QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 19, 19 July 1906, Page 12

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

AN INQUIRER'S DIFFICULTIES

An inquiring Protestant fiiend ('Enlightenment') sends us (N .Z. Tablet') a long list of questions, to some only of which we have space t o reply in this issue. We take them in the order in which we received them :— I. ' W a s celibacy of the clergy authoritatively enjoined by First Latcran Council in 1123 ? ' Reply : The form of the question seems to imply that the disciplinary law repaid. ng the celibacy of the clergy was hrst devised or enforced in 1123. But (a) th© principle out of which the discipline arose is laid down in the Scriptures— that the ciergy may serve God with'less restraint and with undivided heart (i. Cor., vii 32) • that continence is a hol.cr state than that of marriage (Matt j.ix, 12 ; 1. Lor., vii, 8, 38, 40 ; Rev., xiv, 4). Ihe Church is not, of course, absolutely bound on this account to impose a law of celibacy. But as a matter of fact she has always done so. In the early days of the Church (as Paphnutius admitted) the immemorial tradition was that a cleric must not marry after ordination. This was embodied in the Apostolic Constitutions (\i, 17, -27), and in the canons of the Council of Neocaesarea (between A.D. 314 and 325). This is the discipline at present in force in the East. The Councils of Elvira (A.D. 303 or 30b), Canhage (A.D. 390), and Toledo (6»3), and others made the discipline of ceJibacy more ri^id in the West. Pope Gregory VII. merely enforced the existing law of celibacy under severe penalties, and made the inaniage of persons in holy orders not only unlawful (as hitherto) but invalid. The First General Council o [ Latcran (1123) simply confirmed the existing legislation on the subject. The law of celibacy is, of course, not •* matter of doctrine, but of ecclesiastical disci] In c, which \ a ries according to the circumstances of various times and countries. The noted Protestant missionary authority, Dr. Needham Cust, is strongly in fa\or of a form of clerical cel?b»cy l Let no male missionary,' saj sh •, • marry till he has had ten years sen ice in the neld '(' Missionary Methods,' p. 294, ed 1894). We ha c a decided imiression that such a rule of celibacy is either encouraged or enforced by some of the American. Protestant mission societies. 11. 'Was the Communion cup withheld from the laity by the Uounul of Constance in 1114 ? ' Reply : Cortimunion under one kind is nvuch older than the Council of Constance. Christ (according to the teaching of the Chinch) is received whole and entire under each kind or species (whether bread or wine) I here im no diune precept bin-ling any person (apart from the celebrant) to receive Loth species. And Communion under one kind or under both kinds is a matter of discipline, which the Church may at any time alter a n S i e . S^ S f 'V In Ihc earl y Church -Communion under one kind (bread) was userved (as in the Catholic Church fr?,n? t f P ,*F SOIIS "I ***£** oi death. This we learn from Tertullian in the second century (Ad. Uxor* 1. ii i^'J?"".! d« ce rll}Sr 11}S of Alexandr ia (see Eusebius, 1. vi! o'J I M fq? u Cj T la c" ( 'P C La P sj s. T 16) in the third rilirt^rn ■ sSli'5 Sl i' i St V. Chrjrsostom ' etc -> i n the fourth rst clZi ' ?n H ° y C ? mmu »»on under one kind-wine (St. Cyprian, De Lapsjs,' 25). The Catholic Church tons eve- maintained the same doctrine and principles upon his matter .but her discipline has changed Irorn cLTin *hp me> Cflefl7C f le fl 7 °^ ac P° vn tof erroneous teachSS (as in the case of the Manichees) and of profanatiom resulting from the reception of Ihe Hoi? Eucharist Jnde the species of wine. The Council of Constance ?sess that 2h C y r^r^ red Ihe olden belie{ of cStendom rtnrofiSoV^S of 'communicating under both kinds' (Letter to Gam Gustol) On another occasion Luther wrote -'Ha Counci did ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the Council we would take but on«, o r take neither and p u u rse 3B4 ho iiGT ho TWOIT Wol i d l <f e 5o1?;5 o1 ?; n Miss er ; t .*!f pp. 384 3SG) In the Synod of Poictiers (in 1560) the French Calvimsts (in the third section on the Lord's

111. ' Was the priest's intention necessary to give validity to a Sacrament first decreed by Council of Trent in 1547 ? ' Reply : No. The doctrine of intention was previously laid down by the Council of Constance, under Pope Martin V., and by the Council of Florence, under Pope i.ugene IV. It was restated in the Council of Trent. It requires the minister of a Sacrament to have at least the intention of doing that which the Church does. The nature of the intention that is required is treated in detail in all Catholic manuals of moral theology. -Yet there are few • omts of Catholic teal hircg less understood or more gravely misrepresented by r»onCatholics than this. We refer here more especially to Littledale. The doctrine of intention is the natural outcome of the sacramental idea. In the Scriptures, the need of an intenliont is suflicicntly implied in Luke xxiii, ,19, John xx, 23, and I. Cor., iv, 1. Analysing revealed facts by the light of reason, Catholic theologians lay down the position substantially as follows : ' (1) The valid'administration of a Sacrament must be an " actus humanus " — a hiunfcn, that is, an intelligent moral act, since the administration of the Sacraments is presented as a matter of moral obligation. " Go, teach all nations, baplisn^ them," etc. This will exclude the action of drunkards, madmen, sleepers, etc. (2) The action must be intended, and intended not merely as a certain material movement of the hands and lips, but with a sufficient specification of its object or idea, to distinguish it from other possible comb. nations of the same words and actions which have no sacramental cflect.' Thus, a woman who merely intends to wash the head of a child, docs not baptise it, whether or not she uses tlva form of baptism. And no Protestant would we think, regard as certainly \ahd a baptism conferred by a person walking in Imi sleep or insane ; nor would they hold that a parrot could baptise validly, however cleverly it might be tra ned to repeat the words and actions of the ceremony. And this because they feel that the Sacrament muht be conferred ' hamano modo ' — by a human being in a human way, that is, with 1-now-ledge, advertence, and intention on the part of the intellect, and with freedom on the part of tho will. In the- case of marriage, the great ma ; ority of non-CatholiO aa well as Catholic writers on civil law, regard intention (the ' animus contrahendi ') bs requisite for Ihe validity of th" contract. .We may add, in conclusion, that the doctrine of in ten lion is nothing new in the Church. In the matter of orders and baptism, for instance, Euaetoius (Hist., bb. iv, c. 43) and Firmilian (Letter to Cyprian) show that it was leauired as far back as the third and second century of our era— the orders in the one case (that of Novatiaii) and the baptism in the other (giwn by a certain woman) bcino; declared invalid for lack of sulT'cicnt intention. And long before the Councils mcn'ioned abo- e, the doctrine was laid down in luminous te ms by St. Bonavcnturc and others.