The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 6.

BY M. D. TALBOT.

I submit every word contained in this work to the supreme judgment

of the Apostolic See, adhering with heart and soul to the

solemn declaration made by St. Jerome, in his Epistle to St. Damasus

Pope, " It is with your Holiness I hold it ; that is to say, I live in

communion with the Chair of Peter. Upon that Rock I know the

Church has been built." (Epist. xiv. ad Damasum.)

"This is my Body. This is my Blood."—St. Matt. xxvi. 26, 28.

LETTER I. TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

MY LORD BISHOP,

If we ought to receive with becoming reverence every word which was spoken by the Saviour of the World, your Lordship cannot deny but it would be the very height of impiety to alter even one syllable of those which he uttered, when making his last Will and Testament, just before he suffered the ignominious death of the Cross for our Sins, and which contain the most convincing proofs, that he could give us of his affection and of his love; Cum dilexisset Suos, in finem dilexit eos. What attention is paid to the last words of a dying man, of one even who knows not but Hell may be his lot. " No one then," says the great St. Augustine, " utters a falsehood," and if an heir should ridicule them, he would be looked upon as a bad man; how then shall we avoid the anger of God, if we reject, by infidelity or by contempt, the last words of his only Son, our Lord and Redeemer, spoken shortly before returning to Heaven, whence he beholds all who neglect and all who observe them, and whence he will come to judge both the one class and the other.

Nevertheless, my Lord Bishop, it is really deplorable to behold the efforts which Sectarians have made, and are making, to alter and corrupt the last Will and Testament of the Son of God, comprised in the few words which declare so expressly his last bequest, " Take eat, this is my Body." I shall now only simply quote what Martin Luther, the Father of the pretended Reformation, says in his "Defence of the Words of the Supper against those Fanatical Spirits, the Sacramentarians," to shew the baneful and terrible effects of the heresies of the 16th Century. " Of these holy and sacred words, Hoc est Corpus meum," says Luther, " Carlostadius miserably J twists this pronoun, hoc; Zuinglius mangles this substantive verb, est; (Ecolampadius tortures this word, Corpus. Others destroy the whole text, taking this word, hoc, out of its original position, and placing it the very last, saying, Accipite, comedite, corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur, est hoc; others maim half this text, and place this word, hoc, in the middle, saying, Accipite, comedite, quod pro vobis datur, hoc est Corpus meum; others again alter it thus, Hoc est Corpus meum ad mei commemorationem, that is to say, my Body is not here truly present, but only the commemoration of my Body; besides these I have here mentioned, to make up the number seven, we find others who say, they are not articles of Faith, that each one is permitted to form his own judgment on them as he thinks best, and consequently shews the folly of so many discussions on this subject. These people trample under their feet, and destroy every thing sacred. Each one fancying that he carries with him the Holy Spirit,1 and is therefore convinced he cannot err, although their interpretations and their proofs are completely at variance, in so much so, that not one of them can be true. The Devil thus grossly and visibly deceives mankind."— (Lutherus in Defensione verborum canoe contra Phanaticos Sacramentariorum Spiritus, Tom. 7.) Thus, my Lord Bishop, this confusion of opinions is a manifest proof of the spirit of discord which governs them, and which prevents their authors from agreeing on any point excepting one, viz, to suppress the true and legal meaning of this text, and to turn and twist it into contrary and supposed senses quite repugnant to the intention of the Testator.

Every one knows that the Eucharist is an inestimable gift; which Jesus Christ when dying bequeathed by his last Will to his Church, as to the legitimate heir of all his property. He describes it in these words, "This is my Blood, the Blood of the New Testament;" and the Fathers so understanding it, explained his meaning by calling the Eucharist, " the Hereditary Gift of the New Testament,—Hereditarium munus Novi Testament!."— (St. Gaudentius, tr. 2, in Exodum.) His bequest is thus expressed in the Gospel: " And whilst they were at Supper Jesus took Bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his Disciples, and said, Take ye and eat, this is my Body; and taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins; and I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father." —(St. Matthew, xxvi. 26, 27, 28, 29.)

The Catholic, taking these words in their proper and literal sense, believes that the Eucharist is the true Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread. The Sectarian laughs at his simplicity, and declares that it is nothing but Bread he has bequeathed to us, as a sign or a figure of his body.

Which therefore of the two, I may be asked, is the right explanation of the Sacred Text ? I answer, that without a doubt it is the one which gives to the words of Jesus Christ the meaning the most natural and the most conformable to his intentions, which agrees best with his high and exalted character, and which is the most advantageous to his family and to his heirs. Let Protestants weigh without prejudice all those circumstances, and they will soon be convinced of their being in error. 1st. Because beyond all doubt, the words of a will ought to be taken and understood in their proper and natural sense. The law so prescribes it, and good sense is quite in accordance with this disposition of the law. Where, permit me to ask, is there to be found a man of sound judgment, who wishing to make his Will, does not endeavour to express it in the most clear and intelligible language, in order to take away every pretext from those who might be tempted to dispute it? Every one would wish that his last Will and Testament should be faithfully fulfilled, and fearing to be misunderstood or mistaken in the forms, he does not confide in his own judgment, but consults talented, able, and experienced persons on these subjects. But if after all his assiduity and care to express himself clearly, some obscurity unfortunately be found which was not foreseen, it cannot be said that he occasioned it purposely, but that he was mistaken in the proper manner of expressing himself, while he sincerely desired to take away every pretext of litigation from his heirs.

With what face then can Protestants advance, that Jesus Christ, who is wisdom itself, did on so important an occasion as his last Supper, use ambiguous terms and improper phrases, thus throwing an eternal apple of discord among his children. If he merely intended to give them by his last Will and Testament the figure of his Body, I ask in the name of common sense, what prevented his expressing himself clearly, and saying in precise terms, " This is the figure of my Body? " What could be his reason, I ask again? was it to deceive us by such a surprising equivocation, or was it to curtail three or four words, which had he but added to those he spoke, he would have put an end to all doubts on this most important of all questions.

Was it the want of sincerity on his part ? Hear St. Hilary: " Forte qui verbum est, et qui veritas est, loqui vera nescivit ? et qui sapientia est, hi stultiloquio erravit? et qui virtus est, in ea fuit infirmitate, ne posset eloqui quee vellet intelligia — (L. 8, de Trin. Sub. Init.) " Perhaps," says St. Hilary, " that he who is the Word and the Truth itself, did not know how to express himself? That wisdom was blended with extravagance; that strength had this weakness, that it did not know how to articulate what it wished to be understood." Is it not therefore abusing the simplicity of mankind, to assert that the Son of God, who is the essence of all perfections, who can deceive no one, and who has assured us in terms the most clear and expressive, that that which he gave us was his body; is it not, I say, abusing the simplicity of mankind, for Protestants to presume thus to contradict the Son of God, by asserting that we are not obliged to believe it to be that which he has declared it? Is it permitted thus to joke, to trifle, with the Sacred Word?

St. Paul says, " Hominis confirmatum testamentum nemo spernit aut superordinat."—(Gal. iii.) " No one despises the will of a man if it be authentic, or permits himself to add, or to take away from it." But the Sectarian considers himself privileged to censure the last Will and Testament of our Beloved Saviour, to corrupt it by the addition of figures, and to explain his sacred words in a contrary sense. What should we say to a man, who to defraud a lawful heir of a diamond which his father had bequeathed to him by his will, should sustain that the word diamond ought to be taken in figurative sense, that is to say, for the figure of a diamond, and not for the diamond itself ? Such a person, I assert, would either be considered a madman or a fool. Yet such is the extravagant and ridiculous conduct of Protestants on this subject. The Catholic Church asserts that Jesus Christ has left us by his Will his own precious Body under the species of Bread and Wine. Protestants on the contrary assert, that this is impossible, that it is inconceivable, that there is nothing in the three Evangelists nor in St. Paul to warrant such a doctrine. Catholics produce the Gospel to convince them of their bad faith, and we tell them with St. Augustine, " Quare litigas? Fratres sumus, non intestatus mortuus est Pater. Fecit testamentum, et sic mortuus est. Mortuus est, et resurrexit," &c. &c.— (St. Aug. in Ps. 21.) " Ubi inventa fuerit ipsa hereditas, ipsam teneamus, Aperi testamentum."— (Ibid.) "Why do you cavil? We are Brothers; our Father has not died Intestate; he made his Will before he died; he has risen from the dead; he lives for ever; he hears our words, and he understands his own. Open the Will, let us read it, and then we shall find the inheritance which we hold from him." We shew tin's Will of Jesus Christ to every one, we recite his very words: " Hoc est Corpus meum.—This is my Body." " Hic est sanguis meus —This is my blood." But in order to dispossess us of this rich treasure, Protestants declare, that this mode of expressing himself is improper; that Jesus Christ spoke in a figurative language, for that which he gave us to eat was not his Body, but only the figure of his Body. Consequently the Will of the Son of God is not properly speaking a Will, but a figurative Will; or we may say, that a Will may be true in substance, although all that it contains be nothing but figure.

1 The Holy Spirit is promised (St. John, xiv. 26) to the Apostles and to their Successors, particularly to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from all error, but he is not promised to each individual, according to the fanatical idea of Sectarians.

The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 5.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST, DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE, FROM TRADITION, AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AUTHORS WHO HAVE TREATED ON THE SUBJECT; IN SIXTEEN LETTERS, WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES, ADDRESSED TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, AND DEDICATED BY PERMISSION TO HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, KING OF HUNGARY, BOHEMIA, ETC. BY M. D. TALBOT.

NOTE 1, TO PREFACE.

It is always with delight that I appeal to an enlightened public, being ever sure to find justice at their hands; I therefore conjure them previous to their reading these letters, to peruse with attention this note, which will point out to them the disagreeing systems of Protestant writers concerning the origin and antiquity of transuh-stantiation, that this generous public may see how little they can depend upon the veracity of these Protestant witnesses, who all contradict one another.

Dr. "Whitaker attributes the invention of transubstantiation to Innocent III., in the fourth Council of Latcran, in the beginning of the thirteenth century.— (Whitaker's Answer to the Jesuit Durceus, p. 480.) Dr. Cousins, in his History of Transubstantiation, p. 150, will have it invented about the middle of the twelfth century. Mr. Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, (edition 1576,) p. 1121, tells us, that the denying of it began to be accounted heresy in the time of Berengarius, that is, in the middle of the eleventh century. Joachim Camerarius, in his Historic Narratio, $c. p. 161, goes a step higher, and tells us that transubstantiation had quiet possession of the Church from the middle of the ninth century. Dr. Tillotson, in his Discourse against Transubstantiation, p. 306, confesses it to have been defended (at least as far as it imports Christ's corporeal presence in the sacrament) by the second Council of Nice, which consisted of three hundred and sixty bishops, in the 8th century. Dr. Humphreys (Jesuitism, P. 2, p. 626) assures us, it was imported amongst other Popish wares into England by St. Gregory the Great, and by St. Augustine the Monk, in the end of the sixth century. The Centuriators of Magdeburg find it in the writings of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries.— (See Centur. 4, Col. 295; Cent. 5, Col. 517.) In fine, Adamus Francisci, a learned Protestant, in his Margarita Theologica, p. 186, not being able to discover any beginning of this doctrine, contents himself with telling his reader, that the Popish transubstantiation crept early into the Church.

Such is the concord of these witnesses who pretend to charge the Church of Christ with innovations; like to those who were formerly suborned against her divine spouse, (Mark xiv. 56,) their witnesses agree not together. I entreat of my readers to bear in mind that the learned Protestant divine, Dr. Whitaker, one of the greatest and most determined enemies of the Catholic Church, was not ashamed to acknowledge, that no reliance can be placed on the veracity of Protestant writers.— (See Vindication of Mary, Vol. 3, p. 54.) That most profound Protestant theologian, Dr. Thorndyke, one of the greatest lights of the Anglican Church, is obliged, as an act of justice, to acknowledge, in speaking of the Church of Rome, " I must accept the Church of Rome for a true Church, as in the Church of England I have always known it accepted; seeing there be no question made but that it continueth the same visible body, by the succession of bishops and laws that were first founded by the Apostles. There remaineth therefore in the Church of Rome the profession of all the faith necessary for the salvation of Christians to believe either in point of faith or morals." How glorious, how triumphant for Catholics to hear such language from the very mouths of their opponents. " But many Protestants will still not admit," says an eminent Catholic prelate, " that the doctrine of the primitive Catholic Church was the same with that which the Church in communion with the See of Rome professes at present, and would willingly have their followers to believe that the faithful in the first centuries were Protestants." But unfortunately for them the school-master is abroad, and he directs the public to ask, " If this be so ? when and how did their posterity become Papists ? In what year of the Lord did this pestilent heresy of Popery (as some Protestants call it) first creep into the Church? Who was the first author of it? In what place was it first broached ? What opposition did it first meet with at its appearance from the zeal of the pastors of the Church? What disturbances did it cause? What Councils were held on this occasion, &c. ? or was this the only change in religion, the only heresy which crept into the world, without author, without date, without disturbance, without resistance, so that the whole world by a strange revolution from Protestant became Papist, though no one knew how nor when? On the contrary, we can trace up Protestancy to the very year it was first broached, viz., 1517- We can name the day when their first preacher laid the foundation of their religion; when we could have truly said to them, your profession had no being yesterday. We can tell the author, the place, the first and chief abettors of their doctrine; the disturbances it caused, the resistance which it met with, the books written on both sides, £c. We can do the same with regard to Arianism, and all other heresies or innovations in religion. Let Protestants do as much, or not accuse us of innovations. Let them name the Pope or Bishop of Rome for these eighteen hundred years that brought into the Church a religion different from that in which his immediate predecessor both lived and died; which as they certainly cannot do, it is a plain demonstration that the faith of the Church of Rome was never changed."

Now the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament, and transubstantiation, the immediate consequence of the real presence, have ever been the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, " the pillar and ground of truth," as I have demonstratively proved in these letters; it is therefore for my readers to consider whether they will accept the literal sense of these words of the Saviour for their belief, " This is my body, this is my blood," which has ever been the explanation given to them by an infallible authority in matters of faith, namely, by the Church of all ages; or if they prefer the Protestant figurative sense given to these same words, " This is my body, this is my blood," by a Church but of yesterday ? as I have shewn. "Let my readers also bear in mind, that the different Protestant sects differ widely among themselves on the meaning of these words; for example, the Lutheran firmly believing in the real presence, the Calvinist as sternly denying it, and this recollect on one of the greatest dogmas of Christianity. Surely they both cannot be right; therefore, I maintain, that common sense tell us that there must be an infallible authority on earth to lead all into the right way, and to give us the true meaning of Scripture, which is and has been continually twisted and perverted by heretics for the very worst purposes. We are also commanded by the Saviour, under the most dreadful penalties, to hear the Church, that is, to obey the Church, and which the Apostle calls, " the ground and pillar of truth." Now surely the Church here meant, cannot be the Protestant Church, which, 1 repeat, dates her rise from the year 1517; it can refer to no other but to the Church in communion with the See of Rome, the Church of all ages.

I shall here briefly notice for the information of my readers, one of the great arguments that Protestants make use of against this great dogma of Catholic faith, on account of these words which our Lord added to the institution, " Do this for a commemoration of me." (See Appendix, where I have treated at large on these words.) We do not make, say they, a commemoration of a thing that is present; for which reason, if the body of Christ had been present in the eucharist, he never would have proposed it as a memorial. To this I answer, that the Evangelists were so far from imagining that the explication of these others, " Do this for a commemoration of me," that the latter are not even mentioned either by St. Matthew, or St. Mark, who are the first that left in writing the words of the institution of the holy eucharist. In reality it is clear they are not inserted to explain these words, " Take eat, this is my body," but to point out the disposition of mind in which we ought to perform the action which Jesus Christ had just ordained, that is, of receiving and eating his body. I maintain that Protestants are unable to prove from Scripture that one cannot, as they say, make a commemoration of an object that is present; neither does reason oppose it.—(See the Rev. J. Waterworth on the Penal Laws.)

NOTE 2, TO PREFACE.

It is certain that our Lord had delivered to the Apostles instructions of the greatest importance concerning the Eucharist before he instituted it. It is most probable that he had given others, which are not come down to us, to confirm them in the faith of this incomprehensible mystery, which had met with so great an opposition when first proposed. The silence of the Evangelists cannot properly be objected here, as they only give us a part of our Lord's discourses on each subject. There is little room to doubt, but that something explanatory of this point was inserted in the blessing that preceded these words, " This is my body," even in the hymn of thanksgiving after communion. Protestants themselves have remarked, that the Jews, on their festivals, commonly added something on the subject of the feast to their usual benedictions, so that hence we cannot doubt but our Lord spoke of the holy eucharist in the blessing and in the canticle after supper.

NOTE 3, TO PREFACE.

I honestly confess that in early life, from what some of my Protestant relatives had told me of the novelties of Romanism, particularly regarding transubstantiation, and in what I found in many eminent Protestant authors concerning the late innovations of those doctrines controverted between the two Churches, I began to have doubts of the verities taught by the present. Roman Church; much more when enquiring how late these doctrines were introduced into the Church, I was generally told by my Protestant relatives that they were not imposed on the faithful before the Council of Trent, about two hundred'and seventy years ago; but when I compared the date of the Protestant Reformation with that of this Conucil, I plainly perceived that the protesting against these errors was begun and very near perfected before these errors were (as Protestants assert) then imposed; which, though it seemed extraordinary, and which might have passed with others as a reasonable answer to the objection of novelty, yet I resolved to peruse the Councils themselves, and, de point en point, note the time when these doctrines were in Council established.

1. I began with the Pope's supremacy, which I found confirmed in the General Council of Chalcedon, Act. 16, (one of the first four General Councils which are acknowledged by the Church of England,) above one thousand three hundred and ninety-three years ago, six hundred and thirty Fathers present, and about the year of our Lord 451; and relation had to the first Council of Nice, Can. 6, which was held two hundred and twenty-five years after the death of St. John the Evangelist. This supremacy was also allowed, professed, and taught by the most ancient Fathers after the Apostles, and acknowledged by Melancthon, Luther, Bucer, Bilson, Dr. Cooper, Bunny, Fulke, Middleton, Osiander, the Centurists, and many others too numerous here to mention.

2. Those books which Protestants call apocrypha, were taken into the canon of the Old Testament in the third Council of Carthage, signed by St. Augustine the Great, Baruch only was not named, because it was looked on as an appendix to Jeremiah, whose Secretary he was.— (Can. 47.)

3. The unbloody sacrifice of the mass in the sixth Council of Constantinople, about one thousand one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, (Can. 32,) and also in the ninth Council of the Apostles it was decreed, " That a bishop shall communicate when sacrifice is made.

4. Veneration and respect for holy Saints' relics, (according to Apostolical tradition,) as also of Martyrs and of holy images, in the second Council of Nice, three hundred and fifty fathers present, Act 3, Anno Dom. 780. See more in Act 7> with the general consent of ancient Fathers.

5. Communion in one kind sufficient.—See the Council of Constance, Sess. 13, and practised in the Church thirteen hundred and fifty-years since.

6. Purgatory, and many more too long to relate, in the Council of Florence, and believed in the primitive times.

7. And lastly, the doctrine of transubstantiation confirmed in the great Council of Lateran, in which there were near twelve hundred prelates present, (See Letter XV. on this Council,) and in seven or eight other Councils before that of Trent; and all the controverted points, particularly and by name declared by many eminent Protestants themselves to have been brought into England by Augustine the Monk above eleven hundred and fifty-seven years since.

Indeed when I had diligently examined this truth, and found it most evident, beyond all possibility of any just and reasonable contradiction, I was much scandalized at the disingenuity of Protestant writers, who, whilst they accuse others of fallacy, of imposture, and of impudence, presume to advance so great and demonstrable a falsehood, in a matter of fact, that nothing but the most complete ignorance can excuse them, and expose themselves to the greatest censures of rashness and of indiscretion, as uncharitable and unjust to those whom they call their enemies, as also unsafe, and abusing the credulity of their friends. It is with the deepest regret that I am obliged to use any language which can in the least wound the feelings of any one, but my duty to the public forces me to tell the truth.

I submit every word contained in this work to the supreme judgment of the Apostolic See, adhering with heart and soul to the solemn declaration made by St. Jerome, in his Epistle to St. Damasus Pope, " It is with your Holiness I hold it; that is to say, I live in communion with the Chair of Peter. Upon that Kock I know the Church has been built."— (Epist. xiv. ad Damasum.)

The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 4.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST, DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE, FROM TRADITION, AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AUTHORS WHO HAVE TREATED ON THE SUBJECT; IN SIXTEEN LETTERS, WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES, ADDRESSED TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, AND DEDICATED BY PERMISSION TO HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, KING OF HUNGARY, BOHEMIA, ETC. BY M. D. TALBOT.

Station 4: Jesus Meets His Mother | "Painted in faith" by members of the congregation of St. Wulfrans, Ovingdean, UK

PREFACE. (d)

" The narrative of this miracle was, the writer states, extracted from certain books that were read in the Churches in England. This last circumstance has made Albertin impugn the truth of the narrative; and yet it is a circumstance which greatly confirms its authority, for as the Churches of England were founded by missionaries sent here by St. Gregory, it is probable that the history of his life, which they read in the Churches here, was composed by these first Apostles of Britain, men of the most upright characters, and who were well acquainted with the actions of St. Gregory. But, although the historical narratives which I have adduced above do not conclusively establish the truth of the miracles they record, yet the vague reply, that these narratives are perhaps fabricated, will not warrant their rejection. Proofs are of different classes, and these historical proofs, which do not give entire certainty, are not therefore to be discarded as manifestly false; besides, these attest with certainty the faith both of the authors from whose works they are quoted, and of the age in which these histories were written. For it is improbable, for example, that John the Deacon would give the narrative contained in his history, had he and his contemporaries believed with the woman of whom he speaks, that the bread was not the very body of Christ. And it is still more improbable, that this narrative would be inserted in tin? books which were read in the Churches in England, if it were opposed to the faith received in this country. It is then permitted to adduce narratives, such as have been just recited, if only that degree of authority be ascribed to them to which they are entitled—if they be referred to as clear and undoubted evidence of the faith of the historian, and of the age when he flourished, and as probable evidence of the fact which they record. The narrative which regards St. Gregory has peculiar claims to respect, because Guitmond testifies, that the life of St. Gregory from which it was taken, was approved by many Popes, and that its accuracy was never questioned: ' This biography which so many learned and holy Pontiffs sanctioned, in the very presence of Rome, by an approbation from which no one dissented. This history which so many Churches continue to receive, with the concurrence of the whole Christian world, and under the guidance of these Pontiffs.' Hence Guitmond justly makes this reflection on the history of St. Gregory, and on other similar histories: ' If so many Saints and learned Popes, so many abbots eminent for learning and piety, so many religious, so many ecclesiastics, and, in fine, if all the people of God believed, that these histories were contrary to the true faith, why have they never condemned them ? why have they not destroyed and annihilated them ? why have they not prohibited the reading of them? why have they praised and recommended them? and why have they handed them down to us as works capable of edifying and instructing us ? ' We have then a right to infer with Lanfranc, from such works as we now speak of, ' That they suffice to prove, that all the faithful who preceded us held from remote ages the same belief which we now hold.' We learn, moreover, from the letter of Paschasius to Frudegard, that some passages which Frudegard had met in the works of St. Augustine disturbed his peace of mind and led him to doubt, in some degree, of the doctrine which in common with the universal Church of his own time he had hitherto believed. We find also in St. Fulbert, (Epist. ad Adeodatum,) that many were tempted to disbelieve the mystery of the eucharist. It is observed by those (Guit. L. 3) who wrote against Berengarius, that his error was occasioned by some difficult passages in the works of St. Augustine. In the life of St. Malachy, which was written by St. Bernard, it is related, that an Irish clergyman who had fallen into error on the eucharist, presumed to assert, that this mystery contained neither the grace nor the reality of the body of Jesus Christ, and was only the mere sign of both. For this error he was reproved and excommunicated by St. Malachy, and visited by God with a sickness of which he died, after having however abjured his heresy. Thus it is evident that the difficulties of the Eucharist were attended with their natural effects, though their force was crushed, as it were, by the constant uniform and distinct belief which the faithful had of the truth of this mystery. Now Protestants cannot shew on their parts, that similar effects really followed from the passages of the Fathers, and from the other arguments which lead to the belief of the real presence. For as Protestants do not find that any person was reproved because he professed the belief of the real presence, they must admit that there was, in truth, no one who deserved to be reproved for that doctrine; that is, they must admit, that for eight hundred years there was not even one solitary individual who was tempted to believe the real presence by the same language which subsequently drew over to that belief the entire universe. Hence to defend themselves, Protestants are forced to uphold these so very conflicting hypotheses—that the language of the Fathers suddenly gained over the universe in the tenth century to the belief of the real presence—and that up to the ninth century, this same language never excited in the mind of a single individual a doubt favorable to that doctrine. For a doubt of this nature, had it ever occurred to any one, would have necessarily drawn from the Fathers a formal declaration against the doctrine which it favoured, yet no vestige remains to shew that any such declaration was ever made by them."— (The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church upon the Eucharist, p. 233, translated from the French.)

Permit me now to ask, after this lengthened quotation, could anything be made more clear than the manner that this most learned man, Monsr. Arnaud, step by step, has demonstratively shown, that the real presence of Christ in the sacrament was ever the doctrine of the universal Church? St. Paul says: " O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and the opposition of a knowledge falsely so called."—(1 Tim. vi. 20.)

As Protestants generally appear to set a great value on the opinion of St. Augustine on all subjects, I therefore lay before them a very powerful quotation on the point in question, and which I have extracted from the writings of this great saint and doctor of the Church, (Lib. de Consecratione, Dist. 2, c. 72,) as follows: "In the mystery of the body of Christ performed within the holy Church, there is nothing more done by a good priest, and nothing less by a wicked one; because what is wrought there is not by the merit of him who consecrates, but by the word of our Creator, and the power of the Holy Ghost; for if it were by the merits of the priest, it would not by any means belong to Christ," &c. Who will again ever venture, after perusing the above quotation, to assert that St. Augustine was not a firm believer in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the eucharist.

The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 3.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST, DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE, FROM TRADITION, AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AUTHORS WHO HAVE TREATED ON THE SUBJECT; IN SIXTEEN LETTERS, WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES, ADDRESSED TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, AND DEDICATED BY PERMISSION TO HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, KING OF HUNGARY, BOHEMIA, ETC. BY M. D. TALBOT.

PREFACE. (c)

I ask here now every upright Protestant, if he can seriously and sincerely persuade himself that God, in order to reform his Church, had raised up in an extraordinary manner those men who contradict, blacken, and excommunicate each other ? Can he persuade himself that God has spoken through the instrumentality of Luther, when he says, that Jesus Christ is really present with the bread ? that God has spoken through Zuinglius, when he says, that the eucharist is nothing more than a mere sign or figure ? that God has also spoken through Calvin, when he says, that Christ was really present in the sacrament, but by faith ? In fine, can God have spoken by the instrumentality of so many other Reformers, who are quite opposed to each other in most essential points, and which they themselves look on as essential for their religion, and who mutually treat each other as heretics? It is as clear, as the sun at mid-day, that they were not inspired by God, for they speak according to their whims and fancies, according to their intents and purposes, and God permits this frightful diversity of opinions, that they may confound each other. But what is most astonishing is that these different sects, so animated, so inveterate against each other, unite as one body against the Church of Rome, and what is equally extraordinary, until within these last few years, they permitted the public service of every sect in England and in Holland, while proscribing the Catholic Church, which was forbidden and denounced, although many of their ministers had declared that they could be saved in that religion. Now whence sprung this great enmity to the Roman Church, unless from this, that Protestants in these countries did not wish t»> have before their eyes a religion from which they themselves were deserters and apostates. This is the reason why they feared a religion which commands ohedience to ecclesiastical rale, and submission to secular authority. They feared a religion which commands the mortification of the flesh, which ordains fasts and abstinences, which obliges us to keep our passions under, to confess our sins, and to do penance.

Truth is one of the glorious attributes of God, and consequently I here again ask, in the presence of an enlightened public,—and recollect this is a most material point, and requires a clear and satisfactory answer,—Could Christ have instructed the Lutheran that he was really present in the Eucharist, and at the same time have informed the Zuinglian that he was there but in figure ? Oh surely not; for such conduct as this would make him the God of contradiction and not the God of truth—such a supposition, even for a moment, would be blasphemy. The more we reflect, the more we ponder on our duty to God, the more we shall see the absolute insanity of separating ourselves from the chair of unity, that is, from the chair of Peter. I cannot do better than to request the serious attention of my readers, whilst I lay before them a powerful and most satisfactory quotation from a most profound Catholic theologian, in which he shews, yes, and demonstratively shews, that the real presence was ever the doctrine of the Catholic Church, from the very era of the Apostles. He says:—

"The belief of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, must have been the common belief of the Church; or, it must have happened by some inconceivable miracle, that not one of all the Christians of the world, though they were unceasingly urged by the language which expressed the real presence to believe that doctrine, ever yielded to a temptation, that proved afterwards to be so alluring and so powerful, as to seduce in an instant all the faithful of the universe. Had the ancient Church believed the real presence, it would be much less extraordinary, that none of its members should have been ever tempted to believe that Jesus Christ was not present in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, as the mystery of the real presence, like other mysteries of religion, has its peculiar difficulties, Catholics show that these difficulties have been followed by their natural consequences—that they have shaken the faith of some and thrown them into doubt and infidelity. The Capharnaites were the first who were scandalized at this mystery, and they abandoned Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius testifies, that some of the early heretics would not confess that the eucharist was the flesh, which Jesus Christ offered for us. Hesichius says, that we ought to consume by the fire of charity all the doubts that arise in the mind against this mystery. It is related in the Lives of the Fathers, that a solitary having fallen through ignorance in the error that the bread which we receive in the holy communion is not the natural body of Jesus Christ, but his body in figure only, two other ancient solitaries warned him not to adhere to his opinion, but to follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church, all the members of which believe, that the bread is the body of Jesus Christ, and the wine his blood, not in figure but in truth; they afterwards convinced him by a miracle, which their prayers obtained from God, that their doctrine was true. In the life of St. Gregory, written by John the Deacon, we find that a woman who had fallen into a similar error was converted by a miracle, which St. Gregory performed in the presence of all the people.

The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 2.

THE 

 CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 

 OF THE 

 

EUCHARIST, 

 

DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVED 

 

FROM SCRIPTURE, FROM TRADITION, 

 AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT 

 

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AUTHORS WHO HAVE 

 

TREATED ON THE SUBJECT; 

 

IN SIXTEEN LETTERS, 

 

WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES, 

 

ADDRESSED TO 

 

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, 

 

AND DEDICATED BY PERMISSION 

 

TO HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY THE 

 EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, KING OF HUNGARY, 

 

BOHEMIA, ETC. 

 

BY M. D. TALBOT.

PREFACE. (b)

The Church of England does not expound these words literally, nor yet figuratively; for she neither believes in trail -substantiation nor in consubstantiation, neither real presence nor yet real absence, and to confess the truth, I repeat here what I said in one of my former works, I do not well know what she believes in that particular,—and what is worse, to the best of my understanding, she does not know herself. For the Catechism which is put into the hands of children and the common people (wherein surely the articles of faith must, if anywhere, be clearly and plainly expounded) teaches " that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper;" which, I am sure, is the very same with the doctrine of the Council of Trent—her " verily and indeed " being the selfsame thing with that Council's "vere et realiter." Yet if you should ask the majority of her divines of the present day, whether the body and blood of Christ be, verily and indeed, in the sacrament? they will answer you, No (1) If you ask them further, how can you then, verily and indeed, take and receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if it be not there ? Some will answer you, " That though his body and blood be not there, yet when you take the bread and wine, you take at the same time the body and blood of Christ to all the intents and purposes of the sacrament;" but this i« such a riddle, that it surpasses my skill to unfold. Others say, " That by an act of faith you do verily and indeed take and receive the body and blood of Christ when you receive the elements." But if you urge the difficulty further, and tell them, that " to receive the body and blood of Christ by faith, is no more to receive it verily and indeed, than to receive an idea or representation of a thing to which you give assent, is to receive the thing itself." But suppose it were, they must admit of Christ's body being in several places at once, which is the inconvenience they would wish to avoid, by rejecting the real presence in the sacrament; for if one in London, and another in York, or elsewhere, should at the same time (as is very possible) verily and indeed take the body and blood of Christ, then surely the body must be in two different places at once. If you urge, I say, the difficulty thus far, you are not likely to get any answer which either you or any one else can understand. So that though the Church of England has many advantages over the Lutherans and Calvinists, yet in this she is neither so reasonable as they, nor so consistent with herself, nor yet with common sense.

The faith of Protestants then is doubtful, wavering, without a knowledge of what to adhere to; nevertheless, their celebrated Keformers, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Carlostadius, (Ecolampadius, Muntzer, (the disciple of Luther, and chief of the Anabaptists,) Melancthon, and a great number more, when they apostatized from the Church in communion with the See of Rome, every one of them boasted he possessed a perfect knowledge of the Scriptures, but soon afterwards they divided into different sects; the frightful diversity in their interpretations, frequently of the whole of a passage itself, is an evident demonstration that it was the spirit of erroneous novelty which actuated them, and not the spirit of God, which is always the same; and consequently that neither Protestants, nor any who do not submit to the inspired decisions of the Catholic Church, can be certain of anything, neither as regards the number of the books of Scripture, nor of the fidelity of the translations, nor of the true reading of the texts, and of necessity their faith is purely human, and insufficient to guide to eternal life. But the Apostles and the Councils of the Roman Catholic Church have invariably spoken the same language, because they were animated by the spirit of God, an evident proof that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and this is the reason why they invariably express the same sentiments upon the revealed articles in every age, and in every Council, although these Councils were composed of so many different nations, and of so many different dispositions and tempers; there never was held a Council but commenced by confirming and ratifying what the preceding Councils had decided on as articles of faith, and all that according to the infallible word of Jesus Christ, who promised to his Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against her.

1 The learned Julius Vindex clearly proves that the doctrine of the real presence (if the most eminent Divines of the Church of England are to be believed) is no less the real doctrine of the Church of England that it is that of the Church of Rome. See Letter II. of this series,

THE GIFT DIVINE pt 2 By The Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. S.T.D.

III. THE LITURGY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
The ceremonies centered about the Holy Eucharist are of two types—those established by Christ and those established by the Church. The former were performed by our Lord at the Last Supper, and consisted of the consecration—that is, the change of the bread and wine into His body and blood by the words: “This is My body….. This is My blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins"—and the distribution of Holy Communion to His disciples.* This ceremony which took place at the Last Supper was not only the institution and the administration of a sacrament but also the offering of a sacrifice. By a sacrifice is meant a religious rite designed to honor God and to atone for sin by offering to the Almighty a victim, and destroying or slaying it. That Christ offered a sacrifice at the Last Supper with His own body and blood as the victim is evident from His own words. For He said of His body, present under the species of bread, that it was being given for you (Luke xxii. 19), and of His blood, present under the species of wine, that it was being shed unto remission of sins (Matthew xxvi. 28). Such expressions clearly indicate that He was performing a sacrificial rite. Since then our Saviour offered a sacrifice at the Last Supper, the rite in which the Holy Eucharist is consecrated—the Mass, as we call it—is also a sacrifice. For the Mass is the repetition of what He did at the Last Supper, in compliance with His command: “Do this for a commemoration of Me.” The supreme sacrifice of the Christian dispensation is indeed our Saviour‟s death on the cross. By the efficacy of this sacrifice the Eternal Father received infinite honor and thanksgiving, and all men received sufficient means for the pardon of their sins and for the attainment of eternal life. The Mass does not add any merit or satisfaction to the sacrifice of the Cross; it merely applies to men the merits and satisfactions of this sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Mass is a true sacrifice, giving honor and thanks to God, renewing the Sacrifice of the Cross, and having as its victim and principal priest the same Christ who was the victim and the priest in the sacrifice of the first Good Friday. The chief difference between the two is that whereas on the cross our Lord‟s blood was really shed and He really died, in the Mass His blood is separated from His body only figuratively, by the twofold consecration of the bread into His body and the wine into His blood.

** We say that on Calvary Christ was immolated in a bloody manner, in the Mass in an unbloody manner; or, that on Calvary He really died, in the Mass He dies only mystically.

* Although the scriptural narrative does not state that our Saviour Himself received Holy Communion at the Last Supper, it is probable that He did so.

**Although our Lord is present wholly and entirely under each of the two species, as far as the words of consecration are concerned only His body becomes present under the species of bread and only His blood under the species of wine. Hence, in the twofold consecration there is a vivid representation of Christ’s death................

Some theologians believe that the Last Supper and the Cross were two distinct sacrifices, while others think they were the two parts of one and the same sacrifice — the offering and the immolation respectively. However, this question is very secondary to the important doctrines on which all Catholics agree — that both at the Last Supper and on Calvary Our Lord performed a sacrificial function, and that the Mass is a true sacrifice renewing the sacrificial death of Christ in a mystical manner, just as the rite of the Last Supper in a mystical manner anticipated it. As was said above, Christ is the principal priest in the offering of every Mass, inasmuch as He instituted this sacred rite and commissioned the Apostles and their successors in the ministry to continue it in His name. Perhaps, too, He takes a direct and immediate part in the celebration of every Mass, invisibly exercising His priestly power in union with the visible priest when he says the words: “This is My body ... This is My blood.” Only those can offer Mass as officiating priests who have received the priestly power through the sacramental rite of ordination from bishops who in turn have received their power in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles. However, in this group are included not only Catholic priests but also the priests of the non-Catholic Oriental churches, in which bishops have been properly consecrated and priests properly ordained even after these churches separated from Catholic unity. But the Catholic Church does not recognize the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice in the clergymen of the Anglican Church, because in the sixteenth century this denomination changed the rite of ordination so that it was no longer able to confer the priesthood. The second class of eucharistic ceremonies, those established by the Church, are numerous and inspiring. Thus, the simple form of sacrificial act established by Christ—the consecration and Communion— has been enhanced in the course of time by the Church‟s legislation adding the reading of portions of the Old and New Testament, prayers of praise, thanksgiving and petition, the use of incense, vestments, music, etc. In these matters there is considerable diversity in different parts of the Church, especially between the Western (or Latin) church and the Eastern (Oriental) churches. Thus, at the present day the Holy Sacrifice is offered by Catholics in eleven different languages and seventeen different rites, or ceremonial usages. Among Eastern Christians the term Liturgy is used to designate the eucharistic sacrifice, which Latin Catholics call the Mass. Although the additions made by the Church to this sacred rite are not necessary to make it a sacrifice, priests are strictly obliged to employ them, apart from very extraordinary circumstances. For example, in lands where the Church is being persecuted the Pope sometimes permits priests to offer Mass in an abbreviated form and without the use of vestments. But there never can be any dispensation from the essential features of the Holy Sacrifice instituted by Christ—the consecration of both bread and wine and the Communion (at least of the priest). Although only an ordained priest can celebrate Mass, the laity also participate in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. For the act of sacrifice is a public function, performed in the name of a society; and so, it is in reality the entire Church that offers each Mass through the priest as a public official. Accordingly, the laity assisting at Mass should realize that they are collaborating with the priest at the altar in offering the Divine Victim to His heavenly Father, and should join in the sacred rite as intimately as possible. For this purpose it is commendable to follow the prayers and ceremonies in a Missal. To receive Holy Communion during the Mass is also a praiseworthy act, since it is not only the reception of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist but is likewise the partaking of the Victim of the eucharistic sacrifice. And although strictly speaking only the priest who celebrates Mass is obliged to partake of the Holy Eucharist at the Communion, it is the wish of the Church that at every Mass some of the laity receive the body and blood of our Saviour “in order that more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice may come to them,” as the Council of Trent expressed it (Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 944). In most of the Eastern rites the faithful communicate under the appearances of both bread and wine, and this was the custom in the Latin Church also in the early centuries. But since the fifteenth century, according to the general law in the Latin Church,* Holy Communion is administered under the species of bread alone, so that only priests celebrating Mass receive both species. There are good reasons for this, such as the danger that the consecrated species of wine may be spilled. Ancient tradition justifies this practice, for although in the early days of Christianity both species were ordinarily * There are some exceptions. For example, the deacon and the subdeacon at the Pope’s Solemn Mass receive the Blessed Sacrament under both species administered, there were some exceptions. Thus, those who were confined to bed by sickness or were in prison were given only the species of bread, while infants were sometimes communicated immediately after Baptism with the species of wine alone. The doctrinal basis of this restriction of Holy Communion to one species is the Catholic teaching that Christ is entirely present under each species, so that a person who receives only the species of bread receives the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Saviour just as completely as a person who receives both species. It is worth noting that a Latin Catholic is permitted to receive Holy Communion under both species from an Oriental Catholic priest in whose rite the Blessed Sacrament is administered in this manner. Out of reverence for the Holy Eucharist the Church prescribes that ordinarily one may not receive Holy Communion unless he has abstained from all food and drink since midnight.(See current rules below) In reckoning midnight one may follow any system of time that may be to his advantage. Thus, when daylight saving time prevails, a person need not begin this eucharistic fast until 1 A. M., which is midnight by standard time. However, one who is not fasting may receive Holy Communion as viaticum if he is in danger of death, and also may consume the Blessed Sacrament to preserve It from violation. Moreover, one who has been confined to bed by illness for a month and has no hope of a speedy recovery may receive Holy Communion once or twice a week, with the advice of his confessor, after having taken medicine or liquid nourishment. Finally, the Holy See sometimes grants special permission to individuals or groups to receive Holy Communion after taking food or drink when it would be impossible or very difficult for them to observe the eucharistic fast. The eucharistic ceremonies in vogue in the Catholic Church besides Mass and Holy Communion, such as Benediction, processions of the Blessed Sacrament, visits to our Lord in the tabernacle, are of ecclesiastical origin. They are of long standing use in the Church and are commended to the devotion of the faithful as a means of animating their faith and stimulating their love toward Him who for love of us dwells ever in our midst.

What are the current rules for fasting before Holy Communion?
(a) For many centuries the Church commanded a strict fast from midnight before one could receive Holy Communion. However, in the 1950's Pope Pius XII introduced a much more lenient form of fasting before Holy Communion in order to give Catholics an opportunity to receive Holy Communion more frequently.
(b) Pope Pius XII also allowed the celebration of afternoon and evening Masses every day, when the spiritual good of a considerable number of the faithful requires it. It is the right of the bishop of each diocese to decide when such Masses may be offered in his diocese.
(c) Paul VI further reduced the fasting requirement after the Second Vatican Council, requiring only a one hour fast from all food and drink (excluding water). This may be reduced to 15 minutes for those who are sick or for other important reasons. This is the practice currently in force.
When may Holy Communion be received without fasting?
Holy Communion may be received without fasting when one is in danger of death, or when it is necessary to save the Blessed Sacrament from insult or injury.
(a) Ordinarily the danger of death comes from sickness or injury. But it is not necessary that a person be in danger of death from sickness in order to receive Holy Communion without fasting. The danger of death may come from some other cause. A soldier, for example, who is about to go into battle or a person about to be executed may receive Holy Communion without fasting.

IV. THE DIVINE GUEST OF THE SOUL
When promising the Holy Eucharist our divine Saviour said: “Amen, amen I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” (John vi. 54). From these words it is evident, that there is a grave obligation incumbent on all the members of Christs Church to receive Holy Communion. However, it is not the same type of obligation as that which binds all men to receive Baptism, or that which binds those who have sinned grievously after Baptism to receive Penance. These obligations are concerned with a means necessary to salvation, whereas the obligation to receive the Holy Eucharist denotes only a precept to be fulfilled. However, it is a divine precept, since it was imposed by the Son of God. Our Lord did not specify how frequently we must receive His body and blood, but left the determination of this matter to His Church. In the earlier centuries the faithful were commanded to approach the holy table at least three times a year —at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost; but in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran decreed that those who have reached the age of discretion must receive Holy Communion at least once a year, and that at Easter. This legislation still prevails. Moreover, Catholics old enough for Holy Communion are obliged to receive the Holy Eucharist as viaticum (literally “food for a journey”) when they are in danger of death. The Lateran Council mentioned above decreed that the obligation to receive Holy Communion should begin with “the years of discretion,” and until comparatively recent times this phrase was generally interpreted as signifying the age of ten or twelve years. However, in 1910 a decree of the Roman Congregation of the Sacraments, approved by Pope Pius X, prescribed that the age of discretion is to be understood as synonymous with the age of the beginning of reason, which usually occurs about the seventh year. And so, in recent times little ones of tender years have been admitted to the holy table. Of course, children only seven years old cannot be expected to have an adequate understanding of the Holy Eucharist           

The Easter season, during which this precept can be fulfilled, by the general law of the Church lasts from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, two weeks. For good reasons a bishop may extend this period in his diocese from the fourth Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday, eleven weeks. In the United States, by special dispensation, the Easter season lasts from the first Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday, fourteen weeks.

Holy Communion also produces a social effect, in that it unites all Catholics into one great family, irrespective of national and educational and economic distinctions. It is true, Baptism fundamentally constitutes the bond between the members of the Church, but the Holy Eucharist fosters this unity so effectively that it is sometimes called “the sacrament of unity.” For, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, Europeans and Africans and Americans gather at the same banquet table to partake of the same food, the body and the blood of Christ, the Saviour of all mankind. And greater aid toward the promotion of peace and friendliness among men is provided by this common participation in the Holy Eucharist than by man-made pacts and International laws. The effects of Holy Communion are proportionate to the fervor of the recipients. Hence, it is most important that we prepare devoutly and attentively for each Holy Communion. It is sometimes stated that a single Holy Communion can make the recipient a saint; and the statement is no exaggeration, for as far as the power of the Blessed Sacrament is concerned, there is no limit to the graces it can bestow. The only limitations are those set by the dispositions of mind and heart found in the communicants. Besides a devout preparation, we should also make a fervent thanksgiving, for our Lord is truly present within our breast for about fifteen minutes after the actual reception of Holy Communion, and this amount of time at least should be employed in acts of ardent love and of petition for the graces we need. We have been speaking of the benefits conferred on men by the Holy Eucharist as a sacrament. As a sacrifice the Holy Eucharist is intended primarily to adore and to thank God and to atone to Him for sin. However, it also obtains actual graces for those who share in its efficacy and obtains for them the remission of some of the debt of temporal punishment. The most practical way of benefiting by both the sacrificial and the sacramental power of the Holy Eucharist is to assist attentively at Mass and to receive Holy Communion devoutly. The most common name of the great sacrament we have been studying—the Holy Eucharist—indicates the sentiment that should predominate in our heart when we think of this supreme gift of our Blessed Saviour. For the word “Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving.” This name is given to the sacrament of Christs body and blood because at its institution He gave thanks to His Father (Matthew xxvi. 27). It is a most appropriate title because through the eucharistic sacrifice we can best thank the Almighty for His favors to us, and also because this name reminds us that we should ever be grateful to our Lord for giving us Himself in this sacrament. And the most suitable way to show our gratitude is to make the Holy Eucharist the very center of our lives, proving by our devout assistance at Mass, our frequent visits to the Blessed Sacrament and our fervent reception of Holy Communion that we are profoundly thankful to the Son of God for this most precious gift of His love.

Imprimi Potest: WILLIAM T. McCARTY, C.SS.R., Provincial Superior. Brooklyn, N. Y., November 9, 1939. Nihil Obstat: ARTHUR J. SCANLAN, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. lmprimatur: FRANCIS J. SPELLMAN,  Archbishop of New York. New York, December 14, 1939

THE GIFT DIVINE pt 1 By The Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. S.T.D.

I. THE BREAD OF LIFE
ONE day more than nineteen centuries ago a man was preaching to an attentive group in the Jewish synagogue at Capharnaum, a city situated near the Lake of Genesareth in Palestine. He was Jesus, well known to the people of that region as a prophet who taught sublime doctrines and a lofty code of morality, proclaiming them to be the revelations of God Himself. To support His claim, He performed wondrous deeds which evidently could be accomplished only with the miraculous assistance of the Almighty. Even now, as He was speaking, His listeners recalled that two days previously He had fed a multitude of five thousand persons with five barley loaves and two fishes, and some even knew that afterwards He had walked upon the waters of the storm-tossed sea to meet His disciples struggling in their tiny boat. With these thoughts in mind to persuade them that when a man exercised such extraordinary power it must be that the God of truth was attesting the correctness of His statements, the people listened to an astounding promise from the lips of Him whom Catholics acknowledge as the Son of God made man. “I am the bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst. . . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world. . . . Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him” (John vi. 35-57). Thus did Jesus Christ promise to give His flesh and blood to be the food and drink of men. Evidently His listeners on this occasion took His words literally, for they asked one another in astonishment: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” And when Christ repeated His wondrous promise in even more explicit language, many who had been His followers up to that time complained: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” and departed from Him forever. Then our Lord turned to the little band of twelve chosen disciples, and put the pathetic question: “Will you also go away?” With unwavering faith the loyal Peter answered: “Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John vi. 53-70). A year rolled by, and the feast of the Pasch was at hand. Christ had expressed an ardent longing to eat the ceremonial banquet ushering in that feast with His Apostles. “With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer” (Luke xxii. 15). Evidently, He intended to do or to say something of great importance on this occasion. What this was He revealed after the ritual supper was ended on that memorable Thursday evening. He then took bread, rendered thanks to God, and breaking the bread gave it to His disciples with the words: “Take ye and eat; this is My body.” Then taking a cup of wine, He gave it to them to drink, with the words: “Drink ye all of this. For this is My blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” Finally our Lord commanded that the rite which He had performed should be continued in His Church, for He said: “Do this for a commemoration of Me” (Matthew xxvi. 26-28; Luke xxii. 19). Thus did Jesus Christ institute the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist—a sacrament venerated by Catholics as the greatest of the sacraments. Moreover, in most of the other Christian denominations a rite of this nature is administered, known among Protestants as the Lord‟s Supper or Holy Communion. However, there is a vast difference of belief between Catholics and the majority of Protestants as to what this sacrament really contains. The usual Protestant view is that the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine, symbolizing our Lord‟s body and blood. Catholics believe that this sacrament contains the living, physical flesh and blood of our Saviour; and this is known as the doctrine of the Real Presence. The Oriental churches separated from the Catholic Church such as the Greek Orthodox Church, also accept this doctrine, as do some Lutherans and Anglicans. Of course, the crucial point is the significance of Christ‟s words when He promised and when He instituted this sacrament. For, since He empowered His Apostles to do whatever He had done at the Last Supper, and since their power has been transmitted to their successors in the sacred ministry, it follows that if Christ promised to give, and later actually gave His real body and blood to the little group around the supper table, the Holy Eucharist consecrated by the bishops and priests who have inherited the powers of the Apostles also contains the living Christ. What reasons have Catholics for believing that our Saviour gave the Apostles His real body and blood? In the first place, we point to the undeniable fact that His words, both on the occasion of the promise and at the Last Supper, if taken literally, denote a true, and not a merely symbolic presence of Himself in the Holy Eucharist. He could not have expressed this more clearly or more forcibly than He did: “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life. . . . For My flesh is meat (food) indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. . . . This is My body…This is My blood.” Now, it is a universally accepted principle of interpretation that words are to be taken in their literal sense unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Are there any such reasons in the present instance? Those who deny the doctrine of the Real Presence do indeed adduce numerous arguments against the literal acceptance of Christ‟s statements, but an honest examination of these arguments will show that they all have one common basis—the difficulty of understanding how our Lord‟s real body and blood can be simultaneously present in thousands of places in a manner imperceptible to human senses. Now, this is only a repetition of the argument brought up by those who listened to Christ Himself at Capharnaum: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat? . . . This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” The weakness of this argument is that it measures divine power by human standards. He who has assured us that the Holy Eucharist contains His body and blood is the all-powerful, all-truthful God. Shall we twist His assertions to suit our ideas just because our puny intellects cannot understand how the miracle of the Real Presence takes place? Should we not rather exclaim with St. Peter: “Thou hast the words of eternal life,” and humbly acknowledge as divine truth the sublime doctrine which the Son of God has made known to us with His own lips? Secondly, the attitude of those who heard Christ‟s promise and His reaction furnish an argument for the Real Presence. It is very evident that they understood our Lord to be referring to His own body and blood, and not to a mere symbol. Now, from Christ‟s manner of acting on other occasions we can conclude that if they had interpreted Him wrongly He would have set them right. Thus, when the disciples understood literally His announcement: “Lazarus sleepeth,” He told them plainly: “Lazarus is dead.” Again, when He spoke of meat which He had to eat, and they thought He referred to material food, He told them: “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me” (John xi. 11-14; iv. 32-34). But on the present occasion, when it was evident that His followers were accepting His words literally, He did not say: “I intend merely to give you bread and wine as a symbol of My body and blood.” On the contrary, He repeated His promise even more explicitly; and though He saw many departing from His company, He uttered not a single word implying that He had been speaking in figurative language. Thirdly, with His supernatural knowledge Christ foresaw that in the course of future ages millions of devout Christians, relying on His words, would accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, and adore Him as truly contained in the Holy Eucharist. With this realization before His mind, how could our Saviour have been free from the grossest deception if He did not intend His words to be taken literally and yet gave no further explanation? Indeed, if the Holy Eucharist contained nothing more than bread and wine, Christ would be responsible for innumerable sins of idolatry. From the earliest days of its existence the Catholic Church has firmly proclaimed the doctrine of the Real Presence, as is clearly attested by the writings of the first centuries. St. Justin, who wrote in the second century, said: “We receive (the Holy Eucharist) not as common bread or as common drink. We have been taught that this nourishment is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus” (Apologia I, 66). Tertullian, writing in the third century, stated: “Our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that our soul may be nourished by God” (De Resurrectione Carnis, 8). Such quotations from the early writers could be multiplied almost indefinitely. It was only in the eleventh century that the doctrine of the Real Presence was first denied explicitly by one claiming to be a Christian—a certain Berengarius. Very few followed his teaching until the sixteenth century, when a large number of those who accepted the new creed of Protestantism, especially as proclaimed by Calvin and Zwingli, rejected the traditional belief of Christians in the reality of Christ‟s sacramental presence. However, Martin Luther and his disciples upheld the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, although they dissented from the Catholic Church as to the manner in which Christ takes up His abode in this sacrament. In the Catholic Church the Holy Eucharist is the very center of worship and devotion, and as the most excellent of the sacraments is often known as “The Blessed Sacrament.” In view of the sublimity of the doctrine of the Real Presence it is not surprising that Catholic poets and painters and musicians have devoted the best efforts of their artistic genius toward expressing veneration and affection for the Son of God, ever dwelling in our midst in the Holy Eucharist and thus fulfilling in a wonderful manner His consoling promises: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew xxviii. 20).
II. THE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Although our Saviour has told us clearly that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, He has not explained fully the manner of His presence. Nevertheless, from a careful study of what He has told us, the Church and Catholic theologians under the guidance of the Church have compiled a systematic and fairly extensive explanation of the mode in which Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament. We can divide the Church's doctrines and the teachings of theology on this subject into two classes — those concerning the manner in which our Lord becomes present, and those concerning the manner in which He remains present. Under the first heading the most important point is the doctrine, taught by the Catholic Church as an article of faith, that our Lord becomes present in the Holy Eucharist by that process of change of the bread and wine known as transubstantiation. We could imagine various ways in which the Real Presence could take place. Doubtless Christ could enter into the substances of the bread and wine and coexist with them, somewhat as fire exists in and with a mass of molten metal. This view of the sacramental presence, known as the doctrine of consubstantiation, was defended by Martin Luther, and is accepted by many present-day Lutherans. Or, perhaps the soul of Christ could be united to the substance of the bread or wine in each host or chalice, making out of each a body. But in this latter case our Lord would not have the same body in the Holy Eucharist that He has in heaven, but would have a new body wherever the Holy Eucharist would be consecrated. However, all such modes are excluded by the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that our Lord becomes present by transubstantiation—that is, the change of the entire substance of the bread and of the wine into the same body of our Saviour that was born of the Virgin Mary and is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Every material thing is made up of substance and accidents. The accidents are those elements which are perceived by our senses, such as color and taste and quantity. The substance is the thing beneath the accidents, supporting them in existence, yet itself imperceptible. Thus, we refer to the whiteness of the bread, the sweetness of the wine, the height of the tree, thus indicating that whiteness or sweetness or height is distinct from that which constitutes the substance of bread or wine or wood. Now, at the consecration of the Mass it is the substance of bread or wine that is changed into the body or blood of our Saviour, not the accidents. Moreover, the entire substance of bread or wine is changed, and thus this process differs essentially from any of the substantial changes that take place according to the laws of nature. For in the case of a natural substantial change—such as the change of wood into carbon or the change of hydrogen and oxygen into water— something of the previous substance is carried over into the ensuing substance, while only the element that determines each substance to be what it is differs in the two substances involved. The element common to both is called the matter, the distinctive element of each is called the form. Accordingly, a natural substantial change is called a transformation, because only the form of the previous substance passes away and only the form of the ensuing substance is new. But in transubstantiation both matter and form of the bread or wine pass away, the substance of our Lord‟s body or blood being entirely different. All this is implied in our Lord‟s own words: “This is My body.” For these words indicated that the substance of the bread was no longer present, but had been changed into the substance of Christ‟s body. Furthermore, it was a change of the entire substance of the bread, because what was then present was the identical body which the Apostles saw before them, and that differed both as to matter and as to form from the substance of the bread which Christ had taken from the table. The accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged. These accidents—also called appearances or species—could not naturally continue to exist without a material substance to support them, but in the Holy Eucharist they are miraculously sustained in being by the direct power of the Almighty. There is no more difficulty involved in this than if God were to support a stone in the air without any created cause to hold it up. Consequently, the eucharistic species continue to act in the same manner as they would if the substance of bread or wine were still upholding them. Our senses perceive the color, the taste, the odor of bread and wine. When the Blessed Sacrament is consumed in Holy Communion, the same process of digestion and nutrition ensues as if bread had been eaten. All this is quite normal, since the accidents continue to exist unchanged. For a material substance is not of itself perceptible or active; it is perceived and it acts only through its accidents. Hence, the consecrated species, being preserved in existence by the power of God, function in the same manner as if the substances of bread and wine were still present. Under the doctrines concerning the manner in which our Lord remains present in the Holy Eucharist comes first the truth of His permanent abiding. This means that after the consecration Christ remains present under the sacramental species as long as they retain the appearances proper to them as the accidents of bread and wine. It is only when the process of digestion or disintegration produces such a change in the consecrated species that they no longer have the taste, color, etc., of bread and wine that the Real Presence ceases. Some ancient writers held that Christ leaves the sacred host when it is given in Communion to a sinner; and the Lutherans believe that our Lord is present only during the Communion service. The Catholic Church on the contrary teaches the permanence of the Real Presence in the sense just explained. This doctrine is the basis of the many devotions practiced in the Catholic Church in honor of the Holy Eucharist outside the time of Mass and Holy Communion, such as Benediction, the Forty Hours‟ Devotion and visits to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle. Another Catholic doctrine explanatory of the manner of Christ‟s presence asserts its totality. This means that our Lord is present in His entirety—that is, with His body, blood, soul and divinity—under each of the two consecrated species. It is true, the words of consecration spoken over the bread signify and effect of themselves the presence of His body only; but since the body that becomes present is the same body that is now enthroned in heavenly glory, and that body is inseparably united to the blood, the soul and the divine personality, the entire Christ becomes present under the accidents of bread. In theological language we say that the body of our Lord is present in the host by the power of the words of consecration, while His blood, soul and divinity are present by concomitance. Similarly we conclude that under the accidents of wine the blood of Christ is present by the power of the words of consecration, while His body, soul and divinity are present by concomitance. Moreover, Christ is entirely present in each portion of the consecrated host and of the consecrated species of wine. We cannot, of course, fully understand how a complete human body can be truly present in so small a compass, and can be simultaneously present in many thousands of consecrated hosts and chalices; yet we can acquire a limited conception of these marvels by analyzing the idea of quantity. When we think of a body as having quantity, the first thing we attribute to it is a number of parts, each related to the others and distinct from them. This aspect of quantity we call internal extension. Next we conceive the body as occupying a definite space, so that the whole body fills the whole space, and each part fills a distinct part of the space. This we call external extension. Now, we believe that while our Lord‟s body in the Blessed Sacrament has the first element of quantity, it does not possess the second in relation to the place occupied by the consecrated species. The various parts of His body—head, trunk, limbs, etc.—are present in their full perfection and proportion, entirely distinct from one another. But, by a miracle, His body is not contained in the place where the Blessed Sacrament is present in such wise that each part of the body occupies a different part of the place, as is the case with our bodies. On the contrary, it is present somewhat after the manner in which a person‟s soul is present in his body—wholly and entirely in every part. And since our Lord‟s body is not restricted by the space-boundaries of any particular host, it can exist simultaneously in any number of consecrated hosts throughout the entire world. Since the body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is the same body that is present in heaven, it performs on the altar the same actions that it is eliciting with its faculties in the kingdom of the blessed — for example, gazing on the radiant beauty of our Lady and speaking to her. The question naturally arises, whether our Lord with His bodily eyes sees those who kneel in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament and with His bodily ears hears their prayers and hymns of praise. It seems that He does not, since His senses have no external extension in the Holy Eucharist, and so are not adapted to receive impressions from what goes on around them. Doubtless by a miracle His body could be rendered capable of such sense-perception, but such a miracle is not called for, since in the vision of the divine nature which His human intellect always possesses Christ dearly beholds the thoughts and actions of all men. And so, when we kneel before the Blessed Sacrament we can be assured that our every act of adoration and of love, our every manifestation of devotion, are perfectly known by Him whom we venerate beneath the Eucharistic species. And the realization of the wonderful miracles wrought by divine omnipotence to give us the living Christ for our strength and consolation should prompt us to exclaim from the depths of our hearts: O Sacrament most holy, O Sacrament divine, All praise and all thanksgiving be every moment thine.

The Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist. Part 1.

THE 

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 

OF THE 

EUCHARIST, 

DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVED 

FROM SCRIPTURE, FROM TRADITION, 

AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT 

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AUTHORS WHO HAVE 

TREATED ON THE SUBJECT; 

IN SIXTEEN LETTERS, 

WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES, 

ADDRESSED TO 

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, 

AND DEDICATED BY PERMISSION 

TO HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY THE 

EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, KING OF HUNGARY, 

BOHEMIA, ETC. 

BY M. D. TALBOT.

PREFACE. (a)

A long time ago the holy Fathers assured us, that the devil is the author of all heresies, and that separatists are the disciples of this bad master. The illustrious St. Augustine says: " Seeing that men had abandoned the temples which they had dedicated to him, and that they ran to the Mediator who truly delivers all those who place their confidence in his name, he raised up heretics who, under the name and appearance of Christians, combat the doctrine of Jesus Christ."— (St. August. Lib. 18, de Civ. Dei. c. 51.)

St. Cyprian had written the same before him; in speaking of the Novatian schismatics, he says: " The spirit of malice, seeing that the people in crowds embrace the religion of Jesus Christ, the idols and the temples which were before his dwellings were now abandoned, that he made use of a new stratagem to deceive, under the appearance of the name of Christians, those who were not sufficiently on their guard against his hypocritical machinations; he caused to rise up heresies and schisms to upset the faith, to corrupt the truth, and to destroy unity, and in this manner surprises and deceives, by the errors of new doctrines, those whom he cannot retain in the darkness of their former course."— (St. Cypr. Tract 3, de Sinip. prcelat.)

Even if the Fathers of the Church, the venerable witnesses of the faith, had not given us this information, the Gospel would have instructed us on this point, when it calls the devil the father of lies.—(St. John viii. 44.) It is easy therefore to conclude, that he is the father of all pernicious falsehoods, which corrupt the sacred doctrine of the Church, which extinguish the spirit of God (Thess. v. 19) in our souls, and destroy faith. But if common sense points out to Catholics the propriety of attributing all heretical doctrines to the devil, surely the same common sense ought to convince separatists of the mad folly of being guided by him. The design of heresy is to pass for the truth; the means which she takes to insure success are detestable, and equally as vile and infamous as her origin, springing as she does from the father of lies. Thus all separatists, far from declaring their opinions to proceed from the devil, endeavour by all means in their power to persuade the world that they were revealed by God; they wish it to be believed, that their doctrines proceed from the Holy Ghost, or that the Holy Spirit speaks through their mouths,—thus they consider it to be of vital importance to make God appear to be the author of the doctrine which they wish to have received. To accomplish their object, they therefore corrupt, with the most unblushing effrontery, the sacred Scriptures, and following as they do their own whims and fancies, they consequently never agree among themselves upon the meaning of the texts of holy Scripture; for on that passage alone, " This is my body," (St. Matthew xxvi. 26,) I remark no less than sixty different interpretations given to it. Martin Luther and his adherents expound these words, " This is my body," literally, and therefore believe the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament; but being however resolved to incommode the Pope, as Luther says, (Epist. ad Calvin,) they add, that the substance of the bread and wine is likewise there; and to extricate themselves from a difficulty which attends the real presence, they affirm moreover, that the body of Christ is everywhere. And thus they have brought forth two new points of faith never before heard of, namely, consubstantiation and ubiquity; and this the writers of the Church of England call an absurd and monstrous doctrine. Zuinglius, in contradiction to Luther, asserts that these words must only be understood in reference to the simple figure of the body of Christ. Calvin endeavoured to reconcile these two interpretations, but I cannot discover what he really wishes to express when he says, " that the body of Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but only by faith." Zuinglius tells us, that he himself was the first that found out this exposition, by the help of a certain angel which appeared to him, but whether he was black or white, he says, he cannot tell; so that, for aught he knew, it may be the doctrine of the devil. I am sure Luther at least thought so, (See Epist. ad Calvin,) for he calls Calvin a devil, for offering to obtrude his doctrine upon the world, and for wresting the plain words of our Saviour to such a sense.