Lovers of the Mass, and especially lovers of the theology of the Mass, are under a great debt of gratitude to Dom Romanus Rios, O.S.B., for his article in The Clergy Review of November, 1942,’ on “ Sacrifioium Quod Immolamus.” Our gratitude would have been still greater if the valuable list of words had been referred to their place in the Mass.

His two concluding sentences ofier an inducement to clear up some theological difficulties. He writes: “Lainez, S.J., when presenting his Votum on the Eucharistic Sacrifice defined the Sacrifice of the Last Supper, the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, each by itself and in its own way as a verum et plenum sacrificium. He was merely echoing the traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed particularly in the Secrets of the Mass.” (Clergy Review, November, 1942, p. 487.)

(1) The theological difficulty betokened by these words of Lainez called forth this plain decree of the Council:—Si quis dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari aanctissimo Christi sacrificio in Cruce peracto per Missae sacrifioium, aut illi per hoc derogari—anathema sit. (Sess xxii. De Sacrificio Missae, Can. iv.) Many minds, both inside and outside the visible Church, were perplexed by the words of those theologians who, rightly enough, maintained the sacrificial character of the Last Supper and of the Mass.

Theologians of the Church scrupled to call the Last Supper a sacrifice. To them it seemed that if the Last Supper was Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, then the Passion and Death were not Christ's redemptive sacrifice