Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

it is found in St. Paul; also found in the constant belief of the Church which immediately began to obey the precept, "Do this in remembrance of me." If Christ be not in the Eucharist, Christianity is a puzzle, if not a snare. Logically, all we believe stands or falls with the Eucharist.

We are often asked why the faithful do not receive under both species, i. e., under the form of bread and wine.

To this we can give no satisfactory answer, unless we show that those who receive under one species only suffer no loss. The many difficulties which would arise from communicating under both forms, should and would be overcome by the Church, if the spiritual welfare of its children demanded it.

That those who communicate under either form receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ will appear to those who consider the matter for a moment.

Let the reader realize that in the Eucharist we receive Christ as He is, the living Christ. But in the living Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity are not separated, but united. Otherwise, He would not be the living Christ. If not

separated or divided, wherever His body is, there also are His blood, soul, divinity. This doctrine, which follows so naturally from what we believe of Christ, receives confirmation from St. Paul: "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (I Cor. 11: 27.) The apostle says that he who receives either unworthily is guilty of both; which must mean that both are present under either species. Otherwise in receiving one he could not be guilty of both.

Having established that they who communicate under one species suffer no loss, it is easy to find justification for the Church's practice. It is often hard to get sufficient wine; some people cannot drink wine, even are nauseated, with dire results. The cup, too, presents a difficulty. One cup for all is unsanitary, and would repel people. To provide individual cups in Catholic Churches where hundreds or thousands communicate would be very difficult, if not, sometimes, impossible. After communion there would be the care and purification of all these cups, which should be treated with the same

reverence as the priest's chalice. This would involve delay and colossal labor; indeed would be practically impossible.

A word about transubstantiation. Luther held the doctrine of consubstantiation, which means that the substances of bread and wine remain, though the substances of the body and blood of Christ are present also, at least during the moment of reception.

Another heretical explanation of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is named impanation, a subtle doctrine, variously explained, but now scarcely held by anyone. It would unite the body of Christ with the bread, making both one. The doctrine is hardly intelligible to the popular mind. Differing from these is the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, according to which the substances of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remaining of the bread and wine except the appearances, color, shape, taste, etc.

CONFESSION

"He that hideth his sins shall not prosper, but he that shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy." (Prov. 28: 13.)

"Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:22-23.)

"But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God, indeed, was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself . . and He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation." (II Cor. 5: 18-19.)

[ocr errors]

Many objections have been raised against the Catholic doctrine and practice of confession, but, strangely enough, they all come from persons who do not confess-from Protestants, atheists, and careless Catholics. Those who follow the practice faithfully have never been heard to complain of it. They may sometimes, though rarely, complain of the severity of an individual confessor, or of the penance imposed; but never

of the system itself. Not, indeed, that they do not often feel the humiliation of unbosoming themselves to a fellow-man; but they hardly ever fail to realize how salutary is the practice, with all its exactions.

Another fact, obvious though often forgotten, is that only sinners are called upon to confess. Never sin and you will never feel the humiliation of confession. Therefore, only offenders are obliged to confess; and who will dare to say that offenders can dictate terms to the offended? If you transgress the law, the law lays down the conditions upon which you may be restored to liberty. If a child offends his father, it rests with the father to name the manner of the child's restoration to home and friendship. So is it with the sinner who has offended God. If he is to return at all, it must be on such terms as God imposes. Sometimes people talk as if confession were a hardship imposed on entirely innocent people. It is not. It is a mode of penance demanded of those who, through transgression, have lost their rights. The only question is: Does God impose confession as a condition of the sinner's restoration to His friendship?

« PoprzedniaDalej »