MASS
l(>
MASS
patristic aiul tnulitioiuil viow; its restoration to a
position of gonoral esteem is the service of Father
Billot (De fwioram.. I, 4th cd.. Home, 1907, pp. o()7
Bqq.l. Since this theory refere the absolute moment
of sacrifice to the (active) "sacramental mystical slay-
ing", and the relative to the (.passive) "separation of
Body and Blood ". it has indeed made the "two-edged
sword" of the double consecration the cause from
which the doulilc character of the Mass as an absolute
(real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We
have an absolute sacrifice, for (he Victim is — not in-
deed in specie propria, but in sprric alicnd — sacramen-
tally slain; we have also a relative .^acrihce, since the
sacramental separation of Bodv and Blood represents
perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the
Cross.
\\liile this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we <lo not ihink 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. moril>usque tliv.. XII. xiii) goes beyond the old ex- planation 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 aecidcns 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 of the double consecration is towards a for- mal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mys- tical shvying thus approaches nearer to a real destruc- tion and the absolute .sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important coiilirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of St. Ciregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance (" Ep. clxxi, ad .\mphil." in P. G., XXXVII. 282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [iiiai.iJLaKTif To^j] thou separatest [riiiv-qi] the Body and Blood of the Lord, having speech as a sword [<puivT)t' fxt^f t6 iI0os]." As an old pupil of Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1S87), the present writer may perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently combatted theory of Cardinal De IjUgo, which Franzelin revived aftera 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. We believe, however, that this theory, like that of Lessius, might Ije most profitably utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the tradi- tional 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 slatu?n cibi ct pntus). in virtue of which the Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves him- self 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 inex- haustible source of k)fty thoughts wherewith to illus- trate in glowing language the humihty and love, the destitution and defencclessness of Our Saviour under the sacramental veil. His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonour, and sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even to-day that fire of self-sacrifice, which once burnetl on the Cro.ss, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious manner from the Heart of Je.sus to our altars. While, in this incompre- hensible condescension, theabsolute moment of sacri- fice 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, the ne- cessity of the double consecration is not made properly apparent, since a single consecration would suflScc to
produce the condition of food, and woul<l tlicrefore
achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the reduction to the
state of articles of food reveals not the faintest anal-
ogy to the blood-shediling on the Cross, anil thus the
relative moment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not
properly dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, there-
fore, of no service in this connexion. It renders, how-
ever, the most useful service in extending (he tra-
ditional idea of a "mystical slaying", since indeed
the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be
nothing else than (he preparation of the mystically
slain \'ictim for the .sacrificial feast in the Communion
of the priest and the faithful.
Concerning research in history of religions see Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum (Gottingen, 1894); Heitmuller, Taufe u. Ahcndmahl hei Paulua (Gottingpn, 1904); Andersen, Das Abendmakl in den zwci ersl,n jahrh. n. Chr. (2nd ed., Giessen, 1906); Bassermann, Vt btr He form drs Abendmahles (Tubingen, 1904) ; O. Holtzmann, Z>(j.s Atunitmii/il im UrchristentuTn in Zeitschr, fur neutestamentl. Wis.vnscliafl (1904), 204 sqq.; Deissmann, LiclU vom Oaten (Tubingen, 1908); Geffcken, Aus der Werdezeit des Christen- tutns (Leipzig, 1904); Clemen, Die retigionsgesch. Methode in der Theol. (Bonn. 1904); Idem, Religionsgesch. Erklarung des N. T. (Gie.ssen, 1909); Reville, Les origines de V Eucharistie {FAns, 1908). For an answer to Radicalism see Rahlenbeck, Die Einsetzung der Taufe u, des Abendviahls u. die inodeme Kriiih (Giitersloli, 1907); Bares, Die Tnodemc prot. Abendmahlsfor- schung {Trier, 1910); GoTZ, Die heutige Abcndmahlsfrage in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung (2nd ed., Leipzig. 1908). Concerning the Anglican view see Gore, The Body of Christ (5th ed., Lon- don. 1907); Newbolt, The Sacrament of the Attar (London. 1908). Concerning the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of. VON Lasaulx, Das Siihnopfer der Griechen u. Rbmer u. ihr Ver- hdltnis zu dem einen auf Gotgatha (Wiirzburg, 1841); Breiten- RElcHER, Die Sakramente u. das hi. Messopfer (.Schaffhausen, 1869); Tanner, Cruentum Christi sacrifieium, incruentum Mis- s(B sacrifieium explicatum (Prague, 1669); Cienfuegos, Vita abscondita sub speciebus velata (Rome, 1728); Westermayr, Die Messe in ihrem Wesen oder das verkldrte Kreuzesopfer (Ratis- bon, 1868); Thalhofer, Das Opfer des A. u. N. Bundes (Ratig- bon, 1870); Diepolder. Das Wesen des eucharist. Opfers u. die vorzugtichen kath. Theologen der drei letzten Jahrh. (Ratisbon, 1877); ScHWANE, Die eucharist. Opferhandlung (Freiburg, 1889); Humphrey, The One Mediator or Sacrifice and Sacra- ment (London, 1890); Vacant, Hist, de la Conception du Sacri- fice de la Messe dans I'Eglise latine (Paris, 1894); van Wersch, Das hi. Messopfer in seiner Wesenheit u. in seiner Feier (Stras- burg. 1895); Charre, Le Sacrifice de VHomme-Dieu (Paris, 1899) ; ScHEEBEN, Die Mysterien des Christentums, § 72 (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1898); Gotzmann, Das eucharist. Opfer nach der Lehre der dlteren Scholastik (Freiburg, 1901); Heinrich-Gut- BERLET, Dogmat. Theol., IX (Mainz, 1901); Renz, DieGesch. des Messopferbegriffes Oder der alte Glaube u. die neuen Theorien iiberdas Wesen des unbluligen Opfers (2 vols., Freising, 1901-3); Mortimer, The Eucharistic Sacrifice. An historical and theo- logical Investigation of the Sacrificial Conception of the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church (Loudon, 1901),
(3) The Causality of the Mass. — In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effechi.t) of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically coincide with the various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely adora- tion, thanksgiving, impetration, and expiation; (b) the manner of its efficacy (modus efficiendi), 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 ope- rantU).
(a) The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass. — The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject en- tirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly ap- praised 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 sym- bolical 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 thanks- giving, 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 interpo.sed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can, iii): " If any one saith, that
