The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1902-03-29
The HOLY EUCHARIST.
Rsy. Robert Kama, S. u, lectures on the
ss M ~ 4 ss5ss VI Real Presence. l3a z

way Of thinking of minds of different
character, as well as of men of differ
ent nationality, had shown to him,
with more and more startling vivid
ness, and with fuller and fuller force,
to what strange, yet unconscious, ex-
tent conclusions arrived ut depended,
not so much upon the truth that was
before the thought as upon the mental
attitude Of those who looked at 1t. The
Protestant mind when approaching the
Eucharist did not come to learn, its
Jadgment had already been passed.
It may come in order, If it could, to
Justify itself; to see how the Eucharist
could be made to coincide with its own
already satisfied conclusion, and to per-
suade itself that the verdict it had al
ready given was right and reasonable.
Thus at the Last Supper, the Protest
ant does not wait to hear what Christ
has to say. The Protestant had made
up his mind as to what Christ shall
say, or at least what Christ must mean.
He (the reverend lecturer) did not for
moment impute to the ordinary Prot
estant any dishonesty, or even any con-
scious unfairness. No. it was a ques-
ton not of conscious thought, but of
unconscious, but very real, antagonism
towards the truth. From the ordinary
Protestant he emphatically excluded
the trafiickers who bought babies from
bad parents, or who paid unworthy
Catholics to attend services which they
believed to be blasphemous; the apos-
tate priest and the first reformers;
Martin Luther, who admitted that he
tried in every way to twist Christ's
words 80 as to deny the Real Presence;
and Zwingle, who denied the Real
Presence for years before he could give
an explanation for his denial. The
saints, on the other hand, with child
like, trusting feeling, listened for the
Word of God, and believed in the Eu-
charist. He did not take for granted
what should be proved, but what he
did take for granted was ....iat human
speech was meant to be understood.
Human speech could not be understood
unless plain words were used in their
obvious and right literary sense. Met
aphor and figurative words could only
be possible in so far as they were
founded on the plain sense when the
plain sense was not possible. Was the
plain sense possible in Christ's words?
II they believed that Christ was God
: they had to>ndmit that the plain sense
of those words was possible, and, there
fore, true: Nay, more than that, any
other than the plain sense was not
possible. To prove this they had only
I to look ut a simple lesson in grammar
In the simple sentence, "This Is NV
Body" ''this" is what is spoken of;
My Body is what is said Of it: and
the little word "is'' is the logical word
between the two. They had only three
steps to take. First, they would ex-
anime the different ways in which
something might be affirmed of a thing;
secondly, they would examine the log
fcal link; and, thirdly, they would ex-
anime the subject or thing about which
q statement was made. Then, the first
step. He would make three state
ments No. 1, showing his hand, he
would say, this is my hand;' No. 2,
showing statue in the street. he
would say, "this is O'Connell;" No. 3,
showing large note, he would say,
''this is f." Statement No was a
plain statement of plain fact in a
plain way. Granting Christ's Omnipo-
tence, His statement '"rhis is MY
Body" was plain statement of a
plain fact in plain way. In state
ment No. 2, he would not say that the
bronze was O'Connell, because he was
not talking about the material of the
statue but about the likeness 1t was
the thing represented by the thought
that was O'Connell, for by the very ma
ture Of things statue was sign of
something else. Now, was bread a
statue or likeness of Christ's Body?
Was bread, by the very nature of
things, n sign of Christ's Body any
more than it was sign of anything
else? No, certainly not; and, therefore,
Christ's words We're not like his when
he said in presence of statue, '"This
is O'Connell." As to No. statement,
.'This is f5." A bit of paper was not
IS; but men had come to an under
standing that certain bits of paper,
stamped and marked in the lawful
way, were value for money. This
should be thoroughly understood be-
forehand, and explained in the most
clear, emphatic and unmistakable
manner. Did Christ explain beforehand
in a way absolutely clear and utterly
unmistakable to the bread over which
He spoke with such strange tones and
with such solemn mystery these
divine words, 'This is NY Body
was only the same as with the bank
note? The mere thought Of it was to
the mind absurd and to the heart bias.
phemous. The second step was straight.
and very short. What about the logic
al link 'is?" What did 1t mean? It
q xpa j.