Agobard said in another thread:

Whenever anyone is making a good point, you know someone will come and say "It's the Jesuits!!!"

I have said that... I think you are subtly mocking me, Agobard!
This thread is a response to your comment.

Let me state it in writing:  I believe Father Feeney and the baptism of desire nonsense could very well be part of a Jesuit plot, because it has completely distracted people from the real EENS heresy.  

Think about it.  The weak EENS position, that you can be saved in any religion but not by that religion, that you can be saved as a Jєω or Muslim, began to really gain steam with Jesuits ( who have had many Jєωs in their ranks ); and the extreme far-right EENS position also began with Father Feeney, a Jesuit.  But the moderate and true EENS position of Aquinas, Augustine and almost every saint is entirely forgotten!

This did not happen by accident, I'm sorry.  

The Feeneyites are a phenomenon.  I've seen how they operate.  They dangle their "friendship" in front of you like a carrot on a stick.  "Just believe this... Just believe this... You can be part of our special club."  There is a sadomasochistic element to their attitude that is anything but godly.  They abuse people with the cry of "Heretic!" and then, when the victim can take no more and joins their ranks, they smother him with kisses and affection.  He becomes "one of the chosen."  But this is not based on truth; it is based on psychological abuse.   They are like the Scientologists of Catholicism.

There is some kind of mentality they have tapped into, the way the Jansenists did -- a pseudo-righteous mentality that is an overreaction to VII.  It returns people to an imaginary la-la-land version of the primitive Church, purified of all evils.
Here God is rigid, stern and perfectly just, according to their theories.  This makes them, in turn, feel rigid, stern and perfectly just.  They have no idea how blinded they are by pride, because they think their pride is justice.  This is what is frightening.

The problem is that these puffed-up individuals pretend to know God better than anyone else, saying that God will get all His chosen to the baptismal font -- this is YOUR THEORY.  Many others have disagreed.  How do you know God does this, or wants to do this?    

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sentimentalist who says "Hey, who knows the mind of God, He can do whatever He wants, He can save Jєωs."  No.  He won't save unconverted Jєωs because this was decreed by Boniface VIII.  However, despite the Feeneyites' attempts to twist the words of decrees, the Church has NEVER abolished baptism of desire.  Not one decree forbids it.  Even if certain Catholics believed you had to be baptized to be saved, no one of any prominence in the last 1,500 years, until Father Feeney, who was about as reliable as Judas, has said BoD was an actual heresy.  

Raou76: dis-info agent extraordinaire.

Why did God the Holy Ghost allow the BoD question to be so ambiguous for so long? To test those who claim to be Catholic and to see who would believe the top most level of Catholic authority, which is preserved from all stain of error.

You make a mockery of the Solemn Magisterium and you ignore sound arguments.

This is NOT about Feeney.  The "real EENS heresy" as you call it could not exist in the minds of anybody, if there were no belief that a person could be saved without water Baptism.  If EVERYBODY has to be Baptized, then no pagans get saved, no Mohammedans get saved.  Do you see?  So it is not a distraction, but rather if everybody would profess this truth, then there would be nobody left to believe in salvation outside the Church.

You HAVE to admit (if you grant that water Baptism is absolutely necessary and that this is a dogma) that BoD is the FUNDAMENTAL heresy, without which no EENS heresy could have wings.

Quote from: Raoul76

I'm pretty sure CM would call St. Paul a heretic if he were alive today.

That's an unjust and untrue statement, and his words are quite easily explained, and neither do we have any cause to suspect him of heresy.  So it's OBVIOUSLY a completely different kettle of fish.

Quote

Engage my metaphor CM.  Barbara converts me and brings me to Christ.  I say Barbara redeemed me along with Christ.

Then you're speaking inaccurately.  This is undeniable.  She preached to you, she didn't redeem you.

Quote

Or will you admit that there is more than one sense of the word redeemer?

There is ONE sense.  One who has paid a price in return for something.  If Barbara got you out of debt, paid your bail, paid for your release from slavery, etc... then she redeemed you (in a secular, non-salvific sense).

Quote

Speaking of redeeming, when it comes to papal encyclicals, we must do everything we can to redeem them.  Only when there is a true breach of faith or morals, an inescapable heresy about which there can be no mistake, should we jump to conclusions.  Ambiguity is not enough to depose Popes.

That's not what Pope Pius VI says in Auctorem Fidei.  Sorry, I'll go with Pius VI rather than you.  We have oodles of evidence that Benedict XV was a Modernist wolf, in addition to his many ambiguous statements, and his explicitly heretical "fire and forget" missiles.

Quote from: Raoul76

Quote from: CM

Mike in the case of a person who allegedly receives BoD (according to you), what saves him? The sacrament itself or the desire? Is the sacrament of Baptism actually effected or no?

And in the case of the person who is saved with perfect contrition, what saves him? The sacrament itself, the contrition or the desire? Is the sacrament of Penance actually effected or no?

From what I understand at this point, though I have much more studying to do, he is saved by an unknown means.  The sacrament of baptism is not effected, but the effects of baptism are obtained.

So then you admit that the Sacrament of Baptism does not in this case save him?  If you are to be consistent, then this is what you have to say?  Do you say it?

Quote

In the case of perfect contrition, someone is saved by their desire to confess, as well as regret for having offended the spotless majesty of Almighty God, and true love for God.  He is saved both by the contrition and the desire for the sacrament -- contrition with contempt of the sacrament would not suffice.

Is the sacrament of Penance effected?  God forgives the sins directly, without the intermediary of a priest, so no.

Right.  As Trent declared, it is the perfect contrition itself that reconciles that effects reconciliation.

Quote

although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.

So the sacrament is not effected, as you rightly said.

Now if we are to reconcile all these decrees, and if you are to hold to consistency, then you have to say that Baptism of Desire, which isn't the sacrament, bestows the forgiveness of sins in the same manner as perfect contrition, which is what I know you have been trying to say.

But the problem is that the definition of Vienne explicitly states that the Sacrament of Baptism regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ, and the Council of Florence states:

Quote

unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water

These two decrees say that it is SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM that saves, whereas on perfect contrition, the Council of Trent specifically states that it is NOT the sacrament that saves.

So now you have to go to another definition in Florence:

Quote

All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.

This does not pose a problem to perfect contrition, since it is not the sacrament of Penance doing the work, but the contrition.  But it DOES pose a problem for Baptism, because the definitions say BAPTISM DOES THE WORK.

Quote from: Trent's decree on Justification even

Of this Justification the causes are these [...] the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;

[...]

This faith, catechumens beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting,

Do you not see the problem with your self contradictory position yet?  And do you not remember when you had to reinvent BoD in a novel departure form Sts. Alphonsus and Aquinas?  You said it actually imparts the sacramental character, didn't you?  Did you not say that it bestows ALL the effects of Baptism?

Your talk of reading the decrees "in the Spirit of the Holy Ghost" would be nice and all, if what you are really saying wasn't that we have to read the decrees in such a way as to make God a liar.

Mike you're blaspheming.

Fk, did you notice how Raoul76 earlier said "Yeah, Catholic" about Ibranyi's rejection of water Baptism only (which you rightly called heretical), yet he has not said two words about the post above that was directed at him and his twisted heretical theology?

He does this all the time.  He ignores continually the points I make, and even though he once admitted that "CM's "Feeneyism" is the most nuanced I've ever come across" and "If CM is right about BoD", and yet he still obstinately refuses to put two and two together in a way that makes four - and despite his inadequate replies to sound logic concerning the words of the Magisterium, and despite that he wavers like a reed in the wind, he is still brazen enough once in a while to come out and say something like "BoD is de fide" of "It's NOT heresy" like he has all the argument in the world to back him up.

Sadly, his argument logically boils down to this:  "I'm telling you, the words of a dogmatic decree are not absolutely true, because the Holy Ghost told me so."

The "nuances" you are referring to are not my opinions, but how all the words of the decres of the Solemn Magisterium ALL ADD UP TO ONE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION AND ONLY ONE.

Unless you reform the decrees, which is unlawful and heresy.

Mike, you have something seriously wrong with you.  You even read and understood Vienne's decree as it was declared, and then the very next day, you turned around and said "Oh but we can just ignore what the decree actually says and make it mean something else".

Mike, I may very well be blind about some sin or other that I may be committing, but professing the absolute necessity of water Baptism as a dogma of faith is not it.

But your blindness is definitely manifest.  Anyone who observes our exchanges can easily that you hold your position because you want to and because the "Holy Ghost" tells you to, and I hold my position because it is the only way to NOT DENY ANY DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS.

You have even attacked the fact that I won't back down and said it's pride.  Okay Mike, would you "pridefully" die for your beliefs as they are right now if you were called to?  Or would you be "humble" and compromise them because some guy on an internet forum opposed you all kinds of theological fallacies told you the "Holy Ghost" was talking to him personally?  Because that is what you are insisting that I should do.

Wake up!

And speaking of "fire and forget missiles", you never did engage any of the points I made to you above.

Wait a sec -- DID Father Feeney ever say BoD was heresy, or is that the invention of the Dimonds?  Who are these guys and where did they come from, anyway?

The words of our Lord are very clear....in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven we must be born again of water and the Spirit. To deny that would be accusing the Gospels of lying...However it is possible that when there is no human agent available to Baptise a person with water God through the agency of an angel or some other supernatural means applies the substance of water so that they are properly Baptised "by water and the Spirit". That is the Catholic understanding of Baptism of Desire and all other understandings are heretical.

Agobard said in another thread:

Quote

Whenever anyone is making a good point, you know someone will come and say "It's the Jesuits!!!"

I have said that... I think you are subtly mocking me, Agobard!
This thread is a response to your comment.

Raoul, that is not what I was talking about. I was speaking of when the topic arises of who controls things behind the scenes, you have disinformation idiots saying "It's the Black Pope who controls the entire world!!" & "It's the Jesuits!!!"

Now I don't like the Jesuits anymore than other rational people who know now they are, for the most part, apostates and all of them seem to hold some heretical belief or many heretical beliefs. But to say that a thoroughly infiltrated group controls the world is laughable. We have to ask ourselves, who infiltrated them, then we are closer to finding out the power structure.

So no Raoul, I was not mocking you.

Back to the debate on EENS, already in progress...

Oh great, Agobard is yet another one.  Figures.  Peer pressure is a powerful incentive, even when it leads you to misread decrees and take the opinion of untrained literal-minded laymen who are flunking the art of theological science over St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.  

Interesting that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bellarmine and so many others never realized that there was some kind of contradiction between BoD and that we must be born again of water and the spirit.  That is because there isn't one, except in your own minds.

Also amazing that at Trent they contradicted Christ who said we must eat His body and drink His blood!  SINCE EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE MUST BE BELIEVED AS IT IS WRITTEN.  Yes, it must be -- but are you reading it as it was written, in the sense in which it was written?  Don't we drink His blood through desire, spiritually, isn't that why the wine is still consecrated?

The desire for the water is one way to be born again of water and the spirit.  Just as the desire for confession, perfect contrition, absolves sins.  You do not have to have the actual water.

Christ also said to Peter that those whose sins you forgive will be forgiven; and those whose sins you retain will be retained.  Read in the occluded spirit of Landryvision,  this means that if a priest doesn't forgive you, you have no chance.  Yet this doesn't stop Mr. Landry from counting on perfect contrition to save his hide on the Day of Judgment.

What astonishes me about Feeneyites is that they have no comprehension of how injurious they are to the entire history of the Church that allowed this "heresy" to flourish.  The arrogance of the Feeneyite position is breathtaking.  No one is asking them to believe in BoD -- well, I'm not anyway.  But to say it's heresy, and to say limbo is heresy?  Rash, injurious, etc.

And no, CM, baptism of desire did not lead to the real EENS heresy.  The Church got along fine for centuries upon centuries after Augustine and Aquinas taught BoD for catechumens. There are two causes of the Real EENS Heresy:  Jesuit-Jєωιѕн subversion working in tandem with sin.  When people sin, they start to overemphasize God's mercy.  They want to believe they themselves are saved, despite their sins, so then they move towards a theory of universal salvation.  I'm sure there has always been a fertile field for this kind of proto-Masonic speculation, but it took a certain dread combination of factors, the Jesuits as well as the discovery of the New World, to begin to inculcate this heresy among the masses.

The v2 'jesuits' hardly can be called the true Jesuit Order.

Raouls continued attack on the Real Sons of St Ignatius is nothing less than heretical.

You're grasping at straws and you're talking about something you have not even looked into it seems.  You are utterly ignorant and making stuff up.

You presume to compare Trent's teachings on Baptism with those on the Eucharist to support your case???

THEN SHOW ME the part wherein it says "As it is written", that is, where the Council binds the faithful to understanding His words in a literal sense.  Or where do you find ANYTHING that even comes close to teaching absolute necessity?

Wherefore, this holy Synod,--instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,--declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,--that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

Being the third under the Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the eleventh day of October, MDLI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

The sacred and holy, ecuмenical and general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate, and nuncios of the Apostolic See presiding therein, although the end for which It assembled, not without the special guidance and governance of the Holy Ghost, was, that It might set forth the true and ancient doctrine touching faith and the sacraments, and might apply a remedy to all the heresies, and the other most grievous troubles with which the Church of God is now miserably agitated, and rent into many and various parts; yet, even from the outset, this especially has been the object of Its desires, that It might pluck up by the roots those tares of execrable errors and schisms, with which the enemy hath, in these our calamitous times, oversown the doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred and holy Eucharist, which our Saviour, notwithstanding, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity, with which He would fain have all Christians be mentally joined and united together. Wherefore, this sacred and holy Synod delivering here, on this venerable and divine sacrament of the Eucharist, that sound and genuine doctrine, which the Catholic Church,-instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and by His apostles, and taught by the Holy Ghost, who day by day brings to her mind all truth, has always retained, and will preserve even to the end of the world, forbids all the faithful of Christ, to presume to believe, teach, or preach henceforth concerning the holy Eucharist, otherwise than as is explained and defined in this present decree.

[Page 76]

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

[Page 77]

CHAPTER II.
On the reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, our Saviour, when about to depart out of this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth as it were the riches of His divine love towards man, making a remembrance of his wonderful works; and He commanded us, in the participation thereof, to venerate His memory, and to show forth his death until He come to judge the world. And He would also that this sacrement should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof He is the head, and to which He would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms amongst us.

CHAPTER III.
On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.

The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the [Page 78] Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

[Page 79]

CHAPTER V.
On the cult and veneration to be shown to this most holy Sacrament.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received: for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee.

The holy Synod declares, moreover, that very piously and religiously was this custom introduced into the Church, that this sublime and venerable sacrament be, with special veneration and solemnity, celebrated, every year, on a certain day, and that a festival; and that it be borne reverently and with honour in processions through the streets, and public places. For it is most just that there be certain appointed holy days, whereon all Christians may, with a special and unusual demonstration, testify that their minds are grateful and thankful to their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and truly divine a benefit, whereby the victory and triumph of His death are represented. And so indeed did it behove victorious truth to celebrate a triumph over falsehood and heresy, that thus her adversaries, at the sight of so much splendour, and in the midst of so great joy of the universal Church, may either pine away weakened and broken; or, touched with shame and confounded, at length repent.

[Page 80]

CHAPTER VI.
On reserving the Sacrament of the sacred Eucharist, and bearing it to the Sick.

The custom of reserving the holy Eucharist in the sacrarium is so ancient, that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognised that usage. Moreover, as to carrying the sacred Eucharist itself to the sick, and carefully reserving it for this purpose in churches, besides that it is exceedingly conformable to equity and reason, it is also found enjoined in numerous councils, and is a very ancient observance of the Catholic Church. Wherefore, this holy Synod ordains, that this salutary and necessary custom is to be by all means retained.

CHAPTER VII.
On the preparation to be given that one may worthily receive the sacred Eucharist.

If it is unbeseeming for any one to approach to any of the sacred functions, unless he approach holily; assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approach not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself [Page 81] of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incuмbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if, in an urgent necessity, a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

CHAPTER VIII.
On the use of this admirable Sacrament.

Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so [Page 82] exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.

But forasmuch as it is not enough to declare the truth, if errors be not laid bare and repudiated, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all, -the Catholic doctrine being already recognised,-may now also understand what are the heresies which they ought to guard against and avoid.

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

[Page 84] CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.