In his popular book against Roman Catholicism, The Church
of Rome at the Bar of History (1995), William Webster wrote the following concerning
Peter Lombard’s (d. 1160) theology of the Mass:
Historically, the word immolate
had been used by Fathers and theologians of the Church to refer to the
eucharist as a commemoration of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Augustine
used the word in this way and his definition became normative for centuries
afterwards. For example, Peter Lombard in the twelfth century in his Sentences
expressed the Augustinian view in this way:
We may briefly reply that what is
offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and an immolation
because it is a memorial and a representation of the true sacrifice and holy
immolation made upon the altar of the cross. Christ died once, upon the cross, and
there he was immolated in his own person; and yet every day he is immolated
sacramentally, because in the sacrament there is a recalling of what was done
once.
The meaning of the term as it is
expressed here is strictly that of a sacramental commemoration, it was not
literal. However, Trent’s use of the term added a new dimension of meaning to
the word which differs from that of Augustine for he did not view Christ as
being physically present in the sacrament, nor the eucharist as a propitiatory
sacrifice for sin. Augustine certainly did not teach that the sacrifice of the
eucharist was the same as the sacrifice of Calvary. (William Webster, The
Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1995], 123)
Webster gives the following reference (ibid., 227 n. 21):
Sentences, book IV, dist. 12,
cap. 5. Taken from Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), 407.
However, this appears to be a quote-mine from Webster.
Before I address Clark’s book, the following is a modern translation of Book
IV, Distinction 12, Chapter 5:
1. WHETHER IT IS A SACRIFICE, AND
IS CHRIST IMMOLATED MORE THAN ONCE. After these matters, it is asked whether
what the priest does is properly called a sacrifice or immolation, and whether
Christ is immolated every day, or if he was immolated only once.—To this, it
may briefly be said that what is offered and consecrated by the priest is
called sacrifice and oblation, because it is a remembrance and representation
of the true sacrifice and the holy immolation made on the altar of the cross.
And indeed Christ died only once, namely on the cross, and there he was
immolated in himself; but he is daily immolated in the sacrament, because in
the sacrament is made a remembrance of what was done once.
2. AUGUSTINE, ON PSALM 20. Hence
Augustine: “We have it for certain that Christ, risen from the dead, shall not
die again, etc. And yet, lest we forget what was once done, it happens again in
our memory every year, namely as often as Easter is celebrated. Is Christ
killed so often? And yet the yearly remembrance represents what was once done;
and so it causes us to be moved, as if we were seeing the Lord on the cross.”
[Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalms, 2, on Ps. 21, n1] —AUGUSTINE, IN THE
SENTENCES OF PROSPER. Also: “Christ was immolated once in himself, and yet he
is immolated every day in the sacrament. This is to be understood as follows:
that in the manifestation of his body and the distinction of his members he hung
on the cross only once, offering himself to the Father as an efficacious victim
for the redemption of those whom he had predestined.” [Lanfranc, De corpore
et sanguine Domini, c15; cf. Augustine, Epistola 98 (ad Bonifacium
episcopum), n9]
3. AMBROSE, ON THE LETTER TO THE
HEBREWS. Also Ambrose: “In Christ was offered once the sacrificial victim which
is powerful for salvation. What about us? Do we not offer each day? Although we
do offer every day, this is done in remembrance of his death; and there is one
victim, not many. How is it one, and not many? Because Christ was offered once.
This sacrifice is the precedent of the other; the same, always the same is
offered: so this is the sacrifice. But, since the offering is made in many
places, are there many Christs? No, but there is one Christ everywhere, being
here in his fullness, and there also. Just as what is offered everywhere is one
body, so also it is one sacrifice. Christ offered the victim; we offer the same
one even now.”—“But that which we do is a remembrance of the sacrifice. Nor is
it repeated because of its own deficiency, since it perfects man; no, it is
because of ours, since we sin daily.” [Rather, John Chrysostom, Homiliae in
epistolam ad Hebraeos, hom. 17, n3, on Heb. 10, 1.]
4. ON THE POWER OF THE SACRAMENT.
From these statements, it is gathered that what is done at the altar is and is
called a sacrifice; and that Christ was offered once, and is offered every day;
but in one way then, in another now. And it is also shown what the power of
this sacrament is, namely the remission of venial sins and the perfecting of
virtue. (Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 4 vols. [trans. Giulio Silano; Mediaeval
Sources in Translation 48; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
2010], 4:64-65)
In Clark’s book, which Webster referenced, comments thusly
on the third paragraph:
This passage is of great interest,
for no text was more constantly quoted by the Catholic theologians, both before
and during the Reformation, to explain the doctrine of the Mass. . . . The
Master of the Sentences comments: ‘From these passages we gather that what is
done at the altar both is called and is a sacrifice, and that Christ was
offered once and is offered daily, but in different manner then and now’.
Another reason why the passage from ‘Ambrose’ became the most celebrated of all
the texts relating to the Mass was its inclusion, as well as in the Sentences
of Lombard, in the collections of the decretalists, notably in those of Ivo of
Chartres († 1116) and of Gratian († c. 1158). Their works were, with the
Sentences, the commonplace- books of the mediaeval scholastics, most of whom
took their citations from the Fathers not from the original sources but from
these convenient stores. (Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the
Reformation [London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1960], 75, 76)
It appears that Webster (and those who follow him and/or
similar quotes from Lombard, without reading Lombard’s Sentences) is
engaging in a quote-mine. While I am very critical of Roman Catholic theology,
I have never been much of a fan of Webster. His works are good for bibliography
(he often quotes directly from good secondary sources, such as the works of
Eno), but Webster himself is a lousy critic of Catholicism.
