Catholic view.

Our treatment of the subject will therefore necessarily I. Passages fall into three divisions: first, the witness of the Fathers supporting the to the Catholic view; second, an examination of all the passages which have been adduced in support of the Modern view; and third, a consideration of the teaching of the Fathers in regard to our LORD's present Mediatorial work, His Intercession in heaven.

II. Those
adduced in fa-
Modern view.
III. Passages

vour of the

treating of our LORD'S Inter

This last part of the subject is of great importance, cession. since, in treating of our LORD'S High-Priestly work, not only do the Fathers never say that He is offering any proper sacrifice in heaven, but, as we shall see, they use language which is entirely incompatible with any such view.

I. THE WITNESS OF THE FATHERS TO THE CATHOLIC

VIEW.

the Catholic view, limited

It will not be necessary to quote all the Fathers. It 1. Witnesses to will suffice for our purpose to select those whose authority is greatest and whose treatment of the particular here to those point before us is clearly ad rem.

Before we begin this investigation, let us understand precisely what we expect to find. We shall not find in the Fathers any discussion of the double Consecration as the essential sacrificial act in the Eucharist, since, as we have already pointed out, this theory cannot be traced back beyond the twelfth century. Nor is it necessary to the Catholic view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. What is essential is to show that in the writings of the Fathers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist has always been related to, and made to depend upon, the Sacrifice of the Cross. The question, therefore, now before us, is, Can we find in the Fathers conclusive evidence of this fact? And first we take the Greek Fathers.

of special
weight.

Realize first
precisely what
we are seeking,
not a theologi-
cal theory of
to show that
the Fathers

the E. S., but

relate it to the

s. of the Cross.

The Greek
Fathers:

1. S. Irenæus.

2. S. Cyril of Jerusalem.

S. Irenæus, after relating the Institution of the Eucharist, adds: "He [JESUS CHRIST] established the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to GOD throughout the whole world." And again, speaking of those who disbelieve in the resurrection of the body, he says: "If this [the flesh] indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the LORD redeem us with His Blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His Blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His Body. own Blood He redeemed us,

By His

and as we are

His members, we are also nourished by means of the
creation.
He has acknowledged the cup,
which is a part of the creation, as His own Blood, from
which He bedews our blood, and the bread, also a part
of the creation, He has established as His own Body,
from which He gives increase to our bodies." †

S. Irenæus is here treating of Gnostic heresies, and only mentions the Holy Eucharist incidentally, but in the latter quotation he twice connects it with the Blood of Redemption, that is, with the Sacrifice of the Cross.

S. Cyril of Jerusalem (ob. 386),‡ speaking of the Eucharist, says: "Then, after the spiritual sacrifice is perfected, the bloodless service, upon that sacrifice of propitiation [the Cross] we entreat GOD, . . and offer this sacrifice." And again: "We offer up CHRIST sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful GOD both for them and for ourselves." § In both

* S. Iren., Adv. Hær., 1. iv., c. xvii., n. 5.

† Ibid., 1. v., c. ii., n. 2.

Dates given in the last chapter are not repeated.

S. Cyril, Jer., Myst. Cat., xxiii., n. 8, 10.

these passages S. Cyril seems to relate the "spiritual sacrifice" to that Sacrifice of propitiation which was offered up on the Cross. In the second passage he speaks as though the two sacrifices were identical.

of Nyssa.

S. Gregory of Nyssa (ob. circa 395): “In a hidden 3. S. Gregory kind of sacrifice, which could not be seen by men [the Holy Eucharist], He offers Himself as a Sacrifice and immolates a Victim, being at the same time the Priest and the Lamb of GOD which taketh away the sin of the world. When did He perform this? When He gave to His assembled disciples His Body to eat and His Blood to drink. Then He clearly showed that the Sacrifice of the Lamb was now perfect, for the body of a victim is not fit to eat if it be living. Wherefore, when He gave to His assembled disciples His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, then in a hidden and mysterious manner His Body was immolated.” *

This passage of S. Gregory of Nyssa is preceded by a computation of the triduum of CHRIST's Death, the beginning of which he places in the very sacrifice itself of the original Eucharist. Hence we see that S. Gregory considers that the Death of the Cross is truly anticipated in the first Eucharist, and that this Eucharist is a sort of premature Cross and anticipatory Death, since the time of the Death is computed from it. From this we may understand how closely he associated the Sacrifice of the Eucharist with that of the Cross.

Alex.

S. Cyril of Alexandria (ob. 444): "CHRIST to-day 4. s. Cyril of receives us to a feast; CHRIST to-day ministers to us. CHRIST Himself, the Lover of men, warms us back into life again. What is said is wonderful, what is done is awe-inspiring. The fatted Calf Himself is slain. The

* S. Greg., Nyss., In Christ. Resurrect., Ratio i.; Migne, P. G., tom. 46, col. 611.

5. S. Chrysos

tom.

Lamb of GOD, Which taketh away the sin of the world, is slain. The FATHER rejoices; the SON is willingly immolated; not, indeed, to-day by the enemies of GOD, but by Himself, in order that He may signify that He endured the sufferings of the Cross voluntarily for the salvation of men.”*

Here S. Cyril teaches that our LORD voluntarily immolates Himself in the Eucharist to signify that He voluntarily endured the sufferings of the Cross.

S. Chrysostom (ob. 407): "What then? Do not we offer [the Eucharist] daily? We offer, indeed, but by making a remembrance of His Death; and this [Sacrifice] is one, and not many. How is it one and not many? Because it was offered once for all, like that offering which was carried into the Holy of holies. The latter was the figure of that Offering [on the Cross], and this [the Eucharist] is the remembrance of that [the Cross]." "He is our High Priest, who offered upon the Cross the Sacrifice that cleanseth us. We also offer now that which was then offered, which is inexhaustible. This is done in remembrance of what was then done, for He saith, Do this in remembrance of Me.' It is not another victim that we offer, as the high priest offered then, but we offer always the same, or rather, we make a remembrance of the [same] Sacrifice." †

It would be difficult to find a clearer expression of the relation of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to that of the Cross. S. Chrysostom says that, as on the Cross and in the Eucharist the Victim is one and the same,

* S. Cyril, Alex., Homil. Div. in Mysticam Cœnam; n. x. Migne, P. G., tom. 77, col. 1018.

† S. Chrys., In Heb., Hom. xvii., n. 3; Gaume, vol. xii., pp. 241, 242.

so the Sacrifice is one and the same; and in this passage there is not the slightest reference of the Eucharist to our LORD's work in heaven, although the allusion to the high priest entering the Holy of holies would have suggested to S. Chrysostom such a reference, had he been of the opinion that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was dependent upon our LORD's work in heaven, and only through this indirectly related to the Sacrifice of the Cross.

tom.

on this pas

sage.

Again S. Chrysostom says: "Let us, therefore, 6. S. Chrysosreverence this Table of which we are all partakers, CHRIST slain for us, the Sacrifice placed upon this Table." Thomassinus † has the following interest- Thomassinus ing note on this passage: "The Victim slain upon the Cross is in the Eucharist forthwith given for food. The slaying is interwoven with the eating, the eating is joined with the slaying. The Cross serves the Eucharist, the Eucharist leans upon the Cross. One is the Sacrifice of the Victim slain upon the Cross, consumed upon the altar. And the very eating of the Victim is indeed a commemoration of the same slaying upon the Cross, not, indeed, a mere empty remembrance, but the very re-presentation (both the presence and the fruit of the Sacrifice itself), since the very eating of the Victim is a renewed immolation of the Victim."

And again, commenting on the words of S. Chrysos- 7. S. Chrysostom: "Believe, therefore, that even now this is that tom. Supper at which He Himself sat down. For this is in no respect different from that; nor doth man do this, and Himself the other, but He offers both this and

*S. Chrys., In Rom., Hom. viii., 8; Gaume, vol. ix., p. 558.

†Thomassin., vol. iv., p. 365.