Saturday, 7 May 2016

The Catholic Church Alone. The One True Church of Christ. Part 58.

SIX VOLUMES IN ONE
BY THE DISTINGUISHED EXPONENTS OF CATHOLICISM
REV. HENRY DODRIDGE, D. D.
REV. HENRY EDWARD MANNING, D. D.
REV. F. LEWIS, of Granada
REV. STEPHEN KEENAN
REV. BERNARD VAUGHAN, S. J.
REV. THOMAS N. BURKE, O. P.

Q. Do not miracles entirely depend upon the testimony of the senses ? Why then shall we not believe that to be only bread, where all our senses declare it to be so ?

A. We believe not miracles, purely upon the testimony of the senses, but from reason. But the case is not parallel. In miracles, there is no contrary circumstance or precept, to neglect their information ; but in the eucharist, we are to believe Christ's words, which are inconsistent with the information of sense. In many cases, all our senses are wrong informers, as reason tells us; and why should we depend upon them, when both faith and reason inform us of their misrepresentation ?

Q. When Christ changed water into wine, the people judged there was the substance, from the qualities it had of wine. If therefore bread retains the same qualities, we may conclude it has the substance.

A. The case is not parallel. The testimony of the senses was sufficient to convince them it was true wine, since there was no circumstance or words made use of by Christ, to signify there were only the accidents or species of wine in the substance of water. Now, in the eucharist, the words of Christ, " This is my body," cannot be verified, if the substance of bread remained: otherwise, our Saviour should have said, " In this bread is my body, and in this wine is my blood: " but as our Saviour said no such thing, but on the contrary absolutely declared that what he gave to his Apostles was his body, in this latter case the senses cannot be true informers.

Q. By what power is this change made, and why is it called transubstantiation, seeing there is no such word in the Scriptures ? And why may not the Lutherans' opinion be allowed, who affirm, there is consubstantiation, that is, that both the substance of bread, and Christ's body, are present ?

A. We have it by constant tradition, that the change is made by the words pronounced in consecration, whereby God himself acts as principal, and the priests as instrumental, in the person of Christ; and therefore the priest does not say, "This is the body of Christ but" This is my body." It is true, there is no such word as transubstantiation in the Scripture, in express terms, but only equivalently, and therefore the council of Trent says, it is a proper word to express that mystery". In the same manner, there are no such words in the Scripture as consubstantiation, trinity, person, or original sin, but all are found there equivalent. As for consubstantiation, condemned by the council of Trent, against the Lutherans, it does not verify Christ's words; for then he should have said, u Here is my body."* So there is a necessity of a change, by transubstantiation. This is what many learned Protestants have urged against Luther and his followers. See the Bishop of Meaux's History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches.

Q. Is not the eucharist often called bread after the consecration? And why, if it is not really bread ?

A. It is still called bread, and nothing can be more agreeable to the common practice of men, and the rules of speech. First, because it has to our senses all the natural appearances and effects of bread and wine: for this reason, angels, in the Scripture, are called men. Joshua v. 13; Genesis xix; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10. Secondly, because it was bread and wine before consecration. Thus God said to Adam, " Dust thou art, and unto dust thou must return," Genesis iii. 19. Aaron's rod, which was changed into a serpent, Exodus vii. 10, is still called a rod, because made from it. Thirdly, it is called bread, because it is the bread of life, the spiritual food and nourishment of the soul.