Vol 12 Issue 30 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
July 27, 2019 ~ Saint Pantaleon, opn!
1. What is the Holy Eucharist
2. Seventh Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Nazarius and Celsus
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader: As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit.—The Editor
________________
WHAT IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST
By Rev. Courtney Edward Krier
Synod of Pistoia
The Synod of Pistoia is an interesting case study because it was an attempt by Catholic Bishops and Theologians to synchronize the Catholic Religion with the Protestant Religion. Jansenism, which is Catholicism tainted with Calvinism, was widespread in many areas of France and the nobility seemed to particularly support those priests and bishops holding Jansenistic views in as much as they also were nationalistic and adapted Gallican or Febronianist principles.
According to Febronius (cap. i), the power of the keys was entrusted by Christ to the whole body of the Church, which holds it principaliter et radicaliter, but exercises it through her prelates, to whom only the administration of this power is committed. Among these the pope comes first, though even he is subordinate to the Church as a whole. The Divine institution of the primacy in the church is acknowledged (cap. ii), but Febronius holds that its connexion with the Roman See does not rest on the authority of Christ, but on that of Peter and the Church, so that the Church has the power to attach it to another see. The power of the pope, therefore, should be confined to those essential rights inherent in the primacy which were exercised by the Holy See during the first eight centuries. The pope is the centre with which the individual Churches must be united. He must be kept informed of what is taking place everywhere throughout the Church, that he may exercise the care demanded by his office for the preservation of unity. . .
Febronius, while ostensibly contending for a larger independence and greater authority for the bishops, seeks only to render the Churches of the different countries less dependent on the Holy See, in order to facilitate the establishment of national Churches in these states, and reduce the bishops to a condition in which they would be merely servile creatures of the civil power. . . . (Lauchert, Febronianism, CE)
In other words, the Church was not monarchial—the pope as visible head holding supreme authority—, rather the bishops were independent (from the Pope) but subject to civil (national) authority. Absurdly trying to fit Catholicism into a Protestant nationalistic framework without completely leveling the Institution, attempts were actually made to put it into practice. Joseph II (1753-1790) centralized everything within the Austrian Empire, as everything was to serve the State—even the Church. Employing those whom one would say today are progressives, but at that time members of the enlightenment (Illuminati), the sequence was the stripping the Church of any and all authority and bringing everything under the control of the state: Marriage, Education, Property, Religious worship—all persons being equal, that is, everyone had to subscribe or they were removed from any position. As prince bishops (part of the nobility and involved with the Enlightenment) joined in subscribing to the principles of the Febronianists (so-called Catholic Enlightenment Movement) and Encyclopedists (non-Catholic Enlightenment Movement), simple bishops, clergy and religious found themselves removed from their dioceses, parishes, monasteries and convents. [Historically one can understand why there was a complete collapse of Western Catholic Europe once the French Revolution was ignited and the nobility were removed: there was no leadership to oppose.]
In Tuscany, the Grand Duke Leopold, brother to Joseph II, insisted on implementing the same control over the Church and appointed Scipio Ricci as bishop of Pistoia. As a Jansenist, Ricci adhered to the Febronianist principles and was willing to implement the state take-over of the Church by calling a Synod which met in Pistoia in 1786. Those attending composed a syncretic compilation of propositions that were rejected by all but a few bishops of Tuscany because they were clearly not Catholic. The Synod was condemned by Pope Pius VI in the papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, on August 28, 1794.
The Synod of Pistoia was unique for many of the attendants were not even from Tuscany, but were invited as periti (experts). They formulated propositions that were usually vague and heterodox to convince those loyal to the Catholic Faith that they did not deny—but also did not affirm—Catholic doctrine. They also brought in innovations under the guise of returning to earlier Church rituals. The following two Propositions concerning the Holy Eucharist, which were condemned by the Catholic Church, provide a clear example:
28. The proposition of the synod in which, after it states that “a partaking of the victim is an essential part in the sacrifice,” it adds, “nevertheless, it does not condemn as illicit those Masses in which those present do not communicate sacramentally, for the reason that they do partake of the victim, although less perfectly, by receiving it spiritually,” since it insinuates that there is something lacking to the essence of the sacrifice in that sacrifice which is performed either with no one present, or with those present who partake of the victim neither sacramentally nor spiritually, and as if those Masses should be condemned as illicit, in which, with the priest alone communicating, no one is present who communicates either sacramentally or spiritually,—false, erroneous, suspected of heresy and savoring of it. (Cf. DB 1528)
29. The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith [see n. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see n. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,—dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics. (Cf. DB 1529)
Proposition 28 omits that Christ is offering Himself through the ministry of the priest and the Consecration makes Christ really and substantially present under the appearances of Bread and Wine (Transubstantiation), to re-enact sacramentally His death of the Cross and, finally, the consummation of the sacrifice being completed by the priest’s consuming the Host and Chalice which is not dependent on the people who are present; rather the proposition points to the congregation being present for the Lord’s Supper and it really isn’t (a supper) if the congregants are not eating or are not present to eat.
Proposition 29, as mentioned, omits transubstantiation as the correct understanding as how Our Lord is present truly, really, substantially under the species—thereby giving the possibility of a different interpretation, such as consubstantial in the Lutheran teaching.
This exercise of theological semantics to choose words with different interpretations would be replicated 175 years later at the Second Vatican Council under the same notion of reforming the Church back to its origin and would adopt the above propositions that were condemned in Auctorem Fidei with the response that the papal Bull was not an infallible document.
————————–
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
MATTHEW vii. 15-21
At that time: Jesus said to his disciples: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
EXPOSITION FROM THE CATENA AUREA
V. 15. Beware of false prophets.
CHRYSOSTOM, Op. Imp. 19: Earlier the Lord had told the Apostles they should not pray, give alms, or fast, before other men as hypocrites do. And that they may know that all these things can be done out of hypocrisy He says: Beware of false prophets.
AUGUSTINE, Sermon on the Mount, 2, 24, 78: When the Lord said that they are few who enter the narrow gate and the strait way, lest heretics, who sometimes pride themselves on their fewness in numbers, should put themselves in this place, He immediately adds: Beware of false prophets.
CHRYSOSTOM, Hom. 24 in Matt: Because it is said that the gate is narrow, and that they are many who block the way that leads to it, He adds: Beware of false prophets. And so that in this they might exercise great caution He reminds them of what happened in their fathers’ time, using the phrase, false prophets. For then such things happened.
CHRYSOSTOM, Op. Imp. on Mt. Hom. 19: What was written a little later; namely, that the prophets and the Law prophesied until John (Mt. xi. 13) was said because there would be no prophecy regarding Christ after He came. Prophets there were and are; but they do not prophecy of Christ, they interpret what was foretold of Christ by the ancients: that is, the Teachers of the Churches. Nor can any one interpret the meaning of prophecy unless through the Spirit of prophecy.
The Lord therefore, knowing that there would be false teachers, warns them of the various heresies to come, by saying: Beware of false prophets. And as these would not be obvious unbelievers, but persons cloaked with the name of Christian, He did not say: Look well at them, but, Beware. For where a thing is certain it is seen; that is, it may readily be seen. But when it is uncertain it is looked at, or watched carefully. And again He says, Beware: for to know whom to shun is a firm safeguard of security. He does not warn us to beware as though the devil will introduce heresies against God’s will, and not by His permission. For since He will not choose His servants without trial, He permits them to be tempted. And as He wills that they should not suffer through ignorance He therefore warns them.
And so that no heretical teacher may say, that He did not say here they were the false prophets, but rather the teachers from both Gentiles and Jews, He goes on to add: Who come to you in the clothing of sheep. For Christians are spoken of as sheep; and the sheep’s clothing is their outward pretence of Christianity and pretended religion. There is nothing that so menaces what is good as pretence. For evil that is hidden under the outward appearance of Good is not guarded against, since it is not known.
And that heretics may not here say that He is speaking of those who are true teachers, but also sinners, He adds this: But inwardly they are ravening wolves. Catholic teachers, though they may have been sinners, are not spoken of as ravening wolves, but as servants of the flesh: for they do not seek to destroy Christians. He therefore is manifestly speaking of heretical teachers: for it is to this end that they put on the garb of Christian; that they may rend Christians with the evil fangs of their seductions. And of these the Apostles said: I know that after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock (Acts xx. 29).
CHRYSOSTOM, Hom. 24 in Matt: Yet He seems to imply that the false prophets are not the heretics, but those who put on the cloak of virtue, while in heart they are corrupt. So He therefore says:
V. 16. By their fruits you shall know them etc.
For often you will find goodness of life among heretics; but among those I speak of this is never the case.
AUGUSTINE, Sermon on the Mount, 2, 24, pars. 80, 81: And for this reason it may rightly be asked: What fruits does He wish us to seek for? For many hold as fruit certain things that belong to the sheep’s clothing, and in this way they are deceived by the wolves. As for example: fasting, alms, prayer, which they practise before men who seek to find favour with those to whom such things seem difficult. These practices therefore are not the fruits by which, He warns us, they are to be known. For such actions, done with a right intention, are part of the clothing of the sheep. When they are done with evil purpose, in deception, they clothe none other than wolves. But sheep must not for this hate their own clothing; because it sometimes conceals a wolf What the fruits are by which we may know an evil tree the Apostle then teaches us: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness. And what the fruits are by which we shall know a good tree, the same Apostle makes known to us, saying: But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace (Gal. v. 19, 22).
CHRYSOSTOM, Op. Imp: The confession of his faith is also part of the fruits of man. For he who cries out according to God, with the voice of true humility, and true confession of faith, is a sheep. But he who utters blasphemies against the truth, and howls against God, is a wolf.
JEROME: And what is here said of false prophets can also be understood of all who say one thing in word and manner and another in deed. Yet it seems to be said more particularly of heretics, who are seen to clothe themselves with continence and fasting as with a sort of garb of piety, but inwardly their spirit is poisoned; and so the hearts of simpler brethren are deceived.
AUGUSTINE, as above, 2, 12, par. 41: But we can guess from their works whether they practise these outward things for a particular purpose. For when under certain trials these very things begin to be taken from them, or denied them, which they have either obtained or hoped to obtain under this veil, then of necessity it will appear whether it is a case of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or a sheep in its own clothing.
GREGORY: The hypocrite is also kept hidden through the peace the Church enjoys; and so he seems to our eyes clothed in the garb of true piety. But should a trial of faith arise, at once the ravening soul of the wolf throws off its sheep’s clothing; showing by persecution how great is his hatred of the good.
CHRYSOSTOM, in Hom: Hypocrites are easily detected: for the way they are bidden to walk is painful to them. And a hypocrite does not readily choose what is painful. And so that you may not say that it is impossible to know them He gives us proof from human experience, saying: Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
CHRYSOSTOM, Op. Imp: The grape contains within it the mystery of Christ. For as the cluster has many grapes joined by the wood of the stalk, so Christ has many faithful joined by the wood of the Cross. The fig however stands for the Church, which holds the multitude of faithful in the sweet embrace of charity, as the fig contains so many seeds within its single covering.
The fig therefore stands for: charity in its sweetness, unity in its joining of many seeds. In the grape we have a figure of patience, in that it goes through the winepress; of joy, in that wine rejoices the heart of man; of sincerity, because it is unmixed with water; and of sweetness, in that it is delectable.
The thistles and thorns are heretics. As a thistle or a thorn has prickles on every side, so the servants of the devil, on whatever side you consider them, are filled with perversity. Such thorns and thistles can never bring forth the fruits of the Church. And what He has said under the figure of the fig and the grape, of the thistle and the thorn, He shows to be true in all cases, when He says:
V. 16. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit . . .
AUGUSTINE, as above, 2, 23, par. 79: In this place we must be on our guard against those who say that the two trees refer to the two natures; the one of God, and the other which is not of God. These must be told that the two trees are no help to them. For it is clear to any one who reads what precedes this and what follows it that here He is speaking of mankind.
AUGUSTINE, City of God, 12, 4-5: The very natures of things displease the kind of men we have spoken of; as they do not value them because of their true usefulness. For it is not because of our gain, or loss, that a thing gives glory to its Maker, but out of its own nature. All natures therefore are good in that they exist, and have therefore their own form of being, their own beauty, and a sort of harmony (peace) within themselves.
CHRYSOSTOM, Hom. 24: That no one may say that a bad tree does in fact bring forth bad fruit, but that it also brings forth good fruit, and so in face of its two sorts of fruit it is difficult to know it, He goes on to say:
V. 18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
AUGUSTINE, as above, 2, 24, 79: From this saying the Manicheans assert that neither can an evil soul be changed into something better, nor a good soul into a worse; as though it had been said that: A good tree cannot become bad, and a bad tree cannot become good. But this is what was said: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and vice versa. The tree is the soul, that is, the man himself; its fruits are the works it brings forth. An evil man cannot therefore bring forth good works, nor a good man evil. And so if a bad man wishes to bring forth good works let him first become good. As long as a man is evil he cannot bring forth good fruit. As it may happen that what was snow is not now snow, but it cannot happen that snow should be warm; so it can happen that he who was evil is not now evil, but it cannot happen that he who is evil does good. And though at times what he does is useful, this is not due to him, but to the providence of God that makes use of him.
RHABANUS: A man is called a good tree or bad as his own will is either good or bad. His fruits are his works, which cannot be good when they come from a bad will, nor bad from a good will.
AUGUSTINE, Against Julian, V, 3 8, 41: As it is plain that all evil deeds come forth from an evil will, as evil fruit of an evil tree, so from where can you say the evil will itself arises, unless you say that it arose in man from man himself, and that the evil will of an angel comes from the angel? And what were each of these two creatures before the evil will arose in them but a good work of God, a good and praiseworthy nature? See then how out of good evil arises; nor was there any other thing out of which it could arise save good. I am speaking of the evil will itself; for there was no evil before it, no evil works, which arise only from an evil will as from an evil tree. Nor could the evil will be said to arise from good in this way, because it was made good from the good God. For it was made from nothing, not from God. [The text of the work continues: For all that can sin is made from nothing. For if it were not from nothing it would by nature be from God whatever it was. If by nature from God it would possess the nature of God, and could not sin.]…
[Message clipped] View entire message