Father Rudolph Cornely's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

As the foundation of his argument, therefore, he recalls to their memory the history of the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, which he received immediately from the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians, and explains its purpose in a few words (1 Cor 11:23-26). For the causal particle γάρ (enim/for) sufficiently shows that an argument is being brought forth by which the preceding rebukes (1 Cor 11:22) are demonstrated to be just.

1 Cor 11:23. 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, etc.

All the ancient interpreters (cf. Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan, Estius, Jansenius, etc.) and most modern ones (cf. Bisping, Lipsius, Reithmayr, Drach, Hammond — Bengel, Olshausen, Godet, etc.) rightly and deservedly hold, against one or another Catholic interpreter and not a few non-Catholics (Beza, Neander, Baur, Schnitzer, Goebel), that Paul received immediately from Christ those things which he delivered to the Corinthians concerning the Last Supper. We certainly do not deny that the preposition ἀπὸ (from) expresses only the origin of the tradition from Christ, but teaches nothing about the mode of reception, whether it was immediate or mediated; yet the entire phrase altogether excludes mediated reception.

For consider especially this: that doctrines which the Lord taught the Apostles indeed come through them to their disciples in such a way that these latter can rightly say they received them (through the mediation of the Apostles) from the Lord; but the matter is altogether different when it concerns the deeds of the Lord, of which the Apostles were spectators and ought to be witnesses; they never say they received from the Lord those things which they saw the Lord doing (cf. 1 John 1:1ff.; 2 Peter 1:18); and we too would speak rather ineptly if we said we received the resurrection of Lazarus from the Lord through John. Now here the matter concerns a historical fact of which the Apostles were the first spectators.

Moreover, when the Apostle says with a certain emphasis: "I received from the Lord," and opposes himself to the Corinthians, who received the same thing through his mediation from the Lord, it is evident that he designates such a mode of reception as is proper to him alone. Finally, beyond doubt, those things which he here delivers concerning the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, just as those things which he teaches below concerning the death and resurrection of the Lord (15:3), pertain to the Gospel which he preached everywhere; but he "received his Gospel neither from man nor was he taught it (οὐδὲ παρ᾿ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβεν οὔτε ἐδιδάχθη) but through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12).

Therefore it must altogether be held that Paul, besides properly called dogmas, also received immediately from Christ himself glorified all his knowledge concerning the Lord's earthly life, although at what time and in what place (perhaps during that three-year period which he spent in Arabia, cf. Gal. 1:17) and in what manner (whether through visions or internal illumination, etc., cf. Acts 9:12; Acts 22:17ff.; Acts 23:11; Acts 26:15ff., etc.) he was taught all these things, we completely ignore.

But those things which he had received from the Lord by a certain sublime revelation, as a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), he delivered to the Corinthians and here repeats, God so disposing that the institution of this mystery might become known to us as if from two diverse sources. St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, narrates its history as an eyewitness (Matt. 26:20-29), and St. Mark, whom the Fathers testify committed to writing the Gospel preached by blessed Peter, has transmitted to us the account of another eyewitness (Mark 14:17-25). These two, agreeing also almost entirely in words, constitute in a way one source; SS. Paul and Luke constitute the other, who again are very close to each other, and indeed differ from the two prior ones not at all in substance, as is clear, but more or less in words, and deliver those things which the glorified Lord had communicated to Paul concerning his last supper; for that Luke's account (Luke 22:19-20) depends on Paul is sufficiently clear from the fact that, as the Fathers testify, the third Evangelist committed to his book the Gospel preached by the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Therefore, the narration of two eyewitnesses, which, even if we abstracted from their inspiration, would give us full certainty, the Lord himself, nevertheless, already elevated to heaven and appearing to Paul, in a way confirmed, and wished his confirmation to be transmitted to us again through two witnesses, so that he might close off access to all doubt which the sublimity of this most august mystery and the greatness of this most excellent gift could provoke in minds, and might more openly manifest to us the treasures of his infinite charity.

1 Cor 11:24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Deservedly, with Chrysostom, almost all interpreters warn that the time of institution is indicated by Paul not without reason, since it contributes not a little to confounding the Corinthians: for the Lord, on that same night in which men showed themselves so ungrateful toward him that one of the disciples would betray him to his most bitter enemies, another would deny him three times, and the rest would timidly abandon him, instituted this sacrament of his charity in memory of his passion, which celebration the Corinthians now conduct in such a light and lascivious manner.

Therefore on that night, at the last paschal supper, the Lord Jesus took some unleavened bread from those which had been placed on the table (τὸν ἄρτον, all the Evangelists also omit the article).

1 Cor 11:25. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: "Take and eat: this is my body, which will be delivered for you; do this in remembrance of me."

"Having given thanks" (εὐχαριστήσας) according to Paul and Luke, "blessing" (εὐλογήσας) according to Matthew and Mark, the Lord broke bread; but the two words designate the same prayers, wherefore they are rightly connected in the liturgy ("giving thanks he blessed," Canon of the Mass); for the blessing was joined with thanksgiving.

Moreover, by the aorist participles which the sacred writers use, it is not indicated that the blessing and action of thanks were already terminated before the following words were pronounced (which Estius, Jansenius, etc. very urgently press against St. Thomas, Summa III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 1); but because the aorist participle is not infrequently so connected with another finite aorist that it signifies two actions to have been at the same time, the participles εὐχαριστήσας and εὐλογήσας could aptly be employed, even if besides the consecratory words no others were pronounced by Christ on that occasion, much more however if the principal part of a longer action of thanks and blessing already begun were the consecratory words.

For the same reason also, it cannot be defined with certainty from the words of Scripture whether the fraction preceded the consecration, which pleases many, or followed it, which others admit as more probable.

The words "take and eat" have probably crept in here from Matt. 26:26, as we have already warned (cf. VV. LL.); St. Luke also, who agrees with Paul in other things, omits them.

Moreover, the words "this is my body," by which the Lord transubstantiated the bread into his body, "commemorated by the SS. Evangelists and repeated by St. Paul, since they present that proper and most evident signification according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is truly an unworthy crime that they be twisted by certain contentious and wicked men to fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the Flesh (and Blood) of Christ is denied, against the universal sense of the Church" (Council of Trent, Session 13, On the Most Holy Eucharist Sacrifice, ch. 1).

Truly they are so clear that you would wonder that they could ever be explained in other than the Catholic sense. The pronoun "this" designates a present thing and indicates nothing about the nature of the thing itself; therefore it is that which the Lord, holding in his hands, is about to give to the disciples after the consecratory form has been pronounced. The copula "is" so joins the subject with the predicate that it shows one to be equal and like the other; for they speak most ineptly who attribute to the verb "to be" a representative or figurative force, as if "is" were ever or anywhere the same as "signifies" or "represents."

It can beyond doubt happen that in those sentences also in which the subject is joined with the predicate by a substantive verb (to be), some impropriety is found, but this is never to be sought in the copula "is" by which two extremes are joined and united, but either in the predicate or in the subject, indeed sometimes in both.

If, showing a certain statue, I say: "This is Marcus Aurelius," no one does not understand that the predicate is taken improperly and my proposition is: "This is an image of Marcus Aurelius."

Thus, explaining a cross, an anchor, a heart, I rightly say: "This is faith" (i.e., a symbol of faith), "this is hope" (a symbol of hope), "this is charity" (a symbol of charity).

So also the Apostle, after having warned that those things which he related about Abraham and his two wives and two sons were said through allegory (i.e., typically), continues: "These (more correctly: these two, sc. two wives, sc. are two testaments" i.e., types of two testaments (Gal. 4:24).

In all these examples the predicate is taken improperly; but the subject is understood improperly in the sentence which we have already explained: "The rock (i.e., he who gave water from the rock to the Israelites) was Christ" (cf. on 10:4). Similar are other examples by which adversaries try to vindicate to the substantive verb the force of signifying or representing.

But it is evident that propositions of this sort are not understood unless the auditor recognizes the improper sense which is attributed to the predicate or subject and ought or at least can conclude from the circumstances that one or the other is truly employed in no other than this improper sense.

Whence it is clear that in our sentence ("this is my body") the real presence of the Lord's body and the transubstantiation of the bread into Christ's body are not taught only in that case if the words "my body" could and ought to be understood improperly.

Now indeed they ought to be explained improperly if transubstantiation exceeded the power of Christ; and that this truly takes place, most recent non-Catholic interpreters contend (Meyer, Godet, Heinrici, etc.), but we remit them to the theologians who have fully and learnedly solved all difficulties against the possibility of real presence and transubstantiation contrived by ancient and modern heretics.

Moreover, the Lord's words could at least be understood improperly if the disciples, in whose presence they were pronounced, either knew from elsewhere or ought to conclude from the circumstances that the broken bread was nothing except a symbol or figure of the body of Christ suffering on the cross; but neither from its nature nor from the common acceptance of men is broken bread a symbol of this sort, nor was it ever before judged by Christ that broken bread would be such a symbol, nor is it indicated here, nor is it in any way insinuated by the circumstances; therefore the words "my body" must be understood in the proper sense, nor does anything remain except that with all the Fathers and Catholic interpreters, or rather with the Church, we interpret the words so that we say that Christ truly and really and substantially delivered his body to his disciples to eat and delivers it to us.

Which explanation is not a little confirmed by the added words: "which will be delivered for you"; concerning which addition, which is omitted by Matthew and Mark, we have indeed said that it does not sufficiently appear (cf. VV. LL.), but the differences are not of great moment.

If with four more ancient Greek codices we prefer the reading τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (which for you), the participle must be supplied from the preceding verb (ἔκλασεν), so that we have the same sense which most Greek codices express: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον (which is broken for you).

Moreover, the verb of breaking, if (as in our place) it is referred to that which is to be eaten, signifies from most known biblical usage "to give for food" or to minister; wherefore the third reading (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, which is given or delivered for you), which St. Luke also has, scarcely differs in sense from the preceding ones.

Whence the inept explanation of adversaries is clear; for what does this proposition mean: "this, which holding in my hands I am about to give to you, represents my body, which is given for food"? For neither can one thing be a sign or symbol of a thing which does not exist (for according to adversaries the body of Christ is not given for food); nor is it permitted to explain: "this is a symbol of my body broken on the cross," because the Lord's body was not broken in the passion (John 19:33, 36).

Moreover, the Lord says his body is broken or given for the disciples (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμν διδόμενον); but for the disciples, or for many, as Matthew and Mark have in the other consecration (τὸ περὶ [Mark ὑπὲρ] πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον), not a sign or symbol of the body is given, but the body itself of the Lord, "who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us" (Tit. 2:14) and "gave himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness" (Eph. 5:2), etc.

Therefore from every part the tropic explanation of the Lord's words is excluded.

Cajetan indeed refers the words "which is broken for you" to the passion, "since it is most true that the true body of Christ was broken in many ways; for it was broken as to the skin, when it was scourged by Pilate's soldiers, it was also broken as to the flesh in the hands and feet by the nails by which it was fixed to the cross, and finally it was broken in the side when one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance"; and he thinks this explanation can be admitted the more easily because the passion of the Lord had already as it were been begun and therefore the participle of the present time (κλώμενον, which is broken) would not create a difficulty.

But besides the fact that the words of John 19:33, 36 oppose this explanation, as we have already intimated, it would also be a very harsh metaphor if the body, which is wounded or pierced, were said to be broken (cf. Estius); moreover, the present participle κλώμενον, although even future things can be designated by words of the present time, cannot be referred to the future passion any more than the participle ἐκχυννόμενον, which the three Evangelists use in the other consecratory formula and which, as is clear from Luke 22:20, is referred to the Lord's blood present in the cup after consecration.

Nor however do we deny that the fraction of the Lord's body in the sacrament, i.e., the fraction of the species of bread under which it is contained, in a certain mystical way represents the passion of the same body on the cross: for "just as the sacramental species," says St. Thomas (Summa III, q. 77, a. 7), "are the sacrament of the true body of Christ, so the fraction of such species is the sacrament of the Lord's passion, which was in the true body of Christ."

Finally, note that by the participles κλώμενον and διδόμενον, since they are referred to the eucharistic body, the sacrificial character of this mystery is clearly indicated; but a more accurate explanation of this sentence pertains to dogmatic theology.

With Luke 22:19, Paul also adds to the consecratory words the Lord's command: "Do this in remembrance of me," by which the disciples are ordered not only to do themselves that same thing which they saw and heard the Lord do ("this"), i.e., transmuting bread into the Lord's body by the same words to offer an unbloody sacrifice, but also are furnished with the power by which they can do this, i.e., they are constituted priests of the New Law; for unless this power had been conferred on them, this command could not have been imposed on them; indeed that this power was conferred on them on another occasion is drawn neither from Scripture nor from tradition.

Wherefore deservedly and rightly Trent (Session 22, Decree on the Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 2, cf. ch. 1) teaches that those words are to be understood in this twofold sense, anathematizing those who deny that by these words the Apostles were constituted priests or that they and other priests were ordered to offer the body and blood of the Lord.

What commemoration of the Lord ought to be made in this mystery, the Apostle will immediately explain (v. 26); but before he completes the narration of the institution:

1 Cor 11:25. In like manner (as he took bread and giving thanks distributed it among the disciples with the consecratory words having been pronounced, he took and giving thanks distributed) the cup also after he had supped, saying: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Since according to Matthew and Mark the Lord took and broke bread while they were eating (ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν), but according to Paul and Luke he took the cup after he had supped (τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνῆσαι, Canon of the Mass: after supper was ended), with Thomas and Bellarmine (De Euch. IV, 27) many modern interpreters also (especially non-Catholics Meyer, Heinrici, Godet, etc.) think that during the supper bread was consecrated, after the supper was finished wine; while others (Schanz in Luke 22:20, Godet, etc.) think that at least by a certain longer interval of time the two consecrations were separated.

However, the more common and, if I am not mistaken, truer opinion holds that both followed each other immediately at the end of the supper (cf. Estius, Jansenius, etc., Bisping, Drach, etc.); for undeservedly it is thought that different times are indicated by the two expressions: ἐσθιόντων αὐτν and μετὰ τ δεῖπνῆσαι.

For the former, as being more general, comprehends the whole time from the moment in which they reclined to eat until that in which they rose from the table; the latter indeed teaches that the supper itself was finished, but at the same time insinuates that they had not yet risen from the table: therefore nothing prevents both from being understood concerning the same moment of time, i.e., concerning the end of the supper.

Matthew and Mark, who had already spoken concerning the time in which the supper took place, according to the nature of the thing noted before the first consecration that the whole thing was done during the supper; Paul, on whom Luke's relation depends, since he had not yet spoken concerning the Lord's supper, prefixed to the first consecration the time in which the supper was held (ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδοτο) and then before the second consecration more accurately defined the time in which the thing itself was done (μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνῆσαι).

Beyond doubt if by the same sacred author the first indication of time (ἐσθιόντων αὐτν) had been added to the first consecration, the other (μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνῆσαι) to the other, we would be compelled to admit a certain opposition and to separate the two consecrations by an interval of time, but such opposition is not present now, since different writers use those two expressions by which the same moment of time can be designated.

Whoever is not satisfied by this explanation will be able to join the expression τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δεπνῆσαι in Paul and Luke so that the fourth and last cup is understood, by which according to Jewish rite the paschal supper was terminated: "the cup which is accustomed to be taken after the supper is finished"; to which explanation the article favors, which Paul and Luke employing insinuate that they are speaking concerning a definite and known cup (τὸ ποτήριον), but Matthew and Mark omit.

And lest it be objected that it ought to have been said: τὸ ποτήριον τὸ μετὰ τὸ δεπνῆσαι, since the article before an adjectival apposition, which consists of a noun and preposition, is not infrequently omitted by Paul (cf. on 2:7).

Not very rightly does Estius, whom Meyer, Drach, etc. follow, conjecture that an indication of time was added to the cup by Paul and Luke so that this cup might be distinguished from the prior one, which he had commemorated in Luke 22:17; for this conjecture, although it would perhaps suffice for explaining Luke's expression, is not suited for explaining Paul's narration, who does not speak concerning another cup; nor is it permitted to say that Paul took these things from Luke, since it is certain that Luke depends on Paul.

Nor is the opinion of those approved by us, who think that the very taking of the Lord's body is designated by the words μετὰ τὸ δεπνσαι (Bisping, etc.); for this signification does not belong to the verb δεῖπνεῖν.

From the truth also did Jansenius err, who attributed an aoristic sense to the participle ἐσθιόντων (after they ate), which it does not admit.

The words by which according to Paul the Lord gave his blood to the disciples: "This cup is the new testament in my blood" (τοῦτο τ ποτήριον καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμ αματι), are also related by Luke, who differs only in this, that he omits the copula (ἐστίν) and adds: "which will be poured out for you" (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον).

Easier to explain is the formula of institution which Matthew and Mark relate: "This is my blood of the new testament, which will be (Fuldensis, Amiatinus, etc.: is) poured out for many for the remission of sins" (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ [Mark ὑπὲρ] πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς φεσιν μαρτιῶν. Mark omits the last three words); for it is not less explicit and perspicuous than the prior one, by which the Lord asserted that he gave his body; nor is it permitted to explain this sentence tropically any more than that one; indeed a new reason also comes by which the tropic explanation of the second formula is excluded, if the mode by which the prior covenant was confirmed is compared and the relation of the two testaments between themselves is considered.

For the Lord's words agree with the words of Moses sprinkling the people with the blood of victims offered and confirming the covenant: "This is the blood of the covenant which God has made with you" (Exod. 24:8) or: "This is the blood of the testament which God commanded to you" (Heb. 9:20).

In this alone the two formulas differ, that Moses speaks concerning the old, the Lord concerning the new (Jer. 31:31) covenant or testament.

For we ought to note that the Greek word διαθήκη signifies both a pact between living persons, i.e., a covenant, and a disposition on account of death, i.e., a testament, wherefore it was aptly employed by the Alexandrian interpreters for translating the Hebrew word בְּרִית.

For the relation which intervened between God and the Israelite people after the Law had been given, just as that which is between God and the human race after Christ's death, can and ought to be considered in a twofold manner.

For it is a covenant, insofar as God through Moses and through Christ promulgated certain conditions, which having been fulfilled men would obtain certain promises.

But Christ, inasmuch as he is God-man, is he himself who in the new testament promised his inheritance to his own and wished his promise to be made firm by his own death, as testator; therefore in this manner his promises are a testament, which "is not yet valid while he lives who made the testament" (Heb. 9:17).

Of which testament the promises made to Abraham and his seed are a type, which also were not firm except from the future death of Christ (Gal. 3:15ff.), and of this future death the victims of the old covenant were a type.

Therefore just as the new testament was made firm and confirmed by the blood of Christ, so the typical old covenant ought to be confirmed by the blood of typical sacrifices.

Hence it appears that the words of Moses entirely agree with the words of Christ; wherefore if in Exod. 24:8 true blood, and not a figure or symbol of blood, of typical victims is to be understood, also in the words of institution at Matthew and Mark true blood, and not a figure of blood, of Christ ought to be understood; and the words: "This is my blood of the new testament" exclude all tropic explanation in the same manner as the preceding: "This is my body."

With these things having been premised, we have opened for ourselves a way to explaining the consecratory formula related by the Apostle (and Luke), which although it differs in words from the formula of the two prior Evangelists, cannot differ in substance.

Truly between the two formulas that sole difference intervenes, that according to Matthew and Mark that is directly indicated which is present in the cup after consecration, and indirectly the effect of it is expressed ("this is my blood, by which the new testament is confirmed"), but according to Paul and Luke directly the effect is enunciated and indirectly that which is in the cup ("this cup, i.e., that which is contained in this cup, is the new testament confirmed by my blood").

Therefore Paul and Luke use a tropic locution, when they say the blood of Christ contained in the cup is the testament itself, because the whole depends on this blood, so that without it it would not be at all (cf. Jansenius).

A similar trope others admit (Bellarmine De Euch. I, 11, Lapide, Piconio, Tirinus, etc.), according to whom the testament at Matthew and Mark designates the last will of the Lord himself, at Paul and Luke the authentic instrument in which this last will has been as it were written in his blood and by which the heir acquires the right to receiving the inheritance.

But undeservedly, if I am not mistaken, does Bellarmine deny that in the second expression a trope is present, and the example which he adduces from Gen. 17:13 and Ecclus. 45:21, where circumcision, although it was not except a sign of the covenant, is called covenant (בְּרִית), certainly does not demonstrate that the word covenant in the proper sense signifies both the covenant itself and the sign of the covenant.

And rightly Franzelin warns (De Euchar. 1868, p. 48), "the arguments of Catholic demonstration are not at all vitiated by the principle, which would be false, that Christ could not employ in the institution of the Eucharist any kind of tropic locution"; this alone is supposed, "that Christ's speech was prudent, intelligible, perspicuous."

Among moderns there is dispute concerning the grammatical construction of the phrase. Almost all the ancients suppose that construction which today also is approved by most, that the words ἐν τῷ ἐμ αἵματι are an adjectival apposition to the predicate ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη (cf. Maier, Bisping, etc. — Heinrici, Godet, Goebel, etc.); therefore the completed formula would be: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριόν ἐστιν ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη (ἡ) ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αματι (κεκυρωμένη).

However, on account of the lack of the article (which we have already warned is not infrequently omitted by Paul in such appositions) others less rightly prefer immediately to join the words ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι to the copula ἐστίν and explain: "this cup is on account of my blood, which is contained in it, the new testament" (Meyer, Kling, Brückner, etc.).

There were not lacking formerly some who, led into error by the Latin version of the words at Luke ("this is the cup of the New Testament" etc.), thought that only the pronoun (τοῦτο) was the subject, so that the words: ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αματι came as an apposition to the predicate τὸ ποτήριον (Jansenius, etc.).

Which explanation is of itself rather inept and is altogether excluded by Paul's words.

In the same manner as to the prior formula also Luke, to the second Paul alone adds: "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me," so that he might demonstrate that the Corinthian celebration of the agape was repugnant to this end indicated by the Lord himself.

Although the verb "you drink" is simply placed, it is clearer than light that the discourse is concerning the taking of the consecrated cup alone, so that it is not understood how a certain non-Catholic (Olshausen) explained the sentence in a more general sense concerning every symposium.

Because the command is brought forth not absolutely, as in the prior formula, but with a certain restriction ("as often as you drink"), some Catholics (cf. Bellarmine De Euch. IV, 25; Estius, etc., Maier, Bisping, Drach) think that from it an argument not improbable is deduced, by which it is demonstrated that the taking of the cup is not necessary for all the faithful; but not very rightly.

For proximately and directly the Apostles alone (and their successors) are ordered by these words to do that which they saw Christ do, and are furnished with the power by which they can do it; but the faithful are touched by this command only indirectly, insofar as they also, if they are present at the celebration of the mysteries and receive the body and blood of the Lord either really or spiritually, ought to be mindful of the Lord's passion.

For the Apostle himself teaches this adding:

1 Cor 11:26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

For the future time, which the Vulgate uses ("you will eat," "you will drink"), we better retain the present from the Greek (ἐσθίητε, πίνητε / you eat, you drink), because the sentence is general; the Greek word also καταγγέλλετε, although it can be in the imperative form ("proclaim") and is so explained by not a few (Chrysostom, Thomas, etc., Estius, etc., Drach, etc.), we more rightly take as indicative ("you proclaim") (Theophylact, Pelagius, Cajetan, Natalis, Maier, Lipsius, Reithmayr, Bisping, etc. — Bengel, Heinrici, Godet, etc.).

For the Apostle does not wish to repeat Christ's command by his words, but gives the reason of the command (enim/for); indeed the celebration of the mysteries by force of its nature is always a proclamation of the Lord's death.

Truly "the Lord's death is proclaimed and represented by the continual sacrifice of the Eucharist, when the body of Christ is offered, immolated and set forth really and substantially by force of the very words of Christ pronounced by the priest as bloodless and dead under the species of bread (although by force of concomitance the whole Christ is present under the same species) and the blood separately in the cup by force of the words under the species of wine; the communion also of the body and blood of Christ under either species proclaims and recalls to memory the death of Christ" (Natalis).

Which continual real proclamation will have place, until Christ comes glorious to render judgment, "whence it is understood that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world" (Thomas, cf. Chrysostom, etc.).

And from these words that also seems rightly to be deduced, that the Apostles at the last supper were not only constituted priests, who could do the same thing which Christ did, but at the same time also were rendered suitable, who would establish for themselves successors to celebrate the mysteries in the same manner until the end of the world.

From the fact that Christ ordered this mystery to be celebrated continually in his memory and the mystery by its very nature is a continual proclamation of the Lord's passion, the Apostle now concludes that whoever has treated these mysteries unworthily is subject to a great crime, and therefore it is not permitted to approach them without diligent preparation (1 Cor 11:27-29).

CONTINUE