THESE ESSAYS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND IN
PART TRANSLATED BY THE VERY REVEREND

J. B. SCHIMPF, S.J., RECTOR OF ST. JOSEPH’S,
MOBILE, ALABAMA, U.S.A.

THE

ί1
Λ

J;

MYSTERY OF FAITH
AND

HUMAN OPINION
!

CONTRASTED

âf

DEFINED

BY

MAURICE DE LA TAILLE, S.J.

ft*
d
?

LONDON

SHEED & WARD
MCMXXX

NIHIL

OBSTAT: THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN
CENSOR DEPUTATVS

S.T.D.

imprimatvr: edm: can: svrmont, vic. gen.
WESTMONASTERII, DIE 22A APRILIS, I93O

• 133
ΐ“Ϊ3Ο
First Published June, 1930

By SHEED & WARD
31, Paternoster Row, E.C.i

P^XKTEP

corTAtN BY PURNE1X AND SONS
““'(SOMERSET) AND LONDON

i

TO THE LAITY
OF GOD’S CHURCH

AS LIVING STONES,
YOU ARE BUILT UP, A SPIRITUAL HOUSE,

A HOLY PRIESTHOOD,
TO OFFER UP SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES,

ACCEPTABLE TO GOD BY JESUS CHRIST.

YOU ARE A CHOSEN GENERATION,

A KINGLY PRIESTHOOD,
A HOLY NATION,

A PURCHASED PEOPLE,
THAT YOU MAY DECLARE HIS VIRTUES,
WHO HATH CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS,

UNTO HIS MARVELLOUS LIGHT.

(I St. Peter, ii, 5 & 9).

EDITOR’S NOTE
Part I is a translation of a number of French papers, all
of which, except one (p. 169-197) appeared in book form
under the title Esquisse du Mystère de la Foi suivie de quelques
éclaircissements (Paris. Beauchesne, 1923).

Of the articles collected in Part II two have been trans­
lated from the Latin (p. 349-379 and 401-419). The rest
were written in English by the author.
For permission courteously granted to republish those papers
we wish to extend our grateful acknowledgement to the
editors of the following publications;
The American Ecclesiastical Review; The Irish Ecclesias­
tical Record; The Dublin Review; The Australian Catholic
Record; Venerabile; Gregorianum ; Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses ; La Nouvelle Revue Théologique ; Recherches de
Science Réligieuse ; Gedenboeck XXVIIe Internationaal Eucharistisch Congrès.

CONTENTS
PART I
PAGE

Foreword

i

'

An Outline of the Mystery of Faith

.

·

3

.

3g

.

Elucidations
a letter on sacrifice addressed to a publicist

LETTER ADDRESSED TO A MISSIONARY ON THE OBLATION
OF CHRIST AND THE OBLATION OF ALL OUR MASSES BY
CHRIST .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.51

LETTER TO A THEOLOGIAN ON THE ANGEL OF SACRIFICE AND
THE SACRIFICE IN HEAVEN
.
.
.
.

59

Mass Offerings
MASS OFFERINGS .

.

THE JURIDICAL QUESTION

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

THE HISTORICAL SOLUTION

.

. '

.

8l

.

.84

.

.

I06

.

.

.

135

.

.

.

169

The Real Presence and its Sacramental Function

.v

199

Appendix

.219

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

A REJOINDER

on

.

.

Mass-Offerings

.

.

.

.

.

PART II
Collected Papers

The Last Supper

and

Calvary .

.

.

.

.

225

The Last Supper and Catholic Divines from Henry
VIII to the Council of Trent
.
.
.
.279
ix

CONTENTS

pAGI

•

3°9

Concerning the Last Supper and Calvary

.

329

The Mass and the Cross

.

323

The Mystery

Distinction
ditional

of

Faith

.

.

.

.

.

between Oblation and Immolation IN TrATheology . .
.
.

349

Recent
.

381

•

399

.

405

The Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Light
Document .
.....................................
The Mass

and

Attrition

of a

....

The Eucharist and Mortification
Index .

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

x

421

PART I

FOREWORD
The opening chapter of this part was written to satisfy
the desires expressed by certain persons on behalf of those
who do not understand Latin. It was really an adaptation in
the vernacular of the Mysterium Fidei that was wanted. But
to tell the truth, the craftsman who has planned a large
structure will not build the same on a reduced scale ; the
only duplicate he can offer will be a rough model. And it
is a rough model which is presented here ; a mere sketch, as
the title indicates. The various doctrines appear only in
their general outlines ; their complexity fades away, as also
disappears whatever could contribute to give them a positive
and documentary basis. On the other hand, the summits
join together more clearly to the eye, giving the impression
of a continuous chain : and thus our brief outline may prove
useful even to some of those who happen to have perused
our work in Latin, or render easier to others its partial
reading, should they feel deterred from reading the entire
volume.
Of course such a condensed summary cannot defend itself .
alone against attacks : It must needs rely on something more
solid and substantial. Wherefore it may be well for such
as have some objection to advance against one or another
of the opinions herein proposed, to bear in mind that the
solution must be sought elsewhere, and that no discussion
can be profitable without first resorting to the sources and
the arguments.
The Outline is followed by various Elucidations whose purpose
it is to focus the light on a few chosen points, which either
I

FOREWORD
open up vaster prospects, or require a more thorough inves­
tigation. 1
Should the public be kind enough to give to these pages
a favourable welcome, they shall have a share in the grati­
tude which applies to those who, as benevolent readers or
indulgent critics, are responsible for the success of the pre­
ceding work.
1 Readers who are familiar with the English language will find additional
information in two conferences given at the Cambridge Week of Religious Studies
in 1922, and published through the efforts of Rev. C. Lattey, S.J., in the collection
Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist (2d ed., in-12, p. IX-225, Cambridge, 1923),
or in two articles of the (American) Ecclesiastical Review (1924) under the title
The Last Supper and Calvary, a reply to critics. To defend and popularize these
views was the object of those articles (which have since been published in pam­
phlet form, under the above title, by the Dolphin Press, Philadelphia).*

♦The same articles form the first chapter of Part II of this volume (Trans­
Note).

lator’s

2

AN OUTLINE
OF
THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

-I
.1

i
!
j
'

j
t
i
I
;
I
i
î
J
I
i
j
f
s

AN OUTLINE OF THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
The first duty of man is the surrender of himself to the divine
goodness, which is worthy of all love. The whole moral
law derives from this first obligation, which itself is not
based on any other. In its own order it has the value of a
first principle ; as in the order of causes first comes the final
cause, and in the order of final causes, sovereign goodness,
first lovableness and first love. Why must we love God?
Not because he has commanded it; for again it would be
asked : and why must we obey God when he commands ?
The answer could not be, because he commands it ; but,
because he has a right to command. And whence does he
. hold that right? From his being the sovereign good, to
( whom all love is due. No need of seeking any further. God
'■* is goodness, goodness is lovable. God by his single self is all
goodness, and outside of him there is nothing good, nothing
lovable, except in relation.to him. To withdraw from him
is to turn one’s back upon what is good, and pass over to
evil, which is the privation of what is good. Behold the
reason why we must obey God. The natural law goes before
the positive law ; and the first word of the natural law is :
“ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
Your heart should be
his : keep it fixed on him. Your spirit : look upon him as the
centre whence radiates all truth upon men and upon things.
Your powers : use them to seek him through all the
paths traced by the requirements of the common good which
is in his care. Before all else, therefore, man owes himself
to God. He owes to him the return of whatever he has
received from him. To the God who'gave him all, he gives
himself whole and entire. And that he may be acceptable
to God, man prays : he prays that God may draw to himself
B
5

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

what comes to us from him, and that God may keep to himself
what has been consecrated to him. Lailia, eucharist, impetration (adoration, thanksgiving, petition) go side by side
and hand in hand in this first approach of man towards God.
But because man is not a pure spirit, he feels a need to
translate this interior gift of himself into an outward rite
which symbolizes it. For this reason he presents to God
the homage of some material gift- the whole reason and
purpose of which is to represent arid attest the inmost consecration of his soul.
Having its foundation in the bodily nature of man, this rite
is also found to be in agreement with his social nature : the
consecration' of a society to God, whether it be the family
or the state, not being possible except under the formalities
of an outward act. This brings us to St. Augustine’s definition,
which is traditional in the Church : “ The ritual sacrifice
IS THE VISIBLE SIGN OF THE INVISIBLE SACRIFICE—invisibilis
sacrificii sacramentum visibile ”.
Such, it seems, is the primary justification of this form
of worship, justly reserved to him alone who is the first
principle of our being, as well as its last end. It is the turning
back to God, our sovereign good, by adoration, in other words,
by the practical acknowledgment of our original dependence
and of our ultimate destiny ; and this again implies, as we
can easily convince ourselves, thanksgiving and prayer. All
of it, too, contributes to the progress and the betterment of
the rational creature, and nothing in it tends to his destruction
or annihilation : at least as long as sin does not enter into
consideration.
With sin a new factor makes its appearance : death, of
which sin is the cause ; temporal death as well as eternal
death—and both, in the normal course of things, form but
one connected issue. Sin having entered, the sacrifice offered
to the outraged divinity—the worship of adoration, gratitude,
prayer—will not be appropriate unless there is manifested an
Sr intention and an attitude of reparation. Quite naturally
the sacrificial worship will symbolize the penalty of death
6

I

j

|
|
|
i
I
I
;
1

ή
i

|
j

J

(
|
j
|
5

’

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
incurred, and so to speak, assumed by guilty humanity, at
least in figure, as a just anticipation of the divine sentence. At
the same time, it is no less intended to avert the rigour of that
very sentence. And so the blood of victims does flow, that
the blood of sinners may be spared, and a victim is offered
for immolation. To adoration is joined propitiation : behold
the sacrifice which mankind burdened with sin has known
from the beginning. But the propitiatory element does not
abolish the latreutic, which it presupposes ; and the bloody
sacrifice still remains a gift, the gift of something that was
human property, aliment or sustenance of the natural life,
and which man intends to transfer to an exclusively divine
ownership, as if for the nourishment and delight of the Most
High, for the bread of God, for the cup of God, for the lamb of
God, unto an odour of sweetness.
The rite of this oblation may be at times the immolation
itself (on condition, of course, that the immolation is per­
formed by the sacrificer, by the priest, to whom it belongs
to offer sacrifice). But it may also be, and in fact often is,
distinct from the immolation understood as mactation, which is
left to others, whereas the priest accomplishes the rite to him
alone reserved, which consists in the oblation, the donation
to God of the victim, of its life, of its blood. And according
as this rite precedes or follows the immolation, we have two
types of sacrifices, differing from one another in a merely
accessory matter. In one case the priest presents the victim
for the immolation which is to follow ; in the other, he presents
the victim already immolated : oblatio 'hostiae immolandae,
oblatio hostiae immolatae. Of this second type there are abun­
dant examples among the Hebrews : the blood of the victim
gathered by the priest is to be poured upon the altar. Why
upon the altar? Why upon an altar? Because God being
incorporeal and inaccessible there must needs be something
which in his place and stead receives the gifts destined for
him : this function is performed by the altar, which is looked
upon as the seat of God, and consequently, his vicarious
impersonation.
7

(

,

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

j

I

J
I
J
I
ΐ
i
;
i
[
!
i

ί =
I

;
j
-i
<■
ii
I1
I
,
■ η
i
I

, !
,

But so far we have considered only the part which man
plays in the sacrifice. In order that the sacrifice may be completed and perfected, that it may reach its goal, we must
not forget the part which God has in it. The sacrifice, the
transference from the profane dominion to the sacred dominion
of God of the gifts of our human indigence and unworthiness,
can only be brought about by a bilateral agreement : God must
accept what man offers to him. Without the divine acceptance the human“oblation is a sacrifice that has failed. It is
stayed on its journey : the offering does not reach its destina­
tion, and, therefore, will never attain that sanctity, that effecfive consecration, which was to come upon it from above, and
was to transform it into the condition and state of a divine
thing.
The purpose of a sacrifice is to be accepted ; and it was
ever the ambition of men to secure for themselves the tokens
of this acceptance. Among the Hebrews assurance of the
divine acceptance was had on various occasions by fire falling
from heaven and devouring the victims, on God’s behalf.
After Moses, it was had by the sacred fire miraculously kindled
at the ordination of Aaron, and perpetually kept burning by
the tribe of Levi. In the absence of these heavenly tokens,
there was the altar, the authentically and duly consecrated
altar, which, by the very fact that it received, on behalf of
God, the gifts destined for him, symbolized in a way, no
matter how precarious, the divine acceptance. And for this
reason we are told by Christ that the altar sanctifies the
gift.
-,
Indeed the diyjne_acceptance in the Old Law was never
- more than figurative. If the sacrifices did please God, it
was not on their own account, but only as figures of the
sacrifice to come. Hence, according to the testimony of the
prophets first, and later of the Epistle to the Hebrews, no sacrifice
was accepted effectively and none was efficacious for the
remission of sin. A propitiatory sacrifice, duly and really
accepted by God, has the force of a contract, in which God
binds himself to cancel the debt which that sacrifice strives

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

to pay. Such an effect never followed the sacrifices of ancient
times : this was reserved for the sacrifice of Christ.
It is worthy of note that after having dedicated their gifts
to God, men habitually showed an eagerness to sit at table
and partake of them. This proceeding would appear
incompatible witlCtfie~primary idea of a consecration to God,
of something that has become sacred, that is to say, set apart
and reserved for God alone. And yet the proceeding is
perfectly logical. The victims, it is true, belong to God alone ;
the altar which has received them is the table of God, and the
feast, if feast there be, is God’s. But if God is pleased to
invite men to his table, to have them as his guests, to give them
to eat and drink at the banquet that has been prepared for him,
there is nothing in all this derogatory to the sacred condition,
of the victims, as there would be in a sacrilegious theft, in
snatching from God what had been given to him, and thus
profaning what had been sanctified. On the contrary, we
have here a gracious act on the part of God, admitting man to
a share of the divine goods, and raising him to the condition
of the holy things wherewith God befriends him. And in all
this we have a figure of those eternal goods which man expects
in the next life. We have a figure of the sanctity which is
poured out upon the faithful and which is communicated to
him by the food sanctified by the altar. This altar was in
turn invested with God’s holiness. Finally we have a figure
of the unity established, not merely among the faithful who
partake together of the same banquet, but also between them
•aqd their God, with whom they all share in the same repast,
.like persons dwelling under the same roof, like the members of
the same family, like the familiars and kindred of God. Thus
is the fruit of the sacrifice gathered, and thus is closed the
cycle of that movement which, setting out from man towards
God, reverts from God to man. There went up an insignifi­
cant human offering ; there has come down a divine largesse.
This general economy of sacrifice, having its roots in the
nature of man, and exemplified in all its parts by history,
was outlined as early as the first half of the thirteenth century
9

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

i
i

by a famous teacher, William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris,
It clears the way for the study of the following three points :
the sacrifice of Redemption celebrated by Christ; the sacri­
fice of the Mass celebrated by the Church ; and the sacrament
of the Eucharist received by the faithful·

i !
! j
N
:
j
i
? j
H
ii
h
Ί
■ p
r

Redemption, which might have been wrought otherwise,
was accomplished by way of sacrifice. This is of faith : Jesus
is a true priest, who offered a true sacrifice. But where shall
we find in the work of the Redemption the elements of a
true sacrifice ? As regards the immolation, there is no difficulty : the Passion sufficiently accounts for it. But the Passion
was the work of the executioners, and not of Jesus : it cannot
therefore, by itself alone constitute the ritual oblation, which
is^ properly the external and sensible action of the priest.
Where shall we find this oblation, which is absolutely indispensable if the death of Jesus is to be a sacrifice properly
so-called, and not a sacrifice in the broad sense, a purely
metaphorical sacrifice, such as martyrdom under the New
or under the Old Law ? From the Garden to the Cross this
oblation appears nowhere, in spite of the efforts of some
to locate it in this or that stage of the bloody drama—efforts
which, moreover, do not bear analysis. The problem
would indeed be insoluble, if, before Calvary and the Mount
of Olives, there had not occurred the station on Mount
Sion.
At the Supper Jesus Christ, taking the bread, blessed it, etc.,
and in like manner the chalice, saying : “ Eat, this is my Body,
which shall be delivered [to death] for you ; drink, this is my Blood,
which is poured out for you and for the multitude [of souls] unto the
remission of sins” What does it mean ? Only this, that
Christ, having put himself symbolically in the state of Victim,
pledges to God for us that Death with whose sacramental
signs he clothes himself. His mystic (symbolical and mystical
are one and the same) immolation binds him to the effective
and painful immolation of Calvary. Through the figure of
ro

ί
)

,

·.

;
·f

’

i
·

J
,
e]

i
ii

I

;
î fj
j ■ h
j
i;
\ ; i;

H

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
his Passion he hands himself over and dedicates himself to
the Passion itself. He devotes himself to the expiatory death ;
before God he constitutes himself debtor for our salvation.
He is no longer his own : henceforth the grave claims him
as its prey. This is why, beginning their computation here,
oriental interpreters of this text tell us that three days and ]
three_nights shall pass unbroken over the sepulchre of Christ '
before his Resurrection.
The Supper follows that paschal repast of the azyms and the
cup of which Jesus Christ had said when taking it : “I willt;
not drink of it again till its full realization in the Kingdom of*
God.” And yet after having thus spoken, he once more
partakes of the azyms that have been consecrated and of the
cup that has been blessed. What does it signify if not that therer
and then the Pasch^ is realized and with it is accomplished!
the inauguration of the Kingdom of God ? But who does not 1
know that the realization of the Pasch is the sacrifice of the
Passion, and that the Kingdom of God opens its era with the
Redemption ? At this very moment, therefore, the sacrifice
of the Passion is going on ; Redemption has already begun.
BeKold here, thê“Ï7amb ol God, the Lamb foretold by fifteen
centuries of paschal feasts, the Lamb whose Blood at this
very instant delivers from the death and slavery of sin ; behold
Christ’s sacrifice ; behold, already here at the Supper, the
sacrifice of Calvary : The Supper Room faces the Cross and
consigns to it the Divine Lamb.
The Supper ushers in the new covenant which abolishes
the ancient one. It does not announce it ; it brings it about :
“ This is the new testament.” How so ? Is not the new cove­
nant the consequence of the sacrifice of Redemption ? If so,
then once more the sacrifice of Redemption is already being
carried out. This is the new testament in the Blood of Christ,
the price of our sins, offered to God and to be paid on the
Cross.
The Supper is the sacrifice of the High Priest according to
the order and rite of Melchisedech : priest, who, as we read
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, offered but once the one sacrifice
II

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

of Redemption, the sacrifice of his Passion, by which he entered
into the holies, into the state of glory, when he came forth
from his earthly humiliations and tribulations ; priest, who
accomplished his august oblation by the power of the Most
High (“ by an eternal spirit ”, Heb. ix, 14) : by the same
power which all liturgies since then invoke or have invoked
for the carrying out of the eucharistie rite through which the
bread is changed into the Body, and the wine into the Blood.
For the sacrifice of our Redemption was offered under the
appearance of the gifts of Melchisedech.
Lastly, the Supper fulfils the promise of that bread which
was to be the very flesh of Christ, given to God in ransom
for the life of the world. (Jn. vi, 52). This is truly the flesh
which is “ given ” (Lk. xxii, 19), given in the form of bread,
given for the salvation of men (pro vobis ; Lk. ibid.), given to
God as a sacrifice of expiation.
In the light of all this we are not surprised that the Supper
had to be included within the compass of the Passion, and
marked off by Judas’s treason, with which it begins. We are
,
nohsurprised that the sacerdotal prayer of our Saviour should
fean upon the Supper and reach out upon the Passion, joining
11 together thèse two main supports of the sacrifice that unite
to fQrm the arch of our salvation. This, too, gives the whole
import of that mysterious expression with which Christ stresses
his liturgical intent : “ For them do I sanctify myself [by the
sacrifice] that they also [by sharing in my sacrifice] may be
sanctified [no longer in figure only, but] in truth.” (Jn. xvii,
19). It also explains why it is that Christ, so free of his
j movements and determinations till the Supper, and till then
j master of his life, of which he disposes as he wills, once the
j Supper is at an end, should fall to the ground and, prostrate
as a suppliant, pray that the chalice might pass from him, “ if
it be possible ” ; and the chalice does not pass away. For
that is no longer possible. Escape is no longer allowed him,
for he offered himself: and no one can take back, without
sacrilege against God, what he has once consecrated to him.
The chalice of the Supper should not have been consecrated,
12

SSKh9EiKSSES·

Em

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

if afterwards the chalice of the Passion was to be eliminated :
and Christ dies, obedient, not to a special command of his
^Father, but to that law which demands that justice be respected,
and consequently that obligations contracted with God be
fulfilled. Now the obligation to let himself be put to death
had been contracted freely by Christ in the eu<
TBlood.
Thus the Supper and the Passion answer each other. They
complete and compenetrate each other. The one presents
to our eyes the sacerdotal, sensible, ritual oblation, wherein
consists the mystic immolation ; the other adds to it the real,
bloody, all-sufficient immolation, of which the first was the
figure. In theTSupper Room, amid a scene of splendour which
he has designedly procured, Christ is chiefly the priest ; on
Calvary, in his silence and nakedness, he is chiefly the victim.
On the one hand we have the Body and Blood symbolically
separated, and under cover of this appearance, doomed to the
death whose image they bear. On the other hand we have the
Blood that flows till it is drained, in order to substantiate the
prediction made at the Supper, realize the sacramental
figure, and carry out the oblation. The whole Passion is
sacrifice, because the whole Passion is bloody immolation
offered by the Priest ; and the Supper is the same Sacrifice,
one and indivisible, because it is the gesture of the Priest,
offering, in an unbloody rite, the same bloody immolation. ,
The Passion is immolatio hostiae oblatae ; the Supper is oblatio
hostiae immolandae : oblation which perseveres, and that i
VISIBLY, THROUGH THE TORMENTS OF THE SAVIOUR, INASMUCH j

AS IT IS NOWHERE REVOKED, INASMUCH AS IT IS EVERYWHERE *

And
thus, there are not two sacrifices of our Redeemer, an unbloody
sacrifice, followed by a bloody sacrifice ; but there is one only
Sacrifice, complete and perfect, both on the part of the Priest.
who celebrates with bread and wine, and on the part of the
Victim put to death. Such is the teaching of the whole of
patristic antiquity as well as of Holy Writ ; such is the doctrine
of the liturgies ; such is the doctrine preferred at the Council
13
COUNTERSIGNED BY THE BLOOD THAT FLOWS TO RATIFY IT.

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

■V

of Trent by the most eminent among the Fathers—those who
brought about the triumph of Chapter I of Session XXII.
This doctrine, however, is only complete when related to the
teaching both of Scripture and Tradition on the eternity of
the state of Victim in which Christ placed himself at his
Death, and in which God has immortalized him in his Resur­
rection and Ascension.
For to the oblation of the High Priest there was of necessity
to be an answer of divine acceptance. No created fire, it is
true, came down to devour the Body of the Christ in the
sepulchre. But there came the fire of divine glory consuming
the mortality and corruptibility of the Saviour, making him
pass, whole and entire, body and soul, into the proper condition
of only Son, Lord, Christ ; completing, consummating his
Incarnation on that day of which his Father has said : Ego
hodie genui te, “ to-day have I begotten thee.” And as of
old the flesh of the victims remained “ idolothyte ”, as long
as corruption had not set in, so the Christ, safeguarded against
the corruption of the grave by his glorious Resurrection,
remains in his Father’s presence, eternal “ theothyte ”. The
Lamb, far from losing its quality of Victim, of Sacrifice, retains
it increased and enhanced by all that is added to it by the
divine ratification, effective acceptance and heavenly con­
summation. The Gift has reached its goal. It is the price of
our salvation, held in the hand of God for ever, to pay an
everlasting debt.
But this is not all. If Christ’s Death on the one hand has
paid the penalty of our sins, on the other, it is his Resurrection
which effects our justification (Earn. iv, 25). Moral cause of
our ransom by his Blood, Christ is the efficient cause, first
of our grace, and then of our glory, by the divine condition in
which God took him up. In other words, the atoning Victim
who “ maketh intercession for us ” is also the vital principle
by which God communicates to us the breath of life, the
spiritual life.
Priest and Victim, Christ is likewise the Altar, and the
eternal Altar of his Sacrifice. His Body, seat of the Divinity,
14

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
received the Blood of the Victim, sacramentally at the hands
of the Priest during the Supper, and then really upon the Cross
where that Body was drenched with the Blood which the
wounds drew forth. No other altar would have been qualified
to sanctify the august Victim of our High Priest. Trans­
lated to heaven, this altar holds up the Victim to the eyes
of God. A living and “ speaking ” Altar, as we are told by
St. John in the Apocalypse. The one and only Altar, which
ours made by human hands are not meant to replace, but to
recall to our watchful faith, “ they having been anointed with
qhrism,” as the Roman Breviary reminds us, “ only for the
purpose of better representing Jesus Christ, who is our Altar,
as he is our Victim and our Priest
Priest, Victim, Altar of his Sacrifice, Jesus Christ is also
the first one to partake of the sacrificial feast, and in a sense
the only rightful guest. This our Doctors have noted from
the most remote antiquity with a surprising doctrinal consensus.
Not only did he give to his own to eat and drink the Body and
Blood of the Supper, but he himself, Head of the holy race and
of the chosen people, wished to sit at the table of his Father,
and eat the bread of the children, pledge of that eternal
inheritance into whose possession he was about to enter, and
into which he was to give us admittance by making us partake
with him of the family meal, of that meal of which he alone
could taste first and extend to us its benefit. Moreover no one
can take his place at that table except as member of the only
Son and of the divine Liturgus, even though it be true also,
as will appear elsewhere, that no one can be incorporated in
our Head except in virtue of the Eucharist.
•
·
·
·
·
But everything would have ended with the Supper and
with the group of the Twelve gathered in the Upper Room,
had not Jesus Christ added : “ Do this in commemoration of
me”. This command gives rise to the Sacrifice of the Mass,
Sacrifice in which the Church in her turn and in the name of
-Christ, with whom she is indivisibly associated in the unity
15

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
of the same priesthood, offers to God what Christ had offered
—his Death and Passion. She offers as he had offered : with
the rite of a sacramental, or mystical, that is to say, sym­
bolical, immolation which is borrowed from the appearance,
of bread and wine, with which the Saviouris,Body and_Blood
çlothe themselves, at the voice of the priest, uttering the
words with which the holy Cenacle first resounded. There
is here the oblation of a Victim, no longer indeed to be immo­
lated, but already and once for all immolated in the past.
But this past survives, since Christ always remains the sacri- .
ficial Victim of Calvary, even in the midst of the glory that
makes of him an eternal “ theothyte ”. Oblatio hostiae, non
immolandae, sed immolatae. It is thus that all antiquity understood
it ; thus it is attested along the course of ages by the voice of
the Doctors of the Church and of the liturgies, in the West
as well as in the East, Greek as well as Syriac, and in our
own as well as the Byzantine Middle Ages. Thus also spoke
the little heeded voices of the Apologists of the counter­
Reformation in the Netherlands, on the Rhine, in France, in
Italy, in all the lands where the enemies of the faith could
not be silenced by hurling at them long-range shafts that
were pointless, even though forged on the anvil of a scholas­
ticism as fearless as it was arbitrary. Thus we read in the
catechisms of our forebears, in the instructions of the shep­
herds to their flocks. Such is the tenor of whatever theological
literature has not been contaminated by lawless and un­
bridled speculation, in search of an impossible solution to a
non-existent problem. Here is the wording of that supposed
problem : -the Mass being a sacrifice, and there being no
true sacrifice without a true victim, it remains to discover what
Js done to Christ in the MassJin□?rder_t{LphG£JliIILiIL·the state
of Victim. This problem appears nowhere before the middle
of the sixteenth century, and for this very simple reason—
Christ needed not to be ÎLutJntojL^
Jiolds that conditionjforj^ej^Jj^^
consummated in glory. All we have to do is to re-enact what
Christ had done : Hoc facite, do this. He offered, under the
16

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

appearances of his Death, the bloody reality of that Death ;
and so do we. We are offering his Death, when we offer
him in his quality of “ theothyte ” of his Passion, We offer
that one single immolation, when we present to God the,
gift of his Body, the Body of the Crucified One, and of his
Blood, the Blood of his wounds. But to make of him a Victim,
toimmolate him effectively1 as did the Jews, is not our task.
Even if we could do so, we should not. No, indeed, it is
enough that being the Victim of his Sacrifice, he should become
through us the Victim of our Sacrifice. He is Victim without
us.: we must make him our Victim. This we do when on
our own account we repeat what took place at the Supper.
Hoc facite : do ye what I have done before you ; do over
again My Sacrifice, and let My Sacrifice become your Sacri­
fice. Between what he did and what we are doing, there is,
if we understand it aright, but the twofold difference which
follows.
First, at the Supper he himself, in person, and he alone,
offered : now we offer jointly with him. Indeed, he does not
offer except through our intervention, our oblation being per­
formed in virtue of his, in virtue of that one single oblation
which once proceeded from Christ but is ever operative as
a universal cause in all particular and subordinate oblations,
which extend his through time and through space, to the
universality of the Church. The Church, indissolubly knit
to Christ, enjoys the privilege of being associated with him
in his priesthood, and the whole sacerdotal Body of the
Saviour must needs enter into full participation of the act
by which Christ paid the ransom of the world, in order that
the world may have the honour and advantage of working at
1 To immolate him effectively; for to immolate him mystically, sacramentally,
symbolically, is clearly our task, since herein precisely consists the oblation
which we must make after the example of Christ, as we have just explained.
There is this difference between an effective immolation and a mystical one,
that the former affects its subject intrinsically, unlike the latter, which remains
external to him, being produced in the region of the sacramental sign only, in
those outward appearances which, by the effect of the words of consecration,
form themselves, so to speak, around the Body and Blood ofJesus Christ, without,
however, penetrating them.

17

f'.ciM'·,

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

its own redemption, by paying out of its own hand the more
than sufficient price put at its disposal by Christ the Redeemer.
The second difference is this : what Christ did before the
Crucifixion, the same we do after the Crucifixion, in mei
memoriam, “ for the commemoration of me ”, as St. Paul
explains, showing “ the Death of the Lord, until he come ”
_ from heaven, where he disappeared. Hence the Mass faces
» the past, while the Supper faced the future.
We have then, the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of
Calvary, the former adding nothing to the latter, no more
than the creature adds to the Creator, or the particular good
to the universal. Still, if we consider the oblation which is
performed in both—in the one case oblation by Christ alone,
in the other a subordinated and joint oblation by the minister ;
here oblation of a Victim already at hand, there oblation of
a Victim in course of being executed—we cannot reduce the
two sacrifices to such perfect unity as would exclude all
plurality. It is certain, as every one knows, that sacrifices
are multiplied according to the diversity of sacerdotal obla­
tions, which constitute their formal element. On the other
hand, the Supper and the Cross are but one Sacrifice for the
same reason, for there intervenes between them but one single
oblation, accomplished in the Cenacle and persisting through­
out the Passion. But the Victim of the Mass, the reality
offered in sacrifice (that which constitutes not the active but
the passive sacrifice) is from the Cross to the Mass, as from
the Supper to the Cross, strictly and numerically one, not,
only in its material aspect, which gives us the same Body and
the same Blood in each case, but also in its formal aspect
as Victim, which gives us one single effective immolation, the
one single attribute, then acquired, and thenceforth imperish­
able, of Gift, of Victim handed over to God and made over
to him. Our Victim is the one which Calvary made and
which heaven eternizes.
The above view is not without influence on the manner
of estimating the value of the Mass. There has been talk
of an infinite value for each mass, infinite as regards the
18

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

multitude of those who can profit by it, infinite as regards the
magnitude of the fruit which everyone may draw from it.
This value, in itself infinite, is, we are told, limited in reality
by a divine arbitrament in the results actually obtained,
and is in keeping with a uniform and invariable standard.
This opinion presents two disadvantages. On the one hand
it does not add to our pleasure to see God intervene for the
purpose not of increasing our goods but of curtailing our
profits. Plato speaks of a goodness which is not jealous of its
gifts, but takes delight in scattering them to the full measure
in which they can be shared. Our classical philosophy does
not speak differently, when it presents God to us as Pure Act,
whose characteristic is to diffuse the act and not to limit
it—for such limitation the receptive power accounts suffi­
ciently. On the other hand, the very notion of an infinite
value proceeds from this relatively modern illusion, accord­
ing to which the sacrifice of our altars is looked upon as the
immediate and personal work of Christ, repeating the act
of oblation from mass to mass and from altar to altar. Let
us once admit, accepting a fifteen-hundred-year-old doctrine,
that the Mass is the action of the Church, and that she alone
interposes a new oblation, subordinate, it is true, to the
one oblation of Christ, Chief Priest, from whom she her­
self derives her power, and the above notion of the value
of the Mass will undergo a change.
Then it will be seen that the Mass, in what is new and
special to it, is an endeavour of men to reach God, and not
Christ’s own personal approach towards his Father. It is
the offering, renewed by us and not by the Saviour, of his
Body and Blood. It follows that what is offered is indeed
of infinite value ; but the active offering made of it is intrin­
sically limited by the greater or lesser sanctity of the agent
from whom it proceeds, and in particular of the universal
Church, whose sanctity is indeed indefectible, but variable.
Now, as St. Thomas remarks, in the relations between
man and God, no less than in those between man and man,
when it is a question of appreciating an act of generosity,
*9

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
it is more important to take into consideration the senti­
ments of the giver than the price of the gift itself. And so,
the value of this our action, .though deriving from the
VICTIM TO which it is related an incomparable increase

or to express it better, an incalculable coeffi­
nevertheless remain a function of a finite quantity,
which is that of the holiness of the offerers.
How do the various participants in the oblation of a par­
ticular mass contribute to determine its value ? Among those
participants there is in the first place thc^niversal Church,
who, because she alone is the Body of Christ, can alone offer
the Body of Christ. There is in the second place rHe officiating__priest, who is the .official agent of that Body as
regards the ministry of oblation/nTnThe third place, there is
the^hristian who supplies the terrestrial matter of the sacri­
fice, the amount required to satisfy the nçeds of the minister,
who is entitled to live by the altar. In thefourth place, there
are those who, gathered round the altar, are associated in
a special manner in the celebration of the mystery. To
what extent all these offerers contribute to determine the
value of the mass is a highly interesting question, the answer
to which is found in the most ancient documents of Christian
literature.
Let it suffice here to state that of the four above-mentioned
human factors of our sacrifice, the one that transcends all
\ others, is the Church. It may happen that no faithful are
-P'' present, or that no pious soul except the celebrant himself
-ÿi’ x<jAhas provided the material elements of the sacrifice, or that
the celebrant himself is guilty of sacrilege : there still remains
y*
the Church, that Church which is ever holy, ever pleasing
, and acceptable to God. And because of the permanency
of this chief factor (among the human ones) the offering
of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is always agreeable to
God, even under the most adverse conditions. And though
the priest be not only unworthy, but interdicted, degraded,
excommunicated, separated from the Church by formal
heresy, yet whenever he offers, the Church offers through
of value,
cient, will

20

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

him. To whatever extent the exercise of his unlawful min­
istry may be detrimental to him personally, whatever harm
may befall those who dare to associate themselves with him
in his transgression, at least the body of the Church profits
by it, and Christ’s Blood, profaned by unworthy Christians,
still calls down mercy upon the faithful people.
And to whom are the fruits of the mass applied ? In a
general way to those for whom it is offered. But who come
under this head ? In the first place those who offer : for no
one, if he be a sinner, can offer for the sins of others without
first offering for his own sins. Every mass, therefore, brings
with it a personal and inalienable benefit to the offerers.
But through that charity which makes us all one man
in Christ, and makes it possible for each one to offer for
others as well as for himself, the fruits of the holy sacrifice
reach, by way of suffrage, all those for whom it is lawful
to offer it.
It must, of course, be understood that this power of obla­
tion, which is ours only as members of the sacerdotal body
of Jesus Christ, resides (even in its lowest degree) in none
but such as are admitted to his priesthood by baptism and
remain united to the Church by the bond of faith. They
alone can procure for themselves the fruits of the sacrifice
by means of their own offering entrusted to the hand£ of the
priest. But no one is excluded from the suffrage, no one
among the living, and no one among the dead who are in
purgatory. And if it is a question of an intention for some
departed individual by name, no one is debarred, at least
of those who went out of this life in visible communion with
the Church. All such are presumed to abide in the Body of
Christ, just as, alas ! all those who on earth were not in
visible communion with that Body must be presumed strangers
to it. If, nevertheless (and this hope is always legitimate),
there existed the invisible bond of union, those held by it
have a share in the common benefit which accrues daily
from the sacrifice of the Church to the multitude of unnamed
souls.
C

21

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

So much as regards the nature of the sacrifice of the Mass
and its utilization. What about the precise action by which
the holy sacrifice is accomplished ? It is not the communion,
which being a participation of the Victim of thé "sacrifice
presupposes the sacrifice already accomplished, instead of
constituting it. It is not the breaking of the .bread. which far
from symbolizing the Passion, originally was but a rite having
for its purpose the distribution of the eucharistie repast among
the faithful. Neither is it any verbal formula of oblation :
for sacrifice-is_essentially the transfer of a gift, and not the
enunciation of that transfer, an nhlatinn in action, and not
merely an oblation in words. Neither is it the epiclesis^
however august its character, however suitable its placcaFïér
the commemoration of the Supper. And this is true of it
in all liturgies, without exception, whether it has reference
to God, or to the Trinity, or to the Father, Son, or Holy
Ghqst in particular. This epiclesis^ moreover, is at times rather
\vagub, imploring only the coming of the Holy Ghost upon
the gifts, as we find in some very primitive documents like
the Liturgy of Hippolytus. At other times it is more definite,
asking in clear terms for t'ransubstantiation, to be accomplished
either by the descent of divine power upon the gifts in order
to change them into the Body and Blood of Christ or by
bringing and placing them upon the true and sublime Altar,
which never bore but one Victim, the victim of the one Priest
and of his one Sacrifice. In either case, the epiclesis presupposes
the sacrifice as already accomplished, and has for its purpose
to ask God its acceptation and ratification (although in reality
this ratification or acceptation consists in the transubstantiation
already effected). Nothing of all this, impressive though it
be, constitutes the sacrifice. What constitutes it is the con­
secration brought about by the words of Christ and by them
alone. So that the acceptance of the sacrifice by God, and its
oblation by man, and the commemoration of the Supper and
of the Passion of Christ, all are realized at the same instant,
c and through the effect of the same words. For these words
may be considered as conferring upon the Body and Blood
33

|
I

i

ί

s
I

i

!
I
!
|

;

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
the very quality of sensible gifts that is borrowed from the
bread and wine (oblation). They may be considered as effecting a miracle of divine omnipotence (acceptance). Finally
they may be considered as perpetuating the tangible memorial
of the sacrifice of our Redemption (commemoration). No
wonder, then, that for the understanding of the mystery and
for the instruction of the faithful, it should be necessary to
distinguish these various elements or aspects of one and the
same complex and indivisible action, and to distribute their
ceremonial and literary expressions through the successive
parts of the Liturgy. For this reason there comes first the
oral commemoration of the Supper, introducing the Saviour’s
words ; then, as if to carry out the mandate with which they
end, follows the remembrance or anamnesis of the Passion,
Resurrection and Ascension ; and this again is naturally
followed by the presentation of the gifts, which, in turn, and
as a matter of course, ends with the request for acceptance :
anamnesis, oblation, epiclesis.
But which are those words of Christ that are essential to
the accomplishment of the sacrifice ? For the bread, there
is no difficulty. But for the chalice, it rather appears that
we must return to the teaching of St. Thomas, who requires,
besides the mention of the Blood, the designation of its pro­
pitiatory function. If this is omitted, the sacramental form
may well be indicative of a real presence, but not of a real
presence that implies in Christ the quality of a gift, of pro­
pitiatory Gift, of expiatory Victim, of Sacrifice. But it is precisely
this which Jesus Christ instituted, after having inaugurated
it at the Supper. This point must be noted. He might have
effected this or that transubstantiation, had it pleased him,
without attaching to it the character of an oblation made to
God. Even though the transubstantiation represented his
imminent Death by a distinct designation of the Body and
Blood, it was yet possible to represent that Death to men after
the manner of a sacrament without presenting it to God after
the fashion of a sacrifice. What will give to the transubstantia­
tion this higher reach, and give it, not in an inward and
23

J

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
hidden manner, but in a manner clear and refulgent, as befits
an exterior sign and intelligible rite, such as sacrifice ? In other
words, what stamps transubstantiation as an act of oblation ?
It is precisely the drift given to the rite by the words which
in their sacramental form enunciate a propitiatory intention.
If the Body of Christ is delivered for us, or if his Blood flows
for our sake, for the expiation of our sins, then, and only then, will
it be clear not only that the representation of his Death, in
the reality of his Body and Blood, has the value of a living
picture exhibited to our eyes, but that from the angle under
which it stretches out to God that representation is a pledge
of the world’s ransom. Then, indeed, there is a gift ; a Gift
which ascends to God, before again descending to men. Thus,
in our Eucharist there is no transubstantiation without sacri­
fice, because Christ willed to connect the one with the other.
Again, there is no sacrifice without an approach towards God ;
and this approach does not manifest itself otherwise than by
the propitiatory destination of the Gift ; and this destination
is not expressed, and therefore not imparted, except by a
sacramental form which enunciates not only the presence but
the reason for that presence. Such undoubtedly is the mind
of St. Thomas and of all his most ancient commentators, in
opposition to the opinion of St. Bonaventure, followed per­
haps too readily by most of the modern theologians.
Furthermore, do the words of Christ, even in their entire
scope, suffice of themselves ? It would appear that they do
not. Here Scotus may well be right against St. Thomas.
Words like this is my Body, etc., this is my Blood, etc., cannot
denote the Body and Blood of Christ unless they are placed
on the lips of Christ. Otherwise not his Body and Blood are
designated, but mine, who am speaking. The intention which
makes me speak cannot alter the case. That intention has
not for its task to specify or to rectify the meaning of a formula,
but only to apply correctly to a suitable matter a form in
itself clear and not equivocal, correct and not faulty. But,
to make Christ do the speaking, it is necessary to state that
he did speak, and that he uttered at the Supper the words
24

I

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

which we quote, and which at that very Supper he uttered
over the species to which we apply them {accipiens et hunc
praeclarum Calicem}.
But is it also required that the narrative of the Supper be
formulated in such a way, or at least be introduced by such
a preamble, that it should appear clearly addressed not to
men, but to God ? In this case the first half of the Canon
would be made to assume a not unimportant part in the
consecration of the Eucharist. The arguments in favour of
the affirmative, which has been held by some very orthodox
theologians, may be drawn from the example of Christ, who
consecrated after a prayer of thanksgiving and blessing
addressed to God. Another source of arguments is found in
patristic tradition, which strives to make us see in our sacrifice
a prayer. Again, we are told, theological reason would hardly
be satisfied if the prayer and formal liturgy of the sacrifice
were carried out in a purely historical discourse, without
any feature giving it a religious aspect. But Christ’s example
goes against the thesis ; for most certainly he consecrated
while addressing himself to his disciples. Besides, whether
God is spoken to or not, the Fathers are justified in seeing in
our sacrifice a prayer, since every sacrifice contains implicitly
the request for divine acceptance, and our sacrifice is, more­
over, effected, not by a material action, but by the words which
we pronounce. Finally, the consecrating discourse will always
be sacred and religious by the mere fact that it directs a victim
to the divine cult (to the worship of God). There is no evidence
that more than this is required : hence, without censuring
the requirements of others, one may well refuse to follow them,
and still remain a child of wisdom.
•
·
·
·
.
Symbol of the death of Christ, the Eucharist is also a sign,
foretokening our glorious _resurrection7~and indicating" our
union ivith—him as well as the union of the faithful~^ïüng
themselves in the Church : for this reason the Eucharist is
a sacrament. Meant for the refection of the faithful after its
25

h

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

oblation to God, the Eucharist possesses this quality—be­
longing, as we saw, to whatever is served upon the table of
sacrifice—of signifying the beatitude of the future life, the
sanctity of the present life, and the unity of the divine family.
It accomplishes this in an eminent manner, by representing
and effecting the incorporation of the members in Christ,
Head of that ecclesiastical Body whose integration shall be
completed in heaven.
The union with Christ symbolized and effected by the
Eucharist does not consist in the mere physical presence of
Jesus Christ in us. It is the effect of this physical presence,
and, unlike that presence, is not transitory, but permanent.
It consists in that spiritual fellowship which is established
between Jesus Christ and ourselves (/ Cor. x, 16-21). It
consists in the mutual indwelling of Christ in us and of us in
Christ (Jn. vi, 56-57), and in the vivifying influence which
Christ, the vital principle (I Cor. xv, 45), exerts upon the
subject to whom he communicates himself. It consists in the
consequent building up of that one integral and living body
wherein we dwell. Sacramental communion binds us, through
a spiritual communion, to the immolated flesh of Christ, to
the sanctified and sanctifying Victim, distributed to us that it
may impart to us the life it draws from the bosom of divine
glory, which for evermore has become its proper element.
This sap of life coursing through the veins of our soul is grace.
Grace, then, does not only unite us to the divinity, it unites
us also to the very humanity, of the Saviour. In a spiritual
way—which does not mean in an unreal but in an immaterial
way—grace unites us to his Body. The vital and never
ceasing dynamic power of the flesh of Christ is that which, while
preserving life in us, has for result our union with his spirit
and divinity. His flesh, the flesh of the Son of man, is the
link between our souls and his Soul, for the purpose of making
us partakers, beyond his Soul itself, of the Divine Nature.
In every one of us grace exists as an emanation from and
dependence upon the sanctifying grace which resides primarily
in Christ’s humanity. In him grace dwells in all its plenitude,
26

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

that is, in “ the plenitude of its perfection, and in the per­
fection of its plenitude.” This must be taken not in the sense
merely of a relative plenitude, in comparison with lower
degrees of grace actually imparted to other creatures, but in
the sense of an absolute plenitude, as compared to any possible
grace. This plenitude is not only superior in degree to any
other ; it is a plenitude beyond measure, and consequently
without any common measure with anything which it tran­
scends. Any other notion falls short of him who in his very
humanity is Son by nature, and not at all by adoption, as are
the rest (in whom sanctifying grace imitates only imperfectly
the prerogatives of natural filiation). To him who is the heir
of glory by birth, and has a connatural claim to grace, nothing
can be wanting of all that God can bestow. Neither would
anything less have sufficed to the Redeemer, to enable him to
offer for our sins a compensation equal to all the hatred they
justly deserve, and a satisfaction made up of all the pain which
it is their fatality to inflict. Nothing less was needed in order
that the Man-God should immediately, effectively and con­
stantly be made secure against every, even the most unsurmountable, obstacle opposing the accomplishment of God’s
will. Nor was less required in order that that source of our
grace might, if it chose, triumph in us over all our ill will,
no matter how refractory. “ Of his fullness we have all received ”
(Jn. i, 16) ; and it all comes about through the Eucharist.
The Eucharist cannot join us to Christ without uniting us
all with one another. Thus the unity of the Church—that
spiritual association which builds up the Body of Christ—
results from the eucharistie bread : “ Because one [is the]
bread, one body are we the many who all partake of the one
bread ” (Z Cor. x, 17). From this follows the identity, or at
least the sameness, between communion in the Eucharist
and communion in the Church ; between excommunication
which severs from the eucharistie Body and excommunication
which severs from the ecclesiastical Body of Christ.
This ecclesiastical Body will be completed only in heaven,
after the glorious resurrection ; and this glorious resurrection
27

The

mystery of faith

will itself be the fruit of the Eucharist (Jn. vi, 54, 58, 63).
Knit to Christ as members to our Head, how can we end in
the dust of earth, while the Head is reigning in glory ? What
manner of Body would that be, which, with its Head crowned
in heaven, would have its feet for ever buried in the grave ?
Let us recall, too, that grace ushered in by the Eucharist,
and transformed in heaven into glory, qualifies the souls to
communicate themselves with all their glory to the flesh.
With a desire that is overpowering, because inborn, these
blessed souls long for their bodies as their natural comple­
ment ; while to animate them again without at the same
time glorifying them is no longer possible. For this reason
was the. eucharistie banquet given us by Christ as the sacra­
mental figure of the heavenly banquet (Mt. xxvi, 29 ;
Mk. xiv, 25 ; Lk. xxii, 29, 30). At all events, on the last
day, wheresoever the Body of Christ shall be in the person
of his inanimate members, there shall the eagles—the holy
souls of paradise—also be gathered together from the four
winds, to raise up that which had been struck down, and
to build up in all its parts the finished and glorious Body of
the Son of God, whose glory once more shall have swallowed
up completely the very last traces of corruptibility and mor­
tality {Mt. xxiv, 28 ; Lk. xvii, 37).
The sensible element of this sacrament consists of the species
as they are affected by the form ; and this latter determines
the meaning of the whole in reference to the Body and Blood
of Christ. But beyond the outward sacrament, there is an
interior sacrament : the Body of Christ designated by the
species, and itself, in turn, designating something else, namely
the Church, composed of the Head and of his members.
The causality proceeds conformably to the signification,
since it is distinctive of sacraments to accomplish what they
signify, in fact to accomplish by signifying it. Thus the exterior
rite, constituted by the union of the form with the species,
produces transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of
Christ, and the Body of Christ has for effect the building up,
member by member, of the universality of the Church.
28

’

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
From this process, then, must be excluded all immediate
causality of the first term with regard to the third, that is to
say, of the sacramental species in relation to the Church. It
is not the multiplicity of the grains of wheat or of the grapes
blended into unity which by itself represents sacramentally
the unity of the Church, or contributes to it efficaciously.
This symbolism, although very pious, venerable and ancient—
more ancient perhaps than the Christian religion itself, if
it be true that it is of Jewish origin—is nevertheless one of
mere adaptation. It is certainly as devoid of divine institution
as the mixing of the wine and water, or the use of the unleavened
bread. The sacramental order is the one that proceeds from
the exterior to the interior, from the container to the content,
and thus from this priceless content to its extension through­
out all mankind—in other words, from Christ’s Body bom of
the Virgin Mary and immolated upon the Cross, to Christ’s
Body gathered from the four quarters of the world and gar­
nered in paradise.
The twofold species, of bread and wine, raises a question
about the unity of the sacrament. There seems to be no
satisfactory solution without conceiving the eucharistie meal
as a sacrificial repast, the partaking of which in any manner
whatever is sufficient to secure the whole benefit which it
enfolds. For this reason, communion under one species does
not deprive the faithful of any one of the fruits of the
Eucharist.
In addition to this formal unity of the sacrament, there is
also a strictly numerical unity across time and space, in spite
of an apparent multiplicity, which arises from the plurality
of the sacrifices. So real is this numerical unity, that the
communicant of to-day does partake of the repast of the
Supper, of this anticipated banquet of Calvary, no less directly
than did the Twelve, to whom Jesus Christ dispensed with his
own hands the Body and Blood of the Lamb. From thence­
forth till the end of time, it is always the same Bread, the same
Cup that passes from hand to hand throughout all generations.
Once more, it is of this Chalice and of this Bread that Jesus
29

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

!

I '

Christ said at the Supper : This—this which we priests of
the twentieth century hold in our hands—this is my Body,
this is my Blood. We do not merely tell the story of the Supper
about the chalice and the bread of that memorable night ; we
do claim to refer the discourse of the Lord to our own gifts.
This is what the Schoolmen mean when they say that upon
our lips the words of Christ, while having the true character
of a “ citation ”, do none the less have directly in view,
significative or demonstrative, the present mystery.
If the Eucharist is compared with the other sacraments,
and first of all with Baptism, it will be found that Baptism
does not incorporate into the Church and in Christ except
by the power of the Eucharist. Baptism is the sacrament of
death, despoiling us of the old Adam and of the sad life of
inherited sin. But it does this in view of a new life, the life
of grace and ofjustice, to be drawn from the bosom of the new
Adam. Hence, Baptism looks to the Eucharist as to the source
of that blessed life which the baptismal symbolism alone
could not sufficiently designate as conferred, but only as desired.
And thus with the sacramental signification of Baptism there
goes forth an appeal for the Eucharist. And because every
sacrament accomplishes what it expresses, Baptism introduces
into the soul a desire for communion—habitual desire or actual
desire, as the case may be. In this respect, Baptism may be
defined as the sacrament of the communion of desire. And since
desire, like a hand stretched out towards the source of heavenly
goods, snatches already the waters of grace escaping there­
from, it becomes clear that Baptism, as soon as received, initi­
ates the recipient to the fruits of the Eucharist. We can also
see how sacramental communion comes to ratify Baptism, how
, abstention from the Holy Table gives the lie to the baptismal
vows, and how the renewal of these vows finds its natural
place on the first communion day.
The other sacraments confer grace only in dependence on
the Eucharist. Each one of them, in its own way, has in view
either a preparation for the Eucharist, or a safeguard of the
eucharistie life in us. Penance is the sacrament of readmission
30

ÜMMHMttSâOi

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH

to the Eucharist ; Confirmation strengthens the eucharistie
bond against difficulties from without ; Matrimony shields
it against difficulties from within. Extreme Unction, by
removing the last remains of sin, puts the soul in readiness
for perfect union, for communion in plenitude. Holy Order
is entirely directed to the oblation and consequently to the
official participation of the Eucharist. Everything fronts
towards it, as do our churches towards the rising sun and
Mount Calvary. All the sacraments lead to it or form a
bulwark around it. If it be true that a means is desirable
only in view of the end, then we must admit that all the
other sacraments are pregnant with a desire of that one
towards which they marshal their own whole activity. On
this account what is special to each of them is introduced by
means of sanctifying grace, which is itself truly and properly
the work of the Eucharist.
These special dispositions imparted to the faithful by all
the other sacraments the Eucharist either requires or utilizes.
They are like so many avenues or channels or arteries, open
within us to the vital influence of the Eucharist. Hence,
there is between this latter sacrament and them a most im­
portant difference as regards the kind of instrumental causality
which belongs to them respectively in relation to grace. In
the Eucharist that causality is “ perfective ” : it attains
sanctifying grace in itself and does so by its own means. In
the other sacraments it is merely “ dispositive ” : it attains
sanctifying grace by means of the various forms of one or an­
other disposition peculiar to each sacrament, which coalesces
with grace only by the power of the Eucharist.
After what has been said, it will be easy to enter, or rather
to re-enter, the great stream of Catholic tradition concerning
the necessity of the Eucharist. It is a necessity of means and
not merely of precept. It is a necessity for which there would
be no accounting if the eucharistie sacrifice were related to
another immolation than that of the Cross. But it is a necessity
quite intelligible if the Christ of the Eucharist is really and
truly nothing else than the Lamb, the “ theothyte ” Victim
31

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
of Calvary, without whom it is not possible to procure for one­
self the fruit of the sacrifice of our redemption. Therefore,
without the Eucharist, there is no communion with Christ ;
without the Eucharist there is no communion with the Church,
and no divine adoption. Even those who lived in. times of
long ago, among shadows and figures, had to unite them­
selves by desire to this divine flesh and to eat in spirit of this
heavenly bread. For us, for every one, the words of Christ
hold absolutely : “ Except you eat my Flesh and drink my
Blood, you shall not have life in you.” The Fathers do not
admit of an exception to this law any more than to the law
which makes of baptism the condition for entrance into the
kingdom of heaven. Actually received, or partaken of at
least in desire, the Eucharist is the indispensable means of
salvation.
Further, repeated reception is also the necessary means of
perseverance. It alone makes sure our progress in grace,
which progress is itself an indispensable condition of fidelity
to the essential observance of the commandments. The reason
of this may be either that as men we are bound to make pro­
gress by our very nature, which we cannot thwart with
impunity, or that we are subject to a wearing-out process,
which for the very continuance of the struggle against evil
requires a steadily growing energy. Now, as a matter of fact,
the increase of grace, in the last analysis, comes from the same
source as its beginning ; from the one fountain of living
waters, the Eucharist. It was fitting, therefore, that Jesus
Christ should institute the Eucharist under the appearances
of a daily food, such as bread and wine. It was also natural
that in the prayer which we have received from him there
should stand at the head of all other petitions made in our
own behalf that of the daily bread—for the soul even more
than for the body, as it has always been understood by Catholic
tradition.
We see how the Eucharist, sacrifice and sacrament, in the
abundance of its richness, sums up all that the Cross offered
to God and procured for men. It is the summary of the
32

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
marvels wrought by the Almighty for the salvation of man­
kind. It is even more : it is the reliquary, living and immortal
reliquary of those marvels. It is the Blood of Calvary and the
dew of heaven at one and the same time : the Blood that cries
for mercy, and the vivifying dew that raises up the drooping
plant. It is the price paid for us, and the blessing brought
to us. It is life and the price of life. The Cross was not
worth more, nor the Supper, nor the two together : and all
of it endures, and all of it is fraught with all the hopes of
humanity. For these reasons the Mass is well called the
Mystery of Faith ; not only because the whole Christian
dogma—which is the dogma of our ruin in Adam and of our
restoration in Jesus Christ—is summed up in it ; but also,
and chiefly, because the drama, the heroic action by which
was accomplished that sublime uplifting of humanity and
superabundant compensation for our former losses, continues
in our midst by means of it. And it is not a repetition by way
of a mere symbol, but actually realizes in our midst what was
accomplished by Christ himself. And this Christ, protagonist
of that drama, is not the hero of some vaporous myth, but of
a story authentically divine ; he is the author of a sacred
rite which we renew in memory of him. If there was but
folly in the “ mysteries ” of the Greeks, there is in ours the
wisdom and the power of God. All Christians are “ mystics ”,
and Christ is the great “ mystagogue ”, initiating men into
the pains of his death and the grandeur of his resurrection by
the mysterious words of which the Church holds the secret,
and by which she evokes before us the Flesh and the Blood
of Calvary, the Bread of heaven and the Chalice of eternal
salvation. The daily consecration of these, the daily repast,
constitute through the course of ages, the true “ mystery ”,
the awful Mystery of Christian Faith, the harbinger of heaven’s
theophany in that of our altars.
All that has been said thus far on the nature of the euchar­
istie sacrifice and on the consequences of the sacrament receives
a signal confirmation from the analysis of transubstantiation.
For transubstantiation proves itself essentially incapable of
33

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
having anything for its term except a pre-existent object.
It is equally powerless to modify the previous condition—
whether substantial or accidental—of that object, while con­
ferring upon it a new presence under the appearances of the
transubstantiated matter. It is, therefore, impossible to im­
part to Jesus Christ a new intrinsic state. Transubstantiation
cannot make life yield to death, or death to life. It cannot
cause the Body to be without Soul in the Eucharist, if that
Body be living in heaven. Neither could it have kept the Soul
united to the Body in the Eucharist when that Body was dead
in the sepulchre. It cannot diminish by one cubit, even by
taking thought for ages, the stature of our Lord. But such
as he is in heaven, such we have him in the Eucharist. Tran­
substantiation cannot even endow him with a real relation
to the species which contain him. In fact, these species,
stripped by transubstantiation of the substantial content to
which they referred, do now transfer to the Body of Christ
that relation which they had to the bread, so far as they
marked its localisation and outward appearance. In man­
ner the species indicate and determine the presence of Christ’s
Body to that portion of space which they occupy. They are
united indeed to the Body as to the new substance which takes
the place of the bread, but that substance is not affected or
modified or measured by them. For this reason the Body or
the Blood of Christ is present in the species without being
divided, either actually or potentially, together with them,
but is always wholly and entirely in every part of them as
well as in the whole of them. When they cease to be what
they are actually, the connatural appearances and accidents
of bread, they will also cease to be the covering and index
of the Body of Christ. For they possessed and designated that
Body only as taking the place of the bread to which by their
nature and destiny they belonged. The effect of transubstan­
tiation comes to an end at that instant, and the natural order
of things resumes its course. The species are changed into
that substance which the bread by its decomposition would
have engendered. But this last transformation leaves Christ’s
34

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
Body unchanged. He is no longer present ; the sacrament
has disappeared : but he himself experienced no effect ;
nothing happened to him. He is, both in his being and in
his state, beyond the reach of the sacramental operation.
His presence alone depends upon it, and that presence puts
nothing new into him, although it offers a new term to the
relativity of the species, in consequence of the change occurring
in the bread. Such being the case, it is quite impossible that
transubstantiation should bring about in Jesus Christ a new
intrinsic state of Victim, of something immolated. Hence
the reality of that state must of necessity be independent of
our action, which is limited to transubstantiation. We have
here another reason for not asking ourselves what we do to
Jesus Christ in order to place him in the state of Victim—
as if, forsooth, he was not in that state already. Never was a
theological problem set down in more unhappy terms. The
true wording of the problem was as follows : Jesus Christ
being the eternal Victim of Calvary, where is the oblation
which we make of that Victim ? It is found entirely in the
representative immolation which we make of the Victim,
after the example of Christ himself, who first did in that same
manner offer once for all the sacrifice of our Redemption.
That sacrifice of Redemption was Christ’s task as Mediator.
The sacrifice of the Mass is the task by which the whole
Church seizes hold of the price of our Redemption, in order
henceforth to pay it herself. No longer is the Church, as was
mankind of yore, an insolvent debtor ; but she is rich and
possessed of an inexhaustible treasure which enables her to
honour her debts out of her own hands, as well as to pay the
debts of all mankind. It is true she does this in union with
her Head, and in virtue of the bond of solidarity established
between herself and him. He amassed the treasures, the Church
exploits them. In this sense the whole Church exercises a
ransoming power, a sacerdotal power. As a result of
her participation in Christ the Redeemer’s unique priest­
hood, the Church is the faithful auxiliary of the Sovereign
Priest, and the efficient co-operator in the ransom of mankind :
35

MYSTERY OF FAITH

il

conredemptrix et consacerdos. These two attributes, however,
among all the members of the Church, belong in an eminent
degree to the Virgin Mary, more closely united than all others
to the Head of the priesthood, more intimately associated in
heart and fact with Him in His sacerdotal act, and more than
any one else entitled to claim the divine Victim as her own.
Herein lies the foundation of the privileged mediation of the
Virgin Mother, in subordination to the unique mediation of
her Son. It is this that makes of her, under the chief authority
of Christ, a universal cause in the order of propitiation and
impétration, for the benefit of all those whom the hereditary
stain has defiled.
At the root of the matter, no doubt, we find the union of the
Son and Mother, but also the oneness of the Cross and of the
Eucharist : of the Cross which placed a rich treasure at our
disposal and of the Eucharist which is the means in our hands
to exploit it ; of the redeeming and regenerating Cross, and
of the Eucharist which, offered upon our altars, applies to us
the price of our ransom, and, received by us, is the principle
of our regeneration—of the Eucharist which is in Mary’s
hands, as it is in those of the whole Church, the one means
by which she can apply to us (but how much more excellently
than any one else !) the blessings and the fruits of the Cross.
Rightly, therefore, did the East hail in Mary “ the root of
our sacrifice ”, and no less justly did it acclaim her at the close
of the sacred mysteries as the glorious stem “ which bore our
Eucharist ”.
Nothing, therefore, that concerns the Christian life, or
exercises a charm upon the heart of the followers of the Gospel,
is foreign to this Mystery of Faith, to this living mystery, to this
daily mystery, which more deservedly than the ancient mys­
teries of pagan religions can claim to vivify mortal man, and
to usher him into a sacred and divine circle. There, in a
communion of the whole being with invisible and unveiled
Truth, is offered to man participation in a higher life, the life
of the one true Hero, of the God dying yesterday, risen to-day,
victorious, and ready to share his triumphs with each and all
v
36 '

OUTLINE OF MYSTERY OF FAITH
who draw nigh, not as strangers, as unchaste and defiled, but
as initiated, already prepared by baptismal death for the life
that knows no end. This is the Eucharist, this is the Mystery
of Faith. The Greeks and the Syrians were not the only ones
to boast of mysteries (theirs were, at best, repulsive and lying
mysteries) ; the Christians also had theirs—pure, holy mys­
teries and full of truth—and they proclaimed—the news
(probably by the mouth of the deacons) at the most solemn
hour of their liturgy. Let Mithras cover his face, and let the
Great Goddess and the whole train of Hellenic and barbarian
falsehoods vanish ! Behold the Christ, the Blood of purification,
the gates of heaven flung open, and God and his creatures face
to face! Behold the banquet of incorruptible food, eternity
already breathed—and possessed, the end and the beginning
re-united, and all things reduced to one ! Behold also diversity,
in the succession of ages and in the immensity of spaces, summed
up under a single head and in one body, the Church, undivided,
immortal, the Bride of the Word, the Flesh of the Lamb : caro
de came—they are but one ! It is done. We have the Euchar­
ist, and we have the Mystery of Faith. We have what will
thrill with joy and with a feeling of sacred pride the heart of
every Christian who hears or who speaks the words : Hoc est
Corpus meum. Hic est calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti :
mysterium fidei : qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remis­
sionem peccatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam
facietis.

D

37

■s

A LETTER ON SACRIFICE
ADDRESSED

TO A PUBLICIST
Although the views on sacrifices which you are kind enough
to submit to me are debatable, they certainly do not appear
to me either unorthodox or temerarious. I mean that in
the actual state of sacred science, at the present stage of
theological development, your views present nothing which
from near or far justifies even the slightest censure.
For we must not forget that the doctrine of sacrifice—as
Contarini justly remarked at the time of the Council of Trent
—is one of the least advanced in the Church. The last three
centuries, moreover, instead of marking a progress, have rather
witnessed a decline. This is certainly true of theologians, if
not perhaps (and here you are a better judge than I) of the
historians of the religious practices of mankind. According to
my opinion, the men of the thirteenth century and of the
beginning of the fourteenth had a more correct, a more
rational, and a more scriptural concept of sacrifice (and there­
fore a more historical one also) than the theologians of the
second half of the sixteenth century, from whom descends
directly the theological teaching of our day. First of all,
these later theologians have given a false meaning to immola­
tion and have attributed to it an exaggerated importance.
In their minds immolation assumed the form of a destruction
due to God, in order to honour his sovereign power over life
and death. According to that view, we ought, if that were
allowed us, to annihilate ourselves for the purpose of honouring
the source of being (a curious notion indeed). As that may
not be, and as we are moreover incapable of annihilating
41

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
anything whatsoever in our place, we will at least destroy or
put out of use what is ours : we will kill animals, make
libations of wine or oil, etc. Thus shall be accomplished the
supreme act of latreutic worship. This view appears to me,
as it does to you, radically wrong. It starts with an assump­
tion which is the opposite of the truth, namely, that what is
can, by being impaired, do honour to him who is perfect
Goodness ; whereas on the contrary, as St. Thomas observes,
what we owe to perfect Goodness is for us to draw near it in
order to unite ourselves to it by possession ! On this founda­
tion is built the latreutic doctrine of sacrifice : a sensible gift
intended to manifest outwardly the inward gift of oneself,
according to St. Augustine’s formula : invisibilis saaificii
sacramentum visibile.
In addition to the psychological need of the sensible element,
and the moral obligation to enlist for the divine worship our
whole human nature, physical as well as spiritual (the two
causes to which you yourself call attention), we find that the
necessity of the outward rite has also a basis in the social
character of man. Sprung from society, formed by it, and
destined by his very nature to live in it and for it, man is under
a social obligation towards God, the author and lawgiver of
the social order as well as its last end. Now this common
duty of society cannot be performed except by a public act.
Thus far we meet with nothing in the motives and the
ends of sacrifice implying destruction. There is donation,
consecration to God, attribution of something to his exclusive
and, as it were, personal use ; in a word, there is oblation of
some portion of our goods to represent all of them as well as
their owner. (In this fashion does the outer world enter into
the field of vision of the sacrificer : solely inasmuch as
that world belongs to him. But we transcend that world by
the whole difference which exists between mind and matter.
All these infinite worlds and spaces are nothing, as Pascal
expressed it, in comparison to the value of one of our thoughts.
They are like a mere retinue, an image as it were, of our­
selves, or the shadow which we cast upon the lower order of
42

ELUCIDATIONS
beings.) The latreutic aspect, which is the first and most
important in this question of sacrifice, will not reveal to us
anything else.
One thing only it does and can imply : the action by which
the creature moves towards its last end, wherein it is to find
ultimate perfection. But there is here no deterioration ;
the reason for it could certainly not be found in divine Good­
ness, but in sin alone.
Once sin has intervened, the scene changes. There is now
a debt in commutative justice towards God, the Sovereign
Goodness, who has been virtually denied, and as a result,
virtually frustrated in his right not only to our love but to
the love of the whole created world. This debt demands
a compensation. There is also a debt as regards retributive
justice, which upholds that law according to which whosoever
turns away from the Sovereign Good draws away from
happiness and incurs unhappiness ; happiness and unhappi­
ness being nothing else than the possession or privation of
the Sovereign Good, with the consequences which either
implies and carries with it. This twofold debt ought to be
paid by the sinner. But as regards the former, he is insolvent ;
the second, then, binds him all the more. He is insolvent in the
former case, because the amount of love virtually withdrawn
from God exceeds that which any creature can offer him as a
compensation. He alone can suitably requite, whose human
nature is by birthright endowed with charity “ in the plenitude
of its perfection and in the perfection of its plenitude
But
though the sinner is insolvent, or rather because he is insol­
vent, he will yet offer to God a symbol of that atoning love,
of whose full requital he feels himself incapable. The most
appropriate form of that symbol will be the one which among
its elements introduces death. Death is, from the natural
point of view, the worst of evils. On the other hand, love
proves itself chiefly by the victory over difficulties which it
must overcome in order to assert itself. Love must rise to
their arduousness. This accounts for the part played by suffer­
ing and death in the economy of love. They thus find, if not
43

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

necessarily, at least quite appropriately, their place in the
rite whose object it is to symbolize the sovereign love due
to God in compensation for sin. And so the gift presented to
God will be in the form of an animal, whose immolation will
render it possible to offer the blood, or the life (since these
two expressions are equivalent), upon the altar. The altar,
as the seat of God, will be considered as receiving in God’s
name the sinner’s homage. Likewise, the altar, as the festive
board of God, will be loaded with the repast destined to the
Most High—with the Bread of God, with the Cup of the Lord,
with the Lamb of God. Whereupon, in token of peace and
reconciliation, God will admit men to partake of the sacred
meats, as the guests of him whom the sacrifice is considered
to have appeased.
Such is the place held by immolation ; it is preliminary to
the offering, which generally consists in the pouring of the
blood either upon the top or upon the lower part of the altar.
Here it may be noted in passing that the libations of wine
or oil were never intended to put these substances out of use,
as if by the effect of some sort of equivalent destruction. The
intention was to attribute or apply them either to the sacred
stone, or to the hearth, or to any other qualified substitute
of God. At all events, even in the case of the sacrifice of
animal life, destruction was not the end but the means of
offering the life, that is, the blood, and of preparing the sacred
repast. Underlying all this we find the gift. So true is this,
that as a matter of fact the sacrificer is by no means the one
who immolates but the one who offers, who makes the gift :
mediately it is the faithful who has brought his sheep or his
ox ; immediately it is the priest who makes the libation of
the blood. The Levite, or anyone else who merely kills, remains
outside the circle of sacrificers, as the executioners of Christ
were assuredly outside it. But it was he, the High Priest,
who made the sacerdotal, ritual offering of his Body devoted
to the torments, and of his Blood ready to flow. This he did
in the Cenacle, when upon the altar of His most sacred human­
ity—the only true seat of Godhead, alone capable of sanctifying
•
44

ELUCIDATIONS
the gifts of our human indigence, and with still more reason
those of the Son of man—he sacramentally shed the Blood of
his wounds, the Blood of Calvary, the Blood which was to
drench him upon the Cross, because of his oblation at the
Supper.
One need hardly observe that suffering and death, so well
fitted to figure as an element of atonement in commutative
justice, are no less suited to satisfy the requirements of vindica­
tive justice. Thus it happens that propitiation and satisfaction
are usually linked together in the intention of sacrifice. And
the ideal, the perfect, the adequate sacrifice will have efficacy,
both to neutralize the guilt and to remit the penalty of sin.
Just as in the latreutic cult there is always contained both
thanksgiving and petition, since latreutic worship looks upon
the Sovereign Good not only as the term of our endeavours,
but also as the fountain-head of all the goods that lead us
there, whether it be those we have already received or those
we are still hoping for.
As for the Sacrifice of Christ, it is, to my mind, important
to exclude from it, as has been done generally by the holy
Fathers and the great Doctors, any idea of a special and
strict ordinance, or formal requisition on the part of God.
According to St. Bernard’s splendidly traditional formula :
Deus filii sanguinem non requisivit, sed acceptavit oblatum, “ God
did not demand his Son’s Blood, but accepted the gift of it.”
True it is, Christ came into this world, as man, with that
intention and in view of that undertaking. But the free
intention of his heart, even initial and constant, does not
constitute an obligation, any more than the divine predefini­
tions, which were well known to his intelligence. Christ
offered himself because he willed, and willed it freely, of his
human will, without any positive precept of his Father.
Such a precept, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus remarks, would
have been unreasonable, and, according to St. Anselm,
impossible. At all events, it would hardly have been con­
ceivable from the standpoint of the justice and the wisdom
of God.
45

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

Christ offered himself, because, as born Priest of our race,
in the union of his two natures which made of him the repre­
sentative of men before God and the representative of God
before men, he wished of his own accord, without being
bound to it by any law or any command, to offer at last that
one sacrifice which alone would give full reparation, and to
which men had aspired in vain for centuries by means of all
those impotent and disappointing sacrifices which they had
multiplied without ceasing, as so many avowals of their in­
sufficiency, so many earnest appeals to Him Who was to
come one day and put an end to them.
We can say, then, that up to the Supper, Christ was free,
but not so thereafter. Once bound by his sacred oblation
he could no longer, without profanation, withhold the Victim
from the immolation to which he had pledged it. He was
thenceforth under obligation, not to a positive precept, but
to that law of justice which demands that what has been
devoted to God be rendered to God. It is this law of justice,
of religious justice, that led St. Anselm to write that Christ
did not die to comply with some particular precept as, to
offer himself in sacrifice, but in obedience to a general canon
of the natural law, and to obey it even to death. Once
offered he cannot take himself back : you have here the
explanation of the tragic events of Gethsemane. “ If this
chalice can no longer pass, but I must drink it. . . . ” It
could no longer pass, because it had been drunk already at
the Supper. Before the Supper it might have passed, if
Christ had so willed, whose every prayer, âs he tells us him­
self, was certain to be heard by his Father. But now he can
no longer will it ; that right is no longer his.
And there is this particularity, as our Doctors have noted :
in the Sacrifice of Christ, the sign, the real sign, which is the
outward gift, fits exactly over the thing signified, which is
the interior gift and invisible consecration made of his person
by him who sacrifices. It is a sacrifice full of truth in every
detail : eucharistie sacrifice by the bread and the wine which
lend it their appearances ; propitiatory-sacrifice by the immo46

ELUCIDATIONS
lated Blood and Flesh which form its tragic reality ; sacrifice
which raised to the utmost limit the difficulties against which
Jove had to contend, in order to carry off the victory and per­
severe till the end ; sacrifice which, without being in any way
a penalty inflicted on the innocent party for the guilty one,
does yet make satisfaction, in a far nobler manner, for all
the punishment incurred by our faults, and obliterates their
stain. All we have to do in order to profit by that sacrifice
is to make it our own, in all sincerity, without belying by
our interior dispositions the sign which we carry out externally.
This is precisely the task on which the Church is engaged,
from the first days of her establishment through the Holy
Ghost till the return of him who confided to her hands the
price of our Redemption. We continue to offer in the Mass
the Passion and Death of the Lord, made for evermore,
through his Resurrection and Ascension, a Victim not only
offered by the Sovereign Priest here below, but ratified above,
and accepted by God and pleasing to him, a Victim inscribed
upon the eternal book of life, as the imperishable price and
indefectible ransom of our faults, whose debt, in itself eternal,
was to run through the unending ages, but has been for ever
cancelled. Thus, as we take hold of the price of our Redemp­
tion, that we may ourselves discharge it into the hands of God,
we assuredly do not for that reason cease to be redeemed by
Jesus Christ, but we have the signal honour of co-operating
(in a subordinate manner) in our own ransom. We do not,
it is true, supply the sum of atoning charity, once for all
treasured up for us by our Saviour, but we associate ourselves
with him in the act by which he himself, on the eve of his
Passion, and once for all, presented the whole amount to his
heavenly Father.
There is another advantage we enjoy, in being able to offer
to God a sacrifice whose victim is beforehand pleasing to and
already accepted by God ; nothing remains but to render
our own intervening oblation agreeable to him. This is pro­
vided for by the Holy Ghost, who abides in the Church pre­
cisely that he may ensure her holiness, which is not indeed
47

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

invariable, but assuredly indefectible. The ever faithful Bride
of Christ, the complement of his humanity, and the Body in­
dissolubly one with the Bridegroom in glory, the Church, is
well aware, when exercising her power of consecration, through
the ministry of her priests, that she is performing validly
and in a manner pleasing to God that ritual oblation by
which the eternal Victim is pledged for the salvation of
the world.
We may note here, that death is not primarily intended—
as you seem to believe—to signify either the irrevocability of
of the gift, or its totality. These two attributes of our conse­
cration (totality and irrevocability) would retain their adequate
significance in a purely latreutic and eucharistie sacrifice
after the style of Melchisedech. In the supposition that
sin did not exist, they could be expressed in that sacrificial
form alone. Sin alone causes death to intervene, not by
any means to give the impression that God rejoices in death,
even the death of the sinner, but to testify that the sinner has
brought death upon himself : morte morieris, “ thou shalt
die the death ” ; to confess that it is the just penalty he
deserved, the wages he earned : eternal death no less than
temporal death, which introduces it, both coalescing with
sin. If now the sinner, whether under the law of nature
or under the law of Moses, undertakes to symbolize all this
in the sight of God, it is evident that he does not do so for the
purpose of carrying out on himself the effects of divine justice,
but rather with the intention of turning aside its blows, by
the humble avowal of his unworthiness, by the exercise of
interior penance, manifested outwardly by his entreaties for
mercy, so that divine justice may be pacified and divine
wrath disarmed. Lastly and chiefly (for the instinct of justice
is indestructible in the human heart, even where God is con­
cerned, and among the chosen of mankind that instinct has been
intensified and made sacred by revelation), the symbol of
death is intended to announce and make available before­
hand the perfect Victim of the High Priest. For only that
Victim, whose sublime charity is fully proportioned to all
48

ELUCIDATIONS
the throes of death and its most intolerable pains of body and
spirit, can blot out entirely our wanton attack against divine
charity.
The symbolic process displayed here, evidently has not for
its purpose to enlighten God, who “ beholdeth the heart ”,
But it answers a psychological need, it satisfies a moral obliga­
tion, and it fits in with our social condition. In this sense it may
be spoken of as “ having no significance except for us ” humans. ,
Its import, however, is not merely for me, individual human
being, but for the whole community of which I form a part.
This is especially true of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which by its
institution and essence is the sacrifice of the whole Church, and
for this reason is also, always and everywhere, no matter what
its outward circumstances may be, a public sacrifice, a public
profession, a public homage and a public act of atonement.
Finally, in speaking of the Law in its relation to sacrifice,
it is quite true, as you have noted, that it did to a consider­
able extent check and regulate the immoderate and dis­
orderly impulse of the Semitic peoples for sacrifices. And
what is said of the Law is still more true of the prophets.
It was necessary to maintain the principle of relativity, of
a twofold relation, which was, both by nature and revelation,
inherent in every sacrifice approved by God. There was
the relation of the outward sign to the interior reality ; and
there was the relation of the present sacrifice to the sacrifice
to come, of which it was the figure and the announcement. It
was also from this future sacrifice that the ancient sacrifices
borrowed, for the time being, whatever efficacy they had with
God. Moreover, because of the opposite errors among the
inhabitants of Egypt, Chaldea, etc., it was absolutely neces­
sary to dispel every idea of any advantage accruing to God
from these sacrifices. God wanted it to be clearly understood
that he had nothing to gain through their continuance, and
nothing to lose by their suppression. All the advantages to
be drawn from them, as well as all the motives for their exist­
ence, were to be looked for on the part of men. God did not
wish to appear in the popular imagination as the beneficiary

49

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

of these sacrifices, something like a divinity receiving a human
maintenance.
Finally let me draw attention to a confusion into which
one may easily slip, about the merit of any one of Christ’s
works, on the one hand, and the propitiatory efficacy of his
true sacrifice, on the other. There is no sacrifice in the
strict sense unless there is an outward gift, whose purpose it
, is to symbolize the interior gift. In the ordinary actions
of Christ, this condition is not verified. Once only, before
undergoing his sufferings, did Christ perform an act that
directly and properly implied a surrender of his Body and
Blood to God as Victim. This act took place at the Supper,
when by the consecration under the twofold species he put his
Body and Blood, in outward semblance, in the state in which
they were to be put in reality by the Cross, to which he had
consigned them at that moment, for the remission of the sins
of the world : pro vobis et pro multis, in remissionem peccatorum,
“ for you and for many unto remission of sins ”. No other
act of Christ in the previous course of his life bears this char­
acter of a sensible, pragmatic and ritual oblation. Nor can
there be found an immolation, in the proper sense (that is to
say effective), anywhere except in the Passion. The pro­
pitiatory power of sacrifice was, therefore, never exerted before
the Supper and the Passion of the Lord. It follows that it
was not by some kind of an artificial and arbitrary compact,
but through the natural course of events that we were not
ransomed till the last hour of the Saviour’s life. Before that
moment there had not occurred anything that bore the formal
and unmistakable character of a redeeming act. The whole
sacrifice is contained between the two extreme limits of the
Cenacle and Calvary.

5θ

LETTER ADDRESSED TO A MISSIONARY
ON THE

OBLATION OF CHRIST
AND THE

OBLATION OF ALL OUR MASSES BY CHRIST
I can easily picture your astonishment and perhaps scandal
in reading certain observations on the manner in which
Christ is said to intervene in our sacrifice. It is likely that I,
too, some twenty-five years ago, would have been shocked ;
such was then the massive array of authorities in favour of
an indefinite repetition of the acts of oblation by Christ.
But agreement of to-day’s theological authorities among
themselves is not sufficient. Of greater importance is it to
harmonize the present with the past ; but where do we find
that harmony ? Moreover, doctrine must agree with Scrip­
ture : but in what sense does Scripture speak ? Finally, there
must be consistency of the various parts of doctrine with
one another : but where is this consistency ? As you yourself
have noted, it is necessary that the Mass be a sacrifice sub­
ordinated to, and not co-ordinated with, the Cross. But,
if there is a personal and reiterated intervention of Christ, in
his character of actual and formal offerer, repeating his act
of oblation indefinitely, how can m escape the conclusion
that the sacrifice of our altars is really co-ordinated and not
subordinate to the Sacrifice of our Redemption ? For, after
all, Christ is not inferior to Christ, nor is what he might do
to-day less worthy than what he did long ago. How, in that
case, are we to defend our theology against the heretics, who
charge us with having rejected the very principle of the
51

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

doctrine proclaimed in the Epistle to the Hebrews? They accuse
us of having denied the prerogatives—which, even if they were
not explicitly revealed, would still be evident—of a priest­
hood so perfect as to secure for ever, by one single act, and with
a plenitude that could brook no addition, all the fruits which
Christ’s activity as our Mediator had set itself to obtain for us.
So that it but remains for us to take our part in that single
oblation of his, in order to incorporate our offering in the one
by which we were saved, and which, sufficient as it is, must
yet be made our own. This, of course, we are not able to
do without him ; we are not able to offer at all except in
dependence on, and in virtue of, that act of oblation which
prompts, controls and contains our own oblations, enters
into and fills them, giving them their efficacy and their unity
through time and space. Should we, then, be surprised
that the traditionalists of the sixteenth century should have
defended this doctrine in language whose harshness, it seems,
has disturbed you ? The new opinion which they combated
was certainly unknown to St. Thomas as well as to Scotus;
nor do we meet with it in the whole scholastic tradition (as
Vasquez observed somewhat later), nor in the tradition of the
Fathers. This new opinion, which multiplied the personal
offerings of Christ from one mass to another, seemed to those
conservative theologians barely tolerable, and they censured
it severely. For it had not yet gained the weight of
authority it acquired later, through the support lent to it
by a number of great doctors. It is clear that if to-day
one is still allowed to combat it, the right to censure it no
longer exists, at least as long as the teaching authority of the
Church abstains from giving a decision.
But, in rejecting the new doctrine, does one run the risk,
which you fear, of being forced to give up a multitude of
locutions and prayers in which Christ is assumed to sacrifice
and to be a suppliant? Not at all. Christ is sacrificing;
he is sacrificing in us and through us, who are his own, who
are something of him, who in this do not act except in depend­
ence on his sacerdotal power, in ejus sacerdotio, as St. Paschasius
52

ELUCIDATIONS
puts it. He sacrifices anew through us, in the sense that
our sacrificial function, which is being exercised indefinitely,
is nothing but a participation of his, deriving from his all
its virtue at every instant of its exercise. By all this is meant
that Christ does not sacrifice by a new personal act, by a
formal oblation, going up from him to the Father; there
is no longer any need for his doing so, nor is he still capable
of it. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate or
to insinuate that the numberless liturgical phrases of the
Church about Christ offering our sacrifices, and sacrificing
through our ministry, must be taken in the sense of a personal
and immediate intervention ; it is most certain that the
Fathers failed to understand them in that way, and yet,
they did not hesitate, when speaking their own personal
sentiment, or in their catechisms, to make use of those faultless
locutions, those expressions so replete with truth. But they
used them without straining their meaning to the point of
depriving them of their correctness. And what is true of
these liturgical formulas, is true also of the modes of speech
with which some saintly persons, like M. Olier, expressed
the sentiments of their private devotion. Those formulas
may be kept, provided they are properly understood. Perhaps
it could be shown that M. Olier was personally inclined to
stress their meaning too much ; in any case it is certain that
the predominant intention of the founder of St. Sulpice was
to understand and employ them in the most catholic sense
in which they could be accepted. And thus, as far as the
substance of the matter is concerned, even if our rendering
does not literally agree with his, yet his and ours are one and
the same in spiritual content, which alone matters. This
much on the subject of sacrifice.
The same may be said of the prayers and supplication
and petition addressed by Christ to the divine mercy. In
us and through us he prays. Moreover, even in heaven, in
his own individual person, he remains the great pragmatic
Prayer, but granted ages ago and granted once for all ; just
as he remains the eternal Sacrifice, but consummated, and
®
53

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

the eternal Victim pleasing to God, taken up and become
the property of God. And all this in current language will
be expressed in terms of prayer, of supplication, of impétration.
And rightly so, since all this is a form and a mode of inter­
cession and of mediation, the mediation and intercession of
the Victim laid upon the Altar ; not upon an earthly altar,
whence God would still have to take it to himself, but upon
the Altar of glory, where he retains it. It is intercession
which is no longer in process of going on ; it is mediation
whose function no longer is to draw opposites closer together,
but to keep them welded into unity. One only activity
remains to Christ, and it is to cause life to circulate from the
divine summits to the lower regions of our fallen humanity,
from the Father to all his children.
In terms of a like analogy it is right to say that Christ in
heaven adores and renders homage to his Father : he is
the great life-long Adoration because he is the Sacrifice.
But being a sacrifice in its terminal stage, it must be under­
stood that his adoration is not now a homage of dependence
but the fruit of past acts of homage, in the present enjoyment
of his Father’s independence and majesty. His adoration
is no longer a movement leading back to God, but it is a
repose in the Supreme Good. It is no longer a consecration
in the making, but a consecration which has reached its
final state of an appurtenance of God, of a union with God,
and, in the case of Christ, not of any sort of union of human
nature, but of the Hypostatic Union consummated in all
its developments, in all the accessory reaches of that sub­
stantial unity which, dating from the Incarnation, had not
from the moment of the Incarnation exerted all its con­
natural efficacy through the inferior faculties of the soul and
the fibres of his vesture of flesh.1 But this plenitude which
1Will it be objected (J. Grimal, Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Notre-Seignett
Jésus Christ, 3 ed., 1923, p. 192), that it is essential for a creature to adore? Then
a distinction must be made: essential for every created person, yes; for every
created nature, no. Let us not forget that it is not nature, but the person who
is the adorer. The person of the Word could once adore by reason of its created
nature, because in that created nature it was not yet in possession of the glory
which properly and by inheritance belongs to the only Son of God. Even though

54

ELUCIDATIONS
is in Christ is still far from being spread through all the
members of the complementary body which he associated
to himself in the spiritual union of our persons with his.
And so the act of consecration which, in him, is completed,
may still take place and be perfected in us. Under this
aspect, Christ is still capable of adoring through us, who
herein are but one with him, since, once more, we do not
offer, do not sacrifice, do not therefore adore in a perfect
manner, except together with him who is our Head, the
Head of the cult, the Head of the priesthood, the Head of
religion, the Head of the whole great undertaking which is
the progress of our human souls and the return of creation
to God. In the Church and by the Church does Jesus adore.
On earth he will continue to adore as long as we hold in
our hands the sacred Host, expression of his interior adoration
of yesterday, and of the present adoration of the faithful,
who to-day unite themselves with him in the act of sacerdotal
oblation, wherewith he did once dedicate himself. In heaven
also he will adore forever in the universality of his saints.
In like manner does Christ appease the justice of his Father.
Not that it is not yet appeased ; but he remains that which
Christ was equally then as he is now a divine person, nevertheless he was not
in the state and condition of divine person, but of human person (taking the form
of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habitfound as a man}. Hence, it
was proper that he should conduct himself as a human person, as a servant,
and therefore as an adorer. But now the times are changed; self-effacement is a
thing of the past, and what actually subsists is the glory of the only Son seated
at the right hand of his Father. He is in full possession of what is his due by
birthright; and the glory which he enjoys even in his humanity is the glory of
a God. As he does not exist in that borrowed nature of man except by com­
municating to it his uncreated being, so from this substantial communication
results a glory which is not that of any creature, actual or possible, but the glory
only of a God. And now that it has filled up everything, it leaves no more room
in Christ either for the Condition or for the Attitude of a Servant, nor con­
sequently of an Adorer. Factus servus, non remansit servus (Chrysostom, M.F., 144).
The glory of the saints, on the other hand, is not the glory exclusively proper
to a nature united in community of being to a divine person. On the contrary,
it is a glory that remains in an infinitely lower order and at an immeasurable
distance. And this is true even when it is a question of the greatest among the
saints, or even of the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. For it is a glory that adorns
subjects, servants, and no matter how exalted they may be through divine
munificence, divine adoption, divine maternity, their native character of servants
and subjects cannot be abolished. Such glory leaves room for the attitude and
condition of an inferior, and, therefore, for adoration.

55

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

has been paid, that which has been disbursed (St. Augustine
would say), in compensation for our offences. Of this ransom
we are allowed to seize hold, in order to pay it out of our
own hands, and become co-redeemers. For we shall not
benefit by this our Master’s ransom, unless we make it our
own and endorse it, unless we subscribe that transaction by
which our wrongs were righted and our debts extinguished.
And when for that purpose we offer up the cup of the Blood,
and the Members of the Lamb in their apparel of death, it
is still the Christ who at that moment cancels in us and through
us the debt which, in his own person, he extinguished once
for all. It is Christ indeed who atones, but he does so in
the mystic Body of the Church militant, whose entire life
derives from him and is summed up in him.
Christ also proclaims in his own person the goodness and
splendour of that Holy Trinity which lavished upon and
crowned with honour and glory the human nature wherein
he was bom of Mary. But this acknowledgment, in his
present state, is rather a tribute to justice than to mercy. As
regards him, there was never mercy or gratuitousness ; as
regards his human nature, there was the mercy of taking it
up into himself. But once that nature was taken up, or (what
is the same) created to be his own, could there still be room for
additional gifts? Yes, there could. By a providential
dispensation, which, for a time and for the sake of the work
of redemption, held in abeyance certain prerogatives—not
such as were essential to, but such as were normally consequent
upon, the Incarnation—there could still be room for an increase
of gifts. There was also room for a new state of glory and
bliss, to which, apart from his birthright (inoperative for the
time being), there did not exist, till the sepulchre, any strict
claim of acquisition stipulated by contract. But after the
consummation of the sacrifice by the Resurrection and Ascen­
sion, he was no longer capable of receiving any liberality
in the strict sense ; everything was due him by every right
and title. And therefore his acknowledgment now of the
goods of which he is possessed is a testimony rendered to justice
56

ELUCIDATIONS
rather than to mercy. For the past, undoubtedly, Christ’s
gratitude towards divine liberality subsists in its entirety ; but
it need not any longer attest itself by new tokens, or trouble
itself about rendering the old ones acceptable. These latter
remain the eternal eucharisteria, as the Greeks called them, of
our Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and they
are always equally precious in the sight of God. The Saviour’s
thanks were spoken for all time, and for all time they resound
in the ears of him to whom was presented the Bread and the
Cup. A repetition of them is not necessary, at least not by
the individual person of the Saviour. But they may be re­
echoed without ceasing in that mystic Body into whose depths
his personality descends, even to espouse the indigence, the
unworthiness, the weakness of our created and sinful nature
as wayfarers here below : thanks can still be spoken in that
Body whose Head radiates uncreated glory, while its feet
drag over the rough ways of this world, till they touch the
frontier of their own land. It is we, helped from on high,
forgiven from on high, consoled from on high, who must
present to our divine Benefactor the eucharistie worship
which one day èvened up the thanksgiving of the earth to
the bounties of heaven. And when, with our hands, our
lips, and the movements of our heart, he is presented anew
in the rite of the unbloody immolation, let us not forget
that in all this we are set in motion and actuated by the
power which comes from Christ, which is Christ’s, which is
the power of his priesthood.
We need not wonder, then, that in us and through us Christ
does still give thanks and offer the gift of the Eucharist. We
thus fill up in ourselves what was still wanting, if we may
say so, in his Eucharist, just as St. Paul says of his Passion, allsufficient though it certainly is, and ended, never to be begun
again. On the other hand, Christ takes as his own what
is from us, the more appositely as it would never be ours
if it were not from him. In order to make his eucharistie
virtue flow into us, and connect with himself our “ thanks­
giving ”, after pouring out upon his Church the spirit of
57

SS

S®

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

'i

holiness, has he not also marked our souls with the sacerdotal
character, by which his power is imparted to us ? Has he not
put into the souls of the faithful the baptismal character by
which they are enabled to transmit their wishes through our
ministry, which itself is entirely dependent upon Christ’s
sacerdotal primacy ? There is, then, but one Priest who
officiates in the whole body of the Church : it is the Priest
whose sacerdotal act we prolong through all times. This
act is perfectly one and definitive, simple and yet unlimited
in its importance and in its scope, the solemn ambassadorial
message which the sacred precincts of our temples and the
faith of the whole Church unceasingly re-echo heavenward.

5θ

LETTER TO A THEOLOGIAN
ON

THE ANGEL OF SACRIFICE
AND

THE SACRIFICE IN HEAVEN
In your very kind criticism1 of a work which already owed
you a great deal, you raise two interesting points, which it is
worth while to take once more under consideration. One
has reference to the celestial sacrifice ; the other to the prayer
of the Canon : Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui.
On this second question you bring forward, as an argu­
ment against identifying this Angel with the Word, the
parallel with other sacraments, where it is certainly a question
of angelic spirits. That in the present case it is also a ques­
tion of angelic spirits cannot, I think, be disputed. In favour
of this view we have the De Sacramentis, which speaks of them
in the plural, as does also the Commentary of St. Ambrose on
St. Luke, and the Dialogues of St. Gregory. In the East we
have the treatise of Chrysostom On the Priesthood (M.F. 281
and 449), and the clear text of a parallel prayer in the Greek
Liturgy of St. Mark {ibid, and 274.) There cannot, therefore, be
any question of a choice between Christ and the angels. It is
impossible tc exclude the latter: they have there their authentic
place. It follows that any interpretation that would eliminate
the angels in favour of Christ, would be doomed beforehand
1 Recherches de Science Religieuse, 1922, Bulletin de Théologie Historique, by Rev.
Fr. d’AIès, to whom I wish here to render this testimony, that his revision is of
the kind that combines with the utmost kindness the soundest, most intelligent,
and most learned criticism. Indeed, it is only when answering true masters, that
one finds true pleasure.

59

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

to failure (M.F. 448 sqq.). And this is precisely the one
thing that can be proved, or that one may attempt to prove,
with the authorities brought forward in favour of an angel
of Baptism, or of an angel of Penance. “ Ancient authors
placed these two sacraments under the care of heavenly
spirits : why may they not have done the same for the
Eucharist?” Granted that under the name of “Angel” of
the sacrifice, they thought of the angelic hosts, does it neces­
sarily mean that they excluded the First-born of the angels
(of the “ Sons of God ”, Job vi, 21), the Prince of the heavenly
messengers ? Must they exclude the Word, whom, so fre­
quently, according to the holy Fathers, both before and after
Nicaea (cf. Petau, Trin., 8, 2, 5-9, and Vacant, art. Anges,
Diet, de la B.), it is hard to distinguish from the angelic ministers
in the ancient theophanies ? Is not the Word closely associated
with the angels in the New Testament predictions of the
latter day theophany ? Is not the Word called Angel by the
prophets, in connection with the Ancient Temple whose
succession he has taken over? Is he not styled Angel of the
Testament, i.e. of the New Testament whose seal and sacrament
is the Blood that flows in the Chalice ? Do we not see the
Incarnate Word, in the most ancient of all the liturgies, inter­
vene directly in the character of Angel, in the very first
sentence of the eucharistie prayer (M.F. 447) ? How especially
exclude Christ, when (as can hardly be questioned) it is
transubstantiation which is asked for, under the metaphorical
name of translation ? If so, is it not clear that no mere
angel can be the minister capable of bringing it about ? It
requires a mightier power. It admits, however, the assistance
of celestial spirits, as a guard of honour to the great King,
as the natural companions of his glory, as the providential
agents preparing his kingdom, as yesterday’s witnesses and
consolers of his victorious agony, and afterwards the heralds
and artisans of his triumphal ascension. It admits them as
the associates to-day of that theophany of the altar which
perpetuates in our midst the theophanies of the past, and
prepares the theophany of eternity. There is still another
60

elucidations
motive for the presence of angels—to give assistance to that
lowly minister of the ecclesiastical community, who may
well tremble as he offers the august sacrifice, since he can
never perform his sublime task with sufficient purity, nor
ever do enough to procure for himself all possible co-operation,
in order that he may, as far as it depends on himself person­
ally, enhance the value of the act of oblation, and through
it, the plenitude of that corresponding acceptance, which
in fact, is identical with transubstantiation. For these reasons
the early Middle Ages recognized in this Angel, not Jesus
Christ alone, but Jesus Christ at the head of the angels, his
familiars and well-nigh his peers. The same was done much
earlier by Justin (whose “simplicity” in this matter may well
not be what it seems) ; and somewhat later by the only
great theologian of the fifteenth century, Thomas Walden.
Besides, is it not likely that the safest interpreter of the
Liturgy is the Liturgy itself? Do we not read in the Liber
Ordinum—perhaps the text has not sufficiently drawn your
attention—Ille ad te sacrificia perferat, qui nos jussit offerre (M.F.
277) ? It does not seem to you proper that our sacrifices
should be carried up to God by Jesus Christ ? All the liturgies,
you say, present him coming down, not going up ? And
yet here we have one which is most explicit in the sense of
a going up. You object again that besides his three offices
of Priest, of Victim, and of Altar, Christ would be burdened
with a fourth office : which is decidedly too much and quite
disconcerting. But the medievalists have given you the
answer, by remarking that the ministry attributed to the r
divine Envoy under the name of translation, is nothing else
than transubstantiation, and therefore is included in Christ’s
priestly functions (M.F. 278-279). There is no undue
attribution ; there is but a statement of the sacerdotal office
of Jesus Christ, with regard to that element of it which still
subsists, not virtually only, but actually and formally :
not the oblation as such, but the transubstantiation as such.
Quite naturally this name of Angel found favour with the
early Christian ages, when characterizing the priestly function
61
·

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

of our Saviour. Christ is the Angel who descends, and the
Angel who ascends ; the Messenger of God, the Interpreter
of men ; the Angel Mediator. The priest is such a mediator,
now turned towards God in the name of men, now turned
towards men in the name of God : “ because he is the angel
of the God of hosts ”, says the prophet Malachias (ii, 7) ;
angelus . . . quia Dei et hominum sequester, Hieron in h.l.).
It follows that Christ, the Sovereign Priest is, as such, the
Angel of God par excellence. He is the Mediator of the New Testa­
ment, as we hear from St. Paul ; the Angel of the Testament,
as said Malachias, of the same Testament of which St. Paul
speaks, of that New Testament, which, in the words of the
prophecy, was to repair the ruins of the Old, by substituting
for the house of Levi a holier and more venerable priesthood,
and by replacing the sacrifices of Aaron by a clean and
spotless sacrifice. This did not prevent the prophet from
calling him Lord in the same verse in which he designates
him as Angel. Angel, and at the same time Lord, remarks
St. Augustine : idem Angelus, idem Dominus (Serm. Ί, n. 3).
Angel without ceasing to be Lord of the very angels : sic
Angelus, ut etiam Dominus angelorum (In Joan., tract. 24, n. 7).
Angel, by the ministry he exercised in the flesh ; Lord, as
Creator of the world and of all things, angels not excepted
(Serm. 256, n. 3). He is Lord by nature ; he is Angel by
dispensation. “ For,” observes in his turn the pseudo­
Dionysius, “Jesus himself, for the sake of our salvation
took his place among the ranks of celestial interpreters :
-sr hence, he is called the Angel of the great counsel. For as
he says himself, after his fashion of an Angel, ‘ the things
that I have heard of my Father, the same I have announced
to you’” (Celestial Hierarchy, 4, 4.). Let us also mention
the Liturgy of the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, where
thanks are given to God for having created all things by his
Only Son, who was begotten before all ages, “ the first-born
of every creature, the angel of the great counsel and sovereign
priest ” (8, 36, 3 ; cj. 2, 24, 3 and 30, 2 ; 5, 16 and 20, 12) ?
We have here probably an echo of that Apostolic Tradition,
*
62
ύ

ELUCIDATIONS

from which the Verona Fragments have preserved for us the
following : Gratias libi referimus, Deus, per dilectum puerum
tuum Jesum Christum, quem in ultimis temporibus misisti nobis
Salvatorem et redemptorem et angelum voluntatis tuae (qui est Verbum
tuum) inseparabilem (ed. Hauler, p. 106). The Angel, insepar­
able from the Father—such is the Word in his office of Saviour
and Redeemer. This is he who, “ incarnate in the womb
of the Virgin ”, and “ presented to God as his Son ”, “ has
accomplished his Father’s will ”, “ his hands extended for
the ransom of his people ”, after first “ taking the bread and
giving thanks and saying : Take and eat, for this is my Body,
etc.” (Ibid.). Behold here the Angel of the Eucharist, the
sacerdotal Angel, the Angel who is no other than the Word ;
Instrument of the saving will of God, and Redeemer of
mankind, because he is his Father’s Priest.
To this you object the sharp distinction brought forward
by the Epistle to the Hebrews, between the angels and the Word.
But is it not this very Epistle to the Hebrews which, while justly
exalting the superiority of the Son over the angels, prefers
nevertheless to call him,—not as one would expect,—Only
Son, but Firstborn, as is done likewise in the Epistle to the
Colossians? And this is done precisely when comparing him
with the angels themselves, those official spirits and spiritual
ministers, πνεύματα λειτουργικά, who having been assigned
to serve in the economy of salvation, ezç διακονίαν, are none
the less the younger brothers of the Saviour as they are also
the elder brothers of men, the “ firstborn ” of God,—inscribed
on the scroll of the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. xii, 23), long
before the Church of the earth had begun to people heaven.
And later on, was it not under the title of angels that the
Apocalypse presented the Christian priesthood in the letter
to the seven Churches ? And what about the superscription
of that letter: “John to the seven churches which are in
Asia. Grace be unto you and peace from him who is, and
who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits
which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ ” ? Here
is a tangle, of spirits and the Word, not inferior to Justin’s.

θ3

____

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

!

They are intertwined, and if their connection is not
apparent in the testimonies which have come down to us
about the angel of Baptism, or the angel of Penance, it may
be well to remember two things. First, looking at the whole
matter as it is, we find—and you will surely not controvert
the statement—that there is but an imperfect likeness between
the baptismal institution with its exorcisms, or the prolonged
rigours of Penance, and the most holy and most august
Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Even for
such as unite them, as we do, under a common genus, such
as that of sacrament, it remains quite impossible to put them
on the same plane. As for the ancients, such a classification
is seen nowhere among them. The only arrangement we
come across in the early ages is that of the rites which together
form a progressive initiation to the Christian Mystery :
Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist. It would have caused
not a little surprise to our fathers in the faith, if they had
been told that some day theological study would lead to
the discovery, both legitimate and logical, of some sort of
homogeneity between those rites and Penance, not to speak
of Extreme Unction and Matrimony. Though even in
these latter instances the intervention of the good angels may
be fitting, yet it is not required by the similarity of the other
sacraments, any more than that intervention requires the
similarity. The first Christians did not say to one another :
there is an angel, or angels, for each sacrament, for the
Eucharist as for Baptism or Penance, or inversely. Secondly, the
legal claims, so to speak, or better, the canonical status of our
eucharistie Angel is far better established and more resplendently clear than that of the angels of Baptism or of Penance.
The shepherd-angel of Penance has a rather paltry
champion, of whom we scarcely know anything, not even
if he really was that highly connected person of whom the
Muratori fragment tells us: at least at this moment the
matter is still unsettled (cf. G. Edmundson, “ The date of
the Shepherd of Hennas,” Expositor, vol. 24, 1922, pp. 171176). At all events, whatever may have been his identity,
64

ELUCIDATIONS
whether brother of Pius or contemporary of Clement, there
is good reason to fear that we have to take him as the ancestor
of those visionaries who, at all epochs, have assailed the
Holy See with their so-called divine communications, and
whose brood, if we are to believe those who know, is far
from extinct. With Hermas one might be tempted to
associate Clement of Alexandria : “ He who welcomes the
angel of Penance shall not repent of it when the day shall
come to leave the body ; he shall not blush when he shall
see the Saviour come in his glory, surrounded by his army ”
(Quis dives salvetur, 42). But if the style here smacks of the
Shepherd (which is hardly questionable), the thought is per­
ceptibly different. The penance spoken of here is not a
canonical discipline, and much less a sacramental rite (as
you yourself very justly noted in your Edict of Callistus, p. 131) ;
it is a virtue, it is repentance (40, coll. 42 ; την δεξιάν ώ?
ντο της μετάνοιας κεκαθαρμενην καταφίλ,ων) the disavowal of
the past, the breaking away from the past, without excluding
the exterior practices of penance, as far as they are necessary
for the deadening of inveterate passions (40). The angel of
this penance is, therefore, the angel of a virtue : the like
could be found at other epochs of Christian literature. The
one that met with the widest success during the first centuries
seems to have been the angel of peace [Sacram. Scrap, 5, 8 ;
Const. Apost., 8, 36, 3), that is of concord, who has survived in
our liturgical prayers under the features of St. Michael, Angelus
pacis Michael, entrusted with the task of driving back into
hell war with its train of woes : lacrimosa in orcum bella releget.
Of this sort is Clement’s angel, whom we may therefore dismiss
in the present case. However, it is not meant that the angel
of Hennas never reappears again in the writings of the Fathers :
it is precisely the very same one that reappears, and always
under the authority of Hermas, and on his sole responsibility
[Origen, In Matth. tom. xiv, 21, and In Rom. i, 10, 31). Enough
has now been said about Penance and its angel.
As for the angel of Baptism, the few statements referring to
him are of unequal weight. Origen, in the passage you

65

ί

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

quote (In Ezech., hom. i, 7), is not very clear on the relations
existing between the baptized faithful and the angels ; but he
closely connects all angelic ministries with that of Christ,
“Prince of the heavenly militia” (ibid.). Tertullian (De
Bapt., vi) is more definite—perhaps too much so, for he makes
us uneasy by endowing his angel with attributes which
Catholic dogma cannot ratify. Moreover he apparently
authenticates him, as St. Optatus did later (De Schism.
Donatist ii, 6), by a verse at best of doubtful value (Jn. v, 4),
which may well be his only title to existence. At all events,
between Tertullian and Optatus there is someone who seems
explicitly to exclude that heavenly spirit—Cyprian, who
makes the superiority of martyrdom over baptism consist in
this : in baptism it is men, but in martyrdom it is the angels
who baptize (Ad Fortunatum, de exhortatione martyrii, 4). Optatus,
then, depending on Tertullian, and Tertullian depending
probably on some interpolation of recent date—such is the
sum total, at least up to now, of what patristic antiquity has
to show in favour of the angel of Baptism.
Our liturgical Angel comes to us under more satisfactory
conditions. He should, therefore, be studied for himself,
according to the nature of that sphere of activity to which
he is assigned, without being classified as the equal of his
more or less problematic confrères. If there is dependence—
which is not proved—it is certainly not on his side. There
appears, then, no necessity for abandoning the interpretation,
both well grounded and coherent, given by the centuries
which formed the golden age of Liturgy. (Remy of Auxerre,
The Celebration of Mass : adstantibus ministris coelestibus Christus ;
Yves of Chartres, Sermon 5 ; Quis est iste angelus nisi angelus
magni consilii? Honorius of Autun, The Gem of the Soul,
106 ; Stephen of Autun, Treatise on the Sacrament of the Altar,
17 : id est per Filium tuum ; Alger, The Sacrament of the Body
ant/ of the Blood of the Lord, 1, 14 : per manus et virtutem Filii
tui, angeli tui ; Sicard of Cremona, Mitrale, iii, 6.) This
interpretation, it is true, was implicitly rejected by Innocent
III, and with it also the idea of the epiclesis : the latter for
65

5
J

f

ELUCIDATIONS
reasons not of a scientific order, but (as he explicitly stated)
of pastoral expediency.1 Curiously enough, this inter­
pretation was to survive, inconsistently, by the inherent force
of tradition, not only in St. Thomas (4 D. 13), but in such
professional liturgists as Durandus of Mende {Rational, 4, 44)
or Biel {Explanation of the S. Canon of the Mass, lesson 55), at
least as probable. Then came the time when that inter­
pretation flourished again in all its vigour in the Apologist
Gordon Huntley {Controversies, 9), until finally Le Brun
{Explanation . . . of the Mass, in h.l.) declared the matter
to be beyond a doubt. This is perhaps exaggerated ; for
in questions of this kind, the moment we try to determine
the thought of those who drew up our ancient formulas,
we cannot pretend to reach mathematical certitude. Prob­
abilities suffice, based on the spirit of the epoch, on the inter­
pretation of the age following, and on intrinsic reasons. We
are here confronted by a text which under cover of an image
expresses a reality, a change presented as a displacement.
1 With regard to the testimonies placed before the reader, my distinguished
correspondent has honoured me with the following reply, {Recherches, 1923,
p. 239) .· “ Do these testimonies produce the impression of a fixed tradition ?
Could they give such an impression, above all, if confronted by the countless
witnesses who say nothing of the kind, or who say the opposite, as Innocent III
or Peter Lombard (IV, D., 13), on whom I chanced to put my hands recently? ”
There is evidently some distraction here. Peter Lombard does not say the
opposite. It is true he speaks about the angels and is silent about Christ (unless
Christ is meant in the first sentence, where it is a question of the coelestis missus
dispatched ad consecrandum vivificum corpus). But to call attention to the angels
without mentioning Christ is not of itself to exclude Christ, nor as a consequence
to weaken the testimony of those who place Christ before us as the King of angels.
On the other hand, this very passage proves that Peter Lombard saw in this
prayer, jube haec perferri, an epiclesis. This is sufficient to separate him from
Innocent III, who must be looked upon as an implicit adversary of the “ christological ” explanation, precisely because tie formally rejects the epiclesis, on which
that explanation is based. Besides, this same passage is also found in nearly
all the authors of that epoch: Gerhoch, Baudinus, Peter of Poitiers, etc. (see
M.F., 278-279). Père d’AIès speaks in the same place of “ countless witnesses ”,
who in their interpretation of the prayer jube haec perferri have said nothing of
Christ Is not that word “ countless ” rather strong? In the early Middle
Ages, i.e. before Innocent III, there was only an inconsiderable number of
authors to explain this prayer, at least so far as my personal knowledge goes.
Those among them who declare themselves for Christ, form a notable proportion,
and they were also the most prominent in their time. 11 is of great significance,
too, that their affirmation did not once, for three centuries, meet with contra­
diction, nor is there apparent in them the least hesitation.

67

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
The figure is calculated to give prominence to the ministry
of the angels. But the inner element of the sacred action
prompts the eye of faith to see the part played by the Minister,
the supreme Liturgus [Heb., viii, 2), the invisible Priest, the
Angel beloved of God (Justin, Dial, 93), whose Deacons are
the angels, as the deacons of the visible priest are those whom
the Church has ordained for a ministry like that of the blessed
spirits [Roman Pontifical, ordin. of the deacon.—Cf. Origen,
In Matth. Comment. Series, 10, P.G. 13, 1613 c ; S. Germanus,
C.P., A mystagogical Study of the Church, n. 16 ; J.T.S., ix (1908),
pp. 261—262 : Oi δε διάκονοι ei? τύπον των αγγελικών δυνάμεων
. . . . ώ? λειτουργικά πνεύματα ei? διακονίαν αποστελλομενα
περιτρεχονσι ; Narsai, Exposition of the Mysteries, T. A. S., viii,
i, p.4, cf. pxxii ; Denys Bar Salibi, Explanation of the Offices of the
Church, tr. 2, c. 13, 14 and 21, G. S. G. O., 91, pp. 143—149
and 158-159, etc.). Priests and deacons, all are ministers of
the Most High, comministri, in the language of the Church [Rom.
Pontiff ; Jesus Christ and the angels, also are ministers together,
although unequally, of the heavenly Tabernacle raised by
the hand of God. It is the collectivity, or rather the hierarchy,
of this supraterrestrial ministry which seems to be had in
view in the prayer of the Canon for the transfer of the gifts
offered up. We ask that the transfer be brought about by
the divine Envoy, by the glorified Liturgus seated at the
right hand of the Father and intervening here as he shall
intervene on the last day, “ when he shall come in his Majesty
and that of his Father and of the holy angels ” [Lk. ix, 26).
For, as the pseudo-Dionysius teaches, one is the power and
virtue of every hierarchy [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, i, 2). The
deacons, of the Church are participants of that “ Diaconate of
Christ” of which St. Ignatius speaks [Magn. vi, 1, coll. 7ra.,iii,
i cf. Didasc. and Const. Apost., ii, 26, 4, and iii, 30, 2), which
consists precisely in this that Christ was and remains “ the
Angel of the Father ” [Const. Apost., loc. cit., and v, 12 ; cf.
the Synodal Letter of the Council of Antioch to Paul of
Samosata, Mansi, I, 1036). Likewise, the angels are parti­
cipants of that eminent and original mission, which is that
68

ELUCIDATIONS
of the Word, come forth from the bosom of the Father in
order to re-enter it, come upon the earth by way of the
Incarnation, and returned to Heaven by the virtue of the
sacrifice of his Body and Blood : exivi a Patre ... et vado
ad Patrem. Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo,
Filius hominis qui est in coelo. This is the mysterious ladder
seen by Jacob ; it is he, the Christ, who inaugurated it, or
rather he is that ladder itself by which earth and heaven
are put in communication. Without him the intervention
of the angelic powers cannot be understood ; and it would
be a mistake, on the other hand, to represent him apart from
the angels who are hastening along the path traced by him.
If the angels were kept aloof from our sacrifice, from that
sacrifice which clinches the alliance of earth and heaven,
they might well complain to Christ, making their own the
historic words : Quo, sacerdos sancte, sine diacono properas?
Tu nunquam sine ministro sacrificium offerre consueveras. But if
they offered themselves alone for the task, could not Christ
tell them as he tells us : Sine me nihil potestis facere ?—Per
manus sancti Angeli tui ; yes, it is the hand of angels, but in
the hand of Christ, the sovereign Angel.1 But, let me repeat
it, this exegesis will never impose itself with evidence ; it is
enough if it is reasonable and well founded. The text in
this part of our Liturgy is poetical ; therefore a comprehensive
1 As this discussion was carried on with Père d’Alès, there was no occasion
for examining the view which identifies our Angel with the Holy Ghost, since
my correspondent rejects that view, as I do. That hypothesis, however, put
into circulation by Hoppe some sixty years ago, has been taken up again in our
day by certain liturgists of note. It has not in its favour the authority of any
spokesman of patristic or medieval antiquity. In liturgical texts only two points
of support can be found: (i) an antiphon occurring in manuscripts of the
tenth-thirteenth century (cf. Cagin, Te Dam or Illatio? p. 217), and wavering
between the two following forms: Emitte Angelum tuum, Domine and Emitte Spiritum
Sanctum tuum, Domine, “for the sanctification of thy Body and Blood” (there
is nothing about a translation of the gifts, but a simple downward epiclesis) ;
(ii) a fragment of the Liber Ordinum (M.F. 447), without any reference to the
Eucharist, but having in view solely the descent of the Holy Ghost, “ Angel of
Truth ”, upon the baptismal font. It is too little to confer upon the conjectural
interpretation of Hoppe a serious probability. This would be true of his opinion,
even if there were not against it an imposing array of scriptural, patristic and
liturgical statements in favour of the Word, the Sovereign Priest, the Head of
the heavenly hierarchy, that Son of the Father whom, after all, so many other
epidcseis, even of the most remote antiquity, do invoke.

F

69

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

and elastic interpretation, and not a stiff or narrow one,
will lend itself better than any other to fit over the outlines
of a reality at once complex and mysterious.

-

Assuredly the question is not momentous ; it borders on
things infinitely little. Still, as you have noticed, it has some
bearing on another question much more important, which
relates to the celestial sacrifice. This question is capital
or, if you prefer, central. And here you are not the only
one to express a doubt : a Spanish critic has preceded you
in the Estudios Ecclesiasticos. How, it is asked, can there
be a celestial sacrifice, when as a matter of fact in heaven
(and at this point we are or ought to be agreed) there is no
place for either oblation or immolation ? The question may
be asked from a twofold standpoint : from the standpoint of
reality, which is the more important, and from the stand­
point of terminology, which is secondary.
And first, as regards the reality of things, it is true that
oblation and (when it occurs) immolation make up the
whole sacrificial function. There is, therefore, no sacrifice
in course of celebration, once these two acts are accomplished.
And since these actions are not repeated in heaven, there
is not any sacrificing going on in heaven. This much is
beyond a doubt. Must we say, then, that there is no sacrifice
in heaven? That is a different matter. If by sacrifice was
meant only the sacrificial action, the question would be
settled. But if sacrifice, beside the active element, admits a
passive one that may endure, whereas the transitory action
passes away, then there is a different solution to the problem.
Then we shall say that the active sacrifice is indeed at an
end, but that the passive sacrifice continues as long as that
state into which it has been the purpose of the sacred rite to
bring the victim. The passive sacrifice is nothing else than
the gift made to God, retaining the character of gift. What
is needed that the gift may remain in that state ? It must
not have been refused by God, but on the contrary accepted,
70

ELUCIDATIONS
and as a consequence taken in hand, by him to whom it was
addressed. This has been verified, in the Victim of the
Sacrifice of our Redemption, in the Resurrection and
Ascension. Christ is in heaven, in the quality of Gift, offered
once, accepted and kept by God for ever. This is what is
meant by designating him as eternal Victim, or celestial
Sacrifice. He does not, of course, undergo a new immolation ;
neither is he in the bloody and inanimate condition into which
the immolation had once the power to put him. But between
this statement and the conclusion that he is no longer a
Victim or no longer a Sacrifice, there is an abyss. The con­
clusion could satisfy those only who consciously or uncon­
sciously consider destruction, deterioration, diminution, to
be the formal element of sacrifice. To them (with very few
exceptions, rather inconsistent) the heavenly Christ, in the
state of Victim, has no meaning. And this would be the
time to remind them that what was destroyed in Christ by
death, namely the life inherited from Adam, the life in the
likeness of sinful flesh, the corruptible and mortal life, did
not reappear in his Resurrection. That life remained on the
Cross, where our own must also remain, in order to give
access to another life, whose principle is Divine : the divine
life of the Word, breaking in upon the Humanity of Christ,
in order to spread itself thence through all his members.
But what is needed above all is to conjure away the false
notion of sacrifice and to return to the one which alone is
sanctioned by revelation and natural reason, not to say
history. In this true concept of sacrifice the first and most
important element is that of gift, of gift presented to God, of
exterior gift offered exteriorly in order to attest and express
the interior consecration of the soul to its Creator, of the
creature to its last end. Under this aspect, it does not, in
a certain sense, matter much whether the sensible gift has
gone to God by way of immolation or by any other (as is
the case in sacrifices which have no immolation). What
really matters is that the sacrifice should reach its goal.
Every gift of this kind, offered to God personally, with the

71

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

! ,
i
Η

above intention, is (in the passive sense of the word) a sacrifice,
at least an intended sacrifice. When duly received by God,
it is a sacrifice arrived at its destination, a sacrifice
consecrated as such by the divine acceptance, and con­
sequently (always in the passive sense of the word) a consum­
mated sacrifice. Thus Christ is eternal Sacrifice, not
precisely and formally or principally on account of his
stigmata, but on account of his glory. For that glory is
the divine answer to the sacerdotal act he performed in
time. The consummation of the sacrifice is not, therefore,
the consummation of a transitory action situated in the past ;
but it is the consummation of the object dedicated by that
action and placed finally in the state of something divine,
by its very acceptance by God. This divine acceptance alone
has the power to transfer that object definitely from the
human to the divine domain, and consequently to cause
it to pass from its (relatively) profane and earthly condition,
into the condition—which will henceforth be its very own
—of something sacred and celestial. Such is the process of
divine consummation through acceptance ; and such, too, is
the process of human consummation through participation.
To partake of the sacrifice by communion is not in itself to
share in the sacrificial action (at the Supper the apostles
did not take part in Christ’s sacerdotal activity) ; but it is
to partake of the object sacrificed, of the passive sacrifice.
For pagans it consisted in partaking of the “ idolothyte ” ;
for us it consists in partaking of the “ theothyte ” of the
redemptive sacrifice, which happens to be (by divine
institution) the unique Theothyte of our eucharistie oblation.
It is perfectly true, therefore, that the celestial sacrifice is
but the consummated sacrifice ; but to conclude thence that
the celestial sacrifice is not a sacrifice in the strict sense, is
to outrun the premises. Certainly, no theologian caring
for precision considers it or should consider it an active
sacrifice in the strict sense. But it is, in the very strictest
sense, a passive sacrifice, the truest, the only true, sacrifice,
true with a reality of truth which transcends the shadows
72

ELUCIDATIONS
and figures and imparts to them whatever reality may
have lain under their appearances of acceptable offerings,
of gifts received, of goods withdrawn from this world in
order to take, in a higher order, the attributes of “ Bread
of God ”, of “ Cup of God ”, or of “ Lamb of God.” In this
august character of sacerdotal gift carried to the uttermost
heights of heaven, there is not anything in the least derogatory
to the dignity of Christ entered into possession of his native
glory, and seated at the right hand of God. You are a
thousand times justified, when excluding from that state
and that glory every gesture of a suppliant, every exterior
or interior attitude of a sacrificer presenting his offering to
the acceptance of the Father. Christ has not to do again
what he did on earth : he did it once for all, and did it so
well that even if he wished it, it could not be done again.
As the Philosopher says, once the term is reached, there is
no further motion towards it ; and what Christ once offered
has reached the term that cannot be passed. The offerings
of our Melchisedech repose now in the bosom of God, under
the appearances of the glorified Humanity of the Son,
resplendent, as man, with the very splendour of his eternal
generation. Beyond, there is nothing. And therefore
Melchisedech, having no other task to perform, is seated :
sedet. This assuredly does not interfere with the gift remaining
what it is, a gift, and a gift of Melchisedech, a gift in the
hand of God, where, for that one reason, it remains the
eternal price of our salvation and the indefectible ransom of
our souls.
Perhaps we are in agreement on this point, the only one
that is worth while in the order of realities. For you write :
“ The glorified Christ remains in all truth Priest and Victim
of the New Testament”. He remains Priest, you say, and
he remains Victim ; and you evidently understand it of an
eternity which is the same for the Victim as for the Priest :
not a relative eternity, limited to the time during which the
eucharistie sacrifice of the Church will last ; but of an eternity
which will stretch out into the ages without end. In that
73

>|
ί
ϊj
j|
j|
jj
·]
>
I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

I

case we agree ; and the agreement on this the main issue
is so precious that it ought to win for you the withdrawal of
a terminology which has the disadvantage of displeasing
you. The withdrawal would be made at once, if there were
not a difficulty in the way. There is, first of all, the diffi­
culty of stripping of their meaning certain expressions which
long usage has sanctioned and which of necessity we shall
continue to employ, in accordance with the whole Christian
literature, such as the “ participation in the sacrifice,” the
“ consummation of the sacrifice ”. These expressions must
be understood of the passive sacrifice, or else have no meaning :
at least for any one who in sacrifice does not see a mere
gesture, but a gift. Again there is also the disadvantage of
deviating from the Fathers, who in a thousand passages
speak to us of Christ as still being a Sacrifice, independently
of us who offer sacrifice on earth, independently of the signs
which still symbolize sacramentally the Truth which heaven
will unfold to us. Finally (omitting quite a number of other
reasons) any change of terminology would be an implicit
denial of a most constant practice of medieval antiquity. It
is certainly worthy of note that the word sacrificium was for
centuries almost the only one in use to designate the eucharistie
reservation (M.F., 502). Now, the reservation of the Eucharist
is not the active sacrifice : it can only be the passive sacrifice.
And if the appellation of sacrifice is admissible when applied
to what remains after my sacrificial action, why not also when
applied to that final state, not only sacramental, but real,
into which the Sovereign Priest has brought his Victim?
And how can we then speak of it as anything but “ celestial
Sacrifice ” ? If the expression is uncommon in the theo­
logical language of our day, is it not because a clear and
thorough understanding of the end which the oblation of
Christ had in view is also uncommon—of the end to which
in general, and by its very essence, every sacrifice is directed,
in a word, of the destination inherent in the Victim as such,
without the possibility of assigning to it any other destination
than the house of God, the sanctuary of God, the temple of
74

ELUCIDATIONS
glory where God dwells and receives the gifts of His faithful
people ? “ Dost thou wish to know,” St. Irenaeus asks,
“that there is an altar in heaven ? Why, thither our oblations
are directed.” Yes, all our oblations : but first of all, that
of Christ ; ours reach there only because they are changed
into the one which Christ presented first.
Would it be presuming too much to believe that here also
we understand each other, and that you found fault only
with my too great insistence in bringing before the reader the
above view of a celestial Sacrifice, in order to connect with it
constantly our sacrifice here below, making the celestial
Sacrifice like the goal of the movement we impart to our
offerings ?
Once more I must plead guilty, and confess that my insist­
ence is real and intentional. Why so ? It is easy to account
for it.
Some authors, highly esteemed and of real worth (M.F.
303-304), have thought that they could integrate our euchar­
istie sacrifice, by merely linking the oblation which we make
under the form of a symbolic immolation with the real immo­
lation which was accomplished on Calvary. That immolation
is certainly not going on now ; neither does it mark,—as it
did at the Supper,—the course of events through which our
victim would have to pass. Christ offered himself indeed
to the immolation of the Cross, but the Church does not
offer Christ to his bloody immolation any more than she
offers his inanimate Flesh or the Blood gushing from his
wounds. These are things of the past. And so the above
theologians take the view that we offer Christ’s past death,
though there does not subsist in Christ any permanent state
of (passive) sacrifice, inherent in his glorified Humanity. I
ask, can this be ? or rather, if this were so, and this were all,
would there be on our part a real sacrifice (in the active mean­
ing of the word) ? They believe it ; they maintain, as much
as we do, the reality of our daily sacrifice. They are as Catholic
as we are ; but, are they also consistent with themselves and
with their belief?
75

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

Does not a true and real sacrifice require the presence of
a true and real victim, that is truly and actually in the state
proper to things sacrificed? And if that condition is.not
conferred upon it by us (and here we must commend those
authors being in agreement with a tradition of fifteen
centuries), are we not driven to admit the antecedent and
permanent quality of that state ? It follows that the very
truth and reality of our sacrifice are at stake. Though it is
“ terrestrial ” (an expression never met with in the Fathers
or in the liturgies), because of the rite employed in it, and
the ministers officiating in it, and the place where it is cele­
brated, and the condition of sojourner proper to the Church
. Militant, it is nevertheless a celestial Sacrifice, by reason of
the Victim and the Gift, and of the state (of Gift or Victim)
to which it refers. All this, of course, supposes, as theo­
logians generally agree against Suarez, that the thing offered
by us is the Body and Blood of Christ, and by no means the
species (M.F. 109 and 209). This question will receive
special attention in the lectures of the Catholic Summer
School of Cambridge, about to appear in book form.1 But
what needs stressing here is that the question is not merely
one of the logical coherence of thoughts, but (what from a
certain point of view is more serious), of the deference due to
ecclesiastical decisions. It is two centuries since the ques­
tion received some attention. Without being decisive or final,
the pronouncements of the French Episcopate have shown
a trend of doctrine (negative it is true) which commands
the respect of theologians. In 1723, Pierre François le Courrayer, canon regular of St. Geneviève (on this ambiguous
person, see Nouvelle Biographie generale), wrote a Dissertation on
the validity of the Ordinations of the English. In 1726 he pub­
lished a Defence of the Dissertation . . . , etc. The priesthood of
the English was valid, according to him, because (contrary
to the Sayings of Catholic theologians) they had never per­
verted the meaning of the ordinations. They had always
* The volume has since appeared under the title: Catholic Faith in the Holy
Eucharist. See Foreword.

76

ELUCIDATIONS

claimed to confer a sacrificial power. That power, however,
has reference to the only kind of sacrifice recognized by
Christian faith, namely “ a purely representative and com­
memorative sacrifice ” (Proposition I), in which is offered
nothing else than a death of the past, there being no need
of a real and actual state of victim in Christ. “ To exculpate
the English it is enough that they accept with the Fathers and
our best theologians, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, commemor­
ated and represented in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries ”.
(Proposition V.) “ We have, therefore, in the Eucharist a
true sacrifice in the sense that there is made in it the offering
to God of a death ever present, . . . but as that death is
not renewed, that sacrifice is merely representative of
another ”. (Proposition VI.) It is against this attempt to
reduce our sacrifice to two elements, a past death and a
present imitation, that the “ Cardinals, Archbishops and
Bishops in extraordinary session at Paris ”, raised their pro­
tests, August 22, 1727, in their Censure of the Books of Brother
Peter Francis le Courrayer, etc. : “ This Holy Council (of Trent)
has explicitly declared that the Mass is a true and real sacri­
fice ; and that it is not a mere commemoration of the sacrifice
of the Cross. What else is needed to anathematize proposi­
tions in which one dares to express the opinion that the Mass
is but a commemorative and representative Sacrifice ? That
it is only a representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and a
memorial of the immolation of Jesus Christ ; that in the Mass
Jesus Christ offers himself merely in image ? in which finally
the Mass is reduced to an action which recalls the memory
of what Christ suffered for us ? In vain does the author
attempt to defend himself by saying that he has called the
Mass a representative sacrifice only because he intended to
exclude a new bloody immolation, and not the reality of the
offering which we make to God. This excuse cannot be
accepted : for, as his Propositions show, if he recognizes in
the Mass an offering, it is not anything else than the Death
of Jesus Christ effected on the Cross. Now by his own admis­
sion that Death is not renewed : it is neither present, nor
77

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

offered as present, and consequently the oblation of it cannot
be real, since a real oblation necessarily supposes a real victim
present. It can, therefore, only be for the purpose of deluding
himself or others that the author calls this oblation real. By
his own principles it cannot be anything but a simple com­
memoration of an absent death, that took place long ago—
nudam commemorationem—as Protestants have expressed it.
Now, according to Catholic belief, it is necessary to recognize
in the Sacrifice of the Mass, not a mere offering of a past death,
but the true oblation of a victim really present, and, inasmuch as it
is present, actually offered to God by the Priest.” The docu­
ments are quoted at great length in the classical work of
E. E. Estcourt on the Anglican ordinations (The Question of
Anglican Ordinations, Lond. 1873, pp. Ixxviii-lxxxviii). Whoever
speaks of offering in the Mass the Death of Christ (and the
whole tradition invites us to do so), would do well not to
overlook or keep in the background, as if it were of no avail,
that other complementary element, which tradition presents
to us also, and of which such good use was made against
Luther by the apologists of the Counter-Reformation. That
element is the celestial element, the final and glorious term
wherein alone survives, immortalized and exalted, the char­
acter of Offering and of sacred Gift with which Christ of old
invested himself, wearing it through the Passion, to the very
stone of the Sepulchre, in order to receive there, from above,
the seal and handwriting of the divine ratification. In no
other way can we claim to embody in our liturgical rite all
the essential constituents of a true and actual Sacrifice : to
wit, under the form of a symbolical immolation, the oblation
of a victim truly such, the eternal Victim of the unique Sacri­
fice offered by our Redeemer. We do offer the Death of
Christ, and we offer it really, in the sense that what we offer
is the eternal Theothyte of that Death by which Jesus Christ
devoted himself to God. If on earth we offer a sacrifice, it
is because there is in heaven a Sacrifice, the Sacrifice which
Jesus Christ, by rising from the death of the Cross, carried to
the topmost heaven. There he is, there he remains : the
78

1

X

1

ELUCIDATIONS
same who hung on the gibbet for our salvation, after having
been dedicated through the rite of the Bread and the Cup, the
rite that continues to dedicate him till time shall be no more.
I have now, I think, advanced sufficient reasons to account
for that insistence of mine which has caused you some won­
derment. What a pleasure it would be to learn that your
wonderment has ceased or abated ! Men wonder at one
another, because they fail to understand one another, even
when, after all, they agree on the main issue, on the leading
principles, on the necessary method, and even when they
are worshipping at the same shrine of knowledge, under the
same Masters, with the single purpose of discovering, not what
will promote this system rather than that, but what is in
harmony with Christian faith, as it is lived by the simpleminded, by the saints, by the Church whose members we
are. At all events, we shall always understand each other
sufficiently to profit from an interchange of thoughts, and
perhaps to cause others to profit thereby.

79

MASS OFFERINGS
THE JURIDICAL QUESTION
THE HISTORICAL SOLUTION
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
A REJOINDER

MASS-OFFERINGS
The old solution of the ever present question of mass-stipends
never fails when put forward, to stir up disagreement, or at
least to call for explanations, among liturgists and moralists.
This happened recently. Whereas Fr. Hanssens, S.J.,1 pro­
fessor of Liturgy at the Gregorian University, and Dom
Bauduin, O.S.B.,2 professor at the International College of
St. Anselm, gave to the thesis defended in Mysterium Fidei
their fullest assent, Fr. Hocedez, S.J.,3 professor at the Scholasticate of Louvain, while marking his sympathy, could not
refrain from raising a certain number of objections, closing
the list with these words : “ These difficulties, no doubt, will
be easily solved by the Reverend Father, and we wish earnestly
that they may, seeking for nothing better than to accept his
argument.” It would be ungracious to disregard so kind
an invitation. You have now the whole reason for the
present work.4
1 Gregorianum, June 1922, pp. 307-312, article on Mysterium Fidei.
* Revue des Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, Sept. 1922, Les honoraires de Messes.
* Nouvelle Revue Théologique, February 1923, Les Honoraires de Messes.
* See Appendix at the end of Part I, p. 221.

θ3

THE JURIDICAL QUESTION
Let it first of all be well understood that in what follows
the subject-matter is the ordinary transaction between priest
and faithful as regards not the mere celebration of the mass,
but its application.1 The application of the sacrifice to my
own ends implies its celebration, but the converse is not true.
I may engage a priest to celebrate in such a place2 and at
such an hour,3 before such a congregation, without stipulating
anything about the application of the fruits of the mass. Nay
more, I may exclude every stipulation of the kind. Never­
theless, by reason of the subjection to these conditions of time
and place and surroundings (surrender of the freedom of
his movements), by reason also of the inconveniences the affair
may entail for the priest (discomfort), but still more by reason
of the compensation due for expenses to be incurred (for
instance for a journey, or a stay at a hotel), or of losses to be
suffered (as that of time which he might have spent in some
lucrative occupation, if it were only working in his garden, or
caring for his bees),4 in a word, for all manner of reasons

1 Sacerdoti cuilibet missam celebranti et applicanti licet eleemosynam seu stipendium
recipere (Cod. fur. Can., can. 824, §1).
’ At great distance from his residence, in the chapel of a manor-house, in a
factory chapel, in a military instruction camp, in a prison, etc.
* For instance, at noon.
* Mercedem quam accipit, non pro divinis accipiat, sed pro mansione quam facit apud
ecclesiam aliquam vel pro aliis beneficiis quae ibi facit, vel pro recompensatione damnorum
quae sustinet occasione morae quam ibi contrahit—(Innocentius IV, In Quintum Decre­
talium, cap. “Hepraelati” n. 3; Venetiis 1570, fol. 298 b).
Aut pro labore extrinseco, aut pro obligatione celebrandi in tali loco vel tempore, aut
quia privat se facultate dandi operam aliis rebus ex quibus Hâte posset lucrum referre vel
aliquid aliud facere, quae sunt pretio aestimabilia (Martinus Bonacina, De Sacram,
Eucharistiae, quaesi, tdt., punct. 8, n. 2). The extrinsic title, which all theologians
and canonists admit, has been sanctioned now by the Code, with regard to the
simple celebration of the Mass, when binating—(can. 824, §2).

84

1

MASS-OFFERINGS

quite extrinsic to the celebration of the mass itself, I may settle
with him about a repayment either in kind or in money.
Thus to his prestation corresponds a counter-prestation {quid
pro quo) from me, and out of the two results a synallagmatic
contract binding in justice (at least in conscience) both
parties. It is the classical contract of hire {localio-conductio).
The subject-matter of it will be on the one hand my payment
(a true salary) and on the other the extrinsic service added to
the celebration of the mass.1 Apart from any extrinsic
consideration of the kind mentioned, I may also, for the sole
purpose of stimulating the practice of religious worship,
without any claim on the fruit of the sacrifice, enter with a
priest into an agreement, by which I pledge myself to pay him
a fixed sum of money for every mass celebrated by him, under
whatever condition of time and place he may choose ; or,
vice versa, he will accept a sum which I pay him with the
understanding that he celebrate, without specifying either
time or place : leaving him every facility, most explicitly, in
both instances, to enter with a third party (whoever he may
be) into the customary agreements with regard to the applica­
tion of the mass.2 It is the same kind of an understanding
as might intervene between a modem Maecenas and an epic
poet or a musical composer. It may be questioned whether
it creates an obligation of contractual justice, and if so whether
it must be ranked among the compacts of the kind do ut facias,
or rather as having the character of a conditional or modal
donation {do ea lege ut facias). At all events, because as a
matter of fact the celebration of Mass which I secure is not
burdened with any utilitarian conditions either for my own
spiritual profit or to that of a third person whom I might get to
1 It is not at all necessary under these circumstances that the employer be a
Catholic. He may be a Protestant, a Jew, a pagan, an atheist; it will not change
in any way the import or the strictness of the contract. And the case is by no
means chimerical. A man may stay away from Mass habitually and yet want
it for the workpeople of his factory or of his farmlands. The State may be
officially Protestant or schismatical and need the services of a Catholic chaplain
for its Catholic soldiers, etc. There is no reason why a priest may not engage
himself to such an employer in return for a salary or a soldier’s pay.
* Can. 825, 4.

G

85

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
take my place, I need not be uneasy on the score of simony.1
There is no exchange (strictly so called) of a spiritual for a
temporal advantage : which is of the essence of simony :
therefore, all is well.
Such are some of the various contracts which may be made
with regard to the celebration of the Mass, without touching
upon its application.
The problem, therefore, does not refer to them, but solely
to that other contract in constant use among the faithful
who wish to secure for themselves or for a third party, the
benefit of some special fruit of the Mass, which is neither the
general fruit accruing to the whole Church, nor the fruit
proper to those who assist, and still less the fruit reserved to
the celebrant ; but another, recognized and sanctioned by
ecclesiastical legislation on the application of the sacrifice.
The faithful (in the case we are considering) do not only intend
to have a mass celebrated, as in the previous examples, but to
obtain (for themselves or for some person in their stead) the
special benefit of the application of the mass in their favour.2
1 See Laymann, who will be quoted further on.
s A young professor of thé Royal University of Catana, since transferred to Pisa,
and now a professor at the Catholic University of Milan, Signor Vincenzo Del
Giudice, attorney at the Roman bar, in his book Stipendia Missarum (Rome 1922),
has carefully and intelligently reviewed the solutions of a number of ancient and
modem canonists to the question of the essence of the mass-contract. The inquiry
proves that far from offering a unanimous solution, canonical literature presents
to us the picture of a strange confusion. There is not a juridical solution that
has not been tried; every one invariably had to face an imposing army of adver­
saries. The same conclusion would have been reached from a study of the
theologians. Agreement does not exist to-day any more than yesterday. The
question is the more open to debate as it is encumbered with the most diverse
solutions. Following Sinibaldi (Innocent IV) and Bonacina, Del Giudice
has had the great merit of clearing up the notion of mandate. If instead of restricting
his researches to the canonists (which is quite excusable in a jurist) he had
extended it to the theologians, he would have found himself less isolated among
the moderns than he might imagine. The notion of mandate is the one defended
of late in Mysterium Fidei (339 sq., 349 sq., 355 sq., 365 sq., 382, etc.), but
there a different object is assigned to it, and its concept is preserved in its perfect
integrity. According to Del Giudice I give a mandate to a priest to produce
a spiritual good for my benefit, and I give a remuneration for the execution
of that mandate. This can hardly be distinguished from contracts do ut facias,
or similar ones, which will be examined hereafter. Let us change the object of
the mandate, let us do away with the remuneration, and everything will become
easy. Of itself a mandate (Del Giudice will not dissent), is a gratuitous contract:
thus it is distinct from hire, etc. On the other hand, the mandate I deliver to the

86

MASS-OFFERINGS

The contract do ut facias, or any analogous contract whatever,
if it should intervene here, would have to apply to a new
matter, the fruit. We should be justified, then, in formulating
the contract thus : Do (tibi) ut jacias (sacrum, et quidem mihi
specialiter profuturum). You celebrate, and the fruit of the
celebration will be mine. It is clearly a double contract.
Do tibi, (i) ut facias sacrum, et (ii) ut sacri fructum mihi tribuas.
Two contracts, in reality : a contract do utfacias (celebration),
and a contract do ut des (application). With the first there
is no difficulty ; but with the second is there no reason for
anxiety ? I give you this money, so that in return, and in all
justice, you may give me the spiritual fruit of the mass—and
you do not call that buying the fruit of the mass ? What
does one mean, then, by buying ? It is not buying, because
I give that sum to the celebrant for his living. But how does
that purpose, so highly respectable, weaken the contract of
sale and purchase ? I give my shoemaker the price of a pair
of shoes. It is clearly for his living that he works, and perhaps
it is for his living that I give him work. Will there be for this
reason less of a contract of purchase and sale between him
and me ? Undoubtedly the ultimate destination, namely
Priest is not a mandate of production or of attribution to myself, as will be
seen, but a mandate of oblation and transmission to God. It is essentially
gratuitous, and as such involves no remuneration; but it goes with a deposit,
the deposit of the object to offer or transmit. As depositary, the priest is bound
in justice towards me; although I, properly speaking, have not given anything
to him, but only entrusted something (from which, by a process to be studied
further on, a portion eventually returns to him for his maintenance). It may
be well here, for the sake of clearness, to point out that we are not using the
term mandate in the complex meaning given it by the Roman Law, but in the
current acceptation of everyday language, for which all the elements of the
juridical meaning are not required. Del Giudice seems also to be influenced
by an anxiety to withdraw the mass-contract from the cognizance of the judiciary.
The arguments he brings forward seem debatable. If I understand aright, they
rest chiefly on the impossibility of verifying juridically the non-execution of the
mandate, chiefly as to the application. But that non-execution may be obvious,
at least in certain cases. . I have handed twenty-five pounds to a priest for a
hundred masses to be said for my intention. Hardly has he received them,
when he is struck dumb, or paralyzed. Clearly he may be forced to make
restitution by the ecclesiastical tribunals, or even, it would seem, in their default,
by the civil tribunals. Likewise, if the priest were to apostatize, and afterwards
boasted of never having complied with his obligation, this avowal would furnish
the juridical basis for a judgment of the ecclesiastical or civil courts.

87

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

the sustenance of the priest, is an element of particular interest,
as we shall see later, in the adequate explanation of the process
by which my pecuniary contribution becomes legitimately
the property of the celebrant. But that ultimate purpose
is not sufficient by itself to dispose of simony.1 Otherwise
it would be lawful for me to stipulate with a prelate that if
he grants me ten indulgences of one hundred days each, .
which I am asking of him, I pledge myself in justice, to supply
him with ten quarter casks of wine, for his maintenance.
Or I might at once place the stipend in his hands, on con­
dition that at a given moment he grant me the ten indulg­
ences. Now there is no doubt that a binding agreement of this
sort, a contract in justice, concerning indulgences, is simony
jure divino. The Code is explicit and decisive on the matter.2
What is said about indulgences holds equally with regard
to the administration of the sacraments.3 If then the ultimate
purpose of my stipend for the support of the priest were sufficient
by itself alone to eliminate from the contract about the
application of the mass all reproach of simony, it should also
suffice to eliminate it from all other contracts bearing
on indulgences and the sacraments : which is not the case.
That ultimate purpose does indeed intervene, both lawfully
and usefully, but only on condition that the contract on hand
shows itself entirely free from the character of an exchange
(i.e. of a reciprocal burden) between the spiritual benefit
1 Fr. G. Arendt (De laesione justitiae commutativae in missae manualis stipendio
alteri celebranti diminuto, Prati, 1914, n. 21), says very well on this subject: “Ad
hoc autem (simoniae vitium) arcendum, non sufficit stipendium dari, ex mero operantis
fine, intuitu corfferendae sustentationis sacerdoti sacrificii ministro, si simul, ex fine operis,
ex indole scilicet objectiva actus juridici quo stipendii dominium in sacerdotem transfertur
locum reapse haberet commutatio illa pretii temporalis vel cum ipso spirituali sacrificio,
vel cum objectiva labore, celebrationem hujus intrinsecus atque inseparabiliter concomitante :
esset enim haec simonia palliata. And still more clearly, in n. 41 : Equidem contenti
sunt omnes cum S. Thoma, ad avertendam hanc simoniae labem, pecuniam non dari in
pretium operis supematuralis vel fructus ejus, sed in sustentationem ministri; ut vero
per hanc primam explicationem nondum elucet quomodo ex justitia commutativa minister
teneatur supernaturale suum opus praestare vi supradicti initi contractus, quin reincidat in
comparationem operae vel rei supematuralis quam praestat, cum stipendio temporalis sus­
tentationis sibi procuratae ob altero contrahente; ideoque in simoniam incurrat, quam
evitare voluerat. It is impossible to present the difficulty more accurately.
* Can. 727, §1.
* Ibid.

88

MASS-OFFERINGS
of a celebration and application in my favour, and the
temporal emolument which the priest derives for his susten­
ance. Then, and then only will the spectre of simony vanish.
Perhaps you will answer that the priest’s support was already
a duty incumbent on me ; and, therefore, I merely pledge
myself to pay a debt and satisfy a previous obligation. And
since the payment was already binding for other reasons,
does not the spiritual benefit conferred by the priest retain
all its essential gratuitousness ? But honestly, is not this an
illusion. For, after all, it may well happen, and the case
is very frequent, that the priest is not my pastor, at all, or
again, (and in certain countries it happens often enough)
it may happen that my pastor is richly, abundantly and
superabundantly endowed with benefices : and yet the mass­
contract remains identically the same in this case (which
excludes any antecedent obligation to contribute to the
support of the priest), as in the other cases (which let that
obligation subsist).
Moreover, this same claim of antecedent obligation could
be invoked in every contract about sacraments, indulgences,
as above. Simony would become practically impossible,
unless, perhaps, among people rude enough to believe that the
temporal is worth as much as the spiritual. Now this intellectual
error or heresy is by no means necessary to constitute the sin
of simony.1 It is true that this sin consists in treating holy
things and in dealing in holy things as if one believed the
above absurdity, since the spiritual and the temporal are
placed side by side in a business transaction which, by its
very nature, tends to establish between them a bond of justice,
and consequently to place them on the same level. But this
error comes in merely as an interpretation furnished by the
very character of the proceedings, without the contracting
parties having to adopt it formally as the object directly and
properly intended by them. Hence the impossibility for a
theologian to accept the following principle, proclaimed never­
theless by worthy men, such as Tataretus, in his commentary
1 St. Thomas, Sum. Theol. Ill, q. 100, a. i, ad I.

89

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

I

I

'I

I- ’si

:

on the twentieth Quodlibetum of Scotus, and upon no less a
matter than simony : “ Purchase and sale consist in exchang­
ing the ownership of something with the idea that this thing is
of the same value as that other.”1 On the contrary, there is
no need whatever of any such idea. Whatever may be your
opinion on the relative value of the two goods, the one temporal,
the other spiritual, you have no right to make them enter into
a commercial contract, even if in doing so you were to base
yourself on a previous obligation (of filial piety or of religion)
devolving on the faithful—the support of their clergy.
It is true, on the other hand, that the Church may, by
taking account of this prior obligation, establish taxes to be
collected on occasion of the sacraments or of other spiritual
graces.2 But these taxes become obligatory thereby only
in virtue of legal justice, coming on top of a duty of religious
and filial piety, in order to add to it the more precise and
stricter obligation of obedience. Legal justice is not con­
tractual justice.3 Ecclesiastical authority could not make
us connect the tax with the administration of the sacrament,
by means of a liability of contractual justice, without making
us fall into the sin of simony, consisting precisely in the
obligatory exchange of spiritual and temporal prestations.
And yet as regards the Mass, this bond of contractual justice
exists between the two activities, that of the priest and that
of the faithful : and yet there is no simony. The explanation,
therefore, must not be sought in the mere intervention of
the Church, decreeing authoritatively an obligation in justice
(commutative and contractual) which the natural condition
of things would have been insufficient to create. For if that
method were valid in the present case, it ought also to be
valid in the other instances, so as to clear them of simony:
which is not true. Again, historically speaking, there is not
the slightest indication that a positive legislation of the Church
1 Venditio et emptio est commutando dominium unius rei, existimando hoc esse tanti caloris
sicut hoc. (Reportata ... super Quaestiones Quodlibetales Scoti, s. d. P. 214.)
2 Cod. Juris can., can. 1507.
3 Any violation of contractual justice obliges intrinsically to restitution. The
same is not necessarily true of legal justice.

90

<

MASS-OFFERINGS

gave rise to this duty binding in justice both priest and
faithful. All the evidence of history, as we shall see, points
in another direction.
Minds that do not balk a paradox may be tempted to make
use here of a principle formulated by certain authors (not
among the least considerable), which, if it could apply to such
cases as this, would have the advantage of doing away almost
entirely with simony : whatever would be honourable without a pact
can be made the subject-matter of a pact. What more honourable
than to give alms to a priest, who is in need of means for
himself and for his various activities ? What more honour­
able for the priest than to do his fellow man the charity of
saying Mass for him ? Consequently the two actions may
be linked together by means of a pact, carrying with it an
obligation of contractual justice. The pact will be honest ;
it will, therefore, not be simoniacal. But anyone can see
that the same reasoning, if it were valid, would hold for all
the sacraments, for indulgences, etc. Quite honourable is
the alms given to a prelate ; quite honourable the indulgence
granted by the prelate ; therefore, honourable also the pact
which would bind the one with the other. Not at all, says
the Church, the pact is simoniacal. Similarly, quite honour­
able the alms offered to this priest ; and also quite honourable
the sacrament, whether of penance, extreme unction, or
any other, administered by a priest : therefore, honourable
also is the contractual tie between them. Simoniacal, repeats
the Church again, and simoniacal by divine law, and there­
fore, not unlawful because forbidden, but forbidden because
unlawful. The Church does not recognize in herself any
right to authorize such a compact. The Councils, as will be
seen later, leave no doubt on this matter. Indeed, the legitimate
meaning of the maxim brought forward is very different
from the interpretation foisted upon it. Undoubtedly it is
always lawful to enter into a gratuitous pact about anything
which without a pact would be honest. Is it always lawful
to enter into a onerous pact about it? It depends upon
the nature of the prestations under consideration. If prior
91

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
to the pact they may be considered as exchangeable, then
yes ; otherwise no. But reduced to these terms the alleged
principle does not help us to make any headway. We must
therefore look for something else.
Will it be said, in order to do away with all difficulties,
that it is a question of an exchange of gratuitous gifts ? But
this solution of Scotus is nowadays contradicted by the whole
ecclesiastical legislation, which asserts the existence of a
contract in justice.1 Will it be rejoined that gratitude towards
those from whom we receive special benefits creates also
special duties ? Certainly nothing can be more legitimate
than to show my gratitude by a gift to a priest whom I know
to have given me the benefit of the suffrage of his mass.
Nothing more legitimate for a priest than to do me that
favour in acknowledgment of a liberality with which I favoured
him. But, once more, we have not in these instances the
mass-contract, which binds in justice, in strict justice, and
not in that broad acceptation of a debt understood as the
obligation which arises from a favour received. As for the
assumption that gratitude could warrant me to go further,
and could, by its own virtue, exculpate or gloss over a contractus
onerosus which I might make with a priest, my spiritual
benefactor, or he with me, his temporal benefactor, such an
assumption would be equivalent to a declaration that gratitude
could also render lawful a contract in justice between priest
and faithful in the case of sacraments or indulgences, which is
clearly false.2 Let us remember moreover that gratitude weakens
and even fends to vanish altogether, by turning into an article of
1 Can. 824, §2 : ex titulo justitiae.
5 It is quite true, the faithful are bound at least by gratitude, to provide for
the needs of those who dispense to them holy things. Dignus est enim operarius
mcrcede sua. But the sacred ministers are not thereby entitled to enter with
those concerned into an onerous agreement (all indemnification apart) with
regard to the performance of the sacraments, for instance of baptism, of penance,
of holy orders, of confirmation, of extreme unction. Gratis accepistis, gratis date.
The two aspects of the compact, do ut facias, and facio ut des, are prohibited
respectively to the faithful and to the priest, and the prohibition is imposed by
divine law, which in this case is the same as the natural law.
But may I not engage myself to preach under the condition of being remun­
erated ? First of all, preaching is a different sort of thing, because every sermon

92

MASS-OFFERINGS
exchange that which was either its foundation or its expression,
namely, the kindness done to me, or the kindness with which
I reciprocated.
Will it then be best, after all, to refrain from characterizing
the two terms of the exchange ? In fact, certain theologians
do so, teaching on the one hand that the application of
the Mass consists in this, that the priest, in return for the
contribution of the faithful towards his support, renounces
in their favour a fruit of the sacrifice which he might have
kept for himself, or inversely. On the other hand, these
same theologians teach that the bond of reciprocity between
the two terms of the exchange is a bond of justice. And when
you look for the name of that contract—which has one in
every language—it is not forthcoming.
All that has been said thus far about the contract do ut
facias holds also with regard to the modal donation, which
under the circumstances would be but a sort of compound
of two contracts, a free donation, and a do ut facias ; and
this second contract must again be split, as above, into two,
supposes a labour of immediate preparation, which may require of me several
days, which sometimes takes several weeks, and which of itself is a natural labour,
and not a spiritual activity of the supernatural order. Hence there is a twofold
title for a contract: first the remuneration for that labour (for this reason St.
Thomas, speaking of preachers, says very justly: Stipendia . . . debentur . . .
«peri et labori, Quodlib. VII, 18). Second, there is the compensation for the living­
expenses or others which the labour may involve {damnum emergens) and for the
cessation of earnings {lucrum cessans). Besides this twofold difference, there is
still another: he who engages me for preaching does not procure for himself
by his contract a spiritual good. Perhaps he will not be present at the sermon,
and consequently draw no profit for himself, although the public may have
been greatly benefited. He may assist at it, and nevertheless (no matter how
well disposed) find in it personally no spiritual gain: for instance, if he is deaf,
or distracted, or does not understand the language in which I speak, or lacks
the intellectual preparation required to follow my developments, or if for one
reason or another my style does not attract him. Whether the contracting
party draws profit for his soul or not, whether a supernatural advantage has been
gained by him or not, a contract with regard to preaching remains just as it is
in every respect. The case is quite different, as soon as the opus operatum of the
sacraments, or the opus operatum of the sacrifice comes into play for the benefit
OF the contracting party (or of his substitute). In this case the contract does
really not subsist except through the bestowal upon the contracting party (or
on his rightful claimant) of a spiritual substance. And herein lies the whole
difficulty.

93

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

one of them being a do ut des.1 There is nobody who does
not feel that we are here confronted by a very serious diffi­
culty. 2
Because every contract do (tibi) ut facias (mihi) contains, as
regards the application of the mass, a contract do ut des,
which is inadmissible,—for it would be simoniacal,—wc must
needs look for something else. Nay more ; even if we
succeeded in doing away with this contract of sale properly
so called, the fact would still remain that every contract
do (tibi) ut facias (mihi), by which a bond of reciprocity in
strict justice would arise3 between my remuneration and
the celebration together with the application of the mass to
my advantage, would still constitute a simoniacal pact, for
this one reason, that it would imply an exchange, that is
1 Laymann has this to say (Theologia Moralis, IV, tract. X, cap. 8, 2, n. it)
“ In itself it is not simony to promise, give or bequeath to somebody something
temporal on which a price can be set, on condition that the recipient perform
a spiritual work. . . . Example: parents who promise their children presents
if they frequent the sacraments.” But there is this caution: “ the condition
set down must not be that the recipient give or do something for the (spiritual)
advantage either of him who made the present, or gave the promise, or of such
other person as he may represent (ut conditio non sit de dando vel Jaciendo aliquid
in utilitatem dantis aut promittentis, sed neque alterius personae cujus ille quasi vican
subeat). Otherwise the transaction would by that very fact be changed into a
contract of exchange at least innominate; and in the case where a spiritual work is
exchanged for a temporal good, into a simoniacal contract. . . . This caution
must be well kept in mind, in order not to fall under the 45th of the propositions
condemned by Innocent XI : Dare temporale pro spirituali non est simonia, quand)
temporale non datur tanquam pretium, sed duntaxat tanquam motivum conferendi vel
efficiendi spirituale; vel etiam quando temporale sit solum gratuita compensatio pro spirituali,
aut contra.”
2 Difficultas tamen non levis est in reddenda ratione qua possit hoc excusari a labe simomai
(Lugo, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, disp. 21, n. 1). One of the latest authors dealing
with this subject, Fr. F, Arendt, expresses himself still more emphatically: Omnibus
notum est in scholis quot et quantis difficultatibus implicata existât quaestio de modo eximendi
a labe simoniae jur. div. obligationem justitiae commutativae ortam ... ex contractu
particulari intercedente inter offerentem et acceptantem stipendium pro missa manuali—(op.
cit., n. 41). Each author is naturally led to offer his solution as the only one to
eliminate simony successfully. Thus as regards his own, which will be noticed
further on, Fr. Arendt writes: Haec igitur esse videtur sola explicatio illius salebrosi
problematis de simonia excludenda, etc. (n. 4g).
2 It would be different if it were a question not of an obligation in strict justice,
but of a gratuitous reciprocity, or of a simple debt of gratitude, or again of a duty
of simple obedience to a written law or custom. In this sense canon 730 could
say, in keeping with canonical tradition: Pion habetur simonia, cum temporale dater
non pro re spirituali, sed ejus occasione, ex justo titulat sacris canonibus vel a legitima
consuetudine recognito.

94

MASS-OFFERINGS

to say, a correlation titulo oneroso between a temporal
prestation and a spiritual counterprestation.1
The difficulty here is great; history shows it, denial is useless.
For centuries canonists as well as theologians have attempted
the most diverse solutions, without being able to convince
one another of the correctness or the harmlessness of their
conclusions. Some of them fail to establish a relation of
strict justice ; others succeed so well in establishing it that
they are defenceless against the charge of simony. Here
for instance, is Van Espen2 who will tell you : “Just as the
laity must offer the stipend to the priest as an oblation pleasing
to God, so also priests are bound to receive the stipend
gratefully, not as the price of the mass, but as a voluntary
offering, giving evidence at the same time of their intention
to sacrifice voluntarily to God.” This is most edifying, but
it does not grapple with the reality, far more juridical, of the
transaction between priest and people, both of whom are
held more strictly than that. Others, aware of the insufficiency
of this counterchange of mutual gifts, bring in a supposed
positive law, by which the Church forbids the priest to
appropriate the gratuitous donation of the faithful until he has
acknowledged the generous act by the application of a mass.
Where has anyone ever seen such a law forbidding priests
to accept presents, if, in return, they do not say mass ?—
Oh ! but we are speaking only of a certain kind of presents,
those offered with a view to obtain a mass.—All depends
on that expression with a view. Do you mean a liberality
pure and simple, absolute and unconditional, but performed
*Can. 728.
’ Jus Ecclesiasticum universum, pars II, tit. 5, 6, 14, 1 : Sicut laid illud {honorarium}
tanquam Deo acceptam oblationem sacerdoti offere debent, ita quoque illud sacerdotes non
tanquam pretium missae, sed ut voluntariam oblationem grato animo acdpere tenentur :
unaque ostendere se velle Deo voluntarie sacrificare. Strangely enough, Noël Alexandre
uses exactly the same sentence (with trifling variations) in his Theologia Dogmatica
et Moralis, II De Simonia, reg. 35 (Venice, 1768, p. 523). The two authors wrote
more or less at the same epoch. One may have copied from the other, or both
copied from a third author. Neither one nor the other uses quotation marks.
The priority could easily be established by any one having before him the first
edition of Noel Alexandre (1693), which is earlier than the work of Van Espen.
For lack of an extrinsic criterion, intrinsic ones would rather suggest the priority
of Van Espen.

95

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

in the hope that the priest, through gratitude, will celebrate
for your benefit ? I venture to assert that no law of the
Church nullifies the acceptance and appropriation of such
a gift, on account of failure to celebrate and apply the mass.
Is it a question again of a free gift, but one in return for
which there has been given by the priest a spontaneous
promise, binding him merely to be true to his word, without
any necessary connection between the gift and the promise?1
Once more it may be asserted that the Church has never
added to a mere duty of fidelity freely contracted2 a legislative
enactment holding in abeyance, till the promise is fulfilled,
the effect of a donation not really finked with the promise,
but remaining entirély gratuitous. The assumption of such
a law is absolutely gratuitous, at least as much as, nay more
1 This is precisely the case contemplated by Bucceroni (Institutiones Theol. Mor
V, t. ii n. 632, p. 223), not as typical of the current transaction between priest and
faithful, but on the contrary as differing from it essentially, and therefore, licit,
even in cases when the other, owing to certain particular regulations, would be no
longer permissible: for instance as regards (unless dispensed) the members of
the Society of Jesus.
’This gratuitousness is supposed to be sincere and undoubted; it is the very
hypothesis of our opponent. If it were only assumed and illusory, then we
should have in reality, under the colour of free gifts passing to and fro, a contract
in justice. This is the place to recall what Laymann writes (Theologia Moralis,
IV, tract x, cap. 8, 2, n. 9 and 10) ; there would be a strict contract, in reality
if not in words, where two individuals dealt with each other as follows : “ Ωοηο
tibi pecuniam, seu aliam rem pretio aestimabilem, tali conditione seu modo ut mihi vicissun
ex gratitudine praestare debeas rem aliquam spiritualem” ; or vice versa: "praesto tibi
hanc rem vel officium spirituale ea tamen conditione ut obliges te ex gratitudine mihi praesta*
turum donum aliquod spirituale
“ For ”, continues Laymann, “ although these
arrangements are expressed in the form of a donation or a requital, they are
nevertheless, as a matter of fact, simoniacal barters (reipsa simoniacae permuta­
tiones existant). This is made clear first by the following example. If some one
asks me to make him a present of a book, and I answer: * I will do so, but on
condition that you make me a present of a sword,’ there is by this very fact
an exchange and not a free donation. Then the same is proved also from reason.
For the gift of an object is not gratuitous, but onerous and mutual, and therefore
not a donation but a business deal, when the donor does not confer on the
recipient the right to appropriate the gift, unless he give in return some other
object with which, if it were not for this positive and special clause, he would
not have been obliged to part. To barter on a debt of gratitude is to bring in
a new obligation, a new claim, that can be rated in cash. . . . Besides, whoever
holds the opposite is forced to the conclusion that there is no simony ...
which may not be glossed over with a like formula. I could always say: I will
give you this spiritual thing free and gratis, but on condition that in return you
obligate yourself to make me a cash donation through gratitude . . . which
would be opening wide the door to simony juris divini ”. See below, Lugo.

96

.

MASS-OFFERINGS
than the donations themselves to which that law professes
to apply.
There is still another difficulty, to which Lugo calls our
attention (disp. 21, n. 3) : in the case where the actual
payment did not precede the celebration, but only an agree­
ment to pay after the mass had been said (which is not
unusual), the faithful afterwards would not be held in justice,
since the obligation arose, by supposition, from a simple
promise altogether gratuitous,1 to bestow later an entirely
free donation. Now no one doubts but that in the daily
agreement entered into about the Mass, the faithful are
bound in justice to pay ; nor, surely, has the Church here to
step in for the purpose of invalidating the claim of owner­
ship which they may have, or be reputed to have, retained
on their goods.
At this point, however, Laymann does not hesitate to
bring forward a contract by hire bearing on the labour
intrinsically connected with the celebration of the mass
“ labor seu defatigatio corporis quae per se ac necessario conjuncta est
cum sacro ministerio, puta celebratione missae ”, op. cit. iv, tract
x, cap. 8, 5, η. 41), inasmuch as that labour is subordinate
not to the specific end, which is of a spiritual nature, but
to the generic end, which is to render a service.2 But
unfortunately the generic end is essentially and exclusively
realised in its specific determination of a spiritual benefit,
and consequently it is the same relation, identically the same,
which connects the action with the one and the other end.
* Unless, of course, we suppose that he has pledged himself in justice to pay
for the mass when said. But, then, how can it still be claimed that there is no
necessary relation and binding obligation between the temporal and the spiritual ?
Moreover, the supposition has been changed.
’ “ Existimo Doctores . . . non dissentire, ac facile conciliari posse, si dicatur : quod
operatio el labor corporis, in spiritualibus ministeriis ad alterius gratiam voluntatemque
susceptus, duobus modis considerari possit: vel in ordine ad opus spirituale, secundum
propriam et specificam ejus rationem utilitatemque; vel in ordine ad operantem secundum
geneticam rationem operis aut servitii in alterius gratiam praestiti . . . Cum enim
orrmbus otiis operantibus ad alterius voluntatem necessaria sustentatio naturali jure debita
sit, cur non etiam iis qui in spiritualibus ministeriis occupantur? Quia tamen sustentatio
ista non commensuratur valori, dignitati utilitatique operis secundum propriam specificam
rationem suam, ideo non potest appellari pretium sive aestimatio operis nisi improprie et
abusis*”, (ibid. n. 42.)

97

?

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

i

5

Hence to pay for the labour as intended to render service,
is exactly the same as to pay for the labour as intended to
bear fruit for the benefit of the faithful.1 Here we may
apply what Suarez12 {De Simonia, cap. 21, n. 8 and 9)
writes on labour which is intrinsic to a task in general :
' “ Let us conclude, says he, that the aforesaid task and
labour are not to be valued at different prices, but either
at one and the same price or not at all. ... If then
the task cannot be valued in cash, why not say as much
of the labour indissolubly connected with the task ?
. . . Wherefore those, who make a distinction, in sacred
things, between the task and the labour, claiming that the
labour, but not the task, may be sold, advance something
contradictory.”
As a consequence Suarez is not afraid of proposing a formal
contract do ut facias, bearing directly on the application of
the mass. “ Therefore ”, says he, “ we are facing a true obli­
gation ofjustice, based on such mutual consent as is reciprocally
onerous, and formulated in the words do ut facias. Now herein
we have a claim in justice ”.3*8 This teaching has been taken
up again in our days by Cardinal Gasparri. “ There exists,”
writes this eminent canonist, “ between priest and faithful an
1 Fr. Arendt {op. cit. n. 47-50) has endeavoured to perfect Laymann’s solution,
by means of a very subtle distinction between the surrender as such of a liberty
(the liberty not to say Mass for the intention of some parishioner who asks you
for a mass) and the positive direction taken by my free will towards the rendering
of a spiritual service. We remunerate the surrender of the liberty; we do not
remunerate the service nor the will to render service. But, honestly, does any
one bother about the first term except in view of the second? Who of the faithful
will trouble himself about the surrender of sacerdotal liberty, except and exclu­
sively as it bears upon the prestation he is awaiting? The two terms are indivisibly
linked together in the intention of the contracting party, and if one predominates
in his mind, it is the second. Besides, what form of simony, when dealing with
sacraments, indulgences, etc., could not be justified by this so-called remuneration
of a sacrificed liberty?
* “ Concluditur opus et laborem dictum non esse aestimabilia duplici pretio, sed uno et
eodem, vel nullo. . . . Unde fit quod si opus non sit pretio aestimabile, nec labor fac
per se illi adjunctus sit aestimabilis pretio. . . . Quapropter, qui distinguunt in operibus
sacris opus et laborem, et fatentur opus esse invendibile, laborem autem vendibilem, repug­
nantia dicunt”.
8 “ Intervenit ergo ibi vera ratio justitiae fundata in mutuo consensu utrinque oneroso
qui explicatur, illis verbis, do ut facias. Hic est autem titulus justitiae.” (De Sacram.
Eucharistiae, disp. 86, sect. 1.)

98

MASS-OFÈERINGS

innominate contract, do ut facias, i.e. I give a partial sustenance
represented by the stipend on condition that you celebrate and
apply a mass for my intention ; orfacio ut des : I celebrate and
apply a mass for your intention, on condition that you give me
a partial sustenance”.1 He adds at once : “This contract is
not simoniacal jure divino, because the stipend representing a
partial sustenance of the priest, is not the price of the mass
or of the fructus medius, but is necessary for the sacrifice
asked for, as was explained above.” 2 So then I procure for
myself, in return for money, the fruit of the mass, by a con­
tract which connects, through an obligation in strict justice,
the acquisition of this fruit with a payment that has for its
immediate object your sustenance. And this is not striking
a bargain? And it is not simony? Why? Because the
contribution is needed for the sacrifice. By what title is it
needed ? I suppose (why not ?) that you are possessed of
ample benefices. You have no need whatever for your living
of my partial support, and, therefore, no antecedent claim to
it. Do you need it, then, for celebrating ? Not at all, your
ecclesiastical revenues are more than sufficient to cover your
expenses (we are not having in mind unusual or incidental
expenses).—But I am engaged in work for your benefit. Of
course, I mean to give you my service freely, and not for
money. Nevertheless, I have the right to require that you
supply me with what is needed for the performance of that
service. Thus a painter who decorates your walls gratuitously,
will still be doing it gratuitously, even if he asks you to supply
him with the paints and the brushes. Well, now, I am asking
you to supply me, not merely with the religious equipment
and with the matter of the sacrifice, but also with my susten­
ance for this day.—It looks plausible ; but let us be more
definite, if you please. Suppose the painter does not need
1 “ Est igitur inter sacerdotem et fidelem contractus innominatus do ut facias, seu do
partialem sustentationem stipendio repraesentatam, dummodo pro me celebres et applices
»«sam ;
facio ut des, seu celebro et applico missam pro te, dummodo des partialem
sustentationem ”. (Tract, canonic, de s. eucharistia, η. 542·)
* " Qria stipendium, repraesentans partialem sacerdotis sustentationem, non est pretium
missae, seufructus medii, sed est necessarium ad sacrificium quod petitur, ut supra explicatum
et”.

99

Man

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

to travel to reach my house : we are next-door neighbours.
And if my painter now (first supposition), besides the brash
and the colours necessary for painting my walls, were to ask
me also to give him his dinner, I could not any longer look
upon his work as altogether gratuitous. But if (second sup­
position) this request for dinner was made for a task not of a
day but of half an hour, it would dawn on me that the gratuity
had vanished. In like manner my gardener could not boast
of working for me gratis, if for the labour of one day he were
to ask me a week’s sustenance. Such gratuities are burdens.
In the first supposition there would be on the part of the
painter, a prestation half gratuitous and half retributive ; and
in the second supposition there would be a prestation ade­
quately remunerated. In like manner, when you require
of me, besides your outlay (including in it, should it occur,
any damage suffered or any loss of profit, damnum enurgtns tl
lucrum cessans), a payment for your ordinary support, the
gratuity has been impaired. But when for your task of half
an hour you claim the equivalent of a daily meal, I reckon that
the transaction is not to your disadvantage,1 and that you are
well paid2 ; but of a gratuity there is no trace visible (inci1 Here may be applied what Lugo writes against the remuneration of the
intrinsic labour: “ Licet aliquando interveniat labor fortasse dignus tali stipendio, regu­
lariter tamen non est talis ; et saltem de possibili non est dubium : nam, secluso Ealesist
praecepto, posset celebrari solum consecrando et sumendo utramque speciem, quod litu*
in uno temporis minuto fieri commode posset. Qui labor certe secundum se non esset diÇOS
stipendio tali quale pro missa datur. Sic dando pro labore missae stipendium eradas
absque proportione valorem ipsius laboris, praesumetur dari pro volare sacrificii quod in­
jungitur illi operi seu labori". (Disp. 21, n. 12.)—(VVe all have read how the
persecuted priests of Mexico are allowed to shorten the Eucharistic sacrifice.)
2 Will it be objected ? Not so, for the value of the mass transcends all humaa
computation; the priest, therefore, is not paid to the amount of the service
rendered? True enough; but the principle appealed to would hold for any
spiritual object compared to any material object; and if to remove simony that
principle sufficed, simony would never happen; there would be no need of
forbidding it. But it does exist, whenever men actually negotiate either about a
spiritual object, or about a temporal object intrinsically bound up with a spiritual
one, in view of some temporal consideration, whatever it may be: with the
understanding that the spiritual object (for instance the application of the mas!
enters, were it only partially, into the matter of the contract, or that the tempers!
object (for instance, your " task ”) cannot be isolated from the spiritual objet*..
In this case simony exists actually, without any need of making one’s own the
absurd and contradictory pretence, necessarily foreign to even the least cultured
mind, of putting the temporal price and the spiritual value on a level. Else I

!OO

MASS-OFFERINGS

dentally we may remark that a private mass, which now
lasts half an hour, took much less time formerly, when there
had not been any additions borrowed from the Roman stations).
An appeal is made to a principle of St. Alphonsus : Unusquisque
qui in commodum alterius se occupat, debet ex justitia ab eo sustentari.
Certainly, in human affairs the employer owes to the employee
(the owner to the hired workman, the master to the servant,
shall we add, the patient to his physician or the client to his
lawyer ?) at least a living wage, due in strict justice. But the
living wage remains a wage, that is to say, it remains precisely
the price paid for a service rendered. It leaves no gratuity—
neither in the case of the painter, nor with the priest, if the
latter’s case is the counterpart of the former.
The example of the painter is borrowed by Cardinal Gas­
pard (n. 541) from Cardinal de Lugo (disp. 21, n. 13), who
presents it with ingenious gradations. To begin with, the
painter has taken a vow of gratuitous labour. When he asks
me for the tools and the material of his trade, he does not
violate his vow, in other words he does not sell me his labour.
But he next bethinks himself that he will not be able to proceed
with the work unless he adds to his diet some special susten­
ance (“ si ipse ad laborem cibo vel potu peculiari indigeret ”). I
begin to feel uneasy. Still we must admit that if the practice
of painting is injurious to his physical condition (this occurs
in a certain comedy where the colours cause an indisposition),
the matter must be taken into account, and we shall let him
have the cordials and phosphates he calls for : and his
vow will still be intact. And now we come to the counter­
part: “Sic ergo Sacerdos”. The priest does not violate the
precept of Christ, who said : “ freely have you received, freely
give ”, when he demands what is needed for the accomplish­
ment of his ministry “ necessaria ad ministerium exsequendum ”.
“Inter illa autem . . . unum et potissimum est ipse sacerdos”.
wukt stale the most simoniacal bargains, and yet escape the sin of simony, by
cr-.p’y saying: Of course, I know very well that the service done to me is worth
than what I give in return. This remark was made already further back:
bet it bean repetition.

H

ΙΟΙ

I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Among the things needed, there is in the first place the priest
himself; but, be it understood, the priest properly fed and
physically fit : “ nec potest sine ipso sustentato et bene disposito
Therefore, everything will be gratuitous as in the case of the
painter, if the priest requires that the faithful fit out a “ persona
sacerdotis sustentata ” (m. 18). So then it is no more a question
of some peculiar disorder which the practice of the profession
has caused in the organism, and which requires a special
fare ; it is the main sustenance such as you would have to
provide for yourself, whether you work for me or not—it is
this compensation which is finally smuggled through the door
which was so discreetly opened for indemnifications only.
What would the authors of the theory say, if a priest took it
into his head to apply it to confession and baptism, and a
prelate to confirmation and the granting of indulgences?
As for myself, he might tell you, I confess, I confirm ; but
on condition : for every confession heard you will have to
provide me with dinner ; likewise, for every one I confirm
I must have a repast. And all this is to be understood as a
matter of strict justice. I want none of those free-will offerings,
which it is pretended are due only in virtue of obedience to
the law, and not in return for, but on occasion of, my ministry.1
I claim from you that kind of a debt which binds you to
restitution, you, your heirs and assigns, so that no power, not
even the power of the lawmaker, can free you from your
duty. You speak of simony—but are you not aware that in
order to hear confessions, I must be a confessôr properly fed
and physically fit ? And I think there is more reasonableness
and justice here than when it is a question of the Mass ; for
after all, the confessor is not obliged to fast. Such reasoning,
it is needless to say, meets on the part of all canonists with an
1 Once more those offerings are allowed, without difficulty, as St. Thomas
tells us (Sum. Thiol. II-II, q. 100, a. 2, <«/4), “si . . . intentio referatur ad solam
consuetudinis observantiam, ei praecipue quando aliquis voluntarie solvit ”, Still even
here we must be on our guard against the semblance of simony (ibid.) in order
to keep the precept of the Apostle; ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. But a custom
that would connect the exchange of values with a duty, and consequently would
sanction an obligation ofjustice properly so called, would be a detestable custom,
in no way excusing from simony (ibid).

102

MASS-OFFERINGS
unqualified rebuff.1 And yet, after all, the principle
remains the same in the one case as in the other. And if
that principle excludes simony juris divini in this case, why
not in the other ? or vice versa, if it is ineffectual here, why
not there?
These are matters which leave us in a rather uneasy frame
of mind. Must we add that Cardinal Gasparri (n. 542) with
a frankness that does him honour, acknowledges that the
mass-contract, as he conceives it, would be tainted at least with
ecclesiastical simony, if the Church, by its approval, had riot
withdrawn it ipso facto from the operation of the law.2 This
avowal reveals clearly and emphatically all that is inelegant
and perplexing beneath that solution, which is also as artificial
as it is laboured ; nay, let us not shrink from the term, painful
in every sense of that word. Aesthetical sense and simplicity
are criteria, at least negative, of theological truth ; and here
they turn away from the contract do ut facias, as well as from
the employment contract, or again from a modal donation
which would necessarily resolve itself again, at least in part,
into the one or the other of the two systems.
1 Let us at least hope so, although in the past it is not impossible to find authors
not quite so circumspect (such as Sebastian Giribaldi, De Simonia, cap. 2, n. 37,
Opera Moralia, Bologna, 1760, tom. 4, col. 672) : “ Respondeo posse ministrum
pro administrations sacramentorum et rerum spiritialium petere et recipere stipendium
sustentationis et de eo pacisci ”. St. Thomas, for his part, is so pronounced in the
opposite sense, that it does not seem to him lawful to pay a priest for baptizing,
even in the case of absolute necessity, such as imminent danger of death. If
it is an infant, let a lay person rather baptize it. If it is an adult and there be
no other minister than this venal priest, let him do without baptism, and in
its stead trust to the desire of it (Sum. Theol. II—II, q, too, a. 2, ad. 1). St. Thomas
does not have in view the case of one who, desiring to have his child baptized,
is ignorant of the sacramental form. It seems clear that in such a case, which
is the only case of absolute necessity, the minister, who cannot now be dispensed
with, may be paid. The payment would be equivalent to getting rid of an
unjust vexation, since baptism is then strictly due to the dying infant by any
one who happens to be the only person capable of administering it. In the
present instance, it is the priest, who by refusing, is guilty of a vexatious and
unjust action, of which it is always lawful to rid oneself by means of money
(there remains however the right to make him disgorge later, when it can be
done). See on this last point, Cajetan, in h.i.
* “ Equidem Ecclesia prohibuit, etiam praeter jus divinum, quemlibet contractum in
spiritualibus, qui proinde redolet simonia, si non juris divini, saltem juris ecclesiastici ;
sed Ecclesia, probans eleemosynas Missarum, eo ipso ab hac prohibitione excepit celebrationem
et applicationem Missae ”.

103

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

1I

But after all, these contracts in justice would probably be
less offensive than a certain kind of pretended gratuity. The
former have the merit of sincerity, for which the latter would
sometimes substitute false appearances, severely attacked by
Lugo. Aiming his attack on those donations, tangled up and
passing hither and thither from one party offering a present to
another, on condition that this latter give up to the former
the fruit of the mass, he writes : “In this fashion it would be
possible to palliate any simony in any matter whatever. I
could always say : I give you this money ; it is not a pay­
ment, it is a free gift. However, it is given on condition
that you give me such sacrament, or some relics, or a benefice,
etc. The condition once realized, the donation would take
effect. This shows that it is not possible in this kind of proce­
dure to leave the price out of sight. For whenever there is
a condition, and the condition is intended as the end, in view
of which I am willing to give something to the one who shall
have fulfilled the condition, I do not give gratis, but I give
because of what the other party gives : now this is a contractus
onerosus, do ut des, facio ut facias” (disp. 21, n. 4). Lugo is
right. There is no doubt but that the faithful, with their
stipend, mean to secure for themselves the benefit of the mass ;
and it is equally beyond doubt that a pretence of gratuity
would be but a mask calculated to pass off an onerous agree­
ment under the guise of a mutual gift. Therefore, to all the
inconveniences of a true contract is added that of insincerity.
And so we are in a quandary. Utrinque ambages. On the
one hand we have either no obligation ofjustice, or a disguised
one ; on the other we have an obligation of justice frankly
admitted, but without possibility of getting away from simony.
And yet one thing is certain, on which there is unanimous
agreement among theologians and canonists, or rather on
which the teaching of the Church is explicit. The mass­
contract, the contract in reference to the application of the
Mass, is equitable and nowise simoniacal. It is an agreement
obliging both parties in strict justice. Here is in fact the
one point on which there is agreement. It is more than a
104

MASS-OFFERINGS
common opinion ; it is a certitude which borders on faith.
Beyond that, there is no theological certitude, no common op­
inion. Everything said thus far leads to this conclusion. There
are indeed conflicting theories, condemning one another for the
lack either of adequacy or of moderation. Perfectly free,
therefore, are we, not only to choose between these different
hypotheses, but also to make no choice at all. By so doing
we shall not forsake the common opinion, which does not
exist. In fact, we remain free to give our preference to some­
thing else.

i°5

II

THE HISTORICAL SOLUTION
As we open our inquiry let us premise the following state­
ment : the eucharist sacrifice, from the point of view of the
thing offered (the passive sacrifice) is in reality the Body
and Blood ofJesus Christ, and nothing more. That is enough.
But is the point of view of the reality the only one? Not
so ; there is also the point of view of the appearances ;
and from that point of view our sacrifice is a sacrifice of
bread and wine, a repetition of the sacrifice of Melchisedech.
Now, although the appearance does not enter into the reality,
it is none the less essential, by way of symbol, in order that
the reality should be held in our hands and be our sacrifice.
For the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not offered by us
effectively except under the external form of an apparent
oblation of sensible gifts. This fact makes it possible for
us to distinguish, as it were, two sacrifices : a real sacrifice
and a symbolic sacrifice, the latter enfolding the former:
not that the second is real ; it is by definition a mere symbol,
a mere semblance : it has no existence. But it renders
apparent the other which is real, but which does not by
itself appear.1 The attribute of sensible gift (necessary in
order that there may be sacrifice) Jesus Christ holds from
these terrestrial elements, inasmuch as they are involved in
the eucharistie prayer containing the words of the Lord.
From the point of view of the active sacrifice, i.e. of the
act of oblation, not of this or that ceremony or accessory
prayer, but of the essentially sacrificial rite whereby transubstantiation is effected, the terrestrial elements again play
1 M.F., 106, sq., 529 sq., 552 sq., etc.

106

MASS-OFFERINGS
a part. Transubstantiation is not the effect of the priest’s
words alone, but it is the effect of the whole sensible sign.
This sign consists of the words and of the species ; more
accurately, it consists of the words so far as they tend to
determine the imperfect signification of the species.1
And now let us distinguish in our sacrifice, both active
and passive, permanent and transitory, three elements. The
first and chief one : the Body and Blood of the Lord, the
only thing offered in reality. The second : the words deter­
mining the species and combining with them to effect the
consecration. The third : the species determined by the
words, and as such serving as a covering to the Body and
Blood of Christ, the true hostia, in order that he may “ look
like ” (this is absolutely indispensable) a gift proceeding from us.
Considering the first element, body and blood of the victim,
the sacrifice belongs to the whole Church and proceeds
from the whole Church. The Body of Christ belongs to the
universality of the faithful, for the Body of the Bridegroom
is in the power of the Bride, since there is made of the two
but one flesh. For this reason, according to the traditional
formula, no one offers the Body of Christ except the Body
of Christ. Such is the common and joint fellowship in the
sacrifice among all Christians, and such its original claim.
But if we look at the second element, the word of the priest,
the dynamic element of the sacrificial action and the formal
element of the visible host, then the sacrifice is the priest’s
only.
Finally, if we have in view the third element, the sensible
object, the matter of the symbolical sacrifice, and carrier
of the act of oblation, it will be readily admitted that the
sacrifice is the affair of him whose gifts will be dedicated to
God, whether he be an individual or a congregation. But
what happens now ? In their way these gifts undergo a change
into something better and more excellent, keeping nothing
terrestrial except their vesture, and becoming replete with a
more divine substance, so that at the very moment of the ritual
109, 505, 529.

Ï07

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

oblation, they take on an infinite value, and fill heaven with
a fragrance unknown on earth. By a process which is the,
reverse of that of the son of Isaac, who was fragrant with
the sweet odour of a wheat-field blessed by God, it is the
wheat now that exhales the authentic fragrance of the virtues
and of the charity of the blessed Christ, the Son of God
crushed by the Passion and gathered into the bosom of the
Father. If such a transformation in the insignificant gift
of our needy humanity has taken place, should thereby his
merit be lessened who did his best, and being earthly came
with an earthly gift—all he had—but also with the faith that
of the earthly thing would be made the bread of heaven ?
Should he be reproached either with the inferior quality of his
gift, or with the transcendent worth of what it has become ?
Can we imagine God telling the Christian that his offering does
not count, because God has improved it ? Since when does
God’s grace turn against the helpless creature co-operating
with it in all humility ? Does not God after this fashion
crown in us as meritorious what is nothing else, absolutely
and in every way, than his own gifts? So too in the Christ
who comes back to him from the Sacrifice of the altar, God
still recognizes, with infinite complacency, the gift which a
fleshy hand had deposited upon the visible altar, in order
to be borne thence, by the hand of the Sovereign Priest,
even to the celestial Altar upon which every consecration
is effected.
Moreover, if Christ, price of our redemption, is also our
sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Church, it is solely as the result
of transubstantiation, and consequently not without a most
intimate relation to the bread and to the wine, which were
conspicuous upon the eucharistie table. To him who set
the table, as well as to him who blessed it, the Church is
indebted for the sacrifice she presents to God : even though
they themselves are indebted to the Church for the incom­
parable (and indefectible) coefficient which her holiness
gives to their act of oblation. No, the respective parts of
the Church and of the priest do no injury to the initiative
108

MASS-OFFERINGS

of the faithful whose offering, as it travels heavenward, has
made so stupendous a fortune. The Christian has invested
well his earthly good, and the rich profit will be his, without
failing to enrich the whole Church, and her minister, and
a few others in particular.
In the light of the foregoing it will not be difficult to admit
that from the beginning the lay Christian was, in his own
eyes, as capable as the Jew of offering sacrifice ; and the
same must be said of any particular Christian community.
Among the Jews, the believer brought his sheep ; once
immolated, the priest offered it by pouring the blood upon
the altar. Afterwards, as Yahweh’s table guests, they divided
among themselves the various parts of the victim (except in
sin-offerings, where the priest took all, and in holocausts,
where nobody received anything). The sacrifice was ritually
offered by the priest ; and because of this all the sacrifices
were sacrifices of Aaron and of his sons. But the sacrifice
was also, and in a very true sense, the sacrifice of the wor­
shipper who had brought the sheep, his sheep, to offer it to
Yahweh by the hands of the priest. The priest transmitted
the sacrifice of the faithful ; what the latter offered {offerebat),
the former bound himself to present {deferebat) : more correctly
still, the priest offered on behalf of the faithful, though he
did so by divine institution and investiture. The faithful
gave a mandate to the priest to offer his sacrifice as to the
agent qualified from on'high. Were the priests paid ? No ;
but of the faithful’s oblation, entirely directed towards Yahweh
himself, they deducted after the rite was accomplished, by
virtue of a surrender which the Lord made in their favour
as well as in that of the faithful, their personal share of the
feast which had been prepared for the Lord, and of which
his altar had received the substance under the form of blood.
In this manner the priests lived by the altar, lived on the
sacrifices ; not as the salaried servants of the people, but as
the guests of the Most High.
Are we to believe that the Christian priesthood is in this
respect in a worse condition and of less nobility ? Is the
109

■i

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
priest of the New Law to be in the people’s pay and not
God’s invited guest ? Equivalently the query comes to this
whether the people still continue to offer the sacrifice, their
own sacrifice, by the hands and the ministry of the priest, and
by preparing with sufficient abundance the table of God, so
that beside the Body and Blood of his Son, there should be
also the substance, at least, of a repast to which he may invite
his minister ? Or, on the contrary, is it the priest, and he
alone, who offers a sacrifice of his own, at the people’s request
assuredly, and in return of the payment from the people,
whom he benefits by his suffrage ?1 The Hebrew worshipper
did not come to ask the priest’s suffrage, but his ministry.
He had the suffrage at his own command, and as he pleased,
since he was personally the offerer. Whoever offers, from
among men encumbered with sin and misery, offers first for
himself, and then for this one or that one whom charity lets
him consider as another self. Thus, under Judas Machabeus,
the army offered sacrifice for the soldiers slain in battle.
Among those living outside the Law, but in full agreement
with its theology of sacrifice, Job offered to the Lord victims
from his flocks and herds for the sins of his sons and daughters.
We have here suffrages for the living and suffrages for the
dead : in each case the suffrage is at the disposal of him
from whom proceeds the gift offered in sacrifice. If you
offer on my behalf, you offer truly for my benefit. But
because I offer through you, it is I myself who direct my
sacrifice, and necessarily towards the remission of my sins
and the relief of my misery, in the expectation of the sovereign
good of which I am still in want. If, besides, I wish to give
the benefit of my sacrifice to my brother, to my friend, to
my neighbour, whoever he may be, there is no need why
you should trouble yourself about giving a special direction
to your intention : it is enough that you offer on my behalf.
You offer for my intention by the very fact that you offer
1 On the difference between the personal gain drawn from his own sacrifice
by him who offers it, and the suffrage by which he causes someone else to be
benefited, see M.F., 359-360.

no

MASS-OFFERINGS
on my behalf. But, once more, the question to be settled is
whether such is the office of the Christian priest, as it was
the office of the Jewish priest. Is the parity between Jews and
Christians in this matter firmly established ?
St. Irenaeus has no doubt about it. According to him
there has been no break of continuity between the ancient
economy and the new economy of sacrifices. The 18th
chapter of the fourth Book Against Heresies is perfectly clear on
the matter. “It is not the generic character of the obla­
tion that has been reprobated. There were oblations then,
there are oblations now. The people (of God) had their
sacrifices, the Church has hers. The specific character has
been changed, for the reason that the sacrifices are no longer
offered to-day by slaves, but by free men”.1 Apart from
this difference, which results from a difference of conditions,2
we may, therefore, look for parity between the sacrifices of
Israel and the sacrifices of the Church. The ancients offered
gifts to God ; we also offer gifts to God, “ the first fruits of
creation ”,3 These gifts which we offer to God, St. Irenaeus
considers not merely as to the celestial and hidden reality
which they contain, the Body and Blood of Christ, but before
all else, as to the terrestrial and symbolical elements involved
in our eucharistie rite, the bread and the wine. In fact it
is these latter which he compares directly with the oblations
of the Old Testament.4 They are offerings of the earth,
which we direct to the altar of heaven (cap. 18, n. 6) ; the
gifts which we have received from God, who dispenses to
us our food ; “ the bread that comes to us from creation ”,
and which Jesus Christ held in his hands, saying that it is
his Body ; “ the chalice also which comes from the creation
’ “ Λοη genus oblationum reprobatum est ; oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem et
hic ; sacrificia in populo, sacrificia in Ecclesia ; sed species immutata est tantum,
quippe cum jam non a servis, sed a liberis offeratur." (18, 2, P.L.7, 1024-1029.)
8 It is meant that the Jews, slaves of the Law, not set free by the Gospel, were
restricted to offer figurative and carnal sacrifice, impotent to justify. We, by
the grace of Jesus Christ, are in a position to offer a sacrifice in spirit and in
truth, wiping out sin.
’ N. I ; cf. cap. 17, n. 4 and 5.
* Cap. 18, n. 3-6, and cap. 17, n. 5.Ill

Ill

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

to which we belong ”, and of which Jesus Christ said that
it is his Blood.1 These are our offerings, and they are very
terrestrial as to the visible covering 2 of the celestial reality.
The oblations of the Jews were borrowed from creation :
and so are the oblations of the New Covenant, by that feature
of them which is accessible to our senses, by that aspect which
symbolizes to the eye the eucharistie intention of the sacrifice.3
But there is this difference, that the oblations of the Jews
were parsimonious : they were but tithes, coming with
regret from a servile heart ; ours are liberal : they pledge
the whole man and all that pertains to man. However
small they may be to the eye, they are our all, like the widow’s
mite. They are filial offerings and they are pure, because
they spring from a pure heart which has received the Word4 ;
for it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice,
by penetrating it with the purity of its intentions : “ conscientia
ejus qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens,\ Hence they
are accepted, and rightly so, by God, at least in consideration
of the Church, which offers “ with simplicity,” that is to
say without that duplicity peculiar to him whose heart belies
the gesture of oblation.5 Thus did Paul write to the Philippians : “ I am filled (with gifts), having received from
Epaphroditus the things you sent : an odour of sweetness,
an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.” (Phil, iv, 18).
And it is under those same conditions that the Word “ wishes
us also to make our frequent oblations at the altar, without
ceasing ”6 : not that he is in need of them, but that we may
practise gratitude and bring forth fruit7: “exactly as
the Jewish people had received the precept of sacrifices,
not because God had need of them, but in order to teach
the Jews to serve God”.8
1 Cap. 17, n. 5.
2M.F., aio, sq. Cf. A. d’Alès, La doctrine eucharistique de S. Irtnle [Recherches de
Science Religieuse, 13, 1, p. 24 sq.).
3 Cap. 17, 5 and 18, 6.
4 Cap. 18, 4.
5 Cap. 18, 4.
8 Cap. 18, 6.
7 Ibid, and 17, 5.
8 Cap. 18, 6.

112

MASS-OFFERINGS
The parity, therefore, could not be established more satis­
factorily. We Christians are not less favoured with sensible
oblations, with gifts to present to God, as a .pledge of our
interior consecration, latreutic and eucharistie, than were
the children of Israel. At Philippi, as in all the rest of the
world,1 at all times, in our own as well as at the origin of
Christianity, there are oblations with which each one of us
is in duty bound to gratify God. However, our oblations,
though we are flesh and though they, too, at the start, are
of the same condition as ourselves, differ nevertheless from
the Jewish oblations in the end, when, on reaching their
term, they are found to be celestial, without ceasing
to be still in communion with our nature by their out­
ward terrestrial form. For God being called down upon
our gifts has accepted them by changing them into the Body
and Blood of his Son2 : and his acceptance is the glory of
us Christians, “ for he who offers is glorified by having the
gift he offers accepted ”.3
Such are the chief elements of the theology of St. Irenaeus
on sacrifices. We can see what room is left to the initiative
of the faithful donors, of individual offerers, while giving full
evidence of the joint intervention of the universal Church,
and safeguarding, as befits, the sacramental prerogative of
those to whom, after the apostles, have been entrusted the
eucharistie prayers,4 the words of Christ,® the invocation
of the Almighty. *
And if the faithful offer to God their sacrifices, doing so
by the indispensable mediation of the priest, it still follows
that the priest’s function, as such, is not to favour them with
his suffrage, but only to comply with his sacerdotal office
on their account, and on their behalf. Theirs is the task
of directing the suffrage in keeping with their character of
1 Cap. 17, 5-6.
» Cap. 18, 5.
»“ Quoniam û qui offert glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus."
(18, 1.)
‘ Cap. 18, 4.
‘Cap. 17, 5.
‘Cap. 18, 5.

”3

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
mediate offerers of the sacrifice. The priest cannot turn
aside that direction, the very moment he carries out their
mandate. If it is he who, across the abyss yawning between
man and God, throws the bridge by which the Divine Host is
to pass, it is they who have laden it with their messages. If
it is he who lends to our frail skiff the power of his arm through
which passes the virtue from on high, or again, if it is he, who
by the breath of the Spirit of which he disposes, fills our sails
that our gifts may touch the shore where God awaits them
in light inaccessible, it is we, humble givers, who are really
at the helm and determine the final destination and, so to
speak, the ultimate address of the vows that are our own.
We regulate our offerings. And as, in the words of Irenaeus,
we address them to the altar of heaven, so also, to the effect
that is to return therefrom to earth, we, on our own authority,
assign a destination, which will be that of our own vows.
Does the parity go further ? If the priest under the law of
the Gospel is the envoy, and, to use an expression of William
of Paris,1 the bearer of their messages, is he a gratuitous
messenger as in the Old Law, or is he a hired messenger?
On that point St. Irenaeus gives us no explicit2 information.
He merely concludes in a general way3 : “ Gifts, oblations
and sacrifices, all this the (Hebrew) people received in figure
(as was shown to Moses on the mountain) from the same
God whose name is now being glorified in the Church among
all nations.”
But we have St. Paul and his commentators on the subject.
“ Nevertheless, we have not used this power : but we bear
all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the Gospel
of Christ. Know you not that they who work in the holy
place eat the things that are of the holy place ; and that
they that serve the altar, partake with the altar? So also
the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should
1 “ Sunt ergo [sacerdotes) velut petitionarii portitores, hoc est petitionum portatores "
(William of Paris, De Sacramento Ordinis, Cap. 4).
2 Explicit : the word is not superfluous: for it is clear that the answer is given
implicitly in all the foregoing as it relates to the character of the oblations.
3 Cap. 19, I.

114

MASS-OFFERINGS

live by the Gospel. But I have used none of these things
(prerogatives) ”. (I. Cor. ix, 12-15.)
There arc two things in the reasoning whereby St. Paul
justifies the right of which he will not avail himself. There
is the subject of comparison, the sacrifices; and there is the
term compared, the preaching of the Gospel. As to the first,
he affirms the principle as unquestionable and as a matter
of course. As for the second, he appeals to a positive law,
the ordinance of the Lord, establishing the similarity. The
second is not a deduction from, nor an application of, the
first. It is a different thing, in a different category; but
it is analogous. The analogy, however, is not so clear cut
that it would authorize us, by itself, to conclude to a preacher’s
right in the same way as to a priest’s. It could only offer
an insufficient foundation. But there comes the word of the
Lord : and the gap between the two terms is closed ; the
parity of rights is established, on this : that the preacher has
a right to live without any other work than that of preaching,
in the same way as a priest lives -without any other work than
that of his assiduity at the altar. Moreover, the sustenance
of the one, as the sustenance of the other, is a charge laid upon
the faithful. There remains the difference of the manner
in which the maintenance of the one and of the other is
procured. The preacher, perhaps, will receive the donation
of the faithful as an allowance granted to him directly, yet
on account of his office, and therefore, for the sake of God,
and in that sense for God ; so much so that the two locutions
in nomine prophetae and in nomine Christi, are synonymous. Still
it is to him, to the man of God without any intermediary,1
1 We beg you to bear in mind that the description of the above process has only
the value of a mere outline. In reality and in actual life, the difference between
priest and preacher fades or even disappears, for the reason that: ist, priest and
preacher are generally one and the same person; 2nd, between the Eucharist
and preaching there is a close bond, as we shall notice again later; 3rd, and
chiefly, because the resources drawn by the priest from the altar, to the extent
in which they go beyond his personal needs, must be spent for divine worship
and for the benefit of the faithful (see further on) ; and the first expense to be
incurred for worship, the first charity to be done to the faithful, is to announce
to them the word of God. And thus the preacher will find himself compensated
by the altar.

"5

THE 4MYSTERY OF FAITH

r

«

that the transfer of the material means surrendered by the
faithful is made. For the priest, as such, the case is different.
God himself is reputed to have received the gifts dedicated to
the altar. The altar is his table, prepared here below by the
care of mortals ; and God becomes the owner of what is
spread upon it. To partake of the altar is, then, to partake
with God of what belongs to God. The priest is nourished
by God. True, it is a question (primarily at least) of the
Jewish priest. But does St. Paul’s idea restrict itself to the
Jewish priest, or does he enunciate a principle applicable
by right to every sacrificer ? That from the Jewish priest
he makes a transition to the Christian preacher is not open
to denial. He comes to the Christian preacher, because it
is of him he wishes to speak. And to do so, there is need of
a sentence of the Lord, that will extend further the principle
appealed to. But to make it apply to the Christian priest,
of whom express mention is not made, was there any need
of an evangelical oracle ? Is the application not obvious,
and even a fortiori, if we take into account the supreme dignity
of the priesthood of our Melchisedech, as compared with
that of Aaron ? If to be nourished by the altar is a preroga­
tive which St. Paul presents as the indispensable appurtenance
of that priesthood to which ours, as he teaches elsewhere,
has succeeded as reality succeeds to shadow, and the finished
work to the rough sketch, shall we have to admit that in our
priesthood that noble privilege is wanting? Is it credible?
Let us see what was the mind of the ancients on the subject.
“Take note,” St. Chrysostom1 tells us “of the wisdom
of Paul, and with what fitness (^γαλοττρρττως) he expresses
himself on this matter. He does not say : Those who attend
to the sacrifices receive (properly speaking) from those who ?
offer. No ; but what does he say ? They live on the things
of the sanctuary : and there is neither humiliation for those
who receive, nor swelling of pride for those who give. For
the same reason what follows is expressed in like mariner.
For here again he does not say : those who serve the altar ;
1 In h.r., P.G., 61, j8i.

Il6

MASS-OFFERINGS

receive from those who bring the sacrifice, but : they partake
with the altar.”
St. John Chrysostom, it is true, does not say explicitly that
Christian priests are equally spared humiliation, and the
faithful offering gifts equally safeguarded against vanity
that might arise in a man who, remunerating or providing
for the ministry of the altar, thought himself thereby the
benefactor, nay the superior, of the sacerdotal order. But
who does not see that the application is in his mind ? If he
deems such a position of inferiority unworthy of the ancient
priesthood, would he consider it less unworthy of the priest­
hood of the New Law ? We confess, however, that the
conclusion is not formulated.
St. Jerome, however, does not hesitate to draw that con­
clusion : “Altari serviens, altaris oblatione sustentor.”1 Servant
of the altar, by the altar’s gift I have my sustenance.
About the same epoch, in that compilation which has at
least the merit of representing contemporary thought, not
to mention the authority it enjoyed among jurists and theolo­
gians, the Apostolic Canons,* the aforesaid application to the
Christian priesthood is made likewise, without the least
hesitation : “ The law of God decrees that those who are
devoted to the altar be nourished by the altar.”
For the jurists of the Middle Ages, the parity between the
priests of the New Law and those of the Old Law in this
matter is self-evident. Innocent IV, on the fifth book of
the Decretals, chapter Ne praelati,3 writes : “ It is but right
and just that he who serves the altar, whether he be rich or
poor should live by the altar.”
As for the theologians, it is enough to quote St. Thomas,
treating explicitly of sacrifices.4 “The offerings,” he says,
“which the people present to god, belong to the priests,
not only to be spent for their own use, but also to be dispensed
’To Nepotian, n. 5, P.L., 22, 5.
’Can. 41, P.G., 137, 124 and P.L., 67, 146.
*h quintum decretal., tit. 4, cap. Quoniam enormis, Venice, 1570, fol. 299, cf.
Tertium, tit. 5, cap. Cum secundum Apostolum.
•Sum. Thiol. Π-Π, q. 86, a. 2.
I

117

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

by them faithfully : one part going to maintain the divine
cult1 ; another serving for their personal livelihood, because
those who serve the altar partake of the altar, as we read in
I Corinthians.”
The ancients had also occasion to build up this parity
upon a verse of Osee (iv, 8), where he says that priests “ shall
eat the sins of the people ”, that is to say, nourish themselves
from the victims offered by the people for their sins. The
sin offering did in fact return entirely to the priest. The
ancients did not shrink from applying this somewhat raw ex­
pression to the priests of the Church. Thus Julianus Foments,
in his admirable Treatise On Contemplative Life,2 wrote : “ Of
clerics the following is said by the Holy Ghost : They eat
the sins of my people ”.3 A few lines above he had remarked
that “ the revenues of the Church were nothing else than the
vows (sacrifices) of the faithful, the ransom of sins, and the
patrimony of the poor ”.4 After him, the Pseudo-Isidore5
repeats the passage borrowed from Osee (for whom he has a
special fondness) accompanying it with a gloss, which, while
spiritualizing the image, leaves intact the principle of parity
between the present and the past. This false Decretal of
Pope Alexander naturally found its way to the writings of
Fulbert of Chartres® and Gratian,7 where we read : “ Priests
intercede for the people, and the sins of the people are their
food ”.
With the forcible image left out, the same parity, based
this time on the loaves of proposition, all of which were
returned likewise to the priests,8 appears again in a pseudo*In the very first place, of course, by the eucharistie consecration.
*11, cap. x, n. 2, P.L., 59,454: “ De clericis quidem dicit Spiritus Sanctus : Peccata
populi mei comedunt.”
’Reproduced by the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 816, I, c. cvii (Mansi, 14,
214), and again, under the name of Prosper, by Gratian, Deer. p. 2, caus. 1, q. 2,
c. 7.
’Cap. 9.
5P.L·., 130, 97: " Ipsi enim sacerdotes pro populo interpellent, et peccata populi
comedunt.”
6 Decr., p. 2, c. 69.
7 Decr., p. 2, caus. 1, q. 1, c. 91.
8 It is known further that the Roman Pontifical, in the ordination of the sub­
deacon, gives this warning : “ Oblationes quae veniunt in alteri panes propositionis
appellantur.”

118

MASS-OFFERINGS

hieronymic letter to Damasus.1 This letter became later
on, with a slight revision, a decree of Damasus himself in
Gratian,2 and as such, is found quoted by St. Thomas in his
Summa.3

The impression produced by the study of all the ancients
is that the strict application of the principle of the sacerdotal
prerogative to the priests of the Christian religion needed no
proofs, neither from St. Paul nor from them. The priest
shares rightfully with the altar. He receives from God what
the faithful with their own hands gave to God.
We may remark by the way that modern interpreters are
not more exacting on this point than their predecessors.
“ (Paul) knows,” writes Fr. Prat,4 “ that under the Old Law
as under the gospel the minister of the altar lives by the
altar.” And yet, as was already observed, this is not stated
by St. Paul ; but it is implied as evident. What had to be
stated was the similarity (less perfect) between preacher and
priest, because for that question it was not possible to rely on
the Old Testament, but only on the word of Christ. Under
the Old Law the office of prophet and that of priest were two
separate functions, often in opposition, at all events entirely
different in their organisation and sources of income. Under
the New Law, prophecy, that is to say preaching, is regularly
a duty of the priesthood, and as a matter of fact creates claims
to similar means of subsistence. It is one of the reasons for
which St. Paul likes to describe the apostolic ministry under
a liturgical colouring borrowed directly5 from the Eucharist.
“ The grace is given me from God to be the liturgus (minister)
of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles, sanctifying the Gospel of
*P.L., 13, 1214: “De panibus a fidelibus in altari oblatis, quis . . . jure uti
debeat.” “ Si non licuit David et viris ejus adhuc sub umbra legis comedere panes proposi­
tionis, quando ab Ibimelech panes petit fame stimulante, quomodo nunc, Euangelio coru­
scante, persuaderi debet laicis ut oblationem panum Deo oblatorum suis usibus rapient ?
Dicit namque perinde apostolus : Qui altari serviunt, de altari participent. Ergo
quia sacerdotes pro omnibus orare solent, quorum eleemosynas et oblationes accipiunt, qua
fronte praesumunt laici oblationes, quos Christiani pro peccatis suis offerunt, vel comedere
vel aliis concedere, cum ipsi non deoeanl pro populis orare ? ”
'Decr., p. 2., caus. io, q. i, c. 15.
*11-11, q. 86, a. 2.
* Thioiogie De S. Paul, 1, 564.
‘M.F., 76.

”9

~’ΤΓ

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

God (iepoupyouvra το evayyéXtov) that the oblation (ή προσφορά)
of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified
(ηγιασμένη) in the Holy Ghost "—(Rom. xv, 15, 16). The
analogy is the more justified as the body of Christ is for us the
word of faith no less than the immolated flesh,1 and because
preaching is for that reason under the Christian economy, an
extension of the ministry of the altars, having for purpose to
nourish the members of the body of Christ by faith. But this
analogy between preaching and sacrificing does not eliminate
—on the contrary, it superimposes itself on the parity which
properly and formally exists between the Christian priesthood
and the Mosaic priesthood, as regards the table supplying the
one and the other with a livelihood.
The similarity pointed out by St. Irenaeus between the
cult-legislations of the two Testaments seems, therefore, clearly
to extend itself to the subject of the respective revenues of
the two priesthoods. They are divine sources of income;
they are goods dispensed to the priest by God. It is a sharing
on God’s part with his priest in that which through the priest’s
ministry became at first God’s property. The sustenance
which the minister of the altar draws from the altar is a table
companionship with God ; it is not a remuneration from
men. Hence, we may note, the ancients were careful to point
out that the priest must not see in it a reward (praemium), but
an allowance from on high for the support of his life, for the
support of clerics employed with the priest in the service of
the altar ; and for the support of the poor, of whom the Church
must consider herself in charge in the name of God, because
they have but God to take care of them : so that the goods of
the Church, the goods of the Father of the family, are their
patrimony. We have already heard Julianus Pomerus speaking
in this sense ; but he has much more to say : “ Those who
being in the service of the Church readily accept or (even)
exact (fees) of which they are not in need, under the idea that
therejs a debt due to them in return for their labour, are men
of too carnal a disposition, since they imagine that those who
1M.F., 230 sq.

120

MASS-OFFERINGS
serve the Church well are entitled to an earthly salary, and
not to a heavenly reward. . . . Should it happen that any
minister whatever of the Church has not the means to live,
let not the' Church give him here below a salary, but supply
him what is necessary.”1 A little before he had said : “ What
the Church owns, she owns it in common with all those who
have nothing.”1 For this reason St. Thomas, in the passage
quoted above, after having indicated two purposes already
for which the offerings of the faithful are to be used, divine
worship and the sustenance of the priest, for the rest added
the following : “ In part these offerings must also be used
for the benefit of the poor, who must be supported from the
revenues of the Church, as much as it can be done.” 3 The
assistance given to the poor is not at all detrimental to the
right of the ministers of the altar to dispose of the resources
of the altar ; this right is presupposed.4
For this reason the Apostolic Constitutions state plainly and
simply, in speaking of the oblations of the faithful, under the
name of eulogies : “ What remains of the eulogies, at the end
of the sacred mysteries, must be distributed according to the
directions of the Bishop, or of the Priests to the whole clergy.”5
We must remember that at that time the whole clergy of all
orders concelebrated.6
Such being the viewpoint of the ancients with regard to
the nature of the revenue which the priest draws from the
altar, we are prepared to hear from them this clearly formulated
principle : the faithful offer to God their own sacrifices, though
1 ’* Qui autem Ecclesiae sermoni, et labori suo velut debita reddi oportere credentes, ea
quibus opus non habent aut accipiunt libenter aut exigunt, nimis carnaliter sapiunt, si putant
quod Ecclesiae fideliter servientes stipendia terrena, ac non potius praemia aeterna percipiant.
. . . Quod si quilibet minister Ecclesiae non habeat unde vivat, non ei praemium reddat
hic, sed necessaria praestet Ecclesia.”—(Cap. io, n. 2 ; P.L., 59, 454.)
* “ Quod habet Ecclesia, cum omnibus nihil habentibus habet commune.”—(cap. 9, n. 2.)
‘Sum. Theol. Π-Π, q. 86, a. 2.
‘See St. Thomas, quoted above.
‘VIII, cap. xxxî, 2.
* It goes without saying that if a cleric, habitually engaged in the functions
of his clerical office, happened to be hindered or excused {Canon. Apostolor. 8 ;
dr. M.F., 487) from taking part in the sacrifice, he was not for that reason to be
cut off from the resources procured by the collective sacrifices of the priests and
denes of the Church ; especially in view of the fact that every occupation of a
derieal character always converges towards the eucharistie worship.

181

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
they do so by the hands of the priest. Now this is exactly
what they have not failed to tell us ; and this point we will
use as a countertest for the interpretation of their views upon
the apportioning to be made between the altar and its
ministers.
We have upon this subject, first of all, the authorities
previously brought forward.1 There are the Liturgies, and
there are Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Caesarius,
Gregory of Rome, Martin of Leon, Walafrid Strabo, and the
author of the Questions on the New and Old Testaments.
This last writer is the more worthy of note as he is more
explicit, and we might say didactic, on the question which
we are treating. At the same time he is also more careful
to let us know that he is but stating everybody’s view on the
matter. “ In all instances,” he says, “ he is said to offer,
from who proceed the oblations laid upon the altar by the
priest. In this manner did Saul offer, as people offer
to-day. So did David offer and Solomon and many others
likewise. Did they for that reason exercise the sacerdotal
ministry ? (Not at all, for) whereas the priest discharges his
own office, nevertheless that one is said to offer, in whose
name the priest is acting. The action is imputed to him whose
gifts are offered.”2 Impossible to put more things in fewer
words. We have here expressed : the rôle of offerer belonging
to the worshipper ; the indispensable ministry of the priest ;
the mandate as proxy3 which the priest receives that he may
act in the name of the faithful ; the nature of that action which
consists in having the gifts reach their destination ; we have,
in a general way, the similarity in all these points between
the New and the Old Law ; finally, the absence of any doubt
or of any divergence on the matter.
1 M.F., 339 sq.
2 Cap. 46. This passage may be set side by side with the words of William of
Paris : “ Sacerdos in altari se gerit ut ministrum et gestorem alieni negotii, videlicet negotii
ipsius Ecclesiae. . . . Ille autem agit negotium, cujus nomine agitur ; et illi fit lotum
quodfit, propter quem vel cujus nomine fit ”—(De Sacramento Ordinis, cap. v.)
’ The word “ proxy” (procurator) appears constantly from the pen of William
of Paris (op. cit.) ; true, it occurs in reference not to any of the faithful in particular
but (as required by the subject treated by him) in reference to the whole Church.

122

MASS-OFFERINGS
Tertullian, St. Gregory (and later St. Peter Damian) con­
sider the case of a widower offering the sacrifice for his deceased
spouse. We give their own rather expressive style. “ What ! ”
Tertullian tells the married widower, “ you will dare to bring
before God the memory of two wives ? And you will offer
for the two of them ? You will recommend them both by a
priest ordained as monogamous, nay consecrated in his
virginity . . . and your sacrifice will have the impudence to
mount up to God ?”1 Elsewhere it is a question of a woman
“offering on the anniversaries of her husband’s death”.2
There can be no doubt3 but that it is a question in these
two passages of the sacrifice of the Mass. Again we are told
by St. Gregory of a woman offering, but for her husband
presumed dead, although in reality a prisoner in the hands of
barbarians : “ On set days she was in the habit of offering
for him the sacrifice.”4 As a matter of fact “ it was every
week that she took care to offer for him hosts ; and as often
as she offered Hosts, so often in prison were the captive’s
fetters broken.”5 Since the similarity of the subject invites
us to quote St. Peter Damian, it is worth while to note that
the offerer—a true widow this time, who had been unlucky
in the choice of her celebrant—had made it a practice to put
up her offering in three portions, roast chicken, bread, and wine.
They were the gifts of the oblation {oblationis xenia) as the
context6 shows, for the eucharistie celebration. The sequel
proved, according to St. Peter Damian, that it is preferable to
give alms to the poor than to “ entrust one’s oblation into the
hands of a priest leading a carnal life.”7
Here we have placed before us offerers of both sexes, offering
the sacrifice because they spread the table not merely for
the repast of the priest, but for the liturgical celebration ;
whether they assist at it or not (as a matter of fact in the
1 De exhortatione castitatis, II, P.L., s, 926-927.
1 De monogamia, 10, P.L., 2, 942.
3M.F. 221-222.
1 Dial. 4, 57, P L· 77, 424·
s In Evangelia, hom. 38, n. 8, P.L. 76, 1279.
• De bono suffragiorum, 6.
’ Cap. 5 and 7.

123

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

case related by St. Peter Damian the offering is made by a
delegate).
St. Augustine is in remarkable agreement with the foregoing.
He bewails the captivity of Christian women, taken by force
and carried off by barbarians, like the Hebrews of old, into
countries where they could not sacrifice : “ thus they can
no longer bring their oblations to the altar of God, nor find
a priest through whom they offer to God”.1 Had not his
teacher, St. Ambrose, written to Theodosius, when depriving
him of the right to offer at the altar : “ Thou shalt offer,
when thou shalt have received back the power to sacrifice,
when thy hostia can be accepted by God”.1
2 Had not St.
Cyprian, and after him, St. Caesarius, both in turn, insisted
on the right of the offerers in their sacrifice, to the point of
charging with larceny the intruder who came to receive com­
munion without having contributed to the offering ? “ You
are rich and affluent”, St. Cyprian tells an avaricious lady,
“ and you imagine that you are celebrating the mystery of
the Lord ... when you come to it without (bringing) a
sacrifice, when you take your share of the sacrifice which a
poor person has offered”.3 Here is a poor Christian who
has offered the sacrifice, because he put into it something of
his own ; she, on the contrary, who comes empty-handed
is not of the number of those offerers to whom the sacrifice,
by reason of its matter, is reputed to belong. St. Caesarius
says likewise : “ Bring your oblations to have them conse­
crated upon the altar. Those who possess the means to do
so should be ashamed to communicate of another’s obla­
tion ”.4 Therefore, the Eucharist is by a special title, and
from a certain point of view by an exclusive title, the pos­
session of those whose offerings it represents.
Walafrid Strabo5 gives us to understand the reason. If
one is author of the sacrifice because his are the oblations,
1 Ep. in, 8, P.L., 33, 426.
1 Ep. 51, 15, P.L., 16, 1163.
’ De opere et eleemosyna, 15, P.L., 4, 612-613.
4 Appendix to the Sermons of St. Augustine, 265, P.L., 39, 2238,
8 De ecclesisticantm rerum exordiis el intrementis, 22.

124

MASS-OFFERINGS
the reason is precisely because they are destined to be con­
verted into the Body and Blood of our Victim who is the true
gift, the unique Gift offered by the Church of God. Assist
at the whole mass, he warns, and do not believe that it is
preferable to pass with offerings from one mass to another,
without assisting at any. “It is more reasonable to offer
where you wish to remain throughout, in order that after
having offered your gift to the Lord, you may also offer him
a devout prayer, that the gift may be accepted. Not without
good reason do we say at the Canon : Qui tibi offerunt, and
not Qui tibi obtulerunt ; it is to give us to understand that we
must persist in offering until the oblations have attained
the end for which they were offered ”. For we are not
ignorant “ that only one died for us all, and that (conse­
quently) one is the Bread and the Blood, the offering of the
universal Church”. What could be more thorough? On
the part of the universal Church the offering is unique, as to
its truth or reality, which is that of the redeeming Hostia.
And yet it is none the less, from another angle, the particular
offering of the faithful, who have their oblations consecrated
in order that at the end there may be the Divine Host, offered
in their name and accepted on their behalf. You have offered
your gift to the Lord ; try to have it accepted : this will not
be done until the gift of the private individual has become
by the consecration the gift of the whole Church. Wherefore,
centuries earlier, Pope Innocent I, in his famous letter to
Decentius of Gubbio,1 inculcated the principle that by the
Canon {precem} the priest renders acceptable {commendeQ
to God the oblations of those who gave them and whose
names will be read. It is their Hostia the priest offers to
God {cujus hostiam Deo offeras}. The fortune of this letter
among the liturgists and jurists of the Middle Ages is well
known.
Finally, those who look for a complete theory, not, of course,
stated in legal terminology, but yet readily intelligible in all
its elements, may draw it from St. Martin of Leon, in his
1 Ep. 25, c. 2, P.L., 20, 553-554.

125

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

Twenty-third Sermon On the Supper of the Lord.1 He is address­
ing priests : “ For the celebration of masses,” he tells them,
“ do not accept a salary (praemium), for fear of incurring the
condemnation of the traitor Judas. Seek not to sell for a
corruptible metal, gold or silver, the Body of the Lord, dreadful
to all the principalities of heaven, venerable to the powers,
adorable to the angelic spirits, that you may not have to
undergo in hell the just punishment for so great a crime.
To sell again for money the Body of the Lamb without spot
or stain, Jesus Christ, is not a profitable but a damnable thing.
He, once for all, did offer himself for us with good will (sua
sponte) to his Father upon the altar of the Cross. If you have
received the gifts of the Holy Ghost gratuitously, do not sell
them for money. Therefore, most beloved, be sure to cele­
brate Mass for the honour of God alone, for your salvation,
and for that of the whole Church. If some one, through
some necessity, requests of you to offer sacrifice in the presence
of God Almighty, either for his own salvation, or for the
release of his departed relatives, do not exact anything from
him (nihil ab eo exigentes), but perform gratuitously (charitatice)
what he asks of you. What he offers of his own accord (quae
sponte obtulit), accept it, not as a payment (pretium), but as a
gift of god. Churchmen are allowed to accept what the
faithful offer spontaneously to god, and to offer without
intermission prayers for all the faithful both living and dead.
Whence this axiom : Those who sene the altar partake with the
altar. Therefore, for the faithful living and dead offer to God
the Father the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ ; and without having recourse to exaction (nulla
exactione facta) or to a pact, receive what the children of the
Church shall have piously offered to god. . . . The
whole thing is not to seek, in return for the ministry of sacrifice,
any salary (pretium), but to accept what has been freely
offered to god. For the oblations are not offered to the
priest only, but to the Supreme Pontiff, Jesus Christ ”. We
should have preferred in this passage a clearer statement of
1 P.L., ao8, 920 sq.

126

MASS-OFFERINGS
the obligation of justice incumbent upon the priest by reason
of the offerings which he holds in trust as transmission agent.
Perhaps it is implied ; at all events the stress is laid on some­
thing else. What is the point of attack of St. Martin of Leon ?
It is simony. What does he reject ? Every pact superadded
to the one which is implied in the fact of accepting gifts for
transmission to God, to whom they are destined in the minds
of the faithful. That is sufficient : the priest will celebrate ;
God and Jesus Christ, God and the altar, will surrender to
him the portion destined for his subsistence. There will be
no “ repayment ” (praemium, pretium) from the faithful ; but
there will be a “ gift from God.” Everything will have
taken place gratuitously (charitative, gratis, sponte). Not a
shadow of a bargain has appeared ; the divine Hostia has
not been the object of an exchange, nor has the action of the
priest been pledged for a temporal gain : no locatio operae, no
contract do ut facias, no modal donation, etc. All that is
excluded by Martin of Leon. He will have none of those
pacts whereby the grant of a spiritual benefit is made sub­
ordinate to the concession of a temporal benefit. There is
no contractual reciprocity between a sacerdotal action and a
material subsidy. For there has not been any material
subsidy or assistance given to the priest ; but only a humble
offering made to God, to Jesus Christ, to the altar ; and the
priest shares in it merely as the natural and rightful guest
of the altar and of Jesus Christ and of God.
As for the liturgies, it will be enough to recall their general
tenor. The Anaphora of Serapion, immediately after the Epiclesis,
contained these words : “ Receive, Lord, the eucharist of
your people, and bless those who have offered the oblations
and the eucharists.” The same expressions are used in the
Greek Liturgy of St. fames : “ Remember, Lord, those who
have offered to-day these oblations upon thy holy altar, and
those for whom each one has offered ”, Still more explicit
is the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark : “ Accept, O God, the
Hostiae, the oblations, the eucharistie gifts of those who offer
them to thee ”. And do not we ourselves, in the Canon of

{

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

the Roman Missal, beseech God to remember “ those who
offer up to (him) this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all
their own, for the ransom of their souls, in the hope that he
will keep them safe and sound, as well as those who pay their
vows (sacrifices) to (him) true God, living and eternal ” ?
To these texts may be added ever so many prayers (secrets
and others) met with in the sacramentaries and missals, as
for instance the following of the third votive mass of the
Sacramentary of Bobbio : “ God all powerful and all merciful,
to whom vows are rendered in Jerusalem, hear the prayers
of thy servant [who is having the mass said], remember his
sacrifice and render his holocaust plentiful.” In the Mozarabic
votive mass called Singularis, the people are blessed before
communion in these terms : “ May your vows and your
sacrifices be replenished with divine grace, clemency and
benignity ”, Everywhere we see the one who had the
mass said presented to God as the author of the sacrifice.
Whether he was an individual person or a congregation,
there was, as regards the essence of things, no difference
whatever.
The congregation that raises funds for parochial masses,
and the individual worshipper who defrays the expense of
a votive mass, stand in the same identical relation to the
sacred action and its term ; there is no other difference than
that of an individual offerer, and of a collective offerer ; but
offerer in either case. Such is the result reached by com­
paring our liturgical prayers, and such the confirmation given
to the teaching gathered from the lips of the Fathers and the
ecclesiastical writers.
All these documents, whether liturgical or patristic, have
already been brought forward in a previous study devoted
to this subject.1 Others may be added.
Before all others, the liturgy of the Roman Pontifical for the
dedication of Churches may be consulted, for the purpose
of learning what the Church thinks of the altars she consecrates.
The Pontifical's answer is eloquent. The chrism has been
1 M.F., lot. (it.

128

MASS-OFFERINGS
flowing upon the table of stone, a cloud of incense has spread
about it, and the Bishop is speaking : “ Lord, our God, let
thy Spirit descend, we beseech thee, upon this altar, to sanctify
thereon our gifts and those of thy people {qui et dona
nostra et populi tui in eo sanctificet), and to purify worthily the
hearts of those who communicate {et sumentium corda dignanter
emundet) ”. What that altar will carry will be the gifts of
the people as well as of the priest ; and these same the Spirit
is to sanctify ; and once sanctified, the faithful will receive
them through communion. Now what do they receive, if
not the Victim of the sacrifice ? But again what do they
receive according to that prayer, if not their own gift ? Not
two things, but one : because the gift has become the Victim,
without ceasing to be gift, and gift of those who gave it. Let
us give ear again. A new unction is performed, and this
time the Bishop turns to the faithful : “ Most dear brethren,
let us entreat God our Lord to bless and consecrate this stone,
anointed with the oil of holy unction, that it may receive
the vows and sacrifices of his people ; and (let us pray)
that the unction which we have performed, may be made in
his name, and that this altar may carry the vows of the people.”
Once more the altar is incensed and the choir chants :
“ Moses raised an altar to the Lord God ; and upon it he
offered holocausts. Immolating victims, he made to the
Lord God an evening sacrifice, unto an odour of sweetness,
in presence of the people of Israel ”. And the Bishop resuming,
proceeds : “ Let us implore, dearly-beloved brethren, the
mercy of God the Father Almighty, in order that, moved
by the ministry of our (suppliant) voice, he may sanctify by
the favour of his blessing this altar destined to be spread with
spiritual sacrifices (i.e. heavenly as to their reality and sacra­
mental as to their appearance, in contradistinction to the
carnal sacrifices of Moses1), and that he deign always to
bless and sanctify the oblations which his servants shall place
upon it with the eagerness of a holy devotion ; so that
appeased by a spiritual incense (i.e. by the eucharistie Sacri1 M.F., 228 sq.

129

r

jt

4 ·

4

s

I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
ί

fice), he may not delay answering the prayers of his family
with his assistance, through Jesus Christ our Lord ”, Next,
the words are addressed to God himself : “ O Lord, we
humbly beseech thy majesty, deign to bless and sanctify
mightily this altar anointed with the libations of the holy
chrism to receive the gifts of thy people {ad suscipienda
populi tui munera) ... so that whatever shall henceforth be
offered and consecrated upon it {quidquid deinceps super illud
oblatum sacratumque fuerit may become a holocaust worthy
of thee ”. Finally : “ As thou didst accept the oblation
of Melchisedech, thy sovereign priest, deign likewise ever to
receive favourably the gifts with which this new altar will be
loaded, in order that thy people gathered together in this
holy house of the Church, may, thanks to these libations, be
saved by the effect of a celestial sanctification, and that (all)
may obtain the eternal salvation of their souls, through our
Lord Jesus Christ. Amen ”, What follows from all this ?
Is it not that the sacrifice is looked upon as being the sacrifice
(at least every time the faithful wish it) of the people ? Is it
not that the sacrifice is their sacrifice because it is their obla­
tion, their gift, deposited upon the altar and transformed
assuredly by the action of the sanctifying Spirit, but neverthe­
less offered to God, accepted by God, as the tribute of those
who have defrayed it ? Is this much not clear and evident ?
What else is necessary to make us understand what the altar
is, what are the gifts of the altar, and the providers of the
altar, and the ministers of the altar, and finally the sacrifice
of the altar ? Also what relation springs up between all these
elements and factors of one and the same sacred action?
Now, let any one read over again the rite of the Dedication,
and he will see that the above theme is its leitmotiv rehearsal
under twenty different forms, of which the above are only
instances. Lex orandi, lex credendi. It would be profitable for
theology, dogmatic and moral, and even for canon law, to
take greater notice of liturgical data. The Pandects may be
useful : but they are only next in order.
What a luminous commentary these beautiful formulas of
130

MASS-OFFERINGS

j
J
I

the Pontifical receive, in the ancient missals, from prayers
like the following, for instance, for the faithful about to undertake a journey : “ Accept, O Lord, these votive sacrifices
of thy servants (so and so). . . . May they reach the place
they desire ”, etc.1
There is no doubt—it is the mass, the sacrifice, of the

}

TRAVELLERS.

•
.

.
\

Let us come back to the Fathers. St. Augustine has already
let us know his mind in a particular case. His thought is now
taking the form of a general theory, intended to illustrate
the dogma of the redeeming Sacrifice.2 Those who offer
their sacrifices to false divinities are not aware that not only
is sacrifice due to the true God alone (otherwise the devil
himself would take no pleasure in usurping its honours), but
that as a matter of principle “ it cannot be offered in the
manner required except by a priest holy and just ; and then
only on condition that he has received what he offers
FROM THOSE ON BEHALF OF WHOM HE OFFERS ; and also that
it be something free from every flaw, in order to be a fit
offering for the cure of our defects. At least, he concludes,
such is the ambition of all those who desire that sacrifice be
offered to God for them ”. Here you have a general theory
of sacrifices, theory not based on revelation alone, but on the
law of nature, since it is broad enough to cover the field of
the sacrifices of the whole world, that is to say, to adapt itself
(according to St. Augustine) to the intention of all those who
have sacrifices offered : therefore, pagans as well as Jews and
Christians. Now what, among other things, do we find in
that theory ? This : that the priest must receive the matter
of the sacrifice from the one who has recourse to his ministry.
How this applies to the sacrifice of redemption—in a manner,
of course, quite analogous—St. Augustine takes pains afterwards to explain. It may be worth while to remark that this
passage did not escape the notice of the Middle Ages : it

Î*
Domine, haec famulorum tuorum N, votiva sacrificia : perveniant ad locum
çsem deriderant, etc.—ififozarabic Missal, Missa de itinerantibus, bost-bridie, P.L...
9Æ997.)
’Trâ., 4, 14.

*31

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
holds a place among the Decrees of Yves of Chartres,1 and of
Gratian.2
Before them, Heterius and Beatus, in their letter to Elipandus,3
had appropriated the first part of it, adding to it the following
significant clause which emphasizes the claim of ownership
upon the Host : “ And this sacrifice which is offered no one
may eat or drink but those for whom it is offered ”.4
Is not this also the proper place to call attention to a curious
expression of St. Gregory,5 in reference to an oblation sent
by St. Benedict to a neighbouring Church for the repose of
the souls of two nuns whom he had excommunicated : “ The
excommunication which they had incurred was not lifted, until
THIS OBLATION HAD BEEN IMMOLATED for them ” (dum pTO CIS
oblatio fuisset immolata). Quite a strong realism this, stressing
vigorously the continuity of the sensible gift and of the invisible
Hostia.
One of the most noteworthy and most eloquent witnesses
available would be St. Fulbert of Chartres, if his text did
not need a correction, of the nature of which there is hardly
a doubt. His forty-third letter is an answer to a question
about those who offer, probably the same question that
had already been raised by Walafrid Strabo : how can we
say at Mass : qui tibi offerunt, if the persons of whom we speak
are not there present with us to offer ? We give the solution
of Fulbert : “ This scruple about the offerers may be solved
thus : while we are sacrificing, they on whose behalf we are
acting offer the sacrifice of praise to God by our hands ”. ·
Therefore be at ease ; absent though they be, they never­
theless do offer, for we, by sacrificing, act on their account,
1 Deer. p. 2, c. 107.
8 Deer. p. 2, Can. 1, q. 1, c. 95.
3 Ado. Elipandum, 1, 67, P.L., 96, 936. “ Neque potest hoc sacrificium quod offertur
a quibuscumque comedere et bibere [read: comedi et bibi] nisi tantum ab ipsis pro quibus
offertur.”
* For the question of what ground there is for this exclusiveness of the claim
on the Host on the part of the offerer, consult M.F., 553.
5 Dial. 2, 23, P.L., 66, 178.
• “Scrupulus autem ille de offerentibus ita solvi potest, quod, dum sacrificamus, dii pro
quibus agitur, per manus nostras offertur [read offerunt] Deo sacrificum laudis.”—(Ep., 43,
P.L., 186, 224.)

132

I’

h

MASS-OFFERINGS

and therefore they offer to God, through our mediation, the
eucharistie sacrifice. It is the application of the axiom of
the Law : Qui mandat ipse fecisse videtur.1 They transmit
through our hands what they dedicated to God : present
or absent, theirs is the offering. Nevertheless in this “ scruple ”
we get a glimpse of the reason for the addition, which in
his time the author of the Micrologus2 deplored as contrary to
antiquity : pro quibus tibi offerimus {vel qui tibi offerunt). They
are absent ; they are not here to offer their own sacrifice :
let us, then, say for greater security : “ Remember, Lord,
thy servants, men and women . . .. for {cya. behalf of )
whom we offer to thee (notwithstanding their absence), or who
(if they are themselves present) offer to thee (through
us) this sacrifice of praise.” They offer so truly that in
common language we find no difficulty in saying that they
sacrifice. Berlendi3 gives as an example the following
expression of a biographer of the Empress St. Gunegond,
widow of the Emperor St. Henry : “ After the reading of
the Gospel, according to a custom she invariably observed,
she drew near the altar in order to sacrifice upon it,” 4 that
is to say, to carry there her gifts. And going back to her
place, she is said to return from the sacrifice.5
But after all, did we not already hear St. Ambrose telling
us that Theodosius, on the day appointed, would begin again
to sacrifice? On the other hand, it does not seem that any
account should be taken of the many instances of “celebration
of masses” by lay persons, men or women, whom Berlendi® ·
has collected in the same part of his work. Celebrare missam
1 See above “ Questions on the Old and on the New Testament,” and William of
Paris.
»C. 13, P.L., 151, 985.
’ De oblationibus, p. 255.
* “ Cum post lectionem evangelii, suo solemni more sacrificatura accederet ad altare.”
—(Vita S. Cunegundis, n. 10, P.L., 140, 212.)
‘ “ Post sacrificium rediens ” (loc. cit.)
* He might have added cases of “ celebrations ” by clerics of an order below
the priesthood. Thus of Alcuin, who was only a deacon, his biographer writes:
“ Cekbrat omni die Missarum solemnia multa.” (Vita B. Alcuini, n. 96, P.L., too,
104.) In spite of appearances, it is not a question of solemn masses, but of private
masses, in which it is not even likely that Alcuin acted as deacon. He simply
assisted at Mass.

«

133

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
or celebrare missarum solemnia, in all the examples adduced,
can be understood of the simple fact of going to Mass or
assisting at it. This acceptation of the word celebrare is
thoroughly Latin.1 It would perhaps have been of more
importance to call attention to certain passages of medieval
biographies, where we meet with a layman “ offering ” mass.
This means that he had it celebrated at his expense. For
instance we read of the Emperor Otho, after a victory :
“ These events having been accomplished, the king with
his army offered a sacrifice of praise to Christ, who in all
things had granted his wish, and had given strength to his
arm against the enemy.”2
At all events, we may stop here our inquiry on the chief
point : does the fact of setting the table of God for the
sacrifice and at the same time for God’s associate, the priest,
constitute a claim of oblation so special that it cannot be
identified with any other? It seems really that the voice
of antiquity is unanimous. The authors of the sacrifice,
in a manner which is proper and personal to them, are the
faithful whose gifts are by the priest’s hands addressed to God
under the form of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ ; and
as to what remains (disposal of which is not a matter of choice,
but an indispensable requisite) they are gifts that must, under
their natural form, serve for the maintenance of the minister
of the altar, who thus is the altar’s guest jure divino.
The sacrifice belongs to the faithful as it belongs to no
one else. We are prepared, therefore, to see them dispose
of it in a special manner, in favour of whomsoever they
please. The unity which charity establishes among all the
children of God, between all the members of the Body of
Christ, allows each one of us to consider as another self any
one who is actually or potentially incorporated in the living
unity which the Church forms with Christ in God. And
therefore, whoever possesses by a special right for himself
* See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. . . . Academiarum Quinque Germanicarum.
» “ His itaque peractis, rex cum exercitu suo Christa offerebat sacrificium laudis, qui in
omnibus suum impleverat votum, et contra inimicos confortaverat manum.”—(tïta S.
Mathildis, n. 15, P.L. 135, 905. See below.)

*34

MASS-OFFERINGS
the propitiatory and impetratory power of the sacrifice, can
also avail himself of it in particular for that other self, his
neighbour. By so doing, he does not get away from himself ;
and thus the suffrage is nothing but the extension or com­
pletion of the personal benefit that accrues to every offerer
from the oblation accepted by God. With the special oblation
goes a special suffrage. He who has loaded the altar with
his gifts not only draws a special fruit for himself, but is free
to share it jointly with those to whom charity unites him.
It would appear as though the question of the stipend and
its bearing on the celebration and application of the mass,
should be considered settled. It is the Christian’s sheep,
as it was of old the Jew’s. It goes over to God by a ministry
not paid from below, but endowed from above, and the
dower of the new priesthood, like that of the old, is the com­
munity of acquired goods, for ever established by God, between
the priest and the altar.
In fact the question would now be settled, the conclusion
would impose full acceptance, did there not remain the task
of dissipating what seem to be contrary reasons, which till
now, strangely enough, have succeeded in concealing from
the eyes of the most skilful critics the reality of things. Berlendi himself, in spite of the habitual correctness of his views,
seems to have been deceived occasionally,1 as well as Mabillon, *
and so many others, and in our own days the distinguished
author of the article Honoraire de Messes, in the Dictionnaire de
Théologie Catholique. It is time to examine these reasons.
JP. 278, sq. and 476.
‘Acia Sanctorum O.S.B, Saecul. III. pars 1, praef. n. 62.

>3

ISS

,tll:

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

All the objections are centred on one point. Their aim is
to shatter that substantial identity, taken for granted in all
that precedes, between the ancient “ oblations ” made by the
faithful to the altar and the modem “ stipends ” of masses.
Differences are adduced, which are taken from the offerer,
from the offering, from the recipient of the offering, from the
relationship established between these various factors.1
As regards the offerer, objection is made against the transi­
tion from a group to an individual. As regards the offering,
objection is made against the transition from foodstuffs to
money. Objection is also made against the difference between
an oblation made ceremonially during Mass, and a payment
made apart from any liturgical celebration, nay, long before
or long after. As regards the recipient, we are reminded that
the stipend goes to a particular priest, and not to the whole
clergy in a body. Finally and chiefly, it is objected, we have
the contractual obligation of celebrating and applying the
mass, obligation unknown, we are told, to the ancients and
current in our days.2
To tell the truth, the first point, transition from a group
1 Occasionally one comes across an objection which we shall not take up here.
There were in ancient times, we are told, oblations entirely unrelated to the
Mass. Therefore, it is not possible to identify oblations and stipends.—It is quite
evident that in comparing stipends with oblations, we are dealing exclusively
with oblations made in reference to the Mass, those which the liturgies or the
Fathers call the Hosts, the sacrifices of the faithful, and not with any others having
no relation to the Mass. In our days also there are a number of oblations without
any bearing on the sacrifice, and they are certainly very different front the
stipend: those namely that custom approves and the law sanctions on the
occasion of the sacraments.
’The objections are mainly those of the Spaniard Mostazzo, in his treatise
De Causis piis, V, xii. It is difficult not to call attention to the insufficiency of
this dissertation, which in thoroughness cannot compare with Thomassin, and
as regards general information is far surpassed by Berlendi.

Ι3θ

MASS-OFFERINGS
I
/
I
I

to an individual, hardly deserves notice. Whether a moral
or a physical person is found at the outset of a liturgical procedure, what is the difference ? May not a number of persons,
for instance the whole parish, or a portion of the community,
concert together to offer the sacrifice actively, let us say, to
furnish the adequate matter (more or less rich and abundant)
of a sacrifice ? But is not such also in our days a common
practice ? Are there no cities that have masses said, or
municipal councils, or athletic associations, or organizations
of war veterans, or groups of young men, or sodalities of the
Blessed Virgin, or confraternities, or clubs, or merely a chance
assembly of friends who contribute together in favour of a
departed companion ? From the point of view we are taking
at the moment, which is that of many as opposed to one,
how does it at all differ from the sjynaxes of the early Christians ?
Besides, is there in our present code a difference between that
collective stipend and the individual stipend of Peter or of
Paul ? There is not ; the same rules govern the one and the
other. Again, is it true that the oblations of the early Christians
were always collective ? Those widowers and widows who
solemnized with a sacrifice the anniversary of their dead,
were they not individual offerers ? Unless we take it for
granted that the anniversary invariably coincided with the
public synaxis, which is absurd. So true is it that they were
sacrifices of individuals, as regards the oblations, that for a
long time the practice prevailed of not admitting the public
to the offertory at these masses, and not to give them com­
munion (for offering and communion were in the minds of
the ancients regularly associated with each other). But
instances of this kind are few. As we meet them in literature,
yes ; but as facts, what do we know ? The ancients were not
busy writing diaries to give us information of the doings in
their daily life. Besides, those instances are quoted as occur­
rences by no means unusual, and even (by Tertullian) as
ordinary happenings. But at any rate those individual
offerings took place on anniversaries only. And even if that
were so, the principle was established : whether its application
»37

ij

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

was rare or not, it would still be true that the individual
oblation was a matter of tradition as early as the middle of
the third century, alongside of the collective oblation, and
that their so-called incongruity does not seem to have struck
the minds of those times.1 There was already in those days
the individual offerer, as later on we see the title of offerers
given by liturgies to each and all of the faithful who contribute
towards the celebration of one and the same sacrifice. But
there is something else : the case is not restricted to anni­
versaries. Here is an instance of an individual oblation
occurring as early as the first half of the fourth century, and
unconnected with any death or burial. To Thomassin2 (if
I am not mistaken) goes the credit of having exhumed it
from the oblivion wherein the anecdotes of Epiphanius
are too readily allowed to remain buried. Epiphanius3 got
the fact from a converted Jew, a person of importance, whom
Constantine had created a count, by the name of Joseph of
Tiberias. This count, much later, under the reign of Con­
stantius, related the fact to Epiphanius, as having been an
eye-witness “ through the cracks of a door.” A certain
Hillel, a descendant of Gamaliel, and “ patriarch ” of the
Jews, had himself baptized secretly on his death bed by the
bishop of Tiberias, and at the same time initiated (as was but
proper) into the “ sacred mysteries ” of the Eucharist. After
the ceremonies “ he handed to the bishop a considerable
quantity of gold, saying to him : Offer for me (ττρόσ-φςρε
vTrep è/zoû).” It is exactly the case of a Christian offering
individually, as was done neither more nor less by the widowers
and widows spoken of by Tertullian, or later by St. Gregory,
but with this difference, that the sacrifice is to be celebrated
1 The same objection could just as well be made against the substantial identity
of the sacerdotal action of to>-day with that of old. For of old priests did not
celebrate individually, but collectively; and such is still the rule in the churches
of the Oriental rite. Are we to conclude that the rôle of the celebrant of to-day
is no longer the same as that of the celebrant of primitive Christianity, or that
the. Latin priests and the Greek Catholic priests have different conceptions of
their respective powers?
2 Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, pars ΙΠ, lib. I, cap. 70, n. 2. Berlendi (p. 295)
is mistaken in mentioning the fact as never quoted before.
2 Haeres. 30, n. 4-6.

I38

(

<
j

<

'

i
|
’

MASS-OFFERINGS

for him, and not for someone departed.1 St. Epiphanius
tells the story with its sequels, as something strange from
several angles, on which he dilates at length, but he does not
by any means view it as having the character of an unusual
practice. It is even likely that the neophyte acted in con­
formity (though perhaps with exceptional generosity) with
usages known to him.
Moreover, as liturgists have not been slow in observing,
the increasing number of private masses2 tended naturally
to favour the practice of individual offerings. This practice,
in turn, received a new stimulus, and certainly a suitable
expression, from the liturgy of masses called “ votive ”, not
in the present meaning of that word, but in the old meaning
of masses especially requested by someone, and satisfying
an individual believer’s own offering, vow, sacrifice, or that
of a group, in contrast with the ordinary masses of a parish
or of a community. We have already seen examples of these
votive masses. Here is another instance, taken from the
Gelasian Sacramentary ; it is a mass for the head of a family in
his house3 : “ Infra actionem : Do thou, therefore, O Lord,
we beseech thee, graciously accept this oblation of this thy
servant, which he offers to thee for his vows and desires and
for the safeguard of his home. Be propitious unto him, while
I implore for him in his own house the help of thy Majesty,
1 One feels tempted to compare with this story an anecdote which Fr. Ortolan
(D.T.C., Honoraires de Messes, col. 74) takes from the Life of St. John the Almoner
by Leontius of Naptouse (c. 9, n. 50, in the Acta Sanctorum, January 23rd, Antwerp
1643,p.508; or c. 25, in P.L. 73,362). But as a matter of fact, it is not a question
here of a mass-offering, but of a simple alms with a request for prayer. There­
after the saint celebrates, as it appears, without the donor being aware of it.
The example of Ulthrogothe, mentioned by Gregory of Tours (De miraculis S.
Martini, I, J2, P.L., 71, 926), or that of St. Benedict quoted above, has not, in
the subject matter, any proving force: since it does not appear with certainty
that either the queen or the saint offered alone. As for the testimony of St. Bede
(Hist. Eccl., IV, 22. P.L. 95, 205-207), it deals only with mass-offerings (in kind
or in money, it matters little) for people presumed to be dead, as in the case of
the widow spoken of by St. Gregory.
* See how St. Gregory forcibly distinguishes public masses from those that are
not such, in his letter to Felix de Pesaro (Ep. I, 6, 46. P.L. 77).
’ Compare the above with the letter in which St. Gregory enjoins upon John
of Syracuse to allow Mass to be said in the house of Venantius, with whom he
had fallen out, and even to go there himself, if it could help towards reconcilia­
tion.

Î39

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
that thou mayest send him thy holy angel to keep watch over
all who dwell in this house ”.x It is his sacrifice he is offering
to thee, he, the father of the family, in whose home I celebrate.
This same Sacramentary, whose venerable antiquity is well
known, would make it easy for us to multiply instances. There ' ·
is a mass for a birthday anniversary : “ Secret. Hear, Lord,
our supplications and accept with loving-kindness the oblation
of this thy servant which he offers to thee for the anniversary
of his birth, the day when thou didst bid him come forth from
his mother’s womb
“ Infra actionem : This oblation, then,
of this thy servant, which he offers thee in order to celebrate
the anniversary of his birth, the day when thou didst bid him
be bom of his mother’s womb into this world, that he might
·ί
know thee, the true and living God : we beseech thee, Lord,
do thou mercifully accept ; for with that intention does he
render his vows to thee, O true and living God.”2
i
The style is the same in the mass for the one who defrays
j
the expenses of an agape,3 in the nuptial mass,4 in the mass
for the thirtieth anniversary of a marriage,5, etc. In each
mass there is someone who, through the priest’s mediation,
i
offers the mass, his mass. The individual oblation was as
classical as the collective one. Was it more frequent, or less
frequent, we could not say : no doubt the practice varied
considerably in different countries.
i
The instance related of Hillel, while testifying to the in!
dividuality of the offering, furnishes also an answer to the

Γt/.

1 “ Infra actionem: Hanc igitur oblationem famuli tui illius, quam tibi offert pro
votis et desideriis suis atque pro incolumitate domus suae placatus suscipias deprecamur :
pro quo in hac habitatione auxilium tuae majestatis deposco, ut mittere ei digneris angelum
tuum sanctum, ad custodiendos omnes in hac habitatione. Per. ...” (Sacr. Gei. 3,
73. Ed. Wilson, p. 284. P.L. 74, 1225.)
3 “ In natale genuinum. Secreta : Adesto, Domine, supplicationibus nostris, et hanc
oblationem famuli tui illius, quam tibi offert ob diem natalis sui genuinum, quo die eum
de maternis visceribus in hunc mundum nasci jussisti, placidus et benignus assume.” Infra
actionem: Hanc igitur oblationem famuli lui illius, quam tibi offert, diem natalis sia
celebrans genuinum, quo die eum de maternis visceribus in hunc mundum nasci jussisti, ad
te cognoscendum Deum verum et vivum, placatus suscipias deprecamur : ob hoc igitur reddit
tibi vota sua Deo vivo et vero ” etc.—(Sacr. Gei., 3, 53, Ed. Wilson, 269. P.L., 74,
1215·)
3 Sacr. Gei. 3, 48, Ed. Wilson, 262, P.L. 74, 1212.
* Ibid. 3, 52, Wilson, 265. P.L. 74. 1213-1214.
4 Ibid.

140

!
I
:
!

, I
**j
l

i

?

MASS-OFFERINGS
objection drawn from the substitution of gifts in money for
gifts in kind. We see that the equivalence of the two kinds
of gifts can bring to its support ancient testimonies.1 If the
rule of St. Chrodegang, in the middle of the eighth century,
codifies, for the use of the canons of Metz, the practice of
oblations in money placed, as it appears, in the hands of a
particular priest, “ for his mass ” (pro missa sua), there is no
likelihood that it was an innovation. In fact the purpose of
that rule is merely to determine what is to be done with that
sum of money. The priest “ shall do with it as he pleases ”,2
that is, it shall not go to the common fund. If, on the other
hand, the Christian had made his gift to the community,
the community was to celebrate and appropriate the alms.
This rule testifies, to such as are willing to enter into the mind
of its author, that the practice of individual offerings was
then current,3 but that under the conditions of common life
and common revenues inaugurated among the diocesan clergy
by St. Chrodegang, there were reasons for adapting the practice,
under its various forms, to the new state of affairs : and so
it was done.
For a long time the two varieties of offerings, in kind and
money, existed side by side in the Church, and did so as
absolutely equivalent. At the beginning of the tenth century,
the Empress Matilda, wife of Henry the Fowler, had a practice
of offering daily bread and wine for the welfare and prosperity
of the Church : “ Mos quippe fuerat sanctae dominae cotidie
sacerdoti ad missam praesentare oblationem panis et vini pro salute et
utilitate totius sanctae Ecclesiae.” * “ Never,” her biographer
1 There is no reason for adding, as did Fr. Ortolan (op. cit. yt and 73), St. Augustins’s letter to Aurelius (Ep. 22, t, 6, P.L. 33, 92), which as a matter of fact does
not treat of oblations made to the altar or for sacrifices.
1 “ A tribuente accipiat, et exinde quod voluerit Jaciat ”. (Regula Canonicorum, 42,
P.L. 89, 1076.)
’The statement of Thomassin (op. rit., pars III, lib. I, cap. 71, n. 8) on the
origin of this practice b more guarded than was to be later on that of Mabillon.
“ Pipirti el Caroli Magni tua> jam coeperant Jideles ”, says Thomassin : which
leaves the starting point quite undetermined. . . . “ Id fieri coeptum, ut ridetur,
saeculo octavo”: thb precision of Mabillon (Praef. ad saecul. III. S. Benedicti,
pars I, n. 62) goes too far, and, to tell the truth, b untenable.
4 lita S. Malhildis, written by command of her great-grandson, St. Henry, n. 19,
P.L. 135, 910.

14I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

tells us elsewhere,1 “did she draw near the altar with empty
hands, neither during her wedded life nor in her widowhood.”
But it so happened that at the very time when she was passing
from the one state to the other, that is to say on the day of her
husband’s death, taken unawares by the lateness of the hour,
she was anxious to know whether it was still possible to find
a priest who had not broken his fast, “ to sing the mass of her
lord’s soul.” One presented himself who “ had not yet
tasted anything.” Then with a movement of her little
finger she let fall from her arm two wonderful bracelets, forged
with such skill that they could not have been unfastened except
by a goldsmith : “ Take this gold,” she said, “ and chant the
Mass of souls 2 The holy Empress (or at least her biographer)
does not seem to be aware of any essential difference between
the ordinary gifts and this metal, except that of a greater
generosity, prompted by her eager desire for a more efficacious
suffrage.
St. Peter Damian told us a while ago of provisions presented
as an offering. It is very well known, however, that in his
boyhood as a little keeper of swine, ill-treated, enduring the
pangs of hunger, he found one day a coin, and instead of all
the sweets and all the delicacies which his fancy conjured up
(“ dum suavibus cunctis egeret, dulcis appetitus per mollia quaeque
puerilem mentem trahebat ”), he began to reflect that this treasure­
trove (“ tanquam subito dives effectus, gratulabundus, quid eo mercari
aptius posset, diu mente revolvere coepit ”) would be better spent
for the relief of his dead father’s soul, and he gave the piece
of money to a priest with the request to celebrate for that
intention (“ qui Deo sacrificium offerat pro patre ”)3 He, too,
does not seem to be aware of any great difference between
food and money offerings. Here we have money, elsewhere
a table set with food.
1 N. io, col. 900 : “ Nunquam vacua manu ad altare venit.”
3 N. 9, col. 897. In much the same manner we read of St. Henry, at Cluny, ..
offering at Mass a crown of gold—at least, if we are to credit the rather common­
place author of a belated Life of the Saint. ‘'Coronam auream pretiosissimis gemmis
adornatam ad missam [quae de Cathedra S. Petri celebrabatur) obtulit ”—(Vita S. Henrici,
c. 4, n. 33. P.L. 140, 126.)
3 Joannes monachus, Vita B. Petri Damiani, 2, P.L. 144, 116-1:7.

142

MASS-OFFERINGS

But let us hear Honorius of Autun.1 He only repeats a
tradition, according to which the people used once upon a
time to supply the flour of the altar breads (evidently before
Mass). This custom, he notes, gave the full meaning to the
phrase of the Canon : Omnium circumstantium qui libi hoc sacri­
ficium laudis offerunt ; since all these offerers of flour were
present at the mass (“ nam singuli farinam offerentium missae
interfuerunt ”). What is more, they received communion. But
communion having become infrequent, the flour became
superfluous. It was, therefore, agreed that it should be
replaced by money {“statutum est ut . . populus pro oblatione
farinae denarios offerret"). Without questioning the fact itself,
there is no doubt that in the mind of Honorius the money
plays the same part as the contributions in kind. Elsewhere2
he tells us in clear terms : “ Lay persons sacrifice, some with
gold, others with silver, and others still with some other
substance.” Among other substances he enumerates in the lines
that follow only bread, wine and water. The equivalence
of these gifts in kind and in money is illustrated in his writing
by the odd remark that the bread had been baked in the shape
of a coin : “ Panis in formam denarii formatur.” 3 There was
even a decree passed in that sense : “ Statutum est eum {panem)
in modum denarii formari.”4 And thus we see the bread itself
take on the likeness, as regards its outward form, of money,
after the money had been likened to the bread in its liturgical
intent. People “ sacrificed ” gold or silver, as of old they
had “ sacrificed ” bread and wine, because the bread and
the coins were interchangeable in the priest’s hands. At the
proper moment the money was changed into bread, the bread
of the sacrifice. It looks as though our forebears had very
clear notions on the transition which fa puzzling modem
scholars.® It goes without saying that the innovation did not
’ Gemma animae, 1, 66, P.L. τ 72, 564.
....
1 Ibid. 1, 27, col. 553: “ Quidam de populo aurum, quidam argentum, quidam de aha
substantia sacrificant."
• Ibid, t, 35, cot 555.
lIbid. 1,66,001.564.
.
.
.
* Not all, however, as we shall see further on. Notice, in the meanwhile, that
the learned Lupus (Wolf), in his Dissertatio de Simoniae crimitw, c. tt {Sjnodarum

14.3

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

always and everywhere take place without raising protests.
We know that in those times there was no Congregation of
the Council, and no Holy Office. Hence what was sanc­
tioned by the authorities in one country might well appear
like an abuse elsewhere. Moreover, it must be plain that by
taking the form of money, the oblation lost its eminently
sensible character of sacrificial host, and as a consequence
lent itself in the minds of coarse people to be taken for a
salary, a remuneration, a payment of a sacred thing, for the
price of the Blood of Jesus Christ, for the coin of Judas, or,
neither more nor less, for the money of Simon Magus. Hence
the denunciations of saintly people, of timorous persons,
against certain priests who by their mercenary ways seemed
really to substantiate that vulgar view of the matter. It
explains the attitude of Peter Cantor1 against “the venality
of masses ” (venalitatem missarum). “ In the matter of sin,”
he says, “we do not read that any turpitude, any enormity,
so aroused and enkindled the wrath of the Lord as the venality
of the eucharistie dove” (sicut pro venalitate columbae, maxime
eucharistiae).*
12 We know that at the time it was customary
in a number of churches to preserve the Eucharist in golden
doves over the altar. “ Greed has taken possession of this
sacrament, which is beyond price.3 Whereas all other vices,
seized with trembling, keep aloof from the sacred precincts,
simony has dared to encroach upon the very altars ”.4 And
yet he does not condemn the principle ; on the contrary, he
complains that the principle is not respected because the
General, ac Provint. Deer, et Can., Venice 1724, t. iv, p. 86) after describing the
evolution of the gifts through the three stages, bread, flour, money, concludes
that our present-day stipend, in view of its equivalence with the ancient oblations,
may put forth the proud claim of being “ of apostolic institution.” “ Exinde ergo
missam sibi celebrari volens eam oblato denario postulat a sacerdote : et hic est denarius,
quem Wicleffistae, Lutherans et Calvinistae hostiliter insectantur. At sine fundamento.
Est enim, licet non ista specie [pecuniaria'}, tamen in substantia ac valore [pro sua aequicalentia ad oblationes pristinas} institutum apostolicum.”
1 Verbum abbreviation, c. 28, P.L. 205, 102.
2 Ibid. c. 27, coi. 99.
s “ Cupiditas dominatur in hoc sacramento, quod impretiabile est ”—(Ibid. col. 100).
4 “ Cum omnia cetera vitia trepident et exsulent a locis sacratis, simonia ipsa altaria
invasit ”—(Ibid. col. 102). In between, other epithets than those of venality
and simony may be met with: leprosy of Giezi, money of Judas, etc. See the
fragments from Ch. 27, which will be quoted further on.

144

MASS-OFFERINGS

outcome of certain manipulations is precisely to defraud the
faithful of the fruit of the mass, by making one mass serve to
satisfy several offertories : “ Nevertheless, according to the
doctrine handed down to us, the more frequent and the
more special is the oblation of the sacrament of the altar for
the faithful, the more abundant are the fruits they draw there­
from.” 1 Let not the priest imagine that he can settle the
matter by a general application, when he has pledged himself
to special ones.® It is evident that the charge of venality
or simony is not hurled by Peter Chantre against every
pecuniary transaction, nor against the obligation in strict
justice that may arise from it ; but simply against the kind of
transaction that would imply a traffic, and against anything
whatever that might sanction its very notion or mere sem­
blance.
The evolution of the gifts had for result to facilitate the
taxing of the offerings. It is clear that gifts in kind lend
themselves less to a strict valuation. On the other hand, it
is equally clear that a strict valuation lends itself more easily
to a commercial interpretation. May not this be the motive
which determined the General Chapter of the Cistercians in
1182 to issue the following decree, which seems to be the first
of its kind in the annals of the Church, and unique in the
annals of the Order : “ It is forbidden to promise masses by
a pact, for a fixed (sum), because it is simoniacal.” * The
rather loose drafting of the decree cannot fail to be noticed.
From it there arises a certain lack of decisiveness with regard
to the formula’s true meaning, on which the context throws no
light. But the third canon of the Council of Evreux in 1195
is certainly clearer, forbidding every agreement to celebrate
for a “ set price.” * We may also quote a much later council
1 “ Cum habeat auctoritas, quia, quanto saepius el specialius pro eis offertur sacramentum
altaris, tanto amplius refrigerium percipiunt'” (Ibid, c. 29, coi. 105).
’ “ Peragens enim generalia non est absolutus a specialibus quae supplicans sibi intellexit
promitti,” (Ibid. t. coi. 106.)
’ “ Pro pacto certo nulla fiat missarum promissio, quia simoniacum esi.”—Martene,
Thesaurus Piorus Anecdotonm, tam. 4, coi. 1053.)
<“ Decrevimus prohibendum ne sacerdos aliquis pro celebratione missarum pretio con­
stituto pactum ineat ; sed hoc duntaxat quod offeretur in missa recipiat ”—(Manii, 25,653).

145

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

held in Toledo in 1324,1 which observes with grief (multa
mentis amaritudine') that certain priests “ demand money for
masses they are to celebrate ” (pro missis per eos celebrandis
pecuniam exigunt). To this first wrong they add another, that
of a shameless bargain driving ” (impudenter mercantur). Men
of that sort, “ are selling the grace of God.” You would
think, as you watch them, that “ God himself who presents
himself to us under the appearance of this sacrament, is for
sale ” (ipsum Deum, qui nobis sub specie dicti sacramenti se exhibet,
pecunia vendi posse). Wherefore “ we strictly forbid priests to
exact for the celebration of masses either money or any other
temporal thing ” (districtius prohibemus ne aliquis presbyter pro
missis celebrandis pecuniam exigat vel rem aliam temporalem). “ Let
them be satisfied with accepting gratefully what shall be
offered to them in charity by him who has the mass cele­
brated : without pact or stipulation of any kind ” (absque
pacto et conventione quacumque). It is evident that the venerable
authors of these conciliary or capitularly decrees were alarmed
by the semblance of a commutative transaction which the
cash payment between priest and people was assuming, when
once the notion of the equivalence between the primitive
oblations and their transformation into money had faded
from their minds. Perhaps that notion had already vanished
from their own minds ; this would explain why, instead of
inveighing against the abuses, they attacked the principle
itself. On this road the universal Church did not follow
them : they appear as isolated individuals, we might say like
an infinitesimal, and therefore a negligible, quantity amid
the immense multitude of doctors (theologians or canonists)
and of pastors, who all through the centuries of the Middle
Ages assisted at this evolution of the Mass-offering, without
being disturbed on its account otherwise than to explain and
justify it by the reasonable reminders of the origin from
which it derives and which it extends. There was no need of
denying the pact, but there was need of defining it in terms
calculated to safeguard the gratuitousness of the two con1 Chap. 5. Mansi, 25, 733-734.

146

MASS-OFFERINGS
tributions of the faithful and the priest, while upholding at
the same time a close bond of justice between their mutual
obligations. This is accomplished by appealing to the sacred­
ness of the deposit entrusted by the mandator to the mandatary,
by the author of the sacrifice to its consecrator, by him who
sends the gift to him who assumes it when transmitted.
Another effect of this same evolution was the lengthening
of the intervals between the presentation of the offerings and
the celebration of the mass. It does not mean that the gifts
in kind never preceded the time of celebration ; we have
proof of the contrary in the case of the widow related by St.
Peter Damian. We know it also from the grievances of those
who complained that the faithful no longer came in person
to turn to account their offerings at the masses which were
celebrated at their request. Finally the point is made clear
in the votive masses for the sick, such as the following from
the Gelasian Sacramentary : “ O God, to whom the vicissitudes
of our lifç are subject, receive the prayers and hosts of thy
servants and handmaids, to whom we beg thee to show mercy
in their sickness, that the fear for their danger may be followed
by the joy over their recovery ”.x Although not brought to
the altar by their own hands, these gifts were nevertheless
their hosts, their sacrifices, their vows.2 In itself, a longer
or a shorter interval did not change the case. But, on the
other hand, it is understandable that gifts in kind, a portion
of which was to be employed in the celebration, could not
wait indefinitely. On the contrary, the coin could bide its
time, and sometimes even it had to wait a long time for its
turn. When a worshipper arranged for several masses, he
was forced to have the second come after the first, and so on.
At the same time, however, the liturgical connection between
1 “ Deus sub cujas nutibus citae nostrae momenta decurrunt, suscipe preces et hostias
famulorum et famularum tuarum, pro quibus misericordiam tuam aegrotantibus imploramus,
ut de quorum periculo metuimus de eorum salute laetemur”—(Sacr. Gei., 3, 70, Ed.
Wilson, p. 282. P.L. 74. »224).
* Not to mention that very early there was already established the custom
of not presenting at the altar, but of carrying to the residence, the victuals destined,
not for consecration, but for the subsistence of the celebrating clergy. It was
a mere matter of convenience and seemliness.

H?

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
the offering and the celebration became less perceptible. From
this again arose an increased danger of substituting the regret­
table idea of contract of exchange between a temporal con­
tribution and a spiritual service. Nevertheless, it does not
appear that this widening of intervals greatly1 worried the
ancients (otherwise so careful to exclude every pact of the
kind, not only from the other sacraments, but also and above
all4 from the Mass). For this reason one is much surprised
to see modern authors using it as a weapon against the logical
continuity and practical identity of the oblation in kind and
the oblations in money. They might as well argue that
communion, when separated from Mass, is no longer a par­
ticipation of the sacrifice : for then what is it ? I celebrate
to-day ; the faithful will receive eight days hence ; it is quite
true that the relation of the sacrament to the sacrifice grows
dim by the delay, but it is not abolished, and it cannot be
abolished, for it is an essential relation. The same must be
predicated of the relation of the oblation of the gifts to their
sacerdotal consecration. Time can do nothing in the matter ;
no more for us than for medieval Christians, or for so many
before them, not to bring up again the case of Hillel and the
bishop of Tiberias. And if payment were made after the mass
only, what of it, if before the mass there was an agreement
to pay (somewhat like the satisfaction which nowadays follows,
and formerly preceded, sacramental absolution) ? This point
will come up again later.
At least, it will be objected, there is one irreducible difference
between the ancient oblations destined for the whole clergy
1 Once more we must except here a few isolated instances, such as the Council
of Evreux in 1195, quoted above (“ quod offeretur in missa ”). But even here it
appears clearly that stress is not laid on the time of offering, but on its spon­
taneity.
! Peter Cantor {op. cit. c. 27, col. 99-102) : “ Si venalitas, lepraque Giezi, et simoma
Simonis adeo turpis est et damnabilis in appendiciis saaamentorum, (v. g. the canonical
hours) ut supra (c. 26) innotuit, quanto magis et in ipsis substantiis sacramentorum,
praecipue in eucharistia! . . . Quid periculosius quam (cf. coi. 417) quod caeci ipsum
Dominum patiuntur turpius vendi quam a Juda venditus fuerit, in aliis sacramentis venali­
tatem aperte cernentes, in hoc vero non ? . . . Turpius Chrisium vendimus quam Judas.
. . . Ille pro triginta argenteis, nos pro denariis et pretio vilissimo.” He is here giving
a lesson to those whose wrong practices caused suspicion that their thoughts were
too much bent on profit and business tactics.

148

MASS-OFFERINGS
and the later oblations allotted to a single priest. Here again
we must not allow ourselves to be unduly impressed by merely
accidental differences, which leave the substance of the bond
between oblation and celebration perfectly intact. It is very
true, in former times in the majority of cases there was a
distribution of the offerings of the sacrifice among the whole
clergy ; but what is there strange about it ? Just as the
Eucharistic synaxis brought together all the faithful and sup­
posed the oblations of all the faithful, so, too, it was never
conceived without the participation of all the clergy, each
one officiating in unison with the rest, in a celebration by all the
orders and all the members of each order. It was only logical
that the oblations should go to all, according to their rank.
They also went to the poor1 : and this, too, was consistent
with the nature of things, as was stated already, and as occasion
will be given again to ascertain the fact. But what proof is
there that in the anniversary masses requested by an individual
Christian there was sufficient for everybody ? It would have
been ruinous in large churches like Rome or Carthage. These
masses, in all likelihood said by one priest, perhaps with a
deacon, would naturally have their emoluments restricted to
the celebrants. The principle in both cases was identical.
But it still has in our own days its twofold application : if
I have a low mass said, the whole offering is for the priest ;
if I have a solemn high mass celebrated, the emolument is
regularly divided among the clergy engaged in the sacred
function. It is not a discovery of to-day that St. Paul’s text,
examined above (/ Cor. ix, 13), applies not only to priests, but
also to the inferior ministers of the sacrifice. Truly this differ­
ence, or difficulty, is as superficial as the foregoing ones.
Here is one, the only one, which is worthy to fix our atten­
tion : not that in the main it is a real difficulty ; but because,
1 If a cleric, for some good reason, such as duty or sickness, was absent from
the synaxis, either occasionally or habitually, he naturally held the first place
among the Church’s poor, to whom the revenues of the Church must go. He,
too, therefore, lived by the altar. It should also be noticed how the poor, supported
by the oblations of the faithful, saw themselves on that account called altars,
in the parlance of the Fathers of the Church—(M.F. t6t).
L
I49

]
I

I
|
I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

I

on the contrary, in spite of its more plausible appearances, it
really can be retorted against the opposite thesis and thus
strengthen our own, which alone can furnish its explanation.
The faithful, we are told, in former times never claimed to
connect the special fruit of the mass with their offering in such
a way that it had to be exclusively reserved to their personal
benefit. Nobody claimed to impose upon the priest a strict
obligation to celebrate just for the donor alone : whereas at
present there is a contractual obligation to apply the mass
for a particular intention ; just as there is a contractual
obligation to make the payment after the mass has been said,
in case it has not been attended to beforehand. There is,
therefore, something new. Our present-day concept differs
by an essential element from the old practice. It is, there­
fore, impossible to hold that the stipend of our masses is merely
the oblation of former days. It is something more, or rather
it is something else. The ancient practice has died out, or
very nearly ; in its place there sprang up, at some undeter­
mined moment in history, a new practice, which does not
hold its titles from the previous one, but is original and inde­
pendent, and admits a bond of mutual obligations in com­
mutative justice between the offerer of a temporal prestation
and the debtor of a spiritual prestation, or between the offerer
of the latter and the debtor of the former : something unknown
in the past. Therefore, there has been a break of continuity
between then and now. The Church has innovated somewhat,
at first by her tacit approval, then by her express sanction,
and by thus authorizing the novelty has done away with all
scruples.
All this would be very convincing, if at the outset we had
to grant as beyond all question one or another of the theories
elaborated by the canonists of our day, on their own respon­
sibility and without warrant whatever from the Church, in
treating of the Mass-contract. It is true that they see in it
an exchange of prestations, something which does not occur in
the theology of the Fathers or of the Early Middle Ages. If
this supposition of theirs is correct, it follows, indeed, that the
ΐ5θ

MASS-OFFERINGS

present is not linked up with the past, and that our mass
stipend cannot be likened to oblations fallen into disuse. But
is their supposition right ? The whole problem turns on
that point. They tell us : Here is the Mass-contract, a con­
tractual exchange of services. We answer : It does not seem
so to us, but the Mass-contract is the same transaction that
once depended on two factors, the contribution of the sacri­
ficial gifts by the believer, and the priest’s portion in all the
acquisitions of the altar. They reply: Not at all; and the
proof is that the ancient economy knew nothing of this obliga­
tion of reciprocal services which is characteristic of the con­
tract of to-day.—Yes, we say, if it is characteristic ; but once
more, that is the whole point at issue. We are confronted by
a begging of the question, with an equivocation superadded.
The equivocation is this : if it is meant that the old practice
did not admit between the parties an onerous reciprocity of
prestations, then the assertion is true ; if it is meant that it
did not create an obligation of commutative justice, the
statement is false. There was no contract of onerous ser­
vice : you are right. There was no contract at all : you are
wrong. There was the contract, the pact, the agreement in
strict justice, which is implicitly contained in every mandate
accompanied by a deposit. You ask me as your friend to go
on your behalf and pay a dealer the sum of fifty pounds, which
you place in my hands for the purpose. It is very true that
you do not pay me ; that my compliance will be absolutely
gratuitous ; that it has in no way the character of a counterprestation due in virtue of some previous prestation. As far
as service is concerned, you do not render me any in the case :
I alone render service, and do so gratis. Therefore, there is
no exchange, there is no reciprocity (onerous or otherwise) ;
there is a simple act of kindness on my part. But suppose
that under pretence of this graciousness or gratuitousness,
I reasoned thus : In justice I owe him nothing ; consequently
I shall not be guilty of an injustice if I fail to carry out my
mandate. The fifty pounds which found their way into my
purse may as well stay there ; they shall never go to the
151

1

■

**»>*■%*■

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

dealer, and no one shall be able to complain that I robbed
him.—Surely you would protest and tell me : It is true, you
are not stealing your salary, since you are not receiving any.
You are not in the situation of the employee who defrauds
his employer of the labour contracted for and paid for. But
you are none the less a thief, ratione rei injuste detentae. You
steal, by appropriating to yourself without any more ado
the deposit which was entrusted to you for transmission into
the hands of him who was entitled to it. If you do not intend
to pay my dealer, give me back my fifty pounds. If you do
not intend to give them back, pay my debt.—This is certainly
the kind of language which a Jew of old would have addressed,
after surrendering his sheep, to the priest unscrupulous enough
to claim it for his own profit, without offering it to Yahweh.—
Either give back my sheep, that I may have it sacrificed by
someone else, or sacrifice it yourself, as you proposed to do ;
but do not eat it before presenting it to Yahweh. Otherwise
I am robbed, even though I do not claim to pay you. You
are the table-guest of Yahweh, and you have a right in that
capacity, to your share of the feast, but only after the feast has
become Yahweh’s. Else you are without claim.—In like
manner would the Christian of the first centuries have argued,
if when the table of sacrifice had been spread by his care, he
had seen the priest, instead of celebrating, simply sit down for
dinner, without troubling himself any further. He had not
paid the priest either ; but all the same he had certain rights,
and in particular the right to have the gift, which had been
accepted for God, reach God. It was the consecration of the
bread and wine intended for transubstantiation which after
all conferred upon the offerer the claim of being the author
of an effective sacrifice. That title became his, as soon as
under the species borrowed from his offerings the divine Host
ascended to God. Thereafter, what remained of the gifts
the priest could use as the co-participant of God or of the
altar. But all this supposed the gift arrived at its destination,
it supposed the transfer accomplished (of which mention is
still made in our prayer Supplices te rogamus), it supposed the
152

MASS-OFFERINGS

sacrifice offered and accepted ; it supposed God—at his own
table, provisioned by the care of the faithful but served by the
hands of the priest—inviting his minister to be his guest. 'Then,
indeed, but not till then, could the latter have the use of it.
Before that, it would have been robbery.
Who is there that has expressed himself better on the obla­
tions of the early Christians than Thomassin, in this utterance
of incomparable depth and grandeur ? “ Hostiae erant, cum
portio inde aliqua in immortalem hostiam, coelestem Agnum, decer­
peretur. Tributa erant, quae saa. deus reservaverat, per ministros
suos colligenda fruendaque 1 These gifts of the faithful to the
altar, “ were hosts, since from part of them was gathered the
immortal Host, the heavenly Lamb. They were tributes
which God had reserved to himself, while to his ministersbelonged both their collection and fruition ”.—If the nation’s
ruler is pleased, for just motives known to him, to relinquish
to his collectors the tax which I have paid them, it is an affair
between him and them : it is none of my business. But
if the tax-collector, after receiving my payment, refused to
enter it in the public records and to give me a receipt in the
name of the State, intending on his own authority to keep what
has never for one instant been transferred to the credit of
the public exchequer, then undoubtedly he would be guilty
of an injustice, since he would leave me, in the eyes of the
ruler, in the position of a debtor who failed to make payment.
The comparison is clear enough to need no commentary. I
wish to place myself in the eyes of God (as it is my privilege)
in the relation of donor to receiver, by offering all that is
required that a sacrifice may be accredited to my account,
namely, both the sacramental matter and the material surplus
for the priest’s subsistence. I am entitled to be numbered
actually among those who have paid this tribute to God. I
have, therefore, the right to demand that my offering take
the direction which I have assigned to it, and that at the
final stage it be entered, in letters written with the Blood of
the Lamb, in the book that keeps alive the memory of the
1 Vctus tl Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, pars ΠΪ, t. c. ta, n. I.

»53

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
sacrifices by which our debts are cancelled and at the same
time our claims on the divine liberality are multiplied. Obla­
tionem . . . benedictam, adscriptam, ratam. All this I had a
right to expect from you. You failed to respond : you failed
both in fidelity as a mandatory, and in justice as a depositary.
Nothing can be plainer. It was not beyond the grasp of the
early Christians.
However, it is likely that our opponents will agree as to the
obligation contracted by the priest in reference to the
completion of the sacrifice.
But they may fail back on
the surrender of its fruit to the person responsible for the
celebration. “ There, at least, no obligation can be discovered
in ancient times. There is nothing to prove that the celebrant
considered himself bound to celebrate more especially for
the benefit or for the intention of some particular person,
rather than for this or that special end.” It would be super­
fluous to conceal that such is the interpretation of Benedict
XIV. “It is beyond doubt . . . that during the nascent
and adolescent discipline of the Church, bread and money
were an offering made to the Church and to the clergy in com­
mon, and not a gift made to some priest individually, that he
might celebrate Mass separately, for the benefit of the donor1
only ”. In other words the donor did not mean to keep for
himself alone the fruit of the mass. < Evidently it is not a
question here of ah appropriation so exclusive as to leave
nothing in the way of gain either to the universal Church or
to the officiating priest, or to his ministers, or to those attend­
ing at Mass. Certainly such exclusiveness does not exist in
our own days. It is a question, therefore, of the special
fruit which theology and legislation admit for the donors

?

1 “ Indubitatum est, . . . juxta primigeniam nascentis et adolescentis Ecclesiae
disciplinam, sive panem sive denarium oblatum fuisse Ecclesiae et clericis in commune, non
vero datum cuipiam peculiari sacerdoti, ut Missam privatim faceret, quae uni eleemosynam
offerenti prodesset.” (De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, 3, 21, 5, Romae 1748, p. 387).
Benedict XIV relies on Thomassin (Pe/. et Nov. Eccl. Disc. p. Ill, 1 i, c. 71, n. 8).
But there is a confusion here. Thomassin remarks that among the ancients the
faithful, the offerers of the gifts, did not think that they were wronging one
another by having only one and the same mass celebrated in common (on this see
M.F. 35/, 352). He does not say that the fruit of the sacrifice was reputed to be
the same for the faithful who were offerers and for those who were not.

!54

MASS-OFFERINGS

of the stipend. It is this special fruit which, our opponents
hold, was not set apart for the offerers by the Canon
Law of old, whereas it is precisely this which forms the
whole matter, or at least the proper matter, of the Mass­
contract sanctioned by the modem Code. Therefore, there
is a radical difference, from a juridical standpoint, between
the stipend and the oblation. It appears that this so-called
opposition between the past and the present proceeds entirely
from a misunderstanding. Do you mean to say that in order
to celebrate for the special benefit of Caius, who has handed
to me his offering for that purpose, there is need on my part
of an additional intention, besides that which has in view
the transmission to God of the gifts of Caius ? If so, you
are mistaken. By the very fact that I present a sacrifice as
proceeding from Caius, I sacrifice for Caius, .for his benefit
and for his intentions. Caius may represent a group or an
individual : it does not change the case in the least. I act
for the group, or I act for the individual, as the case may be.
And therefore the ancients who celebrated by transmitting
to God the gifts of the faithful sacrificed on behalf of the
faithful. They presented the hosts of that people or of that
particular person : by so doing they promoted ipso facto
the vows and desires and the prayers of those offerers, inasmuch
as they were the (mediate) authors of the sacrifice, and con­
sequently its beneficiaries by a special right, which belonged
to no one else, and by which they disposed of the suffrage
in keeping with their special title. If no Code existed, then
to explain all this to us there were the liturgies to assure us
of it. Let anyone read the collects or anaphorae quoted above,
as well as the variable parts of the Roman Canon, and it
will be impossible for him not to be struck by the fact that
the sacrifice was the sacrifice of the offerer : without detriment,
of course, to the universal Church and to the priest and to
others ; but yet in a manner which had nothing in common
with anyone else. And that is all that could be necessary
for the sacrifice to operate on his account, and if
we may say so, to his credit. Nothing else is required
*55

The

mystery of faith

in order that the sacrifice should operate, just as he pleases,
in favour of this or that person dear to him. This question
of the special suffrage, at the pleasure of the offerer, is evident
in the case of anniversary masses for the dead. But it is also
exemplified, as regards the living, by documents like that of
the nuptial mass of the Gelasian Sacramentary.^
“ Secret : Hear, Lord, our supplications, and in mercy and
goodness receive this oblation of thy handmaids (So-and-so),
WHICH THEY OFFER FOR THY HANDMAID
(Such-a-Ore), whom
thou didst deign to bring to matureness for the day of her wedding.”
“ Infra actionem (Hanc igitur) : Mercifully receive, O Lord, we
beseech thee, this oblation of thy handmaids (So-and-so), which
THEY OFFER THEE FOR THY HANDMAID (Such-a-one) GtC.”
What is offered is the sacrifice of certain persons, all women ;
and it is offered on their part for the person in whom they
are interested, who is the bride. Here we have the special
suffrage at the disposal of the special offerer ; it is expressed
in liturgical language ; but that is not necessary that the
suffrage may be effective. It is enough that it be included
in the vows of him who acts through the priest’s ministry.
The bond between the ancient offering and the celebration
and application of the mass, seems, therefore, settled beyond
dispute ; and by the very nature of things ; without any
necessity of super-adding to the mediating function of the
mandatory priest a pact of exchange, a contract of hire, an
agreement do iitfacias, or any other form of contractual obliga­
tion of an onerous character which certainly according to the
admission of everyone never existed. But if such is the case
with regard to the masses of ancient times, why in our time
should we be bothered with all these juridical formalities,
without which our forebears succeeded in obtaining exactly
the same result as we ourselves have in view in our daily
transaction ? The only reason for appealing to them is to
account for the obligation of strict justice which rests upon
the priest after receipt of the stipend, or upon the worshipper
lSacr. Gelas., 3, 52. Ed. Wilson, p. 265· P.L. 74, 1214.

156

MASS-OFFERINGS
after the mass requested has been said. But as for the priest,
the explanation is clear from what has been said thus far;
and for the worshipper, it is not difficult to reflect that if he
requested a mass, while putting off his offering till later, he
is in the situation of the person who has asked a friend to
advance a sum of money on his account : he is bound to
reimburse. In other words, every time a priest, by the
mandate of one of the faithful, consecrates to God gifts that
have not yet been entrusted to him, he makes an advance
taken from his own goods, and is entitled to be indemnified.
It is as if the Jew of old, not having brought a sheep, wished
nevertheless to have his· sacrifice celebrated with the sheep
of the priest, kindly supplied by the latter for the purpose.
He, too, falls under an obligation, by the very nature of
things, and when making restitution of the sheep, he would
not have any reason to flatter himself that he was rewarding
the priest, or carrying out a contract do ut facias or facio ut
des, or anything of the kind. Since, therefore, all the aspects
of the Mass-contract are explained by the old transaction,
which, as we are reminded in a rather loud voice, carried
with it none of those forms of onerous obligation, correlated to
a remuneration, what ground is there for planting in our
Mass-contract that modality which the old economy rejected,
and then turning round and telling us that we can see for
ourselves that the stipend of to-day is not the oblation of old,
since the former has recourse to a juridical process which
has always been foreign to the latter ? Of course, there is a
difference : it is of your making ; but it is all artificial, because
it is based entirely on the supposition, twice false, that the old
transaction did not possess the same binding force as the
transaction of to-day, and that the transaction of to-day owes its
binding force to a clause which gives rise to the prestation of an
onerous service. There is no truth in either the one or the
other assumption. Our present contract is as valid as the old
one, and for the same juridical reasons, neither more nor less.
And now, without intending to inflict on any one the
disapproval of the Council of Trent, we may be permitted to
157

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

place some reliance on that law which makes it a duty for
Ordinaries to prohibit concerning masses “ every kind of
mercenary clauses and compacts ” (cujusvis generis mercedum
conditiones, pacta . . . prohibeant)1. The holy Council does
certainly, not disapprove of the principle of the stipends, univer­
sally admitted in the Church and maintained afterwards.
What then is intended, if not to forbid (except where there is
an extrinsic claim) every onerous pact superadded to, or
substituting itself for, the gratuitous agreement assumed by
the priest, mandatory and depositary, to dedicate to God
the gifts he received for God ? Justice is involved in the
proceeding, but not in a commercial way. Such is the mind
of the Council of Trent ; it excludes what would be simoniacal,
and allows to subsist what rests on the normal condition of
things, and conforms to the divine plan, because it is inherent
in the very theology of sacrifices.2 Here we see the perfectly
logical consistency of the Church. The Church, always so
solicitous (the expression is not strong enough—so obsessed
by her anxiety) to do away with all simony, and with every
appearance of simony, has yet never (with a few negligible
exceptions, such as we have above with much difficulty
collected together to the number of three or four3) either

P

1 Sess. 22, Deer, de observandis et evitandis in celebratione Missae.
2 We must probably explain in the same sense the provincial Councils that
came later, whose one purpose was to make the reforms of Trent the general
practice among their people. See, for instance, the Council of Malines, 1570:
“ Pastoribus et quibuscumque sacerdotibus inhibet sancta synodus sub poena suspensionis
ne per se vel per alium, directe vel indirecte, stipulentur pro missis votivis ad piorum postula­
tionem celebrandis, sed quod eis sponte oblatum fuerit, accipiant ” (De decanis, etc., cap.
ii. Harduin 10, 1194). See also the Council of Rheims, 1583: "Sacerdotes qui
de pretio pasciscuntur ut Missas celebrent . . . habeantur simoniaci ”—(Harduin, 10,
’3O1)·
.
3 Cistercians, Evreux, Toledo. The difficulty of escaping from commercialism
was aggravated in the Middle Ages by the absence of a diocesan tax, leaving
the field open for bargaining. Episcopal authorities have the right to rate
authoritatively the cash amount representing the double element required to
constitute the offering for the sacrifice—the matter for consecration, and the
surplus for the priest’s refection. He who gives that much fulfils the function
of offerer. To exact more, to stipulate for more (apart from the extrinsic claim)
is to practice exactions and drive bargains, which, as they bear on a matter
not required to entitle the worshipper to his claim of offerer, can only be inter­
preted on the priest’s part as simoniacal: I put a price on the service I render,
I require payment for what you get from me. It is as if the Hebrew priest, to
sacrifice my sheep, had required me to make him a present of a lamb into the

Ι5θ

MASS-OFFERINGS
by the mouth of her Doctors, or by the voice of her
Councils, or by the decrees of her Popes, forbidden the forma­
tion of a bond of contractual justice as regards the Mass,
by means of a stipend and of the obligation involved in its
acceptance. On the contrary, she forbids unconditionally,
as reprobated by divine law, every kind of transaction involving
a contractual obligation in connection with the administration
of a sacrament. To the countless examples gathered together
by Thomassin,1 it may be worth while to add, because of its
synthetical character, the following 10th canon of the Council
held in Tours by Alexander III in 1163, and which was
published by Martene2 as late as 1717. “ It has been said
that in certain localities, it was customary to give money for
the reception of the holy Chrism and even for Baptism and
Communion. The holy Council has condemned and anathe­
matized this practice, declaring it a simoniacal heresy. We,
therefore, forbid that in future anything should be asked
either for Holy Orders, Baptism and Extreme Unction, or for
Burial, Communion and Dedication of Churches. But (it
bargain. On the other hand, if of my own accord I bring a sheep with its lamb
to be sacrificed together, the priest to whom I deliver them has not the right
to pass the sheep to a confrère requiring him to sacrifice it, while retaining the
lamb for himself without sacrificing it. Likewise, in the Church, the priest who
has received an oblation worth more than the due has not the right to have the
sacrifice offered by a substitute to whom he gives the ordinary due, keeping the
surplus for himself. Those are matters not of ecclesiastical law, but of divine
law, in virtue of the principle that the matter for eucharistie consecration and the
priest’s emolument constitute an indivisible whole: the latter being but a supple­
ment of the former, or rather the two forming but one single oblation made to
God for the provisioning of the altar table, which God intends to make the
celebrant’s table.
Another, and a rather interesting, consequence of the above doctrine is this:
when the priest celebrates without stipend, he himself enjoys all the spiritual
benefit which otherwise goes to the purveyor of the sacrifice. Thus we can see
with what spiritual riches, with what incomparable patrimony, with what
infinitely precious income were endowed by their founders those religious con­
gregations that were forbidden to receive stipends.
1 Vet. et Sov. Eccl. Discipl., par. Ill, lib. I, c. 49, 9-10, and c. 69-72. Consult
also Ortolan, article Casuel, in D.T.C. col. 1840 sq.
s This. Piot>. Anecd. 4, 143; cf. Mansi, 21, 1183. This 10th Canon must not
be confounded with canon 6 of the same series of decrees of the same Council;
similar to the former as to its object, but less formal in its tenor, it is already
contained in the work of Thomassin, and again in that of Ortolan.

159

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

is our will) that the gifts of Christ, since they are gratuitous,
be dispensed gratuitously. Should any one decide otherwise,
let him be anathema.” On the other hand, for masses, the
Church saw no harm in the payment of a sum of money as a
condition for the celebration and application of a mass that
was requested. Why this difference in a matter which the
Church herself declares to be amenable to the divine law?
The difference is obvious ; at least it was obvious to the
people of that time. In the other sacramental ministries,
it is not a question of a gift going through the hands of the
priest into those of God, who will afterwards give it back to
the priest. The Christian receives from God, and that is all.
In sacrifice we give to God. Consequently in one case there
is no legitimate ground for the formation of a bond in commu­
tative justice, whereas in the other the gift entrusted to the
priest in order to be transmitted to God is, like any other
deposit, the subject-matter of a contractual obligation, which
affects in no way the absolute gratuitousnéss of the mandate.
Here again no one has expressed himself better than Thomassin,
in the following incidental remark occurring in the 49th
chapter (n. 11) of book I: “If now we come to the unbloody
sacrifice, it never entered the mind of anyone1 to charge with
simony the oblations offered spontaneously by those for
whom the heavenly Host is immolated. . . . No need of
looking far for this difference. It is the very voice of nature
and the urgent duty of religion that oblige the faithful to
offer to the priests what the priests must offer for them to
God, either unto remission of sins, or in thanksgiving, or for
the purpose of obtaining new favours. For this reason the
other sacraments must not be dispensed for remuneration,
since they are graces and cannot be valued at any price.
But what is presented as a sacrificial gift to God by the hands
of the priest must first be offered to the priest by the people.
For the people themselves truly offer to God, and likewise every
person among the faithful offers on his own account, though
1 This is perhaps a trifle exaggerated, as we have seen above.

160

MASS-OFFERINGS
he does so by the priest.”1 Here we have the whole teaching
summed up in a few words. It is also an answer to those who
show surprise at this doctrine as if it were a novelty. It is
not so novel after all, since it is already found in Thomassin,
the most erudite, and at the same time the most intelligent
of the theologians who sprang up in ancient France after
Petau. After Thomassin, the same teaching was exposed
ex professo by Berlendi, in his great work on Oblations,2 of
which it has been said—and in one sense it is true—that it
“was all that could be desired”.3 Here are the essential
elements of his thesis, as stated in the opening pages of
the book. The oblations intended for the altar, the Chris­
tian counterpart of the oblations which the Jews made
for their sacrifices, were at first collective among us, and
afterwards became individual. They 'were at first gifts in
kind, they became later monetary.4 But throughout all these
changes, the same rite of oblation continues under different
modes {quod equidem nil aliud nisi ejusdem antiqui ritus, licet sub
dioerso modo usitati, continuatio fuit). Therefore, there is no break
of continuity ; no gap between the present and the past ; no
1 “ Jam si ad incruentum progrediamur sacrificium, nemini unquam in mentem venit
simoniae infamiam aspergere iis oblationibus quas sponte offerunt ii pro quibus caelestis
Hostia immolatur. . . . Prompta est autem et obvia hujus discriminis ratio ; quod
voce ipsa naturae et lege religionis cogantur fideles offere sacerdotibus quod pro ipsis offeratur
Deo, vel ad eluenda delicta, vel gratiis referendis, vel novis beneficiis exorandis. Itaque
sacramenta quidem alia nullo pretio dispensanda sunt, cum gratiae eae sint, nec ullo possint
pretio aestimari. At offerenda hostia Deo a sacerdote pro populo prius a populo ipsi offerenda
est sacerdoti. Offert enim Deo ipse populus, et pro seipsofidelis quisque, sed per sacerdotem."
(Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl., i, 4g, it.)
* De oblationibus ad altare communibus et peculiaribus, hoc est Missae Stipendii integra
secundum aetates expositio, Venice 1743.
3 “ In qua (dissertatione) hoc argumentum erudite versat, ita ut nihil desiderari possit."
(Hurter, Nomenclator). Nothing could be better deserved than this praise as
regards the habitual correctness of the author’s views. But from every other
point of view it would be an exaggeration to say that nothing more could be
desired. Some order could be desired in a very tangle of confusion. Greater
clearness could be wished for in the analyses, and this in turn would have con­
tributed to greater firmness and consistency. Erudition itself would have gained
by discarding irrelevant matter, while drawing further profit (as could easily
be done) from a quantity of valuable materials. It is nevertheless true that it
is the best which the past has left us.
‘This agrees substantially with Mabillon (Acta SS.O.S.B., saecul. HI, pars I,
praef., n. 62) : “ Oblationi panis et vini a laicis antiquitus fieri solitae successit eleemosyna
pecuniaria presbytero /acta, quam stipendium vocant."
i6t

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
bursting forth (if we may be allowed the expression) of a new
comprehension of the relations between the gift and the mass.1
Nothing could be more correct than this view of history.
But before Berlendi and before Thomassin,2 we may Jay
claim to a still more venerable authority, that of Blessed
Robert Bellarmine, who, enumerating the various ways in
which the Church, that is to say the faithful people, offers
through the intervention of the priest, expresses himself thus :
“ The Church, properly speaking, does not sacrifice by exer­
cising a sacerdotal act ; she merely offers to the priest
what is intended for the sacrifice, or else she endeavours
to have the Sacrifice celebrated, or she acquiesces in it, by
offering in heart and desire, while the priest is offering.” 3
We have here three modes of the people’s intervention, as
regards the actual4 oblation of the Sacrifice. On the lowest
1 De oblationibus, pp. 1-4; cf. 476.
2 Between the two, it is certainly worth while to mention Van Esfien either in his
Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum, or in his dissertation De Simonia circa Beneficia. In
the first work quoted (J. E. U. pars. 2, tit. 5, n. 20) we read: “ Hoc quoque indubi­
tatum est, hodiernum missarum stipendium esse considerandum ut voluntariae cujusdam
oblationis speciem, in locum oblationis in missa primitus fieri solitae surrogatam. Instruendus
ergo est populus ne honorarium illud habeat tanquam pretium sacrificii, sed ut voluntariam
oblationem, qua Deum tanquam rerum temporalium auctorem recognoscens, una cum sacerdote
sacrificium offere, et ipsius sacrificii ac signanter precum quae pro offerentibus funduntur
particeps esse mereatur.” In the second work (D.S.C.B.,/wrj. 1, c. 6, 4) the thought
is the same: “ Oblationum usum inter Missarum solemnia a temporibus apostolicis ad
nostra usque tempora continuata serie devolutum ostendimus ; at id una observatum
oblationum materiam, quae primitus in pane et vino praecipue consistebat, posterioribus
saeculis ... in denarios mutatum fuisse.” —It is clear that what the same author
writes further on in §4 of Chapter 7, on the relation of the stipend to the “ labour
and service and ministry ” of the priest, of which the stipend is said to be the
“ remuneration ” (merces), must be understood, as after all the immediate context
shows, in keeping with the general doctrine. All that Van Espen has in view
in this passage, is to exclude the notion, dear to some, that there might exist
sources of ecclesiastical revenues (benefices or oblations) on which a priest would
have the right to make his living without doing anything whatever, or without
rendering himself useful to the Christian community. Recall the passage, very
formal and even extreme, of Van Espen, and quoted in the first part of this
treatise, wherein he assails every idea of remunerating the celebrant.
2 ” Ex quo etiam sequitur ut Ecclesia rum proprie sacrificet exercendo actum sacerdotalem,
sed tantum offerat sacerdoti rem sacrificandam, aut curet fieri sacrificium, aut
certe consentiat in sacrificium, et voluntate ac desiderio offerat, cum sacerdos offert "—(De ·
Missa, 2, c. 4).
4 There is also the merely habitual oblation of which Bellarmine speaks a
little further: “ Aliqui solum habitualiter offerunt, qui nimirum absunt, neque de sacrificio
cogitant, sed tamen habitualiter cupiunt offerri.” It is the whole body of the faithful
in the entire world that enters into this category—(M.F., 324 and 327 sq.).

162

MASS-OFFERINGS

level are those who only assist at it. Above them are those
who strive to promote the celebration of masses (for instance
by founding a chaplaincy for the religious service of a locality).
Finally, in the first rank are those whom we might call, if
we were bold enough, the purveyors of the Sacrifice, whose
contribution consists in the Host itself, rem sacrificandam ; those
whom we have called the providers of the altar, recalling
the faithful of the Old Law. And then Bellarmine goes on
to remark that we have here different ways of offering, different
claims of offerers : “ Note,” he says, “ that the whole Church
offers all the sacrifices offered by all the priests, but not in
the same manner.” 1 At all events, it is certain that to offer
by mere ratification or consent cannot have quite the same
meaning as to offer by setting the sacrificial table and defraying
its cost. But above and beyond these authorities, high as they
are, there is that of St. Thomas, still more explicit and syn­
thetical. In the admirable article 2 of question 86 in Secunda
Secundae, he explains ex professo why the oblations come back
to the priests (oblations in kind or oblations in money, it matters
little, as is clear from art. 3). “ The priest,” he says, “ is in
a certain manner mediator and interpreter {sequester et medius)
between the people and God. And for this reason . . . the
things that are the people’s (ea quae sunt populi), namely prayers,
sacrifices, oblations, must be presented to God by their inter­
mediary, according to the saying of the Apostle (Hebr. v) :
Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men, in the
things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices
for sins. Consequently the oblations which the people
present to god {oblationes quae a populo Deo exhibentur) belong
1 In this passage, besides the formal and immediate oblation of the priest,
and the mediate and habitual oblation of the Church, Bellarmine distinguishes
the mediate and actual oblation of those who are present and the mediate (and
actual, but also causai.) oblation of those who intervene “ by exhortation, prayer
or command” (rive hortando, rive rogando, rive jubendo). This causality remains
undetermined here; but evidently it must be distinguished, according as it
bears, as above, on the matter of the sacrifice, in which case it involves a mandate
(jubendo), or as it exclusively affects the action and the will of the priest, by
creating an obligation to celebrate, without duty of applying (as in the above
case of the founding of a chaplaincy). This again is a command (jubendo), but
without mandate. As for prayer and exhortation, it is a very vague causality.

163

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

to the priests, not only that the priests may turn them to their
own use, but also that they may dispense them with fidelity,
spending them partly in what relates to divine worship, partly
in what concerns their own sustenance, because they who serve
the altar partake with the altar, as we read in I Corinthians, partly
for the benefit of the poor, who, as much as can be done,
must be supported from the goods of the Church.” It may
have been noticed that these oblations are given, according
to St. Thomas, not to the priests, but to God, by the hands of
the priest. This does not prevent them from reverting to
the priests, since God has made them partakers of his altar.
Will it be said that there is then a simple metaphor, a figure
of speech to which St. Thomas attaches after all no import­
ance ? Let us investigate a little. The first objection against
the thesis (videtur quod non) was this : among oblations the
first rank is held by the hosts of the sacrifice ; now, in Scrip­
ture, the alms given to the poor are called host : therefore,
it is to the poor, and not to the priests, that above all others,
the oblations must revert. What is the answer? It consists
in a distinction : a distinction between sacrifice improperly
so called and sacrifices properly so called. Alms given for
the love of God may, in some sense, be called a sacrifice,
because charity shown to a person out of regard for another
is also directed to that other person; and so the gift made to
the poor is looked upon as made to God. But, after all, it is
really not made to God in person, but only to God’s wards.
For this reason this sacrifice is called so improperly. A
sacrifice properly so called is truly a gift made to God him­
self, and not to others, out of regard for God. “ Ea quae
pauperibus dantur sicut non proprie sunt sacrificia, dicuntur tamen
sacrificia in quantum eis dantur propter Deum, ita etiam secundum
eamdem rationem oblationes dici possunt ; tamen non
PROPRIE, QUIA NON IMMEDIATE1 DEO OFFERUNTUR.”
This
1 Compare this with what William of Paris (De Legibus, c. 28) wrote: “ Sacri­
ficium est munus Deo immediate oblatum, propitiationis ejus impeiratorium. Immediate
dicimus, propter eleemosynas, quae, etsi interdum oblationes Dei factae, sacrificium Dei,
interdum inveniantur, improprie tamen sacrificia sunt."

.

164

MASS-OFFERINGS
much is clear ; and now comes the second member, con­
cerning the oblations properly so called (evidently, accord­
ing to what has been specified, those that are made to God
directly, i.e. to God himself, and not to a third party out of
regard for God), they, too, no doubt, as was explained in the
body of the article,1 may be devoted to the relief of the poor :
but will it be done in virtue of a concession made by the
faithful ? By no means, since the faithful did not give to the
poor, but to God. It will, then, be a concession made by
God ? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that if the gift goes to
the poor it must needs come down again from God, since
God was its first recipient. No, in the sense that from God
to the poor the communication is not immediate but mediate,
passing first by the priests. Therefore, St. Thomas pursues :
“ Oblationes vero proprie dictae in usum pauperum cedunt non per
dispensationem offerentium, sed per dispensationem sacerdotum." And
thus for St. Thomas the point is settled, that the oblations,
the true ones, although addressed to God, and coming back
to the poor, must nevertheless, in the interval, come into the
possession of the priests.
How many things of value in this passage ! We find in it
the truly divine destination of the gifts offered by the people,
for the purpose of sacrifice ; their return to the priest, who
draws from them his sustenance ; and their eventual exten­
sion to the poor, who are by right divine committed to the
care of the Church. A whole theology is set before us, and
how amply sufficient to justify the rigour of the obligation in
justice in the matter of masses, the directing initiative of the
suffrage on the part of the faithful, and finally the claim and
meaning of that famous stipendium sustentationis (which comes
up again in article 2 of question too). Yes, the customary
offering for the Mass (whether it be monetary or otherwise),
although involving a contract in justice between mandator
and mandatory, depositor and depositary, is nevertheless not
received by the priest as a salary, but only as a means of sus­
tenance, precisely because it does not intervene as a counter1 See above.

M

165

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
prestation in return for a prestation,1 or vice versa, but simply
as an oblation made to God, as a gift which the official min­
ister, the consecrated mediator is charged with rendering
acceptable ; it intervenes as the intended sacrifice which by
the sacramental operation of the priest will be transformed
into the effective, true and perfect sacrifice, which is the Body
and Blood ofJesus Christ. Out of these goods, which are divine
property, the priest draws his sustenance : and so these same
goods, from having been divine, by their assignment become
clerical, ecclesiastical. They are the priest’s property, the
priest’s emolument, the priest’s stipend, not for the purpose of
enriching him, as the theologians and canonists of the past
warn us, but of supporting him.2 That done, what remains,
what would only be the superfluity of a decent living, must be
poured into the lap of the poor. We are assuredly far away
from the current theories on the mass-offerings ; far, too,
perhaps, from the radical assimilation to patrimonial posses­
sions3 which a number of modern writers have brought into
1 When the ancients insistently tell us that the priest received that emolument
as a stipendium and not as a salary, they did not mean to say that being a stipendium
it could lawfully be taken as a salary: as if to justify the salary it were enough
that it be a stipendium. They meant to say: The priest may with a safe conscience
stipulate the payment of this farthing of the sacrifice, because, even then, he
will not at all receive it as a salary, but only as a stipendium. And the reason
why, even though the matter is one of commutative justice, this fee is but a
stipendium and not a salary is exactly the one which we have just heard from
St. Thomas. In fact there is no room for the notion of a salary, when the
temporal advantage has not played the part of a compensation passing from man
to man, but of an offering going from man to God, no matter what may befall
it afterwards, when once converted for the support of the priest {stipendium)
after having first been in possession of God {oblatio, sacrificium).
2 “ Stipendium suae sustentationis ” (St. Thomas, [\Ston. Theol. Π-Π, q. too,
a. 2 ad 2 “ Stipendium necessitatis ” {loc. cit. in corp.).
3 We do not pretend that a comparison with patrimonial goods may not be
defended within some reasonable limits, keeping in mind the principle laid down
by St. Thomas {Sum. Theol. II-II, q. 187, a. 6). Moreover, we must admit
that, at the present time, disagreement on this point could hardly be anything
else than theoretical, at least in most countries. For it may be stated that the
majority of the clergy, in most countries, far from drawing from their sources
of ecclesiastical income more than is necessary, obtain barely what is indispensable
for a living which does not even attain the common requirements of decency,
such as befits the rank and condition of the priesthood. The attempt to have
the mass-stipend classified among ecclesiastical revenues would be, as far as most
priests are concerned, an amendment without importance from a juridical
standpoint: a mere question of nomenclature; since every saving made on
those necessaries would be the result of thrift, bona parsimonialia.

166

MASS-OFFERINGS

credit, but which may well some day, should the lawmaker
see fit, share the fate which Canon 1410 of the Code of Canon
Law, inflicted on the “jura stolae within the limits of the
diocesan due and legitimate custom ”, as also on “ the volun­
tary and fixed offerings of thç faithful, accruing to the holder
of a benefice.”1 It is quite certain that this modern con­
ception was unknown to antiquity, just as it is still repugnant
to the Christian instinct of many of the faithful.8
The old conception has three great advantages. It has
the advantage of upholding the dignity of the priest, by making
of him not the stipendiary of the faithful, but of God. It has
the advantage of enhancing the rôle of the faithful, by
restoring them to their native condition of a holy, sacerdotal
race, qualified by their baptism to offer to God gifts and
sacrifices, which are to be consecrated by the ministry of
the priest invested with the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It
has the advantage of dignifying that money transaction of
the masses, which otherwise runs the risk of giving occasion
to the shocking language, so unworthy of the sacrifice of the
altar, and not infrequently heard in our days : “ What is
the price of your masses ? I have come to pay for masses.”
Indeed the Blood of Jesus Christ is not to be had for a price ;
no money is paid for the libation of the eucharistie Chalice ;
no payment is made for the great ransom of the world and
the cost of our salvation. All we claim to do is to offer him
up in the sacramental covering which the power from on
high and the word of the priest produce for him out of the
proceeds of our oblation. Thus there is honour and reverence
for the Blood of Christ, honour and respect for the faithful,
honour and respect for the priest. There is nowhere indignity,
1 How legislation in the past regulated the division of these goods, see in the
Decree of Gratian, part 2, cause 12, q. 2., c. 26-31. Cf. Dotn L. Bauduin, op. cit.
p. 19’ r?·
* It is vigorously attacked, and justly so, by Van Espcn, in the two works
already quoted Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum, pars Π tit. v, c. 6. n. 2, under the
heading: “ Honoraria (missarum) habenda sunt ut alia bona ecclesiastica ”, and, De
Simonia circa Beneficia, pars I, c. vii, §4.) against his fellow-countryman and pre­
decessor in the chair of Canon Law at Louvain, André Delvaux, O.S.B. (Vallensis,
seventeenth century) and under the patronage of a professor of Douai, Boetius
Epo (sixteenth century), author of a treatise De Jure Sacro.

167

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
nowhere humiliation, nowhere debasement : it is the last
theological utterance, and it is the seal of divine institution,
upon the Mass-offering.
As regards certain terms and locutions in connection with
requests for masses, we can hardly pretend to reform current
usage—quern penes arbitrium est et jus et norma loquendi ! How­
ever, we take the liberty to observe that certain expressions,
borrowed from business transactions differing entirely in
character from the gratuitous mandate, and implying remuner­
ation for service rendered, should be modified in order to
become acceptable, or else avoided altogether if substantially
incorrect. The Code may help in this matter. It speaks
of alms or of stipend. The old word of the ancient legislation,
oblationes, may yet be read on the walls of certain churches,
in the posters dating from the last century, which give public
notice of the rates of offerings or oblations, fixed by the bishops.
That old word, which the theological language, of the past
on the topic of sacrifice has consecrated, as in every other
matter (and more even than in any other), that word at
once so expressive and dignified, seems to be by far the
tnost suitable and the most correct. Rather than speak
of the price of a mass, or of payments for masses, let us say,
if we have in the least a mind to do so, offerings for masses.
Nothing hinders us from doing so ; and we have a right
to judge that not a few reasons invite us to now do so.

168

!

-J

A REJOINDER1

I.

i

Lately my attention was called, or rather recalled to an
interesting article of Μ. E. Leroux, which appeared in the
Revue Ecclésiastique de Liège, November 1925 (pp. Ι33-Ι4θ)>
under the heading A new conception of the “ Stipendium Missae.”
It is dedicated to me, in the sense that it refers to a conception which I have exposed and defended in two articles
of the Gregorianum (September and December 1923), both of
which have since become part of a small volume entitled
Esquisse du Mystère de la Foi, suivie de quelques éclaircissements
(p. 111-251). I cannot admit that the conception is “ new ” ;
but apart from this I cannot find fault with the manner in
which, like a fair opponent, M. Leroux has succeeded in
reproducing my view for his readers before discussing it.
Its essential points are the following : A Christian wishes
to offer sacrifice to God, as it has ever been possible for every
man of every religion to do. There exists now but one
sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
But it is our sacrifice only by means of the earthly covering
with which the bread and wine, human gifts, clothe him,
and which the priest, agent of the sacrifice, changes into
the Bread of heaven, and the Chalice of salvation, the price
and ransom of our redemption : so that, if on the one hand
the starting point, as in the days of Melchisedech, is in
keeping with our means and our resources, on the other
hand the point of arrival of the consecration, of the sacrifiring action, of the liturgical oblation, thanks to Christ,
the sovereign Priest acting through his ministers here below,
is yet of a wholly divine condition and of divine value.

f
h
[|
ft
h
B
fi
u
H
|
j
1
j
■

;
ft
i1,
L
r
|ί
L
|j

li
ji

THE MYSTERY ÔF FAITH
Again, the minister of the altar is authorized by God to
participate with the altar, where he has a right to find his
subsistence. The sacrifice which I offer to God must suffice,
therefore, for the sustenance of the priest. It follows that
my contribution will not be adequate to do duty as an offering,
as it is my purpose that it should, unless it satisfies the above
condition. I remit, therefore, to the priest the amount
required (gifts in kind or their monetary equivalent), which
is entirely sufficient. He celebrates, and takes for himself
what remains of my offering after the liturgical celebration.
What has taken place ? That has taken place, which, under
different conditions, was the regular custom in the sacrifices
of the Old Law. The gift, after providing for the altar
table, passes to the priest’s table. The priest is endowed by
God with the appurtenances of the sanctuary. In relation
to me he fulfilled a mandate, in his capacity of public official.
I did not pay him for the carrying out of the mandate, even
though it turned to his advantage. But after consigning
into his hands the amount of the symbolical tribute which
I dedicated to the Divine Majesty, I had a right that he
should make it arrive at its destination. It was on his part
a duty of contractual justice ratione rei detentae. We have,
then, on the one hand the absolute gratuitousness of his
ministry, on the other a strict obligation of contractual
justice. It is all that is needed to secure for the Mass-contract
the highest juridical force and at the same time to free it
from every blot of simony.
This view is as old as the Church ; it is unique through the
whole of the early Middle Ages ; it is incorporated in the
liturgy ; it has been taught, even during the last centuries,
by most prominent masters, although, to tell the truth, it
remained unknown to the greater number of their contem­
poraries who were, perhaps, less historians than men skilled
in the subtleties of abstract disputations. Without any
simony, or appearance of simony, I secure for myself by a
contract in justice, but a contract that is gratuitous and not
onerous, a spiritual benefit by means of a pecuniary dis170

If

MASS-OFFERINGS

s

i

I
j

1

i

bursement. The mass bears fruit on my behalf and for my
intentions (for instance the cure of my brother) for this one
reason, that I am its offerer in virtue of my material con­
tribution. It does not cease bearing fruit also on behalf and
for the intentions of the whole Church, the whole of which
is offerer by reason of its claim on the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ, the undivided property of the Church. But this
general fruit does not abolish my own “ special fruit,” any
more than a common right excludes a particular one, when
they are exercised in two orders of different considerations.
This contract refers therefore to the application, and not
merely to the celebration of the mass ; it is a monetary contract, and yet it is absolutely moral ; it is even essentially
pious, since it deals only with elements borrowed directly
from the religion of sacrifices. It is consequently a contract
worthy of the sanction of the Church and of the full protection
of the jurist, a protection which has not been wanting, and
which moreover extends itself to a number of other transac­
tions regulated by the natural Law.
The opposition of M. Leroux to this view takes two forms.
Convinced, no doubt, that you do not destroy but what you
· replace, he first presents his own theory, and then raises
against ours a series of adverse reasons.
Let us first hear his theory. He believes that the origin
of the mutual obligation between priest and faithful, in relation
to the application of the mass and the corresponding stipend,
is not properly contractual, but must be sought in the com­
bination of the two following elements : first, a duty ofjustice
obliging the faithful to support their priests in general ;
second, an ecclesiastical law defining the fulfilment of that
duty by means of the mass-offering to be paid into the hands
of the priest. This latter in turn is bound by the same law
to let the faithful get the benefit of the application of the
mass, gratuitously of course.1 “ Such is,” writes M. Leroux,
1 Lac. cit. p. 134.-136. Briefly: “ The application of the fruits of the mass is
not, properly speaking, the cause of the donation of the stipends. It is only the
occasion. The true cause is the obligation ofjustice under which the faithful are
to provide for the sustenance of the priest; it is a general obligation anterior to

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
“ the explanation of the stipendia missarum most generally
accepted by theologians and canonists ” (p. 136). In support
of this contention, he quotes Suarez, Lugo, the Salmanticenses,
Cardinal Gasparri, and one of my most eminent and venerable
colleagues of the Gregorian University, whose opinion, however,
I suspect M. Leroux of not having rendered quite faithfully,
either by exceeding it or by falling short of it, as the reader
may see for himself in what follows.
Since Suarez heads the list, let us first examine Suarez.
The truth is that Suarez (De sacram. I, disp. 86, sect. 1, n. 1.
and De Simonia, c. 46, n. 10), and likewise Fr. Vermeersch
(Theologia Moralis, 2, 280), when treating of the application
of the mass to be stipulated with a priest to whom i am not
bound by any particular obligation (which is not only the
current practice, but is the typical case, reducing the elements
of the debate to their mere essence), stand both of them for
the necessity of a contract do ut facias. Only they maintain
(Suarez, De Simonia, 46, 10, and Vermeersch, op. cit. n. 279)
that this contract has not for effect to beget an obligation
ofjustice, strictly so called, between the priest and the faithful
respectively. The obligation, they say, is anterior to the
contract, which merely explains and declares what it is :
“ Per pactum non additur nova obligatio, sed explicatur et declaratur
quod inest ”—(Suar, and Verm., loc. cit.).
Thereupon a question springs up at once. Was I (some
layman or other) or was I not bound in justice before any
contract whatever, to give any sum of money whatever, to
this priest whoever he may be, with whom it has pleased me
to come to a monetary understanding in relation to a given
number of masses ? No, evidently. Have I any such obligaevery compact, but one whose fulfilment is determined by the ecclesiastical legislator
and partly dependent on present conditions. Likewise the duty ofjustice incum­
bent on the priest, of applying the fruit of the sacrifice to the donor or to the
person designated by him, does not properly have its origin in the acceptance of
the stipend, but in the will of the Church, enjoining upon her ministers to perform
the sacred function for the benefit of the donors ” (p. 135). To which applies (ibid.)
the recommendation of the Lord: “ Give freely.” Apart from the word stipend,
all the italics are ours in this quotation, as also, unless stated otherwise, the empha­
sized words in all citations which we shall make.

172

MASS-OFFERINGS
tion now ? Yes. Whence this difference, if not from the
new fact, which is the contract ? Therefore, the obligation
of justice which rests upon me now results formally from
the contract, not a gratuitous one, but, according to you, one
burdened with a charge, the one which you have introduced,
do ut facias. This is so true that we can call in as a witness
Suarez himself. When he wrote the words quoted above,
or again the following : “ Pactum non auget intensive {ut sic
dicam) hanc {antecedentem) obligationem” {De Simonia, 46, 4),
he must assuredly have somewhat lost sight of what neverthe­
less he had himself so forcibly inculcated on another occasion
when he treated, not as here of simony in general (“ hic vero
generalius ”). but ex professo of the Mass-offerings (“ in par­
ticulari de stipendiis missarum ”), I mean in the study on the
stipends as we find it in his treatise on the Eucharist. Here
is what he wrote then {De sacram., I, disp. 86, sect. 1, n. 4) :
“ Negare non possumus quin in hoc negotio aliquod pactum inter­
veniat inter dantem stipendium et sacerdotem : nam ille dat, ut hic
faciat; hic vero facit quia recepit, seu ut recipiat stipendium. . . .
Et ita docent, etc. . . . et ita patet ex dictis : nam sine hujus
modi pacto, quod intercedat inter sacrificantem et stipendia dantem,
nulla ratione intelligi posset quo pacto oriatur aut oriri possit
obligatio ex justitia.”
It seems to me that this passage is emphatic enough ; it also
throws light on the statement he had made previously {ibid.,
n. i.) : “ Intervenit ergo ibi vera ratio justitiae, fundata in mutuo
consensu utriusque oneroso, qui explicatur illis verbis, do ut facias.”
It is impossible to account for the appearance of a bond of
justice between the celebrant and the faithful as regards the
application of the mass otherwise than by the force charac­
teristic of a contract, and according to Suarez, of a strict
contract {do utfacias'). Of an ecclesiastical law it is a question
only under number 71 for the purpose of excluding it im­
plicitly from every share in the making up of the bond of
justice relative to the application of the special fruit of the mass.
1 It is a question of determining which fruit of the mass the priest, who has
received the stipend, must renounce in favour of the faithful.

ITS

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

This bond, in the opinion of Suarez, arises immediately from
the contract. And he proves it by an argument of common
sense, which, as regards the contractual origin of the obliga­
tion, if not the onerous modality of the contract, is simply
irrefutable. I may very well (he says under number 5) sup­
port a priest through charity or from a motive of religion,
without thereby creating any obligation on his part1 (either of
the natural law or of the positive law) as to the application
of his masses. Inversely, a priest might very well celebrate—
let us say at least by way of suffrage—for my intention, and
let me know about it, without this fact putting me under
any obligation of justice towards his maintenance? (I add :
it may even be done in answer to a desire expressed by me,
but without my assuming any obligation, either explicitly
or implicitly : and the case will remain the same) : “ Ut
ergo utriusque oriatur obligatio ex justitia, necessarium est pactum,
saltem implicitum.” (Implicit : that is to say, it is not neces­
sary that any formulas drawn up in juridical style should have
been used ; something quite foreign to ordinary usage in
this matter). This is very true and self-evident, provided
the conclusion is limited to the necessity of a contract, and in no
wise extends to the necessity of an onerous contract.*12
Answer: primo, not merely a part of the common fruit of the mass, because
that goes in common to everybody and, reduced to that, the obligation would
not result from the stipend, but would be the effect of a general law of the Church (“ non est
satis ut pro eo generaliter offerat, quia hoc commune est omnibus ; unde haec obligatio non
oritur ex stipendio, sed potius ex communi lege Ecclesiae ”). Secundo, not the personal
fruit of the celebrant, for various reasons, one of which is that that fruit may
happen to be null (if the priest should celebrate in the state of mortal sin), and
yet even then the obligation towards the faithful is satisfied. Tertio : “ergo saltem
tenetur applicare hunc fructum, quem vocare possumus ministerialem. Item, quia hac ratione
censetur speciali modo operari ut minister alterius.” Let some attention be paid to
these last words. They also have a value of their own.

1 “ Sacerdos in hujusmodi casu non obligatur ad sacrificium offerendum pro illo (ipsum
sustentante).” He may at his will dispose of his Mass intentions in favour of a
third party for a stipend, and the first party will have no counterclaim : “ Immo
sine omni injustitia potest ab alio justum missae stipendium accipere, ut pro illo sacrificium
offerat.”
2 “ Quamvis sacerdos offerat sacrificium pro me, mihique idipsum evidenter constet, non
propterea tenebor ex justitia illi stipendium dare, quia ... ex sua liberali voluntate
id facit.”

174

MASS-OFFERINGS
Suarez concludes in favour of an onerous contract : it is
here that his conclusion, to my mind, outruns his premises.
If later on he speaks, and he does so quite incidentally (n. 6), of
the application of the mass as entirely gratuitous,1 it is the result
of one of those inconsistencies into which they cannot fail to
fall, some time or another, who seek the explanation of the
Mass-contract elsewhere than in the theology of the sacrifices.
Let it be clearly understood that the question is not whether
a law of the Church may impose a fee on the occasion of a
priestly ministry, and thus give rise to a claim in justice, on
the part of the minister of the Church, a jus quaesitum to emolu­
ments. This point is not under discussion. But this is precisely what comes about without the need of a pact, of a
contractual purpose. You get married : perhaps you were
not aware that there was a fee to be paid on the occasion
of the wedding ; you are none the less affected by the law,
if law there be ; and the claims are not the less firmly held
by the various parties concerned. You receive a bishopric,
or you are promoted to the purple : if you did not know that
there were certain charges, you will learn it ere long ; but it
is assuredly not a contract that has subjected you to these
obligations, since there was on your part no contractual
intention at all.2 The obligation holds without contract.
* " Quamvis ergo homo ex se gratis ministret, tamen ratio justitiae postulat ut ab eo
alatur, cui ministrando servit." (ibid., η. 6.) Here, to safeguard the gratuitousness,
we are told that the stipend “ datur . . . solum ob sustentationem . . . naturali
lege ministris debitam.” But only a while ago (a. 5) we were told that, without
a pact (“ ex mutuo consensu et ex mutua promissione, sub conditione onerosa, utrinque
etiam acceptata, in quo ratio pacti et conventionis consistit ”) there could be no obligation
of justice in the matter, neither on the part of the priest, nor on the part of the
faithful. This debitum, this character of a debt strictly enforceable, inherent in
the Mass-stipend, does not, therefore, come to it by reason of a natural law, which
would have force already without a contract (as before any contract parents
are bound to defray the expenses of their children’s education); but if it does
come to it from the natural law, it is in as much as the natural law universally
prescribes the observation of contracts. Besides at the beginning of the same
passage Suarez called timely attention to the following: ** Semper in Ecclesia licuit
stipendium dare ministris sacrificiorum ad eorum sustentationem ; in ratione autem stipendii
intrinsece includitur pactio aliqua, sicut intrinsece ex illo oritur obligatio justitiae ; et ideo
mercedi operarii . . . merito comparatur."
-·
’ Better still: formerly you had to pay fees for expediting a sentence of excommunication, or of suspension. All the same you were not, under the circumstances,
making a contract, either explicit or implicit ; and yet, in virtue of the law, a

175

:

j i
■J
■
j

f
1 ’

ΐ
j
j
j
j
1 !
i
j '

; !
H ]

[’ · i
if
l|,
Ij
'J
I
■’
;;

J| 1
J
Ifj
il·‘i
!i :

fl

j K|

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

In the matter of the special fruit of the Mass, on the contrary,
as Suarez saw very well, nothing holds without a contract.
With the contract, and by the contract, everything holds.
There is no reason why a law of the Church may not also
come in, to sanction by positive ordinances the inherent
efficacy of the contract :. but such an action presupposes the
contract, and does not constitute it. Historically the contract
has preceded any law.
And thus it is seen that there is no need of looking for a
solution of the problem of Mass-offerings that will also apply
to the fees collected on occasions of certain acts of the spiritual
ministry. They are two entirely different classes of things.
One depends on the sacredness of contracts, the other on
the authority of the law (making that a matter of justice
which otherwise could only be the exercise of a virtue of a
less austere character, such as religion, or a sort of filial
piety towards the ministers of the Gospel, or, on the part
of the priests, their pastoral charity towards the faithful,
gratitude, etc.). Both ways lead to obligations of justice,
of strict justice, too, but of contractual justice in one case,
and not in the other. But even in this second case itself,
to make something which is a matter of justice, merely by
virtue of the law, the object of a formal pact, would be for­
mally simoniacal, St. Thomas tells us ;*
1 no doubt because
the only contract that could be imagined in that case would
be an onerous contract, which could not be but simoniacal.2
Let no one, therefore, flatter himself that he can exorcise
simony by the mere evoking of the stipendium sustentationis.
tax was to be paid to the apostolic chancery, or some episcopal chancery, on
the occasion of an exercise, hardly gracious, of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This
tax, moreover, was not a fine in any form or shape; it belonged to the same
category, and figured on the same lists, as the fees for the absolution from a
censure or for a dispensation for marriage.
1 “ Si autem hujusmodi (erogationes quibus pro officio mortuorum vel processionibus
temporalia dantur . . . quasi sustentationis stipendium) pacto interveniente
fiant, aut etiam cum intentione emptionis vel venditionis, simoniacum esset ” (Sum. Theol.
Π-Π, q. too, a. 3, ad 2).
* “ Nomine emptionis et venditionis intelligitur omnis contractus non gratuitus ”. (Sum
Theol. II-II, q. too, a. 1, ad 5.) Compare this with article 728 of the Code:
“ Cum de simonia agitur, emptio-venditio, permutatio, etc. late accipiendae sunt.”

176

r

itf 11*^;

MASS-OFFERINGS
Everybody admits the stipendium sustentationis. But the
question is to know precisely by what process it can fall due
in justice.
If it is by way of an onerous contract, its character of
stipendium sustentationis (allowance for sustenance) will not
avert simony. If it is by way of a gratuitous contract, well
and good. I see a gratuitous contract in agreement with
the whole of tradition, in the economy distinctive of the
sacrifices ; and for that reason they hold a place by them­
selves. Apart from the sacrifices (with their offerings either
manual or founded), I see no other possible contractual bond
between the concession of a spiritual fruit and the bestowal
of a temporal benefit (even if it were an allowance for susten­
ance) except by means of one or other of those onerous
contracts, which, by definition, do not respect the gratuitousness
of the supernatural. Once more, if the contract do ut facias,
or any other similar compact, could be licit, it would follow,
clear as day, that every form of simony could easily be eluded,
provided the monetary understanding in matters of indulgence
or benefices, or spiritual favours, took care not to aim at a
salary, nor even a fee,1 but at a stipendium sustentationis, which
after all may be generous (pingue), according to the character, and
let us say the appetite, of the person of whose sustenance it is
question. What, for instance, prevented Simon the Magician
from offering his gold to St. Peter as a pingue stipendium
sustentationis ? He simply did not know how to set about it11 cannot admit that the distinction between fee and salary marks off the
gratuitous contract from the onerous one. The fees of my physician or of my
lawyer are not salaries, because they remunerate a kind of services which do not
make him who renders them the inferior of him who receives them, whereas the
opposite is the case with my footman or my workman. I give orders to my
workman and to my footman; I do not give orders to my lawyer or to my
physician. It is a difference between servile professions and liberal professions.
But liberal here does not mean gratuitous. My physician may attend me
gratuitously: but it is only when he does not charge a fee. The same is true
of my lawyer. From what has been said it may txf understood why it would
be hard for me to endorse the following words of a master who yet enjoys the
very highest authority: “ Falso supponit (Laymann) pecuniam non posse dari nisi
vel gratuito cel tanquam pretium, et site medio tollit titulum sustentationis, qui, a principibus
theologiae appellatus, etiam in cicili societate non ignoratur, ut probat ipsa distinctio linguis
culgaribus usitata inter occes honorarii et salarii.”—(P. Vermecrsch, op. cit. n. 281.)

177

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

Let us sum up. There is a world’s difference between the
stipendia missarum and the fees collected on the occasion of
certain acts of the spiritual ministry (Code, can. 1507, §1).
The latter cannot proceed from a contract, because an onerous
contract would be required, that would ipso facto be simoniacal. The former on the contrary have a contract for their
basis, but a contract that is essentially gratuitous. It is a
contract required by the very nature of the gifts, which the
faithful transmit through the hands of the priest, to be by
him dedicated to God, who, when the transfer has been
made, graciously admits his minister to a share of the per­
quisites acquired by the altar. On this condition, and on
it alone, have we truly a right to say what Suarez says : the
obligation of the priest as regards the application of the mass
“ results from the (material) thing that has been accepted ” and
kept :
“ Obligatio enim caritatis oritur tantum ex necessitate
alterius, non ex re recepta ; haec autem obligatio [sacerdotis respectu
missae applicandae~\ oritur ex re accepta : unde per se convenit,
etiam omni seclusa speciali necessitate (spirituali proximi). Neque
enim est obligatio orta ex religione tantum : non enim fundatur in
promissione Deo facta, neque ad Deum immediate ordinatur, sed ad
hominem (stipendii erogatorem), cui jit injuria, si non impleatur;
et ideo ad restitutionem obligat ; est ergo obligatio ex justitia, quae,
in hujusmodi rebus vel actionibus, sine pacto nequit intelligi. Non
est ergo in hoc pacto intrinseca malitia ”—(De Sacram, I, disp. 86,
sect, i, n. 5).
No, there is nothing wrong in this pact, if it is such as we
have described : a pact in justice, but a gratuitous pact, a
pact intrinsic to the mandate of the sacrifice together with
the consignment of the matter of the sacrifice. It is from
this matter thus received for the purpose of being transmitted
that the obligation in justice results, tanquam “ ex re accepta ”,
without this dependency “ ex re accepta ” involving in the
obligation thus contracted even a shadow of simony.
Nothing like it, however, is met with apart from the single
case of sacrifice ; nothing like it, I say, in the other spiritual
178

MASS-OFFERINGS
prestations. It is also worth while to point out that the
Code does not favour a pure and simple juridical identification
of the two subjects. If the Mass-offerings were but a particular
instance of dues legally attached to certain acts, why make
of the former the subject-matter of article IV {De missarum
eleemosynis seu stipendiis) of chapter I {De sacrosancto missae
sacrificio) of title III {De sanctissima Eucharistia) of Part I {De
sacramentis) of Book III {De rebus), whereas the latter do not
make their appearance in this Book III till we come to title
XXVII {De bonis ecclesiasticis acquirendis) of Part VI (De bonis
Ecclesiae temporalibus), or again in Book II {Depersonis) chapter
IX {De parochis) of title VIII {De potestate episcopali, etc.) of
section II {De clericis in specie) of Part I {De clericis) ?
I am aware that fault is found with my solution of the
problem of Mass-stipends, because it does not apply to the
case of the dues contemplated in canon 1507, nor to the case
of tithes (canon 1502) nor to the cathedraticum (canon 1504)
nor to the parochial fees (canon 463). But I beg leave
to see therein an advantage for that solution, just as I take
for granted the falsity of every solution that does not make
a distinction.
At all events, the reader can now judge whether my critic
was justified in placing under the patronage of Suarez the
doctrine he intended to oppose to mine, and in particular
this passage : “ The duty of justice, which rests on the priest,
to apply the fruit of the sacrifice to the donor or to the person
designated by him does not properly have its origin in the acceptance
of the stipend, but in the will of the Church, enjoining upon
her ministers the performance of the sacred functions in
favour of the donor” (p. 135). “ Oritur ex re accepta”, says
Suarez. As for an ecclesiastical law, there is none.
After Suarez, who gave us something of a chance to study
the subject in its essence, let us come to Lugo. Lugo (disp.
21) has nothing about an antecedent obligation ; on the contrary,
he denies it (n. 5 and 6). He has nothing about a positive
law ; he denies it also (n. 3). All that he has in common
with the thesis defended by M. Leroux is the assertion that the
179

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

money is not the price of the mass, but stipendium sustentationis
(η. 13). But this is by no means characteristic of a special
thesis ; it is the teaching, not the most general only, but
for centuries absolutely common ; our own, as well as that
of everybody. Only it is not a solution, for it is the very
question we have to elucidate. Lugo explains it (n. 13 and
14) by a comparison between the celebrant and a painter
who decorates churches gratuitously, while having himself
compensated for the expenses he incurs. M. Leroux borrows
this comparison from him, seemingly without being aware
that since it leads to indemnities it does not lead to an emolument.
I am not going to treat this point again, having amply done
so elsewhere (Gregorianum, pp. 372-376 ; above pp. 99-102);
I merely assure M. Leroux that Fr. Vermeersch would never
be tempted to associate his theory with that allegory.
Cardinal Gasparri {Tract, can. de SS. Euchar., n. 540-543)
agrees with Lugo, and at the same time has recourse to a
contract do ut facias ; but he does not bring in any antecedent
obligation of justice. As for a positive law, he attributes to
it, in relation to the bond of justice existing between the
fruit of the mass and the stipend, a merely negative, and
nowise positive, function : a mere permission, or removens
prohihibens (cf. above, p. 103).
The Salmanticenses (Theol. mor., tr. 5, c. 5, punct. 1, n. 1),
say not a word of an antecedent justice, not a word of an
ecclesiastical law.
Assuredly something more than the documentary proofs
adduced by M. Leroux is needed to convince us that his
doctrine is the most commonly accepted in the schools.
This much on the position taken by M. Leroux. It now
remains to examine the criticism he makes of my position.
First criticism : “ The solution is incomplete ” (p. 141),
because it does not work out when applied to the jam stolae,
etc.
I answer that this failure is quite intentional. The solution
is for that matter based on the intrinsic difference between
Mass-offerings and all other dues required on the occasion of
180

MASS-OFFERINGS

a spiritual ministry, etc. On this point I refer the reader
to what has been said thus far.
Second criticism : “ It does not harmonise with ecclesiastical
legislation ” (p. 141). This assertion is proved in two ways.
First proof : “ Canon Law, which has regulated so minutely
the question of Mass-stipends, forbids nowhere the acceptance
of the stipend of a non-Catholic with the stipulation of cele­
brating for his intention” (p. 142).
I answer : First, the silence of the Code authorizes a con­
clusion in favour of liberty only in matters which are directly
amenable not to the natural law, but to the ecclesiastical law.
Now this second hypothesis is exactly the one I deny. To
use it against me would be a begging of the question. Secondly,
is it true that the silence of the Code is absolute ? What
the Code does not say expressly it sometimes says implicitly.
Now in the very definition which it gives of the daily Mass­
offerings the Code claims to know no other offerings than
those coming from the faithful : “ Stipendia quae a fidelibus
pro missis offeruntur,” etc. (Can. 826, 1 ; cf. Can. 836 and
839). If a non-Catholic offered me a Mass-stipend, his stipend
would therefore not come under the stipendia missarum regulated
by the Code.
Second proof : “ Better still. There are decrees explicitly
allowing us to come to such an agreement with an unbaptized
person on condition of avoiding scandal and of not favouring
superstition” (p. 142). Hence there is an impossibility of
“ reconciling the Roman decrees ” with a theory which makes
of the stipend the matter intended for the sacrifice ; whereas
most certainly the sacrifice cannot be offered except by
Christians.
I answer : The documents brought forward against me
have been quoted by me and examined as early as 1921,
in my work Mysterium Fidei (p. 366). It is quite an easy
task to repeat the objection without even hinting at the
answer already given to it.1 I cannot reproduce that
II note in passing that this is not the manner adopted by Fr. Hocedez in his
article on Mau Offerings (N.R.T., February 1923, p. 71).

N

181

ΓΥΛ

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

answer again here, and I confine myself to a word or
two.
First, as regards the meaning of the documents, there is
room for some doubt, based on the Instruction which accom­
panies the first one of them, giving in support the authority
of Bellarmine, who has in view not the Mass-contract with an
infidel, but the lawfulness of a mere suffrage in favour of
an infidel.
Secondly, as regards the authority of these documents, an
observation is necessary. A solemn Decree is one thing,
an Answer is another. We are dealing here with two Answers :
one of the Holy Office (July 12, 1865), and the other of
Propaganda (March 11, 1848). On the value which these
practical decisions have in relation to scientific research, there
is probably nothing more thoroughly thought out and more
correct than an article published in this very review in January
1907, under the title “ For Science.” The author of it, Fr.
Vermeersch, stated that there is reason for “ distinguishing
between the Sovereign Pontiff, plenary Congregations and
those more modest commissions called Congressi ” (p. 8).
We may add : and between Decrees and Answers ; between
decisions that have the papal approval and those that have
not. It is a mistake to believe that “ the task of the professor
(or) of the Catholic writer is confined ... to waiting for,
and then recording, the decisions ofjuridical tribunals ” (p. 8).
With all the respect due to the lower degrees of that doctrinal
hierarchy, “let us not omit to throw upon a question the
light of the principles ” (p. 10).
This is admirably expressed, and it holds chiefly in matters
where the decisions offer an appearance of contradiction.
Now this happens in the matter we are considering. On the
19th of August 1776, Propaganda, in its general session,
had declared absolutely that it was not lawful to celebrate
mass for Turks.1 Much more unlawful w’ould it be to bind
oneself to do so by contract. This seems to be in direct
1 “ Non licere celebrationem missae pro Tureis et schismaticis.”
5Μ·)

182

(Collectanea, tom. t,

MASS-OFFERINGS
opposition to the Answer of the Holy Office, under date of
July 12, 1865 : “ It is licit to celebrate for the intention of
the Turks and other infidels and to receive from them an
alms for the application of the mass,” once every danger of
scandal has been removed, etc. The subject is not only
delicate ; it is extremely intricate, and lends itself readily to
confusion. There is the priest’s suffrage (and that of all
other offerers), which may be extended to every kind of
persons, without restriction. There is the contracting lay­
man’s sacrificial activity,1 which is strictly reserved to the
faithful, the only contracting parties recognized by the Code.
There is also the contract strictly such and the conjuncture of
two promises not bound up with each other ; this latter, like
the suffrage, is allowed without any restriction of the natural
law. I may unconditionally promise a suffrage to the Turk,
who promises me unconditionally an alms. But to contract
in justice, under a strict obligation of payment for a suffrage
in his favour, would be simoniacal. To enter into a gratuitous
agreement not about the benefit of a suffrage, but about the
exercise of the priestly mediation with regard to the offerings
placed in the hands of the priest—this is allowed, but allowed
to the faithful, and to them alone. For whoever consigns
offerings, as such, is by that very fact a mediate offerer, with
an altogether special title, as the evidence of things proves,
and as our Doctors teach. Listen to Dominic Soto’s state­
ment : “ Offerentes autem sunt in triplici gradu. Primum est
sacerdos, qui immediate, per se, tanquam publicus Ecclesiae minister
. . . offert. . . . Generalissime vero et mediate (hoc est per
sacerdotem) offert totus christianus populus. . . . Particularius
vero, sed tamen etiam quodammodo generaliter, offerunt omnes qui
aliquem specialem actum circa hoc sacrificium exercent, ut . . .
ministri altaris . . . chorus . . . plebs, etc. Specialissime
1 “ Aliud esi offere pro alio, hoc est nomine et vice ipsius·, . . . aliud offere pro
alio, hoc est in commodum ipsius
(Pasqualigo, De Sacrificio N.L., tom. I,
g. 136, n. i). "Inquires quibus personis prosit hoc sacrificium . . . Respondetur
includi omnes istas personas in duplici genere, quia vel sunt offerentes, vel illi pro quibus
offertur.” (Joannes A. S. Thoma, De Sacrifie. Missae, disp. 32, art. 3, n. 17).
See also Lugo, quoted in MF, 360.

183

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
famen offerunt illi qui peculiarem eleemosynam in hanc missam con­
terunt, ut pro se et suis offeratur.” (In 4. D 13, q. 2, a. i.)1
Therefore the stipends make of you the offerer, and the
very special offerer. But to this very special oblation corres­
ponds the free disposition (gratuitous, of course) of a very
special suffrage : in virtue of this maxim of common sense,
so clearly stated by Pasqualigo, after many others, in his
huge monograph De Sacrificio Novae Legis (tom. I, q. 136,
n. 9) : “ Praeter sacerdotem omnes alios offerentes applicare
posse sacrificium pro aliis, quantam ad ipsos spectat.” Nothing
further is required to explain both the surrender of the special
fruit of the mass to the individual Catholic who is the giver of
the stipend, and the suffrage with which he no less than the
priest may favour whomsoever he pleases.
After giving his objections to the thesis, M. Leroux attacks
the various elements of the argumentation supporting it.
Of this number is the word of St. Paul (7 Cor. ix, 13) :
“ Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat
the things that are of the holy place ; and they that serve the
altar partake with the altar ? ”—“ Much good will is neces­
sary,” remarks M. Leroux, “ to discover in this text that, in
the Christian priesthood as well as in the Mosaic priesthood,
the priest partakes with God the things that are God’s ” (9.143).
—It is a good will which, not to mention Chrysostom, was
not lacking in St. Jerome, nor in the pseudo-Jerome or pseudoDamasus of the Corpus Juris, nor in the anonymous author of
the Apostolic Canons, nor in Innocent IV, nor in St. Thomas,
nor in the theologians of the sixteenth century, such as Hen­
riquez {Summa Theologiae Moralis, ix, c. 22, n. 2), nor in our
own time, in one of the most learned and keenest interpreters
1 Let us hear once more John of Saint Thomas, in the sequel to the passage .
quoted above: “Inter offerentes diversae numerantur personae. Primo, gui faciunt
pro se celebrari missam. Secundo, qui assistunt, et cooperantur illi. Tertio, ipse
sacerdos cujus ministerio fit sacrificium. Qui offerri faciunt adhuc dupliciter se habent :
Quidam nimis remote, et quasi in habitu, offerunt (scilicet omnes fideles, qui constituunt
corpus Ecclesiae, siquidem sacrificium nomine Ecclesiae offertur, cum sit publica ejus actio).
Alii vero proxime et in actu, cooperantur et faciunt offerri, ut qui dant eleemosynam
pro stipendio, aut qui instituit aliquam fundationem cum onere missarum ” (manual
masses or founded masses).

184

4

mass-ôFferîngS
of St. Paul, Fr. Prat.1 That same good will should not be
wanting in anyone of those who grasp the two following
very simple truths : first, that the New Law is in nothing
inferior to the Old one in the nobility, independence and dig­
nity of its priesthood, which is the priesthood, not of Aaron
any longer, but of the divine Melchisedech ; second, that to
partake with the altar and to partake with God are synony­
mous.
It is quite true that in the New Law the true victim of
the sacrifice is not an earthly aliment, the product of our fields
or of our flocks, but the Lamb of God and the Bread of heaven.
Most certainly M. Leroux is right in saying, “ in our sacrifice
there is no other victim than Our Lord.”2 Does it follow
that the sacrifice cannot be the sacrifice of the layman who
offers the gifts, in virtue of the very special claim of the gifts he
offers ? Yes, it would follow, if the true victim was not precisely
the term reached, through their consecration to God, by those
symbolical gifts of the layman, who by reason of his baptism
partakes of the priesthood according to the order of Mel­
chisedech. In other words, the conclusion would hold, if
our sacrifice was not sacramental.
But since there is in our sacrifice, as an essential requisite,
a sacramentum tantum (a sacramental symbol), on account of
which the res et sacramentum (the thing symbolized) becomes
both a visible sacrifice and our sacrifice, it must needs be
that the contributor of this blessed sign, which loses its sub­
stance only to be filled with that of Christ, should acquire for
himself, because of his contribution, a special claim on the
oblation to which he gives its initial movement and its point
of earthly contact. Christ alone gives us his Flesh and his
Blood, assuredly ; but we ourselves supply the gifts and offerings,
dona et munera, those hosts of bread and wine, hostias panis et
1 On this text of St. Paul and its commentators, see above, 114-119, 164.
* In the Old Law, the victim immolated being the property of the worshipper,
it was truly the sacrifice of the latter that was offered by the mediation of the
priest. But in our sacrifice there is no other victim than Our Lord. (Therefore
our case does not well bear comparison with the Jewish oblations ” (p. 143).)
That means that the mass (according to M. Leroux) is not the sacrifice of the
lay offerer of the stipends.
185

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

vini, whose place Christ himself takes for the one purpose of
giving them an infinite value, and not for the purpose
of excluding or annulling or diminishing our initiative
as offerers.1 All this has already been fully explained
elsewhere, and the discussion will not make any headway
as long as objections already refuted are lined up as if
they were new.
M. Leroux objects again that the bread and wine do not
ordinarily come from the stipends at all, but from elsewhere.2
1 understand perfectly that the priest does not go for each
mass and buy a bottle of wine with his manual alms in his
hands. He may have a supply in his cellar. But what he
draws from it will correspond to the portion of the stipend
of which he would otherwise have had to dispose in favour
of the wine merchant. There is compensation and equiva­
lence. In the main the operation will remain exactly the same.
If the priest, instead of buying the mass-wine, profits by the
Church board’s putting gratuitously at his disposal all that he
needs, the case is still the same. This bread and wine coming
into his possession without burdening him with any obliga­
tion as to the application of the mass, are not stipends, nor
elements of stipends, but a pure and simple liberality. They
do not, therefore, interfere at all with the integrity of the
special fruit which the worshipper secures for himself by the
mass-contract. We were told this a while ago very plainly
by Suarez. I may feed, support, endow a priest, without
securing for myself any of his masses, and therefore without
curtailing his freedom in disposing of them to others. M.
Leroux has therefore no reason for writing : “ Must we, in
’See also above, pp. 131, 139 sq., 147, 156 for the absolutely decisive
testimonies of the Liturgy on this matter. The votive sacrifices, i.e. those
celebrated by mandate of an individual for some object of a private nature,
and not for the discharge of a public service, are characterized, within the Canon
itself, in its variable parts, as sacrifices, hosts and oblations of that individual person,
man or woman, who stipulated for the celebration.
2 “In actual practice, the money handed to the priest is hardly ever used to
procure the bread and wine for the altar. They come from another quarter,
and the stipend is entirely used for the sustenance of the priest. Are we in
consequence to consider the special fruit of the mass as divided up between the
two contributors ? ” (p. 143.)
186

MASS-OFFERINGS

consequence, look upon the special fruit of the mass as divided
up between the two donors ?” (p. 143).
M. Leroux objects also that the title of offerer given to the
maker of the contract is not “ irreducible to any other ” (p. 143).
I do not know what is required to make this “ irreducible ”
character apparent, that is to say, to make it appear speci­
fically distinct from any other. It seems to me to be sufficiently
clear from what was published on the subject in the Outline
(all of which is passed over in silence or ignored), and even
from what has been said above in the course of this article.
To contribute by the oblation of the matter to be sacrificed (“ rem
sacrificandam ”, as Bellarmine callsit, above, p. 162), by bringing
the gifts which the Sovereign Angel will carry upon the
celestial altar, is “ not the same manner ” of offering (to speak
again like Bellarmine, above, p. 163) as to consent by a habitual
disposition or to ratify by actual assistance, nor the same as
to celebrate or lend to the celebration the help of a subordinate
ministry. To spread the table at one’s own expense has never
been the same thing as to serve it or to sit down to it as a
guest ; it has never been the same form of causality, the same
claim of offerer, at no time and in no country, nor in any
religion true or false.
“ After all,” asks M. Leroux, “ why should the participation
of him who offers the matter necessary for the consecration
(let us add : and for the support or sustenance of the priest)
create such a special right and such a distinct claim to draw
profit from the fruits of the mass, rather than, for instance, the
participation certainly no less active and no less liturgical,
of the ministers who assist the priest at the altar ? ”
(p. 144).
It does give him a special and distinct claim, and we have
just seen why. But by that we do not mean an exclusive right.
Each one enjoys a fruit in keeping with his co-operation,1
and a free disposal of a suffrage proportionate to that co-opera­
tion. This matter of manifold suffrages is too much forgotten,
1 How these various fruits do not interfere with one another, see MF, Elucid.
XXVIII.

187

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

and yet the Schoolmen taught it in terms clear and explicit.
“Quisquis concurrit ad offerendum, potest, quatenus ab ipso offertur,
pro alio offere. Ex his colligitur quid sit audire missam pro alio :
audire pro alio est audire in commodum ipsius, atque adeo transferre
in ipsum fructum qui inde percipitur” (Pasqualigo, loc. cit.).
The identical statement is met with in the famous Thomist
Nuno Cabezedo (in 3 S. 83, 1, part 2, q. 6, concl. 4): “ Etiam
laid offerentes simul cum sacerdote possunt suam satisfactionem aliis
applicare.” Suarez says the same (disp. 78, sect. 1, n. 6);
and so does Vasquez (disp. 227, c. 1, n. 2), etc.1 Hence it
is customary in the Society of Jesus, at least in Rome, to
ask the religious who are not priests, upon the death of one of
their companions, to offer for the repose of his soul the next
masses at which they will assist. But now, suppose you were
to try to draw a monetary profit from that suffrage (were
it for your clerical sustenance) by making of it the matter
of a monetary contract, you would find out what the Church
thinks of it. The reason is that the granting of a suffrage
for money would not in any way remain a gratuitous contract,
like the one which creates between the priest and the faithful
an obligation of justice based on “ the thing received ” (ex
re accepta), but on the thing, be it noted, received into the
hands of the priest, or rather consigned into his hands
only in order to pass on into those of God (ex re commissa).
At all events, each pious participant gathers the fruit of a
personal benefit, that can be extended to others by way of
suffrage. The gain of the worshipper, of the offerer con­
signing his gifts, is by no means exclusive or restrictive of the
gain of the other faithful who are not contracting parties,
but are offerers by reason of other titles. However, the gain
of the former, other things being equal, is the most important,
because it is intrinsically connected, in a manner absolutely
unique, with the matter of the sacrifice, with the gift that
honours God, just as the part of the celebrant is more intrinsic­
ally connected with the form of the sacrifice, with the conse­
cration or active oblation of the gift. All, therefore, all the
. 1 See also the explicit testimonials of the liturgy, above, p. 156.
188

<

·

!

’
\

ί
1

,

MASS-OFFERINGS

faithful associated with the priest will be enriched by the
sacrifice ; but to a greater extent (servatis servandis} those who
contribute to it by the stipend : “ Amplius participant qui
contribuunt pitantias ” (Henriquez, Theol. Mor. 9, c. 20, n. 2,
cf. not. 7).1
Such are the objections of M. Leroux, and such the answers
prompted by the very theory which they assail.
Of this theory, M. Leroux says that it “ is indeed calculated
to exalt the character of the mass-stipends in the estimation
of the faithful, and to encourage in them the desire to become
more actively associated, by the pecuniary offering made to
the priest, with the oblation itself of the holy sacrifice ” (p. 141).
For this admission I am thankful to M. Leroux, reminding
him at the same time that such happy results are seldom the
outcome of error.
He adds : “ It is nevertheless very doubtful whether it will
find many adherents ” (p. 141). Up to the present, apart
from M. Leroux and the author to whom he appeals, I hardly
know more than one theologian who has written against it.
The latter2 has made the discovery that it was out of touch
with the teaching of the last centuries, even though it might
claim for itself some obscure and antiquated authorities of
an epoch that is quite dead and gone. “ Fr. de la Taille
believes he can find traces of his opinion in some rare and
ancient texts almost unknown till now.”—One would think,
reading the above, that I had dug up some ruins of Numa’s
time.—“ I leave to others the task of verifying his state­
ments.”—Which is a very easy and comfortable proceeding.—
“ But should some theologians of a distant past have defended
that opinion, the fact still remains that it has against it the
whole and entire theological teaching of centuries.” .So then,—
to speak only of the last three centuries,—Thomassin,3 Van
Espen,4 Wolf,5 Berlendi,® do not exist. It matters not that
1 For Henriquez (see chap. 21 and 22) pilantia, in the subject-matter, is synony­
mous with stipendium. This form of speech is common among the writers of his
time. See Dominic Soto, Dejustitia etjure, IX, q. 6, a. i, ad 2 principale.
* Fr. M. C. Forest, O.P., La Revue Dominicaine, Canada, Oct., 1926, p. 553.
’Above, pp. 153, 154 and 160 sq.; 4 p. 162, cf. 167.; ’p. 143.; *p. 161 sq.

189

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
they are specialists on the subject of ecclesiastical institutions ;
their opinion has no weight, absolutely none, as against the
Cursus and the Manuals which transmit to one another, as
a precious legacy, the chosen solutions which everybody
knows, all of them in conflict with one another and with
themselves, without leaving the least amount of space for the
study of a doctrine of which they are ignorant.
With the exception of Fr. Forest, I think I had every reason
to be satisfied with the other theologians who were kind
enough to take notice of the thesis I have presented.
Leaving aside Dom L. Bauduin, O.S.B., and Fr. Hanssens,
who are quoted in it, it is proper that I should mention before
all others, M. Jeannote, P.SS., professor at the seminary
of Montreal, well known among the learned for his important
researches on The Psalter of St. Hilary (Paris 1917).
From a long article he published on this subject in the
Semaine Religieuse de Montreal (April 10, 1924), I pick out these
sentences : “ The explanation may appear new, and for that
very reason somewhat suspect. As a matter of fact it is the
traditional explanation, the old view” (p. 244). “This
explanation, at once so simple and so natural, solves difficulties
too easily not to be the true solution of the problem ” (pp. 242,
243). “ It will undoubtedly find its place ere long in all the
manuals of theology ” (p. 246). This is too optimistic.1
Dom Raphael Proust, O.S.B., in the Revue Bénédictine (January
1925) is certainly nearer the actual truth, when he limits
his prognostications to the statement that “ it will win for
itself the sympathy of many.” His fellow-workers on the
Bulletin de Saint Martin et de Saint Benoît (May 1925) are kind
enough to do my work the unmerited honour of saying of
it that “ it constitutes by itself alone a complete study of the
question.” So much generosity fills me with confusion.
The Dean of the Faculty of Theology of Paris, Fr. d’Alès,
with that high authority which his teaching of sacramental
theology in particular has earned for him, says : “ On a
delicate subject, on which the Christian mind finds it at times
1 However see Cimetier P.SS., Dût. des Connaiss, Relig. 4, g^6.

190

MASS-OFFERINGS

somewhat difficult to guard against the narrowness of the
juridical outlook and the commonplaces of language, the
author restores a traditional doctrine, taught by such masters
as Thomassin, the Blessed Bellarmine and St. Thomas
Aquinas. . . . This view, at once very simple and very
exalted, sets us free from paltry and artificial conceptions.
Let us hope to see it received everywhere as it deserves.”
(Recherches de Science Religieuse, February 1926, pp. 93, 94). The
Australian Catholic Record of July 1924 (pp. 82-89), by Ae pen
of the secretary of its staff, Dr. E. J. O’Donnel, gave a most.
favourable exposition of it, without a single word of reserva­
tion. Fr. Le Rohellec, of the Roman Academy of St. Thomas,
professor at the French Seminary, writes in the Echos de Santa
Chiara (1925, p. 38) that “the demonstration seems truly
convincing.” Finally, a very short time ago, the Master of
the Sacred Palace, the Most Reverend Fr. Marc Sales, O.P.,
had the kindness in the Scuola Cattolica (May 15, 1926, p. 378)
to call attention to this theory of mass-offerings as “ worthy
of special consideration.” I omit, of course, approbations
expressed in private letters, no matter how high their origin.
Besides, it will not be out of place to state that in a paper
published after mine, but, as far as can be judged, entirely
independent of mine (which seems not to have been known
to the author), Dr. Rohner, of Friburg, wrote thus ri “Anyone
who desires to have a correct idea of the mass-offerings must
first of all take a survey of their origin. Their origin is found
in the oblations which the faithful of the first centuries of the
Church brought to the altar for each mass. . . . These
oblations were not only offered to be applied to the holy
sacrifice ; but they were also intended to serve for the support
of the priest and the ministers of the altar as well as for the
poor. The believers were acquainted with the saying of the
Apostle (I Cor. ix, 13) : 4 Know you not that they who work
in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place ; and they
that serve the altar partake with the altar ? ’—that is to say, what
1 Die Messapplikation nach der Lettre des hl. Thomas, in Dious Thomas (Friburg)
March 1925, p. 65 sq.
IQ!

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

is offered on the altar. They offered, therefore, to the altar
(sie opferten daher dem Altare} with the intention that the ministers
of the altar should have their share. ... In the course
of ages . . . the gifts in kind were changed into money.
. . . Little by little the alms were remitted to the priests
outside of the mass, on condition1 of a special application
of the mass. These alms in money received the name of
eleemosynae or stipendia missarum : and this is still their name
to-day ” (pp. 65-67). Whoever holds this view holds all that
is necessary about the nature of the stipend and about the
obligation which follows therefrom, even if he is not as yet
fully aware of it, as is the case with Dr. Rohner, who after all
the foregoing still feels the need of invoking a precept of the
Church2 in order to graft upon that transaction an obligation
of justice and not even of commutative justice at that. Apart
from this inconsistency, it is perhaps not rash to add the name
of Dr. Rohner to those who in the last few years have lent
their support to the historical solution of the problem of
the mass offerings.
In any case, M. Leroux will allow us to be less pessimistic
than he, and to opine that there is some future in store for our
solution.
II
My task would remain incomplete, did I not add that the
criticism of M. Leroux has received the enthusiastical appro1 The author is right in emphasizing this point. When the gifts were presented
at the altar during the course of the Liturgy, the intention which inspired the
act did not need to be expressed : it was evident from the circumstances. When
some one goes to the priest’s residence to give him a chicken, he must needs
inform him whether it is a gift pure and simple, or on condition of having mass said.
2 In the matter of precept, only the Code is cited. It is rather late.—Perhaps,
after all, M. Rohner means only to explain how the obligation can be sub gravi,
although the stipend does not reach a large amount. In that case two things
may be said in reply. First, that, as a matter of fact, at least in Latin countries,
the due of the stipendium ought to be raised considerably. Secondly, that the
gravity of the obligation depends first of all upon the gravity of the mandate
assumed by the priest as a public official, who is moreover pledged in justice
by the deposit he has accepted. At all events, this difficulty, if it is one, is met
with in every theory on the mass-stipend. It is not an ecclesiastical law that
will ever be able to bring about the gravity of an obligation (obligation of justice
or any other, it matters little), where gravity of matter is wanting on both sides.

192

1 Ι"ί

*

MASS-OFFERINGS
bation of a priest of his diocese, M. l’abbé Joseph Clesse,
author of an Étude Critique de certaines propositions du Mysterium
Fidei,1 wherein M. Leroux is being complimented for having
done “justice to the fanciful theory exposed in the article
The Mass Offerings ” (p. 22). It would be too fortunate if
the theory of the Mass Offerings escaped with this single label
of “ fanciful ”, amid a cloud of “ risky propositions ” (p. 3)
to which is reduced (or well nigh, it seems) my work on the
sacrifice and the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
And so we see it treated elsewhere as “inept” (p. 26). It
would be difficult, we must confess, to reply to this sort of
criticism.2 However, since in a pathetic conclusion M. Clesse
asks himself : “ What becomes, according to this doctrine
of the Mysterium Fidei, of the teaching of the parish priest
of our childhood ? ” (p. 26), I am ready to come to his relief
in his distress.
This distress seems to arise chiefly from one statement of
mine, which wrings from him at one time the word heresy,
and which, I must admit, runs all through my work : namely
that at the Mass no real immolation takes place (taking immolation in the sense of mactation directed towards the oblation),
but only a mystical immolation (sacramental—symbolical—
representative). “The author of the Mysterium Fidei repeats
at pleasure all through his book that at the sacrifice of the Mass
there is no real immolation, but only an apparent immolation. . . . Fr. de la Taille does not seem to be aware that,
in ecclesiastical parlance, his assertion is equivalent to defending the heresy that the Mass is not a true and properly so
called sacrifice ” (p. 9). Excuse the trifle. But let us cheer
M. Clesse. The parish priest of his childhood, even if he did
not know (which is not proved) all that is accumulated in the

*ί

■'
'

'
.

;
(< ■
>
' ,
; k <
>
|p ’'
■ ;
;
It ’
I; 'I

{ I
}' |
<

! ;
>
! ':
;
£
J
j
J

‘
i

1I

- Mere are a lew more samples ;
nrgumeniauon aiiogemer 100 aciooauc
(p. 13). “The words of the Catechism are respected, but they are emptied
of their meaning ” (p. 26). “ The doctrine of the Mysterium Fidei puts everything
awry” (p. 12). “Evacuatio trucis” (p. 13). “Preconceived ideas which are
found to be unintentionally in contradiction with Catholic dogma " (p. 27), etc.
Thereupon the author graciously adds that he does not wish to be “ harsh ”
(P- 27)·

r
<_■
.
h
is
U
ii

!93

ΐ

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
. Mysterium Fidei on this question, was not necessarily condemned
to total ignorance of what was being said and written around
him within the boundaries of his ecclesiastical province. Now
at that time, there were published, as they are still being pub­
lished, Conferences that enjoy a well-earned reputation. On
page 411 of the Collationes Tornacenses for the years 1853-1856,
he may have read these beautiful words of Collet, which the
diocesan editor accepts on his official responsibility as the
only explanation that can satisfy and settle the problem of the
Mass : “ Hand necesse est ut in consecratione nova fiat immolatio
[realis], sed sufficit realis oblatio victimae olim in crucis ara immolatae,
et in altari substantialiter et sensibiliter positae sub speciebus panis
et vini, in quibus repraesentantur effusio et separatio sanguinis a corpore,
quae in reali Agni immaculati immolatione praecessit. . . . Ergo
dici optime potest ad missae sacrificium nulla nova opus esse [reali]
immolatione.” This mere quotation does not pretend to be a
reply. Something else would be needed. But M. Clesse
may perhaps find in it some relief to his anguish about the
intellectual horizon of the parish priest of his childhood. For
my part, it so happens that I shall be discussing the question
of Oblation and Immolation in the near future (if my few spare
moments permit it) on the occasion of a book that appeared
recently in England.1
Here I confine myself to one single observation on the
tone of censure which M. Clesse, after one or two other publicists
from across the water, has seen fit to adopt towards me. I
suspect that this unusual tone must have its reason in a rumour
which has been current in England, whence it passed over
into Belgium, according to which ecclesiastical authority has
manifested or is about to manifest unfavourable sentiments
in regard to my doctrine. I have never before alluded to
this, although I was informed by friends of various professions
and different cloth. But during the course of the year just
come to a close, two bishops of the New World, having heard
an English religious, on a journey over there, state that accord­
ing to an eminent personality of the Roman Curia, the Holy
1 Cf. below, Part ÏI, pp. 349-379.

*94

MASS-OFFERINGS

See was only waiting for a formal denunciation in order to
fulminate, it seemed to them that I should clear up the matter.
The necessary steps were taken with the eminent personality
whose testimony had been invoked. The answer, which was
conveyed to me in writing1 was this.' “ There is not a word
of truth in it.” I should not have troubled myself about this
base rumour, had I not been put under obligation to stop
it. It is done ; and I am not sorry. I only should be very
sorry if I were forced to give proper names.
I prefer to quote here the names of those who honoured
with their eminently competent approbation the thesis of
the Mysterium Fidei, on the unity of the Supper and of the
Passion, and on the relation of the one and the other to the
sacrifice of the Mass : Mattiussi, the successor of Billot at
the Roman College, who by his acquiescence2 renounced
his own previous teaching (a rare occurrence in the theological
world) ; the professors of the Catholic Institute, d’Alès3
already mentioned, and Lebreton4 (by some incomprehensible
oversight, I have omitted to call attention to his highly authori­
tative teaching on the necessity of means inherent in the
Eucharist, Diet. Apol. i, 1573-1574) ; Fr. Grumel, O.E.S.A.,6
one of the contemporary masters of oriental theology, who
asks himself, “ by what sign it shall ever be possible to recognize
truth ”, if it does not blaze forth in the arguments of this
doctrine, “ and what other system, in any case, can with as
many warrants solicit our assent ” ; prelates, like Cardinal
Charost,6 one of the theological luminaries of the French
Episcopate, extending to this doctrine the canonical sanction
of his pastoral teaching ; His Grace, the Archbishop of Tarsus,
(now Cardinal) Lepicier,7 one of the most appreciated theo­
logians of the Eternal City ; and many others of every country
1 And in English [Translator’s Note],
’Cwif/d Cattolica, 74, 3, pp. 137-151.
3 Recherches de Science Religieuse, 13, pp. 362-365.
* Études, 169, 186.
5 Echos dOrieni, Jan.-March, 1926, pp. 118-120.
* Pastoral Letter on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Lent 1922, p. 20.
7 Introduction to the book of Dr. A. MacDonald, The Sacrifice of the Mass,
p. viii.

>95

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

and every tongue : Belgians, like Fr. Hanssens1 and Dom L.
Bauduin ;12 Frenchmen, like the Rt. Rev. Vicar General Dupin
de Saint-Cyr,3 former professor of theology, Fr. Riedinger,4
theological chronicler of the Revue Apologétique, and Fr. Pol·
linger,5* professor of theology ; Englishmen, like Professor
Bird® of Oscott, Fr. M. C. D’Arcy7 of Oxford, and Fr. Joseph
Rickaby,8 former professor of St. Benno’s ; Americans, like
Fr. Otten,9 professor at Chicago, and the Editors of the
American Catholic Quarterly Review10II; Canadians, like Dr. A.
MacDonald,11 Bishop of Victoria (now of Hebron), and Dr.
N. McNeil,12 Archbishop of Toronto ; Australians, like Dr.
M. Sheehan, Archbishop Coadjutor of Sydney13; Spaniards,
like Dr. S. Alameda, O.S.B.14; Italians, like Fr. F.-M.
Cappello,15 etc. : all of them men who know their catechism
and have read the Council of Trent.16
But besides those who have accepted the doctrine explicitly,
there are those who in their account of it have shown their
undoubted sympathy, as was done in the Nouvelle Revue Théo­
logique itself, under the signature of a writer who knows how
to combine historical science with theological acumen.17 In
1 Gregorianum, 3, pp. 307-312.
2 Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 7, 166-205.
3 Semaine Religieuse du Diocèse de Perigueux et de Sarlat, April 25, 1925, p. 203 sq.
4 Revue Apologétique, 34, p. 686.
5 Ibid., 41, 424.
• Adoremus, 3, 87 sq.
I Dublin Review, Oct.-Nov.-Dec. 1925, pp. 171-178.
8 Family Life and the Mass, C. T. S., London, 1925, p. 12 sq.
• Institutiones Dogmaticae, tom. 5, Chicago, 1923, p. 523 and 546 sq.
10 A.C.Q.R. 47, 261-262.
II Ecclesiastical Review, 76, 2, p. 205.
13 The Passion and the Mass, published by the Passionists of West Hoboken,
New Jersey.
13 The Sacrifice of the Mass, Dublin, 1926, pp. 8-12.
11 Revista Eclesidstica, May, 1925, pp. 257-263.
16 Gregorianum, March, 1926, p. 122.
13 Should I also add that M. G. Rabeau, former professor at the University
of Lublin, at present professor at the Grand Séminaire of Nice, author of a recent
and splendid work on the Introduction to the Study of Theology (Paris, 1926), among
the fifty theses which he lately presented to the Catholic Institute of Paris for
his fellowship in theology, did me the very great honour of placing on the list
theses I-V, XII, XVI-XVII, XXIII, XXXV-XXXVIII, of my Mysterium
Fidei, “ Facultate Sacrae Theologiae approbante.”
12 Fr. Hocedez, N. R. Th. 1923, pp. 281-292.

196

MASS-OFFERINGS
this latter category, more numerous than the former one,1 I
intend to confine myself to one name : the same that has
already been noticed a while ago in relation to the Mass
Offerings, the name of the Most Reverend Master of the
Sacred Palace. “ On the whole,” he writes, “ the doctrine
which he (the author of the Mysterium Fidei) defends, rests on
very solid foundations (nel complesso la dotlrina propugnata poggia
su basi solidissime) and is worthy of being studied thoroughly”?
It would not be easy to conceive such a recommendation given
in favour of “ hazardous ” propositions, to say nothing of
“ heresy.”
I offer my excuses to the public for this riot of testimonials.
There is, I believe, but one way to cut short certain campaigns.
Any way, here is something that may be lined up against the
name of my censor.
1 Which now includes also two of the latest contributors to the Dictionnaire De
Théologie Catholique (fasc. 83), namely Dr. Ruch, Bishop of Strasburg (La Messe
d'après la Sainte Ecriture, and La Messe d'après les Pères Jusqu’à Saint Cyprien,
col. 806 sq. 8ro, 815, 820, 825, 846-848, 961 sq.) and Professor Gaudel, of the
University of Strasburg (Ze Sacrijice de la Messe dans l’Eglise Latine, du 1V‘ siècle
jusqu’à la veille de la Réforme, col. 1060 sq. 1081 sq.)
1 Scuola Catlolica, May 1926, p. 375.

IO?

Bî

THE REAL PRESENCE

j
I

AND

K

ITS SACRAMENTAL FUNCTION
Stirred by the inroads which religious ignorance is making
upon the very centres most accessible to the preaching of the
Gospel, a social worker drew attention, some time ago, to
the following quite typical answer received from a young man
of one of our Catholic junior clubs, to a question that had
been put to him on the Eucharist : “ Well, you see, to my
mind the Eucharist, before everything is a symbol.” It will
not be difficult for anyone to imagine what a shock was
caused by this statement. It was expected that the young
man would begin by laying down, and as it were settling, the
fact of the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ
upon our altars under appearances that are not his own, but
those of the bread and wine. There were good reasons for
expecting such an answer, and for being astonished at so
disquieting a deficiency. On the other hand (let us be lenient
to all) the young man was perhaps not entirely wrong either.
What is the Eucharist ? it is a sacrament. v And what is a
'Sacrament ? it is, before anything else, a symbol. A sacrament,
acCOrdingT^he'CâtëchismT^âiLefficacious sign of a sanctifying reality. Sign and symbol are one and the same thing.
Every sacrament, therefore, is a symbol ; not, of course, a
symbol whose function would merely be to translate into sensible forms, to give a sensible expression to an ideal truth, for
the purpose of arousing or helping the mind to reflect upon it,
and, by reflecting upon it, become attached to it such as a
flag, or the sign of the cross, but a symbol that effects by itself
in the mind what it signifies. It is as if the flag possessed the
•

201

<

j

■

i

|
1

j i
‘ j
i
, i f1

;

' j
;
p
I
L 1
I
i |
I |
|
’ i

.

j

;
|
j

,
. Γ
»
|
j

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
power to stir up unfailingly a current of heroic energy in
the soul of him who grasps it or hoists it ; as if the sign of
the cross possessed the virtue, every time, of imprinting in our
souls the sentiments ofJesus crucified. Are we, then, attribut­
ing a magical power to the sacramental symbol ? A flag
possessing this virtue, this power of direct action upon souls,
and upon all souls, and always, would be a magical flag.
And in the same way a gesture, an attitude, that had for effect
a radical change in the inmost dispositions of any subject
whatever, ushering him into a new order of cognitions and
mental activity, making him to pass to a new plane of life,
raised above earth, above the world, above nature—would
it not be that very thing which, through countless turpitudes
and absurdities, the magic of all times has ever been striving
to attain ? Are our sacraments to take rank among this
discredited category of dark superstitions, into which so many
enemies of the Christian faith would fain consign them?
They are the very reverse. Magic is an attempt to act upon
an order of things which is not man’s domain, but God’s, by
means of symbols that do not express a will of God, but a
will of man. Sacraments are a word in action, a locution
by sign, proceeding from God and conveying to man what
God intends to do in him or for him. And God’s word is oper­
ative : dixit et facta sunt. Let God speak to your inmost soul,
saying, “ Peace be to you,” and at once you are pacified.
Let him speak before you, in the person of Christ telling the
man sick with the palsy, “ Thy sins are forgiven thee,” and
his sins are forgiven. Or let him speak through his ambassador,
his agent, his interpreter ; what difference does it make ?
He is judge and master of his own means. And if he pleases
not only to speak by the lips of another, but at the same time
to speak in signs (one says “ Yes ” by a nod of the head, or
“ Depart ” by pointing to the door, or as of old God com­
missioned his prophet to make a shepherd boy king by pouring
oil upon his head), who are we that we should presume to say
to him, “ Lord, this won’t do ; this time nothing will come of
it ; speak to me plainly and not in riddles ? ” God speaks in
202

THE REAL PRESENCE

r

the manner he chooses, multifariam multisque modis, at sundry
times and in divers manners, as Scripture tells us, but always
as befits God, with full power to accomplish, by merely saying
it, what his sovereign word intimates to a creature. Now the
sacraments, are signs of this description. They are signs
which God has placed in the hands of his Church, in order to
signify, under conditions specified by him, what he intends to
effect for us in the spiritual order. It is he who once for all
has determined and specified their unalterable signification,
and when by the action of the Church, in accordance with
the instructions God has given her, these signs are made to
work, it is not the Church, it is not men who give utterance
to their own thought ; the thought expressed in that symbolical
language is properly and personally the thought of him who
through all these intervening agencies signals to us that we
are regenerated, that we are reconciled, that we are strength­
ened, and so forth. And because he speaks through all this,
it is his authority, his virtue, his sovereign power that passes
through it all, for the purpose of producing what the sign is
meant to convey, and of impressing on our souls what is
expressed by the symbol. When a king of old said : “ You
are colonel, you are marshal, you are governor, you are prime
minister,” someone was prime minister, or governor, or
marshal, or colonel. They were words that accomplished
what they enunciated, not having merely for object to relate
a thing because it had happened, but to say it that it might
actually be, and, therefore, to realize it by promulgating it.
They were promulgations of the prince’s wishes. The same
is true to-day of the promulgations made, not by the lips
of the head of the State, but by the publications in the Official
Press. There also what is announced is verified by the fact
of being announced. In a similar manner every sacrament is
the promulgation, by the Church’s minister, of a decree from
on high, addressed to a properly disposed subject, under the
required conditions : a decree, say, of regeneration, or of
reconciliation, or of confirmation. And because this promulgation is made by means of a sign, it is in fine a sovereign
203

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

.utterance embodied in a symbol : visibile verbum (giving to this
definition of St. Augustine its most comprehensive accepta. tion) a word made manifest in a sign ; a word not spoken, but
. figured ; language appropriate to our condition of sensible
r beings and to the social constitution of the Church.
This introduction on the sacraments was, if not necessary, at
least useful in helping us to give the Eucharist its proper
setting. The Eucharist is a sacrament : to have a compre­
hension of it we must begin by ranking it in the order of signs
that have just been defined : efficacious signs of a sanctifying
reality which they suggest ; a sensible and symbolical rendering
of a design of grace which is being accomplished by their means
in favour of any one who submits himself to their influence
in accordance with the order established by God.
But thence precisely arises a difficulty, which has vexed the
mind from the very day when men began to speculate on the
eucharistie dogma, the peaceful and invariable belief of
which had for nine centuries fed the Christian life, without
ever furnishing matter either for discussion or for analysis.
If the Eucharist is a sign, the sign (or the sacrament, which is
exactly the same thing) of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
how can it at the same time be the reality of that Body and of
, that Blood ? Sign and reality exclude each other ; itJs not
. possible to be at once the symbol and the object symbolized.
To bum someone in effigy is not to burn him in earnest. All
the mysteries of the Christian faith were being enacted in
figure among the Hebrews : therefore they were not enacted
in truth ; and scarcely had truth made its appearance when
the figures ceased. Umbram fugat veritas, shadows yield before
the truth ; and it is precisely in a hymn to the Blessed Sacra­
ment that St. Thomas inserted that saying. In all this we
have the explanation why, a little over a thousand years ago,
there rose in opposition to St. Paschasius Radbertus, the first
great champion of the Eucharist, one of his own confreres, a
monk like himself of the abbey of Corbie. In an attempt to
systematize the eucharistie dogma, this monk hardly let any­
thing subsist of the real presence of the Body and Blood of
204

THE REAL PRESENCE

Christ, except the name. He admitted a real presence, but
only as a manner of speaking, as in every image there is ideally
present the original which the image represents. By picturing
to the mind an invisible reality, a symbol is looked upon as
containing it, and as we might say nowadays of a flag, as carry­
ing it in its folds : in like manner the Body and Blood ofJesus
Christ were said to be contained in the Eucharist, according
to Rathramnus (at least as far as the very vague nature of
his thought and the involved style in which he expresses it
allow of a correct interpretation). Thank God, Paschasius
Radbertus was at hand, to uphold the faith of the Church, her
faith of centuries, based on the words of the Master : This is
my Body, the self-same that is about to be delivered to death
for you ; this is my Blood, in this cup of the New Testament,
shed for you and for the multitude of mankind unto remission
of sins. The same Blood of the Passion, the same Body
bruised for us, and not the idea of the Blood, or the idea of the
Flesh of Christ, but truly the same Flesh he brought into the
world when bom of the Virgin Mary.

Ave verum corpus natum
de Maria Virgine,
vere passum, immolatum,
in cruce pro homine.
If we do not owe this verse to St. Paschasius Radbertus,
to him, more than to any other, belongs the honour of having
transmitted in its integrity, to the generations that followed,
the article of faith embodied in it. Here also we have another
proof that the Virgin Mother has only to come forward
in the majesty of her prerogative in order to exterminate
every heresy, whether it be christological, as at Ephesus, or
sacramentarian, as in the present case.
But it was not enough to preserve the dogma, it was also
necessary to free it from the adversary’s sophism ; and to tell
the truth, St. Paschasius did not find it too much of a task.
Undoubtedly there is in the Eucharist a sensible sign of the
205

(V

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Body of Christ, and that which is the sign of the Body of
Christ is not the Body of Christ : hence no one ever pretended
to identify the two. Yet the two things are found together
in the Eucharist, just as in man body and soul are united, and
yet the body is not the soul. One is the thing we see, another
is the thing we do not see. The Body of Christ is invisible ;
the outward shape he derives from the bread in order to give
himself as food is visible. But beneath that visible wrapping
is concealed the hidden reality ; not without disclosing itself
to the eyes of faith as really present, since the sum total of
the appearances, and of the words which determine their
scope, is there to serve as a sign pointing to this presence :
Hoc est corpus meum. This—the thing, the substantial reality,
which these diverse sensible properties (colour, taste, etc.)
serve to designate as underlying them—is my Body. The
sensible properties are, therefore, the marks of the subjacent
presence of the Body of Christ. And because they are marks
furnished by the God of truth himself, they cannot be men­
dacious. Thus it happens that the sign, far from excluding
the truth and reality of the Lord’s corporal presence, does
bring it about, does maintain and preserve it : so much so,
that the presence will not cease until the sign attesting and
proclaiming it has itself vanished. The theological duel
between Paschasius and Rathramnus served, therefore, to
render more luminous the principle that in the Eucharist there
is both a visible sign and an invisible reality ; the visible sign
which, as early as the second century, St. Irenaeus had de­
scribed as the terrestrial element, and which we call the
accidents of the bread and of the wine ; and the invisible
reality which the same Irenaeus styled the celestial element,
the Body and Blood of the Lord. The former is witness and
warrant for the latter. That which belongs to the order of
signs necessarily involves the presence of that which is signified :
and so, finally, once the eucharistie prayer has been uttered
over the bread and wine, their species or appearances have
become the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Saviour,
not after the manner of a mere imitation, but by way of a
206

THE REAL PRESENCE
mysterious covering, sealed with the divine seal, and enclosing
within that of which outwardly it bears the stamp.
But scarcely had the last ripple of this debate died away,
when another one more violent and more vital sprang up.
The Archdeacon of Angers, formerly a student at Tours,
Berengarius, less attentive to the lessons of his master, St.
Fulbert of Chartres, than to the adulterated teachings which
he stealthily imbibed from the writings of Scotus Erigena,
discovered one day that the Body and Blood of Christ to which
the sensible sign referred were themselves designated as sign
or sacrament by Catholic Doctors and in particular by St.
Augustine. If that Body is a sacrament, it is a sign ; if it is a
sign, it is not a reality, but the figure of a reality. How
could it be at the same time the substance of the Body of Christ
and the symbol of that substance ? Now it is the symbol,
those great authorities of the past tell us, and therefore not the
substance. Hence the substance of the Body of Christ is not
really and actually present in the Eucharist. Still, it may
rightly be said to be present, because it is evoked, and the
evocatory sign cannot be separated, it cannot be isolated from
that which gives it its meaning, under penalty of ceasing
to have a .meaning at all, of ceasing, that is, to be a
sign. It may even be said that it is the true Body of Jesus
Christ, the same one that is in heaven, as it once was on
earth. In fact this may be said so much the more justly, as
there is more ground for accusing the others—those who hold
the doctrine of the real presence, that a Body is substantially
present in the place of the bread—of having by so doing
manufactured in their foolish imaginations a new Body of
Christ. For it must be perfectly clear that the Body of Christ
dwelling in heaven, cannot, while it is one and the same, be
situated in a thousand places different from heaven, nor, while
it is one and the same, shrink to a size so ridiculously less than
his own. The bread remains what it was ; the substance
of the Body of Jesus Christ must actually be looked for in
paradise only. Those who imagine they possess it in the
Eucharist multiply it, and consequently they have no right to
207

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
say that the Eucharist contains the true Body of Christ, the
unique Body of Christ, residing in paradise ; it is another
body, which, therefore, is not the true one. The one who
alone has the right to speak of the true Body of Christ in the
Eucharist is Berengarius, thanks to that ideal presence of a
thing in its sign, of the reality in its figure, which by way of
Scotus Erigena has come to form part of his own teaching as
an inheritance from Plato. This ideal presence one would
be tempted to call Platonic, if it did not claim to be, not merely
ideal, but also dynamic, by the effect of a causal influence
derived from the Body of Christ and communicating grace, in
a way little differing from Calvin’s later on.
The difficulties of Berengarius, against the plurality of
eucharistie presences and against the disparity in size between
the container and the content, would be simply and absolutely
unanswerable were it a question of multiplying the Body of
Christ itself (which is absurd). They collapse, if it is merely
a question of multiplying its presence, and moreover, not a
presence having extension, but a presence without any intrinsic
relation whatever to the category of extension. It is a question
of a presence which is not that of bulk in place, but that of
substance or essence within the bulk. There is no clash
between the conditions of the eucharistie presence and the
laws of mathematics or of physics. We do not mean to say,
however, that the eucharistie Body of Christ is without exten­
sion : it is such here as it is in heaven, being simply and totally
the same : which it could not be, if we had to conceive it as
devoid in our midst of those qualities and properties which
are inherent in it in his own dwelling. For it must be evident
that of one and the same subject it cannot be predicated, at
one and the same time, that it actually has and has not this
or that intrinsic qualification. But the manner in which
Christ’s Body exists, which is necessarily one, like that Body
itself, is one thing ; its manner of being present is another.
The presence which that Body has in the heavenly place,
or which it had once on earth, consists in a relation between
two extensions, its own and that of the surrounding bodies.
208

THE REAL PRESENCE
Two surfaces in contact locate each other reciprocally : and by
means of the surfaces which constitute their extreme limits
the two extensions find themselves located ; so too by means
of the extensions, the two substances to which the extensions
belong. Such is the normal presence of bodies, such the
presence of Christ in heaven : this kind of presence can­
not be multiplied, because it is mathematically measured
by the dimensions of the surface which circumscribes it, and
by circumscribing it limits it, and consequently, if we may
say so, exhausts it. But such is not the presence of the Body
of Christ under the species or appearances of the bread. The
Body of Christ replaces the substance of the bread which
was changed into it. Now it is quite certain that the substance
of the bread did not have, in relation to its own extension
(which survives after the miracle of transubstantiation), that
sort of presence which consists in the comparing of two exten­
sions ; for the substance, once it is distinguished from its
extension, does not any longer offer anything in itself which
may still be considered as a system of dimensions. Gone,
therefore, is every ground for a comparison of two extensions.
And yet the substance was present, but in another way, which
we cannot present to ourselves in its positive features, because
it escapes our fancy, which is equipped only for what strikes
the senses. And yet we cannot help affirming that mode of
presence, or consequently attributing it, at a given moment,
to the Body of Christ, to the substance of Christ’s Body, suc­
cessor and heir of the substance of the bread. Therefore
the substance of that sacred Body is here present, present
with regard to the species of the bread, and as it were by its
own means, and not by means of its extension, as is the case
with regard to its celestial location. On the contrary, here
it is the extension itself which under the circumstances happens
to be carried along in the wake of the substance. Instead of
serving to locate the substance, extension here comes to share
what the substance can communicate to it in that order of
thought. And as no one gives what he does not have, the sub­
stance will impart to its own dimensions no other presence than
209

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
one which is totally foreign to the ordinary conditions of that
local presence which results from the contiguity of two surfaces,
the one enfolding, the other infolded. Thus we are led to
speak of a sacramental presence, perfectly real, although
differing in almost every point from what we know by the
name of presence : a presence independent of every measure,
and consequently not limited to this or to that volume, but
capable of filling them all, and therefore, indefinitely multiplicable ; a presence that, moreover, cannot be cut up into
measurable parts, like that which develops along a surface by
means of its own extension : consequently an indivisible
presence, and hence a presence gathered together whole and
entire in every part of the volume which it fills and which is
no other than that of the species. It is a presence unique in
its kind ; a presence exclusively proper to the Eucharist,
yet as real as the one in heaven, whatever may be the difference
between the two. But a difference in the presence does not
imply a difference in the manner of being or of existing.
There is a sacramental presence ; strictly speaking, there is
no sacramental state : there is not a different state here
and in heaven. Once more, Jesus Christ, being unique and
not manifold, is found to be here such as he is in heaven,
although the manner in which he is present is different.
There is room, therefore, for a multiplication of Christ’s
presences, presences of his body, without thereby involving
a multiplication of the Body of Christ.
The task of bringing this matter into clear light1 was to
1 Among the disciples of St. Thomas, the most lucid on this point (till the
appearance of Card. Billot) was Savonarola, who in his treatise De Veritate Fidei
(Triumphus Crums') III, 17 (ed. Bâle, 1540, p. 213-214) wrote: “ Aliquid
enim est in hoc sacramento ex vi conversionis, et hoc est corpus et sanguis sub speciebus panis
et vini : quia ad haec duo directe conversio terminatur. Aliquid vero ex naturali concomi­
tantia : et haec certo sunt Christo semper realiter conjuncta. . . . Cum igitur quantitas
corporis Christi non sit in hoc sacramento nisi ex naturali concomitantia, non comparatur
Christus ad locum, ubi est sacramentum, mediantibus dimensionibus suis, ut eis locus
adaequari oporteat; sed mediantibus dimensionibus panis remanentibus, quibus locus
adaequatur. Unde Christus non existit in loco per se mediantibus propriis dimensionibus
nisi in caelo. . . . Cum jam dictum sit Christi corpus [et] sanguinem ex vi conversionis
per suam substantiam in hoc esse sacramento, ejusque dimensiones in eo ex naturali esse
concomitantia, non est inconveniens totum Christi corpus sub qualibet hujus sacramenti
esse particula.”

210

THE REAL PRESENCE
be accomplished by the Schoolmen, and chiefly by St. Thomas.
In the meanwhile the efforts of our medieval Doctors were
to bear on another point, and that an eminently vital one.
We must have noticed that the whole system of Berengarius
rests on this basis : the impossibility for the Body of Christ
to be at once reality and figure, substance and symbol. It
was this foundation which had to be destroyed in order to
bring to the ground the new heresy. Our Doctors grappled
with the task with ever growing success. There was first
Durand of Troarn, then Lanfranc, handling the subject
in somewhat unskilled fashion. Then came Guitmond showing
more assurance, then Alger—all of them Benedictine monks,
then especially the friend of St. Bernard, William of Saint
Thierry, who left nothing to be done after him, except to give
to his entirely decisive solution, that methodical and scholastic
turn which it was to receive in Paris from Hugh of Saint
Victor, and still more thoroughly after him, from the author1
of the Sum of the Sentences, which work has come down to us
under the name of Hugh of Saint Victor. Certainly, the
Body of Christ is real in the holy Eucharist, as real as in
paradise, since it is the same. It is substantially present here
in place of the bread ; and yet, real and substantially present
though it be, it is a figure, it is in its very reality a symbol ;
itself, the Body of Christ, is a sign and a sacrament. Of
what, if you please ? Of what can it be the sacrament and
the sign ? Of what can it be the symbol and the figure ?
That the shadows of the Old Testament should serve in advance
to typify him, like the paschal lamb, like the bread of Melchisedech, we have no difficulty in understanding. That in
the New Testament, the species of the bread and of the wine
should serve also to figure him—this, too, fits into the order
of things. But that he himself should serve to figure some­
thing else, he, the Lord of glory, the ultimate goal and term
of everything—that is unbelievable. What is there beyond
1 Still unknown a short time ago, but identified, since the above lines were
written, by Fr. Chossat, as Hugh of Mortagne, who wrote some fifteen years
after the death of his namesake of Saint Victor.
211

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
the Lord, beyond the Christ, what is there great and grand
enough, august and sacred enough, that he should use himself
to be its symbol ? There is ourselves, you and I, the Christians
of the whole world ; ourselves, but assuredly not ourselves
separated and isolated from Christ ; ourselves united to
Christ, aggregated to Christ, incorporated in Christ, one
in Christ.:—there is the Christ living in us and we living on
his life. This is why Christ in His~own person wished to
become a sacrament, in order tô Eê the efficacious sign of all
thaE He placed~himself in the order of signs, in the order
of symbols, to have the joy of symbolizing and, by symbolizing
it, of building up the mystical Body of which we are the mem­
bers. The Body formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary and
carried upon the Cross, the Body glorified in the heavens, is in
the Eucharist the sacrament of that mystical Body which is
made up of the Christ and of us, of the Head and of all his
members communicating with him in the unity of the same
life : final plenitude, spiritual integration of Christ Jesus, which
shall not be completed till the end of time, when, piece by piece
and stone by stone, that temple of God being entirely con­
structed, and each one of the elect set in his vital place in the
Son of God’s economy, the Son of God shall hand over the
kingdom to his Father, and present to him the universality
of the saints, fused and welded in his own Person, in the
Person of the only Son ; when the Father, in his turn, will
say to him, as he did of old on the day of his resurrection,
and still earlier in the splendour of eternal stillness, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Eternal generation
of the Word ; generation of the Word incarnate in the race
of David, and at the close of his humiliations promoted to the
fullness of the glory of the only Son of God, the Lord of the
celestial inheritance ; consummated and final generation of
the Christ integrally made up of all his adopted members :
here is the one, single, invariable occupation of the heavenly
Father ; and you can see how closely it touches and grips
us. We are at the last stage of this unique generation of the
unique Son, like the supreme effort of divine paternity, like
212

THE REAL PRESENCE

i
i
i

Ï
i

i

the last fibre of that texture of flesh which an almighty hand
has wrapped round the immaterial substance of the Word
of God. Such is the reality of which the eucharistie Christ
is the sacrament ; such is the meaning and import of his
presence under the species of the bread and wine, common food
of the children of Adam ; such the effect it brings about in
those privileged to eat of this sacred food whose function
is to transform every one of us into Christ.
You see now how this whole discourse, with its laborious
introduction and its somewhat uncertain development, was
leading to a magnificent conclusion : the one which we owe
to those Doctors who saved the faith in the real presence, by
demonstrating its importance. There is something in the
Eucharist which is merely the sign of the Body of Christ: the
sensible elements which reveal and contain it. There is also
the Body of Christ most truly present in its own substance in
place of the bread. Both things, figure and reality, sufficed
for St. Paschasius Radbertus to solve the difficulties of Rathramnus. But the Body of Christ, which is the thing signified
and contained under the species, is also in its turn a sign,
the sign of that Church which fills up all times and all spaces,
and forms with Christ but one flesh, et erunt duo in carne una,
in a unity which is itself the effect of that sign : “ Because one is
the bread, one body are we, the many who all partake of the
one bread.” (Z Cor. x 17). When God willed to create the
world, he created it by his Word, by his eternal locution,
per quem omnia facta sunt, as we sing in our ancient Credo. And
when God willed to raise up the world from its ruins, he did
so once more by his Word, but by his Word made flesh, and
what is more, in that very flesh of his (immolated and
resuscitated, now invisible, but mysteriously clothed in
appearances that reveal him), in his eucharistie flesh, I say,
turning himself finally into something like a word uttered in
figure by the Father, into a kind of subsisting speech, into a
living and efficacious intimation of that plan of unity with
which the divine intelligence is at work, in order to sum up
all things in Christ, and through Christ in God.
p

213

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Again I repeat, this is the Eucharist, this is Christ the
sacrament. Realizing this, we realize what in the real
presence is of paramount interest. More important than
to know how it comes about is to know why it comes
about ; for what purpose. You know now : it is that this
presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, by the significance
it assumes in the Eucharist, may produce in those who receive
the sacrament the grace of union of each one with Christ,
, and of all with one another in Christ, till the time of the
final consummation of unity in the glorious resurrection.
Therefore, the real presence must not be considered only
or chiefly in itself and for itself : as if it were an end, but
first of all in its bearing on the spiritual unity to which it
\ 1 leads as a means. Hence, too, the purpose of communion,
u the whole object of communion, is not to tell myself that
11 Jesus Christ is substantially present within me ; this sub11 stantial presence within me is the pledge in me of a spiritual
1 union by which I form but one spirit with the Lord, and but
Ik one flesh in the spirit. Consider on this point the difference
between our Eucharist and some such presence of the Body
and of the Blood of Christ as we might (by way of a meta­
physical hypothesis) imagine to have been accomplished,
apart from the Eucharist, by the transubstantiation of any
substance whatever, without any symbolical intent, without
any other purpose than that of ensuring the presence of the
Saviour among men. Imagine, if you wish, precious stones
or precious metals, or a flower, transubstantiated by an
immediate operation of the divine power. Divine power
could have done so, but one might well be tempted to ask
to what purpose. To bring him nigh unto us ? But this
material proximity, by itself alone, is of little avail ; compared
to his spiritual presence in our souls it is as nothing. Caro
non prodest quicquam, spiritus est qui vivificat. But if this proximity,
this presence, this intussusceptio of his Body and Blood happens
to possess the virtue of unfolding in me the spiritual intimacy
of which it has been set up as the sign and the pledge, then
truly does it become supremely precious and beyond valuation.
214

H'l

THE REAL PRESENCE
Compare in this respect the position of a baptized with that
of'an unbaptized person. With regard to the baptized
person, the eucharistie Christ is the vital principle of his soul,
to whom it clings when receiving. For the unbaptized person,
even if acting in good faith,’ but by some unaccountable
ignorance and without evil intention, he were to receive the
Body of Christ, that reception is for him without effect, ex
opere. operato ; it remains inoperative (even if, having faith
and charity, he were' in the state of grace)—caro non prodest
quicquam. Yet this does not happen for lack of the real
presence, but because this flesh (really present) is for him, is
in reference to him, no sacrament, no sign. It is a sacrament
for none but the baptized, its mission being to signify union
with Christ, incorporation in Christ, of those only whom
baptism has already marked with the seal of the death of
the sinful life of Adam. So true is it that the importance of
the Eucharist, the usefulness of the Eucharist, comes to it
from its character of a symbol, but not of a symbol that is
hollow and empty, non inanis mysterii symbolum, as St. Fulbert
of Chartres indignantly protested, but of a symbol just the
same, of a symbol full of a substantial reality, which is the
Flesh of the Word of life, Flesh which has itself become a word,
a divine oracle, in order to express (and to effect what it
expresses) the life of Christ in the members of Christ—as the
eternal Word, the uncreated pattern of beings, has only to
be uttered in the bosom of the divine intelligence, in order
that by him all things be said and by him all things be made.
There is indeed unity in the thoughts of the Godhead.
And now if we ask ourselves how and why there actually
came to this Body of Christ, to this Flesh which is human like
ours, the prodigious power of expressing in the supernatural
order, and of impressing upon the immaterial substance of
our souls, this divine purpose of unity ; in other words, if
we ask ourselves what has earned for the real presence its
right to become the appropriate symbol of an Incarnation
continued, as it were, and extended as far as ourselves, we
must, to find the reason, ascend to the august origin of the
215

t u

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
eucharistie mystery. The great stream of sacramental efficacy
is derived from a word and a gesture wherewith Christ, in the
Cenacle, Priest according to the order of Melchisedech,
consecrated himself as Victim for the remission of the sins
of the world. Victim he was to be, not only in the intent
and by the trend of his offering, but also actually, by the
carrying into effect, by the bloody execution of that purpose
and of that pledge which constituted him the ransom of
mankind. Victim he was to be by the steel of the executioner,
by the wounds and bruises which were to let flow all his
Blood. When dead, he was to be hallowed, immortalised in
his character of Lamb of God and price of the world by the
explicit consent of the other contracting party, of the receiving
party, who was his Father, henceforth in safe possession in his
paradise of what was paid out to him for our redemption.
In this way does Christ remain the eternal Redeemer, the
eternal Lamb of God, the Victim of the sacrifice offered once
and eternally accepted and retained by the God of glory.
Now, it is distinctive of the victim of sacrifice—and this is
true of all religions, as well of those that declined from their
primitive purity as of the one that was safeguarded by the
sacredness of the Covenant, by the Law and the Prophets—
it is among all peoples distinctive of certain victims of sacrifice,
once they have been offered and consecrated, to symbolize,
by their return to man under the form of food, the union of
the worshipper with his God, in a table-companionship which
sets up between the heavenly Host and his earthly guests a
community of life, a familiarity, a fusion, an association of
holiness, in which we must recognize the prelude of a still
closer union in the life to come. In this manner the gift
made to God, by reverting to man, presents itself as a sacra­
ment, that is to say, as a symbol of the sanctifying action
of God. The first sacraments of mankind, and perhaps for
a long time the only ones, were the first fruits of the fields
and the firstlings of the flocks, whose type is already exempli­
fied by Cain and Abel, as later on, under a more elaborate
form, the bread and wine of Melchisedech, and finally all the
216

THE REAL PRESENCE
pacific sacrifices of the Old Law. The victim of sacrifice is
in the fullest sense and preeminently the sacrament. But
what was true of the shadows is still more true of the reality ;
and if Jesus Christ is a sacrament, let us no longer be sur­
prised, for he is victim, the Victim. Therefore he is not a \
sacrament only metaphorically and in a manner of speaking ;
he is the Sacrament par excellence, the Sacrament of sacraments. \
Such is the way, or at least one way, of studying the real
presence : it consists in not fixing the eyes merely upon the
fact of the real presence, but in directing the look to the
causes explaining the real presence : upon its final cause and
upon its formal cause, as they say in the School. In other
words, we must consider its significance, as eloquent as it is
efficacious, deriving, as it does, from the august character
of Victim which henceforth is inseparable from him in whose
person his Father contemplates, with a complacency that
works our salvation, the Lamb, for ever laid upon the altar
of the Sacrifice by which heaven and earth were reconciled.
Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi; and again, and as
a sequel, Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam
in vitam aeternam. Arnen. Such is the language of the Eucharist;
it is for every one of us to see and experience how friendly it
is, both in its tenor and in its style.

217

i

APPENDIX ON MASS-OFFERINGS
It may be rendering a service to the reader who likes precision,
to give, in a scholastic form, a short summary of the neces­
sarily long and complex discussion of the problem relating to
the Mass-offerings.

Quaestio de ■ stipendio pro applicatione missae debito ex justitia
commutativa, scatet difficultatibus (ut notatum est a Lugone olim, et
nostris diebus a G. Arendi), habito respectu ad prohibitionem simoniae
ex iure naturali. Quanquam enim constat inter omnes doctores
catholicos,, dari et accipi illud ut stipendium sustentationis, tamen
quomodo pro tali stipendio pactio fieri possit onerosa circa missae
applicationem, omissis quidem illis theologis qui iustitiae debitum
negant immerito, ita plerique inter se dissentiunt (appellata ab aliis
locatione operae, ab aliis conventione do ut facias, ab aliis donatione
modali), ut quod vitium simoniae declinare quisque contendit, affingat
ceteris, nec sine validis rationibus. Quare aliam viam inire licet,
quam commendat conspectus sacrificiorum historicus. Quas enim
partes in sacrificiis veterum habuit ovis hominis laici per sacerdotem
litanda, easdem habent in sacrificio eucharistico (servatis servandis)
oblationes fidelium. Quo fit ut quemadmodum sacerdoti Hebraeorum
de hostia semel litata liceret vesci, quin censeretur a laico viro remunerari,
sed a Deo (cui munus iam consecratum erat) ali; sic sacerdoti
Christianorum suppetit ex mensa altaris victus, non quasi a fidelibus
impensus sibi, sed a Deo retributus, cui eatenus censetur a quopiam
sterni mensa sacrificiorum, quatenus sufficiat oblatio et ritui eucharistico
celebrando et sacerdoti sustentando, altaris participi. Quae paritas
et suadetur ex Paulo, et affirmatur a testibus traditionis, et praesertim
liturgiis illustratur. Unde intelligitur quomodo fideles sint suffragii,
oblationi suae correspondentis, proprii directores.
Contra hanc autem solutionem objectiones moveri nonnullae solent
ex variis capitibus. 1°. Ex discrimine inter oblationes collectivas
221

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

veterum christianorum et nostras individuas, Cui respondetur primo,
non per hoc diversificari genus contractus; secundo, neque apud
nos desiderari oblationes collectivas, neque apud veteres defuisse
individuas.— II0. Ex discrimine inter pecuniarias nostras stipes
hodiernas et esculenta munera veterum. Respondetur unum alteri
aequivalere ; quod nec veteribus ipsis ignotum fuit, et a mediaevalibus, eo tempore quo commutatio potissimum invaluit, praedicatum ·
est; quanquam ob periculum minime spernendum speciei cuiusdam
mercatoriae quidam aut obstiterunt aut torvo oculo rem consideraverunt.—
III°. Ex discrimine inter continuam oblationum antiquarum cum
sacrificio connexionem ac proximitatem et nostram [longissimis aliquando
intervallis divisam a missa) erogationem stipendii. Respondetur dis­
crimen esse accidentale, nec afficere substantiam contractus, quemad­
modum nec communionis ad sacrificium habitudo laeditur dilatione.—
IV0. Ex discrimine inter oblationes universo clero communes et stipendia
nostra uni sacerdoti propria. Respondetur specietenus tantum differre,
cum olim universus clerus concelebraret. Praeterea apud nos similis
obtinet usus in stipendiis missarum solemniorum.— V°. Quodpotissimum
est, ex obligatione hodierna celebrandi ad intentionem dantis, et quidem
ex condicto ; cuiusmodi obligatio veteribus reputatur fuisse ignota.
Respondetur eamdem obligationem viguisse apud veteres, cui satis­
faciebant deferendo sacrificium alterius ; siquidem nequit sacrificium
deferri ut ab altero demandatum, quin intentioni demandantis inserviat
commendandae aut suffragio provehendo. Ad sacrificium autem taliter
deferendum tenebantur ex iustitia commutativa tanquam depositarii
simul atque mandaterii. Per modum depositi enim iacet penes
sacerdotem munus a fidelibus in sacrificii lalriam destinatum, donec
susceptum transmissionis seu consecrationis mandatum exsecutus
ille fuerit. Cum autem par inveniatur fuisse obligatio veterum et
modernorum, concluditur contra adversarium non oportere ad obliga­
tionem iustitiae verificandam confugere ad aliud pactum praeter illa
duo quae ex deposito et mandato oriuntur gratuita ; supervacare
ergo contractum omnem onerosum, puta locationem operae, vel
conventionem do ut facias, vel donationem modalem. Unde apparet,
primo, cur, in ipsa applicatione missarum, “ cuiusvis generis mercedum
conditiones, pacta ”, prohibuerit Ecclesia, non autem prohibuerit
bolationem seu stipendium solitum, aut inde scaturientem contractum
222

in

APPENDIX
institiae commutativae ; secundo, cur pecuniaria quaevis pactio
{exceptis titulis· extrinsecis} sit in aliis sacramentis simoniacum, non
autem in sacrificio missae.
Huic autem doctrinae, vindicatur auctoritas potissimum Thomassini,
B. Roberti Bellamini et S. Thomas, praeter alios, ut van Espen,
Lupum, Berlendi, etc.

223

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY

A Reply to Critics1
I

The circumstances that have called for the present paper are
still fresh presumably in the memory of most readers of the
Ecclesiastical Review. In 1921 appeared a work called Mysterium
Fidei on the Eucharistic mystery. The welcome extended to
it in the Press has been, I am afraid, too generous ; so much
so, indeed, that it would make it very awkward for the author,
were he to quote the appreciations of his learned brethren,
the theologians of nearly every country in the Old and New
Worlds. But Divine Providence, always careful to place by
the side of our ills their remedy, lest perhaps the greatness of
the sympathy shown me should exalt me, has seen to it that
I was not left without the sting of vehement opposition on the
part of two distinguished members of a well-known London
community, St. Dominic’s Priory, Haverstock Hill. One
of them, the first in point of time and possibly of dignity, the
Rev. Vincent McNabb, O.P., has published his objections
in an English magazine called Blackfriars (Sept. 1923, pp.
1086 if.). The other, the Rev. Alfred Swaby, O.P., with a
view to supplementing what has been left undone by his
senior, has written a special article for the Ecclesiastical Review2
1 (American) Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1924.
2 In future references the Ecclesiastical Review will be represented by ER, and .
Blackfriars by B, while MF stands for Mysterium Fidei.
It is a great pleasure for me to place here on record the debt of gratitude which
I owe to several contributors to the ER ; in the first place to Bishop MacDonald,
who introduced the work before the American public, and lately again wrote
in defence of it; to the Rev. F. J. Connell, C.SS.R., who stepped in more than
once with kindly remarks; and last, but not least, to the correspondent who
signi himself “ Episcopus ”, and is, I believe, something more even than a Bishop.
β

229

!
Ii
6

I'

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES
FROM HENRY VIII TO THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT1
On taking leave of the Rev. A. Swaby, O.P., some time ago,
at the close of a discussion conducted in the American Ecclesias­
tical Review* I expressed the wish and hope that our difference
of opinion might leave unimpaired those sentiments of mutual
esteem and sympathy, which among men of good will and
good faith are the natural foundation of sound friendship.
Now, at the sight of his grave, unexpectedly opened to shelter
him from this world of trouble and of strife ; in view of his
passage to the land of the unseen, where vision fails not, nor
can doubt or ambiguity hamper any more our grasp of the
revealed truth, I bow to his memory with the respect due by
one still groping through shadows and deceits to him who
sees and who knows.
This respect will not suffer from a calm scientific examina­
tion of the view which in his last days he propounded, in
opposition to mine, on the bearing of the Supper to the Cross
in the redemptive Sacrifice of the Lord. I hold this Sacrifice
to have been made up of those two factors, Cross and Supper.
He locates it in the Passion only, without the Eucharistic rite.
The occasion for his last (posthumous) paper (Blackfriars,
February, 1925, ‘ Henry VIII and a Modem Controversy ’)
was an appeal from my friend, Bishop Macdonald,123 to Henry
VIII in favour of the above oneness of the Sacrifice, begun
1 Irish Ecclesiastical Record, June, 1925.
2 November, 1923, ‘ A New Theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the Rev.
A. Swaby, O.P.; July, and August, 1924, ‘The Last Supper and Calvary: A
Reply to Critics,’ by the present writer. (See above, pp. 229-278).
’ Irish Ecclesiastical Record, October 1924, pp. 342-343- Fifth Series, Vol.
XXV—June 1925.
281

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
in the Cenacle and finished on Calvary. It seemed possible
for Father Swaby not only to deprive us of the support of
Henry, but even to turn Henry’s testimony against our theses.
Many a reader, perhaps may wonder whether the authority
of Henry VIII is of such import as to justify a public discussion
of the side on which it leans. Yet it should be remembered
that when an author calls upon an authority to support his
views, he should be prepared to defend his appeal, if chal­
lenged, or else to waive it. Much more should this be done,
if it be shown that the authority, far from being favourable,
is contrary to the thesis. Besides, Henry’s authority is not
negligible. It is nothing to be compared of course with St.
Thomas or any of the leading Doctors of the Church. But
it received additional weight from the high praise4 meted out
to the King’s book by the Pope,1 and moreover from the
success which it met with in theological circles.2 Therefore,
having gone the length myself,3 even before the Bishop of
Hebron, of appealing to Henry, I feel in duty bound to stand
the ordeal, and either justify myself, or acknowledge my
guilt. Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem ibis. I must be judged
by Henry, at least as in an inferior court, if not in the final

I
i
i
ij

3'
Ii'
Γi
o
1

1 An indulgence of ten years and ten quarantines was granted for the reading
of it.
2 As an example of this success may be quoted the following from the future
Bishop of Vienna, John «Fabri (Opus adversus nova quaedam et a Christiana prorsus
aliena dogmata Martini Lutheri, Romae, 1522, fol. 2): ‘ Serenissimus et invictissimus
princeps et dominus Henricus Angliae et Franciae huius nominis rex octavus ... tuam
erroris monstrosissimam hydram gladio sacrae scripturae quasi aliqua clava Herculis pros­
travit, . ... ita ut me legentem non modo maiestas illa dicendi, quae illi peculiaris est,
sed et gravissimae sententiae reddiderint plane stupidum et attonitum. . . . lam in toto
terrarum orbe inter serenissimos doctissimus et inter doctissimos serenissimus perpetua laude
cantatur ; de quo et olim, id quod de Aenea Maro cecinit, Anglia illa cui soli philosophantem
regem contigisse videmus cantabit:

Rex erat Henricus nobis, quo iustior alter
Nec pietate fuit nec bello maior et armis.
Nec id* immerito fiet. Siquidem altera manu virgam pastoris, altera vero sceptrum regium
gestat. These dithyrambic words must have been written a very short while
after the appearance of Henry’s book, seeing that the Opus which contains them
bears as the date of its publication the eve of Lady Day, 1522« We may now
think that Henry was only too fond of the * pastoral staff,’ and needed no encour­
agement to couple it with the ‘sceptre of royalty.’
3 MF, p. 54.
282

THE LAST SUPPER
* AND CATHOLIC DIVINES
court of appeal. But beside this reason of a moral
order, I may perhaps confess to another one, less exalted,
more utilitarian. It seems to me that a brief inquiry
into Henry’s meaning may serve as an introduction to
a more general and more interesting question, namely ;
which was the point of view of Catholic divines in the
controversy with Protestants on the problem of the Last
Supper, from the outbreak of the Reformation to the
conclusion of the Council of Trent ? Unless you understand
that, you are apt to misunderstand certain theological
documents of the gravest importance.
I

But let Henry have first his due. Does he condemn us ;
or does he commend us ?
The condemnation is alleged to be implied in the very
method, followed by the King in his discussion with Luther.
Luther’s denial of the sacrificial character of the Mass is
rebutted by Henry solely (we are told) on the ground of the
connection which must be maintained between the Mass and
the redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross, granted even that at
the Supper there were no sacrifice. This very method shows
that to Henry the Sacrifice of the Passion, on which he takes
his stand, does in no wise depend on the sacrificial character
of the Supper, which (according to the terms governing
the controversy) must remain an open question. To interpret
Henry otherwise would amount to making him assume, what
he claims (tacitly) not to assume.
Such is the argument. It admits of certain reser­
vations.
First, even supposing that the King had granted provisionally
the non-sacrificial character of the Supper, nevertheless his
treatment of the Cross as a sacrifice would not necessarily imply
that in his eyes the Passion and Death of the Lord was a true
sacrifice by itself, without the previous consecration of the
283

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

bread and wine. Once Luther had admitted, in common with
all Catholics, that there certainly was a sacrifice on Calvary,
then, whatever he might think of the Supper, it would do for
the vindication of our daily sacrifice, to point to its intrinsic
connection with the Cross, as a renewal thereof. This is
what Henry did, both by appealing to the testimony of Scrip­
ture, and by arguing from an admission of Luther. Luther
held that the Mass was nothing but a testament, a promise on
the part of Christ, a promise of pardon and grace, with the
addition of a visible token, bread and wine, conveying to us
the Body that was bruised and the Blood that was shed for
us in that Sacrifice of the Cross, by which the promise or testa­
ment had been confirmed.1
. Henry seizes upon this idea of the Testament and its con­
firmation by Death : and concludes that the Mass, once identi­
fied with the Testament, must include not only the deeds of
the Supper, but also the oblation of Calvary which confirmed
them : that is, both elements of the Testament. Therefore it is
not true that the Mass reproduces the Supper apart from the
Cross, as Luther had assumed, but together with the Cross.
It reproduces therefore the (admittedly) sacrificial oblation of the
dying Christ. Thus the priest at Mass does alike what Christ
did in the Eucharistic rite, and what he did in his bloody
Passion. Therefore he offers, and therefore the Mass is a
sacrifice.
Here are Henry’s words 2 :
1 * Est itaque Missa secundum substantiam suam nihil aliud quam verba Christi praedicta ,
Accipite et manducate, etc., ac si dicat: Ecce, o homo peccator et damnatus, ex mera v*·
gratuitaque charitate qua diligo te, sic volente misericordiarum Patre^ his verbis promitto
tibi, ante omne meritum, et votum tuum, remissionem omnium peccatorum tuorum et vitam
aeternam ,· et ut certissimus de hac mea promissione irrevocabili sis, corpus meum tradam,
et sanguinem fundam, morte ipsa hanc promissionem confirmaturus, et utrumque tibi signum
et memoriale ejusdem promissionis relicturus. Quod cum frequentaveris, mei memor
sis, hanc meam in te charitatem et largitatem praedicas et laudes, et gratias agas ' (De
Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae Praeludium. D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Critische
Gesamtausgabe, Weimar, Band 6, 515)· Iu this sense Luther, when replying
later to Henry, wrote again: * Ex verbis Christi probavi [in De Captivitate Baby­
lonica] Missam esse testamentum et promissionem, ideo non posse opus aut sacrificium
dici. . . . Missa est vere et proprie, sicut nos de ea loquimur, ipsum verbum promissionis
cum signo adiecto panis et vini *—(Contra Regem Angliae, 10 Band, Zweite Abteilung,
p. 210).
1 Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (July 1521), ed. Lugdun,. 1561.
284

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

A
£After noting first of all that many a time within his hearing,
did Catholic preachers dwell on this subject of Christ’s Testa­
ment or Last Will (which Luther would have us believe that
he had brought back to light), and indeed that they dealt
with it ‘ more consistently and more correctly than Luther,
in so far as they referred to the Testament not only what Christ
did in the Supper, but also what He suffered on the Cross ’ (p. 37),
the King reverts of set purpose to this point. Let others, he
says, take Luther to task, and perhaps rightly, for his explana; Ω
tion of the Testament (p. 39)] ‘I will not shake that foundation
*
which he insists should be immovable. I will only show that
the structure, w'hich he has reared upon it, at once falls of
itself. To make this clear, let us consider for a while the
origin of the whole matter {totius rei), and examine the Mass
J
in reference to its first model. Christ then, in that most holy
Supper by means of which he instituted this Sacrament,
:
out of the bread and wine made his Body and Blood, which
he gave to his disciples to eat and drink ; and within a few
hours this same Body, this same Blood he offered on the altar
I
of the Cross as a sacrifice to the Father for the sins of the
’
people : which sacrifice being finished, the testament was perfected
(quo sacrificio peracto testamentum consummatum est). At the
Supper Christ, being already close to his death, as the custom
is with dying people, by a testament declared his mind as to
(
. .yvhat should be done after his death in memory of him.
j
'“instituting then the Sacrament, after he had presented to
his disciples his Body and Blood, he said to them : Do ye
this in memory of me. He who diligently examines this, will
see that Christ, as eternal Priest, in place of all the sacrifices
which were offered by the temporary priesthood of the Mosaic
J
Law (whereof the greatest number were types and figures of
this holy Sacrifice) did institute one Sacrifice, the greatest of
all, the fullness of all, and (as it were) the sum of all, that it
might be offered to God, and given for food to the people.
*
... There and then were [the Apostles] chosen by God
285

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

and ordained to be priests, that they might perform the same
Sacrament in memory of him. What does this mean,
but that they were to consecrate, and not only to partake
themselves, but also to impart to the people and offer to
God?
‘ For, if Luther objects that the Priest cannot offer, because
Christ in the Supper did not offer, let him remember what he
said himself, namely, that a testament involves in it the death
of the testator, and [therefore] has no force or power, nor
attains to its full perfection, till the testator be dead. Wherefore,
not only do those things belong to the Testament, which Christ first
did at the Supper, but also his oblation on the Cross : for on the
Cross he consummated the Sacrifice which he had begun
in the Supper. And thus the commemoration of the whole
thing, to wit, of the consecration in the Supper, and of the
oblation on the Cross, is at once celebrated and represented
by the Sacrament of the Mass : so much so indeed, that [of
the two] it is the Death that is more verily represented than
the Supper. For the Apostle, when writing to the Corinthians
[in these words] : As often as you shall eat this bread and
drink the chalice, adds, not the Supper of the Lord, but :
His Death shall you proclaim ’ (pp. 39-41).

.
*

‘

B
[Then again.] Luther denied that there was any work
(opus) done in the Mass ; only a promise given. The King
replies that the Mass ‘ is no more a promise than was Christ’s
own consecration ’ : ‘ did not Christ perform a work, when
of the bread he made his Flesh ? ’ Yes, and ‘ a good work.’
Therefore ‘ it cannot be denied that in the Mass the priest
is performing a good work, since he is doing nothing but what
Christ did in the Supper and on the Cross. For this is meant
by the words of Christ ; Do ye this in memory of me ; by
which words what could he mean, but that they should
represent and effect in the Mass what was done by him at
the Supper and on the Cross. For he was instituting and
286

I
j
>
:
i

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES
beginning in the Supper the sacrament which he perfected on the Cross.
. . . As it is impossible therefore to deny that Christ did a
good work at the Supper and on the Cross, nor that the
Priest represents and does the same in the Mass, how can
anyone imagine that the Mass is no good work ?... Whereas
therefore a layman only receives at the hands of the Priest
(even as the apostles at the hands of Christ received on that
first occasion) the Priest himself does the same as Christ then
did : for he offers to god the same Body that was offered
BY CHRIST ’ (pp. 41-43).

c
[Again :] ‘ Luther says that unless we hold the Mass to be
a promise or testament, as [Christ’s] words clearly imply,
[then] the whole Gospel fails us, nor is there any solace left
for us. The words [of Christ] we have heard ; there remains
to see the example : and the example is at once submitted.
Christ (he says) in the Last Supper, while instituting this Sacra­
ment and framing the Testament, did not offer it to God
the Father, nor effect it as a good work for the sake of others,
but sitting at his meal, he put before each of his disciples this
Testament, and [to each] ministered the sign [or Sacrament].
These then are the words of Christ, this the example, from
which Luther, and he alone, sees [the following conclusion
to flow] manifestly : that the Mass is no sacrifice, no oblation.’
[Here the King observes that to be a promise, and to be
a sacrifice, are not things irreconcilable of themselves : for
instance the sacrifices of the Law, which were promises of the
Sacrifice to come. But] 4 now let us come to the example
of Christ, by which Luther fancies we are to be crushed,
because in the Supper Christ did not use the Sacrament as
a sacrifice, nor offer it to the Father; whence he tries to infer that
the Mass, being bound to correspond to its example, by means
of which Christ instituted it, cannot be a sacrifice nor an
oblation. If Luther wishes to bring us back to the example
of the Lord’s Supper so strictly that the priests be not allowed
287

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

■

to do but what we read there to have been done by Christ,
then the Sacrament which they consecrate they will never
receive themselves. For in the Gospel, where we are told
about the Supper, we do not read that Christ did himself
receive his Body.’ [If Doctors teach that he did, if the Church
sings it, this is of no avail to Luther : for he does not receive
such authorities. Yet he allows the communion of the cele­
brant.] ‘ The matter then shows that not only do the Priests
in this Sacrament accomplish what Christ did in the Supper,
but also what he did on the Cross.’ [No, the written word
is not our only source of information, but also apostolic
tradition.] ‘ If then the Priests are right in receiving what
they consecrate, although there is no clear scriptural proof
(the only kind acceptable to Luther) that Christ did the
same in the Supper or elsewhere, Luther ought not to be
surprised if the priest offers Christ to the Father : a thing
which Scripture clearly and repeatedly tells us that Christ
himself did on the Cross. For that the Cross too should belong
to the Testament wrought in the Supper, is a thing which follows
from Luther’s own principle, namely, that a testament involves
the death of the testator, as that which alone gives it its
ultimate perfection. . . . Let him cease therefore to oppose
[us with] this futile argument ; Christ did not offer himself
in the Supper ; therefore the priest should not be held to
offer in the Mass. [No, this is no argument,] for in the Mass
the priest does not only reproduce what Christ did at the
Supper, but also what he did on the Cross, where he consummated
what he had begun in the Supper ’ (pp. 45-49).
Such are the relevant passages. The argument of Luther
is simple :—
The Mass contains only the Supper.
But the Supper was no sacrifice.
Therefore the Mass contains no sacrifice.

Against this argument Henry had the choice between two
methods. He might be content with disproving the major.
288

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

He might also pass on to the minor. Actually he attacked
the major.
To both litigants the Cross was a sacrifice. No matter how
it was a sacrifice, no matter what the requisites of this sacrifice
or its constitutive elements might be, the fact was there, to
be held on faith : there has been a sacrifice on the Cross.
Now from St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians on the memorial
of the Death, and again from Luther’s teaching on the identity
between Testament and Supper on the one hand, on the unity
of the Testament with the Death on the other hand, Henry
contrives to show that not only the Supper is reproduced
at the Mass, but in conjunction with it, and indeed pre­
eminently, the work of the dying Christ. Thus the action of
Christ on the Cross, his oblation, found itself enclosed within
the things that the Mass is reproducing and renewing. And
therefore the Mass was not, as Luther said, a reproduction
of the Supper only, but of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross as
well. And therefore Luther’s major was false. And therefore
the conclusion too. The conclusion was : the Mass is no
sacrifice. Henry had vindicated his right to maintain the
contrary : the Mass is a sacrifice.
This line of reasoning, if Henry chose to stop there, would
leave the minor unaffected, and therefore undecided : neither
granted nor denied. By no means then does it imply that
Henry actually considered the Sacrifice of the Cross as con­
stituted by the sufferings of Christ alone without his Supper.
It may be that his opponent did consider it in that way ; it
may be that Henry did not : and nevertheless even then
his was a perfectly legitimate and valid argument, once
both parties were agreed that on the Cross there had been a
sacrifice, whatever its essential elements might, or might
not be.
So far with Henry’s attitude towards Luther’s major. But
what, if he moreover questioned the minor itself? What
if he dealt with it in such wise as to imply one sacrifice only of
the Lord in the Supper and on the Cross ? Then not only
should we be free from condemnation at Henry’s court, but
289

,

*»

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
we should not even leave it without Royal commendation.
This is what we have now to examine.
And first of all, Henry did not grant, even provisionally,
the non-sacrificial character of the Supper. He asserted it.
In the passage quoted under B we read that ‘ when the priest
offers to God the same Body that was offered by Christ,’
he ‘ does the same as Christ then did ’ ; then, that is at the Last
Supper, ‘ on that first occasion ’ when ‘ the apostles received
at Christ’s hands.’ Christ therefore did offer at the Supper.
Secondly, this sacrificial offering of the Supper is connected
with that of the Cross. The reader may have noticed how
three times in the passage under A, and once under C, Henry
combines the Supper and the Cross into the complete unity
of the Testament. He does the same under B with regard
to the Sacrament, instituted and begun at the Supper, per­
fected on the Cross. And under A the same had already
been stated of the Sacrifice, begun at the Supper and con­
summated on the Cross.
The obvious meaning is, that, as in the way of Testament,
so too in the way of Sacrifice and Sacrament,1 the Eucharist
celebrated by Christ in the Supper compares with the work
on the Cross as a beginning with its termination. In this
sense Bishop Macdonald and myself were perhaps justified in
appealing to the phrase : ‘ On the Cross he consummated
the Sacrifice which he had begun in the Supper.’
If in his argumentation the King harps continually on the
Testament, the reason is not (as one would have us believe,
B, pp. 90 and 98) that he had in view the composite unity
of some Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ, while excluding that
of his redemptive sacrifice : a view for which there is not a
shred of evidence in Henry’s writings ; a view furthermore
which would imply the most hopeless confusion of thought :
as if there could be a certain sacrifice of Christ, of which a
component element would be another sacrifice of Christ ; and
1 How, in the eyes of old theologians, the Sacrament (as well as the Sacrifice)
came to be consummated on the Cross, has been pointed out elsewhere (MF
PP· 44> 45)·
’

290

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES
the one to be part of the other would be the greater of the
two ! The sacrifice of redemption, thus made to begin in
the Garden, would be the latter half of a more extensive sacrifice, running from the Supper-Room to the Cross, but itself
not redemptive ! A more patent, a more blatant absurdity
could not be ascribed to Henry more gratuitously. The very
reason why under Henry’s pen the Testament is ever recurring
is simply the one which his whole argument lays bare ; namely,
that, given Luther’s admission of these two stages of the
Testament, its inception in the Supper and its consummation
in Christ’s Death, there is for us in that notion of Testament
a useful handle for the introduction of a like combination
between Death and Supper into the sacrificial sphere as well.
That is all ; there is no other mystery about it.
It is not true therefore that Henry ever granted to Luther,
even tacitly or economically, the non-sacrificial character of
the Supper. What he implicitly granted throughout, and
indeed most consistently and rightly, was that the Supper
could not be a sacrifice apart from the Cross, self-contained,
as it were, but only in conjunction and combination with the
Cross, as a component part of a whole : the whole being that
sacrifice of which the termination was on the Cross, while its
inception was in the Supper ; that is, the one, continuous,
perfect sacrifice, by which the Testament that constituted
us heirs of God was both drawn up and sealed, couched in
the mysterious language of the Eucharist, and confirmed in
Blood. A very true doctrine, indeed, which we hail as the
traditional presentation of the Mystery of Faith.
Nor does it follow that Henry would have then made the
Sacrifice of Redemption, relative instead of absolute. By a
relative sacrifice is meant in Theology a sacrifice relative to
another sacrifice : as the sacrifices of old, for instance, were
actually relative to the sacrifice of the Cross, to which our
daily Mass also is essentially relative. But how could the
Sacrifice of Redemption be said to be relative to another
sacrifice, just because it is made up of two component parts,
Cross and Supper, correlated to each other ? The Supper
291

f
ji !
'■ ;
Sί
i}
1;
I

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

then is not another sacrifice than the Sacrifice of Redemption,
but an element of it. A man’s nature, although it consists
of two elements in due relation to each other, body and soul,
is not human relatively, as a speech might be, or a laugh,
or food, or a carved figure ; but it is human intrinsically,
substantially and absolutely. Christ himself is a man in no
relative sense, although he would not be a man without his
human nature, which is not himself, but related to himself.
The sacrament of the Eucharist is not a relative sacrament
from the fact that its permanent element has reference to a
transient form, from which it derives some definite signifi­
cance. The form is part of the Sacrament and cannot
therefore be compared with it as another sacrament. Just
in the same way the rite of the Supper is part of the redemptive
Sacrifice, without in the slightest manner impairing the
essential absoluteness of the latter. To speak otherwise would
lead us to say that every sacrifice is relative, and none can be
absolute, because in some respect every sacrifice is made
up of two essential elements correlated to each other : one
visible (the outward gift), and the other invisible (the interior
self-consecration of man to God) : ‘invisibilis sacrificii visibile
sacramentum.'’ Internal correlation means no relativeness of
the whole.1
To conclude, Henry, far from being an opponent, is a
witness to the old doctrine which locates the Lord’s one
Sacrifice both in the Supper and on the Cross : here to com­
plete what was left incomplete there.
In Henry’s eyes, as in the eyes of his contemporaries, the
rite of the Supper contained a kind of Trilogy : a Testament,
1 Since the above appeared in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, the Rev. V. McNabb
has delivered himself of the following remark (which cannot be well understood
unless the reader bears in mind that when I say oneness of the Supper and the
Cross in the way of sacrifice, the critic invariably translates dependence of the
sacrifice of the Cross on another sacrifice for its ritual) : “ Because it is the relative
that depends upon the absolute and not conversely, to suggest that the Passion
and Death of our Redeemer was regulated by some rite other than its own is to
cast doubt upon the absoluteness and divinity of the Apostle and High Priest of
our confession, Jesus.” (Introduction to Rev. A. Swaby’s treatise, p. 23). It
is clear enough that such ratiocination defies commentary.
292

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

a Sacrifice, and a Sacrament.1 A Testament, or Covenant,
sealed by a Sacrifice, that yielded a Sacrament. In its three­
fold aspect, testamentary, sacrificial, and sacramental, the
work (‘ opus ’) of the Supper was bound up essentially with
the doings on the Cross, as both ends of the same process.
The process is entire only when leaning upon Mount Sion
and Mount Calvary. Each part of it is essential to the other.
Each receives from its consort some element of the complete
essence of Sacrifice, as well as of Sacrament, or of Testament.
Therefore, not only of the Sacrifice, not only of the Sacrament,
not only of the Testament does Henry affirm this composite
essence—not only of the various members of the Trilogy
taken singly and individually—but of the whole concern,
en bloc, in this concluding phrase, which bears on all its aspects :
‘The priest does not only reproduce what Christ did at the
Supper, but also what he did on the Cross, where he con­
summated what he had begun in the Supper.’ What he
had begun, in every possible respect, sacrificial, sacramental,
testamentary.

II
Henry’s meaning seems clear enough. But a priori awf
one conversant with the literature of the early sixteenth
century would have no hesitation. Such thoughts were
familiar to the men of the time. None of them would have
dreamt of interpreting Henry otherwise.
In fact, Henry’s merit was not to invent something new,
but only to turn as an argument against Luther what was in
the minds of his contemporaries. In this he gave a lead
which was followed.
In his defence of Henry against Luther,2 Fisher 3 notes that
1 The same of course is true of the Mass, where we do what was first done by
Christ. See Berthold of Chiemsee (Theologia Germanica, fol. a i), of whom more
will be said hereafter: ‘ In se continet tria, videlicet divinum testamentum, et necessarium
sacramentum, ac etiam oblationis sacrificium.'
! Contra Regem Angliae, p. 213.
’ Assertionum Regis Angliae de Fide Catholica adversus Lutheri Bayblonicam
Captivitatem Defensio, cap. 9, § 2 et 3 (1523). In ed. Wicreburg, 1597, coi. 221.

u

293

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
not without good proof did the King couple the Supper
with the Cross, as a compound to be reproduced at
the Mass. Scripture itself shows that at the Supper had
been begun the sacrifice which was consummated on the
Cross. Whence follows naturally that the Mass cannot be the
commemoration of either without being the commemoration
of both.
The Chancellor1 was not behind. He, too, came forward,
like the Bishop, linking in the same way with the fulfilment
on the Cross that which was begun in the Supper (‘ quod ince­
perat in coena ’), the work that had been done there (‘ quod in
coena fecit ’), while the work consisted of making his Body out
of the bread (‘ dum suum corpus faceret ex pane ’).
Beside those two English champions of the royal theologian,
who were particularly likely, from their position, to know
their lord’s mind, there was also in Germany John Eck,2
who undertook his defence, with no other assistance, I presume,
but the very text in hand. He falls in with the above. To
him the connection between the doings at the Supper (‘facta
in coena f and the sacrificial death on the Cross is the King’s
Achilles, which remains untouched (‘Achillem quoque [Lutheries]
reliquit intactum ’). And this argument approves itself so
well to him that he reverts to it several times, not only in
this pamphlet, but also in his later treatise, De Sacrificio
Missae.3
But we can produce a man, I will not say of greater authority
than Eck, who was himself the ‘ Achilles ’ of his time, as
Pole called him, but one more conspicuous by his office as
1 Responsio ad Comitia Martini Lutheri congesta in Henricum Regem (conscripta
anno 1523 a Thoma Moro, et sub nomine Gulielmi Rossei edita). Ed.
Franof. ad Moen, et Lips., 1689, p. 117.
3 Asseritur hie invictissimi Angliae Regis liber de Sacramentis a calumniis et impietatibus
Lutheri, 1523, cap. 18, fol X i, coll. cap. 20, fol. I, iiii.
3 Cap. 9. Ed. Ingolst., 1531, fol. 10 b, ‘Id saltem ab eo impetrabo: corporis (et
sanguinis) mysteria ad testamentum Christi pertinere. . . .At testamentum (etiam
Lutheri testimonio) involvit mortem testatoris. . . . Constituto itaque eo, quod testamentum
mortem involvat testatoris, tunc ea quae sequuntur testamento involventur, sicut est
oblatio facta in cruse,’ etc. Compare, in the meantime, Enchiridion locorum com­
munium adversus Lutherum, cap. 17. Ed. Lugd., 1571, p. 171: ‘Liquet iam contra
haereticos missam non solum repraesentare coenam dominicam, sed et passionem, mortem
et oblationem.

294

:

s
I

.

{

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES
an Inquisitor of the Faith, the Dominican Tilmann Smeling1
who in the most unmistakable manner appeals to the conse­
cration at the Supper as bound up with the Cross for the model and
pattern of the sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass follows this
prototype ; and because in the prototype we see the Supper
Eucharist to have been the very beginning2 of what was to
be completed and consummated on the Cross, therefore we
shall say that the Mass in turn is a true sacrifice.
The same trend of thought had already been discernible,
if I am not mistaken, under the pen of another Dominican,
Lambrecht Campester,3 who, in a brief survey of Luther’s
errors, raised this passing cry on the Mass ; ‘ O impudence,
O audacity, O stupidity Î Christ, the most loving Saviour
of the world, by taking the chalice of eternal salvation before
suffering, signifies that the Testament, on the next day, is
confirmed by death, in water and in blood ; ~ and Luther,
the apostate, gives to his curs a [mere] supper, instead—of—
[the offering of] the Passion.’
At the same time his confrère, Eustace van der Rivieren
(Eustachius de Zichenis, O.P.), to the objection of Luther
1 De Septem Sacramentis Liber Unus, qui . . . adsertionem eorum defensionemque
adversus haereticos continet (1538). Ed. Paris, 1550, cap. 5, fol. 118: ' Incarna . . ,
aperte Christus insinuavit eucharistiam . . . sacrificium esse ... in eo quad addidit
quod pro vobis tradetur in mortem. Per mortem enim suam tradidit semetipsum pro
nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Idem ergo corpus suum quod sub
specie panis discipulis porrexit in coena, sub propria specie obtulit in cruce;
atque id quod in coena inchoavit, in cruce consummavit. Jussit ut quod ipse fecerat
hoc ipsum etiam facerent apostoli in sui memoriam, dicens: Hoc facite in meam com­
memorationem; hoc, inquam quod in coena feci, et in cruce perfeci: consequens
profecto est .. . missam sive eucharistiam verum eue sacrificium.’ There is no
doubt that Henry’s argument soon became classical.
’How before Smeling, his master, St Thomas (Sum. Theol. Ill, q. 83, a. 5,
ad 3·, q. 46, a. 9, ad 1) had shown the Passion of the Lord as an immolation of
which the beginning should be hallowed and consecrated by the Supper Eucharist,
may be seen in Blackfriars (Dec., 1924, pp. 552-554)· Likewise, in The Last
Supper and Calvary (see above, pp. 235 and 245), has been pointed out how
in St. Thomas’s eyes (4 D. 12 lit) the Supper Eucharist had been the method
for Christ of offering his redemptive Sacrifice. It may be interesting to compare
with St. Thomas Jerome Nichisola, O.P., Bishop of Teano, who in the Council
of Trent said: ‘ Christus obtulit se in coena . . . obtulitque expiatorie. . . . Kam
cum sit una et eadem cum oblatione cruris, sicut illa est expiatoria, ita est ista coenae. Nam
passio Christi coepit luna 14, ut B. Thomas (Sum. Theol. III, q. 46, a. g) tradit ’ (Ehses,
Cone. Trid., 8, 776).'
’ Apologia in Martinum Lutherum, Paris, 1523, fol. ff iii 2.
295

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
that the Supper was no Sacrifice (and therefore the Mass
is none either), offers no other answer than the following :
what Christ did in the Supper, he fulfilled on the Cross, where
his Victimhood received its consummation.1
However that may be, even if all this were irrelevant, even
supposing that we had misunderstood not only Henry, but
Fisher, More, Eck, Smeling and Campester, and van der
Rivieren as well, there would still be, in those early days of
the anti-Lutheran controversy, an authority which I trust
no one in future will ever be tempted to begrudge us : I
mean the authority of Berthold,2 Bishop of Chiemsee. True,
this most interesting theologian was no longer in pastoral
office at the time when we meet him ; he had resigned his
see, for the purpose of devoting all his time, all his activities,
all his talents, to the fight against the new heresy, on the
very ground on which it was left mostly unchallenged ; the
ground of vernacular literature. At the bidding of his
Metropolitan, Cardinal Lang, Archbishop of Salzburg, he
set to work to build up a Summa of Catholic Doctrine for the
use of the cultured laity. It came out in 1528, under the
title of ‘ German Theology ’ (Tewtsche Theologeÿ). Such was
the favourable impression it made on His Eminence the
Primate that on December 17, 1528, he wrote to his Suffragan/
begging him and exhorting him not to deprive the rest of
Christendom of the benefit of such a book, and therefore to
translate it into Latin for the use of other nations. Which
was done ; and in the year 1531 appeared the Theologia
x Sacramentorum Brevis Elucidatio, 1523. New edition in 1905 in F. Pijper’s
Primitiae Pontificiae Theologorum Pieerlandicorum Disputationes contra Lutherum inde ab
anno 1619 ad 1526 promulgatae. On page 339 of thisvolume we read: “ Quod
objicis Christum sese non obtulisse pro homine in coena, cum hoc sacramentum instituisset, et
ideo neutiquam offerendum, hoc tibi respondemus : quatenus Servator, cum corpus suum
tradidit, dicens. Hoc est corpus meum, item addiderit, quod pro vobis tradetur, Qua
voce non aliud sane praeferebat quam quod mox praestabat opere. Piam progressus a coena,
passionis suae supplicium auspicatur, dum mox pavore et metu distinetur, dum sanguinem
sudat tam copiose, dum fuste, ferro, loris stringitur, dum vulnerant spinae, dum lacerant
flagella, donec demum affixus crucis consummatam pro nobis hostiam offeret Deo Patri."
The Supper exhibits an offering, because there Christ consecrated himseff to the
Passion and Death that would on the Cross achieve his victimhood.
’ The surname being Pirstinger, or rather Pürstinger. As an author, his
name was Bertoldus, Episcopus olim Chiemensis.
296

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHÔLÎG DÎVINËS

'

i

Germanica in qua continentur articuli de fide, evangelio, virtutibus
et sacramentis, quorum materia iam nostra tempestate controvert!
solet. We shall quote from this translation. In the mean­
time it may not be amiss to note that a fresh edition of the
German work was published at Munich in 1852, at the
instigation of the zealous and learned Dr. Windischmann,
who contributed an Introduction, in which he states that
‘ Berthold is a remarkable and authentic exponent of what
was taught and preached in Catholic Germany before
the Council of Trent.’1 Likewise, the Editor, Wolfgang
Reithmeier, in his own Preface, points with satisfaction
to the ‘ surprising identity between the teaching of Berthold
and the definitions of the Council of Trent.’2 We are not
therefore concerned with amateur speculation, but with
quite representative theology. Now the centre of the book
is occupied by the doctrine of the Eucharist ; it opens with
a chapter on the institution of the Mass, which reads as
follows :

“ Our Saviour instituted the Mass both by word and by deed.
By word, when he said : Amen, amen, I say to you, except you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, etc. {Jn. vi, 54, 56, 59). Then by deed
was the Mass instituted, when the Lord Jesus in the holy Supper
took bread, and blessed it, and brake and gave it to his disciples.
1 Noteworthy, too, are the following remarks from the same pen : ‘ The
Deutsche Theologe was well acquainted with Scholasticism and its problems, nor
was he averse from it; but he was gifted also with a deep mystical sense, which
everywhere used to be connected with true Scholasticism. ... May therefore
the revived work of Berthold be a witness to the vitality of the Church, and to
the immutability of her teaching.’ . . . [May it benefit the Clergy], so that
we, men of to-day, should not incur the blame of posterity for not having been
able to hand down to the coming generation the heritage of Holy Faith which
men like Berthold have s.aved for our land ’ (pp. v-vi).
2 The judgment of Reithmeier and of Windischmann may be compared with
the following, from the Protestant Theologian, J. Ficker, of Strasburg, in the
third edition of the Realencyklopàdiefir ftrotestanische Théologie und Kirche, vol. XXV,
37, (art. Piirstinger, p. 313). ‘ The Tewlsche Theologcy [is] one of the first great,
comprehensive, and in many respects remarkable monuments of pronounced
Catholic literature at the time of the Reformation; indeed, in immediate con­
nection with the origins of the Catholic reformation. . . . It is the greatest
. . . systematic exposition of the Catholic doctrine, in direct opposition to the
Reformation, on the basis of Scripture and of Augustine, with a study of diverse
Scholastic views, and an effort ... to reconcile them. Thus does the work
in its own way anticipate what was done at Trent.’

297

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
There the Lord began his mass,* which he afterwards completed
on the cross; in the meantime laying a charge on his disciples
that they, and all other priests [after them] should celebrate the
Mass, in memory of his mass, that is of ms supper and of his blood­
shed and death on the cross. Likewise {‘itidem’) the sacrifice of
the Supper and of the Cross was there [in the Cenacle] begun, and
here [on the Cross] consummated; and it is down to this day
continued by way of a memorial. And albeit the Lord at the
beginning of ms mass, (at the supper), imposed on
the priests this same office of the Mass, yet ms own mass, being
(as aforesaid) consummated on the cross, was of a far different
form and ritual from the other masses, which the Holy Ghost
through the Apostles later shaped and designed ” (cap. 62, §1,
fol. Y vi).

In this one word Berthold has given the origin and essence
of the Mass, and besides solved (without even mentioning it)
the objection which Luther and his followers were wont to
draw from the marked outward difference between the rite
of the Supper and the liturgy of our masses. Our Mass in
outward form differs from Christ’s sacrifice mainly because
it has not to extend beyond the consecration : the Death
of the Lord having already intervened, which then was only
in view, and therefore had to come in, before the sacrifice
could be held complete and final.
This thought is Berthold’s dominant idea throughout the
whole treatise. He has to show that the Mass had been
prophesied : here is the sacrifice of Melchisedech witnessed
by Abraham, sung by David, and explained by St. Paul.
How it applies to Christ is shown in the following quotation :
“ The Order of Melchisedech, as Sovereign Priest of the Old
Testament, was to proffer bread and wine. This figure must
have its fulfilment in Christ, the Sovereign Priest of the New
Testament. . . . And the fulfilment of this figure Christ began
in the Supper by blessing the bread and wine; and he afterwards
ended it by dying on the Cross ” (cap. 65, §5, fol. a ii).
1 In which sense Christ may be said or denied to have celebrated Mass I have
already had occasion to state in Blackfriars (February, 1925, p. 108), in full
concordance with the doctrine here propounded by Berthold.

298

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

Does Luther pretend that the Mass is no sacrifice, but only
a feast ? he is wrong ; Christ said Hocfacite in meam memoriam.
“ This word facite does not refer to communion without Mass,
but to the actual celebration itself of the Mass, through which
is sacramentally repeated the Supper and Death of Christ, as the
beginning and ending of Christ’s Mass ” (cap. 62, §2, fol. y vi.).

The Mass is a sacrifice, and no mere feast, precisely because
it renews, as a ‘ secondary sacrifice ’ (cap. 65, §4, fol. a i 2)
that ‘ primary sacrifice ’ of Christ, made up of the Supper,
which was its inception, and of the Cross, which was its
determination.
Is this all clear enough ? But there is more. Not only is
the treatise of the Eucharist all moulded by that view ; but
the question of Holy Orders is also studied in the same light.
“ Christ exercised his Priesthood when he blessed, broke, and
gave the bread to his disciples and likewise the wine, and entrusted to
them the sacerdotal office, ordaining them as priests by these words:
‘ Hoc facite in meam commemorationem’ This exceeding great Priest­
hood [of his] the Lord carried to its completion (‘ complevit ’) on the
altar of the Cross by his own self-offering” (cap. 94, fol. 1, iiii).

It is certainly to be regretted that this theology of Berthold
should never have been brought to bear on the current
exposition of the Mass by modern theologians. Anyhow, as
I have already said, I trust that no critic in future, when
confronted with the teaching of the one undivided Sacrifice
of Christ in the Supper and on the Cross, will be tempted to
dub it a New Theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.1 Rather what
1 Apparently I presumed too much on human candour. Since the above
was published in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, the Rev. V. McNabb (1ER, Sept.
J925> PP· 286-287) denied that Berthold should be understood to unify Supper
and Cross, because although he had said that Christ’s Mass, begun at the Supper,
was completed on the Cross, yet he had not written that the Cross was completed
by the Supper. Nor do I write to my friends, when I go from Paris to England,
that my crossing of the Channel was completed by a lovely ride from Paris to
Calais; I write that the ride was completed by what kind of crossing I chanced
to have. Nor is an afternoon generally said to be completed by the foregoing
morning, but conversely; and yet morning and afternoon are two halves of die
day, and thus they complete each other: although you speak preposterously
if you sayjust of the second half that it was completed by the first. Why Berthold,
to make his mind intelligible, should have been bound to use this particular
form of language, I fail to see.

299

■

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

I expect is, that like one of those who first demurred to this
‘ novelty,’ the critic may be heard to say : ‘ After all, only an
old theory revived.’ Quite so ; an old theory : the identical
one which in their first encounter with Luther the standardbearers of the old Faith raised on high as a rallying-point for
all orthodox people of Germany and France, let alone England.
Taught by the Fathers and by the liturgies, schooled by the
great medieval Doctors, and above all by St. Thomas, they
could not fail to recognize the clear voice of Scripture, the
genuine echo of Catholic Tradition, in a ‘ theory ’ which
appealed at once to all unprejudiced and unsophisticated
minds, at a time when no systems of human invention had
covered yet with their parasitical vegetation the chaste and
pure wheat of God’s own field.1
Nor were the pioneers of the Counter-Reformation the
1 This does not mean that it was very long before some signs could appear
of the division between Supper and Cross which prevailed (not without some
notable exceptions, see above, pp. MF, pp. 86 et tot) among Doctors of modern
times. In fact there was an antagonist of Luther who met the latter’s arguments
by claiming that there had been two sacrifices of Christ : one at the Supper, and
another on the Cross. But then most logically the same Clingius concluded
that the first sacrifice, being void of a true victimal state of Christ, could not
have been propitiatory, but only eucharistie; and in consequence the Mass
too, which was nothing but the renewal of this sacrifice, lacked propitiatory
force, and was only a thank-offering for the atonement of the Cross (see Summa
Doctrina Catholica [1562], tit. 107, Ed. Colon., 1569, p. in, and Catechismus
Catholicus [1562], lib. 3, 13, § 2 et 3. Ed. Colon., 1562, p. 160: ‘ utrumque opus
non satis dedolatum ’ [Hurter]). The same may be noted of Michael Helding’s
treatise, De Sanctissimo ac praestantissime Missae sacrificio, Sermones 3 et 5, Ed. Colon.,
1562, pp.—24 et 38, which appeared as early as 1548.
Quite different, assuredly, from such a system was the view of Eck, where ,
some people, curiously enough, seem to have found a trace of the dual theory:
‘ There are two oblations of Christ: one by which he once offered his live Body
and his Blood to God the Father on the altar of the Cross for the salvation of
mankind. The other oblation is a sacramental one, by which daily in the
church Christ is offered and taken by the priests in the sacrifice of the Mass
under the sacrament, in memory of the Passion and Death and first oblation
made on the Cross. . . . Against the heretics it is quite clear that the Mass
does not represent only the Lord’s Supper, but also his passion, death, and
aforesaid oblation’ {Enchiridion, pp. 169-171). Clearly in such an adequate
division between the first sacrifice, that of Christ, and ours, which is the second,
there is no room for two personal sacrifices of Christ. Compare the passages
of Eck quoted above. In brief: within the first twenty years of the anti-Lutheran
controversy, there does not appear, as far as I know, a single witness in favour
of the dual theory ; whereas no less than seven can be numbered against it. Later,
some indeed favoured it; and, as a consequence, gave up the propitiatory
character of the Eucharist.

300

I

i

■I

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

last apologists that made use of such an effective weapon.
What else did Jerome of Fossano place in the hands of his
converts from heresy, when he presented them with his
treatise of The Admirable Mystery (1554), where it is shown
that the Supper was necessarily a sacrifice, seeing that there
the Lord had in anticipation of his death and immolation
made the offering of his Body and Blood : so that in this
particular case, ‘ one and the same sacrifice . . . might be
said . . . bloody and bloodless’?1 What else did Francis
van den Welden (Sonnius) express (1552) in these pithy
words : ‘ Christ then began to offer in the Cenacle, and
finished up on the Gross. ... It is one and the same
oblation that was made at the Supper and on the Cross’?2
What of the Elector of Cologne, writing that ‘ Christ under
the species of bread and wine offered his Body and Blood
for a sacrifice which was to be completed and carried out
on the Cross by the hands of others ’ ?3 What of so many
bishops of the Council of Trent, whom I am loath to quote
again, after having so often4 referred to their discourses ?
Suffice it here to say that quite a host5 of them spoke in perfect
accord with the declaration of Peter de Xaque, O.P., Bishop
of Nio : ‘ This [Sacrifice celebrated in the Supper, according
to the rite of Melchisedech] is the same with that of the Cross,
which was then begun.’
The interest lies not only in their numbers or in the distinct
emphasis of their pronouncements, but also and chiefly in
the result which they achieved. The Council was divided.
Some would not hear of any definition about the Supper
as a sacrifice. Others were willing to make it a thank-offering,
but not a sin-offering. Others claimed for the Cenacle a
1 Quoted, MF, p. 64.
2 Ibid., p. 114.
2 Ibid., p. 114.
* Ibid.9 pp. 113 sq.*f Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist pp. 123 sq· Sec above,
pp. 270-271.
.
T .
·
r
s My references to them have never been exhaustive. Just as a specimen of
what the others said, here are the words spoken by the learned. Franciscan,
Ottaviano Preconio, Archbishop of Palermo ; * In the Supper Christ began his
offering, and finished it on the Cross.’ He would have had this explanation
inserted in the Decree.

301

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

sacrifice both eucharistie and propitiatory. But of this
third class some would view it as a different sacrifice from
the sacrifice of the Cross. And there was the difficulty,
which arrested the first two groups. If Christ had already
made a sacrifice of atonement before his death, then before
his death he had found an eternal redemption ; the redemption,
in other words, was wrought before the second sacrifice
came in, and therefore the second sacrifice was useless :
which meant that the Cross was made void. How could
such an awkward conclusion be evaded ? Then from amongst
the defenders of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Supper a
second section emerged, who did away with the difficulty
occasioned by the former. The Cross would not be made
void : because while asserting the propitiatory sacrifice of
the Supper, we were not making it another sacrifice from
that of the Cross, but the very same one, the selfsame one,
not in kind only, but in number, namely, Christ’s indivisible
Sacrifice, beginning here, and finishing there. This view
gave such satisfaction to the first two groups that where a
majority had for a while appeared impossible there was
instead unanimity.
This is the picture which the facts of the case bring
before the eyes not only of modern students, who might
perhaps be suspected of bias, but of one so disinterested
as Noël Alexandre, O.P.1 who certainly did not write to
lend his support to any new-fangled theory of the twentieth
century.
It is then clearly impossible that the Council of Trent
should by its decree have banned the doctrine which proved
to be the effective means of rallying round the text of the
decree an otherwise confused and divided assembly.
Even apart from this consideration, it is unthinkable that
the Council of Trent, called to check Lutheranism, should
have, on this particular point, condemned not Luther but
his opponents. It was Luther’s guile to dissociate the pro­
ceedings of the Supper from their complement on the Cross.
*See above, pp. 372 tq.

302

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

It was his opponents’ policy to reunite and combine into one
what he had torn asunder. And now the Council of Trent
would have sanctioned not their view, but his ; and the
anathema would have fallen not on him, but on them. Who
can believe this ?
A priori such a reading of the Tridentine definition is
impossible. But what a posteriori? A posteriori does it not
look as if, however, something of the kind had happened ?
The Council says : “ Because under the first Covenant (as
St. Paul testifies), owing to the impotence of the Levitical
Priesthood, there was no perfection, it was necessary, according
to the ordinance of God, the Father of Mercy, that another
Priest should arise according to the Order of Melchisedech,
our Lord Jesus Christ, who should be able to perfect and
bring to their consummation as many as were to be^anctified.
This God and Lord of ours thereafter, although (‘ etsi ’)
he was to offer himself once to God the Father on the altar
of the Cross by means of his death, to effect there an eternal
redemption, nevertheless (‘ tamen ’) ... in the Last
Supper the same night in which he was to be delivered . . .
declaring himself to have been established a Priest for ever
according to the Order of Melchisedech, did offer his Body
and Blood under the species of bread and wine to God the
Father,” etc.
The question arises : why did the Council of Trent connect
grammatically the oblation on the Cross with the oblation
at the Supper by the adversative locutions although, nevertheless?1
These locutions do not bind things together ; they oppose
things to each other : they imply, they emphasize a duality.
If the oblation at the Supper was done notwithstanding the
oblation on the Cross, it seems that far from being subservient
to it, or implied by it, it must have been quite external to it
and foreign to it. The latter, far from requiring the former,
could very well, from such a phrase (to say the least), have
done without it. And yet the antecedent probability, as we
11 am not here discussing the bearing on the definition of the words concerning
the institution of the Mass. This is another question.

SOS

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

have said, would be all the other way ; indeed, not that
the Council should have defined, but at any rate that it should
not have disowned that unity, constantly asserted against
Luther, triumphantly set forth in the conciliar deliberations,
that unity which had won the day : the unity of a redemptive
Sacrifice, continuously developing from the Supper to the
Cross : the Cross putting a finish on what had been incho­
ative in the Supper.
The solution of the riddle is not to be a far-fetched one.
We might perhaps say that, even though Supper and Cross
were one in fact, yet, taking things in the abstract, the Cross
could have been a sacrifice without the Supper, if only it had
pleased Christ to discharge the office of his priesthood other­
wise than according to the rite of Melchisedech. In many
other ways could the liturgical offering of the redemptive
Sacrifice have been performed. But, however true this may
be, there is a much simpler and much more real answer :
which arises from the very circumstances of the theological
conflict of the time, and is forced upon us by the historic
knowledge of the object at which the definition was aimed.
It was aimed at the heretics’ capital fallacy, I will not say at
their Achilles’s heel, but at their Goliath’s head, at infidelity
uttering blasphemy in words of piety. The Cross, the Cross,
one would hear at all turns, is Christ’s true Sacrifice, his one
and only Sacrifice. Therefore, unless you wish to set the
Cross to naught, do not say that there was a sacrifice at the
Supper. The Church’s attitude in presence of this negation
resting on an affirmation, was bound to be this : Yes, indeed,
there was a sacrifice on the Cross ; we hold this as true Faith,
we Catholics, no less than you pretend to do. But yet,
although we believe in the sacrifice of the Cross, nevertheless
we maintain that at the Supper Christ did offer his Body and
Blood to God : otherwise he would not have been what we
know he must be, a Priest according to the Order of Melchise­
dech. Does it follow that there were two sacrifices ? Is that
duality implied by the adversative locutions ? I say that in
such historic context as has been described above, the adversa304

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

tive locutions imply only that one truth is not antagonistic
to the other ; that the truth of the sacrifice on the Cross does
not exclude the truth of an offering at the Supper. Nothing
more. It is for you to find out whether those two truths can
or cannot be verified by one continuous sacrifice of Christ,
extending from the Supper to the Cross. Whether you hold
the affirmative or the negative, you find yourself within the
pale of the definition. But moreover, by asserting one sacri­
fice and not two, you find yourself in accordance with the
spirit that dictated to a large proportion of the Fathers their
subscription to the decree.
Why the view, which was so effective in securing their
accord, was not defined, why the argument, that had been
effective in removing all obstacles to the Decree, was not
incorporated in the decree, we are told by one of those bishops
themselves, the bishop of Orense : ‘ One and the same, he
says, is the oblation of the Supper and of the Cross ; and from
the latter did the former derive its force. However, this
should not, it seems, be set down in the decree nor in the
Canons, seeing that the point is not held to be altogether
certain. If, however, we insert it, let us add [this rider] :
ut sancti Doctores tradunt.’1 The point was not inserted. No
one can be blamed for dissenting from a tenet which lacks
ecclesiastical sanction. But no one can be blamed either—
I would say more, no one should miss due praise and encourage­
ment—for remaining faithful to ‘ the holy Doctors,’ for echoing
the voice that stemmed heresy in Germany, in the Netherlands,
in Northern Italy, in France, for giving an ear to the lesson
of Trent, for entertaining the views and sentiments that pre­
vailed there, and found expression in such speeches as the
following, which I here willingly transcribe, because although
I have referred to it elsewhere, yet never have I quoted the
actual words : .
“ Christ in the Supper offered himself as a sin-offering. [If
it be objected that the Cross then would be superfluous, let the
answer be that the conclusion does not follow.] But that oblation
3 Ehses, Com. Trid., 8, 774.

3°5

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
of the Supper was one and the same with that of the Cross. . . .
One and the same is the oblation of the Supper with that of the
Cross, even numerically: because in the Supper the oblation
of the Cross had its beginning. [Wherefore] let it be stated in
the decree that Christ offered himself at the Supper, a sin-offering.” 1

Thus spake the Bishop of Campagna, Marcus Laureus, one
of those distinguished sons of Saint Dominic who in the
Tridentine deliberations played such a conspicuous part,
fraught with such beneficent results to the Church at large,
especially for the furtherance of sound Theology. On their
shoulders, apparently, had fallen the mantle of St. Thomas,
with his twofold spirit of learning and sanctity. May it ever
rest, in future as it did in the past, on every generation of
Black Friars.

Rome, April 27, On the Feast of Blessed Peter Canisius.

POSTSCRIPT
(May 21, 1925)
Blessed Peter Canisius having been this day not only
canonized, but also proclaimed a Doctor of the Church, it
may be fitting to recall here his pronouncement, not indeed
on the Last Supper, but on the Mass, by which is renewed,
as a commemoration, what was done by Christ as an anticipa­
tion of his death : ‘ The Sacrifice, of the Mass rightly under­
stood is both a representation, at once holy and living, and
an oblation, bloodless, yet actual, of the Passion of the Lord
and of the bloody Sacrifice which was offered for us on the
Cross.’ There can be but little doubt, therefore, that to
St. Peter Canisius the Supper itself must have been, what
we have seen it to be for the above theologians, a representatiop assuredly, holy and living, but at the same time the
1 Ehses, Cone. Trid., 8, 773.

306

THE LAST SUPPER AND CATHOLIC DIVINES

bloodless, yet actual oblation of the Passion of the Lord,
and of the bloody Sacrifice that was to be on the Cross offered
for us furthermore.1
1 Whether St. Peter Canisius however actually welded the Supper and the
Passion into one Sacrifice, as we do, remains doubtful.
On the subject of the Council of Trent, and pre-tridentine and post-tridentine
authorities see in Gregariarum (June 1928) Coena et passio in Theologia Apologetica
contra pseudo-reformatores (pp. 177-238), and also the article which is to appear in
the same review (June 1930) under the title A propos d’un livre sur la Cène, which
is an examination of the book written against my views by Fr. Manuel Alonso, S.J.
{El Sacrificio Eucaristico de la ultima cena del Sehor segün el Concilia Tridentino).

307

;

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH1

(■

Father Ryan need not fear that anything he wrote in the ,
Irish Ecclesiastical Record for May could give cause for a com­
parison of him with a ‘ wolf bent on devouring some brother
theologian. Indeed, thanks are due to him for the trouble he
has taken to read ; thanks again, for the generous measure
of approval bestowed on some portions of my book ; thanks,
too, for discussing what he does not find it possible to approve.
Whatever my faults may be in other directions, yet I am not
so dull as not to appreciate the privilege of a discussion with
a member of a staff so highly distinguished as that of Maynooth College.
I do not propose, however, to follow the learned professor
through all parts of his criticism : I feel I have already occupied
more than enough the time and attention of the readers of
the Irish Ecclesiastical Record with my various contributions,
letters or articles ; and on the other hand, expediency also
advises me not to obscure what I regard as simple and clear
by over-explaining it. I might add that there are limitations
to the scope of my literary activities, both with regard to the
Eucharist, and in respect of the English-speaking public.
Other subjects, more directly connected with my present pro­
fessorial work, call my attention, and also other sections of
the public, nearer home. If I am comparatively brief, there­
fore, in my reply, let it be taken, I pray, not as a sign of lesser
interest or regard (God forbid!), but as a necessity to which
I reluctantly submit.
On the whole, regarding the Mass, and its connexion both
with the Passion and the heavenly Sacrifice, I think there is
substantial agreement between Professor Ryan and myself.
1 7risA Ecclesiastical Record, August 1925.

3n

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

The point of difference is the Last Supper and its bearing to
the Cross. I say one numerical sacrifice, when Professor
Ryan says two. To him the Supper is a complete Sacrifice,
and the Cross is another complete Sacrifice, whatever relation
there may be between the two, as between the absolute and
the relative. To me the Supper, pending the Cross, is no
complete Sacrifice yet ; it will be completed by the Cross. The
Cross, shorn of its connexion with the Supper, that introduces
the Victim in its garb of a gift to God, would not be of itself1
a fully-constituted sacrifice.2 The Cross is conspicuous for
the mactation of the Victim : that is the element which it
supplies of itself. The Supper is conspicuous for the ritual
offering of the Priest3 : that is the element which it contributes
as its own. The mactation is in view at the Supper ; the
offering perseveres morally throughout the Passion to the
death on the Cross. And thus we have one sacrifice ; one,
that is, not in the order of physical events, but only in the
order of signs : the sacrifice, as such, being nothing but a
sign ; the visible sign of an invisible self-sacrificing to God,
invisibilis sacrificii visibile sacramentum. Only this kind of unity
is asserted, not any other : the unity proper to a sign as such,
that is the unity of signification. The meaning of what is going
on is complete only when every part of that pragmatic speech,
of that language in action (visibile verbum) has been uttered
in terms of fact. It began to be uttered at the Supper ; the
uttering was finished with Christ’s last breath. What was,
1 The insufficiency of the Cross alone for the full constitution of a sacrifice,
properly so called, would, I believe, be clearer to many theologians, if they had
read the articles of Professor Rivière (late of Albi, now of Strasburg) quoted
in MF, pp, 22, 23. Whatever else may be said of those articles from any other
point of view, they certainly are, in respect of the above insufficiency, a revelation.
* Needless to say, to both Father Ryan and myself, the question is about sacrifice
properly so-called, the visible, sensible, liturgical sacrifice, containing both
mactation and ritual oblation; not about any other kind of sacrifice, whether
invisible, or metaphorical ; not therefore, about a sacrifice void of a ritual oblation.
I do not believe there is the slightest misunderstanding between Professor Ryan
and myself on this precise point.
* How the ritual oblation of the Lord’s death was involved in the mystic
immolation or symbolical mactation of the Supper Eucharist, has been explained
many times. See MF, 38 sqq. (especially 2nd edition), 155, 156; The Catholic
Doctrine of the Eucharist, 115-117; see above, pt. II, p. 231.

312

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
it may be asked, the full import of the message to be voiced
by the celebration of this Sacrifice, not latreutic only, but also
propitiatory? It was, together with the inward consecration
to God, also universal estrangement from sin and all accom­
paniments of sin. When was this complex signification
adequately translated into symbolic fact? Only when the
gift, the animal gift, had been through death brought, so
to say, within God’s reach, for him to take and appropriate
to himself, if he graciously willed. The fundamental notion
of gift is conveyed by the rite according to Melchisedech ;
but the special conditions of the animal gift, of the gift through
blood, are not verified actually except by the bloody Passion
unto death. When death is attained, then the facts have
spoken. But even though the last syllable was in blood, yet
the first was in the unbloody style of the mysteries.
And thus, the two are one composite word, of a visible
essence, visibile verbum, as every sacrament should be, even the
sacrament of the invisible sacrifice. This is the kernel of the
theory, the real crucial point. Whether it should be expressed
in terms of matter and form is to me absolutely secondary.
I do express it like this, because I find it convenient and
perfectly justifiable by theological analogy. But what matters
is, as Father Ryan rightly states, whether we may or may
not look upon the rite of the Supper as part of that Sacrifice
of Redemption which we call the sacrifice of the Death, or
sacrifice of the Passion, because it takes in the whole of the
Passion to the Death on the Cross.
Father Ryan says No. It is inconceivable, he maintains,
that an incomplete sacrifice should be one and the same as a
complete one. But this would appear to be the case, if the
Supper were part of the sacrifice of the Passion : for the
sacrifice of the Passion, the sacrifice of the Cross, is admittedly
complete, as including there, on the Cross, both immolation
and oblation. Such is the argument ; let us examine it.
I do admit, in the first place, that the Sacrifice of Redemp­
tion, as extending from the Supper to the Cross, includes
both visible oblation and bloody immolation : oblation,
3*3

THE MYSTERY OE FAITH

Owing to the Eucharistic rite ; immolation, owing to the
Passion. That is not, yet, what raises an objection in Father
Ryan’s mind. He would not, on this score alone, have any
difficulty, I believe, in admitting that one part of the entire
process should be called one and the same sacrifice with
the other part ; say, the Supper, with the Passion ; any more
than he would object to confession being one sacrament with
the absolution, or the baptismal form with the ablution.
His difficulty is of a more subtle sort. It is concerned with a
certain admission, or rather contention of mine, namely, that
the oblation embodied in the Eucharistic rite perseveres,
morally speaking, in a visible manner throughout the Passion ;
so that on the Cross itself there is, besides the mere Passion
inflicted by the Jews, an oblative element to be noted on the
part of the Lord. In the end it comes to this, that we have
on the Cross those two elements combined, bloody immolation
and visible oblation, and therefore a complete sacrifice.
And now, comparing the foregoing Supper, as an incomplete
sacrifice, with the subsequent offering on the Cross, as a
complete sacrifice, Father Ryan says the former cannot be
one sacrifice, numerically and identically, with the latter.
One halfpenny will never be the same sum of one penny with
two other halfpennies.
To this what do we say ? We say that the objection would
be unanswerable, if the Cross or Passion were a complete
sacrifice apart from the Supper ; or, in other words, if the
outward oblation on the Cross, or at any other stage of the
Passion, were anything but a formal effect of the offering
performed at the Supper. But in fact the case is different.
The Cross or Passion is a complete sacrifice, precisely because
it carries visibly the meaning which the Supper continues
to impart to it ; and thus it is not a complete sacrifice (immo­
lation plus oblation), except so far as it is outwardly and
visibly determined to that specific sense of oblation by a
continuous union with the Supper.
Which authorizes us
to speak in terms of matter and form, and, what is more,
forces on us the conclusion that the Supper is one and the
SH

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
same sacrifice with the Passion, with the sacrifice of the Cross,
and vice versa.
Here is a simile (not new,1 but perhaps, overlooked).
The Sacrament of the Eucharist, the outward Sacrament
(signum tantum}, is complete there in a pyx. Otherwise we
could not say, as we ought to say, that the Eucharist is a
permanent sacrament. Therefore, there is to be found in
this pyx the full sacramental meaning of the Eucharist. But
the sacramental meaning is made up of two elements, one
contributed by the species and the other by the words. The
meaning of the words as well as of the species is, therefore,
here : the one carried by the other. Will you say that the
sacramental form, uttered half an hour ago, perhaps a week
ago, must, therefore, be a different sacrament from our per­
manent Eucharist : because an incomplete sacrament (such
as a form, which is only part of a sacrament, and not the whole
of it) cannot be one and the same sacrament with something
complete, as is the permanent Eucharist ? No, you will
not say that, at least if you wish to side with St. Thomas
with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and with such
respectable authorities as Suarez) Lugo, Billot, and others.
You will say that the form remains attached to the species
morally, so far as the meaning, through which the form was
sacramental, has been by the form communicated to the
species, with a persevering effect on them. We make
the same reply with regards to the Last Supper and the
Passion. The meaning expressed by the Eucharistic rite of
the Supper remains attached to the whole course of the bloody
passion, as communicated to it by that antecedent symbol
and pragmatic utterance. Thus does it come true that the
redemptive sacrifice began, as St. Thomas after Bede remarks
(Sum. Theol. Ill, q. 46, a. 9, ad 1), on the fourteenth Nisan
at night, in the Cenacle, since there by the Eucharistic rite*
1 MF, 102, 105, 504 sqq. See above, p. 240.
a Father Ryan appears not to have been satisfied as to this answer. Reverting,
to the matter in the October issue of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record he suggests
that the conclusion of my view is “ that Christ did not sacrifice in the Supper
(p.387). By what canon of logic this follows, I do not know,nordoesmyopponent

3'5

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
“ Christ hallowed the beginnings of his immolation itself,
that is of his Passion.”
Now, to come back to Professor Ryan’s argument : an incomplete sacrifice cannot be one and the same sacrifice with a
complete one ; perhaps, the reader may now feel the force
of this Scholastic distinction ; with a complete one, adequately
distinct from it, I grant ; with a complete one, only inade­
quately distinct from it, as from the formal cause of its specific
meaning, I deny.
In other words : an incomplete sacrifice, that is a sacrifice
which would be incomplete of itself, if not completed by some
further development, not only can be, but must be, one and
the same with the ulterior happenings that borrow from it
part of the entire signification necessary for a complete
sacrifice. This abstract and ponderous sentence means
only that, if the liturgical oblation precedes the mactation,
while the Victim is at the same time the Priest, then the
Victim’s patient bearing under the deadly blows is at once
a complete sacrifice, but precisely owing to the Priest’s ritual
offering that continues itself through it. Continuation and
inception are not two different signs in the case, but one
continuous process, by means of which, from beginning to
end, there resounds in the ears of the Father this ‘ strong
cry ’ : ‘ This Body and Blood is a gift unto thee through
my Death for a ransom of sinners.’
show. It is true that on my own findings Christ did not at the Supper make a
sacrifice that was complete on the spot. It had to be completed by what was
to come. But was there, for this reason, no sacrificing of Christ at the Supper?
When I consecrate the bread, my sacrifice is not complete yet, at once, since it
must be completed by the consecration of the wine. But, nevertheless, I am
already then sacrificing, engaged on performing a sacrifice. The sacrificial
action is in fieri. Those who hold that the bloody proceedings alone, without
the Supper, formed the sacrifice of Christ, must admit however that the sacrifice
was not complete yet after the nailing to the cross, but was to develop till death
intervened. Will they then say that Christ was not sacrificing in the actual
Crucifixion? When, I wonder, did he then begin to be offering sacrifice? Not
surely in the moment of his death, which (as St. Thomas points out) was no
moment of his life.
To say that the Supper and the Cross together form one sacrifice, numerically
one, is not therefore by any means saying or implying “ that Christ did not
sacrifice in the Supper ” : which by the way would be rank heresy (Trid. 22, i) .
On this same difficulty see below, pp. 334 iq.

ί

|

;

i

i
,

,

31θ

1

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

More than this I cannot explain. If I fail to make the
point clear to others as it is to me, I have only to accuse my
own inability to find a suitable garb for the native simplicity
of naked truth.1
There is a misunderstanding, however, which I should like
to dispel. Father Ryan, if I understand him correctly,
takes it for granted, that for everybody, including presumably
the present writer, a propitiatory sacrifice is void of the idea
of a gift to God. Certainly this is not my view. I thought
1 had made it clear enough on more than one occasion.*
To me every sacrifice is necessarily and fundamentally and
primarily a gift. It may be a gift through blood, through
death ; but it must be a gift, the gift of the thing slain to be
God’s own (symbolic) banquet on God’s table : what Leviticus,
speaking of animal sacrifices, calls God’s “ bread ”
{MF, 13). If the prophets reminded the people that God
was in no need of it, their object was not to abolish this view,
absolutely essential to a sacrifice, bloody or not, but to raise
in people’s eyes God’s transcendence above earthly notions,
and point to the inadequacy of every sacrifice save the pure
one, of which the Law was only a shadow. The sacrifice
of redemption must have been a gift, and, in the guise of a
gift, tendered to God.
* The only thing I can add is that if I understand aright what Father Ryan
writes on page 460, then he must have misunderstood the meaning of what he
quotes from The Last Supper and Calvary, above, pp. 241 sq. I do not in the least
deny, in fact I hold most certainly and decidedly, that “ the immolation of the
Cross was retrospective to the Supper ” (to use Father Ryan’s words), in this sense,
that it was the immolation which came to carry out the design enshrined in the
Supper, and together with the Supper constitutes a complete sacrifice. The
words of mine quoted by Father Ryan say nothing to the contrary. They mean
only that the Supper without subsequent bloodshed would not be a complete
sacrifice, for lack of one essential element (true Victimhood); whereas the Mass
is at once a complete sacrifice without subsequent bloodshed, because the true
victimhood is already there; and that this difference between Mass and Supper
is the result of their respective positions with regard to the Cross, in point of
time: the latter before the Cross, the former after the Cross. Finally, let it be
understood that to speak of the supper as completed by the cross, or of the
cross as informed by the supper, is not to speak of two different compounds,
but of one. But these things are so plain that I am afraid it is an insult to explain
them.
2 See 1ER, July, 1924, pp. 77, 78; MF, p. 614, etc., with the addition of note
i of page 151, in the second edition.
3*7

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Father Ryan further discusses my interpretation of the
adversative locutions (etsi . . . tamen), by which, in the
Tridentine decree, the offering that took place at the Supper
is set up against the forthcoming sacrifice of the Cross. I
need not delay on the point here ; first, because in my recent
article on Father Swaby’s paper I have laboured it to the
full ; and secondly, because Father Ryan’s exception to my
reading rests ultimately on the alleged impossibility for an
incomplete sacrifice to be one and the same with the complete
one, as above.
As to the Fathers, I would point out that none of them is
called upon by me to vouch for the whole of what I hold
to be the. complete doctrine of the Eucharist. If the Fathers had written MF, I should not have had to write it. Each
one is called upon to testify to a certain definite and particular
point. Does he, or does he not bear it out, is the only pertinent
question. For instance, Hesychius (MF, 46) is not supposed
to tell us distinctly whether between the Supper and the
Cross there was or was not numerical unity (1ER, 464).
He is quoted in support of five definite statements, including
this one : in the Supper Christ offered his Passion. Is this
statement borne out by Hesychius, or not? And supposing
it is, is it such a common-place view (in our days, at least)
as not even to deserve noticing ? Or, on the contrary, does .
it not lead to certain interesting conclusions with at least
a fair amount of probability ?
On the other hand, the conciliar speeches or memoranda
preparatory to the Tridentine definition, are not quoted by
me (MF, 113-115) in support of the Supper (as) the formal
oblation which, with the immolation of the Cross, goes to
make up the sacrifice (1ER, 466-467) ; but only in favour
of ‘ numerical unity.’ And this numerical unity, I maintain
is, even when not asserted in so many words, at least implied
by those various pronouncements. At the same time, I
am quite prepared to admit that some of them might very
well be quoted also in favour of the above ‘ formal oblation,’
although perhaps not with exactly the same force.
318

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

That we can find, not three or four times, but hundreds
of times, the word ' immolation ’ used by the Fathers and
later theologians for oblation or for sacrifice in general, and
“ oblation ” on many occasions used for Sacrifice or even
immolation, is recognized by everybody. No one could dream
of building a demonstration-on merely philological grounds
in this matter. The case is different, when oblation is distinctly
opposed to immolation, and at the same time assigned as
Christ’s own share in the sacrificial work, while immolation
is allowed to others, as in a sixth passage of Hesychius’s com­
mentary on Leviticus, quoted on page 47 (MF). There, clearly
the author conforms to the style of Leviticus i, 5 : immolabitque
(homo laicus) vitulum coram Domino, et offerent filii Aaron
sacerdotes sanguinem ejus, fundentes per altaris circuitum, quod est
ante ostium tabernaculi. And if we further see that, directly
in proof of that particular ‘ oblation ’ of his, Christ is credited
with having “ immolated ” himself in the Supper, we shall
understand that this “ immolation ” is a sacramental, a
symbolic one, “ quod sciunt qui mysteriorum percipiunt virtutem ” :
even as must have been symbolical or sacramental the asper­
sion of blood,” the “shedding on the altar,” by means of
which Christ was said previously to have in that same Supper
effected his oblation of the Passion. And then from the
commentary on Leviticus we shall conclude with the commentary
on the Psalms (quoted, p. 47), where Christ’s self-immolation
in the supper appears as that which gave rise to His Passion.
On one point I think I can gratify Father Ryan’s critical
acumen. It is on the words of the Tridentine decree : in
ara crucis semel seipsum cruente obtulit. . . . Cujus quidem obla­
tionis cruentae, etc. I interpret these words obtulit and oblatio
strictly, in the sense of formal offering, as distinct not only
from immolation, but also from the more general idea of sacri­
fice. I do this, as I have always said, not for any reasons that
could engender certainty, but for safety’s sake, lest I should
appear as if I wished to minimize the sense of the Tridentine
words in the interest of a preconceived doctrine., By adopting
the stricter interpretation, I am not by any means making my
319

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

work easier. In one respect I am creating for myself a diffi­
culty. How the manner of offering (ratio offerendi) is different
(diversa), as the Council of Trent says, in the Mass and in the
redemptive Sacrifice, is a child’s game to explain, when we
take offerendi, in the broader sense, as equivalent to sacrificing.
Clearly, that there is a difference in general style between our
Mass and Christ’s redemptive Sacrifice (including even the
Sùpper) is plain to anyone who has eyes to see what lies before
him. In the one case there is bloodshed ; in the other there
is not ; and there is no more to be said. The diversity is more
subtle in the stricter interpretation of offerendi as formal obla­
tion ; although even there it holds good, so far as Christ’s
offering, although derived from the Supper, was yet actually
pursued and confirmed in blood on the Cross.1 This stricter
interpretation, on the other hand, hits those who fail to see
that the real immolation is supplied to our Mass by the Cross
(Sola ratione offerendi diversa).2 But while claiming the benefit
of this consequence, I have never urged the argument as deci­
sive, except ad hominem against those who would press unduly
the sense of formal oblation against my explanation either of
the offering on the Cross or of the diversity between the Cross
and the Mass.3 They cannot have it both ways ; they cannot
at the same time take their stand on a strict interpretation
of oblatio, and then claim for the Mass (or consequently for
the supper) a real immolation different from that of Calvary.4
I As shown in MF, p. 103, and above (quoted in 1ER, p. 470). See also
MF, 12, cols. 2, I. 2-15. Father Ryan asks: “ If the offering became
bloody on Calvary, when did it cease to be so? Why is it not bloody in the
Mass? ” I reply: The actual offering of the Lord on Calvary was bloody, because
it was there vested in the bloody Passion, as above. Our own offering in the
Mass is unbloody because it is there not expressed in any actual blood-shedding;
although it is there essentially relative to, or dependent upon, the bloody offering
of old, which perseveres virtually, but not actually or formally, in the sacrifice
of the Mass.
’ MF, p. 115.
3 Ibid.
II think Father Ryan would agree to this. But it would not settle the whole
question for him; because he seems to think that, even though incomplete for
lack of real immolation or actual Victimhood, the sacrifice at the Supper, as
distinct from the sacrifice of the Cross, might yet be in its way a complete and
valid sacrifice, even as Baptism may have been efficacious before the Passion,
owing to God’s foresight and indefatigable purpose in regard to Christ’s redemy-

320

■ THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
This is what I maintain as clear and certain. The exegetical
truth of the interpretation I leave willingly for others to
decide. I do not feel particularly concerned in it.1 I stand
where I stand ; but let others, if they care, make light of my
tutiorism, and on their own responsibility choose a broader
interpretation : they will not find me in their way.
Finally, there is one point on which I am glad to be in
full agreement with Father Ryan. He expresses surprise at
the circulation of my book. I am more surprised than he is.
When I presented the manuscript to the publishers, I had told
tive work. May I remark here that there is a difference in this respect between
sacrifice and sacrament? Sacrament of itself means an action of God, as such,
towards man; sacrifice, on the contrary, a pleading of man, as such, with God.
That God in his sanctifying action, whether in regard of the just of the Old Testa­
ment; or of the Blessed Virgin, or of Christ’s followers in Christ’s lifetime, should
take into account what is already present in his intention and mind, is only
natural. That man, in working out propitiation, in placating God, should have
the same force in hand with or without the afflictive work, with or without the
atoning death to which the victim had been pledged—in other words, through
a sacrifice that yields what it vows, or that stops short of it, and therefore fails
to be thorough—is not so natural. Such a course seems hardly in keeping with
the human views of reparation and satisfaction, that look for an expression in
sacrifice. The full reality of sacrifice requires actual victimhood: no mere
pretence will do. May I quote here what I wrote once in The Venerabile (April,
1905, Ρ· ϊθ?)’· “ The Supper and Calvary make up one Sacrifice, as being the
component parts of a whole. Once the two compound parts were verified in
the order of events, the Sacrifice was finished, but not before. As long as there
was only a mystic (symbolic—sacramental—representative) immolation or
mactation, there might be (and there was indeed) a real oblation; and, therefore,
the sacrifice was begun; b.ut the sacrifice was not finished till the real and bloody
mactation or immolation had taken place—seeing that the victim in that unbloody
rite had been offered to be immolated bloodily. It had, therefore, not passed
YET THROUGH ALL THE STAGES OF ITS ORDEAL AS A VICTIM, BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY

slain. The victimhood, pending the Cross, was not complete; nor could, there­
fore, the sacrifice be complete.” Besides, there are other difficulties. If the
atoning efficacy of Christ’s Passion was there (in a sacrifice previous to the Cross,
as the Supper must then have been) already tendered to God for a ransom of the
sin of the world by the High Priest who could not be rejected, then the world
was saved before the sacrifice of the Cross. Besides, the Cross itself lacks in this
case formal oblation, because assuredly, no individual unity then can be main­
tained between the mactation on the Cross and the oblative meaning embodied
in the Supper. Finally, there is the Epistle to the Hebrews. On the other hand,
where is the evidence, scriptural, patristic, liturgical, conciliary, or simply
medieval, for that precious duality of sacrifices (Supper and Cross), which many
theologians in modern times have indeed asserted, but only on their own personal
authority, as a conclusion (to my mind, absolutely unwarranted) from the
duality that prevails most certainly between the Cross and the Mass? But all
those points have been touched upon in MF, and I leave them there.
1 MF, p. 103. See above, pp. 258-261.

321

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
them, honestly, _that I did not expect them to sell more than thirty copies of it : three in Rome, a dozen in Paris, and
about as many in the rest of the world. And now we are.
nearing three thousand. I find no other explanation for it
than what occurred on the day when the last of the five censors
reported to my Superior-General. The latter at once informed
me that several hundred masses would be offered for the
success of the book. They are at work, I trust. If any
reader of MF thinks that he has benefited through the result,
let him remember to whom gratitude is due, and pray for
him, that God may bless him and repay his charity. In the
meantime, Father Ryan, I am sure, will join with me in
regarding the cause of success as less mysterious than it appeared
at first sight. The Mass works wonders. And that it should
do so, is to a Christian the least wondrous thing in the Mystery
of Faith.

322

THE MASS AND THE GROSS1
A query came from a scholarly parish priest in the South
of England who wondered whether the Mass ought not, like
the Supper, to be counted as one Sacrifice with the Cross,
in the sense, that is, of a strictly numerical unity.
The answer must consider separately the two terms under
comparison : first the bearing of the Last Supper on Calvary,
and second, the bearing of the Mass on both Calvary and
Supper.
The Supper and Calvary make up one sacrifice, as being
the component parts of a whole. Once the two component
parts were verified in the order of events, the sacrifice was
finished ; but not before. As long as there was only a mystic
(symbolic—sacramental—representative) immolation or mactation, there might be (and there was indeed) a real oblation ;
and therefore the sacrifice was begun ; but the sacrifice was
not finished, till the real and bloody mactation, or immolation,
had taken place—seeing that the victim in that unbloody
rite had been offered to be immolated bloodily. It had there­
fore not passed yet through all the stages of its ordeal as a
victim, before it was actually slain, the victimhood, pending
THE CROSS, WAS NOT COMPLETE ;

NOR COULD, THEREFORE,

THE SACRIFICE BE COMPLETE.

So much for the Supper and the Cross ; it is clear that (if
the above explanation is correct) they make only one individual
sacrifice, inasmuch as they are the essential elements of one
complete sacrificial process.
Now we cannot say that the Mass is an essential element
of that sacrificial process once enacted in days gone by. The
sacrifice made up of Supper and Passion was perfectly complete
1 The Venerahile, April 1905.

325

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
(short of the external complement of divine acceptance) the
moment Christ was dead. It lacked no essential, no con­
stitutive element ; therefore we cannot say that the Mass
was (like the Supper) a constitutive, an essential element of
that complete sacrifice. Thus it appears that the relation
of the Mass to both Cross and Supper cannot be the same
as between the Supper and the Cross. The unity of the Mass
with both or either cannot therefore be the same as the unity
of those two together.
What then is the unity of the Mass with that sacrifice of
old ? It is, if we speak of the sacrificial process, a unity, not of
composition, as between the essential elements of one sacrificial
compound, but a unity of subordination ; that is, the Mass is
associated with the original sacrifice of Christ, as an exercise
of our ministerial and delegated priesthood with the full
and sovereign activity of Christ’s sacerdotal power ; as a
participation with its source.
I say “ if we speak of the sacrificial process ”, of the active
sacrifice. If we speak of the passive sacrifice, the thing offered
(and indeed as such), then the unity to be maintained between
the Mass and Christ’s own personal sacrifice, is no longer
a unity of subordination, but one of absolute identity. The
victim of our sacrifice is numerically, purely and simply, the
same as the victim of Christ’s historic sacrifice. In this sense,
when by “ sacrifice ” is meant the victim and its victimhood,
one has a right to say, one is bound to say, that the “ sacrifice ”
is numerically the same in all masses, and numerically the
same there as in our High Priest’s own case, when he went
through the celebration at the Supper and its completion on
Calvary ; the reason being that from thence Christ has been
made for ever a Victim, an enduring Victim, an eternal Victim,
consummated in his state of Victimhood for evermore. That
Victim, under that formality of its eternal Victimhood and
no other, do we precisely offer in the Mass. Hence the
aforesaid unity and identity of the “ passive sacrifice.”
But you cannot speak of the same bond of unity as regards
the “ active sacrifice
There, evidently, my celebration
326

r
i

Î
THE MASS AND THE CROSS

,
j
i
[
f

j

i
•

is not by pure and simple identity the celebration of Christ
in the night before he suffered, nor is yours mine, nor is mine
to-day the self-same as yesterday or to-morrow. These
sacrifices of ours, between themselves, form a plurality of
sacrifices. We speak of a hundred masses, in the sense of a
hundred sacrifices (active sacrifices, of course) of the Mass,
The historic expression “ the sacrifices of masses for the
quick and the dead ” is perfectly true in its import of a real
plurality. The masses can be numbered, and can be added
to one another, so as to form more sacrifices. I say the masses,
between themselves ; if we were to compare the Mass, all the
masses of the world, as well as any single mass, to the Sacrifice
enacted by Christ himself in the Cenacle and the Passion,
then it would not be correct to say that our masses can be
added to that one sacrifice of our High Priest, or that they
are to be numbered with it, in the same way as they form a
plurality between themselves. I can speak of three delegated
authorities (suppose the authority of three Apostolic Dele­
gates) ; but if I put in the authority of the Pope, it will not
be quite so suitable to speak of four authorities (the sovereign
authority, and the three delegated ones) ; at any rate four
will not be taken here exactly in the same way as three could
in the previous sentence. Why? because those three were
additions to one another ; and they are not additions (properly
speaking) to the Pope’s authority, any more than my existence
or yours could be added up to God’s existence. And yet
they are really and numerically distinct from it : they are
subordinated to it, as a participation of it ; not coordinated
with it.
Such is the relation of our “ active sacrifice ” to that Sacrifice
of Redemption, that sacrifice of the Passion and Death of
the Lord, made up of the Supper and the Cross. Our sacrifice
is numerically distinct from, but cannot be properly “ connumerated ” with that one personal Sacrifice of Christ.
Of course, it should be noted, that when an author has
once and for all coupled the Supper with the Cross in the
unity of a single individual sacrifice, he must be understood
327

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
while speaking of the sacrifice of the Cross, or the sacrifice of
the Passion, or the sacrifice of the Supper, to mean that
complete Sacrifice which is the Sacrifice of Redemption in
its entirety1 ; and therefore, if he further compare the Mass
with the sacrifice of the Cross, he should be understood to
compare it, not with the Cross only, apart from the Supper,
but with the Cross together with the Supper, that is with the
whole Sacrifice that goes by the name of sacrifice of the Cross ;
and likewise, if he compares the Mass with the sacrifice of
the Supper, as one unit with another unit, it will be a com­
parison with the Supper not apart from the Cross but together
with the Cross.
1 Unless, of course, the context points to some other interpretation.

328

CONCERNING THE LAST SUPPER
AND CALVARY

Z

CONCERNING THE LAST SUPPER
AND CALVARY1
I owe much gratitude to the Dublin Review for the interest
it shows in a book of mine,2 on which no less than three
articles have appeared in the last two numbers,3 beside one
from the scholarly pen of my Right Reverend friend, the
Bishop of Hebron. The Bishop of Hebron has written in
self-defence. I am happier than His Lordship. I have
first of all to write words of thanks : thanks to His Lordship
for having coupled my defence with his. Thanks, and
indeed profound thanks, to the Rev. M. C. D’Arcy, who in
his winning style has written a most splendid and effective
article. I might leave my cause in his fraternal hands.
Neither intelligence nor sympathy is lacking on his side.
And indeed what I may have to add will be very little, and
spoken in deference chiefly to those who think that I ought
not to keep away from the field, lest my reasons might be
misinterpreted. But before I proceed to this troublesome
part of my task, I may perhaps emphasize the special debt
of gratitude which I owe to the Editor of this Review for
opening its pages not only to adverse criticism, but also to
the other sort. He has set an example which I hope will
henceforth be followed by other editors in England (I am not
speaking of Ireland or America). If the iron rule, which,
to the best of my information, does in certain periodicals
exclude from the defence of a work anyone but its author,
were from England to spread to other countries, where on
the Continent would be the chance of English authors ? I
trust there is no impertinence in asking English editors kindly
1 Dublin Rtview, January, February, March igi6,'
1 MF (Paris, Beauchesne, second edition),
’ Nos. 354 and 355.
33»

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

to remember that the language of their land is no mother
tongue to Frenchmen. I am particularly glad, therefore,
that through the welcome appearance of a supporter in
these hospitable pages I find myself relieved of the main
part of what Fr. D’Arcy rightly terms an “ unwelcome
task.”
This said, I must now turn my attention first to Abbot
Ford, and then to somebody else.

I
My remarks on Abbot Ford’s paper I will confine to his
presentment of my position. In a pithy paragraph he has
put together certain views, supposedly mine, “ in connection
with the Last Supper and Calvary, which sound strange (he
says) to Catholic ears. For example : (i) there was no Mass
at the Last Supper ; (2) the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the
Supper was, like that of the Cross, once for all and cannot
be repeated ; (3) there was no complete Sacrifice at the Last
Supper ; (4) at the Last Supper Christ did not offer up Himself,
but only His coming Passion ; (5) the death of Christ is not
to be found in the Sacrifice of the Last Supper ; (6) Christ
did not die on the Cross in obedience to any command of
the Father ; (7) the Mass was inaugurated after the Ascen­
sion. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that a theory
which either postulates or necessarily leads to so many strange
views cannot itself be sound ” (p. 30). Now let us go back
upon these “ strange views,” and see how far they are mine,
or how far they are strange.
First, about the Mass. Where did I ever say that “ there
was no Mass at the Last Supper”? In my book, I do not
touch even the question whether it is correct or not to speak of
a “ Mass ” as celebrated by Christ in the Supper-Room.
This is so certain a fact, that it has been implicitly recognized
in Blackfriars (Jan. 1525), with a view apparently to make me dis­
close my mind on the subject. The next issue of B contained
these words of mine : “If by the Mass is meant the bloodless
332

[

i
I
J
Î
j

i,

;

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY
oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ under the species
of bread and wine by the priests of the Church in memory
of Christ’s death till he come (“ ab Ecclesia per sacerdotes sub
signis visibilibus immolandum in memoriam transitus sui ex hoc mundo
, ad Patrem,” Cone. Trid., sess. 22, cap. 1), which is the generally
accepted sense, then there was in that sense no Mass celebrated in the Cenacle ; although there Christ certainly did
offer virtually all our masses ; which are now offered by us in
virtue of that one offering of his, to which he actually conjoins
and subjoins our own offerings, as particular agencies to a
universal cause. But if you choose to mean by the Mass
any bloodless oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ under
the species of bread and wine whether performed by the
priests of the Church in union with Christ, or by Christ alone ;
whether intended to commemoratè Christ’s death, or to dedicate Christ to his death ; whether having no further con­
tinuation in view, or having still to be carried on and pursued
unto death j1 then in that indeterminate sense, which is
not the current one, you will have to say that there was a Mass
said in the Cenacle.”
This has been my only utterance so far on the subject.
It is perhaps a little more nuance than one would be led to
believe by Abbot Ford’s over-simplified wording : “ There
was no Mass at the Last Supper.”
With No. i ought obviously be coupled No. 7, in which we
read : “ The Mass was inaugurated after the Ascension.” I
suppose by these words Abbot Ford is alluding to two Notes
of mine, appended respectively to my seventeenth and twenty­
sixth Dissertations. The first is entitled : De inconcessa apostolis
potestate litandi per triduum mortis dominicae ; the second : De
inconcessa apostolis potestate litandi ante diem Pentecostes. From
the very wording of those titles it appears that the question
raised is strictly, solely and exclusively about the Mass as
a sacrifice of the Church ; not therefore, as Abbot Ford
1 For the way in which Christ’s Masi was described by Luther’s antagonist,
Bishop Berthold of Chiemsee, as begun in the Supper-Room and finished only
on the Cross, while our masses end on the spot with the Eucharistic consecration,
see 1ER, June, 1925, p. 578; above, pp. 397 s?·
333

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

would have us believe, about “ the Last Supper and Calvary.”
Now to the question thus restricted to the commemorative sacri­
fice various solutions have been given by theologians : some
have stated that the apostles could offer sacrifice from the
very first moment of their ordination in the Supper-Room,
and, therefore, not only before Christ’s Ascension, but even
before his resurrection and death ; others have denied it ;
men indeed of the greatest authority, particularly here in
Rome ; and these appear to me to be more faithful to Scrip­
ture, to the Fathers, and to what is commonly called the
analogy of Faith. When this opinion is said to sound strange
to Catholic ears, I wonder whether the opinion is not misunder­
stood, or the strangeness due to unfamiliarity with the problem
itself, or whether for Catholic ears we should not read the
particular ears of one Catholic, however distinguished. Any­
how, no clue is offered to us, as no reason is proffered, but
only an expression of dislike, which we must take as it is, and
leave where it stands.
No. 2 is of a peculiar character. " The Eucharistic Sacri­
fice of the Last Supper was, like that of the Cross, once for all
and cannot be repeated.” Needless to say, this sentence is
not mine. What can it mean ? Its probable import is
that there was a certain sacrifice at the Supper (let us call it
the Eucharistic sacrifice) ; and another sacrifice on the
Cross (let us call it the bloody sacrifice), and that in the same
way as Christ was not to be killed again by us, so too were we
not to offer him again under the species of bread and wine.
I suggest that this is the obvious meaning of the sentence meant
to “ sound strange to Catholic ears.” And, in truth, whoever
means that, is more than strange : he is either a fool or an
infidel.
No. 3 runs like this : “ There was no complete Sacrifice
at the Last Supper.” Please, add at least that it was com­
pleted. It would not have been complete had it been left there.
It was made complete by the Passion. In other words, it
was not the whole of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice ; but it
was a part of it, a component part, an essential part. Nor
334

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY '
was the bloody Passion, of itself, the whole of Christ’s redemp­
tive sacrifice, but a part of it, a component part, an essential
part. If you wish for a simile, your confession is not a com­
plete sacrament, unless absolution comes in. But once
absolution has been pronounced, there is no incomplete
sacrament left. Apply this to the present case, and do away
with your fears of incompleteness for Christ’s Sacrifice, even
as you would for my own sacrifice of this morning, when the
consecration of the bread was completed by the consecration
of the wine. In one word, Christ’s Sacrifice, his one and
only Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Redemption, was a most com­
plete one. But its completeness comes from the conjunction
of Supper and Passion. At the Supper, as well as through
each successive stage of the Bloody Passion, Christ was engaged
in performing his complete Sacrifice. Properly speaking, he
never made, never offered an incomplete one ; any more
than I did this morning, although no part of my sacrifice
was by itself the fulness of the whole.
No. 4 is perhaps the most surprising of the whole list. “ At
the Last Supper Christ did not offer up himself [italics mine],
but only his coming Passion.” Where, where indeed, did I
ever say or suggest anything of the kind ? Of course, as
Abbot Ford follows the grand method of giving no references,
the average reader will not be able to verify, and is apt to
think, therefore, that in the bulky mass of literature that has
already come from my pen on the subject I may have some­
where dropped this piece of extreme nonsense. To say that
Christ did not at the Last Supper offer up himself would be
a most direct denial of the Catholic Faith. It would be
Luther’s heresy. Perhaps there is some antecedent improba­
bility that it should be die view held and taught by one who,
after all, is no Professor of Protestant Theology. What I
hold and say, most expressly, is that Christ did offer up himself ;
that he offered himself up to his Father as the Lamb to be slain
in his Passion ; that he offered himself to his Passion, as to
the immolation through which he was to go over to his Father,
in the shape of a Gift for the ransom of mankind. I say so
335

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
in so many words hundreds of times; and this is again what
I constantly and most plainly mean, when I use the other
phrase—namely, that he offered his Passion, or his Death
or his Life. I should have to quote nearly every page of
my book. Let us be content with two or three passages.
My first utterance on the subject is to be found in the third
Dissertation, which happens to be also the opening portion of
the third chapter. The title of the chapter is De oblatione
passionis peracta a Christo in coena. The title of the corresponding
Dissertation is Christum in coena sacerdotaliter obtulisse suum corpus
ad cruentam passionis immolationem, persuadetur primo ex narratione
coenae in se considerata. He offered a real, substantial thing ;
he offered his own Body ; but he offered it to death ; and
this is what is called offering his death. Again now, let us
see the text of the Dissertation itself. It opens like this :
“ Id nobis est propositi ut ostendatur Christus, in coena effigiem suae
passionis conficiens, obtulisse Deo passionis suae veritatem sacerdo­
taliter.” Then comes the analysis of this statement, including
four points : first, there is in the Last Supper a merely sym­
bolical mactation, representing some real mactation to come ;
secondly, there is some oblation too ; thirdly, an actual and
real, not merely representative or apparent, oblation ;
fourthly, the oblation—of what?—“ Dice quarto : oblationem
fieri hostiae ad ipsam immolationem veram quae repraesentaturfutura.”—
of the Victim, of Christ himself. Then comes this summary :
“ Uno verbo : in imagine alicuius immolationis offiertur hic et nunc
Christus ad immolationem cuiusfit imago.” This is how I maintain
that Christ did not offer up himself, but only his coming
Passion. In the demonstration of the fourth point occur
these words : “ Ergo in ipsa immolatione repraesentativa . . .
actualiter quaedam perficitur oblatio Christi ad immolationem cruentam.”
Again : “ Quare . . . dicendum ... : esse in ritu illo
mysticae immolationis ipsam passionis hostiam, ut talem, oblatam
Deo a Christo sacerdotaliter.” Finally comes a Recapitulation,
in which I express myself thus : “ Dabat se {Christus} in effigie
mortis ; dabat se pro nobis in mortem, atque per mortem se dabat
Deo hostiam.” All those passages are taken from one Disser33θ

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY

i

j
ί
f
j
I

tation only.1 And Abbot Ford coolly writes that my thesis
is : “ At the Last Supper Christ did not offer up himself,
but only his coming Passion.” By this critic the reader is
well informed !
But perhaps, even though my teaching is that Christ did
offer up himself, I am wrong in using as an equivalent the
phrase ‘ Christ offered his Passion.’ But how could I be
wrong ? Abbot Ford himself acknowledges the equivalence,
when on the words of Cyprian “ The Passion of the Lord is
the sacrifice which we offer,” he volunteers this commentary :
“ If the letter is read carefully, it will be recognized that St.
Cyprian is among the Doctors who tell us that Christ
in the Supper offered up himself to his death.” I think
I was not totally unaware of it ; and possibly some traces
of this reading might be discoverable somewhere in my
book.
No. 5 I profess not to understand. I am supposed to teach
that “ the Death of Christ is not to be found in the Sacrifice
of the Last Supper.” What is the meaning of this ? Ought
I to teach that Christ was actually killed in the Last
Supper ? I hope not. But then do I fail perhaps to teach
that the Death was represented ? I say it, or imply it
at every page. Is that all? I say moreover, what others
do not say, that Christ’s Death was sacrificially offered
by the High Priest according to Melchisedech in his
Eucharistic feast. Is not that enough? I thought that in
my view the Death of Christ was a little more closely bound
up with the Last Supper than it would be in the views of
others.
1 Elucidatio III. In Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist I express myself thus:
’* Christ in the Supper offered himself up to death ” (p. 115). “ He was offering
himself up to what was in store for him” (p. 118). I make mine the words of
Adolph of Schaumburg: “ Christ offered himself up to his Father with his own
hands” (p. 124), etc. In The Last Supper and Calvaiy, I say that Christ in the
Supper was “ making over to God the Lamb to be slain, and by the very fact
offering in the ritual sense of the word, not internally only, but outwardly, not
by a mere purpose or promise to give, but by the actual giving and delivering
up of the gift, not in mere figure, but most really and formally, the Victim that
was henceforth sacred to God, and as such due to its ultimate fate.” I call this
a “ sacramental donation of his own self and of his own life,” again “ his own
self-offering.” See above, pp. 232 sq.
337

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
So far we have had a glimpse of Abbot Ford’s critical
methods. No. 6 will give us an insight into his method as a
theologian.
My sixth capital sin is to declare that “ Christ did not die
on the Cross in obedience to any command of the Father.”
A “ conclusion . . . difficult to reconcile with the common
belief and feeling of all Christians” (italics mine), p. 41.
Nothing less. Of course, this is saying a great deal ; perhaps
more than Abbot Ford realizes : it means excluding from
among Christians the countless theologians who for centuries
and centuries have maintained with all their might that
there had been no strict command of the Father to the Son
in respect of the Passion and Death. Among those nearer
to us suffice it here to mention these two, whose names are
the glory of modern theology, Franzelin and Billot. No
Christians, apparently, in the judgement of Abbot Ford.
Their case is settled, without recourse even to argument, by
direct appeal to mere intuition. This intuitive method I
envy ; it would dispense me, and many of my painstaking
brethren, of the toilsome task of reading books, of getting
acquainted with the Fathers and their exposition of Scripture,
and, when I discuss the opinion of some theologian, of
troubling about what he may have written on the subject,
were it in explanation of St. Thomas or St. Anselm, whom
Abbot Ford quotes against me, without knowing apparently,
or at any rate without notifying his reader of the fact that
I have tried to give a reasoned and coherent commentary of
their many and, at first sight, rather conflicting pronounce­
ments. Yet, however much I may envy this method, I will
not recommend it to anybody. For one, I hope never to
trust my lights so much as to discard the views of either
Franzelin or Billot with a mere ipse dixi.
Now, this being said about the method, I revert to the
doctrine, only to note this. As a matter of fact, I do not
agree with those many eminent theologians who hold that
Christ did not die on the Cross out of strict obedience. I
maintain that he did ; that on the Cross, and during his
338

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY

bloody Passion, he was strictly bound to incur death ; that
there was a law at the time, a divine law, and in this sense
a divine command, making it unlawful for him to decline
death. But on the other hand, I maintain that this obligation
was not originated by a “ particular ” command of the
Father,1 such as ‘ Thou shalt die ’ ; any more than a monk’s
obligation to poverty, chastity or obedience has its source
in any particular command of this kind : ‘ Thou shalt give
up thy worldly possessions, and married life, and independ­
ence
Yet the obligation is there, once the vow has been
taken (which you were free to take or not to take) ; but it
is there as a special case of your general duty of religion—
that is, of that specific justice to God which makes it incumbent
upon you not to defraud the Almighty of what has been
pledged to him. Christ assuredly did not vow anything,
in the proper sense of the word, but he did something more
sacred and more thorough still : he did as a High Priest
offer himself up to God as a Victim. This he did originally
in the Eucharistic rite of the Supper : and from thence it
was not permissible for him to withdraw the Gift which he
had made sacred to God. Thus does the consecration of
the Gift contain a pledge much more binding still than a
mere vow could be. But it is not correct to say that there
is in the sacrificial oblation only a pledge ; there is the actual
giving : which is something more ; but there is contained
in it implicitly a pledge not to take back, not to claim back
what has been “consigned into God’s hands.”2 This kind
of obligation I do admit in Christ upon the Cross : a very
sacred, strict and imperative obligation ; referring decidedly
to the will of God, to the law of God, to the general command
of God, his foremost precept : that justice should be kept,
the justice which is due to all, and above all to God. It
1 My phrase in the English text, first alluded to by Abbot Ford in his Summary,
and then quoted by him in full on page 41, is this: "... It was Christ’s.duty
to die, not to fulfil any particular command of His Father, which to the majority
of our Doctors is unthinkable, but only to keep the law of justice even unto
death ” (Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist, p. 116).
* Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist, p. 115.

339

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
may be that this does not commend itself to Abbot Ford,
for reasons best known to himself ; but it is clearly a nearer
approach to the “ particular ” command, which he appears
to favour, than the theory of either Billot or Franzelin ; and
if these good men still count among Christians, I fancy
Abbot Ford may a fortiori reserve for me a little seat in the
congregation of “ all Christians,” who glory in the name of
Orthodox and followers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith
—if not in his own private chapel.
I am not here in the least demonstrating any of my views ;
nor am I even discussing the objections which Abbot Ford
may think fit to raise against any of them. I think no dis­
cussion can be fruitful before the critic has read carefully and
entirely the work under consideration. That this has not
been the case I maintain out of respect for Abbot Ford himself,
seeing that for such misapprehensions and misrepresentations
as his have been, if the excuse were not to be found in lack
of adequate perusal, then only unpleasant thoughts would
suggest themselves, which I for one entirely dismiss. Let,
however, critics remember that even carelessness is after all
only a poor excuse ; that authors have a certain right not
to have their views deformed ; and that to fail in this respect,
even unintentionally, entails, on the part of the offender,
certain responsibilities and obligations which, when the matter
is no trifle, may be of a serious character.
In the meantime I willingly acknowledge the civil tone
of my critic, the parliamentary quality of his language, and a
(comparatively) notable absence of acrimony. For these
welcome features of his style let an expression of thanks be
my last word to Abbot Ford.

II
The Rev. V. McNabb has already devoted to my work
several articles or letters to the Press {Blackfriars, September
1923 Î October, 1924 ; January, 1925 ; Irish Ecclesiastical
340

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY
Record, June, October, and December, 1924). I have replied
faithfully each time (American Ecclesiastical Review, July and
August, 1924 ; Blackfriars, December, 1924 ; February, 1925 ;
Irish Ecclesiastical Record, September and December, 1924 ;
January, 1925). In the Irish Ecclesiastical Record (June, 1924)
I was accused of “ serious errors in faith,” amounting even
to “ heresy,”1 while in support of the charge a statement of
fact was made which, when challenged,2 was neither substan­
tiated nor withdrawn. In Blackfriars (October, 1924, p. 399)
my doctrine was dubbed “ repulsive ”, and, worse even than
heretical, “ blasphemous
In the meantime a slur had
been cast on my literary honesty by means of methods which
I will not here characterize, but which the reader may see
exposed in Blackfriars, December, 1924, pp. 551, sqq? To­
day, the same critic comes forward with a new and remarkable
discovery : Cardinal Billot opposes my view of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice. And thereupon comment goes on.4 Some more
discoveries of the kind it will be very easy to make for those
who care. I have in Mysterium Fidei opposed many modem
writers on the Eucharist ; some without naming them, others
by name. Cardinal Billot is one of the latter category. Not
only have I discussed his view, but I have gone the length
of saying (his friendship as well as the loftiness of his mind
allows of such liberty) that, if carried to its ultimate conclu­
sions, it would, in my opinion, not only sever the Mass from
all essential connection with the Cross, not only deprive it of
any intrinsic propitiatory force, but even endanger the very
truth of its sacrificial character. It was not perhaps, then,
such a matter of surprise that Cardinal Billot, on bringing up
to date the sixth edition of his treatise, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis,
should in his turn, were it but to defend his theory, criticize
mine. And seeing that his view is bound up with a duality of
sacrifices in the Supper and on the Cross, it was only natural
that he should vindicate this duality, and thus impugn the
1 See /ER, January, 1925.
* See 1ER, September, 1924 and January, 1925.
3 See also February, 1925, p. 109.
* Dublin Review, p. 167 ff.

z

'

341

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

unity. This he has done, and done by way of a Scholastic
discussion. That such an event should be described as por­
tentous, and its significance endowed with the finality of
a “ condemnation,” is perhaps well in keeping with what has
come before from the same pen ; but it is none the less bound
to appear ludicrous “ to all students of the history of theological
discussion.”1 I do not think that a single example could be
found of an author converting all or even any large propor­
tion of the writers that had previously committed themselves
to an opinion different from his. Indeed, this should be
accounted a miracle, of the first class, a miracle which not
even St. Thomas could boast to have achieved—far from it ;
and least of all should it be expected from the last of his dis­
ciples. The wonder is not that those whom I combat should
combat me. The wonder would be the other way about ;
if they did not.
Nor do I in the meantime underrate the significance of
dissent from Cardinal Billot ; no more than I did when I
first attacked him. Cardinal Billot is to my mind the greatest
thinker that there is in the theological world of to-day. His
authority is of the highest ; and far from declining, I believe
that it will rise and establish itself more and more as ages go
on. But when it comes to some particular point to be decided
scientifically, Cardinal Billot himself is aware and mindful
of the old axiom : Tanti valet auctoritas quanti valet ratio allata.
In the present case Cardinal Billot’s argument is based simply
and solely on his reading of a certain phrase in the decree of
Trent. Why that reading seems to me historically untenable,
I have been at pains lately to show in the Irish Ecclesiastical
Record.2 Let that suffice. I am not here discussing the point
with His Eminence, for obvious reasons. But much less do I
intend to have a theological debate with one whom, much
1 Dublin Review, p. 167.
‘June 1925, The Last Supper and Catholic Divines from. Henry VHI to the Council
of Trent; see above, p. 302 sq. The reader may also see in The Last Supper and
Calvary (see above, p. 272) how the true mind of the Fathers of Trent had already
been explained in the seventeenth century by the great Church historian, Noel
Alexandre, O.P. in his Dissertation on the Mass against Lutherans and Calvinists.

342

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY
to my regret, I had to tell lately in Blackfriars1 why such a
thing was henceforth out of the question between him and
myself.
Only, in view of the general public, whose mind is apt to
be disturbed by such an appeal as has been made to the
authority of a Prince of the Church, I here beg to submit
a few specimens of the view taken of this matter by some
of the highest Church dignitaries in various parts of the world
since the time my book was published.
The Archbishop of Toronto, the Most Rev. Neil McNeil,
D.D., in a popular instruction on the Mass (The Passion and the
Mass. The Nature of the Mass and our Participation in it), writes :
“ The primary purpose of the Supper was the offering up of the
sacrifice of the Cross. At the Supper he offered his Body to be
broken and his Blood to be shed in the Passion and on the Cross.
The Passion of the Lord is the sacrifice that we offer, said St.
Cyprian in reference to the Mass. If that is what priests offer
now, then that is what Christ offered at the Supper. There he
offered himself as the victim to be immolated. Now he offers
himself in the Mass as the victim once immolated on the Cross.
The offering of the Supper involved all that followed in suffering
and death. ... In the case of our Lord, the Supper and what
followed are parts of one Sacrifice. The Sacrifice of Redemption
began at the Supper and ended on the Cross.”

On May 27, 1923, one who had been for very many years
the professor of countless generations of priests in the Papal
College of Propaganda, the world-famed author of the Instutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae ad textum S. Thomae concinnatae,
■wrote as follows in his Introductory Letter to Bishop Mac­
donald’s book : “ The Supper was the Sacrifice of the
Cross as Begun ; the immolation on Calvary was the same
sacrifice as consummated.” Twelve months later the signatory
of this letter, the Right Rev. A. M. Lépicier, was raised to
Archiépiscopal rank, and established as Apostolic Visitor over
the whole Hierarchy of India. *
1 February, 1925. p. 108 ff.
• He i· now a Cardinal.

343

ni

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
A short while before, the Archbishop of Rennes, late Chan­
cellor of the Catholic University of Lille, President of the
Board of the Catholic University of Angers, in his Lenten
Pastoral of 1922, in words which I have quoted more fully
elsewhere, expressed the same doctrine :

i

■' i

■

i

1

'I
!
*<
!

i
li

·“

“ There (in the Last Supper) he already confronts his disciples
with the sacrifice of salvation. Already he is beginning it; from this
moment he offers himself up to death. He does so in a significant
phrase which does not bear on the future as a promise, but affects
the present as an actual decision; by means of symbols too, more
expressive still than words. . . . The Saviour is here placing
himself ... as the lamb prophesied by Isaias, a victim mute
and gagged, fastened by the sacramental bonds more tightly still
than he is soon to be by the cords of the soldiers. Do you not
understand that he wishes to make it clear to us that on his part
everything is ready for the sacrifice, and that there is nothing
left for him to wait for but the knife? In this unbloody rite already
appears before you the Priest and the Victim, along with the
offering to and destination for immolation: which intention
is here, as usual, expressed liturgically by the Pontiff himself.
Jesus, I say again, began in the Cenacle that sacrifice which this very
day shall be perfected in actual bloodshed. Why then should we tear
asunder the sacrifice of the Supper from that of the Cross, as if
they were two distinct entities, each one of which had in itself
the constitutive and integral elements of a sacrifice: as if Christ
had offered himself twice! Does not the mystic immolation
entailed by the duality of the sacramental species, connect our
Victim in a quite transparent manner with the immolation
on the Cross, and with it alone? Is not the Victim already offered
and vowed irretrievably to that death on the Cross? . . . From
all sides, then the same conclusion presses itself on us: the passion
has already begun its course; it is not only morally present, as in
Christ’s thought, but it is virtually enacted by the offering which
Christ makes of himself to his Death in this solemn moment.
After all, was it not necessary that this offering should be made, and made
liturgically, if Christ’s Passion was to be a religious immolation and a
sacerdotal sacrifice? And where shall we find it in the Gospel but­
ât the moment of the Supper? . . . Let Protestants
exclaim that if the Eucharist was a sacrifice of his own Body and
Blood offered by Christ at the Supper, then our redemption was
already effected, and the sacrifice of the Cross is made void; the
Fathers of Trent have replied that this was not a case of adding
344

THE LAST SUPPER AND CALVARY
one sacrifice to another, that there was only one Sacrifice in all,
extending itself from the Supper-Room to the mountain of Gol­
gotha, and that it was continuous in the order of events, even as
in the literary texture of the Gospels.”

Six months after the publication of this Pastoral the same
Archbishop Charost was made a Cardinal, in express recogni­
tion (the Pope said, addressing publicly the Sacred College)
of his theological eminence. These are all recent pronounce­
ments, which might easily be supplemented.
In a past generation it was the head of the English hierarchy,
Cardinal Manning, who in that standard book of his, The
Glories of the Sacred Heart, had taught the Catholics of all
English-speaking lands :

;

1

“ In that hour (of the Last Supper) and in that action (of the
Eucharistic consecration) He (Christ) offered up the Lamb that
was slain from the beginning of the world. The atoning sacrifice
predestined from all eternity was then offered up. ... In this
last Paschal Supper. ... He began the act of oblation, finished
upon Calvary, which redeemed the world. He offered that sacrifice
first without bloodshedding; but it was the same true, proper, and
propitiatory sacrifice which redeems the world, because therein he
offered himself. . . . No man had power to take him until he
delivered himself into their hands. . . . Therefore at his Last
Supper he made a free and voluntary offering of himself. He
had not yet shed his Blood, but throughout his whole life he had
offered his will, and he now offered his Death; and that which
he began at the Last Supper he accomplished on the morrow upon
Calvary by the shedding of Blood; for that shedding of Blood
was the completion of his Sacrifice. Nevertheless, when he sat
at the table in the guest-chamber, he truly offered himself, the
one true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice that takes away the
sin of the world. He died to complete the sacrifice, to fill up its
perfect propitiation by the last gift that he could give, by the last
drop of his precious Blood.”

The past generations of the French or German hierarchy
might be appealed to as well. In the meantime the English
public, if perturbed, may feel reassured and realize that if
345

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
“ not all theologians are of one mind in assigning the proper
nature ... of that sublime sacrifice ” (as Archbishop
Lépicier remarks), yet they may (and should) all vie with one
another in loyalty to the Church, to the faith once delivered
to the saints, to authority expressing itself through the channel
of Papal or conciliar decrees, or to the daily teaching of pastors
speaking in common agreement.

346

distinction
between

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY

DISTINCTION
'

BETWEEN

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY1

J.

A question was mooted lately in reference to the terminology
to be used in the doctrine of sacrifice. The question, however,
is not without some bearing on the soundness of the doctrine
itself. It is asked whether we ought to use the word immolation
to signify explicitly (in recto) the killing or mactation of the
animal, inasmuch as that killing has in view the sacerdotal
oblation of the sacrifice, or whether we should not rather
keep the word immolation for the sacerdotal oblation itself,
as connoting by implication (in obliquo) the aforesaid killing
or mactation. What gave rise to the query was the language
I made use of in the Mysterium Fidei (p. ii), when, treating
of the sacrifices that include mactation, I stated that in this
matter authors were wont to use the word immolation in two
ways : to signify either mactation as it has reference to oblation,
or oblation with a connotation of mactation (also to signify
equally both oblation and mactation, in other words, the
whole sacrificial rite).
I added, however, that the former use, as more strictly
appropriate and clearer, would be habitually adopted by me .
in the course of my work. This is how I put it : “ The word
immolation, in its stricter acceptation, means the destruction
or mactation of the victim rather than its oblation, not, how­
ever, without some reference to an oblation. Sacrifice is
therefore made up of two things, the (external) act of offering
and the immolation, since the victim either is offered to be
1 This article appeared in latin in Ephemerides Theologicae Looanienses, July 1927.

349

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
immolated, or is offered by being immolated, or is offered as
having been immolated. Neither oblation, nor immolation,
taken by itself alone, is sufficient to confer the state of victim,
but both are required. Still among writers it happens very
often that oblation and immolation are not taken so strictly,
but are used to express the entire sacrificial function, of which
they are only parts. This is the more natural as in very many
sacrifices there is no real, but only a logical, distinction between
immolation and oblation,1 so that by either the sacrifice is
really completed. Moreover, where both occur separately,
neither one nor the other belongs to the sacrifice except as
the two are related to each other. The result has been that
oblation and immolation have been held as synonymous, and
oblation came to mean the same as immolation, and immola­
tion in its turn the same as oblation. . . . For my own part,
while treating of sacrifice, I shall, as far as possible, always
distinguish oblation and immolation from each other as two
distinct concepts, to be expressed in different terms, and con­
sequently both the one and the other as being, in part, distinct
from the entire sacrificial work {MF, pp. 11-12).
This terminology of mine had displeased two gentlemen,
one of whom I shall leave out of the controversy (for a com­
pelling motive which may be found stated above, pp. 342 sq.).
The other, Alfred Swaby, O.P. {The Last Supper and Calvary,
a Treatise, edited with a Preface and Introduction by the
Rev. Vincent McNabb, O.P., London, 1926), in total agree­
ment with the former, stated that in the theological tradition
of the Catholic Church no real distinction was ever admitted
between sacerdotal oblation and immolation. On the other hand
immolation had always been really contradistinguished by
the theologians from mactation or the killing of the living
being ; for by immolation nothing else was meant than the
priest’s oblation of a bloody sacrifice as such. This being the
case, a theologian is not justified in forsaking the customary
1 For instance: when the rite of oblation consists in the pouring of the blood
upon the altar, then, if the victim is slaughtered upon the altar, we have in one
and the same act both immolation and oblation.

350

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
language of the Church ; nor can such departure be without
danger of smuggling in some error. What this error is said
to be, we shall quote, in a later part of this article, from the
author himself. In the meanwhile we must place before the
reader the terms in which the above assertions are contained.

“ Tradition teaches that sacrificial oblation is logically, but not
really distinct from immolation” (p. 26.).1
“ Immolation is not Mactation ” (p. 30).
” Immolation is the same act of oblation viewed in relation to
. the victim slain ” (p. 23).
“ The precise shade of meaning appropriate to the term immo­
lation ... [is characterized] by implied allusion to the shedding
of the Victim’s Blood ” (p. 27).
“ Theological tradition does make a real distinction of meaning
between immolation and mactation ” (p. 50).
“ Similarly theological tradition uniformly identifies immolation
with sacerdotal oblation, whereas mactation has become identified
with the act of the victimarius ” (ibid.).
The assumption [of a real distinction between immolation
and oblation] is revolutionary ’’ (p. 30).
“ That real distinction of meaning [between tradition’s sacrificial
terms] . . . constitutes Père de la Tailie’s initial fallacy ” (ibid,).
“ The fundamental error—designated by the present writer
the initial fallacy of his theory—Père de la Taille expresses in words
already considered ” (p. 48).
“ His initial fallacy is not without offspring ” (p. 30),

It is certainly no trifling matter, if leaving aside the sound
form of words, I have put myself in such opposition to a most
invariable rule of theological language (“ revolt from tradi­
tion ”, p. 34) as to let some fundamental error creep in, the
cause of all the fallacy to be discovered later on in my work
on the sacrifice both of the Lord and of his Church.
I

As a preliminary remark, let it be understood that the
inquiry is not what in its extra-sacrificial acceptation the
1 All references, unless otherwise stated, are to the above cited work of Alfred
Swaby. The italics used are not mine but the author’s.

SSI

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

word immolation may mean here and there in ecclesiastical
documents. For it is only too evident that it must then be
understood, according to the subject-matter, at one time of
killing, at another of some kind of oblation or donation. Thus,
when in the Breviary we read “ grex immolatorum tener ”, “ the
tender flock of immolated (babes) ”, we know that Prudentius
is presenting to us the little army not of offered but of murdered
infants. The meaning is the same when, in the work of
Commodianus we read that Nero Redivivus in his fury against
Christ’s prophets, Elias and others,
Immolat hos primum ...
Sub quorum martyrio decima pars corruit urbis1

I

Likewise, when St. Ambrose tells you {Exp. Evang, in Lucam,
in xxii, 36) : “ There is also the sword of the passion, that thou
mayest be striped of the body and with the spoils of thy
immolated flesh buy thyself the crown of holy martyrdom ”,
you understand that the suffering of martyrdom is not really
compared to an oblation-rite, but rather to the undergoing
of some sort of mactation. The same meaning occurs in the
saying of St. Thomas : “ But the passion of the saints is called
immolation ” {sanctorum autem passio dicitur immolatio). {In II
Tim. iv, 6).
On the other hand, if in medieval documents you read :
. “ King Idon immolated . . . one of his mansions .
. to
the Church of St. Peter ”, or “ In exchange for the kingdom,
of heaven ... he immolated four measures of earth to God
and the Saints” (Du Cange, Gloss. 3,768), you see at once
that it is not a question of having demolished a house, much
less the earth, but of having given or offered the same to God
or to the Saints or to the Church.
Secondly, we do not inquire what is the usual acceptation
of immolation in the sacrifices of inanimate objects. For of
necessity it can then only stand for the sacrificial oblation
itself, since there is no mactation or killing or deterioration
1 “ Immolates these first . . . and at their martyrdom a tenth part of the
city crumbles.” Carmen Apologeticum, v. 858, Ed. Bernhardus Dombart, p. 171.
352

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
of any kind intended. If then anywhere in medieval writers
We read of bread and wine being immolated, we must take it
of being offered in sacrifice, and see therein no difference,
real or logical, between immolation and oblation or sacri­
ficing.
But in the sacrifices of living victims the case is different,
and this is the point under discussion. Very often in the works
of authors by the word immolation is intended the sacerdotal
oblation itself, or also the entire sacrificial action, or, in an
indeterminate manner, something in some way or another
sacrificial ; and this occurs even in those writers who else­
where mean by it rather mactation. These uses of the word
we not only have never denied, but have never failed to
assert and to confirm them readily (see above). Therefore,
no advantage is scored against us, if examples are brought
forward of any use of this sort, of which we are neither ignorant,
nor disapproving—even though we do not imitate it, for fear
lest, in our writings, a confusion arise between the above
mentioned use and that other which we resolved to prefer,
which is indeed not less customary, but more suitable for
discrimination.
As the style of pagan writers does not directly come under
consideration here, it may suffice to state what Aegidius
Forcellini, looked upon till now as a leading master of classical,
latinity, has to say. In this Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, on the
word immolo, after first giving the etymological sense—
(“ mola, i.e., fane tosto, molito et sale mixto, victimam aspergo ”)
—“I sprinkle the victim with meal, i.e. with roasted com
ground and mixed with salt ”,—he proposes the commonly
received meaning in the following terms : i° “ rei divinae
causa macto ” ; 2° “ sacrifico ”. Before him Joh. Jos. Hofmanns
{Lexicon Universale, Lugduni 1678, tom. 2, p. 606) in describing
the order of the pagan sacrificial rites, the preparatory prayer, ·
the sprinkling with ground and roasted com, the libation of
wine, in the fourth place says : “Then the victimarians
or slayers, the attendants and helpers were ordered [by
the priests] to immolate and to flay the victims
Here
353

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

you have the immolation of the ancients both distinguished
from the sacerdotal oblation, and identified with the
mactation.
But passing over these points as irrelevant, we take up the
task of showing that immolation was freely used in the theo­
logical tradition of Christians for the mactation itself, in its
relation to the sacerdotal oblation.
The chief standard of language in this matter is undoubtedly
the Vulgate Translation of the Scriptures. Now when Moses
publishes for the first time the law of the bloody sacrifices,
his language, according to the translator, is as follows (Levit.
i, 2-5) : “ The man among you that shall offer to the Lord a
sacrifice of the cattle, that is, offering victims of oxen and sheep
(v. 2), if his offering be a holocaust, and of the herd, he shall
offer a male without blemish, at the door of the testimony, to
make the Lord favourable to him (v. 3) : and he shall put
his hand upon the head of the victim, and it shall be accept­
able, and help to its expiation (v. 4) ; and he shall immolate
the calf before the Lord, and the priests the sons of Aaron
shall offer the blood thereof, pouring it round about the altar,
which is before the door of the tabernacle (v. 5).
To any one looking at the text it is patent that the verb
to offer in verses 2 and 3 does not designate the act of a priest,
but of a layman. There is indicated, first the actual destina­
tion of the object for sacrifice (v. 2), second its presentation
before the priest in the place assigned (v. 3). But in the fifth
verse there is à distinction made between the words he shall
immolate and they shall offer. Who shall immolate ? the lay­
man. Who shall offer ? the priests. And what is the layman
doing when he is said to immolate ? he slays. What are the
priests doing, .when described as. offering ? they are pouring
blood over the altar. Will you pretend that it is but one and
the same identical action, on the part of the layman slaughter­
ing the cattle and on the part of the priest presenting God
with the blood of a calf? Does the phrase he shall immolate
express the sacerdotal oblation itself? What, therefore, does
that rule of speech, authentic if ever there was one, what, I
354

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

ask, does that biblical rule attest, if not that the use of terms
we profess to adopt is excellent, and that for any one to carp
at it is utterly unfair ? Should you doubt our exegesis, listen
to a commentator who can claim the highest approbation,
the most Reverend Mark Sales, O.P., at present master of
the Sacred Palace. In his work La Sacra Bibbia Commentata
(Turin, 1919), he distinguishes each word as follows : in the
second verse “ shall offer ” means “ the act of a layman who
presents the victim at the altar 1 In the fifth verse immolabit
is translated by “ shall immolate ”, and the word is explained
by “ shall slay ”.2 But offerent is rendered by “ shall offer ”,
which is defined as “ the act of the priest who sprinkles the
blood about the altar ”.3 You may also consult the annota­
tions made on this passage in La Bible de Vente (ed. Drach,
1827).
What we have said of this opening passage of Leviticus,
is true likewise of Levit, i, 11 ; iii, 2, 8, 13 ; iv, 24, 29, 33, etc.
In all these passages, as is plain to the reader, by immolation
is meant mactation or killing, and in not one of them is sacer­
dotal oblation intended.
Since the Vulgate translation is the work of St. Jerome,
we have in all the above quotations a remarkable instance of
patristic style, I mean of the style proper to the Doctor
Maximus.
The same distinction between oblation and immolation is
constantly met with in the other Fathers also, when they treat
of the sacrifice of Abraham. “Isaac,” says Cyprian, “ who was
set up as a figure unto the likeness of the divine victim, when
he is being offered by his father to be immolated, is found to be
patient ” (De Bono Patientiae, to. C. S. E. L. 3, 404). Like
Cyprian, three centuries later, Cassiodorus writes : “ Abraham
offeredfor immolation his own son, as a figure of Our Lord and
Saviour ” (In Psalm cxviii, 152. P. L. 70, 890). In both texts
immolation and oblation are linked together as something
1 “ L’atto d'un laico die présenta la vittima αΙΓαΙίατι.”
*“ Scannerd ”.
’ “ L’atto del sacerdote die sparge il tangue attomo alPaltare.

355

Μ

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

future with something present {immolandus offertur, obtulit
immolandum), in the very manner according to which, in the
Paschal Hymn of the poet Sedulius, we find mactation, and
not immolation, set against oblation :

Mactandumque Deo pater obtulit; at sacer ipsam
“ Pro pueri jugulis aries mactatur ad aram ” 1

i

».

;

h

i
ί

! I

•i

:

Here oblation preceded mactation as above it preceded
immolation. Thereby is marked both a real distinction
between oblation and immolation, and a real identity of
immolation with mactation.
If, however, someone is inclined to quibble2 about these
examples of Cyprian or Cassiodorus, pretending that instead
of the future we must understand the present tense, as for
instance by the use of the gerund3 someone is said to offer
by immolating {immolando), I wonder how he will explain away
the following expression of St. Ambrose, which is certainly
not ambiguous : “ Oblatus {est filius Abrahae) unicus ad immo­
landum ” {De Isaac vel Anima, C. S. E. L. 32, 1, 641). Not by
immolating is Abraham shown to have offered Isaac ; but he
offered him to undergo immolation. In this quotation from
St. Ambrose, immolation undoubtedly does not mean
oblation, but mactation.
And what about this passage from St. Augustine {De
Civit. Dei, 16, 32. C. S. E. L. 40, 181-183) “Tentatur {quidem)
Abraham de immolando dilectissimo filio ipso Isaac,” Abraham
indeed is tried about immolating this his beloved son Isaac ”, but
“because Isaac was not to be killed {quia Isaac occidi non oportebat),
his place was taken by that ram, with whose immolation
{quo immolato) the sacrifice was completed ” : namely “ by
the ram being immolated instead of Isaac ” {Ariete illo immolato
pro Isaac) ? After all St. Augustine is but repeating, in no

!

1 (I. I. w. 114-115. C. S. E. S. 10, 24, P. L. 19, 564).
’ “ The Fathers indicated the present action by immolandum. . . . Only present
action could possibly be intended. . . . The oblation here is made in the act
of immolating ”. A. Swaby, ibid, 188-189.
* '‘The gerundial sense of to be involves present action ”. (ibid. 192).

'I

356

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
uncertain terms, St. Paul’s proclamation : “ By faith . . .
did Abraham offer up his only begotten son.1
But can anything be clearer than the Sermon of Faustus
of Riez (18, C. S. E. L. 21, 296, 299), stating plainly that Isaac
was indeed offered up by his father for sacrifice, but, there being
no mactation, by no means immolated. No clearer example
or more pertinent approval could be adduced in favour of
our acceptation of immolation. “Abraham,” he says, “offered up
to God his mortal son who, however, was not to die ”. “ We
read that Abraham offered up his son Isaac as a holocaust
In the meanwhile “ not Isaac, but a ram is immolated ”. And
why so ? because by Isaac was represented the Divinity of
Christ, whereby he is the Son of God ; and by the ram was
signified, his Humanity, whereby he is the Son of the Virgin.
But it was not the Divinity, but only the Humanity that
suffered. Hence it was proper that although he was offered
up, Isaac should not be immolated, but that the ram should
be immolated instead. “Because in the Passion not the
Divinity, but the Humanity is believed to have been crucified,
therefore not Isaac, but the ram is immolated.”2 I do not
think that a further explanation of this passage is needed.
1 Likewise in Sermon II, P. L. 38, 31-32): Abraham “ led his son to be
immolated ” (immolandum duxit) ; but “ when the blow is about to be struck, a
voice is heard to desist; and yet the return will not take place without sacrifice and
without the shedding of blood. A ram is seen among the briars sticking fast by
the horns ; it is immolated, the sacrifice is accomplished ”. Again Contra Maximinum
Arianorum Episcopum (1. a, n. 9. P. L. 42, 810) : “ Like a sheep . . . Isaac was
led to be immolated (ad immolandum ductus est) . . . Instead of his son, whom
he was ordered to spare, Abraham immolated a ram ”. Finally In Psalmum xxix
(n.g. 9. P. L. 36, 244) : “ He was commanded to immolate to God that same
son. . . . He led his son to be immolated. . . . He obeyed (till bid)
to spare. ... But in order that the sacrifice might be fulfilled, and
blood might flow before returning, a ram is discovered sticking fast by the
horns amongst the briars. This was immolated and the sacrifice completed ”.
In all these passages St. Augustine tells us that instead of Isaac being slain a ram
is slain, and therefore instead of Isaac being immolated a ram was immolated,
and that thus was the sacrifice completed (after having begun with Isaac’s
oblation).
’It is worth while to note how St. Thomas has imitated this passage in his
lect. 4 on Hebr. xi, as reported by Brother Reginald, a most reliable witness.
For the Apostle, after he had written: Zfe offered up his onljr begotten son, in whom
he had received the promises, . . . accounting that God is able to raise Up even from
the dead, adds immediately: Whereupon also he received him for a parable. On
these last words St. Thomas expresses himself as follows: “ When the Apostle
357

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
To these older writers later ones may be added, down to
the medieval theologians, showing an unbroken use of the
same terminology. Isidore {De ortu et obitu Patrum. P. L. 83,
133) congratulates Abraham for “ having neither lost his son,
nor remained without a victim. For he offered his son in sacri­
fice and immolated a ram instead of his own son ”. Again in
his Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum {In Genes, Chap. 18,
n. 1-13. P. L. 83, 249-25Ù) : “ Before the son came to the
place of sacrifice, he carried the wood on which he was him­
self to be immolated ” (n. 1). “The ram sticking fast by the
horns amongst the briars is immolated, and the sacrifice brought
to an end ” (n. 2).
“ Abraham offered as a victim to God his only begotten and
beloved son ” (n. 6). Therefore Abraham, having immolated
a ram instead of Isaac his son, called the name of that place
The Lord seeth ”.
Identical expressions are met with in Rabanus Maurus
{In Genes. 1 3, c. 3. P. L. 107, 568-569), and similar ones
in St. Bruno of Segni {In Genes. 22. P. L, 164, 199, and
Sententiarum lib. 2, cap. 10. P. L. 165, 935),
But as Abraham was said by the ancients to have offered his
son to be immolated, so likewise are we told by them that
Christ offered himself to his Father to be immolated : denoting
the same relation of a present action to one that is looked to
as future. Thus Cassiodorus {Expos, in Psalm cix, 5) ; “ He
offered himself for us once to be immolated ”. Likewise the
Ps. Primasius {In Hebr. 5, 6, P. L. 68, 716-717) ; “ Semel
semetipsum obtulit immolandum pro nobis ”. Alcuin {In Hebr. 5, 6.
P. L. 100, 1033-34), Rabanus Maurus {In Hebr. 5, 6. P. L,
says : Whereupon he received him for a parable, he shows what Abraham obtained
through faith. Because when there was nothing left than that his very son should be
immolated, the angel called to him, and a ram sticking fast by the horas is immolated
instead ofhis son. But this was a parable, i.e. a figure of the Christ to come. For
the ram, sticking fast by the horns amongst the briars, is the Humanity that was
fastened to the Cross, which suffered. Isaac, i.e. the Divinity, escaped, when
Christ truly died and was buried. And thus it is evident that this figure expresses
in a most adequate manner that which it foretokens. He, therefore, received
him, namely Isaac, for a parable, that is to say, a figure of Christ to be crucified and
immolated."
358

|

)
j

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

112, 743), and St. Bruno of Grenoble, {In Psalm cix, 4. P. L.
142, 408), speak in exactly the same terms. Nor does liturgical
usage differ, witness the Gelasian Sacramentary, in the Preface
of the Mass on the fourth day after Easter:
. Standing
round about thy altars, Lord of might, and glorying in the
confession of the Spotless Lamb that offered himselffor us to be
immolated, in order that his Body and Blood, whereby we have
been ransomed from our sins, might nourish us with heavenly
sacrifices unto life everlasting”. . . (ed, Wilson, 93).1 Now
both the grammatical structure of the sentences, and a com­
parison with the same mode of expression habitually employed
in reference to the sacrifice of Abraham,2 proves sufficiently,
if I am not mistaken, that in the sacrifice of our Redeemer,
ecclesiastical writers did also predicate at times a certain
duality of oblation and of immolation, with a real distinction
as between a prior and a subsequent event.
We may appeal to another liturgical testimony from the
Gelasian as well as from the Gregorian Sacramentary, {MF, 88) !
“ With his Master’s food still in his mouth, Judas was inviting
the Jews to tear asunder that Master’s limbs. But thy Son,
our Lord, like a gentle victim, patiently allowed himself to be
immolated to thee for us ” etc. If anything is said to have been
patiently allowed, it is certainly not of the sacerdotal action
itself that it can be explicitly understood, since that action is
not in any sense allowed by the priest, but in every sense
elicited, effected, intended and willed by him. Now since
the oblation is the sacerdotal action, the expression to be
immolated {immolari) here necessarily means explicitly
something else, namely the mactation connected with the
oblation.
Certainly no one in his right senses will ever say that Christ
allowed himself to be offered by himself for sacrifice : but
» Of this mode of expression, liturgical as well as patristic, we treated more
fully elsewhere: MF, 49 s?. ! above, pp. 264 rys This comparison is the more justified as the Fathers were telling us a while
ago in the same breath, that Isaac " set up as a figure unto the likeness of the
divine Victim ” was offered by his father to be immolated, as it were “ unto a
mystery of the Lord, our Saviour ”.

359

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
rightly, to be slain “ as a gentle victim”.1 How the terms
immolation and mactation are equivalent, is well illustrated by
the Fathers commenting on Acts, x, “ Arise, Peter, kill and eat
Hear St. Bede the Venerable : “ What in Latin is rendered
by kill, is rendered in Greek by θύσον. which is not a general
term for killing, but is proper to that killing by which victims
are immolated to God..................
The passage may equally
be rendered : Immolate and eat (“ immola et manduca ”. Liber
Retractationis in Actus Apostolorum. P. L. 92, 1018).. In treating
immolation and killing as equivalent, St. Bede is apparently
following St. Gregory, who wrote (Moral. 18, 56. P. L. 76,
69) : “To the very first Pastor’ himself it is said Macta et
Manduca ”, slay and eat. Hence the single word θόσ-ον is
rendered as slaying, immolation and mactation.
We come now to the medieval leaders of Scholastic theology.
Of them we read in A. Swaby’s treatise (p. 51) : “ Peter
Lombard, St. Thomas, Blessed Albert the Great, all keep to
the term occidere, never using mactare in this or in any other
sense ”.2 In other words, they never use the word mactation
either to denote killing (whether sacrificial or extra-sacrificial)
or anything else. Much less, therefore, are they wont to use
promiscuously mactation and immolation as synonymous. Let
us see. Albert the Great wrote a certain book treating ex
professo of The Eucharist, a work absolutely authentic, wherein
we read as follows : “ They (these eucharistie species) are
also a mystery, i.e. a secret of spiritual mactation and immola­
tion. For in this mystery he who reigns for ever in heaven
is by us devoted at the altar of the Church daily to be mys­
teriously slain (“ mactandum ”) and immolated by the hands of
the priests of the Church ” (De Eucharistia, 3, 3, 2. ed. Paris.
1890-1899, t. 38, p. 319). Before that he had already said :
1 Any one who wishes may find other ancient examples of immolation taken
in the sense of mactation in MF, p. 309 sq.
2 The words quoted are immediately followed by this parenthesis “ (cf. Pitisco,
Lexicon Anliq. Rom. tom. 2, p. 510)
Do not believe that the gentleman whom
the author calls Pitisco is an Italian; he is a Dutchman, by the name of Pitiscus;
who neither in the place quoted nor anywhere else has a thing about the Lombard
or St. Thomas or Albert. I am of opinion that in giving the reference an error
was committed, probably not so much by the author as by the editor.
360

r

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
“ Christ is contained under the sacramental forms (i.e.
species) . . . as in a dark and mysterious chamber of spiritual
mactation and immolation ” p. 316). Here you have not once,
but several times occurring in one Chapter of Blessed Albert
that word mactation, which we were informed Blessed Albert
never used. If he links it with immolation, do not take it
as if he were marking an opposition between two things, but
making use of a hendiadys : in the sense that that mactation
is also immolation ; not a mactation pure and simple, but a
sacrificial one, i.e. a slaying of a victim to be offered.
This is made clear from the following passage of the same
Book and Chapter, in which alluding to Levit. iv, 4. sq.,
Blessed Albert writes (p. 320) : “ Thus, then, Christ is under
these species as in the mystic chamber of his spiritual mactation
and victimhood or immolation ”. We have in this example
(whether our opponent agrees or not) not only the word
mactation, but what is more important to our cause, we have
asserted by Albert the Great the identity between mactation
(or “ victimationem ”) and immolation.
Let us see now how immolation, in the sense in which it stands
for mactation, fares in the language of Blessed Albertus, both
in its relation to oblation and to immolation, when this latter
term is used in the sense of oblation. In 4 D. 13, Art. 23,
Blessed Albert defines immolation in a strange way, when he
apparently puts into the definition the very term he is defining
“ This immolation of ours (in the sacrifice of the Mass) is not
only a representation, but a true immolation, that is, the oblation,
at the hands of the priest, of the thing immolated". This language
would be absurd if the notion of immolation expressed in the
definition by the word immolated, were the same as the notion
expressed in the term defined by the word immolation. For
the latter’s definition would again be true of the former and
so ad infinitum. But the notion is not the same. What it is
in the term defined is made clear by the word oblation, expressly
predicated of it. What it is in the definition appears from the
words that follow immediately : “ Wherefore (by our immo­
lation) two things are meant : the thing killed, and the oblation
361

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

■

[that is, the thing killed, in obliquo ; the oblation in
redo] ; because immolation is properly the oblation of some­
thing slain (oblatio occisi) for the worship of God ”. We
have, therefore, what we were looking for : the idea of
immolation conveyed, in obliquo in the definition given
above, by the word immolated, was not precisely oblation, but
properly slaying, which is explicitly met with in the parallel
member of the other definition : oblation of something slain
(occisi) for the worship of God. There is correspondence
between the following two things, as things identical : oblation
of something immolated and oblation of something slain for
divine worship : by either one of which indifferently one and
the same thing is defined. In other words, by the term immo­
lated (immolatae) is intended the very same thing as by the
word slain (occisi). Hence Albertus the Great, in one
sentence, supplies us with two acceptations of the word immo­
lation : one by which immolation stands for oblation connoting
mactation, and the other by which it stands for mactation
connoting oblation. This is what we learn from Blessed
Albertus, and no one who has read will, I think, gainsay it.1
For the moment we leave out St. Thomas, to be heard more
conveniently elsewhere ; we likewise pass over a number of
late writers.2 We do call attention, however, to a text of
Dominic de Soto, which leaves no doubt in this matter : “ The
receiving of the Body and Blood belongs distinctly to the sac­
rifice. For it is there that the idea of immolation is carried
out. For immolation is the same as sacrificing, namely the
slaying of a living being (animalis occisio) ” (4 D. 13, q. 2. a. 1).
Nor is the mind of the Salmaticenses less clear (De Euckar.
Disp. 13, dub. 2, n. 36), when they say : “ If man had the
power to produce a lamb, he could . . . produce it with
1 Is Albert the Great the only one to make use of this apparently circular
definition? By no means. The same occurs in the Institutiones of John
Viguier Ο. P. (cap. 16, ver. n, Antwerp 1565, fol. J65A). On the words of
Our Lord Do this in commemoration of me, we read: “ To do this is to consecrate
and immolate, or to offer the immolation and the death ” (“ Facere est consecrare,
et immolare, sive immolationem et mortem offerre ”).
* Such as Matthew Galen {De sacros. Missae Sacrificio, Antwerp, 1574 cap. 6.
p. g7) : “ Immolatione seu mactatione '* etc.

362

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
the intention of offering it up for divine worship, and with
subordination to immolation or mactation ”, Here we have pointed
out first, between oblation and immolation, a real distinction,
which is implied by the relation of the one to the other ; and
second we have stated an identity between immolation and
mactation, expressed by the conjunction or (seu). And do not
believe that it is spoken casually or set down carelessly. For a
little further (n. 39) they put it perhaps even more plainly and
forcibly : “ In this sacrifice (of the Mass), as in the others, concur
essentially the oblation and the immolation of what is offered to
God by the sacrifice : of these the oblation is found in the
consecration of the Eucharist . . . but the immolation, alteration
and destruction of what is offered is found in the consuming of
the sacrament by the priest ”, Whatever may be your judge­
ment on the doctrine of the Salmanticenses (or of de Soto)
concerning the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, are you not
certain that in this passage is presented to us, on the one hand,
a real distinction between oblation arid immolation, and on the
other, a real identity between immolation and mactation ?
In his very remarkable work, L’Idée du sacerdoce et du sacri­
fice de Jésus-Christ, that most saintly man, Charles de Condren,
after taking immolation and slaying as one thing (“ L’occision
ou immolation ”, part. 2, cap. 2, n. 5), made the observation
later on (cap. 3, n. 1) that it was not necessary that the immo­
lation should be performed on the same day as the oblation.
It is clear enough from this statement that immolation is
restricted to the slaying and discriminated from oblation.
A man of less authority, it is true, but one whose style is
always thoroughly polished and accurate, Pierre Nicole
(Instructions Théologiques etc., 108, pp. 122-124) writes : “ The
essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the chief of
which are the immolation of the victim and the oblation of the
immolated victim, and these actions may be separated in time ”.1
1 He adds immediately : “ Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is finished only
as regards the bloody immolation, but it continues as regards the oblation
In the work L’Esprit de Nicole sta· les cerite's de la Religion, c. 17, §8, Cerveau writes :
“(Jesus Christ) offered on Calvary his present Death; he offers on our altars
his past and consummated Death ”. These words aptly explain the above.

363

fl

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

About this time, Michael Le Quien, O.P., a leading figure
among his contemporaries, blamed that wild champion of
Anglican Orders, Pierre Le Courayer, for having undermined
the true idea of the priesthood with his false concept of sacrifice.
The fallacy of that concept consisted in the identity which
that theological pretender established between immolation
and sacrificial oblation.1 “ The author ” (i.e. Le Courayer),
says Le Quien, “ confounds the immolation of the victim with
the oblation of the victim immolated. . . . But he ought to
remember that sacrifice consists in the oblation of the victim immo­
lated ” {La Nullité des Ordinations Anglicanes démontrée de nouveau.
Paris 1730, tom. 2, p. 141). Again : “ For a sacrifice, immola­
tion must be followed by the oblation of the immolated
victim ” (p. 145). No one will deny that Michael Le Quien
is on our side ; and Estcourt tells us that no one fought more
successfully against the Anglican Ordinations than he {The
Question of Anglican Ordinations discussed, p. 163).
A little later, while the same controversy was in progress,
Peter Collet, C.M., whom Hurter rightly hails as a Classical
Doctor, first set down the following principle {Praelect. theol.
Honorati Tournely Continuatio. De Euchar. pars 2, cap. 3, Venice
1751, tom. 5, p. 717) :
“ I maintain that it is not necessary for sacrifice that there
should be an action by which the thing offered is here and
now destroyed, but that it is sufficient that there be an action
by which is really and truly offered something about to be
destroyed or destroyed previously
Hence he remarked :
“ Our opponent (Le Courayer) therefore, is wrong when he
confounds the immolation of the victim with the oblation of the
immolated victim” (p. 720). You notice how he distinguishes
oblation from immolation, and makes immolation consist
in destruction, i.e. in the slaying or mactation. But of these
two writers, Collet and Le Quien, more anon.
There is in the meanwhile, Francis Silvius, in his Commentary
on Leviticus (published through the efforts of Norbert d’Elbecque,

;
i

ξ

•:

:

Η
h

ί

11 explained this more fully in Gregariarum, 1926, p. 102-108. See below,
PP· 3θ9 *?·

OBLATION AND-IMMOLATION
O.P. Antwerp 1714) who almost everywhere uses mactation
and immolation as synonymous : “ he immolated or slew ”,
“ but the act of immolating or slaying ”, “ the immolation or
mactation of the victim ” {in Levit. 1, 5 and 6). Not only
does he treat immolation as equivalent to mactation, but he
separates it from oblation, as may be gathered from his
exposition of Levit., xvi, ii : “He (the priest) shall offer
the calf, and praying for himself and for his own house, he shall
immolate it.” Silvius understands the expression he shall
offer of the strictly sacerdotal and sacrificial oblation, and
explains it thus : “ But he shall offer it by presenting it to be
now immolated and making it fit for the impending immolation.”
In our own time we find in that learned compilation,
Dictionnaire de la Bible (F. Vigoureux) an article on Sacrifice
from the pen of H. Lesètre, wherein there is a paragraph
under the heading “ Immolation,” t. 5, col. 1323, describing
nothing else than the time and place, the manner, the execu­
tioners, the instruments of the slaying. In another paragraph,
( The Use of the Blood) the pouring of the blood on the altar
is assigned to the priests as their exclusive task. Still more
recently M. Médebielle in his book “Atonement in the Old
and the New Testament (Pontif. Inst. Bibl. 1924) speaks of
oblation and immolation as of two really distinct acts, although
related to each other. He first mentions “ the offering which
the sinner makes of himself by means of blood ”, then he
adds : “ Another element no less essential than the presentation
of the blood, enters into action before that, namely the immo­
lation : the victim is put to death ” (p. 141-142).
Countless other authorities could be cited : but unless I
am mistaken, it would be superfluous.
One thing is henceforth certain : no one can consider
our acceptation of the terms oblation and .immolation excluded
by the uniform theological tradition of centuries, unless the
same one honours with the august name of tradition this or
that text-book.
But much more will be brought forward in corroboration
of our terminology for the eucharistie Sacrifice.
365

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
II

In the meanwhile there comes up the question how a
theologian making use of the above terminology is to speak
of Christ in respect to his bloody immolation : did he perform
it himself, or was it done by others ?
The question, of course, is not about the other acceptation,
which we have declared both legitimate and very frequent,
although less clear, in which immolation means the sacri­
ficing act or oblation. For then there cannot be the least
doubt that Christ, and he alone, immolated himself. For
the Jews certainly did not sacrifice, they certainly did not
make an oblation of Christ ; and therefore they did not
immolate at all, as long as this meaning of immolation is
retained.
Hence it can only be a question of the immolation taken in
the sense of mactation in its relation to the sacerdotal oblation.
The reason for the inquiry is this : to the more distinct
concept of immolation two elements contribute, one physical,
the other moral. Mactation is the physical element ; but its
subordination to the oblation is moral.1 Hence it happens
that for the one and the other element, now one and then
another agency may intervene. Assuredly one agency is
sufficient in the layman immolating his cattle before the
Lord {Levit, i, 5). He himself does the slaying and refers
his slaying to the oblation of the priest. He alone, therefore,
is the whole cause of that immolation. But in the sacrifice
of Christ there is the unique feature that the physical element
proceeded from those who had not in mind any sacrificial
ministry whatever, but were bent solely on evil-doing. But
the moral element was contributed by Christ, and in a sensible
manner, while bearing his torments patiently, in order
not to be wanting in his sacerdotal oblation. Since
therefore each of the two elements of immolation pro­
ceeded from a different agent, someone might ask himself
1 Suarez, De Incam., disp. 46, sect. I, n. e. cf. MF, it.

366

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

in which of the two he should rather look for the cause of
immolation.
The answer may be given briefly. If stress is laid chiefly
on the religious character of the event, which results from its
being directed towards the sacrificial oblation, then immolation
must be attributed to Christ, so that he may be said to have
immolated himself : that is to say, into his passive mactation
he superinduced thé moral element, without being considered
in anyway to have performed himself that deed of blood. But
if stress is laid on the physical action by which Christ is made
a victim, then immolation must be fastened on the deicides,
who certainly did not invest their active mactation with a
religious character, but only with impiety. Speaking in this
latter meaning—not in the MF but in the ER (see above, p.
245), and Blackfriars (Feb. 1925, p. 108)—of the mystic and un­
bloody immolation or mactation, which could be entirely
performed by Christ, and comparing it with the real im­
molation, that is to say the extrinsic and bloody one, I
assigned this latter (as such) not to Christ, but to his
crucifiers. Here are my words : “ (Christ, could not be
immolated really but by deicides . . . that bloody im­
molation of theirs was not Christ’s active oblation ”, That
form of speech can be maintained to the extent to which
is maintained the terminology thus far advocated by us. And
now it may be asked, was the phraseology of a bloody immola­
tion, inflicted on Christ by others, unknown to the ancients ?
The Gelasian and the Gregorian Sacramentaty have told us
already : “ Like a gentle victim ... he patiently allowed
himself to be immolated for us ”· But since in this case
immolation (as we remarked above) cannot mean a gesture
proceeding from Christ, it must needs mean an act proceeding
from his enemies ; so that as Christ is said to have permitted
it with patience, so also he must not be considered as having
himself performed it, but merely to have suffered it, while
others were the agents of it. This explanation is in itself
sufficiently clear, but it receives an endorsement from a
sentence of Ps. Martial, in the Epistle to the inhabitants
367

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
of Bordeaux, compiled in the Middle Ages (a sentence appar­
ently derived from the above Liturgy) : “ On the altar of the
cross he allows his very (Body) to be immolated {permittit immolari).
But what the Jews immolated through envy, believing they
were abolishing his name from the earth, we, for the sake of
our salvation, place before us upon the holy altar ” (Max.
Bibl. Vet. Patr., t. 2, p. 108). This passage of the Epistle
•was quoted freely against Protestants by the more famous
theologians of the Church, as an uncontroverted text. So
Toletus {Dé Sacrif. Missae, contrav. 4) ; so Gregory of Valencia
(in III am Partem, disp. 6, 9, 11, punct. t, §8 and 21), so Suarez
(disp. 74, sect. 2, n. it). Bellarmine, it is true, had a very
strong suspicion that the letter was spurious ; yet he calls
it “ pious ”, and he adds that it could be serviceable to refute
heretics, if its genuineness were established {De Scriptoribus
Ecclesiasticis).
But before all of them, Matthew Galen, without at all
relying on the Pseudo-Martial, wrote quite independently :
“ There is, then, Christ Jesus crucified . . . present . . .
upon the Catholic altar, . . . the selfsame whom the Jews
once upon a time immolated as a victim. . . . Wherefore he
has presented to us in himself a true sacrifice ” (to be offered
under the eucharistie species). {De sacrosancto Missae sacri­
ficio commentarius, Antwerp, 1574, p. no-111).
We do not leam anything different from Bartholomew de
Medina, O. P. (In III am Partem, q. 22, a. 2), living about
the same epoch, when he says : “ Christ the Lord was the
cause of his immolation and death, not only by accepting it as
it was inflicted by others ”, but also in another way, namely, by
not preventing what he could prevent. Therefore, according
to Medina, the immolation was inflicted upon Christ by others,
no otherwise than his death.
But Medina’s teacher, St. Thomas, in the very same article ·
{Sum. Theol. Ill, q. 22, a. 2, ad. 2) discussing whether Christ
was both priest and victim, makes the objection that if Christ
offered himself for sacrifice, it follows that his sacrifice bears
less a resemblance to the sacrifices of the Law than to the
368

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
pagan ones wherewith the demons received an impious
worship by means of human victims : which is certainly a
drawback.
He answers that in some secondary sense we may admit
a comparison between the immolation of human victims
and the slaying of Christ. For “the killing of the man
Christ may be referred to a twofold will ”. “ We may con­
sider the killing of Christ in its relation to the will of him
who suffers, and who offered himself freely to the Passion ;
and from this point of view we have the character of a
victim, and no likeness with the sacrifices of the heathens
In other words, as we consider the action of Christ offering,
his Passion does not in any way resemble the immolation of
human victims. But this same killing may also be referred
“ to the will of the slayers ; and from that point of view
it has not the character of a sacrificial victim (sc. offered
up to God) ; for we do not say that the murderers of Christ
offered sacrifice to God, but that they were guilty of a great
crime. And it is the likeness of this crime that disgraced
the impious sacrifices of the gentiles, when they immolated
human beings to their idols
Therefore, when in the
sacrifice of Christ we fix our attention upon the oblation,
any similarity with the sacrifices of human victims is out
of the question ; but when we fix our eyes upon the action
of the murderers, there is a certain likeness with the nefarious
immolations of the pagans.
But St. Thomas does not only imply, he explicitly assigns
some kind of immolation, I do not say to the Romans,
executioners of the sentence, but to the Jews, guilty of the
murder by the sword of their tongue. This he does in his
exposition of Hebr. xiii (lect. 2, § 3), when, according to the
testimony of Reginald, he explains how in the sacrifice for
sin (Levit, xvi) the calf and the buck goat bore the figure of
Christ, immolated indeed within the camp, but burned without
the camp. For the burning was ascribed (according to the
Apostle) to the Passion whereby Christ was burned without
the gate, but his immolation which preceded is placed within
369

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
the camp, “ because in the city was Christ immolated by the
tongues of the Jews : hence, too, does Mark say that he was
crucified at the third hour, whereas he was raised on the
cross at the sixth hour
Whatever you may think of this
exegetical computation of hours (borrowed from St. Augustine
together with the slaying by tongue), you must admit that
according to St. Thomas Christ was immolated (although
not sacrificially offered) by the Jews.
Likewise in our own time, a well known theologian, Perrone
(De Incarnatione, p, 200), neatly distinguished each element of
immolation, one physical, the other moral, referring each
to its own respective cause, namely the latter to Christ,
the former to his enemies. These, he says, “ brought
death upon Christ as instruments, of which Christ made use
to immolate himself”. Christ immolates, directing the event
to his own most holy ends ; the instrument immolates,
bringing about the event which Christ accepts.
It is certain that modern writers, when they have in view
directly the bloody event, freely state that the immolation
was the work of the Jews. Thus M. Lepin (L’Idée du Sacrifice
de la Messe, p. 744) : “ The oblation of Christ on the cross
is formally distinct from his immolation : this latter is the
work of the deicide Jews

in
We now come to the third part of our subject, dealing with
the sacrifice which the Church repeats in the Body and
Blood of Christ. On this subject an ” error ” of mine, is
pointed out, and said to be ’‘fundamental” (p. xxvi), because
I have denied that in the Mass we bring about a true and
real immolation of Christ ; and defend only a mysticalsacramental—symbolical—representative one. This view of
mine is thus presented by A. Swaby : ” In the eucharistie
oblation there is no “ true ” or “ real ” immolation of the
Divine Victim” (p. xxvi). This is correct; but it would
be still more correct, if meanwhile the readers were warned
37°

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
that I do not exclude from the Mass every form of immolation.
For as I said just now, there is a mystical immolation, repre­
sentative of the once actual bloody immolation, and above
all, there is the underlying state of consummated Victim,
conferred once on Christ through the path of his bloody
immolation, as a result of God’s eternal acceptance.
My fundamental error is clearly enough a sequel to my
“ fundamental fallacy ”. For if someone by immolation
understands the jnactation of the victim, it is clear that he
cannot uphold in the Mass any actual immolation except in a
representative or mystic sense, but not in a true and real one,
On the other hand, since oblation does not expressly signify
mactation but a giving over, it may nevertheless be really '
and truly predicated of the Mass : because God truly and
really receives from us the sacrificial gift of the Body and
Blood of Christ, as our very own gift, even though not put
into the condition of victim by us, but by others in other
times. Finally, the sacrifice of the Mass, because it is the
real oblation of a victim really slain, is itself in turn real and
true, or as the Council of Trent puts it, proper, i.e. a sacrifice
properly so called.
We must now find out whether this view which, on the one
hand, maintains in the Mass a mystical and representative
immolation and on the other rejects a true and real immola­
tion, is both as to the meaning and the wording, a departure
from theological tradition, or not. I pass over the theological
tradition previous to the Council of Trent for two reasons.
First because it has already been exemplified by mein Mysterium
Fidei and will again be testified to sufficiently by the authors
of the subsequent period, whom I shall presently quote.
Secondly, because it is chiefly against that Council that my
wording or meaning is said to offend. Let us see, then,
what is the post-Tridentine tradition on this subject.
I am tempted to take in preference the Belgian doctors, the
first of whom is John Hesselius of Louvain, at one time (1563)
theologian of the Council of Trent, who in his Catechism, a
posthumous and unfinished work ( 1. 4, c, 29, ed. 6, Louvain
371

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
1573,1 P· 57θ) writes as follows: “From what has been
said it is readily understood that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in
the true sense, and is not so called by some figure of speech :
as by a figure (metaphor) Christ is said to be immolated in the
Mass ; for since he is not put to death, he cannot be said in
propriety of speech to be immolated ”. Matthew Galen of
Douay (De Sacros. Missae Sacrificio, 1574, p. 112), rebukes
those who so “ force the sense of the words of Gregory of
Nyssa ... as if (during Mass Christ) were to undergo all
along a new, individual and real immolation, before the com­
munion is reached ; when, as a matter of fact, that Father
must be understood as speaking of a mystical mactation ”.
On the contrary, “ for the Mass the immolation is supplied
by the Cross” (p. 125). John Malder, at first professor
at Louvain, then Bishop of Antwerp, concludes (De Virtutibus
theologicis, etc. p. 659) : “ Therefore, in the Mass we have a
real sacrifice, but a mystical immolation ".
Unless we confined ourselves to the more famous among
the leading Schoolmen, their testimonies would take too much
space.
Let us then hear first Bellarmine (De Missa, c. 15) : “ When
Peter Lombard inquires, whether that which the priest does,
may be called a sacrifice and an immolation, he uses the name
sacrifice and immolation for killing (pro occisione) ; as if he
had asked in plainer terms, whether what the priest is doing
should be called the killing of Christ (Christi occisio). He
answers very correctly that Christ was only once truly immo­
lated (semel tantum vere immolatum) ; that is He was killed
only once ; but that now he is not properly immolated, i.e. killed,
but only sacramentally and figuratively (solum in sacramento et
repraesentatione). As to whether that which the priest does
is a sacrifice in the proper sense, the Lombard does not put
the question, but he presupposes it as something known to
everybody from the daily celebration of the sacrifice itself.
In like manner also St. Thomas and the other Schoolman were not
troubling themselves about the subject of our present day
’The first edition came out in 1570.

372

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

controversy (i.e. whether the Mass is a true and real sacrifice),
but only in what sense the sacrifice of the Mass could be called
the immolation, that is to say, the slaying of Christ. Hence their
usual answer is that it is called immolation because it is the
representation of immolation, or because it has the effect (of pro­
pitiation and grace) like the true and real slaying of Christ
Let us also hear Suarez (Disp. 74, Sect. 2, n. 14) : “ In
order to understand the Fathers we must bear in mind that
under the name of immolation, when they are speaking of
this mystery, they mean that Christ is immolated not truly and
really, but only mystically, by means of a representation of the true
immolation, which took place on the Cross. For immolation in
the strict and proper sense of the word (in rigore et proprietate vocis)
seems to signify bloody immolation, or true mactation with a
real shedding of blood. And in this acceptation it is true that
we have not here a real immolation, but only its representation.
It is in this sense that not only the Fathers are speaking (as
Chrysostom, Ambrose and others, on the Epistle to the Hebr.,
and Augustine, Ep. 23, 120, and in Psalm Ixxix), but at times
also the Schoolmen, the Master and others in 4 D. 12 and St.
Thomas in this article of question 83.1 But immolation
taken in this strict sense, is not of the essence of sacrifice as such,
but only of bloody sacrifice ; and therefore, when treating
of sacrifice or sacrificial action, we must say absolutely that
in this mystery there is not merely a figure and representation
of sacrifice, but also that a true sacrifice and a true sacrificial
action takes place ”. *
Moreover, in his Commentary (which appeared earlier) on
1 Compare this with the fearless assertion lately published: “ He (Père de la
Taille) repeats at pleasure all through his book, that in the sacrifice of the Mass
there is no real immolation, but only an apparent immolation. . . . He
seems not to be aware that, in ecclesiastical language, his affirmation is tanta­
mount to upholding the heresy that the Mass is not a sacrifice in the true and
strict sense of the word ”. J. Qesse, Etude critique de certaines propositions du
Mysterium Fidei, pp. 8-9). See above, p. 193 sq.
* This passage of Suarez, as well as the one above from Bellarmine, John
Martinez de Prado, O.P. commends and makes his own in a work entitled De
Eucharistiae Sanctissimo Sacramenta et divino Missae sacrificio dubitationes scholasticae
et morales, super tertiam partem Summae Docioris Angelici, a questione 73 usque 83, in
quaest. 83, dub. 2, n. 27 (Compluti 1662, p. 678).

e»

.

373

UMMl.llllïi.*1

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Sum.Theol. Ill, q. 83, a. i1 the following remark had been
made : “ It may also be added that if stress is laid on the
word immolation, this sacrifice is not properly called an immolation ;
for immolation properly means a bloody sacrifice by a true
killing of the animal or destruction of something else ; and
in this sense our mystery, although it is a true sacrifice, is yet
properly speaking not an immolation. And thus it may be granted
that it is an immolation analogically, because it truly represents
the immolation made on the Cross”.
Let now the reader, I beg, take note how Suarez insists on
distinguishing immolation properly so called, understood in the
strict and proper sense of the word, when the stress is laid on the
word so as to make of it a true mactation, and then let him
compare it all with Alfred Swaby complaining that I wronged
St. Thomas and the other Doctors, because I maintained that,
in its strict acceptation, immolation rather means mactation
than oblation (“ implied accusation ”, p. 26 ; “ charge of
inexactitude ”, p. 27 ; “ inferentially it charges the Fathers,
St. Thomas, and other great teachers in the Church with lack
of precision ”, p. 29 etc.). No, he says, in the strictest accept­
ation it does mean oblation (“ with exquisite precision ”,
p. 27 ; “ with utmost precision ”, p. 26) unless we prefer
to admit that St. Thomas . . . “ had unaccountably lapsed
from the unrivalled precision of his diction” (p. 28).—Far
be it from me to be guilty of such boldness as is discovered in
my style by the gentleman who failed to discover that the
style is not mine at all, but that of the greatest theologians
in the Church, not only of those already cited, but of others
also, to be cited presently. Far be it from me, I say again.
For we do not charge an author with an offence against
propriety of diction, as soon as we suggest that he occasionally
uses certain terms in a less rigorous sense. There are, in fact,
degrees in this matter, so that not everything is improper that
falls short of the highest form of propriety.3
11 have discussed this article of St. Thomas at considerable length in Black­
friars, Dec. 1924, p. 551 sq.
8 See above, The Last Supper and Calvary, p. 254 et passim.

374

-

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
After this brief digression, let us return to our authorities.
Cardinal du Perron, a leader among the apologists of his
time, informs us in his Traité du Saint Sacrament de ΓEucharistie
(Paris 1622, p. 767) that : “ The sacrifices of the Christians
contain truly, really and substantially, the same real and
unique victim, but they contain the immolation or destruction
and slaying only representatively ”,
Let us hear also Cardinal de Bérulle [Discours du Sacrifice
de la Messe célébré en l’Eglise Chrétienne, n. g and 14) ; “ This
divine word (of the consecration) has indeed the power to
have the Son and the Lamb of God placed and offered upon
the altar, but not that he be slain upon it, nor that his Blood
be separated from his Body and from his veins. Thereby
he properly and truly appears to be our Isaac, whom God
willed to be placed and offered on the altar, but whom he
prevented from being slain and immolated thereon. Properly
and generally speaking it is not of the essence of sacrifice, to
include the slaying of the victim ; and even where the
destruction of the victim would be necessary it is not required
that it should be done in the very act of the sacrifice ; it
is sufficient that the victim be doomed to that immolation, or
that it was immolated previously ”. These words must be
taken without prejudice against the mystic or representative
immolation, which the Cardinal repeatedly asserts together
with .almost all Catholics.
Among the Schoolmen there is also John of St. Thomas
(In III am Partem, disp. 32, art. 2, n. 29) : “ The Eucharist
is called immolation, not indeed a bloody and a real one, but
a mystical one, inasmuch as the Blood is placed apart under
the species of the wine, and the Body apart from the Blood,
under the species of the bread.”
The Salmanticenses do not speak otherwise, (Disp. 13,
dub. i, n. t6) : “ Though the immolation of Christ in this
mystery is only mystical, in other words, representative and
sacramental, nevertheless the nature of the sacrifice is true and
genuine (ratio sacrificii est vera et propria} . . . Hence it is
clear what was the (mind) of St. Thomas in the passage
375

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
quoted (Sum. Theol. Ill, q. 83, a. 1) as well as that of the
Magister on 4 D. 12, and of all the Schoolmen. In fact they
all took it for granted that the mystery of the Mass is truly
and strictly a sacrifice ; and on this account they debated whether
Christ is immolated in this sacrament. . . . And the
answer given by St. Thomas and by others also is that this
immolation is only mystical, or by way of an image (in imagine),
and (as St. Augustine expresses it) by way of a sacrament.
But thence it does not in the least follow that the mystery of
the Eucharist is a sacrifice in figure only, and not, in the true and
strict sense : for there can be a true unbloody sacrifice, even
though there is no [real] immolation ·
Let us also hear Estius (4 D. 12, §13, ad 6m) : “ In reference
to the text, our answer is that by immolation the Fathers often
understand not any kind of sacrificial oblation, but the
mactation or slaying performed for the sake of making the
offering. In that sense, they do not admit upon the altar
a true immolation, but only a mystical one, which they call
unbloody immolation ”.
Let us now listen again to Michel Le Quien : “ There is
... a real oblation of this same body that was immolated
on the Cross, and consequently there is a real sacrifice,
since a real sacrifice is nothing else than the real oblation of
a victim really present, which has been immolated in honour of
God” (op. cit. p. 138). “It is true, there is only a mystical
and representative immolation ; but the Victim really immolated
having been rendered really present by the consecration,
there is an unbloody, but most real oblation, which Jesus Christ
continues to make of his Body and of his Blood by the
ministry of the priests, and therefore we have a very real
sacrifice, and not merely a commemorative and representative
one” (op. cit. p. 139).
Collet holds the same view : “ Since for sacrifice con­
sidered as an action two elements concur, namely oblation
and immolation—duly performed, the unity of sacrifice
on the Cross and in the Mass must of necessity be derived
mainly either from the unity of the oblation or from the
376

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION

unity of the immolation. But it cannot be from the unity
of the oblation, which may be repeated many times. There­
fore it must be from the unity of the immolation. . . .
Hence ... it may be appropriately stated, that for the
sacrifice of the Mass there is no need of a new [real] immolation ”
{op. cit. p. 717).
From among modem authors I would gladly mention
Cardinal Billot, who formerly {De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, 1914,
t. i. ed. 5, p. 627) gave expression to this same doctrine in
these words : “ According to St. Thomas, Christ is said to
be immolated in the Eucharist, not because he is truly
immolated therein, but because the celebration of the
Eucharist is a figure of the immolation which was really
enacted on the Cross alone. ... If in its character of
sacrifice also we had nothing but a mere figure of the oblation
on the Cross, it would follow that our Mass is not a true sacrifice,
in the same way in which it is not a true immolation, that is
to say mactation
But to my great regret I must admit
that the above statement is no longer found in the sixth
edition.
Therefore I shall rather appeal, among modem theologians,
to G. Van Noort {De Sacramentis), third edition, 1919, n. 468,
470, 471, pp. 318-320) who writes: “the Mass is a true
sacrifice, because at consecration Christ is rendered present
in the outward condition of violent death,1 inasmuch as his flesh
and blood are exhibited to our senses, by means of the
sacramental signs, as if they were really parted in death ”.
This death, as appears clearly, is merely apparent, nay
symbolical. Thereupon he proposes to himself the following
objection: “You will say: this immolation is not a true
and a real one. I readily grant it ”. Then a little further,
he adds : “ The external form of immolation and death which
we have described, is deservedly called mystical destruction,
or mactation, or immolation”. He remarks, however, very appro­
priately : “ If for this reason you would call the Mass a
mystic sacrifice, you do not utter anything blameworthy,
1 Italia in the quotation from Van Noort arc his own.

377

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

provided you bear in mind that the word ‘ mystic ’ has one
meaning when applied to immolation or mactation, and
another when applied to sacrifice. Mystical immolation
designates a non-real immolation, whereas mystical sacrifice
must be understood as a true and real sacrifice ” etc.
A representative of another School, Stephen Hugneny,
O.P. (Critique et Catholique, tom 2, 1914, p. 237) : “The
immolation which constitutes this new sacrifice is no longer
a real immolation; it is a mystic immolation, an immolation
representative of the real immolation of Calvary ”. M. Lepin,
already commended a while ago, expresses himself in the same
language.
I wonder whether any one who has followed the subject
thus far will look upon me as being “ revolutionary ”, or
in “ revolt from tradition ” because in the diction which I
have adopted oblation and immolation stand for correlated
actions rather than identical ones ; or because the reality of
the immolation is ascribed to the sacrifice of the Passion,
whereas its representation alone is assigned to the sacrifice
of the Mass. All these so-called fundamental errors or fallacies
are not my own personal offences, but the common mistakes
of nearly all the leading masters. I have not been the
originator of the mischief, but its inheritor. The Fathers,
St. Thomas, the Commentators of the Sentences, the teachers
of recent date, fall under the same condemnation with me.
About the only one to be orthodox is my critic.
The necessity of exonerating myself of any guilt is responsible
for having detained the reader at such length on so trite a
topic. But what is trite to the well-informed, will perhaps strike
as something new the gentlemen who introduced Alfred Swaby’s
work to the public as a scientific production (“ this scholarly
work ”, Editor’s Introduction, p. vii). We must, of course,
be indulgent towards the man who was snatched by death
before he could give the last touches to his work. But what
of those who give their approval to all this, while holding
however some rank in the field of theology ? And what
of those others, who reverently accept the others’ theological
378

OBLATION AND IMMOLATION
censures and retail them on every side ? The reader can form
his own judgment.
1 have, in this article, examined only fundamental charges.
Other parts of the book, which had previously come out
in periodicals,1 were discussed by me at the time of their
appearance.2
11 must state, however, that the second part of the book, Immolation and Macta­
tion (which I undertook to examine in the present article) was never published
in any periodical (as far as I know), although it claims (p. 25) to be an article of
the2 In
American
Ecclesiastical
Review.
the Ecclesiastical
Review,
July and August 1924, The Last Supper, A Reply
to Critics; and in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, October 1924, The Last Supper
and Catholic Divinesfrom Henry VIII. to the Council of Trent. See above, pp. 229-307.

379

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE IN THE LIGHT OF
A RECENT DOCUMENT1
A document of more than ordinary interest on the sacrifice
of the Mass has reached us lately from England in the shape
of a Pastoral Letter for the Advent season, the work of a Bishop
known alike for his lifelong interest in theological matters
and the brilliancy of his classical acquirements. Unqualified
assent is therein given to the particular theory that looks for
an adequate explanation of the Sacrifice in the mystic immo­
lation of Christ ; that is, “ in that eloquent portrayal of the
severance [between Body and Blood] once wrought in him
by Death, ” which of itself and by itself" is a sign,” the Bishop
says, “ as calculated to express and embody the purposes of a
sacrifice pure and simple, as would be real bloody immola­
tion ” (p. xi) ; without any of the constitutive elements of
our sacrifice having “ to be sought outside it, say on the
Cross, or in Heaven ” (p. io). Consequently dissent is
expressed from those who view the sacrifice of the Mass as
an oblation referring to a Victim of past immolation, while
they correspondingly “ find in the synthesis or fusion [of the
Last Supper and the Passion] a complete sacrifice ” (p. 6).
As one associated of late with the defence of the latter view,
I desire to place on record my appreciation of the Bishop’s
unfailingly courteous tone and absolute fairness of method.
A discussion of his arguments would be here out of place.
The sole object of this article is to specify as clearly as possible,
in the light of the above pronouncement, what my position
is, and what it is not ; and then to note how it compares with
certain utterances that came forth on the subject of the Mass
* Gngononaw; 1926.

383

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

in the controversy about Anglican Orders, both from the
orthodox side and the other.
I
bi

In the first place, I am glad to find myself in complete
agreement with the Pastoral on two points. First, that there
is a mystic immolation in the Mass (and that there was one
in the Last Supper as well). I have not only stated or implied
it in nearly every page of what I have written on the subject ;
but, going further than the Pastoral itself, I have even declared
that to call it into question would be, in my opinion, un­
orthodox. Secondly, I fully agree on this point : that the
sacrificial action to be found here and now in the Mass is
not one and the same numerically with that of Christ in his
redemptive sacrifice. I have always declared this numerical
unity to be to me inconceivable.
On two points I respectfully beg leave to disagree. I do
not believe that a merely mystical immolation (understood
as above) can be sufficient to constitute by itself a true, proper
and real sacrifice, such as the Mass according to our Faith
must be. In full accord with most theologians before
the close of the nineteenth century, and with numberless
authorities of to-day as well, I believe that over and above the
merely mystic immolation something more is required to make
the Mass a true sacrifice ; whether it be an actual deteriora­
tion of Christ, as some maintain, or a conditional one, as is
maintained by others—I follow neither view—or an intrinsic
and essential connexion with the immolation of old on the
Cross, as was taught, amongst many others, by St. Peter
Canisius, Doctor of the Church, whose definition of the Mass
I have from the very beginning made my own : “ The sacri­
fice of the Mass, rightly understood, is both a representation,
at once holy and living, and an oblation, bloodless, yet actual,
of the Passion of the Lord and of the bloody sacrifice which
was offered for us on the Cross ”. From the Cross must be

Η

1

i

ί

I

384

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE

borrowed its own Victim : otherwise there is no true Victim
of propitiation.
Secondly, I do not believe that the Last Supper and the
Passion were two complete sacrifices, but only two parts of
one complete Sacrifice : as was held by a host of pre-Tridentine theologians ; at Trent itself, by those among the Fathers
who saw in this unity the best answer to all objections against
the proposed definition of Christ’s sacrificial action in the
Supper-Room ; again by several conspicuous theologians of
the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and
finally by an ever-growing number of contemporary divines :
to whom the sacrifice of our High Priest was simply one,
numerically one ; a continuous action, beginning at the
Supper, extending through the Passion, and ending on the
Cross ; for this reason, that the offering (or sacrificing) at
the Supper was not, as it is in our masses, the offering of
Christ as already made a victim by his Passion, but of Christ
to be made 'a victim through the bloody Passion ; and, therefore,
the sacrifice was not completed till the bloody process was
gone through. And yet the feast of the sacred gifts, the par­
taking of the Victim, could already take place in the Cenacle,
because there the Victim had actually been consecrated to God
by .the Priest, the Death had been virtually enacted ; the
possession of the redeeming Flesh and Blood had already
been secured to God, and God’s acceptance was already
signified, if not visibly by the Risen Life and the Ascension
to heaven, yet invisibly, to the eyes of faith, by the transubstantiation of the elements, the work of that Eternal Spirit
through whom Christ there and then offered himself without
blemish unto God. Thus did it come about (to use Baldwin of
Canterbury’s phrase) that “ the eating of the true Lamb
followed neither the order of the Law nor the order of nature ”,
but assuredly a superior rule, of the supernatural order, when
on the table was laid the Flesh of “ the Victim still living, but
soon to be dead, and to live again
From this anticipation
of the death and resurrection in the sacramental banquet
of our Lord’s sacrifice there is nothing to fear for the unity,
385

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
the sacrificial unity, of the Supper Eucharist with the bloody
Passion.1
But perhaps such oneness of the divine sacrifice may appear
to clash with the Hymn of the Breviary for the feast of the
Sacred Heart, a passage of which is quoted in the Pastoral
(p. 16) as implying two sacrifices offered by Christ : one in
the Last Supper, and another on Calvary. This quotation
raises a question of literary interest, on which I trust nobody
will take it amiss if I beg to offer a remark. The passage
in Latin is as follows (the poet addressing the Sacred Heart
itself) :

Te vulneratum caritas
Ictu patenti voluit,
Amoris invisibilis
Ut veneremur vulnera.
Hoc sub amoris symbolo
Passus cruenta et mystica
Utrumque sacrificium
Christus sacerdos obtulit.

In the Pastoral, the translation for the last strophe reads
like this :
Love’s symbol tells how Christ, our Priest
In bloody and in mystic guise
A twofold immolation bore
And offered twofold sacrifice.
Now, one thing to remark is this : the first stanza puts before
our eyes the visible wound inflicted on the Heart by the spear,
and the invisible, spiritual wound of love, of which the former
is the token and manifestation. The second stanza comments
on this double wound by remarking that Christ’s Heart,
viewed as a symbol of love, exhibits the two kinds of pains
which Christ actually suffered, the bloody ones and the mystic
ones {passus cruenta et mystica} ; that is, with reference to
the preceding stanza, the physical wounds, visible and outward,
1 MF, pp. ago-zgt. Cf. pp. 42-44, 76-77, go, etc.

386

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
and the mystic wounds, spiritual, invisible, inward. There­
upon comes the final remark, that thus did Christ offer “ both
sacrifices” (utrumque sacrificium). Which sacrifices? Appar­
ently the outward one and the inward one, the outward
immolation (if you like to call it so) and the inward immola­
tion, respectively identical with visible and invisible wounds ;
the combination of the two verifying the definition, classical
since the days of Augustine [De Civit. Dei, x, 5), according
to which in every true and proper sacrifice there must be
found two sacrifices : “ Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis
sacrificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum est ”. I submit that
this interpretation is conformable to the trend of the Hymn,
and does full justice to its text. There is no shred of evidence,
either from these stanzas or from the other three, that
the author had in mind the Eucharist, whether of the Mass
or of the Last Supper.
This conclusion will appear more evident still to any one
who cares to compare the Hymn with the Sermo Sancti Bonaventurae Episcopi, appointed to be read in the fourth, fifth, and
sixth Lessons of the day. Of this discourse the hymn is only
a paraphrase in verse. Now there is not a word on the
Eucharist in those three fragments.
Hymnus
Sermo
Leet. 5. Ad hoc templum, ad haec Sir. i.. Cor, arca, legem continens
JVbn servitutis veteris,
Sancta Sanctorum, ad hanc ar­
Sed gratiae, sed veniae
cam. testamenti adorabo, et lau­
Sed et misericordiae
dabo nomen Domini, etc. Admitte
tantum in Sacrarium exauditionis Str. 2. Cor, sanctuarium novi
Intemeratum foederis
tuae preces meas . . . amplius
Templum vetusto sanctius
lava me ab iniquitate mea, et a
Vclumque scisso utilius.
peccato meo munda me.

Lect. 6. Propterea vulneratum est Str. 3. Te vulneratum caritas
cor tuum ut per vulnus visibile
Ictu patenti voluit,
vulnus amoris invisibilis videoAmoris invisibilis
mus.
Ut veneremur vulnera.
387

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
Sermo
Hymnus
Leet. 6. Carnale ergo vulnus vulnus Str. 4. Hoc sub amoris symbolo
Passus cruenta et mystica
spirituale ostendit.
Utrumque sacrificium
Christus sacerdos obtulit.

Leet. 6. Quis illud Cor tam vulnera Str. 5. Quis non Amantem re­
damet?
tum non diligat? Quis tam
Quis non redemptus diligat,
amans non redamet?
Lect. 5. In Corde tuo omnibus
Et Corde in isto seligat
diebus vitae meae merear habitare.
Aeterna tabernacula?
The column to the left is as void of the Eucharist as it is
of the Day of Judgment or of the sacrament of Matrimony.
It certainly offers no ground for reading the Last Supper
into the Hymn.
11

Among the other pronouncements that in this generation
have come from the English hierarchy on the subject of the
Mass, it may be of interest to recall the collective letter of the
Province of Westminster (then coextensive with England
and Wales), which appeared in 1898, on the occasion of the
Papal condemnation of Anglican Orders (A Vindication of the
Bull Apostolicae Curae by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops
of the Province of Westminster, n. 12, p. 26). There was a
passage in point, which ran like this (except for the italics,
which are mine) : “If there were no power in the words of
consecration to make the true Body and Blood of Christ really
and objectively present on the altar, we should not have on
our altars the Victim ofCalvary, and without its Victim the sacrifice
could not subsist ”. In what high regard I hold this admirable
pronouncement, may be seen in MF, p. in (both first and
second edition). I do not think that it had ever been quoted
before as a locus theologicus in any work on the Eucharist ; and
I should be glad, if this departure of mine might be taken as
a special mark of my respect for the hierarchy of a land to
which I feel bound by many old and sacred associations.
388

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE

It may be objected however that the venerable signatories
of this collective letter did not perhaps lay so much stress
on the words that I have italicized, as I might wish to lay.
And indeed others may be in a better position than I am to
find out the truth of this matter. But one thing is certain,
that the theologian who more than anybody else in the past
bore the brunt of the fight against the validity of Anglican
Orders, Michel Le Quien, O.P., would have hailed such a
pronouncement in its strictest interpretation as a seal on his
own arguments and labours.
As everyone knows, the defence of the Edwardine Ordinal
by the Canon Regular of St. Augustine; Pierre Le Courayer,
in the eighteenth century, was based in part on the plea
that the Mass, containing nothing but a mystic immolation,
could not, therefore, be to us Catholics more than the mere
likeness or image of a real sacrifice : the reality was all in the
past. Of course, a symbol can always be named after the
thing which it symbolizes ; and thus we Catholics could
speak of our daily Eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ’s Body
and Blood. But sacrifice of this kind, he went on to say, the
Reformers had never excluded. Therefore, they could not
by us be held to exclude from their ministry a sacrificial
power of corresponding description. It would follow then
that in their Ordinal the form of ordination to the priesthood
should not be taken to mean a ministry void of sacrificial
activities. And consequently there was not on this ground
any theological foundation for a rejection of their Orders.—
The fallacy implied in this reasoning was at once laid bare
by the great Dominican scholar just named, Le Quien,1
1 Le Qiien was the outstanding figure of the Dominican Order in France
at the beginning of the eighteenth century with Noël Alexandre. Of Noël
Alexandre I have spoken elsewhere (pp. 270,302) in connection not with the Afass,
but with the Last Supper, which he couples with the Passion, as the beginning
and the end respectively of one individual Sacrifice, maintaining from history
that it was on the strength ofthis view that many of the Fathers at Trent sanctioned
the Decree on Christ’s sacrificial action in the Supper-Room. Jn the question of
Anglican Orders E. E. Estcourt rightly declares that “ the principal writer in
reply to Courayer (sic) was Le Quien ” (The Question of Anglican Ordinations
discussed, p. 163).
cc

3^9

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

j

il

who in his lengthy and thorough reply to Le Courayer (La
Nullité des Ordinations Anglicanes démontrée de nouveau, Paris,
1730, torn. 2) inserted a theological dissertation, penned
apparently by one of his colleagues, but fully endorsed by
himself. It was admitted that Christ had been really immo­
lated (“ immolation réelle ”) only once, namely in his Passion
,(p. I35)· 1° the Mass, the immolation' was only a mystic
one, that is a sign or portrayal (“représentative et figurative”,
p. 136) of the Death on the Cross (“ La Victime ria été immolée
réellement que sur la Croix ” ; “ Γimmolation riest que représentée
dans ΓEucharistie ”, p. 140). Ÿet the Mass was a real sacrifice
(“ un sacrifice réel ”, “ un sacrifice très réel ”, pp. 138-139), because
by means of the mystic immolation we did actually and really
offer Christ as the Victim of his past real immolation.1 The
mistake of Le Courayer was, therefore, that “he failed to
distinguish between immolation of the Victim and oblation
of the immolated Victim ; he made the sacrifice consist
formally of the immolation of the Victim, . . . whereas
he should consider that it consists in the oblation of the
Victim once immolated. And therefore, we are to acknowledge in the Eucharist a real sacrifice ” ; with an
oblation no less real than was made “ on the Cross, or
than is made in heaven, where for all eternity, it shall con­
tinue : for Christ’s Sacrifice is eternal even as his Priesthood.
Tu es sacerdos in aeternum” (pp. 140-141). The reality of
such a Sacrifice necessarily implied the presence of that
Victim once truly immolated and now for evermore sacred
to God. And here again, Le Quien remarked, Le Courayer
was at fault, because, while admitting the truth of the
real presence, he did not admit that its scope was to
provide us with a real victim, the Victim of the Cross.
There is but little doubt that Le Quien’s thought would
1 “ Il y a aussi une oblation réelle de ce même corps gui a été immolé sur la Croix et par
consequent un sacrifice réel, puisque le sacrifice réel n’est autre chose que l’oblation réelle
d’une victime réellement présente qui a été immolée en l’honneur de Dieu ” (p. 138). “ La
victime réellement immolée étant rendue réellement présente par la consécration, c'est une
oblation non sanglante, mais très réelle, que Jésus-Christ continue de faire de son Corps
et de son Sang par le ministère des prêtres, et par conséquent c’est un sacrifice très réel ”
(P- ’39)·

SOO

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
have’ been admirably rendered by the pronouncement of
Westminster : we need “ on our altars the Victim of
Calvary, and without its Victim the sacrifice could not
subsist
A short while later the same line of argument was taken
up against Le Courayer by one of the most prominent and
deservedly popular professors of the day, the Lazarist Collet,
in his Praelectionum Theologicarum Honorati Tournely Continuatio
(DeEuchar. pars2,cap. 3,tom5,pp. 717-720). His conclusion
is almost identical word for word with the above. “ Male
igitur confundit dissertator [i.e. Le Courayer] immolationem victimae
cum oblatione victimae immolatae : oblatio victimae ad sacrificium
necessaria est ; non item actualis ejusdem victimae immolatio ”
(p. 720) 1.
Applying this principle to the Mass itself, he wrote further
on : “ Cum ad sacrificium ex parte actionis duo concurrant, oblatio
scilicet et immolatio rite facta, necessum est ut sacrificii unitas [in
Cruce et Missa] vel ab oblationis vel ab immolationis unitate potis­
simum petatur. Atqui non ab unitate oblationis, cum haec pluries
iterari possit. Ergo ab unitate immolationis . . . Ergo . . . dici nec incongrue potest, ad Missae sacrificium nulla nova opus esse
[reali] immolatione” (p. 717).
All this the author had prefaced with a general remark
worth pondering : “ Dico ad sacrificium non requiri actionem
qua hic et nunc res oblata destruatur, sed sufficere actionem qua vere
et realiter offeratur res, quae destruenda sit, vel olim destructa
fuerit” (ibid.). Certain novelties, if one may say so, are quite
surprised to find themselves couched in very much the
same forms of language to-day as were used in former
times by those Doctors of classical temper and classical
fame: “ Doctor Classicus ”, as Hurter says of Collet. Or
1 It is quite clear that these authors meant by immolation not the Sacrifice
as a whole, nor directly the oblation or consecration to God, but the mactation
or slaying of the Victim. This terminology seems to me by far the best for the
purposes of Scholastic teaching. I have therefore made it my own and adhere
to it in all my personal utterances, without being in the least tempted to read
it into the writings of others who speak differently. A mystical immolation,
or mactation, or slaying of Christ was clearly recognized as part of our work
by Collet in this same place.
39'

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

ί

! I
I

1
!

> I

||
!

i'

rather old truisms are likely to enjoy the sensation which
they create in certain modern circles ; and yet perhaps
they may delight still more in finding some at least to
whom they come home as familiar, even though never met
before : for, as far as I am concerned, I must confess that
only of late have those utterances of Collet or Le Quien
come my way at all.
They had not however escaped the attention of those who
in 1855 were responsible in the diocese of Tournai for the
guidance to be given to the members of the Ecclesiastical
Conferences. In the Responsa ad Quaestiones Circulis Propositas
Mense Februarii, published by Episcopal authority, the question
on the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, after close discussion
and stern rejection of all other views (as unfit to allay our
doubts), was solved finally by appeal to the authority of
Collet. His explanations and arguments were found sufficient
to warrant this proposition or thesis, in which was embodied
the gist of the official answer (p. 410) : “ Sacrificium quod in
Missa offertur, nec posse nec deberè considerari tanquam sacri­
ficium in se completum, independenter ab immolatione [olim]
peracta.”
To come back to Le Courayer ; he rejected every point
of Le Quien’s theory. There was no distinction, he said, in
animal sacrifices between oblation and immolation {Réponse
au P. Le Quien, pp. 525ÎT.) Consequently the Mass could not
be the real oblation, by means of a mystic immolation, of the
ever enduring Victim once immolated in Blood. Real
immolation he excluded, not only (in common with Le
Quien) as a present work of ours, but also (contrary to Le
Quien) as a necessary prerequisite on the part of the eternal
Victim. He was content with a mere show. Of itself and by
itself the semblance of death was enough to constitute the
essence of a true sacrifice, without any recourse to the Cross
or to heaven as providing a ready made Victim for our sacri­
fices. Whereupon he bethought himself that sacrifice with
a mere figure of Victimhood could as well be void of the
reality of the Victim itself. “ A figurative presence is enough
392

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE

;

Î

1

for a figurative immolation ’’/he wrote. Not that he denied
the real presence ; he admitted it, as he had always done ;
but he maintained that it was on the above principles immaterial
to the truth of the sacrifice. “ Such a kind of immolation
[concerned with a mere figure of Victimhood] does not of
its own nature require any kind of [real] presence. Not
from the presence therefore does the idea of sacrifice procéed
in any way”.2 The conclusion was the same as before.
Granting even that Anglicans did not believe the real
presence, yet they might, and in fact they did admit in sub­
stance the truth (if not the name) of sacrifice, seeing that they
had always recognized the mystic slaying, that is the symbol
or sign o'f a slaying : which was quite enough to meet all our
own requirements, and satisfy all the purposes of a true
sacrifice.
. Of course, this was the theory of mystic immolation run
mad. But madness is sometimes only an excess of logic.
Much depends on the starting point. Anyhow, the pity of
it was that Le Courayer could quote in his favour, and
of course was not slow to quote, the authority of a very
great man indeed, none less than the. ecclesiastical ruler
of the realm in the preceding century, Cardinal de
Richelieu. Bishop of Lucon and Prime Minister of France,
he was not only a statesman of supreme eminence, but also
a busy and by no means inconspicuous theologian. As a .
theologian, he may be quoted among those in the past
who gave expression to the so-called theory of mystic
immolation. In his treatise entitled Les Principaux Points de la
Foi de L’Église Catholique (Poitiers, 1617)3 he had already
maintained that “it was quite enough for a sacrifice thatsome living animal should be clothed with the appearance of
1 “ Une figure ou une représentation d’immolation n'exige point essentiellement dans
son idée la présence d'une victime ; puisque cette victime ne devant être immolée que mystique­
ment ou figurément, il suffit d’une présence figurée pour une immolation figurée " {op. cil.,
p. 529).
’ “ Une telle immolation n'exige point par sa nature aucune sorte de présence. Ce n’est
donc point de cette présence que se tire l’idée de sacrifice ” (p. 531, see also p. 558I.
3 Reprinted in the third volume of Migne’s Démonstrations Évangéliques, to
which my quotations refer.

393

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

death ”1 ; and, therefore, seeing that “ Jesus Christ, as existing
in the Eucharist, is found under the appearance of death, no
less than on the Cross ”, it follows that in the Eucharist “ he
has all that could be noted on the Cross in the way of external
signification and demonstration of God’s sovereignty : which is
sufficient for a sacrifice”1
2. But the theory had not reached
yet the ultimate stage of its development. Richelieu was still
contending that under the appearance of death nothing would
do but the reality of the animal ; not a figurative substitute
for it.3 In a later work, a posthumous work, which the
Editors tell us emphatically had been the most cherished of
all his writings, the most fondly and painstakingly worked
out to the end,4 and indeed was not only then received with
great applause, but still enjoys a fair reputation (the Method
for converting heretics),5 Richelieu goes one step further.
His general notion of sacrifice has remained unchanged :
“ A mystic and figurative death is sufficient to constitute the
essence of a true sacrifice ”. In particular, “ the mystic
death of Christ or the mystic representation of his Death . . .
is properly what constitutes the Eucharistic sacrifice ”.6 But
1 “ Il suffit au sacrifice d’un animal vivant qu’il soit établi sous l’apparence de mort ”
[op. cit. ch. 6, sect. 2, col. 81).
2 “ Jésus-Christ, comme existant en l’eucharistie, a l’apparence de la mort comme en
la croix ; et partant, il a tout ce qu'il avait en la croix en considération de signe sensible,
démonstratif de la souveraineté de Dieu : ce qui suffit au sacrifice ” (ibid., col. 80).
3 “ Quand on dit qu’il suffit au sacrifice d’un animal vivant, qu’il soit établi sous l’appar­
ence de mort, on n’entend pas qu'il y soit établi par représentation, comme s’il était dépeint
mort en un portrait : . . . mais on entend que l’animal vivant soit en lui-même couvert
de l’espèce et de Γapparence de la mort, et qu’en cet état il soit présentement offert à Dieu "
1 Some say that the authorship of the book belongs in the main to one of his
secretaries, Amable de Bourzeis. I have seen no reason brought forward in
support of this claim. Everyone knows that the Cardinal had many secretaries,
who were not mere scribes. His tragedies, although always bearing his name
only, were the result of a close co-operation with others. But the design was
his, as is well known from the history of Corneille; and so too the responsibility,
for better or for worse.
• Traité qui contient la Méthode la plus facile et la plus assurée pour convertir ceux
qui se sont séparés de l’Église. Paris, 1651.
3 “ Une mort mystique et figurée suffit pour établir l'essence d'un véritable sacrifice.
Pour bien entendre cette vérité, ilfaut savoir que la souveraineté de Dieu peut-être témoignée
en deux façons par le changement de l’hostie offerte: a savoir, en détruisant l’hostie ou
réellement, ou mystiquement et figurativement. Puisque la nature du signe consiste bien
394

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE

then, what follows next ? It follows, Richelieu assures us,
that the presence of Christ (however necessary for other pur­
poses) is not essential to the sacrifice, as such. “ The Eucharist
is a propitiatory oblation, whether it really and truly contains
the Body and Blood of Christ or not.” Consequently, “ when
the so-called Reformers maintain, as they do, that by the
breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of Christ
unto the forgiveness of sins (which we read to have been
instituted in the Last Supper), should be understood in the
Eucharist a figurative oblation and immolation, do they
not grant us absolutely everything that we ask from them
in the present matter ?”1 No wonder that Le Courayer
seized upon this utterance of the great Cardinal with more
than ordinary eagerness, and to no little discomfort of his
opponents.
I must be pardoned, if I find it safer not to go one step
with Cardinal de Richelieu in this matter of sacrifice, lest
he might carry me whither I would not, and hand me over
to Le Courayer, who would at once exert his efforts to make
me go against the Bull Apostolicae Curae. Others who are
stronger than I am may unfearingly accept the first principles
of the theory, and guard themselves against the conclusion.
But let them mind their weaker brethren, and be patient with
them. Let it be permissible still for us to cling to the decision
plus in Papparence qu’en la réalité de la chase, qui ne signifie qu'en tant qu’elle paraît, il
est évident que la mort mystique de Jésus-Christ, ou la représentation mystique de sa mort
à ΓAutel suffit pour témoigner la reconnaissance que nous aeons de la souveraineté de Dieu
sur la vie et sur la mort; et c’est proprement ce qui constitue Pessence du sacrifice ” {op. cit.,
liv. 4, ch. 5, p. 566-567).

J Les Prétendus Reformés soutenant, comme ils font, que par la fraction du Corps et
par Peffusion du Sang de Jésus-Christ pour la rémission des péchés, dont il est parlé en
l’institution de la sainte Cène, on doit entendre une oblation et une immolation figurée et
mystique en PEucharistie, ne nous accordent-ils pas absolument tout ce que nous leur deman­
dons au sujet dont il s’agit? Π ne s'agit pas ici de savoir si le Corps et le Sang de Jésus' Christ sont vraiment et substantiellement en PEucharistie, ou s’ils y sont seulement figura­
tivement par l’entremise du pain et du vin, qui en sont les symboles et les signes. Mais il
s’agit seulement de savoir si PEucharistie est offerte à Dieu, et si elle lui est offerte pour
la rémission des péchés; ce qui suffit pour dire que PEucharistie est une oblation propitiatoire,
quelque qualité qu’elle ait d’ailleurs, soit qu’elle contienne réellement et véritablement le
Corps et le Sang de Jésus-Christ, soit qu’elle ne les contienne pas ” (loe. cit., p. 574).

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
ί ·

ί

Η

;

ί
I
Il ί

of Westminster, understood in its strictest, in its fullest sense,
and believe that our altars are laden with the Victim that is
yielded by the Cross and kept for us on the heavenly Altar.
Let us be free to agree with Le Quien and Collet and hundreds
of others, Saints and Doctors, apologists and preachers, modest
professors and glorious Pontiffs, Fathers of the Church and our
masters of the present day, in a doctrine which certainly
will not endanger any of the truths that we hold dear and
sacred, any of the truths for which the Church has fought or
is fighting still. The danger, if any, would seem to us to lie
in the opposite direction. If we are not mistaken, the sacrifice
of an animated being differs from sacrifices of things inanimate
in this, that it is the sacrifice of a victim. For it to be a true
sacrifice, there must be a true victim. There is no true victim
without true victimhood. Therefore, without true victimhood,
either prospective, or, if not prospective, present (whether as
an actual work or as a preexistent state), there is no true
sacrifice of an animated being ; only a shadow. But for a
shadow of sacrifice, the shadowy presence will do just as well
as the shadowy victimhood. Not so for a sacrifice that
shares with the Cross in laying before God the Victim of a
true and bloody immolation. If what was effected by the
Passion unto death and perfected by the glory of the Resur­
rection now abides on our altars, then there necessarily follows
the presence of the risen Christ himself, of the Gift dedicated
to God in the upper-chamber and conveyed into his hands
from the arms of the Gross. The real presence is truly an
essential of our Sacrifice, no less than the true Victimhood.
To sum up, the mystic immolation is as much a constituent
of the Sacrifice with us, as it is with others. But when they
take it to suffice with the sole addition of the presence of him
who bears this mystic veil, we beg to remark that the veil
is no mere disguise, but, as in the hands of Christ it clad the
Victim for his death, so too does it in our hands cover the
eternal imprint of death and sacrifice on the Lamb, that was
once made over to the Lord of heaven through Blood, and
now for ever remains God’s own, “ eating of his bread, and
396

i

!
ί
!

THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE

drinking of his cup and lying in his bosom ” : a very dear
and precious acquisition to the Lord ; the most dear and
precious ransom of our sins. This ransom we may join in
paying off each time we share by holy commemoration and vivid
representation in the original self-surrender of the eternal
Victim.

397

THE MASS AND ATTRITION
In the course of a friendly discussion with one whose name
need not appear in these pages, I had occasion to maintain
that the sincerity of our self-offering to God is an essential
element of an acceptable sacrifice, and, therefore, a necessary
factor of its efficacy in the line of impétration or propitiation.
But at the same time I thought it necessary to exclude the
idea, that “ one’s assistance at Mass is not a real offering
of sacrifice unless one is contrite.” The Catholic truth is,
on the contrary, speaking of course of the faithful, that the
sinner, still in the state of sin, by means of the sacrifice which
he causes to be offered in his name, or in which he joins by
devout attendance, obtains the grace of repentance which
he lacks ; and this, not only by the impetratory virtue of the
Mass, but by its very power of atonement ; according to
the unequivocal teaching of the Council of Trent : “ Hujus
quippe (sacrificii) oblatione placatus Dominus, gratiam et donum
paenitentiae concedens, crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimitt ”
(Sess. 22, cap 2). True, sincerity is required ; but sincerity
and perfect contrition are two dungs carefully to be distin­
guished from one another. It would be quite preposterous
to say that faith or hope, however imperfect they may be
while lacking the formal perfection of charity, are insincere ;
nor again is love itself insincere, if for lack of absolute prefer­
ence for God it remains imperfect. And what applies to all
virtues is true also of the virtue of sincerity. Sincerity is
imperfect, if not united with charity. But yet it can exist,
even though imperfect. And therefore the sacrifice may be
fruitful, even to the sinner, as long as the sinner has this mini­
mum ofsincerity necessary to the existence even of faith, namely
401

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
the desire for conversion or charity.—(See St. Thomas, Sent.
III. 23, q. 2, a. 5, ad 4 et 5.)
A short while after I had given expression to those views,
there came to me the following query from His Grace the Most
Reverend M. Sheehan, Coadjutor Archbishop of Sydney : Can
it be safely taught that mortal sin is immediately forgiven to one who,
though only attrite, hears Mass devoutly ? My answer, which His
Grace did me the honour of publishing in the Australasian
Catholic Record for January 1926, was on the following lines.
One principle can be safely asserted, that excluding the
case of martyrdom, the reception of a sacrament is the only
means by which a sinner who merely has attrition can recover
sanctifying grace ; this is nowadays undoubted Catholic
doctrine. Sanctifying grace will be regained per se, that is,
normally and regularly, with attrition and the Sacrament
of Penance ; the same effect may be produced per accidens by
means of other Sacraments (for instance the Blessed Eucharist,
when the sinner who has attrition is unaware of his imperfect
dispositions). Hence if the question means, “ Can a man,
while hearing Mass devoutly, yet with no other acts than
those of attrition, be justified without the aid of a sacrament ? ”
the answer must undoubtedly be in the negative.
But if we transform the question, giving it the following
shape : “ If a man comes to Mass with a disposition of attri­
tion, and devoutly shares in the offering of the divine Sacrifice,
will he break into acts of contrition, perfect contrition, that
will enable him to be justified by sanctifying grace ? ” Then
I should reply that this is morally certain. Why ? “ Because,
in the first place, we presuppose attrition such as would suffice
for sacramental justification. Now attrition of this kind is
appretiative summa, including unconditional preference for God
over any created thing that might in a given option come into
conflict with him. Between it and perfect contrition the only
difference is in the motive ; the motive being in the latter
case God’s goodness, while this is not so in the former. But
then, I would note that the difficulty for a man who has
to come back to God is not to love him because he is good, but
402

THE MASS AND ATTRITION

to prefer him to all things. Of course, if we were to under­
stand the motive of God’s goodness as covering only the good­
ness of his love for himself, and by no means the goodness of
his love, his wonderful, unbounded love for us, there might be,
there would be, a difficulty. But there is no truth in that
restrictive view. God is love ; God is substantial love for
ourselves ; and to love God for that love which he bears us
is to love him for what he is—to love him, therefore, with
true charity.
Charity was what the poet had in mind when
he wrote :
“ And love the Love that did for thy love die.”

Now, I ask, is it more difficult to love God, because he is
good, because he has the goodness to love us, because he is a
friend, than to prefer him to all things without regard to the
rights of his friendship, without regard to the surpassing
generosity of his love, without regard to that goodness of his
which makes him love us, unworthy though we may be, with
the heart of a friend and a father ? Now, all those thoughts
press themselves on him who shares devoutly in the offering
. of the Mass. What is proposed to him is God’s charity toman­
kind in the climax of Christ’s sacrifice ; the charity of the
Father, who delivered his Son ; the charity of the Son, who
made himself suffer in the flesh to the shedding of his Blood
on the Cross ; the charity of him who chose to be our Victim
in order to be our Ransom ; a charity, manifested in man,
but manifesting itself as divine and eternal. If the devout
worshipper is, as we suppose, already in the disposition of
unconditionally, unreservedly, preferring God above all
things, how can he be likely to withhold the better love which
gives God exactly the same preference, but from a more com­
plete and adequate motive, from a motive, therefore, more
powerful and effective ? There is hardly any likelihood of
such stupidity and stolidity. Any man, with ordinary human
qualities, will rather yield to the greater pressure than to the
weaker one, once the work and (if I may say so) the trouble
4°3

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
entailed is the same in both instances. It is a great pity
to let the faithful believe that, apart from the preference
sincerely given to God, an act of contrition is difficult, or
that it is more difficult than mere attrition. Of course, in
both cases the grace of God is required, without which we can­
not move a step towards salvation ; but then is God so sparing
of his grace, ’or so afraid to be loved, as just to offer what will
merely suffice for attrition ? True, our sins sometimes are a
bar to his gifts ; there is such a punishment as sin upon sin ;
but that is the case with the obdurate sinner, not with the
poor man who has already gathered as much as attrition ; and
besides, here there comes in the efficacy of the Mass, in the'
offering of which he shares, and indeed devoutly. The
proper effect of the Mass is to remove the bar, the hindrance to
God’s merciful activities, by appeasing his justice ; it leaves
God free, as it were, without injury to his justice, to give full
scope to his mercy. Grace will not fail the man who with
sincere attrition offers the Mass ; grace for perfect contrition
will not fail him, nor be delayed, as if God were in no hurry
to recover his own, or as if the father of the prodigal son were
more generous than he. And grace being offered, the grace
of charity, who doubts that the man will consent to it, who
is already, out of desire for charity (for this desire is an essential
prerequisite not only of penance, but even of true faith, as St.
Thomas has shown) already, I say, out of desire for charity, so
disposed as to make light of everything in comparison with
God’s friendship ? The act of perfect love, perfect contrition,
will come forth as a natural fruit of the holy Sacrifice : and
thus will the devout “ publican ” find himself fully disposed
for the infusion of sanctifying grace, which, however, he will
not receive without a longing, implicit though it be, for the
Church’s sacramental pardon ; because the Sacrament of
Penance is the efficient cause provided by God for our recovery,
while the acts of contrition, etc., operate only as a disposition,
that is, somewhat like a material cause.”

404

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION

1 chastise my body and bring it into subjection (I Cor. ix, 27).
As far as can be surmised, the purpose of a priestly assembly
like the present one, and of the matter to be treated between
us in the Latin tongue,1 is not to find occasion for speculating
about things sublime and recondite, but rather to propose
for our moral improvement some simple form of eucharistie
life, drawn from the genuine sources of the Christian faith.
The subject-matter assigned us for to-day’s consideration
is the saying of the Apostle : “ I chastise my body and bring it into
subjection."
In these words the Apostle enunciates two things :
i. The mortification of the body, when he says I chastise my
body.
ii. Some intrinsic end of that mortification when he says : I
bring it into subjection.
Hence there will be two parts to our treatment : one
wherein it is shown how the offering of the sacrifice and the
duty of afflicting the flesh are bound up together : the other
whereby the subjection of the conquered flesh and its adjustment
to the spirit is traced back as a fruit of the participated sacrifice.

I
With regard to the first part it is necessary first of all to
consider the terms employed by the Apostle. He did not
say “ I bridle or hold in check” (refiaeno vel cohibeo} : by
1 The Latin text of this instruction appeared in the Records of the twenty-seventh
International Eucharistic Congress of Amsterdam, 1924.
.
407

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
which words only a certain resistance is expressed. But he
said “ I chastise ” {castigo), which implies some sort of doing
violence, some sort of beating or bruising inflicted in order
to avenge sins. For to bridle the inordinate inclinations of
the body, or to restrain the body itself from unlawful pleasures,
is nothing more than to keep it within its duty : and this
falls under the negative precepts of the law : whose binding
force applies to every single instant of our life. Besides it
has not the character of retribution, but only serves as a
guidance and a safeguard.
It is otherwise with chastisement, whose object it is to
bring upon man’s natural (and by no means dishonourable)
appetite what is contrary and repugnant to it, and this
by some special act of an avenging character.
The obligation of this avenging action does certainly not press
us at every moment, but it allows of a certain indefiniteness
of time, as is consonant with the nature of positive precepts.
Moreover, it presupposes something, namely the guilt to
be avenged. For it is concerned with the violation of the
law ; which implies again two things : the rule which has
the prince for its author, and the transgression, whereby the
subject has deviated from the rule.
Therefore, it is taken for granted that before the
chastisement there has existed both the good order of
government, and the disorder of sin ; yet not without a
difference.
For the order pre-exists in the mind of the lawmaker, whence
it passes to the subject’s reason as to a rule at once regulated
and regulating. Whereas the sin is in the subject, inasmuch
as he falls short of the rule, both the proximate one and the
ultimate one. And this is why the avenging of sin belongs
not only to the ruler, but also to the sinner himself, inasmuch
as the latter, in his higher reason, is partner of the law. Now
it is to the punishment that proceeds, not from the ruler, but
from the transgressor, the saying of the Apostle applies : I
chastise my body, inasmuch as, having God’s law imprinted in
my mind, I avenge my own wrongdoings.
408

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION

But it must be remembered that in dealing with trans­
gressions of sins, punishment follows two methods : one
retributive, whose purpose is to repair the wrongs resulting
from violated rights ; the other medicinal, whose object is
to prevent further violations of the law. The punishment
which is medicinal supposes the punishment which is retribu­
tive ; but it modifies it in two ways : as regards the end, and
as regards the quantity. As regards the end, medicinal
punishment hasfor its object correction in the future ; as regards
the quantity, since it proceeds with the hope of the sinner’s
repentance, it ought not to be exacted to the strict limits of
a just proportion, either as regards duration, or as regards
intensity. Not as regards duration, because according to the
Angelic Doctor (4 Cg. 93) it would be unfair if, though the
culprit were converted, the punishment never ceased. Not as
regards intensity, because when one is visited with punish­
ment in order to be reconciled, one is punished as a friend
rather than as a foe : and for this reason in every punishment
intended as a remedy, whether it comes from God or from
man, God’s vicegerent, in his own or in another’s cause, the
agent proceeds with a certain pacific disposition of mildness
and leniency.
It is of this penalty that the Apostle speaks when he says :
1 chastise my body. For he indicated its remedial purpose
by the words that follow : and bring it into subjection. For a
remedy has health for its object ; now the health of the moral
life consists in this, that the inferior powers are subject to
the superior, as the superior is subject to God. This sub­
jection of the lower to the higher parts of man was originally
whole and entire, but at present it is defective in many ways.
In the first place it is defective because the concupiscences by
some sort of violence carry off the consent of reason. This
may happen in the pursuit of what is contrary to the rational
order, as when the assault is directed against that charity
either of God or of our neighbour by which man clings to
his last end : in which case it is a question of mortal sin.
Or it may happen no less in the pursuit of something which
409

z

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
■while not opposed to the order of reason, is yet not sought
in accordance with right reason, the choice not being made
as it should be nor as the pursuit of the last end commands
and directs : in that case it is a question of the disorder of
venial sin. In the second place, this subjection of the lower
appetite is also defective, apart from any formal guilt, when it
tends towards what is evil, without any previous deliberation,
through some instinct of our nature no longer whole or sound,
but depraved and fallen.
Seeing that mere consent to this
impulse is a sin, it follows that even when the consent is not
there, there is in the impulse itself a matter of sin, or material sin.
; The health, therefore, which here is opposed to sickness,
will then be perfect, when not only every formal sin is barred,
but when also every movement of the lower nature towards
a forbidden object is absent. This perfection will be enjoyed
in our Father’s home ; but here on earth, with the exception
of that Virgin blessed beyond all others, who was totally freed
from original sin, both as to the stain and the sting, it will
never fall to the lot of any one among those who are to be
saved. However, the perfection of our earthly course consists
in this, that man, with unrelenting constancy, draws nearer
to that happy goal, as love of God and of neighbour for the
most part exerts its empire over each and every tendency of
the lower powers of the soul, whether rational or sensible.
Thus the body itself, the carrier and source of the concupis­
cences that war against the spirit, is accounted (and rightly
so) to have been brought well-nigh into subjection to the soul
created after the image and likeness of God ; and the whole
man is judged as it were sound, so that we have another
Francis, or another Aloysius, or another Thomas, or another
Philip Neri, or another Joan of Arc or Teresa of the Child
Jesus. Such is the end for which the chastisement of the
flesh preached by St. Paul is undertaken ; so that there
are, as it were, two movements answering each other in
rhythmical order ; one of war waged against the flesh ;
the other of peace possessed by the spirit. And as by the
increase of peace the vigour of warfare grows apace, so from
410

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION
the bitterness of the warfare comes the sweetness of peace.
However the method of waging the war is not always the
same for the various progressions in peace. But at certain
times preference is rather given to afflictive punishment by
which the members are made to feel pain ; at other times
preference is given to privative punishments, by which things
pleasurable, though licit, are withdrawn both from the senses
and from the mind : in order that there may be room for the
sole enjoyment of God, loved in himself and for himself, above
all gifts, whether bodily or even spiritual, that are not God.
Fruition of this kind is the purest love of God, and possesses
the greatest force of severing us from every contagion
of the flesh and of the world ; and it accomplishes in a
mortal body that perfection of mortification or chastisement
of which St. Paul says I chastise my body and bring it into
subjection.
After this brief exposition comes the question : what has
all this to do with the Eucharist ? The answer to this question
must be clear to those who are mindful of the twofold character
of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice and a Sacrament.
In the first place, as a sacrifice the Eucharist is a sign of
mortification which it represents and pledges to God. For
the Eucharist is an atoning sacrifice. And as every visible
sacrifice is a sacrament, in other words a sign and profession
of an invisible sacrifice, so every sacrifice, under its aspect
of atonement, signifies before God, and therefore does as it
were vow before him, the personal immolation or mactation
of the offerers themselves in expiation. If, therefore, the sacri­
ficial oblation is sincere, it obliges him who celebrates for him­
self to undergo hardships, or to take them up of his own
accord, so that by them he may in some way fill up the just
and condign punishment which he is actually trying to avert,
though he confesses that he has incurred it. Therefore the
Church fitly prays on the Wednesday after Passion Sunday :
hostias placationis et laudis sincero tibi deferamus obsequio, “ that
we may present to thee the gifts of propitation and praise
with worshipful sincerity. Hence also, on the feast of the
411

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

:iih

«

:

Most Holy Trinity (and elsewhere, as on the Monday after
Pentecost) does she beg of God that he may make of the
offerers of the gifts a perfect and eternal gift unto himself.
For this reason is our penance described by that Doctor of
spiritual life, St. Gregory the Great, under the form of some
kind of sacrificial celebration. “ Mindful of the eternal
judgment, he says, (the Saints) daily immolate themselves to
God as a sacrifice by the weeping and wailing of compunction.
They, as has been foretold, chastise their bodies, and thus
fulfil what is said by the Apostle of the Gentiles : That you
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God
(Rom. xii, i). For a victim is slain that it may be offered.
But a living victim is the body afflicted for the Lord :
and it is called a sacrifice and a living one, because it lives
unto the virtues and is slain unto the vices. A sacrifice,
because it is already dead to this world, being free from
evil deeds ; but a living one because with all the might
at its disposal, it performs good deeds ” (In Egech. I. 2,
hom. 10, n. 19. P. L. 76, 1069-1070). Thus speaks St.
Gregory.
But now, if sincere penance, both internal and external,
is the meaning and intent conveyed by every propitiatory sacrifice,
much more is this true of ours, which is the sacrifice of the
Lamb slain for our salvation : of whose atonement no one is
made a partaker unless he has been made a partaker of his
Death and Passion, that is to say, unless he has died and been
buried with Christ, at first indeed mystically in baptism, but
afterwards practically (pragmatice). In other words, by the
mortification of the concupiscences that must be made a
reality in the newness of our life which was signified and
pledged by us in our very initiation through our being shrouded and buried under the water of baptism. Hence the sincere ·
offering of sacrifice on the part of the Christian does but
continue the very profession of his baptism, whereby he
proves himself one with the Christ stripped, in death, of the
likeness of sinful flesh. Nor does he sacrifice like a true
Christian who does not sacrifice as one disposed to die, to
412

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION

suffer, to be immolated, slain and (to use St. Paul’s word)
crucified.
While all this applies to the immediate and formal sacrificer,
who is the priest, it must not be declared inapplicable to the
faithful among the laity, to the believer who through our
priestly hands offers to God his victim, the Victim of salvation,
the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. For it must
be clear to every one that this is the sacrifice of the whole
Church, which the official voice of the Tridentine Council
defines as proceeding from the universal Church through
the hands of the priests. In other words, the immolated
Body of Christ is the dowry and gift of the whole mystic
Body. But the sacrificial offering is more particularly attri­
buted to those who, as regards the matter to be consecrated,
took the first step in the sacrificial function, by presenting
their gifts to the altar and to God. So an ancient authority
says : “ In every instance he is said to offer, from whom come
the oblations that the priest places on the altar. . . . To
him is the sacrifice ascribed whose gifts are being offered
(Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, c. 46. P.L. 35, 2246.)
Therefore all the faithful must be impressed, as we must
be ourselves, with the duty, which, by virtue of the very
sacrifice they have offered, obliges them to immolate their
souls and bodies to God in expiation of sin ; so that the
words of the Apostle may be fulfilled in them also : “ I chastise
my body”.
■
But while insisting on the obligation of this chastisement,
we must above all exalt its importance and value (as we said
above), when linked with the holy Sacrifice. For there is
not merely an obligation contracted through the sacrifice ;
but what is more, our mortifications acquire thereby their
greatest value. The reason is that they attain by this a sort
of liturgical dignity ; for they invest our sacramental celebra­
tion with truth and sincerity, and give it so to speak, its fullness
and perfection. We know, on the one hand, that no punish­
ment of the sinner, even of the severest kind or of the longest
. duration can ever, by itself) wash away the stain of sin, or
413

$

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

1

expiate its guilt. On the other hand it is certain that the
comparatively light and short sufferings of the present life,
when borne patiently or practised spontaneously, once they
are united to Christ, the immolated Victim, once they have
been laid with Christ upon the altar of sacrifice, once they
are grafted upon the atonement of our Head, once they are,
like the water at Cana, changed into the wine of salvation,
the Blood of the Lord, into the ransom of the world, into
the libation of our Priest, it is certain, I say, that they cannot
fail to exert the full efficacy that belongs to the Cross. Conse­
quently through these light and short tribulations, thus
transformed as it were into the Lord’s own, and made effica­
cious for salvation, all the bonds of our captivity are sundered,
all our debts are cleared, all our delinquencies, for whose
satisfaction we offered the sacrifice, are wiped out. And
rightly so ; for that sacrifice was offered up sincerely, and,
as St. Augustine says, truly, because truthfully : for that
penitential disposition was not mendacious which the sinner
betokened by the sacred Blood of the Lord, and to which
he gave thereby something of an infinite efficacy and power.
Such, it seems to me, are the chief points by which the chas­
tisement of the body and the celebration of the holy Sacrifice
are mutually related and linked together. Upon these associ­
ations it would be easy to build up others, as for instance,
zeal for the reparation of the sins of others, (as is usual with
men to offer sacrifices first for their own sins, and then for the
people’s ; Heb. vii, 27), and the still higher and nobler desire
to suffer with Christ suffering, or to take one’s stand by the
side of his sorrowful Mother (as one who, having paid his
debt of justice, is enabled to form, in all freedom, ties of the
most tender and familiar love).

5

I
î

It now remains for us to consider the participation of the
Sacrifice—which is the communion of the Body and Blood of
414

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION
Christ in its bearing on the fruit of the bodily chastisement,
which fruit is nothing else than the subjection of the body
to the soul, like the peace that comes of order and like the
- recovery of health. To this purpose was directed, as a remedy,
the sensible punishment, as was explained above. Here it
must be remembered that the sacramental grace proper to
the Eucharist is to unite the soul to Christ by the fervour
of charity, and hence to promote the reign of charity over the
lower powers of the soul without exception, and thereby to
check the rebellion of the flesh, and the wantonness of the
soul’s every propensity thrown into disorder by intercommunion
with the flesh. In this manner is gradually brought about
the reign of peace, not indeed such peace as is in store for us
in our Father’s home but such as is compatible with our
human and earthly condition. For our peace here below
must be an armed and militant one, lest after the strong man,
Christ the Lord, has cleared the house of enemies, the house­
holder grow drowsy and slothful, and the foe return with
sevenfold fury, tear down the structure, level it and abandon
it to unclean spirits. Moreover, the Eucharist received as
nourishment will accomplish the work of peace so much the
more efficaciously as there has preceded à more perfect (and
consequently, in virtue of the mortification of the flesh, a
more fruitful) oblation of the Sacrifice. For as to the oblation
corresponds the participation, so to the generosity of the atone­
ment answers the largesse of grace, and with the removal of
obstacles comes the inflow or inrush of divine benefactions,
seeing that the fruits of the sacrifice all find their crowning
element in the sacramental banquet. Therefore the Eucharist
will bring the body into subjection so much the more, as it
finds that body more perfectly adorned with the sacrificial marks
of Christ, and more generously immolated, through morti­
fication, as victim with Him. Ht who soweth sparingly of
that sacred and sacrificial wheat, shall also reap sparingly;
and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings ” (II Cor.
ix. 6). And so great will be at times the blessing, that that
divine banquet will not only bring peace, but also a delightful
415

W';
f.l/ ·

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

enjoyment of peace. I speak of spiritual delight, not con­
tained in the affections of the sensible parts of man ; of a pure
delight, not begotten by the attainment of one’s own advantage
or private good, but bom of charity, whereby the friend
rejoices for the sake of his friend, a son delights in the goodness
of his father, a bride in the bridegroom’s comeliness. For
among the sacramental effects of this sacrament we find
enumerated in an official document of the Church, published
by the Council of Florence1 (D. 698), not only an increase and
an enkindling of charity, but also that delight with which,
while still on earth, man fits himself best and prepares himself
more immediately for the blissful enjoyment of heaven, pure
above all things and more than all things a hymn of
praise to God.
For the more a man’s taste becomes enstranged, through
the spice of mortification, from every earthly savour, the
better adapted does it become to relish heavenly things. But
whoever is granted through the Holy Ghost “ to relish what
is right and just ”, is also permitted “ ever to enjoy his com­
forts
This is the purport of those many postcommunions
in which we pray for our spiritual healing (as on the seventh
Sunday after Pentecost), or for the body and soul’s refresh­
ment (as on the eighth Sunday after Pentecost) ; or ask that
our every impulse of sense may be forestalled in us by the
operation and effect of the heavenly gift (as on the fifteenth
Sunday after Pentecost) ; or that all our vices may be healed
by the sanctifying action of the eternal remedy (as on the
seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost), or again that whatever
is corrupt in us, may be made sound through the benefit of
its healing power (as on the twenty-fourth Sunday after
Pentecost) ; or finally we entreat that we may be set free from
all earthly pleasures (as on the fourth Sunday after Epiphany),
since we (as we add on the fifth) have already “feasted on
heavenly delights
Nothing surprising in all this, since in
1 “ Whatever effect material food and drink have on the bodily life by way
of sustenance, growth, repair, and enjoyment, this Sacrament brings about in the
spiritual life."
416

?

J

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION
the Eucharist we banquet on Christ glorified and filled to
overflowing with heavenly delights, in reward for his Passion
by which, when on earth, he was brought to death. Wherefore
we are told that “to those who receive it Christ’s body
communicates its own gifts ”, (Petr. Pictav. Sentent, i. 5, c.
13, P. L. 211, 1253). A foretaste of heaven, therefore, and
a relish of eternal things, and a thrill of divine life, are the
effects which this heavenly Body by its very nature imparts
to, and instils in the chosen souls of saints that receive com­
munion with increasing purity. This is confirmed by the
experience, frequent enough, of men and women fastened
to the Cross of Christ. Thence do they derive solace in their
life, thence comfort in their exile, thence energy in their good
works, thence enjoyment of fraternal charity, from where they
also quaff the Blood of Christ and eat his Flesh ; so
that in them above all others is accomplished what St.
Bernard’s friend, Emald of Bonneval recommended : Setting
aside the dread ofdeath, Christians should in the Holy Eucharist
“ feed upon and be refreshed by the joyful solemnities of
their anticipated resurrection ” ; pascant et reficiant maturatae
resurrectionis laetabunda solemnia. (Lib. de Card. Oper. Christi,
c. 6. P. L. 189, 1646).
But should it happen that this holy delight, which yet is a
sacramental effect of the Lord’s table, be not vouchsafed to
us, then let us be confounded, fearing lest perhaps a lack of
mortification has been or is answerable for the fact that this
Sacrament cannot exert in us its full inborn power and its
varied efficacy. For whoever clings to earth loathes heaven ;
“ and because (says St. Gregory) we refuse to relish interiorly
the sweetness prepared for us, we love exteriorly our famished
misery” {Hom. in Evang}.
Such, however, as have been favoured by the liberality
of divine mercy and have tasted the heavenly gift, must also fear
and tremble, mindful of the great vigilance it behoves them
to exercise, lest ‘man’s last stale be made worse than his
first’. For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated,
have tasted also the heavenly gift, ... and the powers of the
417

■

' .

/

i
î
’
h

1 ]
< : · f

i

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
world to come, and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance
(Hebr. vi, 4-5). In other words, they cannot, after having
once been fattened on the food of the perfect, be ever again
found in the number of beginners. If they ever rise again,
they cannot without stumbling run along the path of Christian
life, unless they enter upon the self-same path from which they
strayed. And the higher the plane on which they moved,
the more difficult will it be for them, in the nature of things,
to come back. Nevertheless the things that are impossible with
men, are possible with God {Lk. xviii, 27).
And thus for all of us, at the close of this instruction, there
is a final warning of chaste and holy fear. For all, I say, who
worship and receive the divine Sacrament ; but how much
more for its ministers and dispensers, of whatever age or
rank or merit they may be before God and men. For there
is no one who is not in need of that holy and wholesome
watchfulness of the Saints, so highly prized by God that for
the sake of keeping and safeguarding it God preferred (says
St. Augustine) to allow the final impenitence of the reprobate,
rather than, by shutting out all impenitence, to leave the gate
open for a security which is the deadly foe of vigilance. Let
us then conclude with the advice of St. Gregory the Great,
that true apostolic Watchman : “ It is certain (he says) that
the Apostle Paul had already been caught up to the third
heaven, he had been led into paradise and had heard secret
words which it is not granted to men to utter ; and yet he
trembles, saying : I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection :
lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become
a castaway. Here is a man who, brought into heaven, still
fears ; and there are those who will not fear while still dwelling
on earth. Ponder well . . . and consider that a false
security is wont to be the mother of carelessness. Hence in
this life there must be no security for you, by which you
may grow careless. For it is written : Blessed is the man that
is always fearful {Prov. xxviii, 14). And again it is written :
Serve ye the Lord with fear ; and rejoice unto Him with trembling
(Ps. ii, 11). Therefore in the little time of this present life,
418

THE EUCHARIST AND MORTIFICATION

trembling must needs keep hold of your mind, in view of the
enjoyment of that security which later on is to gladden it
forever. May God Almighty fill your soul with the grace of
his Holy Spirit, and after the tears you shed daily in your
prayer, may he bring you to joy everlasting ”. Thus speaks that
Apostolic Watchman, St. Gregory the Great iEpist. 7, 25, P. L.
77, 878-879).

4’9

I