Sect. 264The Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Teaching of the Fathers and the CouncilsThe Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Teaching of the Fathers and the Councils
I. The references to the Sacrifice of the Mass during the first three centuries are, as might be expected, few, but they are unmistakable.
1. In the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (c. 100?) we read (ch. xiv.): “Having assembled together on the Lord’s day, break bread and give thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε) having confessed your sins beforehand in order that your sacrifice (θυσία) may be pure.” The text goes on to refer to Malachy (1:11): “for that (sacrifice) is the same as that spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time to offer to me a pure oblation (θυσίαν καθαράν).” It is clear that the author of the Didache held that the Eucharistic rite was the “pure oblation” foretold by Malachy (supra, p. 434).
2. St. Ignatius († 115) speaks of the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Who suffered for our sins, and Whom the Father in His mercy raised again (Ad Smyrn., c. 7). The repeated mention of the altar, through which the people are in communion with the bishops, priests, and deacons, and show their adherence to the Church, and the remark that through the Liturgy the power of Satan is broken, connect altar and Liturgy with the Cross, upon which Satan was conquered (Ad Phil., 4; Eph., v. 13; Magn., 7; Trall., 7). Ἄρτος τοῦ Θεοῦ (the bread of God), and ἐντός τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (within the altar) (Eph., v.), in view of parallel texts, must be understood of the Eucharistic bread and altar. “Hope of salvation and union between the members of the community” are but consequences of the eating of the Divine bread from the same altar. They cannot be read into the text as its literal and primary meaning.
3. Clement of Rome († 102), in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 40–44, compares the bishops and deacons with the priests and Levites, and exhorts them to perform προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας (oblations and liturgical services) according to the prescribed order. Δῶρα προσφέρειν and προσφοραί (“offering gifts and oblations”) are, in Clement’s writings, interchangeable terms; and the new Liturgy is analogous to the old. Hence, in his mind, the new sacrifice is also analogous to the old: his name for it is εὐχαριστεῖν, to celebrate the Eucharist.
4. St. Justin († 160) deals with the Eucharist as a true sacrifice, in a way which leaves no room for controversy. He distinguishes between προσφορά (“oblation”), (Apologia, i. 67; Dial., 41) and θυσία (“sacrifice”), (Dial., 117). The oblation is not only the act of offering, but, at the same time, the bread and wine offered; the sacrifice consists in the λὸγος εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας (“the word of prayer and thanksgiving”), which is pronounced by the officiating priest. Προσφέρειν θυσίας, εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖν, τὸν ἄρτον ποιεῖν, τὸ ποτήριον ποιεῖν (“to offer sacrifice,” “to make the Eucharist,” “to make the bread,” “the chalice”), are expressions constantly used in reference to the public worship of the Christians. They show that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist was uppermost in Justin’s mind (cf. Dial., 116–118).
5. St. Irenæus († 202) also represents the Eucharist as a true sacrifice. He connects προσφορά and θυσία—the oblation and the sacrifice; and he is the first of the Fathers, antecedent to Cyprian, who designates Christ Himself as the victim offered. “And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to its Maker, offering to Him, with thanksgiving, things of His creation (ex creatura ejus). But the Jews do not offer; their hands are full of blood, for they have not received the Word which is offered to God” (Adv. Hær., iv. 18, 4). Irenæus already mentions, as different parts, the offering or oblation; the transmutation through prayer (epiklesis), and the Communion.
6. Tertullian (160–220) describes the Eucharistic sacrifice as a perpetual representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. St. Cyprian († 258) is still more explicit. He says, “If Christ Jesus our Lord and our God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done unto a commemoration of Him, then truly does that priest perform the functions of Christ who imitates what Christ did, and offers a true and full sacrifice to God in the Church” (Ep., lxiii. 14).
II. From the fourth century onwards, the teaching of the Fathers is so explicit and so complete that no doubt is possible as to their holding the Eucharist to be a real and true sacrifice. The question of fact (an sit) is settled; the inquiry now is as to the explanation (quomodo sit); the dogma enters the domain of theological science. St. Augustine says, “Through this sacrifice He is also priest, Himself offering and Himself being the oblation; the mystery (sacramentum) of which He willed to be the daily sacrifice of the Church” (De Civ. Dei, x. 20). He calls the Eucharist sacramentum memoriæ (C. Faust., xx. 21), and finds in this relation to the sacrifice of the Cross an analogy with the relation of the Jewish sacrifices to the same. Fulgentius, Cæsarius, and others have examined into the identity of both sacrifices, and the difference of the manner in which they are offered. Leo I., commenting on 1 Cor. 5:7, celebrates Christ as the new Paschal Lamb, Who allowed Himself to be crucified outside the camp as the new and true propitiatory sacrifice, in order that, after the old sacrifices had ceased, a new oblation might be laid upon the new altar, and that the Cross of Christ might be made the altar not of the temple, but of the whole world. The place of the manifold sacrifices of the old Law is taken by the one sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. For Jesus is the true Lamb, which taketh away the sins of the world (Serm. de Pass., viii. 5, 7). Gregory I. has the expressions, “Eucharist,” “sacrifice,” “Mass” (missa), “oblation,” “host” (hostia, “victim”), “sacrament of the Passion,” “Communion.”
III. The theology of the Middle Ages elaborated the teaching of the Fathers, and the Church formulated the dogma on the same lines. The Fourth Council of Lateran teaches: “In the Church the self-same is priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, Whose body and blood is truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine” (Denzinger, Ench., n. 357). In the profession of faith proposed to the Waldenses, belief in the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist is commanded. Martin V. rejected the thesis of Hus, that the institution of the Mass by Christ was not warranted by the gospels (Denzinger, Ench., nn. 370, 481). The Council of Trent, in its twenty-second session, fully sets forth the Catholic doctrine against the innovations of the Reformers. Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre von den h. Sacramenten der Kirche, Freiburg, 1893; Franzelin, th. xi.; Kirchenlexicon, s.v. “Opfer,” “Messe.”
I. The references to the Sacrifice of the Mass during the first three centuries are, as might be expected, few, but they are unmistakable.
1. In the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (c. 100?) we read (ch. xiv.): “Having assembled together on the Lord’s day, break bread and give thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε) having confessed your sins beforehand in order that your sacrifice (θυσία) may be pure.” The text goes on to refer to Malachy (1:11): “for that (sacrifice) is the same as that spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time to offer to me a pure oblation (θυσίαν καθαράν).” It is clear that the author of the Didache held that the Eucharistic rite was the “pure oblation” foretold by Malachy (supra, p. 434).
2. St. Ignatius († 115) speaks of the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Who suffered for our sins, and Whom the Father in His mercy raised again (Ad Smyrn., c. 7). The repeated mention of the altar, through which the people are in communion with the bishops, priests, and deacons, and show their adherence to the Church, and the remark that through the Liturgy the power of Satan is broken, connect altar and Liturgy with the Cross, upon which Satan was conquered (Ad Phil., 4; Eph., v. 13; Magn., 7; Trall., 7). Ἄρτος τοῦ Θεοῦ (the bread of God), and ἐντός τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (within the altar) (Eph., v.), in view of parallel texts, must be understood of the Eucharistic bread and altar. “Hope of salvation and union between the members of the community” are but consequences of the eating of the Divine bread from the same altar. They cannot be read into the text as its literal and primary meaning.
3. Clement of Rome († 102), in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 40–44, compares the bishops and deacons with the priests and Levites, and exhorts them to perform προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας (oblations and liturgical services) according to the prescribed order. Δῶρα προσφέρειν and προσφοραί (“offering gifts and oblations”) are, in Clement’s writings, interchangeable terms; and the new Liturgy is analogous to the old. Hence, in his mind, the new sacrifice is also analogous to the old: his name for it is εὐχαριστεῖν, to celebrate the Eucharist.
4. St. Justin († 160) deals with the Eucharist as a true sacrifice, in a way which leaves no room for controversy. He distinguishes between προσφορά (“oblation”), (Apologia, i. 67; Dial., 41) and θυσία (“sacrifice”), (Dial., 117). The oblation is not only the act of offering, but, at the same time, the bread and wine offered; the sacrifice consists in the λὸγος εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας (“the word of prayer and thanksgiving”), which is pronounced by the officiating priest. Προσφέρειν θυσίας, εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖν, τὸν ἄρτον ποιεῖν, τὸ ποτήριον ποιεῖν (“to offer sacrifice,” “to make the Eucharist,” “to make the bread,” “the chalice”), are expressions constantly used in reference to the public worship of the Christians. They show that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist was uppermost in Justin’s mind (cf. Dial., 116–118).
5. St. Irenæus († 202) also represents the Eucharist as a true sacrifice. He connects προσφορά and θυσία—the oblation and the sacrifice; and he is the first of the Fathers, antecedent to Cyprian, who designates Christ Himself as the victim offered. “And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to its Maker, offering to Him, with thanksgiving, things of His creation (ex creatura ejus). But the Jews do not offer; their hands are full of blood, for they have not received the Word which is offered to God” (Adv. Hær., iv. 18, 4). Irenæus already mentions, as different parts, the offering or oblation; the transmutation through prayer (epiklesis), and the Communion.
6. Tertullian (160–220) describes the Eucharistic sacrifice as a perpetual representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. St. Cyprian († 258) is still more explicit. He says, “If Christ Jesus our Lord and our God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done unto a commemoration of Him, then truly does that priest perform the functions of Christ who imitates what Christ did, and offers a true and full sacrifice to God in the Church” (Ep., lxiii. 14).
II. From the fourth century onwards, the teaching of the Fathers is so explicit and so complete that no doubt is possible as to their holding the Eucharist to be a real and true sacrifice. The question of fact (an sit) is settled; the inquiry now is as to the explanation (quomodo sit); the dogma enters the domain of theological science. St. Augustine says, “Through this sacrifice He is also priest, Himself offering and Himself being the oblation; the mystery (sacramentum) of which He willed to be the daily sacrifice of the Church” (De Civ. Dei, x. 20). He calls the Eucharist sacramentum memoriæ (C. Faust., xx. 21), and finds in this relation to the sacrifice of the Cross an analogy with the relation of the Jewish sacrifices to the same. Fulgentius, Cæsarius, and others have examined into the identity of both sacrifices, and the difference of the manner in which they are offered. Leo I., commenting on 1 Cor. 5:7, celebrates Christ as the new Paschal Lamb, Who allowed Himself to be crucified outside the camp as the new and true propitiatory sacrifice, in order that, after the old sacrifices had ceased, a new oblation might be laid upon the new altar, and that the Cross of Christ might be made the altar not of the temple, but of the whole world. The place of the manifold sacrifices of the old Law is taken by the one sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. For Jesus is the true Lamb, which taketh away the sins of the world (Serm. de Pass., viii. 5, 7). Gregory I. has the expressions, “Eucharist,” “sacrifice,” “Mass” (missa), “oblation,” “host” (hostia, “victim”), “sacrament of the Passion,” “Communion.”
III. The theology of the Middle Ages elaborated the teaching of the Fathers, and the Church formulated the dogma on the same lines. The Fourth Council of Lateran teaches: “In the Church the self-same is priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, Whose body and blood is truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine” (Denzinger, Ench., n. 357). In the profession of faith proposed to the Waldenses, belief in the sacrifice of Holy Eucharist is commanded. Martin V. rejected the thesis of Hus, that the institution of the Mass by Christ was not warranted by the gospels (Denzinger, Ench., nn. 370, 481). The Council of Trent, in its twenty-second session, fully sets forth the Catholic doctrine against the innovations of the Reformers. Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre von den h. Sacramenten der Kirche, Freiburg, 1893; Franzelin, th. xi.; Kirchenlexicon, s.v. “Opfer,” “Messe.”
Seção 92% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.