THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG­ MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At­ tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net. 2. The Divine Trinity, iv & 297 pp., $1.50 net. 3. God the Author of Nature and the Su­ pernatural. v & 365 pp.. $1.75 net. 4. Christology. in & 310 pp., $1.50 net. 5. Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. 6. Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. 7. Grace: Actual and Habitual, iv & 443 pp., $2 net. U 8. The Sacraments in General. £ I Baptism. Confirmation. £ I 9. The 8—Π.Έ -> Holy Other Volumes Eucharist. to Follow : B I10. The Sacrament of Penance. X 1 π. Extreme Unction. Holy Orw ders. Matrimony. 12. Eschatology. THE SACRAMENTS A DOGMATIC TREATISE BY THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, Ph.D., D.D. FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, NOW PROFESSOR OF DOGMA IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, BASED ON THE FIFTH GERMAN EDITION, WITH SOME ABRIDGMENT AND ADDITIONAL REFERENCES BY ARTHUR PREUSS Volume II The Holy Eucharist B. HERDER 17 South Broadway, St. Louis, Mo. AND AT 68 Great Russell St., London, W. C. 1916 NIHIL OBSTAT SH. Ludovici, die 18. Maji 1916. F. G. HOLWECK, Censor Librorum. IMPRIMA TUR Sti. Ludovici, die /9. Maji 1916. t JOANNES J. GLENNON, Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici. Copyright, i9i6 by Joseph Gummersbach. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION............................................................................... Part I. The Real Presence.................................................... ........ 88 ΐ Ch. I. The Real Presence as a Fact................................... ..... § i. Proof from Holy Scripture................................... ..... Art. I. The Promise.......................................................... Art. 2. The Words of Institution .................................. 23 § 2. Proof from Tradition.................................................. 45 Art. I. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church............................................................................. 45 Art. 2. The Teaching of the Fathers............................. 55 Art. 3. The Argument from Prescription .... Ch. II. The Totality of the Real Presence....................... Ch. III. Transubstantiation, or the Operative Cause of the Real Presence........................................................103 § i. Definition of Transubstantiation............................... 103 § 2. Transubstantiation Provedfrom Holy Scripture and Tradition................................................................... 116 Ch. IV. The Permanence of the Real Presence and the Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist .... 128 § i. The Permanence of the Real Presence . . .129 § 2. The Adorableness of the Holy Eucharist . . .136 Ch. V. Speculative Discussion of the Mystery of the Real Presence............................................. M3 § i. First Apparent Contradiction: The Continued Existence of the Eucharistic Species without their Natural Subject........................................ '44 § 2. Second Apparent Contradiction: The Spirit-Like Mode of Existence of Christ’s Eucharistic Body 163 § 3. Third Apparent Contradiction: The Simultane­ ous Existence of Christ in Heaven and in Many Places on Earth (Multilocation)................ '75 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Part II. The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament . . . .185 Ch. I. Matter and Form................................................................ 189 § I. The Matter, or the Eucharistie Eléments . . .189 § 2. The Sacramental Form, or the Words of Con secration................................................................... 198 Ch. II. Sacramental Effects......................................................... 218 § I. First and Principal Effect : Union of the Soul with Christ by Love............................................ 220 §2. Second Effect: Increase of Sanctifying Grace . 222 § 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 Ch. III. The Necessity of the Holy Eucharist for Salva­ tion ....................................................................... 235 § i. In What Sense the Holy Eucharist is Necessary for Salvation........................................................... 236 § 2. Communion Under One Kind....................................... 246 Ch. IV. The Minister of the Holy Eucharist . . . .255 § i. The Minister of Consecration................................. 256 § 2. The Minister of Distribution................................. 261 Ch. V. The Recipient of the Holy Eucharist . . . .264 § I. Objective Capacity........................................................265 § 2. Subjective Worthiness.................................................. 267 Part III. The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice, or the Mass 272 Ch. I. The Existence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass 276 § I. The Notion of Sacrifice Explained........................... 277 Art. I. Definition of Sacrifice...................................... 277 Art. 2. Different Kinds of Sacrifice........................... 287 § 2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Proved from Scripture and Tradition.................................... 295 Art. i. The Old Testament........................................... 295 Art. 2. The New Testament........................................... 306 Art. 3. The Argument from Prescription . . . . 314 Art. 4. The Argument from Tradition .... 322 Ch. Π. The Nature of the Mass........................................... 33I § 1. The Physical Essence of the Mass.......................... 332 Art. i. The Mass in its Relation to the Sacrifice of I"' c'»ss...................... TABLE OF CONTENTS PACK Art. 2. The Consecration as the Rea! 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..................................... 359 Ch. III. The Causality of the Mass..................................... 371 § i. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass . . . 372 § 2. In What Manner the Mass Produces its Effects . 38f Index........................................................................................................ 399 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” (ευχαριστία, gratiarum actio),1 “Blessing” (ευλογία, benedictio), and "Break­ ing of Bread ” (κλάσ« τού άρτου, 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 Sac1 Not bona gratia, as St. Thomas thinks. 2 INTRODUCTION rament. Awe and reverence for the unfathomable mys­ tery, together with the discipline of the secret (disciplina orcflui), were responsible for them. The titles “Last Supper” (sacra coena, δαπνον άγιον), "Lord's Supper” (coena Domini, κυριακόν δάπνον),2 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” (άρτοι ίπουράϊ’ίος), and such kindred appellations as “ Bread of the Angels” (panis angelorum) and “Eucharistic Bread,” are derived from the visible species. St. Paul speaks of the Holy Eucharist as “ that bread ” 3 and “ the chalice of benediction.”4 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.”D c) The principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is ex­ pressed in the name "Communion” (communio, ινωσκ, κοινωνία), 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” (αγάπη, Love Feast)’ and “Synaxis" (σΰνα^κ, Assembly) are now obsolete and occur only in theological treatises. » 1 Cor. XI. a8*’ M’ 4 1 Cor. X, t6, b Cfr· J°bn VI, 50 sqq. . 0 ctr· H. Leclercq, art. “ Agape " 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,” etc. 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, τράπιζα Κυρίου) 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, vis.: to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice, is no longer familiar to the people. The same is true of the word I; Keating, The 4gape and the Eu· diarist in the Early Church, Lon· don 1901; E. Baumgartner, Eu· charistie und stgape im Urchriitenturn, Solothurn 1909. 4 INTRODUCTION “Host" (hostia), which originally meant the sacrificial victim (θυσία), but is now applied also to unconsecrated wafers. The current name for the Eucharist as a sacri­ fice is “Sacrifice of the Mass” (sacrificium missae), or, briefly, “Mass” (missa). 2. The Position of the Holy Eucharist Among the Sacraments and Mysteries of the Catholic Religion.—The 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),7 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.” 8 The first of these reasons is founded on the Real Presence ; the second, on the fact that Baptism and Confirmation bestow the right to TCfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacrament*. Vol. I. 6 Summa Thcol., 3a, qu. 65, art. 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 circumstance 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.10 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 Scheeben, 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 o " Sicut patet, quod ordinati com­ municant, et etiam baptùati, ai fuerint adulti." (St. Thomas. I.C.). io Cfr. F. A. Bongardt, Die Eu­ charistie der ilittelpunkt det Glaubent, det Gottesdienstei und Lebent der Kirche. and ed., Paderborn 188». 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,11 next, in the bosom of His Virgin Mother,12 and lastly, as it were, in the bosom of the Church,— in the tabernacle and in the hearts of the faithful.13 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 nCfr. John I, 18: "Unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris." 12 John I, 14: "Et Verbum caro factum est." 13 This threefold relation has been artistically depicted by Raphael in his famous “ Disputa."— On the miracles involved in the Holy Eucharist, v. infra, Part I, Ch. V, and Lcssius, De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis, XII, 16.— The intrinsic propriety of the Eucharist in its actual form is well demon­ strated by N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirchc, Vol. I, 2nd 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, Theol., 3a, qu. 73 sqq. ; Opuscula, XXXVII (ed. Mich, de Maria, S. J., Vol. Ill, pp. 460 sqq., Tiferni Tiberini 1886).— Billuart, Summa S. Thomae (cd. Lequctte, Vol. VI, pp. 382 sqq.).—Albertus Magnus, De Sacrosancti Corporis Domini Sacramento Sermones (ed. G. Jacob, Ratisbon 1893).—*De Lugo, De Generabili Eucharistiae Sacramento (ed. J. P. Fournials, Vols. Ill and IV, Paris 1892).— Bellarmine, Controv. de Sacramento Eucharistiae (ed. Fèvre, Vol. IV, Paris 1873).— Du Perron, Traité du Sacrement de I'Eucharistic, Paris 1620. For a list of modern authors cfr. the bibliography in PohlePreuss, 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 allerheiligste 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. Einig, De 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-M oralis de SS. Eucharistiae Mysterio, Bruges 1899. —*Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol. IX, Mayence 1901.— N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902.—♦Scheeben-Atzberger. Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, Part 2, Freiburg 1901.— P. Batiffol, Etudes d'Histoire et de Théologie Positive, Vol II, 3rd ed., Paris 1906.— J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist. London 1907.— INTRODUCTION W. J. Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, London 1903.—D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913. ·) 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. PART I THE REAL PRESENCE In this part of our treatise we shall consider (i) 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, vis.: (2) the Manner of the Real Presence, (3) Transubstantiation, 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 its various aspects. Hence to the four chapters already indicated we shall add a fifth, devoted to the speculative dis­ cussion of the Real Presence. CHAPTER I THE REAL PRESENCE AS A FACT SECTION I PROOF FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE The New Testament contains two classic texts which prove the Real Presence, viz. : Our Lord’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 ( i Cor. XI, 23sqq.).x ' ARTICLE i THE PROMISE I. Our Lord’s Discourse at Capharnaum, John 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. iThe Fourth Gospel, which alone records the words of promise, says nothing of the actual institution of the Eucharist, no doubt because the author was aware of the existence of four different authentic accounts of this event by other writers. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 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.2 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 some3 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 ;4 many others5 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, 2 Cfr. P. Keppler, /Composition des Johannesevangeliums, pp. 47 sqq., Freiburg 1884. 8 Toletus, Franzelin, Atzberger, Gihr, et al. 4 Panis vitae — obus fidei. 6 Perrone, Schwetz, Chr. Pesch, Tepe, et al. ti This is Wiseman's theory. 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, i. 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”7 forms the keynote of the whole address, 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 the strict 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.’ ”8 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 endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” 0 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 Tlo1?n uVI,*3Sv 481 „ ax. > 8 Scheeben-Atzbergcr, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, 569. Freiburg 1901. • John VI, 27: ’Epy&ÇeaOe μη «^ολλυμίρηρ. άλλά τήρ βρύσιν τήρ μυούσαν elf fuf), α/ώρ.ορ, flp à vMj του άι>θρύ που ύμΐν δώσί<· r PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 13 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.” 10 And again : “ Amen, amen, I say unto you : He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.” 11 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 figuratively12 has been given up by Delitzsch, Kôstlin, Keil, Kahnis, J. Hoff­ mann, Dieterich, and other modern non-Catholic exegetes. 2. The Real Presence Proved from John VI, 52 sqq.—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. 11 John VI, 47.— Cfr. Franzelin, De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et Sacrificio, thés. 3, Rome 1887; a dif­ ferent view is defended by Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. Paris 1896. 12 Cfr. Bcllannine, De ristia, I, 5 sqq. U 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 cat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” John VI, 56: “For my flesh is 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 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,13 the “ Bread of Life ” which the Heavenly Father gives to men in the In­ carnate Word to nourish their faith,14 and the (Eucharis­ tic) Bread of Life which Christ Himself promises to give to His followers.15 The manna was a thing of the past, a transitory food incapable of warding off death. The Bread of Heaven, i. e., the Son of God made man, is of the present and constitutes, in as far as it is accepted, a means to 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 18 John VI, 31, 32, 49. 59. 14 John VI, 32, 33. 16 John VI, 27, 52. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE ’5 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 the true bread from heaven.”10 John VI, 52: ". . . the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” 1T 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,18 and why should He have repeatedly employed as a syno­ nym of φαγΰν, “ to eat,”20 the much more graphic term τρώγαν, which means literally “ to crunch with the teeth ”? 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.11 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 lejohn VI, 32: "Non Moyses dedit (δίδωκΐν) vobis panem de coelo, sed Pater meus dat (δίδωσιν) vobis panem de coelo verum." 17 John VI, 52: " Et panis quem ego dabo (iyù δώσω), earo mea esi pro mundi vita.” leCfr. John i»John VI, 20 John VI, 21 Cfr. Heb. «W- VI, 54 »qq. $4, 56, 58. J’· 5J· X. 1; 1 Cor. X, 3 i6 THE REAL PRESENCE bread and wine, namely, the true Flesh and Blood of Christ, as the Lord Himself declared.12 Other types of the Holy Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Fathers, are: the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech,12 the loaves of proposition,2* the blood of the covenant,11 and the paschal lamb.1" 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 Fie had 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,2’ 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,”28 must be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, ». e. literally. 22 Bellannine, De Eucharistia, I, 2» Gen. XIV, 18; cfr. Ps. CIX, 4. 24 Ex. XXV, 30; 1 Kings XXI, 6 sqq. «Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, ,7 8qq. «Ex. XII, , 2TCfr. Is. XLIX, 26; Apoc. XVI, 2« John VI, 55: " Qui ma„j„cal PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 17 It is objected that the expression “ to eat one ” in the 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 : "Dixerunt viri tabernaculi 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.20 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,”30 and Ecclus. XXIV, 29 : “ They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst,”31 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 doctrine? 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 cl bibit meum sangui­ nem, habet vitam aeternam." 20 Cfr. Knabcnbauer, Comment. i» Librum Job, Paris 1886. so Prov. IX, 5: "Penite, come­ dite panem meum ei bibite tinum, quod miscui vobis." 31 Ecclus. XXIV, sq: " Qui edunt me, adhuc esunent, ei qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient.” ι8 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 ? ” 32 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.”38 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.” 34 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 Ï2 John VI. 53. carnem el bibit meum sanguinem, S3 John VI. 54 sq.: " 4men, habet vitam aeternam, et ego resu· amen dico vobis: Nisi manducaveritis scilabo eum in novissimo dic." carnem Filii hominis et biberitis s* John VI. 56: " Caro enim mea eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam vere (άΧηΟώΐ) est cibus, et sanguis in vobis. Qui manducat meam meus vere (άΧηβώΐ) est potus " PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 19 before? It is the spirit that quickeneth : the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you arc spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.”35 He could have cleared up the misunderstand­ ing, had there been one, with a single word, as He had often done before,80 but He allowed them to depart with­ out further ado,87 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.”30 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. β) 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 under33 John VI, 62 sqq. 30Cfr. John III, 3: IV, 3a; 87 John VI, 68. aS Ibid. 20 THE REAL PRESENCE stand. Nor did Christ say, as the Zwinglians would have it: "My flesh is spirit,” i. e., 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 quickencth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life ”?40 There are two views regarding the interpretation of this text. Many of the Fathers declare that the true flesh of Jesus (caro, σαρξ) must not be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus, πνεύμα), and hence not in a cannibalistic sense but as belonging entirely to the super­ natural economy.41 The second and more scientific ex­ planation42 asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of "flesh” to "spirit” the former always signifies carnalmindedness, 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.”43 40 John VI, 64: "Spiritus est «ut in macello venditur, non quomo­ qui vivificet, coro non prodest quid· do spiritu vegetatur. . . . Spiritus qnom; verba quae ego locutui juin ergo est qui vivificat, caro autem no» vobis, spiritus el vita sunt." Prodest quidquam ; sicut illi intel41 Thus St. Augustine, Trad, in m7n7"' T",m· C£o do “d Joo., 27, n. $: " Non prodest quidmanducandum carnem meam *’ quoin, sed quomodo illi intellexe­ runt; carnon quippe lie intellexe­ runt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur ’—On PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE d) The concurrent testimony of the Fathers and councils constitutes another strong argument for the literal interpretation of our Lord’s dis­ course. While the figurative explanation pre­ ferred by a few Catholic theologians need not be ■‘suspected of heresy,” 44 Maldonatus is undoubt­ edly right in denouncing it as temerarious. a) Maldonatus48 has brought together a huge mass of citations to show that the Fathers are unanimous in inter­ preting John VI, 52 sqq. literally.40 Even those who apply the first part of our Lord’s discourse to the “ cibiis fidei,” admit the literal interpretation as the only possible one for the second part. We have already quoted St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. Augustine, though inclined to assign first place to the “ spiritual eating of Christ in the faith,”47 does not reject the literal, but uses it as a basis for the figurative interpretation.48 β) As regards the councils, that of Ephesus, of 431, approved St. Cyril’s synodal letter to Nestorius, in which John VI, 55 is cited in support of the “ life-giving virtue ” of the hypostatically united Flesh of Christ in holy Comthe different interpretations of John VI, 64, cfr. N. Cihr, Die hl. SaItramcnte der hath. Kirchc, Vol. I, and ed., pp. 372 sqq. 44 Cfr. Alb. a Bulsano, Theol. Dogma!., cd. Gottfr. a Graun, Vol. II. p. 597. Innsbruck 1894. •ir. Commentar, in loa., c. 6. 4· Cfr. also Vai. Schmidt, Die Verheissung der Eucharistie bci den VHtern, Wurzburg 1900; De Au­ gustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 460 sqq. 47 Cfr. Tract, in loa., a$, n. la: " Ut quid paras dentem et ventrem' Crede, el manducasti." 48 Cfr. Tract, in loa., 36. n. 18: " Qui non mane! in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manduca! spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sangui­ nem, licet camaliter et visibiliter Premat dentibus sacramentum cor­ poris et sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad indicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia immundus praesumpsit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, quae aliquis non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus 22 THE REAL PRESENCE munion.*’ The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (787) condemned the contention of the Iconoclasts that the Eucharist is “ the true, adorable image of Christ,”00 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.” 61 Those Catholic theologians who preferred the figurative inter­ pretation52 were led to do so by controversial reasons. In their perplexity they imagined that the claims of the Hussites and Protestant Utraquists for the partaking of the chalice by the laity could not in any other way be effectively controverted from Scripture. In view of this circumstance the Tridentine Council refrained from a formal definition on the subject,53 though its own atti­ tude is quite plain from the fact that it embodied several passages from the sixth chapter of St. John in its argu­ ment for the sacramental reception of the Eucharist in holy Communion.54 4# Cfr. Hardouin, Coll. Concil., Vol. I, p. 1290. 50 την αληθή τού Χριστού «Ικόρα61 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 ipjum iaiiguiitem." 62 Notably Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, John Kessel, and the elder Jansenlus. 63 Cfr. Sess. XXI, cap. i: “. . . utcumque [sermo Christi} iuxta varias ss. Patrum et Doctorum interpretationes intclligatur.” 64 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2; Sess. XXI, cap. i.— On the debates that took place on this subject at Trent, cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Trid., XVII, tr. 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 ARTICLE 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. Two of these 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 doctrine of the Mass.1 THE PETRINE ACCOUNT THE PAULINE ACCOUNT Matth. XXVI, 26 sqq.: Hoc est enim corpus meum. Τούτο ίστι το σΰμά μου. Luke XXII, 19 sqq.: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemora­ tionem. Τούτο ίστι το σώμά μου το inrep υμών 8i8ôpevov· τούτο iroitÎTt ek την ίμην άνάμνησιν. Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hic est calix Novum Testamentum in sanguine ineo, qui pro vobis funde­ tur. Τούτο το ποτηριον <) 1 P. infra. Part HI. 24 THE REAL PRESENCE Τούτο yap ίση το αιμά μου το τής καινής διαθήκης το nf.pi πολλών ά'χΐ’Π’ό/ΐίΐ'οΐ' «ίς άψεσιν αμαρτιών. καινή διαθήκη ίν τώ αΐματί μου, το υπίρ υμών ίκχυννόμίνον. Mark XIV, 22 sqq. : Hoc est corpus meum. Γούτο ίστι το σώμα μου. i Cor. XI, 24 sq. : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur: hoc facite in meam com­ memorationem. Τούτο μου ίστι το σώμα το νπίρ υμών [κλώμενον] · τούτο ποιείτε εις την ίμήν άνάμνησιν. Hic calix Novum Testa­ Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro mentum est in meo san­ multis effundetur. Τούτο guine: hoc facite, quoties­ ΐστι το αιμά μου τής καινής cumque bibetis, in meam Ύοϋτο διαθήκης, το ΰπιρ πολλών commemorationem. το ποτήριον ή καινή διαθηκη εκχυπάμενον. εστιν εν τώ ίμώ αΐματι· τούτο ποιείτε, οσάκις αν κινητέ, εις τήν έμήν άνάμνησιν. 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. ïCfr. Cone. Ί rident., Sets. ΧΠΙ. cap. a OJenzinser-Baniwart, 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. I. The Literal 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. I f 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.3 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) The 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 3 Cfr. J. Helm, Ute Emsetsung des hl. Cotiheit Christi, Wurzburg 1900. Abendmahles els Bcweis /Sr die 20 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. ; IV, 32 sqq.; Matth. XVI, 6 sqq., XVII, 12 sq.) and where several writers supplement one another (ra, pp. a? eq. 36 THE REAL PRESENCE in a figure of us.”21 *24 But sundry theologians 25*prefer to take the word “ rock ” in an allegorical sense, because the Apostle, a little farther up, speaks of Christ as “the spiritual rock ”20 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.28 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.” 20 It should be noted that the question here at issue must be decided not by the unknown Aramaic text of our 21 i Cor. X, 6: " Haec autem in 187 sqq., Munster 1903; McRory, figura facio sunt nostri." The Epiitles of St. Paul t0 the 2t- Notably FranzcVtn (De EuCormthians, pp. ,36 sqq , DubIin charistia, p. 63). 20 « Cor. X, 4: " Bibebant autem de spiritali, consequente eoi, petra; petra autem erat Christus." 27 Cfr. ΛΙ. Schafer, Erkliirung der bcidcn Briefc an die Korinthcr, pp. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 37 Lord’s discourse (which W. Berning has hypothetically reconstructed), but by the Greek text, which everywhere has tari and not σημαίνα.™ b) A second group of Sacramentarians, fol­ lowing the lead of Oecolampadius, shifted the diligently sought-for metaphor to the concept contained in the predicate corpus, giving to the latter the sense of “signum corporis,” so that the words of institution would have to be rendered: “This is a sign [symbol, image, type] of my Body.” This absurd theory essentially coincides with the Zwinglian interpretation. Its latest exponent, Durand,3* tries to show that the Christian Church has always un­ derstood the words of institution as meaning: “This [bread] is the symbol of my Body.” Refutation of This Theory.—This conten­ tion is disproved by the fact that in all languages the expression “body” designates a person’s nat­ ural body, not a mere sign or symbol of that body. True it is that the Scriptural words “ Body of Christ ” are sometimes figuratively used in the meaning of “ Church ” (corpus Christi mysticum), but this figure is always easily discernible as such from the text or con­ text. Cfr. Col. I, 24: “ I make up in my flesh what is lacking to the sufferings of Christ on behalf of his body, 30 The Scriptural proof of the Real Presence is copiously developed by Card. Wiseman in his famous Lectures on The Real Presence; see also Vo). SI and Cbr. Peach. Praelect. Dogmat., VI, 3rd ed.. pp. 265 sqq. Dae Problem der Eocharutie seine Losing, Berlin 1898. 38 THE REAL PRESENCE which is the church.” This mystical sense, however, cannot be intended in the words of institution, for the simple reason that Christ did not give the Apostles His Church to eat, but His Body, which “ Body,” by reason of a real and logical association, cannot be separated from His “ Blood,” and hence is all the less susceptible of a figurative use. Since our Divine Saviour in all likelihood spoke Aramaic, it is probable that the words in their original form were Hoc [esf] corpus meum” The Aramaic word (Hebrew has the second­ ary meaning of substantia, realitas, persona. Were we to take the term in this secondary sense in the above-quoted passage, we should get: “This [is] my substance or person,” which would express the Real Presence even more clearly. But this interpretation is inadmissible for the simple reason that the parallel phrase “ This is my blood” cannot be treated in the same way. The case would be different if the reading were : “ This is the bread of my Body, the wine of my Blood.” Some heretics evolve the figurative sense from the rela­ tion of the pronoun hoc to the predicate corpus meum, saying: “That which is bread and remains bread, can­ not be at the same time the true Body of Christ, but at most an image thereof.” This altogether arbitrary con­ struction is disproved by the text itself, which does not say : “ This bread is (and remains) my Body,” but in­ definitely : Τοΰτό [not ούτος ό άρτος] «στι το σώμα μου,82 ί. e., that which I give you is my Body, and consequently no longer bread.” Our interpretation is confirmed by St Luke, who says: “ This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which [chalice] shall be shed for you ” 38 In other words: the contents of the chalice is my Blood, 8î Maith. XXVI, 26. as Luke XXII, 2O PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE 39 which shall be shed for you. Consequently, what the Apostles received in the chalice was not wine, but really and truly the Blood of Christ. To prove that the contents of the chalice were mere wine, Protestants have had recourse to the text of St. Matthew, where it is related that our Lord, after the com­ pletion of the Last Supper, declared : “ I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine.”34 St. Luke, who is chronologically more exact, places these words before the institution of the Eucharist.30 Note, also, that the true Blood of Christ may rightly still be called (consecrated) wine, because the Blood is partaken of after the manner in which wine is drunk, and also because it continues to exist under the outward appearance of wine. For this reason St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, calls the Body of Christ “bread”—emphatically: τον άρτον τούτον, “this (peculiar) bread”30—because the Body of Christ is eaten like bread37 and retains the out­ ward appearance of bread after the consecration. c) There are certain Scriptural texts which are believed to be so near an approach to a paral­ lel with the words of institution that they have been termed sacramental expressions (locutiones sacramentales'). The two principal texts of this kind are Gen. XVII, to: “Hoc [t. e. circumcisio] est pactum meum [= signum pacti mei]," and Ex. XII, it: “ [Agnus paschalis] esi enim phase [»’. e. transitus] Domini." It was chiefly by a clever manipulation of the latter that Zwingli succeeded 3« Matth. XXVI, »9: "Non bi­ boot amodo de hoc genimine vilit (τού ^ινήματοί τήτ άμττίΧοιΟ." seCfr. Luke XXII, tS »qq. 30 i Cor. XI. 16. at Cfr. i Cor. X, «6. 40 THE REAL PRESENCE in robbing the people of Zurich of their Catholic faith.88 Refutation of This Theory.—From the exegetical point of view the texts just quoted can hardly be regarded as parallels to the words of institu­ tion; to call them “sacramental expressions” is foolish. No parallelism can be discerned between the phrases employed by those Old Testament writers and the words of institution : no real parallelism, because there is ques­ tion of entirely different things; no verbal parallelism, since in both Gen. XVII, io and Ex. XII, n the sub­ ject is a ceremony (circumcision in the first, the rite of the paschal lamb in the second), while the predicate in­ volves a mere abstraction (Covenant, Passover of the Lord). A much weightier consideration is this, that on closer investigation the copula est will be found to retain its proper meaning of “ is ” rather than “ signifies. ’ Moses by divine command established the Covenant by sprinkling the Israelites with sacrificial blood, saying: “ This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.”80 St. Paul, after quoting these words in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says that the New Cove­ nant was established in a similar manner by the Blood of Christ,40 and our Lord Himself expressly declares: “ This is my blood of the New Testament.” 41 Here we have both a verbal and a real parallelism between the two Testaments, which forces us to conclude : As the Old 38 On a third “ sacramental ex­ pression " (i Cor. X, 4: " Petra ouleitt erat Christus"), see anpra, pp. 35 s. 00 This view is enthusiastically de­ fended by Maldonatus, Comment, in Matth.. 26, 26. 01 De Eucharistia, 4th ed., thes. 6, Rome 1887. 44 THE REAL PRESENCE nature ; but it “ demonstrates ” that thing only in the state in which it actually exists at the time the proposi­ tion is uttered. Applying this rule to the words of insti­ tution, we find that St. Thomas is right in saying that hoc can only signify “ substance in general,” without a deter­ minate form; that St. Bonaventure is right in asserting that hoc, at the beginning of the sentence, “ demon­ strates ” merely bread, and that Scotus contradicts neither the one nor the other of these eminent writers when he claims that hoc, considered at the end of the sentence, i. e. when the sentence is completed, “ dem­ onstrates” the Body of Christ. Of less importance is the grammatical question whether the pronoun hoc in the words of institution must be taken substantively or adjectively. As all the predicates in the Greek text (σώμα, αίμα, ποτηριον') are of the neuter gen­ der, this question cannot be definitively answered. Cor­ pus in Latin being also neuter, while sanguis and calix are masculine, the Vulgate has translated τοϋτο adjec­ tively. There is no essential difference between the two versions. SECTION 2 PROOF FROM TRADITION More conclusively perhaps than any other dogma of the Catholic faith can the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be demonstrated from Tradition. The Popes prove this sublime truth by clearly defining it against various heretics; the Fathers unanimously bear witness to it; the Church at large held it in uninterrupted possession from the Apostolic age down to the eleventh century. ARTICLE i HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH It is a remarkable fact that, aside possibly from Docetism,1 no heresy denying the Real Presence was ever able to take root in the primitive Church. When Berengarius of Tours attacked this dogma, in the eleventh century, the Church at once condemned the innovation and took determined means to suppress it. The widely divergent errors of the Protestant Reformers on this subject were vigorously rejected by the Council of Trent. i. The Three versies.—Church Great Eucharistic Contro­ history records three great 1 Cfr. St. Ignatius, E/', ad Smyrn., c. 7, i (cd. Funk, I, 341). 45 46 THE REAL PRESENCE Eucharistic controversies. The first was begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century;2 the second, by Berengarius of Tours, in the eleventh; the third, by the Protestant Reformers. a) The controversy of the ninth century left the dogmatic teaching of the Church intact and concerned itself solely with a philosophical ques­ tion. St. Paschasius Radbertus, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Corbie,3 in a treatise De Corpore et San­ guine Domini, published in 831, affirmed the identity of the Eucharistic Body of Christ with the natural Body He had on earth and now has in Heaven. In defend­ ing this view it seems Radbertus neglected the true though only accidental distinction between the sacra­ mental and the natural condition of our Saviour’s Body. Hence Ratramnus, Rhabanus Maurus, and other con­ temporary theologians were justified in censuring the numerical identity asserted by Radbertus as a novel and unheard-of ” doctrine, and insisting on the dis­ tinction just mentioned. The Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, they declared, while identical with His natural Body naturaliter seu secundum substantiam, is not identical with it specialiter seu secundum speciem (= statum) .* In defending his position Paschasius was 2 This first controversy scarcely Sanguine Domini can be found in extended beyond the limits of a Martcne, Vet. Script, cl Monum. Scholastic altercation. Harnack Ampl. Collectio, t. IX, and in (Dogmengcschichte, Vol. HI, 5th Migne, P. L., CXX. ed., pp. 278 sqq., Freiburg 1896) un­ * Cfr. Rhabanus Maurus, Ep. 3 ad duly exaggerates its importance. Egilcm (Migne, P. L., CXII, 1513): 8 Sec a sketch of his life in the Manifestissime cognoscetis, non Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, p. qu'.dem abtit — naturaliter, 518. His treatise De Corpore et «d sfeemhter aliud eJie Co PROOF FROM TRADITION 47 able to quote St. Chrysostom, who in teaching the Real Presence employed precisely the same language without ever having been suspected of theological inaccuracy. Neither St. Chrysostom nor St. Paschasius dreamed of asserting that the Body of Christ was nailed to the Cross in its sacramental state, i. e. in the form of a host, and Heriger, Ratherius, and other opponents of the Ab­ bot of Corbie were plainly beating the air when they employed their learning to refute his alleged assertion that the sacramental species are identical with the Body of Christ. Lanfranc, writing in the eleventh century, effectively disposes of the matter thus: “It can truly be said that we receive the very Body which was taken from the Virgin, and yet not the same. It is the same in essence and property of true nature; but it is not the same if you regard the species of bread and wine.”5 b) The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church arose when Berengarius of Tours ( + 1088), influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena,8 formally rejected both the doc­ Domini, quod ex substantia panis et vini fro mundi vita quotidie per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur . . . et aliud specialiter esse corpus Christi, quod natum est de Maria virgine, in quod illud transfertur." 5 Adv. Berengar., c. 18: " Vere posse dici et ipsum corpus, quod de Virgine sumptum est, nos sumere; et tamen non ipsum. Ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proprietatem; non ipsum autem, si spectes panis vinique spe­ cies.'' Cfr. Bach, Dogmengcschichte des Mittelallers, Vol. I, pp. 156 sqq., Vienna 1873; J. Hergenrother, Kirchcngeschichte, Vol. Π, jrd ed.. pp. 163 sqq., Freiburg 1885. A thorough vindication of St. Pa­ schasius was made by Gerbcrt, after­ wards Pope Sylvester II (+ iooj), in a work bearing the same title. De Corpore cl Sanguine Domini. Cfr. Ernst, Die Lehre des Paschasius Radbertus von der Eucharistie. Frei­ burg 1896; Choisy, Puschase Radbert, Geneva 1889. e Scotus Eriugena composed his treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini about the year 860; the text has been lost and 110 authentic in­ formation has come down to us re- 48 THE REAL PRESENCE trine of the Real Presence and that of Transubstantiation.7 In his treatise De Sacra Coetia, discovered by Lessing in I774and made public by Vischer in 1834, Berengarius expressly asserts: "If it is said, ‘The bread which is placed upon the altar after the consecration is the body of Christ,’ this is just as much a figure of speech as if it is said, * Christ is a lion, a lamb, the main corner­ stone.’ ”8 This heretical teaching gave great scandal and was vigorously combatted by Durandus of Troarne, Guitmund, Lanfranc, Alger of Liège, and other learned theologians.0 c) The third and most momentous Eucharistic controversy was that opened by the Protestant Reformers in the first half of the sixteenth cen­ tury. In the main there were three schools : the Lutheran, the Zwinglian, and the Calvinist. a) Luther seems at first to have clung to the traditional Catholic doctrine, though it did not and theologians.” Perhaps the diffiRaiding it.—On John Scotus Eriugena (“ Eriugena ” means " a native culty for him was “ in the mode of Ireland”), see W. Turner in the rather than in the fact; . . . yet his Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol, V, pp. exposition of [the Real Presence], 519 sqq.; Gardner, Studies in John together with his principles of philo· the Scot, London 1900. sophy, endanger the fact itself of the 1 V. infra, Ch. Ill, Sect. 2. Real Presence and sound very much 8” Non -minus tropica oratione like a negative of it." (G. M. Saudicitur: Panis, qui ponitur in altari, vage in the Catholic Encyclopedia, post consecrationem est corpus Vol. II, p. 488). Christi, quam dicitur: Christus est n Their writings are reproduced leo, agnus, summus lapis angularis." by Hurter in his Sanctorum Patrum — Berengarius certainly denied Opuscula Selecta, Series I, vols 23 Transubslantiation. As to his teach38. 39- Cfr. J. Schnitzer, Bcrcngar ing on the Real Presence, which is von Tours, 2nd ed., pp. 133 sqn. rather obscure, “there is much di- Stuttgart 1892. ' ’’ vergence of opinion among historians PROOF FROM TRADITION 49 tally with his pct theory of justification by faith alone. In his pamphlet On the Babylonian Captivity he viciously attacked the Mass and denied Transubstantiation, without, however, questioning the Real Presence. To save the latter after having rejected the former, he found himself constrained to maintain that the substance of bread and the Body of Christ exist together in the Eucharist. This theory is called Consubstantiation. It was later brought into a system by the orthodox Lutheran theologians and reduced to the technical formula: " Praesens in, cum et sub pane.” 10 Luther, however, un­ dermined it when, urged on by Melanchthon and by his own ardent desire to abolish the "Deus in pyxide" and do away with Eucharistic adorations and theophoric pro­ cessions, he declared in his scurrilous pamphlet “ Pon der IVinkelmesse” (A. D. 1533), that the Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist only at the moment of its re­ ception in holy Communion (in usu, non ante vel post usitni). This theory, carried to its logical conclusion, had to result in a denial of the dogma of the Real Presence. Melanchthon, who leaned to Calvinism, did not find it difficult to eliminate from the Augsburg Confession the orthodox proposition : “ The Body and Blood of the Lord are truly present under the form of bread and wine,” and to substitute for it the ambiguous phrase : “ In the Lord’s Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ is truly ex­ hibited with the bread and the wine,” 11 which was accept­ able to the Calvinists. The Lutheran and the Calvinistic 10 For further information on this point, v. Ch. Ill, infra. 11 Art 10 originally read: " Sub specie panis et vini corpus et sanguis Domini vere adsunt." For this Me­ lanchthon substituted: "In corna Domini cum pane et vino corpus el sanguis Christi vere exhibetur." The various Protestant confessional statements on the " Lord’s Supper " 50 THE REAL PRESENCE views continued to exist side by side, until King Frederick William 111 amalgamated the two sects in the so-called “ Evangclischc Landeskirchc,” the national Church of Prussia, which has since degenerated into almost com­ plete infidelity. The original Lutheran teaching is to­ day upheld only by a small coterie of “ orthodox ” Lutherans in Germany and the United States.12 β) Luther’s conception of the Eucharist was strongly opposed by Hulderic Zwingli of Zurich, who was supported by Carlstadt and Butzer, and especially by Oecolampadius. Zwingli, as stated above, discovered a figure or trope in the copula est and rendered it : “ This signifies my body,” thereby reducing the Eucharist to an empty sym­ bol?8 Carlstadt claimed that when our Lord uttered the words “ This is my body,” He pointed to Himself.14 Zwingli later on secured influential allies in the Arminians, the Mennonites, the Socinians, and the Anglicans,1 r‘ and even to-day the Rationalistic conception of the Lord’s Supper does not differ substantially from that of the Zwinglians. ■will be found in the New Schaff14 For Luther’s opinion of Carl­ Heriog Encyclopedia of Religious stadt v. De Wette, Luth. Epist., II, Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 35 sq. 576 sqq. On the controversy be­ 12 Cfr. Herzog-Hauck, Rcalensy· tween Luther and Zwingli regarding klopôdie fur prot. Théologie, Vol. the Eucharist sec Hergenrother, I, 3rd ed., pp. 65 sqq. (New SchaffKirchengeschichtc, Vol. Ill, 4th ed., Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious PP· 72 sqq., Freiburg 1909. Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 37); J. T. 16 See the New Schaff-Herzog En­ Muller, Die symbolischen Bûcher dor cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, evangclisch-lutherischen Kirche, 6th Vol. VII, p. 35. On more recent ed., Gutersloh 1886. Protestant theories see W. Berning, 13 Γ. supra, Sect. 1, Art. 2, No. 2. Die Einsetzung der hl. Eucharistic Zwingli’s teaching is succinctly stated m ihrer ursprUnglichen Form pp χ in that writer's Opera, Vol. Ill, pp. sqq., Münster 1901. 340 sqq., Zurich 1832. PROOF FROM TRADITION 5f y) In the meantime Calvin, at Geneva, was seeking to bring about a compromise between the extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwinglian figurative interpretation of our Lord's words, by suggesting instead of the substantial presence in one case or the merely symbolical presence in the other, a certain mean or “ dyna­ mic” presence. This dynamic presence of Christ he explained as fol­ lows: At the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ’s Body and Blood, though that Body and Blood are not really present (secundum substantiam'), is com­ municated from Heaven to the souls of the predestined (secundum virtutem) and spiritually nourishes them.1* Owing to Melanchthon’s dishonest double-dealing, this intermediary position of Calvin made a strong impression in Lutheran circles, and it was only when the Formula of Concord was framed, in 1577, that the “ crypto-Calvinistic venom” was successfully expelled from the body of Lutheran doctrine.17 2. The Teaching of the Church.—It was not until the time of Berengarius that the Euchar­ istic dispute trenched on orthodoxy, thus coni10 Cfr. Calvin, fnstii., IV, 17. 17 Calvin's views have been ulti­ mately adopted by the great ma­ jority of the so-cailcd “ Reformed ” churches. Loofs says there are “ in­ finite gradations between the strict Calvinistic belief and the rationalyzing of the Zwinglian view into a mere observance in commemoration of Christ." (Neto Schaff-Hcrsog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl­ edge, Vol. VII, p. 35). On modern Calvinism cfr. Λ. Ebrard, Das einhcllige Bekenntnis dor reformierten Kirche aller Liinder, Barmen 1887: E. F. K. Muller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche. Leipzig 1903.— On the whole sub­ ject of this subdivision see WinerEwald. Komparahve Darstellnng des Lchrbegriffes der t-erichiedenen christlichen Kirchsnparieien, n. THE REAL PRESENCE polling the Church to define her belief in the Real Presence. a) Berengarius’ view, together with Eriugena’s trea­ tise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, to which he had appealed in support of his teaching,18 were condemned by councils held in Vercelli (1050), Paris (about 1050), and Rome (1059). It was not until he had subscribed to an explicit profession of faith, at another council held in Rome, A. D. 1079, under the presidency of Gregory VII, that Berengarius gave up his heresy. He died reconciled to the Church. The quarrel concerning his Eucharistic teaching lasted altogether some thirty years. The profession of faith to which Berengarius was com­ pelled to subscribe emphasized the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which virtually includes that of the Real Presence.1" Unlike the heresy of the Protestant Re­ formers, that of Berengarius never became popular.20 b) The Council of Trent met the widely diver­ gent errors of the Protestant Reformers by XVI, 4th ed., Leipzig 1882; Mohler, carnem et sanguinem lesu Christi Symbolism, 5 35, § 56, and § 68; Domini nostri et post consecrationem J. B. Rohm, Konfcssionelle Lchrgeesse verum Christi corpus, quod gensatee, Vol. IV, pp. 73 sqq., natum est de Virgine et quod pro Hildesheim 1888. salute mundi oblatum in cruce pe­ 18 It is a disputed question pendit ei quod sedet ad dexteram whether the treatise De Corpore et Patris, ei verum sanguinem Christi, Sanguine Domini attributed to qui de latere eius effusus est, non Ratramnus is identical with that o£ tantum per signum et virtutem sacra­ Scotus Eriugena. Cfr. on this point, menti, sed in proprietate naturae et Schceben-Atzberger, Dogmalife, Vol. veritate substantiae. . . (Den· IV, 2, 561, Freiburg 190t. zinger-Bannwart, n. 355). 1» " Ego Berengarius corde credo ci 20 On the concilias/ proceedings orc confiteor, funem et vinum, quae in the case of Berengarius see foiiunttir in altari, per myslcrinni Mansi, Colled. Concil., Vol. XIX sacrae orationis et verba «oriri Re­ PI>. 757 Sqq., 837 sqq., 897 sqq.; Vol’ demptoris substantialiter converti in λΑ· PP- 523 sqq. veram et propriam ac vivificalricem PROOF FROM TRADITION defining the Catholic teaching on the subject. The XIIIth Session is devoted entirely to the Holy Eucharist, and no Catholic can peruse its decrees and canons without being deeply moved. The Council begins with a forthright profession of faith in the Real Presence: “In the first place the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially con­ tained under the species of those sensible things.” 21 Calling upon Tradition as a witness, the Council points to the “proper and most mani­ fest meaning” of the divine words of institution,23 and declares it “a most shameful crime” that these plain words should be “wrested by certain contentious and wicked men to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is denied, against the univer­ sal sense of the Church.” 23 The three adverbs “truly, really, and substantially” were not arbi­ 1 : " Principio docet S. Synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur, in almo sanctae Eucharistiae sacra­ mento post panis et vini consecra­ tionem Dominum nostrum /esum Christum, verum Deum atque ho­ minem, vere, realiter ac substan­ tialiter sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri." (DenzingerBannwart, n. 874). 23 " Propriam illam et apertis­ simam significationem." 23 Ibid. : " Indignissimum sane dagitium est, ea (verbal a quibusdam contentiosis et pravis hominibus ad fictitios et imaginarios tropos, quibus veritas carnis et sanguinis Christi negatur, contra universum Ecclesiae sensum detorqueri." 54 THE REAL PRESENCE trarily chosen, but with a view to oppose the three fictitious interpretations of the Reformers, al­ ready mentioned. The word “vcre,” i. e. non significative tantum, was directed against the theory of Zwingli; “realiter,” i. c. non figurative, against the error of Oecolampadius ; “substantiali­ ter” i. c. non virtualiter tantum, against Calvin’s contention of a purely “dynamic” presence. The teaching thus positively set forth is once more antithetically repeated in the First Canon of the same Session: “If anyone denieth that, in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are con­ tained truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue, let him be anathema.” 24 This teaching of Trent has ever been and still is the unwavering belief of the whole of Catholic Christendom.25 U Sess. ΧΠ1, can. i : "Si quit negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sacra­ mento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri lesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum, sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in signo vel figura uni virtute, anathema sit." (DenzingerBannwart, n. 883). 2t> Λ complete collection of all ecclesiastical definitions on the sub­ ject of the Eucharist will be found in Schcebcn-Atzherger's Dogmatik, Vol. IV. a, pp. 561 sqq., Freiburg 1901. PROOF FROM TRADITION 55 ARTICLE 2 THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS The Catholic teaching on the Holy Eucharist can be abundantly proved from the Fathers. In order not to exceed the limits of this treatise we shall have to confine ourselves to the first five centuries. It is these early Fathers whom Calvin invoked in favor of his “ dynamic ” theory. The Patristic proofs for our dogma may be divided into direct1 and indirect testimonies.2 Almost all extant Patristic passages bearing on the Real Presence are col­ lected in the great five-volume work, La Perpétuité de la Foi de l’Eglise touchant l’Eucharistie, of which the first three volumes were published by Nicole and Arnauld be­ tween 1669 and 1674, and the last two by Renaudot, be­ tween 1711 and 1713, at Paris.3 i. Direct Testimonies of the Fathers in Favor of the Dogma of the Real Presence.— As many Protestants admit that the Fathers who lived after the beginning of the fourth century held the Catholic view of the Eucharist, we will 1 Testimonia simplicia. 2 Testimonia argumentosa. 8 Though Nicole and Arnauld were Jansenists, yet their monu­ mental work on the Eucharist, Per­ pétuité de la Foi, has not yet lost its value (.Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 593)·—The student may also consult Franzclin. De Eucharistia, thes. 8-to, Rome 1887; Béguinot, La Tris Sainte Eucha­ ristie. Exposition de la Foi des u Première Siècles, a vols., Paris 1003· — The most ancient Patristic texts bearing on the Eucharist are con­ veniently displayed by G. Rauschen, Florilegium Patrislicum, Heft 7, Bonn 1900. See also the same au­ thor's Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. i St. Louia 1913· 56 THE REAL PRESENCE first examine the teaching of those Patristic writ­ ers who flourished in the first three centuries. a) Besides the Didache, which is of special im­ portance in regard to the Mass, and which we shall quote in Part III of this treatise, the oldest Patristic witness that can be cited in support of the Church’s belief in the Real Presence is St. Ignatius of Antioch (4- about 117). a) Ignatius writes of the Docetists: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer,4 because they do not con­ fess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, [that Flesh] which suffered for our sins,15 and which the Father raised up by His goodness.0 . . . But it were better for them to love [αγαπάν, i. e. αγάπην ποιαν = to celebrate the Eucharist], in order that they also may attain to the resurrection.” 7 This “ realistic ” text, which could be matched by others from the same author,8 is not contradicted by the “ symbolic ” reflection in his Epistle to the Trallians: “ Be renewed in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ,”0—a passage that is as unmistakably figurative as the former is literal, since faith and love manifestly neither “ suffer” nor “ attain to the resurrection.” This interpretation is confirmed by a close inspection of the original text, which reads as follows : Άνακτίσασθε ίαυτοίς ίν πίστα, ô [not fl έστιν σαρξ τοϋ Κυρίου, και ίν αγάπη, <» * προσευχή?, i.e. liturgical wor941); Κ. Lake. The Apostolic Faskip. thers, Vol. I, p. 259, London 1912. ΰτήυ ευχαριστίαν σάρκα είναι 8 Cfr. Ep. ad Eph., c. 20; Ep. ad τού σωτήροι ήμών 'Ιησού Χριστού Philad., c. 4 (ed. Funk, I, 190, 226). τήρ ύπέρ αμαρτιών ήμών παϋούσαν. » Ερ. ad Trail., c. 8 (ed Funk «ήυ τή χρηστότητι ό πατήρ I. αοβ) ; Κ. Lake. The Apostolic FafiytipeV' thers, Vol. I, p. îlg_ T Ep. ad Smyrn., c. j (cd. Funk, I, PROOF FROM TRADITION 57 [not »/] ίσπν αϊμα ’Ιησού Χρίστον, i. e., the renewal of faith and love is the Flesh and Blood of Christ, that is to say, the effect of His Flesh and Blood, in other words, a fruit of Holy Communion. The res sacramenti stands antonomastically for sacramentum.10 β) Another ancient witness to the doctrine of the Real Presence is St. Justin Martyr (-|- 167). Disregarding the Discipline of the Secret, that famous apologist says: '* And this food is with us called Eucharist, and no one is permitted to partake of the same, except he who be­ lieves that our teaching is true, and who has submitted to that ablution [Baptism] for the forgiveness of sins and unto regeneration, and who lives as Christ hath com­ manded. For we take this not as common bread,11 nor as common drink, 12 but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made Flesh by the Divine Logos,13 had Flesh and Blood for the sake of our salvation, so have we been taught that also the food consecrated by the word of prayer coming from Him, by which our blood and flesh are nourished through conversion [i. e. bread and wine], is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made Flesh.14 For the Apostles have handed it down in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, that it hath been commanded them as follows: Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and said, * Do this in com­ memoration of me, this is my Body ’ ; and in the same manner He took the chalice, gave thanks, and said, ‘ This is my Blood,’ and gave them all thereof.”18 10 Cfr. Schanz, Die I.ehre von den Sakramenten der hath. Kirche, p. 334, Freiburg 1893: J. Nirschl, Die Théologie dee hl. Ignatiue, pp. 76 sqq., Mayence 1880. 11 κοινόν Αρτον12 κοινόν πόμα13 "He who overshadowed the Virgin; " cfr. Apol., I, c. 33 sq. 1« τήρ it’ ίΰχήί λόγον τον nap' αντον (ύχαριστηθιϊσαν τροφήν (i. e. consecrated), ίζ ή* α1μα καί σάρκοτ κατά μιταβοΧήν τρίφονται Ί)μύν, ϊκιΐνου τού σαρκοιτοιηίΗντοτ Ιησού καί σάρκα καί αίμα lirailonpol.. I. c. 66 (.Migne. F. G.. I.XVII, 436). Another important text from Justin Martyr will be 5« THE REAL PRESENCE St. Irenaeus of Lyons (-|- 203), a pupil of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who had personally known the Apostles, up­ holds the dogma of the Eucharist against the Gnostics as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh, and in so doing plainly teaches the Real Presence. Take this pas­ sage, for instance : “ He declared the chalice, which is taken from created things, to be His own Blood,in where­ with He penetrates our blood, and the bread, which is also a created thing, to be His own Body,17 wherewith He nourishes our bodies. . . . Wine and bread are by the word of God changed into the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”18 In another place10 St. Irenæus says: “How can these heretics [the Gnostics] be convinced that the consecrated bread20 is the Body of their Lord, and the cup contains His Blood, if they do not regard Him as the Son of the Creator of the world, i. e., as His Logos, through whom the trees bear fruit, the fountains flow, and the earth produces first a blade of grass, then the ear, and finally, within the ear, the full wheat? ”21 St. Hippolytus of Rome (+ 235) says: “The Logos prepared His precious and immaculate Body 22 and His Blood,23 which are daily prepared as a sacrifice 24 on the mysterious divine table, in commemoration of that eter­ nally memorable first table of the mystic divine supper. Come and eat my Bread, and drink the wine which I have quoted infra, Part III, in con­ nection with the Mass. On St. Justin's teaching, cfr. Rauschcn, Eucharist and Penance, pp. 5 sq., 30 sqq.. and P.ardcnhewer, Geschichte der althirchlichcn Literatur, Vol. I, pp. 239 sq.. Freiburg 1902. tcalga Ιδιον· ίδιον σώμα. 13 Adv. Haer., V, 2, 2 sq. 10 Of. dt; IV, 18, 4· 20 άρτον ΐύχαρισθέντα, = the bread over which thanks have been given. 21 Cfr. L. Hopfenmüllcr, S'. Ire­ naeus de Eucharistia, Bamberg 1867. For the teaching of Clement of Alexandria and Origen see No. 3, infra, pp. 69 sqq. 22 σώμα. 23 αίμα24 ίπιτίλοϋνται Ouôpeva. PROOF FROM TRADITION 59 mixed for you: He hath given us His own divine Flesh26 and His own precious Blood20 to eat and to drink.”27 y) Though Tertullian (b. about i6o) is not always clear, and some of his utterances are open to misinterpre­ tation, he roundly declares his belief in the Real Presence in such passages as these : “ The flesh [of Christian believers] is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, in order that the soul, too, may be sated with God.” 28 In holy anger he exclaims against the makers and vendors of pagan idols: “ The zeal of faith will plead, bewailing that a Christian should come from idols into the church, . . . should apply to the Lord’s Body those hands which give bodies to demons. . . . Idol-makers are chosen [even] into the ecclesiastical order. Oh, shame! Once did the Jews lay hands on Christ; but these mangle His Body daily. Oh, hands to be cut off ! ” 29 Tertullian’s friend and countryman, St. Cyprian ( + 258), interprets the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer with reference to the Holy Eucharist, and concludes his exposition as follows : “ Therefore we beg for our bread, i. e. Christ, to be given to us every day, in order 26 τήρ Oelav αύτοΰ σάρκα· 20 τίμιο» αύτοΰ αίμα27 In Proverb., IX, 2 (Migne, P. G., LXXX, 593). Achelis [Hippolytstudien, p. 159. Leipzig 1897) denies that the fragment on Prov. IX, l-S was composed by St. Hippolytus; but it is undoubtedly genuine in the form in which it was received into the collection of Anastasius Sinaita. 28 De Resurrect. Carn., c. 8 (Migne, P. D·, II, 806): " Caro [Christianorum] corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur.' 20 De Idolo!., c. 7 (Migne, P. L„ I, 669) : " Zelus fidei perora­ bit ingemens Christianum ab idolis in ecclesiam venire, . . . eas manus admovere corpori Domini, quae daemoniis corpora conferunt. . . . Alleguntur in ordinem ecclesi­ asticum artifices idolorum. Proh scelus! Semel ludaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus eius lacessunt. O manus praecidendae ! " Cfr. Dieringer, " Die Abendmahlslehre Tertullians." in the Katholik, of Mayence, 1864, I, 277 sq<|. 6o THE REAL PRESENCE that we who remain and live in Christ, may not recede from His sanctification and Body.”80 St. Cyprian is opposed to giving holy Communion to sinners before they have performed their allotted penance,31 but allows that in time of persecution they may be forthwith admitted to the Holy Table.32 b) After the Nicene Council (A. D. 325) the number of Patristic witnesses grows, and their testimony becomes increasingly clear and positive. The Greek Fathers, in particular, attest their faith in the Real Presence in terms that sometimes smack of exaggeration. a) Macarius Magnes, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century,33 says : “ He spoke : ‘ This is my Body.’ Not, therefore, an image of the Body,34 nor an image of the Blood, as some feeble-minded persons have foolishly asserted, but in truth the Body and Blood of Christ.”35 Primitive, 2nd ed., Paris 1904; Λ. so De Or. Do»:., c. 18 (ed. Struckmann, Die Gcgenwart Christi Harte), I, 280): " Et ideo pancm in der hl. Eucharistie nach den nostrum, i. e. Christum, dart nobis schriftlichen Qucllen der vornisaniquotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo manemus cl vivimus, a sanctificatione schen Zeit, Vienna 1905. eius et corpore non recedamus.” 33 This writer's /Ipocriticus was 81 Cfr. De Lapsis, 16 (I. c., I, first edited in full by C. Blondel, 248): " Fis infertur corpori eius Paris 1876 (Μακαρίου Μαγνητοί et sanguini ef plus modo in Domi­ Άποκριτικόΐ), but a Eucharistic num manibus atque ore delinquunt, fragment extracted therefrom had quam quum Dominum negaverunt." been previously published by Pitra 32 Cfr. Ep. 57 ad Cornei., 2 (I. c., (Spicii. Solesm., II, 548 b, Paris 11, 652): " Nam quomodo docemus 1852). It is this fragment from aut provocamus cos in confessione which we quote in the text (cd. nominis sanguinem suum fundere, Blondel, p. 106). si iis militaturis Christi sanguinem 84 τύιτοί τού σώματοί. denegamus? ’’— Cfr. J. Dollinger, 86 αλλά κατ' άλήΟβιαν σώμα καί Dic Eucharistie in den drei ersten αίμα Χριστού. On a similar ex­ Jahrhundertcn, Mayence 1826; Er· pression employed by the Syrian moni, L'Eucharistie dans 1'Eglisi Bishop Maruthas, v. supra, p. 36. PROOF FROM TRADITION 61 St. Gregory of Nyssa (b. about 331) speaks of the Real Presence in strongly “realistic” terms. He says: “ Rightly, therefore, I believe that even to-day the bread, being sanctified by the word of God, is converted into the Body of the Logos-God.3" . . . This bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, be­ coming converted into the Body of the Logos, not by eat­ ing and drinking, but instantly changing into the Body of the Logos, as has been declared by the Logos Himself: ‘ This is my Body.’ . . . Through an act of grace He im­ plants Himself by the flesh into all the faithful, com­ mingled with the bodies of the faithful, ... in order that man, by being united with the immortal [Body of Christ], be made to partake of incorruptibility. This gift He be­ stows in virtue of the power of consecration, by trans­ forming the nature of that which is sensible into that [Body].”87 St. Gregory of Nazianzus (4- about 390) says: “ Doubt not when thou hearest of the Blood of God, but without taking scandal unhesitatingly eat the Body88 and drink the Blood,30 if thou desirest to have life.”40 St. Basil (+ 379) 41 and St. Athanasius (4- 373) 43 ex­ press themselves in similar terms. /3) Our two principal witnesses among the Greek Fathers are St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) dwells on the Eu­ charist in the last two chapters of his famous Catecheses Mystagogicae. After quoting the words of institution,93 30 els σώμα τού θεού Λόγου μεταττοιεϊσΟαι· 37 rjj τήί eùKoylas δυνάμει irphs ίκεΐνο (σώμα) μΐταστοιχειώσα3 τών φαινομένων τήρ φΰσιν- Or. Catcch., c. 37 (Migne, P. G., XLV, 93 sq.>. _ ■'w άγε το σώμα· 80 nie τό αιμα. ίο Or., 45. η. ιρ. Ίΐ Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praeiret. Dog­ mat., Vol. VI, 3rd cd., pp. a8z jki. Ί2 His teaching is explained by Atzbergcr, Dio Logoslehro dot hl. Alhanasiui, pp. 219 «]<]., Mu­ nich 1880. 62 THE REAL PRESENCE according to the version given by St. Paul, he asks: "Since He [Christ] Himself, therefore, said of the bread: ' This is my Body,’ who will venture to waver ? And since He Himself assures us: ‘ This is my Blood,’ who should ever doubt that it is His Blood ? At Cana in Galilee He once converted43 water into wine, which is akin to blood. Is He undeserving of belief when He converts wine into blood?44 . . . Therefore, let us receive it with full con­ viction as the Body and Blood of Christ. For under the appearance of bread45 thou receivest the Body, and under the appearance of wine,40 the Blood, in order that through the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ thou mayest become of one body and blood with Him.47 In this way, too, we are made bearers of Christ,48 since His Body and Blood arc received into our members. . . . Hence do not regard it as mere bread and wine; for according to the Lord’s assurance it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Though the senses40 seem to tell thee otherwise, faith00 gives thee certainty. Do not judge by the taste,01 but obtain from faith the indubitable certitude that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ. . . . Having been thus instructed and convinced that what appears to be bread is not bread,02 though it seem thus to the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine,03 though it seem thus to the taste, but the Blood of Christ, . . . strengthen thy heart by eating this bread as a spiritual food, and make glad the face of thy soul.” 04 ♦3 μεταβίβληκερ. 44 olpop μεταβαλώρ els αίμα♦5 ίρ τύπψ δρτου. 4« ip τύπψ οίρου. «7 σύσσωμο; καί σύραιμο; αύτοϋ. 48 χριστοφόροι. «» ή αΓσβησίί- ή πίστιι· 91 από τή; yeiveus· _ f'·- ό φαιρόμερο; άρτο; ούκ Άρτος 93 ό φαιρόμερο; o!pos ούκ olvôs εστιρ. 6* Catecli. Mysi,, XV, PROOF FROM TRADITION 63 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,05 to reconcile thee ... to the Creator of the universe.”00 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.” 67 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 [i. e., the breaking of his limbs], He tolerates now in the sacrifice,08 through love of thee; He permits Himself to be broken into pieces,00 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 it, but you touch it and eat it.”1)0 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1098 eqq.). On the terminology of St. Cyril, see infia pp. 7~ sq. 65 εσφαλμένο» πρόκειται i Xpf ΟΤ0». 60 Hem. de Prod. Indae, I, 6. 67 Hom. da 5S έπΐ rijs 59 ανέχεται οο Hom. in Poenil., IX. n. 1. προσφορά». διακΚύμενο». ι Cor., XXIV, η. ι. 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.01 . . . Consider at whose table thou eatest ! For we arc 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.02 . . . What shepherd feeds His sheep with his own flesh? Some mothers 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].”03 7) St. Cyril of Alexandria (4· 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.04 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,85 in order that we may βΧαΟτδχ δέ (αυτόν δίδωσι ούκ Ιδίΐι· μόνον, άλλα καί άψασβαι καί 4>a.ytiv καί λαβόν ϊνδον· vtyeyôvayxv ήμιίχ σώμα ίν καί σαρξ μία· «3 Hom. in Maith., 8a L83I, n. χ sqq. Cfr. Bardcnhewcr-Sliahan, Patrology, pp. 34» sq.; A. Nâglc, Die Eucharisliclchre des hl. CViryroifomuj. ρρ. 8 sqq., Freiburg igoo. β* V. infra, pp. 70 sq. ot> ώ> iv &ρτω καί οϊνψ. 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.’”"* 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,07 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.00 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 th'e 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 ? ”70 ο» μΐΟΙστ-ησιν αύτύ. irpot ίνίρyeiav τήί iavroû σαρκύί- 897. 77 Serm., 5 (ed. Caillou, p. ra, Paris 184a): “Hoc quod videtur it» mensa Domini, fanis est et vinum; sed iste fanis ct hoc vinum acce­ dente verbo fit corfus et sanguis Verbi." 78 Serm., 227: "Ponis ille, quem videtis in altari, sanclificatus fer verbum Dei corfus est Christi: colis ille, imo quod habet colis, sanctificatum fer verbum Dei sanguis est Christi.” 68 THE REAL PRESENCE more declares that “Christ carried Himself in His own hands,” and that we owe divine worship to the Eucha­ rist/0 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.80 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.” 81 9) : " A solis ortu usque ad occa­ ïo Enorr. in Ps., 33, I, 10: "Et sum, sicuti a prophetis praedictum ferebatur in manibus suis (1 Reg. est, immolatur. . . . Non adhuc de a«). Hoc vero, fratres, quomodo gregibus pecorum hostia cruenta con­ possit fieri in homine, quii intelliquiritur, non ovis aut hircus divinis gaf? Quis enim portatur in mani­ altaribus admovetur, sed sacrificium bus suis! Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo iam nostri temporis corpus et san­ portatur. ... In Christo autem in­ guis est ipsius Sacerdotis. . ■ · Cum timore et tremore ad particivenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commen­ potionem huius altaris accedite. dans ipsum corpus suum ait: Hoc Hoc agnoscite in pane, quod pepen­ est corpus meum. Ferebat enim dit in cruce; hoc in calice, quod illud corpus in manibus suis."— manavit ex latere."— Cfr. O. Blank, Enarr. in Ps., 98, n. 9: " Quia Die Lehrc des hl. Augustin vom carnem nobis manducandam ad sa­ S'akramente der Eucharistic, Pader­ lutem dedit, nemo autem carnem born 1907; IC Adam, Die Euchaillam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, ristielchrc des hl. Augustin, Pader­ inventum est, quemadmodum adore­ born 1908. tur tale scabellum pedum Domini si Scrm., 91, c. 3: "Dicente (Ps. 98, s), et non solum non pec­ Domino: ‘Nisi manducaveritis,' etc. cemus adorando, sed peccemus non (Ιοα. vi, 54), âc sacrae mensae adorando." (Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, communicare debetis, ut nihil pror­ Christology, pp. 286 sq.) sus de veritate corporis Christi ct 60 Cfr. Serm., 3 (cd. Caillou, p. sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore PROOF FROM TRADITION 69 2. Indirect Testimonies.—The Christological 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 that 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 (-f- 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 frustra ab Ulis ' Amen ’ respondetur, a quibus contra id. quod accipitur. disputatur." (Migne, P. L., LIV, 45a).— Other Latin Father» are copiously quoted by Franselin. De Eucharistia, pp. 114 sqq. 70 THE REAL PRESENCE is a well-spring of joy for all who partake therefrom.” 82 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,83 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.84 At the opposite extreme stood the Docetae, who denied the reality of Christ’s human body. They were re­ futed by St. Ignatius of Antioch85 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.80 /3) 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 1796. 83 Cfr. John VI, 57; XVII, 2X sqq. 84 St. Hilary, De Trinitate, VIII, 135 "Si vere Verbum caro factum ett et vere nos Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existi­ mandus est, qui et noturam carnis nostrae . . . assumpsit et naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communican­ dae carnis admiscuit P ... Si vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est nosque vere sub my­ sterio carnem corporis sui sumimus et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est et ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, quum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit unitatis?" 88 Ep. ad Smyrn., 7. Be Adv. Marcion., IV, 40: "Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confirmavit. Nullius enim corporis sqnguis potest esse nisi 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- PROOF FROM TRADITION 71 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 it were a mere man who became like unto us, and not rather the GodLogos, that which happens [in Communion] would be an­ thropophagy,87 and participation therein were useless.” “ 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.89 b) Holy Communion was cited by the earliest Patristic authors as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh. Thus St. Irenæus 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?90 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.”91 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, 8? άνάριοποφαγία88 Contra Nestor., IV, $. se J'. infra. Ch. V, Sect. i. oo àiri> τού σώμα-ros roi Κυρίαν καί atparos αυτού· 81 Haer., IV. 18, 4- 72 THE REAL PRESENCE nay impossible, that the Life should not vivify those in whom it is.”02 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 of the 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,03 and by every rule of sound hermeneutics the former should be explained by the lat­ ter.84 »2 In loa., 6. 55, lib. IV, a.— Similarly Tertuliian (De Rejurr. Carnis, c. 8) and many other Pa­ tristic writers.— On the subject ot this subdivision cfr. Heinrich-Gut - berlet, Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IX, § 530. 03 V. su fra. Nos. 1 and 2. 04 It was slicer ignorance that dic­ tated Calvin’s remark: ·· Constat PROOF FROM TRADITION 73 β) 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 dorei), whose methods were espoused by St. John Chrysostom.05 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.00 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,97 and nothing is wanting for the growth of the chil­ dren. O incomprehensible mystery!”98 Origen (-f254), who frequently speaks of the Eucharistic Bread as “ the sign of the Logos,” and regards 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 rïvcrunl, uno ore nobis patrocinari." 05 In Is., V, 7: “ Πανταχοϋ τήί •γραφή! oiros ό νομοί, èneibàv άλληγορπ· Myeiv καί αλληγορία! την ippevclav." (Migne, P. G., LVI. 60). 00 Cfr. Pl>. Hergenrother. Die antiochenische Schult, Wurzburg 1866; Kihn, Bcdeutung der antiochenischen E.regetenschule, Wurz­ burg 1866. 07 σάρκα ipëyei και αίμα Ικχΐίΐ08 ύ τού παραδόξου μυστηρίου. (.Poedag., I, 6; Migne, P. G., VIH, 30a). 74 THE REAL PRESENCE a certain holy Body,00 which purifies those who eat it with a clean heart.”100 Among the Latin Fathers St. Augustine is almost the only one whose attitude has given rise to controversy.101 γ) 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 otherwise have been 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 LogosGod; let us therefore no longer dwell on that which is known to the initiate, but must not be revealed to the un­ initiate.”10B St. Epiphanius (+ 403), in a letter ad­ dressed to the clergy and magistrate of the city of Suedra, repeats our Saviour’s words of institution in this rather strange form : "Ελαβε τάδε και ευχαρίστησαν είπε· τοϋτό μου έστ'ι τάδε.103 St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom often employ the expression: "Norunt initiati — ίσασιν οί πιστοί.104 b) Aside from these general considerations, we may reduce the Patristic difficulties regarding σώμα âyi&v τι. 100 C. Cels., VHI, 33. 101V. 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 8<|q. 102 Hom. in Levit., IX, n. 10. 103/lncorat., c. 57 (Migne, P. G , XLIII, 117). 104 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra­ ments, Vol. I, pp. S2 sqq PROOF FROM TRADITION 75 the dogma of the Real Presence to four distinct categories.105 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.”100 Carefully distinguishing these two factors, St. Cyril of Jerusalem opposes the “ type of bread ”107 to the “ antitype of the body,” 108 thereby not denying but emphasizing the Real Presence.100 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, i. e., figura corporis mei; figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.” 110 Bardenhewer ex­ plains this passage as follows: “In the sentence 'hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei,’ the 100 We here follow Cardinal Franzelin (De Eucharistia, thes. io). 100 Sess. ΧΠΙ, cap. 3: ". . . symbolum rei sacrae et invisibilis gratiae formam visibilem." (Den· zinger-Bannwart, n. 876). ιοί τύπ-os &ρτον· 108 ivrlrvirof σύματοί. loo Catech. Myslag., V, n. ao: " Qui enim gustant, non panem et t'inum gustare tabentur, sej amitypum corporis et sanguinis Christi (Avrlrvirov σώματο! καί αίματαιί." (Aligne. P. G.. XXXIII, iiaj). 110 Contr. Harriott., IV. 40. 76 THE REAL PRESENCE words ' figura corporis mci’ are not meant to elucidate the subject ‘hoc’ (per hyperbaton), but the predicate ' corpus vicum the true body is present under the image of bread.”111 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 sui."112 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.”3 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,114 and that not in­ frequently the sacramental Body is represented as a “ type ” or “ antitype ” of our Saviour’s natural body in Heaven.115 β) 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; ill Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. 11, p. 391, Freiburg 1903.— Λ different interpretation of the passage is given by Rauschcn, Eucliorirt and Penance, p. 12.— Cfr. C. L. Leimbach, Beitriige cur Abendniahlslehre Tertulliani, p. 83, Gotha 1874. 112 Conlr. Adimant. Munich., c. 12, 3 (Migne, P. L.. XLII, 144). 113 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praclect. Dogmat.. Vol. VI, 3rd cd., p. 293. 114 See the proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea, A. D. 787 (Hardouin, Coll. Concil.. IV, 370). ns Cfr. St. John Damascene, De Iv· ■> P. G-, XCIV, 1146 sqq.). PROOF FROM TRADITION 77 the status connaturalis gloriosus, which is its transfigured state in Heaven; and the status sacramentalis, 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.11’ 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.”117 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.118 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.”119 110 V. Art. I, No. 1, sufra. nt Cerfus sfirituale, σώμα rrw ματικόν. ns. Cor. XV. 44· lio£»iarr. in Ps., 98. n. 9 (Migne, P. L., XXXVII. 1»6S): ” Sfiritualiter inlelligite, quod loculus sum; non hoc corfus, quod videtis. manducaturi estis, et bibitun illum 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,” i. 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.” 120 me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualités in­ tellectum vivificabit vos; etsi ne· cesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tomen invisibiliter intelligi." — 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 intclligere, Apostolum audi dicentem: ' Vos autem estis corpus Christi et membra.’ Mysterium vestrum in mensa dominica positum est, my­ sterium vestrum accipietis . . . Au­ dis enim: ‘Corpus Christi' et respondes: ' Arnen.' Esto mem- ........... L·., ΛΛΛΥΙΙΙ, 1246).—Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre des hl. Augustin vom Sakramente ?"......................... w. V rad.rborn «907. PROOF FROM TRADITION 79 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 : ( i ) “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,” i. c. with full spirit­ ual benefit. The first of these ways of receiving Communion was rejected by our Lord Himself.121 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.” *” 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. 122 De Doctrina Christ., Ill, 34: " Facinus vel flagitium videtur tu­ bere. Figura est ergo, fraecificns passioni dominicae communicandum 8o THE REAL PRESENCE Body of Christ,” whereas he who approaches the Holy Table in the state of mortal sin, docs not “ cat ” it, i. e., unto salvation.123 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. I. The Period From a. d. 1900 to 800.—The interval that has elapsed since the Reformation receives its entire character from the Council of 128 Cfr. Tr. in loa., 27, n. 11: " Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis va­ leat, ui carnem Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tanluin in sa­ cramento, quod et multi mali, sed usque ad spiritus participationem manducemus et bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tamquam membra maneamus." (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1621).— On a fourth method of communicating, vic.: purely spiritual communion, see Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 881).— On the main topic of this subdivision cfr. Schwanc, Dogmen· gcschichtc dor patristischcn Zeil, Vol. II, 2nd cd., pp. 773 8llq.i prcj' burg >895; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmalischc Théologie, Vol. IX, § S3, PROOF FROM TRADITION 81 Trent, and hence we may here pass it over. For the time of the Reformation we have the testi­ mony of Luther,12 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 Calvinisticminded Patriarch Cyril Lucan's of Constantinople (1629). A schismatic council held at Jerusalem under Dositheus, in 1672, vigorously professed its faith in the Real Presence 3 and added that the Greek Church, with­ out being in any way influenced by the Latin, also be1 Wider etliche Rotiengeistcr, '533· 2 See the profession of faith of the Emperor Michael Palacologus (Dcniinger-Bannwart, n. 46s). 3 Άληθώι καί npayparucût Hal ονσιωδώί (vere, realifer et iHbitanHaliter) yieera· A μίν Sprat aürA rd â\ydit rod Κύριον σώμα κτΚ· 82 THE REAL PRESENCE lieved in “ Transubstantiation, ”4 a doctrine already inculcated by the Second Council of Nicæa (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 Monophy sites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, together with their various off­ shoots (Chaldæans, 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 Nicæa, A. D. 787J John Darugensis, a Monophysitic writer of the eighth century, says: “He who exercises the priestly office, « μίτονσίωσκ. 6 Cfr. E. J. Kimmel, Monum. Fidci Eccles. Orient., Vol. I, pp. 180, 457. Jena 1850; Schelstratc, Ada Orient. Eccles., Vol, I, pp. 200 sqq.. Rome 1739; Perpétuité de la Foi, Vol. I, book 12, 2nd cd.. Paris 1670. On Cyril Lucaris and his sad end, see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 39 sq. e Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 1, art. 3, J 6. T V. supra, pp. a, Sq. 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.” 9 Even Harnack is constrained to admit that “ Monophysites and Orthodox have always held the same faith with regard to the Lord's Supper.”10 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.” 11 3. The Apostolic Age.—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 tolic age. 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. p. 119. 0 Quoted by Asscmani, Bibl. Orient., Vol. II. P· 39· 10 Dogmengeschichle. Vol. ΙΠ, and ed.. p. 436. 11 Assemani, Bibl. Orient., Vol. III, p. apt. 84 THE REAL PRESENCE The ancient liturgies of the Mass will be duly con­ sidered in Tart III of this treatise.12 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.13 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,”1* 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}3 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 ™ Infra, pp. 27a sqq. 13 Ίχβύι. 1* 'lijooüs Χριστόι θ(οΰ 'Tiis Σωτήρ = ΙΧΘΤΣ. On the fish symbol v. the Catholic Encyclopedia, S. v. 15 Vol. I, p. 40. Cfr. C. M. Kauf. mann, Handbuch der christl. Archdol. P. 230, Paderborn 1905; A. S. Barnes. The Early Church in the Light of the Monuments, pp. 94 sqq., >33 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), i. e. the bishop, or a priest deputed in his place for the occasion (Apol., I, xlvi). The ‘president’ (προ«στώς), a venerable, bearded personage, is depicted performing the function described in the z\cts of the Apostles (II, 42, 46; XX, 7) as ‘breaking bread;’ hence the name 'Fractio Panis’ (η κλάσις τού άρτον), appropriately given to the fresco by its discoverer.” 10 As the Eucharist was intended to be a permanent in­ stitution,17 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 (λατουργούντων) autem Ulis Domino” (Acts XIII, 2) can hardly refer to anything else than the Eucharistic “ liturgy.” 18 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, 18 Μ. 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 alleste Darstellung des eucharislischen Opfers in der Cappella Creca entdeckt nnd erlSutert. Freiburg 1895; against him. J. Lidl, Fractio Panis oder Coena Coelestisf Treves 1903; cfr. also Wilpert. Die Malereien der Kalahomben Roms, 2 vols.. Freiburg 1903; G. A. Weher, Die rumisrhen Kato· komben. 3rd cd., Ratisbon 1906; F. X. Kraus. Roma Solteranea, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1901. IT i Cor. XI, aj. 18 Cfr. Heb. X, 11. 86 THE REAL PRESENCE lest they “ be made partakers with devils.”,0 “ The chalice of benediction, which we bless,”10 *20 he says among other things, “ is it not fellowship in the Blood of Christ?21 And the bread which we break,22 is it not fellowship in the Body of the Lord?”28 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 true 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 ; ”24 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.25 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.20 Readings: — M. Haushcr, Der hl. Paschasius Radberlus, May­ ence 1862.—.Jos. Ernst, Die Lehre des hl. Paschasius Radberlus 10 i Cor. X, 16-21. 20 «ύλογούμίν, <· e. consecrate. 21 κοινωνία τού αϊματοί τού Χριστού. 22 κλώμΐν, ί. e., break liturgically. 23 κοινωνία τού σώματοί τού Χριστού· (i Cor. X, 16). 24 Ικ τού ivôs άρτου· U Cor. X, 17)· 25 St. Paul's teaching is more fully expounded by Λ1. Schafer, Erklarung der beiden Bricfc an die Korinther, pp. 195 aqq., Munster 1903; cfr. also J. MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paid to the Corinth­ ians, pp. 144 sqq., Dublin 1915. 20 On the whole argument of this Article cfr. H. Bruders, S. J„ Die Perfassung der Kirche von den ersten Jahreehntcn der aposlolischcn Wirksanikeit bis sum Jahre 17s n. Chr., pp. 53 e()q Ma ence 1904. * PROOF FROM TRADITION 87 von der Eucharistie, mil bcsondcrer Riicksicht auf die Stellung des hl. Rhabanus Maurus und des Ratramnus 3U derselben, Frei­ burg 1896.— Aug. Nagle, Ratramnus und die hl. Eucharistie; zugleich eine dogmatisch-historische Wiirdigung des ersten Abendmahlstreites, Vienna 1903.— Jos. Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours, sein Leben und seine Lehre, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1892.— Pohle, “ Paschasius Radbcrtus, Saint,” in the Catholic Encyclo­ pedia. On the teaching of the Fathers: *J. Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten Jahrhundcrten, Mayence 1826.— H. Loretz, Die kath. Abendmahlslehre irn 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 l'Eucharistie, Paris 1885.— Aug. Nâgle, Die Eucharistielchre des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, Freiburg 1900.— A. Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in der hl. Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen Qucllen der vornisanischen 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. i and 2.— P. Pour rat, The Teaching of the Fathers on the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, New York 1908. CHAPTER II 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.1 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 coneomitantiam') there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, viz.: 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 1 Cfr. St Thoma., Summo Theol., 3a, qu. 76. ar'· >"4s Cfr. Pohlc-Preuss. Christology, pp. 48 .qq.: Suarez, De «lisp. SI, 8cct. 6> n . 88 Euch TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 89 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.” 3 a) In the same discourse in which He says: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,”4 our Divine Lord also de­ clares : “He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.” 5 To eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ, therefore, is to eat Christ whole and entire. By virtue of the words of institution (ex vi verborum) only the Body of Christ is made present; but it is His real, living Body, hypostatically 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 3 Sees. XIII can. i: "Si guis negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sa­ cramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sangui­ nem foid cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi ac pro­ inde totum Christum, . . . anathe­ ma sil." (Detuinger-Bannwart, n. 883). 4 John VI. ss: " Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sangui­ nem, habet vitam aeternam." «John VI, s8: “. . . et qui manducat me !μ4). 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 “ Christophoros,” i. 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.’ ”7 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.8 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 * Afud Migne, P. C., LXX1I, 45.'· I De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, P. G., XCIV, 1147)·—Other Patris- tic testimonies, supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, Art. 2. 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christoloey. pp. 166 sqq. TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 91 consecrated at the Last Supper, He became truly and en­ tirely present in the sacred species, but His Body was there only as a body capable of dying, and His Blood as blood capable of being shed. In case the Apostles had celebrated the Eucharist during the triduum mortis, dur­ ing which time Christ’s Body rested in the tomb, there would have been present in the Sacred Host only the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth as it was shed,— both the Body and the Blood, however, remaining hypostatically united to His Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucha­ ristic presence.0 Since the Resurrection Christ is present in the Eucharist in the same manner in which He sitteth at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, ». e., as one glorified, who “ dieth no more.” 10 In the light of these considerations the totality of the Real Presence may be explained as follows. The Divinity as such, being substantially omnipresent,11 cannot be made present by virtue of the words of consecration. Hence these words must effect a real presence of Christ’s Humanity, that is to say, primarily of His Body (Flesh and Blood), for it would be absurd to convert the species into His bodyless Soul for the purpose of bodily consump­ tion. Only the Flesh and Blood of Christ can be con­ sumed under the appearances of bread and wine. But by reason of a natural concomitance there becomes simultane­ ously present with the Body all that which is physically inseparable from it, i. e., the Soul, the Humanity, and, 0 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76 art. i, ad I. 10 Rom. \ I, 9- 11 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss. Cod- Hit KnowabilUy, Etttnct. and .-tttributet, pp. 311 sqq. 92 THE REAL PRESENCE by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also the Divinity, in a word — Christ whole and entire. This twofold mode of coming into being, while not an article of faith, is part of the Church’s traditional teach­ ing and cannot be denied without great temerity and danger to the faith.12 The Tridentine Council says: “ This faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the veritable Body of our Lord and His veritable Blood, together with His Soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and wine ; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the Body itself under the species of wine, and the Blood under the species of bread, and the Soul under both, by the force of that natural con­ nexion and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead to die no more, are united together ; and the Divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable Hypostatic Union thereof with His Body and Soul.” 13 This definition represents the Hypostatic Union not as a special kind of produc­ tion, side by side with that per concomitantium, but merely as its concrete mode in regard to the Divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, it is probable that the Council chose this expression purposely to exclude the notion that by virtue of the words of consecration the Father, 12 Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. pus sub specie vini et sanguinem 51, «et. 3, n. i. sub specie panis animamque sub 13 Sess. ΧΠΙ, cap. 3: "Semper utraque vi naturalis illius cunnehaec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit statim xionis ct concomitantiae, quâ partes post consecrationem verum Domini Christi Domini, qui ,’am Cx mortuis nwtn corpus vcrumqiie ciuc janresurrexit, non amplius moriturus guinem sub panis et vini j/,ccie und inter se copulantur; divinitatem cum ipsius anima ct divinitate exiporro propter admirabilem illam eius stere; sed corpus quidem »ub specie cum corpore et anima hypostaticam panis et sanguinem sub vini specie unionem." (Denzinger-Bannwart cx vi verborum, ipsum autem coru. 876). TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 93 too, and the Holy Ghost, become present by concomi­ tance. For this reason we cannot accept the opinion of those who hold that the other two Divine Persons are sacramentally present together with the Son in the Holy Eucharist Of course all three are present by virtue of the divine attribute of omnipresence, by their consubstantiality, and, more especially, by virtue of the Trini­ tarian Perichoresis or mutual inexistence;14 but as only the Logos assumed flesh and blood in the Hypostatic Union, He alone can be present with flesh and blood such as the sacramental species signify.15 Thesis II : Christ is present whole and entire under each species. This is also de fide. Proof. The meaning is: We do not receive one part of Christ in the Sacred Host, and the other in the Chalice, as if our reception of the whole Christ depended on partaking of both species. Contrariwise, under the appearance of bread alone as well as under the appearance of wine alone we receive Christ whole and entire— Christus totus sub alterutra specie. This truth explains the permissibility and propriety of Com­ munion under one kind,18 and is an article of faith. The Decretum pro Annenis defines: “Christ is contained whole and entire under the 14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 8, sect Trinity, pp. 281 sqq. 6, n. ia6 »qq. IB Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, 18 Cfr. Sidney F. Smith. S. J., dissert. 4, art. i, ji054). so a-Hp el με'ρο* τούτων δέζηταν si μερίζεται· 32 άμερΐστωί33 Senn. de Pasch., n. j. 3* ό μελιζόμενοί καί μη μεριζόμβvos· Λ 98 THE REAL PRESENCE given in Holy Communion, and at one time allowed the faithful to partake of the precious Blood from one and the same chalice.” Thesis IV : Even before the actual division of the sacred species Christ is wholly and entirely present in each particle of the Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice. Unlike the three preceding theses, this one em­ bodies merely a theological conclusion. Proof. A few older Scholastic theologians, notably William of Auxerre36 and Albertus Magnus,37 denied this conclusion. They con­ tended that, as an unbroken mirror shows forth but one image of the sun, whilst a broken one reflects as many as there are fragments of glass, so Christ is wholly and entirely present in the fragments of the sacred Host only when it is broken after the consecration. Dominicus Soto claims that this opinion is heretical. But if it were, the Tridentine Council would not have added to its definition, quoted above, the phrase “ separa­ tione facta."36 Nevertheless our thesis can only claim the value of a theological conclusion, though Vasquez, Suarez, and De Lugo insist that it may not be rejected without error?0 That the Council of Trent did not mean to favor the opposing view when it adopted the 86 Cfr. the hymn " Lauda Sion." so Summa, P. 4, tr. 5, c. 4. 87 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 13, art it. 88 Supra, Thesis III. ao Sententia erronea proxima, vel errori TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE 99 words "separatione factâ,” is apparent from its pre­ liminary debates on the subject,40 and from the note­ worthy circumstance that the phrase "separatione factà” does not appear in Chapter III of Sessio XIII, which reads: “ Wherefore it is most true that as much is con­ tained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species [here the restrictive clause separatione factâ is omitted] ; likewise the whole [Christ] is under the species of wine and under the parts thereof.”41 a) The whole Body of Christ, and conse­ quently Christ in His entirety, is present wherever the substance of bread was present before the consecration, because Transubstantiation changes the whole substance of the bread into the sub­ stance of the Body. Now, the substance of the bread before consecration is present not only in the totality of the host, but in every one of its parts, whether separated or united. Conse­ quently, the whole Body of Christ, i. e. Christ whole and entire, is present in each particle of the host even before it is broken. The same reason­ ing applies to the wine. This positive argument can be strengthened by a negative one. If Christ were not present en40 Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Trident., Vol. XII, 7, 7. «1 Sees. ΧΠΙ, cap. 3: “Qua­ propter verissimum est, tantundem sub alterutra specie atque sub utrâque contineri; totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius speciei parte, totus idem sub vini specie et sub eius partibus esistil.’' ( DcniingerBannwart, n. 876). 100 THE REAL PRESENCE tirely in every single particle of the Eucharistic species, even before their division, we should be forced to conclude that it is the process of divid­ ing the species which effects the totality of His presence, whereas the Church plainly teaches that the sole operative cause of the real and total Presence is Transubstantiation.·*2 b) This last conclusion directs the attention of the philosophic enquirer to a mode of existence which is peculiar to the Eucharistic Body, though contrary to the ordinary laws of nature. The Body of Christ is present under the Eucharistic species, not after the manner of material bodies, but after the manner of spirits. This truth was well known to the ancient Fathers. Thus St. Ambrose says: “ The body of God is a spiritual body.” 42 43 Reserving the specu­ lative discussion of this mystery for a later chapter,41 we here confine ourselves to a brief explanation. The Body of Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist in much the same way as the human soul is present in the body. (1) As the spiritual soul dwells in the whole body, so the Eucharistic body of our Lord is present in the sacred host as a whole. (2) As the spiritual soul dwells in every part of the body with the whole of its substance, so the whole Body of Christ is present in the sacred species, not merely in their totality, but in every particle thereof. 42 Cfr. Suarez, De Euc/iaristia, disp. 52, sect. 2; De Lugo, De Eu­ charistia, disp. 8, sect 3. 48 De Myst., IX, 58 (Migne, P. L., XVI, 408): "Corfus Dei corfus est sfirituale.” 44 V. infra, Ch. V, pp. 143 sqq. TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE tot (3) As the presence of the soul in all the members of the body does not result in a multiplicity of separate and distinct presences, so neither is the Eucharistic presence of the Body in the sacred species limited to the continuous (as yet unbroken) species as a whole, whereas before the division of the species it is present in the different par­ ticles only inadequately. This third analogy will help to clear away a difficulty arising from the infinite divisibility of material substances. It would be foolish to say that the Body of Christ is present in the undivided host as many times as the host is capable of being broken into separate particles. Neither has the human soul as many lives or existences in the body as the body has members animated by the soul. For the soul has only one adequate mode of being in relation to the whole body, and a number of inadequate modes in relation to its various members. Thus the Body of Christ is adequately present but once in the whole of the Sacred Host, inadequately, however, many times in its different parts. “ Number follows division,” says St. Thomas, “ and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of anything several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ’s Body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is [actually] divided into parts.”*’ 46 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 3. ad 1: " Numerus sequitur divi­ sionem et ideo, quamdiu quantitas manet indivisa actu, neque substan­ tia alicuius rei est pluries sub di­ mensionibus propriis neque corpus Christi sub dimensionibus panis. Et per consequens neque infinities, sed toties in quot partes [actu] dividitur." CHAPTER III TRANSUBSTANTIATION, OR THE OPERATIVE CAUSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE We have seen how Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. The question arises: What causes His presence ? The answer is : Transubstantiation. We shall first explain the nature of Transubstantiation and the history of the term in Cath­ olic theology (Sect, i), and then prove the dog­ matic teaching of the Church in regard to this mystery from Scripture and Tradition (Sect. 2). 102 SECTION I DEFINITION OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION To arrive at a correct idea of the nature of Transubstantiation, we must first examine the underlying notions of change and conversion. I. Conversion.—A change (mutatio, àxxoL ωσ«—motus, κίνηση) js a transition from one state to another. Conversion (conversio, ilcTaβολη) is something more than that. It is a “transition of one thing into another thing in some aspect of being.” 1 a) In a mere change, one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively. Conversion, on the other hand, requires two positive extremes, each of which must be related to the other as thing to thing, and they must have so intimate a connexion with each other that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to exist only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases. If a change affects the substance of a thing (as in the metabolic processes of the human body) it is called sub­ stantial; if merely its accidents (as when water turns into ice, or a block of marble is fashioned into a statue), it is called accidental. If a change falls within the ordi­ nary laws of human experience, it is natural; if it tran1 Conversio est transitus unius rei in aliam sub a/u/uJ ratione entis. 103 104 THE REAL PRESENCE scends these laws, as e. g. the conversion of water into wine wrought by our Saviour at Cana, it is supernatural. b) Conversion, being a “transition of one thing into another thing in some aspect of being,” requires two objects: that which is changed (terminus a quo) and that into which it is changed (terminus ad quem). It further re­ quires an intrinsic connexion between the disap­ pearance of the one and the appearance of the other, and generally also a third element, known as the commune tertium, which, even after the conversion has taken place, unites the two ex­ tremes with each other. a) Every conversion must have two extremes, for a thing cannot be converted into itself. What is some­ times called " reconversion ” is, generally speaking, either a mere change in the sense of a return to a previ­ ously existing state (as in the regular alternation of day and night) or a true conversion with two distinct ex­ tremes (as in some chemical processes). β) In every conversion there must be an intrinsic con­ nexion between the disappearance of the one extreme and the appearance of the other, because a conversion is ef­ fected not by two independent and unconnected acts, but by one and the same act which causes the terminus a quo to cease to exist and calls the terminus ad quem into be­ ing, in such a way that the one is the cause of the other. This intrinsic connexion may be either physical or moral. y) There is further required a common element that unites the two extremes (connmoie tertium'). In every true conversion this condition must be fulfilled : “ What TRANSUBSTANTIATION 105 was formerly A is now B.” The question immediately arises : Must this common element be something physical and real, as when food is converted into living tissue, or may it be a mere ens rationis? On this point Catholic theologians disagree. Suarez 2 and De Lugo 3 insist that it must be a physical reality, whereas others hold with Pallavicini * that the continued existence of the logical relations between the two terms is sufficient, be­ cause otherwise it would be difficult to see what physical reality could have been left behind as tertium commune, e. g. in the conversion by Moses of a rod into a serpent. Whilst this is true enough, Franzelin6 is undoubtedly right in saying, on the other hand, that the continued existence of a common physical reality is a conditio sine qua non of conversion in the complete sense of the term. c) Two important questions here suggest themselves : ( I ) Must there be a relation of contrary opposition between the two extremes of a conversion ? and (2) Must the last extreme have been previously non-existent ? (1) There need not necessarily be a relation of con­ trary opposition between the two extremes, because a conversion, properly speaking, is not effected by virtue of extremes that mutually exclude each other, as e. g. love excludes hate, heat excludes cold, etc., but merely requires two positive extremes, while in case of contrary opposition one extreme must always be negative, or at least privative. (2) The second question amounts to this : Can an ex2 De Eucharistia, disp. 50, sect. 2, n. >6. 3 De Eucharistia, diep. 7, sect 1. 4 Curs. Theol., VI, 19, 257. 6 De Eucharistia, the». «3. io6 THE REAL PRESENCE isting terminus a quo be converted into an existing ter­ minus ad quem? This is not so easy to answer. In the miracle of Cana, for instance, was the wine necessarily a new creation, and was the water irrevocably gone? In­ deed, if the act of conversion is not to be a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quern must unquestionably in some manner begin to exist just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. On this point all theolo­ gians are unanimous. The deeper question is : Does the production of the terminus ad quern require a new crea­ tion, strictly so called, or is the idea of conversion fully realized when a thing which already exists in substance merely acquires a new mode of being? A careful con­ sideration will show that the last-mentioned requirement is quite sufficient, and that it is not necessary to postulate the previous non-existence of the terminus ad quern. Our Lord assures His disciples : “ God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”β Were these children pre-existent? Assuming (a false though not impossible assumption) that the souls of men exist before they are united with their bodies, would the idea of conversion be realized if an already existing soul, as terminus ad quern, were to enter into a corpse and animate it as its substantial form? In the resurrection, the long decayed bodies of the dead will be truly converted into bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they were truly converted into corpses by the departure of these souls. Hence the disappearance of the terminus a quo need not spell annihilation, nor is the appearance of the terminus ad quern necessarily equiva­ lent to creation, but it is sufficient that the former extreme e Maith, in, 9. ■ TRANSUBSTANTIATION 107 cease and the latter begin to exist merely in a certain respect (secundum quid). In either extreme of a conversion theologians further distinguish a twofold term: the terminus totalis and the terminus formalis. If we call the thing itself which dis­ appears or comes into existence, the terminus totalis, and the same thing in so far as it disappears or ceases to exist, the terminus formalis, it is manifest that the terminus formalis a quo must disappear in every true conversion ; but it does not follow that the terminus totalis a quo must entirely cease to exist. All that is required is that it simply cease to exist in some respect (secundum quid). In matter of fact its place is taken by the terminus totalis ad quern. This need not, however, involve the terminus formalis ad quern, which may have existed pre­ viously. 2. Substantial Conversion.—A substantial conversion (conversio substantialis, μιτονσίωσις) is that species of change by which one substance be­ comes another substance. This definition excludes all merely accidental conver­ sions, whether natural or supernatural. A substantial conversion is either total or partial, ac­ cording as it affects the whole substance of a thing or only an essential part thereof. A conversio substantialis totalis, in the Aristotelian sense, is a transition of the entire substance of a material thing, both as to matter and form, into the substance of another. A conversio substantialis partialis is a transition of either the matter or the form of a composite thing into that of another. The former is called conversio materialis, the latter con­ versio-formalis. Were my body, for example, suddenly io8 THE REAL PRESENCE converted into a new body, the soul remaining unchanged, this would be a conversio materialis. The conversio formalis effects a conversion of the substantial form only and leaves the protyle (materia prima) unchanged. Both kinds of conversion are rightly called substantial because they affect the substance of things. The cir­ cumstance that they are merely partial must not lead us to confound them, or put them on the same level, with merely accidental conversions, which change only the ex­ ternal form of material things (e. g. the metamorphosis of insects, the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Transubstantiation differs from all other species of substantial conversion in this, that the substance is con­ verted into another substance, while the accidents re­ main unchanged. Thus, if wood were miraculously con­ verted into iron and the substance of the latter remained hidden under the appearance of the former, we should have a true transubstantiation. 3. Transubstantiation.—The change that takes place in the Eucharist is precisely such a conversion of one substance into another. The Council of Trent defines “that by the consecra­ tion of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”7 t Sets. Χ1Π, cap. 4: " Sancta hacc Synodus dcc/arat, fcr const· cralionem funis et vini conversionem fieri totiu* eubjtanliae fanis in jiibstanliam corforis Christi Domini nostri et totius substantiae vini in TRANSUBSTANTIATION 109 a) In the Holy Eucharist, therefore, we have a true conversion. There are, first, the two extremes of bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quern. There is, secondly, an intimate connexion between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other, in that both events result not from two independent processes (as e. g. annihilation and creation), but from one single act. At the words of consecration the substance of the bread and wine vanishes to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, there is a commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of the terminus a quo. Christ in assuming a new mode of being, retains these appearances, in order to enable us to partake of His Body and Blood. The terminus totalis a quo is not annihilated, because the appearances of bread and wine continue. What disappears is the substance of bread and wine, which constitutes the ter­ minus formalis a quo. Nor can the terminus totalis ad quern be said to be newly created, because the Body and Blood of Christ, and in fact the whole Christ, as terminus formalis ad quern, pre-exist both in His Divinity (from all eternity), and in His Humanity (since the Incarna­ tion). What begins to exist anew in the terminus ad quern is not our Lord as such, but merely a sacramental mode of being, in other words, the “ Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.” b) The Tridentine Council defines that “the total substance of the bread and of the wine is substantiam sanguinis eius, quae con· versa convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica Ecclesia trans­ substantialia est appellata." (Den· zinger-Dann wart, n. 877). no THE REAL PRESENCE converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord," and hence Transubstantiation is a conversio substantialis totalis, as ex­ plained above.8 This fact raises Transubstantiation far above all other species of conversion, and, in conjunction with certain other qualities yet to be mentioned, places it in a category of its own. a) All other conversions with which we are familiar are merely partial, affecting either the matter or the form. Transubstantiation alone affects both matter and form, i. e. the total substance of the Eucharistic elements. β) In no other kind of conversion do the accidents remain as commune tertium, whereas in the Eucharist, after Transubstantiation, the true Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine in such a manner that the relation of inherence is entirely suspended and the Eucharistic Christ is not degraded to the level of a subjectuni inhaesionis for the accidents of bread and wine. γ) In every merely natural conversion the change takes place gradually, in proportion as the subject becomes dis­ posed or fit to receive its new form, whereas the Transub­ stantiation of bread and wine in the Eucharist is effected in an instant. These considerations show that Transubstantiation is a supernatural and altogether miraculous process, which must remain a mystery to the human mind." c) The term “Transubstantiation,” applied to this unique conversion, is very appropriate, as it 8 V. supra, No. 2. li Cfr. Cone. 1 nd., bess. XIII, can. a: ··. . . mirabilem illam et singu­ larcin convcreionem." TRANSUBSTANTIATION etymologically includes the notion of a total and substantial change and excludes that of a merely accidental conversion. For while the substance of bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents remain unchanged. The word “Transubstantiation” was unknown to the ancient Fathers, but it is so accurately descriptive of the conversion that takes place in the Holy Eucharist, and forms so powerful a bulwark of the true faith against heresies, that the Church has adopted it into her theo­ logical terminology. Hildebert of Tours (about 1097),10 a vigorous opponent of Berengarius,11 seems to have been the first writer to employ the word. His ex­ ample was followed by Stephen of Autun (-f- 1139), Gaufred (1188), Peter of Blois (-]- about 1200), Alanus of Lille (-|- 1203), and others, and by several ecumenical councils, notably the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) 12 and that of Lyons (1274).” It was finally stamped with official approval at Trent. Suarez is there­ fore right in saying that to reject this term as “ inappro­ priate or barbarous ” would be foolhardy and offensive, and would incur the suspicion of heresy.13 14 The Greek schismatic Church adopted the equivalent 10 Semi., 93: " verbum transsub· stantiaiionis." 11 On Berengarius, see Ch. I, Sect 12 Cap. "Firmiter”: " transsubslantiatis pane in corpus el vino in sanguinem." (Denzinger-Bannwart, 13 Confessio Fidei Mich. Palaeologi: " Panis vere transsubstantiatur in corpus el vinum in san­ guinem." (Dcnzingcr-Bannwart. n. 465)· 14 Cone. Trid., Sess. ΧΙΠ, cap. 4, can. 2.— Suarez. De Each., disp. 50, sect i, n. s-‘ "Λ 1"» ■ · · vocem transsubstantiatioms abiicerei ut ineptam et barbaram, in re ipsd non esistimo esse haereticum, quia usus vocis per se non pertinet ad obiectum fidei, esset tomen valde temerarius, scan dolosus et pias aures offenderet ac denique in esterno foro esset vehementer de hasresi su­ spectus." THE REAL PRESENCE term μίτονσίωσι·: (in the sense of μεταβολή her official terminology in 1643.*® οΰσιω8η^) into 4. The Dogmatic Bearing of Transub­ stantiation.—Transubstantiation virtually in­ cludes the Real Presence, because the substantial conversion which takes place in the Eucharist re­ sults in the Body and Blood of Christ. But it would not be true to say, conversely, that Transubstantiation is contained in the dogma of the Real Presence. The dogma of Transubstantiation comprises three separate and distinct heads of doctrine, to wit: (1) that Christ is really and truly present under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist ; (2) that, though the accidents of bread and wine continue, the respective substances no longer exist; and (3) that both these changes are produced by virtue of a substantial conversion. Taken in the order in which we have enumer­ ated them, these doctrines postulate and presup­ pose one another. Not so, however, if the order be inverted. One might believe in the Real Pres15 Cfr. Deniflc, Luther «nd Lu· thertum in der ersten Enlwicktung, Vol. I, ind cd., pp. 614 sqq., May­ ence 1906; Gilhnann, " Zur Ge- schichte de.· Gcbrauchs der Ausdriickc iraussubilantiare und transsubstantiatio.· ’ in the Mayence Kathohk, 1908, II, pp. 4,7 Sqq. TRANSUBSTANTIATION ”3 cncc without admitting that the substances of bread and wine are totally absent, while, con­ versely, if one believed in the latter doctrine, one could not consistently deny the former. Again, one might hold the dogma of the Real Presence, yet deny that the bread and wine which have un­ dergone a true transubstantiation are entirely ab­ sent after the consecration. Transubstantiation furnishes a sure criterion for dis­ cerning erroneous teachings with regard to the Holy Eucharist. Take, e. g., Consubstantiation. Luther held that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, though after the consecration the real Flesh and Blood of Christ co-exist in and with the natural elements, just as an iron bar still remains an iron bar, though a new element, heat, has come to co-exist in and with it” This theory is clearly incompatible with Transubstantiation because it implies the continued presence of the substances of bread and wine. Equally incompatible with the dogma as held by the Church, is the isolated view of Durandus (4- 1332) that the substantial form of the bread alone undergoes conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima, ϋλη πρώτη) remains unchanged.17 Being a conver­ sion of the total substance, Transubstantiation involves the conversion of the matter of the bread as well as of its form, thus obviating the absurd corollary of Durandus that the Body of Christ experiences a material increase at each consecration.18 The dogma of Transubstantiation 10 Luther himself uses this illus­ tration in a letter to Henry VIII. Sec tlso Herzog's Rcalcnsyklopàdie der frot. Théologie, and cd.. Vol. XV, 829 {The New Schaff-Hcroog Encyclopedia of Religione Knowl­ edge. Vol. Ill, p. 260). IT Durandus. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 11. qu. 3. ia This corollary was espoused by 114 THE REAL PRESENCE is likewise incompatible with the theory that the Real Presence involves a hypostatic union between the sub­ stance of the bread and the God-man. This theory was attributed by Bcllarmine and Vasquez to Abbot Rupert of Deutz (+ 1135), but it probably originated among the adherents of Berengarius in the eleventh century. Osiander advocated it in the sixteenth century under the name of“ Impanation ” (impanatio, ίναρτισμόζ, Deus panis foetus'). The substantial conversion that takes place in the Holy Eucharist cannot be a hypostatic union for the simple reason that a process which would convert God into a created substance could not be called by that term with­ out completely changing its meaning. In a somewhat modified form the Impanation theory was held by John of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century. This writer taught that there is a hypostatic union be­ tween the substance of the bread and the God-man, but that it affects immediately only the Body of Christ, so that it would be correct to say, by virtue of the com­ munication of idioms, “ This bread is the Body of Christ,” but false to say, “ God is bread,” inasmuch as God enters into a hypostatic union with the substance of the bread only in a mediate manner, i. e. through the in­ strumentality of His Body. But it is manifestly absurd to assume that an impersonal substance like bread can be hypostatically supported by the Body of Christ. The Impanation theory in all its forms furthermore errs in assuming the continued existence of the bread in the Holy Eucharist. As a matter of fact the total substance of the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and conscRosmini anil condemned by the Church. (Denzingcr-Bannwart, n. 1919). V. Annales de Philosophie CMlicnnc, May, 1901; cfr G van Noort, De Sacramentis Vol I 2nd .ed„ p. 276, Amsterdam >910 ’ TRANSUBSTANTIATION 115 quently, there is no substance left with which the God­ man could enter into a hypostatic union.10 10 Related to this theory is that of the well-known Jesuit Father Joseph Bayma (+ 1892 at Santa Clara, Cal.; see the Catholic En­ cyclopedia, Vol. II. p. 360), censured by the Holy Office July 7, 1875 (“ tolerari non posse," Dcnzinger· Bannwart, n. 1843 sqq.). Cfr. Franzelin, De Eueh., thes. 15, seholion.— On the dogmatic implications of Transubstantiation the student may profitably consult Heinricb-Gutberlet, Dogniatische Théologie, VoL IX, I S3». SECTION 2 TRANSUBSTANTIATION PROVED FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION i. Various Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church.—On three different occasions the Church found it necessary to define her teaching in regard to Transubstantiation; —first, against Berengarius ; second, against Mar­ tin Luther, and third, against the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia. a) Berengarius of Tours,1 who flourished towards the middle of the eleventh century, denied the dogma of Transubstantiation and probably also that of the Real Presence. His famous treatise De Sacra Coena con­ tains the following passage: “Panis consecratus in altari amisit vilitatem, amisit inetficaciam, non amisit naturae proprietatem.” Among his adherents there was much confusion. While they were unanimous in deny­ ing Transubstantiation, they differed widely in other re­ spects. Some held that the Eucharist merely contains an image of the Body of Christ ; others believed in a sort of “ Impanation.” Others, again, more nearly approach­ ing the Catholic doctrine, admitted a partial conversion of the bread and wine, while still others maintained that the Body and Blood of our Lord are really and truly 1V. l«pra, pp. 47 sq. 116 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 117 present in the Eucharist, but become reconverted into bread and wine when received by the wicked.2 Luther, adhering to belief in the Real Presence, re­ jected Transubstantiation as “ a sophistic subtlety ” and taught in its place what is known as “ Consubstantia­ tion.” 3 In their endeavor to explain how two sub­ stances arc able to co-exist in the same place, the Lutherans split into two camps. Osiander revived “ Im­ panation,” 4 whereas Luther himself, to escape the diffi­ culties urged against his position, had recourse to the famous theory of “ Ubiquitarianism.” 5 The Jansenistic Council of Pistoia (1786) advised the clergy to confine themselves in their preaching to the dogma of the Real Presence and to ignore Transubstan­ tiation as a “ scholastic quibble.”6 The unbending opposition of the Church to all these vagaries shows that she considers the doc­ trine of Transubstantiation intimately bound up with that of the Real Presence. We have already mentioned the profession of faith to which Berengarius was compelled to sub­ scribe at the Roman Council of 1097. The Coun­ cil of Trent defined against Luther and his fol­ lowers: “If anyone saith that, in the sacred and holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the sub2 Hergenrother, Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, Vol. Il, 4th ed., p. 417, Freiburg 1904. 3 ΙΛ eupra, pp. 49, 113. 4 F. lupra, pp. 113 sqq. 6 The absurdity of the Impanation theory is effectively shown by Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dog­ mat.. Vol. Ill, 12th ed., n. 440. Innsbruck 1909. On Luther's " Ubiquitarianism " see Pohle-Preuss, Clirùtology, pp. 194 sqq. 0 Cfr. Hergenrother. Kirehcngeichichte, VoL III, 4th ed., pp. 6a8 sqq.. Freiburg 1909. ιι8 THE REAL PRESENCE stance of the bread and wine remains con­ jointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole sub­ stance of the wine into the Blood — the species only of the bread and wine remaining,—which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation ; let him be anathema.”7 The abortive attempt of the Synod of Pistoia to mis­ represent the dogma thus solemnly proclaimed by the Church, was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei," A.D. 1794.8 The Tridentine definition states the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation so clearly that nothing remains for us to do but to show that the dogma has a solid basis in Scripture and Tradition. 2. The Teaching of Sacred Scripture.— The doctrine of Transubstantiation is virtually this definition v. su fra, Section 1, 1 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIII, can, 2: " Si quis dixerit, in ss. Eucharistiae No. 4, pp. s 12 sqq. sacramento remanere substantiam 8 " Quatenus fer inconsultam fanis et vini uni cum corpore el isliusmodi susficiosamque omis­ sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sionem notitia subtrahitur tum negaveritque mirabilem illam et articuli ad fidem perlinentis Ium singularem conversionem totius sub­ etiam vocis ab Ecclesia consecratae stantiae fanis in corpus et talius ad illius tuendam professionem ad­ substantiae vini in sanguinem, versus hacreses, tendiique adeo ad manentibus dumtaxat speciebus fanis eius oblivionem inducendam, quasi et vini — quam quidem conversionem ageretur de quaestione mere scho­ catholico Ecclesia aptissime fronslastici: perniciosa, derogans expo­ substantialiorem appellat, anathe­ sitioni veritatis catholicae circa dog­ ma sil." (Dcniinger-Bannwart. n. ma transsubstaniiatioisis, favens 884).—On the dogmatic bearing of haereticis." (Denzinger-Bannwart, TRANSUBSTANTIATION iî9 contained in the words by which our Lord insti­ tuted the Blessed Sacrament: “This is my Body,” etc. In the mouth of Him who is Truth itself these words cannot possibly be false. When the God-man said of the bread, “This is my Body,” the bread forthwith became really and truly His Body; which can only mean that, at the completion of the sentence, the substance of the bread was gone and there was present the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Pierre d’Ailly, and a few other Scholastic writers contend that the words of institution alone, taken literally and without regard to their traditional interpretation, do not strictly prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Vasquez® declares that, since the Tridentine definition, this view is no longer ten­ able. The most that can be said is that Transubstantia­ tion cannot be as conclusively deduced from the words of institution as the dogma of the Real Presence. Though the manner in which the presence of the Body of Christ is effected in the Holy Eucharist may be logically de­ duced, it is not perhaps strictly demonstrable from the sacred text. The interpretation of that text by the Fa­ thers, as officially confirmed by the Church, remains the only conclusive argument. Nevertheless, it is perfectly proper to conclude from the words of institution that if the bread is no longer present after the consecration, it must have become the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion.10 o Comment, in Sent., HI. disp. ,go r , ιό Because the substance of the *>"ad and wine doe» not remain in the Eucharist, «orne, dremm» it impossible for the substance of the 120 THE REAL PRESENCE The Calvinists, therefore, arc consistent in rejecting the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as unscriptural. Had Christ intended to assert that Ilis P.ody co­ exists with the substance of the bread, He would surely have employed some such expression as, “ This bread is my Body,” or, “This bread contains my Body,” or, “ In this bread is finest, Iveanv) my Body,” or, “ Here is my Body.”11 In matter of fact, however, He employed the indefinite phrase τούτο, instead of the definite ούτος (t, c., à άρτος) tari το σώμά μου,— thereby clearly indicating that what He held in His hands after the consecration was no longer bread but His own Body. The copula Ιστίν between τούτο and σώμά μου manifestly expresses the identity of the two. Had our Lord desired to make bread merely the sacramental receptacle of His Body, as the Lutherans allege, it would have been necessary for Him to state this expressly, for neither in the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread become the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the. synedoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my Blood,” i. e., the contents of the Chalice are my Blood, and hence no longer wine. 3. The Teaching of Tradition.—The Fathers inculcated the dogma of Transubstantiation conjointly with that of the Real Presence, though complete clearness on the subject was not attained until the fourth century. bread and wine to be changed into Christ's Flesh and Blood, have main­ tained that by the consecration the substance of the bread and wino is cither dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated. St. Thomas briefly disproves both these assumptions in the Λνιιηο TheologiC°\^: qu· 75. art. 3. Ti.L.1 Γ' St- Thomas, Su»i»ia Theo1- 3a. qU. 751 nrt. 21 TRANSUBSTANTIATION a) Hence the Patristic argument for the Real Presence also proves the dogma of Transubstantiation.12 The belief of the early Greek Fathers in Transubstantiation is apparent from the terms they employ in speak­ ing of the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here are some of them: μεταβάλλειν (Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret), μεταστοιχειοϋν, i. e. transelementare (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom), μεταποιεϊν, i. e. transferre (Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus), μεταρρυθμίζει (Chrysostom), etc.18 Indi­ rectly the Fathers express their belief in Transubstantiation whenever they deny, as they often do, that the bread and the wine continue to exist as independent sub­ stances after the consecration, or affirm that the terminus ad quem of the conversion that takes place in the Eucha­ rist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: Μεταβάλλεται και ουκετι άρτος. St Ambrose: “Species elementorum mutatur." Cyril of Alexandria declares that the bread is changed into the true Body of Christ; Chrysostom, that it becomes His crucified Body; Ambrose, that it is converted into the Body born of the Virgin Mary. Dr. Pusey, who denied the cogency of the Patristic argument for Transubstantiation,1* was victoriously re­ futed by Cardinal Franzelin.10 12 V. supra, pp. $5 sqq.— Cfr. Bellarniinc, De Eucharistia, III, 20. 13 The Latin Fathers usually pre­ fer such simpler verbs as rnillare (St. Ambrose), fieri (St. Augustine), etc. 14 Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence as Contained in the Fathers, Oxford 185s. 16 De Eucharistia, thes. 14, PPIPS sqq·· Rome 1887: cfr. also Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 25 sqq·. St. Louis ipij. 122 THE REAL PRESENCE b) The argument from the Fathers is strik­ ingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, which date in substance from the Apostolic age. The so-called Liturgy of St. Chrysostom contains this beautiful prayer: “Send down Thy Spirit upon us and these Thy gifts [i. e. the Eucharistic elements], make this bread into the precious Body of Thy Christ. (Dea­ con: Amen). But that which is in the Chalice make into the precious Blood of Thy Christ (Deacon: Amen), converting it (/κταβαλών) through Thy Holy Spirit (Deacon thrice: Amen). . . . The Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, is broken and divided — broken but not diminished, everlastingly eaten but not annihilated, sanctifying those who partake thereof.” 1011 * The follow­ ing invocation is from the Liturgy of St. Basil : “ Make this bread into the precious Body of our Lord and God and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this chalice into the Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world.” 17 In the Armenian Liturgy we read : “ Consecrate this bread and wine into the true Body and the true Blood of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, changing {permutans} it through Thy Holy Spirit.”18 The Mass formularies of the Western Church are equally expressive. The ancient Gothic liturgy says: “This is the Lamb of God, which, being sacrificed, never dies, but, though slaughtered, lives everlastingly. . . . May the Paraclete descend, that we may partake of the sacrificial gift in heavenly conversion, and that, after the consecration of 10 Goar, Euchologia, pp. 77, 81. 11 Goar, op. tit., p. 169. 1R/1 pud Daniel, Codex Liturg., IV, 465, Leipzig 18$J"· " Consecra hunc panem cl vinum i» verum corpus cl verum eanguinem Domini ct ReCArwh /·"”>“· •ani Spinlu Sancto luo." TRANSUBSTANTIATION the fruit [bread] into the Body, and of the chalice into the Blood, it may conduce to our salvation." An ancient Gallican Missal contains the following prayer: "May the fulness of Thy Majesty, O Lord, . . . descend upon this bread and upon this chalice, and may [it] become unto us the legitimate Eucharist in the transformation of the Body and Blood of the Lord.”10 4. Theological Controversies.—Since by Transubstantiation Christ is not created, but sim­ ply made present in the sacramental species, the question arises: How do the Body and Blood of our Lord enter into the accidents of bread and wine? This speculative problem pre­ sents some difficulties. The Thomists hold that Christ becomes present in the sacramental species per productionem, the Scotists say that He enters into them per adductionem, while a third school of theologians, headed by Lessius, describes the manner of His entering into the species as replicatio aequivalens productioni.20 While these theories cannot fully clear up what must of its very nature remain an un­ ie Apud Monc, Laleinisclie und griechisclie Mette» aut dem 2. bit 6. Jahrhundert, p. 24. Frankfort 1850: " Descendat, Domine, plenimaiestalis . . . super hunc nobis legitima Eucharistia in trans­ formatione corporis et sangumit Domini."—Many other similar ex­ tracts may be found in Renaudot, Lit. Orient., and cd., Frankfort 1847; Assemani, Codex Liturg. Ec­ clesiae Universae, 13 vola., Rome 1740-66; Denzinger, Ritus Orient., 3 vols., Würzburg 1864. 20 There is a fourth school of divines (Billot, De Sacram.. Vol f, 4th ed., pp. 312 sqq.. 367 sqq., Rome 1907; N. Gihr, Die hl. Sahramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I. 2nd ed., pp. 446 sqq., Freiburg 1902, and others) who simply assert that Transubstantiation explains the whole problem and attempt no deeper solution. The Catechism very undecided in the matter (Dr Each., qu. 37). 124 THE REAL PRESENCE fathomable mystery, they arc apt at least to throw some light upon the problem, and hence we shall briefly re­ hearse them. According to the Thomistic view,21 when the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, there is reproduced the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and now sitteth at the right hand of the Father. St. Thomas’ own teaching is not entirely clear on this point. He says that the change which causes Christ’s Body to be present in the Holy Eucharist “ has something in com­ mon with creation and with natural transmutation,” 22 and speaks of the Body as “ beginning to be anew ” in the Blessed Sacrament.23 This is quite in keeping with certain expressions found in the ancient liturgies and Patristic writings, e. g. that the Body of Christ is made or produced out of bread,24 etc. In matter of fact, Tran­ substantiation, being a true substantial conversion, creates as well as destroys,25 and its effect is such that the only reason why it does not actually create the Body of our Lord is that that Body already exists. It is objected that to assume such repeated creations would jeopardize the numerical identity of the Eucharistic with the heavenly Body of Christ. To this the Thomists reply: The process involved in Transubstantiation is not a new production in the sense of creation, but rather a reproduction of the Body born of the Virgin Mary.20 It is further objected that if Transubstantiation in21 This teaching is also espoused 24 Fieri, effici, product, creari, re­ by Suarez (De Euchar., disp. 50, creari, are some of the terms em­ sect 4), Tanner, Arriaga, Plate), ployed. Coninck, Franzelin, Sasse, De Au­ 26 V. supra, Sect. 1. gustinis, Tepe, ct ol. 20 Cfr. Billuart, De Euchar.. diss. 22 Summo Theol., 3a, qu. 75, art. 1, art. 7: ·■ ldcl„ corpus, quod fuit 8. pruno Productum ex Maria Virgine, 23 " Incipit cite de novo." (Ibid,, reproducitur ex pane." TRANSUBSTANTIATION 125 volvcd a positive production, it would entail an equally positive annihilation of the sacred Body when the species cease to exist. This is met by Billuart with the remark : “ The Body of Christ does not become annihilated, for it exists elsewhere; it simply ceases to exist under this particular species.” 2728 A third objection is: If Transubstantiation involved a positive production, the process of conversion would affect not only the substance of the bread, which is de­ stroyed, but likewise the substance of the sacred Body, which is produced,— an assumption repugnant to the doctrine of the impassibility of the glorified Body of Christ. The Thomistic answer to this difficulty may be summarized as follows : The immutable Body of Christ, though it is reproduced many times over in the Holy Eucharist, retains its full identity as a substance; the change is purely accidental, as it affects only the mode of being. These and other difficulties to which the Thomistic view is subject have led the Scotists to devise their famous theory of “ adduction,” which, with various modifications, was adopted by Bellarmine, Vasquez,2* De Lugo,20 Becanus, Pesch, and other prominent theolo­ gians. In saying that the Body of Christ becomes pres­ ent in the Eucharistic species per adductionem, these writers do not mean to assert that the glorified Body is locally moved from Heaven upon the altar.*0 It is quite possible to conceive of that Body as being present in 27 " Corpus Christi non cadit in nihilum, quum alibi existai, sed tan­ tum dasiuil esse sub istis speciebus panis." (Billuart, I. c.). 28 Comment, in S. Th., HI, di»p. 181, c. ii-13. 20 De Eucharistia, disp. 7. sect. 6. SO Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. s, qu. 37: " At vero fieri no» posse constat, ut corpus Christi in sacramento sit, quod ex uno in alium locum venerit; ita enim teret. ut a eae!· sedibus abesset, quoniam nihil movetur, nisi locum deserat, a quo movetur." 126 THE REAL PRESENCE many different places without being moved about in space. The theory of “ adduction ” 81 is briefly explained by Bcllarniine as follows: “ The Body of our Lord pre­ exists before the conversion; not, however, under the species of bread. The conversion, therefore, does not cause it simply to begin to exist, but to begin to exist under the appearance of bread. Hence we call this conversion adductio, not because through it the Body of Christ leaves its place in Heaven, or is brought hither from Heaven by local motion, but solely because by this process the Body, which previously existed in Heaven only, now also exists under the appearance of bread,— not merely by simple presence or co-existence, but by a certain union, such as that which obtained between the substance of the bread and its accidents, inherence excepted.”32 Critical Appreciation of These Theories.— The ele­ ments of truth contained in these two theories can be com­ bined into a third, which seems to us more satisfactory. Undeniably there is some sort of adductio involved in Transubstantiation. This is evident from the fact that the Body of Christ begins to exist in a place where it previously did not exist. This mysterious beginning is popularly called a “ coming down ” or “ bringing down ” from Heaven, which expression may be accepted if purged of its local connotations. But Transubstantia31 Henno prefers the term " intro­ in caelo vel quia per motum localem ductio." huc de caelo adducatur, sed solum 32 Bellarminc, De Euchar., Ill, quia per eam fit, ut corpus Christi, 18: " Corpus Domini praeexistit quod antea solum erat in caelo, iam ante conversionem, sed non sub speetiam sit sub speciebus panis, et non ciebns panis; conversio igitur non solum sub illis sit per simplicem facit, ut corpus Chrisli simpliciter praesentiam tel cocxistentiam, sed esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub diam per unionem quandam, qualis spccicbus ponis. Porro adduclivam vocamus istam conversionem, non erat inter substantiam panis et acexCct"à ,a"'en i"· quia corpus Chrisli fer hanc adductionem deserat suum locum pp. 3>9 «iq.) TRANSUBSTANTIATION 137 tion, by its very definition,33 not only destroys one sub­ stance; it also produces another, and therefore manifestly involves more than a mere adductio, namely, a sort of productio or reproductio in the Thomistic sense.34 Not that the glorified Body of Christ is subjected to a sub­ stantial change; but by virtue of the consecration it enters upon a new mode of existence (esse sacramentale), which, though perfectly real, involves no more than an accidental change. Nevertheless, the power inherent in the words of consecration is so great that, if the sub­ stance of the Eucharistic Body did not already exist, those words would as surely call it into being, as the “ fiat ” of the Almighty created the universe. In this sense the reproductio of the Body of our Lord in the Eucharist is conceivable as a merely virtual productio, which in respect of the multiplication of the real pres­ ences of one and the same Body may also be termed, in the phraseology of Lessius, a replicatio aequivalens pro­ ductioni.35 Readings: —J. M. Piccirelli, S. J., Disquisitio Dogmatica. Critica, Scholastica, Polemica de Catholico Intellectu Dogmatis Transsubstantiationis, Naples 1912.— D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucha­ ristia, pp. 132 sqq., Dublin 1913. 33 V. supra, Sect. i. si F. supra, Sect i, No. 2. 3s Lessiu», De Perfectionibus Diviuis, XII. 16, 114 «M· CHAPTER IV THE PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND THE ADORABLENESS OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST From what we have said in the three preceding chapters we may deduce two important corolla­ ries, viz.: (i) the Permanence of the Real Pres­ ence, and (2) the Adorableness of the Holy Eu­ charist. 128 SECTION i THE PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE i. Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of Church.—Luther at first defended the Real Presence against Carlstadt and Zwingli : but later, in his controversy with Butzer and Melanchthon (1536), he arbitrarily restricted it to the moment of reception (in usu, non extra usum'). This erroneous teaching was adopted into the Formula of Concord, A. D. 1577? The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that Christ is present immediately after the con­ secration,1 2 ante and post usum as well as in usu, —and that His presence consequently does not depend upon the act of eating or drinking in Communion. The Council of Trent defines: “If anyone saith that, after the consecration is completed, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, but [are there] only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or the 1 " Extra usum, dum reponitur aut asservatur in pyxide aut ostenditur in processionibus, ut fit apud popistas, sentiunt [LutheraniJ corpus Christi non adesse." 129 3 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Scm. ΧΠΙ, cap. 3: ". . . slalim post consecra- Ι3θ THE REAL PRESENCE after; and that in the hosts or consecrated par­ ticles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of our Lord reniaineth not; let him be anathema.” 3 This teaching can be convincingly proved from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 2. The Permanence of the Real Presence Proved from Revelation.—In the deposit of faith the Real Presence and the permanence of that Presence are so closely bound up that in the mind of the Church both continue as one undi­ vided whole. a) Christ promised to give His Body and Blood to His followers as meat and drink, i. e., as something permanent, something existing be­ fore the act of eating and drinking.4 When, in instituting the Eucharist, He said, “Take ye, and eat, this is my Body,” His meaning clearly was, “That which you are about to eat is my Body,” and not, “That which you are about to eat will become my Body at the moment when you eat it.”5 No matter how short the interval of time between consecration and communion, it is certain that the Body 3 Sess. XIII, can. 4: "Si quis reservantur vel supersunt, non re­ dixerit, peractis consecratione in manere verum corpus Domini. anaadmirabili Eucharistiae sacramento *’*·" (Denzinger-Bannwart, non tiu corpus et sanguinem Domini n. 886). nostri Ictu Christi. sed tantum in «John VI, so usu, dum sumitur non autem ante tel post, el in hostiis seu forticulis consecratis, quae fast communionem permanence of THE REAL PRESENCE 131 of Christ, which the Apostles received at the Last Sup­ per, was really and truly present before they received it. The Council of Trent says: “The Apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless He Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own Body which He presented [to them].” “ That the Real Presence does not depend upon the actual consumption of the Eucharist is clearly manifest in the case of the Chalice. Christ said: " Drink yc all of this; for (enim, yap) this is my Blood.”7 The act of drinking is here evidently neither the cause nor an in­ dispensable condition of the presence of His Blood.9 b) The argument from Tradition is so strong that even Calvin was constrained to admit that the Catholic teaching “has in its favor the exam­ ple of the ancient Church.” 9 a) The belief of the Fathers may be gathered from the texts quoted above in support of the Real Pres­ ence.10 We shall add a few others which expressly assert the permanence of that Presence. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “I hear that there are others who assert that the Eulogy profits nothing for sanctification if a portion thereof remains over for the following day. But they who speak thus, speak fool­ ishly; for neither is Christ altered, nor His sacred Body eSess. ΧΙΠ. cap. 3· "Nondum enim Eucharistiam de manu Domini susceperant, quum vere tamen ipse affirmaret, corpus suum esse, quod praebebat." (Denringer-Bannwart, n. 876). 7 Matth. XXVI. S7 ·*!· 8 For a more exhaustive discussion of this point see Bellarmine. De Euchar., IV. a; Tepe, pp. a$o sqq. «32 THE REAL PRESENCE changed, but the virtue of the blessing as well as the life-giving grace remain permanently therein.” 11 St. Jerome regarded as fortunate those who were per­ mitted to carry off the Body and Blood of Christ in "plaited baskets and in a glass.” 12 St. Chrysostom compares the altar on which the Eucha­ rist reposes, with the manger in which the Infant Jesus lay at Bethlehem.13 St. Optatus of Mileve (4- about 400) refers to the altar as ‘‘the seat of both the Body and the Blood of Christ,” and to the chalice as “ the bearer of the Blood of Christ.”14 0) The official practice of the Church was in perfect harmony with this teaching. In the early days the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist home16 or took it with them when they travelled,10 a custom which continued in some places to the twelfth century.11 The deacons were accustomed to bring the Blessed Sacrament to those who were unable to attend divine service,18 as well as to the martyrs, pris­ oners, and the infirm.10 The “ Apostolic Constitutions,” which were probably composed in the eighth century, in­ struct deacons to place the particles remaining after Com­ munion in specially prepared receptacles called “ Pasto11 Ep. ad Calosyr. (Migne, P. G., S’. St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, n. 26. VXXVI, 1075). ie Cfr. St. Ambrose, De Excessu it Ep. 123 ad Rustic., n. so: Fratris, I, 43 and 46. " Nihil ilia ditius, qui corpus Domini it Cfr. Hefelc, Concilicngcschichte, canistro vimineo, sanguinem forlat Vol. Ill, 2nd cd., pp. 583, 752, Frei· in vitro.” burg 1877. 18 In S. Philogon., n. 3. 18 Cfr. Justin Martyr, Apolog., I, M De Schism. Donat., IV, 1 sq. n. 67. (Migne, P. L„ XI. >065, 1068). 10 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Bed., VI, Cfr. Bellarmine, De Euchar., IV, 4. 44. is Cfr. Tertullian, Ad Uxor., II, PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE i33 phoria.” 20 Furthermore, as early as the fourth century,21 it was customary to celebrate the “ Mass of the Presanc­ tified,” 22 which the Latin Church now restricts to Good Friday, while the Greeks, since the Council in Trullo (692), celebrate it daily during the whole of Lent. c) The Permanence of the Real Presence may be further proved and illustrated by the follow­ ing philosophical considerations: a) The fundamental reason is found in the fact that some time necessarily elapses between consecration and communion. This is not the case with the other Sacraments. Baptism, for instance, lasts only as long as the baptismal act, or ablution lasts, and is therefore called a sacramentum transitorium. The Holy Eucharist, on the contrary, is a permanent Sacrament (sacramentum perma­ nens'). “The other Sacraments,” says the Council of Trent, “begin to have the power of sanctifying [then] only when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the very author of sanctity.”28 And again: “If anyone saith that, after the consecration is completed, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, but [are there] only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that in the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.”2* 20 Cfr. Conftit. /Ipost.. VIII, 13: ΟΙ διάκονοι τά ntpiaatvaavTa ΐίσφιρίτωσαν els rà τταστοφάρια. 21 Cfr. Synod. Laodic., can. 49. 22 Missa Praesanclificalorum. 28 Sess. XIII, «»Ρ· 3; "deliqua sacramenta tunc primum sanctificandi firn habent, quum quis illis utitur; at in Eucharistia ipse sanctitatis auctae ante (et post) usum est." Ibid., can. 4 (quoted supra, p. >30. n. 3). 134 THE REAL PRESENCE No doubt Christ might have made the Eucharist a merely transitory Sacrament had He so willed. Dut this was evidently not His intention. It is inconsistent and arbitrary to say, as Chemnitz docs, that Christ is truly present whilst the Sacrament is taken to the sick, but that His presence ceases as soon as the Eucharist is re­ served for other purposes.25 Leibniz, though a Protes­ tant, was keen enough to perceive that cither the words of consecration pronounced by the priest are false, or that which is blessed is necessarily the Body of Christ, even before it is eaten.20 β) The Permanence of the Real Presence, however, is limited to an interval of time, the beginning of which is determined by the instant of consecration, while the end is rather difficult to ascertain. The only thing that is theologically certain is that Christ continues to be present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as these appearances are apt to contain within themselves the sub­ stances of bread and wine. When corruption (corruptio specierum) sets in, e. g. when the host becomes mouldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ is no longer pres­ ent. The cessation of the Real Presence must not, how­ ever, be conceived as a “ retransubstantiation,”27 for while Christ may be the terminus ad quern of a substan­ tial conversion, He can never become its terminus a quo. st, Cfr. Bellartninc, De Eucharistia, et secitni domum, imo in ih'ticra. IV. i. deserta tulisse eumque morem ali­ so Sy«l. Theol., c. 48. We quote quando fuisse commendatum, quam­ the passage in its context: " Cerium quam postea abrogatus sit maioris ed onhquilalcm tradidisse, ipsâ co»· reverentiae causa. Et profecto, aut secratione fieri conversionem. falsa sunt, quae a sacerdote pro­ neque unquam veteribus audilum eel nuntiantur verba institutionis, quod novum quorundam dogma, quod in absit, aut nccesse est, quod benedic­ momento perceptionis demum adsit tum est, esse corpus Christi, etiam corpus Christi. Cerium enim cd. antequam mandiicclur." nonnullos sacrum hunc cibum non « Oswald seems tu favor this view slalim consumpsisse, sed aliis misisse (Die hl. Sakramcnlc, pp. 409 sqq.). PERMANENCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE 135 The simplest explanation is that the process of corrup­ tion brings back those elementary substances which cor­ respond to the peculiar nature of the changed accidents. Thus the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion does not abolish the law of the indestructibility of matter. SECTION 2 THE ADORABLENESS OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST I. State of the Question.—If Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist, the adorableness of the Blessed Sacrament requires no further proof for anyone who believes in His Divinity. As we have shown in Christology,1 the same worship (cultus latriae) is due to the God-man Jesus Christ that is due to the Triune God. Now, it is Jesus Christ who is truly present in the Eucharist ; consequently the Eucha­ rist is adorable. This truth is not affected by the circumstance that the Eucharist was primarily instituted as a sacrificial meal (Communion). It is always the God-man Himself who is offered in the Mass and consumed in Communion. The Council of Trent says: “For not therefore is it [the Holy Eucharist! the less to be adored on this ac­ count, that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received : for we believe that same God to be pres­ ent therein, of whom the Eternal Father, when introduc­ ing Him into the world, says: * And let all the angels of God adore Him.’ ”2 In other words, the Eucharistic 1 Pohle-Pteuss, Clirislology, pp. 278 SQQ·· 2nd cd., St. Louis 1916. 2 Scss. XIII, cap. 5: “ Neque enim idea minus est odorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur. institutum; nam illum cun­ dem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem Paler aeternus in136 ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST 137 Christ is substantially identical, and therefore equally adorable, with the Lord Christ who sitteth at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven. Because of this identity the Tridentine Coun­ cil solemnly defines: “If anyone saith that, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria, and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, . . . and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be ana­ thema.” 3 In the absence of Scriptural proof this propo­ sition must be demonstrated from Tradition. 2. Argument From Tradition.—A broad distinction must of course be made between the dogmatic principle of the adorableness of the Holy Eucharist and the varying discipline with regard to the outward form of worship given to it. Though the principle was recognized from the beginning, there has been, at least in the Latin Church, a gradual development in the ex­ ternal pomp with which the devotion to the Eucharist was surrounded. troducens in orbem terrarum dicit: Et adorent cum omnes angeli.” (Denzinger-Bannwart. η. 878). 3 Ses». XWI. can· 6: "Si dirent, in ss. Eucharistiae sacra­ mento Christum unigenitum Dei Fili­ um non esse cultu lalriae etiam esterno adorandum atque ideo nec fe­ stiva peculiari celebritate veneran­ dum, . . . et eius adoratores esse idolâtras, anathema sit.'* (Denzin­ ger-Bannwart. n. 888). •38 THE REAL PRESENCE a) The principle itself was clearly enunciated by the Fathers. The early Patristic writers quite naturally speak of the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in connection with the Mass and Communion. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) exhorts his neo­ phytes as follows : “ When thou approachest, do not come with outspread hands and fingers, but make thy left hand as it were the throne of the right, which is destined to receive the King, and receive the Body of Christ into the hollow of thy hand and say, ‘ Amen.’ After thou hast purified thine eyes by cautiously applying them to the sacred Body, be careful, in consuming it, that no particle falls to the ground. . . . Having partaken of the Body of Christ, step forward to take the Chalice of the Blood ;4 do not stretch out thy hands, but drop them and, assuming an attitude of adoration and homage,6 say ‘Amen,’ and sanctify thyself by participation in the Blood of Christ. And whilst the moisture thereof still adheres to thy lips, touch it with thy hands and sanc­ tify therewith the eyes, the forehead, and the other senses. Finally, awaiting the [concluding] prayer, give thanks to God, who has vouchsafed thee such great mys­ teries.” 0 St. Ambrose says: “ By ‘ footstool ’ [Ps. XCVIII, 5] is understood the earth ; by the earth, the Flesh of Christ, which we adore to-day in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus.” 7 ♦ προσίρχοί' καί ποτηρίφ τού αίματοιs τρόιτω προσκυρήσίωί καί σιβάσμαros β Catech. Mysi., V. η. ϊι (Mignc, P. C., XXXIII, i>2S W·) 1 Dc Spiritu Sancto, III, ii, 79: " Per scabellum terra intellegitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodiedum in mysteriis adoramus el quam Apostoli in Domino lesu adoraverunt.· (MiEne, P. XV1 ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST 139 Commenting on the same Psalm, St. Augustine says: " No one eats this Flesh unless he has previously adored [it].’” A passage in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James reads: “ Let us adore and praise the living Lamb of God, who is offered upon the altar.” 9 b) In the early Church, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was restricted chiefly, as it still is among the Greeks, to the Mass and Com­ munion. However, as late as 1672, a schismatic synod held at Jerusalem declared : " We likewise [believe] that the same Body and Blood of the Lord should be worshipped with supreme honor and adored with the worship of latria, since there is one adoration of the Blessed Trinity and the Body and Blood of the Lord.” 10 In the West the way was opened to a more exalted veneration of the Blessed Sacrament when the faithful were allowed to receive holy Communion apart from the liturgical service. /\fter the Berengarian controversy, in the twelfth century, the present practice of reservation was introduced for the express purpose of enabling the faithful to adore the Sacred Host outside of the Mass. In the thirteenth century, the so-called “ theophoric pro­ cessions ” came into vogue, and the Feast of Corpus 8 In Ps., 98, n. 9·· "Nemo illam carnem manducat, nisi prius ado­ raverit." (Aligne, P. L., XXXVII, 1264). 0 " Adoremus et laudemus Agnum vivum Dei, qui offertur super al­ tare." (Rcnaudot. Liturg. Orient.. 2nd ed.. Vol. II, P· 29. Frankfort ■ 847)· 10 " Item (credimusj et supremo colendum honore cultuque lalnae idem Domini corpus et sanguinem esse adorandum, quippe ss. Trinitatis 140 THE REAL PRESENCE Christi was instituted by Urban IV at the solicitation of St. Juliana of Liège. Henceforth the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament became general among the faith­ ful. Beautiful hymns, like the "Pange lingua" of St. Thomas, were composed in its honor. In the four­ teenth century it became customary to expose the Blessed Sacrament for public adoration. Of the Corpus Christi processions the Council of Trent declares “that very piously and religiously was this custom introduced into the Church, that this sublime and venerable Sacra­ ment be, with special veneration and solemnity, celebrated every year on a certain festival day, and that it be borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets and public places.” 11 A new impetus was given to the adoration of the Eucharist when St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori introduced the custom of paying regular visits to our Lord hidden in the tabernacle. Since then numer­ ous orders and congregations have devoted themselves to the unceasing adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the devotion of “ Perpetual Prayer ” has been introduced into many dioceses, Eucharistic Leagues have been established among the clergy, Eucharistic Congresses are regularly held, and all these agencies conspire to keep alive an ardent and devout faith in Him who said : “ Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” 12 11 Stss. XIII, cap. 5; ·■ Declarat fur." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 878). ranclo Synod»», pie el religiose ad­ 12 Matth. XXVIII, 20.—Cfr. modum in Dei Eceleiiom inductum Jacob Hoffmann, Die f'erehrung and fuisse hunc morem, ut ringuh» anni» Anbetung des allerheiligsten Safe ra­ peculiari quodam et feslo die prae­ meutes des Altars gcschichtlich darcelsum hoc et venerabile Moramen­ gestellt, Kempten 1897; T. E. Brid· tum lingulari veneratione ac Mlemnip,ett. History of the Holy Eucharist tate celebraretur, utque in proces­ in Great Britain, new ed., London sionibus reverenter et honorifice illud >910; F. Raible, Der Tabernake) per vias et loca publica circumferreein«l und jetet, Freiburg 1908. ΛΙ)()Κ.\|:Ι.Ι .'.I .· . < >|· III! |·Ι ( Il \R| · I i μ 3· A Theological QuestioiV.—Theologians are wont to discuss the question whether and to what extent the sacred species participate in the worship rendered to our Lord in the Blessed Sac­ rament. The adoration which Catholics give to Christ under the appearances of bread and wine is not separate and distinct from that which, they give to the sacred species as such. The one sole and total object of the Eucha­ ristic cult is our Eucharistic Lord Himself, that is to say, Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, or the Sacrament as such.13 We do not “ adore bread ” (adoratio panis, άρτοΧατράα), because, according to Catholic teaching, the substance of bread is no longer present in the Holy Eucharist and we give no separate adoration to its acci­ dents. The object of our adoration is the totum sacramentale.14 If one were with idolatrous intent to adore the species apart from their contents (», e. Christ), he would commit a greater sacrilege than if he would give divine worship to the Sacred Heart, as a creature, and apart from the Hypostatic Union ; for, unlike the Sacred Heart, the sacramental species are not a part of the Hypostatic Union. It follows that the sacred species, as such, are not entitled to latreutic but only to dulic, or. more ac­ curately speaking, to hyperdulic worship,15 though in practice neither the Church nor the faithful pay any at13 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. s: " Omnes Christi fideles pro more in catholica Ecclesia re­ cepto lalriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic ss. sacramento in veneratione exhibent." 14 Cfr. on this point Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 6$, sect· ·· ι· On the notions latrie, duhe, and hyperdulia. ace I’ohle-PreuM, Manotogy. PP· »4® *Μ<1·. St Louis 142 THE REAL PRESENCE tention to this subtle distinction, but simply adore the Blessed Sacrament as unum morale.10 ifl Cfr. Vasquez, Comment. in S. Th., 1Π, qu. 108, c, iaj De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 26, acct u. 7a. ’ ' 51 CHAPTER V SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION OF THE MYSTERY OF THE REAL PRESENCE “First believe, then inquire,” must be the load­ star of all theological speculation. Fides quaerit intellectum. Though the Scholastics evolved a number of reasons why it is fit that Christ should be really and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist,1 after all is said, the human intellect, even when illumined by faith, can not fathom the mystery nor demonstrate its intrinsic possibility. The Eucharist belongs to the category of abso­ lute theological mysteries. Christian philosophy can do no more than refute the objections raised against the dogma and show that it is not repug­ nant to reason. Unbelievers contend that the mystery of the Real Pres­ ence involves three glaring contradictions, to wit: (i) the existence of accidents without their natural subject ; (2) a spiritual mode of existence on the part of a mate­ rial body; and (3) the simultaneous existence of that body in many places. We will try to refute these three objections in as many Sections. 1 Cfr. N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramcnte der kaih.Kirthe. VoL J. Jnd ed. SECTION i FIRST APPARENT CONTRADICTION: THE CONTIN­ UED EXISTENCE OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES WITHOUT THEIR NATURAL SUBJECT In order to refute the first objection, it is necessary to answer three questions, vis.: (i) Do the outward ap­ pearances of bread and wine continue to exist without the substances of bread and wine as their connatural sub­ jects? (2) Are these appearances (accidentia sine subtecto) physical entities or mere subjective impres­ sions? (3) Are substanceless accidents possible, and if so, how can they be explained from the philosophical point of view ? The first of these questions can be answered with cer­ tainty of faith; for the second we have theological cer­ tainty only, while the third is a matter of speculation. i. The Continued Existence of the Ac­ cidents of Bread and Wine Without Their Natural Substrata.—The dogma of Transub­ stantiation implies that the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted, respectively, into the substances of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the con­ version takes place in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain.” 1 1 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIII, can. a. 144 SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION '45 Hence, what the senses perceive after the conse­ cration are merely the appearances without their substances.2 a) If it be further asked, whether these appearances have any subject at all in which they inhere, the answer is that they are accidentia sine subiecto and owe their continued existence to a miracle. This is not an article of faith, but it is part and parcel of the traditional teach­ ing of the Church.3 To deny it would be tantamount to asserting that the Body of Christ supplies the substance of the bread and becomes the subject of its remaining accidents.4 This is to be rejected because the Body of Christ sustains its own accidents, both natural · and supernatural," and cannot assume those of a foreign sub­ stance ; and furthermore because it is both impassible and immutable, whereas the Eucharistic species are subject to change. “ It is manifest,” says St. Thomas, “ that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, because the substance of the human body cannot be in any way affected by such acci­ dents ; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impas­ sible Body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.” T Suarez adds that, as the Eucharistic Body of Christ ex2 V. supra, Ch. III. Sect. a. 3 Suarez, Toletus, De Lugo, and others declare this to be a " propo­ sitio fidei." Their opinion is not shared by the majority of theolo­ gians. but all without exception de­ fend it as absolutely certain. The proof of this assertion will be found in Theoph. Raynaud. S. J., Exu­ viae Panis et l’ini. Lyons 1665. 4 This is held by A. Leray. Le Dogme de fEucharislie, Paris 1900. s Form, figure, etc. e Impassibility, spirituality, etc.— l·'. Eschatology. T Summa Theo!., ja. qu. n, art i : " Manifestum est autem quod huiusmodi accidentia non snnt in substantia U6 THE REAL PRESENCE ists in a spatially uncircumscribed and spirit-like manner,8 there is in the Holy Eucharist no substratum fit to assume quantitative and divisible accidents. Schell tried to solve this difficulty by declaring the Body of Christ to be the “ metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic appear­ ances.”0 But this brings us no nearer to a satisfactory solution of the problem. How are we to conceive of the distinction between a physical and a metaphysical sub­ ject? The Body of Christ, as eus in se, is either the real subject of the Eucharistic accidents, or it is not. If it is, the metaphysical is at the same time the physical sub­ ject, and the objections remain. If it is not, then the Eucharistic appearances are clearly accidentia sine sub­ tecto. The most that could be said is that the Body of Christ is the metaphysical subject of the Eucharistic accidents in so far as it radiates a miraculous sustaining power which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse. But in adopting this view we should be leaving the do­ main of material causes, to which a substance as the subject of accidents belongs, and entering that of effi­ cient causes, in which the solution of the problem, as formulated by Or. Schell, cannot be sought. b) The position of the Church may be gathered from the definitions of the Councils of Constance (1414-1418) and Trent (1545-1563)· The Council of Constance, in its eighth session, ap­ proved by Martin V in 1418, condemned the following propositions of Wiclif: (1) “The material substance of bread and likewise the material substance of wine re­ main in the Sacrament of the Altar;” (2) “The acci8 I'. tupra.. Ch. II, Thesis 4, pp, 98 sqq. 0 Dogma I ik, Vol. Ill, 2, p. 53$, Padciborn 1892. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 147 dents of the bread do not remain without a subject.” ,rt The first of these propositions involves an open denial of the dogma of Transubstantiation. The second might be considered as merely a different wording of the first, did not the history of the Council show that Wiclif had violently opposed the Scholastic doctrine of “ accidents without a subject.” 11 Hence it was the evident inten­ tion of the Council to condemn the second proposition not merely as a conclusion drawn from the first, but as a distinct and independent thesis.12 We may therefore sum up the teaching of the Church in this proposition, which represents the contradictory of the one condemned : “ The accidents of the bread remain without a subject." 13 This interpretation of the decree of Constance is con­ firmed by the Council of Trent, which defines: ‘‘If anyone . . . denieth that wonderful and singular con­ version of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood,— the species only of the bread and wine remain­ ing,— let him be anathema.”14 According to this definition something remains of the bread and wine after the consecration. Is it part of the respective substances of bread and wine? No; the whole substance of the bread has been converted into the Body and the whole sub­ stance of the wine into the Blood of Christ. What, then, remains ? The Council tells us that it is “ the species of 10 " Art. I. Substantia panis ma­ terialis et similiter substantia vini materialis remanent in sacramento altaris.-— “Art. 2. Accidentia panis non manent sine subtecto tn eodem sacramento.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 581 S<1> . . _ U Cfr. De Augustinis, De He Sacramentaria, Vol. I» =nd ed., pp. 573 ««Il­ ia Cfr. Hardouin, Coll. Cone., Vol. VIII, p. 404. n Sess. Χ1Π, can. a: - Si quis . . . necaverit conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus et talius substantiae fini in i.inguinrm. I48 the real presence bread and wine.” These species must, therefore, be acci­ dents, and, having by Transubstantiation lost their con­ natural subjects, which cannot be supplied by the Body of Christ, they are clearly accidentia sine subiecto. Such was the teaching of contemporary theologians, and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-quoted Tri­ dentine canon, tersely explains : “ All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see; however, they in­ here in no subject, but exist by themselves.” 15 And: “. . . as the accidents cannot inhere in the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains that, in a manner altogether above the order of nature, they sustain themselves, sup­ ported by nothing else; this has been the uniform and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church.” 10 2. The Physical Reality of the Eucha­ Accidents.—Though such eminent theo­ logians as Gregory of Valentia, Suarez, Vasquez, and De Lugo hold the physical reality of the Eucharistic accidents to be an article of faith, it is no more than a theological conclusion. Certain writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, asserted that the Eucharistic appearances are optical de- ristic Catech. Rom., De Euchar., qu. »6: " Ac panic quidem et vini ac­ cidentia omnia licet videre, quae tamen nulli /ubrtantiac inhaerent, ccd per ce ipsa constant." W Ibid., qu. 43: "Quoniam ca occidentia diruti corpori ct /an­ guini inhaerere non />ocjunl, re­ linquitur, ut super omnem naturae ordinem ipea ce. nullâ olid re nûa, sustentent : haec perpetua ct conctanc fuit catholicae Ecclesiae doc­ trina."— On the whole subject see Billuart, De Mente Ecclesiae circa Accidentia Eucharistica, Lcodii 1714.— Lately Dr. D. Coghlan has defended the opinion that the con­ demnation of Wiclif's second propo­ sition docs not oblige us to hold that the accidents have, after the conse­ cration. no subject whatever (De SS. Eucharistia, Dublin 1913). For a criticism of this view sec the Irish Eccles. Record, 1913, pp. 437 sqq- SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 149 lusions, phantasmagoria, or make-believe acci­ dents. This view is derogatory to the traditional belief of the Church, as can be shown from the writings of the Fathers and the Schoolmen, and from the definitions of several ecumenical coun­ cils. a) The Fathers draw a clear-cut and some­ times even exaggerated distinction between the “visible sign” {species panis et vini) and the “in­ visibly present Body and Blood of Christ” {cor­ pus et sanguis invisibiliter praesens). Some represent the sacramental sign as a “ type,” “ symbol ” or “ figure ” of the Body of Christ. This is ambiguous, but no doubt these Fathers regarded the sac­ ramental sign as something equally objective and physi­ cal with the Body itself. Atzberger 1T summarizes their teaching as follows: “These Fathers clearly distin­ guish between the visible element and the invisible Body of Christ, and refer to the former as πράγμα Ιπίγαον13 as αυτό το υλικόν,10 as φαινόμενο* apros,20 as αισθητά πράγματα,31 as signum or sacramentum corporis Christi.12 When the Monophysites concluded from the fact of the con­ version of the bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood of Christ that there was also a conversion of our Sav­ iour's humanity into His Divinity, their Catholic op­ ponents expressly declared that the mystical symbols do IT In the continuation of Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol. IV, a, pp. 607 sq . Freiburg igor. 18 St. Irenaeus. Adv. Hacr., IV, c. 18, n. S· 10 Origen. In Maith.. XI. n. 14. 20 St Cyril of Jerusalem, Caltch. Mytt.. IV, n. 921 St Chrysostom, Hom. in Maith., 83. n. 4. 22 St Augustine. C. Adimant., C. ia. n. 3: loin. Eput. 98, n. 9. 150 THE REAL PRESENCE not lose their otWa φύσκ through the consecration,23 but the nature of the bread remains,24 and that it does not lose its αίσθητη ονσία." 20 Atzberger is right in attaching considerable importance to the controversial attitude of the Fathers towards the Monophysites ; for it plainly appears from the Patristic writings directed against these heretics that the Church asserted both the reality of the Eucharistic accidents and their identity before and after Transubstantiation. Thus Theodoret in his second Dialogue tells his Monophysitic opponent: “You are caught in the net which you yourself have spread ; for the mystic symbols do not lose their nature after the consecration, but remain in the figure and the sensible form of their essence; they are visible and can be seen and touched as before.”20 Had the Fathers regarded the Eucharistic species as optical delusions, they would not have used such strong language nor neglected a middle term by means of which they could have effec­ tively combated the Monophysitic notion that the hu­ manity of Christ is converted into His Divinity. b) The Schoolmen unanimously inculcated the physical reality of the Eucharistic accidents and their identity before and after Transubstantia­ tion. In taking this attitude these writers were moved by philosophical as well as theological con­ siderations. Descartes (1596-1650) was the first philosopher who placed the essence of corporeal substances in their actual 23 Cfr. Theodore», Dial., Π (Migne. P. G., LXXXHI, 168). 2» PseudoChrysostom, E|>. ad Caior. (Migne, P. G., Lil, 758). 25 Ephraem of Antioch, in Migne, P. G„ CII, 980. 20 Dial., Il (Migne, LXXX1H, 168). SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 151 extension and recognized only modal accidents metaphys­ ically united with their substance. According to his theory, the Eucharistic accidents simply cannot exist without a subject, but disappear as soon as the sub­ stances of bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ. To adapt the Catholic teaching to the “ new philosophy,” some theologians of the seven­ teenth and eighteenth centuries declared the Eucharistic species to be delusions caused by God in the senses. The inventor of this theory of apparences eucharistiques was E. Maignan, Ο. M.27 He was followed by J. Saguens, J. Perrimezzi, A. Pissy, Drouin,23 and Wi tasse.” The Church at first showed great tolerance towards the Cartesians, but in course of time found herself com­ pelled to oppose them. Thus, in 1694, the S. Congre­ gation of the Index condemned the proposition that “ The Eucharistic accidents are not real accidents, but mere illusions and optical make-believes.”30 The great majority of contemporary and later theo­ logians rejected the Cartesian theory as inconsistent with ecclesiastical tradition, contrary to the testimony of the senses, opposed to the true concept of Transub­ stantiation, repugnant to the correct notion of a Sacra­ ment, which requires a visible sign, and incompatible with the phrase "fractio panis" applied to the Eucharist in Holy Scripture.31 2T Philosophia Sacra, Vol. I. c. 28 De Re Sacramentaria, IV, 2, S 2. 29 De Eucharistia, sect. 2, qu. 2, art. 3. 80 " Eucharistiae accidentia non accidentia realia, sed merae illu­ siones et praestigia oculorum sunt.” 81 For a fuller discussion of tbe Cartesian theory we must refer the student to Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. I. art. 6. J 2. The history of the controversy may be studied in Theoph. Raynaud. S. J.. E.ruviae Panis et Pini (Opera. Vol. VI. pp. 419 sqq.). Lyons 1665, and I. Sa­ iler. O. -M.. Historia Scholastics de Speciebus Eucharisticis. Lyons ι6βr. i52 THE REAL PRESENCE c) As for the conciliary definitions on this subject, it is not necessary to add a great deal to what we have previously quoted from the councils of Constance and Trent. The Cartesians claimed that the Council of Trent, in employing the term "species panis et vini,"22 did not mean to say that the appearances of bread and wine after the consecration are real accidents.33 But it is a fact that the Council of Constance, in speaking of the same thing, deliberately uses the term ‘'accidentia." If Mar­ tin V in his questionary for suspected Wiclifites and Hussites again employs "species,”2* this simply proves that "species” and "accidentia” were regarded as synonymous terms. There can be no doubt that the Coun­ cil of Trent employs "species” exclusively in its scho­ lastic signification of "species sensibilis,” which is an " accidens reale,” and not in the Cartesian sense of "species intentionalis,” which was a later inven­ tion. 3. The Philosophic Possibility of Abso­ Accidents.—Leaving the domain of doc­ trine for that of philosophical speculation, we find ourselves on uncertain ground. To justify the Church’s teaching in the matter, however, nothing more is necessary than to show that the lute 83 Sess. XIII, can. a. 33 Witasse, strangely enough, sings a hymn oi praise to Providence fur having preserved the Tridentinc Council, as well as the Fourth Coun­ cil of the Lateran before it (Cap. ·' Firmiter,” apud Dcneinger-Bann- «· Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continen­ tur") from the terrible mistake of employing the term " accidentia " instead of " species." st Cfr. Dcnzingcr-Bannwart, n. 666 sq. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION »53 concept of absolute or substanceless accidents in­ volves no metaphysical contradiction. a) Modal accidents, of course, by their very definition, cannot be separated from their under­ lying subjects. But there are other accidents (c. g. corporeal quantity), the separate existence of which involves no intrinsic contradiction. Accidents of the last-mentioned kind are called abso­ lute, because their objective reality is quite distinct from that of their underlying substance.88 Aristotle defined quantity as a phenomenon of substance.36 *38 It was merely a logical deduction from this statement to say, as the Schoolmen did, that quantity may be separated from its subject and, therefore, is capable of continuing to exist independently. There is no intrinsic contradiction in­ volved in this assertion, for it has not been and cannot be proved that an accident derives its entire being solely from its underlying subject, or that actual (which dif­ fers from purely aptitudinal) inherence is of the very nature of an accident.37 For the rest, our knowledge of material substances and their accidental qualities is still so meagre that the greatest uncertainty reigns among the learned concerning the nature of matter, one system pull­ ing down what another has reared. To explain the spirit­ ual by the material, as Materialism tries to do, is foolish, because matter is practically an unknown quantity, about which we know even less than we do about the soul, its 36 Suarez, Metaph., disp. 7, sect 30 Melaph., VI, 3 (cd. Bckker, p. 1029, a, »3): Τό δί μηκοτ καί πλάτοί καί βάΟοι ποσότητά river. άλλ' οΰκ ουσία- τί> yàp ττοσόι- ούκ ουσία. ώλλά μάλλον ύ ύπΛρχπ ταΰτα ττρώτω. fxeîvA ώτι ή ουσία ST Cfr. Palmieri. Irutit. Philoe.. Vol. I. pp. 366 sqq.. Rome 1S74; Gutberlet, XZ/feaseme MehtphrM. qth ed.. pp. 6a sqq., Munster 1906; P. Coffey. Ontoloiy. pp. *4«> aqq., London 1914. 154 THE REAL PRESENCE qualities and powers. One of the keenest of modern philosophers, Leibniz (1646-1716), expressed himself as follows on this problem :88 “ As there are many eminent and clever men, especially among the members of the Reformed Church, who, deeply imbued with the princi­ ples of a new and captivating philosophy [Cartesianism], imagine that they can clearly and distinctly perceive that the essence of a body consists in its extension, and acci­ dents are mere modi of their substance and consequently can no more exist without, or be separated from, their subject than the uniformity of the periphery can be de­ tached from the circle, ... we deem it our duty to come to their aid. ... We, too, have occupied ourselves assiduously with mathematical, mechanical and experi­ mental studies, and at first inclined to the same view which we now criticize. But in course of time we were compelled by our researches to return to the principles of the ancient philosophy [t. e. Scholasticism], . . . which are by no means so confused and absurd as they seem to those who ridicule Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other illustrious men as if they were mere school­ boys.” 89 b) The old theology tried to prove the possi­ bility of absolute accidents on the basis of Hylomorphism. Some present-day theologians would like to come to an understanding with modern science by adopting Dynamism. There are other philosophical systems which openly contradict the 88 Leibniz, Systema Thcol., c. 48 eq.. Paris 1719· 8» On the separability of absolute accidents from their underlying sub­ jects see further T. Pesch, S. J., Philosophia Naturali», pp. 399 sqq., and cd., Freiburg 1897; J. Rickaby, S. ]., General Afetaphysics. pp. 367 sqq.. New York 1890; H. Haan, S. J., Philosophia Naturalis, pp. 19 sqq., Freiburg 1894. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION ■55 Church’s teaching, but they are equally opposed to reason and experience. a) Aristotclean-Scholastic Hylomorphism holds that bodies are constituted by the union of primordial matter (materia prima, Ζλη πρώτη) with a substantial form (forma substantialis, μορφή ουσιώδης, £ντίλ«χ«α) ; that there is a real distinction between corporeal substance and its quantity; that the two are separable, and that by divine power the latter can exist without the former. The Schoolmen explain this as follows: A body (cor­ pus, υ\η δΐυτίρα) is a substance composed of matter and form. Quantity (quantum, ποσόν) is that by which a body has extension in space. The two notions and their underlying entities are entirely distinct from each other, and therefore separable. Quantity is perceived by the senses, whereas substance can be recognized only by the intellect. It is objected that this theory, by separating quan­ tity from substance, raises an accident, which is ens in alio, to the rank of a substance (ens in se), and thereby incurs an intrinsic contradiction. St. Thomas refutes this as follows : “ The other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains : first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses, nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposi­ tion of matter is dimensive quantity; . . . third, be­ cause . . . dimensive quantity is the principle of indi­ viduation.” 40 At the present time it is necessary to take io Summa Theo!.. 38, qu. 77. art. quantitate dimennva panie t:-l ■. ·λ< i56 the real presence into consideration the theory that colors and sounds as such are not inherent in bodies but have their objective raison d'etre in the undulations of the ether.41 β) By Dynamism we here understand not the philo­ sophic system associated with the names of Herbart, Ulrici, Kant, and Schelling, but the theory which holds that elementary substances are endowed with certain fundamental energies whose effects are distinct from both and can therefore be supplied by the First Cause. This theory was broached by Leibniz and developed by Franzelin.42 Hurter explains it briefly as follows: The fundamental power of matter, to which all others, such as the force of gravity, density, and color, may be reduced, is energy or the power of resistance (vis resi­ stentiae, cvcpycta). As force is not conceivable without its manifestation, or energy without its effect, it is necessary to distinguish between vis and impetus, Ινίργαα and ίνίργημα. While energy enters into the essence of mat­ ter, its manifestation or effect (ίνίργημα) is really dis­ tinct from it, and may miraculously continue after the material substratum is gone. This explanation has the advantage of conforming more closely than any other yet proposed, to modern physics, which reduces the powers of nature to pure movements and applies to them the mathematical prin­ ciples of mechanics.43 Since Newton three systems of natural philosophy have successively attracted the minds of men: the dynamic theory (Newton), the kinetic thebxi affectum, nec in talibus sensus decipitur; secundo quia prima dis­ positio materiae cet quantitas dimenriva . . tertio quia . ·. . quontilar dimensiva est quoddam individuationis principium." «1 Cfr. Gutbcrlct, Psychologie, 4th ed.. pp. 14 sqq., Munster 1904. 42 De Eucharistia. thes. 12. <3 Cfr. A. Secchi, L'Unità dclle Forge Fisiche, Rome 1864; German tr.. Die Einheit der Naturkraftc, o vols., 3rd ed., Leipzig 1892. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION <57 ory (Lord Kelvin, Secchi), and the energetic theory (Ostwald). Λ close analysis shows that these theories arc not opposed to one another but can be reconciled and combined at least in their main features. “ When physi­ cal science shall have attained its final perfection at some distant date in the future,” says Father L. Dressel, S. J., “ it will see every natural process alike as dynamic, kinetic, and energetic, for one perception presupposes the others. Without movement and tension there is no energy. Energy in all its forms demands in the body which possesses it a disposition or condition by which it becomes effective.”44* 46 Since the traditional view can be easily reconciled with this teaching, it follows that the atomic theory, with which the dynamic, the kinetic, and the energetic theory alike stand or fall, is not opposed to the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, as some timid souls imagine. For this reason it would be unwise to reject a priori the solutions devised by Tongiorgi48 and Palmieri40 on the basis of the atomic theory, especially since these writers admit the objective resist­ ance and the imponderable materia of ether, respectively, as objective realities in the converted substances of bread and wine. Even so staunch a peripatetic as Father Tilmann Pesch, S. J., believes that Tongiorgi’s as well as Palmieri’s views can be reconciled with the dogmatic teaching of the Church.47 Really the only thing that can be said against Tongiorgi and Palmieri is 44 Lchrbuch der Physik nach den ncuesten Anschauungcn, Vol. II, 3rd cd., p. 1036, Freiburg 1905. 46 Cosniologia, n. 237. 4β Inslit. Philos., Vol. II, pp. 182 sqq., Rome 1875. 47 T. Pesch, Inst. Phil. Nat.. 2nd ed., p. 401, Freiburg 1897: "Et haec quidem explicandi ratio ad Christianas doctrinas accommodari fortasse satis potest. Adest enim signum sensibile obieclivum; servan­ tur species panis et vini; id quod permanet, non pani inhaeret; acci­ dentia manent sine subtecto; adest conversio, quum aliquid maneat commune." t58 the real presence that they do not sufficiently safeguard the identity of the Eucharistic accidents before and after the consecration. But this is not an insuperable difficulty, since even the quantitas separata of the Schoolmen cannot be conceived as a strictly identical, ever ready, and purely static reality.48 y) The Church, in teaching that the Eucharistic acci­ dents continue to exist without a subject, does not wish to restrict Catholics to any particular view of natural philosophy, nor does she compel her theologians to base their teaching on medieval physics. All that she demands is that they eschew such theories as openly contradict her teaching and are at the same time repugnant to experience and sound reason, e. g. Pantheism, which deifies nature, Hylozoism (Panpsychism) in its different forms (the Monadism of Leibniz, the Voluntarism of Schopenhauer and Wundt, the “ Philosophy of the Unconscious ” of Eduard von Hartmann), Monism, Cartesianism, etc.49 4. The Relation of the Eucharistic Spe­ cies to the Body of Christ and the Mode of Predication Resulting Therefrom.—We have seen that in the Blessed Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine. How are reality and appear­ ance united? Upon the answer to this question will depend the Eucharistic law of predication, i. e. the correct way of speaking of the Body and «β Cfr. G. C. Ubagbs. Du Dyna­ misme dons ses Rapports avec la Sainte Eucharistie, Louvain 1861, «» Cfr. Gutberlet, Waturphilosophie, 3rd cd., pp. 5 sqq. Munster SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION '59 Blood of our Lord in their relation to the acci­ dents of bread and wine.50 a) What are the mutual relations between Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the Eucha­ ristic species? In answering this question we must beware of two extremes. The first of these is the assumption of a physical union between Christ and the Eucharistic accidents. This is impossible because the accidents of bread and wine cannot become accidents of Christ’s Body and Blood, nor are they capable of entering into a Hypostatic Union with His Person. The other false extreme against which we must guard is that the body of Christ, in consequence of a positive divine command, is united in a merely external way with the place in which the consecrated host happens to be.8' This view imperils the unity of the Holy Eucharist, makes it impossible to adore the host as such,83 and difficult to explain why the Sacred Body invariably ac­ companies the consecrated host. Some say that Christ voluntarily follows the host wherever it is carried. If this is true, the union existing between the Sacred Body of Christ and the Eucharistic species must be more than purely local. But if it is neither physical nor purely local, how are we to conceive this union ? Oswald says it is a “ relation of dependence,” which is a correct description but affords no explanation. Other theologians define the union between Christ and eo On predication in general see Pohlc-Preuss. Christology. pp. 186 «> This view was defended by Duns Scotus. #3 K lupra, pp. ij6 sqq. i6o THE REAL PRESENCE the Eucharistic accidents as a unio physica effectiva, be­ cause the preservation of the substanceless accidents is due not directly to God but to a miraculous power pro­ ceeding from the Eucharistic Body of Christ, which sup­ ports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse.113 b) This sacramental union (as it had best be called) between the Eucharistic Body of our Lord and the appearances of bread and wine results in a sort of communication of idioms,04 from which the following rules of predication may be deduced : (i) Predicates which suppose a physical union between Christ’s Body and the Eucharistic accidents must not be transferred from the latter to the former. Hence it would be wrong to say : “ The Body of Christ is round, tastes sweet, looks white,” etc., or: “The Blood of Christ has a light color, tastes like sour wine, quenches the thirst,” etc. These predicates apply to the Eucha­ ristic species exclusively. The chief offenders against this rule were the so-called Stercoranists, who were charged with believing that the Body of the Lord is di­ gested and excreted {stercus, excrement) like any other food. Whether Stercoranism has ever had adherents within the Catholic pale is somewhat doubtful. Among those charged with this absurdity were Origen and Rhabanus Maurus, but in either case the accusation seems to be based upon a misunderstanding. Other Catholic writ­ ers suspected of Stercoranist views were Bishop Heribald 63 This is more fully explained by De Lugo, De Euchar., disp. 6, sect 1 sqq- 6» I'. Pohlc-Prcuss. pp. 184 sqq. Christology, SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION ιόι of Auxerre (+ 857), Amalarius of Metz (-f- about 857), and the Greek Nicetas (4- about 1050). During the time of the Protestant Reformation the charge was sophistically urged by the Calvinists against their Lu­ theran opponents/15 (2) Predicates based upon the sacramental union may be indiscriminately applied to the Body of our Lord and to the Eucharistic species. This rule is founded upon the unity of the Sacrament. Hence it is correct to say: “The Body of Christ is eaten by the faithful,” “ The Sacred Body is carried around in procession,” etc. (3) Such predicates as move along a middle line may be applied to the Eucharistic species only in an im­ proper or a figurative sense. In doubtful cases it is best to follow the custom of the Church, the Fathers, and re­ putable theologians. The graphic formula to which Berengarius was compelled to subscribe, in 1079,M was modeled upon the language of St. Chrysostom and other Fathers. Such expressions as, “ The Body is com­ mingled with the Blood,” or, “If the Blood freezes in the chalice,”57 are permissible, though in their literal and proper sense the affirmations contained therein apply to the species only.08 B5 Cfr. C. M. Pfaff, De Stereoranislis, Tubingen 1750. For further bibliographical data see the New Schaff-Henog Encyclopedia of Re­ ligious Knowledge, Vol. XI. p. 86. se " Rerum corpus lesu Chrisli in veritate manibus sacerdotum trac­ tari, frangi et fidelium dentibus 67 Rubric. Missal., De Defect., X. a» Cfr. De Lugo. Do Euchar., disp. 6. sect. 3; Hcinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat. Thao!., VoL IX. f 54a. SECTION 2 SECOND APPARENT CONTRADICTION : THE SPIRIT- LIKE MODE OF EXISTENCE OF CHRIST’S EUCHARISTIC BODY i. State of the Question.—It is of faith that the Body of Christ is really, truly, and sub­ stantially present in the Holy Eucharist under the species of bread. It is also of faith that the Body of Christ is present in its entirety in the whole of the sacred Host and in each of its parts, in a manner similar to that in which the human soul is present in the body. This teaching quite naturally gives rise to a difficulty: How can a material body exist after the manner of spirits (ad modum spirituum) without losing its quantity, form, etc. ? The difficulty is enhanced by the consideration that there is no question here of the Soul or the Divinity of Christ, but of His Body, which, with its head, trunk, and members, assumes a mode of existence spirit-like and in­ dependent of space. About such a mode of existence neither experience nor philosophy can give us the least information. Not even the glorified body of our Sa­ viour after the Resurrection, though in more than one 162 SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION «*3 respect itself a σώμα πναψατικόν, can give us an inkling in regard to the mode of existence proper to the Eucha­ ristic Body. Christ, at the Last Supper, transferred His mortal and passible body, as yet unglorified, into that sacramental mode of existence which has no counterpart even in the supernatural order of things.1 Even the separability of quantity from substance23gives us no clue to the solution of the present problem, since according to the best-founded opinions,8 not only the substance of Christ’s Body, but its corporeal quantity (conceived as distinct from the Body) is present within the diminutive limits of the Host and in each portion thereof.4* Varignon, Rossignol, Legrand, and other theologians have resorted to the explanation that Christ is present in diminished form and stature, in a sort of miniature body ; while Oswald, Casajoana, Fernandez, and others assume with no better sense of fitness the mutual compénétration of the members of Christ’s Body to within the narrow compass of a pin-point. The Scholastics rejected both these opinions.® The vagaries of the Cartesians, how­ ever, exceeded all bounds. This school was hard put to reconcile its theory of actual extension as the essence of material bodies with the dogma of the totality of the Real Presence. Descartes himself, in two letters to Père Mesland," expressed the opinion that only the Soul of Christ becomes present in the Eucharistic species, and that the identity of the Eucharistic Body with the heav1 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Thcol., 3a, qu. 81, art 3. 2 V. Sect 1, supra. 3 Against Durandus. 4 Cfr. St Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent, IV, diet 10, p. 1, qu. a: " Quamvis substantia possit ab­ strahi a quantitate, tamen quod cor­ pus vivat et sil organicum el non sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec in­ tellegi potest." a Toietus «aye (Comment, in S. Th., Ill, qu. 76. art. 4): " Itta sententia conatur mysterium ad suum captum trahere, in quo de­ cipitur. quia corpus Christi esset modo ridiculo.” e Edit Emery, Paria 1811. i64 THE REAL PRESENCE enly Body of Christ is preserved by the identity of His Soul, which animates both bodies and their quantities. This monstrous notion was vigorously combated by Arnauld, Bossuet, Fabri, Viogné, and other contemporary theologians. The geometrician Varignon attempted to improve upon Descartes’ theory by suggesting that the consecration and the subsequent breaking of the Eucha­ ristic species results in a true multiplication of the Eucha­ ristic Bodies upon earth, which are faithful, though greatly reduced miniature copies of their prototype, i. e. Christ’s heavenly Body. Consecration itself, he said, effects the conversion of bread and wine into organic bodies, and it is precisely in this that Transubstantiation essentially consists.7 • The genuine teaching of Catholic theology as against these vagaries is voiced thus by St. Thomas : “ Since the substance of Christ’s Body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, it follows that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s Body and all its other accidents are in this Sacrament.” 8 As ours is an age of what may be termed hypergeometrical speculation, it may not be amiss to add that the modern theory of «-dimensions throws no light on this subject. For the Body of Christ is not invisible or im­ palpable to us because it occupies the fourth dimension, but because it transcends space and is wholly independent of it. Here lies the second antinomy or apparent contradicT Cfr. J. Souben, Nouvelle Théologie Dogmatique, Vol. VII, pp. 118 sqq., Paris 1905. 8 Summo Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 4: " Quia substantia corporis Chri­ sti realiter non dividitur o «uu quantitate dimensiva et ab aliis acci­ dentibus, inde est quod ex vi realis concomitantiae esi in hoc sacra­ mento tota quantitas dimensiva cor­ poris Christi et omnia accidentia eius." SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 165 tion which we are attempting to solve. We must al­ ways remember that the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord does not come within the scope of physics or mechanics, but belongs as strictly to the supernatural order as the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection from a sealed tomb, His transfigura­ tion, etc.0 As these examples show, there is a “ mechan­ ics of the supernatural,” the laws of which do not agree with those of ordinary human experience.10 It is neces­ sary also, in solving the problem under consideration, to adhere firmly to the truth of the real and genuine cor­ poreity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body. There is in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar neither a conversion of matter into spirit, nor a separation of dimensive quan­ tity from substance. The problem may therefore be for­ mulated thus: How can divisible and extended matter and a normally constituted organism exist in a spatially uncircumscribed manner, such as is peculiar to imma­ terial souls and pure spirits? 2. Scholastic Solution of the Problem.— The Schoolmen (notably Suarez, Bellarmine, De Lugo, Ysambert, Lessius, and Billuart) offer the follotving solution: Quantity is either internal or external. Internal quantity (quantitas interna s. in actu primo) is that entity by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses aptitudinal extension, i. e. the capability of being extended in tri-dimensional space. External quantity (quantitas externa s. in actu secundo), on the » dr. i Cor. XV, 36 sqq. 10 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eueharistia, III, 6. i66 THE REAL PRESENCE other hand, is the same entity in so far as it fol­ lows its natural tendency to occupy space and ac­ tually extends itself in the three dimensions. While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences of bodies that its separability from them would involve a meta­ physical contradiction, external quantity is only a natural consequence and effect, which can be suspended or withheld by the First Cause, so that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not actually extend itself into space. a) Though in itself the mere substance of the Body of Christ could exist in the Blessed Sacrament without any quantity at all, just as the quantity of the bread exists without its substance,11 yet it is theologically certain that in matter of fact the Body is entirely present with its whole quantity.12 If quantity is present, there must be bodily extension (positio partium extra partes), for it is in this that quantity essentially consists. Now this ex­ tension is not actual ; it is merely aptitudinal, i. e. ca­ pable of being actually extended in the three dimensions, but prevented from being so by the omnipotence of God. In other words, the sacred Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist possesses internal but it does not possess ex­ ternal quantity. Both aptitudinal and actual extension are formal effects of quantity as such, though in a dif­ ferent way. The one is primary and essential, the other secondary and non-essential. The one is the principle and cause, the other a consequence and an effect. Internal quantity belongs per reductionem to the Aristotelian cate11 K Sect, i, supra. 12 K. No. i, supra. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 167 gory of quantum (ποσόν), while external quantity apper­ tains to that of situs (κάσθαι). The former can exist without the latter, but not vice versa. Hence the two are distinct and separable. While the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is prevented by the First Cause from exercising its natural tendency to occupy space, it never­ theless exists wholly and with its full size, without how­ ever extending itself through space.” By way of illustration we may refer to the miracle of the three children in the furnace. In preserving them from harm, God did not interfere with the essence of the fire into which they were cast, but merely suspended its natural effects. In a similar manner. He does not destroy the essence of quantity in the Holy Eucharist, but merely suspends one of its natural effects, i. e. ex­ tension in space. The distinction between internal and external quan­ tity may be brought nearer to the human mind by a con­ sideration taken from higher mathematics. In applying the infinitesimal calculus, mathematicians deal not only with finite but likewise with infinitesimally small quan­ tities, i. e., quantities that may be made as small as we please without affecting the use to which they are to be 13 The trile objection: "Corpus Christi in Eucharistia foret sins quantitate," is answered by Billuart as follows (De Eucharistia, diss. 1, art. 4, § 3): " Quoad primanum ein.r effectum, nego; quoad secuneffectum, concedo. Primarius effectus quantitatis est ordine aJ se et in toto; secundarius in ordine ad locum. Prius est enim quantitatem extendi in se quam ex­ tendi in loco, quam esse impene­ trabilem, divisibilem, etc. Unde quaerenti, cur quantitas sit extenso recte respondetur quia est extensa in se; quaerenti vero, cur sit ex­ tensa in se, nulla est ratio prior quam quia est quantitas. Porro pot­ est effectus secundarius quantitatis divinitus ab ipsa separan, prout de facto separatus est, quando Christus exivit er utero virginali clauso et de sepulcro non revoluto lapide, item quando intravit ad diseiputos ianuis clausis. Et ita separatur in Eucharistia.” i68 THE REAL PRESENCE put. Now a triangle so infinitesimally small that its dimensions can be conceived only by the mind, may be called an “ internal figure,” because it shrinks together to a point, and can no longer be represented as twodimensional on a plain surface. Of course, the analogy with the Holy Eucharist is not perfect, because such a triangle, even though merely imaginary, always remains a true spatial figure.14* b) What we have just said of bodies in general, ap­ plies also to organisms, for an organism is merely a body (a) composed of different organs or parts, (b) disposed in orderly fashion, and (c) subserving the func­ tions of life. The first mark (a) distinguishes an organ­ ism (plant, beast, man) from homogenous masses of matter (minerals) ; the second (b) distinguishes it from monstrosities, and the third (c) produces that organic unity which, assuming the principle of animation, guaran­ tees the capacity to live. All three of these conditions are present in the Eucharistic Body of Christ, even though it lacks external quantity. Even a living organism need not occupy tri-dimensional space simply because it is composed of heterogeneous parts arranged in an orderly manner. Both in reality and notionally the internal disposition of the body precedes its external formation, which is bound to space and extends itself into it. “ There is no confusion here,” says St. Bonaventure, “ because, although the parts are not distinct according to their position in space, they are distinct according to their position in the whole, and consequently there is no confusion because there is position, which is the orderly arrangement of parts in a whole.” 16 14 For the solution of this and other dialectic difficulties see Tepe, Znrt Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 243 sqq. IB Comment i„ Sent., IV, dist. »0, p. I, qu. 4: "Non est ibi con­ fusio, quia etsi fartes non distin- SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION 169 c) The profounclest treatment of the subject is offered by St. Thomas, who traces the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to Transubstantiation, for the reason that a thing must “be” such as it was in “becoming.” How does the Body of Christ become present in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation? The Angelic Doctor answers this question as follows: “Since the substance of Christ’s Body is present on the altar by the power of this Sacrament [/. e. by virtue of the words of consecra­ tion], while its dimensive quantity is there concomi­ tantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimen­ sive quantity of Christ’s body is in this Sacrament not according to its proper manner [i. e. quantitatively, the whole in the whole and the individual parts in individual parts], but after the manner of substance, whose nature is to be whole in the whole, and whole in every part.” ,e Since ex vi verborum only the substance of Christ's Body is present, and not its quantity,17 therefore the Body is present after the manner of a substance and not after the manner of a quantity, and consequently the Body of Christ is present in the Sacred Host unextended and indivisible. Quantity being merely present per concomi­ tantium, must follow the mode of existence peculiar to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without diguantur secundum positionem in loco, distinguuntur tamen secundum positionem in toto, et ideo non est ibi confusio, quia est ibi positio, quae est ordinatio partium in toto." Cfr. Franzelin. De Eucharistia, thes. >e Summa Theol., ja, qu. 76, art. 4, ad 1: "Quia er vi huius sacra­ menti est in altari substantia cor­ poris Christi, quantitas autem dimensiva rinr esi ibi concomitanter sacramento non secundum proprium nodum, sed per modum substantiae. cuius naturo est tota in toto et iota in qualibet parte." it Cfr. Cone. Trident . Se*. ΧΙΠ, 170 THE REAL PRESENCE vision and extension, i. c. entire in the whole Host and entire in each part thereof. In other words, as before the consecration the substance of bread was present in the whole and in all its parts under its own dimensions, so after the consecration there is present vi verborum, in the whole and in all its parts, first, the substance of the Body, and then, per concomifantiam, the full quan­ tity of that Body, but under the foreign dimensions of the species of bread. And since the internal dimensions of Christ's Body are incommensurable with the external di­ mensions of the species, there is no common standard by which they could be measured. While the species occupy space and extend themselves in the three dimensions, the Body of Christ hidden beneath them remains unextended, transcending space and wholly independent of it.18 d) The above explanation quite naturally gives rise to the question: Can the Eucharistic Body of Christ be said to be present in space? The dogmatic teaching of the Church that the Body of Christ is really and truly present in the Sacred Host decides this question in the affirma­ tive. Hence what we have said above on the spirit-like and invisible existence of that Body in the Eucharist, does not touch the Real Presence as such, but merely its mode of existence. Philosophy distinguishes in creatures two modes of presence: (i) the circumscriptive and (2) the de­ finitive. The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is restricted 18 Cfr. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramenle der hath. Kirche, Vol. I, and cd„ { 62 SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION to a defined portion of space in such wise that its various parts also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. From what we have said above it is evi­ dent that Christ’s Body is not circumscriptively present in the Sacred Host. “ Christ’s Body is not in this sacra­ ment circumscriptively,” says St. Thomas, “because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity.” 19 The second mode of presence, that properly belonging to spiritual beings, requires that the substance of a thing exist in its entirety in the whole of the space as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. This is the soul’s mode of presence in the human body. As it also applies to the Eucharistic Body, we may say, as not a few theologians do, that the Body of Christ is definitively present in the Sacred Host. But we should not be per­ mitted to say that Christ’s Body is present only in one place, because, as a matter of fact, it is truly present in Heaven and on thousands of altars. It is in this sense that St. Thomas says that “ Christ’s Body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this Sacrament is performed; whereas it is in Heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.”90 3. Theological Corollaries.—From the peculiar manner in which Christ’s Body is pres­ 10 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. 5, ad ι : " Patet quod corpus Chri- cumscriptive, quia non est ibi fecun­ dum commensurationem propriae quantitatif." 20 5uni»ia Theol., 3a. qu. 76, art. 5. ad 1: " Corpus Christi non est tn hoc sacramento definitive, quia sic non esset alibi quam in hoe altari, ubi conficitur hoc sacramen­ tum, quum tamen sit in coelo in propria specie ei in multis aliis al­ taribus sub specie sacramenti." Cfr. G. Reinhold, Die Lehre son der Srtlichen Cegenurart Christi in der Eucharistie beim H. Thomas von Aquin, Vienna 1893. THE REAL PRESENCE ent in the Eucharist there follow certain interest­ ing and important corollaries, the value of which, on the whole, does not exceed that of theological conclusions. a) In the first place it is certain that the Eucharistic Body cannot be physically injured, not only because, be­ ing glorified, it is impassible, but likewise because of its sacramental mode of existence.21 Intimately connected with this quality is the imperceptibility of the Body. As it lacks actual extension, it does not fall under the senses. Can the human eye in the glorified state be capaci­ tated for a supernatural vision of the Eucharistic Body? This question is answered in the affirmative by Vasquez22 and De Lugo,23 but in the negative by St. Thomas and Suarez.24 “ Christ’s Body,” says the Angelic Doc­ tor, “as it is in this Sacrament, cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s Body are in this Sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s Body have no immediate relation­ ship either to this Sacrament or to adjacent bodies; con­ sequently, they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because . . . Christ’s Body is substantially present in this Sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is what a thing is.” 20 21 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 53. ·«=*· 2· ïïComiihmiî. til Summam Theft., HI, disp. 19«. e· 2· 2B De Eucharistia, disp. 9, sect, a, ”· 20 «Ul· 24 De Eucharistia, disp. 53, sect. 4· 2B Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 76, art. SPECULATIVE DISCUSSION ’73 b) Another theological conclusion of even greater im­ portance, which is held by all Catholic divines with the sole exception of the Nominalist school, is that Christ in the Holy Eucharist is unable to use His limbs or to employ His external senses. The reason is that bodily movement and sense perception presuppose tri-dimensional extension (quantitas in loco s. externa), which the Eucharistic Body lacks. Hence, naturally speaking, Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament can neither see nor hear nor speak, nor move His own Body or those of others. The question has been raised whether, by a new miracle, He could give back to Himself the supernat­ ural use of sight and hearing. There is no intrinsic contradiction in the assumption that God may supply the external causal influence of color and sound or raise the physiological power of Christ’s eyes and ears to a higher potency.28 It is quite another question whether Christ actually exercises such sense functions, ». e., whether He actually sees those who kneel before Him in the Blessed Sacrament and actually hears their prayers. Most theo­ logians deny this. Those few who affirm it are com­ pelled to assume a new miracle.27 Cardinal Cicnfuegos, in a learned treatise entitled Vita Abscondita sub Specie­ bus Velata,28 argues that our Divine Saviour empowers His sacramental Body to see and hear, in order not to be limited to a purely spiritual intercourse with His faithful children but to be able to see and hear them as they ap­ pear before the Sacred Host to adore Him. As this as­ sumption is not impossible and conforms both to the dig20 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. S3· sect. 327 Among them are St Bonaven­ ture. Ysambert, Lessius, Tanner, Franzelin, Dalgairns. Gihr, etc. St. Bonaventure says {Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 10, p. I, qu. z): " Corpus Christi tire Christru