✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›The Holy Eucharist›Part III, Chapter I §2: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved from Scripture and Tradition
Joseph PohleThe Holy EucharistChapter 7

Part III, Chapter I §2: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved from Scripture and Tradition

§2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved from Scripture and Tradition

The Catholic dogma of the Mass is thus negatively defined by the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.”1 The dogma can be convincingly demonstrated both from Scripture and Tradition.

Article 1: The Old Testament

The Old Testament contains many prophecies pointing to the Mass. They are recorded partly in words and partly in types. Chief among the former is the prophecy of Malachias; prominent among the latter is the sacrifice of Melchisedech.

1. The Prophecy of Malachias

The best and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that of Malachias. Its principal passage runs as follows: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.”2

According to the Catholic interpretation, the prophet here foretells the everlasting sacrifice of the New Dispensation. The Mass, in the words of the Tridentine Fathers, “is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer [it]; which the Lord foretold by Malachias would be offered everywhere, clean to His name, which was to be great amongst the nations. …”3

Malachias in the passage quoted predicts two distinct events: (1) the abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and (2) the institution of an entirely new sacrifice. The only new sacrifice that complies with the terms of this prediction is the Mass. Consequently Malachias foretold the Mass.

a) The major premise is evident from the text and context. God through the mouth of the prophet accuses the Levitic priesthood of having despised His name by offering polluted bread and blind, lame, and sick animals upon His altar.4 Angrily He rejects the Levitical sacrifices altogether, declaring that they will be supplanted by a new and clean oblation, which is to be offered not only among the Jews, but likewise “among the gentiles” (i.e. heathen, non-Jews), and not only in one determined spot (Jerusalem), but “in every place,” i.e. throughout the world.

b) The minor premise can be established by showing: (α) that the sacrifice predicted by Malachias was to be instituted in the days of the Messiah; (β) that it was to be a real and true sacrifice, (γ) not formally identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross.

α) Though the Hebrew participles of the original can be translated by the present tense,5 the mere universality of the new sacrifice is proof that the prophet beheld as present an event belonging to the future. Whenever Yahweh speaks of His glorification by the “heathen,”6 He can, according to Old Testament usage, have in mind only the kingdom of the Messiah or the future Church of Christ. Every other explanation is shattered by the text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of Malachias himself be thought of. Nor could there be any idea of a sacrifice among the heathen of that time, as has been suggested; for the sacrifices of the heathen, associated as they are with idolatry and impurity, are essentially unclean7 and cannot claim to be regarded as true sacrifices because they lack legitimate institution and other necessary attributes. Again, Malachias could not have meant a sacrifice among the dispersed Jews. Consequently the reference is undoubtedly to some sacrifice of the future. Was it to be a future sacrifice among genuine heathen? This is as impossible as in the case of other pagan forms of idolatry. Perhaps, then, it was to be a new and more perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This also is out of the question, for the new sacrifice is to be offered by a priesthood of other than Jewish origin, and, moreover, since the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), the whole system of Jewish sacrifices is irrevocably a thing of the past.

β) The Messianic sacrifice predicted by Malachias was to be a true sacrifice. Abolition and substitution must correspond, and, accordingly, the Old Testament sacrifices cannot be supplanted by an unreal one, especially in view of the fact that the former were a type of the latter. The “good things to come” must have been at least as real as their “shadow.” Moreover, such figurative and unreal sacrifices as prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from being a “new” offering, for they are permanent realities common to the sacrifices of both the Old and the New Law. Consequently, the opposition between old and new in the prophecy of Malachias must refer, not to the intrinsic aspects of the sacrifice, but solely to its external rite. All doubt as to the correct interpretation of the passage is dispelled by the Hebrew text. The sacred writer employs no fewer than three distinctively sacerdotal expressions referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of taking the term in the metaphorical sense.8 Especially important is the substantive minchah, which, although originally the generic term for every sacrifice, was never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer offering), but became the terminus technicus for an unbloody sacrifice in contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice, which is given the name of zebach.9

γ) The sacrifice predicted by Malachias cannot be the Sacrifice of the Cross. The prophet employs the word minchah, which means an unbloody food-offering. The Sacrifice of the Cross, though a true sacrifice, was not an unbloody food-offering. The Sacrifice of the Cross was confined to Golgotha and the Jewish people, and hence was not a universal sacrifice in the sense of Malachias, i.e. a sacrifice offered “from the rising of the sun to the going down” and “in every place.” Moreover, the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the Saviour in person, without the help of a human priesthood, cannot be identified with a sacrifice for the offering of which the Messias employs priests after the manner of the Levites. In the Mass alone is the prophecy of Malachias fulfilled to the letter. In it are united all the characteristics of the promised new sacrifice: its universality in regard to place and time, its extension to all nations, its unbloody sacrificial rite, its delegated priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its power to glorify the name of God throughout the world, its intrinsic dignity and essential purity which no Levitical or moral uncleanness can defile. This is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.10 Cornelius à Lapide is so impressed with their unanimity that he confidently says: “It is of faith that this clean oblation [of Malachias] is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.”11

c) This argument is supported by other prophetic references to the Mass in the Old Testament, e.g. Psalm XXI and Isaias’ prediction of a non-Jewish priesthood for the kingdom of the future Messias.

α) The Messianic character of Psalm XXI (“Deus, Deus meus, respice in me”) is evident from Matth. XXVII, 46; Mark XV, 34; John XIX, 24; Heb. II, 11 sq. After describing His suffering on the Cross,12 the Messias goes on to show what blessings His Passion will bring upon the whole world. In thanksgiving for His rescue from death (on the Last Day) He wishes to “pay his vows.” There follows the description of a meal in which not only “the poor shall eat and be filled,” but “the fat ones of the earth,” too, shall participate. Nay more, even the gentiles shall be benefited.13 This cannot possibly refer to the Sacrifice of the Cross; it must refer to the Mass.14

β) Isaias predicts the terrible judgment of God upon the Jews and the entrance of the heathen into the Messianic Church. Cfr. Is. LXVI, 18 sq.: “I come that I may gather them together with all nations and tongues: and they shall come and shall see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send of them that shall be saved to the gentiles into the sea, into Africa, and Lydia them that draw the bow: into Italy, and Greece, to the islands afar off, to them that have not heard of me, and have not seen my glory.” A characteristic of this new Church will be its non-Jewish priesthood. “And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith the Lord.”15 As priest and sacrifice are correlative terms, the new priesthood here prophesied implies an equally permanent sacrifice, and this can only be the Mass.16

2. The Sacrifice of Melchisedech a Type of the Mass

We read in the Book of Genesis: “But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him [Abraham], … and [Abraham] gave him the tithes of all.”17 This bringing forth of bread and wine on the part of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice, and it is on account of this sacrificial act that Melchisedech is regarded as the prototype of Christ at the Last Supper.

a) The Protestants (and some few Catholics) deny that the food-offering of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice. They claim that the verb hiktir is not a hieratic sacrificial term, and that the King of Salem simply brought forth bread and wine to provide refreshment for Abraham and his warriors. But this interpretation is untenable. In the first place, Abraham and his men were well supplied with provisions, for they had taken much booty,18 and gave “tithes of all.” Moreover, it is evident from the context that proferre is here used in the sense of offerre. Melchisedech is not introduced as Abraham’s host, but as “the priest of the most high God,” and it is in this capacity that he “brings forth bread and wine,” blesses Abraham, and receives tithes from him.19 Melchisedech’s bringing forth bread and wine is stamped as a sacrifice by the fact that it is attributed to his priesthood: “Erat enim sacerdos.” Had the sacred writer meant to explain Melchisedech’s action rather than to give the reason for it, he would have said: “Melchisedech, the king of Salem, who was a priest, brought forth bread and wine.” What he does say is: “Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him,” etc. The intermediate clause clearly has reference, not only to the subsequent acts of blessing and receiving the tithe, but mainly to the preceding sacrifice of bread and wine. That the Masorites understood it thus is evident from the fact that they put a period (the so-called Soph-Pasuk) after the clause.

b) Sacred Scripture expressly teaches that Melchisedech, in his capacity of priest, was a prototype of Jesus Christ. In Psalm CIX we read: “Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.”20 St. Paul refers this directly to our Lord: “So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ as he saith also in another place: ‘Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.’”21 Christ is here declared to be not merely a priest like Melchisedech, but “according to the order” of Melchisedech. Now Melchisedech, according to the “order” or rite employed, offered an unbloody sacrifice. Hence Christ, being a priest according to the same order, must also offer an unbloody sacrifice. Consequently, Christ resembles His priestly prototype not in His bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, but at the Last Supper, for there He made an unbloody food-offering — only that, as antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely, the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine. And since He continues this unbloody sacrifice in the Mass and will continue it to the end of the world, He is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.”22

The question may be asked: Why does not St. Paul expressly draw this conclusion in his Epistle to the Hebrews? Answer: Because this particular tertium comparationis does not fit into his argument. What he aims to show23 is Christ’s superiority as a priest over the Old Testament Levites. To establish this he argues as follows: Melchisedech as a priest ranked higher than Aaron. Now Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Consequently Christ as a priest ranks higher than Aaron. The superiority of Melchisedech as a priest is manifested not so much by his sacrificing bread and wine (this had a parallel in the Levitic cult), as in the fact that he blessed Abraham and received tithes from him.24

The teaching of the Fathers is perfectly clear on this point. St. Cyprian says: “What order, therefore, is this, coming from that sacrifice and going back to it, by which Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, offered bread and wine, and blessed Abraham? For who is more a priest of the most high God, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same that Melchisedech offered, namely, bread and wine, that is, His Body and Blood.”25 St. Augustine, in spite of the Discipline of the Secret still in force when he wrote, expresses himself with sufficient clearness on the same subject: “They who read know what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham, and they participate therein; [for] they behold such a sacrifice now being offered to God throughout the world.”26

Without wishing to utter a final definition on the subject, the Council of Trent27 laid stress on the prophetical relation existing between the sacrifice of Melchisedech and the Last Supper.28

Article 2: The New Testament

The sacrificial character of the Mass can be most convincingly proved from the words which our Divine Saviour employed in consecrating the Chalice.

1. Proof of the Sacrificial Character of the Mass from the Words Employed by Christ in Consecrating the Chalice

The words spoken by Jesus over the Chalice are reported as follows: Matth. XXVI, 28: “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (τὸ αἷμά μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). Mark XIV, 24: “This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many.” Luke XXII, 20: “This is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” 1 Cor. XI, 25: “This chalice is the New Testament in my blood.”

From these texts the divine institution of the Mass can be proved by showing: (1) that the shedding of blood took place at the Last Supper, and not for the first time on the Cross; (2) that it was a true sacrifice; (3) that it was to be a permanent institution in the Church.

(1) That Christ, when He spoke of shedding His Blood, did not refer to the Sacrifice which He was about to offer on the Cross, but to the sacrifice He was then and there offering at the Last Supper, is evident from the following considerations.

a) The verb is used throughout in the form of the present participle, ἐκχυννόμενον. If the Vulgate employs the future tense, it is no doubt to signify that the Sacrifice of the Last Supper is a merely relative sacrifice, based upon and intrinsically related to that of the Cross. Many ancient codices more correctly employ the present, “effunditur.”29

b) The Greek language hardly offers an example of the use of the present participle in a future sense, especially when the finite verb is also used in the present, as here: τοῦτό ἐστιν … ἐκχυννόμενον.

c) It is a rule of New Testament Greek that when the present tense is used both in the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here, the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present.

d) The above interpretation is rendered certain by the wording of St. Luke, who expressly speaks of the shedding of the blood as taking place in the Chalice, and not on the Cross. He does not say: τὸ ποτήριον ἐν τῷ αἵματι ἐκχυννομένῳ, but: τὸ ποτήριον ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον — i.e. the Blood of Christ is shed for you in so far as it is present in the Chalice. Since St. Luke, for such a good reason, refers the shedding of the Blood to the present, the participle ἐκχυννόμενον in the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark must also be interpreted strictly in the present tense.

(2) Even those comparatively few Protestants who, like the Anglicans, hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a true sacrifice, readily admit that the phrase, “to shed one’s blood for others unto the remission of sins,” is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to a sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation; only they refer this sacrifice to what took place not at the Last Supper, but at the Crucifixion. We maintain that the shedding of Christ’s Blood in the Chalice is as truly a sacrifice as the shedding of it on the Cross, and that our Lord wished to solemnize the Last Supper not merely as a Sacrament, but also as a Eucharistic sacrifice. In other words, the effusio calicis signifies not merely a making present of the true Blood of Christ for the purpose of sacramental reception, but likewise a true, though unbloody offering thereof “for many unto remission of sins.” If the “pouring out of the Chalice” meant nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, we should have an intolerable tautology: “Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood, which is being drunk.” However, since the text reads: “Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood, which is shed for many unto remission of sins,” the double character of the rite as a Sacrament and as a sacrifice is unmistakable. The Sacrament is shown forth in the “drinking,” the sacrifice in the “shedding of the blood.” The “Blood of the New Testament,” moreover, of which all four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the Old Testament through Moses.30

(3) The Sacrifice of the Mass was intended to be a permanent institution in the Church. This is made evident by our Saviour’s command: “This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.”31

The question arises: How can the Lord’s Blood be truly shed in the Chalice? Such an unbloody shedding of blood seems to involve a contradiction. It is possible and necessary to distinguish a twofold shedding of blood for sacrificial purposes — the one real and physical, the other sacramental and mystical. The former took place in the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, and also in the Crucifixion, when the Precious Blood of our Saviour actually flowed from His veins and was separated from the Body. When we speak of the sacramental shedding of blood (effusio sanguinis sacramentalis s. mystica) we mean that Christ offers His Blood for us in so far as it is represented as mystically separated from His Body. This mystic slaying of the Eucharistic Lamb is an imitation and sacramental representation of the physical killing on the Cross. It is in this sense that we must understand the famous saying that the double Consecration is a mystic sword which separates the Blood of Christ from His Body and thereby graphically represents His death on the Cross.

2. Proof of the Sacrificial Character of the Mass from the Consecration of the Bread

As St. Matthew and St. Mark report the words “Hoc est corpus meum” without any addition, we have to depend entirely on St. Luke and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Luke XXII, 19: “This is my body, which is given for you” (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον). 1 Cor. XI, 24: “This is my body, which shall be delivered for you” (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον).

a) The present participle διδόμενον, employed by St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time correctly translates into the present (datur), strengthens the argument we have construed above from the Consecration of the Chalice. The “giving of the body” plainly refers to the Eucharistic Body of Christ present at the Last Supper, and not to His physical Body nailed to the Cross.

The reading κλώμενον in St. Paul’s text is disputed; Tischendorf and Lachmann omit it, but St. Chrysostom read it, and there is good reason for regarding the word as Pauline. We may argue as follows: The Biblical phrase “to break” (κλᾶν, frangere), when applied to food, means to give or offer as food. Now since the physical Body of Christ on the Cross was not allowed to be “broken” after the manner of the Paschal Lamb,32 and most certainly was not given or offered as food to be eaten, the word κλώμενον cannot possibly refer to the Sacrifice of the Cross, but must be applied to the giving of the Body at the Last Supper.

b) The giving of the Body of Christ at the Last Supper was a true sacrificial act. Tradere s. dare corpus pro aliquo in Biblical usage is a distinctly sacrificial term.33 Christ Himself employed it in the discourse in which He promised to institute the Holy Eucharist: “The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.”34 This excludes the assumption that the Last Supper was merely a “giving” of Christ’s Flesh in holy Communion, i.e., a mere Sacrament.

c) The offering of the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ was to be a permanent institution in the Church — the enduring Sacrifice of the New Covenant. This is evident from the Master’s command as recorded both by St. Luke and St. Paul: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”35 Reischl, Bisping, Zill, and some other exegetes also quote in this connection Heb. XIII, 10: “We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον), whereof they have no power to eat (φαγεῖν) who serve the tabernacle,” but this interpretation is not entirely certain, since St. Thomas and Estius take the Pauline passage figuratively and apply it to the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Article 3: The Argument from Prescription

The argument from prescription for the existence of the Mass may be formulated as follows: A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than the oldest attack made upon it by heretics, cannot possibly be “the work of men or devils,” but must have been instituted by Christ. Now the Church’s legitimate possession as regards the Mass can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity. It follows that the Mass was instituted by Christ.

1. Since the Council of Trent

For the last three centuries and a half the teaching of the Tridentine Council has been admittedly accepted throughout the Catholic Church. The Council devoted its entire twenty-second Session to the Sacrifice of the Mass, defining: the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice; Christ instituted a special priesthood for its celebration; it is a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the living and the dead; it casts no blasphemy on the Sacrifice of the Cross; to celebrate Mass in honor of the saints is not an imposture; the canon of the Mass contains no errors; its ceremonies are a means of edification; private Masses are lawful; and the rite of the Roman Church is not to be condemned.

These dogmatic definitions palpably reflect a time when the enemies of the Church did not scruple to cover the most sacred things with the filth of their vile imagination. Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius inveighed against altars as “impias lapidum congeries,” since they rejected the dogma of the Real Presence. Calvin reviled the “Papistical Mass,” which the Catechism of Heidelberg characterized as “cursed idolatry.” Luther, despite his belief in the Real Presence, made common cause with the enemies of the Mass. Melanchthon had no objection to letting the Mass go on as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but denied its propitiatory character. The violence of the Reformers shows how deeply the Mass had taken root in Christendom. Calvin’s own declaration that the devil had deceived nearly the whole universe into believing in its sacrificial character36 is valid testimony to its existence at his time; so, too, is Luther’s complaint that the entire ritual of the Mass is saturated with the notion of sacrifice.37

2. The Middle Ages Since Photius

This period, which extends from the year 869 to about 1500, affords an abundance of testimonies for the existence of the Mass. Though a number of deplorable abuses originated in the course of this period, the Mass itself was universally acknowledged in the Catholic Church as a divine institution. There were some heretical attacks made upon it in the twelfth century: the Albigenses and Waldenses claimed that laymen had the power of offering sacrifice, and in the fourteenth century Wiclif attacked the dogma of the Real Presence. But the Church succeeded in preserving belief in the Mass among the Christian populace. The Council of Constance (1414-18) condemned Wiclif’s assertion that the Mass cannot be proved from Scripture,38 quite as vigorously as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) had rejected the heretical teaching of the Albigenses.39

Taking a long step backward to the schism of Photius (869), we find that the Greek Church held fast to the Eucharistic Sacrifice as faithfully as the Latin. The schismatic Greeks showed in the negotiations for reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) that they had kept this precious heritage intact. The German Lutherans tried to induce them to give up the Mass, but their efforts were as fruitless as the repeated attempts of the Tübingen divines to persuade them to relinquish their belief in the seven Sacraments.40 A schismatic council held at Jerusalem, A.D. 1672, refers to the Mass as a true sacrifice of propitiation offered for all the faithful, both living and dead.41 From all of which it is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before Photius.

3. The Period from A.D. 300 to 800

Going still farther back, we come upon the Nestorians and Monophysites. These heretics, who were driven out of the Church in the fifth century (Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451), have continued to the present day to celebrate in their solemn liturgy the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The Mass was not introduced in the fifth century. This is evident from certain conciliary decrees issued at a still earlier date. The Third Provincial Council of Carthage, in 397, ordained that “nothing be offered in the Sacraments of the Lord’s Body and Blood except what the Lord Himself handed down, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water.”42 The first Nicene Council (325), in its eighteenth canon, forbade priests to receive the Eucharist from the hands of deacons, for the reason that “neither the canon nor custom have handed down to us, that those who have not the power to offer sacrifice (προσφέρειν) may give Christ’s Body to those who offer (τοῖς προσφέρουσιν).” The Nicene Council speaks of a “custom.” A custom of the fourth century must go back at least to the third, which brings us to the age of the catacombs. Even Harnack admits43 that the Eucharist was regarded as a true sacrifice in the time of St. Cyprian, who died in 258. Convincing evidence from those early days is furnished by Eucharistic pictures, vessels, missals, altars, etc.44

4. The First Three Centuries

The most conclusive evidence for the existence of the Mass in the early days of Christianity is furnished by the ancient liturgies. They reach back to the Apostolic age and give unadulterated and decisive expression to the sacrificial idea.

a) According to the well-founded opinion of modern authorities, the liturgies of the East and West may all be traced to one archetype, contained in the eighth book of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions,45 which was undoubtedly compiled in the first century. It agrees so perfectly with the description given by St. Clement of Rome that it has been called the Clementine Liturgy.46 Bickell does not hesitate to assert that in its essential characteristics this is the rite employed by Christ Himself at the Last Supper.47

b) In the fourth century the parent liturgy developed into two great families, the Oriental and the Occidental. The Eastern family embraced principally: (1) The Liturgy of Jerusalem,48 represented in the fifth of the Catecheses Mystagogicae of St. Cyril (d. 386), often called the Liturgy of St. James;49 (2) offshoots of it, the Liturgy of St. Basil (d. 379) and of St. Chrysostom (d. 407), both still used by the Greeks and Russians; (3) the Armenian Liturgy, closely related to that of St. Basil; (4) the Alexandrian Liturgy, also called Liturgy of St. Mark, underlying the liturgy of the Copts and the Abyssinians;50 (5) the Chaldee Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari,51 used by the Nestorians of Mesopotamia, remarkable for not containing the words of institution.

To the Western family belong: (1) The Roman Liturgy, held to have developed from the nucleus of the Mass as celebrated by our Lord Himself at the Last Supper, based on the Sacramentaries of Popes Gelasius I (d. 496) and Gregory the Great (d. 604);52 (2) the Milanese Liturgy, introduced towards the end of the fourth century by St. Ambrose (d. 397), differing from the Roman only in a few non-essential points;53 (3) the Mozarabic Liturgy, also called the Gothico-Spanish, preserved by Cardinal Ximenes,54 remarkable among Western liturgies for containing an Epiklesis after the Consecration;55 (4) the ancient Gallican Liturgy, Greek in structure, extinct since the eighth century.56 All these liturgies in their essential characteristics date from the first century and bear indisputable testimony to the sacrificial character of the Mass and its venerable age.57

Article 4: The Argument from Tradition

The existence of the Mass in the early days of Christianity can also be proved from the writings of the Fathers. It is impossible to quote them all within the limits of this treatise, and hence we shall give a selection of Patristic utterances from the first four centuries.

1. The Apostolic Fathers

The Didache, or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in 1883, was probably composed towards the close of the first century.58 It clearly attests the Apostolic age of the Mass, representing the Eucharistic banquet as the unbloody sacrifice predicted by Malachias: “On the Lord’s day come together, break bread and perform the Eucharist after confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is that [sacrifice] which was spoken by the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a clean oblation, for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the heathen.’”59

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the Eucharist: “There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His Blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons …”60 And again: “Let no one be deceived: unless a man be within the altar, he lacks the bread of God.”61

2. The Apologists of the Second Century

St. Justin Martyr (d. 166), in his Dialogue with Tryphon,62 says: “The oblation of the wheaten flour … was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus our Lord commanded to be offered in commemoration of His passion. Of the sacrifices which you [the Jews] formerly offered, God said through Malachias: ‘I have no pleasure,’ etc. He speaks in advance of the sacrifices which we heathen nations offer to Him in every place, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the chalice of the Eucharist, saying at the same time that we glorify His name, while you profane Him.”

In the West, Tertullian (b. about 160) advises those who, for fear of breaking the fast, absent themselves from divine service on the days of the stations, to take the Body of the Lord home with them from the sacrificial altar and consume it after the period of fasting is over. He calls holy Communion “a participation in the sacrifice” which is accomplished “at the altar of God.”63 In another treatise he speaks of a real, in contradistinction to a merely metaphorical, “offering up of sacrifice,”64 and in still another, he dwells on the “nourishing power of the Lord’s Body” and the renewal of His immolation.65

3. The Fathers of the Third Century

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) declares that Christ instituted “the new sacrifice of the New Testament,” which the Church regards as the “clean oblation” prophesied by Malachias and offers up to God everywhere. He writes: “In saying, ‘This is my Body,’ etc., Christ inculcated the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers up to God throughout the world.”66 According to Irenaeus it is the Church alone that offers a “pure oblation,” whereas the Jews “did not receive the Word which is offered to God.”67 The abolition of the Levitic priesthood, he further explains, does not signify that there are to be no more sacrifices, but merely that the “form has been changed.”68

St. Cyprian (d. 258), in a letter in which he opposes the use of water instead of wine at the Holy Sacrifice, insists on the necessity of carefully following the example of Christ, and continues: “Whence it appears that the Blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the chalice, and that the Lord’s Sacrifice is not legitimately celebrated unless our offering and sacrifice correspond to the Passion. … That priest truly discharges the office of Christ who imitates what Christ did, and he then offers a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church, when he proceeds to offer it according to the manner in which he sees Christ Himself to have offered.”69 This passage proves that St. Cyprian knew of the Mass and regarded it as a true sacrifice.

4. The Fathers of the Fourth Century

Our most important witness for this period is St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), who gives a detailed account of the liturgy of the Mass and draws a clear-cut distinction between the sacrifice itself and the prayers that usually accompany it. He says: “After the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody liturgy, is accomplished [i.e. after the Consecration], we pray over this expiatory sacrifice to God for the universal peace of the Churches … and for all those in need we pray and offer up this sacrifice. Then we commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, through their prayers and intercession, may mercifully receive our supplications. Thereupon we pray for the departed, … inasmuch as we believe that it will be of the greatest profit to them if we pray for them in view of this holy and sublime sacrificial gift. We offer up Christ, who was slain for our sins, in order to propitiate the benevolent God for those who are already dead, and for ourselves.”70

St. Ambrose (d. 397) lays particular stress on the power of the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice. He says: “We priests imitate Christ, as is our right, by offering the Sacrifice for the people; though we are poor in merits, we become worthy of veneration by the Sacrifice; for though Christ is not now seen offering, yet He is sacrificed on earth, when Christ’s Body is offered.”71

5. The Fathers of the Fifth Century

St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), who has been justly called the herald of the Eucharist, might with equal propriety be proclaimed the champion of the Mass. It is upon the Mass that he bases his exalted conception of the dignity of the priesthood: “When you behold how the Lord is sacrificed and laid there as a slain victim, and how the priest stands and prays before the Sacrifice, … do you still imagine yourself to be among men and on this earth? … When the priest invokes the Holy Ghost and performs the sublime sacrifice, tell me, how shall we rank him?”72 The sacrificial victim of the Mass, according to St. Chrysostom, is Christ Himself. “Christ instituted the priestly liturgy, transmuted the victim, and ordained that, instead of irrational animals, He Himself should be slaughtered.”73 The Mass preserves its unity in spite of the fact that it is repeated daily on innumerable altars. “We always offer the same Victim, and not one lamb to-day, and another to-morrow, but always the same one. … Since He is offered as a sacrifice in many places, are there not also many Christs? By no means, for Christ is one and the same everywhere. … Now, as He that is sacrificed in many places is one Body, and not many bodies, so also there is but one Sacrifice.”74

The Protestant contention that St. Augustine (d. 430) favored the “symbolic” theory in regard to the Real Presence is disproved by his utterances on the Mass. He lays it down as a general principle that there can be no religion without an external cult.75 In the New Testament all other sacrifices have been supplanted by the Mass, which is the “summum verumque mysterium” of the Christian religion, and in which Christ is both the sacrificing Priest and the sacrificial Gift.76 Physically, He was offered but once, on the Cross; sacramentally, He is daily offered anew for all nations,77 in commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross.78 Augustine calls the attention of the Jews to the prophecy of Malachias and asks them: “What have you to say to this? Open your eyes at last and see how from the rising to the setting of the sun there is offered up the Sacrifice of the Christians; not in one place, as it was ordained among you, but everywhere; not to this God or that, but to the God of Israel, who predicted these things; not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedech.”79

In his Confessions St. Augustine relates that his pious mother, St. Monica, heard Mass daily, and when she was near death, “only desired that we should make a remembrance of her at Thy altar, at which she had constantly attended without one day’s intermission.”80

Readings: G. Bickell, Messe und Pascha. Der apostolische Ursprung der Messliturgie, Mayence 1872. J. M. Buathier, Le Sacrifice dans le Dogme Catholique et dans la Vie Chrétienne, Paris 1889. F. Probst, Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform, Münster 1892; Die abendländische Messe vom fünften bis zum achten Jahrhundert, Münster 1896. A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg 1902. Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, Munich 1906; Der vorirenäische Opferbegriff, Munich 1909. E. Dorsch, S.J., Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie einst und jetzt, Innsbruck 1909. G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 62-98, St. Louis 1913. A. Fortescue, The Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd ed., London 1913. A. J. Maas, S.J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5. L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London 1903.

Footnotes

  1. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 1: “Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium aut quod offerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 948). ↩

  2. Mal. I, 10 sq.: “Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus exercituum: et munus non suscipiam de manu vestra. Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum, magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, et in omni loco sacrificatur, et offertur nomini meo oblatio munda: quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus exercituum.” ↩

  3. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 1: “Haec illa munda oblatio est, quae nulla indignitate aut malitia offerentium inquinari potest, quam Dominus per Malachiam nomini suo, quod magnum futurum esset in gentibus, in omni loco mundam offerendam praedixit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 939). ↩

  4. Mal. I, 7-8: “Offertis super altare meum panem pollutum, et dicitis: In quo polluimus te? In eo quod dicitis: Mensa Domini despecta est. Si offeratis caecum ad immolandum, nonne malum est? et si offeratis claudum et languidum, nonne malum est?” ↩

  5. They are so translated in our English Bible. ↩

  6. Cfr. Ps. XXI, 28; LXXI, 10; Is. XI, 9; XLIX, 6; LX, 9; Amos IX, 12; Mich. IV, 2, etc. ↩

  7. Cfr. 1 Cor. X, 20: “Quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immolant.” ↩

  8. “In every place … offer” and “a clean sacrifice” never occur in Sacred Scripture in the sense of internal sacrifice (e.g. prayer), but are always applied to liturgical sacrifices. ↩

  9. Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Proph. Minor., Vol. II, pp. 430 sqq., Paris 1886. ↩

  10. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 10; Petavius, De Incarnatione, XII, 12. ↩

  11. “De fide esse, hanc oblationem mundam esse sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia.” On the prophecy of Malachias the student may profitably consult Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 10; Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 388 sqq.; D. Rock, Hierurgia; or, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 4th ed., revised by W. H. J. Weale, Vol. I, pp. 183 sqq., London 1900. ↩

  12. Ps. XXI, 1 sqq. ↩

  13. Ps. XXI, 27 sqq. ↩

  14. For a more detailed explanation of Ps. XXI, see Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 88 sqq. ↩

  15. Is. LXVI, 21. ↩

  16. Cfr. Is. XIX, 19; Prov. IX, 1 sqq. ↩

  17. Gen. XIV, 18 sqq.: “At vero Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens panem et vinum, erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi, benedixit ei [scil. Abrahae] … et [Abraham] dedit ei decimas ex omnibus.” ↩

  18. Cfr. Gen. XIV, 11, 16. ↩

  19. Cfr. Heb. VIII, 4 sqq. ↩

  20. Ps. CIX: “Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem (κατὰ τὴν τάξιν) Melchisedech.” ↩

  21. Heb. V, 5 sq.: “Christus non semetipsum clarificavit, ut pontifex fieret, sed qui locutus est ad eum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; quemadmodum et in alio loco dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.” (Cfr. Heb. VII, 1 sqq.) ↩

  22. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 6; De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 724 sqq. ↩

  23. Heb. VII, 4 sqq. ↩

  24. Heb. VII, 4. ↩

  25. St. Cyprian, Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 4: “Tu es sacerdos, etc. Qui ordo utique hic est de sacrificio illo veniens et inde descendens, quod Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem et vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit et obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est panem et vinum, suum scil. corpus et sanguinem.” On St. Cyprian’s teaching, cfr. G. Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq. ↩

  26. St. Augustine, Contra Adversar. Leg. et Prophet., I, 20: “Noverunt, qui legunt quid protulerit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham et iam sunt participes eius: vident tale sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum.” Many other Patristic passages are quoted by Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 6; see also J. Berington and J. Kirk, The Faith of Catholics on Certain Points of Controversy Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers, 3rd ed., Vol. II, pp. 418 sqq., London 1846. ↩

  27. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 1. ↩

  28. On the Jewish tradition, cfr. P. Scholz, Die hl. Altertümer des Volkes Israel, Vol. II, pp. 198 sqq., Ratisbon 1868. On the Paschal Lamb (cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7 sqq.) as a type of the Mass, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 6; Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 7; Bickell, Messe und Pascha, Mayence 1872; Von Cichowsky, Das alttestamentliche Pascha in seinem Verhältnis zum Opfer Christi, Munich 1849. ↩

  29. Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Matth., Vol. II, p. 424, Paris 1892. ↩

  30. Cfr. Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, 18, 25; Rom. III, 25; Heb. IX, 10 sq. See also Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 119 sqq.; Maldonatus, Comment. in Matth., 26, 26. ↩

  31. 1 Cor. XI, 25: ”… quotiescumque bibetis, in meam commemorationem.” ↩

  32. Cfr. Ex. XII, 46; John XIX, 32 sqq. ↩

  33. Cfr. Rom. VIII, 32; Col. I, 22; Eph. V, 2, 25; I, 24, etc. ↩

  34. John VI, 52: ”… panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita (ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς).” ↩

  35. Luke XXII, 19; 1 Cor. XI, 24. On these two passages see Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. 2, thes. 11. Cfr. Thalhofer, Die Opfer des Hebräerbriefes, Dillingen 1855. An intimation of the Mass is seen by many theologians in our Lord’s conversation with the Samaritan woman (John IV, 21 sqq.). On this subject see Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 11. ↩

  36. Calvin, Instit., IV, 18: “Pestilentissimo errore Satan totum paene orbem excaecavit, ut crederet Missam sacrificium.” ↩

  37. Luther, Weise christliche Messen zu halten (1526): “Von dem Offertorium an klingt und stinkt alles Opfer, was es ist. … Darum weggeworfen alle Worte, die nach Opfer klingen, samt dem ganzen Kanon!” The objections raised against the Mass by Luther, Calvin, and Chemnitz (Examen Conc. Trid., ed. Preuss, pp. 381 sqq., Berlin 1861) are copiously refuted by Cardinal Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 24-26. ↩

  38. “Non est fundamentum in Evangelio, quod Christus Missam ordinaverit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 585). ↩

  39. Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430. ↩

  40. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, p. 39. ↩

  41. Apud Hardouin, Concil., Vol. XI, p. 247: “Incruentum vero tradidit sacrificium dicens: Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus meum … (p. 254): Verum ac propitiatorium esse sacrificium, quod pro fidelibus omnibus tum vivis tum defunctis necnon pro utilitate omnium offertur.” ↩

  42. Cap. 24, apud Hardouin, Concil., Vol. I, p. 963: ”… in sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quam ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis et vinum aqua mixtum.” ↩

  43. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 428 sqq., Freiburg 1894. On Harnack’s teaching on this point see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 6-10, Dublin 1909. ↩

  44. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 14; Kraus, Realenzyklopädie der christlichen Altertümer, 2 vols., Freiburg 1879-86; Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, Sect. 2, pp. 108 sqq.; Barnes, The Early Church, pp. 126 sqq., London 1913. ↩

  45. Apud Daniel, Cod. Lit., IV, 48 sqq., Leipsic 1853. ↩

  46. See Thalhofer, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, 2nd ed. by L. Eisenhofer, Vol. II, p. 13, Freiburg 1912. ↩

  47. Bickell in the Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie (Innsbruck), 1880, pp. 90 sqq.; Messe und Pascha, Mayence 1871. Cfr. Drews, Untersuchungen über die sogen. klementinische Liturgie, Leipzig 1906; A. Fortescue, The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd ed., London 1913, pp. 57 sqq. ↩

  48. Apud Daniel, Cod. Lit., IV, 88 sqq. ↩

  49. Cfr. Fortescue, The Mass, pp. 81 sqq., 148 sqq. ↩

  50. Fortescue, op. cit., p. 97. ↩

  51. Fortescue, op. cit., p. 85. ↩

  52. The standard work on this subject at present in English is Fortescue, The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd ed., London 1913. See also H. Lucas, S.J., The Mass. The Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Roman Liturgy, Vol. I, London 1914. ↩

  53. Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 106 sq. ↩

  54. See Hefele, Cardinal Ximenes, pp. 161 sqq., Tübingen 1844. Ximenes’ Missal and Breviary form vols. LXXXV and LXXXVI of Migne’s Patrologia Latina; edited by A. Lesleus (first edition, Rome 1755). Cfr. Fortescue, op. cit., p. 105. A full description of the Mozarabic Rite will be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 611-623 (by H. Jenner). ↩

  55. The Epiklesis is also found as late as the fifth century in the Gallican, Milanese, and Roman rites. Cfr. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. III, p. 86, Paderborn 1907. ↩

  56. Cfr. Fr. J. Mone, Lateinische und griechische Messen aus dem 2. bis 6. Jahrhundert, Frankfort 1850. The Gallican Rite is described very fully by H. Jenner in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 357-365. ↩

  57. Many examples quoted by Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 283 sqq. Cfr. also Kössing, Liturgische Erklärung der hl. Messe, 3rd ed., pp. 104 sqq., Münster 1869; Th. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, pp. 17 sqq., Augsburg 1876; C. A. Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, London 1884; F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford 1896; L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, London 1903; G. Semeria, The Eucharistic Liturgy in the Roman Rite, English tr. by E. S. Berry, New York 1911; A. Baumstark, Liturgia Romana e Liturgia dell’ Esarcato, Rome 1904; G. Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 168 sqq., Dublin 1909. ↩

  58. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 19 sqq., Freiburg and St. Louis 1908. ↩

  59. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, p. 331, London 1912. On the liturgy of the Didache, see Semeria-Berry, The Eucharistic Liturgy in the Roman Rite, pp. 53 sqq., New York 1911. ↩

  60. St. Ignatius, Ep. ad Philadelph., 4. ↩

  61. St. Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph., 5. ↩

  62. St. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph., c. 41 (Migne, P.G., VI). For a critical appreciation of St. Justin’s teaching on the Mass see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 19 sqq. ↩

  63. Tertullian, De Orat., c. 19: “Nonne solemnior erit statio tua, si et ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato utrumque salvum est: et participatio sacrificii et executio officii [fulfilment of the law of fasting].” ↩

  64. Tertullian, De Cultu Fem., II, 11: “Aut imbecillus ex fratribus visitandus aut sacrificium offertur aut Dei verbum administratur.” ↩

  65. Christ is slain anew (“rursus mactabitur Christus”) to those who are baptized, and they are nourished “opimitate dominici corporis.” (De Pudic., c. 9). On Tertullian’s teaching see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 74 sqq. ↩

  66. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV, 17, 5: “Christus dicens: Hoc est corpus meum etc., Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo.” ↩

  67. “Oblationem puram offert.” — “Iudaei non receperunt Verbum, quod offertur Deo.” (Op. cit., IV, 18, 4). ↩

  68. “Non genus oblationum reprobatum est, species immutata est tantum.” (L.c.). Wieland maintains, against vigorous opposition, that the celebration of the Eucharist in the primitive Church bore the character of a common meal and that prior to Irenaeus the Church knew of no real sacrifice. On this untenable view see Pohle, article “Mass” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 10 sq.; G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 74 sqq., St. Louis 1913; G. Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, Dublin 1909. ↩

  69. St. Cyprian, Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 9, 14 (ed. Hartel, Vol. II, pp. 702 sq.): “Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, nec sacrificium dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. … Sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse.” For a critical appreciation of St. Cyprian’s teaching see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq. ↩

  70. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Myst., V, n. 8 sqq. (Migne, P.G., XXXIII, 1115). ↩

  71. St. Ambrose, In Ps., 38, n. 25: “Sequimur Christum, ut possumus, sacerdotes ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium, etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles sacrificio, quia etsi nunc Christus non videatur [scil. oculis] offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur.” Other Patristic texts quoted by Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 100 sqq. ↩

  72. St. Chrysostom, De Sacerdot., III, 4. ↩

  73. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in Heb., 17, n. 3. ↩

  74. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Corinth., 24, n. 2. Additional citations from St. Chrysostom in Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 106. Cfr. also Nägle, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Chrysostomus, pp. 148 sqq., Freiburg 1900. ↩

  75. St. Augustine, Contra Faust., XIX, 11: “In nullum nomen religionis seu verum seu falsum coagulari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligantur.” ↩

  76. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, X, 20: “Iesus Christus sacerdos et ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio, cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium.” ↩

  77. St. Augustine, Ep., 98, n. 9. ↩

  78. St. Augustine, Contra Faust., XX, 18: “Christiani peracti eiusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi.” ↩

  79. St. Augustine, Adv. Iudaeos, IX, 13: “Quid ad haec respondetis? Aperite oculos tandem aliquando et videte, ab oriente sole usque in occidentem non in uno, sicut vobis fuerat constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum, non cuilibet deo, sed ei qui ista praedixit Deo Israel, nec secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Melchisedech.” On St. Augustine’s teaching on the Mass see M. M. Wilden, Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus über das Opfer der Eucharistie, Schaffhausen 1864. Additional Patristic texts in Petavius, De Incarnatione, XII, 12 sqq.; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, §34, Freiburg 1890; Fr. S. Renz, Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie nach der Lehre der Väter und Kirchenschriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Paderborn 1892. ↩

  80. St. Augustine, Confess., IX, 13: “Memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, cui nullius diei praetermissione servierat.” ↩