Open main menu

Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/32

This page needs to be proofread.




arc not such in reality, as, for instance. Matt., vi, 30: " Ami if the grass of the (ielil, which is to-(hiy and to- morrow is cast into the oven (fiaWdfievof) (iod doth soelotlie {ati(t)iii'i'v<np): how much more you, () ye of httle faith?" For in tliis [lassage it is a (luestion not of something in tlie future hut of something occurring every day. ior ot her examples see Chr. I'escli, " Pnel. dogm.", VI, 390 (3rd ed., Freihurg. I'.MKS). When the Vulgate translates the Cireek participles l>y the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one ia the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effun- ditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancirnt codices. The accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: t4 ToT-/ipioy . . . iKxvyknivov. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumetl that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the "shedding" with the chalice (Trorifpiov) , instead of with "blood" (rip aiMOTi) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents (Winer-Moulton, "Grammar of New Testament Greek", p. 791, Edinburgh, 1882).

As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to shed one's blood for others imto the remission of sins" is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Lev., vii, 14; xiv, 17; xvii, 11; Rom., iii, 25, v, 9; Heb., ix, 10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation, not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine, mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in the chalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental w-ay, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacra- ment merely but also as a Eucharistic sacrifice. If the " pouring out of the chalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood, which is being drunk". As, how- ever, it really reads: " Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, Vvhicli is slied for many (you) unto remis- sion of sins," the double character of the rite, as sacrament and sacrifice, is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testa- ment", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the Old Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Ex., xxiv, 8): "Th's is the blood of the covenant (Sept. : i5o0 t6 aXfta t^s SioS^ktjs) which the Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however (Heb., ix, 18 sq.), after repeating this passage, solemnly demon- .strates (ibid., ix, 1 1 sq.) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Saviour Him.self , with equal solemnity, says of the chahce: "This is My Blood of the new testament". It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacra- ment, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church,

is also established. I'or the diu-ation of the Euchar- istic Sacrifice is indis.solubly bound up with the dura- tion of the sacrament. Christ 's supper thus takes on the signilieaiice of a l)ivi)ii> institullun whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St. Paul (1 Cor., xi, 25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Saviour the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me."

We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense Christ's words of consecration over the bread. Since only St. Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is My Body", it is only on them that we can base our demonstration.

(1) Luke, xxii, 19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; toDt6 icri rh aCj^i fiov t6 ifirip vfxljjv iMufvov; This is my body which is given for you.

(2) I Cor., xi, 24: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; Tovrb yxii ian tA awpa rb iwip vpiuv [KKiipxvov]; This is my body which shall he broken for you. Once more, we maintain that the sacrificial "giving of the body" (in organic unity of course with the "pouring of blood" in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i. e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to cdfia he adds the present participle, SiSbiumv, by which he describes the "giving of the body" as something liappening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.

The reading KXiinevov in St. Paul is disputed. Ac- cording to the best critical rcatling (Tisehendorf , Lach- mann) the participle is dropped altogether, so that St. Paul probably wrote: t6 awp-a t& iinfp vp.Qn (the body for you, i. e. for your salvation). There is good reason, however, for regarding the word K\wp.eyop (from kXov, to break) as Pauline, since St. Paul shortly before spoke of the " breaking of bread " (I Cor., x, 16), which for him meant "to offer as food the true body of Christ". From this however we may conclude that the "breaking of the body " not only confines Christ's action to the strictly present, especially as His natural Body could not be " broken" on the cross (cf. Ex., xii, 46; John, xix, 32 sq.), but also implies the intention of ofTering a " body broken for you" (O-n-ip vixuv) i. e. the act constituted in itself a true food offering. All doubt as to its sacrificial character is removed by the expres- sion biSbp^mv in St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time quite correctly translates into the present: "quod pro vobis datur. " But " to give one's body for others" is as truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice (cf . John, vi, 52; Rom., vii, 4; Col., i, 22; Heb., x, 10, etc.) as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood". Christ, therefore, at the Last Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of tlie Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxxii, 19; I Cor., xi, 24).

(b) Proof from Tradition. — Harnack is of opinion that the early Church up to the time of Cyprian (d. 258) contented itself with the purely spiritual sacri- fices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not possess the sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholicism now understands it. In a series of writings. Dr. Wieland, a Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer of thanks- giving, till Irenajus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i. e. the Eu- charistic elements) which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated. Were this assertion correct, the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess.