Page images
PDF
EPUB

PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.*

[ocr errors]

is unfortunately true, and it has been a thousand times proved by experience, that individuals may deviate from the path of sound doctrine, and by following the wanderings of their imagination, fall into the abyss of error. But that the same should ever happen to the Church of Christ is absolutely impossible. It is impossible, for instance, that, if our Lord were not substantially present in the eucharist, and never taught the dogma of transubstantiation to his apostles, nor his apostles to the primitive Christians, that the Church should have ever been induced to admit these doctrines; and vice versa, if these doctrines have been at any period believed by the whole Church, as they certainly were, e. g., at the beginning of the pretended reformation, and also when Berengarius appeared towards the middle of the eleventh century, it is impossible that they should not have been always believed from the very origin of Christianity. Otherwise how could the Church be called "the pillar and ground of the truth?" (1 Tim. iii, 15.) How could it be said that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her," nor shake her from the immovable rock upon which she was founded? (Matt. xvi, 18 and vii, 25.) How could "the Spirit of truth have abided with her forever" (John xiv, 16, 17), and Christ been with her "all days even to the consummation of the world?" (Matt. xxviii, 20.) In the Protestant system all these divine promises are but empty sounds without effect; and if so, we can no longer place implicit reliance on the words of Christ, and the whole of his religion must yield to the assaults of the deist and infidel! Who can admit a principle or supposition the consequences of which thus manifestly lead to the entire overthrow of Christianity itself?

Again, if the Christian Church, as our opponents assert, did not admit transubstantiation and the substantial presence of

A continuation of the review of the Book of Ratramn.

Christ in the eucharist during all the ages previous to the ninth or tenth century, it must have been because she could not reconcile herself to the idea of Christ's real body having been left us for the nourishment of our souls, though he himself had said: "The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (John vi, 52, 56.) It must have been that these words appeared too hard as well to her as to many of our Lord's hearers, and that, instead of imitating those who said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life" (ib. 68), she preferred to say with others: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (ib. 53.) But let it be well remembered by whom the latter words were uttered: they fell from the lips of the obstinate Jews, and of several inconstant and unhappy disciples who then abandoned Christ and walked no more with him (ib. 67). Will it be said, then, that the Church, during nine centuries, the first of her exis tence, involved herself in the fate of those unhappy men, and, by imitating their unbelief, had, like them, no part with our divine Saviour? Let those believe it, if they will, who are disposed to believe every thing, except that the Catholics are in the right; as for us, we cannot entertain an opinion so injurious at once to the Church of Christ, and to his providential care for the work of his hands.

Who, moreover, can better attest the antiquity and perpetuity of a doctrine, than the society by which it is universally revered and professed; particularly a society so venerable for its antiquity, so fruitful in learned and holy men, so invariably attached from principle to her doctrines and practices, as the Catholic Church most assuredly is? How forcible, likewise, her testimony appear, when we see it confirmed by the testimony of those who are her adversaries on other points, viz., the

must

eastern sects of the schismatic Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, who have now been separated from her for the space of eight, ten, or fourteen hundred years! In fact all these agree with her in referring their belief of transubstantiation, and of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the eucharist to the primitive times and to the very origin of Christianity. gies and other authentic documents, collected by the authors of La Perpétuité de la Foi, vol. i, b. v, xii; Faith of Catholics (Berrington), pp. 194-208. F. Lebrun, Explication de la Messe, vols. iii, iv, v, vi. Lettres d'un docteur Catholique (Scheffmacher), lettres vii and viii.*

See their litur

*Of these numerous and valuable documents we shall adduce only three, as quite sufficient for our present purpose. In a synod celebrated by the Syriac Church in 1665, the following decrees were unanimously adopted. "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1. We firmly believe that the body and the blood of Christ are contained truly and really in the eucharist, and not in figure and virtue only, as some new heretics have fancied. 2. Likewise, that the bread and the wine are, in virtue of the divine consecration, really and substantially changed and converted, or what is the same, transubstantiated into the true body and blood of Christ. 3. That Christ truly residing in the eucharist is to be adored by the supreme worship called of latria, and is thus adored by all the faithful of our Church. 4. That in the sacred liturgy a true and real propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God for the living and the dead. This is and has always been the belief of our Churches; having received it from our ancestors, we preserve it and shall preserve it; nor is there amongst us mention made and remembrance kept of any one having ever taught otherwise. This we do testify, on the twenty-ninth of February, 1668." Here follow the subscriptions of twelve bishops or priests.

The attestation given, to the same effect, by the Nestorians of Diarbekir in Mesopotamia, is not less explicit, nor less remarkable. Having been informed that there were in France some persons (the Huguenots) who denied the real presence and transubstantiation, and that a French author (Minister Claude) attributed the same unbelief to the eastera Christians, they indignantly repelled the charge, calling it a blasphemy and an odious imposture, and sent to France the following protest, the original of which was deposited in the abbey of St. Germaindes-Pres at Paris :

"We, the metropolitan and priests of the Nestorian Church in the city of Diarbekir, have learned with very great surprise, that a certain son of Satar. in France has dared offer an atrocious insult to the oriental Church, by falsely asserting that we do not believe and receive the very great mystery of the sacred oblation. In order, then, to dispel the doubt which that evil spirit has attempted to throw into the minds of men, we say, we do testify and declare to all that shall read this protest, that the faith and doctrine of the whole eastern Church, which she holds and professes in regard to this holy mystery, the eucharist, is the faith and doctrine of

VOL. I.-No. 8.

What evidence shall we admit, if we may reject evidence like this? What fact shall we believe, if we do not believe a fact grounded upon such a constant and unanimous testimony of very many nations, differing from each other in language, laws, customs, &c., and what, in reality, could have united these various and separated churches in one common belief, except the identity of its origin, namely the faith of the primitive Church and the teaching of Christ (Matt. xxvi, Mark xiv, Luke xxii, John vi) and of his apostles. (v. g. 1 Cor. x, 16, and xi, 23-29.)

These considerations should surely suffice to demonstrate the perpetuity of the

the Gospel, the very same which has been received without any interruption from the earliest antiquity to the present day, in all the Churches of the east. Christ has said that he gave us his body, the same which was to be delivered for us; and he who says that Christ gives us only bread and wine as a sign and a figure of his body and blood, is not a Christian. We firmly believe that after the words of our Lord, which the priest pronounces by divine authority, the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the body of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and that the substance of the wine is changed into the substance of his precious blood; so that there remains nothing of the bread and wine except the accidents of both. We offer that sacred body crucified for us, and that blood shed for many and for us, that is to say, for the living and the dead, for the remission of their sins, and of the punishments which they have deserved. We anathematize those who say the contrary and who do not receive this doctrine. Given in the year of our Lord, 1669, on the 24th of Nisan."

A question having been proposed to an Armenian patriarch on the same subject, and about the same time, he gave the following answer: "We have heard that it has been asserted by some persons that the eastern Christians (those excepted who are united with the Roman see) do not believe the most holy sacrament of the eucharist to be the true body of Christ, and we wonder at the folly and boldness of these persons, who thus presume to speak of what they do not know. For all the eastern Christians of this time believe with unshaken and unhesitating faith, that in the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread is truly changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; even they never had any doubt about it, and never yielded to that infidelity which is now professed by some nominal Christians. We, therefore, do assure you that we Armenians have received from our ancient patriarchs and have kept from the time of the council of Nice (the epoch of their conversion to Christianity) till the present time, this article of faith; having, moreover, the following invocation in our liturgy, besides the words of consecration : "Almighty Father, send down thy Holy Spirit, and by his co-operation change this bread into the body, and this wine into the blood of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." This declaration is signed by the patriarch and by an Armenian doctor, who seems to have been the companion of his travels.

59

Catholic faith on the holy eucharist; yet, as particular evidences commonly produce a greater impression on the mind than general arguments, we shall now proceed, ad superabundantiam juris, to show the truth of our assertion-1. by adducing the words of the ancient fathers and councils, especially those passages which not only imply the real and substantial presence of Christ in the eucharist, but also directly establish the dogma of transubstantiation; 2. by showing the absolute impossibility of any innovation having ever taken place in the faith of the Church relative to this sacred mystery.

[ocr errors]

We have first the words of St. Ignatius, disciple of St. John the Apostle and bishop of Antioch, who, speaking of certain heretics of his time, says: They abstain fmor the eucharist because they do not acknowledge it to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father by his goodness resuscitated." (Ep. ad Smyrn.)

St. Justin, a Christian philosopher, and martyr in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius: "As Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation; in the same manner, we have been taught, that the food which has been blessed by the prayer of the words that he spoke, and by which our blood and flesh in the change are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus incarnate." (Apol. 2, ad Imper. Anton.)

St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, who suffered martyrdom under Severus, in 202: "When the mingled chalice and the broken bread receive the word of God, they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ." (Advers. hæres. 1. v.)

St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers: "Of the natural verity of Christ in us, whatever we speak, we speak foolishly and wickedly, unless we learn of him; for it is he that said, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. There is no place to doubt of the truth of Christ's flesh and blood: for now, by the profession of the Lord himself, and according to our belief, it is truly flesh, and truly blood. (De Trin. 1. viii.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his catechetical instructions addressed to the neophytes,

or persons newly baptized: "The bread and wine, which before the invocation of the adorable trinity, were nothing but bread and wine, become, after this invocation, the body and blood of Christ. The eucharistic bread, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer common bread, but the body of Christ. Jesus Christ, in Cana of Galilee, once changed water into wine by his will only; and shall we think him less worthy of credit, when he changes wine into blood. . . . Judge not of the thing by your taste, but by faith assure yourself, without the least doubt, that you are honored with the body and blood of Christ; this knowing, and of this being assured, that what appears to be bread, is not bread, though it be taken for the bread by the taste, but is the body of Christ, and that what appears to be wine, is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of Christ." (Catech. Mystag. iv.) In this pas sage of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, we have almost as many proofs against the Protestant system, as there are not only sentences, but even words. What Catholic of the present day could express the dogma of transubstantiation better than this learned and holy doctor of the fourth century did, in explaining to the neophytes the Christian doctrine on the subject of the eucharist?

rea:

St. Basil the Great, archbishop of Cæsa "About the things that God has spoken, there should be no hesitation nor doubt, but a firm persuasion that all is true and possible. With what fear, with what af fection, with what conviction of mind, should we partake of the body and blood of! Christ? The apostle teaches us to fear when he says: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. (1 Cor. xi, 29.) While the words of the Lord: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you, (Ibid. 26,) create a firm conviction." (Regul. viii, and lxxx.)

St. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, called the Father of Fathers by the second gene ral council, A. D. 381: "By the word of God and prayer, the bread is instantly changed into the body of Christ, agreeably to what he said, this is my body." (Orat. Catech. c. 37.)

St. Ambrose, archbishop of Milan: "Light is preferable to the shadow, truth to figure,

the body of Christ to the manna of heaven. But you may say, I see somewhat else; how do you assert that I shall receive the body of Christ? This remains to be proved. How many examples may we not make use of to show, that we have not here what nature formed, but what the divine blessing has consecrated, and that the virtue of this blessing is more powerful than that of nature; because by it nature itself is changed! Moses held the rod; he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent." He proceeds to instance many other miraculous changes, as recorded in Scripture, and then adds: "If now the blessing of men was powerful enough to change nature, what must we not say of the divine consecration, when the very words of our Lord are the agent!" And again: "You have read concerning the creation of the world: He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it was formed. (Psalm cxlviii, 5.) Will not the word of Christ, therefore, which could draw out of nothing what was not, be able to change the things that are, into that which they were not? Our Lord himself proclaims: This is my body." (De Mysteriis, c. ix.)

The words of St. John Chrysostom are not less remarkable: "Let us," says he, "believe God in every thing, and not gainsay him, although what is said may seem contrary to our reason and our sight. Let his word overpower both. How many persons are heard to say: I would like to behold his form, his shape, his attire! But thou dost see him, thou touchest him, thou receivest him into thy breast. These are not the effects of human power. He who in that supper did these things himself, now also does them for you. We hold the order of ministers, but the sanctifier and changer of them is himself." (Homil. 83 in Matt.) Again: "It is Christ who makes the things lying on the altar become his body and blood. The priest stands performing his office, and pronouncing the words, but the power and grace are the power and grace of God. He says, this is my body, and these words effect the change of the things offered." (Homil. i, de Prodit Juda.)

After reading such explicit testimonies, it might be a curious thing to know how Pro

testants reconcile their doctrize with that of these illustrious Fathers.

St. Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo, writes thus: "Christ took upon him earth from the earth, because flesh is from the earth, and his flesh is from the flesh of Mary, and because he here walked in this flesh, even this same flesh he gave us to eat for our salvation. But no one eateth this flesh without having first adored it, and not only do we not sin by adoring, we rather sin by not adoring it." (In Psalm, xcviii.).

St. Nilus, a priest and monk of Sina, is equally explicit: "Before the prayer of the priest," says he, "and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the things laid on the table are common bread and wine; but, after the solemn invocations, and the descent of the adorable spirit, it is no longer bread, and no longer wine, but it is the body and the pure and precious blood of Christ, the God of all.” (L. I. Ep. xliv.)

St. Gregory the Great, pope, who died in 604, speaking of our Lord in the character of the good shepherd, says: "That good shepherd laid down his life for his sheep, that he might change our sacrament into his body and blood, and feed with the aliment of his flesh the sheep which he had redeemed." (Homil. xiv, in Evang.)

Venerable Bede has given a full and unequivocal testimony of the same doctrine, "When we celebrate the Mass," says he,

66

we again immolate to the Father the sacred body and the precious blood of the Lamb, with which we have been redeemed from our sins." (Homil. in Vig. Pasch.)

We will close this series of quotations from the Holy Fathers who lived in the first eight ages of the Church, with these words of St. John Damascene, whose death occurred about the year 780: "You ask how does the bread become the body, and the wine mixed with some water the blood of Christ; I answer, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who can do much more than we can understand. As the bread which we eat, and the wine and water which we drink are naturally changed into our body and blood; so the bread and the wine laid on the altar are, by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost, miraculously changed into the body and

blood of Christ." (De Fide Orthod. I. iv.c. 14.)

In these passages, to which many more might be added, the reader will find many invincible proofs of the Catholic dogma, of Christ's real and substantial presence in the eucharist, and of transubstantiation. No mention is made here of a presence merely in sign, figure or virtue; on the contrary, all this is positively excluded by the Fathers. According to them, as well as to modern Catholics, we ought not to dispute against the word of God, nor trust to our reason and senses; after the consecration, there are no longer bread and wine in the eucharist, although they seem to remain; the bread has been changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of Christ; the same flesh is present on the altar, which was taken from the B. Virgin, which suffered for us, &c. and the reality of these wonders does not admit of the slightest doubt, when we consider the texts of the Gospel, and of St. Paul, and the prodigies wrought by the Omnipotence of God, the creation, the incarnation, the change of water into wine in Cana of Galilee, and other miraculous changes recorded in the Scripture. Could they possibly have expressed themselves on the real presence and transubstantiation in plainer and stronger terms? Had they, fourteen or sixteen hundred years ago, foreseen the Protestant doctrine on this point, could they have refuted it more effectually than they did? and would not the man who should attempt to pervert their meaning, be equally justifiable in producing the words of the council of Trent, and of our catechisms, and with a shameless disregard of truth, declare that they do not mean any such thing as real presence and transubstantiation?

It must, moreover be observed, that the doctrine of the Holy Fathers was no other than that of the Church during the ages in which they lived. It is evident that they proposed it as such to their hearers and readers, since they either spoke of it as a notorious fact (v. g. St. Justin, St. Augustine, venerable Bede), or made it the subject of their catechetical instructions (St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose), or expatiated upon it with delight

Nilus, St. John

Hence these in

in their homilies and solemn discourses, to increase the piety and devotion of the faithful towards this sacred mystery, (St. Gregory the Great, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom), or made use of it as an unquestionable principle to guard the Churches. against the error of the Gnostics, who denied that Christ had taken a real body in the incarnation, (St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus), or, in fine, numbered it in their didactic letters and treatises among the principal tenets of the Christian faith (St. Damascene, St. Hilary). structions of the Fathers, whether first delivered by word of mouth, or published in their writings, (instead of meeting with any opposition, as would have been the case, had they savored of novelty) were every where received with the greatest respect and veneration, as containing the pure belief of the Church from the time of the apostles. Hence too was their doctrine, whenever the occasion required, solemnly sanctioned by the acts and decrees of general councils. The council of Ephesus, for instance, in 431, approved the following dogmatical decision already passed against the Nestorian heresy, by the illustrious patriarch St. Cyril, and the provincial council of Alexandria: "We offer in the Churches the holy, vivifying and unbloody sacrifice; receiving the body which is presented to us, and likewise the precious blood, not as of a mere ordinary man, but as having been made the proper body and blood of the Divine Word." (Concil. Ephes. Act. 1.) The second council of Nice, also, at which three hundred and fifty bishops were present, made this solemn declaration! (A. D. 787): "Never has it been said by our Lord, or by the Apostles, or by the Fathers, that the unbloody sacrifice offered by the priests, is only an image of Christ, but they have called it his true body and blood. The elements have indeed the name of antitypes, before they are sanctified; but, after the consecration, they are called, they are be lieved to be, and they really are the body and the blood of Christ." (Conc. Nic. ii, Act. 6.)

It is, therefore, as plain as the light of day, that the whole Church, from her very origin, constantly believed, professed and taught the dogma of transubstantiation, and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »