THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ogt) neither East nor West produced a special treatise on the Eucharist. Even Chrysostom, who is called doctor eucharistice, did not write one. His exposition both of sacrifice and the Eucharist is
found in his homiletical and exegetical
5. Chrys- works. He is more occupied with the
ostom. thought of a " mystery " in general and
with that of a " meal " (trophe) than with that of sacrifice. His language is baldly realistic— the blood " reddens " the altar or the tongue (cf. Horn, xxiv., in I Cor., no. 1, MPG, lxi. 200; Horn. Ixxxii., in Matt., no. 5, MPG, lviii. 743; De sacerdotio, iii. 4, MPG, xlviii. 642; Ad illuminandos catecheses, ii. 2, MPG, xlix. 234) — and he uses the epithets " awful " and " fearful " much more often than his predecessors. He feels fully the horror of the thought that a real body and real blood are present instead of the apparent bread and wine. Reflection on the " horror of the blood " appears first in the East in the pseud o-Ambrosian De sacramentis (vi. 3) belonging to the early fifth century (see below, II., 2, § 2). But while here emphasis is put on the supposed benefit to us when the blood is offered in a "similitude," Chrysostom remarks that Christ was the first to drink his blood (Horn. Ixxxii., in Matt., no. 1, MPG, lviii. 739). Compared with later theories of the " killing " or " destruction " of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice (see below, 5, § 3) Chrysostom's words are very mild. They express rhetorical pathos more than dogmatic theories. In so far as he considers the sacrifice on Calvary, he makes the eucharistic sacrifice only a " symbol " of it. The " sacrificial act " has only spiritual reference to Calvary. Chrysostom, furthermore, is the first distinct witness to the custom which ultimately led almost to a separation of the " mass " and the " communion." He makes it plain that many came to the service, but went away before the communion, and he condemns the practise in strong terms (Horn. Hi., in Eph., no. 4, MPG, lxii. 29; De incomprehensibilitate Dei naturae, iii. 6, MPG, xlviii. 725-726). That he regarded the " sacrifice " and the communion (metalepsis) as two separable acts and the former as a purely " priestly " function is clear.
4. Medieval Theories : In the West the theological treatment of the mass underwent no essential change during the Middle Ages. Scholasticism merely systematized the earlier conceptions. But certain practical factors had a greater influence in
the West than in the East. It must
1. Practical have lowered the sacrament in the
Factors, popular estimation when it began to
be offered for personal ends. As early as the sacramentary named after Gregory the Great and certainly containing material from him (see below, II., 1, § 3) there are masses for cattle pestilence, droughts and floods, storms, times of war, and sickness. Masses were said for the king, for monasteries, for priests, for travelers, and for the oppressed and troubled. As the number of occasions was multiplied the belief sprang up that there was efficacy in the number of masses. A single mass no longer counted for much. In the ancient Church the Lord's Supper was generally celebrated on Sundays and the anniversaries of martyrs; only in particular places, as North Africa,
did the communion take place daily. But the latter custom soon spread. In the fifth century we meet with several masses on the same day. The number increased especially in the eighth and ninth centuries, and chapels and oratories and altars were multiplied indefinitely. At the same time the participation of the people steadily grew less. The private masses of the Roman Church (see below, II., 6) are purely hierurgic. The Greek Church has no private mass, allows only one mass on the same day, and has only one altar in each church. After the twelfth century the Roman Church restricted each priest to one mass a day, except under fixed conditions, and forbade masses after noon. The custom of hearing mass without communicating, however, has continued, and there has even grown up a communion without mass (cf. KL, iii. 722). Theological discussion during the Middle Ages always treats sacrifice and communion together and lays stress on the latter, because it is based on the ritual, which has never separated the two notions. Peter Lombard treats of the sacrifice of the Eucharist only in barest outline (Sentential, book iv., dist. 12 and 13). He says that the " sacrament of the Eucharist " is a " sacrifice " and that Christ " is offered repeatedly." The " daily offering "is a " reminiscence [recordatio] of the sacri- 2. Scholas- nce which was made " and as such is a tic Dogma- " memorial and representation of the ticians. true sacrifice." It is difficult to realize Thomas wnat the Scholastics and the Fathers Aquinas, before them mean by " representation " and " memorial." Sometimes they contrast the " representation " and the " truth," sometimes they understand the " representation " as a special part of the " truth." As concerns the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass, Peter says that it brings about the " remission of venial sins" and the "perfection of virtue." Albertus Magnus follows Peter, but far surpasses him in the subtilty of his questions and answers. Thomas Aquinas assumes that the distinction between sacrifice and sacrament is settled and known to everybody, but in the sense that the Eucharist has two sides, not two parts. He sometimes refers to the distinction to remove difficulties, and when he finds it difficult to distinguish the two sides of the Eucharist he says that they are separated, not actually, but logically.
Thomas attempts no systematic exposition of the Eucharist, but in part iii. of the Summa theologica, questions 73- 83 (Parma ed., vol. iv. 332-403), he considers all queries concerning it, ritual and disciplinary as well as dogmatic, which arose in his own mind, and gives definitions of terms and concepts. He propounds, in question 73, the fundamental question whether the Eucharist is a sacrament. In art. 1 he defines a sacrament as that which contains something sacred. A thing can be sacred either absolutely or in relation to something. The Eucharist contains something Bacred absolutely, that is, the body of Christ. Consequently the sign (res) of a sacrament is given in its very matter (moreover, that which is the sign merely is in the recipient, that is, the grace which is conferred). In art. 4 the different names of the sacrament are explained. It is called a sacrifice, communion, and viaticum; the first with respect to the past, in that it is commemorative of the Lord's passion, which was a true sacrifice; the second with respect to the present, that is, the unity of the Church, into which men are gathered and united by this sacrament; the third signification has respect to the future, in that it is prefigura-