Chapter II — Certain questions which are wont to be raised concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I. Many are the errors of the heretics against this Sacrament, from which a Catholic ought to beware. Passing over the Capharnaites, Manichees, Marcionites, Phantasiasts, Messalians, and Enthusiasts, who denied the flesh of Christ, the first who thought ill of the Eucharist in the ninth century was John Scotus Erigena; in the eleventh century Berengarius, whose doctrine was proscribed in the year 1050 in the Roman Council. Berengarius offered a retractation of his error to Gregory VII. Having many times relapsed into his errors, and many times retracted them, he died a Catholic in the year 1088. There succeeded the Petrobrusians, the Henricians, and the Albigenses, who attempted to take away the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of the midst. Among the innovators nearer to us the first was Carlstadt, who in the year 1524 denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Him Zwingli followed, who blurted out in this same year that the Eucharist is a mere figure of the body of Christ. Zwingli's doctrine Bucer embraced; but that he might decline the odium of Luther, who keenly maintained the real presence, he studied to temper it with various emollients.

II. Calvin, more fraudulent than the Arians and all cunning men, now recedes from Bucer whom he cultivates as his master, now adheres to him and to Zwingli, now refutes both, now inclines to the Lutherans; now with crafty artifice he feigns to maintain the doctrine of the Catholic Church; at last, the mask being laid aside, he detests the Catholic dogma.

III. Those errors the Council of Trent, session 13, canon 1, condemned in these words: If anyone shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema. This canon Trent drew from the perpetual tradition of the Church.

IV. Luther with us demands the heresy of the Calvinists, because they deny the true, real, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he contends at the same time that together with the substance of the body of Christ the substance of the bread remains. Hence his followers were called Impanators or Panists. This error Trent condemned, session 13, chapter 4, and confirmed the perpetual dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: But since Christ our Redeemer said that that was truly his body which he offered under the species of bread, therefore it has always been the persuasion in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now again declares it, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood: which conversion is fittingly and properly called by the holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation.

V. The Catholic dogma being in few words set forth, Trent expounds the manner in which Christ exists in this Sacrament. By force of these words, This is my body, the body of Christ is directly placed. By these other words, This is my blood, the blood of Christ is directly placed. But by force of concomitance all those things are placed which are united to the body of Christ; and because the body is united to the blood, the soul, and the divinity — nay, the body itself subsists by the subsistence of the Word — therefore where the body of Christ is, with it all these things are. And thus in the Eucharist by concomitance the soul, the substance of the Word, and the divinity are in this Sacrament in a special manner, as Trent, session 13, chapter 3, plainly sets forth.

VI. QUESTION I. Is Christ whole in every part of the species? ANSWER. If the parts be separated, that the whole Christ exists in each Trent defined, session 13, canon 3. But theologians dispute whether before the separation of the host the whole body of Christ is in the whole host, and whole in every part. The affirmative opinion St. Thomas defends, III, q. 76, art. 6. The body of Christ is not in this Sacrament as in a place, because it is there in a sacramental manner. But this manner escapes the edge of our talent.

VII. QUESTION II. Can the accidents, or sacramental species, be corrupted and nourish? ANSWER. It is certain that after the consecration the accidents remain which affected the bread and wine. And it is established by experience that they can be corrupted after the consecration, just as before. How much time is required for the corruption in the stomach of one receiving the Sacrament nothing certain can be laid down. That not even half an hour is required all affirm. In one they are corrupted more quickly, in another more slowly. Wherefore for at least a quarter of an hour a priest ought to recollect himself after celebration, in reverence of so great a Sacrament.

VIII. QUESTION III. Is Christ in the Eucharist to be adored with the worship of latria? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and the truth was defined, session 13, canon 3, by Trent. Religiously also and holily is the Eucharist kept in the churches, and, whatever the Protestants may prate, it is piously and holily exposed to the public adoration of the faithful.