✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›The Holy Eucharist›Part I, Chapter I §1: The Real Presence — Proof from Holy Scripture
Joseph PohleThe Holy EucharistChapter 1

Part I, Chapter I §1: The Real Presence — Proof from Holy Scripture

Part I: The Real Presence

In this part of our treatise we shall consider (1) the fact of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, which is, as it were, the central dogma; then the cognate dogmas grouped about it, viz.: (2) the Manner of the Real Presence, (3) Transubstantiation, and (4) The Permanence of the Real Presence and the consequent Adorability of the Eucharist.

The believing Catholic accepts these four dogmas unquestioningly, knowing, as he does, that they are mysteries which the human mind cannot understand. Theologians, however, love to indulge in pious speculations and view the august mystery of the Eucharist under various aspects. Hence to the four chapters already indicated we shall add a fifth, devoted to the speculative discussion of the Real Presence.

Chapter I: The Real Presence as a Fact

§1. Proof from Holy Scripture

The New Testament contains two classic texts which prove the Real Presence, viz.: Christ’s promise recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution as reported by the synoptics and St. Paul (1 Cor. XI, 23 sqq.).

Article 1: The Promise

1. Our Lord’s Discourse at Capharnaum, John VI, 25-72

Christ prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, as recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, by two great miracles wrought on the preceding day.1

a) The multiplication of the loaves and fishes was intended to show that Jesus possessed creative power; the miracle of walking unsupported on the waters, that this power was superior to, and independent of, the laws of nature. Both together proved that, as God-man, He was able to provide the supernatural food which He was about to promise. After describing this wonderful event, the sacred writer goes on to tell how a great multitude, inspired by false Messianic hopes and a desire to see the miracle repeated, sought our Lord and finally found Him at Capharnaum (John VI, 1-25).

b) Then follows the discourse in which Christ promised the Eucharist (John VI, 26-72). This graphic discourse is divided into two parts, the interrelation of which is controverted among Catholic theologians.

While some2 take the first part (John VI, 26-48) metaphorically and interpret the “Bread of Heaven” as Christ Himself, who, being the object of faith, must be received as a spiritual food;3 many others4 hold that the entire discourse deals with the Eucharist and that in the first part our Lord merely wishes to show that faith is an indispensable requisite for the salutary reception of the Bread of Heaven. This difference of opinion, however, is unimportant so far as the dogmatic argument for the Real Presence is concerned, since both parties agree that, beginning with verse 48,5 or at least with verse 52, the text must be interpreted literally. In matter of fact, though there is a close connection between the two sections of the discourse, the second clearly begins with a change of subject. From the 26th to the 51st verse, Christ speaks of Himself figuratively as the Bread of Heaven, i.e., as a spiritual food to be received by faith. Beginning with verse 51, however, He speaks of His Flesh and Blood as a real food, to be literally eaten and drunk.

Though the sentence “I am the bread of life”6 forms the keynote of the whole discourse, the vast difference between the predicates attributed to this bread shows that, whereas it may be taken figuratively in the first part, it is employed in a strictly literal sense in the second. Atzberger effectively summarizes the arguments for this view as follows: “In the first part, the food is of the present, in the second, of the future; there it is given by the Father, here by the Redeemer Himself; there it is simply called ‘bread,’ here ‘the Flesh of the Son of man;’ there our Lord speaks only of bread, here of His Flesh and Blood; there, it is true, He calls Himself ‘bread,’ but He avoids the expression ‘to eat me,’ where one would expect to meet it; here He speaks both of ‘eating me’ and of ‘eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood.’”7 Only once does Christ make an exception, namely, where He says in the first section: “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.”8 This reference seems to point to an intentional connection between the two sections of our Lord’s discourse; but it does not prove that the whole of the first section must be taken literally. There are several passages which are obviously meant to be figurative. For instance, when Jesus says: “I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”9 And again: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.”10

c) It is of great importance to show that the second part of our Lord’s discourse demands a strictly literal interpretation. The early Protestant contention that the whole chapter must be understood figuratively11 has been given up by Delitzsch, Köstlin, Keil, Kahnis, J. Hoffmann, Dieterich, and other modern non-Catholic exegetes.

2. The Real Presence Proved from John VI, 52 sqq.

Whatever one may hold regarding the first section of our Lord’s discourse, the second plainly demands a literal interpretation. The whole structure makes a figurative interpretation impossible. Christ’s hearers showed by their conduct that they understood Him literally, and the Fathers and the early councils followed their example.

The decisive passages run as follows:

John VI, 52: ”… the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

John VI, 54: ”… except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

John VI, 56: “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

These and kindred texts must be interpreted literally, (a) because the whole structure of the discourse demands it; (b) because a figurative interpretation would involve absurd consequences; (c) because our Lord’s hearers understood Him literally and were not corrected by Him, and (d) because the Fathers and councils of the Church have always upheld the literal interpretation.

a) The whole structure of the discourse demands a literal interpretation of the words, “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood.” Mention is made of three different kinds of food: the manna which Moses dispensed to the Israelites in the desert,12 the “Bread of Life” which the Heavenly Father gives to men in the Incarnate Word to nourish their faith,13 and the (Eucharistic) Bread of Life which Christ Himself promises to give to His followers.14 The manna was a thing of the past, a transitory food incapable of warding off death. The Bread of Heaven, i.e., the Son of God made man, is of the present and constitutes, in as far as it is accepted, a means of spiritual life. The third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give at a future time, is new and essentially different, i.e., His own Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. The first of these foods was given in the past by Moses, the second is given at the present time by the Father, the third will be given in the future by the Son. Cfr. John VI, 32: “Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.”15 John VI, 52: ”… the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”16 The distinction is clear-cut and unmistakable. The “Bread from Heaven” is Christ Himself, given to the Jews as an object of faith through the Incarnation. The “Bread of Life” promised by Christ is a new food, to be dispensed at some future time, and to be eaten, not metaphorically but literally, in Holy Communion. Had our Lord not meant to speak in the literal sense, why this emphatic distinction between eating and drinking, food and drink, flesh and blood,17 and why should He have repeatedly employed as a synonym of φαγεῖν, “to eat,”18 the much more graphic term τρώγειν, which means literally “to crunch with the teeth”?

If we take the manna of the desert, which our Lord repeatedly mentions in His discourse, as a type of the Eucharist, we can argue as follows: Assuming that the Eucharist contained merely consecrated bread and wine, instead of the true Body and Blood of Christ, the original would not excel the type by which it was prefigured.19 But St. Paul teaches that the original must transcend its type in the same way in which a body excels its shadow, and consequently the Eucharist contains more than mere bread and wine, namely, the true Flesh and Blood of Christ, as the Lord Himself declared.20 Other types of the Holy Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Fathers, are: the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech,21 the loaves of proposition,22 the blood of the covenant,23 and the paschal lamb.24

b) The words “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” must be understood literally for the further reason that a figurative interpretation is impossible. True, the phrase “to eat one’s flesh” was employed metaphorically among the Semites and in Holy Scripture itself, but only in the sense of “to persecute, to hate bitterly,” which cannot possibly be meant here. For had our Lord intended His words to be taken in this sense, it would appear that He promised His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The phrase, “to drink one’s blood,” has no other figurative meaning in Holy Scripture than that of dire chastisement,25 which is as inapplicable here as in the phrase “to eat one’s flesh.” Hence the declaration: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,”26 must be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, i.e. literally.

It is objected that the expression “to eat one” in the sense of loving him beyond measure was as familiar to the Jews as it is to some modern nations. Those who make this assertion cite Job XXXI, 31: “Dixerunt viri tabernaculi mei: Quis det de carnibus eius, ut saturemur?” which our English Bible translates: “If the men of my tabernacle have not said: Who will give us of his flesh, that we may all be filled?” However, competent exegetes interpret this text either of the hatred Job felt for his enemies or of the hospitality he practiced towards his friends.27 The first-mentioned interpretation confirms the contention that the phrase “to eat one,” if used figuratively by the Hebrews, was always used in an odious sense; the latter does not disprove it. If certain of the Fathers interpret this obscure passage as expressing intense love, it was because they regarded Job as a type of Christ, and consequently attached a typical and prophetic sense to the text.

Such other texts as Prov. IX, 5: “Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you,” and Ecclus. XXIV, 29: “They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst,”28 are too plainly figurative as to admit of misunderstanding. What else could the Divine Wisdom, which is here personified, mean by inviting men to “eat my bread” and to “eat me,” than to nourish their souls with supernatural truth? The case is radically different in the Gospel of St. John, where the living God-man invites and commands men to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Here the phrase must be taken literally, since the only possible figurative interpretation would entail absurd consequences.

c) The literal interpretation of our Lord’s discourse agrees perfectly with the conduct of those who heard Him, and with the way in which He met their doubts and objections.

α) The murmuring of the Jews and their query: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”29 is clear evidence that they had understood Him literally. Yet, far from repudiating this construction of His words, Jesus repeated them in a most solemn manner, saying: “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.”30 And as if to prevent a figurative interpretation of His words, He continued: “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”31 The Evangelist tells us that many of His disciples were scandalized and protested: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” But instead of retracting what He had said, Christ reproached them for their want of faith and demanded that they believe Him, by alluding to His divine origin and His future ascension into Heaven. St. John tells us: “But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Does this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.”32 He could have cleared up the misunderstanding, had there been one, with a single word, as He had often done before,33 but He allowed them to depart without further ado,34 and finally turned to the twelve Apostles with the question: “Will you also go away?”35 Then Peter stepped forth and humbly and believingly replied in the name of his colleagues: “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.”36 Thus the number of His faithful disciples diminished, yet rather than recall His words or gloss over the literal sense in which they had been understood, our Lord would have allowed even the twelve Apostles to go away.

β) The Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage “It is the spirit that quickeneth,” etc., in the sense of a glossing over, is wholly inadmissible. For in the first place such a glossing over would have practically amounted to a formal retractation of His teaching, because the expressions “to eat one’s flesh” and “drink one’s blood” cannot consistently be explained as “believing in him.” Why should our Lord have uttered nonsense, only to recall His utterance afterwards? Clearly the Apostles and disciples did not understand the passage as a retraction, for in spite of it the disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which they did not as yet understand. Nor did Christ say, as the Zwinglians would have it: “My flesh is spirit,” i.e., to be understood in a figurative sense, but He said: “My words are spirit and life.”

But what did our Lord mean when He added: “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”?37 There are two views regarding the interpretation of this text. Many of the Fathers declare that the true flesh of Jesus (caro, σάρξ) must not be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus, πνεῦμα), and hence not in a cannibalistic sense but as belonging entirely to the supernatural economy.38 The second and more scientific explanation39 asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of “flesh” to “spirit” the former always signifies carnal-mindedness, the latter, mental perception illuminated by faith, and that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped only in the light of supernatural faith, whereas it must remain unintelligible to the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin. St. Chrysostom explains: “How, therefore, did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this; far from it; but of those who would understand what He had said in a carnal sense. … You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing.”40

d) The concurrent testimony of the Fathers and councils constitutes another strong argument for the literal interpretation of our Lord’s discourse. While the figurative explanation preferred by a few Catholic theologians need not be “suspected of heresy,”41 Maldonatus is undoubtedly right in denouncing it as temerarious.

α) Maldonatus42 has brought together a huge mass of citations to show that the Fathers are unanimous in interpreting John VI, 52 sqq. literally.43 Even those who apply the first part of our Lord’s discourse to the “cibus fidei,” admit the literal interpretation as the only possible one for the second part. We have already quoted St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. Augustine, though inclined to assign first place to the “spiritual eating of Christ in the faith,”44 does not reject the literal, but uses it as a basis for the figurative interpretation.45

β) As regards the councils, that of Ephesus, 431, approved St. Cyril’s synodal letter to Nestorius, in which John VI, 55 is cited in support of the “life-giving virtue” of the hypostatically united Flesh of Christ in holy Communion.46 The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) condemned the contention of the Iconoclasts that the Eucharist is “the true, adorable image of Christ,”47 cited John VI, 54, and concluded as follows: “Therefore it is clearly proved that neither our Lord, nor the Apostles, nor the Fathers ever referred to the unbloody sacrifice that is offered up by the priest as an image, but [called it] the very Body and the very Blood.”48 Those Catholic theologians who preferred the figurative interpretation49 were led to do so by controversial reasons. In their perplexity they imagined that the demand of the Hussites and Protestant Utraquists for the chalice for the laity could not be effectively controverted from Scripture in any other way. In view of this circumstance the Tridentine Council refrained from a formal definition on the subject,50 though its own attitude is plain from the fact that it embodied several passages from the sixth chapter of St. John in its argument for the sacramental reception of the Eucharist in holy Communion.51

Article 2: The Words of Institution

The Biblical argument for the Real Presence attains its climax in the words of institution, which have come down to us in four different versions, of which two may be grouped as “Petrine,” because they are obviously derived from St. Peter (Matthew and Mark), while the other two, handed down by St. Paul and his companion St. Luke, may just as appropriately be called “Pauline.”

The “Petrine” account, it will be noticed, is the simpler of the two, whereas the “Pauline” is more detailed, and, because of its wording, of greater importance for the dogma of the Mass.52

All four accounts agree in their essential content. Matthew and Mark read simply: “This is my body… This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many.” Luke and Paul add the words of command: “This is my body, which is given for you: do this for a commemoration of me… This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you” (Luke); “This is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me… This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me” (1 Cor. XI).

The decisive words of all these passages are: “This is my body, this is my blood.” The Catholic Church has always interpreted them in the strictly literal sense. The first to explain them figuratively was Berengarius, who was followed by a few other heretics of comparatively modern date.53

The figurative interpretation is inadmissible. This can be shown by proving (1) that the literal explanation is the only correct one, and (2) that the heretical objections raised against it are groundless.

1. The Literal Interpretation of the Words of Institution Shown to Be the Only Correct One

The words of institution are so plain that they require no interpretation.

If an ordinary man were to break bread and say: “Eat, this is my body,” no one would take him seriously; still it would be impossible to explain his words in a figurative sense. Belief in the Real Presence presupposes belief in the Divinity of Christ.54

We are compelled to adopt the literal interpretation of the words of institution, (a) by the very existence and character of the four Evangelical accounts quoted above; (b) by the wording of the Scriptural text, and (c) by the circumstances accompanying the institution.

a) The very existence of four different accounts, all couched in simple language and perfectly consonant with one another in every essential detail, compels us to interpret them literally.

α) When four independent authors, writing in different countries and at different times, relate the words of institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech would somehow or other betray itself, either in a difference of word-setting (as is the case with regard to the chalice), or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such remark as: “He spoke, however, of the sign of His body.” Such explanatory remarks frequently occur in Sacred Scripture, even in less important texts (cfr. John II, 19 sqq.; III, 3 sqq.; IV, 32 sqq.; Matth. XVI, 6 sqq., XVII, 12 sq.) and where several writers supplement one another (e.g., John XII, 4 sq.; cfr. Matth. XXVI, 8; Luke XXII, 3; Matth. XXVII, 44). In the present case, however, we nowhere discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation of the words “my body,” “my blood.” If, then, the literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious doctrinal error and of the grievous crime of rendering idolatrous homage to mere bread (artolatria) — a supposition utterly irreconcilable with the character of the four sacred writers and with the inspiration of the text.55

β) This view is confirmed by the important circumstance that one of the four narrators, St. Paul, has himself interpreted his account literally. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle says the unworthy recipient of the Eucharist is “guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord. … For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.”56 There could be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself if His true Body and Blood were not really present in the Eucharist. Surely St. Paul would not have spoken thus of the manna or the paschal lamb!

b) The laws of human speech as well as the appositional phrases used by the sacred writers in connection with the terms “body” and “blood,” directly exclude the possibility of a figurative interpretation.

α) The necessity of adopting the natural and literal sense of the words of institution is not, as our opponents allege, based upon the assumption that Christ could not have resorted to the use of figures of speech in inculcating His doctrine, but upon the evident requirements of the case, which demand that He should not, in a matter of such paramount importance, employ meaningless and deceptive metaphors.

Figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of the case (e.g., from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by saying, “This is Lincoln”), or from the usages of common parlance (as in the case of the synecdoche: “This chalice is my blood”), or at least from some previous agreement (as: “Let us assume that these two sticks represent Plato and Aristotle”). Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or a possible symbol of the human body. Were one to say of a piece of bread: “This is the body of Cæsar,” he would not be using a figure but simply talk nonsense. There is but one means of rendering a symbol, improperly so called, clear and intelligible, namely, by conventionally settling beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: “Let us imagine these two pencils to be Plato and Socrates.” Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that He intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: “The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.”57 The same applies, servata proportione, to wine as the symbol of human blood. To say, therefore, that Christ, by using the words “This is my Body, this is my Blood,” merely meant to institute an image or a symbol of His Body and Blood, is not to say that He spoke figuratively, but to charge Him with talking nonsense — a blasphemous charge. The natural sense of the words of institution is so clear and compelling that even Luther wrote to his followers in Strassburg, in 1524: “I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too strong.”58 When the God-man declares: “This is my Body,” who but an unbeliever would venture to contradict Him by saying: “No, it is mere bread!”

β) The literal interpretation of the words of institution is fairly forced upon us by the significant appositional phrases used by the sacred writers in connection with the terms “corpus” and “sanguis.”

“Almost every syllable of the original Greek,” as Clarke points out, “especially the articles, is singularly emphatic.”59 The use of the definite article, and its frequent repetition, proves that our Lord desired to employ every safeguard to prevent His words from being interpreted metaphorically. If an autograph collector were to tell me: “Here I have a codex of St. Thomas, to which he devoted much care,” I should quite naturally understand him to mean a holographic original, not a mere copy. Moreover, Christ speaks of His Body as “given for you” (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον) and of His Blood as “shed for you” (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον) for the forgiveness of sins. Hence the Body given to the Apostles was the same Body that was crucified on the cross, and the Chalice contained the same Blood that was shed for our sins.

c) We arrive at the same conclusion if we consider the circumstances accompanying the institution of the Eucharist. Those who heard our Saviour’s words were simple uneducated fishermen, whereas He was the omniscient God, who had a particular reason for speaking plainly on this occasion, because He was communicating His last will and testament.

α) The Apostles were not possessed of the learned equipment that would have enabled them to unravel a dark and mysterious phraseology. They were ignorant men, from the ranks of the people, who hung upon the words of their Master with childlike simplicity and unquestioningly accepted whatever He told them.60 This childlike disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ. Can we assume that, after they had been prepared for the literal promise of the Eucharist, they should have understood that promise, when it actually came to be made, in a sense which would have involved them in the most absurd misunderstandings and contradictions? Our Lord, when He pronounced the words of institution, was on the eve of His passion and death. It was His last will and testament He was giving them, and He spoke as a dying father to His sorrowing children. In such a solemn moment the only appropriate mode of speech was one which, stripped of tropes and figures, made use of the simplest words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed.

β) It should be remembered also that Christ, being God, must have foreseen the tragic error into which He would have led His Apostles and His Church by giving them as His real Body and Blood something which was merely bread and wine. The Church has always based her Eucharistic teaching and practice on the words of her Divine Founder. If she were in error and the adoration she shows to the Holy Eucharist were idolatry, the mistake would have to be laid at the door of our Lord Himself. Yet we are told that the interpretation of His words which the Church held from the beginning, is false, and that it required over a thousand years for the real meaning to be discovered by Berengarius (d. 1088) and John Calvin. Are we to assume that heretics and infidels understood our Lord correctly, while the Church, who has the promise of His permanent assistance, was and is egregiously in error?

To this apologetical argument may be added two others of a dogmatic character.

(1) The Holy Eucharist is the last will and testament of our Lord. As is plain from the words of consecration, Christ established the “New Testament” (Novum Testamentum, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη) in His Blood. Surely, no sane man would employ unintelligible tropes and figures in drawing up his last will and testament. Jehovah spoke unequivocally when He established the Ancient Covenant: “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.”61 How clearly did not Jacob, David, Tobias, and Mathathias formulate their last will and testament!62 Are we to assume that Jesus Christ, the God-man, was careless in this important matter? With a true instinct the Roman law prescribes63 that the words of a will must be taken in their natural and literal sense. It would be ridiculous to interpret the term “house” in the will of a testator, not of a real edifice, but of a painting. Christ, according to the literal purport of His testament, has left us His Body and Blood as a precious legacy; are we justified in interpreting this as a mere symbol?

(2) The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament. It was the will of Christ that it should be solemnly celebrated as such in His Church to the end of time. The Sacraments of the Old Law, which are so far inferior to those of the New, were established in unequivocal terms, and there never was any dispute about their meaning.64 Is it possible to assume that Christ used less care in instituting the Sacraments of the New Covenant? What would become of Baptism if it were permissible to interpret the term “water” in a figurative sense? The Eucharist is no exception to this rule. A figurative interpretation of the terms “Body” and “Blood” would contradict the plain meaning of the words of institution. Rationalists have tried to disprove this argument by saying that a Sacrament is by its very concept a sign or symbol of something else. This is undeniable. But the Apostles could not possibly know beforehand that Christ, when He pronounced the words of institution, wished to establish a new Sacrament; they had to conclude it from His words and actions.65 It was only from His plain and unmistakable utterance that they learned that He had raised, not bread and wine as a mere symbol of His Body and Blood, but His very Body and Blood under the sacramental signs of bread and wine, to the rank of a Sacrament.66

2. Objections to the Literal Interpretation of the Words of Institution Answered

The defenders of the figurative interpretation are very much at variance among themselves and regard the words of institution as a veritable enigma.

Luther ridiculed the so-called Sacramentarians in his treatise Wider die Schwärmgeister, published at Nuremberg in 1527. “Carlstadt,” he said, “in the sacred text ‘This is my body,’ tortures the little word this; Zwingli tortures the little word is; Oecolampadius tortures the little word body. … Thus doth the devil brutally fool us.” There were no limits to the Eucharistic disputes in the sixteenth century. As early as 1577, Christopher Rasperger wrestled with two hundred different interpretations of the words of institution.67 This confusion was an inevitable consequence of the rejection of the true literal sense of our Lord’s words. Error is a many-headed hydra, the truth alone is one. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise De Eucharistia,68 reduced all those different interpretations to ten groups, four of which regard the word hoc, two the word est, three the word corpus, and one the word meum.69 Setting aside the more violent distortions of the literal sense, we will confine ourselves to a brief review of the three principal groups.70

a) The first group of Sacramentarians, headed by Zwingli, sees a figure in the copula est and renders the passage: “This signifies (est = significat) my Body.”

Many Scriptural texts have been quoted in support of this interpretation. Here are a few chosen at random. Gen. XLI, 26: “The seven beautiful kine … are seven years of plenty.” Dan. VII, 17: “These four great beasts are four kingdoms …” Matth. XIII, 38: “The field is the world; and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; and the cockle are the children of the wicked one.” Gal. IV, 24: “For these [Sara and Agar] are the two testaments.” Apoc. I, 20: “The seven candlesticks are the seven churches.”

A favorite text with this school of interpreters is 1 Cor. X, 4: “And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was [i.e. symbolized] Christ).” This interpretation is still upheld by some Rationalists. Thus Schmiedel says that “ἐστί indubitably means to signify;” Henrici declares that it “expresses the relation of identity in a metaphorical connexion;” Weiss, that it is “the copula in a symbolic relation.”

Refutation of This Theory. The Rationalist interpretation just explained is contrary to the principles of logic.

Most logicians deny that the verb “to be” (εἶναι, esse) can ever be used in the metaphorical sense of “to signify” or “to represent.” But even waiving this question, it is a fundamental truth of the science of correct reasoning that propositions generally are divided into two classes: those that denominate a thing as it is in itself (e.g., “Man is a rational being”), and those that designate an object as a sign of something else (e.g., “This picture is my father”). There are three criteria for ascertaining whether a speaker intends a proposition to be taken in the latter sense: (a) the figurative meaning may be obvious from the nature of the subject (ex subiecta materia) or from common usage (ex usu linguae), as explained above; (b) when one complete substance is predicated of another complete substance, there can be no logical relation of identity between the two, but only of similarity, that is to say, the one is an image, sign, or symbol of the other; (c) if there has been a previous agreement between speaker and hearer, author and reader, objects in themselves inappropriate to serve the purpose, may be used as signs of other objects. Where none of these criteria applies, we must follow the common-sense rule and interpret literally.

Are any of these criteria applicable to the words by which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist? Not the first, for neither in the nature of the case nor from the usages of common parlance can bread be a symbol of the human body or wine a symbol of human blood. Not the second, for Christ did not predicate one complete substance of another complete substance. He did not say: “This bread is my body,” but indefinitely: “This (τοῦτο, not οὗτος, scil. ὁ ἄρτος) is my body.” Not the third criterion, because there was no previous agreement as to an arbitrary symbolism, but rather the contrary. The Scriptural texts brought forward by Zwingli and his followers are not even grammatically exact parallels to the words of institution; for all of them have for their subject a substantive noun, whereas in the words of institution the subject is a demonstrative adverb — “hoc.” The pronoun haec (αὗται) in Gal. IV, 24, refers so plainly to the two persons previously mentioned (Sara and Agar) that St. Paul’s explanatory remark, “These things are said by an allegory,” really seems superfluous.

The only text that would appear to offer any serious difficulty is 1 Cor. X, 4: “Petra autem erat Christus — And the rock was [signified] Christ.” Is this meant as a parallel to the words of institution? If the subject “rock” be taken in its material sense, the metaphor is quite apparent, and would be unmistakable even if the Apostle had not added: “Now these things were done in a figure of us.”71 But sundry theologians72 prefer to take the word “rock” in an allegorical sense, because the Apostle, a little farther up, speaks of Christ as “the spiritual rock”73 which invisibly accompanied the Israelites on their journeys and supplied them with a spiritual fountain of water. According to this explanation Christ did not merely signify, but was, the spiritual rock, and hence the copula retains its proper meaning, “to be.”74

In certain Anglican circles it was formerly the custom to appeal to the supposed poverty of the Aramaic tongue, which was spoken by Christ in conversing with His Apostles. It was maintained that this language had no word corresponding to the concept “signify.” Yet, even prescinding from the fact that in Aramaic the copula est is usually omitted, and that such an omission rather argues for its strict meaning “to be,” Cardinal Wiseman succeeded in producing no less than forty Syriac expressions conveying the meaning of “to signify,” and thus effectually exploded the myth of the limited vocabulary of the Semitic tongue.75

The Syrian Bishop Maruthas, a contemporary and friend of St. John Chrysostom, refuted the Zwinglians in advance as it were when he wrote: “For Christ called this [i.e. His Body] not a type or figure, but [He said]: This is truly my Body and my Blood.”76

It should be noted that the question here at issue must be decided not by the unknown Aramaic text of our Lord’s discourse (which W. Berning has hypothetically reconstructed), but by the Greek text, which everywhere has ἐστί and not σημαίνει.77

b) A second group of Sacramentarians, following the lead of Oecolampadius, shifted the diligently sought-for metaphor to the concept contained in the predicate corpus, giving to the latter the sense of “signum corporis,” so that the words of institution would have to be rendered: “This is a sign [symbol, image, type] of my Body.”

This absurd theory essentially coincides with the Zwinglian interpretation. Its latest exponent, Durand,78 tries to show that the Christian Church has always understood the words of institution as meaning: “This [bread] is the symbol of my Body.”

Refutation of This Theory. This contention is disproved by the fact that in all languages the expression “body” designates a person’s natural body, not a mere sign or symbol thereof.

True it is that the Scriptural words “Body of Christ” are sometimes figuratively used in the meaning of “Church” (corpus Christi mysticum), but this figure is always easily discernible as such from the text or context. Cfr. Col. I, 24: “I make up in my flesh what is lacking to the sufferings of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” This mystical sense, however, cannot be intended in the words of institution, for the simple reason that Christ did not give the Apostles His Church to eat, but His Body, which “Body,” by reason of a real and logical association, cannot be separated from His “Blood,” and hence is all the less susceptible of a figurative use.

Since our Divine Saviour in all likelihood spoke Aramaic, it is probable that the words in their original form were dēn hū pagrī — “Hoc [est] corpus meum.” The Aramaic word pagrā (Hebrew geviyyah) has the secondary meaning of substantia, realitas, persona. Were we to take the term in this secondary sense in the above-quoted passage, we should get: “This [is] my substance or person,” which would express the Real Presence even more clearly. But this interpretation is inadmissible for the simple reason that the parallel phrase “This is my blood” cannot be treated in the same way. The case would be different if the reading were: “This is the bread of my Body, the wine of my Blood.”

Some heretics evolve the figurative sense from the relation of the pronoun hoc to the predicate corpus meum, saying: “That which is bread and remains bread, cannot be at the same time the true Body of Christ, but at most an image thereof.” This altogether arbitrary construction is disproved by the text itself, which does not say: “This bread is (and remains) my Body,” but indefinitely: “Τοῦτο [not οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος] ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου,” i.e., that which I give you is my Body, and consequently no longer bread. Our interpretation is confirmed by St. Luke, who says: “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which [chalice] shall be shed for you.”79 In other words: the contents of the chalice is my Blood, which shall be shed for you. Consequently, what the Apostles received in the chalice was not wine, but really and truly the Blood of Christ.

To prove that the contents of the chalice were mere wine, Protestants have had recourse to the text of St. Matthew, where it is related that our Lord, after the completion of the Last Supper, declared: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine.”80 St. Luke, who is chronologically more exact, places these words before the institution of the Eucharist.81 Note, also, that the true Blood of Christ may rightly still be called (consecrated) wine, because the Blood is partaken of after the manner in which wine is drunk, and also because it continues to exist under the outward appearance of wine. For this reason St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, calls the Body of Christ “bread” — emphatically: τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, “this (peculiar) bread”82 — because the Body of Christ is eaten like bread83 and retains the outward appearance of bread after the consecration.

c) There are certain Scriptural texts which are believed to be so near an approach to a parallel with the words of institution that they have been termed sacramental expressions (locutiones sacramentales).

The two principal texts of this kind are Gen. XVII, 10: “Hoc [i.e. circumcisio] est pactum meum [= signum pacti mei],” and Ex. XII, 11: “[Agnus paschalis] est enim phase [i.e. transitus] Domini.” It was chiefly by a clever manipulation of the latter that Zwingli succeeded in robbing the people of Zurich of their Catholic faith.84

Refutation of This Theory. From the exegetical point of view the texts just quoted can hardly be regarded as parallels to the words of institution; to call them “sacramental expressions” is unwarranted.

No parallelism can be discerned between the phrases employed by those Old Testament writers and the words of institution: no real parallelism, because there is question of entirely different things; no verbal parallelism, since in both Gen. XVII, 10 and Ex. XII, 11 the subject is a ceremony (circumcision in the first, the rite of the paschal lamb in the second), while the predicate involves a mere abstraction (Covenant, Passover of the Lord).

A much weightier consideration is this, that on closer investigation the copula est will be found to retain its proper meaning of “is” rather than “signifies.” Moses by divine command established the Covenant by sprinkling the Israelites with sacrificial blood, saying: “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.”85 St. Paul, after quoting these words in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says that the New Covenant was established in a similar manner by the Blood of Christ,86 and our Lord Himself expressly declares: “This is my blood of the New Testament.”87 Here we have both a verbal and a real parallelism between the two Testaments, which forces us to conclude: As the Old Testament was established by the blood of calves, so the New Testament was established by the sacrificial Blood of Jesus Christ.

A closer analysis of the texts under consideration shows that the copula in every case retains its proper meaning and cannot be rendered by “signifies.” The command regarding circumcision reads as follows in the original: “Hoc est pactum meum…: circumcidi vobis omnem masculum,”88 that is to say, the rite of circumcision is the content or object of the divine command, not merely a sign or symbol thereof. This last-mentioned function is added later. Gen. XVII, 11: “And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.”

The second text cited by the Sacramentarians reads as follows: “Sic autem comedetis illum [i.e. agnum]. Renes vestros accingetis, etc. … Est enim phase [i.e. transitus] Domini.”89 This means that the entire rite thus described, and not merely the paschal lamb, is (not signifies) the Feast of the Passover.90

3. Incidental Problems

For a better understanding of the words of institution it is well to examine two incidental problems, viz.: (a) Are the words of institution to be regarded as a theoretical or as a practical proposition? and (b) What is the meaning of the pronoun hoc?

a) A theoretical proposition merely affirms, whereas a practical proposition effects the identity of subject and predicate. “This is water,” e.g., is a theoretical proposition. “You are a lieutenant,” if pronounced by a general in promoting a soldier, is a practical proposition. It was obviously such a practical proposition that Christ enunciated when He said, “This is my body;” for what was merely bread when He began to speak, had been changed into His sacred Body when He was through speaking. Thus the words of institution are at the same time words of consecration.

The question has been raised whether our Lord, without destroying the practical effect of His words, could have said: “This bread is my Body.” Oswald thinks that “If Christ had said ‘This bread is my Body,’ the laws of logic would require that either the subject or the predicate be modified, i.e., taken in a sense other than the natural sense,” and adds: “Fortunately, Christ did not speak thus.”91

It is quite true that had Christ employed the phrase mentioned, He would have made it difficult, nay impossible, for us to interpret His words literally, because, as we have seen, to predicate one complete substance of another complete substance means to speak figuratively. The question may be put somewhat differently as follows: Could Christ have silently used the phrase: “This bread is my body” in consecrating the sacred species? Franzelin92 thinks He could. He says that while the universal proposition “Bread (in general) is my body” would have no consecratory power, because no objective identity is conceivable between bread as such and the Body of Christ, the particular proposition “This bread is my body” is quite as susceptible of being endowed with such power as were the words of Aaron before Pharaoh, “These rods be serpents,” or the Saviour’s own silent command at Cana, “This water shall be (is) wine.”

b) Assuming that the words of institution constitute a practical proposition, the Scholastics raised the interesting logical problem: What does the pronoun hoc “suppose,”93 i.e., for what precisely does it stand?

The majority of Catholic theologians hold with St. Thomas94 that hoc stands for “substance in general” (substantia in communi), without quality, that is, without a determinate form. St. Bonaventure says95 that it stands for “the bread in course of conversion into the Body of Christ,” the terminus a quo of consecration. Scotus maintains that it stands for “the bread already consecrated,” i.e. the Body of Christ, which is the terminus ad quem of consecration.96 Franzelin97 shows that these three opinions can easily be combined by distinguishing between the “signification” and the “demonstration” of the pronoun. Hoc invariably signifies a thing here and now present, without determining its nature; but it “demonstrates” that thing only in the state in which it actually exists at the time the proposition is uttered. Applying this rule to the words of institution, we find that St. Thomas is right in saying that hoc can only signify “substance in general,” without a determinate form; that St. Bonaventure is right in asserting that hoc, at the beginning of the sentence, “demonstrates” merely bread, and that Scotus contradicts neither the one nor the other of these eminent writers when he claims that hoc, considered at the end of the sentence, i.e. when the sentence is completed, “demonstrates” the Body of Christ.

Of less importance is the grammatical question whether the pronoun hoc in the words of institution must be taken substantively or adjectively. As all the predicates in the Greek text (σῶμα, αἷμα, ποτήριον) are of the neuter gender, this question cannot be definitively answered. Corpus in Latin being also neuter, while sanguis and calix are masculine, the Vulgate has translated τοῦτο adjectively. There is no essential difference between the two versions.

Footnotes

  1. The Fourth Gospel, which alone records the exact words of the promise, says nothing of the actual institution of the Eucharist, no doubt because the author was aware of the existence of four different authentic accounts of this event by other writers. ↩

  2. Cfr. P. Keppler, Komposition des Johannesevangeliums, pp. 47 sqq., Freiburg 1884. ↩

  3. Panis vitae — cibus fidei. ↩

  4. Perrone, Schwetz, Chr. Pesch, Tepe, et al. ↩

  5. This is Wiseman’s theory. ↩

  6. John VI, 35, 48. ↩

  7. Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, 569, Freiburg 1901. ↩

  8. John VI, 27: Ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑμῖν δώσει. ↩

  9. John VI, 35. ↩

  10. John VI, 47. Cfr. Franzelin, De SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et Sacrificio, thes. 3, Rome 1887; a different view is defended by Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 187 sq., Paris 1896. ↩

  11. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I, 5 sqq. ↩

  12. John VI, 31, 32, 49, 59. ↩

  13. John VI, 32, 33. ↩

  14. John VI, 27, 52. ↩

  15. John VI, 32: “Non Moyses dedit (δέδωκεν) vobis panem de coelo, sed Pater meus dat (δίδωσιν) vobis panem de coelo verum.” ↩

  16. John VI, 52: “Et panis quem ego dabo (ἐγὼ δώσω), caro mea est pro mundi vita.” ↩

  17. Cfr. John VI, 54 sqq. ↩

  18. John VI, 52, 53. ↩

  19. Cfr. Franzelin, De SS. Euch. Sacr., thes. 4 sqq. ↩

  20. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I, 3. ↩

  21. Gen. XIV, 18; cfr. Ps. CIX, 4. ↩

  22. Ex. XXV, 30; 1 Kings XXI, 6 sqq. ↩

  23. Ex. XXIV, 8; Heb. IX, 17 sqq. ↩

  24. Ex. XII, 1 sqq. ↩

  25. Cfr. Is. XLIX, 26; Apoc. XVI, 6. ↩

  26. John VI, 55: “Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam.” ↩

  27. Cfr. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Librum Iob, Paris 1886. ↩

  28. Ecclus. XXIV, 29: “Qui edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient.” Prov. IX, 5: “Venite, comedite panem meum et bibite vinum, quod miscui vobis.” ↩

  29. John VI, 53. ↩

  30. John VI, 54 sq.: “Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die.” ↩

  31. John VI, 56: “Caro enim mea vere (ἀληθῶς) est cibus, et sanguis meus vere (ἀληθῶς) est potus.” ↩

  32. John VI, 62 sqq. ↩

  33. Cfr. Matth. III, 3; IV, 3; VIII, 26; X, 12; XI, 3; XVI, 6, etc. ↩

  34. John VI, 68. ↩

  35. Ibid. ↩

  36. John VI, 69 sq. ↩

  37. John VI, 64: “Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quidquam; verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.” ↩

  38. Thus St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioan., 27, n. 5: “Non prodest quidquam, sed quomodo illi intellexerunt; carnem quippe sic intellexerunt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. … Spiritus ergo est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam: sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam.” ↩

  39. Its principal champion is Maldonatus. ↩

  40. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in Ioan., 47, n. 2. On the different interpretations of John VI, 64, cfr. N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 372 sqq. ↩

  41. Cfr. Alb. a Bulsano, Theol. Dogmat., ed. Gottfr. a Graun, Vol. II, p. 597, Innsbruck 1894. ↩

  42. Maldonatus, Commentar. in Ioan., c. 6. ↩

  43. Cfr. also Val. Schmidt, Die Verheissung der Eucharistie bei den Vätern, Würzburg 1900; De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 460 sqq. ↩

  44. Cfr. St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioan., 25, n. 12: “Ut quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti.” ↩

  45. Cfr. St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioan., 26, n. 18: “Qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia immundus praesumpsit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, quae aliquis non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus est.” ↩

  46. Cfr. Hardouin, Coll. Concil., Vol. I, p. 1290. ↩

  47. τὴν ἀληθῆ τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα. ↩

  48. Cfr. Hardouin, op. cit., Vol. IV, 370: “Ergo liquido demonstratum est, quod nusquam Dominus vel Apostoli vel Patres sacrificium incruentum per sacerdotem oblatum dixerunt imaginem, sed ipsum corpus et ipsum sanguinem.” ↩

  49. Notably Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, John Hessel, and the elder Jansenius. ↩

  50. ”… utcumque [sermo Christi] iuxta varias ss. Patrum et Doctorum interpretationes intelligatur.” ↩

  51. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2; Sess. XXI, cap. 1. On the debates that took place on this subject at Trent, cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Trid., XVII, 11. A valuable work is Fr. Patrizi, S.J., Commentationes Tres de Scripturis Divinis, de Peccati Originalis Propagatione a Paulo Descripta, de Christo Pane Vitae, Rome 1851. ↩

  52. See below, Part III. ↩

  53. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 874). ↩

  54. Cfr. J. Hehn, Die Einsetzung des hl. Abendmahles als Beweis für die Gottheit Christi, Würzburg 1900. ↩

  55. Cfr. John II, 19 sqq.; III, 3 sqq.; IV, 32 sqq.; Matth. XVI, 6 sqq., XVII, 12 sq.; John XII, 4 sq.; cfr. Matth. XXVI, 8; Luke XXII, 3; Matth. XXVII, 44. ↩

  56. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.: “Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem hunc vel biberit calicem Domini indigne (ἀναξίως), reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini. … Qui enim manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium (κρίμα) sibi manducat et bibit: non diiudicans (μὴ διακρίνων) corpus Domini.” ↩

  57. John VI, 52. See Article 1, above. ↩

  58. Apud De Wette, Luthers Briefe, II, 577: “Aber ich bin gefangen, kann nicht heraus, der Text ist zu gewaltig da und will sich mit Worten nit lassen aus dem Sinn reissen.” ↩

  59. Apud Wiseman, The Real Presence, p. 267. ↩

  60. Cfr. Matth. VIII, 27; Mark IV, 41; Luke IX, 43. ↩

  61. Ex. XXIV, 8: “Hic est sanguis foederis, quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum.” The Septuagint has: ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης. ↩

  62. Gen. XLIX, 29 sqq.; 3 Kings II, 2 sqq.; Tob. IV, 3 sqq.; 1 Mach. II, 49 sqq. ↩

  63. Cfr. Cod. Rom. ff. De Legat., 3. ↩

  64. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 26 sqq. ↩

  65. Cfr. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, p. 490, Mayence 1901. ↩

  66. For a fuller treatment of this topic consult Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, I, 9; N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., § 53. ↩

  67. Chr. Rasperger, Ducentae Verborum: “Hoc est corpus meum, etc.” Interpretationes, Ingolstadt 1577. ↩

  68. Bellarmine, De Euch., I, 8. ↩

  69. This last-mentioned interpretation, suggested by Luther, was not meant seriously. ↩

  70. On the confusion created by the figurative interpretation of the words of institution, cfr. Luthardt (Lutheran), Kompendium der Dogmatik, pp. 355 sqq., Leipzig 1900. ↩

  71. 1 Cor. X, 6: “Haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri.” ↩

  72. Notably Franzelin (De Eucharistia, p. 63). ↩

  73. 1 Cor. X, 4: “Bibebant autem de spiritali, consequente eos, petra; petra autem erat Christus.” ↩

  74. Cfr. Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp. 187 sqq., Münster 1903; MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp. 136 sqq., Dublin 1915. ↩

  75. Cfr. Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, pp. 3-73, Rome 1828; Drach, Inscription Hébraïque, 2nd ed., p. 33. ↩

  76. Apud Assemani, Bibliotheca Orient., Vol. I, p. 180. ↩

  77. The Scriptural proof of the Real Presence is copiously developed by Card. Wiseman in his famous Lectures on The Real Presence; see also Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 265 sqq. ↩

  78. Durand, Das Problem der Eucharistie und seine Lösung, Berlin 1898. ↩

  79. Luke XXII, 20. ↩

  80. Matth. XXVI, 29: “Non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis (τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου).” ↩

  81. Cfr. Luke XXII, 18 sqq. ↩

  82. 1 Cor. XI, 26. ↩

  83. Cfr. 1 Cor. X, 16. ↩

  84. See above, note 71. ↩

  85. Ex. XXIV, 8: “Hic est sanguis foederis, quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum.” ↩

  86. Cfr. Heb. IX, 11 sqq. ↩

  87. Matth. XXVI, 28. ↩

  88. Gen. XVII, 10. ↩

  89. Ex. XII, 11. ↩

  90. Cfr. W. Koch, “Die neutestamentlichen Abendmahlsberichte und die neueste Abendmahlforschung,” in the Theol. Quartalschrift of Tübingen, 1905, pp. 230 sqq.; G. Rauschen, Eucharistie und Bussakrament in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten der Kirche, 2nd ed., pp. 38 sqq., Freiburg 1910 (English tr., Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, St. Louis 1913); A. Ebrard, Das Dogma vom hl. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, 2 vols., Frankfort on the Main 1845-6; J. Hoffmann, Das Abendmahl im Urchristentum, Berlin 1903; R. Seeberg, Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament, Berlin 1905 (the last three authors are Protestants). ↩

  91. Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., p. 335. ↩

  92. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 4th ed., Rome 1887. ↩

  93. On the “supposition” of terms, see Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 197 sq. ↩

  94. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 78, art. 5. ↩

  95. St. Bonaventure, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, p. 2, art. 1, qu. 3. ↩

  96. This view is enthusiastically defended by Maldonatus, Comment. in Matth., 26, 26. ↩

  97. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 4th ed., thes. 6, Rome 1887. ↩