Part III, Chapter III: The Causality of the Mass

Chapter III: The Causality of the Mass

A distinction must be made between the effects of the Mass and the manner in which these effects are produced.

The effects of the Mass consist in the attainment of the various ends for which the Sacrifice may be offered, viz.: adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation. Of these the first two refer to God, while the other two have reference to man. These effects are called the fruits of the Mass (fructus Missae).

As regards the manner in which the Mass produces its effects (modus efficiendi), this partly depends on the Sacrifice itself (ex opere operato), and partly on the personal devotion and piety of those who offer it with Christ (ex opere operantis).

§1. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

1. Various Heresies and the Teaching of the Church

The Protestant Reformers, headed by Luther, recognized the Eucharist merely as a Sacrament and rejected the Mass entirely.

a) A Sacrament as such can profit only the recipient. It was from this point of view especially that the Reformers antagonized the Mass. They were willing to approve of it as a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, though even in this sense they distorted the Catholic concept by declaring that it was a sacrifice in a figurative or symbolical sense only, i.e. a mere offering of prayers. The Protestant symbolic books insist that the Mass cannot be a true sacrifice because there is but one true sacrifice, viz.: that of the Cross.¹

b) The Council of Trent emphasized the impetratory and propitiatory character of the Mass by defining: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving, … but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it profits him only who receives, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.”²

In this canon we have a summary of all the sacrificial effects of the Mass. (1) The Mass is a sacrifice of praise (sacrificium latreuticum); (2) It is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (sacrificium eucharisticum); (3) It is a sacrifice of propitiation (sacrificium propitiatorium), referring to our sins (peccata) and to the temporal punishments which must be expiated by works of penance (poenae) or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in this life or in purgatory; (4) It is a sacrifice of impetration (sacrificium impetratorium), directed towards our spiritual concerns and needs (aliae necessitates).

The Tridentine definition expressly says that, as a sacrifice of propitiation, the Mass can be offered also for the dead, i.e. the souls of the faithful departed in purgatory. We have already shown that the Mass is a true sacrifice.³ That it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is evident. Hence all that remains to be proved is that it is a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation.⁴

2. The Mass a True Sacrifice of Impetration and Propitiation

Impetration (impetratio) and propitiation (propitiatio) are distinguishable from each other. The former appeals to the goodness (benignitas) of God, the latter to His mercy (misericordia). Naturally, therefore, they differ also as regards their objects. The divine mercy is concerned with sins and the penalties of sin (peccata et poenae peccati), for which satisfaction must be given (satisfactio). In every one of these respects the Mass produces all the effects of a true impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice.

a) A convincing Scriptural argument can be construed on the basis of the Tridentine Council⁵ as follows: Among the numerous sacrifices of the Old Testament there were not only sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, but likewise sacrifices of impetration and propitiation.⁶ Now, the New Testament, as the antitype of the Old, must also have a sacrifice that serves and suffices for all these objects. But, according to the prophecy of Malachias, the only sacrifice of the New Testament is the Mass. Consequently the Mass is an impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice.

The propitiatory character of the Mass may furthermore be deduced from the following considerations: According to Heb. V, 1, every priest is ordained for the purpose “that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.”⁷ Now the Mass is a true sacrifice and its celebrant a true priest. Therefore, the Mass must be a true sacrifice of propitiation. This conclusion is expressly stated in the words wherewith our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist. Matth. XXVI, 28: “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”⁸

Is there Biblical warrant for the Tridentine teaching that the Mass may be offered also for the dead? Christ’s words, as quoted, are general, and there is no reason to except the dead. Moreover, we know from the Second Book of the Machabees⁹ that in the Old Testament sacrifices were offered for the sins of the dead, and hence it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the Mass must serve the same purpose.

b) The chief source of our dogma, however, is Tradition. The impetratory and propitiatory value of the Mass is clearly apparent both from the teaching of the Fathers and from the ancient liturgies.

α) Tertullian testifies that the early Christians “sacrificed for the welfare of the emperor.”¹⁰ St. Cyril of Jerusalem describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as follows: “Over this sacrifice of propitiation we pray to God for the universal peace of the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers, and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of help we pray and offer up this sacrifice.”¹¹ The last-quoted phrase shows that St. Cyril ascribes the efficacy of the Mass directly to its sacrificial character. At the time of St. Chrysostom, Mass was said “for the fruits of the earth and other needs.”¹² This argument is confirmed by the ancient liturgies, which contain masses for travellers, for bridal couples, for rain, etc.

β) The Fathers and the ancient liturgies also attest the fact that in the primitive Church Mass was offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice alike for the living and the dead.

St. Jerome says: “[The bishop] daily offers an undefiled sacrifice for his own sins and those of the people.”¹³ St. Augustine compares the Mass with the Levitic sacrifices of the Old Law and says that it effects the remission of sins.¹⁴ St. Gregory the Great writes: “This Victim in a singular manner preserves the soul from eternal damnation.”¹⁵ The ancient liturgy of St. James¹⁶ has the following passage: “We implore Thy goodness, that this sacrifice may not tend to the judgment of Thy people, since it is instituted for our salvation, for the forgiveness of sins, for the remission of follies, and as a thanksgiving to Thee.”¹⁷

Masses for the dead were common in the early Church. Tertullian exhorts a widow to have the holy Sacrifice offered up for her departed husband on the anniversary of his death.¹⁸ The Church of Carthage forbade priests to act as civil guardians of children under penalty of having no masses said for the repose of their souls. St. Cyprian enforced this law strictly against a disobedient priest named Victor.¹⁹ St. Augustine wrote a special treatise on “How to Help the Dead.” “We read in the books of the Machabees,” he says, “that a sacrifice was offered for the dead; but even if we read nothing like this anywhere in the ancient Scriptures, there is the weighty authority of the universal Church, which observes the custom of giving a place in the prayers of the priest at the altar, to the commendation of the dead.”²⁰ His mother, St. Monica, on her death-bed had asked him to offer Masses for the repose of her soul, and Augustine in describing her funeral says: “And now behold the body is carried out to be buried; and I go and return without tears. Neither in those prayers which we poured forth to Thee, when the sacrifice of our ransom was offered to Thee for her, the body being set down by the grave, before the interment of it, as custom is there, — neither in those prayers, I say, did I shed any tears.”²¹

From the innumerable ancient liturgies which testify to the belief of the Church on this head, we will quote only one prayer. It is taken from the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and reads as follows: “I will offer Thee this reasonable, unbloody sacrifice with a clear conscience, for the remission of my sins and iniquities, for the forgiveness of the crimes of Thy people, for the repose and refreshment of our fathers who have passed away in the true faith.”²²

3. Masses in Honor of the Saints

It enters into the very concept of the Mass as a sacrifice of adoration and praise that it can be offered to God alone. To offer sacrifice to a creature would be idolatry. This applies in a special manner to the Mass, in which the God-man Himself is the sacrificial victim. It is quite a different thing, however, to offer the Mass in honor of the saints, i.e. to thank God for their exaltation in Heaven, and to procure for us their efficacious intercession.

Here is the authentic explanation of the Tridentine Council: “Although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate certain Masses in honor and memory of the saints, she does not, therefore, teach that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say: ‘I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter or Paul,’ but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage. …”²³ With this threefold limitation, Masses in honor of the saints are certainly no base imposture, as the Lutherans allege, but perfectly legitimate. The Council of Trent defines: “If any one saith that it is an imposture to celebrate Mass in honor of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema.”²⁴

The Catholic practice is approved by antiquity. The early Christians were wont to celebrate Mass in honor of the martyrs on the day of their death and to erect altars over their graves. Tertullian testifies that Mass was offered in memory of the martyrs every year.²⁵ St. Cyprian says of two famous martyrs, St. Lawrence and St. Ignatius: “We offer sacrifices for them always, as you remember, as often as we commemorate the anniversary of their suffering and death.”²⁶ The commemoration of the saints has a place in practically all of the ancient Mass liturgies. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in describing the liturgy of his day, says: “We then commemorate the departed, and first of all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God may, through their prayers and intercession, graciously accept our supplications.”²⁷

When the Fathers and the ancient liturgies speak of Mass being offered “for” the martyrs, the pro (ὑπέρ) means not “for the repose or salvation,” but “in honor of” (pro honore), in the sense of veneration (cultus duliae); for the saints in Heaven, having attained the beatific vision, no longer need our prayers.²⁸ The reprobates in hell cannot profit by the Mass because they are irrevocably lost.²⁹ Consequently, there remain only the living on earth and the poor souls in purgatory who are able to participate in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice. Among the living on earth the fruits of the Mass apply in the first place to those who are in the state of sanctifying grace, secondly to those Christians who are in mortal sin. Heretics and excommunicated Catholics, Jews and Mohammedans, pagans and infidels are not excluded from the benefits of the Holy Sacrifice, though the Church has limited the application of its so-called special fruits³⁰ in regard to non-Catholics.

§2. In What Manner the Mass Produces Its Effects

The effects of the Mass as well as the manner of its efficacy ultimately depend on the value of the Mass, and hence we shall have to devote some space to this “celebrated and much controverted question.”³¹

The efficacy of the Mass is partly ex opere operato, and partly — we may say, for the most part — ex opere operantis. That is to say, the opus operans, i.e. the proper disposition of those whom it is to benefit, plays a far more important role in the application of the fruits of the Mass than is generally supposed.

The last question to be considered is whether the forgiveness of sins effected by the Mass is immediate or only mediate.

1. Value of the Mass

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has both an intrinsic and an extrinsic value. Its intrinsic value is derived from the objective dignity of Christ, who is both its High Priest and Sacrificial Victim. Its extrinsic value consists in the sum-total of the concrete effects which the Mass produces by virtue of the application of the fruits of the atonement.

a) The intrinsic value of the Mass, like that of the Sacrifice of the Cross, is, of course, infinite. Every act of the God-man possesses infinite value in the eyes of God.³² Needless to say, the action of Christ in the Mass creates no new values, but simply applies the treasury of the merits and satisfactions contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross to the faithful. “The fruits of this bloody oblation,” says the Council of Trent, “are received most plentifully through this unbloody one.”³³

As regards the extrinsic value of the Mass, we must first of all distinguish between sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving on the one hand, and sacrifices of impetration and propitiation on the other. The first two are directed to God alone and cannot be applied to man, and hence a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by the Son of God Himself (in the name of humanity) must be infinite, since God cannot but take infinite pleasure in the praise and thanksgiving of His only-begotten Son.

b) The case is different with sacrifices of impetration and propitiation.

α) Theologians generally³⁴ agree that in itself (in actu primo) the Mass, as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation, has infinite power, because impetration and propitiation performed by the God-man must have the same infinite value as praise and thanksgiving, though they may not attain their full effect on account of the limitations of human nature. It follows that intensively (intensive) the extrinsic value of the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation can be but finite. This is confirmed by experience, and also by the fact that the Church allows many Masses to be offered for the same purpose.

We may fairly ask, however, whether in its application (in actu secundo) and extensively (extensive) the value of the Mass is also merely finite. Or, to put it somewhat differently — Can the value of the Mass, which is intensively finite, be applied to an unlimited number of persons in such a manner that its efficacy is in no wise diminished? Or do the individual beneficiaries share in the fruits pro rata? Rather than answer this question in the negative, many theologians prefer to hold that the Mass is of infinite value also extensively, and that the amount of the fruits each beneficiary receives, varies in proportion to his piety, worthiness, and devotion, in short, depends on “the work of the agent” (ex opere operantis). Surely, indeed, he would be a poor Christian who would expect wonders from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in spite of his own indifference.³⁵

β) Nevertheless, the question must be answered with a distinction.³⁶ In addition to the active there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the persons in whose favor — it may be without their knowledge and against their wishes — the Holy Sacrifice is offered. As regards the active participants, i.e. the celebrating priest and the attending faithful, the distributive value of the Mass does not depend on the number of those who take part in it. If this were the case, it could be truly said that the fewer the people who attend, the greater the fruits derived by those actually present. But this is contrary to the mind of the Church and the belief of the faithful. Each active participant receives as much of the fruits of the Mass as his personal worthiness and devotion entitle him to. It is not possible to assign a definite limit.

The question lies somewhat differently with the passive participators, i.e. those in whose favor the Holy Sacrifice is offered.

c) On this point theologians differ widely. The minority (Cajetan, Ledesma, Gonet, Vasquez, St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, et al.), hold that the applicable value of the Holy Sacrifice is infinite, and that a single Mass offered for a hundred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a hundred Masses celebrated for a single person or intention.³⁷

Billuart³⁸ argues in favor of this view that “the infinite dignity of both the sacrificial Gift and the sacrificing High Priest Jesus Christ cannot be limited by the finite sacrificial activity of the human minister,” and after carefully weighing all reasons pro and con, arrives at the conclusion that both opinions are probable but neither is certain.³⁹ For the rest, even the opponents of this view readily admit that the value of a Mass, as a sacrifice of impetration, suffers no diminution by its being offered for many persons or intentions, because the divine mercy and bounty cannot be limited in the same way as divine justice, which, in matters of debt, must enforce strict equity. For this reason, they say, the Church prays for the Pope, the Ordinary of the diocese, and the faithful generally in the Canon of every Mass, regardless of whether or not the celebrant has received a stipend compelling him to apply its special fruits to some particular person or intention. There is no danger that these special fruits will be in any way diminished or curtailed.

The overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians⁴⁰ incline to the conviction that the satisfactory value of a Mass, which is directed to the remission of the temporal punishments of sin, is so strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it accrues pro rata (according to the greater or less number of the individuals living or dead, for whom the Sacrifice is offered) to each of the individual beneficiaries.

Many authors hold this to be true also of the impetratory and the propitiatory value of the Mass. Their view finds strong support in the custom prevailing among the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for the deceased or for their special intentions. Only on such a hypothesis⁴¹ is it possible to understand why a parish priest is strictly bound to apply the Mass to his parishioners on Sundays and holydays of obligation.⁴² Only on such a hypothesis, finally, is it possible to explain why the Church has forbidden in strict justice that a priest should seek to fulfil the obligations imposed by several stipends by reading a single Mass.⁴³

Tournely adduces in favor of this view important internal grounds of probability, e.g.: the will of God to see the Holy Sacrifice offered as often as possible and with the largest possible attendance on the part of the faithful; the general rule of Divine Providence to allow all natural and supernatural causes to produce their effects slowly and gradually; and, finally, the most holy intention of God that man should, by his personal exertions, strive through the medium of the greatest possible number of Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross.⁴⁴

2. The Mass Produces Its Effects Partly Ex Opere Operato and Partly Ex Opere Operantis

How the Mass works its effects is rather difficult to explain. In every Mass four distinct categories of persons really participate. They are: (a) The High Priest Jesus Christ Himself (sacerdos principalis s. primarius); (b) The Church, His mystic Bride and representative on earth; (c) The celebrant (sacerdos ministerialis s. secundarius); (d) All those who, besides the celebrant, take an active part in the sacrifice.

That in addition to the opus operatum, there must, in general, also be an opus operantis, is evident from the fact that the efficacy of the Mass depends not only on the objective dignity of the sacrificial gift, but likewise on the subjective worthiness and disposition of the celebrant and the faithful.

a) To make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us, and to secure its application, Christ, the High Priest, offers Himself as a sacrifice which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant, or the faithful present at the Mass, and consequently is for these an opus operatum. In regard to God, of course, Christ’s theandric act of offering Himself as a sacrifice constitutes an opus operantis. This peculiar kind of efficacy is one of the essential distinctions between the Sacrifice of the New Testament and the sacrifices of the Old, as was pointed out by the Tridentine Council: “This is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it.”⁴⁵

b) Next after Christ, and in the second place, comes the Church as a juridical person, who, according to the express teaching of the same Council,⁴⁶ has received from her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission constantly to ordain priests who will celebrate this most holy Sacrifice unto the end of time. St. Augustine speaks of “the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, being the body of the Head, offers up herself through Him.”⁴⁷ As the Church is the “beloved Bride of Christ,” her daily sacrifice cannot but be agreeable to God, even though the celebrant should happen to be an unworthy priest; for, acting in his official capacity, even an unworthy priest offers a valid sacrifice, which, being the sacrifice of the Church as well as the self-sacrifice of Christ, remains essentially spotless and untarnished before God. From this point of view there are no “private Masses,” inasmuch as every Mass is offered in the name and by commission of the Church and therefore constitutes a solemn and public act of divine worship. “The sacred and holy Synod [of Trent] … does not … condemn, as private and unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends those Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, since those Masses also ought to be considered as truly common, partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat, partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful.”⁴⁸

To this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the Holy Sacrifice together with Christ, there corresponds as a special fruit an ecclesiastico-human merit, which, as De Lugo points out,⁴⁹ is lost when Mass is said by an excommunicated or suspended priest, because such a priest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church.

We are compelled to concur in another view of Cardinal De Lugo, namely, that the value of the Mass is dependent on the greater or lesser holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the world. The holier the Church is in her members (especially the pope and the episcopate), the more agreeable must be her sacrifice in the eyes of God. The human merit of the Church in offering up the Sacrifice of the Mass is, therefore, an opus operans of the Church as such, and consequently, being independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful, constitutes for these an opus operatum, which has impetratory effects similar to those produced by the sacramentals.

c) With Christ and the Church is associated in the third place the celebrating priest, the representative through whom Christ offers up the sacrifice. If he be a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit, which will benefit himself and those in whose favor he applies the Mass. Hence the faithful are guided by a sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated by an upright and holy priest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in addition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this special fruit, which springs ex opere operantis from the piety of the celebrant and is for them, therefore, an opus operatum.

d) In the fourth place must be mentioned those who take an active part in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g. the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and, finally, the whole congregation. All these individuals are benefited in proportion to their personal disposition. The more fervent a prayer, the richer its fruit. Most intimate is the active participation in the sacrifice of those who receive holy Communion, since in their case the fruits of Communion are added to those of the Mass.

Aside from sacramental Communion, the most effective way of participating in the benefits of the Mass is by communicating spiritually, which means to have an ardent desire to receive the Eucharist with the priest. The Tridentine Council says: “The sacred and holy Synod would fain indeed that, at each Mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived from this most holy sacrifice.”⁵⁰

A third means of deriving spiritual profit from the Mass is by making the intention of participating spiritually in all the Masses celebrated daily throughout the world. This intention is all the more fruitful if it is made at Mass itself.

Since the benefits thus obtained are proportionate to the disposition of the individual and the purity of his motives, they are plainly acquired ex opere operantis.⁵¹

3. The Threefold Fruit of the Mass

The effects of the Mass which it produces ex opere operato, whether they be impetratory or propitiatory, are commonly called its “fruits.” The beneficiaries of these fruits are called passive participants in the Holy Sacrifice.⁵² They fall into three categories: the community, the person or persons to whom the Mass is especially applied, and the celebrant.

a) According to the intention of our Divine Lord and His Church, every Mass that is celebrated, is offered up by the priest for those present at the Sacrifice, for the holy Catholic Church, the pope, the bishop of the diocese, for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, and for the salvation of the whole world. From this there results first of all a “general fruit” (fructus generalis) for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately in the will of Christ and His Church, and can be frustrated by no special intention on the part of the celebrant. Scotus and a few other theologians hold that by virtue of this general fruit of the Holy Sacrifice every individual member of the Church receives a remission of the temporal punishment due to his sins from every Mass celebrated on earth; but this theory is extremely doubtful.⁵³

b) The second kind of fruit (fructus specialis) is usually applied to living or deceased individuals according to the intention of the celebrant or the donor of a stipend. The practice of giving and receiving Mass stipends is based on the maxim enunciated by St. Paul that he who serves the altar shall live thereof. This special fruit of the Mass (called also ministerialis or medius) must be applied by the priest, who has received a stipend, according to the intention of the donor. Its “application” rests so exclusively with the priest that even the prohibition of the Church cannot render it inefficacious, though the celebrant would sin through disobedience were he to oppose her commands.

Since the effect of an application can be frustrated by circumstances (e.g. if a Mass were said for a deceased person already in Heaven), Suarez⁵⁴ advises priests always to add to the first a second intention (intentio secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will take its place.

That there is a special fruit of the Mass, which can be applied to either the living or the dead, according to the intention of the celebrant, though not an article of faith, is the express teaching of the Church. The contrary assertion of the Jansenist Council of Pistoia⁵⁵ was condemned by Pius VI in his dogmatic Bull “Auctorem Fidei.”⁵⁶ The practice of offering Masses for particular persons or intentions goes back to the primitive Church⁵⁷ and would be absolutely unintelligible had not the Church believed in the doctrine under consideration.

c) The third and last kind of fruit (fructus personalis s. specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the celebrant, since — apart from his worthiness and piety (opus operantis) — it were unfair that he should come empty-handed from the Sacrifice. This fruit of the Mass is entirely personal and most probably cannot be applied to others.

Although the development of the ecclesiastical teaching in regard to the threefold fruit of the Mass begins only with Scotus,⁵⁸ it is based on the very essence of the Sacrifice itself.⁵⁹

4. The Special Mode of Efficacy of the Mass as a Sacrifice of Propitiation

As a propitiatory sacrifice the Mass has a double function, i.e. to obliterate actual sins (effectus propitiatorius), and to take away such temporal punishments as may still remain to be endured for sins forgiven (effectus satisfactorius). Both effects are expressly mentioned by the Tridentine Council.⁶⁰

A problem of some difficulty is whether this double effect ex opere operato is produced mediately or immediately.

a) Regarding mortal sins, we maintain as certain, in opposition to some older theologians, that the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of such sins otherwise than by way of exciting contrition and penance, and therefore only mediately through procuring for the sinner the grace of conversion.

α) Aragon and Casalius held that the Mass remits mortal sins per se, in the same way as Baptism and Penance. Gregory of Valentia maintained that it remits them per accidens after the fashion of certain Sacraments of the living. Neither view is tenable, since even the Sacrifice of the Cross itself, from which the Mass derives its entire efficacy, does not effect the immediate forgiveness of mortal sins, but merely bestows certain efficacious graces, by means of which the sinner can attain justification, either through making an act of perfect contrition or worthily receiving the Sacrament of Penance. To say that the Mass blots out mortal sins immediately and ex opere operato, is to confuse it with the Sacraments of the dead and to deny their necessity (necessitas medii) for salvation. St. Thomas says: “The Eucharist, in so far as it is a sacrifice, … blots out mortal sins, not as a proximate cause, but by securing the grace of contrition.”⁶¹ The Council of Trent approves this teaching: “The holy Synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. … For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins.”⁶² This conciliary definition indicates in how far the propitiatory efficacy of the Mass is derived ex opere operato. God is first appeased by the oblation and subsequently moved to grant sufficient (though not necessarily efficacious) graces to enable the sinner to make a worthy confession or an act of perfect contrition.

β) As regards venial sins, the Tridentine Council says that the salutary virtue of the unbloody Sacrifice is “applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit.”⁶³ From this Melchior Cano, Henriquez, Azor, and a few other theologians concluded that the Mass, as a sacrifice of expiation, directly blots out venial sins. But this deduction is unwarranted. On the contrary, it is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that the forgiveness of venial sins also requires actual grace, i.e. the grace of contrition.⁶⁴ The Mass as such is a Sacrifice, not a Sacrament. The following argument is as simple as it is convincing: If the pious attendance at Mass, or the efficacious application of the Holy Sacrifice, is unable to earn for any one immediately the first grace of justification, then it is also unable to merit the so-called iustificatio secunda, which consists in an increase of sanctifying grace. The contrary hypothesis would entail the absurd conclusion that to have Masses said for the souls of baptized children would increase the sacramental grace of Baptism ad infinitum.

b) Concerning the remission of the temporal punishments due to sin, our judgment must be different.

The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction between sin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation and sorrow of the sinner, forgiveness is impossible. This cannot, however, be said of a mere remission of punishment. One person may validly discharge the debts of another, without apprizing the debtor of his intention.

α) The satisfactory effect of the Mass is immediate and wrought ex opere operato. This can be shown as follows: The Council of Trent defines that the souls in purgatory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, “principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar.”⁶⁵ This help must come immediately and ex opere operato, because a dead person can no longer give satisfaction for his sins (satisfacere) by acquiring supernatural merits; all he can do is to atone for them by suffering (satispati). There is no reason to assume that the case is different with the living, and consequently the satisfactory effect of the Mass with them, too, is immediate and ex opere operato.

β) In order to make sure of the fructus specialis of the Mass as a sacrifice of satisfaction, a person must (1) be capable of receiving those fruits; he must (2) be in the state of pilgrimage; he must (3) have the right disposition, and (4) stand in need of satisfaction.

(1) To be able to receive these fruits, a person must be baptized. Baptism is the “spiritual door” not only to the Sacraments, but also to the Sacrifice of the Mass in so far as it is a sacrifice of propitiation. Its impetratory effects can be applied also to non-believers.

(2) To receive the special fruits of the Mass as regards satisfaction for the temporal punishments of sin, one must be in the state of pilgrimage (in statu viae). The attainment of the status termini either in Heaven or in hell renders all satisfaction either unnecessary or impossible. As regards the middle state of purgatory, we have already shown that the fruits of the Mass can be applied to the poor souls. Is this application infallible? Soto, Cano, and others doubt it, for the reason that the effectus satisfactorius of the Mass can be applied to the departed only per modum suffragii. Nevertheless, the majority of theologians hold with Suarez⁶⁶ that Masses for the dead infallibly remit, if not all, at least part of the punishments due to their sins.

(3) The recipient must have the right disposition, that is, he must be in the state of sanctifying grace.⁶⁷ The punishments due to mortal sins cannot be remitted until the sins have been blotted out.

(4) Finally, the recipient must stand in need of satisfaction. This condition would be absent in the case of one who had already obtained remission of all the punishments due to his sins by either actively or passively making satisfaction for them. One who is in the state of mortal sin clearly stands in need of such satisfaction, though the need cannot be satisfied until he has obtained forgiveness of his sins by a worthy confession.⁶⁸

Readings: G. Sanchez, Spiritualis Thesaurus Missae, Ingolstadt 1620. Cardinal Bona, De Sacrificio Missae Tractatus Asceticus, new ed., Ratisbon 1909. K. Weickum, Das hl. Messopfer, Handbuch für Prediger und Katecheten, Ratisbon 1865. J. Kössing, Liturgische Erklärung der hl. Messe, 3rd ed., Ratisbon 1869. J. P. Olivier, Solutions Théologiques et Liturgiques Touchant le Saint Sacrifice de la Messe, Paris 1873. Thos. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, Augsburg 1876. M. Müller, The Holy Mass, the Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, New York 1879. L. Bacuez, Du Divin Sacrifice et du Prêtre qui le Célèbre, Paris 1888. Kl. Lüdtke, Erklärung des hl. Messopfers, Danzig 1892. J. Walter, Die hl. Messe, der grösste Schatz der Welt, 7th ed., Brixen 1909. N. Gihr, Das hl. Messopfer dogmatisch, liturgisch und aszetisch erklärt, 11th ed., Freiburg 1912 (English translation, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained, 4th ed., St. Louis 1914). Cardinal Vaughan, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1900. W. J. Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, London 1903. A. Devine, C.P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 270 sqq., London 1905. J. C. Hedley, O.S.B., The Holy Eucharist, pp. 227 sqq., London 1907.

Footnotes

1. See above, Ch. II, §1, Article 1. ↩

2. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 3: “Si quis dixerit, Missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, … non autem propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 950). ↩

3. See above, Ch. I. ↩

4. Cfr. Mal. I, 10 sqq. The traditional teaching on the subject is effectively developed by Th. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, pp. 17 sqq., Augsburg 1876. ↩

5. Conc. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. 1. ↩

6. Cfr. Lev. IV sqq.; 2 Kings XXIV, 21 sqq.; 2 Mach. III, 32. ↩

7. Heb. V, 1: “ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν.” ↩

8. Matth. XXVI, 28: “Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” ↩

9. Cfr. 2 Mach. XII, 43 sqq. ↩

10. Tertullian, Ad Scapul., 2: “Itaque et sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris.” ↩

11. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Myst., 5, n. 8 (Migne, P.G., XXXIII, 1115). ↩

12. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in Act., 21, n. 4. ↩

13. St. Jerome, In Tit., 1, 8: “Quotidie [episcopus] pro suis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est hostias.” ↩

14. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Lev., 57: “Illis sacrificiis unum hoc sacrificium [Missa] significabatur, in quo vere fit remissio peccatorum.” ↩

15. St. Gregory the Great, Dial., IV, 58: “Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam salvat.” ↩

16. Apud Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Collect., II, p. 30. ↩

17. Other examples from ancient liturgies are quoted by Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 337 sq. ↩

18. Tertullian, De Monog., 10: “Pro anima eius [defuncti mariti] refrigerium adpostulet [vidua] et offerat [scil. per sacerdotem] annuis diebus dormitionis eius.” ↩

19. St. Cyprian, Ep. 66, n. 2: “Non est quod pro dormitione eius apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine eius in Ecclesia frequentetur.” For the testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, see above, Ch. I, §2. ↩

20. St. Augustine, De Cura Gerenda pro Mortuis, c. 1, n. 3: “In Machabaeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium; sed etsi nusquam in Scripturis veteribus omnino legeretur, non parva est universae Ecclesiae, quae in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas, ubi in precibus sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad eius altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum.” ↩

21. St. Augustine, Confess., IX, 12: “Quum ecce corpus elatum est, imus, redimus sine lacrimis. Nam neque in eis precibus quas tibi fudimus, quum offerretur pro ea sacrificium pretii nostri, iam iuxta sepulcrum posito cadavere, priusquam deponeretur, sic illic fieri solet, nec in eis precibus flevi.” ↩

22. Apud Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Collect., I, p. 26: “Offeram tibi hoc sacrificium rationabile, incruentum cum conscientia pura in remissionem peccatorum et iniquitatum mearum, veniam delictorum populi tui, requiem et refrigerium Patrum nostrorum qui olim obdormierunt in fide orthodoxa.” On Masses for the dead see Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 2, 7; De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 774 sqq. ↩

23. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 3: “Et quamvis in honorem et memoriam sanctorum nonnullas interdum Missas Ecclesia celebrare consueverit, non tamen illis sacrificium offerri docet, sed Deo soli, qui illos coronavit, unde nec sacerdos dicere solet: Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre vel Paule, sed Deo de illorum victoriis gratias agens eorum patrocinia implorat.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 941). ↩

24. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 5: “Si quis dixerit, imposturam esse Missas celebrare in honorem sanctorum et pro illorum intercessione apud Deum obtinenda, sicut Ecclesia intendit, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 952). ↩

25. Tertullian, De Coron., c. 3: “Oblationes pro natalitiis [martyrum] annua die facimus.” (Migne, P.L., II, 79). ↩

26. St. Cyprian, Ep., 39, n. 3: “Sacrificia pro eis semper, ut meministis, offerimus, quoties martyrum passiones et dies anniversarios commemoratione celebramus.” (Ed. Hartel, II, 583). ↩

27. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Myst., 5, n. 9. On the veneration and invocation of the Saints in general see Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, pp. 139 sqq. On the subject of this subdivision cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 8. ↩

28. Cfr. Bickell, Messe und Pascha, pp. 136 sqq., Mayence 1872. ↩

29. See Eschatology. ↩

30. See below, §2, no. 3. ↩

31. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 11, n. 1. ↩

32. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 161 sqq.; Soteriology, pp. 70 sqq. ↩

33. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 2: “Cuius quidem oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc incruentam uberrime percipiuntur.” ↩

34. With but few exceptions, among them Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 4. ↩

35. See below, no. 2. ↩

36. Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 2. ↩

37. Cfr. Gonet, disp. 11, art. 5, n. 100: “Dico tertio, hoc sacrificium oblatum pro pluribus aeque prodest cuilibet, ac si pro uno tantum offeratur.” ↩

38. Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 8, art. 5. ↩

39. Ibid.: “Ceterum utraque est probabilis, et quamvis in secundam propendere videar, agnosco tamen neutram esse certam, sed quamlibet pati suas difficultates.” ↩

40. A list of them is given by Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, p. 355. ↩

41. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXIII, cap. 1, De Ref. ↩

42. Benedict XIV, Const. “Quum semper oblatas,” §2: “Nec illud pro aliis applicare aut pro huiusmodi applicatione eleemosynam percipere posse.” ↩

43. Prop. ab Alexandro VII damn. a. 1665, prop. 10: “Non est contra iustitiam, pro pluribus sacrificiis stipendium accipere et unum sacrificium offerre.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1110). Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 12; Th. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, §29. ↩

44. Tournely, De Eucharistia, qu. 8, art. 6. Billuart’s answer in De Eucharistia, diss. 8, art. 5. ↩

45. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 1: “Et haec quidem illa munda oblatio est, quae nulla indignitate aut malitia offerentium inquinari potest.” ↩

46. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 1: “Ut dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibile relinqueret sacrificium … novum instituit pascha seipsum ab Ecclesia per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus immolandum.” ↩

47. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, X, 20: ”… quotidianum Ecclesiae sacrificium, quae, quum ipsius capitis corpus sit, seipsam per ipsum discit offerre.” ↩

48. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 6: “Nec tamen [Ecclesia] Missas illas … ut privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat atque adeo commendat, siquidem illae quoque Missae vere communes censeri debent, partim quod in eis populus christianus spiritualiter communicat, partim vero quod a publico Ecclesiae ministro non pro se tantum, sed pro omnibus fidelibus … celebrentur.” ↩

49. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 9, n. 126. ↩

50. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 6: “Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus, ut in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non solum spirituali affectu, sed sacramentali etiam Eucharistiae perceptione communicarent, quo ad eos sanctissimi huius sacrificii fructus uberior proveniret.” ↩

51. Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 11. ↩

52. Of course, the active participants in the Mass are also passive participants in the sense above explained; in fact they are benefited by the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice in a particular manner. ↩

53. Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 8, n. 2. ↩

54. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 10. ↩

55. ”… quasi nullus specialis fructus proveniret ex speciali applicatione, quam pro determinatis personis aut personarum ordinibus faciendam commendat ac praecipit Ecclesia, speciatim a pastoribus pro suis ovibus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1530). ↩

56. “Falsa, temeraria, perniciosa, Ecclesiae iniuriosa, inducens in errorem alias damnatum in Wicleffo.” ↩

57. See above, §1. ↩

58. Scotus, Quaest. Quodlib., 1, 20, n. 4. ↩

59. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 6 sqq.; Th. Specht, Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers, pp. 149 sqq. ↩

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

61. St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 12, p. 2, art. 2: “Eucharistia, inquantum est sacrificium, … peccata mortalia in eis delet non sicut causa proxima, sed inquantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.” ↩

62. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 2: “Docet sancta Synodus, sacrificium istud vere propitiatorium esse. … Huius quippe oblatione placatus Dominus gratiam et donum poenitentiae concedens crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 940). ↩

63. ”… in remissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum.” (Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 1). ↩

64. Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect. 9, n. 152. ↩

65. ”… potissimum vero accepta bili altaris sacrificio iuvari.” (Sess. XXV, De Purg.; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 983). ↩

66. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 10, n. 3 sqq. ↩

67. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. 7, ad 2. ↩

68. Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 353 sqq. ↩