Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
INTRODUCTION:
(Greek eucharistia, thanksgiving) .
The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and
Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.
Other titles are used, such as "Lord's Supper" (Coena Domini), "Table of the Lord" (Mensa
Domini), the "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini), and the "Holy of Holies" (Sanctissimum), to which
may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning:
"Agape" (LoveFeast), "Eulogia" (Blessing), "Breaking of Bread", "Synaxis" (Assembly), etc.; but
the ancient title "Eucharistia" appearing in writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, has
taken precedence in the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians. The expression
"Blessed Sacrament of the Altar", introduced by Augustine, is at the present day almost entirely
restricted to catechetical and popular treatises.
This extensive nomenclature, describing the great mystery from such different points of view, is in
itself sufficient proof of the central position the Eucharist has occupied from the earliest ages, both
in the Divine worship and services of the Church and in the life of faith and devotion which
animates her members.
The Church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since for sublimity and
incomprehensibility it yields in nothing to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. These
three mysteries constitute a wonderful triad, which causes the essential characteristic of Christianity,
as a religion of mysteries far transcending the capabilities of reason, to shine forth in all its
brilliance and splendor, and elevates Catholicism, the most faithful guardian and keeper of our
Christian heritage, far above all pagan and nonChristian religions.
The organic connection of this mysterious triad is clearly discerned, if we consider Divine grace
under the aspect of a personal communication of God. Thus in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity,
God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, communicates His Divine Nature to God the
Son, "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18), while the Son of God,
by virtue of the hypostatic union, communicates in turn the Divine Nature received from His Father
to His human nature formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (John 1:14), in order that thus as God
man, hidden under the Eucharistic Species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, as a
tender mother, mystically cares for and nurtures in her own bosom this, her greatest treasure, and
daily places it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls. Thus the Trinity, Incarnation,
and Eucharist are really welded together like a precious chain, which in a wonderful manner links
heaven with earth, God with man, uniting them most intimately and keeping them thus united. By
the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it,
based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the
Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a
Catholic theologian.
The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan
religions "religiohistorical parallels", corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of
Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were
an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient
Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless
be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian
Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the
crassest idol and natureworship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the
reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully
condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which
nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind
His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity
has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently
distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect
beams of light.
It is the Church alone, "the pillar and ground of truth", imbued with and directed by the Holy Spirit,
that guarantees to her children through her infallible teaching the full and unadulterated revelation
of God. Consequently, it is the first duty of Catholics to adhere to what the Church proposes as the
"proximate norm of faith" (regula fidei proxima), which, in reference to the Eucharist, is set forth in
a particularly clear and detailed manner in Sessions XIII, XXI, and XXII of the Council of Trent.
The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist the Body and
Blood of the Godman are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls,
by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and
that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.
These three principle truths — Sacrifice, Sacrament, and Real Presence — are given a more
detailed consideration in the following articles:
• The Sacrifice of the Mass
• The Eucharist as a Sacrament
• The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
1. THE CANON OF THE MASS
This article will be divided into four sections: (I) Name and place of the Canon; (II) History of
the Canon; (III) The text and rubrics of the Canon; (IV) Mystical interpretations.
Name and place of the canon
Canon (Canon Missæ, Canon Actionis) is the name used in the Roman Missal for the fundamental
part of the Mass that comes after the Offertory and before the Communion. The old distinction, in
all liturgies, is between the Mass of the Catechumens (the litanies, lessons from the Bible, and
collects) and the Mass of the Faithful (the Offertory of the gifts to be consecrated, Consecration
prayer, Communion, and dismissal). Our Canon is the Consecration prayer, the great Eucharistic
prayer in the Mass of the Faithful. The name Canon (kanon) means a norm or rule; and it is used for
various objects, such as the Canon of Holy Scripture, canons of Councils, the official list of saints'
names (whence "canonisation"), and the canon or list of clerks who serve a certain church, from
which they themselves are called canons (canonici). Liturgically it occurs in three senses:
• The kanon in the Byzantine Rite is the arrangement of the nine odes according to the order
in which they are to be sung (Nilles, Kalendarium Manuale, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896, I,
LVIII).
• Like the word Mass it has occasionally been used as a general name for the canonical Hours,
or Divine Office (St. Benedict's Rule, cap. xvii; Cassian, II, 13).
• Chiefly, and now universally in the West, it is the name for the Eucharistic prayer in the Holy
Liturgy. In this sense it occurs in the letters of St. Gregory I (Epp., Lib. VII, lxiv, Lib. XI,
lix); the Gelasian Sacramentary puts the heading "Incipit Canon Actionis" before the Sursum
Corda (ed. Wilson, 234), the word occurs several times in the first Roman Ordo ("quando
inchoat canonem", "finito vero canone", ed. Atchley, 138, etc.); since the seventh century it
has been the usual name for this part of the Mass.
One can only conjecture the original reason for its use. Walafrid Strabo says: "This action is called
the Canon because it is the lawful and regular confection of the Sacrament" (De reb. eccl., xxii);
Benedict XIV says: "Canon is the same word as rule, the Church uses this name to mean that the
Canon of the Mass is the firm rule according to which the Sacrifice of the New Testament is to be
celebrated" (De SS. Missæ Sacr., Lib. II, xii). It has been suggested that our present Canon was a
compromise between the older Greek Anaphoras and variable Latin Eucharistic prayers formerly
used in Rome, and that it was ordered in the fourth century, possibly by Pope Damasus (36684).
The name Canon would then mean a fixed standard to which all must henceforth conform, as
opposed to the different and changeable prayers used before (E. Burbridge in Atchley, "Ordo Rom.
Primus", 96). In any case it is noticeable that whereas the lessons, collects and Preface of the Mass
constantly vary, the Canon is almost unchangeable in every Mass. Another name for the Canon is
Actio. Agere, like the Greek dran, is often used as meaning to sacrifice. Leo I, in writing to
Dioscurus of Alexandria, uses the expression "in qua [sc. basilica] agitur", meaning "in which Mass
is said". Other names are Legitimum, Prex, Agenda, Regula, Secretum Missæ.
The rubrics of our present Missal leave no doubt as to the limits of the Canon in modern times. It
begins at the "Te Igitur" and ends with the Amen before the Embolism of the Pater Noster (omnis
honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum, Amen). The Missal has the title "Canon Missæ"
printed after the Sanctus, and the Rubrics say: "After the Preface the Canon of the Mass begins
secretly" (Rubr. Gen., XII, 6). The ninth title of the "Ritus cel. Missam" is headed: "Of the Canon
from the Consecration to the Lord's Prayer". The next title is: "Of the Lord's Prayer and the rest to
the Communion." Neither of these limits, however, was always so fixed. The whole Canon is
essentially one long prayer, the Eucharistic prayer that the Eastern rites call the Anaphora. And the
Preface is part of this prayer. Introduced in Rome as everywhere by the little dialogue "Sursum
corda" and so on, it begins with the words "Vere dignum et justum est". Interrupted for a moment by
the people, who take up the angels' words: "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus", etc., the priest goes on with
the same prayer, obviously joining the next part to the beginning by the word igitur. It is not then
surprising that we find in the oldest sacramentary that contains a Canon, the Gelasian, the heading
"Incipit Canon Actionis" placed before the Sursum Corda; so that the preface was then still looked
upon as part of the Canon. However, by the seventh century or so the Canon was considered as
beginning with the secret prayers after the Sanctus (Ord. Rom. I: "When they have finished the
Sanctus the pontiff rises alone and enters into the Canon", ed. Atchley, 138). The point at which it
may be considered as ending was equally uncertain at one time. There has never been any sort of
point or indication in the text of the Missal to close the period begun by the heading "Canon
Missæ", so that from looking at the text we should conclude that the Canon goes on to the end of
the Mass. Even as late as Benedict XIV there were "those who think that the Lord's Prayer makes up
part of the Canon" (De SS. Miss Sacr., ed. cit., 228). On the other hand the "Ordo Rom. I" (ed. cit.
infra, p. 138) implies that it ends before the Pater Noster. The two views are reconciled by the
distinction between the "Canon Consecrationis" and the "Canon Communionis" that occurs
constantly in the Middle Ages (Gihr, Das heilige Messopfer, 540). The "Canon Communionis" then
would begin with the Pater Noster and go on to the end of the people's Communion. The Post
Communion to the Blessing, or now to the end of the last Gospel, forms the last division of the
Mass, the thanksgiving and dismissal. It must then be added that in modern times by Canon we
mean only the "Canon Consecrationis". The Canon, together with the rest of the "Ordo Missæ", is
now printed in the middle of the Missal, between the propers for Holy Saturday and Easter Day. Till
about the ninth century it stood towards the end of the sacramentary, among the "Missæ
quotidianæ" and after the Proper Masses (so in the Gelasian book). Thence it moved to the very
beginning. From the eleventh century it was constantly placed in the middle, where it is now, and
since the use of completeMissals "according to the use of the Roman Curia" (from the thirteenth
century) that has been its place invariably. It is the part of the book that is used far more than any
other, so it is obviously convenient that it should occur where a booklies open best — in the middle.
No doubt a symbolic reason, the connection between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the mysteries of
Holy Week, helped to make this place seem the most suitable one. The same reason of practical use
that gave it this place led to the commoncustom of printing the Canon on vellum, even when the rest
of the Missal was on paper — vellum stands wear much better than paper.
History of the canon
Since the seventh century our Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590604) the
great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement.
His reign then makes the best division in its history.
Before St. Gregory I (to 590)
St. Gregory certainly found the Canon that has been already discussed, arranged in the same order,
and in possession for centuries. When was it put together? It is certainly not the work of one man,
nor was it all composed at one time. Gregory himself thought that the Canon had been composed by
"a certain Scholasticus (Epp., lib. VII, no. lxiv, or lib. IX, no. xii), and Benedict XIV discusses
whether he meant some person so named or merely "a certain learned man" (De SS. Missæ sacr.,
157). But our Canon represents rather the last stage of a development that had been going on
gradually ever since the first days when the Roman Christians met together to obey Christ's
command and celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Him. Here a distinction must be made between
the prayers of the Canon itself and the order in which they are now found. The prayers, or at least
some of them, can be traced back to a very early date from occasional references in letters of
Fathers. From this it does not follow that they always stood in the same order as now. Their
arrangement in our present Missal presents certain difficulties and has long been a muchdisputed
point. It is very possible that at some unknown period — perhaps in the fifth century — theCanon
went through a complete alteration in its order and that its component prayers, without being
changed in themselves, were turned round and rearranged. This theory, as will be seen, would
account for many difficulties. In difficulties.
In the first century, as known, the Church of Rome, like all other Christian Churches, celebrated the
Holy Eucharist by obeying Christ's direction and doing as He had done the night before He died.
There were the bread and wine brought up at the Offertory and consecrated by the words of
Institution and by an invocation of the Holy Ghost; the bread was broken and Communion was
given to the faithful. Undoubtedly, too, before the service lessons were read from the Bible, litanies
and prayers were said. It is also known that this Mass was said in Greek. Hellenistic Greek was the
common tongue of Christians, at any rate outside Palestine, and it was spoken by them in Rome as
well as everywhere else, at the time when it was understood and used as a sort of international
language throughout the empire. This is shown by the facts that theinscriptions in the catacombs are
in Greek, and that Christian writers at Rome (I Ep. Clem., etc.) use that language (cf. de Rossi,
Roma sott., II, 237). Of the liturgical formulas of this first period little is known. The First Epistle of
St. Clement contains a prayer that is generally considered liturgical (lixlxi), though it contains no
reference to the Eucharist, also the statement that "the Lord commanded offerings and holy offices
to be made carefully, not rashly nor without order, but at fixed times and hours". It says further:
"The highpriest [i.e. bishop] has his duties, a special place is appointed to the priests, and the
Levites have their ministry" (xi). From this it is evident that at Rome the liturgy was celebrated
according to fixed rules and definite order. Chap. xxxiv tells us that the Romans "gathered together
in concord, and as it were with one mouth", said the Sanctus from Isaiah 6:3, as we do. St. Justin
Martyr (died c. 167) spent part of his life at Rome and died there. It is possible that his "First
Apology" was written in that city (Bardenhewer, Altkirchl. Litt., I, 206), and that the liturgy he
describes in it (lxvlxvi) was that which he frequented at Rome. From this we learn that the
Christians first prayed for themselves and for all manner of persons. Then follows the kiss of peace,
and "he who presides over the brethren" is given bread and a cup of wine and water, having received
which he gives thanks to God, celebrates the Eucharist, and all the people answer "Amen." The
deacons then give out Holy Communion (loc. cit.). Here is found the outline of our liturgy: the
Preface (giving thanks), to which may be added from I Clement the Sanctus, a celebration of the
Eucharist, not described, but which contains the words of Institution (chapter 66, "by His prayer"),
and which corresponds to our Canon, and the final Amen that still keeps its place at the end of the
Eucharistic prayer. Perhaps a likeness may be seen between the Roman use and those of the Eastern
Churches in the fact that when St. Polycarp came to Rome in 155, Pope Anicetus allowed him to
celebrate, just like one of his own bishops (Eusebius, Church History V.24). The canons of
Hippolytus of Rome (in the beginning of the third century, if they are genuine; cf. Bardenhewer, op.
cit., I, 5413) allude to a Eucharistic celebration that follows the order of St. Justin, and they add the
universal introduction to the Preface, "Sursum corda", etc.
The first great turning point in the history of the Roman Canon is the exclusive use of the Latin
language. Latin had been used side by side with Greek, apparently for some time. It occurs first as a
Christian language, not in Rome, but in Africa. Pope Victor I (190202), an African, seems to have
been the first Roman bishop who used it (supposing that the Ps.Cyprian, "De Aleatoribus", is by
him; Harnack, "Der Ps.Cypr. Tractat.de Aleatoribus", Leipzig. 1888). After this time it soon
becomes the only language used by popes; Cornelius (25153) and Stephen (25457) write in Latin.
Greek seems to have disappeared at Rome as a liturgical language in the second half of the third
century (Kattenbusch, Symbolik, II, 331), though parts of the Liturgy were left in Greek. The Creed
was sometimes said in Greek down to Byzantine times (Duchesne, Origines, 290). The "Ordo Rom.
I" says that certain psalms were still said in Greek (Mabillon. Mus. Ital., II, 3740); and of this
liturgical use of Greek there are still remnants in our Kyrie Eleison and the "Agios o Theos.", etc.,
on Good Friday. Very soon after the acceptance of Latin as the only liturgical language we find
allusions to parts of the Eucharistic prayer, that are the same as parts of our present Canon. In the
time of Pope Damasus (36684) a Roman writer who was guilty of the surprising error of
identifying Melchisedech with the Holy Ghost writes, "The Holy Ghost being a bishop is called
Priest of the most high God, but not high priest" (Sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus)
"as our people presume to say in the Oblation" ("Quæstiones V et N. Test." in P.L. XXXV, 2329;
Duchesne, op. cit., 169). These words evidently allude to theform "thy high priest Melchisedech"
(summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech) in the Canon. PseudoAmbrose in "De Sacramentis"
(probably about 400 or later; cf. Bardenhewer, "Patrologie", 407) quotes the prayers said by the
priest in the Canon:
Fac nos hanc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est
coporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis
accepit panem, respexit in cælum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, gratias
agens, benedixit, fregit fractumque apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens:
Accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro multis
confringetur.Similiter etiam calicem, postquam cænatum est, pridie quam pateretur
accepit, respexit in cælum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, gratias agens,
benedixit, apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens; Accipite et bibite ex hoc
omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus.
"And the priest says", continues the author, "Ergo memores gloriosissimæ eius passionis et ab
inferis resurrectionis et in cælum adscensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, hanc
panem sanctum et calicem vitæ æternæ et petimus et precamur, ut hanc oblationemsuscipias in
sublimi altari tuo per manus angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti
Abel et sacrificium patriarchæ nostri Abrahæ et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech"
(quoted by Duchesne, op. cit., 170; P.L. XVI, 443). It will be seen that the whole of this prayer, but
for a few unimportant modifications, is that of our Canon. Pope Damasus has been considered one
of the chief compilers of the Roman Liturgy. Probst thinks that he ordained the changes in the Mass
that occur because of the calendar of seasons and feasts, and attributes to him the oldest part of the
Leonine Sacramentary (Lit. des IV. Jahrhunderts und deren Reform, 455 sqq.). Funk in the
"Tübinger Quartalschrift" (1894, 683) denies this. One liturgical change made by this pope is
certain. He introduced the word Alleluia at Rome (Greg. I, Epp. IX, xii, in P.L., LXXVII, 956).
Innocent I (40117) refers to the Canon as being a matter he ought not to describe — an apparent
survival of the idea of the Disciplina arcani — and says it is ended with the kiss of peace (Ep. ad
Decentium in P.L., XX, 553): "After all the things that I may not reveal the Peace is given, by which
it is shown that the people have consented to all that was done in the holy mysteries and was
celebrated in the church". He also says that at Rome the names of persons for whom the celebrant
prays are read in the Canon: "first the offertory should be made, and after that the names of the
givers read out, so that they should be named during the holy mysteries, not during the parts that
precede" (ib.). That is all that can be known for certain about our Canon before Gregory I. The
earliest books that contain its text were written after his time and show it as approved by him.
A question that can only be answered by conjecture is that of the relation between the Roman Canon
and any of the other ancient liturgical Anaphoras. There are undoubtedly very striking parallels
between it and both of the original Eastern rites, those of Alexandria and Antioch. Mgr. Duchesne is
inclined to connect the Roman use with that of Alexandria, and the other great Western liturgy, the
Gallican Rite, with that of Antioch (Origines, 54). But the Roman Canon shows perhaps more
likeness to that of Antioch in its formulæ. These parallel passages have been collected and printed
side by side by Dr. Drews in his "Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe", in
order toprove a thesis which will be referred to later. Meanwhile, whatever may be thought of
Drew's theory, the likeness of the prayers cannot be denied. For instance, the Intercession in the
Syrian Liturgy of St. James begins with the prayer (Brightman, East. Lit., 8990):
Wherefore we offer unto Thee, O Lord, this same fearful and unbloody sacrifice for the
holy places . . . . and especially for holy Sion . . . . and for thy holy church which is in all
the world . . . . Remember also, O Lord, our pious bishops . . . especially the fathers, our
Patriarch Mar N. and our Bishop ["and all the bishops throughout the world who preach
the word of thy truth in Orthodoxy", Greek Lit. of St. James].
The whole of this prayer suggests our "Imprimis quæ tibi offerimus", etc., and certain words exactly
correspond to "toto orbe terrarum" and "orthodoxis", as does "especially" to "imprimis", and so on.
Again the Syrian Anaphora continues:
Remember also, O Lord, those who have offered the offerings at thine holy altar and
those for whom each has offered [cf. "pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt"]. . .
. Remember, O Lord, all those whom we have mentioned and those whom we have not
mentioned [ib., p. 92]. Again vouchsafe to remember those who stand with us and pray
with us ["et omnium circumstantium", ib., 92]; Remembering. . . . especially our all
holy, unspotted, most glorious lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin, Mary, St. John the
illustrious prophet, forerunner and baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew . . .
. [the names of the Apostles follow] . . . . and of all thy Saints for ever . . . . that we may
receive thy help ["ut in omnibus protectionis tuæ muniamur auxilio", Greek St. James,
ib. 5657].
The words of Institution occur in a form that is almost identical with our "Pridie quam pateretur"
(ib., 8687). The Anamnesis (p. 89) begins: "Commemorating therefore ["unde et memores"] O
Lord, thy death and resurrection on the third day from the tomb and thy ascension into heaven . . . .
we offer thee this dread and unbloody sacrifice ["offerimus . . . . hostiam puram," etc.].
It is true that these general ideas occur in all the old liturgies; but in this case a remarkable identity
is found even in the words. Some allusions to what were probably older forms in our Canon make
the similarity still more striking. Thus Optatus of Mileve says that Mass is offered "pro ecclesiâ,
quæ una est et toto orbe terrarum diffusa" (Adv. Parm., III, xii). This represents exactly a Latin
version of the "holy Church which is in all the world" that we have seen in the Syrian Anaphora
above. The Syrian use adds a prayer for "our religious kings and queens" after that for the patriarch
and bishop. So our Missal long contained the words "et pro rege nostro N."after "et Antistite nostro
N." (see below). It has a prayer for the celebrant himself (Brightman, 90), where our Missal once
contained just such a prayer (below). The treatise "De Sacramentis" gives the words on Institution
for the Chalice as "Hic est sanguis meus", just as does the Syrian Liturgy. There are other striking
resemblances that may be seen in Drews. But the other Eastern liturgy, the Alexandrine use, also
shows very striking parallels. The prayer for the celebrant, of which the form was "Mihi quoque
indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse digneris, et ab omnibus me peccatorum offensionibus
emundare" (Ebner, Miss. Rom., 401), is an exact translation of the corresponding Alexandrine text:
"Remember me also, O Lord, thy humble and unworthy servant, and forgive my sins" (Brightman,
130). The author of "De Sacr." quotes the Roman Canon as saying "quod est figura corporis et
sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi", and the Egyptian Prayer Book of Serapion uses exactly the
same expression, "the figure of the body and blood" (Texte u. Unt., II, 3, p. 5). In the West the words
"our God" are not often applied to Christ in liturgies. In the Gelasian Sacramentary they occur ("ut
nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini Dei nostri Iesu Christi", ed. Wilson, 235),
just where they come in the same context in St. Mark's Liturgy (Brightman, 126). Our Mass refers to
the oblation as "thy gifts and favours" (de tuis donis ac datis); so does St. Mark (ib., 133). But the
most striking parallel between Rome and Alexandria is in the order of the Canon. The Antiochene
Liturgy puts the whole of the Intercession after the words of Institution and the Epiklesis; in
Alexandria it comes before. And in our Canon the greater part of this intercession ("imprimis quæ
tibi offerimus", "Commemoratio pro vivis", "Communicantes") also comes before the Consecration,
leaving only as a curious anomaly the "Commemoratio pro defunctis" and the "Nobis quoque
peccatoribus" to follow after the Anamnesis (Unde et momores).
Although, then, it is impossible to establish any sort of mutual dependence, it is evident that the
Roman Canon contains likenesses to the two Eastern rites too exact to be accidental; in its forms it
most resembles the Antiochene Anaphora, but in its arrangement it follows, or guides, Alexandria.
Before coming to the final definition of the Canon at about the time of St. Gregory, it will be
convenient here to consider what is a very important question, namely that of the order of the
different prayers. It has been seen that the prayers themselves can be traced back a very long way. Is
their arrangement among themselves as old as they are, or is our present Canon a rearrangement of
parts that once stood in another order? Every one who has studied its text has noticed certain grave
difficulties in this arrangement. The division of the Intercession, to which reference has been made,
is unique among liturgies and is difficult to account for. Again, one little word, the second word in
the Canon, has caused much questioning; and many not very successful attempts have been made to
account for it. The Canon begins "Te igitur". To what does that "igitur" refer? From the sense of the
whole passage it should follow some reference to thesacrifice. One would expect some prayer that
God may accept our offering, perhaps some reference such as is found in the Eastern liturgies to the
sacrifices of Abraham, Melchisedech, etc. It should then be natural to continue: "And therefore we
humbly pray thee, most merciful Father", etc. But there is no hint of such an allusion in what goes
before. No preface has any word to which the "igitur" couldnaturally refer. Probst suggests that some
such clause may have dropped out of the Preface (Lit. der drei ersten Jahrhunderten, 349). At any
rate they is no trace of it, either in our preface or in any of the other rites. Thalhofer (Kath. Liturgik,
II, 199) tries to explain the "igitur" by a very forced connection of ideas with the Sanctus. Gihr (Das
heilige Messopfer, 550) hardly considers the difficulty, and is content with a vague allusion to the
close connextion between Preface and Canon. Other difficulties are the reduplications between the
ideas of the "Hanc igitur" and the "Nobis quoque peccatoribus". Various allusions to older forms of
the Canon increase the number of these difficulties. Dr. Drews has suggested as the solution the
following theory. He thinks that the Canon, while consisting of much the same prayers, was
originally arranged in a different order, namely, in the same way as the Syrian Anaphora which it so
closely resembles, and that in the fifth century, shortly before it became stereotyped in the time of
St. Gregory the Great, its order was partly reversed, so as to make it correspond more to the
Alexandrine Rite (Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe). The original
order suggested by him is this:
1. "Quam oblationem . . . .";
2. "Qui pridie quam pateretur . . . .";
3. "Unde et memores" (Anamnesis);
4. "Supplices te rogamus" (Epiklesis);
5. "Te igitur";
6. "Commemoratio Defunctorum", the last three forming the Intercession.
The reasons for this suggestion are, first that in this way the logical connection is much clearer; as
well as the resemblance to the Syrian Anaphora. As in Syria, the great prayer of Intercession, with
the diptychs for living and dead and the memory of the saints, would all come together after the
Consecration. Moreover, the igitur would then refer naturally to the ideas of the "Supplices te
rogamus" just before it. The "Quam oblationem" would form the short link between the Sanctus and
the words of Institution, as in both Eastern rites, and would fill the place occupied by an exactly
similar prayer in Serapion's prayer Book (13). Moreover, the Greek translation of the Roman Canon
called the "Liturgy of St. Peter", edited by William de Linden, Bishop of Ghent, in 1589 from a
Rossano manuscript (and published by Swainson in "The Greek Liturgies", Cambridge, 1884, 191
203) contains some variations that point in this direction. For instance, it gives a version of our
"Supplices te rogamus", and then goes on: "Aloud. First remember, OLord, the Archbishop. He then
commemorates the living. And to us sinners", etc. This puts the Intercession after the "Supplices"
prayer, and exactly corresponds to the order suggested above. Lastly, in 1557 Matthias Flacius
published an "Ordo Missæ" (printed in Martène, "De antiquis eccl. ritibus", 1763, I, 176 sqq.) in
which there are still traces of the old order of the prayers. It begins with the "Unde et memores" and
the "Epiklesis; then come the "Te igitur", prayer for the pope, "Memento Domine famulorum
famularumque tuarum", and eventually "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", in short, the whole
Intercession after the Consecration. But this reconstruction would not leave the text entirely
unchanged. The prayer "Hanc igitur" has some difficulties. The Greek version (Swainson, 197) adds
a rubric before it: "Here he names the dead". What can the "Hanc igitur" have to do with the dead?
Yet the Antiochene Liturgy, in which several parallel passages to our Canon have already been
noticed, has a parallel to the second half of this prayer too, and that parallel occurs in its
commemoration of the dead. There, following a prayer that the dead may rest "in the land of the
living, in thy kingdom . . . in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", etc., is found this
continuation: "And keep for us in peace, O Lord, a Christian, wellpleasing and sinless end to our
lives, gathering us under the feet of thy Elect, when Thou willest and as Thou willest, only without
shame and offence; through thy only begotten Son our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
(Brightman, 57.) We notice here the reference to the elect (in electorum tuorum grege), the prayer
that we may be kept "in peace" (in tuâ pace disponas], the allusion to the "end of our lives" (diesque
nostros) and the unusual "Per Christum Dominum nostrum", making a break in the middle of
theEucharistic prayer. The Syrian form with its plain reference to death ("the end of our lives")
seems more clearly to be a continuation of a prayer for the faithful departed. But in the Roman from
too is found such a reference in the words about hell (ab æterna damnatione) and heaven (in
electorum tuorum grege). Drews then proposes to divide the "Hanc igitur" into two separate parts.
The second half, beginning at the words "diesque nostros", would have originally been the end of
theCommemoration of the Dead and would form a reduplication of the "Nobis quoque
peccatoribus", where the same idea occurs ("partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis
sanctis Apostolis er Martyribus" being an echo of "in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari").
This second half, then, would belong to the Intercession after the Consecration, and would
originally fall together with the "Nobis quoque". In any case, even in the present arrangement of the
Canon the "Nobis quoque" following the "Commemoratio pro defunctis" shows that at Rome as in
other liturgies the idea of adding a prayer for ourselves, that we too may find a peaceful and blessed
death followed by a share in the company of the saints, after our prayer for the faithful departed was
accepted as natural.
The first half of the "Hanc igitur" must now be accounted for down to "placatus accipias". This first
half is a reduplication of the prayer "Quam oblationem". Both contain exactly the same idea that
God may graciously accept our offering. "Hanc oblationem" and "Quam oblationem" differ only in
the relative construction of the second form. We know that the relative construction is not the
original one. In the "De Sacramentis", to which reference has several times been made, the "Quam
oblationem" occurs as anabsolute sentence: "Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem
acceptabilemque, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi" (IV, v). We also
know that the "Igitur" in "Hanc igitur" is not original. The parallel passages in Serapion and St.
Mark's Liturgy have simply tauter ten thysian (Drews, 16). Moreover, the place and object of this
prayer have varied very much. It has been applied to all sorts of purposes, and it is significant that it
occurs specially often in connection with the dead (Ebner, Miss.Rom., 412). This would be a natural
result, if we suppose it to be a compilation of two separate parts, both of which have lost their
natural place in the Canon . Drews then proposes to supply the first words of the "Quam
oblationem" that we have put in the first place of his reconstructedCanon (see above), by the first
half of the "Hanc igitur", so that (leaving out the igitur) the Canon would once have begun: "Hanc
oblationem servitutis nostræ, sed et cunctæ familiæ tuæ, quæsumus Domine, ut placatus accipias ut
in omnibus benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilemque facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et
sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi" (Drews, 30), and so on, according to the
order suggested above. One word, "ut", has been added to this compilation, to connect our "Hanc
igitur" with the continuation of "Quam oblationem". This word is vouched for by theGreek version,
which has ina here (Swainson, 197). Drews further notes that such a change in the arrangement of
the Canon is not inconceivable. Popes have modified its order on other occasions. Joannes
Diaconus, the biographer of St. Gregory I, tells us that he rearranged a few parts of the Canon
("pauca convertens", Vita Greg., II, xvii).
When then may this change be supposed to have been made? It was not made in the time of
Innocent I (401417); it had already occurred when the Gelasian Sacramentary was written (seventh
century); it may be taken for certain that in the time of St. Gregory I (590604) the Canon already
stood as it does now. The reason for believing that Innocent I still knew only the old arrangement is
that in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553554) he implies that the Intercession
comes after the Consecration. He says that the people for whom we pray "should be named in the
middle of the holy mysteries, not during the things that go before, that by the very mysteries we
should open the way for the prayers that follow". If the diptychs are read after the way has been
opened by the holy mysteries, the Roman Canon must follow the same order as the Church of
Antioch, and at any rate place the "Commemoratio vivorum" after the Consecration. Supposing,
then, that this rearrangement really did take place, it must have been made in the course of the fifth
century. Drews thinks that we can go farther and ascribe the change toPope Gelasius I (49296). A
very old tradition connects his name with at any rate, some important work about the Canon. The
second oldest Roman sacramentary known, although it is really later than St. Gregory, has been
called the "Sacramentarium Gelasianum" since the ninth century (Duchesne, Origines, 120).
Gennadius says that he composed a sacramentary (De. vir. ill., c. xciv). Moreover, the "Liber
Pontificalis" refers to his liturgical work (Origines, 122) and the Stowe Missal (seventh century)
puts at the head of our Canon the title: "Canon dominicus Papæ Gelasi" (ed. Warren, 234). Baumer
has collected all the evidences for Gelasius's authorship of some important sacramentary (Histor.
Jahrb., 1893, 244 sqq.). It is known that Gelasius did not compose the text of the Canon. Its
component parts have been traced back to a far earlier date. But would not so vital a change in its
arrangement best explain thetradition that persistently connects our present Canon with the name of
Gelasius? There is even a further suggestion that Drews has noticed. Why was the reversal of the
order made? Evidently to bring the Intercession before the Consecration. This means to change from
the same order as Antioch to that of Alexandria. Is it too much to suppose that we have here a case
of Alexandrine influence at Rome? Now it is noticeable that Gelasius personally had a great
reverence for the venerable "second See" founded by St. Mark, and that since 482 Bishop John
Talaia of Alexandria, being expelled from his own Church by the Monophysites, sought and found
refuge in Rome. He would have celebrated his own liturgy in the pope's city, and was certainly
greatly honoured as a confessor and exile for the Faith. May we then even go so far as to suggest that
we owe the present certainly unusual order of our Canon to Gelasius and the influence of John
Talaia? So far Drews (p.38). His theory has not been unopposed. An argument against it may be
found in the very treatise "De Sacramentis" from which he gathers some of his arguments. For this
treatise says: "In all other things that are said praise is given to God, prayers are said for the people,
for kings, for others, but when he comes to consecrate the holy Sacrament the priest no longer uses
his own words, but takes those of Christ" (IV, iv). According to this author, then, the Intercession
comes before the Consecration. On the other hand it will be noticed that the treatise is late. That it is
not by St. Ambrose himself has long been admitted by every one. It is apparently an imitation of his
work "De Mysteriis", and may have been composed in the fifth or sixth century
(Bardenhewer,Patrologie, 407). Dom G. Morin thinks that Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana in Dacia
(d. 485), wrote it (Rev. Benéd., 1890, 15159). In any case it may be urged that whatever reasons
there are for ascribing it to an early date, they show equally conclusively that, in spite of its claim to
describe "the form of the Roman Church" (III, 1) it is Milanese. The very assurance is a proof that it
was not composed at Rome, since in that case such a declaration would have been superfluous. An
allusion occurring in a Milanese work is but a very doubtful guide for the Roman use. And its late
date makes it worthless as a witness for our point. When it was written probably the change had
already been made at Rome; so we are not much concerned by the question of how far it describes
Roman or Milanese offices. So far the theory proposed by Drews, which seems in any case to
deserve attention.
From the time of St. Gregory I (590604)
Certainly when St. Gregory became pope our Canon was already fixed in its present order. There
are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. "No pope has added to or changed the
Canon since St. Gregory" says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 162). We learn from Joannes
Diaconus that St. Gregory "collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much,
changing little adding something for the exposition of the Gospels" (II, xvii). These modifications
seem to concern chiefly the parts of the Mass outside the Canon. We are told that Gregory added to
the "Hanc igitur" the continuation "diesque nostros in tuâ pace disponas" etc. (ib.). We have already
noticed that this second part was originally a fragment of a prayer for the dead. St. Gregory's
addition may then very well mean, not that he composed it, but that he joined it to the "Hanc igitur",
having removed it from its original place. From the time of Gregory the most important event in the
history of the Roman Canon is, not any sort of change in it, but the rapid way in which it spread all
over the West, displacing the Gallican Liturgy. Charlemagne (768814) applied to Pope Adrian I
(77295) for a copy of the Roman Liturgy, that he might introduce it throughout the Frankish
Kingdom. The text sent by the pope is the basis of what is called the "Sacramentarium
Gregorianum", which therefore represents the Roman Rite at the end of the eighth century. But it is
practically unchanged since St. Gregory's time. The Gelasian book, which is earlier than the so
called Gregorian one, is itself later than St. Gregory. It contains the same Canon (except that there
are a few more saints' names in the "Communicantes") and has the continuation "diesque nostros in
tuâ, pace disponas", etc., joined to the "Hanc igitur", just as in our present Missal. The Stowe
Missal, now in Dublin (a sixth or early seventh century manuscript), is no longer a sacramentary,
but contains already the complete text of a "Missa quotidiana", with collects for three other Masses,
thus forming what we call a Missal. From this time convenience led more and more to writing out
the whole text of the Mass in one book. By the tenth century the Missal, containing whole Masses
and including Epistles and Gospels, takes the place of the separate books ("Sacramentarium" for the
celebrant, "Lectionarium" for the deacon and subdeacon, and "Antiphonarium Missæ" for the
choir). After the ninth century the Roman Mass, now quite fixed in all its essential parts (though the
Proper Masses for various feasts constantly change), quickly became the universal use throughout
the Western patriarchate. Except for three small exceptions, the Ambrosian Rite at Milan, the
Mozarabic Rite at Toledo, and the Byzantine Rite among the ItaloGreeks in Calabria and Sicily,
this has been the case ever since. The local medieval rites of which we hear, such as those of Lyons,
Paris, Rouen, Salisbury, York, etc., are in no sense different liturgies. They are all simply the Roman
use with slight local variations — variations, moreover, that hardly ever affect the Canon. The
Sarum Rite, for instance, which Anglicans have sometimes tried to set up as a sort of rival to the
Roman Rite, does not contain in its Canon a single word that differs from the parentrite as still used
by us. But some changes were made in medieval times, changes that have since been removed by the
conservative tendency of Roman legislation.
From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal. It was the
time of farced Kyries and Glorias, of dramatic and even theatrical ritual, of endlessly varying and
lengthy prefaces, into which interminable accounts of stories from Bible history and lives of saints
were introduced. This tendency did not even spare the Canon; although the specially sacred
character of this part tended to prevent people from tampering with it as recklessly as they did with
other parts of the Missal. There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to
introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and
"Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the
"Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (154563)
restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be
kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains
errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V
(156672) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a
Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the
only one used in the West and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be
proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept. This exception saved the Ambrosian,
Mozarabic, and Byzantine Rites, as well as a few ancient modified forms of the Roman Rite, such as
the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian Missals. The differences in these Missals, however,
hardly affect the Canon, except in one or two unimportant rubrics. Since Pius V our Canon, then,
has been brought back to its original simplicity and remains unchanged throughout the year, except
that on a few of the very greatestfeasts slight additions are made to the "Communicantes" and the
"Hanc igitur", and on one day to the "Qui pridie quam pateretur" (see below). Clement VIII (1592
1605), Urban VIII (162344), and Leo XIII (18781903) have, each in his own time, reedited the
Missal, and a great number of additional Masses for new feasts or for local calendars have been
added to it. But none of these changes have affected the part now under consideration. The Canon
that we say is always the one finally restored by Pius V, that remains as it was in the days of
Gregory I, and that goes back far behind his time till its origin is lost in the mists that hang over the
first centuries when the Roman Christians met together to "do the things the Lord commanded at
appointed times" (Epistle of Clement 40). Through all the modifications and additions that, in recent
years especially, have caused our Missal to grow in size, among all the later collects, lessons and
antiphons, the Canon stands out firm and unchanging in the midst of an everdeveloping rite, the
centre and nucleus of the whole liturgy, stretching back with its strange and archaic formulæ
through all the centuries of church history, to the days when the great Roman Cæsar was lord of the
world and the little community of Christians stood around their bishop while they "sang a hymn to
Christ as to a God before daybreak" (Pliny, Epp., X, xcvii). Then the bishop lifted up his hands over
the bread and wine, "gave thanks and glory to the Father of all through his Son and the Holy Ghost,
and made the Eucharist" (Just., Apol., III, lxv). So that of all liturgical prayers in the Christian world
no one is more ancient nor more venerable than the Canon of the Roman Mass.
The text and rubrics of the canon
Following the order of our present text, some remarks will be added about its expression and the
ceremonies that accompany it. The whole Canon is now said silently. The priest should just hear his
own voice (this is especially important in the case of the words of Consecration, since the form of
every sacrament must be sensible), but should not be heard by the bystanders. This law began with
the reduplication of the parts of the celebrant and choir. For many centuries the celebrant has not
waited till the choir have finished their part, but goes on at once with his prayers — except in the
cases of the Gloria and Creed, where he has to sing aloud as soon as they have done. Mabillon
quotes from the older Roman ordines that originally "the priest did not begin the Canon until the
singing of the Sanctus was over" (In ord. Rom. comm., XXI). The singing of the Sanctus and
Benedictus then made it necessary for the priest at the altar to speak the Canon in a low voice. How
little this was ever considered really essential is shown by the fact that at an ordination, almost the
only case of concelebration left in the West, all the concelebrants say the Canon together aloud.
There are also mystic reasons for the silent prayers of the Canon. They are thus shown to be purely
sacerdotal, belonging only to the priest, the silence increases our reverence at the most sacred
moment of the Mass, removes the Consecration from ordinary vulgar use, and is a symbol of our
Lord's silent prayer in the Garden and silence during his Passion (Suarez, disp. lxxxiii, I, 25). The
celebrant lifts up his hands, joins them, also lifting up his eyes, and then bows deeply before
thealtar, resting his joined hands on it. This ceremony should come before the "Te igitur", so that he
does not begin the prayer till he is bowing before the altar. It is an obvious gesture, a sort of mute
invocation as the beginning of the Consecration prayer. The first three prayers are always noted as
belonging together and making three parts of one prayer ("Te igitur", "Memento Domine",
"Communicantes"), which is closed for itself by the "Per Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen". It is
now a law that a picture of the Crucifixion should be placed at the beginning of the Canon. Innocent
III (11981216) notes that in his time this was already the custom. The crucifix grew out of the
adornment of the letter T with which the Canon begins. Innocent thinks that the presence of the T at
that place is a special work of Divine Providence (Inn. III, De Sacro altaris myst., I, 3, c. ii, P.L.,
CCXVII).
Te igitur
We have already considered the "igitur". Unless some such theory as that of Drews be admitted, its
presence will always be a difficulty. Gihr (Messopfer, 550), as we have said, thinks that it implies
merely a general connection with thePreface: "Because we have praised Thee and glorified Thee,
therefore we now pray Thee to accept these gifts". The kiss of the altar after "petimus" is not
mentioned by the earlier writers. It is noted by Sicardus (d. 1215, Mitrale, III, 6, P.L., CCXIII). At
one time the celebrant kissed both the altar and the crucifix in the Missal at the beginning of the
Canon (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53, fourteenth century). After kissing the altar the celebrant makes three
signs of the cross over the bread and wine. It is the first of the many blessings of the gifts in the
Canon and is joined to the kiss as one ceremony. He then stands erect and lifts up his hands, as at
the collects (now they may not be lifted above the shoulders, Ritus cel., V, 1). This is the traditional
attitude of prayer that may be seen in the pictures of Orantes in the catacombs. It is observed
throughout the Canon. The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope and diocesan ordinary
by name. Antistes, from antisto (proistemi), is one of the many older words for "bishop". At the
pope's name a slight inclination is made. When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the pope is
left out. In Rome the bishop's name is left out; the pope is local bishop there. The bishop must be
canonically appointed and confirmed, otherwise he is not mentioned. But he need not yet be
consecrated. It is always the ordinary of the diocese, even in the case of regulars who are exempt. A
diocesan bishop in saying Mass changes the form "et Antistite nostro N." into "et me indigno servo
tuo". The pope naturally uses these words instead of "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.", and
omits the clause about the bishop. The mention of the pope always occurs at this place. Otherwise
in the Middle Ages there was a great variety in the names. A very old custom was to name the
sovereign after the bishop ("et pro rege nostro N." or "Imperatore nostro N."). Pope Celestine I (422
32) refers to it in a letter to Theodosius II. Boniface I (41822) writes to Emperor Honorius: "Behold
in the very mysteries, among the prayers which the bishop offers for your Empire . . ." (Drews,
Entstehungsgesch., 7). So also the "De Sacramentis" says: "Prayer is offered for the people, for the
king, for the others" (IV, iv). Throughout the Middle Ages the sovereign was always named. Pius V
removed the clause from the Missal. In the case of Catholic princes a privilege is given by which
they are put in. In Austria the clause "et pro Imperatore nostro Francisco Josepho" is always added
by the celebrant, and in Hungary it becomes of course "pro rege nostro". At one time the priest went
on to pray for himself at this place (Bona, Rerum liturg., II, 11). Ebner quotes as the commonest
form: "Mihi quoque indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse digneris et ab omnibus me peccatorum
offensionibus emundare" (Miss. Rom., 401). We have already noted this as being almost exactly a
version of the Alexandrine form. The word "orthodoxi" that follows is very rare in the West. It is a
link between our Canon and the Antiochene Anaphora.
Commemoratio pro vivis
The celebrant does not now name anyone aloud at the "N et N." After "tuarum" he joins his hands
and prays silently for anyone he likes. This is the place where the diptychs for the living were read.
A diptych (diptychos, from dis and ptysso, twicefolded) was a table folding in two like a book, on
which names were written and then read out. Some authorities admit and some deny that the priest
in his silent prayer may name people who are outside the Church. As this prayer is a private one (as
shown by the folding of the hands) there is no law to forbid him from so doing. He goes on to
mention the bystanders, who are thus always specially prayed for at Mass. "Pro quibus tibi
offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt" is a reduplication. The first half ("pro quibus tibi offerimus") is
missing in all early sacramentaries, also in the Greek version (Swainson, 196). It occurs, however, in
the parallel text of the Syrian Liturgy. Both parts refer to the same persons, for whom the priests and
his assistants offer the Sacrifice and who themselves also join in the offering by their presence.
"Sacrifice of praise" (Ps. xlix, 23), "For the forgiveness of their sins" and "For the hope of their
safety and health", are three expressions connoting the threefold character of the Mass as praise,
atonement, and petition.
Communicantes
This prayer is headed by the rubric "Infra Actionem". Why is it put here? The "Communicantes" has
a small addition on the five chief days of the year, Christmas, the Epiphany, Easter, Ascension Day,
and Whitsunday, referring to the feast. The beginning of the text with these additions is placed
among the prefaces, after the corresponding proper preface for each feast. Placed there, the rubric
that heads it is obvious. For each feast there is the special preface and, moreover, "Infra Actionem",
that is, "Within the Canon", a further change is made. From its place among the prefaces as anatural
heading to the "Communicantes" this rubric has found its way into the Canon, when people had
begun to look upon it as the title of that prayer. The Gelasian Sacramentary has it, when the
"Communicantes" occurs with an addition among the Propers (e.g. Wilson, 80), but it has not yet
found its way into theOrdinary (ib., 234). These five additions to the "Communicantes", all of them
very beautiful and very ancient (they are all, with slight variations, in the Gelasian book), are the
only ones left by Pius V, where at one time many more feasts had sometimes long references.
"Communicantes" means simply "in union with". The participles here have given rise to much
discussion; no finite verb follows, nor does any go before to which they can suitably refer. It is
simply a case of lateLatin that is not strictly grammatical. It must be understood as standing for a
finite verb, as if it were "Communicamus cum eis et memoriam veneramus eorum". There are
parallel examples in the Vulgate of a participle standing for a finite verb (e.g. Romans 9:6 sqq.,
where the Greek has the same anomaly). In the lists of saints that follows, Our Lady of course
always holds the first place. She is here named very solemnly with her title of "Mother of God", as
in the corresponding Eastern Anaphoras. It is strange that St. John the Baptist, who should come
next, has been left out here. He is named in both the Eastern liturgies at this place (Brightman, 93
and 169), and finds his right place at the head of our other list (in the "Nobis quoque"). After Our
Lady follow twelve Apostles and twelve martyrs. The Apostles are not arranged in quite the same
order as in any of the Gospels. St. Paul at the head, with St. Peter, makes up the number for Judas.
St. Matthias is not named here, but in the "Nobis quoque". The twelve martyrs are evidently
arranged to balance the Apostles. First come five popes, then a bishop (St. Cyprian), and a deacon
(St. Lawrence), then five laymen. All these saints, except St. Cyprian, are local Roman saints, as is
natural in what was originally the local Roman Liturgy. It is noticeable that St. Cyprian (d. 258),
who had a serious misunderstanding with a Roman pope, is the only foreigner honoured by the
Roman Church by being named among her own martyrs. The fact has been quoted to show how
completely his disagreement with Pope Stephen was forgotten, and how Stephen's successors
remembered him only as one of the chief and most glorious martyrs of the West. The cult of saints
was at first the cult of martyrs; all those in both lists in the Canon died for the Faith. Gregory III
(73141) added to the Vatican basilica a chapel containing a great number of relics and dedicated to
All Saints. He ordered the monks who served this chapel to add to the "Communicantes" after the
words "et omnium Sanctorum tuorum" the further clause: "quorum solemnitas hodie in conspectu
tuo celebratur, Domine Deus noster, in toto orbe terrarum". The text is found in some medieval
Missals. A certain number of Missals also contained additions about special patrons to be used on
their feasts (Benedict XIV, De SS. Missæ sacr., 162). All these clauses disappeared at Pius V's
reform, except that in some French churches the names of St. Hilary and St. Martin are still added to
the list (Duchesne, Origines, 172). This first complex of prayers forms the chief part of the great
Intercession that occurs in all liturgies. We notice again the strange fact that at Rome it is divided in
two by the Consecration.
Hanc Igitur
This prayer has already been considered, the most remarkable of all in the Canon. Here it need only
be added that the "Hanc igitur" receives an addition (after the words "familiæ tuæ) on four
occasions only, on Maundy Thursday, Easter, Whitsunday, and in the Mass at a bishop's
consecration. The additions will be found on the feasts in the Missal, and in the Consecration
service in the Pontifical. On Maundy Thursday an allusion is made to "the day on which our Lord
Jesus gave the mysteries of his Body and Blood to his disciples to be consecrated"; Easter and
Whitsunday have an identical form (a prayer for the newly baptised), and the Consecration Mass has
a clause "which we offer to Thee also for this Thy servant [the new bishop says: "for me Thy
servant] whom Thou hast deigned to promote to the order of Episcopacy". The Gelasian
Sacramentary has as many as thirtyeight special forms to be intercalated at this place, in which
allusions are made to all kinds of special intentions. For instance, in a requiem Mass, "which we
offer to Thee for the repose of the soul of thy servant N." (Wilson, 307); for a wedding, "This
oblation of thy servants N. and N., which they offer to Thee for thy handmaid N., we beg Thee
mercifully to accept, that as Thou hast allowed her to come to the fitting age for marriage, so Thou
mayest allow her, being joined to her husband by thy grace, to rejoice in the offspring she desires
and mayest mercifully bring her with her spouse to the desired length of years; and dispose our days
in thy peace", etc. (ib., 265). During the "Hanc igitur" the priest, who has joined his hands at the
preceding "Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen", spreads them over the offerings. This is a late
ceremony. It occurs first in the fifteenth century. Formerly the celebrant lifted up his hands as
before, but made a profound inclination (Durandus, VI, 39). This olderrite is still used by the
Dominicans and Carmelites. The imposition of hands seems to have been introduced merely as a
way of practically touching the sacrifice at this point, at which it is so definitely named in the
prayer. At the "Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen" following, the priest again (as always at
these words) folds his hands. The "Hanc igitur", with the two following prayers, may be considered
as forming a second member of the Canon, threefold like the first.
Quam oblationem
This prayer has been noticed, as well as its echo of "Hanc oblationem". The offering is accompanied
by five epithets. The "De Sacramentis" has only three, "adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque"
(IV, v). The word "rationabilis" occurs in Rom., xii, 1. "In omnibus" means "thoroughly". There
follows naturally a petition that the offering may "become to us the Body and Blood of thy beloved
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ". "De Sacramentis" has: "which is a figure of the Body and Blood", as in
Serapion's Prayer and in Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", III, xix and IV, xl. During this prayer the sign of
the cross is made five times over the offering — a further blessing of the bread and wine about to be
consecrated.
Qui pridie
Such a form is in all liturgies the connecting link between an allusion to Christ that has gone before
and the words of Institution that follow immediately (Brightman, Antioch, 51, Alexandria, 132). The
short form, "Who, the day before he died, took bread", is in other rites sometimes expanded into a
longer account of the Passion (ib., 20, 87, 176, etc.).
Gratias agens
The word Thanksgiving (Eucharist) always occurs here. Benedict XIV notices that we do not read in
the Gospels that Christ lifted up his eyes at the Last Supper, and he says it is a tradition that Christ
did so, as He did at the miracle of the loaves and fishes (De SS. Missæ sacr., 160). The words of
Institution for the bread are the same in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke
22:19) and in 1 Corinthians 11:23. The Church has added to this form (Hoc est corpus meum) the
word enim, and she leaves out the continuation "which is given for you", that occurs in St. Luke and
First Corinthians. The "enim" seems to have found its way here through analogy with the
consecration of the chalice, where it occurs in St. Matthew. This prayer admits of one addition in the
year; on Maundy Thursday the form is used: "Who the day before He suffered for our salvation and
for that of all men, that is today, He took bread", etc. At the beginning of the "Qui pridie" the
celebrant takes the bread (only the host that he himself will receive in Communion) between the
forefingers and thumbs of both hands. These fingers are then not separated again, unless when he
touches the Blessed Sacrament, till they have been washed at the last ablutions (Rit. cel., VIII, 5).
The reason of this is, of course, lest any crumb may have remained between them. He lifts up his
eyes at the words "elevatisoculis", and makes a sign of the cross over the host at the word
"benedixit". If other hosts are to be consecrated they stay on the corporal. The ciborium (if there is
one) is opened before the words: "Qui pridie". The words of Institution are said "secretly, plainly,
and attentively" over the host and over all, if several are to be consecrated. The Catholic Church has
always believed that the words of Institution are those that consecrate. Immediately therefore
follows the ceremony of the Elevation. The priest genuflects on one knee, still holding the Blessed
Sacrament, rises, lifts it up above his head to show it to the people, replaces it on the corporal and
genuflects again. An adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at this point is an old rite. The first Roman
Ordo, which does not give the words of Consecration, says that during the Canon "the bishops,
deacons, subdeacons, and priests stay in the presbytery bowing down" ("inclinati", ed. Atchley,
138). On account of the heresy of Berengarius (1088), the Elevation was introduced in France in the
twelfth, and then throughout the West in the thirteenth, century. Gregory X (127176) ordered it to
be used throughout the West in his Ceremonial (Ordo Rom. XIII). At first only the Host, not the
Chalice, was elevated. The priest's genuflexions were not introduced till later. In the fourteenth
century he still only bowed his head (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53). Meanwhile the assistants kneel and bow
low. Durandus says "they prostrate themselves reverently on the ground", so also the XIII Roman
Ordo. However, since the only object of the Elevation is to show the Blessed Sacrament to the
people, this does not mean that they should not look up at it. At each genuflexion, and between them
at the elevation, the bell is rung. This ceremony also begins in the fourteenth century. Durandus
notices it (IV, 41). The bell should be sounded three times at each elevation, or continuously from
the first to the second genuflexion (Rit. cel., VIII, 6). This is the first sounding of the bell ordered
by the rubrics after the Sanctus. The common practice of ringing at the "Hanc igitur" has no
authority. The server also lifts up the chasuble with his left hand at the elevation, not at the
genuflexion (Rubr. gen., VIII, 6). This is to keep back the vestment (which the rubrics always
suppose to cover the arms) while the priest elevates. With a modern Romanshaped chasuble it is a
mere form, and a memory of better days. As soon as the celebrant rises from the second genuflexion
he continues the Consecration prayer.
Simili modo
So all liturgies (hosautos at Antioch, Brightman, 52, and at Alexandria, ib., 133). "Postquam
coenatum est"; the Canon supposes that the cup our Lord consecrated was the last of the Hillelcups.
"Hunc præclarum calicem", a dramatic identification of the Mass with the Last Supper. The
Consecrationform for the chalice is put together from the four accounts of the Last Supper quoted
above. It is mainly from St. Matthew (26:26); "Calix Sanguinis mei" is adapted from St. Luke and
St. Paul, "pro vobis" from St. Luke, "pro multis" from St. Matthew; and the last clause, "Hæc
quotiescumque feceritis", etc., is again slightly modified from St. Paul. Moreover, two additions
have been made to it that are not in the New Testament at all, "et æterni" and "mysterium fidei".
This last clause especially has been much discussed (Gihr, 599). It seems that it was originally a
warning spoken by the deacon. The catechumens have been sent away before the Offertory; at the
Consecration he again warns the people that it is not for catechumens, it is a "mystery of Faith", that
is a mystery for the faithful (the baptised) only. The ceremonies at this Consecration are the same as
those for the preceding one, except that the deacon (at low Mass here, as always, the celebrant must
supply the deacon's part himself) takes the pall from the chalice before the words of Consecration
and replaces it as soon as the chalice is put down after its Elevation. The words "Haec
quotiescumque", etc., are now generally said during the first genuflexion. In the Middle Ages they
were often said after the Elevation (Ordo Rom. XIV, 53). At high Mass a certain amount of very
natural ritual has been added to both elevations. At least two torches are lit or brought in by the
acolytes, which are removed after the elevation (on fast days and for requiem Masses they stay till
the end of the Communion). The thurifer puts incense into his thurible, and incenses the Blessed
Sacrament thrice at each elevation (Ritus cel., VIII, 8).
Unde et memores
A solemn memory of Christ's life, death and resurrection (the Anamnesis), naturally following the
words "as often as you shall do these things, do them in memory of me", comes immediately after
the words of Institution in all liturgies (Apost. Const. Brightman, 20, St. James, ib., 52, St Mark,
133). The five signs of the cross made over the Blessed Sacrament during this prayer have often
been discussed. Before the Consecration such signs are obviously blessings of the offering. How can
blessings be given to what is now consecrated and has become the Real Presence? St. Thomas says
the blessings refer to the "terminus a quo", the bread and wine, not to the "terminus ad quem", the
Body and Blood of Christ (III:83:5 ad 3). People have seen in them symbols representing our
offering to God, memories of the Crucifixion, blessings for the future communicants (Bossuet,
Médit. sur l'Evang., I, 63), or merely a way of pointing to the Blessed Sacrament. It seems that
really here again is one more case of what is very common in all our rites, namely, a dramatic
representation that does not consider at what moment the effect of a Sacrament is really produced.
Such effects must really all happen at one instant, the moment the matter and form are complete.
But the Church cannot with words express everything in one instant; moreover before scholastic
days people did not ask very closely about the actual moment. So we continually have such dramatic
divisions of one simple act, and continually in her prayers the Church goes on asking for something
that really must already have been granted. So in our baptism service the devil is driven out before,
and the white robe and candle given after the actual baptism. The truth of these symbols presumably
occurs at one instant. Our ordination service is a still more striking instance. Long after the subject
is ordained priest, after he has concelebrated, the bishop gives him the power of forgiving sins
which is certainly involved in the priesthood he has already received. So these blessings after the
Consecration need be only such dramatic forms as our expression, "Receive . . . this spotless Host",
said at the Offertory long before. The question is important because of the Epiklesis.
Supra quae
This prayer, too, with its memory of sacrifices in the Old Testament (Abel, Abraham,
Melchisedech), is common to other liturgies. St. Mark's Rite mentions the offerings of Abel,
Abraham, Zachary's incense, the alms of Cornelius and the widow's mite (Brightman, 129; cf. the
Coptic form, 171). The words sanctum sacrificium immaculatam Hostiam are said to have been
added by St. Leo I (44061; Ben. XIV, "De SS. Missæ Sacr., II, xii, p. 161). They do not occur in the
text as given in "De Sacramentis". Grammatically they must refer to Melchisedech's sacrifice.
Supplices te rogamus
This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the
preceding "Supra quæ" to it as making up the Invocation, "Origines", 173). It seems certain that our
liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as
the time of Pope Gelasius I (49296) there seems to have still been one. He writes: "How shall the
Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he
who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?" (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: "si
sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur". By striking out the "et" we have a much plainer sentence:
"If the priest who prays Him to come".) Watterich (Konsekrationsmoment, 166), and Drews
(Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does
not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: "Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy
Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us", etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74;
XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer "Supplices te rogamus" as the
fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis
(following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an
Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, "Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere
digneris", suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: "Look down upon us and upon this
bread and this wine" (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et
Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; butcertainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the
Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover
there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers
("Supra quæ" and "Supplices"): "the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy
name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and
archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father
Abraham", etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an
Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should
call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the "Supplices te rogamus" (from "ut quotquot")
corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: "that it may
become to all who partake of it" (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) "for a forgiveness of sins
and for life everlasting" etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: "that it may become to
all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith", etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our
Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and
an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost — an
attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no
foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural "thy holy
angels"; so has the Latin form in "De Sacramentis"; "per manus angelorum tuorum" (IV, v). The
reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to
Him (Tobit 12:12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents
difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably
always remain amystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was
Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And
indeed the prayer "Quam oblationem" has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the
other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite
in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing
with uplifted hands after the "Unde et memores", except that now theforefingers and thumbs remain
joined; at the "Supplices te rogamus" he bows deeply over the altar — a ceremony obviously in
accordance with the nature of its first words — resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the
words" ex hac altaris participatione" at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes
the sign of the cross over the Host at "Corpus", over the chalice at "Sanguinem", and on himself at
"omni benedictione" (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the
breast). He joins his hands for "Per eumdem", etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next
two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration.
Commemoratio pro defunctis
The place of this prayer has often been changed (Ebner. Miss. Rom., 420). If we accept Drews'
theory that an original memory of the faithful departed was once joined to what is now the second
half of the "Hanc igitur", it would follow that this prayer must be a later one, introduced after the
"Hanc igitur" had changed its meaning. This is confirmed by the fact that it is absent from the
Canon in the Gelasian Sacramentary (ed. Wilson, 235). Why "Memento etiam"? This would seem
to refer to a commemoration of some one else, that should come just before. If we arrange the
Canon as above, this prayer comes naturally just after the Commemoration of the Living and the
"Communicantes" (we have seen that such is the order of the Eastern liturgies), and then this
"etiam" refers quite naturally to the parallel commemoration of the living. In any case it must always
be a mystery that these two last prayers, obviously forming the conclusion of the Intercession,
should stand out here by themselves. Gihr finds a mystic reason for this, because the living offer
with the priest, but the dead do not (Messopfer, 626). The ritual is the same as for the other
Memento. The celebrant may not now say any names at the place marked "N. et N."; passing on, he
reads "Famularumque tuarum, qui nos præcesserunt", etc., and after "in somno pacis", folding his
hands, he silently prays for anyone he likes. The diptychs of the dead of course once were read here.
Now no names are ever read out at either Commemoration. Benedict XIV quotes a case in which
names were read out at the "N. et N." in the sixteenth century (De SS. Missæ Sacr., 220). At the
final clause "Pereumdem", etc., the priest not only folds his hands but bows the head — a unique
case in the Roman Rite, for which there has not been found any satisfactory explanation. Benedict
XIV quotes from Cavalieri a mystic reason — because Christ bowed His head when He died, and
we here think of the dead (p. 219). The rubric occurs in Pius V's Missal.
Nobis quoque peccatoribus
A prayer for ourselves that naturally follows that for the faithful departed, although the
Commemoration for the Living has gone before. So the Eastern liturgies (St. James, Brightman, 57;
St. Mark, ib., 129). The parallel between this prayer and the latter half of the "Hanc igitur" has
already been noticed. It is a petition that we too may find a good death and be admitted to the
glorious company of the saints. The names of saints that follow are arranged rhythmically, as in
"Communicantes". Like the others they are all martyrs. First comes St. John the Baptist, as Our
Lady before, then seven men and seven women. After the first martyr, St. Stephen, St. Matthias
finds here the place he has not been given among the Apostles in the other list. The Peter here is a
Roman exorcist martyred at Silva Candida (now part of the Diocese of Porto, near Rome). His feast
with St. Marcellinus is on 2 June. The female saints are all well known. Benedict XIV quotes from
Adalbert, "De Virginitate", that St. Gregory I, having noticed that no female saints occur in the
Canon, added these seven here (p. 162). This list of saints, like the other one, was subject to local
additions in the Middle Ages (ib., 223). The celebrant strikes his breast and slightly raises his voice
at the words: "Nobis quoque peccatoribus". This rite (the only case of part of the Canon being
spoken aloud, if we except the "Per omnia sæcula sæculorum" that closes it) is a reminder to the
assistants that he has come to the prayer for all of those now present, in which prayer they may join.
There is no Amen after the "Per Christum Dominum nostrum", since now the following words, "Per
quem", follow it at once Nevertheless after it comes a noticeable break in theCanon.
Per quem hæc omnia
Again, a difficult text. It has no connection with what goes before; the words "hæc omnia" refer to
nothing in the former prayer. Moreover, the prayer itself is not easily explained. God is said to
"sanctify, enliven, bless and give to us these good things". What good things? Such a form as
applied to what is already the Blessed Sacrament is very strange. Duchesne notes that at this point
fruits of the earth and various kinds of foods were brought up and blessed by the celebrant; thus the
milk and honey once given to the newly baptised at Easter and Whitsunday, beans on Ascension
day, grapes on the feast of St. Sixtus (6 August). And even yet at this point the Holy Oils are blessed
on Maundy Thursday (Origines, 17475). He sees in this prayer, then, an old blessing of such fruits;
the "hæc omnia bona" were once the good things of the earth. Now the form must be taken as again
a dramatic representation like the sign of the cross after the Consecration. Finally this prayer and the
whole Canon ends with a stately doxology. The "Per omnis sæcula sæculorum" is said aloud, or
sung at high Mass. The answer, "Amen", of the people, closes the Canon. Signs of the cross are
made at the three words: "Sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis", and the doxology has a special ritual.
The celebrant uncovers the chalice and genuflects, makes three signs of the cross with the Host over
the chalice at the three forms: "per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso", two more signs over the altar in
front of the chalice at "Patri omnipotenti" and "Spiritus Sancti", and finally at "omnis honor and
gloria" he slightly elevates the chalice with the left hand, holding the Host above it with the right.
He then replaces both, covers the chalice (at high Mass the deacon always uncovers and covers the
chalice), genuflects and with joined hands says: "Per omnia sæcula sæculorum". So he goes on to
the Embolism of the Our Father. This ceremony went through slight changes in the Middle Ages
[St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) notices it, II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 5, ad 3]; the essence of it is the Elevation,
made to show the people the Blessed Sacrament. The reason why these crosses are formed with the
Host is that it is just about to be elevated. The priest has already taken it up to elevate it (Gihr, 650,
n. 2). This corresponds more or less to the point at which the Eastern Churches elevate (Antioch,
Brightman, 61; Alexandria, 138). It is the original Elevation of the Roman use, and till the heresy of
Berengarius it was the only one. We note finally that at and after the Consecration the Host, chalice,
ciborium, and all other Hosts that may be consecrated, must always be placed on the altarstone, if it
is a movable altar, and on the corporal. Also the celebrant, whenever he lays his hand on the altar
before the Consecration, does so outside the corporal; after the Consecration he lays it on the
corporal.
Mystical interpretations
It is obvious that in the great days of mystic theology so venerable and sacred a text as the Canon of
the Mass should have received elaborate mystical explanations. Indeed, after the Bible it was chiefly
to the Canon that these pious writers turned their attention. Equally obvious is it that such
interpretations never have any sort of regard to the historical development of the text. By the time
they began the Canon had reigned unquestioned and unchanged for centuries, as the expression of
the most sacred rite of the Church. The interpreters simply took this holy text as it stood, and
conceived mystic and allegorical reasons for its divisions, expressions, rites, even — as has been
seen — for the letter T, with which in their time it began. No one who is accustomed to the subtle
conceptions of medieval mysticism will be surprised to see that these interpretations all disagree
among themselves and contradict each other in every point. The system leads to such contradictions
inevitably. You divide theCanon where you like, trying, of course, as far as possible to divide by a
holy number — three, or seven, or twelve — and you then try somehow to show that each of these
divisions corresponds to some epoch of ourLord's life, or to one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or
— if you can make eight divisions somewhere — to one of the Beatitudes. The arrangements are
extremely ingenious. Indeed, perhaps the strongest impression one receives from such mystical
divisions and explanations is how extraordinarily well their inventors do it. Nor does the utterly
artificial nature of the whole proceeding prevent many of the interpretations from being quite
edifying, often very poetic and beautiful. To give even a slight account of the endless varieties of
thesemystic commentaries would take up very much space. Various examples will be found in the
books quoted below. William Durandus (Duranti) the Elder, Bishop of Mende (d. 1296), in his
"Rationale divinorum officiorum", set the classic example of these interpretations. His work is
important chiefly because incidentally we get from it a very exact account of the prayers and
ceremonies of the thirteenth century. Very many theologians followed in his footsteps. Perhaps
Benedict XIV and Cardinal Bona are the most important. Gihr has collected all the chief mystical
explanations in his book on the Mass. One or two of the more interesting or curious examples may
be added here. A favourite idea is that the Ordinary to the Sanctus, with its lessons, represents
Christ's public life and teaching; the Canon is a type of the Passion and death — hence it is said in
silence. Christ taught plainly, but did not open his mouth when he was accused and suffered. From
Durandus comes the idea of dividing the Mass according to the four kinds of prayer mentioned in 1
Timothy 2:1. It is an Obsecratio (supplication) to the Secret, an Oratio (prayer) to the Pater Noster,
a Postulatio (intercession) to the Communion, and a Gratiarum Actio (thanksgiving) to the end.
Benedict XIV and many others divide the Canon into four sets of threefold prayers:
• "Te igitur", "Memento vivorum", "Communicantes";
• "Hanc igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Qui pridie";
• "Unde et memores", "Supra quæ", "Supplices te rogamus";
• "Memento defunctorum", "Nobis quoque", "Per quem hæc omnia".
This gives the mystic numbers four, three, and twelve. So again each separate expression finds a
mystic meaning. Why do we say "rogamus ac petimus" in the "Te igitur"? "Rogamus" shows
humility, "petimus" confidence (Odo Cameracensis; "Exp. in Can. Missæ", dist. iii). Why do we
distinguish "hæc dona" and "hæc munera"? "Dona" because God gives them to us, "munera"
because we offer them back to Him (Gihr, 552, n. 5). Why is there no Amen after the "Nobis quoque
peccatoribus"? Because the angels say it at that place (Albertus Magnus, "Summa de off. Missæ",
III, c. ix). "Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso est tibi . . . omnis honor et gloria" signifies in its triple
form that our Lord suffered three kinds of indignities in His Passion — in His body, soul, and
honour (Ben. XIV, 227). See also the explanations of the twentyfive crosses made by the priest in
the Cannon suggested by various commentators (Gihr, 550). Historically, when these prayers were
first composed, such reduplications and repetitions were really made for the sake of the rhythm
which we observe in all liturgical texts. The medieval explanations are interesting as showing with
what reverence people studied the text of the Canon and how, when every one had forgotten the
original reasons for its forms, they still kept the conviction that the Mass is full of venerable
mysteries and that all its clauses mean more than common expressions. And in this conviction the
sometimes naive medieval interpreters were eminently right.
Sources
I. TEXTS. — MURATORI, "Liturgia vetus tria sacramentaria complectens" (2 vols. in fol., Venice, 1748), contains the texts of the
Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. The Gregorian Sacramentary is edited in PAMELIUS, "op. cit. infra", 178387 in
"P.L.",LXXVIII, 25, sqq. The Leonine Book was first edited by BIANCHINI, "Anastasius Bibliothecarius" (1735), IV, xiilvii; also in
ASSEMANI, "Codex liturgicus ecclesiæ universæ", VI, 1180; and among ST. LEO'S works in "P.L.", LV, 21156. FELTOE,
"Sacramentarium Leonianum" (Cambridge, 1896). First edition of the Gelasian book, THOMASIUS, "Codices Sacramentorum"
(Rome, 1680); also ASSEMANI, "op. cit.", IV. 1126; "P.L.", LXXIV, 1055 sqq. WILSON, "The Gelasian Sacramentary" (Oxford,
1894), and SWAINSON, "The Greek Liturgies," (Cambridge, 1884), 191203, contain the Greek version of the Roman Mass referred
to above. PAMELIUS, "Liturgica Latinorum" (2 vols., Cologne, 1571 and 1675); GAVANTI, "Thesaurus sacrorum rituum" (Rome,
1630); MABILLON, "Museum italicum," (2 vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1724); Vol. II, reprinted in "P.L.", LXXVIII, contains eleven of the
Roman "Ordines". DUCHESNE, "Origines du culte chretien" (2nd. ed., Paris, 1898), App.I, pp. 44063, and App.II, pp. 46468, gives
the text of two more "ordines," that of the "Saint Amand MS". (c. 800), and a fragment from Einsiedeln of about the same date.
ATCHLEY, "Ordo Romanus primus" (London, 1905) in "Library of Liturgiology and Ecclesiology for English Readers", VI, contains
dissertations on the first Ordo; the text in Latin from Mabillon with a translation and a version of the "Saint Amand Ordo" from
DUCHESNE are given in the appendix. For editions of the greater number of medieval local Missals see the excellent little book of
CABROL, "Introduction aux etudes liturgiques" (Paris, 1907), and the "British Museum Catalogue", XLV, "Latin Rite, Hours,
Missals"; also the index to the "Liturgical Catalogue" (3 vols. London, 1899). WILSON, "A classified Index to the Leonine, Gelasian
and Gregorian Sacramentaries" (Cambridge, 1892); WEALE, "Bibliographia Liturgica; Catalogus Missalium ritus Latini" (London,
1886).
II. MEDIEVAL COMMENTARIES ON THE CANON. — ST. ISIDORE OF SEVILLE (d. 636), "De ecclesiæ officiis", II in "P.L."
LXXXIII, 738, sqq.; AMALARIUS OF METZ (d. c. 850) "De ecclesiæ officiis", IV in "P.L." CV, 986, sqq.; WALAFRID STRABO
(d. 879), "De exordiis et incrementis rerum eccl." in "P.L. "CXIV, 919, sqq.; BERNO OF REICHENAU (11th cent.), "Libellus de
quibusdam rebus ad missæ officium pertinentibus" in "P.L.", CXLII, 1055, sqq.; MICROLOGUS, "De ecclesiasticis observationibus"
in "P.L.", CLI, 974, sqq. [probably written by BERNOLD OF CONSTANCE (eleventh century)]; BELETHUS, "Rationale divinorum
officiorum" in "P.L.", CCII, 14 sqq.; HILDEBERT OF TOURS (d. 1134), "Expositio Missæ "in "P.L.", CLXXI. 1158 sqq.; IONNES
ABRINCENSIS, "Liber de officiis ecclesiasticis" in "P.L.", CXLVII, 15 sqq.; ROBERTUS PULLUS (d. 1153), "De Cærimoniis,
sacramentis et officiis eccl." in "P.L"., CLXXVII, 381, sqq.; SICARDUS OF CREMONA, "Mitrale sive de officiis ecclesiasticis
summa" in "P.L". CCXIII, 13 sqq.; INNOCENT III (d. 1216), "De Sacrificio Missæ" in " P.L"., CCXVII, 763, sqq.; DURANDUS,
"Rationale divinorum Officiorum" (Lyons, 1561; Naples, 1859), VIII; ALBERTUS MAGNUS, "Summa de officio Missæ".
III. LATER WRITERS. — HITTORPIUS, "De divinis Cathol. Eccl. officiis" (Cologne, 1568; Rome 1591), a collection of medieval
interpreters: HUGO, "Expositio Missæ" (Nuremberg, 1507); BECHOFFEN, "Quadruplex Missalis expositio" (Basle, 1515);
DURANTI, "De ritibus ecclesiæ" (Cologne, 1592), III; BALDASSARI, "La sacra liturgia" (Venice, 1715); BENEDICT XIV (d.
1758), "De Sacrosancto Sacrificio Missæ", Latin version by GIACOMELLI, ed. SCHNEIDER (Mainz, 1879), lib. III; BONA,
"Rerum Liturgicarum" (Turin, 1763), lib. II; IDEM, "De Sacrificio Missæ" (Paris, 1846); MURATORI, "De rebus liturgicis
dissertatio": QUARTI, "Rubricæ Missalis Romani commentariis illustratæ" (Venice, 1727).
IV. MODERN WORKS. — PROBST. "Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderten" (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, "Liturgie des IV.
Jahrhunderts und deren Reform" (Munster, 1893); IDEM, "Die abendl, Messe vom V. bis zum VIII, Jahrhdt" (Munster, 1896);
DUCHESNE, "Origines" (Paris, 1898); MAGANI, "L'antica liturgia romana" (3 vols., Milan, 1897); CABROL, "Origines
liturgiques" (Paris, 1906); IDEM, "Le livre de la priere antique" (Paris, 1900), introduction; EBNER, "Quellen und Forschungen zur
Gesch, und Kunstgesch des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter" (Freiburg im Br., 1896); EISENRING, "Das heilige Messopfer"
(Einsiedeln, 1880); KNEIP, "Erklarung des heiligen Messopfers" (Ratisbon, 1876); SAUTER, "Das heilige Messopfer "(Paderborn,
1894); WALTER, "Die heilige Messe" (Brixen, 1881); WEICKUM, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Schaffhausen, 1865); LAMPRECHT,
"De SS. Missæ Sacrificio" (Louvain, 1875); LEBRUN, "Explication . . . des prieres et des ceremonies de la Messe" (Lyons, 1860);
COCHEM, "Erklarung des heiligen Messopfers" (Cologne, 1870); GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer, dogmatisch liturgisch und
ascetisch erklart" (6th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1897); KOSSING, "Liturgische Erklarung der heiligen Messe" (Ratisbon, 1869); VAN
DER BURG, "Brevis elucidatio totius Missæ" (Tournai, 1860); HAZE, "De sensu cærimoniarum Missæ brevis expositio" (Brussels,
1869); BOURBON, "Introduction aux ceremonies Romaines" (Luçon, 1864); NOEL, "Instructions sur la Liturgie" (5 vols., Paris
1861); PATRONI, "Lezioni di s. Liturgia" (Naples, 1881); FLUCK, "Katholische Liturgik" (Ratisbon, 1853); DE HERDT, "Sacræ
Liturgiæ Praxis "(7th ed., 3 vols., Louvain, 1883); DREWS, "Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons in der rumischen Messe" (Tübingen
and Leipzig, 1902); DRURY, "Elevation in the Eucharist": its History and Rationale" (Cambridge, 1907), of no great value;
BERNARD, "Cours de liturgie romaine" (Paris, 1884).
Fortescue, A. (1908). Canon of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
2. THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic
Sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early Church having
used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis) or "liturgy" (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes);
the Greek Church has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries.
There were current in the early days of Christianity other terms;
• "The Lord's Supper" (coena dominica),
• the "Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio),
• "the gathering together" (synaxis, congregatio),
• "the Mysteries", and
• (since Augustine), "the Sacrament of the Altar".
With the name "Love Feast" (agape) the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily
connected. Etymologically, the word missa is neither (as Baronius states) from a Hebrew, nor from
the Greek mysis, but is simply derived from missio, just as oblata is derived from oblatio, collecta
from collectio, and ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a Divine "mission", but simply
to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as was also customary in the Greek rite (cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv:
apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phrase Ite missa est. This solemn form of leave
taking was not introduced by the Church as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary
language of the day, as is shown by Bishop Avitus of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX,
199):
In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts, Missa est is said when the
people are released from attendance.
In the sense of "dismissal", or rather "close of prayer", missa is used in the celebrated "Peregrinatio
Silvae" at least seventy times (Corpus scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) and Rule of St.
Benedict places after Hours, Vespers, Compline, the regular formula: Et missae fiant (prayers are
ended). Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was expressed in both the
Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic
Sacrifice, the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an application is
found in Ambrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P.L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our
consideration of the Mass in its existence
,
essence
, and causality.
The existence of the Mass
Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary
points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be
regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical
with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1):
"If any one 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" (Denzinger, "Enchir.",
10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896,
based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the
consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous
declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some
irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent
before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the
Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole
action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the
communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport
declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the
"Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the
terms in the sense of thethirtynine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical
power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the
other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the abovementioned Bull
nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar. This
Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration.
The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as
"idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the
Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In
truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice.
Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating
sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in
and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended
privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by
adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the
sacrifice of His onlybegotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good.
Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action,
while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even
be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention:
communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use
of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical
slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.
The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as selfevident the proposition that, along with the
"true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal
sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification,
obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in
Ecclesiasticus 35:4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and in Psalm 140:2: "Let my prayer
be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." These figurative
offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes
its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors — a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi,
6), the "calves of our lips (Hosea 14:3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews 13:15) — expressions
which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole
sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St.
Thomas (IIII:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit
of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without
which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the holy
psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burntofferings
thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Ps. I, 18 sq.). This indispensable
requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous
in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once
offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old
Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to
religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of
showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ,
desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent
addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one selfsame sacrifice of
the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and
unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.
If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception
of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the
term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice
to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a
sacrifice:
• a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
• a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
• a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
• a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in
physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out,
other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of
sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God. As regards the person offering, it is not permitted that
any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account. In the revealed religion, as in
nearly all heathen religions, only a qualified person (usually called priest, sacerdos, lereus), who has
been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the
community. After Moses, the priests authorized by law in the Old Testament belonged to the tribe of
Levi, and more especially to the house of Aaron (Hebrews 5:4). But, since Christ Himself received
and exercised His high priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call,
there is still greater need that priests who represent Him should receive power and authority through
the Sacrament of Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the New Law. Sacrifice reaches
its outward culmination in the sacrificial act, in which we have to distinguish between the proximate
matter and the real form. The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete destruction of the
sacrificial gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it may be transformed. Even
where a real destruction took place, as in the sacrificial slayings of the Old Testament, the act of
destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas the proper oblation, consisting in
the "spilling of blood" (aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of the priests. Thus the real
form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers
nor in an imaginary selfdestruction on the part of Jesus, but in His voluntary surrender of His
blood shed by another's hand, and in His offering of His life for the sins of the world. Consequently,
the destruction or transformation constitutes at most the proximate matter; the sacrificial oblation,
on the other hand, is the physical form of the sacrifice. Finally, the object of the sacrifice, as
significant of its meaning, lifts the external offering beyond any mere mechanical action into the
sphere of the spiritual and Divine. The object is the soul of the sacrifice, and, in a certain sense, its
"metaphysicial form". In all religions we find, as the essential idea of sacrifice, a complete surrender
to God for the purpose of union with Him; and to this idea there is added, on the part of those who
are in sin, the desire for pardon and reconciliation. Hence at once arises the distinction between
sacrifices of praise and expiation (sacrificium latreuticum et propitiatorium), and sacrifices of
thanksgiving and petition (sacrificium eucharisticum et impetratorium); hence also the obvious
inference that under pain of idolatry, sacrifice is to be offered to God alone as the beginning and
end of all things. Rightly does St. Augustine remark (City of God X.4 ): "Who ever thought of
offering sacrifice except to one whom he either knew, or thought, or imagined to be God?".
If then we combine the four constituent ideas in a definition, we may say: "Sacrifice is the external
oblation to God by an authorized minister of a senseperceptible object, either through its
destruction or at least through its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God's supreme
dominion and of the appeasing of His wrath." We shall demonstrate the applicability of this
definition to the Mass in the section devoted to the nature of the sacrifice, after settling the question
of its existence.
Scriptural proof
It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say,
with greater certainty by means of the Old Testament than by means of the New.
1. Old Testament
The Old Testament prophecies are recorded partly in types, partly in words. Following the precedent
of many Fathers of the Church (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", v, 6), the Council of Trent especially
(Sess. XXII, cap. i) laid stress on the prophetical relation that undoubtedly exists between the
offering of bread and wine by Melchisedech and the Last Supper of Jesus. The occurrence was
briefly as follows: After Abraham (then still called "Abram") with his armed men had rescued his
nephew Lot from the four hostile kings who had fallen on him and robbed him, Melchisedech, King
of Salem (Jerusalem), "bringing forth [proferens] bread and wine for he was a priest of the Most
High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: Blessed be Abram by the Most High God . . . And he
[Abraham] gave him the tithes of all" (Genesis 14:1820). Catholic theologians (with very few
exceptions) have from the beginning rightly emphasized the circumstance that Melchisedech
brought out bread and wine, not merely to provide refreshment for Abram's followers wearied after
the battle, for they were well supplied with provisions out of the booty they had taken (Genesis
14:11, 16), but to present bread and wine as foodofferings to Almighty God. Not as a host, but as
"priest of the Most High God", he brought forth bread and wine, blessed Abraham, and received the
tithes from him. In fact, the very reason for his "bringing forth bread and wine" is expressly stated to
have been his priesthood: "for he was a priest". Hence, proferre must necessarily become offerre,
even if it were true that the Hiphil word is not an hieratic sacrificial term; but even this is not quite
certain (cf. Judges 6:18 sq.). Accordingly, Melchisedech made a real foodoffering of bread and
wine.
Now it is the express teaching of Scripture that Christ is "a priest for ever according to the order
[kata ten taxin] of Melchisedech" (Psalm 109:4; Hebrews 5:5 sq.; 7:1 sqq.). Christ, however, in no
way resembled his priestly prototype in His bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but only and solely at His
Last Supper. On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody foodoffering, 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 mere forms of bread and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before
by the "good things to come" would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the
antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual
repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper, it
follows that the Sacrifice of the Mass partakes of the New testament fulfilment of the prophecy of
Melchisedech. (Concerning the Paschal Lamb as the second type of the Mass, see Bellarmine, "De
Euchar.", V, vii; cf. also von Cichowski, "Das altestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhaltnis zum Opfer
Christi", Munich, 1849.)
Passing over the more or less distinct references to the Mass in other prophets (Psalm 21:27 sqq.,
Isaiah 66:18 sqq.), the best and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that of
Malachias, who makes a threatening announcement to the Levite priests in the name of God: "I have
no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the
rising of the sun even to the down, my name is great among the Gentiles [heathens, nonJews], and
in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is
great among Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:1011). According to the unanimous
interpretation of the Fathers of the Church (see Petavius, "De incarn.", xii, 12), the prophet here
foretells the everlasting Sacrifice of the New Dispensation. For he declares that these two things will
certainly come to pass:
• The abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and
• the institution of an entirely new sacrifice.
As God's determination to do away with the sacrifices of the Levites is adhered to consistently
throughout the denunciation, the essential thing is to specify correctly the sort of sacrifice that is
promised in their stead. In regard to this, the following propositions have to be established:
• that the new sacrifice is to come about in the days of the Messiah;
• that it is to be a true and real sacrifice, and
• that it does not coincide formally with the Sacrifice of the Cross.
It is easy to show that the sacrifice referred to by Malachias did not signify a sacrifice of his time,
but was rather to be a future sacrifice belonging to the age of the Messiah. For though the Hebrew
participles of the original can be translated by the present tense (there is sacrifice; it is offered), the
mere universality of the new sacrifice — "from the rising to the setting", "in every place", even
"among the Gentiles", i.e. heathen (nonJewish) peoples — is irrefragable proof that the prophet
beheld as present an event of the future. Wherever Jahwe speaks, as in this case, of His glorification
by the "heathen", He can, according to Old Testament teaching (Psalm 21:28; 71:10 sqq.; Isaiah
11:9; 49:6; 60:9, 66:18 sqq.; Amos 9:12; Micah 4:2, etc.) have in mind only the kingdom of 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 the prophet himself be thought of. Nor could there be any idea
of is a sacrifice among the genuine heathens, as Hitzig has suggested, for the sacrifices of the
heathen, associated with idolatry and impurity, are unclean and displeasing to God (1 Corinthians
10:20). Again, it could not be a sacrifice of the dispersed Jews (Diaspora), for apart from the fact
that the existence of such sacrifices in the Diaspora is rather problematic, they were certainly not
offered the world over, nor did they possess the unusual significance attaching to special modes of
honouring God. Consequently, the reference is undoubtedly to some entirely distinctive sacrifice of
the future. But of what future? Was it to be a future sacrifice among genuine heathens, such as the
Aztecs or the native Africans? This is as impossible as in the case of other heathen 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 since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), the whole system of
Jewish sacrifice is irrevocably a thing of the past; and the new sacrifice moreover, is to be
performed by a priesthood of an origin other than Jewish (Isaiah 66:21). Everything, therefore,
points to Christianity, in which, as a matter of fact, the Messiah rules over nonJewish peoples.
The second question now presents itself: Is the universal sacrifice thus promised "in every place" to
be only a purely spiritual offering of prayer, in other words a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,
such as Protestanism is content with; or is it to be a true sacrifice in the strict sense, as the Catholic
Church maintains? It is forthwith clear that abolition and substitution must correspond, and
accordingly that the old real sacrifice cannot be displaced by a new unreal sacrifice. Moreover,
prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from being a new offering, for they are permanent
realities common to every age, and constitute the indispensable foundation of every religion whether
before or after the Messiah.
The last doubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no fewer than three classic sacerdotal
declarations referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of
interpreting it metaphorically. Especially important is a substantive Hebrew for "sacrifice".
Although in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody included (cf. Genesis 4:4 sq.;
1 Samuel 2:17), it was not only never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer offering),
but even became the technical term for an unbloody sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in
contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice which is given the name of Sebach.
As to the third and last proposition, no lengthy demonstration is needed to show that the sacrifice of
Malachias cannot be formally identified with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This interpretation is at
once contradicted by the Minchah, i.e. unbloody (food) offering. Then, there are other cogent
considerations based on fact. Though a real sacrifice, belonging to the time of the Messiah and the
most powerful means conceivable for glorifying the Divine name, the Sacrifice of the Cross, so far
from being offered "in every place" and among nonJewish peoples, was confined to Golgotha and
the midst of the Jewish people. Nor can the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the
Saviour in person without the help of a human representative priesthood, be identified with that
sacrifice for the offering of which the Messiah makes use of priests after the manner of the Levites,
in every place and at all times. Furthermore, he wilfully shuts his eyes against the light, who denies
that the prophecy of Malachias is fulfilled to the letter in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In it are united
all the characteristics of the promised sacrifice: its unbloody sacrificial rite as genuine Minchah, its
universality in regard to place and time its extension to nonJewish peoples, its delegated priesthood
differing from that of the Jews, its essential unity by reason of the identity of the Chief Priest and
the Victim (Christ), and its intrinsic and essential purity which no Levitical or moral uncleanliness
can defile. Little wonder that the Council of Trent should say (Sess XXII, cap.i): "This is that pure
oblation, which cannot be defiled by unworthiness and impiety on the part of those who offer it, and
concerning which God has predicted through Malachias, that there would be offered up a clean
oblation in every place to His Name, which would be great among the Gentiles (see Denzinger, n.
339).
2. New Testament
Passing now to the proofs contained in the New Testament, we may begin by remarking that many
dogmatic writers see in the dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well a prophetic
reference to the Mass (John 4:21 sqq.): Woman believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall
neither on this mountain [Garizim] nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.... But the hour cometh and
now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." Since the point at issue
between the Samaritans and the Jews related, not to the ordinary, private offering of prayer practised
everywhere, but to the solemn, public worship embodied in a real Sacrifice, Jesus really seems to
refer to a future real sacrifice of praise, which would not be confined in its liturgy to the city
Jerusalem but would captivate the whole world (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar., v, 11). Not without
good reason do most commentators appeal to Hebrews 13:10: We have an altar [Thysiastesion,
altare], whereof they have no power to eat [Phagein, edere], who serve the tabernacle." Since St.
Paul has just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) and Christian altar food, the
partaking of which was denied to the Jews, the inference is obvious: where is an altar, there is a
sacrifice. But the Eucharist is the food which the Christians alone are permitted to eat: therefore
there is a Eucharistic sacrifice. The objection that, in Apostolic times, the term altar was not yet
used in the sense of the "Lord's table" (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:21) is clearly a begging of the question,
since Paul might well have been the first to introduce the name, it being adopted from him by later
writers (e.g. Ignatius of Antioch died A.D. 107).
It can scarcely be denied that the entirely mystical explanation of the "spiritual food from the altar
of the cross", favoured by St. Thomas Aquinas, Estius, and Stentrup, is farfetched. It might on the
other hand appear still more strange that in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ
and Melchisedech are compared, the two food offerings should be only not placed in prophetical
relation with each other but not even mentioned. The reason, however, is not far to seek: parallel lay
entirely outside the scope of the argument. All that St. Paul desired to show was that the high
priesthood of Christ was superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament (cf. Hebrews 7:4
sqq.), and this is fully demonstrated by proving that Aaron and his priesthood stood far below the
unattainable height of Melchisedech. So much the more, therefore, must Christ as "priest according
to the order of Melchisedech" excel the Levitical priesthood. The peculiar dignity of Melchisedech,
however, was manifested not through the fact that he made a food offering of bread and wine, a
thing which the Levites also were able to do, but chiefly through the fact that he blessed the great
"Father Abraham and received the tithes from him".
The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and
most clearly in the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider
these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be
thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we
shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae,
clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread.
For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English:
• Matthew 26:28 : Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon
ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall
be shed for many unto remission of sins.
• Mark 14:24 : Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon.
This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.
• Luke 22:20 : Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon
ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for
you.
• 1 Corinthians 11:25 : Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice
is the new testament in my blood.
The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing
• that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the
first time on the cross;
• that it was a true and real sacrifice;
• that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction with the present estin establishes
the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double present is
used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not
the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, "Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch", p.
193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as
whenChrist says earlier ( John 14:12): I go (poreuomai) to the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule
are not such in reality, as, for instance, Matthew 6:30: "And if the grass of the field, which is today
and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much
more you, O ye of little faith?" For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but
of something occurring every day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the future
(effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of
blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood
on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and
foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be
translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The accuracy of this
exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . .
ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and
therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here a grammatical
mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the "shedding" with the chalice (poterion), instead of
with "blood" (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as
though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of
speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents.
As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans 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 sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of
expiation (cf. Leviticus 7:14; 14:17; 17:11; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Hebrews 9:10, etc.). They, however,
refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the
day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and
wine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out this
Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a
sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the "pouring out of the chalice" is to mean
nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology:
"Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As, however, it really reads "Drink
ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins," the double
character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the
"drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testament", moreover, of
which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the Old
Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of
an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Exodus 24:8): "This is the blood of the
covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however,
(Hebrews 9:18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the
institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior
Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament". It
follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a
sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third
statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church, is also established. For the
duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament.
Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is
established in His Church. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior
the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me".
We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense Christ's words of consecration over the
bread. Since only St. Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is My Body", it
is only on them that we can base our demonstration.
• Luke 22:19 : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; touto esti to soma mou to uper
umon didomenon; This is my body which is given for you.
• 1 Corinthians 11:24 : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; touto mou esti to soma
to uper umon [klomenon]; This is my body which shall be broken for you.
Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical "giving of the body" (in organic unity of course with the
"pouring of blood" in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent
institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking
place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma he adds the present
participle, didomenon by which he describes the "giving of the body" as something happening in
the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.
The reading klomenon in St. Paul is disputed. According to the best critical reading (Tischendorf,
Lachmann) the participle is dropped altogether so that St. Paul probably wrote: to soma to uper
umon (the body for you, i.e. for your salvation). There is good reason, however, for regarding the
word klomenon (from klan to break) as Pauline, since St. Paul shortly before spoke of the "breaking
of bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16), which for him meant "to offer as food the true body of Christ".
From this however we may conclude that the "breaking of the body" not only confines Christ's
action to the strictly present, especially as His natural Body could not be "broken" on the cross (cf.
Exodus 12:46; John 19:32 sq.), but also implies the intention of offering a "body broken for you"
(uper umon) i.e. the act constituted in itself a true food offering. All doubt as to its sacrificial
character is removed by the expression didomenon in St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time quite
correctly translates into the present: "quod pro vobis datur." But "to give one's body for others" is as
truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice (cf. John 6:52; Romans 7:4; Colossians 1:22; Hebrews 10:10,
etc.) as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood". Christ, therefore, at the least Supper offered up
His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the
Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration
of me" (Luke 32:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).
Proof from Tradition
Harnack is of opinion that the early Church up to the time of Cyprian (d. 258) the contented itself
with the purely spiritual sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not possess the
sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholicism now understands it. In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a
Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that
the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer
of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and
especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded
conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements)
which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated.
Were this assertion correct, the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii), according to
which in the Mass "the priests offer up, in obedience to the command of Christ, His Body and
Blood" (see Denzinger, "Enchir", n. 949), could hardly take its stand on Apostolic tradition; the
bridge between antiquity and the present would thus have broken by the abrupt intrusion of a
completely contrary view. An impartial study of the earliest texts seems indeed to make this much
clear, that the early Church paid most attention to the spiritual and subjective side of sacrifice and
laid chief stress on prayer and thanksgiving in the Eucharistic function.
This admission, however, is not identical with the statement that the early Church rejected out and
out the objective sacrifice, and acknowledged as genuine only the spiritual sacrifice as expressed in
the "Eucharistic thanksgiving". That there has been an historical dogmatic development from the
indefinite to the definite, from the implicit to the explicit, from the seed to the fruit, no one familiar
with the subjectwill deny. An assumption so reasonable, the only one in fact consistent with
Christianity, is, however, fundamentally different from the hypothesis that the Christian idea of
sacrifice has veered from one extreme to the other. This is a priori improbable and unproved in fact.
In the Didache or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", the oldest postBiblical literary monument (c.
A.D. 96), not only is the "breaking of bread" (cf. Acts 20:7) referred to as a "sacrifice" (Thysia) and
mention made of reconciliation with one's enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matthew 5:23), but the
whole passage is crowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as
is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv). The early Christians gave the
name of "sacrifice"; not only to the Eucharistic "thanksgiving," but also to the entire ritual
celebration including the liturgical "breaking of bread", without at first distinguishing clearly
between the prayer and the gift (Bread and Wine, Body and Blood). When Ignatius of Antioch (d.
107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the Eucharist: "There is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus
Christ, only one chalice containing His one Blood, one altar (en thysiasterion), as also only one
bishop with the priesthood and the deacons" (Ep., ad. Philad. iv), he here gives to the liturgical
Eucharistic celebration, of which alone he speaks, by his reference to the "altar" an evidently
sacrificial meaning, often as he may use the word "altar" in other contexts in a metaphorical sense.
A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in
his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (c. 117) he characterizes "prayer and thanksgiving" (euchai kai
eucharistiai) as the "one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God" (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai).
Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real
sacrifice of the Eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same "Dialogue" (c. 41) he says the "food
offering" of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Leviticus 14), was a figure (typos) of the
bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His
sufferings." He then goes on: "of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through
Malachias said: 'I have no pleasure, etc.' By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles
present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of Eucharist and likewise of the chalice
Eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him". Here "bread and
chalice" are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the
Christian sacrifice. If the other apologists (Aristides, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius) vary
the thought a great deal — God has no need of sacrifice; the best sacrifice is the knowledge of the
Creator; sacrifice and altars are unknown to the Christians — it is to be presumed not only that
under the imposed by the disciplina arcani they withheld the whole truth, but also that they rightly
repudiated all connection with pagan idolatry, the sacrifice of animals, and heathen altars. Tertullian
bluntly declared: "we offer no sacrifice (non sacrificamus) because we cannot eat both the Supper of
God and that of demons" (De spectac., c., xiii). And yet in another passage (On Prayer 19
) he calls
Holy Communion "participation in the sacrifice" (participatio sacrificii), which is accomplished "on
the altar of God" (ad aram Dei); he speaks (De cult fem., II, xi) of a real, not a mere metaphorical,
"offering up of sacrifice" (sacrificium offertur); he dwells still further as a Montanist (On Pudicity
9) as well on the "nourishing power of the Lord's Body" (opimitate dominici corporis) as on the
"renewal of the immolation of Christ" (rursus illi mactabitur Christus).
With Irenaeus of Lyons there comes a turning point, in as much as he, with conscious clearness,
first puts forward "bread and wine" as objective gift offerings, but at the same time maintains that
these elements become the "body and blood" of the Word through consecration, and thus by simply
combining these two thoughts we have the Catholic Mass of today. According to him (Against
Heresies IV.18.4 ) it is the Church alone "that offers the pure oblation" (oblationem puram offert),
whereas the Jews "did not receive the Word, which is offered (or through whom an offering is
made) to God" (non receperunt Verbum quod [aliter, per quod] offertur Deo). Passing over the
teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the
restrictions of the disciplina arcani, involved their writings in mystic obscurity, we make particular
mention of Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment Achelis has wrongly
characterized as spurious. He writes (Fragm. in Prov., ix, i, P.G., LXXX, 593), "The Word prepared
His Precious and immaculate Body (soma) and His Blood (aima), that daily kath'ekasten) are set
forth as a sacrifice (epitelountai thyomena) on the mystic and Divine table (trapeze) as a memorial
of that ever memorable first table of the mysterious supper of the Lord". Since according to the
judgment of even Protestant historians of dogma, St. Cyprian (d. 258) is to be regarded as the
"herald" of Catholic doctrine on the Mass, we may likewise pass him over, as well as Cyril of
Jerusalem (d. 386) and Chrysostom (d. 407) who have been charged with exaggerated "realism", and
whose plain discourses on the sacrifice rival those of Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394)
and Ambrose (d. 397). Only about Augustine (d. 430) must a word be said, since, in regard to the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is cited as favouring the "symbolical" theory. Now it is
precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a
merely spiritual interpretation.
For Augustine nothing is more certain than that every religion, whether true or false, must have an
exterior form of celebration and worship (Reply
to Faustus XIX.11 ). This applies as well to
Christians (l. c., xx, 18), who "commemorate the sacrifice consummated (on the cross) by the
holiest oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ" (celebrant sacrosancta oblatione
et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (City of God X.20 ), the
"highest and true sacrifice" (summum verumque sacrificium), Christ being at once "priest and
victim" (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio) and he reminds the Jews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the sacrifice
of Malachias is now made in every place (in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He
relates of his mother Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked for prayers at the altar (ad altare)
for her soul and had attended Mass daily. From Augustine onwards the current of the Church's
tradition flows smoothly along in a wellordered channel, without check or disturbance, through the
Middle Ages to our own time. Even the powerful attempt made to stem it through the Reformation
had no effect.
A briefer demonstration of the existence of the Mass is the socalled proof from prescription, which
is thus formulated: A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than the oldest attack made on it
by heretics cannot be decried as "idolatry", but must be referred back to the Founder of Christianity
as a rightful heritage of which He was the originator. Now the Church's legitimate possession as
regards the Mass can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity. It follows that the Mass was
Divinely instituted by Christ. Regarding the minor proposition, the proof of which alone concerns
us here, we may begin at once with the Reformation, the only movement that utterly did away with
the Mass. Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men like Zwingli, Karlstadt and
Oecolampadius should tear down the altars, for they denied Christ's real presence in the Sacrament.
Calvinism also in reviling the "papistical mass" which the Heidelberg catechism characterized as
"cursed idolatry" was merely selfconsistent since it admitted only a "dynamic" presence. It is rather
strange on the other hand that, in spite of his belief in the literal meaning of the words of
consecration, Luther, after a violent "nocturnal disputation with the devil", in 1521, should have
repudiated the Mass. But it is exactly these measures of violence that best show to what a depth the
institution of the Mass had taken root by that time in Church and people. How long had it been
taking root? The answer, to begin with is: all through the Middle Ages back to Photius, the
originator of the Eastern Schism (869). Though Wycliffe protested against the teaching of the
Council of Constance (141418), which maintained that the Mass could be proved from Scripture;
and though the Albigenses and Waldenses claimed for the laity also the power to offer sacrifice (cf.
Denzinger, "Enchir.", 585 and 430), it is none the less true that even the schismatic Greeks held fast
to the Eucharistic sacrifice as a precious heritage from their Catholic past. In the negotiations for
reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) they showed moreover that they had kept it intact; and
they have faithfully safeguarded it to this day. From all which it is clear that the Mass existed in both
Churches long before Photius, a conclusion borne out by the monuments of Christian antiquity.
Taking a long step backwards from the ninth to the fourth century, we come upon the Nestorians
and Monophysites who were driven out of the Church during the fifth century at Ephesus (431) and
Chalcedon (451). From that day to this they have celebrated in their solemn liturgy the sacrifice of
the New Law, and since they could only have taken it with them from the old Christian Church, it
follows that the Mass goes back in the Church beyond the time of Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
Indeed, the first Nicene Council (325) in its celebrated eighteenth canon forbade priests to receive
the Eucharist from the hands of deacons for the very obvious reason that "neither the canon nor
custom have handed down to us, that those, who have not the power to offer sacrifice (prospherein)
may give Christ's body to those who offer (prospherousi)". Hence it is plain that for the celebration
of the Mass there was required the dignity of a special priesthood, from which the deacons as such
were excluded. Since, however, the Nicene Council speaks of a "custom that takes us at once into
the third century, we are already in the age of the Catacombs with their Eucharistic pictures, which
according to the best founded opinions represent the liturgical celebration of the Mass. According to
Wilpert, the oldest representation of the Holy Sacrifice is the "Greek Chapel" in the Catacomb of
St. Priscilla (c. 150). The most convincing evidence, however, from those early days is furnished by
the liturgies of the West and the East, the basic principles of which reach back to Apostolic times
and in which the sacrifical idea of the Eucharistic celebration found unadulterated and decisive
expression (see LITURGIES). We have therefore traced the Masses from the present to the earliest
times, thus establishing its Apostolic origin, which in turn goes back again to the Last Supper.
The nature of the Mass
In its denial of the true Divinity of Christ and of every supernatural institution, modern unbelief
endeavours, by means of he socalled historicoreligious method, to explain the character of the
Eucharist and the Eucharist sacrifice as the natural result of a spontaneous process of development
in the Christian religion. In this connection it is interesting to observe how these different and
conflicting hypotheses refute one another, with the rather startling result at the end of it all that a
new, great, and insoluble problem looms of the investigation. While some discover the roots of
theMass in the Jewish funeral feasts (O. Holtzmann) or in Jewish Essenism (Bousset, Heitmuller,
Wernle), others delve in the underground strata of pagan religions. Here, however, a rich variety of
hypotheses is placed at their disposal. In this age of PanBabylonism it is not at all surprising that
the germinal ideas of the Christian communion should be located in Babylon, where in the Adapa
myth (on the tablet of Tell Amarna) mention has been found of "water of life" and "food of life"
(Zimmern). Others (e.g. Brandt) fancy they have found a still more striking analogy in the "bread
and water" (Patha and Mambuha) of the Mandaean religion. The view most widely held today
among upholders of the historicoreligious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in
the practices of the Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). "In
the Mandaean mass" writes Cumont ("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p. 118), "the celebrant
consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haomajuice, and ate this food while
performing the functions of divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian
rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment (De prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et
panis oblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these wild creations of an overheated
imagination. Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night,
as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody
sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in
the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the
Mass.
The physical character of the Mass
In regard to the physical character there arises not only the question as to the concrete portions of
the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding the relation of the
Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter question as much the more
important, Catholics and believing Protestants alike acknowledge that as Christians we venerate in
the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world.
And this indeed is true in a double sense first, because among all the sacrifices of the past and
future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent
of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and unity in itself; second because every grace, means of
grace and sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan economy, derive their
whole undivided strength, value, and efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the
Cross. The first consideration implies that all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, as well as the
Sacrifice of the Mass, bear the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are necessarily related to
the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second consideration it
follows that all other Sacrifices, the Mass included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and
so long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due to the suffering) of the
Crucified. Let us deal briefly with this double relationship.
Regarding the qualification of relativity, which adheres to every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of
the Cross, there is no doubt that the sacrifices of the Old Testament by their figurative forms and
prophetic significance point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle to
the Hebrews (viiix) in particular develops grandly the figurative character of the Old Testament.
Not only was the Levitic priesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint type of the high
priesthood of Christ, but the complex sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured the
one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal "cleansing of the flesh" the Levitical sacrifices
could effect no true "forgiveness of sins"; by their very inefficacy however they point prophetically
to the perfect Sacrifice of propitiation on Golgotha. Just for that reason their continual repetition as
well as their great diversity was essential to them, as a means of keeping alive in the Jews the
yearning for the true sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring. This longing was satiated
only by the single Sacrifice of the Cross, which was never again to be repeated. Naturally the Mass,
too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice must be in accord with this inviolable rule,
no longer Indeed as a type prophetic of future things, but rather as the living realization and renewal
of the past. Only the Last Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfilment,
still looked to the future, in so far as it was an anticipatory commemoration of thesacrifice of the
Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of the body" and the
"Shedding of the Blood" were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the
body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at the Last Supper would be
inconceivable. The Fathers of the Church, such as Cyprian (Ep., lxiii, 9), Ambrose (De offic., I,
xlviii), Augustine (Reply to Faustus
XX.28
) and Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, lviii), insist that the
Mass in its essential nature must be that which Christ Himself characterized as a "commemoration"
of Him (Luke 22:19) and Paul as the "showing of the death of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its
singleness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively
redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having
obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). This does not mean that mankind is suddenly and
without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above
the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in
no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken
of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side of redemption, which does not dispense
with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on
the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after
justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this
important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of
Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here
unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial
of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more
than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it
without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent
sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross
is completed or its value enhanced.
The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in this: that the latter applies to the
individual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific
offering. In both, the Church draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one
Sun, that gives life, light and warmth to everything; the sacraments and the Mass are only the
planets that revolve round the central body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one
whit less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross
would reign as independently as, conceivably the sun without the planets. The Council of Trent
(Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the reproach that "the Mass is a blasphemy
against or a derogation from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 951). Must not
the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments also? Does it not apply to baptism and communion
among Protestants? And how can Christ Himself put blasphemy and darkness in the way of His
Sacrifice on the Cross when He Himself is the High Priest, in whose name and by whose
commission His human representative offers sacrifice with the words: "This is my Body, this is my
Blood"? It is the express teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very
nature a "representation" (representatio), a "commemoration" (memoria) and an "application"
(applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed the Roman Catechism (II, c. iv, Q. 70) as a
fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition (instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken
not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application of the merits of the Passion. Just as
the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross
is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both
sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice —
the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii): "Una enim eademque est hostia idem
nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa offerendi ratione
diversa". In as much as the sacrificing priest (offerens) and the sacrificial victim (hostia) in both
sacrifices are Christ Himself, their same amounts even to a numerical identity. In regard to the
manner of the sacrifice (offerendi ratio) on the other hand, it is naturally a question only of a
specific identity or unity that includes the possibility of ten, a hundred, or a thousand masses.
The constituent parts of the Mass
Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of the liturgy of the Mass in which the
real sacrifice is to be looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief parts: the
Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. The antiquated view of Johann Eck, according to
which the act of sacrifice was comprised in the prayer "Unde et memores . . . offerimus", is thus
excluded from our discussion, as is also the of Melchior Canus, who held that the sacrifice is
accomplished in the symbolical ceremony of the breaking of the Host and its commingling with the
Chalice. The question therefore arises first: Is the sacrifice comprised in the Offertory? From the
wording of the prayer this much at least is clear that bread and wine constitute the secondary
sacrificial elements of the Mass, since the priest in the true language of sacrifice, offers to God
bread as an unspotted host (immaculatam hostiam) and wine as the chalice of salvation (calicem
salutaris). But the very significance of this language proves that attention is mainly directed to the
prospective transubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements. Since the Mass is not a mere offering of
bread and wine, like the figurative food offering of Melchisedech, it is clear that only the Body and
Blood of Christ can be the primary matter of the sacrifice as was the case at the Last Supper (cf.
Trent, Sess. XXII, i, can. 2; Denzinger, n. 938, 949). Consequently the sacrifice is not in the
Offertory. Does it consist then in the priest's Communion? There were and are theologians who
favour that view. They can be ranged in two classes, according as they see in the Communion the
essential or the coessential.
Those who belong to the first category (Dominicus Soto, Renz, Bellord) had to beware of the
heretical doctrine proscribed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1), viz., that Mass and
Communion were identical. In American and English circles the socalled "banquet theory" of the
late Bishop Bellord once created some stir (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, 258 sq).
According to that view, the essence of the sacrifice was not to be looked for in the offering of a gift
to God, but solely in the Communion. Without communion there was no sacrifice. Regarding pagan
sacrifices Döllinger ("Heidentum und Judentum", Ratisbon 1857) had already demonstrated the
incompatibility of this view. With the complete shedding of blood pagan sacrifices ended, so that
the supper which sometimes followed it was expressive merely of the satisfaction felt at the
reconciliation with gods. Even the horriblehuman sacrifices had as their object the death of the
victim only and not a cannibal feast. As to the Jews, only a few Levitical sacrifices, such as the
peace offering, had feasting connected with them; most, and especially the burnt offerings
(holocausta), were accomplished without feasting (cf. Leviticus 6:9 sq.). Bishop Bellord, having cast
in his lot with the "banquet theory", could naturally find the essence of the Mass in the priests'
Communion only. He was indeed logically bound to allow that the Crucifixion itself had the
character of a sacrifice only in conjunction with the Last Supper, at which alone food was taken; for
the Crucifixion excluded any ritual food offering. These disquieting consequences are all the more
serious in that they are devoid of any scientific basis.
Harmless, even though improbable, is that other view (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Tournély, etc.) which
includes the Communion as at least a coessential factor in the constitution of the Mass; for the
consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, being a kind of destruction, would
appear to accord with the conception of the sacrifice developed above. But only in appearance; for
the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the
celebrant, while the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial and not the
sacrificial death of Christ. The Last Supper also would have been a true sacrifice only on condition
that Christ had given the Communion not only to His apostles but also to Himself. There is however
no evidence that such a Communion ever took place, probable as it may appear. For the rest, the
Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the
sacrifice, it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice. And this
integrity is also preserved absolutely even in the socalled "private Mass" at which the priest alone
communicates; private Masses are allowed for that reason (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. 8). When the
Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786), proclaiming the false principle that "participation in the sacrifice
is essential to the sacrifice", demanded at least the making of a "spiritual communion" on the part of
the faithful as a condition of allowing private Masses, it was denied by Pius VI in his Bull
"Auctorem fidei" (1796) (see Denzinger, n. 1528).
After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the
part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the
proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is
my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of
consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come
into practice after Apostolic times (see E UCHARIST ). The sacrifice must also be at the point where
Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The
priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion.
He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is
no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant. While theConsecration as such can be
shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be
demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only older theologians such as Frassen, Gotti, and
Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported
the untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or
cider, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the
(mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in
idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the
twofold consecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact
that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the
sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation
that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this
condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This
condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and
the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood.
Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative
sacrifice.
The metaphysical character of the Sacrifice of the Mass
The physical essence of the Mass having been established in the consecration of the two species, the
metaphysical question arises as to whether and in what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is
realized in this double consecration. Since the three ideas, sacrificing priest, sacrificial gift, and
sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding, the problem is finally seen to lie
entirely in the determination of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so much in
the form of this act as in the matter, since the glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility,
cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation of the idea of destruction,
the postTridentine theologians have brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant
results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which,
however, we can discuss only the most notable and important. But first, that we may have at hand a
reliable, critical standard wherewith to test the validity or invalidity of the various theories, we
maintain that a sound andsatisfactory theory must satisfy the following four conditions:
• the twofold consecration must show not only the relative, but also the absolute moment of
sacrifice, so that the Mass will not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself
a real sacrifice;
• the act of sacrifice (actio sacrifica), veiled in the double consecration, must refer directly to
the sacrificial matter — i.e. the Eucharistic Christ Himself — not to the elements of bread
and wine or their unsubstantial species;
• the sacrifice of Christ must somehow result in a kenosis, not in a glorification, since this
latter is at most the object of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself;
• since this postulated kenosis, however, can be no real, but only a mystical or sacramental
one, we must appraise intelligently those moments which approximate in any degree the
"mystical slaying" to a real exinanition, instead of rejecting them.
With the aid of these four criteria it is comparatively easy to arrive at a decision concerning the
probability or otherwise of the different theories concerning thesacrifice of the Mass.
(i) The Jesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported by Perrone in the last century, requires
for the essence of an absolute sacrifice only — and thus, in the present case, for the Sacrifice of the
Cross — a true destruction or the real slaying of Christ, whereas for the idea of the relative sacrifice
of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the Cross be visibly represented in the separation
of Body and Blood on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de Lugo, who,
appealing to the Tridentine definition of the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez
for reducing the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. Were Jephta to arise again today with his
daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar., disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes
a living dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the fashion of a tragedy, we would
undoubtedly see before us not a true sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the former
bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a relative sacrifice, but certainly not the
notion of the Mass which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in opposition to the
merely relative) sacrificial moment. If the Mass is to be something more than an OberAmmergau
Passion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also
be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar. The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the
first condition which we have named above.
To a certain extent the opposite of Vasquez's theory is that of Cardinal Cienfuegos, who, while
exaggerating the absolute moment of the Mass, undervalues the equally essential relative moment of
the sacrifice. The sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic Christ he would find in the voluntary
suspension of the powers of sense (especially of sight and hearing), which the sacramental mode of
existence implies, and which lasts from the consecration to the mingling of the two Species. But,
apart from the fact that one may not constitute a hypothetical theologumenon the basis of a theory,
one can no longer from such a standpoint successfully defend the indispensability of the double
consecration. Equally difficult is it to find in the Eucharistic Christ's voluntary surrender of his
sensitive functions the relative moment of sacrifice, i.e. the representation of the bloody sacrifice of
the Cross. The standpoint of Francisco Suárez, adopted by Scheeben, is both exalting and imposing;
the real transformation of the sacrificial gifts he refers to the destruction of the Eucharistic elements
(in virtue of the transubstantiation) at their conversion into the Precious Body and Blood of Christ
(immulatio perfectiva), just as, in the sacrifice of incense in the Old Testament, the grains of incense
were transformed by fire into the higher and more precious form of the sweetest odour and
fragrance. But, since the antecedent destruction of the substance of bread and wine can by no means
be regarded as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Francisco Suárez is finally compelled
to identify the substantial production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the same.
Herein is straightway revealed a serious weakness, already clearly perceived by De Lugo. For the
production of a thing can never be identical with its sacrifice; otherwise one might declare the
gardener's production of plants or the farmer's raising of cattle a sacrifice. Thus, the idea of kenosis
which in the minds of all men is intimately linked with the notion of sacrifice, and which we have
given above as our third condition, is wanting in the theory of Francisco Suárez. To offer something
as a sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this selfdivestment may finally lead
to exaltation.
In Germany the profound, but poorly developed theory of Valentin Thalhofer found great favour. We
need not, however, develop it here, especially since it rests on the false basis of a supposed
"heavenly sacrifice" of Christ, which, as the virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross,
becomes a temporal and spatial phenomenon in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, as practically all
other theologians teach, the existence of this heavenly sacrifice (in the strict sense) is only a
beautiful theological dream, and at any rate cannot be demonstrated from the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
(ii) Disavowing the abovementioned theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, theologians of
today are again seeking a closer approximation to the preTridentine conception, having realized
that postTridentine theology had perhaps for polemical reasons needlessly exaggerated the idea of
destruction in the sacrifice. The old conception, which our catechisms even today proclaim to the
people as the most natural and intelligible, may be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional
view; its restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th
ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567 sqq.). Since this theory refers theabsolute moment of the sacrifice to the
(active) "sacramental mystical slaying", and the relative to the (passive) "separation of Body and
Blood", it has indeed made the "twoedged sword" of the double consecration the cause from which
the double character of the Mass as an absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We
have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is — not indeed in specie propria, but in specie aliena —
sacramentally slain, we have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation of Body and
Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the Cross.
While this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we
do not think it right to reject offhand the somewhat more elaborate theory of Lessius instead of
utilizing it in the spirit of the traditional view for the extension of the idea of a "mystical slaying".
Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old explanation by adding the not
untrue observation that the intrinsic force of the double consecration would have as result an actual
and true shedding of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens impossible in consequence of
the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ. Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the
bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the
tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The
mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of
the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of
St. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance ("Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil." in P.G., XXXVII,
282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [anaimakto tome] thou separatest
[temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [phonen echon to Xiphos]." As
an old pupil of Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1887), the present writer may
perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently combatted theory of Cardinal De
Hugo, which Franzelin revived after a long period of neglect; not however that he intends to
proclaim the theory in its present form as entirely satisfactory, since, with much to recommend it, it
has also serious defects. Webelieve, however, that this theory, like that of Lessius, might be most
profitably utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional view. Starting from the
principle that the Eucharistic destruction can be, not a physical but only a moral one, De Lugo finds
this exinanition in the voluntary reduction of Christ to the condition of food (reductio ad statum cibi
el potus), in virtue of which the Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves himself at the
mercy of mankind. That this is really equivalent to a true kenosis no one can deny. Herein the
Christian pulpit has at its disposal a truly inexhaustible source of lofty thoughts wherewith to
illustrate in glowing language the humility and love, the destitution and defencelessness of Our
Saviour under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonour, and
sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even today that fire of selfsacrifice which once burned
on the Cross, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious manner from the Heart of Jesus to
our altars. While, in this incomprehensible condescension, the absolute moment of sacrifice is
disclosed in an especially striking manner, one is reluctantly compelled to recognize the absence of
two of the other requisites: in the first place, thenecessity of the double consecration is not made
properly apparent, since a single consecration would suffice to produce the condition of food, would
therefore achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the reduction to the state of articles of food reveals not the
faintest analogy to the blood — shedding on the Cross, and thus the relative moment of the
Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, therefore, of no service in
this connection. It renders, howover, the most useful service in extending the traditional idea of a
"mystical slaying", since indeed the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be nothing else
than the preparation of the mystically slain Victim for the sacrificial feast in the Communion of the
priest and the faithful.
The causality of the Mass
In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effectus) of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically
coincide with the various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely adoration, thanksgiving,
impetration, and expiation; (b) the manner of its efficacy (modus efliciendi), which lies in part
objectively in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself (ex opere operato), and partly depends subjectively on
the personal devotion and piety of man (ex opere operantis).
The effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass
The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they
recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection,
properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and
of Christendom and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and
Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly
opposed was the Catholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving,
but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a
sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient. Here the Council of Trent interposed with a
definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it
ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other
necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950). In this canon, which gives a summary of all
the sacrificial effects in order, the synod emphasizes the propitiatory and impetratory nature of the
sacrifice. Propitiation (propitiatio) and petition (impetratio) are distinguishable from each other, in
as much as the latter appeals to the goodness and the former to the mercy of God. Naturally,
therefore, they differ also as regards their objects, since, while petition is directed towards our
spiritual and temporal concerns and needs of every kind, propitiation refers to our sins (peccata) and
to the temporal punishments (poenae), which must be expiated by works of penance or satisfaction
(satisfactiones) in this life, or otherwise by a corresponding suffering in purgatory. In all these
respects the impetratory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is of the greatest utility, both for the
living and the dead.
Should a Biblical foundation for the Tridentine doctrine be asked for, we might first of all argue in
general as follows: Just as there were in the Old Testament, in addition to sacrifices of praise and
thanksgiving, propitiatory and impetratory sacrifices (cf. Leviticus 4 sqq.; 2 Samuel 24:21 sqq.,
etc.), the New Testament, as its antitype, must also have a sacrifice which serves and suffices for all
these objects. But, according to the prophecy of Malachias, this is the Mass, which is to be
celebrated by the Church in all places and at all times. Consequently, the Mass is the impetratory
and propitiatory sacrifice. As for special reference to the propitiatory character, the record of
institution states expressly that the Blood of Christ is in the chalice "unto remission of sins"
(Matthew 26:28).
The chief source of our doctrine, however, is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the
impetratory value of the Sacrifice of the Mass. According to Tertullian (Ad scapula, ii), the
Christians sacrificed "for the welfare of the emperor" (pro salute imperatoris); according to
Chrysostom (Hom. xxi in Act. Apost., n. 4), "for the fruits of the earth and other needs". St. Cyril of
Jerusalem (d. 386) describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as follows (Mystagogical Catechesis
5, no. 8): "After the spiritual Sacrifice [pneumatike thysia], the unbloody service [anaimaktos
latreia] is completed; we pray to God, over this sacrifice of propitiation [epi tes thysias ekeines tou
ilasmou] for the universal peace of the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the
emperor, soldiers and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those stricken with trouble, and in
general for all in need of help we pray and offer up this sacrifice [tauten prospheromen ten thysian].
We then commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God may, at their prayers and
intercessions graciously accept our supplication. We afterwards pray for the dead . . . since we
believe that it will be of the greatest advantage [megisten onesin esesthai], if we in the sight of the
holy and most awesome Victim [tes hagias kai phrikodestates thysias] discharge our prayers for
them. The Christ, who was slain for our sins, we sacrifice [Christon esphagmenon yper ton
emeteron amartematon prospheromen] to propitiate the merciful God for those who are gone before
and for ourselves." This beautiful passage, which reads like a modern prayerbook, is of interest in
more than one connection. It proves in the first place that Christian antiquity recognized the offering
up of the Mass for the deceased, exactly as the Church today recognizes requiem Masses — a fact
which is confirmed by other independent witnesses, e.g. Tertullian (De monog., x), Cyprian (Ep.
lxvi, n. 2), and Augustine (Confess., ix, 12). In the second place, it informs us that our socalled
Masses of the Saints also had their prototype among the primitive Christians, and for this view we
likewise find other testimonies — e.g. Tertullian (De Cor., iii) and Cyprian (Ep. xxxix, n. 3). By a
Saint's Mass is meant, not the offering up of the Sacrifice of the Mass to a saint which would be
impossible without most shameful idolatry, but a sacrifice, which, while offered to God alone, on
the one hand thanks Him for the triumphal coronation of the saints, and on the other aims at
procuring for us the saint's efficacious intercession with God. Such is the authentic explanation of
the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap, iii, in Denzinger, n. 941). With this threefold limitation,
Masses "in honour of the saints" are certainly no base "deception", but are morally allowable, as the
Council of Trent specifically declares (loc. cit. can. v); "If any one saith, that it is an imposture to
celebrate masses in honour of the saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church
intends, let him be anathema". The general moral permissibility of invoking the intercession of the
saints, concerning which this is not the place to speak, is of course assumed in the present instance.
While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which relate to God alone, the success of
impetration and expiation on the other hand reverts to man. These last two effects are thus also
called by theologians the "fruits of the Mass" (fructus missae) and this distinction leads us to the
discussion of the difficult and frequently asked question as to whether we are to impute infinite or
finite value to the Sacrifice of the Mass. This question is not of the kind which may be answered
with a simple yes or no. For, apart from the already indicated distinction betweenadoration and
thanksgiving on the one hand and impetration and expiation on the other, we must also sharply
distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of theMass ( valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus).
As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the
Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the
sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. Here however, we must once more strongly
emphasize the fact that the evercontinued sacrificial activity of Christ in Heaven does not and
cannot serve to accumulate fresh redemptory merits and to assume new objective value; it simply
stamps into current coin, so to speak, the redemptory merits definitively and perfectly obtained in
the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sets them into circulation among mankind. This also is the teaching
of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap. ii): "of which bloody oblation the fruits are most
abundantly obtained through this unbloody one [the Mass]." For, even in its character of a sacrifice
of adoration and thanksgiving, the Mass draws its whole value and all Its power only from the
Sacrifice of the Cross which Christ makes of unceasing avail in Heaven (cf. Romans 8:34; Hebrews
7:25). There is, however, no reason why this intrinsic value of the Mass derived from the Sacrifice
of the Cross, in so far as it represents a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, should not also
operate outwardly to the full extent of its infinity, for it seems inconceivable that the Heavenly
Father could accept with other than infinite satisfaction the sacrifice of His onlybegotten Son.
Consequently God, as Malachias had already prophesied, is in a truly infinite degree honoured,
glorified, and praised in the Mass; through Our Lord Jesus Christ he is thanked by men for all his
benefits in an infinite manner, in a manner worthy of God.
But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different.
While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the GodMan
Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The
scope of the socalled "fruits of the Mass" is limited. Just as a tiny chip of wood can not within it the
whole energy of the sun, so also, and in a still greater degree, isman incapable of converting the
boundless value of the impetratory and expiatory sacrifice into an infinite effect for his soul.
Wherefore, in practice, the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as limited as is its
propitiatory and satisfactory value. The greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally
depend very much on the personal efforts and worthiness, the devotion and fervour of those who
celebrate or are present at Mass. This limitation of the fruits of the Mass must, however, not be
misconstrued to mean that the presence of a large congregation causes a diminution of the benefits
derived from the Sacrifice by the individual, as if such benefits were after some fashion divided into
so many aliquot parts. Neither the Church nor the Christian people has any tolerance for the false
principle: "The less the number of the faithful in the church, the richer the fruits". On the contrary
the Bride of Christ desires for every Mass a crowded church, being rightly convinced that from the
unlimited treasures of the Mass much more grace win result to the individual from a service
participated in by a full congregation, than from one attended merely by a few of the faithful. This
relative infinite value refers indeed only to the general fruit of the Mass (fructus generalis), and not
to the special (fructus specialis) two terms whose distinction will be more clearly characterized
below. Here, however, we may remark that by the special fruit of theMass is meant that for the
application of which according to a special intention a priest may accept a stipend.
The question now arises whether in this connection the applicable value of the Mass is to be
regarded as finite or infinite (or, more accurately, unlimited). This question is of importance in view
of the practical consequences it involves. For, if we decide in favour of the unlimited value, a
singleMass celebrated for a hundred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a hundred Masses
celebrated for a single person or intention. On the other hand, it is clear that, if we incline towards a
finite value, the special fruit is divided pro rata among the hundred persons. In their quest for a
solution of this question, two classes of theologians are distinguished according to their tendencies:
the minority (Gotti, Billuart, Antonio Bellarini, etc.) are inclined to uphold the certainty or at least
the probability of the former view, arguing that the infinite dignity of the High Priest Christ can not
be limited by the finite sacrificial activity of his human representative. But, since the Church has
entirely forbidden as a breach of strict justice that a priest should seek to fulfil, by reading a single
Mass, the obligations imposed by several stipends (see Denzinger, n. 1110) these theologians hasten
to admit that their theory is not to be translated into practice, unless the priest applies as many
individual Masses for all the intentions of the stipendgivers as he has received stipends. But in as
much as the Church has spoken of strict justice (justitia commutativa), the overwhelming majority
of theologians incline even theoretically to the conviction that the satisfactory — and, according to
many, also the propitiatory and impetratory — value of a Mass for which a stipend has been taken,
is so strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it accrues pro rata (according to the
greater or less number of the living or the dead for whom the Mass is offered) to each of the
individuals. Only on such a hypothesis is the custom prevailing among the faithful of having several
Masses celebrated for the deceased or for their intentions intelligible. Only on such a hypothesis can
one explain the widely established "Mass Association", a pious union whose members voluntarily
bind themselves to read or get read at least one Mass annually for the poor souls in purgatory. As
early as the eighth century we find in Germany a socalled "Totenbund" (see Pertz, "Monum.
Germaniae hist.: Leg.", II, i, 221). But probably the greatest of such societies is the Messbund of
Ingolstadt, founded in 1724; it was raised to a confraternity (Confraternity of the Immaculate
Conception) on 3 Feb., 1874, and at present counts 680,000 members (cf. Beringer, "Die Ablasse,
ihr Wesen u. ihr Gebrauch", 13th ed., Paderborn, 1906, pp. 610 sqq.). Tournély (De Euch. q. viii, a.
6) has also sought in favour of this view important internal grounds of probability, for example by
adverting to the visible course of Divine Providence: all natural and supernatural effects in general
are seen to be slow and gradual, not sudden or desultory, wherefore it is also 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.
The manner of efficacy of the Mass
In theological phrase an effect "from the work of the action" (ex opere operato) signifies a grace
conditioned exclusively by the objective bringing into activity of a cause of the supernatural order,
in connection with which the proper disposition of the subject comes subsequently into account only
as an indispensable antecedentcondition ( conditio sine qua non), but not as a real joint cause
(concausa). Thus, for example, baptism by its mere ministration produces ex opere operato interior
grace in each recipient of the sacrament who in his heart opposes no obstacle (obez) to the reception
of the graces of baptism. On the other hand, all supernatural effects, which, presupposing the state
of grace are accomplished by the personal actions and exertions of the subject (e.g. everything
obtained by simple prayer), are called effects "from the work of the agent"; (ex opere operantis). we
are now confronted with the difficult question: In what manner does the Eucharistic Sacrifice
accomplish its effects and fruits? As the early scholastics gave scarcely any attention to this
problem, we are indebted for almost all the light thrown upon it to the later scholastics.
(i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories
of persons really participate.
At the head of all stands of course the High Priest, Christ Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the
Cross fruitful for us and to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice, which is quite
independent of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant or the faithful present at the
sacrifice, and is for these an opus operatum.
Next after Christ and in the second place comes the Church as a juridical person, who, according to
the express teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the hands of her
Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission to ordain constantly priests and
to have celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This intermediate stage between Christ and
the celebrant may be neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoral priest, as an
ecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own sacrifice — which indeed could only be impure —
but the immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can be soiled by no wickedness
of the celebrant. But to this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the sacrifice
together with Christ, must also correspond a special ecclesiasticohuman merit as a fruit, which,
although in itself an opus operantis of the Church, is yet entirely independent of the worthiness of
the celebrant and the faithful and therefore constitutes for these an opus operatum. When, however,
as De Lugo rightly points out, an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrates in defiance of the
prohibition of the Church, this ecclesiastical merit is always lost, since such a priest no longer acts
in the name and with the commission of the Church. His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by
virtue of his priestly ordination, he celebrates in the name of Christ, even though in opposition to
His wishes, and, as the selfsacrifice of Christ, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and
untarnished sacrifice before God. We are thus compelled to concur in another view of De Lugo,
namely that the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less
holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the World, and that for this
reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among
the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might
under certain circumstances easily be very small.
With Christ and His Church is associated in third place the celebrating priest, since he is the
representative through whom the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice. If, therefore, the
celebrant be a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional
fruit which will benefit not himself alone, but also those in whose favour he applies theMass. The
faithful are thus guided by sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their
intentions 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 opera operantis, from the
piety of the celebrant.
Finally, in the fourth place, must be mentioned those who participate actively in the Sacrifice of the
Mass, e.g., the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and the whole congregation joining in the
sacrifice. The priest, therefore, prays also in their name: Offerimus (i.e. we offer). That the effect
resulting from this (metaphorical) sacrificial activity is entirely dependent on the worthiness and
piety of those taking part therein and thus results exclusively ex opere operantis is evident without
further demonstration. The more fervent the prayer, the richer the fruit. Most intimate is the active
participation in the Sacrifice of those who receive Holy Communion during the Mass since in their
case the special fruits of the Communion are added to those of the Mass. Should sacramental
Communion be impossible, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. vi) advises the faithful to make at
least a "spiritual communion" (spirituali effectu communicare), which consists in the ardent desire
to receive the Eucharist. However, as we have already emphasized, the omission of real or spiritual
Communion on the part of the faithful present does not render the Sacrifice of the Mass either
invalid or unlawful, wherefore the Church even permits "private Masses", which may on reasonable
grounds be celebrated in a chapel with closed doors.
(ii) In addition to the active, there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These
are the persons in whose favour — it may be even without their knowledge and in opposition to their
wishes — the Holy Sacrifice is offered. They fall into three categories: the community, the
celebrant, and the person (or persons) for whom the Mass is specially applied. To each of these
three classes corresponds ex opere operato a special fruit of the Mass, whether the same be an
impetratory effect of the Sacrifice of Petition or a propitiatory and satisfactory effect of the
Sacrifice of Expiation. Although the development of the teaching concerning the threefold fruit of
the Mass begins only with Scotus (Quaest. quodlibet, xx), it is nevertheless based on the very
essence of the Sacrifice itself. Since, according to the wording of the Canon of the Mass, prayer and
sacrifice is offered for all those present, the whole Church, the pope, the diocesan bishop, the
faithful living and dead, and even "for the salvation of the whole world", there must first of all result
a "general fruit" (fructus generalis) for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately in the
will of Christ and His Church, and can thus be frustrated by no contrary intention of the celebrant.
In this fruit even the excommunicated, heretics, and infidels participate, mainly that their conversion
may thus be effected. The second kind of fruit (fructus personalis, specialissimus) falls to the
personal share of the celebrant, since it were unjust that he — apart from his worthiness and piety
(opus operantis) — should come emptyhanded from the sacrifice. Between these two fruits lies the
third, the socalled "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis, medius, or ministerialis), which is
usually applied to particular living or deceased persons according to the intention of the celebrant or
the donor of a stipend. This "application" rests so exclusively in the hands of the priest that even the
prohibition of the Church cannot render it inefficacious, although the celebrant would in such a case
sin through disobedience. For the existence of the special fruit of the Mass, rightly defended by Pius
VI against the Jansenistic Synod of Pistoia (1786), we have the testimony also of Christian antiquity,
which offered the Sacrifice for special persons and intentions. To secure in all cases the certain
effect of this fructus specialis, Francisco Suárez (De Euch., disp. lxxix, Sect. 10) gives priests the
wise advice that they should always add to the first a "second intention" (intentio secunda), which,
should the first be inefficacious, will take its place.
(iii) A last and an entirely separate problem is afforded by the special mode of efficacy of the
Sacrifice of Expiation. As an expiatory sacrifice, the Mass has the double function of obliterating
actual sins, especially mortal sins (effectus stricte propitiatorius), and also of taking away, in the
case of those already in the state of grace, such temporal punishments as may still remain to be
endured (effectus satisfactorius). The main question is: Is this double effect ex opere operato
produced mediately or immediately? As regards the actual forgiveness of sin, it must, in opposition
to earlier theologians (Aragon, Casalis, Gregory of Valentia), be maintained as undoubtedly a
certain principle, that the expiatory sacrifice of the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of
mortal sins otherwise than by way of contrition and penance, and therefore only mediately through
procuring the grace of conversion (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. ii: "donum paenitentiae
concedens"). With this limitation, however, the Mass is able to remit even the most grievous sins
(Council of Trent, 1. c., "Crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit"). Since, according to the present
economy of salvation, no sin whatsoever, grievous or trifling, can be forgiven without an act of
sorrow, we must confine the efficacy of the Mass, even in the case of venial sins, to obtaining for
Christians the grace of contrition for less serious sins (Sess. XXII, cap. i). It is indeed this purely
mediate activity which constitutes the essential distinction between the sacrifice and the sacrament.
Could the Mass remit sins immediately ex opere operato, like Baptism or Penance, it would be a
sacrament of the dead and cease to be a sacrifice (see S ACRAMENT ). Concerning the remission of the
temporal punishment due to sin, however, which appears to be effected in an immediate manner, 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, all forgiveness of sin by
God is impossible; this cannot however be said of a mere remission of punishment. One person may
validly discharge the debts or fines of another, even without apprising the debtor of his intention.
The same rule may be applied to a just person, who, after his justification, is still burdened with
temporal punishment consequent on his sins. It is certain that, only in this immediate way, can
assistance be given to the poor souls in purgatory through the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they are
henceforth powerless to perform personal works of satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, de
purgat.). From this consideration we derive by analogy the legitimate conclusion that the case
exactly the same as regards the living.
Practical questions concerning the Mass
From the exceedingly high valuation, which the Church places on the Mass as the unbloody
Sacrifice of the GodMan, issue, as it were spontaneously all those practical precepts of a positive
or a negative nature, which are given in the Rubrics of the Mass, in Canon Law, and in Moral
Theology. They may be conveniently divided into two categories, according as they are intended to
secure in the highest degree possible the objective dignity of the Sacrifice or the subjective
worthiness of the celebrant.
1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice
(a) One of the most important requisites for the worthy celebration of the Mass is that the place in
which the allholy Mystery is to be celebrated should be a suitable one. Since, in the days of the
Apostolic Church, there were no churches or chapels, private houses with suitable accommodation
were appointed for the solemnization of "the breaking of bread" (cf. Acts 2:46; 20:7 sq.; Colossians
4:15; Philemon 2). During the era of the persecutions the Eucharistic services in Rome were
transferred to the catacombs, where the Christians believed themselves secure from government
agents. The first "houses of God" reach back certainly to the end of the second century, as we learn
from Tertullian (Adv. Valent., iii) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1
). In the second half of
the fourth century (A.D. 370), Optatus of Mileve (De Schism. Donat. II, iv) could already reckon
more than forty basilicas which adorned the city of Rome. From this period dates the prohibition of
the Synod of Laodicea (can. lviii) to celebrate Mass in private houses. Thenceforth the public
churches were to be the sole places of worship. In the Middle Ages the synods granted to bishops
the right of allowing housechapels within their dioceses. According to the law of today (Council of
Trent, Sess. XXII, de reform.), the Mass may be celebrated only in Chapels and public (or semi
public) oratories, which must be consecrated or at least blessed. At present, private chapels may be
erected only in virtue of a special papal indult (S.C.C., 23 Jan., 1847, 6 Sept., 1870). In the latter
case, the real place of sacrifice is the consecrated altar (or altarstone), which must be placed in a
suitable room (cf. Missale Romanum, Rubr. gen., tit. xx). In times of great need (e.g. war,
persecution of Catholics), the priest may celebrate outside the church, but naturally only in a
becoming place, provided with the most necessary utensils. On reasonable grounds the bishop may,
in virtue of the socalled "quinquennial faculties", allow the celebration of Mass in the open air, but
the celebration of Mass at sea is allowed only by papal indult. In such an indult it is usually provided
that the sea be calm during the celebration, and that a second priest (or deacon) be at hand to
prevent the spilling of the chalice in case of the rocking of the ship.
(b) For the worthy celebration of Mass the circumstance of time is also of great importance. In the
Apostolic age the first Christians assembled regularly on Sundays for "the breaking of bread" (Acts
20:7: "on the first day of the week"), which day the "Didache" (c. xiv), and later Justin Martyr (I
Apol., lxvi), already name "the Lord's day".
Justin himself seems to be aware only of the Sunday celebration, but Tertullian adds the fastdays on
Wednesday and Friday and the anniversaries of the martyrs ("De cor. mil.", iii; "De orat.", xix). As
Tertullian calls the whole paschal season (until Pentecost) "one long feast", we may conclude with
some justice that during this period the faithful not only communicated daily, but were also present
at the Eucharistic Liturgy. As regards the time of the day, there existed in the Apostolic age no fixed
precepts regarding the hour at which the Eucharistic celebration should take place. The Apostle Paul
appears to have on occasion "broken bread" about midnight (Acts 20:7). But Pliny the Younger,
Governor of Bithynia (died A.D. 114), already states in his official report to Emperor Trajan that the
Christians assembled in the early hours of the morning and bound themselves by a sacramentum
(oath), by which we can understand today only the celebration of the mysteries. Tertullian gives as
the hour of the assembly the time before dawn (De cor. mil., iii: antelucanis aetibus). When the fact
was adverted to that the Saviour's Resurrection occurred in the morning before sunrise, a change of
the hour set in, the celebration of Mass being postponed until this time. Thus Cyprian writes of the
Sunday celebration (Ep., lxiii): "we celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord in the morning." Since
the fifth century the "third hour" (i.e. 9 a.m.) was regarded as "canonical" for the Solemn Mass on
Sundays and festivals. When the Little Hours (Prime, Terce, Sext, None) began in the Middle Ages
to lose their significance as "canonical hours", the precepts governing the hour for the conventual
Mass received a new meaning. Thus, for example, the precepts that the conventual Mass should be
held after None on fast days does not signify that it be held between midday and evening, but only
that "the recitation of None in choir is followed by the Mass". It is in general left to the discretion of
the priest to celebrate at any hour between dawn and midday (ab aurora usque ad meridiem). It is
proper that he should read beforehand Matins and Lauds from his breviary.
The sublimity of the Sacrifice of the Mass demands that the priest should approach the altar
wearing the sacred vestments (amice, stole, cincture, maniple, and chasuble). Whether the priestly
vestments are historical developments from Judaism or paganism, is a question still discussed by
archaeologists. In any case the "Canones Hippolyti" require that at Pontifical Mass the deacons and
priests appear in "white vestments", and that the lectors also wear festive garments. No priest may
celebrate Mass without light (usually two candles), except in case of urgent necessity (e.g. to
consecrate a Host as the Viaticum for a person seriously ill). The altarcross is also necessary as an
indication that the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than the unbloody reproduction of the
Sacrifice of the Cross. Usually, also, the priest must be attended at the altar by a server of the male
sex. The celebration of Mass without a server is allowed only in case of need (e.g. to procure the
Viaticum for a sick person, or to enable the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass). A
person of the female sex may not serve at the altar itself, e.g. transfer the missal, present the cruets,
etc. (S.R.C., 27 August, 1836). Women (especially nuns) may, however, answer the celebrant from
their places, if no male server be at hand. During the celebration of Mass a simple priest may not
wear any headcovering — whether biretta, pileolus, or full wig (comae fictitiae) — but the bishop
may allow him to wear a plain perruque as a protection for his hairless scalp.
(c) To preserve untarnished the honour of the most venerable sacrifice, the Church has surrounded
with a strong rampart of special defensive regulations the institution of "massstipends"; her
intention is on the one hand to keep remote from the altar all base avarice, and on the other, to
ensure and safeguard the right of the faithful to the conscientious celebration of the Masses
bespoken.
By a massstipend is meant a certain monetary offering which anyone makes to the priest with the
accompanying obligation of celebrating a Mass in accordance with the intentions of the donor (ad
intentionem dantis). The obligation incurred consists, concretely speaking, in the application of the
"special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis), the nature of which we have already described in
detail (A, 3). The idea of the stipend emanates from the earliest ages, and its justification lies
incontestably in the axiom of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:13): "They that serve the altar, partake with
the altar". Originally consisting of the necessaries of life, the stipend was at first considered as
"alms for a Mass" (eleemosyna missarum), the object being to contribute to the proper support of
the clergy. The character of a pure alms has been since lost by the stipend, since such may be
accepted by even a wealthy priest. But the Pauline principle applies to the wealthy priest just as it
does to the poor. The now customary moneyoffering, which was introduced about the eighth
century and was tacitly approved by the Church, is to be regarded merely as the substitute or
commutation of the earlier presentation of the necessaries of life. In this very point, also, a change
from the ancient practice has been introduced, since at present the individual priest receives the
stipend personally, whereas formerly all the clergy of the particular church shared among them the
total oblations and gifts. In their present form, the whole matter of stipends has been officially taken
by the Church entirely under her protection, both by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, de ref.) and
by the dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) of Pius VI (Denzinger, n. 1554). Since the stipend, in
its origin and nature, claims to be and can be nothing else than a lawful contribution towards the
proper support of the clergy, the false and foolish views of the ignorant are shown to be without
foundation when they suppose that a Mass may be simoniacally purchased with money (Cf. Summa
Theologica IIII:100:2). To obviate all abuses concerning of the amount of the stipend, there exists
in each diocese a fixed "masstax" (settled either by ancient custom or by an episcopal regulation),
which no priest may exceed, unless extraordinary inconvenience (e.g. long fasting or a long journey
on foot) justifies a somewhat larger sum. To eradicate all unworthy greed from among both laity and
clergy in connection with a thing so sacred, Pius IX in his Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of 12
Oct., 1869, forbade under penalty of excommunication the commercial traffic in stipends
(mercimonium missae stipendiorum). The trafficking consists in reducing the larger stipend
collected to the level of the "tax", and appropriating the surplus for oneself. Into the category of
shameful traffic in stipends also falls the reprehensible practice of booksellers and tradesmen, who
organize public collections of stipends and retain the money contributions as payment for books,
merchandise, wines, etc., to be delivered to the clergy (S.C.C., 31 Aug., 1874, 25 May, 1893). As
special punishment for this offence, suspensio a divinis reserved to the pope is proclaimed against
priests, irregularity against other clerics, and excommunication reserved to the bishop, against the
laity.
Another bulwark against avarice is the strict regulation of the Church, binding under pain of mortal
sin, that priests shall not accept more intentions than they can satisfy within a reasonable period
(S.C.C, 1904). This regulation was emphasized by the additional one which forbadestipends to be
transferred to priests of another diocese without the knowledge of their ordinaries (S.C.C., 22 May,
1907). The acceptance of a stipend imposes under pain of mortal sin the obligation not only of
reading the stipulated Mass, but also of fulfilling conscientiously all other appointed conditions of
an important character (e.g. the appointed day, altar, etc.). Should some obstacle arise, the money
must either be returned to the donor or a substitute procured. In the latter case, the substitute must
be given, not the usualstipend, but the whole offering received (cf. Prop. ix damn. 1666 ab Alex.
VIII in Denzinger, n. 1109), unless it be indisputably clear front the circumstances that the excess
over the usual stipend was meant by the donor for the first priest alone. There is tacit condition
which requires the reading of the stipulated Mass as soon as possible. According to the common
opinion of moral theologians, a postponement of two months is in less urgent cases admissible, even
though no lawful impediment can be brought forward. Should, however, a priest postpone a Mass
for a happy delivery until after the event, he is bound to return the stipends. However, since all these
precepts have been imposed solely in the interests of the stipendgiver, it is evident that he enjoys
the right of sanctioning all unusual delays.
(d) To the kindred question of "massfoundations" the Church has, in the interests of the founder and
in her high regard for the Holy Sacrifice, devoted the same anxious care as in the case of stipends.
Massfoundations (fundationes missarum) are fixed bequests of funds or real property, the interest
or income from which is to procure for ever the celebration of Mass for the founder or according to
his intentions. Apart from anniversaries, foundations of Masses are divided, according to the
testamentary arrangement of the testator, into monthly, weekly, and daily foundations. As
ecclesiastical property, massfoundations are subject to the administration of the ecclesiastical
authorities, especially of the diocesan bishop, who must grant hls permission for the acceptance of
such and must appoint for them the lowest rate. Only when episcopal approval has been secured can
the foundation be regarded as completed; thenceforth it is unalterable for ever. In places where the
acquirement of ecclesiastical property is subject to the approval of the State (e.g. in Austria), the
establishment of a massfoundation must also be submitted to the secular authorities. The declared
wishes of the founder are sacred and decisive as to the manner of fulfillment. Should no special
intention be mentioned in the deed of foundation, the Mass must be applied for the founder himself
(S.C.C., 18 March, 1668). To secure punctuality in the execution of the foundation, Innocent XII
ordered in 1697 that a list of the massfoundations, arranged according to the months, be kept in
each church possessing such endowments. The administrators of pious foundations are bound under
pain of mortal sin to forward to the bishop at the end of each year a list of all founded Masses left
uncelebrated together with the money therefor (S.C.C., 25 May, 18).
The celebrant of a founded Mass is entitled to the full amount of the foundation, unless it is evident
from the circumstances of the foundation or from the wording of the deed that an exception is
justifiable. Such is the case when the foundation serves also as the endowment of a benefice, and
consequently in such a case the beneficiary is bound to pay his substitute only the regular tax
(S.C.C., 25 July, 1874). Without urgent reason, founded Masses may not be celebrated in churches
(or on altars) other than those stipulated by the foundation. Permanent transference of such Masses
is reserved to the pope, but in isolated instances the dispensation of the bishop suffices (cf. Council
of Trent, Sess. XXI de ref.; Sess. XXV de ref.). The unavoidable loss of the income of a foundation
puts an end to all obligations connected with it. A serious diminution of the foundation capital,
owing to the depreciation of money or property in value, also the necessary increase of the mass
tax, scarcity of priests, poverty of a church or of the clergy may constitute just grounds for the
reduction of the number of Masses, since it may be reasonably presumed that the deceased founder
would not under such difficult circumstance insist upon the obligation. On 21 June, 1625, the right
of reduction, which the Council of Trent had conferred on bishops, abbots, and the generals of
religious orders, was again reserved by Urban VIII to the Holy See.
2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant
Although, as declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), the venerable, pure, and sublime
Sacrifice of the Godman "cannot be stained by any unworthiness or impiety of the celebrant", still
ecclesiastical legislation has long regarded it as a matter of special concern that priests should fit
themselves for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by the cultivation of integrity, purity of heart,
and other qualities of a personal nature.
(a) In the first place it may be asked: Who may celebrate Mass? Since for the validity of the
sacrifice the office of a special priesthood is essential, it is clear, to begin with, that only bishops
and priests (not deacons) are qualified to offer up the Holy Sacrifice (see E UCHARIST ). The fact that
even at the beginning of the second century the regular officiator at the Eucharistic celebration
seems to have been the bishop will be more readily understood when we remember that at this early
period there was no strict distinction between the offices of bishop and priest. Like the "Didache"
(xv), Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., xlxlii) speaks only of the bishop and his deacon in connection
with the sacrifice. Ignatius of Antioch, indeed, who bears irrefutable testimony to the existence of
the three divisions of the hierarchy — bishop (episkopos), priests (presbyteroi) and deacons
(diakonoi) — confines to the bishop the privilege of celebrating thanksgiving Divine Service when
he says: "It is unlawful to baptize or to hold the agape without the bishop." The "Canones
Hippolyti", composed probably about the end of the second century, first contain the regulation
(can. xxxii): "If, in the absence of the bishop, a priest be at hand, all shall devolve upon him, and he
shall be honoured as the bishop is honoured. "Subsequent tradition recognizes no other celebrant of
the Mystery of the Eucharist than the bishops and priests, who are validly ordained "according to
the keys of the Church," (secundum claves Ecclesiae). (Cf. Lateran IV, cap. "Firmiter" in Denzinger,
n. 430.)
But the Church demands still more by insisting also on the personal moral worthiness of the
celebrant. This connotes not alone freedom from all ecclesiastical censures (excommunication,
suspension, interdict), but also a becoming preparation of the soul and body of the priest before he
approaches the altar. To celebrate in the state of mortal sin has always been regarded by the Church
as an infamous sacrifice (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27 sqq.). For the worthy (not for the valid) celebration
of the Mass it is, therefore, especially required that the celebrant be in the state of grace. To place
him in this condition, the awakening of perfect sorrow is no longer sufficient since the Council of
Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. vii in Denzinger, n. 880), for there is a strict eccleciastical precept that the
reaction of the Sacrament of Penance must precede the celebration of Mass. This rule applies to all
priests, even when they are bound by their office (ex officio) to read Mass, e.g. on Sundays for their
parishioners. Only in instances when no confessor can be procured, may they content themselves
with reciting an act of perfect sorrow (contritio), and they then incur the obligation of going to
confession "as early as possible" (quam primum), which in canon law, signifies within three days at
furthest. In addition to the pious preparation for the Mass (accessus), there is prescribed a
correspondingly long thanksgiving after Mass (recessus), whose length is fixed by moral
theologians between fifteen minutes and half an hour, although in this connection the particular
official engagements of the priest must be considered. As regards the length of the Mass itself, the
duration is naturally variable, according as a Solemn High Mass is sung or a Low Mass celebrated.
To perform worthily all the ceremonies and pronounce clearly all the prayers in Low Mass requires
on an average about half an hour. Moral theologians justly declare that the scandalous haste
necessary to finish Mass in less than a quarter of an hour is impossible without grievous sin.
With regard to the more immediate preparation of the body, custom has declared from time
immemorial, and positive canon law since the Council of Constance (1415), that the faithful, when
receiving the Sacrament of Altar, and priests, when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, must be fasting
(jejunium naturale) which means that they must have partaken of no food or drink whatsoever from
midnight. Midnight begins with the first stroke of the hour. In calculating the hour, the socalled
"mean time" (or local time) must be used: according to a recent decision (S.C.C., 12 July, 1893),
CentralEuropean time may be also employed, and, in North America, "zone time". The movement
recently begun among the German clergy, favouring a mitigation of the strict regulation for weak or
overworked priests with the obligation of duplicating, has serious objections, since a general
relaxation of the ancient strictness might easily result in lessening respect for the Blessed Sacrament
and in a harmful reaction among thoughtless members of the laity. The granting of mitigations in
general or in exceptional cases belongs to the Holy See alone. To keep away from the altar irreverent
adventurers and unworthy priests, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) issued the decree,
made much more stringent in later times, that an unknown priest without the Celebret may not be
allowed to say Mass in any church.
(b) A second question may be asked: "Who must say Mass?" In the first place, if this question be
considered identical with the enquiry as to whether a general obligation of Divine Law binds every
priest by reason of his ordination, the old Scholastics are divided in opinion. St. Thomas, Durandus,
Paludanus, and Anthony of Bologna certainly maintained the existence of such an obligation; on the
other hand, Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Gabriel Biel, and Cardinal
Cajetan declared for the opposite view. Canon law teaches nothing on the subject. In the absence of
a decision, Francisco Suárez (De Euchar., disp. lxxx, sect. 1, n. 4) believes that one who conforms to
the negative view, may be declared free from grievous sin. Of the ancient hermits we know that they
did not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in the desert, and St. Ignatius Loyola, guided by high motives,
abstained for a whole year from celebrating. Cardinal De Lugo (De Euchar., disp. xx, sect. 1, n. 13)
takes a middle course, by adopting theoretically the milder opinion, while declaring that, in practice,
omission through lukewarmness and neglect may, on account of the scandal caused, easily amount
to mortal sin. This consideration explains the teaching of the moral theologians that every priest is
bound under pain of mortal sin to celebrate at least a few times each year (e.g. at Easter, Pentecost,
Christmas, the Epiphany). The obligation of hearing Mass on all Sundays and holy days of
obligation is of course not abrogated for such priests. The spirit of the Church demands — and it is
today the practically universal custom — that a priest should celebrate daily, unless he prefers to
omit his Mass occasionally through motives of reverence.
Until far into the Middle Ages it was left to the discretion of the priest, to his personal devotion and
his zeal for souls, whether he should read more than one Mass on the same day. But since the
twelfth century canon law declares that he must in general content himself with one daily Mass, and
the synods of the thirteenth century allow, even in case of necessity, at most a duplication (see
B INATION ). In the course of time this privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice twice on the same day
was more and more curtailed. According to the existing law, duplication is allowed, under special
conditions, only on Sundays and holy days, and then only in the interests of the faithful, that they
may be enabled to fulfil their obligation of hearing Mass. For the feast of Christmas alone have
priests universally been allowed to retain the privilege of three Masses, in Spain and Portugal this
privilege was extended to All Souls' Day (2 Nov.) by special Indult of Benedict XIV (1746). Such
customs are unknown in the East.
This general obligation of a priest to celebrate Mass must not be confounded with the special
obligation which results from the acceptance of a Massstipend (obligatio ex stipendio) or from the
cure of souls (obligatio ex cura animarum). Concerning the former sufficient has been already said.
As regards the claims of the cure of souls, the obligation of Divine Law that parish priests and
administrators of a parish should from time to time celebrate Mass for their parishioners, arises
from the relations of pastor and flock. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) has specified this
duty of application more closely, by directing that the parish priest should especially apply the
Mass, for which no stipend may be taken, for his flock on all Sundays and holy days (cf. Benedict
XIV, "Cum semper oblatas", 19 Aug., 1744). The obligation to apply the Mass pro populo extends
also to the holy days abrogated by the Bull of Urban VIII, "Universa per orbem", of 13 Sept., 1642;
for even today these remain "canonically fixed feast days", although the faithful are dispensed from
the obligation of hearing Mass and may engage in servile works. The same obligation of applying
the Mass falls likewise on bishops, as pastors of their dioceses, and on those abbots who exercize
over clergy and people a quasiepiscopal jurisdiction. Titular bishops alone are excepted, although
even in their case the application is to be desired (cf. Leo XIII, "In supremacy", 10 June, 1882). As
the obligation itself is not only personal, but also real, the application must, in case of an
impediment arising either be made soon afterwards, or be effected through a substitute, who has a
right to a mass stipend as regulated by the tax. Concerning this whole question, see Heuser, "Die
Verpflichtung der Pfarrer, die hl. Messe fur die Gemeinde zu applicieren" (Düsseldorf 1850).
(c) For the sake of completeness a third and last question must te touched on in this section: For
whom may Mass be celebrated? In general the answer may be given: For all those and for those
only, who are fitted to participate in the fruits of theMass as an impetratory, propitiatory, and
satisfactory sacrifice. From this as immediately derived the rule that Mass may not be said for the
damned in Hell or the blessed in Heaven, since they are incapable of receiving the fruits of the
Mass; for the same reason children who die unbaptized are excluded from the benefits of the Mass.
Thus, there remain as the possible participants only the living on earth and the poor souls in
purgatory (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. iii; Sess. XXV, decret. de purgat.). Partly out of her great
veneration of the Sacrifice, however, and partly to avoid scandal, the Church has surrounded with
certain conditions, which priests are bound in obedience to observe, the application of Mass for
certain classes of the living and dead. The first class are nontolerated excommunicated persons,
who are to be avoided by the faithful (excommunicati vitandi). Although, according to various
authors, the priest is not forbidden to offer up Mass for such unhappy persons in private and with a
merely mental intention, still to announce publicly such a Mass or to insert the name of the
excommunicated person in the prayers, even though he may be in the state of grace owing to perfect
sorrow or may have died truly repentant, would be a "communicatio in divinis", and is strictly
forbidden under penalty of excommunication (cf. C. 28, de sent. excomm., V, t. 39). It is likewise
forbidden to offer the Mass publicly and solemnly for deceased nonCatholics, even though they
were princes (Innoc. III C. 12, X 1. 3, tit. 28). On the other hand it is allowed, in consideration of the
welfare of the state, to celebrate for a nonCatholic living ruler even a publicSolemn Mass. For
living heretics and schismatics also for the Jews, Turks, and heathens, Mass may be privately
applied (and even a stipend taken) with the object of procuring for them the grace of conversion to
the true Faith. For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed
only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith
(bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is
permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are
in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and
heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in
purgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906).
Pohle, J. (1911). Sacrifice of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton
Company.
The real presence as a fact
According to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the
sources of faith, viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium
of the Church.
Proof from Scripture
This may be adduced both from the words of promise (John 6:26 sqq.) and, especially, from the
words of Institution as recorded in the Synoptics and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23 sqq.).
The words of promise (John 6)
By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day,
Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the
Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty Godman, a power superior to
and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none
other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John
6:2672), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in
opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:2648 (51)] metaphorically and
understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a
figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second
part of the discourse (John 6:5272), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even
Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the
whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address,
the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and
the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the
three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing
man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although
the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory
food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven,
which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of
the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind
of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing
from the lastnamed food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really
eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression
"to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the
phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls
attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist,
the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype
would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as
the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the
paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an
analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you
shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I
will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John
6:5456). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some
one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the
words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies
eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed
against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other
figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the
present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh".
Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person,
hence literally.
This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ
regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence
that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating
this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in
John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is
hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather
reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension
into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.).
Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?
Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the
words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of
God" (John 6:68 sqq.). The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the
Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth", etc., in the
sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the
Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a
mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be
understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life". There are two views regarding
the sense in which this text is to be interpreted. Many of the Fathers declare that the true Flesh of
Jesus (sarx) is not to be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus), and hence not in a
cannibalistic sense, but as belonging entirely to the supernatural economy. The second and more
scientific explanation asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of "flesh and blood" to "spirit", the
former always signifies carnalmindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so that it
was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of
the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be
understood by the carnalminded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin. Under such
circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the Fathers and several Ecumenical councils (Ephesus,
431; Nicæa, 787) adopted the literal sense of the words, though it was not dogmatically defined (cf.
Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, c. i). If it be true that a few Catholic theologians (as Cajetan, Ruardus
Tapper, Johann Hessel, and the elder Jansenius) preferred the figurative interpretation, it was merely
for controversial reasons, because in their perplexity they imagined that otherwise the claims of the
Hussite and Protestant Utraquists for the partaking of the Chalice by the laity could not be answered
by argument from Scripture. (Cf. Patrizi, "De Christo pane vitæ", Rome, 1851; Schmitt, "Die
Verheissung der Eucharistie bei den Vütern", 2 vols., Würzburg, 190003.)
The words of Institution
The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my
blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. TheReal
Presence is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and
negatively, by refuting the figurative interpretations. As regards the first, the very existence of four
distinct narratives of the Last Supper, divided usually into the Petrine (Matthew 26:26 sqq.; Mark
14:22 sqq.) and the double Pauline accounts (Luke 22:19 sq.; 1 Corinthians 11:24 sq.), favors the
literal interpretation. In spite of their striking unanimity as regards essentials, the Petrine account is
simpler and clearer, whereas Pauline is richer in additional details and more involved in its citation
of the words that refer to the Chalice. It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four
different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words ofInstitution to
different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread
is a sign of Christ's Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word
setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of
some such mark as: "He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body." But nowhere do we discover the
slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then,natural, literal interpretation were false, the
Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of
the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in
harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text.
Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has
interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27 sq.), who, in the most
vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord".
There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the
true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Further, if we attend only
to the words themselves their natural sense is so forceful and clear that Luther wrote to the
Christians of Strasburg in 1524: "I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible" (De Wette, II,
577). The necessity of the natural sense is not based upon the absurd assumption that Christ could
not in general have resorted to use of figures, but upon the evident requirement of the case, which
demand that He did not, in a matter of such paramount importance, have recourse to meaningless
and deceptive metaphors. For figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative
meaning is obvious, either from thenature of the case (e.g. from a reference to a statue of Lincoln,
by saying: "This is Lincoln") or from the usages of common parlance (e.g. in the case of this
synecdoche: "This glass is wine"), Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance
is bread an apt or possible symbol of the human body. Were one to say of a piece of bread: "This is
Napoleon", he would not be using a figure, but uttering nonsense. There is but one means of
rendering asymbol improperly so called clear and intelligible, namely, by, conventionally settling
beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: "Let us imagine these two pieces
of bread before us to be Socrates and Plato". Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that
he intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the
promise: "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for thelife of the world" ( John 6:52), Such
language, of course, could be used only by a Godman; so that belief in the Real Presence
necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ, The foregoing rules would of
themselves establish the natural meaning with certainty, even if the words of Institution, "This is my
body — this is my blood", stood alone, But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood)
are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and
the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body
that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was
shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the abovementioned appositional phrases directly exclude
every possibility of a figurative interpretation.
We reach the same conclusion from a consideration of the concomitant circumstances, taking into
account both the hearers and the Institutor. Those who heard the words ofInstitution were not
learned Rationalists, possessed of the critical equipment that would enable them, as philologists and
logicians, to analyze an obscure and mysterious phraseology; they were simple, uneducated
fishermen, from the ordinary ranks of the people, who with childlike naïveté hung upon the words
of their Master and with deep faith accepted whatever He proposed to them, This childlike
disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ, particularly on the eve of His Passion and Death,
when He made His last will and testament and spoke as a dying father to His deeply afflicted
children. In such a moment of awful solemnity, the only appropriate mode of speech would be one
which, stripped of unintelligible figures, made use of words corresponding exactly to the meaning to
be conveyed. It must be remembered, also, thatChrist as omniscient Godman, must have foreseen
the shameful error into which He would have led His Apostles and His Church by adopting an
unheardof metaphor; for the Church down to the present day appeals to the words of Christ in her
teaching and practice. If then she practices idolatry by the adoration of mere bread and wine, this
crime must be laid to the charge of the Godman Himself. Besides this, Christ intended to institute
the Eucharist as a most holy sacrament, to be solemnly celebrated in the Church even to the end of
time. But the content and the constituent parts of a sacrament had to be stated with such clearness of
terminology as to exclude categorically every error in liturgy and worship. As may be gathered from
the words of consecration of the Chalice, Christ established the New Testament in His Blood, just as
the Old Testament had been established in the typical blood of animals (cf. Exodus 24:8; Hebrews
9:11 sqq.). With the true instinct of justice, jurists prescribe that in all debatable points the words of
a will must be taken in their natural, literal sense; for they are led by the correct conviction, that
every testator of sound mind, in drawing up his last will and testament, is deeply concerned to have
it done in language at once clear and unencumbered by meaningless metaphors. Now, Christ,
according to the literal purport of His testament, has left us as a precious legacy, not mere bread and
wine, but His Body and Blood. Are we justified, then, in contradicting Him to His face and
exclaiming: "No, this is not your Body, but mere bread, the sign of your Body!"
The refutation of the socalled Sacramentarians, a name given by Luther to those who opposed the
Real Presence, evinces as clearly the impossibility of a figurative meaning. Once the manifest literal
sense is abandoned, occasion is given to interminable controversies about the meaning of an enigma
whichChrist supposedly offered His followers for solution. There were no limits to the dispute in the
sixteenth century, for at that time Christopher Rasperger wrote a whole book on some 200 different
interpretations: "Ducentæ verborum, 'Hoc est corpus meum' interpretationes" (Ingolstadt, 1577). In
this connection we must restrict ourselves to an examination of the most current and widely known
distortions of the literal sense, which were the butt of Luther's bitter ridicule even as early as 1527.
The first group of interpreters, with Zwingli, discovers a figure in the copula est and renders it:
"This signifies (est = significat) my Body". In proof of this interpretation, examples are quoted from
scripture, as: "The seven kine are seven years" (Genesis 41:26) or: "Sara and Agar are the two
covenants" (Galatians 4:24), Waiving the question whether the verb "to be" (esse, einai) of itself can
ever be used as the "copula in a figurative relation" (Weiss) or express the "relation of identity in a
metaphorical connection" (Heinrici), which most logicians deny, the fundamental principles of logic
firmly establish this truth, that all propositions may be divided into two great categories, of which
the first and most comprehensive denominates a thing as it is in itself (e.g. "Man is a rational
being"), whereas the second designates a thing according as it is used as a sign of something else
(e.g, "This picture is my father"). To determine whether a speakerintends the second manner of
expression, there are four criteria, whose joint concurrence alone will allow the verb "to be" to have
the meaning of "signify". Abstracting from the three criteria, mentioned above, which have
reference either to the nature of the case, or to the usages of common parlance, or to some
convention previously agreed upon, there remains a fourth and last of decisive significance, namely:
when a complete substance is predicated of another complete substance, there can exist no logical
relation of identity between them, but only the relation of similarity, inasmuch as the first is an
image, sign, symbol, of the other. Now this lastnamed criterion is inapplicable to the Scriptural
examples brought forward by the Zwinglians, and especially so in regard to their interpretation of
the words of Institution; for the words are not: "This bread is my Body", but indefinitely: "This is
my Body". In the history of the Zwinglian conception of the Lord's Supper, certain "sacramental
expressions" (locutiones sacramentales) of the Sacred Text, regarded as parallelisms of the words of
Institution, have attracted considerable attention. The first is to be found in 1 Corinthians 10:4: "And
the rock was [signified] Christ", Yet it is evident that, if the subject rock is taken in its material
sense, the metaphor, according to the fourth criterion just mentioned, is as apparent as in the
analogous phrase "Christ is the vine". If, however, the word rock in this passage is stripped of all
that is material, it may be understood in a spiritual sense, because the Apostle himself is speaking of
that "spiritual rock" (petra spiritalis), which in the Person of the Word in an invisible manner ever
accompanied the Israelites in their journeyings and supplied them with a spiritual fountain of
waters. According to this explanation the copula would here retain its meaning "to be". A nearer
approach to a parallel with the words ofInstitution is found apparently in the socalled "sacramental
expressions": "Hoc est pactum meum" ( Genesis 17:10), and "est enim Phase Domini" (Exodus
12:11). It is well known how Zwingli by a clever manipulation of the latter phrase succeeded in one
day in winning over to his interpretation the entire Catholic population of Zurich. And yet it is clear
that no parallelism can be discerned between the aforesaid expressions and the words of Institution;
no real parallelism, because there is question of entirely different matters. Not even a verbal
parallelism can be pointed out, since in both texts of the Old Testament the subject is a ceremony
(circumcision in the first case, and the rite of the paschal lamb in the second), while the predicate
involves a mere abstraction (covenant, Passover of the Lord). A more weighty consideration is this,
that on closer investigation the copula est will be found to retain its proper meaning of "is" rather
than "signifies". For just as the circumcision not only signified the nature or object of the Divine
covenant, but really was such, so the rite of the Paschal lamb was really the Passover (Phase) or
Pasch, instead of its mere representation. It is true that in certain Anglican circles it was formerly
the custom to appeal to the supposed poverty of the Aramaic tongue, which was spoken by Christ in
the company of His Apostles; for it was maintained that no word could be found in this language
corresponding to the concept "to signify". Yet, even prescinding from the fact that in the Aramaic
tongue the copula est is usually omitted and that such an omission rather makes for its strict
meaning of "to be", Cardinal Wiseman (Horæ Syriacæ, Rome, 1828, pp. 373) succeeded in
producing no less than forty Syriac expressions conveying the meaning of "to signify" and thus
effectually exploded the myth of the Semitic tongue's limited vocabulary.
A second group of Sacramentarians, with Œcolampadius, shifted the diligently soughtfor metaphor
to the concept contained in the predicate corpus, giving to the latter the sense of "signum corporis",
so that the words of Institution were to be rendered: "This is a sign [symbol, image, type] of my
Body". Essentially tallying with the Zwinglian interpretation, this new meaning is equally
untenable. In all the languages of the world the expression "my body" designates a person's natural
body, not the mere sign or symbol of that body. True it is that the Scriptural words "Body of Christ"
not infrequently have the meaning of "Church", which is called the mystical Body of Christ, a figure
easily and always discernible as such from the text or context (cf. Colossians 1:24). This mystical
sense, however, is impossible in the words of Institution, for the simple reason that Christ did not
give the Apostles His Church to eat, but His Body, and that "body and blood", by reason of their real
and logical association, cannot be separated from one another, and hence are all the less susceptible
of a figurative use. The case would be different if the reading were: "This is the bread of my Body,
the wine of my Blood". In order toprove at least this much, that the contents of the Chalice are
merely wine and, consequently, a mere sign of the Blood, Protestants have recourse to the text of St.
Matthew, who relates that Christ, after the completion of the Last Supper, declared: "I will not drink
from henceforth of this fruit of the vine [genimen vitis]" (Matthew 26:29). It is to be noted that St.
Luke (22:18 sqq.), who is chronologically more exact, places these words of Christ before his
account of the Institution, and that the true Blood of Christ may with right still be called
(consecrated) wine, on the one hand, because the Blood was partaken of after the manner in which
wine is drunk and, on the other, because the Blood continues to exist under the outward appearances
of the wine. In its multifarious wanderings from the old beaten path being consistently forced with
the denial of Christ's Divinity to abandon faith in the Real Presence, also, modern criticism seeks to
account for the text along other lines. With utter arbitrariness, doubting whether the words of
Institution originated from the mouth of Christ, it traces them to St. Paul as their author, in whose
ardent soul something original supposedly mingled with his subjective reflections on the value
attached to "Body" and on the "repetition of the Eucharistic banquet". From this troubled fountain
head the words of Institution first found their way into the Gospel of St. Luke and then, by way of
addition, were woven into the texts of St. Matthew and St. Mark. It stands to reason that the latter
assertion is nothing more than a wholly unwarrantable conjecture, which may be passed over as
gratuitously as it was advanced. It is, moreover,essentially untrue that the value attached to the
Sacrifice and the repetition of the Lord's Supper are mere reflections of St. Paul, since Christ
attached a sacrificial value to His Death (cf. Mark 10:45) and celebrated His Eucharistic Supper in
connection with the Jewish Passover, which itself had to be repeated every year. As regards the
interpretation of the words of Institution, there are at present three modern explanations contending
for supremacy — the symbolical, the parabolical, and the eschatological. According to the
symbolical interpretation, corpus is supposed to designate the Church as the mystical Body and
sanguis the New Testament. We have already rejected this last meaning as impossible. For is it the
Church that is eaten and the New Testament that is drunk? Did St. Paul brand the partaking of the
Church and of the New Testament as a heinous offense committed against the Body and Blood of
Christ? The case is not much better in regard to the parabolical interpretation, which would discern
in the pouring out of the wine a mere parable of the shedding of the Blood on the Cross. This again
is a purely arbitrary explanation, an invention, unsupported by any objective foundation. Then, too,
it would follow from analogy, that the breaking of the bread was a parable of the slaying of Christ's
Body, a meaning utterly inconceivable. Rising as it were out of a dense fog and laboring to take on a
definite form, the incomplete eschatological explanation would make the Eucharist a mere
anticipation of the future heavenly banquet. Supposing the truth of the Real Presence, this
consideration might be open to discussion, inasmuch as the partaking of the Bread of Angels is
really the foretaste of eternal beatitude and the anticipated transformation of earth into heaven. But
as implying mere symbolical anticipation of heaven and a meaningless manipulation of
unconsecrated bread and wine the eschatological interpretation is diametrically opposed to the text
and finds not the slightest support in the life and character of Christ.
Proof from Tradition
As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance,
namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the
time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the
uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of the dogma's history there arose in general
three great Eucharistic controversies, the first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth
century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the
philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He
had in Palestine and now has in heaven. Such a numerical identity could well have been denied by
Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, Ratherius, Lanfranc, and others, since even nowadays a true, though
accidental, distinction between the sacramental and the natural condition of Christ's Body must be
rigorously maintained. The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was
offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884),
the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation.
He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence
of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church. The third
and the sharpest controversy was that opened by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in regard
to which it must be remarked that Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to
the old Catholic doctrine, and, though subjecting it to manifold misrepresentations, defended it most
tenaciously. He was diametrically opposed by Zwingli of Zurich, who, as was seen above, reduced
the Eucharist to an empty, meaningless symbol. Having gained over to his views such friendly
contemporary partisans as Carlstadt, Bucer, and Œcolampadius, he later on secured influential allies
in the Arminians, Mennonites, Socinians, and Anglicans, and even today the rationalistic conception
of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper does not differ substantially from that of the Zwinglians. In the
meantime, at Geneva, Calvin was cleverly seeking to bring about a compromise between the
extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwinglian figurative interpretations, by suggesting instead
of the substantial presence in one case or the merely symbolical in the other, a certain mean, i.e.
"dynamic", presence, which consists essentially in this, that at the moment of reception, the efficacy
of Christ's Body and Blood is communicated from heaven to the souls of the predestined and
spiritually nourishes them. Thanks to Melanchthon's pernicious and dishonest doubledealing, this
attractive intermediary position of Calvin made such an impression even in Lutheran circles that it
was not until the Formula of Concord in 1577 that the "cryptoCalvinistic venom" was successfully
rejected from the body of Lutheran doctrine. The Council of Trent met these widely divergent errors
of the Reformation with the dogmatic definition, that the Godman is "truly, really, and
substantially" present under the appearances of bread and wine, purposely intending thereby to
oppose the expression vere to Zwingli's signum, realiter to Œcolampadius's figura, and essentialiter
to Calvin's virtus (Sess. XIII, can. i). And this teaching of the Council of Trent has ever been and is
now the unwavering position of the whole of Catholic Christendom.
As regards the doctrine of the Fathers, it is not possible in the present article to multiply patristic
texts, which are usually characterized by wonderful beauty and clearness. Suffice it to say that,
besides the Didache (9, 10, 14), the most ancient Fathers, as Ignatius (Smyrnæans 7
; Ephesians
20
;
Philadelphians 4 ), Justin (First Apology
66
), Irenæus (Against Heresies
IV.17.5
, IV.18.4 and V.2.2),
Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh
8
; On Pudicity
9
; On Prayer
19
; On Baptism
16
), and
Cyprian (Treatise 3.16 and Treatise 4.18), attest without the slightest shadow of a misunderstanding
what is the faith of the Church, while later patristic theology bears witness to the dogma in terms
that approach exaggeration, as Gregory of Nyssa (Great
Catechism III.37 ), Cyril of Jerusalem
(Mystagogical Catechesis
4, no. 2 sqq. ), and especially the Doctor of the Eucharist, Chrysostom
[Homily 82 on Matthew, 1 sqq.; Homily 46 on John, 2 sqq.; Homily 24 on First Corinthians, 1 sqq.;
Homily 9 de pœnit., 1], to whom may be added the Latin Fathers, Hilary (On the Holy Trinity
VIII.4.13) and Ambrose (On the Mysteries
8.49, 9.51 sq. ). Concerning the Syriac Fathers see Th.
Lamy "De Syrorum fide in re eucharisticâ" (Louvain, 1859).
The position held by St. Augustine is at present the subject of a spirited controversy, since the
adversaries of the Church rather confidently maintain that he favored their side of the question in
that he was an outandout "Symbolist". In the opinion of Loofs ("Dogmengeschichte", 4th ed.,
Halle, 1906, p. 409),St. Augustine never gives, the "reception of the true Body and Blood of Christ"
a thought; and this view Ad. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1897, III, 148)
emphasizes when he declares that St. Augustine "undoubtedly was one in this respect with the so
called preReformation and with Zwingli". Against this rather hasty conclusion Catholics first of all
advance the undoubted fact that Augustine demanded that Divine worship should be rendered to the
Eucharistic Flesh (Enarration on Psalm 33
, no. 1
), and declared that at the Last Supper "Christ held
and carried Himself in His own hands" (Enarration on Psalm 98
, no. 9
). They insist, and rightly so,
that it is not fair to separate this great Doctor's teaching concerning the Eucharist from his doctrine
of the Holy Sacrifice, since he clearly and unmistakably asserts that the true Body and Blood are
offered in the Holy Mass. The variety of extreme views just mentioned requires that an attempt be
made at a reasonable and unbiased explanation, whose verification is to be sought for and found in
the acknowledged fact that agradual process of development took place in the mind of St.
Augustine. No one will deny that certain expressions occur in Augustine as forcibly realistic as
those of Tertullian and Cyprian or of his intimate literary friends, Ambrose, Optatus of Mileve,
Hilary, and Chrysostom. On the other hand, it is beyond question that, owing to the determining
influence of Origen and the Platonic philosophy, which, as is well known, attached but slight value
to visible matter and the sensible phenomena of the world, Augustine did not refer what was
properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro), but transferred it to the
quickening principle (spiritus), i.e. to the effects produced by a worthy Communion. A logical
consequence of this was that he allowed to caro, as the vehicle and antitype of res, not indeed a
mere symbolical worth, but at best a transitory, intermediary, and subordinate worth (signum), and
placed the Flesh and Blood of Christ, present under the appearances (figuræ) of bread and wine, in
too decided an opposition to His natural, historical Body. Since Augustine was a strenuous defender
of personal cooperation and effort in the work of salvation and an enemy to mere mechanical
activity and superstitious routine, he omitted insisting upon a lively faith in the real personality of
Jesus in the Eucharist, and called attention to the spiritual efficiency of the Flesh of Christ instead.
His mental vision was fixed, not so much upon the saving caro, as upon the spiritus, which alone
possessed worth. Nevertheless a turningpoint occurred in his life. The conflict with Pelagianism
and the diligent perusal of Chrysostom freed him from the bondage of Platonism, and he
thenceforth attached to caro a separate, individual value independent of that of spiritus, going so far,
in fact, as to maintain too strongly that the Communion of children was absolutely necessary to
salvation.
If, moreover, the reader finds in some of the other Fathers difficulties, obscurities, and a certain
inaccuracy of expression, this may be explained on three general grounds:
• because of the peace and security there is in their possession of the Church's truth, whence
resulted a certain want of accuracy in their terminology;
• because of the strictness with which the Discipline of the Secret, expressly concerned with
the Holy Eucharist, was maintained in the East until the end of the fifth, in the West down to
the middle of the sixth century;
• because of the preference of many Fathers for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture,
which was especially in vogue in the Alexandrian School (Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Cyril), but which found a salutary counterpoise in the emphasis laid on the literal
interpretation by the School of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). Since,
however, the allegorical sense of the Alexandrians did not exclude the literal, but rather
supposed it as a working basis, the realistic phraseology of Clement (The Pedagogue I.6
), of
Origen (Against Celsus
VIII.13 ; Hom. ix, in Levit., x) and of Cyril (in Matt., xxvi, xxvii;
Contra Nestor., IV, 5) concerning the Real Presence is readily accounted for. (For the
solution of patristic difficulties, see Pohle, "Dogmatik", 3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908, III, 209
sqq.)
The argument from tradition is supplemented and completed by the argument from prescription,
which traces the constant belief in the dogma of the Real Presence through the Middle Ages back to
the early Apostolic Church, and thus proves the antiEucharistic heresies to have been capricious
novelties and violent ruptures of the true faith as handed down from the beginning. Passing over the
interval that has elapsed since the Reformation, as this period receives its entire character from the
Council of Trent, we have for the time of the Reformation the important testimony of Luther (Wider
etliche Rottengeister, 1532) for the fact that the whole of Christendom then believed in the Real
Presence. And this firm, universal belief can be traced back uninterruptedly to Berengarius of Tours
(d. 1088), in fact — omitting the sole exception of Scotus Eriugena — to Paschasius Radbertus
(831). On these grounds, therefore, we may proudly maintain that the Church has been in legitimate
possession of this dogma for fully eleven centuries. When Photius started the Greek Schism in 869,
he took over to his Church the inalienable treasure of the Catholic Eucharist, a treasure which the
Greeks, in the negotiations for reunion at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, could show to be
still intact, and which they vigorously defended in the schismatical Synod of Jerusalem (1672)
against the sordid machinations of the Calvinisticminded Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople
(1629). From this it follows conclusively that the Catholic dogma must be much older than the
Eastern Schism under Photius. In fact, even the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from
Rome in the fifth century, have, as is evident from their their literature and liturgical books,
preserved their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the
dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union, stood in the way of a
clear and correct notion of the Real Presence. Therefore the Catholic dogma is at least as old as
Nestorianism (A.D. 431). But is it not of even greater antiquity? To decide this question one has
only to examine the oldest Liturgies of the Mass, whose essential elements date back to the time of
the Apostles (see articles on the various liturgies), to visit the Roman Catacombs, where Christ is
shown as present in the Eucharistic food under the symbol of a fish (see E ARLY S YMBOLS OF THE
E UCHARIST ), to decipher the famous Inscription of Abercius of the second century, which, though
composed under the influence of the Discipline of the Secret, plainly attests the faith of that age.
And thus the argument from prescription carries us back to the dim and distant past and thence to
the time of the Apostles, who in turn could have received their faith in the Real Presence from no
one but Christ Himself.
The totality of the real presence
In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely
the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined
the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ's Body and His Soul and Divinity as well. A
strictly logical conclusion from the words of promise: "he that eateth me the same also shall live by
me", this Totality of Presence was also the constant property of tradition, which characterized the
partaking of separated parts of the Savior as a sarcophagy (flesheating) altogether derogatory to
God. Although the separation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, is, absolutely speaking, within
the almighty power of God, yet then actual inseparability is firmly established by the dogma of the
indissolubility of the hypostatic union of Christ's Divinity and Humanity. In case the Apostles had
celebrated the Lord's Supper during the triduum mortis (the time during which Christ's Body was in
the tomb), when a real separation took place between the constitutive elements of Christ, there
would have been really present in the Sacred Host only, the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ as it
lay in tomb, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth
as it was shed, both the Body and the Blood, however, hypostatically united to His Divinity, while
His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucharistic
presence. This unreal, though not impossible, hypothesis, is well calculated to throw light upon the
essential difference designated by the Council of Trent (Sess, XIII, c. iii), between the meanings of
the words ex vi verborum and per concomitantiam. By virtue of the words of consecration, or ex vi
verborum, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of Institution, namely the
Body and the Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per concomitantiam), there
becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the partsjust named,
and which must, from a natural connection with them, always be their accompaniment. Now, the
glorified Christ, Who "dieth now no more" ( Romans 6:9) has an animate Body through whose
veins courses His life's Blood under the vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His
Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His
Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with
His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.
This general and fundamental principle, which entirely abstracts from the duality of the species,
must, nevertheless, be extended to each of the species of bread and wine. For we do not receive in
the Sacred Host one part of Christ and in the Chalice the other, as though our reception of the
totality depended upon our partaking of both forms; on the contrary, under the appearance of bread
alone, as well as under the appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and entire (cf.
Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii). This, the only reasonable conception, finds its Scriptural
verification in the fact, that St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29) attaches the same guilt "of the body
and the blood of the Lord" to the unworthy "eating or drinking", understood in a disjunctive sense,
as he does to "eating and drinking", understood in a copulative sense. The traditional foundation for
this is to be found in the testimony of the Fathers and of the Church's liturgy, according to which the
glorified Savior can be present on our altars only in His totality and integrity, and not divided into
parts or distorted to the form of a monstrosity. It follows, therefore, that supreme adoration is
separately due to the Sacred Host and to the consecrated contents of the Chalice. On this last truth
are based especially the permissibility and intrinsic propriety of Communion only under one kind
for the laity and for priests not celebrating Mass (see C OMMUNION U NDER B OTH K INDS ). But in
particularizing upon the dogma, we are naturally led to the further truth, that, at least after the actual
division of either Species into parts, Christ is present in each part in His full and entire essence. If
the Sacred Host be broken into pieces or if the consecrated Chalice be drunk in small quantities,
Christ in His entirety is present in each particle and in each drop. By the restrictive clause,
separatione factâ the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iii) rightly raised this truth to the dignity of
a dogma. While from Scripture we may only judge it improbable that Christ consecrated separately
each particle of the bread He had broken, we know with certainty, on the other hand, that He
blessed the entire contents of the Chalice and then gave it to His disciples to be partaken of
distributively (cf. Matthew 26:27 sq.; Mark 14:23). It is only on the basis of the Tridentine dogma
that we can understand how Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical
Catechesis 5, no. 21 ) obliged
communicants to observe the most scrupulous care in conveying the Sacred Host to their mouths, so
that not even "a crumb, more precious than gold or jewels", might fall from their hands to the
ground; how Cæsarius of Arles taught that there is "just as much in the small fragment as in the
whole"; how the different liturgies assert the abiding integrity of the "indivisible Lamb", in spite of
the "division of the Host"; and, finally, how in actual practice the faithful partook of the broken
particles of the Sacred Host and drank in common from the same cup.
While the three foregoing theses contain dogmas of faith, there is a fourth proposition which is
merely a theological conclusion, namely, that even before the actual division of the Species, Christ
is present wholly and entirely in each particle of the still unbroken Host and in each drop of the
collective contents of the Chalice. For were not Christ present in His entire Personality in every
single particle of the Eucharistic Species even before their division took place, we should be forced
to conclude that it is the process of dividing which brings about theTotality of Presence, whereas
according to the teaching of the Church the operative cause of the Real and Total Presence is to be
found in Transubstantiation alone. No doubt this last conclusion directs the attention of
philosophical and scientific inquiry to a mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body, which
is contrary to the ordinary laws of experience. It is, indeed, one of those sublime mysteries,
concerning which speculative theology attempts to offer various solutions [see below under (5)].
Transubstantiation
Before proving dogmatically the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must
first outline its history and nature.
(a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a
product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable
contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form
by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have
been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by
other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200),
whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth
Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the
Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only
accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the
"aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept. In a
closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of
conversion, which may be defined as "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of
being". As is immediately evident,conversion ( conversio) is something more than mere change
(mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g.,
in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each
other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the
last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g.,
in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the
commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically
unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be
fulfilled: "What was formerly A, is now B." A very important question suggests itself as to whether
the definition should further postulate the previous nonexistence of the last extreme, for it seems
strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad
quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleightof
hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as
the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter
is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation,
strictly so called, to explain the former's coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply
realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance,
acquires an altogether new and previously nonexisting mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of
the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their
previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure
of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is
not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch
as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of
Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely
natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on
Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this,
that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as
would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron
remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.
The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of
conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we
have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body
and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the
cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both
events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation andcreation, but of one
single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine
departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune
tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the preexistent
Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could
not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total
substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of
Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were
condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form
(forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima)
remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the
substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated
by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to
take place between the substance of the bread and the Godman (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is
authoritatively rejected. So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark
around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is
not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily
contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull
"Auctorem fidei" (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most
vigorously against suppressing this "scholastic question", as the synod had advised pastors to do.
(b) In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real
Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though
we cannot entirely ignore a dogmaticohistorical development. The totalconversion of the substance
of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body". These words form, not a
theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity
between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not
unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: "You are amajor", or, "You are a captain", which
would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He
Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the
utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the
substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of
bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been
converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of
Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of
the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically
deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran
doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended
to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a
simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to
some such expression as: "This bread contains my body", or, "In this bread is my Body." Had He
desired to constitute bread thesacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this
expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of
bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain
in the case of the Chalice: "This is my blood", i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and
hence no longer wine.
Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any
particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body
and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even
Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the
bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by
writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and
Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually
the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of
Transubstantiation. The claims of the learned work of the Anglican Dr. Pusey (The Doctrine of the
Real Presence as contained in the Fathers, Oxford, 1855), who denied the cogency of the patristic
argument for Transubstantiation, have been met and thoroughly answered by Cardinal Franzelin (De
Euchar., Rome, 1887, xiv). The argument from tradition is strikingly confirmed by the ancient
liturgies, whose beautiful prayers express the idea of conversion in the clearest manner. Many
examples may be found in Renaudot, "Liturgiæ orient." (2nd ed., 1847); Assemani, "Codex liturg."
(13 vols., Rome 174966); Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" (2 vols., Würzburg, 1864), Concerning
the Adduction Theory of the Scotists and the Production Theory of the Thomists, see Pohle,
"Dogmatik" (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), III, 237 sqq.
The permanence and adorableness of the Eucharist
Since Luther arbitrarily restricted Real Presence to the moment of reception (in usu, non extra), the
Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the
Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon
the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the
consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the
distribution of Holy Communion. In the deposit of faith the Presence and the Permanence of
Presence are so closely allied, that in the mind of the Church both continue on as an undivided
whole. And rightly so; for just as Christ promised His Flesh and blood as meat and drink, i.e. as
something permanent (cf. John 6:50 sqq.), so, when He said: "Take ye, and eat. This is my body",
the Apostles received from the hand of the Lord His Sacred Body, which was already objectively
present and did not first become so in the act of partaking. This nondependence of the Real
Presence upon the actual reception is manifested very clearly in the case of the Chalice, when Christ
said: "Drink ye all of this. For [enim] this is my Blood." Here the act of drinking is evidently neither
the cause nor the conditio sine qua non for the presence of Christ's Blood.
Much as he disliked it, even Calvin had to acknowledge the evident force of the argument from
tradition (Instit. IV, xvii, sect. 739). Not only have the Fathers, and among them Chrysostom with
special vigor, defended in theory the permanence of the Real Presence, but the constant practice of
the Church has also established its truth. In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently
carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian,
Treatise 3.26) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons
were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf.
Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius,
Church History VI.44 ). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to
specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii).
Furthermore, it was customary as early as the fourth century to celebrate the Mass of the
Presanctifed (cf.Synod of Laodicea, can. xlix), in which were received the Sacred Hosts that had
been consecrated one or more days previously. In the Latin Church the celebration of the Mass of
the Presanctified is nowadays restricted to Good Friday, whereas, ever since the Trullan Synod
(692), the Greeks celebrate it during the whole of Lent, except on Saturdays, Sundays, and the feast
of the Annunciation (25 March). A deeper reason for the permanence of Presence is found in the
fact, that some time elapses between the confection and the reception of the sacrament, i.e. between
the Consecration and the Communion, whereas in the case of the other sacraments both the
confection and the reception take place at the same instant. Baptism, for instance, lasts only as long
as the baptismal action or ablution with water, and is, therefore, a transitory sacrament; on the
contrary, the Eucharist, and the Eucharist alone, constitutes a permanent sacrament (cf. Council of
Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. iii). The permanence of Presence, however, is limited to an interval of time of
which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration and the end by the corruption of
the Eucharistic Species. If the Host has become moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ
has discontinued His Presence therein. Since in the process of corruption those elementary
substances return which correspond to the peculiar nature of the changed accidents, the law of the
indestructibility of matter, notwithstanding the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion, remains in
force without any interruption.
The Adorableness of the Eucharist is the practical consequence of its permanence. According to a
well known principle of Christology, the same worship of latria (cultus latriæ) as is due to the
Triune God is due also to the Divine Word, the Godman Christ, and in fact, by reason of the
hypostatic union, to the Humanity of Christ and its individual component parts, as, e.g., His Sacred
Heart. Now, identically the same Lord Christ is truly present in the Eucharist as is present in heaven;
consequently He is to be adored in the Blessed Sacrament, and just so long as He remains present
under the appearances of bread and wine, namely, from the moment of Transubstantiation to the
moment in which the species are decomposed (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. vi).
In the absence of Scriptural proof, the Church finds a warrant for, and a propriety in, rendering
Divine worship to the Blessed Sacrament in the most ancient and constant tradition, though of
course a distinction must be made between the dogmatic principle and the varying discipline
regarding the outward form of worship. While even the East recognized the unchangeable principle
from the earliest ages, and, in fact, as late as the schismatical Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, the West
has furthermore shown an untiring activity in establishing and investing with more and more
solemnity, homage and devotion to the Blessed Eucharist. In the early Church, the adoration of the
Blessed Sacrament was restricted chiefly to Mass and Communion, just as it is today among the
Orientals and the Greeks. Even in his time Cyril of Jerusalem insisted just as strongly as did
Ambrose and Augustine on an attitude of adoration and homage during Holy Communion (cf.
Ambrose, De Sp. Sancto, III, ii, 79; Augustine, In Ps. xcviii, n. 9). In the West the way was opened
to a more and more exalted veneration of the Blessed Eucharist when the faithful were allowed to
Communicate even outside of the liturgical service. After the Berengarian controversy, the Blessed
Sacrament was in the eleventh and twelfth centuries elevated for the express purpose of repairing by
its adoration the blasphemies of heretics and, strengthening the imperiled faith of Catholics. In the
thirteenth century were introduced, for the greater glorification of the Most Holy, the "theophoric
processions" (circumgestatio), and also the feast of Corpus Christi, instituted under Urban IV at the
solicitation of St. Juliana of Liège. In honor of the feast, sublime hymns, such as the "Pange Lingua"
of St. Thomas Aquinas, were composed. In the fourteenth century the practice of the Exposition of
the Blessed Sacrament arose. The custom of the annual Corpus Christi procession was warmly
defended and recommended by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. v). A new impetus was given
to the adoration of the Eucharist through the visits to the Blessed Sacrament (Visitatio SS.
Sacramenti), introduced by St. Alphonsus Liguori; in later times the numerous orders and
congregations devoted to Perpetual Adoration, the institution in many dioceses of the devotion of
"Perpetual Prayer", the holding of International Eucharistic Congresses, e.g. that of London in
September, 1908, have all contributed to keep alive faith in Him Who has said: "behold I am with
you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20).
Speculative discussion of the real presence
The principal aim of speculative theology with regard to the Eucharist, should be to discuss
philosophically, and seek a logical solution of, three apparent contradictions, namely:
• the continued existence of the Eucharistic Species, or the outward appearances of bread and
wine, without their natural underlying subject (accidentia sine subjecto);
• the spatially uncircumscribed, spiritual mode of existence of Christ's Eucharistic Body
(existentia corporis ad modum spiritus);
• the simultaneous existence of Christ in heaven and in many places on earth (multilocatio).
(a) The study of the first problem, viz. whether or not the accidents of bread and wine continue their
existence without their proper substance, must be based upon the clearly established truth of
Transubstantiation, in consequence of which the entire substance of the bread and the entire
substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way
that "only the appearances of bread and wine remain" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii:
manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini). Accordingly, the continuance of the appearances
without the substance of bread and wine as their connatural substratum is just the reverse of
Transubstantiation. If it be further asked, whether these appearances have any subject at all in which
they inhere, we must answer with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:77:1), that the idea is to be rejected as
unbecoming, as though the Body of Christ, in addition to its own accidents, should also assume
those of bread and wine. The most that may be said is, that from the Eucharistic Body proceeds a
miraculous sustaining power, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and
preserves them from collapse. The position of the Church in this regard may be readily determined
from the Council of Constance (14141418). In its eighth session, approved in 1418 by Martin V, this
synod condemned the following articles of Wyclif:
• "Substantia panis materialis et similiter substantia vini materialis remanent in Sacramento
altaris", i.e. the material substance of bread and likewise the material substance of wine
remain in the Sacrament of the Altar;
• "Accidentia panis non manent sine subjecto", i.e. the accidents of the bread do not remain
without a subject.
The first of these articles contains an open denial of Transubstantiation. The second, so far as the
text is concerned, might be considered as merely a different wording of the first, were it not that
thehistory of the council shows that Wyclif had directly opposed the Scholastic doctrine of
"accidents without a subject" as absurd and even heretical (cf, De Augustinis, De re sacramentariâ,
Rome, 1889, II, 573 sqq.), Hence it was the intention of the council to condemn the second article,
not merely as a conclusion of the first, but as a distinct and independent proposition; wherefore we
may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia
panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least,
was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism,
referring to the abovementioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of
bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves." This being the case,
some theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, as E,
Maignan, Drouin, and Vitasse, displayed but little theological penetration when they asserted that
the Eucharistic appearances were optical illusions, phantasmagoria, and makebelieve accidents,
ascribing to Divine omnipotence an immediate influence upon the five senses, whereby a mere
subjective impression of what seemed to be the accidents of bread and wine was created. Since
Descartes (d. 1650) places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes
only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory,
that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be
converted and thereby made to disappear. If the eye nevertheless seems to behold bread and wine,
this is to be attributed to an optical illusion alone. But it is clear at first blush, that no doubt can be
entertained as to the physical reality, or in fact, as to the identity of the accidents before and after
Transubstantiation, This physical, and not merely optical, continuance of the Eucharistic accidents
was repeatedly insisted upon by the Fathers, and with such excessive rigor that the notion of
Transubstantiation seemed to be in danger. Especially against the Monophysites, who based on the
Eucharistic conversion an a pari argument in behalf of the supposed conversion of the Humanity of
Christ into His Divinity, did the Fathers retort by concluding from the continuance of the
unconverted Eucharistic accidents to the unconverted Human Nature of Christ. Both philosophical
and theological arguments were also advanced against the Cartesians, as, for instance, the infallible
testimony of the senses, the necessity of the commune tertium to complete the idea of
Transubstantiation [see above, (3)], the idea of the Sacrament of the Altar as the visible sign of
Christ's invisible Body, the physical signification of Communion as a real partaking of food and
drink the striking expression "breaking of bread" (fractio panis), which supposes the divisible
reality of the accidents, etc. For all these reasons, theologians consider the physical reality of the
accidents as an incontrovertible truth, which cannot without temerity be called in question.
As regards the philosophical possibility of the accidents existing without their substance, the older
school drew a fine distinction between modal and absolute accidents, By the modal accidents were
understood such as could not, being mere modes, be separated from their substance without
involving a metaphysical contradiction, e.g. the form and motion of a body. Those accidents were
designated absolute, whose objective reality was adequately distinct from the reality of their
substance, in such a way that no intrinsic repugnance was involved in their separability, as, e.g., the
quantity of a body. Aristotle, himself taught (Metaphys., VI, 3rd ed. of Bekker, p. 1029, a. 13), that
quantity was not a corporeal substance, but only a phenomenon of substance. Modern philosophy,
on the other hand, has endeavored since the time of John Locke, to reject altogether from the realm
of ideas the concept of substance as something imaginary, and to rest satisfied with qualities alone
as the excitants of sensation, a view of the material world which the socalled psychology of
association and actuality is trying to carry out in its various details. The Catholic Church does not
feel called upon to follow up the ephemeral vagaries of these new philosophical systems, but bases
her doctrine on the everlasting philosophy of sound reason, which rightly distinguishes between the
thing in itself and its characteristic qualities (color, form, size, etc.). Though the "thing in itself"
may even remain imperceptible to the senses and therefore be designated in the language of Kant as
a noumenon, or in the language of Spencer, the Unknowable, yet we cannot escape the necessity of
seeking beneath the appearances the thing which appears, beneath the colour that which is colored
beneath the form that which has form, i.e. the substratum or subject which sustains the phenomena.
The older philosophy designated the appearances by the name of accidents, the subject of the
appearances, by that of substance. It matters little what the terms are, provided the things signified
by them are rightly understood. What is particularly important regarding material substances and
their accidental qualities, is the necessity of proceeding cautiously in this discussion, since in the
domain of natural philosophy the greatest uncertainty reigns even at the present day concerning the
nature of matter, one system pulling down what another has reared, as is proved in the latest theories
of atomism and energy, of ions and electrons.
The old theology tried with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:77) to prove the possibility of absolute
accidents on the principles of the AristoteleanScholastic hylomorphism, i.e. the system which
teaches that the essential constitution of bodies consists in the substantial union of materia prima
and forma substantialis. Some theologians of today would seek to come to an understanding with
modern science, which bases all natural processes upon the very fruitful theory of energy, by trying
with Leibniz to explain the Eucharistic accidentia sine subjecto according to the dynamism of
natural philosophy. Assuming, according to this system, a real distinction between force and its
manifestations, between energy and its effects, it may be seen that under the influence of the
FirstCause the energy (substance) necessary for the essence of bread is withdrawn by virtue of
conversion, while the effects of energy (accidents) in a miraculous manner continue. For the rest it
may be said, that it is far from the Church's intention to restrict the Catholic's investigation regarding
the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament to any particular view of natural philosophy or even to require
him to establish its truth on the principles of medieval physics; all that the Church demands is, that
those theories of material substances be rejected which not only contradict the teaching of the
Church, but also are repugnant to experience and sound reason, as Pantheism, Hylozoism, Monism,
Absolute Idealism, Cartesianism, etc.
(b) The second problem arises from the Totality of Presence, which means that Christ in His entirety
is present in the whole of the Host and in each smallest part thereof, as the spiritual soul is present
in the human body [see above, (2)]. The difficulty reaches its climax when we consider that there is
no question here of the Soul or the Divinity of Christ, but of His Body, which, with its head, trunk,
and members, has assumed a mode of existence spiritual and independent of space, a mode of
existence, indeed, concerning which neither experience nor any system of philosophy can have the
least inkling. That the idea of conversion of corporeal matter into a spirit can in no way be
entertained, is clear from the material substance of the Eucharistic Body itself. Even the above
mentioned separability of quantity from substance gives us no clue to the solution, since according
to the best founded opinions not only the substance of Christ's Body, but by His own wise
arrangement, its corporeal quantity, i.e. its full size, with its complete organization of integral
members and limbs, is present within the diminutive limits of theHost and in each portion thereof.
Later theologians (as Rossignol, Legrand) resorted to the unseemly explanation, according to which
Christ is present in diminished form and stature, a sort of miniature body; while others (as Oswald,
Fernandez, Casajoana) assumed with no better sense of fitness the mutual compenetration of the
members of Christ's Body to within the narrow compass of the point of a pin. The vagaries of the
Cartesians, however, went beyond all bounds. Descartes had already, in a letter to P. Mesland (ed.
Emery, Paris, 1811), expressed the opinion, that the identity of Christ's Eucharistic with His
Heavenly Body was preserved by the identity of His Soul, which animated all the Eucharistic
Bodies. On this basis, the geometrician Varignon suggested a true multiplication of the Eucharistic
Bodies upon earth, which were supposed to be most faithful, though greatly reduced, miniature
copies of the prototype, the Heavenly Body of Christ. Nor does the modern theory of ndimensions
throw any light upon the subject; for the Body of Christ is not invisible or impalpable to us because
it occupies the fourth dimension, but because it transcends and is wholly independent ofspace. Such
a mode of existence, it is clear, does not come within the scope of physics and mechanics, but
belongs to a higher, supernatural order, even as does the Resurrection from the sealed tomb, the
passing in and out through closed doors, the Transfiguration of the future glorified risen Body.
What explanation may, then, be given of the fact?
The simplest treatment of the subject was that offered by the Schoolmen, especially St. Thomas
(III:76:4), They reduced the mode of being to the mode of becoming, i.e. they traced back the mode
of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to the Transubstantiation; for a thing has to so "be" as
it was in "becoming", Since ex vi verborum the immediate result is the presence of the Body of
Christ, its quantity, present merely per concomitantiam, must follow the mode of existence peculiar
to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without division and extension, i.e. entirely in the
whole Host and entirely in each part thereof. In other words, the Body of Christ is present in the
sacrament, not after the manner of "quantity" (per modum quantitatis), but of "substance" (per
modum substantiæ), Later Scholasticism (Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Billuart, and others) tried
to improve upon this explanation along other lines by distinguishing between internal and
externalquantity. By internal quantity ( quantitas interna seu in actu primo) is understood that
entity, by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses "aptitudinal extension", i.e. the
"capability" of being extended in tridimensional space. External quantity, on the other hand
(quantitas externa seu in actu secundo), is the same entity, but in so far as it follows its natural
tendency to occupy space and actually extends itself in the three dimensions. While aptitudinal
extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences of bodies that its separability from
them involves a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is, on the other hand, only a natural
consequence and effect, which can be so suspended and withheld by the First Cause, that the
corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not extend itself into space. At all events,
however plausibly reason may seem to explain the matter, it is nevertheless face to face with a great
mystery.
(c) The third and last question has to do with the multilocation of Christ in heaven and upon
thousands of altars throughout the world. Since in the natural order of events each body is restricted
to one position in space (unilocatio), so that before the law proof of an alibi immediately frees a
person from the suspicion of crime, multilocation without further question belongs to the
supernatural order. First of all, no intrinsic repugnance can be shown in the concept of
multilocation. For if the objection be raised, that no being can exist separated from itself or show
forth local distances between its various selves, the sophism is readily detected; for multilocation
does not multiply the individual object, but only its external relation to and presence in space.
Philosophy distinguishes two modes of presence in creatures:
• the circumscriptive, and
• the definitive.
The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is
confined to a determinate portion ofspace in such wise that its various parts (atoms, molecules,
electrons) also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. The second mode of presence,
that properly belonging to a spiritual being, requires the substance of a thing to exist in its entirety in
the whole of the space, as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. The latter is the soul's
mode of presence in the human body. The distinction made between these two modes of presence is
important, inasmuch as in the Eucharist both kinds are found in combination. For, in the first place,
there is verified a continuous definitive multilocation, called also replication, which consists in this,
that the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host
and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body.
And precisely this latter analogy from nature gives us an insight into the possibility of the
Eucharistic miracle. For if, as has been seen above, Divine omnipotence can in a supernatural
manner impart to a body such a spiritual, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence,
which is natural to the soul as regards the human body, one may well surmise the possibility of
Christ's Eucharistic Body being present in its entirety in the whole Host, and whole and entire in
each part thereof.
There is, moreover, the discontinuous multilocation, whereby Christ is present not only in one Host,
but in numberless separate Hosts, whether in the ciborium or upon all the altars throughout the
world. The intrinsic possibility of discontinuous multilocation seems to be based upon the non
repugnance of continuous multilocation. For the chief difficulty of the latter appears to be that the
same Christ is present in two different parts, A and B, of the continuous Host, it being immaterial
whether we consider the distant parts A and B joined by the continuous line AB or not. The marvel
does notsubstantially increase, if by reason of the breaking of the Host, the two parts A and B are
now completely separated from each other. Nor does it matter how great the distance between the
parts may be. Whether or not the fragments of a Host are distant one inch or a thousand miles from
one another is altogether immaterial in this consideration; we need not wonder, then, if Catholics
adore their Eucharistic Lord at one and the same time in New York, London, and Paris. Finally,
mention must be made of mixed multilocation, since Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in
heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in
numberless places throughout the world. This third case would be in perfect accordance with the
two foregoing, were we per impossible permitted to imagine that Christ were present under the
appearances of bread exactly as He is in heaven and that He had relinquished His natural mode of
existence. This, however, would be but one more marvel of God's omnipotence. Hence no
contradiction is noticeable in the fact, that Christ retains His natural dimensional relations in heaven
and at the same time takes up His abode upon the altars of earth.
There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in the
Eucharist, but would be, if Christ's Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in
heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St.
Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said to him: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou me?" So too the bilocation of saints, sometimes read of in the pages of hagiography, as, e.g., in
the case of St. Alphonsus Liguori, cannot be arbitrarily cast aside as untrustworthy. The Thomists
and some later theologians, it is true, reject this kind of multilocation as intrinsically impossible and
declare bilocation to be nothing more than an "apparition" without corporeal presence. But Cardinal
De Lugo is of opinion, and justly so, that to deny its possibility might reflect unfavorably upon the
Eucharistic multilocation itself. If there were question of the vagaries of many Nominalists, as, e.g.,
that a bilocated person could be living in Paris and at the same time dying in London, hating in
Paris and at the same time loving in London, the impossibility would be as plain as day, since an
individual, remaining such as he is, cannot be the subject of contrary propositions, since they
exclude one another. The case assumes a different aspect, when wholly external contrary
propositions, relating to position inspace, are used in reference to the bilocated individual. In such a
bilocation, which leaves the principle of contradiction intact, it would be hard to discover an
intrinsic impossibility.
Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New
York: Robert Appleton Company
4. THE BLESSED EUCHARIST AS SACRAMENT
Since Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine in a sacramental way, the Blessed
Eucharist is unquestionably a sacrament of the Church. Indeed, in the Eucharist the definition of a
Christian sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" is verified.
The investigation into the precise nature of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, whose existence
Protestants do not deny, is beset with a number of difficulties. Its essence certainly does not consist
in the Consecration or the Communion, the former being merely the sacrificial action, the latter the
reception of the sacrament, and not the sacrament itself. The question may eventually be reduced to
this whether or not the sacramentality is to be sought for in the Eucharistic species or in the Body
and Blood of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority of theologians rightly respond to the query
by saying, that neither the species themselves nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but
the union of both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the Altar. The species
undoubtedly belong to the essence of the sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means
of the invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of the sacrament.
Equally certain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence,
because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of our souls but
Christ concealed beneath the appearances. The twofold number of the Eucharistic elements of bread
and wine does not interfere with the unity of the sacrament; for the idea of refection embraces both
eating and drinking, nor do our meals in consequence double their number. In the doctrine of the
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there is a question of even higher relation, in that the separated species
of bread and wine also represent the mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood or the unbloody
Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb. The Sacrament of the Altar may be regarded under the same
aspects as the other sacraments, provided only it be ever kept in view that the Eucharist is a
permanent sacrament. Every sacrament may be considered either in itself or with reference to the
persons whom it concerns.
Passing over the Institution, which is discussed elsewhere in connection with the words of
Institution, the only essentially important points remaining are the outward sign (matter and form)
and inward grace (effects of Communion), to which may be added the necessity of Communion for
salvation. In regard to the persons concerned, we distinguish between the minister of the Eucharist
and its recipient or subject.
The matter or Eucharistic elements
There are two Eucharistic elements, bread and wine, which constitute the remote matter of the
Sacrament of the Altar, while the proximate matter can be none other than the Eucharistic
appearances under which the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present.
Bread
The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of the Sacrament
does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be
baked, since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten
flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats,
barley,Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as grain ( frumentum), On the
other hand, the different varieties of wheat (as spelt, amelcorn, etc.) are valid, inasmuch as they can
be proved botanically to be genuine wheat. The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately
from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may
be remarked, that in Scripture bread (artos), without any qualifying addition, always signifies
wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only
wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me",
commanded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tradition, whether it
be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of the Church, shows wheaten bread to have played
such an essential part, that even Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread as a
proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
The Church maintains an easier position in the controversy respecting the use of fermented or
unfermented bread. By leavened bread (fermentum, zymos) is meant such wheaten bread as requires
leaven or yeast in its preparation and baking, while unleavened bread (azyma, azymon) is formed
from a mixture of wheaten flour and water, which has been kneaded to dough and then baked. After
the Greek Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to palliate the
renewed rupture with Rome by means of the controversy, concerning unleavened bread, the two
Churches, in the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, came to the unanimous dogmatic decision,
that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not interfere with the confection of
the sacrament, though for just reasons based upon the Church's discipline and practice, the Latins
were obliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held on to the use of leavened (cf,
Denzinger, Enchirid., Freiburg, 1908, no, 692), Since the Schismatics had before the Council of
Florence entertained doubts as to the validity of the Latin custom, a brief defense of the use of
unleavened bread will not be out of place here. Pope Leo IX had as early as 1054 issued a protest
against Michael Cærularius (cf. Migne, P.L., CXLIII, 775), in which he referred to the Scriptural
fact, that according to the three Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated "on the first day of the
azymes" and so the custom of the Western Church received its solemn sanction from the example of
Christ Himself. The Jews, moreover, were accustomed even the day before the fourteenth of Nisan
to get rid of all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings, that so they might from that time
on partake exclusively of the socalled mazzoth as bread. As regards tradition, it is not for us to settle
the dispute of learned authorities, as to whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the Latins
also celebrated Mass with leavened bread (Sirmond, Döllinger, Kraus) or have observed the present
custom ever since the time of the Apostles (Mabillon, Probst). Against the Greeks it suffices to call
attention to the historical fact that in the Orient the Maronites and Armenians have used unleavened
bread from time immemorial, and that according to Origen (Commentary on Matthew
, XII.6
) the
people of the East "sometimes", therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy.
Besides, there is considerable force in the theological argument that the fermenting process with
yeast and other leaven, does not affect the substance of the bread, but merely its quality. The reasons
of congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which would have us consider it
as a beautiful symbol of the hypostatic union, as well as an attractive representation of the savor of
this heavenly Food, will be most willingly accepted, provided only that due consideration be given
to the grounds of propriety set forth by theLatins with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:74:4) namely, the
example of Christ, the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His
Sacred Body, free from all corruption of sin, and finally the instruction of St. Paul (1 Corinthians
5:8) to keep the Pasch not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth".
Wine
The second Eucharistic element required is wine of the grape (vinum de vite). Hence are excluded as
invalid, not only the juices extracted and prepared from other fruits (as cider and perry), but also the
socalled artificialwines, even if their chemical constitution is identical with the genuine juice of the
grape. The necessity of wine of the grape is not so much the result of the authoritative decision of
the Church, as it is presupposed by her (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. iv), and is based upon the
example and command of Christ, Who at the Last Supper certainly converted the natural wine of
grapes into His Blood, This is deduced partly from the rite of the Passover, which required the head
of the family to pass around the "cup of benediction" (calix benedictionis) containing the wine of
grapes, partly, and especially, from the express declaration of Christ, that henceforth He would not
drink of the "fruit of the vine" (genimen vitis). The Catholic Church is aware of no other tradition
and in this respect she has ever been one with the Greeks. The ancient Hydroparastatæ, or
Aquarians, who used water instead of wine, were heretics in her eyes. The counterargument of Ad.
Harnack ["Texte und Untersuchungen", new series, VII, 2 (1891), 115 sqq.], that the most ancient
ofChurches was indifferent as to the use of wine, and more concerned with the action of eating and
drinking than with the elements of bread and wine, loses all its force in view not only of the earliest
literature on the subject (the Didache, Ignatius, Justin, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Cyprian), but also of nonCatholic and apocryphal writings, which bear
testimony to the use of bread and wine as the only and necessary elements of the Blessed
Sacrament. On the other hand, a very ancient law of the Church which, however, has nothing to do
with the validity of the sacrament, prescribes that a little water be added to the wine before the
Consecration (Decr. pro Armenis: aqua modicissima), a practice, whose legitimacy the Council of
Trent (Sess. XXII, can. ix) established under pain of anathema. The rigor of this law of the Church
may be traced to the ancient custom of the Romans and Jews, who mixed water with the strong
southern wines (see Proverbs 9:2), to the expression of calix mixtus found in Justin (First Apology
65), Irenæus (Against Heresies
V.2.3 ), and Cyprian (Epistle 63, no. 13 sq.), and especially to the
deep symbolical meaning contained in the mingling, inasmuch as thereby are represented the
flowing of blood and water from the side of the Crucified Savior and the intimate union of the
faithful with Christ (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. vii).
The sacramental form or the words of consecration
In proceeding to verify the form, which is always made up of words, we may start from the
dubitable fact, that Christ did not consecrate by the mere fiat of His omnipotence, which found no
expression in articulate utterance, but by pronouncing the words of Institution: "This is my body . . .
this is my blood", and that by the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me", He commanded
the Apostles to follow His example. Were the words of Institution a mere declarative utterance of
the conversion, which might have taken place in the "benediction" unannounced and articulately
unexpressed, the Apostles and their successors would, according to Christ's example and mandate,
have been obliged to consecrate in this mute manner also, a consequence which is altogether at
variance with the deposit of faith. It is true, that Pope Innocent III (De Sacro altaris myst., IV, vi)
before his elevation to the pontificate did hold the opinion, which later theologians branded as
"temerarious", that Christ consecrated without words by means of the mere "benediction". Not
many theologians, however, followed him in this regard, among the few being Ambrose Catharinus,
Cheffontaines, and Hoppe, by far the greater number preferring to stand by the unanimous
testimony of theFathers. Meanwhile, Innocent III also insisted most urgently that at least in the case
of the celebrating priest, the words of Institution were prescribed as the sacramental form. It was,
moreover, not until its comparatively recent adherence in the seventeenth century to the famous
"Confessio fidei orthodoxa" of Peter Mogilas (cf. Kimmel, "Monum. fidei eccl. orient.", Jena, 1850,
I, p. 180), that theSchismatical Greek Church adopted the view, according to which the priest does
not at all consecrate by virtue of the words of Institution, but only by means of the Epiklesis
occurring shortly after them and expressing in the Oriental Liturgies a petition to the Holy Spirit,
"that the bread and wine may be converted into the Body and Blood of Christ". Were the Greeks
justified in maintaining this position, the immediate result would be, that the Latins who have no
such thing as the Epiklesis in their present Liturgy, would possess neither the true Sacrifice of the
Mass nor the Holy Eucharist. Fortunately, however, the Greeks can be shown the error of their ways
from their own writings, since it can be proved, that they themselves formerly placed the form of
Transubstantiation in the words of Institution. Not only did such renowned Fathers as Justin (First
Apology 66 ), Irenæus (Against Heresies
V.2.3
), Gregory of Nyssa (The Great Catechism
, no. 37
),
Chrysostom (Hom. i, de prod. Judæ, n. 6), and John Damascene (Exposition of the Faith
IV.13
) hold
this view, but the ancient Greek Liturgies bear testimony to it, so that Cardinal Bessarion in 1439 at
Florence called the attention of his fellowcountrymen to the fact, that as soon as the words of
Institution have been pronounced, supreme homage and adoration are due to the Holy Eucharist,
even though the famous Epiklesis follows some time after.
The objection that the mere historical recitation of the words of Institution taken from the narrative
of the Last Supper possesses no intrinsic consecratory force, would be well founded, did the priest
of the Latin Church merely intend by means of them to narrate some historical event rather than
pronounce them with the practical purpose of effecting the conversion, or if he pronounced them in
his own name and person instead of the Person of Christ, whose minister and instrumental cause he
is. Neither of the two suppositions holds in the case of a priest who really intends to celebrate Mass.
Hence, though the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously maintaining that they
consecrate exclusively in their Epiklesis, they do, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, actually
consecrate by means of the words of Institution contained in their Liturgies, if Christ has instituted
these words as the words of consecration and the form of the sacrament. We may in fact go a step
farther and assert, that the words of Institution constitute the only and wholly adequate form of the
Eucharist and that, consequently, the words of the Epiklesis possess no inherent consecratory value.
The contention that the words of the Epiklesis have joint essential value and constitute the partial
form of the sacrament, was indeed supported by individual Latin theologians, as Touttée, Renaudot,
and Lebrun. Though this opinion cannot be condemned as erroneous in faith, since it allows to the
words of Institution their essential, though partial, consecratory value, appears nevertheless to be
intrinsically repugnant. For, since the act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a state of
suspense, but is completed in an instant of time, there arises the dilemma: Either the words of
Institution alone and, therefore, not the Epiklesis, are productive of the conversion, or the words of
the Epiklesis alone have such power and not the words of Institution. Of more considerable
importance is the circumstance that the whole question came up for discussion in the council for
union held at Florence in 1439. Pope Eugene IV urged the Greeks to come to a unanimous
agreement with the Roman faith and subscribe to the words of Institution as alone constituting the
sacramental form, and to drop the contention that the words of the Epiklesis also possessed a partial
consecratory force. But when the Greeks, not without foundation, pleaded that a dogmatic decision
would reflect with shame upon their whole ecclesiastical past, the ecumenical synod was satisfied
with the oral declaration of Cardinal Bessarion recorded in the minutes of the council for 5 July,
1439 (P.G., CLXI, 491), namely, that the Greeks follow the universal teaching of the Fathers,
especially of "blessed John Chrysostom, familiarly known to us", according to whom the "Divine
words of Our Redeemer contain the full and entire force of Transubstantiation".
The venerable antiquity of the Oriental Epiklesis, its peculiar position in the Canon of the Mass, and
its interior spiritual unction, oblige the theologian to determine its dogmatic value and to account
for its use. Take, for instance, the Epiklesis of the Ethiopian Liturgy: "We implore and beseech
Thee, O Lord, to send forth the Holy Spirit and His Power upon this Bread and Chalice and convert
them into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Since this prayer always follows after the
words of Institution have been pronounced, the theological question arises, as to how it may be
made to harmonize with the words of Christ, which alone possess the consecrated power. Two
explanations have been suggested which, however, can be merged in one. The first view considers
the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration of the fact, that the conversion has already taken place, and
that in the conversion just as essential a part is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as CoConsecrator
as in the allied mystery of the Incarnation. Since, however, because of the brevity of the actual
instant of conversion, the part taken by the Holy Spirit could not be expressed, the Epiklesis takes us
back in imagination to the precious moment and regards the Consecration as just about to occur. A
similar purely psychological retrospective transfer is met with in other portions of the Liturgy, as in
the Mass for the Dead, wherein the Church prays for the departed as if they were still upon their bed
of agony and could still be rescued from the gates of hell. Thus considered, the Epiklesis refers us
back to the Consecration as the center about which all the significance contained in its words
revolves. A second explanation is based, not upon the enactedConsecration, but upon the
approaching Communion, inasmuch as the latter, being the effective means of uniting us more
closely in the organized body of the Church, brings forth in our hearts the mystical Christ, as is read
in the Roman Canon of the Mass: "Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat", i.e. that it may be made for us
the body and blood. It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks themselves explained the
meaning of the Epiklesis at the Council of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI, 106). Yet since
much more is contained in the plain words than this true and deep mysticism, it is desirable to
combine both explanations into one, and so we regard the Epiklesis, both in point of liturgy and of
time, as the significant connecting link, placed midway between the Consecration and the
Communion in order to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit in the Consecration of bread
and wine, and, on the other hand, with the help of the same Holy Spirit to obtain the realization of
the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by their fruitful effects on both priest and people.
The effects of the holy Eucharist
The doctrine of the Church regarding the effects or the fruits of Holy Communion centres around
two ideas: (a) the union with Christ by love and (b) the spiritual repast of the soul. Both ideas are
often verified in one and same effect of Holy Communion.
The union with Christ by love
The first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is union with Christ by love (Decr. pro Armenis:
adunatio ad Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the
Host, but in the spiritual and mystical union with Jesus by the theological virtue of love. Christ
Himself designated the idea of Communion as a union love: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
blood, abideth in me, and I in him" (John 6:57). St. Cyril of Alexandria (Hom. in Joan., IV, xvii)
beautifully represents this mystical union as the fusion of our being into that of the Godman, as
"when melted wax is fused with other wax". Since the Sacrament of Love is not satisfied with an
increase of habitual love only, but tends especially to fan the flame of actual love to an intense ardor,
the Holy Eucharist is specifically distinguished from the other sacraments, and hence it is precisely
in this latter effect that Francisco Suárez, recognizes the socalled "grace of the sacrament", which
otherwise is so hard to discern. It stands to reason that the essence of this union by love consists
neither in a natural union with Jesus analogous to that between soul and body, nor in a hypostatic
union of the soul with the Person of the Word, nor finally in a pantheistical deification of the
communicant, but simply in a moral but wonderful union with Christ by the bond of the most ardent
charity. Hence the chief effect of a worthy Communion is to a certain extent a foretaste of heaven, in
fact the anticipation and pledge of our future union with God by love in the Beatific Vision. He
alone can properly estimate the precious boon which Catholics possess in the Holy Eucharist, who
knows how to ponder these ideas of Holy Communion to their utmost depth. The immediate result
of this union with Christ by love is the bond of charity existing between the faithful themselves as
St. Paul says: "For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1
Corinthians 10:17). And so the Communion of Saints is not merely an ideal union by faith and
grace, but an eminently real union, mysteriously constituted, maintained, and guaranteed by
partaking in common of one and the same Christ.
The spiritual repast of the soul
A second fruit of this union with Christ by love is an increase of sanctifying grace in the soul of the
worthy communicant. Here let it be remarked at the outset, that the Holy Eucharist does not per se
constitute a person in the state of grace as do the sacraments of the dead (baptism and penance), but
presupposes such a state. It is, therefore, one of the sacraments of the living. It is as impossible for
the soul in the state of mortal sin to receive this Heavenly Bread with profit, as it is for a corpse to
assimilate food and drink. Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. can. v), in opposition to Luther
and Calvin, purposely defined, that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist does not consist in the
forgiveness of sins". For though Christ said of the Chalice: "This is my blood of the new testament,
which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28), He had in view an effect of
the sacrifice, not of the sacrament; for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto remission
of sins, but shed for that purpose. It is for this very reason that St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28)
demands that rigorous "selfexamination", in order to avoid the heinous offense of being guilty of
the Body and the Blood of the Lord by "eating and drinking unworthily", and that the Fathers insist
upon nothing so energetically as upon a pure and innocent conscience. In spite of the principles just
laid down, the question might be asked, if the Blessed Sacrament could not at times per accidens
free the communicant from mortal sin, if he approached the Table of the Lord unconscious of the
sinful state of his soul. Presupposing what is selfevident, that there is question neither of a
conscious sacrilegious Communion nor a lack of imperfect contrition (attritio), which would
altogether hinder the justifying effect of the sacrament, theologians incline to the opinion, that in
such exceptional cases the Eucharist can restore the soul to the state of grace, but all without
exception deny the possibility of the reviviscence of a sacrilegious or unfruitful Communion after
the restoration of the soul's proper moral condition has been effected, the Eucharist being different
in this respect from the sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul (baptism, confirmation,
and Holy orders). Together with the increase of sanctifying grace there is associated another effect,
namely, a certain spiritual relish or delight of soul (delectatio spiritualis). Just as food and drink
delight and refresh the heart of man, so does this "Heavenly Bread containing within itself all
sweetness" produce in the soul of the devout communicant ineffable bliss, which, however, is not to
be confounded with an emotional joy of the soul or with sensible sweetness. Although both may
occur as the result of a special grace, its true nature is manifested in a certain cheerful and willing
fervor in all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the conscious fulfillment of the duties of
one's state of life, a disposition of soul which is perfectly compatible with interior desolation and
spiritual dryness. A good Communion is recognized less in the transitory sweetness of the emotions
than in its lasting practical effects on the conduct of our daily lives.
Forgiveness of venial sin and preservation from mortal sin
Though Holy Communion does not per se remit mortal sin, it has nevertheless the third effect of
"blotting out venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap.
ii). The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as well. The destruction of venial sin
and of all affection to it, is readily understood on the basis of the two central ideas mentioned above.
Just as material food banishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man's physical strength from
being impaired, so does this food of our souls remove our lesser spiritual ailments and preserve us
from spiritual death. As a union based upon love, the Holy Eucharist cleanses with its purifying
flame the smallest stains which adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as an effective
prophylactic against grievous sin. It only remains for us to ascertain with clearness the manner in
which this preservative influence against relapse into mortal sin is exerted. According to the
teaching of the Roman Catechism, it is effected by the allaying of concupiscence, which is the chief
source of deadly sin, particularly of impurity. Therefore it is that spiritual writers recommend
frequent Communion as the most effective remedy against impurity, since its powerful influence is
felt even after other means have proved unavailing (cf. St. Thomas: III:79:6). Whether or not the
Holy Eucharist is directly conducive to the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, is
disputed by St. Thomas (III:79:5), since the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar was not instituted as a
means of satisfaction; it does, however, produce an indirect effect in this regard, which is
proportioned to the communicant's love and devotion. The case is different as regards the effects of
grace in behalf of a third party. The pious custom of the faithful of "offering their Communion" for
relations, friends, and the souls departed, is to be considered as possessing unquestionable value, in
the first place, because an earnest prayer of petition in the presence of the Spouse of our souls will
readily find a hearing, and then, because the fruits of Communion as a means of satisfaction for sin
may be applied to a third person, and especially per modum suffragii to the souls in purgatory.
The pledge of our resurrection
As a last effect we may mention that the Eucharist is the "pledge of our glorious resurrection and
eternal happiness" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii), according to the promise of Christ: "He
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last
day." Hence the chiefreason why the ancient Fathers, as Ignatius ( Letter to the Ephesians
20 ),
Irenæus (Against Heresies
IV.18.4
), and Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh
8
), as well as
later patristic writers, insisted so strongly upon our future resurrection, was the circumstance that it
is the door by which we enter upon unending happiness. There can be nothing incongruous or
improper in the fact that the body also shares in this effect of Communion, since by its physical
contact with the Eucharist species, and hence (indirectly) with the living Flesh of Christ, it acquires
a moral right to its future resurrection, even as the Blessed Mother of God, inasmuch as she was the
former abode of the Word made flesh, acquired a moral claim to her own bodily assumption into
heaven. The further discussion as to whether some "physical quality" (Contenson) or a "sort of germ
of immortality" (Heimbucher) is implanted in the body of the communicant, has no sufficient
foundation in the teaching of the Fathers and may, therefore, be dismissed without any injury to
dogma.
The necessity of the holy Eucharist for salvation
We distinguish two kinds of necessity,
• the necessity of means (necessitas medii) and
• the necessity of precept (necessitas præcepti).
In the first sense a thing or action is necessary because without it a given end cannot be attained; the
eye, e.g. is necessary for vision. The second sort of necessity is that which is imposed by the free
will of a superior, e.g. the necessity of fasting. As regards Communion a further distinction must be
made between infants and adults. It is easy to prove that in the case of infants Holy Communion is
not necessary to salvation, either as a means or as of precept. Since they have not as yet attained to
the use of reason, they are free from the obligation of positive laws; consequently, the only question
is whether Communion is, like Baptism, necessary for them as a means of salvation. Now the
Council of Trent under pain of anathema, solemnly rejects such a necessity (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and
declares that the custom of the primitive Church of giving Holy Communion to children was not
based upon the erroneous belief of its necessity to salvation, but upon the circumstances of the
times (Sess. XXI, cap. iv). Since according to St. Paul's teaching (Romans 8:1) there is "no
condemnation" for those who have been baptized, every child that dies in its baptismal innocence,
even without Communion, must go straight to heaven. This latter position was that usually taken by
the Fathers, with the exception of St. Augustine, who from the universal custom of the Communion
of children drew the conclusion of its necessity for salvation (see COMMUNION OF CHILDREN).
On the other hand, Communion is prescribed for adults, not only by the law of the Church, but also
by a Divine command (John 6:50 sqq.), though for its absolute necessity as a means to salvation
there is no more evidence than in the case of infants. For such a necessity could be established only
on the supposition that Communion per se constituted a person in the state of grace or that this state
could not be preserved without Communion. Neither supposition is correct. Not the first, for the
simple reason that the Blessed Eucharist, being a sacrament of the living, presupposes the state of
sanctifying grace; not the second, because in case of necessity, such as might arise, e.g., in a long
seavoyage, the Eucharistic graces may be supplied by actual graces. It is only when viewed in this
light that we can understand how the primitive Church, without going counter to the Divine
command, withheld the Eucharist from certain sinners even on their deathbeds. There is, however, a
moral necessity on the part of adults to receive Holy Communion, as a means, for instance, of
overcoming violent temptation, or as a viaticum for persons in danger of death. Eminent divines,
like Francisco Suárez, claim that the Eucharist, if not absolutely necessary, is at least a relatively
and morally necessary means to salvation, in the sense that no adult can long sustain his spiritual,
supernatural life who neglects on principle to approach Holy Communion. This view is supported,
not only by the solemn and earnest words of Christ, when He Promised the Eucharist, and by the
very nature of the sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of our souls, but also by the fact of
the helplessness and perversity of human nature and by the daily experience of confessors and
directors of souls.
Since Christ has left us no definite precept as to the frequency with which He desired us to receive
Him in Holy Communion, it belongs to the Church to determine the Divine command more
accurately and prescribe what the limits of time shall be for the reception of the sacrament. In the
course of centuries the Church's discipline in this respect has undergone considerable change.
Whereas the early Christians were accustomed to receive at every celebration of the Liturgy, which
probably was not celebrated daily in all places, or were in the habit of Communicating privately in
their own homes every day of the week, a fallingoff in the frequency of Communion is noticeable
since the fourth century. Even in his time Pope Fabian (236250) made it obligatory to approach the
Holy Table three times a year, viz, at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and this custom was still
prevalent in the sixth century [cf. Synod of Agde (506), c. xviii]. Although St. Augustine left daily
Communion to the free choice of the individual, his admonition, in force even at the present day,
was: Sic vive, ut quotidie possis sumere (The Gift of Perseverance
14 ), i.e. "So live that you may
receive every day." From the tenth to the thirteenth century, the practice of going to Communion
more frequently during the year was rather rare among the laity and obtained only in cloistered
communities. St. Bonaventure reluctantly allowed the lay brothers of his monastery to approach the
Holy Table weekly, whereas the rule of the Canons of Chrodegang prescribed this practice. When
the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215), held under Innocent III, mitigated the former severity of the
Church's law to the extent that all Catholics of both sexes were to communicate at least once a year
and this during the paschal season, St. Thomas (III:80:10) ascribed this ordinance chiefly to the
"reign of impiety and the growing cold of charity". The precept of the yearly paschal Communion
was solemnly reiterated by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. ix). The mystical theologians of the
later Middle Ages, as Tauler, St. Vincent Ferrer, Savonarola, and later on St. Philip Neri, the Jesuit
Order, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori were zealous champions of frequent
Communion; whereas the Jansenists, under the leadership of Antoine* Arnauld (De la fréquente
communion, Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed and demanded as a condition for every Communion
the "most perfect penitential dispositions and the purest love of God". This rigorism was condemned
by Pope Alexander VIII (7 Dec., 1690); the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. viii; Sess. XXII, cap.
vi) and Innocent XI (12 Feb., 1679) had already emphasized the permissibility of even daily
Communion. To root out the last vestiges of Jansenistic rigorism, Pius X issued a decree (24 Dec.,
1905) wherein he allows and recommends daily Communion to the entire laity and requires but two
conditions for its permissibility, namely, the state of grace and a right and pious intention.
Concerning the nonrequirement of the twofold species as a means necessary to salvation see
COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS.
The minister of the Eucharist
The Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, and the confection (confectio) and the reception
(susceptio) thereof being separated from each other by an interval of time, the minister may be and
in fact is twofold: (a) the minister of consecration and (b) the minister of administration.
The minister of consecration
In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers
even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigenses and
Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these
errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but
the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of
consecrating this sacrament". Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the
laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a "universal priesthood" (cf. 1 Peter 2:5),
that every layman was qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to consecrate the
Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent opposed this teaching of Luther, and not only
confirmed anew the existence of a "special priesthood" (Sess. XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively
declared that "Christ ordained the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other
priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this
decision it was also declared that the power of consecrating and that of offering the Holy Sacrifice
are identical. Both ideas are mutually reciprocal. To the category of "priests" (sacerdos, iereus)
belong, according to the teaching of the Church, only bishops and priests; deacons, subdeacons, and
those in minor orders are excluded from this dignity.
Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating
is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the
laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone
can validly consecrate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense
and in no other. We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as
well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone,
who appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the
deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively
therein. When in the fourth century the abuse crept in of priests receiving Holy Communion at the
hands of deacons, the First Council of Nicæa (325) issued a strict prohibition to the effect, that
"they who offer the Holy Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands of those
who have no such power of offering", because such a practice is contrary to "rule and custom". The
sect of the Luciferians was founded by an apostate deacon named Hilary, and possessed neither
bishops nor priests; wherefore St. Jerome concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of
celebrants they no longer retained the Eucharist. It is clear that the Church has always denied the
laity the power to consecrate. When the Arians accused St. Athanasius (d. 373) of sacrilege, because
supposedly at his bidding the consecrated Chalice had been destroyed during the Mass which was
being celebrated by a certain Ischares, they had to withdraw their charges as wholly untenable when
it was proved that Ischares had been invalidly ordained by a pseudobishop named Colluthos and,
therefore, could neither validly consecrate nor offer the Holy Sacrifice.
The minister of administration
The dogmatic interest which attaches to the minister of administration or distribution is not so great,
for the reason that the Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, any communicant having the proper
dispositions could receive it validly, whether he did so from the hand of a priest, or layman, or
woman. Hence, the question is concerned, not with the validity, but with the liceity of
administration. In this matter the Church alone has the right to decide, and her regulations regarding
the Communion rite may vary according to the circumstances of the times. In general it is of Divine
right, that the laity should as a rule receive only from the consecrated hand of the priest (cf. Trent,
Sess. XIII, cap. viii). The practice of the laity giving themselves Holy Communion was formerly,
and is today, allowed only in case of necessity. In ancient Christian times it was customary for the
faithful to take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes and Communicate privately, a practice
(Tertullian, Ad uxor., II, v), to which, even as late as the fourth century, St. Basil makes reference
(Epistle 93). Up to the ninth century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the right
hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth; women, from the
fourth century onward, were required in this ceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right
hand. The Precious Blood was in early times received directly from the Chalice, but in Rome the
practice, after the eighth century, was to receive it through a small tube (fistula); at present this is
observed only in the pope's Mass. The latter method of drinking the Chalice spread to other
localities, in particular to the Cistercian monasteries, where the practice was partially continued into
the eighteenth century.
Whereas the priest is both by Divine and ecclesiastical right the ordinary dispenser (minister
ordinarius) of the sacrament, the deacon is by virtue of his order the extraordinary minister
(minister extraordinarius), yet he may not administer the sacrament except ex delegatione, i.e. with
the permission of the bishop or priest. As has already been mentioned above, the deacons were
accustomed in the Early Church to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who were absent from
Divine service, as well as to present the Chalice to the laity during the celebration of the Sacred
Mysteries (cf. Cyprian, Treatise 3
, nos. 17 and 25
), and this practice was observed until Communion
under both kinds was discontinued. In St. Thomas' time (III:82:3), the deacons were allowed to
administer only the Chalice to the laity, and in case of necessity the Sacred Host also, at the bidding
of the bishop or priest. After the Communion of the laity under the species of wine had been
abolished, the deacon's powers were more and more restricted. According to a decision of the
Sacred Congregation of Rites (25 Feb., 1777), still in force, the deacon is to administer Holy
Communion only in case of necessity and with the approval of his bishop or his pastor. (Cf. Funk,
"Der Kommunionritus" in his "Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", Paderborn,
1897, I, pp. 293 sqq.; see also "Theol. praktische Quartalschrift", Linz, 1906, LIX, 95 sqq.)
The recipient of the Eucharist
The two conditions of objective capacity (capacitas, aptitudo) and subjective worthiness (dignitas)
must be carefully distinguished. Only the former is of dogmatic interest, while the latter is treated in
moral theology (see COMMUNION and COMMUNION OF THE SICK). The first requisite of
aptitude or capacity is that the recipient be a "human being", since it was for mankind only that
Christ instituted this Eucharistic food of souls and commanded its reception. This condition
excludes not only irrational animals, but angels also; for neither possess human souls, which alone
can be nourished by this food unto eternal life. The expression "Bread of Angels" (Psalm 77:25) is a
mere metaphor, which indicates that in the Beatific Vision where He is not concealed under the
sacramental veils, the angels spiritually feast upon the Godman, this same prospect being held out
to those who shall gloriously rise on the Last Day. The second requisite, the immediate deduction
from the first, is that the recipient be still in the "state of pilgrimage" to the next life (status
viatoris), since it is only in the present life that man can validly Communicate. Exaggerating the
Eucharist's necessity as a means to salvation, Rosmini advanced the untenable opinion that at the
moment of death this heavenly food is supplied in the next world to children who had just departed
this life, and that Christ could have given Himself in Holy Communion to the holy souls in Limbo,
in order to "render them apt for the vision of God". This evidently impossible view, together with
other propositions of Rosmini, was condemned by Leo XIII (14 Dec., 1887). In the fourth century
the Synod of Hippo (393) forbade the practice of giving Holy Communion to the dead as a gross
abuse, and assigned as a reason, that "corpses were no longer capable of eating". Later synods, as
those of Auxerre (578) and the Trullan (692), took very energetic measures to put a stop to a custom
so difficult to eradicate. The third requisite, finally, is baptism, without which no other sacrament
can be validly received; for in its very concept baptism is the "spiritual door" to the means of grace
contained in the Church. A Jew or Mohammedan might, indeed, materially receive the Sacred Host,
but there could be no question in this case of a sacramental reception, even though by a perfect act
of contrition or of the pure love of God he had put himself in the state of sanctifying grace. Hence in
the Early Church the catechumens were strictly excluded from the Eucharist.
Pohle, J. (1909). The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York:
Robert Appleton Company
5. HOLY COMMUNION
Necessity
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to
say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and
avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are
bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside
the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church has practically determined
the Divine precept by the law of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent, which
obliges the faithful to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time.
Subject
The subject of Holy Communion is everyone in this life capable of the effects of the Sacrament, that
is all who are baptized and who, if adults, have the requisite intention (see COMMUNION OF
CHILDREN).
Dispositions
That Holy Communion may be received not only validly, but also fruitfully, certain dispositions
both of body and of soul are required. For the former, a person must be fasting from the previous
midnight from everything in the nature of food or drink. The general exception to this rule is the
Viaticum, and, within certain limits, communion of the sick. In addition to the fast it is recommend
with a view to greater worthiness, to observe bodily continence and exterior modesty in dress and
appearance. The principal disposition of soul required is freedom from at least mortal sin and
ecclesiastical censure. For those in a state of grievous sin confession is necessary. This is the
proving oneself referred to by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28). The only case in which one in grievous
sin might dispense with confession and rest in content with perfect contrition, or perfect charity is
when on one hand confession here and now is morally speaking impossible, and where, on the other
a real necessity of communication exists.
Liturgical
Minister
The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is one who has received at least priestly orders. Deacons
were often deputed for this office in the early Church. Priests can now by general custom administer
Communion to everyone assisting at their Masses in public churches and oratories. For the
Viaticum, permission of the parish priest is ordinarily required. Communion should be administered
to all those who ask it reasonably, excluding, at least until they make sufficient reparation, public
sinners and such as lead openly scandalous lives. So, too, it is not to be given to those likely to treat
it with irreverence, or to the mentally deranged or those suffering from certain forms of illness.
Method of administration
As to the administration, the circumstances of time, place, and manner, and the ceremonies only
will be referred to here, other details, as reservation, effects, etc., being considered elsewhere. (See
EUCHARIST.) The ordinary time for reasonable cause justifies its administration outside Mass,
provided it is within the time within which the celebration of Mass is permitted. There are some
exceptions: viaticum can be given at any hour; it is lawful in cases of illness and of special indult. It
may not be given except as Viaticum, from the conclusion of the exposition on Holy Thursday till
Holy Saturday. Communion may be given in all churches and public, or semipublic, oratories that
are not under interdict, and, according to a recent edict of the Congregation of Rites (8 May, 1907),
even in domestic oratories at present. The faithful receive Communion under one kind, fermented
bread being used in the Eastern, and unfermented in the Western Church, under both kinds. Each
one should receive according to the Rite to which he belongs. When administering Holy
Communion outside Mass a priest should always wear a surplice and stole, and there should be two
lights burning on the altar. Communion may now be given at Masses said in black vestments.
6. LITURGY OF THE MASS
Name and definition
The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the
Latin rites. As in the case of all liturgical terms the name is less old than the thing. From the time of
the first preaching of the Christian Faith in the West, as everywhere, the Holy Eucharist was
celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of
Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer
sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.
In the first period, while Greek was still the Christian language at Rome, we find the usual Greek
names used there, as in the East. The commonest was Eucharistia, used both for the consecrated
bread and wine and for the whole service. Clement of Rome (d. about 101) uses the verbal form still
in its general sense of "giving thanks", but also in connection with the Liturgy (Epistle of Clement
38.4: kata panta eucharistein auto). The other chief witness for the earliest Roman Liturgy, Justin
Martyr (d. c. 167), speaks of eucharist in both senses repeatedly (First Apology 65.35 , 66.1 and
67.5). After him the word is always used, and passes into Latin (eucharistia) as soon as there is a
Latin Christian Literature [Tertullian (d. c. 220), "De præscr.", xxxvi, in P.L., II, 50; St. Cyprian (d.
258), Ep., liv, etc.]. It remains the normal name for the sacrament throughout Catholic theology, but
is gradually superseded by Missa for the whole rite. Clement calls the service Leitourgia (1
Corinthians 40:2, 5; 41:1) and prosphora (Ibid., 2, 4), with, however, a shade of different meaning
("rite", "oblation"). These and the other usual Greek names (klasis artou in the Catacombs;
koinonia, synaxis, syneleusis in Justin, "I Apol.", lxvii, 3), with their not yet strictly technical
connotation, are used during the first two centuries in the West as in the East. With the use of the
Latin language in the third century came first translations of the Greek terms. While eucharistia is
very common, we find also its translation gratiarum actio (Tertullian, "Adv. Marcionem", I, xxiii, in
P.L., II, 274); benedictio (=eulogia) occurs too (ibid., III, xxii; "De idolol.", xxii); sacrificium,
generally with an attribute (divina sacrificia, novum sacrificium, sacrificia Dei), is a favourite
expression of St. Cyprian (Ep. liv, 3; On the Lord's Prayer
4
; "Test. adv. Iud.", I, xvi; Ep. xxxiv, 3;
lxiii, 15, etc.). We find also Solemnia (Cyprian, On the Lapsed 25 ), "Dominica solemnia"
(Tertullian, "De fuga", xiv), Prex, Oblatio, Coena Domini (Tert., "Ad uxor.", II, iv, in P.L., I, 1294),
Spirituale ac coeleste sacramentum (Cyprian, Ep., lxiii, 13), Dominicum (Cyprian, "De opere et
eleem.", xv; Ep. lxiii, 16), Officium (Tertullian, "De orat.", xiv), even Passio (Cyprian, Ep. xlii), and
other expressions that are rather descriptions than technical names.
All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain
use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the
Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church:
"The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I
explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized]
in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana
basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer
[dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people" (Ep., I, xx, 45). It will be
noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and
does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well
known. There is another, still earlier, but very doubtfully authentic instance of the word in a letter of
Pope Pius I (from c. 142 to c. 157): "Euprepia has handed over possession of her house to the poor,
where . . . we make Masses with our poor" (cum pauperibus nostris . . . missas agimus" — Pii I, Ep.
I, in Galland, "Bibl. vet. patrum", Venice, 1765, I, 672). The authenticity of the letter, however, is
very doubtful. If Missa really occurred in the second century in the sense it now has, it would be
surprising that it never occurs in the third. We may considerSt. Ambrose as the earliest certain
authority for it.
From the fourth century the term becomes more and more common. For a time it occurs nearly
always in the sense of dismissal. St. Augustine (d. 430) says: "After the sermon the dismissal of the
catechumens takes place" (post sermonem fit missa catechumenorum — Serm., xlix, 8, in P.L.,
XXXVIII, 324). The Synod of Lérida in Spain (524) declares that people guilty of incest may be
admitted to church "usque ad missam catechumenorum", that is, till the catechumens are dismissed
(Can., iv, HefeleLeclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", II, 1064). The same expression occurs in the Synod
of Valencia at about the same time (Can., i, ibid., 1067), in Hincmar of Reims (d. 882) ("Opusc. LV
capitul.", xxiv, in P.L., CXXVI, 380), etc. Etheria (fourth century) calls the whole service, or the
Liturgy of the Faithful, missa constantly ("Peregr. Silviæ", e.g., xxiv, 11, Benedicit fideles et fit
missa, etc.). So also Innocent I (40117) in Ep., xvii, 5, P.L., XX, 535, Leo I (44061), in Ep., ix, 2,
P.L., LIV, 627. Although from the beginning the word Missa usually means the Eucharistic Service
or some part of it, we find it used occasionally for other ecclesiastical offices too. In St. Benedict's
(d. 543) Rule fiant missae is used for the dismissal at the end of the canonical hours (chap., xvii,
passim). In the Leonine Sacramentary (sixth cent. See LITURGICAL BOOKS), the word in its
present sense is supposed throughout. The title, "Item alia", at the head of each Mass means "Item
alia missa". The Gelasian book (sixth or seventh cent. Cf. ibid.) supplies the word: "Item alia
missa", "Missa Chrismatis", "Orationes ad missa [sic] in natale Sanctorum", and so on throughout.
From that time it becomes the regular, practically exclusive, name for the Holy Liturgy in the
Roman and Gallican Rites.
The origin and first meaning of the word, once much discussed, is not really doubtful. We may
dismiss at once such fanciful explanations as that missa is the Hebrew missah ("oblation" — so
Reuchlin and Luther), or the Greek myesis ("initiation"), or the German Mess ("assembly",
"market"). Nor is it the participle feminine of mittere, with a noun understood ("oblatio missa ad
Deum", "congregatio missa", i.e., dimissa — so Diez, "Etymol. Wörterbuch der roman. Sprachen",
212, and others). It is a substantive of a late form for missio. There are many parallels in medieval
Latin, collecta, ingressa, confessa, accessa, ascensa — all for forms in io. It does not mean an
offering (mittere, in the sense of handing over to God), but the dismissal of the people, as in the
versicle: "Ite missa est" (Go, the dismissal is made). It may seem strange that this unessential detail
should have given its name to the whole service. But there are many similar cases in liturgical
language. Communion, confession, breviary are none of them names that express the essential
character of what they denote. In the case of the word missa we can trace the development of its
meaning step by step. We have seen it used by St. Augustine, synods of the sixth century, and
Hincmar of Reims for "dismissal". Missa Catechumenorum means the dismissal of the
catechumens. It appears that missa fit or missa est was the regular formula for sending people away
at the end of a trial or legal process. Avitus of Vienne (d. 523) says: "In churches and palaces or
lawcourts the dismissal is proclaimed to be made [missa pronuntiatur], when the people are
dismissed from their attendance" (Ep. i). So also St. Isidore of Seville: "At the time of the sacrifice
the dismissal is [missa tempore sacrificii est] when the catechumens are sent out, as the deacon
cries: If any one of the catechumens remain, let him go out: and thence it is the dismissal [et inde
missa]" ("Etymol.", VI, xix, in P.L., LXXXII, 252). As there was a dismissal of the catechumens at
the end of the first part of the service, so was there a dismissal of the faithful (the baptized) after the
Communion. There were, then, a missa catechumenorum and a missa fidelium, both, at first, in the
sense of dismissals only. So Florus Diaconus (d. 860): "Missa is understood as nothing but dimissio,
that is, absolutio, which the deacon pronounces when the people are dismissed from the solemn
service. The deacon cried out and the catechumens were sent [mittebantur], that is, were dismissed
outside [id est, dimittebantur foras]. So the missa caechumenorum was made before the action of
the Sacrament (i.e., before the Canon Actionis), the missa fidelium is made " note the difference of
tense; in Florus's time the dismissal of the catechumens had ceased to be practised " after the
consecration and communion" [post confectionem et participationem] (P.L., CXIX 72).
How the word gradually changed its meaning from dismissal to the whole service, up to and
including the dismissal, is not difficult to understand. In the texts quoted we see already
thefoundation of such a change. To stay till the missa catechumenorum is easily modified into: to
stay for, or during, the missa catechumenorum. So we find these two missae used for the two halves
of the Liturgy. Ivo of Chartres (d. 1116) has forgotten the original meaning, and writes: "Those who
heard the missa catechumenorum evaded the missa sacramentorum" (Ep. ccxix, in P.L., CLXII,
224). The two parts are then called by these two names; as the discipline of the catechumenate is
gradually forgotten, and there remains only one connected service, it is called by the long familiar
name missa, without further qualification. We find, however, through the Middle Ages the plural
miss, missarum solemnia, as well as missae sacramentum and such modified expressions also.
Occasionally the word is transferred to the feastday. The feast of St. Martin, for instance, is called
Missa S. Martini. It is from this use that the German Mess, Messtag, and so on are derived. The day
and place of a local feast was the occasion of a market (for all this see Rottmanner, op. cit., in
bibliography below). Kirmess (Flemish Kermis, Fr. kermesse) is Kirchmess, the anniversary of the
dedication of a church, the occasion of a fair. The Latin missa is modified in all Western languages
(It. messa, Sp. misa, Fr. messe, Germ. Messe, etc.). The English form before the Conquest was
maesse, then Middle Engl. messe, masse " It nedith not to speke of the masse ne the seruise that
thei hadde that day" ("Merlin" in the Early Engl. Text Soc., II, 375) "And whan our parish masse
was done" ("Sir Cauline", Child's Ballads, III, 175). It also existed as a verb: "to mass" was to say
mass; "massingpriest" was a common term of abuse at the Reformation.
It should be noted that the name Mass (missa) applies to the Eucharistic service in the Latin rites
only. Neither in Latin nor in Greek has it ever been applied to any Eastern rite. For them the
corresponding word is Liturgy (liturgia). It is a mistake that leads to confusion, and a scientific
inexactitude, to speak of any Eastern Liturgy as a Mass.
The origin of the Mass
The Western Mass, like all Liturgies, begins, of course, with the Last Supper. What Christ then did,
repeated as he commanded in memory of Him, is the nucleus of the Mass. As soon as the Faith was
brought to the West the Holy Eucharist was celebrated here, as in the East. At first the language
used was Greek. Out of that earliest Liturgy, the language being changed to Latin, developed the two
great parent rites of the West, the Roman and the Gallican (see LITURGY). Of these two the
Gallican Mass may be traced without difficulty. It is so plainly Antiochene in its structure, in the
very text of many of ifs prayers, that we are safe in accounting for it as a translated form of the
Liturgy of JerusalemAntioch, brought to the West at about the time when the more or less fluid
universal Liturgy of the first three centuries gave place to different fixed rites (see LITURGY;
GALLICAN RITE). The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question,
We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c.
165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the
development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The
two are very different. Justin's account represents a rite of what we should now call an Eastern type,
corresponding with remarkable exactness to that of the Apostolic Constitutions (see LITURGY).
The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass.
How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history
of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been
proposed. We will first note some points that arecertain, that may serve as landmarks in an
investigation.
Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus (d. 235), and Novatian (c. 250) all agree in the
Liturgies they describe, though the evidence of the last two is scanty (Probst, "Liturgie der drei
ersten christl. Jahrhdte"; Drews, "Untersuchungen über die sogen. clement.Liturgie"). Justin gives us
the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted
and discussed in LITURGY). He describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated at Rome in the
middle of the second century; his account is the necessary point of departure, one end of a chain
whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the
Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where
conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm
ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment inPseudoAmbrose, "De
sacramentis" (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter of Pope Innocent I (40117) to Decentius
of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin
and has already become in essence the rite we still use. A few indications of the end of the fourth
century agree with this. A little later we come to the earliest Sacramentaries (Leonine, fifth or sixth
century; Gelasian, sixth or seventh century) and from then the history of the Roman Mass is fairly
clear. The fifth and sixth centuries therefore show us the other end of the chain. For the interval
between the second and fifth centuries, during which the great change took place, although we
know so little about Rome itself, we have valuable data from Africa. There is every reason to believe
that in liturgical matters the Church of Africa followed Rome closely. We can supply much of what
we wish to know about Rome from the African Fathers of the third century, Tertullian (d. c. 220),
St. Cyprian (d. 258), the Acts of St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas (203), St. Augustine (d. 430) (see
Cabrol, "Dictionnaire d' archéologie", I, 591657). The question of the change of language from
Greek to Latin is less important than if might seem. It came about naturally when Greek ceased to
be the usual language of the Roman Christians. Pope Victor I (190202), an African, seems to have
been the first to use Latin at Rome, Novatian writes Latin. By the second half of the third century
the usual liturgical language at Rome seems to have been Latin (Kattenbusch, "Symbolik", II, 331),
though fragments of Greek remained for many centuries. Other writers think that Latin was not
finally adopted till the end of the fourth century (Probst, "Die abendländ. Messe", 5; Rietschel,
"Lehrbuch der Liturgik", I, 337). No doubt, for a time both languages were used. The question is
discussed at length in C. P. Caspari, "Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. der Glaubensregel"
(Christiania, 1879), III, 267 sq. TheCreed was sometimes said in Greek, some psalms were sung in
that language, the lessons on Holy Saturday were read in Greek and Latin as late as the eighth
century (Ordo Rom., I, P.L., LXXVIII, 96668, 955). There are still such fragments of Greek
("Kyrie eleison", "Agios O Theos") in the Roman Mass. But a change of language does not involve a
change of rite. Novatian's Latin allusions to the Eucharistic prayer agree very well with those of
Clement of Rome in Greek, and with the Greek forms in Apost. Const., VIII (Drews, op. cit., 107
22). The Africans, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc., who write Latin, describe a rite very closely related
to that of Justin and the Apostolic Constitutions (Probst, op. cit., 183206; 21530). The Gallican
Rite, as in Germanus of Paris (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 180217), shows how Eastern — how
"Greek" — a Latin Liturgy can be. We must then conceive the change of language in the third
century as a detail that did not much affect the development of therite. No doubt the use of Latin
was a factor in the Roman tendency to shorten the prayers, leave out whatever seemed redundant in
formulas, and abridge the whole service. Latin is naturally terse, compared with the rhetorical
abundance of Greek. This difference is one of the most obvious distinctions between the Roman and
the Eastern Rites.
If we may suppose that during the first three centuries there was a common Liturgy throughout
Christendom, variable, no doubt, in details, but uniform in all its main points, which common
Liturgy is represented by that of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, we have in that the
origin of the Roman Mass as of all other liturgies (see LITURGY). There are, indeed, special
reasons for supposing that this type of liturgy was used at Rome. The chief authorities for it
(Clement, Justin, Hippolytus, Novatian) are all Roman. Moreover, even the present Roman Rite, in
spite of later modifications, retains certain elements that resemble those of the Apost. Const.
Liturgy remarkably. For instance, at Rome there neither is nor has been a public Offertory prayer.
The "Oremus" said just before the Offertory is the fragment of quite another thing, the old prayers
of the faithful, of which we still have a specimen in the series of collects on Good Friday. The
Offertory is made in silence while the choir sings part of a psalm. Meanwhile the celebrant says
private Offertory prayers which in the old form of the Mass are the Secrets only. The older Secrets
are true Offertory prayers. In the Byzantine Rite, on the other hand, the gifts are prepared
beforehand, brought up with the singing of the Cherubikon, and offered at the altar by a public
Synapte of deacon and people, and a prayer once sung aloud by the celebrant (now only the
Ekphonesis is sung aloud). The Roman custom of a silent offertory with private prayer is that of the
Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions. Here too the rubric says only: "The deacons bring the gifts to
the bishop at the altar" (VIII, xii, 3) and "The Bishop, praying by himself [kath heauton, "silently"]
with the priests . . ." (VIII, xii, 4). No doubt in this case, too, a psalm was sung meanwhile, which
would account for the unique instance of silent prayer. The Apostolic Constitutions order that at this
point the deacons should wave fans over the oblation (a practical precaution to keep away insects,
VIII, xii, 3); this, too, was done at Rome down to the fourteenth century (Martène, "De antiquis
eccl. ritibus", Antwerp, 1763, I, 145). The Roman Mass, like the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, xi,
12), has a washing of hands just before the Offertory. It once had a kiss of peace before the Preface.
Pope Innocent I, in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (416), remarks on this older custom of
placing it ante confecta mysteria (before the Eucharistic prayer — P.L., XX, 553). That is its place
in the Apost. Const. (VIII, xi, 9). After the Lord's Prayer, at Rome, during the fraction, the celebrant
sings: "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum." It seems that this was the place to which the kiss of peace
was first moved (as in Innocent I's letter). This greeting, unique in the Roman Rite, occurs again
only in the Apostolic Constitutions (he eirene tou theou meta panton hymon). Here it comes twice:
after the Intercession (VIII, xiii, 1) and at the kiss of peace (VIII, xi, 8). The two Roman prayers
after the Communion, the Postcommunion and the Oratio super populum (ad populum in the
Gelasian Sacramentary) correspond to the two prayers, first a thanksgiving, then a prayer over the
people, in Apost. Const., VIII, xv, 15 and 79.
There is an interesting deduction that may be made from the present Roman Preface. A number of
Prefaces introduce the reference to the angels (who sing the Sanctus) by the form et ideo. In many
cases it is not clear to what this ideo refers. Like the igitur at the beginning of the Canon, it does not
seem justified by what precedes. May we conjecture that something has been left out? The
beginning of the Eucharistic prayer in the Apost. Const., VIII, xii, 627 (the part before the Sanctus,
our Preface, it is to be found in Brightman, "Liturgies, Eastern and Western", I, Oxford, 1896, 14
18), is much longer, and enumerates at length the benefits of creation and various events of the Old
Law. The angels are mentioned twice, at the beginning as the first creatures and then again at the
end abruptly, without connection with what has preceded in order to introduce theSanctus. The
shortness of the Roman Prefaces seems to make it certain that they have been curtailed. All the
other rites begin the Eucharistic prayer (after the formula: "Let us give thanks") with a long
thanksgiving for the various benefits of God, which are enumerated. We know, too, how much of
the development of the Roman Mass is due to a tendency to abridge the older prayers. If then we
suppose that the Roman Preface is such an abridgement of that in the Apost. Const., with the details
of the Creation and Old Testament history left out, we can account for the ideo. The two references
to the angels in the older prayer have met and coalesced. The ideo refers to the omitted list of
benefits, of which the angels, too, have their share. The parallel between the orders of angels in both
liturgies is exact:
ROMAN MISSAL:
. . . . cum Angelis
et Archangelis, cum Thronis
et Dominationibus, cumque
omni militia cælestis exercitus
. . . . sine fine dicentes.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS:
. . . . stratiai aggelon,
archallelon, . . . . thronon,
kyrioteton, . . . .
. . . . stration
aionion, . . . .
legonta akatapaustos.
Another parallel is in the old forms of the "Hanc igitur" prayer. Baumstark ("Liturgia romana", 102
07) has found two early Roman forms of this prayer in Sacramentaries at Vauclair and Rouen,
already published by Martène ("Voyage littéraire", Paris, 1724, 40) and Delisle (in Ebner,
"Iteritalicum", 417), in which it is much longer and has plainly the nature of an Intercession, such as
we find in the Eastern rites at the end of the Anaphora. The form is: "Hanc igitur oblationem
servitutis nostræ sed et cunctæ familiæ tuæ, quæsumus Domine placatus accipias, quam tibi devoto
offerimus corde pro pace et caritate et unitate sanctæ ecclesiæ, pro fide catholica . . . pro
sacerdotibus et omni gradu ecclesiæ, pro regibus . . ." (Therefore, O Lord, we beseech Thee, be
pleased to accept this offering of our service and of all Thy household, which we offer Thee with
devout heart for the peace, charity, and unity of Holy Church, for the Catholic Faith . . . for the
priests and every order of the Church, for kings . . .) and so on, enumerating a complete list of
people for whom prayer is said. Baumstark prints these clauses parallel with those of the
Intercession in various Eastern rites; most of them may be found in that of the Apost. Const. (VIII,
xii, 4050, and xiii, 39). This, then, supplies another missing element in the Mass. Eventually the
clauses enumerating the petitions were suppressed, no doubt because they were thought to be a
useless reduplication of the prayers "Te igitur", "Communicantes", and the two Mementos
(Baumstark, op. cit., 107), and the introduction of this Intercession (Hanc igitur . . . placatus
accipias) was joined to what seems to have once been part of a prayer for the dead (diesque nostros
in tua pace disponas, etc.).
We still have a faint echo of the old Intercession in the clause about the newlybaptized interpolated
into the "Hanc igitur" at Easter and Whitsuntide. The beginning of the prayer has a parallel in
Apost. Const., VIII, xiii, 3 (the beginning of the deacon's Litany of Intercession). Drews thinks that
the form quoted by Baumstark, with its clauses all beginning pro, was spoken by the deacon as a
litany, like the clauses in Apost. Const. beginning hyper (Untersuchungen über die sog. clem. Lit.,
139). The prayer containing the words of Institution in the Roman Mass (Qui pridie . . in mei
memoriam facietis) has just the constructions and epithets of the corresponding text in Apost.
Const., VIII, xii, 3637. All this and many more parallels between the Mass and the Apost. Const.
Liturgy may be studied in Drews (op. cit.). It is true that we can find parallel passages with other
liturgies too, notably with that of Jerusalem (St. James). There are several forms that correspond to
those of the Egyptian Rite, such as the Roman "de tuis donis ac datis" in the "Unde et memores" (St.
Mark: ek ton son doron; Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", p. 133, 1. 30); "offerimus præclaræ
maiestati tuæ de tuis donis ac datis", is found exactly in theCoptic form ("before thine holy glory we
have set thine own gift of thine own", ibid., p. 178, 1. 15). But this does not mean merely that there
are parallel passages between any two rites. The similarities of the Apost. Const. are far more
obvious than those of any other. The Roman Mass, even apart from the testimony of Justin Martyr,
Clement, Hippolytus, Novatian, still bears evidence of its development from a type of liturgy of
which that of the Apostolic Constitutions is the only perfect surviving specimen (see LITURGY).
There is reason to believe, moreover, that it has since been influenced both from JerusalemAntioch
and Alexandria, though many of the forms common to it and these two may be survivals of that
original, universal fluid rite which have not been preserved in the Apost. Const. It must always be
remembered that no one maintains that the Apost. Const. Liturgy is word for word the primitive
universal Liturgy. The thesis defended by Probst, Drews, Kattenbusch, Baumstark, and others is that
there was a comparatively vague and fluid rite of which the Apost. Const. have preserved for us a
specimen.
But between this original Roman Rite (which we can study only in the Apost. Const.) and the Mass
as it emerges in the first sacramentaries (sixth to seventh century) there is a great change. Much of
this change is accounted for by the Roman tendency to shorten. The Apost, Const. has five lessons;
Rome has generally only two or three. At Rome the prayers of the faithful after the expulsion of the
catechumens and the Intercession at the end of the Canon have gone. Both no doubt were
considered superfluous since there is a series of petitions of the same nature in the Canon. But both
have left traces. We still say Oremus before the Offertory, where the prayers of the faithful once
stood, and still have these prayers on Good Friday in the collects. And the "Hanc Igitur" is a
fragment of the Intercession. The first great change that separates Rome from all the Eastern rites is
the influence of the ecclesiastical year. The Eastern liturgies remain always the same except for the
lessons, Prokeimenon (Gradualverse), and one or two other slight modifications. On the other hand
the Roman Mass is profoundly affected throughout by the season or feast on which it is said.
Probst's theory was that this change was made by Pope Damasus (36684; "Liturgie des vierten
Jahrh.", pp. 44872). This idea is now abandoned (Funk in "Tübinger Quartalschrift", 1894, pp. 683
sq.). Indeed, we have the authority of Pope Vigilius (54055) for the fact that in the sixth century the
order of the Mass was still hardly affected by the calendar ("Ep. ad Eutherium" in P.L., LXIX, 18).
The influence of the ecclesiastical year must have been gradual. The lessons were of course always
varied, and a growing tendency to refer to the feast or season in the prayers, Preface, and even in the
Canon, brought about the present state of things, already in full force in the Leonine Sacramentary.
That Damasus was one of the popes who modified the old rite seems, however, certain. St. Gregory
I (590604) says he introduced the use of the Hebrew Alleluia from Jerusalem ("Ep. ad Ioh.
Syracus." in P.L., LXXVII, 956). It was under Damasus that the Vulgate became the official Roman
version of the Bible used in the Liturgy; a constant tradition ascribes to Damasus's friend St. Jerome
(d. 420) the arrangement of the Roman Lectionary. Mgr Duchesne thinks that the Canon was
arranged by this pope (Origines du Culte, 1689). A curious error of a Roman theologian of
Damasus's time, who identified Melchisedech with the Holy Ghost, incidentally shows us one
prayer of our Mass as existing then, namely the "Supra quæ" with its allusion to "summus sacerdos
tuus Melchisedech" ("Quæst. V. et N. Test." in P.L., XXXV, 2329).
The Mass from the fifth to the seventh century
By about the fifth century we begin to see more clearly. Two documents of this time give us fairly
large fragments of the Roman Mass. Innocent I (40117), in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium
(about 416; P.L., XX, 553), alludes to many features of the Mass. We notice that these important
changes have already been made: the kiss of peace has been moved from the beginning of the Mass
of the Faithful to after the Consecration, the Commemoration of the Living and Dead is made in the
Canon, and there are no longer prayers of the faithful before the Offertory (see CANON OF THE
MASS). Rietschel (Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I, 3401) thinks that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost has
already disappeared from the Mass. Innocent does not mention it, but we have evidence of it at a
later date under Gelasius I (4926: see CANON OF THE MASS, s.v. Supplices te rogamus, and
EPIKLESIS). Rietschel (loc. cit.) also thinks that there was a dogmatic reason for these changes, to
emphasize the sacrificial idea. We notice especially that in Innocent's time the prayer of Intercession
follows the Consecration (see CANON OF THE MASS). The author of the treatise "De
Sacramentis" (wrongly attributed to St. Ambrose, in P.L., XVI, 418 sq.) says that he will explain the
Roman Use, and proceeds to quote a great part of the Canon (the text is given in CANON OF THE
MASS, II). From this document we can reconstruct the following scheme: The Mass of the
Catechumens is still distinct from that of the faithful, at least in theory. The people sing "Introibo ad
altare Dei" as the celebrant and his ministers approach the alter (the Introit). Then follow lessons
from Scripture, chants (Graduals), and a sermon (the Catechumens Mass). The people still make the
Offertory of bread and wine. The Preface and Sanctus follow (laus Deo defertur), then the prayer of
Intercession (oratione petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris) and the Consecration by the
words of Institution (ut conficitur ven. sacramentum . . . utitur sermonibus Christi). From this point
(Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, ratam, rationabilem . . .) the text of the Canon is quoted.
Then come the Anamnesis (Ergo memores . . .), joined to it the prayer of oblation (offerimus tibi
hanc immaculatam hostiam . . .), i.e. practically our "Supra quæ" prayer, and the Communion with
the form: "Corpus Christi, R. Amen", during which Psalm 22 is sung. At the end the Lord's Prayer
is said.
In the "De Sacramentis" then, the Intercession comes before the Consecration, whereas in
Innocent's letter it came after. This transposition should be noted as one of the most important
features in the development of the Mass. The "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 188692)
contains a number of statements about changes in and additions to the Mass made by various popes,
as for instance that Leo I (44061) added the words "sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" to
the prayer "Supra quæ", that Sergius I (687701) introduced the Agnus Dei, and so on. These must
be received with caution; the whole book still needs critical examination. In the case of the Agnus
Dei the statement is made doubtful by the fact that it is found in the Gregorian Sacramentary
(whose date, however, is again doubtful). A constant tradition ascribes some great influence on the
Mass to Gelasius I(4926). Gennadius (De vir. illustr. xciv) says he composed a sacramentary; the
Liber Pontificalis speaks of his liturgical work, and there must be some basis for the way in which
his name is attached to the famous Gelasian Sacramentary. What exactly Gelasius did is less easy to
determine.
We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590604). Gregory knew the Mass
practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to
compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the
Canon is concerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it. His biographer,
John the Deacon, says that he "collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out
much, changing little, adding something for the exposition of the Gospels" (Vita S. Greg., II, xvii).
He moved the Our Father from the end of the Mass to before the Communion, as he says in his letter
to John of Syracuse: "We say the Lord's Prayer immediately after the Canon [max post precem] . . .
It seems to me very unsuitable that we should say the Canon [prex] which an unknown scholar
composed [quam scholasticus composuerat] over the oblation and that we should not say the prayer
handed down by our Redeemer himself over His body and blood" (P.L., LXXVII, 956). He is also
credited with the addition: "diesque nostros etc." to the "Hanc igitur" (ibid.; see CANON OF THE
MASS). Benedict XIV says that "no pope has added to, or changed the Canon since St. Gregory"
(De SS. Missæ sacrificio, p. 162). There has been an important change since, the partial
amalgamation of the old Roman Rite with Gallican features; but this hardly affects the Canon. We
may say safely that a modern Latin Catholic who could be carried back to Rome in the early seventh
century would — while missing some features to which he is accustomed — find himself on the
whole quite at home with the service he saw there.
This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed
from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards
the most important element of the Mass, the Canon. The modifications in the earlier part, the
smaller number of lessons, the omission of the prayers for and expulsion of the catechumens, of the
prayers of the faithful before the Offertory and so on, may be accounted for easily as a result of the
characteristic Roman tendency to shorten the service and leave out what had become superfluous.
The influence of the calendar has already been noticed. But there remains the great question of the
arrangement of the Canon. That the order of the prayers that make up the Canon is a cardinal
difficulty is admitted by every one. The old attempts to justify their present order by symbolic or
mystic reasons have now been given up. The Roman Canon as it stands is recognized as a problem
of great difficulty. It differs fundamentally from the Anaphora of any Eastern rite and from the
Gallican Canon. Whereas in the Antiochene family of liturgies (including that of Gaul) the great
Intercession follows the Consecration, which comes at once after the Sanctus, and in the
Alexandrine class the Intercession is said during what we should call the Preface before the Sanctus,
in the Roman Rite the Intercession is scattered throughout the Canon, partly before and partly after
the Consecration. We may add to this the other difficulty, the omission at Rome of any kind of clear
Invocation of the Holy Ghost (Epiklesis). Paul Drews has tried to solve this question. His theory is
that the Roman Mass, starting from the primitive vaguer rite (practically that of the Apostolic
Constitutions), at first followed the development of JerusalemAntioch, and was for a time very
similar to the Liturgy of St. James. Then it was recast to bring if nearer to Alexandria. This change
was made probably by Gelasius I under the influence of his guest, John Talaia of Alexandria. The
theory is explained at length in the article CANON OF THE MASS. Here we need only add that if
has received in the main the support of F.X. Funk (who at first opposed it; see "Histor. Jahrbuch der
Görresgesellschaft", 1903, pp. 62, 283; but see also his "Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen", III,
Paderborn, 1907, pp. 85134, in which he will not admit that he has altogether changed his mind), A.
Baumstark ("Liturgia romana e Liturgia dell' Esarcato", Rome, 1904), and G. Rauschen
("Eucharistie und Bussakrament", Freiburg, 1908, p. 86). But other theories have been suggested.
Baumstark does not follow Drews in the details. He conceives (op. cit.) the originalCanon as
consisting of a Preface in which God is thanked for the benefits of creation; the Sanctus interrupts
the prayers, which then continue (Vere Sanctus) with a prayer (now disappeared) thanking God for
Redemption and so coming to the Institution (Pridie autem quam pateretur . . .). Then follow the
Anamnesis (Unde et memores), the "Supra quæ", the "Te igitur", joined to an Epiklesis after the
words "hæc sancta sacrificia illibata". Then the Intercession (In primis quæ tibi offerimus . . .),
"Memento vivorum", "Communicantes", "Memento defunctorum" (Nos quoque peccatores . . . intra
sanctorum tuorumconsortium non æstimator meriti sed veniæ quæsumus largitor admitte, per
Christum Dominum nostrum).
This order then (according to Baumstark) was dislocated by the insertion of new elements, the
"Hanc Igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Supra quæ" and "Supplices", the list of saints in the "Nobis
quoque", all of which prayers were in some sort reduplications of what was already contained in the
Canon. They represent a mixed influence of Antioch and Alexandria, which last reached Rome
through Aquilea and Ravenna, where there was once a rite of the Alexandrine type. St. Leo I began
to make these changes; Gregory I finished the process and finally recast the Canon in the form if
still has. It will be seen that Baumstark's theory agrees with that of Drews in the main issue — that
at Rome originally the whole Intercession followed the Canon. Dom Cagin (Paléographie musicale,
V, 80 sq.) and Dom Cabrol (Origines liturgiques, 354 sq.) propose an entirely different theory. So
far it has been admitted on all sides that theRoman and Gallican rites belong to different classes; the
Gallican Rite approaches that of Antioch very closely, the origin of the Roman one being the great
problem. Cagin's idea is that all that must be reversed, the Gallican Rite has no connection at all
with Antioch or any Eastern Liturgy; it is in its origin the same rite as the Roman. Rome changed
this earlier form about the sixth or seventh century. Before that the order at Rome was: Secrets,
Preface, Sanctus, "Te igitur"; then "Hanc igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Qui pridie" (these three
prayers correspond to the Gallican PostSanctus). Then followed a group like the Gallican Post
Pridie, namely "Unde et memores", "Offerimus praeclaræ", "Supra guæ", "Supplices", "Per eundem
Christum etc.", "Per quem hæc omnia", and theFraction. Then came the Lord's Prayer with its
embolism, of which the "Nobis quoque" was a part. The two Mementos were originally before the
Preface. Dom Cagin has certainly pointed out a number of points in which Rome and Gaul (that is
all the Western rites) stand together as opposed to the East. Such points are the changes caused by
the calendar, the introduction of the Institution by the words "Qui pridie", whereas all Eastern
Liturgies have the form "In the night in which he was betrayed". Moreover the place of the kiss of
peace (in Gaul before the Preface) cannot be quoted as a difference between Rome and Gaul, since,
as we have seen it stood originally in that place at Rome too. The Gallican diptychs come before the
Preface; but no one knows for certain where they were said originally at Rome. Cagin puts them in
the same place in the earlier Roman Mass. His theory may be studied further in Dom Cabrol's
"Origines liturgiques", where if is very clearly set out (pp. 35364). Mgr Duchesne has attacked it
vigorously and not without effect in the "Revue d'histoire et de litérature ecclésiastiques" (1900), pp.
31 sq. Mr.Edmund Bishop criticizes the German theories (Drews, Baumstark etc.), and implies in
general terms that the whole question of the grouping of liturgies will have to be reconsidered on a
new basis, that of the form of the words of Institution (Appendix to Dom R. Connolly's "Liturgical
Homilies of Narsai" in "Cambridge Texts and Studies", VIII, I, 1909). If is to be regretted that he
has not told us plainly what position he means to defend, and that he is here again content with
merely negativecriticism. The other great question, that of the disappearance of the Roman
Epiklesis, cannot be examined here (see CANON OF THE MASS and EPIKLESIS). We will only
add to what has been said in those articles that the view is growing that there was an Invocation of
the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, an Epiklesis of the Logos, before there was one of the Holy
Ghost. The Anaphora of Serapion (fourth century in Egypt) contains such an Epiklesis of the Logos
only (in Funk, "Didascalia", II, Paderborn, 1905, pp. 1746). Mr. Bishop (in the abovenamed
Appendix) thinks that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost did not arise till later (Cyril of Jerusalem,
about 350, being the first witness for it), that Rome never had it, that her only Epiklesis was the
"Quam oblationem" before the words of Institution. Against this we must set what seems to be the
convincing evidence of Gelasius I's letter (quoted in CANON OF THE MASS, s.v. Supplices te
rogamus).
We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was
fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and
seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared,
the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or
mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer. Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems
reasonable to say with Rauschen: "Although the question is by no means decided, nevertheless there
is so much in favour of Drews's theory that for the present it must be considered theright one. We
must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman
Canon" (Euch. u. Bussakr., 86).
From the seventh century to modern times
After Gregory the Great (590604) it is comparatively easy to follow the history of the Mass in the
Roman Rite. We have now as documents first the three wellknown sacramentaries. The oldest,
called Leonine, exists in a seventhcentury manuscript. Its composition is ascribed variously to the
fifth, sixth, or seventh century (see LITURGICAL BOOKS). It is a fragment, wanting the Canon,
but, as far as it goes, represents the Mass we know (without the later Gallican additions). Many of
its collects, secrets, postcommunions, and prefaces are still in use. The Gelasian book was written
in the sixth, seventh, or eighth century (ibid.); it is partly Gallicanized and was composed in the
Frankish Kingdom. Here we have our Canon word for word. The third sacramentary, called
Gregorian, is apparently the book sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne probably between 781 and
791 (ibid.). It contains additional Masses since Gregory's time and a set of supplements gradually
incorporated into the original book, giving Frankish (i.e. older Roman and Gallican) additions. Dom
Suitbert Bäumer ("Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelasianum" in the "Histor. Jahrbuch", 1893, pp. 241
301) and Mr. Edmund Bishop ("The Earliest Roman Massbook" in "Dublin Review", 1894, pp. 245
78) explain the development of the Roman Rite from the ninth to the eleventh century in this way:
The (pure) Roman Sacramentary sent by Adrian to Charlemagne was ordered by the king to be used
alone throughout the Frankish Kingdom. But the people were attached to their old use, which was
partly Roman (Gelasian) and partly Gallican. So when the Gregorian book was copied they (notably
Alcuin d. 804) added to it these Frankish supplements. Gradually the supplements became
incorporated into the original book. So composed it came back to Rome (through the influence of
the Carlovingian emperors) and became the "use of the Roman Church". The "Missale Romanum
Lateranense" of the eleventh century (ed. Azevedo, Rome, 1752) shows this fused rite complete as
the only one in use at Rome. The Roman Mass has thus gone through this last change since Gregory
the Great, a partial fusion with Gallican elements. According to Bäumer and Bishop the Gallican
influence is noticeable chiefly in the variations for the course of the year. Their view is that Gregory
had given the Mass more uniformity (since the time of the Leonine book), had brought it rather to
the model of the unchanging Eastern liturgies. Its present variety for different days and seasons
came back again with the mixed books later. Gallican influence is also seen in many dramatic and
symbolic ceremonies foreign to the stern pure Roman Rite (see Bishop, "The Genius of the Roman
Rite"). Such ceremonies are the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, much of the Holy Week ritual,
etc.
The Roman Ordines, of which twelve were published by Mabillon in his "Museum Italicum" (others
since by De Rossi and Duchesne), are valuable sources that supplement the sacramentaries. They
are descriptions of ceremonial without the prayers (like the "Cærimoniale Episcoporum"), and
extend from the eighth to the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. The first (eighth century) and second
(based on the first, with Frankish additions) are the most important (see LITURGICAL2kBOOKS).
From these and the sacramentaries we can reconstruct the Mass at Rome in the eighth or ninth
century. There were as yet no preparatory prayers said before the altar. The pope, attended by a great
retinue of deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, and singers, entered while the Introit psalm was sung.
After a prostration the Kyrie eleison was sung, as now with nine invocations (see KYRIE
ELEISON); any other litany had disappeared. The Gloria followed on feasts (see GLORIA IN
EXCELSIS). The pope sang the prayer of the day (see COLLECT), two or three lessons followed
(see LESSONS IN THE LITURGY), Interspersed with psalms (see GRADUAL). The prayers of the
faithful had gone, leaving only the one word Oremus as a fragment. The people brought up the
bread and wine while the Offertory psalm was sung; the gifts were arranged on the altar by the
deacons. The Secret was said (at that time the only Offertory prayer) after the pope had washed his
hands. The Preface, Sanctus, and all the Canon followed as now. A reference to the fruits of the
earth led to the words "per quem hæc omnia" etc. Then came the Lord's Prayer, the Fraction with a
complicated ceremony, the kiss of peace, the Agnus Dei (since Pope Sergius, 687701), the
Communion under both kinds, during which the Communion psalm was sung (see COMMUNION
ANTIPHON), the PostCommunion prayer, the dismissal (see ITE MISSA EST), and the procession
back to the sacristy (for a more detailed account see C. Atchley, "Ordo Romanus Primus", London,
1905; Duchesne, "Origines du Culte chrétien", vi).
It has been explained how this (mixed) Roman Rite gradually drove out the Gallican Use (see
LITURGY). By about the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Mass was practically the only one in
use in the West. Then a few additions (none of them very important) were made to the Mass at
different times. The Nicene Creed is an importation from Constantinople. It is said that in 1014
Emperor Henry II (100224) persuaded Pope Benedict VIII (101224) to add it after the Gospel
(Berno of Reichenau, "De quibusdam rebus ad Missæ offic. pertin.", ii), It had already been adopted
in Spain, Gaul, and Germany. All the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the
Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century ("Ordo Rom. XIV", liii, is the
first witness; P.L., LXXVIII, 11634); before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers
("Micrologus", xi, in P.L., CLI, 984). There was considerable variety as to these prayers throughout
the Middle Ages until the revised Missal of Pius V (1570). The incensing of persons and things is
again due to Gallican influence; It was not adopted at Rome till the eleventh or twelfth century
(Micrologus, ix). Before that time incense was burned only during processions (the entrance and
Gospel procession; see C. Atchley, "Ordo Rom. Primus", 1718). The three prayers said by the
celebrant before his communion are private devotions introduced gradually into the official text.
Durandus (thirteenth century, "Rationale," IV, liii) mentions the first (for peace); the Sarum Rite
had instead another prayer addressed to God the Father ("Deus Pater fons et origo totius bonitatis,"
ed. Burntisland, 625). Micrologus mentions only the second (D. I. Chr. qui ex voluntate Patris), but
says that many other private prayers were said at this place (xviii). Here too there was great diversity
through the Middle Ages till Pius V's Missal. The latest additions to the Mass are its present
beginning and end. The psalm "Iudica me", the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of
the altar, are all part of the celebrant's preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers)
in the sacristy, as the "Præparatio ad Missam" in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to
this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar. In
the same way all that follows the "Ite missa est" is an afterthought, part of the thanksgiving, not
formally admitted till Pius V.
We have thus accounted for all the elements of the Mass. The next stage of its development is the
growth of numerous local varieties of the Roman Mass in the Middle Ages. These medieval rites
(Paris, Rouen, Trier, Sarum, and so on all over Western Europe) are simply exuberant local
modifications of the old Roman rite. The same applies to the particular uses of various religious
orders (Carthusians, Dominicans, Carmelites etc.). None of these deserves to be called even a
derived rite; their changes are only ornate additions and amplifications; though certain special
points, such as the Dominican preparation of the offering before the Mass begins, represent more
Gallican influence. The Milanese and Mozarabic liturgies stand on quite a different footing; they are
the descendants of a really different rite — the original Gallican — though they too have been
considerably Romanized (see LITURGY).
Meanwhile the Mass was developing in other ways also. During the first centuries it had been a
common custom for a number of priests to concelebrate; standing around their bishop, they joined
in his prayers and consecrated the oblation with him. This is still common in the Eastern rites. In the
West it had become rare by the thirteenth century. St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) discusses the
question, "Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host" (Summa Theol., III, Q.
lxxxii, a. 2). He answers of course that they can, but quotes as an example only the case of
ordination. In this case only has the practice been preserved. At the ordination of priests and bishops
all the ordained concelebrate with the ordainer. In other cases concelebration was in the early
Middle Ages replaced by separate private celebrations. No doubt the custom of offering each Mass
for a special intention helped to bring about this change. The separate celebrations then involved the
building of many altars in one church and the reduction of the ritual to the simplest possible form.
The deacon and subdeacon were in this case dispensed with; the celebrant took their part as well as
his own. One server took the part of the choir and of all the other ministers, everything was said
instead of being sung, the incense and kiss of peace were omitted. So we have the wellknown rite
of low Mass (missa privata). This then reacted on high Mass (missa solemnis), so that at high Mass
too the celebrant himself recites everything, even though it be also sung by the deacon, subdeacon,
or choir.
The custom of the intention of the Mass further led to Mass being said every day by each priest. But
this has by no means been uniformly carried out. On the one hand, we hear of an abuse of the same
priest saying Mass several times in the day, which medieval councils constantly forbid. Again, many
most pious priests did not celebrate daily. Bossuet (d. 1704), for instance, said Mass only on
Sundays, Feasts, every day in Lent, and at other times when a special ferial Mass is provided in the
Missal. There is still no obligation for a priest to celebrate daily, though the custom is now very
common. The Council of Trent desired that priests should celebrate at least on Sundays and solemn
feasts (Sess. XXIII, cap. xiv). Celebration with no assistants at all (missa solitaria) has continually
been forbidden, as by the Synod of Mainz in 813. Another abuse was the missa bifaciata or
trifaciata, in which the celebrant said the first part, from the Introit to the Preface, several times over
and then joined to all one Canon, in order to satisfy several intentions. This too was forbidden by
medieval councils (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, i, 22). The missa sicca (dry Mass) was a common
form of devotion used for funerals or marriages in the afternoon, when a real Mass could not be
said. It consisted of all the Mass except the Offertory, Consecration and Communion (Durandus,
ibid., 23). The missa nautica and missa venatoria, said at sea in rough weather and for hunters in a
hurry, were kinds of dry Masses. In some monasteries each priest was obliged to say a dry Mass
after the real (conventual) Mass. Cardinal Bona (Rerum liturg. libr. duo, I, xv) argues against the
practice of saying dry Masses. Since the reform of Pius V it has gradually disappeared. The Mass of
the Presanctified (missa præsanctificatorum, leitourgia ton proegiasmenon) is a very old custom
described by the Quinisext Council (Second Trullan Synod, 692). It is a Service (not really a Mass
at all) of Communion from an oblation consecrated at a previous Mass and reserved. It is used in the
Byzantine Church on the weekdays of Lent (except Saturdays); in the Roman Rite only on Good
Friday.
Finally came uniformity in the old Roman Rite and the abolition of nearly all the medieval variants.
The Council of Trent considered the question and formed a commission to prepare a uniform
Missal. Eventually the Missal was published by Pius V by the Bull "Quo primum" (still printed in
it) of 14 July 1570. That is really the last stage of the history of the Roman Mass. It is Pius V's
Missal that is used throughout the Latin Church, except in a few cases where he allowed a modified
use that had a prescription of at least two centuries. This exception saved the variants used by some
religious orders and a few local rites as well as the Milanese and Mozarabic liturgies. Clement VIII
(1604), Urban VIII (1634), and Leo XIII (1884) revised the book slightly in the rubrics and the texts
of Scripture (see LITURGICAL BOOKS). Pius X has revised the chant (1908.) But these revisions
leave it still the Missal of Pius V. There has been since the early Middle Ages unceasing change in
the sense of additions of masses for new feasts, the Missal now has a number of supplements that
still grow (LITURGICAL BOOKS), but liturgically these additions represent no real change. The
new Masses are all built up exactly on the lines of the older ones.
We turn now to the present Roman Mass, without comparison the most important and widespread,
as it is in many ways the most archaic service of the Holy Eucharist in Christendom.
The present Roman Mass
It is not the object of this paragraph to give instruction as to how the Roman Mass is celebrated. The
very complicated rules of all kinds, the minute rubrics that must be obeyed by the celebrant and his
ministers, all the details of coincidence and commemoration — these things, studied at length by
students before they are ordained, must be sought in a book of ceremonial (Le Vavasseur, quoted in
the bibliography, is perhaps now the best). Moreover, articles on all the chief parts of the Mass,
describing how they are carried out, and others on vestments, music, and the other ornaments of the
service, will be found in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. It will be sufficient here to give a
general outline of the arrangement. Theritual of the Mass is affected by (1) the person who
celebrates, (2) the day or the special occasion on which it is said, (3) the kind of Mass (high or low)
celebrated. But in all cases the general scheme is the same. The normal ideal may be taken as high
Mass sung by a priest on an ordinary Sunday or feast that has no exceptional feature.
Normally, Mass must be celebrated in a consecrated or blessed Church (private oratories or even
rooms are allowed for special reasons: see Le Vavasseur, I, 2004) and at a consecrated altar (or at
least on a consecrated altarstone), and may be celebrated on any day in the year except Good Friday
(restrictions are made against private celebrations on Holy Saturday and in the case of private
oratories for certain great feasts) at any time between dawn and midday. A priest may say only one
Mass each day, except that on Christmas Day he may say three, and the first may (or rather, should)
then be said immediately after midnight. In some countries (Spain and Portugal) a priest may also
celebrate three times on All Souls' Day (2 November). Bishops may give leave to a priest to
celebrate twice on Sundays and feasts of obligation, if otherwise the people could not fulfil their
duty of hearing Mass. In cathedral and collegiate churches, as well as in those of religious orders
who are bound to say the Canonical Hours every day publicly, there is a daily Mass corresponding
to the Office and forming with it the complete cycle of the public worship of God. This official
public Mass is called the conventual Mass; if possible it should be a high Mass, but, even if it be
not, it always has some of the features of high Mass. The time for this conventual Mass on feasts and
Sundays is after Terce has been said in choir. On Simples and feriæ the time is after Sext; on feriæ
of Advent, Lent, on Vigils and Ember days after None. Votive Masses and the Requiem on All
Souls' Day are said also after None; but ordinary requiems are said after Prime. The celebrant of
Mass must be in the state of grace, fasting from midnight, free of irregularity and censure, and must
observe all the rubrics and laws concerning the matter (azyme bread and pure wine), vestments,
vessels, and ceremony.
The scheme of high Mass is this: the procession comes to the altar, consisting of thurifer, acolytes,
master of ceremonies, subdeacon, deacon, and celebrant, all vested as the rubrics direct (see
VESTMENTS). First, the preparatory prayers are said at the foot of the altar; the altar is incensed,
the celebrant reads at the south (Epistle) side the Introit and Kyrie. Meanwhile the choir sing the
Introit and Kyrie. On days on which the "Te Deum" is said in the office, the celebrant intones the
"Gloria in excelsis", which is continued by the choir. Meanwhile he, the deacon, and subdeacon
recite it, after which they may sit down till the choir has finished. After the greeting "Dominus
vobiscum, and its answer "Et cum spiritu tuo", the celebrant chants the collect of the day, and after it
as many more collects as are required either to commemorate other feasts or occasions, or are to be
said by order of the bishop, or (on lesser days) are chosen by himself at his discretion from the
collection in the Missal, according to the rubrics. The subdeacon chants the Epistle and the choir
sings the Gradual. Both are read by the celebrant at the altar, according to the present law that he is
also to recite whatever is sung by any one else. He blesses the incense, says the "Munda Cor meum"
prayer, and reads the Gospel at the north (Gospel) side. Meanwhile the deacon prepares to sing the
Gospel. He goes in procession with the subdeacon, thurifer, and acolytes to a place on the north of
the choir, and there chants it, the subdeacon holding the book, unless an ambo be used. If there is a
sermon, if should be preached immediately after the Gospel. This is the traditional place for the
homily, after the lessons (Justin Martyr, "I Apolog.", lxvii, 4). On Sundays and certain feasts the
Creed is sung next, just as was the Gloria. At this point, before or after the Creed (which is a later
introduction, as we have seen), ends in theory the Mass of the Catechumens. The celebrant at the
middle of the altar chants "Dominus vobiscum and "Oremus" — the last remnant of the old prayers
of the faithful. Then follows the Offertory. The bread is offered to God with the prayer "Suscipe
sancte Pater"; the deacon pours wine into the chalice and the subdeacon water. The chalice is
offered by the celebrant in the same way as the bread (Offerimus tibi Domine), after which the gifts,
the altar, the celebrant, ministers, and people are all incensed. Meanwhile the choir sings the
Offertory. The celebrant washes his hands saying the "Lavabo". After another offertory prayer
(Suscipe sancta Trinitas), and an address to the people (Orate fratres) with its answer, which is not
sung (it is a late addition), the celebrant says the secrets, corresponding to thecollects. The last
secret ends with an Ekphonesis (Per omnia sæcula sæculorum). This is only a warning of what is
coming. When prayers began to be said silently, it still remained necessary to mark their ending, that
people might know what is going on. So the last clauses were said or sung aloud. This socalled
Ekphonesis is much developed in the Eastern rites. In the Roman Mass there are three cases of it —
always the words: "Per omnia sæcula sæculorum", to which the choir answers "Amen". After the
Ekphonesis of the Secret comes the dialogue, "Sursum Cords", etc., used with slight variations in all
rites, and so the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer which we call the Preface, no longer counted as
part of the Canon. The choir sings and the celebrant says the Sanctus. Then follows the Canon,
beginning "Te Igitur" and ending with an ekphonesis before the Lord's Prayer. All its parts are
described in the article CANON OF THE MASS. The Lord's Prayer follows, introduced by a little
clause (Præceptis salutaribus moniti) and followed by an embolism (see LIBERA NOS), said
silently and ending with the third ekphonesis. The Fraction follows with the versicle "Pax domini sit
semper vobiscum", meant to introduce the kiss of peace. The choir sings the Agnus Dei, which is
said by the celebrant together with the first Communion prayer, before he gives the kiss to the
deacon. He then says the two other Communion prayers, and receives Communion under both
kinds. The Communion of the people (now rare at high Mass) follows. Meanwhile the choir sings
the Communion (see COMMUNION ANTIPHON). The chalice is purified and the post
Communions are sung, corresponding to the collects and secrets. Like the collects, they are
introduced by the greeting "Dominus vobiscum and its answer, and said at the south side. After
another greeting by the celebrant the deacon sings the dismissal (see ITE MISSA EST). There still
follow, however, three later additions, a blessing by the celebrant, a short prayer that God may be
pleased with the sacrifice (Placeat tibi) and the Last Gospel, normally the beginning of St. John (see
GOSPEL IN THE LITURGY). The procession goes back to the sacristy.
This high Mass is the norm; it is only in the complete rite with deacon and subdeacon that the
ceremonies can be understood. Thus, the rubrics of the Ordinary of the Mass always suppose that
the Mass is high. Low Mass, said by a priest alone with one server, is a shortened and simplified
form of the same thing. Its ritual can be explained only by a reference to high Mass. For instance,
the celebrant goes over to the north side of the altar to read the Gospel, because that is the side to
which the deacon goes in procession at high Mass; he turns round always by the right, because at
high Mass he should not turn his back to the deacon and so on. A sung Mass (missa Cantata) is a
modern compromise. It is really a low Mass, since the essence of high Mass is not the music but the
deacon and subdeacon. Only in churches which have no ordained person except one priest, and in
which high Mass is thus impossible, is it allowed to celebrate the Mass (on Sundays and feasts) with
most of the adornment borrowed from high Mass, with singing and (generally) with incense. The
Sacred Congregation of Rites has on several occasions (9 June, 1884; 7 December, 1888) forbidden
the use of incense at a Missa Cantata; nevertheless, exceptions have been made for several dioceses,
and the custom of using it is generally tolerated (Le Vavasseur, op. cit., I, 5145). In this case, too,
the celebrant takes the part of deacon and subdeacon; there is no kiss of peace.
The ritual of the Mass is further affected by the dignity of the celebrant, whether bishop or only
priest. There is something to be said for taking the pontifical Mass as the standard, and explaining
that of the simple priest as a modified form, just as low Mass is a modified form of high Mass. On
the other hand historically the case is not parallel throughout; some of the more elaborate pontifical
ceremony is an afterthought, an adornment added later. Here it need only be said that the main
difference of the pontifical Mass (apart from some special vestments) is that the bishop remains at
his throne (except for the preparatory prayers at the altar steps and the incensing of the altar) till the
Offertory; so in this case the change from the Mass of the Catechumens to that of the Faithful is still
clearly marked. He also does not put on the maniple till after the preparatory prayers, again an
archaic touch that marks them as being outside the original service. At low Mass the bishop's rank is
marked only by a few unimportant details and by the later assumption of the maniple. Certain
prelates, not bishops, use some pontifical ceremonies at Mass. The pope again has certain special
ceremonies in his Mass, of which some represent remnants of older customs, Of these we note
especially that he makes his Communion seated on the throne and drinks the consecrated wine
through a little tube called fistula.
Durandus (Rationale, IV, i) and all the symbolic authors distinguish various parts of the Mass
according to mystic principles. Thus it has four parts corresponding to the four kinds of prayer
named in 1 Timothy 2:1. It is an Obsecratio from the Introit to the Offertory, an Oratio from the
Offertory to the Pater Noster, a Postulatio to the Communion, a Gratiarum actio from then to the
end (Durandus, ibid.; see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS). The Canon especially has been divided
according to all manner of systems, some very ingenious. But the distinctions that are really
important to the student ofliturgy are, first the historic division between the Mass of the
Catechumens and Mass of the Faithful, already explained, and then the great practical distinction
between the changeable and unchangeable parts. The Mass consists of an unchanged framework into
which at certain fixed points the variable prayers, lessons, and chants are fitted. The two elements
are the Common and the Proper of the day (which, however, may again be taken from a common
Mass provided for a number of similar occasions, as are the Commons of various classes of saints).
The Common is the Ordinary of the Mass (Ordinarium Missae), now printed and inserted in the
Missal between Holy Saturday and Easter Day. Every Mass is fitted into that scheme; to follow
Mass one must first find that. In it occur rubrics directing that something is to be said or sung,
which is not printed at this place. The first rubric of this kind occurs after the incensing at the
beginning: "Then the Celebrant signing himself with the sign of the Cross begins the Introit." But
no Introit follows. He must know what Mass he is to say and find the Introit, and all the other proper
parts, under their heading among the large collection of masses that fill the book. These proper or
variable parts are first the fourchants of the choir, the Introit, Gradual (or tract, Alleluia, and perhaps
after it a Sequence), Offertory, and Communion; then the lessons (Epistle, Gospel, sometimes Old
Testament lessons too), then the prayers said by the celebrant (Collect, Secret, postcommunion;
often several of each to commemorate other feasts or days). By fitting these into their places in the
Ordinary the whole Mass is put together. There are, however, two other elements that occupy an
intermediate place between the Ordinary and the Proper. These are the Preface and a part of the
Canon. We have now only eleven prefaces, ten special ones and a common preface. They do not
then change sufficiently to be printed over and over again among the properMasses, so all are
inserted in the Ordinary; from them naturally the right one must be chosen according to the rubrics.
In the same way, five great feasts have a special clause in the Communicantes prayer in the Canon,
two (Easter and Whitsunday) have a special "Hanc Igitur" prayer, one day (Maundy Thursday)
affects the "Qui pridie" form. These exceptions are printed after the corresponding prefaces; but
Maundy Thursday, as it occurs only once, is to be found in the Proper of the day (see CANON OF
THE MASS).
It is these parts of the Mass that vary, and, because of them, we speak of the Mass of such a day or
of such a feast. To be able to find the Mass for any given day requires knowledge of a complicated
set of rules. These rules are given in the rubrics at the beginning of the Missal. In outline the system
is this. First a Mass is provided for every day in the year, according to the seasons of the Church.
Ordinary week days (feriæ) have the Mass of the preceding Sunday with certain regular changes;
but feriæ of Lent, rogation and ember days, and vigils have special Masses. All this makes up the
first part of the Missal called Proprium de tempore. The year is then overladen, as it were, by a great
quantity of feasts of saints or of special events determined by the day of the month (these make up
the Proprium Sanctorum). Nearly every day in the year is now a feast of some kind; often there are
several on one day. There is then constantly coincidence (concurrentia) of several possible Masses
on one day. There are cases in which two or more conventual Masses are said, one for each of the
coinciding offices. Thus, on feriæ that have a special office, if a feast occurs as well, the Mass of the
feast is said after Terce, that of the feria after None. If a feast falls on the Eve of Ascension Day
there are three Conventual Masses — of the feast after Terce, of the Vigil after Sext, of Rogation
day after None. But, in churches that have no official conventual Mass and in the case of the priest
who says Mass for his own devotion, one only of the coinciding Masses is said, the others being
(usually) commemorated by saying their collects, secrets, and postCommunions after those of the
Mass chosen. To know which Mass to choose one must know their various degrees of dignity. All
days or feasts are arranged in this scale: feria, simple, semidouble double, greater double, double of
the second class, double of the first class. The greater feast then is the one kept: by transferring
feasts to the next free day, it is arranged that two feasts of the same rank do not coincide. Certain
important days are privileged, so that a higher feast cannot displace them. Thus nothing can displace
the first Sundays of Advent and Lent, Passion and Palm Sundays. These are the socalled firstclass
Sundays. In the same way nothing can displace Ash Wednesday or any day of Holy Week. Other
days (for instance the socalled secondclass Sundays, that is the others in Advent and Lent, and
Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima) can only be replaced by doubles of the first class.
Ordinary Sundays count as semidoubles, but have precedence over other semidoubles. The days of
an octave are semidoubles; the octave day is a double. The octaves of Epiphany, Easter, and
Pentecost (the original three greatest feasts of all) are closed against any other feast. The displaced
feast is commemorated, except in the case of a great inferiority: the rules for this are given among
the "Rubricæ generales" of the Missal (VII: de Commemorationibus). On semidoubles and days
below that in rank other collects are always added to that of the day to make up an uneven number.
Certain ones are prescribed regularly in the Missal, the celebrant may add others at his discretion.
The bishop of the diocese may also order collects for special reasons (the socalled Orationes
imperat ). As a general rule the Mass must correspond to the Office of the day, including its
commemorations. But the Missal contains a collection of Votive Masses, that may be said on days
not above a semidouble in rank. The bishop or pope may order a Votive Mass for a public cause to
be said on any day but the very highest. All these rules are explained in detail by Le Vavasseur (op.
cit., I, 21631) as well as in the rubrics of the Missal (Rubr. gen., IV). There are two other Masses
which, inasmuch as they do not correspond to the office, may be considered a kind of Votive Mass:
the Nuptial Mass (missa pro sponso et sponsa), said at weddings, and the Requiem Mass, said for
the faithful departed, which have a number of special characteristics (see NUPTIAL MASS and
REQUIEM MASS). The calendar (Ordo) published yearly in each diocese or province gives the
office and Mass for every day. (Concerning Mass stipends, see SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.)
That the Mass, around which such complicated rules have grown, is the central feature of the
Catholic religion hardly needs to be said, During the Reformation and always the Mass has been the
test. The word of the Reformers: "It is the Mass that matters", was true. The Cornish insurgents in
1549 rose against the new religion, and expressed their whole cause in their demand to have the
Prayerbook Communion Service taken away and the old Mass restored. The long persecution of
Catholics in England took the practical form of laws chiefly against saying Mass; for centuries the
occupant of the English throne was obliged to manifest his Protestantism, not by a general denial of
the whole system of Catholic dogma but by a formal repudiation of the doctrine of
Transubstantiation and of the Mass. As union with Rome is the bond between Catholics, so is our
common share in this, the most venerable rite in Christendom, the witness and safeguard of that
bond. It is by his share in the Mass in Communion that the Catholic proclaims his union with the
great Church. As excommunication means the loss of that right in those who are expelled so the
Mass and Communion are the visible bond between people, priest, and bishop, who are all one body
who share the one Bread.
Sources
I. HISTORY OF THE MASS: DUCHESNE, Origines du Culte chrétien (2nd ed., Paris, 1898); GIHR, Das heilige
Messopfer (6th ed., Freiburg, 1897); RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I (Berlin, 1900); PROBST, Liturgie der drei
ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, Litergie des vierten Jahrhunderts u. deren Reform (Münster,
1893); IDEM, Die ältesten römischen Sacramentarien u. Ordines (Münster, 1892); CABROL, Les Origines liturgiques
(Paris, 1906); IDEM, Le Livre de la prière antique (Paris, 1900); BISHOP, The Genius of the Roman Rite in STALEY,
Essays on Ceremonial (London, 1904), 283307; SEMERIA, La Messa (Rome, 1907); RAUSCHEN, Eucharistie u.
Bussakrament (Freiburg, 1908); DREWS, Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons (Tübingen, 1902); IDEM, Untersuchungen
über die sogen. clementinische Liturgie (Tübingen, 1906); BAUMSTARK, Liturgia Romana e liturgia dell' Esarcato
(Rome, 1904); ALSTON AND TOURTON, Origines Eucharistic (London, 1908); WARREN, Liturgy of the Ante
Nicene Church (London, 1907); ROTTMANNER, Ueber neuere und ältere Deutungen des Wortes Missa in Tübinger
Quartalschr. (1889), pp. 532 sqq.; DURANDUS (Bishop of Mende, d. 1296), Rationale divinorum officiorum Libri
VIII, is the classical example of the medieval commentary; see others in CANON OF THE MASS. BENEDICT XIV
(174058), De SS. Sacrificio Miss , best edition by SCHNEIDER (Mainz, 1879), is also a standard work of its kind.
II. TEXTS: CABROL AND LECLERCQ, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, I, 1 (Paris, 19002); RAUSCHEN,
Florilegium Patristicum: VII, Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica vetustissima (Bonn, 1909); FELTOE,
Sacramentarium Leonianum (Cambridge, 1896); WILS0N, The Gelasian Sacramentary (Oxford, 1894); Gregorian
Sacramentary and the Roman Ordines in P.L., LXXVIII; ATCHLEY, Ordo Romanus Primus (London, 1905); DANIEL,
Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae universae I (Leipzig, 1847); MASKELL, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England
(London, 1846); DICKENSON, Missale Sarum (Burntisland, 186183).
III. PRESENT USE: Besides the Rubrics in the Missal, consult DE HERDT, Sacr Liturgic Praxis (3 vols., 9th ed.,
Louvain, 1894); LE VAVASSEUR, Manuel de Liturgie (2 vols., 10th ed., Paris, 1910); MANY, Pr lectiones de Missa
(Paris, 1903). See further bibliography in CABROL, Introduction aux études liturgiques (Paris, 1907), in CANON OF
THE MASS and other articles on the separate parts of the Mass.
Fortescue, A. (1910). Liturgy of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert
Appleton Company