August 21, 2019

ON THE SACRAMENTS #13b – Doctrinal Catechism 1846

13a Included framework of the 7 sacraments from Age to Age. and the first two Sacraments Baptism and Confirmation. 13b will continue with the sacrament of the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul & divinity of Christ.


    Q. Is the Holy Eucharist a sacrament?
    A. Yes; all parties admit this, even those who look upon it as merely bread and wine.
    Q. What is the sensible sign in this sacrament?
A. The appearances of bread and wine which remain after consecration, and under which our blessed Saviour is received into our souls.
    Q. What is the inward grace contained in this sacrament?
    A. The body and blood of Jesus Christ, the source and author of all grace.
    Q. Where do you find Jesus Christ mentioned as the author of this sacrament? [pg. 191]

    A. In the Gospel account of its institution—Luke xxii, 19, &c., where Jesus Christ, “taking bread, gave thanks, and brake, and gave it to them, saying: THIS IS MY BODY; do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: this is the chalice of the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”
    Q. What does the Catholic Church believe as to this sacrament?
    A. That after the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly really, and substantially contained under the outward appearances of the bread and wine,—the whole substance of the bread being changed into his body, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood; we understand also, not his body and blood as they were in this world, but as they are now glorious and immortal in heaven.
    Q. What do you mean by a glorious and immortal body?
A. I mean that kind of body of which St. Paul speaks,—l Cor. xv, 44: “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body; if there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” [pg. 192]

Byzantine Maundy thursday ICON

    Q. Do the Greeks hold the same doctrine as the Catholics on this subject?
    A. Yes; in their attestation, signed by seven Eastern Archbishops, (Perpet. de la Foi., tom. iii, p. 412, &c.,) we read: “1st, That the living body of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, who ascended into heaven, and who sits at the right hand of the Father, Is TRULY PRESENT in the Eucharist, but in an invisible manner; 2dly, that the bread and wine, after the invocation of the priest and the consecration, are substantially changed into the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that the accidents which remain are not bread and wine in reality, although they appear to be bread and wine; 3dly, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the living and the dead, established by Jesus Christ, and which we have from the Apostles by tradition; 4thly, that the body of Jesus Christ is eaten whole and entire, in an impassible state, by those who receive it, whether they be worthy or unworthy,—such as are worthy receive it for their salvation, the unworthy to their condemnation; that it is also immolated without effusion of blood, and justly adored as God.”
    Q. Was not the celebrated Calvinist, Claude, staggered by this Eastern document?
    A. So much so, that he wrote to verify the fact; and we have the celebrated letter in answer to him, dated May 21, 1672, confirming every word of the above document, in the dearest and strongest language, as containing the faith of the Eastern Church on the subject of the Eucharist. See Perp. de la Foi, already quoted, tom. iii. [pg. 193]

    Q. What did Luther teach on this subject?
    A. “In vain I wished,” he says, “to have denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,….the words of the Scripture are so plain and strong in favor of the mystery, that, spite of all my wishes, although I strained every nerve to reject it, yet I could never bring my mind to adopt the bold expedient.” (Ep. Car. Amic.) Again he says: “The denial of the real presence is a piece of downright blasphemy, an impeachment of the Divine veracity;” …. and he calls the deniers, “a set of deviled, be-deviled, per-deviled, and superdeviled wretches.”
    Q. What is the real doctrine of even the Church of England on this sacrament?
    A. In the Book of Common Prayer, we find the following question, “What is the inward part or thing signified?” (of the Lord’s Supper.) The answer is: “The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” [pg. 194]

    Q. What says Leibnitz? Systema Theol., page 226: Paris, 1819.
    A. “But pious antiquity plainly enough declared, that the bread was changed into the body of Christ, the wine into his blood,….and this change the Latins have rightly called Transubstantiation….here the Scripture is to be explained by that tradition, which the Church, as its keeper, has transmitted to us.”
    Q. What says Grotius? Vot. pro pace.
    A. “I find in all the Liturgies—Greek, Latm. Arabic, Syriac, and others—prayers addressed to God, that, by his Holy Spirit, he would consecrate the gifts offered up, and make them the body of his Son. I was therefore right in asserting, that a practice so ancient and universal must be considered as having come down from the first ages, and ought not to have been altered.”
    Q. What says Dr. Parker, Protestant Bishop of Oxford? (Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 13, anno 1688.)
    A. “It is evident to all men that are but ordinarily conversant in ecclesiastical learning, that the ancient Fathers, from age to age, asserted the real and substantial presence in very high and expressive terms.” Indeed, almost all the learned bishops of the English Protestant Church are of the same opinion on this [pg. 195] matter. And no one can doubt, that a large section of that Church at present are as much Catholic, as the Catholics themselves, on the subject of the Real Presence (See the Modern Puseyite writers.)
    Q. What inference do you draw from this powerful testimony in favor of the real presence?
    A. That this portion of Catholic doctrine has the support of every Church deserving the name; that its opponents are few, generally ignorant, and always factious and full of sectarian prejudice. Hence, from the number and learning of the vouchers for the Catholic faith here under discussion, it is manifest, that that faith must be strongly and clearly laid down in Scripture.


    Q. Did Christ make any particular promise, as regards the Eucharist, before he instituted it?
    A. Yes; a very clear promise in the sixth chap. of St. John.
    Q. Does this chapter regard the Eucharist?
    A. Yes; even the learned Mr. Johnson, a Protestant, in his “Unbloody Sacrifice,” shows, at large that the Primitive Fathers understood [pg. 196] the sixth chapter of St. John as referring to the Eucharist.
    Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the first part of this chapter?
A. Yes; the astonishing miracle which Christ performed in feeding five thousand persons with only five loaves and two fishes, is here related; and such a miracle was truly a suitable prelude to the introduction of that miracle of miracles—the Holy Eucharist, by which he was, with heavenly bread—that is, with his own body and blood—to feed all his faithful followers. The very fact that he wrought this astonishing miracle, before introducing the subject of the Eucharist, shows that he was about to speak on a matter that required strong faith in his followers and audience. If be had merely to announce to them that he was going to give them common bread and wine, is it likely he would have introduced it by such a tremendous miracle?
    Q. Does it appear that the Jews had, before the teaching of Christ, any notion that the Messiah would give them bread from heaven, as Moses had done?
    A. Yes; for in one of their earliest Works after the coming of Christ, “Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes,” they say, that as Moses brought down manna from heaven, so [pg. 197] one of the signs of the Messiah should be, that he should bring down bread from heaven. Various Jewish teachers in the early ages of Christianity, according to R. David Kimchi seem to have admitted transubstantiation, grounding it on that passage of Osee, chap. xiv, 8: “And they shall live upon wheat, and they shall blossom as a vine; his memorial shall be as the vine of Lebanon.” ”Many Doctors,” says David Kimchi, “expound this text, that there shall be made a CHANGE OF NATURE IN WHEAT in the times of our Redeemer Christ.”

Jesus feeds 5000, but can’t change his Glorified body to bread and his blood to wine???

    Q. Does Christ himself appear to allude to this belief of the Jews?
A. Yes, in very clear terms,—chap. vi. 32: “Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses gave you not bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.”
    Q. What does Christ say that this bread from heaven is?
A. In verse 35, he says it is himself: “I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE.
    Q. What follows these astonishing words?
    A. A long and impressive instruction as to the necessity of believing his words, which shows clearly, that he was about to reveal something which he knew his audience would have great difficulty in believing.
    Q. After ending the instruction as to faith [pg. 198] with these impressive words, —”Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believe in me hath everlasting life,”—how does he proceed?
    A. He repeats again, verse 48, the awful words: “I am the bread of life,” as if he saw they would now be believed, in consequence of the instruction he had given.
    Q. Does he show, that the bread which he will give, shall be better than the miraculous manna, and, consequently, better than the bread and wine of the Protestant sacrament?
    A. Yes; he says: “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead; this is the Bread which come down from heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”


    Q. After having prepared the minds of his audience by feeding five thousand persons with five loaves, and lectured them on the necessity of strong and lively faith,—after having repeated, again, that he himself was the Bread of life from heaven,—what does he now say this bread is in reality?
    A. Verse 52, he says: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”
    Q. How did the Jews receive this announcement? [pg. 199]

    A. Verse 53:—”They strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is exactly the question put, at the present day, by unbelieving Protestants. “How?!!” To put such a question to the Almighty, is it not blasphemy? How did he create the world out of nothing? How did he turn the rod of Moses into a serpent? How did he change the waters into blood? How the water into wine at Cana? How feed five thousand people with five loaves?
    Q. If he had meant, that what he was to give them was mere bread and mere wine, what should he, as a good and wise God, have done now that he saw the Jews would not believe him?
    A. He should at once have explained, (as he did on other occasions,) that he did not wish to be understood literally, but figuratively,—that he meant to give them bread and wine as a commemoration of his death.

    Q. Did he give such an explanation?
    A. No: he repeats, verse 54, the same again in stronger language, and even with an asseveration: “Then Jesus said to them, 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;” and, in the next five verses in order to give strength to his [pg. 200] words, and to leave no doubt of his meaning on the mind of any one, he, in different forms, but almost in the same words, repeats over, and over the same truth without any explanation whatever.

    Q. When, on other occasions, Christ taught any thing in figurative language, was he in the habit of giving an explanation immediately after, lest his words might be misunderstood, and lest the people might be misled by his, figurative language, by interpreting his words literally?
    A. Most certainly he was. In John, chap iii, he corrects Nicodemus, who understood him literally, when he  wished to be understood figuratively. In Matth. chap. xvi, 5, he corrects the Apostles, who understood him literally, when he meant to speak figuratively, on the Leaven of the Pharisees. In John, chap. iv, 32, his disciples misunderstood him as to the food he spoke of, taking him in the literal sense: he instantly corrects the error by explaining himself. In John, chap. xi, 11, his disciples again mistake him, and he instantly explains. In Matth. chap, xix, there is another misunderstanding on the part of his disciples, and he at once sets them right. Another instance may be seen in Matth. chap. viii.
    Q. Did the Jews, the Apostles, and the disciples of Jesus, understand him here in the literal sense?- [pg. 201]
    A. Yes; for the Jews ask, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Verse 62—”His disciples murmured” Verse 67—”After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him;” whilst he finds it necessary, in verse 68, to ask his Apostles,—”Will you also go?”
    Q. Seeing, then, that all are about to leave him,—that they are scandalized at his doctrine,—that they do not believe him in the literal sense, does he, on this, as on every other occasion, explain himself at once: and show them, that he speaks in figures, that he does not intend to give them his flesh and his blood in reality, but merely bread and wine, as a commemoration of himself?
   A. No; he sees that the Jews, the disciples, and the twelve Apostles, understand him in the very sense which he intended. He allows them to go away; he gives no explanation, because he has none to give. They understand him literally, and he speaks literally. He appeals to his Ascension, as an argument which should induce them to believe, (verse 63.) In verse 64, he clearly tells them, that the eating of dead flesh will profit them nothing, but that the flesh which he will give them is his glorified [pg. 202] body, animated by his soul and his life-giving divinity,—that same body, soul, and divinity by which, in the mystery of Redemption, he was to give life to the world. He exhorts them again to have faith, showing that he was teaching something which it was difficult to believe; and concludes, by asking his Apostles, whether they also refuse to believe him: To which St. Peter replies, (verse 69,) with full confidence in his Divine Master: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life,….thou art Christ the Son of God.”
    Q. What general inference would you draw from the conduct of those to whom Christ addressed himself on this occasion?
    A. If Christ intended only to give bread and wine, as a memorial of himself, why did he not say so to prevent the departure of his followers, and to teach them truth? Or can any one in his senses suppose, that the author of truth would leave, in doubt and obscurity, one of the most important articles of the religion he was about to establish? Assuredly no. Then he spoke in the literal sense,—then he wished to be understood in the literal sense,—then the Jews, the disciples, and the Apostles, understood him correctly. The Jews and disciples left him, because they would not believe that he could give them his flesh and [pg. 203] blood. But the Apostles, who knew that he was God, to whom nothing was impossible, who could not be deceived himself, and could not deceive them, submitted to the belief of the

incomprehensible mystery, in these words “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life;” we believe an that thou hast taught, no matter how difficult, BECAUSE “we have believed and have known, THAT THOU ART THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.”

Upon the above words and acts, Jesus announce the “KEYS” to the Kingdom of God, given to Petrus

    Q. If Christ intended to be understood in the figurative sense, and meant only to give bread and wine, would  there have been any reason why all his audience should have turned their backs upon him?
    A. Certainly not; since such memorial would have been inferior both to the manna and Paschal Lamb of the Old Law.
    Q. If Christ intended only mere bread and wine, was it not an awful violation of the propriety of language to say, that, in using these, his followers would be eating his flesh and drinking his blood?
    A. Yes, most certainly; such as we can never suppose the wisdom of God could adopt; nay more, such language was well calculated to deter the Jews from believing his doctrine at all, because, in their language, to eat the flesh of any one, meant to do him some grievous [pg. 204]

injury, (see 27th Psalm; 19th chap. of Job, Ecclesiastes, chap. iv; St. James, chap v.) As to the drinking of blood, it was universally considered a dreadful crime among the Jews, (see Gen. chap. ix; Levit. chap, vii; Sam chap. xiv; Judith, chap. xi) And as to the eating of human flesh, or drinking human blood, it is mentioned as the most dreadful curse God could inflict on mankind, (see Wisd. xi, 7; Apoc. xvi, 6; Jerem. xix, 8.)
    Q. What would you draw from this consideration?
    A. That Christ evidently wished to be understood in the literal sense, and, on account of this, was compelled to use language disagreeable to Jewish ears: otherwise, his use of such expressions was uncalled for, improper, and unwise, and calculated to defeat the very object which our Divine Saviour had in view, and this supposition, that the very author of wisdom would couch the doctrines he wished the entire world to believe, in language unpardonably incorrect, and scandalous to his followers, is not only absurd—it a impious and blasphemous.


Lamb of God
Agnus Dei qui Tollis Pecata Mundi

Q. Christ then promised, that he would give his body and blood for [pg. 205] the spiritual food of his people, where do you, find that promise fulfilled?
    A. In Luke, chap, xxii, 19: “And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake, and gave to them saying: “This is my body which is given for you;” Place these words beside the words of the promise and you will at once admit the promise fulfilled. The words of the promise were—”And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”
    Q. Is the institution as to the cup or chalice equally clear?
A. Yes; the words of the promise were—“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” This promise is now fulfilled in these words, Luke, chap. xxii, 20: “This is the chalice of the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”
    Q. Are the Evangelists, Matthew (xxvi chap., 26, 28) and Mark (xiv chap., 22, 24) equally clear?
    A. Yes; and the fact, that they repeat the words of the institution almost in the very same words, and essentially in the very same sense,—that they all repeat the words body and blood with the most remarkable uniformity of language, is one of the strongest proofs for the real presence. [pg. 206]

Holy Eucharist ICON

    Q. Why so?
A. Because they, at least, knew what Christ meant by the words body and blood; and if Christ meant by these merely bread and wine, some of them, were it only by accident, would have given his meaning instead of his words, or, at all events, would have given some explanation of them; yet not one of them did so.
    Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the Syriac version of St. Mark?
A. Yes; learned Catholics, as well as Protestants, admit, that it represents our Lord as saying: “Take, eat, this is my body ITSELF;” thus clearly confirming the Catholic interpretation. See Walton, Prol. Bib. Polygl.
    Q. If Christ intended to deliver to mankind his real body and blood, could he have used more proper, concise, or correct language?
    A. No; we cannot conceive language better chosen.
    Q. If he intended mere bread and wine, could he have used more improper language?
    A. No; in that case, the use of such language would be unwise and inexplicable.
    Q. Was the time in which Christ instituted the sacrament a period of his mortal career, in which the use of the most obscure and improper figures should be employed to convey to his [pg. 207] Apostles (those who were to teach the world) the most simple and necessary truths?
    A. Certainly not; he was making his last Testament, which, even among men, is made in as simple and clear language as possible; he was teaching his Apostles what they were to teach others; he was teaching what was to be believed and practiced by the whole world till the latest ages, and upon the belief and practice of which all were to be saved or damned. The awfulness of the time, therefore the awful nature of the doctrine, and its awful  importance to those who were to teach, as well as to those who should be taught, all demanded from a good and wise God, what he could easily give, and what he most assuredly did give—the utmost perspicuity in the language used.
    Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the words of the old alliance, which tends to illustrate these words of the new—’This is my blood?”
    A. Yes; in Exodus, chap, xxiv, Moses took blood and sprinkled it upon the people, saying: “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. “The words of Christ in the New Testament have evidently a relation to those of Moses in the Old; and as Moses presented to the people, in the Old Law [pg. 208] the real blood of the victims, so, in the New the real blood of the heavenly victim—the Lamb of God—is presented to the children of the new covenant.
    Q. If, in this most dignified of all the sacraments, the true body and blood of Christ were not present, what would be the consequence?
    A. That Jesus Christ, the all-wise God and Saviour of mankind, did intentionally, or at least indifferent as to the awful consequences, express himself so in its institution; as to deceive nineteen-twentieths of those he came to redeem,—to involve all Christians in bitter and endless disputes, and expose the great body of his Church to be guilty of the appalling crime of idolatry;—all this, too, whilst one word of explanation from him would have prevented all these evils.
    Q. What would you infer from this?
    A. That, as these blasphemous suppositions cannot for a moment be entertained, so it is clear, beyond all doubt, that Christ spoke in the literal sense, in that he intended to be understood, and in that sense, and no other, his language is perfectly intelligible.
    Q. Was the Almighty pleased to be explicit in the language to which he employed in the establishment of other institutions of importance? [pg. 209]

    A. To be satisfied that he was so in institutions of much less importance, read Gen. chap. xvii, 10, on circumcision; Exod. chap. xii, 3, on the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb; and Leviticus, on general ritual observance: and in the New Law, the sacrament of baptism is instituted and enforced, in language the most clear and precise.
    Q. If Christ meant to leave us in the sacrament mere bread and wine, are not his words sufficiently explicit?
A. No; they are the reverse. He says: “This is my body, this is my blood;” whilst Protestants would make him mean by these words,—This is NOT my body, this is NOT my blood.


    Q. Can you quote any other Scriptural authority on the subject?
    A. Yes; several, and of great importance. St. Paul, 1 Cor. x, 16, says: “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?”
    Q. What is the first remark you would make on this passage?
A. St. Paul knew well whether the sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, or only mere bread and wine. (pg210).

He is here preaching to the Christian Corinthians, instructing them in what they ought to believe and practice. If then, Christ spoke figuratively, why does not St. Paul now explain these figures to the simple and the unlettered? Why does he now, when he ought to be plain and clear, call bread, the body, and wine, the blood of Christ? If the Protestant be the true sense of these words, why does he not, even by accident, hint at such a meaning?
    Q. Have you any other reflections to offer on St. Paul’s words?
    A. If the cup contain only wine, how can St. Paul call it a cup of benediction or blessing? If only wine, how can the reception of it be the communion of the BLOOD OF CHRIST? If what appears bread, be only bread, how can the partaking of it be the partaking of the body of the Lord? Besides, the word which St. Paul uses to express communion, is koinonia, not metoche, a word which expresses, not any ordinary union, but the closest union of what we receive with our own substance.
    Q. What does St. Paul say in the next verse? (1 Cor. x, 17.)
    A. After having said, that we are partakers of the body and blood of Christ, under the [pg. 211]forms of bread and wine, he now adds: “For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” Now, in the Catholic sense of the sacrament, these words are true strictly, for we all partake of ONE AND THE SAME BREAD,—that is, the sacred flesh of the Lord. The bread which I will give, is my flesh; but, in the Protestant sense, St. Paul’s words would be nonsense; for if the sacrament be mere bread, then each receiver partakes of a different bread; and hence, as the bread upon which they feed is not one, so neither can they be cemented into one body. Protestants, therefore, being neither one bread, nor one body, are not the sort of Christians to whom St. Paul addressed himself.
    Q. What does St. Paul say in the next verse (18) of same chapter?
    A. “Are not they that eat of the sacrifice, partakers of the altar?”
    Q. What does St. Paul mean by these words?
    A. That as the Jews, by the order of the Almighty, always, except when precluded by their sins, eat of the victims that were offered, so also the Christians, by partaking of the altar, eat of the sacrifice; but the Christian sacrifice is Christ himself; therefore, in partaking of the victim, they eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. [pg. 212]

    Q. Have you any other Scriptural argument?
    A. On this all-important matter, the arguments from Scripture seem inexhaustible. St. Paul, 1 Cor. chap, xi, 23, 24, and 25, records the institution in the very language adopted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and adds, that he has learned what he writes from the Lord. Now, if Christ had spoken in figures at the institution, would it not be natural to expect; that; in this new revelation to St: Paul, who was not present at the Last Supper, he should vary the language so as to afford some explanation of these figures? And yet he does not; the same words are adhered to with the most wonderful exactness. Again, St. Paul knew the true meaning of these words; and if he understood them to mean mere bread and wine, used as a figure or commemoration, why did he not, writing, as he was, in Greek, to the Corinthians, say—this is a figure of my body, or a commemoration of my blood; or this SIGNIFIES my body and my blood. St. Paul was instructing the ignorant—he tells these ignorant people, that what they believed to be bread and wine, is the body and blood of Christ; was this the way an inspired Apostle should instruct the people?—would any Protestant minister imitate St. Paul in this odd system of instruction? [pg. 213]

    Q. Does St. Paul give any explanation which proves incontestably, that he understood the sacrament to be the the body and blood of Christ?
    A. Yes; in verse 27th of same chapter, he says: “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”
    Q. What inferences do you draw from these words?
    A. That St. Paul believed in the real presence; for how could he call the chalice, the chalice of the Lord, if it were only a cup containing common wine? And what would the unworthiness consist in, if only common bread and wine were present,—and how could the unworthy receiver be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the Lord were not there present?
    Q. What do you remark on the following verse (28)—”But let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice?”
    A. That, in the sacrament, there must be something more than mere bread, otherwise, why this searching proof and trial before receiving it?
    Q. What are the concluding words of St. Paul verse 29? [pg. 214]

Sacrifice of Divine Liturgy Icon – Byzantine

    A. “For he that eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment to himself; not discerning the body of the Lord.”
    Q. What do you say on these words?
    A. How could a man become unworthy by eating a morsel of bread and drinking a little wine, as a commemoration of the death of Christ? Why, above all, is he consigned to eternal damnation for a thing, in itself, so Indifferent,—and why is he doomed to this awful fate, for not discerning the body of the Lord, if the body of the Lord be not there since, if not there, it cannot be insulted or profaned? If the Catholic be the true doctrine,—if the body and blood of Christ are truly and really present, then are all St. Paul’s words intelligible and full of meaning; but, in the Protestant sense, they are the most unintelligible gibberish that ever was uttered.
    Q. Can you draw any further proof of this from the next verse (30)”—Therefore, are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep?”
    A. Yes, and a very strong proof. St. Paul in these words, says: on account of your unworthy communions, because you, in many instances, receive, without discerning the body of the Lord, you are afflicted with sickness, and even with death, in punishment of your awful [pg. 215] guilt by the profanation of the sacred body and blood of the Redeemer,—a punishment which we cannot suppose indicted for eating bread or drinking mere wine.
    Q. Are the Christian Church and dispensation superior to those of the Old Law?
    A. Certainly; this is admitted on all hands, by Protestants as well as Catholics.
    Q. Would this be the case, if the most dignified sacrament of the New Law were only bread and wine, used as a mere figure of the Christian sacrifice?
    A. Assuredly not; for how much more dignified, and strikingly illustrative of the sufferings and death of our beloved Saviour, was the Paschal Lamb of the Jews, slain and offered up before the Lord, than is the unmeaning practice of eating and drinking bread and wine, as the only memorial of the Christian Pasch.
    Q. Was the manna of the desert a figure of the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist?
    A. Yes; Christ himself declares it; but if the Protestant bread and wine be the Christian Pasch, then the figure is greater than the reality, and Christianity is degraded even below the level of the Judaic rite. The manna was miraculous bread, the Protestant sacrament is natural bread: the manna came from on high, the Protestant sacrament came from the earth, [pg. 216] or the baker’s oven; the manna was a heavenly food, given only to the people of God, the Protestant sacrament is the common food of all men, wicked and virtuous, Jews and Gentiles, Turks and Christians; the manna, on the Sabbath, suffered not corruption, the Protestant sacrament is corruptible at all times, it has no miraculous qualities; the manna had the tastes of all kinds of food, and yet was not of all these foods, the Protestant sacrament has the taste of ordinary bread, and has no heavenly property whatever. Thus, according to the Protestant faith, Christianity sinks into insignificance before the wonders of Judaism,—the figure is greater than the reality,—Moses superior to Christ,—all our notions of religion are subverted,—we find ourselves entangled in a dreadful mass of absurdities and contradiction. But when we look at the Catholic Pasch, and believe in the illustrious sacrifice and sacrament in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ are offered and received, we are extricated from our inexplicable difficulties; our understanding becomes unclouded; we perceive at once the noble and significant figure of the Old and the infinitely superior and illustrious reality of the New Law. [pg. 217]


    Q. Does not Dr. Adam Clarke, in “Discourse on the Holy Eucharist,” London, 1808, say, that in the Syriac, the language used by Christ, there is no word that expresses “to signify or represent,” and that hence Christ was compelled to say “This IS my body,” instead of “this REPRESENTS my body?”
    A. Yes; but this assertion of Dr. Clarke has been expunged since by Mr. Horne, thus proving that Clarke was wrong. Dr. Lee of Cambridge (Proleg. to Bagster’s Polygl. Bible) confesses that Clarke was in error; and the Right Rev. Dr. Wiseman, who is well qualified to judge in this matter, has discovered, in the Syriac, FORTY words expressing to signify, to represent, or typify. But the simplest answer to the objection is, that the Apostles, who wrote in Greek, had plenty of words meaning to signify. Why then did they use the word, IS, when, to express Protestant doctrine, if they wish to teach such, they had an abundant choice of words?
    Q. Does not St. Luke, chap. xxii, say: “And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said, take and divide it among you; for I say to you, that I will not drink of the vine till the kingdom of God come?” And does not this [pg. 218] prove that it was wine, and not his Blood, which was in the chalice?
    A. If Protestants would have patience to read the whole passage, and not leap at conclusions, they would see that the above words were uttered not over the sacramental cup, but over the wine that was drunk with the Paschal Lamb, immediately before Christ instituted the sacrament in verses 19, 20.
    Q. Christ says—“this is the chalice, the new testament,” &c.; and where we have these two figures, why may not the whole be figurative?
    A. These figures were the simplest language to the Apostles who were familiar with them. Every one says, this cup, this glass, meaning the contents of it; and the Apostles were accustomed to the language of Moses—”This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you” meaning that the blood was not of the covenant, but its seal. Besides, Christ explains the figure in the words “which shall be shed for you;” now, assuredly, it was not the chalice or wine that was shed, but his blood.
    Q. St. Paul, 1 Cor. chap. xi, says: “Do this for the commemoration or in remembrance of me” Now we do not remember things present but the things absent; hence Christ is not present in the sacrament. [pg. 219]

Byzantine Last Suppper Icon

    A. This is a mere quibble. Eccles. chap. xii, says: “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth.” Now, will any Protestant be fool enough to say, that, in the days of our youth, our Creator is absent from us? Besides Christ is not visibly present as he was when addressing the Apostles; hence, inasmuch as he is now invisible, he may be said to be absent. In fine, the sacrament is a memorial of his death; and the real death of Jesus is not a thing present in the Holy Eucharist, but is only represented in it,—l Cor. chap. xi,—”As often as you eat this bread, &c., you shall show the death of the Lord till he come.”
    Q. Can a thing he a memorial of itself?
    A. Yes; the manna preserved in the Ark was so; Aaron’s rod was preserved as a memorial of itself, with which Moses wrought so many miracles; the victims eaten by the Israelites were memorials of the same victims offered on the altar.
    Q. May not these words, “This is my body,” &c., be understood as these others, “I am the door,” ” I am the vine?”
    A. No, for many reasons. 1st, Nothing was previously said by Christ to prepare the Apostles for believing that he was really to become a vine or a door, whilst he wrought a tremendous miracle, and addressed them in a long [pg. 220] discourse, to prepare them to believe that the bread he was to give them should be his own flesh. 2dly, When Christ says, “I am the door;”—John, chap. x—the Scripture itself, verse 6th, declares, that he was speaking figuratively. This PROVERB Jesus spoke to them, but they understood not.” Christ, seeing this, immediately explains the figure: “I am the door into the sheepfold; by my doctrine and through my blood all must enter. If any man enter in, he shall be saved. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.” In John, chap, xv, where he says he is the vine, he explains himself instantly, by calling us the branches; showing, that we must live by his grace, as the vinebranch lives by the sap of the vine,—that we must be united to him by love and obedience, as he was by these united to his Father. Now, when Christ says—”This is my body,” he does not even hint that he is speaking figuratively; he enters into no explanation whatever. The Jews are scandalized,—his disciples leave him,—all exclaim: This is a hard saying; yet he repeats the same truth in the same words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
    Q. May not Jesus Christ, when he said, “This is my body,” have spoken figuratively [pg. 221] like St. Paul, when he said, 1 Cor. chap. x, “and the rock was Christ?”
    A. No; for St. Paul is merely preaching where figures are allowed and useful; whilst Christ is instituting a sacrament at the most awful moment of his life, in the act of making his last will and testament; and every one will grant, that here rhetorical figures and flowers would be highly unbecoming. Besides, there is no figure in the words of St. Paul, if carefully examined. He proposes the cloud and the passage of the Red Sea as a figure of baptism,—the manna as a figure of the body, and the water of the Rock of Horeb as a figure of the blood of Christ. He then says: “And all drank the same spiritual drink; they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock (spiritual) was Christ. “ And was not Christ the true spiritual rock, from whose wounds, as from spiritual fountains, all believers, both prospectively and retrospectively, drank (not as the Jews, from the material and figurative rock Horeb) the spiritual waters of eternal life? The word spiritual explains the whole, and does away with the figure.
    Q. May not the substantive verb “IS” in the text, “This is my body,” mean represents, as the same verb  “IS” means represents in Exodus, chap xii—”You shall eat (the flesh of the [pg. 222] Lamb) in haste, for it is the Phase (or Passover) of the Lord?”
    A. No, not at all; though on the force of this text Zwinglius became so bold as to deny transubstantiation, declaring, that he was in a dream reminded of this text by some “white or black monitor.” The fact is, that the verb is does not mean represent in this passage. Even Rosenmüller, one of the most learned Protestant commentators, maintains, that the word is should be here taken literally; the original has, This is the passover to the Lord, or this is the day or feast-day of the passover sacred to the Lord. The very same construction of language is used in Exodus, x: “This is the Sabbath to the Lord,” which we have “this is the Sabbath of the Lord.” The same again occurs in Exodus, xxxii, 5: “The festival of the Lord,” for “the festival to the Lord.” And, finally, in the 27th verse of the very chapter under discussion: “This is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover,”—that is, in the original: “This is the sacrifice of the passover sacred to the Lord.” So that the verb is does not here mean represent at all, but is to be understood literally. How amusingly inconsecutive are Protestants in their arguments against Catholicism! In a few Scriptural instances the verb to be means to represent, whilst in ten thou-

[pg. 223] -sand instances it is to be understood literally therefore, like true philosophers, they conclude, because it suits their views, that in these words ”this is my body,”—the word is must be understood, not literally, but figuratively while  every circumstance connected with the above text goes to prove the contrary.
    Q. Do not the Scriptures represent the body of Christ as in heaven, which he is not to quit till the “times of the restitution of all things,”—that is, until the end of the world?
    A. Yes; but the Scriptures assure us, that his body is also in the Eucharist; therefore we believe both. Those who make this objection will find, that our Lord, after his ascension, appeared visibly to St. Paul in the castle of Jerusalem.
    Q. Does not Christ himself say, Mark, chap. xiv: “The poor you have always with you, but me ye have not always?”
    A. Yes; but he speaks here of his mortal and visible presence; for he elsewhere says: “I will be with you all days, even to the end.”
    Q. St. Paul calls the sacrament bread, 1 Cor xi. therefore it is bread.
    A. He calls it bread, because it has the appearance of bread; but he calls it THIS bread, clearly showing that it has something extraordinary about it. He calls it bread, but he says [pg. 224] that he who partakes of it, partakes of the body of Christ. Christ called it bread; but he adds, the bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world” Again, we have many examples of Scripture; in which the thing changed bears the name of that from which it is transubstantiation. Thus Gen. ii, Eve is called the bone of Adam: in Gen. iii Adam is called dust; because he is made from dust; Exodus vii, Aaron’s rod is called a rod, after it became a serpent; John ii; the water after being changed into wine, is called water. The Scripture, too, often calls things what their appear to be. Thus, Gen. xvii, angels in human form are called men .


  Q. What do you mean by Transubstantiation?
    A. To comprehend this, we must observe, that in all bodies there are two things to be noted: 1st, the outward appearances, such as taste, smell, shape, color, &c.; and, 2dly, the matter or substance in which these qualities reside. The sensible qualities are objects or knowledge, which we can acquire by the testimony of the senses, but we can form no notion of the nature or structure of the inward sub- [pg. 225]

stance; it is beyond the reach of even our conception. Now, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, our faith teaches us, that “this inward imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, at the consecration, by the Almighty power of God, changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ,” all the outward sensible qualities remaining entirely the same as before consecration. (Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, cap. 4.)
    Q. Can you show that such a change took place?
    A. Yes; for when Christ took the bread into his hands, it was still bread; but when he gave it to his disciples, he declares that it is his body: “This is my body.” His words cannot be false; by declaring it to be his body, he made it so. The change did not take place in the outward sensible qualities; therefore it took place in the inward substance.
    Q. May it not be said that his body is with the bread?
A. No; for Christ does not say: In this bread, or with this bread, or under this bread or this bread eaten by faith, or with this bread when you receive it, is my body; but he simply says—THIS IS MY BODY. What Christ held in his hand could not be bread and his body at one and the same time.[pg. 226]

    Q. Does the Scripture, by any other example than this, show, that the word of Christ affirming that a thing is what it was not before, is sufficient to produce the effect?
    A. Yes; the ruler—John, chap, iv, 49, 50—says to Christ; “Sir, come down before my son die. Jesus saith to him: Go thy way, thy son live; and it was the same hour that Jesus said to the ruler, thy son live, that the fever left him.” (Verse53.)
    Q. How is such a change possible?
    A. You may as well ask how was the world created out of nothing;—how were the waters of Egypt turned into blood;—the dry rod into a living serpent;—the water into wine at Cana.
    Q. How can one substance exist under the outward appearances of another?
    A. As easily as angels who appeared to God’s servants in the Old Law, under the outward appearance of men, and spoke and walked and ate, as if they really were men. Luke, chap iii, 22—the Holy Ghost appeared under the bodily shape of a dove; and Acts, chap. ii, 3 under the form of “parted tongues of fire.”
    Q. How can the body of Christ be in many places at one and the same time?
A. We know little of glorified bodies, or their qualities and perfection; but we know [pg. 227]

After walking through closed doors Jesus speaks to Thomas, “Do not persist in your unbelief.

that they are not like mortal bodies. How did our Saviour’s body pass through the stone with which his sepulchre was closed?—Mark xv, 46. How did his body pass through the door?—John xx, 19, 26. How did he, whilst in heaven, after his ascension, appear to St. Paul?—1 Cor. chap. xv. In fine, the miracle of the multiplication of the leaves and fishes (Mark vi, 40) was intended and calculated to meet and remove the objections of unbelievers on this subject; the leaves and fishes having been miraculously, though invisibly, endued with the properties of extension and inexhaustibleness, so as to feed five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes and four thousand with seven loaves and a few small fishes.—Mark viii, 6.
    Q. Perhaps each one only look a little?
    A. No; for the Scripture says, they did ALL eat and had their FILL, and there were twelve baskets of fragments remaining.
    Q. Perhaps, then, Christ created new loaves and fishes?
    A. No; for again the Scripture declares, that “the TWO FISHES he divided among THEM ALL)” and that “they filed twelve baskets of the fragments of the FIVE BARLEY LOAVES.”
    Q. How can the body of Christ be contained under the compass of a small host?
A. Our Saviour says, that our bodies shall become like the angels,—that it is possible for God to make a camel pass through the eye or a needle; and how did the body of Christ pass through the door and through the stone? (pg.228)

    Q. Are not the senses deceived in this matter?
    A. Not at all; the senses can only be employed on external qualities; they are not exercised on substance. In the sacrament, the external appearances are those of bread and wine; the senses perceive these, and therefore they perceive all that is within their province. As well might you say, the senses were deceived in Christ, who was God-man, and yet appeared to be only man, or in the Holy Ghost, when he appeared under the form of a dove.
    Q. How can the same thing appear under two different forms, as under the form of bread and wine?
    A. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove—Luke iii, 22; and under the form of parted tongues—Acts ii, 3.
    Q. Has the doctrine of transubstantiation been believed in every age of the Church?
    A. No portion of Christian doctrine is better attested. St. Ambrose, lib. iv de Sacra. chap. 4, says: “Before the consecration, bread only is present; but after the sacred words are pronounced, the bread is changed into the body of our Lord.” And St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his Large Catechism, chap. 37, declares: “I firmly believe that  the bread is changed into the body of Jesus Christ.” [pg. 229]


   Q. Is Christ permanently present in the sacrament,—that is at any other time than when it is received?
    A. He is really and permanently present from and after the time the words of consecration are pronounced.
    Q. How do you prove this?
    A. At the moment Christ finished the pronunciation of these words—”This is my body,” either his body was there, or his words were not true; the latter is blasphemy; therefore, his body was present, but the disciples had not yet received it,—there it was, present at other than the moment in which it was received.
    Q. Throw a little more light on this.
A. Christ did not say: This shall be my body when you receive it, but absolutely, this is my body. The present, and not the future time, is marked by the word is.
    Q. If the Lutheran doctrine in this matter were true, what would be the consequences?
    A. That the body of Christ would be present, not by virtue of the words of consecration, but by virtue of the manducation, which is a gross absurdity.
    Q. What says St. Ambrose—Lib iv 6 de Sacr. Chap. 4? [pg. 230]

    A. “The words of consecration are as efficacious as those employed by God in the creation of the world.” Hence, the body of Christ is present immediately after the words of consecration, as the world existed immediately after the pronunciation of the words which drew it out of nothing.
    Q. Repeat St. Cyril in his Epistle to Coelosyrius?
    A. “None but a fool,” he says, “can imagine that the consecrated host loses its virtue immediately after consecration.”
    Q. Have you any other proof of the permanent presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?
A. Yes; the Primitive Church preserved the Eucharist for the sick in holy vessels. In times of persecution, it was kept for a considerable time; and the bishops were wont to send it, one to another, as a mark of their strict union.
    Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain under the species?
    A. As long as the species exist.
    Q. If the blessed sacrament should fall into fire or water, would Jesus Christ suffer or be insulted?
    A. He would be insulted if this happened by the fault of man; but if by accident, no insult would be offered to him; He is immortal and impassible—He call suffer no more; and in the [pg. 231] cases mentioned, or any other such, the species only are consumed or changed.

I Will be With You, until the end of time


    Q. Should we adore Jesus Christ in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist?
    A. Certainly; because He, whom all the angels adore, is truly present on our altars.
    Q. Are Catholics justified in kneeling before the blessed sacrament when it is carried past them in the street, either to the sick, or in religious processions?
    A. Yes; more than justified; for if, according to Scripture, we bend the knee at the name of Jesus, how much more are we bound to do so before his sacred person.
    Q. Do Catholics act properly in carrying the adorable sacrament with religious pomp and solemnity in processions?
    A. If the Israelites carried the ark of the alliance with great solemnity, Catholics have much more reason to carry in triumph the holy sacrament, of which the ark was only a mere figure.
    Q. May it not be said, that Jesus Christ is in the sacrament, not seeking our adorations, but to be the spiritual food of our souls?
    A. Jesus Christ was in the crib of Bethlehem [pg. 232] not to be adored merely, yet the Magi neglected not to adore him. He cured the man born blind, not merely to  receive that man’s adoration, yet that man neglected not to give it him. Wherever Jesus Christ is, there he is to be received and adored with sovereign honors. St Augustine. super Psal. 98, says: “It is sinful to neglect to adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist” St. Ambrose, Lib. iii de Sanct. Spirit. chap. 12, says: “We adore Jesus Christ during the celebration of the sacred mysteries.”
    Q. Are the Lutherans agreed upon this point?
    A. No; Kemnitius and his partisans order the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist; Illvricus and his party forbid it.

Daily indulgence:

    Q. Should we adore Jesus Christ in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist?
    A. Certainly; because He, whom all the angels adore, is truly present on our altars.
    Q. Are Catholics justified in kneeling before the blessed sacrament when it is carried past them in the street, either to the sick, or in religious processions?
    A. Yes; more than justified; for if, according to Scripture, we bend the knee at the name of Jesus, how much more are we bound to do so before his sacred person.
    Q. Do Catholics act properly in carrying the adorable sacrament with religious pomp and solemnity in processions?
    A. If the Israelites carried the ark of the alliance with great solemnity, Catholics have much more reason to carry in triumph the holy sacrament, of which the ark was only a mere figure.
    Q. May it not be said, that Jesus Christ is in the sacrament, not seeking our adorations, but to be the spiritual food of our souls?
    A. Jesus Christ was in the crib of Bethlehem [pg. 232] not to be adored merely, yet the Magi neglected not to adore him. He cured the man born blind, not merely to  receive that man’s adoration, yet that man neglected not to give it him. Wherever Jesus Christ is, there he is to be received and adored with sovereign honors. St Augustine. super Psal. 98, says: “It is sinful to neglect to adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist” St. Ambrose, Lib. iii de Sanct. Spirit. chap. 12, says: “We adore Jesus Christ during the celebration of the sacred mysteries.”
    Q. Are the Lutherans agreed upon this point?
    A. No; Kemnitius and his partisans order the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist; Illvricus and his party forbid it.

Daily Indulgence: Partial indulgence (500 days), when said before the Blessed Sacrament, even when it is reserved in the Tabernacle. (Apostolic Brief, Jun 9, 1920; S.P. Ap., Jan 12, 1934).

#79. “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Mt16:16)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!