As this is being written, the National Eucharistic Congress of the Roman Catholic Church is being held in Cleveland, Ohio. Before me lies The Messenger of the Sacred Heart, a Catholic publication issued by the Jesuits. The issue is for the month of September, 1935, and is headed, "National Eucharistic Congress Number." It contains a good description of what the congress is and what it means. On page 28 is a striking picture of an altar, above which hangs in shadowy form the crucified Christ with outstretched hands, looking down upon a priest in regalia, with hands uplifted toward Christ, holding a round wafer, and exclaiming, "My Lord and my God."
On page 97 (first editorial) it is said:
"At our National Eucharistic Congress the public procession and the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament will bring home to assembled thousands the doctrine of the Catholic Church that by the words of the Consecration at Holy Mass our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is really and truly present under the Eucharistic species and remains with us as long as the species remain,"
There are 120 altars at this congress, one representing each diocese in the United States. At each altar a priest or bishop will pronounce over the wafer these Latin words, Hoc est Corpus meum (This is My body), and it is claimed that the bread is thereby changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. One quotation from a standard work among the Catholics will suffice here:
"Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving Him a sacramental existence, and produces Him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. . . . The dignity of the priest is so great, that he even blesses Jesus Christ on the altar as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. In the sacrifice of the mass, writes Father Mansi, Jesus Christ is the principal offerer and victim; as minister, He blesses the priest, but as victim, the priest blesses Him."—"Dignity and Duties of the Priest," by St. Aiphonsus de Ligouri. Doctor of the Church, pp. 32, 33. Benziger Brothers, New York.
Again we turn to the Eucharistic Number of The Messenger of the Sacred Heart, and on pages 98, 99 we find the Catholic exposition of the Biblical statement, from which they claim they have received authority to perform the office of the mass. We quote:
"The promise thus made was fulfilled by our Saviour at the last supper, when He instituted the Holy Eucharist. Taking bread and wine, He changed them into His own body and blood, saying to His disciples: 'Take ye and eat. This is My body. . . . Drink ye all of this. For this is My blood. . . . Do this for the commemoration of Me!'
"Here again we are compelled to accept the words of our Lord in their literal and obvious meaning. They are so plain that they require no interpretation. They can mean but one thing: that what appears to be bread and wine is really the body and blood of Christ. All who were present at the last supper understood them in this sense and Jesus made no attempt to change their opinion."
"Finally, the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist was unanimously taught by the Fathers of the early church, and for over ten centuries was accepted as an article of faith by all Christians. Many heresies arose and flourished and died in those early centuries, but none denied the real presence until Berengarius; and he retracted his error in 1079."
Brief as is this exposition of the Eucharist in The Messenger, it is nevertheless in perfect harmony with the canons and decretals of the Catholic Church. There are three points to be noticed in the article:
1. That in the Eucharist the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the wine into His blood by the words of consecration uttered by the priest. Hence it follows that Christ is offered upon thousands of altars in the mass throughout the world in the Catholic Church, the same as when He offered Himself on Calvary's cross. Therefore the Eucharist is a repetition of that atoning sacrifice of Christ.
2. Catholics claim that Christ instituted the Eucharist in that manner, and that He made no attempt to change the literal meaning of His words concerning the bread, "Take, eat: this is My body."
3. They claim that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was the unanimous belief of all Christians for over ten centuries, right up until 1097 A.D.
Now the questions arise, Is this historically true? Did not Christ somewhere explain the meaning of His words to His disciples when He said, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood"? Is the celebration of the Eucharist on the altars of the Catholic Church of equal importance with the atoning sacrifice by Christ on the cross, as Catholics claim it is? These questions we purpose to answer in the following articles. In answering these questions we shall freely use the original text of the New Testament, with standard translations of the text, such as the English Authorized, the English and American Revised, the Latin Vulgate, the German Revised, and the Swedish Revised. These translations represent the ripest reverent scholarship in Europe and America.
The question may be asked, Why quote from these several versions? Is not one version sufficient? We answer, Yes. A standard translation of the Scriptures in any language is sufficient to instruct people in the science of the salvation of souls. But since there are hundreds of Greek manuscripts, among which are found some variant readings, and since each national committee on translation or revision has adopted its own text, thereby establishing a "Textus Receptus" for that national church or denomination, it will be well to compare these texts.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church has a Greek text of its own,. from which the Latin Vulgate was, in the main, translated. This Vulgate is the standard translation among Catholics the world over. This Latin version has been translated into English, and is commonly called the Douay Version. Again, the German revisers adopted different readings in their revision of the Bible, and the Swedish revisers did the same; hence each of these committees has its own accepted "Textus Receptus."
We are dealing with a weighty and most important subject, namely, the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. And in order to clarify the meaning of this term "sacrifice," we shall therefore have recourse to these original sources, for they will ever constitute the final court of appeal to unprejudiced, unbiased minds.
Under the following subdivisions we will consider, first, the atoning sacrifice of Christ; second, the institution of the Lord's supper; and third, the history of the Lord's supper (the Eucharist) from the time of Christ to the Council of Trent, 1543-1565 A.D.
The Atoning Sacrifice of Christ
Without any preliminary discussion, we quote:
"For such a High Priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." Heb. 7:26, 27, R.V., A.R.V.
The Greek word ephapax is translated into English, "once for all." The Swedish Revised renders the same word en gong for alla, "once for all."
Again we quote:
"For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that this High Priest also have somewhat to offer." Heb. 8:3, R.V., A.R.V.
It is clearly shown in these verses that Christ, our High Priest, made only one offering, once for all, on the cross of Calvary. This is so well emphasized by the apostle Paul in chapter 10, verses 10-14, of the same epistle, that we will give it here in full, from the original as well as translations in four languages:
Verse 10. The Latin Vulgate renders it: "In qua voluntate sanctificati sumus per oblationem corporis Jesu Christi Semel." Translated, it reads: "In the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The Greek rendering is: "En o thelemati hegiasmenoi esmen of dia tes prosphoras tou sematos tou Jesou Christou ephapax." The Greek adverb ephapax (once for all) is translated by the Latin word semel, which has the same meaning. Two illustrations will suffice. We quote Hebrews 9:27, 28: "Kai kath'-oson apokaitai tois anthropois hapax alothanein, meta _de_ touta. €28)- Outfis kai ho Cristos hapax prosenextheis eis to pollen anenegkein hamartias." The Vulgate renders the Greek as follows: "Et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus Semel mori, post hoc autem iudicium: Sic et Christus Semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata." The Authorized Version translates it as follows: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."
This is a very good illustration of the usage of the Greek adverb hapax, and the Latin equivalent, semel. Paul calls our attention to the fact that we die once (Gr., hapax; Lat., semel), and after that the judgment. Exactly in the same manner Christ was offered once (Gr., hapax; Lat., semel) for our sins. He did not offer Himself more than once, nor did He die more than once. There was only one death of our Sin Bearer, and that was on the cross of Calvary once for all.
* In dealing with Roman Catholics, who now claim 340,000,000 adherents, we are faced continually with the declaration that "it is the mass that matters," that theirs is "the only church having a sacrifice upon an altar" (Our Sunday Visitor, July 28, 1935, p. 4), and that the claim of High Church Episcopalians and Greek Schismatics that they constitute the other two branches of the one great Catholic Church, is invalid because "those responsible for the schism not only repudiated the mass, but prohibited its celebration," and therefore the ordination of their bishops "could convey no transmission of the principal powers and purposes of the priesthood."--/d., p. 8.
The basic issue between Catholicism and Protestantism is the Catholic mass, versus the Protestant view of the Lord's supper and that for which it stands. Around this cluster all other issues. The great structure of Catholicism is built upon the mass, with its supporting dogma of "transubstantiation." And one of the great failures of Luther lay in his confusion and compromise over this issue, and his countertheory of "consubstantiation." It is incumbent upon us to know well our ground, both the Scriptural basis therefor and the historic facts of the controversy, especially in view of such world publicity as attended the Cleveland Eucharistic Congress, September 23-26. As an aid to this end, Professor Waldorf has prepared several articles searching the foundations of the papal claims, and giving in contrast the Scriptural position and the witness of history.—Editor.
