Continued....
As I, then, could not find an answer that could stand the test of an analysis with the "arms of the intellect," noble and God-given faculties, which God intended we should make use of and not "throw under the feet of faith" (Goffine, Rev. Leonard Goffine, p.409), and an answer that would appeal to the understanding, as St. Paul said (2 Tim.2:7; Col.1:9; etc.) spiritual things pertaining to salvation should, I reread the Bible, and that more closely than ever, to see if I could not find something that would show that the doctrine of the Real Presence is an error, resting on a possibly wrong interpretation of certain words. In doing so I discovered that the word "is" in "This is my body: this is my blood, as Christ used that word, meant "represents" or "signifies." And here is where I made that discovery: Christ said, as He handed to His disciples the chalice containing wine, which He had blessed:
Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins (Matt.26:27-28).
Well, as the very wine the Apostles drank, and digested by the "natural heat" of their stomachs, and which was the wine of which Christ spoke when He said: "This is my blood," was certainly later not shed by Him, whose veins were already full of blood, as blood by Him on the cross, then He certainly did not mean that the very wine His disciples drank and digested was His real living blood which he would later shed on the cross, but merely represented or "signified" it. The same interpretation of the word "is" applies to "This is my body" (Matt.26:26). For the bread they ate was not later nailed to the cross, but they ate and digested it to nothingness. The word "is," then, as used under the circumstances in question, stands for or means represents or signifies, does it not? Yes. And that was the contention of Zwingli in his controversy with Luther over the doctrine of the Real Presence, that the word "is," as used in "This is my body; this is my blood," stood for "signifies." For Zwingli said:
There is no other word in the Greek language than sori (is) to express "signifies" (History of The Reformation, D'Auhi~ne, p. 34fi ) .
But whether or not "there is no other word in thc Greek: language than 'is' to express `signifies"' or represents, we saw that the way Christ used that word it could not mean anything other than "signifies" or represents. For the very wine that His disciples drank and digested certainly was not later shed as blood by Christ on the cross. And it was the wine they later drank and digested of which He had said : "This is my blood, . . . which shall be shed," or is shed. Note also, when He said, immediately after they drank the wine:
And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this (fruit of the vine, until I shall drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father (Matt. 26.29).
how He completely shattered any such thought or belief as that the wine, "this fruit of the vine," of which they all drank with Him, was His real living blood. Note also. how in John 13:27 Christ called what Judas ate the "morsel". Of course, according to Luke 22:I8 it appears, and as the Church contends (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Keenan, p. zi8), Christ said that of the chalice that they were to "divide among" themselves. But it seems they had but one chalice, so that St. Matthew may have the correct version after all. He was also present at the Last Supper, while St. Luke was not, so that it must have been the chalice of which He said : "This is my blood," of which He later spoke as "this fruit of the vine." Besides, it would be absurd to think: He drank His own blood, which would have been the case had the "fruit of the vine" been His real living blood, or Himself "whole and entire."
The question of whether or not Christ had the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood does not enter into the matter at all. That is not the question under consideration. Omnipotent power is not questioned in this work. It is not a question of "how can God do so-and-so" when "I can't."
Christ used the word "is" in the same way and sense that one would use it who had in his hand a group photograph of persons and would point out the different persons represented by saying, as he put his finger on each individual's picture:
This is Mary Jones; this is Sally Rowe; this is John Smith, etc.,
although there is in the English language a word that clearly expresses represents or "signifies." In the same way Christ meant it when He said: "This is my body; this is my blood." For if otherwise, then how absurd it must have seemed to the Apostles at the Last Supper to have been forced to believe, which they would have had to were there a Real Presence of Christ in blessed Communion bread and wine, that Christ, "whole and entire," sat in full view before them and that at the same time each had Him living and "whole and entire" within himself, under the appearances of the bread and wine of which they had just partaken; thus also making at the Last Supper thirteen "whole and entire" living Christ-Gods, or rather twenty-seven if the following are true:
Q. Did the Apostles receive Jesus Christ Himself whole and entire; first, under the appearance of bread; and, secondly, under the appearance of wine?
A. Yes; they received Him whole and entire under each form (Catechism of the Christian Doctrine, a Jesuit Missionary, p.69). It is generally held that our Lord on this occasion (the Last Supper) made thirteen divisions of the Holy Eucharist and that He Himself communicated, and permitted the traitor Judas to communicate with the rest. The Fathers of the Eastern Church, as well as those of the Western, have always held this (A History of the Mass and its Ceremonies in the Eastern and Western Church, Rev, John O'Brien, A. M., pp. 328, 329).
That, then, made twenty-seven "whole and entire" Christ's, each with a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, at the Last Supper, one under the appearance of flesh, whom the Apostles beheld with their natural eyes, and twenty-six under the appearances of bread and wine, which they beheld with the eyes of faith. Yet there is supposed to be but one God. What an anomaly! Then again, think of Christ communicating Himself with Himself, God eating God, as it were. Could anything be more erroneous and absurd than the doctrine of the Real Presence, when if it were true, and Christ communicated Himself with Himself, God would be eating Himself? And it would also be making a multiplicity of Gods, were there a Real Presence in each Eucharist.
Here is an illustration by which the Church attempts to show that there is but one God notwithstanding there may at the very same time be one in each Eucharist, in the many churches and chapels in the world:
A Jew was amusing himself in the public square, when there passed a priest who, accompanied by a crowd, carried the most holy Viaticum to a sick person. All the people, bending the knee, rendered due homage of adoration to the Most Holy Sacrament; the Jew alone made no movement, nor gave any token of reverence. This being seen by a poor woman, she exclaimed, "O miserable man, why do you not show reverence to the true God, present in this divine sacrament?" "What true God?" said the Jew sharply. "If this were so, would not there be many Gods, since on each of your altars there is one during Mass?" The woman instantly took a sieve, and, holding it up to the sun, told the Jew to look at the rays which passed through the chinks; and then added, "Tell me, Jew, are there many suns which pass through the opening of this sieve, or only one?" And the Jew answering that there was but one sun, "Then," replied the woman, "why do you wonder that God incarnate, veiled in the sacrament, though one, indivisible and unchanged, should, through excess of love, place Himself in true and real presence on different altars?" Through this illustration, he was led on to confess the truth of the faith (The Hidden Treasure; or, The Value and Excellence of The Holy Mass, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, pp. 48-49).
According to that illustration, Eucharists would only be the reflections or emanations of God, and not God "whole and entire," just as the many rays of the sun which passed through the "chinks" of a sieve were only the reflections or emanations of the one sun, and were not each the sun "whole and entire," or, as the words of a speaker radiating in all directions are but emanations from him, and are not the speaker "whole and entire," as the God in the Eucharist is supposed to be a God "whole and entire." Is that not so? Yes. The illustration used, then, does not remove the fact of the multiplicity of "whole and entire" Gods in the many Eucharists "on each of the altars" in Catholic churches, who is there "for the worship and the feeding of His people" (Messenger of the Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p.347), were there a Real Presence of God in the Eucharist, were Transubstantiation true, and were each Eucharist a God of "concrete reality," "objectively present"-Rev. B. Stewart Chambers, D. D. (Catholic Register, May 29, 1909). The dogma of the Real Presence, then, cannot be true, can it, unless we admit that there are as many "whole and entire" Gods as there are Eucharists? No. For there is but one "whole and entire" God, who is infinite, is from eternity, cannot be made or be compressed into a wafer, so that it can be said that "here is the God who created the universe," or, "here is more: of God than there," just as one cannot focalize the light of the sun and say : Here is more light of the sun than there in open space, or, here is the sun but not there, or, here is gravitation but not there.
Another argument the Church uses in which to get around the difficulty of the multiplicity of Christ-Gods, were there a Real Presence in each Eucharist, is the following :
Let us make a few remarks upon the second great miracle in connection with the Holy Eucharist, viz., the multiplication of the real presence. We must observe, at starting, that the word "multiplication" is to be applied, not to the Person of Christ, but to the presence of Christ. If two priests are celebrating Mass at the same moment, one in London and the other in Sydney, what happens when they come to the words of consecration? There is a Glorified Body in the London Church, but is there another glorified Body in the Sydney Church? No! Not another. It is the same sacred Body in both places. . . . Hence it is not our Lord's Body that is multiplied, but merely the presence of that one Body in ten thousand times ten thousand places. And just as Christ foreshadowed the mystery of Transubstantiation, by changing water into wine (Did that very wine "pre-exist," and did the accidents of water still remain?), so did He also foreshadow the multiplication of His sacramental presence by the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in the desert(Thoughts for All Times, Rev. Vaughan, pp. 145, 146).
It seems to be hard to distinguish the difference between 'the multiplication of the Person of Christ and the multiplication of the Presence of Christ, if each Presence of Christ is a substantial entity with a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, such as a Person has. We might multiply the presence of the image or picture of an individual for an indefinite number of times, but such images would not have conscious (egos, minds and wills) such as the living individual has. When Adam and Eve "multiplied" (Gen.1:28) themselves did it not result in separate egos with separate minds and wills in each multiplication of themselves? Multiplication, then, mean as many separate egos, minds and wills as there are multiplications of an entity with a separate ego, mind and will, does it not? Yes. The multiplication, then, of the Presence of Christ in separate Eucharists must then make a separate Christ, with a separate ego, mind and will in each Eucharist. And would that not make a multiplicity of "whole and entire" Christs were He present in each Eucharist on the many altars in Catholic churches? Yes.
The following illustration does not remove the difficulty of that fact, nor answer it:
Let us illustrate this in some way. The Scripture itself seems to suggest an illustration. It often speaks of our Lord as the Word of the Father; the Word made flesh. But let us take an ordinary word-a human word. Consider what an illustration it affords us. I utter a word, and at once that word is intimately present with each one who hears it. That word in its entirety penetrates into every ear that is open to sound. If but one person be present, he receives the word in its entirety. If five hundred or a thousand persons be present, each individual of that multitude receives the same word in its entirety. No one receives more than another; each has what the other has; no more, no less...A beautiful image, surely, of the Word of God, the Eternal Word made flesh,...entering into the soul of every communicant. We may still further illustrate the Catholic doctrine by pointing out another name given to Jesus Christ. He is spoken of as the wisdom of the Father; or, again, as the Truth...So in the Blessed Sacrament, if one hundred particles are consecrated; the incarnate wisdom of God is, present under each, just as the wisdom of any author is present in each of a hundred volumes...And just as the same truth is equally present, whether in small type or large type, so the same Jesus Christ is equally present, whether the accidents of the Host, i.e., the shape, color and size, be the same or different. This is, of course, only an analogy; a mere illustration, and not to be pressed too far; for, whereas in a book: the truth is merely expressed by signs; in the Blessed Sacrament the Eternal Truth, i.e., the infnite God, is substantially present in His human and Divine nature (Thoughts for All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John S. Vaughan, pp. 150-153).
Would that not still make a multiplicity of Gods were He "substantially present in His human and Divine nature" in each Eucharist or part of Eucharist, made a "concrete reality" in each? Five hundred or a thousand persons may hear, as well as though there were but one person present, the selfsame words uttered by a speaker, but the words are not the speaker himself "whole and entire" by any means, they are at the most only his spirit, thoughts and sentiments. Nor are the contents of a book the author himself "whole and entire," and when the book is torn the truth in it is broken, disconnected. Nor is a book a conscious entity as each Eucharistic Christ is supposed to be, that is, to the eyes of faith He is. And if He were not, then what would be the difference between a God of "concrete reality" in the Eucharist and a pagan god of "concrete reality" in wood or stone?
To focus and localize God "in His human and Divine nature" would also he to circumscribe Him. But as He is an Infinite Being He cannot be focused into anything and be localized so that it could be said: Here is God, but not there; or, Here is more of His Spirit than there; for no one knows "whence He cometh and whither He goeth" (John 3:8). He is as universal as gravitation, and no one can focus and localize it and say: Here is gravitation, but not there; or, here is more gravitation than is there. It is the same with the omnipresence of God, His Spirit, it is universal and cannot he focused and localized into anything of a "concrete reality," be it in the Eucharist or not.
In view, then, of what we have seen, the illustrations used by the Church, and the claim of the multiplication of the Presence, but not the Person, of Christ-God do not remove the difficulty of the multiplicity of Christ-Gods, with separate egos, minds and wills, were Transubstantiation true and the "human and Divine nature" of Christ-God was localized in every Eucharist, was made a "concrete reality."
Again; when a book, the "accidents" in which the truth is inherent, is destroyed, so that its specific form, its "concrete reality," is no longer in existence, then what becomes of the truth, "substance"? Is it not destroyed so far as that particular book is concerned? Yes. In like manner, then, if the Word and Wisdom of the Father form a separate conscious entity in every Eucharist, then what becomes of that entity after the Eucharist in which it was inherent has "ceased because of digestion," been destroyed by "natural heat"? Is it merged with another separate conscious entity of Christ-God inherent in another Eucharist, or with the "Lord's sacred Body in Heaven"? If so, then would that not add to the quantity or size of it? The multiplication, then, of the Presence of Christ-God in many localized Eucharists, without multiplying the ego, mind and will of Christ-God, is certainly nothing but theological "verbiage," which it seems some admire.
Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire. Our fathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity forced them to-St, Gregory to St. Jerome (Isis Unveiled, P. P, Blavatsky, Vol. 2, p.183).
Again, would you imbibe and assimilate truth or the wisdom in a book by eating the book with your mouth, because it says:
They that eat me (wisdom), shall yet hunger; and they that drink me, shall yet thirst (Eccles. 24:29)?
No. Is it not an error, then, to believe that one can imbibe, assimilate and put on the "wisdom of the Father," the Word, Truth, Christ, His "spirit and life," by eating Him literally with one's mouth, that is, by receiving Catholic Communion?
The Church, as it were, has eaten with the mouth the Person of Christ instead of with the mind and will, a mental operation, imbibe and assimilating, His "spirit and life," just as one would eat a book in order to acquire the truth or wisdom inherent in it; instead of reading it and imbibing and assimilating its contents with the mind and understanding.
Besides, truth, words and wisdom in many books are not living conscious entities as Christ-God is supposed to be in each Eucharist. And if he is not consciously present in each Eucharist, then why do Catholics prostrate themselves before it and pray to it? They do not look beyond the Eucharist for God as one does of a picture of a person for that person. Christ, then, is not present in the Eucharist, unless we admit a multiplicity of Christ-Gods, is He? No,
Again, were there a Real Presence then no doubt the Apostles would have been puzzled to know which Christ they should have adored and worshiped, the one each supposedly had within himself or the one who sat in full view before them and conversed with them. For the Church teaches that right after the reception of Communion Christ is nearer to and closer united to the communicant than He possibly could be under any other circumstances, and that we should then-
Listen, for a moment to Jesus Christ; perhaps He has something to say to you. There may be some promise you have made and broken, which He wishes you to make again and keep. Answer Jesus in your heart, and tell Him all your troubles (The Mass Book, Rev, A. P. Doyle, p. 4?).
It seems, though, that the Apostles, after they had communicated, did not listen to or tell their troubles to the supposed "Jesus in their hearts," but conversed with and followed "unto Mount Olivet" (Matt.26:29) the living Jesus whom, they beheld with their natural eyes. They just acted, as Protestants do, as though the bread and wine which they had just partaken were only as so much blessed bread and wine, which Christ used with which to institute a memorial of His death, "until He come."
The puzzle in question ought no doubt also be one to the present-day thinking clerics and laymen, who have just communicated, as to which Christ-God they should have in mind and thought when they adore and worship a living Christ-God, the one each has just supposedly received in Communion, and who is supposed to be within one "whole and entire," "dwells in the hearts of His creatures corporally" (Aspirations of Nature, Very Rev. I. T. Hecker, p. 326), or the one who is supposed at the very same time to he a "concrete reality" upon the altar in the Eucharist. And did you ever think of that when you communicated and believed you had a "whole and entire" living Christ-God corporally" within yourself, while at the very same time there was supposed to be one in "concrete reality" upon thc altar to whom you genuflected when you left the Communion railing or the church? Now candidly, if you are a Catholic, did you ever think of that when you communicated? I venture to say you did not. Oh, the blindness and thoughtlessness of man at times with regard to some of the Catholic teachings and practices!