'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

New Zealand Tablet, 17 July 1913, Page 3

'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

(A Weekly Instruction specially written for the N.Z. Tablet by ' Ghimel.') COMMUNION UNDER ONE " KilS £>.—!.>.- It is often objected (most often; by those who do not believe in the Real Presence at' all) that the Blessed Eucharist must be received under both kinds, bread and wine, if it is to be received at all, and that consequently the withholding of the chalice from the laity is a perversion of Christ's commands by the Latin Church. The present and another article will show that the objection is groundless, and that the whole matter is one of pure discipline. To commence with, it may be well to set down the explanatory decree of the Council of Trent (Session XX., chaps. 1., 11., III.): This holy Synod ." . . following the judgment and practice of the Church, declareth and teacheth, that the laity, and the. clergy, when not celebrating, are by no divine precept obliged to take the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that it can in no wise be questioned, without failing in the faith, that Communion under either species sufficeth for salvation; for although Christ our Lord, in the Last Supper, instituted this venerable Sacrament under the species of bread and wine, and so delivered it to the Apostles, yet that institution and delivery do not warrant the assertion that all the Christian faithful are bound by the prescription of the Lord to receive both species. " : Moreover (the Synod) declares that the Church hath always had the power to prescribe and change, in the dispensation of the Sacraments (saving the substance thereof), whatever she judged expedient for the good of the receivers or the honor and reverence of the Sacraments themselves, according to the requirements of circumstances, times, and places. . . . Wherefore our holy Mother, the Church, recognising this her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, although from the beginning of Christianity the use of both species was not uncommon, nevertheless as time went on, and that custom became nearly everywhere abrogated, moved thereto by grave and just reasons, hath approved the practice of communicating under one species, and hath made it the law; and it may not be blamed, nor without the authority of the Church herself changed at will. ,■ ' She moreover declares, that although our Redeemer, as said above, in His Last Supper, did institute this Sacrament under two species, and so deliver it to the Apostles, nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that even under one species Christ whole and complete is received, and is the true Sacrament; and that therefore, as regards fruit or benefit, those who receive .one species only are defrauded of no grace nceessary unto salvation.' By way of explanation the following points are to be noted: (1) When we take the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the integrity, if not the essence, of the sacrificial rite demands that the celebrant should communicate under both kinds. Our Lord at the Last Supper, after consecrating and communicating the Apostles under both kinds, commanded them to do the same in memory of Him. 'And it is to be carefully observed that the Catholic Church, so far from omitting the Cup altogether, insists now, as always, upon the double consecration and the double reception by the sacrificing priest. But the complete Eucharistic rite, and the Eucharistic Sacrament, are two different things. The one is the Sacrifice of the Mass, which includes Communion. The other is the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood ' (Hedley: The Holy Eucharist, p, 97). (2) Now that Christ is risen, all the parts of His glorified Humanity remain indissolubly united to each other and to the Godhead. Hence, wherever Christ is, He is whole and entire; whenever and in whatever form He is received, He is received whole and entire.

- (3) There is no trace, in the New Testament of any divine precept binding the faithful to receive the Sacrament under both kinds. No doubt our Lord at the Last Supper said to the Apostles, Drink ye all of i; this, but there is nothing to show that His words were I intended for any but those present. And if, in point 5 of fact, the Apostles did receive under both kinds, we cannot thence conclude that the same practice was to continue for all time, else we should also say that . many other circumstances, evidently accidental, connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist should be repeated. Nor can the words of Christ in St. John vi., 54 ('Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood/ etc.) be pressed against the modern Catholic custom. ' The command that is given is to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But surely, such' partaking is verified-even if one partake of the Host merely. The Holy Eucharist was instituted as a meal, or eating. In human custom, a man is said to "eat," or "make a meal," or "partake," even if one abstain from using a cup or drinking vessel. And, on the other hand, to partake of liquid, or quasiliquid, nourishment out of a cup would justly be called making a meal. If, therefore, it be true that the Body and Blood of the Lord are wholly under either species, there is" nothing in any command of Christ—so far as the sixth chapter of St. John goes—that bids us do more than join in that heavenly meal which is rendered possible by the Eucharistic Presence under either . species. We are commanded to eat and drink the holy Body and Blood— the species of bread and the species of wine' (Hedley, p. 98). Our Lord used this expressive language for a twofold purpose: to bring "out the reality of His Presence in the Eucharist, and to show that the Sacrament was to be food and drink for the soul. But that is exactly what Catholic teaching has always insisted on, for the Church has always said that our Lord is really and wholly present, really and wholly received, under either species.