A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

It is, moreover, decreed, “that, after the consecration of the bread and wine, the true God and man is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearance of the sensible elements.”—Id. c. 1. So that “the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and are, sensually, not only in sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priests, and bruised by the teeth of the faithful.”—Con. Rom. apud Pop. Nichol. I. And the Fathers of the second Nicene Council pronounced, “that the eucharist is not the mere image of Christ’s body and blood, but that it is Christ’s body and blood, their own literal and proper physical selves.”—Labbe, Con. vol. vii. p. 448. “Nor in this is there any repugnance; that Christ, according to his natural manner of existence, should always remain in heaven, at the right hand of his Father; and that, at the same time, he should be present with us, in many places, really but sacramentally.”—Con. Trid. XIII. c. 1. And “if any one says, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered up to God at the mass, or that to be offered is anything else than Jesus Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema.”—Id. Sess. XXII. Can. 1. “And if any one says, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare memorial of the sacrifice which was completed upon the cross, and that it is not propitiatory, nor profitable to any but him that receives it, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for their sins, their punishments, their satisfactions, and their other necessities, let him be accursed.” “For the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by it the sins we commit, however enormous they be, are remitted.”—Id. Can. 3. It was decreed by the Council of Constance, “that, whereas in several parts of the world, some have presumed rashly to assert, that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and that, also, after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the Church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious. Hence it is, that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ did after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both kinds of bread and wine; yet this, notwithstanding the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the Church, has fixed, and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful, except fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the primitive Church, it was afterwards received under both kinds by the officiating priest only, and by the people under the species of bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted, that the entire body and blood of Christ are really contained as well under the species of bread as of wine: this, therefore, being approved, is now made a law. Likewise this holy synod decrees and declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers in Christ, patriarchs, lords, &c., that they must effectually punish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort the people to communicate in both kinds.”—Conc. Gen. XII. 100.

“The holy synod (of Trent) following the judgment of the Church, (as pronounced at Constance,) and its usage, declares and teaches, that neither laity nor unofficiating clergy are bound, by any Divine command, to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both species; and that it cannot be doubted, without a breach of faith, that communion in either kind suffices for them. For though Christ, at his last supper, instituted this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, and then delivered it to his apostles, yet that institution, and that delivering, do not show that all the faithful, by the command of Christ, are bound to receive both kinds.”—Sess. XXI. c. 1. “And though, in the earlier ages, the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet the practice, in process of time, being widely changed, the Church, for weighty and just reasons, approved the change, and pronounced it to be a law, which no one, without the authority of that Church, is allowed to reject or alter.”—Id. c. 2. “It must be acknowledged, that the whole and entire Christ, and the true sacrament, are taken under either kind; and therefore, as to the fruit, that they who thus receive are deprived of no necessary grace.”—Id. c. 3. “And if any one shall say, that all Christians ought, by God’s command, or for the sake of salvation, to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, let him be accursed.”—Id.

By the 5th Canon, c. 8, Sess. XXII., of the Council of Trent, it is expressly declared, that “we are to offer up to the honour of saints and angels the sacrifice of the mass, in order to obtain their patronage and intercession with God.”

“If any one shall deny that the body and blood of Christ is really and substantially contained, together with his very soul and Divinity, in the sacrament of the eucharist, let him be accursed.”—Conc. Trid. Sess. XIII. Can. 1. Or, “If he shall say that there yet remains any substance of the bread and wine in conjunction with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the conversion is not real and total, let him be accursed.”—Id. Can. 2. “If any man shall deny that Christ is entirely contained under either species, and in every individual portion of that species,” (Id. Can. 3,) or “that Christ is only spiritually eaten, and not really and substantially, let him be accursed.”—Id. Can. 9.

Bishop Hall’s remarks on this doctrine are as follows:—It sounds not more prodigiously that a priest should every day make his God, than that he should sacrifice him.

Antiquity would have as much abhorred the sense, as it hath allowed the word. Nothing is more ordinary with the Fathers than to call God’s table an altar; the holy elements, an oblation; the act of celebration, an immolation; the actor, a priest.

St. Chrysostom reckons ten kinds of sacrifice; and at last, as having forgotten it, adds the eleventh: all which we well allow. And, indeed, many sacrifices are offered to God in this one: but “a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead,” which the Tridentine Fathers would force upon our belief, would have seemed no less strange a solecism to the ears of the ancients, than it doth to ours.

St. Augustine calls it a designation of Christ’s offering upon the cross; St. Chrysostom, and Theophylact after him, a remembrance of his sacrifice; Emissenus, a daily celebration in mystery of that which was once offered in payment; and Lombard himself, a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.

That which Cassander cites from St. Ambrose or Chrysostom may be instead of all. “In Christ, is the sacrifice once offered, able to give salvation. What do we, therefore? Do we not offer every day? Surely, if we offer daily, it is done for a recordation of his death.”

This is the language and meaning of antiquity; the very same which the Tridentine Synod condemneth in us: “If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the cross, let him be accursed.”