MESSA

MASS. — It is the sacrifice of the New Law, in which, under sacramental species, the same victim of Calvary, Jesus Christ, is offered to acknowledge God’s supreme dominion and to apply to the faithful the merits acquired on the Cross.

The word *missa* is equivalent to *missio* (= “dismissal”); analogous cases occur in *offensa-offensio*, *collecta-collectio*, *oblata-oblatio* (cf. Ch. Du Cange, s. V. in *Glossarium*, ed. L. Favre, V. Paris 1938, p. 412). From the 4th century the rite of dismissing the catechumens before the Offertory gave its name to the entire complex of ceremonies in which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is carried out. St Augustine explicitly refers to the ritual dismissal with the word *missa*: “Ecce post sermonem fit missa catechumenis, manebunt fideles” (Sermo 49, 8: PL 38, 324). St Ambrose may have been the first to use the term *missa* in its current sense (Ep. 20, 4: PL 16, 995). Other common explanations of the term MASS appear unfounded (cf. K. Kellner, *L’anno ecclesiastico*, Italian trans. by A. Mercati, Rome 1914, pp. 73–80; G. Brinktrine, *La S. M.*, Italian trans. by G. Sölch and A. Pintonello, 1914, pp. 11–12; G. F., *Quel est le sens étymologique du mot Messe: revuoi ou repos sacré?*, in *L’ami du clergé*, 59 [1949], pp. 293–95). The Greeks denote the altar sacrifice as *mystagogia* (“mystical action”), *leitourgia* (“sacred action”), or *dēmosia* (“public action”).

Summary:

I. The MASS in dogmatic theology

II. The MASS in moral theology and canon law

III. The MASS in the liturgy of the Eastern rite

IV. The MASS in the liturgy of the Eastern rite

The chants of the MASS.

I. The MASS in dogmatic theology.

Summary:

I. The sacrificial character of the MASS

II. The nature of the Sacrifice of the MASS

III. The MASS in the economy of salvation.

I. The sacrificial character of the MASS

1. Errors

The exaggerated spiritualism of medieval sects resulted in a decisive denial of the MASS as a sacrificial rite. Already at the Council of Arras (1023), Gerard, CAMBIO (v.), condemned “a new sect of heretics” that, rejecting the entire sacramental system, also denied the sacrificial character of the Eucharist (PL 142, 1271–78). In the following century Peter of Bruis was stigmatized by Peter the Venerable as a denigrator of the Christian people, whom he deprived of the glory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (*Contra Petrobrusianos*: PL 189, 787–89).

At the beginning of the 13th century the Albigensians formulated their denial in a concise phrase, reported by Durandus, mainly in the Laurentian Oriental manuscript 387 written at Merdin in 1299, the British Museum add. 7170 of 1216–20, and the Vatican Syriac 559 executed in 1220 at the monastery of Mar Matrai: “Neither Christ nor the Apostles instituted it (the MASS)” (*Rationale divinorum officiorum*, IV, 1, Lyon 1672, p. 88). The Council of Constance condemned a proposition in which Wycliffe condensed the medieval denials: “It is not founded in the Gospel that Christ ordained the MASS” (Denz-U, 585).

In the 16th century the Protestants, in their undisguised desire to overthrow the chief bulwark of the papacy (“Triumphata Missa, puto nos totum Papam triumphare”: *Luther Werke*, ed. Weimar, X b, p. 220), advanced specious biblical arguments to shake faith in the divine origin of the MASS. Luther seized upon the word *testamentum* used by Christ at the Last Supper: “For when Christ established the testament, He did not offer it to God the Father” (*De captivitate babylonica*, ed. Weimar, VI, p. 523). Melanchthon, starting from the clause in Heb 10:14, “By one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” concluded for the absolute uniqueness of the sacrifice of the Cross and the consequent denial of the MASS: “Therefore the death of Christ alone was a sacrifice... not other Levitical works or those that followed” (*Loci theologici communes*, Basel 1561, p. 416). Zwingli, defining sacrifice as requiring a physical and bloody immolation, believed he had easily disposed of the MASS: “Christ is offered only where He suffers, sheds His blood... Christ cannot die again, shed blood again, therefore Christ cannot be offered again” (*Adv. H. Emserum antibolon*, in *Opera omnia*, I, Zurich 1928, p. 142). Calvin, while preserving for the Eucharist the idea of a memorial (*memoria*) of the sacrifice of Calvary, rejected the MASS with fiery words: “The head of this abominable error was... when Satan, with his most pestilential error, almost blinded the entire world into believing that the MASS is a sacrifice” (*Instituti relig. christ.*, IV, 18). This doctrine of the early reformers became official in the various Protestant confessions, including the Anglican (cf. *Confessio Westmonasteriensis prima*, art. 31). Nevertheless, isolated defenders of the sacrificial character of the MASS did not lack, especially in England, e.g., Grabe and Leibniz (18th c.), Gore, Frankland, Warfield, Goetz, Herbert (20th c.). At the beginning of this century two Catholic writers, F. Renz (*Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffs oder der alte Glaube und die neuen Theorien über das Wesen des unblutigen Opfers*, 2 vols., Munich 1901–1902) and above all F. Wieland (*Mensa und Confessio. Studien über den Altar der altchristlichen Liturgie*, 2 vols., 1906), advanced ideas analogous to those of the Protestants. According to Wieland, the New Testament knows only the sacrifice of the Cross, of which the Eucharist is a figure. It was not until the 2nd century that St Irenaeus introduced the idea of an oblation, whereas in the two preceding centuries the Eucharist was regarded as a simple prayer.

Liberal Protestantism and rationalism, with their new tactics, have attempted to eliminate the entire Eucharistic phenomenon (v. EUCHARIST). Two theories directly aimed at explaining, by evolution, the appearance of a sacrificial rite linked to the Eucharist must be mentioned. According to G. P. Wetter (*Altchristliche Liturgien*, 2 vols., Göttingen 1921–22), at the dawn of Christianity the Eucharistic supper was a domestic celebration, prepared by one and another of the faithful. As the primitive community developed, the need was felt for all the faithful to contribute to the common banquet. The offering of food was soon enriched with ceremonial and accompanied by moving prayers. Later, the rite of the offering, for various reasons, gradually disappeared, but the liturgical formulas remained, which were then applied to the bread and wine, now the sole superior elements of the primitive feast; and, under the influence of the mystery cults, it began to be believed that the presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus was linked to these two elements. Thus the Catholic MASS was born.

According to H. Lietzmann (*Messe und Herrenmahl. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie*, Bonn 1926), there were two primitive types of liturgy: the Palestinian type (represented by the *Didachē* and the anaphora of Serapion), having no connection with the Last Supper, is to be regarded as the repetition of the ordinary meals that Jesus took with His disciples. In the agapae, soon introduced by the Apostles after the Master’s death, it was believed that the Lord was spiritually present; then, under Hellenistic influence, the supper was regarded as a sacrifice. The Pauline type (represented by 1 Cor 10 and, in the 2nd c., by the *Traditio Apostolica* of Hippolytus) is in direct relation with the Last Supper, in which Jesus, breaking the bread, symbolizes the imminent suffering to which His Body would be subjected. The disciples renewed the rite as a memorial of Christ’s Passion and, under the influence of the Hellenic mysteries, believed they were mystically united to the divine victim, which they later believed to be truly present. This conception spread throughout all the regions of Pauline apostolate and prevailed in the Roman Church, giving rise to the MASS as it is known today in Catholicism.

2. Catholic doctrine

The Council of Trent (16th century, canons 1–4) set forth the Church’s teaching in concise and lapidary formulas, by which it condemned all shades of Protestant error: canon 1: “If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, or that what is offered is nothing other than the partaking of Christ, let him be anathema”; canon 2: “If anyone shall say that by the words ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24) Jesus Christ did not institute priests and did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His Body and Blood, let him be anathema”; canon 3: “If anyone shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only an act of praise and thanksgiving or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross and not truly propitiatory, or that it is profitable only to those who receive it and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema”; canon 4: “If anyone shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an insult to the most holy Sacrifice of the Cross or detracts from it, let him be anathema” (Denz.-U., 948–51). These definitions are preceded and followed by numerous other documents of the Church’s magisterium (cf. Denz.-U., 424, 430, 435, 441, 464, 698, 1045, 1528, 2049; Leo XIII, encyclical *Mirae caritatis* [18 May 1902]; Pius XII, encyclical *Mediator Dei* [20 Nov. 1947]).

3. Proofs of the Catholic doctrine

The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic rite is affirmed repeatedly in the documents of Revelation.

a) Scripture. — In the Old Testament the Fathers discerned figures (e.g., the Paschal lamb: Ex 12:17; Dt 16:17) and allusions (e.g., Ps 21:27: “They shall worship and eat”; Is 19:19: “In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land”; Dn 3:39; 12:11) to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Today two texts, upon which the Church and theologians have focused their attention, are regarded as true prophecies of the Mass: Ps 109:4: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” The psalm, universally acknowledged as messianic, affirms three things: Christ is a priest and therefore offers sacrifice; He will perform this priestly function forever; His sacrificial offering will be made according to the rite of Melchizedek. In Gn 14:18, according to the Hebrew text, it is written: “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of the Most High; and he blessed him [Abram].” It is certain that the Hebrew word hôşî (“brought out”) can denote either a sacrificial offering or the presentation of food for an ordinary meal; yet the parenthetical clause “and he was priest of the Most High” suggests the idea of a sacrificial oblation of bread and wine, offered by Melchizedek in celebration of Abram’s victory, all the more so since the mention of Melchizedek’s priesthood to explain the subsequent phrase “and he blessed him” would have been superfluous, since in Semitic thought blessing was not reserved to priests. This interpretation is accepted by the Vulgate, the Roman Canon of the Mass, and the Fathers with unanimous consent. This prophecy can be regarded as fully realized only on the hypothesis that the Mass is a true sacrifice; indeed, only in the daily offering of the consecrated bread and wine does Christ appear as a priest who perpetually offers a sacrifice according to the rite of Melchizedek.

Malachi (5th century B.C.), rebuking the tepidity of the priests of the Old Testament, who offered blemished animals (the blind, the lame), thus declares: “‘I have no pleasure in you,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations,’ says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 1:10–11). In this prophecy a true sacrifice is spoken of (as is evident from the sacrificial terminology: minhah: “oblation”; ’adoltur: “is offered”; minah: “oblation”), which will be offered in the messianic age, characterized by the abrogation of the Levitical priesthood (“‘I have no pleasure in you... and I will not accept a grain offering from your hand’ [Mal 1:10]; ‘from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations’ [Mal 1:11]”) and by sanctity (“‘and a pure offering is offered to my name’”). The prophetic vision, which under the vast arch of the glory of Yahweh beholds the dawn of the peoples emerging from darkness to offer to the one God a pure sacrifice, finds its perfect fulfillment in the Mass, which from every corner of the earth and from all nations is offered as “a spotless host” to the Lord.

The New Testament provides certain indications and apodictic testimonies. At the Last Supper Jesus performed a true sacrifice when He said that His Body was “given” (“This is my body, which is given for you” [Lk 22:19]) and that His Blood was “poured out” (“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” [Mt 26:28]), for in biblical style these two expressions, even when taken separately (for the traditio corporis cf. Is 53:12; Mt 20:28; Rom 8:32; Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:25; 1 Tim 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 10:10; for the effusio sanguinis cf. Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 1 Cor 14:20; Heb 9:7; 1 Pt 1:19; 1 Jn 1:7), always denote a sacrificial immolation. Nor can it be maintained that the Lord intended to refer to the imminent sacrifice of the Cross (as the Vulgate text of Mt 26:28—“effundetur”—might suggest), since the present participles (“δόθεν”: “is given”; ἐκχυνομένην: “is poured out”) refer to what was taking place at the moment Jesus spoke. Precisely at that instant Christ gave the command to renew that sacrificial rite: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). The Church, therefore, in repeating the Eucharistic gesture of its Founder, performs a true and proper sacrifice, the very one that Jesus offered.

This sacrificial interpretation of the Last Supper is effectively confirmed by other expressions in the context: Lk 22:19: “Which is given for you” (τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον): the Lord’s Body is not merely offered as food to the disciples (in illis) but also given for them (pro illis)—a clear allusion to the sacrificial character of the rite. The text of Lk 22:20: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (τῷ πιστεύσαντι ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένην), especially in its Greek construction, indicates that the Blood is poured out insofar as it is contained in the Eucharistic cup. In the same clause the New Covenant is established in the Eucharistic Blood, with a manifest allusion to Ex 24:8: “This is the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you.” The two covenants are viewed in the sacrificial perspective of the shedding of the blood of victims. Against this same backdrop the Eucharist is regarded as the new Passover, which, in the Blood of the one Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29), brings to an end the countless sacrifices of the Law.

St. Paul corroborates the evangelical testimonies: 1 Cor 10:20–21: “The sacrifices of the Gentiles are to demons and not to God. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. You cannot partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” The Apostle, establishing an antithesis between pagan rites and Christian rites, acknowledges the existence of a sacrifice in both, “understanding ‘table’ as ‘altar’ in both cases” (Council of Trent, sess. XXII, cap. 1: Denz.-U., 939).

Another transparent allusion to the Sacrifice of the Mass is found in Heb 13:10: “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.” Indeed, the realistic verb φαγεῖν (“to eat”) naturally directs the mind to the Eucharistic altar, where the victim is truly consumed, rather than to the altar of the Cross, whose victim can be said to be “eaten” only metaphorically (cf. Teodorico da Castel S. Pietro, *La Chiesa nella lettera agli Ebrei*, Rome 1945, pp. 225–30).

b) Tradition. — The Church, obedient to the Lord’s command: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), immediately celebrated the Eucharist in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42), in Troas (Acts 20:7–11), in Corinth (1 Cor 10–11), and in every place of her missions. From the very beginning she surrounded the rite of the *fractio panis* (q.v.) with ceremonies and prayers, in which, in simple form, the common faith in the sacrificial character of Eucharistic worship was expressed. The *Didachē* (14:1–3) affirmed that τα λάσας τοῦ ἔσται is the sacrifice (γουσία) foretold by Malachi. St Justin provided the first liturgical description (I Apol. 65–67), St Hippolytus (*Traditio apostolica*) the first Roman canon (oblatio Ecclesiae), and Serapion (*Euchologion*) the first Eastern anaphora (“sacrificium”: οὐσία; “obtulimus”: προσευχαί).

The Holy Fathers, in harmony with liturgical tradition and New Testament data, offer detailed testimony to the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and its constitutive elements. They hold that the Mass is:

α) a true and proper sacrifice: St Irenaeus (*Adv. haeres.* 4:18:1–2 [PG 7, 1024–25]: “Ecclesiae oblatio... sacrificia in populo [Iudaico], sacrificia in Ecclesia”); St Hippolytus (*In Danielem* 22 [PG 10, 656]: “Sacrificium de libamine, quod ubique locorum offertur Deo”); Tertullian (*De oratione* 19 [PL 1, 1182–83]: “Ara Dei, participatio sacrificii”); St Cyprian (*Ep.* 63:1 [PL 4, 397]: “Sacrificium verum et plenum”; “Summum verumque sacrificium... verissimum et singulare sacrificium”); St Augustine (*De civitate Dei* 10:20 [PL 4, 298]; *De spiritu et littera* 11 [PL 4, 211]).

β) foretold and prefigured in the Old Testament: *Didachē* 14:1–2; St Justin (*Dial. cum Tryphone* 1:117 [PG 6, 746]); St Irenaeus (*Adv. haeres.* 4:17:5 [PG 7, 1023]; ibid. 4:18 [PG 7, 1024]: “Oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem et hic”); St Cyprian (*Ep.* 63:4 [PL 4, 38]: “Christus obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, idest panem et vinum, suum scilicet Corpus et Sanguinem”); St Augustine (*De civitate Dei* 17:20 [PL 4, 556]: “Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificiis Veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuris”).

γ) instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper: St Irenaeus (*Adv. haeres.* 4:17:5; 18:1 [PG 7, 1023–24]: “Christus... Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo... Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerre in universo mundo”); St Cyprian (*Ep.* 63:1 [PL 4, 373]: “Christus, Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii huius auctor et doctor”); Eusebius of Caesarea (*Demonstr. evang.* 1:10 [PG 22, 90]: “Eiusque rei [Passionis] memoriam, ut nos ipsi Deo pro sacrificio offerremus, instituit”).

Beyond repeating these simple data of faith (ψυχῆς, πίστις), the Fathers—especially those of the golden age—sketched a sacrificial theology in which all elements of Revelation are harmonized:

α) Christ, truly present under the species of bread and wine (q.V. *Eucharistia*), is both priest and victim of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: St Ephrem (ed. Th. J. Lamy, *S. Ephrem sermones et hymni*, I, Malines 1882, p. 660: “Ipse altare et agnus, victima et sacrificator, sacerdos et sacra”); St Augustine (*De civitate Dei* 10:20 [PL 4, 298]: “Christus sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio”).

β) As priest He offers invisibly: St Gregory of Nyssa (*In Christi resurg. oratio* 1 [PG 46, 611]: “Christus arcano sacrificii genere, quod ab hominibus cerni non poterat, seipsum pro nobis hostiam offert et victimam immolat, sacerdos simul existens et agnus Dei”). The mysterious work of the divine Offerer appears outwardly through the sensible oblation of His ministers: St Cyprian (*Ep.* 63:14 [PL 4, 385]: “Utriusque ille sacerdos pro nobis eius Christi vero fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse”); St Ambrose (*Enarr. in Ps.* 38:25 [PL 14, 1051–52]: “Sequimur, ut possumus, sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium... quia etsi nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris quando Corpus Christi offertur; immo ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, cuius sermo sanctificat sacrificium, quod offertur”).

γ) As victim He is newly immolated, though without shedding blood, sacramentally and mystically: Tertullian (*De pudicitia* 9 [PL 2, 1050]: “Rursus mactabitur Christus”); St Gregory Nazianzen (*Ep.* 171 [PG 37, 279]: “Quando incruenta sectione secaveris Corpus et Sanguinem dominicum, vocem adhibens pro gladio”); St Gregory of Nyssa (*In Christi resurg. oratio* 1 [PG 46, 611]: “In cena iam arcana et non aspectabili ratione Corpus erat immolatum”); St Ambrose (*De officiis* 1:48 [PL 16, 94]: “Nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem... hoc in imagine”); St Cyril of Jerusalem (*Catech.* 23:10 [PG 33, 1118]: “Christum mactatum offerimus”); St John Chrysostom (*De sacerdotio* 3:4 [PG 48, 642]: “Cum videris Dominum immolatum et iacentem”); St Cyril of Alexandria (*De adoratione in spiritu et veritate* 10 [PG 68, 707]: “Christus... mystice sacrificatus a nobis et pro nobis offertur”).

St Augustine sums up the patristic teaching in a pregnant phrase: “Was not Christ once for all immolated in Himself? And yet in the Sacrament He is immolated for the peoples every day” (*Ep.* 99:9 [PL 33, 363]).

This unbloody, sacramental immolation represents the bloody death of Calvary and perpetually renews its memorial: St Cyprian (*Ep.* 63:17 [PL 4, 387]: “Passionis eius mentionem in Sacrificii omnibus facimus, Passio est enim Domini Sacrificium quod offerimus”); Eusebius of Caesarea (*Demonstr. evang.* 1:10 [PG 22, 90]: “Eiusque rei memoriam... instituit”); St Ambrose (*De fide ad Gratianum* 4:10 [PL 16, 641]: “Quotiescumque Sacramenta sumimus... mortem Domini annuntiamus”); Serapion of Thmuis (4th c.; *Ambrose eucharistica* 4, in C. Kirsch, *Enchiridion historiae ecclesiasticae*, 5th ed., Freiburg i.Br. 1941, no. 479: “Propterea et nos similitudinem mortis [τὸ ὀρθόλυμα τῶν δυνάμεων] celebrantes, panem obtulimus”); St Augustine (*De Trinitate* 3:4 [PL 42, 873]: “Corpus Christi et Sanguinem... rite sumimus in memoriam pro nobis dominicae Passionis”).

At the end of the 6th century, St Gregory the Great, gathering all the elements of Tradition, fashioned a particularly felicitous synthesis: “This victim... restores to us through mystery the death of the Only-begotten, Who, although rising from the dead dies no more and death has no more dominion over Him (Rom 6:9), yet while living in Himself immortally and incorruptibly, for our sakes is again immolated in this mystery of sacred oblation... This sacrifice... ever imitates the Passion of the Only-begotten Son” (*Dial.* 4:58 [PL 77, 425]).

c) Scholastics. — Through St Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede (Hom. 14 on the third Sunday after Epiphany: PL 94, 75), the Gregorian idea reached the ninth century and lent itself to various interpretations. Amalarius of Metz (Liber officialis, 3, 24-35, in Amalarii Ep. opera liturgica omnia, ed. J. M. Hanssens, II, Vatican City 1948, pp. 337-368), emphasizing the phrase “Passionem imitatur,” saw in the ceremonies of the Mass a suggestive re-enactment of the drama of Calvary in all its details; whereas Florus of Lyon, stressing the words “morte reparat,” affirmed that in the Mass “non tam verbis quam mysterii” (Expositio Missae, 63: PL 119, 54) the death on the Cross is renewed. The controversy, barely hinted at by these two liturgists, took on larger proportions in the writings of two distinct theologians: Paschasius Radbertus, a staunch defender of eucharistic realism, maintained that Jesus “in mysterio veraciter immolatur” (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, 2, 3: PL 120, 1274), while Ratramnus of Corbie held that in the Eucharist “fideliter reconditur in memoria, quod pro nobis eius (Christi) caro crucifixa et vulnerata sit” (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, 33-34: PL 121, 141; ibid., 49: PL 121, 169).

The symbolism of Ratramnus, which in its origin and early development probably remained within the bounds of orthodoxy, by the eleventh century, carried Tours (v.), culminated in the denial of the real presence and the consequent absolute subjectivization of the Sacrifice (cf. Berengar, De S. Coena, ed. W. H. Beekkamp, The Hague 1941, passim).

Then, through the work of eminent theologians (Lanfranc of Bec, Guitmund of Aversa, Gregory of Bergamo, Alger of Liège), the traditional realism, in the line of Paschasius Radbertus, was vigorously vindicated and continued to the end of the century...

“in finem usque saeculi permaneret... He (Christ) instituted a new Pasch, to be offered by the Church through priests under visible signs.”

II. THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

Until the denials of Protestantism no one had deliberately studied the intimate nature of the eucharistic Sacrifice. When, under the pressure of circumstances, theologians addressed the question, the Council of Trent, drawing on the data of Revelation as expounded by the Fathers and the Scholastics, laid down certain principles destined to serve as the guiding star of all subsequent inquiry. After implicitly establishing (sess. XII, chaps. 1-2; Denz-U, 939-40) that the Sacrifice of the Mass is realized in the consecration of the two species, it states: a) that in that central act of the liturgy there occurs an unbloody immolation numerically distinct from that of Calvary: “In hoc divino sacrificio quod in Missa peragitur idem ille Christus continetur et incruenter immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruente obtulit” (sess. XXII, chap. 2; Denz-U, 940); b) that the eucharistic immolation represents and recalls the bloody immolation of the Cross: “Quo cruentum illud semel in Cruce peragendum repraesentaretur eiusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret” (ibid., chap. 1; Denz-U, 938); c) that the immolation of the Mass is sacramental since “sub signis et symbolis”: “Seipsum sub signis visibilibus immolandum... sub earundem rerum (panis et vini) symbolis offerent” (ibid., chap. 1; Denz-U, 938).

The path was marked out, but not all followed II. Alongside the traditional stream of the immolation “sub signis et symbolis,” theories and systems developed greatly which, fastening upon one part only of the complex sacrificial doctrine, either exaggerated its scope or diminished its content.