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. (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.
 |
| 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.
