Part III, Chapter II §2: The Metaphysical Essence of the Mass

§2. The Metaphysical Essence of the Mass

The physical essence of the Mass, as we have seen, is comprised in the double Consecration of the bread and wine. There remains the more difficult metaphysical question, whether and in what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is realized in this double Consecration. In order that it be realized, the three essential momenta of a sacrifice, viz.: the sacrificial gift, the sacrificing minister, and the sacrificial object,¹ must be present in the double Consecration.

It is easy to demonstrate the first-mentioned two points. Christ Himself appears in the double Consecration both as victim (hostia, victima) and as priest (sacerdos principalis). The object, i.e. the fourfold purpose of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation, is also clearly attained.²

Therefore the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination of the fourth essential, viz.: the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed (1) not so much in the physical form of this act, i.e. the external oblation, as (2) in the proximate matter, i.e. the transformation of the sacrificial gift, since the glorified Victim, being impassible, cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed.

Article 1: Some Unsatisfactory Theories Regarding the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass

1. The Theory of Vasquez

The famous Spanish theologian Father Gabriel Vasquez correctly distinguishes between absolute and relative sacrifice, but holds that a true destruction of the victim, i.e. a real slaying of Christ, was necessary only for the absolute Sacrifice of the Cross. For the Mass, as a purely relative sacrifice, he deems it sufficient that the physical slaying of Christ be visibly represented in the separation of His Body and Blood on the altar. In other words, to make the Mass a true sacrifice it suffices, (1) that its victim was really slain or destroyed at some previous time, and (2) that this past event be here and now visibly represented by way of commemoration.³

According to this theory the twofold Consecration does not signify any real or equivalent physical or moral transformation of the Divine Victim, but merely a reproduction and representation as it were of the slaying of our Lord on the Cross by means of the separate presence of His Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine. This view was adopted by the brothers De Walenburch, by Becanus, and other older theologians. Of modern authors Perrone⁴ prefers it for the reason that it most effectively refutes the objections raised against the Mass, since no orthodox Protestant will refuse to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or deny that the Mass is a representation and commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Vasquez’ theory has the indisputable merit of emphasizing the intrinsic and essential relation existing between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross — a relation without which the Mass would be impossible.⁵ But the learned Jesuit does not sufficiently emphasize the character of the Mass as an absolute sacrifice.

It is of faith that the Mass is “a true and proper sacrifice,”⁶ and not “a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the Cross.”⁷ Hence the Mass is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice, and must include within itself (or, more precisely, within the double Consecration which forms its physical essence) all the essential elements of both. The essential constituents of an absolute sacrifice are: the external oblation as the form, and the slaying of the sacrificial victim as the proximate matter. In defining the Mass as merely a living dramatic representation of the slaying of Christ on the Cross, without a simultaneous transformation of the Victim on the altar, Vasquez appears to reduce the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice, thereby endangering the dogma that it is “a true and proper sacrifice.”

Nevertheless, Cardinals De Lugo and Cienfuegos went decidedly too far when they maintained that the Tridentine definition indirectly stamps Vasquez’s theory as heretical. The Spanish Jesuit never dreamt of denying either the reality of the Mass or its character of a true and proper sacrifice; nor did he intend to reduce it to a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross. What he meant was that the Mass becomes a true sacrifice in itself precisely by the fact that it is a representation and reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The idea of reducing the Holy Sacrifice to a sort of passion play was far from his mind, for he insists time and again on the actual presence upon the Eucharistic altar of the true sacrificial Body and Blood of Christ.

It may, however, be justly argued against Vasquez’s position that if the Mass is to be something more than a mere passion play, it is not sufficient that Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed there. Cardinal De Lugo illustrates this contention as follows: Were Jephta to rise again from the grave with his daughter, and present before our eyes a living dramatic representation of her slaying, after the fashion of a tragedy, we should not see before us a true sacrifice, because there would be lacking that sacrificial act of transformation or destruction of the victim which Vasquez himself acknowledges to be an essential constituent of every sacrifice.⁸

2. The Theory of Suarez

According to Francis Suarez, S.J.,⁹ every true sacrifice involves “a real transformation of the sacrificial matter.” However, this process need not necessarily be a change for the worse (immutatio in deterius, i.e. destructio), as in the Jewish holocaust; it may be a transformation into a higher and more precious form (immutatio in melius), as when incense is transformed into sweet fragrance.

Suarez neither ignores nor overlooks the fact that “the [double] Consecration as a mystic slaying and separation of the Body and Blood has a sacrificial character and truly transforms Christ by reducing Him to the condition of a victim (status victimae).”¹⁰ However, he does not put the sacrificial action proper in the double Consecration, but secondarily in the destruction of the elements of bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and primarily in the substantial reproduction of the true Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem of the double Consecration, thereby identifying the offering proper with the production of the sacrificial Body and Blood.

This view was adopted by Arriaga, Casalius, and others. Dr. Scheeben,¹¹ who also defends it, claims that the idea of destruction originated in the sixteenth century and was unknown to the older Schoolmen. In this, however, he is mistaken, as may be seen from a passage in the second part of the Summa of St. Thomas.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. The theory of Suarez is based upon an exalted conception of the Mass indeed, but errs in identifying the substantial production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the same.

There is a good deal of truth in the idea that the Eucharistic elements are destined by their destruction to be transformed into something higher and more precious. The destruction of the victim in any sacrifice is never an end in itself, but merely a means to an end, i.e. the way to sanctification and union with God. But the elements of the Eucharist are not the victim, and to say that the Eucharistic sacrifice, in its last analysis, is identical with the substantial reproduction of Christ under the twofold species of bread and wine, reveals a serious weakness.¹² For the production of a thing can never be identical with its sacrifice. With the idea of sacrifice is intimately linked in the minds of all men the notion of kenosis or self-abasement. To offer something as a sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this self-abasement may finally lead to exaltation. The idea of kenosis is entirely wanting in the immutatio perfectiva of Suarez.

3. The Theory of Cardinal Cienfuegos

Cardinal Cienfuegos, who was a member of the famous college of the Salmanticenses,¹³ in his book Vita Abscondita sub Speciebus Velata,¹⁴ argues that the Mass can be held to be a true, i.e. an absolute sacrifice only on condition that it involves a sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic Christ. This sacrificial destruction he would find in the voluntary suspension of the faculties of the senses, especially sight and hearing. This suspension of the lower life, implied by the sacramental mode of existence, lasts from the Consecration to the mixture of the sacred species shortly before the “Agnus Dei,” at which juncture Christ, by a miracle, is supposed to resume the natural use of His senses.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Because of its strangeness and indemonstrability, this theory¹⁵ has nowhere found acceptance. It is intrinsically improbable because it rests upon purely speculative assumptions. Even if the glorified Body of Christ in the Eucharist were hindered in the natural exercise of its external senses by the spiritual mode of its existence, it would be no more than a “pious opinion” to assume that its faculties are resumed by a miracle. The hypothesis that Christ, by a third miracle, voluntarily surrenders His sensitive functions for a certain time, for the purpose of performing a sacrificial act, is gratuitous. Moreover, Cardinal Cienfuegos exaggerates the absolute element of the Consecration to such a degree that he loses sight almost entirely of the specific identity of the Mass with the Sacrifice of the Cross and of the relativity of the former to the latter.

4. The Theory of Thalhofer

Dr. Valentine Thalhofer,¹⁶ an eminent German theologian of the nineteenth century,¹⁷ asserts the existence of a true “heavenly sacrifice” of Christ, which he describes as a living representation and virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross by virtue of the intrinsic sacrificial act embodied in the latter. This act is retained by the will of the transfigured God-man, constantly reproduced, and externally discernible in the glorified wounds of His sacred Body. It is only in this way, says Thalhofer, that Christ is, and for ever remains, “an eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech.”

According to this view the Mass is linked immediately and intimately, not with the Sacrifice of the Cross, but with Christ’s “heavenly sacrifice,” which becomes a temporal and spatial phenomenon on the Eucharistic altar.

Thalhofer explains the metaphysical essence of the Mass as follows: “In the Consecration the heavenly High Priest, and together with Him the heavenly Victim, descends into time and space and thereby into the mundane order of the before and after. While becoming present in forma sacrificii on the altar by means of the words of transformation in the form of separation, Christ performs upon the altar, that is to say in time and space, essentially the same sacrificial act which He once performed upon the Cross, and which He still performs as a heavenly sacrifice in the other world. We have the same sacrificing priest as on the Cross, the same sacrificial object, namely His sacred Humanity consisting of Soul and Body, the same internal sacrificial act, really performed and relatively reproduced. … The mystical separation of Flesh and Blood in the act of Consecration is the external form of the invisible sacrificial act, identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, which Christ performs upon the altar during the Consecration.”¹⁸ According to Thalhofer, therefore, Christ’s sacrificial act in the Mass continues after the Consecration until the Communion. “From that time on,” Simar adds, “the consecrated species (including those destined to be reserved) possess exclusively the character of the Sacrament, or of the Eucharistic banquet.”

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Thalhofer’s theory is profound, but it lacks logical development. One of its strong points is the emphasis it places upon the perpetual continuation of Christ’s spirit of sacrifice. By showing that the forma sacrificii is contained in the separation of the Body and the Blood in the Mass as well as in the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, Thalhofer helps us to understand how the Mass can and must be a relative sacrifice. But there are other points that challenge criticism.

Thalhofer teaches that the Mass is based upon a supposed heavenly sacrifice of Christ, which is the virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and becomes a temporal and spatial phenomenon in the Mass. He contends that these three different sacrifices are held together by the one sacrificial act of Christ, as by a common bond. But is there really such a “heavenly sacrifice”? Its existence is extremely doubtful, to say the least. The internal sacrificial act of Christ in itself is not a true sacrifice, nor can it become such by virtue of the sacred wounds of our Saviour, because the sacrificial action is wanting. Hence nearly all theologians regard this “heavenly sacrifice” as a fond dream.¹⁹

Another objection to Thalhofer’s theory is that it exaggerates the identity of the Mass with the Sacrifice of the Cross and reduces the real distinctions between the two, which are based upon the different manner of offering and emphasized by the Council of Trent, to mere externalities. Finally, Thalhofer, who was an advocate of the destruction theory, fails to show wherein the absolute sacrificial element of the Mass (or the double Consecration) consists.²⁰

Article 2: Acceptable Theories Regarding the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass

In trying to form a plausible theory regarding the metaphysical essence of the Mass, it is necessary to keep in mind the following truths: (1) The double Consecration must establish and explain the fact that the Mass is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice. (2) The sacrificial action veiled in the double Consecration must somehow refer to the Eucharistic Christ Himself, not to the elements of bread and wine. (3) The sacrificial act must culminate, not in the glorification of Christ, but in a kenosis, i.e. a real self-abasement. (4) If this kenosis be conceived as a slaying, it cannot be real but only sacramental or mystical, because Christ is now immortal and impassible. The term “mystical” is used in reference to the mystery in which the shedding of Christ’s Blood takes place; it is opposed to “real” and equivalent to “representative, commemorative, or relative.”²¹ (5) The momenta which approximate in any degree the mystical slaying to a real exinanition, must not be rejected but intelligently appraised.

1. The Theory of Cardinal Billot

Struck by the observation that the pre-Tridentine theologians regarded with disfavor the idea that the Mass requires a real destruction of the victim, Cardinal Billot²² refers the absolute element of sacrifice to the (active) sacramental slaying, and the relative element to the (passive) separation of the Body and Blood.

Both are effected by the double Consecration, which is therefore truly a “two-edged sword,” the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an absolute and as a relative sacrifice proceeds. Since the “mystical slaying” of the victim involves the Eucharistic Christ Himself, and takes the form of a symbolic destruction, we have all the conditions necessary to render this view acceptable.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Cardinal Billot’s theory, which was accepted by Gihr and Atzberger, duly emphasizes the relative element of sacrifice in the Mass, but it is unsatisfactory as regards the absolute element, which it refers to the sacramental slaying (mactatio mystica) of Christ.

The Mass has this peculiarity, which it shares with no other sacrifice, that it involves no real slaying of the victim and no real shedding of blood, but a destruction that is purely “mystical.” Now the sacramental separation of the Blood of Christ from His Body is a mystical destruction, because “by it Christ is made present under the sacramental species in quodam externo habitu mortis et destructionis, in so far as under the breakable species of bread there is visibly present, ut sacramenti, only the Body of Christ, and under the fluid form of the wine only the Blood of Christ, so that in external appearance Christ appears before our eyes, so to speak, as a slain lamb.”²³

But how can this purely mystical slaying constitute a real sacrifice? This question is synonymous with another, viz.: Was the purely mystical “surrender of the Body” and the purely mystical “shedding of the Blood” by our Divine Lord at the Last Supper a true sacrifice, or can it be called a sacrifice only in the figurative sense of the term? Surely the rite which Christ Himself instituted as a true sacrifice for the remission of sins must be adequate for that purpose. It follows that the mystical slaying of the Victim suffices to constitute the essence of the Mass, all the more so since what is essential to the notion of sacrifice is the external oblation, not the destruction of the sacrificial matter.

For a better understanding of the subject we will add that, according to Billot’s theory, Christ offers Himself in the Mass not in specie propria, but in specie aliena, that is to say, not in His physical being, but in the sacramental mode of existence, and “for this reason it is entirely sufficient for the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that our Lord appears under the sacramental veil in the state of destruction.”²⁴ Moreover, a sacrifice, by its very definition, must be something visible. Now the invisible God-man appears before our eyes only under the unsubstantial appearances of the Sacrament. Hence His slaying in the Sacrifice of the Mass must be purely mystical, consummated by the sacramental separation of His Body and Blood.²⁵

This theory of the double Consecration as a two-edged mystical sword, with which the Eucharistic Christ is slain and offered in a purely sacramental manner, is in conformity with the teaching of the Fathers and older Scholastics, and may therefore be called the traditional view. In matter of fact it was current up to the time of the Council of Trent. The post-Tridentine theology, in defending the Mass against the Protestant heretics, needlessly exaggerated the idea of destruction. The traditional conception still survives in Deharbe’s and other popular catechisms.²⁶

2. The Theory of Lessius

Father Lessius, S.J., in arguing against Suarez, insists that there must be a real destruction of the Victim in the Mass, because without this the Mass would not be an absolute sacrifice. In common with others he finds this destruction in the sacramental separation of the Body and Blood of Christ, as effected by the double Consecration, i.e. in the mystical slaying of our Lord. But he adds a new element when he teaches that the force of the double Consecration would result in an actual shedding of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens rendered impossible by the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ.

This novel view has found many supporters, among others Dicastillo, C. Hurtado, Sylvius, Bossuet, Billuart, Gonet, Gotti, Berlage,²⁷ Oswald,²⁸ Dieringer, Stöckl, Glossner, and Bautz.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Lessius is charged with exaggerating the force of the “two-edged sword” of the double Consecration and ascribing to it an effect which in the nature of things it cannot have.

He says: “It is no objection to the truth of this sacrifice that in it there does not actually occur a separation of the Blood from the Flesh, for this happens as it were per accidens, because of the concomitance of the parts. For by force of the words of Consecration there occurs a true separation, and the Body becomes present under the appearance of bread alone, and the Blood under the appearance of wine alone. And this is sufficient for the essence of this sacrifice, both to make it a true sacrifice (for the victim, thus made present, is transformed sufficiently to show that God has supreme power over all things) and to make it a commemorative [i.e. relative] sacrifice, representing to us the Sacrifice of the Cross and the death of the Lord.”²⁹ According to this theory, the intrinsic force of the words of Consecration would result in formally excluding the Blood from the Body, and the only reason why the Blood is not actually shed upon the altar, is that Christ is prevented from dying again by the miracle of the co-existence of all the parts of His glorified and impassible Body.

Against this explanation the opponents of Lessius object: Since ex vi verborum only the Body becomes really present without the Blood, and the Blood in turn without the Body, both Body and Blood appear as they really are. The Body, therefore, becomes present on the altar animated by the soul and filled with blood. Were it the tendency of the double Consecration formally to exclude the Blood from the Body, there would result an actual shedding of blood, or the words of Consecration would be false.

In spite of some objections, however, we hail the theory of Lessius as a deepening and an extension of the traditional idea of a mystical slaying, bringing it nearer to the notion of a real slaying, and thus strengthening the position of the Mass both as an absolute and as a relative sacrifice. Gutberlet rightly observes: “It were mere quibbling to try to disprove the idea of a mystically real separation by saying that the words of Consecration do not result in a separation of the Blood from the Body. … This is true to a certain extent — if but one element were consecrated, especially if that one element were the bread, no separation would ensue. … But since the Blood is consecrated apart from the Body of Christ, the Blood must be conceived as existing without the Body, and the Body without the Blood; and as the words of Consecration are calculated to effect this double representation, they are calculated to exclude the Body from the Blood and the Blood from the Body. In what other way, in fact, would it be possible to represent the bloody Sacrifice through the Consecration? Hence our opponents defeat themselves with their own weapons when they deny that the separation of the Blood from the Body is a result of the words of Consecration.”³⁰

Nor can it be reasonably objected against Lessius’ theory that if a real effusion of the Blood is prevented by the impassibility of the glorified Body of Christ and the concomitance of the parts, there can be no true sacrifice. The mystically real slaying of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is just as capable of being a true sacrifice as the slaying of Isaac would have been if Abraham had dealt him a deadly stroke and God had not miraculously prevented the shedding of his blood. Lessius’ theory, therefore, by no means lacks probability.

3. The Theory of Cardinal De Lugo

With a view to emphasize the absolute character of the Mass, Cardinal De Lugo starts from the principle that every true sacrifice demands a real destruction of the sacrificial gift. This destruction may be either physical (as in the Sacrifice of the Cross) or moral (as in a drink-offering). The Mass is not only a relative (commemorative) sacrifice, but likewise an absolute sacrifice, and hence the Eucharistic Victim in the Consecration must be slain, either physically or morally. As Christ cannot be slain physically because of the glorified state of His Body, the slaying must be moral. In matter of fact it consists in the voluntary reduction of His Body and Blood to the condition of food (reductio ad statum cibi et potus), in virtue of which the Eucharistic Saviour, humanly speaking, places Himself after the fashion of lifeless food at the mercy of mankind. This self-abasement or kenosis is comparable with that involved in the Incarnation, and in some respects even goes beyond it.³¹

De Lugo’s theory was adopted by Platel, Muniessa, Ulloa, Viva, Antoine, Holtzklau, Tamburini, and others of the older school. In modern times it was revived, after a long period of neglect, by Cardinal Franzelin, who in his profound treatise De Eucharistia has the following thesis: “We hold with Cardinal De Lugo and a great many later theologians, that the intrinsic form (essence) of the sacrificial act is in this: Christ … puts His Body and Blood, under the species of bread and wine, in a state of food and drink, by way of despoiling Himself of the functions connatural to His sacred Humanity.”³² Franzelin combines this theory of De Lugo with the view of Cienfuegos, that the sacramental state of the Eucharistic Body is accompanied by a suspension of the functions of sense perception. In this form the theory has found numerous defenders, among whom we may mention Schouppe, De Augustinis, Hurter, Egger, Sasse, Einig, and Tepe, though recently opposition against it has been growing.

Critical Appreciation of This Theory. Though Cardinal De Lugo’s theory is open to various objections, it may nevertheless be utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional view.

a) De Lugo exaggerates the character of the Mass as an absolute sacrifice in much the same manner in which Vasquez exaggerates its character as a relative sacrifice. In fact, the intrinsic relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross almost disappears in the theory under consideration. The reduction of Christ to the condition of food and drink reveals no analogy whatever to the shedding of His Blood on the Cross. The relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross is purely extrinsic, something added from the outside rather than flowing from its inmost nature. Nor is the necessity of the double Consecration sufficiently evident, as a single Consecration would suffice to produce the condition of food and would, therefore, achieve the sacrifice. Two distinct Consecrations might, according to this theory, be required for the preparation of food and drink for a banquet (ratione convivii), but they are not necessary for the production of the Body and Blood in a state of separation (ratione sacrificii), as the exinanition obtains sufficiently in one Consecration.

b) These and other objections, however, can be removed if we combine the fundamental principle of De Lugo’s theory with the traditional view, as developed by Billot, and with the notion of a real and mystical slaying of the Eucharistic Victim, as defended by Lessius. Despite the fact that, objectively, the transfigured Humanity of Christ can suffer no diminution of its heavenly glory, the reduction of the transfigured God-man to the condition of food and drink, and the accompanying surrender of His sensitive functions, according to our way of thinking undeniably involves a real kenosis or self-abasement. By this consideration the Christian pulpit is placed in possession of a truly inexhaustible fund of lofty thoughts wherewith to illustrate the humility and love, the destitution and defenselessness of our Divine Saviour under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonor, and sacrilege, and also the intrinsic relation of the Mass to the food-offering of Melchisedech and the minchah of Malachias, and, finally, to emphasize this exinanition as an unbloody and mystical continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The idea just developed is as familiar to Tradition as the notion of the mystic slaying of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore the two should not be pitted against each other but combined, as was done by St. Cyril of Alexandria when he wrote: “He who was eaten in Egypt typically [i.e. in the manna], here offers Himself voluntarily … by placing Himself [before us] continuously as the Bread of Life.”³³ St. Gregory of Nyssa³⁴ says that “the sacrificial Body would be inedible if it were alive,” wherefore the Body of Christ — at the Communion of the Apostles — was already offered,³⁵ i.e. transformed into the state of lifeless food.

c) Against this ancient Christian conception, which found expression also in the liturgies, it will not do to object, as Scheeben does, that Christ’s sacramental mode of existence under the appearances of bread and wine involves an exaltation rather than an abasement, since His Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist in a pneumatic manner, after the fashion of pure spirits.³⁶ The fact alleged is true, but it proves nothing. In one sense the Eucharistic Christ is indeed exalted and glorified, but in another sense He is abased and humbled. In spite of His transfiguration in Heaven, Christ still retains in His Sacred Heart the same sacrificial love for us that He bore on the Cross. Is not the Hypostatic Union, the greatest of all miracles and the source of all our Saviour’s glory, at the same time a true kenosis and self-abasement? Cfr. Phil. II, 7: “Christ emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”

d) But how are we to combine the fundamental idea of De Lugo’s theory with the traditional teaching on the nature of sacrifice? Gutberlet answers this question succinctly as follows: “First and above all we uphold the idea of the mystical slaying of the sacrificial Victim by means of the double Consecration. In connection with this, the preparation of the food signifies the preparation of the slain lamb for the sacrificial feast. In this sense the preparation of the sacrificial food continues, supplements, and completes the mystic slaying. Only a lifeless lamb that has been sacrificed can be eaten, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says. Because the Eucharist is also a Sacrament, the Consecration, as an offering, reduces the Body of the Lord to the condition of food, which condition is at the same time that of a sacrificial lamb.”³⁷ Cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7: “Etenim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus — For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.”

Readings: A. Tanner, Cruentum Christi Sacrificium, Incruentum Missae Sacrificium Explicatum, Prague 1669. V. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen Bundes, Ratisbon 1870. Westermayer, Die Messe in ihrem Wesen oder das verklärte Kreuzesopfer, Ratisbon 1868. J. N. Diepolder, Das Wesen des eucharistischen Opfers und die vorzüglichen kath. Theologen der drei letzten Jahrhunderte, Ratisbon 1877. J. Schwane, Die eucharistische Opferhandlung, Freiburg 1889. W. Humphrey, S.J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, London. J. M. A. Vacant, Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans l’Église Latine, Paris 1894. J. van Wersch, Das hl. Messopfer in seiner Wesenheit und in seiner Feier, Strassburg 1895. A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de l’Homme-Dieu, Paris 1899. W. Götzmann, Das eucharistische Opfer nach der Lehre der älteren Scholastik, Freiburg 1901. A. G. Mortimer, Eucharistic Sacrifice, London 1901. Fr. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes oder der alte Glaube und die neuen Theorien über das Wesen des unblutigen Opfers, 2 vols., Freising 1901-1903. G. Pell, Jesu Opferhandlung in der hl. Eucharistie, 2nd ed., Passau 1910.

Footnotes

1. See above, Ch. I, §1, Article 1. ↩

2. See below, Ch. III, §1. ↩

3. Vasquez, Comment. in S. Theol., III, disp. 220, c. 3: “Commemorativum [i.e. relativum] sacrificium sine rei oblatae immutatione [i.e. destructione] esse potest, tametsi ad essentiam sacrificii absoluti necessaria sit, eo quod ratio formalis sacrificii — quae est significatio non in verbis, sed in rebus, qua denotatur Deus auctor vitae et mortis — sine tali immutatione in sacrificio commemorativo reperitur.” ↩

4. Perrone, De Eucharistia, P. II, n. 250. ↩

5. See above, §1, Article 1. ↩

6. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 1. ↩

7. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 3. ↩

8. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 4, n. 58. Vasquez’s theory is defended by Father Jos. Rickaby, S.J. (The Lord My Light, pp. 142 sqq., London 1915). ↩

9. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 75, sect. 5 sq. ↩

10. Suarez, op. cit., sect. 6, n. 6 sqq. ↩

11. Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 3rd ed., §72, Freiburg 1912; Dogmatik, Vol. III, §270 sqq., Freiburg 1882; cfr. Scannell-Wilhelm, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., London 1901. ↩

12. This was already perceived by De Lugo, who says (De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 4, n. 52): “Est contra communem omnium concipiendi et loquendi modum dicere, rem aliquam quando producitur, sacrificari potuisseque offerri sacrificium Deo generando filios vel applicando alias causas naturales ad similes procreationes vel productiones efficiendas.” ↩

13. On the Salmanticenses see the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII. ↩

14. Published at Rome in 1728. ↩

15. Developed in Vita Abscondita sub Speciebus Velata, disp. 5, sect. 2 sqq. ↩

16. See a sketch of his life and writings in the Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. ↩

17. He was followed in his deductions by Simar, Dogmatik, Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 962 sqq., Freiburg 1899. ↩

18. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen Bundes, §32, Ratisbon 1870; cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, pp. 65 sqq. ↩

19. On Thalhofer’s hypothetical “heavenly sacrifice” see Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 137 sq. ↩

20. For a more detailed discussion of this theory see Sasse, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, thes. 31, Freiburg 1897. ↩

21. Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, 2nd ed., Vol. II, p. 456, London 1901. ↩

22. Billot, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 567 sqq., Rome 1907. ↩

23. Cfr. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatik, Vol. III, p. 655. ↩

24. Scheeben-Atzberger, op. cit., p. 656. ↩

25. Cfr. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 92 sqq. ↩

26. On the mactatio mystica in the Mass, see Fr. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes, 2 vols., Freising 1901-3. ↩

27. Berlage, Dogmatik, Vol. VII, pp. 416 sqq. ↩

28. Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, §25, Münster 1894. ↩

29. Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Div., XII, 13, 97: “Nec obstat veritati huius sacrificii, quod non fiat reipsa separatio sanguinis a carne, quia id est quasi per accidens propter concomitantiam partium. Nam quantum est ex vi verborum, fit vera separatio et sub specie panis solum ponitur corpus, non sanguis, sub specie vini solus sanguis, non corpus. Et hoc sufficit ad rationem huius sacrificii, tum ut sit verum sacrificium (fit enim circa hostiam, dum sic ponitur, sufficiens mutatio, quo protestemur Deum habere supremam in omnia potestatem), tum ut sit sacrificium commemorativum [i.e. relativum] repraesentans nobis sacrificium crucis et mortem Domini.” ↩

30. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat. Theologie, Vol. IX, p. 862. Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16; Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 323 sqq. ↩

31. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 5, n. 67: “Licet [corpus Christi] consecratione non destruatur substantialiter, sed tamen destruitur humano modo, quatenus accipit statum decliviorem et talem, quo reddatur inutile ad usus humanos corporis humani et aptum ad alios diversos usus per modum cibi: … quae mutatio sufficiens est ad verum sacrificium; fieri enim comestibile illud quod non erat comestibile et ita fieri comestibile ut iam non sit utile ad alios usus nisi per modum cibi, maior mutatio est quam aliae, quae ex communi hominum mente sufficiebant ad verum sacrificium.” ↩

32. Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16: “Putamus cum Card. De Lugo plurimisque deinceps theologis, intrinsecam sacrificationis formam in eo esse quod Christus … corpus et sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis et vini constituit secundum quandam sanctissimae suae humanitatis a functionibus et rationibus existendi connaturalibus exinanitionem ad statum cibi ac potus.” ↩

33. St. Cyril of Alexandria, apud Franzelin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16. ↩

34. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. in Resurr., 1 (Migne, P.G., XLVI, 611). ↩

35. “The Body was already offered” (ἤδη τὸ σῶμα ἐτέθυτο). ↩

36. See above, Ch. I, §1. ↩

37. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, p. 868, Mayence 1901. ↩