Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 4: The Proper Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass Is Explained
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second Book). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It follows now that we explain whether the sacrifice of the Mass has power from the work worked (ex opere operato), and at the same time, as we promised, what is the proper efficacy of the sacrifice. And three things are to be premised, that this may be rightly understood. The first is, that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered by three, by Christ, by the Church, by the Minister; but not in the same way. For Christ offers as the primary Priest, and offers through the priest, a man, as through His own proper Minister. The Church offers not as a priest through a Minister, but as a people through a priest. And so Christ offers through an inferior, the Church through a superior: for the priest, as such, is greater than the rest of the people, since, as a certain mediator, he intercedes for the people before God, nor is he properly in that matter the Minister of the Church, but of Christ the principal mediator. From which it also follows that the Church does not properly sacrifice by exercising a priestly act, but only offers to the priest the thing to be sacrificed, or procures the sacrifice to be made, or at least consents to the sacrifice, and by will and desire offers, when the priest offers.
Where it is also to be observed that the whole Church indeed offers all the sacrifices which are offered by all the priests, but not in the same way. For some offer only habitually, namely those who are absent and do not think of the sacrifice, but yet habitually desire it to be offered: some offer actually, namely those who are present at the sacred rite and offer by an actual desire: some moreover offer also causally, because they are the cause that the sacrifice is made, whether by exhorting, or by asking, or by commanding. Finally the Minister himself offers, as a true, but ministerial, priest.
Secondly, it is to be recalled to memory, what was often said in the disputation on the Sacraments in general: that that has power from the work of the worker (ex opere operantis) which has power from the goodness or devotion of him who works; so that the work avails much, or little, or nothing, according as the goodness and devotion of the worker is great, small, or none: such is the value of our prayers and merits. But that has power from the work worked (ex opere operato) which avails of itself, provided it be done as the law prescribes, whatever be the goodness or malice of the working Minister, so that the work always avails the same, and is not made better by the goodness of the Minister, nor worse by the iniquity of the Minister. That such is the value of Baptism, not even the adversaries at this time deny, though they shrink from the phrase "work worked": for Baptism is the same, and effects the same, whether it be conferred by a good or a bad Minister. Wherefore the controversy is: Whether the sacrifice has power from the very work, such as the Sacraments have, or from the goodness of the Minister, such as our prayers have.
Thirdly, it is to be considered that the value from the work worked can be found in some work in two ways. In one way, if that work is a certain instrument efficiently and immediately producing the effect, as it were by the manner of nature, and in this way the Sacraments have power from the work worked, because the sacramental action is an instrument of God, which efficiently and immediately justifies, unless an obstacle be placed: nor does the virtue of this instrument depend on the goodness of the Minister, but on the institution of God alone. In another way, if the work indeed which is done is not an instrument efficiently and immediately producing the effect, but yet infallibly, and independently of the goodness of the Minister, moves God to produce the effect. An example could be in human affairs: if someone unknown, or even hateful to a prince, should ask something from him in the name of another, to whom the prince could deny nothing: for this man's supplication infallibly obtains, and yet has not power from the work of the worker, that is, from the good quality of the suppliant, since he himself is unknown or hateful to the prince.
These things being noted, I shall set down some propositions, by which the whole matter may be opened. First proposition: The sacrifice of the Mass has power not only, or chiefly, from the work of the worker, but also from the work worked. We say "only," because it cannot be denied that the sacrifice has also some power from the goodness and devotion of the sacrificing Minister. For if the other works of the virtues please God, inasmuch as they proceed from some friend of His, and from charity and devotion, why should not this most excellent work of religion please for the same reason? But we deny that the sacrifice of the Mass has power only, or chiefly, from this; and we assert that it has power principally from the work worked.
Which opinion is common among the theologians, since only one or another is found who dissents: and it is also that of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 2. Where, when the Council teaches that by this sacrifice sins are remitted, it gives the reason, because the host is the same, and the offerer the same, who was in the sacrifice of the cross: but the host is the same, and the offerer the same, who was on the cross, whether the Minister be good or bad. Which reason without doubt is also that of all the Fathers, nay even of the Scriptures, from which it was proved above that it is Christ who (as the primary and everlasting Priest) now offers Himself through the hands of all the Ministers: wherefore the principal effect of this sacrifice does not depend on the goodness of the immediate Minister.
Second proposition: The sacrifice of the Mass has not power from the work worked in the manner of the Sacraments. I explain the proposition. The sacrifice does not work efficiently and immediately, nor is it properly an instrument of God for justifying. Which the Council of Trent teaches, session 22, chapter 2, where it says that by this sacrifice even great sins are remitted, because God, appeased by this sacrifice, grants the grace and gift of penance. The sacrifice, therefore, does not immediately justify, as Baptism and Absolution do; but obtains the gift of penance, by which the sinful man may be willing to approach the Sacrament, and be justified through it. Which same thing Saint Thomas had before taught, in the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 12, question 2, article 2, little question 2, to the fourth, where he says that the sacrifice justifies those for whom it is offered, not as a proximate cause, but by obtaining the gift of contrition.
Which opinion of Saint Thomas and of the Council is proved first, because if the sacrifice immediately justified, it would necessarily require a previous disposition in him for whom the sacrifice was offered. But if this were true, it would not be lawful to offer the sacrifice for those whom we know to remain willingly in sin, nor for the hardened and impenitent: the contrary of which is yet most certain: those too would sin who asked the sacrifice to be offered for themselves, unless at the same time they prepared themselves to receive grace; which that it is false, no one doubts.
Secondly it is proved from the sacrifice of the cross. For the sacrifice of the Mass cannot have greater power than the sacrifice of the cross, since the sacrifice of the Mass has its power from the sacrifice of the cross. But the sacrifice of the cross did not justify efficiently and immediately, but only impetratorily and meritoriously, otherwise all men would forthwith have been made just, since the Lord offered Himself to God in sacrifice for all men. Moreover, that which is not in reality cannot work efficiently. The sacrifice of the cross now is not in reality, but only in the mind of God, and accordingly does not work efficiently. As therefore the sacrifice of the cross did not immediately justify sinners, but appeased God and obtained that through the due means sinners should be led to salvation: so also the sacrifice of the Mass does not justify men immediately, but obtains that, from the merit of the sacrifice of the cross, grace and the gift of penance be given to men.
Thirdly it is proved, because for taking away sin immediately the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance were instituted; the one for infidels, the other for the faithful; or the one for washing away original, the other actual sin: not therefore is it credible that another means, or another cause, was instituted for altogether the same effect by God, who does all things in number, weight, and measure.
Third proposition: The sacrifice of the Mass has power by way of impetration: and its proper efficacy is to obtain. It is proved first, because this is the efficacy of a sacrifice in general, and accordingly of this sacrifice also: for a sacrifice is properly of one praying and supplicating, and is employed to aid prayer. For, as Gregory of Nyssa beautifully explains in his second oration on the Lord's prayer, [prayer] is so called from [vow], because vows, that is, promises and oblations, are wont to be premised before prayer, that the prayer may more easily obtain; whence is that of Virgil: Aeneas, dost thou delay in vows and prayers? Wherefore just as prayer, though it can be meritorious inasmuch as it is made by a just man and from charity, and at the same time also satisfactory inasmuch as it is a laborious work, yet of itself and by its proper office is impetratory: so also the sacrifice, which is a certain prayer, so to say, real, not verbal, is properly impetratory.
Secondly it is proved, because the sacrifice of the Mass has its chief power as it is offered by Christ the supreme Priest. But Christ now can neither merit nor satisfy, but only obtain: therefore impetration is the proper power and efficacy of this sacrifice.
And hence three things follow, which conduce not a little to illustrate this matter. The first is, that there is a difference between the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the cross, inasmuch as each was offered by Christ. For the sacrifice of the cross was meritorious, satisfactory, and impetratory truly and properly, because Christ was then mortal, and could merit and satisfy: the sacrifice of the Mass, as I said, is properly only impetratory, because Christ is now immortal, and can neither merit nor satisfy. But when it is called propitiatory or satisfactory, this is to be understood by reason of the thing which is obtained. For it is called propitiatory, because it obtains the remission of guilt; satisfactory, because it obtains the remission of punishment; meritorious, because it obtains grace to do good and acquire merits. Although I would not deny that it is also called satisfactory, because by the institution of Christ, through this sacrifice, the passion of the same Christ is applied to take away the punishments, whether of the living or of the dead, which after the guilt is remitted sometimes remain, to be paid either in this life or in purgatory.
The second is, that for the sacrifice of the Mass, though the goodness of the offering Minister is not necessary, yet the goodness of some offerer is necessarily required. For the sacrifice, since it tends to impetration and is like prayer, without doubt cannot please nor obtain, unless the offerer please: whence it is said, Genesis 4: God had respect to Abel and to his gifts. Nor does it stand in the way that in the sacrifice of the Mass the very thing which is offered is of itself most pleasing to God. For not that thing, but the oblation of that thing, is properly the sacrifice; for a sacrifice is an action, not a permanent thing. Further, though the thing itself please of itself, yet the oblation of the thing does not please unless the offerer please, and especially God, whose are all things, and who needs nothing. Whence in the Gospel the oblation of two mites made by the holy widow pleased God more than the oblations of many gold coins made by hypocrites and the proud: although, other things being equal, the oblation of a more excellent thing is more pleasing, and accordingly the oblation of the body of the Lord, namely the most excellent of all things, is most pleasing.
The third is, that the sacrifice of the Mass, as it is offered by Christ, has power from the work of the worker, but infallibly, because it pleases from the goodness of Christ the offerer, which is always the same, and can neither be diminished nor increased. But as it is offered by a man, it has power from the work worked; because it pleases God, even if the man who offers do not please God. And so what is the work of the worker in respect of Christ, is the work worked in respect of the Minister. Yet absolutely, when the Mass is said to have some power from the work of the worker, it is always understood of the value which it has from the goodness of the Minister, because he it is who properly works: for Christ does not work except through a minister.
Fourth proposition: The value of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite. This is the common opinion of the theologians, and is proved most openly from the usage of the Church. For if the value of the Mass were infinite, in vain would many Masses, especially for obtaining the same thing, be offered. For if one is of infinite value, certainly it will suffice for obtaining all things; why then others? And it is confirmed from the sacrifice of the cross, which for no other cause was one only, nor is ever repeated, except because that one was of infinite value, and acquired a price for remitting all sins, past and future.
But though the thing itself is certain, the cause is not so certain: for it seems wonderful why the value of this sacrifice is finite, since this sacrifice is the same as the sacrifice of the cross; and since the very host, and the offerer Christ, are pleasing to God in an infinite manner. There seem to me, saving a better judgment, to be three causes of this thing. The first is taken on the part of the host which is offered. For in the sacrifice of the cross was destroyed, for the honor of God, the very natural being of Christ in human form; in the sacrifice of the Mass only the sacramental being is destroyed: but the natural being of Christ is nobler and more precious than the sacramental. But this reason only demonstrates that the sacrifice of the cross was of greater value than the sacrifice of the Mass, but does not give the cause why this is finite and that was infinite. For there is not an infinite distance between the natural and the sacramental being of Christ: nor was the sacrifice of the cross of infinite value because in it was destroyed the natural being of the humanity of Christ; but because the Son of God, who is truly infinitely pleasing to God, since He is Himself true God, voluntarily suffered that destruction and offered it in sacrifice.
The second reason, therefore, is more efficacious, which is taken on the part of the offerer. For in the sacrifice of the cross the offerer is the very person of the Son of God by Himself; but in the sacrifice of the Mass the offerer is the Son of God through a Minister. But there is a great difference between the action of the Son of God by Himself and through a Minister: for the former is an action immediately produced by the divine suppositum, the latter by the human. Wherefore, though the action of the Minister is much more pleasing inasmuch as it is done in the person of Christ than if it were done in his own person, yet without comparison that is more pleasing which is done immediately by Christ Himself. Just as among men the petition of a legate in the name of his prince avails much more with some prince than in his own name; yet the petition of the prince himself would avail still much more, if he himself asked something with his own mouth.
The third reason is taken from the very will of Christ. For even though Christ could, by one oblation of the unbloody sacrifice, whether offered by Himself or through a Minister, obtain anything from God, and for anyone, yet He would not ask or obtain, except that for the several oblations a certain measure of the fruit of His passion should be applied, whether for the remission of sins, or for other benefits of which we have need in this life. But why He willed this, it is not for us too curiously to inquire. Yet He seems to have willed it, both that in this way this holy sacrifice, without which religion cannot subsist, might be frequented; and also because the order of divine providence required it. Which is also the cause why Christ continually intercedes for us in heaven, when yet it seems He could by one intercession have obtained all things at once; and likewise why the infinite price which He acquired on the cross, by which the whole world could forthwith have been saved, He willed to be applied only to certain ones, and in a certain measure: for the cause of all these things is that Christ willed all things to be done according to the order of divine providence.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. CAPUT IV. Explicatur officient ia propria sacrificii Missae. Sequitur nunc, ut explicemus, num sacri¬ ficium Missa) cx opere operato vim habeat, et simul, ut promisimus, qua) sit propria efficientia sacrificii. Sunt autem tria pra)mit- tenda, ut hoc recte intelligatur. Primum est, sacrificium Missa) a tribus offerri, a Christo, ah Ecclesia, a Ministro; sed non eodem modo. Christus enim offert, ut primarius Sacerdos, et offert per Sacerdotem homi¬ nem , ut per suum proprium Ministrum. Ecclesia non offert, ut Sacerdos per Mini¬ strum, sed ut populus per Sacerdotem. Ita¬ que Christus per inferiorem offert, Ecclesia per superiorem : Sacerdos enim quatenus talis major est reliquo populo, quippe qui, ut mediator quidam, pro populo apud Deum intercedit, nec est proprie in ea re Minister Ecclesia), sed Christi principalis mediatoris. Ex quo etiam sequitur, ut Ecclesia non pro¬ prie sacrificet exercendo actum sacerdota¬ lem, sed tantum offerat Sacerdoti rem sacri¬ ficandam, aut curet fieri sacrificium, aut certe consentiat in sacrificium, et voluntate, ac desiderio offerat, cum Sacerdos offert. Ubi est etiam observandum, totam qui¬ dem Ecclesiam offerre omnia sacrificia, qua) a Sacerdotibus omnibus offeruntur, sed non eodem modo. Nam aliqui solum habitualiter offerunt, qui nimirum absunt, neque de sa¬ crificio cogitant, sed tamen habitualiter cu¬ piunt offerri : aliqui offerunt actu, qui nimi¬ rum intersunt sacro, et actuali desiderio of¬ ferunt : aliqui praeterea offerunt etiam cau¬ saliter, quia causa sunt, ut sacrificium fiat, sive hortando, sive rogando, sive jubendo. Denique Minister ipse offert, ut Sacerdos verus, sed ministerialis. Secundo, revocandum est ad memoriam, quod saepe dictum est in disputatione de Sacramentis in genere : illud habere vim ex opere operantis, quod vim habet ex bonitate, vel dovotione ejus, qui operatur; ita ut opus multum, aut parum, aut nihil valeat, prout magna, parva, aut nulla est bonitas, et de¬ votio operanti •. : qualis est valor precum, et meritorum nos' rorum. Illud autem habere vim ex opere operato, quod ex se valet, modo * I i ») fiat sicut lex p rescribit, quidquid sit de bo¬ nitate, vel malitia operantis Ministri, ita ut opus semper idem valeat, nec fiat melius ex Ministri bonitate, neque pejus ex Ministri iniquitate. Talem esse valorem Baptismi, ne adversarii quidem hoc tempore negant, licet a vocabulo operis operati abhorreant : idem enim est Baptismus, et idem efficit, sive a bono, sive a malo Ministro conferatur. Quare controversia est : Utrum sacrificium vim ha- beat ex ipso opere, qualem habent Sacra¬ menta, aut ex bonitate Ministri, qualem ha¬ bent nostra) preces. Tertio , considerandum est valorem cx opere operato, posse duobus modis in aliquo opere inveniri. Uno modo, si opus illud sit instrumentum quoddam efficienter, et imme¬ diate producens effectum, quasi per modum natura), et hoc modo Sacramenta vim habent ex opere operato, quia actio Sacramcntalis est instrumentum Dei, quod efficienter, et immediate justificat, nisi ponatur obex : nec pendet virtus hujus instrumenti a bonitate Ministri, sed a sola Dei institutione. Alio modo, si opus quidem quod fit, non sit in¬ strumentum efficienter, et immediate pro¬ ducens effectum, sed tamen infallibiliter, et independenter a bonitate Ministri, moveat Deum ad effectum producendum. Exemplum esse posset in rebus humanis : si quis igno¬ tus, vel etiam invisus principi aliquid ab eo peteret nomine alterius, cui princeps nihil negare posset : ista enim hujus hominis sup¬ plicatio in falli!) ili ter impetrat, et tamen non habet vim ex opere operantis, id est, ex bona qualitate supplicantis, cum sit ipse ignotus, vel invisus principi. His notatis, ponam aliquot propositiones, quibus res tota aperiatur. Prima propositio : Sacrificium Missa) non habet vim solum, aut potissimum ex opere operantis, sed, tiam ex opere operato. Dicimus, solum, quianegarinon potest, sacrificium habere vim etiam aliquam ex bonitate, et devotione Ministri sacrifican¬ tis. Si enim castora opera virtutum Deo pla¬ cent, quatenus ab amico aliquo suo, et ex charitate, et devotione procedunt, cur non placeat eadem ratione opus istud religionis pra)stantissimum ? Sed negamus, hinc tan¬ tum, aut hinc potissimum vim habere sacri¬ ficium Missa) ; atque asserimus vim habere pra)cipue ex opere operato. Qua) sententia communis apud Theologos est, cum unus tantum, aut alter inveniatur, qui dissentiat : et est etiam Concilii Triden- 37 i LIBER VI. tini, sess. 22. cap. 2. Ubi 'cum docet Con¬ cilium per sacrificium hoc remitti peccata, reddit causam, quia eadem est hostia, et idem offerens, qui fuit in sacrificio crucis : eadem autem est hostia, et idem offerens, qui fuit in cruce, sive Minister sit bonus, sive malus. Quse ratio sine dubio est etiam om¬ nium Patrum, imo et Scripturarum, ex quibus supra probatum est Christum esse, qui (ut Sacerdos primarius, et sempiternus) nunc offert seipsum per manus omnium Ministrorum : quare non pendet effectus prin¬ cipalis hujus sacrificii ex bonitate Ministri immediati. Secunda propositio : « Sacrificium Missse non habet vim ex opere operato ad modum Sacramentorum. » Explico propositionem. Non operatur sacrificium efficienter et imme¬ diate, neque est proprie instrumentum Dei ad justificandum. Id quod docet Concilium Tridentinum, sess. 22. cap. 2. ubi dicit, per hoc sacrificium peccata etiam ingentia di¬ mitti, quia Deus hoc sacrificio placatus, gra¬ tiam et donum poenitentiae concedit. Non igitur sacrificium immediate justificat, ut Baptismus, et Absolutio faciunt ; sed donum poenitentiae impetrat, per quod homo pecca¬ tor ad Sacramentum accedere velit, et per illud justificetur. Quod idem antea docue¬ rat S. Thomas in iv. sentent. dist. 12. qmest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 2. ad 4. ubi dicit, sa¬ crificium justificare eos, pro quibus offertur? non ut causam proximam, sed donum con¬ tritionis impetrando. Quae sententia S. Thomae, et Concilii, primo probatur, quia si sacrificium imme¬ diate justificaret, requireret necessario prae¬ viam dispositionem in eo, pro quo sacrifi¬ cium offerretur. Quod si verum esset, non li¬ ceret sacrificium offerre pro iis, quos scimus in peccato libenter manere, nec pro obdura¬ tis, et impoenitentibus : quorum tamen con¬ trarium certissimum est : peccarent etiam, qui pro se sacrificium offerri peterent, nisi simul se ad gratiam recipiendam praepa rarent ; quod falsum esse, nemo dubitat. Secundo probatur ex sacrificio crucis. Non enim majorem vim habere potest sacri¬ ficium Missae, quam sacrificium crucis, cum sacrificium Missae vim suam habeat a sacrifi¬ cio crucis. Sacrificium autem crucis non effi¬ cienter, et immediate justificavit, sed tantum impetratorie, et meritorie, alioqui omnes ho¬ mines continuo justi effecti essent, cum Do¬ minus pro omnibus hominibus se Deo in sa¬ crificium obtulerit. Praeterea, quod non est in re, non potest efficienter operari. Sacrificium crucis modo non est in re, sed solum in mente Dei, proinde non operatur efficienter. Ut igitur sacrificium crucis non justificavit immediate peccatores, sed placavit Deum, et impetravit, ut per debita media peccato¬ res ad salutem perducerentur : sic etiam sa¬ crificium Missa} non justificat homines imme¬ diate, sed impetrat, ut ex merito sacrificii crucis detur hominibus gratia, et donum poenitentiae. Tertio probatur, quia ad peccatum imme¬ diate tollendum, instituta sunt Sacramenta Baptismi, et Poenitentiae ; illud pro infideli¬ bus, hoc pro fidelibus ; sive illud pro ori¬ ginali, hoc pro actuali diluendo : non igitur credibile est ad eumdem prorsus effectum institutum esse aliud medium, sive aliam causam a Deo, qui omnia facit in numero, pondere, et mensura. Tertia propositio : « Sacrificium Missae vim habet per modum impetrationis : et ejus propria efficientia est impetrare. Probatur primo, quia haec est efficientia sacrificii in genere, et proinde hujus etiam sacrificii : sacrificium enim proprie orantis, et suppli¬ cantis est, et ad orationem juvandam adhi¬ betur. Ut enim pulchre explicat Gregorius Nyssenus in ii. orat, in orationem Domini¬ cam, Trpocsu^, id est, oratio, dicitur ab eu^, id est, votum, quia solent piaemitti vota, id est, promissiones, et oblationes ante ora¬ tionem, ut oratio facilius impetret, unde est illud Virgilii : ' iEuea, cessas in vota, praecesque ? Quare sicut oratio, licet possit esse meri- toria, quatenus fit ab homine justo, et ex charitatc, et simul etiam satisfactoria, quate¬ nus est opus laboriosum : tamen ex se, et ex proprio officio impetratoria est : sic etiam sacrificium, quod est qua}dam oratio, ut sic dicam, realis, non verbalis, proprie impetra- torium est. Secundo probatur , quia sacrificium Misste prsecipuam vim habet, ut a Christo summo Sacerdote offertur. Christus autem nunc, nec mereri, nec satisfacere potest, sed solum impetrare : igitur impetratio , propria est hujus sacrificii vis, et efficien¬ tia. Atque hinc tria sequuntur, quee ad rem hanc illustrandam non parum faciunt. Pri- CAPUT V. 375 nium est, discrimen esse inter sacrificium Missae , et sacrificium crucis , quatenus a Christo utrumque oblatum est. Nam sacrifi¬ cium crucis fuit meritorium, satisfactorium, etimpetratorium vere, et proprie, quia Chri¬ stus tunc mortalis erat, et mereri, ac satisfa¬ cere poterat : sacrificium Missae, ut dixi, pro¬ prie solum est impetratorium, quia Christus nunc immortalis, nec mereri, nec satisfacre potest. Cum autem dicitur propitiatorium, vel satisfactorium, id est intclligendum ra¬ tione rei quae impetratur. Dicitur enim pro¬ pitiatorium, quia impetrat remissionem cul¬ pae ; satisfactorium, quia impetrat remissio¬ nem poenae ; meritorium, quia impetrat gra¬ tiam benefaciendi, ac merita acquirendi. Quamquam non negaverim, dici etiam satis¬ factorium, quod ex Christi institutione per sacrificium hoc applicetur ejusdem Christi passio ad poenas tollendas, seu viventium, seu mortuorum, quae post culpam remissam aliquando remanent, vel in hac vita, vel in purgatorio luendae. Secundum est, ad sacrificium Missae, licet non sit necessaria bonitas Ministri offerentis, tamen alicujus offerentis bonitatem necessa¬ rio requiri. Sacrificium enim, cum ad impe¬ trationem tendat, et simile sit orationi, sine dubio non potest placere, nec impetrare, nisi offerens placeat : unde dicitur, Gen. iv. Respexit Deus ad Abel, et ad munera ejus. Neque obstat, quod in sacrificio Missae, res ipsa, quae offertur, ex se Deo gratissima est. Nam non res illa, sed rei illius oblatio pro¬ prie sacrificium est ; sacrificium enim est actio, non res permanens. Porro licet res ipsa placeat ex se, tamen oblatio rei non placet, nisi offerens placeat, ac praesertim Deo, cujus sunt omnia, et qui nulla re indi¬ get. Unde in Evangelio plus placuit Deo obla¬ tio duorum minutorum a sancta vidua facta, quam oblationes multorum aureorum num¬ morum ab hypocritis, et superbis factae : quamvis caeteris paribus gratior sit oblatio rei preestantioris, et proinde gratissima obla¬ tio corporis Domini, rei videlicet omnium prsestantissimae. Tertium est, sacrificium Missae, ut a Chri¬ sto offertur, vim habere ex opere operantis, sed infallibiliter, quia placet ex bonitate offe¬ rentis Christi, quae semper est eadem, et nec minui, nec crescere potest. Ut autem offertur ab homine, vim habere ex opere operato ; quia placet Deo, etiamsi homo, qui offert, Deo non placeat. Itaque quod est opus ope- rnatis respect uChristi : est opus operatum respectu Ministri. Absolute tamen cum dici¬ tur Missa vim aliquam habere ex opere ope¬ rantis, semper intolligitur de valore, quem habet ex bonitate Ministri, quia ipse est, qui proprie operatur : Christus enim non opera¬ tur, nisi per ministrum. Quarta propositio : « Valor sacrificii Missa* finitus est. » Hsec est communis sententia Theologorum, et probatur apertissime ex usu Ecclesise. Nam si Missse valor infinitus esset, frustra multse Missse, praesertim ad rem eamdem impetrandam offerrentur. Si enim una infiniti valoris est, certe ad omnia impe¬ tranda sufficiet ; quorsum igitur alias ? Et confirmatur ex sacrificio crucis, quod non alia de causa unum tantum fuit , neque unquam repetitur, nisi, quia illud unum in¬ finiti valoris fuit, et pretium acquisivit pro omnibus peccatis praeteritis^ et futuris remit¬ tendis. Sed licet res ipsa certa sit, causa tamen non est adeo certa : mirum enim videtur, cur valor sacrificii hujus sit finitus, cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis ; et cum ipsa hostia, et offerens Christus, infinito modo sint Deo grata. Videntur mihi, salvo meliore judicio, tres esse causse hujus rei. Prima sumitur ex parte hostise, quae offertur. Nam in sacrificio crucis destruebatur ad ho¬ norem Dei, ipsum esse naturale Christi in forma humana ; in sacrificio Missae destruitur tantum esse Sacramentale : nobilius autem est; et magis pretiosum, esse Christi natu¬ rale : quam Sacramentale. Caeterum haec ra¬ tio solum demonstrat majoris valoris fuisse sacrificium crucis, quam sacrificium Missae, sed non reddit causam, cur hoc sit finitum, et illud fuerit infinitum. Non enim est infinita distantia inter esse Christi naturale, et Sacra¬ mentale : neque infiniti valoris fuit sacrifi¬ cium crucis, quia in eo destruebatur esse naturale humanitatis Christi ; sed quia eam destructionem sponte patiebatur, et in sacri¬ ficium offerebat Filius Dei, qui vere est infi¬ nite Deo gratus, cum et ipse sit verus Deus. , Secunda igitur ratio efficacior est, quai sumitur ex parte offerentis. Nam in sacrificio crucis, offerens est ipsa persona Filii Dei per se ; at in sacrificio Missse offerens est Filius Dei per Ministrum. Multum autem interest inter actionem Filii Dei per se, et per Mini¬ strum : illa enim| est actio immediate produ¬ cta a divino supposito, ista ab humano. Quare 370 LIBER Vi. licet multo sit gratior actio Ministri quatenus fit in persona Christi, quam si fieret in per¬ sona propria : tamen sine comparatione est gratior illa, qua? fit immediate ah ipso Chri¬ sto. Quemadmodum inter homines, multo plus valet apud principem aliquem postula¬ tio legati, nomine sui principis, quam nomi¬ ne proprio : tamen multo adhuc magis vale¬ ret postulatio ipsius principis, si ipsemet ore suo aliquid peteret. Tertia ratio sumitur ex ipsa Christi volun¬ tate. Nam etiamsi posset Christus per unam oblationem sacrificii incruenti, sive per se, sive per Ministrum oblati, qualibet a Deo, et pro quibuscumque impetrare, tamen noluit petere, nec impetrare, nisi ut pro singulis oblationibus applicaretur certa mensura fructus passionis sua sive ad peccatorum re¬ missionem, sive ad alia beneficia, quibus in hac vita indigemus. Cur autem id voluerit, non est nostrum curiosius inquirere. Videtur tamen id voluisse, tum ut hoc modo frequen¬ taretur hoc sanctum sacrificium, sine quo religio consistere non potest : tum etiam, quia id requirebat ordo divina providentia. Qua est etiam causa, cur Christus assidue interpellet pro nobis in coelo, cum tamen vi¬ deatur, unica interpellatione potuisse omnia statim impetrare ; et similiter cur pretium infinitum, quod in cruce acquisivit, quo totus mundus continuo salvari potuisset, non nisi quibusdam, et in certa mensura applicari voluerit : horum enim omnium causa est, quia voluit Christus omnia fieri secundum ordinem divina providentia