Mary, Mother of God…The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

CONSECRATION OF FAMILIES TO THE UNITED HEARTS

Sacred and United Hearts of Jesus and Mary, You are one in purpose as You desire the salvation, holiness, and sanctity of each soul. We consecrate our family to You seeking Your victory both in our hearts and in the world. We acknowledge the perfection of Your mercy in the past, the abundance of Your provision in the future, and the supreme sovereignty of the Father’s Divine Will in this present moment. We desire to be part of Your triumphant reign beginning in this present moment through our ‘yes’ to Holy and Divine Love. We wish, with the help of Your grace, to live out this consecration through every future moment. Thus we will be united in triumph with You, dear United Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Amen. www.holylove.org

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEVOTION…to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

(1) From the time of St. John and St. Paul there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, Who so loved the world as to give it His only-begotten Son, and to the love of Jesus, Who has so loved us as to deliver Himself up for us. But, accurately speaking, this is not the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as it pays no homage to the Heart of Jesus as the symbol of His love for us. From the earliest centuries, in accordance with the example of the Evangelist, Christ’s open side and the mystery of blood and water were meditated upon, and the Church was beheld issuing from the side of Jesus, as Eve came forth from the side of Adam. But there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries, any worship was rendered the wounded Heart.
(2) It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart. Through the wound in the side of the wound Heart was gradually reached, and the wound in the Heart symbolized the wound of love. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries. To St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the “Vitis mystica” it was already well known. We cannot state with certainty to whom we are indebted for the “Vitis mystica”. Until recent times its authorship had generally been ascribed to St. Bernard and yet, by the late publishers of the beautiful and scholarly Quaracchi edition, it has been attributed, and not without plausible reasons, to St. Bonaventure (”S. Bonaventurx opera omnia”, 1898, VIII, LIII sq.). But, be this as it may, it contains one of the most beautiful passages that ever inspired the devotion to the Sacred Heart, one appropriated by the Church for the lessons of the second nocturn of the feast. To St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) it was a familiar devotion which was translated into many beautiful prayers and exercises. What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour’s she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love (”Legatus divinae pietatis”, IV, 305; “Revelationes Gertrudianae”, ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).
(3) From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the devotion was propagated but it did not seem to have developed in itself. It was everywhere practised by privileged souls, and the lives of the saints and annals of different religious congregations, of the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carthusians, etc., furnish many examples of it. It was nevertheless a private, individual devotion of the mystical order. Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, unless one would so regard the propagation of the devotion to the Five Wounds, in which the Wound in the Heart figured most prominently, and for the furtherance of which the Franciscans seem to have laboured.
(4) It appears that in the sixteenth century, the devotion took an onward step and passed from the domain of mysticism into that of Christian asceticism. It was constituted an objective devotion with prayers already formulated and special exercises of which the value was extolled and the practice commended. This we learn from the writings of those two masters of the spiritual life, the pious Lanspergius (d. 1539) of the Carthusians of Cologne, and the devout Louis of Blois (Blosius; 1566), a Benedictine and Abbot of Liessies in Hainaut. To these may be added Blessed John of Avila (d. 1569) and St. Francis de Sales, the latter belonging to the seventeenth century.
(5) From that time everything betokened an early bringing to light of the devotion. Ascetic writers spoke of it, especially those of the Society of Jesus, Alvarez de Paz, Luis de la Puente, Saint-Jure, and Nouet, and there still exist special treatises upon it such as Father Druzbicki’s (d. 1662) small work, “Meta Cordium, Cor Jesu”. Amongst the mystics and pious souls who practised the devotion were St. Francis Borgia, Blessed Peter Canisius, St. Aloysius Gonzaga, and St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, of the Society of Jesus; also Venerable Marina de Escobar (d. 1633), in Spain; the Venerable Madeleine St. Joseph and the Venerable Marguerite of the Blessed Sacrament, Carmelites, in France; Jeanne de S. Mathieu Deleloe (d. 1660), a Benedictine, in Belgium; the worthy Armelle of Vannes (d. 1671); and even in Jansenistic or worldly centres, Marie de Valernod (d. 1654) and Angélique Arnauld; M. Boudon, the great archdeacon of Evreux, Father Huby, the apostle of retreats in Brittany, and, above all, the Venerable Marie de l’Incarnation, who died at Quebec in 1672. The Visitation seemed to be awaiting St. Margaret Mary; its spirituality, certain intuitions of St. Francis de Sales, the meditations of Mère l’Huillier (d. 1655), the visions of Mother Anne-Marguerite Clément (d. 1661), and of Sister Jeanne-Bénigne Gojos (d. 1692), all paved the way. The image of the Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, which fact was largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches.
(6) Nevertheless, the devotion remained an individual or at least a private devotion. It was reserved to Blessed Jean Eudes (1602-1680) to make it public, to honour it with an Office, and to establish a feast for it. Père Eudes was above all the apostle of the Heart of Mary; but in his devotion to the Immaculate Heart there was a share for the Heart of Jesus. Little by little the devotion to the Sacred Heart became a separate one, and on 31 August, 1670, the first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated with great solemnity in the Grand Seminary of Rennes. Coutances followed suit on 20 October, a day with which the Eudist feast was thenceforth to be connected. The feast soon spread to other dioceses, and the devotion was likewise adopted in various religious communities. Here and there it came into contact with the devotion begun at Paray, and a fusion of the two naturally resulted.

(7) It was to Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), a humble Visitandine of the monastery at Paray-le Monial, that Christ chose to reveal the desires of His Heart and to confide the task of imparting new life to the devotion. There is nothing to indicated that this pious religious had known the devotion prior to the revelations, or at least that she had paid any attention to it. These revelations were numerous, and the following apparitions are especially remarkable: that which occurred on the feast of St. John, when Jesus permitted Margaret Mary, as He had formerly allowed St. Gertrude, to rest her head upon His Heart, and then disclosed to her the wonders of His love, telling her that He desired to make them known to all mankind and to diffuse the treasures of His goodness, and that He had chosen her for this work (27 Dec., probably 1673); that, probably distinct from the preceding, in which He requested to be honoured under the figure of His Heart of flesh; that, when He appeared radiant with love and asked for a devotion of expiatory love — frequent Communion, Communion on the First Friday of the month, and the observance of the Holy Hour (probably June or July, 1674); that known as the “great apparition” which took place during the octave of Corpus Christi, 1675, probably on 16 June, when He said, “Behold the Heart that has so loved men . . . instead of gratitude I receive from the greater part (of mankind) only ingratitude . . .”, and asked her for a feast of reparation of the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi, bidding her consult Father de la Colombière, then superior of the small Jesuit house at Paray; and finally, those in which solemn homage was asked on the part of the king, and the mission of propagating the new devotion was especially confided to the religious of the Visitation and the priests of the Society of Jesus. A few days after the “great apparition”, of June, 1675, Margaret Mary made all known to Father de la Colombière, and the latter, recognizing the action of the spirit of God, consecrated himself to the Sacred Heart, directed the holy Visitandine to write an account of the apparition, and made use of every available opportunity discreetly to circulate this account through France and England. At his death, 15 February 1682, there was found in his journal of spiritual retreats a copy in his own handwriting of the account that he had requested of Margaret Mary, together with a few reflections on the usefulness of the devotion. This journal, including the account and a beautiful “offering” to the Sacred Heart, in which the devotion was well explained, was published at Lyons in 1684. The little book was widely read, even at Paray, although not without being the cause of “dreadful confusion” to Margaret Mary, who, nevertheless, resolved to make the best of it and profited by the book for the spreading of her cherished devotion. Moulins, with Mother de Soudeilles, Dijon, with Mother de Saumaise and Sister Joly, Semur, with Mother Greyfié, and even Paray, which had at first resisted, joined the movement. Outside of the Visitandines, priests, religious, and laymen espoused the cause, particularly a Capuchin, Margaret Mary’s two brothers, and some Jesuits, among the latter being Fathers Croiset and Gallifet, who were destined to do so much for the devotion.
(8) The death of Margaret Mary, 17 October 1690, did not dampen the ardour of those interested; on the contrary, a short account of her life published by Father Croiset in 1691, as an appendix to his book “De la Dévotion au Sacré Cœur”, served only to increase it. In spite of all sorts of obstacles, and of the slowness of the Holy See, which in 1693 imparted indulgences to the Confraternities of the Sacred Heart and, in 1697, granted the feast to the Visitandines with the Mass of the Five Wounds, but refused a feast common to all, with special Mass and Office, the devotion spread, particularly in religious communities. The Marseilles plague, 1720, furnished perhaps the first occasion for a solemn consecration and public worship outside of religious communities. Other cities of the South followed the example of Marseilles, and thus the devotion became a popular one. In 1726 it was deemed advisable once more to importune Rome for a feast with a Mass and Office of its own, but, in 1729, Rome again refused. However, in 1765, it finally yielded and that same year, at the request of the queen, the feast was received quasi officially by the episcopate of France. On all sides it was asked for and obtained, and finally, in 1856, at the urgent entreaties of the French bishops, Pope Pius IX extended the feast to the universal Church under the rite of double major. In 1889 it was raised by the Church to the double rite of first class. The acts of consecration and of reparation were everywhere introduced together with the devotion. Oftentimes, especially since about 1850, groups, congregations, and States have consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart, and, in 1875, this consecration was made throughout the Catholic world. Still the pope did not wish to take the initiative or to intervene. Finally, on 11 June, 1899, by order of Leo XIII, and with the formula prescribed by him, all mankind was solemnly consecrated to the Sacred Heart. The idea of this act, which Leo XIII called “the great act” of his pontificate, had been proposed to him by a religious of the Good Shepherd from Oporto (Portugal) who said that she had received it from Christ Himself. She was a member of the Drost-zu-Vischering family, and known in religion as Sister Mary of the Divine Heart. She died on the feast of the Sacred Heart, two days before the consecration, which had been deferred to the following Sunday. Whilst alluding to these great public manifestations we must not omit referring to the intimate life of the devotion in souls, to the practices connected with it, and to the works and associations of which it was the very life. Moreover, we must not overlook the social character which it has assumed particularly of late years. The Catholics of France, especially, cling firmly to it as one of their strongest hopes of ennoblement and salvation

“Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have Mercy on Us”

“United Hearts of Jesus and Mary, guide and protect us”

“Realize the power of My Name—indeed, the power of calling on your Jesus in times of temptation and trial. When you say My Name, all of Heaven comes to attention. The power of My Precious Blood covers you and evil is made to vanish.

When you say even more—‘Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us’—evil will be revealed, for Satan cannot remain hidden when I am thus invoked.

When you pray—‘United Hearts of Jesus and Mary, guide and protect us’—Satan not only flees but the path you must follow in righteousness is laid bare.”

(Jesus, 6/5/03)

From: www.holylove.org

Mary and the Eucharist
by Archbishop Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap

She who brought Jesus into the world still leads us to him in the Blessed Sacrament

Archbishop Sean O’Malley preaches at the second Eucharistic Congress.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following address was given Aug. 8 at the second Knights of Columbus Eucharistic Congress, which was dedicated to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on the Eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. It is on “At the School of Mary, Woman of the Eucharist,” the sixth chapter of the encyclical. Ecclesia de Eucharistia can be read in its entirety at the Vatican Web site: www.vatican.va.

In an episode of the old TV show “All in the Family,” Archie Bunker, a great contemporary theologian, was having an argument with his son-in-law, Meathead. Archie made one of his anti-Semitic remarks and Meathead immediately reacted by saying, “Archie, remember that Jesus was Jewish.” To which Archie retorted: “Yes, but only on his mother’s side.”

Indeed, Jesus’ humanity comes from Mary’s humanity. One of the popes wrote the beautiful prayer, Ave Verum Corpus natum de Maria Virgine. “Hail true body (of Christ) born of the Virgin Mary.” It was originally to be prayed at the elevation at Mass as people contemplated the host, recalling that the body of Christ we receive in Communion is the same body of Christ that Mary gave to us at Bethlehem.
Often at Christmastime I point out the eucharistic meaning of the occasion. Jesus is born at Bethlehem, which means, “House of Bread.” And Jesus is laid in a manger that is the feed box where the flock comes to be fed.
Pope John Paul II has given us the magnificent encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia in which a whole chapter is dedicated to the profound relationship that Mary has with the mystery of the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is the mysterium fidei, the mystery of faith that “so greatly transcends our understanding as to call for a sheer abandonment to the word of God,” he writes (54.1). At the Visitation, Elizabeth, moved by the Spirit, gives us the first beatitude in the Gospel directed at Mary: “Blessed are you because you believed” (Luke 1:45). Just as Abraham, our father in faith, stands at the opening of the Old Testament, Mary, great woman of faith, stands at the opening of the New Testament.

From: http://www.kofc.org/publications/columbia/detail.cfm?id=3696

. Lumen Verum Apologetics
The Bread of Life
A Defence of the Real Presence and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
by Robert M. Haddad
________________________________________

The Bread of Life

1. THE REAL PRESENCE

From: http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/TheBread.htm
Objection: “As for the Eucharist, no one believed that the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ until Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk in the early 9th century!”
The Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances, or accidents, of bread and wine. Unlike the other Sacraments, it not only bestows grace but contains the Author of Grace Himself. Hence, by giving us His Body and Blood to drink Christ has left us the legacy of His very self: “He has gained renown by his wonderful deeds; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him” (Ps. 111 [110], 4-5).
Christ fulfilled His promise to give us His Flesh and Blood at the Last Supper:
“Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (St. Matt. 26, 26-28; note also St. Mark 14, 22-24; St. Luke 22, 19-20; 1 Cor. 10, 4-21).
The Church calls this mysterious change of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood Transubstantiation (Lateran IV 1215). The substances of the bread and the wine are changed respectively into the substances of Christ’s Body and Blood, while the accidents (i.e., color, shape, taste, etc.) of the bread and the wine remain unchanged.1
In the Gospel of St. John chapter 6 we find the great discourse of Our Lord concerning the future promise of the Eucharist. For our purposes it is best to outline the principle verses in full:
“Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst…For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day…The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven? Jesus answered them, Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day…I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, 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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever. This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 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. But there are some of you that do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, Do you also wish to go away? Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God. Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him” (vv. 35-71).
Our Lord was wont to use words either literally or figuratively. The issue with verses 35-71 is how to determine what meaning He intended to give.
Our Lord Himself gives us two basic rules to resolve this dilemma.
Rule number one: When Our Lord spoke figuratively but was taken literally He always corrected the mistake of His listeners immediately.
Example (a): “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (St. Matt. 16, 5).
The Apostles understood these words literally and began to argue among themselves about the fact that they had no bread. Then Our Lord said, “How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread…Then they understood that he did not tell them to be aware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (vv. 11-12).
Example (b): “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep” (St. John 11, 11).
The Apostles again took Our Lord literally and said, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover” (v. 12). Immediately came the correction, “Lazarus is dead” (v. 14).
Example (c): “…unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (St. John 3, 3).
Nicodemus automatically took these words literally and replied, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3, 4). Our Lord’s answer immediately dispelled Nicodemus’ error, showing that He meant a spiritual, not physical, rebirth: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3, 5).
Rule number two: When Our Lord spoke literally, and those who heard Him understood Him correctly but refused to accept what He said, He reasserted the literal meaning again more forcibly.
Example (a): “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven” (St. Matt. 9, 2).
The Scribes at hearing these words were greatly disturbed and said among themselves, “This man is blaspheming” (9, 3). However, Christ did not try to water down or explain away His words but reasserted His claim to forgive sins by miraculously healing the paralytic before all.
Example (b): “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day” (St. John 8, 56).
The Jews correctly understood Our Lord literally but rejected Him asserting, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (8, 57). Our Lord’s solemn reply, which brought forth the immediate wrath of the Jews, was, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (8, 58). Christ not only reiterated His literal meaning but also did so at the risk of being stoned to death (8, 59).
Keeping in mind these two rules let us example Our Lord’s discourse in St. John 6.
Our Lord proclaims that “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (vv. 48-51). The Jews present understood Christ literally but could not accept what He said: “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52). But Christ reinforced His literal meaning saying, “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” (vv. 53-56).
Not satisfied with this Our Lord went further and solemnly invoked His Father’s Name to confirm His meaning: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever” (vv. 57-58). Nevertheless, the Jews continued in their disbelief, seeing in Christ’s words a literal meaning that contradicted the Mosaic prohibition against the eating of human flesh: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (v. 60). But knowing their murmuring Christ again did not retreat or explain away His words, rather He implicitly asserted His own divine authority: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (v. 62).
By now this was all too much for the Jews who “drew back and no longer went about with him” (v. 66). Christ had now lost most of His long-time and closest followers but allowed them to go even though He had earlier declared “that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me” (v. 39). Is it reasonable to believe that He would have allowed such a catastrophe over a simple misunderstanding, particularly in light of His established habit of correcting past misunderstandings? He even went further still and challenged the Apostles themselves: “Do you also wish to go away?” (v. 67). Christ was prepared to lose all human support rather than deny the literal truth of His words.
This was the first apostasy from the Body of Christ recorded in history, an apostasy which even claimed one of the Apostles: “For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him” (v. 64). This apostasy continues in the denials of Protestantism which since the sixteenth century has repeatedly said of Catholic belief in the Real Presence, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Catholics, on the other hand, profess the faith of Simon Peter who, though not having full understanding himself, answered “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v. 68).
Most Fundamentalist authors claim that they can prove that Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing His words in St. John 6, 35 (”I am the bread of life”) to verses such as St. John 10, 9 (”I am the door”) and St. John 15, 1 (”I am the true vine”). The problem of such an argument, however, is that there is no connection between St. John 6, 35 and these latter verses. Further, St. John 10, 9 and 15, 1 make sense as metaphors while as we shall see St. John 6, 35 does not. In addition, Our Lord Himself takes St. John 6, 35 beyond symbolism by repeating four times the injunction “to eat my flesh and drink my blood” and saying “for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (v. 55).
Another Protestant objection revolves around the claim that Christ’s phrase “to eat his flesh and drink his blood” was a figurative way of saying to believe and have faith in Him. There is some truth in the assertion that such a phrase had a figurative meaning, however, in the cultures of the Middle East it rather meant to calumniate, revile, attack or insult someone unjustly. It is therefore nonsense to argue that Christ would have used this phrase in the popular figurative sense, for that would have been tantamount to Christ asking His followers to sin against Him in order to inherit eternal life! It should also be noted that the Greek word used for “eat” in St. John literally means “to gnaw.” This is not the language of figure.
A final Protestant appeal is also made to St. John 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.” We are told that these words mean that the eating of flesh is of no spiritual value, only faith can profit one unto eternal life. That being the case, Christ could not have meant to eat His flesh in order to have life. The Catholic response is that Christ was in reality making an appeal to His listeners to trust Him on faith rather than try and rationalize His words in order to find their true meaning. In the previous verse (v. 62) Christ infers that His listeners would have had no problem accepting His words if they had seen Him as He was before He came down from heaven, that is, as the Son of God equal to the Father, for then His words would obviously be the words of God rather than the words of man - words of “spirit and life.”
To conclude it is also necessary to examine the words of St. Paul in chapters 10 and 11 of his first epistle to the Corinthians. In these chapters he sternly chastises the Corinthians for their idolatry and their poor attitude towards reception of the Eucharist. His language is remarkably literal and his warnings blunt:
“I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (10, 1-4)…Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols…The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (10, 14-17)…You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (10, 21-22)…”
In verses 1-4 St. Paul is regarding the manna, the water and the rock as types of things to come. This ties in with the words of Christ in St. John outlined earlier, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die” (vv. 48-50). The early Christians undoubtedly saw the Eucharist as a fulfillment of the promised manna, but unlike the manna he who eats the bread of the Eucharist will “live forever” (v. 51).
The language of verses 14-17 again is the type that excludes all sense of the figurative or symbolic. St. Paul speaks directly of “participation in the blood and body of Christ.” If one is still prepared to argue the matter, St. Paul uses even more striking language in chapter 11:
“…For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (vv. 23-31).
According to most scholars this is the first written account of the institution of the Eucharist, predating even the Gospel accounts.2 One ex-Protestant convert to Catholicism comments on vv. 23-31 as follows:
“Being guilty of someone’s ‘body and blood’ was to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the body (bread) was only a symbol? The Real Presence of Christ’s Body is necessary for an offense to be committed against it. How could one be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ by simply eating a little bread and drinking a little wine?…St. Paul’s words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real Presence.”

Feast of Corpus Christi (Feast of the Body of Christ)

This feast is celebrated in the Latin Church on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday to solemnly commemorate the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
Of Maundy Thursday, which commemorates this great event, mention is made as Natalis Calicis (Birth of the Chalice) in the Calendar of Polemius (448) for the 24th of March, the 25th of March being in some places considered as the day of the death of Christ. This day, however, was in Holy Week, a season of sadness, during which the minds of the faithful are expected to be occupied with thoughts of the Lord’s Passion. Moreover, so many other functions took place on this day that the principal event was almost lost sight of. This is mentioned as the chief reason for the introduction of the new feast, in the Bull “Transiturus.”
The instrument in the hand of Divine Providence was St. Juliana of Mont Cornillon, in Belgium. She was born in 1193 at Retines near Liège. Orphaned at an early age, she was educated by the Augustinian nuns of Mont Cornillon. Here she in time made her religious profession and later became superioress. Intrigues of various kinds several time drove her from her convent. She died 5 April, 1258, at the House of the Cistercian nuns at Fosses, and was buried at Villiers.
Juliana, from her early youth, had a great veneration for the Blessed Sacrament, and always longed for a special feast in its honour. This desire is said to have been increased by a vision of the Church under the appearance of the full moon having one dark spot, which signified the absence of such a solemnity. She made known her ideas to Robert de Thorete, then Bishop of Liège, to the learned Dominican Hugh, later cardinal legate in the Netherlands, and to Jacques Pantaléon, at that time Archdeacon of Liège, afterwards Bishop of Verdun, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and finally Pope Urban IV. Bishop Robert was favourably impressed, and, since bishops as yet had the right of ordering feasts for their dioceses, he called a synod in 1246 and ordered the celebration to be held in the following year, also, that a monk named John should write the Office for the occasion. The decree is preserved in Binterim (Denkwürdigkeiten, V, 1, 276), together with parts of the Office.
Bishop Robert did not live to see the execution of his order, for he died 16 October, 1246; but the feast was celebrated for the first time by the canons of St. Martin at Liège. Jacques Pantaléon became pope 29 August, 1261. The recluse Eve, with whom Juliana had spent some time, and who was also a fervent adorer of the Holy Eucharist, now urged Henry of Guelders, Bishop of Liège, to request the pope to extend the celebration to the entire world. Urban IV, always an admirer of the feast, published the Bull “Transiturus” (8 September, 1264), in which, after having extolled the love of Our Saviour as expressed in the Holy Eucharist, he ordered the annual celebration of Corpus Christi in the Thursday next after Trinity Sunday, at the same time granting many indulgences to the faithful for the attendance at Mass and at the Office. This Office, composed at the request of the pope by the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, is one of the most beautiful in the Roman Breviary and has been admired even by Protestants.
The death of Pope Urban IV (2 October, 1264), shortly after the publication of the decree, somewhat impeded the spread of the festival. Clement V again took the matter in hand and, at the General Council of Vienne (1311), once more ordered the adoption of the feast. He published a new decree which embodied that of Urban IV. John XXII, successor of Clement V, urged its observance.
Neither decree speaks of the theophoric procession as a feature of the celebration. This procession, already held in some places, was endowed with indulgences by Popes Martin V and Eugene IV.
The feast had been accepted in 1306 at Cologne; Worms adopted it in 1315; Strasburg in 1316. In England it was introduced from Belgium between 1320 and 1325. In the United States and some other countries the solemnity is held on the Sunday after Trinity.
In the Greek Church the feast of Corpus Christi is known in the calendars of the Syrians, Armenians, Copts, Melchites, and the Ruthenians of Galicia, Calabria, and Sicily.