DEDICATION

To my brother Fr. Blessed Ambang Njume,

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

1
 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

the 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
 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.”

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.

3
 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 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.

4
 CHAPTER ONE

THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS

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

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.

5
itself. “He [Yahweh] said to Aaron, ‘Take a calf to offer a sacrifice for sin, and a 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

6
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,

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

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.

7
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. 33:29-30).14 While the

concept of sin developed, man, estranged from God by sin also sought different ways to become

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
14
Before, sin was mostly national – the whole nation could be punished for the sin of one man or some men.

8
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 petition15(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 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

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
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.)

9
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

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

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
20
H. E. FREEMAN, The Problem of The Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices, 77.

10
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
Melchisedech, 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.

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

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.
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.

11
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).

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

24
For further clarity, see Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), §§470-478.
25
Cfr. CCC, §1544.

12
 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 priesthood, made possible

through the incarnation, belonged together.29 His priestly self-offering characterized his whole

human existence (10:5-7) – thus His priesthood originated 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

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. KLEUTGEN, Predigten, 1. Abth., 81-82., as quoted by N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 43.
29
Cfr. G. O’COLLINS – M. K. JONES, Jesus our Priest, 50

13
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, 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

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 Mass,
footnote, page 52.)
34
AUGUSTINE, The City of God, 1. x.c. 6

14
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

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

35
T. AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, .3,q.48,a.3ad
36
LEO THE GREAT, Eleventh Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, in Charles 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, Fifteenth Sermon on the Lord’s Passion, in ibid.
38
N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 54.

15
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 Melchisedech. The peculiar characteristic of the sacrifice, and consequently, of the

priesthood of Melchisedech consisted merely in this, that he offered bread and wine to the Most

High (Gen. 14:18). Accordingly, Christ, as the true and eternal Melchisedech, 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 as such. The Prophet Malachi, for instance, delivers a severe and bitter

39
LEO, The Seventeenth Discourse on the Lord’s Passion.
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)

16
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 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

41
J. WATERWORTH, (Ed. and trans.), The Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter one, 154. (emphasis Added)
42
The word mincha, in the liturgical sense indicates, invariably, the unbloody sacrifices of eatables. (Cfr. Nicolas,
87)

17
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 chalice43: “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 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:

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.
46
Cfr. RATZINGER, “Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?”, 211.

18
 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
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

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).
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.

19
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.

51
Cfr. N. GIHR, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 125.

20
 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 1st 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?

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

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

21
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

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:

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.

22
 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

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

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.
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.

23
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.

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

59
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 476.

24
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

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

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.
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).

25
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 Catholic 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

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).

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.

26
 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 34th 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 normal

Sunday alms, Catechist collection, harvest thanksgiving, or any collection in Church, still a

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).

27
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 joys77. 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.

28
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, as

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

“part-icipation” 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 secular activities of the faithful are

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.

29
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,
San Francisco 2014, 176.

30
 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

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”.

31
 CONCLUSION

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.

88
Cfr. L. FEINGOLD, The Eucharist, 674.

32
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
MAIN TEXTS
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

33
 SCHAFF – Henry WACE (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Christian Literature Publishing, New York,
1895.
_____________, 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.
COLMAN E. O’NEILL, 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.

34
_______________, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the
Liturgy, (Trans. Graham HARISSON), Ignatius Press,
San Francisco 1986.
_______________, 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).

35
 CONTENTS
DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS
1.1. SACRIFICE IN ITS PROPER SENSE.......................................................................................... 5
1.1.1. The Offering of a Visible Object .......................................................................... 5
1.1.2. The Destruction or Transformation of the Gift .................................................... 6
1.1.3. Legitimate Authority ............................................................................................ 7
1.1.4. The Minister of the Sacrifice ................................................................................ 7
1.1.5. Sanctified Place ................................................................................................... 8
1.2. THE MEANING OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW ....................................................... 8
1.2.1. Holocaust ............................................................................................................. 9
1.2.2. Peace Offering ..................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3. Offering of Propitiation or Sin Offering .............................................................. 9
1.3. THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD LAW ....................................................... 9
1.4. THE BLOODY SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS ........................................................................... 11
1.4.1. The High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ ................................................................. 11
1.4.2. The Death of Christ on the Cross a True and Real Sacrifice ............................ 13
1.4.2.1. The Object of the Sacrifice............................................................................. 14
1.4.2.2. The Priest of the Sacrifice .............................................................................. 14
1.4.2.3. The Efficaciousness or Fruit of the Sacrifice ................................................. 15
1.5. THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE ON THE ALTAR – THE EUCHARIST ..................................... 15
1.5.1. The Eucharistic Sacrifice: A True and Real Sacrifice ....................................... 16
1.5.1.1. The Truth and Reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Old Testament ..... 16
1.5.1.2. The New Testament – The Last Supper ......................................................... 17
1.5.1.3. Making the Sacrifice of Christ Present .......................................................... 18
1.5.2. Conclusion: The Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross .............. 19

36
 2. CHAPTER TWO
THE “ORATE FRATRES” IN THE SACRIFICE OF HOLY MASS
2.1. My Sacrifice and Yours: THE COMMON AND THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD ............ 21
2.1.1. The My Sacrifice and Yours or Our Sacrifice? ................................................. 21
2.1.2. The Common Priesthood and the Ministerial Priesthood ................................. 22
2.1.3. The Sacrifice of the Common Priesthood .......................................................... 23
2.2. THE PRAYER OF ACCEPTANCE: “May be Acceptable to God the Almighty Father” . 24
2.3. THE END OF THE SACRIFICE: “For the Praise and Glory of His Name…” ................. 24
2.4. THE MERIT OF THE SACRIFICE: “For Our Good and the Good of all His
Holy Church” ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.5. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 27
2.5.1. The Significance of Offertory ............................................................................. 27
2.5.2. Active Participation at Mass .............................................................................. 29
2.5.3. The Sunday Obligation ...................................................................................... 30
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 32
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 33

37