August 22, 2019

#7 Communion under One Kind, Sacrifice of the Mass




CHAPTER 1. – Reception of Both Kinds NOT Necessary

Q. Is it necessary to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds?[pg. 112]

    A. No; it is not, for three reasons; first, because what is received under both kinds is received under one kind only; secondly, because Christ has promised the same reward to the reception of one as to the reception of both; thirdly, because the ancient Church administered this sacrament often under one kind only.
    Q. Why do you say that the same is received under one, as under both species?
    A. Because Christ is received as he is, living and immortal, whole and entire; and, as a living body is not without blood, or living blood without a body, so Christ is received, as he is under either the form of bread or the form of wine.

Q. Does the priest, who receives under both, receive more than the Laic?
    A. No; he receives the same; for, as a man receiving two hosts would not receive more than he who receives only one, so the reception of one species is equal to the reception of both—Christ whole and entire being received in either case.
    Q. Why do priests alone partake of the chalice—have they more right to it than the people?
   A. They alone partake of it in Mass, because it is part of the sacrifice; but priests, bishops and even the Pope, receive under one kind only, when they receive out of Mass.

Q. Why do you say that the chalice forms part of the sacrifice?
    A. Because Christ is a priest, according to the order of Melchizedeck; now Melchizedeck offered bread and wine both; hence, Christ had been pleased to institute the sacrifice of his body and blood, under the forms of bread and of wine.


Q. Why do you say that Christ promises the same reward to the reception of one as to the reception of both kinds?
    A. Because this is clearly laid down in the sixth chap. of St. John, ver. 50—”This is the bread which come down from heaven, that if any man eat of it he may not die.” 52—”If any man EAT of this BREAD he shall live for ever.” 58—”As I live by the Father, so he that eat me, the same shall live by me.”  59—”Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead; he that eat this bread shall live for ever.”

Holy Maundy Thursday Byzantine ICON

Q. What do you observe on these passages?
   A. That Christ promised eternal life to those who receive under one kind, as well as to those who receive under both. Indeed, Christ himself administered the sacrament under one kind only to the disciples at Emmaus:—”And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.” St. Paul, 1 Cor. chap. xi, 27, says: “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” This shows clearly, that the unworthy reception of either kind is enough to damn, and consequently, also, the worthy reception, enough to save; because, both the body and blood of the Lord are profaned, or advantageously received, under either kind, as is evident from the conjunctive particle AND, in the latter part of the verse, whilst the disjunctive OR is used in the former. From the account of the Last Supper given by St. Luke, chap. xxii, 20, it would appear that the cup was not a necessary, even of the Apostolic communion, for it is given not during the supper, but after the supper.


    Q. Why have you said that the ancient and pure church administered the sacrament often under one kind only?
   A. Because history proves it to be the fact Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii, cap. 7, St Cyprian, and St. Basil, all allude to the practice. The latter says, that the solitaries who lived far from towns, were in the habit of carrying with them, for the whole year, the Holy Eucharist, under the form of bread.

    Q. Did not Pope Gelasias command all Catholics to receive the chalice?
    A. Yes; but this was only for a time, and for the purpose of detecting the Manichean heretics, who considered wine as the creature of the devil. These heretics mingled with the Catholics, and, concealing their heretical principles, approached to communion with them. Hence, the Pope ordered the chalice also to be administered, knowing that this being under the form of wine, would deter these heretics from profaning the sacrament.
    Q. What do you conclude from this?
    A. That the sacrament must have been previously administered under the form of bread, otherwise this order of Pope Gelasius would have been unnecessary.
    Q. How was the sacrament given to the sick, to the young, and to infants?
    A. Under the form of bread only in the two former cases, and under the form of wine in the latter; and the Greek Church, during Lent, was in the habit of consecrating on Sunday what should be necessary for the whole week, and under the form of bread only.


Q. Has not Christ expressly said, Matth xxvi, 27: “Drink ye all of this?”
    A. Yes; but these words were addressed to the Apostles alone, and not to all the faithful.
    Q. But if the command to drink was here given only to the Apostles, may we not justly conclude that the command to eat also, was given only to the Apostles?
    A. The commands to eat and to drink were on this occasion, both given only to the Apostles and their successors,—that is to say, to the bishops and priests of the Church.

Jesus High Priest Last Supper Icon

Q. How do you prove this?
    A. The command to eat and to drink was given on this occasion only to those to whom it was said—“DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME;” but these latter words were addressed only to the Apostles and their lawful successors in the ministry; because, by these last words, Christ conferred on his ministers the power to consecrate and administer the Eucharist; and it is quite apparent, that this power was given to the Apostles only, and not to mankind in general, who have never even claimed it.

Q. Is there then no command in this passage, that the laity should receive the Eucharist? [pg. 117]

    A. Yes; the priests are ordered to distribute it by these words: “Do this in remembrance of me;” and consequently, the laity are commanded to receive it.

Q. At what precise moment did Christ utter these words:  “Do this in remembrance of me?”
    A. St. Luke (chap. xxii, 19) quotes these words as having been uttered by our Lord immediately after he had given the Eucharist to the Apostles under the appearance of bread, and before he had delivered the chalice to them.
    Q. What may be learned from this circumstance?
    A. That Christ authorized his Apostles and their successors to administer the sacrament under the form of bread to the laity, but that he gave no command as regards the chalice.

Q. But does not Christ say, in St. John, chap. vii, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye cannot have life in you?”
   A. True; but we receive Christ not dead, but alive and immortal, as he is now in heaven; hence, we most certainly receive under either kind both his body and blood, for where his body is, there is his blood, soul, and divinity also.  Besides, Protestants have nothing to do with this text on the present question, since they hold, that not only this text, but the whole chapter in which it is found, regard, not the sacrament of the Eucharist, but mere faith in Jesus Christ.


Q. What would you say, in addition to; the above, to an obstinate Protestant who would tell you, that every thing done by Christ at the Last Supper should continue to be practiced, and hence, that all should receive under both kinds, because he administered it to all then present?
    A. I would tell him: Protestants, in that case, have much to do that they neglect.
    Q. What should they do, if all that Christ did, be essentially necessary?
    A. They should wash the feet of all that are admitted to the sacrament;—they should break the bread—they should make the chalice or cup pass from hand to hand;—they should receive the sacrament after supper, and only twelve should sit at the same table.

Q. What if Protestants reply, that these are not essential to the reception of the sacrament?
    A. That is just what we say with regard to the reception of both kinds.
    Q. Are not both kinds essential to the sacrament? A. If they were, Christ would not have promised to the reception of one kind all that he promised to him who receives both.  And again, if they were, the pure Church of the first four centuries, would not have administered one species without the other, as she frequently did.

Q. Why does the Catholic Church administer the sacrament under one kind only?
   A. Among other reasons, first, because, for the above reasons, it is evidently unnecessary to use both; and, secondly, because many accidents, exposing this most holy sacrament to irreverence (such as spilling the cup) would take place, if the cup were given to all.

Q. Have Protestants made any admissions on this head?
    A. Yes; the Confession of Augsburg excuses the Church from any blame in this matter, (p. 235;) and Luther, tom. ii, p. 100, says:—”If you go where only one kind is administered, be content with one kind, and don’t oppose the great mass of Christians;” and again, tom. iii, p. 274—”If a General Council should order us to receive under both kinds, out of contempt for the Council we should receive only one.”
    Q. What do you conclude from all we have said?
   A. Protestants, in forming their creed, have read the Scripture without studying its meaning.

Q. What other inferences would you draw?
    A. That the Scripture does not contain every necessary truth clearly laid down; otherwise, there would be no dispute on this subject.


CHAPTER I. – Essentials of the Mass Instituted by Christ

Q. Who is the author of the Mass? Was it instituted by Jesus Christ, or by the Church?
    A. Jesus Christ is the author of the essential part, or the sacrifice of his body and blood; the Church has appointed merely the accompanying ceremonial.
    Q. Did Jesus Christ offer his body and his blood for us to his Father in the Last Supper?
    A. He did, not only upon the cross, but in his Last Supper.


Q. How do you prove this?
    A. By the words of Christ himself.  In St. Luke, chap. xxii, he says: “This is my body, which IS GIVEN for you.” Mark well his words. He does not say, this is my body, which shall be given for you, but which IS now: whilst I speak, given for you. This becomes more evident still, From the words used by Christ, whilst he held the chalice in his hands, and this whether we follow the Catholic or Protestant translation: “This is my blood of the new testament, which Is SHED for many unto remission of sins.” (Matth. xxvi, 28, Prot. Transl.) “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Matth. xxvi, 28, Cath Transl.) St. Mark and St. Luke are equally clear, especially the latter, chap. xxii, 20. From these passages, it is quite clear that the chalice contained what was shed for us; but what was shed for us, was the blood of Christ; therefore the chalice contained the blood of Christ. But at the time of the Last Supper, Christ had not yet shed his blood for us in the sacrifice of the cross; therefore he shed it in the sacrifice of his Last Supper; therefore, in his Last Supper, Christ offered in sacrifice his body which was broken, his blood which was shed, for the remission of our sins; therefore, he offered a true and real propitiatory sacrifice in his Last Supper.

Q. What follows from this?
   A. If Christ, in his Last Supper, offered a true and real sacrifice of his body and blood, before he offered himself in sacrifice on the cross, it follows, that all the priests and his Church must offer the same sacrifice, because Christ ordered all his ministers to do what he himself had done on that occasion: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”
    Q. What is the title given by David in 109th Psalm, to Jesus Christ?
    A. He styles him a “Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchizedeck.”

Q. Why is he styled “for ever a priest, according to the order of Melchizedeck?”
    A. Because, like Melchizedeck, he used bread and wine in the sacrifice.
    Q. Why is Christ styled a priest for ever after Melchizedeck’s order?
    A. Because he continues, and will continue to offer the same sacrifice by the hands of his priests to the end of the world.

Q. Would Christ be a PRIEST FOR EVER according to the order of Melchizedeck, if a sacrifice, according to Melchizedeck’s order, had been only offered at the Last Supper by himself?
    A. No; for in that case, he would not be a priest for ever, but only for once, according to the order of Melchizedeck: to be a priest for ever, it was necessary he should establish an everlasting order of priests, to offer the same sacrifice, as his substitutes.

Q. Would Christ be a priest, according to the order of Melchizedeck, if he had not used bread and wine in a true and real sacrifice in the Last Supper?
    A. No; for if he did not do so in the Last Supper, he is not a priest at all, according to the order of Melchizedeck, since there is no resemblance between his sacrifice on the cross, and the sacrifice of Melchizedeck; and if Christ did not at his Last Supper, he never at any other time did, offer a sacrifice similar in any manner to that of Melchizedeck.
    Q. What does the prophet Malachy say touching this sacrifice?
    A. “From the rising of the sun, even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in EVERY PLACE there is SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.”

The great chalice had formerly been in the possession of Abraham; Melchisedech brought it with him from the land of Semiramis to the land of Canaan Meditation IV pg.74

Q. Does not Malachy foretell here merely the sacrifice of the cross?
    A. No, not that alone; for he speaks of a sacrifice to be offered in every place, and the sacrifice of the cross was offered in only one place and for one time. Hence, there must be a sacrifice of the new law, intimately connected or identical, with that of the cross, to be offered up in every place, which can be no other than the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Q. May not this clean oblation be prayer and praise and thanksgiving?
    A. No; for this would be nothing new for a prophet to foretell; this sort of oblation was offered to God in every age, even at the time the prophecy was made. Besides, who would dare to say that his imperfect prayer was a clean oblation? The prophet evidently alludes to some extraordinary sacrifice, some new clean oblation to come, not already existing, which would be substituted for all the sacrifices of the old law, which, in the previous verses, he condemns.
    Q. What says the prophet Jeremias on this subject? (Chap. xxxiii, 18.)
    A. “Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face, to offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually.”

Q. What says St. Paul? (Heb. v, 1.)
    A. “For every high priest, taken from among men, is ordained for man in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;” and elsewhere, he says: “We have an altar of which those who serve the tabernacle dare not eat.”
    Q. Do you find that these doctrines of the apostles or what was foretold of the Christian Church by the prophets, are realized or verified in the Protestant Church?
    A. No; for the Protestant Church has no altar, or priest, or sacrifice, all of which, according to Scripture, are clearly necessary in the true Christian Church.

CHAPTER II. – Salvation of the OLD LAW

Q. How many kinds of sacrifices were there in the old law?
    A. There were four;—the holocaust, the Eucharistic, the impetratory, and the propitiatory sacrifices.
    Q. Why were victims offered in holocaust?
    A. To acknowledge the supreme dominion of God over all creatures.
    Q. For what purpose was the Eucharistic sacrifice?
    A. To thank God for favors and graces received.

Q. For what was the impetratory sacrifices instituted?
    A. To obtain from God important benefits or graces.
    Q. For what end was the propitiatory sacrifice?
    A. To render God propitious, and to expiate sin.

Q. What says St. Augustine, born in 354 in his work on the City of God, written about fourteen hundred years ago?
    A. That the one sacrifice of the Mass was instituted to hold the place of all the sacrifices of the old law.
    Q. What says St. Ireneus? (Lib. iv, chap. 33.)
    A. “The Apostles received this sacrifice from Christ, the Church from the Apostles, and she offers it everywhere, according to the prophecy of Malachy: ‘and in every place a pure sacrifice shall be offered.’ ”

Jesus 2nd person of Blessed Trinity, BRIDEGROOM VICTIM sacrifice for humanity EXTREME HUMILITY Crucified by creatures – Grk ICON

Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass been offered everywhere during the last two hundred years?
    A. Yes; in every Christian country of the earth.
Has it been everywhere offered during the last twelve hundred years?
    A. Yes; as all the ancient liturgies—Latin, Greek, Arabic, &c.—attest.
Can any one point out the first priest, bishop, or Pope, who said Mass, or the time or country in which this first Mass was said?
    A. No; no man has ever been able to make such a discovery.

Q. What follows from this?
   A. It follows by St. Augustine’s rule, that we have received the Mass from Christ and his Apostles, since, if it were the invention of man, it could be traced to its author; for says that Father, whatever is universally believed and practiced in the Church, and cannot be traced to any bishop, or Pope, or council, as its author, must have been taught and practiced by the Apostles.

    Q. Give me another authority, from the many Fathers who assure us, that the pure Christian Church of the earliest ages admitted the Mass as a true sacrifice?
    A. St. Cyprian (Epist. 78) says: “Jesus Christ offered the same sacrifice as did Melchizedeck, that is, bread and wine, his own body and blood…..If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, be himself the high priest of his Father, and if he first offered himself as a sacrifice to him, and commanded the same to be done in remembrance of him, then that priest truly stands in the place of Christ, who does what Christ did, and offers in the Church a new and complete sacrifice to God the Father, doing what he ordained.”

CHAPTER III. – Early Pure Church Only under 1 Kind

Q. Is the sacrifice of the Mass a true, propitiatory sacrifice?

    A. Yes; both for the living and the dead.
    Q. In what sense is it a propitiatory sacrifice for the living?
    A. In this, that through it they obtain the spirit of compunction and grace to repent of their sins.
    Q. How is it propitiatory for the dead?
    A. It contributes to the remission of the temporal punishment,* which they may still owe to the Divine Justice.

Q. How do you prove that the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice?
    A. From St. Matth. chap. xxvi: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of Sins;” and from St. Paul to the Hebrews, chap. 6: “For every high priest, taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.”
    Q. What do you conclude from these?
    A. That as we certainly have, in the Christian Church, a high priest, so his duty certainly is to offer sacrifices for sins.

Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice propitiatory or expiatory?—has not the sacrifice of the cross alone expiated all sin? * Note: See Treatise on ” Indulgence” their Origin Nature & Development by ALEXIUS M. LEPICIER, D.D. London 1895.

    A. The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar, are one and the same.
    Q. Why then renew every day the same sacrifice? is not the sacrifice of the cross once offered sufficient?
    A. The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of the cross are infinite; but that virtue and these merits must be applied, and this can only be done by certain means.
    Q. What are these means by which the merits of the sacrifice of the cross are applied to our souls?
    A. They are the sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, prayer, and good works.

Q. Among these means, in what light are we to regard the sacrifice of the Mass?
    A. We are to regard it as a means employed by the Almighty, for applying the sacred merits of the sacrifice of the cross to our souls, in a very particular manner.
    Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass been offered for the dead since the earliest ages?
   A. Yes; as is evident from the testimony of the early Fathers and writers. Tertullian, lib. de Monog., says: “That a woman who would not have the holy sacrifice of the Mass celebrated every year for her husband on the anniversary of his death, should be considered as one who had been divorced from him.” St. Cyprian, Epist. 9, says: “Our predecessors prudently advised, that no brother departing this life should nominate any churchman his executor, and, should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.” The Council of Chalons (anno 579) decrees, that in all solemn Masses, prayers be offered up for the souls of the departed.

In fine, St. Augustine, lib. xxiii de Civit. Dei, tells us, “that one of his priests celebrated Mass in a house infested by evil spirits, and that by this their banishment was effected.”

An Indulgence, when recited before the Blessed Sacrament, under the ususal conditions, (S.P. Ap., Jun 4 1934, and Jul 12, 1941).

O Saving victim! opening wide The gate of heaven to man below! Our foes press on from every side: Thy strength bestow. To Thy great Name be endless praise, Immortal Godhead, One in three! Immortal Godhead, One In Three! Oh grant us endless length of days, In our true native land with Thee. Amen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!