{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34923/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34923","id":"gutenberg_34923","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34923","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Doctrines -- Catholic authors"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Michael Gray, Diocese of San Jose\n\n\n\n\n  BREAKING WITH THE PAST\n\n  OR\n\n  CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ABANDONED AT THE REFORMATION\n\n  _Four Sermons Delivered at St. Patrick's Cathedral\n  New York, on the Sundays of Advent, 1913_\n\n  BY\n\n  FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET\n\n  ABBOT-PRESIDENT OF THE ENGLISH BENEDICTINES\n\n\n  WITH A PREFACE BY\n\n  HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FARLEY\n\n\n\n  P. J. KENEDY & SONS\n  PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE\n  NEW YORK\n\n\n\nNIHIL OBSTAT\n     REMIGIUS LAFORT\n     _Censor Deputatus_\n\nIMPRIMATUR\n     JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY\n     _Archbishop of New York_\n\nJanuary 3, 1914\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1914\nP. J. KENEDY & SONS\n\n\n\nTO\nHIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FARLEY\nARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK\nTHESE SERMONS DELIVERED AT HIS\nREQUEST IN HIS CATHEDRAL\nCHURCH\nARE DEDICATED\nAS A SMALL TOKEN OF SINCERE RESPECT\nAND AFFECTION\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nTHE Rt. Rev. Francis Aidan Gasquet, Abbot-General of the English\nBenedictines and Chairman of the Commission appointed for the revision\nof the Vulgate or Latin Bible, gave a course of sermons at the High Mass\nin St. Patrick's Cathedral on the Sundays of Advent, 1913, on \"Catholic\nPrinciples abandoned at the Reformation.\"\n\nThese sermons attracted very wide attention. The subject chosen, while\nseemingly a familiar one, proved most interesting to the vast\ncongregations, drawn by the fame of the preacher as a historian of the\nReformation period. His manner of treatment had much to do with the\nprofound interest manifested by his listeners. All attempt at pulpit\noratory was cast aside, and the preacher confined himself to a clear\nunvarnished tale of the causes that led up to the so-called Reformation.\nHe showed himself a complete master of the question. As announced in his\nopening sermon, the Rt. Rev. Abbot did not seek to be controversial, but\npurely historical, and this purpose he followed to the end, basing all\nhis statements on documents whose authenticity could not be called in\nquestion. He made clear what Cardinal Manning has so often repeated,\nthat England did not give up the Catholic faith of centuries, but was\nsimply robbed of it.\n\nIt was my pleasure to be present at all the sermons, and to be held\nunder the spell of his simple eloquence, and to experience the appeal\nhis strong arguments must have made. The main thesis which the learned\nAbbot sought to establish was that the doctrines of the Church in\nEngland had been reconstructed under Lutheran and Calvinistic influence,\nand the cultural beliefs held by the Church from the time of Christ had\nbeen rejected. This was especially true of the priesthood. By Act of\nParliament a new form of ordination, carefully and systematically\nexcluding every word that could be interpreted to mean that the\ncandidate was to be a sacrificing priest, was introduced.\n\nIn these days when there is a strong movement on foot without the fold,\nto restore the unity of the Christian faith, we can indulge the hope\nthat the four lectures of the distinguished Abbot will prove fruitful.\nThey are on subjects so vital to unity; _i. e._ the Supremacy of the\nPope, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eternal Priesthood, the Universal\nChurch. We pray that these sermons will attract the attention of many\noutside the Church, and make them meditate on the bitterness of breaking\nfrom their \"Father's House.\" May God's holy grace prove stronger than\nprejudice, as it has so often in the past, and may it soften the hearts\nwhich have been hardened by cruel legislation rather than by wilful\ndisobedience.\n\n     JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY,\n     _Archbishop of New York_.\n\nNEW YORK,\nThe Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, 1913\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n  I   THE POPE'S AUTHORITY\n  II  THE HOLY MASS\n  III THE PRIESTHOOD\n  IV  THE CHURCH BY LAW ESTABLISHED\n      BOOKS SUGGESTED FOR READING\n\n\n\nI\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE POPE'S AUTHORITY\n\nTO-DAY we begin the work of Advent. During these weeks of preparation\nfor the great feast of Christmas it is usual and useful to turn our\nthoughts to some of the great principles upon which our faith as\nCatholics is grounded, in order that we may realise more fully all that\nour Blessed Lord's coming into this world has done for mankind in\ngeneral and for our individual souls in particular. It will not\ntherefore be altogether foreign to this purpose if during these Sundays\nof Advent I ask your consideration of certain Catholic principles which\nappear to me to have been deliberately abandoned in the great religious\nrevolution of the sixteenth century, known as the Reformation, but to\nwhich our Catholic forefathers in England and in Ireland clung with\nheroic constancy and for which they suffered loss of worldly goods and\neven laid down their lives.\n\nAnd first, I should at the outset like to disclaim any desire to enter\ninto mere matters of controversy. In these days, when so many\naspirations and prayers for a return to Christian Unity are being\nuttered and which in the face of the common enemy find an echo in the\nheart of every Catholic, the bitterness engendered by the controversial\nspirit is, to say the least, wholly foreign to the work of Union. But as\na first step to that Christian Unity we all pray for, it is surely\nnecessary to recognise the points of departure, out of which our\ndifferences have grown. We cannot proceed far along the path towards\nagreement unless we understand how we first began to differ, and\ntherefore, not in any spirit of bitterness or controversy. I desire to\nspeak of facts as they seem to me, and to point out what was really done\nat the time of the Reformation in England, which still has obvious\nconsequences in all English-speaking countries. As far as I am concerned\nat present those who hold that what was done in regard to religion in\nthe sixteenth century was well done may continue to hold this belief.\nAll I desire at this time is to ascertain _what_ was done.\n\nNow the first point of attack made on the traditional teachings of the\nCatholic Church was upon the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope. We\nCatholics hold and believe that our Lord came down on earth and became\nman to redeem us, not as a mere historical fact, which was once done and\ncompleted by His death upon the Cross, but that the work of this\nredemption was to be applied to the individual soul, through the work of\nthe Church He established on earth. This Church was to minister to souls\nthrough the Sacraments He instituted, the grace He had purchased for\nthem by His Passion and Death, and it was to be the fount of all truth\nand teaching. We Catholics further believe and hold that our Lord\nestablished this His church upon the authority of St. Peter and his\nsuccessors, as the necessary basis of unity of faith and discipline. To\nus this seems so certain that it is inconceivable that our Lord, who was\nGod and had all knowledge of the working of the human heart and mind,\nshould not have provided some such an authority as that of the Pope, as\nthe necessary bond of unity of the Faith. Mind, I am not proving this in\nany way: I am but stating it as the firm and unchanging belief of\nCatholics.\n\nUp to the time of King Henry VIII., and indeed till the end of the first\nhalf of his reign, this, which is our belief, was that of England and\nIreland in common with all other parts of Christendom before the revolt\nof Luther a few years before in Germany. Of this I do not think there\ncan be much doubt, except perhaps in the minds of professional\ncontroversialists. Let me give a few examples of English teaching on the\nsubject. In the University of Oxford, up to the Reformation, there was\nno more honoured theological authority in the schools, than the\ncelebrated Duns Scotus. This is what he taught as to papal authority:\n\"It is of faith that the ever Holy Roman Church, which is the pillar and\nground of all truth and against which the gates of hell cannot prevail,\nadmits of no error and teaches the truth. Hence they are excommunicated\nas heretics who teach or hold anything different from what She teaches\nand practises.\" This is clear enough teaching: and no less clear is the\ndeclaration made by the representatives of England and Ireland in the\nCouncil of Florence, which was held in A. D. 1417, a century and more\nbefore the breach with Rome. At that Council there were present more\nthan a hundred British Bishops and Prelates. Peculiar circumstances\ncalled for a declaration of their loyalty to the Universal Church, and\nthis is one clause in that declaration: \"Moreover the Kingdom of\nEngland, thanks be to God! has never swerved from its obedience to the\nRoman Church: it has never tried to rend the seamless coat of Our Lord:\nit has never endeavoured to shake off its loyalty to the Roman\nPontiffs.\"\n\nTen years later again, in 1426, Pope Martin V. in a letter to the\nArchbishop of Canterbury, states as a recognised fact, that not only had\nthe Roman Pontiffs supreme authority as a fact, but that this authority\nwas derived as of divine institution from our Lord Himself and he tells\nthe archbishop that he is bound to protect \"the rights and privileges of\nthe Roman Church and the Apostolic See, which Christ Himself gave by His\ndivine Word, and not men.\" This is the distinct claim put forth by the\nPope, and Archbishop Chicheley in his reply, made on behalf of the\nEnglish Church, fully and frankly admits this claim, and makes it quite\nclear that the traditional teaching of the English Church in regard to\nthe Papacy was that it was of divine institution and not that its\nauthority was of ecclesiastical institution, and still less that England\nor Ireland had ever given its obedience to the Pope on grounds of\nnational policy or expediency and not on a dogmatic basis. The matter is\nput clearly enough to remove all doubt in the letter addressed to the\nPope by the University of Oxford at the same time as that of Archbishop\nChicheley in behalf of the English Bishops. \"We recognise in your\nbeloved person (that of. Pope Martin V.) the true Head. We profess\nwithout doubt and from our hearts (that you are) the one Supreme\nPontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth and the true successor of St.\nPeter.\"\n\nThat this remained the firm and unshaken faith of the Church and people\nof England and Ireland right up to the final breaking away from Rome we\nhave ample and positive proofs. Out of many I will cite one testimony.\nWhen the teachings of the reformer, Luther, began to find adherents in\nother lands, King Henry VIII., with the help of Bishop Fisher, himself\ncomposed a book in defence of the Sacramental teaching of the Church.\nThis volume was taken to Rome by one of the English Bishops and\npresented to the Pope in full Consistory on October 2, 1521. On behalf\nof Henry, the envoy in the presence of all the Cardinals and Ambassadors\nmade public declaration of the entire loyalty of the English nation to\nthe Holy Roman Church and its Supreme Pontiff. \"Of other nationalities,\"\nhe says, \"let others speak. But assuredly my Britain--my England, as in\nlater times she has been called--has never yielded to Spain, never to\nFrance, never to Germany, never to Italy, never to any nearer nation,\nno, not even to Rome itself, in the service of God and in the Christian\nfaith and in the obedience due to the Most Holy Roman Church; even as\nthere is no nation which more opposes, more condemns, more loathes this\nmonster (_i. e._ the Lutheran apostasy) and the heresies which spring\nfrom it.\" It was for the volume then presented and for the declaration\nthen made that Henry received the title of \"Defender of the Faith\" from\nthe Pope.\n\nSuddenly and almost as a bolt from the blue, difficulties between the\nKing of England and the Pope began to show themselves. Grave events\noften spring from slight causes, and, whatever may be said by\nprofessional controversalists, there can be no doubt that it was a mere\nlove affair of Henry VIII., which initiated the royal policy and finally\ndragged England into schism and heresy. [1] To some, people, indeed, in\nthese days the action of the Pope in refusing to allow Henry to have his\nown wilful way in putting aside his wedded wife, Katherine, and to marry\nanother woman, with whom he had had illicit relations, may appear to\nhave been the height of unwisdom. Certainly as a result it has had the\nmost disastrous consequences to the English Church. But this at least\nall must confess: that the Pope's courageous action is a manifest proof\nof the impossibility of ecclesiastical authority interfering without\nright reason with the indissoluble sanctity of a true Christian\nmarriage.\n\n\n[1] This statement was challenged in the press. It is difficult to see\nhow it can be questioned by anyone who has read the history of this\nperiod. Those who are interested may be referred to an excellent article\nin _America_ for Dec. 20, 1913, \"What to say and how to say it.\"\n\n\nTo obtain the support of Parliament the King suggested that the nation\nhad incurred the extreme penalties of _praemunire_ by admitting the\nlegatine powers of Cardinal Wolsey, even though this had been done with\nhis royal knowledge and authority. His lay subjects were at once\npardoned for a mere technical offence against the statute laws, but the\nclergy were excluded, in order to hold the penalties _in terrorem_ over\nthem. With his royal hand on the throats of his ecclesiastical subjects\nhe demanded a recognition of his Headship over the Church in England,\nand finally Convocation, after a debate which extended over two and\nthirty sessions, gave an unwilling assent to a clause admitting the King\nas \"the Protector and Supreme Head\" of the English Church. This was the\nthin edge of the wedge by which the cleavage from Rome and the Pope was\nsubsequently effected. At the time, there can be no doubt that the\ninward meaning of the acknowledgment was not understood. Dean Hook says\nthat the statement was not \"regarded as inconsistent with the legitimate\nclaims of the papacy,\" and as Froude admits, it is certain that \"the\ntitle was not intended to imply what it implied when, four years later,\nit was conferred by Act of Parliament, and when England virtually was\nsevered by it from the Roman Communion.\"\n\nIn 1532 by an Act entitled \"The Submission of the clergy\" the king\nreceived their pledge not to legislate in ecclesiastical matters in\nConvocation without his royal leave. By this \"Submission\" the English\nChurch deprived itself of all corporate action; and in the same year the\naged Archbishop Warham died. \"We cannot doubt,\" writes the late Dr.\nJames Gairdner, the most competent judge of the events of this reign and\nhimself not a Catholic, \"We cannot doubt that the event (_i. e._ the\ndeath of the Archbishop of Canterbury) at once suggested to the King a\nnew method of achieving his end\" and divorcing Queen Katherine. He\nobtained from the Pope the appointment of Thomas Cranmer, a priest who\nin defiance of the canons had secretly married in Germany the niece of\nOsiander, the German Reformer, as a second wife.\n\nHaving secured this appointment from the Holy See, the King directed\nCranmer to consider the divorce question, and the decree having been\npronounced by the subservient archbishop, Henry made Anne Boleyn his\nQueen on June 1, 1533. Six months later the Convocations of Canterbury\nand York, under strong royal pressure formally accepted the declaration\nthat \"the Bishop of Rome has not in Scripture any greater jurisdiction\nin the Kingdom of England than any foreign bishop.\" Finally in March,\n1534, the severance of England from Rome ecclesiastically was effected\nby the _Supreme Head_ act which styled the King the only \"Supreme Head\nin earth of the Church of England\" and granted him the most ample powers\nof ecclesiastical Visitation. Then the final touch was given to the work\nby the _Act of Verbal Treasons_, by which it was declared to be high\ntreason to \"imagine\" any bodily harm to either the King or Queen or \"to\ndeprive them of their dignity, title, style,\" etc.\n\nThe change had now been effected: England was cut off from the\njurisdiction of Rome. Some men, like the Venerable Bishop Fisher,\nBlessed Sir Thomas More, the heroic Carthusians and others, refused to\nburden their consciences by taking the required oath and preferred\nimprisonment and death. For the most part the clergy and monastic houses\ngave way and did what was required of them. But there can be little\ndoubt that the nation at large disliked the King's proceedings. In spite\nof the act for _Verbal Treasons_, which was wide enough to catch anyone\nguilty of a mere expression of opinion, \"on no other subject during the\nentire reign have we such overt and repeated expressions of\ndissatisfaction with the King and his proceedings,\" as Dr. Gairdner with\nthe fullest knowledge of this period declares. For, as he says, \"the\necclesiastical headship was without precedent and at variance with all\ntradition:\" . . . \"It was a totally new order in the Church.\"\n\nMy purpose does not lead me to speak of the exercise of ecclesiastical\njurisdiction by the King, in virtue of this new Headship over the\nChurch. As, by virtue of his authority, he had bidden Archbishop Cranmer\nto pronounce the sentence of divorce, which the Pope had refused, so in\nthe dissolution of the religious houses, he pronounced the monks and\nnuns in his kingdom freed from the vows they had made to God. In the\nexercise of the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical he appointed\nThomas Crumwell, a layman, his Vicar General, and in this capacity,\nCrumwell presided at all meetings of Bishops and regulated all\ndiscussions upon spiritual affairs.\n\nThere were various other religious changes initiated during the\nremainder of this reign, like the destruction of shrines and the\nprohibition of devotion to the saints, but it is one of the perplexing\nproblems of this time why there was not a more radical reconstruction of\nreligion in England upon the lines of the Lutheran principles of the\nReformation. The fact is that, though for his own purposes Henry was\nwilling enough to get rid of the Pope, he was never a Lutheran at heart.\nHe had defended Catholic principles against the German Reformed\ndoctrines in his work on the Seven Sacraments. He never wholly lost his\nCatholic instinct, and to the last he maintained with a strong hand the\nancient Catholic Sacramental teaching, and in particular in regard to\nthe most Holy Eucharist and the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In this\nregard the reforming party, as long as he lived, was kept in check and\nhad to wait for the King's death to secure further changes.\n\nTo us Catholics, by the act of cutting England from Rome, the principle\nof Christian Unity was rejected and sacrificed. The branch cut from the\ntree no longer feeds upon the sap of the parent stock, and\ndisintegration is merely a matter of time. We who look back over the\ncenturies, which have passed since the severance of the English Church\nfrom Union with Rome was effected, can see how the disintegration as to\ndoctrine, has gone on ever since. Few can deny that it is still\nproceeding at a rate, which is rightly alarming those who still cling\neven to the shreds of the religious formularies evolved in the\nReformation settlement. Hundreds of religious bodies, all claiming to be\nChristian and all differing on vital and essential matters of belief,\ncan be seen round about us to-day. The process of division is still\ngoing on and it must continue where there is no authority to speak with\na divine commission. We Catholics, as we review this chaos, may well\nthank God that our English and Irish forefathers have fought and\nsuffered to maintain for us the Christian principle of a Supreme\nauthority in religion.\n\n\n\nII\n\nII\n\nTHE HOLY MASS\n\nTO-DAY I propose to speak about the Most Holy Eucharist. The Sacrifice\nof the Mass is the central doctrine of our religion. In it, as we\nCatholics firmly believe, there is renewed on the Christian altar the\nsacrifice of Calvary, and by God's power, at the words spoken by the\npriest, the bread and wine is changed into the very Body and Blood of\nour Lord. The word used by the Church to express this change of\nsubstance is Transubstantiation; and in the mystery of our Faith we hold\nthat we have, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, the true\nand real presence of our Blessed Lord. As truly and as really as our\nSaviour, God and man, walked this earth in the days of His pilgrimage,\nblessing the sick, curing diseases at His touch, and teaching the way of\nlife to the multitudes, so do we firmly believe and hold, that He is\namongst us to-day under the Eucharistic forms, ready to help and\nencourage the weary, to console the afflicted, to bring the assurance of\nHis pardon to the penitent.\n\nI am not proving this. I am only stating it, as the firm faith we hold\nas Catholics. Moreover, not only is the Mass our Christian Sacrifice;\nbut in the Holy Eucharist we have the food of our souls and the proper\nsustenance of our spiritual life in this world. We hold and truly\nbelieve that in Holy Communion we receive really and in fact, and not in\nany mere figurative sense, our Blessed Lord Himself--Body, Soul and\nDivinity. This is our faith to-day as it was the unbroken belief of the\nCatholic Church from the earliest tunes. All round about us now we see\nother religious bodies, claiming to be Christian which do not share our\nteaching, and it is good to try and understand how this has come about.\nThe key to the explanation lies in the teaching of Reformation\nprinciples in the sixteenth century.\n\nWhen Henry VIII. died, on January 25, 1547, for the first time in\nhistory the king had made himself supreme not only in affairs of State\nbut in religion. Many minor changes, besides the destruction of the\nreligious life and the suppression of the monasteries, naturally marked\nand followed upon the rejection of the Catholic principle of papal\nauthority and the assumption by the king of Supreme Headship over the\nChurch in England. The hopes, entertained by the German Reformers of\nbeing able to obtain the adherence of the king and people of England to\ntheir reformed doctrines, were disappointed during Henry's life. On his\ndeath their hopes revived. Edward VI., a boy, only nine years of age,\nsucceeded to the throne, and the supreme power in the State was seized\nby those whose sympathies were known to be on the side of the German\nReformation. The Lord Protector, Somerset, became the highest authority\nin the State, and Archbishop Cranmer, for years a Lutheran at heart, was\nthe chief ecclesiastic in the realm.\n\nAs one of the first acts of the reign, all the bishops were compelled to\ntake out fresh Commissions from the Crown for the exercise of their\nepiscopal offices. In this Cranmer set a willing example of obedience;\nand in the preamble of the new Letters Patent the royal power was set\nforth as the source of all jurisdiction, civil and ecclesiastical.\n\nWithin a month of Edward's accession, the images of saints in the London\nchurches were dishonoured and mutilated, and sermons were preached,\nwithout punishment or rebuke, against the observance of Lent and other\nCatholic practices. Other changes in the line of the Reformation\nfollowed quickly one upon another. Images, shrines and pictures of Our\nLady and the Saints were ordered to be destroyed, and the Litany of the\nSaints, hitherto said in procession, was made into a prayer to be said\nkneeling. All this was a sufficient indication of the trend of mind in\nthe men now in power towards the Reformation doctrines of Luther and the\nother continental heretics.\n\nFor objecting to these changes some of the bishops were lodged in\nprison, and in the course of a general Visitation of churches in the\ndiocese of London, whilst the Bishop was in prison, the images in St.\nPaul's and other city churches were pulled down and broken up; the\npainted pictures and frescoes upon the walls--\"the books of the poor and\nunlearned\" as they were called--were covered with whitewash, and in\ntheir place the Ten Commandments were written upon the plaster.\n\nThe first Parliament of this reign met in November, 1547, and the\nimportant matter--from a religious standpoint--discussed and settled was\nthe introduction of Communion under both kinds--or as some modern\nwriters put it \"the restoration of the cup to the laity.\" This change,\nsignificant as it was, might mean little more than the rejection of a\ndisciplinary law of the Church, which had been introduced many ages\nbefore for wise and obvious reasons. But to those who will study the\nhistory of the controversies of the sixteenth century, the\nreintroduction of Communion under both kinds was an outward\nmanifestation of the rejection of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine,\nwhich taught that our Blessed Lord was present, whole and entire, Body,\nSoul and Divinity in each and every portion of the Most Holy Sacrament.\nAnd, as St. Thomas teaches in his dogmatic hymn of the Holy Eucharist,\nin every part and portion, \"_integer accipitur_\"--is received whole and\nentire in Holy Communion. The history of the passage of this measure\nthrough Parliament makes it clear that many of the Bishops and other\nprominent ecclesiastics were opposed to this departure from existing\nCatholic usage and that it was in reality imposed by the authority of\nParliament upon the Church under the plea that it was \"conformable to\nprimitive practice.\" The Bill was but the beginning of other and more\nimportant changes. The replies made at this time by Cranmer and other\ninnovating prelates to certain questions upon the nature of the Mass\nleave no doubt as to the lengths they were prepared to go ha the\ndirection of Lutheran Eucharistic doctrine. The archbishop declared that\n\"_oblation and sacrifice_\" were terms improperly used about the Mass,\nand that it was only a \"memory and representation of the sacrifice of\nthe Cross.\" In other words, Cranmer and the four other English bishops\nwho agreed with him, rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass as it had\nhitherto been received in England as in every other part of the Catholic\nworld.\n\nTo carry out the new order of Communion a form, founded upon the\ncelebrated work of Herman the Archbishop of Cologne, which had just\nappeared in an English translation, was issued and ordered to be\ninserted in the Latin Mass. The process of spoliation of the Church\nbegun in the reign of Henry VIII. was continued. A bill, strongly\nopposed by churchmen, was passed in the House of Lords, giving to the\nCrown all colleges, free chapels and chantries as well as the property\nof all guilds and fraternities. By this measure the gravest injustice\nwas done to the members of the guilds, which were the charitable\nassociations, insurance societies, burial and sick clubs of Catholic\nEngland. The funds thus confiscated for the most part represented the\nsavings of the poor. Moreover, religion suffered the gravest injury by\nthe confiscation of the chantry funds and the revenues for anniversary\nprayers for the dead. These were in many cases at least intended to\nsupply the services of additional curates for the work of larger\nparishes and for annual gifts to the poor.\n\nIn the second year of the King's reign Cranmer intimated that the\nCouncil had ordered the discontinuance of the old Catholic practices of\nblessed candles, blessed ashes and blessed palms, as well as the Good\nFriday ceremony of honouring the crucifix, known as \"creeping to the\ncross.\"\n\nAll these changes were, however, only indications of the more serious\nattack on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, which was being\nengineered by the now almost openly avowed English Reforming party,\nheaded by Cranmer. On December 14, 1548, a draft of a new Prayer Book in\nEnglish to supersede the ancient Missal and Breviary was introduced into\nthe House of Lords and there followed a long debate upon the doctrine of\nthe Blessed Sacrament, contained in the service, which was intended to\ntake the place of the ancient Mass. This part of the new Book of Common\nPrayer has a special interest and significance.\n\nIn the course of this debate it appeared clearly that Archbishop Cranmer\nhad given up all belief in the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation\nand in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the account of\nthis discussion it also appears that the word \"oblation,\" which had been\nleft in the proposed new Canon when the draft was shown to the Bishops,\nhad been struck out of the document presented to Parliament for its\napproval, without their knowledge or consent. On January 15, 1549,\nParliament by statute approved the new form of service to take the place\nof the Mass; its authority being simply a schedule of an act of\nParliament; the Church in synod or convocation almost certainly having\nhad nothing to say in this vital matter of doctrine and practice.\n\nIt is not infrequently asserted that after all, except that the new\nCommunion service was in English, there was little or no change made in\nform or substance. In other words, that the office of Communion, in the\nFirst Prayer Book of Edward VI.--the Book of 1549--was the Latin Mass\ntranslated into English. Whatever else it was, whether a return to\nprimitive observances or an adaptation of ancient foreign liturgies, or\nany other thing of the same nature, it was most certainly not a\ntranslation; not even a free rendering of the Latin Mass into the\nvernacular.\n\nThose who are familiar with the Latin Missal, or those who will take the\ntrouble to examine it, will see at once that the Mass consists mainly of\ntwo parts,--the first a preparation for and leading up to the second. In\nthe former we have the prayers and supplications with passages of Holy\nScripture from the Epistles and Gospels, selected by the Church as\nappropriate to the feast or Sunday upon which they are read. In this\npart also we have the ceremonial offices arranged for the offering of\nthe bread and wine prepared for the Christian Sacrifice, accompanied by\nprayers expressing the idea of sacrifice and oblation.\n\nThus, for example, at the offering of the bread the priest says these\nwords: \"Receive, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, _this\nspotless Host,_\" etc. When he offers the chalice with the wine and water\nin it he says: \"We offer up to Thee, O Lord, the chalice of Salvation,\nbeseeching Thee of Thy mercy that our _sacrifice_ may ascend with an\nodour of sweetness in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty,\" etc.; and he\nadds: \"May the _Sacrifice_ we this day offer up be well-pleasing to\nThee.\" Finally, bowing down before the altar, the priest says: \"Receive,\nO Holy Trinity, this _oblation_ offered up by us to Thee,\" etc., and,\nturning to those who are assisting, he says: \"Brethren, pray that this\n_sacrifice_, which is both mine and yours, may be well-pleasing to God\nthe Father Almighty.\" To this the people through the server reply: \"May\nthe Lord receive this _sacrifice_ at your hands,\" etc. Everyone who will\ncarefully examine these prayers must see that the main idea contained in\nall is that of _sacrifice_ and _oblation_. In the same way the prayer\ncalled the Secret, which follows upon the offering of the bread and wine\nfor the Sacrifice, though it varies with the feast celebrated,\npractically always contains some mention of the oblation or victim to be\noffered. Thus on this, the second Sunday of Advent, the Secret prayer\ncontains these words: \"Be appeased, we beseech Thee, O Lord, by our\nprayers and by the _sacred Victim_ we humbly offer,\" etc.\n\nIn the second part of the Holy Mass we shall find, if we use our\nMissals, or Mass books, that there is one unchanging ritual _formula_\ncalled the \"Canon,\" during which the words of Consecration are\npronounced by the priest over the bread and wine. By the efficacy of\nthese words, as we Catholics believe, the substance of the bread and\nwine are changed by God's power into the Body and Blood of Christ; and\nin this Sacred Canon the Christian sacrifice is perfected. Naturally we\nshould expect to find in this solemn part of the Mass the same idea of\nsacrifice and oblation clearly expressed. And so it is. The priest begs\nAlmighty God \"to receive and to bless these gifts, these _oblations_,\nthese holy and _spotless hosts_, which we offer up to Thee;\" and \"to be\nappeased by this _oblation_ which we offer.\" Again he prays: \"Vouchsafe\nto bless this same _oblation,_ to take it for Thy very own . . . so that\non our behalf it may _be made into_ the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,\"\netc. To this he adds: \"Wherefore we offer up to thine excellent Majesty\n. . . a _Victim_ which is pure, a Victim which is holy, a Victim which\nis stainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting and the Cup of eternal\nsalvation.\" Then after the words of Consecration, bowing down before the\nsacred species on the altar, the celebrant says: \"Humbly we beseech\nThee, Almighty God, to command that by the hands of Thy holy Angel, this\nour _Sacrifice_ be uplifted to thine altar on high.\"\n\nNow let us understand what was done by the English Reformers in the new\nservice drawn up in 1549 to take the place of the ancient Mass. In a\ngeneral way it may be said that up to the Gospel the first Communion\nservice followed outwardly at least the old Missals. The ritual offering\nof the bread and wine, however, with the prayers expressing oblation and\nsacrifice--a part which was known as the Offertory--was swept away\naltogether in the new service. In its place was substituted a few\nsentences appropriate to almsgiving and a new meaning was given to the\nword \"Offertory,\" which has since come to signify a collection. This\nchange is significant of the Eucharistic doctrines of the German\nReformers and is fully in accord with Cranmer's known opinions in regard\nto oblation and sacrifice, every expression or idea of which was\nruthlessly removed from the new Book. The old prayer, called the Secret,\nwhich almost invariably contained a mention of the Sacrifice about to be\noffered, was left out.\n\nFollowing upon the Offertory and Secret comes the Preface, or immediate\npreparation for the sacred Canon. This, with certain unimportant\nchanges, was allowed to stand in the new composition as it was in the\nMissal. But the last words of the _Sanctus_, with which the Preface\ninvariably concludes: \"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the\nLord,\" although allowed to stand in the first Book of Common Prayer of\n1549, was removed in the subsequent Book of 1552, and does not find a\nplace in the present Communion Service. The reason for this later change\nis obvious. With the new Canon we come to understand the full\nsignificance of the changes made in the new liturgy. Our present\ndetailed knowledge of the Canon of the Mass goes back for thirteen\nhundred years, and, with the exception of one short clause inserted by\nSt. Gregory the Great, it has remained unchanged to the present day.\nThis alone is a sufficient testimony to the veneration in which the\nprayer was regarded. It was a sacred heritage, coming to the Catholic\nChurch from unknown antiquity, and it was substantially the same in\nevery Western liturgy.\n\nThe Canon of the First Communion service was, so far as _ideas_ go, an\nabsolutely new Canon. Outwardly, even, it was so different to the Canon\nof the Mass that it was characterised by the common people as \"a\nChristmas game.\" It offers prayers to God in place of \"these gifts,\nthese offerings, these holy undefiled sacrifices\" of the Catholic Canon;\nand in a word, every idea or expression of the ancient doctrine of\nsacrifice was studiously omitted by the composers of the new Prayer\nBook. In fact, the words of \"Consecration,\" or as they are now\nfrequently called, \"Institution,\" which it might have been supposed even\nCranmer would have respected as too sacred to touch or tamper with, are\nchanged for a formula taken from the new Lutheran use of Nuremberg,\nwhich had been drawn up by Osiander, Cranmer's relative by marriage.\n\nIn brief, then, it is impossible for any unbiased mind to compare the\nancient Canon of the Holy Mass--the Canon which still exists unchanged\nin our Missals to-day--with the relative part of the new Communion\nservice without seeing that both in spirit and substance the First\nPrayer Book of Edward VI was conceived with the design of getting rid of\nthe Catholic Mass altogether. [1] It was as little a translation of the\nLatin Missal as the similar Lutheran productions of Germany, which were\nostensibly based upon the design of getting rid of the sacrificial\ncharacter of the Mass altogether. The First Prayer Book of 1549 merely\nrepresented one stage of the downgrade of Eucharistic doctrine in\ndeparture from the old Catholic beliefs towards the more advanced\nProtestant schools of thought represented by Calvin and others. So\nanother--the second liturgy of Edward VI--was soon in preparation and\nwas issued in 1552.\n\n\n[1] For the convenience of those interested this comparison may be found\nat the end of this lecture.\n\n\nIn one thing only did it differ. In the First Prayer Book the Communion\nservice contained some shreds of a Canon,--a new Canon, it is true, but\na Canon,--whereas Luther's declared intention was to get rid of what he\ncalled \"the abominable Canon\" altogether, leaving only the words of\nInstitution. This too was effected in the Second Prayer Book of 1552. In\nthis also there is one significant omission amongst a number of other\nchanges. From the \"Sanctus\" after the Preface and immediately leading up\nto the Canon the words \"Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the\nLord\" are omitted as if to emphasise the rejection of the doctrine of\nTransubstantiation in the new formulae.\n\nIt is unnecessary to do more than point out that the rejection of\nauthority in religious matters had already the consequences which any\nreasonable man would have prophesied for a system of religion founded\nupon the royal power, or, as in this case of the young King Edward, upon\nthe personal opinions of his ministers. It is in some quarters the\nfashion nowadays to assume that there were no substantial changes in the\nLiturgy of the Church at this period, and that the Catholic Mass and the\nAnglican Communion service to-day are essentially and substantially the\nsame. To any one, who will put the one by the side of the other and note\nthe changes and omissions, it must appear as clear as the noonday sun\nthat there is a difference, essential and substantial, depending upon\ndoctrinal teaching, on which there should be no misunderstanding. I am\nnot here concerned to determine whether these changes were good or bad.\nWhat I wish to make clear is that these changes were made, and that they\nare significant of a change in doctrine.\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\nCOMPARISON OF THE MASS AND THE COMMUNION SERVICE\n\n\nMissal\n\n  _Sanctus_\n  Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts\n  The Heavens and earth are full of Thy glory\n  Hosanna in the highest\n  Blessed is he that Cometh in the Name of the Lord.[1] Hosanna, etc.\n\n--to receive and to bless these gifts, these oblations, these holy and\nspotless hosts which we offer up to Thee--\n\nWherefore, we beseech Thee O Lord to be appeased by this oblation which\nwe . . . offer\n\nVouchsafe to bless this same Oblation to take it for Thy very-own . . .\nso that on our behalf it may be _made into_ the Body and Blood of J. C.,\netc.\n\nWherefore . . . we . . . offer up to thine Excellent. Majesty ... a\nVictim which is pure, a Victim which is holy, a Victim which is\nstainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting and the Cup of eternal\nsalvation . . .\n\nHumbly we beseech Thee, Almighty God to command that by the hands of Thy\nHoly Angel, this our _Sacrifice_ be uplifted to thine Altar on high\n\n\n1549\n\n[Our Lord] who made there [upon the Cross] by his one oblation once\noffered, a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and\nsatisfaction . . . and did institute and in his holy Gospel command us\nto celebrate a perpetual memory of that his precious death. [2]\n\n--to receive these our prayers and supplications [3]--\nwhich we offer unto [3] thy Divine Majesty.\n\nVouchsafe to bless and [3] sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of\nbread and wine, that they may _be unto us_ the Body and Blood--\n\nWherefore... we do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty,\nwith these Thy holy gifts the _memorial_ which Thy Son hath willed us to\nmake . . . desiring [thee] to accept this our _Sacrifice of praise and\nthanksgiving_ . . .\n\nand we offer and present unto Thee ourselves, our souls and bodies to be\na reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice to Thee\n\naccept this our bounden duty and service\nand command these our _prayers and supplications_ by the ministry of Thy\nHoly Angels to be brought up into Thy holy Tabernacle [4]\n\n\n[1] _Blessed is he who cometh_, etc., left out in 1552 and subsequent\nrecensions.\n\n[2] This is still found in the Communion Service.\n\n[3] Omitted in 1552\n\n[4] Omitted in 1552. The _American_ Service has _accept this our bounden\nduty and Service_ as above, _but_ LEAVES out \"_and command these_,\" etc.\n\n\n\nIII\n\nIII\n\nTHE PRIESTHOOD\n\nLAST Sunday I spoke of the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and the Holy\nEucharist; I pointed out what our faith taught us about the Blessed\nSacrament and how the Mass was to our Catholic forefathers and to us\nto-day, the central act of worship of God; and that the Holy Communion\nin a very true sense is the food of our spiritual life, as it binds us\nto God and brings Him into our lives in truth and in reality, which is\nthe end and object of every act of religion. I pointed out to you that\nby the principles of the Reformation, adopted by the followers of the\nLutheran theology in England, the Mass, as a \"Sacrifice and Oblation,\"\nwas not merely attacked doctrinally, and spoken of by the men of the \"New\nLearning\" with scurrilous profanity, but destroyed altogether, as far as\nit was possible for them to do. The service of Communion in the New Book\nof Common Prayer, designed to take the place of the ancient missals, was\ndrawn up in such a way as to get rid of every expression of the Catholic\ndoctrine as to the Sacrifice of the Mass, absolutely. If the old dictum\n_lex orandi est lex credendi_--prayer follows belief--has any\napplication at all, it must be obvious in this case that the authors of\nthe new English Prayer Book had completely rejected the Catholic belief\nas to the Most Holy Sacrament. The proof lies not in the new forms only\nwhen compared with the old, but in the clear and definite statements of\nthose who had the main share in drawing up the Communion Service of the\nBook of Common Prayer and the chief part in imposing its acceptance upon\nthe people of England.\n\nI know well that in comparatively late times one school of thought in\nthe English Church have endeavoured to get back to the old Catholic\ndoctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Some have been so dissatisfied\nwith the formula of the Communion in the Book of Common Prayer that they\nhave added to it and have even in some cases made use of our ancient\nCanon from the Latin missal. In other instances, as in the Communion\nService in the American Church, a longer Canon had been adopted, taken\nfrom the First Prayer Book of 1549 and arranged differently from that of\nthe Second Book now in use in England. But the doctrine in this is in no\nsense our Catholic doctrine. For, although the words \"sacrifice\" and\n\"oblation\" may be found in it, as indeed in the Anglican prototype, the\nword signifies not the Catholic sacrifice, the offering up of the Body\nand Blood of our Lord as a living victim upon the altar, but as the\nwords in the Communion office define it, \"our sacrifice of praise and\nthanksgiving,\" in which \"we offer and present ourselves, our souls and\nbodies, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto thee.\" Mind,\nfor my present purpose, I am not here contending that the work of the\nReformers in the 16th century in thus composing a new formula was wrong.\nAll I would insist upon is that this was in fact done; that certain\nancient Catholic principles were abandoned in the New Communion Service,\nand that this new Book by the authority of the State was imposed upon\nthe consciences of all.\n\nThat the change thus forcibly effected was disliked very generally\ncannot be doubted. The new Service was ordered to come into general use\nin the Churches on Whitsunday, 1549, and the very next day the people of\nStamford Courtenay in Devon compelled their parish priest to return to\nthe old missal. This was but an indication of the spirit of the people\nand a beginning of those numerous disturbances in various parts of the\ncountry which for a time seriously alarmed the men in power. In\nOxfordshire the rising was put down with a firm hand and many priests\nwere hanged from the towers of their parish churches, as the obvious\nleaders of their people to resist these innovations. In Devonshire the\nrising took a more serious aspect and the people assembled in their\nthousands demanding the restoration of the Latin Mass and the abolition\nof the new service in English, which they described as \"a Christmas\ngame.\" \"We will have,\" they said, \"the Mass as of old and the Blessed\nSacrament hanging in our churches\"; and to show the religious character\nof their revolt against the State-imposition of the new form of\nreligion, the insurgents carried the Most Holy Sacrament in a pyx in\ntheir midst, and marched with processional crosses and banners. By the\naid of foreign mercenaries--German and Italian--they were defeated, and\nthousands, some say twenty thousand of the men who rose in defence of\nthe Catholic doctrine of the Mass were slaughtered.\n\nWe have now to go a step farther in our contrast of our Catholic belief\nwith the Reformation principles. This morning I propose to speak of the\nsacred priesthood. The Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass\nimples a sacrificing priesthood. To us a priest in the first place is a\nman chosen, set aside and consecrated for the service of the altar. He\nis a man and, alas! sometimes, in spite of the dignity of his calling,\nhe shows himself to be very human; but by the vocation of God that is\ngiven to him and by his ordination at the hands of the bishop he\nreceives a character which nothing can take away and which enables him\nto stand before the altar and offer the Christian Sacrifice. At his\nword, spoken by the power God has given him, he changes the elements of\nbread and wine into the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, and\noffers them to God a sacrifice for the living and the dead. This is the\nCatholic belief as to the priesthood, and it has been the belief of\nCatholics from the earliest ages. I am not concerned to prove this, but\nmerely state it as a part of our belief.\n\nAs might be expected, the doctrine is set forth clearly in the form of\nOrdination, to be found in the ancient Pontificals, or Books containing\nthose forms, which to-day are practically the same as those used in\nEngland in the sixteenth century. If we take the rite of Ordination to\nthe priesthood we shall immediately note in the address of admonition to\nthe candidates that the Bishop speaks of the purity of life necessary\nfor those \"_who celebrate Mass and consecrate the Body and Blood of\nChrist_\"; whose hands are anointed \"that they may know that they receive\nthe grace of _Consecrating_\"; and who receive the chalice and paten to\nshow \"they receive the _power of offering sacrifices_ pleasing to God,\nsince it belongs to them to consecrate the sacrament of the Body and\nBlood of the Lord on God's altar.\" The candidate is likewise reminded of\nthe excellence of the _priestly office_ by virtue of which the _Passion\nof Christ_ is daily celebrated on the altar.\n\nIn the course of the rite, the priest's hands are blessed, since he is\nto _consecrate the sacrifice_ offered for the sins and offences of the\npeople; and he is given the chalice, etc., to show forth and emphasise\nthe _power to offer sacrifice_ and _celebrate the Mass_; and in the\nfinal blessing God is asked to bless the newly ordained in the priestly\norder who is to offer _Sacrifices_ pleasing to Him. In a word the whole\nOrdination service in the Catholic Pontifical reiterates and most\nemphatically states the fact that the priest is ordained to offer up the\nSacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ upon the altar. This is the\ndominant note running through the entire rite: the ordained is made a\n\"sacrificing priest.\" Towards the close of the ceremony, and after the\nnew priest has acted as such by co-consecrating with the Bishop at Mass,\nthe Bishop gives him the power of jurisdiction by placing his hands upon\nhis head saying: \"Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall forgive\nthey are forgiven,\" etc.\n\nThis was the rite of Ordination to the priesthood which was in existence\nin England at the time when the First Prayer Book of Edward VI was\nimposed on the English clergy and people. On the face of it there could\nbe no possibility of allowing this old Ordination service to stand as it\nwas. The Mass had been changed into a Communion service,--a memorial of\nChrist's Passion,--and the doctrinal teaching of the former had been\nmade, rightly or wrongly, to give place to the Reformed principles\nclearly expressed in the latter. The notion of oblation and sacrifice\nwas now wholly foreign to the Eucharistic teaching, as understood by the\nfollowers of the Lutheran German reformed religion, who had presided\nover the composition of the new Prayer Book. It became therefore\nnecessary to draw up another form for the Ordination of ministers,\nconceived on the same doctrinal basis as that of the Book of Common\nPrayer.\n\nThis new Ordinal was in fact already prepared when the Prayer Book was\nissued, and on January 5, 1550, a Bill to sanction it was introduced\ninto the House of Peers. It gave rise to much discussion, and for\nrefusing to assent to it one of the bishops was lodged in the prison\nwhere others of the Catholic-minded prelates were already confined. The\n\"New form and manner of making and consecrating archbishops, bishops,\npriests, and deacons\" was, however, approved of by Parliament in\nanticipation and ordered to be ready for April 1.\n\nThe new Ordinal did in regard to the ancient Catholic Pontifical what\nthe Communion service had done for the Missal. Having first swept away\nall the minor Orders and the Subdiaconate, the new form carefully and\nsystematically excluded every word that could be interpreted to mean\nthat the candidate was ordained to be a sacrificing priest. For the most\npart the new rite was a new composition, drawn up to meet the doctrinal\nviews as to the Holy Eucharist of the English Reformers of advanced\nLutheran principles. One of the few passages of the Pontifical preserved\nin the Ordinal were the words, \"Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye\nshall forgive,\" etc, which accompanied the Imposition of Hands after the\nordination in the ancient rite and conferred \"the power of the Keys.\" In\nthe new rite this subordinate form became the substantial form of the\nnew Ordination service, although in it there was for a hundred years,\nuntil 1662, no mention of the Order conferred. There can be hardly any\ndoubt that this omission came about by the adoption of the old form by\nthe compilers of the new Ordinal. In the case of the Catholic Pontifical\nno such specific mention was called for, as when used in that to convey\njurisdiction, the priest was already ordained and had co-celebrated with\nthe Bishop.\n\nOnce more I repeat that I am not here concerned with any discussion as\nto whether the new Ordinal was better or worse than the ancient\nPontifical. I desire merely to bring out the facts and to make it clear\nthat the service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer and the\nOrdination service in a doctrinal point of view go together. They are\nthe expression of a change, of a serious organic change from the ancient\nteachings of the Faith, as expressed in the Missal and Pontifical. The\nPrayer Book and the Ordinal of Edward VI were the serious expression of\nthe deliberate alteration in the Eucharistic teachings of the official\nheads of the Church in England at this time. They constituted a break,\nclear, sharp and decisive with the past. There can be no doubt of this\nin view of the facts. The change may have been for good or for ill, but\nit can hardly be denied that it was made, and made not by accident but\nof set purpose. It was a deliberate breach in the continuity of teaching\nas to the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, which had\nexisted in the Church in England from the earliest days of Christianity;\nand the new teaching found its expression in the new formularies. [1]\n\n\n[1] The subsequent history of the Anglican Church shows that even the\nneed of Episcopal ordination was not considered absolutely necessary for\nthe administration of the Sacraments in that Communion. It was not,\nindeed, until 1662 that it was legally necessary for a beneficed\nclergyman to have been so ordained. Bishop Hooker himself admitted the\nministration and received the Communion from the hands of Saravia who\nwas a Calvinistic minister. The truth of this position is upheld by the\npresent Anglican Bishop of Durham in a letter to the London _Times_ of\nDec. 13, 1913. He cites as witnesses: \"Bancroft, who carried his\ncolleagues, including Andrews, with him in consecrating Presbyterian\nministers Bishops for Scotland in 1609; Andrews, who claims 'our\ngovernment to be by Divine right, yet it follows not that a Church\ncannot stand without it': Ussher, who says (to Du Moulin), after a\nsolemn assertion of the greatness of Episcopacy, that he is prepared, to\nreceive the Blessed Sacrament at the hand of the French ministers if he\nwere at Charenton' . . . and Cosin, asserting in his Will his 'union of\nsoul with all the orthodox,' 'which I desire chiefly to be understood of\nProtestants and the best Reformed Churches.'\"\n\n\nThere can be no doubt as to what the ardent Reformers, who had the\nmatter in hand, intended to do. The press teemed with books of ribald\ndenunciation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Orders of the ancient\nCatholic rite were derided in such terms as \"greasy and stinking\"\nOrders. Moreover, the destruction of the altars obviously emphasised the\nchange which had taken place. The abolition of the Sacrifice and the\nSacrificing priesthood made them obsolete and unnecessary. Bishop\nRidley, a reforming prelate of the most uncompromising type, directed\nthe Churchwardens of London to pull down the popish altars and to\nprocure in their place \"the form of a table\" in order \"more and more to\nturn the simple from the old superstitious opinions of the popish Mass.\"\nThe substitute for the Catholic altars was to be \"after the form of an\nhonest table decently covered,\" and was to be placed anywhere in the\nchancel or choir, as was found most convenient. At St. Paul's, London,\nfor example, various experiments were made both as to the best position\nof the table and as to how best the minister could stand at it. Four\nyears later Bishop White of Winchester taunted Ridley about this. \"When\nyour table was constituted,\" he said, \"you could never be content in\nplacing the same, now east, now north, now one way, now another, until\nit pleased God of His goodness to place it clean out of the Church.\"\n\nBeyond this the altar-stones, which by solemn rites and the unction of\nHoly Oil had been consecrated to God for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and\nupon which the Body and Blood of Christ had been offered daily for the\nliving and the dead, were not only pulled down, cast out of the church\nand defaced, but were out of derision and contempt set in the floor or\nthe doorway that the passer-by might tread them under foot; or were\nturned to other still more debased uses. To us Catholics the consecrated\naltar, with its relics of the saints and the memories of its hallowed\nconsecration, is the most sacred thing, set apart to God's service,\ntogether with the chalice and the paten in which and upon which the\nmystery of the sacramental renewal of Christ's Passion is effected by\nthe words of the priest. It was this hallowed stone which was treated\nwith disdain and dishonour. To those who would have us think that the\nwhole of the changes made at the time of the Reformation were mere\nprotests, against what they please to call the abuse of the Mass, in the\nmultiplication of Masses for the living and the dead, the fact of the\ncontemptuous and wholesale destruction of the ancient altars and the\nsubstitution of a moveable table, should be sufficient to show that it\nwas no abuse that was thought of, or aimed at, but the abolition of the\nSacrifice altogether.\n\nBut there were other indications that this abolition of the Mass and\npriesthood was the set policy of the men in power at this time. A more\nadvanced Calvinist than even Ridley urged the party forward on the down\ngrade of Catholic doctrine. In 1550 John Hooper was offered the\nbishopric of Gloucester, but refused it, partly because of the mention\nof Saints in the New Ordinal, but mainly because of the vestments, which\nhe would be called upon to wear and which he regarded as aaronic\nabominations. \"You have got rid of the Mass,\" he said, \"then rid\nyourselves of the feathers of the Mass also.\" Later, however, when in\ndoctrinal principle Cranmer and others had advanced further in the\ndirection of Calvin, Hooper was consecrated according to the new Ordinal\non his own terms. The Mass was gone; the priesthood had passed away; the\naltars were pulled down in the sanctuaries; the consecrated stones were\nbroken and dishonoured, and why should not the Vestments--Aaronic\nabominations--indicative of the sacrificial character of the priest be\ndispensed with also?\n\nThe time was propitious for Cranmer to take measures for the final\ndestruction of the old order. Since the imposition of the First Book of\nCommon Prayer he had had time to grow out of his previous Lutheranism\nand had come under the spell of Calvin and his adherents in Geneva. The\nReformer had written to Cranmer a personal letter urging him to be more\nactive and hasten on the movement of Reform. The Archbishop of\nCanterbury had replied begging Calvin to ply King Edward with letters\nurging him to eradicate the last vestiges of the old superstition. This\nwas the spirit which presided at the composition of the Second Book of\nEdward VI. It was issued in 1552, and before this commissions were\ndispatched throughout the country to seize in the King's name all church\nplate and vestments.\n\nI have already spoken a word about this final recension of the Liturgy\nof Edward VI. It is here sufficient to say that it was Calvinistic in\nits conception and doctrine. In the First Prayer Book there was some\nslight outward resemblance to the Mass. This was swept away, and, to use\nthe expression of one who lived at the time, this new liturgy \"had made\na very hay of the Mass.\" Of the ancient _Canon_, which the Apostolic See\nhad possessed from the earliest ages and had kept inviolate, nothing was\nallowed to survive, even as to form. Great Popes like St. Leo and St.\nGregory had inserted a few words into this inheritance of the Church\nwith fear and reverence. Such men would have considered it sacrilegious\nand impious to alter or reject any part of it. Cranmer and his followers\nfelt no such scruples. They first mutilated it and altered it to their\nheart's content and finally got rid of nearly every word of it\naltogether. The outcome of their work may be studied in the Anglican\nBook of Common Prayer to-day, where the Communion Service is\nsubstantially that of the Book of 1552.\n\n\n\nIV\n\nIV\n\nTHE CHURCH BY LAW ESTABLISHED\n\nBEARING in mind what the Catholic teaching was and is in regard to the\nSupremacy of the Pope, the Holy Mass and the sacrificial character of\nthe priesthood, we can understand how far away from these teachings the\nlegislation of King Edward's reign had carried England. To our Catholic\nforefathers in the beginning of the 16th Century, as to us to-day, the\nPope was the Supreme Head of the Christian Church and the foundation of\nChristian unity. The Mass was the great Christian Sacrifice in which the\nbread and wine were substantially changed into the very Body and Blood\nof our Blessed Lord. The priest at his Ordination was given a\nsacrificial character, expressed clearly in the rite, empowering him to\noffer up the Eucharistic Sacrifice upon the Christian altar. In the\nsecond quarter of the 16th Century all these points of belief were\nchanged by a small but determined band of English Reformers.\n\nFor a few years, on the death of Edward VI, Mary restored the old\nreligion; the papal supremacy and jurisdiction was again acknowledged;\nthe altars were once more set up; the ancient liturgy of the Mass was\nread again from the old missals; priests were again ordained according\nto the rite in the Catholic Pontifical, and the ordinations of those who\nhad received orders under the Edwardine Ordinal were rejected. I pass\nover the reign of Queen Mary, which came to an end with her death in\nNovember, 1558. I am dealing with Catholic beliefs contrasted with the\nprinciples of the Reformation, and in this brief reign of Queen Mary the\ncountry returned to union with Rome, and all that this implied.\n\nOf this reign, however, I may be allowed perhaps to add the verdict of\nthe late Dr. James Gairdner, a non-Catholic historian, than whom no one\nhas a greater right to speak with authority. \"History has been cruel to\nher (Mary's) memory. The horrid epithet 'bloody,' bestowed so\nunscrupulously alike on her and on Bonner and Gardiner and the bishops\ngenerally, had at least a plausible justification in her case from the\nseverities to which she gave her sanction. . . . Among the victims, no\ndoubt, there were many true heroes and really honest men, but many of\nthem also would have been persecutors if they had had their way. Most of\nthem retained the belief in a Catholic Church but rejected the Mass and\nheld by the services authorised in Edward VI.'s reign. But of course\nthis meant complete rejection of an older authority--higher according to\nthe time-honoured theory than that of any king or Parliament--which had\nnever been openly set aside until that generation.\"\n\nWith Queen Mary's premature death religious difficulties revived. At\nfirst it was not generally known whether her successor, Elizabeth, would\nremain staunch to the old religion or favour the new, although there\nwere suspicions that she was inclined to the latter. She was welcomed as\nsovereign by all parties, Catholic as well as Protestant, and no one now\nI believe credits the silly story that she was forced into the arms of\nthe Reformers by the refusal of the Pope to recognise her as lawful\nQueen.\n\nAlmost from the first it was easy to conjecture which way lay her\ninclination. By the advice of Cecil, her chief adviser, she formed a\nsecret cabinet within a cabinet, which occupied itself with a project\nfor \"the alteration of religion,\" as it is called in the document still\nextant. Those \"now in the Pope's religion\" were to be got rid of, and by\nprocess of law all were to be made to \"abjure the Pope of Rome and\nconform themselves to the new alterations.\" What these \"alterations\" in\nthe form of religion signified is not doubtful. They meant the\nreintroduction of the liturgical reforms of Edward's reign, including\nthe abolition of the Catholic missal and Ordinal.\n\nOne of the first measures proposed to Parliament at the beginning of the\nnew reign was the Act of Royal Supremacy. Its object was of course to do\naway with the Spiritual Supremacy of the Pope and substitute that of the\nCrown, and a stringent oath admitting this was to be required of all\nholding any office in the State. By this, every adherent of the old\nfaith was deliberately excluded from any and every position in the\nChurch or State.\n\nAt this time ten of the English Sees were vacant and the brunt of the\nbattle for the preservation of the old religion fell upon the diminished\nnumber of Bishops in the House of Lords. Their hands were, however,\nstrengthened greatly by a solemn pronouncement made by the clergy in\nConvocation, wherein they declared their entire belief in the Catholic,\nas opposed to the Reformed teaching of the existence of the \"natural\nbody of Christ\" under the \"species of bread and wine\" in \"the Sacrament\nof the Altar, by virtue of the word of Christ, spoken by the priest.\"\nThey declared also their belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation\nand in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and at the same time affirmed \"that to\nBlessed Peter and to his lawful successors in the Apostolic See, as\nVicars of Christ, has been given the supreme power of feeding and ruling\nthe Church of Christ upon Earth and of confirming their brethren.\" The\nEnglish universities at this time also made the same declaration. Thus,\nwhen change of religion and the readoption of the principles of the\nReformed Churches of Germany which had ruled in the days of Edward VI.\nwas in the air, the unfettered Church in England, the bishops, clergy\nand the teaching bodies boldly declared for the old catholic faith of\nthe Holy Eucharist, the Mass and the Supremacy of the Pope.\n\nBut, the power was again in the hands of those who desired the\n\"alteration of religion,\" as it was called, and this was effected mainly\nby three acts of Parliament. By the first, the tenths on Ecclesiastical\nproperty were given over to the crown; by the second, the Supremacy of\nthe sovereign in matters ecclesiastical was reaffirmed; and the third,\nthe Act of Uniformity authorised and imposed under serious penalties the\nReformed Prayer Book of Edward VI. in place of the ancient Catholic\nMissal and Pontifical. The Bishops in the House of Lords fought these\nmeasures step by step and unanimously voted against them. With a few\nunimportant modifications the new Eucharist office was that of the\nsecond Book of Common Prayer of 1552--the Book, from which every vestige\nof the mass in its essential parts had been removed. After a struggle,\nin which by some means the defenders of the old religion delayed the\npassage of the measure, it was passed by a majority of only three votes,\nand without the support of one single spiritual peer. To a man the\nBishops of the Church opposed the Bill. The famous speeches of Bishop\nScot and of Abbot Feckenham, in which they challenged history to produce\na single instance where the bishops of any church were not consulted and\nlistened to in so momentous a change, were the last constitutional\nefforts of the Church of England to prevent the innovations in matters\nof religion being imposed by Parliament upon the consciences of those\nwho regarded them as heretical. The very narrow majority, which carried\nthis religious revolution, makes it more than likely that their\narguments had weight. There can be no reasonable doubt that had ten\nepiscopal sees not been vacant at this time the intentions of the\nGovernment would have been defeated, at least for a time, and the new\nLiturgy would not then have been imposed upon all by an act of\nParliament. As it was, the Elizabethan settlement of religion--as it is\ncalled--rested obviously on the infallibility of the odd three votes of\nthe majority.\n\nIt was now that the \"Act of Uniformity in Religion\" came to be enforced.\nBy it the Tudor maxim _Cujus regio ejus religio_--that must be the\nreligion of a kingdom, which is the religion of the ruler--was carried\nout in practice. The form of religion authorised by the Queen and the\nParliamentary majority was the only one allowed. The consciences of\nindividuals were disregarded, and just as in the days of the persecuting\npagan Emperors Christians were compelled by force to throw incense on\nthe altars of the pagan gods, so now with equal disregard for freedom of\nconscience Catholics--those who refused to accept the Elizabethan\nsettlement of religion--were forced by fines, imprisonment and other\npenalties, to attend the new services in their parish churches. They\nbecame known as \"Recusants\" for refusing to be present at the Communion\nService of the English Prayer Book, which had again taken the place of\nthe Holy Mass.\n\nThen, too, began a systematic attempt to stamp out the old religion. The\npriesthood was proscribed, and priests were hunted down and exiled for\noffering up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and, during the centuries of\npersecution, which began with the reign of Queen Elizabeth, hundreds of\npriests and others were put to death for the sole crime of having said\nor having been present at the Mass. In the well-known phrase of one of\nthe present English cabinet ministers: \"It was the Mass that mattered,\"\nand the real struggle was for this all along the line. To the Catholic,\nwho realised all that the Mass meant,--how it was the centre of his\nreligion and the sublime Christian Sacrifice, it was a point of honour\nand conscience to imperil fortune and even life for so sacred a\nheritage. To the Protestant in those days the Mass was a fable and\ndangerous deceit, and with Luther he desired above all things to root\nout this superstition from the land; and so, as there could be no Mass\nwithout a Mass-priest, all the efforts of those in power were directed\ntowards extirpating all those who continued in spite of the laws to\nexercise their ministry, and to prevent others coming from abroad to\ncontinue their work, when they either perished on the scaffold, or worn\nout by the long continued persecution and constant searches for them,\npassed away in their hiding places. In England and in Ireland the record\nof this terrible time makes us wonder how it was possible that any\nremnant of the old religion could have survived.\n\nCecil, who was the master brain directing the policy of Queen Elizabeth,\nhad counted upon the gradual extinction of the old Marian priesthood and\nthe consequent eradication of the old Faith from the hearts of a people\nleft without priest or teacher or Sacraments. From 1580 the coming of\nthe Jesuits and seminary priests from abroad, to keep the light of the\nFaith alive if possible, in spite of fines and the rack and gallows,\nmade it clear to the all-powerful minister that he had miscalculated the\neffect of his repressive policy. From that time the persecution began in\nearnest.\n\nWhat contributed no doubt to increase the trials of the English and\nIrish Catholics was the embarrassing excommunication pronounced by Pope\nPius V against Queen Elizabeth. It furnished the government with a\nweapon they were not slow to seize upon, by making it appear to the\npopular mind as if a political offence, if not a criminal treason, was\nconnected with the exercise of the Catholic faith. Catholics for being\nCatholics were henceforth treated as traitors. For the last twenty years\nof this reign, with one exception, there were numerous executions for\nreligion in England. Most of those who suffered thus were\npriests--Mass-priests as they were called in derision of their sacerdotal\ncharacter. Thousands of men and women also were punished under the penal\nlaws for the exercise of the old religion. Fines and imprisonment were\nthe lot of those who refused at any price to accept the religious\nsettlement of the sovereign--to accept the form of religion which their\nconsciences refused. The sad records of this period show that many a\nCatholic family was impoverished and destroyed by the fines levied upon\nit. Gradually even great estates had to be sold to meet the demands of\npenal laws against recusancy--the refusal to attend the Protestant\nservice. Then followed a long period of repression and ostracism. For\ntwo centuries the unfortunate papist was shut out of the life of the\nnation and subject to every insult and baseless accusation. One writer\nwho lived during this period says of this system: \"The experience of\nElizabeth's reign had shown that the infliction of actual death roused a\nlife-giving enthusiasm among Catholics themselves and sympathy in the\nwitnesses of their sufferings. The penal system now introduced was the\npreference for gagging a man, binding him hand and foot, bandaging his\neyes and imprisoning him for life, rather than killing him outright.\"\n\nEverywhere throughout England and Ireland there was a stolid and heroic\nresistance to the imposition of the new form of State church on the part\nof those who remained true to the old religion. Looking back to those\ndays of darkness and despair it seems impossible to believe that any\nremnant of those who would not bow their knees to Baal could survive the\nsystem by which it was hoped to crush them. And when liberty of\nconscience was at last accorded it was more in the spirit of compassion\nthan in any expectation that they could revive and live again that it\nwas given. As well might the world think that the worship of Pan or of\nJupiter would spring again into life as that the poor, despised, dying\nCatholics could expand and grow once more into a position of respect and\ninfluence, reasserting and publicly upholding the principles of the\nCatholic Faith, for which their forefathers in England and Ireland had\nsuffered persecution and even death.\n\nThese principles I have endeavoured to set out during the past four\nSundays. Mainly there were only three, which were attacked by the\nupholders of the Reformation doctrines. The Papal Supremacy over the\nChurch, the safeguard of unity of Faith, and a mark of the Church,\nChrist established in this world; the Christian Sacrifice--the Mass,\nattacked and swept away by the Reformers; and the Priesthood in its\nsacrificial character, which was the necessary consequence of the\nEucharistic doctrine upheld by the German and English Reformers. There\nwere of course many minor points of Catholic belief and practice which\nwere attacked and destroyed in these days; such, for example, as\ndevotion to the Mother of God and the Saints, and the long established\ncustom of blessed ashes and candles and the creeping to the Cross on\nGood Friday. But the main lines of departure from the Catholic Faith\nalong which the Reformation moved were the three I have indicated. A\nreturn can be contemplated only by frankly facing the issues. To-day we\nfind men of the highest intelligence and good faith claiming to have the\nsame Christian sacrifice and the same sacrificing priests as the\nCatholic Church, and they are using a Communion Service from which of\nset purpose every notion of Oblation and Sacrifice has been ruthlessly\nremoved, and their ministers are ordained by an Ordinal, which\ndesignedly was composed to express the rejection of the sacrificial\ncharacter of the Christian priest. The prayer for Christian Unity must\ngo up from every heart, but if it is to be something more than\nsentiment, the facts must be faced frankly and with courage.\n\n\n\nBOOKS SUGGESTED FOR READING\n\n  Short History of the Church in England. _Gasquet_.\n  Henry III and the Church. _Gasquet_.\n  Roman Law and Canon Law. _Maitland_.\n  Lollardy and the Reformation, 4 vols. _Gairdner_.\n  History of the Reformation. _Blunt_.\n  History of the English Church in the 16th Century. _Gairdner_.\n  The Eve of the Reformation. _Gasquet_.\n  England under the Old Religion and Other Essays. _Gasquet_.\n  What then happened at the Reformation (in above).\n  Henry VIII and the English Monasteries. _Gasquet_.\n  Henry VI and the Book of Common Prayer. _Gasquet and Bishop_.\n  What Edward VI did with the Liturgy (in England under the Old Religion).\n  Anglican Ordinations (in above).\n  Anglican Ordinations. _Canon Estcourt_.\n  The Pope and the Ordinal. _S. Barnes_.\n  The Elizabethan Religious Settlement. _H. N. Birt_.\n  Hampshire Recusants. _Gasquet_.\n  The Line of Cleavage (C. T. Soc.). _H. N. Birt_.\n  Parker Society publications.\n  Catholic Truth Society--various Historical Papers.\n  The Ecclesia Anglicana, for what does it Stand? By the Bishop of\n    Tanzibar, and subsequent correspondence in the _London Times_,\n    December, 1913, and January, 1914.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Breaking with the Past; Or, Catholic Principles Abandoned at the Reformation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":13087}