Part I Chapter II: The Totality of the Real Presence

Chapter II: The Totality of the Real Presence

CHAPTER II THE TOTALITY OF THE REAL PRESENCE There are present in the Eucharist not only the Body and Blood of Christ, but also His Soul and Divinity. This dogma has never been attacked by heretics, and we may therefore limit ourselves to a summary demonstration of it in the form of four theses.1 Thesis I: The Holy Eucharist really, truly, and substantially contains the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. Ex vi verborum, or by virtue of the consecration, that only is made present which is expressed by the words of institution, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. But by reason of a natural concomitance (per cone omit antiam) there becomes simultaneously present all that which is physically inseparable from the parts just named, viz.: the Soul of Christ, and together with it, His whole Humanity, and, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also His Divinity.2 Hence Christ is 1 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa TheoL, pp. 48 sqq. ; Suarez, De Euch., 3a, qu. 76, art. 1-4. disp. 51, sect. 6, n. 4. 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christohgy, 88 TOTALITY OF present in the Blessed Sacrament wholly and entirely, with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity, — Christus totus in toto. The Council of Trent defines : “If anyone denieth that in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, … let him be anathema.* 3 a) In the same discourse in which He says: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,” 4 our Divine Lord also declares : “He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.” 5 To eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ, therefore, is to eat Christ whole and entire. By virtue of the words of institution {ex vi verborum) only the Body of Christ is made present; but it is His real, living Body, hypostatically united to the Logos, with His Soul and Divinity,— Christ whole and entire. The same applies to the Precious Blood. b) This totality of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist was the constant 8 Seas. XIII can. x : ” Si quis ma sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. negoverit, in ss. Eucharistiae sa- 883). cr amen to contineri vere, rtaliter et John VI, 55: “Qui manducat substantiality corpus et sangui- meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem und cum amma et dhnnitate nem, habet vitam aeternam. Domini nostri Jesu Christi ac Pro- Bjohn VI, 58: … et qui inde totum Christum, . • . onathe- manducat me (pi), et ipse vivet propter mi” go THE REAL PRESENCE property of Tradition. The Fathers would have raised the charge of “sarcophagy” against anyone who would have dared to assert that in holy Communion merely the flesh or the blood of Christ is received. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that whoever partakes of the Eucharist becomes by that very act a ” Christophoros,” . e. Christ-bearer. St. Cyril of Alexandria insists on the vivifying effects of the Flesh of Christ in the soul of the communicant.6 St. John Damascene sums up the teaching of the Greek Fathers as follows: ” Bread and wine is not the type of the Body and Blood of Christ; far from it; it is the Body itself, endowed with Divinity, for Christ did not say, ’ This is the type of my Body/ but ’ This is my Body/ ” 7 c) Although, absolutely speaking, it is within the power of almighty God to separate the Body, Blood, Soul, and Logos, yet they are actually inseparable because of the indissolubility of the divine and human natures in the Hypostatic Union, which is an article of faith.8 Note, however, that the concrete manner in which our Lord becomes present in the Eucharist depends entirely on the condition of His Body at the moment of consecration. The sacred Body may be in one of three states: the state of mortality, that of death, and the transfigured state in which it arose from the grave. When Christ tApud Miffne, P. C, LXXII, tic testimonies, supra, Ox. I, Sect, a, 451. Art. 2. 7 Dt Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preust, Christohgy, P, C, XCIV, x 147) .— Other Patrit- pp. 166 eqq. TOTALITY OF consecrated at the Last Supper, He became truly and entirely present in the sacred species, but His Body was there only as a body capable of dying, and His Blood as blood capable of being shed. In case the Apostles had celebrated the Eucharist during the triduum mortis, during which time Christ’s Body rested in the tomb, there would have been present in the Sacred Host only the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth as it was shed, — both the Body and the Blood, however, remaining hypostatically united to His Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucharistic presence.0 Since the Resurrection Christ is present in the Eucharist in the same manner in which He sitteth at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, i. e., as one glorified, who ” dieth no more.” 10 In the light of these considerations the totality of the Real Presence may be explained as follows. The Divinity as such, being substantially omnipresent,11 cannot be made present by virtue of the words of consecration. Hence these words must effect a real presence of Christ’s Humanity, that is to say, primarily of His Body (Flesh and Blood), for it would be absurd to convert the species into His bodyless Soul for the purpose of bodily consumption. Only the Flesh and Blood of Christ can be consumed under the appearances of bread and wine. But by reason of a natural concomitance there becomes simultaneously present with the Body all that which is physically inseparable from it, f. e., the Soul, the Humanity, and, » Cfr. St Thomas, Sumtna Theol., 11 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Cod: His 3a, qu. 76, art i, ad x. Knowability, Essence, and Attri10 Rom. VI, 9. butts, pp. 3a 1 sqq. by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also the Divinity, in a word — Christ whole and entire. This twofold mode of coming into being, while not an article of faith, is part of the Church’s traditional teaching and cannot be denied without great temerity and danger to the faith.12 The Tridentine Council says: “This faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the veritable Body of our Lord and His veritable Blood, together with His Soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and wine ; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the Body itself under the species of wine, and the Blood under the species of bread, and the Soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead to die no more, are united together; and the Divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable Hypostatic Union thereof with His Body and Soul.” 13 This definition represents the Hypostatic Union not as a special kind of production, side by side with that per concomitantiatn, but merely as its concrete mode in regard to the Divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, it is probable that the Council chose this expression purposely to exclude the notion that by virtue of the words of consecration the Father, 12 Suarez, De Eucharistiat disp. pus sub specie vini et sanguinem 51, sect. 3, n. z. sub specie panis animamque tub 18 Sesa. XIII, cap. 3; “Semper utraque vi natural is illius connehaec fides in Ecclesto Dei fuit statim xionis et concomitantiae, quA partes post consecrationem verum Domini Christi Domini, qui iam ex mortuis nostri corpus verumque eius san- resurrexxt, non ompHus mon turns, guinem sub panis et vini specie un& inter se copulantur; dhnnitatem cum ipstus anima et divinitate exir porro propter admirabUem Warn eius stere; sed corpus quidem sub specie cum corpore et anima hypostaticam panis et sanguinem sub vini specie unionenu” ( Dcaxing er-Bannwart, $ vi verborum, ipsum autem cor a. 876), TOTALITY OF too, and the Holy Ghost, become present by concomitance. For this reason we cannot accept the opinion of those who hold that the other two Divine Persons are sacramentally present together with the Son in the Holy Eucharist Of course all three are present by virtue of the divine attribute of omnipresence, by their consubstantiality, and, more especially, by virtue of the Trinitarian Perichoresis or mutual inexistence ; 14 but as only the Logos assumed flesh and blood in the Hypostatic Union, He alone can be present with flesh and blood such as the sacramental species signify.15 Thesis II: Christ is present whole and entire under each species. This is also de fide. Proof. The meaning is: We do not receive one part of Christ in the Sacred Host, and the other in the Chalice, as if our reception of the whole Christ depended on partaking of both species. Contrariwise, under the appearance of bread alone as well as under the appearance of wine alone we receive Christ whole and entire — Christus totus sub alterutra specie. This truth explains the permissibility and propriety of Communion under one kind,18 and is an article of faith. The Decretum pro Armenis defines: “Christ is contained whole and entire under the lCfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 8, sect. Trinity, pp. 28 x sqq. 6, n. 126 sqq. lBCfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, 10 Cfr. Sidney F. Smith, S. J., dissert. 4, art x, sub Unern; De Communion under One Kind, London 191 1, pp. 2 tqq. species of bread, and whole and entire under the species of wine.” And the Council of Trent : “It is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both.* 17 a) This dogma has its Scriptural basis in the fact that St. Paul attaches the same guilt of the Body and the Blood of the Lord to the unworthy eating and drinking in the disjunctive as in the copulative sense. Cfr. i Cor. XI, 27: *Whoever eateth the bread or drinketh of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor. XI, 29 : “For he that eateth and drinketh without distinguishing the body [from other food], eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” 18 The Fathers testify that the glorified Saviour is present whole and entire on our altars. The Liturgy of St Chrysostom says: “The Lamb of God, Son of the Father, is broken but not diminished, continually eaten but not consumed.” 19 Hence, wherever the glorified 17 Deer, pro Armenis: ” Totus ducat et bibit (ia$l

Body or Blood of Christ is, there is Christ whole and entire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and Humanity.20 b) This second thesis is substantially contained in the first. While it is true that, by virtue of the words of consecration (vi verborum), there is made present under the bread only the Body of Christ without His Blood, and under the wine only the Blood of Christ without His Body,21 yet from the law of natural concomitance, which we explained above,22 it follows that the glorified Body of Christ can not exist without His Blood, nor the living Body without His Soul, nor the sacred Humanity thys constituted without the Logos, with which it is hypostatically united; and consequently, Christ is present whole and entire both in the Sacred Host apart from the Chalice, and in the contents of the Chalice apart from the Sacred Host. Thesis III: When the Sacred Host is broken into pieces, or the consecrated contents of the Chalice are consumed in small quantities, Christ is wholly and entirely present in each particle and in every drop. This proposition likewise embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Decretum pro Armenis says: “Christ is entirely present in every particle of the consecrated Host and of the consecrated 20 A number of other Patristic 21 Body and Blood form a con* passages bearing on this point will trast of considerable importance in be found infra, Part II, Ch. I, Sect. regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass. 2, Art. 2. — See also J. Hoffmann, V. infra, Part, III. Die Laienkommunion bis sum Tri- 22 Thesis I. dtntinum, Spires 1891. wine, when separated (separation* facta),99 that is to say, when the Host is broken into particles or the wine consumed in small quantities.28 The Council of Trent defines: “If anyone denieth that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated, let him be anathema.” 24 a) It is improbable that Christ at the Last Supper consecrated separately each particle of the bread He had broken. The contents of the Chalice He gave entire to His disciples, to be partaken of distributively. Matth. XXVI, 27 : ” Taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying : Drink ye all of this.” Mark XIV, 23 : ” And they all drank of it.” b) The teaching of Tradition is evident from the utterances of the Fathers and the liturgical practice of the Church. It is only on the basis of the Tridentine dogma that we can understand why St. Cyril of Jerusalem warned communicants to be scrupulously careful in conveying the Sacred Host to their mouths. ” After thou hast sanctified thine eyes by contact with the sacred Body,” he says, u in proceeding to partake of it, beware lest some particle fall to the ground. For that which perishes thou shalt regard zsDecreU pro Armenis: Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecrate et vini cotuecrati separatione facta* totus est Christus* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698). 24Sess. XIII, can. 3: “Si quis negaverit in venerabili sacrament 0 Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie et sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus separatione factd totum Christum contineri, anathema sit.” (Denzinger Bannwart, n. 885). TOTALITY OF as if thou hadst lost one of thine own members. If some one had presented thee with gold coins, wouldst thou not preserve them with the greatest care, lest they be lost? With how much greater caution shouldst thou see to it that not even a crumb is lost of that which is far more precious than gold or jewels.” 26 The Pseudo-Dionysius writes : ” When [the priest] breaks the indivisible bread into many parts,26 and distributes the entire contents of the chalice among all,27 he symbolically multiplies and distributes merely the oneness.” 28 St. Caesarius of Aries (+ 542) teaches : ” The Body dispensed by the priest is as much in each particle as it is in the whole… . Each single recipient obtains nothing less than all [obtain] together: one has the whole, two have the whole, many receive the whole without diminution.” 29 Eutychius, Patriarch of Byzantium (+ 582), writes: ” Each [communicant] receives the whole sacred Body and precious Blood of the Lord, even though he is given but a part thereof;20 for it divides itself21 undivided22 among all.22 The same truth is expressed even more clearly in the ancient liturgies. Thus we read in the Syrian rite : * It is Christ our Lord who, for the forgiveness of sins and unto eternal life, is broken and not divided,24 distributed to the faithful and not consumed.” The Church has always permitted fragments of the Sacred Host to be S5 Catech. My slag., V, n. 21. s«efc iroXXa ftteXcfo. 27 -waffi Karafxepljas2« t^f Mrrjra w\ri$vv€i Kal tiafUvcL. We EccL Hier., c. 3 9 is). 29 Horn., 5: “Corpus sacerdote dispensante tantum est in exiguo, quantum esse constat in toto… . Nihil minus habent singuli quam universi: totum unus, totum duo, totum plures sine diminutione percipiunt.” (Migne, P. L., LXVII, 1054). 80 k&v el pipot rotirwv di&irai. 82 &fi€plffT(0tszSerm. de Pasch., n. 2. 84 b pc\c£6pci’0f Kal fill pcyu£6pr rof. given in Holy Communion, and at one time allowed the faithful to partake of the precious Blood from one and the same chalice.85 Thesis IV: Even before the actual division of the sacred species Christ is wholly and entirely present in each particle of the Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice. Unlike the three preceding theses, this one embodies merely a theological conclusion. Proof. A few older Scholastic theologians, notably William of Auxerre86 and Albertus Magnus,87 denied this conclusion. They contended that, as an unbroken mirror shows forth but one image of the sun, whilst a broken one reflects as many as there are fragments of glass, so Christ is wholly and entirely present in the fragments of the sacred Host only when it is broken after the consecration. Dominicus Soto claims that this opinion is heretical. But if it were, the Tridentine Council would not have added to its definition, quoted above, the phrase “separation facta”** Nevertheless our thesis can only claim the value of a theological conclusion, though Vasquez, Suarez, and De Lugo insist that it may not be rejected without error.80 That the Council of Trent did not mean to favor the opposing view when it adopted the SB Cfr. the hymn ” Lauda Sion” «8 Supra, Thetis HI. stSumma, P. 4, tr. 5, c. 4. S9 Sententia stroma vol errori 87 Comment, in Sent., IV, diat 13, proximo. •rt xx. TOTALITY OF words ” separatione factd,” is apparent from its preliminary debates on the subject,40 and from the noteworthy circumstance that the phrase ” separatione facta ” does not appear in Chapter III of Sessio XIII, which reads : ” Wherefore it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species [here the restrictive clause separatione factd is omitted] ; likewise the whole [Christ] is under the species of wine and under the parts thereof. ” 41 a) The whole Body of Christ, and consequently Christ in His entirety, is present wherever the substance of bread was present before the consecration, because Transubstantiation changes the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body. Now, the substance of the bread before consecration is present not only in the totality of the host, but in every one of its parts, whether separated or united. Consequently, the whole Body of Christ, i. e. Christ whole and entire, is present in each particle of the host even before it is broken. The same reasoning applies to the wine. This positive argument can be strengthened by a negative one. If Christ were not present en40 Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. integer Christus sub pants specie et Trident., Vol. XII, 7, 7. sub quavis ipsius speciei parte, 41 Sets. XIII, cap. 3 : * Qua- tot us idem sub vini specie et sub eius Propter verissimum est, tantundem partibus existiu* (Dcnzinger-Bannsub alterutrd specie atque sub wart, n. 876). utr&que contineri; totus enim et ioo THE REAL PRESENCE tirely in every single particle of the Eucharistic species, even before their division, we should be forced to conclude that it is the process of dividing the species which effects the totality of His presence, whereas the Church plainly teaches that the sole operative cause of the real and total Presence is Transubstantiation.42 b) This last conclusion directs the attention of the philosophic enquirer to a mode of existence which is peculiar to the Eucharistic Cody, though contrary to the ordinary laws of nature. The Body of Christ is present under the Eucharistic species, not after the manner of material bodies, but after the manner of spirits. This truth was well known to the ancient Fathers. Thus St. Ambrose says : ” The body of God is a spiritual body.” 43 Reserving the speculative discussion of this mystery for a later chapter,44 we here confine ourselves to a brief explanation. The Body of Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist in much the same way as the human soul is present in the body.. (1) As the spiritual soul dwells in the whole body, so the Eucharistic body of our Lord is present in the sacred host as a whole. (2) As the spiritual soul dwells in every part of the body with the whole of its substance, so the whole Body of Christ is present in the sacred species, not merely in their totality, but in every particle thereof. 42Cfr. Suarez, De Euckaristia, XVI, 408): Corpus Dei corpus ditp. $2, sect. 2} De Lugo, De Eu- est spirituals. charistia, disp. 8, sect 3. 44 V, infra, Ch. V, pp. 143 tqq. 43 De Myst., IX, 58 (Migne, P. L., TOTALITY OF (3) As the presence of the soul in all the members of the body does not result in a multiplicity of separate and distinct presences, so neither is the Eucharistic presence of the Body in the sacred species limited to the continuous (as yet unbroken) species as a whole, whereas before the division of the species it is present in the different particles only inadequately. This third analogy will help to clear away a difficulty arising from the infinite divisibility of material substances. It would be foolish to say that the Body of Christ is present in the undivided host as many times as the host is capable of being broken into separate particles. Neither has the human soul as many lives or existences in the body as the body has members animated by the soul. For the soul has only one adequate mode of being in relation to the whole body, and a number of inadequate modes in relation to its various members. Thus the Body of Christ is adequately present but once in the whole of the Sacred Host, inadequately, however, many times in its different parts. u Number follows division,” says St. Thomas, “and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of anything several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ’s Body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is [actually] divided into parts.*45 45 Summa TheoL, 31, qu. 76, art 3, ad t : * Humerus sequitur division em et idco, quamdiu quantitas manet indivisa actu, neque substantia alicuius rei est pluries sub