VIII

Of teaching designed to vindicate the spiritual nature of Eucharistic doctrine illustrations may be given from the writings of Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Franzelin, Cardinal Newman, Dr. van Noort, and Bishop Hedley. Manning wrote in a letter dated 28th September, 1852:—

“1. The Council of Trent says that our Lord’s humanity, secundum naturalem existendi modum, that is, in its proper dimensions, etc., is at the right hand of God only.

“2. The Church therefore distinguishes natural presence from supernatural or sacramental presence. Of the modes of this sacramental presence it defines nothing. It is supernatural.

“3. The presence being supernatural is not a subject of natural criteria or natural operations.

“4. Within the sphere of natural phenomena and effects there is no change in the consecrated elements. But a change does take place in a sphere into which no natural criteria such as sense can penetrate.”

In his Treatise on the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Most Holy Eucharist, the first edition of which was published in 1868, Franzelin said:—

“This mode of presence is altogether analogous to the mode of the presence of spirits; and it cannot be realised or declared by us in any other way than according to this analogy.… The body of Christ is not in the Eucharist as in a place, if by this phrase circumscribed presence is understood, so that the parts of the body would correspond to distinct parts of space; yet it is in a place, or more properly present to place, insofar as it is actually and substantially here and is not everywhere. Also it is not in the Eucharist definitively, if by this word is understood such definitiveness to this place that it would not also be elsewhere. Yet the presence can be called definitive in this sense that the body of Christ is necessarily within a space and is not everywhere.… No body can act by natural power on the body of Christ as it exists in the Eucharist; and the body in the sacramental state cannot be naturally perceived by any senses.… In this sacramental mode of existing He cannot by the natural power of His manhood perform acts which relate to other bodies; nor can the soul of Christ, so far as natural power only is concerned, act on His own body to produce either movement or the exercise of outward senses.”

In a note added in 1877 to a letter which he had written in 1838 when an Anglican, Newman said in explanation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome:—

“Our Lord in in loco in heaven, not (in the same sense) in the Sacrament. He is present in the Sacrament only in substance, substantive, and substance does not require or imply the occupation of place. But, if place is excluded from the idea of the sacramental presence, therefore division or distance from heaven is excluded also, for distance implies a measurable interval, and such there cannot be except between places. Moreover, if the idea of distance is excluded, therefore is the idea of motion. Our Lord then neither descends from heaven upon our altars, nor moves when carried in procession. The visible species change their position, but He does not move. He is in the Holy Eucharist after the manner of a spirit. We do not know how; we have no parallel to the ‘how’ in our experience. We can only say that He is present, not according to the natural manner of bodies, but sacramentally. His presence is substantial, spirit-wise, sacramental; an absolute mystery, not against reason, however, but against imagination, and must be received by faith.”

In his Treatise on the Sacraments, published in 1905, Dr. van Noort wrote:—

“There is local movement when the dimension of a body touches successively different superficies which contain it; since then the body of the Lord as it is in the Eucharist does not touch any superficies, it has no local movement, it is not moved properly or in itself. Nevertheless, because it is really present under the species of bread, which is moved, it is necessary that it changes its place at the local movement of the host, and successively acquires and loses presence in separate places, through which the host passes, and in this sense it is said to be moved by way of accident.… Many histories record that the flesh or blood of the Lord in the Eucharist have sometimes sensibly appeared. The Church for the most part passes no judgment at all as to the historical truth of such narratives, and never absolutely warrants it. Prudence forbids alike to reject all such accounts together as a matter of course and to allow them all promiscuously; for, even when all deceit is set aside, I could easily believe that a natural hallucination has sometimes had its share in visions of this kind. But, supposing the reality of the fact, it is inquired how the event can be explained. It must be said that those things which are seen in this case are not the flesh and blood of Christ themselves; for, first, since Christ is present in heaven after the circumscribed manner, and since a circumscribed presence in many places is a contradiction, He cannot be seen in another place; and, moreover, those things which are said to have appeared often do not agree with the glorious state of the body of the Lord, whose blood, for instance, cannot flow out of His veins or be corrupted afterwards. Therefore theologians are of opinion either that by the power of God the intended appearances are produced on the organs of those who behold them or that by the same power some figure is formed representative of Christ, which is attached either to the consecrated species themselves or to neighbouring objects, such as the corporal. No deception is asserted in this explanation, for in it the miraculous appearance is stated to be formed to show the reality of the actual presence.… The predicates which express presence only apart from the mode of it are properly applied to the body of the Lord itself, as to be on the altar, to remain in the tabernacle, to be taken by the mouth. The predicates which express presence but also denote the contact of quantity or local movement properly belong to the species only, yet they are usually applied improperly to the body of Christ, as to lie on the altar, to be touched, to be seen, to be placed on a throne, to be elevated, to be carried. The predicates which belong properly to the species only, but are used concerning them exactly insofar as they are signs of the body and blood of the Lord, still improperly but with somewhat more right are transferred to the body and blood themselves. In this way it is said that the body of the Lord is eaten, and broken, and that the blood of the Lord is poured out. For to be eaten (that is, not only to come into the mouth and thence into the stomach but also to be assimilated into the substance of the recipient) belongs properly to the species alone; but, because this eating was ordained only for a sign of the spiritual nourishment which the soul through it derives from the body of the Lord itself, it is customary to say that the body of Christ is eaten and His blood drunk. Further, it is often said to be really eaten, to be really drunk, but the more accurate meaning is: the body and blood of the Lord really come into our mouth and stomach, and so our soul is really nourished from them. Also, the species alone are properly broken and poured out, but where and sofar as the words breaking and pouring out are used to symbolise the Lord’s passion, they are rightly transferred to the body and blood themselves. The predicates which belong to the species exactly as they are something distinct from the Lord’s body cannot in any way be used of the body and blood themselves, as to be round or to be white or to be warmed or to be corrupted.”

In his book The Holy Eucharist, published in 1907, Bishop Hedley said:—

“Our Lord’s body is not touched or circumscribed or bounded by the species. Its parts have no point of contact in any point with the host.… It has … its natural parts as in heaven, one related to the other. It has its natural figure; it has head, trunk, limbs, heart, and hands. But you cannot compare them with this or that point or portion of the host.… The peculiar and marvellous mode of the Eucharistic presence is that it is neither that of a spirit nor that of ordinary material things. Our Lord’s body is not a spirit; and, although it is truly said to be in the Holy Eucharist after the manner of a spirit, yet this statement is of analogy only. It is in place after the manner of a material substance deprived of actual dimensions, actual shape, actual extended parts; of a substance therefore which has no point of contact with any material surroundings; a substance of which place in its formal sense cannot be predicated. Therefore it can be in many places at once, because the truth is, that it is (properly) in none of them. It cannot be moved from one place to another, because it is in no place to begin with. It is wholly in every particle or division of the species, because the species do not contain it as a stone is contained by the clay in which it is embedded, or a man’s body by its surroundings, but in a way quite special to the Holy Eucharist, namely, as substance with no dimensive relation. It has no relation to this or that portion of the host’s superficies or quantity, to this point or that line or that curve.… It cannot be touched by the hand or seen by the sense, because touch and other sensations can only be affected by contact, and the contact is with the species, whilst the qualities or properties of our Lord’s sacred body are out of touch, not only with the lips of men, but with the species themselves. It cannot be broken or divided; it is only the species that can be broken. It cannot be affected by injury from man, from animals, or from the elements. Whatever may chance, whatever devotion or impiety, care or violence, may bring about in the world into which He has deigned to enter, in the Sacrament He is unchanged, always safe, always undisturbed.… In the Eucharist the body of our Lord, by the wonderful and unique way in which it has taken the place of the substance of the bread, has adopted for outward purposes the bread’s qualities. This makes it possible to say with truth that that host is the Lord’s body, and justifies the worshippers in adoring. This also, as we have seen, makes it possible to assert that our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist is moved from place to place when, literally speaking, only the species are moved, because He is really contained therein. Thus also we are justified in saying that He is touched, seen, broken, eaten, etc. Under these and similar aspects the species have been assumed by our Lord expressly to signify His beneficent purpose in the Eucharistic dispensation. But if we were to say that the Lord’s body was smooth or white or round or fragrant because the host possessed these qualities, we should be at variance with Catholic feeling, because it is not in these respects that the species are intended to serve as the means of making the sacred body capable of being dealt with by the senses and faculties of men.”

These quotations are very representative of recent Roman Catholic theology; and they exhibit the same characteristics as the teaching of the great theologians of the middle ages in the desire to preserve as co-ordinate beliefs the reality of the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the spiritual nature of that presence. Like earlier writers, those of recent times appear both to use philosophical systems and positions as a help to emphasising that the body of Christ is present after a spiritual manner and to be hampered by the technicalities involved in their definitions.