ii). The expression Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, introduced by Augustine, is at the present day almost entirely restricted to catechetical and popular treatises. ; I Cor., xi, 24 sq. In the absence of Scriptural proof, the Church finds a warrant for, and a propriety in, rendering Divine worship to the Blessed Sacrament in the most ancient and constant tradition, though of course a distinction must be made between the dogmatic principle and the varying discipline regarding the outward form of worship. to the effects produced by a worthy Communion. While from Scripture we may only judge it improbable that Christ consecrated separately each particle of the bread He had broken, we know with certainty, on the other hand, that He blessed the entire contents of the Chalice and then gave it to His disciples to be partaken of distributively (cf. In their liturgies both Anglicanism and Lutheranism work within the framework of the mass, adopting certain elements and rejecting others; the liturgical movements in both traditions during the 19th and 20th centuries restored additional elements, even though theological interpretations of the Lords Supper continued to display great variety. vii). The Seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic church, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eucharist, Christianity.com - What is the Eucharist? The vagaries of the Cartesians, however, went beyond all bounds. Since they have not as yet attained to the use of reason, they are free from the obligation of positive laws; consequently, the only question is whether Communion is, like Baptism, necessary for them as a means of salvation. In many other Christian traditions the Eucharist is symbolic or commemorative. ; Mark, xiv, 23). The refutation of the so-called Sacramentarians, a name given by Luther to those who opposed the Real Presence, evinces as clearly the impossibility of a figurative meaning. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Since, however, the allegorical sense of the Alexandrians did not exclude the literal, but rather supposed it as a working basis, the realistic phraseology of Clement (Paed., I, vi), of Origen (Contra Celsum, VIII, xiii, 32; Hom. Along with baptism it is one of the two sacraments most clearly found in the New Testament. i), but authoritatively declared that Christ ordained the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Sess. It is true, that Pope Innocent III (De Sacro altaris myst., IV, vi) before his elevation to the pontificate did hold the opinion, which later theologians branded as temerarious, that Christ consecrated without words by means of the mere benediction. To determine whether a speaker intends the second manner of expression, there are four criteria, whose joint concurrence alone will allow the verb to be to have the meaning of signify. i, de prod. It follows, therefore, that supreme adoration is separately due to the Sacred Host and to the consecrated contents of the Chalice. According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus established the practice at the Last Supper, a traditional Passover seder, when he blessed the bread, which he said was his body, and shared it with his disciples. The expression Bread of Angels (Ps. This may be adduced both from the words of promise (John, vi, 26 sqq.) If the Host has become mouldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His Presence therein. In such a moment of awful solemnity, the only appropriate mode of speech would be one which, stripped of unintelligible figures, made use of words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed. Not only did such renowned Fathers as Justin (Apol., I, lxvi), Irenaeus (Adv. (a) The first element is wheaten bread (pans triticeus), without which the confection of the Sacrament does not take place (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, 3). Because of variations in both doctrine and practice, however, the Eucharist, which was intended as both a symbol of and a means of fostering unity within the church, has been a source of disunity and even contention. Why is the sacrament of the Eucharist the most important? So live, that you may receive every day. From the tenth to the thirteenth century, the practice of going to Communion more frequently during the year was rather rare among the laity and obtained only in cloistered communities. Although the separation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, is, absolutely speaking, within the almighty power of God, yet their actual inseparability is firmly established by the dogma of the indissolubility of the hypostatic union of Christs Divinity and Humanity. Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a universal priesthood (cf. Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: Will you also go away? Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: Lord, to whom shall we go? Under such circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the Fathers and several ecumenical councils (Ephesus, 431; Nicaea, 787) adopted the literal sense of the words, though it was not dogmatically defined (cf. The bread and wine we receive at communion is the body and blood of Jesus. In St. Thomass time (III, Q. lxxxii, a. Since the Sacrament of Love is not satisfied with an increase of habitual love only, but tends especially to fan the flame of actual love to an intense ardor, the Holy Eucharist is specifically distinguished from the other sacraments, and hence it is precisely in this latter effect that Suarez recognizes the so-called grace of the sacrament, which otherwise is so hard to discern. XIII, cap. Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, Do this, to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly consecrate. From this it follows conclusively that the Catholic dogma must be much older than the Eastern Schism under Photius. The contention that the words of the Epiklesis have a joint essential value and constitute the partial form of the sacrament, was indeed supported by individual Latin theologians, as Toute, Renaudot, and Lebrun. ], that the most ancient of Churches was indifferent as to the use of wine, and more concerned with the action of eating and drinking than with the elements of bread and wine, loses all its force in view not only of the earliest literature on the subject (the Didache, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Cyprian), but also of non-Catholic and apocryphal writings, which bear testimony to the use of bread and wine as the only and necessary elements of the Blessed Sacrament. On the other hand, a very ancient law of the Church which, however, has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament, prescribes that a little water be added to the wine before the Consecration (Decr. 3), the deacons were allowed to administer only the Chalice to the laity, and in case of necessity the Sacred Host also, at the bidding of the bishop or priest. iv; can. Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in the text quoted above (John, vi, 54 sqq.). Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants they no longer retained the Eucharist. XIII, can. There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself, unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Whether or not the fragments of a Host are distant one inch or a thousand miles from one another is altogether immaterial in this consideration; we need not wonder, then, if Catholics adore their Eucharistic Lord at one and the same time in New York, London, and Paris. Nor does it matter how great the distance between the parts may be. This unreal, though not impossible, hypothesis, is well calculated to throw light upon the essential difference designated by the Council of Trent (Sess. In order to prove at least this much, that the contents of the Chalice are merely wine and, consequently, a mere sign of the Blood, Protestants have recourse to the text of St. Matthew, who relates that Christ, after the completion of the Last Supper, declared: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine [genimen vitis] (Matt., xxvi, 29). The Churchs Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, This is my bodythis is my blood, whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luthers doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. WebThe Eucharist is the memorial of this sacrifice. Eucharist in Greek means thanksgiving. This is because the church Hence in the Early Church the catechumens were strictly excluded from the Eucharist. In regard to the persons concerned, we distinguish between the minister of the Eucharist and its recipient or subject. Corrections? It becomes the bread and body of Jesus through Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is sub stantially or essentially converted into another. Yet it is evident that, if the subject rock is taken in its material sense, the metaphor, according to the fourth criterion just mentioned, is as apparent as in the analogous phrase: Christ is the vine. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church. It is only on the basis of the Tridentine dogma that we can understand how Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. WebIt is a sign and symbol of Gods self-giving love for us within the community of the Church in the world. If it be true that a few Catholic theologians (as Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, Johann Hessel, and the elder Jansenius) preferred the figurative interpretation, it was merely for controversial reasons, because in their perplexity they imagined that otherwise the claims of the Hussite and Protestant Utraquists for the partaking of the Chalice by the laity could not be answered by argument from Scripture.
Thane Of Falkreath Console Command, Patti Brooks Net Worth, Discuss The Value Of Teaching Expressive Art In Zambian School, Ginger Bob Millwall Hooligans Top Boy, Articles W