The herald., 1896-02-10
YESTERDAY At THE CHURCHES
Some of the Many Sermons
Delivered
THE CATHEDRAL SERVICE
The Worst Thing Ia the World Dis,
cussed al Unity
Matter and Spirit IntelIigentIy Considered at
the New Era-What Is Forgiveness
Of Sins-Church Canoes

Bishop Montgomery preached yesterday
at East Los Angeles, substantially as fol-
lows:
"And in every place there is sacrifice,
and there is offered to my name clear
oblation; for my name is great among the
Gentiles.'
What is commonly known as the Real
Presence embraces both the sacrifice of
the mass and the doctrine of the real pres
ence of Christ's body and blood in the
blessed sacrament.
The scriptural proof of this central dog
ma of Catholic devotion is very full and
explicit. 1t embraces the prophecy of a
new sacrifice. replacing the sacrifices of
the old law land as those sacrifices were
figures, that which replaces them must be
a reality; the promise of Christ to leave
that reality in his own flesh and blood; the
fulfllment of that promise. and finally the
practice of the apostles so regarding it.
The text chosen shows clearly that whilst
the sacrifices of the old law were offered
only in one place, that of the new should
be offered in every place, from the rising
of the sun to the going down thereof. And
whilst those of the old law were for Jews
only. that of the new should be for all
Jew and Gentle.
This new sacrifice offered everywhere
could not be the sacrifice of Calvary in the
actual shedding of Christ's blood, for it
was so offered only on Calvary. 1t could
not be the sacrifice of prayer or that of a
free heart, for prayer was always possible
with all men, we see that Job prayed,
though a Gentle; whereas this sacrifice
was to be something new.
Unless there be found sacrifice offered
in every place the words of the prophet are
not fulfilled. There is only one church
that even lays claim to sacrifice at all.
So much for the prophecy.
Christ having come as the fulf1llment of
the prophecy of the old law, promises to
leave as legacy of His love. nothing less
than His own body and blood. and that is
what we call the Real Presence. That He
made this promise is clearly shown from
the 9Th chapter of st. Johns Gospel
He there uses words the plain and literal
meaning of which convey that fact. And
that His words are to be understood in
their literal sense is evident from the Jews
who rejected them, from the apostles who
accepted them, and from Christ's own
actions. Those who rejected them did so
because they SO understood them. They
murmured at His words. and said they
were "hard saying.' Christ knew they
SO understood Him, and not only did not
tell them that they misunderstood Him,
but on the contrary confirmed them in their
by repeating six times over, in terms
stronger and stronger until they turned
away and walked no more with Him."
Their understanding of Him in that sense
with His own confirmation of their under
standing, is worth more than all the adverse
commentaries of all those who were not
present, and who did not hear the words.
And SO would we consider a circumstance
OF the kind in anything else. Why should
we act differently in this instance? Christ
Himself turns to the apostles and does not
change or soften the disagreeable and hard
saying, but simply inquiries if they, too,
will leave Him because He says they must
eat His flesh and drink His blood Do they
say it presents no difficulty to them? sNo,
but their answer implies that it is
just as ''hard'' for them as for
those who had gone away. Lord,
the words of eternal life; for we have be-
lieved and have known that Thou art
Christ, the Son of God" We do not know
how you will give us your flesh to eat, but
if you say you will we know you can and
will. There is faith, not on the basis of
human reason, but in the exercise OF
human reason on the authority of God.
We can understand how these words are
hard for the nationalist, but we cannot I'M
derstand how they present any difficulty to
man who believes that Christ Is God, the
creator of heaven and earth, who assumed
who converted water into wine, who raised
others and Himself from the dead. Christ
Himself is here the commentator of His
own words, and declares as emphatically
as words can declare that they understand
the meaning of His words, and condemns
them for their rationalistic treatment of
them in turning away from Him merely
because they do not know how He can full
fill His promise. A few months after, as
is testified to by the three other evangelists,
Christ takes bread in His hands, blesse5,
breaks and gives it to His apostles and
says: Take We and eat, this is my body ~
and having blessed wine He says likewise
Take ye and drink, this is my blood.''
He does not say this is d figure of my body
or figure of my blood, but .'this is my body
this is my blood.'' But He added: ''Do
this for a commemoration of me-" Do
what? ''Do what l have done" What
had He done? Converted bread into His
body and wine into His blood.
They could not do that unless He should
give them the power. But he comm ands
them to do it. Therefore He gave them
the power to do what they could not do
them priests and instituted the new sacri-
flee to be offered everywhere among Jew
end Gentle. Sdch is the sacrifice of the
mass. 1t is memorial indeed, and the
most striking memorial possible. For in
1t is the same victim. Jesus Christ, really
present. the same high priest Jesus Christ,
personated by His minister, using His own
words, This is my body, this is my
blood" And the two elements consecrated
separately to represent mystically the
actual shedding of His blood on the cross
Showing forth His death on the cross"
So we have the prophecy the promise,,and
the fulfillment of the promise, in tho insti-
tuition of the mass, the emblem of the sacri-
flee of Christ, offered by Himself before
He offered up His life on the cross. But ST.
Paul. an after-convert, testifes to the
church, Cor, 10-16,-'The chalice of
benediction which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? And
the bread which we break. is it not the par
taking of the body of the Lord?n Again
l Cor. 1927, 29,-"He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh
Judgment unto himself" The non-Catho-
lie version has it ''eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself" Why? Not dis
corning the body of the lord" How
could SO harsh term apply to the eating
of mere bread? And why should a man
be condemned for not discerning the body
of the Lord, if the body of the Lord were
not there? For fifteen hundred years such
was the belief and practice of the Chris
tan church, before the revolt of the human
mind against it. That revolt in principle
is rationalistic. and the same principle has
rejected other Christian dogmas until it
has reached its logical result in unitarian
Ism, and the end is not yet.
V. c. Lewis
What is Forgiveness of Sins? was the
subject of the lesson by V. C. Lewis at the