Published by Stephen Michael Leininger in Stephen Michael Leininger · 12 February 2022
Tags: Eucharist, salt, Cana, wedding, real, food, real, drink
Tags: Eucharist, salt, Cana, wedding, real, food, real, drink
The Wedding Feast at Cana
Part 3 of 3
The Eucharist: The Wedding Feast of the Lamb
As Scripture tells us, “For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready [through Baptism — SML]. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb [i.e., purified through Baptism — SML]’” (Rev. 19:7-9; cf. Is. 25:6-8 and Lk. 14:13-14). Jesus’ miracle at Cana foreshadows the fulfillment of Rev. 19:7-9 in Scripture. Understand this, and you have a basic understanding of the big picture of the Bible story.
The Eucharist — the Mass — is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). It is the fulfillment of the Everlasting Covenant of Salt, which is that which the miracle at Cana foreshadows. The description of all other Sacraments can rightly be followed by the words — “so that we can receive the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist.” Since the context of Cana is a Marriage and a wedding banquet, in Part 3 of this blog series we will examine the physical Jesus at the wedding banquet of the Lamb. Why is it so important to Jesus to let all of us know that his flesh is Real Food and his Blood is Real Drink — we must eat and drink it or we have no life in us; so important were those words and what they meant that he was willing to let all his disciples — and even his Apostles — leave him because of their literal interpretation of what those words meant?
It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that the whole Jesus, in His humanity and Divinity, is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist. Two separate Dogmas encapsulate it’s understanding. They are: The Dogma of the Real Presence and the Dogma of Transubstantiation. The Science & Theology of the Salt rises or falls on whether or not the correct understanding of these Dogmas would include a justifiable reliance on the belief that the words “truly, really, and substantially present” signifies that his living physical body (Glorified and Transcendent — but not mortal) — means it contain his accidents, his living and functioning cells, his biological water producing electromagnetic radiation (created light), DNA produced proteins, etc. — is present.
Eucharist: What is it, why is It?
The Eucharist is the ultimate and eternal fulfillment of the Covenant of Salt — entered into between God and man. Marriage, Baptism, and the Eucharist are all covenants of salt — covenants in which both an organic and also spiritual bond is formed between God via the incarnate Son of God and his adopted children. A covenant of salt is also a covenant of blood, i.e., a covenant of a genetic family (remember Adam and Eve). Remember that God described the covenant He made with King David and his succeeding generations (multiplication of human beings via genetic function) as a covenant of salt (2 Chron 13:5).
Too often, we tend to separate physical from spiritual, believing them to be mutually exclusive. So, for example, we tend to think that grace only affects our soul, but not our body — and vice versa. The reality is, grace is designed to transform both body and soul. In the Liturgy of the Hours we read, “Through your holy ones, the leaders of your people, you served as physician of our bodies and our spirits, – continue to fulfill your ministry of life and holiness in us. Nourish your people, Lord” [Liturgy of the Hours (Morning Prayers); Common of Pastors: 1426; https://googlinggod.com/2020/05/morning-prayer-for-tuesday-may-26-feast-of-st-phillip-neri/]. According to Fr. John Hardon, not only Sanctifying grace, but also Actual grace is given to us in each of the Sacraments. Why? The body is the mouth through which the overflow of the human heart is sent out into the world, and it does so through the sense-able and meta-sense-able language of the body. The language of the body will always accurately express the overflow of the inner spiritual heart of man. As the overflow of the inner heart is purified, so is the body, through which that overflow is sent out — expressed in the language of the body.
“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ [LG 11.] ‘The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it” (CCC, n. 1324). During the Mass, when the priest speaks the words of Consecration that Jesus spoke during the Last Supper, the entire substance of the bread and wine is replaced by the whole substance of the incarnate Jesus, body, blood, human soul, and Divinity. While the appearance, taste and smell of bread and wine remain after the Consecration, that which makes bread, bread (its substance), and wine, wine (its substance), are totally and completely gone, entirely replaced by the substance of Jesus. Why does God maintain the appearance of bread and wine? God revealed the answer to that by telling St. Hildegard of Bingen, “[The consecrated host] appears in human eyes to be bread and wine, for human frailty is so delicate that people would shudder at receiving bleeding flesh and trickling blood.”
Jesus tells us, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). What Jesus, in effect, is saying is this: You all are focusing on the carnal aspect of what I have just told you. While the literalness of what I am telling you is 100% true, don’t focus on the carnal aspect of that. I know of your human frailties, which is why my flesh and blood in the Eucharist will be hidden under the appearances of bread and wine. My flesh is not life, but the God who dwells within my body (the New Covenant Temple of Salt) is life eternal. However, the flesh is the only means through which you can become living stones built into that rebuilt Temple.
Our sufferings/offerings are ‘acceptable and pleasing’ (cf. Malachi 1:10-11, Is. 64:6, 1 Pt. 2:4-5) to the Father only when we unite them with the Son’s infinitely and eternally perfect offering. After an oblation was offered to God on the altar, it then had to be eaten (the offering was not valid otherwise). It was believed that by eating the offering, the offeror would become one with that offering and thus participate in the benefits of the altar sacrifice. Perhaps we can understand a little better why Jesus tells us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:53-56). Pope emeritus Benedict XVI writes:
In the Old Testament the shared enjoyment of bread and salt, or of salt alone, served to establish lasting covenants (cf. Num 18:19; 2 Chron 13:5; cf. Hauck, TDNT I, p. 228). Salt is regarded as a guarantee of durability. It is a remedy against putrefaction, against the corruption that pertains to the nature of death. To eat is always to hold death at bay—it is a way of preserving life. The “eating of salt” by Jesus after the Resurrection, which we therefore encounter as a sign of new and everlasting life, points to the risen Lord’s new banquet with his followers. It is a covenant-event, and in this sense it has an inner association with the Last Supper, when the Lord established the New Covenant. So the mysterious cipher of eating salt expresses an inner bond between the meal on the eve of Jesus’ Passion and the risen Lord’s new table fellowship: he gives himself to his followers as food and thus makes them sharers in his life, in life itself.
As was stated in Part I of this three-part blog — according to M. G. Easton, a covenant is:
A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means “to cut,” and hence a covenant is a “cutting,” with reference to the cutting or dividing of [one animal] into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them [emphasis SML], in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19) [Thus the flesh, i.e., our salt of DNA, is involved in the covenant — SML]. … The corresponding word in the New Testament Greek is diatheke, which is, however, rendered “testament” generally in the Authorized Version. It ought to be rendered, just as the word berith of the Old Testament, “covenant.”
The term covenant is also used to designate the regular succession of day and night (Jer. 33:20), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16), circumcision (Gen. 17:9, 10), and in general any ordinance of God (Jer. 34:13, 14). A “covenant of salt” signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:13; 2 Chr. 13:5).
Based on the ritual described above, we can thus describe a covenant of salt as a one-flesh covenant between two parties. Interpreting the ritual described in Genesis and Jeremiah, we can say: an animal that is cut in half remains two halves of one-flesh. Each of the two parties walking between the single cut-in-half-animal is representative of one half of the one animal. Marriage then, is two parties entering into a one-flesh, one-salt covenant bond between the parties. When the ritual involves eating the salt of DNA of the blood or grain offering, the offeror and that which is being offered become one, at least until the offering is digested. According to Gary Burge, after an oblation was offered to God on the altar, it had to be eaten (the offering was not valid otherwise). It was believed that by eating the offering, the offeror would become one with that offering and thus participate in the benefits of the altar sacrifice — just like we do when we are united with Jesus on the Cross at every Mass.
In Scripture, Luke writes, “And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” (Acts 1:4: Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). Pope Benedict XVI places great significance on the wording that Luke chose to describe Jesus’ eating with them. According to Benedict, the word that Luke used is synalizômenos. Benedict tells us this wording was very important to Luke; that he must have deliberately and purposefully chosen to use it. The literal translation of the phrase in question is “eating salt [SML] with them.” Benedict believed that Luke’s purpose for choosing this word was to form a direct link to the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, we form a sacred salt bond (Covenant of Salt) through and in Jesus.
What Does Ezekiel’s Dream of the Temple Have to Do with the Eucharist?
It is a common theological understanding that the New Covenant is hidden in the Old Covenant, and Old Covenant is fully revealed in the New Covenant. When Jesus tells his listeners to destroy this Temple, and in three days he will rebuild it, he is telling them that the era of the “literal” geological stone Temple is ending, and the New and everlasting Covenant of Salt — the Temple which is his mystical and literal body — is about to begin. Why did Jesus’ resurrected body need to become the new Temple described in Ezekiel’s dream? As discussed previously, in all of biblical history, there has been only one place where God dwelled within physical creation at the same time in history. The incarnate Son of God is that dwelling place par excellence.
Following is the essential aspect of the Temple we need to understand. Dr. Brant Pitre tells us, “It’s necessary to point out here that the sacrifice of the Lamb was a specifically priestly action. Although modern readers sometimes forget the fact, in ancient Israel, no one but a priest could offer a blood sacrifice. That is what priests did; they were set apart for sacrificial worship.” Furthermore, this unblemished sacrificial offering was to be an eternal and unceasing offering. According to Fr. Martin Von Chechum:
And this [The Eucharist] is indeed that clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it, which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place clean to His name.” (Session xxii, Ch. 1). The offering of this clean oblation was predicted by the prophet Malachias in the following words: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation.” (Malachi 1:10-11). All the Fathers of the Church consider this passage to refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass [i.e., the wedding feast of the Lamb — SML]. For this prophecy does not find its fulfillment in the Old Testament, but in the New, wherein also are fulfilled the words which were spoken by God the Father to His Son: “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.” (Ps. 2: 7-8). This was accomplished when the heathen were converted to the Faith by the preaching of the Apostles. The sacrifice here predicted by Malachias cannot be that which was offered by Christ on the Cross, as non-Catholics assert; for that was made in one place only, on Calvary, not in every place, as the prophet declares. Nor can the supposition be entertained that the prophecy refers to a sacrifice of praise or of good works [on the altar of the heart — SML], for these are no oblation in the proper sense of the word [see endnote for proper definition of “oblation”], nor are they always a “clean oblation;” prophet says: “All our justices are before Thee as a filthy rag.” (Is. 64: 6).]
As a high priest in the OT had priests of the Levites who offered sacrifice on the altar; the High Priest in the order of Melchisedech, Jesus, made his Apostles priests when he said, do this in memory of me.
Thus, it is that we come to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Salt, the Holy Eucharist. This is what is meant in Revelations when we read, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9).
What Does the Eucharist “Do” For Us? How Does it Do It?
Unless You Eat my Flesh & Drink my Blood, You Have no Life in You — But WHY???
“But why” is a question that I have asked many people knowledgeable about theological concepts. Nobody, including the priests that I have talked with, has been able to answer that question in a way that is beyond merely adequate, given the fact of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life. A majority even disbelieve the Church’s teaching which states that the Eucharist is the real body, blood, soul, and Divinity of the Son of God.
Every person who has left the Church for what, they believed, were greener theological pastures must have lacked any significant belief that the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence was true. Who, in their right theological mind, would abandon a one-flesh, one Mystical Body relationship with Jesus? A relationship which is infinitely more unitive than human marriage. A mere friendship or personal relationship with Jesus is simply lacking the unity and intimacy which Jesus desires and intends. Any relationship coming close to being classified as a Covenant of alt with the incarnate Son of God, is necessarily a sacred family bond with Jesus — a one-flesh relationship?
To understand the depths of intimacy existing within a covenant of salt between God and man, let us examine the words of Cardinal St. John Neuman (a former Anglican priest and theologian who converted to Catholicism). Quoting Neuman, Sheen writes:
When I [Jesus] am ascended, thou shalt see nothing, thou shalt have everything. Thou shalt sit down under My shadow with great delight, and My fruit shall be sweet to thy taste. Thou shalt have Me whole and entire. I will be near thee, I will be in thee [not the kind of language expressing mere friendship — SML]; I will come into thy heart a whole Saviour, a whole Christ — in all My fullness as God and man — in the awful virtue of that Body and Blood, which has been taken into the Divine Person [In his book, The Mystical Body of Christ, Sheen said, all acts performed by Jesus, the Son of God, are attributed to the One Person of the Son of God — not one or the other of the two natures individually, but both hypostatically united natures in One Person — SML] of the Word, and is indivisible from it, and has atoned for the sins of the world — not by external contact, not by partial possession, not by momentary approaches, not by a barren manifestation, but inward in presence, and intimate in fruition [again, not the language of mere friendship], a principle of life and a seed of immortality, that thou mayest ‘bring forth fruit unto God’” [Cardinal St. John Neuman, Lectures on Justification, p. 216-219].
Let’s talk about food, drink, and eating in Scripture, specifically the Eucharistic Discourse in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John. He writes:
[v. 54] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [v. 55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [v. 56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [v. 57] As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [v. 58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:54–58).
It is important to note the wording used in these passages of Scripture. They are very similar to those used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. Remember, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial — One God in Three Persons. John conveys the words Jesus used to show how intimately we are all to be united with God. Below are three such passages.
- “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (John 10:38). My wife is the only one to whom I have ever said something like that.
- “Father, I desire that they [His Followers — SML] also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).
- “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us [i.e., the Father and Son — SML], so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one” (John 17:20-22).
There have been many books and papers written throughout Church history (including Church Fathers from the first few centuries after Jesus’ death and resurrection) that make the case justifying the Truth of the Church’s claim that at Mass, after the words of Consecration are pronounced, the Eucharist becomes the literal body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus. There isn’t enough room in this blog for me to make a comprehensive and compelling case for the Truth of Church teaching on this subject. Instead, I will deal with only one aspect of John 6, i.e., the importance of food and drink in Jesus’ discourse.
Why did Jesus focus on telling us (more than once) that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink? We know that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically about this particular food and drink. We know this because:
1) It is obvious that everyone listening to his words were interpreting them literally, as evidenced by their grumbling and their repulsion towards what he was saying, not to mentioned their abandonment of their discipleship as a direct consequence of their interpretation of his words;2) Even when his Apostles characterized Jesus’ words as being hard to accept, Jesus did not follow his normal practice regarding symbolic sayings/stories, which was by clarifying and explaining it to them. There was no need for Jesus to do this. They understood him correctly, so he was willing to let them — there wasn’t anything needing to be clarified, and;3) Jesus doubled-down on wording.
Note: I will address Jn. 6:63, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,” later in this blog.
Prior to John 6:54, Jesus uses the Greek word phago to indicate eating. This word is used to describe physical eating, or it can be used as a metaphor (e.g., Micah 3:2–4). When used to describe physical eating, it describes the act of eating in general. However, after his followers started to grumble, Jesus switched to a more drastic, but fitting, word; a word that would not allow for any misinterpretation. The new word Jesus used is trogo. This word means to literally, chew, crunch, gnaw the food. While phago can also be used to describe physical eating, “one way to distinguish the two, using our everyday language, is to say ‘phago’ refers to ‘eating for essential nourishment,’ while ‘trogo’ refers more to ‘dining, with the express purpose of masticating all the food so that one can savor it,’ as when we go to a fine restaurant to eat our favorite meal, perhaps making groans of pleasure as we eat.
This puts a little distance from defining ‘trogo’ as mere ‘chewing’ or ‘munching,’ since animals do the same kind of chewing but without being cognizant of an intimate gourmet meal shared with another.” The two pages linked to in this endnote provides comprehensive rebuttals to Protestant rebuttal arguments. It is important to note, regarding trago, that there is no example in Scripture, in any koine or in any other classic literature, of trago being used in a spiritual or metaphorical sense. It is always used to indicate a physical act. Furthermore, in Scripture, trago is always used in the present participle form, not aorist, thus indicating a repeated and continual eating of the flesh of Jesus. Trago is not the language of metaphor.
Why was it so important to Jesus to identify himself as real food and real drink? The answer is this: All organic food and drink will produce a biological effect on the functioning of our salt of DNA. If our body is healthy, the proper food will help to maintain that health. If our body is weak or sick, healthy food will contribute to a return to health. If our healthy body is given bad food, the body will respond accordingly.
When we consume Jesus in the Eucharist, we will experience a positive impact on the functioning of our body – provided we are properly disposed to receive it. I should clarify something. The body and blood of Jesus is a physical body. It is not, however, a mortal body. What that means, in practical terms, is this: the physical world has no effect on Jesus’ glorified physical body, but his glorified physical body can and does affect the physical world, including our body. A glorified body cannot experience pain, would not be subject to the philosophical accidents of dimensive quality (i.e., his body would not lessen in weight or size as his body and blood are consumed in the Eucharist), and could not be killed or injured. For a more comprehensive treatment of the theology of the Eucharist, see Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, Part III, Questions 73-82 here: [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm].
The Dogma of the Real Presence informs us that Jesus is truly and wholly present in the Eucharist; the Dogma of Transubstantiation tells us of the correct understanding of how — or in what mode — he is present. The Dogma of Transubstantiation says: at the Consecration of the species of bread and wine during the Mass, the entire substance of the bread and wine are changed into the whole substance of Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and Divinity. While the accidents of bread and wine are still visible, all that makes the bread be bread, and the wine be wine (i.e., their substances) are entirely absent — replaced by the whole and entire substance of Jesus in both his humanity and Divinity. This understanding is often referred to as the sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
There are two philosophical terms necessary for an understanding of Transubstantiation. The two terms are: Substance and Accident.
To my knowledge, the Church has never formally defined whether a man is: 1) a being composed of two incomplete substances (i.e., one-half corporeal and one-half spiritual) which, taken together, form a complete man, or 2) a being composed of a single substance of which a body and soul are included.
Aquinas made the case that it was the latter and Augustine the former. Regardless of which is correct, we can safely say this: if the resurrected Jesus was a complete man (and he is), then his entire substance in the Eucharist would include a corporeal body (though glorified, of course) and a human soul. If any of the two were missing, he would not be a complete man and, therefore, his entire substance would not be present.
This can also be said of his Sacramental Presence in the Eucharist and of his proper species in Heaven (that species that occupies three-dimensional spaces, i.e., his dimensive quality, philosophically categorized as an accident).
STOSS stands or falls on a correct understanding of both the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. It is a basic tenet of STOSS that our body and soul are changed due to our becoming one Mystical Body with Jesus through Baptism, and a one-flesh nuptial union with him in the Eucharist. However, in the next Section we will only be discussing the latter.
We will be attempting to arrive at a correct understanding of the Transubstantiation through a discussion of four different subjects. They are:
1) An examination of a Eucharistic controversy that occurred in the 800s between, primarily, Paschasius Radbertus and the Monk Ratramnus of Corbie;2) An examination of the meaning of substantial presence using sense-based arguments;3) An examination of the Dogmas through the writings of others; and,4) A brief examination of a deeper understanding of light as it relates to the substance of our human nature.
Real Food & Real Drink
In John 6, it is clear that Jesus is telling us that that we must eat his flesh because it is real food. We must also drink his blood because it is real drink. Here is why. Every food that is eaten and every drink that is drank will produce an effect on one’s body. It will produce one of three effects. If we are in perfect health, it will maintain that which we have already achieved. If the food and drink constitute an unhealthy diet, it will lead to our physical deterioration and unhappiness. If we are unhealthy, a healthy diet can help to heal us.
I can go on and on about the healing powers of certain foods or drinks, but it misses the point that I am going to make. Let me give you just one example. St. Hildegard of Bingen is a Doctor of the Church. She was born circa 1098 and died 1179. She received numerous visions from God. She basically wrote what God told her to write. She has a very wide following of people because of the cures she developed through herbs and other organic measures. She writes:
But one who burns strongly in lust either asleep or awake should take care not to add flame to his fire. How? Let him not inflame himself by those foods that stir up lust. He should humbly abstain from the flesh of animals that come forth from their mothers naked and without covering, that is, beasts; for there is a fire of heat in them that is not as great in the flesh of birds, which are not born uncovered but as an egg covered with a shell, and therefore have less inflammatory power. And he should also abstain from excessive wine, lest by too much drinking his veins become filled with noxious blood and wickedly heated with ardent fire.
How is this applicable to the Eucharist? Servant of God Fr. John Hardon tells us that Sanctifying Grace is communicated to man through the Sacraments of the Church, starting with Baptism. However, in every Sacrament, both Sanctifying and Actual graces are given. There is a saying that applies to this situation. It is, “You are what you eat.” That is truer than one can fully imagine. The Food & Drink in John 6 are the primary component of the Actual Grace given to us in the Eucharist! The gift of the Holy Spirit from the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the Sanctifying Grace.
Jesus tells St. Faustina, “I am Love and Mercy itself. When a soul approaches Me with trust, I fill it with such an abundance of graces that it cannot contain them within itself, but radiates them to other souls.” What is radiated; from where is it radiated? The answer is: “He who believes [another word for trust — SML] in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:38). Let us recall our previous discussion on the spirit versus the soul. The upper powers of the soul (i.e., spirit/inner heart) cannot be kept separate from the lower powers (i.e., those powers of the soul responsible for the accidents and the functioning of the physical body). Grace will affect both body and soul. This is true whether it be Sanctifying and/or Actual grace that is given.
St. Paul wrote, “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Cor. 4:6-7). Fulton Sheen so entirely viewed himself as an earthen vessel that he titled his autobiography Treasure in Clay. In Sheen’s book, The Mystical Body of Christ, he wrote, “The graces of God are communicated through ‘frail vessels [SML].’” It is the body that is the frail vessel, not the soul. Remember the phrase: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Did Sheen equate the frailty of the earthen vessel with the human body? Later in the book, he wrote, “The Mystical Christ of Pentecost, like the physical Christ of Bethlehem, was small, and delicate, and frail like any new-born thing [the newly breathed soul is sinless and, therefore, not weak — SML]. Its members were small; its organs were in the process of formation.” This is why the Church is considered the “Prolongation of the Incarnation through space and time.” This understanding will take on even greater significance when we understand the meaning of mouth in Scripture.
According to JPII, just as a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward (and unseen) reality of grace, the body itself enters into the “definition of a sacrament” (loosely speaking). This is so because it is a visible sign of an invisible reality. Not only is the body a sign of grace received, but it also visibly expresses that which it has received (not possible without the body) and does so efficaciously for self and others. Furthermore, the body not only expresses grace but, as we shall see later, produces it. Thus, the body contributes to grace becoming part of man.
In 2 Kings we read:
Now the men of the city said to Eli′sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the Lord, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli′sha spoke (2 Kgs. 2:19-22).
The “new bowl” also signifies the rebuilt Temple in Ezekiel’s dream, the newly resurrected and glorified body of Christ. The “salt” that was poured into the bad water is a type of the risen physical (not mortal, but glorified) body of Christ; His DNA and his bio-living water. We now begin to understand how the bad water is made good. All grace — all living water enters into the world and into man through the instrumentality of the humanity — i.e., the flesh of the Son of God.
Let’s talk a very little about bio-living water. We are able to begin to see water as really “alive” and “moving”. Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi characterizes life as “water dancing [SML] to the tune of macromolecules.” Incidentally, the salt of DNA and many of the proteins it produces are macromolecules. Another researcher characterizes this watery dance, as it was referred to by Szent-Gyorgyi, as a sort of quantum “jazz” which is both, always being improvised in response to its environment and is also coherent beyond our wildest imaginings. Our body is a liquid crystalline (liquid stone) organism that is, in fact, quantum coherent. According to biologist Vladimir Voeikov, there are increasing amounts of scientific evidence indicating that biological water, working together with the solid surfaces of, and within, the cell (e.g., proteins, DNA, and cell membranes), [and in conjunction with photons of light — SML] determine the organization of living organisms at all levels.
As we mentioned earlier, the structuring of water depends upon the environment existing within the cell, i.e., the energy state and ionic content of the cell. The living cell is in a state of continuous fluctuation of the structure of water molecules. These fluctuations maintain balance within the cell. Without this balance, the organism cannot function properly. In fact, more and more scientific evidence is leading to the conclusion that structured molecules of water (both intracellular and extracellular) in conjunction with cellular solids, such as proteins, determine biological activity at all levels of organization within living matter. Thus, we can say again how import bio-living water is for the redemption of the body (cf. Romans 8:23).
For example, a protein surrounded by a stabilized structure of water (high hydrogen bonding) will be less likely to unfold (protein unfolding results in either the cessation of the function of the protein or it causes the protein to malfunction) while a less stable water structure would allow for more protein flexibility and an increased possibility of unfolding. Scientific research is increasingly pointing to the notion that even major conversions of the shape of proteins are the result of structured water within the protein’s environment.
Why is protein shape important? Most often, when a protein is made by one cell, it is intended to deliver its instructions to a different cell. Depending on what type of cell it is, each cell in the body has ‘receptors’ outside the cell wall. A protein and a receptor have a sort of lock and key relationship. The ‘key’ is the protein and the ‘lock’ is the receptor. If the shape of the key does not correspond with the shape of the lock, the ‘door’ will not open and the instructions that the protein is carrying will not get delivered to the cell. When a protein is made, it ‘folds’ into a particular shape so that it will fit into the receptor of the target cell, opening the door, so to speak. When the door is open to the target cell, it will receive and carry out the instructions it received.
One example of a protein’s impact on the bodies’ redemption, or lack thereof, is monoamine oxidase. Why is this protein important? It is a protein that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine (major hormone involved in addictions), norepinephrine (a stress hormone that is also involved in fight-or-flight response and has a serious effect on the entire body), and serotonin (affects the function of most of our 40 million brain cells, including those associated with mood, sexual desire and function, appetite, sleep, and more). Studies have shown that conversions (shape changes) of minor populations of proteins can serve as the seed for shape changes of the entire population of the same kind of protein — creating a domino effect. To summarize: 1) structured water propels and guides protons throughout the body, which in turn affects the function of enzymes (a type of protein) which in turn determine, in some part, whether our bio-water is bio-living water or salt water; and 2) the actual structuring of water molecules themselves affect the functioning of the cell and its contents (e.g., hormones) which, in turn, affect the “freshness” of our water.
One way water may participate in the shape change, or lack thereof, of a protein, is the energy barrier that is intrinsic to that particular protein. In order for the protein to change shape (and, therefore function), the energy barrier for that particular protein must be overcome. Think of it as two magnets that are stuck together. In order to separate the two magnets a specific amount of energy must be employed and used up to pull the two of them apart, the amount of energy necessary to accomplish this would depend upon the strength of the magnetic field. Until you reach that threshold amount of energy, you won’t be able to pull the two magnets apart. In our next example, we’ll talk about biological water and energy.
The soul is spiritual light; the body radiates material light. ‘Harmony’ and ‘order’ are two words used to denote ‘coherence’. On the other hand, incoherence is another word for disharmony and disorder. The soul and body work together in unity to express either harmoniously or disharmoniously…and all the variations of degree in between. Let’s look at a couple of quotes from Hildegard. It would be beneficial to read about spiritual soul. In the upper powers (the inner heart) of the soul, the Holy Spirit dwells. The overflow of that inner heart affects the soul, which is in control of the entire body. By the way, the coherent light generated by Jesus’ human heart extends at least three feet out from his Glorified Heart. Hmm. I wonder what kind of impact that is having on the communicant?
Early Eucharistic Controversy
Paschasius Radbertus ignited the first Eucharistic controversy in the history of the Church. We will discuss the content of his treatise and the background surrounding it a little later. First, I want to tell you the reason it is so important relative to STOSS, which I consider to be a branch of the Theology of the Body.
Radbertus’ views regarding the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist are highly compatible with the thoughts that I espouse in my exposition of STOSS and the Covenant of Salt. If his writings are judged to be theologically credible, the credibility of STOSS will also be bolstered. On the other hand, if his writings are not credible, or worse, judged to be heretical, the acceptability of STOSS will suffer.
I know of three young priests who believe that Paschasius Radbertus and/or his views are materially heretical. All three have one thing in common: they cite Ludwig Ott’s book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, as either a direct or indirect source for their judgment. Ott’s book is popular among many younger people who are trying to gain a deeper understanding of sacramental theology. Many seminarians and priests working towards their degrees in Theology also read his book. In general, I believe the book is good. Still, it has some serious composition flaws that must be understood and taken into account before attempting to use it as a basis for judging the writings of others. I believe Ott has, perhaps inadvertently, perpetrated a grave injustice to Radbertus. More on that later.
Let’s discuss the history and teachings of Radbertus. In 831, he composed a treatise titled De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (translation: Of the Body and Blood of the Lord). Unfortunately, while Radbertus wrote the original titled work, at least two additional pieces (both responsive to Radbertus’ work) were written by different authors that use the same title for their treatise. Consequently, one must be very careful to ascertain which author’s work is referenced.
In 844, the treatise was revised and sent to Emperor Charles the Bald. According to Joseph Pohle, “The emperor commissioned the Benedictine Ratramnus of Corbie to refute certain questionable (in his mind) assertions of Paschasius, and when Rabanus Maurus joined in the discussion (cf. Ep. Iii ad Egilem, P.L., CXIII, 1513) there occurred the first controversy on the Eucharist. The controversy continued up to the tenth century and for some time later.”
What did Radbertus teach? According to Dr. Mark Armitage:
Taking his lead from St Ambrose of Milan, Radbertus insisted that the true, historical body of Jesus Christ is literally present in [the] Eucharist, in such a way that, in receiving Christ’s true body and blood, the communicant has united with Christ physically and directly [SML]. Agreeing with St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Radbertus affirmed that the image of God is located in the whole human person — body and soul (and not just soul) — with the result that salvation is to be seen in terms of union between the whole human person and the whole person of Christ (body, blood, soul and divinity) who makes himself efficaciously, literally and physically present (and communicable) in the Eucharist … [Radbertus rejected] the dualistic separation of body and soul (which some Latin theologians had imported from Greek theology).
The Vatican International Theological Commission agreed with Radbertus and St. Irenaeus. Radbertus’ writings suggested something along the lines of JP II’s works on the Theology of the Body — the Nuptial Mystery of man. Some felt Radbertus meant that it is Jesus’ mortal body present in the Eucharist and that he must be understood that his mortal body is sensibly present in the Eucharist. Both of these are egregious misinterpretations of his writings.
Were Radbertus’ teachings right or wrong? The following is a list of reasons that show why we can be sure he was not mistaken:
1) “[Radbertus] defended himself with some skill against the attacks of his critics, especially in his Epistola ad Frudegardum. But a more thorough vindication of St. Paschasius was made by Gerbert, afterward, Pope Sylvester II (d. 1003), who, in a work bearing the same title “De corpore et sanguine Domini,” contended that the doctrine of St. Paschasius was correct in every particular [SML].”2) Paschasius is a canonized saint. If he were an unrepentant (i.e., formal) heretic, he could never have been canonized. Furthermore, I am not aware of any record of him ever having repented or recanted of any of his teachings because he had nothing for which he needed to recant or repent. More importantly, the Church claims infallibility in its declarations of sainthood. Incidentally, Declarations of sainthood are infallible judgments of the Church [Note: St. Paschasius Radbertus (9th century) should not be confused with St. Paschasius (6th century). I have read the work of others attributing information that should have been attributed to the former but was incorrectly attributed to the latter].3) Emperor Charles the Bald, who originally had difficulty accepting Radbertus’ treatise, eventually came to accept the truthfulness of his writings.4) Radbertus’ adversary (Retramnus of Corbie) “was determined to be heretical and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1559, but was removed in 1900. Both [Retramnus and Radbertus — SML] wrote in imprecise wording.”5) According to Elizabeth Francis Rogers, “His book Of the Body and Blood of the Lord was the first to elaborate for western Europe the doctrine of the miraculous conversion of the elements in the Eucharist, which in the twelfth century received the name of Transubstantiation [See Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected With the Incarnation, p. 236. ‘Paschasius appears beyond all reasonable question to teach a doctrine of transubstantiation’].”6) Noted theologian, Fr. John Hardon writes, “After eleven centuries, Pius XII has ‘canonized’ Paschasius’ teaching by incorporating it, almost verbatim, in the Mediator Dei.”7) In OSV’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Jordan Aumann O.P. writes, “In the ninth century, Paschasius Radbertus stated clearly the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence.” Aumann wrote this sentence in a sub-section titled “Transubstantiation.”
St. Paschasius and his writings are not heretical, so why the false perception on the part of so many younger theologians? I place much of the blame on Ott’s book and the seminaries that use it as part of their curriculum.
In a Chapter titled “The Fact of the Real Presence of Christ,” and in a sub-section titled “The Heretical Counter-theses,” Ott writes:
The Book of John Scotus on the Eucharist, invoked by Berengarius of Tours in support of his [heretical] error, and which was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli (1050) probably was written by the Monk Ratramnus of Corbie (✝ after 868), De corpore et sanguine Domini. Ratramnus, it is true, did not deny the Real Presence, but in contrast to Paschasius Radbertus (✝ about 860), who maintained the complete identity of the sacramental body with the historical body of Christ, [Ratramnus] strongly emphasized the different way in which the Body of Christ was manifested in the Eucharist, and applied to the Eucharist the expressions, similitudo, imago, pignus. Others who attacked the exaggerated realism of Paschasius Radbertus were Rabanus Maurus, in a lost letter to the Abbot Eigil of Prüm , and the Monk Gottschalk, in the Dicta cuiusdam sapientis de corpore et sanguine Domini adversus Ratbertum, which is erroneously ascribed to Rabanus Maurus ... Berengarius of Tours (✝ 1088) denied the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine and the Real Presence of Christ. He saw in the Eucharist merely a figure (figura, similitudo) of the body and blood of Christ transfigured in Heaven.
The above is the complete text of Ott’s writings relative to this Eucharistic controversy. There is absolutely nothing in Ott’s text wherein he accuses (or even implies) Radbertus of being heretical. Instead, he was made to appear guilty by 1) improper association, i.e., including him in a section on “Heretical Counter-thesis,” without mentioning that he was never declared a heretic; 2) listing two others who were opposed to his views w/o providing those in favor of his views (as we did above); 3) failing to mention that, during the canonization process, Radbertus’ writings would have been closely scrutinized. He could not have been canonized if his writings were heretical. There is no record of his refusal to repent of such purely hypothetical heresy; and 4) failing to mention that St. Radbertus was merely reiterating the teachings of other Church Fathers, such as St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Chrysostom. I am not accusing Ott of intentionally misleading his readers, but he does so nonetheless. In my opinion, any theological curriculum using Ott’s book should take steps to guard against the ‘unintentional trashing’ of St. Paschasius Radbertus’ writings.
Sense-based Arguments Favoring Transubstantiation and a Physical (but not mortal) Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
In the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus repeatedly tells his followers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they wish to have life within themselves. Any objective and detailed reading of Jesus’ bread of life discourse in that Gospel would lead to the understanding that Jesus’ listeners were interpreting his words literally, and they were interpreting them carnally. As a result, they were: 1) repulsed by what he was saying (v. 52, 60); 2) murmuring and complaining among themselves about what he was saying (v. 41, 52, 60); and 3) ceasing to follow him as a direct response to the hard things he was saying (v. 66). In response, Jesus tells them [I will add my comments about his words in brackets]:
“It is the spirit that gives life [true, no matter the interpretation of the words that follow], the flesh is of no avail […in communicating life, but only in so much as it serves as an instrumental channel of Grace / Life, just as is the case with Jesus’ body]; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life [in other words, stop thinking carnally — to the complete exclusion of the spiritual — about what I am saying]” (Jn. 6:63).
By these words, Jesus was not contradicting what he had so emphatically spoken of in the preceding verses. Jesus wasn’t saying that his words should be interpreted symbolically — not carnally. He was telling them not to focus on the sensual and, as a result, be grossed out by that particular aspect of his teaching. He told them not to let it cause them to lose sight of his words’ more significant salvific meaning. Why? God in his infinite wisdom knows our frailties and would take that into account in dictating the form and matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Aquinas, too, tells us the reason God hides the physical and carnal (but also glorified and transcendent) body and blood of Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine. He tells us; “Why see we not the flesh? Because, if the flesh were seen, it would revolt us to such a degree, that we should be unable to partake of it. And therefore, in condescension to our infirmity, the mystical food is given to us under an appearance suitable to our Minds [I would add: but it is physical flesh and blood, nonetheless].”
Again, but from a more authoritative source, let’s read what God revealed to St. Hildegard. She wrote, “[The consecrated host] appears in human eyes to be bread and wine, for human frailty is so delicate that people would shudder at receiving bleeding flesh and trickling blood.” Hmm! This wording doesn’t precisely convey the message that the substance of Jesus hidden in the Eucharist is only an ethereal or symbolic representation of his physical body. The idea that Jesus’ corporeal body was somehow transformed into a spiritual body cannot be entertained. The Truth of God’s revelation to Hildegard can be seen by the disciples’ reaction to the words of Jesus when, as described in John’s Gospel, he told them what they must do regarding his body and blood.
So the question is this: Why would there even need to be a veil (a term often used to describe the philosophical accidents of bread and wine) under which the body and blood of Jesus are hidden unless what is hidden is, in fact, the True physical and corporeal Jesus — body, blood, and all? If that described by God as being hidden, i.e., physical “bleeding flesh and trickling blood,” were not there in the first place, then saying they needed to be hidden would be ridiculous, deceptive, and completely unnecessary.
It is important to note that the resurrected, glorified, transcendent, physical, and corporeal Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Not a mortal Jesus, but an immortal Jesus. His glorified human nature is now transcendent; he is not bound by space or time; he cannot be physically affected by the cosmos or anything in physical creation. However, consider these facts: 1) weight is a function of mass times the gravity of the planet; 2) Jesus’ glorified body can no longer be affected by the gravitational pull of earth; 3) in Eucharistic miracles during which the veil of the consecrated Host is lifted, the flesh and blood that is present can be weighed and measured.
What does this mean? Created gravity can no longer exert a downward pulling force on Jesus’ physical glorified body. However, the accidents that inhere to the substance of his now immortal body — including his weight — still concomitantly exist in Jesus’ complete substance, i.e., the Eucharist. I will explain this phenomenon in a way that will aid our understanding of this fact.
For several reasons, the pull of gravity varies. So, weighing one-hundred pounds in one location of the planet might change to one-hundred ten pounds elsewhere. Let’s assume Jesus’ heart weighed five pounds when he died. If we were to weigh Jesus’ glorified heart, made present in a Eucharistic miracle, the weight of his heart would never change. The physical world can exert no influence on a glorified body.
It would remain the same no matter where in physical creation it was weighed. Thus, any of the variables that can affect weight in physical creation, including in the vacuum of space, could not affect the weight of Jesus’ glorified body, either in part or in whole.
Through the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy, we can see an example of what I am talking about in the preceding paragraph. In this miracle, the sacred veils were lifted from a consecrated host revealing the visible flesh and blood of Jesus. The Host was changed into flesh and blood by the Consecration — not by the act of removing the sacramental veil.
The now visible Blood of Jesus is divided into five unequal-sized parts. Each of the five clots of Blood weighs 15.85 grams, which is the identical weight of the five clots weighed together! These facts confirm that the glorified and transcendent body of Jesus in the Eucharist is physical — but not mortal. That these parts were able to be weighed proves their physical presence. If they were ethereal, they would not have weight. Thus, showing that the dimensive accidents of his body still inhere to that glorified body. That “each of the five clots of Blood weighs 15.85 grams [0.56 ounces], which is the identical weight of the five clots weighed together, tells us that this weight was not the result of the gravitational pull existing at the time the blood was scaled.
We can’t understand the infinite mystery of the Transubstantiation to any measurable depth. If any of us believe we have achieved that depth, then I would say that a person’s concept of God is too small and weak. We cannot see the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist because of his glorified and transcendent state and because God knows it would be an obstacle to our receiving him. When God lifts the sacramental veil, and we see his Real Flesh and Blood, Aquinas tells us it is not an illusion or a hallucination; God is not deceiving us. He tells us:
The same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the Sacrament… as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this Sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this Sacrament.
As Aquinas says, God does not deceive us when we see the physical body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. Four major Eucharistic miracles (Lanciano, Sokolka, Buenos Aires, and Legnica) are detailed at Bl. Carlo Acutis’ website. There have been approximately one-hundred-thirty-five such Eucharistic miracles documented and recognized by the Church. Here are some other examples:
1) In the case of the miracle at Buenos Aires, Columbia University Professor Frederick Zugibe, perhaps the greatest expert in the field of cardiac pathologies and forensic medicine of the heart, said that at the time the Eucharistic tissue samples were delivered to him, the cells of the heart muscle tissue were beating. This phenomenon is consistent with what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us about Jesus’ glorified body. Pohle writes, “The glorified Christ, Who ‘dieth now no more’ (Rom, vi, 9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life’s Blood [SML note — I would also add: His blood flows because of the beating of his heart (which produces electromagnetic energy — created light which science has proven to affect others)] under the vivifying influence of the spiritual soul.”2) In the writings of Cesar of Heisterbach, the story is told of a recluse who had devoted herself to a life of penance and prayer. She had a special devotion to the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, the devil had succeeded in planting severe doubts in her mind about the Truth of Transubstantiation. Nevertheless, God had compassion for this humble servant and allowed a miracle to take place. When the priest was saying Mass, he carelessly overturned the chalice after the Consecration. To the priest’s horror, the philosophical accident of wine had assumed the appearance and color of blood. After Mass, the priest tried every way he could think of to clean the blood-stained corporal. But to no avail. The following week the priest, in tears, held the corporal up for the congregants to see and explained what had happened. He was convinced that God allowed this to happen to firm up the faith of those who entertained doubt about the Truth of the Dogma of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence: so he made a point to take the corporal around to show others. Eventually, he went to the dwelling of the recluse. At seeing the blood-stained corporal, she fell to her knees and wept bitter tears of regret for her disbelief. Then, with these words, she made a public confession of faith: “I steadfastly believe that in the consecrated chalice the true, natural [SML] Blood of Christ is really present, the same that was shed for us upon the Cross.” After returning home and again putting the corporal into the water, he was amazed to see the stain immediately disappear. It seems evident that it was for the benefit of the recluse that this miracle had occurred.3) Fr. Peter Cavagnelas, a monk of the Order of St. Jerome, was having terrible doubts about whether or not the Blood of Christ was really present in the sacred Host. One day he was saying Mass. After saying the words of the Canon in which the angels are asked to carry these gifts to the altar, a cloud descended and completely surrounded both the Host and the Chalice, blocking the view of Fr. Cavagnelas. Alarmed, he made a sincere act of contrition and lifted his heart in prayerful petition. When the cloud lifted, the Sacred Host was suspended in midair above the chalice. While he starred at the Host, blood began to drip from the Host into the chalice. This phenomenon continued until the exact same amount of Blood was in the chalice as there had been wine prior to the Consecration.4) Blessed John of Alvernio was known to have celebrated Mass very devoutly. At a High Mass on the feast of the Assumption, he was overcome with love for Christ. At the Consecration, Blessed John beheld a smiling infant — the entire corpus of the baby Jesus — in his hands. At the sight of this Most Holy Infant, Fr. John’s heart was pierced, and his bodily strength was sapped; he fell into a state of ecstasy.
I could cite many other examples of this miraculous revelation in which the veil is lifted so that mortal eyes can behold the sacred reality of what was already there — the True and Real Presence of the body and blood of the risen and glorified Jesus in the Eucharist, but I think the point has been sufficiently made.
Writings of Others Relating to Transubstantiation and the Physical Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
Pope Pius XII – In his papal encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII seeks to explain the meaning of the term Mystical Body of Christ in referencing the Church. To distinguish the body of Christ in the Church from the body of Christ in the Eucharist, he writes, “by it we may distinguish the Body of the Church, which is a Society whose Head and Ruler is Christ, from His physical Body [SML], which, born of the Virgin Mother of God, now sits at the right hand of the Father and is hidden [SML, i.e., his physical body is there, but hidden] under the Eucharistic veils.” That’s right: it is Jesus’ physical/natural, Glorified, and transcendent body present in the Consecrated Host. The point is this: a glorified body is not a strictly/ethereal, spiritual body. A glorified body does not cease to be a physical body — it’s just not a mortal body.
Another point that the Pope’s words can extrapolate is this: while Jesus’ proper species are in Heaven and seated at the Father’s right hand, his physical body is still sacramentally present in the Eucharist. According to prominent saints/theologians, there are two formal operations of quantity. Joseph Pohle writes:
The simplest treatment of the subject was that offered by the Schoolmen, especially St. Thomas (III:76:4), They reduced the mode of being to the mode of becoming, i.e., they traced back the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to the Transubstantiation; for a thing has to so “be” as it was in “becoming”, Since [by the power of words] the immediate result is the presence of the Body of Christ, its quantity, present merely [concomitantly], must follow the mode of existence peculiar to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without division and extension, i.e., entirely in the whole Host and entirely in each part thereof. In other words, the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, not after the manner of “quantity”, but of “substance.”
Later Scholasticism (Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Billuart, and others) tried to improve upon this explanation along other lines by distinguishing between internal and external quantity. By internal quantity … is understood that entity, by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses “aptitudinal extension”, i.e., the “capability” of being extended in tri-dimensional space. External quantity, on the other hand … is the same entity, but in so far as it follows its natural tendency to occupy space and actually extends itself in the three dimensions. While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences [aka, substance] of bodies that its separability from them involves a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is, on the other hand, only a natural consequence and effect, which can be so suspended and withheld by the First Cause, that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not extend itself into space.
St. Hildegard of Bingen – as quoted earlier, tells us, “Out of clay God so shaped humanity that through this tiny spark of the soul we become flesh and blood out of clay … [we] would have remained only clay, had not the spiritual soul transformed it.” When we talk about man, it is evident from the last sentence that our substance includes our flesh (dust/clay of the earth) and blood (clay contains water).
Without the soul, our substance would have consisted only of clay, but when the Breath is breathed into the soul, it becomes one substance containing both clay (water is part of clay) and a spiritual soul. Hence, when we talk about the substance of Jesus in the Eucharist, we are talking about his glorified physical body and blood together with the human soul, hypostatically united to His Divinity, in the Person of the Son of God.
St. Thomas Aquinas – Aquinas tells us, “Those sacramental species [of bread and wine] are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and power of substance [but without the substance — SML].” What Aquinas is referring to is this: consecrated wine can still, for example, get us intoxicated; the consecrated bread can still go stale. It retains this power because God miraculously maintains the act and power of the substance of bread and wine in the accidents of bread and wine.
It can be surmised from his words that the substance’s power and act affect other physical bodies (i.e., those receiving the Eucharist) through its accidents. Are we foolish enough to believe the act and power of the substance of the bread and wine, which are hiding Jesus present in the Eucharist, are more powerful than the act and power of the substance of Jesus, which is what is actually present in the Eucharist? Let me make one point crystal clear: the substance of bread and wine no longer exists in the consecrated Host. However, God miraculously maintains the act and power of the substances through the accidents of bread and wine, despite their substantial absence.
Therefore, it is logical to believe that the substance of Jesus’ body, blood, and soul united to his Divinity in the Eucharist will affect other bodies, those who receive him in that Sacrament. The fact that various components of the many Eucharistic miracles, i.e., unveiled specimens of Jesus’ flesh and/or blood, available for study can be quantified by physical means (i.e., obtained from scientific examinations using various testing equipment/apparatus) indicate that the substance of Jesus in the Eucharist is both physical (body and blood) and spiritual (soul and Divinity). This must be so. A hypostasis of two natures into one Person can never be separated. If the glorified body were not physical, then it would not produce an effect on testing equipment. To help understand how this occurs, allow me to restate Pohle’s words from above: Both the internal and external quantity of the substance of Jesus’ body in the consecrated Host are present, but the external is usually miraculously suspended by God for reasons we have already discussed. However, when it suits God’s purposes, he can very easily ‘un-suspend’ the external.
Keeping in mind what Aquinas told us about these Eucharistic miracles, i.e., they do not deceive us because they convey the Truth. Let us ask the question: is the Person (body, soul, Divinity) of Jesus hidden under the sacred species different from the substance of Jesus immediately after the miraculous visual revelation? Is the substance of Jesus, which is capable of affecting scientific equipment and also equipment for quantifying weight in the physical world, different from the substance of Jesus hidden in the Eucharist? The answer is: absolutely not. There are not two Jesus.’ Not two substances. The glorified substance of Christ is unchangeable and indivisible.
Quoting Pope Alexander, Aquinas writes, “Pope Alexander III, who says (Conc. Later. iii): ‘Since Christ is perfect God and perfect man, what foolhardiness have some to dare to affirm that Christ as man [body, blood, and spiritual soul — SML] is not a substance?’” He also tells us, “since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament [SML note: I would add (as Aquinas said earlier); and also retain the act and power of Jesus’ substance].” He also says, “By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the nerves, and the like.” In other words, all those things necessary to have a living body that radiates grace to those who become one body, one Spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:17-19) in the Eucharist.
Does Jesus have physical movement in the Consecrated Host? Aquinas says, “In Christ, being in Himself and being under the Sacrament is not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this Sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this Sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this Sacrament as in a place, as stated above (A. 5).” Theologian Fr. John Hardon comments on these words of Aquinas by writing:
All the standard commentators on the Summa understand St. Thomas to mean that there is only an extrinsic difference between the Eucharistic and natural Christ when he says that in one case the mode of being is natural and in the other sacramental. Thus [St. Robert] Bellarmine, in commenting on this part of the Summa and also explaining the pertinent words of [the Council of] Trent, says: “The Body of Christ, because of its special mode of existence in the Eucharist, does not express any relation to surrounding bodies. Therefore, we can truly say that the Body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is true, real, natural, living, quantified, having color, and that His flesh is corporeal, not spiritual [SML]. But we do not say that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven. The reason is because these names imply a relation to surrounding bodies, which the Body of Christ does not have in the Eucharist.” [Bellarminus, “De Sacramento Eucharistiae,” V, lib. 1, cap. 2 (Naples, 1858), 250].
Aquinas further states, “The substance of Christ’s body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ’s body is in this sacrament substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions.” This can, perhaps, be more easily understood by recalling the five unequal globules of Jesus’ blood that were part of the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano.
Fr. John Hardon – Fr. Hardon is a well-known and well-respected Jesuit priest, theologian, and teacher. See endnote for brief biography. Below are quotes from different articles that Hardon has written.
In his discussion of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist relative to the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Hardon quotes Pope Pius XII who says, “the faithful bear witness to and solemnly avow the faith of the Church that the Word of God is identical [SML] with the Son of the Virgin Mary, who suffered on the Cross, who is present in a hidden manner in the Eucharist, and who reigns upon His heavenly throne [Acta Apostolicae Sedis (trans: Acts of the Apostolic See), XXXIX, 570].” Hardon then proceeds to more precisely define what the Pope means by the word: identical. He writes, “When Pius XII identifies this body, so minutely described, with the Real Sacramental Presence, he is attributing to the Lord’s humanity in the Eucharist all the intrinsic properties and perfections, qualitative and quantitative, which are attributable to His historical body, once mortal and passible on earth, and now glorified and immortal in heaven.”
1.) “Shortly after [the Council of] Trent, Pope St. Pius V authorized the publication of the Roman Catechism which built on the Council of Trent … Regarding the Real Presence, the pastors were told to explain that ‘in this sacrament is contained not only the true Body of Christ-and that means everything that goes to make up a true body, such as bones, nerves, and so on-but also Christ whole and entire.’ Consequently the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his Divinity and the completeness of his humanity … when we speak of Transubstantiation, we mean that the whole substance of bread and wine, its ‘breadness’ and ‘wineness,’ is replaced by the living and glorified Jesus Christ … Is there any real difference between Jesus in heaven and Jesus in the Eucharist? No, it is the same Jesus ... The living, breathing Jesus Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament.”2). “[Jesus] is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will [which is] united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart [SML]. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not.”3). “When we pray before the Blessed Sacrament, we are adoring Christ in the fullness of His human nature, including His physical properties, which include His heart of flesh, now glorified but living and, we may add, pulsating out of love for us [Verified scientifically through the specimens from the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires--SML] [Hardon, John A. Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments; Kensington, MD, Inter Mirifica, 1994. P. 84. #61].”
Pope Pius XII — In his Encyclical Mediator Dei, the Pope writes, “From what We have already explained, Venerable Brethren, it is perfectly clear how much modern writers are wanting in the genuine and true liturgical spirit who, deceived by the illusion of a higher mysticism, dare to assert that attention should be paid not to the historic Christ but to a ‘pneumatic’ or glorified Christ … these false statements are completely opposed to the solid doctrine handed down by tradition. ‘You believe in Christ born in the flesh,’ says
, ‘and you will come to Christ begotten of God.’[ St. Augustine , Enarr. in Ps. 123, n. 2]” Saint Augustine
St. Irenaeus — “In the same manner in which you ascribe to the Eucharist only the value of a symbol, so also the incarnation is reduced (by you) to mere appearance: there is not more flesh in the one than in the other. The incarnation does not differ from the Eucharist [Adv. Haereses V, 2].”
St. Leo the Great — “What was visible in our Savior has entered into the sacraments [Homily 74, 12].”
For a list of all blogs and articles, go here.
. Hardon, John (2013-06-25). “Sacramental Grace.” Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 442). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
. A term I coined meaning something in physical creation that is able to be detected through the unaided five senses.
. A term I coined meaning something in physical creation that is not able to be detected through the unaided five senses, but can be detected through, for example, scientific, optical, or mechanical equipment.
. Hildegard, Scivias, 248.
. Burge, Gary M. (2012-08-07). Jesus and the Jewish Festivals (Ancient Context, Ancient Faith) (Kindle Locations 1184-1187). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
. Pope Benedict XVI, (2011-03-10). Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection (Kindle Locations 3437-3444). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition).
. M. G. Easton, “Covenant,” (1893), In Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (p. 164). New York: Harper & Brothers.
. Burge, Gary M. (2012-08-07). Jesus and the Jewish Festivals (Ancient Context, Ancient Faith) (Kindle Locations 1184-1187). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Kindle Locations 3436-3437.
. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Kindle Locations, p. 37.
. Brant James Pitre PhD., Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, The Crown Publishing Group, Kindle Edition, p. 52.
 The law given by God to the children of Israel made it obligatory upon them to offer sacrifice to Him daily; on feasts a more elaborate ceremonial was to be observed. They were to offer to Him lambs, sheep, calves and oxen, and these animals were not to be offered only; they were to be immolated by an anointed priest, with certain prayers and ceremonies. They were to be slaughtered, flayed; their blood was to be poured round about on the altar and their flesh burnt upon the altar. ...These were the sacred oblations whereby the Jews were accustomed to pay to God the homage due to Him and acknowledge Him to be the supreme Ruler over all creatures; Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass, Tan Books, Kindle Edition, p 2.
 Ibid., 7-8.
. Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass, pp. 7-8. Used with permission from Tan Books.
. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Ave Maria Press, Kindle Edition, pp. 35-36.
. Robert Sungenis, http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html; see also http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6beliefonly.html by Matt1618.
. Francis Aveling, “Man,” (2011-10-25). The Catholic Encyclopedia: Complete Vol. 1-15, ed. Charles George Herbermann, (Kindle Locations 426413-426415). Kindle Edition.
. Ibid., Kindle Locations 426402-426404.
. Ibid., Kindle Locations 426398-426399.
 Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), 281.
. Hardon, John (2013-06-25). “Sacramental Grace.” Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 442). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
. Kowalska, Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, n. 1074. Used with permission of the Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M.
. Sheen, Fulton J., The Mystical Body of Christ (Kindle Locations 215-218), Ave Maria Press, Kindle Edition. This reference is found in the “Introduction of the New Edition” by Brandon Vogt. Excerpted from The Mystical Body of Christ by Fulton J. Sheen. Copyright 2015 by The Society for the Propagation of the Faith. Used with permission of the publisher, Ave Maria Press, P.O. Box 428, Notre Dame, IN 46556. www.avemariapress.com.
 Ibid., Kindle Locations 2935-2939.
 Ibid., Kindle Location 94.
. John Paul II, “Marital Love Reflects God’s Love for His People,” The Theology of the Body, Daughters of St. Paul, General audience of July 28, 1982, ©Libreria Editrice Vaticana, (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), p. 304-306.
. cf. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 60, Libreria Editrice Vaticana http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html#top, 6/29/1943 (accessed 08/21/2013).
. cf. John A. Hardon S.J., “Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical Mediator Dei,” chap. in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 51, _10 (Inter Mirifica, July 1951; http://therealpresence.org/, 2000).
. Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas, “Second Peter - Homiletic & Pastoral Review,” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, accessed August 8, 2019, https://www.hprweb.com/2019/08/second-peter/.
. Gerald H. Pollack; Ivan L. Cameron; Denys N. Wheatley, Water and the Cell (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), viii.
. Mae-Wan Ho et al., Water and the Cell, 220-221.
. Vladimir L. Voeikov, “Biological Significance of Active Oxygen-Dependent Processes in Aqueous Systems,” Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 286.
. Martin F. Chaplin, “Information Exchange within Intracellular Water,” ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatley, Water and the Cell, (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 114-117.
. Frank Mayer, Denys Wheatley, and Michael Hoppert, "Some Properties of Interfacial Water: Determinants for Cell Architecture and Function," in Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 254.
. Voeikov, Water and the Cell, 286.
. Ibid., 268.
. Ibid., 259.
. Ibid., 268.
. "By tracking water molecules, physicists hope to unlock secrets of life." ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100227215943.htm (accessed June 5, 2016). Rockefeller University
Journal Source: Kumar et al., “A tetrahedral entropy for water.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009; 106 (52): 22130 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911094106.
. Colett Bouchez, “Recognizing the Symptoms of Depression,” WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/depression/features/serotonin#1, (accessed 01/23/2012).
. Mayer et al., Water and the Cell, 267.
. Ibid., 268.
. A material heretic is the content of the heresy. A formal heretic is one who has been informed of the heresy of the writings, but does not submit to authority by changing or withdrawing those writings.
. Joseph Pohle, “St. Paschasius Radbertus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11518a.htm (accessed June26, 2013).
. Mark Armitage, “St Paschasius Radbertus,” Saints and Blesseds Page; Saints and Beati of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, http://saintsandblesseds.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/st-paschasius-radbertus/: Blog at Wordpress.com, May 11, 2009 (accessed 06/26/2013).
, Alban, Rev. The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints, Vol. 4: April (Dublin: James Duffy, 1866); Bartleby.com, 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/210/4/263.html, (accessed 08/21/2013). Butler
. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). 238-240.
. Pohle, “St. Paschasius Radbertus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11.
. Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Yougrids, 2022, http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html, Accessed 2/6/22.
. Armitage, “St Paschasius Radbertus,” Saints and Blesseds Page; Saints and Beati of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
. Michael Ott, “Ratramnus,” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12659c.htm, (accessed Aug.18, 2013).
. Elizabeth Frances Rogers M.A., Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System (New York, NY: Elizabeth Frances Rogers, 1917), 30.
. John A. Hardon S.J., “Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical Mediator Dei,” chap. in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 51, _10 (Inter Mirifica, July 1951; http://therealpresence.org/, 2000).
. Aumann O.P., Jordan. “Real Presence.” In Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, 562. Ed. Russell Shaw, Huntington, IN.: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1997.
. Ott, Ludwig (1954-10-07). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (Kindle Locations 10118-10140). The Mercier Press. Kindle Edition.
. Pohle, “St. Paschasius Radbertus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11.
. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels, Vol. IV, (Oxford, John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, London. MDCCCXLI.,1841). Pg. 240.
. Hildegard, Scivias, 248 (© Paulist Press; all rights reserved; all quotations from Hildegard’s book, Scivias, are used with permission of Paulist Press).
. Joseph Pohle, “Eucharist,” (2011-10-25). The Catholic Encyclopedia: Complete Vol. 1-15, ed. Charles George Herbermann, (Kindle Locations 233828-233829). Kindle Edition.
. Blessed Carlo Acutis, “Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano,” http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/download/lanciano.pdf.
. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 76, Art. 8.
. Arthur Herlin, “Between Flesh and Bread: The Autopsy of a Eucharistic Miracle,” Aleteia SAS, http://aleteia.org/2017/01/05/between-flesh-and-bread-the-autopsy-of-a-eucharistic-miracle/, January 5, 2017 (accessed 1/18/2017).
. Carlo Acutis, “The Eucharistic Miracles of the World: Argentina, Buenos Aries, 1992-1994-1996,” Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_c.html?nat=argentina&wh=buenosaires&ct=Buenos%20Aires,%201992-1994-1996, accessed 11/18/2016.
. Ventura, “DNA and Cell Reprogramming Via Epigenetic Information Delivered By Magnetic Fields, Sound Vibration and Coherent Water,” Webinar transcript. https://www.scribd.com/document/161598761/Dna-and-Cell-Reprogramming-Transcript.
. Pohle, “Eucharist,” Kindle Locations 233583-233584.
. Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass, 143-145. Used with permission from Tan Books.
. Cochem, The Incredible Catholic Mass, 143-145. Used with permission from Tan Books.
. Ibid., 145.
. Ibid., 75-76.
. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, n.6, ©Libreria Editrice Vaticana http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html#top, 6/29/1943 (accessed 08/21/2013).
. John A. Hardon S.J., “Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical Mediator Dei,” chap. in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 51, _10 (Inter Mirifica, July 1951; www.therealpresence.org, 2000).
. Joseph Pohle, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm, (accessed Nov. 19, 2013).
. Hildegard of Bingen’s Book of Divine Works: With Letters and Song. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of publisher. Kindle Locations 2425-2433.
. Matthew Fox is the editor of this book. I do not agree with many of his beliefs. However, I am using this book because it contains reliable English translations of Hildegard’s De Operatione Dei (The Book of Divine Works) and also some of her letters written to others. I have not been able to locate any other English translations that would be easily obtainable. Only direct translations of Hildegard’s writings have been quoted.
. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 77, Art. 5.
. Note: while the accidents of bread and wine are miraculously maintained, their substances are no longer present.
. An individual, complete substance existing entirely in itself; an incommunicable substance. The term used by the Church to identify the persons in the Trinity and the union of two natures in one divine person in Christ. A person is a hypostasis endowed with reason. Moreover, hypostasis and nature are related to each other in such a manner that the hypostasis is the bearer of the nature and the ultimate subject of all being and acting, while the nature is that through which the hypostasis exists and acts. (Etym. Latin hypostasis, basis; single substance; rational single substance, person; Greek hypostasis, support, foundation, substance, sediment.) [Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary].
. Ibid., III, Q. 2, Art. 6.
. Ibid., III, Q. 76, Art. 4.
. Ibid., III, Q. 76, A. 1.
. Ibid., III, Q. 76, A. 6.
. John A. Hardon S.J., “Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical Mediator Dei,” chap. in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 51, _10 (Inter Mirifica, July 1951; http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_035.htm, 2000). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 76, Art. 3.
. Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, “Eucharistic Miracle,” Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html, 2000 (accessed 03/23/2009).
. Hardon was an aggressive defender of Catholic orthodoxy. In fact, during his studies at
Pontifical Gregorian University in (circa 1950), it was his duty to collect all the heretical books that had been checked out of the library by graduate students. He became known as an agent of orthodoxy and an enemy of the modernists who were striving to update the Church to their views of the faith [Elizabeth Mitchell, “Father John A. Hardon, S.J.: Biography,” Father John A. Hardon Archive and Guild, S.J., http://www.hardonsj.org/biography: Father John A. Hardon, SJ, Archive and Guild, 2013 (accessed 07/31/2013)]. At the request of Pope Paul VI, he wrote the 1975 edition of The Catholic Catechism [Ibid.]. He also wrote the Modern Catholic Dictionary and a detailed catechetical study program for the Holy See when Pope John Paul II requested that Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity be trained in catechesis. He served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II. He received the Papal Medal in 1951 and the St. Maximilian Kolbe Award in Mariology in 1990 [Ibid.]. Hardon died in December of 2000. Cardinal Raymond Burke initiated the Cause for Hardon’s canonization in 2005 and obtained the imprimatur of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome ; Fr. Robert T. McDermott is the Postulator for the Cause [James Maldonado Rome , “A Preacher “In and Out of Season”: Fr. Hardon’s Cause for Sainthood,” Catholic Exchange, http://catholicexchange.com/preaching-the-gospel-%e2%80%9cin-and-out-of-season%e2%80%9d-fr-hardon%e2%80%99s-relevance-for-today/, June 22, 2010 (accessed 10/31/2013)]. All of his writings have been given a nihil obstat [James Maldonado Berry , “Father John A. Hardon, S.J.: More on the Archive and Guild,” Father John A. Hardon, S.J., https://hardonsj.org/about-the-archive-and-guild/: Father John A. Hardon, SJ, Archive and Guild, 2013 (accessed 07/31/2013)]. Berry
. John A. Hardon S.J., “Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical Mediator Dei,” chap. in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 51, #10 (Inter Mirifica, July 1951; http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_035.htm). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
. John A. Hardon S.J., “The Holy Eucharist is the Whole Christ,” The Real Presence Association, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_005.htm: therealpresence.org, 2003 (accessed 07/24/2013). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
. Fr. John A. Hardon S.J., “The Eucharist and Christ’s Real Presence,” www.therealpresence.org, (Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association: Lombard, IL, 2000-2013), http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html (accessed 08/18/2013). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
. Carlo Acutis, “The Eucharistic Miracles of the World: Argentina, Buenos Aries, 1992-1994-1996,” Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_c.html?nat=argentina&wh=buenosaires&ct=Buenos%20Aires,%201992-1994-1996, accessed 11/18/2016.
. Carol Breslin, “The Real Presence: Christ’s Body,” therealpresence.org, http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/intro/christs_body.htm: Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, 2005 (accessed 07/01/2013). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
. Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 162-163.
. Dom Jerome Gassner O.S.B., [Excerpt from: The Eucharist - Witness of the Fathers, (The Liturgical Press, June 15, 1947), p. 343-355], “The Eucharist a Reenactment of the Entire Opus Redemptionis: Witness of the Fathers,” CatholicCulture.org, http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=338: Trinity Communications, 2013 (accessed 7/20/2013).