1883 Haydock Douay Rheims Bible

Presents commentary in a tabular format for ease of reading.Click to learn more.





Mark 14:22 *And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread: and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye, This is my body.

Matthew 26:26.; 1 Corinthians 11:24. 		\f + \fr 14:22\fk This is my Body.\ft This which I now give, and which you now receive; for the bread is not the figure only of Christ, but is changed into the true body of Christ; and he himself says, The bread, which I will give you, is my flesh. (St. John vi.) But the flesh of Christ is not seen, on account of our infirmity; for if we were allowed to see with our eyes the flesh and blood of Jesus, we should not dare to approach the blessed sacrament. Our Lord therefore condescending to our weakness, preserves the outward species of bread and wine, but changes the bread and wine into the reality of flesh and blood. (Theophylactus) --- St. Chrysostom, in his thirtieth sermon on the treason of Judas, says: "Christ is also now present to adorn our table, (altar) the same that was present to adorn that table. For it is not man that causes the elements to become the body and blood of Christ, but the very Christ, the same that was crucified for us: oude gar anthropos estin o[?] koion ta prokeimena ginesthai soma kai aima christou all autos o staurotheis uper emon christos. The priest stands his vicegerent, and pronounces the words, but the power and grace is of God. He says, this is my body, and the word changes the elements: and as the sentence 'increase and multiply, and fill the earth, was spoken once, but still imparts fecundity to human nature throughout all time: so these words (of consecration) once spoken, constitute an absolute, perfect sacrifice upon every altar of the Church from that day to this, yea even to the time when Christ shall come again at the last day." Schema pleron esteken o iereus, ta remata phtheggomenos ekeina e de dunamis, kai e charis tou theou esti. touto mou esti to soma, phesi touto to rema metarruthmizei ta prokeimena. Kai kathaper e phone ekeine e legousa "auxanesthe, kai plethunesthe, kai plerosate ten gen," errethe men apax, dia pantos de tou[?] chronou ginetai ergo endunamousa ten phusin ten emeteran pros paidopoiian. outo kai e phone aute apax lechtheisa, kath ekasten trapesan en tais ekklesiais, ex ekeinou mechri semeron, kai mechri tes autou parousias, ten thusian apertismenen epgasetai. (St. Chrysostom, Serm. xxx, on the treachery of Judas.) These words are so plain, that it is difficult to imagine others more explicit. Their force and import will however appear in a still stronger light, if we consider the formal promise Christ had made to his apostles, as related by St. John, that he would give them his flesh to eat, that same flesh he was to deliver up for the life of the world. He on that occasion confirmed with remarkable emphasis of expression the reality of this manducation, assuring them that his flesh was meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; and when some of the disciples were shocked at such a proposal, he still insisted that unless they eat his flesh, they should have no life in them. The possibility of it he evinced from his divine power, to be exemplified in his miraculous ascension; the necessity of it he established, by permitting those to abandon him who refused to believe it; and the belief of it he enforced on the minds of his disciples, from the consideration that he, their teacher, was the Son of God, and the author of their eternal salvation. The apostles were deeply impressed with these thoughts, previously to the institution of the holy Eucharist; consequently when they beheld Jesus Christ, just before his death, taking bread into his sacred hands; when after blessing it with solemnity, they heard him say, Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be given for you; they must necessarily have concluded, that it was truly his body, which he now gave them to eat, according to his former promise. And though their reason or senses might have started difficulties, yet all these were obviated by their belief of his being God, and consequently able to effect whatever he pleased, and to make good whatever he said. ------ Moreover, if we consult tradition, we shall find that the Greek, as well as the Latin Church, has uniformly declared in favour of the literal sense of Christ's words, as may be seen at large in all Catholic controvertists. The learned author of the Perpetuite de la Foi, and his continuator, Renaudot, in the two additional quarto volumes, have invincibly demonstrated, that the belief of all the Oriental Christians perfectly coincides with that of the Catholic Church, respecting the real presence. Dr. Philip Nicolai, though a Protestant, candidly acknowledges, in his first book of the Kingdom of Christ, p. 22, "that not only the churches of the Greeks, but also the Russians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Judaeans, and the Ethiopians, as many of them as believe in Christ, hold the true and real presence of the body and blood of our Lord." This general agreement amongst the many Churches of the Christian world, affords the strongest evidence against Secker and others, who pretend that the doctrine of the real presence is a mere innovation; which was not started till 700 years after Christ's death. For, how will their supposition accord with the belief of the Nestorians and Eutychians, who were separated from the Church of Rome long before that period, and who were found to agree exactly with Catholics concerning this important tenent? --- See this point clearly given in Rutter's Evangelical Harmony.