Part II Chapter I §1: Christ's Death a True Sacrifice

Part II: The Three Offices of the Redeemer

Chapter I: Christ’s Priesthood

§1: Christ’s Death a True Sacrifice

PART II THE THREE OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER The Redemption, considered as an objective fact, must be subjectively appropriated by each individual human being. Hence three functions or offices on the part of our Divine Redeemer, ( i ) that of High Priest, (2) that of Prophet or Teacher, and (3) that of King. no CHAPTER I Christ’s priesthood! SECTION i Christ’s death a true sacrifice The present Chapter is chiefly concerned with demonstrating, ( I ) that the death of Christ was a true sacrifice, and (2) that He Himself was a true priest. It is these facts which give to the Redemption its sacerdotal and hieratic stamp and furnish us with the key to the philosophy of the atonement. 1. Definition of the Term “Bloody Sacrifice.”— A sacrifice is “the external offering up of a visible gift, which is destroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate transformation, by a lawful minister in recognition of the sovereignty of God and in order to appease His anger.” a) This definition, which will be more fully explained in the dogmatic treatise on the Holy Eucharist, embraces four essential elements : (a) A visible gift and its physical or moral destruction or transformation, such as the slaughtering of an in animal, the burning of cereals, the pouring out of a fluid, etc. (P) A lawful minister or priest who offers the gift to God. (y) An exterior act of worship, consisting in the physical presentation of the gift. (8) A final end or object, which is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and the appeasement of His anger. Applying the Scholastic distinction between materia and forma, we find that the materia remota of a sacrifice is the visible gift itself, its materia proxima, the act of destruction or transformation, and its forma, the sacrificial act {actio sacrifica), which combines and unifies both the external offering of the visible gift and the intrinsic purpose for which it is offered. This intrinsic purpose or object is the main factor, because it informs and determines the external act, just as the human soul informs and determines the body. Without a genuine intention on the part of the sacrificing priest there is no sacrifice.1 b) The twofold purpose of every sacrifice is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and the appeasement of His anger. The first of these objects is attained by adoration, the second by expiation. Adoration is the formal element of every sacrifice, i. e., that which essentially constitutes it a sacrifice in the strict sense of the term. Expiation does not enter into the essence of sacrifice, but is a merely secondary factor, because conditioned by the accidental fact of sin. Since both thanksgiving and supplication, when addressed to the Almighty, invariably and necessarily partake of the l Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 22. aae, qu. 85, art 2.

SACRIFICE 113 nature of absolute worship, sacrifices offered up for these two purposes have no relation to sin. The case is different with expiatory sacrifices. While sin has neither abolished nor debased, but rather reinforced, the main purpose of adoration, namely thanksgiving and supplication, it has added a new object which, though in itself secondary, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the Fall. These considerations explain the usual division into sacrifices of adoration (sacrificia latreutica), sacrifices of thanksgiving (sacrificia eucharistica) , sacrifices of supplication or petition (sacrificia impetratoria) , and sacrifices of expiation or propitiation (sacrificia propitiatoria) . As these four objects can never be entirely separated, the various kinds of sacrifice owe their specific appellations solely to the special emphasis laid on the principal purpose for which each is offered. c) A most important element in the concept of sacrifice is the symbolic substitution of some other creature for man. ” The gift takes the place of the giver. By sacrificing an object over which he has control, and offering it up entirely to God, man acknowledges God’s overlordship over his person and life, and it is the latter which is symbolically offered up and destroyed.” 2 This symbolism is based on the very nature of sacrifice. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign Lord of the universe has its human correlative in man’s humble subjection and surrender of himself to his Maker. The most precious gift which man has received from God is life. Since he cannot surrender this — God demands no human sacrifices — He offers it up symbolically by destroying or transforming and present2 Jos. Dahlmann, S. J., Der Idea- sophie int Zeitalter der Opfermystik, lismus der indischen Religionsphilo- p. 22, Freiburg 190 1. ii4 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER ing in his own stead some living or inanimate creature. This vicarious act assumes its deepest significance in the sacrifice of propitiation, by which, in addition to manifesting the sentiments already mentioned, man confesses his guilt and admits that he has deserved death in punishment for his sins. It is in this sense that St Thomas explains the Old Testament holocausts. ” The slaughtering of animals,” he says, ” signifies the destruction of sins and that men are deserving of death for their sins, as if those animals were killed in their stead to denote the expiation of their sins.”8 The ethical significance of sacrifice is based on this same consideration. The highest act of divine worship, coupled as it ever should be with sincere contrition and an ardent desire to be reconciled to God, cannot but elevate, cleanse, and sanctify the human heart, especially in view of the fact that God’s will to save all men and the legitimate institution of the sacrificial rite confirm human expectation and constitute a rich source of consolation. d) The Sacrifice of the Cross is not only a true sacrifice, but in contradistinction to the sacrificium incruentum (Hebrew,™?) specifically a bloody sacrifice. What constitutes the difference between the two? It cannot be the person of the lawful minister, nor yet the final object of all sacrifice (except in so far as propitiation must plainly be the prevailing motive of every bloody sacrifice). Hence we shall have to 8 5. Theol., xa zae, qu. 102, art. 3, ad 5 : ” Per occisionem animaliutn significatur destructio peccatorum et quod homines erant digni occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si ilia animalia loco eorum occiderentur ad significandatn expiationem peccatorum.’ Cfr. N. Giehr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 35 sqq., 3rd ed., St. Louis 1908. A BLOODY SACRIFICE “5 seek for the specific difference in the materia and forma. The materia remota of a bloody sacrifice, as its very name suggests, must be a living creature endowed with blood (victima, hostia). Its materia proxima is the slaying of the victim, accompanied by an effusion of the life-giving fluid (mactatio cum sanguinis effusione). In regard to the physical forma there is room for a difference of opinion, as we do not know for certain whether the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), strictly so called, is the slaying of the victim or its oblation. The latter opinion is the more probable, though not certain. First, because the act of slaying, as such, with its consequent shedding of blood, does not necessarily indicate the purpose of the sacrifice, and consequently requires a more specific determinant, i. e., the act of oblation. Secondly, because in the Mosaic sacrifice the victim was slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation of the blood was a function reserved to the lawfully appointed priesthood.4 Third, because it is impossible to assume that Christ’s bloody sacrifice on the Cross consisted in the material acts of cruelty committed by His barbarous executioners. Hence a bloody sacrifice must be defined as ” the visible oblation of a living creature, the slaying of which is accompanied by the shedding of blood, by a lawful minister, in acknowledgment of the supreme sovereignty of God, and especially to propitiate His anger.” 5 2. The Dogma. — The Church has formally defined, against the Socinians and the Rationalists, 4 Cfr. P. Scholz, Die hi. Alter- 5 Cfr. Becanus, De Triplici Sacriturner des Volkes Israel, II, 134 ficio, Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, Opusc. sqq., Ratisbon 1868. II, Lugduni 1631.

n6 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER that Christ’s vicarious atonement was a bloody sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling the human race to God (sacrificium propitiatorium.\ The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) declared against Nestorius : ” For He offered Himself up for us as an odor of sweetness to God the Father. Hence if any one say that the Divine Logos Himself was not made our High Priest 6 and Apostle … let him be anathema.” 7 The Council of Trent, in defining the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, bases its definition on the dogma that Christ’s bloody death on the Cross was a true sacrifice : “Though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father … that He might leave a visible sacrifice … whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, … He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine … [In the Mass] that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross… . For 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.” 8 7 “Obtulit enim semetipsum * pro nobis in odorem suavitatis Deo et Patri. Si quis ergo Ponfificem et Apostolum nostrum dicit factum non ipsum Dei Verbum . • ., anathema sit” Synod, Ephes., can. 10. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 122.) 8 “Etsi semel seipsum in ara crucis morte intercedente Deo Patri oblaturus erat, … ut relinqueret sacrificium, quo cruentum Mud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur, … corpus et sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit… . tin Missa] idem ille Christus • • • in* cruente immolotur, qui in ara cruets semel seipsum cruente obtulit • • . Una eademque est hostia, idem nunc offerens sac er do turn ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sold A BLOODY SACRIFICE 117 a) The Scriptural proof of our dogma is based partly on the Old and partly on the New Testament.

n8 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER V nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. IV, 13-20: “And the ancients of the people shall put their hands upon the head thereof before the Lord; and the calf being immolated in the sight of the Lord, the priest that is anointed shall carry off the blood into the tabernacle of the testimony… . And the priest praying for them, the Lord will be merciful unto them.” On the Feast of Expiation two buck goats were led up to the door of the tabernacle, and one of them was slain as a sin offering. With regard to the other the Mosaic law ordained as follows : ” Then let him [the high priest] offer the living goat: and putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins: and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony.* • What was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is explicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. XVII, 11: … the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.” The text we have previously quoted from Isaias (Is. LIII, 4 sqq.), derives its deeper significance from the sacrificial rite described by the same prophet (Is. LII, 15; LIII, 7, 10) .10 Proof of the Minor Premise. The minor premise of our syllogism can be demonstrated from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly Chapters 8 to 10. As the Old Law had but ” a shadow of the good things to • Lev. XVT, 9; XVI, 20 sqq. bauer, Erklarung des Propheten 10 Supra, p. 46. Cfr. Knaben- Isaias, Freiburg 1881. A BLOODY SACRIFICE 119 come, 11 so in particular its sacrifices merely prefigured the one great sin-offering on the Cross. Being *weak and needy elements,,, it was impossible that “the blood of oxen and goats ” should ” take away sin.” 12 The student will be able to appreciate the full force of this argument only after a careful perusal of the whole Epistle. If the Mosaic sacrifices were real and vicarious, this must be true in a far higher sense of the sacrifice of the Cross, which they foreshadowed.13 P) The argument from the New Testament is based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its explicit assertion that the typical sacrifices of the Old Law found their consummation and perfection in the one true sacrifice of the Cross. In a variety of phrases St. Paul reiterates the fundamental truth that, as priest and victim in one person, Jesus Christ by a single bloody offering atoned for the sins of men and once for all consummated their eternal salvation. To quote only a few salient passages : ” For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God,14 cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? ” 15 ” So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many.” 16 ” In nHeb. X, i. ukavrbv Tcpoa-fjyeyKev tfuapw 12 Heb. X, 4. Cfr. Gal. IV, 9. r$ Gey. isCfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- is Heb. IX, 13-14. carnoto, thes. 49, Rome 1881; Hugo 16 faa$ irpoaevexBels efc rb w\Weiss, Die tnessianischen Vorbilder Xwv dveveyKciy Afiaprlas- Heb. im Alten Testament, Freiburg 1905. IX, 28.

I the which will we are sanctified by the oblation 6i the body of Jesus Christ alone.” 17 ” But this man [Christ] offering one sacrifice for sins,18 for ever sitteth on the right hand of God.” 19 ” For by one oblation 20 he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” 21 The sacrificial character of the death of our Divine Lord is expressly inculcated in many other passages of the New Testament. Cfr. Matth. XX, 28: ” FUius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare et dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis 22 — The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.” Christ here emphasizes three momenta, viz.: sacrifice, atonement, and the vicarious character of that atonement. ” To give one’s life ” 28 is a distinctly hieratic and sacrificial term ; ” for many ” 24 denotes vicarious satisfaction, and ” redemption ” 25 indicates expiation. It follows from this important text that the expression ” for many ” or ” for all,” 26 which occurs so frequently in the New Testament, when used in connection with sacrifice means, not only ” for the benefit of many,” but also ” instead of many.” Cfr. Eph. V, 2 : ” Tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo27 in odorem suavitatis — Christ … hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” 28 1 Tim. II, 6: i7Hcb. X, xo. dickp AfULpTiwp wpoaeviy icof Ovalap* 19 Heb. X, i2. 20 fiid yhp -Kpoop^ 2jHeb. X, 14. 22 xal Bovvat r^y ypvxhv clvtov \brpop dprl ttoWwP’ 28 dovycu t^p in>xfy* M&ptI toW&p, not merely vwip toWup25 \vrpov (strictly, ransom). 26 Mp woW&p* pro multis. i ap4bwK§p iavrbp Mp iifuap wpoaopaJp xal Bvalap. 28 irpooopd here means sacrifice in general, $vala» bloody sacrifice. A BLOODY SACRIFICE 121 ” Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,29 testimonium temporibus suis — Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.” Referring to the Old Testament sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, St. Paul says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (V, 7) : * Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus — For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. The expiatory character of our Lord’s death i^ expressly asserted in Rom. Ill, 25 : “Quern proposuit Deus propitiationemzo per fidem in sanguine ipsius — Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, and likewise in the first Epistle of St. John (II, 2) : Ipse est propitiatio31 pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi — He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” 32 b) Christian Tradition has from the first faithfully adhered to the obvious teaching of HolyScripture in this matter. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which was probably composed at the time of the Emperor Nerva (A. D. 96-98), 33 contains the following passage: “For our sins he was going to offer the vessel of the spirit [i. e., His sacred humanity] as a sacrifice,34 in order that the type established in Isaac, who was sacrificed upon the altar, might be fulfilled. 35 Tertullian expresses himself in a similar strain : * Christ, who was led like a sheep to 29 6 Bob* kavrbv avrCKvrpov inrkp ir&vrwv. AvrCKvrpov here means a ransom given vicariously, by a representative. so Ikaoriipiov = a sacrifice of propitiation. si iXaovtor. 82Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21. 83 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 24. 34 fyieMc … vpoff4petp Ovetav. SSEp. Barn., c. 7, n. 3. (Ed. Funk, I, 23.) OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER the slaughtering pen, had to be made a sacrifice for all nations.” 86 3. Theological Problems. — Christ vicariously made atonement for us by immolating Himself; consequently, He is priest, acceptant, and victim all in one. This gives rise to a number of subtle theological problems, which in the main may be reduced to three: (a) Was it in His Godhead or manhood that Christ combined the double function of victim and priest? (b) In what sense did He simultaneously offer and accept the sacrifice of the Cross? (c) Wherein precisely did the actio sacrifice of His bloody sacrifice consist? a) The first question must be decided on Christological principles as follows. Th^ victim (victima, hostia) of the sacrifice of the Cross was the Godman, or, more specifically, the Divine Logos in person, though not, of course, through the functions of His Divine, but those of His human nature. To assert that the human nature of our Lord alone was sacrificed on the Cross would be equivalent to Nestorianism. To hold that it was the Godhead as such that was crucified and sacrificed, would savor of Theopaschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed WAdv. lud., c. 13. For other Genugtuung Christi, § 7-10, PaderPatristic texts bearing on this sub- born 1891. ject see Dorholt, Die Lehre von der THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 123 sacrificed (principium quod), but only according to His passible manhood (principium quo). This proposition is an immediate .deduction from the dogma of the Hypostatic Union. A similar answer may be given to the cognate question : In what way did Christ officiate as a priest? In other words, Did He offer the sacrifice of the Cross (i. e., Himself) to God in His human or in His Divine Nature? The correct answer depends on a true conception of the nature of the Hypostatic Union. Nestorius believed that Jesus Christ and the Logos-Son were two separate and distinct persons, and hence he was entirely consistent in teaching that the man Jesus alone was a high priest, to the exclusion of the Divine Logos.87 The same conclusion was forced upon the Socinians, who denied the Trinity and consequently also the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Though the Monophysites held a diametrically opposite opinion, they too were perfectly consistent in regarding the Divine Nature of Christ as the instrument of mediation, redemption, and the priesthood; for they imagined Christ’s humanity to have been absorbed and destroyed by His Divinity. We cannot, however, regard without surprise the illogical attitude of certain older Protestant divines, who, despite their orthodox teaching on the Hypostatic Union, either showed Nestorian leanings, as e. g. Francis Stancarus (d. 1574), or, like certain Calvinists and Zwinglians in Switzerland, adopted the Monophysitic view that Christ was our Mediator and High Priest qua Logos and not qua man.88 The truth lies between these extremes. The Godman was a true priest, not, however, in His divine, but solely in His human nature.89 87 Cfr. Concilium Ephes., can. 10. V. supra, p. 116. 88 For details consult Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 2-3. 89 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 22, art. 2.

b) The second question is: How are we to conceive the relation of Christ in His capacity as sacrificing priest, to Christ as the Divine Logos, to whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered? To solve this problem correctly we shall have to bear in mind the truths set forth in the first part of this treatise with regard to the mediatorship of our Lord.40 It will not do to represent the first Person of the Blessed Trinity as the sole acceptor of the sacrifice of the Cross, and Christ merely as the sacrificing priest, though this opinion has found some defenders among Catholic divines. It was the Trinity, or God qua God, who had been offended by sip ; consequently the sacrifice of the Cross had to be offered up as a propitiation to the entire Trinity. Hence Christ not only offered up the sacrifice of the Cross, but He also accepted it, though of course only in His capacity as God, conjointly with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Patristic phrase, adopted by the Council of Trent, that Christ “offered Himself unto God the Father,” must therefore be explained as an appropriation.41 From what we have said it appears that Christ exercised in a most wonderful manner three distinct functions, viz.: that of sacrificial victim, that of the sacrificing priest, and that of the accepting God. As God He accepts His own sacrifice; as Godman (or Logos) He is both victim (victima) and sacrificing priest (sacerdos), though only according to His human nature. St. Augustine 40 Supra, pp. 5 sqq. Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 244 41 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. On the sqq. Divine Appropriations see Pohle 

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS beautifully explains this in his famous work De Civitate Dei. ” And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received [accepted] sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered.” 42 c) As regards the sacrificial act itself, it did not formally consist in the killing of the victim. To hold that it did, would involve the blasphemous conclusion that the sacrificing priests on Calvary were the brutal soldiers who tortured our Lord and nailed Him to the Cross. No, the real priest was Jesus Christ Himself ; His executioners were merely unconscious instruments in the hands of Providence. * If Christ was the sacrificing priest, it follows that He alone performed the sacrificial act. This sacrificial act did not consist in self-immolation. That would have been sheer suicide. It consisted in the voluntary oblation of His Blood, which He allowed to be shed (extrinsic factor) and which He offered to Almighty God with a true sacrificial intent (intrinsic factor). It was this voluntary oblation of His life and blood 42 De Civ. Dei, X, 20. “Verus forma servi sacrificium maluit esse tile mediator, inquantum formam quatn sumere, ne vel hac occasione servi accipiens mediator effectus est quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacriDei et hominum, homo Christus ficandum esse creaturae. Per hoc e% Iesus, quum in forma Dei sacrificium sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et cum Patre sumat [accepted, cum oblatio.” (Cfr. De TriniU, IV, i4» quo et unus Deus est, tamen in 29).

(oblatio vitae et sanguinis) which constituted the formal element, and consequently the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross.48 This also explains why martyrdom is not a true sacrifice. It has not been instituted as such by God, and, furthermore, no martyr can dispose of his life and blood with the sovereign liberty enjoyed by our Lord, who had absolute control over all the circumstances surrounding His death and gave up His soul when and how He pleased.44 48 Cfr. John X, 18. gelium des hi. Johannes, pp. 511 44 Cfr. Franzclin, De Verbo In- sqq., Freiburg 1905. carnato, thes. 50; Belser, Das Evan