The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-10-19
PRIEST DISCUSSES
 CHIEF SACRAMENT Father Kerrigan Concludes ln- Struction on Real Presence. WORDS OF THE PROMISE The Discourse Taken Up Largely With N christ's Words Found in the
 Sixth Chapter of St. Johns
 Gospel.
 
WORDS OF THE PROMISE

At high mass at St. Paurs church yes- terday the Rev. Father Kerrigan con- cluded his instruction .on the Holy Flu charst, the discussion including the proof the Real Presence from the words of the promise John vi; AS to 6S' The priest spoke as follows;
 In our last discourse which treated or the elements making up the sacrament of the Eucharist we had entered upon discussion of the great dognia of Tran substantiation, or that tent of the church which teaches that. by the words of con secratlon. This is my body. ." " This is my blood pronounced by the priest over the bread and the wine at the con- secration or middle of the mass, the sub stances of the bread and the wine pass from under their accidents or appearan- ces of color taste, form and odor and the substance of Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity takes their place. We gave a brief glance at the va rious teachings of the sixteenth century reformers anent the Eucharist, all ot which deny a real presence and teach that Christ words should be taken figur- atively as indicating that he is received in the bread and wine only by falth. we placed against these the clear, autnorl- tative definition of the church, given at the Council of Trent, and referred to the three serlptural passages from which the church, as infallible interpreter, derived this definition, viz: the words of the promise of the institution, and those words making known the use of the Flu charist.
 We took up first the words of the promise found In John vi. AS, 69 and gave proofs showing, what WAS we'll known matter of dispute between the church and her separated children, that these words referred to the Eucharist. Today we will review some of the proofs which the church offers in justification eof her position that these words of the promise signify real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and not as in a sign, figure or virtually.
 Logical Form.
 We will put our augmentation in logi- cal form as follows:
 If Christ when he made this promise, meant that He would give His real body and blood to be really eaten, then, with out question. He is really present in the Eucharist. But Christ did mean real eating Therefore He Is really present in the Eucharist.
 The major promise of this proposition requires no proof It is self-evident, for is would be blashphemous to say that if Christ made a promise, He would not or could not fulfil it. To arrive at our conclusion it merely behooves us to prove the minor promise, viz. that Christ meant real eating of His flesh and a real drinking of His blood. To do this we will show that Christ Is here speak ing, first, of a certain bread which is not faith but His real body and blood; second, that He Is speaking of its real eating.
 1st. Christ is here speaking of His real body and blood and not of the eating of Him by faith.
 l. He is speaking here of certain new food and a food to be given in the future. Now faith in him could hardly be called something new or of the future, since faith in Him was necessary at all times and at that very moment was de- manded in His auditors.
 . Words of Christ.
 2 Jesus said to the Jews "Your fath- CTS did eat mama and died but he that eateth this (Eucharistic) bread shall live forever" John VI 49-61. By these words it is evident that the food He will give is superior to the mama. But were the Eucharist merely commemora- tive, or figurative bread and wine, being but a natural, zearthly food instead of being superior it would be inferior to the mama which was a supernatural heaven ly. miraculous food
 8. Throughout this whole discourse our Lord constantly distinguishes between food and drink. He mentions them sep arately: Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood ' etc. My flesh Is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed" Now would there be any reason for such distinction that food and drink merely signify faith?
 f. If Christ, by such an expression as the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, wished to make a symbolic or fgurative representation of faith could he have employed language more obscure? Such a figure of speech was most novel It had never been used in that sense before; 1t has never been used since. Why? Because of it's very ob- scurty. Figures of speech are used to give a more striking clearness to the thought expressed. And considering, too, the utter adherence the Jewish people had towards drinking blood and especial ly human blood, could He have used a more offensive figure? Second, Christ, in this passage wished to convey the idea of real eating.
 The Disciples.
 1. When the disciples heard these words of Christ they exclaimed, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and again, This is a hard saying, and who can stand it?' Why did they cry out thus? Simply because they understood him lit- orally, although in a carnal sense, not knowing that His flesh and blood would be yelled under the sacramental species. Strange, indeed. that the disciples who were right on the ground should misun-