« PoprzedniaDalej »
rest I will set in order when I come.' (1 Cor. xi. 34.) Wherefore, though from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both kinds was not infrequent, yet when in process of time that practise was for weighty and just causes changed, holy mother church, recognising her acknowledged authority in the administration of the sacraments, approved the custom of communion in one kind, and commanded it to be observed as law; to condemn or alter which at pleasure, without the authority of the church itself, is not lawful.*
66 CHAP. III. That the true sacrament, and Christ whole and
entire, is received under either kind. “ Moreover, the council declares, that though our Redeemer, as has been before said, did in the last supper institute this sacrament in two kinds, and thus delivered it to the apostles, it must nevertheless be granted that the true sacrament, and Christ whole and entire, is received in either kind by itself; and therefore that, as far as regards the fruit of the sacrament, those who receive one kind only are not deprived of any grace that is necessary to salvation.
*« The church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve, but confirm by solemn decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid accident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable, if the chalice were administered in a crowded assembly. In the next place, the holy eucharist should be at all times in readiness for the sick, and if the species of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be apprehended, that it may become vapid. Besides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine; lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe, that in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance which principally influenced the church in establishing this practice, means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread, without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine, without the body. This object was obtained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes the truth of the Catholic faith.”—Catechism, p. 244.
“ CHAP. IV. That sacramental communion is not obligatory on
children. “ Lastly, the same holy council teaches, that the sacramental communion of the eucharist is not necessarily obligatory on children, who have not attained the use of reason. For being regenerated in the laver of baptism, and incorporated into Christ, they cannot lose the gracious state of children of God, which was acquired at that time. Nevertheless, antiquity is not to be condemned on account of that practice having been formerly observed in some places. For though the holy fathers had sufficient grounds for the custom in the then existing state of things, yet it must be without doubt believed that they did not attend to it, as necessary to salvation.*
“ Canon 1. Whoever shall affirm, that all and every one of Christ's faithful are bound by divine command to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, as necessary to salvation : let him be accursed.
“ 2. Whoever shall affirm, that the holy Catholic church had not just grounds and reasons for restricting the laity and non-officiating clergy to communion in the species of bread only, or that she hath erred therein : let him be accursed.
63. Whoever shall deny, that Christ, whole and entire, the fountain and author of every grace, is received under the one species of bread; because, as some falsely affirm, he is not then received, according to his own institution, in both kinds : let him be accursed.
66 4. Whoever shall affirm, that the communion of the eucharist is necessary to children, before they reach the years of discretion : let him be accursed.
“ Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) Such is the apostolic description of the “man of sin;" the decree just quoted presents an apt illustration of it. It was not enough to 6 make the commandment
* The student in ecclesiastical history need not be reminded that this is contrary to fact. See Mosheim, cent. 111. part 2. chap. 4.
of God of none effect by tradition;" the church of Rome has added to it the impiety of mutilating an express ordinance. And the audacity is equal to the impiety :—first, the council confesses that the Saviour instituted the sacrament in both kinds, and then dares to assert that the church had “ weighty and just causes” for altering the divine institution, as if the church were wiser than Christ! After this, what is safe ?
Transubstantiation and communion in one kind are ingeniously dovetailed together. Good Catholics are required to believe that Christ, whole and entire, his body and blood, soul and divinity, is contained in either species, and in the smallest particles of each. If this be true, it necessarily follows, that whether the communicant receive the bread or the wine, he enjoys the full benefit of the sacrament. But it is true, says the church, and communion in one kind is adduced as overwhelming proof. Excellent logic ! An absurd and monstrous dogma is promulgated; to support it, a Christian ordinance is cut in twain ; transubstantiation justifies communion in one kind, and communion in one kind proves the truth of transubstantiation! Who can withstand such arguments ?
Assurance often increases in proportion to the weakness of the cause, and the boldest and most confident tone is sometimes adopted, when there is the greatest deficiency of evidence. This is clearly seen in the discussion of the present subject. Nothing can be plainer or more express than the testimony of scripture. That testimony is impiously perverted or denied. By the method of interpretation employed by Roman-catholic writers, it may be easily proved that neither the bread nor the wine is to be received by the laity ; but that the Lord's supper belongs exclusively to the priesthood.* And, indeed, the exaltation of the clerical order is the natural result, as it was probably the chief design, of this corruption. How greatly must they be reverenced, at whose word so wondrous a transmutation is accomplished, and who only are permitted to touch the sacred cup, or taste the consecrated wine !
* Vide Bellarmin. de Eucharist. 1. iv. c. 25. The whole chapter is a fine specimen of jesuitical sophistry.
The reformation enacted at the twenty-first session was superficial and unimportant. It was decreed that bishops should require no fees for collating or inducting priests; that ordination should not be granted unless a benefice was actually possessed ; that large parishes should be provided with additional priests, and small ones be united in perpetuity; that coadjutors should be appointed to ignorant clergymen, &c. .. The very name and office of the papal collectors, who had for so many years carried on the gainful traffic of indulgences, were declared to be abolished; and it was enacted that henceforth all spiritual privileges of that kind should be dispensed freely, and that voluntary alms should be substituted for compulsory payment. It will be seen hereafter that the sale of indulgences continues to the present day, notwithstanding this de cree.
* Pallav. I. xvii. c. 11. Sarpi, l. vi. s. 39. Pius IV. was as averse to reformation as any of his predecessors had been. The French ambassadors continually complained of his interference, and lamented the subjection and thraldom of the council. Nothing was suffered to be advanced that might prove prejudicial to the profit or authority of the court of Rome.—Le Plat, v. pp. 391–398.
Discussions on the Mass-Debates on the Concession of the Cup to the Laity
-Division on that Question-Subsequent Determination to refer it to the Pope-TWENTY-SECOND Session-Decree on the Mass-Reflections.
The mass was the subject proposed for the next session.* This point had been fully discussed at the former sitting of the council, but the publication of the decree was prevented by the unexpected and abrupt termination of the proceedings. Some advised the adoption of that decree, after suitable revision; this, however, was opposed by the legates, and it was generally judged more becoming the dignity of the council to examine the whole subject de novo, especially as the number of the prelates was now so much greater, being nearly two hundred, more than three times as many as were assembled under Julius III.
Thirteen articles were submitted to the divines for examination. Their discussions occupied but little time, as scarcely any difference of opinion existed, and no Protestants were there to object or dispute. The principal point to be proved
* The “ mass” is the “ liturgy of the Catholic church, and consists of the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And the offering up this same body and blood to God, by the ministry of the priest, for a perpetual memorial of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, and a continuation of the same till the end of the world." -Challoner's “ Catholic Christian Instructed,” p. 154. “High mass” is the same service, accompanied by all the ceremonies which custom and authority have annexed to its celebration. An account of these may be seen in the fourth volume of Geddes' “ Tracts against Popery." In the early ages of the church, the congregation was dismissed before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, none but the communicants being suffered to remain. “ Ita missa est,” said the officiating minister, and immediately the congregation withdrew : the term thus employed was used in process of time to designate the solemn service about to be perforined ; it was called “ missa,” the muss.