Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/656

 EUCHARIST

584

EUCHARIST

York, London, and Paris. Finally, mention must, be made of mixed multilocation, since Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in lieaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sac- ramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world. This third case would be in perfect accord- ance with the two foregoing, were we per impossibile permitted to imagine that Christ were present untler the appearances of bread exactly as He is in heaven and that He had relinquished His natural mode of ex- istence. This, however, would be but one more mar- vel of God's omnipoti^ce. Hence no contradiction is noticeable in the fact, that Christ retains His natural dimenEiional relations in heaven and at the same time takes up His abode upon the altars of earth.

There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multiloca- tion, which, however, has not been realized in the Eu- charist, but would be, if Christ's Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St. Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said to him: " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? " So, too, the bilocation of saints, sometimes read of in the pages of hagiography, as, e. g., in the case of St. Alphonsus Liguori, cannot be arbitrarily cast aside as untrust- worthy. The Thomists and some later theologians, it is true, reject this kind of multilocation as intrinsically impossible and declare bilocation to be nothing more than an "apparition'' without corporeal presence. But Cardinal De Lugo is of opinion, and justly so, that to ileny its possibility might reflect unfavourably upon the Eucharistic multilocation itself. If there were question of the vagaries of many Nominalists, as, e. g., that a bilocated person coukl be living in Paris and at the same time dying in Lontlon, hating in Paris and at the same time loving in London, the impossi- bility would be as plain as day, since an individual, remaining such as he is, cannot be the subject of con- trary propositions, since they exclude one another. The case assumes a different aspect, when wholly ex- ternal contrary propositions, relating to position in space, are used in reference to the bilocated individual. In such a bilocation, which leaves the principle of con- tradiction intact, it would be hard to discover an in- trinsic impossibility.

On the foregoing matter S(> ^yu i.i, T/, ^i/,. '".. fn i!<i/!inm, gutB divina potentia in Euclhi ■ - I'niin,

1868); Raynaud, £xu!'t(fr)).i. ' "i " i .: I'rii:,),

VI, 4in S<iq.; BiLLUAHT, y. /,. '. y--'- :■< .-■,, „.. i'lriltlll

Euchn:; i;., .ri:-r. 1714); SAl.lER, lllslnria sclwlasticci de spc'i' '' /ri'.v (Lyons, 16S7J: Leibniz, Systema theol.

(Pun, I " I*, I 111 sqq.; John Rickaby, General Metaphysics (New ^iiii.. I • II ' Ji"i7s<.iq.: Vskghs, Du Difnamisme dans ses rapports ar<< m ■, F iharistie (Louvain, 1861); Cienfuk-

G03, Vita III' ,.. <!cAks velata (Rome, 1728); Zeit-

schrift fur A." / ,'. (Innsbruck, 1894), pp. 108 sag.;

(1903), pp. Iji - ; I : iiNiU), pp. 486 sqq.; Reinhold, Die Lehre von dcr ortiirlien Gfgenwart Christi (Vienna, 1893); ScHEEBEN, Die Mysterien des Christentums (Freiburg, 1898), §§ 69 sqq.; PoHLE, Dogmalik (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), III, 247-73.

II. The Blessed Euch.vrist as a Sacrament. — Since Christ is present under the appearances of bread antl wine in a sacramental way, the Blessed Eucharist is unquestionably a sacrament of the Church. In- deed, in tlie Eucharist the definition of a Christian sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" is verified. The investigation into the precise nature of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, whose existence Protestants do not deny, is beset with a number of dilliculties. Its essence cer- tainly does not consist in the ( 'on.sccration or the ('om- munion, the former being merely tlie sacrificial action, the latter the reception of (he .sacrament, and not the sacrament itself. Tin' iiucstion may eventually be reduced to this, whether or not the sacramentality is to be sought for in the Eucharistic species or in the Body and Blood of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority of theologians rightly respond to the query

by saying, that neither the species themselves nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but the union of both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the Altar. The species undoubtedly belong to the essence of the sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of the sacrament. Equally certain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of our souls, but Christ concealed beneath the appearances. The twofold number of the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine does not interfere with the unity of the sacra- ment; for the idea of refection embraces both eating and drinking, nor do our meals in consequence double their number. In the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (see Mass), there is a question of even a higher relation, in that the separated species of bread and wine also represent the mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood or the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb. The Sacrament of the Altar may be regarded under the same aspects as the other sacraments, provided only it be ever kept in view that the Eucharist is a permanent sacrament [see above I, (4)]. Every sacrament may be considered either in itself or with reference to the persons whom it con- cerns. Passing over the Institution, which was dis- cussed above in connexion with the words of Institu- tion, the only essentially imjiortant points remaining are the outward sign (matter and form) and inward grace (effects of Communion), to which may be added the necessity of Communion for salvation. In regard to the persons concerned, we distinguish between the minister of the Eucharist and its recipient or subject.

(1) The Matter or Eucharistic Elernctits. — There are two Eucharistic elements, bread and wine, which con- stitute the remote matter of the Sacrament of the Altar, while the proximate matter can be none other than the Eucharistic appearances under which the Body and Blootl of Christ are truly present.

(a) The first element is wheaten bread (panis triti- eeus), without which the " confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defecti- bus, §3). Being true bread, the Host must be baked, since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed for vaUdity, such, e. g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as grain (frumcntum). On the other hand, the different varie- ties of wheat (as spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid, inas- much as they can be proved botanically to be genuine wheat. The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (riv iprov), in connexion with which it may be remarked, that in Scripture bread (dpTos), without any qualifying addition, always signi- fies wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", com- manded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tratlition, whether it be the tes- timony of the Fathers or the practice of the Church, shows wheaten bread to have played such an essential part, that even Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley breatl as a proper element for the celebration of the Lortl's Supper.

The Church maintains an easier position in the con- troversy respecting the use of fermented or unfer- mented bread. By leavened bread {jerntcnlum. fvfws) is meant such wheaten bread as requires leaven or yeast in its preparation and baking, while un- leavened bread (a^i/nm, dfu/xoi') is formed from a mix- ture of wheaten (lour anil water, which has been kneaded to ilough and then baked. After the Greek