24 July 2020

The Douai Catechism, 1649 - CHAPTER XI. The Eucharist Expounded.

The Eucharist Expounded.
   
Q. WHAT is the third Sacrament?
    A. The blessed Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
    
Q. By what was this Sacrament prefigured in the old law?
    A. By the tree of life, the burning bush, Mechisedech's bread and wine, the Paschal Lamb, and the heavenly manna.
    
Q. Doth the blessed Eucharist excel all these in dignity?
    A. It doth, as far as the substantial body excels a shadow.
    
Q. What signifies the name Eucharist?
    A. It signifies good grace, or thanksgiving, because it contains the author and fountain of grace, and the greatest gift of God to man.
    
Q. When did Christ ordain the blessed Eucharist?
    A. At his last supper.
    
Q. Why so?
    A. To leave to his church, as the last and greatest pledge of his love.
    
Q. What is the blessed Eucharist?
    A. It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, true God, and true man, under the outward forms of bread and wine.
    
Q. In what manner is Christ present under these forms?
    A. By the true and real presence of his divine and human nature.
    
Q. How prove you that?
    A. First out of Matt. xxvi. 27, 28. Christ at his last supper, took bread and blessed it, brake it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take eat, this is my body. And he blessed the cup saying, This is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many to the remission of sins," Mark xiv. 22, 24.
    Secondly, out of Luke xxii. 19, 20. "This is my body which is given for you, this is the chalice of the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you."
    Thirdly, out of John vi. 52, 53, 54. "The bread which I give is my flesh, for the life of the world; by flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you."
    Fourthly, out of 1 Cor. xi. 23, where St. Paul tells us, "He received from our Lord," (viz. by special revelation) that at his last supper he blessed bread, saying, "Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall be delivered up for you; this chalice is the New Testament in my blood."
    
Q. By what means is the body and blood of Christ made under the outward forms of bread and wine?
    A. By the real conversion or change of the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ; which conversion is wrought by the most holy and powerful words of consecration, instituted by Christ, and spoken by the priest, and is fitly called Transubstantiation, by the councils of Lateran and Trent; which signifies a passage or conversion of one substance into another.
    
Q. Is there any scripture for Transubstantiation?
    A. The word Transubstantiation is not found in scripture, but for the thing signified by it, there are those places in scripture, which prove a real presence, because those words, This is my Body, spoken by Christ, after he had taken bread into his hands, and signifying that to be his body, which before was bread, cannot be true, without the change of of bread into his body; which change is (as I have said already) the thing signified or meant by Transubstantiation. Nor may the word be lawfully rejected for not being found in scripture more than other words used by the church, to explain mysteries of faith; as the word, Trinity or Consubstantiality of God the Son with God the Father, which are not found in scripture.
    
Q. What mean you by these species or accidents which remain after the substance of the bread is changed?
    A. The colour, taste, and quality of bread.
    
Q. Is the body of Christ divided or broken, when we divide or break the Sacrament?
    A. It is not, for "he is now immortal and impassible, he cannot die nor suffer any more." Rom.vi. 9.
    
Q. What other reason have you?
    A. Because Christ is whole in the whole host, and whole in every particle thereof, if you divide or break it; seeing that wherever there would have been bread before consecration, there must needs be the whole body and blood of Christ after consecration.
    
Q. What example have you for that?
    A. The Soul of Man, which is whole in the whole body, and whole in every part of the body, as learned Protestants neither do nor can deny.
    
Q. How can the same thing be in many several places at once?
    A. By the omnipotent power of God, by which he himself is in all, and every one of his creatures at the same instant.
    
Q. What example have you for that?
    A.  A word, which being one, yet is in many hundreds of places at once.
    
Out of Acts ix. 4, 5, where we read, that Christ, who is always sitting at the right hand of the Father in Heaven (as we willingly admit with the Protestants) appeared notwithstanding, and discoursed with St. Paul on earth, saying, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" And when St. Paul replied, "Who art thou, Lord? He answered, I am Jesus whom thou dost persecute." Therefore, he was then in two places at once.
   
Q. What is the necessary matter of the Eucharist?
    A. Wheaten bread and wine of the grape.
    
Q. What is the essential form of it?
    A. THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD.
    
Q. Why is a little water mingled with the wine in the chalice?
    A. To signify the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ; as also, the union of the faithful with Christ, by virtue of the Sacrament.
    
Q. What dispositions is required in him that receives the Eucharist?
    A. That he hath first confessed his sins, and be in the state of grace.
    
Q. How prove you that?
    A. Out of 1 Cor. xi. 28. "Let a man prove himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth an drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord."
    
Q. What are the effects of the Eucharist?
    A. It replenisheth the soul with grace, and nourisheth it in spiritual life: "He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever," John vi. 58.
    
Q. What other benefit have we by it?
    A. It is a most moving and effectual commemoration of the incarnation, nativity, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
    
Q. How do you prove it lawful for the laity, to communicate under one kind only?
    A. First, because there is no command in scripture for the laity to do it under both, though there be for priests in those words, "Drink ye all of this." Matt. xxvi. 27, which was spoken to the apostles only and by them fulfilled; for it follows in Mark xiv. 23. "And they all drank." 2. Out of John vi. 58, "He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever," therefore, one kind sufficeth. 3. Out of Acts xx. 7, where we read, "That the faithful were assembled on the first of the sabbath to break bread," without any mention of the cup; and the two disciples in Emmaus, "knew Christ in the breaking of bread," where the cup is not mentioned. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 27. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
    
Q. What is the exterior visible sacrifice?
    A. It a most necessary act of religion whereby some sensible thing is offered to God by a priest, in order to acknowledge his supreme dominion over us, and our entire dependence on him. It is offered to God as an act of pure adoration, or to render him thanks for his benefits received, or to turn away his anger, or to obtain from him some new blessing, or for all those purposes together.
    
Q. Is the blessed Eucharist a sacrifice?
    A. It is a clean oblation, which the prophet Malachy i. 11, foretold would be offered from the rising to the going down of the sun, in every place among the Gentiles; which was prefigured by Melchisedech, priest of the Most High (Gen. xiv. 18,) when he brought forth bread and wine; and which was, in reality, instituted at the last supper by Jesus Christ, when he took bread and wine, blessed them, and distributed them with his own hands amongst the apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY; THIS IS MY BLOOD. Christ Jesus is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb. v. 8,) and so he instituted, according to his order; that is to say, in bread and wine, this great sacrifice of the NEW LAW.
    All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine that had been instituted by our Saviour; whilst the histories and annals of all countries, not excepting England herself, declare that the Holy Mass, but no other sacrifice, came down to them as a part and parcel of Christianity, from the apostolic age.
    
Q. Why are the priests obliged to receive under both kinds?
    A. Because they offer sacrifice, and represent the bloody sacrifice made upon the cross, where the blood was actually divided from the body, and being offerers of the sacrifice, are bound to receive also the cup, by Christ's command expressed. Matt. xxvi. 27. "Drink ye all of this."
    
Q. Did the laity ever communicate under both kinds?
    A. They did sometimes in the primitive church, and may again, if holy church shall so appoint; but now it is prohibited by the church, to prevent the great danger of shedding the cup, neither are the laity in this defrauded of any thing; for they receive whole Christ under one kind, which is incomparably more than the pretended reformers have under both, who receive only a bit of baker's bread, with a cup of common vintner's wine. See "Holy Order expounded." See also, "The Mass expounded." ch. 22.

Next - The Douai Catechism, 1649 - CHAPTER XI. Penance Expounded

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.