Ba) A I reer ATI * Piciiauete eet ae Sashes SC ken n et sta ER set =. Seh tage pr Bene ge lee sot 16 eprexy fs 3 ir is i te aaa bd KEN Le En Sie Sn Ei Hat: Ie aay NENEN wir + taeaatt hae Peres + ir hs 1 bares N Er He she Breit ER spain ee res At en whe we Re sya] Ete Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/sacramentsdogmatO2pohl DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IX THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG- MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At- tributes. vi & 470 pp., $2.00 net. 2. The Divine Trinity. iv & 207 pp., $1.50 net. 3. God the Author of Nature and the Su- pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. Grace: Actual and Habitual. iv & 443 pp., $2 net. The Sacraments. Vol. I. (The Sacra- ments in General. Baptism. Confirma- tion.) vi & 328 pp., $1.50 net. 9. The Sacraments. Vol. II. (The Holy Eucharist.) vi & 408 pp., $1.75 net. . 10. The Sacraments. Vol. III. (Penance.) iv & 270 pp., $1.50 net. 11. The Sacraments. Vol. IV. (Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony.) iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. 12. . Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1.00 net. TWELVE VOLUMES NET $18. ee PSD by ie THE SACRAMENTS. A DOGMATIC TREATISE BY Mn THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, Pu.D.,D.D. FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, LEEDS (ENGLAND), LATER PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AT THE CATHO- LIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA ADAPTED AND EDITED f BY ARTHUR PREUSS r VOLUME II The Holy Eucharist THIRD, REVISED EDITION B. HERDER BOOK CO. 17 SourH Broapway, St. Louis, Mo. AND AT 68 GREAT RussELL St., Lonpon, W. C. 1919 NIHIL OBSTAT Sti. Ludovici, die 13, Sept. 1917 F. G. Holweck, Oensor Librorum IMPRIMATUR Sti. Ludovici, die 15, Sept. 1917 HJoannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici Copyright, 1916 by Joseph Gummersbach All rights reserved Printed in U. 8. A. First edition, 1916 Second edition, 1917 Third edition, 1919 BECKTOLD PRINTING & BOOK MFG. CO. ST. LOUIS, MO. PAGE INTRODUCTION I Part I, THe REAL PRESENCE ahs ie 9 Cu. I. The Real Presence as a Fact . Io $ 1. Proof from Holy Scripture . Io Art. 1. The Promise ; IO. Art. 2. The Words of tcunion : 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS § 2. Proof from Tradition . Sop a aur, Mee AR Art. 1. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church’ MWe kesh 45 Art. 2. The Tesehine a re Fäthers ; 55 Art. 3. The Argument from Prescription . 80 Cu. II. The Totality of the Real Presence . ‘ 88 Cu. III. Transubstantiation, or the Operative Cause of the Real Presence h : 102 § 1. Definition of raneubeantianon { : 103 § 2. Transubstantiation Proved from Holy Scripture and Tradition . A ts) Cu. IV. The Permanence of ie Real Pees Er ue Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist . 128 § 1. The Permanence of the Real Presence . 129 § 2. The Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist . , 136 Cu. V. Speculative Discussion of the Mystery of the Real Presence Rr Weta sted Nae FAS § 1. First Apparent Con aden: The Continued Existence of the Eucharistic Species without — their Natural Subject ae al nn tt A ee EAR § 2. Second Apparent Contradiction: The Spirit-Like Mode of Existence of Christ’s Eucharistic Body 162 § 3. Third Apparent Contradiction: The Simultane- ous Existence of Christ in Heaven and in Many Places on Earth (Multilocation) . 175 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Part II. Tue Hoty EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT . 7185 Cu. I. Matter and Form . ; . 189 § 1. The Matter, or the Buchten Fleniches : . 189 § 2. The Sacramental Form, or the Words of Con- secration : . 198 Cu. II. Sacramental Effects PO ae Macias aS sete th ck aed So. § 1. First and Principal Effect: Union of the Soul with Christ by Love ; 2D0 § 2. Second Effect: Increase of Sanctitvinge Cee ee § 3. Third Effect: The Blotting Out of Venial Sins and the Preservation of the Soul from Mortal Sins 229 § 4. Fourth Effect: The Pledge of Man’s Glorious Resurrection and Eternal Happiness 232 Cu. III. The Necessity of the Holy Eucharist for Saige HORS . 235 § 1. In What Sense the Holy Eucharist: is Neder for Salvation . : ‚4226 § 2. Communion Under One Kind. : . 246 Cu. IV. The Minister of the Holy Eucharist . . 255 § 1. The Minister of Consecration .. 256 § 2. The Minister of Distribution > DOE Cu. V. The Recipient of the Holy Eucharist . 264 § 1. Objective Capacity . 265 § 2. Subjective Worthiness . 207 Part III. Tue Hoty EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE, OR THE Mass 272 Cu. I. The Existence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 276 § 1. The Notion of Sacrifice Explained . 220 Art. 1. Definition of Sacrifice . 7297. Art. 2. Different Kinds of Sacrifice ; ey, § 2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved Ei Scripture and Tradition Dar ne ee eres Art. 1. The Old Testament . . 295 Art. 2, The New Testament . ; . 306 Art. 3. The Argument from bien E 2314 Art. 4. The Argument from Tradition 2322 CH.:II, The “Nature ofthe Mass 77, 7. % IE § 1. The Physical Essence of the Mass . 938 Art. 1. The Mass in its Relation to the Salrihee of the Cross .. 332 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE | Art. 2. The Consecration as the Real Sacrificial Act 340 - § 2. The Metaphysical Essence of the Mass . . . 349 Art. I. Some Unsatisfactory Theories Regarding the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass. . . . 350 Art. 2. Acceptable Theories Regarding the Meta- physical’ Essence. of: the Mass 7 It, she) aso Cu. III. The Causality of the Mass. . eye 378 § 1. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass rel akc le: § 2. In What Manner the Mass Produces its Effects . 381 DADE eM Rey EL erste ek aa RE RETTEN 20 INTRODUCTION I. NAMES.—No other mystery of the Catholic religion has been known by so many different names as the Holy Eucharist, considered both as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice. These names are so numerous that the Church’s entire teach- ing on this dogma could be developed from a mere study of them. They are derived from Bibli- cal events, from the sacramental species, from the effects produced by the Sacrament, from the Real Presence, and from the sacrificial charac- ter of the Mass. a) The names “Eucharist” (exapıoria, gratiarum actio), “ Blessing” (ebdoyia, benedictio), and “ Break- ing of Bread” (kAdows rod dprov, fractio panis) are of Scriptural origin. The first two occur in the Evangelical account of the Last Supper; the third goes back to the synoptics and St. Paul, and to certain expressions in the Acts of the Apostles. “ Blessing” and “ Breaking of Bread ” are now obsolete terms, whereas “ Eucharist ” has remained in common use in the liturgy and in theological treatises since the time of St. Irenaeus. None of these three expressions exactly describes the nature of the Sac- 1 Not bona gratia, as St, Thomas thinks. I 2 INTRODUCTION rament. Awe and reverence for the unfathomable mys- tery, together with the discipline of the secret (disciplina arcani), were responsible for them. The titles “ Last Supper ” (sacra coena, deirvov äyıov), “Lord’s Supper” (coena Domini, xvpiaxdy deinvov), and their poetical synonyms “ Celestial Banquet” (prandium coeleste), “ Sacred Banquet” (sacrum convivium), etc., which have a special relation to holy Communion, may likewise be traced to Sacred Scripture. b) “Sacrament of the Bread and Wine” (sa- cramentum panis et vini), “ Bread of Heaven” (apros &rovpdvıos), and such kindred appellations as “ Bread of the Angels” (pams angelorum) and “ Eucharistic Bread,” are derived from the visible species. St. Paul speaks of the Holy Eucharist as “that bread” * and “ the chalice of benediction.” * Far from misrepresenting the Sacrament or denying the dogma of Transubstantiation, these expressions are in accord with our Lord’s own way of speaking, for He calls Himself the “bread which cometh down from heaven.” ® c) The principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is ex- pressed in the name “ Communion” (communio, &vooıs, Kkowovia), i. e. union with Christ, union of love. Present usage, however, restricts this term almost entirely to the reception of the Sacrament, as is apparent from such locutions as “to go to Communion,” “to receive holy Communion,” etc. The same is true of “ Viaticum,” a name used to designate the Blessed Sacrament with spe- cial reference to the dying. “Agape” (ayamn, Love Feast) ° and “ Synaxis”’ (ovva£ıs, Assembly) are now obsolete and occur only in theological treatises. 2Cfr. 1 Cer. XI, 20. 5Cfr. John VI, 50 sqq. 81 Cor. XI, 28. 6 Cfr. H. Leclercq, art. * Agape ”’ a7 Coteus 6; in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. INTRODUCTION 3 d) Of special importance for the dogma of the Real Presence are those names which express the nature of the Sacrament. The Holy Eucharist, though according to its external species a “ Sacrament of Bread and Wine,” is in reality the ‘Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ ” (sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi) or, simply, “the Body of the Lord” (corpus Domini), or “the Body of Christ” (corpus Christi). This explains such expressions as “ Sanctissimum,” “ Holy of Holies,” LLC. e) The popular designation “ Sacrament of the Altar” was introduced by St. Augustine. It points particularly to the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, indicating not only that as the body of Christ it is reserved on the al- tar, but more especially that it is a true sacrifice offered at the Mass. The traditional title “ Eucharistia,” which appears in writings of authors as ancient as SS. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin, and Irenaeus, has in the technical termin- ology of the Church and her theologians taken precedence of all others, especially since the Council of Trent. The Roman Catechism is almost alone in preferring “Sacrament of the Altar.” The name “ Table of the Lord” (mensa Domini, rpanela Kupiov) was formerly ap- plied to the altar on which the Eucharistic sacrifice was of- fered; later it came to be used of the sacrifice itself, and still later of the communion railing. “ To approach the Table of the Lord,” in present-day parlance, means to go up to the communion rail to receive the Blessed Sacra- ment. The original and deeper meaning of the phrase, viz,: to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice, is no longer familiar to the people. The same is true of the word I; Keating, The Agape and the Eu- charistie und Agape im Urchristen- charist in the Early Church, Lon- tum, Solothurn 1909. don 1901; E. Baumgartner, Eu- 4 ; INTRODUCTION “Host” (hostia), which originally meant the sacrificial victim (6voia), but is now applied also to unconsecrated wafers. The current name for the Eucharist as a sacri- fice is “ Sacrifice of the Mass” (sacrificium mn or, briefly, “ Mass” (missa). 2. Tur Position or THE Hoty EUCHARIST AMONG THE SACRAMENTS AND MYSTERIES OF THE CaTHOLic RELIGION. — Ihe commanding dignity of the Holy Eucharist is evidenced by the central position which it occupies among the Sacraments and by the intimate connection existing between it and the most exalted mysteries of the faith. a) Though closely related to the Sacraments of Bap- tism and Confirmation, and in a special class with them because of the kindred concepts of regeneration, puberty, and growth (food),’ the Holy Eucharist, by reason of its unique character, far transcends all the other Sacraments. It is the “ sacramentum sacramentorum” because it con- tains and bestows, not only grace, but the Author of grace Himself. “ The Sacrament of the Eucharist,” says St. Thomas, “is the greatest of all sacraments; first because it contains Christ Himself substantially, whereas the others contain a certain instrumental power, which is a share of Christ’s power; ... secondly, .. . all the other Sacraments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end; .... thirdly; . ... nearly all the Sac- raments terminate in the Eucharist.”® The first of these reasons is founded on the Real Presence; the second, on the fact that Baptism and Confirmation bestow the right to 7 C£fr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 8 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 65, art. ments, Vol. I, 3. INTRODUCTION 5 receive Holy Communion: — Penance, and Extreme Unc- — tion make one worthy to receive it; Holy Orders imparts the power of consecration; while Matrimony, as an em- blem of the union between the mystical Christ and His Church, also symbolizes the union of love between Christ and the soul. The third reason given by St. Thomas is based on the consideration that those who have received one of the other Sacraments, as a rule also receive Holy Communion.® We may add, as a fourth reason, that the Holy Eucharist alone among the Sacraments repre- sents a true sacrifice, thereby becoming the very centre of the faith and the sun of Catholic worship.’° b) Viewed as a mysterium fidei, the Holy Eucharist is a veritable compendium of mysteries and prodigies. Together with the Trinity and the Incarnation it consti- tutes that wonderful triad by which Christianity shines forth as a religion of mysteries far transcending the ca- pacity of human reason, and by which Catholicism, the faithful guardian and keeper of our Christian heritage, infinitely excels all pagan and non-Christian religions, This mysterious triad is no merely external aggregate. Its members are organically connected with one another. In the Eucharist, to borrow a profound thought of Schee- ben, the series of God’s mysterious communications to hu- manity attains its climax. That same divine nature which God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, com- municates to His only-begotten Son, the Son in turn, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, communicates to His humanity, formed in the womb of the Virgin, in order that thus, as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic 9“ Sicut patet, quod ordinati com- charistie der Mittelpunkt_des Glau- municant, et etiam baptigati, si bens, des Gottesdienstes und Lebens fuerint adulti.” (St. Thomas, I.c.). der Kirche, 2nd ed., Paderborn 10 Cfr. F, A. Bongardt, Die Eu- 1882, 6 INTRODUCTION species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, as a tender mother, mystically cherishes the Eucharist as her greatest treasure and daily sets it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls. First we meet the Son of God in the bosom of the eternal Father," next, in the bosom of His Virgin Mother,!? and lastly, as it were, in the bosom of the Church,—in the tabernacle and in the hearts of the faithful."? 3. Division oF THis TREATISE.—The dog- matic teaching of the Church on the Holy Eu- charist is admirably stated in the decrees of the Council of Trent. The Tridentine teaching may be summarized as follows: In the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are really, truly, and substantially present for the nourishment of souls, by reason of the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which takes place in the unbloody sacrifice of the New Testament, i. e., the Mass. This descriptive definition brings out three principal heads of doctrine: (1) The Real Pres- ence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; (2) The 11 Cfr. John I, 18: “ Unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris.” 12 John I, 14: “ Et Verbum caro Eucharist, v. infra, Part I, Ch. V, and Lessius, De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis, XII, 16.— The factum est.” 13 This threefold relation has been artistically depicted by Raphael in his famous “ Disputa.’— On the miracles involved in the Holy intrinsic propriety of the Eucharist in its actual form is well demon- strated by N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakro- mente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, znd ed., pp. 414 sqq., Freiburg 1902. INTRODUCTION 7 Eucharist as a Sacrament; and (3) The Eucharist as a Sacrifice. Hence the present treatise nat- urally falls into three parts. GENERAL READINGS: — St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73 sqq.; Opusc., XXXVIJT (ed, Mich. de Maria, S. J., Vote ILE: pp. 460 sqq., Tiferni Tiberini 1886).— Billuart, Summa S. Thomae (ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 382 sqq.).— Albertus Magnus, ___De Sacrosancti Corporis Domini Sacramento Sermones (ed. G. Jacob, Ratisbon 1893).—*De Lugo, De Venerabili Eucharistiae Sacramento (ed. J. P. Fournials, Vols. III and IV, Paris .1892).— Bellarmine, Controv. de Sacramento Eucharistiae (ed. Fevre, Vol. IV, Paris 1873).— Du Perron, Traité du Sacrement de VEucharistie, Paris 1620. For a list of modern authors cfr. the bibliography in Pohle- Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 3 sq.—In addition to the works there mentioned, the following may also be consulted: Haitz, Abendmahllehre, Mayence 1872.— X. Menne, Das allerhei- ligste Sakrament des Altars als Sakrament, Opfer und Kommunion, 3 vols., Paderborn 1873 sqq—M. Rosset, De Eucharistiae My- sterio, Cambéry 1876.— Card. Katschthaler, De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1886.—*Card. Franzelin, De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et Sacrificio, 4th ed., Rome 1887.— P. Einige) Der SS: Eucharistiae Mysterio, Treves 1888.—De Au- gustinis, S. J.. De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1889.— Card. Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., Rome 1907.—C. Jourdain, La Sainte Eucharistie, 2 vols., Paris 1897.— Card. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de SS. Eucharistia, Paris 1897.— A. Cappellazzi, L’Eucaristia come Sacramento e come Sacrificio, Turin 1898.—H. P. Lahousse, S. J., Tractatus Dogmatico-Moralis de SS. Eucharistiae Mysterio, Bruges 1899. —*Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, Mayence 1901.— N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, and ed., Freiburg 1902.—*Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, Part 2, Freiburg 1901.— P. Batiffol, Etudes d’Histoire et de Theologie Positive, Vol. II, 3rd ed., Paris 1906.— J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, London 1907.— 8 INTRODUCTION W. J. Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, London 1903.— D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913.— A. M. Lépicier, Tractatus de SS. Eucharistia, 2 vols., Paris 1917.~ Ed. Hugon, O. P., La Sainte Eucharistie, Paris 1916.—J. S. Vaughan, Thoughts For All Times, 23rd Am. ed., Springfield, Mass., 1916, pp. 119 sqq.—W. Lescher, O. P., The Eucharistic Mission, London and New York 1908 (contains a summary of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Holy Eucharist, pp. 1-34). A AGREES, tabla Sh nev BERNER 2 RR TR ae 2 *) The asterisk before an author’s name indicates that his treatment of the subject is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is invariably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work inferior to that of other writers, There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched. PARI I THE REAL PRESENCE In this part of our treatise we shall consider (1) the fact of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, which is, as it were, the central dogma; then the cognate dogmas grouped about it, viz.: (2) the Manner of the Real Presence, (3) Transubstan- tiation, and (4) The Permanence of the Real Presence and the consequent Adorability of the Eucharist. The believing Catholic accepts these four dog- mas unquestioningly, knowing, as he does, that they are mysteries which the human mind cannot understand. Theologians, however, love to in- dulge in pious speculations and view the august mystery of the Eucharist under various aspects. Hence to the four chapters already indicated we shall add a fifth, devoted to the speculative dis- oussion of the Real Presence.) CHAPTER THE REAL PRESENCE AS A FACT SEC TON a PROOF FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE The New Testament contains two classic texts which prove the Real Presence, vis.: Christ’s promise recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution as re- ported by the synoptics and St. Paul (1 Cor. XI, 23.1800, )} ARTICLENT THE PROMISE I. Our Lorp’s Discourse AT CAPHARNAUM, Joun VI, 25-72.—Christ prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, as recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, by two great miracles wrought on the preceding day. 1 The Fourth Gospel, which alone doubt because the author was aware records the exact words of the of the existence of four different promise, says nothing of the actual authentie accounts of this event by institution of the Eucharist, no other writers. Io PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE II a) The multiplication of the loaves and fishes was in- tended to show that Jesus possessed creative power; the miracle of walking unsupported on the waters, that this power was superior to, and independent of, the laws of nature. Both together proved that, as God-man, He was able to provide the supernatural food which He was about to promise.? After describing this wonderful event, the sacred writer goes on to tell how a great multitude, in- spired by false Messianic hopes and a desire to see the miracle repeated, sought our Lord and finally found Him at Capharnaum (John VI, 1-25). b) Then follows the discourse in which Christ promised the Eucharist (John VI, 26-72). This graphic discourse is divided into two parts, the interrelation of which is controverted among Catholic theologians. While some® take the first part (John VI, 26-48) metaphorically and interpret the “ Bread of Heaven”’ as Christ Himself, who, being the object of faith, must be received as a spiritual food; * many others hold that the entire discourse deals with the Eucharist and that in the first part our Lord merely wishes to show that faith is an indispensable requisite for the salutary reception of the Bread of Heaven. This difference of opinion, however, is unimportant so far as the dogmatic argument for the Real Presence is concerned, since both parties agree that, beginning with verse 48,° or at least with verse 52, the text must be interpreted literally. In matter of fact, 2Cfr. P. Keppler, Komposition 4 Panis vitae — cibus fidei: des Johannesevangeliums, pp. 47 5 Perrone, Schwetz, Chr. Pesch, sqq., Freiburg 1884. . Tepe, et al. 8 Toletus, Franzelin, Atzberger, 6 This is Wiseman’s theory. Gihr, ei al. N 12 THE: REAL (PRESENCE though there is a close connection between the two sec- tions of the discourse, the second clearly begins with a change of subject. From the 26th to the 51st verse, Christ speaks of Himself figuratively as the Bread of Heaven, 7. e., as a spiritual food to be received by faith. Beginning with verse 51, however, He speaks of His Flesh and Blood as a real food, to be literally eaten and drunk. Though the sentence “I am the bread of life” forms the keynote of the whole discourse, the vast difference between the predicates attributed to this bread shows that, whereas it may be taken figuratively in the first part, it is employed in a strictly literal sense in the second. Atzberger effectively summarizes the arguments for this view as follows: “In the first part, the food is of the present, in the second, of the future; there it is given by the Father, here by the Redeemer Himself; there it is simply called ‘bread,’ here ‘the Flesh of the Son of man;’ there our Lord speaks only of bread, here of His Flesh and Blood; there, it is true, He calls Himself _ ‘bread,’ but He avoids the expression ‘to eat me,’ where one would expect to meet it; here He speaks both of ‘ eat- ing me’ and of ‘eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood. ”® Only once does Christ make an excep- tion, namely, where He says in the first section: “ Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which en- dureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” ® This reference seems to point to an inten- tional connection between the two sections of our Lord’s discourse ; but it does not prove that the whole of the first "John VI, 35, 48. nv Bpwow Thy AmoAAvuernv, 8 Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch dAA& Thy Bpdow Thy uevovoav eis der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, 569, | {whv aiwvıov, Rv 6 vids Tov dvOpe- Freiburg 1901. mov vuiy woe. 9John VI, 27: ’Epyaleode un BROOF, FROM) SCRIPTURE 2% section must be taken literally. There are several pas- sages which are obviously meant to be figurative. For instance, when Jesus says: “I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”1° And again: “ Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting | LERNT c) It is of great importance to show that the second part of our Lord’s discourse demands a strictly literal interpretation. The early Prot- estant contention that the whole chapter must be understood figuratively'* has been given up by Delitzsch, Köstlin, Keil, Kahnis, J. Hoff- mann, Dieterich, and other modern non-Catholic EREIELES. 2. THE REAL PRESENCE PROVED FROM JOHN VI, 52 soa.— Whatever one may hold regarding the first section of our Lord’s discourse, the second plainly demands a literal interpretation. The whole structure makes a figurative interpre- tation impossible. Christ’s hearers showed by their conduct that they understood Him literally, and the Fathers and the early councils followed their example. | The decisive passages run as follows: 10 John VI, 35. Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 187 sq., 11 John VI, 47.—Cfr. Franzelin, Paris 1896. De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et 12 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha- Sacrificio, thes. 3, Rome 1887; a dif- ristia, I, 5 sqq. ferent view is defended by Tepe, 14 THE REAL (PRESENCE - John VI, 52: “. .. the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” | John VI, 54: ". .. except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” John VI, 56: “For my flesh 1s meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” These and kindred texts must be interpreted literally, (a) because the whole structure of the discourse demands it; (b) because a figurative interpretation would involve absurd consequences; (c) because our Lord’s hearers understood Him literally and were not corrected by Him, and (d) because the Fathers and councils of the Church have always upheld the literal interpretation. a) The whole structure of the discourse demands a literal interpretation of the words, “ Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood.” Mention is made of three different kinds of food: the manna which Moses dispensed to the Israelites in the desert,!* the “ Bread of Life”? which the Heavenly Father gives to men in the In- carnate Word to nourish their faith,!* and the (Eucharis- tic) Bread of Life which Christ Himself promises to give to His followers.” The manna was a thing of the past, a transitory food incapable of warding off death. The Bread of Heaven, 7. e., the Son of God made man, is of the present and constitutes, in as far as it is accepted, a means of spiritual life. The third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give at a future time, is new and essentially different, i. e., His own Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. The first of these 13 John VI, 31, 32, 49, 59. 15 John VI, 27, 52, 14 John ‚VI; 32, ‚33. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 15 foods was given in the past by Moses, the second is given at the present time by the Father, the third will be given in the future by the Son. Cfr. John VI, 32: “ Moses: gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you ther true ‘bread, from: heaven. 4?) John VI, ga ‘“.. . the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life | of the world.” ** The distinction is clear-cut and unmis- takable. The “ Bread from Heaven” is Christ Himself, given to the Jews as an object of faith through the In- carnation. The “ Bread of Life” promised by Christ is a new food, to be dispensed at some future time, and to be eaten, not metaphorically but literally, in Holy Commun- ion. Had our Lord not meant to speak in the literal sense, why this emphatic distinction between eating and drinking, food and drink, flesh and blood,® and why should He have repeatedly employed as a syno- nym of dayeiv, “to eat,”?° the much more graphic term tpwyev, which means literally “to crunch with the teeifüne If we take the manna of the desert, which our Lord repeatedly mentions in His discourse, as a type of the Eucharist, we can argue as follows: Assuming that the Eucharist contained merely consecrated bread and wine, instead of the true Body and Blood of Christ, the original would not excel the type by which it was prefigured.* But St. Paul teaches that the original must transcend its type in the same way in which a body excels its shadow, and consequently the Eucharist contains more than mere 16 John VI, 32: “Non Moyses 18 Cfr. John VI, 54 sqa. dedit (deöwkev) vobis panem de 19 John VI, 54, 56, 58. coelo, sed Pater meus dat ($löweıv) 20 John VI,..52, 53. - vobis panem de coelo verum.” 21 Cir.) Hebel X, 3; 2 Cor X, 3 17 John VI, 52: “Et panis quem sqgq. ego dabo (éyw Öwow), caro mea est pro mundi vita.” 16 THE REAL PRESENCE bread and wine, namely, the true Flesh and Blood of Christ, as the Lord Himself declared.2* Other types of the Holy Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Fathers, are: the bread and wine offered by Melchise- dech,?? the loaves of proposition,?* the blood of the covenant,”” and the paschal lamb.?® b) The words “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” must be understood literally for the further reason that a figurative interpretation is impossible. True, the phrase “to eat one’s flesh” was employed metaphorically among the Semites - and in Holy Scripture itself, but only in the sense of “to persecute, to hate bitterly,” which cannot possibly be meant here. For had our Lord in- tended His words to be taken in this sense, it would appear that He promised His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recom- pense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The phrase, “to drink one’s blood,” has no other figurative meaning in Holy Scripture than that of dire chastisement,?” which is as inapplicable here as in the phrase “‘to eat one’s flesh.” Hence the declaration: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath ever- lasting life,’ °° must be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, 7. e. literally. 22 Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I, 25 Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, 17 sqa. of, 20x. NIG aorsaq: 28 Gen. XIV, 18; cfr. Ps. CIX, 4. 27 Cir, Is. XLIX) 263 Apoc. ov L, 24x. (RAV, 503) 3: Kings’ XXII, 6. 6 sag. 28 John VI, 55: “ Qui manducat FROOE FROM: SCRIPTURE 17 It is objected that the expression “to eat one” inthe sense of loving him beyond measure was as familiar to the Jews as it is to some modern nations. Those who make this assertion cite Job XXXI, 31: “ Direrunt viri tabernaculs mei: Quis det de carnibus eius, ut sature- mur?” which our English Bible translates: “If the men of my tabernacle have not said: Who will give us of his flesh, that we may all be filled?” However, com- petent exegetes interpret this text either of the hatred Job felt for his enemies or of the hospitality he practiced towards his friends.” The first-mentioned interpreta- tion confirms the contention that the phrase “to eat one,” if used figuratively by the Hebrews, was always used in an odious sense; the latter does not disprove it. If cer- tain of the Fathers interpret this obscure passage as expressing intense love, it was because they regarded Job as a type of Christ, and consequently attached a typical and prophetic sense to the text. Such other texts as Prov. IX, 5: “Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you, amd) Kecius; X IM, 2070) They: that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst,” ** are too plainly figurative as to admit of mis- understanding. What else could the Divine Wisdom, which is here personified, mean by inviting men to “ eat my bread” and to “eat me,” than to nourish their souls with supernatural truth? The case is radically dif- ferent in the Gospel of St. John, where the living God- man invites and commands men to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Here the phrase must be taken literally, since meam carnem et bibit meum sangui- dite panem meum et bibite vinum, nem, habet vitam aeternam.” quod miscui vobis.” 29 Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. 31 Ecclus. XXIV, 29: ‘ Qui in Librum Iob, Paris 1886. edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui 30 Prov. IX, 5: “Venite, come- bibunt me, adhuc sitient.” 18 THE REAL PRESENCE the only possible figurative interpretation would entail absurd consequences. c) The literal interpretation of our Lord's discourse agrees perfectly with the conduct of those who heard Him, and with the way in which He met their doubts and objections. a) The murmuring of the Jews and their query: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *? is clear evidence that they had understood Him literally. Yet, far from repudiating this construction of His words, Jesus repeated them in a most solemn manner, saying: “ Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day.” ** And as if to prevent a figurative interpretation of His words, He continued: “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” ** The Evangelist tells us that many of His disciples were scandalized and protested: “ This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” . But instead of retracting what He had said, Christ re- proached them for their want of faith and demanded that they believe Him, by alluding to His divine origin and His future ascension into Heaven. St. John tells us: “ But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Does this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was 82 John VI, 53. 83 John _Vi,. 54 :sq.:. “ Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisı manducaveritis carnem Filit hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, et ego resu- scitabo eum in novissimo die.” 84 John VI, 56: “Caro enim mea vere (add\nOas) est cibus, et sanguis meus vere (adnOws) est potus.” PROOF FROM ‘SCRIPTURE 19 before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profit- eth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are ° spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.” °° He could have cleared up the misunderstand- ing, had there been one, with a single word, as He had often done before,?® but He allowed them to depart with- out further ado,” and finally turned to the twelve Apostles with the question: “ Will you also go away?” 38 Then Peter stepped forth and humbly and believingly re- plied in the name of his colleagues: “ Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, ‘and we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” 2° Thus the number: of His faithful disciples diminished, yet rather than recall His words or gloss over the literal sense in which they had been understood, our Lord would have allowed even the twelve Apostles to go away. 8B) The Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage “It is the spirit that quickeneth,” etc., in the sense of a glossing over, is wholly inadmissible. For in the first place such a glossing over would have practically amounted to a formal retractation of His teaching, be- cause the expressions “to eat one’s flesh” and “ drink one’s blood” cannot consistently be explained as “ believ- ing in him.” Why should our Lord have uttered non- sense, only to recall His utterance afterwards? Clearly the Apostles and disciples did not understand the passage as a retraction, for in spite of it the disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which they did not as yet under- 35 John VI, 62 sqq. 37 John VI, 68, use Cie oun) III 4; EV 335 38 Ibid, VIE) 393) VILE, 57 sa. 3) XT! Io: 39 John VI, 69 sq. Matth. XVI, 6, etc. 20 THE REAL*PRESENCE stand. Nor did Christ say, as the Zwinglians would have His Mey? flesh as Spirit, © dhe. to, be understood in a figurative sense, but He said: “ My words are spirit and life.” But what did our Lord mean when He added: “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”? *° There are two views regarding the interpretation of this text. Many of the Fathers declare that the true flesh of Jesus (caro, oap&) must not be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus, mveüna), and hence not in a cannibalistic sense but as belonging entirely to the super- natural economy.*t The second and more scientific ex- planation *? asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of “flesh” to “spirit” the former always signifies carnal- mindedness, the latter, mental perception illuminated by faith, and that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped only in the light of super- natural faith, whereas it must remain unintelligible to the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin. St. Chrysostom explains: “How, therefore, did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this; far from it; but of those who would understand what He had said in a carnal sense. . . . You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing.” *° 40 John VI, 64: “ Spiritus est aut in macello venditur, non quomo- qui vivificat, caro non prodest quid- quam; verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.” 41 Thus St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioa., 27, n. 5: “Non prodest quid- quam, sed quomodo illi intellexe- runt; carnem quippe sic intellexe- runt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur do spiritu vegetatur. . . . Spiritus ergo est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam: sicut illi intel- lexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam.”’ 42 Its principal champion is Mal- donatus. 43 Hom. in Ioa., 47, n. 2.—On PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 21 d) The concurrent testimony of the Fathers. and councils constitutes another strong argument for the literal interpretation of our Lord’s dis- course. While the figurative explanation pre- ferred by a few Catholic theologians need not be “suspected of heresy,” ** Maldonatus is undoubt- edly right in denouncing it as temerarious. a) Maldonatus * has brought together a huge mass of citations to show that the Fathers are unanimous in inter- preting John VI, 52 sqq. literally.* Even those who apply the first part of our Lord’s discourse to the “ cibus fidei,” admit the literal interpretation as the only possible one for the second part. We have already quoted St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. Augustine, though inclined to assign first place to the “ spiritual eating of Christ in the faith,” 47 does not reject the literal, but uses it as a basis for the figurative interpretation.“ B) As regards the councils, that of Ephesus, 431, approved St. Cyril’s synodal letter to Nestorius, in which John VI, 55 is cited in support of the “ life- “giving virtue ” of the hypostatically united Flesh of Christ in holy Com- the different interpretations of John 48 Cfr. Tract. in Ioa., 26, n. 18: ME, G4. cfrs N. Gihr, Die Al Sa- “Qui non manet in Christo et in kramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, quo non manet Christus, procul 2nd ed., pp. 372 sqq. dubio nec manducat spiritualiter 44Cfr. Alb. a Bulsano, Theol. carnem eius nec bibit eius sangui- Dogmat., ed. Gottfr. a Graun, Vol. nem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter II, p. 597, Innsbruck 1894. premat dentibus sacramentum cor- 45 Commentar. in Ioa., c. 6. poris et sanguinis Christi; sed 46Cfr. also Val. Schmidt, Die magis tantae rei sacramentum ad Verheissung der Eucharistie bei den indicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia Vätern, Würzburg 1900; De Au- immundus praesumpsit ad Christi gustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. accedere sacramenta, quae aliquis I, 2nd ed., pp. 460 sqq. non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus 47 Cfr. Tract. in Ioa., 25, n. 12: CRT “ Ut quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti.” 22 THE REAL PRESENCE munion.* The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) condemned the contention of the Iconoclasts that the Eucharist is “the true, adorable image of Christ,’ °° cited John VI, 54, and concluded as follows: “ There- fore it is clearly proved that neither our Lord, nor the Apostles, nor the Fathers ever referred to the unbloody sacrifice that is offered up by the priest as an image, but [called it] the very Body and the very Blood.” °! ‘Those Catholic theologians who preferred the figurative inter- pretation °2 were led to do so by controversial reasons. In their perplexity they imagined that the demand of the Hussites and Protestant Utraquists for the chalice for the laity could not be effectively controverted from Scripture in any other way. In view of this circum- stance the Tridentine Council refrained from a formal definition on the subject,®* though its own attitude is plain from the fact that it embodied several passages from the sixth chapter of St. John in its argument for the sacramental.reception of the Eucharist in holy Com- munion.** Coll. 53 Cfr, Sess, XXT) | cape iz: . utcumque [sermo Christi] 49 Cfr. Hardouin, Vol. I, p. 1290. Concil., cs . 50 rhy ddnOq TOU Xpıorov eiköva. 51 Cfr. Hardouin, op. cit., Vol. IV, 370: “Ergo liquido demon- stratum est, quod nusquam Dominus vel Apostoli vel Patres sacrificium incruentum per sacerdotem oblatum dixerunt imaginem, sed ipsum cor- pus et ipsum sanguinem.” 52 Notably Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, John Hessel, and the elder Jansen- ius. iuxta varias ss. Patrum et Doctorum interpretationes intelligatur.” 54 Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess, XIII, cap. 2; Sess. XXI, cap. 1.— On the debates that took place on this subject at Trent, cfr. Pallavi- cini, Hist. Conc. Trid., XVII, 11. A valuable work is Fr. Patrizi, S. J., Commentationes Tres de Scripturis Divinis, de Peccati Originalis Propa- gatione a Paulo Descripta, de Christo Pane Vitae, Rome 1851. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 23 ARTICEE 2 THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION The Biblical argument for the Real Presence attains its climax in the words of institution, which have come down to us in four different versions, of which two may be grouped as “Petrine,” because they are obviously derived from St. Peter, while the other two, handed down by St. Paul and his companion St. Luke, may just as appropriately be called “Pauline.” The “Petrine” account, it will be noticed, is the simpler of the two, whereas the “Pauline” is more detailed, and, because of its wording, of greater importance for the dogma of the Mass.! THE PAULINE ACCOUNT Pukey XX sqq.: floc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemora- tionem, Toürd &orı rd Copa THE PETRINE ACCOUNT Matth. XXVI, 26 sqq.: Hoc est enim corpus meum. Toto €or. TO copd pov. ov TO darep tuov ddd evov: Touro mowite eis Ty Eu avdpvnow, Hic est enim sanguis’ Hic est calix Novum meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funde- tur. Tovro TO mornpiov N 1V. infra, Part III. 24 THE REAL PRESENCE ar [4 E \ 7 "4 N Tovro yap Eorı TO alpa pov TO ~ ~ , x x Ts KaLVNS diabykys TO rept ~ / > rohAov exxuvvopevoy eis apeow LpapTLov. Mark XIV, 22.8sgQ:: Hoc est corpus meum. REN REN \ ~ Tovrd eorı TO Opa pov. Hic est sangwis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur. &orı TO alud pov THS Kalns TOAA@Y ~ ’ Tovro Siabyens, TO vUmep ERXUVVOHEVOV. x 5 64 > ~ Y , Kay ta KY) Ev TO al WATE \ ~ > pov, TO Umép ULOV ERXUVVOLEVOV. 1, .Cor Ra Seeger Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur: hoc facite in meam com- memorationem. > \ N ~ \ € N € m €oTlL TO owpa TO VIEp VUWV ~ Tf TovTo ov ’ ~ ~ > [xAcbpevoy]+ TOUTO TOLELTE eis x CAS 3 / THY ENV avapynaWV. Hic calix Novum Testa- mentum est ın meo san- guine: hoc facite, quoties- cumque bibetis, ın meam commemorationem. Tovro 76 morhpuv 5 Kaw SiabyKy éoTly &v TO EUG alpnarı: TOVTO mouite, dodxis av mivmre, eis Thy éuny avapvnow. The decisive words of all these passages are: “This is my body, this is my blood.’ » The Catholic Church has always interpreted them in the strictly literal sense. The first to explain them figuratively was Berengarius, who was fol- lowed by a few other heretics of comparatively modern date.? The figurative interpretation is inadmissible. 2Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 874). PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 25 This can be shown by proving (1) that the literal explanation is the only correct one, and (2) that the heretical objections raised against it are groundless. (bee) [IiTeRAr INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION SHOWN TO BE THE ONLY CORRECT OnE.—The words of institution are so plain that they require no interpretation. If an ordinary man were to break bread and say: “ Eat, this is my body,” no one would take him seriously ; still it would be impossible to explain his words in a figurative sense. Belief in the Real Presence presupposes belief in the Divinity of Christ.® We are compelled to adopt the literal interpretation of the words of institution, (a) by the very existence and character of the four Evangelical accounts quoted above; (b) by the wording of the Scriptural text, and (c) by the circumstances accompanying the institution. a) Ihe very existence of four different ac- counts, all couched in simple language and per- fectly consonant with one another in every essen- tial detail, compels us to interpret them literally. a) When four independent authors, writing in differ- ent countries and at different times, relate the words of institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech would somehow or other betray itself, either in a difference of word-setting (as is the case with regard to the chalice), or in the unequivocal 3Cfr. J. Hehn, Die Einsetzung des hl. Abendmahles als Beweis für die Gottheit Christi, Würzburg 1900. 26. THE REAL PRESENCE expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such remark as: “ He spoke, how- ever, of the sign of His body.” Such explanatory re- marks frequently occur in Sacred Scripture, even in less important texts (cfr. John II, 19 sqq.; III, 3 sqq.; iA 32 sqq.; Matth. XVI, 6 sqq., XVII, 12 sq.) and where several writers supplement one another (e. g., John XII, 4 sq.; cfr. Matth. XXVI, 8; Luke XXIIH, 39; Matth. XXVII, 44). In the present case, however, we nowhere discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpreta- tion of the words “ my body,” “my blood.” If, then, the literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious doctrinal error and of the grievous crime of rendering idolatrous homage to mere bread (artolatria),— a suppo- sition utterly irreconcilable with the character of the four sacred writers and with the inspiration of the text. ß) This view is confirmed by the important cir- cumstance that one of the four narrators, St. Paul, has himself interpreted his account literally. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle says the unworthy recipient of the Eucharist is “ guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.: “ Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord...) Bor he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.”* There could be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself if His true Body and 41 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.: “Itaque panem hunc vel biberit calicem (hore) quicungue manducaverit Domini indigne (dvafiws), reus erit PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 27 Blood were not really present in the Eucharist. Surely St. Paul would not have spoken thus of the manna or the paschal lamb! b) The laws of human speech as well as the appositional phrases used by the sacred writers in connection with the terms “body” and “blood,” directly exclude the possibility of a figurative interpretation.’ «) The necessity of adopting the natural and literal sense of the words of institution is not, as our opponents allege, based upon the assump- tion that Christ could not have resorted to. the use of figures of speech in inculcating His doc- trine, but upon the evident requirements of the case, which demand that He should notwinya matter of such paramount importance, employ meaningless and deceptive metaphors. _ Figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of the case (e. g., from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by saying, “ This is Lincoln”), or from the usages of common parlance (as in the case of the synecdoche: “ This chalice is my blood ”), or at least from some pre- vious agreement (as: “Let us assume that these two sticks represent Plato and Aristotle ”). Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or a possible symbol of the human body. corporis et sanguinis Domini. ... bibit: non diiudicans (un dlarpivwv) Qui enim manducat et. bibit indigne, corpus Domini.” sudicium (kpiua) sibi manducat et 5V. No. 2, infra, pp. 32 sqq. 28 THE REAL PRESENCE Were one to say of a piece of bread: “ This is the body of Cesar,” he would not be using a figure but simply talk nonsense. There is but one means of rendering a symbol, improperly so called, clear and intelligible, namely, by conventionally settling beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: “ Let us imagine these two pencils to be Plato and Socrates.” Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that He intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: “ The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.” The same applies, servata proportione, to wine as the symbol of human blood. To say, therefore, that Christ, by using the words “ This is my Body, this is my Blood,” merely meant to institute an image or a symbol of His Body and Blood, is not to say that He spoke figuratively, but to charge Him with talking nonsense,— a blasphemous charge. The natural sense of the words of institution is so clear and compelling that even Luther wrote to his followers in Strassburg, in 1524: “I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too strong.”*7 When the God-man declares: “This is my Body,’ who but an unbeliever would venture to contradict Him by say- ing: “ No, it is mere bread !.”’ B) The literal interpretation of the words of institution is fairly forced upon us by the signifi- cant appositional phrases used by the sacred writers in connection with the terms “corpus” and “‘sanguts.” 6 John VI, 52. See Art. 1, supra. heraus, der Text ist zu gewaltig da 7Apud De Wette, II, 577: und will sich mit Worten nit lassen “ Aber ich bin gefangen, kann nicht aus dem Sinn reissen.” ee a ae a al tai PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE ees, “Almost every syllable of the original Greek,” as Clarke points out, “especially the articles, is singularly emphatic.” ® The use of the definite article, and its fre- quent repetition, proves that our Lord desired to employ every safeguard to prevent His words from being inter- preted metaphorically. If an autograph collector were to tell me: “ Here I have a codex of St. Thomas, to which he devoted much care,” I should quite naturally under- stand him to mean a holographic original, not a mere copy. Moreover, Christ speaks of His Body as “ given for you” (7d tmép tpav Sidduevov) and of His Blood as “shed for you (TO trép ipnav Erxvvvöuevov) for the forgiveness of sins.” Hence the Body given to the Apostles was the same Body that was crucified on the cross, and the Chalice contained the same Blood that was shed for our sins. c) We arrive at the same conclusion if we consider the circumstances accompanying the in- stitution of the Eucharist. Those who heard our Saviour’s words were simple uneducated fisher- men, whereas He was the omniscient God, who had a particular reason for speaking plainly on this occasion, because He was communicating His last will and testament. a) The Apostles were not possessed of the learned equipment that would have enabled them to unravel ‘a dark and mysterious phraseology. They were ignorant men, from the ranks of the people, who hung upon the words of their Master with childlike simplicity and un- questioningly accepted whatever He told them. This 8 Apud Wiseman, The Real Presence, p. 267. 30 THE-REAL PRESENCE childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ. Can we assume that, after they had been prepared for the literal promise of the Eucharist, they should have under- stood that promise, when it actually came to be made, in a sense which would have involved them in the most absurd misunderstandings and contradictions? Our Lord, when He pronounced the words of institution, was on the eve of His passion and death. It was His last will and testament He was giving them, and He spoke as a dying father to His sorrowing children.® In such a solemn moment the only appropriate mode of speech was one which, stripped of tropes and figures, made use of the simplest words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed. 8) It should be remembered also that Christ, being God, must have foreseen the tragic error into which He would have led His Apostles and His Church by giving them as His real Body and Blood something which was merely bread and wine. The Church has always based her Eu- charistic teaching and practice on the words of her Divine Founder. If she were in error and the adoration she shows to the Holy Eucharist were idolatry, the mis- take would have to be laid at the door of our Lord Him- self. Yet we are told that the interpretation of His words which the Church held from the beginning, is false, and that it required over a thousand years for the real meaning to be discovered by Berengarius (+ 1088) and John Calvin. Are we to assume that heretics and infidels understood our Lord correctly, while the Church, who has the promise of His permanent assistance, was and is egregiously in error? | To this apologetical argument may be added two others of a dogmatic character. BICHE, oan AXTIL eek, ee, PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 31 (1) The Holy Eucharist is the last will and testament | of our Lord. As is plain from the words of consecration, Christ established the “ New Testament” (Novum Testamen- tum, % caw) duadyem) in His Blood. Surely, no sane man would employ unintelligible tropes and figures in drawing up his last will and testament. Jehovah spoke unequivo- cally when He established the Ancient Covenant: “ This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.”1° How clearly did not Jacob,** David,'? Tobias,'? and Mathathias }* formulate their last will and testament! Are we to assume that Jesus Christ, the God- man, was careless in this important matter? With a true instinct the Roman law prescribes * that the words of a will must be taken in their natural and literal sense. It would be ridiculous to interpret the term “ house ” in the will of a testator, not of a real edifice, but of a painting. Christ, according to the literal purport of His testament, has left us His Body and Blood as a precious legacy ; are we justified in interpreting this as a mere symbol? (2) The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament. It was the will of Christ that it should be solemnly celebrated as such in His Church to the end of time. The Sacraments of the Old Law, which are so far inferior to those of the New, were established in unequivocal terms, and there never was any dispute about their meaning.** Is it pos- sible to assume that Christ used less care in instituting the Sacraments of the New Covenant? What would become of Baptism if it were permissible to interpret the term TEx ONT; S87 eit. Heb. TX, 141 Mach. II, 49 saq. I9 sqq. 15 Cfr. Cod. Rom. ff. De Legat., 11 Gen. XLIX, 29 sqq. 3: 123 Kings II, 2 sqq. 16 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 33 Tob tV;)3sqq- ments, Vol. I., pp. 26 sqq. 32 THE REAL PRESENCE “water” in a figurative sense? The Eucharist is no exception to this rule. A figurative interpretation of the terms “ Body” and “ Blood” would contradict the plain meaning of the words of institution. Rationalists have tried to disprove this argument by saying that a Sacra- ment is by its very concept a sign or symbol of something else. This is undeniable. But the Apostles could not possibly know beforehand that Christ, when He pro- nounced the words of institution, wished to establish a new Sacrament; they had to conclude it from His words and actions.'” It was only from His plain and unmis- takable utterance that they learned that He had raised, not bread and wine as a mere symbol of His Body and Blood, but His very Body and Blood under the sacra- mental signs of bread and wine, to the rank of a Sacrament,” 2. OBJECTIONS TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETA- TION OF THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION ANSWERED. —The defenders of the figurative interpretation are very much at variance among themselves and regard the words of institution as a veritable enigma. Luther ridiculed the so-called Sacramentarians in his treatise Wider die Schwarmgeister, published at Nurem- berg in 1527. “Carlstadt,” he said, “in the sacred text ‘This is my body,’ tortures the little word this; Zwingli tortures the little word 7s; Oecolampadius tortures the little word body... . Thus doth the devil brutally fool 17 Cfr. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dog- topic consult Bellarmine, De Eu- matische Theologie, Vol. IX, p. charistia, I, 9; N. Gihr, Die Al. 490, Mayence 1901. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. 18 For a fuller treatment of this I, sand ‘ed., 8 83. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 33 us.” There were no limits to the Eucharistic disputes in the sixteenth century. As early as 1577, Christopher Rasperger wrestled with two hundred different interpre- tations of the words of institution. This confusion was an inevitable consequence of the rejection of the true lit- eral sense of our Lord’s words. Error is a many-headed hydra, the truth alone is one. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise De Eucharistia,? reduced all those different inter- pretations to ten groups, four of which regard the word hoc, two the word est, three the word corpus, and one the word meum.2+ Setting aside the more violent distortions of the literal sense, we will confine ourselves to a brief review of the three principal groups.”” a) The first group of Sacramentarians, headed by Zwingli, sees a figure in the copula est and renders the passage: “This signifies (est = significat ) my Body.” | Many Scriptural texts have been quoted in support of this interpretation. Here are a few chosen at random. Gen. XLI, 26: “ The seven beautiful kine . . . are seven years of plenty.” Dan. VII, 17: “ These four great beasts are four kingdoms .. .” Matth. XIII, 38: “ The field is the world; and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; and the cockle are the children of the wacked one: | Galı. lV, 24: oor! thesen, [Sara land Agar] are the two testaments.” Apoc. I, 20: “The seven candlesticks are the seven churches.” 19 Chr. Rasperger, Ducentae Ver- 22 On the confusion created by the borum:. ‘Hoc est corpus meum, etc.’ figurative interpretation of the words Interpretationes, Ingolstadt 1577. of institution, cfr. Luthardt (Lu- 20 De Euch., 1, 8. theran), Kompendium der Dog- 21 This last-mentioned interpreta- matık, pp. 355 SQ4. Leipzig 1900. tion, suggested by Luther, was not meant seriously. N 34 THE REAL PRESENCE A favorite text with this school of interpreters is ı Cor. X, 4: “And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was [1. e. symbolized] Christ).” This interpre- tation is still upheld by some Rationalists. Thus Schmie- del says that “ éoré indubitably means to signify; ” Henrici declares that it “expresses the relation of identity in a metaphorical connexion;” Weiss, that it is “the copula in a symbolic relation.” Refutation of This Theory.—The Rationalist interpretation just explained is contrary to the principles of logic. Most logicians deny that the verb “to be” (eva, esse) can ever be used in the metaphorical sense of “ to signify ” or “to represent.” But even waiving this question, it is a fundamental truth of the science of correct reasoning that propositions generally are divided into two classes: those that denominate a thing as it is in itself Vera “ Man is a rational being ”), and those that designate an object as a sign of something else (e. g., “ This picture is my father”). There are three criteria for ascertaining whether a speaker intends a proposition to be taken in the latter sense: (a) the figurative meaning may be obvious from the nature of the subject (ex subiectä materia) or from common usage (ex usu linguae), as explained above; (b) when one complete substance is predicated of another complete substance, there can be no logical rela- tion of identity between the two, but only of similarity, that is to say, the one is an image, sign, or symbol of the other; (c) if there has been a previous agreement between speaker and hearer, author and reader, objects in them- selves inappropriate to serve the purpose, may be used as PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 35 signs of other objects. Where none of these criteria applies, we must follow the common-sense rule and in- terpret literally. | Are any of these criteria applicable to the words by which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist? Not the first, for neither in the nature of the case nor from the usages of common parlance can bread be a symbol of the human body or wine a symbol of human blood. Not the second, for Christ did not predicate one com- plete substance of another complete substance. He did not say: “This bread is my body,” but indefinitely: “ This (rovro, not otros, scil. 6 apros) is my body.” Not the third criterion, because there was no previous agreement as to an arbitrary symbolism, but rather the contrary.” The Scriptural texts brought forward by Zwingli and his followers are not even grammatically ex- act parallels to the words of institution; for all of them have for their subject a substantive noun, whereas in the words of institution the subject is a demonstrative adverb —“ hoc.” The pronoun haec (atrat) in Gal. IV, 24, re- fers so plainly to the two persons previously mentioned (Sara and Agar) that St. Paul’s explanatory remark, “ These things are said by an allegory,’ really seems superfluous. The only text that would appear to offer any serious difficulty is 1 Cor. X, 4: “ Petra autem erat Christus — And the rock was [signified] Christ.” Is this meant as a parallel to the words of institution? If the subject “rock” be taken in its material sense, the metaphor is quite apparent, and would be unmistakable even if the Apostle had not added: “ Now these things were done 23 V. supra, pp. 27 sq. 36 THE REAL PRESENCE in a figure of us.”®* But sundry theologians 2° prefer to take the word “ rock” in an allegorical sense, because the Apostle, a little farther up, speaks of Christ as “the spiritual rock ” ?° which invisibly accompanied the Israel- ites on their journeys and supplied them with a spiritual fountain of water. According to this explanation Christ did not merely signify, but was, the spiritual rock, and hence the copula retains its proper meaning, “to be.” 27 In certain Anglican circles it was formerly the custom to appeal to the supposed poverty of the Aramaic tongue, which was spoken by Christ in conversing with His Apostles. It was maintained that this language had no word corresponding to the concept “ signify.” Yet, even prescinding from the fact that in Aramaic the copula est is usually omitted, and that such an omission rather argues for its strict meaning “to be,” Cardinal Wiseman suc- ceeded in producing no less than forty Syriac expressions conveying the meaning of “ to signify,” and thus effectu- ally exploded the myth of the limited vocabulary of the Semitic tongue.?® The Syrian Bishop Maruthas, a contemporary and friend of St. John Chrysostom, refuted the Zwinglians in advance as it were when he wrote: “For Christ called this [i. e. His Body] not a type or figure, but [He said]: This is truly my Body and my Blood.” 29 It should be noted that the question here at issue must be decided not by the unknown Aramaic text of our 241 Cor. X, 6: “ Haec autem in 187 sqq., Münster 1903; McRory, figura facta sunt nostri.” The Epistles of St. Paul to the 25 Notably Franzelin (De Eu- Corinthians, pp. 136 sqq., Dublin charistia, p. 63). 1915. 261 Cor. X, 4: “ Bibebant autem 28 Cfr. Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, de spiritali, consequente eos, petra; pp. 3-73, Rome 1828; Drach, In- petra autem erat Christus.” scription Hébraique, and ed., p. 33. 27 Cfr. Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der 29 Apud 2 [4 € 4 ‘ef > 7 ioe 2 47 guogWMOS Kal TlvaLuos aUTOV. 530 &atvouevos olvos CUK olyes 48 xpıoToböpoı. eorıv. 49% alaOnoats. 54 Catech. Myst., IV, n. 2 sqq. * RN. x PROOF FROM TRADITION ss eae The “ Doctor of the Eucharist” par excellence is St. Chrysostom. None of the Fathers has inculcated the Real Presence so frequently and in such “ realistic,’’ not to say exaggerated, language as he. Pointing to the altar he says: “Thou approachest a fearful, a holy sacrifice. Christ lies there slain,’5® to reconcile thee ... to the Creator of the universe.” °° In another place he writes: “When you enter the church, do not believe that you receive the divine Body from a man, but you shall believe to receive the divine Body like the live coal from the tongs of the Seraphim [in the prophecy of Isaias] and you shall drink the salutary Blood as if you sucked it with your lips from the divine and immaculate side.” ®? And again: “That which is in the chalice, is the same as that which flowed from the side of Christ, and of this we are made partakers. . . . What the Lord did not tolerate on the cross [?. e., the breaking of his limbs], He tolerates now in the sacrifice,°* for the love of thee; He permits Himself to be broken into pieces,®® so that all may be filled to satiety. ... The wise men adored this Body when it lay in the manger; they pros- trated themselves before it in fear and trembling. Now you behold the same Body which the wise men adored in the manger, lying upon the altar ; you also know its vir- tue and salutary effect... . Already in the present life this mystery changes the earth for you into Heaven; the sublimest thing that is there, — the Body of the Lord,— you can behold here on earth. Yea, you not only behold ity pues Oustoueh ib and eatin. (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1098 sqq.). 57 Hom. de Poenit., IX, n. 1. On the terminology of St. Cyril, 58 énl Tas mpoobopäs. — see infra pp. 72 sq. 59 dvéxeTat StakNwpevos. 55 éoparyueves mpökerrar 6 Xpr 60 Hom. in ı Cor., XXIV, n. 1, oTOS. 2, 5 56 Hom. de Prod. Iudae, I, 6. 64 THE’REAL PRESENCE One of the most forcible passages in the writings of St. Chrysostom —a veritable locus classicus — is the follow- ing: “How many now-a-days say: Would that I could gaze upon His form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes! Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him. He gives Himself to thee, not merely to look upon, but even to touch, to eat, and to receive within thee. .. . Consider at whose table thou eatest! For we are fed with that which the angels view with trepidation and which they cannot contemplate without fear because of its splendor. We become one mass with Him: we are be- come one body and one flesh with Christ... . What shepherd feeds His sheep with his own flesh? Some nothers entrust their new-born infants to nurses; this He did not wish to do, but He nourishes us with His own Blood, He unites Himself with us. These are not deeds of human power. . . . We take the place of serv- ants ; it is He who consecrates and transmutes [the bread and wine].” . y) St. Cyril of Alexandria (+ 444), because of his op- position to Nestorius, concerned himself with the “ life- giving virtue of the flesh of Christ” mainly from the point of view of the Hypostatic Union.°* But there are two passages in his works where he teaches the Real Presence as well as Transubstantiation simply and with- out any controversial bias. The first of these reads as follows: “As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His precious Blood under the appearances of bread and wine,°® in order that we may 6latvrés 6€ Eavröv Sidwot otvK 1 sad. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, ldeiv uövov, dd\da Kal GYacbar Kal Patrology, pp. 341 sq.; A. Nagle, bayeiv Kal Aaßeiv Evdov. Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Chryso- 62 yeyövanev Nuets owua Ev Kat stomus, pp. 8 sqq., Freiburg 1900. oapé pia. 64V. infra, pp. 70 sq. 63 Hom. in Matth., 82 [83], n. 65 ws Ev dptw Kal olvw. PROOF FROM TRADITION 65 not be struck with terror if we see flesh and blood lying upon the holy altars of our churches, God |by the conse- cration] breathed living power into the proffered gifts and converted them into the energy of His own flesh.’ 6° The second passage runs thus: “ Pointing to the bread, the Lord spake: ‘This is my Body,’ and to the wine: ‘ This is my Blood,’ in order that thou shouldst not imagine that what thou seest is merely an image,®’ but that thou shouldst believe that the gifts are in a mysterious way truly converted into the Body and Blood of Christ.” ® The testimonies of the Syriac Fathers have been col- lected by Th. Lamy in his work De Syrorum Fide et Disciplina in Re Eucharistica.® c) The Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries are no less clear and emphatic than their Greek colleagues in asserting the Real Presence. a) St. Hilary (+ 366), the doughty champion of the faith against the Arians of the West, writes: “He [Christ] Himself says: ‘ My Flesh is truly meat, and my Blood is truly drink ; he that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me, and I in him.’ Of the verity of the Flesh and Blood there is no room left for doubting. For now both by the declaration of the Lord Himself, and by our faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood; and these, when eaten and drunk, effect that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not the truth?” 7° Cyrill von Alexandrien, Paderborn 1910. 69 Louvain 1859.— For other Pa- 66 uehiornoev avTd& mpös Evep- yeıav THS Eavrod capKds. (In Lu- cam, 22, 19). 67 TUmov elvat TA baıvöuera. 68 ueramoleiodaı eis owua Kal alua Xpwrrov Kara To adnGés. (In Matth., 26, 27). Cir. Struck- mann, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. tristic texts bearing on this subject see Franzelin, De Eucharistia, pp. 85 sqq. 70De Trinit., VIII, 14: “Ipse ait: “Caro mea vere est esca et san- 66 THE REAL SPRESENCE St. Ambrose (-++ 397), in his famous treatise De M yste- riis, which forms such an admirable counterpart to the Catecheses Mystagogicae of St. Cyril, instructs his neo- phytes on the nature of the Eucharist. After pointing out its Old Testament types (the manna, the water that came forth from a rock at Moses’ command, etc.), he con- tinues: “ This was done as a figure for us. You know the higher things; for light is superior to darkness, truth to figure, the body of the Author to the manna from heaven.” To explain Transubstantiation the same writer recalls how the words of Moses turned a rod into a serpent, how Elias called down fire from heaven, how God created the universe out of nothing, and then asks: “ Shall not the words of Christ have power to change the appearances of the elements? . . . Cannot, therefore, the words of Christ, who was able to make something out of nothing, change that which already exists into something which it was not before? . . . What we effect [by con- secration], is the Body taken from the virgin. Why dost thou here seek the order of nature, since the Lord Jesus, born of a virgin, is Himself above nature? Truly, there- fore [is this] the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried; truly, therefore, is it the Sacrament of His fleshy? it Pe a ne a ee) ae lee NY ET guis meus vere est potus; qui edit carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo.’ De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus. Nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra vere caro est et vere sanguis est; et haec accepta atque hausta id efhciunt, ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis sit. Anne hoc veritas non est?” 71De Myst., c. 8, n. 49: “ Haec in figura facia sunt nostra. Cogno- visti praestantiora: potior est enim lux quam umbra, veritas quam figu- ra, corpus auctoris quam manna de caelo.”’ TOD ibe, LEN, SU sa Man valebit Christi sermo, ut species mu- tet elementorum? ... Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erant? . Hoc quod conficimus, corpus ex Virgine est; quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem, quum praeter na- turam sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus ex Virgine? Vera utique caro PROOF FROM TRADITION 67 ß) The writings of St. Augustine (+ 430) contain no such striking passages. The probable reason is that he found no Eucharistic heresy to combat and felt more strictly bound by the Discipline of the Secret.” Address- ing himself almost exclusively to persons already initiated into the Christian mysteries, the Bishop of Hippo dwelt chiefly on the necessity and value of holy Commun- ion and had no occasion to discuss the dogma of the Real Presence. The enemies of the Church do not scruple to maintain that he was an out-and-out “ Sym- bolist.” 74 In the opinion of Loofs,’ St. Augustine “never gave a thought to the reception of the true Body and Blood of Christ.” Adolph Harnack ‘* declares that St. Augustine “in this respect was undoubtedly of one mind with the so-called pre-Reformation and with Zwingli.” Against this unwarranted contention Catho- lics set the undoubted fact that Augustine professed be- lief in Transubstantiation. “ That which is seen on the table of the Lord,” he says, “is bread and wine; but this bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes the Body and Blood of the Logos.”** And again: “ This bread which you see upon the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ; this chalice, or rather that which it contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.” "* St. Augustine further- Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: vere ergo carnis illins sacramentum est.” 73V, infra, No: 3, p. 74. 74 See Schanz, “Die Lehre des 77 Serm., 5 (ed. Caillou, p. 12, Paris 1842): “ Hoc quod videtur in mensa Domini, panis est et vinum; sed iste panis et hoc vinum acce- dente verbo fit corpus et sanguis Augustinus über die Eucharistie,” in the Theol Quartalschrift of Tübingen, 1896, pp. 79 sqq. 75 Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 409, Halle 1906. \ 76 Dogmengeschichte, zrd ed., p. 148, Freiburg 1897. i Verbi.” 78 Serm., 227: “ Panis ille, quem videtis in altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei corpus est Christi; calix ille, imo quod habet calix, sanctifica- tum per verbum Dei sanguis est Chinstie 68 THESREALCPRESENGE more declares that “ Christ carried Himself in His own hands,” and that we owe divine worship to the Eucha- rist.’” Moreover, it is not fair to detach the great Doc- tor’s teaching on the Eucharist from his teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where he clearly and un- equivocally asserts that the true Body and Blood of Christ are offered on the altar.®° We may conclude the Patristic testimonies with a quota- tion from Pope St. Leo the Great (+ 461), who says: “The Lord avers (John VI, 54): ‘Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you.” Hence you should so partake of this sacred table that you have no doubt whatever con- cerning the truth of the Body of Christ. For that is consumed with the mouth which is believed by faith, and in vain do those respond ‘ Amen’ who dispute against that which is received.” * CS ENA. UNEP S33 nls 10. ean et 9): “A solis ortu usque ad occa- ferebatur in manibus suis (1 Reg. 21). Hoc vero, fratres, quomodo possit heri in homine, quis intelli- gat? Quis enim portatur in mani- bus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. ... In Christo autem in- venimus. Ferebatur enim ‚Christus in manibus suis, quando commen- dans ipsum corpus suum ait: Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis.” — Enarr.: m Ps., 98, n:' 9: ‚© Ouia carnem nobis manducandam ad sa- lutem dedit, nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est, quemadmodum adore- tur tale scabellum pedum Domini (Ps. 98, 5), et non solum non pec- cemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando.”’ (Gir: Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 286 sq.) 80 Cit.: Serm.; 3.(éd. Caillou; p. sum, sicuti a prophetis praedictum est, immolatur. ... Non adhuc de gregibus pecorum hostia cruenta con- quiritur, non ovis aut hircus divinis altaribus admovetur, sed sacrificium tam nostri temporis corpus et san- guis est ipsins Sacerdotis.... Cum timore et tremore ad partici- pationem huius altaris accedite. Hoc agnoscite in pane, quod pepen- dit im cruce; hoc in calice, quod manavit ex latere.’— Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre des hl. Augustin vom Sakramente der Eucharistie, Pader- born 1907; K. Adam, Die Eucha- ristielehre des hl. Augustin, Pader- born 1908. 81 Serm., 91, © 3: “ Dicente Domino: ‘ Nisi manducaveritis,’ etc. (Ioa. vi, 54), sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis, ut nihil pror- sus de veritate corporis Christi et sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore PROOF FROM TRADITION 69 2. INDIRECT TESTIMONIES.—The Christologi- cal heresies of the early centuries naturally af- fected the doctrine of the Eucharist, though only. in an indirect manner. Few heretics openly at- tacked the Real Presence. Some even dared to use this dogma to bolster their erroneous teach- ing on the Person of our Lord. The Patris- tic writers who defended the Catholic doctrine had little trouble to refute this class of opponents. They showed how those who admitted the Real Presence were inconsistent in their Christological teaching, while those who pretended to base their errors on the Eucharist, were unwilling wit- nesses to the truth of the dogma. a) The Church teaches that there are two natures in Christ, one divine, the other human, and that these two natures are hypostatically united in one Person. a) One of the first heretics to deny the Divinity of our Lord was Paul of Samosata, who tried to prove the cor- ruptibility, and consequently the non-divinity, of the Eucharistic Blood from the fact that it is divided into parts when received in Holy Communion. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (+ 264) answered this specious objection as follows: “As little as the Holy Ghost is perishable because He is poured forth into our hearts, just so little is the Blood of Christ corruptible, which is not the blood of a mortal man, but of the true God, who sumitur, quod fide creditur, et fru- 452).— Other Latin Fathers are co- stra ab illis ‘Amen’ respondetur, piously quoted by Franzelin, De a quibus contra id, quod accipitur, Evucharistia, pp. 114 sqq. disputatur.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 70 THE REAL PRESENCE is a well-spring of joy for all who partake therefrom.” *? The Arians argued that, as there is but a moral union between the Eucharistic Christ and the devout communi- cant, so the union between the Three Persons of the Trin- ity, which is the prototype of the former,®? must also be a purely moral one. St. Hilary refuted this erroneous con- tention by demonstrating the consubstantiality of Christ with His Father from the real union that exists between the Eucharistic Body and its recipient in Holy Commun- ion.st At the opposite extreme stood the Docetae, who denied the reality of Christ’s human body. They were re- futed by St. Ignatius of Antioch®® and other ancient Fathers by simple reference to the Holy Eucharist. He who has a real body in the Blessed Sacrament, they ar- gued, cannot have had a merely apparitional or phantom body during His sojourn on earth. Tertullian employed the same argument against the Gnostics.* ß) The dogma of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in Christ was attacked by the Nestorians and the Monophysites. The former maintained that there 82 Opera Dionys. Alexandr., p. 233, Rome 1706. 83.Cfr.. Jolını Vig 573 OVE wr sqdq. in eo est et ille in nobis, quomodo woluntatis unitas asseritur, quum naturalis per sacramentum proprictas perfectae sacramentum sit unitatis? ’’ @ ' a ¥ 84 St. Hilary, De Trinitate, VIII, 13: “Si vere Verbum caro factum est et vere nos Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existi- mandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostrae... assumpsit et naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communican- dae carnis admiscuit? ... Si vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuii, Christus est nosque vere sub my- sterio carnem corporis sui sumimus et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater 85 Ep. ad Smyrn., 7. 86 Adv. Marcion., IV, 40: “ Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confrmavtt. Nullius enin corporis sanguis potest esse nist carnis. Nam etsi qua cor- poris qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit. Ita consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, pro- batio carnis de testimonio sangui- nis.” FREU Se > P Eat a a nn PROOF FROM TRADITION ZT are two Persons in the God-man, while the latter asserted that He has but one nature. Against the Nestorians, St. Cyril of Alexandria argued as follows: “Who is He that said: ‘Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him’? If i¢ were a mere man who became like unto us, and not rather the God- Logos, that which happens [in Communion] would be an- thropophagy,*’ and participation therein were useless.” 8 The Monophysites, on the other hand, asserted that as bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, so humanity was converted into Divinity in the Hypostatic Union. They were met by Theodoret, St. Ephraem, Gelasius, and other orthodox writers with the statement that the human nature in the Hypostatic Union remains quite as unchanged as the physical accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist after the consecration.® b) Holy Communion was cited by the earliest Patristic authors as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh. Thus St. Irenzeus wrote against the Gnostics: “How can they say that the flesh will decay and does not par- ticipate in the life,— [that flesh] which is nourished by the Body of the Lord and by His Blood? Let them, therefore, change their opinion or cease to offer up these things. Our faith, on the contrary, is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our faith? St. Cyril of Alexandria develops the same thought as follows: “ Although death, which has come upon us on account of sin, subjects the human body to the necessity of decay, nevertheless we shall surely rise again because Christ is in us through His Flesh; for it is incredible, 87 dvOpwropayia. imo Tov owuaros Tov Kuplov 88 Contra Nestor., IV,-s. Kat aluaros avrov. 89, V-injra,, Ch. V,\ Secta ‘te. - 91 Adv. Haer., IV, 18, 4. 72 THE REAL PRESENCE nay impossible, that the Life should not vivify those in whom it is.” °? 3. SOLUTION OF PATRISTIC DIFFICULTIES.— The difficulties that arise concerning the Eucha- ristic teaching of some of the Fathers may be accounted for on three general grounds: (1) these Fathers felt secure in the possession of the truth; (2) they had a distinct preference for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture; and (3) they were bound by the Discipline of the Secret. a) We will first consider these general reasons and then examine some of the doubtful texts. a) The doctrine of the Real Presence was not seriously impugned before the eleventh century; hence, for the first one thousand years of the Church’s history, the truth was in peaceful and secure possession of the field. During this period the faithful had a deep and un- questioning belief in the Real Presence. This feeling of security is probably responsible for some loose state- ments and a certain inaccuracy on the part of some early theologians. The obscure and ambiguous ut- terances that occur in their writings are more than coun- terbalanced, however, by a number of others that are perfectly clear and evident,°® and by every rule of sound hermeneutics the former should be explained by the lat- es 92In Ioa., 6, 55, lib IV, 2.— berlet, Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IX, Similarly Tertullian (De Resurr. § 530. Carnis, c. 8) and many other Pa- 93 V. supra, Nos. ı and 2. tristic writers.— On the subject of 94 It was sheer ignorance that dic- this subdivision cfr. Heinrich-Gut- tated Calvin’s remark: ‘“ Constat ar Elan ee et = ® Be ae Ei nd PROOF FROM TRADITION 73 B) Some of the Fathers, especially those be- longing to the so-called Alexandrian school (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril), showed a marked preference for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. ' This tendency found a salutary counterpoise in the way in which the literal interpretation was cultivated by the school of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theo- doret), whose methods were espoused by St. John Chrysostom.°® The allegorical sense which the Alexan- drians emphasized, did not, of course, exclude the literal sense, but rather supposed it as a working basis (at least in the New Testament), and hence the realistic phraseology of Clement, Origen, and Cyril can be read- ily accounted for.’ Clement (+ 217), despite his al- legoric tendencies, obviously professed the Real Presence, for he says: “ The Lord gives us this very appropriate food. He offers His flesh and pours out His Blood,” and nothing is wanting for the growth of the chil- dren. O incomprehensible mystery!” Origen (+ 254), who frequently speaks of the Eucharistic Bread as “the sign of the Logos,” and describes meditation on the Logos as “a paschal feast,” did not allow the Discipline of the Secret to prevent him from publicly pro- fessing his belief in the Real Presence. He says: “ We eat loaves of bread which, through prayer, have become vetustos omnes scriptores, qui totis ~ quinque saeculis post Apostolos vi- verunt, uno ore nobis patrocinari.” 95 In Is., V, 7: “Tlavraxov ris ypagdys ovros 6 vönos, émeday adrnyopy, A€yeww Kal ddAdnyoplas Thy éppevelay.” (Migne, P. G., LVI, 60). 96 Cfr, Ph. , Hergenröther, Die antiochenische Schule, Würzburg 1866; Kihn, Bedeutung der anti- ochenischen Exegetenschule, Würz- burg 1866. 97 gapka épéyer kal alua- Eerxeeı. 98 Tov mapaddtov muvorrpiov. (Paedag., I, 6; Migne, P. G., VIII, 302). ARR 74 THE REAL PRESENCE a certain holy Body,®® which purifies those who eat it with a-clean heart.” 1° | Among the Latin Fathers St. Augustine is almost the only one whose attitude has given rise to controversy.!?! y) Because of the strictness with which the Discipline of the Secret was maintained in the early centuries, some of the Fathers in their ser- mons and popular writings did not express them- selves as clearly on the Holy Eucharist as might be expected. The Discipline of the Secret was enforced in the East until the end of the fifth, and in the West down to the middle of the sixth century. It concerned principally the Eucharist. Origen says: “ He who has been initi- ated into the mysteries knows the flesh of the Logos- God; let us therefore no longer dwell on that which is known to the initiate, but must not be revealed to the un- initiate.”’ 1% St. Epiphanius- (+ 403), in a letter ad- dressed to the clergy and magistrate of the city of Sue- dra, repeats our Saviour’s words of institution in this rather strange form: ”EAaße rade Kal evxapıornoas ee Touré pov Eori ode.” St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom often employ the expression: “Norunt initiati— ’ (oacıv oi mıoroi.!'* b) Aside from these general considerations, we may reduce the Patristic difficulties regarding : 4 { 3 a : u ; 3 4 Y ä > 99 gHyua Ayıöv TI. 100 C. Cels., VIII, 32. 101 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. Other Patristic texts, including such as favor an allegorical interpretation, in Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 7 "sqq. 102 Hom. in Levit., IX, n. 10. 108 Ancorat., c. 57 (Migne, P. G,, XLII, 117). 104 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- ments, Vol, I, pp. 52 sqq. PROOF FROM TRADITION 75 the dogma of the Real Presence to four distinct categories.*°° a) The Fathers do not always draw a clear-cut distinction between the sacramental species (species panis et vini) on the one hand, and the Body and Blood of Christ (corpus et sanguis Christi) on the other. For want of a more accurate terminology, they often refer to the sacramental species as “ signs,” “ types,” “symbols,” or “ figures.” However, they are far from employing these terms in the Protestant sense. They simply mean to say that the species of bread and wine are visible signs, types, or symbols of the invisible Body of Christ. The Tridentine Council itself declares that “ the most Holy Eucharist . . . is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an invisible grace.” 1° Carefully distinguishing these two factors, St. Cyril of Jerusalem opposes the “type of bread ” 1° to the “antitype of the body,” 1% thereby not denying but emphasizing the Real Presence.1 Tertullian is to be understood in the same sense when he says: “ Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit ‘hoc est corpus meum’ dicendo, 1. e. figura corporis mei; figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.’ ™° Bardenhewer ex- plains this passage as follows: “In the sentence ‘hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei, the 105 We here follow Cardinal 108 avrirvmov owparos. Franzelin (De Eucharistia, thes. 109 Catech. Mystag., V, n. 20: EO) eth “Qui enim gustant, non panem et A008 SOSS XII], CAPS Zen. vinum gustare inbentur, sed antity- symbolum rei sacrae et invisibilis pum corporis et sanguinis Christi gratiae formam visibilem.’ (Den- (ävrirumov ouuaros Kal aluaros).” zinger-Bannwart, n. 876). (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1123). 107 rbmos äprov. - 110 Contr. Marcion., IV, 40. 76 THE REAL PRESENCE words ‘ figura corporis mei’ are not meant to elucidate the subject ‘hoc’ (per hyperbaton), but the predicate ‘corpus meum’; the true body is present under the image of bread.” 322 In the light of this interpretation St. Augustine, too, can be understood in a perfectly ortho- dox sense when he writes: “Non enim Dominus dubi- tavit dicere: ‘Hoc est corpus meum, quum signum daret corporis swi.” "2 He means that the “ signum” contains Christ Himself, because the point he wishes to make, according to the context, is that the Holy Eucharist is a sign or symbol of the Body of Christ in the same sense in which the presence of blood in an animal is a sign of the brute soul.’"® Other obscure or ambiguous Patristic texts can be sat- isfactorily explained if we remember that the Eucha- ristic elements (bread and wine) were sometimes called “types” or “antitypes” of the Body and Blood of Christ even before the consecration,* and that not. in- frequently the sacramental Body is represented as a “type” or “antitype” of our Saviour’s natural body in Heaven.» 8) The Fathers often regard the Body of Christ according to its threefold mode of being: the status connaturalis mortalis, in which it ap- peared during His earthly career in Palestine; 111 Geschichte der altkirchlichen 118 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Literatur, Vol. Il, p. 391, Freiburg Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., p. 293. 1903. — A different interpretation of 114 See the proceedings of the the passage is given by Rauschen, Second Council of Nicaea, A. D. Eucharist and Penance, p. 12.— Cfr. 787 (Hardouin, Coll. Concil., IV, C. L. Leimbach, Beiträge sur Abend- 370). mahlslehre Tertullians, p. 83 115 Cfr. St. John Damascene, De Gotha 1874. Fide Orthodoxa, IV, ı3 (Migne, 112 Contr. Adimant. Manich., c. P. G., XCIVys 1146. 899.). 12, 3 (Migne, P. L., XLII, 144). PROOF FROM TRADITION 77 the status connaturalis gloriosus, which is its transfigured state in Heaven; and the status sa- cramentalis, in which it exists in the Holy Eucha- rist. In the first of these states they call it the true Body of Christ, in the second and third, His “typical,” “antitypical,” or “symbolic” Body." Such language easily gives rise to misunderstanding. Instead of emphasizing the numerical identity of the Body in all three states, the ancient Fathers, never fearing to be misunderstood, often speak of the true Body of Christ in the Eucharist as the “type” or “symbol” of the same true Body in its natural state, both on earth and in Heaven, and with this relation in mind, characterize it as a “spiritual Body.” "* In employing this phrase- ology they no more wish to deny the reality of the sacra- mental Body than did St. Paul when he said in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, that our own natural body “shall rise a spiritual body ” in the resurrection of the dead.** St. Augustine is quite plain on this point; he puts into the mouth of our Saviour the following in- terpretation of the words of institution: ‘ Understand the words I have spoken in a spiritual sense; it is not this body you see, which you are about to eat, nor are you about to drink that blood which those shall shed who will crucify me. It is a sacrament that I have given to you; understood spiritually, it will give you life; though it is necessary to celebrate this [sacrament] vis- ibly, yet it must be understood in an invisible manner.” 119 116 V, Art. 1, No. 1, supra. P. L., XXXVII, 1265): “ Spiritua- 117 Corpus spirituale, giua mvev- liter intelligite, quod locutus sum; HaTıKÖV. { non hoc corpus, quod videtis, 31397 Cor.EXRNV N AA, manducaturi estis, et bibituri illum 119 Enarr. in Ps., 98, n. 9 (Migne, sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui 78 THE REAL PRESENCE y) A further source of misunderstanding is the habit which some of the Fathers have of representing the Holy Eucharist as a “sign of the mystical Christ,” 7. e. the effective symbol of our spiritual union with His mystic body, the Church. In this union there are two factors: sacramental com- munion as the cause, and the mystic union of the recipi- ent with the Church, as the effect. Where both are duly emphasized, there is no room for misunderstanding. But certain of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, often dwell on the latter alone, without mentioning the former. It should be noted that when he speaks of the nature of the Eucharist, St. Augustine is invariably ad- dressing initiated Christians, who are familiar with the dogma of the Real Presence. To such he could say without danger of being misinterpreted: “ Therefore, if thou wilt understand the Body of Christ, listen to the Apostle who says: ‘ But you are the Body of Christ and His members.’ Your sacrament is placed on the Lord’s table, you will receive your sacrament. . . . For you hear the words, ‘The Body of Christ, and you answer ‘Amen.’ Be a member of the Body of Christ, in order that your ‘Amen’ may be a true one.” *”° membra.’ Mysterium vestrum in mensa dominica positum est, my- me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter in- tellectum vivificabit vos; etsi ne- sterium vestrum accipietis ... Au- cesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, dis enim: ‘Corpus Christi’ et oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi.” respondes: ‘Amen.’ Esto mem- —Cfr. M. M. Wilden, Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus vom Opfer der Eucharistie, Schaffhausen 1864. 120 St. Augustine, Serm., 272: “Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelli- gere, Apostolum audi ‘Vos autem estis corpus Christi et dicentem: brum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 1246).— Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre des hl. Augustin vom Sakramente der Eucharistie, pp. 42 sqq., Pader- born 1907. PROOF FROM TRADITION 70 8) Another important point to be noted in in- terpreting obscure and ambiguous Patristic pas- sages on the Real Presence is this: Besides the three modes of being, peculiar to Christ’s Body; as we have explained, the Fathers distinguish three ways in which that Body may be con- sumed: (1) “capharnaitically,” as human flesh is eaten by cannibals; (2) “merely sacramen- tally,” when the recipient is in the state of mortal sin and therefore derives no spiritual profit from communion; (3) “worthily,” :. e. with full spirit- ual benefit. The first of these ways of receiving Communion was rejected by our Lord Himself.1#* St. Augustine does not hesitate to brand it as a “crime.” Christ, he says, could not possibly have meant that we should eat His Body in this grossly literal fashion. The Saviour’s words: “Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you,” he ex- plains as follows: ‘‘ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice. It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His Flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” 1? That St. Augustine, in writing thus, did not mean to deny the Real Presence is evident from his declaration that only he who receives Communion worthily “eats the 121 V. supra, pp. 19 sq. et suaviter atque utiliter reconden- 122 De Doctrina Christ., III, 24: dum memoria, quod pro nobis caro “ Facinus vel flagitium videtur iu- etus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.” bere. Figura est ergo, praecipiens Much, Ba Li SOC Viera) passioni dominicae communicandum 80 THE REAL PRESENCE Body of Christ,” whereas he who approaches the Holy Table in the state of mortal sin, does not “ eat” it, i. e., unto salvation.’** ARTICLE 3 THE ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION By means of the Patristic texts above quoted and other available data it is possible to trace the constant belief of the faithful in the dogma of the Real Presence through the Middle Ages back to the Apostolic period. This is called the argument from prescription. Every such reasoning rests on the following syllogism: A doctrine which has always, everywhere, and by all (semper, ubique et ab omnibus) been held to be of faith, must be divinely revealed. Now, in the Catholic Church such and such a doctrine has been held as an article of faith always, everywhere, and by all the faithful. Conse- quently, it is a divinely revealed truth. We proceed to demonstrate the minor premise of this syllogism with reference to the dogma of the Real Pres- ence. ‘1. Tue Periop From A. D. 1900 to 800.—The interval that has elapsed since the Reformation receives its entire character from the Council of 123 Cfr. Tr. in Ioa., 27, n. 11% communicating, viz.: purely spiritual “ Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis va- communion, see Conc. Trident., Sess. leat, ut carnem Christi et sanguinem XIII, cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Christi non edamus tantum in sa- n. 881).— On the main topic of this cramento, quod et multi mali, sed subdivision cfr. Schwane, Dogmen- usque ad spiritus participationem geschichte der patristischen Zeit, manducemus et bibamus, ut in Vol. II, and ed., pp. 773 sqq., Frei- Domini corpore tamquam membra burg 1895; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dog- maneamus.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, matische Theologie, Vol. IX, 8.531. 1621). —On a. fourth method of er PROOF FROM TRADITION Sr Trent, and hence we may here pass it over. For the time of the Reformation we have the testi- mony of Luther,’ that the whole of Western Christendom, down to the appearance of Carl- stadt, Zwingli, and Calvin, firmly believed in the Real Presence. This firm and universal belief,— omitting the tem- porary vagaries of Wiclif, the Albigenses, and the ad- herents of Pierre de Bruis,— was in uninterrupted pos- session since Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), in fact, if we except one solitary writer (Scotus Eriugena), since Paschasius Radbertus (831). Berengarius died repent- ant in the pale of the Church, and Paschasius Radbertus “never attacked the substance of the dogma. We may, therefore, maintain that the entire Western Church has believed in the Real Presence for fully eleven centuries. But how about the Orient? Photius, when he inau- gurated the Greek schism in 869, took over the inalien- able treasure of the Catholic Eucharist. This treasure the Greek Church had preserved intact when the nego- tiations for reunion were conducted at Lyons, in 1274,? and at Florence, in 1439. The Greeks vigorously de- fended it against the machinations of the Calvinistic- minded Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople (1629). A schismatic council held at Jerusalem under Dositheus, in 1672, vigorously professed its faith in the Real Presence? and added that the Greek Church, with- out being in any way influenced by the Latin, also be- 1Wider etliche Rottengeister, 3’AAndas Kal moayuareKas Kal 1532. ovowdas (vere, realiter et substan- 2See the profession of faith of — tialiter) yiverat 6 wév dpros avd the Emperor Michael Palaeologus To dAndes rov Kuplov owua KrX- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 465). _ 82 THE - REAL “PRESENCE lieved in “ Transubstantiation,’* a doctrine already inculcated by the Second Council of Nicea (A.D. 787).° _ It follows that the Greek Church must have received its faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation from a very ancient source,—a source which it had in common with the Latin Church long before the time of Photius, and that consequently this belief must be much older than the great schism.® 2. THE PERIoD From A. D. 800 To 400.—Going still farther back we find that the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, together with their various off- shoots (Chaldzans, Melchites, Syrian Jacobites, . Copts, Armenians, Maronites) preserved their faith in the Real Presence as unwaveringly as the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Russians. This proves that the dogma of the Real Presence was the com- mon property of the undivided ancient Church. It was expressly asserted and defended by the General Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, and by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicza, A. D. Wares i John Darugensis, a Monophysitic writer of the eighth century, says: “He who exercises the priestly office, 4 uerovgiweis. Paris 1670. On Cyril Lucaris and 5Cfr. E. J. Kimmel, Monum. his sad end, see Pohle-Preuss, The Fidei Eccles. Orient., Vol. I, pp. Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 39 sa. 180, 457, Jena 1850; Schelstrate, 6Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, Acta. Orient. Eccles., Vol. I, pp. © diss. 1, art, 3, $6. 200 sqq., Rome 1739; Perpetuité de TV. supra, pp. 21 sq. la Foi, Vol. I, book 12, 2nd ed., Ee ate ne ‘a PROOF FROM TRADITION 83 begins and repeats the divine words which bring forth the Body and Blood of Christ: ‘This is my Body.’ ”® Xenajas, another Monophysite, of the sixth century, after vigorously denying that there are two persons in Christ, avers: “ We receive the living body of the liv- ing God, and not the body of a mortal man, with every holy draught we drink the living blood of the Living One, and it is not the blood of a corruptible man, like unto ourselves.” ® Even Harnack is constrained to admit that “ Mono- physites and Orthodox have always held the same faith with regard to the Lord’s Supper.” ?° The Nestorians, it is true, regarded the man Jesus as a person sep- arate and distinct from the divine hypostasis of the Logos; but they believed in the Real Presence of Christ, as a moral person, in the Eucharist. Elias of Damascus says that all Oriental Christians “ agree in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.” +* 3. THE ApostoLic AcE.—We have seen that the dogma of the Real Presence is at least as old as Nestorianism. In matter of fact it is still older, and traces of it can be found in the Apos- tolicage. This is evident from ancient liturgies, from representations of the Eucharist found in the Roman catacombs, and from other vestiges of its celebration in the primitive Church. 8 Apud Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 10 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III, D. 110. 2nd; ed,, pa 430s 9Quoted by Assemani, Bibi. 11 Assemani, Bibl. Orient., Vol. Orient., Vol. II, p. 39. BER. DE 2097. 84 THE REAL PRESENCE The ancient liturgies of the Mass will be duly | con- sidered in Part III of this treatise.*? Among the symbols employed by the early Christians in decorating their tombs, those which relate to the Eucharist hold an important place. There is, first of all, the famous fish symbol.?? In one of the oldest chambers of the Catacomb of St. Lucina, for instance, a floating fish, which symbolizes “ Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Saviour,’ ** carries on his back the Eucharistic ele- ments —a basket full of bread and a glass of red wine. A commentary on this picture is furnished by the famous inscription on the Stele of Abercius, composed towards the close of the second century, when the Discipline of the Secret was still in force. The student will find this in- scription reproduced in the original, together with an Eng- lish translation, in the Catholic Encyclopedia.” We will quote but one sentence: “ Faith everywhere led me for- ward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain—and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread.” In the so-called Greek Chapel of the cemetery of St. Priscilla, at Rome, Msgr. Wilpert recently discov- ered the most ancient of the known representations of the Eucharist in the Catacombs. It is a fresco known as “Fractio Panis,’ attributed to the early part of the second century. ‘‘ The scene represents seven persons at table, reclining on a semi-circular divan, and is depicted 12 Infra, pp. 272 sqq. 15 Vol. I, p. go. Cfr. C. M. Kauf- - 13 "Tx Ous. mann, Handbuch der christl. Archäol. 14 ’Inooos Xpıorös Ocov Yıös pP. 230, Paderborn 1905; A. S. Zwrnp =IXOTE. On the fish Barnes, The Early Church in the symbol v. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Light of the Monuments, pp. 94 844-5 So Ue 133 sqq., London 1913. PROOF FROM TRADITION 85 on the wall above the apse of this little underground chapel, consequently in close proximity to the- place where once stood the altar. One of the banqueters is a woman. The place of honor, to the right (in cornu dextro), is occupied by the ‘ president of the Brethren’ (described about 150-155 by Justin Martyr in his ac- count of the Christian worship), 7. e. the bishop, or a priest deputed in his place for the occasion (Apol., I, xlvi). The ‘president’ (zpoeorés), a venerable, bearded personage, is depicted performing the function described mathe Acts of the Apostles. (JT, 42) 46; XX..7) as ‘breaking bread;’ hence the name ‘Fractio Panis’ (7 kAdows Tov dprov), appropriately given to the fresco by its discoverer,’}.1° As the Eucharist was intended to be a permanent in- stitution,” it was to be expected that traces of its cele- bration would occur in the very oldest Christian records. This expectation is realized in the Didache, which dates from the close of the first century, and likewise in the Acts of the Apostles. The phrase “ ministrantibus (Acırovpyovvrov) autem illis Domino” (Acts XIII, 2) can hardly refer to anything else than the Eucharistic “ liturgy.”'® This view is confirmed by the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Apostle draws a parallel between the Eucharistic banquet of the Christians and the sacrificial banquets held in honor of pagan idols, and forbids the Corinthians to take part in the latter, 16M, M. Hassett in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 590. The fresco is reproduced ibid., p. 591. Cfr. also Jos. Wilpert, Fractio Panis, oder die älteste Darstellung des eucharistischen Opfers in der Cappella Greca entdeckt und erläu- tert, Freiburg 1895; against him, J. Liell, Fractio Panis oder Coena Coelestis? Treves 1903; cfr. also Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakom- ben Roms, 2 vols., Freiburg 19033 G. A. Weber, Die römischen Kata- komben, 3rd ed., Ratisbon 1906; F. X. Kraus, Roma Sotteranea, 3rd ed., Freiburg ı9o01. Pore CoriuxLl,.25 18Cfr. Heb, X, 11. 86 THE REAL PRESENCE : lest they “be made partakers with devils.”1? “The chalice of benediction, which we bless,” ?° he says among other things, “is it not fellowship in the Blood of Christ??! And the bread which we break,?? is it not fellowship in the Body of the Lord?” > Clearly, in St. Paul’s opinion, to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ (in contradistinction to partaking of the meat sacrificed to idols) is more than a purely ideal partici- pation in Christ, such as might be effected by faith or love;—it is a real reception of His Body and Blood in Holy Communion, which is the Christian sacrificial banquet. Only by interpreting the Apostle’s words in this sense are we able to understand the mystical con- clusion which he draws in the following verse: “ For we many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread;” ** that is to say: the unity of the mystic body is founded on the numerical identity of the Eucharistic bread with the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.?® Thus the argument from prescription carries us back to the New Testament, where the written word of God commingles with oral Tradition as in a common well- spring.?° Reapincs:— M. Hausher, Der hl. Paschasius Radbertus, May- ence 1862.— Jos. Ernst, Die Lehre des hl. Paschasius Radbertus 19 1 Cor. X, 16-21. Erklärung der beiden Briefe an die 20 evovyovmer, i. e. consecrate. Korinther, pp. 195 sqq., Münster 21 Kowwvia Tov aluaros Tov 1903; cfr. also J. MacRory, The Xpıiorov. ' Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinth- 22 kAwuen, i. e., break liturgically. sans, pp. 144 sqq., Dublin 1915. 23 koıvwvla Tov owmaros Tov 26On the whole argument of Xpiorov. (1 Cor. X, 16). this Article cfr. H. Bruders, S. J., 24é« Tov Evös äprov. (1Cor.X, Die Verfassung der Kirche von 17). den ersten Jahrzehnten der apo- 25 St. Paul’s teaching is more stolischen Wirksamkeit bis zum fully expounded by Al. Schäfer, Jahre 175 n. Chr., pp. 53 saq., May- ence 1904. 7 j PROOF FROM TRADITION 87 von der Eucharistie, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Stellung des hl. Rhabanus Maurus und des Ratramnus zu derselben, Frei- burg 1896.— Aug. Nagle, Ratramnus und die hl. Eucharistie; zugleich eine dogmatisch-historische Würdigung des ersten Abendmahlstreites, Vienna 1903.— Jos. Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours, sein Leben und seine Lehre, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1892.— Pohle, “ Paschasius Radbertus, Saint,” in the Catholic Encyclo- pedia. | On the teaching of the Fathers: *J. Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1826.—H. Loretz, Die kath. Abendmahlslehre im Lichte der vier ersten Jahrhunderte der christlichen Kirche, Chur 1879.— I. Marquardt, S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Baptismi, Chrismatis, Eucharistiae Mysteriorum Interpres, Leipsic 1882.— J. Corblet, Histoire Dog- matique, Liturgique et Archéologique du Sacrement de lEucha- ristie, Paris 1885.— Aug. Nagle, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, Freiburg 1900.— A. Struckmann, Die Ge- genwart Christi in der hl. Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen Quellen der vornizänischen Zeit, Vienna 1905.—D. Stone, A His- tory of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 2 vols., London 1909.— G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, St. Louis 1913—The New York Re- view, art. “The Real Presence in the Fathers,” Vol. II (1907), Nos. 1 and 2— P. Pourrat, The Teaching of the Fathers on the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, New York 1908.— B. J. Otten, S. J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. J, St. Louis 1917, pp. 91 sqq., 131 sq., 146 sq., 167 sq., 178 sq., 196 Ba, 207,352" $q. GHAP TER AY THE TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE There are present in the Eucharist not only the Body and Blood of Christ, but also His Soul and Divinity. This dogma has never been attacked by heretics, and we may therefore limit ourselves to a summary demonstration of it in the form of four theses.! Thesis I: The Holy Eucharist really, truly, and substantially contains the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and the Divinity-of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. Ex vi verborum, or by virtue of the consecration, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of institution, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per concomitantiam) there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, vis.: the Soul of Christ, and together with it, His whole Humanity, and, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also His Divinity.2 Hence Christ is 1Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., pp. 48 sqq.; Suarez, De - Euch., 34, .00.,76, art: 14. disp. 51, sect. 6, n. 4. 2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 88 POLARITY OF (LAE REAF FRESENCE SO present in the Blessed Sacrament wholly and en- tirely, with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity— "Christus totus in toto.” The Council of Trent defines: “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, . . . let him be anathema.” ® a) In the same discourse in which He says: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” * our Divine Lord also de- clares: “He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.” f 4 To eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ, therefore, is to eat Christ whole and entire. By virtue of the words of institution (er vi verborum) only the Body of Christ is made present; but it is His real, living Body, hypo- statically united to the Logos, with His Soul and Divin- ity,— Christ whole and entire. The same applies to the Precious Blood. b) This totality of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist was the constant 8 Sess; “XIIT ‘can. 22 °° St quis. ma. sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sa- cramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sangui- nem und cum anima et divinitate Domini nosiri Iesu Christi ac pro- inde totum Christum, ... anathe- 883). 4John VI, 55: ‘“ Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sangul- - nem, habet vitam aeternam.” 5 John SN be 58.0 sy eb gu manducat me (ne), et ipse vivet propter me.’ 90 THE REAL PRESENCE property of Tradition. The Fathers would have raised the charge of “sarcophagy” against any- one who would have dared to assert that in holy Communion merely the flesh or the blood of Christ is received. : St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that whoever partakes of the Eucharist becomes by that very act a “ Christo- phoros,” 7. e. Christ-bearer. St. Cyril of Alexandria in- sists on the vivifying effects of the Flesh of Christ in the soul of the communicant.° St. John Damascene sums up the teaching of the Greek Fathers as follows: “Bread and wine is not the type of the Body and Blood of Christ; far from it; it is the Body itself, endowed with Divinity, for Christ did not say, ‘ This is the type of my Body,’ but ‘This is my Body.’ ”? c) Although, absolutely speaking, it is within the power of almighty God to separate the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, yet they are actually in- separable because of the indissolubility of the divine and human natures in the Hypostatic Union, which is an article of faith.’ Note, however, that the concrete manner in which our Lord becomes present in the Eucharist depends entirely on the condition of His Body at the moment of conse- cration. The sacred Body may be in one of three states: the state of mortality, that of death, and the transfigured state in which it arose from the grave. When Christ 6Apud Migne, P. G., LXXII, _ tic testimonies, supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, 451. Art.) 2. 7 De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, P. G., XCIV, 1147).— Other Patris- pp. 166 sqq. Pas TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE. ~