« PoprzedniaDalej »
It is not a matter of comparatively little importance according to what rite the Eucharist is celebrated. For example, even if we allowed that the establishment called the kirk of Scotland, or the Wesleyan methodists, or Brownists, or any other schismatical sect are still in some way not out of the Church, yet it would by no means follow, that they either possess the power, or in fact do rightly consecrate the sacred elements and receive the blessings of communion. Again, that a priest duly authorized and ordained by a Bishop of the Catholic Church should be the minister, is not the only thing essential to a valid administration. Our Blessed Lord, the great High Priest, blessed the elements of bread and wine, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My Body:” “This is My Blood.” Even if it were a proved truth, which it is not, that He left no exact Form (I do not mean to be then committed to writing, but the method and the chief particulars) how the holy Eucharist is to be consecrated, it would not therefore follow that all Forms are indifferent. It may be allowed to be a ruled point, among theologians who deserve the name, that there must be, not only the instituted Matter, but the proper Form ; and although different churches may lawfully use different words, although they may lawfully observe some one order of the Rites, some another, yet there must be certain things either expressed or necessarily implied, without which the Form would be deficient.
The Holy Apostles, it is not to be doubted, imitated so far as they could the example of our Lord, and obeyed His instructions: they therefore, and after them the various Churches which they founded, observed in the administration of the Eucharist certain rites, which they held to be essential : and the varieties which exist in the primitive liturgies prove by the extent to which they reach, their full agreement in substance. Hence it becomes a question of deep importance, whether the service used in the Church of which we are members preserves this necessary agreement: and it is a part of our duty to enquire, whether the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord be rightly and duly administered, even as we are bound to try and examine ourselves before we presume to eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. The church of Rome has declared her belief that the consecration of the elements is entirely conveyed by the utterance of these words “This is my Body:” “This is my Blood.” Cardinal Bona is express upon this point;” and relies also upon the admissions made by certain Greeks, who attended the council of Florence, in 1439, which admissions however ought not to be pressed against the received doctrine of the Greek church, which rather attributes greater efficacy to the Invocation and Prayers.” When therefore we find a general consent and testimony among the fathers, that the Holy Eucharist is conse
crated by the repetition of the words of Institution and
by prayer, we are to understand (the Roman doctors tell us) that such statements merely mean, that prayers precede and follow the words.” But, in short, to adopt the determination of Pope Benedict the XIVth. following Tournely and Bessarion, “nuda et praecisa forma consecrationis consistat in Christi verbis, Hoc est Corpus meum ; hic est Calir sanguinis mei ; omnibus ab ea forma precibus exclusis, tum quae praecedunt, tum quae sequuntur.”
* Rerum. Liturg. lib. ii, cap. xiij. * Examine also the exact statement made by them, Collatio 22. Conc. Labbe et Cossart. tom. xiii. 1163. * Sala's additions to Bona. tom. iii. p. 301. * Opera. tom. ix. p. 164. Angelo Rocca incidentally speaks in
terms no less strong : “Ex vi ver-
' It will be observed that these sentences, (the ** verba consecrationis” of the Romam missal,) are not exactly as they are to be promounced in the Canon: the conjunction enim being omitted in both. But this is mot an inadvertent omission. * Forma enim verborum” says Lyndwood “quoad corpus est talis: Hoc est enim corpus meum : hæc tamen conjunctio enim non est de substantia formæ, sed de bene esse, unde non debet omitti. Aliud mamque est forma necessaria, sine qua non potest fieri transubstantiatio : et aliud est forma debita, sine qua non potest (al. debet) fieri.”° This assertion of the canonist explains somewhat his gloss om amother constitution: although in meither place does he exactly lay down the rule agreed upon in later times by the church of Rome ; for the question is not what amount of power, if I may so speak, is attached to the words of Institution, but whether the sole repetition of them is all-sufficient. So to proceed: Lyndwood there says ; “ Canon missæ vere dicitur regula illa, per quam Eucharistia conseeratur: hoc est, illorum verborum per quæ panis in corpus, et vinum in sanguinem transubstantiantur."" Not that I think it can be denied, that Lyndwood's meaning may be extended as far as the above quotation from Benedict the XIVth. Because not only does he soon after, on the same constitutiom, make a distinction between the Canon “ i. e. sacramentalium verborum,” and the Canon, “i. e. omnium quæ sequuntur præfationem usque ad orationem dominicam ; " but, not to memtion other statutes, it had been thus laid down in the 13th century, by a synod of Exeter, in terms which possibly might be explained away, though scarcely with fairness: “ Per hæc verba, Hoc est enim corpus meum, et non per alia, panis transubstantiatur in corpus.” And this same canon proceeds to order, “ prius hostiam non levet sacerdos, donec ipsa plene protulerit verba, ne pro
Rome, as given above, yet allows the almost necessity also of prayer in addition to the bare recital of the Words: “ Licet" he says “ certo certius teneat Ecclesia, solis Christi verbis hoc mysterium posse confici; horret tamen animus, mens titubat, affectus refugit, sine precibus, aut hostiam consecrare, aut hoc irreligioso more consecratam recipere."—* Secundo, cum ad consecrationem absolvendam duo concurrant principia effectiva Christus et homo, convenit utrumque in tam sublimi, tam difficili, tam mirando opere edendo, non tam virtutem suam exercere, conjungere actionem, sed et agendi rationem status sui conditioni congruentem prodere et manifestare: Christus autem ut Deus omnipotens, imperio, vel saltem verbo, opus illud producendum aggreditur; homo velut ejus minister, et ad agendum concurrens, licet ab eo dependeat, virtutemque omnem ab eo, seu subjectum instrumentum mutuetur; in ejus Persona loquitur, verba ejus usurpat, præcipuam ejus potestatem, et velut auctoritatem arrogat; quidni tandem
sui status memor, suæ debilitatis conscius, et infirmitatis reus, quod non nisi precibus quantum in se est, posset obtinere, precibus quoque exposcat, et quod jam effectum vires suas superare agnoscit, velut efficiendum desideriis, votis, obsecrationibus comparare moliatur?" Historia. Conc. Florent. Concilia. CEc. tom. iv. p. 258. This very learned writer is speaking upon the fact of the general consent of all the early liturgies in the use of prayerandinvocation; andas he was not able to denyit, he thus attempts to explain it away. See also Goar, in his notes to the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, whom Catalani follows. ° Lib. iii. tit. 23. Ad excitandos. verb. Consecratione. Compare also Bellarunin, arguing en this point. “ Secundo dicit, sola Christi verba debere pronunciari ; ex quo arguit Catholicos, quod quædam addiderint, ut ex canone missæ perspicuum est. Sed in hoc etiam fallitur, aut mentitur. Nam verba omnia quæ dicimus, Christi sunt, licet non ex eodem loco ha
beantur ; et præterea verba illa, morem attendit. Secunda est, ne
quæ adduntur, ut, enim, in forma consecrationis corporis, et, mysterium fidei, in forma consecrationis sanguinis, non putamus ad essentiam formæ pertinere." Opera. tom. iii. p. 831. De Sacr. Euch. lib. iv. cap. 12.
: “ Lib. i. tit. 10. Ut archidiaconi. verb. Canon missæ. Lyndwood in the same mote gives six reasons (I may add) why the Canon should be said secreto : ** Prima est, quia Deus cordis, non vocis, cla
sacerdos in longo clamore deficiat. Tertia est, ne impediatur populus orare. Quarta est, ne verba tanti mysterii quotidiano usu vilescant. Quinta est, quia hæc ad solum sacerdotem pertinent. Sexta est, ne verba Canonis sæpius audita discantur a laicis, et locis incongruis recitentur." Such reasons can have but little weight, against the practice of the first thousand years of the Church. See also, below, Vote 8. p. 79.
creatore creatura a populo veneretur.” Still it is not to be forgotten that the ancient English Uses do not contain such a rubric, as does the modern Roman missal, viz. immediately succeeding the pronouncing of the Words; “statim hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat.” . . There seems to be no need whatever to accumulate evidence either to prove or to disprove the fact, of the expressed decisions of the church of England having reached to such an extent as the later decrees of the church of Rome: let it be allowed that for some two or three centuries her canons may be so interpreted, although not necessarily so. Errors and abuses had been gradually creeping into the English, as well as into other branches of the Church of Christ; and far more important is it to ascertain, on such a point, the doctrine of the primitive fathers and liturgies, than of councils and canonists of the middle ages. - To limit the effect of the recital of the Words “This is My Body;” “This is My Blood;” to say how far they reach, and where they stop, in the consummation of the Eucharist; and how little is the consequence of the pronunciation of them," no prayers having preceded,
63 Wilkins. Concilia. tom. ii. p.
que inde divinitus percussi interi-