|
|
The Blessed Eucharist as a
Sacrament
Since Christ is present under
the appearances of bread and wine in a sacramental way, the Blessed
Eucharist is unquestionably a
sacrament
of the Church. Indeed, in the Eucharist the definition of a
Christian
sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by
Christ" is verified.
The
investigation into the precise nature of the Blessed Sacrament of
the Altar, whose existence
Protestants
do not deny, is beset with a number of difficulties. Its essence
certainly does not consist in the Consecration or the Communion, the
former being merely the sacrificial action, the latter the reception
of the sacrament, and not the sacrament itself. The question may
eventually be reduced to this whether or not the sacramentality is
to be sought for in the Eucharistic species or in the Body and Blood
of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority of theologians rightly
respond to the query by saying, that neither the species themselves
nor the Body and Blood of Christ by themselves, but the union of
both factors constitute the moral whole of the Sacrament of the
Altar. The species undoubtedly belong to the essence of the
sacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the
invisible Body of Christ, that the Eucharist possesses the outward
sign of the sacrament. Equally certain is it, that the Body and the
Blood of Christ belong to the concept of the essence, because it is
not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food
of our souls but Christ concealed beneath the appearances. The
twofold number of the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine does
not interfere with the unity of the sacrament; for the idea of
refection embraces both eating and drinking, nor do our meals in
consequence double their number. In the doctrine of the
Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass, there is a question of even higher relation, in
that the separated species of bread and wine also represent the
mystical separation of
Christ's
Body and Blood or the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb.
The Sacrament of the Altar may be regarded under the same aspects as
the other sacraments, provided only it be ever kept in view that the
Eucharist is a permanent sacrament. Every sacrament may be
considered either in itself or with reference to the persons whom it
concerns.
Passing over
the Institution, which is discussed elsewhere in connection with the
words of Institution, the only essentially important points
remaining are the outward sign (matter and form) and inward grace
(effects of Communion), to which may be added the necessity of
Communion for salvation. In regard to the persons concerned, we
distinguish between the minister of the Eucharist and its recipient
or subject.
(1) The
Matter or Eucharistic Elements
There are two
Eucharistic elements, bread and wine, which constitute the remote
matter of the Sacrament of the Altar, while the proximate matter can
be none other than the Eucharistic appearances under which the Body
and Blood of Christ are truly present.
(a) The first
element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the
"confection of the Sacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum:
De defectibus, sect. 3), Being true bread, the Host must be baked,
since mere flour is not bread. Since, moreover, the bread required
is that formed of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed
for validity, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley,
Indian corn or maize, though these are all botanically classified as
grain (frumentum), On the other hand, the different varieties
of wheat (as spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid, inasmuch as they can
be proved botanically to be genuine wheat. The necessity of wheaten
bread is deduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The
Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may
be remarked, that in Scripture bread (artos), without
any qualifying addition, always signifies wheaten bread. No doubt,
too, Christ adhered unconditionally to the Jewish custom of using
only wheaten bread in the Passover Supper, and by the words, "Do
this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all
succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterrupted tradition,
whether it be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of the
Church, shows wheaten bread to have played such an essential part,
that even
Protestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread
as a proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
The Church
maintains an easier position in the controversy respecting the use
of fermented or unfermented bread. By leavened bread (fermentum,
zymos) is meant such wheaten bread as requires leaven or yeast
in its preparation and baking, while unleavened bread (azyma,
azymon) is formed from a mixture of wheaten flour and water,
which has been kneaded to dough and then baked. After the Greek
Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to
palliate the renewed rupture with Rome by means of the controversy,
concerning unleavened bread, the two Churches, in the Decree of
Union at Florence, in 1439, came to the unanimous dogmatic decision,
that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not
interfere with the confection of the sacrament, though for just
reasons based upon the Church's discipline and practice, the Latins
were obliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held
on to the use of leavened (cf, Denzinger, Enchirid., Freiburg, 1908,
no, 692), Since the Schismatics had before the Council of Florence
entertained doubts as to the validity of the Latin custom, a brief
defense of the use of unleavened bread will not be out of place
here. Pope Leo IX had as early as 1054 issued a protest against
Michael Cærularius (cf. Migne, P. L., CXLIII, 775), in which he
referred to the Scriptural fact, that according to the three
Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated "on the first day of the
azymes" and so the custom of the Western Church received its solemn
sanction from the example of Christ Himself. The Jews, moreover,
were accustomed even the day before the fourteenth of Nisan to get
rid of all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings, that
so they might from that time on partake exclusively of the so-called
mazzoth as bread. As regards tradition, it is not for us to
settle the dispute of learned authorities, as to whether or not in
the first six or eight centuries the Latins also celebrated Mass
with leavened bread (Sirmond, Döllinger, Kraus) or have observed the
present custom ever since the time of the Apostles (Mabillon, Probst).
Against the Greeks it suffices to call attention to the historical
fact that in the Orient the Maronites and Armenians have used
unleavened bread from time immemorial, and that according to Origen
(In Matt., XII, n. 6) the people of the East "sometimes", therefore
not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy. Besides,
there is considerable force in the theological argument that the
fermenting process with yeast and other leaven, does not affect the
substance of the bread, but merely its quality. The reasons of
congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which
would have us consider it as a beautiful symbol of the
hypostatic
union, as well as an attractive representation of the savor of
this heavenly Food, will be most willingly accepted, provided only
that due consideration be given to the grounds of propriety set
forth by the Latins with St. Thomas Aquinas
(III:74:4)
namely, the example of Christ, the aptitude of unleavened bread to
be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His Sacred Body, free from
all corruption of sin, and finally the instruction of St, Paul (I
Cor., v,8) to keep the Pasch not with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth".
(b) The
second Eucharistic element required is wine of the grape (vinum
de vite). Hence are excluded as invalid, not only the juices
extracted and prepared from other fruits (as cider and perry), but
also the so-called artificial wines, even if their chemical
constitution is identical with the genuine juice of the grape. The
necessity of wine of the grape is not so much the result of the
authoritative decision of the Church, as it is presupposed by her
(Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. iv), and is based upon the
example and command of Christ, Who at the Last Supper certainly
converted the natural wine of grapes into His Blood, This is deduced
partly from the rite of the Passover, which required the head of the
family to pass around the "cup of benediction" (calix
benedictionis) containing the wine of grapes, partly, and
especially, from the express declaration of Christ, that henceforth
He would not drink of the "fruit of the vine" (genimen vitis).
The Catholic Church is aware of no other tradition and in this
respect she has ever been one with the Greeks. The ancient
Hydroparastatæ, or Aquarians, who used water instead of wine, were
heretics in her eyes. The counter-argument of Ad. Harnack ["Texte
und Untersuchungen", new series, VII, 2 (1891), 115 sqq.], that the
most ancient of Churches was indifferent as to the use of wine, and
more concerned with the action of eating and drinking than with the
elements of bread and wine, loses all its force in view not only of
the earliest literature on the subject (the Didache, Ignatius,
Justin,
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus,
Tertullian,
and Cyprian),
but also of non-Catholic and apocryphal writings, which bear
testimony to the use of bread and wine as the only and necessary
elements of the Blessed Sacrament. On the other hand, a very ancient
law of the Church which, however, has nothing to do with the
validity of the sacrament, prescribes that a little water be added
to the wine before the Consecration (Decr. pro Armenis: aqua
modicissima), a practice, whose legitimacy the Council of Trent
(Sess. XXII, can. ix) established under pain of
anathema.
The rigor of this law of the Church may be traced to the ancient
custom of the Romans and Jews, who mixed water with the strong
southern wines (see Proverbs 9:2), to the expression of
calix mixtus found in
Justin (Apol.,
I, lxv), Irenæus (Adv. hær., V, ii, 3), and
Cyprian (Ep.
lxiii, ad Cæcil., n. 13 sq.), and especially to the deep symbolical
meaning contained in the mingling, inasmuch as thereby are
represented the flowing of blood and water from the side of the
Crucified Savior and the intimate union of the faithful with Christ
(cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. vii).
(2) The
Sacramental Form or the Words of Consecration
In proceeding
to verify the form, which is always made up of words, we may start
from the dubitable fact, that Christ did not consecrate by the mere
fiat of His omnipotence, which found no expression in articulate
utterance, but by pronouncing the words of Institution: "This is my
body . . . this is my blood", and that by the addition: "Do this for
a commemoration of me", He commanded the Apostles to follow His
example. Were the words of Institution a mere declarative utterance
of the conversion, which might have taken place in the "benediction"
unannounced and articulately unexpressed, the Apostles and their
successors would, according to
Christ's
example and mandate, have been obliged to consecrate in this mute
manner also, a consequence which is altogether at variance with the
deposit of faith. It is true, that
Pope Innocent
III (De Sacro altaris myst., IV, vi) before his elevation to the
pontificate did hold the opinion, which later theologians branded as
"temerarious", that Christ consecrated without words by means of the
mere "benediction". Not many theologians, however, followed him in
this regard, among the few being Ambrose Catharinus, Cheffontaines,
and Hoppe, by far the greater number preferring to stand by the
unanimous testimony of the Fathers. Meanwhile,
Innocent III
also insisted most urgently that at least in the case of the
celebrating priest, the words of Institution were prescribed as the
sacramental form. It was, moreover, not until its comparatively
recent adherence in the seventeenth century to the famous "Confessio
fidei orthodoxa" of Peter Mogilas (cf. Kimmel, "Monum. fidei eccl.
orient.", Jena, 1850, I, p. 180), that the Schismatical Greek Church
adopted the view, according to which the priest does not at all
consecrate by virtue of the words of Institution, but only by means
of the Epiklesis occurring shortly after them and expressing in the
Oriental Liturgies a petition to the Holy Spirit, "that the bread
and wine may be converted into the Body and Blood of Christ". Were
the Greeks justified in maintaining this position, the immediate
result would be, that the Latins who have no such thing as the
Epiklesis in their present Liturgy, would possess neither the true
Sacrifice of the Mass nor the Holy Eucharist. Fortunately, however,
the Greeks can be shown the error of their ways from their own
writings, since it can be proved, that they themselves formerly
placed the form of Transubstantiation in the words of Institution.
Not only did such renowned Fathers as
Justin (Apol.,
I, lxvi), Irenæus (Adv. hær., V, ii, 3),
Gregory of
Nyssa (Or. catech., xxxvii),
Chrysostom
(Hom. i, de prod. Judæ, n. 6), and John Damascene (De fid. orth.,
IV, xiii) hold this view, but the ancient Greek Liturgies bear
testimony to it, so that Cardinal Bessarion in 1439 at Florence
called the attention of his fellow-countrymen to the fact, that as
soon as the words of Institution have been pronounced, supreme
homage and adoration are due to the Holy Eucharist, even though the
famous Epiklesis follows some time after.
The objection
that the mere historical recitation of the words of Institution
taken from the narrative of the Last Supper possesses no intrinsic
consecratory force, would be well founded, did the priest of the
Latin Church merely intend by means of them to narrate some
historical event rather than pronounce them with the practical
purpose of effecting the conversion, or if he pronounced them in his
own name and person instead of the Person of Christ, whose minister
and instrumental cause he is. Neither of the two suppositions holds
in the case of a priest who really intends to celebrate Mass. Hence,
though the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously
maintaining that they consecrate exclusively in their Epiklesis,
they do, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, actually
consecrate by means of the words of Institution contained in their
Liturgies, if Christ has instituted these words as the words of
Consecration and the form of the sacrament. We may in fact go a step
farther and assert, that the words of Institution constitute the
only and wholly adequate form of the Eucharist and that,
consequently, the words of the Epiklesis possess no inherent
consecratory value. The contention that the words of the Epiklesis
have joint essential value and constitute the partial form of the
sacrament, was indeed supported by individual Latin theologians, as
Toutée, Renaudot, and Lebrun. Though this opinion cannot be
condemned as erroneous in faith, since it allows to the words of
Institution their essential, though partial, consecratory value,
appears nevertheless to be intrinsically repugnant. For, since the
act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a state of
suspense, but is completed in an instant of time, there arises the
dilemma: Either the words of Institution alone and, therefore, not
the Epiklesis, are productive of the conversion, or the words of the
Epiklesis alone have such power and not the words of Institution. Of
more considerable importance is the circumstance that the whole
question came up for discussion in the council for union held at
Florence in 1439. Pope Eugene IV urged the Greeks to come to a
unanimous agreement with the Roman faith and subscribe to the words
of Institution as alone constituting the sacramental form, and to
drop the contention that the words of the Epiklesis also possessed a
partial consecratory force. But when the Greeks, not without
foundation, pleaded that a dogmatic decision would reflect with
shame upon their whole ecclesiastical past, the ecumenical synod was
satisfied with the oral declaration of Cardinal Bessarion recorded
in the minutes of the council for 5 July, 1439 (P. G., CLXI, 491),
namely, that the Greeks follow the universal teaching of the
Fathers, especially of "blessed
John Chrysostom,
familiarly known to us", according to whom the "Divine words of
Our Redeemer
contain the full and entire force of Transubstantiation".
The venerable
antiquity of the Oriental Epiklesis, its peculiar position in the
Canon of the Mass, and its interior spiritual unction, oblige the
theologian to determine its dogmatic value and to account for its
use. Take, for instance, the Epiklesis of the Ethiopian Liturgy: "We
implore and beseech Thee, O Lord, to send forth the Holy Spirit and
His Power upon this Bread and Chalice and convert them into the Body
and Blood of
Our Lord Jesus Christ." Since this prayer always follows after
the words of Institution have been pronounced, the theological
question arises, as to how it may be made to harmonize with the
words of Christ, which alone possess the consecrated power. Two
explanations have been suggested which, however, can be merged in
one. The first view considers the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration
of the fact, that the conversion has already taken place, and that
in the conversion just as essential a part is to be attributed to
the Holy Spirit as Co-Consecrator as in the allied mystery of the
Incarnation. Since, however, because of the brevity of the actual
instant of conversion, the part taken by the Holy Spirit could not
be expressed, the Epiklesis takes us back in imagination to the
precious moment and regards the Consecration as just about to occur.
A similar purely psychological retrospective transfer is met with in
other portions of the Liturgy, as in the Mass for the Dead, wherein
the Church prays for the departed as if they were still upon their
bed of agony and could still be rescued from the gates of
hell. Thus
considered, the Epiklesis refers us back to the Consecration as the
center about which all the significance contained in its words
revolves. A second explanation is based, not upon the enacted
Consecration, but upon the approaching Communion, inasmuch as the
latter, being the effective means of uniting us more closely in the
organized body of the Church, brings forth in our hearts the
mystical Christ, as is read in the Roman Canon of the Mass: "Ut
nobis corpus et sanguis fiat", i.e. that it may be made for
us the body and blood. It was in this purely mystical manner
that the Greeks themselves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at
the Council of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI, 106). Yet
since much more is contained in the plain words than this true and
deep mysticism, it is desirable to combine both explanations into
one, and so we regard the Epiklesis, both in point of liturgy and of
time, as the significant connecting link, placed midway between the
Consecration and the Communion in order to emphasize the part taken
by the Holy Spirit in the Consecration of bread and wine, and, on
the other hand, with the help of the same Holy Spirit to obtain the
realization of the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by
their fruitful effects on both priest and people.
(3) The
Effects of the Holy Eucharist
The doctrine
of the Church regarding the effects or the fruits of Holy Communion
centres around two ideas: (a) the union with Christ by love and (b)
the spiritual repast of the soul. Both ideas are often verified in
one and same effect of Holy Communion.
(a) The
union with Christ by love
The first and
principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is union with Christ by love
(Decr. pro Armenis: adunatio ad Christum), which union as
such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the Host, but
in the spiritual and mystical union with
Jesus by
the theological virtue of love. Christ Himself designated the idea
of Communion as a union love: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
blood, abideth in me, and I in him" (John, vi, 57). St. Cyril of
Alexandria (Hom. in Joan., IV, xvii) beautifully represents this
mystical union as the fusion of our being into that of the God-man,
as "when melted wax is fused with other wax". Since the Sacrament of
Love is not satisfied with an increase of habitual love only, but
tends especially to fan the flame of actual love to an intense
ardor, the Holy Eucharist is specifically distinguished from the
other sacraments, and hence it is precisely in this latter effect
that Suarez, recognizes the so-called "grace of the sacrament",
which otherwise is so hard to discern. It stands to reason that the
essence of this union by love consists neither in a natural union
with Jesus
analogous to that between soul and body, nor in a
hypostatic
union of the soul with the Person of the Word, nor finally in a
pantheistical deification of the communicant, but simply in a moral
but wonderful union with Christ by the bond of the most ardent
charity. Hence the chief effect of a worthy Communion is to a
certain extent a foretaste of heaven, in fact the anticipation and
pledge of our future union with
God by love
in the Beatific Vision. He alone can properly estimate the precious
boon which Catholics possess in the Holy Eucharist, who knows how to
ponder these ideas of Holy Communion to their utmost depth. The
immediate result of this union with Christ by love is the bond of
charity existing between the faithful themselves as St. Paul says:
"For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one
bread" (I Cor., x, 17). And so the Communion of Saints is not merely
an ideal union by faith and grace, but an eminently real union,
mysteriously constituted, maintained, and guaranteed by partaking in
common of one and the same Christ.
(b) The
spiritual repast of the soul
A second
fruit of this union with Christ by love is an increase of
sanctifying grace in the soul of the worthy communicant. Here let it
be remarked at the outset, that the Holy Eucharist does not per
se constitute a person in the state of grace as do the
sacraments of the dead (baptism and penance), but presupposes such a
state. It is, therefore, one of the sacraments of the living. It is
as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal sin to receive
this Heavenly Bread with profit, as it is for a corpse to assimilate
food and drink. Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. can. v), in
opposition to
Luther and
Calvin, purposely defined, that the "chief fruit of the
Eucharist does not consist in the forgiveness of sins". For though
Christ said of the Chalice: "This is my blood of the new testament,
which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi,
28), He had in view an effect of the sacrifice, not of the
sacrament; for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto
remission of sins, but shed for that purpose. It is for this very
reason that St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 28) demands that rigorous
"self-examination", in order to avoid the heinous offense of being
guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord by "eating and drinking
unworthily", and that the Fathers insist upon nothing so
energetically as upon a pure and innocent conscience. In spite of
the principles just laid down, the question might be asked, if the
Blessed Sacrament could not at times per accidens free the
communicant from mortal sin, if he approached the Table of the Lord
unconscious of the sinful state of his soul. Presupposing what is
self-evident, that there is question neither of a conscious
sacrilegious Communion nor a lack of imperfect contrition (attritio),
which would altogether hinder the justifying effect of the
sacrament, theologians incline to the opinion, that in such
exceptional cases the Eucharist can restore the soul to the state of
grace, but all without exception deny the possibility of the
reviviscence of a sacrilegious or unfruitful Communion after the
restoration of the soul's proper moral condition has been effected,
the Eucharist being different in this respect from the sacraments
which imprint a character upon the soul (baptism, confirmation, and
Holy orders). Together with the increase of sanctifying grace there
is associated another effect, namely, a certain spiritual relish or
delight of soul (delectatio spiritualis). Just as food and
drink delight and refresh the heart of man, so does this "Heavenly
Bread containing within itself all sweetness" produce in the soul of
the devout communicant ineffable bliss, which, however, is not to be
confounded with an emotional joy of the soul or with sensible
sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of a special grace,
its true nature is manifested in a certain cheerful and willing
fervor in all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the
conscious fulfillment of the duties of one's state of life, a
disposition of soul which is perfectly compatible with interior
desolation and spiritual dryness. A good Communion is recognized
less in the transitory sweetness of the emotions than in its lasting
practical effects on the conduct of our daily lives.
(c)
Forgiveness of venial sin and preservation from mortal sin
Though Holy
Communion does not per se remit mortal sin, it has
nevertheless the third effect of "blotting out venial sin and
preserving the soul from mortal sin" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII,
cap. ii). The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as
well. The destruction of venial sin and of all affection to it, is
readily understood on the basis of the two central ideas mentioned
above. Just as material food banishes minor bodily weaknesses and
preserves man's physical strength from being impaired, so does this
food of our souls remove our lesser spiritual ailments and preserve
us from spiritual death. As a union based upon love, the Holy
Eucharist cleanses with its purifying flame the smallest stains
which adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as an
effective prophylactic against grievous sin. It only remains for us
to ascertain with clearness the manner in which this preservative
influence against relapse into mortal sin is exerted. According to
the teaching of the Roman Catechism, it is effected by the allaying
of concupiscence, which is the chief source of deadly sin,
particularly of impurity. Therefore it is that spiritual writers
recommend frequent Communion as the most effective remedy against
impurity, since its powerful influence is felt even after other
means have proved unavailing (cf. St. Thomas:
III:79:6).
Whether or not the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive to the
remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, is disputed by St.
Thomas
(III:79:5), since the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar was not
instituted as a means of satisfaction; it does, however, produce an
indirect effect in this regard, which is proportioned to the
communicant's love and devotion. The case is different as regards
the effects of grace in behalf of a third party. The pious custom of
the faithful of "offering their Communion" for relations, friends,
and the souls departed, is to be considered as possessing
unquestionable value, in the first place, because an earnest prayer
of petition in the presence of the Spouse of our souls will readily
find a hearing, and then, because the fruits of Communion as a means
of satisfaction for sin may be applied to a third person, and
especially per modum suffragii to the souls in
purgatory.
(d) The
pledge of our resurrection
As a last
effect we may mention that the Eucharist is the "pledge of our
glorious
resurrection and
eternal
happiness" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii), according to
the promise of Christ: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last
day." Hence the chief reason why the ancient Fathers, as Ignatius (Ephes.,
20), Irenæus (Adv. haer., IV, xviii, 4), and
Tertullian
(De resurr. carn., viii), as well as later patristic writers,
insisted so strongly upon our future
resurrection,
was the circumstance that it is the door by which we enter upon
unending happiness. There can be nothing incongruous or improper in
the fact that the body also shares in this effect of Communion,
since by its physical contact with the Eucharist species, and hence
(indirectly) with the living Flesh of Christ, it acquires a moral
right to its future
resurrection,
even as the
Blessed Mother of God, inasmuch as she was the former abode of
the Word made flesh, acquired a moral claim to her own bodily
assumption into heaven. The further discussion as to whether some
"physical quality" (Contenson) or a "sort of germ of immortality" (Heimbucher)
is implanted in the body of the communicant, has no sufficient
foundation in the teaching of the Fathers and may, therefore, be
dismissed without any injury to dogma.
(4) The
Necessity of the Holy Eucharist for Salvation
We
distinguish two kinds of necessity,
In the first
sense a thing or action is necessary because without it a given end
cannot be attained; the eye, e.g. is necessary for vision. The
second sort of necessity is that which is imposed by the free will
of a superior, e.g. the necessity of fasting. As regards Communion a
further distinction must be made between infants and adults. It is
easy to prove that in the case of infants Holy Communion is not
necessary to salvation, either as a means or as of precept. Since
they have not as yet attained to the use of reason, they are free
from the obligation of positive laws; consequently, the only
question is whether Communion is, like Baptism, necessary for them
as a means of salvation. Now the Council of Trent under pain of
anathema,
solemnly rejects such a necessity (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and declares
that the custom of the primitive Church of giving Holy Communion to
children was not based upon the erroneous belief of its necessity to
salvation, but upon the circumstances of the times (Sess. XXI, cap.
iv). Since according to St. Paul's teaching (Rom., viii, 1) there is
"no condemnation" for those who have been baptized, every child that
dies in its baptismal innocence, even without Communion, must go
straight to heaven. This latter position was that usually taken by
the Fathers, with the exception of St. Augustine, who from the
universal custom of the Communion of children drew the conclusion of
its necessity for salvation (see
COMMUNION OF
CHILDREN). On the other hand, Communion is prescribed for
adults, not only by the law of the Church, but also by a Divine
command (John, vi, 50 sqq .), though for its absolute necessity as a
means to salvation there is no more evidence than in the case of
infants. For such a necessity could be established only on the
supposition that Communion per se constituted a person in the state
of grace or that this state could not be preserved without
Communion. Neither supposition is correct. Not the first, for the
simple reason that the Blessed Eucharist, being a sacrament of the
living, presupposes the state of sanctifying grace; not the second,
because in case of necessity, such as might arise, e.g., in a long
sea-voyage, the Eucharistic graces may be supplied by actual graces.
It is only when viewed in this light that we can understand how the
primitive Church, without going counter to the Divine command,
withheld the Eucharist from certain sinners even on their deathbeds.
There is, however, a moral necessity on the part of adults to
receive Holy Communion, as a means, for instance, of overcoming
violent temptation, or as a viaticum for persons in danger of death.
Eminent divines, like Suarez, claim that the Eucharist, if not
absolutely necessary, is at least a relatively and morally necessary
means to salvation, in the sense that no adult can long sustain his
spiritual, supernatural life who neglects on principle to approach
Holy Communion. This view is supported, not only by the solemn and
earnest words of Christ, when He Promised the Eucharist, and by the
very nature of the sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of
our souls, but also by the fact of the helplessness and perversity
of human nature and by the daily experience of confessors and
directors of souls.
Since Christ
has left us no definite precept as to the frequency with which He
desired us to receive Him in Holy Communion, it belongs to the
Church to determine the Divine command more accurately and prescribe
what the limits of time shall be for the reception of the sacrament.
In the course of centuries the Church's discipline in this respect
has undergone considerable change. Whereas the early
Christians
were accustomed to receive at every celebration of the Liturgy,
which probably was not celebrated daily in all places, or were in
the habit of Communicating privately in their own homes every day of
the week, a falling-off in the frequency of Communion is noticeable
since the fourth century. Even in his time Pope Fabian (236-250)
made it obligatory to approach the Holy Table three times a year,
viz, at
Christmas,
Easter, and Pentecost, and this custom was still prevalent in
the sixth century [cf. Synod of Agde (506), c. xviii]. Although St.
Augustine left daily Communion to the free choice of the individual,
his admonition, in force even at the present day, was: Sic vive,
ut quotidie possis sumere (De dono persev., c. xiv), i e "So
live that you may receive every day." From the tenth to the
thirteenth century, the practice of going to Communion more
frequently during the year was rather rare among the laity and
obtained only in cloistered communities. St. Bonaventure reluctantly
allowed the lay brothers of his monastery to approach the Holy Table
weekly, whereas the rule of the Canons of Chrodegang prescribed this
practice. When the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215), held under
Innocent III,
mitigated the former severity of the Church's law to the extent that
all Catholics of both sexes were to communicate at least once a year
and this during the paschal season, St. Thomas
(III:80:10)
ascribed this ordinance chiefly to the "reign of impiety and the
growing cold of charity". The precept of the yearly paschal
Communion was solemnly reiterated by the Council of Trent (Sess.
XIII, can. ix). The mystical theologians of the later
Middle Ages,
as Tauler, St. Vincent Ferrer, Savonarola, and later on St Philip
Neri, the
Jesuit Order, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori
were zealous champions of frequent Communion; whereas the Jansenists,
under the leadership of Antoine Arnauld (De la fréquente communion,
Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed and demanded as a condition for
every Communion the "most perfect penitential dispositions and the
purest love of
God". This rigorism was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII (7
Dec., 1690); the Council Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. viii; Sess. XXII,
cap. vi) and
Innocent XI (12 Feb., 1679) had already emphasized the
permissibility of even daily Communion. To root out the last
vestiges of Jansenistic rigorism,
Pius X
issued a decree (24 Dec., 1905) wherein he allows and recommends
daily Communion to the entire laity and requires but two conditions
for its permissibility, namely, the state of grace and a right and
pious intention. Concerning the non-requirement of the twofold
species as a means necessary to salvation see
COMMUNION UNDER
BOTH KINDS.
(5) The
Minister of the Eucharist
The Eucharist
being a permanent sacrament, and the confection (confectio)
and the reception (susceptio) thereof being separated from
each other by an interval of time, the minister may be and in fact
is twofold: (a) the minister of consecration and (b) the minister of
administration.
(a) The
minister of consecration
In the early
Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed
priestly powers even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79);
and in the
Middle Ages the
Albigenses
and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of
upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but the
priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys
of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament".
Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and
the laity,
Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a
"universal priesthood" (cf. I Peter, ii, 5), that every layman was
qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to
consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent
opposed this teaching of
Luther, and
not only confirmed anew the existence of a "special priesthood" (Sess.
XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively declared that "Christ ordained
the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other
priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this decision it was also declared
that the power of consecrating and that of offering the Holy
Sacrifice are identical. Both ideas are mutually reciprocal. To the
category of "priests" (sacerdos, iereus) belong, according to
the teaching of the Church, only bishops and priests; deacons,
subdeacons, and those in minor orders are excluded from this
dignity.
Scripturally
considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of
validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not
address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but
exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood;
hence the latter alone can validly consecrate. It is evident that
tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in
no other. We learn from the writings of
Justin,
Origen, Cyprian,
Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies,
that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who
appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic
Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these
functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. When
in the fourth century the abuse crept in of priests receiving Holy
Communion at the hands of deacons, the First Council of Nicæa (325)
issued a strict prohibition to the effect, that "they who offer the
Holy Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands
of those who have no such power of offering", because such a
practice is contrary to "rule and custom". The sect of the
Luciferians was founded by an apostate deacon named Hilary, and
possessed neither bishops nor priests; wherefore St. Jerome
concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants
they no longer retained the Eucharist. It is clear that the Church
has always denied the laity the power to consecrate. When the
Arians
accused St. Athanasius (d. 373) of sacrilege, because supposedly at
his bidding the consecrated Chalice had been destroyed during the
Mass which was being celebrated by a certain Ischares, they had to
withdraw their charges as wholly untenable when it was proved that
Ischares had been invalidly ordained by a pseudo-bishop named
Colluthos and, therefore, could neither validly consecrate nor offer
the Holy Sacrifice.
(b) The
minster of administration
The dogmatic
interest which attaches to the minister of administration or
distribution is not so great, for the reason that the Eucharist
being a permanent sacrament, any communicant having the proper
dispositions could receive it validly, whether he did so from the
hand of a priest, or layman, or woman. Hence,the question is
concerned, not with the validity, but with the liceity of
administration. In this matter the Church alone has the right to
decide, ,and her regulations regarding the Communion rite may vary
according to the circumstances of the times. In general it is of
Divine right, that the laity should as a rule receive only from the
consecrated hand of the priest (cf. Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. viii).
The practice of the laity giving themselves Holy Communion was
formerly, and is today, allowed only in case of necessity. In
ancient
Christian times it was customary for the faithful to take the
Blessed Sacrament to their homes and Communicate privately, a
practice (Tertullian,
Ad uxor., II, v), to which, even as late as the fourth century, St.
Basil makes reference (Ep. xciii, ad Cæsariam). Up to the ninth
century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the
right hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it
to his own mouth; women, from the fourth century onward, were
required in this ceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right
hand. The Precious Blood was in early times received directly from
the Chalice, but in Rome the practice, after the eighth century, was
to receive it through a small tube (fistula); at present this
is observed only in the pope's Mass. The latter method of drinking
the Chalice spread to other localities, in particular to the
Cistercian monasteries, where the practice was partially continued
into the eighteenth century.
Whereas the
priest is both by Divine and ecclesiastical right the ordinary
dispenser (minister ordinarius) of the sacrament, the deacon
is by virtue of his order the extraordinary minister (minister
extraordinarius), yet he may not administer the sacrament except
ex delegatione, i.e. with the permission of the bishop or priest. As
has already been mentioned above, the deacons were accustomed in the
Early Church to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who were absent
from Divine service, as well as to present the Chalice to the laity
during the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries (cf. Cyprian, De
lapsis, nn. 17, 25), and this practice was observed until Communion
under both kinds was discontinued. In St, Thomas' time
(III:82:3),
the deacons were allowed to administer only the Chalice to the
laity, and in case of necessity the Sacred Host also, at the bidding
of the bishop or priest. After the Communion of the laity under the
species of wine had been abolished, the deacon's powers were more
and more restricted. According to a decision of the Sacred
Congregation of Rites (25 Feb., 1777), still in force, the deacon is
to administer Holy Communion only in case of necessity and with the
approval of his bishop or his pastor. (Cf. Funk, "Der Kommunionritus"
in his "Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen",
Paderborn, 1897, I, pp. 293 sqq.; see also "Theol. praktische
Quartalschrift", Linz, 1906, LIX, 95 sqq.)
(6) The
Recipient of the Eucharist
The two
conditions of objective capacity (capacitas, aptitudo) and
subjective worthiness (dignitas) must be carefully
distinguished. Only the former is of dogmatic interest, while the
latter is treated in moral theology (see
COMMUNION
and COMMUNION
OF THE SICK). The first requisite of aptitude or capacity is
that the recipient be a "human being", since it was for mankind only
that Christ instituted this Eucharistic food of souls and commanded
its reception. This condition excludes not only irrational animals,
but angels also; for neither possess human souls, which alone can be
nourished by this food unto eternal life. The expression "Bread of
Angels" (Ps, lxxvii, 25) is a mere metaphor, which indicates that in
the Beatific Vision where He is not concealed under the sacramental
veils, the angels spiritually feast upon the God-man, this same
prospect being held out to those who shall gloriously rise on the
Last Day. The second requisite, the immediate deduction from the
first, is that the recipient be still in the "state of pilgrimage"
to the next life (status viatoris), since it is only in the
present life that man can validly Communicate. Exaggerating the
Eucharist's necessity as a means to salvation, Rosmini advanced the
untenable opinion that at the moment of death this heavenly food is
supplied in the next world to children who had just departed this
life, and that Christ could have given Himself in Holy Communion to
the holy souls in Limbo, in order to "render them apt for the
vision of God".
This evidently impossible view, together with other propositions of
Rosmini, was condemned by Leo XIII (14 Dec., 1887). In the fourth
century the Synod of Hippo (393) forbade the practice of giving Holy
Communion to the dead as a gross abuse, and assigned as a reason,
that "corpses were no longer capable of eating". Later synods, as
those of Auxerre (578) and the Trullan (692), took very energetic
measures to put a stop to a custom so difficult to eradicate. The
third requisite, finally, is baptism, without which no other
sacrament can be validly received; for in its very concept baptism
is the "spiritual door" to the means of grace contained in the
Church. A Jew or
Mohammedan
might, indeed, materially receive the Sacred Host, but there could
be no question in this case of a sacramental reception, even though
by a perfect act of contrition or of the pure love of
God he had
put himself in the state of sanctifying grace. Hence in the Early
Church the catechumens were strictly excluded from the Eucharist.
|
