THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
Among the various dogmas of the Catholic Church there is none which rests
on stronger Scriptural authority than the doctrine of the Real Presence of
Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. So copious, indeed, and so clear are
the passages of the New Testament which treat of this subject that I am at
a loss to determine which to select, and find it difficult to compress
them all within the compass of this short chapter.
The Evangelists do not always dwell upon the same mysteries of religion.
Their practice is rather to supplement each other, so that one of them
will mention what the others have omitted or have touched in a cursory
way. But in regard to the Blessed Eucharist the sacred writers exhibit a
marked deviation from this rule. We find that the four Evangelists,
together with St. Paul, have written so explicitly and abundantly on this
subject that one of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the
dogma without taking them collectively.
These five inspired writers gave the weight of their individual testimony
to the doctrine of the Eucharist because they foresaw—or rather the Holy
Ghost, speaking through them, foresaw—that this great mystery, which
exacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our
“understanding unto the obedience of Christ,”(366) would meet with
opposition in the course of time from those who would measure the
infallible Word of God by the erring standard of their own judgment.
I shall select three classes of arguments from the New Testament which
satisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed
Sacrament. The first of these texts speaks of the promise of the
Eucharist, the second of its institution and the third of its use among
the faithful.
To begin with the words of the promise. While Jesus was once preaching
near the coast of the Sea of Galilee He was followed, as usual, by an
immense multitude of persons, who were attracted to Him by the miracles
which He wrought and the words of salvation which he spoke. Seeing that
the people had no food, He multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such
an extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and
children.
Our Lord considered the present a favorable occasion for speaking of the
Sacrament of His body and blood, which was to be distributed, not to a few
thousands, but to millions of souls; not in one place, but everywhere; not
at one time, but for all days, to the end of the world. “I am,” He says to
His hearers, “the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert
and died.... I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man
eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give
is My flesh for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, disputed among
themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus
said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you. He that eateth
My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him
up on the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood drink
indeed.”(367)
If these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had
been among the number of our Savior’s hearers on that occasion, would you
not have been irresistibly led, by the noble simplicity of His words, to
understand Him as speaking truly of His body and blood? For His language
is not susceptible of any other interpretation.
When our Savior says to the Jews: “Your fathers did eat manna and died,
... but he that eateth this (Eucharistic) bread shall live forever,” He
evidently wishes to affirm the superiority of the food which He would
give, over the manna by which the children of Israel were nourished.
Now, if the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of
being superior, it would be really inferior to the manna; for the manna
was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a
natural, earthly food.
But the best and the most reliable interpreters of our Savior’s words are
certainly the multitude and the disciples who are listening to Him. They
all understood the import of His language precisely as it is explained by
the Catholic Church. They believed that our Lord spoke literally of His
body and blood. The Evangelist tells us that the Jews “disputed among
themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Even His
disciples, though avoiding the disrespectful language of the multitude,
gave expression to their doubt in this milder form: “This saying is hard,
and who can hear it?”(368) So much were they shocked at our Savior’s
promise that “after this many of His disciples went back and walked no
more with Him.”(369) They evidently implied, by their words and conduct,
that they understood Jesus to have spoken literally of His flesh; for, had
they interpreted His words in a figurative sense, it would not have been a
hard saying, nor have led them to abandon their Master.
But, perhaps, I shall be told that the disciples and the Jews who heard
our Savior may have misinterpreted His meaning by taking His words in the
literal acceptation, while He may have spoken in a figurative sense. This
objection is easily disposed of. It sometimes happened, indeed, that our
Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took
care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by
stating His meaning in simpler language. Thus, for instance, having told
Nicodemus that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of
heaven, and having observed that His meaning was not correctly apprehended
by this disciple our Savior added: “Unless a man be born again of water
and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”(370) And again,
when he warned His disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and
finding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from His word, He
immediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrine of the
Pharisees.(371)
But in the present instance does our Savior alter His language when He
finds His words taken in the literal sense? Does He tell His hearers that
He has spoken figuratively? Does He soften the tone of His expression? Far
from weakening the force of His words He repeats what He said before, and
in language more emphatic: “Amen, amen, I say unto you, Unless ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in
you.”
When our Savior beheld the Jews and many of His disciples abandoning Him,
turning to the chosen twelve, He said feelingly to them: “Will ye also go
away? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast
the words of eternal life.”(372) You, my dear reader, must also take your
choice. Will you reply with the Jews, or with the disciples of little
faith, or with Peter? Ah! let some say with the unbelieving Jews: “How can
this man give us His flesh to eat?” Let others say with the unfaithful
disciples: “This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?” But do you say with
Peter: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
So far I have dwelt on the words of the Promise. I shall now proceed to
the words of the Institution, which are given in almost the same
expressions by St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke. In the Gospel according
to St. Matthew we read the following narrative: “And while they were at
supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave to His disciples
and said: Take ye and eat. This is My body. And taking the chalice, He
gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is My
blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of
sins.”(373)
I beg you to recall to mind the former text relative to the Promise and to
compare it with this. How admirably they fit together, like two links in a
chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which He made! Could
any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is My body; this
is My blood?
Why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants?
Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? By no means;
but simply because they do not comprehend how God could perform so
stupendous a miracle as to give His body and blood for our spiritual
nourishment.
Is, then, the power or the mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule
of the human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything
except what we can sanction by our reason? Is a thing to be declared
impossible because we cannot see its possibility?
Has not God created the heavens and the earth _out of nothing_ by the fiat
of His word? What a mystery is this! Does He not hold this world in the
midst of space? Does He not transform the tiny blade into nutritious
grain? Did He not feed upwards of five thousand persons with five loaves
and two fishes? What a mystery! Did He not rain down manna from heaven for
forty years to feed the children of Israel in the desert? Did He not
change rivers into blood in Egypt, and water into wine at the wedding of
Cana? Does he not daily make devout souls the tabernacles of the Holy
Ghost? And shall we have the hardihood to deny, in spite of our Lord’s
plain declaration, that God, who works these wonders, is able to change
bread and wine into His body and blood for the food of our souls?
You tell me it is a mystery above your comprehension. A mystery, indeed. A
religion that rejects a revealed truth because it is incomprehensible
contains in itself the seeds of dissolution and will end in rationalism.
Is not everything around us a mystery? Are we not a mystery to ourselves?
Explain to me how the blood circulates in your veins, how the soul
animates and permeates the whole body, how the hand moves at the will of
the soul. Explain to me the mystery of life and death.
Is not the Scripture full of incomprehensible mysteries? Do you not
believe in the Trinity—a mystery not only above, but apparently contrary
to, reason? Do you not admit the Incarnation—that the helpless infant in
Bethlehem was God? I understand why Rationalists, who admit nothing above
their reason, reject the Real Presence; but that Bible Christians should
reject it is to me incomprehensible.
But do those who reject the Catholic interpretation explain this text to
their own satisfaction: “This is My body, etc?” Alas! here their burden
begins. Only a few years after the early Reformers had rejected the
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist no fewer than one hundred meanings were
given to these words: “This is My body.” It is far easier to destroy than
to rebuild.
Let me now offer you some additional reasons in favor of the Catholic or
literal sense. According to a common rule observed in the interpretation
of the Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal
signification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to
accept them in a figurative meaning. Now, in the present instance, far
from being forced to employ the words above quoted in a figurative sense,
every circumstance connected with the delivery of them obliges us to
interpret them in their plain and literal acceptation.
To whom did our Savior address these words? At what time and under what
circumstances did He speak? He was addressing His few chosen disciples, to
whom He promised to speak in future, not in parables nor in obscure
language, but in the words of simple truth. He uttered these words the
night before His Passion. And when will a person use plainer speech than
at the point of death?
These words: “This is My body; this is My blood,” embodied a new dogma of
faith which all were obliged to believe, and a new law which all were
obliged to practice. They were the last will and testament of our blessed
Savior. What language should be plainer than that which contains an
article of faith? What words should be more free from tropes and figures
than those which enforce a Divine law? But, above all, where will you find
any words more plain and unvarnished than those contained in a last will?
Now, if we understand these words in their plain and obvious; that is, in
their Catholic, sense, no language can be more simple and intelligible.
But if we depart from the Catholic interpretation, then it is impossible
to attach to them any reasonable meaning.
We now arrive at the third class of Scripture texts which have reference
to the use or reception of the Sacrament among the faithful.
When Jesus, as you remember, instituted the Eucharist at His last Supper
He commanded His disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of
time, in remembrance of Him, the ceremony which He performed. What I have
done, do ye also “for a commemoration of Me.”(374)
We have a very satisfactory means of ascertaining the Apostolic belief in
the doctrine of the Eucharist by examining what the Apostles did in
commemoration of our Lord. Did they bless and distribute mere bread and
wine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed, the body
and blood of Jesus Christ? If they professed to give only bread and wine
in memory of our Lord’s Supper, then the Catholic interpretation falls to
the ground. If, on the contrary, we find the Apostles and their
successors, from the first to the nineteenth century, professing to
consecrate and dispense the body and blood of Christ, and doing so by
virtue of the command of their Savior, then the Catholic interpretation
alone is admissible.
Let St. Paul be our first witness. Represent yourself as a member of the
primitive Christian congregation assembled in Corinth. About eighteen
years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the
Apostle Paul, in which the following words occur: “The chalice of
benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body
of the Lord?... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was
betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat:
this is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the
commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper,
saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as
ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat
this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until
He come. Therefore, whoever 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_. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread
and drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, _not discerning the body of the
Lord_.”(375)
Could St. Paul express more clearly his belief in the Real Presence than
he has done here? The Apostle distinctly affirms that the chalice and
bread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the
body and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of
that divine food by eating ordinary bread. Mark these words of the
Apostle: Whosoever shall take the Sacrament unworthily “shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord.” What a heinous crime! For these words
signify that he who receives the Sacrament unworthily shall be guilty of
the sin of high treason, and of shedding the blood of his Lord in vain.
But how could he be guilty of a crime so enormous, if he had taken in the
Eucharist only a particle of bread and wine. Would a man be accused of
homicide, in this commonwealth, if he were to offer violence to the statue
or painting of the governor? Certainly not. In like manner, St. Paul would
not be so unreasonable as to declare a man guilty of trampling on the
blood of his Savior by drinking in an unworthy manner a little wine in
memory of Him.
Study also these words: “He who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and
drinketh condemnation to himself, _not discerning the body of the Lord_.”
The unworthy receiver is condemned for not recognizing or discerning in
the Eucharist the body of the Lord. How could he be blamed for not
discerning the body of the Lord, if there were only bread and wine before
him? Hence, if the words of St. Paul are figuratively understood, they are
distorted, forced and exaggerated terms, without meaning or truth. But, if
they are taken literally, they are full of sense and of awful
significance, and an eloquent commentary on the words I have quoted from
the Evangelist.
The Fathers of the Church, without an exception, re-echo the language of
the Apostle of the Gentiles by proclaiming the Real Presence of our Lord
in the Eucharist. I have counted the names of sixty-three Fathers and
eminent Ecclesiastical writers flourishing between the first and sixth
century all of whom proclaim the Real Presence—some by explaining the
mystery, others by thanking God for his inestimable gift, and others by
exhorting the faithful to its worthy reception. From such a host of
witnesses I can select here only a few at random.
St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. Peter, speaking of a sect called Gnostics,
says: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess
not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Savior Jesus
Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr, in an apology to the Emperor Antoninus, writes in the
second century: “We do not receive these things as common bread and drink;
but as Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh by the word of God, even so
we have been taught that the Eucharist is _both the flesh and the blood of
the same incarnate Jesus_.”
Origen (third century) writes: “If thou wilt go up with Christ to
celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of benediction,
His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril, of Jerusalem (fourth century), instructing the Catechumens,
observes: “He Himself having declared, _This is My body_, who shall dare
to doubt henceforward? And He having said, _This is My blood_, who shall
ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water
into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He undeserving of belief when He
turned wine into blood?” He seems to be arguing with modern unbelief.
St. John Chrysostom, who died in the beginning of the fifth century,
preaching on the Eucharist, says: “If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He
would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without
covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in
things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the
understanding. How many nowadays say: ‘Would that they could look upon His
(Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him,
touchest Him, eatest Him.’ ”
St. Augustine (fifth century), addressing the newly-baptized, says: “I
promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the
Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were
last night made partakers. You ought to know what you have received. The
bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of
God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the
word of God, is the blood of Christ.”(376)
But why multiply authorities? At the present day every Christian communion
throughout the world, with the sole exception of Protestants, proclaim its
belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.
The Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the Catholic Church in
the fifth century, admit the corporeal presence of our Lord in the
Eucharist. Such also is the faith of the Greek church, which seceded from
us a thousand years ago, of the Present Russian church, of the schismatic
Copts, the Syrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and, in short, of all the
Oriental sects no longer in communion with the See of Rome.