The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-03-12
bishop EATN'S SERMON
At St. Joseph's Cathedral Yes
terday Afternoon,
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
In Regard 10 the Real Presence of
Christ in tho Holy Eucharist
Further Expounded by Him.
The Gospel Quoted.

Having on the previous Sunday ex-
pounded the figures or types furnished
in the Old Law of the Sacrament OF
Christ's Body and Blood, Bishop Kahn
last evening analysed the sixth chapter
of the Gospel of st. John, which he in
terpreted as a solemn promise then made
by the Savior, that He would, on some
future occasion, give his flesh to be
eaten and his blood to be drunk.
The chapter opens with record of one
of the most extraordinary miracles
wrought by our Lord--the multiplica-
ton OF a few Ioaves so as with them to
satisfy the hunger of over five thousand
persons, the remnants of the bread left
over filing twelve baskets. In the whole
ministry Of Christ, no more appropriate
occasion presented itself of propounding
the mystery OF the Holy Eucharist, by
means OF which His sacred flesh, under
the sacrGmental form Of bread, would be
given us the spiritual nourishment Ofall
Christ's faithful children.
To accept this doctrine, firm faith in
Christ and in his almighty power is de-
handed. Hence does the Savior, adj
dressing the multitudes who, on account
of this miracle, had, on the following
day, crossed over to Capernaum, dwell
on the necessity of this firm faith in him
and in his doctrines. This is the mani
fest topic OF His discourse as far as the
47th verse inclusive. Then He states one
of those doctrines which must be be-
lieved on His authority: "The bread that
l will give is my flesh" He well knew
that objections would be raised to this
strange doctrine, though he tempers its
first announcement so us not too violent
~ to shock the prejudices Of his hearers,
making ut first no reference to drinking
his blood. The very objections will
bring out full and clear exposition Of
the doctrine propounded.
How much like the objections now
made by Protestants, were those which
the Jews then alleged against this doc
trine: GLOW can this man give us his
flesh to eat?" Have they misunderstood
him? II SO, he will not surely allow
them to remain under this false impress
sion; much less can he confirm them in
it. But those who repudiate the doc
trine OF the real presence must heiieye
that he did actually confirm them in
their grievous error. For what reply
does Christ make to his incredulous
hearers? "Amen, amen say unto you
Except you do cut the flesh OF the son
OF man, and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you. He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath
everlasting life; and will raise him up
in the last day" And anticipating the
difficulty Of the modern pnhelieves,
. that the sacrament cannot possibly be
his real flesh, he continues: "For my
flesh is meat indeed; and my blood Is
drink indeed;" then he dilates on the
effects OF the Holy communion.
He sees his own disciples arc
scandali2cd; he hears them pronounce
this doctrine II hard saying, Does he
soften his expressions? Does he assure
them that they have misunderstood
him? Only so far as to disabuse them
OF the false notion which so many Pro
testants still coniound with the true doc,
trine Of the Holy Eucharist, viz: That
the sucramental feeding on His sacred
4 flesh does not ut all imply the gross ac'
ton they imagined. Even after that
body had assembled In Its glorihed con.
dition into heaven, il should be received
in the sacrament to which He refers,
They must 10y aside all such carnal no.
tons MS corrupt nature suggested, and
entertain the higher and nobler senti'
ments inspired BY faith and grace, That
such is the meaning OF the 9th verse is
proved by the fact that wherever in
Holy Scripture these two words "aesh''
and spirit" are contrasted, they inyar-
iably bear that meaning and none other.
(Sed Rom. Will The meaningppt Oh them
in popular tracts; namely, that Christ
thereby intended TO remove from the
Jews the false impression under which
they are supposed to have been laboring,
bydeclaring thatallhe had said about eat
ing his flesh and drinking his blood was
to be understood In some spiritual signiti-
cation, has been justly repudiated by
even Protestant commentators them
selves, and it is refuted by the fact set
forth in verse 81, that the unbelieving
disciples did not 60 understand them;
sluGG even NllVl tIllS pISbuhlOA NAplhAa
ton, not few, but many went back
and walked no more with him." Nor is
this all. Turning to the twelve Apostles,
Christ demands an expression OF
their sentiments. clearly intimating
that they may Withdraw, unless they me-
cept the doctrine which he has Just de-
liVcred Through st. Peter they profess
their adhesion to him aud 70 lis teach
ing. Hard though his doctrine may
seem, they are really to accept it on his
authority: Because We have believed
and have known that thou art the
Christ, the Son of God" For this reas-
on and none other, Catholics believe
this doctrine, because it is the plain
teaching OF Jesus Christ. And yet 1t is
repudiated by those very persons, who
pretend that the Bible is SO plain u
teacher OF revealed truth that every man
is qualified to interpret II with RneFrlng
certainty.
To such as insist that all of this dis
course of the Saviur about eating his
flesh and drinking his blood, must be
understood Agurativeiy, Catholic theo=
lOgians have always replied: If this be
so, we are not at liberty to put any ligu-
rltive meaning we please on the phrNSo,
ITO cat the flesh Of apyane;h but we
must necessarily restrict ourselves to the
one only tigurative meaning which that
phrase bore among those to whom
Christ addressed this discourse. Now
Us metaphor, what meaning did those
wortls-"to cut the flesh Of q person.
have among the Jews? They had this
meaning, ito detract, to calumniate, to
do some grievous injury to II person"
II Therefore, the literal sense OF the
words Is abandoned, we must say that
Our Lord commanded His disciples to
calumniate Him-a conclusion that is
manifestiy preposterous.
As 70 drinking blood, the Bishop re-
marked, this was most repqlsiye 70 the
Jews and expressly forbidden. Would
Christ then select a figure of speech so
odious to his hearers, in order to convey
doctrine in itself so sweet and attrac.
tive? Surely not, Therefore he used
these words, because they alone ex-
pressed truthfully the doctrine he was