| << | Contents | >> |
Cyprian
Here comes into view that reference of the apostle[4645] to the usages of the primitive assemblies: “How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks.” Though Cyprian omits the final Amen from his express commentary, it is to be noted that our Lord makes it virtually part of this prayer, by His precept (John xvi. 23, 24), to ask in His name. Now, He makes this word Amen one of His own names[4646] in the Apocalypse; throwing back a new character upon His frequent use of it, especially in St. John’s Gospel, and giving it as a sort of appropriation of 2 Cor. i. 20, when He calls Himself “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness.” He thus makes it infinitely dear to Christians.[4647] As in the Jewish usages,[4648] with which the disciples were familiar, it was a matter of course, we may suppose they added Amen in reciting this prayer, but not with their subsequent knowledge that it implies the merits, and claims the mediation, of the Great Intercessor. Rev. 5.8; 8.3-4; John 17.8.
Tertullian[4649] refers to the responsive “Hallelujah” as “enriched prayer,” and the Amen usually accompanied this ejaculation.
Hippolytus[4650] foresaw the democratic age into which the feudal era of iron should pass, corroding in the toes by contact with the miry clay of the despised plebs, “the seed of men.” No lasting strength was to be imparted to imperialism by the plébiscite (Dan. ii. 43); and the prophet might almost be supposed to have the epoch of dynamite in his sight, as he speaks of the unwillingness of the people to cleave to the effete system of empire. Now, then, if “the failing estate” of the world was apparent in the days of Philip and Decius, how much more in our own! Sixteen human lives span the gulf of time between us and them, for we have many centenarians among us; and with the Lord “a thousand years are as one day.” Compare 2 Pet. iii. 9. And, putting such Scriptures together, is it not clear that “the last time” (i.e., the last of the seven times of the Gentiles) is drawing to its close? The three and a half times of Daniel extend to the convulsive epoch of Mohammed; the second moiety (of the seven) to our own age. See Faber, Sacred Calendar,[4651] vol. i. cap. iii. pp. 308, 309, etc.
<page 561>Launoi, the eminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons “Fathers” down to the twelfth century) who understand St. Peter to be “the rock,” and he cites forty of the contrary opinion.[4652] Yet of the “seventeen,” most of them speak only rhetorically, and with justifiable freedom. I have often done the same myself, on the principle which the same apostle applies to all Christians: “Ye also as lively stones,”[4653] etc. But it is quite noteworthy that the Council of Trent itself momentarily adopts the prevailing patristic and therefore the Catholic interpretation, speaking of the Nicene Creed:[4654] “In quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur necessario conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod portæ inferi nunquam prævalebunt (Matt. xvi. 18).” Thus, the faith of Peter is confessed the only foundation, in a direct exposition of the text so often quoted with another intent. In spite of all this, the Creed of Pius IV. was enjoined as soon as that council closed; and every member of the late Vatican Council was made to profess the same verbally before any other business was undertaken. Now, even this spurious creed forced them to swear concerning the Holy Scriptures, “I will never take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Obviously, according to this rule, there is no Catholic doctrine on the subject; much less any Catholic teaching to the effect that the modern bishops of Rome are “the rock,” as really as St. Peter himself.
The modern usage of the Latin churches is for the priest to put the wafer into the communicant’s mouth, an ordinance dating no farther back than a.d. 880. A new doctrine having been forged, and faith in the corporal presence of Christ being forced upon the conscience, a change of ceremonial followed, which indicates the novelty of the idea. Contrast the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,[4655] informing his catechumens how they should receive, as follows:—
“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand a sort of cushion for thy right, which is about to receive the King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen.” “Not discerning the Lord’s body,” etc., is the language of Scripture; but, had the apostles taught transubstantiation, this could not be said, for everybody can discern the host when it is uplifted. The Lord’s Body is therefore discerned by faith, and so taken and received.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0003 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page