Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/35

 MASS

i:-t

MASS

upholders of tho luMtorii-o-rcligious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of the Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). " In the Manda;an mass ", writes Cumont (" My.sterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p. 118), "the celebrant consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian rites to the "devil" and ob- served in astonishment (De prsescript hseret, C. xl) : "Celebrat (Mithras) et panisoblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these wild creations of an overheated phantasy. Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night, as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross shoidd be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elemcTits of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass.

(a) The Physical Character of the Mass. — In regard to the phj'sical character there arises not only the (|Uestion as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the ques- tion regarding the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter ques- tion as much the more important, Catholics and believ- ing Protestants alike acknowledge that as Christians we venerate in the bloody .sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world. And this indeed is true in a double sense; first, because among all the sacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality antl unity in itself; second, because every grace, means of grace and sacri- fice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and efficacy singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the Cross. The first consideration implies that all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, as well as the Sacrifice of the Mass, bear the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are necessarily related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second consideration it follows that all other sacrifices, the Mass included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and so long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due to the suffering) of the Crucified. Let us deal briefly with this double relationship.

Regarding the qualification of relativity, which ad- heres to every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of the Cross, there is no doubt that the sacrifices of the Old Testament by their figurative forms and prophetic sig- nificance point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle to the Hebrews (viii-x) in particular develops grandly the figurative character of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Not only was the Levitic priesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint type of the high priesthood of Christ; but the complex sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured the one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal "cleansing of the fle.sh" the Levitical sacrifices could effect no true "for- giveness of sins"; by their very ineSicacy however they point prophetically to the perfect sacrifice of propitiation on Golgotha. Just for that reason their continual repetition as well as their great diversity was essential to them, as a means of keeping alive in the Jews the yearning for the true sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring. This longing was sati- ated only by the single Sacrifice of the Cross, which was never again' to be repeated. Naturally the Mass, too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice, must be in accord with this inviolable rule, no longer indeed as a type prophetic of future things, but rather

as the living realization, representation and renewal of the past. Only the Last Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfihnent, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an.anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of the body " and the "shedding of the Blood " were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at the Last Sup- per would be inconceivable. The Fathers of the Church, such as Cyprian (Ep., Lxiii, 9, ed. Hartel, II, 708), Ambrose (De ofEc, I, xlviii), Augustine (Contra Faust., XX, xviii) and Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, Iviii), insist that the Mass in its essential nature must be that which Christ Himself characterized as a "com- memoration " of Him (Luke, xxii, 19) and Paul as the "showing of the death of the Lord" (I Cor., xi, 26).

Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its single- ness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemp- tion" (Heb., ix, 12). This does not mean that man- kind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken of by Paid can therefore refer only to the objective side of redcmiitioii, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary rec|uires, the proper sul)jective disposi- tion. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters; but those who thirst after justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objec- tive and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfor- tunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a " denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view; for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice, exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of sac- rifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced.

The only distinction between the Mass and the sac- rament lies in this: that the latter applies to the indi- vidual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific offering. In both, the Ciiurch draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one Sun, that gives life, light, and warmth to everything; the sacraments and the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the cen- tral body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is anni- hilated not one whit less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as, conceivably, the sun without the planets. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the reproach that "the Mass is a blasphemy against or a derogation from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 9.51). Must not the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments also? Does it not apply to baptism and communion among Protestants? And how can ChrisI Himself put blas- phemy and darkness in the way of His S.iirificcr on the Cross when He Himself is the High Priest, in whose name and by whose commission His human represen- tative offers sacrifice with the words: "This is my Body, this is my Blood"? It is the express teaching