UTRECHT
245
UTRECHT
Council of Constance rejectod (Denzinger-Bannwart,
i26). Then followed the Hussite wars. To make
leace, the Council of Basle (1431) allowed Communion
inder both forms to those who had reached the age
if discretion and were in the state of grace, on the
nllowing conditions: that the Hussites confess that
he Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ were
ontained whole and entire both under the form of
iread and under that of wine; and that they retract
he statement that Communion under both fortns is
lecessary for salvation (Mansi, XXX). To this
ome of the Hussites agreed, and were known as the
'alixtines, from their use of the chaUce. The others,
»d by Ziska, and called Taborites, from their dwelling
n a mountain top, refused and were defeated by
Jeorge Podiebrad in 14.53, from which date Utra-
uism in Prague has been practically an empty sym-
lol. But it is still a tenet of Anglicanism, and is
numerated among "The Plain reasons against
aining the Church of Rome" (London, 1S80). The
"atholic Church has never said that Communion
nder both forms is of itself either sinful or heretical,
^he Church has withheld the ehaUce from the laity
ut of reverence for the Precious Blood, and con-
emned the Hussites because they argued it was
ssential to salvation, and threatened to revive a
eresy. The Xestorians were condemned in the
atristic period, and the heretics in the Council of
'rent, because they denied that the Real Presence
•as whole and entire under each form (Denzinger-
tannwart, 930 sqq.; Mansi, XXX).
The Nestorians had denied that the Real Presence as wholly and entirely under each form. The read, they said, contained only the Body of Christ nd the wine only His Blood. This is heretical, tecause, as the Church quotes (and the text is the uthentic Greek), "whosoever shall eat this bread, or rink the chalice of the Lord unworthil5', shall be uilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord" (I ^or., xi, 27). For, "Christ rising again from the ead, dieth now no more" (Rom., vi, 9). Separation f flesh and blood is death, and hence Christ's presence hole and entire under each species is a dogma of lathoho belief. Catholic theology offers this explana- lon: By the words of consecration. Christ's Bodj' is nder the appearance of bread, and His Blood under rie appearance of wine. The Body and Blood, Soul nd Divinity of Jesus Christ form one indivisible 'erson, and must be found together. That virtue or jrce which unites the body to the blood, and vice ersa, in the Euchari.st, is known in Catholic theology nder the term co?(Co»a7anc«. Utraquism tended to ndo this dogma, because it declared communion nder both forms essential to salvation. This wa.s irtually to deny that Christ was whole and entire nder each form. It went further, in declaring that ommunion — the reception of the Eucharist — was b.scilutcly neces.sary to .salvation.
Theologians distinguish two kinds of necessity: lat of means and that of precept. Necessity of leans is that absolutely obligatory use of those lings required to at t aiii a purpose. It is an " impera- ve must" that ari.ses from the very nature of things, 'eeessity of precept is an obligation imposed by a ammand, and for good reasons that which is pre- 'ribcd may be dispensed with. The Hussites con- vidcd that the Eucliarist was a necessary means to vlvalion, so that those who died without having ■ceived the Eucharist, e. g. the insane, the young, luld not, according to the Hu.ssites, be saved. All lis they inferred from Christ's words: "Except you it the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ou shall not have life in you" {.lohn, vi, 54). Now le Cathohc Church denies that the Eucharist is ecessary as a means to salvation. She commands le faithful to receive the Eucharist, emphasizes its nportance, and declares it wellnigh impossible for
one to continue long in the state of grace without it.
This is a precept; from it dispensations are possible.
Hence if any one died without this sacrament, his
eternal loss would not, merely for this reason, be a
necessary consequence. This is clear from the prac-
tice of the Early Church. Even when Communion
under both forms prevailed, some received under only
one species. To the sick it was thus often given, and
the Church has never considered them lost. As to
the text which seems to oblige Communion under both
forms, it is a question of interpretation. The Cath-
olic Church is the only authoritative interpreter
of Christ's doctrine; to none other has this power been
granted. Omitting here the many meanings Catholic
theologians attribute to the verse, "Except you eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you" (John, vi, 54), it should be noted
that the Cathohc Church has officially declared that
these words do not make Communion under both
forms obUgatory (Denzinger-Bannwart, 930). This
conclusion is substantiated by Scripture: "If any
man eat of this bread, he shall hvefor ever; and the
bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the Ufe of the
world" (.lohn, vi, 52). It is true that some theolo-
gians believe more grace is conferred by Communion
under both forms. But this question is speculative,
not practical. It does not affect the Church's dogma,
nor is this opinion by any means common to all
Catholic theologians.
Ma.vsi, Amplissima Coll. Condi,,. XXVII-XXX (Paris and Leipzig, 1903); von der Hardt. .l/u;;, urn ( i.n -/,i nliense Concilium,
II. Ill (Frankfort and LeipziK. l(.'J7l: Si. Thomas. .Summa,
III. Q. Ixxxi: BiLLUART, Sumrna Sanch T><"rii,r. ed. LAQTJErrE, VI (Paris. 1867-72); Suarez, Optra Omnia. XXI, disp. Ixxi (Paris, 1877) : Tanqcerey, Sj/nopsi's Thmlogia Dogmalica Spe- cialis, II (10th ed., Paris, 1906) ; Diclionnaire tie Theologie Calh- oligue: Calixlins (Paris, 1904): .\lzog. Universal Church History, tr. Pabisch and Byrxe. II ((^'incinnati, 1878); Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I {4lh ed.. New York, 1884); Littledale, Plain Reasons against joimnt^ iht^ Church of Rome (London, 1880); Ryder, Essays (London, 1911).
Joseph B. Hughes.
Utrecht, Archdiocese of (Trajectensis), situ- ated in the Netherlands, includes the Provinces of LUrecht, Friesland, Overyssel, Drenthe, Gron- ingen, the larger part of Gelderland, and a small part of North Holland. In 1911 the archdiocese contained 17 deaneries, 282 parishes, 57S secular priests engaged in the cure of souls, 1G4 regular priests, 390 churches and chapels, and 383,000 Catholics. The cathedral chapter consists of a provost and 8 canons; the Government has no part in the nomination of the archbishop. The archiepiscopal seminary is divided into two sections: one at Driebergen with five professors, the other at Culenberg with twelve. The religious orders and congregations are: Augustinians, Carmelites, Capuchins, Dominicans, Franciscans. Trappists, Redemptorists, Brothers of Mercy, Brothers of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, and Brothers of St. John of God, with altogether 15 houses; Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy, Tertiaries of St. Francis, Tertiaries of St. Dominic, Sisters of Konigsbusch, Sisters of the Society of Jesus of Bois- Ic-Duc, .Sisters of St. Joseph, Benedictine Nuns of the Perpetual Adoration, .'listers of St. Charles Borromeo, ."listers of the Good Shepherd, Carmelite Nuns of the .'Strict Ob.-iervance, Daughters of Marj' and Joseph, .Sorores Matris Boni Succursus, Poor Sisters of I he Child Jesus, Poor School Sisters, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of the .Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Marj-, anil I'rsuline Nuns; altogether about 80 houses. The principal church of the diocese is the Cathedral of St. Catherine, built in the Gothic style in 1524; the former Catholic Cathedral of St. Martin, built 1251- ()7 in the Gothic style, now belongs to the schismatic Jansenists.
The founding of the Diocese of Utrecht dates back to the Prankish era. In 695 St. Willihrord was con- secrated at Rome Bishop of the Frisians. Towards
