Forbes on Article XXX: Of both kinds

THE Utraquist controversy involves principles even more important than the actual point ruled. Eight as it is that in an ordinance ” so mysterious, so closely appertaining to the Sacrament of our Lord’s Passion and of our redemption, there should be no in fringement of our Lord’s commands a,” the change from that which was in the beginning divinely in stituted, involves nothing less than that the living- Church has the power to alter not only that which stood upon an unbroken tradition of nearly twelve hundred years, but that which was done “by Christ’s

ordinance and commandment.” It was not till the time of the Schoolmen that the mind of the Church seriously set itself to the matter in hand. The danger of irreverence had suggested before this means for securing the consecrated elements from profanation. In the Greek Church the Body of the Lord had been administered with a spoon, after it had been dipped in the Blood. The Blood had been received through a golden pipe to prevent any accident. It was reserved for the Scholastic era to solve the difficulty by. the with drawal of the Chalice from all but the celebrant. This was not effected without resistance. In Bohemia, as all know, it was the occasion of wars and persecutions. In England, the Cup could not be withdrawn without the introduction of an unconsecrated drink, which was given ostensibly to assist in the deglutition of the Blessed Sacrament under the form of Bread, but probably to pacify the people for the loss of the Divine Chalice b.

The question was one of the chief subjects of decision at the Council of Basle. The subject, on the Roman Catholic side, is treated at great length in the speech by Johannes de Ragusio, which is given among the Acts of the Council c.

He lays down — 1. that Communion under both kinds is not necessary for all the people, necessitate medii ; 2. neither is it so necessitate prcecepti ; 3. nay, in view of the custom and law of the Church, it is not only not

b See some interesting papers by F. C. H., in “Notes and Queries/’ 1st Series, xii. 477 ; and 2nd Series, i. 143. c Cone., Labbe and Cossart, t. xvii. p. 817.

useful but actually hurtful. He passes briefly by the first point, on the ground that God has not so tied His power to Sacraments, as not to be able to save souls but in that way, and devotes himself to the next head, which he maintains 1. by the divine law; 2. by the practice of our Lord ; 3. by the authority of General Councils ; 4. by the dicta of doctors.

1. Under the first of these heads he quotes three texts in the sixth chapter of St. John, where there are so many allusions to the true Bread and none to the true Wine.

2. Under the second, he draws an analogy from the multiplication of the loaves ; also he cites the Lord’s Prayer, ” Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.”

3. Under the head of Councils, after some special pleading for a Canon in the Sixth General Council, he tries to turn the Canon of the eleventh of Toledo, where a previous Canon with regard to reception had been modified, to a very opposite purpose from what was intended. He thinks that the second Canon of the Council of Rheims testifies to the practice. He also cites the Council of Worms.

4. He rests much on the custom of the Church, shewing, that though the custom varied, there were early testimonies to the practice. He quotes Pope Innocent allowing consecration in one kind only, in regions where wine cannot be got, and adduces many of the Schoolmen : — Alexander Ales, Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Petrus de Tarantasia, and Hicardus de Media Villa. After going into ab-

stract reasons for the practice, lie states that the mo tives which induced the Church to insist on it was the danger of spilling the species; the danger of corrup tion ; the practical assertion of the truth that Christ is totus sub utraque specie; the special honour of the sacerdotal state, and the recognition of a state of languor which had come over the Church, the laity in the days of martyrdom having pressed for the com munion of the Chalice, a condition which no longer existed.

Not a word is said of ” They all drank of it d •” nor of the authority of St. Paul in the Corinthians. He does not meet the distinct testimony to the universal practice of the early Fathers, such as Justin Martyr e, or of St. Cyprian f, or the evidence supplied by all the Liturgies, or the witness of all the Fathers and Popes till the time of the Schoolmen. But it must be remembered that even the Schoolmen themselves admit the blessing of the Chalice, “Because the use of the faithful and the unity of the mystic body is not perfectly signified without the double sign, and therefore in virtue of a Sacrament both ought to be had «.”

The most remarkable testimony in favour of the practice is that of Pope Gelasius, which has come to us through Gratianh. “A Priest ought not to re ceive the Body of Christ without His Blood. So Pope

d St. Mark xiv. e Apol., i. 65. f De Lapsis, cxxxii.

8 Alb. Mag., 4 sent. dist. viii. 13. h Corpus Jur. Can. Decr.y

ill. pars ; De Consecr., dist. ii. c. 12.

Gelasius to Bishops Majoricus and John : — ’ But we have learnt/ says Gelasius, ’ that certain persons, after having received only the portion of the sacred Body, abstain from the Chalice of the sacred Blood, Which persons, without doubt (because they are said to be bound by I know not what superstition), should either partake of the Sacraments in their entirety, or be excluded from the entire Sacraments, BECAUSE

TAKE PLACE WITHOUT GREAT SACRILEGE/ ” Before him,

St. Leo * excommunicated certain African Manichaeans, who from their wicked principles objected to the Sa cramental Cup.

However, while we have the evidence that univer sally in the public and solemn Liturgy of the Church, the faithful received the Blessed Eucharist under both species till the twelfth century, it is due to histo rical truth to state that there were certain practices which shewed that in cases of necessity, communion under one kind was considered lawful. For example, the early Christians carried home the Blessed Sacra ment in a linen cloth called a dominicum, but we have no record of the holy Blood being reserved in a phial, [n St. Cyprian J we have an account of a child being communicated under the species of wine. It was car ried on the breast, at sea, in an orarium, as in the case of St. Birinus, Apostle of “Wessex. Again, the saints in the desert carried away the Blessed Sacra ment in the species of bread, and in some cases the

[…]

sick when communicated from the reserved Sacrament received in that kind only. Children, as we have just seen, received only under the species of wine k. These instances, and they go over a great range, not only serve to console one under the contemplation of the fact that the Occidental Church causes all but the celebrant to abstain from, the Sacrament of the Cup, but also illustrate how the mind of the Church became trained to the thought that it might dispense with the Chalice without danger of invalidating the Sacrament. They shew that those thus deprived lose not any grace necessary to salvation. Still it is to be deplored that the matter has been thus ruled, for: —

I. It brings the practice of the Church into an un happy antagonism with Holy Scripture, for, however we may insist on St. Paul’s alternation ” Whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink (rj irivri} of the cup of the Lord,” or on the celebration being termed the breaking of the Bread, there is no gainsaying the ” drink ye all of it,” especially as interpreted by the practice of twelve centuries. It is due to truth to say that Roman Catholics meet the text by hold ing that our Lord spake to the Apostles as in the character of Priests, and that therefore the question of the laity does not come in ; but then the real ques tion is, that the Chalice is not held back from the laity as such, but from all priests and laity, save only the celebrant.

II. It has given rise to painful scruples of conscience,

k Cyp., de Lapsis.

and to persecution and treachery, as in the case of John Huss, and the Bohemians. However defended on the score of reverence, it ought never to have formed a cause of such severities as were practised. The whole story is a sad one, and discreditable to the persons concerned therein.

III. But the most serious thing is, that according to the best theologians something is lost by the depri vation. While the Sacrament under one kind conveys all the graces necessary to salvation, the Chalice has a special grace of its own — the grace of gladdening. If the Sacraments cause that which they signify, the species of bread and wine must signify in different ways ; and that diversity will refer, both to the sign, and to the mode of the signifying, and to the thing signified. Therefore, the effect of the two will not be common but diverse. Both species together signify the plenitude of the heavenly feast and the perfect satisfaction of the soul, which each by itself does not signify.

“While it is granted that either species refects us by causing habitual grace, there are certain secondary effects of the spiritual meat and drink: that of the meat is to strengthen the weak, as it is written, ” and bread to strengthen man’s heart ;” that of drink is to give joy to the sad, ” and wine that maketh glad the heart of man1,” is that spiritual transport, the in- ebriatio aninue, of which the Scripture speaks m.

1 Ps. civ. 15. m Vide Lugo, de Sacramento Eucharist ice,

(list. xvi. sect. iii. p. 488, ed. Migne, 1841.

Indeed, to say that the Cup has not a gift over and above the other species, would be to contradict the Church, which after reception of the Body, directs that the. words be used, ” the Blood of our Lord Jesus preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”

Notes

• Cyp., ad Core., Ep. Ixiii.