CHAPTER 2.
Make your own comments.
Then again, if God were present in the Eucharist, the question arises, who or what mutilates or mangles Him and deprives or drives out from His supposed flesh and blood the living Soul that permeated them or His body, so that His body can be fed upon, be digested and its assimilated substance flow in the veins of the communicant as "the blood of a God: "For the Church teaches the following:
My soul, thou art (in Communion) about to feed upon the blessed body of Jesus. And hast thou well considered what thou art, and who God is? (The Hidden Treasure, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, p.217). You can say with truth, especially after having received Holy Communion that the blood of a God flows in your veins (The Prodigal Son; or, The sinner's Return to God, Rev. Michael Muller, p.88) St. Ephrem, of Edessa, says: "His body, by a new method, is mixed with our bodies (in Communion), and His most pure blood is transfused into our veins. He is wholly incorporated with us" (The Real Presence, Rev. C. F. Smarius, S.J., p.19)
If, then, in Communion we "feed upon the blessed body of Jesus," God, "His body is mixed with our bodies, and his most pure blood is transfused into our veins," so that then "the blood of a God flows in our veins," then something or some one must mutilate and mangle Him and drive His Soul or life out of His body so that it can be fed upon, be digested and its substance flow in the veins of communicants as "the blood of a God;" just as something must mutilate and mangle, for instance, a live "whole and entire" grasshopper that has thus been swallowed by a turkey, and deprive it of its life or drive it out, so that its dead body can be digested and its substance flow in the veins of the turkey as the blood of a grasshopper. Is that not so? Yes. Well, that is another thought too shocking to admit. In view of that, then, the "living God" is not in the Eucharist, is He? Hardly.
Again, if the Soul' of God is driven out of His body when it is consumed, digested and its substance flows in our veins as the blood of a God," then what becomes of that particular Soul, mind and will that inhabited the body?
Again, how is the glorified body of Christ-God in Heaven "mixed with our bodies, incorporated with us," if it is not mutilated and mangled, digested and assimilated? Or does one after all not eat and drink the literal flesh and blood of Christ, such as the Jews apparently believed they were to eat and drink? And if so, then were they not misled by the repetition of the declarations of Christ, that one must eat the flesh of the Son of Man, etc.? He must then be mutilated and mangled, must He not, if He is really eaten and drunk in Communion, and there is a Real Presence in the Host? Yes. But such a proposition cannot be admitted. There is, then, no Real Presence in the Host, is there? No.
In writing Truth about the Real Presence and that "then something would have to mangle the living God and drive from His flesh and blood His living Soul," it said:
We are positively pained to find that our correspondent whose former letters give us to understand that he is an assiduous reader of Truth misrepresents Catholic doctrine on a point on which a question was answered a July Truth, page 66, "Death, such as the death which awaits each one of us, that is, the separation of soul and body, is that death, which as St. Paul says, He 'dies no more'." This is the only answer we feel obliged to give to his objection that "Then something would have to mangle the 'living God' and drive from His flesh and blood His living soul"Truth, February, 1908, P.263).
The question in its July number referred to is the following, which was asked by another correspondent:
When the Host, or consecrated wafer, which is Christ, is eaten, and, as Christ dies on being eaten, are not the material elements left in His corpse? Now suppose the digestive organs of the partaker are in such an abnormal condition that this sacred species are not digested, is there then a miracle performed changing it back into bread again, or does it remain His corpse?
Answer: The death of Christ, on the consumption of the Sacred Host is not death in the ordinary sense of the word, but a mystical death. Death, such as the death which awaits each one of us, that is, the separation of soul and body, is that death, which, as St. Paul says, He "dies no more?" In the sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Eucharist Christ sheds His blood for us in a mystical manner, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and He dies in a mystical manner also by the withdrawal of the Presence from the elements of bread and wine. This withdrawal occurs when such a physical change takes place in the bread and wine as that they no longer have such appearances or accidents as would entitle them still to be called bread and wine. There is never left in them "a dead body of Christ". When this occurs the substance of the body and blood of Christ, which before supported the appearances, or accidents of bread and wine, is withdrawn, and those accidents are again supported by the substance proper to them, in a word, the elements again become what they appear to be. As may be seen from what has been said, it is not necessary for the bread and wine to be assimilated as food in order that the Real Presence be withdrawn (Truth, July, 1907, P.66).
(A Catholic professor believes, as we saw, that the Presence of Christ remains "as long as you do not chase Him away by sin." He and Truth ought to get together and smooth that over in some way.)
How is that a "mystical" death if Christ simply makes only a departure and goes to-where? when He withdraws His Presence from the Eucharist that is not consumed, or "dies on the consumption of the Host?" Would you call it a death of any kind when a person simply goes from one place to another, or withdraws from a certain place? The Church says further:
Christ is mystically immolated (on the altar), and afterwards eaten by the faithful, as in the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices the victim was first offered on the altar, and then eaten by the people (Truth, August, 1905, p.117).
What is a "mystical death" or immolation if it is not a real death that separates the soul from the body? And what is it to shed blood "in a mystical manner"? Is not the apparent shedding of blood and death of an actor in a tragedy on the stage a shedding of blood "in a mystical manner" and a "mystical death," which are in reality only unrealities, shams? And if so, then would not likewise a shedding of blood "in a mystical manner" and a "mystical death" of Christ in Mass be but unrealities, shams? And if so, then how is the Mass a true and genuine sacrifice when a true and genuine sacrifice requires that a living victim be literally put to death "and is then consumed," "as in the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices," and a sacrifice
Is the oblation of a victim to God to represent by its destruction or change His supreme dominion over life and death (Reasonableness of Catholic Ceremonies and Practices, Rev. J. J. Burke, p.22)?
How is Christ destroyed or changed, in order to show God's "supreme dominion over life and death" if Christ "dies no more?" Would not a "mystical death" of Christ in Mass only make it a sham, a pretense, if He "dies no more?" And is the eating of the victim "by the faithful" also only a "mystical" eating, a pretense of eating Christ, but not really eating Him after all, just like His "mystical death" in Mass is no death after all, but only a pretense of a death; a sham? The Mass has not even the semblance of the commemoration of the Lord's death, "until He come," for which the Lord's Supper was instituted if we take the Bible narrative of it. The Protestant Communion service, or observance of the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, has a very striking semblance to it, that becomes apparent at once when one witnesses it, and has a Bible knowledge of the Lord's Supper and the object for which it was instituted, which was "to show the death of the Lord, until He come, (I Cor.11:26).
Again, if Christ "dies in a mystical manner also by the withdrawal of the Presence from the elements of bread and wine," "when such a physical change takes place in the bread and wine as that they no longer have "the appearances of bread and wine, then how has one eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, "consumed" Him so that the "blood of a God" flows in his veins? Would you call that eating and consuming a meal if it was shortly after being eaten vomited out again "whole and entire" so that its substance could not be digested and assimilated into flesh and blood? And is the precept of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ impossible to be complied with if one's "digestive organs" are in an "abnormal condition?" And if so, and such a one cannot literally "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," then how will he have "everlasting life," if John 6:54,55 is to be taken in the literal sense, as the Church does? Would that not make salvation dependent a great deal on the condition of one's "digestive organs?" Yes. But we will see later that John 6:53-57 is not to be taken in the literal sense, and what it really means to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," if it does not mean a literal eating with the mouth of something that is supposed to be Christ-God, and that, therefore, it has nothing to do with "digestive organs."
Again how has one eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Christ if He is not present in the Eucharist with His Person, but only with His Presence, as we saw? It seems to be a case of "now you do, and you don't" eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ. Surely a "mystery!"
Again, what causes Christ to withdraw Himself From the Eucharist and by doing so die "in a mystical manner," when the Eucharist is not "assimilated as food" by one whose "digestive organs are in an abnormal condition?" Is it fermentation, chemicalization or retransubstantiation? And where was He during the time the appearances of bread and wine had not yet undergone a "physical change?" Was He in the communicant's heart? If so, then does He keep an eye on the bread and wine in the stomach of the communicant, and the moment He sees they fail to digest and assimilate as food make His withdrawal? Would that not be absurd if He did that? And is His presence governed and regulated by the action of the "digestive organs"? Or was He during the time the bread and wine had not yet undergone in the stomach a "physical change" in the stomach with them? And if so, would that not be shocking? And how does He make His exit when He makes His withdrawal, being that it apparently requires a magnet, the Host, to get Him into one's interior? Does He come back through the throat and mouth, the way He went in? Or how does He make His exit, if He is not "consumed" and He withdraws His presence?
Again, if a communicant's "digestive organs are in such an abnormal condition that the sacred species are not digested," so that then "the Real Presence is withdrawn" and "the elements again become what they appear to be," that is, bread and wine, then would not a miracle of retransubstantiation have to take place? For, as we saw, transubstantiation effects an entire change "of the bread and wine's substance into the substance of Christ," "annihilates" them, "so that no bread and wine whatsoever" remain; just as no substance of an egg whatsoever remains that has been changed into a living chicken. How, then, can He withdraw Himself from elements of bread and wine when no such elements remain after the consecration, they having been entirely changed into Christ? How could a chicken be withdrawn from the elements of an egg when no such elements remain, they having been entirely changed into a living chicken? Would that not be impossible without a, re-transubstantiation, a changing back of a substance into that which it was originally? Yes. If, then, the "substance of Christ," His body, blood, soul and divinity-the whole living Christ in the appearances of bread and wine that are not digested by one in "an abnormal condition" are changed back again into the substances of natural bread and wine, such as they were before they were transubstantiated, would not a miracle of re-transubstantiation have to take place, just as a miracle of re- transubstantiation or re-changing would have to take place if a living chicken should be changed back again into the former inanimate substances of the egg that produced it? Yes. Who or what, then, performs that miracle, Christ, fermentation or the communicant's "abnormal condition?" And when this re-transubstantiation takes place, then does the ego, mind and will of Christ that inhabited the body under the appearances of bread and wine vanish to nothingness like the ego of a chicken would whose flesh and blood should he changed back into an egg again?
The Church teaches that one of the essential "practices in the life of a Catholic" is to receive "Sacramental Communion, in which not bread and wine but the real body and blood of Christ are received" (A Truth- Seeker and His Answers, Rev. A. P. Doyle, p.25). If, then, no bread and wine are received then how can Christ withdraw Himself from their elements when no such elements were received by and are present in the communicant whose digestive organs are in "an abnormal condition?" Probably that is "digging a little deeper" than the Church likes or would have a "truth-seeker" go. But by doing this "digging a little deeper" may it not easily be seen that the Church flatly contradicts herself or falls into unanswerable difficulties? For surely if in Communion. is received "not bread and wine but the real Body and Blood of Christ," then it is certainly a contradiction and a difficulty for Christ to withdraw HimseIf from elements that were not received and no longer exist, have been "annihilated," as we saw. The only way then, that elements of bread and wine could be left behind in a communicant whose digestive organs were in an "abnormal condition" would be for Christ to re-transubstantiate Himself back again into elements of bread and wine out of which He was made by "the word of a priest," which is supposed to be more "than creating the world" out of nothing.
It also makes the Presence of Christ dependent on the condition of the digestive organs of the communicant, and not on his disposition and life and conduct.
Transubstantiation falls all to pieces when one "digs a little deeper" than the Church goes, does it not? Yes. That, then, proves that it is an error and that, therefore, there is no Real Presence of Christ in Communion bread and wine.