DEDICATION

To my brother Fr. Blessed Ambang Njume,

that he may continue to celebrate the Holy Mass with ardour.

1i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My deepest and most reverential gratitude goes first of all to the Almighty God,

whose grace and providence have permitted the initiative, understanding and realisation of

this humble work. Am also grateful to my local ordinary, Msgr. Agapitus Nfon, Bioshop of

the Diocese of Kumba, who has supported me throughout my Theological studies in St.

Thomas Aquinas’ Major Seminary, Bambui, Theologicum.

My sentiments of immense gratitude to the entire formation team of the seminary for

imbuing a perfect blend of knowledge and virtue in me. Here, I single out in a special way,

my moderator, Rev. Fr. Derek Che Choh whose expertise, support, criticisms and guidance

have raised the worth of this work. I acknowledge too, the material, spiritual, and financial

assistance of my parents, my elder brother Fr. Blessed Ambang Njume, to whom I am

dedicating this work, all my siblings and all other Christians of good will.

Finally, I am particularly grateful to my brother seminarians, especially Yves

Musongo, and all my classmates for the efforts they have made to help me in the realization

of the worth of this work.

TIM FRANCIS ESONA NJUME

SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS MAJOR SEMINARY, BAMBUI
25th MARCH 2020
SOLEMNITY OF THE ANNUNCIATION

2
ii
3
4
 INTRODUCTION

Although the question about the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is not in the

foreground of the Catholic-Protestant theological dialogue today, Joseph Ratzinger believes it

to be one of the decisive differences that gave the schism during the century of reformation

its distinctive character, its spiritual and theological depth.1 Martin Luther was not the first

theologian to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It had been previously denied by the

English theologian John Wycliffe (1320-1384). But it was with Luther, however, that the

attack on the sacrifice of the Mass received much greater theological attention. Ratzinger

summarises Luther’s position as follows:

[For Luther] there are only two opposing ways of relating to God: the way of the law
and the way of faith: The way of faith is receiving divine favour, not offering gifts…
[Consequently], Christian worship is by its very nature distorted, indeed, is turned into
its very opposite, when offering is reintroduced instead of thanksgiving.2

A theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass should never bypass this and similar objections

carelessly. This paper does not stay aloof to such objections. However, primarily, it sets out

to lay bare the understanding of Mass as a sacrifice. The Orate Fratres, said during the

Liturgy of the Eucharist, is dense with theological significance which helps us in our

endeavour. It brings out the entire meaning of the sacrifice of Holy Mass. The priest says:

“Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God,

the almighty Father.” And the people rise and reply, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at

your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy

Church.” This dialogue between the priest and the people is what is called in this work the

Orate Fratres, stemming from the first two words of the Latin, “Orate fratres ut meum ac

vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotente.”

To achieve our main objective, that is, laying bare the understanding of the Holy Mass

as a true Sacrifice, we shall begin, in the first chapter, by tracing the Holy Sacrifice of the
1
Cfr. J. RATZINGER, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, G. L. MULLER (ed.), in Joseph Ratzinger, Collected Works,
Vol. II, Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, 207.
2
Cfr. Ibid., 207-208.

5
Mass from its scriptural roots, as far back as the Old Testament, then to the Last Supper and

the Sacrifice on Calvary. Many other difficulties are being pointed out in the corpus of the

First Chapter, but not all are within the scope of this work to handle. The Second Chapter,

flowing from the first, examines the second main part of the Mass as we have it today – the

Liturgy of the Eucharist. But our central focus is on the Orate Fratres, for it brings out the

entire meaning of the sacrifice of Mass. To this effect, an observation is made on certain

practices which betray the lack of understanding of the entire meaning of Mass among

Christians. Recommendations are made to help re-sharpen our understanding, so that we

might approach this sacred mystery with more grandeur and devotion, and participate

actively in the sacrifice of Christ while also offering ourselves.

Two books shall be exploited in detail in this work: one which was written in the light

of the Council of Trent (1545-1547), that is before the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,

and the other which was written in 2018 in the light of Vatican II. The first of these books is

that of Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and

Ascetically Explained, written in 1902. This book, based chiefly on the definitions of Trent,

establishes from Scripture and Tradition that the Holy Mass is a Sacrifice. But given the

significant changes made by Vatican II in the Liturgy, there was need to complement the

book of Gihr with that of Laurence Feingold, The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice,

and Communion, edited by Scott HAHN and published two years ago, in 2018. Feingold, also

establishes emphatically that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice, explaining the various facets

of the New Mass in the light of Vatican II, using many great post-Tridentine Church

documents and also the writings of Joseph Ratzinger to answer many trivial questions. This

work sets out to make a perfect blend of the teachings of these two great councils.

CHAPTER ONE

THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS

6
 The first chapter of this work is vital to the entire understanding of the work, for in

this chapter, the relationship between the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the Sacrifice of the

Cross is established – a relationship which cannot be overlooked. To do this, a careful study

is made of the word sacrifice in its proper sense, bringing out all the essential elements in the

background of the Old Testament sacrifices. Against this background, the bloody Sacrifice on

the Cross and the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass are examined to bring out their full

sacrificial character and efficacy. Thus, in the very first place we must form a correct idea of

sacrifice.

1.1. SACRIFICE IN ITS PROPER SENSE

The term “sacrifice” is made up of two Latin words, sacrum, sacred or holy, and

facere, to make or to do.3 Hence literally, sacrifice means “to make or to do something sacred

or holy”. The author of the article on the sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Encyclopedia

states that sacrifice “is the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-

perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least through its real transformation, in

acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and for the appeasing of His wrath.”4 We shall

examine the constitutive elements of these definition below.

1.1.1. The Offering of a Visible Object

The first constitutive element of a sacrifice is that it constitutes the offering of a

visible object. Before Christ, such offerings consisted, for example, of lambs, heifers, doves;

bread, wine, oil, salt, incense. Since such gifts were offered to give honour to God, they had

to be as perfect as possible without blemish or defect. Many instances in the Old Testament

sacrifices point to this reality. God himself required such sacrifice and it became part of the

Jewish law itself. “He [Yahweh] said to Aaron, ‘Take a calf to offer a sacrifice for sin, and a

3
Cfr. J. B. BROSNAN, The Sacrifice of the New Law, Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., London 1926, 16.
4
J. POHLE, “Sacrifice of the Mass” in C. G. HERBERMANN (Ed.), Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Robert
Appleton Company, New York 1913, 14-57.

7
ram for a burnt offering, both without blemish, and bring them before Yahweh’” (Lev 9:2).5

And where it is the law that commands it: “As a sacrifice of reparation he must bring to the

priest an unblemished ram from his flock to the value which you decide, and the priest will

perform the rite of expiation for him for the oversight unwittingly committed, and he will be

forgiven” (Lev 5:18). Thus, what was meant for God must be special – such that it would be

accepted as the sacrifice of Abel.6

1.1.2. The Destruction or Transformation of the Gift

In the second place, some change or destruction of the gift must take place to

constitute a sacrifice. An entire destruction of the gift, or at least something morally

equivalent pertains essentially to the idea of sacrifice. Thus, in this sense, there is a difference

between a sacrifice and a religious gift: “whatever has not been liturgically transformed, or

destroyed, cannot be a real sacrifice (sacrificium), but is only a religious gift (oblatio),

essentially different from sacrifice”.7 We find, therefore, in all sacrifices mentioned in

Scripture, that there was always some mode of destruction or dissolution, appropriate to the

nature of the matter of the sacrifice. Animals were slain and their blood spilled on the altar,

incense was consummated by fire, and wine was poured out. But for the religious gifts or

offerings, these were not destroyed, they were gifts such as jewels or gold ornaments brought

to God with humility and due honour. An instance in scripture is found in the book of

Numbers: “So, as an offering for Yahweh, we have brought what each of us has found in the

way of gold ornaments, armlets and bracelets, rings, earrings and breastplates, to make

expiation for ourselves before Yahweh” (Num. 31:50).

5
Except otherwise mentioned, the quotes throughout this work are from The New Jerusalem Bible.
6
Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest of them and the Lord was pleased with Abel
and his offering, but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased since he did not bring out the best. (Cfr. Gen
4:4-5)
7
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, B. Herder –
15, South Broadway 1902, 28

8
1.1.3. Legitimate Authority

In so far as sacrifice has a symbolic meaning and is a constituent part of public

worship, it must positively be instituted by a legitimate authority. The sacrificial service of

the Old Law was regulated and ordained by God Himself in its most minute details. 8 The

various laws on how the sacrifices were to take place are prefaced by this statement “Yahweh

summoned Moses and, speaking to him from the Tent of Meeting, said…” (Lev 1:1), to show

that it is Yahweh Himself who gives the laws for the sacrifice. As we would see in the

sections ahead, in the New Law the essential elements and features of worship proceed

directly from Jesus Christ. Neither to the Synagogue nor to the Church did God impart the

right or the power to institute sacrifices: in His infinite mercy He Himself prescribed the

sacrifices by which He would be honoured and propitiated (appeased). No mere man, but our

Divine Saviour alone could institute so sublime and so excellent a Sacrifice as we possess in

the Holy Mass.9

1.1.4. The Minister of the Sacrifice

Sacrifice is an act of worship which cannot be performed by anybody but a priest.

God Himself designed it this way, for he set apart a tribe, the priestly tribe of Levi, to offer

sacrifices. He alone who has been especially chosen, called and empowered, that is, only the

priest can and may offer sacrifice. Sacrifice and priesthood are inseparably connected: no

sacrifice can exist without the priesthood, and no priesthood without a sacrifice. 10 The reason

for this, as Nicolas Gihr avers, is that a special priesthood is required by the very nature of

sacrifice, which, as a public, solemn act of worship, must be performed in the name and for

the welfare of the religious body by a duly authorized person. 11 Consequently, as the Letter to

the Hebrews stresses, it is highly proper that only he who is, at least by his office and dignity,

8
The Book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus have many laws concerning the sacrifice of the Old Law
9
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 30.
10
Cfr. Ibid
11
Cfr. Ibid.

9
especially separated from sinners and sanctified, should present himself in sacrifice as

mediator between an offended God and sinful man: “Every high priest is taken from among

human beings and is appointed to act on their behalf in relationship with God, to offer gifts

and sacrifices for sins” (Heb. 5:1).

1.1.5. Sanctified Place

Since by its very nature a sacrifice is a sacred and holy act, for the celebration of so

holy and solemn an act of worship it is fitting to make the choice of a sanctified place; such a

place, where sacrifice is offered, is called an altar. The Old Testament sacrifices were offered

on altars and those places became sacred places. For example, Moses built an altar and

named it Yahweh-Nissi (the Lord is my refuge) (Ex. 17:15); and to stress the sacredness of

the altar, Yahweh said to Moses “If you make me an altar of stone, you must not build it of

stones shaped with tools, for if you use your tool on it you have defiled it” (Ex. 20:25 New

English Translation). With the construction of the Temple, a special altar was set aside for the

sacrifices (Cfr. 1Kings 8:64). Wherever sacrifice and priesthood are found, there also is

always an altar.12

1.2. THE MEANING OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW

The concept of sin in the Old Testament developed with time. For the Patriarchs,

the greatest crime was revolting against God’s choice – even lying, lust and violence are not

denounced as sinful. Under the Mosaic covenant, sin was the neglect of ceremonial

regulations rather than moral transgression. “What holiness required was not to do good, but

to avoid sin”.13 With the Prophets there was a shift from observance of rituals to

righteousness. Thus, the exploitation of the poor by the rich, the defrauding of the widow and

orphan, were considered sinful (Cfr. Amos 2:6-16). And since these were done by a particular

people, there was gradually the development of the doctrine of personal sin (Cfr. Jer. 33:29-

12
Cfr. N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 28.
13
J. LINEHAM, “Sin and Sacrifice”, in, International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Oct., 1905), pp. 88-98

10
30).14 While the concept of sin developed, man, estranged from God by sin also sought

different ways to become reconciled with God. Sacrifice for a long time was the principal

way to appease God. Man sought to propitiate Him by burnt offerings of various kinds. We

shall examine some of these forms of sacrifice and in the next section, consider whether these

sacrifices had any efficacy.

1.2.1. Holocaust

In the holocaust offering, the animal to be sacrificed was entirely consumed by fire.

Such a sacrifice was chiefly a sacrifice of praise and worship in acknowledgment of the

Divine Majesty (Cfr. Lev. 1:3ff).

1.2.2. Peace Offering

Peace offerings were offerings in which a portion of the flesh was burnt, another

part was eaten at the sacrificial meal by those who had offered it, and the third part was

reserved for the priests; this sacrifice also had the character of thanksgiving or petition 15(Cfr.

Lev. 3:1ff).

1.2.3. Offering of Propitiation or Sin Offering

In the offering of propitiation, a portion of the flesh was burnt and the remainder

consumed by the priests; whenever the offering was made for the sins of the whole people, or

in a particular manner for the sins of the priests, then all was burnt. The sacrifice of

propitiation had principally for its object to appease the wrath of God and to obtain the

pardon of sin.16 How far did these sacrifices actually atone for sins?

1.3. THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW

Put, differently, the question asked above is: to what extent did the Mosaic

sacrifices atone? Several views have been proposed by Old Testament expositors. On the one

14
Before, sin was mostly national – the whole nation could be punished for the sin of one man or some men.
15
Cfr. T. AQUINAS, Summa Theologiæ, T. MCDERMOTT (ed), Eyre and Spottiswoode publishers, Michelin
House, London 1989, 1, 2,q. 102,a.3ad10
16
Cfr. Ibid, 1, 2,q. 102,a.3ad11

11
hand, it has been asserted that the Levitical sacrifices had no power to atone for moral

transgressions, but simply ceremonial offenses.17 A second view holds that sin was not

removed once for all by an animal sacrifice under the law, but simply for a time, – from the

interval of one sin-offering to another, or from one day of atonement to another. 18 A third

position is that the Mosaic sacrifices, especially the sin and trespass-offerings, made a real

atonement for all sins, moral as well as ceremonial, as long as the sacrifices were presented in

humble faith and repentance.

The problem of the efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices come from the fact

that, on the one hand, when the Law itself is consulted as to the effects of these sacrifices

upon ceremonial, civil, or moral transgression, it is always stated that the effect is the

forgiveness of sins, with the Israelite restored to both covenant and spiritual standing (Cfr.

Lev. 4:33,35 ASV). But, the New Testament teaching, on the other hand, especially the Letter

to the Hebrews, is very emphatic in its declarations that these were sacrifices “…which can

never take away sins.” (Heb. 10:1); for they “…cannot, as touching the conscience, make the

worshipper perfect,” (Heb. 9:9); “for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should

take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). To reconcile this problem, Nicolas Gihr’s insight is of value, for

he says:

In the Old Law there was no sacrament which by its own power and efficacy (ex
opere operato) could justify and sanctify the properly disposed recipient; perfect
contrition was then the only means left to adults of obtaining true sanctity and
becoming children of God. Only by a believing hope and contrite love could men
(ex opera operantis) draw remission of sin and justification beforehand from the
fountain of grace which was to be opened at the foot of the Cross.19

Thus, it must be carefully observed, that whatever efficacy was ascribed to the Levitical

sacrifices, it was not inherent within the animal itself, and did not, strictly speaking, belong to

17
Keil and Delitzsch moreover, extend this view to include all transgressions, and thereby seemingly render the
Old Testament sacrifices meaningless: (Cfr. C. F KEIL, D.D. – F. DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament, Vol. 1, The Pentateuch, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1935.)
18
H. E. FREEMAN, The Problem of The Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices, (vol. 1-5) Grace Theological
Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana 1994, 73-79.
19
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 38

12
the sacrifices themselves, which were symbols, from God’s viewpoint, of the Lamb of God. 20

Levitical sacrifices were the divinely appointed means of objectively signifying to Israel that

man was sinful, and that sin was a serious matter which required the forfeiting of one’s life

and the shedding of blood. Therefore, the Israelites offered animal sacrifices in token of

contrition and as a “medium” of pardon.21 But all these was in prefiguration of the one great

sacrifice on the Cross – Bloody Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the priest and victim, who offered

this sacrifice once and for all – a sacrifice which atones for sins (ex opere operato).

1.4. THE BLOODY SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS

The twenty-second session of the council of Trent, the Chapter on the sacrifice of
Mass, states the following:
Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle
Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there
was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise,
according to the order of Melchizedech, our Lord Jesus Christ…He, therefore, our God
and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God
the Father, by means of his death… nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to
be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed…
that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the
nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the
cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the
world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily
commit…He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of
bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things.22

In the sacrifices of the Old Law irrational creatures – objects of possession and enjoyment

belonging to the animal or vegetable kingdom were substituted for man and offered to God in

place of human life. Such a substitution was imperfect, inefficacious and, consequently,

inadequate. The blood of animals could not atone for sin or relieve man of its debt; but rather

kept up the remembrance of unatoned sin continually alive in those who offered these

sacrifices (Cfr. Heb. 10: 3, 4), thus awakening the desire of the promised Sacrifice of He who

would, in an incomparably more exalted way, offer a perfect atonement for the guilt of all

sin.

20
H. E. FREEMAN, The Problem of The Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices, 77.
21
H. E. FREEMAN, The Problem of The Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices, 77.
22
J. WATERWORTH, (Ed. and trans.), The Council of Trent: The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and
Oecumenical Council of Trent, London, Dolman 1848, 152-153.

13
1.4.1. The High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ
Categorically, the Letter to the Hebrews is the central New Testament text on the

priesthood of Christ and his sacrificial activity. 23 This Letter presents Christ’s high priesthood

against the background of the Jewish priesthood and sacrificial system. But did Christ qualify

to become a priest – since he is from the line of David the king? And if he did, when actually

did Christ become a priest? This section examines these two questions, explaining Christ’s

qualifications for priesthood and when He became a priest.

1.4.1.1. Christ’s Qualifications for Priesthood

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews is aware that Jesus belonged to the tribe of

Judah (Heb. 7:14) and thus, did not qualify as a priest in the Jewish system. If Christ did not

belong through birth to the Levitical priesthood, what qualified him to be reckoned not only a

priest but also the High Priest of the new dispensation? The Letter to the Hebrews lists three

qualifications for such high priesthood: “Every high priest is (a) taken from among human

beings and (b) [not self-appointed but] appointed on behalf of human beings with respect to

the matters pertaining to God, (c) in order to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin” (Heb. 5:1).

Through taking on the human condition in the incarnation, the Son of God satisfied

the first qualification.24 Secondly, He did not ‘take for himself the honour’ of priesthood but

was called by God: “And so it was not Christ who gave himself the glory of becoming high

priest, but the one who said to him: ‘You are my Son, today I have fathered you’, and in

another text: ‘You are a priest for ever, of the order of Melchizedek’.” (Heb 5:5-6). Thirdly,

while the Jewish priests offered sacrifice for the sins of the people and their own sins, Christ

offered his sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but did not need to offer sacrifice for His own

sins, since he was without sin (7:27).

23
Nevertheless, it does not stand alone in reflecting on Christ’s priesthood. The four Evangelists, Paul and other
New Testament writers merely touch in this theme implicitly. For more insight, see G. O’COLLINS – M. K.
JONES, Jesus our Priest: A Christian Approach to the priesthood of Christ, Oxford University Press, New York
2010, Chapters One and Two.
24
For further clarity, see Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), §§470-478.

14
 Jesus Christ, However, not only qualifies as a High Priest but is the eternal High

Priest;25 His priesthood supersedes any priesthood based on membership in the tribe of Levi

(Cfr. Heb. 7:1-10). Rev. E. Lussier, commenting on these verses, puts it this way:

Melchizedek’s priesthood, a royal priesthood, was superior to that of Aaron, yet it was only a
figure of Christ’s. Melchizedek blessed Abraham and accepted a tenth part of his booty. By name
he was “king of justice”; as king of Salem, he was “King of peace.” The absence of all records
of his birth and death shows him as holding his priesthood by himself alone. More than
Melchizedek, Christ is king of justice and peace; his priestly dignity is unique, his priesthood
is eternal. Melchizedek was also superior to Abraham and Levi, and his priesthood was
independent and universal and somehow eternal. All this is absolutely true of Christ alone. 26

Therefore, Christ is not a priest of the same order as those, who before His coming were

invested with the priestly office, or who after Him exercise the same: He is, indeed, the most

exalted and the most perfect priest; His priestly power is so extensive and so complete, that it

cannot be imparted to a mere creature.27 The priests before him were destined only to

prefigure, by the sacrifices they offered, the one great Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in order

thereby to preserve in mankind faith in the promised Redeemer. 28 The priests of the New Law

do not approach the altar in their own name and person, but in the name and in the person of

Jesus Christ. Thus, He is in truth, the ONE High Priest for the whole human race.

1.4.1.2. Christ’s Becoming High Priest

Commentators on Hebrews regularly raise the question: when did Christ become

High Priest? Did His priesthood begin only with his death (Heb. 9:11-14) and exaltation to

the right hand of God? Or did his priesthood originate with his coming into the world (Heb.

10:5), Or when he ‘made his appearance once and for all, at the end of the last age, to do

away with sin by sacrificing himself’ (Heb 9:26)? G. O’Collins and M. K. Jones give a fitting

conclusion to these difficulties. They affirm that though the defining moment of the

priesthood of Christ came with his death and exaltation, His Divine sonship and human

25
Cfr. CCC, §1544.
26
E. LUSSIER, Christ’s Priesthood: According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minnesota 1975, 28.
27
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 43.
28
Cfr. J. KLEUTGEN, Predigten: Zweite Abtheilung vol. 1., 81-82., as quoted by N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass, 43.

15
priesthood, made possible through the incarnation, belonged together. 29 His priestly self-

offering characterized his whole human existence (10:5-7) – which began with the

Incarnation.

1.4.2. The Death of Christ on the Cross a True and Real Sacrifice
How is Christ’s death on the Cross to be understood as a true sacrifice? How far

does it contain all the constituents of a sacrifice taken in its strict sense? We shall look at this

from the point of view of the object of the sacrifice, the priest of the sacrifice and the fruits of

the sacrifice.

1.4.2.1. The Object of the Sacrifice

In the first place, regarding the object of the sacrifice, He who was sacrificed on

the Cross, was Jesus Christ, the Man-God and our High Priest. Hence it was a divine Person,

it was the Son of God Himself who was offered on Mount Calvary; but He could offer the

sacrifice only through His human nature, that is, by acts of love and obedience, or humility

and submission.30 The object sacrificed was also spotless – Christ offered Himself as an

unspotted sacrifice unto God (Heb. 9:14) on the Cross. Moreover, the sacrifice was of an

infinite value and merit, since the object of the sacrifice was an infinite Person.31

1.4.2.2. The Priest of the Sacrifice

Since the Offering of sacrifice pertains to the priest, it must, consequently, have

been accomplished by our Saviour Himself upon Golgotha. “He Himself was the priest

offering the sacrifice as well as the sacrifice offered” (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio).32 In the

Sacrifice of the Cross, therefore, the God-Man33 is the Priest offering and at the same time,

29
Cfr. G. O’COLLINS – M. K. JONES, Jesus our Priest, 50
30
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 52
31
Cfr. Ibid.
32
AUGUSTINE, The City of God, John Healey (trans.), Vol.2, John Grant, Edinburg 1909, 1. 10,c. 20.
33
The Son of God alone – not the Father and not the Holy Ghost – is both Priest and Victim, because and
inasmuch as He alone assumed human nature, which placed Him in a condition to sacrifice and to be sacrificed;
but according to His divine nature, by which He is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, He receives and
accepts the Sacrifice which is perpetually offered to the triune God. (Cfr. N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the

16
the lamb offered: He offers and He is offered according to His human nature. As Augustine

maintains, Christ is Priest and offers, in as much as He acts without restraint and freely gives

His life; He is the Victim and He is offered inasmuch as He suffers pain and undergoes death,

in order to be slain for the honour of God. 34 And according to Aquinas, the executioners and

soldiers who tortured our Lord, wished to kill Him and in reality, they did so with violence

and cruelty, but in no sense did they sacrifice Him; they did not perform a work pleasing to

God, but rather committed the greatest outrages.35 Or, as St. Leo puts it:

The Lord took upon Himself what, according to the decree of His will, He hath
chosen; He permitted the hands of the godless to rage against Him, this became
of service to Him in the performance of their own transgressions.36

To be a real sacrifice, Christ’s passion and death had to be voluntary, that is, to depend upon

His will, to be accepted by it and directed to the divine glory. Christ Himself had said: “I lay

down my life for my sheep. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and

as I have power to lay it down, so I have power to take it up again; and this is the command I

have received from my Father” (Joh 10: 15,18).

1.4.2.3. The Efficaciousness or Fruit of the Sacrifice

The fruit of the bloody sacrifice of Christ was the redemption of the world, the

restoration of the human race and of the whole of creation: “For what else has the Cross of

Christ effected, what else does it still effect, than that enmity is destroyed and the world

reconciled to God, so that by the sacrifice of the Lamb slain all be led back to true peace?” 37

To accomplish the redemption, the Lord did not offer a gift of little value, but His own

Mass, footnote, page 52.)

34
AUGUSTINE, The City of God, 1. x.c. 6
35
T. AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, .3,q.48,a.3ad
36
LEO THE GREAT, Eleventh Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, in C. L. FELTOE (trans and Ed.), The Letters and
Sermons of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in Vol. 12 of P. SCHAFF – H. WACE (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Christian Literature Publishing, New York, 1895.
37
LEO THE GREAT, Fifteenth Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, in C. L. FELTOE (trans and Ed.), The Letters and
Sermons of Leo the Great.

17
humanity, which in itself is incomparably more valuable than all creation, and which, in

union with the divine nature, possesses infinite dignity and majesty.38

1.5. THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE ON THE ALTAR – THE EUCHARIST

In the Sacrifice of the Cross all sacrifices prior to the coming of Christ have their

fulfilment and by means of it have attained their end and to this effect, as St. Leo explains,

there was a transition from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from

the many legal sacrifices to the one Sacrifice. 39 With the ending of the Old Covenant, 40 the

ancient sacrifices also ceased, because they had become useless. Now, was there to be no

further sacrifice after the death of Christ? Was there to be no perpetual sacrifice? Was Christ,

not to hand on to His beloved Church a permanent sacrifice as a heritage? To say that Christ

left the Church He founded without a perpetual sacrifice, is an assertion which of itself

appears improbable. In this section, therefore, we show that the Eucharist is indeed a true and

real sacrifice. We also point out were the essence of sacrifice is expressed in the Eucharistic

Sacrifice.

1.5.1. The Eucharistic Sacrifice: A True and Real Sacrifice

This section aims to show that the Eucharist is indeed a true sacrifice from the

point of view of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

1.5.1.1. The Truth and Reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament, God announced and predicted by the mouth of His Prophets

the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament. There is the figurative priesthood and sacrifice

of Melchizedek. The peculiar characteristic of the sacrifice, and consequently, of the

38
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 54.
39
LEO THE GREAT, The Seventeenth Discourse on the Lord’s Passion, in C. L. FELTOE (trans and Ed.), The
Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great.
40
Signified by the tearing of the veil before the entrance of the Holy of Holies of the Old Dispensation, as most
Church Fathers suggest: “When the Lod gave up His spirit, the mystical veil which concealed the innermost part
of the Temple and its holy mystery from view, was suddenly and violently rent in twain from top to bottom.
Then truth abolished the figures and the prophecies became superfluous after their fulfilment” (Cfr. Ibid)

18
priesthood of Melchizedek consisted merely in this, that he offered bread and wine to the

Most High (Gen. 14:18). Accordingly, Christ, as the true and eternal Melchizedek, must also

offer a similar sacrifice, and that not merely once, but continually throughout all ages until

the fulness of time. This can be the case only if the daily celebration of the Eucharist under

the specie of bread and wine is a true and real sacrifice.

There are other prophesies of the Old Law that point to the truth and reality of the

Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Prophet Malachi, for instance, delivers a severe and bitter

complaint of God against the priests of Levi, who after return from the exile were very

careless and irreverent in offering sacrifices:

‘I am not pleased with you,’ says the LORD who rules over all, ‘and I will no longer
accept an offering from you. For from the east to the west my name will be great
among the nations. Incense and pure offerings will be offered in my name
everywhere, for my name will be great among the nations,’ says the LORD who rules
over all.” (Mal 1:10b-11 New English Translation).

This pure offering, the Council of Trent explains, is the Eucharist – the New Passover:

He instituted the new Passover…Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the

Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this
world unto the Father…And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be
defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord
foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name.41

Thus, the Prophet announces that there shall be offered in the Christian era throughout the

whole earth a clean oblation (mincha purum); an unbloody42 but real sacrifice. This can mean

nothing else than the celebration of the Eucharist – for the words of the Prophet cannot be

applied to the Sacrifice of the Cross; for it was offered only in one place and then in a bloody

manner, while the sacrifice foretold is an unbloody one and offered everywhere.

1.5.1.2. The New Testament – The Last Supper

This section deserves and entire chapter in this work, because the Last Supper

concerns the very heart of Christianity and raises very difficult historical questions. However,

this work does not get into all the questions and historical details about this meal. This

J. WATERWORTH, (Ed. and trans.), The Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter one, 154. (emphasis Added)
41

42
The word mincha, in the liturgical sense indicates, invariably, the unbloody sacrifices of eatables. (Cfr.
Nicolas, 87)

19
section seeks instead to show that the very first Eucharistic celebration was indeed a sacrifice

as foretold in the Old Testament (as we saw above). Thus, we shall examine the very words

of Jesus (ipsissima verba Iesu) during the Last Supper.

The four accounts of the Last Supper handed down to us by the New Testament

(Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:15-20; 1Cor 11:23-26) are subdivided into two types, the

one represented by Matthew and Mark, and the one offered by Luke and Paul. Ratzinger

observes that the main differences between these two forms of tradition consist, on the one

hand, in the absence in Mt/Mk of the command to repeat the sacred action and, in the absence

in different ways of naming the offering of the chalice 43: “This is my blood of the

covenant”(Mt/Mk), whereas Lk/Paul states “This cup…is the new covenant in my blood.” As

Ratzinger further observes, the actual depth of these distinctions becomes apparent when one

recognizes that each group of texts in this way brings an entirely different Old Testament

background into play and, so to speak offers a different New Testament theology of the Old

Testament.44 Thus, “blood of the covenant” (as used in Mt/Mk) taken from Exodus 24:8

brings to mind the covenantal theology of Exodus; And “New Covenant” (as used in Lk/Paul)

goes back to the prophets. Jeremiah for instance says: “Behold the days are coming, says the

Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not

like the covenant which I made with their fathers…” (Jer 31:31-33).

Now this does not imply an opposition between the cultic aspect of Mt/Mk and the

prophetic aspect of Lk/Paul. There is a common centre: the total self-surrender of the one

who delivers himself up to the Father for mankind – Christ the Suffering Servant. 45Man

43
Cfr. J. RATZINGER, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, G. L. MULLER (ed.), in Joseph Ratzinger, Collected Works,
Vol. II, Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014.
210.
44
Cfr. Ibid.
45
For more insight, read J. RATZINGER, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, 211ff.

20
cannot give himself and cannot replace himself46, only Christ, the God-Man could give

himself up for us – He did this at the Last Supper.

1.5.1.3. Making the Sacrifice of Christ Present

In Paul and Luke, the words “This is my body which is given for you” are

followed by the instruction to repeat the action: “Do this in remembrance of me!” What

actually did the Lord ask them to repeat? Here again, we turn to Joseph Ratzinger for insight.

To quote him directly, he says:

Yet we may ask: What exactly did the Lord instruct them to repeat? Certainly not the
Passover meal (if that is what Jesus’ Last Supper was). The Passover was an annual
feast, whose recurring celebration in Israel was clearly regulated through hallowed
tradition and tied to a specific date…The instruction to repeat refers simply to what
was new in Jesus’ actions that evening: the breaking of bread, the prayer of blessing
and thanksgiving accompanied by the words of consecration of bread and wine. We
might say: through these words our “now” is taken up into the hour of Jesus. What
Jesus had proclaimed in John 12:32 is here fulfilled: from the Cross he draws all men
to himself, into himself.47

Thus, by these words, the Lord commanded His Apostles and their successors in the priestly

dignity (1Cor. 11:24-27) to do the same as He had done, until His return at the end of time,

that is, continually to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which He had just offered in their

presence. Thus, the Eucharist is really and truly a Sacrifice, done in remembrance of Our

Blessed Lord’s self-offering, in the form of bread and wine, and his Saving Death on the

Cross. It is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Calvary. St. Irenaeus (c. 202) distinctly calls the

Eucharist the clean oblation predicted by the Prophet Malachi. “Christ” he writes,

“acknowledged (at the Last Supper) the chalice as His Blood and taught the new Sacrifice of

the New Covenant, which the Church has received from the Apostles and offers to God

throughout the entire world.”48

1.5.2. Conclusion: The Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross

46
Cfr. RATZINGER, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, 211.
47
J. RATZINGER, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, Catholic
Truth Society, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, London 2011, 139.
48
IRENAEUS, Against Heresies, 1. 4, c. 17-18., in P. SCHAFF, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids 2001(reprint).

21
 All that we have mentioned above from Scripture and Tradition, the Church has

solemnly and formally declared in the Council of Trent, defining that in Holy Mass “a true

and real Sacrifice” is offered to the triune God.49 In the Eucharistic celebration, all the

conditions essential to a sacrifice are found; hence it is a true and real sacrifice. One of the

essential characteristics of the Mass is its interior peculiar relation to the Sacrifice of the

Cross. In this light, Gihr states that the sacrifices prior to Christ did indeed prefigure the

future Sacrifice of the Cross; but the Sacrifice of the Mass is in an infinitely more perfect

manner a copy of the Sacrifice of the Cross accomplished on Calvary. 50 The Eucharist, Gihr

further maintains, is in its nature a relative sacrifice, that is, a true sacrifice in itself, but

which at the same time relates to the Sacrifice of the Cross and objectively represents it. 51

From all that has been said, we conclude therefore, that the Sacrifice of the Altar is, by its

very nature and very object, the living re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross and the

perpetual application of its fruits.

49
J. WATERWORTH, (Ed. and trans.), The Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 1.
50
Cfr. N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 125.
51
Cfr. N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 125.

22
 2. CHAPTER TWO

THE “ORATE FRATRES” IN THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS

Now we shift our focus from the notion of sacrifice in general, to the Holy Mass

itself, and particularly to the altar (Liturgy of the Eucharist), where Christ’s perfect sacrifice

to the Father is made present to us under signs of bread and wine. The Liturgy of the

Eucharist begins with the Preparation of Gifts, also called Offertory. 52 After the offertory the

priest invites the faithful to pray that both his sacrifice and theirs be acceptable to God: “pray

brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father”. And

the faithful respond: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and

glory of His name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church”. This chapter analyses

this important moment during the Holy Mass, as it brings out the full meaning of the Holy

Mass as a sacrifice. Also, certain recommendations are made to enable a better appreciation

of this moment.

2.1. My Sacrifice and Yours: THE COMMON AND THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

The wordings “pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable…” of

the current English Translation of the Roman Rite, where implemented on the 1 st Sunday of

Advent 2011. Before, the English text said (emphasis added): “Pray, brethren, that our

sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father.” What then is meant here by ‘my

sacrifice and yours,’ how important is this distinction, and how does this differ from ‘our

sacrifice’, (which was rather a loose translation of the Latin meum ac vestrum sacrificium)?

2.1.1. The My Sacrifice and Yours or Our Sacrifice?

52
T. KOCIK, Loving and Living the Mass, Zaccheus Press, Bethesda 2011, 56.

23
 The translation of meum ac vestrum sacrificium, should best be translated as “my

sacrifice and yours” since this underlines the different roles of the priest and the laity. “Our

sacrifice” blurs this distinction. The reason for the distinction is that it points to an important

difference between the priest and the laity at Mass and also the difference between the

presiding priest and everyone else at Mass, including other priests. In offering the Sacrifice of

Mass, the priest offers the sacrifice ‘in the person of Christ’ (in persona Christi).53 However,

it needs to be stressed that there are no two (or more) sacrifices at Mass. There is but one

sacrifice – The sacrifice of Christ which becomes our sacrifice. Joseph Ratzinger explains

that the roles of Christ, the Church and the priest in the Eucharistic celebration are part of one

integral whole: There is but one sacrifice, he says, the thank offering of Christ, and this he

offers in heaven, while his priests offer this in persona Christi on earth.54 The Catechism of

the Catholic Church explains:

The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ
participates in the offering of her Head. With Him, she herself is offered whole and entire.
She unites herself to His intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the
sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of His Body.55

Therefore, the Sacrifice of the Mass which is also the sacrifice of the entire Church is offered

by the faithful in the manner proper to them by virtue of their union with Christ and

membership in His Mystical Body (the Church) brought about by Baptism. They offer the

sacrifice of Christ along with the priest, although in a different manner. This leads us to the

two-fold distinction: The ministerial priesthood (of the priest) and the common priesthood (of

the laity).

2.1.2. The Common Priesthood and the Ministerial Priesthood

With regard to the distinction made above, while emphasising the common or royal

priesthood of the faithful, the Church’s Magisterium clearly distinguishes it from the

53
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1548-1551; Lumen Gentium 10, 28; Sacrosanctum Concilium 33.
54
Cfr. J. RATZINGER, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, (Trans. G. HARISSON),
Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1986, 50-60.
55
VARIOUS, Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1368.

24
ministerial priesthood deriving from the sacrament of Holy Orders, which alone gives the

power to consecrate the Eucharist in the person of Christ. The Second Vatican Council in

Lumen Gentium teaches:

Though they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the
faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are none the less ordered one to
another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial
priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the
person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name
of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join the offering of the
Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and
thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.56

Thus, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are both ordered

towards the Eucharist but in two complementary ways. The ministerial priests acting in the

person of Christ and offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. The faithful also offer the sacrifice

but through the hands of the priest.

2.1.3. The Sacrifice of the Common Priesthood

But what is the sacrifice of the faithful? What sacrifice pertains to the common

priesthood? As Laurence Feingold articulates:

Without the ministerial priesthood, the Church would never be able to offer the sacrifice of
the Mass, and thus the faithful would not be able to participate in the offering by making
the internal offering of their own lives in conjunction with the divine Victim on the altar.57

Both Scripture and the Magisterium point to this fact, that the sacrifice made by the faithful is

an internal offering of their own lives. Hebrews 13:15-16 speaks of the faithful offering a

“sacrifice of praise” through their lives: “Through him then let us continually offer up a

sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect

to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”

St. Peter Chrysologus, commenting on Romans 12:1, “I appeal to you…to present

your bodies as a living sacrifice” writes: “By this exhortation of his, Paul has raised all men

to priestly status…Do not forfeit what divine authority confers on you. Put on the garment of

56
VATICAN II ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, (21
November, 1964) n.10.
57
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, S. HAHN (ed.), Emmaus
Academic, Steubenville, Ohio 2018, 474.

25
holiness, gird yourself with the belt of chastity.” 58 With the understanding of this basic

distinction between the sacrifice of the priest and the laity brought out in the first part of the

‘Orate fratres’, we set the ground work to understand what follows: “…may be acceptable to

God the Almighty Father”.

2.2. THE PRAYER OF ACCEPTANCE: “May be Acceptable to God the Almighty

Father”

The prayer “that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to the Almighty

Father”, at first sight seems strange. Why should we pray that the sacrifice be acceptable to

God, when we are speaking about the sacrifice of Christ made present on the altar – the

Mass? And why should we pray for the acceptance of a sacrifice that has infinite value in

itself? Did not the Father manifest the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice in His glorious

Resurrection and Ascension? To answer these questions, we must look back to what we

established above. If the Mass were only the sacrifice of Christ Himself, then such a prayer

would be unfitting and inexplicable. But the Mass is the sacrifice offered by the Church and

all the faithful, thus the petition is deeply meaningful, says Feingold.59

2.3. THE END OF THE SACRIFICE: “For the Praise and Glory of His Name…”

The response to the ‘Orate fratres’ is as follows: “May the Lord accept the

sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all

His Holy Church”. We could divide this response in two parts. The subordinate clause is a

response to the prayer request of the minister, who asked the faithful to pray that the sacrifice

be accepted. The dependent clause highlights twofold ends of the sacrifice or rather, the end

and merit of the sacrifice of Mass: “for the praise and glory of His name” and “for our good

and the good of all His holy Church”. In this first section we shall talk about the end of the

sacrifice.
58
P. CHRYSOLOGUS, Sermon 108 (PL, 52:499-500), in the Liturgy of the Hours, Tuesday of the Fourth Week of
Easter, Office of Readings, 2nd Reading.
59
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 476.

26
 Catholic tradition speaks of four ends of the Mass, four ends that are common to

the entire liturgy, to prayer, and in fact, to all religion. These four ends are: adoration (by

which God is glorified), thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation (the expiations of sin). 60 In

the Orate fratres these ends are imbedded: Petition (‘Pray brethren’); thanksgiving and

adoration (‘for the praise and glory of his name’); and propitiation (‘for our good and the

good of all his holy Church)61. However, that of thanksgiving and adoration is brought out

emphatically.

Thus, when we say “for the praise and glory of His name”, we confess our belief

that the Mass, ex opere operato62, gives infinitely greater glory to God than any other

meritorious act that we can perform, for it is the very sacrifice of Calvary sacramentally made

present on our altars, in which the Word Incarnate offers Himself for the salvation of men,

moved by maximum charity.63 By devoutly celebrating Mass, participating in Mass, or having

Mass offered, we give immeasurable more glory to God than by any other means, for the

sacrifice of Mass makes present Christ’s glorification of God on Calvary. 64 This end of Mass

is expressed more fittingly in the doxology that concludes the Eucharistic Prayers: “Through

him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all

glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever.”

2.4. THE MERIT OF THE SACRIFICE: “For Our Good and the Good of all His Holy

Church”

Since Luther rejected the sacrificial nature of the Mass, it is but normal that he

thought it could have fruits only for those who hear the Mass with faith, and that it could not

60
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 22
61
This last end of Mass is treated in the next section, also as the merit of Mass.
62
According to O’Neill, whereas, in its application to the other sacraments, this phrase refers to the gift of grace
given through the sacrament to the (‘disposed’) recipient, when applied to the Mass it denotes the manifold
pleading for grace which is characteristic of a sacrifice. (Cfr. C. E. O’NEILL, New Approaches to the Eucharist,
Alban House, New York 1967, 42.)
63
Cfr. PIUS XII, Encyclical Letter, Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy (20 November, 1947), n.79.
64
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 516.

27
be offered for others.65 The Augsburg Confession of 1530, a fundamental Lutheran

confessional document, condemns the Catholic conception of the sacrifice of the Mass and

the Catholic practice of having Masses offered for souls in purgatory.66

However, flowing from the teaching of the Church that the sacraments are

efficacious ex opere operato, that is, by the fact of being rightly performed67, a Mass

celebrated by a priest in grave sin is still the sacrifice of Calvary made present on our altars.

This efficacy, furthermore, is distinct from the fruitfulness of Holy Communion. Every valid

Mass is efficacious in the way that a sacrifice is efficacious, as an ascending movement of

prayer and self-offering that is pleasing to God68.

Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the merits or fruits of the Mass

benefits three classes of recipients. First of all, there is the general fruit that benefits the

whole Church, for it is offered by the Head of the Mystical Body, Jesus Christ, on behalf of

the whole Mystical Body, which includes the living and the dead.69 Thus when we say “…and

for the good of all his Holy Church”, we are thinking of the general fruits of the Mass. For

even the suffering Church, those in purgatory, benefit from the Mass, by the shortening of

their purgation. Even those who are outside the Church, who are all potential members,

benefit, for we propitiate God on their behalf that they may be given the grace of

conversion.70

Secondly, the Mass has a special fruit that corresponds to the special intentions for

which it is offered by the priest. 71 This normally corresponds to the intention for which the

priest has received a Mass stipend, which is a sign of the interior desire of the faithful who
65
Cfr. M. LUTHER, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in J. PELIKAN (ed.), Luther’s Works, 55 vols.
Philadelphia, PA, and St. Louis, MO: Fortress Press and Concordia, 1955–1986, 36:48).
66
Cfr. M. LUTHER, Augsburg Confession, Ch. 24, in J. H. LEITH (ed.), Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in
Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, John Knox Press, Richmond 1973, 84-85.
67
Cfr. CCC, 1127-1128.
68
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 522.
69
Cfr. ibid, 523.
70
Cfr. Ibid, and also, Cfr. CATHOLIC BISHOP’S CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, General Instruction of
the Roman Missal, 2.
71
Cfr. C. E. O’NEILL, New Approaches to the Eucharist, 43. As Quoted by L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 523.

28
offer it. Thus understood, Masses could be offered for both the living and the dead (for the

remission of temporal punishment of holy souls in purgatory).

Finally, there is a personal fruit for the priest who celebrates with devotion and for

all who are present with devotion. The greater the devotion of priest and faithful, the greater

will be their personal fruit.72 The importance of the devotion of the faithful in receiving the

fruits of the Mass can be seen, for example, in the Collect for the 34 th Week of Ordinary

Time: “Stir up the will of your faithful, we pray , O Lord, that striving more eager to bring

your divine work to fruitful completion, they may receive in greater measure the healing

remedies your kindness bestows.”73 Thus in the response to the ‘Orate fratres’, when we say

“…for our good and the good of all His Holy Church”, we mean all these three fruits of the

Mass: the general fruits, the special fruits and the personal fruits.

2.5. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS

Thus far, we have explained that the Holy Mass is indeed a sacrifice and explained

how central the ‘Orate fratres’ is, showing that the Mass is indeed the sacrifice of the priest

and of the faithful and the ends and merits of the sacrifice. This section brings out some

practical recommendations, flowing from what we have seen so far, which could ineffably

enable the priests and the faithful better appreciate the sacrifice they offer daily.

2.5.1. The Significance of Offertory

The first of these recommendations has to do with the approach to offertory. In

some Catholic Churches today, there is a general misconception about the significance of

offertory in the Liturgy. While the tradition of bread and wine procession is maintained, there

are a number of other monetary collections such that the purpose (end) of offertory in Mass is

easily blurred since the money given is not directly related to the sacrifice of the Eucharist as

the bread and wine. Thus, these questions arise: is the money Christians contribute for the
72
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 523.
73
The Roman Missal, 194. Cfr. Also, the Prayer over the Offerings for the First Sunday of Lent: “Give us the
right disposition, O Lord, we pray, to make these offerings” (The Roman Missal, 216).

29
normal Sunday alms, Catechist collection, harvest thanksgiving, or any collection in Church,

still a part of their sacrifice during the Mass? Or is it mere ‘fund raising’, distinct from the

Sacrifice of Mass such that the offering of the faithful is symbolized only in the bread and

wine procession? These are very pertinent questions, especially in our Local Churches today,

were the time dedicated for offertory takes up almost half of the entire Mass and there is an

increasing amount of pressure on priests to meet up with the percentage of money their parish

or institution has been demanded.

In the past, offertory was limited just to the bread and wine procession. The bread

and wine were manufactured by the faithful. This offering by the people had the advantage of

bringing out clearly the idea that the sacrifice is not offered by the priest alone but also by all

the faithful.74 They presented the bread and wine which would be the matter of the sacrifice.

“The bread and wine are withdrawn from common use” says Nicolas Gihr, “we give up all

claim to these earthly gifts and offer them to the Most High, with the intention and desire that

He would change them in the course of the sacrifice into the most holy Body and Blood of

Christ”.75 And the priest incenses the gifts for what they (fruits of creation and human labour)

are and for what they will become (the Blessed Sacrament) 76. How then do our monetary

offertory and gifts of other items in kind, become symbolic in the sacrifice of Mass? These

money or gifts are a fruit of our work and toil. Thus, it is vital that the faithful keep in mind

that, whatever offering they give in Church, is primarily a sacrifice to God, the creator and

source of all things. Like the bread and wine, therefore, these gifts symbolic of our human

condition, our toil, our worries, our sorrows, our joys 77. So, it should be given cheerfully to

God and freely. We are not merely giving God money; we are placing all our labours before

him;

74
Cfr. F. AMIOT, History of the Mass, Burns Oates, London 1959, 62.
75
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, B. Herder –
15, South Broadway 1902, 494.
76
T. KOCIK, Loving and Living the Mass, Zaccheus Press, Bethesda 2011, 56.
77
Cfr. ibid.

30
we are offering ourselves in those gifts. It is encouraged at this time, therefore, to place our

own hearts on the altar, that they be transformed in a mystical way into the body of Christ.

2.5.2. Active Participation at Mass

The participation of the faithful in the offering of Christ as Priest and Victim is the

principal meaning of the Second Vatican Council’s call to the faithful to participate more

actively and deeply in the liturgy. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred

Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, §14, brings the notion of participio actuosa “active

participation” to the forefront and connects it directly to the royal priesthood of the faithful.

As to how this is to be realized, §48 of the same document says the following:

The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery
of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a
good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action
conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be
instructed by God’s Word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s Body; they should
give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the
priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the
Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with
each other, so that finally God may be all in all.78

Unfortunately, the word “active participation” today is very quickly misunderstood to mean

something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if, as many people as possible,

and as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action. However, as Ratzinger

mentions, active “participation” refers to a principal action in which everyone has a “part”. 79

We do this most of all when “by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands

of the priest, but also with him”, we learn to offer themselves. Two other Vatican II

documents stress the same point.80 Lumen Gentium, §34, for instance, discusses the nature of

this self-offering. It involves all the concerns, labours, sufferings and joys of the faithful

which they offer to God together with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. In this way, the

78
VATICAN II ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 Dec.
1963), n. 48.
79
Cfr. J. RATZINGER, The Spirit of the Liturgy, John SAWARD (trans.), Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2000, 171.
80
Cfr. VATICAN II ECUMENICAL COUNCIL Lumen Gentium, n. 11; and Decree on the Ministry and Life of
Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis (7 Dec. 1965) n. 5.

31
secular activities of the faithful are invested with a supernatural redemptive merit. 81 It is

through such a self-offering and self-emptying that the Eucharist indeed transforms the life of

the Christian, who leaves the Mass lighter and more fulfilled.

How can we effect this self-sacrifice? Theodore Dobson advises that it would be

impossible to sacrifice ourselves to God using only words and not using some physical

symbols, because no amount of words could ever fully describe us as we are. 82 Thus, we must

allow the symbols of bread and wine (symbolic of human labour) representing us, to

represent our entire life. And as these elements are transformed, we are transformed

alongside them.

2.5.3. The Sunday Obligation

A majority of Catholic Christians are aware that there is an obligation to

participate in Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Yet many, as they were thought

in doctrine, take it as external legalistic imposition of the Church – for much emphasis is

usually placed on the last clause of §2181 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The

faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a

serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.

Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grace sin.”83

However, Joseph Ratzinger invites us to contrast our attitude towards Sundays

today with that of the early Church. He speaks of a group of about fifty Christian martyrs in

the year 304, during the Diocletian persecution in North Africa, who were attending the

Sunday Eucharist and were taken into custody by Roman Officials. In the Acts of their

martyrdom, they justified their violation by saying: “Without the Day of the Lord we cannot

exist.”84 And Ratzinger says:

81
Cfr. Lumen Gentium, n. 34, as quoted by, L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 485.
82
Cfr. T. E. DOBSON, How the Eucharist can Transform Your Life, St. Pauls, Bandra, Mumbai 2009, 43.
83
VARIOUS, Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2181
84
J. RATZINGER, “The Resurrection as the Foundation of Christian Liturgy – On the Meaning of Sunday for
Christian Prayer and Christian Life,” in Gerhard Ludwig MULLER (ed.), Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press,

32
 Such a witness from the dawn of Church history could easily give rise to nostalgic reflections if
one contrasts it with the lack of enthusiasm for Sunday service …Instead of “without Sunday
we cannot exist”, Sunday obligation appears only as an imposed Church law, an external
necessity. Then, like all duties coming from the outside, it is cropped more and more until only
the requirement remains to have to attend a half-hour ritual that is becoming ever more remote.
Asking when and why one can be excused from it ultimately becomes more important than
asking why one should regularly celebrate it.85

Commenting on this, L. Feingold says that the Sunday Mass obligation as the early Christian

martyrs were aware, comes from the incredible dignity that the faithful have in co-offering

the sacrifice.86 Having seen what this sacrifice entails above, the faithful should be eager to

offer with Christ, on this day precious to the Lord, their own selves as a sacrifice to God. This

would be our own martyrdom for after the Mass, we cease to live, and Christ lives in us. It is

notable that the Sunday obligation is not for Holy Communion but for participation in the

sacrifice. This shows the primacy of the sacrificial dimension of the Mass and the fact that

the Mass is first and offering to God – a sacrifice.87

CONCLUSION
San Francisco 2014, 176.
85
Cfr. Ibid.
86
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 491
87
Cfr. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter, Dominicae Cenae, on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (24
February 1980) §9: “The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice”.

33
 In the course of this work we have seen that in the sacrifices of the Old Testament,

were some essential properties: the offering of a visible object, the destruction or

transformation of this object, a legitimate authority who prescribes the ritual of the sacrifice,

a priest and a sanctified place. However, these sacrifices were not efficacious ex opere

operato in the forgiveness of sins, but were efficacious insofar as there was perfect contrition

(ex opere operantis). The bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, however, was that one

perfect sacrifice which was efficacious ex opere operato in the forgiveness of sins. This self-

sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, is a true sacrifice, having all the essential properties of the

sacrifice of the Old Law. It was offered by Christ Himself, the Eternal High Priest, who was

also the victim. But before he gave up Himself on the Cross, on the night when he was

betrayed, he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, a real and true sacrifice of his Body

and Blood, to be done in remembrance of Him, until he comes again. Because the Eucharist,

is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, the Mass is a sacrifice essentially one with Calvary.88

At the Mass therefore, at the Orate Fratres, when the priest says, “pray that my

sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father,” he acknowledges that the

Mass is indeed a sacrifice. But the priest, who acts in persona Christi, distinguishes himself

from the faithful, for he alone offers the very sacrifice offered by Christ at the Last Supper

and on the Cross. The faithful, however, offer this sacrifice through the hands of the priest, by

offering themselves. The Mass therefore is Christ’s sacrifice made ours. It is for our good and

the good of the whole Church. Our active participation and devotion would enable us benefit

from all the riches of this most holy Mystery.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
MAIN TEXTS
88
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 674.

34
FEINGOLD Laurence, The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and
Communion, Scott HAHN (ed.), Emmaus Academic,
Steubenville, Ohio 2018.
GIHR Nicholas, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically,
Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, B. Herder –
15, South Broadway 1902.
SECONDARY SOURCES
AMIOT Francois, History of the Mass, Burns Oates, London 1959.
AQUINAS Thomas, Summa Theologiæ, Timothy Mcdermott (ed), Eyre
and Spottiswoode publishers, Michelin House,
London 1989.
AUGUSTINE, The City of God, John Healey (trans.), Vol.2, John
Grant, Edinburg 1909.
BENEDICT XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance
into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, Catholic Truth
Society, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, London, 2011.
BROSNAN J. B., The Sacrifice of the New Law, Burns Oates and
Washbourne Ltd., London 1926.
CHRYSOLOGUS Peter, Sermon 108 (PL, 52:499-500), in the Liturgy of the
Hours, Tuesday of the Fourth Week of Easter, Office
of Readings, 2nd Reading.
DOBSON Theodore E., How the Eucharist can Transform Your Life, St.
Pauls, Bandra, Mumbai 2009.
FREEMAN E. Hobart, The Problem of The Efficacy of Old Testament
Sacrifices, (vol. 1-5) Grace Theological Seminary,
Winona Lake, Indiana, 1994.
IRENAEUS, Against Heresies, in Philip Schaff, The Apostolic
Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, MI:
Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids
2001(reprint).
KEIL C. F, D.D. and DELITZSCH F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1,
The Pentateuch, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38,
George Street, 1935.
KOCIK Thomas, Loving and Living the Mass, Zaccheus Press,
Bethesda 2011.
LEO THE GREAT, Eleventh Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, in Charles
Lett FELTOE (trans and Ed.), The Letters and
Sermons of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in Vol. 12
of Philip SCHAFF – Henry WACE (eds.), Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Literature Publishing,
New York, 1895.

35
_____________, Fifteenth Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, cited in Vol.
12 of Philip SCHAFF – Henry WACE (eds.), Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Literature
Publishing, New York, 1895.
_____________, The Seventeenth Discourse on the Lord’s Passion,
cited in Vol. 12 of Philip SCHAFF – Henry WACE
(eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian
Literature Publishing, New York, 1895.
LINEHAM J., “Sin and Sacrifice”, in, International Journal of
Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Oct., 1905).
LUSSIER Ernest, Christ’s Priesthood: According to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minnesota 1975.
LUTHER Martin, Augsburg Confession, Ch. 24, in John H. LEITH (ed.),
Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian
Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, John Knox
Press, Richmond 1973.
LUTHER Martin, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in Jaroslav
Pelikan (ed.), Luther’s Works, 55 vols.Philadelphia,
PA, and St. Louis, MO: Fortress Press and
Concordia, 1955–1986.
O’COLLINS Gerald– JONES Michael, Jesus our Priest: A Christian Approach to the
priesthood of Christ, Oxford University Press, New
York 2010.
O’NEILL E. Colman, New Approaches to the Eucharist, Alba House, New
York 1967.
POHLE Joseph, “Sacrifice of the Mass” in Charles George
HERBERMANN (Ed.), Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10,
Robert Appleton Company, New York 1913.
RATZINGER Joseph, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, Gerhard Ludwig
MULLER (ed.), in Joseph Ratzinger, Collected Works,
Vol. II, Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco 2014.
_______________, “The Resurrection as the Foundation of Christian
Liturgy – On the Meaning of Sunday for Christian
Prayer and Christian Life,” in Gerhard Ludwig
MULLER (ed.), Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 2014.
_______________, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the
Liturgy, (Trans. Graham HARISSON), Ignatius Press,
San Francisco 1986.

36
_______________, The Spirit of the Liturgy, John Saward (trans.),
Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2000.
VARIOUS, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liberia Editrice,
Vaticana, Vatican City 2012 (print).
WATERWORTH J., (Ed. and trans.), The Council of Trent: The Canons and Decrees of the
Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, London,
Dolman 1848.
PAPAL DOCUMENTS
JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter, Dominicae Cenae, on the Mystery
and Worship of the Eucharist (24 February 1980)
PIUS XII, Encyclical Letter, Mediator Dei, On the Sacred
Liturgy (20 November, 1947).

CHURCH DOCUMENTS
VATICAN II ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests,
Presbyterorum Ordinis (7 Dec. 1965).
____________________________, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,
Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 Dec. 1963).
____________________________, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen
Gentium, (21 November, 1964).

CONTENTS
DEDICATION...........................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................ii

37
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS
1.1. SACRIFICE IN ITS PROPER SENSE ..............................................................................7
1.1.1. The Offering of a Visible Object..........................................................................7
1.1.2. The Destruction or Transformation of the Gift....................................................8
1.1.3. Legitimate Authority.............................................................................................9
1.1.4. The Minister of the Sacrifice................................................................................9
1.1.5. Sanctified Place..................................................................................................10
1.2. THE MEANING OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW.........................................10
1.2.1. Holocaust...........................................................................................................11
1.2.2. Peace Offering...................................................................................................11
1.2.3. Offering of Propitiation or Sin Offering............................................................11
1.3. THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW.........................................11
1.4. THE BLOODY SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS................................................................13
1.4.1. The High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ.................................................................13
1.4.2. The Death of Christ on the Cross a True and Real Sacrifice.............................16
1.4.2.1. The Object of the Sacrifice.............................................................................16
1.4.2.2. The Priest of the Sacrifice..............................................................................16
1.4.2.3. The Efficaciousness or Fruit of the Sacrifice.................................................17
1.5. THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE ON THE ALTAR – THE EUCHARIST...........................18
1.5.1. The Eucharistic Sacrifice: A True and Real Sacrifice.......................................18
1.5.1.1. The Truth and Reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Old Testament......18
1.5.1.2. The New Testament – The Last Supper.........................................................19
1.5.1.3. Making the Sacrifice of Christ Present...........................................................21
1.5.2. Conclusion: The Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross..............21

38