The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1. The communion , or communication, of the body and blood of Christ not only signifies that we receive the same body and the same blood of Christ, but also, as is said in ver. 17, we become one body and one blood. Therefore, the sacrament is not a type of the blood, as Calvin thinks, but it is the very blood of Christ itself, and is given to us in the Eucharistic chalice. If I were to say, “ I give you a golden one,” you would rightly understand that I did not mean a painted one. If I were to invite you to dinner, and a feast on the hare or stag caught in the chase, and instead of the hare or stag were to put before you on a dish a picture of the animals, should I not be acting ridiculously? — should I not hear myself called an impostor? Are not then the Protestants who transform the blood and flesh of Christ, which He declares that He gives, into a figure of that blood and flesh, acting ridiculously ? Are they not making Christ an impostor ?
2. If this cup is only a figure of the blood, as the Protestants think, then we have not more, but less, in the Eucharist than the Jews had in the manna and the water miraculously provided for their drink. The Apostle, too, should have said that we eat the spiritual body and drink the spiritual blood of Christ, that is that which represents them, just as he said that the Jews ate the spiritual meat — the manna, and drank the spiritual drink — the water from the rock. But as a fact he contrasts the blood and the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, as the reality and the thing signified, with the manna and water, as the figure and spiritual type, signifying the flesh and blood of Christ. Moreover, he calls the manna spiritual meat, typical, and the water, spiritual drink; but he calls the body of Christ in the Eucharist the body, and the blood the blood. Who, then, can doubt that, as the manna was truly a type and shadow, so in the Eucharist there is really the blood, flesh, and body of Christ ?
3. Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, S. Thomas expressly explain this passage in this way. Theophylact says: “He does not say the ‘participation,’ but the ‘communion,’ because he wished to indicate something more excellent, viz., the closest possible union . What he really says is this: What is in the chalice flowed from the side of Christ; and when we receive it, we have communion with, or are united to Christ. Are you not then ashamed, O Corinthians , to have recourse to the cup of idols, and to leave this cup which sets us free from idols?”
S. Chrysostom most plainly dwells on this thought (in Horn. 24, Moral.), where, exhorting Christians to mutual charity through Holy Communion, he says : “If, then, dearly beloved, we understand these things, let us also strive to maintain unity among ourselves ; for this dreadful and wonderful sacrifice leads us to this : it bids us approach one another with concord and perfect charity , and, like the eagles that Christians have been made in this life, let us fly to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens.” And again a little further on he thus explains what the body of Christ in the Eucharist is like: “ If no one would lightly lay hold of another man's clothing, how can we receive with insults the pure and immaculate body of the Lord, which is a partaker of the Divine Nature, through which we are and live, which burst open the gates of hell and opened heaven? This is the body which was pierced by nails, scourged, unconquered by death ; this is the body at the sight of which the sun hid his rays ; through which the veil of the Temple was rent, and the rocks and the whole earth quaked ; this is the body which was suffused with blood, pierced by the spear, and which poured forth streams of blood and water to regenerate the whole world!” And a little further on he says that the body of
Christ in the Eucharist is the same as was in the manger : “ This body in the manger the Magi adored, and with great fear and trembling worshipped. But thou seest Him not in a manger, but on the altar . It is not a woman holding Him in her arms that you see , but a priest is before you, and the Spirit shed abundantly upon the sacrament spread forth. Let us, therefore, be stirred up and fear, and show greater devotion than ever those barbarians did.” And after some other remarks he asserts most clearly that in the Eucharist we touch and feed on God Himself, and receive from Him all good things, saying : “ This table is the strength of our soul, the vigour of our mind, the bond of mutual trust, our foundation, hope, and salvation, our light and our life. If we depart fortified by this sacrifice, we shall with the greatest confidence climb the sacred hill which leads to heaven's gate . But why speak of the future? For even while we are here in this life, this mystery makes earth heaven : for the body of the King is set before our eyes, on earth, as it is in heaven. I show you, not angels or archangels, not heaven or the heaven of heavens , but the Lord of them all. Nor do you merely gaze on Him : you touch Him, you feed on Him ; you receive not a child of man, even though of kingly birth , but the Only-Begotten Son of God. Why, then, do you not shudder at such Presence, and cast away the love of all worldly things?”
A new preacher of a new word of God has lately answered these words by saying that S. Chrysostom spoke rhetorically. But this evasion is as silly as futile ; for S. Chrysostom is, I admit, an orator, but he is also a teacher of Christian truth. Hence in his commentary itself, he says that he is treating of the literal meaning of the Apostle. It is true that in the application of his sermon he does enlarge on that meaning, but not so as to exceed or to deny the truth, as, i.e., if he were to say that wood is stone, that a man is a brute, that bread is flesh ; else he would not be an orator, but a lying impostor, and that in matters of faith. For an orator would be false and foolish who should say that the water of baptism was the very same blood of Christ that flowed from His side, when the Jews pierced His body with nails, and smote it with scourges ; if he were to say that it was the God and Lord of all, he would no doubt mean that the water of baptism is a type of the blood of Christ, who applies it to us to wash away our sins. In the same way he is false and foolish who says that the bread and wine are the very blood, the very body of Christ, which was adored by the Magi in the manger, nailed to the Cross, scourged, and crucified by the Jews, nay, that it is the very Lord of all things, and the Only-Begotten Son of God, as S. Chrysostom says. I appeal to you, reader, to read these words of his candidly and impartially, or to say whether they are true of the manna, of the Paschal lamb, or of any such type. Would S. Chrysostom have spoken of them thus ? Would Calvin, or Viretus, or Zwinglius, or any of their following, no matter how eloquent an orator he might be, speak of their supper in this way? If it is lawful to sublimate and invert the meanings of authors and the words of the Fathers in this way, it will be lawful to invert all faith, all history, all the opinions of these men, and to twist them to a totally different sense. All this will better appear in the following verses.
The bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The sense is, The communication to us, or the eating of the bread which we break, communicates to us also the very body of Christ, so that each one actually partakes of it in the Eucharist.
It may be said: The Eucharist is here called bread, therefore it is not the flesh of Christ.