The way I was led to the discovery of the error of the doctrine of the Real Presence-which is a short form I will use for the words "Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or Communion bread and wine"-was as follows: About twelve years ago, in the thirty-sixth year of my age, I became physically afflicted in such a way that I could not do anything else much since that time than read for pastime. In my much reading I re-read the Catechism, which I had been taught in my youth when my, mind was not mature enough to do much, if any, thinking for myself on religious doctrines; and read other Catholic works, some of which were given me by priests while I yet lay bedfast. In reading again the Catechism and other Catholic literature I came across the following:

Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain under the species?

A. As long as the species exist (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Stephen Keenan, p. 230).

Q. How long does Christ remain present with His Sacred Flesh and Blood?

A. As long as the appearances of bread and wine continue to exist (Deharhe's Catechism No. I; p. 260). "Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine no longer than the material appearances remain; once they cease because of digestion, or from any other cause, the presence of Christ ceases also" (Question-Box Answers, Rev.Bertrand L. Conway,447).

"After receiving host Holy Sacrament our Divine Lord dwells in us and remains until the natural heat destroy the appearances" (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1905,7).

Yet one ought to pray as follows after receiving Communion: "May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, remain with me" (The Mass Book, Rev. A. P. Doyle, p. 27). But it seems Christ pays more attention to the communicant's "digestion" and the "natural heat" of his stomach than to his prayer, if Christ takes His departure as soon as the "species" have "ceased because of digestion" or been destroyed by "the natural heat" of the stomach of the communicant. There is, then a difficulty here, is there not? The Church says further:

"Beg Him to abide with you all day...Remember that away from Communion there are but alternations of courage and weakness; but real strength, indomitable strength, is the portion of those in whom Jesus Christ always abides"(Frequent and Daily, Communion, Father Julms Lintelo, S. J. PP 48,56)

But how can Christ abide with or in the communicant "all day" or "always," if He takes His departure as soon as the "species" have "ceased because of digestion" which the Church says is about "ten or fifteen minutes" after receiving Communion?

"Oh! how precious are the moments immediately after the reception of holy Communion. For ten or fifteen minutes at least as the appearances of bread remain unchanged within us after holy Communion, we should he absorbed in fervent devotion" (A Pious Preparation for First Holy Communion, Rev. F. X. Lasance, p. 339).

Now, if Christ's presence ceases "ten or fifteen minutes" after the reception of Communion "because of digestion" or destruction by "natural heat" of the "species," then how can Christ abide with or within one "all day" or "always," if it is only by Communion that one can obtain or have His presence with one? Think of that question again. Is it not a difficulty and a contradiction?

After reading that the presence of Christ ceases as soon as the "species" have ceased "because of digestion," etc., and pressing the inquiry a step further than the Church went, or "digging a little deeper," as Rev. Patrick DeneHy says (Who Can Forgive Sins, p. 3), logically the following question suggested itself:

What then, becomes of Christ after the "appearances of bread and wine no longer continue to exist" after the reception of Communion, when the "natural heat" has caused the "species" to "cease because of digestion"? For surely a new and "whole and entire" Christ or God is made at the consecration at Mass, according to the following:

"After the consecration, which the Priest makes by saying over the bread and wine the same words which Jesus Christ said at the Last Supper, there is no longer any bread and wine on the altar, but the true and living Jesus Christ" (The Mass Book, Rev. A. P. Doyle, 7)

"By a word the omnipotence of God changes bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The substance of bread and wine is annihilated, but notwithstanding this, the appearances remain in their original state and retain their taste, color and form" (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1908, 2).

"See the power of the Priest; out of a piece of bread the word of a priest makes a God. It is more than creating the world" (Magazine, Tabernacle and Purgatory, May, 1905, p. 13).

(See the power of the Priest; by the word of a priest the sick are made well. It is more than creating the world out of nothing (?) The first claim has as much truth to it as the last.)

"The Council to Trent says (Sess. xiii, ch. iv): That by the consecration of bread and wine a change is wrought of the bread's whole substance into the substance of Christ our Lord's Body, and of the wine's whole substance into the substance of His Blood, which change has been by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation;...Transubstantiation, therefore, means that when Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, pronounced the words, "This is My Body; this is My Blood; the Son of God, by His omnipotent power transubstantiated, or changed, the substance of the bread and wine into His living flesh' so that no bread or wine whatsoever remained, but Himself-Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under their appearances. So in like manner, every day at Mass, the priest, acting in the name of Christ, pronounces the same words, and God effects the same change...Transubstantiation has an analogy in nature, imperfect though it may be. For is not the human body, which changes entirely every few years, made up of the food we have assimilated? Does not at least a part of this food become body and blood? Why believe in this gradual, mysterious change that God works in us constantly, and deny Him the power of instantly changing food into His Body and blood?" (The Question-Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, pp. 416, 417, 436).

A better analogy, I believe, is an egg, whose entire changeable substance can be changed into a living chicken.

According to the foregoing quotations a new Christ-God, with a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, must be made at every consecration at Mass, who begins existence where the substances of bread and wine cease to exist, are changed into Christ-God, just as a new chicken, a new ego, if such a term may be applied to it, begins existence where the substance of an egg is changed into a chicken. Transubstantiation does not mean an infusion of Christ-God into substances that afterwards still remain, as the wire remains after electricity has been infused into it, or without displacing the substance of the wire, but is a complete changing of one substance into another, like the changing or transmuting the substance of an egg into a living chicken. And, of course, where one substance is thus changed into another, the substance that succeeds it must then necessarily have its beginning, just like a chicken has its beginning where the substance of an egg is changed into it, there being just as complete a change of substance and a beginning of existence in the one case as in the other. That is what real transubstantiation means. A God, then, who is made "out of a piece of bread" is not the uncreated, infinite and eternal God from eternity who is. It is, then, only a "God" to those who want to believe so, just as the man-made god of wood or stone of the pagans is "a god" to those pagans who want to believe so. Then think of worshiping such "a God!" What, then, is the real difference between Catholic idolatry and pagan idolatry, so far as their deities in material forms and their adoration are concerned?, Answer for yourself.

When one substance is changed into another, and it does not start the beginning of a new being, as when food is changed into natural flesh and blood of a being already in existence, then it adds to the size or quantity of the being into which it is changed, or they replace wasted tissues. But that thought can not be held of Gog. For He is infinite and can not, therefore, be added to nor waste away; for infinitude admits of no increase or addition or wasting tissues. To say, as one wrote me that "the Christ is in all consecrated Hosts mysteriously diffused " and when the "material appearances have ceased because of digestion" that then "Christ Himself is; undiminished " would not be transubstantiation, but consubstantiation, in which the Church does not believe. Neither would Christ then have been "consumed," as Catholics are led to believe is the case when they, "eat the flesh of the Son of Man" in Communion. And according to the following there is after all no real transubstantiation, but the Eucharist is a sort of a magnet that draws the Lord from heaven:

"In Transubstantiation the substance is changed, not so as to form what till then had no existence, but into that which already exists: That is to say, before the consecrating words are spoken our Lord's sacred Body exists in Heaven, perfect, entire and wanting in nothing, and by virtue of the words of consecration the bread resting on the altar is changed, not into a new Body, but into that very pre-existing Body. [Must, then, add to its size or quantity]. The Body into which the substance of bread is changed in the Mass is a glorified Body-a true body indeed, possessing all its constituent parts and organs, but spiritualized, .incorruptible, immortal and glorious. This doctrine refers only to Masses offered up since the time of our Lord's Resurrection" (Thoughts for All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John S. Vaugn, p. 145).

According to that there is really no transubstantiation at the consecration, but a sort of a case of "now you do, and now you do not" change bread and wine into such flesh and blood of Christ as the Jews apparently believed they were to eat and drink, and into such flesh and blood as Christ had at the time He said to them:

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6:54).

And how can bread and wine be changed into "that very pre-existing Body" that is "entire and wanting in nothing," without adding to its quantity, just like bread and wine changed into human flesh and blood, or body, can not help but add to the quantity of the body, or replace its wasting tissues? And will glorified bodies have flesh and blood such as the Jews apparently believed they were with the mouth to literally eat and drink? If so, then how does that dovetail with this?

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God (I Cor 15:50) And if it was not literal, carnal flesh and blood, but glorified flesh and blood-which is no such flesh and blood at all as understood by the Jews, and which they were to literaIly eat and drink-then how was the declaration of Christ (John 6:54, 55), if it meant a mouth-eating and drinking act, anything but misleading to them, especially if the following is true?

That He is not speaking figuratively, but in the literal sense, about our eating His flesh and drinking His blood is proved by His frequent repetition of "unless a man eat My flesh and drink My blood he shall not have life in him." And when the Jews objected to this doctrine as repugnant, far from telling them it was figurative language, He repeated His statement and allowed them to depart (The Gospel Dlea for Christian Unity, Rev. Martin O'Donoghue,42),

Did not the repetition of "unless a man eat My flesh and drink My blood," make the flesh and blood as literal and carnal as the repetition of "Except a man be born again (John 3:3-5,) make the water mean literal, carnal water? Or did it also mean a "glorified" water, under the veil of something as foreign in appearance to literal water as bread is to the supposed literal flesh and blood of Christ?

"Probably if Christ had, if He meant a mouth-eating and drinking operation, explained, as the Church has, and told the Jews He did not mean literal, carnal flesh and 'clotted gore' such as they bought 'in the shambles of the meat market'" (The Real Presence, Rev. C. F. Smarius, S. J.; p.9), as they imagined Christ would give them, but that He would give them a "glorified Body" under the veils of bread and wine, which would be as easy to eat and drink as plain, natural bread and wine, they probably would not have thought it to be an operation or "doctrine as repugnant" and would then not have said: "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (John 6:53). Either, then, Christ misled the Jews, if He meant a mouth-eating and drinking act at all, but which He did not, as we will see later, or else the Church is in error for claiming now that the flesh and blood of Christ are to be understood as "glorified" flesh and blood; for at the time He addressed the Jews it was before "the time of our Lord's resurrection."

That the Jews, however, understood they were to eat and drink flesh and blood that were flesh and blood "indeed" (John 6:56), in their literal or carnal state, may be inferred from the following:

"If we take the expression, to eat the flesh of Christ, in the only figurative sense known at that time, and say that was His meaning, His words, reduced to literal language, would stand about thus: "Except ye do some grievous injury to the Son of Man, ye have no life in you." This interpretation must at once be rejected; and this being true, we are forced to take its expression in its literal sense, or in some new and unknown and undefined figurative sense. And what right have we to do the latter? ...And to show that these expressions (John 6:54-55) were revolting to the Jews, I need only refer to the following texts: Lev.3:17; 7:26; Gen.9:4; Deut.12:16; 15:23; Lev.17:10; I Kings 14; Eze.33:25; Isa.49:26; Jer.19:8; Acts 15:29. lt was doubtless this revolting idea which the Jews had of eating human flesh and drinking blood, that induced many of the disciples to "walk no more" with our Lord, and disbelieve the doctrine He taught" (The Path which Led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church, Peter H. Burnett; Rev. Jas. Sullivan, S. J., Ed., 286-288.)

The Church however, does not strictly "take its expression in its literal sense," but the sense in which she takes it would make Christ's "language stand about thus: "Except ye eat the glorified Body in Heaven of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you."

Now, if the declarations of Christ were not to be taken in the plain, literal, obvious sense, as pagans literally ate and drank the flesh and blood they, "sacrificed to idols" and "from things strangled" Acts 15:29 etc.) then were the Jews not misled by those declarations if those declarations meant that His flesh and blood would be of the "glorified" kind and were to be received under the veils of bread and wine? Even as the Church has interpreted it, it is not in "its literal, plain, obvious sense," which was supposed to be the only other sense than the figurative sense, which "must at once be rejected." If the Jews, then, were not misled then there must be a real transubstantiation of bread and wine into carnal, literal flesh and blood of Christ, such as was His flesh and blood at the time He spoke to them, at least they must appear so to the eyes of faith. Transubstantiation, then, means the coming into existence of a substance that has a beginning where the substances of bread and wine end, and means a new substance or being, just as a chicken hatched from an egg is a new substance or being, and at the consecration at Mass it must then mean a new and "whole and entire" Christ-God. Or if no new Christ-God is made then at least new flesh and blood of His are made, and new flesh and blood imply a new "human nature Body" of Christ-God. And as the Church teaches, as we will see later that the Body of Christ, His "human nature Body," is "incorruptible, immortal " that is, "imperishable meat, then what becomes of it if its presence ceases in the communicant when the "species" have "ceased because of digestion" or been destroyed by his "natural heat" and it is not literally "consumed" to nothingness, as natural food is when it is consumed? And why should His presence be governed and limited by digestion or "natural heat?". That very fact alone shows the erroneousness and absurdity of the doctrine of the Real Presence. But if the doctrine is true then a new "whole and entire" Christ-God or new flesh and blood of His must necessarily be made at the consecration at Mass. Such being the case, then what becomes of Him when the appearances under which He is supposed to be veiled have "ceased because of digestion" or been destroyed by "natural heat?" Some may say that that is not so important a question as to cause one to quibble over or to doubt the doctrine of the Real Presence. But it is really a more important question than first appears on the face of it. For by "digging a little deeper" the question becomes of great importance; for it can not be answered without involving many contradictions and difficulties. I did at one time think the question could be answered in two ways. But when I put them to the test they could not stand the test of an analysis with the "arms of the intellect," the weapons the Church says she will one day use in her "warfare with Infidelity."

"Even to the casual observer it becomes more evident from day to day that the time of a great warfare is fast approaching, The battle will he fought and won, not with material arms, but with the arms of the intellect. Two great armies, and only two, will be engaged in the combat-the Catholic Church and Infidelity" (St. Benedict's Church Calendar, March 3, 1902, 5).

And surely the Church can not, in analyzing her teachings, rightly deny any one the use of the same weapons, the "arms of the intellect," with which she would attack the teachings of Infidelity, or any other system opposed to her teachings. And surely we have a right to follow up the act of receiving Christ-God in Communion and know what becomes of Him, just as we have the right to follow up, if we want to, the act of eating food and knowing what becomes of it, etc. There are two answers, and they are as follows:

1. That Christ-God then leaves one again, "whole and entire."

2. That Christ-God then is assimilated to nothingness, just as food that is properly taken into the stomach and is digested, is assimilated to nothingness that is, it is food no longer because of its having become digested.

On analyzing those answers I found, however, that neither one of them could be admitted. For in the first case, the soul of the communicant would not have retained any part or substance of Christ-God (otherwise He would then be less than a "whole and entire" Christ-God after He left the communicant), and the soul would therefore not have received or retained anything substantial and lasting that would give it any lasting nourishment and strength; it being the same as though one should reject or vomit out again "whole and entire" a meal that one had just eaten, a process which would certainly not nourish and strengthen the body.

Again, if Christ-God leaves one again "whole and entire " or He is not consumed and assimilated to nothingness, annihilation as natural food is when eaten, then how has one eaten and drunk the flesh and blood of Christ-God and "consumed" them, or, how is one's soul nourished by them if the are not literally consumed and assimilated and they leave one again "whole entire" in about fifteen minutes? Would you call that eating and drinking a thing if it left again in fifteen minutes "whole and entire," unconsumed and unassimilated, as chewing gum is, which one does not eat but only chews? We do not say a person eats chewing gum or tobacco when he chews it only and does not swallow it. It would seem, then, that to really eat and drink the flesh and blood of God, they would have to be literally "consumed" and assimilated, just as natural foods are when one eats and drinks and consumes them, and as no doubt understood by the Jews. How, then, has one eaten and drunk the flesh and blood of Christ-God when they are taken into the mouth and they are not literally consumed and assimilated to nothingness? That is another difficulty, is it not? For to receive Christ-God into the mouth and not to assimilate Him, would not be eating Him 1iterally.

Then again, if He is not consumed and assimilated to nothingness, and He leaves "whole and entire" when the Eucharist has "ceased because of digestion" or been destroyed by "natural heat," it makes it apparent that space would be filled with the disembodied egos of the new Christ-Gods that were made at the consecrations at Masses. For according to the doctrine of transubstantiation material substances have been transmuted into a new Christ-God with a separate ego mind, will and consciousness, at each consecration in the Mass, who begins existence at the point where the substances of bread and wine cease to be any longer bread and wine substances That also can not be admitted if there is to be but one "whole and entire" Christ-God. The first answer, then, to the question of what becomes of Him after the "species" have "ceased because of digestion," can not be admitted, can it? Hardly.

Now, as to the second answer that then He is assimilated to nothingness as natural food is that is properly eaten and digested. That answer also can not be admitted, for if we did then we would have to admit that the soul of the communicant is more substantial and powerful than Christ-God if it can assimilate His Body to nothingness, a proposition no rational mind will or can admit. And if the soul of the communicant does not assimilate him to nothingness-that is, His flesh and blood, which must be the same as a "whole and entire" living Christ-God, otherwise they would be as dead flesh and blood-then why more than one reception of Him in the Eucharist? Can not the finite be filled and remain filled by the reception of one Infinite? Think of that question again.

The Church , says:

"The soul, like the body, needs frequent nourishment; and the Holy Eucharist provides that food which is best adapted to the support of its life" (Letter from Pope Leo XIII on the Most Holy Eucharist, p. 30),

"The Church thus invites you: Let not the, faithful neglect to nourish and sustain their souls daily with this spiritual food. They do not fail each day to feed their bodies. It is clear that the soul needs spiritual food no less than the body needs material food" (Frequent and Daily Communion, Father Lintelo, S. J., 25 ).

Now, why does the body need daily or "frequent nourishment?" It is because natural food is a temporary substance and is assimilated, consumed to nothingness. Must it not be the same, then, with the Body of Christ-God in the Eucharist, the "spiritual food" of the soul; if it must be eaten daily or often for the "frequent nourishment" of the soul? Yes. He must, then, be literally consumed and assimilated to nothingness, must He not, if He must be received daily or often for the frequent nourishment of the soul? Yes. But that can not be admitted, as we saw.

"Of course, the Church teaches that He is ever eaten in Communion, but without being 'consumed'" (Truth, Rev.Thomas F. Price, March, 1907, p.34); that is, without being assimilated to nothingness: That would be about like ever chewing a piece of gum but without ever consuming it. But when one has such a piece of gum filling one's mouth to the full, then does one take more gum into one's mouth ? No, decidedly not. And how, then, has one eaten and drunk the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, or how is his soul fed and nourished by them; if one has not literally "consumed" and assimilated, them to nothingness, as one does the natural food and drink for the body that he eats and drinks with the mouth, assimilates and digests to nothingness?

And if He is "ever eaten without being consumed," then why more than one reception of Him in the form of the Eucharist and especially by clerics as, instance on Christmas, when every one says or is suppose to say three Masses, oftentimes one right after the other, in each which they receive a supposed "whole and entire" living God? Or rather two, if the following is true: for clerics saying Mass partake of both bread and wine:

"Christ is whole and entire under the appearance of bread, whole and entire under the appearance of wine" /b>(Sacramental Life of the Church, Rev. Bernard J. Otten, S. J., p. 77).

Yes, why, then, so many receptions of Christ-God in Communion if He is not consumed? It must be because He is, too, consumed, must it not? Yes. But by what we have seen, that can not be admitted, can it? No.

As neither of the two answers in question, then, could be admitted, I wrote to a number of clerics, from priests up to higher Church dignitaries in this country, for an answer to the question:

What becomes of Christ after the appearances of bread and wine received in Communion no longer continue to exist? Although I had enclosed self-addressed stamped envelopes for their answers not one answered, but one of them returned my letter with the following endorsement on the back of it:

Pray, sir, which was the first, the chicken or the egg?

As no cleric, then, would answer my question I wrote to a prominent Catholic professor and historian for an answer. This is what he wrote me:

"As to your blasphemous question about 'What becomes of Christ, etc., any Christian knowing his catechism can answer you that, after a worthy Holy Communion Christ is and remains in your soul as long as you do not chase Him away by sin and enthrone Satan in His place."

That answer, however, only presented another difficulty instead of satisfactorily answering my question, which I will leave to the reader to say whether or not it is any more a "blasphemous" one than is the Church's question of:

How long does Christ remain present with His sacred Flesh and Blood? That difficulty is this,

"If Christ is and remains in your soul as long as you do not chase Him away by sin and enthrone Satan in His place," then every cleric would on Christmas, after having said the third Mass, have to contain within himself six, or at last three "whole and entire" living Gods each with a separate ego, mind will consciousness sandwiched as it were in his stomach; for there is where the "species" really go. For surely, at the least, most of the clerics receive "worthy Holy Communions" when they communicate at each of the three Masses they celebrate in one day, sometimes one right after the other, and who hardly "chase Christ away by sin and enthrone Satan in His place" between those Masses and Communions.

Well, that seemed to be another absurdity. For if He is not consumed and remains till He is "chased away by sin," then why the need of receiving another Christ-God, or two more or rather six within a few hours? Is one present Christ-God not sufficient when He is omnipotent? Yes. He is then not present in the Eucharist, is He? No.

The layman's belief also does not agree with what the Church teaches. But then many non-agreements exist between what their Church really teaches and what laymen believe.

CONTINUED....

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page