RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Mass
tive of the enjoyment of God which shall be. He comes to the distinction between sacrament and sacrifice in quest. 79, art. 5. To the query whether all punishment for sin is remitted by this sacrament, he answers: it must be said that this sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament, but it has the character of a sacrifice in that it is offered, the character of a sacrament in that it is received. In art. 7 he adds: in that the passion of Christ, in which Christ offered himself a sacrifice (hostiam) to God, is represented in this sacrament, it has the character of a sacrifice, but in that an invisible grace is imparted in this sacrament under a visible form (species), it has the character of a sacrament. Clearly the concept of sacrament is the more comprehensive. In part ii. 2, quest. 85, Thomas considers sacrifice. He says (art. 3, end) that things are properly called sacrifices when something is done about things offered to God, as when animals are killed, etc. And the name shows this; for it is called " sacrifice " because man makes something sacred (sacrum facit). It is not clear how Thomas applies this thought to the eucharistic sacrifice. In III., Ixxvii. 7, he comes to the question of the breaking in the Lord's Supper, and finds it a problem, because only the form of the bread is present and the thought may arise that the breaking of the bread is only according to appearance, not according to real truth. Then the question may arise whether Christ's body itself is not broken. Thomas rejects this as unthinkable, because this body is incorruptible and impassible according to its essence and it is present entire in every part (cf. quest. 73, art. 3, "by concomitance"!). So he shows rather that the form can be really broken, and then it follows for him that the breaking of the form is a sacrament of the Lord's passion, which was truly in the body of Christ. Accordingly the sacrifice of the mass is really a sacrifice, something is done in it about Christ, but to the form. Quest. 83, art. 1, whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament, confirms this. Most certainly he is sacrificed, in that celebration of this sacrament is a representative image of the passion of Christ, which is the true sacrifice of him. Quest. 76, art. 2, considers the two forms, bread and wine. Since each of the forms after transubstantiation contains Christ entire, the sacrament in one form would not represent the passion of Christ; the body and the blood would be separated. Therefore the image must present both the body and the blood. Accordingly only the double form, or rather the twofold consecration, presents the passion to view with the separation of body and blood in the true sacrifice. The consecration completes the image of the passion, it is the act of the representation of the passion. In quest. 79 Thomas treats of the effects of the sacrament. He distinguishes between what it effects as sacrifice and what it effects as food. He had already remarked (quest. 74, art. 1) that the body of Christ is offered for the salvation of the body, the blood for that of the soul (cf. the teaching of Ambrose, 3, § 2 above). He recurs to this in 79, 1, to add the qualification that such a distinction is valid only by a sort of assimilation, in reality each effects the salvation of both since Christ is present entire in each. He then explains in detail the effect of the sacrament for the attainment of glory (art. 2), the remission of mortal sin (art 3), and the remission of venial sins (art. 4). In art. 5 he declares that the sacrament, in that it is a sacrifice, has " satisfactive " power, but only according to the quantity of devotion and not in place of all punishment, because, if the latter were true, there would be a defect of human devotion. In art. 7 he asks whether this sacrament profits others than those participating, and answers " yes," but only objectively; whoever is not joined to the passion of Christ by faith and love does not attain the benefits. One mass, according to Thomas, has only one effect. But in many masses the offering of the sacrifice is multiplied and therefore the effect of the sacrifice is multiplied. In quest. 79, art. 1, it is stated incidentally that the effect which the passion of Christ produces in the world, this sacrament produces in man.
5. The Council of Trent and Neoscholastic and Modern Speculations: Luther attacked the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass on two grounds : because Jesus neither performed nor instituted a sacrifice, and because he thought that it savored of salvation by works. He was preeminently successful in the circles which he influenced directly, and he incited the Roman Church to a new defense and
approbation of the doctrine. No earlier synodal
gathering had accorded it the consideration which
it received from the Council of Trent.
1. The The " most holy sacrament of the Council Eucharist " was treated here in the of Trent, thirteenth session, Oct. 11, 1551,
and the " sacrifice of the mass," as though it were a wholly different thing, in the twenty-second session, more than a decade later, Sept. 17, 1562. The thirteenth session sanctioned a conception which had long prevailed, that the sacrifice was not an act of the congregation, but of the priests for the congregation. In the decree of the twenty-second session it was declared that Christ had performed and instituted a sacrifice to " represent " the sacrifice of the cross, so that the " memory " of the latter should endure " to the end of the world " and its " salutary effect might be applied to the remission of the sins which we commit daily" (canon i.; the thought is explained further in canon ii.). The expressions "sacrifice," "offer," and " represent " are used as equivalent. The sacrifice is not a new suffering of Christ, the " sacrificing " is not renewed, but Christ once sacrificed is daily brought before God as such in his real essence. The " victim " (hostia) is " one and the same " on the cross and in the mass, and the " one who offers " is the same, only the " manner " is different, there bloody, here in the form of bread and wine, formerly by Christ without a mediary, now by the mediation of the " ministry of priests." The effect is also the same and the sacrifice of the mass is " truly propitiatory"; those who participate under the necessary conditions (faith, reverence, etc.) draw near to God, receive " mercy and grace," and " great crimes and sins" are remitted to them. A qualification, which has in view the sacrament of penance, is noteworthy here — in giving grace God grants only " the gift of penitence." The necessity for the sacrifice of the mass is based on two principles: first that Christ would not have his " priesthood " terminated " by death " but would " remain " in function what he was, and secondly that the " nature of man " requires a " visible " memorial of the sacrifice on the cross. The catechism ordered by the council and issued by Pius V. in 1566 follows (questions 53 sqq.) the decisions of the Council, but with grosser forms of expression. The sacrifice in the mass appears here less representative of that on the cross than repetitive of it. There were two tendencies at work — one which strove not to obscure the cross; another (Jesuitical) which aimed only to exalt the mass.
The last theologian whose doctrine of the mass merits detailed examination is the Jesuit- cardinal, Robert Bellarmme (d. 1621). In his exposition (Disputationes de controversiis Christiana fidei, vol. iii., Cologne, 1628) he bases the distinction between
sacrament and sacrifice on transub-
2. Bel- stantiation. The sacrifice is propitilarmine. atory, " for the remission of sins," but
is also effective for " all sorts of benefits." It has efficacy ex opere operate, that is, "in itself"; and the opus operantis, that is, "any goodness or devotion in him who works," at the most only strengthens the efficacy of the act. Three
Mass