Sect. 257The Real Presence Proved from TraditionThe Real Presence Proved from Tradition
A complete account of the doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Blessed Eucharist cannot be given here. The reader is referred to Card. Franzelin, De Euch., pp. 83–154; Faith of Catholics, ii. pp. 190–374; Batiffol, Études d’Hist. et de Théol. Posit., 2e série, p. 107 sqq.
I. The express teaching of the Fathers may be grouped under four heads:—
1. They hold that in the Blessed Eucharist the very Body of Christ is present.
“They (the Docetæ) abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist is flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins which the Father in His mercy raised again. They, therefore, who deny the gift of God, perish in their disputing” (St. Ignatius Mart, Ad Smyrn., nn. 7, 8).
“We have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made (or which has been eucharistized) by the prayer of the word which came from Him—by which (food) our blood and flesh are nourished by transmutation—is both flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin, Apol., i. 65, 66).
“How shall they feel assured that that bread over which thanksgiving has been made (i.e. the eucharistized bread) is the body of their Lord, and the chalice of His blood, if they do not declare Him the Son of the world’s Creator?… How, again, do they say that that flesh which is nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood passes into corruption, and partakes not of the life?” (St. Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., iv. 18).
“If the Word was truly made flesh, and we truly receive the Word (made) flesh in the dominical food (vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus), how can He be thought not to abide naturally in us—He Who, being born man, hath assumed the nature, now inseparable, of our flesh, and also united the nature of His flesh to the nature of His divinity, under the sacrament of the flesh that was to be communicated to us? (et naturam carnis suæ ad naturam æternitatis [divinitatis] sub sacramento nobis communicandæ carnis admisceat).… He Himself says, ‘My flesh is truly meat, and My blood is truly drink. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. Of the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubting. For now both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our faith it is truly flesh and it is truly blood” (St. Hilary, De Trin., viii. 13 sqq.).
“This food which thou receivest, this living bread that cometh down from heaven, supplies us with the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall have eaten of this (living bread) shall never die; and it is the body of Christ. Consider now whether the bread of angels (manna) be more excellent, or Christ’s flesh, which is in truth the body of life.… In that sacrament Christ is, because it is Christ’s body, therefore it is not bodily food, but spiritual” (St. Ambrose, De Myster., cc. viii., ix.).
“Being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, even though it seems so to the taste, but Christ’s body; and what seems wine is not wine, even though the taste will have it so, but Christ’s blood” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., iv. 9). And again: “We become Christ-bearers (χριστοφόροι), His body and blood being diffused through our members; thus are we made, according to the blessed Peter, partakers of the Divine nature” (ibid., n. 3).
“We believe the Divine Word that not something like or equal, but that it is properly and truly the Divine body which is sacrificed on the Divine table and is partaken of by the people, altogether, without any division or failing” (St. Cæsarius, brother of St. Greg. Naz. (?) Bibl. Gallandi, tom. vi. p. 127). See also St. Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann., l. x. et l. iv.; and St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthod., iv. 13.
2. The Fathers deny that the Eucharist is a mere figure of Christ’s body.
“Christ said, ‘This is My body;’ for it is not the figure (τύπος) of body or the figure of blood, as some have stupidly repeated, but it is truly the body and blood of Christ” (Macarius Magnes, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, Bibl. Gallandi, tom. iii. p. 541).
St. Anastasius of Sinai describes a dispute between a Christian and a Gaianite heretic. Both agree that the Eucharist is not the figure of the body of Christ. The heretic says, “God forbid that we should say that the Holy Communion is only the figure of the body of Christ or simple bread; but we truly receive the very body and blood of Christ, the Son of God.” The Christian answers, “So do we believe and confess, according to the saying of Christ Himself, which He pronounced to the disciples in the mystical supper, giving them the life-giving bread: ‘Take, eat, this is My body;’ in like manner, delivering the chalice to them, He said, ‘This is My blood.’ He did not say,’ This is the figure of My body and blood’ “ (Bibl. Max. Patrum, tom. ix. pp. 840, 855). “Saying, ‘This is My body,’ He showed that the bread sanctified upon the altar is the very body and not a figure; for He did not say, ‘This is a figure,’ but, ‘This is My body’ “ (Theophylact, In Matt., xxvi. 26).
“The bread and wine are not the figure of the body and blood of ‘Christ, God forbid! but the very deified body of the Lord; since the Lord Himself said, not ‘This is the figure of My body,’ but ‘This is My body,’ and not ‘The figure of My blood,’ but ‘My blood’ “ (St. John Damascene, De Fid. Orthod., iv. 13).
3. The Fathers hold that an objective change takes place in the thing itself, and hence that our Lord is not received only by faith, or by virtue of any merely subjective conditions on the part of the receiver: He is received physically and corporally.
“Christ does not say that He will be in us by a kind of habit only—a habit which the mind conceives of as in the affections, but also according to physical participation. For as, if a person joins one piece of wax to another and apply both to the fire, he makes the compound of both one (body), so by means of the participation of the body of Christ and of His precious blood, He is indeed in us, and we also are united together in Him” (St. Cyril of Alex., In Joann., l. x. tom. iv. 862, 863; see also St. Hilary, quoted above).
“Rightly, therefore, do I believe that now also the bread that is sanctified by the Word of God is changed (μεταποιεῖσθαι) into the body of the God-Word.… The bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, passing into the body of the Word, not by being eaten and drunk, but instantly changed into the body of the Word according as was said by the Word, ‘This is My body’ “ (St. Greg. of Nyssa, Catech. Magn., c. 37; cf. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., v.).
“It is truly the body united to the divinity, the body born of the Holy Virgin, not that the body taken up into heaven comes down on earth (i.e. moves locally, leaves heaven), but that the bread itself and wine are changed into the body and blood of God” (St. John Damasc., De Fid. Orthod., l. iv. c. 13; see also St. Ambrose, De Myster., c. 9).
We wish that we could quote at length the magnificent passages in which St. John Chrysostom speaks of the Real Presence (Hom. 82, In Matt.; Homm. 45, 46, 47, In Joann., explaining the discourse in St. John’s sixth chapter; Hom. 24, In 1 Ep. ad Cor.). The following must suffice: “How many nowadays say, ‘Would that we could gaze upon His form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes! Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him. And thou desirest to see even His vesture, but He gives Himself to thee, not to look upon only, but even to touch, and eat and receive within thee.… Think how indignant thou art against him that betrayed, against them that crucified Him. See to it, then, lest thou also become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. They slew that most holy body, but thou, after so great benefits, receivest in an unclean soul. For neither was it enough for Him to become man, nor to be scourged and slain, but He also commingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very deed does He make us His body” (In Matt., l.c., n. 4). “It is not man that makes the things that lie open to view become Christ’s body and blood, but that same Christ who was crucified for us. The priest, fulfilling his office, stands pronouncing those words; but the power and the grace is of God. ‘This is My body,’ He says. This word changes the things that lie open to view (μεταῤῥυθμίζει τὰ προκείμενα). And as that word that said, ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth,’ was pronounced indeed but once, but through all time is actually operative on our nature for the procreation of children; so also that word uttered but once operates from that time to this, and till His own advent, the sacrifice perfect at every table in the Churches” (Hom. 1 De Prodit. Judæ, n. 6).
4. How the Fathers made use of the doctrine of the Real Presence to confute the various heresies concerning the Incarnation, may be seen in Franzelin, thes. ix.
II. Although the proof from the Fathers is most convincing, certain passages occur which at first sight present some difficulty. The following remarks will help us to understand these rightly.
1. We have already spoken of the Discipline of the Secret (p. 374). The Blessed Sacrament was especially liable to profanation. The Fathers, therefore, were obliged either to be silent about it, or to speak of it in guarded language intelligible only to the initiated.
2. Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament is so wonderful, and may be looked at from so many points of view, that many expressions may be used concerning it which are quite orthodox in one sense and false in another.
(a) There is no sensible change. Hence it might be said that, in a certain sense, no change takes place.
(b) Bread is the terminus a quo, and the phenomena of bread remain after the change. Hence the Blessed Sacrament may be called bread.
(c) Although our Lord’s body underlies the appearances of bread, these appearances themselves are not our Lord’s body. Hence the Blessed Sacrament may be called the sign of His body.
(d) Our Lord’s body is not present in the form which it had on earth, or in the glorified form which it now has in heaven. Hence our Lord is said to be spiritually present in the Blessed Sacrament, whereas He was corporally present when on earth.
(e) The expression “to eat our Lord’s body” may be understood in many senses. There is the Capharnaitic sense, i.e. to eat His body under the form which it had on earth. This is rightly excluded by St. Augustine. Again, there is the sense of eating our Lord’s body in the Blessed Sacrament in such a way that His body is ground down by our teeth and affected by digestion. This also must be excluded. We may also deny that the wicked eat the body of the Lord, i.e. so as to derive any benefit from it.
(f). The Blessed Sacrament is in a certain sense the figure of our Lord’s body (see above, c). His presence under the appearances of bread is a sacrament or figure of His presence when on earth. The Blessed Sacrament is also the antitype or fulfilment (figura adimpleta) of the Old Testament types and figures. See Franzelin, thes. x.
A complete account of the doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Blessed Eucharist cannot be given here. The reader is referred to Card. Franzelin, De Euch., pp. 83–154; Faith of Catholics, ii. pp. 190–374; Batiffol, Études d’Hist. et de Théol. Posit., 2e série, p. 107 sqq.
I. The express teaching of the Fathers may be grouped under four heads:—
1. They hold that in the Blessed Eucharist the very Body of Christ is present.
“They (the Docetæ) abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist is flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins which the Father in His mercy raised again. They, therefore, who deny the gift of God, perish in their disputing” (St. Ignatius Mart, Ad Smyrn., nn. 7, 8).
“We have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made (or which has been eucharistized) by the prayer of the word which came from Him—by which (food) our blood and flesh are nourished by transmutation—is both flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin, Apol., i. 65, 66).
“How shall they feel assured that that bread over which thanksgiving has been made (i.e. the eucharistized bread) is the body of their Lord, and the chalice of His blood, if they do not declare Him the Son of the world’s Creator?… How, again, do they say that that flesh which is nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood passes into corruption, and partakes not of the life?” (St. Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., iv. 18).
“If the Word was truly made flesh, and we truly receive the Word (made) flesh in the dominical food (vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus), how can He be thought not to abide naturally in us—He Who, being born man, hath assumed the nature, now inseparable, of our flesh, and also united the nature of His flesh to the nature of His divinity, under the sacrament of the flesh that was to be communicated to us? (et naturam carnis suæ ad naturam æternitatis [divinitatis] sub sacramento nobis communicandæ carnis admisceat).… He Himself says, ‘My flesh is truly meat, and My blood is truly drink. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. Of the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubting. For now both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our faith it is truly flesh and it is truly blood” (St. Hilary, De Trin., viii. 13 sqq.).
“This food which thou receivest, this living bread that cometh down from heaven, supplies us with the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall have eaten of this (living bread) shall never die; and it is the body of Christ. Consider now whether the bread of angels (manna) be more excellent, or Christ’s flesh, which is in truth the body of life.… In that sacrament Christ is, because it is Christ’s body, therefore it is not bodily food, but spiritual” (St. Ambrose, De Myster., cc. viii., ix.).
“Being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, even though it seems so to the taste, but Christ’s body; and what seems wine is not wine, even though the taste will have it so, but Christ’s blood” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., iv. 9). And again: “We become Christ-bearers (χριστοφόροι), His body and blood being diffused through our members; thus are we made, according to the blessed Peter, partakers of the Divine nature” (ibid., n. 3).
“We believe the Divine Word that not something like or equal, but that it is properly and truly the Divine body which is sacrificed on the Divine table and is partaken of by the people, altogether, without any division or failing” (St. Cæsarius, brother of St. Greg. Naz. (?) Bibl. Gallandi, tom. vi. p. 127). See also St. Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann., l. x. et l. iv.; and St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthod., iv. 13.
2. The Fathers deny that the Eucharist is a mere figure of Christ’s body.
“Christ said, ‘This is My body;’ for it is not the figure (τύπος) of body or the figure of blood, as some have stupidly repeated, but it is truly the body and blood of Christ” (Macarius Magnes, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, Bibl. Gallandi, tom. iii. p. 541).
St. Anastasius of Sinai describes a dispute between a Christian and a Gaianite heretic. Both agree that the Eucharist is not the figure of the body of Christ. The heretic says, “God forbid that we should say that the Holy Communion is only the figure of the body of Christ or simple bread; but we truly receive the very body and blood of Christ, the Son of God.” The Christian answers, “So do we believe and confess, according to the saying of Christ Himself, which He pronounced to the disciples in the mystical supper, giving them the life-giving bread: ‘Take, eat, this is My body;’ in like manner, delivering the chalice to them, He said, ‘This is My blood.’ He did not say,’ This is the figure of My body and blood’ “ (Bibl. Max. Patrum, tom. ix. pp. 840, 855). “Saying, ‘This is My body,’ He showed that the bread sanctified upon the altar is the very body and not a figure; for He did not say, ‘This is a figure,’ but, ‘This is My body’ “ (Theophylact, In Matt., xxvi. 26).
“The bread and wine are not the figure of the body and blood of ‘Christ, God forbid! but the very deified body of the Lord; since the Lord Himself said, not ‘This is the figure of My body,’ but ‘This is My body,’ and not ‘The figure of My blood,’ but ‘My blood’ “ (St. John Damascene, De Fid. Orthod., iv. 13).
3. The Fathers hold that an objective change takes place in the thing itself, and hence that our Lord is not received only by faith, or by virtue of any merely subjective conditions on the part of the receiver: He is received physically and corporally.
“Christ does not say that He will be in us by a kind of habit only—a habit which the mind conceives of as in the affections, but also according to physical participation. For as, if a person joins one piece of wax to another and apply both to the fire, he makes the compound of both one (body), so by means of the participation of the body of Christ and of His precious blood, He is indeed in us, and we also are united together in Him” (St. Cyril of Alex., In Joann., l. x. tom. iv. 862, 863; see also St. Hilary, quoted above).
“Rightly, therefore, do I believe that now also the bread that is sanctified by the Word of God is changed (μεταποιεῖσθαι) into the body of the God-Word.… The bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, passing into the body of the Word, not by being eaten and drunk, but instantly changed into the body of the Word according as was said by the Word, ‘This is My body’ “ (St. Greg. of Nyssa, Catech. Magn., c. 37; cf. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., v.).
“It is truly the body united to the divinity, the body born of the Holy Virgin, not that the body taken up into heaven comes down on earth (i.e. moves locally, leaves heaven), but that the bread itself and wine are changed into the body and blood of God” (St. John Damasc., De Fid. Orthod., l. iv. c. 13; see also St. Ambrose, De Myster., c. 9).
We wish that we could quote at length the magnificent passages in which St. John Chrysostom speaks of the Real Presence (Hom. 82, In Matt.; Homm. 45, 46, 47, In Joann., explaining the discourse in St. John’s sixth chapter; Hom. 24, In 1 Ep. ad Cor.). The following must suffice: “How many nowadays say, ‘Would that we could gaze upon His form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes! Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him. And thou desirest to see even His vesture, but He gives Himself to thee, not to look upon only, but even to touch, and eat and receive within thee.… Think how indignant thou art against him that betrayed, against them that crucified Him. See to it, then, lest thou also become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. They slew that most holy body, but thou, after so great benefits, receivest in an unclean soul. For neither was it enough for Him to become man, nor to be scourged and slain, but He also commingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very deed does He make us His body” (In Matt., l.c., n. 4). “It is not man that makes the things that lie open to view become Christ’s body and blood, but that same Christ who was crucified for us. The priest, fulfilling his office, stands pronouncing those words; but the power and the grace is of God. ‘This is My body,’ He says. This word changes the things that lie open to view (μεταῤῥυθμίζει τὰ προκείμενα). And as that word that said, ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth,’ was pronounced indeed but once, but through all time is actually operative on our nature for the procreation of children; so also that word uttered but once operates from that time to this, and till His own advent, the sacrifice perfect at every table in the Churches” (Hom. 1 De Prodit. Judæ, n. 6).
4. How the Fathers made use of the doctrine of the Real Presence to confute the various heresies concerning the Incarnation, may be seen in Franzelin, thes. ix.
II. Although the proof from the Fathers is most convincing, certain passages occur which at first sight present some difficulty. The following remarks will help us to understand these rightly.
1. We have already spoken of the Discipline of the Secret (p. 374). The Blessed Sacrament was especially liable to profanation. The Fathers, therefore, were obliged either to be silent about it, or to speak of it in guarded language intelligible only to the initiated.
2. Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament is so wonderful, and may be looked at from so many points of view, that many expressions may be used concerning it which are quite orthodox in one sense and false in another.
(a) There is no sensible change. Hence it might be said that, in a certain sense, no change takes place.
(b) Bread is the terminus a quo, and the phenomena of bread remain after the change. Hence the Blessed Sacrament may be called bread.
(c) Although our Lord’s body underlies the appearances of bread, these appearances themselves are not our Lord’s body. Hence the Blessed Sacrament may be called the sign of His body.
(d) Our Lord’s body is not present in the form which it had on earth, or in the glorified form which it now has in heaven. Hence our Lord is said to be spiritually present in the Blessed Sacrament, whereas He was corporally present when on earth.
(e) The expression “to eat our Lord’s body” may be understood in many senses. There is the Capharnaitic sense, i.e. to eat His body under the form which it had on earth. This is rightly excluded by St. Augustine. Again, there is the sense of eating our Lord’s body in the Blessed Sacrament in such a way that His body is ground down by our teeth and affected by digestion. This also must be excluded. We may also deny that the wicked eat the body of the Lord, i.e. so as to derive any benefit from it.
(f). The Blessed Sacrament is in a certain sense the figure of our Lord’s body (see above, c). His presence under the appearances of bread is a sacrament or figure of His presence when on earth. The Blessed Sacrament is also the antitype or fulfilment (figura adimpleta) of the Old Testament types and figures. See Franzelin, thes. x.
Seção 90% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.