X

The differing types of opinion in regard to the Eucharist held by different groups of Reformers were considered with great care at the Council of Trent by the Bishops who remained in communion with the Pope. Some years elapsed between the first project of this council and its actual meeting. Shortly after the accession of Pope Paul III. in 1534 he determined to summon a council to consider the affairs of the Church. It was at first ordered that the council should meet at Mantua in 1537. Various circumstances occurred to cause delay; and the first session was held at Trent in 1545. In 1547 the sittings of the council were transferred to Bologna; and in the same year they were suspended. Up to this point in the proceedings the chief subjects considered in all the sessions except the seventh were the Creed, Holy Scripture, and the doctrine of Grace. Between the sixth and the seventh sessions, both of which were held at Trent, the Sacraments in general, Holy Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist were very fully considered and discussed. At the seventh session the council affirmed thirteen canons on the Sacraments in general, fourteen canons on Baptism, and three canons on Confirmation. No further point than discussion was reached in regard to the Eucharist. In the canons on the Sacraments in general the number of the “Sacraments of the new law” was declared to be seven, all of which were “instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ,” of which the Eucharist is one; views placing the “Sacraments of the new law” on a level with those of the Jews, making the seven Sacraments equal to one another, and denying the necessity of them to salvation, were condemned; there were statements on the imprinting of “character” on the soul in Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, the need in ministers of “the intention at least of doing what the Church does,” the valid nature of Sacraments administered by a sinful minister, the incapacity of Christians in general to administer all the Sacraments, and the lack of authority on the part of individual ministers to alter “the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church”. On the relation of the Sacraments to grace the canons were as follows:—

“If any one shall say that these Sacraments were instituted for the purpose of nourishing faith alone, let him be anathema.”

“If any one shall say that the Sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace itself on those who place no obstacle (obicem), as if they were only external signs of the grace or righteousness which are received by means of faith, and certain marks of Christian profession by which the faithful are distinguished among men from the unbelievers, let him be anathema.”

“If any one shall say that grace is not given by means of Sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as the part of God is concerned, even if they duly receive them, but sometimes and to some, let him be anathema.”

“If any one shall say that grace is not conferred from the work wrought (ex opere operato) by means of the Sacraments of the new law themselves, but that faith in the promise of God is sufficient by itself for the reception of grace, let him be anathema.”

The eighth session was that which determined on the transference of the council to Bologna; and the ninth, tenth, and eleventh sessions, which were held at Bologna, transacted little but formal business.

After the suspension of the sittings of the council in 1547 no further meeting was held during the Papacy of Paul III. In 1549 Paul III. died, and in 1550 he was succeeded by Pope Julius III. In 1551 the new Pope summoned the council to meet again; and the sittings were resumed at Trent in May. Between this date and 28th April, 1552, when the proceedings were again suspended, the subjects of the Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction were considered. In regard to the Eucharist a statement of the opinions of the different schools of Reformers had been drawn up as a basis of consideration at the earlier proceedings at Trent; and this statement, with some alterations, was now again submitted to the judgment of the theologians. It is of considerable importance as giving a brief abstract, apparently mostly made with great fairness, of the crucial points in the teaching of the Reformers, and as showing that the differences between the Lutherans and others were clearly understood by those who drew it up. It is as follows:—

“1. In the Eucharist there is not really the body and blood or the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only as in a sign. This is the error of Zwingli and Oecolampadius and the Sacramentarians.

“2. In the Eucharist Christ is presented to the communicants (exhiberi), but only spiritually, to be eaten by means of faith, not sacramentally. This is an article of the above-mentioned heretics, especially Oecolampadius.… While they do not deny that Christ is really in the Eucharist, they assert that Christ cannot be eaten except by means of faith, and that only the morsel of bread is taken sacramentally.

“3. In the Eucharist there is indeed the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but together with the substance of the bread and the wine, so that there is no Transubstantiation, but a hypostatic union of the humanity and the substance of the bread and the wine, so that it is true to say, This bread is My body, and This wine is My blood. Martin Luther speaks thus.…

“4. The Eucharist was instituted only for the remission of sins. This article … is Luther’s.

“5. In the Eucharist Christ is not to be adored, or to be worshipped on the feasts, or to be carried about in processions, or to be taken to the sick; and those who thus adore Him are real idolaters. Luther thus speaks. … The same is also taught in the Confession of Augsburg.

“6. The Eucharist is not to be reserved in the sanctuary, but is to be consumed at once, and given to those who are present; and those who act otherwise abuse this Sacrament. Nor is it lawful for any one to give Communion to himself. These statements are made in the book of reformation for the people of Cologne.

“7. The body of Christ does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles after the Communion, but is there only while it is being received, not before or after reception. This article is Luther’s. …

“8. It is of the law of God to give Communion to the people and to little children under both kinds; and therefore they sin who compel the people to use one kind only. It is so stated in the Confession of Augsburg.… Luther also so speaks.…

“9. As much is not contained under one kind as under both, neither does a communicant under one kind receive as much as a communicant under both. John Eck says … Luther thus asserts.…

“10. Faith by itself is sufficient preparation for the reception of the Sacrament, neither is Confession before it necessary, but free, especially to the instructed. Nor are men under obligation to communicate at Easter. Luther thus speaks.…”

This statement of the opinions of the Reformers was submitted to the consideration of a large number of theologians present at Trent. Their reports, as given by Angelo Massarello, the Bishop of Telese, the secretary of the council, are strongly hostile to the teaching described in it. As a result of their consideration of the matter, all the theologians consulted advised the absolute condemnation of the first, third, fifth, seventh, and eighth propositions, and the first part of the sixth. Some of them suggested that the condemnation of the second, fourth, ninth, and tenth propositions, and the second part of the sixth, should be so worded as to show accurately in what sense the condemnation was passed. The fathers of the council after lengthy discussions drew up a statement of doctrine and a number of canons; and these were formally approved in the thirteenth session of the council. In the statement of doctrine the reason for the institution of the Eucharist was described as being that the memory of Christ might be preserved and His death proclaimed; that the Sacrament might be taken as “the spiritual food of souls, whereby they might be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of” Christ, and as an “antidote, whereby we might be set free from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins”; and that it might be a “pledge of our future glory” and a “symbol of that one body of which He Himself is the Head, to which He willed that we, as members, should be bound by the closest ties of faith and hope and love”. It was declared that “after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and Man, is really and actually and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things”; that He is “ever at the right hand of the Father in heaven after a natural manner of being,” but is also “present with us in many other places sacramentally in His substance according to that manner of being which is possible to God, though we can hardly express it in words”. Of this supernatural presence of Christ it was further said that “immediately after the consecration the real body of the Lord and His real blood are under the species of bread and wine together with His soul and Godhead”; “the body under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine from the force of the words”; “the body under the species of wine and the blood under the species of bread and the soul under both by the force of that natural connection and concomitance whereby the parts of the Lord Christ, who has now risen from the dead no more to die, are united with one another”; “the Godhead by reason of its wonderful hypostatic union with the body and the soul”; so that “the whole and complete Christ is under the species of bread and under every part of that species and also under the species of wine and under the parts of it”. Of Transubstantiation it was said that “by the consecration of the bread and wine the conversion takes place of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood, which conversion is fittingly and rightly called Transubstantiation by the Holy Catholic Church”. It was pointed out that the duty of adoring the Sacrament was not impaired by the fact that it was instituted for the purpose of Communion; and processions of the Sacrament and reservation of it and the carrying of it to the sick were approved. Stress was laid on the need of reverent approach to the Sacrament; and the custom that no one conscious of mortal sin should communicate without previous sacramental Confession was pronounced to be right. The traditional distinction of “three ways of receiving this holy Sacrament” was accepted, namely, the merely sacramental reception by which sinners partake of it; the reception spiritual only on the part of those “who desire to eat the heavenly bread and experience its fruit and benefit by living faith, which works by love”; and the reception which is both sacramental and spiritual by those “who first so prove and prepare themselves that they may approach this divine Table clad in the marriage robe”. This doctrinal statement included an exhortation to Christians to “believe and venerate these holy mysteries of the body and blood of” “our Lord Jesus Christ” “with such constancy and firmness of faith, such dedication of mind, such godliness and devotion, that they may be able frequently to receive the supersubstantial bread, and that it may be really the life of their souls and the abiding health of their minds,” so that “they may be able to attain to the heavenly country and receive without a veil the same Bread of angels of which they now eat under the sacred veils”. The canons put in a shorter form and made obligatory what was thus taught in the doctrinal statement. They were as follows:—

“1. If any one shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained really and actually and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it only as in a sign or a figure or in power, let him be anathema.

“2. If any one shall say that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and unique conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine only remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most suitably calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

“3. If any one shall deny that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every separate part of each species, when they are divided, let him be anathema.

“4. If any one shall say that in the wonderful Sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not after consecration, but only in use while it is being received, and not before or after, and that the real body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles which are reserved or are left over after Communion, let him be anathema.

“5. If any one shall say either that the chief fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that no other effects result from it, let him be anathema.

“6. If any one shall say that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the worship due to God including the outward marks of such worship (cultu latriœ etiam externo); and therefore that the Sacrament is not to be venerated with a special festival commemoration, and is not to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal custom and practice of the Church; or that it is not to be shown to the people publicly for them to adore; and that those who adore it are idolaters, let him be anathema.

“7. If any one shall say that it is not lawful for the Holy Eucharist to be reserved in the sanctuary, but that it must necessarily be distributed after the consecration to those who are present; or that it is not lawful for it to be borne with honour to the sick, let him be anathema.

“8. If any one shall say that Christ presented (exhibitum) in the Eucharist is eaten only spiritually and not also sacramentally and actually, let him be anathema.

“9. If any one shall deny that all and every one of the faithful people of Christ of both sexes, when they have come to years of discretion, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of the Holy Church, let him be anathema.

“10. If any one shall say that it is not lawful for a priest who is the celebrant to administer the Communion to himself, let him be anathema.

“11. If any one shall say that faith by itself is sufficient preparation for receiving the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema. And in order that so great a Sacrament may not be received unworthily, and therefore to death and condemnation, this holy council appoints and declares that sacramental Confession must necessarily precede Communion in the case of those whose conscience is under the burden of mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves, if they have access to a confessor. If any one shall presume to teach or preach or persistently assert or even defend in a public disputation the contrary, let him thereby be counted excommunicate.”

In the congregation which preceded the thirteenth session of the council it had been decided that the practical questions as to Communion in one or in both kinds and as to the Communion of little children should be postponed; and most of the rest of 1551 was devoted to the consideration of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. In December, 1551, the consideration of the sacrifice of the Mass was begun. As in the case of the doctrine of the Eucharistic presence, the first step was to draw up a statement of the opinions of the different types of Reformers, and to submit it to the judgment of the theologians attending the council. This statement was as follows:—

“1. The Mass is not a sacrifice, nor an offering for sins, but only a commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross. Though it is metaphorically called a sacrifice by the fathers, yet it is not really and properly a sacrifice, but only a covenant and promise of the remission of sins. This article is asserted by Luther … and it is stated in the Defence of Augsburg.

“2. The Mass is not of the Gospel and it was not instituted by Christ, but it was invented by men; neither is it a good or meritorious work; rather in it is committed manifest and multiple idolatry. This assertion is made in the Defence of Augsburg and by Calvin and Melanchthon.…

“3. Blasphemous despite is done to the most holy sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross if any one believes that the Son of God is offered anew to God the Father by priests in the Mass. That Christ is mystically sacrificed and offered for us is nothing else than that He is given to us to be eaten. And in the words, ‘Do this for My memorial’ Christ did not ordain that the Apostles should offer His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Urban Rieger … Luther … Bucer.…

“4. The canon of the Mass is full of mistakes and delusions, ought to be abolished, and is to be avoided no less than the worst abomination. This is stated in the Defence of Augsburg and by Zwingli and Bullinger and Melanchthon.…

“5. The Mass is not profitable as a sacrifice either to the living or to the dead; and it is impious to apply it for sins, satisfactions, and other needs. Melanchthon … Calvin … the Defence of Augsburg … Luther.…

“6. As no one communicates for another, or is absolved for another, so neither in the Mass can a priest offer sacrifice for another. This is stated in the Defence of Augsburg.

“7. Private Masses, that is, those in which the priest alone, and no other, communicates, did not exist before Gregory the Great, and are unlawful and to be abolished, and are opposed to the institution of Christ, and present excommunication rather than the Communion instituted by Christ. The Defence of Augsburg and Calvin.…

“8. Wine is not the matter of this sacrifice. Neither is water to be mixed with the wine in the cup. So to mix it is contrary to the institution of Christ. Bucer.…

“9. The rite of the Church of Rome by which the words of consecration are said secretly and in a low voice is to be condemned; and the Mass ought to be celebrated only in a vernacular language which all understand; and it is an imposture to assign certain Masses to certain saints. This is asserted by Calvin.…

“10. In the celebration of Masses all ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs are incitements to impiety rather than offices of piety. And as the Mass of Christ was most simple, so the nearer and the more like a Mass is to that first Mass of all the more Christian it is. Luther.…”

Reports on this statement of the opinions ascribed to the Reformers were made by the theologians. They were strongly hostile to the whole tendency of the opinions described, though qualifications by careful distinctions were suggested in some of the condemnations proposed and it was pointed out that the statement “wine is not the matter of this sacrifice” did not appear to represent any current view. Discussions took place in the council after the reception of the reports of the theologians; and canons had been drawn up for examination and consideration on this subject and on the Sacrament of Orders when the proceedings of the council were again suspended on 28th April, 1552.

In 1555 Pope Julius III. died. His successor Pope Marcellus II. occupied the papal see for three weeks only. Paul IV. was Pope from 1555 to 1559. In 1559 Pope Pius IV. succeeded to the Papacy, and in 1560 he ordered that the Council of Trent should again meet. Action was taken on the practical matters which had been postponed in 1551. In June, 1562, four canons were affirmed in the twenty-first session of the council denying the necessity of Communion in both kinds and of the Communion of little children. To these canons a statement was added to the effect that the question of permitting Communion in both kinds in some places and circumstances was postponed for further consideration; and after much discussion the council passed a decree by a majority in September, 1562, remitting this question to the Pope. In July, 1562, the consideration of the sacrifice of the Mass, which had been interrupted by the suspension of the council in 1552, was resumed. A series of thirteen questions on the points raised by the propositions contained in the list drawn up in December, 1551, was submitted to the theologians. These questions were the following:—

“1. Whether the Mass is only a commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not a real sacrifice.

“2. Whether the sacrifice of the Mass does despite to the sacrifice accomplished on the cross.

“3. Whether in the words, ‘This do for My memorial,’ Christ ordained that the Apostles should offer His body and blood in the Mass.

“4. Whether the sacrifice which takes place in the Mass is beneficial only to one who receives it, and cannot be offered for others, both living and dead, and for their sins and satisfactions and other needs.

“5. Whether private Masses, that is, those in which the priest alone, and no other, communicates, are unlawful and to be abolished.

“6. Whether it is contrary to the institution of Christ that water should be mixed with the wine in the Mass.

“7. Whether the canon of the Mass contains errors and ought to be abolished.

“8. Whether the custom of the Church of Rome by which the words of consecration are uttered secretly and in a low voice is to be condemned.

“9. Whether the Mass ought to be celebrated only in a vernacular language, which all understand.

“10. Whether it is an abuse to assign certain Masses to certain saints.

“11. Whether the ceremonies and vestments and outward signs which the Church uses in the celebration of Masses are to be done away.

“12. Whether it is the same for Christ to be mystically offered for us and for Him to be given to us to be eaten.

“13. Whether the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or also a propitiatory sacrifice, both for the living and for the dead.”

After the submission of these questions, reports were made by the theologians, and lengthy discussions by the fathers of the council took place. Eventually a statement of doctrine and canons giving effect to it were affirmed by the council in September, 1562, at the twenty-second session. The statement of doctrine recounted that “our Lord Jesus Christ,” “although He was about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross by the intervention of death to accomplish there eternal redemption,” “yet at the Last Supper left to His Church a visible sacrifice,” “whereby that bloody sacrifice once for all to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, and His memorial might abide even unto the end of the world, and the saving power of the sacrifice of the cross might be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit”; and “declaring Himself appointed for ever a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father”; and “appointed His Apostles priests of the new covenant”; and “commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer sacrifice”. The “visible sacrifice” thus appointed was declared to be “really propitiatory,” so that “through it” those who “come to God with a true heart and right faith, with fear and reverence, in contrition and penitence, obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need”. As to the relation of the sacrifice of the Mass to the cross it was said that in both alike “the Victim is one and the same,” since He who “offered Himself on the cross” “now offers by the ministry of priests,” “the method of offering alone being different”; that “the fruits of the bloody offering” on the cross “are most richly received by means of this bloodless offering”; and that consequently “no despite of any kind is done” to the work of Christ on the cross. It was added that the sacrifice of the Mass might rightly be offered “for the sins and penalties and satisfactions and other needs of the faithful still alive, and also for the departed in Christ who are not yet fully cleansed”. Approval was expressed of the connection of thanksgivings for the saints and prayers for their intercessions with Masses offered to God; and of the canon and the ceremonies of the Mass. Of “private Masses” it was said that it was desirable for Communions to be made at every Mass “not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist,” so that those thus communicating might have “the richer fruit of this most holy sacrifice”; but that, failing communicants, Masses might be celebrated in which “the priest alone communicates sacramentally”; and that such Masses “ought to be accounted really general (vere communes), partly because in them the people communicate spiritually, and partly because they are celebrated by the public minister of the Church not only for himself, but for all the faithful who pertain to the body of Christ”. It was ordered that water should be mixed with the wine because of “the belief that this was done by the Lord Christ”; of the “flow of water together with blood from His side”; and of the “representation of the union of Christians with Christ their Head”. It was further laid down that the Mass was not to be said in the vernacular everywhere, but should be frequently explained to the people. The canons which imposed the crucial points of the doctrinal statement were as follows:—

“1. If any one shall say that in the Mass a real and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, or that no other offering is made than that Christ is given to us to be eaten, let him be anathema.

“2. If any one shall say that in the words, ‘Do this for My memorial,’ Christ did not appoint the Apostles priests, or did not institute that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema.

“3. If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross and not propitiatory or that it is of profit only to one who communicates, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the departed, for sins, penalties, satisfactions, and other needs, let him be anathema.

“4. If any one shall say that by the sacrifice of the Mass any blasphemy or despite is done to the most holy sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross, let him be anathema.

“5. If any one shall say that it is an imposition to celebrate Masses to the honour of the saints and to obtain their intercession with God, let him be anathema.

“6. If any one shall say that the canon of the Mass contains errors and ought therefore to be abolished, let him be anathema.

“7. If any one shall say that the ceremonies and vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses are incitements to impiety rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema.

“8. If any one shall say that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are unlawful and are therefore to be abolished, let him be anathema.

“9. If any one shall say that the custom of the Church of Rome by which part of the canon and the words of consecration are said in a low voice is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated only in a vernacular language; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine in the cup that is to be offered as being contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.”

The reports of the theologians and the discussions of the fathers of the council show the grounds on which the enactments of the Council of Trent in regard to the doctrines of the Eucharistic presence and of the Eucharistic sacrifice were based. Scripture and tradition alike were regarded as requiring the belief that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. With this fundamental position the more detailed statements to which the council was committed were held to be inseparably connected. The affirmation of the Lateran Council of 1215 that “the bread is transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood” was viewed as a necessary consequence. The scholastic subtleties of the middle ages and the philosophical questions as to the methods of the change in consecration were to a large extent set aside; and the definitions showed the reserve which is apt to characterise statements of councils imposed as of faith as distinct from expressions of individual theologians which bind no one. But the conversion of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ, the doctrine of concomitance, the lasting character of the presence beyond the time of administration, and the duty of adoration were expressly affirmed as matters of faith; and the distinction in the statement on doctrine on which the canons were based between the natural method of the presence of Christ in heaven and His sacramental presence in the Eucharist followed the main principles of the lines of thought which in the middle ages had characterised in particular the Thomist theologians. In regard to the sacrifice it was maintained throughout the discussions that, since the same body and blood which were offered on the cross are offered in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same as the sacrifice of the cross, and that, consequently, there is in it no addition to the work done on the cross, but rather an application of the results of it. For the most part any connection with the heavenly offering of our Lord, such as that recognised by many of the Fathers, by the mediæval Western liturgical writers, and by the Greek theologians of the middle ages, was out of sight, though in the consideration of the sacrifice in 1551 and 1552 three of the theologians referred to this idea, two in terms of approval, one in condemnation.

“Though the offering of the Eucharist is different in method from the offering of the cross, yet it is the same offering, the same flesh, and the same blood; and it is offered for the same end, yet under different forms. That on the cross was bloody and was offered once; this on the altar is bloodless and is offered daily; the heavenly offering also, which is made by Christ in heaven in the presence of the Father, is bloodless and is ever made; for Christ continually stands in the presence of the Father to appease the wrath of God, making intercession for us. Therefore the sacrifice of the altar is one and the same as that of the cross.”

“The sacrifice of the Mass represents the invisible sacrifice of Christ in the upper room, and the visible sacrifice on the cross, and that which Christ continually does, making intercession for us to the Father in heaven. Therefore the Mass represents all these sacrifices, and is a commemoration of them.”

“When it is said, ‘Thou art a priest for ever,’ it is implied that in the Mass His body is continually offered by priests; and so also the priesthood of Christ is perpetuated in priests. But Christ offers Himself to the Father not only in the upper room and on the cross, but continually. Wherefore John says that He ever makes Himself an advocate for us in the presence of the Father and intercedes for us, that is, presents His own body to the Father, who was wroth with us. Which, nevertheless, He does not in heaven, offering Himself a sacrifice, but by means of the Eucharist on the altar. And this sacrifice is applied to others, that is, it makes them partakers of the fruits and effects of the passion of Christ.”

The fathers of the Council of Trent for a time intended that a Catechism embodying the doctrines affirmed by them should be drawn up while the council was sitting and approved by it. It proved impossible to carry out this plan; and eventually it was determined in the twenty-fifth session of the council that the approval and issue of a Catechism should be placed in the hands of the Pope. Pope Pius IV. gave instructions for the composition of the work to four theologians. It was drawn up by them with the assistance of others, including St. Charles Borromeo, and after examination by a commission was issued in 1566 by the command of Pope Pius V. It came to be known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This Catechism possesses very high authority in the Roman Catholic Church, though the teaching contained in it is not binding as a matter of faith. The treatment of the Holy Eucharist is long and elaborate. The general doctrinal characteristics are the same as those of the decisions of the Council of Trent; and, like those decisions, exhibit the desire to enforce the doctrines that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and at the same time to preserve the spiritual nature of the Eucharistic presence and the completeness of our Lord’s acts of redemption on the cross. The differences are such as follow from the Catechism being a manual of instruction as distinct from conciliar decisions, and not being binding of faith as distinct from terms of communion. In regard to the Eucharistic presence there is much more explanation, and there are more details and technicalities. The teaching of the identity of the Eucharistic body of Christ with that of His earthly and heavenly life is more strongly expressed, while the spiritual character of the presence is implied rather than explicitly stated. The treatment of the sacrifice is scanty and adds little to what is found in the decrees of the council itself. A few quotations will sufficiently illustrate these features.

“There are more things than one in this mystery to which sacred writers have sometimes applied the name Sacrament. For the name Sacrament is applied sometimes to both the consecration and the reception, and frequently to the body and blood of the Lord themselves, which are contained in the Eucharist.… In this way we assert that this Sacrament is to be adored, meaning thereby the body and blood of the Lord. But it is clear that in all these senses the word Sacrament is less properly used. It is the species of bread and wine that in a real and absolute sense are called by this name.”

“There are three things chiefly to be wondered at and received, which the Catholic faith without any doubt believes and confesses to be effected in this Sacrament by the words of consecration. The first is that the real body of Christ, that very same body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament. The second is that no substance of the elements remains in it, although nothing can seem more different and removed from sense. The third is, what may easily be gathered from the first two, although the words of consecration most of all express it, that the accidents, which are seen by the eyes or perceived by the other senses, are in a wonderful and inexplicable way without any subject. And though one can see all the accidents of bread and wine, yet they do not depend on any substance but exist in themselves, since the substance of bread and wine is so changed into the very body of the Lord that the substance of bread and wine wholly ceases to be.”

“Not only the real body of Christ and whatever pertains to the real state of a body, as bones and sinews, but also the whole Christ is contained in this Sacrament. It must be taught that Christ is the name of God and Man, that is, of one Person, in whom divine nature and human nature are united. Wherefore He possesses each substance, and what belongs to each substance, Godhead and whole human nature, which consists of the soul and of all the parts of the body and of the blood, all which must be believed to be in the Sacrament. For since in heaven the whole humanity is united to the Godhead in one Person and Subsistence, it is wicked to suppose that the body, which is in the Sacrament, is separated from that same Godhead.… Because the blood and the soul and the Godhead are united to the body, all these, as well as the body, will be in the Sacrament, not indeed from the force of the consecration, but as being united to the body. And they are said to be in the Sacrament from concomitance, by which consideration it is clear that the whole Christ is in the Sacrament. For if any two things are actually united, where one is, there the other also of necessity must be. Therefore it follows that the whole Christ is contained in the species of bread as in the species of wine, so that, as in the species of bread not only body but also blood and the whole Christ are really present, so on the other hand in the species of wine not only blood but also body and the whole Christ are really present.… Not only in each species but in every particle of each species the whole Christ is contained.… The substance of bread and wine does not remain after consecration. This, though it rightly calls out the greatest wonder, yet is a necessary consequence of what has already been shown. For if the real body of Christ is under the species of bread and wine after consecration, it is absolutely necessary, since it was not there before, that this comes to pass either by change of place or by creation or by the conversion of another thing into it. Now it certainly cannot be that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament by coming from one place into another; for in that case it would happen that He would be absent from His abode in heaven, since nothing is moved without leaving the place from which it is moved. And it is still less credible for the body of Christ to be created, and this cannot even be imagined. Therefore it remains that the body of the Lord is in the Sacrament by the conversion of the bread into it; wherefore of necessity no substance of bread remains.… The Eucharist is usually called bread both because it has the species of bread and also because it still retains the power of sustaining and nourishing the body, which is a property of bread.… Christ the Lord is not in this Sacrament as in a place, for a place goes with things themselves as they are possessed of a certain size; but we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament after such a manner as great or small, which pertains to bulk, but as substance.”

“As natural food does no good to dead bodies, so also the holy mysteries do no good to a soul which does not live by the spirit.… As the body is not only preserved by natural food but is also increased, and tastes daily of new pleasure and sweetness from it, so also the food of the Holy Eucharist not only supports the soul but adds strength to it and effects that the spirit is more and more moved by delight in divine things.… That the lighter sins, which are usually called venial, are remitted and pardoned by the Eucharist ought not to be doubted.… There is power in the sacred mysteries to keep us clean from offences and untouched by them, and to preserve us in safety from the assault of temptations, and to prepare the soul as by a heavenly medicine so as not to be easily infected or corrupted by the poison of deadly disturbance.… That all the advantages and benefits of this Sacrament may be comprehended in one word, it must be said that the chief power of the Holy Eucharist is for the obtaining of eternal glory.”

“Some receive only the Sacrament, as sinners, who are not afraid to receive the holy mysteries with impure heart and mouth.… These not only obtain no benefit but, on the testimony of the Apostle himself, ‘eat and drink judgment to themselves’. Others are said to receive the Eucharist only spiritually; these are those who eat the heavenly food which desire and wish set before them, inflamed with living ‘faith which worketh by love’; and from this reception they obtain, if not all, yet certainly the chief beneficial fruits. Lastly, there are others, who receive the Holy Eucharist sacramentally and spiritually, who, since they ‘first prove themselves’ in accordance with the teaching of the Apostle, and approach this divine Table adorned with a marriage garment, obtain from the Eucharist those richest fruits of which we have spoken before.”

“It has been appointed by the Church that any one who has not received Communion at least once every year at Easter is to be excommunicated. Yet the faithful are not to consider it enough that they pay attention to the authority of this decree and receive the body of the Lord only once in the year; but they are to think that the Communion of the Eucharist should be made more frequently. Whether monthly or weekly or daily is the most expedient, cannot be laid down by a fixed rule for all.… It will be the task of the parish priest frequently to exhort the faithful that, as they think it necessary to supply the body with nourishment every day, so also they will not reject daily care for the sustenance and nourishment of the soul with this Sacrament; for it is clear that the soul needs spiritual food no less than the body needs natural food.”

“The Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two reasons. The first reason is that it may be the heavenly nourishment of our soul, whereby we can protect and preserve spiritual life. The second reason is that the Church may have a continual sacrifice, whereby our sins may be expiated, and the heavenly Father, often grievously offended by our wickedness, may be brought from anger to mercy, from the severity of just punishment to pity.… When our Saviour was about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, He could give no clearer sign of His boundless love for us than in His leaving to us a visible sacrifice, whereby that bloody sacrifice a little later to be once for all offered on the cross might be renewed, and the memory of it kept daily to the end of the world by the Church throughout the whole world with the greatest gain.… Although it has been the custom of the Church sometimes to celebrate Masses in memory and honour of saints, yet it has taught that the sacrifice is not offered to them but to God alone, who crowned the saints with immortal glory.… That which is done in the Mass and that which was offered on the cross are one and the same sacrifice; as there is one and the same Victim, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross once for all only as a bloody sacrifice. For the bloody and the bloodless sacrifice do not make two sacrifices but one only.… There is also one and the same Priest, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer the sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they consecrate His body and blood.… The most holy sacrifice of the Mass is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice which was offered on the cross, but it is also really a propitiatory sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.… This is the power of this sacrifice that it is of benefit not only to him who offers and him who receives but also to all the faithful, whether still living with us on earth or being dead in the Lord and not yet fully expiated.”

The proceedings of the Council of Trent and the Catechism drawn up in consequence of the action at Trent show the rejection by the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century of the characteristic ideas about the Eucharist of the continental Reformers. The denial of Zwingli that the body and blood of Christ are received; the contention of Bucer and Calvin that, though there is spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ by the faithful communicant, the consecrated elements are not that body and blood; the assertion of Luther that, while the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ, they are also as fully bread and wine as before consecration; the refusal of all of these to allow any other kind of sacrifice in the Eucharist than a mere commemoration or such as may be in any kind of prayer, were all put aside and condemned. In these condemnations the Church of Rome adhered closely to the main lines of the mediæval Western theology, though some features of that theology were but little emphasised or were obscured. The exigencies of controversy led to the emphasis on the spiritual nature of the presence being but slight; but the mediæval distinctions between the method of Christ’s presence in heaven and that of His presence in the Eucharist, and between the method of the presence of a natural body in a place and that of the presence of the body of Christ under the Eucharistic species, were preserved, and the great safeguards of a spiritual way of regarding the Sacrament, the assertion of the possibility and value of Spiritual Communion and the denial of benefit to be obtained by unworthy reception, were maintained. The changed state of our Lord’s body after the resurrection and in His heavenly glory was probably realised less by the divines of Trent than it had been by some writers of the Middle Ages; and the lack of attention to this supremely important factor may have had a good deal to do with the use of the words “as bones and sinews” in the description of the “real state of a body” in the Catechism. As regards the sacrifice, the properly and distinctively sacrificial character of the Eucharist was insisted on; there was marked restraint as to detailed explanation, and such ideas as that of destruction in sacrifice, and matters about which controversies had taken place between the Thomist and the Scotist divines; the ideas of a commemoration and an application of the fruits of the passion were maintained; the doctrine, closely connected with that of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, of the identity of the sacrifice of the Mass with the sacrifice of the cross was preserved with great care; the association with the heavenly offering of Christ, though not wholly ignored by all the theologians, failed to find a place in the official decisions of the Council of Trent or in the Catechism.