By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 12
(Editor’s Note: This is the twelfth installment in a series by Wanderer contributor Raymond de Souza on Henry VIII’s book defending the seven sacraments against Martin Luther. De Souza edited this updated version of Henry’s work, which is presented to readers on an occasional basis. The first part of this section on transubstantiation appeared in The Wanderer dated August 11, 2016, p. 8A.
(We present an article on Luther here because of Pope Francis’ visit to Sweden for “a joint ecumenical commemoration of the Reformation,” as Vatican Radio described it. The Holy Father was set to arrive there on October 31.)
+ + +
About Transubstantiation:
Part 2
By Henry VIII
It had seemed more for his purpose, if Christ had said, “Hoc est Sanguis Meus,” because then Luther might have had some colour at least, whereby he might have referred the demonstrative article to the wine.
Although “wine” is of the neuter gender, Christ did not say “Hoc” but “Hic est Sanguis Meus.” Although “bread” is of the masculine gender, He says “Hoc est Corpus Meum,” not “Hic,” that it may appear, by both articles, that He did not mean to give either bread or wine, but His own Body and Blood.
Is it not very ridiculous that Luther should imagine this pronoun Hoc not to be intended by Christ to refer to His Body?
It is thus only for the convenience of the Greek and Latin tongues, and therefore we are sent back to the Hebrew.
Since Hebrew does not have the neuter gender, it is obvious that it cannot declare what Christ referred to in the same way Greek or Latin can.
In the Hebrew, the article should be of the masculine gender, that is, “Hic est Corpus Meum.” Nevertheless, the matter would still be doubtful because that phrase might seem forced by the necessity of the Hebrew language, having no neuter gender.
But because “bread” and “body” are of different genders in Latin, the translator from the Greek should have joined the article with Panis (bread), if he had not found that the Gospel demonstration was made of the Body.
Moreover, when Luther confesses that the same difference of gender exists in Greek, he might easily know that when the Evangelists wrote in Greek — if they had not known our Lord’s Mind — they would have put in the article relating to the “bread.”
But, by the article relating to the “Body” the Evangelists were willing to teach the Christians that Christ did not give bread to His disciples in Communion, but His Body.
Wherefore, when Luther — to serve his own interests — interprets the words of Christ “Take, and eat, this is My Body” referring to the bread He had taken, it is not I but it is Christ Himself Who teaches us to understand the contrary, if the Evangelists have rightly delivered to us His words.
What Christ gave them did seem to be bread, but it was not bread; it was His own Body.
Otherwise He should say not “Hoc,” that it might be expounded for “Hic,” but, more properly, “Hic Panis est Corpus Meum.”
By this saying He might teach His disciples what Luther now teaches to the whole Church, which is, “that in the Eucharist the Body of Christ and the bread are together.”
On the contrary, Our Saviour spoke in that manner that He might more clearly manifest that only His Body is in the Sacrament, not bread.
How magnificently Luther brings this in for his argument, “that Christ speaks of the chalice, which nobody holds to be transubstantiated.”
It amazes me that the man is not ashamed of so vast a folly.
When Christ says, “this chalice of the New Testament is My Blood,” what does that achieve for Luther?
What else does it signify, except that what He gave His disciples to drink was His own Blood?
By those words of Christ, will Luther make it appear that the substance of wine remains because Christ speaks of Blood?
Or is it that the wine cannot be changed into Blood because the chalice is still there?
I wish he had chosen for himself some other matter in which he might have played and sported with less danger.
Luther excuses the Bohemians and Greeks from heresy so much that he calls all the Roman Catholics heretics.
In so doing, he shows himself to be a worse heretic than either of them.
He not only denies the Faith that the whole Church believes, but also persuades people to believe worse than the Greeks or Bohemians ever did.
I have so far disputed these things so that I might make clear that what Luther contends cannot be confirmed by the words of Christ and the Evangelists. Nay, quite the contrary is very clear in their sayings: bread is not in the Eucharist.
Luther says that in the Acts of the Apostles the Eucharist is called bread. I wish he would show us the place.
For my part, I find nothing that is ambiguous and that seems to speak of a common banquet rather than the Sacrament.
Yet I admit that the Apostle speaks more than once of bread, following the custom of Scripture, which sometimes calls a thing not by its name but what it was before.
For instance, when it says, “and they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron’s rod devoured their rods” (Exodus 7:12), they were no longer rods, but serpents.
Or else perhaps St. Paul was content to call it what it appeared to be judging it sufficient to feed the people with milk (Heb. 5:12), who were as yet inexpert in the Faith.
Thus, they demanded nothing of them at first, except to believe that the Body of Christ was, in some manner, present in the Sacrament.
Afterwards, little by little, they would feed them with more solid food as they gathered more strength in Christ.
Luther might have also touched on that place in the Acts of the Apostles where St. Peter, while speaking to the people, was imparting to them the Faith of Christ.
Peter did not dare as yet say anything openly of Christ’s Divinity, so cautious were the Apostles then of rashly exposing the sacred mysteries to the people.
+ + +
The book is accompanied by two talks on CD: 1) The De-Christianization of the Western World and 2) The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It is available to Wanderer readers at $33.00 (shipping and handling free in the United States). Please make your check payable to: Sacred Heart Media, LLC and mail it to: P.O. Box 1144, Rochester, MN 55903.
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza, KM, is available to speak at Catholic events anywhere in the free world in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Please contact Chevalierdemalta@outlook.com or phone 507-450-4196.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress