By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 9
(Editor’s Note: This is the ninth installment in a series by Wanderer contributor Raymond de Souza on Henry VIII’s book defending the seven sacraments against Martin Luther. De Souza edited this updated version of Henry’s work, which is presented to readers in this series.
(This series will appear as space allows.)
+ + +
On The Sacrament
Of The Altar: Part 1
By Henry VIII
The Sacrament of the Eucharist under one form only administered to the laity:
IN THE MEANWHILE, let us truly examine how subtly, under pretence of favouring the laity, Luther endeavours to stir them up to hatred against the clergy.
He resolved to cast a suspicion over the Church’s faith so that Her authority should be of no consequence against him.
To this end, he began with that one question that he foresaw would be praised and applauded by the people: he touched the old sore, whereby Bohemia had been formerly blistered — that is, “the laity ought to receive the Eucharist under both kinds.”
Thus, he opened that wound in order that he might destroy the principal mysteries of Christianity. When first he began to handle this point, he only said “that the Pope would do well to have it ordained by a general Council that the laity should receive the Sacrament under both kinds.”
However, when some disputed that with him and denied his opinion, he did not content himself to stop there, but rather grew to such a perverse height that he condemned the whole clergy of wickedness for withholding the other Species without consent of any Council.
For my part, I do not dispute the first opinion. For to me there appears to be no reason why the Church should not ordain the Sacrament to be administered to the laity under both kinds.
However, I do not doubt that it was very appropriate what was done in times past, in omitting it and also in hindering it to be so administered now.
I cannot believe the whole clergy, during so many ages, to have been so void of sense as to incur eternal punishment for a thing by which they could reap no temporal good.
Furthermore, it does not appear that such a danger exists. God not only bestowed heaven upon those men, who did it themselves and wrote that it ought to be done, but likewise, He had them honoured on earth by those whom He is adored Himself.
Amongst them — to mention but two — was that most learned and holy man Thomas Aquinas, whom I willingly name here.
The wickedness of Luther cannot endure the sanctity of this man whom all Christians honour; Luther reviles Aquinas with his foul lips.
There are very many, though not canonised, who are contrary to Luther’s opinion in this and to whom Luther is not comparable in any way in piety and learning.
Among them is the Master of the Sentences, Nicholas de Lyra (and many others), to each of whom it behoves all Christians to give more credit than to Luther.
But pray observe how Luther staggers, and contradicts himself:
In one place, he says that “Christ, in His Last Supper, not only said to all the faithful, as permitting, but as commanding, ‘Drink ye all of this’” (Matt. 26:27).
Afterwards, fearing to offend the laity — whom he flatters with a view to stir up their hatred against the priests — he adds these words: “they who use but one kind do not sin against Christ, seeing that Christ did not command to use any kind, but left it to every man’s discretion, saying, ‘As often as ye do this, do it in remembrance of Me’.”
“But, says Luther, they sin who forbid giving both kinds to such as are willing to receive them.”
“The blame, says he, lies on the clergy, and not on the laity.”
You see how clearly he first holds it for a command, and then says: it is no commandment, but something left to every man’s discretion.
What need is there for us to contradict Luther, he who so often contradicts himself?
And yet before, when he spoke of all in general, he did not defend the laity well, if anyone would urge the matter. He proves that there is no sin in the priests, whom he accuses most bitterly.
Because, says he, “the sin consists in the priest’s taking the liberty of one kind from the laity.”
If anybody should ask him, how does he know that the custom has been practised against the people’s will? I believe he cannot tell.
Why, then, does he condemn the whole clergy, for having taken the laity’s right from them by force, seeing he cannot by any testimony prove that this was forcibly done?
How much more reasonable should it be to say that the consent of the people did concur with this custom for so many ages, since it could not be justly established without their assent?
For my part, I see what things the clergy cannot obtain from the laity — not even an exemption from burying their dead almost under their altars.
Thus, I cannot easily believe that the laity should suffer themselves to be injuriously, and by force, deprived of any such great part of their rights.
I rather believe that this custom was instituted for some reasonable causes and with the consent of the laity.
What amazes me most is that Luther should be so angry and passionate for having one kind taken away from the laity in Communion, while he is not at all moved that children should be debarred from both!
He cannot deny that it was customary for children to receive Communion in the early times.
Although Christ said, “Drink ye all of this” (Matt. 26:27), this custom, if it was justly omitted, was undoubtedly done for very good reasons, although nobody may remember them.
Why, then, should we not think that the early custom of the laity’s receiving the Sacrament in both kinds was taken away as well for good and just reasons, unknown at this time, which were perhaps not continued for any considerable time?
Moreover, if Luther examines the strict form of the Gospel narration, and leaves nothing in this matter to the Church, why does he not command that the Sacrament should always be received at supper-time, or rather after it? (18)
FOOTNOTES
18. Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday “the night on which he was betrayed” (1 Cor. 11:23), as he celebrated the Last Supper with his apostles (Compendium, n. 272).
+ + +
The book is accompanied by two talks on CD: 1) The De-Christianization of the Western World and 2) The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It is available to Wanderer readers at $33.00 (shipping and handling free in the United States). Please make your check payable to: Sacred Heart Media, LLC and mail it to: P.O. Box 1144, Rochester, MN 55903.
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza, KM, is available to speak at Catholic events anywhere in the free world in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Please contact Chevalierdemalta@outlook.com or phone 507-450-4196.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress