Part III Chapter II §1: The Physical Essence of the Mass

Chapter II: The Nature of the Mass

§1: The Physical Essence of the Mass

CHAPTER II THE NATURE OF THE MASS The nature or essence of a thing is either physical or metaphysical. Hence, in dealing with the Mass, we have to answer a twofold question : (1) What is its physical nature? or in which concrete portions of the liturgy does the real offering take place ? (2) Is the scientific concept of a sacrifice realized in the double Consecration, which, we shall find, constitutes the physical essence of the Mass ? In dealing with the first question we will show : (1) that the physical essence or nature of the Mass consists in the double Consecration of the species of bread and wine and (2) that the Mass has an intrinsic and essential relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross. 331 SECTION i THE PHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS

Article 1: The Mass in its Relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross

THE MASS IN ITS RELATION TO THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS i. The Sacrifice of the Cross the One Absolute Sacrifice. — The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one absolute sacrifice offered for the salvation of the world, and this in a double sense: (a) in so far as among all the sacrifices of the past and future it alone stands without any relation to, and is independent of, any other; (b) because all graces, means of grace, and sacrifices, in the present economy, derive their power and efficacy from the Sacrifice of the Cross. a) The Sacrifice of the Cross is called absolute because it is the world-sacrifice par excellence, to which all other sacrifices, whether of the Jewish, pagan or Christian economy, are related, and upon which all depend. This is true in particular of the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which, though they had a truly sacrificial character, were but types prefiguring the Sacrifice of the Cross.1 l V. supra, Ch. I, Sect i, Art a. 332 ESSENCE OF THE MASS 333 It is an article of faith that the Mass, though a true sacrifice, is intrinsically and essentially a representation and commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Council of Trent defines : . . our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father, … that He might leave to His own beloved Spouse, the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, . • . offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine.” 2 The very expressions which Holy Scripture employs to show the sacrificial character of the Last Supper (“corpus traditum pro vobis,” sanguis effusus pro multisY point to an intrinsic relation between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross, for it was only in the latter Sacrifice that the “giving of the Body” and the ” shedding of the Blood 99 were physically realized. The 3 Sess. XXII, cap. i : “Is igitur Deus et Dominus noster, etsi semel seipsum in ara cruris tnorte intereedente Deo Patri oblaturus erat, • • . ut dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibile, sicut hominum nature exigit, relinqueret sacriHcium, quo cruentum Mud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur eiusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret atque Ulius salutaris virtus in retnissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur, peccatorum applicaretur, … corpus et sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938). 8 V. supra, Ch. I, Sect 2, Art 2. Vulgate, in translating the Greek text by * Corpus quod pro vobis tradetur ” and ” sanguis qui pro multis effundetur,” brings out this intrinsic relation by using the future tense. After the consummation of the Sacrifice of the Cross this relation, which had up to then been anticipatory, became retrospective. St. Paul places Christ’s command, ” Do this for a commemoration of me,” 4 into direct relation with His death on the Cross, when he says: . . You shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” 5 The character of the Mass, as a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, manifests itself externally in the twofold Consecration of the bread and wine. This ceremony illustrates and symbolizes the physical separation of the Blood from the Body which took place on the Cross.6 The Fathers regard the Mass as a representation and renewal of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. St. Cyprian says that the Sacrifice of the Lord is not celebrated unless our oblation corresponds to the Sacrifice of the Cross.7 St. Ambrose writes : ” Formerly a lamb was offered, … now Christ is offered, but He is offered as if renewing His passion.”8 St. Gregory the Great: “Let us consider, what kind of sacrifice this 4 Luke XXII, 19. 5S Cor. XI, 26: ” Mortem Domini annuntiabitis, donee veniat.” 6 V. supra, p. 310. 7 Ep. 63, n. 9 (ed. Hartel, II, 708) : ’ Apparet sanguine m Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, nee sacrificium dommicum legttimd sanchficatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. Passio est enim Domini sacrificium, quod offerimus. Nihil aliud quam quod ill fecit, facere deb emus.” sDe OMc, I, 48: “Ante agnus offetebatur, … nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi recipiins passionem.” — On the teaching of St. Augustine (Contr. Faust., XX, 18), v. supra, pp. 328 »q. is for us, which for the remission of our sins constantly imitates the Passion of the only-begotten Son.” • The relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross stands forth clearly in the various liturgies. The teaching of Scholastic theology is authoritatively voiced by St. Thomas, who says in the third part of the Summa: “As the celebration of this Sacrament is an image representing Christ’s Passion, so the altar is representative of the Cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.” 10 The same idea is beautifully illustrated by certain medieval paintings, which show the Precious Blood flowing from the side of our Divine Saviour into a chalice standing on the altar. b) The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one absolute sacrifice also in this sense that in it the Redemption of the human race was once for all accomplished and consummated in such a way that all other sacrifices and means of grace are empty, barren, and void of effect unless they are supplied from the main stream of merits derived from the suffering of the crucified Redeemer. This is a fundamental dogma of the Christian religion, in regard to which Catholics and believing Protestants agree. The uniqueness and universality of the Sacrifice of the Cross are shown by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews: ” By his own blood [Christ] entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption.” 11 There is no • Dial., IV, 58: Pensemus, quale sit pro nobis hoe sacrificium, quod pro obsolutione nostra passionem unigeniti Filii semper imitator. 10 Summa Tkeol., 3a, qu. 83, art 1, ad j: “Stent eelebratio huins sacramenti est imago repraesentativa passionis Christi, ita altare est repraesentattvum cruets ipsius, in qua Christus in propria specie immolatus est.” llHeb. IX. 12: “Per proprium sanguinem introivit semel in sancto, aetemd redemptione invents.” 336 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE redemption for him who spurns the Sacrifice of the Cross. ” For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment.” 12 It would be wrong, however, to conclude from these texts that the Mass is superfluous or that it derogates from the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Council of Trent declares: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice of the Mass casts a blasphemy upon the most holy Sacrifice of Christ consummated on the Cross, or that it derogates from it, let him be anathema.” 18 The Mass is not independent of the Sacrifice of the Cross; nor does it pretend to add new power or efficacy to that Sacrifice. The two Sacrifices are essentially identical,14 and the Mass derives its entire virtue from the Sacrifice of the Cross. The infinite value of the latter can be neither increased nor diminished. The Sacrifice of the Cross, to employ a metaphor, filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters, from which the Mass merely draws for the purpose of distributing copious draughts to the faithful. The Protestant view of the Mass as ” a denial of the one Sacrifice of Christ 99 is wrong; for the Mass does, and can do, no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice (applicatio per modum sacrificii), and hence is no independent sacrifice superadded to that of the Cross, whereby the latter would be completed or enhanced in value. The possibility as well as the justification and relative laHeb. X, 26 aq.: ” Voluntary 1 8 Seas. XXII, can. 4: “Si quis entm peccantibus nobis post accep- dixent, blasphemiam irrogari sanetarn notitiam veritatis iam non r#- tissimo ChrisH sacriHcto in cruet linquitur pro ptccatis hostia, terri- peracto per Missae sacrificium out bilis autem quae dam exsptctatio in- illi per hoc derogari, anathema sit. dicii.”— Cf r. Pohle-Preusa, Soteri- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 951) ohgy, pp. 1 19 aq. 14 V. infra, No. a. necessity of the Mass are based on the important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, between the sufficiency and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Cross.15 2. The Essential Identity of the Mass with the Sacrifice of the Cross. — The Mass is essentially identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, because the sacrificial gift and the sacrificing priest are the same in both, and the only difference between them is in the manner of offering, which is bloody in the one and unbloody in the other. a) The Church teaches through the Council of Trent that the Mass is, of its very nature, a ” representation,” a ” commemoration,” and an “application” of the Sacrifice of the Cross.16 The Roman Catechism adds a fourth characteristic, vis.: repetition.17 Hence the Mass is (1) A representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not after the fashion of a historic tragedy, or a passion-play, but as a sacrificial appearance of Christ on the altar under the separate species of bread and wine. (2) The Mass is a “commemoration” (memoria) of Christ’s death on the Cross, held in accordance with His own command : ” Do this as a commemoration of me.” (3) The Mass is an “application” (applicatio) to the faithful of the redemptive merits of Christ. (4) The Mass is a ” renewal ” (instauratio) or repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross. This is not an article of faith, but a truth inculcated by the Roman Catechism : is On the difference between i« Cone. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. tuMcientia and eMcacitas (applica- i. tio) see Pohle-Preusa, Soteriology, IT Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4* qu. 68. pp. 81 tqq. 338 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE “He [Christ] bequeathed to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, soon after to be offered once on the Cross, would be renewed… . For the bloody and unbloody victim are not two victims, but one only, whose sacrifice … is daily renewed in the Eucharist.” 18 However, this repetition is not to be understood as a multiplication, but simply as an application of the merits of the Passion. b) The relation between the two sacrifices is one of essential identity because Priest and Victim are the same in both, the only difference being in the manner of offering. This is of faith. For the Tridentine Council says : ”… the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” 19 Is this identity of the two victims numerical or merely specific ? As Christ Himself is the sacrificing Priest (offerens) and the sacrificial Victim (hostia) in both sacrifices, there is plainly a numerical identity. In regard to the manner of offering (offerendi ratio), on the other hand, it is naturally a question only of a specific identity or unity, that includes the possibility of two, ten, a hundred, a thousand masses.20 3. How the Two Sacrifices Differ. — The main difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Mass lies, as we have seen, in the manner 18 L. c . : * Nobis visible sacri* Actum reliquit, quo cruenium illud semel in cruet Paulo post \mmolandum instoureretur.* — Ibid., qu. 74’ ” Neque enim cruenta et incruenta hostia duae sunt hostiae, sed una tantum, cuius sacrificium … in Eucharistia quotidie instauratur.” 10 Sets. XXII, cap. *: ” Una enim eademque $st hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sold offerendi rations diversd.” 20 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, diap. 76, sect, i, n. 4 sqq. of offering. But there are other differences, though of minor importance. a) In the first place, the Sacrifice of the Cross was an absolute, while the Mass is a relative sacrifice.21 Another difference is that the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once, whereas the Mass is repeated indefinitely until the coming of the Lord.22 A third difference lies in this, that the Sacrifice of the Cross completed the redemption of the human race, while the Mass conveys the fruits of that Sacrifice to the faithful. A fourth difference is that on the Cross Christ was the sole Priest, whereas in the Mass He employs human ministers, Himself merely acting as Sacerdos principalis. The manner of offering entails a fifth difference, vis.: on the Cross Christ offered Himself in specie propria, while in the Mass He offers Himself in specie aliena, under the appearances of bread and wine. From this follows a sixth difference, vis.: that whereas on the Cross our Lord was immolated as a passible and mortal man, in the Mass He offers Himself in the immortal state of glorification. b) Regarding the relation between the Mass and the Last Supper, we may add that both sacrifices are identical in object and subject (Christ) as well as in the manner of offering. It is perfectly correct, therefore, to say that the Last Supper was the first Mass, though there are a few non-essential distinctions between the two. ( 1 ) The Last Supper, like the Mass, was a relative sacrifice, but it was by its very nature an anticipatory commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, whereas the 21 The Mass may be called an that it it a real and true sacrifice, absolute sacrifice only in the sense 22 Cfr. x Cor. XI, 26. Mass is retrospective. (2) At the Last Supper Christ celebrated in His own person, whereas in the Mass He is represented by the priest. (3) Regarded in its origin, the Last Supper appears as the institution, and consequently as the pattern exemplar, of the Mass, which on its part only imitates what Christ has done and commanded His Church to repeat.

Article 2: The Consecration as the Real Sacrificial Act

THE CONSECRATION AS THE REAL SACRIFICIAL ACT Formerly theologians were very much at variance as to whether the sacrifice is accomplished in the Offertory, in the Consecration, or in the Communion. As these are the three chief parts of the Mass, one of them must contain the sacrificial act. It is now safe to say that the sacrificial act is comprised in the Consecration. 1. The Sacrifice not Completed in the Offertory.— Some theologians have sought for the sacrificial act in the Offertory because this part of the Mass is made up of prayers composed in the true language of sacrifice, e. g.: “Receive, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this spotless Host,” and: “We offer up to Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation, …” 1 etc. From the wording of these prayers it is clear that bread and wine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of 1” Suscipe, sancte Pater, omni- ferimus tibi, Domini, calicem salu> potens aeterne Dens, hone im- taris. . • .” mocuhtam hostxam… .”— Of’ ESSENCE OF THE MASS 341 the Mass and are offered up to God for the purpose of the ensuing Consecration. Hence bread and wine belong to the sacrifice, not as res oblata, but merely as terminus a quo of the res oblata, inasmuch as they are destined to cease to exist by being changed into the sacrificial Victim, Jesus Christ. The Eucharistic elements can not be the primary matter of sacrifice, since the Mass is not, like the figurative minchah of Melchisedech, a mere offering of bread and wine, but of the Body and Blood of Christ. ” If anyone saith,” declares the Council of Trent, ” that … Christ did not … ordain that [the Apostles] and other priests should offer His own Body and Blood, let him be anathema.” 2 Consequently, the sacrifice is not in the Offertory. Nor can it be in any other part of the Mass preceding the Consecration, because the Body and Blood of Christ are not present upon the altar until after the Consecration. Those theologians who, like Johann Eck, thought that the sacrificial act was comprised in the prayer ” Unde et tnetnores/’ which is recited after the Consecration, overlooked the fact that the sacrificial victim is present on the altar immediately after the Consecration, and that, consequently, in the Roman Liturgy, in which that prayer occurs, the sacrifice is already consummated when the prayer is said. The same is true of the Epiklesis in the Greek rite.8 Moreover, the Scriptural account of the Last Supper, which must of necessity contain everything that is essential to the sacrifice, makes no mention of the aforesaid prayer or of the Epiklesis. The same arguments militate against the view of Mel2 Sess. XXII, can. a: “Si quis nem suum, anathema sit,” (Dendixerit, , . . Christum non ordi- zinger-Bannwart, n. 949) • nasse, ut ipsi [Apostoli] aliique so- 8 V. supra, Part II, Ch. I, Sect. cer dotes offerrent corpus et sangui- x, Art. 2. chior Cano, according to which the sacrificial act is comprised in the breaking of the Host or in the mixture of the Body and Blood shortly before the “Agnus Dei.” For in both cases the mystic slaying of the Victim, in which the sacrifice undoubtedly consists, is already over. It may be noted in this connection that the Liturgy of St. Basil omits the double ceremony referred to. Though the Eucharistic Sacrifice can rightly be called fractio pants, the breaking of the bread in itself does not affect the sacrificial Body of Christ, but merely the external species, which can in no sense of the word be regarded either as the Victim or as a part of the Victim, but merely serves the purpose of rendering visible the invisible Body of our Lord, and thereby makes possible its offering upon the altar. Cano’s theory, furthermore, cannot be applied to the Chalice, the contents of which are divided only at the Communion. Yet the ceremony of the breaking of the Host {fractio hostiae) has a profound symbolic meaning. It liturgically represents the violent death of Christ and prepares the Body broken, i. e. offered for us, so that it may be a true sacrificial food. The mixture, in which part of the consecrated bread is dipped into the consecrated wine, is a very old and widespread custom symbolizing the unity and inseparability of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the reunion of the Precious Blood with the Sacred Body of Christ at the Resurrection. To omit this rite would not render the Mass invalid.4 2. The Sacrifice not Comprised in the Communion of the Priest.— The position of 4 On the fraction and the mixture Mass, pp. 704 sqq.; Fortetcue, The cfr. Gihrv The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 364 sqq. the Communion in the Mass may be briefly described as a participation and completion of the sacrifice. The essence of the Mass does not consist in the Communion for the simple reason that the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be consumed until the sacrifice proper is completed. a) Nevertheless there have been some eminent theologians (e. g. Ledesma and Dominicus Soto) who held that the sacrifice consists in the Communion of the priest, as being the destruction of the Victim, to which the Consecration forms merely a condition and prelude. Soto says : ” The death of Christ is not represented in the Consecration. The Consecration takes place in order that He may be immolated whilst He is consumed; for this is a picture of the death and burial of Christ. And in the consumption of the Blood we have an image of its effusion.” 5 But this theory can hardly be reconciled with the following declaration of the Tridentine Council : ” If anyone saith that … to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.” 6 Equally untenable is the view defended by Bellarmine,7 De Lugo,8 and Tournely,9 that Communion, as a kind of destruction, is at least a co-essential factor in the constitution of the Mass. If this were the case, then the Last s Comment, in Sent., IV, disk 13, dixerit, … quod offerri non sit qu. 2, art. x: Mors Christi non alind quom nobis Christum ad man’ repraesentaiur in consecrations ; imo ducandum dari, anathema sit. consecratur, ut immoletur, dum con- 7 De Eucharistia, IV, 27. sumitur; nam ilia est mortis et SDe Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect 5 sepulturae Christi effigies, Et in sq. sumptione sanguinis adhibetur imago 9 De Eucharistia, qu. 8, art. 2, effusionis eius.” concl. 4. • Sess. XXII, can. x: “Si quis 344 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE Supper would have been a true sacrifice only on condition that Christ had given Communion to Himself as well as to His Apostles. For this, however probable it may appear, we have absolutely no evidence. Moreover, the celebrant of the Mass does not receive Communion as the representative of Christ, but in his own person and for his own personal benefit. Nevertheless, the consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, though a kind of destruction, does not satisfy the demand of these theologians, because the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant, whilst the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial, but not the sacrificial death of Christ.10 b) We have shown that the Communion of the priest does not belong to the essence of the sacrifice. It does belong, however, to its integrity. a) The Communion of the priest marks the completion of the sacrifice. It is a strict ecclesiastical precept,11 embodied in the rubrics of the Roman Liturgy, that in case the Mass is interrupted by sudden illness on the part of the celebrant, some other priest, even though not fasting, shall, if possible, “complete” the Holy Sacrifice by consuming the species. P) There can be no perfect sacrifice of the unbloody kind without a sacrificial banquet. Consequently, the Communion of the priest belongs to the integrity of the Mass.12 10 For a fuller discussion of this 11 Cfr. Decret. Grat.t De Contheory see Billot, De Ecclesxae So- seer., dist. a, c. n. cramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 558 12 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa sqq., Rome 1907. TheoL, 3a, qu. 82, art. 4. y) If the Communion of the priest does not belong to the essence of the Mass, much less does that of the faithful. Therefore so-called “private Masses,” at which the priest alone communicates, are not only valid but lawful, as the Tridentine Council has expressly defined.18 The contention of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia, that participation in the sacrifice is essential to the sacrifice, and that consequently no private Mass is valid unless the attending faithful make at least a ” spiritual communion,” was condemned as false and savoring of heresy by Pius VI.14 3. The Double Consecration as the Physical Essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. — After eliminating the Offertory and Communion, there remains the Consecration as that part of the Mass in which the true sacrificial character must be sought, a) The Mass has three chief constituent parts: the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Communion. If, as we have demonstrated, the sacrifice is not in the Offertory, nor in the Communion, it must necessarily be in the Consecration. In matter of fact, that part of the Mass alone can be regarded as the proper sacrificial act, which is such by Christ’s own institution. Now our Lord’s words: “This is my Body, this is my Blood,” are embodied in the Consecration.15 lSSess. XXII, can. 8: Si quis 14 In the dogmatic Bull * Auedixerit, Missas, in quibus solus sa- torem Fidei, A. D. 1794. (Dencerdos sacrament aliter eommunicat, zinger-Bannwart, n. 1528). illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas, 15 V. supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, Art. anatfvema sit.” (Denzinger«Bann- a. wart, a. 995) 346 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE Moreover, from the dogmatic teaching of Trent 16 that no one but a priest can validly say Mass, it follows that the sacrifice must be contained in some act which the priest alone can perform. This is the Consecration. Consequently, the power of consecrating is identical with the power of offering the Holy Sacrifice. This clearly appears from the Roman Liturgy. In ordaining a candidate to the priesthood, the bishop bestows on him the ” potestas offerendi sacrificium,” without mentioning the ” potestas consecrandi.” Hence the two faculties must be identical. The same conclusion can be deduced from the dogmatic teaching of the Church 17 that Christ is the “sacerdos principalis” of the Mass and the human minister merely plays a secondary role. It follows that the sacrifice must occur in that particular portion of the Liturgy in which the priest assumes the personal part of Christ. This he does at the Consecration, when he utters the words : ” This is my Body, this is my Blood.” 18 The teaching here espoused is strongly favored by the Fathers 19 and the great majority of the Schoolmen. St. Thomas says : ” The sacrifice of this Sacrament is offered [to God] by the Consecration.” 20 b) While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of sacrifice, the necessity of a twofold Consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. a) Christ said at the Last Supper, after consecrating both bread and wine: “Do this for a commemoration 16 Seas. XXII, can. 2. it V. supra, Art. i, No. 2. 18 Cfr. St Thomas, Sumtna Theol., 3&1 qu. 82, art 1. 19 See Vasquez, Comment, in S. Theol., Ill, disp. 212, sect 5. 20 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 10: “Consecration* huius sacramenti {Deo} jacrificium ofiertur,” ESSENCE OF THE MASS 347 of me.” It is extremely probable that this mandate referred to the validity, and not merely to the licitness, of the sacrificial action. Moreover, the Mass, as a relative sacrifice, is essentially a representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Jesus suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar. This condition is fulfilled only by the double Consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and Blood in the state of separation and thus represents the mystical shedding of the Blood. It is this consideration that suggested to the Fathers the idea, which was adopted into some liturgies, of the double Consecration as a two-edged “mystical sword.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: ” Hesitate not to pray for me, … when with bloodless stroke thou separatest the Body and Blood of the Lord, employing speech as a sword.” 21 P) Henriquez, Bosco, Frassen, Henno, and other theologians, mostly of the Scotist persuasion, as well as a few modern authors (Rohling,22 Schouppe, Stentrup, and Fr. Schmid23) hold that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. St. Alphonsus 24 regards this opinion as probable, but inclines to the one we have adopted as ” communior et probabilior.” To-day, because of the weight of the arguments brought in its favor, and the authority of its defenders, our theory may safely be regarded as “pro21 Ep., 171 [240] ad Amphil. 23 In the Innsbruck Zeitschrift (Migne, P. C, XXXVII, 282). fur kath. Theohgie, 1892, pp. 97 22 A. Rohling, Miscell Euchari- sqq. stica, in the Mayence Katholik, 24 TheoU Moral., tr. 31, c a, art. S868, II, pp. 357 aqq. 2, qu. a. babilissima” Its opponents base their reasoning chiefly on the contention that the Sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the Sacrifice. If the Consecration of one element alone is valid, they say, we have the Sacrament, and consequently also the Sacrifice, though the celebrant is no doubt strictly bound by the law of double Consecration, from which not even the Pope may dispense. They quote St. Cyprian 25 as accusing certain priests, who for fear of persecution omitted to consecrate the chalice, not of invalidating or mutilating the sacrifice, but merely of ” ignorance and simplemindedness.” They add that it would be difficult to understand why the entire Eucharistic celebration was originally called ” f radio pants” if the conversion of the bread alone did not essentially constitute the Sacrifice of the Mass. Needless to say, these arguments do not shake our thesis. 2*Ep., 63, n. 17.