 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Since Christ is present under the appearances ofbread andwine in asacramental way, the Blessed Eucharist is unquestionably asacrament of theChurch. Indeed, in the Eucharist the definition of aChristian sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" is verified.
The investigation into the precisenature of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, whose existenceProtestants do not deny, is beset with a number of difficulties. Itsessence certainly does not consist in theConsecration or the Communion, the former being merely thesacrificial action, the latter the reception of thesacrament, and not thesacrament itself. The question may eventually be reduced to this whether or not the sacramentality is to be sought for in the Eucharisticspecies or in the Body and Blood of Christ hidden beneath them. The majority oftheologians rightly respond to the query by saying, that neither thespecies 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. Thespecies undoubtedly belong to theessence of thesacrament, since it is by means of them, and not by means of the invisible Body ofChrist, that the Eucharist possesses the outward sign of thesacrament. Equallycertain is it, that the Body and the Blood of Christ belong to the concept of theessence, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances which are given for the food of oursouls but Christ concealed beneath the appearances. The twofold number of the Eucharistic elements ofbread andwine does not interfere with the unity of thesacrament; for theidea of refection embraces both eating and drinking, nor do our meals in consequence double their number. In thedoctrine of theHoly Sacrifice of the Mass, there is a question of even higher relation, in that the separatedspecies ofbread andwine also represent the mystical separation ofChrist's Body and Blood or the unbloodySacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb. The Sacrament of the Altar may be regarded under the same aspects as the othersacraments, provided only it be ever kept in view that the Eucharist is a permanentsacrament. Everysacrament may be considered either in itself or with reference to thepersons 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 andform) and inward grace (effects of Communion), to which may be added thenecessity of Communion forsalvation. In regard to thepersons concerned, we distinguish between theminister of the Eucharist and its recipient or subject.
There are two Eucharistic elements,bread andwine, which constitute the remotematter of the Sacrament of the Altar, while the proximatematter can be none other than the Eucharistic appearances under which the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present.
The first element is wheaten bread (panis triticeus), without which the "confection of theSacrament does not take place" (Missale Romanum: De defectibus, sect. 3), Beingtrue bread, theHost 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 beproved botanically to be genuine wheat. Thenecessity of wheaten bread isdeduced immediately from the words of Institution: "The Lord took bread" (ton arton), in connection with which it may be remarked, that inScripturebread (artos), without any qualifying addition, always signifies wheaten bread. No doubt, too, Christ adhered unconditionally to theJewish custom of using only wheaten bread in thePassover Supper, and by the words, "Do this for a commemoration of me", commanded its use for all succeeding times. In addition to this, uninterruptedtradition, whether it be the testimony of the Fathers or the practice of theChurch, shows wheaten bread to have played such anessential part, that evenProtestants would be loath to regard rye bread or barley bread as a proper element for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
TheChurch 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 PatriarchMichael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to palliate the renewed rupture withRome by means of the controversy, concerning unleavened bread, the two Churches, in the Decree of Union atFlorence, in 1439, came to the unanimousdogmatic decision, that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not interfere with the confection of thesacrament, though for just reasons based upon theChurch'sdiscipline and practice, the Latins wereobliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held on to the use of leavened (cf,Denzinger, Enchirid., Freiburg, 1908, no, 692), Since theSchismatics had before theCouncil of Florence entertaineddoubts 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 againstMichael Cærularius (cf.Migne, P.L., CXLIII, 775), in which he referred to theScriptural fact, that according to the threeSynoptics theLast Supper was celebrated "on the first day of theazymes" and so thecustom of theWestern Church received its solemn sanction from the example ofChrist Himself. TheJews, 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 thattime on partake exclusively of the so-calledmazzoth as bread. As regardstradition, 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 celebratedMass with leavened bread (Sirmond,Döllinger,Kraus) or have observed the presentcustom ever since the time of theApostles (Mabillon, Probst). Against the Greeks it suffices to call attention to the historical fact that in the Orient theMaronites andArmenians have used unleavened bread from time immemorial, and that according toOrigen (Commentary on Matthew, XII.6) the people of the East "sometimes", therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in theirLiturgy. Besides, there is considerable force in thetheological argument that the fermenting process with yeast and other leaven, does not affect thesubstance of the bread, but merely itsquality. The reasons of congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which would have us consider it as a beautiful symbol of thehypostatic 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 withSt. Thomas Aquinas (III:74:4) namely, the example ofChrist, the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His Sacred Body, free from all corruption ofsin, and finally the instruction ofSt. Paul (1 Corinthians 5:8) to keep thePasch not with the leaven ofmalice andwickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity andtruth".
The second Eucharistic element required iswine 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. Thenecessity ofwine of the grape is not so much the result of the authoritative decision of theChurch, as it is presupposed by her (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. iv), and is based upon the example and command ofChrist, Who at theLast Supper certainly converted the naturalwine of grapes into His Blood, This isdeduced partly from therite of thePassover, which required the head of thefamily to pass around the "cup of benediction" (calix benedictionis) containing thewine of grapes, partly, and especially, from the express declaration ofChrist, that henceforth He would not drink of the "fruit of the vine" (genimen vitis). TheCatholicChurch is aware of no othertradition and in this respect she has ever been one with the Greeks. The ancient Hydroparastatæ, orAquarians, who used water instead ofwine, wereheretics 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 ofwine, and more concerned with the action of eating and drinking than with the elements ofbread andwine, loses all its force in view not only of the earliest literature on the subject (theDidache, Ignatius,Justin, Irenæus,Clement of Alexandria,Origen,Hippolytus,Tertullian, andCyprian), but also of non-Catholic andapocryphal writings, which bear testimony to the use ofbread andwine as the only andnecessary elements of the Blessed Sacrament. On the other hand, a very ancientlaw of theChurch which, however, has nothing to do with the validity of thesacrament, prescribes that a little water be added to thewine before theConsecration (Decr. pro Armenis:aqua modicissima), a practice, whose legitimacy theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. ix) established under pain ofanathema. The rigor of thislaw of theChurch may be traced to the ancient custom of the Romans andJews, who mixed water with the strong southern wines (seeProverbs 9:2), to the expression ofcalix mixtus found inJustin (First Apology 65), Irenæus (Against Heresies V.2.3), andCyprian (Epistle 63, no. 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 theCrucified Savior and the intimate union of thefaithful with Christ (cf.Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. vii).
In proceeding to verify theform, which is always made up of words, we may start from the indubitable fact, that Christ did notconsecrate by the mere fiat of Hisomnipotence, 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 theApostles to follow His example. Were the words of Institution a mere declarative utterance of theconversion, which might have taken place in the "benediction" unannounced and articulately unexpressed, theApostles and theirsuccessors would, according toChrist's example and mandate, have beenobliged toconsecrate in this mute manner also, a consequence which is altogether at variance with the deposit offaith. It istrue, thatPope Innocent III (De Sacro altaris myst., IV, vi) before his elevation to the pontificate did hold the opinion, which latertheologians branded as "temerarious", that Christconsecrated without words by means of the mere "benediction". Not manytheologians, 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 celebratingpriest, the words of Institution were prescribed as the sacramentalform. 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 thepriest does not at allconsecrate by virtue of the words of Institution, but only by means of theEpiklesis occurring shortly after them and expressing in the OrientalLiturgies a petition to theHoly Spirit, "that thebread andwine 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 theEpiklesis in their present Liturgy, would possess neither thetrueSacrifice of the Mass nor theHoly Eucharist. Fortunately, however, the Greeks can be shown theerror of their ways from their own writings, since it can beproved, that they themselves formerly placed the form ofTransubstantiation in the words of Institution. Not only did such renowned Fathers asJustin (First Apology 66), Irenæus (Against Heresies V.2.3),Gregory of Nyssa (The Great Catechism, no. 37),Chrysostom (Hom. i, de prod. Judæ, n. 6), andJohn Damascene (Exposition of the Faith IV.13) hold this view, but the ancient Greek Liturgies bear testimony to it, so thatCardinal 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 andadoration are due to theHoly Eucharist, even though the famousEpiklesis follows some time after.
The objection that the mere historical recitation of the words of Institution taken from the narrative of theLast Supper possesses no intrinsic consecratory force, would be well founded, did thepriest of theLatin 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 andperson instead of thePerson ofChrist, whoseminister and instrumentalcause he is. Neither of the two suppositions holds in the case of apriest who reallyintends to celebrateMass. Hence, though the Greeks may in the best offaith go onerroneously maintaining that theyconsecrate exclusively in theirEpiklesis, they do, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, actuallyconsecrate by means of the words of Institution contained in theirLiturgies, if Christ has instituted these words as the words of consecration and theform 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 theEpiklesis possess no inherent consecratory value. The contention that the words of theEpiklesis have jointessential value and constitute the partial form of the sacrament, was indeed supported byindividual Latintheologians, asTouttée,Renaudot, andLebrun. Though this opinion cannot be condemned aserroneous infaith, 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 oftime, there arises the dilemma: Either the words of Institution alone and, therefore, not theEpiklesis, are productive of the conversion, or the words of theEpiklesis 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 Romanfaith and subscribe to the words of Institution as alone constituting the sacramental form, and to drop the contention that the words of theEpiklesis also possessed a partial consecratory force. But when the Greeks, not without foundation, pleaded that adogmatic decision would reflect with shame upon their wholeecclesiastical past, the ecumenical synod was satisfied with the oral declaration ofCardinal 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 "blessedJohn Chrysostom, familiarlyknown to us", according to whom the "Divine words ofOur Redeemer contain the full and entire force ofTransubstantiation".
The venerable antiquity of the OrientalEpiklesis, its peculiar position in theCanon of the Mass, and its interior spiritual unction,oblige thetheologian to determine itsdogmatic value and to account for its use. Take, for instance, theEpiklesis of theEthiopian Liturgy: "We implore and beseech Thee, O Lord, to send forth theHoly Spirit and His Power upon thisBread andChalice and convert them into the Body and Blood ofOur Lord Jesus Christ." Since thisprayer always follows after the words of Institution have been pronounced, thetheological question arises, as to how it may be made to harmonize with the words ofChrist, which alone possess theconsecrated power. Two explanations have been suggested which, however, can be merged in one. The first view considers theEpiklesis 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 alliedmystery of theIncarnation. Since, however, because of the brevity of the actual instant of conversion, the part taken by theHoly Spirit could not be expressed, theEpiklesis takes us back inimagination to the precious moment and regards the Consecration as just about to occur. A similar purelypsychological retrospective transfer is met with in other portions of the Liturgy, as in the Mass for the Dead, wherein theChurchprays for the departed as if they were still upon their bed of agony and could still be rescued from the gates ofhell. Thus considered, theEpiklesis 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 theChurch, brings forth in our hearts themystical Christ, as is read in the Roman Canon of the Mass: "Utnobis corpus et sanguis fiat", i.e. that it may be madefor us the body and blood. It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks themselves explained the meaning of theEpiklesis at theCouncil of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI, 106). Yet since much more is contained in the plain words than thistrue and deepmysticism, it is desirable to combine both explanations into one, and so we regard theEpiklesis, both in point ofliturgy and of time, as the significant connecting link, placed midway between the Consecration and the Communion in order to emphasize the part taken by theHoly Spirit in the Consecration ofbread andwine, 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 bothpriest and people.
Thedoctrine of theChurch regarding the effects or the fruits ofHoly Communion centres around twoideas: (a) the union with Christ bylove and (b) the spiritual repast of thesoul. Bothideas are often verified in one and same effect ofHoly Communion.
The first and principal effect of theHoly Eucharist is union with Christ bylove (Decr. pro Armenis:adunatio ad Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of theHost, but in the spiritual and mystical union withJesus by thetheologicalvirtue oflove.Christ Himself designated theidea of Communion as a unionlove: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh blood, abideth in me, and I in him" (John 6:57).St. Cyril of Alexandria (Hom. in Joan., IV, xvii) beautifully represents this mystical union as the fusion of our being into that of theGod-man, as "when melted wax is fused with other wax". Since the Sacrament of Love is not satisfied with an increase of habituallove only, but tends especially to fan the flame of actuallove to an intense ardor, theHoly Eucharist is specifically distinguished from the othersacraments, and hence it is precisely in this latter effect thatFrancisco Suárez, recognizes the so-called "grace of thesacrament", which otherwise is so hard to discern. It stands to reason that the essence of this union bylove consists neither in a natural union withJesus analogous to that betweensoul and body, nor in ahypostatic union of thesoul with thePerson of theWord, nor finally in a pantheistical deification of the communicant, but simply in amoral 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 ofheaven, in fact the anticipation and pledge of our future union withGod bylove in theBeatific Vision. He alone can properly estimate the precious boon whichCatholics possess in theHoly Eucharist, who knows how to ponder theseideas ofHoly Communion to their utmost depth. The immediate result of this union with Christ bylove is the bond of charity existing between thefaithful themselves asSt. Paul says: "For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). And so theCommunion of Saints is not merely an ideal union byfaith and grace, but an eminently real union, mysteriously constituted, maintained, and guaranteed by partaking in common of one and the same Christ.
A second fruit of this union with Christ bylove is an increase ofsanctifying grace in thesoul of the worthy communicant. Here let it be remarked at the outset, that theHoly Eucharist does notper se constitute aperson in the state of grace as do thesacraments of the dead (baptism and penance), but presupposes such a state. It is, therefore, one of thesacraments of the living. It is as impossible for thesoul in the state of mortalsin to receive thisHeavenly Bread with profit, as it is for a corpse to assimilate food and drink. Hence theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIII. can. v), in opposition toLuther andCalvin, purposelydefined, that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist does not consist in the forgiveness ofsins". For though Christ said of theChalice: "This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission ofsins" (Matthew 26:28), 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 ofsins, but shed for that purpose. It is for this very reason thatSt. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28) 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 innocentconscience. In spite of the principles just laid down, the question might be asked, if the Blessed Sacrament could not at timesper accidens free the communicant from mortalsin, if he approached the Table of the Lord unconscious of thesinful state of hissoul. Presupposing what is self-evident, that there is question neither of aconscioussacrilegious Communion nor a lack of imperfectcontrition (attritio), which would altogether hinder thejustifying effect of the sacrament,theologians incline to the opinion, that in such exceptional cases the Eucharist can restore thesoul 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 thesoul's proper moralcondition has been effected, the Eucharist being different in this respect from thesacraments which imprint acharacter upon thesoul (baptism,confirmation, andHoly orders). Together with the increase ofsanctifying grace there is associated another effect, namely, a certain spiritual relish or delight ofsoul (delectatio spiritualis). Just as food and drink delight and refresh the heart ofman, so does this "Heavenly Bread containing within itself all sweetness" produce in thesoul of the devout communicant ineffable bliss, which, however, is not to be confounded with an emotionaljoy of thesoul or with sensible sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of a special grace, itstruenature is manifested in a certain cheerful and willing fervor in all that regards Christ and HisChurch, and in the conscious fulfillment of theduties of one's state of life, a disposition ofsoul 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.
ThoughHoly Communion does notper se remit mortalsin, it has nevertheless the third effect of "blotting out venialsin and preserving thesoul from mortalsin" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii). TheHoly Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as well. The destruction of venialsin and of all affection to it, is readily understood on the basis of the two centralideas mentioned above. Just as material food banishes minor bodily weaknesses and preservesman's physical strength from being impaired, so does this food of oursouls remove our lesser spiritual ailments and preserve us from spiritual death. As a union based uponlove, theHoly Eucharist cleanses with its purifying flame the smallest stains which adhere to thesoul, and at the same time serves as an effective prophylactic against grievoussin. It only remains for us to ascertain with clearness the manner in which this preservative influence against relapse into mortalsin is exerted. According to the teaching of theRoman Catechism, it is effected by the allaying ofconcupiscence, which is the chief source of deadlysin, particularly of impurity. Therefore it is that spiritual writers recommendfrequent Communion as the most effective remedy against impurity, since its powerful influence is felt even after other means haveproved unavailing (cf.St. Thomas:III:79:6). Whether or not theHoly Eucharist is directly conducive to the remission of the temporal punishment due tosin, is disputed bySt. 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'slove and devotion. The case is different as regards the effects of grace in behalf of a third party. Thepious custom of the faithful of "offering their Communion" for relations, friends, and thesouls departed, is to be considered as possessing unquestionable value, in the first place, because an earnestprayer of petition in the presence of the Spouse of oursouls will readily find a hearing, and then, because the fruits of Communion as a means of satisfaction forsin may be applied to a thirdperson, and especiallyper modum suffragii to thesouls inpurgatory.
As a last effect we may mention that the Eucharist is the "pledge of ourglorious resurrection andeternal 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 (Letter to the Ephesians 20), Irenæus (Against Heresies IV.18.4), andTertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8), as well as laterpatristic writers, insisted so strongly upon our futureresurrection, was the circumstance that it is the door by which we enter upon unendinghappiness. 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 Eucharistspecies, and hence (indirectly) with the living Flesh ofChrist, it acquires a moralright to its futureresurrection, even as theBlessed Mother of God, inasmuch as she was the former abode of theWord made flesh, acquired a moral claim to her own bodilyassumption intoheaven. The further discussion as to whether some "physicalquality" (Contenson) or a "sort of germ ofimmortality" (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 todogma.
We distinguish two kinds ofnecessity,
In the first sense a thing or action isnecessary because without it a given end cannot be attained; the eye, e.g. isnecessary for vision. The second sort of necessity is that which is imposed by thefree will of a superior, e.g. the necessity offasting. As regards Communion a further distinction must be made between infants and adults. It is easy toprove that in the case of infantsHoly Communion is notnecessary tosalvation, either as a means or as ofprecept. Since they have not as yet attained to the use ofreason, they are free from theobligation of positivelaws; consequently, the only question is whether Communion is, likeBaptism,necessary for them as a means ofsalvation. Now theCouncil of Trent under pain ofanathema,solemnly rejects such a necessity (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and declares that the custom of the primitiveChurch of givingHoly Communion to children was not based upon theerroneousbelief of its necessity tosalvation, but upon the circumstances of the times (Sess. XXI, cap. iv). Since according toSt. Paul's teaching (Romans 8:1) there is "no condemnation" for those who have beenbaptized, every child that dies in itsbaptismal innocence, even without Communion, must go straight toheaven. This latter position was that usually taken by the Fathers, with the exception of St. Augustine, who from the universal custom of theCommunion of children drew the conclusion of its necessity forsalvation (seeCOMMUNION OF CHILDREN). On the other hand, Communion is prescribed for adults, not only by thelaw of theChurch, but also by a Divine command (John 6:50 sqq.), though for its absolute necessity as a means tosalvation 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 aperson 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 ofsanctifying grace; not the second, because in case of necessity, such as might arise, e.g., in a long sea-voyage, the Eucharisticgraces may be supplied byactual 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 receiveHoly Communion, as a means, for instance, of overcoming violenttemptation, or as aviaticum forpersons in danger of death. Eminent divines, likeFrancisco Suárez, claim that the Eucharist, if not absolutelynecessary, is at least a relatively and morallynecessary means tosalvation, in the sense that no adult can long sustain his spiritual,supernatural life who neglects on principle to approachHoly Communion. This view is supported, not only by the solemn and earnest words ofChrist, when He Promised the Eucharist, and by the very nature of the sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of oursouls, but also by the fact of the helplessness and perversity ofhumannature and by the daily experience of confessors and directors ofsouls.
Since Christ has left us no definite precept as to the frequency with which He desired us to receive Him inHoly Communion, it belongs to theChurch 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 theChurch'sdiscipline in this respect has undergone considerable change. Whereas the earlyChristians 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 timePope Fabian (236-250) made itobligatory to approach the Holy Table three times a year, viz, atChristmas,Easter, and Pentecost, and this custom was still prevalent in the sixth century [cf.Synod of Agde (506), c. xviii]. AlthoughSt. Augustine left daily Communion to the free choice of theindividual, his admonition, in force even at the present day, was:Sic vive, ut quotidie possis sumere (The Gift of Perseverance 14), 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 thelaity and obtained only incloistered communities.St. Bonaventure reluctantly allowed thelay brothers of hismonastery to approach theHoly Table weekly, whereas the rule of the Canons ofChrodegang prescribed this practice. When the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215), held underInnocent III, mitigated the former severity of theChurch's law to the extent that allCatholics 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 wassolemnly reiterated by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. ix). The mysticaltheologians of the laterMiddle Ages, asTauler, St. Vincent Ferrer,Savonarola, and later on St. Philip Neri, theJesuit Order,St. Francis de Sales andSt. Alphonsus Liguori werezealous champions offrequent Communion; whereas theJansenists, under the leadership ofAntoine* Arnauld (De la fréquente communion, Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed and demanded as acondition for every Communion the "most perfect penitential dispositions and the purestlove ofGod". This rigorism was condemned byPope Alexander VIII (7 Dec., 1690); the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. viii; Sess. XXII, cap. vi) andInnocent XI (12 Feb., 1679) had already emphasized the permissibility of even daily Communion. To root out the last vestiges ofJansenistic rigorism,Pius X issued adecree (24 Dec., 1905) wherein he allows and recommends daily Communion to the entirelaity and requires but twoconditions for its permissibility, namely, the state of grace and a right andpiousintention. Concerning the non-requirement of the twofold species as a meansnecessary tosalvation seeCOMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS.
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 ofconsecration and (b) the minister of administration.
In the earlyChristian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, andMontanists attributedpriestly powers even towomen (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in theMiddle Ages theAlbigenses andWaldenses ascribed the power toconsecrate to everylayman of upright disposition. Against theseerrors theFourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancientCatholic teaching, that "no one but thepriest [sacerdos], regularlyordained according to thekeys of theChurch, has the power ofconsecrating this sacrament". Rejecting thehierarchical distinction between thepriesthood and thelaity,Luther later on declared, in accord with hisidea of a "universalpriesthood" (cf.1 Peter 2:5), that everylayman was qualified, as the appointed representative of thefaithful, toconsecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist. TheCouncil of Trent opposed this teaching ofLuther, and not only confirmed anew the existence of a "specialpriesthood" (Sess. XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively declared that "Christordained theApostlestruepriests and commanded them as well as otherpriests to offer His Body and Blood in theHoly Sacrifice of the Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this decision it was also declared that the power of consecrating and that ofoffering theHoly Sacrifice are identical. Bothideas are mutually reciprocal. To thecategory of "priests" (sacerdos, iereus) belong, according to the teaching of theChurch, onlybishops andpriests;deacons,subdeacons, and those inminor orders are excluded from this dignity.
Scripturally considered, the necessity of a specialpriesthood with the power of validlyconsecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of thelaity, but exclusively to the Apostles and theirsuccessors in thepriesthood; hence the latter alone can validlyconsecrate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in no other. We learn from the writings ofJustin,Origen,Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always thebishops andpriests, and they alone, who appeared as theproperty constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that thedeacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. When in the fourth century the abuse crept in ofpriests receivingHoly Communion at the hands ofdeacons, theFirst Council of Nicæa (325) issued a strict prohibition to the effect, that "they who offer theHoly Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands of those who have no such power ofoffering", because such a practice is contrary to "rule and custom". Thesect of the Luciferians was founded by anapostatedeacon named Hilary, and possessed neitherbishops nor priests; whereforeSt. Jerome concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants they no longer retained the Eucharist. It is clear that theChurch has always denied thelaity the power toconsecrate. When theArians accusedSt. Athanasius (d. 373) ofsacrilege, because supposedly at his bidding theconsecratedChalice 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 wasproved that Ischares had been invalidlyordained by a pseudo-bishop named Colluthos and, therefore, could neither validlyconsecrate nor offer theHoly Sacrifice.
Thedogmatic 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 apriest, orlayman, orwoman. Hence, the question is concerned, not with the validity, but with the liceity of administration. In this matter theChurch alone has theright to decide, and her regulations regarding the Communionrite may vary according to the circumstances of the times. In general it is of Divine right, that thelaity should as a rule receive only from theconsecrated hand of thepriest (cf. Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. viii). The practice of thelaity giving themselvesHoly Communion was formerly, and is today, allowed only in case of necessity. In ancientChristian times it was customary for thefaithful 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 (Epistle 93). Up to the ninth century, it was usual for thepriest to place theSacred Host in the right hand of the recipient, whokissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth;women, from the fourth century onward, were required in thisceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right hand. ThePrecious Blood was in early times received directly from the Chalice, but inRome the practice, after the eighth century, was to receive it through a small tube (fistula); at present this is observed only in thepope's Mass. The latter method of drinking the Chalice spread to other localities, in particular to theCistercianmonasteries, where the practice was partially continued into the eighteenth century.
Whereas thepriest is both by Divine andecclesiasticalright the ordinary dispenser (minister ordinarius) of the sacrament, thedeacon 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 thebishop orpriest. As has already been mentioned above, thedeacons were accustomed in theEarly Church to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who were absent from Divine service, as well as to present the Chalice to thelaity during the celebration of theSacred Mysteries (cf.Cyprian,Treatise 3, nos. 17 and 25), and this practice was observed untilCommunion under both kinds was discontinued. InSt. Thomas' time (III:82:3), thedeacons were allowed to administer only the Chalice to thelaity, and in case of necessity theSacred Host also, at the bidding of thebishop orpriest. After the Communion of thelaity under the species ofwine had been abolished, thedeacon's powers were more and more restricted. According to a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (25 Feb., 1777), still in force, thedeacon is to administerHoly Communion only in case of necessity and with the approval of hisbishop or hispastor. (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.)
The twoconditions 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 inmoral theology (seeCOMMUNION andCOMMUNION OF THE SICK). The first requisite of aptitude or capacity is that the recipient be a "human being", since it was formankind only that Christ instituted this Eucharistic food ofsouls and commanded its reception. This condition excludes not only irrational animals, butangels also; for neither possesshumansouls, which alone can be nourished by this food untoeternal life. The expression "Bread of Angels" (Psalm 77:25) is a mere metaphor, which indicates that in theBeatific Vision where He is not concealed under the sacramental veils, theangels spiritually feast upon theGod-man, this same prospect being held out to those who shallgloriously rise on the Last Day. The second requisite, the immediatededuction from the first, is that the recipient be still in the "state ofpilgrimage" 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 tosalvation,Rosmini advanced the untenable opinion that at the moment of death thisheavenly food is supplied in the next world to children who had just departed this life, and that Christ could have given Himself inHoly Communion to theholysouls inLimbo, in order to "render them apt for thevision of God". This evidently impossible view, together with other propositions ofRosmini, was condemned byLeo XIII (14 Dec., 1887). In the fourth century the Synod of Hippo (393) forbade the practice of givingHoly Communion to the dead as a gross abuse, and assigned as a reason, that "corpses were no longer capable of eating". Latersynods, as those ofAuxerre (578) and the Trullan (692), took very energetic measures to put a stop to a custom so difficult to eradicate. The third requisite, finally, isbaptism, without which no other sacrament can be validly received; for in its very conceptbaptism is the "spiritual door" to the means of grace contained in theChurch. AJew orMohammedan might, indeed, materially receive theSacred Host, but there could be no question in this case of a sacramental reception, even though by a perfectact ofcontrition or of the purelove ofGod he had put himself in the state ofsanctifying grace. Hence in the Early Church thecatechumens were strictly excluded from the Eucharist.
APA citation.Pohle, J.(1909).The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
MLA citation.Pohle, Joseph."The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 5.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Charles Sweeney, SJ.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.