PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL. — It is the power to participate in the acts of Christian worship communicated to the faithful in Baptism.
I. THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL IN REVELATION AND IN THE MAGISTERIUM
St. Peter reminds the persecuted neophytes twice of their priesthood: “Draw near to him (Christ), the living stone, and yourselves, as living stones, are built up (or: build yourselves up) upon him, to be a spiritual house, a holy priesthood (ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον), to offer spiritual sacrifices (πνευματικάς θυσίας) acceptable to God through Jesus Christ... But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood (βασιλικόν ἱεράτευμα), a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pt. 2:4-5, 9). The entire passage is metaphorical.St. Peter interprets allegorically the most important religious realities of Judaism: temple, priesthood, sacrifice, drawing from Ps. 118:22 and Is. 28:16. The stone spoken of by the Prophets is Jesus Christ, who is
considered as the cornerstone of the spiritual edifice of the Church (the new temple), into which all the baptized enter, having become priests of the new cult, to offer spiritual sacrifices. The nature of these sacrifices is not directly indicated by St. Peter, but from the addition “spiritual” and from parallel passages of St. Paul it results that these are improperly so-called offerings, which have as their object the bona animae, prayer (Heb. 13:15), faith (Phil. 2:17); the bona corporis (Rom. 12:1); the bona fortunae (Heb. 13:16; Phil. 4:18). If the nature of every priesthood is inferred from the nature of the sacrifices offered, the priestly prerogative with which simple faithful are invested is metaphorical and improper. Indeed, according to De Ambroggi, from the passive term used (ἱεράτευμα) and from the biblical context to which it alludes, it seems that St. Peter considers the faithful as a passive priesthood, that is, a society governed by priests. In fact, the phrase of V. 9, “royal priesthood” (βασιλικόν ἱεράτευμα), taken from Ex. 19:6 (according to the Septuagint), must be understood in the sense of a kingdom belonging to priests, in which priests have governing power. It is therefore a matter of a consecration in which those who govern are consecrated, and those who are governed participate in this consecration as “a holy nation.” The faithful are not themselves priests, but the object of the care and governance of priests. Just as the expression “you are a royal nation” does not mean “you are as many kings,” but subjects of royal authority, so the expression “you are a priesthood” does not imply “you are as many priests,” but subjects of priestly authority. In the same way, analogous passages in the letter of St. Peter, found in Is. 61:6; 62:12; Rev. 1:5-6; 20:6, must be interpreted (P. De Ambroggi, Il sacerdozio dei fedeli secondo la prima di Pietro, in La scuola catt., 75 [1947], pp. 52-57; cf. L. Cerfaux, Regale sacerdotium, in Revue des sciences phil. et théol., 28 [1939], pp. 5-39). It is undeniable, however, that this passivity does not mean inertia on the part of the faithful who, united to Christ the High Priest and to the ministers of worship duly established, offer the spiritual sacrifices spoken of by the two Princes of the Apostles. In the offering of spiritual sacrifices, a certain sacramental activity of the faithful is discerned, which accompanies the true sacrifice, reserved to the hierarchical priesthood. Indeed, it could be affirmed that at least implicitly the spiritual sacrifices include the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is well known that the Eucharist, constituting essentially the worship in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:23) of the New Testament, is called a spiritual sacrifice and “hostia rationalis,” especially in opposition to the materiality and formalism of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Moreover, this Eucharistic orientation of the oblative activity of the faithful is not only glimpsed but often openly affirmed by Tradition, while leaving the question of the intimate nature of such “potestas offerendi” unresolved.
St. Justin Martyr was the first to affirm an explicit relationship between the passage of St. Peter and the prophecy of Malachi regarding the Mass: “We who, as one man, all believe in God the creator of the universe... are a priestly race” (it is notable the expansion of meaning compared to 1 Pt. 2:9), “as God himself attests when he says that pure and acceptable sacrifices will be offered to him in every place among the nations (Mal. 1:10). Now God does not accept sacrifices from anyone except from the hands of his priests” (Dialogus cum Tryphone, chap. 116; PG 6, 745). St. Irenaeus attributes a priestly dignity to all the just (Adv. haeres., 4, 8, 3; PG 7, 995) and affirms that the whole Church offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist (ibid., 4, 17, 6; PG 7, 1024; cf. also Origen, Hom., 9, 9; PG 12, 521); Chrysostom, illustrating the special value of the Mass (Hom. 18 in 2 Cor. 3; PG 61, 527); St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, 17, 5; PL 41, 535; ibid., 20, 10; PL 41, 676; Quaest. Evang., 2, 40; PL 35, 1355) shows the exercise of this cultic power in the collective offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: “Christ is the priest, he is the offerer, he is the offering, of which he constitutes a daily sign in the Sacrifice of the Church, which, being the body of Christ the Head, learns to offer itself through him” (“quale cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, seipsam per ipsum discit offerre”: De Civ. Dei, 10, 20; PL 41, 298, cf. ibid., 10, 6; PL 41, 284).”
The study of liturgy has revealed another strand of primitive Christian teaching regarding the relationship of the faithful with the Sacrifice of the Mass. All liturgies, both Eastern and Western, are permeated with the idea that the Mass is the sacrifice offered by the entire assembly of believers in the majesty of God, through Christ.
The recent teaching of the Church’s magisterium is nothing other than a confirmation and clarification of the thought of the Fathers and of liturgy. Already the Council of Trent, in vindicating against the Protestants the value of so-called private Masses, had taught that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is always public, because it is offered by the Church through a minister duly deputed (Denz.-U. 944). Pius XI, in the encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor (8 May 1928), links the biblical text of the “royal priesthood” to the office and obligation that all the faithful have to offer the Mass in expiation for their own and others’ sins. Pius XII, who in the encyclical Mystici corporis (29 June 1943) had already used the phrase “Christifideles ipsimet immaculatum Agnum... per sacerdotis manus Aeterno Patri offerunt,” in the encyclical Mediator Dei (20 Nov. 1947) returned specifically to the subject, bringing decisive clarifications, beginning his teaching with the words: “It must also be affirmed that the faithful offer the divine victim, though in a different manner.”
II. THE NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL
On this matter, two extreme assertions immediately present themselves, which lead to a twofold error.1. Error of excess
This is the error of equating, by a kind of liturgical democracy, the faithful with the priest as such. Tertullian, who in *De Baptismo*, ch. 7 (PL 1, 1206) had denounced the Catholic principle, once he became a Montanist was the first to formulate this error (De exhortatione castitatis, ch. 7; PL 2, 922). The Waldensians held that virtue, not ordination, was the source of priestly dignity. According to this system, every virtuous layperson could validly administer all the Sacraments, while an unworthy priest was to be considered stripped of every power (cf. Denz-U, 424 and F. Tocco, *L'eresia nel medioevo*, Firenze 1884, p. 179). In *To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation* (1520), Luther affirmed that all belong to the same estate and are truly priests, bishops, and popes (An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation, ed. Erlangen, XXI, pp. 282-83; cf. G. Miegge, *Lutero*, I, Torre Pellice 1946, pp. 377-85). These ideas were shared by all the “Reformers” of the 16th century (cf. A. Michel, *Ordre*, in DThC, XI, cols. 1333-46). The Council of Trent condemned the Protestant error in ch. 4 of sess. XXIII (Denz-U, 960). Spener (v.), the initiator of Lutheran Pietism (v.), in reaction to the excessive monopoly of pastors, popularized the idea of the “universal priesthood” of believers (cf. M. Bendiscoli, *Il luteranesimo*, Milano 1948, pp. 111-114).During the controversy at Crema, which agitated the 18th century over the right of the faithful to Communion made with particles consecrated in a Mass they had attended, the defenders of Guerrieri—and especially the Jansenists—developed arguments echoing Lutheran thought on the universal priesthood. This tendency triumphed at the Synod of Pistoia, which was immediately condemned by Pius VI in the constitution *Auctorem Fidei* of 28 Aug. 1794 (Denz-U, 1528; cf. B. Matteucci, *Controversia sulla Comunione liturgica e il giansenismo italiano*, in Riv. del clero ital., 18 [1937], pp. 203-208; id., *Comunione liturgica*, in Fides, 40 [1940], pp. 515-22; A. Mercati, *Un biglietto inedito del Muratori in occasione della controversia di Crema*, in Riv. della st. della Chiesa in Italia, 2 [1948], pp. 403-11; L. Paladini, *La controversia della Comunione nella Messa*, in Misc. in honorem L. C. Mohlberg, I, Roma 1948, pp. 347-71).
Edwin Hatch, an Anglican, in his Oxford lectures on the organization of the early Church (1880), argued that at the beginning of Christianity there appeared a category of persons charged with performing liturgical functions (baptizing, consecrating the Eucharist, etc.): these constituted the clergy. But this distinction between clergy and laity was based solely on practical necessities of good order. In fact, all the faithful considered themselves priests and, when occasion arose, could preach, baptize, and celebrate the Eucharist. Only in the 4th century did the idea arise that the priesthood was a reserved and inalienable power. A century later St. Augustine gave this theory a foundation with the doctrine of the indelible character (E. Hatch, *The organization of the early christian Church*, 5th ed., London 1895; cf. J. Tixeront, *L'Ordine e le ordinazioni*, trad. it., Brescia 1939, pp. 21-52; A. D'Alès, *Sacerdote cattolico*, in DFC, IV, col. 1039). Recently some ardent advocates of the liturgical movement have echoed Hatch’s ideas. J. A. Jungmann maintains that the ancient name of priest belonged first and foremost to Christ and was later recognized for the entire community of the faithful. Only in a third stage, after several generations, was this name applied to those invested with office. Thus the community of the faithful is a priestly society that performs the liturgy under the guidance of official ministers (Christus-Gemeinde-Priester, in K. Borgmann, *Volksliturgie und Seelsorge*, Kolmar in Alsazia n.d., pp. 25-30). E. Walter holds that the Lord’s command “Do this in memory of me” essentially refers to the whole Church, and only in a secondary act is it subdivided into hierarchical functions. The separation and independence of priestly action developed slowly, only at a time when the liturgy was no longer, as in antiquity, the work of the people, but a rigid and cold formula (Weihe und Laienpriestertum, das eine Priestertum der Kirche, in K. Borgmann, op. cit., pp. 31-46). P. Porsch regards the private Mass as an “undesirable phenomenon,” since in it one would have a deviation from the primitive form of the Sacrifice and the abandonment of an essential principle in the liturgy, namely, the active participation of the faithful. He adds that it is a service to the Church to oppose the private Mass (Messerklärung im Geiste der liturgischen Erneuerung, Klosterneuburg 1935, p. 51; id., *Volksliturgie*, ibid. 1940, p. 216; cf. F. Carpino, *Il giubileo sacerdotale di Pio XII alla luce della sua dottrina sul sacerdozio*, Roma 1949, pp. 25-26). It was precisely this error that Pius XII rejected in the encyclical *Mediator Dei* (AAS, 39 [1947], pp. 521-95).
2. Error of defect
In reaction to the excesses recalled above, some deny any true and proper active participation of the faithful in the Sacrifice of the Mass. This position empties the documents of tradition, liturgy, and the Church’s magisterium of their real content. While avoiding this crude denial, some Catholic writers perhaps minimize too much the data of Revelation and the magisterium (thus, e.g., J. van der Meersch, *De cooblatione fidelium in sacrificio Missae*, Bruges 1942). Others, while remaining within the bounds of orthodoxy, waver in uncertainty (cf. S. Bordin, *La partecipazione dei fedeli al Sacrificio della Messa*, in Riv. liturgica, 34 [1947], pp. 182-85; 35 [1948], pp. 17-20).3. Most probable doctrine
The two extreme positions are analogous in that they both reject any confusion between the priesthood and the laity, as well as any separation and opposition. No confusion: the priesthood and the laity are not confused, because while the layperson is, in a hierarchical sense, on the farthest shore, the priest stands at the midpoint between the two extremes, between God and man. The levelling of all believers before God is a heterodox tendency that Revelation does not tolerate. No separation: because although they remain on distinct planes, laity and priests tend toward God; with different but convergent activities, they accomplish the sacrificial act of reconciliation.As to fluctuating opinions, the cause of uncertainty is removed by eliminating the variety of judgments on the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pius XII seems to dispel it with the incisive words of his encyclical *Mediator Dei*: «It must be recognized over and over again that the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by its very nature, is a sacrifice in which the immolation of the divine Victim is made present in a sacramental manner through the separation of the sacred species and their oblation to the Eternal Father» (AAS, 39 [1947], p. 563; cf. also pp. 548-49). This opens the way to the heart of the problem: a) the immolation, which results from the double consecration, is the exclusive work of the priest as an instrument of divine omnipotence (principle of distinction between priests and laity); b) the oblation, which implies an interior act of homage to God, is common to priests and laity (principle of union between priests and laity). Indeed, both priests and laity, as rational beings, are deputed to Christian worship by their character. The character, even the baptismal one, is a participation in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 63, a. 3), which consecrates and deputes all the faithful to divine worship to be exercised actively according to the form established by Jesus Christ (ibid., 3ª, q. 63, a. 1 and 3). Since the character differs in the baptized and in the ordained, even the common oblation assumes a special nuance. By virtue of the character of Orders, the priest, in the very act of immolation, offers the victim to God «ritually»; by virtue of the character of Baptism, the simple faithful offer the same victim «spiritually» together with the priest. It cannot be said, however, that the oblation of the faithful, being spiritual, remains outside the sacrifice, because their interior act is united with the internal actual oblation of Jesus Christ, which constitutes the soul of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and which is incarnated and made visible in the external rite, which is the divinely established sign for the manifestation of the interior act.
On the other hand, the ritual oblation made by the priest is in some way also that of the faithful, by reason of their character and the solidarity of the Mystical Body: *totum corpus agit in membro suo*. As the whole man sees through his eye, so it is the whole Church that offers the Sacrifice through the *membrum electum*, which is the priest (cf. G. De Broglie, *Du rôle de l'Église dans le Sacrifice eucharistique*, in *Nouvelle rev. théol.*, 70 [1949], pp. 449-60). In the ancient and robust trunk of mystical or sacramentally realized immolation, the doctrine of the oblation of the faithful is rooted; the immolation, produced solely by the priest, becomes the visible sign of the interior offering of the Head and the members of the *Christus totus*. It can therefore be affirmed with St. Augustine that through the external rite of the Mass «the whole redeemed city, the universal sacrifice» (is offered and) is offered to God by the great priest Jesus Christ» (De Civ. Dei, 10.6; PL 41, 284). Hence it appears that the faithful contribute «actively» to the offering of the Mass, the true Sacrifice of the Mystical Body. This their contribution does not equate them with the hierarchical priest, but introduces them into the sphere of cultic and religious activity, which is a participation, albeit minimal, in that perfect worship which Jesus Christ, as High Priest, has always offered to God. The faithful, therefore, by reason of their baptismal character, have become *cultores Dei* not in any manner, but *secundum ritum religionis christianae*, that is, in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this sense it may perhaps be said that all the baptized participate, within the limits imposed by their condition as mere members of the Mystical Body, in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 63, a. 3).
4. The more probable doctrine
The two extremely analogous positions differ. The first in the Church rejects any confusion between the priesthood and the laity, as well as any separation and opposition. No confusion: the priesthood and the laity are not confused, because while the layman is, in a hierarchical sense, on the farthest shore, the priest stands at the equidistant point between the two extremes, between God and man. The levelling of all believers before God is a heterodox tendency, which Revelation does not tolerate. No separation, because although remaining on distinct planes, laity and priests tend toward God; with different but convergent activities, they accomplish the sacrificial act of reconciliation.As for fluctuating opinions, the cause of uncertainty is removed by eliminating the variety of judgments on the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pius XII appears to dispel it with the incisive words of his encyclical Mediator Dei: «Etiam atque etiam animadvertendum est eucharisticum sacrificium suapte natura incruentum esse divinae victimae immolationem, quae quidem mystico modo ex sacrarum specierum separatione patet, ex earumque oblatione Aeterno Patri peracta» (AAS, 39 [1947], p. 563; cf. also pp. 548-49). This opens the way to the heart of the problem: a) the immolation, which results from the double consecration, is the exclusive work of the priest as an instrument of divine omnipotence (principle of distinction between priests and laity); b) the oblation, which implies an interior act of homage to God, is common to priests and laity (principle of union between priests and laity), so that it is the whole Church that offers the Sacrifice through the elected member, who is the priest (cf. G. De Broglie, Du rôle de l'Église dans le Sacrifice eucharistique, in Nouvelle rev. théol., 70 [1949], pp. 449-60). In the ancient and robust trunk of mystical or sacramentally instituted immolation, the doctrine of the faithful’s oblation is rooted; the immolation, produced solely by the priest, becomes the visible sign of the interior offering of the Head and members of the whole Christ. It can therefore be affirmed with St Augustine that through the external rite of the Mass «tota redempta civitas, sacrificium universale» (offert et) offertur Deo per sacerdotem magnum Jesum Christum» (De Civ. Dei, 10.6; PL 41, 284). From this it appears that the faithful contribute «actively» to the offering of the Mass, the true Sacrifice of the Mystical Body. This contribution does not equate them with the hierarchical priest, but introduces them into the sphere of cultic and religious activity, which is a participation—albeit in a minimal degree—in that perfect worship which Jesus Christ, as High Priest, has always rendered to God. The faithful, therefore, by reason of their baptismal character, have become cultores Dei not in any manner whatsoever, but secundum ritum religionis christianae, that is, in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this sense it can perhaps be said that all the baptized participate, within the limits imposed by their condition as mere members of the Mystical Body, in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 63, a. 3).
5. The more probable doctrine
The two extremely analogous positions differ. The first, in the Church, rejects any confusion between the priesthood and the laity, as well as any separation and opposition. No confusion: the priesthood and the laity are not confused, because while the laity, in a hierarchical sense, occupy the farthest shore, the priest stands at the midpoint between the two extremes, between God and man. The levelling of all believers before God is a heterodox tendency, which Revelation does not tolerate. No separation, because although remaining on distinct planes, laity and priests tend toward God; with different yet convergent activities, they accomplish the sacrificial act of reconciliation.As to fluctuating opinions, the cause of uncertainty is removed by eliminating the variety of judgments on the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pius XII appears to dispel it with the incisive words of the encyclical Mediator Dei: “Etiam atque etiam animadvertendum est eucharisticum sacrificium suapte natura incruentum esse divinae victimae immolationem, quae quidem mystico modo ex sacrarum specierum separatione patet, ex earumque oblatione Aeterno Patri peracta” (AAS, 39 [1947], p. 563; cf. also pp. 548-49). This opens the way to the heart of the problem: a) the immolation, which results from the double consecration, is the exclusive work of the priest as an instrument of divine omnipotence (principle of distinction between priests and laity); b) the oblation, which implies an interior act of homage to God, is common to priests and laity (principle of union between priests and laity), so that it is the whole Church that offers the Sacrifice through the member elect, who is the priest (cf. G. De Broglie, Du rôle de l’Église dans le Sacrifice eucharistique, in Nouvelle rev. théol., 70 [1947], pp. 449-60). In the ancient and robust trunk of mystical or sacramentally instituted immolation, the doctrine of the faithful’s oblation is rooted; the immolation, produced by the priest alone, becomes the visible sign of the interior offering of the Head and the members of the totus Christus. One may therefore affirm with St Augustine that through the external rite of the Mass “tota redempta civitas, sacrificium universale” (is offered and) is offered to God through the great priest Jesus Christ (De Civ. Dei, 10.6; PL 41, 284). Hence it appears that the faithful contribute “actively” to the offering of the Mass, the true Sacrifice of the Mystical Body. This contribution does not equate them with the hierarchical priest, but introduces them into the sphere of cultic and religious activity, which is a participation—albeit minimal—in that perfect worship which Jesus Christ, as High Priest, has ever rendered to God. The faithful, therefore, by reason of their baptismal character, have become cultores Dei not in any manner whatsoever, but secundum ritum religionis christianae, that is, in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this sense one may perhaps say that all the baptized participate, within the limits imposed by their condition as mere members of the Mystical Body, in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 63, a. 3).
6. The more probable doctrine
The two extremely analogous positions differ. The first, within the Church, rejects any confusion between the priesthood and the laity, as well as any separation or opposition. No confusion: the priesthood and the laity are not confused, because while the lay person is, in a hierarchical sense, on the farthest shore, the priest stands at the equidistant point between the two extremes, between God and man. The leveling of all believers before God is a heterodox tendency that Revelation does not tolerate. No separation: for although remaining on distinct planes, laity and priests tend toward God; with different yet convergent activities, they accomplish the sacrificial act of reconciliation.As to fluctuating opinions, the cause of uncertainty is removed by eliminating the variety of judgments on the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pius XII appears to dispel it with the incisive words of the encyclical Mediator Dei: “Etiam atque etiam animadvertendum est eucharisticum sacrificium suapte natura incruentum esse divinae victimae immolationem, quae quidem mystico modo ex sacrarum specierum separatione patet, ex earumque oblatione Aeterno Patri peracta” (AAS, 39 [1947], p. 563; cf. also pp. 548-49). This opens the way to the heart of the problem: a) the immolation, which results from the double consecration, is the exclusive work of the priest as an instrument of divine omnipotence (principle of distinction between priests and laity); b) the oblation, which implies an interior act of homage to God, is common to priests and laity (principle of union between priests and laity), so that it is the whole Church that offers the Sacrifice through the member elect, who is the priest (cf. G. De Broglie, Du rôle de l’Église dans le Sacrifice eucharistique, in Nouvelle rev. théol., 70 [1947], pp. 449-60). In the ancient and robust trunk of mystical or sacramentally instituted immolation, the doctrine of the faithful’s oblation is rooted; the immolation, produced by the priest alone, becomes the visible sign of the interior offering of the Head and the members of the totus Christus. One may therefore affirm with St Augustine that through the external rite of the Mass “tota redempta civitas, sacrificium universale” (is offered and) is offered to God through the great priest Jesus Christ (De Civ. Dei, 10.6; PL 41, 284). Hence it appears that the faithful contribute “actively” to the offering of the Mass, the true Sacrifice of the Mystical Body. This contribution does not equate them with the hierarchical priest, but introduces them into the sphere of cultic and religious activity, which is a participation—albeit minimal—in that perfect worship which Jesus Christ,
The Church’s magisterium has authentically interpreted the data of Revelation. Pius XII thus expresses himself:
« The divine Redeemer not only offers Himself to the heavenly Father (in the Mass) as Head of the Church, but in Himself offers all His mystical members, since all, even the weakest and most infirm, are included in His mystical Heart » (encyclical *Mystici Corporis*, 29 June 1943. Cf. also Pius XI, encyclical *Miserentissimus Redemptor* of 28 May 1928; Pius XII, encyclical *Mediator Dei* of 20 Nov. 1947: *AAS*, 39 [1947], pp. 521–95).
It is not difficult to establish the theological nature of this « status victimæ » inherent in the Christian profession. By reason of their baptismal character, all the faithful, while receiving a mystical and analogous participation in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, are also constituted victims of their priesthood united to that of the eternal and supreme High Priest. Indeed, in the present divine economy, one is a victim insofar as one is a priest: *sacerdos et hostia*. Just as Christ, by the hypostatic union, becomes « *victima sui sacerdotis et sacerdos suæ victimæ* » (St Paulinus of Nola, *Ep. IX ad Severum*: *PL* 61, 19), so too all Christians, through Baptism, become victims of their priesthood united to that of Jesus: « *corpus regenerati fit caro Crucifixi* » (St Leo the Great, *Sermo 63 de Passione Domini*: *PL* 54, 336), deputed to offer themselves as fragments of the one great Host, which is the Lamb immolated for the sins of all.
How this immolation takes place in the Sacrifice of the Mass may be clarified analogously to the « mystical Body » of Jesus Christ. The real Body of the Lord, present under the Eucharistic species, is the symbol and efficient cause of the Mystical Body; from this principle it follows that just as Christ in the Mass is immolated not physically in Himself, but « sacramentally », inasmuch as He is signified and contained under the separated species of bread and wine, so too the Mystical Body in the Eucharistic sacrifice is not immolated physically but in its sign (St Albert the Great, *De Sacrificio Missae*, tr. 3, cap. 1, n. 3). Indeed, the separated species of bread and wine are signs (*indices*) that directly represent the separation of Jesus’ Body from His Blood, and indirectly signify the mystical immolation of the Church. Likewise, the sacramental immolation of the true Body of Jesus Christ directly signifies the interior act of will by which the Redeemer offers Himself in perfect dedication to the Father, and indirectly also indicates the internal oblation by which the Church, « *tota redempta civitas* », in Christ and with Christ, consecrates itself to God.