The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1902-03-29
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
Rev. Robert Kane, S. j., Lectures on the
- Real Presence.


ess,S$ S.E}:!, - 'si @"s-a5ii "a S'sF
Rev. Robert Kane, S. j., Lectures on the
80 Real Presence.
In st. Francis Zavier's Church, Dub
lin, the Rev. Robert Kane, S. j., re-
Gently lectured on the Eucharist, TAX
ing for his subject '"The Eucharist as
Revealed by Christi He took for his
text the words '"This is My Body" and
said that more than a quarter of
century spent in the study or teach
ing Of philosophy, with constant and
intimate intellectual experience of the
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 at depended.
not SO much upon the truth that was
before the thought as upon the mental
attitude of those who looked at it. The
Protestant mind when approaching the
Eucharist did not come to learn, its
Judgment 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 rs 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-
ton not of conscious thought, but of
unconscious but very real, antagonism
towards the truth From the ordinary
Protestant he emphatically excluded
the traffickers 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 so 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 ELL
charist. He did not take for granted
what should be proved. but what he
did take for granted was nat 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 fgurative 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 Christs words?
If 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
to look ut simple lesson in grammar
In the simple sentence, "Ths Is My
Body" this is what is spoken of;
''My Body lis 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 en-
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
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, lie would say,
''this is f." Statement No. 1 was n
plain statement of plain fact in n
plain way. Granting Christs Omnipo-
tence. His statement '"This 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, a 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 e." 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