Breaking with the Past; Or, Catholic Principles Abandoned at the Reformation

by Francis Aidan Gasquet

THE HOLY MASS

TO-DAY I propose to speak about the Most Holy Eucharist. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the central doctrine of our religion. In it, as we Catholics firmly believe, there is renewed on the Christian altar the sacrifice of Calvary, and by God's power, at the words spoken by the priest, the bread and wine is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord. The word used by the Church to express this change of substance is Transubstantiation; and in the mystery of our Faith we hold that we have, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, the true and real presence of our Blessed Lord. As truly and as really as our Saviour, God and man, walked this earth in the days of His pilgrimage, blessing the sick, curing diseases at His touch, and teaching the way of life to the multitudes, so do we firmly believe and hold, that He is amongst us to-day under the Eucharistic forms, ready to help and encourage the weary, to console the afflicted, to bring the assurance of His pardon to the penitent.

I am not proving this. I am only stating it, as the firm faith we hold as Catholics. Moreover, not only is the Mass our Christian Sacrifice; but in the Holy Eucharist we have the food of our souls and the proper sustenance of our spiritual life in this world. We hold and truly believe that in Holy Communion we receive really and in fact, and not in any mere figurative sense, our Blessed Lord Himself—Body, Soul and Divinity. This is our faith to-day as it was the unbroken belief of the Catholic Church from the earliest tunes. All round about us now we see other religious bodies, claiming to be Christian which do not share our teaching, and it is good to try and understand how this has come about. The key to the explanation lies in the teaching of Reformation principles in the sixteenth century.

When Henry VIII. died, on January 25, 1547, for the first time in history the king had made himself supreme not only in affairs of State but in religion. Many minor changes, besides the destruction of the religious life and the suppression of the monasteries, naturally marked and followed upon the rejection of the Catholic principle of papal authority and the assumption by the king of Supreme Headship over the Church in England. The hopes, entertained by the German Reformers of being able to obtain the adherence of the king and people of England to their reformed doctrines, were disappointed during Henry's life. On his death their hopes revived. Edward VI., a boy, only nine years of age, succeeded to the throne, and the supreme power in the State was seized by those whose sympathies were known to be on the side of the German Reformation. The Lord Protector, Somerset, became the highest authority in the State, and Archbishop Cranmer, for years a Lutheran at heart, was the chief ecclesiastic in the realm.

As one of the first acts of the reign, all the bishops were compelled to take out fresh Commissions from the Crown for the exercise of their episcopal offices. In this Cranmer set a willing example of obedience; and in the preamble of the new Letters Patent the royal power was set forth as the source of all jurisdiction, civil and ecclesiastical.

Within a month of Edward's accession, the images of saints in the London churches were dishonoured and mutilated, and sermons were preached, without punishment or rebuke, against the observance of Lent and other Catholic practices. Other changes in the line of the Reformation followed quickly one upon another. Images, shrines and pictures of Our Lady and the Saints were ordered to be destroyed, and the Litany of the Saints, hitherto said in procession, was made into a prayer to be said kneeling. All this was a sufficient indication of the trend of mind in the men now in power towards the Reformation doctrines of Luther and the other continental heretics.

For objecting to these changes some of the bishops were lodged in prison, and in the course of a general Visitation of churches in the diocese of London, whilst the Bishop was in prison, the images in St. Paul's and other city churches were pulled down and broken up; the painted pictures and frescoes upon the walls—"the books of the poor and unlearned" as they were called—were covered with whitewash, and in their place the Ten Commandments were written upon the plaster.

The first Parliament of this reign met in November, 1547, and the important matter—from a religious standpoint—discussed and settled was the introduction of Communion under both kinds—or as some modern writers put it "the restoration of the cup to the laity." This change, significant as it was, might mean little more than the rejection of a disciplinary law of the Church, which had been introduced many ages before for wise and obvious reasons. But to those who will study the history of the controversies of the sixteenth century, the reintroduction of Communion under both kinds was an outward manifestation of the rejection of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, which taught that our Blessed Lord was present, whole and entire, Body, Soul and Divinity in each and every portion of the Most Holy Sacrament. And, as St. Thomas teaches in his dogmatic hymn of the Holy Eucharist, in every part and portion, "integer accipitur"—is received whole and entire in Holy Communion. The history of the passage of this measure through Parliament makes it clear that many of the Bishops and other prominent ecclesiastics were opposed to this departure from existing Catholic usage and that it was in reality imposed by the authority of Parliament upon the Church under the plea that it was "conformable to primitive practice." The Bill was but the beginning of other and more important changes. The replies made at this time by Cranmer and other innovating prelates to certain questions upon the nature of the Mass leave no doubt as to the lengths they were prepared to go ha the direction of Lutheran Eucharistic doctrine. The archbishop declared that "oblation and sacrifice" were terms improperly used about the Mass, and that it was only a "memory and representation of the sacrifice of the Cross." In other words, Cranmer and the four other English bishops who agreed with him, rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass as it had hitherto been received in England as in every other part of the Catholic world.

To carry out the new order of Communion a form, founded upon the celebrated work of Herman the Archbishop of Cologne, which had just appeared in an English translation, was issued and ordered to be inserted in the Latin Mass. The process of spoliation of the Church begun in the reign of Henry VIII. was continued. A bill, strongly opposed by churchmen, was passed in the House of Lords, giving to the Crown all colleges, free chapels and chantries as well as the property of all guilds and fraternities. By this measure the gravest injustice was done to the members of the guilds, which were the charitable associations, insurance societies, burial and sick clubs of Catholic England. The funds thus confiscated for the most part represented the savings of the poor. Moreover, religion suffered the gravest injury by the confiscation of the chantry funds and the revenues for anniversary prayers for the dead. These were in many cases at least intended to supply the services of additional curates for the work of larger parishes and for annual gifts to the poor.

In the second year of the King's reign Cranmer intimated that the Council had ordered the discontinuance of the old Catholic practices of blessed candles, blessed ashes and blessed palms, as well as the Good Friday ceremony of honouring the crucifix, known as "creeping to the cross."

All these changes were, however, only indications of the more serious attack on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, which was being engineered by the now almost openly avowed English Reforming party, headed by Cranmer. On December 14, 1548, a draft of a new Prayer Book in English to supersede the ancient Missal and Breviary was introduced into the House of Lords and there followed a long debate upon the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament, contained in the service, which was intended to take the place of the ancient Mass. This part of the new Book of Common Prayer has a special interest and significance.

In the course of this debate it appeared clearly that Archbishop Cranmer had given up all belief in the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the account of this discussion it also appears that the word "oblation," which had been left in the proposed new Canon when the draft was shown to the Bishops, had been struck out of the document presented to Parliament for its approval, without their knowledge or consent. On January 15, 1549, Parliament by statute approved the new form of service to take the place of the Mass; its authority being simply a schedule of an act of Parliament; the Church in synod or convocation almost certainly having had nothing to say in this vital matter of doctrine and practice.

It is not infrequently asserted that after all, except that the new Communion service was in English, there was little or no change made in form or substance. In other words, that the office of Communion, in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.—the Book of 1549—was the Latin Mass translated into English. Whatever else it was, whether a return to primitive observances or an adaptation of ancient foreign liturgies, or any other thing of the same nature, it was most certainly not a translation; not even a free rendering of the Latin Mass into the vernacular.

Those who are familiar with the Latin Missal, or those who will take the trouble to examine it, will see at once that the Mass consists mainly of two parts,—the first a preparation for and leading up to the second. In the former we have the prayers and supplications with passages of Holy Scripture from the Epistles and Gospels, selected by the Church as appropriate to the feast or Sunday upon which they are read. In this part also we have the ceremonial offices arranged for the offering of the bread and wine prepared for the Christian Sacrifice, accompanied by prayers expressing the idea of sacrifice and oblation.

Thus, for example, at the offering of the bread the priest says these words: "Receive, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this spotless Host," etc. When he offers the chalice with the wine and water in it he says: "We offer up to Thee, O Lord, the chalice of Salvation, beseeching Thee of Thy mercy that our sacrifice may ascend with an odour of sweetness in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty," etc.; and he adds: "May the Sacrifice we this day offer up be well-pleasing to Thee." Finally, bowing down before the altar, the priest says: "Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee," etc., and, turning to those who are assisting, he says: "Brethren, pray that this sacrifice, which is both mine and yours, may be well-pleasing to God the Father Almighty." To this the people through the server reply: "May the Lord receive this sacrifice at your hands," etc. Everyone who will carefully examine these prayers must see that the main idea contained in all is that of sacrifice and oblation. In the same way the prayer called the Secret, which follows upon the offering of the bread and wine for the Sacrifice, though it varies with the feast celebrated, practically always contains some mention of the oblation or victim to be offered. Thus on this, the second Sunday of Advent, the Secret prayer contains these words: "Be appeased, we beseech Thee, O Lord, by our prayers and by the sacred Victim we humbly offer," etc.

In the second part of the Holy Mass we shall find, if we use our Missals, or Mass books, that there is one unchanging ritual formula called the "Canon," during which the words of Consecration are pronounced by the priest over the bread and wine. By the efficacy of these words, as we Catholics believe, the substance of the bread and wine are changed by God's power into the Body and Blood of Christ; and in this Sacred Canon the Christian sacrifice is perfected. Naturally we should expect to find in this solemn part of the Mass the same idea of sacrifice and oblation clearly expressed. And so it is. The priest begs Almighty God "to receive and to bless these gifts, these oblations, these holy and spotless hosts, which we offer up to Thee;" and "to be appeased by this oblation which we offer." Again he prays: "Vouchsafe to bless this same oblation, to take it for Thy very own . . . so that on our behalf it may be made into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ," etc. To this he adds: "Wherefore we offer up to thine excellent Majesty . . . a Victim which is pure, a Victim which is holy, a Victim which is stainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting and the Cup of eternal salvation." Then after the words of Consecration, bowing down before the sacred species on the altar, the celebrant says: "Humbly we beseech Thee, Almighty God, to command that by the hands of Thy holy Angel, this our Sacrifice be uplifted to thine altar on high."

Now let us understand what was done by the English Reformers in the new service drawn up in 1549 to take the place of the ancient Mass. In a general way it may be said that up to the Gospel the first Communion service followed outwardly at least the old Missals. The ritual offering of the bread and wine, however, with the prayers expressing oblation and sacrifice—a part which was known as the Offertory—was swept away altogether in the new service. In its place was substituted a few sentences appropriate to almsgiving and a new meaning was given to the word "Offertory," which has since come to signify a collection. This change is significant of the Eucharistic doctrines of the German Reformers and is fully in accord with Cranmer's known opinions in regard to oblation and sacrifice, every expression or idea of which was ruthlessly removed from the new Book. The old prayer, called the Secret, which almost invariably contained a mention of the Sacrifice about to be offered, was left out.

Following upon the Offertory and Secret comes the Preface, or immediate preparation for the sacred Canon. This, with certain unimportant changes, was allowed to stand in the new composition as it was in the Missal. But the last words of the Sanctus, with which the Preface invariably concludes: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," although allowed to stand in the first Book of Common Prayer of 1549, was removed in the subsequent Book of 1552, and does not find a place in the present Communion Service. The reason for this later change is obvious. With the new Canon we come to understand the full significance of the changes made in the new liturgy. Our present detailed knowledge of the Canon of the Mass goes back for thirteen hundred years, and, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the Great, it has remained unchanged to the present day. This alone is a sufficient testimony to the veneration in which the prayer was regarded. It was a sacred heritage, coming to the Catholic Church from unknown antiquity, and it was substantially the same in every Western liturgy.

The Canon of the First Communion service was, so far as ideas go, an absolutely new Canon. Outwardly, even, it was so different to the Canon of the Mass that it was characterised by the common people as "a Christmas game." It offers prayers to God in place of "these gifts, these offerings, these holy undefiled sacrifices" of the Catholic Canon; and in a word, every idea or expression of the ancient doctrine of sacrifice was studiously omitted by the composers of the new Prayer Book. In fact, the words of "Consecration," or as they are now frequently called, "Institution," which it might have been supposed even Cranmer would have respected as too sacred to touch or tamper with, are changed for a formula taken from the new Lutheran use of Nuremberg, which had been drawn up by Osiander, Cranmer's relative by marriage.

In brief, then, it is impossible for any unbiased mind to compare the ancient Canon of the Holy Mass—the Canon which still exists unchanged in our Missals to-day—with the relative part of the new Communion service without seeing that both in spirit and substance the First Prayer Book of Edward VI was conceived with the design of getting rid of the Catholic Mass altogether. [1] It was as little a translation of the Latin Missal as the similar Lutheran productions of Germany, which were ostensibly based upon the design of getting rid of the sacrificial character of the Mass altogether. The First Prayer Book of 1549 merely represented one stage of the downgrade of Eucharistic doctrine in departure from the old Catholic beliefs towards the more advanced Protestant schools of thought represented by Calvin and others. So another—the second liturgy of Edward VI—was soon in preparation and was issued in 1552.

[1] For the convenience of those interested this comparison may be found at the end of this lecture.

In one thing only did it differ. In the First Prayer Book the Communion service contained some shreds of a Canon,—a new Canon, it is true, but a Canon,—whereas Luther's declared intention was to get rid of what he called "the abominable Canon" altogether, leaving only the words of Institution. This too was effected in the Second Prayer Book of 1552. In this also there is one significant omission amongst a number of other changes. From the "Sanctus" after the Preface and immediately leading up to the Canon the words "Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord" are omitted as if to emphasise the rejection of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the new formulae.

It is unnecessary to do more than point out that the rejection of authority in religious matters had already the consequences which any reasonable man would have prophesied for a system of religion founded upon the royal power, or, as in this case of the young King Edward, upon the personal opinions of his ministers. It is in some quarters the fashion nowadays to assume that there were no substantial changes in the Liturgy of the Church at this period, and that the Catholic Mass and the Anglican Communion service to-day are essentially and substantially the same. To any one, who will put the one by the side of the other and note the changes and omissions, it must appear as clear as the noonday sun that there is a difference, essential and substantial, depending upon doctrinal teaching, on which there should be no misunderstanding. I am not here concerned to determine whether these changes were good or bad. What I wish to make clear is that these changes were made, and that they are significant of a change in doctrine.