IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE?

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE IN ITS
EFFECTS?
By Rev. DAVID BARRY
N a former number of the I. E. Record 1 I discussed
the question whether the effects of the Mass are of
indefinite extent in their application to us. So at
present it may not be out of place to consider how far their
incidence is infallible ; in other words, how far the person
that a Mass is intended to benefit, invariably and as »
matter of course, receives the favours of which it is so
bountiful a store. And as the teaching about all of the
effects is not the same, we can best arrive at the truth,
or a fair approximation to it, by taking them seriatim;
and examining what degree of certainty we can have that
each will be realized in the case of a particular person;
supposing, of course, that the priest validly directs his
intention on his behalf.
Well, as regards adoration or worship of God and thanks­
giving to Him, they are infallibly and unconditionally the
outcome of every Mass ; and showing them forth as »
supremely acceptable offering in His sight is, accordingly
treasured up in merit for those associated with, or to any
degree responsible for, the celebration of the holy sacrifice·
And the reason of what I may call its automatic efficacy
as regards these results, is that they are the primary
objects of sacrifice ; inasmuch as they would be aheap
due from creatures to their Creator in any conceivable vie*
of the relations between Him and them ; and quite irre­
spective of the facts that the beneficent scheme of Divine
Providence in our regard was marred by sin and evil,
and that our various needs consequent on these were

I

i Fifth Series, Vol. xxxii., pp. 481. aqq. (November, 1028).

xi - 4 JÀ

191

i greatly increased. While, on the contrary, propitiation,
I laiisfaclion and, to some extent, impétration1 are only
in the present order, that is contingently on sin, the fruit
of sacrifice. Because were it not for sin, there would be
no question of .propitiating God ; or of supplicating Him
to give special helps—medicinal graces—to aid and
strengthen our natural powers, depleted and hampered in
their operation by it—which is a most important province
of the prayer of petition.
Moreover, as the latreutical and Eucharistic effects have
the glory of God directly and exclusively within their
purview, there is no reason on our part why they Would not
invariably, and to their full extent, accrue to Him from
every Mass. Whereas impétration, propitiation and satishrtion have reference to, and are conditioned by, the
I opacity or dispositions of those they are intended to benefit.
• Now, we shall in the first placé consider the circumstances
a which impétration is infallible because, as will appear
hier, according to many propitiation in its essence is
nothing but impétration ; though it is true, indeed, that
*®e* look on propitiation as the more fundamentally
«portant of the two. Well, the Mass in so far as it is impetratory js very closely analogous to an ordinary prayer
petition, and, accordingly, its efficacy is to a degree
isited by the same conditions and confined to the same
!age of favours. Indeed, the authorities, or at least
®soy of them such as Suarez and Archbishop Walsh,
çpear to limit its operation in respect of this effect to the
bet that it sustains, supportsj or enforces a prayer that is
Strict from it ; and they do not allow that it has any
ïpetratory power that is quite independent of this.
Wz says * : —
feprtration is, properly speaking, the result of a petition, and of
good works only in as far as these are joined on to the petition,
i»e in the service of God ... so that we thereby incline Him to
Mtn what we seek or wish ; however, this sacrifice is a great act
’Venneosch, Theologia Moralis, iii. n. 281 (1923).

’K3ot, de Ecclesiae Sacramentis, i., p. 685, noto (ed. 1900).
Ά Eucharistia, disp. 79, sec. 2, nn. 5, 7.

192

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE ?

193

the Father anything in My Name, He will grant it to you,’
though apparently quite absolute and universal, must be
understood to apply only when our requests are feasible
and proper. And because they are often not such, to be
The same authority says again 1 : —
instant and assiduous in prayer, does not always save us
It [sacrifice] can always be offered in order that any just prayer be
from disappointed expectations. Now, it is in a similar
heard, and it will give to this efficiency and the power of impetratu».
failed way that we are to understand the priest’s inter­
According to Dr. Walsh 2 : —
cessory and mediating power in the holy sacrifice.
This point may be further illustrated by supposing that
If performed in sustainment of a prayer of petition, they [works and
acts] thus become indirectly efficacious for impétration.
some king sends an ambassador to the Pope with a general
commission to solicit favours in his name. Well, the Pope
And also * :—
may be satisfied, from certain information at his disposal
The impetratory efficacy of the Mass is, as we have seen, its efficacy
in aid of some prayer in connexion with which it is offered.4
through another source, that what the royal envoy is looking
However this may be, it is quite certain that the impe­ fa in a particular instance, is not at all according to the
tratory power of the holy sacrifice is subject in one sense mind or wish of his master ; and for that very reason he
to many, if not all, of the same limitations or disabilities fefuses it. This is the explanation of how it is that a priest
as a merely human prayer. And this, which at first sight «œetimes, though he asks for a favour in the Name of
seems so anomalous, is discussed by the theologians in Christ, and through the Mass, is by His authority debarred
answer to the objection that, as its efficacy is derived from fan getting it. For it would not be wise or expedient to
Christ, it ought to be invariably and unconditionally in­ pre an unlimited call, as it were, on the Divine treasury
fallible ; and whether He asks for the benefit in question b human creatures. Because, partly through being blinded
tiror, and partly through being swayed by unregulated
Himself directly, or through'His representative the Priest
in the Mass. Whereas experience proves that the object Section, they often ask in the Name of Christ what would
to further which Mass has been offered, is sometimes not krepugnant to Divine Wisdom and the order and arrange­
granted—whether this be temporal, or even spiritual, like ais of Providence to grant.
What, then, in detail we may hope to get infallibly from
a vocation or the immediate conversion of a sinner.4 The
Mass as a prayer, or rather as enforcing one, and what
theologians" meet this difficulty by explaining that the
all-powerful advocacy ’ of Christ can only be expected ’tinay not hope for, can be pretty well ascertained by
when a priest officiates in order to get something that is faring in mind the limitations imposed, from the nature
the case, on the efficiency of prayers in general.1 Proin accordance with Christ’s intention. Just, they say, as
the words of Our Lord : * Amen, I say to you, if you ask ’«ri, though, we always vividly realize that, when these
^pirements are fulfilled, it is no longer we ourselves who
1 De Eucharietia, disp. 79, sec. 6, n. 5.
Spraying, but that Our Lord Himself has the principal
•I. E. Record, December, 1882, p. 712, n. 17.
’Ibid., January, 1883, p. 15, n. 51.
M in preferring our request. Some of the conditions in
4 BeUarmino’s opinion is the same, De Mieea, cap. 4.
Mion have reference to the manner or method of prayer,
"Billuart, de Eucharistia, diss, viii., art. 3. Dice 3.
others to the object we must have in view.
•Lugo, de Eucharistia, disp. six. n. 132.
’Christ does not, of course, pray as if He lacked any power Hnnsdt
fire former of these are chiefly : that prayer ought to
of homage to God, and most acceptable to Him, and it can be attached
to any petition or desire of obtaining any benefit from God. ... No
good work is of itself impetratory, unless in as far as it is joined on to
a prayer.

but merely by way of representing His wishes to the Father.

Lugo, ibid., n. 131.

’Lugo, ibid., n. 143.

T°I· Won—13

194

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

be made (a) with a lowly opinion of ourselves, and with
faith and confidence in Christ’s power and promises ; (δ)
with perseverance ; (c) and by a person that, if he be not
already in the state of grace, has elicited some inchoate
act of repentance or conversion to God. Certain authors,
like Prümmer,1 relying on a wealth of Scriptural texts, I
positively insist that the state of grace is necessary in the |
person offering the petition as a condition of its being in·
fallibly granted. However, Suarez does not postulate so
much, nor Lehmkuhl, nor Vermeersch.2 Suarez says it is
certainly true that this cannot be laid down without
qualification as necessary for the efficacy of prayer. And
Lehmkuhl,3 referring to St. Thomas, holds that it is clearly
in harmony with the truth that a sinner, provided he asks
it properly, can certainly and infallibly obtain the grace
of repentance. While the Angelic doctor himself* says
that if the Mass finds sinners disposed, it obtains their
conversion for them.
That the beginning of a change of heart, though, how­
ever tepid, is required, appears manifest from the fact that
otherwise we are rebels against God, and should, if we
are not mere hypocrites, desire, in preference to every­
thing else, that the Mass we are getting offered may be the
medium of making our peace with Him. The importance
of this condition is enforced over and over again in Scripture :
* The eyes of the Lord are upon the just : and His ears
unto their prayers.’ ‘ If you abide in Me, and My words
abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be
done unto you.’ ‘ If our heart do not reprehend us we have
confidence towards God : and whatsoever we shall ask, we
shall receive of Him.’ And at least some feeble and faltering
approach, and some lifting up of heart—which itself, of
course, must come from God—to the throne of mercy is, as
we shall see, required by the Council of Trent as a condition
for obtaining even the vital grace of justification.
1 Manuale Theologiae Morali», ii., η. 353 (1923).
*Op. cit., ii., η. 184.
* Theologia Morali», i., n. 479 (llth ed.).
*Apud Billot, op. cit., p. 687.
<

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE ?

195

Now though, as I have said already, the person in whose
interest or rather in support of whose request the priest
to Mass, is not by any means dispensed from complying
with these conditions, if he wishes to have his prayer
certainly effectual, still, it is clearly much easier to fulfil
them in connection with the holy sacrifice than outside it.
Thus we can more readily summon up the requisite confhce, if our petition is directly and immediately supported
by the influence of Christ, than if we stood before God
with our wretchedness and sinfulness barely hidden, as it
wre, by the shadow of the Cross. Similarly, so far as
^severance goes, it is reasonable enough to believe that a
lesser degree of it will be needed, and that our requests
will be more quickly granted, if we have not only the
general merits of Christ to recommend them, but a special
I portion of these allocated to us in the Mass. However,
' wen on this supposition, a certain amount of persistence
may be necessary, and perhaps, the offering of more than
»e Mass, especially if the theory of its limited efficacy
i true.
Moreover, in order that prayer either in or outside
ti Mass may be infallible, certain limitations on the part
of the object or benefit that is sought must be postulated,
la the first place it is supposed that the granting of this
e within the operation of God’s ordinary Providence, and
<fcesnot require the exercise of miraculous power. Thus, no
fee would with complete confidence expect that a simple
prayer—even though otherwise vested with the proper
«editions—or the Mass itself, would obtain the cure of a
Pason in the last extremity from some disease. Just as
to one would expect this of the Sacrament of Extreme
•action, though the patient’s physical recovery, if his
emplaint has not progressed too far, is one of its objects.
Again, in the spiritual order an effect that would be over
fed above the established economy of grace may not be
bsped for with unfailing trust. That is to say, e.g., that
ftough God could, of course, give a grace that would be
felalhbly efficacious for any . sinner’s conversion, still this

196

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE ?

197

texts as : ‘ Pray for one another that you may be saved.
For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much,’
Suarez1 and others hold that suffrages for the salvation
even of our neighbour are within due limits infallible. And
it goes without saying that assurance on this point is much
greater if such a petition be presented to God through the
instrumentality of the Mass, and so perhaps supported by
the prayer of Christ Himself. Of course, no one believing
h the Communion of Saints would deny that supplication
far another, whether or not it be infallible, is often effective
on his behalf.
Apropos of the reference to what is helpful for salvation,
| h the extract I have just given from St. Thomas, it may be
| opportune to consider how far temporal advantages come
’ properly within the scope of prayer, either in the holy
1 aerifice or independently of it. Now, it is clear that when,
’ «s is often the case, these would be a positive obstacle in
4e way of salvation, they will not be granted to us as the
knit of our petitions. Indeed, they may not be expected
the highest degree of confidence unless—a matter of
vhieh we can very rarely be sure—they are of actual assist­
as to us in a spiritual way. How far this condition is
Pessary to render asking for them barely lawful, is to some
nteot a matter of controversy between Vasquez and
Isgo? Vasquez says that though it is plain enough from
4« prayers of the Missal that these, e.g., good health, rain,
To pray for oneself is a necessary condition, not, indeed, in as far m
be weather, etc., can lawfully be sought, this may only be
it is required for merit, but in order that what is asked should be obtained
with certainty. For it sometimes happens that a prayer said for another
• so far as they are the medium of spiritual benefits ;
fails of its effects although it is offered with devotion and perseverance,
bcause Christ did not die to provide temporal things for
and for what is conducive to his salvation, because of some impediment
3 that have no bearing on spiritual issues. Lugo, however,
on his part according to the words ‘ If Moses and Samuel shall stand
Sieves that even though a person looking for such an
before me, my mind is not towards this people.’ Nevertheless [the Saint
goes on] such a prayer is a source of merit to the author of it, because
Vantage does not do so with a view to bettering his
he is actuated by charity, and has Scripture warrant : ‘ My prayer shai
be turned into my bosom ’ ; that is to say, though it does not help other* ^ritual condition, he still might obtain it through the
I shall not lose my reward.*
Wy of the holy sacrifice, seeing that it may be of itself
in order to allure men to Christ’s service.
However, influenced no doubt by the strength of such
It is the general opinion of theologians, if for some
1See Billot, loc. cit., p. 594.
’’“son Divine Providence does not give us the favour we
* Bellarmine, op. cit. cap. v. at end.

is clearly not the certain result of a Mass or Masses that
may be said on his behalf.1 It is true that such a person
will obtain through the impetratory power which we are
considering not only grace of a sufficient degree of potency,
but one very highly calculated to produce its effect by
winning his assent and co-operation. But we have no
warrant for thinking that it will be so miraculously
congruous as to break down every barrier that passion and
self-will may set up. Moreover, it would be almost ex­
pecting a miracle to anticipate that grace for such a purpose,
unlike, say, that for resisting the onset of a temptation—
would be given at a particular time,2 for instance, the
moment the holy sacrifice has been completed. Consequently, a Mass—or Masses—will get without fail on behalf
of the sinner for whose conversion it has been offered grace
in God’s good time, and with a degree of efficacy attached
to it, that will make correspondence with it not indeed
inevitable, but easy.
The necessity of such co-operation partly explains why
St. Thomas is so reluctant to allow that impétration will
never fail of its results when we are praying not for ourseha
but for others ; inasmuch as we cannot answer for their
doing their own part to secure the favour we wish to obtain
for them, whether this be of a spiritual or temporal
character.

9 Summa Theologica, 2a, 2ae, qu. 83, art. 7 ad 2.

’Oe W. fr. 4, 1. 1, c. 27.

* Loc. cit.; n. 157.

ft

i®

j

I·'

198

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL
RECORD
y

want, that our prayers, if clothed with the proper attributes
—and the Mass especially—will not be barren of effect,
but will bring something that is in reality more advan­
tageous for us. Of how little use what we ask would be
sometimes, anyone can readily appreciate who realizes
the feeble and short-sighted intelligence that too often
guides our requests. Noldin1 says :—Although the special benefits that are sought may not be conceded,
particularly if they are in the temporal order, nevertheless, there is
always, in virtue of the sacrifice that has been offered, some other
advantage given in their stead, unless there is an obstacle to it.

And according to Lehmkuhl2
It may happen that the priest, as representative of Christ, is mistaken
in believing that certain things he asks of God are desired by Our Lord,
when, as a fact, His prayer and impétration have no reference to them,
but are diverted to secure other benefits for us—those, namely, which
are such in reality and not merely in our estimation.

Vermeersch3 holds that :—
Although a prayer which is wanting in any of the requisite conditions
cannot claim to be heard in virtue of the Divine promises, still it is not
useless, since the goodness of God imparts to it some intercessory vahie.

I think, though, that Lugo is not so emphatic in expressing
this view as the authors I have just quoted, for he merely
says1 that God often gives in virtue of the Mass something
more useful to the suppliant than would be the boon
desired by him but denied to him.
I may sum up on the subject of the infallible impétration
of the Mass by saying that graces of themselves sufficient—
if properly utilized—for the remission both of mortal and
venial sin, sufficient for the increase of habitual grace and
for perseverance are conferred, without risk of failure or
mischance, on those who make their prayers in union with
the sacrificial one of Christ. Because, seeing that God,
if properly approached, would not deny these in any case,
He is particularly pleased to grant them in virtue of the
lDe Sacramenti», n. 174. b. (1904 ed.).
* Op. cit., ü. n. 235.
• Op. cit., ii., n. 184, 4.
4 Loe. cit., n. 150, at end.

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE?

199

Mass in which the Passion of His Divine Son is represented.
But the actual remission of sin, the increase of grace and the
pft of perseverance, are not infallibly the fruit of impei tration ; inasmuch aS the helps given for these purposes
maybe frustrated through lack of our co-operation. Neither
is any improvement in our temporal affairs or prospects an
unfailing result of the offering of a Mass or Masses, because
tliis is not always conducive to our spiritual welfare.1
Now, as regards propitiation, the Council of Trent *
teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass :—
Is tndy propitiatory, and that through it, if being contrite and
portent, we draw near to God with an honest heart and true faith and
with fear and reverence, we shall obtain mercy and find grace through
the medium of seasonable aid. Because God, having been placated by
this sacrifice, grants us grace and the gift of penance, and forgives even
perns crimes and sins. . . . Wherefore it can be offered according
to Apostolic tradition not only for the sins, punishments and satisfactions 3
rf the faithful while they are alive, but for those who have died in Christ
ad are not yet fully purified.

From the tenor of this decree it is plain that the Mass
toesnot at all directly and ex opere operato, after the manner
of a Sacrament, remit sins either mortal or venial, even if
attrition be entertained for them. Because it appears from
ibe words of the Council to the effect that ‘ we shall find
pace through the medium of seasonable help,’ that the
forgiveness in question is to be reached through the channel
of actual grace.
However, I believe that some theologians, as Suarez
lad Vasquez4 make a mistake in going to the opposite
atreme, and limiting the efficacy of the Mass towards
Ratification to the actual graces it gets forUs by way of
vnpetralion. To explain in this view of theirs the singling
wt of propitiation as a distinct fruit or class of fruits, it
B cot open to them, in face of the teaching of the Fathers
of Trent that I have quoted, to limit this effect to the
abolishing or abating of the temporal punishment due to

;

’Bitart, loc. cit., Dico 4°.
’Seas. 22, cap. 2.

sCf. can. 3.
* Apud Lugo, loc. cit., n. 140.

200

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE?

201

sin, or the prevention of other chastisements which we
Mass are limited—that it may require more than one to
deserve for it. But they can contend that impétration for
secure that the graces held back by retributive justice be
graces with a view to our reconciliation with God is rightly | restored in full measure. And the propitiatory value of
put into a category by itself—propitiation—inasmuch as « each can in this hypothesis be explained by holding1
it is more necessary for us than anything else, and is more
that it in part placates God ; or else that it is a channel
likely to obtain its effect infallibly, as not being subject
to the sinner of a portion of the graces withheld, which are
to all the conditions with which other petitions must be
made available in the aggregate by all the Masses. The
invested, be these of a spiritual or temporal nature.
forgiveness of sins is so necessary and so closely associated
It seems much better, however, and more in harmony with the holy sacrifice both in Scripture and in the authori­
with the decree I have quoted to hold that God is in some tative pronouncements of the Church, that its efficacy in
degree placated even before He gives the graces suitable this respect must certainly be looked on as normally quite
infallible. And the only point on which there is room for
for conversion. This is a fair deduction from the words :
difference of opinion among Catholics is as to whether
‘ God having been placated by this sacrifice, grants us the
grace and the gift of penance,’ etc. So that the giving of , this effect must ever and always be realized to some extent,
if I may say so, mechanically almost ; or whether an obstacle
the grace of conversion, which Suarez and Vasquez hold
to be the same as propitiation, in reality merely follows from on the part of a sinner may cause its total frustration.
Now, judging by the decree that I gave previously,
this, and is, in fact, the result of it. How far then, it may
it would appear that a certain degree of obduracy or ob­
be asked, is God made propitious or gracious towards the
stinate adhesion to sin2 would be such a complete hindrance,
sinner by the Mass, seeing that he is as yet unconverted,
not only to the successful operation of grace in the soul,
and that God, consequently, instead of being at peace
with him, or regarding him with favour, cannot but look hut even to the mitigation of God’s just resentment.
Because the Council seems to insist with a view to the
on him as an enemy ?
Well, the effect of this propitiation is simply to move tinner’s gaining this fruit, not only that he should cherish
Almighty God to set free for his reformation certain no affection for mortal sin, but that his will should be
abundant helps that He would not otherwise give. It is detached from it, and that he should have some measure
true, indeed, that by means of an ordinary prayer aid may of sorrow for it. This is certainly not too rigid an inter­
be obtained that would be certainly sufficient, though, pretation to put on the doctrine that the Mass is propitiatory
perhaps, not effectual for one’s conversion. But the justice for those who fulfil certain conditions, among which is that
they be ‘ contrite and penitent.’ As Lugo says, it seems
of God, were it not for the placatory power of the Mass,
I
to
be in vain for a person to wish to placate God whose
would, as it were, hold up in punishment of sin more copious
or additional helps in this direction. So propitiation induces
kart is doggedly wedded to sin, or who has no sorrow
God to forego His right to punish us by withholding these. for it.3
Accordingly, Mass offered for a sinner helps to secure these
According to Lehmkuhl4 a certain amount of propitiation
special, and it may be vital, aids in two ways : in a negative
’Lago, loc. cit., n. 144.
manner by arresting the just anger of God which keeps
’Ibid. n. 146.
them back; and in a positive way, through impétration,
’Suarez, however, seems to reject this view. I. E. Record, January,
by supplicating Him to grant them.
1K3, p. 20, n. 71.
‘Vol ii. n. 237, 3. Of. n. 248, 6.
It is true—and very probably because the effects of the

K
202

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

is demanded of us, not only on account of our un­
forgiven sins, but because of the temporal punishment
which attaches to them, and which may, of course, remain
unremitted when they are pardoned. He does not mean
merely that satisfaction is necessary in such a case ; he is
referring to propitiation in the strict sense, and believes
that for want of it even sin that has been forgiven may
be a bar to grace for the living, and to the alleviation of
their pains in the case of the dead.
This brings me to say a few words as to whether the
satisfactory1 effect of the Mass is certain and unfailing.
And no doubt can be entertained of its infallible efficiency
in this respect, at least in the case of the living, provided
the conditions for its operation are realized. And one
would think that the Council of Trent made this equally
clear as regards the dead, particularly in the decree on
Purgatory, where they are said to be helped in a very special
way by the ‘acceptable sacrifice of the Altar.’2
Consequently, provided the intended recipient is in the
state of grace,3 and has a debt of punishment incurred by
a sin already pardoned, some at least of this punishment
will infallibly be done away with* All of it may possibly
not be blotted out ; partly because an individual Mass,
being limited in its effect, may not be sufficient for this;
and perhaps, because God, having cause to harbour a certain
degree of displeasure towards the beneficiary, may not give
him the full advantage of it. Accordingly, the propitiatory
fruit of a Mass may be necessary, and may not even be
enough to allow its satisfactory effect to have full and
1 See extract from the Council of Trent above, and also Canon 3 of the
same 22nd Session.
3 However, according to Lebmkuhl (op. cit., n. 248, note), Suarez considers
the teaching as to the infallible efficacy of the Mass for the benefit of any particular
soul in Purgatory—as distinct, I suppose, from the souls there taken in general
—to be merely more probable. The character of its efficacy for the unbaptiæd
souls there is quite open to question. See Code, Canon 809, and Cohalan.
de Eucharistia, pp. 498 and 507.
3 If ho is not in the state of grace when the Mass is offered, this effect will
not be made available for him later on when he has made his peace with God.
Scotus denied the necessity of this condition in order that one be released from
the punishment of mortal sins already forgiven. Cohalan, op. cit., p. 497.

|
'
'

|

!

IS THE MASS INFALLIBLE?

208

free play in the soul. And this is also true even of the
faithful in Purgatory who are God’s inalienable friends.
For there is no doubt from the practice of the Church
that a single Mass will not of necessity open the gates of
Heaven to any one of them. Now, the theologians do not
attribute this exclusively to the fact that the Mass is re­
stricted in its beneficent fruits : that a soul is allowed to
share only partially in these is held by many,1 and is set
down by them, to the fact, e.g., that it was careless about
the Mass during life, or perhaps, about the fate of the
suffering souls. As St. Augustine says, the Mass helps those
who while they were alive did something to deserve that
it should be made available for them afterwards.
An interesting question, and a very debatable one, is
whether the Mass, not only as satisfactory but as impetratory, may gain for us remission of temporal punishment,
a addition to the boundless range of other spiritual favours
which it is incomparably the most efficacious means of
placing at our disposal. Suarez in a very mild way, and
Lugo* and Cohalan’ favour the positive side. They hold,
accordingly, as do all authorities, that the Mass immediately
: ad infallibly remits more or less temporal punishment—
its purely satisfactory effect. They hold also, of course,
what is unquestionable, that we can impetrate through the
Mass grace to perform works having a satisfactory value
hr ourselves or others—a method that is rather indirect.
Mile they believe in addition that the impetratory effect
say be directly—though not infallibly—concentrated on
the forgiveness of temporal punishment, whether for the
Wng or the dead. Lehmkuhl,4 however, characterizes this
pinion as very doubtful, and Vermeersch6 is not any more
sthusiastic in its favour. But if it were true, it would
exemplify an advantage—though a comparatively small
‘See Billot, op. cit., p. 600; and Vermeersch, iii., n. 284, and n. 314, 3.
’Loe. cit, n 158.
‘Loc. cit, p. 501.
‘Loe. cit, n. 247, 3.
‘loc. cit., n. 312.

...

........... .............

.-".Æ . l

Â.

204

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

one—of devotion to the Mass that we ought not to lose sight
of. This, namely, how beautifully the Divine Wisdom has
arranged that its various fruits should facilitate the operation
of one another on our behalf : just as we saw already that
a certain measure of propitiation may be required in order
that God would heed or honour its impetratory1 or
satisfactory powers.
If the holy sacrifice is not in every respect infallible
in its effects, still, it can never happen that a person who
assists at it with a fair amount of good-will, or who has it
offered in such a spirit, will not bear away in a greater or
less degree, or through one effect or another, precious
blessings from this ‘open fountain’2 of grace and salvation.
David Barry.
1 See Franzelin, de*Eucharistia, p. 376.

2 Zacharias xiii. 1.

I

CORRESPONDENCE
‘THE ORIGIN OF THE ROSARY’

I

I
I
I

Rev. Dear Sir,—It is now time to put before the readers of your
esteemed periodical, what remains to be quoted from the Turin MS.
idative to the restoration in 1475 by Father James Sprenger and the
approbation in 1476 by the Legate Alessandro di Malatesta, of the Rosary
Confraternity in Cologne. The first part of Sprenger’s description of
the event was given in the number of the I. E. Record for December,
1928. Readers must have noticed then that in what appears to be an
Italian translation in the Turin MS. of Sprenger’s words, archaic spellings
«ad contracted forms are numerous. Others occurring in this part, if
it has been considered necessary, are respectively either explained or
apanded here.
Io fraie Jacobo Sprengieri doctore de la sacra theologia e priore del
trcenio de Colonia de la provincia de Alamania de lordine de frati predi<dari, etc.; hazo (ho) ordinato che sia una fratemitade per tuta (tutta)
It Ckietianitade nelaquale (nella quale) passa (possano) intrare tute le
P’w ecclesiastice e seculari richi e poveri homini e done, etc. ; la
fratemitade Ιο zorno (giorno) et anno sopraditto, el Reverendissimo
meser (messer) Alessandro episcopo forliviensi legato de latere per
^tledlamania cum plena auctoritade aplica (apostolica) devanti al serenisW Imperatore Federico tercio semper augusto e molli Archiepiscopi,
Îpârap», Abbati, principi e gentilhomini e populo Coloniense ne laziesa
ckiesa) de fraii predicaiori aprobo confirmo e ratifico cum auctoritade
&ttdica, come hè (è) manifesto per una bulla la quai se ha nel preditto
^io de Colonia.
The Bull referred to, apparently, is the first of the two issued by the
on 10th March, 1476. More than once in these pages mention
been made of it. The implication of the words, praetactam Fraiemi7®* auctoritate apostolica nobis specialiter concessa approbamus, conet ratificamus, which it contains, may be that after his first
of the Confraternity, on 8th September, 1475, the Legate
*Pplied for special faculties, and had got them from the Pope. At
a similar clause is not found in the Bulls about Rosary Confraexisting elsewhere that were issued by three other Cardinal
tf?*?: T'Uke, Bishop of Sebenico ; François de Clermont, Archbishop
^gidio di Viterbo. And it may very well be on the other
the words Cum itaque, sicut accepimus, in ecclesia domus
M
Praedicatorum Coloniensis, quaedam Confratemitas, etc.,
ijJj Sixtus IV in his Bull, dated 30th May, 1478, indicate that
was his informant or one of his informants. At any rate the