistie et la Penitence, French translation, Paris, 1910, p. 124: "It must be admitted that either the epiclesis is destined to disappear or that the consecration has not been completed until it has been said One is not bound at any rate to attribute the consecration to the epiclesis. Did the composers of the epiclesis act as if the consecration were not complete at the end of the Supper narrative? I doubt it. If my opinion is true, it will be difficult to conserve the epiclesis in its actual tenor." The German edition of this work is still more radical (Eucharistie und Buss-Sakrament, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908). Rauschen might have spoken more cautiously. For to any Catholic two things are plain: that the consecration has taken place before the epiclesis, and that the rite of the epiclesis solemnised for many centuries, approved and sanctioned by the Church, is not inappropriate.

564The Glossa ordinaria Decreti (De consecr., 2, 72, Rome, 1584, tom. 2, 1813-1814) on the words of the prayer Jube haec perferri, gave full expression to this opinion centuries ago: "It seems that this prayer is superfluous, because it is said after the words by virtue of which the Body of Christ is consecrated (conficitur), and hence the prayer about what has been done is superfluous. I reply: not only does Scripture not attend to such strict time limits, but the priest, too, as he cannot say many things at one time, so SPEAKS AS IF TIME STOOD STILL, AND AS IF THOSE THINGS STILL HAD TO BE DONE WHICH AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH HAD NOT YET BEEN DONE. And the words are not to be referred to the time of their utterance (but to the mind or thought of the speaker)."

565Hence in the prayer Quam oblationem, which in the Latin Church has crept into a place before the consecration coming just before Qui pridie, we beg that our offering be ratified and accepted by the fact of its passing into, becoming the Body and Blood of Christ: how true it is that the transubstantiation is the acceptance of our sacrifice. Stephen of Autun (Tractatus de sacramento altaris, c. 13. P.L. 172 1291-1292) well understood this when he wrote: "In order that the offering of the bread and wine may have the efficacy and the power of conferring what we petition for, WE ASK[in the prayer Quam oblationem] THAT IT BE CHANGED INTO WHAT IS BETTER, AND THAT IT BE LEGITIMATELY APPROVED FOREVER AND BE RATIFIED, THAT IS, BECOME FIRMLY AND IMMUTABLY SUCH (firmam et immobilem fieri). We pray that the food may become the food of angels, namely that the offering of the bread and wine may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is the blessed oblation, that is, replete with the blessing of every grace, of whose fulness we have all received.....THE SON OF GOD IS SAID TO BE THE LEGITIMATELY APPROVED OFFERING (adscriptam), approved, appointed, designated in the writings of the holy Fathers and never to be consigned to oblivion, and hence RATIFIED (ratam), THAT IS, BOTH FIRM AND IMMUTABLE, namely, CONFIRMED IN THE STATE OF IMMORTALITY AND INCORRUPTION, LASTING FOREVER and sufficing to give salvation and the remission of sins...."

566Cf. our remarks in Th. I (Vol. I) on inchoative acceptance, and in Th. V (Vol. I) on Hebr. IX, 14, also in Thesis XXII on the real acceptance of the victim which was promised to our Lord. That by the transubstantiation is secured the acceptability of our gift on the part of God for us appears to be implied in the Mozarabic epiclesis to be quoted directly, where it is said: "We pray and beseech thee, O Omnipotent God, THAT THOU MAYST MAKE ACCEPTABLE TO THYSELF the sacrifices (libamina) of our servitude offered in thy sight" (P.L. 85, 590).

567When the transubstantiation was asked for (after the consecration) in the epiclesis we would necessarily speak JUST AS IF the gifts had not yet been transubstantiated hence in a prayer of this kind they were not called the Body and Blood of Christ though already they were the Body and Blood, they were spoken of only as the antitypes (antitypa) of the Body and Blood of Christ—thus in the Liturgy of St. Basil: "Having placed before thee the antitypes of the holy Body and Blood of thy Christ....we pray and beseech thee....that thy Holy Spirit may come....on the proffered gifts, and that he may bless and sanctify them and show (= make) this bread to be the precious Body of the Lord", etc. (B. 329-330).

The word antitype is equivalent to the word figure which is inserted in a similar prayer (though in this case as a preamble to the Supper narrative) by the author of the work De sacramentis (1, 5, c. 5, n. 21. P.L. 16, 443): "Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem: quod figura est corporis et sanguinis Jesu Christi. Qui pridie", etc.—the more probable meaning of which is (though Batiffol thinks otherwise, Eucharistie, 5, p. 361): "Make this offering, namely that which is the figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, bread and wine, approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable for us." This construction and interpretation obtains powerful support by comparison with a similar Mozarabic prayer, this time not a preamble to the uttering of the words of our Lord, but a postpridie prayer after that recitation "....Quorum oblationem benedictam, ratam rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris; que est imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Jhesu Christi Filii tui ac redemptoris nostri', (Dom Marius Ferotin Liber ordinum, Paris, 1904, col. 322). We translate: "Do thou deign to make the offering of these things, which is the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, blest, ratified and reasonable." Hence likeness (similitudo) is used in the same way as figure (figura), as equivalent to antitype, as is expressly indicated in the Canonum....reliquiae (75, 6-9, Ed. Hauler, 1900, p. I l 2): " Let the oblations be offered by the deacons to the bishop, and let him give thanks over the bread as an image (exemplum), which the Greeks call an antitype of the Body of Christ; and over the chalice mingled with wine as an antitype which the Greeks call a likeness (similitudinem) of the Blood which was shed for all who believed in Him., ' Hence with the Greeks particularly the word likeness (omoiwma = Latin similitudo) will be equivalent to antitype. Serapion of Thmuis makes use of this word in his Anaphora (F. D. 2, 174) over the bread (to omoiwma tou swmatoj) immediately before the uttering of our Lord's words This is my body. He also uses it over the chalice both before and after the saying of the words This is the new testament which is my blood. So before, we have: "We have offered also the chalice, the likeness (omoiwma) of the Blood, since the Lord Jesus Christ took the chalice and said: Take, Drink", etc.....And after: "Therefore we have also offered the chalice presenting the likeness (omoiwma) of the Blood"—this last, however, BEFORE THE EPICLESIS. But AFTER THE EPICLESIS (or the post-pridie, or some such prayer), though at times the Eucharist is called the image of eternal life, or the effigy of the Passion, still, as far as I can remember, it is never called the image (or the likeness etc.) of the Body or of the Blood of Christ IN THE LITURGIES (for the prayer which the Apostolic Constitutions, bk. 7, c. 24, presents is not and never was in the Liturgy of the Church, as will be seen in Thesis XLIII (Vol. III), rather it was an interpolation and perversion of the prayer in the Didache, to be said over the ordinary bread and wine).

OUTSIDE THE LITURGIES however, the name antitype or some similar word was more freely given to the consecrated Eucharist, as consecrated, and in many senses all of them quite orthodox.

The Body of Christ in the Eucharist is called antitype, for example in relation to the types of the Old Testament, as in a homily of one, perhaps Epiphanius junior (De resurrectione. P.G. 43, 468), also in relation to the species or appearances by which the Body is indicated, as in Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., 5, 20. P.G. 33, 1124); or in relation to the fellowship now imparted to us in our partaking of the Eucharist and to be consummated by the beatific vision in heaven, as in Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 13. P.G. 94, 1153. Cf. Origen, in Matth., t. 11. P.G. 13, 952). Then again the expression the antitypes of the Body and Blood (ta antitupa tou swmatoj kai aimatoj) was used in a more or less indefinite manner by the Greeks in the same way and with the same sense as we speak of the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, to designate the sacramental complex of the Body and the species or symbols. Thus, for example, Eustathius of Antioch in Prov., IX, 5. P.G. 18 685 St. Gregory Nazianzan, Or., 8, 18. P.G. 35, 809, Constitutiones Apostolicae, 5, 14, 7. F. D. 1, 273, etc. etc.

The Latins, too, called the Eucharistic Body of Christ the figure or the sign (figura vel signum) of the Body of Christ, either as It suffered in Its proper visible form on earth (Lanfranc, Lib. de corp. et sang. Dom., 14. P.L. 150, 424—Alger, De sacram. corp. et sang. dom., 1 18. P.L. 180, 792), or as It is to be seen in heaven (Guitmund of Aversa, De Corp. et sang Dom. verit., 2. P.L. 149, 1460).

. Finally we all speak of the Eucharist as the sacrament or the sign or symbol of the mystical body.

St. Paschasius Radbertus in one passage, with his attention fixed on the actual sacramental species rather than on the Eucharistic complex of the Body and Blood speaks as follows: "Let us partake of the likeness (similitudinem—that is, symbol) of His Flesh, let us drink of the likeness of the precious Blood', (De corpore et sanguine Domini, 13, P.L. 120, 1315). But this reliable protagonist of the real presence in the Eucharist immediately goes on to clear up any doubts his words might leave as to the presence of the Body and Blood under these appearances, by adding: "in such a way, however, that truth is not wanting in the sacrament[meaning: in the sign], and so the pagans cannot scoff at us for drinking the reeking blood (cruorem) of a slain man..." etc. He was anticipated in this use of the word likeness by the author of the book De sacramentis, 4, 4, 20. P.L. 16, 443: "For as thou didst assume the likeness (similitudinem) of death in baptism, so also thou dost drink the likeness (similitudinem) of the precious Blood, so that the horror of fresh streaming blood (cruoris) is absent, and nevertheless the price of our redemption works its effect." I think, too, that the following words of the Didascalia, 6, 22, 2 F. D. 1, 376 should be understood in this sense: " Offer the Eucharist accepted by God (acceptam) which is according to the likeness (similitudinem) of the sovereign (regalis) Body of Christ., " In passages of this kind, and they are not a few, the word Eucharist means that which in our Eucharistic bread is the visible sacrament or sign (= sacramentum tantum, sign only). This manner of speaking is quite legitimate.

568Thus one can see, what is true and what is false in the comment of Innocent III (De sacr. Alt. Myst., 5, 2. P.L. 217, 888): "The section commencing qui pridie quam pateretur[presumably all between the end of Quam oblationem to the beginning of unde et memores] should have been placed at the end of the Canon since in it the consecration is consummated; but since this would have impeded the order of the historical narration....the arranger of the Canon, compelled as it were by a certain necessity, placed this section in the very heart, so to speak, of the Canon, in the middle of it' so that what follows is understood as going before: in accordance with the common figure, which often occurs, by which what is last in the worked-out scheme (ratione) came first in the intellect" (P.L. 145, 885). It is true that the words following the consecration are to be understood as if they went before, it is false that the order has been reversed, in the worked-out plan of the Canon.

569This scheme is easily recognised in the Constitutiones Apostolorum, in the Greek Liturgy of St. James, in the Test. D.N.J.C. ' in the Constitutions of the Ethiopian and Egyptian Churches. Another scheme worked out a little differently is found in the Anaphora Serapionis; in this the offering is declared before the commemoration after which then, naturally, the invocation alone follows.

570The unknown author of the Sermo inserted in the Historiae ecclesiasticae et Mysticae Contemplatio (P.G. 98, 437) had probably in mind this parallelism between the epiclesis and the sacerdotal prayer of Christ. He also sees at the same time, in the transmutation, or conversion of the material elements into the Body and Blood of Christ, which we pray for in the epiclesis, the quasi-continued generation noted by Paul (Acts, XIII, 33) in the glorification of Jesus raised from the dead and in respect of our priesthood, the fulfilment of the sanctification which Christ acquired by His sacrifice: " The priest prays to God that the mystery of His Son be carried out (conficiatur) and that this bread and wine be made or changed into the Body and Blood of Christ and of God, and that the words of Scripture be fulfilled: This day I have begotten thee. Hence, too, the Holy Spirit, invisibly present by the good pleasure of the Father and the will of the Son, secretly manifests the divine power and attests it by the hand of the priest and changes and consecrates the proffered gifts into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said: For them do I sanctify myself that they also may be sanctified"

571Cyril of Jerusalem (Cateches., 19, 7. P.G. 33, 1072) also speaks of the invocation of the Trinity when he says: "Before the invocation of the adorable Trinity it was simply ordinary bread and wine; after the invocation the bread has become the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ." But what he calls here the invocation of the Trinity, in another passage he terms the invocation of the Holy Spirit: " After the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the bread of the Eucharist is not ordinary bread but the Body of Christ" (Cateches., 21, 3. P.G. 33, 1089-1092). The answer to the apparent contradiction appears to be supplied from the Cateches., 23, 7. P.G. 33, 1113-1116, where the functions of the individual Persons of the Trinity are distinguished in such a manner, that the Father alone is prayed to, while the sending of the Holy Spirit is petitioned for, finally to effect the presence of the Body of Christ: "We pray to the merciful God to send the Holy Spirit on the offering, to make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ." This description of what occurs coincides with the Greek Liturgy of St. James (B. 53-54). On this matter cf. Tyrer, The Eucharistic Epiclesis, London 1917, pp. 39 41.

It is not easy to decide whether Origen (II Cor., VII 5, ed. C. Jenkins, J. T. C., 1908, July, vol. 9, p. 502) is to be understood in the same sense, or after the manner of the Testamentum. His words are: "That in the Law one might take the loaves of the proposition, he must be clean from women, that one may take the bread, more excellent than the loaves of the proposition, upon which has been invoked the name of God and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, should he not be more pure, that he truly may receive the bread to his salvation, and not to his condemnation?"

572At times, too, a prayer is made to the Father, that His majesty might descend: "O Lord God and the Father of Jesus Christ (Descendat Domine[Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi]), may the plenitude of thy majesty, divinity....and glory descend on this bread and chalice, and may it be made for us a legitimate Eucharist in the transformation of the Body and Blood of the Lord" (Collectio missae monensis, 4. P.L. 138, 871). We find similar words in the Liber ordinum, ed. Ferotin, col. 265. On the other hand' in the Coptic Liturgies of St. Basil (in Greek) and of St. Gregory (in Greek and Coptic), the Father is never mentioned, but a petition is made to the Son only that He may send the Holy Spirit (R. 1, p. 16, 31 and 105).

573Hoppe (p. 177) mentions one example of the use of the word Angel for the Holy Spirit, but outside of the Mass' in the blessing of the font. It is from the Gothic Missal: " Send from on high thy Holy Paraclete, the Angel of truth" (P.L. 72, 274—ed. Bannister, p. 76).

574He was also influenced by another argument equally unconvincing. Thinking that only the Holy Spirit was ever invoked in the epiclesis, when he met with what appeared to be an undoubted epiclesis, he concluded that the heavenly Envoy was none other than the Holy Spirit.

575Justin, Dial., c. 55 60 and 76. P.L. 6, 596-613 and 653 Hilary, 4 Trin c. 23-33 P.L. 10, 113-121, etc. Meanwhile see Cyprian, Testimon, 2, 5 (Hartel,;, 67-68); on Christ AS PRIEST, according to Mal., II, 7; III, 1,

576Just as with the Greeks, either of the words apofaneia or anadeicij (both words meaning showing) is used for the setting of the Body and Blood of Christ under the species by which it is shown; so, too, Cyprian (Ep. 63, 2. P.L. 4, 375) speaks of " the wine by which the Blood of Christ is shown". We will prove later on in L (Vol. III) that in the species there is an actual and formal relation to the Body of Christ as to something DEMONSTRABLE through them.

577Cf. St. Antoninus, Summa, pars. 3, tit. 31, cap. 5, parag. 1: "The angel flits to and fro between the spouse and the beloved... bringing sacrifices from her, bearing gifts to her, and especially in the mystery of the Mass."

578St. Ambrose (Exp. ev. sec. Luc., I, l, c. 28. P.L. 15, 1545); Ps. Ambrose (De Sacram., 1, 4, c. 26, n. 27. P.L. 16, 445), Greg. Rom. (Dial, I, 4, c. 58. P.L. 77, 428) Chrysostom (De Sacerdotio, 6, 4. P.G. 47-48, 681).

579J. T. Franz (Die eucharistische Wandlung und die Epiklese der greichischen und orientalischen Liturgieen, 2, 202, Wurzburg, 1880) some considerable time ago erred in thinking that in the eastern epicleses it was always the coming of the Holy Spirit on the oblata that was prayed for. On the other hand, and in our day, Edmund Bishop was no less astray in the opposite direction, thinking that before the fourth century there was no epiclesis to the Holy Spirit in use ("not earlier than the fourth century, and as concerns a wider diffusion, the second half of that century." The Moment of Consecration, T. a S., 8, 1, p. 138-147).

But against this opinion we have: (I) The epiclesis presented by the Canonum qui dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum Reliquiae, ed. Hauler, 1900, p. 107, or by the Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae, F. D. 2, 100, which we now know must be referred back to the Apostolikh Paradosij of Hippolytus. (2) In part at least the passage from Origen (II Cor., VII, 5) cited above. (3) The indication given by Cyprian (Ep. 64, 4. P.L. 4, 392): "....since the offering cannot be sanctified there where the Holy Spirit is not, and the Lord does not bestow favours in answer to the prayers and petitions of one who himself has dishonoured the Lord." On which passage J. W. Tyrer (The Eucharistic Epiclesis, London, 1917, p. 47) comments rightly as follows: "Cyprian would hardly have spoken as he does if he had been altogether unacquainted with the invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic service." (4) The words of the Didascalia Apostolorum: " The thanksgiving (= eucharistia) is sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta Veronensia Latina, ed. Hauler, 1900, p. 80); and the following: "What is the greater, the bread or the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the bread?', (ibid., p. 81)—in conjunction with this passage: "Offer the sovereign (regalem) Eucharist....presenting the pure bread which is sanctified by the invocation" (ibid., p. 85). Whence again Tyrer says: (op. cit., p. 48): "We may safely conclude that the Invocation he[that is, the author of the Didascalia] was acquainted with was an Invocation of the Holy Ghost." There can be no doubt, then, that epicleses to the Holy Spirit were common in the third century.

580To which word corresponds completely the epifoithssij of the Holy Spirit on the gifts of which all the Greek Fathers speak, all the more because the noun epeleusij corresponding to the verb epeleusetai in Luke was seldom used by the Greeks.

581This reason is indicated by St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, 4, 13. P.G. 94, 1141. and among the Latins. by Paschasius Radbertus, Lib. de corp. et sang. Domini, 4. P.L. 120, 1227-1278: " order that, just as the true Flesh is made without human intercourse (coitu) from the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, so by the same Holy Spirit the same Body and Blood of Christ should be mystically consecrated from the substance of bread and wine." St. Thomas comments on these words of St. Paschasius, assigning them wrongly to St. Augustine, as follows: "Transubstantiation is appropriated to the Son as operating, because He is Himself Priest and Victim, TO THE HOLY SPIRIT as the one by whom the Son operates: because the Holy Spirit is the VIRTUE to heal issuing from the Son" (4, D. 10, expos. text).

582This epiclesis is imitated by this other in the Canon universalis Aethiopum: " We beseech thee to send thy Holy Spirit and power on this bread and this chalice. And may it make both of them the Body and Blood of the Lord" (R. 1, 517).

583Hence we can see what is true—the further explanation by the epiclesis of the consecration which has already occurred and in which the Holy Ghost co-operates to sanctify the oblata, in the way already described, and what is false—that the consecration occurs only at the epiclesis by the descent there and then of the Holy Ghost, in these words from the exposition of the Greek tradition by Nicholas Cabasilas (Expositio Liturgiae, c. 28. P.G. 150, 428): "This is the work of the descent, for He did not descend once, and afterwards abandon us, but He is and will be always with us"—and in Symeon of Thessalonica (Exp. de div. Templo, c. 88. P.G. 155, 733-7363, where he attributes the act of consecration to the virtue emanating from the Holy Spirit, when it rested on the Apostles at Pentecost in tongues of fire. The same tradition without any mixture of error is found in St. Paschasius Radbertus (Lib. de corp. et sang. Dom., c. 21, n. 2, col. 1335), quoted above (XXVI).

584In the Constitutiones Apostolorum the text runs thus: " katapemyvj to agion sou pneuma epi thn qusian tauthn, ton martura twn paqhmatwn tou kuriou Ihsou, opwj apofhnh k. t. l." Funk translates it as follows (loc. cit.): "Supra hoc sacrificium mittas sanctum tuum Spiritum, testem passionem Domini Jesu, ut exhibeat, " etc.—and Salaville (op. cit.): "d'envoyer sur ce sacrifice ton Saint-Esprit, le temoin des souffrances du Seigneur Jesus, pour qu'il fasse, " etc Both these translations make the text of the Constitutiones refer to the Holy Spirit, "as witness testifying to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, to show", etc., taking witness (martura) in apposition to the Holy Spirit (agion pneuma). Such, I admit, is the common version given by all the authors I know of. But, with all due respect to these learned writers, I submit that the translation should follow the order of the Greek text, making martura (witness) in apposition to qusian: "Send the Holy Spirit on this victim (qusian), which attests (ton marura) the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, that He (the Holy Spirit) may show", etc. The reason is (1) that thus there is a closer adherence to the order and structure of the sentence. (2) There are examples of the use of the word martur or Attic, martuj (testis, witness) for other than rational beings (see Stephanus, Thesaurus. G. L., ed. Didot, s. V., martur), of its use for inanimate things, and even of the neuter gender in Greek; so in Plato Leg. 836, C., martura paragopen thn twn qeriwn fusin and in Erasistratus, in Galen., vol. 3, p. 371: pollo twn epignomenwn paqwn marturej even apart from the fact that here the victim is regarded as personified. (3) In all Christian literature I have never met an example where the Holy Ghost is called a witness to the sufferings of Christ. (4) This appellation is appropriate to the Victim there represented, in as much as the Victim is a similitude, a pledge, a memorial symbol, an announcement (kataggelia) of the Passion and death of our Lord. (5) There is a parallel passage of a similar sense in the Anaphora of Serapion where the bread which is offered is said to be the similitude (omoiwma) of the Body of Christ and a similitude (omoiwma) of the Death of Christ, and the word omoiwma is construed in the same way as martura above, that is, with the definite article, although it is in apposition to the word arton (bread), affected by the demonstrative adjective—ton arton touton, to omoiwma. From all this it is quite clear that in order to justify our translation of the passage in question, it is not necessary that we should find there the usual classical construction thn qusian tauthn, thn ousan martura or h estin martuj. Here is the whole passage from Serapion: Soi proshnegkamen ton arton touton, to omoiwma tou swmatoj tou Monogenouj,....Humeij to omoiwma tou qanatou poiuntej, ton arton proshnegkamen kai parakaloumen dia thj qusiaj tauthj katallaghqi pasin emin....proshnegkamen de kai to pothrion, to omoiwma tou aimatoj, (F. D. 2, 174). And so we translate the passage as follows: " We have offered this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-Begotten.....We making this similitude of death have offered the bread, and beseech thee through this Victim to be propitious to us all....and we have offered the cup, the similitude of the Blood." (6) Added to all these reasons there is another, to my mind the strongest. The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions is known to be the same as the interpolator of the Epistles of Ignatius (see the concise and very brilliant proof in Brightman, op. cit., pp. 24-28). Now in that passage of the Epistle to the Romans, where Ignatius speaks of himself as though he was TO BE IMMOLATED ON THE ALTAR, this same compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions changed the text of this Epistle of Ignatius by interpolating those words of I Pet., V, 1 (where the saint is speaking of himself), quoting them ad sensum, with eautou instead of xristou and martura instead of martuj, in reference to Ignatius. Therefore the falsifier of the context considers Ignatius a witness to the sufferings of Christ, because he will be immolated a victim as it were on the altar. This is the passage of the interpolated Epistle to the Romans, 2, 2. F.P. 2, 206: "You could do nothing better for me than to offer me (spondisqhnai) to God, since the altar is already prepared: so that, united in a chorus of love, you may give thanks to God the Father in Jesus, because summoning him from the east to the west, God has deemed the bishop of Syria worthy to be found witness of His sufferings (ton eatou phqhmatwn martura)." That is to say as about to mount the altar, and be immolated, he is witness of the sufferings of the Lord, united as it were with the sacrifice of the Lord. On the other hand though we find the Holy Spirit also set before us as witness, not only in sacred Scripture, but also in our Ps. Ignatius, both in the Constit. Apostol, 7, 22, 1 and 8, 46, 3. F. D. 406 and 558, and in the apocryphal Epistola ad Philippenses, 8, 3. F.P. 2, 114, the Holy Spirit is not there set before us as a witness to the Passion or death of Christ.

Admitting our interpretation' then, the Holy Spirit is invoked in the epiclesis that He may show the Victim, which is a witness to the sufferings of Jesus, to be a truthful witness (that is a full not empty pledge), making it to consist in the immolated Body of Christ Himself' just as, in the Anaphora Serapionis, "THE GOD OF TRUTH, ' is invoked that the bread, which is a likeness' may become the very Body of which it is the likeness and similarly the chalice. We pray then to the Holy Spirit that the sacrament may not be empty, and so false, a kind of shadow of the Victim of the Cross, but ratified and true, as the present reality of Christ Himself' the Victim who has suffered, manifest to the eyes of faith: that truth may not be wanting in the symbol and in the witness (cf. R. S. R., Oct. -Dec. 1916, pp. 474-476).

It may be worth while to note that we also use similar or at any rate cognate language, in the Roman Missal in the Post-Communion prayer for Wednesday in Holy Week. "O Omnipotent God, grant to our senses, THAT BY THE TEMPORAL DEATH OF THY SON, TO WHICH THESE ADORABLE MYSTERIES BEAR WITNESS we may confidently believe that thou hast given us eternal life."

585It is not easy to determine, however, whether it was this reading that introduced the invocation of the Holy Spirit, or invocation of the Holy Spirit which introduced the reading. Each could influence the other. Meanwhile it is worthy of note that all the earlier Latin writers (who used the ancient Latin version) were apparently acquainted with the invocation of the Holy Spirit. See Cyprian, Ep. 64, c. 4. P.L. 4, 392—Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum, 1. 6, c. 1. P.L. 11, 1065. The writers, on the other hand, who used the Greek codices, make mention (as perhaps of something more ancient) of the invocation of God or of the Trinity (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem; Hippolytus is an exception—but see T. D.N.J.C.) later on they speak of the invocation of the Word (Serapion and Athanasius) and finally they speak—passim—of the invocation of the Holy Spirit (as did Hippolytus earlier in the Apostolikh Paradosij). It is by no means certain that the Greek anaphora from the Crum-Papyri, published by P. de Puniet (see Dom. Cabrol, art. Canon Romain, in D. A. C., 2, 1882, 1893), is more ancient than the Sacramentarium Serapionis, the anaphora from the Crum-Papyri is mutilated and there is still doubt whether, besides the invocation of the Holy Spirit which came in it before the Supper narrative, another came after the narrative, directed to some other Person of the Trinity. On the connection between Hebr., IX, 14 and the Eucharistic Supper, see above, in Th. V (Vol. I).

586" O Omnipotent God, we beseech thee that thy holy Word may descend on these things which we offer; may the Spirit of thine inestimable glory descend—may the gift of thine ancient mercy descend, that our oblation may be made a spiritual victim, accepted in the odour of sweetness."

In a Homily of Mar Jacob of Serugh on the reception of the holy mysteries (R. H. Connolly, Downside Review, Nov. 1908, p. 282), we find described an invocation of the Father to send the Son, and thus it comes about that the Holy Spirit descends: "Together with the priest, the whole people beseeches the Father that He will send His Son, that He may come down and dwell upon the oblation. And the Holy Spirit, His power, alights upon the bread and wine, and sanctifies (or consecrates) it, yea makes it the Body and the Blood.,

587At times we find a prayer for the descent of another set of two, the Father and the Holy Spirit. See the Liber Ordinum (ed. Ferotin, col. 265).

588See how, in complete conformity with what we have said above about the interrelation between the narrative style of the sacramental form, and its implied petitionary character, according to Agobardus the consecration is, nevertheless made by our own recital of the words of our Lord spoken at the Supper (Contra libros quatuor Amalarii c. 13. P.L. 104, 347).

589This last, I fear, is insinuated by Rauschen, in a very erroneous argument, too in reference to the very earliest times: "The Church in the West gradually attached greater importance to the Supper narrative.....In the East the epiclesis always commanded greater veneration—for the most part writers considered the consecration as accomplished only at the end of the epiclesis.....But it must be admitted that the moment of the consecration depends on the intention of the priest. Seeing that it is his power to consecrate this or that bread which is before him, consequently, too, he can determine the moment of the consecration. But the Church has the power to impose a direction on him; and if she affirms that the consecration has place when she pronounces the words of the institution, we must unhesitatingly accept her point of view" (L'Eucharistie et la penitence, Paris, 1910, pp. 123-124; cf. German edition, pp. 99-100, cited above).

590Suarez (disp. 60, sect. I, n. 3) comments on the teaching of St. Thomas as follows: " This teaching is very probable and of great authority and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it." Suarez, however' interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor' and not merely in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that equivalence of sense would suffice (4 D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4 D. 8, 2).

591"All the earlier Thomists up to Cajetan, who rejected it, taught the same unanimously" (loc. cit.). We find also mentioned in this same place, besides those earlier theologians, quite a number of later theologians, who hold the same view. To these we may add many more both before the time of Cajetan, as John of Freiburg in Summa Confessorum, 1. 3, tit. 24, q. 55, ed. 1518, fol. 122a, and after, as Jacobus de Graffiis, O.S.B., Consilia et Responsa, 1. 3, De celebratione missarum, consil. 30, n. 30 (Venice, 1604, p. 233), Henricus Henriquez, S.J., Summa theologiae moralis, l, 8, de vero sacrificio missae, c. 17, n. 3; Franciscus Arnicus, S.J., De Sacramentis, disp. 24, sect. 1, n. 20 et seq.; F. Macedo, O. M. De Clavibus Petri, 1. 4, pars. 1, tract. 2, De sacramento euchar., cap. 6, Rome, 1660, p. 282; Cardinal Capisuccus, O.P., Controversiae theologicae selectae, controv. 3, de forma consecrationis vini eucharistici, at great length (ed. 1677, in folio, pp. 175-224), etc. etc.

592St. Albert the Great wavers. He held in 4 D. 8, 7 that these determinative words are "of the essence of the form". But in De sacramento eucharistiae (which I think is of a later date and not to be confused with the doubtful sermones de sacramento eucharistiae) he adheres to the opposite teaching, admitting, nevertheless, that "there is much to be said for the other opinion". See Disp. 6, tr. 2, cap. 3.

593I pass over an objection from patristic authority in which it is presumed that: when the Fathers say, as they often do, that the consecration is effected at the words This is my body this is my blood, they must be taken thereby to determine the precise series of formal words which is required. But what these Fathers actually mean to convey is: that at the enunciation of the work which is done, that work which is enunciated is done (as the Salmanticenses justly remark, ibid., para. 6, n. 44). Much in the same way St. Thomas, having said briefly in art. I, ad. 4m of the same question 78, that were the priest to make use of these words alone, This is my body This is the chalice of my blood, without any narrative preamble, he would consecrate goes on to say, nevertheless, in article 3, that the words This is the chalice of my blood would not suffice without the words which follow them.

594To be found in Dom Cagin, Eucharistia, 1912, 312-313, under the numbers 29, 33, 35, 38, respectively.

595Zacharias Pasqualigo, De sacrificio novae Legis, q. 49, n. 4, Rome, 1707, tom. I p. 54, touches on this point, that not all and every transubstantiation whatsoever of material (corporeae) substance into Christ would be a sacrifice.

596It seems to me that, as an equivalent formula to designate the propitiatory intention, the insertion of the words "of the New Testament", as in our Mass: "chalice of my blood, of the New Testament..." would, by itself, be sufficient. For here the blood of the testament or covenant, both in itself (in view of customs of the ancient peoples), and especially as opposed to the sacrifice of Exodus, an opposition which the word "new" suggests, is necessarily understood as sacrificial, the blood of sacrifice by which God, so propitiated, is bound and pledged to man. On the other hand, the words Mysterium Fidei (the Mystery of Faith), also inserted in our formula, do not of themselves suggest any such thing. These words help however to elucidate other words, pointing out to us the symbolical force of the action, and opening up for us the way by which we can explore, as far as God gives us help to do so, the hidden secrets of the sacrament.

597St. Thomas (II Cor., XI, lect. 6) puts this very clearly: "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are NECESSARY to the form, but the words This is the chalice of my blood only, not the remainder which follows.....This, however, appears to be erroneous: for all that follows is a determination of the predicate[that is, the chalice of my blood]: HENCE IT PERTAINS TO THE. MEANING OR SIGNIFICATION OF THE SAME PRONOUNCEMENT[regarding the Blood]. And because, as has been often said, it is by signifying that the forms of the sacrament have their effect, THE WHOLE[that is, not only the words, This is the chalice of my blood] PERTAINS TO THE EFFECTIVE VIRTUE OF THE FORM.....In the consecration of the Blood it was necessary to express or indicate the virtue of the Passion of Christ, which first of all is considered in relation to our guilt, which the Passion of Christ destroys."

Henricus Henriquez, S.J. (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1, 8 De vero missae sacrificio, c. 17, n. 3), supports this teaching of St. Thomas as follows: "It is plain from all the evangelists and St. Paul, from the usage of the Greek and Latin Church, and from the common consent of theologians, that besides the words This is the chalice of my blood there must necessarily be added some words which expressly signify the effects of the Passion of Christ and of this sacrament. These effects seem to be sufficiently explained either by the words new testament (which, being confirmed by the death of the testator, granted to us the right and the heritage of glory), or by the words which shall be shed for you."

Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): "You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR I OR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE.

598In many authentic Liturgies we find, added at once after the consecration of the bread' that is after the words This is my Body' some words expressing the propitiatory intention of the action. In such cases is it necessary to express this again after the consecration of the chalice (as is done, as a matter of fact, in all these Liturgies)? The Salmanticenses (ibid., par. 6, n. 46) consider that it would not be contrary to the teaching of St. Thomas to deny the necessity of the repetition in such cases. For owing to the unity of the whole utterance and the action, the earlier determination of propitiatory intention can continue in its enunciative power up to the demonstration of the Blood (because necessarily when the Body is said to be given for us the subsequent blood-shedding will be understood likewise to be for us), and so this determination would virtually affect the Blood. But it is quite necessary that this determination should directly affect the Blood in some way, for the reason that we have given in our argument, and the determination as regards the Body would not be sufficient unless it persevered in reference to the Blood in the way we have said. For were the propitiatory intention directly to affect the consecration of the Body it would already effect in that consecration what it signified—in other words, it would clothe the Body with the condition of immolation, and so already the Body would be understood to be a Victim to God, or Theothyte. But this last we cannot admit, for the sacrifice is completed only in the double consecration: because it is only by the double consecration that the death in which the sacrifice consists is represented. Hence it must be said that even if the determination of the propitiatory intention were sufficient when enunciated as referring to the Body, nevertheless it would not be formal or have its formal effect as referring to the Body, but only as referring to the consecration of the Blood, as bound up with the antecedent words in reference to the Body. And so the conclusion of St. Thomas stands: that the determination of the propitiatory virtue enters into the form of the second consecration, but not of the first. Moreover, because in the Roman Canon no such determination of propitiatory intention is expressed over the Body, for this reason St. Thomas very rightly taught that our form of consecration in the Mass in respect of the Blood would be deficient, and so ineffective, if the rest of the words were not added.

What then would happen if a priest, while consecrating the Body by the Roman rite, had the intention of pronouncing over the chalice only the words: This is the chalice of my blood? According to our argument he would not so consecrate even the Body validly. The reason is that no one consecrates the Body validly unless he has at least the intention of consecrating the Blood also (Salmanticenses, De Euch., disp. 13, dub. 2, n. 28); because no one consecrates validly without having at least the implicit intention of offering sacrifice. But the priest who excludes the intention of applying this more determinate form of which we have been speaking in respect of the Blood, actually thereby excludes the intention of valid consecration from what we have said above. Therefore he excludes the intention. of offering the sacrifice. Hence he does not even consecrate the Body validly. The teaching that there is no consecration of the Body, where the intention of consecrating the Blood is lacking is openly declared by de Lugo (De sacrament. euchar., disp. 19, sect. 8, n. 103) to be "not absurd, but true."

599It is true, as we have repeatedly said, that there is no necessity for the form to enunciate the offering formally, as if it were to say: "I offer the Body of Christ" nevertheless it is necessary that the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood which it enunciates should be shown to be made in order to propitiate God, and not for some other purpose in no way sacrificial. Then only will the symbolic separation manifest itself as a sacramental immolation, and hence it will be suited to constitute the sacerdotal offering of the Victim given over to God unto death.

600The words (This is my body. This is the chalice of my blood) express death quite sufficiently, seeing that they convey the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood. But it is not the same thing to specify death as to specify immolation (and we cannot repeat this too often). For the death can be put before us without any relation to sacrifice, In which case the aforesaid separation of Body and Blood will announce to men the death, but it will not dedicate it or present it to God. The Salmanticenses touch on this distinction when they remark (ibid., 2, n. 21): That the Blood of Christ should be shed is one thing, that it should be shed unto the remission of sins is vastly different. For these two things are objectively diverse, they could have been separated." And again: "Because the sacrament of the Eucharist, considered as that which is offered in the Mass (ex parte rei oblatae), IS THE VERY SACRIFICE OF THE was necessary that in the essential form of the Eucharist mention or pronouncement should be made of the Passion of Christ and of THE EFFECTS OF THE REDEMPTION AND SALVATION which it conveyed to us.

601It may be asked how it is that besides the propitiatory character of the Action the eucharistic character becomes evident also sacramentally. I reply in the first place: the propitiatory character of the offering implies the eucharistic character, as was explained in Thesis I (Vol. I). Secondly, the eucharistic character is linked up in a very special way with the propitiatory character, from the external appearance of the bread and wine, under which the price of our redemption is presented to God. For our sacrifice is given to God from the gifts and presents of God, as we see from the Liturgies (passim); and hence it is a protestation of our gratitude towards God who confers benefits on us. Call to mind the passage from Irenaeus, cited in Thesis (0. 1).

602We are not denying that Christ, if He had so willed, could have offered the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine by merely demonstrative words, were the determination of the propitiatory intention made plain otherwise. But seeing that in His sacrifice Christ used only the bread, the chalice and the words of the rite, it is in the words that we must look for this determination which is not manifest to the senses in the material things (taken in themselves) employed by our Lord.

603As will be explained more fully in the next section, the intention of the one who makes or consecrates (conficit) the sacrament does not of itself either change or perfect the sense or signification which is naturally induced in the sacrament through the form and matter of the sacrament. What the intention does is to apply that signification either efficaciously or inefficaciously, at choice. This is the sole function of the intention in this case: not to create or to modify the sense or signification but (if one will pardon the expression) to utilize it, make use of it.

604In Joann. tract. 80, n. 3, and 1, 19. Contra Faustum, 16. P.L. 35, 1840 and 42,.

605No one, of course, thinks that the exact wording of the narrative, as contained in our Canon' is necessary for the validity, seeing that in other Liturgies of the Eastern rites it is different. We are dealing with the substance of the narrative which is everywhere common: that Christ in the Supper took bread and said' etc. Hence the argument advanced by St. Thomas (3 S. 78, 1 ' 4m) against the necessity of the narrative' "that the Canon of the Mass is not the same for all people and all times", seems to have little force. Indeed' if this reason were valid at all it would be valid also against the opinion of St. Thomas himself, which we have just maintained regarding the necessity of including certain words denoting propitiatory intention for the essential integrity of the sacramental form in the consecration of the Blood.

606Salmeron holds that in the Mass the words This is my body are said only in a recitative sense (recitative). We do not agree with him that these words are said by us in a merely recitative sense, to the exclusion of their significative sense (significative of the actual presence of the Body) but we agree with him in so far as he asserts the recitative sense also of the words, which he holds in common, we may say with all our theologians. He defends his view by putting to himself an objection; and solving it. The objection: "If these words are taken as only recitative (per modum recitantis), THE FORM, WHEN PRONOUNCED, WOULD NOT OF ITSELF EFFECT THE SACRAMENT, nor would the consecration occur, which seems inconvenient: for in the case of the other sacraments it is known that where the proper form is pronounced over the proper matter, with the proper intention, the sacraments are effected (conficiuntur), even if other things are omitted." His reply is as follows: "We reply BY ADMITTING with the Subtle Doctor that what the argument infers is true, namely THAT THIS SACRAMENT WOULD NOT BE CONSECRATED IN SUCH A CASE, although the others would be. The reason of the difference is because the forms of the other sacraments are determined in their sense and signify an action which is quite definitely determined: for instance, the fully determined form I baptise thee signifies that the washing or bathing is performed by me in the name of the Trinity. But the form This is my body, This is my blood is indeterminate UNLESS THE NARRATIVE IS ADDED, to point out that this form is induced to do what Christ in the Supper commanded to be done."

607"Of Aragon, a theological professor so celebrated that he was summoned to Rome by Clement VIII and numbered amongst his principal consultors", etc. (Hurter, Nomenclator, 2).

608"The fact that the priest wishes to utter these words in the person of Christ does not bring it about that the words are understood by their own power or virtue (ex VI verborum) as uttered in the person of Christ, because THE WILL OF THE PERSON UTTERING THE WORDS DOES NOT BESTOW ON THE WORDS THEIR SIGNIFICATIVE FORCE; therefore, if these words, simply and without the preamble, do not of their own power signify the Body of Christ, it follows of necessity, that the preamble must come before them, so that the words of consecration may be understood as said in the person of Christ" (loc. cit.).

609The author vigorously maintains that "The intention of the speaker does not prevent those words (pronounced absolutely) from signifying of their own virtue (ex VI verborum) the body of the one who pronounces them', (n. 11, p. 492). And he concludes (n. 12, p. 493): "It is false, therefore, to say that these words This is my body said absolutely by the priest, by virtue of that intention alone, signify of their own nature the Body of Christ, therefore in order that they should signify it they must be uttered in the person of Christ." Secondly he explains very well how the preceding words are related to the form: "These preceding words are better called DISPOSITIONS to the truth of the form' but never the form" (n. 20, p. 494). "The reason is, because those four words This is my body are those which are introduced to signify the Body of Christ and are essentially significative—nevertheless they have not this signification unless they are uttered in the person of Christ: hence what secures that they be uttered in the person of Christ is not part of them, but a previous disposition that they be said in the person of Christ. Hence though the words which go before concur in the signification, they do not concur as constituting that signification nor the reality which is signified, but as disposing to both" (n. 22, p. 495).

610While he denies, as he must, that the preamble is essential to the form, he nevertheless maintains that of necessity it must be prefaced, and this " from the very nature of the form". He gives this reason: "Although those[preceding] words are not consecrative, because they do not signify the conversion of the matter into the Body and Blood of Christ, nevertheless they are DETERMINATIVE in reference to the substantial form of the consecration, conditioning that that form be uttered, as plainly, ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES, in the person of Christ; because although this is determined by the intention, still because the intention is not evident to the sense, it is not yet determined in a sensible manner: therefore if the words of the preamble are not said, something notable is detracted from the form, namely, that the consecrative words of the form are not sensibly determined AS UTTERED IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

611"The sole intention of the priest cannot bring it about that these words of their own verbal virtue (ex VI verbali) should signify the Body of Christ, necessarily therefore, the other words must be placed before them.....How can the sole intention of the priest make the word my, verbally and by virtue of the word itself, mean not my?" (p. 323).

612See Mastrius, loc. cit.

613Hieronymus de Montefortino (Joannis Duns Scoti Summa Theologica, 3ae partis, tom. 1, q. 78, art. 1, Rome, 1787, vol. 4, p. 485) discusses each side of the question, and leaves it undecided.

614In his treatise De celebratione missae (P.L. 101, 1260) Remigius of Auxerre propounds the same teaching in the same words, and in his own explanation of the Canon, Thomas of Walden, having quoted the words of Remigius, continues as follows: " If therefore without this prayer, as Paschasius also says in full agreement, no nation, nor tongue, that is, no part of the Church, can consecrate (conficere) the sacrament, how do the Thaborites, Pragenses and Orphani consecrate, if, as we are told, they introduce, as complement to the consecration in their Mass, that part of the Gospel of St. John beginning with the words: Before the festival day of the pasch, where nothing is given OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE CONSECRATION? It seems to me that they have lost their senses" (Sacramentalia, Paris, 1523, tit. 4, c. 38, fol. 92). Not only, then, does Thomas of Walden interpret Remigius as we do, but he agrees with him. Hence we can well claim Remigius as one of the patrons of our opinion who lived before the time of St. Thomas.

615We also find these words ("the Lord said to the Apostles") in St. Agobardus of Lyons, in the treatise Contra libros quatuor Amalarii, c. 13. P.L. 104, 347. I do not know whether these words, in the rite referred to, were first said by the prelate,. and then transferred to the deacon, or vice versa.

616Similar words are found in John Beleth (Rationale divinorum officiorum, c. 98. P.L. 202, 103).

617From this example we see how the expression at the words of the Lord alone the consecration is made (ad sola verba Domini fit consecratio) should be understood in the earlier writers' that is to say, "at the words of the Lord alone" certainly, but ritually understood, however. Similarly we interpret what Gerhoh had said just before (c. 16 and 17, col. 1351-1352) that the omission of anything added to what was handed down by Christ does not affect the integrity. For at this place he gives as examples the prayers Kyrie eleison, Gloria in excelsis which certainly pertain in no way to the substance of the Canon, being completely outside of it.

618That is to say, Innocent seems to think that those solemn words which he considers necessary include first of all every one of the words which are uttered in the person of our Lord (the most solemn words of all), and secondly, the words which introduce those most solemn words of all. That both sets of words are included is suggested by both the general comprehensiveness of the expression ("and those solemn words which are expressed in the Canon by the holy Fathers"), and also by the quotation from his treatise on the Mass, which we add immediately.

619We read practically the same words in the decretal Epistola ad Joannem quondam archiepiscopum Lugdunensem (Regest. 1. 5, ep. 121. P.L. 114, 1119-1120).

620Whether Innocent himself was right or wrong as regards the origin of this phrase, and of the two others, has little or no bearing on the subject. For our purpose it is enough to show that he considered the narrative necessary, as included among those solemn words expressed by the Fathers in the Canon.

621Neither party can claim the support of Paschasius Radbertus from his Lib. de corp. et sang. Dom., c. 15. P.L. 120, 1322, where he determines not what words must necessarily be said but what words effect the consecration. Some other words of his, however, already cited above (XXXIV) from the Summa Sententiarum, tr. 6, c. 4. P: L. 176, 140 141, do certainly favour Scotus: "The form of this sacrament is THE COMMEMORATION of those words which Christ said in the supper", etc. He does not say the "enunciation" or the "utterance" of these words, he says "the commemoration". Therefore we so pronounce the words that we commemorate them, that is, in such a manner that their utterance by our Lord is narrated, and in so far as this is done they are the form. This interpretation of his words is confirmed by these other words of his which he subjoins: "We believe that these words said by the priest IN THAT ORDER and with that intention change the bread and wine into the true Body and true Blood of Christ, ' (ibid.). Therefore the words This is my body should be said in some "order',: that is, if I am not mistaken, they must be inserted in some narrative by which it is secured that a commemoration of them is made. cf. also the remarks of the author of the book De Sacramentis 4, 5, 21. P.L. 16, 462.

622It is true that what introduces the narrative (the king said) has not the force of a command' since it enjoins nothing, the imperative only being found in the narrated or promulgated member of the whole (divide with me). But nevertheless, just as this second part (divide with me) is not promulgated, as coming from the king, so neither has it any binding force on the individual subjects, unless the first part (the king said) is uttered. So in our case, to quote the words of Thomas of Walden (op. cit., tit. 4, c. 38, fol. 92): "The words of Christ are promulgated and always effective" (promulgatur et semper effectrix Christi sententia).

623Similarly, looking at the matter from another angle: these words of preamble are not the form' simply because they are not spoken in the person of Christ; nevertheless they are necessary, precisely to secure that the words following, This is my body, be uttered in the person of Christ. One and the same reason therefore-the necessity that the person of Christ be represented as speaking the form—implies the necessity of the preamble narrative, and at the same time forbids us to give it the name, and to assign to it the virtue of the sacramental form. The same reason not only also places the epiclesis (which is certainly not said in the person of Christ but in our person) outside the form, but even shows that the epiclesis is not even a necessary condition for valid consecration: for the epiclesis in no way helps to secure that the words of the form be uttered in the person of Christ.

624So true is this that among the theologians who erroneously maintained that of themselves the words of Christ alone suffice, there were some who went so far as to infer that the transubstantiation is effected by speech devoid of sense (sensu vacuam) Thus Joannes Teutonicus (+ 1 245), Glossator of the Decretum, having put to himself the following objection: "The Lord made use of these words significatively, and we make use of them materially: therefore we are not doing what He Himself did; which must be done", candidly replies: "To this I say that the virtue given to these words was such that at the uttering of them the transubstantiation is accomplished. I add likewise that THE PRIEST DOES NOT UTTER THESE WORDS SIGNIFICATIVELY, FOR THE REASON THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PRONOUNCE THEM TRULY SO: FOR HE WOULD SPEAK FALSELY WERE HE TO SAY: THIS IS MY BODY[that is, significatively]. And so our Glossator thinks he has given a satisfactory answer to the question he had put himself in the beginning of the discussion: " How the transubstantiation may be accomplished by an utterance signifying nothing" (Decretum Gratiani cum glossis Dni Joannes Teutonici, etc., Basle, 1512, fol. 399). Thomas Manriquez, Master of the sacred apostolic palace, on the 22nd August 1572, ordered the words which we have set down in capital letters above to be deleted from all the codices of the Decree until an edition should be published with opportune annotations (Censura in glossas et additiones juris canonici, etc., Rome, 1572, pp. 17-18).

625Possibly the distinction between these two modes would be clearer if we agreed to the following usage: in reference to words spoken by us, as representing another, as the above described use of words spoken in the first way, to keep to the expression "in the name" of another, and for the second way "in the person (ex persona) of" another.

626The distinction between the narrative and the demonstrative sense is not the same as the distinction between the speculative and the practical sense. The speculative is opposed to the practical, and the distinction between the historical and the demonstrative can be applied both to the speculative and the practical. The speculative sense presupposes the reality of what is enunciated, as when I say "the sun shines". But the practical does not propose any truth of what is enunciated other than what is induced by the enunciation of it, as when a king says: "This man is a minister of the kingdom'" and thereby creates him a minister. No one should have any doubt whatever that our Lord's words in the Supper had this, the practical, pragmatic sense, not the speculative (if our Lord consecrates by the words, as all now hold). And if in our Mass the sense of the form is demonstrative, it is plain that in our Mass it is practical or pragmatic, for the very same reason that it was so in the Supper. Therefore the real controversy is, as it always was with the early theologians, whether the sense of the form in our Mass is merely narrative, or merely demonstrative, or not rather both narrative and demonstrative at the same time.

627In spite of what Vasquez (disp. 200, c. 2, n. I 5) unhappily wrote to the contrary excluding the recitative and retaining only the significative sense. Suarez (disp. 58 sect. 4, n. 8) aptly refuted this opinion, and de Lugo (disp. 11, sect. 5, n. 115) rightly abandoned it.

628You may object: how is it possible to reconcile in one and the same announcement of ours, the narrative and the demonstrative sense of the words? If the locution This is my body is formally introduced as spoken by Christ in the past, how can we speak it in the very same breath, with the very same vocal sounds, as enunciating something about that which now IS PRESENT TO US?

For Christ in the Supper did not speak of this very bread that we now hold in our hands, He did not speak of this chalice which we now hold, He spoke of that bread and that chalice which He had in His hands when He spoke. If therefore the words of Christ are used by way of recital or narrative, the pronoun this in the locution cannot have the power of indicating anything here present to us, that is, it cannot have a demonstrative sense also.

I reply: The words of our Lord can be uttered by us by way of recital, as words used long ago by Christ, and be at the same time significative of the present Action which we perform. The reason of this is because Christ did not, as the objection falsely supposes, speak of some BREAD (or of some WINE) there in His hands, when He said this ' but the pronoun this, as St. Thomas pointed out (3 S. 78, Sc.), stood at the Supper for what would exist under the species, at the termination of the utterance. Therefore the pronoun this can, in our one same utterance, signify at the same time, both that which at the Supper was destined to be present under those species, and which now at Mass at the conclusion of our utterance, will be present under those species, for both are one, namely, the Body of Christ. And so there is no contradiction between the historical and the demonstrative sense of our sacramental form.

Moreover, that the pronoun this can, for the reason given, and without any absurd implication, at the same time demonstrate, for the Supper then, and for our Mass now, is quite clear from the example of the Church which uses at one and the same time the adjective this both for the chalice of the Supper and the chalice of the Mass where, actually on the point of consecrating, she says: Taking also into his holy and venerable hands THIS EXCELLENT CHALICE. For what chalice did Christ take? His own. And what chalice do we designate? Our own, when we say this. And yet there is no contradiction. For, since the Church here has in mind the chalice of the sacrifice in its terminal state, in which it will be the chalice of the Blood, she rightly designates the chalice of the Lord at the Supper, with the same single word with which she indicates our chalice now.

The early writers saw this clearly. St. Agobardus of Lyons writes: "Let every one of the faithful pay attention to what the word this tells us: simply that the chalice which the priest sacrifices is none other than that which the Lord Himself gave to the Apostles. As we believe this then of the Blood, so also must we believe it of the Body" (Contra libros quatuor Amalarii, c. 13. P.L. 104, 347). We find the same practically word for word in Florus (De expositione missae, 60. P.L. 119, 53), and in Remigius of Auxerre (De celebratione missae. P.L. 101, 1260; cf. Paschasius Radbertus Lib. de corp. et sang. Dom., c. 15, n. 2. P.L. 120, 1322). Many others, too, say the same thing in other words, as Innocent III, commenting thus on the same passage in our Canon: "....For it is one and the same chalice then and now, both here and there, that is offered in sacrifice by all" (De sacro altaris mysterio, 1. 4, c. 27. P.L. 217, 875).

629Gregory of Valentia (in 3 S. 78, 1 and 2, and 3, cols. 990-991) though he is in complete agreement with us that the intention of the priest is not sufficient to signify the body of Christ, and not the body of the speaker, maintains nevertheless that this determination of the sense can be given to the words indifferently, either from the preamble or from the outward circumstances mentioned above. Hence he says that if the narrative words are lacking, these circumstances are required and are sufficient. And before him Gerson (Compend. Theol. De septem sacramentis. De sacram. eucharistiae, Opera omnia, Paris, 1606, t. 2, col. 85) held that the sole words of the form suffice, but in such manner, nevertheless, that some external ritual would be necessary for the sacrament: ' Many learned theologians say that the consecration can be performed by the sole words pronounced by the priest provided there is also some suitable display (apparatus) as established by the Apostles and the Church....At the same time he would sin very gravely....were he knowingly to omit the preamble."

630We often find this case put: were a sacrilegious priest, passing through a bakery, to pronounce the words this is my body over the loaves of bread exposed there, would he consecrate validly or not? Apart from the reason for invalidity (the absence of the narrative) just discussed, here there is another: that as he had NO INTENTION of acting on any wine, he does not intend to sacrifice: because the sacrificial action of the priest consists in the symbolic immolation which is only made in the separate consecration of the Body and Blood. But not intending to offer sacrifice, he does not consecrate even the bread, as we have noted above.

631See note by Leslius (P.L. 85, 549-550). Cf. D. Mar. Ferotin, Liber Ordinum, Paris, 1904 col. 238.

632One might perhaps urge, as at least probable, that the words "Be present, O Jesus....eternal Redeemer" in the PRESENT tenor of the Mozarabic Canon are merely said in parenthesis. If this is so, the Supper narrative would then be connected even grammatically with the prayer Truly holy (Vere sanctus) which goes just before it and is directed to God the Father. And so' in the present form or tenor of that Liturgy the narrative would be bound up grammatically with the words of address.

633It would be foolish for us to attempt to decide, even conjecturally, by what device Christ interwove the thanksgiving with the form of the consecration. We can, however, indicate one out of innumerable ways in which it could have been done. Suppose, for example, that He gave thanks after the model of the words of thanksgiving used at the resurrection of Lazarus: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always, but because OF THE PEOPLE WHO STAND ABOUT I have said if, that they may believe that thou hast sent me, AND HAST SANCTIFIED THIS BREAD WHICH THEY ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE: hence take ye and eat this is my body etc. And if you were of opinion that it was necessary that the sacramental words too, though certainly addressed to the Apostles, should also be grammatically directed to God, you would have no reasonable grounds for saying that this could not be done, too. We suggest a mode, in nowise unsuitable, in which this double direction of the words could be secured. Father I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me always, but because OF THE PEOPLE WHO STAND ABOUT I have said it, but that they may believe that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast sanctified this bread which they are about to receive, believing that it is a mystery of faith which I speak to them: Take ye and ear, for This is my body, etc. Let no one think, however, that in writing these words we attribute them to Christ; they are simply two of innumerable possible formulae.

634Cf. above, Thesis VII (Vol I).

635Perversely, however, and preposterously, attempting to prove from this the necessity of the epiclesis.

636Ignatius (ad Magnesios, VII, 1-2. F.P. 1, 236) in this connection uses the words Proseuxv prayer, and dehsij, petition. Justin: "The food made the Eucharist by the word of prayer (di euxhj logou) handed down by Jesus Himself" (Apol. I 65. P.G. 6. 428; cf. Apol. 1, 10-13, and Dial. 117. P.G. 6, 340 341 and 745). Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 7, 3. P: G. 9, 444) di euxhj, by prayer. Origen (Contra Celsum, 8, 33. P.G. 11, 1565): "Bread offered-with thanksgiving and prayer (euxhn) which is made because of the gifts" and In Matthaeum, t. 11, n. 14. P. G 13, 949): "the food consecrated by the word of God and petition (enteucewj) in accordance with the prayer (euxhn) applied to it." Tertullian: "with the prayers of the sacrifices, ' (De Oratione, 19. P.L. 1, 1182-1183): "We sacrifice by pure prayer" (Ad Scapulam, 2. P.L. 1, 700). Cyprian: "to make another prayer with unlawful words" = illegitimate celebration of the Eucharist (De unitate Ecclesiae 17. P.L. 4, 513). "Orationes et preces" = prayers and petitions = the celebration of the sacrifice (Ep. 64, 4. P.L. 4, 392). All these passages have already been explained in Th. XVIII. We may add Firmilian (Ep. ad Cyprian, c. 10. P.L. 3, 1165): "....She would pretend to sanctify the bread and make the Eucharist by a no means contemptible prayer or invocation", and finally the Didascalia, 6, 22, 2. F. D I 376: " Offer the Eucharist....the bread....which is sanctified by invocation.;,

637Eusebius of Caesarea, De laudibus Constantini, 16. P.G. 20, 1425: "Who but our Saviour Himself alone taught His disciples to offer the sacrifices, bloodless and rational, which are carried out by prayer and the mystic words about divine things (si euxwn kai aporrhtou qoelogiaj)?" Serapion Thmuit., Sacramentarium, c 13. F. D. 2, 172: "the prayer of the offering (Eaxh prosforou)." Athanasius, if he is the author of the Sermo ad baptizandos (P.G. 26, 1325): before the prayers (ikesiai euxai, dehseij) are said, there is nothing but bread and wine, when they have been said, there is the Body of Christ. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica, 37. P.G. 45 97: "This bread is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer (enteucewj)." Hesychius, In Leviticum, 1, 2. P.G. 93, 886: "Unless Christ, being invoked in prayer by the lips of the priests, comes Himself and sanctifies the Supper, what is done does not become the sacrifice of the Lord." Ambrose, De Fide, 4, 10, 124. P. L. 16, 641: ". (those things) which by the mystery of the sacred prayer are transfigured into the Flesh and Blood, " Jerome, Ep. 146, 1. P.L. 22' 1193: "At whose prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated (conficitur). ', In Sophon., 3. P.L. 25, 1375: the eucharist is made by the words of "the priest praying" = "by solemn prayer". Augustine, Trin. 3 4, 10. P.L. 42, 874 ' "consecrated by the mystic prayer." Ep. 149, 15. P.L. 33, 636 "prayers, when it is blessed and sanctified. ', Cf. Contra Litteras Petiliani 2, 30 69. P.L. 43, 281. Gregory the Great, Ep. I, 9, Ep. 12. P.L. 77. 956-957: "the prayer" ="the prayer of the offering". In Paulus Diaconus, S. Greg. M. vita, 23. P.L. 75, 53: "He converts the bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Catholic prayer." Isidore, Etymologiae' 6, 19. P.L. 82, 255: "It is consecrated by the mystic prayer." The Council of Rome (1079), under Gregory VII, commands that the following form of oath be subscribed by Berengarius: "By the mystery of the sacred prayer and by the words of the Redeemer" the conversion is made (D. 355)

638Religious utterance is not the same thing as sacred or even divine words. There can be no religious utterance, as we said, unless it bespeaks the worship of God, or of the blessed in heaven in so far as they are sharers of divine glory. On the other hand, words addressed to men, words which are ordained only to instruct or sanctify men, can be sacred, can be even divine if uttered by the authority of God as when the priest says: Ego te absolvo. But such language would not suffice for the sacrificial action, because the sacrificial action is directed by men to God, and not conversely.

639This is in the book of Hermann de Wied, entitled, Consultatio quomodo reformatio aliqua....sit instituenda (1543).

640I do not think we can claim the support of Dom Cabrol (D. A. C., art. Amen, t I, col. 1558) for this teaching. The question he raises appears to be one rather of terminology than of real facts, where he claims that we give the name consecration indivisibly to the whole Canon, from the preface to the epiclesis inclusive. The question whether the consecration, that is the transubstantiation, is effected with strict dependence on the whole Canon (which every Catholic will deny) is quite different from the question whether the liturgical name of the consecration is applicable to the whole Canon, which is a question of free classification and nomenclature. Thurston (Rev. du Clerge Fr., t. 54, pp. 536-537) says the same thing simply adopting the words of Dom Cabrol. With both we must admit that the Fathers, when speaking of the consecrative prayer, usually, not to say always, treated as one unit both the narrative part which contains the words of the form and parts of the Eucharistic discourse, both before and after it; the whole, by the union of all these parts forming one solemn discourse, containing both the words of the offering and the Canon prayer. But, I repeat, all this has to do with a certain use of terms as justified by historical evidence, with which alone, it seems to me, Dom Cabrol and Fr. Thurston were dealing.

641This exposition is particularly fitting for the words of Justin (Apol. 1. 66. P.G. 428-429), quoted above.