CHAPTER IV

OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

QUESTION I

Why the Mysteries of the Eucharist ought to be treated and received with the deepest reverence

As of all the sacred mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Saviour as most infallible instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which is full of all holiness, or rather which contains the very author and source of holiness. This the apostle both wisely saw, and of it has openly admonished us; for when he had declared the enormity of their guilt, who discerned not the body of the Lord, he immediately subjoined: Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. That the faithful people, therefore, aware that divine honours are due to this heavenly sacrament, may derive therefrom abundant fruit of grace, and escape the most just anger of God, pastors will explain with the greatest diligence all those things, which may seem calculated more fully to display its majesty.

QUESTION II

For what reason, and when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted

In this matter, it will be necessary, that the pastor, following the example of the apostle Paul, who professes to have delivered to the Corinthians what he had received from the Lord, do first of all explain to the faithful the institution of this sacrament. That its institution was as follows, is clearly inferred from the evangelist. Our Lord, who having loved his own, loved them to the end, to give them some divine and admirable pledge of this love, knowing that the hour had now come that he should pass from the world to the Father, that he might not ever at any period be absent from his own, with inexplicable wisdom he accomplished that which surpasses all the order and condition of nature. For having kept the supper of the paschal lamb, that the figure might yield to the reality, the shadow to, the body, he took bread, and giving thanks unto God, he blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said; Take and eat: this is my body which shall be delivered for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also, he took the cup when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

QUESTION III

Why this Sacrament is called Eucharist

Wherefore the sacred writers, seeing that it was not at all possible that they should demonstrate by one term the dignity and excellence of this admirable sacrament, endeavoured to express it by many words. For sometimes they call it Eucharist; which word we may render in Latin either good grace, or giving of thanks. And rightly, indeed, is it to be called good grace, as well because it first signifies eternal life, concerning which it has been written: the grace of God is eternal life; and also because it includes in it Christ the Lord, who is true grace and the fountain of all favours. And no less aptly do we interpret it a giving of thanks; inasmuch as, when we immolate this purest victim, we give daily unbounded thanks to God for all his kindnesses towards us, and above all for so excellent a gift of his grace, which he assigns to us in this sacrament. But that very name, also, agrees best with those things which we read were done by Christ the Lord, at the institution of this mystery. For taking bread he brake it, and gave thanks. David also, when he would contemplate the greatness of this mystery, before he pronounced that verse: He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious, and full of compassion. He hath given meat unto them that fear him, thought that the giving of thanks should be placed first, when he says: confession and magnificence are his work.

QUESTION IV

Why this Sacrament is called Communion, the Sacrament of Peace and Love

Frequently, also, it is declared in the name of a sacrifice: concerning which mystery, there will be occasion to speak more at length presently. It is called, moreover, communion; which term is evidently borrowed from that passage of the apostle, where we read: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For, as Damascenus has explained, this sacrament couples us to Christ, and renders us partakers of his flesh and divinity, and combines and unites us to one another in the same Christ, and forms, as it were, one body. Whence it came to pass, that it was called, also, the sacrament of peace and love, that we might understand, how unworthy they are of the name of Christians, who carry on enmities, and that hatred, dissensions, and discord should be entirely expelled, as the most destructive bane of the faithful, especially when, by the daily sacrifice of our religion, we profess to preserve nothing with more anxious care, than peace and love.

QUESTION V

For what reason the same Sacrament is called the Viaticum and Supper

But it is also frequently called the viaticum by sacred writers, both because it is spiritual food by which we are sustained in our pilgrimage through this life, and also, because it paves our way to eternal glory and happiness. Wherefore, according to an ancient usage of the Catholic Church, we see it observed that none of the faithful depart from life without this sacrament. And the most ancient Fathers, indeed, following the authority of the apostle, have sometimes even called the holy eucharist by the name of supper, because it was instituted by Christ our Lord at that salutary mystery of the last supper.

QUESTION VI

The Eucharist cannot be taken after food or drink has been swallowed

It is not, however, lawful to consecrate or partake of the Eucharist after food, or drink, for this reason, because the custom, introduced wholesomely by the apostles, as ancient writers have recorded, was perpetually retained and preserved, that it should be taken only by persons fasting.

QUESTION VII

The Eucharist is a Sacrament properly so called

But the import of the name having been explained, it will be necessary to show that this is a true sacrament, and one of those seven which the holy Church ever revered and venerated religiously. For when the consecration of the cup is effected, it is called a mystery of faith. Besides, to omit the almost endless testimonies of the sacred writers, who have invariably thought that this was to be numbered among the real sacraments, the same thing is proved from the very principle and nature of a sacrament. For there are in it signs that are external and subject to the senses. In the next place it contains the signification and efficiency of grace. Moreover, neither the evangelists nor the apostle leave room for doubting regarding the institution of Christ. And when all these things concur to confirm the truth of the sacrament, there is obviously no need of any other argument.

QUESTION VIII

That in this Sacrament there are many things to which the name of Sacrament corresponds

But this must be carefully attended to by pastors, that in this mystery are many things, to which the sacred writers have from time to time attributed the name of sacrament. For, sometimes, both the consecration and the taking of it, nay, frequently also the body and blood itself of our Lord, which is contained in the eucharist, used to be called a sacrament. For St. Augustine says that this sacrament consists of two parts; scil. of the visible species of the elements, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. And after the same manner we affirm that this sacrament is to be adored, meaning forsooth the body and blood of our Lord. But it is plain that all these are less properly called sacraments. But the species themselves of bread and wine include the true and perfect import of this name.

QUESTION IX

How the Eucharist differs from all the other Sacraments

But how much this sacrament differs from all the others, is easily inferred. For all the other sacraments are completed by the use of the material, whilst, for instance, they happen to be being administered to any one. For baptism then attains the nature of a sacrament, when the individual is in reality being washed in the water; but to the perfecting of the Eucharist the consecration of the material itself suffices; for either [element] ceases not to be a sacrament, though kept in a box. Then in perfecting the other sacraments, there is no change of the matter and element into another nature; for the water of baptism, or the oil of chrism, when those sacraments are being administered, do not lose the former nature of water and oil; but in the eucharist, that which was bread and wine before consecration, after consecration is truly the substance of the body and blood of the Lord.

QUESTION X

The twofold material of the Eucharist does not constitute two Sacraments

But although there may be two elements, as bread and wine, of which the entire sacrament of the Eucharist is constituted, taught by the authority of the Church, we confess that there is not, however, a plurality of sacraments, but only one; for, otherwise, there cannot be the exact number of seven sacraments, as has ever been handed down and decreed by the Councils of Lateran, Florence, and Trent. For when, by virtue of the sacrament, one mystical body is formed, that the sacrament itself may correspond to the thing which it forms, it must be one, and one indeed, not because it is individual, but because it carries with it the import of a single thing. For as meat and drink, which are two different things, are employed only for one purpose, that the vigour of the body may be recruited; so also it was but natural, that the two different species of the sacrament should correspond to them, which should signify the spiritual food, by which the minds are supported and refreshed. Wherefore we have been assured by our Lord the Saviour: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. It must, therefore, be diligently explained what the sacrament of the eucharist signifies, that the faithful, seeing the sacred mysteries with their eyes, may also at the same time feed their souls with the contemplation of divine things.

QUESTION XI

Of what Things is the Signification included in this Sacrament

Three things, then, are signified by this sacrament; firstly, the passion of Christ our Lord, a thing past; for he himself said: Do this in remembrance of me; and the apostle says: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show forth the death of the Lord, until he come. It is also significant of divine and heavenly grace, which is imparted at the present time by this sacrament to nurture and preserve the soul; for as by baptism we are begotten unto newness of life, and by confirmation are strengthened to resist Satan, and openly to profess the name of Christ; so, by the sacrament of the Eucharist, are we nurtured and supported. It is, thirdly, significant of eternal joy and glory, which, according to God’s promises, we shall receive in our heavenly country. These three things, then, distinguished as they evidently are, by different times, past, present, and future, are, by the sacred mysteries, signified in such a manner, that the whole sacrament, though consisting of different species, is referred to the declaring of each, as to the signification of one thing.

QUESTION XII

Of the Matter of this Sacrament, and what kind of Bread is to be consecrated

But it is particularly incumbent on pastors to know the matter of this sacrament, in order that they themselves may rightly consecrate it, and also that the faithful may be admonished of that, of which it is the symbol, and may burn with an earnest desire to possess the thing that it signifies. The matter, then, of this sacrament is twofold, consisting of wheaten bread (of the latter we shall treat hereafter). For, as the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke testify, Christ the Lord took bread into his hands, blessed, and brake, saying: This is my body; and, according to John, the same Saviour called himself bread in these words: I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. As, however, there are various sorts of bread, because either consisting of different materials, such as wheat, barley, pulse, and other products of the earth, or because possessing different qualities, some being leavened, others altogether without leaven; it is to be observed that, with regard to the former, the words of the Saviour show that it should be wheaten bread; for, according to common usage, when we simply say bread, we are sufficiently understood to mean wheaten bread. This is also declared by a figure in the Old Testament; for the Lord commanded that the loaves of shew-bread, which signified this sacrament, should be made of fine flour.

QUESTION XIII

It is fitting that the Bread with which the Eucharist is administered be also unleavened

But as wheaten bread alone is to be considered the proper matter for this sacrament (a doctrine which has been handed down by the apostolic tradition, and confirmed by the authority of the Catholic Church), so may it be easily inferred from the doings of Christ the Lord, that this bread should be unleavened. For it was consecrated and instituted by him on the first day of unleavened bread, on which it was not lawful for the Jews to have anything leavened in their houses. Should the authority of John the evangelist, who says that all this was done before the feast of the Passover, be objected, the argument is one of easy solution; for by the day before the pascha, John understands the same day, which the other evangelists designate the first day of unleavened bread. He wished particularly to mark the natural day, which commences at sunrise; and the first natural day of the pascha being Friday, the day before the pascha must, therefore, mean Thursday, on the evening of which the festival of Unleavened Bread began, and on which our Lord celebrated the pascha, and instituted the holy Eucharist. Hence St. Chrysostom, also, understands the first day of unleavened bread to be the day, on the evening of which unleavened bread was to be eaten. The peculiar suitableness of the consecration of unleavened bread, to express that integrity and purity of mind, which the faithful should bring to this sacrament, we learn from these words of the apostle: Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For Christ our passover is sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

QUESTION XIV

Unleavened Bread not altogether essential for the Eucharist

This quality of the bread, however, is not to be deemed so essential, as that, if it be wanting, the sacrament cannot exist; for both sorts are called by the common name, and have the true and proper nature of bread. No one, however, is at liberty on his own private authority, or rather temerity, to transgress the laudable rite of his Church. And such departure is the less warrantable in priests of the Latin Church, commanded furthermore, as they are, by the supreme pontiffs, to consecrate the sacred mysteries with unleavened bread only. With regard to the first matter of this sacrament, let this exposition suffice. It is, however, to be observed, that the quantity of the matter to be consecrated is not defined, since we cannot define the exact number of those who can, or ought to receive the sacred mysteries.

QUESTION XV

What Matter is to be used for consecrating the Blood of our Lord

It remains for us to treat of the other matter and element of this sacrament, which is wine pressed from the fruit of the vine, with which is mingled a little water. That in the institution of this sacrament, our Lord and Saviour made use of wine, has been at all times the doctrine of the Catholic Church, for he himself said: I will not drink from henceforth, of this fruit of the vine, until that day; on which passage Chrysostom observes: Of the fruit of the vine, which certainly produced wine, not water; as if he had it in view, even at so early a period, to uproot the heresy which asserted, that in these mysteries water alone is to be used.

QUESTION XVI

The Water is to be mixed with the Wine in the Sacrament

With the wine, however, the Church of God has always mingled water; first, because that Christ the Lord did so, is proved by the authority of councils and the testimony of St. Cyprian; next, because by this mixture is renewed the recollection of the blood and water that issued from his side. Waters, also, as we read in the Revelation, signify the people; and hence, water mixed with wine signifies the union of the faithful people with Christ their head; and this rite, derived as it is from apostolic tradition, the Catholic Church has always observed.

QUESTION XVII

It is not absolutely necessary to add Water, and the quantity of Water ought to be less than that of the Wine

But although there are reasons so grave for mingling water with the wine, that it cannot be omitted without incurring the guilt of mortal sin; yet its omission is insufficient to render the sacrament null. But as, in the sacred mysteries, priests must be mindful to mingle water with the wine, so, also, must they take care to mingle it in small quantity, for, in the opinion and judgment of ecclesiastical writers, that water is changed into wine. Hence these words of Pope Honorius on the subject: A pernicious abuse has prevailed in your district, of using, in the sacrifice, a greater quantity of water titan of wine; whereas, according to the rational practice of the Universal Church, the wine should be used in much greater quantity than the water. These, then, are the only two elements of this sacrament; and with reason has it been enacted by many decrees, that, although there have been those who were not afraid to do so, it is unlawful to offer anything but bread and wine. But we have now to consider the aptitude of these two symbols of bread and wine, to declare those things, of which we believe and confess them to be the sensible signs.

QUESTION XVIII

How many and what things the symbols of Bread and Wine represent in this Sacrament

In the first place, then, they signify to us Christ, as he is the true life of men; for our Lord himself says: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. As, then, the body of Christ the Lord doth furnish nourishment unto eternal life to those who receive the sacrament thereof with purity and holiness, with reason is its matter composed chiefly of those elements by which this life is sustained; in order that the faithful may easily understand, that the mind and soul are satiated by the communion of the precious body and blood of Christ. These very elements serve also somewhat to suggest to men the truth of the real [presence] of the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament. Observing as we do, that bread and wine are every day changed, by the power of nature, into human flesh and blood, we may the more easily be led by this analogy to believe, that the substance of the bread and wine is changed, by the heavenly benediction, into the real flesh and real blood of Christ. This admirable change of the elements, also, contributes to shadow forth what takes place in the soul, for as, although no change of the bread and wine appears externally, yet is their substance truly changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; so, in like manner, although in us nothing appears changed, yet we are renewed inwardly unto life, whilst we receive in the sacrament of the eucharist the true life. Moreover, the body of the Church, which is one, consists of many members, and of this union nothing is more strikingly illustrative than the elements of bread and wine, for bread is made from many grains: wine is pressed from many clusters of grapes; and thus do thy declare that we, though many, are most closely bound together by the bond of this divine mystery, and made as it were one body.

QUESTION XIX

The Form to be used in the Consecration of the Bread

The form to be used in the consecration of the bread follows next to be treated of, not however with a view that the faithful people should be taught those mysteries, unless necessity require it (for those who have not been initiated in holy Orders, it is unnecessary to instruct touching these matters), but lest the most shameful mistakes take place on the part of priests, through ignorance of the form. We are then taught by the holy evangelists Matthew and Luke, and also by the apostle, that the form of the sacrament consists in these words: THIS IS MY BODY, for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY; and this form of consecration, having been observed by Christ the Lord, has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is obvious and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be attained from these words of the Saviour; Do this in remembrance of me. For what the Lord enjoined to be done, is to be referred not only to what he had done, but also to what he had said, and is to be understood to refer most particularly to words, uttered no less for the purpose of effecting than of signifying what they effected. But [that these words constitute the form,] is easily proved from reason also: for the form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord; it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to his having said: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying; This is my body.

QUESTION XX

Not all the Words which, according to Church usage, are used in Consecration, are necessary

For although, in the evangelist, the words, Take and eat, precede the words, This is my body, they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, although they be not necessary to the consecration of the sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood; but they are not necessary to the validity of the sacrament; otherwise it would follow that, if this sacrament were not to be administered to any one, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, although it should afterwards happen never to be administered.

QUESTION XXI

What Form is to be used in the Consecration of the Blood

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and to well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from apostolic tradition. Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke, and in the apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or, my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke, and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and, the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

QUESTION XXII

That this is the true Form of Consecration, is shown

Concerning this form, no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said touching the form, used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used [in the consecration] of this element, evidently consists of those words, which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other form need be constituted. They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood, shed in the passion of our Lord, fruits which appertain in a most special manner to this sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament: another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith, for, God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. A third is the remission of sins.

QUESTION XXIII

The Form of Consecrating the Blood explained

But as these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries, and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration. When, therefore, it is said: For this is the chalice of my blood, these words are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice, made at the consecration of the blood, in as much as the blood is the drink of the faithful, is at once right and apposite, for the blood, if it were not contained in some vessel, would not seem sufficiently to signify this sort of drink. Next follow the words: of the new testament; which have been added, that we might understand, that the blood of Christ the Lord is not given under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the apostle to the Hebrews, that without blood the testament was not dedicated, but really and truly given to men, a prerogative peculiarly appertaining to the new testament. Hence the apostle says: Therefore, Christ is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal in heritance. The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquired by the death of Christ our Lord, the eternal Testator. The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear an import different from that which they have when applied also to baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ, veiled under the species of wine; but baptism is justly called by us, the sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith. There is, however, another reason also why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith, which is, that, when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, a death designated by the sacrament of his blood, human reason is particularly beset with very great difficulty and embarrassment.

QUESTION XXIV

Why mention of Death is made more particularly at the Consecration of the Blood

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of his body, is appropriately commemorated the passion of our Lord, by the words, which shall be shed for the remission of sins; for the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the passion of our Lord, his death, and the nature of his sufferings. The additional words, for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God; and they serve to declare the fruit and advantage of his passion. For if we look to its virtue, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find, that it appertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore [our Lord] said: for you, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom he was speaking; but when he added, and for many, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from amongst the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did his passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the apostle, when he says: Christ was offered once, to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which the pastor himself, by the assiduous meditation and study of divine things, will, with the divine assistance, find it easy to discover.

QUESTION XXV

This sublime Mystery is not to be judged of by the Senses

But to return now to the explanation of those things, of which the faithful are on no account to be suffered to remain ignorant; pastors, keeping in view the admonition of the apostle as to the enormity of their guilt, who discern not the body of the Lord, will, first of all, admonish them that they must, as much as possible, call away their minds and understandings from the dominion of the senses. For, if the faithful were to persuade themselves, that in this sacrament is contained nothing but what is perceived by the senses, the consequence must be their being led into the greatest impiety, when using the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, and finding nothing but the appearances of bread and wine, they would come to the conclusion that this sacrament contains nothing more than bread and wine. The minds of the faithful are, therefore, with as much care as possible to be withdrawn from the judgment of the senses, and excited to the contemplation of the boundless virtue and power of God.

QUESTION XXVI

What is chiefly effected by virtue of the Mystical Consecration in this Sacrament

There are three things then most deserving of admiration and veneration, which the Catholic faith without hesitation believes and confesses to be accomplished in this sacrament by the words of consecration. The first is, that the real body of Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin, and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this sacrament; the second, that, however remote from, and alien to, the senses it may seem, no substance of the elements remains therein; the third, which is an easy inference from the two preceding, although the words of consecration express it principally, that the accidents, which are beheld by the eyes or perceived by the other senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see: they however inhere in no substance, but exist by themselves; whereas the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord, that the substance of bread and wine altogether ceases to exist.

QUESTION XXVII

The reality of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is shown from the Scriptures

To begin with the first, let pastors endeavour to set forth how perspicuous and clear are the words of our Saviour, which demonstrate the real presence of his body in the Sacrament. For when he says, This is my body, this is my blood, no one of sane mind can be at a loss to know what we are to understand, especially as he here speaks of his human nature, of the real existence of which in Christ, the Catholic faith permits no one to doubt; as Hilary, a man of most eminent holiness and learning, has admirably written, there is no room to doubt the reality of the body and blood of Christ, when, according to the declaration of our Lord, and our own faith, his flesh is meat indeed.

Another passage also must be explained by the pastor, from which it is clearly to be learnt, that in the Eucharist are contained the true body and blood of our Lord. For the apostle, having recorded the consecration of bread and wine by the Lord, and his administration of the sacred mysteries to his apostles, subjoins: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. If, as heretics prate, the Sacrament presents to our veneration nothing but a memorial and sign of the passion of Christ, what occasion was there to exhort the faithful in language so impressive, to examine themselves? For by the heavy denunciation contained in the word judgment, the apostle declared, that the guilt of some grievous sin is incurred by him, who unworthily receiving the body of the Lord, concealed beneath the Eucharist, distinguishes it not from any other kind of food. This the apostle more fully developed in a preceding passage of the same epistle: The cup of blessing, says he, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? Words which indeed demonstrate the real substance of the body and blood of Christ. These passages of Scripture are, therefore, to be expounded by pastors, and they must especially teach that of their meaning no doubt or uncertainty is left, particularly as they have been interpreted by the sacred authority of the Catholic Church.

QUESTION XXVIII

How we must inquire into the opinion of the Church of Christ touching the meaning of the Scriptures, and the reality of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist

This doctrine [of the Church] may be ascertained by us in a twofold way, the first, by consulting the fathers who flourished from the beginning of the Church, and in each succeeding age, and who are the best witnesses of her doctrine, all of whom, with the most perfect unanimity, and in the clearest terms, have delivered the truth of this dogma. As to adduce the individual testimonies of each father would be a laborious task, it will be sufficient to notice, or rather point out a few, whose testimony will afford an easy criterion whereby to judge of the rest. Let then St. Ambrose first declare his faith, who, in his book on those that are initiated in the mysteries, testifies that as the true body of Christ was assumed of the Virgin, so is his true body received in this sacrament, and that this is to be held with the most firm faith. And in another place he teaches, that before consecration, bread is there, but after consecration, the flesh of Christ. Let St. Chrysostom, another witness of no less credit and weight, next appear, who indeed professes and teaches the same truth in many other places; but particularly in his sixtieth homily on those who receive the sacred mysteries impurely; and also in his forty-fourth and forty-fifth homilies on St. John: Let us, says he, obey, not contradict God, although what is said may seem to be contrary to our reason and our sight: his words cannot deceive; our senses are easily deceived. With these testimonies fully accords what St. Augustine, that most earnest defender of the Catholic faith, always taught, particularly when, in his explanation of the title of the thirty-third Psalm, he says: To carry himself in his own hands, is impossible to man, and suited to Christ alone, for he was carried in his own hands, when, dispensing his body, he said, This is my body. Moreover, St. Cyril, Justin, and Irenæus, in his fourth book on John, so unequivocally declares that in this sacrament is contained the body of the Lord, that his words can be obscured by no fallacious or captious interpretations. But should pastors wish for additional testimonies of the fathers, they will find it easy to add St. Dionysius, Hilary, Jerome, Damascene, and innumerable others, whose most grave sentiments on this subject we meet everywhere, collected together by the industry and labour of pious and learned men.

QUESTION XXIX

How often the Contrary Opinion has been condemned in the Councils of the Church

Another means remains, by which we may investigate the judgment of the Church on matters of faith, viz., the condemnation of the contrary doctrine and opinion. But it is a known fact that so universally diffused and disseminated throughout the Universal Church at all times, and so unanimously received by all the faithful, was the belief of the real presence of Christ’s body in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, that when, five hundred years since, Berengarius dared to deny it, asserting that it was only a sign of Christ’s body, he, having been promptly condemned by the unanimous voice of the Council of Vercilli, convoked by authority of Leo IX. anathematized his heresy. Subsequently returning to the same impious madness, he was condemned by three other councils, one held at Tours, the other two at Rome, of which. latter two, one was convened by Nicholas II., the other by Gregory VII. The same sentence was afterwards confirmed by Innocent III. in the great Council of Lateran; and the faith of the same truth was subsequently more openly declared and established by the Councils of Florence and Trent.

If then pastors diligently explain these matters, they will be enabled to strengthen the weak, and afford the greatest delight and pleasure to the minds of the pious (of those who, blinded by errors, hate nothing more than the light of truth, we say nothing); especially as the faithful cannot doubt, but amongst the other articles of faith is also included the belief of this dogma. Believing and confessing, as they do, the supreme power of God over all things, they must also believe that power was not wanting to him to accomplish the stupendous work, which we admire and adore in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Again, when they believe, as they do, the holy Catholic Church, they must also, as a necessary consequence, believe that which we have explained, to be the truth regarding this sacrament.

QUESTION XXX

How great is the Dignity of the Church Militant is shown from the Majesty of this Mystery

But there is nothing which can be added to the delight and benefit which the pious derive from the contemplation of the dignity of this most sublime sacrament; for, in the first place, from it they learn how great must be the perfection of the Gospel dispensation, to which it is given to possess in reality that which, in the Mosaic law, was shadowed only by signs and figures. Hence St. Dionysius divinely says, that our Church is a mean between the synagogue and the heavenly Jerusalem, and therefore participates of the nature of both. And, indeed, the faithful’ can never sufficiently marvel at the perfection of the holy Catholic Church, and the height of her glory, removed, as she seems to be, but by one degree from heavenly bliss. In common with the inhabitants of heaven, we too have Christ, God and man, present with us; but they, and in this alone are they raised a degree above us, themselves present enjoy the blissful vision, whilst we, with a steadfast and unwavering faith, do homage to him present with us, yet removed from the eye, and concealed beneath the admirable veil of the sacred mysteries. Moreover, in this sacrament the faithful experience the most perfect charity of Christ our Saviour, for it eminently became his goodness never to withdraw from us that nature which he had assumed from us, but, as much as was possible, to wish to dwell and hold intercourse with us, at all times verifying the words: My delights were to be with the children of men.

QUESTION XXXI

The Bones, Sinews, and all other things appertaining to the Perfection of Man, are here truly present together with Divinity

Here pastors must also explain, that in this sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ, and whatsoever appertains to the character of a true body, such as bones and nerves, but also Christ whole and entire. But it is necessary to teach that the word Christ is the name of the God and man, that is to say, one person in whom are united the divine and human natures. He, therefore, embraces both substances, and the accompaniments of both substances, the divinity and the entire humanity, which latter is composed of the soul, and of all the parts of the body, and also of the blood, all which we are to believe are contained in the sacrament. For, as in heaven, the whole humanity is united to the divinity in one Person and Hypostasis, it is impiety to suppose that the body, which is in the sacrament, is separated from the same divinity.

QUESTION XXXII

The Blood, Soul, and Divinity are not in the Eucharist in the same manner as the Body of Christ

Here, however, pastors should observe, that in the Eucharist all are not contained after the same manner, nor by the same virtue. For there are some things which we say are in the sacrament by the force and efficiency of consecrations for as those words [of consecration] effect what they signify, theologians have said that whatever is expressed by the form of the words is in the sacrament by virtue of the sacrament. Thus, if it happened that anything were entirely separated from the rest, they teach, that in the sacrament would be contained that thing only which the form would express, and not the rest. But some things are contained in the sacrament, because united to those that are expressed by the form; for whereas the form used in the consecration of the bread signifies the body of the Lord, when it is said, This is my body, the body itself of Christ the Lord will be in the Eucharist by force of the sacrament. But since to the body are united the blood, soul, and divinity, all these also will be in the sacrament, not indeed by virtue of the consecration, but as united to the body. And these are said to be in the sacrament by concomitance, in which manner it is clear, that in the sacrament is contained Christ whole and entire; for when any two things are actually united, where one is, there also, of necessity, must the other be. It, therefore, follows that Christ, whole and entire, is so contained as well under the species of bread, as of wine; that even as, under the species of bread, are truly present not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire, so also, under the species of wine, are contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.

QUESTION XXXIII

Why there is a Twofold Consecration in the Eucharist

But although that such is the case, ought to be most certain and most convincing to all the faithful; yet with very good reason was it ordained, that two distinct consecrations should take place, first to represent more completely the passion of our Lord, in which his blood was separated from his body, wherefore in the consecration we mention the effusion of his blood; and next, because, as the sacrament was to be used by us as the food of the soul, it was fitting that it should be instituted as meat and drink, which evidently constitute the perfect sustenance of the body.

QUESTION XXXIV

Christ, whole and entire, is present in each Particle of either Species

Nor is it to be omitted, that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. For so writes St. Augustine, Each receives Christ the Lord, and he is entire in each portion; nor is he diminished for each severally, but gives himself entire in each. This is, also, an obvious inference from the Evangelists, for we must not suppose that each portion of the bread was consecrated by our Lord, applying to it separately the form of consecration; but that all the bread sufficient to perform the sacred mysteries, and to be distributed to the apostles, was consecrated at the same time, and with the same form. That such was the case, also, in the consecration of the chalice, appears from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you. Our expositions hitherto have had for their object to enable pastors to show, that in the sacrament of the Eucharist are contained the true body and blood of Christ.

QUESTION XXXV

After Consecration, none of the Substance of the Matter of this Sacrament remains

The next subject which we proposed to ourselves, and which [the pastors] are to set forth, is, that after consecration the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in the sacrament. This, although well calculated to excite the most profound admiration, is yet a necessary consequence from what has been already proved; for if, after consecration, the body of Christ is really and truly present under the species of bread and wine, not having been there before, it must have become so by change of place, by creation, or by the change of another thing into it. Now that the body of Christ cannot be rendered present by change of place is evident, as it would then cease to be in heaven; for whatever is moved must necessarily cease to occupy the place from which it is moved. Still less can we suppose that the body of Christ is rendered [present by creation, an idea which cannot even be conceived in thought. It remains, therefore, that the body of our Lord be contained in the sacrament, because the bread is changed into it; and therefore it necessarily follows, that none of the substance of the bread remains.

QUESTION XXXVI

Transubstantiation, as approved by the Councils, has its Foundation in the Scriptures

Hence our fathers and predecessors in the faith, in the great Council of Lateran, and in that of Florence, confirmed by express decrees the truth of this article. By the Council of Trent, however, it was still more explicitly defined in these words: If any one shall say, that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. The doctrine thus defined it was easy to infer from the testimony of Scripture, and, first, from what our Lord himself said, when instituting this sacrament: This is my body, for the force of the word, this, is to point out the entire substance of the thing present; but if the substance of the bread remained, the words, This is my body, would appear to be by no means said with truth. Again, Christ the Lord says in John: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, thus calling his flesh bread. He added a little after: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you; and again: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. When, therefore, in terms so clear and perspicuous, he calls his flesh bread and true food, and his blood true drink, he appears to have sufficiently declared that none of the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament.

QUESTION XXXVII

In what manner the Fathers acknowledged Transubstantiation in this Sacrament

That such also has at all times been the concurrent doctrine of the holy Fathers, whoever turns over their pages will easily perceive. St. Ambrose writes thus: You perhaps say, this is my common bread: before consecration that bread is indeed bread; but after consecration, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. The more easily to prove this position, he afterwards adduces a variety of examples and comparisons. But in another place, when explaining these words: Whatsoever the Lord pleased he hath done in heaven and in earth, he says: Although the form of bread and wine is visible, yet are we to believe that after consecration, there is nothing but the flesh and blood of Christ. Explaining the same doctrine almost in the same words, St. Hilary taught, that although externally it appear bread and wine, yet in reality it is the body and blood of the Lord.

QUESTION XXXVIII

Why the Eucharist is called Bread after Consecration

But here let pastors admonish, that we should not at all be surprised, if after consecration it is also called bread; for by this name the Eucharist has been called, because it has the appearance, and still retains the quality, natural to bread, of supporting and nourishing the body. That in the usage of Scripture-phraseology things are called by what they appear to be, is sufficiently shown from what is recorded in Genesis, that Abraham saw three men, whereas, in reality, they were three angels; and the two, who appeared to the apostles, at the ascension of Christ the Lord into heaven, although angels, are called men.

QUESTION XXXIX

The Manner in which this, so wondrous a Conversion, takes place

The exposition of this mystery is most difficult. Pastors will however endeavour to explain the manner of this admirable conversion to those who have made further progress in the knowledge of divine things; for those who are yet rather weak may, it is to be feared, be overwhelmed by the greatness of the subject. This conversion then is such, that the whole substance of the bread is changed, by the divine power, into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine, into the whole substance of the blood of Christ, without any change in our Lord. For Christ is neither generated, nor changed, nor increased, but remains entire in his substance. Declaring this mystery, St. Ambrose says: Thou seest how operative are the words of Christ. If then so great is the efficacy of the words of the Lord Jesus, as that things should begin to exist that had no existence, the world for instance, with how much greater power can it continue in being things that had existence, and change them into another? To the same effect other ancient Fathers of most grave authority have written. Thus, St. Augustine says: We confess that before consecration it is bread and wine, the, produce of nature; but after consecration, the body and blood of Christ, which the blessing consecrated. The body, says Damascene, is truly united to the Divinity, the body born of the holy Virgin; not that the body assumed itself descends from heaven, but that the bread itself and wine are transmuted into the body and blood of Christ.

QUESTION XL

This Wondrous Conversion is appropriately called Transubstantiation

This admirable conversion then, as the Sacred Council of Trent has taught, is accurately and appropriately called by the holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation, for as natural generation, because in it the form [of existence] is changed, may properly and appropriately be called transformation; so, in like manner, to express the change that takes place in the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the whole substance of one thing passes into the whole substance of another, the word Transubstantiation was rightly and wisely introduced by our predecessors in the faith.

QUESTION XLI

The Manner of Transubstantiation, and the Place in which Christ is in this Sacrament, must not be curiously searched into

But in accordance with the principle so often repeated by the Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished that they do not inquire too curiously into the manner in which this change may be made, for it defies our powers of conception, nor have we any example of it in natural changes, nor in the creation of things itself. The change itself is to be learnt by faith; the manner thereof is not to be made a subject of too curious inquiry. Pastors should also use no less caution in explaining the mysterious manner, in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread: such disputations will scarcely ever have to be entered upon; should, however, Christian charity require it, the pastor will recollect previously to fortify the minds of the faithful, by reminding them that no thing shall be impossible with God.

QUESTION XLII

The Body of Our Lord present in the Eucharist not as in a Place

They must next teach, that Christ our Lord is not in this sacrament as in a place; for place regards things themselves, inasmuch as they possess any magnitude; and we do not say that Christ our Lord is in the sacrament inasmuch as he is great or small, terms which appertain to quantity; but inasmuch as he is a substance. For the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into his magnitude or quantity; and substance, no one will doubt, is contained in a small as well as in a large space. The substance of the air and its entire nature, for instance, whether in a large or small quantity, and that of water, whether confined in a small vessel, or flowing in a river, must necessarily be the same. As, then, to the substance of the bread, succeeds the body of our Lord, we must needs confess it to be in the sacrament after exactly the same manner, as was the substance of the bread before consecration; but whether it was present in great or small quantity, was altogether a matter of indifference.

QUESTION XLIII

In this Sacrament there is no Substance in which the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain

The third effect, namely, the existence of the species of bread and wine in the sacrament without any subject, an effect in this sacrament as stupendous as it is admirable. What has been said in explanation of the two preceding effects must facilitate the exposition of this third point; for it having been already proved, that in the sacrament are truly the body and blood of our Lord, so that the substance of the bread and wine no longer remain, and whereas the accidents cannot inhere in the body and blood of Christ; it remains that, in a manner altogether superior to the order of nature, they subsist of themselves, inhering in no subject. This has been the uniform and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church; and may also be easily confirmed by the authority of those testimonies, by which it was already made clear, that no substance of bread and wine exists in the Eucharist.

QUESTION XLIV

Wherefore Christ was willing to deliver up his Body and Blood under the form of Bread and Wine

But nothing is better suited to the piety of the faithful, than, omitting the more subtle disquisitions, to venerate and adore the majesty of this admirable sacrament; and next, to revere the supreme providence of God in the institution of the holy mysteries, under the form of bread and wine. For whereas to eat human flesh or drink human blood is most revolting to human nature, most wisely has [God] ordained the administration of the most holy body and blood of Christ, under the form of those things, that is of bread and wine, with which, as our principal daily and common food, we are especially delighted. Two other advantages are also added; one, that we are freed from the calumnies of infidels, which we should not easily escape, if we seemed to eat the body and blood of our Lord under its proper human form; the other that, while receiving the body and blood of the Lord under a form in which he is not perceptible to the senses, our faith is thus very much augmented; which indeed, according to the well-known observation of St. Gregory, has no merit where reason gives proof. But these are matters that are not to be expounded to the people without much caution, taking into consideration the capacity of the hearers and the necessity of the times.

QUESTION XLV

What Benefit is to be derived from worthily communicating in the Body and Blood of our Lord

But with regard to the admirable virtue and fruits of this sacrament, there is no class of the faithful, to whom a knowledge of these things does not belong, and to whom it should not appear most necessary. For what is said at such length on this sacrament has principally for object, to make the faithful sensible of its advantages. As however no language can convey an adequate idea of its utility and fruits, pastors must be content to treat of one or two points, in order to show what an abundance and profusion of all goods are contained in those sacred mysteries. This he will in some degree accomplish, if, having explained the efficacy and nature of all the sacraments, he compare the Eucharist to a fountain, the other sacraments to rivulets. For the holy Eucharist is truly and necessarily to be called the fountain of all graces, containing, as it does, after an admirable manner, the fountain itself of celestial gifts and graces, and the author of all the sacraments, Christ our Lord, from whom, as from its source, whatever of goodness and perfection the other sacraments possess is derived. Hence therefore may we easily infer, what most ample gifts of divine grace are bestowed on us by this sacrament.

QUESTION XLVI

The Eucharist conveys to the Soul the same Benefits as Bread and Wine to the Body

It would also appear expedient, to consider attentively the nature of bread and wine, which are the symbols of this sacrament. For what bread and wine are to the body, the Eucharist is to the health and delight of the soul, but after a superior order. For this sacrament is not, like bread and wine, changed into our substance; but we are, in some wise, changed into its nature, so that to this subject we may with propriety transfer these words of St. Augustine: I am the food of the grown: grow, and thou shalt eat me; nor shalt thou change me into thee, as thy bodily food, but thou shalt be changed into me.

QUESTION XLVII

In what manner Grace is conferred by this Sacrament

If then grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, they must also flow into the soul, which receives, with purity and holiness, him who said of himself, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; for those who, with the zeal of piety and religion, receive this sacrament, must, beyond all doubt, receive the Son of God into their souls, so as to be ingrafted, as living members, on his body; for it is written, He that eateth me, even he shall live by me; also, The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. Explaining which passage, St. Cyril says, The Word of God, uniting himself to his own flesh, imparted to it a vivifying power: it became him, therefore, to unite himself to our bodies after a wonderful manner, through his sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in the bread and wine, consecrated by his vivifying benediction.

QUESTION XLVIII

A Man, defiled and dead in sins, is not vivified by receiving the Eucharist, even though this Sacrament is said to confer Grace

When then it is said, that by the Eucharist grace is imparted, pastors must admonish that this must not be understood that, really to receive this sacrament with profit, it is not necessary to have previously received grace. For as natural food can be of no use to the dead, so in like manner the sacred mysteries can evidently nothing avail that soul which lives not by the spirit. Hence it is, that this sacrament has been instituted under the forms of bread and wine, to signify that the object of its institution is not to recall the soul to life, but to preserve its life. But we say that this sacrament imparts grace, because even the first grace, with which all should be endued before they presume to approach the holy Eucharist, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves, is given to none, unless they receive in wish and desire this very sacrament, for the Eucharist is the end of all the sacraments, and the symbol of ecclesiastical unity and brotherhood; and outside the Church none can attain grace.

QUESTION XLIX

In what manner the Soul is refreshed and increased by this Spiritual Food

Again, since the body is not only supported but also increased by natural food, and from it the taste every day derives new relish and pleasure, so also is the soul not only sustained but invigorated by feasting on the food of the Eucharist, which gives to the spirit an increasing zest for heavenly things. Most truly and fitly therefore do we say, that grace is imparted by this sacrament, for it may be justly compared to manna, having in it the sweetness of every taste.

QUESTION L

The Eucharist remits Venial Sins

That by the Eucharist are remitted and pardoned lighter sins, commonly called venial, should not be matter for doubt. For whatever the soul has lost through the ardour of passion, by falling into some slight offence, all this the Eucharist, cancelling those same lesser faults, repairs, in the same manner (not to depart from the illustration already adduced), that we feel that by natural food is restored and repaired gradually the daily waste and falling away caused by the force of the vital heat within us. Justly therefore has it been said of this heavenly sacrament by St. Ambrose, That daily bread is taken as a remedy for daily infirmity. But these things are to be understood of those sins, of which the mind has no strong perception, and in which it has no prevailing delight.

QUESTION LI

By this same Sacrament the Soul is also preserved from Future Evils

There is, furthermore, such a force in the sacred mysteries, as to preserve us against the contagion of sin, and keep us safe from the assaults of temptation, and is, as it were, a heavenly medicine, which prepares the soul against the easy approach and infection of virulent and deadly disease. Hence, as St. Cyprian records, when the faithful were formerly hurried in multitudes by tyrants to torments and death, because they confessed the name of Christ, it was an ancient usage in the Catholic Church, to give them, by the hands of the bishop, the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, lest, perhaps, overcome by the severity of their sufferings, they should fail in the saving conflict. It also restrains and represses the lusts of the flesh, for whilst it inflames the soul more ardently with the fire of charity, it of necessity extinguishes the ardour of concupiscence.

QUESTION LII

In what way an Approach to Eternal Glory is opened by this Sacrament

Finally, to comprise all the advantages and blessings of this sacrament in one word, it must be taught that the holy Eucharist is most efficacious towards the attainment of eternal glory; for it is written, Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; that is to say, by the grace of this sacrament men enjoy the greatest peace and tranquillity of conscience during this life; and, when the hour of departing from this world shall have arrived, they, like another Elias, who in the strength of the cake baked on the hearth, walked to Horeb, the mount of God, invigorated by the strengthening influence of this [heavenly food], will ascend to unfading glory and never ending bliss.

All these matters must be most fully expounded to the faithful by the pastors, if they but dilate on the sixth chapter of St. John, in which are developed the manifold effects of this sacrament; or if, glancing at the admirable actions of Christ our Lord, they show that if they who received him beneath their roof during his mortal life, or were restored to health by touching his vesture, or the hem of his garment, were justly and deservedly deemed most blessed, how much more fortunate and happy we, into whose soul, resplendent as he is with unfading glory, he disdains not to enter, to heal all its wounds, to adorn it with his choicest gifts, and unite it to himself!

QUESTION LIII

The Different Manners of communicating the Body and Blood of the Lord

But that the faithful people may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, it must be shown who they are, that can obtain these abundant fruits from the holy Eucharist, reminding them that there is not one way of communicating only. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, when, as we read in the Council of Trent, they distinguished three methods of receiving this sacrament; for some receive it sacramentally only; such are those sinners who dread not to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says, He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually his flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the sacrament of his flesh and blood. Those therefore who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves. Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only; they are those who, inflamed with a lively faith, which worketh by charity, participate, in wish and desire, of that celestial bread, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits. Lastly, there are some who receive the holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the apostle, having first proved themselves, and having approached this divine banquet, adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits, which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

QUESTION LIV

Before any one draw nigh unto the Eucharist, the Mind must be fitly prepared

We must now teach the manner in which the minds of the faithful should be previously prepared for the sacramental communion of the Eucharist. And first, to show clearly the very great necessity of that preparation, to them must be proposed the example of the Saviour. For before he gave to his apostles the sacrament of his body and blood, although they were already clean, he washed their feet, to declare that we ought to use all diligence to bring with us to the participation of the holy mysteries the greatest integrity and innocence of mind. In the next place, the faithful are to understand, that as any one who approaches with a mind very well prepared and disposed, is enriched with the most ample gifts of heavenly grace, so, on the contrary, he who approaches unprepared not only derives from it no advantage, but the greatest disadvantages and detriments. For it is the property of the best and most salutary things, if used seasonably, to be of the greatest benefit, but if they be applied at an unseasonable time, to prove pernicious and destructive. It cannot, therefore, be matter of surprise that the greatest and most exalted gifts of God, when received into a soul well disposed, are of the utmost assistance to us towards the attainment of heavenly glory; whilst, if we present ourselves in an unworthy state, they bring eternal death. Of this the ark of the Lord affords a convincing proof: the people of Israel possessed nothing more precious than the the ark of the covenant, through which most important and innumerable blessings were afforded them from God; but, when borne away by the Philistines, it brought upon them a most destructive plague, and the heaviest calamities, with eternal disgrace. Food also, when received into a stomach in a healthy state, nourishes and supports the body; but the same food, when received into a stomach full of vicious humours, generates malignant disease.

QUESTION LV

In what manner the Mind ought to be prepared for the Eucharist

The first preparation, then, which the faithful should make, is to distinguish table from table, this sacred table from other profane tables, this heavenly bread from common bread. This takes place when we firmly believe that the body and blood of the Lord is really and truly present, of him whom the angels adore in heaven, at whose nod the pillars of heaven fear and tremble, with whose glory the heavens and the earth are full. This is to discern the body of the Lord, in accordance with the admonition of the apostle, venerating rather, as we ought, the greatness of the mystery, than too curiously and disputatiously investigating its truth. Another very necessary preparation is for each one to ask himself if he be at peace with, if he sincerely and from his heart love his neighbour; for we read in Matthew: Therefore, if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and first go to be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. We should next carefully examine our conscience, lest perhaps we be defiled by some deadly sin, of which it is necessary to repent, in order to be cleansed from its defilement, by the medicine of contrition and confession. For it has been declared by the Council of Trent that no one conscious of mortal sin, and having an opportunity of a confessor, however contrite he may seem to himself, is to receive the holy Eucharist, until he has been purified by sacramental confession. We should also reflect, in the silence of our own hearts, how unworthy we are that God should bestow on us this divine gift, and with the centurion, of whom our Lord himself declared, that he had not found so great faith in Israel, we should from the heart exclaim: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof. We should also put the question to ourselves, whether we can say with Peter: Lord, thou knowest that I love thee; for we should recollect, that he who sat down at the feast of the Lord without a nuptial garment, was cast into a darksome prison, and consigned to eternal punishments.

Nor should our preparation be confined to the soul: but it should likewise extend to the body; for we are to approach the holy table fasting, not having eaten or drunk at all—at least from the preceding midnight up to the very moment in which we receive the holy Eucharist. The dignity of so great a sacrament also demands that, for some days previous to communion, married persons abstain from the marriage duty, admonished by the example of David, who, when about to receive the shew-bread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from intercourse with their wives for three days. This is a summary of the principal things to be observed by the faithful, in order to prepare themselves to receive the sacred mysteries with advantage, for to these heads may easily be reduced all other preparations.

QUESTION LVI

All Christians bound to communicate once a-year at least

But lest any may possibly be rendered more negligent to receive this sacrament, by the supposed labour and difficulty of such a preparation, the faithful are frequently to be admonished, that to all is addressed the law that obliges us to receive the holy Eucharist; and it has, moreover, been declared by the Church, that whoever shall not have communicated at least once a year, at Easter, subjects himself to sentence of excommunication.

QUESTION LVII

How often, and at what seasons, the Eucharist should be received

Let not the faithful, however, deem it enough to receive the body of the Lord once a year only, in obedience to the authority of this decree: for they should approach oftener; but whether monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule. St. Augustine, however, lays down a most certain standard: Live, says he, in such a manner as to be able to receive daily. It will therefore be the part of the pastor frequently to exhort the faithful that, as they think it necessary every day to furnish nourishment for the body, they should also not neglect daily to feed and nourish the soul with this sacrament; for the soul, it is evident, stands not less in need of spiritual than the body of natural food. And here it will be most beneficial to recapitulate the immense and divine advantages which, as we have already shown, follow from sacramental communion. The figure of the manna must also be mentioned, which it was necessary to use every day, in order to repair the strength of the body; as well as the authorities of the holy Fathers, which earnestly recommend the frequent participation of this sacrament; for the words, Thou sinnest daily; receive daily, are not the sentiment of St. Augustine alone, but also, as any one upon diligent inquiry will easily discover, the sentiment of all the Fathers who wrote on this subject.

QUESTION LVIII

That it was the Custom of old in the Church to communicate frequently

That there was once a time, when the faithful received the Eucharist daily, we learn from the Acts of the Apostles; for all who then professed the Christian faith burned with such true and sincere charity, that giving themselves up, as they did without ceasing, to prayer and other works of piety, they were found prepared to receive every day the sacred mysteries of the Lord’s body. This practice, which seems to have been interrupted, was again partially revived by St. Anacletus, most holy pope and martyr, who commanded that the ministers, assisting at the sacrifice of the mass, should communicate; an ordinance which he declares to be instituted by the apostles. It was also for a long time a custom in the Church, that, as soon as the sacrifice was ended, the priest, after he had taken the Eucharist, turning to the congregation, invited the faithful to the holy table in these words: Come, brethren, to the communion; and those who were prepared, then received the holy mysteries with the greatest devotion; but subsequently, when charity and devotion had grown so cold, that the faithful very rarely approached the communion, it was decreed by Pope Fabian, that all should communicate thrice every year, at Christmas, at Easter, and at Pentecost, a decree which was subsequently confirmed by many councils, particularly by the first of Agatha. When at length things had come to such a pass, that not only was this holy and salutary ordinance unobserved, but communion was deferred even for several years, it was decreed in the Council of Lateran, that all the faithful should communicate at least once a year, at Easter, and that those who might have neglected to do so should be prohibited access to the Church.

QUESTION LIX

It is not fitting to administer the Eucharist to Children who are not yet in possession of Reason

But although this law, sanctioned by the authority of God and the Church, appertains unto all the faithful, it must nevertheless be taught that those are excepted, who, by reason of their tender age, have not yet attained the use of reason. For they are incapable of discerning the Holy Eucharist from profane and common bread, and cannot bring with them to its reception piety and religion of mind. And such conduct would also appear quite inconsistent with the ordinance of Christ the Lord: Take ye, and eat; for infants are evidently incapable of taking and eating. In some places, it is true, an ancient practice prevailed of giving the holy Eucharist also to infants; but however, as well for the reasons already assigned, as for others most agreeable to Christian piety, this practice has been long discontinued by authority of the same Church.

QUESTION LX

At what Age the Holy Mysteries are to be given to Children

But the age at which children should be admitted to the sacred mysteries, no one can better determine than the father and the priest, for it is their office to examine, and to inquire from the children, whether they have acquired any knowledge of, and experience a relish for, this admirable sacrament.

QUESTION LXI

It is sometimes allowable to admit the Insane to Communion

To persons, moreover, in a state of insanity, and at the time incapable of sentiments of piety, the sacraments are on no account to be given. If, however, before they became insane, they evinced a pious and religious disposition of mind, they, according to the decree of the Council of Carthage, may be admitted to its participation at the close of life, provided there be no danger to be apprehended of easing the stomach, or of other indignity and inconvenience.

QUESTION LXII

The Laity must not communicate under both kinds

As to the rite to be observed in communicating, pastors will teach, that the law of the holy Church interdicts communion under both kinds to any one but the officiating priests, without the authority of the Church itself. Christ, it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent, instituted, and delivered to his apostles, at his last supper, this most sublime sacrament under both kinds; but it does not follow, that, by doing so, our Lord and Saviour established a law ordering its administration to all the faithful under both species. For speaking of this sacrament, he himself frequently mentions it under one kind only, as, for instance, when he says: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

QUESTION LXIII

Reasons why the Church has granted the Use of One Species only

It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice had been administered in a large assemblage of the people. In the next place, whereas the holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid. Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine; lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove noxious to the health of the body, it has been most prudently sanctioned by the Church, that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only. We may also further observe that, in many countries, wine is extremely scarce, nor can it moreover be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance of the utmost importance, means were to be taken to uproot the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order therefore to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced. There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be adduced by the pastors. To omit nothing doctrinal on this sacrament, we now come to speak of its minister, a point, however, on which scarcely any one can be ignorant.

QUESTION LXIV

The Priest alone is the Minister of the Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate, and administer to the faithful, the holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated his own most sacred body, and given it to the apostles with his own hands. But to consult in every possible way the dignity of so august a sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by a law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other instruments necessary to its completion.

QUESTION LXV

The Eucharist may be consecrated or administered by Wicked Priests

Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand, with what piety and holiness they should be endued, who approach to consecrate, administer, or receive the Eucharist. What however was already said of the other sacraments, that, provided what appertains to their perfect nature be duly observed, they are equally valid, even if administered by unholy hands, holds good also with regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist. For we are to believe that all these depend not on the merit of the minister, but are operated by the virtue and power of Christ our Lord. These are the things necessary to be explained regarding the Eucharist as a sacrament. We must now proceed to explain its nature as a sacrifice, that pastors may understand what are the principal instructions, which they ought to impart to the faithful on Sundays and holidays, regarding this mystery, in conformity with the decree of the holy Council [of Trent].

QUESTION LXVI

The Eucharist is the Peculiar Sacrifice of the New Testament, and is most acceptable to God

For this sacrament is not only a treasure of heavenly riches, which, if we turn to good account, will obtain for us the grace and love of God; but it also possesses a peculiar character, by which we are enabled to make some return to God, for the immense benefits bestowed upon us. How grateful and acceptable to God is this victim, if duly and legitimately immolated, is inferred from the consideration, that if the sacrifices of the Old Law, of which it is written: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not, and again: If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted, were so pleasing and acceptable in the Lord’s sight that, as the scripture testifieth, from them God smelled a sweet savour, that is to say, they were grateful and acceptable to him, what have we not to hope from that sacrifice, in which is immolated and offered He himself, of whom a voice from heaven twice proclaimed: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased? This mystery therefore pastors will carefully explain, that when the faithful are assembled at the celebration of divine service, they may learn to meditate with attention and devotion on the sacred things, at which they are present.

QUESTION LXVII

What are the Reasons for which the Eucharist was instituted by Christ the Lord

They will teach then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes, one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; the other, that the Church might have a perpetual sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, ofttimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of just chastisement to clemency. Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and sacrifice. Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of his unbounded love towards us, than by bequeathing to us a visible sacrifice, by which that bloody sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, to the consummation of ages, by the Church diffused throughout the world.

QUESTION LXVIII

The Difference between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and Sacrifice

But [between the Eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice] the difference is very great; for as a sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation. When therefore kept in a pyxis, or borne to the sick, it is a sacrament, not a sacrifice. As a sacrament also, it is to them that receive it, a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction; for as, in his passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of his passion, and satisfy [for sin].

QUESTION LXIX

At what Time this Sacrifice of the New Testament was instituted

With regard to the institution of this sacrifice, the holy Council of Trent has left no room for doubt, by declaring that it was instituted by our Lord at his last supper; whilst it condemns under anathema all those who assert, that in it is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice; or that to offer means nothing else than that Christ is given as our spiritual food.

QUESTION LXX

Sacrifice not to be offered to the Saints, nor to any Creature

Nor did [the Council] omit carefully to explain, that to God alone is offered this sacrifice. For although the Church sometimes offers Masses in honour and memorial of the saints, yet she teaches that the sacrifice is offered, not to them, but to God alone, who has crowned the saints with immortal glory. Hence the priest never says: I offer sacrifice to thee Peter, or to thee Paul; but, whilst he offers sacrifice to God alone, he renders him thanks for the signal victory won by the blessed martyrs, and thus implores their patronage, that they, whose memory we celebrate on earth, may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven.

QUESTION LXXI

Whence is derived this Doctrine of the Sacrifice and Priesthood of the New Law

But this doctrine, handed down by the Catholic Church, concerning the true nature of this sacrifice, she received from the words of our Lord, when, on that last night, committing to his apostles these same sacred mysteries, he said: Do this in remembrance of me; for then, as was defined by the holy Synod, did he ordain them priests, and command that they and their successors in the priestly office, should immolate and offer in sacrifice his body. Of this the words of the apostle to the Corinthians also afford a sufficient proof: Ye cannot, says he, drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. As then, by the table of devils, must be understood the altar, on which sacrifice was offered to them; so also, that the conclusion proposed to himself by the apostle may be legitimately deduced, by the table of the Lord can be understood nothing else than the altar, on which sacrifice was offered to the Lord.

QUESTION LXXII

Under what Figures and Prophecies this Sacrifice was signified

Should we look for figures and prophecies of this sacrafice in the Old Testament, in the first place Malachi most clearly prophesied thereof in these words: From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a pure oblation; for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. Moreover, this victim was foretold, as well before as after the promulgation of the Law, by various kinds of sacrifices; for this victim alone, as the perfection and completion of all, comprises all the blessings, which were signified by the other sacrifices. In nothing, however, do we behold a more lively image of the eucharistic sacrifice, than in that of Melchisedech; for the Saviour himself offered to God the Father, at his last supper, his body and blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, declaring that he was constituted a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech.

QUESTION LXXIII

The Sacrifice of the Mass the same with that offered on the Cross

We therefore confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered, one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered himself, once only, a bloody sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this in remembrance of me.

QUESTION LXXIV

There is also One Priest of both

The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus acting in the person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of his body and blood.

QUESTION LXXV

The Mass, a Sacrifice of Praise and Propitiation

This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy council [of Trent] has also explained, the sacred and holy sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need, for so delighted is the Lord with the odour of this victim, that, bestowing on us the gift of grace and repentance, he pardons our sins. Hence this usual prayer of the Church: As often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done, that is to say, through this unbloody sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim.

QUESTION LXXVI

The Sacrifice of the Mass is available even to the Dead

Pastors will next teach, that such is the efficacy of this sacrifice, that its benefits extend not only to the celebrant and communicant, but to all the faithful, whether living with us on earth, or already numbered with those who are dead in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expiated. For, according to the most authentic apostolic tradition, it is not less available when offered for them, than when offered for the sins of the living, their punishments, satisfactions, calamities, and difficulties of every sort.

QUESTION LXXVII

No Mass, celebrated according to the Common Usage of the Church, can be called private

It is hence easy to perceive, that all Masses, as being conducive to the common interest and salvation of all the faithful, are to be considered common to all.

QUESTION LXXVIII

To what do the Ceremonies of this Sacrifice appertain

This sacrifice is accompanied by many very august and solemn rites, none of which is to be deemed superfluous or unmeaning; for all on the contrary tend to display more fully the majesty of so great a sacrifice, and to excite the faithful, when beholding these saving mysteries, to the contemplation of the divine things, which lie concealed under that sacrifice. On these rites however it is unnecessary to say more, as well because the subject seems to demand a more lengthened treatment than is compatible with our purpose, as because the clergy have at hand an almost endless variety of treatises and commentaries, written on this subject by pious and very learned men. Suffice it then to have hitherto explained, with the divine assistance, the principal heads of those things that regard the Eucharist, both as a sacrament and sacrifice.