Do not expect me to answer this, fathers.If you have got no common sense, I am not able to furnish you with it.All who possess any share of it will enjoy a hearty laugh at your expense.Nor will they treat with greater respect your third proof, which rests upon the following words, taken from the Book of Frequent Communion: "In the eucharist God vouchsafes us the same food that He bestows on the saints in heaven, with this difference only, that here He withholds from us its sensible sight and taste, reserving both of these for the heavenly world." These words express the sense of the Church so distinctly that I am constantly forgetting what reason you have for picking a quarrel with them, in order to turn them to a bad use;for I can see nothing more in them than what the Council of Trent teaches (sess.xiii, c.8), namely, that there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the eucharist and Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled, and there he is not.M.Arnauld does not say that there is no difference in the manner of receiving Jesus Christ, but only that there is no difference in Jesus Christ who is received.And yet you would, in the face of all reason, interpret his language in this passage to mean that Jesus Christ is no more eaten with the mouth in this world than he is in heaven; upon which you ground the charge of heresy against him.You really make me sorry for you, fathers.Must we explain this further to you? Why do you confound that divine nourishment with the manner of receiving it? There is but one point of difference, as I have just observed, betwixt that nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is that here it is hidden under veils which deprive us of its sensible sight and taste; but there are various points of dissimilarity in the manner of receiving it here and there, the principal of which is, as M.Arnauld expresses it (p.3, ch.16), "that here it enters into the mouth and the breast both of the good and of the wicked," which is not the case in heaven.And, if you require to be told the reason of this diversity, I may inform you, fathers, that the cause of God's ordaining these different modes of receiving the same food is the difference that exists betwixt the state of Christians in this life and that of the blessed in heaven.The state of the Christian, as Cardinal Perron observes after the fathers, holds a middle place between the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews.The spirits in bliss possess Jesus Christ really, without veil or figure.The Jews possessed Jesus Christ only in figures and veils, such as the manna and the paschal lamb.And Christians possess Jesus Christ in the eucharist really and truly, although still concealed under veils."God," says St.Eucher, "has made three tabernacles: the synagogue, which had the shadows only, without the truth; the Church, which has the truth and shadows together; and heaven, where there is no shadow, but the truth alone." It would be a departure from our present state, which is the state of faith, opposed by St.Paul alike to the law and to open vision, did we possess the figures only, without Jesus Christ; for it is the property of the law to have the mere figure, and not the substance of things.And it would be equally a departure from our present state if we possessed him visibly; because faith, according to the same apostle, deals not with things that are seen.And thus the eucharist, from its including Jesus Christ truly, though under a veil, is in perfect accordance with our state of faith.It follows that this state would be destroyed, if, as the heretics maintain, Jesus Christ were not really under the species of bread and wine;and it would be equally destroyed if we received him openly, as they do in heaven: since, on these suppositions, our state would be confounded, either with the state of Judaism or with that of glory.Such, fathers, is the mysterious and divine reason of this most divine mystery.This it is that fills us with abhorrence at the Calvinists, who would reduce us to the condition of the Jews; and this it is that makes us aspire to the glory of the beatified, where we shall be introduced to the full and eternal enjoyment of Jesus Christ.From hence you must see that there are several points of difference between the manner in which he communicates himself to Christians and to the blessed; and that, amongst others, he is in this world received by the mouth, and not so in heaven; but that they all depend solely on the distinction between our state of faith and their state of immediate vision.And this is precisely, fathers, what M.Arnauld has expressed, with great plainness, in the following terms: "There can be no other difference between the purity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the eucharist and that of the blessed, than what exists between faith and the open vision of God, upon which alone depends the different manner in which he is eaten upon earth and in heaven." You were bound in duty, fathers, to have revered in these words the sacred truths they express, instead of wresting them for the purpose of detecting an heretical meaning which they never contained, nor could possibly contain, namely, that Jesus Christ is eaten by faith only, and not by the mouth; the malicious perversion of your Fathers Annat and Meynier, which forms the capital count of their indictment.Conscious, however, of the wretched deficiency of your proofs, you have had recourse to a new artifice, which is nothing less than to falsify the Council of Trent, in order to convict M.Arnauld of nonconformity with it; so vast is your store of methods for making people heretics.This feat has been achieved by Father Meynier, in fifty different places of his book, and about eight or ten times in the space of a single page (the 54th), wherein he insists that to speak like a true Catholic it is not enough to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the eucharist," but we must say, "I believe, with the council, that he is present by a true local presence, or locally." And, in proof of this, he cites the council, session xiii, canon 3d, canon 4th, and canon 6th.Who would not suppose, upon seeing the term local presence quoted from three canons of a universal council, that the phrase was actually to be found in them? This might have served your turn very well, before the appearance of my Fifteenth Letter; but, as matters now stand, fathers, the trick has become too stale for us.We go our way and consult the council, and discover only that you are falsifiers.
同类推荐
热门推荐
教你学组词造句(下)(学生语言文字写作学习手册)
语言文字的简称就是语文。语文是人文社会科学的一门重要学科,是人们相互交流思想的工具。它既是语言文字规范的实用工具,又是文化艺术,同时也是用来积累和开拓精神财富的一门学问。重生国民女神:系统狂霸酷拽
【爽文+娱乐圈+身心干净】乔青落,校花女神级别人物!沉鱼落雁、闭月羞花,在她身上可以得到淋漓尽致的表现。从小到大,胸大无脑、最佳学渣一直都是她的代名词。生活平淡的她,却因为一张大学录取通知书惨遭谋杀!当她带着系统重生归来,她微笑,男神、宝物,一个都不能少!嗯,天凉了,顺便白莲花领饭盒吧!男科女医生,总裁求婚请排队
日报头条新闻,帝豪集团总裁的新娘逃婚了,第二天新娘和别的男人在酒店......面对此时的她,他只是微微一笑,视而不见,待她好如初见。传闻他疯了,竟然要一个不知廉耻的女人。岂不知,真正疯了的人是她。人前,他们恩爱甜蜜,人后,他们相敬如宾,形如陌路。终于她受不了,“我们离婚吧!”原来他等待的就是这句话。离婚后,她成分万众瞩目的焦点,成为媒体、家喻户晓的热门话题。有人说她不知好歹,有人说她另结新欢......流言蜚语她置若罔闻,原本以为这一切都会随着离婚而结束。突然,她妈妈重病,需要手术费一百万,她走投无路之下再一次求助于他。昏暗的房间,他翘着腿不屑的瞄了她一眼,“借你一百万,你拿什么还我?”她僵直了身体,转身离开。“我家缺一个佣人,如果你叶大医生肯屈就的话......”“我愿意。”佣人意味着没有尊严没有人格,他沐浴她替他放水,他出门她替他穿衣,他睡觉......豪宠甜妻:总裁,请克制
她被相恋两年的男友设计成为其他男人的女人。再转身,她跟这个男人重逢,却不料陷入了一场生死搏斗之中,她这才知道,原来这个男人居然是这个城市赫赫有名的明天集团总裁,人称五爷,并且还是前男友的亲五叔,他要她扮演他的女朋友来挡住其他女人的纠缠,却不料她深深的爱上了整天被前男友叫五婶的滋味儿,更是掉进了这个楼五爷的陷阱。他与她相爱怎么也没有想到,原来是一切灾难的开始,狸猫换太子,血缘关系,上辈纠葛,人间冷暖,一一在他们的身上上演。