EUCHARIST QUESTIONS.
By Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY of Oregon No. CTSOr/Apol041 (1940).
1. Is your Blessed Sacrament still a biscuit or a wafer?
The Blessed Sacrament is the Living Eucharistic Christ and it contains no trace of the substance of bread. The accidental qualities of bread are there, but veiled beneath them the living substance of Christ's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is present, the substance of bread having been converted into the body of Christ at the moment of consecration. We Catholics believe that this change does occur, that it can occur, and that Christ can be in the Sacred Host that has the appearance of a cracker or a wafer. "It is not His body," is the echo of the ages, the repetition of the Jewish complaint, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?" John 6:61. Here then is the boast of fallible human reason. "Christ cannot be in the Host." "Who can hear it?" He alone who has a right idea of God, of His Truth and Majesty, has a correct estimate of a limited human intelligence. This doctrine is not for the proud. It is for the humble. And unless we become as little children, unless we know ourselves to be what we really are, it is not for us to believe this great mystery.
2. Christ becomes a piece of bread.
No. He does not become a piece of bread, nor does He become the appearance of bread. Christ remains Christ, and merely becomes present under the external signs of what was bread prior to the words of consecration. Christ has not been converted into bread, but the bread has been converted into the body of Christ, the external qualities of bread alone remaining. Reason has not a right idea of that against which it would protest. Even when it has a right idea of the doctrine, reason overlooks the fact that it is Almighty God who is the author of this wondrous gift. Arguing from their study of the universe, men urge that it is against the laws of nature, though no one has ever claimed that it is due to the laws of nature. We do not ask the laws of nature to do what they are not supposed to accomplish. In any case, these men do not even know all the laws of nature, nor do they know that these laws can go only as far as they themselves desire that they should go. But they certainly cannot say that God is limited by the laws He Himself has established; and it is no created law of nature which is in operation here. It is God's own immediate work.
3. Your doctrine is believed only by fools.
It is useless to assert that only fools would believe such a doctrine, and then say that the doctrine is foolish because only fools believe it. Men must prove that those who do believe are fools from other and independent evidence, or else prove the doctrine is wrong itself. As a matter of fact, the assertion that no intellectual man believes in dogma today is a dogma in itself for which those who propound it offer no reason save that they believe it. Few would be prepared to rank a Pasteur, a Manning or a Newman, a Sir Bertram Windle or a Chesterton, or a Martindale, a John Moody or a Kent Stone as fools. Yet these all believed it. St. Thomas Aquinas, whilst treating of the Blessed Sacrament in his Summa Theologica, was so far from suggesting a blind belief that he proposes and solves over 280 possible difficulties which might occur to the human mind, many of them far more profound than any living adversary today could even conceive. He anticipated by 200 years the absurd arguments of the revolutionists of the so-called Reformation, which has turned out to be the world's deformation.
4. Well, I can't believe your doctrine because I cannot understand it.
If so, then to be logical, besides crying, "Away with the Eucharist," we should also cry, "Away with the idea of a man being God. Away with Christianity; we do not comprehend it. Away with Hell; we have never seen it. Away with the human soul; we have never touched one. Away with matter and substance; they baffle us. Away with the universe. Away with God; and so on, from degree to degree, from despair to despair, even to the suicide of reason." Perhaps your credulity leads you to swallow the notion that this world evolved out of an eternal nebula; that man is the product of organic evolution, etc. Let any man publish a theory and you, no doubt, would swallow it hook, line and sinker with whole-hearted adhesion, provided God be not mentioned. Offer to prove it, you reply, "No need. We believe it, it rings true." Yet, mention God, offer to show the proofs of Christian doctrine - you will not even look at them. Truly, St. Paul was right in his prediction, "They will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." (2 Tim. 4:3-4.)
5. Can Christ be in the Host?
Yes. Nor is finite human reason the criterion as to what God can or cannot do, when the truth proposed is not against reason, but simply above and beyond its capacity. We know that, if God tells us a truth which human reason could not discover by its own unaided powers, that truth is bound to seem extravagant. The presence of Christ under the appearances of bread is His work and the very soul and bond of the whole architecture of Catholic and Christian doctrine. Human reason could not invent it, nor can reason without revelation prove it. For if this doctrine were a work of reason it might be fully comprehensible to us, but it would be a natural philosophy, not a supernatural religion. Reason alone tells us that the Living Christ could be in the Host, did God so desire.
6. Do you believe the consecrated Host to be the body of Christ because of any signs in the Host itself?
We do not believe in Blessed
Sacrament because we can realize or visualize the full truth. Even a priest
could not distinguish a consecrated Host from an unconsecrated wafer unless he
were told which of the two had been consecrated. The consecrated Host looks
like bread, it tastes like bread, it nourishes like bread. There is no
difference for priest and layman. At the altar, the priest has no experience at
all of a change. Yet, after consecration, there is no substance of bread
remaining. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are present.
Human reason alone tells us three things:
(1) The God who created the universe with a mere act of His will is infinitely powerful, and not to be limited by the degrees of a created finite intelligence.
(2) God is Truth Itself, and could not possibly tell us a lie.
(3) The Gospels are true history. No documents have had such a thorough
sifting. They have survived a deeper critical study, a more searching analysis
than any other writings have had to undergo, and that not only by men of good
will, but by the very enemies of Christianity.
These three things are clear to our human reason. Unless a man receives
additional light from God, he will be unable to proceed, to grasp the full
significance of the truths contained in the Gospels. That additional light is
given by the Church that gave the Bible to the world.
As reason told us three things, reason and Faith combined also tell us three
things:
(1)
The historical Person described in the Gospel, and known as Jesus Christ, is
Almighty God, with all divine attributes.
(2) This Christ taught the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as clearly as it is possible to state it.
(3) He also established an infallible Church, which guarantees to maintain the
judgment of reason and Faith in accordance with God's knowledge of this matter.
We, therefore, believe with absolute certainty that Christ is really present in
the Sacred Host.
7. What have the Scriptures to do with your belief in the real presence?
They have very much to do with it. When we read through the Old Testament; when
we see there how God treated with the Jews; when we study the account there
given of the Tree of Life refreshing our first parents in Paradise; when we
read of the bread and wine offered to God, and then given as food to the
soldiers of Abraham by the High Priest Melchisedech; of the Paschal Lamb
sacrificed to God and eaten by His chosen people; of the manna in the desert,
prepared not by man but by angels; of the miraculous food in the strength of
which Elias (Elijah) walked for forty days even to the Mountains of God; tears
come into our eyes, our hearts ache, and a deep longing comes upon us, taking
possession of our whole being.
We wonder what great gift from God all these wonders prefigure and foretell. If
God intended to give us merely ordinary bread, then He would be giving us less
than He gave to the Jews, and it is impossible that the religion of Christ, for
which the ancient religion was but a preparation, should not be more perfect;
should not infinitely transcend the forerunner, even as Christ Himself
infinitely transcended the last prophet of the Old Law, St. John the Baptist,
who said, "I must decrease, and He must increase." John 3:30. Then if
the Jews had the tables of the law in their Tabernacle, surrounded by the
visible glory of God, we may half-expect to have the very author of the law in
our Tabernacle, the glory of God veiled out of compassion because it is too
great for man to see and live. If the Jews received a divine and very
miraculous food to eat during their journey through the desert, we, too, may
expect a divine and miraculous food to eat during our journey through the
desert of this life — a food prepared not by angels but by Christ Our Lord,
under some form within our reach. That form within our reach is fully spoken of
in the sixth chapter of St. John in both the Protestant and Catholic versions
of the New Testament.
8. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John?
Yes. There is no other possible interpretation than the literal interpretation.
We agree with Luther who defended the literal interpretation against Zwingli,
Carlstadt, and Oecolampadius, though with usual ill-logic, he warred against
the idea of the Mass. He confessed that he was tempted to deny the Real
Presence in order "to give a great smack in the face of Popery," but
the Scriptures and all antiquity were too overwhelming in its favor. "I am
caught," he wrote, "I cannot escape, the text is too forcible."
9. Explain the sixth chapter of St. John.
Jesus in the promise of the Eucharist points out the superiority of the bread
which He is about to give them over the manna rained down from Heaven, saying,
"And the bread that I will give, is My Flesh, for the life of the
world." John 6:51-52. The Jews understood Christ to be speaking literally
and not figuratively, for they say among themselves, "How can this man
give us His Flesh to eat?" John 6:52-53. If Christ were talking in a
figure of speech, in a metaphor, it would have been His duty not only as the
Son of God, but as a teacher, to correct the Jews and say to them, "You
take a wrong meaning to My words. You think that I am referring to My Flesh — I
know you are a civilized people and that you are not cannibals — I am only
speaking of a souvenir, a symbol, a token. See that multitude going away from
Me? They are leaving Me because they think I meant it. I came to save them, to
win them. I want them. Do you think I would let them go like that if I did not
mean it? If I could unsay it, do you not realize that I would call them back
and explain? Ah, no. I meant it so much that you, too, must go, or accept
it." The Jews would have remained had they believed that He meant no more
than a symbol or token. Christ knew that they would revolt at the thought of
eating His very flesh, but He let them go with the idea which would become a
fundamental doctrine of His Church. Why did He not correct these first Protectors
of the Christian World?
10. What does the double expletive, "Amen, Amen" indicate?
It indicates importance. The double expletive of Hebrew when found, would in
our tongue mean, “Now listen, I am about to announce the most important point
of this discourse." Hence with emphasis does Christ say, "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." John 6:53-54. Instead of watering down
His statement Christ drives home what He is proclaiming to His audience,
"He that eats My Flesh, and drinks My Blood, has everlasting life; and I
will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is
drink indeed. He that eats My Flesh, and drinks My Blood, abides in Me, and I
in Him." John 6:54-57. Twelve times does Christ tell his audience that “He
is the Bread come down from Heaven" and in four consecutive sentences
Jesus uses the double phrase "to eat My Flesh and drink My Blood."
Hence, His meaning is unmistakably clear. He confirms His power and authority,
saying, "As the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father so he
that eats Me, the same also shall live by Me." See John 6: 57-58. But this
doctrine of the Teacher staggered the stiff-necked Jews who began to quit
Christ. “Many therefore of His disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard,
and who can hear it?” John 6:60-61. "After this many of His disciples went
back; and walked no more with Him." John 6:66-67.
11. Christ was only talking in the form of a Metaphor.
A metaphor, to eat one's flesh meant for the Jews to abuse and calumniate a
man, to destroy his character. Do you think that Jesus meant, "He that
reviles Me has eternal life"?
12. But the last words of Christ say, "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63-64.
Christ is not speaking of His Body in those last words, but of you. You have
not the true spirit of God in you, but you let your earthly and natural reason
create foolish obstacles. You judge as the natural and animal man, who,
according to St. Paul, does not perceive the things of God. Have true faith,
and you will understand even though you do not fully comprehend this wonderful
promise of Christ. But if you think that you have everything explained to the
satisfaction of your human reason, God Himself will leave you without the
truth. He has a strict right to our submission, body, soul, mind and will, and
God has sufficiently proved the truth of the Doctrines He has taught by the
mere fact of His having uttered them.
13. You speak about the promise of the Eucharist. Where does its reality take place?
At the Last Supper Christ fulfilled what He had promised in the sixth chapter
of St. John. "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed
and broke: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take, all of you, and eat. This
is My Body. And taking the, chalice He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying:
Drink, all of you, all of this, for this is My Blood of the New Testament which
shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Mt. 26:26-28. In these
words Christ, therefore, literally fulfills His promise. This is My Body; this
is My Blood — what words could be plainer? The Apostles made no mistake in
understanding Christ.
14. How could the Apostles understand Christ literally, when He uses the verb "is"? I have read that in the Aramaic language there is no verb to express the meaning "to represent," "to signify."
The Aramaic language was rich
in vocabulary. Scholars deny that charge. Cardinal Wiseman many years ago
proved conclusively that in the language spoken by Christ there are at least
forty expressions which meant "to signify."
15. Did the Apostles teach just what you are teaching?
The Apostles did not merely bless and distribute bread and wine, but they
administered what they knew and believed to be the Body and Blood of Jesus
Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. If they thought they were
distributing merely a symbol or representation or reminder of the Savior's flesh
and blood, then the Catholic practice comes to smash. The Apostles proclaimed
that they were giving the Body and Blood of the Savior at His express command.
St. Paul in both the Protestant and Catholic text fully answers for the
Apostles.
St. Paul wrote (in about 57 A.D., eight years after St. Matthew wrote his
Gospel) a letter to the Christian converts at Corinth: 1 Cor. 10:16, "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?" 1 Cor. 11:23-29, "For I have received of the Lord that
which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which
he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take all of
you, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do you
all, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as
you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of
the Lord, until He come. 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. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that
bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats
and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
Here then is fully stated the doctrine of the Apostles and the faith of the
Infant Church in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Notice the
words ‘Guilty of the Body and of the Blood’ — how could a person be guilty, if
he had merely eaten a little bread and drunk a little wine, as a picture or
representation or reminder of the Last Supper? No one is guilty of homicide if
he merely does violence to the picture or statue of a man without touching the
man in person. St. Paul's words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real
Presence.
"Plain and simple
reason," says Cardinal Wiseman, "seems to tell us that the presence
of Christ's Body is necessary for an offence committed against it. A man cannot
be ‘guilty of majesty’, unless the majesty exists in the object against which
his crime is committed. In like manner, an offender against the Blessed
Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, if these be
not in the Sacrament."
16. What did the early preachers besides the apostles teach about the last Supper?
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century says: "As a life-giving
Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under
the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be bread is not bread, but
Christ's body; what seems to be wine is not wine but Christ's Blood." You
can get abundant testimony on this belief from many others of the Fathers of the
primitive Church.
17. Does the Greek Church believe in the Real Presence?
The Greek Church which seceded (technically ‘went into schism’) from the
Catholic Church about 1,000 years ago, the present Russian Church which joined
the Greek Church in its schism, the schismatic Copts, Armenians, Syrians,
Chaldeans (who had left Roman unity in the fifth century) and in fact all the
Oriental sects, still hold fast to the teaching of the Infant Church in the
Real Presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord in the Holy
Eucharist.
18. Did all Christendom believe in the literal understanding of the Savior's words?
Yes. Berengarius was the first to openly attack it in the year 1088, but he
retracted before he died. In the sixteenth century, it became the hobby of the
day to give new and arbitrary interpretations to the Scriptures in accordance
with one's own private whim and fancy. The amount of religious and intellectual
chaos brought about by this confusion is seen in the fact that within seventy-five
years over 200 different meanings were given to the four simple words of
Christ: "This is My Body." At Ingolstadt in 1577, Christopher
Rasperger wrote a whole book entitled, "Two Hundred Interpretations of
the words ‘This is My Body’." It shows how hard pressed the inventors
of new sects were to explain away the real meaning of those four words, which
were understood in just one sense for a thousand years and now are not
understood by millions.
19. I still cannot believe in your literal interpretation.
Unless the words of Christ are taken in the literal sense and at their face
value, they become meaningless, incoherent and worse than that, Christ would
be, then, an arch-deceiver. For He certainly taught, allowed, encouraged, and
stressed the literal interpretation of His words and the figurative
interpretation of the Protestant mind has no basis of plausibility. You must
remember that the Jews deserted Christ simply because He meant just what He
said, "'This is My Body." Such a phrase involves a mystery, but you
believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, which are likewise mysteries but
revealed truths far beyond our capacity fully to understand. We do not reject
mysteries to the garbage can because we don't understand them, but we believe
them on the authority of the Revealer.
20. Christ also said, “I am the door”. “I am the vine.” If you say bread is His Body then He is also a door and actually a grapevine.
You resort to any excuse to deny the meaning of Christ. There is no parallel
between those two cases. "I am the door," can have a metaphorical
sense. For Christ is like a door, since I go to Heaven through Him; He is like
a vine, because all the sap of my spiritual life comes through Him. But the
bread is in no way like His Body or His Flesh. Either it changed into His
actual Body, or the expression "This is My Body" is nonsense. It is
misery that God should have to force a Gift upon you, which you should accept
with deep faith, gratitude, and love. But let us turn to St. Paul who knew and
spoke with the resurrected Christ. Have you never read his words,
"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.” (See 1
Cor. 11:27.)
Why, in the Catacombs, did the early Christians depict the Blessed Sacrament
upon the very walls as a loaf of bread with the sign of a fish above it — the
fish which is represented in the Greek language (ixthus) whose letters are the
initials for, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior?" Why did St.
Ignatius, in the second century, declare that the Docetae were false
Christians, because they "do not receive the Eucharist, not admitting that
it is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was tormented for us?" Why,
in the fourth century, did St. Ambrose appeal to the Power of Almighty God for
this very remarkable change? “The Lord spoke,” he writes, “and the Heavens were
made. See how powerful is the word of Christ. And if it has such power that
things begin to be where there was nothing, how much more powerful when
something already existing has to be changed. The Body of Christ was not there
before consecration, but after consecration, I tell you that the Body of Christ
is there.”
21. How is Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament?
The Fourth General Council of the Lateran, in 1215, defined that "the Body
and Blood of Christ are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar by
Transubstantiation." Transubstantiation is a changing across from one
substance to another. A transcontinental railroad will take a person from New
York to San Francisco but it does not change New York into San Francisco. Take
the word "transformation." A carpenter can transform a log of wood
into all kinds of furniture. He gives the wood another form or shape. In
Transubstantiation, it is a question not of another form or shape, but of
another substance. Hydrogen and oxygen are two gaseous substances, but we know
that they can be changed into the substance of water. So also,
Transubstantiation changes the substance of bread into the Substance of the
Body of Christ. When hydrogen and oxygen are changed into water, they lose
their previous form or gaseous appearance whereas the bread retains its
previous appearance, the substance alone being changed. The word
"Transubstantiation," therefore, is used by the Catholic Church to
show that the substance of bread, which was present before the consecration,
has been changed into the Substance of Our Lord's Body, although the appearance
of bread still remains.
22. Your doctrine of transubstantiation was "invented" during the Lateran Council 1215.
The Doctrine was always held in the Church, and in 1215, the Lateran Council
gave not a new doctrine, but merely the exact word which correctly describes
the original and revealed Doctrine of Christ. Not in 1215, but in the year 500,
Faustus, Bishop of Rietz, wrote, "Before consecration the substance of
bread and wine is present; after consecration, the Body of Christ and the Blood
of Christ. Is it anything wonderful that He, who could create with a word, should
with a word change the things He has created?" The Doctrine, then,
existed. But in the eleventh century Berengarius used very ambiguous language
when speaking of the Blessed Sacrament which could have had very serious
consequences, and in the thirteenth century, perceiving the actual growth of
these evil consequences, the Lateran Council insisted upon Transubstantiation
as the correct expression to be used.
The doctrine of
transubstantiation is certainly contained in the words of St. Ambrose (340-397)
when he declares: "Cannot, therefore, the words of Christ, who was able to
make something out of nothing, change that which already exists into something
which it was not before? . . . . What we effect (by Consecration) is the Body
taken from the Virgin."
St. Augustine (354-430) writes:
"That which is seen on the table of the Lord is bread and wine; but this
bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes the Body and Blood of the
Logos."
St. Cyril (386) writes:
"As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His
Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be wine is
not wine, but Christ's Blood."
St. Basil (331-379) prays in
these words of his liturgy, "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 Savior Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the
world."
23. If Luther believed in the Real Presence, then how did he explain it?
Luther always maintained the literal interpretation of the words: "This is
My Body; This is My Blood." In fact he said he was tempted to deny the
Real Presence in order "to give a great smack in the face of Popery,"
but the teaching of the Bible and all antiquity were too strong in its favor.
He explained how Christ was present by using the word
"consubstantiation" instead of transubstantiation. He held that the
two substances of bread and of the Body were present at one and the same time.
Since he admitted no changing of one substance into another then the logical
explanation for his theory is the use of the sentence "Here is My Body or
This contains My Body" instead of "This is My Body." Luther's
explanation would place the Body of Christ "with," "upon,"
"alongside," or "in" the substance of bread or wine. If
Protestants believe in the Real Presence there is no other way of explaining
the literal meaning of the four words, "This is My Body" than by
Transubstantiation. Christ did not say, "My Body is in or with this
bread." He said, "This is My Body." Now it is certainly not His
body according to appearances. It must, then be His body according to
substance, or in other words, God changes the substance without altering the
appearances of bread.
The Council of Lateran in 1215
condemned the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, that the substance of
bread and the Body of Christ exist together; the Zwinglian idea of a memorial
supper; and the Calvinistic doctrine of a virtual or dynamic presence, whereby
the efficacy of Christ's Body and Blood is communicated from Heaven to those
who are predestined to be saved. This was done 300 years before Luther, Zwigli,
or Calvin were to seduce so many away from the apostolic Catholic doctrine.
24. Are you not guilty of cannibalism?
No. Catholics do not believe that they are eating Christ's human flesh in its
natural form. There is a change of substance and nothing else in the Host. The
appearance and qualities of bread are not changed at all. Christ gives us His
Body in a Divine and supernatural way, not in a natural way, for His Presence
is not natural but Sacramental. The Catholic Doctrine does not suppose such
folly of eating Christ's Body in a merely natural sense as we eat ordinary
flesh.
25. Was the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana the same as transubstantiation?
When Christ changed the water into wine, it was nothing but a kind of
transubstantiation. The multiplication of the five barley loaves and two fishes
that fed five thousand men, women, and children is a miracle of the same kind
as that of transubstantiation.
26. Your real presence idea implies a contradiction in that the same thing is both bread and not bread at the same time.
You misunderstand our doctrine for the doctrine of Luther. We teach transubstantiation
and not consubstantiation. We teach that the substance of bread does not remain
after the consecration. What remains are the accidents — the appearances, such
as color, size, shape, taste, weight — in short, whatever is apparent to the
senses.
27. The famous Bishop Ernest Barnes of Birmingham proclaims that transubstantiation was outmoded by the advance of modern science. (This in a famous Times article in 1925.)
At the time, he once again showed the world how absurd he is. The physicists
were at work in their laboratories changing one chemical element into an
altogether different one. They were exploding the theory of the old school of
physics, namely, the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. Sir James
Jeans in 1929 declared: "The two fundamental cornerstones of twentieth
century physics, the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy, are
both abolished." Modern scientists have already produced one element from
another, thereby, giving the lie to Bishop Barnes. If scientists today can
effect a kind of transubstantiation of one element into another, who will be so
wise and presumptuous like Bishop Barnes and deny that power to Almighty God?
If Bishop Barnes still believes in the permanence and immutability of the
chemical elements (which is now thoroughly disproved) and if he still holds
that you can change the form and the appearances of the elements through
various combinations, but you can never change them into distinct and immutable
elements then we come back to the laws of nature to show that elements do
change their nature. If Bishop Barnes ate nothing but bread and wine for a few days,
he certainly would have to admit that the bread and wine in his stomach was
changed into his human flesh and blood by the laws of nature. If God can
through the laws of nature change bread and wine into our own flesh and blood,
then why all the unwillingness to accept His Promise of the Eucharist?
28. Are there any signs in the Host proving that he is bodily present?
NO. It is a mystery of faith. All external appearances remain as before
consecration, but the substance of bread and the substance of wine are changed
into the substance of our Lord's Body and Blood. The reason why we believe is
not in the Host as such, but in God. He has revealed this truth, and we believe
because He must know and could not tell an untruth.
29. Did not the Jews think that they were asked to eat the very body of Christ? Yet He refuted them by saying that His Body would ascend to Heaven and that the flesh profits nothing. Jn. 6:61-64.
When Christ promised that He would give His very Flesh to eat, the Jews
protested because they imagined a natural and cannibalistic eating of Christ's
Body. Christ refuted this notion of the manner in which His Flesh was to be received
by saying that He would ascend into Heaven, not leaving His Body in its human
form upon earth. But He did not say that they were not to eat His actual Body.
He would thus contradict Himself, for a little earlier He had said, "My
Flesh is meat indeed and My Blood is drink indeed." John 6:55-56. He
meant, therefore, "You will not be asked to eat My Flesh in the horrible
and natural way you think, for My Body as you see it with your eyes will be
gone from this earth. Yet I shall leave My Flesh and Blood in another and
supernatural way which your natural and carnal minds cannot understand. The
carnal or fleshy judgment profits nothing. I ask you, therefore, to have faith
in Me and to trust Me. It is the spirit of faith which will enable you to
believe, not your natural judgment." Then the Gospel goes on to say that
many would not believe, and walked no more with Him; just as many today will
not believe, and walk no more with the Catholic Church. According to the
doctrine of the Catholic Church Christ's Body is ascended into Heaven. But by
its substance, independently of all the laws of space which affect substance
through accidental qualities, this body is present in every consecrated Host.
30. We Protestants believe that Christ's Body is really present in the Eucharist, but not by transubstantiation.
The majority of Protestants believe that His Body is really absent. Those who
do say that they believe in His real Presence yet deny transubstantiation,
illogically admit an effect yet deny the only process by which it can truly
occur. If there be no transubstantiation or conversion of the substance of
bread into the substance of Christ's Body, then the substance of bread remains
after consecration, and it is bread and not the Body of Christ. People make a
kind of bogey of transubstantiation as foolishly as a man would do somewhat
similarly if he admitted a railway from New York to San Francisco, yet refused
to admit that it could be called the transcontinental railway.
31. The Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian, and the Nicene do not mention transubstantiation. There is no record of such a doctrine until 1564 when Pius IV put it into his creed. Are we to believe the early Christians, or the doctrine of a thousand years later?
The doctrine is not in the three Creeds you mention. But they do not contain
the whole of Christian doctrine. They are partial statements insisting upon
certain doctrines against special errors of those times. It is true that Pius
IV included the doctrine in his profession of faith, but you are wrong when you
say that there was no mention of the doctrine till then. In 1551, 13 years
earlier, the Council of Trent taught the doctrine explicitly. In 1274, 290
years earlier, the 2nd Council of Lyons insisted upon the admission of
transubstantiation by the Greeks as a condition of return to the Catholic
Church. In 1215, 349 years earlier, the 4th Lateran Council consecrated the
word transubstantiation as expressing correctly the Christian doctrine of
Christ's real presence by conversion of the substance of bread into the
substance of His Body. In 1079, 500 years earlier, Berengarius declared in his
retraction, "I acknowledge that the bread is substantially changed into
the substance of Christ's Body." Everybody who possessed the true Christian
faith, until this year, 1079, believed in the substantial change, and there was
no need to insist upon the word, since no one denied the nature of the change.
In the fourth century, all the great Fathers and writers admitted that by
consecration bread was changed into our Lord's very Body. Ignatius, Bishop of
Antioch, who died about 107 A.D., wrote, "Heretics abstain from the
Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be that very Flesh of
Jesus Christ which suffered for us." And that doctrine is all that is
expressed by transubstantiation. At the Last Supper Christ said, "This is
My Body which is given for you." Luke 22:19. Now He either gave them His
Body or He did not. But He gave them His Body, for we dare not say, "Lord
although you say, ‘This is My Body,' it is certainly not Your Body."
However, it was not His Body according to appearances and visible qualities,
and it could have been His Body only according to substance. Therefore, our
Lord first thought this doctrine of substantial change.
32. The elements do not change, for there is no chemical difference after consecration.
Which elements do not change? In every material thing, there are two sets of
elements quite distinct — substance and qualities. And no man has ever seen
substance; he has seen qualities only. Thus, I see the squareness of a block of
iron, but it can become round, still remaining iron. I can feel its hardness,
though it can become soft in the furnace, the substance being unchanged. If it
be black, it can become red; if it be cold, it can become hot; if it be heavy,
by great heat, I can render it a vapor. The qualities, then, differ from the
substance, or we could not change one without changing the other. And if we can
change qualities without changing substance, God can certainly change substance
without changing qualities. And chemical differences are dependent upon
qualities. Granted the permanence of the same accidental qualities the same
chemical reactions will be apparent.
Father Faber, whilst yet a Protestant, well said, "I am worried about the
Roman doctrine because, whatever may be said of the proofs for it, I do not see
how any man can disprove it. If they say that the substance changes, but that
all appearances remain the same, then they say that something changes of which
no man has any experience and yet which reason must postulate as the reality
underlying all appearances and separate from them." When you say that the
elements do not change their chemical properties, I simply reply that the
elements of external qualities do not change their chemical properties, and
that no Catholic has ever imagined that they do. But the substance underlying
those external appearances certainly does change. The fact that qualities
remain unaltered is a fact of experience; the fact that the substance changes
is revealed by God, and cannot be known in any other way. Yet is it not more
than sufficiently guaranteed when God says so?
33. We have only the word of the priest for the fact.
No Catholic priest would himself believe it were it not the doctrine of Christ.
It would be the height of folly to believe it without solid evidence that
Christ had taught it. God created substance and qualities, and we cannot deny
to Him perfect control over them and ability to change them at His pleasure.
And when Christ says, "This is My Body," we have to accuse Him of
falsehood or else admit that it is His Body not according to the senses, but
according to the underlying substance which is imperceptible to the senses.
34. Is Christ's Body anatomically and physiologically present?
Christ's real Body is present. Anatomical structure and physiological
modifications belong to qualities possessed by substance. After the
consecration, we have the substance of Christ's Body present without any
external manifestation of His anatomical or physiological appearances, and the
qualities of bread remaining as the object of sense perception without any
substance of bread. That substance of bread has been converted into the
substance of Christ's Body. And as substance is the basic reality, we rightly
say that the Blessed Sacrament is the very Body of Christ.
Father Dalgairns explains your
question in these words: "This then is what God has done to the Body of
Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It has ceased to be extended, and all at once,
it is freed from the fetters which bound it to place. It is not so much that it
is in many places at once, as that it is no longer under the ordinary laws of
space at all. It pervades the Host like a spirit. It uses, indeed, the locality
formerly occupied by the bread, in order to fix itself in a definite place, but
it only comes into the domain of space at all indirectly through the species,
as the soul only enters into its present relations with space through the body.
Who will say that this involves contradiction, or that it is beyond the power
of Omnipotence?"
35. Would Christ be present in a crumb of the Host?
Yes. Christ is present, whole and entire, in every particle of the Sacred Host.
The human soul is also confined to no part of the body, but is present in every
part of the body. It is wrong to think that, by breaking the Host into several
portions, the Body of Jesus would be broken, mangled or dissected.
36. Christ is in Heaven. How can you put Him in the tabernacle?
No Catholic denies that Christ is continually present in Heaven. He is not so
present in the Eucharist that He ceases to be present in Heaven. He is in
Heaven according to His natural though glorified form. The same Christ is in
the Eucharist substantially, but not in the same way as He is present in
Heaven. Substance as such abstracts from limitations of place and space.
Locality directly belongs to the qualities of bread which remain after
consecration, and indirectly only to the substantial presence of Christ's Body
underlying those apparent qualities.
37. Is Christ's Body subject to processes of digestion?
The substance of Christ's Body is not subject to processes of digestion or to
any chemical reactions. The qualities of bread, of course, behave in their
normal way, undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion. Our Lord's
substantial presence ceases as these qualities cease to retain those characteristics
proper to bread.
38. If poison were present before Consecration would it be safe to consume the Eucharist?
No. People would be poisoned. The Church has never taught that poison could be
converted into Christ's Body, and in any case, you are dealing with chemical
activities proper to qualities, and not proper to substance as such. All such objections
are based upon notions excluded by Catholic teaching. And it is of little use
to refute what the Catholic Church does not teach.
39. Is not the priest who can accomplish this thing akin to the miracle man of primitive religions?
No. The miracle-man claimed to perform his wonders by his own marvelous powers.
The priest says that the power of Christ effects the change in the Eucharist,
and that he himself is but an instrument employed by Christ, and taking a very
secondary place. The miracle-man depended upon the superstition and credulity
of the bystanders. The priest forbids superstition and credulity, and insists
upon faith in God, a supernatural faith based upon rational foundations. The
miracle-man attributed preternatural effects to natural causes, whether
spiritual or material. The Catholic Church attributes supernatural effects (a
vast difference!) to a supernatural cause. The miracle-man could never prove
any direct commission from God. The Catholic Church can prove her direct
commission from Him to the satisfaction of every intelligent man willing to
inquire into her credentials with sincerity. The miracle-man tried to perform
things wholly unbecoming to God, by means which have no resemblance to those
relied upon by the Catholic Church, and for a purpose and end totally
different.
40. I heard you say that Christ is offered in the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law.
That is true. That offering of
Christ in the Eucharist is known as the Mass, and the Mass is the Sacrifice of
the New Law.
41. There is only one Sacrifice for Christians — that of Calvary.
The Sacrifice of Calvary was a Sacrifice not only for Christians but for the
whole human race from the moment of the first sin. But whilst the death of
Christ upon the Cross was the one great absolute Sacrifice, the Mass is a true
and relative Sacrifice applying to the souls of men the fruits of Calvary.
Anyway, the doctrine which denies that the Mass is the true Sacrifice in the
Christian dispensation is simply anti-Scriptural.
42. How do you prove that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Scriptural?
By religion, we honor God, and the chief and highest form of worship has ever
been by the offering of sacrifice. Now God demanded continual sacrifices of
various kinds from the very beginning of the human race until the coming of
Christ, and it is not likely that the Christian and more perfect religion would
lack a continual and regular offering of the highest act of religion. All the
various sacrifices of the Jewish dispensation represented and prefigured the
Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, and derived all their value by anticipation
from His death upon the Cross. And if the Jews had to honor God by regular
sacrifices, so too, must Christians in the higher and more perfect New Law. But
there is this difference. Whilst the Jewish sacrifices were anticipations of
the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, the Mass is a recollection and constant
application of that one great Sacrifice to the souls of men.
43. It is little use your telling us what ought to be, unless you can prove it as a fact from Scripture.
I can do so. The Old Testament predicts that Christ will offer a true sacrifice
to God in bread and wine — that He will use those elements. And this prediction
is every bit as clear as the prediction that He will also offer Himself upon
the Cross. Thus Gen. 14:18, tells us that Melchisedech, King of Salem, was a
priest, and that he offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Now Ps.
109 (Psalm 110 in the Hebrew) predicts most clearly that Christ will be a
priest, according to the order of Melchisedech, i.e., offering a sacrifice
under the forms of bread and wine. You may say that Christ fulfilled the
prediction at the Last Supper, but that the rite was not to be continued.
However, that admits that the rite was truly sacrificial — and the fact is that
it has been continued in exactly the same sense. It was predicted that it would
continue. After foretelling the rejection of the Jewish priesthood, the Prophet
Malachi predicts a new sacrifice to be offered in every place. "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 offered to my name a clean
oblation." Mal. 1:11. The Sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place
only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from Calvary, one offered in every
place under the forms of bread and wine. The Mass is that Sacrifice.
44. Were all the conditions of a Sacrifice verified in the Last Supper? And are they still verified in the Mass?
Yes, to both questions. For a true Sacrifice, we need a priest, an altar, a
victim, and a covenant with God. Christ was truly the great High Priest, and He
gave the power of priests to His Apostles, commissioning them to do repeatedly
as He Himself had done in their presence. "Do this," He said,
"in commemoration of Me." Luke 22:19. The power was to persevere in
the Church, even as Malachi had predicted. As victim, Christ offered Himself at
the Last Supper. Taking bread and wine He said, "This is My Body . . .
This is My Blood . . . As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this
chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until He come." 1 Cor. 11:24-26.
The separate forms of consecration represented the separation of His Body and
Blood when He ratified the Sacrifice by His death on the Cross next day. The
victim, then, is Christ under the appearances of bread and wine
representatively separated. This does not interfere with the value of Calvary,
for Christ's real death occurred there, and without it, this representative
function would be useless. Continuously through the ages, the Sacrifice of the
Mass has been offered daily in the Catholic Church, and is today offered in
every place from the rising of the sun even to its going down, as Malachi
predicted.
As for the altar, years after
the death of Christ, St. Paul said, "We have an altar whereof they have no
power to eat who serve the tabernacle." Heb. 13:10.
Finally, there is the covenant
with God. "'this chalice is the New Testament in My Blood," said
Christ. 1 Cor. 11:25. It had legal documentary value in the sight of God. The
Catholic Church alone fulfills Scripture in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
45. Christ's Blood is not shed in the Mass, and without shedding of blood, there is no remission.
Christ offered Himself with the shedding of blood on Calvary. Without that
shedding of blood there would be no remission of sin. Yet since the Mass is but
an application of Calvary with its shedding of blood, there is no real
difficulty. There is a difficulty for one who denies the Sacrifice of the Mass,
for without that there is no fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy that there will
be offered in every place a clean oblation, without shedding of blood, from the
rising to the setting of the sun.
46. Did not Pope Innocent III in 1208 first teach the Dogma that the Mass is a Sacrifice?
No. He merely insisted upon the doctrine which had always been held by
Christians that the Mass is a sacrifice in the true sense of the Gospel
teachings. If the idea was not Catholic doctrine until 1208, why did St.
Irenaeus in the year 180, over 1,000 years earlier, write that Christ
commanded His disciples to offer sacrifice to God, not because God needed it
but that they might become more pleasing to God? And he goes on to show that
the continued offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the fulfillment of the
prophecy of Malachi which manifestly predicted that the Jewish people would
cease to offer to God, and that a new and pure sacrifice would be offered to
Him in every place by the Gentiles. Adversus Haer. IV., 17, 5. If
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, could write that in the second century, it is of
little use to assert that Catholics did not believe the Mass to be a true
Sacrifice until the year 1208.
47. Catholics speak of the Mass as if it meant the real death of Christ, and calculate its mathematical value!
No Catholic has ever believed that Christ is really slain in the Mass. They
have never gone beyond the words of Scripture, "As often as you do this
you shall show the death of the Lord until He come." 1 Cor. 11:26. Nor did
any theologians attempt a mathematical calculation as to the efficacy of the
Mass. They knew that mathematics could never express it. The theological value
of the Mass is a perfectly legitimate question for any man to ask who seeks
deeper knowledge of Christian doctrine.
48. According to Cardinal Vaughan, Catholics think the Mass better than Calvary!
That sweeping statement is not justified by Cardinal Vaughan's qualified
doctrine. "So far as the practical effects upon the soul are
concerned," he writes, "the Holy Mass has in some senses the
advantage over Calvary." And he was quite right. No Catholic thinks that
the Mass in itself is better than Calvary, for it is Calvary reapplied depending
upon and deriving all its value from Calvary. "As often as you do
this," said Christ, "you shall show the death of the Lord until He
come." 1 Cor. 11:26. And that death took place upon the Cross. Yet the
Mass has this advantage that whilst the death of Christ upon the Cross occurred
in one place only and before a few people, Calvary reapplied in the Mass can
occur in many places and before multitudes.
49. Christ offered the Last Supper in the evening. Why do you not have Mass in the evening instead of in the morning?
It is not essential that Mass should be offered in the evening, but simply that
the Mass should be offered. Mass in the evening, of course, would be quite
valid. The Church, making use of her God-given power to regulate all that
pertains to disciplinary matters, has decreed that the Mass can be celebrated
in the evening as well as in the morning.
50. Jesus gave Himself under the forms of bread and wine. You are not justified in withholding the cup from the laity.
The fact that the Catholic Church does so is sufficient proof that she is
justified in doing so. However, let us view the theology of the matter. Jesus
gave Himself under both kinds, yet He was completely present in either kind. He
who receives either kind receives the whole Christ. In any case, Christ being
risen dies no more. It is not possible now to separate Christ's Body and Blood
in actual fact. Wherever Christ is, there He is whole and entire. He is wholly
under the appearance of bread and wholly under the appearances of wine. In
receiving the Blessed Sacrament under the form of bread, the communicant
receives the Blood of Christ also. In receiving under the form of wine alone,
he would receive the Body also. There is no possibility of receiving the Body
of Christ without the Blood of Christ. (And see the next question.)
51. Why does the Catholic Church give Communion under one kind only?
For many grave reasons. This
custom inculcates in a practical way that Christ is completely present under
either kind. It excludes the heretical doctrine that it is absolutely necessary
for Communion to partake of the chalice. It removes the danger of irreverence
to the Precious Blood by upsetting or spilling it. It spares the recipients the
danger of infection by their drinking from the same chalice. It enables a
priest to celebrate Mass and distribute Communion without keeping the
congregation an undue length of time, a reason which has particular force in
the Catholic Church where hundreds go to Communion at early Masses. It secures
uniformity of practice throughout the Church, for whilst flour is easily
obtained for the purposes of bread, and easily kept, wine cannot be secured in
sufficient quantity in many countries, above all in foreign missions. If our
20,000,000 Catholics in the United States (the 1940 figure – there are 70
million Catholics there in 2011) went to Holy Communion tomorrow, imagine the
wine bill the Church would have to pay should all receive under both forms. It
is impossible in the Arctic Circle to keep wine. The priests caring for the
Eskimos carry raisins with them in order to make sufficient wine out of them to
celebrate Mass. [Since Vatican II the opportunities to receive under both kinds
have been considerably expanded, but Father Rumble’s points still maintain their
validity.]
52. Your practice of one form is contrary to the Lutheran doctrine and the Bible.
We are not going counter to the Bible. There is no difficulty about the sixth
chapter of St. John which Martin Luther declared must be understood in the literal
and not the figurative sense. Christ Who said: "Except you eat the Flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you,"
also said: "He that eats this Bread shall live forever;" and Christ
Who said: "He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall have
everlasting life," also said: "The Bread that I will give is My Flesh
for the life of the world," and finally, Christ Who said: "He that
eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood, abides in Me and I in him," said also:
"He that eats this Bread shall live forever." (See John chapter 6.) When
Christ commanded the Apostles: "Drink ye all of it," (Matthew 26:27) He
was speaking not to the lay people, but to his priests, who when saying Mass
always partake of Communion under both forms.
53. Whatever the theory may be, I object to the anti-Christian practice.
The practice is not anti-Christian. Reception under one kind only is quite
sufficient for Holy Communion. Our Lord said simply, "If any man eat of
this bread he shall live forever, for the bread that I will give is My Flesh
for the life of the world." Jn. 6:51-52. In the early Church Communion was
at times given to little children by giving them a few drops of the consecrated
wine only. The martyrs would often take into the arena with them the Blessed
Sacrament under the form of bread only, wrapped in linen, to give themselves
Communion before death. The practice is quite in accordance with the doctrine
of St. Paul, "Whosoever shall eat or drink unworthily shall be guilty of
the Body and of the Blood of the Lord." 1 Cor. 11:27.
54. "Eat or drink" is not in my Protestant Bible.
It is not in the Authorized Version, but you will find it in the Revised
Version. Protestant scholars admit that the substitution of "and" for
"or" in the Authorized Version was an inexcusable mistranslation of
the Greek for polemical purposes. Honesty will out some day.
55. So the priest always has the wine, but does not give it to the laity!
The priest does not always receive under both kinds. If for some reason he
cannot celebrate Mass, yet desires to receive Holy Communion, he receives under
the form of bread only, just as any other communicant. If he celebrates Mass,
he must consecrate both kinds for the sake of the Sacrifice, the separate
consecrations being necessary for the representation of Christ's death by the
shedding of His Blood on the Cross. Having consecrated under both kinds the
priest must consume both kinds. But even in doing so, he receives no more than
the laity, for both priest and lay communicant receive the complete Christ, and
more than the complete Christ cannot be received. But your objection proceeds
from a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist. The idea of
the officiating priest having a "drink of wine" which is denied to
the laity does great injury to the reverence due to the Presence of Christ, and
is utterly absurd. About an egg-cup full of wine is used in the celebration of
the Mass, and in any case if a priest did merely want a drink of wine there is
no need for him to vest himself elaborately and spend half an hour saying Mass
in order to have it.
56. Could a priest be in mortal sin yet give the true body of Christ?
A priest commits a grave sin of sacrilege if he celebrates Mass whilst he
himself is in a state of mortal sin. But that would not render the consecration
invalid. The words of consecration have their effect quite apart from the state
of the celebrant's soul. He consecrates in virtue of his priesthood, not in
virtue of his being in a state of grace or of sin. It is his loss if he be not
in God's grace, but the communicant suffers no loss in receiving Communion from
his hands. It is the priesthood of Christ in him that consecrates, and that is
not less efficacious because a priest sins personally.
57. At what age can children receive Holy Communion?
Any baptized child could receive Holy Communion with profit. The early
Christians frequently gave Communion even to infants. However, the Church for
wise reasons requires in her present discipline that children should have
attained sufficient reason to be able, after due instruction, to know that the
Blessed Sacrament differs from ordinary food, and that by receiving it they are
receiving Christ.
58. Has a child of seven sufficient reason?
As a rule, yes. The law of the Church to receive Holy Communion once a year
obliges all Catholics who have come to the use of reason, and this begins to
oblige from about the age of seven. The average child of seven certainly has
enough sense to realize that the reception of the Holy Eucharist is a religious
act. It can know who our Lord is, and the fact that He is present in the
Blessed Sacrament. Such a child is quite capable of approaching with sincere
faith and devotion.
59. Do Catholics have to receive Holy Communion in order to be saved?
The reception of Holy Communion is not absolutely necessary for salvation, as
the Council of Trent defined when it spoke about the custom of the Infant
Church giving Communion to children immediately after Baptism and Confirmation.
It is necessary in the sense that our Lord commands us to receive it; otherwise
the words of Jn. 6:53-54 and Luke 22:19 would be meaningless. This Divine
Command is observed in the Catholic Church today when she obliges her members
under the pain of mortal sin to receive Communion during Easter time, as
prescribed by the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215.
60. The parents of a Jew who became a convert to your Church worried about his fasting before receiving Communion.
Catholics abstain 3 hours from food and one hour from drink before they receive
Communion, out of respect for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. [After
Vatican II, the discipline of fasting was reduced to one hour for both food and
drink.] St. Augustine writes: "It has pleased the Holy Spirit that in
honor of so great a Sacrament, the Body of the Lord should pass Christian lips
before other food; for this reason that custom is observed throughout the whole
world." Tertullian (died in 220) mentions fasting before Communion and the
Third Council of Carthage (397) ordered fasting before Communion, allowing but
one exception and that was on Maundy Thursday, when Mass was celebrated in the
evening to commemorate the Institution of the Eucharist. For the Catholics of
today fasting is required, unless they are in danger of death or incurably ill
over a month or obliged to consume the Blessed Sacrament at the time of a fire
or profanation.
61. What do you Catholics get out of going to Holy Communion?
The principal effect out of Holy Communion is the spiritual union of the soul
with Christ, as mentioned by St. John, 6:56-57, 58, "He that eats My
Flesh, and drinks My Blood, abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father has
sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eats Me, the same also shall live
by Me." This union with Christ unites us in the "Mystical Body of
Christ." "For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of One
Bread." 1 Cor. 10:17. The reception of this sacrament instituted by Christ
increases in our soul sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent speaking on this
point says, "No one conscious of mortal sin, how contrite so ever he may
seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without previous
Sacramental Confession." It makes us spiritually alive in order to receive
it worthily and frees us from daily faults and preserves us from mortal sins.
62. Why do Catholics genuflect?
We genuflect or bend the knee when entering our seat in church or when crossing
in front of the Blessed Sacrament as a mark of adoration to Jesus Christ, who
is really and actually present in the tabernacle on the altar. Bending the knee
is a natural sign of reverence as Luke 22:41, remarks. "And he was
withdrawn away from them a stone's cast; and kneeling down he prayed."
Acts 9:40, "And they all being put forth, Peter kneeling down prayed. . . .
."
Phil. 2:10, "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those
that are in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth."
63. What do you mean by Benediction Service?
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a devotion of public homage to the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It consists of singing of hymns of
adoration before the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a vessel called the
"Monstrance" or "Ostensorium" coming from the Latin word meaning
a thing which shows. In the Ostensorium, we are SHOWING Christ Sacramented to
the people. Incense is placed in the thurible and it is waved three times in
front of the Blessed Sacrament, as a symbol of the people's prayer, "Let
my prayer be directed as incense in Your sight; the lifting up of my hands, as
evening sacrifice." Psalm 140:2, (Psalm 141:2 in the Hebrew). Two hymns
composed by St. Thomas Aquinas are usually sung, "O Salutaris Hostia"
(‘O Saving Victim’) and "Tantum Ergo Sacramentum." (‘Down in
Adoration Falling,’ literally ‘Now, to such a great Sacrament {give
adoration}’) After singing "Tantum Ergo," the priest covers his
shoulders with a humeral veil and then makes the sign of the cross (which
constitutes the Benediction) over the adoring people. At the closing, Psalm 116
(Psalm 117 in the Hebrew), or "Holy God, we praise Thy name," is
sung.
64. "After mortal sin,
is it allowed to make an act of perfect contrition and then receive Holy
Communion without confession?" Quoted from "Questions of Youth,"
by Joseph Kempf.
The erroneous opinion that this may be done in any case seems to be due to a misunderstanding or misapplication of the following truths:
A. Truths.
1.
Perfect contrition (including the desire of confession) forgives mortal sin at
the time of the contrition, though the obligation of confessing the sin
remains.
2.
Holy Communion forgives venial sins, if there be at least imperfect contrition
(attrition) for them; therefore, contrition is among the acts recommended as
preparation for the reception of Holy Communion.
3. There could be some cases in which Holy Communion may be received with perfect contrition only, without confession (see below).
B. Principles.
1. If
the intending communicant remembers a mortal sin which was omitted without his
fault in a previous confession (in which he had sorrow for all grievous sins)
that sin was forgiven and he is in the state of grace by confession. Therefore,
there is no obligation of confessing this sin before receiving Holy Communion,
whether once or many times. There is, however, the obligation of confessing
that sin in the next confession. (The question above usually does not refer to
this case, but to the next.)
2. If
the mortal sin was committed since the last confession,
(a)
Even though perfect contrition forgives mortal sin at the time of contrition,
one may not receive Holy Communion after mortal sin without first receiving the
sacrament of Penance.
(b) The only exceptions occur when the following two conditions are both present simultaneously:
(1)
No confessor is available, and
(2) there is urgent need of receiving Holy Communion (Canon Law, canon 856) [quoting the 1917 version of Canon Law].
C. Application.
1. A
confessor is not available if
(a) there is no confessor in the place,
(b) nor can a confessor be reached elsewhere without serious inconvenience,
depending on distance and time available.
The fact that the usual confessor is not available cannot be construed as
absence of confessor in this connection.
2. Necessity of Holy Communion.
This will be extremely rare in the case of youth.
(a) The following do not constitute cases of necessity:
(1) the desire to receive Holy Communion;
(2) the fact that one has been accustomed to receive daily;
(3) the fact that one has promised to receive Communion on that day;
(4) the fact that a whole class or group is now receiving;
(5) the desire to "avoid interrupting the nine First Fridays," etc.
(b) The necessity of receiving Holy Communion would be present if it could not
be omitted without serious scandal or defamation of character. About the only
case in which this would happen to youth would be the case in which one is
already at the altar rail before recalling the mortal sin. This is surely
extremely rare. But if it does happen, the person should endeavor to make an
act of perfect contrition, and then receive Holy Communion. He is not obliged
to leave the altar rail without receiving (Davis, III, 207-211.).
65. Is it not better to receive Holy Communion rarely, with devotion, than frequently, without any devotion?
While it is possible that such a question could be used in an effort to cover
up reasons for infrequent Communion such as laziness, etc., this is surely
rare. Usually it denotes some doubt or anxiety about the matter, as revealed by
the varying forms of the question, e. g., "Would it be better to
discontinue receiving daily when one feels that he is not receiving with enough
devotion?"
A. Principles.
1. Catholic theology distinguishes effects of sacraments:
(a) ex opere operato, i.e., in virtue of the act performed, independently of
the merits of the recipient or minister;
(b) ex opere operantis, i.e., because of the acts and dispositions of the
recipient.
2. It is a matter of faith that the sacraments produce their effects ex opere
operato in those who do not place an obstacle thereto (Council of Trent, Session
VII, canons 5-8).
3.
Note that
(a) the amount of grace conferred by a sacrament depends on the disposition of the recipient (Council of Trent, Session VI, canon 7.)
(b) This disposition of the recipient, however, is not the cause of the grace,
but merely a condition of a richer out-pouring of grace
(Pohle-Preuss Dogmatic Theology, VIII, pages 73, 122-142, 6th edition,
St. Louis Herder, 1931.)
B. Application to Holy Communion.
1. The effects of Holy Communion are:
(a) union of the soul with Christ by love;
(b) increase of sanctifying grace;
(c) blotting out venial sin and preservation from mortal sin by allaying
concupiscence, and consequently Holy Communion is
(d) a pledge of our glory and everlasting happiness (Council of Trent, Session
XIII, chapter 2; Eugene IV, Decree Pro Armenis, (A. D. 1439);
see Pohle-Preuss, IX, 218-234).
2.
These effects are produced ex opere operato in one receiving, if he places no
obstacle. The only obstacle in the case of Holy Communion would be the absence
of the state of grace (Council of Trent, Session XIII, chapter 7).
N.B. Even the absence of a right intention in receiving would not prevent an increase of sanctifying grace, though grace would be received far less abundantly than by reception with a proper intention. Lack of proper intention could not be approved, since it would be a venial sin.
3. The effects of Holy Communion will be produced in still greater measure if
the recipient is better disposed. Therefore it is expedient that
(a) one be free from deliberate venial sin, and
(b) one make a preparation and thanksgiving at Holy Communion (demanded in any
event by reverence to the Sacrament)
(Pius X, Decree on Frequent Communion, Dec. 20, 1905).
C. Concerning the Specific Question.
1. The question is somewhat misleading. It implies that there is choice only
between infrequent Communion with devotion, and frequent Communion without any
devotion. This will hardly be the case.
2. The term "devotion" is not at all clear. There is great danger
that one interpret devotion entirely as feeling or emotion. It may be true that
communicating infrequently one experiences more feeling of devotion. But this
does not prove that the absence of such feeling is the absence of devotion; for
feeling, however useful, is not essential.
3. One who deprives himself of frequent Communion in order to receive with
greater "devotion" is actually preferring to miss the effects of Holy
Communion ex opere operato many times, in order to gain the doubtful advantage
of receiving the effects only once, though perhaps in greater measure. This is
to be deplored.
4. It could be said that one Holy Communion is about the best preparation we
can make for another Holy Communion. One is better disposed by the graces of
the sacrament than by one's personal efforts, though the latter are also
desirable.
5. The
best effects are obtained by
(a) receiving often,
(b) with as much reverence, love, etc., as one can evoke by earnest effort.
6. So long as this earnest effort is present, one need not be disturbed by any
lack of feeling of devotion.
66. Why don't I get better even after frequent Communion?
A.
Obviously, if one meant by "frequent" Communion only that he has
increased the number slightly,
the answer would be that:
1. One has not really received frequently, and
2. Consequently any failure to improve is no argument against frequent Holy
Communion.
B.
Some of the effects of Holy Communion cannot be perceived or measured.
Thus
1. The degree of union with Christ;
2. Increase of sanctifying grace;
3. The blotting out of venial sin.
Therefore we cannot say, "I don't get better" in regard to these.
C.
The statement "I don't get better," however, usually refers to
apparent absence of progress in avoiding sins and practicing virtues.
Two considerations apply here:
1. Progress can be considered not only absolutely, but also relatively.
Although one may not commit fewer venial sins after Holy Communion, yet actually
one may be committing fewer in proportion to the number and violence of
temptations. In other words: How do we know that we would not be much worse
without frequent Communion?
2. If there is actually no improvement,
(a) the fault cannot lie in the sacrament;
(b) the fault must lie in the recipient.
D.
Obstacles to improvement on the part of the recipient.
The individual may have been led into one of two errors:
1. The stressing of the minimum requirements for Holy Communion (state of grace
and right intention) may have created the erroneous impression that other
dispositions are of little consequence. But it would be a mistake to consider
"not absolutely necessary" the equivalent of "not desirable or
recommended."
2. The encouragement to frequent reception of Holy Communion may have left the
erroneous impression that Holy Communion is an end in itself, that is, that
with the reception everything is accomplished. But the sacraments, including
the Holy Eucharist, are not ends in themselves; they are "the principal
means of sanctification and salvation" (Canon Law, [1917 version] canon
731).
I.
If there is no improvement, desirable dispositions may be lacking
(a) Desirable dispositions are:
(1) freedom from venial sin.
Pius X: "It is most expedient that those who communicate frequently or
daily should be free from venial sins" (Decree on Frequent Communion,
Dec. 20, 1905, article 3).
(2) proper preparation and thanksgiving.
Pius X: "Whereas the sacraments of the New Law, though they may take effect
ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect in proportion as the
dispositions of the recipient are better, therefore, care is to be taken that
Holy Communion be preceded by serious preparation, and followed by a suitable
thanksgiving, according to each one's strength, circumstances, and duties"
(Same Decree, article 4).
(b) Regarding preparation and thanksgiving:
(1) A purely passive behavior is not sufficient, as is evident from the condemnation by Innocent XI (A. D. 1687) of an opinion of the Quietist M. de Molinos;
(2) Active procedure is wanted.
(a) Preparation should consist of acts of ardent desire, humility, love, etc.
(b) Thanksgiving should consist of adoration, thanksgiving, surrender,
petitions for self and others (Tanquerey, pages 147-150).
II.
If there is no improvement, it may be because one fails to use the graces
received.
(a) Holy Communion does not make one a saint without his own personal effort.
Not he becomes holy who receives much grace, but he who uses that grace (that
is, actual grace).
(b) This effort must consist in:
(1) anticipating and avoiding the unnecessary occasions of sin;
(2) resisting temptation when it occurs.
It will be extremely useful to concentrate on faults and sins to be avoided, in
the preparation and thanksgiving at Holy Communion. But it is not enough simply
to resolve that we will do something. We ought to discuss in the presence of
Jesus how we may accomplish it. We know the situations in which we fail; we
should know when and why we fail. A definite plan to cover the circumstances,
made in the presence of Jesus and with His grace, will undoubtedly help to
overcome our failings.
The sacrament gives grace, and the oftener we receive and the better our dispositions, the more grace we receive. If we actually use that grace "it is impossible but that daily communicants should gradually emancipate themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto" (Pius X, Decree on Frequent Communion, article 3).
67. Can Holy Communion really be received for others?
Many questions in varying form have as common element the point stated here. It
is to the credit of youth that, in spite of frequent use of the expression
"offering Holy Communion for others," it finds difficulty understanding
how this can be. For to "offer up Holy Communion for another
person" is, strictly speaking, impossible.
A.
The effects of Holy Communion (see Questions 61 and 65B) can be received only
by the one actually receiving Holy Communion, and cannot be transferred to
others.
St. Thomas, speaking of Penance, says: "A person cannot receive a
sacrament for somebody else, because in a sacrament grace is given to the one
who receives it and not to another"
(Summa Theologica, Supplement question 13, article 2, ad 2).
Of Holy Communion, he says specifically: "No help can accrue to a person from the fact that another, or even several others, receive the body of Our Lord" (III, question 79, article 7, ad 3). Again, commenting on Chapter 6 of St. John's Gospel, he says: "It follows, therefore, that the laity who receive Holy Communion for the souls in Purgatory err" (Sup. Joan., chapter 6, lectio 6, number 7).
(Of course, the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be applied to
others.) .
B.
In receiving Holy Communion, the faithful perform other good works: prayer,
etc.
Can these be applied to others?
Distinguish: (1) Merit; (2) Satisfaction; (3) Impetration (or Asking).
1. The merit of good works cannot be applied to others.
2. The satisfactory value of good works can be offered for others.
Receiving Holy Communion may involve a certain amount of self-denial or
penance, such as fasting, arising early, walking a great distance, praying in
spite of distractions, and the like. The value of these as satisfaction may be applied
to others, e. g., to the Poor Souls.
3. The impetratory value of prayers can benefit others, that is, one can
and should pray for others at Holy Communion.
"It is generally held that the prayers of petition made in the presence of
the Eucharistic Lord are more readily heard by God" (Pohle-Preuss Dogmatic
Theology, IX, page 231, 6th edition, St. Louis Herder, 1931.)
(On the whole question see Orate Fratres, IX [1935], 512-515.)
Note: No contrary argument can be drawn from the fact that "Spiritual
Bouquets" list "Holy Communions" among the things one promises
to do for another. For theological truth cannot be deduced from any custom, no
matter how widespread. On the contrary, custom should follow theological truth
and express it correctly. Therefore, instead of "Holy Communions" it
would be better to print "Special Prayers at Holy Communion" or
something similar.
(For details of the distinction of (1) Merits; (2) Satisfactions; (3) Impetrations (or Asking), see outline: Value of Prayers and Good Works, etc. in Tanquerey.)
*****