Peter Lombard treats of the sacrifice of the Eucharist only in barest outline (Sententim, book iv., dist. 12 and 13). He says that the "sacrament of the Eucharist" is a "sacrifice" and that Christ "is offered repeatedly." The " daily offering " is a "reminiscence [recordatio] of the sacri fice which was made" and as such is a "memorial and representation of the tieians. true sacrifice." It is difficult to realize Thomas what the Scholastics and the Fathers before them mean by "representation" and "memorial." Sometimes they contrast the "representation" and the "truth," sometimes they understand the "representation " as a special part of the " truth." As concerns the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass, Peter says that it brings about the " remission of venial sins" and the "perfection of virtue." Albertus Magnus follows Peter, but far surpasses him in the subtilty of his questions and answers. Thomas Aquinas assumes that the distinction between sacrifice and sacrament is settled and known to everybody, but in the sense that the Eucharist has two sides, not two parts. He sometimes refers to the distinction to remove difficulties, and when he finds it difficult to distinguish the two sides of the Eucharist he says that they are separated, not actually, but logically.
Thomas attempts no systematic exposition of the Eucharist, but in part iii. of the Summa theotogiea, questions 7383 (Parma ed., vol. iv. 332-403), he considers all queries concerning it, ritual and disciplinary as well as dogmatic, which arose in his own mind, and gives definitions of terms and concepts. He propounds, in question 73, the fundamental question whether the Eucharist is a sacrament. In art. 1 he defines a sacrament as that which contains something sacred. A thing can be sacred either absolutely or in relation to something. The Eucharist contains something sacred absolutely, that is, the body of Christ. Consequently the sign (res) of a sacrament is given in its very matter (moreover, that which is the sign merely is in the recipient, that is, the grace which is conferred). In art. 4 the different names of the sacrament are explained. It is called a sacrifice, communion, and viaticum; the first with respect to the past, in that it is commemorative of the Lord's passion, which was a true sacrifice; the second with respect to the present, that is, the unity of the Church, into which men are gathered and united by this sacrament; the third signification has respect to the future, in that it is prefigura,
|
233 |
b. The Council of Trent and Neoecholaetic and Modern Speculations: Luther attacked the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass on two grounds: because Jesus neither performed nor instituted a sacrifice, and because he thought that it savored of salvation by works. He was preeminently successful in the circles which he influenced directly, and he jn cited the Roman Church to a new defense and j approbation of the doctrine. No earlier synodal gathering had accorded it the consideration which it received from the Council of Trent.
1. The The " most holy sacrament of the Council Eucharist " was treated here in the of Trent. thirteenth session, Oct. 11, 1551, and the "sacrifice of the mass," as though it were a wholly different thing, in the twenty-second session, more than a decade later, Sept. 17, 1562. The thirteenth session sanctioned a conception which had long prevailed, that the sacri fice was not an act of the congregation, but of the priests for the congregation. In the decree of the twenty-second session it was declared that Christ had performed and instituted a sacrifice to " repre sent "the sacrifice of the cross, so that the" mem ory "of the latter should endure" to the end of the world "and its" salutary effect might be applied to the remission of the sins which we commit daily" (canon i.; the thought is explained further in canon ii.). The expressions "sacrifice," "offer," and "represent" are used as equivalent. The sacrifice is not a new suffering of Christ, the " sacri ficing " is not renewed, but Christ once sacrificed is daily brought before God as such in his real essence. The " victim " (hostia) is " one and the same " on the cross and in the mass, and the "one who offers" is the same, only the "manner" is different, there bloody, here in the form of bread and wine, formerly by Christ without a mediary, now by the mediation of the "ministry of priests." The effect is also the same and the sacrifice of the mass is " truly pro pitiatory "; those who participate under the neces sary conditions (faith, reverence, etc.) draw near to God, receive " mercy and grace," and " great crimes and sins" are remitted to them. A quali fication, which has in view the sacrament of penance, is noteworthy here-in giving grace God grants only "the gift of penitence." The necessity for the sacrifice of the mass is based on two prin ciples: first that Christ would not have his " priest hood " terminated " by death " but would " re main " in function what he was, and secondly that the " nature of man " requires a " visible " memorial of the sacrifice on the cross. The catechism ordered by the council and issued by Pius V. in 1566 follows (questions 53 sqq.) the decisions of the Council, but with grosser forms of expression. The sacrifice in the mass appears here less representative of that on the cross than repetitive of it. There were two tendencies at work-one which strove not to obscure the cross; another (Jesuitical) which WIlyed only to exalt the mass.The last theologian whose doctrine of the mass merits detailed examination is the Jesuit cardinal, Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621). In his exposition (Bisputationes de wntroversiis Christian,, fide?.', vol. iii., Cologne, 1628) he bases the distinction between sacrament and sacrifice on transubstantiation. The sacrifice is propitiatory, "for the remission of sins," but is also effective for "all sorts of benefits." It has efficacy ex opera operato, that is, "in itself"; and the opus operawis, that is, "any goodness or devotion in him who works," at the most only strengthens the efficacy of the act. Three
|
234 |
After the Council of Trent followed the period of Neoscholasticism, in which speculation about the sacrifice of the mass was active, especially in Spain, and stated problems of which the older Scholasticism had not dreamed. The literature increased enormously. A well-ordered survey of it
8. Neo- is given by Renz, who thinks its spirit seholasti- and tendency were neither progressive cis=. nor beneficial. Discussion centered about the thought that there was a renewal of the suffering of Christ in the mass. The older Scholasticism had stood rigidly for merely a "memorial of the passion." The new conception maintained that Christ was actually present suffering and dying, at least "in some sort of manner." The way was prepared for the new idea by Hosius, the Dominican Melchior Cano (professor in Salamanca; d. 1560), and others. Cuesta, bishop of Leon and a member of the Council of Trent (d. 1562), and Gaspar do Casal, bishop of Coimbra (d. 1587), first made it a definite theory. Renz designates the doctrine of Cuesta as the "mactation" theory and that of Caaal as the " mortification " theory. The former speaks of a " true separation " of the blood from the body of Christ in the Eucharist. " The mass is a sacrifice for this reason, because Christ in a certain way dies and is sacrificed [macWur] by the priest." He is actually " slaughtered " after the manner of animal sacrifice " by virtue of the sacrament," so far as the consecration of the bread has to do "only" with his body and that of the wine "only" with his blood and thus separates one from the other. According to Casal, Christ is in the bread not in his "natural" form and being. He can exercise spiritual functions in the sacramental form, but not the "bodily" ones of seeing, hearing, etc. In entering the sacrament he destines his body "for consumption." Could he die again he would be killed through being consumed. It is a sort of "killing" that he now, when exalted, subjects himself in the sacrament to limitations of space, which are opposed to his real existence. Cuesta's theory was carried farther by the English Cardinal William Allen (q.v.), and the Jesuits Lessius (d. in Lou- vain 1623), Hurtado (a member of the Collegium Complutense in the 17th cent.), and Cornelius a Lapide (q.v.; d. in Rome 1637). The Dominicans adopted it, and among them Gonet (d. in Bordeaux 1681), Natalis Alexander (d. in Paris 1724), and Gotti (d. in Faenza 1742) were noteworthy advocates of it. On the other hand it found opponents, like Mattha'us Galenus (van der Galen), one of the early teachers in Douai, who declared both Cuesta's and Casal's theories absurdities. For him the chief point was that the bread and the wine are so changed in the consecration that they are better adapted to honor God and express our thanks in the offering. He voices a reaction of the idea of communion against that of sacrifice and represents a tendency which has never wholly died out. Bellarmine brought forward a modification of the mortification (Canal's) theory, which has been called the "destruction " theory. Its essential idea is that the communion of the priest is the real " completion" of the sacrifice. The Carmelites, especially the so-called Salamancans (the authors of a Cursus theologucus in fourteen volumes published at long intervals at Salamanca, Lyons, and Madrid from 1631 on), advocated this theory, as did also, with some modifications, Malderus (van Malderen), bishop of Antwerp (d. 1633), and the Jesuit John of Lugo, professor in Valladolid and Rome (d. 1660). No form of destruction-mortification theory, however, attained general acceptance, nor did the mactation theory fare better.Neoscholasticism flourished at the end of the sixteenth century and in the first half of the seventeenth. Then the Jesuits sought to reconcile the conflicting ideas. Representative theologians of the time and tendency were Jacobus Platel, professor in Douai (d. 1681); Thomas Holzklau,
4. Later professor at Würzburg (d. 1783); and and Present Honor6 Tournely, professor at the
Theories. Sorbonne (d. 1729). St. Alfonso Liguori (d. 1781) held essentially with Bellarmine. No one attempted an independent theory in the eighteenth century except the Spanish Jesuit, Cardinal Alvarez Cienfuegos (d. 1739), who developed the mortification theory to its most ex treme form. The nineteenth century witnessed a revival of the older scholastic ideas, while at the same time the later Scholasticism continued influ ential. The Roman Church had its period of "en lightenment" and a noteworthy tendency of it is what Renz calls the " theory of the continuance of the sacrificial act on the cross." The " school " which advocates this theory was founded by Jakob Frint, professor in Vienna, afterward bishop of St. Polten (d. 1834). Its best-known representative was J. A. Mohler (d.1838), who expounds the theory in his Symbolik, § 34 (Eng. transl., pp. 235-249). The Church may be regarded figuratively as the ever living Christ, whose atoning and redemptive work it repeats. Christ himself acts in all sacraments. " If then Christ, hidden behind an earthly veil, develops further to the end of the world his entire activity begun on earth, he necessarily pre sents himself constantly to the Father as sacri fice for men; and the abiding real representation hereof can not fail in the Church, if the complete|
235 |
historic Christ is to celebrate in it his constant presence." The Church " substituted " the euoharistic Christ for the historic at his own command; " the former is now taken for the latter, because the latter is also the former." So " the eucharistic Savior "too" is to be regarded as the sacrifice for the sins of the world," and all the more because the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, rightly and exactly expressed, is only a part of an organic whole. It was only one form of his love. " And who will venture the assertion that the eucharistic humiliation of the Son of God is not also a part of the sum total of his merit which is imputed to us?" To the liturgical form of the sacrifice Möhler attached no importance. " Faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the foundation of the entire conception of the mass; without that presence the Lord's Supper is a mere memorial of the selfimmolating Christ . . . . With faith in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, the past becomes the present." Christ is *present then as " what he actually is and in the full comprehension of his services-in a word, as a real sacrifice." The theory of Frint and M61Iler has been accepted, more or less completely, by many eminent Roman Catholic theologians-among others by Hirscher, Klee, Veith, Probst, Döllinger, and especially Professor Thalhofer of Munich. On the other hand, the Jesuits J. Perrone (d. 1878) and J. B. Franzelin follow respectively Vasquez and John of Lugo. Gihr now inclines to the latter, although earlier he preferred Vasquez. The Redemptorist J. Herrmann advocates Bellarmine's theory. M. J. Scheeben, professor in Cologne (d. 1888), revived the Augustinian view of the body of Christ. Schwane, Schell, and Schanz attempt restatements of the Möhler-Thalhofer theory. F. S. Renz, professor at Breslau, the most learned historian of the subject and the latest writer upon it, declares that " the presence of the res externs, which represents Christ's death, suffices for the mass, and there is no proper actio aacrificialis, because it is not an independent sacrifice, but a function pointing to an independent sacrifice." In the spirit.of the Fathers he aims, on the one hand, to simplify the doctrine of the mass, on the other hand, to render it more profound, and in summing up. results he ascribes to the thoughts of Augustine an abiding value and truth which he finds elsewhere only in the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent.
II. The Liturgy.-1. Development of the Roman
Mass to Gregory I.: The oldest notices of Christian
worship in Rome are found in the First Epistle of
Clement. It shows that the service followed the Old
Testament model in having a certain fixed order
(xl., xli.), and that the Trisagion from
1. The
First Three
from
Centuries. Eucharist in Rome at the end of the first century (xxxiv.). It may be in ferred that a prayer like that known later as the
"preface prayer" preceded the act of communica
ting. The long prayer in chaps. lix.-ha. is gener
ally assumed to have been the common " church
prayer" of Rome, and, in any case, gives a clear
conception of the manner of prayer in the Roman
"Word-service" (the morning assembly to hear the Word in distinction from the Eucharist, which took place in the evening; see Eucharist, § 1). Both epistles of Clement give substantial hints of the preaching of the time (of. E. von Dobschfitz, Die urchristlichen Geemeinden, Leipsic, 1902, p. 147); there is a certain fixation and tendency to formalism, the spirit of order having taken the place of the earlier enthusiasm. Prayers and addresses are ascribed to definite officials. At what point in the service the long prayer was inserted is not known; very possibly it followed the homily. Scripture-reading can not have been lacking. In general the Christian service was alike in the East and the West about 100, and that Rome did not differ from the East fifty years later may, perhaps, be shown by the fact that the Roman Bishop Anicetus allowed Polyoarp of Smyrna, who was in Rome in 155, to celebrate the Eucharist. The Shepherd of Hermas witnesses to an evening service about 150 (Simil. IX., xi. 7), and seems to know of another in which charismatic revelations were tolerated (cf. Von Dobschiltz, ut sup., 23 sqq., 235). It says nothing of the Eucharist. The most important step in the development of the Christian service into the mass had certainly been taken by 150; the Word-service and the celebration of the Eucharist had been combined in Rome at any rate on Sundays (Justin, 1 APol., lxv.-lxvii.; see Eucharist, § 1). According to Justin this combined service was opened with reading of the Gospels and the Prophets by the lector, lasting while the congregation was assembling. Then the proestas made an address, and the church prayer mentioned above followed, including a petition for the authorities, for enemies, and for all men (1 APol., xiv., xvii.; Trypho, cxcxiii., xcvi., xxxv.). The kiss of peace came next, and then bread, wine, and water were brought. The proestas offered a long, free prayer of praise and thanks. giving, which probably included the Trisagion and words of institution, the congregation responded " amen,'; and the deacon administered the sacra. ment. The next witness (the Canons of Hippolytus, provided they are genuine), two generations later, shows another step in the development of the mass in that the sermon has been omitted from the intro. ductory Word-service in the combined service (xxxvii., xxvi.). The order of a eucharistic service in the time of Hippolytus may be reconstructed as follows: Scripture-reading by the lectors " till the whole congregation is assembled"; the long church prayer by the bishop (xxxvii., cf. xix.), probably beginning with a general confession (ii.); the kiss of peace (xviii.) and the offertory, the givers being probably named. After the offerings have been blessed the preface begins, introduced by responsory formulas between bishop and congregation, The. succeeding prayer probably included the Trissagion and the words of institution, and the Epiklesis (q.v.) can not have been lacking. The presbyter or bishop administered the sacrament, the deacon only exceptionally. The congregation advanced to the "table of the body and blood of the Lord," and the formula of distribution was " this is the body, the blood, of Christ." The recipient answered "amen." The conclusion was doubtless a prayer of
|
236 |
The first factor in the development of the mass in the centuries immediately following is the dominance of the Latin tongue in divine service. Opinions differ as to when the Latin displaced the Greek (cf. P. Kleinert, Zur Kultus- and Kulturgeschichte,
p. 30, Berlin, 1889; F. Probst, Abend2. The ldndische Messe vom 6. bis zum S. Jahr Fourth and hunderte, pp. 5-6, Münster, 1896; J.
Fifth Watterieh, Konsekrationsmement, pp. Centuries. 131-132, 267 sqq., Heidelberg, 1896;F. Kattenbusch, Symbol, ii. 131, Leipsic, 1897; G. Rietschel, Liturgik, i. pp. 337-38, Berlin, 1900; Steinacker in Festschrift Theodor Gomperz dargebracht, pp. 324 sqq., Vienna, 1902). But the Greek certainly lasted into the fourth century, and no doubt there was a time when Greek and Latin services were held side by side in Rome and the two tongues were even employed in the same service. With the use of Latin came a shortening of the prayers corresponding to the more concise character of the Latin language. A second factor was the disappearance of the arcani disciplina (q.v.), whereby the fusion of the two forms of service became complete, and a third was the influence of the bishops of Rome. It was they who gave the mass its form. Little is known of the details of their changes in the liturgy, but it is certain that they brought foreign usages to Rome and gave to the prayers of the service a local and incidental character under the influence of the church year. The adaptation of the mass to the church year---& vital deviation from the Eastern liturgy-must have been completed in Rome in the fourth century, although Probst (Liturgic des 4. Jahrhunderts, pp. 445 sqq., Münster, 1893) goes too far when he ascribes it to Pope Damasus I. (366-384). A famous letter of Innocent I. to Bishop Decentius of Eugubium (Gubbio) shows that by 416 the kiss of peace had been transposed to the end of the canon, and that the present rubrics xxxiii.-xxxvii. were lacking in the time of Innocent. The same letter also shows that the "names" were now read in Rome in the canon, contrary to the usage of Milan, Spain, Gaul, almost the entire East, and earlier Roman custom. The mass in Rome in the time of Innocent I. (beginning of 5th cent.) may be reconstructed as follows: I. Mass of the catechumens: (1) epistle (rubric viii.); (2) gradual and hallelujah (ix.); (3) gospel (x.); (4) sermon; (5) dismissal; (6) mediatory prayer. II. Mass of the faithful: (1) offertory (rubric xii.); (2) secret (offertory prayer, xvii.); (3) preface with sanctus (xviii.); (4) prayer introductory to the words of institution (xxii. and xxiii.); (5) words of institution (xxiv.); (6) anamnesis (xxv.); (7) epildesis
(in place of xxvi., xxvii., and xixa.); (8) prayer of intercession with reading of the diptychs (xixb, xx., xxi., xxviii., xxix.); (9) kiss of peace; (10) commu nion (xxxvii.); (11) Lord's prayer (xxxi.); (12) postcommunion (xxxix.); (13) blessing; (14) dis missal (Its, missa est, xxxix.). This mass, differing materially from the present (cf. P. Drews, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der römischen Messe, Tübingen, 1902), is that of the Syrian liturgy (latter part of the fourth century) as it can be recon structed from Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom (cf. F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern. and Western, i., Oxford, 1896, pp. 464 sqq., 470 sqq.), somewhat shortened and slightly transposed. In the fifth century greater changes were made. According to the Liber pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i. 230, 239, 263), Celestine I. (422-432) made the service begin with psalm-singing antiphonally by two choirs, Leo I. (440-61) added the closing words sanctum sacri f cium, immaculatam hostiam to the prayer in the canon supra qua; (rubric xxvi.), and Symmachus (498-514) ordered the daily use of the " Gloria in' excelsis." It was certainly in this period that the canon received essentially its present form, probably from Gelasius I. (492-496; cf. Drews, ut sup., 34 sqq.) and perhaps after a Milanese model. After Gelasius the formulas of dismissal were omitted, also the mediatory prayer in the mass of the catechumens, the epiklesis was dropped, and the great prayer of intercession was shortened so that the present rubrics xix.-xxi., xxviii., and xxix. are but remnants. Gregory I. (d. 604) undertook no very important changes apart from his revision and restoration of certain prayers and his reform of the music. The order of the mass in his time was substantially as follows: I. Introduction: (1) introit (rubric ii. in the Sacramentarium Gregorianum, iv. of the present mass); (2) kyrie (iii., v.); (3) gloria (iv., vi.); (4) collect (v., viii.). II. Mass of the catechumens: (5) epistle (vi., viii.); (6) psalm with hallelujah (vii., ix.); (7) gospel (viii., x.); (8) exclusion of penitents (Dialogus ii., 23); (9) offertory (ix.-x., xii.); (10) secret (xi., xvii.). III. Mass of the faithful: (11) preface with sanctus (xi.=xii., xviii.); (12) canon (xii.-xxiii., xix.-xxx.); (13) Lord's prayer (xxiv., xxxi.); (14) embolism (xxv: xxvi., xxxvi.); (15) kiss of peace (xxxiv.); (16) communion (xxxviii.); (17) posteommunion and Oratio super populum (xxxix.); (18) Its, missa est (xaxix.).The history of the Roman mass shows that the popes felt themselves in no way bound to the traditional liturgical forms and altered them with great freedom. The changes made in the mass in Rome during the first five or six centuries have no parallel in ancient church history unless it be in similar alterations of the ritual of baptism. The reasons for these changes, unfortunately, are not known.
The oldest Roman sacramentaries and ordinaries are:
(1) The Sacramentarium Leonianum (so called because some of its prayers are evidently modeled after sermons of Leo
1.), preserved in a single Veronese manuscript of the seventh century. It appears to be a private colleo
S. Thetion, made by a layman, not an official or
Sources. semi-official book. Feltoe (Sacr. Leon., Cambridge, 1896, pp. xv.-xvi.) thinks that it is an original manuscript; Duchesne (Ordpinee. P. 132, Paris, 1898) that it is a copy, the original dating between 538 and 590. It certainly contains very old prayers.
|
237 |
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |