WE BELIEVE FIRMLY that after the consecration there is present on the altar the real and living body and blood of Jesus Christ. For without equivocation or use of parable our Lord had said: �Take ye and eat: This is my body.�

That which Christ called body, was nothing else but his own body. And that which he caned blood, was nothing else but his own blood. He did not say: �This is a sign of my body.� which he could easily have said, and would have been obliged to say in order to avoid confusion in the minds of the Apostles, had such been the case. The difference between the sign and the actual body is as great as that between the man and hi portrait which is hung upon the wall.

Christ Left No Room for Doubt

Christ used clear and intelligible words, especially when he instituted a sacrament necessary for salvation. He was most careful, as any man about to die would be, in making his last will and testament. Understanding the weakness and mental slowness of man in matters of a serious nature, he was cautious and prudent, as well as tactful, in the wording of his covenant with man, in the giving of his last commands, and in presenting to us the most important article of our Faith.

The sacraments are the vessels and instruments of our salvation, and without them there is no salvation. It would, therefore, be most irrational to presume that matters of such paramount significance had been instituted in dubious terms.

Regarding Baptism it was plainly said: �Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.� There is no figure or doubt as to the meaning of those words. We take the formula as it was given. We baptize, using water, as Christ enjoined in his discourse with Nicodemus (John 3:5). If we take the institution of Baptism literally, why should we understand the institution of the Eucharist differently? To propose doubtful means of salvation would be to perpetrate deceit in a matter touching man�s eternal destiny. It would be a contradiction of the divine plan. To ascribe such an action to Christ would be an insult to the Redeemer who offered up his very life out of deepest love for his creatures.

When one writes or dictates his last will, he uses no figures of speech, no poetic license. Such a will could only cause the utmost confusion and endless quarreling. It is too late to question the intention and meaning of the testator once he is dead. An explanation should be forthcoming earlier. Yet Christ offered no explanation. His words, therefore, were meant to be taken literally. They were clear and simple and needed no commentary.

Instituting the Most Holy Sacrament, Jesus closed his agreement and covenant with his disciples and the faithful. As in the Old Testament God laid down the conditions of his covenant in the words: �You shall have the inheritance of the promised land, if you remain faithful in the service of one God,� so Christ, in the New Testament declared: �You shall be my friends, and shall abide with me, if you keep my commandments� (John 14).

In the Old Testament, Moses confirmed the covenant and promises with the blood of animals. In the New Testament, Christ confirmed his covenant with ha own blood, saying: �This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you.� Agreements are made in plain terms, otherwise the conditions will not be understood and cannot be fulfilled. For that reason, in giving important orders to a servant we add the question: �Do you understand?� We assure ourselves that there is no doubt hi the mind of the servant as to our meaning.

Christ gave the command: �Do this in commemoration of me.� If that was not clearly understood, then his words were in vain. But there were no questions, as at once a question was raised when he referred to the betrayal. In a word, the disciples did not ask: �What are we to do, O Lord? Are we to commemorate this command with signs only or with your real and living body? Are we to take bread or your flesh?� But when he announced that one of them was about to betray him, they instantly asked: �Is it I, Lord?�

Here, then, at the institution of the Eucharist, they silently took for granted the plain literal meaning of his speech. To them the order was sufficient It meant: �You do what I did. I changed the bread into my body, and the wine into my blood, leaving you my dying reminder. Do you likewise that you may remember that I love you, that I gave my flesh and blood for you, and invite you to partake of it. Do you likewise. Consecrate, partake, and give to others reminding them of my death.�

The Most Holy Sacrament as an article of faith, is as great as the forgiveness of sin, even greater, That the Son of God had the power to forgive sin, and consequently could grant that power to others, was declared in no uncertain terms. How much more reason then for clearness of speech in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament! Christ gave us other mysteries on which the salvation of our soul did not depend, veiled in parables for our diligence in the search of his wisdom. But that which everyone had to know, under the pain of losing salvation, he had to give directly and plainly.

Christ himself directed attention specifically to the flesh he was giving, namely, �that which shah be given for you.� Of his blood, he said: �That which shah be shed for you.� We, therefore, have the same flesh and blood which was offered on the Cross.

Christ�s blessing of the bread and wine alone should be sufficient to disprove all heresy. If the Blessed Sacrament is only a figure or a sign of the body of Christ, as false teachers assert, then that blessing did not create any change in the bread. Accordingly, the word of God, as of man, is only an empty sound and has no power. But the word and blessing of God does change creation.

At His Word There Is Increase

God blessed the fish in the water and they multiplied, and his word still has its effect. He blessed the human race that it increase and multiply, and the forces of that word are still at work. He blessed the five leaves of bread so that five thousand were filled. How then was his blessing to be void and empty when, as writes the Holy Writ he blessed the bread with his omnipotent word and said: �This is my body,� �This is my blood�?

St. Ambrose writes extensively on that blessing of Christ. �At the baptism,� he says, �our Lord did not bless the water and, therefore, it still remains pure water. But at the institution of the Blessed Sacrament he blessed the bread, and so it had to change into that which he called it� (De His. Myst. Inc cap. 9).

Man�s blessing of matter does not change its nature. But God�s blessing, serving his will and his word, is powerful and changes the essence of things.

St. Paul thus speaks of Christ�s blessing of the Eucharist:

�The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?� (1 Cor. 10: 16) This meant as much as to say: �Through God�s blessing, the wine becomes blood: and by drinking 8 we become partakers in it.�

Figures of the Old Tenement indicated similarly that the bread of the Eucharist is not an ordinary bread. Such a figure was the Easter Lamb of which St. Paul wrote:

�Christ, our pasch, is sacrificed. Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth� (1 Cor. 5; 7,8).

If we have only bread in our Sacrament then better is the figure than the Sacrament which it foreshadowed. The manna, as Christ cans it, was a figure of the Eucharist. He promised us a manna that was to be better than that which the Jews had eaten in the desert, a food which would give us life, If he gave us only bread in the Eucharist, he did not give us anything better or worthier than the manna of the Israelites.

Moreover, the manna on the journey to the Promised Land would have been better and more substantial food than the Eucharist, for it had greater nourishing effects. Besides, it was a miraculous food which came down from heaven like rain, and had the qualities of appealing to every taste.

Jesus Christ promised that he would institute a sacrament in which he would give his flesh to eat. In the Gospel of St. John we red of the multitude following Jesus because they sought a repetition of the miraculous multiplication of the leaves of bred, and how Jesus told them to seek a food � which endureth unto life everlasting, a food which he, the Son of God, would give them, his own flesh and blood� (John 6: 26-35).

And when did Christ fulfill his promise? Was it not when he took bread and blessed, broke and gave it to his disciples saying: �This is my body�? When the Jews were scandalized in Christ and murmured saying: �How can this man give us his flesh to eat?� (John 6: 53), our Lord did not say that he spoke in figures, nor did he elucidate his teaching as if it were difficult to understand. On the contrary, he strongly confirmed it with the words: �Except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink hi blood, you shall not have life in you� (John 6: 54).

If the teaching is not to be understood in the way the Jews understood it, was it not then the most proper time, for the sake of his hearers� salvation, to say: �You do not understand what I mean. I speak in a figure of speech, in similitude�? Yet Christ did not do so. It is evident, therefore, that the bread which he promised to give is his body in the Eucharist.

St. Paul Leaves No Doubt About Real Presence

That Christ�s body and blood are really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist, is evident from the words of the Apostle who said: �For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment unto himself, not discerning the body of the Lord� (1 Cor. 11:

29). Would God punish anyone with damnation for eating unworthily what is merely a morsel of blessed bread? Surely not But the unworthy eating of the flesh of the Son of God is an act deserving of damnation, that is, if one receives it in the state of mortal sin. It is then a grave disrespectfulness and laxity.

Perhaps one will say that he cannot perceive the Real presence, and that its truth cannot be grasped by the finite mind. We reply that no error is committed if one fails to see or understand. We cannot see God, or angels, or the soul Yet are we to say simply because of that that they do not exist? Where would be our faith, and what merit would it have, if we were to understand everything? Besides, our reason cannot understand everything.

Not to commit any error let us adhere to the following principles: First, never to say that God does not speak the truth or that something is impossible with him. In the words of the angel to our Blessed Mother, we need but repeat to ourselves: �For no word is impossible with God.�

Secondly, let our reason always bow to faith, for �God is greater than our heart, and knows all things� (1 John 3:

20). We cannot fill or empty the sea with a shell cast up on the shore; neither can our mind comprehend the things of God. God�s ways and powers are a fathomless abyss.

Thirdly, we are not to doubt what God says, for Christ reprehended the doubtful. Zachary was stricken dumb for nine months by the angel because he doubted God�s message, while Christ himself rebuked Nicodemus because of his doubt saying: �Are you a master in Israel, and know not these things?� (John 3: 10)

Learn not to question God�s reasons, When our father, of whose honesty you are fully aware, leaves you his patrimony, you do not ask him how he came by it, for it does not concern you. It does not concern you how Christ gives you his body. Let it suffice that he orders you to partake of it, and thus gain your salvation.

When you do not understand, let the Church, whom you are expected to obey, teach you. If you do not obey the Church, you become a pagan and an unbeliever. From that save us, O Lord, and give us a strong faith and the earnest profession of your almighty powers which our mind cannot grasp. To you be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The above article and the following two are from the book �The Eucharist�,� translated by Edward J. Doworaczyk, published by the Bruce Publishing Co.

Father Peter Skarga, one of the greatest Catholic Reformers and pulpit orators, wrote extensively on the defense of the Eucharist at a time when this doctrine was under attack by the Protestant reformers. What Canisius did for Germany, Skarga did for Poland. How he accomplished his special mission is well attested to by the fact that Poland today is over 90 per cent Catholic. His arguments in favor of the traditional belief in the Real Presence are as valid today as then, and perhaps just as needed.

webmaster www.evangelizationstation.com