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 (. cj., John XII,
4 sq.; cfr. Matth. XXVI, 8; Luke XXIII, 39; Matth.
XXVII, 44). In the present case, however, we nowhere
discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpreta
tion of the words “ my body,” “ my blood.” I f, then, the
literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record
would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious
error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering
idolatrous homage to mere bread (artolatria'),— a supposi
tion utterly irreconcilable with the character of the four
sacred writers or with the inspiration of the text.
β) This view is confirmed by the important cir
cumstance that one of the four narrators, St.
Paul, has himself interpreted his account literally.
In his First Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle
says the unworthy recipient of the Eucharist is “ guilty
of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” Cfr. 1 Cor.
XI, 27 sqq.: “ Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty
of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord. ... For he
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the
Lord.”4 There could be no question of a grievous
offense against Christ Himself if His true Body and
4 i Cor. XI. 27 sqq·'· " Haque
(ware)
ewicHnque manducaverit
fanem J1Mnc
Domini indigne
...
λ
calicem
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
27
Blood were not really present in the Eucharist. Surely
St. Paul would not have spoken thus of the manna or
the paschal lamb 1
b) The laws of human speech as well as the
appositional phrases used by the sacred writers
in connection with the terms “body” and “blood,”
directly exclude the possibility of a figurative
interpretation.5
a) The necessity of adopting the natural and
literal sense of the words of institution is not, as
our opponents allege, based upon the assump
tion that Christ could not have resorted to the
use of figures of speech in inculcating His doc
trine, but upon the evident requirements of the
case, which demand that He should not, in a
matter of such paramount importance, have re
course to meaningless and deceptive metaphors.
Figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the
figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of
the case (e. g., from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by
saying, “ This is Lincoln ”), or from the usages of
common parlance (as in the case of the synecdoche:
“ This chalice is my blood ”), or at least from some pre
vious agreement (as: “Let us assume that these two
sticks represent Plato and Aristotle”). Now, neither
from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is
bread an apt or a possible symbol of the human body.
corporis et sanguinis Domini. . . .
Qui enim manducat ci bibit indigne,
indicium (κρίμα) sibi manducat et
bibit: non diiudicans (μη διακρίνωμ)
corpus Domini."
0 I". No. a. infra, pp. ja sqq.
28
THE REAL PRESENCE
Were one to say of a piece of bread : “ This is the body
of Cæsar,” he would not be using a figure but simply
utter nonsense. There is but one means of rendering
a symbol, improperly so called, clear and intelligible,
namely, by conventionally settling beforehand what it is
to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say : “ Let us
imagine these two pencils to be Plato and Socrates.”
Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that
He intended to use such a figure, told them rather the
contrary in the discourse containing the promise : “ The
bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the
world.”6 The same applies, servata proportione, to wine
as the symbol of human blood. To say, therefore, that
Christ, by using the words “ This is my Body, this is
my Blood,” merely meant to institute an image or a symbol
of His Body and Blood, is not to say that He spoke
figuratively, but to charge Him with talking nonsense,—
a blasphemous charge. The natural sense of the words of
institution is so clear and compelling that even Luther
wrote to his followers in Strassburg, in 1524: “ I am
caught, I cannot escape, the text is too strong.” 7 When
the God-man declares: “This is my Body,” who but
an unbeliever would venture to contradict Him by say
ing; “ No, it is mere bread ’. ”
β) The literal interpretation of the words of
institution is fairly forced upon us by the signifi
cant appositional phrases used by the sacred
writers in connection with the terms “corpus”
and “sanguis.”
e John VI, 52. See Ari. i,
1 Al'ud De Welle, Π, 577:
" Abtr icl< Mn gefongen, konn niclil
Zj win
.■
eewa,"e
aus demS'v·'
lassen
our dem S,nn reiMC„."
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
29
“Almost every syllable of the original Greek,” as
Clarke points out, “especially the articles, is singularly
emphatic.” " The use of the definite article, and its fre
quent repetition, proves that our Lord desired to employ
every safeguard to prevent His words from being inter
preted metaphorically. If an autograph collector were to
tell me: “ Here I have a codex of St. Thomas, to which
he devoted much care,” I should quite naturally under
stand him to mean a holographic original, not a mere copy.
Moreover, Christ speaks of His Body as “ given for you ”
(το υπέρ υμών διδόμενου) and of His Blood as “ shed for
you (το υπέρ υμών εκχυννόμενον) for the forgiveness of
sins.” Hence the Body given to the Apostles was the
same Body that was crucified on the cross, and the
Chalice contained the same Blood that was shed for our
sins.
c) We arrive at the same conclusion if we
consider the circumstances accompanying the in
stitution of the Eucharist. Those who heard our
Saviour’s words were simple uneducated fisher
men, whereas He was the omniscient God, who
had a particular reason for speaking plainly on
this occasion, because He was communicating
His last will and testament.
a) The Apostles were not possessed of the learned
equipment that would have enabled them to unravel a
dark and mysterious phraseology. They were ignorant
men, from the ranks of the people, who hung upon the
words of their Master with childlike simplicity and un
questioningly accepted whatever He told them. This
e .-Ipud Wiseman, The Real Pretence, p. 267.
3°
THE REAL PRESENCE
childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ.
Can we assume that, after they had been prepared for the
literal promise of the Eucharist, they should have under
stood that promise, when it actually came to be made, in
a sense which would have involved them in the most
absurd misunderstandings and contradictions ? Our Lord,
when He pronounced the words of institution, was on
the eve of His passion and death. It was His last
will and testament He was giving them, and He spoke as
a dying father to His sorrowing children.0 In such a
solemn moment the only appropriate mode of speech was
one which, stripped of tropes and figures, made use of the
simplest words corresponding exactly to the meaning to
be conveyed.
β) It should be remembered also that Christ, being God,
must have foreseen the tragic error into which He would
have led His Apostles and His Church by giving them as
His real Body and Blood something which was merely
bread and wine. The Church has always based her Eu
charistic teaching and practice on the words of her
Divine Founder. If she were in error and the adoration
she shows to the Holy Eucharist were idolatry, the mis
take would have to be laid at the door of our Lord Him
self. Yet we are told that the interpretation of His
words which the Church held from the beginning, was
false, and that it required over a thousand years for the
real meaning to be discovered by Bercngarius (4-1088)
and John Calvin. Are we to assume that heretics and
infidels understood our Lord correctly, while the Church,
who has the promise of His permanent assistance, was and
is egregiously in error?
To this apologetical argument may be added two others
of a more dogmatic character.
0C(r. John XUI, i; XV, i5.
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
(1) The Holy Eucharist is the last will and testament
of our Lord.
As is plain from the words of consecration, Christ
established the “New Testament" (Novum Testamen
tum, ') καινή 3ιαθηκη) in His Blood. Surely, no sane man
would employ unintelligible tropes and figures in drawing
up his last will and testament. Jehovah spoke unequivo
cally when He established the Ancient Covenant : “ This
is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made
with you.” 10 How clearly did not Jacob,1112David,,a
Tobias,13 and Mathathias14 formulate their last will and
testament ! Are we to assume that Jesus Christ, the God
man, was careless in this important matter? With a true
instinct the Roman law prescribes15 that the words of a
will must be taken in their natural and literal sense. It
would be ridiculous to interpret the term “ house ” in the
will of a testator, not of a real edifice, but of a painting.
Christ, according to the literal purport of His testament,
has left us His Body and Blood as a precious legacy; are
we justified in interpreting this as a mere symbol?
(2) The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament. It was the
will of Christ that it should be solemnly celebrated as
such in His Church to the end of time. The Sacraments
of the Old Law, which are so far inferior to those of the
New, were established in unequivocal terms, and there
never was any dispute about their meaning.18 Is it pos
sible to assume that Christ used less care in instituting the
Sacraments of the New Covenant? What would become
of Baptism if it were permissible to interpret the term
10 Ex. XXIV, 8; cfr. Heb. IX,
19 sqq.
11 Gen. XLIX, 29 sqq.
12 3 Kings II, 2 sqq.
is Tob. IV, 3 sqq.
14 i Mach. II, 49 sqq.
is Cfr. Cod. Rom. ff. Z?« Lttat..
ie Cfr. rohle-Preus*. The Satva·
menti, Vol. I., pp.
sqq.
32
THE REAL PRESENCE
"water” in a figurative sense? The Eucharist is no
exception to this rule. A figurative interpretation of the
terms “ Body ” and " Blood ” would contradict the plain
meaning of the words of institution. Rationalists have
tried to disprove this argument by saying that a Sacra
ment is by its very concept a sign or symbol of something
else. This is undeniable. But the Apostles could not
possibly know beforehand that Christ, when He pro
nounced the words of institution, wished to establish a
new Sacrament; they had to conclude it from His words
and actions.17 It was only from His plain and unmis
takable utterance that they learned that He had raised,
not bread and wine as a mere symbol of His Body and
Blood, but His very Body and Blood under the sacra
mental signs of bread and wine, to the rank of a
Sacrament.18
2. Objections to the Literal Interpreta
Answered.
—The defenders of the figurative interpretation
are very much at variance among themselves and
regard the words of institution as a veritable
enigma.
tion of the Words of Institution
Luther ridiculed the so-called Sacramentarians in his
treatise Wider die Schivarmgeister, published at Nurem
berg in 1527. “ Carlstadt,” he said, “ in the sacred text
‘This is my body,’ tortures the little word this; Zwingli
tortures the little word is; Oecolampadius tortures the
little word body. . . . Thus doth the devil brutally fool
17 Cfr. Hcinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmaliiche Théologie, Vol. MC, p.
490, Mayence 1901.
18 For a fuller treatment of this
topic consult Bellarmine, De Euchorutio. 1, 9; N. Gihri Die hl
Sakromenu 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 sect 3, and De Lugo, De
l8p
ιρο
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
Eucharist is wheaten bread. This is theolog
ically certain from the dogmatic Decretum pro
Armenis of Pope Eugene IV, which says: "Ma
teria est panis triticeus et vinum de vite.”4 The
Roman Missal says that “without wheaten bread
there is no conversion of the elements into the
Body and Blood of Christ.” 0
Since the bread required is that made of wheaten flour,
not every kind of flour is allowed, such, e. g., as is ground
from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these
are all classified as grain {frumentum). On the other
hand, the different varieties of wheat (spelt, amcl-corn,
etc.) are valid matter in so far as they can be proved
botanically to be genuine wheat.
The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately
from the words of institution : " The Lord took bread.”
The Greek text says: ϊλα/îe τον άρτον. Now in Scrip
tural usage άρτος, without any qualifying adjective, al
ways signifies wheaten bread.® No doubt, too, that
Christ at the Last Supper adhered to the Jewish custom
of using only wheaten bread in the Passover, and by the
words “ Do this for a commemoration of me,” com
manded its use for all succeeding time.
This view is confirmed by an uninterrupted tradition,
embodied in the writings of the Fathers and the constant
practice of the Church. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen, in comparing the Catholic Church to wheaten
bread, as distinct from the inferior bread ground
from barley, to which they liken the Jewish Synagogue,
4 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698.
» De Defect., 3: "Si fouir non
ail Iriliccur . . .. non conficitur zo-
« Bread made of barley flour ia
called fanie hordaccue, or pdfa.
MATTER AND FORM
»91
plainly indicate that genuine wheaten bread was consid
ered the only valid element of the most sublime mystery
of the Christian religion. St. Irenæus traces the use of
wheaten bread in the Eucharist to an express command
of our Lord and His Apostles.
2. The Question Regarding Unleavened
Bread.—Wheaten bread can be prepared in a
twofold way : either with leaven or yeast, or with
out it. Bread baked with yeast is called leavened
(fermentum, ζνμο*) · bread made of wheaten flour
and water without yeast, unleavened (azyma,
άζυμον').
After the Patriarch Michael Caerularius of
Constantinople had sought to palliate the renewed
rupture of the Greeks with Rome by means of
the controversy concerning the use of unleavened
bread in the Holy Eucharist (A. D. 1053), the
two Churches, in the Decree of Union adopted
at Florence, in 1439, came to the decision that
the question was of no dogmatic importance, but
that the Latin Rite was bound to use unleavened,
while the Greek might continue to use leavened
bread.7 As the validity of leavened bread has
never been questioned, we may confine ourselves
to a defence of the Latin custom of using unleav
ened bread in the Holy Eucharist.
T Cfr. Cone. Flor. : " Diffinimur
. . in atymo sii’e fermentato fane
triticeo corfut Chrieli veraciter con
fici iicerdoteique in altera ifsum
Domini corfui conficere debere.
unumquemque tcil. iuxta tuae eecleriae live occidentalir rive orien
tant comueludinem." (DcazinjerBannwart, n. 69.»).
192
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
a) According to the synoptic gospels,8*the Last Supper
was celebrated “on the first day of the azymes” (eV t#
Ttpiorj] των άζυμων), that is, at the beginning of the period
of seven days during which the Jews partook exclusively
of the so-called massoth as bread.0 Therefore we may
rightly claim that the custom of the Western Church re
ceived its solemn sanction from Christ Himself. This
was pointed out as early as 1054 by Pope Leo IX in his
protest against Michael Caerularius.1011
The schismatic Greeks object that, according to the
Fourth Gospel,” our Divine Saviour celebrated the Last
Supper per anticipationem “ before the festival day of
the pasch.” This is refuted by Estius12 with the re
mark that no doubt He also by anticipation obeyed the
legal prescription regarding unleavened bread, especially
since the Jews were accustomed to do away with all the
leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings on the day
before the fourteenth of Nisan.13
b) Tradition is neither very clear nor uniform on this
subject. Without attempting to settle the ancient dis
pute whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the
Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread,14 or
whether they have observed the present custom ever since
8 Matth. XXVI, 17; Mark XIV,
Ictstc Passahmahl Christi und dcr
12; Luke XXII. 7.
Tag seines Todcs, St. Petersburg
0 Cfr. Ex. XII, 15 sqq.
1892; J. Bclser, Die Ceschichte des
10 See bis letter in Migne, P. L.,
Leidcns und Stcrbcns, dcr Auferste·
CXLI1I, 775hung und Himmclfahrt des Herrn,
11 Cfr. John XIII, 1.
pp. 306 sqq., Freiburg 1903; J.
12 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 8,
Schneid, Dcr Monatslag des Abendmahlcs mid Todcs unscrcs Herrn
§ 8.
1« Cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7.— For a har
Jesus Christus, Ratisbon 1905.
monization of the synoptic Gospels
14 Sirmond, Dollinger, and F. X.
with that of St. John on this point,
Kraus hold that they did; Mabillon
see De Augustinis, De Rc Sacra
Probst, and others maintain that
mentaria, and ed., Vol. 1, p. 631.
unleavened bread was used in the
Rome 1889; Bellarniine, De Sacr.
Western Church from the beginEuchar., IV, 7-9; Chwolson, Das
MATTER AND FORM
193
the time of the Apostles, we merely call attention to the
fact that in the Orient the Armenians and Maronites have
used unleavened bread from time immemorial and that,
according to Origen,,c the people of the East “ some
times ” (therefore not as a rule), made use of leavened
bread in their liturgy. We may also ask how Justin
Martyr10 could have regarded the unleavened bread of
fered by the lepers of the Old Testament as a figure of
the Eucharist, if unleavened bread had not been regarded
as valid matter for Consecration in his time?
c) Besides, there is considerable force in the philosoph
ical argument that the fermenting process with yeast and
other leaven does not affect the substance of the bread,
but merely its quality.” Reasons of congruity can be
urged in favor of either custom, though they are not, of
course, decisive. The Greeks rightly maintain that leav
ened bread is a beautiful symbol of the Hypostatic Union,
— the compénétration of Christ’s humanity with the
Godhead,18
*17—as well as an attractive representation of
15
the savour of this Heavenly Food. Nevertheless St.
Thomas finds the Latin practice more appropriate, first,
because of the example of Christ; secondly, because of
the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a
symbol of His pure Body, free from all corruption, and
thirdly, because of St. Paul’s exhortation to keep the
Pasch “not with the leaven 10 of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” ■’
3. Wine of Grapes as the Second Element.
—The second Eucharistic element required is
15 /n Maith., t. XII, n. 6.
io Dial. c. Tryph., 41.
17 Cfr. Catechismus Romanus, Dr
Eucharistia, qu. 14.
■*Cfr. Pohle-Preuss. Christology,
2nd ed.. p. 237, St. Louio 1916.
-°ir άζΰμοα.
81 i Cor. V. 8.
Î94
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
wine. “Wine” (vinum·, oliw), without any quali
fying addition, has always meant, as it means to
day, wine of the grape (vinum de vite). Hence
are excluded as invalid the juices extracted and
prepared from other fruits (cider, perry, etc.),
as well as all the so-called artificial wines, even
if their chemical constitution should happen to be
identical with the genuine juice of the grape.
Origin and color are, however, indifferent,
though some hold that our Lord Himself employed
red wine. The necessity of wine of grapes for
the validity of the Holy Eucharist has never been
authoritatively defined by the Church, but it is
presupposed by her, e. g., in the decrees of the
Fourth Lateran Council,22 the Council of Flor
ence, 23 and the Council of Trent.24
a) Though the words of institution contain
no direct reference to wine, but merely speak of
the “chalice” (calix, ποτηρων), there can be no
doubt that the chalice blessed by our Lord at the
Last Supper contained genuine wine.
This can be deduced partly from the rite of the Passover, which required the head of the family to pass
around the “ cup of benediction ” (calix benedictionis')
containing wine of grapes, and partly from Christ’s own
express declaration, Matth. XXVI, 29: “I will not
drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine (genimine
22 A. D. 1215. Caput "FirmiItr"
(Denzingcr-Banowart,
n.
43°)·
23 V. No. i, supra.
2« Ses». XIII, cap. 4 (DenzingerBannwart, n. 877).
MATTER AND FORM
195
vitis), until that day when I shall drink it with you new
in the kingdom of my Father.”
There is no need of elaborating the argument from
Tradition, as the Catholic Church has always been at one
in this matter with the Greeks. We need but peruse
the utterances of the Fathers on the Real Presence and
Transubstantiation, as cited in the first part of this
treatise,25 to be convinced that both in the East and in the
West wine of grapes was always considered necessary
for the validity of the Blessed Sacrament. The Hydroparastatae or Aquarians, who used water instead of wine,
were regarded as heretics. Harnack’s contention *· that
the ancient Church was indifferent as to the use of
wine, and more concerned with the action of eating and
drinking than with the elements, is absolutely unfounded.27
b) An ancient ecclesiastical law28 prescribes that a
little water should be added to the wine before the Con
secration. As the rubrics of the Mass forbid the addi
tion of water after the Consecration, this obviously has
nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament. The
rigor with which this law is enforced is attributed by the
Tridentine Council20 to three motives: (1) because
Christ Himself probably added some water to the wine in
celebrating the Last Supper; (2) because blood and
water flowed from His side on the Cross; and (3) be
cause the mingling of water with wine fittingly symbol
izes the intimate union of the faithful with Christ.
The ceremony of adding water to the wine before the
25 V. supra, pp. 55 sqq.
20 Texte und Untersuchungen,
new series. VII, 2 (1891), 115 sqq.
27 Cfr. Funk, Die Abendmahlselemente bei Tustin, Paderborn 1897;
O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der
altkirchhchen Lilcratur, Vol. I. pp.
238, Freiburg 1902; Λ. Scheiwiler,
Die Elemente der Eucharistie in
den ersten drei Jahrhunderten,
Mayence 1903.
28 Cfr. Decretum pro eirmenis·'
" Ante consecrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet." (Denringer-Bannwart. n. 698).
2» Sess. XXII, cap. 7.
196
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
Consecration derives its dogmatic interest solely from the
fact that the Council of Trent enjoins the practice under
pain of anathema.80 This decision may be traced to an
ancient custom, common alike among Greeks, Romans,
and Jews, of mixing water with the strong southern
wines,81—which custom was most probably retained by
our Divine Saviour at the Last Supper, since the paschal
rite expressly prescribed that the wine should be mixed
with one-third water. This also explains the fact that
the ancient Fathers, notably St. Justin Martyr,82* St.
Irenaeus,88 and St. Cyprian,84 speak of the “ calix mix
tus " (ποτηριον κ(κραμίνον), and that the third provincial
Council of Carthage ordained that “ in the Sacrament of
the Body and Blood of the Lord nothing more be offered
than what the Lord Himself handed down, i. e. bread
and wine mixed with water.” 85 The Council in Trullo,
of 692, went so far as to depose certain Armenian bishops
and priests who, following the example of the Monophysites, employed wine without water at the Consecra
tion.
c) The question has been asked: What becomes of
the water added to the wine after the Consecration?
This question, once debated with much ardor, is purely
theoretical. St. Thomas mentions three different opin
ions that were held in his day on the subject.80 The
first is, that “ the water remains by itself when the wine
80 Sess. XII, can. 9: "St quis
dixerit, aquam non miscendam esse
vino in calice offerendo, eo quod «it
contra Christi institutionem, anathe
ma sit." (Dcnzinger-Bannwart, n.
9S6).
81 Cfr. Prov. IX. 12: "Bibite
vinum quod miscui vobis."
•tApol., I, c. 6$.
88 Adv. Haer., V, 2, 3.
8< Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 13 eq.
(cd. Hartel, Π, 710).
as Can. 22: ". . . ut in sacra
mento corporis et sanguinis Domini
nil amplius offeratur quam ipse
Dominus tradidit, h. c. panis et
vinum aquâ mixtum."
88 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 74, art.
MATTER AND FORM
197
is changed into blood.” The second, that "as the wine
is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the
water which flowed from Christ’s side.” The third, that
" the water is changed into wine, and the wine into
blood.” The last-mentioned opinion, which the /Xngelic
Doctor considers “ the more probable,” was favored by
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216).” It is no longer ten
able in so far as it assumes that the water is chemically
changed into wine,38 since modern physics teaches that
the phenomena of osmose and diffusion are not a chemical
but a physical process.30 But there is no objection to
the theory propounded by Cardinal De Lugo40 that the
mixture of wine and water in the chalice is immediately
transformed into the Precious Blood of Christ. This
theory is quite plausible in view of the fact that pure
wine contains no less than ninety per cent, of water.41
37 L. Ill Decret., tit. 41, c. 6:
" Verum inter opiniones praedictas
illa probabilior indicatur, quae as
serit aquam cum vino in sanguinem
transmutari." (Denzinger-Bannwart,
n. 4*6)·
83 Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia,
dissert. 3, art. 4.
3» Cfr. L. Dresse), S. J., Lehr-
buck der Physik, Vol. I, 3rd ed..
pp. 149 sqq., 413 sqq.. Freiburg
1905.
so De Eucharistia, disp. 4, sect.
3-441 On the congruity of the two Eu
charistic elements cfr. Oswald, Die
hl. Sakramente der hath. Kirche,
SECTION 2
THE SACRAMENTAL FORM, OR THE WORDS OF
CONSECRATION
There is no reason to assume that Christ at the Last
Supper consecrated by an act of His will without the use
of words. But even if this could be proved, it would not
alter the fact that His human ministers convert bread
and wine into His Flesh and Blood by pronouncing the
words of institution : “ This is my Body, . . . this is
my Blood.” This fact settles the question as to the sacra
mental form of the Holy Eucharist.
There remains, however, another question of consid
erable importance, viz.: whether the priest consecrates
solely by virtue of the words of institution, or also by
means of the so-called Epiklesis, which occurs in the
Oriental liturgies shortly after the words of institution
and expresses a petition to the Holy Spirit, “ that the
bread and wine may be converted into the Body and
Blood of Christ.”
Thesis I: Christ did not consecrate by a mere in
articulate act of His omnipotent will, but by pronounc
ing the words, “ This is my Body, . . . this is my
Blood.”
This proposition may be qualified as sententia
certa.
Proof. The question at issue is not: Could
198
MATTER AND FORM
>99
Christ, had He so willed, have consecrated by a
mere “blessing,” 1 without the use of words? but:
Did He actually consecrate by pronouncing the
words of institution ?
The Council of Trent defines:
. after [not by
or through] the blessing of the bread and wine, He testi
fied in express and clear words that He gave them His
own very Body and His own Blood; words which, re
corded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated
by St. Paul. ...”2 Though the Council in this declara
tion does not clearly enunciate the proposition contained
in our thesis, yet it is perfectly clear that the Fathers of
Trent believed that Christ consecrated by pronouncing
the words of institution.
a) We know from the Gospel that, in institut
ing the Blessed Sacrament, our Divine Lord em
ployed the words, “This is my Body, . . . this
is my Blood.” In adding the command, “Do
this for a commemoration of me,” He plainly
wished to say: Do as you have seen and heard
me do. Consequently, He Himself consecrated
by pronouncing the words, “This is my Body,
. . . this is my Blood.”
If the words of institution were purely a declaration that
the conversion had taken place in the benediction, unan
nounced and unexpressed, the Apostles and their succes1 Benedixit, ιύλογήσα!·
2 Sess. XIII. cap. i: "Post
panis unique benedictionem se suum
ipsius corpus illis praebere ac suum
sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis ver
bis testatus est, quae verba a sanctis
Evangelistis commemorata et a Jiva
Paulo repetita. . .
(DenxingcrBannwart, n. 874).
200
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
sors would, according to Christ’s example and man
date, have been obliged to consecrate in this mute man
ner also, a consequence which is inadmissible (v. Thesis
II).
b) Whatever may be thought of the cogency of the
above interpretation, there can be no doubt that it was
defended by some of the early Fathers and ecclesiastical
writers. Thus Tertullian says : “ Christ converted the
bread which He had taken and distributed to His dis
ciples, into His own Body by saying: ‘This is my
Body.’”3 Similarly the pseudo-Ambrose, whose writ
ings are probably a transcript of sermons delivered by
St. Ambrose in the Cathedral of Milan. “ The speech
of Christ,” he says, “ effected this Sacrament.”4 St.
Chrysostom writes: “As the words which God [Christ]
pronounced are the same as those which the priest utters
to-day, so, too, the sacrifice is exactly the same.”5
The Scholastic view of the matter is expressed thus
by Suarez : “ Christ consecrated by pronouncing the
words just quoted, as they are reported by the Evangel
ists. This in my opinion is so certain that it would be
temerarious to defend the contrary; it is the common
opinion of theologians, including St. Thomas and Peter
Lombard.” 0
Pope Innocent III, before his elevation to the pontifi
3 Contra. Marcionem, IV, 40:
" Acceptum panem et distributum
discipulis [Christus] corpus suum
fecit ‘ hoc est corpus meum ' di·
sacramentum, iam non suis sermoni
bus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur ser
monibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi
hoc conficit sacramentum."
6 Hom. in 2 Tim., 2 sub finem.
< De Sacram., IV, 4 (Migne,
Other Patristic texts under Thesis
P. L., XVI, 440): “ Quomodo pot
II, infra.
est qui panis est, corpus esse
0 De Eucharistia, disp. 58, sect. 1,
Christi? Consecratione.
Consecra n. 4: "Dicendum est Christum
tione autem guibus Verbis est, cuius
consecrasse praedictis verbis semel
termonibus?
Domini lesu. . . .
prolatis, prout ab Bvangelistis refe
Ubi venitur, ut conficiatur venerabile
runtur. Haec ita certa est meo iu-
MATTER AND FORM
201
cate, held the opinion which Suarez, in common with
most later theologians, branded as " temerarious,” viz.:
that Christ consecrated without words by means of a
mere “ benediction.” 7 Not many theologians, however,
followed him in this view, among the few being Am
brosius Catharinus,8 Cheffontaines," and L. A. Hoppe.10
By far the greater number preferred to stand by the
testimony of the Fathers. Restricted to the Divine
Author of the Blessed Sacrament the view of Innocent
III11 can at most be said to be temerarious. Ambrosius
Catharinus and ChefFontaines went farther. They main
tained that in the Mass the Consecration is not effected
by the words of institution, which are merely declara
tory, but through the instrumentality of other prayers.
This view, though a logical deduction from the one previ
ously quoted, is untenable, as we shall show in our next
thesis.
Thesis II :
By the articulate utterance, on the part
of the priest, of the words of institution : “ This is my
Body, . . . this is my Blood,” Christ becomes imme
diately present on the altar.
This proposition is fidci proxima.
Proof. Passing for the present over the ques
dicio, ni contraria non potsil absque
temeritate defendi; est communis
theologorum cum D. Thoma (S.
Theo!., ja, qu. 78, art. 1) et
Magistro."
7 De S. Altaris Myst., IV, 6:
" S’eue dici potest quod Christus divirtute confecit et postea for
mam expressit, sub quo posteri
benedicerent ; ipse namque per se
ex illa virtute, quam indidit ver-
s Quibus Verbis Christus Eucha
ristiae Sacramentum Confecerit,
*55».
0 Varii Tract., I, t Sqq., 1586.
*o Die Epiklesis der griechischen
und orientalischen Liturgie, Schaff
hausen r86q.
11 This view was also defended
by Huguccio (d. mo). Praepoai·
tinus (about rroo), Odo of Cambray
(d. m3), Stephen of Autun (d.
«IJ9) el al.
202
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
tion whether or not the words of institution con
stitute the sole form of the Sacrament,12*we have
here merely to prove that the words “This is my
Body, . . . this is my Blood,” are truly words
of Consecration, and therefore belong to the sac
ramental form of the Eucharist.
The dogmatic teaching of the Church on this head may
be deduced from the following declaration of the Coun
cil of Trent: “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.” 18 The phrase “ by the force
of the words” {ex vi verborum) plainly points to a two
fold group of words,— the one referring to “ the Body
under the species of bread,” the other, to “ the Blood
under the species of wine.” Both groups are embodied
in the words of institution : “ This is my Body, . . .
this is my Blood.” Consequently, it is the teaching of
the Tridentine Council that the words of institution con
stitute the form of Consecration and that they are at
least the partial form of the Sacrament.
The schismatic Greek Church refuses to accept this
teaching. It holds that the priest does not consecrate by
virtue of the words of institution, but by means of the
12 V. Thesis III, infra.
ia Sess. ΧΠ1, cap. 3: "Semper
haec Udes in Ecclesia Dei fuit, staconsecrationem verum
Iri corpus verumque eius
sanguinem sub panis et vini specie
«na cum ipsius anima et divinitate
existere; sed corpus quidem sub spe
cie panis et sanguinem sub vini specie
ex vi verborum." (Denzingcr-Bannwart, n. 876).
MATTER AND FORM
203
Epiklesis. In taking this attitude the Greeks not only
contradict the Council of Trent, but likewise the dogmatic
Decretum pro Ar menis of Eugene IV, promulgated at
the Council of Florence, which says : “ The form of this
Sacrament are the words of the Saviour, by means of
which He effects this Sacrament ; for the priest, speaking
in the person of Christ, effects this Sacrament.” 14 This
was the common doctrine of both Churches until Peter
Mogilas in his famous "Confessio Fidei Orthodoxa”
(A. D. 1642),1516declared that the words of institution
possess no intrinsic consecratory force. Mogilas was fol
lowed, in 1672, by the Council of Jerusalem and, ulti
mately, by the entire schismatic Church.
The late Dr. H. Schell tried to reconcile the teaching
of the schismatic Greeks with that of the Latin Church
by arguing that the priest who says Mass according to the
Roman rite consecrates by virtue of the words of insti
tution, while the priest who offers up the Holy Sacrifice
according to the Greek rite consecrates by virtue of the
F.piklesis, except among the Uniates, where the intention
of consecrating by virtue of the words of Christ is pre
scribed.10 However, this view is untenable.
a) For the argument from Holy Scripture we
refer the reader to Thesis I, supra.
The teaching of Tradition may be gathered
from the writings of the Fathers and the practice
14 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698:
" Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba
Salvatoris, quibus hoc conticii sa
cramentum; sacerdos enim in per
sona Christi loguens hoc conficit sa
cramentum."
16 Qu. 107. Cfr. Kimmel. Monum.
Fidei Eccles. Orient., I, p. 180,
Jena 1850; Michalcescu. Die Bekenntnisse und wichtigsten Glaubensseugnisse der griechisch-orient.
Kirche, p. 73, Leipzig 1904.
10 Schell, Kath. Dogmalih, Vol.
III. a, pp. 539 sqq.
204
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
of the Church. As we are arguing against the
Greek schismatics, we shall confine ourselves to
the Greek Fathers and liturgies.
a) The Greeks can be shown the error of their present
teaching from their own writings. They themselves for
merly placed the form of the Blessed Sacrament in the
words of institution. St. Justin Martyr (A. D. 150)
says : “ We take this, not as common bread and com
mon drink, but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made flesh
through the Divine Logos [in the sense of ‘ Ovcrshadower of the virgin ’] had flesh and blood for the
sake of our redemption, thus we have been instructed
that the meat blessed by the word of prayer coming from
Him (δι1 ίΰχτ)ς λόγου τοΰ παρ’ αύτοϋ), by which our flesh
and blood are nourished through conversion, is the Flesh
and Blood of that same Incarnate Jesus. For the Apos
tles have handed it down in their memoirs, which are
called Gospels, that they were instructed as follows:
That Christ took bread, gave thanks, and said : ' Do this
for a commemoration of me, this is my Body ’ ; and that
in a similar manner He took the cup, gave thanks, and
said : ‘ This is my Blood,’ giving them all to partake
thereof.” 17
St. Irenæus of Lyons (born about 140) speaks of an
“ invocation of God ” over the bread,18 but he identifies
this “ Epiklesis ” with the “ word of God,” saying that
“ the chalice and the bread receive the word of God.” 10
The only “ word of God ” occurring in the Gospel in con
nection with the institution of the Eucharist is that
ilApol.. I, 66 (Migne, P. C., VI,
426).
18 Adv. Hacr., IV. 18, 5: τήμ
{■κΙκΚησιν τον Oeoû.
” Of. cil., V. 2. 3:
τον λόγον τού Otoû.
ίπ<«χ£ται
MATTER AND FORM
205
pronounced by Christ, whereas the Epiklesis of the
Greek Church is a purely ecclesiastical institution.
St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches: “This bread, as the
Apostle says, is sanctified by the word of God and the
prayer, converting itself into the Body of the Logos not
by eating and drinking, but passing in one moment into
the Body of the Logos, as it was spoken by the Logos
Himself : ' This is my Body.’ ”20
A weighty witness is St. Chrysostom, in whose liturgy
the Epiklesis plays an important rôle. He says : “ It is
no [mere] man who causes the [bread and wine] to be
changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ
Himself, who was crucified for us. Taking the part of
Christ, the priest stands there, pronouncing those words ;
but it is the power and grace of God. ‘ This is my
Body,’ he declares. This word converts that which lies
before him (τούτο το ρήμα μεταρρυθμίζει τα προκάμένα ).
And as the command, ‘ Increase and multiply and fill the
earth’ was uttered but once, communicating permanent
fertility to the human race, so, too, this word [of Christ],
spoken but once, causes the perfect victim [to be present]
upon all the altars of the churches from thenceforth to
the present, and until the last day.”21
St. John Damascene writes : “ As God by the exclama
tion ‘ Let there be light ! ’ created the light, so He effects
this mystery by the words, * This is my Body.’ ”22
β) The Greek Cardinal Bessarion,23 at the Council of
Florence (i439)> called the attention of his fellow-coun
trymen to the fact that in the ancient liturgies of SS.
20 Or. Colech., c. 37 (Migne,
P. G., XLV, 94).
21 Hom. de Prod. ludac, I, n. 6
(Migne. P. G., LIX, 380).
22 De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne,
P. G., XCIV, 1147). These Patris
tic texts are differently explained by
Rauschen, Eucharijt and Penance in
the Firrl Sir Centurier of the
Church, pp. tij sqq., St. Louis 191323
Bibl. Pair.. Vol. XXVI, p.
79$.
2o6
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
Basil and Chrysostom supreme adoration and homage
are given to the Holy Eucharist as soon as the words of
institution have been pronounced, whence it follows that
the Consecration is effected by those words. By way of
example we will cite the Ethiopian liturgy.
Celebrant (with outstretched hands) : " And in that night
in which He was betrayed, He took the bread, . . . gave it to
His disciples, saying: ‘Eat ye all thereof, this bread is my
Body, which was broken for you unto the forgiveness of sins.
Amen.”
The People (thrice): “Amen. We believe and are sure of
it We praise Thee, O Lord, our God, this is truly, we believe
it, Thy Body.”
Celebrant : “ In a similar manner He took the chalice. . .
and said to them: ‘Take and drink ye all of it, this is the
chalice of my Blood, which is shed for you unto the salvation
of many. Amen.”
The People: “Amen. It is truly Thy Blood, we believe.”2*
Then follows the famous Epiklesis, which runs as
follows :
“We beseech Thee, O Lord, and we pray, that Thou send
down the Holy Spirit and His power upon this bread and this
chalice, and convert them into the Body and Blood of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, from eternity to eternity. Amen.”
b) It remains to discuss the intention of the
consecrating priest and to determine exactly in
what words the form of Consecration consists.
a) How can the mere recitation of the words of in
stitution, taken from the narrative of the Last Supper,
possess consecratory force? If the celebrant of the
Mass were to say : “ Let this be my Body,” the intention
to consecrate would be clearly enunciated. It is for this
reason that the Greeks insist on the use of a deprecative
HApud Rcnaudot. Lit. Orient., Vol. I, p. Si7.
Aft
MATTER AND FORM
207
formula, like the one contained in the Epiklesis. There
can be no question that, in order to convert bread and
wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the priest must
have the intention to consecrate. There would be no
Consecration if, in repeating the words of institution,
he merely intended to relate an historical event. He
must pronounce them, therefore, with the practical pur
pose of effecting the conversion ; nor is it indifferent which
words he employs. The effect will depend on his em
ploying those words which Christ has instituted as the
sacramental form, and which He Himself employed in
consecrating, i. e. the words of institution. Hence if
the priest, in celebrating Mass, says : “ This is my
Body,” he speaks and acts not in his own name and per
son, but “ in the Person of Christ,” as His minister, and
as an instrument of the Divine Omnipotence.25
Scotus 20 demands for the validity of the Consecration
the recitation of the words " Qui pridie quam pateretur,"
which precede the formula of Consecration in the Canon.
He says, if these words were omitted, it would not be ap
parent whether the priest were speaking in his own name
or in that of Christ. We cannot share this view. For,
in the first place, the words in question are purely his
torical and narrative, and, secondly, according to the gen
eral principles regarding the intention of the minister (as
explained in a previous volume of this series),22 the
validity of the entire Eucharistic act in its last analysis
depends on the internal intention of the priest to conse
crate with the words of Christ, which intention might well
be present even if the words demanded by Scotus were
omitted.28
as Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra
menti. Vol. I. pp. 146 *43980 " Quoniam ab omnibus sanctis
doctoribus Ecclesiae, prasertim ab il
lo B. loanne Chrysostomo, qui nobis
notissimus est, audimus verba
Dominica esse ilia quae mulanl et
transsubstan liant panem et vinum
tn corpus verum Christi et sangui
nem, et quod illa verba divina Salva
toris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent, nos ipsum sanctis
simum doctorem et illius sententiam
sequimur de necessitate," (Migne,
P- C„ CLXI, 49O. On the teach
ing of St. Chrysostom v. supra, p.
ao$.
<0 H. Schell, Kath. Dogmatill, Vol.
HI, ι, p. S4i,.
MATTER AND FORM
213
shown itself so considerate in meeting the demands of
the Greek Church, based its decision in regard to the
Epiklesis on the firm conviction that the words of insti
tution alone effect the Consecration, and consequently
constitute the sole form of the Eucharist.*’
b) The dogmatic aspects of the Epiklesis, its
peculiar position in the Oriental rite, and its ven
erable antiquity, have given rise to a vast litera
ture, which has not, however, led to a definitive
conclusion.
The Epiklesis would offer no theological difficulties if
it preceded instead of following the words of institution
in the Canon of the Mass. In that case, like the analo
gous invocation of the Roman Missal, it would clearly be
nothing but the expression, in the form of a prayer, of
the priest’s intention of converting the bread and wine
into the Body and Blood of Christ. In matter of fact,
however, the Epiklesis in all the Oriental liturgies,—
with the exception of the Syriac liturgy of Addai and
Mari, which entirely omits it,— invariably follows the
words of institution.*2 This gives rise to the question
how the Epiklesis may be made to harmonize with the
words of Christ, which alone possess consecratory power.
Two explanations have been suggested.
a) The first considers the Epiklesis to be a mere
declaration of the fact that the conversion has taken
place, or that in the conversion an essential part is to be
41 On the attitude of the Ar
menians see Hcfele, Conciliengeachichtc. Vol. II, and ed., p. 656
sqq., Freiburg 1890. On the whole
subject-matter of this section, cfr.
Franzelin. Dr SS. E-charittia. then
42 Of the occidental liturgies only
the so-called Mozarabic has the Epi
klesis following the words of in
stitution.
214
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
attributed to the Holy Spirit as co-Consecrator, just as
in the mystery of the Incarnation.43 According to
this theory the Epiklesis possesses only a declarative
value, dramatically recalling an historic event to the
imagination, but nevertheless refers to the Consecration
as such.44 The priest, at the moment of the Consecra
tion, cannot actually express all the thoughts that move
the heart of the Church. Therefore, lest the important
part of the Holy Ghost in the act of the Consecration be
passed over in silence, he goes back in imagination to
the precious moment and speaks and acts as if the Con
secration were just about to occur. Thus in the Epikle
sis liturgical art conspires with psychology to draw out,
as it were, the brief but pregnant moment of the Con
secration into a series of vivid dramatic acts. The
Epiklesis, therefore, bears the same relation to the Con
secration as the periphery of a circle to its centre.45 A
similar purely retrospective transfer is met with in other
portions of the liturgy, as in the Mass for the dead,
when the Church prays for the departed as if they
were still capable of being rescued from the gates of
hell.40
/3) A second explanation refers the Epiklesis, not to
the enacted Consecration, but to the approaching Com
munion, inasmuch as the latter, being the means of unit
ing us more closely in the organized body of the Church,
makes us members of the mystical Christ. The invoca43 On the analogy between the
Eucharist and the Incarnation see
Lessius, De Perfect, iloribusquc Di
vinis, XI, i6, 129.
44 This is denied by Bellarmine,
Suarez, De Lugo, Simar, and oth45 Cfr. Card. Bessarion's declara
tion (Migne, P. G., CLXI, 5i7):
“ Oportet haec aliaque huiiismodi
non tamquam in tempore, in quo di
cuntur, sed tamquam in tempore, pro
quo dicuntur, ita intelligere, ac si
tempus illud maneret minimeque de
flueret."
.
MATTER AND FORM
2’5
tion of the Holy Spirit has for its object, not to produce
the sacramental Christ by Transubstantiation, but by.a
sort of spiritual transformation wrought in holy Com
munion, to fructify the Body and Blood of Christ for
the benefit of priest and people, as we read in the Roman
Canon of the Mass: " Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat
dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri lesii Christi.” ,T It
was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks them
selves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at the
Council of Florence.48
Since, however, much more is contained in the plain
words of the Epiklesis than this mysticism, it is desirable
to combine both explanations into one.
Critical Appreciation of the Two Theories.— Both
liturgically and in point of time the Epiklesis stands as
a significant connecting link between the Consecration
and Communion. In its relation to the Consecration,
it is an attempt to bring time to a standstill, as
it were, to fix the precious moment in the imagination,
and to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit as
co-Consecrator. In its relation to Communion, it is a
petition to the Holy Ghost to obtain the realization of
the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by
their fruitful effects in the souls of priest and people.
Here we have the mystical, there the real Christ; —
these are the two underlying ideas of the Epiklesis,
eages in ancient liturgies see Heinrich-Gutbcriet, op. cit., pp. 729 sqq.
<8 Asked for their opinion, they
declared in the twenty-fifth session:
" Fateri not dirimus, per haec verba
[scil. hoc est corpus meum] transsubslantiari sacrum panem el fieri
corpus Christi; sed postea, quem
admodum et ipsi [Latini] dicitis:
■ lube haec perferri per manus
sancti angeli tui in sublime altare
tuum ‘ (this prayer, however, is
hardly an Epiklesis), ita nos quoque
oramus dicentes: ' ut Spiritus S. de
scendat super nos et efficiat in nobis
panem hunc pretiosum corpus Christi
tui, et quod in calice isto est, pre
tiosum sanguinem Christi tui trans·
mutetque ipsa Spiritu S. suo, ut fiant
communicantibus in purgationem
animae," etc.
2i6
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
which may therefore be defined as “ the ritual develop
ment of the content of the Holy Eucharist, both in re
spect of faith and grace, with particular reference to the
Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Him as coConsecrator and Dispenser of all graces, and for the
spiritual benefit of priest and people.” 40
Readings : — The general treatises mentioned supra, pp. 7 sq.—
♦V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, 2nd revised and
enlarged edition by L. Eisenhofcr, 2 vols., Freiburg 1912.—
Hilarius a Sexten, O. Cap., Tractatus Pastoralis de Sacra
mentis, Mayence 1895.—*P. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de
SS. Eucharistia, Paris 1897.— J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der
Pastoralthcologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1904.— G. Rauschen,
Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church,
St. Louis 1913.— A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained,
PP· Ι/S sqq., 3rd cd., London 1905.
Giese, Erorterung der Strcitfrage Uber den Gebrauch der
Azymen, Munster 1852.— Funk, "Die Abcndmahlslehre bei
Justin," in Kirchcngeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 278 sqq., Paderborn 1897.—*A. Seheiwiler,
Die Elenicnte der Eucharistie in den ersten drci Jahrhunderten,
Mayence 1903.
I. A. Orsi, Dissertatio de Invocatione S. Spiritus in Liturgiis
Graecis et Orientalibus, Milan 1731.— C. Henke, Die kath. Lehre
iibcr die Konsckrationsworte, Treves 1850.—*Hoppe Die Epiklesis
der griechischcn und oricntalischen Liturgie, Schaffhausen 1864.
— J. Th. Franz, Der eucharistische Konsekrationsmoment, Würz
burg 1875.— Idem, Die eucharistische IPandlung and die Epiklese
4» Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch
der kath. Dogmalik, Vol. IV, 2, p.
6>9, Freiburg
1901.— See also
Schceben, " Studien iibcr den Messkanon," in the Katholik, of May
ence, 1866, 2, pp. 526 sqq., 679
sqq.; Idem, Die Mysterien des
Christentums, 3rd cd., pp. 449 sqq.,
Freiburg 1912; E. Lingens, S. J.,
" Die eucharistische Konsckrations-
formel," in the Innsbruck Zeit
schrift filr kath. Théologie, 1896,
PP· 745 sqq.; 1897, pp. 61 sqq.; G.
Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in
the First Six Centuries of the
Church, pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis
>913; G. Scmeria, The Eucharistic
Liturgy in the Roman Rite, its
History and Symbolism, tr. by
Berry, pp. 157 sqq.. New York 19H.
MATTER AND FORM
217
iler griechischen und orientalischen Liturgien, Würzburg r88o.
— Watterich, Der Konsekrationsmoment im hl. Abendmahlc.
Heidelberg 1896.— A. Fortescue, art. "Epiklesis" in Vol. V of
the Catholic Encyclopedia.
A. M. Lepicier, Tractatus de SS. Eucharistia. Pars I: De Eucha
ristia ut est Sacramentum, Paris 1916.
CHAPTER II
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
The only solemn definition regarding the sacra
mental effects of the Holy Eucharist is Canon 5,
Session XIII, of the Tridentine Council, directed
against Luther and Calvin. It runs as follows:
“If anyone saith that the principal fruit of the
most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or
that other effects do not result therefrom, let him
be anathema.” 1
This definition leaves no doubt that the Holy
Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living; but it does
not tell us precisely what are its effects. These
are, however, briefly indicated in Sess. XIII, cap.
2, of the same Council,2 and in Eugene IV’s fa
mous Decretum pro Armenis.3 A careful con
sideration of these indications enables us to group
the effects of the Holy Eucharist around two cen
tral ideas, viz.: (1) Union with Christ by love,
and (2) the spiritual nourishment of the soul.
As a means of uniting the soul with Christ,
1 Sees. XIII, can. 5: "Si quit
dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum SS.
Eucharistiae esse remissionem pcc-
provenire, anathenra sit." (Denzin
ger-Bannwart, n. 887).
2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875·
3 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698.
218
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
Holy Communion both sanctifies and heals. As
a food, it produces in the soul effects similar to
those produced by material food in the body.
SECTION i
FIRST AND PRINCIPAL EFFECT: UNION OF THE
SOUL WITH CHRIST BY LOVE
The first and principal effect of the Holy
Eucharist is union of the soul with Christ by
love.1
As the sacramental union with Christ which results from
the bodily consumption of the Sacred Host is an applica
tion rather than an effect of the Sacrament, the principal
effect must be sought in the spiritual and mystical union
of the soul with Jesus through the theological virtue of
love, which is kindled, nourished, and consummated by
physical contact with the Sacred Body of the Lord, ex
opere operato. The Holy Eucharist is “ the Sacrament
of Love ” par excellence.
a) Christ Himself describes Holy Communion
as a union of love resembling the Trinitarian
Perichoresis.2 Cfr. John VI, 57 sq.: “He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth
in me, and I in Him. ... He that eateth me,
the same also shall live by me.”
The Fathers speak of this mysterious process as a
unification, a marvellous blending of the soul with the
1 " sldunah'o
ad
Chriilum."
{Deer, pro Armenis, 1439; Denzinger-Banuwart, n. 698).
2 Cfr. Pohlc-Prcuss, The Divine
Trinity, pp. 281 sqq., and cd.. St.
Louis 1915.
220
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
221
essence of the God-man.8 It consists neither in a natural
synthesis analogous to that between soul and body, nor
in a hypostatic union of the soul with the person of the
Divine Logos, nor finally in a pantheistic deification of
the communicant, but simply in a moral union which lies
between the beatific vision, of which it is the exemplar
and guarantee, and the earthly union effected by sancti
fying grace. Being a theandric effect produced by
physical contact with the glorified humanity of the Word,
this Eucharistic union,— rightly called communio,4— is
far more intimate and profound than that effected in
visibly by the Holy Ghost or by the reception of the
other Sacraments.®
b) This Eucharistic union of the soul with
Christ forms the bond of charity existing between
the faithful and constitutes them the “mystical
Body” of Christ.0
St. Paul says : “ For we, being many, are one bread,
one body, all that partake of one bread.”T That is to
say, as the individual soul becomes one with Christ
through Holy Communion, so all who partake of Christ
in the Blessed Sacrament are made one. It is in this
sense that St. Augustine writes: “Our Lord Christ
. . . consecrated the mystery of our peace and union in
His table. Whoever receives the mystery of union and
does not keep the bond of peace, does not receive the
mystery for himself, but a testimony against himself.”8
s St. Cyril of Alex., In loo., IV,
4 K supra, p. a.
6 For a subtle discussion of this
topic sec Suarez, Dr Eucharistia,
disp. 64, sect. 3; cfr. also Heimbuchcr, Dir Wirkunscn dcr hl.
/Communion, J 4 sqq.. Ratisbon
1884.
» Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sesa. XIII.
cap. 1 and 2.
’ i Cor. X. ty.
8 Strut. 273 ad Infant. : " Domi·
nut Chritlus . . . njiliutn ftfi
SECTION 2
SECOND effect: increase OF SANCTIFYING
GRACE
Since Holy Communion is both a union of the
soul with Christ and a spiritual nourishment,
it follows: (i) that the Eucharist is not a Sac
rament of the living, and consequently does not
cause, but presupposes, the state of grace in the
recipient; (2) that it merely increases sanctify
ing grace.
It is as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal
sin to receive this heavenly Food with profit, as it would
be for a corpse to assimilate natural food and drink.
This is an article of faith. As we have seen,0 the Coun
cil of Trent, in opposition to Luther and Calvin, expressly
defined that the principal fruit of the Holy Eucharist
is not the remission of sins. It further says: “ [Our
Saviour] would also that this Sacrament should be re
ceived as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be
fed and strengthened those who live with His life who
said : * He that eateth Me, the same shall live by
et unitatis nostrae in rua mensa
consecravit. Qui accipit mysterium
unitatis et non tenet vinculum
pacis, non accipit mysterium pro
se, sed testimonium contra se."—
Cfr. on this subject Alb. a Bulsano,
Jnstit. Thcol. Dogmat., ed. Gott
fried a Graun, Vol. II, pp. 70s
sqq., Innsbruck 1894; Ileinrich-Gutberlct, Dogmat. Théologie, Vol. IX,
PP· 739 sqq·: A. Rademacher, Die
übernalürliche Lebensordnung nach
der paulinischen und johanneischcn
Théologie, pp. 230 sqq., Freiburg
1903.
222
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
Me.’ ”10
arately.
223
We will consider each of these truths sep
a) That Holy Communion does not establish
sanctifying grace in the soul is clear from the
fact that St. Paul demands a rigorous self-exam
ination in order to avoid the heinous offence of
being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord
by “eating and drinking unworthily.” 11
a) It is true that in instituting the Holy Eucharist
Christ said of the Chalice : “ This is my blood of the
new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remis
sion of sins.”12 But in speaking thus, He evidently had
in view an effect of the Sacrifice, not of the Sacrament ;
for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto
remission of sins, but shed for that purpose.
The Fathers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr,13 never
ceased to admonish the faithful that a clear conscience is a
necessary requisite of worthy Communion. Thus St.
John Chrysostom says : “ We must always be on our
guard ; for no small punishment awaits those who com
municate unworthily. Remember how indignant thou
art against the betrayer of Jesus and against those who
crucified Him. Beware, therefore, lest thou become guilty
of His Body and Blood. They killed His most sacred
Body, thou receivest Him, in spite of so many benefits,
with a guilt-stained soul.”13 St. Augustine insists that
no one should approach the Holy Table except he be
lOSess. XIII. cap. 2: "Sumi
autem voluit sacramentum hoc tam
quam spiritualem animarum cibum,
quo alantur et confortentur viventes
vilâ illius, qui dixit: Qui manducat
me, et ipse vivet propter me."
11 I Cor. XI. 37 «iq.
1» Matth. XXVI. 28.
1S Apol., I, n. 66.
14 Hom, in Mallii., 8s, n. $.
224
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
free from mortal sin. This was the guiding principle
of the ancient penitential discipline. St. Cyprian, in his
somewhat extravagant zeal for the rigorism of the prim
itive Church, bitterly deplores the “ laxity ” by which
sinners were permitted in his day to approach the Holy
Table without a long and severe penance.15
β) Theologians are wont to discuss the question
whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist, like Baptism,
Confirmation, and Holy Orders, is capable of regaining
its effects after it has been sacrilegiously received.10 We
may distinguish two cases, (i) A person who has con
fessed his sins in good faith, but without the necessary
contrition, approaches the Holy Table in the state of
mortal sin and, unconscious of the condition of his soul,
imagines he receives worthily, whereas in reality he is
excused from the crime of sacrilege only by his igno
rance. Can such a one regain the fruits of his Com
munion later by an act of perfect contrition or a valid
confession? (2) A person consciously goes to Com
munion in the state of mortal sin and thus adds a new sin
to those he has already committed. Can such a sacri
legious Communion work its effects after the restoration
of the soul’s proper moral condition has been effected?
Suarez,17 De Lugo,18 and theologians generally answer
both questions in the negative, on the ground that the
Eucharist differs in this respect from the Sacraments
which imprint a character upon the soul, first, because it
>6 Cfr. St. Augustine, Tract, in
loa., 36, n. 11: " Innocentiam ad
altare apportare."— St. Cyprian, Ep.
10 ad Presb.: " Nondum poenitentia
actâ, nondum exomologesi facta,
nondum manu cius ab episcopo et
clero impositi Eucharistia illis da
tur."— Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol.
IV. PP- 277 sqq·. Paris 1899.
ιβ On “ reviviscence " see Pohle·
Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp.
’S6 sqq., 193 sqq.
17 De Eucharistia, disp. 63, sect.
8.
18 De Sacramentis in Genera,
disp. 9, sect. 6, n. 107 sqq.
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
225
can be received repeatedly, and second, because it is not
strictly necessary for salvation. It would, they say, be
repugnant to assume that a man who has communicated
unworthily throughout life, should be able by a good
confession on his deathbed to obtain the fruits of all his
sacrilegious Communions.
What if a communicant approaching the Holy Table
sacrilegiously were to make an act of perfect contrition
before the sacred species became chemically dissolved?
According to the probable opinion of many theologians,
the Holy Eucharist works its effects successively, not
instantaneously, and hence it seems reasonable to assume
that in such a case the Sacrament begins to take effect
as soon as the obex gratiae is removed by perfect contri
tion.10
b) Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament
of the living, its effect can consist in nothing else
than an increase of sanctifying grace (justificatio
secunda). This is expressly defined in the De
cretum pro Armenis: “And because man by
grace is incorporated with Christ and united with
His members, it follows that grace is augmented
in those who receive this Sacrament [of the
Eucharist] worthily.”20 The reason is to be
sought partly in the Church's teaching regarding
the efficacy of her Sacraments in general, and
partly in the fact that the Eucharist is essentially
10 On the possibility of the justi
fication per accidens of 3 mortal
sinner through the Holy Eucharist,
see Pohle-Prcuss, The Sacraments,
Vol. I, pp. 68 sqq.
SO Dcnzingcr-Bannwart, n. 698:
"Et quoniam per gratiam homo
Christo incorporatur et membris eius
unitur, consequens est quod per hoc
sacramentum in sumentibus digne
gratia augeatur.”
226
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
a banquet which nourishes and sustains the soul
by food and drink. Christ Himself assures us:
"He that eateth this bread shall live forever.”21
It is not so easy to discern in what precisely consists
the “ sacramental grace ” of the Eucharist, i. e. that par
ticular grace by which this Sacrament differs specifically
from the others. We have seen that sanctifying grace
and habitual charity are inseparably bound up, if not
actually identical,22 with each other. Now all the Sacra
ments, when worthily received, augment sanctifying
grace and consequently aid man in becoming mystically
united with Christ. If the Holy Eucharist accomplishes
nothing more than this, how does it differ from the re
maining Sacraments? Suarez says that, while the other
Sacraments produce certain special effects, for the sake
of which they confer special helps and some increase of
grace, the Holy Eucharist has for its primary and direct
effect to nourish charity solely for its own perfection
and a more intimate union with Christ.23 According to
this theory, the special prerogative of the Holy Eucha
rist lies not merely in its essence and content, i. e. Christ
Himself, but likewise in its special object and purpose
of fanning the flame of actual love to greater ardor.
It is this unique effect, which in its last analysis is
identical with the union with Christ by love, that we
21 John VI, so.— Cfr. Tertullian's
graphic expression: " Caro corpore
et sanguine Christi vescitur, «I
anima de Deo saginetur." (De
Resurrect. Carnis, 8).
22 F. Pohle-Prcuss, Grace, Actual
and Habitual, pp. 336 sqq., St. Louis
>9'523 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia,
disp. 63. sect. 1, n. 3: " Reliqua
sacramenta vivorum non ordinantur
per sc primo ci directe ad nutrien
dam caritatem propter solam ma
iorem perfectionem cius maioremque
unionem cum Christo, sed ordinan
tur ad speciales effectus, propter
quos conferunt specialia auxilia ei
aliquod augmentum gratiae: at vero
hoc sacramentum per se primo ordi
natur ad perficiendam unionem cum
Christo."
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
227
recognize as the so-called gratia sacra mentalis of the Eu
charist.21
c) Together with an increase of sanctifying
grace the Holy Eucharist produces as its sec
ondary effect a certain spiritual relish or delight
of the soul {delectatio spiritualis).
Just as food and drink delight and refresh the heart of
man, so does this “ Heavenly Bread,” which “ contains
within itself all sweetness,” refresh and delight the soul
of the worthy recipient. This simile has been embodied
in the Decretum pro /Irnieiiis.30 The delight produced
in the soul of the devout communicant must not, however,
be confounded with a certain emotional joy or sensible
sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of
special grace, the true nature of the delectatio spiritualis
produced by the Holy Eucharist is manifested in a cer
tain cheerful and perhaps even fervent willingness in
all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the con
scientious fulfilment of the duties of one’s state of
life. Interior desolation and spiritual dryness are by no
means a sign of inadequate preparation, and much less of
an unworthy Communion. On the contrary, they are
quite often trials by which God tests the souls of those
whom He loves.20 If the communicant has fulfilled all
the required conditions, he may rest assured that the
Sacrament will work its effects in the manner explained
by St. Thomas in the Third Part of the Summa:
24 V. No. i. supra.— Cfr. St.
Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79.
art. i ; Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente dcr
hath. Kirche, Vo). I, and cd., pp.
560 sqq.
25 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698:
·' Omncmquc effectum, quem ma
terialis cibus et potus quoad vtlam
agunt temporalem: sustentando, au
gendo, reparando et delectando, sa
cramentum hoc quoad vitam opera
tur spiritualem."
2« Cfr. Thonua à Kempis, Imit.
Christi. IV. ia. 1$.
228
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
. through this Sacrament, as far as its power is
concerned, not only is the habit of grace and virtue be
stowed, but man is furthermore aroused to act, according
to 2 Cor. V, 14 : ‘ The charity of Christ presseth us.’
Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through
the power of this Sacrament, by being spiritually glad
dened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the
divine goodness.”27
27 Summa Thcol., 3a, qu. 79, art.
1, ad 2: "Per hoc sacramentum,
quantum erf ex sui virtute, non
solum habitus gratiae et virtutis con
fertur, sed etiam excitatur homo in
actum secundum illud (z Cor. V,
14): Caritas Christi urget nos. Ei
inde est quod ex virtute huius sa
cramenti anima spiritualiter reficitur
per hoc, quod anima spiritualiter
delectatur et quodammodo inebriatur
dulcedine bonitatis divinae."— Cfr.
Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 63,
sect. 9; De Lugo, De Eucharistia,
disp. 12, sect. 4; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat. Théologie, Vol. IX,
pp. 7S4 sqq.
SECTION 3
THIRD effect: the blotting out of venial
SINS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE
SOUL FROM MORTAL SINS
The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, it is
also a medicine. The Tridentine Council calls
it “an antidote, whereby we may be freed from
daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins." 1
This twofold effect can be readily understood if
viewed in the light of the two central ideas men
tioned above, i. e. food and medicine.
a) As material food, when used in the proper way, ban
ishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man's phys
ical strength, so this food of our souls removes the lesser
spiritual ailments and preserves us from spiritual death.
The Holy Eucharist is a union based upon love, and as
such removes with its purifying flame the stains which
adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as a pre
ventive of grievous sin.
b) The Holy Eucharist preserves the soul from
grievous sin by allaying concupiscence (con
cupiscentia, fomes peccati)*
1 ■·. . . antidotum, quo liberamur
a culpis quotidianis [scii, venialibus}
et a mortalibus praeservamur."
» Cfr. Catech. Roman.. De Eu
charistia, qu. 40: " Carnis etiam
libidinem cohibet ac reprimit."
229
230
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
This special effect of holy Communion is of great im
portance for the daily life of the faithful and in the ad
ministration of the Sacrament of Penance. Justly,
therefore, do spiritual writers recommend frequent Com
munion as the most effective remedy for impurity, since
its powerful influence is felt even after all other means
have proved unavailing. Concupiscence is the chief
source of mortal sin. Though St. Thomas seems to re
gard the allaying influence of the Holy Eucharist upon
concupiscence as rather indirect,8 many of the Fathers
hold that it is exercised directly by repressing inordi
nate desires and healing the soul.·*
c) Whether the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive
to the remission of the temporal punishments due to sin,
is a disputed question. Most theologians hold with St.
Thomas that the Sacrament of the Altar was not insti
tuted as a means of satisfaction. It may safely be as
sumed, however, that the Eucharist produces an indirect
effect in this regard by means of the acts of love which
it involves. St. Thomas says : “ Because union is the
effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains
forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment,
hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance
with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the pun
ishment;— not indeed of the entire punishment, but ac
cording to the measure of his devotion and fervor.”0
Nevertheless some theologians (like Ysambert and
8 Cfr. Suniino Theol., 3a, qu. 79,
art. 6, ad 3: "Diminuit fomitem
ex quadam consequentia, inquantum
auget caritatem, quia, sicut Au
gustinus dicit, augmentum caritatis
est diminutio cupiditatis."
♦ Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in
loa., 46, η. 4: " Si çuir aestuat,
hunc adeat fontem et ardorem tem
peret; nam aestum fugat et adusta
omnia refrigerat."—Other Patristic
texts of similar tenor in Tepe, Inst.
Theol., Vol. IV, p. 286.
c Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art.
5: " Scd quia unitor fit per carita
tem, ex cuius fervore aliquis con
sequitur remissionem non solum cul
pae, sed etiam poenae, inde est quod
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
231
Tepe0) teach that the Holy Eucharist is directly con
ducive to the remission of temporal punishments, and in
particular that the punishments due to the venial sins
forgiven by Holy Communion are wholly, or at least
partially, remitted therein.
As regards the effects of grace in behalf of others
distinct from the recipient, it is self-evident that the
purely personal fruits of Holy Communion,— e. g. the
increase of sanctifying grace, delight of soul, etc.,—can
not be applied to any but the recipient. Aside from
this it is generally held by Catholic divines that the
prayers of petition made in the presence of the Eu
charistic Lord readily find a hearing and that the fruits
of Communion, as a means of satisfaction for sin, may
be applied to others, and especially, per modum suffragii,
to the poor souls in purgatory. A book by Theophilus
Renaud, in which the pious custom of offering up holy
Communion for the departed was disparaged as super
stitious, was put upon the Index.7
ex consequenti per quondam concomitantiam ad principalem effectum
homo consequitur remissionem poe
nae, non quidem totius, sed secun
dum modum suae devotionis et
fervoris."
e Ysambert. Comment.
in S.
Theol., ΠΙ, qu. 79, disp. i. art 7.—
Tepe, Instit. Theol.. Vol. IV. p. ,85.
T On the opinion of St. Thomas
see the Summa Theol., ja, qu. 79,
art. 7.
SECTION 4
FOURTH effect: the pledge of man’s glorious
RESURRECTION AND ETERNAL HAPPINESS
“Eternal salvation” and “glorious resurrec
tion” are correlative terms. Being an effective
prophylactic against mortal sin,1 the Holy Eu
charist is quite naturally, in the words of the Tri
dentine Council, “a pledge of our glory to come
and everlasting happiness.” 2 The emphasis must
be laid on the prerogative of our glorious resur
rection, which involves eternal happiness.
a) That the Holy Eucharist really and truly
effects our glorious resurrection, is plain from
Christ’s own words, as recorded in the Gospel of
St. John: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh
my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise
him up in the last day.” 3 St. Ignatius of An
tioch expresses the common consent of the
Fathers when he says: “Breaking bread,4 . . .
is a means of immortality, an antidote against
death.” 5
1 V. supra, pp. 229 sqq.
* . . pignus futurae nostrae'
gloriae el perpetuae felicitatis."
(Sets. XIII, cap. 2).
a John VI, 55.
♦ iprov·
5 iarl
φάρμακου
άθαυασίαί·
ivrlSoros roû μ-ή àiro9aveif· (Ep.
ad Ephes., 20).— Other Patristic
texts supra, pp. 71 sq.
232
SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS
233
b) This fourth effect of holy Communion is shared
by the body. Not, of course, as if the material body be
came the subject of immaterial grace. No; but hy its
contact with the Eucharistic species, and hence indi
rectly with the living Flesh of Christ," the human body
becomes, as it were, kin to the glorified Body of our
Lord and thereby acquires a moral right to the future
resurrection. This right or claim may be compared to
that of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be assumed into
Heaven. The Mother of God, as the former abode of
the Word made flesh, had a moral claim to be bodily
taken up into Heaven; similarly the Christian who has
received that same Sacred Body in holy Communion,
and thereby become its abode, has a claim to rise bodily
from the dead.
The question has been raised, whether this is effected
by a “ physical quality ” (Contenson 7) or by a "germ of
immortality’’ (Heimbucher8) implanted in the body of
the communicant. It would profit nothing to enter into
so highly speculative a debate. We will merely note
that those among the Fathers who speak in exaggerated
terms of a " conversion ’’ of our flesh into that of the
God-man, evidently do not mean to assert more than a
moral claim to the resurrection of the body.
It was the desire for immortality that gave rise to cer
tain religious practices resembling the Eucharist among
pagan nations. The longing of the Greeks for am
brosia and nectar, the desire of the Iranians to be fed
with haoma, and the craving of the ancient Hindus to
partake of the food of their gods, which they called
234
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
soma, no doubt sprang from the natural appetite for
divine power and deathlessness which is implanted in
every human heart. But as all these notions, as well as
the practices inspired by them, are based on Polytheism,
they present but an extrinsic analogy with holy Com
munion.0
Readings: —J. B. Dalgairns, The Holy Communion, Dublin
1861 (often reprinted).— M. Heimbucber, Die Wirkungen der
hl. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.— C. Jos. Lolinim, Die sakramentalcn IVirkungen der hl. Eucharistie, Mayence 1886.— Bodewig, Der Nutsen der hl. Kommunion, Mayence 1889.— J. Bel
lamy, Les Effets de la Communion, Paris 1900.— J. C. Hedley,
The Holy Eucharist, pp. 107 sqq., London 1907.
e On the question whether the
Christian Eucharist owes anything
to a pagan, or even Jewish, back
ground of Mystery Meals, and if so,
what, see W. M. Groton, The Chris
tian Eucharist and the Pagan Cults,
New York 1914. Dr. Groton (who is
a Protestant) shows that there is no
sufficient proof that the Eucharist
borrowed anything whatsoever from
alien cults and that it is overwhelm
ingly probable that this is not the
case.
CHAPTER III
THE NECESSITY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST FOR
SALVATION
The question as to the necessity of the Holy
Eucharist for salvation permits of a twofold
formulation :
( I ) Is it necessary to receive the Eucharist in
order to be saved ?
(2) Must the Holy Eucharist be received un
der both kinds?
235
SECTION ι
IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION
We distinguish two kinds of necessity : ( i ) the ne
cessity of means (necessitas medii) and (2) the necessity
of precept (necessitas praecepti).
A further pertinent distinction is between infants and
adults.
Thesis I : In the case of infants the Holy Eucharist
is not necessary for salvation either as a means or by
way of precept.
This thesis embodies an article of faith.
Proof. The dogma stated in our thesis was
denied by a few Greek schismatics (Kabasilas,
and Simeon of Thessalonica) and by some the
ologians of the Reformed Church. Rosmini held
that Communion is strictly necessary for salva
tion. He was so firmly convinced of this that he
taught that Christ, upon his descent into hell
(limbo), personally administered the Sacrament
to the patriarchs, and that even to-day in
fants who die without holy Communion receive
it miraculously in ipso mortis instanti in the other
world. This teaching was formally condemned
236
NECESSITY
237
by Leo XIII.’ The Council of Trent had vir
tually rejected it in advance when it declared:
“If anyone saith that the Communion of the
Eucharist is necessary for little children before
they have arrived at the years of discretion, let
him be anathema.” 2 As there can be no ques
tion of a necessity of precept in the case of in
fants, the Council evidently meant to deny the
necessity of means.
a) The Biblical argument for our thesis is
based on those texts in which eternal life is con
ditioned solely on Baptism.
Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “He that believeth and is bap
tized, shall be saved.” In conformity with this and sim
ilar Gospel texts, St. Paul teaches that “ there is no con
demnation ” (nihil damnationis) to them that are bap
tized in Christ Jesus.8 All these texts would be false if
baptized infants were excluded from Heaven on account
of their failure to receive the Holy Eucharist.
b) In studying the Tradition on this subject we
must distinguish carefully between theory and
practice.
a) From the third to the eleventh century the Latin
Church administered the Eucharist to infants under the
species of wine immediately after Baptism and Confirma
tion, as is still the custom among the Greeks and Orien1 Prop. Rosmini Damn, a Leoni
XIII, d. 14 Dec. 1887, prop, ja
(Denzinger- Bannwart, n. sqss).
dirent, parvulis, antequam ad annos
esse Eucharistiae communionem,
anathema sil."
(Denringer-Bann
wart n. 937).
3 Rom. VIII, I.
238
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
tals. Why did the Church introduce this custom? Did
she perhaps believe that infants could not be saved with
out holy Communion? This is not at all likely. The
Church never held Confirmation to be necessary for sal
vation, yet she administered it to infants. The only
Sacrament that she always regarded as absolutely neces
sary for salvation was Baptism. The Council of Trent
declares that the custom of giving holy Communion to
children was not based upon the erroneous belief that
this Sacrament was necessary for salvation, but upon
the circumstances of the times.4
/3) The Fathers generally taught that every child dy
ing in baptismal innocence, even without Communion,
goes straight to Heaven. The only notable exception
appears to be St. Augustine. Petavius, Maldonatus,
Schanz, and other eminent theologians do not hesitate to
declare his teaching on this point to be out of tune with
that of the Church. But this conclusion is hardly war
ranted. St. Augustine expressly says that “ if an infant
departs from the present life after he has received Bap
tism, the guilt in which he was involved by original sin
being [thereby] done away, he shall be made perfect in
that light of truth which . . . illumines the justified in
the presence of their Maker.”6 There are a few pas
sages of the Saint’s writings in which he applies John
VI, 54 (“ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you ”) indis« Sess. XXI, cap. 4: " Neque
ideo tamen damnanda est antiquitas,
ίί cum morem in quibusdam locis
aliquando servavit. Ut enim SS.
illi Patres sui facti probabilem cau
sam pro illius temporis ratione ha
buerunt, ita certe eos nullâ salutis
necessitate id fecisse sine contro
versia credendum est." (DcnzingerBannwart, n. 933).
a De Peccatorum Meritis et Re
missione, I, c. 25: "Vcrumtamen
si parvulus percepto baptismo de
hac vita migraverit, soluto reatu,
cui originaliter obnoxius erat, per
ficietur
illo
lumine
veritatis "
(Migne. P. L., XLIV, 133).
NECESSITY
239
criminatcly to infants and adults. But we need not nec
essarily assume a contradiction in St. Augustine's teach
ing. Preoccupied as he was with the task of disproving
the Pelagian distinction between regnum coelorum anti
■vita aeterna, the zealous Bishop of Hippo distinguishes
between sacramental and spiritual or mystical Commun
ion, and teaches that infants, by the fact of their be
ing united to Christ in Baptism, experience the effect
of the Eucharist, i. e. spiritual union with Christ (res
sacramenti), as it were by anticipation, and thus com
ply with our Lord’s command. Baptism he regards
as a claim but likewise as a virtual desire to receive the
Eucharist. By their anticipatory though purely mystical
reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in Baptism,
these infants are enabled to partake not only of the
regnum Dei (John III, 5) promised as an effect of Bap
tism, but likewise of the vita aeterna (John VI, 54) con
nected with the Holy Eucharist. This, in fact, is Augus
tine’s own explanation of his teaching. “ Does not truth
proclaim with unfaltering tongue,” he asks, “ that un
baptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom
of God, but cannot have everlasting life, except in the
Body of Christ, into which, that they may receive incor
poration, they are washed in the Sacrament of Bap
tism? ” 0
This interpretation of the Saint’s teaching is confirmed
by a passage in the writings of his faithful disciple St.
Fulgentius.’ We do not mean to deny, however, that
β Op. cit., Ill, 4, 8: " Nonnt
veritas tine ulla ambiguitate pro
clamat, »10» solum in regnum Dei
non boplisatos parvulos intrare non
posse, sed nec vitam aeternam posse
habere praeter Christi corpus, cui
ut incorporentur sacramento bap
tismatis imbuuntur? "
T Asked by the deacon Ferrandus
concerning the probable fate of a
young man who had died suddenly
after Baptism, without having re
ceived holy Communion. Fulgentius
says: " Arbitror, sancte fraser, dis
putationem nostram praeclari D.
Augustini sermone Armatam nec
24o
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
St. Augustine in his controversies with the Pelagians
made some rather extravagant assertions with regard
to the necessity of the Blessed Eucharist.
c) From the philosophical point of view the
following* considerations are worth pondering.
If infants could not be saved without the Eu
charist, holy Communion would be necessary to
them either as a means or in consequence of a
positive precept. It is impossible to assume the
latter because infants are not yet amenable to
law; or the former, because baptismal innocence
can be lost only through mortal sin.8
To explain the almost universal custom of the ancient
Church of giving Communion to children, theologians
discuss the question whether the sacramental grace con
ferred by Baptism is augmented by the Holy Eucharist.
Oswald0 is inclined to answer this question in the nega
tive; but long before him Suarez declared that the af
firmative answer has “ the greater weight of authority
and reason.” Indeed, it would be repugnant to assume
that the primitive Church for centuries practiced a cus
tom of which she knew that it was of no benefit to her
children. Furthermore, as Baptism has the power of
cuiquam esse aliquatenus ambigen
dum, tunc unumquemque fidelium
corporis sanguinisque Dominici par
ticipem fieri, quando in baptismate
membrum corporis Christi clhcitur,
nec alienari ab eo panis calicisque
consortio, etiamsi antequam panem
illum comedat et calicem bibat, de
hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Chri
sti constitutus abscedat." Ep. 12
8 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Scss. XXI,
cap. 4: “. . . siquidem per bap
tismi lavacrum regenerati et Christo
incorporali adeptam iam filiorum
Dei gratiarum in illa aetate amittere
non possunt."
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 933).
° Die Lettre von den hl. Sakramenlen, Vol. I, $th ed., pp. 491
sq., Munster 1894.
NECESSITY
241
producing sanctifying grace in the soul without the
knowledge and will of the baptized infant, what reason is
there for assuming that Holy Communion is unable to
increase that grace ex opere operato, especially since its
effects (unlike those of Baptism and Confirmation) are
derived from an influence exercised upon body and soul
alike by the life-giving Flesh of Jesus Christ?
Thesis II: For adults the reception of the Holy
Eucharist is necessary as a matter of precept.
This proposition is likewise de fide.
Proof. Communion is prescribed for adult
Catholics both by the law of the Church and
by a divine command. Cfr. John VI, 54:
“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood, you shall not have life in
you.”
a) In conditioning eternal life upon the reception of
His Body and Blood, our Lord obviously meant to give
a strict command. There can be no doubt that His
precept (Luke XXII, 19): “Do this for a commem
oration of me,” refers not only to the celebration of the
Eucharistic sacrifice on the part of the priest, but like
wise to the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the
faithful, especially since the Apostles were commanded
to distribute this Sacrament to all.10
It is rather difficult to understand how some theolo
gians can hold that Communion is merely an ecclesiasti
cal precept. The Council of Trent plainly intimates that
it is a divine command."
10 1 Cor. XI, 26.
11 Seaa. XIII. cap. a (Deniinger B.innwar«. n. 8?j).
242
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
b) As to the frequency with which He desires
us to receive Him in holy Communion, Christ
has given no definite precept, and hence this is a
matter left to the Church to determine.
Ecclesiastical discipline in this respect has undergone
many changes in the course of centuries. The early
Christians seem to have observed daily Communion12
as a strict precept. In the third century, Pope Fabian
(236-250) mitigated the former severity of the Church’s
law to the extent of making the reception of the Eucha
rist a matter of strict duty only three times a year, viz.:
at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The Fourth Coun
cil of the Lateran, held under Innocent III (1215), pre
scribed annual Communion during Easter time as the
minimum of obligation.13 St. Thomas ascribes this ordi
nance chiefly to “ the abounding of iniquity and the
growing cold of charity.”1415The Lateran law marked
the uttermost limit of indulgence to which the Church
could go, and hence the Council of Trent did not hesi
tate to raise the ecclesiastical precept of yearly pas
chal Communion to the rank of a dogma: “If anyone
denieth that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both
sexes are bound, when they have attained to the years
of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at
Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother
Church, let him be anathema.” 10
Officially the Church has never ceased to proclaim her
12 Cfr. Acts II. 42.
1» Cone. Lot. IV, cap. 21 (Den
zinger-Bannwart, n. 437).
14 St. Thomae, Summa Theol.,
3a, qu. 80, art. 10, ad 5.— The
passage in quotation markers taken
from Matth. XXIV, 10.
15 Seas. XIII, can. 9: "Si quit
negaverit, omnes et singulos Christi
fideles
utriusque
sexus,
quum
ad annos discretionis pervenerint,
teneri singulis annis saltem in pas
chale ad communicandum iuxta prae
ceptum S. matris Ecclesiae, anathe
ma sit." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n.
NECESSITY
243
desire that the faithful should approach the Holy Table
more frequently. The Council of Trent declares: “The
sacred and holy Synod would fain, indeed, that, at each
Mass, the faithful who are present should communicate,
not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental
participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more
abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most
holy sacrifice.” ,e
The famous controversy regarding the disposition re
quired for frequent and daily Communion was authori
tatively set at rest by the decree "Sacra Tridentina
Synodus," issued Dec. 20, 1905, by the late Pope Pius X,
through the S. Congregation of the Council. According
to this epoch-making document, “ frequent and daily
Communion, so earnestly desired by Christ and by the
Church, should be open to all the faithful,” and no one
may be denied it “ who is in the state of grace and
approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout in
tention. ... A right intention consists in this: that he
who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of
routine or vainglory or human respect, but for the pur
pose of pleasing God, of being more closely united with
Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for
his weaknesses and defects." 17
In a later decree, " Quam Singulari," of August 10,
1910, the same saintly Pontiff, pointing to the ancient
practice of the Church, and with special reference to
the Fourth Lateran Council and that of Trent,” con
demns the practice of postponing the first Communion of
10 Sess. XXII, cap. 6 (DenzingerBannwart, n. 944).
it The text of the decree in Den
zinger-Bannwart, n. 198s sq. An
English translation, with a historical
■ketch and commentary, will be
found in J. B. Ferrerez, S. J.. The
Decree on Daily Communion. tr. by
Jimenez, London 1909. Sec also
Hedley, The Holy Euchariel, pp.
tap sqq.. London >907.
is Cone. Trident., Ses». XIII, can.
244
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
children to the tenth, twelfth, or even fourteenth year,
and commands that children should be led to the Holy
Table as soon as they are able to “ distinguish Eucha
ristic bread from common and material bread.” The
full use of reason is not required, but merely “ a certain
knowledge” of the rudiments of faith.10
To deprive those of whom our Lord Himself said:
“ Suffer little children to come to me,” of the Holy Eu
charist at a time when they are in such great need of
this Heavenly Food to strengthen their soul against
temptations, and when their reason is sufficiently devel
oped to make them amenable to the divine precept,20 is
little less than a crime.21
Thesis HI: The Holy Eucharist is not absolutely
necessary for adults as a means of salvation.
This may be set down as a propositio certa.
Proof. The Holy Eucharist might be neces
sary for salvation if Communion by itself con
stituted a person in the state of grace, or if sanc
tifying grace could not be preserved without
Communion. But neither one of these supposi
tions is tenable.
a) Communion does not cause justification (iustifi·
catio prima), but presupposes the state of sanctifying
grace. On the other hand, cases of necessity may arise
(e. g. on a long sea voyage), in which a person would be
10 Official English version of the
" Quam Singulari," together with
a commentary, in F. M. De Zulueta.
S. J., Early First Communion, Lon
don 1911.
20 John VI. 50 sqq.
21 Cfr. E. Springer, S. J.. Die
Vorurtcile gegen das Erstkommuniondekret, Innsbruck 1911; M.
Gatterer, S. J., Die Erstkommunion
der Kinder. Brixen 1911; De Zulueta. S. J., Early First Communion,
London 1911.
NECESSITY
245
dispensed from receiving Communion, and the sacramen
tal graces of the Eucharist might be supplied by actual
graces. It is only when we view the matter in this light
that we can understand why the Church in cases of urgent
necessity never demands the votum sacramenti in regard
to the Eucharist, as she does in regard to Baptism and
Penance,22 and why the primitive Church, without going
counter to the divine command, withheld the Eucharist
from certain sinners even on their death-bed.
b) Some eminent divines, like Suarez,23 claim that the
Eucharist is at least a relatively and morally necessary
means of salvation, in the sense that no adult Catholic can
sustain his spiritual, supernatural life if he voluntarily
neglects to receive holy Communion for a long time.
This view is supported by the solemn words which Christ
spoke when He promised the Eucharist,24 by the help
lessness and perversity of human nature, subject as it is
to many and violent temptations, by the very nature of the
Sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of our
souls, and by the daily experience of confessors.
Several of these considerations furnish additional
proofs for the wisdom of Pius X in fixing the age when
children should be admitted to the Holy Table at about
seven years.
Readings:—J. Behringer, Die hl. Kommunion in ihren ll'irkungen und Hirer Heilsnotwendigkeit, Ratisbon 1898.
J. B. Ferrcres, S. J., The Decree on Daily Communion. A
Historical Sketih and Commentary, tr. by H. Jimenez, S. J„ Lon
don 1909.— F. M. De Zulueta, S. J., Early First Communion. A
Commentary upon the Decree " Quam Singulari," London 1911.—
J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 129 sqq., London 1907.
22 The votum Eucharistiae de
manded by St. Augustine (v. surra.
Thesis I) and St. Thomas (S.
Theol., 3a. qu. 73. art. 3). ·» ”0«
based upon a strict necessity of
means. Cfr. De Lugo. De Eucha
ristia, disp. 3. sect ».
23
De Eucharistia, disp. 40. sect.
2« Cfr. John VI. $0 sqq.
SECTION 2
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND
i. Giving the Chalice to the Laity.—So
far as we know, a school teacher in Prague, Peter
of Dresden, was the first to maintain that Com
munion under both kinds is necessary for salva
tion and that the Church wrongs the laity by de
priving them of the Chalice.
a) The cry was taken up by the Hussites, under the
leadership of Jacob of Misa. Ziska, chief of the Taborites, so-called from their dwelling on a mountain top in
Bohemia, set up three hundred tables in order to satisfy
the demands of the people for Communion under both
species. The Council of Constance (1415), in a decree
approved by Martin V (1418), rejected the erroneous
teaching of the Utraquists and ordained that the Chalice
should not be given to the laity, and that all who obsti
nately defended the practice were to be regarded as here
tics.1 This led to a revolution and the terrible Hussite
wars. To make peace, the Council of Basle (1431)
granted the Chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under
certain conditions, the chief of which was the acknowl
edgment of Christ’s integral presence under either kind?
1" Pertinaciter asserentes oppositamquam haeretici arcendi
(Üenzinger-Bannwart,
η.
eunt."
2 Denzinger-Bannwart, η. 668.—
Cfr. J. B. Hughes, in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, XV, 245.
246
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND
247
To this some of the Hussites demurred and in course
of time formed the sect of the Moravian Brothers?
b) Utraquism led to new difficulties at the time
of the so-called Reformation.
Luther at first maintained a wavering attitude towards
the Hussite demand for Communion under both kinds.
At times he defended the right of an ecumenical council
to decide the question. Then again he claimed that it was
for the individual to say whether he wished to receive
Communion under the form of bread alone or under both
species. As against the Council of Constance the apos
tate friar of Wittenberg declared that every Christian
was free “ either to employ both species or only one, or
none at all.” The Calvinists accused the Catholic Church
of mutilating the Sacrament, contemning Christ’s com
mand, and betraying the people. Calvin himself did not
scruple to denounce the Catholic teaching of the validity of
Communion under one kind as a diabolical invention?
Utraquism is still a tenet of the Anglican Church, and is
enumerated among the "Plain Reasons Against Joining
the Church of Rome” (London, 1880).
In consequence of the Utraquist agitation, even Catholic
nations began to demand Communion sub ulraque, so
that the German Emperor, with Charles IX of France
and other rulers petitioned the Pope and the Council of
Trent, which was just then in session, to allow the use
of the Chalice in their dominions.
2. The Council of Trent.—The Council of
Trent devoted an entire Session to this vexed
s See art. " Unity of the Brethren ” in the New Schatf-Heriog En-
cyclopedia of Religioni Knowledge,
Vol. XII.
4 Instit., IV. V. 47.
248
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
question and defined the Catholic teaching with
out regard to the noise created by the Utraquists.
Its principal canon on the subject is this: “If
anyone saith that by the precept of God, or by
necessity of salvation, all and each of the faith
ful of Christ ought to receive both species of the
most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be
anathema.”5
Only towards the end of the Session did the Council
express its willingness to grant the use of the Chalice
under certain conditions. Finally, in the last decree of
its twenty-second Session, it referred the decision of the
whole matter to the Pope. Pius IV, in 1564, authorized
the bishops of Austria and Bavaria to permit the use of
the Chalice in their dioceses, provided certain conditions
were fulfilled; but the people were so slow to make use
of the privilege that it was soon after withdrawn. This
was the end of Communion under both kinds within the
pale of the Church.0
3. Catholic Doctrine and Disciplinary
Variations.—It is impossible to prove from
Scripture that the laity or non-celebrating priests
are bound to receive the Holy Eucharist under
both kinds. Tradition shows that Communion
under one kind has always been practiced within
the Catholic Church.
C Cone. Trident., Sess. XXI, can.
1 : " Si quii dixerit, ex Dei prae
cepto vcl necessitate salutis omnes
et singulos Christi fideles utramque
speciem SS. Eucharistiae sacra-
menti sumere debere, anathema sit."
(Denzingcr-Bannwart, n. 934).
0 Cfr. Bossuet, Traité de la Com
munion sous les Deux Espèces,
Paris «682.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND
249
a) The Utraquists based their contention prin
cipally on John VI, 54: “Except you eat the flesh
of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you.” The Tridentine Council
explains this text as follows: “He who said:
‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,’
(John VI, 54), also said: ‘He that eateth this
bread shall live for ever’ (verse 59) ; and He who
said: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath everlasting life’ (verse 55), also said:
‘The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life
of the world’ (verse 52); and, in fine, He who
said: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood, abideth in me and I in him’ (verse 57),
said nevertheless: ‘He that eateth this bread
shall live forever’ (verse 59).” 7
That Communion under one kind was customary in
the Apostolic age may be deduced with great probability
from Acts II, 42: “And they were persevering in the
doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the
breaking of bread, and in prayers.” *
b) A very strong argument can be construed
from Tradition.
a) In the early days the faithful were accustomed to
take the Holy Eucharist home in a wooden receptacle
7 Scss. XXI. cap. I (Denzinger·
Bannwart, n. 93°>a Act. II. 42: " Fra"' autem per
severantes in doctrina Apostolorum
et communicatione fractionis ;anis
(rjj κλάβ«ι roi iprov) st oration►
bus."— On I Cor. XI, Π MM. »·
supra, p. 94- On the text .Matth.
250
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
(arca lignea), in order that they might communicate
themselves privately from time to time. Tertullian makes
this custom the basis of an argument, addressed to his
wife, against second marriage with an infidel in case of
his own death. His point is that it will be impossible
for her to get the pagan husband’s permission to take
holy Communion at home. “ Will he not know,” says
Tertullian, “ what you take secretly before all other food,
and seeing it to be bread, will he not believe it to be that
which it is said to be [i. e. the Body of Christ] ?”0 St.
Basil is authority for the statement that, when the per
secutions had ceased, in the fourth century, the custom
of taking home a portion of the consecrated bread for
private Communion continued to be general in Alexandria
and Egypt.10
As far back as the third century Communion was given
to the sick under one kind only. St. Denis tells of a child
bringing Communion to an old man on his death-bed.11
Paulinus writes that St. Ambrose “ received the Lord’s
Body and died after swallowing it, taking the good viat
icum with him.”12 The Eleventh Council of Toledo
(A. D. 675) permits the sick who cannot swallow the
Sacred Host to receive Communion under the form of
wine. Children also were generally given holy Com
munion under the species of wine alone, sometimes under
the species of bread alone.13
The so-called Mass of the Presanctified, which is con
XXVI, 27: " Bibite ex hoc omnes,"
of which the Lutherans and Calvin
ists make so much, see Bellarmine,
De Eucharistia, IV, 25.
o/ld Uxorem, II, 5 (Migne, P. L.,
1, 1206): "Non sciet maritus quid
secreto ante omnem cibum gustes, ct
ai sciverit esse panem, non illum
esse crcdct, quid dicitur [scil. corpus
Christi} f"
10 St. Basil, Ep. 93 ad Ccrsariam
(Migne. P. G.. XXXII. 483).
11 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles.,
VI, 44.
12 De Pita S. Ambrosii, n. 47.
13 Cfr. St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, c.
as (cd. Hartel, Vol. I, p. 255),
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND
251
fined to Good Friday in the West, in the East was and still
is celebrated all through Lent, except on Saturdays, Sun
days, and the Feast of the Annunciation. During this cer
emony the officiating priest as well as the people, ac
cording to the ancient Roman Ordo, communicated under
one kind, i. e. bread.14
β) An event which happened in the pontificate of Pope
Gelasius has furnished a favorite argument to Protestant
controversialists ever since Chemnitz. A recent writer
refers to it as follows : " Depriving the laity of the
Chalice, a practice which Pope Gelasius (-|- 496) had
declared to be sacrilegious, first began in the twelfth cen
tury and was later justified by scholastic subtleties." 15
Under Pope Gelasius there lived in Rome many uncon
verted Manichæans, who at public worship took only the
Sacred Host and refused the Chalice. To unmask these
hypocrites the Pontiff ordained that at public Communion
all the faithful without exception should communicate
under both kinds. Evidently, before this papal decree
was issued, there was no law compelling the laity to take
the Chalice, and Communion under the species of bread
alone was the common practice.10 The double usage inau
gurated by Pope Gelasius prevailed up to the twelfth cen
tury, when the laity was gradually restricted to one
kind.”
c) A theological argument for our thesis
may be drawn from the totality of the Real Pres
ence under either kind.”
H Migne, P. L., LXXVIII, 954.
1» Luthardt, Apologet. Portrage,
Leipzig 1874.
le Other examples in De Augu
stinis, Do Re Sacrament.. Vol. I,
and ed., pp. 677 sqq.
17 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol.,
33. qu. 80. art. n.— On the whole
subject-matter of this subdivision
see Funk. " Der Kammuniowtui.
in Kirchengeicliiclltllehe Abbondlw··
gen unit Unleriuchnngen. Vol. I, PP·
29.1 sqq.. Paderborn 1897.
is f< supro. pp. 93 sqq-
252
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
He who communicates under the species of bread alone,
truly receives the Flesh and Blood of Christ, i. c. the living
Christ whole and entire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and
Humanity, and together with the whole Sacrament, all
the graces necessary for salvation.10
It has been objected that the faithful, by being denied
the Chalice, are defrauded of a part of the essential fruits
of the Eucharist. The reception of the Precious Blood
might produce a further increase of sanctifying grace if
it were preceded by a new act of devotion and prepara
tion. But whether it would produce this effect without
any change in the disposition of the recipient, purely ex
opere operato, is disputed among theologians. St.
Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Suarez, and many
other eminent divines hold that the Chalice per sc no
more confers a larger measure of sanctifying grace than
would the taking of two separate Hosts at the same Mass.
De Lugo defends the contrary opinion.20
That the Church was moved by “ weighty and just rea
sons ” when she approved of the custom of communicat
ing under one species, is expressly affirmed by the Council
of Trent.21 These reasons are given by St. Thomas22
as follows: (i) the difficulty of providing the requisite
number of sacred vessels; (2) the danger of spilling the
Precious Blood, save in very small and select congrega
tions; and (3) the danger of giving rise to false opinions.
i»Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XXI,
cam non {ustis causis ci rationibus
cap. 3: ". . . quod ad fructum at
adductam fuisse, ut laicos atque
tinet, nullô gratia neccssariâ ad
etiam clericos non conficientes sub
salutem cos defraudari, qui κηα>»
tantummodo specie communispeciem solam accipiunt." (Denaut i» co errasse, anathema
zingcr-Bannwart, n. 93a).
sit." (Uenzinger-Bannwart, n. 935).
20
De Eucharistia, disp. 12, sect. 22
Opusc., 2i, De Sacramento Al
taris, c. 29 (ed. M. de Maria. S. J„
21 Sess. XXI, can. 2: "Si quis
t. III, p. $48, Tiferni Tiberini
dixerit, sanciam Ecclesiam catholi
1886).
THE MINISTER
253
To these reasons Charlier de Gerson, the distinguished
theologian who in the early fifteenth century was so
prominent a figure at the Council of Constance, in
a little dissertation which was read before the Fathers
of the Council, added a number of others, to wit: The
flanger of soiling the sacred vessels; the inconvenience
arising from long beards; the difficulty of keeping the
Precious Blood reserved for the sick from fermenting
and spoiling; the difficulty of providing vessels large
enough to hold the quantity of Blood required at paschal
time and other occasions when thousands of persons
approach the Holy Table; the impossibility of obtaining
wine in poor countries and of providing enough of it
where it is very dear; the danger of the wine freezing
in northern countries, etc?3
Father Sydney F. Smith, S. J., who discusses these
reasons at some length in a recent brochure, adds:
“ Also . . . the people, in these days particularly, might
find it hard indeed to drink out of the same chalice as
many others, some of whom might be conveying infection
through the touch of their lips. Indeed, a correspondence
in the columns of the Times and Church Times during
the months of July and August, 1911, has called public
attention to the large number of Anglicans who stay
away from their Communion for fear of drinking from
a chalice which may have been touched by infected lips,
or resort to strange and disedifying methods of avoiding
the risk. This fear is doubtless exaggerated, but we
cannot help feeling that it might spread among Catholics
also in these days when so many have microbes on the
brain, were we accustomed to receive under both
23
The passage from Gerson is der One Kind, pp. 18 sq.. London
translated and commented upon by
191 >.
S. F. Smith, S. J., Communion un-
254
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
kinds.” 24 In conclusion the writer touches upon a point
to which those who criticize the Catholic practice have
probably not adverted : —“ Great care has to be taken
in the provision of wine so as to secure that it is un
adulterated. The wine merchant must be able to inspire
trust of himself into the clergy, and the manufacturer into
the wine merchant. This acts as a limitation of the wine
supply, which, under the intense pressure which a rever
sion to the old system would involve, would probably
cause a crisis.”25
Readings: —Jak. Hoffmann, Geschichle der Laienkommunion
bis sum Tridentinum, Spires 1891.— A. Knopfler, Die Kelchbewegung in Bayern unter Herzog Albrecht V., 2nd ed., Munich
1887 —O’Kane, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Missal,
Dublin 1867.—'Dublanchy in the Diet, de Théol. Catholique,
III, 552 sqq.—P. J. Toner in the Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 175
sqq.— Sydney F. Smith, S. J., Communion under One Kind, Lon
don 1911.
2« Smith, o/>. at., p. 23.
26 Op. cit., pp. 23 sq.
CHAPTER IV
THE MINISTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
As we have already noted, the Eucharist is a
permanent Sacrament, of which the confection
(confectio) and reception (susceptio) are sepa
rated from each other by an interval of time, and
consequently there may be two ministers, vis.:
( i ) the minister of consecration and (2) the min
ister of distribution.
SECTION i
THE MINISTER OF CONSECRATION
I. Heretical Teachings vs. the Doctrine
of the Church.—Aside from the Pepuzians,
Collyridians, and Montanists of the early Chris
tian era, who attributed priestly powers to
women,1 and the medieval Albigensians and
Waldenses, who held that every layman of up
right disposition can consecrate,2 Martin Luther
was the first to declare that every Christian is
a priest and qualified, as the duly appointed
representative of the faithful, to consecrate the
Sacrament of the Eucharist.3
Against these errors the Church upheld the
ancient Catholic teaching that only the regularly
ordained priests possess the power of consecrat
ing. The Fourth Lateran Council defined
against the Albigenses: “No one but the priest,
regularly ordained according to the keys of the
Church, can perform this Sacrament.” 4 The
1 Cfr. Epiphan., De Hacr., 49, 79·
2 Cfr. the Professio fidci Waldencibus praescripta, reproduced by
Deniingcr-Bannwart, n. 424.
a He based this teacning on 1
Peu II, S·
i Caput "Firmiter": "Hoc uti
que sacramentum
nemo
potest
conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit
ordinatus secundum claves Ec
clesiae." (Dcnzinger Bannwart, ti.
430).
256
THE MINISTER
257
Council of Trent, in opposition to the teaching of
Luther, not only confirmed the existence of
a special priesthood,5 but declared that “Christ
instituted the Apostles priests and ordained that
they and other priests should offer His own Body
and Blood.” G
It follows that no one can consecrate the
Eucharist who has not, through the Sacrament of
Holy Orders, received from the Church the
power to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass. To
consecrate and to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass
are reciprocal terms.
2. Proof from Revelation.—To the category
of sacerdotes belong only bishops (sacerdotes
primi ordinis') and priests (sacerdotes secundi
ordinis). Deacons, subdeacons, and laymen (a
fortiori women) are excluded. That priests
alone have the power to consecrate cannot per
haps be proved conclusively from Holy Scripture,
but a convincing argument is supplied by Tradi
tion.
a) An indirect argument may be construed
from the Bible as follows: Only those can offer
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore
convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ, to whom He said : “Do this for
5 Sess. XXIII, can. 1.
eScss. XXII. can. 3: "Si quit
dixerit, ilhl verbis: ' Hoc facile in
meam commemorationem,’ Christum
nori instituisse /ifostolos sacerdotes.
aut non ordinasse, ut if·si ahique sa
cerdotes offerrent eorfus et san
guinem
suum, anathema lit."
( Dcniinger-Bannwarl, n. 949).
258
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
a commemoration of me.” Now this command
was given by our Divine Saviour, not to the
faithful in general, but to the Apostles and their
successors, i. c. the regularly ordained bishops
and priests of the Catholic Church. Conse
quently, only bishops and priests have the power
to consecrate.
It is evident that Tradition has understood our Lord’s
mandate in this sense and in no other. “ By the words
‘ Do this in commemoration of me,’ ” says the Tridcntine
Council, “Christ commanded them [His Apostles] and
their successors in the priesthood to offer [His Body and
Blood], even as the Catholic Church has always under
stood and taught.”7 Since the power of consecration and
that of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are essen
tially identical, we may cite in support of our thesis the
statement of St. Paul : “ For every high priest is ap
pointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.” 8 If only regularly
ordained priests can offer sacrifice, it follows that only
regularly ordained priests have the power to consecrate.
b) A careful study of Tradition reveals three
facts: (1) Bishops and priests were always
held to have the power of saying Mass and con
secrating validly; (2) Deacons were never per
mitted to say Mass or to consecrate ; and (3) This
prerogative was a fortiori denied to clerics in
minor orders and to the laity in general.
1 Sess. XXII, cap. it “Et eis
dem [scii. Apostolis) eorumque suc
cessoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per
commemorationem,' uli semper calho-
lica Ecclesia intellexit et docuit."
(Dcnzinger-Bannwart, n. 938).
e lleb. VIII. 3: "Omnis enim
pontifex ad offerendum munera et
hostias constituitur,”
THE MINISTER
259
a) As regards the first point, we know from the writ
ings of St. Justin Martyr, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. John
Chrysostom, and others,0 that bishops and priests always
appeared as the properly qualified celebrants of the Eu
charistic Sacrifice, that the deacons assisted at this func
tion, while the laity participated therein in a merely
passive manner. In times of persecution priests often
entered prisons under the pretext of paying a visit
to the inmates, in order to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice
and to strengthen the future martyrs with the Viaticum.
From the early days of the Church the bishop, in ad
ministering Holy Orders, employed a special formula to
bestow upon the recipient the power of offering sacrifice
and of consecrating. In the Latin Ordo this formula ran :
" Accipe potestatem offerendi in Ecclesia sacrificium tam
pro vivis quam pro defunctis.”
β) That deacons were always excluded from this
function is evident from a decree of the First Ecumenical
Council of Nicæa (325) forbidding priests to receive
Communion at the hands of deacons, because it is
“ against discipline and custom ” that clerics who lack the
power to offer should administer the Holy Eucharist to
those who possess that power.10
The Luciferians, among whom there were no bishops
or priests, were told by St. Jerome (-|- 420) that for want
of celebrants they had neither the sacrifice nor the Eu
charist.11
0 See the collection of Patristic
texts in Billuart, De Eucharistia,
diss. 7, art. i, and in De Augustinis,
De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, and ed..
pp. 659 sqq.
to Nicaen. I, can. 18: “Nee
his, 7«I potestatem non hobent
offerendi [i. e. diaconi}, Uli qui
offeruni [«. e. presbyteri} corpus
Christi accipiant (oûre ό ttaràir
aire ή σννήΟαια. raptDwKt τού»
ϊζονσίαο μή Ιχοοται rpoa-pépeir
rois ηροσφίρονσι bitôrai τό θύμα
τού Χριστού)·"
it Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. ai:
" Hilarius [the founder of the Luciferian sect) quum diaconus de Ec-
26ο
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
y) From what we have said it is clear that the Church
has always denied to the laity the power to conse
crate. St. Epiphanius (-f- 403) charges an ex-monk,
Zachæus, with committing a crime because, being a mere
layman, he had attempted to say Mass.12 The Arians
who had accused St. Athanasius (-]- 373) of sacrilege
because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated chalice
had been demolished during a Mass celebrated by a cer
tain Ischyras, withdrew the charge as untenable when it
was proved that Ischyras had been invalidly ordained by a
pseudo-bishop.13
clesia recessent, . . . neque
Eu
charistiam conficere potest, episco
pos et presbyteros non habens."
12 Expos. Fidei, c. 13: "Quum
esset laicus, attingere ac sacrificia
celebrare nefario ac temerario ausu
est aggressus."
18 They had reluctantly to admit,
" guum esset homo privatus in pri
vata domo habitans, poculum my
sticum habere non potuit."— Against
the contention of Hugo Grotius, that
laymen, nay even women, can val
idly consecrate in case of necessity
(De Cocnae ddminislraticnc, «bi
Pastores desunt, 1637) see Petavius,
Diatribe de Potestate Consecrandi.
SECTION 2
THE MINISTER OF DISTRIBUTION
The minister of distribution (minister distribuens)
is he who gives the Sacred Species to the faithful.
The Eucharist being a permanent Sacrament, any com
municant who has the proper disposition can receive it
validly, no matter from whose hands. Hence the ques
tion which concerns us here is one not of validity, but
merely of the licitness of administration.
i.
The Priest as the Ordinary Dispenser
Sacrament.—Aside from cases of neces
sity, when the laity were allowed to give them
selves Holy Communion, the Church has always
upheld it as an Apostolic rule that the Bread of
Life should be dispensed only by the consecrated
hand of the priest.
of the
That this exclusive prerogative of the priesthood is of
divine right, theologians generally deduce from the man
date of Christ: ‘‘Do this for a commemoration of
me.”1 The deduction is confirmed by the Tridentine
Council, which defines: “As to the reception of the
Sacrament, it was always a custom in the Church of
God that laymen should receive the Communion from
priests, but that priests, when celebrating, should com1 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharùtia, disp. 73, art t.
261
262
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
municate themselves,— which custom, as coming down
from an Apostolic tradition, ought with justice and reason
to be maintained.”2 St. Thomas says that “ the dis
pensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three
reasons. First, because ... he consecrates in the per
son of Christ,” and “ as the consecration of Christ’s Body
belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing
belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the ap
pointed intermediary between God and the people ; hence
as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so
it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the peo
ple. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this
Sacrament, only consecrated hands should touch
it. . . .”·
2. The Deacon as the Extraordinary Dis
penser of the Sacrament.—The deacon is by
virtue of his order the extraordinary dispenser
of the Sacrament of the Altar. This is evident
from the primitive teaching and practice of the
Church both in the East and in the West. The
fact that the deacon is an extraordinary min
ister, shows that he administers the Sacrament
not ex officio, but ex delegatione, i. e. with the per
mission of the bishop or priest. If he distributes
Communion without such permission, he becomes
irregular.
2 Sees. ΧΙΠ, cap. 8: "In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in
cerdotibus communionem acciperent
sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos
communicarent, qui mos tamquam
e* traditione apostolica descendens
iure ac merito retineri debet."
(Denzingcr-Bannwart, n. 881).
8 Summa Theol., 3a. qu. 82, art.
ί·— On the further requisite of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or at least
permission, see Suarez, De Eucha
ristia, disp. 72, sect. 2.
THE MINISTER
263
In the early Church the deacons took the Holy Eu
charist to those who were absent from divine service *
and presented the Chalice to the laity during Mass.’ As
late as the thirteenth century, deacons were allowed to ad
minister the Chalice, but the Sacred Host only in cases of
necessity, at the bidding of bishop or priest.0
That the functions of the deacon with respect to the
Holy Eucharist were always regarded as extraordinary
and dependent on the permission of bishop or priest,
may be seen from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions.
In this compilation of ecclesiastical laws, which was long
accepted as the work of the Apostles, but is now known to
have been made in Syria at the end of the fourth or
the beginning of the fifth century,7 we read: “ The dea
con . . . does not baptize, nor offer ; but when the bishop
or priest has offered [the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass],
he [the deacon] gives to the people, not as a priest, but
as one ministering to the priests.” 8 When Communion
was no longer given to the laity under the species of wine,
the deacon’s powers became more restricted. According
to a decision of the S. Congregation of Rites (Feb. 25,
1777), which is still in force, the deacon may administer
Communion in case of necessity, and with the permission
of his bishop or pastor,— which permission, however, may
be presumed where the necessity is urgent.
4
Cfr. Justin Martyr, Apol., I, c· P. C., 1. na6): " Diaconus . . .
non baptuat. non odert; ipse veto,
67.
quum epitcopus vel presbyter obtu
6 Cfr. Cyprian, De Lapsis, n. 17,
lit. dal populo non tamquam sacer
dos. sed tamquam ministrans sa
0Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 8a, art.
3, ad 1: ··. . . ut [diaronus] dis cerdotibus."— Xn accordance with
this is a decree altribuled to the
penset sanguinem, non autem cor
so-called fourth Council of Car
pus nui in necessitate, lubente epi
thage, A. D. 398 (can. 38), which
scopo vel presbytero."
7 Cfr. Bardenhewer Shahan, Pa says: " Diaconus praesente pres
bytero Eucharistiam eorpans Chnsti
trology, p. 350, Freiburg and St
necessitas cogul. misas
Louis 1908.
» Const. elpost., VIII, aS (Migne,
CHAPTER V
THE RECIPIENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In dealing with the recipient of the Holy
Eucharist we must carefully distinguish between
the two conditions of objective capacity (capaci
tas, aptitudo) and subjective worthiness (digni
tas). The former alone belongs to dogmatics;
the latter falls within the purview of moral and
ascetic theology.
SECTION i
OBJECTIVE CAPACITY
We are here concerned solely with the sacra
mental reception of the Holy Eucharist, not with
the purely physical act of eating and drinking the
sacred species, which, per se, may be done by
persons lacking the necessary moral aptitude.
On the necessity of having the right intention
enough has been said in treating the subject of
intention generally in a previous volume of this
series.1
a) The first requisite of capacity or aptitude
is that the recipient be a human being. Christ
instituted His Sacraments, and especially the
Eucharistic food of souls, for mankind only.
This condition excludes angels and irrational ani
mals.
The expression “ Bread of Angels,” which is so often
applied to the Blessed Sacrament (it is taken from the
Psalms) 2 is a mere metaphor to indicate that the angels
feast spiritually upon the God-man in the Beatific
Vision, where He is not concealed under the sacramental
veil.3
1 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments,
Vol. I, pp. 196 sqq
2Ps.
LXXV11. as: “ Panem
265
s Cfr. St. Thomas. Summa Theo!..
ja. qu. 8o. art. t.
266
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT
b) The second requisite of capacity or aptitude
for holy Communion is that the recipient be in
the state of pilgrimage to the next life (in statu
viatoris).
We have already adverted to Rosmini’s untenable opin
ion that the Eucharist is miraculously supplied in the next
world to children who have departed this life without it.*
It would be equally absurd to give holy Communion to
the dead,— a practice expressly forbidden by a council of
Hippo in the fourth century, on the ground that corpses
are no longer capable of eating.0 Strangely enough, this
abuse of giving Communion to the dead proved difficult
to eradicate, as appears from the energetic measures
taken against it by later synods, e. g. that of Auxerre, of
578, and the Trullan Council of 692.°
c) The third requisite is Baptism, which by
its very concept is the “spiritual door” to all the
means of grace administered by the Church.
Were a Jew or a Mohammedan to receive the Sacred
Host, he would experience none of the effects of the
Sacrament ex opere operato, even though he had put
himself into the state of sanctifying grace by an act of
perfect contrition.45*7 The catechumens in the ancient
Church were strictly excluded from the Table of the
Lord.8
4 V. supra, pp. 236 sq.
5 Can. 4: " Placuit i3>2 sq.
12 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art.
8·— On the subject of the recipient
of the Holy Eucharist the student
may further consult P Schaiu,
Die Lehre von den hl. Sahramenten.
J 35, Freiburg 1893.
PART III
THE HOLY EUCHARIST AS A
SACRIFICE, OR THE MASS
The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice opens up new
points of view. Sacrament and Sacrifice are
such thoroughly different things that some the
ologians treat the Mass separately in an entirely
different connection.
The Mass is indeed something essentially different from
the Eucharist as a Sacrament. Wyclif, Luther, and other
heretics retained the latter but repudiated the former.
A Sacrament serves primarily for the sanctification of
souls, whereas a Sacrifice has for its object to glorify
God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation.
The recipient of the one is man, of the other, God,
Moreover, the two have distinct modes of being. The
Eucharistic Sacrament is a permanent thing (res per
manens}·, the Mass is a transient act (actio transiens}.
Finally, the Sacrifice of the Mass requires the consecra
tion of two distinct elements (bread and wine), whereas
the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be effected (though
only per accidens} by the consecration of one element
only.
The word " Missa,” according to some, is derived from
the Hebrew N®, ». e. portion, according to others from
the Greek μύσκ, i. e. occlusion. Mittere in the sense of
272
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
273
perficere, offerre sacrum, occurs in the writings of classi
cal authors. But it is more probable that the word
Missa is a late Latin form of missio, as oblata from ob
latio, collecta from collectio, etc.1
Missio may refer either to the divine mission of the
Logos for the reconciliation of mankind,2 or, by synec
doche, to the “ dismissal ” of the catechumens in the
primitive Church,3 which has left its traces in the " lie
missa est.” The term Missa for the Sacrifice of the
Altar probably came into common use in the Latin
Church as early as the sixth or seventh century. In the
East they have retained the older technical term “ Lit
urgy.” 4
The teaching of the Church on the Sacrifice of
the Mass, as defined by the Council of Trent, may
be treated in three chapters :
I. The Existence of the Mass;
II. The Nature of the Mass;
III. The Causality of the Mass.
General Readings:—·St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, ja. qu.
8j.— Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 8 (ed. Lequette, Vol VI, pp.
1 Cfr. Du Cange, Glossar., s. v.
" Missa."
2 It is thus explained by Rupert
of Deutz, De Divin. Off., II, 20.
8 Cfr. Isid. Hispal., Etymol., VI.
19, 4: "Missa tempore sacrificii
est. quando catechumeni foras mit
tuntur ... et inde Missa, quia sa
cramentis altaris intéressé non pos
sunt, qui nondum regenerati no
scuntur." (Migne, P. L., LXXXII,
2J2).
4 Cfr. H. Miiller, Missa: Vrsprung und Bedeuiung der Benen-
nung,
Aschaffenburg
1873;
H.
Loewy, Die myslischen Beseichnungen Jesu Christi ais SiM, SehUoeh
und Piscis, insbesondere die Beseichnung der christlichen Opferfeier
ais Missa. Paderborn >888; Kellner,
Heortology. pp. 430 sqq., London
1908: A. Fortescue, The Mass. 4
Study of the Roman Liturgy, and
ed., London 1913, pp. 399 sqq.; J. C.
Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, new
impression. London 1907, pp. >73
sqq.
274
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
531 sqq.).—Gregory of Valentia, De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio,
Ingolstadt 1580.—♦Bcllarmi ne, De Eucharistia, V-VI (cd. Fèvre,
Vol. VI, pp. 296 sqq., Paris 1873).— Suarez, De Sacram. Eu
charist. ct de Missae Sacrificio, ed. Paris 1861.— Vasqucz, Com
ment. in S. Thcol., Ill, disp. 230-231.—*De Lugo, De SS. Eu
charistia, disp. 19 sqq. (ed. Fournials, Vol. VI, pp. 233 sqq.,
Paris 1892).— Tanner, De SS. Missae Sacrificio, Ingolstadt
1620.—Pasqualigo, De Sacrificio Novae Legis Quacst. Theo
logicae, Morales, liiridicae, 2 vols., Lyons 1662.— Innocent J11,
De Sacro Altaris Mysterio (Migne, P. L., CCXXVII, 773 sqq.).
— Benedict XIV, De SS. Missae Sacrificio (Migne, Thcol. Curs.
Complet., Vol. XXIII).
Among modern writers: Phil. Hergenrother, Die Eucharistie
als Opfer, Ratisbon 1868.— Breitenreicher, Die Sakramente und
das hl. Messopfer, Schaffhausen 1869.— Holzwarth, Briefe Uber
das hl. Messopfer, Mayence 1873.— Lambrecht, De SS. Missae
Sacrificio, Louvain 1874.— Menne, Das allerhciligste Sakramcnl
des Altars als Opfer, Paderborn 1876.— Eisenring, Das hl.
Messopfer, Einsiedeln 1880.—*Stentrup, S. J., De Sacrificio Eu
charistiae, Innsbruck 1889.— Businger, Das unblutige Opfer des
Ncuen Blindes, Solothurn 1890.— Lohmann, Das Opfer des Neucn
Blindes, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1909.— Sauter, Das hl. Messopfer,
3rd ed., Paderborn 1909.—*N. Gihr, Das hl. Messopfer, dog
matisât, liturgisch und assctisch erklart, 13th ed., Freiburg 1912;
Eng. ed., The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgi
cally and Ascetically Explained, 4th ed., St. Louis 1914· —
Many, Praelectiones de Missa, Paris 1903.— Gavin, S. J., The
Sacrifice of the Mass, London 1903.— G. Pierse, The Mass tn
the Infant Church, Dublin 1909.— Chas. C. Clarke, Handbook
of the Divine Liturgy. A Brief Study of the Historical De
velopment of the Mass, London 1910.— D. Rock, Hierurgia;
or, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Revised by W. H. James
Weale, 4th ed., 2 vols., London 1900.— A Devine, The Sacra
ments Explained, 3rd cd., pp. 250 sqq., London 1905.— J. C.
Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 147-253, New Impression, Lon
don 1907.— G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First
Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 62-134, St. Louis 1913.— Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd
ed., pp. 431-463. London 1901.—S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines
of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. HI, pp. 275-296, London 1894.—L.
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
275
Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, tr. by
M. L. McClure, pp. 46-227, London 191
Mass; A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Second Impression, Lon
don 1913.—H. Lucas, Holy Mass. The Eucharistic Sacrifice and
the Roman Liturgy, 2 vols., London 1914,—W J Kelly. The
Veiled Majesty of Jesus in the Eucharist, pp. 175 sqq·. London
1903.
CHAPTER I
THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE
MASS
Before proving that the Mass exists and is a
true sacrifice, we must explain the notion of sacri
fice.
276
SECTION i
THE NOTION OF SACRIFICE EXPLAINED
ARTICLE I
DEFINITION OF SACRIFICE
I. Figurative Sacrifices.—A “sacrifice,”
generally speaking, is the offering of a gift to
God (oblatio Dei facta). In this sense the term
may be applied to anything that is offered to
the Deity: prayer, obedience, mortification, a good
intention, alms, etc.
It is in this general sense that Holy Scripture says:
“ He that doth mercy, offereth sacrifice.”1
The Protestant Reformers distorted the Bible when,
on the strength of such a figurative use of the term as
is found in the above quotation, they contended that the
Mass is superfluous. Calvin, however, was honest
enough to admit : “ I do not understand by what reason
ing those are impelled who extend the word sacrifice to all
religious ceremonies and actions.”2 In matter of fact it
is not at all difficult to show that Holy Scripture employs
the term not only in a figurative but also in its strict sense.
1 Ecclus. XXXV, 4: "Qui facit
misericordiam, offert sacrificium."
— On the history of the term ·' sac
rifice ” in English, see the Oxford
New English Dictionary, s. v.
2 Inst., IV, 8, 5 13 s "Qui sacri
ficii vocabulum ad omnes cerimoni
as ei religiosas actiones ostendunt,
qua ratione id faciant, non video."
277
2/8
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Metaphors like a “ sacrifice of jubilation,”8*“ the calves
of our lips,” a “ sacrifice of praise,” *— expressions
which apply sacrificial terms to simple prayer,— would
be meaningless were there not, or had there not been, a
true and real sacrifice (hostia, θυσία'). This appears all
the more clearly from such comparisons as: ‘‘Let my
prayer be directed as incense in thy sight,” 0 and such
antitheses as: “Obedience is better than sacrifices;”8
“If thou hadst desired sacrifice, 1 would indeed have
given it : with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted :
a sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit ; ”7 “1 desired
mercy and not sacrifice.” 8 It will be noticed that these
texts advert to the sacrificial intent which is essential to
every true sacrifice, and without which no sacrifice has
value in the eyes of God. This ethical asp‘ect of sacri
fice is strongly emphasized by St. Augustine when he
says: “A true sacrifice is every good work which is
performed in order that we may be in God by a holy as
sociation.” 0 According to St. Thomas the sacrificial in
tent, as embodied in the spirit of prayer, is the essential
thing.10
In a true sacrifice the sacrificial intent naturally does
not embody itself in the rite, which can be performed
mechanically, but in the purpose, which lifts the external
8 Osce VI, 6: " Misericordiam
8 " Hostia
vociferationis." (Ps.
XXVI, 6).
volui ct non sacrificium."
4 " Pilwii labiorum." (Osee XIV,
o De Civ. Dei, X, 6: "Sacrifi
3).—“ Hostia laudis." (Hcb. XIII,
cium verum est omne opus bonum,
>5).
quod agitur, ut sanctâ societate in
5 Ps. CXL, a: " Dirigatur oratio
haereamus Deo."
mea sicut incensum »n conspectu
10
Summa Theol., za zae, qu. 85,
tuo."
art. 3, ad 2: " Primum quidem est
0 i Kings XV, 22: " Melior est
bonum animae quod Deo offertur in
enim obedientia quam victimae."
terior» quodam sacrificio per devo
1 Pe. L, :8 sq. : " Si voluisses
tionem et orationem et alios huiussacrificium, dedissem utique, holocau
modi interiores actus; et hoc est
stis non delectaberis: sacrificium
Principale sacrificium."
Deo spiritus contribulatus.”
ΝΟΤΙΟΝ OF SACRIFICE
*79
offering into the spiritual sphere and cannot therefore
be attained without an act of the intellect and will.
2. Sacrifices in the True and Proper
Sense of the Term.—The definition of sacrifice
(oblatio, προσφορά) cannot be gained by a priori
reasoning; it must be ascertained from the com
parative history of religions, and, principally,
from Divine Revelation. A careful study of
these sources shows that four constituent elements
enter into the notion of sacrifice. They are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
a sacrificial gift (res oblata);
a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus) ;
a sacrificial action (actio sacrifica) ;
a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
a) The necessity of a sacrificial gift is apparent
from the fact that there can be no offering with
out something that is offered (res oblata).
In a true sacrifice, in contrast with figurative sacrifices,
the gift must be a physical substance, that is to say,
it must be something material and visible (e. g. an ani
mal, incense), which is withdrawn from profane use and
dedicated in a special manner to God. Cfr. Heb. VIII,
3: “Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices : wherefore it is necessary that he also should
have something to offer.” 11
But this is not sufficient. The tithe, the first-fruits,
the votive gifts left at miraculous shrines, etc., are physiII Heb. VIII, 3: " Omnis enim
hostias constituitur. un rf/ nece tie e it
fonti fer uj offerendum munera et
hunc habere ahgutd quoj ori er at "
28ο
THE EUCHARIST AS /\ SACRIFICE
cal substances offered to God with a religious intent, but
they are not sacrifices. Something more is required.
b) The second requisite is the sacrificing min
ister (minister legitimus sacrificii'), who is usu
ally called priest {sacerdos, ttp™).
He must be a qualified person of the male sex. It is
of the very notion of public sacrifice that it is offered in the
name of the whole community, and no man can act as the
representative of a community (family, tribe) unless he
has been duly commissioned or called. Whatever may
have been the condition of affairs in the state of the law
of nature, it is certain that since the Mosaic legislation
the exercise of sacrificial functions has been limited to
certain authorized persons. The priests of the Old Law
were the members of the tribe of Levi. Cfr. Heb. V,
4: “Neither doth any man take the honor to himself,
but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.” 12 When
King Ozias presumed to offer sacrifices, the Levites re
proved him and he was struck with leprosy.13 Christ
Himself, the eternal and sole High Priest, did not exer
cise the sacerdotal ministry by an arrogation of author
ity, but in virtue of a divine call.14 He has commanded
that the priests who represent Him should receive power
and authority to offer up the Sacrifice of the New Law
through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Hence it is an
axiom in the Catholic Church that there can be no priest
without a sacrifice, and no priesthood without the Sacra
ment of Holy Orders. The Church is not empowered to
institute sacrifices. All she has been commissioned to do
12
Heb. V, 4: " Nee quisquom
sumit sibi honorem [i. c. sacerdotii),
sed qui vocatur α Deo tamquum
Aaron." (Cfr. Numb. Ill sqq.).
18 a Par. XXVI, 18 eq(].
p141^ ei^01,1C 1>r<:uSB· Sociology,
NOTION OF S/XCRIFICE
281
is to renew and apply the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross
in an unbloody manner to the end of time.
A sacrifice must be offered up at a fixed place, called
an altar (ara, altare). Such places are found early and in
great number among the nations of antiquity.
The question suggests itself, in view of what we have
said, whether a visible gift (e. cj., a lamb or the firstfruits of the field), offered on a fixed altar by a regu
larly ordained priest, would be a true sacrifice.
If God had instituted a sacrifice under this form, it
would undoubtedly be a true sacrifice. Viewed in the
light of Revelation, however, we find that such an of
fering would lack an essential constituent of a true sac
rifice, vis.: the sacrificial act.
c) In the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica, actio
sacrificii) a sacrifice reaches its outward culmina
tion. Its essence consists in the external offering
of the sacrificial gift, which, in turn, must be
in some manner transformed, if not completely
destroyed. The form of a sacrifice, therefore,
lies not in the transformation (immutatio) or de
struction (destructio) of the sacrificial gift, but
in its sacrificial offering, no matter how it may
be transformed.
a) The sacrificial oblation, consequently, is the physi
cal form, whereas the transformation of the gift is merely
the materia proxima of the sacrifice. The former is the
end and object, the latter a mere means to that end.
The correctness of this view can be proved by a threefold
argument.
(1) Sacrificium comes from sacrum facere, in its ac-
282
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
tive sense it is synonymous with offerre (to offer).
Hence to offer is not the same as to transform {immu
tare) or to destroy {destruere).15
16
(2) This conclusion is borne out by a study of the
Mosaic rite. Under the law of Moses the victim was
slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation
of the blood {aspersio sanguinis) was a function reserved
to’ the lawfully appointed priests. It follows that the
slaying of the victim appertains merely to the matter of
the sacrifice, whereas the oblation, which consists in the
sprinkling of the blood {aspersio sanguinis), constitutes its
essential form.10
(3) The real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross did
not consist in the slaying of Christ by His barbarous ex
ecutioners, nor in an imaginary self-destruction of the
Divine Victim, but in His voluntary surrender of His
Blood, shed by the hands of others, and in His offering
His life for the sins of the world. Consequently, the
oblation constitutes the essence of a sacrifice, whereas the
destruction of the victim does not.17
ft) These arguments do not, however, decide the
deeper question whether or not the transformation or,
more particularly, the destruction of the victim enters
into the definition of a sacrifice a parte materiae. We
have seen in a previous treatise18 that the matter of a
thing, both remote and proximate, may be as necessary to
constitute its nature as the form.
There can be no doubt that the sacrificial gift must be
15 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia,
disp. 73, acct. 5.
10 Cfr. P. Scholz, Die III. Allerturner des Folkes Israel, Vol. Π,
pp- >34 «ΟΙ·· Ratisbon 1868.—"Ho
stia quippe occiditur, ut offeratur,"
says St. Gregory the Great (Hom.
in Etech., X. >9)·
IT Cfr. Heb.
IX,
14: "Per
Spiritum Sanctum semetipsum obtu
lit (ίαυτόν προσ·ήνε·γκΐν) immacula
tum Deo."—Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, So
ciology, pp.
sqq
18 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments.
Vol. I, pp. 59 sqq., IOJ,
ΝΟΤΙΟΝ OF SACRIFICE
^3
in some manner transformed either before the sacrificial
action or in the process of the same.1· Is this transfor
mation in the Mass duly accomplished by the Consecra
tion (sacratio, consecratio), which transfers the sacri
ficial gift from profane use to the exclusive service of
God, or must there be, in addition, a real change (mutatio
realis)? If there is need of a physical transformation,
must it consist in an improvement of the gift (mutatio
in melius) or may it consist in a deterioration or the de
struction thereof (mutatio in deterius s. destructio)?
The answer to these questions cannot be obtained by the
a priori method. Had God so willed, a sacrifice could be
consummated by the mere consecration or dedication of
the sacrificial gift. But we know from Revelation that
such was not His will. We know that the essence of
sacrifice requires a real transformation of the res oblata.
Holy Scripture does not tell us whether this transforma
tion must culminate in destruction. Catholic divines,
since Bellarmine and Suarez, hold divergent views on this
point. Scheeben20 has pointed out, and Fr. Renz ”
proved by a wealth of historical arguments, that the
Fathers and the Scholastic theologians of the pre-Tridentine period did not demand the destruction of the
victim. However, Bellarmine,22 Vasquez,23 De Lugo,34
and Franzelin20 insist on it. That the idea is recent.
10 Cfr.
St.
Thomas,
Summa
Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: "Sacri
ficia proprie dicuntur, quando circa
res Deo oblatas aliquid fit, sicut
quod animalia occidebantur et com
burebantur, quod panis frangitur et
comeditur et benedicitur. Et hoc
ipsum nomen sonat; nam sacrificium
dicitur ex hoc quod homo facit ali
quid socrum.”— Hence the etymolo
gical equation θύω - fio tsufUoi·, in
Sanscrit: yag = to otter, whence arc
derived yagiia = sacrifice, and ydgya
= sacred (in the sense of 4?ios>.
20 Dogmatik, Vo). Ill, pp- 400
sqq.. Freiburg 1884.
31 Ceschichle des Messopferbegriffes, 2 vol·.. Freising 1901-03.
22 De Eucharistia, V, ».
33 Comment, in S. Theol.. 1).
disp. 120, c. 1.
21 De Eucharistia, disp. 19. «act.
as De Eucharistia, P 11. the*. 16.
284
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
does not, of course, prove that it is false. The necessity
of defending the Mass against the Protestant Reformers
might have led to the discovery of a new element, which
had been overlooked by the theologians of an earlier day.
If we add to this that the idea of the complete destruction
of the sacrificial victim is realized in a truly imposing man
ner both in the Mosaic rite and in the Sacrifice of the
Cross,— though indeed only ratione materiae proximae,
— we shall see how reasonable is the assumption that
there must be some kind of destruction (and if it were
only a self-abasement, or “ kenosis,” as modern writers
might say), in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
De Lugo, whose opinion has been popularized by more
than one English writer, expressly admits that the de
struction of the sacrificial gift need not be physical but
that the idea is sufficiently realized in an act which, ac
cording to human estimation, amounts to a certain “ ex
inanition” or self-abasement.20 We mention this fact,
not to prove the truth of De Lugo’s theory, but merely
to show that it is not improbable, much less impossible.
d) The object or end of the sacrifice {finis sa
crificii), as significant of its meaning, constitutes
its “metaphysical form.” In all religions the es
sential idea of sacrifice is a complete surrender of
the creature to God for the purpose of being
united with Him.
a) 1'his surrender {oblatio, προσφορά) can be regarded
from a twofold point of view: (i) as an acknowledg
ment of God’s absolute dominion over man {agnitio sitMD* Eucharistia, disp. i9, sect.
5, n. 65:
. .fo «t ex -..1 sacrihcationis hostia, prout est in
ilhui acllanii h
decliviorem et saltern I,....
'
desierit."
'ano modo
ΝΟΤΙΟΝ OF SACRIFICE
-'»5
fremi dominii') and (2) as man's absolute subjection of
himself under God (absoluta subtectio sub Deo). The
former element embodies mainly the juridical, the latter
the ethical element of sacrifice, i. e. man’s own sanctifica
tion as a means of union with God. The two ideas are
correlative and postulate each other. Both are based
upon the consideration of God as the First Cause and
Last End of the created universe.27
Hence the obvious inference that sacrifice is essen
tially an act of divine worship, as God is both the Creator
and the final End of all things. To offer sacrifice to a
creature would be idolatry.28 This was understood even
by the heathen. St. Augustine remarks : “ Who ever
thought of offering sacrifice, except to one whom he
either knew or thought or imagined to be God ? ”20
Now we are also able to understand why the gift of
fered as a sacrifice must not only be the property of him
who offers it, but by a symbolic substitution vicariously
represents man whole and entire, with body and soul,
being and life, inasmuch as the sacrificing minister is
aware of the absolute dependence upon the First Cause
and the direction to the Final End of those for whom he
offers sacrifice. This is the essential signification of every
sacrifice.
β) To the idea of a complete surrender to God
as the essential note of sacrifice, there is added,
27 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol.,
za zae, qu. 85, art. 3: " Oblatio
sacrificii fit ad aliquid significandum.
■ . . Anima autem se ofleri Deo in
sacrificium sicut principio suae crea
tionis et sicut fini suae beatifica·
tionis.”
28 Cfr.
St.
Thomas,
Summa
Theol., ia zac, qu. ioa, art. 3:
" Et quia pertinet ad rectam ordina
tionem mentis in Deum, ut mens hu
mana non recognoscat alium primum
auctorem rerum nisi solum Deum,
neque in aliquo alio Unem suum
constituat, propter hoc prohibebatur
in lege offerri sacrificium alicui al
teri nisi Deo secundum illud (Er.
XXIt, 39) : * Qmi immolat diis, oc
cidetur. praeterquam Domino soli.’"
29
De Civ. Dei. X. 4: -"Quis
sacrificandum cernui! nisi ei, qu*wi
deum aut scivit aut putavit aut
finsritP “
286
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
on the part of those who are in a state of sin, the
desire for pardon and reconciliation.
This idea is based on the knowledge that sin is the
greatest impediment of union with God. All the sacri
fices of which Bible history tells us, were offered in the
state of sin, and consequently had for their object, in
part at least, the pardon of sinners and their reconcilia
tion with God. Here, again, the idea of destruction
plays an important part, in so far as man, conscious of
his guilt and the penalty incurred thereby, prefers to
offer such gifts as symbolize his own life, and destroys
them by killing or burning. Cfr. Heb. IX, 22 : “ With
out shedding of blood there is no remission.” 30
Combining the four constituent ideas thus ex
plained, we may now define a sacrifice as “the ex
ternal offering up of a sensible gift, which is de
stroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate
transformation, by an authorized minister, in
recognition of God’s supreme dominion and in
order to appease His anger.”
In this definition the phrase “ the external offering up
of a sensible gift” expresses the generic element which
30Heb. IX, 22·. "Sine sanguinis
effusione non fit remiwio."—Cfr.
Polile-Prcuss, Sotcriology, pp. 112
sqq.;
Outram,
De
Sacrificiis,
London 1672; J. Pohle, s. v. “ Sac
rifice," in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. ΧΠΙ.— On the sacrifices of the
pagans see Lasaulx, Die Sühnopfer
der Cricchen «nd Ruiner «nd ihr
Perhdltnis su dem eincn auf Gol
gotha, Wurzburg 1841 ; Sclianz, s. v.
“ Opfer" in the Kirchenlesikon. 2nd
ed.. Vol. IX.— On the controversy
regarding the concept of sacrifice in
the primitive Church, cfr. the Katholik, of Mayence, 1908, I, pp. 434 sqq.,
II. 463 sqq.; 1909, I, pp. 125 sqq.;
Zeitschrift far kath. Théologie, of
Innsbruck, i9o8, pp. 3O7 sqq.. Wie
land, Die Schrift ' Mensa mid Con
fessio’ mid P. E. Dorsch, S. J
Munich 1908.—On the idea of sacri
fice in the Fathers, sec G. Pierse,
The Mass in the Infant Church, pp
37 aqq.
1H
DIVISION OF SACRIFICE
287
a sacrifice has in common with other acts of divine wor
ship. The remainder sets forth the specific difference
which distinguishes a sacrifice from all other religious
offerings.
ARTICLE 2
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SACRIFICE
Sacrifices may be divided into four categories
according to their object, their origin, their ma
terial, and the economy of grace to which they
belong.
I. The Object of Sacrifice.—The intrinsic
and essential object of every sacrifice, as we have
seen, is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme do
minion over His creatures. Besides this there is
a secondary object, viz.: the appeasement of His
wrath. This secondary object, though in itself
purely accidental, has become inseparable from
the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the Fall.1
The acknowledgment of God’s supreme domin
ion over His creatures culminates in adoration
or worship {adoratio, latria, λατρβία); the effort
to appease His wrath, in contrite expiation for
the purpose of obtaining pardon of sin {propiti
atio). Hence the distinction between sacrifices
of praise and sacrifices of propitiation {sacrificia
latreutica et propitiat oria). And since man re
ceives from God many benefits, his sacrifices have
1 Cfr. Heb. X. 2 aqq.
288
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
the additional purpose of thanksgiving and peti
tion (sacrificia eucharistica ct impetrat oria).
The reason of this fourfold division, according to St.
Thomas, is that “ man is under obligations to God, in the
first place and mainly because of His majesty; secondly
because of sins committed; thirdly, because of benefits
received, and fourthly, because of benefits still ex
pected.” 2 These four objects must not, however, be
conceived as separable from one another. There can be
no sacrifice of thanksgiving and petition that is not at
the same time a sacrifice of praise and propitiation. The
specific name of each merely points to the purpose pre
dominant in the mind of the sacrificing minister.
2. Origin of Sacrifice.—To be valid, a sac
rifice must be legitimately instituted. It is not,
however, necessary, that it be instituted exclu
sively by God.
“ Generally speaking,” says St. Thomas, “ the obliga
tion of sacrifice is derived from the natural law ; and
therefore all are agreed on this. But the determination
of sacrifices is a matter of human or divine institution,
and in this there is a difference of opinion.” 3 Vasquez 4
maintained against Suarez that under the law of nature
sacrifices might conceivably be instituted by private in2 Summa Theol., ia zae, qu. 102,
art. 3, ad to: " Est ratio huius
ordinis, quia maxime obligatur homo
Deo propter cius niaiestatcm, se
cundo propter offensam commissam,
tertio propter cius beneficia tam sus
cepta, quarto propter beneficia
sperato."
3 Summa Theol., 2a aae, qu. 85,
art. i, ad 1: "Obligatio sacrificii
m communi est dc lege naturali, et
ideo in hoc omnes conveniunt. Sed
determinatio sacrificiorum est ex in
stitutione humana vel divina, et ideo
in hoc differunt."
_ 4 Comment, in S. Theol., III, disp.
DIVISION OF SACRIFICE
289
dividuals; but this contention was refuted by De Lugo?
There can hardly be a doubt that the institution of sacri
fices, even in the state of nature, is reserved to author
ity. Upon this fact is based the division of sacrifices
into arbitraria, i. c. sacrifices instituted by purely human
authority, and legalia, i. e. sacrifices instituted by divine
authority. Sacrifices of the first-mentioned kind were
probably offered by the Patriarchs during the pre-Mosaic
period, when there were as yet no sacrificia legalia and
the offering of sacrifice was a duty imposed on the heads
of families. By the written law of Moses Yahweh as
sumed control of the Jewish religion, prescribed the sac
rificial rites in detail, and selected the tribe of Levi as
the sole representative of the Old Testament priesthood.'’
Sacrifices offered by others were invalid, and any one
not of that tribe who presumed to offer sacrifice, was as
“guilty ... as if he had shed blood,” and condemned
to “ perish from the midst of his people.”1
3. The Material of Sacrifice.—In accord
ance with the material nature of the sacrificial
gift, sacrifices are divided into bloody sacrifices
{victima, hostia, 0vala)f libations (libamen, σΐΓονδ«ον), and immolations (immolatio).
The material of the bloody sacrifice belonged to the
category of domestic animals, which were slaughtered
and burnt, either wholly or in part.
Libations, consisting of natural liquids such as wine
and oil, were poured out before the altar.
The material of an immolation (from mala, sacrificial
5 Dc Eucharistia, disp. 19, sect, t,
n. 10 sqq.
0 Cfr. Numb. Ill sqq·.
XVIII.
r Cfr. Lev. XVII.
sqq.
s
Deut.
2go
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
flour) was chosen from solid or liquid articles of human
food (incense, salt, etc.), and was always, at least par
tially, burned.
The sacrificial rites differed widely among different
nations.
The most perfect, in fact the only true bloody sacri
fice, in matter as well as form, was that offered on the
Cross by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was
both the sacrificing minister and the sacrificial lamb.
4. Pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Christian Sac
of sacrifices, in revealed re
ligion, may be divided into three periods : (a) the
Pre-Mosaic or Patriarchal {actas patriarcharum
s. legis naturae)·, (b) the Mosaic {actas legis
scriptae s. mosaica) ; and (c) the Christian {aetas
legis evangelicae s. Christianae).
rifices.—The history
a) The sacrifice of the Patriarchal period, in its earli
est stage in Paradise, probably consisted in some ceremon
ial (latreutical) eating of fruit from the Tree of Life,
which was a figure of holy Communion. The priest
was Adam, the head of the family, not Eve, who was
subject to her husband. Through the fall of our first
parents the sacrifices they offered to God took on a
propitiatory character. The first sacrifice expressly men
tioned in the Bible is that of Cain and Abel, consist
ing of animals and fruits of the field. It is probable that
during this early period the sacrificial rite was deter
mined entirely by the Patriarchs, who were the legitimate
heads of their tribes, though some theologians hold that
certain regulations had been handed down to them from
primitive Revelation.
b) The sacrifices of the Mosaic period were partly
DIVISION OF SACRIFICE
291
bloody and partly unbloody. The latter were merely
subsidiary food-offerings?
There were three kinds of bloody sacrifices: burnt of
ferings, peace offerings, and sin offerings. The burnt
offering is called holocaust, because in it the whole vic
tim was made to ascend to God through fire in smoke
and vapor.
The unbloody sacrifices consisted in the burning of
vegetable substances (incense, flour, bread with salt) or
the pouring out of fluids (wine and oil).
Notable among the sacrifices of the Mosaic period
were: the sin offering (sacrificium pro peccato, to irtpl
αμαρτίαν, or simply peccatum), the sacrifice of the daily
lamb (iuge sacrificium), and that of the paschal lamb
(agnus paschalis).0
A most important function of the Mosaic sacrifice
was to serve as a type or figure of the Sacrifice of the
Cross. The entire Old Testament, as St. Paul tells us,
was nothing but “ a shadow of the good things to
come.” 10 This is true in a special manner of the sacri
ficial system of the Jews, as the same Apostle explains.11
As the Levitic priesthood was a figure of the one High
Priest, Jesus Christ, so the sacrifices of the Mosaic law
were a shadow and a type of the one great Sacrifice of
the Cross. Being in themselves imperfect and ineffica
cious, the sacrifices of the Levites could effect a legal
“ cleansing of the flesh,” 12 but no remission of sins.”
8 Cfr. Thalhofer, Die unblutigen
Opfcr des mosaischen Kullus Ratisbon 1848.
0 De Lugo (De Euch., disp. 19,
sect. I, n. 9) denied that the "panes
propositionis " were a true sacri
fice; but this assertion is untenable.
Cfr. Scholz, Die hl. Altertiimer des
Volkcs Israel, Vol. II, Ratisbon
1868.
lolleb. X, 1: " umbra ... fa
turorum (σκιά. . ■ . rue μιλλόοrun)·”
ii Heb. VIII-X.
>3 ·■ Emundatio carnis, τήι σαρκόι
καΟαρότηι·’’
13 " Remissio, Aipsait·"
292
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Their very insufficiency made them prophetic types of
the perfect sacrifice of the New Law. If sins were for
given in the Old Testament, it was not by the blood of
goats or calves, but by the blood of the promised Re
deemer. Hence the variety of the Levitic sacrifices and
their constant repetition. They were mere types ex
pressing the constant need of propitiation through the
bloody Sacrifice of the Cross.14
It would not, however, be correct to say that the sacri
fices of the Mosaic law were merely typical, mystic, and
relative. They had an absolute signification in them
selves in so far as they were true sacrifices, instituted
for the purpose of worshipping God, appeasing His anger,
giving Him thanks, and petitioning Him for further
blessings.15
c) Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the
bloody sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the
Cross and daily repeated in an unbloody manner
on our altars.
The Mass is not an independent sacrifice offered by
Christ. Nor is it a complement and consummation of
the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is merely the unbloody
representation and application of the latter, to be con
tinued to the end of time. Both in regard to the sacri
ficial gift and the sacrificing minister, the Mass is essen
tially identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross. The
only difference between them lies in the manner of of14 Cir. Pohlc-Preuss, Solcriology,
pp. H7 eq.
IB Cir. St Thomas, Summa
Theol., ia zae, qu. 102, art. 3:
" Caerimoniae Veterie Legit dupli
cem camam habebant: unam «il.
litcralem, secundum quod ordina
bantur ad cullum Dei, aliam vero
figuraient sive mysticam, secundum
quod ordinabantur ad figurandum
Christum."
DIVISION OF SACRIFICE
293
fering, which in the one is bloody and in the other un
bloody.10
Protestants contend that Christianity has no sacrifices
besides the one offered on Calvary. There are many
reasons that speak against this contention. In the
first place, there can be no true religion without a sacri
fice, and hence Christianity, being preeminently the re
ligion, must surely have a perennial sacrifice of its own.
Again, the sacrifice of the Cross is truly a world-sacri
fice and as such does not belong exclusively to the Chris
tian Church. It was the sole legitimate sacrifice also of
all religions of antiquity since the Fall. Yet the
professors of the Christian faith, in order to be able to
satisfy their duty of worshipping God, must have a per
manent sacrifice just as well as the Old Testament Jews.
This craving of the heart, which has deeply imbedded
itself in all religions, is not satisfied by the Sacrifice of
the Cross, since that was offered “ once for all ” and in
one place only. The Catholic Church, being “ the mys
tical Christ,” will and must have a sacrifice of her own,
because otherwise she could not fulfil her duty of wor
shipping God in the most perfect manner possible. With
out a sacrifice the Christian cult would be inferior to
the Levitic ceremonies of the Old Testament, nay even
to the feeble manifestations of natural religion as prac
ticed before the Mosaic era.17
These considerations, drawn from reason, are con
firmed by Divine Revelation, which tells us positively
that there is such a sacrifice and that it is to be found in
the Mass.
in E. infra. Ch. II, Sect, i, pp. 331 sqq.
it Cfr. N. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Man, pp. 79 »qq·
I
294
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Readings: —A. Stockl, Das Opfcr nach scincm Wesen and
seiner Gcschichte, Mayence 1861.—W. Koppler, Priester und
Opfergabe, Mayence 1886.— M. Becanus, De Triplici Sacrificio
Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, (Opusc. II), Lyons 1631.—G. Pierse,
The Mass in the Infant Church, Dublin 1909.— W. Humphrey,
S. J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, pp. 1-41,
London, s. a.—A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd
ed., pp. 250 sqq., London, 1905.
SECTION 2
THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS PROVED FROM
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
The Catholic dogma of the Mass is thus defined
by the Tridentine Council : “If anyone saith that
in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not of
fered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anath
ema.” 1 This truth can be convincingly demon
strated both from Scripture and Tradition.
ARTICLE
i
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament contains many prophecies
pointing to the Mass. They are recorded partly
in words and partly in types. Chief among the
former is the prophecy of Malachias; prominent
among the latter is the sacrifice of Melchisedech.
I. The Prophecy of Malachias.—The best
and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is un1 Sess. XIII, can. i: " Si quit
dirent, in Missa non offerri Deo
verum et proprium sacrificium aut
quod offerri non sit ahud quam
295
nobis Christum ad manducandum
dari, anathema sit." (Dcn/inger·
Bannwart. n. 948).
2g6
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
doubtcdly that of Malachias. Its principal pas
sage runs as follows :
“I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of
hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.
For from the rising of the sun even to the going
down, my name is great among the gentiles, and
in every place there is sacrifice, and there is of
fered to my name a clean oblation : for my name
is great among the gentiles, saith the Lord of
hosts.”1
According to the Catholic interpretation, the
prophet here foretells the everlasting sacrifice of
the New Dispensation. The Mass, in the words
of the Tridentine Fathers, “is indeed that clean
oblation, which cannot be defiled by any un
worthiness or malice of those that offer [it];
which the Lord foretold by Malachias would be
offered everywhere, clean to His name, which was
to be great amongst the nations. ...” 2
Malachias in the passage quoted predicts two
distinct events: (i) the abolition of all Levitical
sacrifices, and (2) the institution of an entirely
new sacrifice. The only new sacrifice that com1 Mal. I, 10 sq.: "Non est mihi
voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus ex
ercituum: et munus non suscipiam
de manu vestra. Ab ortu enim solis
usque ad occasum, magnum est nomen
meum in gentibus, cl in omni loco
sacrificatur, et offertur nomini ineo
oblatio munda.- quia magnum est
nomen meum in gentibus, dicit
Dominus exercituum."
2
Cone. Trident., Scss. XXII, cap.
1: "Haec illa munda oblatio est,
quae nullâ indignitate aut snalitid
offerentium inquinari potest, quam
Dominus per Malachiam nomini suo,
quod magnum futurum esset in
gentibus, in omni loco mundam of
ferendam
praedixit." (DenzingerUannwart, n. 939).
THE MASS IN THE Ο. T.
297
plies with the terms of this prediction is the Mass.
Consequently Malachias foretold the Mass.
a) The major premise is evident from the text and
context. God through the mouth of the prophet accuses
the Levitic priesthood of having despised His name by of
fering polluted bread and blind, lame, and sick animals
upon His altar.3 Angrily He rejects the Levitical sacri
fices altogether, declaring that they will be supplanted
by a new and clean oblation, which is to be offered not
only among the Jews, but likewise “ among the gentiles "
(i. e. heathen, non-Jews), and not only in one determined
spot (Jerusalem), but “in every place,” i. e. throughout
the world.
b) The minor premise can be established by
showing: («) that the sacrifice predicted by Mala
chias was to be instituted in the days of the Mes
siah ; (β) that it was to be a real and true sacrifice,
(γ) not formally identical with the Sacrifice of
the Cross.
a) Though the Hebrew participles of the original can
be translated by the present tense,4 the mere universality
of the new sacrifice is proof that the prophet beheld as
present an event belonging to the future. Whenever Yah
weh speaks of His glorification by the "heathen,”0 He
can, according to Old Testament usage, have in mind only
the kingdom of the Messiah or the future Church of
3 Mal. I, 7-8: "Offertis super
alt Lire meum panem pollutum, ei
dicitis: In quo polluimus tel In
eo quod dicitis: Mensa Domini de
specta est. Si offeratis caecum ad
immolandum, nonne malum estf ei
si offeratis claudum et languidum,
nonne malum estf "
4
They are so translated in our
English Bible.
r. Cfr. Ps. XXI. >8: LXXI, 10; U
XI. 9; XLIX. 6; LX. 9; Amos IX,
13; Mich. IV, a, etc.
298
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Christ. Every other explanation is shattered by the
text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of
Malachias himself be thought of. Nor could there be
any idea of a sacrifice among the heathen of that time,
as has been suggested; for the sacrifices of the heathen,
associated as they are with idolatry and impurity, are
essentially unclean0 and cannot claim to be regarded as
true sacrifices because they lack legitimate institution
and other necessary attributes. Again, Malachias could
not have meant a sacrifice among the dispersed Jews.
For, apart from the fact that the existence of such sacri
fices in the diaspora is rather problematic, if they did
exist they were certainly not offered throughout the
world and did not represent a clean and universal obla
tion in the sense indicated by the prophet. Consequently
the reference is undoubtedly to some sacrifice of the fu
ture. What was this to be? Was it to be a future sac
rifice among genuine heathen, such as the Congo ne
groes? This is as impossible as in the case of other
pagan forms of idolatry. Perhaps, then, it was to be a
new and more perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This
also is out of the question, for the new sacrifice is to be
offered by a priesthood of other than Jewish origin, and,
moreover, since the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70),
the whole system of Jewish sacrifices is irrevocably a thing
of the past.
β) The Messianic sacrifice predicted by Malachias was
to be a true sacrifice. Abolition and substitution must
correspond, and, accordingly, the Old Testament sacri
fices cannot be supplanted by an unreal one, especially in
view of the fact that the former were a type of the latter
The “ good things to come ” must have been at least as
β Cfr. I Cor. X. 20:
'· Quae immolant genfee, daemoniis immolant.»
THE MASS IN THE Ο. T.
299
real as their “ shadow.” Moreover, such figurative and
unreal sacrifices as prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc.,
are far from being a “new” offering, for they are per
manent realities common to the sacrifices of both the
Old and the New Law. Consequently, the opposition
between old and new in the prophecy of Malachias must
refer, not to the intrinsic aspects of the sacrifice, but
solely to its external rite. All doubt as to the correct
interpretation of the passage is dispelled by the Hebrew
text. The sacred writer employs no fewer than three
distinctively sacerdotal expressions referring to the
promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the
possibility of taking the term in the metaphorical sense.7
Especially important is the substantive ΠΠ3Ο, which, al
though originally the generic term for every sacrifice,
was never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a
prayer offering), but became the terminus technicus for
an unbloody sacrifice in contradistinction to the bloody
sacrifice, which is given the name of Π3Ϊ.8
y) The sacrifice predicted by Malachias cannot be the
Sacrifice of the Cross. The prophet employs the word
ininchah, which means an unbloody food-offering. The
Sacrifice of the Cross, though a true sacrifice, was not an
unbloody food-offering. The Sacrifice of the Cross was
confined to Golgotha and the Jewish people, and hence
was not a universal sacrifice in the sense of Malachias,
T In
omni
loco
suffimentum
(1DpO= partie. Hophal of 1Dp =
suffire, adolere, thurificare) nomini
meo, oblatum (
= partie. Ho
phal of yljj = offerre, sacrificare)
et [quidem] sacrificium mundum
(nninp ΠΠ3») The words ηορ
in Piel, yljj in Piel and Hipbii,
and ΠΠ3Ο· never occur »» Sacred
Scripture in the sense of internal
sacrifice (e. g. prayer), but are al
ways applied to liturgical sacrifices.
a Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment, tn
Profit. Minor., Vol. II. pp.
sqq.,
Paris 1886.
300
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
i. c. a sacrifice offered “ from the rising of the sun to the
going down ” and “ in every place.” Moreover, the
Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the
Saviour in person, without the help of a human priest
hood, cannot be identified with a sacrifice for the offer
ing of which the Messias employs priests after the man
ner of the Levites. In the Mass alone is the prophecy
of Malachias fulfilled to the letter. In it are united all
the characteristics of the promised new sacrifice: its
universality in regard to place and time, its extension to
all nations, its unbloody sacrificial rite, its delegated
priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its power to
glorify the name of God throughout the world, its in
trinsic dignity and essential purity which no Levitical or
moral uncleanness can defile. This is the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers.0 Cornelius à Lapide is so im
pressed with their unanimity that he confidently says:
“ It is of faith that this clean oblation [of Malachias] is
the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the
Holy Eucharist.” 10
c) This argument is supported by other pro
phetic references to the Mass in the Old Testa
ment, e. g. Psalm XXI and Isaias’ prediction of
a non-Jewish priesthood for the kingdom of the
future Messias.
a) The Messianic character of Psalm XXI (“Deus,
Deus meus, respice .in me") is evident from Matth.
a Cfr. Bcllarminc, De Eucharistia,
V, to; Pctavius, De Incarnatione,
XII, ta.
io" De fide esse, hone oblationem
mundam esse sacrificium corporis et
sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia." —
On the prophecy of Malachias the
student may
profitably
consult
Franzelin, De Eucharistia, I’. II,
thee, io ; Chr. Pesch, Praelect. DogV?L X'·
“d·· r"· 188
U. Rock, Hicrurgia; or. The Holy
THE MASS IN THE Ο. T.
301
XXVII, 46; Mark XV, 34; John XIX, 24; Heh. II. n
sq. After describing His suffering on the Cross,” the
Messias goes on to show what blessings His Passion
will bring upon the whole world. In thanksgiving for
His rescue from death (on the Last Day) He wishes to
“ pay his vows.” There follows the description of a
meal in which not only “ the poor shall eat and be filled,”
but “ the fat ones of the earth,” too, shall participate.
Nay more, even the gentiles shall be benefited.12 This
cannot possibly refer to the Sacrifice of the Cross; it
must refer to the Mass.13
β) Isaias predicts the terrible judgment of God upon
the Jews and the entrance of the heathen into the Mes
sianic Church. Cfr. Is. LXVI, 18 sq. : “ I come that I
may gather them together with all nations and tongues:
and they shall come and shall see my glory. And I will
set a sign among them, and I will send of them that shall
be saved to the gentiles into the sea, into Africa, and
Lydia them that draw the bow: into Italy, and Greece,
to the islands afar off, to them that have not heard of
me, and have not seen my glory.” A characteristic of
this new Church will be its non-Jewish priesthood.
“ And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith
the Lord.”14 As priest and sacrifice are correlative
terms, the new priesthood here prophesied implies an
equally permanent sacrifice, and this can only be the
Mass.15
2. The Sacrifice of Melchisedech a Type
Mass.—We read in the Book of Genesis :
of the
Sacrifice of the Mars, 4th ed., revised
by W. H. J. Wcale, Vol. I, pp. 183
sqq., London 1900.
11 Ps. XXI, 1 sqq.
12 Ps. XXI, 27 sqq.
13 Cfr. Prov. IX, 1 sqq.— For a
more detailed explanation of Ps.
XXI. see Gihr. The Holy Sacrifice
of the Man. pp. 88 sqq.
u Is. LXVI. ai.
is Cfr. Is. XIX, 19.
302
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
“But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing
forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the
most high God, blessed him [Abraham], . . .
and [ Abraham] gave him the tithes of all.” 18
This bringing forth of bread and wine on the
part of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice, and it
is on account of this sacrificial act that Melchise
dech is regarded as the prototype of Christ at the
Last Supper.
a) The Protestants (and some few Catholics) deny that
the food-offering of Melchisedech was a true sacrifice.
They claim that the verb N'^jn (Hiphil of
*· e· °f~
ferebat') is not a hieratic sacrificial term. The King of
Salem, they say, simply brought forth bread and wine to
provide refreshment for Abraham and his warriors, who
were wearied after battle. But this interpretation is
untenable. In the first place, Abraham and his men
were well supplied with provisions, for they had taken
much booty,17 and gave “ tithes of all.” Moreover, it
is evident from the context that proferre is here used
in the sense of offerre. Melchisedech is not introduced
as Abraham’s host, but as “ the priest of the most high
God,” and it is in this capacity that he “ brings forth
bread and wine,” blesses Abraham, and receives tithes
from him.18 Melchisedech’s bringing forth bread and
wine is stamped as a sacrifice by the fact that it is
attributed to his priesthood: "Erat enim sacerdos.”
Had the sacred writer meant to explain Melchisedech’s
10 Gen. XIV, 18 sqq.: "At vero
Melchisedech rex Solem, proferens
panem et vinum, erat enim sacerdos
Dei altissimi, benedixit ei [ecil.
Abrahae·] . . . et [Abraham]
ei decimas ex omnibus."
n Cfr. Gen. XIV.
iû.
18 Cfr. Heb. VIII, 4 8qq.
dedit
THE MASS IN THE Ο. T.
action rather than to give the reason for it, he would
have said: “ Melchisedech, the king of Salem, who was
a priest, brought forth bread and wine.” What he does
say is : “ Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth
bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high
God, blessed him,” etc. The intermediate sentence, “ for
he was the priest of the most high God,” clearly has
reference, not only to the subsequent acts of blessing
and receiving the tithe, but mainly to the preceding sac
rifice of bread and wine. That the Masorites under
stood it thus is evident from the fact that they put a
period (the so-called Soph-Pasuk) after the clause.
Finally, though the verb
has several meanings, we
are by no means certain that it was never used as a
hieratic and sacrificial term ; on the contrary, it seems to
be so used in Judges VI, 18 sq.10
b) Sacred Scripture expressly teaches that
Melchisedech, in his capacity of priest, was a pro
totype of Jesus Christ. In Psalm CIX we read:
“Thou art a priest for ever according to the order
of Melchisedech.” 20 St. Paul refers this directly
to our Lord : “So Christ also did not glorify him
self, that he might be made a high priest: but he
that said unto him : ‘Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee,’ as he saith also in another
place: ‘Thou art a priest for ever, according to
the order of Melchisedech.’ ”21 Christ is here
10 Judges VI, 18 sq. : “Depart
not hence, till I return to thee, and
bring a sacrifice (
) and offer it
to thee. . . . And he carried
(χχ’>
it under the oak, and presented to
20 " Tu es sacerdos in aeternum
secundum ordinem
(«arà
rdj»
ταίιτ) Melchisedech."
21 Ileb. V, 5 sq.: "Christus non
304
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
declared to be not merely a priest like Melchise
dech, but “according to the order («ατά την τάξιν) of
Melchisedech.” Now Melchisedech, according to
the “order” or rite employed, offered an unbloody
sacrifice. Hence Christ, being a priest accord
ing to the same order, must also offer an unbloody
sacrifice. Consequently, Christ resembles His
priestly prototype not in His bloody Sacrifice on
the Cross, but at the Last Supper, for it is
there He made an unbloody food-offering,—only
that, as antitype, He accomplished something
more than a mere oblation of bread and wine,
namely, the sacrifice of His Body and Blood un
der the species of bread and wine. And since
He continues this unbloody sacrifice in the Mass
and will continue it to the end of the world, He is
“a priest forever according to the order of Mel
chisedech.” 22
The question may be asked: Why does not St. Paul
expressly draw this conclusion in his Epistle to the
Hebrews? Why does he omit all mention there of the sac
rifice of Melchisedech and the Last Supper? Answer:
Because this particular tertium comparationis does not
fit into his argument. What he aims to show23 is
Christ's superiority as a priest over the Old Testament
jemelifium dorifieovie, ui pontifex
fieret, sed qui locutus Ml ad cum:
Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui
te; quemadmodum ct in alio loco
dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum
fccundui» ordinem Melchisedech.’'
(Cfr. Heb. VII, 1 sqq.)
22 Cfr. Bellartninc, De Eucharislia, V, 6; De Augustinis, De Rc
Sacramentaria, Vol. I, and cd., pp.
724 sqq.
’’
23 Hob. VII, 4 sqq.
THE MASS IN THE Ο. T.
Lévites. To establish this he argues as follows: Mclchisedech as a priest ranked higher than Aaron. Now
Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.
Consequently Christ as a priest ranks higher than Aaron.
The superiority of Melchisedech as a priest is manifested
not so much by his sacrificing bread and wine (this had a
parallel in the Levitic cult), as in the fact that he blessed
Abraham and received tithes from him.24
The teaching of the Fathers is perfectly clear on this
point. St. Cyprian says: “What order, therefore, is
this, coming from that sacrifice and going back to it, by
which Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God,
offered bread and wine, and blessed Abraham? For who
is more a priest of the most high God, than our Lord
Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father,
and offered the same that Melchisedech offered, namely,
bread and wine, that is, His Body and Blood.”25
St. Augustine, in spite of the Discipline of the Secret
still in force when he wrote, expresses himself with suffi
cient clearness on the same subject: “They who read
know what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed
Abraham, and they participate therein; [for] they behold
such a sacrifice now being offered to God throughout the
world.” 20
24 Heb. VII, 4.
25 Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 4: " Tu
cs sacerdos, etc. Qui ordo utique
hic est de sacrificio illo veniens ct
inde descendens, quod Melchisedech
sacerdos Dei sumini fuit, quod
panem ct vinum obtulit, quod Abra
ham benedixit. Nam quis magis
sacerdos Dei sumini, quam Dominus
noster /esus Christus, qui sacrificium
Deo Patri obtulit ct obtulit hoc idem,
quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est
panem et vinum, suum scii, corpus
et sanguinem."— On St. Cyprian’s
teaching, cfr. G. Pierse, The Mass
in the Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq2β Contra Adversar.
Leg.
et
Prophet., I, 20: “ Noverunt, qui
legunt quid protulerit Melchisedech.
quando benedixit Abraham et tam
sunt participes «mm: vident late
sacrificium nunc offerri Dea Ma
orbe terrarum."—Many other l*a·
tristic passages are quoted by Bellarrnine, De Eucharistia, V, 6; see also
J. Herington and J. Kirk. The Faith
of Catholics on Certain Points of
Controversy Confirmed by Scnptnee
3o6
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Without wishing to utter a final definition on the sub
ject, the Council of Trent27 laid stress on the prophetical
relation existing between the sacrifice of Melchisedech
and the Last Supper.28
ARTICLE 2
THE NEW TESTAMENT
The sacrificial character of the Mass can be
most convincingly proved from the words which
our Divine Saviour employed in consecrating the
Chalice.
i. Proof of the Sacrificial Character of
the Mass from the Words Employed by
Christ in Consecrating the Chalice.—The
words spoken by Jesus over the Chalice are re
ported as follows by the Evangelists and St. Paul :
Matth. XXVI, 28
Τούτο γάρ ίστιν το αϊμά μου τό τής καινής 8ιαθηκηί το nept
πολλών έκχυννόμίνον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιών.
Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro
multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall
be shed for many unto remission of sins.
and Attested by th* Fathers. 3rd
type of the Mass, v. St. Thomas,
ed., Vol. II, pp. 418 sqq., London
Summa Theol.. 3a, qu. 73, art. 6;
1846.
Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, V, 7;
ït Ses». XXII, cap. 1.
Bickell, Messe und Pascha, Mayence
28 On the Jewish tradition, cfr. P.
1872; Von Cichowsky, Das alttestaScholz, Die hl. <4ltertfimer der
mentliche Pascha in scinem VcrhaltFolkes Israel. Vol. Il, pp. 198 sqq.,
nis sum Offer Christi, Munich
Ratisbon 1868.— On the Paschal
»849·
Lamb (cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7 sqq.) as a
THE MASS IN THE N. T.
307
Mark XIV, 24
Τούπ> έστιν το αίμά μου τής καινής διαθήκης το ΰπίρ κολλών
ίκχυννόμινον.
Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis
effundetur.
This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be
shed for many.
Luke XXII, 20
Τούτο το ποτηριον η καινή διαθήκη tv τώ αχματί μου το vir'tp
υμών Ικχυννόμΐνον.
Hic est calix Novum Testamentum in sanguine meo,
qui pro vobis fundetur.
This is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood,
which shall be shed for you.
i Cor. XI, 25
Τούτο το ποτηριον η καινή διαθηκη ίστιν tv τώ Ιμώ αιματι.
Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine.
This chalice is the New Testament in my blood.
From these texts the divine institution of the
Mass can be proved by showing:
(1) That the shedding of blood took place at
the Last Supper, and not for the first time on the
Cross ;
(2) that it was a true sacrifice;
(3) that it was to be a permanent institution
in the Church.
Let us consider these points one by one.
(1) That Christ, when He spoke of shedding
3o8
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
His Blood, did not refer to the Sacrifice which
He was about to offer on the Cross, but to the
sacrifice He was then and there offering at the
Last Supper, is evident from the following con
siderations:
a) The verb is used throughout in the form of the
present participle, ίκχυννόμινον. If the Vulgate employs
the future tense, it is no doubt to signify that the Sacrifice
of the Last Supper is a merely relative sacrifice, based
upon and intrinsically related to that of the Cross.
Many ancient codices more correctly employ the present,
" effunditur.”1
b) The Greek language hardly offers an example of
the use of the present participle in a future sense, espe
cially when the finite verb is also used in the present, as
here: Τούτο έστιν . . . εκχυιτόμενον.
c) It is a rule of New Testament Greek that when the
present tense is used both in the participle and the finite
verb, as is the case here, the time denoted is not the dis
tant or near future, but strictly the present. This rule
does not apply to other constructions of the present tense,
as when Christ says (John XIII, 27) : “ That which
thou dost (ποιείς), do quickly,” or (John XIV, 12) : “ I
go (πορεύομαι) to the Father.” That the participle
ερχόμενος has a future meaning, is due to the notion ex
pressed therein of coming. Cfr. James V, 1 : " Miseriae
venturae (επερχόμεναι)Matth. XXVI, 25: ό παραδιδούς
αύτον direv, forms no exception, because ό παραδιδούς is
used substantively for “ traitor ” and the verb is not in
the present.
d) The above interpretation is rendered certain by the
1 Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Matth., Vol. II, p. 424> parj8 jg92
THE MASS IN THE N. T.
309
wording of St. Luke, who expressly speaks of the shed
ding of the blood as taking place in the Chalice, and not
on the Cross. He does not say: To ποτηριον I» τώ αΐμαη
ίκχυννομίνγ, blit : Το ποτηριον tv τώ αΐματι το Ικχυννόμίνον,·—
i. e. the Blood of Christ is shed for you in so far as it is
present in the Chalice. Though the Blood in the Chalice
was later also shed on the Cross, it would be inaccurate
to say that the Chalice of the Blood was shed on the
Cross as it was shed at the Last Supper. Since St. Luke,
for such a good reason, refers the shedding of the Blood
to the present, the participle έκχυιτόμβμον in the Gospels
of SS. Matthew and Mark must also be interpreted
strictly in the present tense.
(2) Even those comparatively few Protestants
who, like the Anglicans, hold that the Sacrifice
of the Cross was a true sacrifice, readily admit
that the phrase, “to shed one’s blood for others
unto the remission of sins,” is not only genuinely
Biblical language relating to a sacrifice, but also
designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation;
only they refer this sacrifice to what took place at
the Crucifixion on the following day. We main
tain that the shedding of Christ’s Blood in the
Chalice is as truly a sacrifice as the shedding of
it on the Cross, and that our Lord wished to sol
emnize the Last Supper not merely as a Sacra
ment, but also as a Eucharistic sacrifice. In
other words, the effusio calicis signifies not
merely a making present of the true Blood of
Christ for the purpose of sacramental reception.
310
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
but likewise a true, though unbloody offering of
that Blood “for many unto remission of sins.”
If the “pouring out of the Chalice” meant noth
ing more than the sacramental drinking of the
Blood, we should have an intolerable tautol
ogy: “Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood,
which is being drunk.” However, since the text
reads: “Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood,
which is shed for many unto remission of sins,”
the double character of the rite as a Sacrament
and a sacrifice is unmistakable. The Sacrament
is shown forth in the “drinking,” the sacrifice in
the “shedding of the blood.” 2 The “Blood of
the New Testament,” moreover, of which all four
passages speak, has its exact parallel in the anal
ogous institution of the Old Testament through
Moses.3
(3) The Sacrifice of the Mass was intended to
be a permanent institution in the Church. This
is made evident by our Saviour’s command:
“This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the
commemoration of me.” 4
The question arises: How can the Lord’s Blood be
truly shed in the Chalice? Such an unbloody shedding
oi blood seems to involve a contradiction.
It is possible and necessary to distinguish a twofold
2 Cfr. Lev. VII. 14; XIV, 17;
XVII, 11; Rom. ΙΠ. 25; V. 9;
Heb. IX. 10 sq.—See also PoblcPreuss, Sotenology. pp. 119 sqq.
S Cfr. Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX,
18.—Maldonatus,
Comment.
in
if allh., 26, 28.
4i Cor. XI, 25; '‘Hoc facite
«juoliejcumque bibetis, in meam
commemorationem."
THE MASS IN THE N. T.
3Ȕ
shedding of blood for sacrificial purposes,— the one real
and physical, the other sacramental and mystical. The
former took place in the bloody sacrifices of the Old
Testament, and also in the Crucifixion, when the Precious
Blood of our Saviour actually flowed from His veins and
was separated from the Body. When we speak of the
sacramental shedding of blood (effusio sanguinis sacrainentalis s. mystica) we mean that Christ offers His Blood
for us in so far as it is represented as mystically separated
from His Body. This mystic slaying of the Eucharistic
Lamb is an imitation and sacramental representation of
the physical killing on the Cross. It is in this sense that
we must understand the famous saying that the double
Consecration is a mystic sword which separates the Blood
of Christ from His Body and thereby graphically repre
sents the death of our Lord on the Cross.
2. Proof of the Sacrificial Character of
the Mass from the Consecration of the
Bread.—As St. Matthew and St. Mark report
the words “Hoc est corpus ineiun” without any
addition, we have to depend entirely on St. Luke
and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. These
two texts read as follows :
Luke XXII, 19:
Τούτο «στι το σώμα μου το inrip υμών 8ι8όμ(νον^
Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur.
This is tny body, which is given for you.
3i2
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
i Cor. XI, 24:
Τούτο μου ίση το σώμα το νκίρ υμών ζκλώ/xevopl
Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur.
This is niy body, which shall be delivered for you.
a) The present participle 8i8ôpcvovt employed by
St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time correctly
translates into the present (datur), strengthens
the argument we have construed above from the
Consecration of the Chalice.
The “ giving of the body ” plainly refers to the Eu
charistic Body of Christ present at the Last Supper, and
not to His physical Body nailed to the Cross.
The reading κλώμενον in St. Paul’s text is disputed.
Tischendorf and Lachmann in their critical editions omit
it altogether, and it is probable that St. Paul wrote:
Τοΰτό μου ίση το σώμα το νπερ υμών. Since, however, the
Apostle shortly before spoke of the “ breaking of the
bread,”ε and St. Chrysostom read κλώμ&ον also in I Cor.
XI, 24, there is good reason for regarding the word as
Pauline, and we may argue as follows : The Biblical
phrase" to break” (κλάν, frangere), when applied to food,
means to give or offer as food. Now since the physical
Body of Christ on the Cross was not allowed to be
“ broken ” after the manner of the Paschal Lamb,0 and
most certainly was not given or offered as food to be
eaten, the word κλώμ«·ον cannot possibly refer to the Sac
rifice of the Cross, but must be applied to the giving of
the Body at the Last Supper.
t. 1 Cor.
κλώμο*·
X.
16:
"Αρτοι·,
iv
U Ex. XII, 46; John XIX, 3a sqq.
THE MASS IN THE N. T.
3U
b) The giving of the Body of Christ at the
Last Supper was a true sacrificial act.
Tradere s. dare corpus pro aliquo in Biblical usage is a
distinctly sacrificial term.7 Christ Himself employed it
in the discourse in which He promised to institute the
Holy Eucharist: “The bread that I will give, is my
flesh, for the life of the world.”8 This excludes the as
sumption that the Last Supper was merely a “ giving ” of
Christ’s Flesh in holy Communion, i. e., a mere Sacra
ment.
c) The offering of the Eucharistic Body and
Blood of Christ was to be a permanent institution
in the Church,—the enduring Sacrifice of the New
Covenant. This is evident from the Master's
command as recorded both by St. Luke and St.
Paul: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”*
Reischl, Bisping, Zill, and some other exegetes also
quote in this connection Heb. XIII, io: “ We have an
altar (θυσιαστήριον), whereof they have no power to eat
(φαγίΐν) who serve the tabernacle,” arguing therefrom
as follows : Where there is an altar, there must also be a
sacrifice. Now the only altar whereof Christians eat, is
the altar of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Consequently there
is a true Eucharistic Sacrifice. This interpretation fits in
logically with the text of St. Paul’s letter and the ideas
contained therein, but it is not entirely certain. St.
Thomas, Estius, and others take the Pauline passage
■ Cfr. Rom. VII, 4: Col. I, 3i;
Heb. X. 10; 1 Pet. II, 24. etc.
8 John
VI,
S®: “· · · PoniJ,
quem ego dabo, caro mea eel fro
u Luke XXII, 19; i Cor. XI. 24
— On these two passagM see Frame
lin. De Euchariitio. P. 2. the* 11.
314
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
figuratively and apply it to the Sacrifice of the Cross,—
“We have the Sacrifice of the Cross, whereof they who
serve the tabernacle have no power to eat in a spiritual
manner.”10
ARTICLE 3
ΤΠΕ ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION
The argument from prescription for the exist
ence of the Mass may be formulated as follows :
A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than
the oldest attack made upon it by heretics, cannot
possibly be “the work of men or devils,” but must
have been instituted by Christ. Now the
Church’s legitimate possession as regards the
Mass can be traced back to the beginning of
Christianity. It follows that the Mass was insti
tuted by Christ.
The major premise of this syllogism needs no
proof. The minor must be demonstrated his
torically.
i. Since the Council of Trent.—For the
last three centuries and a half the teaching of the
Tridentine Council has been admittedly accepted
throughout the Catholic Church.
The Council devoted its entire twenty-second Session
to the Sacrifice of the Mass. We shall give a résumé of
the nine canons constituting this definition :
10 Cfr. Thalhofer, Die Opfcr des
JiebrBerbriefcs, Dillingen i8ss —
An intimation of the Mass is seen
by many theologians in our Lord’s
conversation with the Samaritan
woman (John IV. 21 sqq.). On this
subject see Bellarmine, De Eu
charistia, V. ii.
argument from prescription
3’5
I. The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice.
II. Christ instituted a special priesthood for its cele
bration.
III. The Mass is not only a sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, but also a propitiatory sacrifice that may be
offered for the living and the dead.
IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass casts no blasphemy on
the Sacrifice of the Cross.
V. To celebrate Mass in honor of the saints is not an
imposture.
VI. The canon of the Mass does not contain errors.
VII. The ceremonies of the Mass are not an incentive
to impiety, but a means of edification.
VIII. Private Masses, wherein the priest alone com
municates sacramentally, are lawful.
IX. The rite of the Roman Church, with its silent
prayers, its Latin language, its mixture of water with the
wine in the chalice before Consecration, is not to be con
demned.
These dogmatic definitions palpably reflect a time when
the enemies of the Church did not scruple to cover the
most sacred things with the filth of their vile imagination.
Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men like Carl
stadt, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius should inveigh against
altars as " impias lapidum congeries,” for they rejected
the dogma of the Real Presence. Calvin also was con
sistent with himself in reviling the “ Papistical Mass,”
which the Catechism of Heidelberg characterized as
“ cursed idolatry.” But it is rather strange that Luther,
in spite of his avowed belief in the Holy Eucharist, should
have made common cause with the enemies of the Mass
and, after a violent “ nocturnal dispute with the devil,”
lent his aid in abolishing it. Melanchthon, who was less
radical and more wary, had no objection to letting the
3i6
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Mass go on as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but
denied its propitiatory character. At the time of the Tri
dentine Council, the Mass seems to have been quite gen
erally abolished among Protestants.1
The violence of the Reformers shows how deeply the
Mass had taken root in Christendom. Calvin’s declara
tion that the devil had deceived nearly the whole universe
into believing in its sacrificial character,2* is valid testi
mony to its existence at his time ; so, too, is Luther’s
complaint that the entire ceremony of the Mass is
saturated with the notion of sacrifice.8
2. The Middle Ages Since Piiotius.—This
period, which extends from the year 869 to about
1500, affords an abundance of testimonies for the
existence of the Mass.
Though a number of deplorable abuses originated m
the course of this period, and continued well into the
sixteenth century, the Mass itself was universally ac
knowledged in the Catholic Church as a divine institu
tion.4* There were some heretical attacks made upon it in
the twelfth century. Thus the Albigenses and Waldenses
claimed that laymen had the power of offering sacrifice.
Opfer, was es ist. . . . Dorum weg1 The objections raised against it
by Luther, Calvin, and Chemnitz
geworfen alie IVorte, die nach Opfer
klingen, samt dem gonccn Kanonl "
(Examen Cone. Trid., cd. Preuss,
pp. 381 sqq., Berlin i860 arc
•1 Cfr. Ad. Franz, Dic Messe im
copiously refuted by Cardinal Bclldeutschen
Mitlclalter,
Freiburg
armine, De Eucharistia, V, 24-26.
1892; J. II. Matthews, The Mass and
elmtit., IV, 18: " Pestilentisits Folklore, pp. ti sqq., London
simo errore Satan totum paene or
1903; T. E. Bridgett, The Holy
bem cxcaecavit, ut crederet Mistam
Eucharist in Creat Britain, new ed.,
sacrificium."
London I9os; T. J. Carr, The
a IPeise christliche Messe» su
Blessed Eucharist: Belief of the
lialten (1526): " l'on dem Offer
Early English Church, Melbourne
torium an klingt unit slinkl altes
ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION
317
In the sixteenth century Wiclif attacked the dogma of the
Real Presence. But it is none the less true that the
Church succeeded in preserving belief in the Mass among
the Christian populace. The Council of Constance
(1414-18) condemned Wiclif’s assertion that the Mass
cannot be proved from Scripture,® quite as vigorously as
the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) had rejected
the heretical teaching of the Albigenses.®
Taking a long step backward to the schism of Photius
(869), we find that the Greek Church held fast to the
Eucharistic Sacrifice as faithfully as the Latin. The
schismatic Greeks showed in the negotiations for reunion
at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) that they had kept
this precious heritage intact. The German Lutherans
tried to induce them to give up the Mass ; but their efforts
in this direction were as fruitless as the repeated at
tempts of the Tübingen divines to persuade them to
relinquish their belief in the seven Sacraments.5
*7 A
schismatic council held at Jerusalem, A. D. 1672, refers to
the Mass as a true sacrifice of propitiation offered for all
the faithful, both living and dead.8 From all of which it
is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before
Photius.
3. The Period from A. D. 300 to 800.—Go
ing still farther back, we come upon the Nestorians and Monophysites. These heretics, who
were driven out of the Church in the fifth century
5 " Non est fundamentum in
Evangclio, quod Christus Missam
ordinaverit."
(Dcnzingcr-Bannwart, n. 585).
β Cfr. Ocnzinger-Bannwart, n. 430.
7 Cfr. Polile-Preuss. The Sacra
ments, Vol. I, p. 39·
« .'t/iud Hardouin, Concil., Vol.
XI, p. 347: "Incruentum vero tra
didit sacrificium dicens: Accipite st
manducate,
hoc
est
corpus
meum " . . . (p. 354) : · Verum ac
propitiatorium esse sacrificium, quod
pro fidelibus omnibus tum vivis tum
defunctis
necnon
pro
utilitate
omnium offertur."
3i8
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
(Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451), have continued
to the present day to celebrate in their solemn lit
urgy the Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Mass was not introduced in the fifth century.
This is evident from certain conciliary decrees issued at
a still earlier date. Thus the Third Provincial Council
of Carthage, in 397, ordained that “ nothing be offered in
the Sacraments of the Lord’s Body and Blood except
what the Lord Himself handed down, i. e. bread and
wine mixed with water.”” The first Nicene Council
(325), in its celebrated eighteenth canon, forbade priests
to receive the Eucharist from the hands of deacons, for
the reason that “neither the canon nor custom have
handed down to us, that those who have not the power to
offer sacrifice (προσφεραν) may give Christ’s Body to
those who offer (rois προσφε'ρουσιν).”
The Nicene Council speaks of a “ custom.” A custom
of the fourth century must go back at least to the third,
which brings us to the age of the catacombs. Even
Harnack admits10 that the Eucharist was regarded as a
true sacrifice in the time of St. Cyprian, who died in 258.
Convincing evidence from those early days is furnished
by Eucharistic pictures, vessels, missals, altars, etc.11
4. The First Three Centuries.—The most
conclusive evidence for the existence of the Mass
u Cap. 24. apud Hardouin, Concil.,
Vol. I, p. 963: “· · · «<· in sacra
mentis corporis et sanguinis Domini
nihil amplius offeratur quam ipse
Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis et
vinum aqufi tnirlum."
10 Dogmcngeschichte, Vol. I, 3rd
ed.. PP· 4=8 sqq.. Freiburg 1894.
On Harnack's teaching on this point
see Pierse, The Mass in the Infant
Church, pp. 6-10, Dublin Ï909.
11 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucha
ristia, VI, 14; Kraus, Rcalcneyklopâdie der christlichcn Altcrtilmcr, 2
vole., Freiburg 1879-86; Pierse, The
Mass in the Infant Church, Sect,
a, pp. 108 sqq.; Barnes, The Early
Church, pp. 126 sqq., London 1913.
ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION
319
in the early days of Christianity is furnished by
the ancient liturgies. They reach back to the
Apostolic age and give unadulterated and decisive
expression to the sacrificial idea.
a) According to the well-founded opinion of modern
authorities, the liturgies of the East and West may all
be traced to one archetype. This in its basic principles
is contained in the eighth book of the so-called Apostolic
Constitutions,12— a collection which, though somewhat re
touched in its present form, was undoubtedly compiled
in the first century. The liturgy of the Apostolic Con
stitutions agrees so perfectly with the description given
by St. Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians,
that it has been called the Clementine Liturgy.13 Bickell
does not hesitate to assert that in its essential character
istics this is the rite employed by Christ Himself at the
Last Supper.14
b) In the fourth century the parent liturgy developed
into two great families, the Oriental and the Occidental.
The Eastern family embraced principally the following:
(1) The Liturgy of Jerusalem,15 which, in the main,
is represented in the fifth of the Catecheses Mystagogicae
t2Apud Daniel, Cod. Lit., IV,
48 sqq., Leipsic 1853.
13 See Thalliofer, Handbuch der
hath. Liturgik, and ed. by L. Eisen·
hofer. Vol. II. p. 13, Freiburg 1912.
— For additional information on this
topic consult Probst, Liturgie der
ersten drei chrisilichen Jahrhunderte.
Tübingen 1870; Idem, Die attestcn
romischcn Sakramentaricn, Munster
1892.— On the use of this Eastern
liturgy in the West see Bickell in
Kraus' Realensyklofiadie der chrisli.
Altertümcr. Vol. II, 310 sqq.
14 Bickell in the Zeitschrift fir
kath. Théologie (Innsbruck). 18S0,
pp. 90 sqq.; Idem, Messe und
Pascha. Mayence 187t.— Cfr. Drews.
Untcrsuchungen ibcr die sogen.
klemcntinische
Liturgie,
Leipzig
1906.— On Probst's theory and its
modification by Kattenbusch and
latterly by Drews, as well as on the
subject of the Clementine liturgy
in general, see A. Fortescue, The
Mass. A Study of the Roman Lil·
urgy, and ed., London 191J. PP· S7
sqq.
ta Afud Daniel, Cod. Lit·, IV, 88
sqq.
320
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
of St. Cyril (+ 386). It is often called the Liturgy of
St. James.1"
(2) Offshoots of the Liturgy of Jerusalem are the
Liturgy' of St. Basil ( + 379) in Cæsarea and of St.
Chrysostom in Constantinople (-|- 407), both of which
arc still used on certain festival occasions by the Greeks,
and also, in an ancient Slavic translation, by the Rus
sians.
(3) The Armenian Liturgy, which is closely related to
that of St. Basil.
(4) The Alexandrian Liturgy, also called Liturgy of
St. Mark, which forms the basis of the liturgy of the
Copts and of the so-called Canon Universalis of the
Abyssinians.17
(5) The Chaldee Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and
Mari,18 used by the Nestorians of Mesopotamia and re
markable for the fact that it does not contain the words
of institution. On certain days the Nestorians employ
the liturgies of “ Theodore the Interpreter ” (of Mopsuestia) and of Nestorius.
To the Western family belong:
(1) The Roman Liturgy, which is held to have de
veloped, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, from the
nucleus of the Mass as celebrated by our Lord Himself
at the Last Supper. Our present Missal is based on the
Sacramentaries of Popes Gclasius I (-}- 496) and Gregory
the Great (-|- 6o4).,u
(2) The Milanese Liturgy, introduced towards the end
of the fourth century by St. Ambrose ( + 397). This
10 Cfr. Fortescue, The Mass. pp.
81 sqq., 148 sqq.
17 Fortescue, op. cit., p. 97.
18 Fortescue, op. cit., p. 85.
10 The standard work on this sub
ject at present in English is For
tescue, The Mass, A Study of the
Roman Liturgy, and ed., London
1913· See also IL Lucas. S. J.,
The Mass. The Eucharistic Sacrifice
and the Roman Liturgy, Vol. I,
London 1914.
ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION
321
liturgy is still in use and differs from the Roman only
in a few non-essential points.20
(3) The Mozarabic Liturgy, also called the GothicoSpanish, which owes its preservation to Cardinal
Ximenes21 and is remarkable among Western liturgies
because it contains an Epiklesis after the Consecration.22
(4) The ancient Gallican Liturgy, which is Greek in
structure, but extinct since the eighth century.23
All these liturgies in their essential characteristics date
from the first century and bear indisputable testimony
to the sacrificial character of the Mass and its venerable
age. 21
20 Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 106 sq.
21 See Hefcle, Cardinal Ximenes,
pp.
x6r
sqq.,
Tubingen
1844.
Ximenes’ Missal and Breviary form
vols. LXXXV and LXXXVI of
Mignc’s Patrologia Latina; edited
by A. Lesleus (first edition, Rome
1755).— Cfr. Fortescue, op. cit., p.
105. Λ full description of the
Mozarabic Rite will be found in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp.
611-623 (by Hy. Jenner).
22 The Epiklesis is also found as
late as the fifth century in the
Gallican, Milanese, and Roman
rites.— Cfr.
Funk,
Kirchengeschichlliche Abhandlungcn und Un·
tersuchungcn, Vol. Ill, p. 86,
Paderborn 1907.
23 Cfr. Fr. J. Mone, Lateinische
und griechische Messcn ans dem a.
( ?] bis 6. Jahrhundert, Frankfort
1850. The Gallican Rite is described
very fully by H. Jenner in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp.
357-365·
24 Many examples quoted by Chr.
Pesch, Praclect. Dogmal., Vol. VI,
3rd ed., pp. 283 sqq.—Cfr. also
Kossing, Liiurgische Erklârung der
hl. Messe, 3rd ed., pp. 104 sqq.,
Munster 1869; Th. Specht. Die Wirkungen des eucharistischen Opfers,
pp. 17 sqq., Augsburg 1876; C A.
Swainson, The Greek Liturgies,
Chiefly from Original Authorities.
London 1884; F. E. Brigbtman.
Liturgies Eastern and Western, Ox
ford 1896; L. Duchesne, Christian
Worship, London 1903; G. Setncria.
La Messa nella sita Storia e net
suoi Simboli, 2nd ed., Rome 1907
(English tr. by E. S. Berry, The
Eucharistic Liturgy in the Roman
Rite, Ils History and Symbolism.
New York 1911); A. Baumstark.
Liturgia Romana e Liturgia delT
Esareato, Rome 1904; G. Pierse.
The Mass in the Infant Church, pp.
■ 68 sqq., Dublin 1909.
322
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
ARTICLE 4
THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
The existence of the Mass in the early days of
Christianity can also be proved from the writings
of the Fathers. It is impossible to quote them all
within the limits of this treatise, and hence we
shall give a selection of Patristic utterances from
the first four centuries.
ι. The Apostolic Fathers.—The Didache, or
Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, discovered by
Philotheos Bryennios in 1883, was probably com
posed towards the close of the first century.1 It
clearly attests the Apostolic age of the Mass.
The Didache represents the Eucharistic banquet as the
unbloody sacrifice predicted by Malachias : “ On the
Lord’s day come together, break bread and perform the
Eucharist2 after confessing your transgressions, that
your sacrifice may be pure.3 But let none who has a
quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they
be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.
For this is that [sacrifice] which was spoken by the
Lord : ‘ In every place and time offer me a clean obla
tion, for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name
is wonderful among the heathen.’ ” *
1 Cfr. Bardenhewcr-Shahan, Pa
trology. pp. 19 sqq., Freiburg and
St Louis 1908.
2 ίύχοριστήσατί.
8 καθαρά ή Ουσία ΰμύνι αΰτη yàp [Ουσία! ίστίν ή
ρηθιϊσα ύπο Κυρίου- ίν παντί
τόπω καί χρόνω προσφίρειν μοι
Ουσίαν καΟαράν 8τι βασιλιά! μί"γα!
tipi. λίγοι Kùpios, καί τό όνομά
μου θαυμαστόν ίν rois ϊθνοσι-—
Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fa
thers, Vol. 1, p. 331, London 1912.
— On the liturgy of the Didache, see
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
323
St. Ignatius of Antioch (-{- 107), a disciple of the
Apostles, says of the Eucharist: “ There is one flesh of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His
Blood, one altar,5 as there is one bishop with the presby
tery and the deacons. . .
e And again : “ Let no one
be deceived: unless a man be within the altar,7 he lacks
the bread of God.” 8
The famous Epistula Presbyterorum et Diaconorum
Achaiae on the martyrdom of St. Andrew the Apostle,
which was formerly believed to have been written about
A. D. 80,9 by his personal disciples and eye-witnesses
of the facts, is probably not older than the fifth cen
tury.10
2. The Apologists of the Second Century.
—St. Justin Martyr (+ 166), in his “Dialogue
with Tryphon” 11 says : “The oblation of the
wheaten flour . . . was a type12 of the bread of
the Eucharist, which Jesus our Lord commanded
to be offered in commemoration of His passion.
Of the sacrifices which you [the Jews] formerly
offered, God said through Malachias: ‘I have no
pleasure,’ etc. He speaks in advance of the sac
Semeria-Bcrry, The Eucharistic Lit
urgy in the Roman Rite, pp. 53 sqq..
New York 1911.
e îp θυσιαστήριονβ Ep. ad Philadelph., 4.
t ëvrôs θυσιαστηρίου.
8 Ep. ad Eph.. 5.
0 Gallandi, Bibl. Pet. Pair., Vol.
I, Proleg. 4, Venice «765.
10 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shalian. Pa
trology, p. 104.— In this letter, often
quoted by theologians, the proconsul Ægcas is described as com
manding St. Andrew to make sacri
fice to the gods, whereupon the
Apostle replies (c. 6): " Omnipo
tenti Deo, qui virus et venu est.
ego omni die sacrifico non Ihurts
fumum nec taurorum mugientium
carnet, nec hircorum sanguinem, ted
immaculatum rignum quotidie in
altari sacrifico, cuius carnet postquam omnir populut credentium
manducavit et sanguinem bibit.
Agnus integer perseverat et vivus."
11 Dial. c. Tryph., c. 41 (Migne,
P. C.. VI, s«4>>3 Tiiirof·
324
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
rifices 13 which we heathen nations 14 offer to Him
in every place,16 that is, of the bread of the Eu
charist and likewise of the chalice of the Eucha
rist, saying at the same time that we glorify His
name, while you profane Him.”
In the West, Tertullian (b. about i6o) advises those
who, for fear of breaking the fast, absent themselves
from divine service on the days of the stations, to take
the Body of the Lord home with them from the sacri
ficial altar and consume it after the period of fasting is
over. He calls holy Communion “ a participation in the
sacrifice ” which is accomplished “ at the altar of God.”18
In another treatise he speaks of a real, in contradistinc
tion to a merely metaphorical, “offering up of sacri
fice,” 17 and in still another, he dwells on the “ nourish
ing power of the Lord’s Body ” and the renewal of His
immolation.18
3. The Fathers of the Third Century.—
St. Irenæus of Lyons (+ 202) declares that
Christ instituted “the new sacrifice of the New
Testament,” which the Church regards as the
“clean oblation” prophesied by Malachias and of
fers up to God everywher e.
*3 jrcpl των Ουσιών't* qpxis τα Ιθνη.
is in παμτΐ τόπω.— For a critical
appreciation oi St. Justin's teaching
on the Mass see Picrsc, The Mass
in the Infant Church, pp. 19 sqq.
is De Orat., c. -19: "Nonne
solemnior erit statio tua, si et ad
aram Dei steterisf Accepta cor
pore Domini et reservato utrumque
salvum est: et participatio sacrificii
et exeeutio oOicii [fulfilment of the
law of fasting]."
it De Cultu Fem., II, 11: " Aut
imbecillus ex fratribus visitandus aut
sacrificium offertur aut Dei verbum
administratur."
18
Christ is slain anew (" rursus
mactabitur Christus") to those who
arc baptized, and they are noutished
opimitate dominici corporis." (De
Pudic., c. 9)— On Tertullian's teach·
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
3-25
He writes : “ In saying, * This is my Body,’ etc.,
Christ inculcated the new oblation of the New Testament,
which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers up
to God throughout the world.” 10 According to Irenaeus
it is the Church alone that offers a “ pure oblation,”
whereas the Jews “ did not receive the Word which is
offered to God.” 20 The abolition of the Levitic priest
hood, he further explains, does not signify that there are
to be no more sacrifices, but merely that the “ form has
been changed.” 21
St. Cyprian (-|- 258), in a letter in which he opposes
the use of water instead of wine at the Holy Sacrifice,
insists on the necessity of carefully following the example
of Christ, and continues : “ Whence it appears that the
Blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the
chalice, and that the Lord’s Sacrifice is not legitimately
celebrated unless our offering and sacrifice correspond
to the Passion. . . . That priest truly discharges the office
of Christ who imitates what Christ did, and he then
offers a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the
Church, when he proceeds to offer it according to the
manner in which he sees Christ Himself to have ofing see Pierse, The Mass in the
Infant Church, pp. 74 sqq.
19 Adv.
Haer.,
IV,
17,
5:
" Christus dicens: Hoc est corpus
meum etc., Novi Testamenti novam
docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab
Apostolis accipiens in universo
mundo offert Deo."
20 " Oblationem puram offert."—
" ludaei non receperunt Ferbum,
quod offertur Deo." (Op. cil., IV,
18, 4).
21 " Non genus oblationum repro
batum est. species immutata est tan
tum." (L. c.).— Wieland maintains,
in the face of vigorous opposition,
that the celebration of the Eucharist
in the primitive Church bore the
character of a common meal and that
prior to Irenaeus the Church knew
of no real sacrifice, no “ oblation ‘
of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
On this untenable view see Pohle,
article “ Mass ” in the Catholic En
cyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 10 sq.; G.
Rauschen. Eucharist and Penance in
the First Sir Centuries of the
Church, pp. 74 sqq.. St. Louis io«j;
G. Pierse, The Mass in the Infant
Church, Dublin 1909.
326
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
feted.”®2 This passage proves that St. Cyprian knew
of the Mass and regarded it as a true sacrifice.
4. The Fathers of the Fourth Century.—
Our most important witness for this period is St.
Cyril of Jerusalem (-|- 386), who gives a detailed
account of the liturgy of the Mass and draws a
clear-cut distinction between the sacrifice itself
and the prayers that usually accompany it.
He says: “After the spiritual sacrifice,23 the un
bloody liturgy,24 is accomplished [i. c. after the Conse
cration], we pray over this expiatory sacrifice 25 to God
for the universal peace of the Churches . . . and for all
those in need we pray and offer up this sacrifice.20 Then
we commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, mar
tyrs, that God, through their prayers and intercession,
may mercifully receive our supplications. Thereupon we
pray for the departed, . . . inasmuch as we believe that
it will be of the greatest profit to them 27 if we pray for
them in view of this holy and sublime sacrificial gift.28
We offer up Christ, who was slain for our sins,29 in order
22
Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 9, 14 (ed.
Hartel, Vol. II, pp. 702 sq.);
" Unde apparet sanguinem Christi
non offerri, si desit vinum calici,
nec sacrificium dominicum legitimû
sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio
et sacrificium nostrum responderit
passioni. . . . Sacerdos vice Chri
sts vere fungitur, qui id quod
Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium
verum et plenum tunc offert in Ec
clesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat
offerre, secundum
quod ipsum
Christum videat obtulisse."— For a
critical appreciation of St. Cyprian's
teaching sec I’icrse, The Mass in the
Infant Church, pp. 86 sqq.
23 πνευματική Ουσία24 αναίμακτος λατρεία.
25 ΙπΙ τής Ουσίας εκείνης τοϋ
Ιλασμοϋ.
20 ταύτηρ
προσφίρομεν
τήν
θυσίαν.
27 με-/ίστην 6νησιν ϊσεσθαι.
26 τής à-γίας καί ψρικωδεστάτης
•προκειμίνης Ουσίας.
29 Χρκχτόρ Ισφα~/μίνον ύπίρ των
ύμετίρων αμαρτημάτων προσφίρο-
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
327
to propitiate the benevolent God for those who are al
ready dead, and for ourselves.”30
St. Ambrose (-f- 397) lays particular stress on the
power of the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice. He
says: “We priests imitate Christ, as is our right, by
offering the Sacrifice for the people ; though we are poor
in merits, we become worthy of veneration by the Sacri
fice ; for though Christ is not now seen offering, yet He
is sacrificed on earth, when Christ’s Body is offered." “
5. The Fathers of the Fifth Century.—
St. John Chrysostom (-F407), who has been
justly called the herald of the Eucharist, might
with equal propriety be proclaimed the herald of
the Mass.
It is upon the Mass that he bases his exalted concep
tion of the dignity of the priesthood : " When you be
hold how the Lord is sacrificed and laid there as a slain
victim,82 and how the priest stands and prays before the
Sacrifice,83 ... do you still imagine yourself to be
among men and on this earth ?... When the priest in
vokes the Holy Ghost and performs the sublime sacri
fice,8* tell me, how shall we rank him?”35 The sacri
ficial victim of the Mass, according to St. Chrysostom, is
Christ Himself. “ Christ instituted the priestly liturgy,”
transmuted the victim, and ordained that, instead of irra
so Catech. Mysi., V, n. 8 sqq.
(Migne, P. G.. XXXIII, ms).
31 In Pt., 38, n. as: "Sequimur
Christum, ut possumus, sacerdotes
ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium,
etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabi
les sacrificio, quia etsi nunc Christus
non videatur [scii, oculis] offerre,
tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando
Christi corpus offertur."— Other
Patristic texts quoted by Gihr, The
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp- too
sqq.
3- rôr Κύριο» rtOupiro» καί
Kelperov33 τό» lepfa ΐφιστύτα τύ θύματι.
3« τήμ φρικωόίβτάτη» frirehp
Ovalav35 De Sacerdot., Ill, 4.
328
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
tional animals, He Himself should be slaughtered.”87
The Mass preserves its unity in spite of the fact that it is
repeated daily on innumerable altars. “ We always offer
the same Victim, and not one lamb to-day, and another
to-morrow, but always the same one. . . . Since He is
offered as a sacrifice in many places, are there not also
many Christs? By no means, for Christ is one and the
same everywhere. . . . Now, as He that is sacrificed in
many places is one Body, and not many bodies, so also
there is but one Sacrifice.”88
The Protestant contention that St. Augustine (+ 430)
favored the “ symbolic ” theory in regard to the Real
Presence,89 is disproved by his utterances on the Mass.
He lays it down as a general principle that there can
be no religion without an external cult.40 In the New
Testament all other sacrifices have been supplanted by
the Mass, which is the “ summum verumque mysterium ”
of the Christian religion, and in which Christ is both
the sacrificing Priest and the sacrificial Gift.41 Physi
cally, he was offered but once, on the Cross; sacramen
tally, He is daily offered anew for all nations,42 in com
memoration of the sacrifice of the Cross.43 Augustine
calls the attention of the Jews to the prophecy of Mala
ccas and asks them: ‘‘What have you to say to this?
87 ίαυτόρ προσ^έρειρ. (Hom. in
I Corinth., 24, n. 2).
38 Hom. in Heb., 17, n. 3.— Ad
ditional citations from St. Chrysos
tom in Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of
the Mars, p. 106.— Cfr. also Nagle,
Die Eucharisticlchrc des Id. Chrysostomus, pp. 148 sqq., Freiburg
1900.
an I', supra, pp. 67 sq.
*0 Contra Faust., XIX, 11·. "In
nidlum nomen religionis sen verum
seu falsum coagulari homines pos
sunt, nili aliquo signaculorum vel
sacramentorum visibilium consortio
colligantur."
«De Civ. Dei, X, 20: " lesus
Christus sacerdos et ipse offerens,
ipse et oblatio, cuius rei sacramen
tum quotidianum esse voluit Ec
clesiae sacrificium."
*3Ep., 98, n. 9.
«a Contra
Faust.,
XX,
18:
" Christiani peracti eiusdem sacri
ficii memoriam celebrant sacrosanctd
oblatione et participatione corporis
et sanguinis Chriiti.”
ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION
329
Open your eyes at last and see how from the rising to
the setting of the sun there is offered up the Sacrifice
of the Christians; not in one place, as it was ordained
among you, but everywhere ; not to this God or that, but
to the God of Israel, who predicted these things; not
according to the order of Aaron, but according to the
order of Melchisedech.” 44
In his “Confessions” St. Augustine relates that his
pious mother, St. Monica, heard Mass daily, and when
she was near death, “ only desired that we should make
a remembrance of her at Thy altar, at which she had
constantly attended without one day’s intermission.”4S
Readings : —*G. Bickell, Messe und Pascha. Der apostolische
Ursprung der Messliturgie, Mayence 1872.— J. M. Buathicr, Le
Sacrifice dans le Dogme Catholique et dans la Vie Chrétienne,
Paris 1889.—*F. Probst, Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts
und deren Reform, Münster 1892.— Idem, Die abendlandische
Messe vom fünften bis sum achten Jahrhundert, Münster 1896.
—*A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beilriige sur
Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiosen Volkslebens. Frei
burg 1902.— Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, I: Der Altar der
vorkonstantinischen Kirche, Munich 1906.— Idem, Der vorirenâische Opferbegriff, Munich 1909.— Against Wieland. E. Dorsch,
S. J., Der Opfercharakter der Eucharistie einst und jetst, Inns
bruck 1909.— The controversy aroused by Wieland's books, which
44 Adv. ludacos, IX, 13: "Quid
ad haec respondetis? Aperite ocu
los tandem aliquando et videte, ab
oriente sole usque in occidentem
non in uno, sicut vobis fuerat con
stitutum, sed in omni loco offerri
sacrificium Christianorum, non cuili
bet deo. sed ei qui ista praedixit
Deo Israel, nec secundum ordinem
Aaron,
sed secundum ordinem
Melchisedech.”
*6 Confess., IX. 13: " Memoriam
sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit,
cui nudius diei praetermissione servi
erat."— On St. Augustine's teach
ing on the Mass see Μ. M. Wilden,
Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus Uber
das Opfer der Eucharistie. Schaff
hausen 1864.— Additional Patristic
texts in Petavius. De Incarnatione,
XII, 12 sqq.: Sclianz. Die Lehre
von den hL Sakramenten. J 34,
Freiburg 1890; Fr. S. Renz. Der
Opfercharakter der Eucharistie nach
der Lehre der yliter und Kirchenschriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr·
hunderte, Paderborn 189a.
330
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
were placed on the Index in 1911, is exhaustively reviewed by
G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries
of the Church, pp. 62-98, St. Louis 1913.— A. Fortescue, The
Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 2nd cd., London 1913.—
A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New
York 1893-5.— L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and
Evolution, London 1903.
CHAPTER ΤΙ
THE NATURE OF THE MASS
The nature or essence of a thing is either phys
ical or metaphysical. Hence, in dealing with the
Mass, we have to answer a twofold question :
(1) What is its physical nature? or in which
concrete portions of the liturgy does the real of
fering take place?
(2) Is the scientific concept of a sacrifice real
ized in the double Consecration, which, we shall
find, constitutes the physical essence of the Mass?
In dealing with the first question we shall show :
(1) that the physical essence or nature of the
Mass consists in the double Consecration of the
species of bread and wine and (2) that the Mass
has an intrinsic and essential relation to the Sac
rifice of the Cross.
SECTION i
THE PHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS
ARTICLE I
THE MASS IN ITS RELATION TO THE SACRIFICE
OF THE CROSS
I. The Sacrifice of the Cross the One Ab
solute Sacrifice.—The Sacrifice of the Cross
is the one absolute sacrifice offered for the salva
tion of the world, and this in a double sense: (a)
in so far as among all the sacrifices of the past
and future it alone stands without any relation
to, and is independent of, any other; (b) because
all graces, means of grace, and sacrifices, in the
present economy, derive their power and efficacy
from the Sacrifice of the Cross.
a) The Sacrifice of the Cross is called absolute be
cause it is the world-sacrifice par excellence, to which all
other sacrifices, whether of the Jewish, pagan or Chris
tian economy, are related, and upon which all depend.
This is true in particular of the sacrifices of the Old
Testament, which, though they had a truly sacrificial
character, were but types prefiguring the Sacrifice of the
Cross.1
1 F. tupra, Ch. I, Sect, i, Art.a.
332
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
333
It is an article of faith that the Mass, though
a true sacrifice, is intrinsically and essentially a
representation and commemoration of the Sacri
fice of the Cross. The Council of Trent defines:
“. . . our God and Lord, though He was about
to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross
unto God the Father, . . . that He might leave
to His own beloved Spouse, the Church, a visible
sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires,
whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accom
plished on the Cross, might be represented, and
the memory thereof remain even unto the end of
the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to
the remission of those sins which we daily com
mit, . . . offered up to God the Father His own
Body and Blood under the species of bread and
wine.” 2
The very expressions which Holy Scripture employs
to show the sacrificial character of the Last Supper
(“corpus tradition pro vobis," “sanguis effusus pro mul
tis”')3 point to an intrinsic relation between the Mass
and the Sacrifice of the Cross, for it was only in the
latter Sacrifice that the “ giving of the Body ” and the
“ shedding of the Blood ” were physically realized. The
2 Sew. XXII, cap.
Deus et Dominus noster, etsi
seipsum in ara crucis morte inter
cedente Deo Patri oblaturus erat,
. . . ut dilectae sponsae suae Ec
clesiae visibile, sicut hominum naquo cruentum illud semel in cruce
peragendum repraesentaretur eius-
que memoria in finem usque saeculi
permaneret atque Uhus salutaris
virtus in remissionem eorum, quae
a nobis quotidie committuntur,
peccatorum applicaretur, . . . cor
pus et sanguinem suum sub speelebus panis et vini Deo Paln obtulit."
(Deniingcr-ltaniiwart. n. pj8).
3 P. supra, Ch. 1, Sect, a, Art. a.
334
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Vulgate, in translating the Greek text by " Corpus quod
pro vobis tradetur" and “sanguis qui pro multis effunde
tur," brings out this intrinsic relation by using the future
tense. After the consummation of the Sacrifice of the
Cross this relation, which had up to then been anticipa
tory, became retrospective.
St. Paul places Christ’s command, “ Do this for a com
memoration of me,” 4 into direct relation with His death
on the Cross, when he says:
. . You shall show the
death of the Lord, until He come.”6
The character of the Mass, as a commemoration of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, manifests itself externally in the
twofold Consecration of the bread and wine. This cere
mony illustrates and symbolizes the physical separation
of the Blood from the Body which took place on the
Cross.®
The Fathers regard the Mass as a representation and
renewal of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. St.
Cyprian says that the Sacrifice of the Lord is not cele
brated unless our oblation corresponds to the Sacrifice
of the Cross.7 St. Ambrose writes : “ Formerly a lamb
was offered, . . . now Christ is offered, but He is of
fered as if renewing His passion.” 8* St. Gregory the
Great: “Let us consider, what kind of sacrifice this
4 Luke XXII, 19.
Bi
Cor.
XI,
26: “Mortem
Domini annuntiabitis, donec veniat."
7 Ep. 63, η. 9 (ed. Hartci, II,
708): " Apparet sanguinem Christi
non offerri, si desit vinum calici,
nec sacrificium dominicum legitimâ
sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio
et sacrificium nostrum responderit
passioni. Passio est enim Domini
sacrificium, quod offerimus. Nihil
aliud quam quod ille fecit, facere
debemus."
8 De Offic., I, 48: “Ante agnus
offerebatur, . . . nunc Christus of
fertur, sed offertur quasi recipiens
passionem."— On the teaching of
St. Augustine (Conlr. Faust., XX,
18), v. supra, pp. 328 Sq.
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
is for us, which for the remission of our sins constantly
imitates the Passion of the only-begotten Son.”9
The relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross
stands forth clearly in the various liturgies.
The teaching of Scholastic theology is authoritatively
voiced by St. Thomas, who says in the third part of the
Summa: “As the celebration of this Sacrament is an
image representing Christ’s Passion, so the altar is repre
sentative of the Cross itself, upon which Christ was sac
rificed in His proper species.” 10
The same idea is beautifully illustrated by certain
medieval paintings, which show the Precious Blood flow
ing from the side of our Divine Saviour into a chalice
standing on the altar.
b) The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one absolute sacri
fice also in this sense that in it the Redemption of the
human race was once for all accomplished and consum
mated in such a way that all other sacrifices and means of
grace are empty, barren, and void of effect unless they are
supplied from the main stream of merits derived from the
suffering of the crucified Redeemer. This is a funda
mental dogma of the Christian religion, in regard to
which Catholics and believing Protestants agree. The
uniqueness and universality of the Sacrifice of the Cross
are shown by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews:
“ By his own blood [Christ] entered once into the holies,
having obtained eternal redemption.”11* There is no
» Dial.,
IV,
58: " Pensemus,
quale sit pro nobis hoc sacrificium,
quod pro absolutione nostra pas
sionem unigeniti Filii semper imita10 Summa Theol., ja, qu. 83. art.
t, ad 2: "Sicut celebratio huius
sacramenti est imago repraesentativa
passionis Christi, ita altare est repraesentatiium crucis ipsius, in qua
Christus in propria specie immolatus
est."
11 Heb. IX. 12: "Per proprium
sanguinem introivit semel in sancio,
aeterna redemptione inventi."
336
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
redemption for him who spurns the Sacrifice of the Cross.
“ For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the
truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain
dreadful expectation of judgment.” 12
It would be wrong, however, to conclude from these
texts that the Mass is superfluous or that it derogates
from the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Council of Trent
declares: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice of the
Mass casts a blasphemy upon the most holy Sacrifice
of Christ consummated on the Cross, or that it derogates
from it, let him be anathema.”13 The Mass is not
something independent of the Sacrifice of the Cross;
■ nor does it pretend to add new power or efficacy to that
Sacrifice. The two Sacrifices are essentially identical,14
and the Mass derives its entire virtue from the Sacrifice
of the Cross. The infinite value of the latter can
be neither increased nor diminished. The Sacrifice of
the Cross, to employ a metaphor, filled the infinite reser
voirs to overflowing with healing waters, from which the
Mass merely draws for the purpose of distributing copi
ous draughts to the faithful. The Protestant view of
the Mass as “ a denial of the one Sacrifice of Christ ”
is wrong; for the Mass does, and can do, no more than
convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sac
rifice (applicatio per modum sacrificii'), and hence is
no independent sacrifice superadded to that of the Cross,
whereby the latter would be completed or enhanced in
value.
The possibility as well as the justification and relative
12 Heb. X, 26 sq.: "Voluntarie
enim peccantibus nubis post accep
tam notitiam veritatis iam non re
linquitur pro peccatis hostia, terri
bilis autem quaedam exspectatio iudieii."— Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, PP· 1'9 «*«·
13 Sess. XXII, can. 4: "Si quis
dixerit, blasphcmiam irrogari sanc
tissimo Christi sacrificio i>i cruce
peracto per Missae sacrificium aut
illi per hoc derogari, anathema sit."
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 951).
1* V. infra. No. a.
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
337
necessity of the Mass is based on the important distinction
between objective and subjective redemption, between the
sufficiency and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Cross.1’
2. The Essential Identity of the
with the Sacrifice of the Cross.—The
Mass
Mass
is essentially identical with the Sacrifice of the
Cross, because the sacrificial gift and the sacrific
ing priest arc the same in both, and the only dif
ference between them is in the different manner
of offering—this being bloody in the one, un
bloody in the other.
a) The Church teaches through the Council of Trent
that the Mass is, of its very nature, a “ representation,” a
“ commemoration,” and an “ application ” of the Sacri
fice of the Cross.18 The Roman Catechism adds a fourth
characteristic, viz.: repetition.17 Hence the Mass is
(1) A representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the
Cross, not after the fashion of a historic tragedy, or a
passion-play, but as a sacrificial appearance of Christ on
the altar under the separate species of bread and
wine.
(2) The Mass is a “commemoration" (memoria) of
Christ’s death on the Cross, held in accordance with His
own command : “ Do this as a commemoration of me.”
(3) The Mass is an “application ” (applicatio) to the
faithful of the redemptive merits of Christ.
(4) The Mass is a “renewal ” (instauratio) or repeti
tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross. This is not an article
of faith, but a truth inculcated by the Roman Catechism :
16 On the difference between
cuficicntia and efKcacilae (applicatio) see Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology,
pp. 81 sqq.
18 Cone. Trid., Ses* XXII, csp.
r.
IT Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 68.
338
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
“ He [Christ] bequeathed to us a visible Sacrifice, by
which that bloody Sacrifice, soon after to be offered once
on the Cross, would be renewed. . . . For the bloody
and unbloody victim arc not two victims, but one only,
whose sacrifice ... is daily renewed in the Eucharist.” 18
However, this repetition is not to be understood as a
multiplication, but simply as an application of the merits
of the Passion.
b) The relation between the two sacrifices is one of
essential identity because Priest and Victim arc the same
in both, the only difference being in the manner of
offering. This is of faith. For the Tridentine Coun
cil says :
. the Victim is one and the same, the same
now offering by the ministry of priests, who then of
fered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering
being different.”18 Is this identity of the two victims
numerical or merely specific? As Christ Himself is the
sacrificing Priest (offerens) and the sacrificial Victim
(hostia) in both sacrifices, there is plainly a numerical
identity. In regard to the manner of offering (offerendi
ratio), on the other hand, it is naturally a question only
of a specific identity or unity, that includes the possibil
ity of two, ten, a hundred, a thousand masses.20
3. How the Two Sacrifices Differ.—The
main difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross
and the Mass lies, as we have seen, in the manner
is L. c.: "Nobis visibile sacri
ficium reliquit, quo cruentum illud
semel in cruce paulo post immo
landum instaurerclur." — Ibid., qu.
74: " Neque enim cruenta ei in
cruenta hostia duae sunt hostiae,
sed una tantum, cuius sacrificium
. . . in Eucharistia quotidie instau-
10 Sees. XXII, cap. 2: "Uno
enim eademque est hostia, idem
nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio,
qui scipsum tunc in cruce obtulit,
sold offerendi ratione diversa."
20 Cf r. Suarez, De Eucharistia.
o. 70.; sqq.; Fortescue, The
cfr. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass, pp. 364 sqq.
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
343
the Communion in the Mass may be briefly de
scribed as a participation and completion of the
sacrifice. The essence of the Mass does not con
sist in the Communion for the simple reason that
the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be consumed
until the sacrifice proper is completed.
a) Nevertheless there have been some eminent
theologians (e. g. Ledesma and Dominicus Soto)
who held that the sacrifice consists in the Com
munion of the priest, as being the destruction of
the Victim, to which the Consecration forms
merely a condition and prelude.
Soto says : “ The death of Christ is not represented in
the Consecration. The Consecration takes place in order
that He may be immolated whilst He is consumed; for
this is a picture of the death and burial of Christ. And
in the consumption of the Blood we have an image of its
effusion.”0 But this theory can hardly be reconciled
with the following declaration of the Tridentine Council:
“ If anyone saith that ... to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.”e
Equally untenable is the view defended by Bellarmine,7
De Lugo,8 and Tournely,0 that Communion, as a kind of
destruction, is at least a co-essential factor in the consti
tution of the Mass. If this were the case, then the Last
B Comment, in Sent., IV. dist. 13,
qu. 2, art. 1: "Mors Christi non
repraesentatur in consecratione; imo
consecratur, ut immoletur, dum con
sumitur; nam illa est mortis et
sepulturae Christi effigies. Et in
sumptione sanguinis adhibetur imago
effusionis eius."
u Scse. XXII, can. 1: "Si quis
dixerit, . . . quod offerri non sil
aliud quam nobis Christum ad man
ducandum dari, anathema sit."
7 De Eucharistia. IV, ap.
8 De Eucharistia, disp. 19. sect. $
sq.
0 De Eucharistia, qu. 8. art. a,
conci. 4.
344
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Supper would have been a true sacrifice only on condition
that Christ had given Communion to Himself as well as
to His Apostles. For this, however probable it may ap
pear, we have absolutely no evidence. Moreover, the
celebrant docs not receive Communion as the representa
tive of Christ, but in his own person and for his own
personal benefit.
Nevertheless, the consumption of the Host and of the
contents of the Chalice, though a kind of destruction,
does not satisfy the demand of these theologians because
the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take
place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant,
whilst the partaking of the two elements can at most
represent the burial, but not the sacrificial death of
Christ.10
b) We have shown that the Communion of the
priest does not belong to the essence of the sac
rifice. It does belong, however, to its integrity.
a) The Communion of the priest marks the completion
of the sacrifice. It is a strict ecclesiastical precept,11
embodied in the rubrics of the Roman Liturgy, that in
case the Mass is interrupted by sudden illness on the
part of the celebrant, some other priest, even though not
fasting, shall, if possible, “ complete ” the Holy Sacri
fice by consuming the species.
β) There can be no perfect sacrifice of the unbloody
kind without a sacrificial banquet. Consequently, the
Communion of the priest belongs to the integrity of the
Mass.12
10 For a fuller discussion of thia
theory see Billot, De Ecclesiae Sa
cramentis, Vol. I. 4th cd., pp. 558
sqq., Rome 1907.
11 Cfr. Decret. Grat., De Conseer., dist. 2, c. 11.
12 Cfr.
St.
Thomas,
Siinima
Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 4.
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
γ) If the Communion of the priest does not belong to
the essence of the Mass, much less does that of the
faithful. Therefore so-called “private Masses,’’ at
which the priest alone communicates, are not only valid
but lawful, as the Tridentine Council has expressly de
fined.13 The contention of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia,
that “ participation in the sacrifice is essential to the
sacrifice,” and that consequently no private Mass is valid
unless the attending faithful make at least a “spiritual
communion,” was condemned as false and savoring of
heresy by Pius VI.14
3. The Double Consecration as the Phys
Essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass.—
After eliminating the Offertory and Communion,
there remains the Consecration as that part of the
Mass in which the true sacrificial character must
be sought.
a) The Mass has three chief constituent parts:
the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Commun
ion. If, as we have demonstrated, the sacrifice
is not in the Offertory, nor in the Communion, it
must necessarily be in the Consecration.
ical
In matter of fact, that part of the Mass alone can be
regarded as the proper sacrificial act, which is such by
Christ’s own institution. Now our Lord’s words:
“ This is my Body, this is my Blood,” are embodied in
the Consecration.15
13
Sess. XXII. can. 8: "Si quis 14 In the dogmatic Bull " Auc
torem Fidei, A. D. 1794- (Den
dixerit, Missas, in quibus solus sa
zinger Bannwart, n. t$a8).
cerdos sacramcnialiter communicat,
illicites esse ideoque abrogandas,
anathema
sit." (Denzinger- Bann
wart, n. 9SS>·
346
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Moreover, from the dogmatic teaching of Trent1" that
no one but a priest can validly say Mass, it follows that
the sacrifice must be contained in some act which the
priest alone can perform. This is the Consecration.
Consequently, the power of consecrating is identical with
the power of offering the Holy Sacrifice. This clearly
appears from the Roman Liturgy. In ordaining a can
didate to the priesthood, the bishop bestows on him the
“ potestas offerendi sacrificium,” without mentioning the
"‘potestas consecrandi.” Hence the two faculties must
be identical.
The same conclusion can be deduced from the dog
matic teaching of the Church 17 that Christ is the “ sacer
dos principalis” of the Mass and the human minister
merely plays a secondary rôle. It follows that the sac
rifice must occur in that particular portion of the Liturgy
in which the priest assumes the personal part of Christ.
This he does at the Consecration, when he utters the
words : “ This is my Body, this is my Blood.” 18
The teaching here espoused is strongly favored by the
Fathers19 and the great majority of the Schoolmen. St.
Thomas says : “ The sacrifice of this Sacrament is of
fered [to God] by the Consecration.” 20
b) "While the Consecration as such can be
shown with certainty to be the act of sacrifice,
the necessity of a twofold Consecration can be
demonstrated only as highly probable.
a) Christ said at the Last Supper, after consecrating
both bread and wine: “Do this for a commemoration
io Sess. XXII, can. x.
17 )z. supra, Art. i, No. 2.
18 Cfr.
St. Thomas, Summo
Theol., 30, qu· 8s> art »·
i«Sec VasqueZi Comment. in S.
Theol., Ill, disp. 212, sect. ■:
n-en.i lDeo} saerLum^eZ^·
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
347
of me.” It is extremely probable that this mandate re
ferred to the validity, and not merely to the licitness,
of the sacrificial action.
Moreover, the Mass, as a relative sacrifice, is essen
tially a representation of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross.
Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Jesus
suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were
emptied of their blood, this condition of separation must
receive visible representation on the altar. This condi
tion is fulfilled only by the double Consecration, which
brings before our eyes the Body and Blood in the state
of separation and thus represents the mystical shedding
of the Blood. It is this consideration that suggested to
the Fathers the idea, which was adopted into some litur
gies, of the double Consecration as a two-edged “mys
tical sword.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus says:
“ Hesitate not to pray for me, . . . when with bloodless
stroke thou separatest the Body and Blood of the Lord,
having speech as a sword.”21
/3) Henriquez, Bosco, Frassen, Henno, and other theo
logians, mostly of the Scotist persuasion, as well as a
few modern authors (Rohling,22 Schouppe, Stentrup, and
Fr. Schmid23) hold that when one of the consecrated
elements is invalid, the consecration of the valid element
not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated)
sacrifice. St. Alphonsus 2‘ regards this opinion as prob
able, but inclines to the one we have adopted as com
munior et probabilior." To-day, because of the weight of
the arguments brought in its favor, and the authority of
its defenders, our theory may safely be regarded as "pro21 Ep., 171 [240J ad riinphil.
(Migne, P. G.. XXXVII, 282).
22 A. Rohling. Miscell. Euchari
stica, in the Mayence Katholik.
1868, II, pp. 257 s., 63, n. 17.
SECTION 2
THE METAPHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS
The physical essence of the Mass, as we have
seen, is comprised in the double Consecration of
the bread and wine. There remains the more
difficult metaphysical question, whether and in
what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is
realized in this double Consecration. In order
that it be realized, the three essential momenta of
a sacrifice, viz.: the sacrificial gift, the sacrificing
minister, and the sacrificial object,1 must be pres
ent in the double Consecration.
It is easy to demonstrate the first-mentioned
two points. Christ Himself appears in the
double Consecration both as victim {hostia, vic
tima') and as priest {sacerdos principalis). The
object, i. e. the fourfold purpose of adoration,
thanksgiving, petition, and propitiation, is also
clearly attained.2
Therefore the problem is finally seen to lie en
tirely in the determination of the fourth essential,
viz.: the real sacrificial act {actio sacrifica), and
indeed ( i ) not so much in the physical form of
this act, i. e. the external oblation, as (2) in the
proximate matter, i. e. the transformation of the
1
V. supra, Ch. I, Sect, i, Art. I.
349
2 K infra. Ch. HI, Sect r.
35°
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
sacrificial gift, since the glorified Victim, being
impassible, cannot be really transformed, much
less destroyed.
ARTICLE i
SOME UNSATISFACTORY THEORIES REGARDING THE
METAPHYSICAL ESSENCE OF THE MASS
I. The Theory of Vasquez.—The famous
Spanish theologian Father Gabriel Vasquez,
S. J., correctly distinguishes between absolute and
relative sacrifice, but holds that a true destruction
of the victim, i. e. a real slaying of Christ, is neces
sary only for the absolute Sacrifice of the Cross.
For the Mass, as a purely relative sacrifice, he
deems it sufficient that the physical slaying of
Christ be visibly represented in the separation of
His Body and Blood on the altar. In other
words, to make the Mass a true sacrifice it suf
fices, (i) that its victim was really slain or de
stroyed at some previous time, and (2) that this
past event be here and now visibly represented by
way of commemoration.1
According to this theory the twofold Consecration does
not signify any real or equivalent (which actually means
1 Vasquez, Comment, in 5. Theol.,
HI, disp. 220, c. 3: " Commemo·
rativum [i. e. relativum] sacrificium
jine rei oblatae immutatione [«. c.
destructions! esse potest, tametsi ad
essentiam sacrificii absoluti necessa
ria sit, eo quod ratio formalis sacri
ficii — quae est significatio non in
verbis, sed in rebus, qu& denotatur
Deus auctor vitae et mortis— sine
tali immutatione in sacrificio commemorahvo referitur."
VASQUEZ’S THEORY
35»
not quite equivalent) physical or moral, transformation
of the Divine Victim, but merely a reproduction and rep
resentation as it were of the slaying of our Lord on the
Cross by means of the separate presence of His Body
and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine.2
This view was adopted by the brothers De Walenburch, by Becanus, and other older theologians. Of
modern authors Perrone3 prefers it for the reason that
it most effectively refutes the Protestant objections against
the Mass, since no orthodox Protestant will refuse to
believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or
deny that the Mass is a representation and commemora
tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Critical Appreciation of This Theory.—
Vasquez’ theory has the indisputable merit of em
phasizing the intrinsic and essential relation ex
isting between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the
Cross,—a relation without which the Mass would
be impossible.·* But the learned Jesuit does not
sufficiently emphasize the character of the Mass
as an absolute sacrifice.
It is of faith that the Mass is “ a true and proper sacri
fice,” 5 and not “ a bare commemoration of the Sacri
fice consummated on the Cross.”e Hence the Mass
is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice, and must in
clude within itself (or, more precisely, within the double
Consecration which forms its physical essence) all the
essential elements of both. The essential constituents of
2 Cfr. Vasquez. Op. tit., disp. 323,
sect. 7 son·
3 De Eucharistia, P. II, n. as°.
< V. supra. Sect. I, Art. 1.
6 Cone. Trident., Ses». XXXI, can.
’·
a Cone. Trident., Sess. XXII, can.
J.
352
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
an absolute sacrifice are: the external oblation as the
form, and the slaying of the sacrificial victim as the
proximate matter. Vasquez, in defining the Mass as
merely a living dramatic representation of the slaying of
Christ on the Cross, without a simultaneous transforma
tion of the Victim on the altar, appears to reduce the
Mass to a purely relative sacrifice, thereby endangering
the dogma that it is “ a true and proper sacrifice.”
Nevertheless, Cardinals De Lugo and Cienfucgos went
decidedly too far when they maintained that the Triden
tine definition indirectly stamps Vasquez’s theory as heret
ical. The Spanish Jesuit never dreamt of denying cither
the reality of the Mass or its character of a true and
proper sacrifice ; nor did he intend to reduce it to a bare
commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross. What he
meant was that the Mass becomes a true sacrifice in itself
precisely by the fact that it is a representation and repro
duction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The idea of re
ducing the Holy Sacrifice to a sort of passion play was
far from his mind, for he insists time and again on the
actual presence upon the Eucharistic altar of the true
sacrificial Body and Blood of Christ.
It may, however, be justly argued against Vasquez’
position that if the Mass is to be something more than a
mere passion play, it is not sufficient that Christ appear
in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be
in some manner really sacrificed there. Cardinal De
Lugo illustrates this contention as follows: Were
Jephta to rise again from the grave with his daughter,
and present before our eyes a living dramatic representa
tion of her slaying, after the fashion of a tragedy, we
should not see before us a true sacrifice, because there
would be lacking that sacrificial act of transformation or
destruction of the victim which Vasquez himself acknowl
SUAREZ'S THEORY
353
edges to be an essential constituent of every sacri
fice.7
2. The Theory of Suarez.—According to
Francis Suarez, S. J.,8 every true sacrifice in
volves “a real transformation of the sacrificial
matter.” However, this process need not neces
sarily be a change for the worse (immutatio in
deterius, i. e. destructio), as in the Jewish holo
caust; it may be a transformation into a higher
and more precious form (immutatio in melius),
as when incense is transformed into sweet fra
grance.
Suarez neither ignores nor overlooks the fact that “ the
[double] Consecration as a mystic slaying and separa
tion of the Body and Blood has a sacrificial character and
truly transforms Christ by reducing Him to the condition
of a victim (status victimae)"u However, he does not
put the sacrificial action proper in the double Consecra
tion, but secondarily in the destruction of the elements of
bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and primarily in the
substantial reproduction of the true Body and Blood of
Christ as the terminus ad quern of the double Consecra
tion, thereby identifying the offering proper with the pro
duction of the sacrificial Body and Blood.
This view was adopted by Arriaga, Casalius, and
others. Dr. Scheeben,10 who also defends it, claims that
1 De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp,
ig. sect. 4, n. 58.—Vasquez's theory
is defended by Father Jos. Rickaby.
S. J. (The Lord My Light, pp.
142 sqq.. London 1915)·
s De Eucharistia, disp. 7S. sect
5 »q·
0 Op. cit., sect 6, n. 6 sqq.
to Die Mysierien des Christenturns. 3rd ed.. § 73. Freiburg 191a;
Dogmatik, Vol. III. 5 270
Frei
burg 1882; cfr. Scanned Wilhelm, A
Msnual of Catholic Theology, Vol.
II, and ed., London 1901.
354
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
the idea of destruction originated in the sixteenth cen
tury and was unknown to the older Schoolmen. In this,
however, he is mistaken, as may be seen from a passage
in the second part of the Summa of St. Thomas.11
Critical Appreciation of This Theory.—
The theory of Suarez is based upon an exalted
conception of the Mass indeed, but errs in identi
fying the substantial production of the Eucharistic
Victim with the sacrificing of the same.
There is a good deal of truth in the idea that the Eu
charistic elements are destined by their destruction to be
transformed into something higher and more precious.
The destruction of the victim in any sacrifice is never an
end in itself, but merely a means to an end, i. e. the way
to sanctification and union with God. But the elements
of the Eucharist are not the victim, and to say that
the Eucharistic sacrifice, in its last analysis, is identical
with the substantial reproduction of Christ under the
twofold species of bread and wine, reveals a serious
weakness.12 For the production of a thing can never be
identical with its sacrifice. With the idea of sacrifice is
intimately linked in the minds of all men the notion of
kenosis or self-abasement. To offer something as a sac
rifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though
this self-abasement may finally lead to exaltation. The
idea of kenosis is entirely wanting in the immutatio per
fective of Suarez.
11
Summa Theol., 2a aae, qu. 86,
art. 1 : "Si aliquid exhibeatur In
cultum divinum, quasi in aliquod
sacrum quod inde fieri debeat, con
sumendum, et oblatio est et sacri12 This was already perceived by
De Lugo, who says (De Euchari
stia, disp. 19, sect. 4, n. 5a): " Est
contra communem omnium conci
piendi et loquendi modum dicere,
rem aliquam quando producitur, sa
crificari potuisseque offerri sacrifictum Deo generando filios Vcl ap
plicando alias causas naturales ad
s.m.les procreationes vel produc
tiones efficiendas."
CIENFUEGOS’ THEORY
355
3. The Theory of Cardinal Cienfuégos.— Car
dinal Cienfuégos, who was a member of the famous col
lege of the Salmanticenses,1314
in his book Vita Abscondita
sub Speciebus Velata,1* argues that the Mass can be held
to be a true, i. e. an absolute sacrifice only on condition
that it involves a sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic
Christ. This sacrificial destruction he would find in the
voluntary suspension of the faculties of the senses, espe
cially sight and hearing. This suspension of the lower
life, implied by the sacramental mode of existence, lasts
from the Consecration to the mixture of the sacred spe
cies shortly before the “ Agnus Dei,” at which juncture
Christ, by a miracle, is supposed to resume the natural
use of His senses.
Critical Appreciation of This Theory.— Because
of its strangeness and indcmonstrability, this theory1·
has nowhere found acceptance. It is intrinsically im
probable because it rests upon purely speculative as
sumptions. Even if the glorified Body of Christ in the
Eucharist were hindered in the natural exercise of its
external senses by the spiritual mode of its existence, it
would be no more than a “ pious opinion ” to assume that
its faculties are resumed by a miracle. The hypothesis
that Christ, by a third miracle, voluntarily surrenders
His sensitive functions for a certain time, for the pur
pose of performing a sacrificial act, is gratuitous. More
over, Cardinal Cienfuégos exaggerates the absolute ele
ment of the Consecration to such a degree that he loses
sight almost entirely of the specific identity of the Mass
with the Sacrifice of the Cross and of the relativity of
the former to the latter.
13 On the Salmanticenses see the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII.
14 Published at Rome in 1728.
15
Developed in ΙΊΛ1 Abicondita
tub Spectebus h'clata, disp. $, stcl·
a sqq.
356
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
4. The Theory of Thalhofer.—Dr. Valen
tine Thalhofer,10 an eminent German theologian
of the nineteenth century,17 asserts the existence
of a true “heavenly sacrifice” of Christ, which he
describes as a living representation and virtual
continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross by vir
tue of the intrinsic sacrificial act embodied in the
latter. This act is retained by the will of the
transfigured God-man, constantly reproduced, and
externally discernible in the glorified wounds
of His sacred Body. It is only in this way, says
Thalhofer, that Christ is, and for ever remains,
“an eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech.”
According to this view the Mass is linked im
mediately and intimately, not with the Sacrifice
of the Cross, but with Christ’s “heavenly sacri
fice,” which becomes a temporal and spatial phe
nomenon on the Eucharistic altar.
Thalhofer explains the metaphysical essence of the
Mass as follows: “In the Consecration the heavenly
High Priest, and together with Him the heavenly Vic
tim, descends into time and space and thereby into the
mundane order of the before and after. While becom
ing present in forma sacrificii on the altar by means of
the words of transformation in the form of separation,
Christ performs upon the altar, that is to say in time and
space, essentially the same sacrificial act which He once
10 See a sketch of his life and
17 He was fn11«w»,t
· j j
writings in the Catholic Encyclopc'· ”■
tions by Simar, Dogmatilt Vol' Π
t897.
BILLOT’S THEORY
359
ARTICLE 2
ACCEPTABLE THEORIES REGARDING THE METAPHYSICAL
ESSENCE OF THE MASS
In trying to form a plausible theory regarding the
metaphysical essence of the Mass, it is necessary to keep
in mind the following truths:
(1) The double Consecration must establish and ex
plain the fact that the Mass is both an absolute and a
relative sacrifice.
(2) The sacrificial action veiled in the double Conse
cration must somehow refer to the Eucharistic Christ
Himself, not to the elements of bread and wine.
(3) The sacrificial act must culminate, not in the glori
fication of Christ, but in a kenosis, i. e. a real self-abase
ment.
(4) If this kenosis be conceived as a slaying, it can
not be real but only sacramental or mystical, because
Christ is now immortal and impassible. The term “ mys
tical ” is used in reference to the mystery in which the
shedding of Christ’s Blood takes place; it is opposed to
“ real ” and equivalent to “ representative, commemora
tive, or relative.”1
(5) The momenta which approximate in any degree
the mystical slaying to a real exinanition, must not be
rejected but intelligently appraised.
i. The Theory of Cardinal Billot.—Struck
by the observation that the pre-Tridentine theo
logians regarded with disfavor the idea that the
Mass requires a real destruction of the victim,
1
Willielin-Scannel), A Manual of Catholic Theology, and cd.. Vol. II,
p. 456. London 1901.
3
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Cardinal Billot2 refers the absolute element of
sacrifice to the (active) sacramental slaying, and
the relative element to the (passive) separation
of the Body and Blood.
Both are effected by the double Consecration, which is
therefore truly a " two-edged sword,” the cause from
which the double character of the Mass as an absolute
and as a relative sacrifice proceeds. Since the “ mys
tical slaying”-of the victim involves the Eucharistic
Christ Himself, and takes the form of a symbolic destruc
tion, we have all the conditions necessary to render this
view acceptable.
Critical Appreciation of This Theory.—
Cardinal Billot’s theory, which was accepted by
Gihr and Atzberger, duly emphasizes the relative
element of sacrifice in the Mass, but it is unsatis
factory as regards the absolute element, which
it refers to the sacramental slaying (mactatio
mystica) of Christ.
The Mass has this peculiarity, which it shares with no
other sacrifice, that it involves no real slaying of the
victim and no real shedding of blood, but a destruction
that is purely “ mystical.” Now the sacramental separa
tion of the Blood of Christ from I lis Body is a mystical
destruction, because “ by it Christ is made present under
the sacramental species in quodam externo habitu mortis
et destructionis, in so far as under the breakable species
of bread there is visibly present, vi sacramenti, only the
Body of Christ, and under the fluid form of the wine
2
De Sacramentie. Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 567 sqq., Rome 1907.
BILLOT’S THEORY
36«
only the Blood of Christ, so that in external appearance
Christ appears before our eyes, so to speak, as a slain
lamb.”8
But how can this purely mystical slaying constitute a
real sacrifice?
This question is synonymous with another, viz.: Was
the purely mystical “ surrender of the Body ” and the
purely mystical “ shedding of the Blood ” by our Divine
Lord at the Last Supper a true sacrifice, or can it be
called a sacrifice only in the figurative sense of the term?
Surely the rite which Christ Himself instituted as a
true sacrifice for the remission of sins must be adequate
for that purpose. It follows that the mystical slaying of
the Victim suffices to constitute the essence of the Mass,
all the more so since what is essential to the notion of
sacrifice is the external oblation, not the destruction of
the sacrificial matter.
For a better understanding of the subject we will add
that, according to Billot’s theory, Christ offers Himself
in the Mass not in specie propria, but in specie aliena,
that is to say, not in His physical being, but in the sacra
mental mode of existence, and “ for this reason it is en
tirely sufficient for the essence of the Sacrifice of the
Mass, that our Lord appears under the sacramental veil
in the state of destruction.” * Moreover, a sacrifice, by
its very definition, must be something visible. Now the
invisible God-man appears before our eyes only under the
unsubstantial appearances of the Sacrament. Hence His
slaying in the Sacrifice of the Mass must be purely mys
tical, consummated by the sacramental separation of His
Body and Blood.6
3 Cfr. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dugmalih. Vol. III. p. 6SS4 Scheeben-Atzberger, op. cit., p.
656.
s Cfr. Gihr. The Holy Sacrifice of
the Mais, pp. 91 tqq.
362
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
This theory of the double Consecration as a twoedged mystical sword, with which the Eucharistic Christ
is slain and offered in a purely sacramental manner, is in
conformity with the teaching of the Fathers and older
Scholastics, and may therefore be called the traditional
view. In matter of fact it was current up to the time of
the Council of Trent. The post-Tridentine theology, in
defending the Mass against the Protestant heretics, need
lessly exaggerated the idea of destruction. The tradi
tional conception is still proclaimed in Deharbe’s and
other popular catechisms."
2. The Theory of Lessius.—Father Lessius,
S. J., in arguing against Suarez, insists that there
must be a real destruction of the Victim in the
Mass, because without this the Mass would not
be an absolute sacrifice. In common with others
he finds this destruction in the sacramental sepa
ration of the Body and Blood of Christ, as ef
fected by the double Consecration, i. e. in the mys
tical slaying of our Lord. But he adds a new ele
ment when he teaches that the force of the double
Consecration would result in an actual shedding
of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens
rendered impossible by the impassibility of the
transfigured Body of Christ.
This novel view has found many supporters, among
others Dicastillo, C. Hurtado, Sylvius, Bossuet, Billuart,
6
On the mactatio mystica in the
Ceschichle des Messopfcrbegriffes
Mass, sec Fr. S. Rene, Die
2 vols., Freising 1901—3.
LESSIUS’ THEORY
Gonet, Gotti, Berlage/
Glossner, and Bautz.
363
Oswald,78 Dieringer, Stôckl,
Critical Appredation of This Theory.—
Lessius is charged with exaggerating the force
of the “two-edged sword” of the double Consecra
tion and ascribing to it an effect which in the na
ture of things it cannot have.
He says : “ It is no objection to the truth of this sac
rifice that in it there does not actually occur a separation
of the Blood from the Flesh, for this happens as it were
per accidens, because of the concomitance of the parts.
For by force of the words of Consecration there occurs
a true separation, and the Body becomes present under
the appearance of bread alone, and the Blood under the
appearance of wine alone. And this is sufficient for the
essence of this sacrifice, both to make it a true sacrifice
(for the victim, thus made present, is transformed suf
ficiently to show that God has supreme power over all
things) and to make it a commemorative [i. e. relative]
sacrifice, representing to us the Sacrifice of the Cross
and the death of the Lord.”9 According to this theory,
the intrinsic force of the words of Consecration would
result in formally excluding the Blood from the Body,
7 Dogmatik. Vol. VII, pp. 416 sqq.
8 Die dogmatische Lehre t on den
hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, § 25,
Munster 1894.
0 Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque
Div., XII, 13, 97'· " Nec obstat ve
ritati huius sacrificii, quod non fiat
reipsi separatio sanguinis a carne,
quia id est quasi per accidens prop
ter concomitantium partium. Nam
quantum est e.r vi verborum, fit vera
separatio et sub specie panis solum
ponitur corpus, non sanguis, sub
specie vini solus sanguis, non corpus.
Et hoc sufficit ad rationem huius
sacrificii, tum ut sit verum sacrifi
cium (fit enim circa hostiam, dum
sic ponitur, sufficiens mutatio, qua
protestemur Deum habere supremam
in omnia potestatem), tum ut sii
sacrificium commemorativum [·. e.
relativum} repraesentans nobis sa
crificium crucis et mortem Domini."
364
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
and the only reason why the Blood is not actually shed
upon the altar, is that Christ is prevented from dying
again by the miracle of the co-existence of all the parts
of His glorified and impassible Body.
Against this explanation the opponents of Lessius ob
ject: Since vi verborum only the Body becomes really
present without the Blood, and the Blood in turn with
out the Body, both Body and Blood appear as they really
are. The Body, therefore, becomes present on the altar
animated by the soul and filled with blood. Were it the
tendency of the double Consecration formally to exclude
the Blood from the Body, there would result an actual
shedding of blood, or the words of Consecration would be
false.10
In spite of some objections, however, we hail the the
ory of Lessius as a deepening and extension of the tradi
tional idea of a mystical slaying, bringing it nearer to the
notion of a real slaying, and thus strengthening the posi
tion of the Mass both as an absolute and as a relative
sacrifice. Gutberlet rightly observes : “ It were mere
quibbling to try to disprove the idea of a mystically
real separation by saying that the words of Consecration
do not result in a separation of the Blood from the Body,
and to contend that they have not this exclusive sense.
. . . This is true to a certain extent,— if but one element
were consecrated, especially if that one element were the
bread, no separation would ensue. . . . But since the
Blood is consecrated apart from the Body of Christ, the
Blood must be conceived as existing without the Body,
and the Body without the Blood; and as the words of
Consecration are calculated, to effect this double repres
entation, they are calculated to exclude the Body from
10 Cfr. Franzclin, De Eucharistia, P. II, thes. 16; Tepe, Inst. Theol
DE LUGO’S THEORY
365
the Blood and the Blood from the Body, in what other
way, in fact, would it be possible to represent the bloody
Sacrifice through the Consecration? Hence our oppo
nents defeat themselves with their own weapons when
they deny that the separation of the Blood from the Body
is a result of the words of Consecration.”11
Nor can it be reasonably objected against Lessius’
theory that if a real effusion of the Blood is prevented by
the impassibility of the glorified Body of Christ and the
concomitance of the parts, there can be no true sacri
fice. The mystically real slaying of Christ in the Holy
Eucharist is just as capable of being a true sacrifice as
the slaying of Isaac would have been if Abraham had
dealt him a deadly stroke and God had not miraculously
prevented the shedding of his blood and his death.
Lessius’ theory, therefore, by no means lacks proba
bility.
3. The Theory of Cardinal De Lugo.—
With a view to emphasize the absolute character
of the Mass, Cardinal De Lugo starts from the
principle that every true sacrifice demands a real
destruction of the sacrificial gift. This destruc
tion may be either physical (as in the Sacrifice
of the Cross) or moral (as in a drink-offering).
The Mass is not only a relative ( commemorative)
sacrifice, but likewise an absolute sacrifice, and
hence the Eucharistic Victim in the Consecration
must be slain, either physically or morally. As
Christ cannot be slain physically because of the
state of His Body, the slaying must
11
Heinrich-Gutberlei, Dogmat. Théologie, Vol. IX. p. 86j.
366
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
moral. In matter of fact it consists in the volun
tary reduction of His Body and Blood to the con
dition of food (reductio ad statum cibi et potus},
in virtue of which the Eucharistic Saviour, hu
manly speaking, places Himself after the fashion
of lifeless food at the mercy of mankind. This
self-abasement or kenosis is comparable with that
involved in the Incarnation, and in some respects
even goes beyond it.12*
De Lugo’s theory was adopted by Platel, Muniessa,
Ulloa, Viva, Antoine, Holtzklau, Tamburini, and others
of the older school. In modern times it was revived,
after a long period of neglect, by Cardinal Franzelin,
who in his profound treatise De Eucharistia has the fol
lowing thesis: “We hold with Cardinal De Lugo and
a great many later theologians, that the intrinsic form
(essence) of the sacrificial act is in this: Christ . . .
puts His Body and Blood, under the species of bread and
wine, in a state of food and drink, by way of despoiling
Himself of the functions connatural to His sacred Hu
manity.” 18 Franzelin combines this theory of De Lugo
12 De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp.
quam aliae, quae ex communi homi
19, sect. 5, n. 67: "Licet [corpus
num mente sufficiebant ad verum
Christi} consecratione non destrua
sacrificium."
tur substantialiter, sed tamen de
13
Cfr. Franzelin, De Eucharistia,
struitur humano modo, quatenus ac
P. II, thes. 16: "Putamus cum
cipit statum decliviorem et talem,
Card. De Lugo plurimisque deinceps
quo reddatur inutile ad usus Itutheologis, intrinsecam sacrificationis
manos corporis humani et aptum ad
formam in eo esse quod Christus
alios diversos usus per modum cibi:
. . . corpus et sanguinem suum sub
■ . . quae mutatio sufficiens est ad
speciebus panis et vini constituit se
verum sacrificium ; fieri enim come
cundum quondam sanctissimae suae
stibile illud quod non erat come
liunianilalis a /unctionibus et ra
stibile et ita fieri comestibile ut
tionibus exislcndi connaturalibus ex
iam non sit utile ad alios usus nisi
inanitionem ad statum cibi ac
per modum cibi, maior mulafio est
DE LUGO’S THEORY
367
with the view of Cienfucgos, that the sacramental state
of the Eucharistic Body is accompanied by a suspension
of the functions of sense perception. In this form the
theory has found numerous defenders, among whom we
may mention Schouppe, De Augustinis, Hurter, Egger,
Sasse, Einig, and Tepe, though recently opposition
against it has been growing.
Critical Appreciation of This Theory.—
Though Cardinal De Lugo’s theory is open to
various objections, it may nevertheless be utilized
to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional
view.
a) De Lugo exaggerates the character of the Mass as
an absolute sacrifice in much the same manner in which
Vasquez exaggerates its character as a relative sacrifice.
In fact, the intrinsic relation of the Mass to the Sacrifice
of the Cross almost disappears in the theory under con
sideration. The reduction of Christ to the condition of
food and drink reveals no analogy whatever to the shed
ding of His Blood on the Cross. The relation of the
Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross is purely extrinsic,
something added from the outside rather than flowing
from its inmost nature. Nor is the necessity of the
double Consecration sufficiently evident, as a single Con
secration would suffice to produce the condition of food
and would, therefore, achieve the sacrifice. Two distinct
Consecrations might, according to this theory, be required
for the preparation of food and drink for a banquet (ra
tione convivii), but they are not necessary for the pro
duction of the Body and Blood in a state of separation
(ratione sacrificii), as the exinanition obtains sufficiently
in one Consecration.
368
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
b) These and other objections, however, can be re
moved if we combine the fundamental principle of De
Hugo’s theory with the traditional view, as developed by
Billot, and with the notion of a real and mystical slaying
of the Eucharistic Victim, as defended by Lessius.
Despite the fact that, objectively, the transfigured Hu
manity of Christ can suffer no diminution of its heavenly
glory, the reduction of the transfigured God-man to the
condition of food and drink, and the accompanying sur
render of His sensitive functions, according to our way
of thinking undeniably involves a real kenosis or selfabasement. By this consideration the Christian pulpit is
placed in possession of a truly inexhaustible fund of lofty
thoughts wherewith to illustrate the humility and love, the
destitution and defenselessness of our Divine Saviour
under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submis
sion to irreverence, dishonor, and sacrilege, and also the
intrinsic relation of the Mass to the food-offering of
Melchisedech and the minchah of Malachias, and, finally,
to emphasize this exinanition as an unbloody and mysti
cal continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
The idea just developed is as familiar to Tradition
as the notion of the mystic slaying of Christ in the Eu
charist. Therefore the two should not be pitted against
each other but combined, as was done by St. Cyril of
Alexandria when he wrote: “He who was eaten in
Egypt typically [i. e. in the manna], here offers Himself
voluntarily14 ... by placing Himself [before us] con
tinuously as the Bread of Life.”15 St. Gregory of
Nyssa1® says that “ the sacrificial Body would be inedible
if it were alive,17 wherefore the Body of Christ_at the
κΐκονσίωι ίαυτόρ βυσιά{«<.
15 βρώμα fwijs αύτό» ιταραντίκα.
ίαυτόι- TrapaOtptvos· Apud Framelin, De Eucharûl.. P. II. thc». .6.
ieOr. iN Resurr., t (Migne
C., XLVI, 611).
17 ft„Îp ΐμψυγον fiu
H VV'W·’ ην·
P
DE LUGO’S THEORY
369
Communion of the Apostles — was already offered,”1'
i. c. transformed into the state of lifeless food.
c) Against this ancient Christian conception, which
found expression also in the liturgies, it will not do to
object, as Scheeben does, that Christ’s sacramental mode
of existence under the appearances of bread and wine in
volves an exaltation rather than an abasement, since I fis
Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist in a pneu
matic manner, after the fashion of pure spirits.10 The
fact alleged is true, but it proves nothing. In one sense
the Eucharistic Christ is indeed exalted and glori
fied, but in another sense He is abased and humbled. In
spite of His transfiguration in Heaven, Christ still retains
in His Sacred Heart the same sacrificial love for us that
He bore on the Cross. Is not the Hypostatic Union, the
greatest of all miracles and the source of all our Sa
viour’s glory, at the same time a true kenosis and selfabasement? Cfr. Phil. II, 7: “Christ emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant.”
d) But how are we to combine the fundamental idea of
De Lugo’s theory with the traditional teaching on the
nature of sacrifice ? Gutberlet answers this question suc
cinctly as follows : “ First and above all we uphold the
idea of the mystical slaying of the sacrificial Victim by
means of the double Consecration. In connection with
this, the preparation of the food signifies the preparation
of the slain lamb for the sacrificial feast. In this sense
the preparation of the sacrificial food continues, supple
ments, and completes the mystic slaying. Only a lifeless
lamb that has been sacrificed can be eaten, as St. Gregory
of Nyssa says. Because the Eucharist is also a Sacra
ment, the Consecration, as an offering, reduces the Body
of the Lord to the condition of food, which condition
18 ήδη τ6 σώμα ίτίθυτο-
>a V. lufra. pp. i&s «qq.
370
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
is at the same time that of a sacrificial lamb.”20
Cfr. i Cor. V, 7 : " Etenim Pascha nostrum immolatus
est Christus — For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.”
Readings : —*A. Tanner, Cruentum Chrisli Sacrificium, In
cruentum Missae Sacrificium Explicatum, Prague 1669.—*V.
Thalhofer, Das Opfcr des Allen mid Neuen Blindes, Ratisbon
1870.— Westernlayer, Die Messe in ihrem Wesen oder das
verklarte Kreusesopfcr, Ratisbon 1868.— J. N. Diepolder, Das
IFesen des eucharistischen Opfers mid die vorsiiglichen kath.
Thcologen der drei letsten Jahrhunderte, Ratisbon 1877 —J.
Schwane, Die cucharislische Opferhandlung, Freiburg 1889 —W.
Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments,
London s. a.— J. M. A. Vacant, Histoire de la Conception du
Sacrifice de la Messe dans l’Église Latine, Paris 1894.— J. van
Wersch, Das hl. Messopfcr in seiner IVesenhcit mid in seiner
Feier, Strassburg 1895.—A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de I’HommeDieu, Paris 1899.— W. Gotztnann, Das eucharistische Opfer nach
der Lehre der alteren Scholaslik, Freiburg 1901.—A. G. Morti
mer, Eucharistic Sacrifice. An Historical and Theological In
vestigation of the Sacrificial Conception of the Holy Eucharist
in the Catholic Church, London 1901.—*Fr. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes oder der allé Glaube mid die
neuen Theorien Uber das Wesen des unblutigen Opfers, 2 vols.,
Freising 1901-1903.— G. Pell, Jesu Opferhandlung in der hl.
Eucharistie, 2nd ed., Passau 1910.— Interesting articles by the
Bishop of Victoria, B. C., and the Rev. M. J. Gallagher, of Grand
Rapids, Mich., in the Ecclesiastical Review, 1900-1914.
20 Heinrich-Gutberlct, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol. IX, p. 868, May
ence 1901.
CHAPTER III
THE CAUSALITY OF THE MASS
A distinction must be made between the effects
of the Mass and the manner in which these effects
are produced.
The effects of the Mass consist in the attain
ment of the various ends for which the Sacrifice
may be offered, viz.: adoration, thanksgiving, pe
tition, and propitiation. Of these the first two
refer to God, while the other two have reference
to man. These effects are called the fruits of the
Mass ( fruct us Missae).
As regards the manner in which the Mass pro
duces its effects {modus efficiendi), this partly de
pends on the Sacrifice itself {ex opere operato),
and partly on the personal devotion and piety of
those who offer it with Christ {ex opere operan
tis).
371
SECTION i
THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
I. Various Heresies and the Teaching of
Church.—The Protestant Reformers,
headed by Luther, recognized the Eucharist
merely as a Sacrament and rejected the Mass en
tirely.
the
a) A Sacrament as such can profit only the recipient.
It was from this point of view especially that the Re
formers antagonized the Mass. They were willing to
approve of it as a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving,
though even in this sense they denatured the Catholic
concept by declaring that it was a sacrifice in a figurative
or symbolical sense only, i. e. a mere offering of prayers.
The Protestant symbolic books insist that the Mass can
not be a true sacrifice because there is but one true sacri
fice, vis.: that of the Cross.1
b) The Council of Trent emphasized the impetratory and propitiatory character of the Mass
by defining: “If anyone saith that the Sacrifice
of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of
thanksgiving, . . . but not a propitiatory sacri
fice, or that it profits him only who receives, and
that it ought not to be offered for the living and
1
V. supra,
372
p. 336.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other
necessities, let him be anathema.”2*
In this canon we have a summary of all the sacrificial
effects of the Mass.
(r) The Mass is a sacrifice of praise (sacrificium
latreuticum) ;
(2) It is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (sacrificium eucharisticum) ;
(3) It is a sacrifice of propitiation (sacrificium propitiatorium), referring to our sins (peccata) and to the
temporal punishments which must be expiated by works
of penance (poenae) or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in
this life or in purgatory;
(4) It is a sacrifice of impétration (sacrificium impetratorium), directed towards our spiritual concerns and
needs (aliae necessitates).
The Tridentine definition expressly says that, as a sac
rifice of propitiation, the Mass can be offered also for the
dead, i. e. the souls of the faithful departed in purgatory.
We have already shown that the Mass is a true sacri
fice.8 That it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is
evident. Hence all that remains to be proved is that it is
a sacrifice of impétration and propitiation.4*
2. The Mass a True Sacrifice of Impétra
tion and Propitiation.—Impétration (impetra
tio) and propitiation (propitiatio) are distin2 Sess. XXII, can. 3: "Si quis
dixerit, Missae sacrificium lanium
esse laudis et gratiarum actionis,
. . . non autem propitiatorium, vel
soli prodesse sumenti neque pro
vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poe
nis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessi
tatibus offerri debere, anathema sil."
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 95**)·
3 V. Ch. I. supra.
4 Cfr. Mal. I. 10 sqq. The tra
ditional teaching on the subject is ef
fectively developed by Th. Specht.
Die Wirkunfen des eucharisluchen
Opfers, pp. ty sqq.. Augsburg 1876.
374
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
guishable from each other. The former appeals
to the goodness (benignitas) of God, the lat
ter to His mercy (misericordia). Naturally,
therefore, they differ also as regards their ob
jects. The divine mercy is concerned with sins
and the penalties of sin (peccata et poenae pec
cati), for which satisfaction must be given (satis
factio). In all these respects the Mass produces
all the effects of a true impetratory and propitia
tory sacrifice.
a) A convincing Scriptural argument can be
construed on the basis of the Tridentinc Coun
cil 6 as follows : Among the numerous sacrifices
of the Old Testament there were not only sacri
fices of praise and thanksgiving, but likewise
sacrifices of impétration and propitiation.0 Now,
the New Testament, as the antitype of the Old,
must also have a sacrifice that serves and suffices
for all these objects. But, according to the
prophecy of Malachias, the only sacrifice of the
New Testament is the Mass. Consequently the
Mass is an impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice.
The propitiatory character of the Mass may further
more be deduced from the following considerations:
According to Heb. V, i, every priest is ordained for the
purpose “ that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for
sins.” 7 Now the Mass is a true sacrifice and its celebrant
6 Sees. XXII, cap. 1.
β Cfr. Lev. IV sqq.; 2 Kings
XXIV, 21 sqq.; 2 Mach. HI, 32.
t χνα ττροσφ^ρ-η δωρά
Ουσία, ύπίρ άμαρτ.ώρ
re
καί
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
375
a true priest. Therefore, the Mass must be a true sacri
fice of propitiation. This conclusion is expressly stated
in the words wherewith our Lord instituted the Holy
Eucharist. Matth. XXVI, 28: "For this is my blood
of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many
unto remission of sins.” 8
Is there Biblical warrant for the Tridentine teaching
that the Mass may be offered also for the dead?
Christ’s words, as quoted, are general, and there is no
reason to except the dead. Moreover, we know from the
Second Book of the Machabees9 that in the Old Testa
ment sacrifices were offered for the sins of the dead, and
hence it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the Mass
must serve the same purpose.
b) The chief source of our dogma, however,
is Tradition. The impetratory and propitiatory
value of the Mass is clearly apparent both from
the teaching of the Fathers and from the ancient
liturgies.
a) Tertullian testifies that the early Christians "sacri
ficed for the welfare of the emperor.” 10 St. Cyril of Je
rusalem describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as fol
lows: " Over this sacrifice of propitiation “ we pray to
God for the universal peace of the churches, for the
proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers,
and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those
stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of
help we pray and offer up this sacrifice.” ” The lastquoted phrase shows that St. Cyril ascribes the efficacy
» els Λφισιν άμαρτιΰ»·
0 i Mach. XII. 43 sqq.
ia/Id Scapul-, a: "Itaque et
sacrificamus fro salute imperatoris.”
>> ταύτημ
προσφίρομ^
ττ)»
9υσlar
ti Catech. Myst., 5, η. β (Migne.
P- C-, XXXIII, ms).
376
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
of the Mass directly to its sacrificial character. At the
time of St. Chrysostom, Mass was said “ for the fruits
of the earth and other needs.” 13
This argument is confirmed by the ancient liturgies,
which contained masses for travellers, for bridal couples,
for rain, etc.
β) The Fathers and the ancient liturgies also
attest the fact that in the primitive Church Mass
was offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice alike for
the living and the dead.
St. Jerome says: “ [The bishop] daily offers an unde
filed sacrifice for his own sins and those of the people.” 14
St. Augustine compares the Mass with the Levitic sacri
fices of the Old Law and says that it effects the remis
sion of sins.16 St. Gregory the Great writes: “This
Victim in a singular manner preserves the soul from
eternal damnation.”10
The ancient liturgy of St. James1T has the following
passage: “We implore Thy goodness, that this sacri
fice may not tend to the judgment of Thy people, since
it is instituted for our salvation, for the forgiveness of
sins, for the remission of follies, and as a thanksgiving
to Thee.” 18
Masses for the dead were common in the early Church.
13 Hom. tn Act., 21, n. 4.
n In
Tit.,
1, 8: “ Quotidie
[episcopus] pro suis populique pec
catis illibatos Deo oblaturus est
hostias."
13 Quacst. in Lev., 57: " Illis sa
crificiis
unum
hoc
sacrificium
[Missa] significabatur, in quo vere
fit remissio peccatorum, a cuius ta
men sacrificii sanguine in alimentum
sumendo no» solum nemo prohibe
tur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes
exhortantur, qui volunt habere vi
to Dial., IV, 58: "Haec victima
singulariter ab aeterno interitu ani
mam salvat."
it Apud Kenaudot, Lit. Orient.
Collect., Π. p. 30.
18 Other examples from ancient
liturgies are quoted by Tepe, Inst.
Thcol., Vol. IV, pp. 337 Sq.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
377
Tertullian exhorts a widow to have the holy Sacrifice
offered up for her departed husband on the anniversary
of his death.10 The Church of Carthage forbade priests
to act as civil guardians of children under penalty of
having no masses said for the repose of their souls. St.
Cyprian enforced this law strictly against a disobedient
priest named Victor.19
20 St. Augustine wrote a special
treatise on “ How to Help the Dead.”—“ We read in the
books of the Machabees,” he says, " that a sacrifice was
offered for the dead; but even if we read nothing like
this anywhere in the ancient Scriptures, there is the
weighty authority of the universal Church, which ob
serves the custom of giving a place in the prayers of the
priest at the altar, to the commendation of the dead.”21
His mother, St. Monica, on her death-bed had asked him
to offer Masses for the repose of her soul, and Augustine
in describing her funeral says: “And now behold the
body is carried out to be buried; and I go and return
without tears. Neither in those prayers which we poured
forth to Thee, when the sacrifice of our ransom was of
fered to Thee for her, the body being set down by the
grave, before the interment of it, as custom is there,
— neither in those prayers, I say, did I shed any tears.”22
19 De Monog., to: "Pro anima
eius refrigerium adpostulet [vidua]
et offerat [scil. per sacerdotem]
annuis diebus dormitionis eius."
20 Ep. 66, n. a: "Non est quod
pro dormitione eius apud vos fiat
oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomino
eius in Ecclesia frequentetur."—
For the testimony of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, v. supra, p. 3a6.
21 De Cura Gerenda pro Mortuis,
c. I, n. 3·· " In Machabaeorum
libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis
sacrificium; sed etsi nusquam in
Scripturis veteribus omnino legere
tur, non parva est universae Ec
clesiae. quae in hac consuetudine
daret, auctoritas, ubi in precibus
sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad eius
altare funduntur, locum suum habet
etiam commendatio mortuorum."
M Confess.,
IX,
ta: " Quum
ecce corpus elatum esi. imus, redi
mus sine lacrimis. Nam neque tn
eis precibus quas tibi fudimus, quum
offerretur pro ea sacrificium pretii
nostri, iam lu.rta sepulcrum posito
cadavere, priusquam deponeretur,
sic illic fieri solet, nec in eis preci
bus devi."
378
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
From the innumerable ancient liturgies which testify
to the belief of the Church on this head, we will quote only
one prayer. It is taken from the Sacramentary of St.
Gregory and reads as follows : “ I will offer Thee this
reasonable, unbloody sacrifice with a clear conscience, for
the remission of my sins and iniquities, for the forgive
ness of the crimes of Thy people, for the repose and
refreshment of our fathers who have passed away in the
true faith.”23
3. Masses in Honor of the Saints.—It en
ters into the very concept of the Mass as a sacri
fice of adoration and praise that it can be offered
to God alone. To offer sacrifice to a creature
would be idolatry. This applies in a special man
ner to the Mass, in which the God-man Himself
is the sacrificial victim. It is quite a different
thing, however, to offer the Mass in honor of the
saints, i. e. to thank God for their exaltation in
Heaven, and to procure for us their efficacious in
tercession.
Here is the authentic explanation of the Tridentine
Council : “ Although the Church has been accustomed
at times to celebrate certain Masses in honor and memory
of the saints, she does not, therefore, teach that sacrifice
is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned
them ; whence neither is the priest wont to say : * I
offer sacrifice to thee, Peter or Paul,’ but, giving thanks
isApud Renaudot, Lit. Orient.
Collect., I, p. 26: "Offeram tibi
hoc sacrificium rationabile, incruen
tum cum conscientia pura in remis
sionem peccatorum et iniquitatum
mearum, veniam delictorum populi
tui, requiem et refrigerium Patrum
nostrorum qui olim obdormierunt in
fide orthodoxa."—On Masses for
the dead sec Dellarmine, De Eucha
ristia, VI, 2, 7; De Augustinis, De
Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed , pp.
774 sqq.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
379
to God for their victories, he implores their patron
age. . .
24 With this threefold limitation, Masses in
honor of the saints are certainly no base imposture, as the
Lutherans allege, but perfectly legitimate. The Council
of Trent defines: “If any one saith that it is an im
posture to celebrate Mass in honor of the saints, and for
obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church in
tends, let him be anathema.”25*
The Catholic practice is approved by antiquity. The
early Christians were wont to celebrate Mass in honor of
the martyrs on the day of their death and to erect altars
over their graves. Tertullian testifies that Mass was
offered in memory of the martyrs every year.2* St.
Cyprian says of two famous martyrs, St. Lawrence and
St. Ignatius : “ We offer sacrifices for them always, as
you remember, as often as we commemorate the anni
versary of their suffering and death.” ,T The commemo
ration of the saints has a place in practically all of the
ancient Mass liturgies. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in describ
ing the liturgy of his day, says: “We then commemo
rate the departed, and first of all the patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, martyrs, that God may, through their prayers
and intercession, graciously accept our supplications.”28
norem sanctorum et pro illorum in
24 Sess. XXII, cap. 3: "Et
tercessione apud Deum obtinendi,
quamvis in honorem et memoriam
sicut Ecclesia intendit, anathema
sanctorum nonnullas interdum Mis
sit."
(Denzinger-Bannwart. n. 95a).
sas Ecclesia celebrare consueverit,
sa De Coron., c. 3: "Oblationes
non tamen illis sacrificium offerri
pro nalalitiis [martyrum] annud dio
docet, sed Deo soli, qui illos corona
facimus." (Migne. P. L., II, 79).
vit, unde nec sacerdos dicere solet:
2T Ep., J9, n. 3 : " Sacrificia pro
Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre vel
iis semper, ut meministis, offerimus,
Paule, sed Deo de illorum victoriis
quoties
martyrum passiones et dies
gratias agens eorum patrocinia im
anniversariâ commemoratione cele
plorat." ( Denzinger-Bannwart, n.
bramus." (Ed. Hartel. II. $8j).
94«)·
23 Catech. Mysi.. $, n. 9.— On the
as Cone. Trident., Sess. XXII,
veneration and invocation of the
cati. 5: "Si quis direrit, impostu
sainte in general see I’uhle-Preuaa,
ram esse Missas celebrare in ho
38ο
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
When the Fathers and the ancient liturgies speak of
Mass as being offered for the martyrs, the preposition pro
(imp) means not “ for the repose or salvation,” but in
honor of (pro honore), in the sense of veneration (cultus
duliae) ; for the saints in Heaven, having attained the
beatific vision, no longer need our prayers.29 The repro
bates in hell cannot profit by the Mass because they are
irrevocably lost.30 Consequently, there remain only the
living on earth and the poor souls in purgatory who are
able to participate in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice.
Among the living on earth the fruits of the Mass apply
in the first place to those who are in the state of sanctify
ing grace, secondly to those Christians who arc in mortal
sin. Heretics and excommunicated Catholics, Jews and
Mohammedans, pagans and infidels are not excluded
from the benefits of the Holy Sacrifice, though the
Church has limited the application of its so-called special
fruits81 in regard to non-Catholics.
Mariology, pp. 13g sqq. On the subject of this subdivision cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 8.
29 Cfr. Bickcll, Messe «nd Pascha,
pp. 136 sqq., Mayence 1872.
30 See Eschatology.
31 V. infra, Sect. 2, No. 3.
SECTION
2
IN WHAT MANNER THE MASS PRODUCES ITS
EFFECTS
The effects of the Mass as well as the manner of its
efficacy ultimately depend on the value of the Mass, and
hence we shall have to devote some space to this “cele
brated and much controverted question.”1
The efficacy of the Mass is partly ex opere operato,
and partly,— we may say, for the most part,— ex opere
operantis. That is to say, the opus operans, i. e. the
proper disposition of those whom it is to benefit, plays a
far more important rôle in the application of the fruits of
the Mass than is generally supposed.
The last question to be considered is whether the for
giveness of sins effected by the Mass is immediate or only
mediate.
i. Value of the Mass.—The Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass has both an intrinsic and an extrinsic
value. Its intrinsic value is derived from the ob
jective dignity of Christ, who is both its High
Priest and Sacrificial Victim. Its extrinsic value
consists in the sum-total of the concrete effects
which the Mass produces by virtue of the appli
cation of the fruits of the atonement.
1
Suarez, De Enchariitia, disp. 79, aect >>, n. 1.
381
382
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
a) The intrinsic value of the Mass, like that of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, is, of course, infinite.
Every act of the God-man possesses infinite value in
the eyes of God.2 Needless to say, the action of Christ
in the Mass creates no new values, but simply applies
the thesaurus of the merits and satisfactions contained
in the Sacrifice of the Cross to the faithful. “ The fruits
of this bloody oblation,” says the Council of Trent, “are
received most plentifully through this unbloody one.”8
As regards the extrinsic value of the Mass, we must
first of all distinguish between sacrifices of praise and
thanksgiving on the one hand, and sacrifices of impétra
tion and propitiation on the other. The first two are
directed to God alone and cannot be applied to man, and
hence a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered up by
the Son of God Himself (in the name of humanity) must
be infinite, since God cannot but take infinite pleasure in
the praise and thanksgiving of His only-begotten Son.
b) The case is different with sacrifices of im
pétration and propitiation.
a) Theologians generally4 agree that in itself (in actu
primo) the Mass, as a sacrifice of impétration and pro
pitiation, has infinite power, because impétration and
propitiation performed by the God-man must have the
same infinite value as praise and thanksgiving, though they
may not attain their full effect on account of the limitations
of human nature. It follows that intensively {intensive)
the external value of the Mass as a sacrifice of impe2 Cfr. Pohlc-Preuss, Chrislology,
pp. 161 sqq·; Sotcriology, pp. 70
sqq.
3 Sess. XXII. cap. 2: " Cuius
qutdem oblationis cruentae fructus
fer hanc incruentam uberrime per
cipiuntur.”
4 With but few exceptione, among
them Bellarmine, De Eucharist,a,
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
3»3
tration and propitiation can be but finite This is con
firmed by experience, and also by the fact that the Church
allows many Masses to be offered for the same purpose.
We may fairly ask, however, whether in its application
(in actu secundo) and extensively (extensive) the value
of the Mass is also merely finite. Or, to put it somewhat
differently,— Can the value of the Mass, which is in
tensively finite, be applied ad infinitum to any number of
persons in such a manner that its efficacy is in no wise
diminished? Or do the individual beneficiaries share in
the fruits pro rata? Rather than answer this question in
the negative, many theologians prefer to hold that the
Mass is of infinite value also extensive, and that the
amount of the fruits each beneficiary receives, varies in
proportion to his piety, worthiness, and devotion, in short,
depends on “the work of the agent” (ex opere operan
tis). Surely, indeed, he would be a poor Christian who
would expect wonders from the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass in spite of his own indifference.5
β) Nevertheless, the question must be answered with
a distinction.® In addition to the active there are also
passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These
are the persons in whose favor,— it may be without their
knowledge and against their wishes,— the Holy Sacrifice
is offered. As regards the active participants, i. e.
the celebrating priest and the attending faithful, the
distributive value of the Mass does not depend on the num
ber of those who take part in it. If this were the case, it
could be truly said that the fewer people in attendance,
the greater the fruits derived by those actually present.
But this is contrary to the mind of the Church and the
belief of the faithful. Each active participant receives
ft See No. >, infra.
«Cfr. Suarez. Oe Eucharutiri. di«p. 79, aecl a.
384
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
as much of the fruits of the Mass as his personal worthi
ness and devotion entitle him to. It is not possible to
assign a definite limit.
The question lies somewhat differently with the passive
participators, t. e. those in whose favor the Holy Sacrifice
is offered.
c) On this point theologians differ widely.
The minority (Cajetan, Ledesma, Gonet, Vasquez, St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, et al.), hold that
the applicable value of the Holy Sacrifice is in
finite, and that a single Mass offered for a hun
dred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a
hundred Masses celebrated for a single person
or intention.7
Billuart8 alleges in favor of this view that “ the in
finite dignity of both the sacrificial Gift and the sacrificing
High Priest Jesus Christ cannot be limited by the finite
sacrificial activity of the human minister,” and after
carefully weighing all reasons pro and con, arrives at the
conclusion that both opinions are probable but neither is
certain.9 For the rest, even the opponents of this view
readily admit that the value of a Mass, as a sacrifice
of impétration, suffers no diminution by its being offered
for many persons or intentions, because the divine mercy
and bounty cannot be limited in the same way as divine
justice, which, in matters of debt, must enforce strict
equity. For this reason, they say, the Church prays for
1 Cfr. Gonet, disp. 11, art. 5, n.
100: " Dico tertio, hoc sacrificium
oblatum pro pluribus aeque prodest
cuilibet, ac si pro uno ianlu») of
feratur."
H De Eucharistia, diss. 8, ari. 5.
t> Ibid.: "Ceterum utraque est
probabilis, et quamvis in secundam
propendere videar, agnosco tamen
neutra»! esse certam. sed quamlibet
pati Jtiar difficultates."
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
385
the Pope, the Ordinary of the diocese, and the faithful
generally in the Canon of every Mass, regardless of
whether or not the celebrant has received a stipend com
pelling him to apply its special fruits to some particular
person or intention. There is no danger that these special
fruits will be in any way diminished or curtailed.
The overwhelming majority of Catholic theolo
gians 10 incline to the conviction that the satisfac
tory value of a Mass, which is directed to the re
mission of the temporal punishments of sin, is so
strictly circumscribed and limited from the out
set, that it accrues pro rata (according to the
greater or less number of the individuals living
or dead, for whom the Sacrifice is offered) to each
of the individual beneficiaries.
Many authors hold this to be true also of the impetratory and the propitiatory value of the Mass. Their
view finds strong support in the custom prevailing among
the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for
the deceased or for their special intentions. Only on
such a hypothesis 11 is it possible to understand why a
parish priest is strictly bound to apply the Mass to his
parishioners on Sundays and holydays of obligation.1*
Only on such a hypothesis, finally, is it possible to ex
plain why the Church has forbidden in strict justice that
a priest should seek to fulfil the obligations imposed by
several stipends by reading a single Mass.13
10 Λ list of them is given by
Tepe. Inst. Thcol., Vol. IV, p.
347·
11 Cfr. Cone.
Trident., Sess.
XXIII. cap. 1. De Ref.
13 Benedict XIV, Const. " Quum
semper oblatas," J a: "A’re illud
pro aliis applicare ant pro huiusmodi
applicatione eleemosynam percipere
posse."
13 Prop, ab cllesendro Vll. Damn,
a. 166s, prop, io: " Non est cantra
386
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
Tournely adduces in favor of this view important in
ternal grounds of probability, c. g.: the will of God to see
the Holy Sacrifice offered as often as possible and with
the largest possible attendance on the part of the faith
ful; the general rule of Divine Providence to allow all
natural and supernatural causes to produce their effects
slowly and gradually ; and, finally, the most holy intention
of God that man should, by his personal exertions, strive
through the medium of the greatest possible number of
Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the
Cross.1*
2. The Mass Produces Its Effects Partly
ex Opere Operato and Partly ex Opere Ope
rantis.—How the Mass works its effects is rather
difficult to explain. In every Mass four distinct
categories of persons really participate. They
are:
(a) The High Priest Jesus Christ Himself
(sacerdos principalis s. primarius') ;
(b) The Church, His mystic Bride and repre
sentative on earth ;
(c) The celebrant (sacerdos ministerialis s.
secundarius) ;
(d) All those who, besides the celebrant, par
ticipate actively in the sacrifice.
That in addition to the opus operatum, there
must, in general, also be an opus operantis, is evi
turhfiam, pro pluribus sacrificiis
stipendium accipere el sacrificium
unum offerre." (Denzingcr-Bannwart, n. 1110).— Cfr. De Lugo, De
Eucharistia disp. 19, sect. 12; Th.
Specht, Die IVirkungcn des eucharistischen Opfers, § 29.
1* Tournely, De Eucharistia, qu.
8, art. 6. Billuart’s answer in De
Eucharistia, diss. 8, art. 5,
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
3»7
dent from the fact that the efficacy of the Mass
depends not only on the objective dignity of the
sacrificial gift, but likewise on the subjective
worthiness and disposition of the celebrant and
the faithful.
a) To make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us,
and to secure its application, Christ, the High Priest,
offers Himself as a sacrifice which is quite independent
of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant,
or the faithful present at the Mass, and consequently is
for these an opus operatum. In regard to God, of course,
Christ’s theandric act of offering Himself as a sacrifice
constitutes an opus operantis. This peculiar kind of
efficacy is one of the essential distinctions between the
Sacrifice of the New Testament and the sacrifices of the
Old, as was pointed out by the Tridentine Council:
“ This is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be
defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer
[it].” 15
16
b) Next after Christ, and in the second place, comes
the Church as a juridical person, who, according to
the express teaching of the same Council,10 has re
ceived from her Divine Founder the institution of the
Mass and also the commission constantly to ordain
priests who will celebrate this most holy Sacrifice unto
the end of time. St. Augustine speaks of “ the daily
sacrifice of the Church, who, being the body of the Head,
offers up herself through Him.”17 As the Church is
15 Sess. XXII, cap. 1: "Et haec
quidem illa munda oblatio est, quae
nullâ indignitate aut malitia offeren
tium inquinari potest.'*
IB Sess. XXII, cap. 1 : " Ut di
lectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibile
relinqueret sacrificium. . . . notum
instituit pascha seipsum ab Ecclesia
per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus
immolandum.”
it De Civ. Dei, X, ao: “. . .
quotidianum Ecclesiae sacrificium.
388
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
the “ beloved Bride of Christ,” her daily sacrifice cannot
but be agreeable to God, even though the celebrant should
happen to be an unworthy priest ; for, acting in his official
capacity, even an unworthy priest offers a valid sacrifice,
which, being the sacrifice of the Church as well as
the self-sacrifice of Christ, remains essentially spotless
and untarnished before God. From this point of view
there are no “ private Masses,” inasmuch as every
Mass is offered in the name and by commission of the
Church and therefore constitutes a solemn and pub
lic act of divine worship. “ The sacred and holy Synod
[of Trent] . . . does not . . . condemn, as private and
unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends those
Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramen
tally, since those Masses also ought to be considered as
truly common, partly because the people communicate
spiritually thereat, partly also because they arc celebrated
by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only,
but for all the faithful. . . .”18
To this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offer
ing up the Holy Sacrifice together with Christ, there
corresponds as a special fruit an ecclesiastico-human
merit, which, as De Lugo points out,10 is lost when Mass
is said by an excommunicated or suspended priest, be
cause such a priest no longer acts in the name and with
the commission of the Church.
We are compelled to concur in another view of Cardinal
De Lugo, namely, that the value of the Mass is dependent
on the greater or lesser holiness of the reigning pope, the
quae quum ipsius capitis corpus sit,
seipsam per ipsum discit offerre."
18 Sess. XXII, cap. 6: " Nec ta
men [Ecclesia] Missas illas . . . ut
privatas et illicitas damnat, sed pro
bat atque adeo commendat, siquidem
illae quoque Missae vere communes
censeri debent, partim quod in eis
populus Christianus spiritualités com
municat, partim vero quod a publico
Ecclesiae ministro non pro se tan
tum, sed pro omnibus fidelibus . . .
celebrentur."
10 De Eucharistia, disp. 10, sect
9. n. 126.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
j8o
bishops, and the clergy throughout the world. The holier
the Church is in her members (especially the pope and
the episcopate), the more agreeable must be her sacrifice
in the eyes of God. The human merit of the Church in
offering up the Sacrifice of the Mass is, therefore, an opus
operans of the Church as such, and consequently, being
independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the
faithful, constitutes for these an opus operatum, which
has impetratory effects similar to those produced by the
sacramentels.
c) With Christ and the Church is associated in the
third place the celebrating priest, the represented e
through whom Christ offers up the sacrifice. If he be
a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity,
there will accrue an additional fruit, which will benefit
himself and those in whose favor he applies the Mass.
Hence the faithful are guided by a sound instinct when
they prefer to have Mass celebrated by an upright and
holy priest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in ad
dition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this
special fruit, which springs ex opere operantis from the
piety of the celebrant and is for them, therefore, an opus
operatum.
d) In the fourth place must be mentioned those who
take an active part in the Sacrifice of the Mass. e. g.
the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and, finally, the
whole congregation. All these individuals gather fruits
in proportion to their personal dispositions. The more
fervent a prayer, the richer its fruit. Most intimate is the
active participation in the sacrifice of those who receive
holy Communion, since in their case the fruits of Com
munion are added to those of the Mass.
Aside from sacramental Communion, the most effective
way of participating in the benefits of the Mass is by
390
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
communicating spiritually, which means to have an
ardent desire to receive the Eucharist with the priest.
The Tridentine Council says: “The sacred and holy
Synod would fain indeed that, at each Mass, the faithful
who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual
desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the
Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be
derived from this most holy sacrifice.” 20
A third means of deriving spiritual profit from the
Mass is by making the intention of participating spirit
ually in all the Masses celebrated daily throughout the
world. This intention is all the more fruitful if it is
made at Mass itself.
Since the benefits thus obtained are proportionate to
the disposition of the individual and the purity of his
motives, they are plainly acquired ex opere operantis.21
3. The Threefold Fruit of the Mass.—The
effects of the Mass, which it produces ex opere
operato, whether they be impetratory or propitia
tory, are commonly called its “fruits.” The bene
ficiaries of these fruits are called passive partici
pants in the Holy Sacrifice.22 They fall into
three categories: the community, the person or
persons to whom the Mass is especially applied,
and the celebrant.
20 Sess. XXII, cap. 6: " Optaret
quidem sacrosancta Synodus, tit tn
singulis Missis fideles adstanles non
«olui» sfiriiuati affectu, scd sacramentali etiam Eucharistiae percep
tione communicarent, quo od eos
sanctissimi huius sacrificii fructus
uberior proveniret."
21 Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia,
disp. 19, sect. 11.
22 Of course, the active partici
pants in the Mass are also passive
participants in the sense above ex
plained, in fact they are benefitted
by the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice
in a particular manner.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
391
a) According to the intention of our Divine Lord and
His Church, every Mass that is celebrated, is offered up
by the priest for those present at the Sacrifice, for the
holy Catholic Church, the pope, the bishop of the diocese,
for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, and
for the salvation of the whole world. From this there
results first of all a “general fruit’’ (fructus generalis)
for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately
in the will of Christ and His Church, and can be frus
trated by no special intention on the part of the cele
brant. Scotus and a few other theologians hold that by
virtue of this general fruit of the Holy Sacrifice every
individual member of the Church receives a remission
of the temporal punishment due to his sins from every
single Mass celebrated on the face of the earth; but this
theory is extremely doubtful.23
b) The second kind of fruit (fructus specialis)
is usually applied to particular living or deceased
persons according to the intention of the celebrant
or the donor of a stipend. The practice of giv
ing and receiving Mass stipends is based on the
maxim enunciated by St. Paul that he who serves
the altar shall live thereof. This special fruit of
the Mass (called also ministerialis or medius)
must be applied by the priest, who has received
a stipend, according to the intention of the donor.
Its “application” rests so exclusively with the
priest that even the prohibition of the Church
cannot render it inefficacious, though the celebrant
Ï3 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 8, n. a.
392
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
would sin through disobedience were he to oppose
her commands.
Since the effect of an application can be frustrated by
circumstances (c. g. if a Mass were said for a deceased
person already in Heaven), Suarez 21 advises priests al
ways to add to the first a second intention (intentio
secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will
take its place.
That there is a special fruit of the Mass, which can
be applied to either the living or the dead, according to
the intention of the celebrant, though not an article of
faith, is the express teaching of the Church. The contrary
assertion of the Jansenist Council of Pistoia 24
26 was con
25
demned by Pius VI in his dogmatic Bull “Auctorem
Fidei.” 20 The practice of offering Masses for particular
persons or intentions goes back to the primitive Church 27
and would be absolutely unintelligible had not the Church
believed in the doctrine under consideration.
c) The third and last kind of fruit (fructus personalis
s. specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the cele
brant, since,— apart from his worthiness and piety (opus
operantis),— it were unfair that he should come emptyhanded from the Sacrifice. This fruit of the Mass is
entirely personal and most probably cannot be applied to
others.
Although the development of the ecclesiastical
teaching in regard to the threefold fruit of the
24 Op. cit., disp. 79, sect. io.
25 ·'. . . quasi nullus
specialis
fructus proveniret ex speciali appli
catione, qua»i pro determinatis per
sonis aut personarum ordinibus fa
ciendam commendat ac praecipit
Ecclesia, speciatim a pastoribus pro
suis ovibus.” (Denzingcr-Bannwart,
n. 1530).
20 '■ Falsa, temeraria, perniciosa,
Ecclesiae iniuriosa, inducens in er
rorem alias damnatum in Wicleffo.”
K. supra, Sect. i.
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
393
Mass begins only with Scotus,28 it is based on the
very essence of the Sacrifice itself.29
4. The Special Mode of Efficacy of the
Mass as a Sacrifice of Propitiation.—As a
propitiatory sacrifice the Mass has a double func
tion, i. e. to obliterate actual sins {effectus propi·
tiatorius), and to take away such temporal pun
ishments as may still remain to be endured for
sins forgiven {effectus satisfactorily). Both ef
fects are expressly mentioned by the Tridentine
Council.30
A problem of some difficulty is whether this
double effect ex opere operato is produced medi
ately or immediately.
a) Regarding mortal sins, we maintain as cer
tain, in opposition to some older theologians, that
the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of
such sins otherwise than by way of exciting con
trition and penance, and therefore only mediately
through procuring for the sinner the grace of
conversion.
a) Aragon and Casalius held that the Mass remits mor
tal sins per sc, in the same way as Baptism and Pen
ance. Gregory of Valentia maintained that it remits them
per accidens
the living.
after the fashion of certain Sacraments of
Neither view is tenable, since even the
Sacrifice of the Cross itself, from which the Mass de
ae Quaest. Quodlib., I. ao, n. 4.
2B Cfr. BeJIartnine, De Eucha
ristia. VI, 6 sqq·; Th. Specht, Die
ll irkungeti des eucharislischen Of
fers, pp. 149 sqq.
aoSes*. XXII. can. j.
394
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
rives its entire efficacy, does not effect the immediate for
giveness of mortal sins, but merely bestows certain effi
cacious graces, by means of which the sinner can attain
justification, either through making an act of perfect
contrition or worthily receiving the Sacrament of Pen
ance. To say that the Mass blots out mortal sins imme
diately and ex opere operato, is to confuse it with the
Sacraments of the dead and to deny their necessity (necessitas medii) for salvation. St. Thomas says: “The
Eucharist, in so far as it is a sacrifice, . . . blots out
mortal sins, not as a proximate cause, but by securing
the grace of contrition.”31 The Council of Trent ap
proves this teaching : “ The holy Synod teaches that
this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. . . . For the Lord,
appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace
and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and
sins.” 32 This conciliary definition indicates in how far
the propitiatory efficacy of the Mass is derived ex opere
operato. God is first appeased by the oblation and subse
quently moved to grant sufficient (though not necessarily
efficacious) graces to enable the sinner to make a worthy
confession or an act of perfect contrition.
β) As regards venial sins, the Tridentine Council says
that the salutary virtue of the unbloody Sacrifice is “ ap
plied to the remission of those sins which we daily com
mit.” 33 From this Melchior Cano, Henriquez, Azor, and
, a few other theologians concluded that the Mass, as a sac81 Comment. in Sent., IV, dist.
12, p. a, art. 2:
Eucharistia, in
quantum est sacrificium, . . , pec
cata mortalia in cis delet non sicut
causa proxima, sed inquanlum gra
tiam contritionis ei* impetrat."
32 Sees. XXII. cap. 2: "Docet
sancta Synodus, sacrificium istud
vere propiliutorium esse. . . . Huius
quippe oblatione placatus Dominus
gratiam et donum poenitentiae con
cedens crimina et peccata etiam in
gentia dimittit." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 940).
83
. in remissionem eorum,
quae a nobis quotidie committuntur
peccatorum." (Sess. XXII, cap. 1).
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
395
rifice of expiation, directly blots out venial sins. But this
deduction is unwarranted. On the contrary, it is the com
mon teaching of Catholic theologians that the forgiveness
of venial sins also requires actual grace, i. e. the grace of
contrition.34 The Mass as such is a Sacrifice, not a Sacra
ment. The following argument is as simple as it is con
vincing: If the pious attendance at Mass, or the effica
cious application of the Holy Sacrifice, is unable to earn
for any one immediately the first grace of justification,
then it is also unable to merit the so-called justificatio
secunda, which consists in an increase of sanctifying
grace. The contrary hypothesis would entail the absurd
conclusion that to have Masses said for the souls of bap
tized children would increase the sacramental grace of
Baptism ad infinitum.
b) Concerning the remission of the temporal
punishments due to sin, our judgment must be
different.
The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction between
sin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation
and sorrow of the sinner, forgiveness is impossible. This
cannot, however, be said of a mere remission of punish
ment. One person may validly discharge the debts of
another, without apprizing the debtor of his intention.
a) The satisfactory effect of the Mass is immediate and
wrought ex opere operato. This can be shown as follows :
The Council of Trent defines that the souls in purga
tory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, ‘‘prin
cipally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar.” M This
help must come immediately and ex opere operato, be3·» Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucharistia,
disp. 19. sect. 9, n. 15.·.
35
. ■ potissimum vero accepta-
bili altaris sacrificio iuvari" (SeM.
XXV, De Purg.; Denzinger-Bann·
wart. n. p8j).
396
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE
cause a dead person can no longer give satisfaction for
his sins (satisfacere) by acquiring supernatural merits;
all he can do is to atone for them by suffering (satispati).
There is no reason to assume that the case is different
with the living, and consequently the satisfactory effect
of the Mass with them, too, is immediate and ex opere
operato.
β) In order to make sure of the fructus specialis of the
Mass as a sacrifice of satisfaction, a person must ( i ) be
capable of receiving those fruits; he must (2) be in the
state of pilgrimage; he must (3) have the right disposi
tion, and (4) stand in need of satisfaction.
(1) To be able to receive these fruits, a person must
be baptized. Baptism is the “ spiritual door ” not only
to the Sacraments, but also to the Sacrifice of the Mass
in so far as it is a sacrifice of propitiation. Its impetra
tory effects can be applied also to non-believers.
(2) To receive the special fruits of the Mass as re
gards satisfaction for the temporal punishments of sin,
one must be in the state of pilgrimage (in statu viae).
The attainment of the status termini either in Heaven or
in hell renders all satisfaction either unnecessary or im
possible. As regards the middle state of purgatory, we
have already shown that the fruits of the Mass can be
applied to the poor souls. Is this application infallible?
Soto, Cano, and others doubt it, for the reason that
the effectus satisfactorius of the Mass can be applied to
the departed only per modum suffragii. Nevertheless,
the majority of theologians hold with Suarez80 that
Masses for the dead infallibly remit, if not all, at least
part of the punishments due to their sins.
(3) The recipient must have the right disposition, that
8U De Euchariitia, disp. 79, sect. 10, n. 3 sqq
EFFECTS OF THE MASS
397
is, he must be in the state of sanctifying grace.” The
punishments due to mortal sins cannot be remitted until
the sins have been blotted out.
(4) Finally, the recipient must stand in need of satis
faction. This condition would be absent in the case of
one who had already obtained remission of all the pun
ishments due to his sins by either actively or passively
making satisfaction for them. One who is in the state
of mortal sin clearly stands in need of such satisfaction,
though the need cannot be satisfied until he has obtained
forgiveness of his sins by a worthy confession.38
Readings: — G. Sanchez, Spiritualis Thesaurus Missae, Ingol
stadt 1620.—’Cardinal Bona, De Sacrificio Missae Tractatus
/isceticus, new ed., Ratisbon 1909.— K. Weickum, Das hl, Messopfer, Handbuch fur Prediger und Katecheten, Ratisbon 1865.
— J. Kôssing, Liturgische Erkliirung der hl. Messe, 3rd ed.,
Ratisbon 1869.— J. P. Olivier, Solutions Théologiques et Litur
giques Touchant le Saint Sacrifice de la Messe, Paris 1873.—
*Thos. Specht, Die Wirkungen des cucharistischen Opfers, Augs
burg 1876.— M. Müller, The Holy Mass, the Sacrifice for the
Living and the Dead, New York 1879.— L. Bacuez, Du Divin
Sacrifice et du Prêtre qui le Célébré, Paris 1888.— Kl. Liidtke,
Erkldrung des hi. Messopfers, Danzig 1892.—J. Walter, Die hl.
Messe, der grossie Schats der Welt, 7th ed., Brixen 1909.—N.
Gihr, Das hl. Messopfer dogmatisch, liturgisch und assetisch
erkldrt, nth ed., Freiburg 1912; (English translation. The Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically
Explained, 4th ed., St. Louis 1914).— Cardinal Vaughan, The
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1900.— W. J.
Kelly, The Veiled Majesty, or Jesus in the Eucharist, London
1903.— A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., pp.
270 sqq., London 1905.— J. C. Hedley, O. S. B., The Holy Eucha
rist, pp. 227 sqq., London 1907.
-.J·
37 Cfr.
St.
Thomas,
Summa
Theol, 3», qu. 79. art. 7, ad 3.
38 Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Thea!,, Vol.
IV. pp. 35J sqq.
INDEX
mystery of the Real Presence,
Aaron, 43. 280, 305, 329.
’44 sqq.
Abcrcius, Stele of, 84.
Application of the special fruits
Abraham, 106, 302, 305.
of the Mass, 391.
Absolute accidents, 145 sqq., 152
Aquarians, 195.
i sqq·
Accidentia sine subiectQ, 145 Arians, 260.
Aragon, 393.
sqq.
Armenians, 82, 193.
Adam, 290.
Addai and Mari, Liturgy of, Arminians, 50.
Arnauld, 55, 164.
213. 320.
Adduction, Scotistic theory of, Arriaga, 353.
Artolatria, 26, 14E
125 sqq.
Adorableness of the Holy Eu Aspersio sanguinis, 282.
Athanasius, St., 61, 26a
charist, 136 sqq.
Atzberger, 12, 149 sq., 360.
Agar, 33, 35.
Augsburg Confession, 49.
Alanus of Lille, in.
Augustine, St., 3, 21. 67 sq., 74.
Albertus Magnus, 98.
76, 77, 78, 79, ’39. 22’. 223.
Albigenses, 81, 256, 316, 317·
238 sqq., 270. 278. 285,305, 3-’8
Alexander VIII, 271.
sq., 376, 377. 387. (
Alexander of Hales, 181.
Auxerre,
Council of (578), 266.
Alexandria, School of, 73 sq.
Azor, 394·
Alger of Liège, 48.
Alphonsus de’ Liguori, St., 140, Asyma, 191 sqq.
183, 347, 384·
B
Altars, 281, 315.
Amalarius of Metz,’ 161.
. .
Ambrose, St., 66, 121, 138, 200, Ballerine 384Banquet, The Eucharistic. 225
250, 320, 327, 334·
sq.. 322.344
Ambrosius Catharinus, 201.
Baptism, 133. 237. 23ft 240 sq..
Andrew, St., 323.
245. 266· 395. 30·
Anglicans, 19, 36, 5°. 247, 253,
Bardenhewer, 75.
3°9. . ,
Basil, St., 61. i-’2. 206, 250. 320·
Antioch, School of, 73.
Basle, Council of ( 1431), 246.
Antoine, 366
Apostles, The, 29 sq., 57, 83, 91, Bautz, 363.
Bayma, Jos., S. J., 1IS199, 257- . .
Apostolic Constitutions, 132 sq., Becanus. 125. 35’·
Bellarmine, Card., 33. ”4. «*5.
263, 3’9· , . .
126, 165, 181, 182, 25Λ »J,
Apparences eucharistiques, 151.
Apparent contradictions in the
343·
399
400
INDEX
Bcrengarius, 30, 45, 46, 47 Sq„
51. 52, 81, in, 114, n6, 161.
Berlage, 363.
Berning, W., 37.
Bessarion, Card., 205, 212.
Bickell, 319.
Billot, Card., 359 sqq., 368.
Billuart, 125, 165, 362, 384.
Bilocation, 181 sqq.
Bisping, 313.
Body, Effect of Communion on
the human, 233 sq.
Bonaventure, St., 43, 44, 168,
252.
Bosco, 347.
Bossuet, 164, 362.
Bread as an element of the
Sacrament of the Eucharist,
189 sqq.
Bread of Heaven, 2, 11, 12, 15,
227.
Bread of Life, 12, 13, 14 sq.
Bread of the Angels, 2, 265.
Breaking of bread, 1, 85.
Breaking of the host, 342.
Butzer, 129.
Chaklæans, 82.
Chalice, 194 sq., 263, 309 sqq.;
Not given to the laity, 246
Charles IX, 247.
Cheffontaines, 201.
Chemnitz, 134, 251.
Christology, 6g sqq., 136.
Chrysostom, St., 20, 47, 63 sq.,
74, 94, 121, 122, 132, 161, 200,
205, 206, 212, 223, 259, 320,
327 sq., 376. ,
Cienfuegos, Card., 173, 352, 355.
de
Clement of Alexandria, 73, 190.
Collyridians, 256.
Communion, 2, 14, 21, 22, 6o, 71
sq·, 79 sq., 86, 93, 129, 133»
136, 138, 139. 215, 219, 220
sqq., 230; Under one kind,
246 sqq. ; Unworthy, 268 sq. ;
Preparation required for, 270
sq. ; Communion of the priest
in the Mass, 343 sqq.
Concomitance, Law of, 88 sqq.,
95;
Concupiscence allayed by the
C
Holy Eucharist, 229 sq.
Confirmation, 238.
Cæsarius of Arles, St., 97·
Consecration, The words of, as
Cain and Abel, 290.
form of the Sacrament of the
Cajetan, 384.
Holy Eucharist, 198 .sqq.;
Calixtines, 246.
What words are essential in,
Calvin and the Calvinists, 30,
209 sq. ; The minister of, 256
51. 54. 55. 81, 120, 131, 161,
sqq.; The real sacrificial act,
222, 247, 277, 315, 316.
340 sqq. ; The double Conse
Cano, Melchior, 341 sq., 394,
cration as the physical es
396.
sence of the Mass, 345 sqq.
Canon of the Mass, 209 sqq.
Constance, Council of (1414Capharnaum, Christ’s discourse
1418), 146, 152, 246, 247, 253,
at, 10 sqq.
Carlstadt, 32, 50, 81, 129, 315.
317·
. .
Cartesianism, 148, 150 sq., 158, Consubstantiation, 49, 113, 117.
Contenson, 233.
163 sq.
Carthage, Council of (397). 3’8. Contradictions, Apparent, In
Casajoana, 163.
the dogma of the Real Presence, 144 sqq.
Casalius, 353, 393·
Conversion, 103 sqq.
Catacombs, 83 sq.
Copts, 82.
Catechumens, 266, 273.
Cor. XI, 24 sq.—24 sqq.
Catholic Encyclopedia,
Chalcedon, Council of (451), Cornelius à Lapide, 300.
Corpus Christi, Feast of, 139 Sq
318.
INDEX
Corpus Christi Procession, 140.
Corruptio specieruin, 134.
Covenant, 40
Cross, The Mass in its relation
to the Sacrifice of the, 332
sqq.
Cyprian, St., 59 sq., 196, 224,
259. 305. 318, 325 sq., 334, 348,
377, 379·
Cyril Lucaris, 81.
Cyril of Alexandria, St, 21, 64
sq·, 71, 73, 90, 121, 131, 368.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 61 sq.,
75. 90, 96 sq., 121, 138, 319 sq.,
326 sq., 375, 379-
401
Divinity of Christ 25.
Docetism, 45, 56, 70.
Dositheus, 81.
Dressel, L., S. J., 157.
Drouin, 151.
Durand. 37.
Durandus, 48, 113, 119.
Dynamic presence, 51.
Dynamism, 156 sqq.
E
Eat one's flesh, 16 sq.
Eck, Johann, 341.
Egger, 367.
Einig, 367.
Elias, 66.
D
Ephesus, Council of (431), 21.
David, 31.
82, 318.
Deacons, 259, 262 sqq., 318.
Dead, Communion given to the, Ephraem, St., 71.
198, 202 sqq.; Pos
266; Masses for the, 376 sq., Epiklesis,
sesses no consecratory value,
385, 395 sq.
210 sqq., 341.
De Augustinis, 367.
Epiphanius, St, 74, 260.
Decretum pro Armenis, 93 sq., Epistula Presbyterorum Achai
95 sq., 190, 203, 218, 225, 227.
ae, 323.
Definition of the Eucharist, 6 Estius,
192, 313.
sq.
Eucharistic congresses, 140.
Dcharbe, 185 sq., 362.
Eucharistic controversies, The
Delectatio spiritualis produced
three great, 45 sqq.
by the Holy Eucharist, 227 Eucharistic leagues, 140.
sq.
Eugene IV, see Decretum pro
Delitzsch, 13.
Armenis.
•De Lugo, 98, 105, 125, 148, 165, Eutychius, 97.
172, 181, 197, 224, 252, 283,
F
284, 289, 343. 388.
De Lugo, Card., 352, 365 sqq.,
Fabian, Pope, 242.
388.
Fabri, 164.
.
Denis, St, 250.
Faith alone not sufficient for
De San, 181.
worthy Communion, 268,
Descartes, 150 sq., 163.
Destruction of the sacrificial Fast, The Eucharistic, 269 sq.,
victim, 283 sqq., 344, 365 sqq.
324- □
Fernandez, 163.
De Walenburch, 351.
Figurative interpretations of
Dicastillo. 362.
Christ's
words, 32 sqq.
Didache, 85, 322.
First Communion of children,
Dieringer, 363.
Dieterich, 13.
243 sq·
r
Dignity of the Eucharist, 4 sqq. Fish symbol. R4Florence, Council of (1430),
Dionysius the Great, 69.
81. tot. 194. 203, 205. 211, 213
Discipline of the Secret, 2, 57.
sq.,
315,
317.
73, 74, 305·
402
INDEX
Formula of Concord, 51, 129.
Fourth dimension, 164.
Fractio Panis, 84 sq., 151, 342.
Franzclin, Card., 43, 105, Ι2Γ,
156, 174, 182, 283, 366 sq.
Frassen, 347.
Frederick William IV, 50.
Frequent Communion, 230, 242
sqq.
Fruits of Communion, 231 ; Of
the Mass, 381 sqq.
Fulgentius, St., 239.
G
Gaufred, III.
Gelasius, Pope, 71, 251, 320.
Gerson, Charlier de, 253.
Gihr, 360.
Glossner, 363.
Gnostics, 70, 71.
Gonet, 363, 384.
Gotti, 363.
Gratia sacramentalis of the Eu
charist, 226 sq.
Greek schismatic Church, 81
sq., 202 sq.
Gregory the Great, 320, 334 sq.,
376, 378.
Gregory VII, 52.
Gregory of Nazianzus, St., 61,
347·
Gregory of Nyssa, St., 61, 121,
205, 368, 369.
Gregory of Valentia, 148, 393.
Guitmund, 48.
Gutberlet, 182, 364, 369.
Heriger, 47.
Hilary, St., 65, 70.
Hildehert of Tours, in
Hippolytus, St., 58 sq.
Hoffmann, J., 13.
Holtzklau, 366.
Holy Ghost as co-consecrator,
213 sqq·
Holy Orders, 257.
Hoppe, L. A., 201.
Host, 4, 159.
Hurtado, C., 362.
Hurter, H., S. J., 156, 367.
Hus and the Hussites, 22, 246
sq.
Hydroparastatac, 195.
Hylomorphism, 155 sqq.
Hylozoism, 158.
Hypostatic Union, 92 sq., 114
sq., 141, 193, 221.
I
Iconoclasts, 22.
Ignatius of Antioch, St., 56 sq.,
70, 232, 323.
Immutatio perfectiva, 354.
Impanation, 114, 116.
Increase of sanctifying grace
effected by the Holy Eucha
rist, 222 sqq.
Index, S. Congr. of the, 151.
Infants, The Eucharist not nec
essary for the salvation of,
236 sqq.; The Eucharist ad
ministered to, under the spe
cies of wine, 237 sq., 250;
Why Communion was given
H
to, in the ancient Church, 240
sq.
Haan, 182.
Innocent III, 197, 200, 201.
Happiness. The Eucharist a Institution of the Sacrament,
pledge of eternal, 232 sqq.
23 sqq.
Harnack, Adolph, 67, 83, 195.
Irenaeus, St., 1, 58, 71, 191, 196,
Hartmann, Ed. von, 158.
204, 324 sq.
Heavenly Sacrifice of Christ ac Isaias, 301.
cording to Thalhofcr, 358.
Ischyras, 260.
Heimbucher, 233.
Henno, 347.
J
Henriquez, 347, 394·
Heribert of Auxerre, 160 sq.
Jacob, 31.
INDEX
Jacobites, 82.
Jacob of Misa, 246.
Jansenism, 271.
Jephta, 352.
Jerome, St., 132. 259, 376.
Jerusalem, Schismatic Council
of (1672). 81, 139. 203, 317.
Jews, 18 sq., 40 sq., 266, 328, 380.
John VI, 25—72, IO sqq.
John Damascene, St., 90, 121,
205.
John Darugensis, 82 sq.
John of Paris, 114.
Juliana, St., 140.
Justin Martyr, St., 57, 85, 193,
196, 204, 223, 259, 323.
403
substantiation in, 122 sq ; The
Epiklesis in, 205 sq; The
Mass in. 319 sqq.
Liturgy of St. James, 139, 376.
Loaves of Proposition, 16.
Locutiones sacramentales, y)
sqq. z
Loofs, 67.
Lucifcrians, 259.
Lucina, Catacomb of St., 84.
Luke XXII, 19 sqq.—23 sqq.
Luthardt, 251.
Luther, 32 sq., 48 sq., 8r, 113,
117, 129, 222, 247, 256, 27-·,
3'5. 316. 3/2Lutheran Church, 50,317.
Lyons, Council of (1274), 81,
K
Kabasilas of Thessalonica,
211, 236.
Kahnis, 13.
Keil, 13.
Kelvin, 157.
Kenosis, 284, 354. 359. 366, 369.
Kind, Communion under one,
246 sqq.
Kostlin, 13
L
Lahousse, 182.
Lamy, Th., 65.
Lanfranc, 47, 48.
" La Perpétuité de la Foi" 55.
Last Supper in its relation to
the Mass, 339 sq.
Lateran. Fourth Council of the
(1215), in, 194, 242, 243, 256,
317.
Lebrun, 211.
Ledesma, 343, 384.
Legrand, 163.
Leibniz, 134. 154. 156.
Leo I, the Great, Pope, 68.
Leo IX, 192.
Leo ΧΙΠ, 237.
Lessing, 48, 362 sqq.
Lessius, 123, 165, 368.
Liturgies, Ancient, The Real
Presence in the, 97; Tran-
M
Macarius Magnes, 60.
Maignan, E., 151.
Malachias, Prophecy of, 295
sqq., 328, 368, 374·
Maldonatus, 21, 238.
Manichæans, 251.
Manna, 14, 15 sq., 27, 66.
Marcus Eugenicus, 2tr.
Mark XIV, 22 sqq.—23 sqq.
Maronites, 82, 193.
Martin V, 146, 152. 246.
Maruthas. Bishop, 36.
Alary, Blessed Virgin, 233.
Mass of the Presanctified, 133.
250 sq.
Mass, The, 272 sqq.; Proved
from Scripture and Tradition.
295 sqq.; The argument from
prescription, 314 sqq. : The
argument from Tradition,
322 sqq. ; Nature of the, 331
sqq.; Physical essence. 332
sqq. ; Identity with the Sacri
fice of the Cross, 337 sq. ; Dif
ference between the two
sacrifices, 338 sqq. ; The Con
secration as the real sacrificial
act, 340 sqq.; The double
Consecration as the physical
essence of the Mass, 345 sqq. ;
INDEX
404
The metaphysical essence, .349
sqq.; Causality of the Mass,
371 sqq.; Effects, 372 sqq. ;
How produced, 381 sqq.
Mathalias, 31.
Matth. XXV, 26 sqq.—23 sqq.
Maurus, Sylvester, 183.
“ Mechanics of the supernat
ural," 165.
Melanchthon, 49, 51, 129, 315.
Melchisedech, Sacrifice of, 16,
301 sqq., 329, 356, 368.
Melchites, 82, 211.
Mennonites, 50.
Μίτουσίωσίϊ, 112.
Michael Caerularius, 191, 192.
Michael de Maria, 181.
Missa, 273.
Missal, 190.
Mixture, The, 342.
Monadism, 158.
Monica, St., 329, 377.
Monism, 158.
Monophysites, 70 sq., 82 sq., 149
sq·, 196, 317 sq.
Montanists, 256.
Moses, 14 sq., 40, 66, 105, 282,
289, 290 sqq.
Multilocation, 175 sqq.
Muniessa, 366.
Mystery of the faith, The Eu
charist as a, 5.
Mystery of the Real Presence
speculatively discussed, 143
sqq.
Mystical Body of Christ, 37 sq.
Mystic slaying of the Eucha
ristic Lamb, 311, 360 sq.
N
Names. Different, for the Eu
charist, I sq.
Necessity of the Holy Eucharist
for salvation, 235 sqq.; For
children, 236 sqq. ; For adults,
241 Sqq·
ο „
Nestonans, 70 sq., 82,83, 317 sq.
Nestorius, 21,64, 320.
New Testament, 31, 40.
Newton, 156.
Nicaea, First Council of (325)
259, 318.
Nicaea, Second Council of
(787), 22, 82.
Nicetas, 161.
Nicole, 55'.
Nominalists, 173, 182.
O
Oecolampadius, 32, 37, 54, 315.
Offertory, 340 sq.
Optatus, St., 132.
Origen, 73, 74, 160, 190, 193, 259.
Osiander, 114, 117.
Oswald, 42, 159, 163, 240, 363.
Ostwald, 157.
Ozias, 280.
P
Pagan practices resembling the
Eucharist, 233 sq.
Pallavicini, 105.
Palmieri, 157.
Paludanus, 119.
Pantheism, 158.
Paris, Council of (1050), 52.
Paschal Lamb, 16, 27, 40, 41.
Paschasius Radbertus, 46 sq.,
01.
Pastophoria, 132 sq.
Patristic difficulties against the
Real Presence solved, 72 sqq.
Paulinus, 250.
Paul of Samosata, 69.
Paul, St., 15 sq., 26 sq., 39, 40,
77, 85 sq., 94. 181, 193. 199.
221, 223, 237, 258, 303 sqq.,
334. 335. 391 ·
Pelagians, 239 sq.
Penance, 245, 268.
Pepuzians, 256.
Permanence of the Real Pres
ence, 128 sqq.
“Perpetual Prayer,” 140.
Perrunezzi, J., 151.
Perrone, 351.
Pesch, Chr., S. T joe
Pesch, T., S. J., x’57-5i82
Petavius, 238.
57> 82,
INDEX
Peter Lombard, 200.
Peter Mogilas, 203.
Peter of Blois, III.
Peter of Dresden, 246.
Peter, St., 19.
Philotheos Bryennios, 322.
Pliotius, 81, 316 sq.
Pierre d’Ailly, 119.
Pierre de Bruis, 81.
Pissy, A., 151.
Pistoia, Jansenistic Council of
(1786), 117, 118, 345, 392.
Pius IV, 248.
Pius VI, 118, 345, 392.
Pius VII, 211.
Pius X, 243 sq., 245.
Plate!, 366.
Polycarp, St., 58.
Predication, Mode of, 158 sqq.
Preparation required for Com
munion, 270 sq.
Presence of the Eucharistic
Body in space, 170 sqq.
Priests, 256 sqq., 261 sq., 280 sq.
Priscilla, Catacomb of St., 84.
“ Private Masses,” 345, 388.
Productio, 127.
Prov. IX, 5—17 sq.
Psalm, XXT, 300 sq.
Pseudo-Ambrose, 200.
Pseudo-Dionysius, 97.
Pusey, Dr., 121.
405
Scripture, tosqq.; The prom
ise, 10 sqq.; The institution,
23 sqq.; Proof from Tradi
tion, 45 sqq.; Totality of the
Real Presence, 88 sqq. ; Oper
ative cause of the, 102 sqq.;
Permanence of the, 128 sqq.;
Speculative discussion of the
mystery of the, 143 sqq.
Receiving the Eucharist, Dif
ferent ways of, 267.
Reischl, 313.
Renaud, Theophilus, 231.
Renaudot, 55, 211.
Renz, Fr., 283.
Replicatio aequivalens produc
tioni, 123.
Replication, 178 sq.
Reproductio, 127.
Reservation of the Blessed Sac
rament, 139Resurrection, The Eucharist a
pledge of a glorious,_ 232 sqq.
" Retransubstantiation,” 134·,
Reviviscence of the Eucharist,
224 sq.
Rhabanus Maurus, 40, too.
Rohling, 347·., , ,
Rome, Council of (1059), 52Kosmini, 236, 266.
Rossignol, 163.
Rupert of Deutz, 114.
Q
S
“ Quam Singulari," Decree of
Pius X, 243 sq.
Quantity in its relation to sub
stance, 153 sqq. ; Internal and
external, 165 sqq.
“ Qui pridie quant pateretur,"
207.
“ Sacramental Expressions
in the Bible, 39 sqq.
Sacramental union between the
Eucharistic Body and the spe
cies, 160 sq.
Sacramentarian disputes, 33·
Sacrament of the Altar, 3.
Sacrament, The Holy Eucharist
as a, 31 sq.. 185 sqq.: Defini
tion, 185 sqq.; Matter. 189
sqq. ; Form, 198 sqq.; Effects,
218 sqq. : Minister of conse
cration. 255 sqq.; Minister of
distribution, 261 sqq ; Recipi
ent. 264 sqq. : Objective capa
city of recipient, 265 sqq.;
R
Rasperger, Chr., 33.
Ratherius, 47.
Rationalists, 50.
Ratramnus, 46.
Real Presence. The, 9 sqq. ; As
a fact, 10 sqq.; Proof from S.
4o6
INDEX
Subjective worthiness of re
cipient, 267 sqq.
Sacramentum permanens. 133.
Sacramen lu m sa era men to ru ni,
“Sacra Tridentina Synodus,"
Decree of Pius X, 243.
Sacrifice, Explanation of term,
272 sqq., 277 sqq.; Constitu
ents of a, 279 sqq.; Definition
of a, 286; Different kinds of,
287 sqq.; The Mass, 292 sqq.
Sacrifice, The Holy Eucharist
as a, 272 sqq. to end of vol
ume.
Sacrificial intent, 278 sq.
Saguens, J., 151.
Saints, Masses in honor of the,
378 sqq.
Salmanticcnses, 355.
Samonas of Gaza, 211.
Sansevcrino, 181.
Sara, 33, 35.
Sarcophagy, 90.
Sasse, 367.
Schanz, 238.
Scheeben, 283, 353, 369.
Schell, 146, 203.
Schmid, Fr., 347.
Schncid, 181.
Schopenhauer, 158.
Schouppe, 347, 367.
Scotists, 123 sq.
Scottis, 43,119,181,207, 393.
Scotus Eriugena, 47, 52, 81.
Secchi, 157.
Second intention in saying
Mass, 392.
Sense functions exercised by
Christ in the Eucharist? 173
Sq.
“ Separatione facta," 95 sqq.
Simar, 356 sq.
Simeon of Thessalonica, 236.
Sins, Mortal, Preservation of
the soul from, by the Holy
Eucharist, 229 sq.
Sins, Venial, Forgiven in the
Holy Eucharist. 229, 394 sq.
Smith. Sydney F., S. J., 253.
Socinians, 50.
Soto, Dominicus, 98, 343, 396.
Species, Sacred, Whether they
participate in the adoration
rendered to our Lord in the
Bl. Sacrament, 141 sq.
Spiritlike mode of existence of
the Eucharistic Body, 100 sq.,
162 sqq.
Spiritual delight a secondary
effect of the Holy Eucharist,
227 sq.
Stent nip, 347.
Stephen of Autttn, in.
Stercoranists, 160 sq.
Stockl, 363.
Suarez, 98, 105, in, 145, 148,
165, 172, 181, 200, 201, 224,
226, 240, 252, 283, 288, 353 sqq.,
362, 392.
Sylvester II, 47.
Sylvius, 362.
T
Table of the Lord, 3.
Taborites, 246.
Tamburini, 366.
Temporal punishments due to
sin, Are they remitted by the
Eucharist ? 230 sq., 395 sq.
Tepe, 231, 367.
Tertullian, 59, 70, 75. 200, 250,
324. 375. 377, 379Thalhofer, 356 sqq.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 73.
Theodoret, 71, 73. 121, 150·
Theories regarding the meta
physical essence of the Mass,
350 sqq.
Theophoric processions, 139.
Thomas, St., On the Eucharist
as the greatest of Sacraments,
4 sq. ; On the words of insti
tution, 43 ; On the manner of
existence of Christ’s Eucha
ristic Body, 101 ; Author of
Eucharistic hymns, 140; On
absolute accidents, 145. 155;
On the quantity of the EuchaV,st'c Β9''ξ· !<>4; On how the
Body of Christ becomes pres-
INDEX
ent in the Eucharist, 169; O n
•M, 133. 136,137, 140,146.147
the invisibility of Christ's
s,i·· '5A 177 »q.. 194.195. W»
Body, 172; On multilocation,
π/?. 202, 203,218,222, 229.232,
181 ; On the use of unleav
237. 238, 241, 242, 243. 247 sq.,
ened bread, 193; On the use
249. 252, 257, 258. 261. X-7,
of water with the wine, 196
20». 30b, 3’4 sq., 333, 336, 337,
sq. ; On the words of conse
3.A 341, 343. 345. 34^». 35«.
cration, 200; On what words
302, 372, 378, 379. 382. 387.
are essential in the form of
388, 390, 393. 394, 395.
consecration, 209; On the Τρώγ«<ρ, i J,
secondary effect of the Holy Trullo, Council in (692), 196,
Eucharist, 227 sq. ; On the in
266.
fluence of the Eucharist upon
concupiscence, 230 ; And upon
temporal punishments due to
sin, 230; On Easter Commun Ubtquitarianism, 117.
ion, 242 ; On Communion un Ulloa, 366.
der one kind, 252; On the
Union of the soul with Christ,
minister of distribution of the
the principal effect of the
Eucharist, 262; On unworthy
Holy Eucharist, 220 sqq.
Communion, 268 sq. ; On the Unleavened bread for the Eu
Eucharistic fast, 270: On
charist, 191 sqq.
venial sin as an impediment Unworthy Communion, 268 sq.
to the effects of the Holy Eu Urban IV, 140.
charist, 271 ; On sacrifices, Utraquists, 22, 246 sqq.
278, 288; On the Mass in its
relation to the Sacrifice of the
V
Cross, 335 ; On the Consecra
tion, 346; On the destruction Value of the Mass, 381 sqq.
of the sacrificial victim, 354; Varignon, 163, 164.
On an effect of the Mass, 394. Vasquez, 98, 114. "9. t-’5. 148,
Thomists, 123 sqq., 182, 209 sq.
172,283,288,350 sqq·. 367.384.
Vercelli, Council of ( 1050), 52.
Tobias, 31.
Viaticum, 2.
Toledo, Council of (675), 250.
Victim of a sacrifice. Its trans
Tongiorgi, 157.
formation, 282 sqq.
Totality of the Real Presence,
Viogné, 164.
88 sqq.
Vischer,
4.8.
Tournely, 343, 386.
Visits to the Blessed Sacrament,
Touttée, A., O. S. B., 211.
140.
Transitory Sacraments, 133 sq.
Transubstantiation, 65, 66, 67, Viva. 366.
82, 99, too; Definition of, 103 roturn sacramenti, 245.
sqq.; History of the word,
W
hi sq; Dogmatic bearing of,
112 sqq.; Proof from Scrip
ture, 116 sqq.; Theological Waldenses, 256,316.
Water added to the wine in the
controversies. 123 sqq.
Eucharist, 195 sq.
Tree of life, 290.
Trent, Council of, 6, 22, 52 sqq., Wiclif, 81, 140 sq., 272, 317.
Wieland,
325.
75, 89. 9-, 94. 96, 98. 00. 108.
William
of Auxerre, 9&
109 sq·. I”, 117 sq., 129 sq..
u
INDEX
4o8
Wilpert, Msgr., 84.
Wine as an element of the Eu
charist, 193 sqq.; Purity of
Mass wine, 254.
Wiseman, Card., 36.
Witasse, 151.
Wundt, 158.
X
Xenajas, 83.
Y
YSAMBERT, 165, 230.
z
Zachæus, 260.
zjii,313·
Ziska, 246.
Ζ'ϊί,"’ 67> 81, 129, 315·