Showing posts with label St. Vincent Ferrer O.P.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Vincent Ferrer O.P.. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 September 2024

Sermon on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14) by St. Vincent Ferrer O.P.

 

Philippians 2: 5-8

5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

 

 “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.” (Phil 2:8)

Holy Mother the Church celebrates today a feast of the Exultation of the Holy Cross, which we honor twice in the year. The first is the Discovery, in the month of May (May 3). The second today (Sept. 14) on the Exultation.  Reason, because after the Holy Cross was discovered by St. Helena, it came into the possession of the infidels, who contemptuously held it.  But Heraclius, the Most Holy and Christian Roman Emperor, extracted it from the possession of the infidels and exalted it honorably, and today is the feast of that exaltation.  So that our words be fruitful, let us now say the Hail Mary.

It is a common Catholic doctrine of sacred theology that although Christ had other innumerable ways of redeeming and saving mankind, he nevertheless chose to save us through his cross, and to redeem obedient and believers for himself.  St. Thomas in his (Summa theologiae) III, q. 46, a. 4, assigns seven reasons why this was fitting. I shall speak of one, the second, as an introduction of this material to you.

This reason is, because when satisfaction needs to be made for some sin, it is reasonable that the satisfaction correspond to the sin.  For example, if someone sins against God or neighbor by thinking evil in his heart, or by speaking evil, or doing bad things, for such a person to make fitting satisfaction (condigne satisfacere), he ought to take on pain in the heart from this sin, and to strike his heart.  If one sins by mouth by defaming or swearing, proper satisfaction ought not only to be confessed by mouth but he should also to seek pardon from God and neighbor by mouth, if he offended him.  Therefore if through the eyes you have sinned by gazing etc. proper satisfaction is to weep, etc.  Also if you have sinned by ears, by listening to evil things about a neighbor, healing is made by hearing mass and sermons etc.  If through taste, by breaking the fast of the church, etc., to abstain, and so the satisfaction corresponds to the offense.  If you have sinned by hand, extend it in prayer.  If you have shed blood, the proper penitence is to shed your own blood by the discipline.  So it says in Genesis 9: ” Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” (v. 6).  If you have sinned by the body through carnal sins, you ought to wear a hair shirt (cilicium).  See how appropriate satisfaction is made when the penalty corresponds to the offense.  Scriptural proof if taken from that which [Christ, in fact John the Baptist] said in Luke 3 ” Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance,” (v. 8).  The fruits of penance are worthy when they correspond to the offense.

Now we shall see how the offense against God was committed, from which flowed to mankind all perdition and all evil, from which we are “exiles in this valley of tears.” (from the hymn Salve Regina).  Was it not from the theft (ex furto) of a certain apple, contrary to an expressed commandment?  Therefore restitution, reparation, or amends ought to happen by the fruit being  restored to the tree.  Therefore Christ the redeemer of all, our fruit, about whom it is said to the Virgin Mary, “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb,”(cf. Lk 1:42), chose by the tree of the cross, that the fruit of infinite worth be restored to the tree.  An ancient Greek history says that the wood of the cross was from that same tree of which Adam received the fruit.  Therefore when Christ was placed on the cross, the fruit was restored to the tree.

About this David in the person of Christ says, “My enemies are grown strong who have wrongfully persecuted me: then did I pay that which I took not away.” (Ps  68:5). Note, here two things are touched upon in this verse of David, namely the evil intention of the Jewish enemies of Christ who were not intending satisfaction, but the persecution of Christ.  Therefore he said,  “My enemies are grown strong who have wrongfully persecuted me.”  Second, the intention of Christ is touched upon.  So he says, “then did I pay, etc.”

The teaching then is clear, because although Christ had other ways of redeeming us, nevertheless this way, through the cross, was appropriate, in which the satisfaction corresponded to the offense.  This the Holy Mother the Church touches in the Preface (of the Mass) saying, “You decreed that man would be saved through the wood of the cross. The tree of man’s defeat became his tree of victory; where life was lost, there life has been restored through Christ our Lord.”  It is clear therefore that an appropriate manner of our redemption was through the cross.  Therefore the theme says, “He was made obedient for us” not for himself, not only for the Father, but also for the judges and crucifiers, “even unto death, etc.”  The theme is clear.  I am preaching on this material.  The theme says, “He became obedient even unto death.”  And it adds, “Death on a cross,” not by another death.

I find that Christ was in danger of death five times, and chose to accept only the cross.

 

    First he was in danger of death from the sword.

    Second in danger of being hurled down.

    Third in danger of stoning

    Fourth in danger of poisoning.

    Fifth, in danger of crucifixion.

 

And he chose this one, about which the theme states: “He became obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.” (Phil 2:8).

THE SWORD - First I say, etc. and this immediately when he was born, from Herod the king, who when he heard of the signs and miracles surrounding the birth of Christ: of the angels singing, “Glory to God in the highest,” of the brightness of the night, the visit of the shepherds, the adoration of the animals, the star and the arrival of the three kings, etc., and the prophecy of Anna and holy Simeon that he was the true Messiah, Herod thought to kill him, lest he lose his kingdom, for he was a foreigner and he was afraid that one day the Jews would rise up against him..  On this account he sent armed men into the town of Bethlehem to kill all the children, because he did not know who this Jesus was.  But Christ willed to flee into Egypt.

About this there is a prophecy.  Job in the person of Christ said, “[They] slew the servants [pueros, children] with the sword, and I alone have escaped …” (Job 1:15)  The question is this. Why did Christ choose not to die this kind of death?  Because if he had wished, even this death would have been for the salvation of those believing in and obedient to him.  The literal reason  has already been said, because the satisfaction ought to correspond to the offense, therefore he willed not to die in such a way, but on the cross.  The moral reason is, that he might instruct us to flee death by the sword of St. Peter, abut which John 18:  “Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.” (Jn 18:10)  This sword is the sentence of excommunication, which when it is used, cuts one off from the body of the Church.  And just as a member cut off from the body received none of its influence, so no one excommunicated has any part in the divine works which take place in the Church.

See how this death is to be fled.  I choose to die even more quickly,  than to be excommunicated for an hour, not to say for a year, because there is nothing worse for a member than to be cut off from the body  Note. when he says, “Simon Peter having a sword,” he implies that the sentence of excommunication should not be given except by a prelate, because Peter was a  prelate. Second, when he says he “drew it,” he hints that the sentence ought not be given except by a prelate as if by waving the sword saying, “Beware, beware,” even through a third warning, because otherwise it would mean nothing, not strike you with the blow. [quia alias nihil valeret, te not faceret ictum.]   Third when he said, “And he struck the servant of the high priest,” he implies that the prelate ought to serve excommunication only on his subjects, because a bishop cannot excommunicate in another diocese.   Fourth when he says, “And he cut off his right ear, ”  The right signifies spiritual things, the left, temporal.  It is indicated that the judgment of excommunication ought not be given except against disobedience in spiritual things, that if a husband or wife does not wish to remain with him or with her, unless they have a legitimate reason, the prelate can excommunicate them and so for the rest. This sword strikes so strongly, that it can kill the soul with eternal death.  “Flee then from the face of the sword, for the sword is the revenger of iniquities,” (Job 19:29).

HURLED DOWN - Second, I say that Christ was in the danger of being hurled down, as is found in Luke 4.  It is told how Christ was dwelling in Nazareth, where he was living in a most holy way,  yet he was not well known.  Nicholas of Lyra says that he worked the craft of his putative father Joseph, who was a carpenter, and later went to Capharnum where he preached and worked many miracles, and then returned to Nazareth.  And the rulers and magistrates of the town said to him, “…as great things as we have heard done in Capharnum, do also here in thy own country,” (Lk 4:23).  Christ replied insinuating that because of their unbelief and derision, because they were skeptical of him [truffabant de eo], as Mark has, ch. 6, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? (Mk 6:3). See, he preaches and yet he did not study.”

Then he pointed out that they were not worthy, because miracles require a disposition, and not vain glory.  For this reason Mark 6 says, ” And he could not do any miracles there, only that he cured a few that were sick, laying his hands upon them.” (Mk 6:5).  It is told how they, indignant, led him out with a crowd to the brow of the hill and they wanted to throw him down.  Jesus, however, ” passing through their midst, went his way.” (Lk 4:30).

Think here about the Virgin Mary who was present in the town, when she beheld her son being led to the cliff, how much sorrow she had, etc.  The question is.  Why did he choose not to die in this way, because if he had wished…etc?  The literal reason has been told. The moral reason is so that we might be warned lest we die through falling, having ascended the mountain of pride.  For the devil seeing that those who walk simply and humbly, go straight to heaven.  “O,” the devil says, “I shall make all ascend to the heights.”  Which is to say, the religious who lives simply, keeps his rule, the vows and customs, such takes a straight road to paradise.  But the devil speaking to their imagination says, ”If you wish to live such, you will never rise! Why do you not work that you might be a master [of theology], you can yet be the confessor of a king or a bishop,” and when he is high, he loses all devotion and suddenly falls and dies and is hurled into hell.

The same for the simple priest, because at the instigation of the devil he ascends.  Same for the laity. They demand interest so that they might get ahead.  Also that he might gain public office, binds himself with others directly or indirectly, and they do well because of the wealth of the community, and when they are in office, they steal, they do this and that so that they might keep their hand in office.  O how many are they by this ascent.  Of this David says to the devil  “For deceits,” namely yours, “you have put it to them:” that is this imagination of ascending, “when they were lifted up you have cast them down.” (Ps 72:18)  Same for the women living simply, caring for the home, for children and family, these rightly go straight to paradise.  But the demon says, “You have taken to your husband as such, therefore why to you not do as others do, give to him a bad dinner and supper.”

Beware therefore, and walk simply, and plainly, because when a man falls from a higher place, so much more the fall is more dangerous.  So Job in the person of a sinner speaking to the devil says, “You have lifted me up, and set me as it were upon the wind, and you have mightily dashed me. I know that you will deliver me to death,” (Job 30:22-23).

STONING - Third, I say that he was in danger of death by stoning, as is clear in John 8, when Christ was preaching to the Jews and declared to them his divinity saying, “Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. (v. 51) Abraham, …and the prophets are dead. Whom do you make thyself?” (v. 53)   Christ was speaking of the death of hell and the Jews were thinking of bodily death.  And Christ speaking more clearly of divinity said, “Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am, ” (v.58)  “I am” is the name of the divinity. “I AM WHO AM,” (Ex 3:14).  The Jews hearing that he said that he was God, wished to stone him.  The text says that Christ hid himself, that is, he made himself to be invisible to them, and they searched for him asking “Where is he?”  But the Virgin Mary and the Apostles, seeing him followed.

Question, why did he not wish to die in this way?  Because it was etc.  The moral reason is that we might be warned from the death of stoning from the sin of avarice, because an avaricious person is hard like stone, and cold.   Hard, because he offers no sweetness to his debtors, but hard and harsh he demands payment and interest etc.  Cold, because he is without the fire of charity.  Seeing the poor dying of starvation he does not care to rescue them – and he has the money – and the jailed, the enslaved and the poor girls are not able to receive any benefits.  Thus Job speaking morally of the avaricious says, “His heart shall be as hard as a stone, and as firm as a smith’s anvil,” (Job 41:15)

The stones of avarice are the species of avarice.  One stone is the one which is called robbery [rapina], and this stone strikes the head of the lords.  Another stone is called simony of the church officials [prelates], giving benefices or sacraments for money.  This stone strikes the heart.  Another is called usury, which breaks the arms, that is, the workers.  It is said in defense of this notion of avarice, usury, “If this person or community takes my money, why am I not able to receive something for its use [proper carentiam]?”  This argument includes an error not only in its conclusion but in its premise.  When he says “My money, ” he speaks falsely, because the lord is now bound to render an account to another, and you are bound, even to Christ, because “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, etc.” (Ps 23:1)  The rich are only the administrators.  “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God,” (1 Cor 4:1).  Christ is like the king appointing treasurers, that they might minister first in to his necessities, not vanities.  Second in giving or lending to the poor, because God wishes such.  It is wrong if they dispense against the will of the Lord.  He knows how to punish.  Thus the conclusion is erroneous, by saying that usury is not a mortal sin.  Another species, to connive to buy things for a lesser price, or to sell for more than the usual profit, because it is usury.  Another is the withholding of salaries from servants, etc., secret theft.  It is said against those who believe that secret theft of produce [furtum secretum fructuum] is not a sin, “you dash your  foot against a stone.” (Ps 90:12)  And, “Go not in the way of ruin, and you shall not stumble against the stones,” (Sir 32:25)

POISONING - I say fourth that he was in danger of death by poisoning.  The evangelists do not clearly say this, but for this there are arguments both from reason and prophecy.  The reason is this, because while Christ went about preaching, he did not preach for money, but after preaching [on Palm Sunday], “looking around about,” no one invited him, “and he return to Bethany,” as is found in Mark 11:11.  The Gloss says that he looked around, to see if someone might invite him to dinner saying, “Lord since you have given good spiritual food to us, come and we shall give you dinner,” etc.  Now someone who had so many enemies as Christ, might accept every invitation, even that of his enemies. Think how they could set forward potions, and this reason might dictate.

And about this is the prophecy, “But thou, O Lord, have shown me, and I have known: then you showed me their doings. And I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim: and I knew not that they had devised counsels against me, saying: Let us put wood on his bread, and cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more,” (Jer 11:18-19)  And the prophet speaks in the person of Christ.  But Christ chose not to die in this way.  Practically speaking when he was eating, first they gave him fruit or figs, and soups are offered, and sweet foods, and good wines, and he did not eat, keeping to his modest diet. Even if he had eaten, he took care not to harm himself.

Why did he choose not to die this way, because even that death would have been sufficient for redemption?  Moral reason, that we might avoid the deadly poison of lust.  For just as a poison is placed in sweet foods, so also does the devil, that the food of lust might seem sweet to us and yet in it is the poison of mortal sin.  For a man and woman joined in matrimony do not sin in keeping the manner etc. but in all others, whomsoever, there is lust, and there is mortal sin and damnation  follows.  It is believed that the greatest number of the damned are made so by the sin of lust.

So it is necessary to avoid such a death and to restrain the body through abstinence, by mortifying its inclinations,  avoiding occasions of sin, and by prayer.  Otherwise, St. Bernard says, that it would be a greater miracle to live chastely than to raise the dead.  Therefore the whole world is corrupt.  “All have turned out of the way; they have become unprofitable together: there is none that does good,”  that is, of chastity, “there is not so much as one,” namely, of adults, etc.  So a wise man says, “Look not upon the wine when it is yellow, when the color thereof shines in the glass: it goes in pleasantly, but in the end, it will bite like a snake, and will spread abroad poison like a basilisk,” (Prov 23:31-32).  And he declares in the next verse “Your eyes shall behold strange women,” because it is good to look upon your own wives, “and  your heart shall utter perverse things,” (v. 33).  Note. It is not understood as the color of wine but of beautiful women, “in the glass,” in the weaker glass of the body.  Reason, because it “goes in pleasantly” that is evil in thought, saying ” O how much a comfort it would be,” etc.  and in the end, namely when man consents, “it will bite like a snake, and like a basilisk,” which poisons by sight and vision, etc.  Not so the other serpents.  Behold the sin of lust, because by sight alone does a woman…  With this poison David was poisoned and killed, but God raised him through repentance.  Thus Job 6, ” …or can a man taste that which when tasted brings death?” (v. 6)  No one howsoever hungry would eat food which he knew to be poisoned, rather he would permit himself to die naturally, because then he would not have killed himself, nor would he drink poisoned drink however thirsty he was.  So neither should the lustful taste because unless he were an unbeliever, he would know that this food is poisoned unto death.

CRUCIFIXION - Fifth I say that he was in danger of death by crucifixion.  This is the death he chose.  So the Jews said in counsel, “This man Jesus cannot die by the sword, nor by being thrown down, nor etc.  Therefore we shall see whether we can kill him on a cross.”  And when Christ was in Galilee, the Jews readied the cross in Jerusalem.  Christ knowing this called out to his disciples and said to them, “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified,” (Mt 20:18-19).  He fled from the other deaths, but he came promptly to this one.  And in the garden he went out to the Jews saying “Whom do you seek?” which is to say “You may take me, because this death pleases me.”  Again when sentence was passed on him to be crucified, “And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place…,” (Jn 19:17) as if to say,  “I do not appeal, rather this death pleases me,”  and he received the cross.  It is said how he was obedient on the mount of Calvary, when he was asked to undress himself, and more like that.  Behold the love for the death of the cross, as if he were saying, ” But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord,” (Gal 6:14).

The literal reason why he chose this death has been said in the introduction. But the moral reason is this.  Other deaths which Christ fled, signified bad deaths, which we should flee.  But this death of the cross signifies a good death which we should choose.  The inestimable pain of Christ hanging on the cross signifies contrition, which we should have for sins, by inclining the head in contrition which ought to be made with a bowed head and not face to face.  It is said how the penitent ought to be uncovered, and the confessor covered, for modesty, and the danger of the confessor looking on a young woman.  His right hand pierced signifies that from good justice you should give alms.  The left for returning usuries and theft etc.  Two feet nailed signify two feet by which we walk and are sustained, the right is nailed with devotion, the left with abstinence.  The opening of the side signifies the opening of the heart, for forgiving injuries and sparing enemies and those sinning against you.  See the moral reasons why he wished to die on a cross.  So the Apostle says, “They that are Christ’s, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences, “(Gal 5:24), and that this was necessary is clear because Christ says, “And whosoever does not carry his cross,” which is said from crucifying, behold penitence, “and come after me, cannot be my disciple,” (Lk 14:27)  See why the Theologian says, “He became,” for us, that is for our redemption and moral instruction, “obedient, unto death,” not of the sword, not by being hurled down, nor by stoning nor by poisoning, but “to the death of the cross.”

Wednesday, 12 June 2024

1st Sermon for Corpus Christi by St. Vincent Ferrer O.P. (translated into English)

1 Cor 11:23-27 Douay translation.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

 

 “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” (1 Cor 11:23)

This word we have verbatim from 1 Cor 11 and it has just been recited in today’s epistle. Since the whole feast today is about this holy and glorious sacrament of the altar, so also shall be our sermon. And we shall have many good ideas for the enlightenment of the mind and the consolation of the soul and some moral advice for the correction of life. But first the Virgin Mary is hailed.

For the declaration of this passage and the introduction of the material to be preached it must be known that the entire belief of the heart which we have of this holy sacrament and the verbal expression which we make of the same ought all to be founded on holy scriptures. So that our heart ought not extend itself more for believing nor the mouth for speaking unless to the extent that we have it from holy scriptures. The reason is because of the height and transcendental sublimity of this sacrament, which exceeds all natural understanding and philosophical science and all the powers of nature. So whoever wishes to believe of this holy sacrament, or speak according to natural understanding, or philosophical knowledge, or the powers of nature would err and fail in many ways. Just as someone who would wish to count according to understanding how many palms or cubits [measures of length] there are from here to heaven, or how many steps from the east to the west, or how many grains of sand and drops of water there are, that person would err and fall short. And so scripture says, Eccl 3, “Seek not the things that are too high for you,” i.e. for the natural intellect, “and search not into things above your ability,” namely philosophical knowledge, “but the things that God has commanded thee,” (Sir 3:22), which is his mouth having two lips, namely the two testaments. Above is the New Testament, below the Old Testament. Therefore the Lord says, “If you will separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as my mouth,” (Jer 15:19). “Think on them always,” (Jer 15:19).

So now, dismissing natural and philosophical reasons, I shall accept proofs [auctoritates] only from sacred scripture, because I do not want to say anything but what the Lord says in sacred scripture. And then I shall be able to speak the theme: “For I have received of the Lord,” not from a philosopher, nor from Virgil nor by natural genius, but by the Lord, namely from sacred scripture, “that which also I delivered unto you,” (1 Cor 11:23). The theme is clear. Among other wonders and secrets of this sacrament there are five principal ones, which I shall now speak about to you according to sacred scriptures.

 

First, is the substantial change [mutatio substantialis],

Second, is the work of the priest [operatio sacerdotalis],

Third, the sacramental indwelling [habitatio sacramentalis],

Fourth, the sense perception [perceptio sensualis],

Fifth, the usual reception. [receptio usualis].

 

In this are the heights and difficulties of this sacrament. If it is said, “Whence do you have this brother.” The theme replies: “For I have received of the Lord,” and now I shall give it to you.

 

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE

The first wonder and sublime secret of this holy sacrifice is the change of substance. There is a double change, one is accidental, the other substantial. Accidental change is when the accident or quality changes in a creature, the substance remaining the same, as is the change from whiteness into blackness, or from health to illness, or from hot into cold, or from smallness into largeness like a child changes, but the substance remains the same. Such changes are said to be “accidental.” Substantial change is when not only the accidents but also the substance changes, as if mud is changed into gold, or lead into silver. Not only accidents are changed but also the substance. In this sacrament however only substantial change happens and not accidental, because the substance of bread and wine do not remain once the conversion is done, but their accidents remain.

In this sacrament two rules of philosophy fail. First that which says that whenever substantial change happens accidental change also happens. Reason, because accidents don’t migrate, that is, pass from subject into subject, because if mud is changed into gold, even its quality is changed. But in this sacrament it is the opposite. Because the substance of bread by the power of words is changed into the body of Christ, however the accidents are not, because the same whiteness and quantity and roundness, smell and flavor remain as before. Now in this sacrament by governing yourselves by the rules of philosophy, it is necessary to err and fall short. When the change is accomplished, we adore, but we do not adore that which we see, neither the whiteness nor the roundness, but Christ true God and man contained within, as truly and really, as he was in the womb of the Virgin or as he is in heaven. On this see St. Thomas III, q. 75, a. 1. For just as soldiers adore the king behind the curtains, when he hears mass, although they do not see him, so we adore Christ under those accidents as if existing beneath the curtains.

A second rule of philosophy fails also in this sacrament, which says that no substantial change is total, because there always remains prime matter, which the Philosopher calls “hyle”.   Because if mud is changed into gold, the prime matter which is the term from which [terminus a quo, the mud], is the same with that which is the term to which [terminus ad quem, the gold], because the matter of all generable and corruptible things is the same. In this holy sacrament these rules fail, because nothing remains of the matter, nor of the substantial form of bread, because it entirely is changed into the body of Christ. On this see St. Thomas III, q. 75, a. 5 & 6. So therefore it is necessary that man not rule himself here with philosophical rules which are lacking, but according to holy scriptures, in the Psalter, which says, “This is the change,” namely the substantial, “of the right hand of the most High,” (Ps 76:11) Natural changes are from the left, but this [is], “of the right of the most High.” And it follows,” You are the God that does wonders,” (Ps 76:15), namely the aforesaid. It is the same for the change of wine in the chalice into the blood of Christ.

Morally [using now the moral sense of scripture], you have here the teaching that you ought to adore Christ in the consecrated host without doubt and without condition. Some persons, presumptuous and shameless, fall into error saying when they adore, “I adore you, if you are Christ. [This deserves] Neither thanks nor gratitude [Nec grates, nec gratias] because even a stick or stone or dog can adore in this way, with conditions. So you should adore without condition. Reason, because condition includes doubt, and God wishes to be adored firmly with a whole heart, spirit, will and devotion. So David: “Bring up sacrifices, and come into his courts: adore the Lord in his holy court,” (Ps 95:8-9). Note, “bring up sacrifices,” here he speaks to the priests. “And come into his courts,” here he speaks to the people. “Adore the Lord,” namely both priests and people. “In his holy court,” i.e. in the heart, without doubt and without condition.

Should someone say, “If the priest did not say the words, or if he had not been ordained he did not consecrate, therefore,” etc. I reply that the priest alone shall be damned, and it is not a danger to you. Thus you should adore without doubt, although you habitually have in your heart this, that if you would know the opposite that you would not adore, and this suffices. Nevertheless this ought not to be expressed in words, but you ought simply to adore. See the first wonderful secret, which is, “For I have received of the Lord,” in scripture, and “…I delivered unto you,” (1 Cor 11:23)

 

PRIESTLY WORK

The second wonder of this sacrament is the priestly operation [operatio sacerdotalis]. The priest living here on earth has the power to open the heavens and make the Son of the Virgin Mary descend onto the altar into his hands. A great wonder is attributed to Moses, who made manna come down from the air, as we read in Ex 16:13. And of Elijah who made fire come down from the sphere of fire to burn the two squads of fifty soldiers, as we read in 4 Kgs 1, (Cf vv. 9-12). This wonder is greater, because the priest makes Christ descend not from the air, nor from the sphere of fire, nor from the heaven of the moon, nor from the heaven of Mercury, nor from the heaven of Venus, nor from the heaven of the sun, nor from the heaven of Mars, nor from the heaven of Jupiter, nor from the heaven of Saturn, nor from the heaven of the stars or firmament, nor from the crystalline heaven, but from the empyreal heaven. Behold, the priestly operation.

You know that when the Virgin Mary, greeted by the angel Gabriel, consenting, said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” etc., (Lk 1:38), at the last word, the heaven was open and the Son of God descended into her womb, and the angel and the Virgin adored him in the womb. Just as the voice [literally, the mouth] of the Virgin opened up heaven, so also does the voice of the priest, and more excellently. It shall not displease the Virgin Mary if I speak the truth, because the Virgin in opening heaven had to say eight words. [Ecce ancílla Domini : fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.] First, “Behold,” second “the handmaid,” etc. until she said the whole, and then the heaven was open and she conceived. The priest says only five words [Hoc est enim corpus meum], and when he says the last word, namely “meum” then heaven is opened and Christ is in the host. Also the Virgin Mary opened heaven only once, but the priest, every day, and at every mass.   Also in the womb of the Virgin it was a baby that descended, not as large as an ant, and vulnerable and mortal. In the host he descends as large as he is in heaven, as he was on the cross, neither vulnerable nor mortal but glorious and invulnerable. Gregory: “Who of the faithful can have a doubt, in that hour of sacrifice, at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, in that mystery of Jesus Christ the chorus of angels are present, the highest associate with the least, earthly things are joined to heavenly, and the same happens from visibles as well as invisibles,” (Gregory the Great, Dialogues IV, c. 58), and it is found in [Gratian] De Consecratione, dist. II, canon. 73: “What be the blood,” vers.: “Who of the faithful.” Note how ‘the heavens are opened’ is understood like the telling of a secret. It is said. “He has opened his heart to me,” not that it is wounded or divided, but because a secret is revealed. So Delilah says of Sampson to the Philistines, “Now he hath opened his heart to me,” (Judges 16:18). So of the Son of God who is hidden in the empyreal heaven, when he descends into the consecrated host, that descent is said to be the opening of the heavens. “This is the bread that came down from heaven.” If anyone eats of this bread, “he shall live for ever,” (Jn 6:59).

If someone says that Christ descends from heaven into the host, and so he departs from heaven, I reply that he does not leave heaven. For this note two comparisons [similitudines]. First, with a house having a hundred windows or even a thousand windows, in which the rays of the sun enter, and nevertheless they do not depart from the heaven. So Christ, the ray of God the Father, descends into each host, and nevertheless does not leave heaven. Second, with my voice, which is in each of your ears. You see already how many ears there are here. Now I believe that each of you has two, etc. and in each of them is my voice, and nevertheless it doesn’t depart from me. If a corruptible and transitory word can be in that way, how much more the eternal Word about which John wrote: “In the beginning was the Word,” (Jn 1:1). Thus David says, “The Lord is in his holy temple,” and at the same time, “the Lord’s throne is in heaven,” (Ps 10:5). If the pregnant Virgin was the temple of God, so also the consecrated host is pregnant. The temple of God can be said where there are angels, as Gregory says, because a king does not travel alone, if we would not have eyes half-blind nor ears plugged up we would see and perceive them singing. Just as some saints, like St. Thomas Aquinas of the Order of Preachers, who composed today’s [Divine] Office, in which we sing:

 

Panis angelicus

fit panis hominum;

Dat panis coelicus

figuris terminum:

O res mirabilis!

Manducat Dominum

Pauper, servus et humilis

 

The Bread of Angels

becomes the bread of men;

The Bread of heaven

ends all prefigurations:

What wonder!

Consumes him, the Lord,

a poor and humble servant.

 

Morally [the moral sense of the passage], it is clear how pure the priest ought to be, who has a judge and is surrounded by angels, and his hand and fingers are filled with angels. If he is good, the angels say, “O blessed one, you have a greater grace than we,” etc. If he be evil, lustful, have a mistress [concubinarius], a gambler [lusor], the angels say to Christ, “Lord do you want us to kill this traitor?” Christ responds, “I do not wish the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live,” (Cf Ez 18:23).

The next question which you already have strong in your hearts is this: If the priest be a man of evil life, lustful etc, does such a priest have that power of consecrating? For we all agree the good priest does. I respond that both the good and the bad priests, by saying the words, truly consecrate. For this, note the similarity between two pipes, gold and wood, through which water from the same spring flows into the garden to water the cabbages. Which cabbages will do better? Is it not just as beneficial from the one [pipe] as from the other, from which comes the same water? For the goodness of the cabbages is not from the virtue of the pipes, but from the virtue of the water. So it is in our situation:

The spring from which the water of the whole world and knowledge flows is Christ. “The word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom,” (Sir 1:5). The pipes through which the water of consecration passes are the priests. The hosts are the vegetables or cabbages from the land, [made] of wheat, not from any other material. The gold pipe is the good and devout priest, the wooden is the priest of bad life, who has a mistress, simoniacal, raunchy [ribaldus], and yet each truly consecrates, not by the power of the priest, but of Christ. Christ then, in the end, becomes the lord of the garden, who after he has used the pipes, puts the gold pipe in a box in the treasury of heaven. “If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be,” (Jn 12:26). A pipe of rotten wood is thrown into the fire to be burned in hell. So the Apostle [Paul]: “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord,” (1 Cor 11:28). Where the Gloss says quoting Ambrose: “He is so punished as if he had killed Christ with his own hands.” See this priestly operation, and from where do you know this, brother? “For I have received of the Lord,” etc., (1 Cor 11:23).

 

SACRAMENTAL INDWELLING

The third secret wonder of this sacrament is the sacramental indwelling. O wonderful it is that the whole Christ dwells in such a small quantity. You ask how is this possible? Again how is it possible that when the host is broken, the whole Christ is not broken, moreover the whole remains integral, even in each broken particle. Here all rules of philosophy fail. Nevertheless for your consolation I will show you a comparison to the eye, from your image howsoever large you may be, which is received whole in a mirror. If there were a hundred thousand or even more mirrors in front of you, your image would be in all of them. And if you break a mirror, nevertheless the image is not broken, but in each of its fragments it remains integral. Shall not God the Father be able to do the same with his image, who is Christ? Christ is the image of the invisible God. (Cf 2 Cor 4:4, and Col 1:15). The host is a mirror, someone said. Is it not like an image in a mirror, which is not corporeal, and of Christ in the host, which has a real body? I say that always, because the glorified body is more subtle than an image which is prevented from entering the mirror by a little handkerchief [panno]. Nothing can impede a glorified body; [it is] more subtle than light, than a voice, than even an image. Therefore, once the words are pronounced, immediately the whole body is in the host, like the image in the mirror.

Therefore of this consecrated host it can be said “For she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty, and the image of his goodness,” (Wis 7:26). ” For she is the brightness of eternal light,” with respect to the divinity which is there. For which it must be known that by the power of the word alone it is there, namely under the appearance of bread, the body of Christ, but from real concomitance the soul is also there, because the body of Christ is there as a living body, which is not without a soul, nor without blood.

If in the triduum [triduo, thee day duration of Christ’s entombment] the Apostles had consecrated, only the dead body of Christ would have been there, which was [its state] at that time. But now it is alive, together with the soul and blood and divinity. By the power of the words only the body is there, but concomitantly the soul is there with its excellences and the divinity with all its perfections. Just as if some lord had invited a certain great lord or prelate to dinner, and he had arrived with his shield-bearers, by virtue of the words of invitation., only the lord himself or the prelate was invited, but from concomitance or association the shield-bearers were also there. Thus the priest by consecrating with the power of the words, consecrates precisely only the body of Christ, but the soul, blood and divinity follow him. Therefore think what you eat, when you receive communion, because there is something greater there than all things corporeal, namely the body of Christ, something there more excellent than spiritual creatures, namely the soul of Christ, and divinity is also there, which is above everything which God made or will make or can make.

And so the authority says, “For she is the brightness of eternal light,” (Wis 7:26), namely with respect to divinity. Therefore the host is round, which signifies the eternity of God. And “the unspotted mirror,” (Wis 7:26), with respect to the soul. Therefore the host ought to be most pure and white. “and the image of his goodness,” (Wis 7:26). with respect to the body through which he accomplished his goodness in the work of redemption.

Morally, we have here a teaching which if we wish to receive communion in a dignified way, we have three, namely, the brightness of eternal light through true belief without error and false opinion. Secondly, the mirror unspotted through chastity. Third that we have the image of his goodness through firm friendship, because just as Christ did not wish to take revenge on his enemies, neither, out of your love of him, should you. Therefore Christ, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God,” (Mt 5:9). Note “peacemakers” from its etymology, i.e. making peace, and cursed is he who impedes peace about which it can be said, “Damned are the warmongers, because they shall be called children of the devil.”

 

SENSE PERCEPTION

The fourth secret wonder is sense perception, because the bodily senses seem to be deceived about the Eucharist, because one thing is perceived, which is believed, because the eye does not see Christ, but whiteness, nor is Christ heard, nor smelled. Why this? Christ well could have made it that just as the image is seen in the mirror, also he would be seen in the host, just as by many saints he has been seen there. But he did not want this for two reasons. First out of necessity. Second out of usefulness.

Of necessity, because it is necessary to receive communion, because just as all our evil comes to us from the eating of fruit, about which it is said of the Virgin Mary, “Blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus Christ.” And it would be disgusting to visibly eat human flesh and drink blood. But just as a doctor covers up the pills offered or the host, lest it be distasteful to fastidious people, so Christ our physician, whose flesh is the pill of our salvation, because otherwise we cannot be saved, unless through communion, he hides [his flesh] lest it be seen, nor is the flavor of flesh perceived, etc. See the necessity. About which the prophet Isaiah said, “And they shall worship you,” in the consecrated host, “and shall make supplication to you: only in you is God, and there is no God besides you. Verily you are a hidden God, the God of Israel the savior.” (Isa 45:14). Note ” only in you is God,” just this saying is exclusive, it excludes other sacraments, in which God is not, unless figuratively. Only in this sacrament really and personally. About this see St. Thomas III, q. 75, a. 1.   He does not say “similarly” but “verily”. “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed,” (Jn 6:56), is so construed. That meat is truly my flesh and that drink truly is my blood.

The second reason is from usefulness, for our merit. The article about this sacrament is of especially great merit, because of the difficulty of the senses, which judge the opposite from this which we believe. If indeed you believe that the host be white, you have no credit [grates] because your eyes can see it. But it is of merit to believe that Christ is there whom you do not see. Gregory. Faith is without merit where human reason provides experience. But it is of merit to believe because he says that really. He is not able to lie nor deceive. Therefore we offer him great honor by simply believing, saying: Lord although my intellect cannot grasp this mystery, nevertheless I believe from what you day. He says: “Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed,” (Jn 20:29). Many saints have seen Christ in this sacrament.

 

REGULAR RECEPTION

The fifth secret wonder is regular reception., because he permits and wishes not only to be adored by us, but to be received according to the use and custom of the church. Priests, well prepared, should celebrate every day. Devout people, with good advice, every month. Others once a year, namely by mandate during Easter, otherwise they will never be received into heaven. The angels say:

 

O res mirabilis!

Manducat Dominum

Pauper, servus et humilis

 

What wonder!

a poor and humble servant

consumes him, the Lord.

 

O what a great wonder is this. Why it was instituted, what usefulness does it have? I say that he instituted this for two reasons. First, for his honor. Second for our progress. It is an honor to the victorious king to be received faithfully in the castle which he acquired by conquest [quae bellando acquisivit]. And on the contrary it is a disgrace when they are not permitted to enter it. About which John said, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not,” (Jn 1:11). But indeed they let cattle, chickens, and hens enter. The second reason is for our furtherance. If a king or a Pope show great gratitude when well received, how much more will Christ the king and Pope do likewise, from whose worthy reception Christians inestimably grow?   David: “He has made a remembrance of his wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord: he has given food to them that fear him ” (Ps. 110:4-5).