By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 11
(Editor’s Note: This is the eleventh 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.)
+ + +
About Transubstantiation:
Part 1
By Henry VIII
THE CHURCH FORBIDS any man to believe that the true bread and true wine remain after Consecration.
Luther makes this prohibition a second captivity.
Thus, contrary to the belief of the whole Christian world, both now and for so many ages past, Luther endeavours to persuade us that the Body and Blood of Christ are in the Eucharist in such a manner that the substance of true bread and true wine remains after Consecration. (19)
I suppose that afterwards, when it pleases him, he will deny the substance of the Body and Blood to be there, when he has a mind to change his opinion — as he has already done three times.
And yet he feigns that he teaches those things moved with pity towards the captivity of the Israelites in which they are kept slaves to Babylon.
Thus he calls the whole Church, Babylon, and the faith of Christ, slavery.
And this merciful man offers liberty to all those who will sever themselves from the Church and become corrupted with the infection of this rotten and separated member.
But it is worth our while to know by what means he invites people to this more than servile liberty. He regards this to be his greatest and principal reason:
“Scripture is not to be forced, either by men or angels; but to be kept in the simplest signification that can be, and unless required by some manifest circumstances, it is not to be taken otherwise than in its proper and grammatical sense; lest occasion should be given to the adversaries to undervalue the whole Scriptures.
“But — he also says — the Divine Words are forced, if that which Christ called ‘bread,’ be taken for the accidents of bread; and what he called `wine’, for the form of wine.
“Therefore, by all means, the true bread and true wine remain upon the altar, lest violence be done to Christ’s words, if the species be taken for the substance.
“Because, — he continues — seeing that the Evangelists write so plainly, that Christ took bread, and blessed it; and afterwards, in the Book of the Acts, and by Paul, it is called ‘bread,’ we ought to take it for true bread, and true wine, as a true chalice. Because they do not say themselves that the chalice is transubstantiated.”
This is Luther’s great and, as he says, chief reason, which I hope to handle so as to give all men to understand of how little consequence it is.
In the first place, although the Evangelists had plainly said what Luther says they did, nothing is clearly proved for Luther.
On the contrary, they say nothing in any place that may seem to favour his side.
“Do they not write (says he) that He took bread, and blessed it?”
What does that argue? We confess He took bread, and blessed it; but we flatly deny that He gave bread to His disciples, after He had made it His Body.
The Evangelists do not say He did thus.
So that this may be made more evidently manifest, and that there may be less room left for wrangling, let us hear the Evangelists themselves.
St. Matthew’s words are these:
“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: 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. 26:26-28).
St. Mark’s words are these, “and whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many” (Mark 14:22-24).
St. Luke has it after this manner: “and taking bread, he gave thanks and broke and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20).
In all these words of the Evangelists, I see none where, after the Consecration, the Sacrament is called “bread” and “wine,” but only “Body” and “Blood.”
They say that Christ took bread in His hands, which we all confess; however, when the Apostles received it, it was not called “bread” but “Body.”
Yet Luther endeavours to rest the words of the Gospel by his own interpretation. “Take, eat; this,” that is, “this bread” (he says, which He had taken and broken,) “is my Body.”
This is Luther’s interpretation, not Christ’s words, nor the sense of His words. (20)
If He had given to His disciples the bread which He took, without converting it into His Flesh, before He gave it to them, bidding them “take and eat”; then it had been rightly said that He gave what He took in His hands; for then He had given nothing else but bread.
But seeing that He turned the bread into His Flesh before He gave it to the Apostles to eat, they now received not the bread that He took, but His Body into which He had turned the bread. (21)
If someone took a seed and gave to another the flower sprung from it, he would not give what he had taken, even though the common course of nature had made the one out of the other.
So, likewise, Christ gave the Apostles what He took in His hand, when He turned the bread into His own Body, by so great a miracle.
Unless, perhaps some will say that when Aaron took a rod in his hand and cast it from him (Exodus 7:12), the substance of the rod remained with the serpent, and the serpent’s substance with the rod, when it was restored again.
If the rod could not remain with the serpent, how much less can the bread remain with the Flesh of Christ, that incomparable Substance?
Luther argues, or rather trifles, to show how simplistic his own faith is. Concerning the wine, Christ does not say, “Hoc est Sanguis Meus” but, “Hic est Sanguis Meus.”
I wonder why it should enter into any man’s mind to write thus: for who does not see that this makes nothing at all for Luther’s argument, but rather, it makes against him?
FOOTNOTES
19. Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man (Compendium, n. 282).
20. Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria: 1) it must be read with attention to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture; 2) it must be read within the living Tradition of the Church; 3) it must be read with attention to the analogy of faith, that is, the inner harmony which exists among the truths of the faith themselves (Compendium, n. 19).
21. After he had gathered with his apostles in the Cenacle, Jesus took bread in his hands. He broke it and gave it to them saying, “Take this and eat it, all of you; this is my Body which will be given up for you.” Then, he took the cup of wine in his hands and said, “Take this and drink of this, all of you. This is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me” (Compendium, n. 273).
+ + +
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