took place when the words of institution were uttered, as is indicated by the Elevation of the Host; in fact, this rite was introduced at the time of the Berengarian controversy, in order to mark the instant of the consecration. For the reason that we have mentioned, there is no dogmatic doubt on the matter; but there is an historical controversy of no small interest as to what was the belief of St. Basil and other Eastern Fathers.

If the Roman rite is studied, four actions will be found which have been considered essential to the Sacrifice: the Consecration under the two species, the subsequent oblation which follows immediately after the Consecration of the Chalice, the breaking of the Sacred Host when a small portion is placed in the Precious Blood, and lastly the Communion of the priest. All these are certainly integral parts, the omission of any one of which maims the rite, but we hold that the first only is essential. The second is an act of prayer which does not deal with the Victim of the sacrifice, but may be repeated even when the whole ceremony is over; moreover, it was not used by Christ when instituting the Eucharist, nor has it always been in use in the Church. The third also was not used by Christ, and therefore is not essential.

As to the Communion of the priest, there is rather more difficulty, for it is most probable that Christ received His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper. But it is to be observed that the Communion of the priest is a private benefit to

him personally, and does not affect others; also, the ceremonial consumption of a victim supposes the sacrifice to be completed. Still further, the mere receiving makes no change in the consecrated Elements, beyond removing them from place to place; and the change that occurs afterwards (n. 716) cannot be spoken of as a Sacrifice, for it is no exercise of the will of the priest. The Communion may be taken mystically to represent the burial of Christ, and the burial implies the Death; but the Sacrifice is the mystic Death itself.

It remains, therefore, that the essence of the Sacrifice is found in the double consecration, in which all that is needed has place. By force of the words, the Body of Christ is under the species of bread, and the Blood of Christ under the species of wine, and thus Christ is exhibited as dead, and in a state where He can be used as Food and Drink.

The above doctrine is that which approves itself to a large number of theologians, but it must not be regarded as absolutely certain; we have no express definition of the Church upon the subject. One consequence must be noticed as seeming to follow. If a priest, saying Mass, pronounced the appointed words over the Host, that Host is consecrated, and the consecration remains, even though sudden death or other cause prevent that priest from consecrating the Chalice. But the Sacrifice will not have been offered, for there has been no mystic representation of the Death of Christ. This priest had, as we assume, the intention of perform

ing the double Consecration, and of sacrificing, nor does the unforeseen frustration of this intention vitiate it. But suppose a priest begin the ceremony with the intention of consecrating bread alone, and not wine, he might utter the words over the bread, but they would be void of effect, for this priest would not have the intention of doing what the Church does (n. 683); he would not intend to offer the Sacrifice. It need not be said that he would be guilty of a most wicked sacrilege.

We may mention the view held by De Lugo, Franzelin, and many others, that the essence of the Sacrifice is found in this, that Christ exhibits Himself shorn of visible Humanity, and reduced to a state in which He can be united to His people as Food and Drink. This result would be found if bread alone were consecrated, or wine alone; but it is to be observed that the Divine ordinance requires the double Consecration, and there is no true Sacrifice, except when this ordinance is observed. The solitary Consecration might have been the Sacrifice, had God so pleased, but, in fact, He has not so pleased.

It is to be observed that in all Masses, the Victim is Christ our Lord, and that He is also the Chief Priest, acting by the hands and lips of His human minister. All Masses are, therefore, so far one Sacrifice with the Sacrifice that was offered on the altar of the Cross on Calvary; at the same time, it may be said that there are many Sacrifices, if we look to the sacrificial action which is repeated.

733. Recapitulation.-This important chapter has explained the nature of Sacrifice, and has given proof of the doctrine of the Church that in the Mass a true Sacrifice is offered to God; and something has been said as to two among the various opinions held by theologians concerning the essence of the Mass.

CHAPTER V.

THE EFFECTS OF THE MASS.

734. Subject of the Chapter.—In this chapter we shall set forth some points of established doctrine concerning the ends for which the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered; and then some remarks will be made on certain questions concerning the value, the fruit, and the efficacy of the rite.

It will be observed that since the Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice, we must distinguish the effects of the Sacrament (n. 721), which are confined to those who receive It, and the effects of the Sacrifice, which, as we shall see, extend both to all who in any way join in offering It, and also to those for whom It is offered. There are many speculative points connected with this matter as to which theologians are not agreed.

735. Worship.-Every Sacrifice is a protestation of God's supreme dominion and man's dependence on Him (n. 728), and is therefore an act of worship; and this worship is absolute latria, such as is offered to God alone. It is a particular mode in which prayer is made. (n. 607.) The first and principal end for which the Sacrifice is offered is that it should be an act of this worship.

T

VOL. III.