The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
In short, the Greek and Latin Fathers of all ages explain these words of consecration literally. This was how the Church understood them for 1050 years, till the time of Berengarius. He was the first who publicly taught the contrary, being a man untaught indeed, but ambitious of obtaining the name of a new teacher. For J. Scotus and Bertram, who, at an earlier date, held the same views as Berengarius, were but little known, and were at once refuted and silenced by Paschasius Radbert, and others. This opinion of Berengarius was at once opposed as a dogma that had seen light for the first time by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Guidmund, Alger, and the whole Catholic Church. The error of Berengarius was condemned at a council held at Versailles, under Leo IX., and at another held at Tours, under Victor II., at which Berengarius was present, and being convicted, he at once abjured his heresy, but having relapsed, he was once more convicted in a Roman council of 113 bishops, under Nicholas II., and his books were burnt. Having again lapsed, he condemned his error in a third Roman council, under Gregory VII., and uttered the following confession of faith given by Thomas Wald (de Sacram. vol. ii. c. 43) : “I, Beren -garius , believe with my heart and profess with my mouth that the bread and wine are changed into the true and real and lifegiving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ , and that , after consecration, there is His true body which he took of the Virgin , and that there is the very blood which flowed from His side , not merely by way of sign, but in its natural properties , and in reality of substance.” Would that those who follow Berengarius now in his error would follow him also in his repentance. The heresy of Berengarius has been renewed in the present century by Andrew Carlstadt, who was at once opposed by Luther. Carlstadt was followed by Zwingli ; and yet there is no single article of faith which has such firm support of all the Fathers and of the whole Church as this of the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
The same truth has been defined in eight General Councils — the First and Second Nicene, the Roman under Nicholas II., the Lateran, those of Vienne, of Constance, Florence, and Trent, as well as by many provincial synods. If any one doubts this, let him read John Garetius, who gives in order the testimonies of the Fathers for sixteen centuries after Christ, and of the Councils of each century, who alike unanimously and clearly confess this truth. He also brings forward the profession of the same faith given by the Churches of Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and India. Let him read also Bellarmine (de Eucharistia), who gives and comments on the words of each. Whoever reads them will see that this has been the faith of the Church in all ages, so that Erasmus might well say to Louis Beer : “ You will never persuade me that Christ, who is Truth and Love , would so long suffer His beloved bride to remain in so abominable an error as to worship a piece of bread instead of Himself.”
And here appears the art and ingenuity of Zwingli, Calvin, and their friends. They bring forward a new view of the Eucharist, and teach that in it there is not really the body of Christ, but merely a figure of the body. How do they prove it ? From the Scriptures. Well, then, let the words be studied, let all the Evangelists be read, let Paul too be read, and let it be said whether they support them or us and the received teaching of the Church. What else do all clearly proclaim but a body, and that a body given for us ? What else but blood shed for us ? Where here is room for shadow, or figure, or type? But they say these words must be explained figuratively . Admit, then, that the words of Scripture do not favour you, for you say that the mind of Scripture is to be ascertained elsewhere than from the words of Scripture. How, then, do you prove that these words ought to be explained figuratively? If they are ambiguous , whence is the exposition to be sought ? Who is to end the strife save the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth handed down to her from the Fathers? What save the primitive authority of the Fathers, the tradition of our forefathers, and the consent of the first ages of the Church ? We quote and allege the Fathers of every century, all our forefathers, the national and General Councils of each century : all take the words of Christ as they stand, and condemn the figurative interpretation. What remains, then, but to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the clear exposition of the Fathers and of the whole Church in all ages ? And yet you obstinately adhere to your figurative explanation. What Scripture supports you — whose authority — what reason ? You can only say that your heresy has so determined, and that you follow the trumpet of Luther. So I think, so I choose, so I will, so I determine : let my will do instead of reason. This is the only ground you have for all your beliefs.
Melancthon wrote far more truly and more soundly about this (de Ver. Corp. et Sang. Dom.): “If relying on human reason, you deny that Christ is in the Eucharist; what will your conscience say in time of trial ? What reason will it bring forward for departing from the doctrine received in the Church ? Then will the words, ‘This is My body,’ be thunderbolts . What will your panic-stricken mind oppose to them ? By what words of Scripture , by what promises of God will she fortify herself and persuade herself that these words must necessarily be taken metaphorically , when the Word of God ought to be listened to before the judgment of reason ?” At all events in the hour of death, and in that terrible day when we stand before the tribunal of Christ, to be examined of our life and faith, if Christ ask me, “ Why didst thou believe that My body was in the Eucharist?” I can confidently answer, “I believed it, O Lord, because Thou saidst it, because Thou didst teach it me. Thou didst not explain Thy words as a figure, nor did I dare to explain them so. The Church took them in their simple meaning, and I took them as the Church did. I was persuaded that this faith and this reverence were due from me to Thy words and to Thy Church.”
If Christ ask the Calvinist, “ Why didst thou wrest My words from their proper meaning into a figure of speech ?” what answer will he make ? “I thought that I must do so, for my reason could not understand how they could or ought to be true.” — “ But,” He will reply, “ which ought you to have listened to — your reason, which has human infirmity, or My word, which is all-powerful, than which nothing can be truer ? Reason dictated to the Gentiles that to believe in Me as God, when born, suffering, and crucified, was folly. Yet you thought and believed that you should believe all this about Me, and you were persuaded of it from the words of Scripture only, which say this simply. Why, then, in this one article of the Eucharist did you presume to interpret what I expressly said, by the rule of your reason, according to the measure of your brain ? Why did you not bow to the authoritative exposition of the Church of all ages? Why desire to be wiser than it ? ” What answer will he give — how excuse himself — whither turn ? Let each one think earnestly of this ere it be too late, let him submit himself to God’s word and the Church with humble and loyal obedience, lest he be confounded in that day of the Lord, and receive his lot with the unbelievers in the lake of fire that burneth with fire and brimstone, lest he hear the words of thunder, “ Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Nor let him marvel at such a wonderful mystery in the Eucharist, when Christ, throughout His whole life, was wonderful for His mysteries (Isa. ix. 6) ; and when Isaiah also says of Him (Isa. xlv. 6) : “Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.” If an angel should conceal himself under the form of the Host, he would be really there though hidden ; you would see, touch, and taste bread only, not an angel ; yet you would believe that an angel was hidden beneath it if an angel or a prophet had said so. Why, then, in like manner, do you not believe that Christ is concealed under the Host, when Christ Himself, who cannot lie, says so ? For God, who is Almighty, can supernaturally give this mode of existence — spiritual, invisible, indivisible — to the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Let no one then faithlessly say : “ How can Christ be in so small a Host?” Let him think that Christ is there, as an angel might be ; let him not inquire as to the mode, but embrace instead the wonderful love of Christ, whose delights are with the sons of men, who went about to pass from the world to the Father ; as S. John says (xiii. 1), “having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end ; ” and of whom says the verse of S. Thomas —
“ By birth their Fellow-man was He,
Their meat when sitting at the board ;
He died their Ransomer to be ;
He ever reigns, their great Reward ” — that by His love He might compel our love in return, that as often as we see and take our part in these mysteries we might think of Him as addressing us in the words: “So Christ gives Himself here wholly to thee; give, nay give again thyself wholly to Him.”
You will perhaps object that the Eucharist is called “bread” and “fruit of the vine,” i.e., wine, in S. John vi. 57, S. Matt. xxvi. 29. I answer that in the account of the institution of the Eucharist it is called bread by no one, if it is elsewhere, and also that “bread” there denotes any kind of food. (See note on x. 17). So wine might signify any kind of drink, as being the common drink among the Jews, as it is now in Spain, Italy, France, and Germany.