Article I: On the Real Presence of Christ

S. Th. III, q. 75, a. 1.

234. Thesis. In the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is contained truly, really, and substantially, and not only in sign, or figure, or power. - Thus the Council of Trent defined, sess. 13, c. 1 and can. 1, against the Sacramentarians, such as Zwingli, Carlostadius, Oecolampadius, after the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, against the Albigensians, and the Council of Florence, decree of union.¹

¹ The same is taught in the profession of faith for the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III; and in the condemnation of Wycliffe's propositions in the Council of Constance, sess. 8 and 13.

Christ is contained 1. truly, i.e., not only representatively in sign: which is chiefly against Zwingli;

2. really, i.e., not only in a figure or expressed likeness, or objectively insofar as by faith it is apprehended and by the contemplation of faith that which is in heaven is figured as present: which seems more against Oecolampadius;

3. substantially, i.e., not only according to effect, operation, and power: which is directly against Calvin and many Anglicans.

235. The doctrine is proved first from the words of promise. - Christ promised, John VI, the bread of eternal life, which came down from heaven: His flesh to be eaten as true food. But although the bread from verses 27 to 47 is perhaps to be understood in a figurative and transferred sense concerning spiritual eating through faith, or concerning faith in Christ or grace, nevertheless the words from verses 48 to 59 must be understood in the proper and immediate sense concerning Christ's own flesh to be eaten really. Therefore Christ promised His flesh really to be eaten, which promise would not be verified unless He were truly present in the Eucharist. - Similarly He promised that His blood was to be drunk.

It is proved: a) If Christ wished to speak in the proper sense, He could not speak, nor in the Last Supper did He speak, more clearly and openly: for the bread to be eaten is the same flesh which He will give for the life of the world (v. 52), i.e., His flesh immolated for the salvation of the world, where eating is proposed as participation in the immolation. But participation in bloody sacrifice everywhere on earth is made through the real eating of the victim. Therefore it is a matter of true flesh really to be eaten, which therefore is truly food (v. 56). - But if Christ wished to speak in a figurative sense, He could not speak more obscurely.

b) For the locution to drink blood among the Jews, who abhorred blood, has no metaphorical sense; but the locution to eat the flesh of someone in Hebrew and other oriental languages is taken in a transferred sense in a bad part concerning calumnies, injuries, persecutions against someone.² But that sense here is impossible: for how would Christ command and reward calumnies directed against Himself? (v. 52, 54, 55, 57).

² Ps. XIII, 4; XXVI, 2; Job XXXI, 31; Mic. III, 3; Eccles. IV, 5; Zech. XI, 9; Ezek. XXXIX, 17, 18; Gal. V, 15.

c) For this reason the hearers understood the words of Christ in the proper sense concerning flesh truly and really to be eaten, and therefore they judge this thing as impossible (v. 53, 61). But if from ignorance they had understood badly, Christ would have corrected the error as He was accustomed to do;³ He did not correct it, but rather six times confirmed it, demanding faith in His words as they had been understood by the Jews (v. 54-59).

³ Christ corrects in John III, 5; IV, 32-34; VI, 32-36; VIII, 21-23; 32-34; 40-44; XI, 14; Matt. XVI, 6-11; XIX, 24-26; Mark VIII, 15-21; - on the contrary He confirms in John V, 41-51; VIII, 56-58; X, 30-38; Matt. IX, 2-6.

d) Indeed, when on account of the proper sense many disciples went away, Christ permits them to go away; which He would not have done if they had understood badly, since by a very simple explanation He could have prevented their apostasy. But He would even have permitted the apostles to go away, if they had not believed His words (v. 68).

e) Hence the whole Catholic tradition understood it of the proper sense: the Fathers, and the Councils of Ephesus, Nicaea II, and Trent, sess. 13, c. 2; sess. 21, c. 1, although it does not define this.

Nor let it be said that Christ corrected the error and indicated a spiritual sense, by saying: The Spirit is He who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life (v. 64). - For He did not correct it, as the withdrawal of the disciples proves, and besides those words are not to be opposed to the preceding things but composed with them; nor is it surely the same thing to say: My words are spirit and life, and to say: My words are metaphorical. Therefore the sense is: the flesh profits nothing for understanding spiritual things, i.e., the animal man does not perceive them, but the spirit gives life, i.e., the spiritual man, aided by the grace of God, perceives them. Whence the flesh of Christ is not to be eaten merely materially like bodily food, but in a spiritual and sacramental mode, and with due disposition. Now the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life, i.e., they are concerning a spiritual thing. But certain ones among you are carnal men and therefore do not believe.⁴ Thus already Chrysostom.

⁴ Others interpret otherwise: My flesh separated from the divinity of the Word, the life-giving spirit, profits nothing; but it profits when united to the life-giving spirit, i.e., with the divinity. But the interpretation does not seem to cohere with the text nor to be conformable to the mind of the hearers.

236. The doctrine is proved second from the words of institution. - In the Last Supper Christ, designating that which is contained under the species of bread and wine, says it to be His body and blood (Matt. XXVI, 26-29; Mark XIV, 22-25; Luke XXII, 19-20; I Cor. XI, 23 sq.). But these words are to be taken in the proper and immediate sense, not in a transferred sense. Therefore the body and blood of Christ are truly contained under the species of bread and wine.

It is proved: a) If Christ wished to speak in a figurative sense, He would have spoken with the greatest obscurity, as is clear from this alone, that already in the year 1577 Protestants had found more than 200 diverse interpretations of the words of Christ; but if in the proper sense, He could not speak more clearly. This sense is still more expressly signified in Greek by emphasis: This which I give you to eat (eat: for this is) is My very body, that very one which is delivered for you; that which I offer to be drunk is My very blood, the very blood of the New Testament, that very one which is poured out for many. But the body to be delivered is a true body; blood to be poured out in sacrifice, sanctioning the New Testament, is true blood, just as the Old Testament was sanctioned by true blood.

b) And indeed Christ was establishing a covenant, founding a testament, instituting a sacrament, bearing a law, handing down a dogma to be believed, and addressing friends when death was at hand; all which things are customarily done by proper and clear speech, not by metaphorical words, at least equivocal and obscure, and difficult to grasp.

c) Indeed Christ could not have spoken in a figurative sense: for the apostles were very simple men, accustomed to miracles, judging nothing impossible; whence they could in no way have suspected a metaphorical sense which was not manifest and was difficult to grasp.⁵ Therefore Christ, who is God, would have deceived the apostles, and through them would have cast the Church into a most pernicious error which He knew would endure through 20 centuries.

⁵ Thus Matt. XVI, 11; John XI, 12; IV, 32; Luke XXII, 36-38; John XIV, 7-9: the apostles understand properly.

d) Whence the apostles understood the words of Christ in the proper sense: for since they are accustomed to declare figures less obscure,⁶ here not even one of them insinuates a figurative sense even by one little word. Indeed Paul, I Cor. XI, 27, concludes from those very words: Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; but if Christ were not present, he would be guilty not of the body itself but of its symbol; and on the contrary: he who eats unworthily eats judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., because he does not distinguish it from common bread, or because practically by his action he does not esteem the thing which he receives as the body of Christ.

⁶ They declare, for example, the metaphorical sense: John II, 19-21; III, 3-5; IV, 32-34; VII, 38-39; VIII, 32-34; XXI, 19-23; Matt. XVI, 6, 12; XVII, 12, 13; John XII, 4 with Matt. XXVI, 8 and Mark XIV, 4; Luke XXII, 39; Matt. XXVII, 44 and Mark XV, 32.

e) And thus the common interpretation of the Fathers understood it, which the Council of Trent defined as to be believed, sess. 13, c. 1.

237. The doctrine is proved third from Tradition and the perpetual faith of the Church. - It is established in various ways:

A. From the Fathers, whose testimonies are undoubted from the apostolic age onward, and in every region: Ignatius, who reproves the Docetae "because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Savior... which suffered for us," Ad Smyrn. VII, 1; Justin, who speaks according to the received doctrine, which he proves through the very words of Christ taken from the Gospels, Apol. I, 65-67; Dial. 41, 70, 117; Abercius in the epitaph, reporting a universal fact; Irenaeus, who says that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ and handed down to the Church by the apostles and received in the whole world, and that it consists of a twofold element, namely earthly and heavenly (i.e., the body of Christ and the spirit of divinity), Adv. haer. IV, 17, 18; V, 2, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. I, 5, 6; Origen, hom. 9 on Lev. 10; hom. 13 on Ex. 3; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV, 22; De carn. res. 8; Cyprian, De laps. 16; ep. 57 and 63; Dionysius of Alexandria apud Eusebius, H.E. VI, 44; VII, 9; Athanasius, fragm. VII; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XX, 1, 3; XXII, 1-2; XXIII, 20-22; Chrysostom, hom. 46 on John 3; hom. 82 on Matt. 4; Basil, ep. 93; Gregory Nazianzen, or. 45, n. 19; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. cat. 37; Aphraates, dem. III, 2; Ephrem, hymn. De Virg. XXXVII; Hilary, De Trin. VIII, 14; Ambrose, De myst. 8-9; book De Sacr. IV, 16; Jerome, ep. 14, n. 8; Augustine, serm. 71 and 272; Inter ined. 6; on John XXVII, 11; XLVII, 2; on Ps. XCVIII, 9; XXXIII, 2; Cyril of Alexandria, on Luke XXII, 19; on Matt. XXVI, 27; John Damascene, De fide orth. IV, 13.⁷

⁷ On the doctrine of the Fathers there may be compared: Nicole and Arnauld, La perpetuite de la Foi de l'Eglise catholique touchant l'Eucharistie; Bellarmine, Controv.: De sacr. Eucharistiae; Billuart, Franzelin, Van Noort, Tanquerey, Hugon in their theological treatises; Wiseman, Lectures on the Real presence; Dictionnaire de Theologie, art. Eucharistie; Mgr. Besson, La presence reelle de N. S. J. C. dans le sacrement de l'Eucharistie; Battifol, L'Eucharistie, 5th ed.; d'Ales, De Sanctissima Eucharistia.

The Fathers 1. appeal to the words of Christ's promise and institution in order to prove the real presence;

2. teach that the body which we eat is the very body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, was raised, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

3. teach that it is not a mere figure or image, but the true body and blood of Christ;

4. teach that Christ is not received by faith alone or merely spiritually, but truly, physically, and corporally;

5. teach that this sacrament is confected through the true conversion of bread into the body of Christ;

6. teach that it is the greatest mystery, the astounding compendium of miracles, surpassing every sense and reason;

7. use the real presence as a principle of demonstration against the Gnostics, Docetae, Monophysites, Nestorians, Arians, Macedonians, etc.;

8. say that the Eucharist is to be adored and treated with the greatest reverence.

B. From Liturgies, even the most ancient.

Such are: the most ancient form of the Roman liturgy which Hippolytus reports, Apost. trad. (second century); that which is read in the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, 12 (fourth century), and in essentials agrees with those things which are reported by Clement of Rome; that which was used in Egypt according to the Sacramentary of Serapion (end of the third century); similarly the Alexandrian liturgy, and that which is reported by Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century); likewise the Chaldaic, etc.

C. From the Councils Nicaea I, Ephesus, Nicaea II, Tours, Rome II, Vienne, Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, and Trent.

D. From the magisterium of the Church, which always reproved the least error against the truth of the Eucharist.

Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch already censures the Docetae who abstain from the Eucharist, because it is the flesh of the Savior. Origen, De or. V, 1, and Epiphanius, Haer. LX, 11, testify that certain heretics did not use the Eucharist or cast it away. The Nestorians indeed did not deny the real presence, but they erred because they said the flesh of Christ was not united to the Word, just as on the contrary those Monophysites who did not admit flesh in Christ.

In the eleventh century Berengarius, who first denied transubstantiation, afterwards also the real presence, was compelled by the Roman Council to a retraction. Likewise in the twelfth century Tanchelinus, who denied the real presence, was held as a heretic; and Peter of Bruys, who said that priests do not have the power of consecrating; in the thirteenth century the Waldensians denying transubstantiation, and certain Albigensians also the real presence, to whom a profession of faith was prescribed by Innocent III; in the fourteenth century Wycliffe, who erred at least concerning transubstantiation, on which occasion this third proposition was also condemned in the Council of Constance: Christ is not in the same sacrament identically and really by His proper corporeal presence (cf. questions for Wycliffites and Hussites 16 and 17); in the fifteenth century Pius II reproved the error of Zanini de Solcia: that in the consecrated host Christ exists not as to humanity but only as to divinity; in the sixteenth century the Protestants were condemned; in the nineteenth century the Modernists, who deny the historicity of the institution, but say that according to faith it is necessary that our mode of acting be as if we were before Christ.

E. By the argument of prescription. In the eleventh century, when the first denial of the real presence by Berengarius was heard, the universal Church possessed faith in it by a tranquil and immemorial possession, as is clear from the very confession of Berengarius and from the universal opposition against his assertions. But this possession proves the apostolic origin of this doctrine; therefore.

For: a) a doctrine of such great moment, if introduced, would have been introduced either simultaneously, by the consent of all, in which case so illustrious a fact would be historically established; or gradually and successively, and this would not have happened without contradiction and opposition, which history also would narrate; b) such an introduction is the more improbable because the same doctrine is found among all the oriental sects, separated from the Church already in the first centuries; c) the introduction of a thing not revealed as a dogma in the whole Church would be against the promise of infallibility made to her by Christ.

They object certain equivocal locutions sometimes used by the Fathers; for understanding these the following rules can be valid:

1. They call the Eucharist a figure, likeness, type, image, sign of the body of Christ, because by reason of the species it is a sign and sacrament, both of the body, not indeed absent but present, and of the body immolated on the cross, whose immolation is here shadowed forth, and of the mystical body or the Church, whose unity is represented by bread made from many grains.

2. The sacrament of the Eucharist is called bread, both by reason of the accidents which remain, and by reason of the matter which has been converted into the body of Christ.

3. In the Eucharist it can be said that it is not the same body which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the cross, namely as to the mode of being, although the same must be believed as to substance.

4. They commend spiritual eating as alone true, in this sense, that external and real reception without spiritual reception profits nothing.

5. They say that blessed bread is not the body of Christ, understanding bread before consecration, or the eulogiae or blessed bread which was given to those not communicating as a sign of union.

6. Our body is said to be nourished and increased by the body of Christ, both by reason of the species by which it is contained, and by reason of the incorruption and immortality which it grants to our bodies.

7. If the more ancient writers wrote less accurately or obscurely, it must not be attributed to error in faith, but either to defective terminology not yet scientifically defined, or to simplicity, because they knew that they were understood by the faithful in the right sense, or sometimes to the discipline of the secret.

Especially St. Augustine, who in many places undoubtedly asserts the real presence, in other places at first glance speaks equivocally and obscurely. Nor, however, is Augustine to be opposed to Augustine, but reconciled with himself, who must not be thought to have withdrawn from the opinion of his father in Christ, St. Ambrose, and from the universal faith of his time.

In particular: a) he often says that Christ gave the sign of His body, that that sign can be called the very body of Christ, that the faithful eat the body of Christ in a sign. This must not be understood as a naked sign, but as a sacrament, namely, a practical sign truly containing the Lord; moreover the sacrament or the consecrated species themselves can be called the body of Christ insofar as they contain it; and the faithful receive it in a sacrament, not in its proper species, but under the figure of bread, not visibly but invisibly.

b) He rejects carnal eating and asserts spiritual. Namely, he rejects eating in its proper species, such as the Capharnaites understood, but not sacramental eating; nevertheless this eating is not truly spiritual if the flesh of Christ is received merely materially and externally in the sacrament, nor is communication made also with the spirit of Christ or divinity.

c) Whence when he says: to eat that food and to drink that drink is to remain in Christ and to have Him remaining in oneself, which is done through charity, he does not deny sacramental eating of the real body of Christ, but this is not truly eating unless it is with fruit and the soul is refreshed and nourished, i.e., unless it is done at the same time with disposition and there is present conjunction with Christ through the spirit.

Namely, St. Augustine, by his synthetic genius, successively opens the various aspects of the sacrament, and more than his predecessors insists upon the very reality of the sacrament and upon its spiritual effects.

238. The doctrine is confirmed by reason of fittingness. - Thus St. Thomas, a. 1: that Christ is truly present is fitting on account of three things:

1. to the perfection of the New Law, whose sacrifice had to contain Christ having suffered, not only in figure, as already happened in the Old Law, but in truth;

2. to the charity of Christ: for it is proper to friendship to live together with friends; whence Christ is present by essence in the sacrament, so that there may be, in this way, a perfect conjunction of the head to the members, and thus it may be a sign of the greatest charity, and an uplifting of our hope from so familiar a conjunction with Christ;

3. to the perfection of faith: for just as Christ exhibits His divinity invisibly, so also in this sacrament He exhibits His flesh to us in an invisible mode.

239. They object: A. Protestants:

1. Locutions similar to the words of Christ are often figurative, whence in them there is to be understood: in figure or in sign, for example when someone, indicating a statue, says: This is Charlemagne, i.e., in image, or when Scripture says: the seven full ears or the seven cows of beautiful fatness are years (Gen. XLI, 26), the field is the world (Matt. XIII, 38), Sarah and Hagar are the two testaments (Gal. IV, 24), the rock was Christ (I Cor. X, 4), the seed is the word of God (Luke VIII, 11), I am the door, the true vine, bread (John X, 2, 7; XV, 1; VI, 35). Whence also the words of Christ can signify: this is My body in figure.

Resp.: In those locutions, either a) the predicate enunciates a property of the subject by likeness, and thus is a figure of the subject, for example, I am the true vine, the door, Alexander is a lion; but then they are not similar to the Eucharistic words, in which the subject is indeterminate and the predicate determined, while in those the contrary is the case; - or b) the subject is a figure of the predicate, but then it is required that from its nature (for example, a statue), or from received usage of speaking (for example, an olive branch), or from an already known institution (for example, types of the Old Testament), or from the context, it appear to be a sign. But this bread and this wine designated cannot be regarded, either from themselves, or from received use, or from Christ's warning or other adjuncts, as signs of the body and blood; whence the words are to be understood absolutely, not of that which the thing signifies but of that which it is. And indeed, although figuratively someone can say: Alexander is a lion, nevertheless no one will say: this lion is Alexander; - in a similar way: My flesh is food or bread, but not: this bread is My flesh.

2. The word is is sometimes taken for signifies. Thus Gen. XVII, 10, concerning circumcision it is said: This is My covenant; just as Ex. XII, 11, concerning the paschal lamb: For it is the phase, i.e., the passage of the Lord. This is especially true in the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic language, which lacks the verb signifies.

Resp.: a) The locutions are not similar: for in them the subject is a certain ceremony (circumcision, the paschal lamb) which from its nature is a sign, and the predicate is not a certain substance; besides, b) they can be explained so that the verb is preserves its own signification: for circumcision is part of the covenant, whence in Hebrew it is called My covenant to be observed; and the name phase was imposed on the very rite of the paschal lamb, therefore in this sense it is that which is called the phase or passage of the Lord; c) moreover in the case the sense of the locutions is clear, nor can it give occasion to deception; d) but the words of Christ are reported to us in the Scriptures not in Syriac but in Greek, according to the sense understood by the apostles, which is not figurative; and the Syrians, even if they lack the word, have more than 40 modes for expressing a sign; moreover Christ used the Jerusalem dialect, which abounds in such locutions.

3. Christ instituted the sacrament in memory of Himself; but a sacrament from its nature is a sign, memory is not of a present thing but of an absent thing; therefore from the adjuncts the apostles had to understand that Christ was not present except as in a sign.

Resp.: Christ did not first indicate that He was instituting a sacrament, so that from this the apostles might rightly understand the words soon to be pronounced; but first they understood the words, and from this they understood that the species containing Christ were sacred signs. Then Christ Himself did not make the sacrament in memory of Himself, but willed that afterwards it be made in memory of Himself as having suffered and as manifesting glory in heaven: but under this aspect He is not present. Finally memory is not opposed to presence but to forgetfulness, whence something is done in memory of a present but invisible thing.

B. Liberal critics and modernists:

They say that the narration of the institution is not historical and that Christ did not institute the sacrament; whence the words: Do this in commemoration of Me, are not read in Matthew and Mark, and the Gospel of John does not even mention the institution. Namely, Christ with the apostles celebrated a certain common Jewish supper or fraternal banquet, as J. Reville, Loisy, Harnack say, or He proposed to them a parable or memorial symbol of His Passion, as Weizsaecker and Julicher say; but this gradually among Christians evolved into the Lord's supper for commemorating His death, then into a sacrament, finally into the very body of the Lord to be eaten.

Resp. a) The epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was written about the year 55 and is more ancient than the Gospels of Matthew and Mark; in it the apostle does not impose something of himself, but narrates what was handed down to him (XI, v. 23), presupposes it known to the Corinthians, and does not directly inculcate it to them but merely mentions it occasionally, on the occasion of abuses which had crept into the celebration of the Eucharist. He also affirms that this celebration was commanded by Christ in commemoration of His Passion (v. 24); which Luke also reports, who nevertheless in writing the book of Acts and consequently also in the Gospel is known to be independent from the Pauline epistles. Whence the narration of Paul has historical value, which the mere silence of Matthew and Mark cannot take away; nor are they themselves altogether silent, since by the relation between the supper and the paschal lamb they insinuate a new pasch to be instituted by Christ.

b) John is silent concerning the institution, because he had sufficiently announced it and knew it to be universally known; on the other hand the narration of this fact was not demanded by the special character of his Gospel, which is rather doctrinal than biographical.

c) The adversaries cannot explain these three things: 1. how the apostles and Christians came into the idea of renewing the supper, regarded an ordinary supper as the Lord's supper, and thought that its repetition had been commanded when it had not been commanded; but if it be said to be a parable of the Lord: there are other parables or events in the life of Christ which ought more to have affected the disciples; therefore if the supper is nothing except a parable and the breaking of bread, why is one supper repeated? - 2. how the usual blessing of the table became a sacrament; - 3. how usual bread was regarded as made the body of Christ. Namely, they do not explain how, in so short a space of 25 years, such an evolution, without controversy and protest, could have become universally strong in a community which rather abhorred novelty: for it is a fact that the consciousness of the primitive Church believes in the sacrament. Sufficient time was lacking for so great an evolution.

240. Corollary. - Since in the Eucharist Christ is truly present, it follows that this sacrament is to be adored. Christ is adored as the principal object, but the species are co-adored as a secondary object and with relative worship, insofar as they are joined to the body of Christ, just as the purple of the king is honored together with the king. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 5, can. 6.