The Irish

cclesiastical Record
a 00ontblp journal unDec episcopal Sanction

VOLUME XXXII
JULY

to

DECEMBER, 1928

FIFTH SERIES

DUBLIN
BROWNE AND NOLAN, LIMITED, NASSAU STREET
1928
ILL RIGHTS RESERVED

480

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

The Orangemen were furious. Brunswick clubs to ec
tain Protestant ascendancy in Ireland were estaWs
throughout the country. At an Orange meeting held i|
Dublin on the 12th August, Mr. Ellis, Master in Chanc?'
ARE THE FRUITS OF THE MASS
declared there were 400,000 armed Orangemen ready)
INFINITE?
take the field. The Catholics responded by pouring mr
into the coffers of the Association—one week the a
By Rev. DAVID BARRY
received was £2,704 ; the next week, £1,427 was acfae»
ledged—and by attending the provincial meetings inmEr
S this question was at one time treated in the I. E.
array with bands and banners, tens of thousands stra
Record by the late Archbishop Walsh, with his
O’Connell was not a revolutionist. He had too ingrained·
characteristic thoroughness and lucidity, it may seem
respect for constituted authority ever to resort to as superfluous for me, if not, indeed, impertinent, to return
His hatred of bloodshed was also intense. He bl· to the subject in these pages. But as it is more than fortyconscientious horror of war. ‘ One murder, one robbery d five years 1 since the Archbishop’s articles appeared, they
horrify,’ he once said, ‘and I cannot conceive how robbf are, possibly, more or less inaccessible to the present
and murder are one whit better for being multitudine»' generation of priests; and, on the other hand, the subject,
yet that is war.’ The whole country was now at his bd both for practical and theoretical reasons, is of vital and
abiding interest.
A word from him, and the fires of insurrection would
The easiest and clearest way, I think, to handle it is to
out. But he held this tremendous physical force
supreme control, and was determined to prevent it & consider in order the four categories of fruits or effects
into which the benefits accruing to the Church generally,
hurling itself in mad desperation, as it desired,
the might of England. He bellowed defiance with 5^i and to individuals from the Mass, are commonly divided ;
torian lungs. The Ministers were to be deceived or inh®'
to state what the theologians hold about the infinite
dated by declarations, that seemed to have behind tbs’ dficacy of each. However, as a preliminary, a few
nation in martial array. But in O’Connell’s mind wm t technical terms that occur in this department of theology
fixed determination that, whatever happened, there wi need a little elucidation. The first of these is the word
; ‘infinite.’ This may have two significations : it may mean
be no rebellion.
Michael MacDoxî® i infinite in the strict sense (categorematice), i.e., without any
[To te concluded.]
Emit at all, in the sense, for instance, that the Divine
eternity is infinite; or it may mean merely indefinite
(tyncalcgoremalice infinite), i.e., when limits exist, indeed,
but may be extended without restriction, as in the use of
numbers, or when we say that a straight line contains an
infinite number of points.
The next two terms which call for a few words of notice

A

1 ία the number* far (December 1882 (pp. 705*718) and for January 1883
12 21).

VOL. xxxn—31

482

t

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

483

are ‘ intensive ’ and ‘ extensive,’ employed to qualify tk which is contrary to what theologians of all other schools
word infinite, as when we affirm or deny that the fruits of tit attribute to them, inasmuch as they were the actions of a
Massare ‘intensive’ or ‘extensive’ infinite. Well, accord^ Divine Person. For in reality the Scotists accept the view
to the meaning usually1 ascribed to these terms, they hit that these acts were endowed with efficacy in an indefinite
regard respectively to the efficacy of the Mass as applki degree,1 whatever was its source. Although it is true that
on behalf of one recipient merely, and of more than ml as a fact, if not as a consequence of their theory, Scotus
Tn other words, to say that its effects are intensive infià himself,8 and, possibly, St. Bonaventure, hold the restricted
implies that one Mass is as helpful to an individual as tn view as to the effects of the Mass.
As for the classes into which these effects are divided,
or more would be, his dispositions, or capacity to benefit
being supposed to remain the same. While to hold that th the theologians, while agreeing about the facts, are not,
effects are extensive infinite is equivalent to maintain^ invariably, at one about questions of terminology. Thus,
that the advantages accruing to one person from a Mas Billot, in opposition to the common opinion, recognizes only
are in no way prejudiced or lessened by any number d three categories altogether, and includes the fruits of petition
others being associated with him. Or to put the matte under those of propitiation. He professes to base his
in a different way, we use intensive when we measure th position on the teaching of the Council of Trent.8 Here
efficacy of the Mass by reference to the number applied are his words 1 :—
for a particular purpose ; and we use extensive when w
Some authors make a distinction between sacrifice according as it is
estimate it by reference to the number of purposes that propitiatory on the one hand or impetratory on the other. Certainly,
each Mass serves. However, certain theologians, such a ' as far as the actual existence of these effects is concerned, there can be
no ground of dispute ; but so far as exposition or explanation goes, 1
Lugo,8 Génicot* and apparently, Franzelin ‘ apply the
I do not like to make any distinction between these two ideas. In the first
word intensive to designate infinite efficacy in the strict a I place>
the Council of Trent, although it speaks very plainly
categorematic sense. Although these employ the termI1 about the power of' sacrifice
.........................
1 “
in placating the anger of""God, and in getting
benefits
for
us,
always
employs
the
same
word
—
propitiatory.
Secondly,
extensive in the meaning commonly given to it, namdy, to
I because this term covers very adequately, and applies very aptly to
cover the case of a Mass being offered for two or mort I both these effects of sacrifice. For to make a person propitious towards
intentions.
I us, _______
is not merely to disarm his anger, by doing away with the cause of it,
It may be well, too, to note that the question of tbt I but it actually inclines him to shower gifts on the one-time offender.
unlimited or restricted efficacy is in no way dependent ® I Hence, in the third place propitiation includes petition, and addstoit
the notion of making up for some offence. Accordingly, if there were
the discredited theory of Scotus® that the actions otlta
no sin in the world, there would be no occasion for propitiation, only
Lord for the purpose of merit and satisfaction were nd I amply for impétration ; however, inasmuch as there is sin, every petition
of themselves—inasmuch as His human nature was fasto I should have a placatory side.
-—but only through the Divine acceptance, of infinite worth': |
But if Billot wants to widen the content of propitiation,
1 See St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. vi. n. 312 : * Secunda seat®!* I
veto,’ etc. ; Billuart, de Eucharistia, diss. viii. art. v. p. 498 (1770 ed.) ;
j,
I. E. Recoud, January, 1883, p. 17, nn. 59, 61.
I
’De Eucharistia, disp. xix. sect. 12, n. 244.
i
3 Theologia Moralis, ii. 218 (ed. 1921).
|
* De Eucharistia, p. 371 (ed. 1873).
I
6 See Billuart, de Incarnatione, diss. 19, art. 5, p. 204 (ed. 177<X: i
McGuinness, de Incarnatione, pp. 244, sqq.
<
• This opinion, according to Suarez, ‘ neo probabilis nec pia nec fidà «à I
consentanea videtur.’
.
i

by assuming that it embraces impétration, other theologians
are anxious, probably for clearness’ sake, to lessen its com­
prehensiveness, by giving the special title of satisfaction
lSee Billuart, loc. cit., p. 209.
1 According to St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.
'Sees. 22, cap, 2, and can. 3.
*De Sacramentis, i., p. 585, note (ed. 1900)

_

484

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

to what the Mass does in getting us forgiveness of the
temporal punishment (reatus poenae) due to sin, while they
confine propitiation to its appeal to God’s clemency to give
us copious graces to get rid of sin itself (reatus culpaè).
I need refer to exemplify this only to Billuart, Lehmkuhl
and Noldin as representative authors.
It may be well to remark also that, though the question
at issue about the infinite efficacy is raised usually in con­
nexion with the special1 fruit of the Mass—that certainly
at the celebrant’s disposal for others—it is not by any
means confined to this, but may be extended as well
to the general, and what is technically called the very
special fruit—that coming automatically, as it were, to
the priest himself.2 But practical considerations regarding
stipends, etc., have contributed to bring the controversy to
a head and into prominence in connexion with the special
fruit. And, as a fact, it is in the law and procedure con­
versant with this that the contending authorities find their
principal armoury.
It is almost superfluous, I suppose, to remark that no
one denies the limited value of the Mass, in so far as the
offering of it is the act or work of the Church, in its corporate
capacity, through its delegate or representative, the celebrant,
or in so far as this is a meritorious action on his own part.
Because, although the Victim offered by the Church and
priest is infinite, this, as Lugo says,® is a poor argument
1 What some call the fructus medius or ministerialis.
2 Some call this special and others personal. Priimmer and Noldin appro­
priate the term special to the graces accruing to those who are rather closely
associated in the celebration of a Mass, i.e., those serving and assisting at it,
and those who may have given an offering to have it said, etc. Whereas others
simply include these with the priest as sharers in the very special fruit. How­
ever this may be, it is clear that one who gives a honorarium for a Mass receives
not only the special fruit of it, but participates with those actually present
at it in the benefits they get. So the foundation for the question that is some­
times put as to whether it is more advantageous to be present at a Maes or
to give an offering for it, seems to me salvo meliore judicio, to be somewhat
slight or insecure. The formal classifying of those who share in the fruits
dates only from the time of Scotus ; but, of course, the underlying facts were
always vividly realised in the consciousness of Christians. (Franzelin, op. dt
p. 378.)
3 Loc. cit. n. 233 : * Prius respicit Deus ad offerentem et postea ad
munera.’

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS
from which to infer boundless efficacy in the oblation ; for
its worth is derived, not primarily from the Victim, but from
the dignity and status of the offerer. According to Lugo,*
Dr. Walsh,8 and Cohalan,3 the Mass, as offered in the name
of the Church, can have only the efficacy of impétration,
not that ‘ either of merit or satisfaction, for these, as theology
teaches, belong only to individual, personal acts.’4 How­
ever, this is not the belief of Franzelin, who explicitly at­
tributes both a satisfactory and a propitiatory effect to the
Mass, in so far as the Church participates in it ; as does
Noldin5 to the recitation of the Divine Office in as far as
it is the act of the Church as a moral body.
Having premised so much, it is time now to say that
there can be no doubt at all that the value or efficacy of
each Mass in itself, and apart from the question how far
this is made available for its beneficiaries, or as some put
it, considering it in actu primo, is infinite ; and that, too,
in the strict sense or categorematic sense. Because the
Mass, being in reality the same sacrifice as that of the
Cross, has the same High Priest of infinite dignity and worth
to offer it and to be its Victim. Consequently, were it not
for some disability on the part of those for whom it is applied,
or for some Divine ordinance or economy, limiting what
may be called its natural superabundance, it would be pro­
ductive of an infinity of good effects for us, and be in
an infinite degree capable of reaching and alleviating our
wants.
And it is the unanimous teaching that as our limited
receptive powers are not involved in the case, there is no
obstacle in the way of its unrestricted efficacy as regards
worship or adoration of God and thanksgiving to Him. Nor
is there any reason why these effects should not invariably,
and from each Mass, ascend before the throne of Almighty
‘N. 240.
*1. E. Record, December, 1882, p. 713, n. 21.
’ De Eucharistia, p. 495.
4 Whereas the Church ‘ non exercet libertatem actualem in actu oblationis
sed solum se habet sicut rex qui misit legatum?
‘Pe Praeceptis, n. 755, 2 (1922 ed.). Franzelin, p. 369.

MO·

486

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

God in a manner and to a degree that is worthy of His
Infinite Majesty. Thus, Franzelin says1 :—
As regards God : adoration, praise and thanksgiving worthy of Him,
was at one time given on the Cross ; and by the sacrifice [in the Mass]
of the-only Son of God, Who is (both the principal Offerer of it and the
Victim in it, the bloody sacrifice is again and again represented and, as it
were, repeated in the sight of God.

And according to Dr. Walsh 2 :—
.’I

, That the ?Mass is of infinite efficacy as a sacrifice of adoration and of
thanksgiving,3 admits of no doubt.4

Now, as for the effects of it that are technically called
fruits, namely, impétration, propitiation and satisfaction
(if one wishes, unlike Billot, to consider these as distinct),
it is clear that they are not intensive infinite in the sense that
we saw was given that term by Lugo, Franzelin and Génicot.
For in a world restricted in extent there can be no room
for an effect that is infinite in the strict sense ; and neither
the needs nor the sins of even the whole human race can
be of more than indefinite magnitude (syncategoremaiice
infinite). Although, of course? in a sense, infinite malice
is inherent in every mortal sin, inasmuch as it is an offence
against God. However, the eternal punishment attaching
to such a sin is not immediately forgiven by the holy sacrifice,
but only through the grace of repentance.
Taking intensive in its common acceptation, the Mass
could, as I have said already, be regarded as infinite or
rather indefinite, if one were as efficacious for an indi­
vidual as several would be, supposing his dispositions we
to remain unchanged. Because if these or his capacity to
benefit were different, when one of the group of Masses was
offered, from what they were when the rest were applied,
there would be no ground of comparison at all. Thus, it
may be that, as the Masses are being said, the beneficiary has
more and more need of grace and help, for instance, if he
be dying, and a greater claim on the Divine mercy. So
1 Page 370.
11. E. Recobd, January, 1883, p. 12.

8 Italics in original.
4 See Cohalan, p, 604.

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

487

that, even if he gets a progressive increase of aid and favour,
as the Masses are celebrated, this may not necessarily be
attributable to their number; nor mean that the whole
series is more efficacious than the first one, or, in other
words, that the power of each is limited. This point, being
carefully borne in mind, I think we can discuss the two,
questions together of (a) the ‘intensive,’ and (&) the ‘ex­
tensive ’ infinity of the fruits ; for the same principles
seem relevant to the solution of each question, and the
same schools of theologians hold the same view on both.
Well, limiting our consideration for the present to
propitiation and satisfaction, Scotus, St. Bonaventure and
Sotus, hold1 that these effects are limited, both ‘ intensive ’
and ‘ extensive.’ To these may be added Suarez and Lugo ;
as well as Billuart who favours both opinions in a hesitating
way1; and in modern times Franzelin,1*3 Billot, Lehmkuhl,
etc. Although they, naturally enough, do not all rely on
identical arguments to sustain their position. One of the
least plausible of these 45is that the efficacy of the Mass is
derived from the action of thé individual priest who may
be saying it, inasmuch as Christ does not offer it immediately,
but only remotely, in virtue of its first institution. But
even if this contention were well founded, it would not follow
that the value of the Mass would be measured by the merits
of the celebrant. However, as a fact, Christ is at the same
time the Victim and the principal Offerer in every Mass,
as was laid down by the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215),
according to which He is both the priest and the sacrifice
in the Church. This point was even more strongly em­
phasized by the Council of Trent6 For there is now the same Victim and the same Offerer, through the
ministry of the priests, that at one time sacrificed Himself on the Cross ;
there is merely a difference in the way the offering takes place.
1 As St. Alphonsus tells us, loo. cit. Though the Saint himself in his Moral
Theology, considered this view less probable, he afterwards, in 1769, in some of
his writings called it more probable and defended it.
’De Eucharistia, diss. viii. art. 5, p. 502 (ed. 1770).
’Loco, cit., p. 372.
*8ce St. Alphonsus, loc. cit. Of. however, Venneerach. n. 285. ·
5 Sees. 22, de sacrificio Missae, cap. i.

P’ Itasei
iP
iSM
’■·

\

Ks

488

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

489

Nor is any other view for a moment compatible with the as evidencing the Will of her Divine Spouse, seem the real
perpetual priesthood of Christ in Heaven, always living foundation on which the restrictive theory is based.
to make intercession for us.1
Before dealing with these regulations in detail, I may
Accordingly, others, with a great deal more plausibility, mention a consideration that I think gives a reason for them
adopt this line of reasoning. The Mass, regarded in itself,
and an explanation of them, and shows how consistent they
and with reference, as it were, to its native efficacy, would are and how uniform their tendency. I believe it may be
be beyond all question, infinitely beneficial to us ; but the fairly contended that the opinion as to its circumscribed
effects produced by it on each occasion that it is said have efficacy is the better calculated to foster devotion to the
been definitely restricted by the Divine Will. So that | Mass, by furnishing an incentive to assist at it, or celebrate
although these effects may be all applied by the minister
it, or get it celebrated more frequently. If we were con­
at his own discretion for the advantage of only one or for
duced that one Mass was the medium of boundless blessings
that of several, still, in proportion as they are made avail­ to us, the selfish or self-regarding element in our nature,
able for many, there will be so much the less for each
which is such a powerful motive in our imperfect state,
to draw on. Just, these theologians say, as a fixed sum of would not induce us so often to celebrate the Mass for our­
money that a charitable person authorizes his almoner to
selves or our friends, or secure its celebration, as the case
distribute among certain poor persons will be more bene­ may be. It is true, indeed, that, whatever opinion one
ficial for one or two of them than if three or four were
adopts, a priest neglecting the holy sacrifice (and in a measure
allowed to share it.
the laity failing to do their part) ‘ deprives, in so far as he
Billot, though, and perhaps others of what I may call,
can, the Holy Trinity of praise and glory, the angels of joy,
without disrespect, the minimizing school, do not believe
sinners of pardon, the just of help and grace, the souls in
in this supposed law or regulation of Christ, but look for the
Purgatory of alleviation of their sufferings, the Church
source of limitation in the manner in which the Massis
of Christ of spiritual benefits, and himself of a healing
applied. And he reminds us that the application is better i medicine for all his ills.’ Nevertheless, it is manifest that
and more efficacious in proportion as it is more concen­ if the propitiatory and satisfactory effects were indefinitely
trated, if I may so put it, and the object of it more clearly
great, those who seem anxious to do as little as they can
and exclusively present in the priest’s mind.’ Now, this
for their souls would not trouble much, if they were sure
is the case when he has one intention rather than several,
that one Mass was offered for them ; at least if this were
because it is the nature of a human act, such as the saying
it a time when they were in a good position to profit by it.
of Mass is, that in proportion as it embraces a number of
Now, it is a fundamental principle of the Divine economy
objects as if they were a unit, so it is concerned less deterthat we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
minately and more obscurely with each.* I leave it to the
And it is reasonable to assume that, just as all adults have
reader to judge whether this explanation, which seems a bit
by their own endeavours to avail themselves of the happy
technical and artificial, would have suggested itself, apart
results of Christ’s sufferings and death on the Cross, so the
from the regulations and practice of the Church which,1
23 untold treasures of the Mass which are drawn from these
should not be made accessible all at once and mechanically,
1 Romans -viii. 34 ; Hebrews vii. 28 and ix. 24.
, as it were, but should be the reward of patience, perseverance,
2 ‘ De applicatione dicimus illam esse tanto meliorem quanto minus conite»
?
and continuous and life-long devotion to the Mass. This
seu communis est.’ (Billot, op. cit., p. 599.)
3 Ibidem, p. 602.
then, in a word, I should consider the basic reason for holding

1I

·.

I-

·'■

490

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

491

the theory of restricted efficacy—that it supplies us with a
great antidote to spiritual sloth, tepidity and carelessness.
The first evidence of the Church’s mind on the subject
may be given in the words of St. Thomas1: —

case, the title to it is ipso facto withdrawn, and taking it
or keeping it then becomes unjust. In the same way as
a priest whp exacts too high a stipend, in defiance of law
or custom, violates justice, though he probably does not
If a suffrage offered for many would be as useful for each as if it were ' commit simony.1
appropriated for this person alone, it would seem that the Church ought ’j
The feeling of the Church, too, in the same sense, is
not to have arranged that Mass should be said for any individual in |
I
evident
from the encouragement given in the rubrics to
particular, but that it should be invariably said for all the faithful (
departed.
1’ celebrate a memorial Mass for a deceased person on the
third, seventh, and thirtieth day after his death, and indeed
Motives of charity and compassion would make this in­
annually. Since the beneficiary is dead, his dispositions
evitable if each Mass was indefinitely efficacious ; because aD
suffer no change, and yet it is taken for granted that it may
Christians would, in this hypothesis, be benefited without
require not only one Mass, say, on the day of his death,
prejudice to any one of them in particular. Everyone
but many others as well, to effect his release from Purgatory.
knows, though, how much a matter of course and how
This would seem to prove that the efficacy of each Mass is
universal is the custom of offering the special fruits ex­
‘intensive’ limited, or in other words that many are more
clusively to meet the needs or aspirations of some individual
effective than one, the conditions remaining the same.
Indeed, there would seem to be little necessity at all, or
Equally expressive are the recognition of the importance
little ground, for the distinction between the general and
of foundation Masses ; and the giving of the indulgence of a
the special effects if the other view were true.
i privileged altar. The latter is to be applied for the benefit
It is often alleged also that the condemnation by
1 of the soul for whom the Mass, in connexion with which it
Alexander VII of the proposition that ‘ it is not against
is gained, is offered ; and it would be quite nugatory and
justice to take a stipend for several Masses and to offer
superfluous if such a soul at the same time got from the
only one of them,’2 is incompatible with the theory that
holy sacrifice all the alleviation in the way of satisfaction
incapacity or unworthiness is the only bar to the efficacy of
. that its dispositions warrant.
each. But, personally, 1 cannot see that this is conclusive,
It is also alleged, frequently, that an argument to the
seeing that even though the fruits of each were unlimited,
same effect can be drawn by analogy from the operation
the Church might well put a curb on covetousness and the of the Sacraments. The fact, it is contended, that all the
making of sordid lucre, by prohibiting the receipt of more
Sacraments have different functions, that one will not take
than one honorarium for every Mass said. Nor need the
the exact place of another, and that several may be received
fact that the obligation in question is one in justice, as i
at practically the same time, goes to show that the efficacy
appears from this proposition and the decrees of one of the |
of each is strictly limited. Thus, baptized infants may be
Congregations, be taken as proving that it is any more j
beneficially confirmed * as they used to be in the early
than a wise ecclesiastical regulation ; although such an j
days of Christianity ; indeed, the Blessed Eucharist used
authority as Franzelin thinks the contrary.’ Because per- |
to be given to them as well, up to the twelfth century. And
mission to take any offering at all comes from the Church,
what is thus true of the Sacraments is very likely to be true
and when she issues a prohibition against it in a particular
of the Mass which, like them, applies the merits of the Cross
to our souls.
1 Quoted by St. Alphonsus, n. 312.
3 Page 372, note.
2 Of. Code, co. 825 and 828.

1 Prammer, n. 270.

4 Code, Canon 786.

492

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

498

Besides, they make a good deal of capital out of the following
But, on the other hand, it may, I think, be maintained
quotation from the Angelic Doctor1
with some probability that the analogy tells in favour
Although, therefore, this oblation is large enough to satisfy for every
of the opposite opinion. Because each of the Sacraments
punishment,
nevertheless it becomes satisfactory in a higher degree
seems to be of indefinite power within its own sphere of
for those on whose behalf it is offered, or evén who offer it, according to
operation, that is within the department of the spiritual the degree of their devotion, and not always so as to do away with the
life whose interests it is particularly intended to serve. entire debt of punishment.
For example, no one would advise a person to receive |
Penance twice at morally speaking the same time, when · Tins, indeed, seems to show that St. Thomas believes that
the presumption is that no change has occurred in the the sole limit to the benefits of the Mass is the capacity of
subject’s dispositions or his capacity for grace. Now, this their recipient. These authorities also endeavour to explain
away the passage of his that I quoted already, and that
can only be for the reason that a single reception of the
Sacrament fully satisfies for the time being one’s needs, no seems to favour their opponents, by maintaining that the
Saint is referring in it to the Mass, not as a sacrifice, but
matter how great these may be. Similarly, it is a very
as a prayer of the Church, under which aspect, of course, its
common view, held by Cajetan, Suarez and Bellarmine,
power is limited. But no one, I think, would call this the
that a person communicating under both species—a priest
Mass, without qualification, as St. Thomas does in the /
saying Mass—does not get ex opere operato more grace
passage in question.
L
than if he received under one, provided his fervour and pre­
Perhaps, the strongest argument against assigning limits 1
paration were the same.1 This corresponds to the teaching
toits power of propitiation and satisfaction is the very large
of Vermeersch,2 where, referring to Noldin,3 he holds that
measure of support the theory gets that its impelratory
the different anointings in Extreme Unction, like receiving
effect is boundless.2 And why it should be circumscribed
under both kinds, give an increase of grace only if there be
in other respects, if inexhaustible in this one, is not easy
an improvement in the recipient’s dispositions.
to show ; especially as, in the opinion of Billot, for instance,
Seeing that the efficacy of the Mass has its source in the
impétration and propitiation are inextricably united. The
sacrifice of the Cross, which is no less advantageous to each
following effort to discriminate is made by Lehmkuhl ’ :—
of us than if Christ had died for him alone ; and seeing,
As the effects of impétration are not obtained by offering the Mass
moreover, that the Mass, regarded in itself, is certainly of
infinite worth, it must be admitted that the burden of proving itself, but by an appeal through it to the Divine clemency and liberality,
it may easily be the case that those who are mentioned in the second or
their case rests on those who contend that its effects become third place get as much as those who are accorded first preference and
limited when they are applied to us. So their adversaries, trenmore.
chief of whom are St. Alphonsus (in his Moral Theology]
However, having regard to the manner in which the Mass
and Vasquez,4 largely content themselves with trying to
w usually applied, even its impetratory effect, according to
discount the arguments I have already given as advanced
Suarez,4 would be limited. Because its efficacy in this
by the other side : which they do with more or less success
according to the particular proof selected for demolition,
1 Summo Theologica, iii. q. 79, art. 5, corp.
1 Cohalan, p. 400.
2 Theologia Moralis, iii. n. 651 (1023 ed·).
2 De Sacramentis, n. 431.
4 According to Suarez, Cajetan, though sometimes (e.g., by Lugo, disp. Λ
n. 245), quoted as in favour of this opinion, does not hold it at all.

’Lugo, disp. 19, sect. 12, nn. 245 and 253. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Génieot, etc.
however, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, x. p. 18b, many hold that the
castration also is limited.
*TJL, ii. n. 253 (11th ed.).
'
*De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 12, n. 8.

494

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

respect is based on the fact that it supports and recommends
a prayer that is offered for a particular intention. Not,
a prayer is proportionately less effective if the needs or
aspirations of a number are embraced in it.1 Accordingly,
Mass offered in commendation of one prayer for several
would be less useful to each of them than if the prays
were devoted to him alone. So, in order to avail to the fol
of the impetratory power of the Mass, the priest should
say as many separate prayers—no matter how short-as
the objects he proposes to forward or the persons he wishes
to benefit ; which, 1 think, is not usually done.
The practical rules for the priest’s guidance as to a
secondary intention, formulated by theologians in view d
the dispute, are too well known to my readers to need
enumeration in detail. They succeed in doing full justice
to one who has given a stipend, and at the same time secure
that none of the beneficent effects remain unused in the
treasury of the Church.
In the case of the very special fruit it is the universal
teaching that it is not in any way lessened for an individual
offerer by reason of the fact that others are associated with
him. Thus, at an ordination, it is, from this point of view,
of no consequence how many young priests celebrate the
Mass with the Bishop. And the same is true with respect
to the secondary offerers, such as the ministers at High
Mass, the servers, the members of the congregation, and
those who may be in any way responsible for having a Mass
said. These are all more or less closely connected with the
ordained priest in sacrificing the Divine Victim. They art
truly and literally ‘ a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, »
kingly priesthood, a holy nation ’ * ; and what one of than
gets in no way interferes with the favours accruing to the
others. Many authorities, however, consider that there b
no conclusive reason to prove that these benefits, extended
to them precisely in their capacity of co-ojferers, include
anything of a purely satisfactory nature.’
1 Cf. Billot’s somewhat similar view, which I mentioned above.
’ 1 Peter ii. δ, 9.
» Franzelin, p. 378.

THE FRUITS OF THE MASS

495

But speculative differences apart, it is plain that if
we wish to avail completely of the unbounded reservoir
of mercy and grace to which the Mass gives us access, we
ought to celebrate it in the spirit and, as far as possible,
according to the letter of the prayer : ‘ Ego volo celebrare,’
etc. In this way we shall give praise to the omnipotent
God and the whole heavenly court. We shall benefit our­
selves and the whole Church militant, and all those who
have in a general way or in particular besought our prayers.
And we shall be doing our own part to contribute to the
spread of Christ’s Kingdom and the triumph of the Holy
Roman Church.',
David Barry.