Part II Chapters III–V: Necessity, Minister, and Recipient of the Eucharist

Chapter III: The Necessity of the Holy Eucharist

Chapter IV: The Minister

Chapter V: The Recipient

CHAPTER III THE NECESSITY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST FOR SALVATION The question as to the necessity of the Holy Eucharist for salvation permits of a twofold formulation : ( 1 ) Is it necessary to receive the Eucharist in order to be saved? (2) Must the Holy Eucharist be received under both kinds ? 235 SECTION i IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION We distinguish two kinds of necessity: (i) the necessity of means (necessitas medii) and (2) the necessity of precept {necessitas praecepti). A further pertinent distinction is between infants and adults. Thesis I: In the case of infants the Holy Eucharist is not necessary for salvation either as a means or by way of precept. This thesis embodies an article of faith. Proof. The dogma stated in our thesis was denied by a few Greek schismatics (Kabasilas, and Simeon of Thessalonica) and by some theologians of the Reformed Church. Rosmini held that Communion is strictly necessary for salvation. He was so firmly convinced of this that he taught that Christ, upon his descent into hell (limbo), personally administered the Sacrament to the patriarchs, and that even to-day infants who die without holy Communion receive it miraculously in ipso mortis instanti in the other world. This teaching was formally condemned 236 NECESSITY 237 by Leo XIII.1 The Council of Trent had virtually rejected it in advance when it declared: “If anyone saith that the Communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, let him be anathema.” 2 As there can be no question of a necessity of precept in the case of infants, the Council evidently meant to deny the necessity of means. a) The Biblical argument for our thesis is based on those texts in which eternal life is conditioned solely on Baptism. Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” In conformity with this and similar Gospel texts, St. Paul teaches that ” there is no condemnation” {nihil damnationis) to them that are baptized in Christ Jesus.8 All these texts would be false if baptized infants were excluded from Heaven on account of their failure to receive the Holy Eucharist. b) In studying the Tradition on this subject we must distinguish carefully between theory and practice. a) From the third to the eleventh century the Latin Church administered the Eucharist to infants under the species of wine immediately after Baptism and Confirmation, as is still the custom among the Greeks and OrienlProp. Rosmini Damn, a Li one discretionis pervenerint, necessariam XI 11, d. 14 Dec. 1887, prop. 32 esse Eucharistiae communion em, (DenzingerBannwart, n. 1922). anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bann2 Seas. XXI, can. 4: “St quis wart, n. 937). dixetit, parvulis, ontequam ad annos 8 Rom. VIII, 1238 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT tals. Why did the Church introduce this custom ? Did she perhaps believe that infants could not be saved without holy Communion? This is not at all likely. The Church never held Confirmation to be necessary for salvation, yet she administered it to infants. The only Sacrament that she always regarded as absolutely necessary for salvation was Baptism. The Council of Trent declares that the custom of giving holy Communion to children was not based upon the erroneous belief that this Sacrament was necessary for salvation, but upon the circumstances of the times.4 P) The Fathers generally taught that every child dying in baptismal innocence, even without Communion, goes straight to Heaven. The only notable exception appears to be St. Augustine. Petavius, Maldonatus, Schanz, and other eminent theologians do not hesitate to declare his teaching on this point to be out of tune with that of the Church. But this conclusion is hardly warranted. St. Augustine expressly says that ” if an infant departs from the present life after he has received Baptism, the guilt in which he was involved by original sin being [thereby] done away, he shall be made perfect in that light of truth which … illumines the justified in the presence of their Maker.* 5 There are a few passages of the Saint’s writings in which he applies John VI, 54 (* Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you ”) indis4 Sess. XXI, cap. 4: ” Neque ideo tamen damnanda est antiquitas, si eutn morem in quibusdam locis aliquando servavit. Vt enim SS. illi Patres sui facti probabilem cansam pro illius temporis ratione habuerunt, ita certe eos nulla* salutis necessitate id fecisse sine controversia credendum est.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 933) • 6De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, 1, c 25: ” Verumtamen si parvulus percepto baptismo de hac vita migraverit, soluto reatu, cut originaliter obnoxius erat, perficietur illo lumine veritatis.” (Migne, P. L., XLIV, 123). NECESSITY 239 criminately to infants and adults. But we need not necessarily assume a contradiction in St. Augustine’s teaching. Preoccupied as he is with the task of disproving the Pelagian distinction between regnum coelorum and vita aeternar the zealous Bishop of Hippo distinguishes between sacramental and spiritual or mystical Communion, and teaches that infants, by the fact of their being united to Christ in Baptism, experience the effect of the Eucharist, i. e. spiritual union with Christ {res sacramenti), as it were by anticipation, and thus comply with our Lord’s command. Baptism he regards as a claim but likewise as a virtual desire to receive the Eucharist. By their anticipatory though purely mystical reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in Baptism, these infants are enabled to partake not only of the regnum Dei (John III, 5) promised as an effect of Baptism, but likewise of the vita aeterna (John VI, 54) connected with the Holy Eucharist. This, in fact, is Augustine’s own explanation of his teaching. ” Does not truth proclaim with unfaltering tongue,” he asks, “that unbaptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom of God, but cannot have everlasting life, except in the Body of Christ, into which, that they may receive incorporation, they are washed in the Sacrament of Baptism?“6 This interpretation of the Saint’s teaching is confirmed by a passage in the writings of his faithful disciple St. Fulgentius.7 We do not mean to deny, however, that • Op. ext., Ill, 4, 8: ” Nonne 7 Asked by the deacon Ferrandus Veritas sine ulla atnbiguitatt pro- concerning the probable fate of a clamat, non solum in regnum Dei young man who had died suddenly non baptisatos parvulos intrare non after Baptism, without having reposse, sed nec vitam aeternam posse ceived holy Communion, Fulgentius habere praetef Chris ti corpus, cui says: ” Arbitror, sancte f rater, disut incorporentur sacrament o bap- putationem nostram praeclari D. tismatis imbuunturt” Augustini sermons Urmatam nec 240 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT St. Augustine in his controversies with the Pelagians made some rather extravagant assertions with regard to the necessity of the Blessed Eucharist. c) From the philosophical point of view the following* considerations are worth pondering. If infants could not be saved without the Eucharist, holy Communion would be necessary to them either as a means or in consequence of a positive precept. It is impossible to assume the latter because infants are not yet amenable to law; or the former, because baptismal innocence can be lost only through mortal sin.8 To explain the almost universal custom of the ancient Church of giving Communion to children, theologians discuss the question whether the sacramental grace conferred by Baptism is augmented by the Holy Eucharist. Oswald 0 is inclined to answer this question in the negative; but long before him Suarez declared that the affirmative answer has “the greater weight of authority and reason.” Indeed, it would be repugnant to assume that the primitive Church for centuries practiced a custom of which she knew that it was of no benefit to her children. Furthermore, as Baptism has the power of cuiquam esse aliquot enus ambigendum, tunc unumquemque fide Hum corporis sanguinisque Domintci participem fieri, quando in baptismate membrum corporis Christ i eiRcitur, nec alienari ob eo pants calicxsque consortio, etiamsi antequam panem ilium comedat et calicem bib at, de hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Chrisii constitutus abscedat.* Ep. 12 ad Ferrand., n. 26 (Migne, P. L.t LXV, 392). 8Cfr. Cone. Trident., Scss. XXI, cap. 4: … siquulem per baptismi lavacrum regenerati et Chris: o incorporati adept am iam filiorum Dei gratiam in ilia aetate amittere non possunt.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 933). 9 Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten. Vol. T, 5th cel., pp. 491 sq., Miinstcr 1894. NECESSITY 241 producing sanctifying grace in the soul without the knowledge and will of the recipient, what reason is there for assuming that Holy Communion is unable to increase that grace ex opere operato, especially since its effects (unlike those of Baptism and Confirmation) are derived from an influence exercised upon body and soul alike by the life-giving Flesh of Jesus Christ? Thesis II: For adults the reception of the Holy Eucharist is necessary as a matter of precept. This proposition is likewise de fide. Proof. Communion is prescribed for adult Catholics both by the law of the Church and by a divine command. Cfr. John VI, 54: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. a) In conditioning eternal life upon the reception of His Body and Blood, our Lord obviously meant to give a strict command. There can be no doubt that His precept (Luke XXII, 19) : ” Do this for a commem- V oration of me,” refers not only to the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice on the part of the priest, but likewise to the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the faithful, especially since the Apostles were commanded to distribute this Sacrament to all.10 It is rather difficult to understand how some theologians can hold that Communion is merely an ecclesiastical precept. The Council of Trent plainly intimates that it is a divine command.11 10 1 Cor. XI, 26. XI Sesa. XIII, cap. a (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875). 242 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT b) As to the frequency with which He desires us to receive Him in holy Communion, Christ has given no definite precept, and hence this is a matter left to the Church to determine. Ecclesiastical discipline in this respect has undergone many changes in the course of centuries. The early Christians seem to have observed daily Communion12 as a strict precept. In the third century, Pope Fabian (236-250) mitigated the former severity of the Church’s law to the extent of making the reception of the Eucharist a matter of strict duty only three times a year, viz.: at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, held under Innocent III (1215), prescribed annual Communion during Easter time as the minimum of obligation.18 St. Thomas ascribes, this ordinance chiefly to “the abounding of iniquity and the growing cold of charity.” 14 The Lateran law marked the uttermost limit of indulgence to which the Church could go, and hence the Council of Trent did not hesitate to raise the ecclesiastical precept of yearly paschal Communion to the rank of a dogma : ” If anyone denieth that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to the years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church, let him be anathema.” 15 Officially the Church has never ceased to proclaim her 12 Cfr. Acts II, 42. negaverit, omnes et smgulos Christi 18 Cone. Lot. IV, cap. 21 (Den- Udeles utriusque sexus, quum linger-Bannwart, n. 437). ad annos discretionis pervenerint, 14 St. Thomas, Summo Theol., teneri singulis annis saltern in pas3a, qu. 80, art. 10, ad 5. — The chate ad communicandum iuxta pratpassage in quotation marks is taken ceptum S. matris Ecclesiae, anathefrom Matth. XXIV, 10. ma sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. lBSess. XIII, can. 9: “Si quis 891). NECESSITY 243 desire that the faithful should approach the Holy Table more frequently. The Council of Trent declares : ” The sacred and holy Synod would fain, indeed, that, at each Mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice.” 16 The famous controversy regarding the disposition required for frequent and daily Communion was authoritatively set at rest by the decree “Sacra Tridentina Synodus/’ issued Dec. 20, 1905, by the late Pope Pius X, through the S. Congregation of the Council. According to this epoch-making document, ” frequent and daily Communion, so earnestly desired by Christ and by the Church, should be open to all the faithful,” and no one may be denied it “who is in the state of grace and approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention. … A right intention consists in this: that he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine or vainglory or human respect, but for the purpose of pleasing God, of being more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for his weaknesses and defects.17 In a later decree, * Quam Singulari” of August 10, 1910, the same saintly Pontiff, pointing to the ancient practice of the Church, and with special reference to the Fourth Lateran Council and that of Trent,18 condemns the practice of postponing first Communion ie Sess. XXII, cap. 6 (Denzinger- Decree on Daily Communion, tr. by Bannwart, n. 944). Jimenez, London 1909. See also 17 The text of the decree in Den- Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. zinger- Bannwart, n. 1985 sq. An 129 sqq., London 1907. English translation, with a historical 18 Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. sketch and commentary, will be 9. found in J. B. Ferreres, S. J., The 244 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT to the tenth, twelfth, or even fourteenth year, and commands that children should be led to the Holy Table as soon as they are able to “distinguish Eucharistic bread from common and material bread.” The full use of reason is not required, but merely ” a certain knowledge” of the rudiments of faith.19 To deprive those of whom our Lord Himself said: ” Suffer little children to come to me,” of the Holy Eucharist at a time when they are in such great need of this Heavenly Food to strengthen their soul against temptations, and when their reason is sufficiently developed to make them amenable to the divine precept,20 is little less than a crime.21 Thesis III: The Holy Eucharist is not absolutely necessary for adults as a means of salvation. This may be set down as a propositio certa. Proof. The Holy Eucharist might be necessary for salvation if Communion by itself constituted a person in the state of grace, or if sanctifying grace could not be preserved without Communion. But neither one of these suppositions is tenable. a) Communion does not cause justification (iustilicatio prima), but presupposes the state of sanctifying grace. On the other hand, cases of necessity may arise (e. g. on a long sea voyage), in which a person would be l» Official English version of the Vorurteile gegeu das Erstkommu” Quam Singulari,” together with niondekret, Innsbruck 1911; M. a commentary, in F. M. De Zulueta, Gatterer, S. J., Die Erstkommunion S. J.t Early First Communion, Lon- der Kinder, Brixen 19 11 ; De Zuludon 191 x. eta, S. J., Early First Communion, 20 John VI, 50 sqq. London 1911. aiCfr. E. Springer, S. J., Die NECESSITY 245 dispensed from receiving Communion, and the sacramental graces of the Eucharist might be supplied by actual graces. It is only when we view the matter in this light that we can understand why the Church in cases of urgent necessity never demands the votum sacramenti in regard to the Eucharist, as she does in regard to Baptism and Penance,22 and why the primitive Church, without going counter to the divine command, withheld the Eucharist from certain sinners even on their, death-bed. b) Some eminent divines, like Suarez,28 claim that the Eucharist is at least a relatively and morally necessary means of salvation, in the sense that no adult Catholic can sustain his spiritual, supernatural life if he voluntarily neglects to receive holy Communion for a long time. This view is supported by the solemn words which Christ spoke when He promised the Eucharist,24 by the helplessness and perversity of human nature, subject as it is to many and violent temptations, by the very nature of the Sacrament as the spiritual food and medicine of our souls, and by the daily experience of confessors. Several of these considerations furnish additional proofs for the wisdom of Pius X in fixing the age when children should be admitted to the Holy Table at about seven years. Readings: — J. Behringer, Die hi. Komtnunion in ihren Wirkungen und ihrer Heilsnotwendigkeit, Ratisbon i8g8. J. B. Ferreres, S. J., The Decree on Daily Communion. A Historical Sketch and Commentary, tr. by H. Jimenez, S. J., London 1909. — F. M. De Zulueta, S. J., Early First Communion. A Commentary upon the Decree ” Quam Singular i,” London 191 1. — J. C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 129 sqq., London 1907. 22 The votum Eucharistiae^ demanded by St Augustine (v. supra, Thesis I) and St. Thomas (5. Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 3), is not based upon a strict necessity of means. Cfr. De Lugo, De Eucha~ ristia, disp. 2. sect. 2. 23 De Eucharistia, disp. 40, sect. a. 24 Cfr. John VI, 50 sqq. SECTION i. Giving the Chalice to the Laity. — So far as we know, a school teacher in Prague, Peter of Dresden, was the first to maintain that Communion under both kinds is necessary for salvation and that the Church wrongs the laity by depriving them of the Chalice. a) The cry was taken up by the Hussites, under the leadership of Jacob of Misa. Ziska, chief of the Taborites, so-called from their dwelling on a mountain top in Bohemia, set up three hundred tables in order to satisfy the demands of the people for Communion under both species. The Council of Constance (1415), in a decree approved by Martin V (1418), rejected the erroneous teaching of the Utraquists and ordained that the Chalice should not be given to the laity, and that all who obstinately defended the practice were to be regarded as heretics.1 This led to a revolution and the terrible Hussite wars. To make peace, the Council of Basle (1431) granted the Chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was the acknowledgment of Christ’s integral presence under either kind.2 1” Pertinaciter asserentes oppose s Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 668. — turn tamquam haeretici arcendi Cfr. J. B. Hughes, in the Catholic sunt” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. Encyclopedia, XV, 245. 66). 246 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 247 To this some of the Hussites demurred and in course of time formed the sect of the Moravian Brothers.8 b) Utraquism led to new difficulties at the time of the so-called Reformation. Luther at first wavered in his attitude towards the Hussite demand for Communion under both kinds. At times he defended the right of an ecumenical council to decide the question. Then again he claimed that it was for the individual to say whether he wished to receive Communion under the form of bread alone or under both species. As against the Council of Constance the apostate friar of Wittenberg declared that every Christian was free ” either to employ both species or only one, or none at all.” The Calvinists accused the Catholic Church of mutilating the Sacrament, contemning Christ’s command, and betraying the people. Calvin himself did not scruple to denounce the Catholic teaching of the validity of Communion under one kind as a diabolical invention.4 Utraquism is still a tenet of the Anglican Church, and is enumerated among the “Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome” (London, 1880). In consequence of the Utraquist agitation, even Catholic nations began to demand Communion sub utraque, so that the German Emperor, with Charles IX of France and other rulers petitioned the Pope and the Council of Trent, which was just then in session, to allow the use of the Chalice in their dominions. 2. The Council of Trent. — The Council of Trent devoted an entire Session to this vexed 8 See art. ” Unity of the Breth- cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ren ” in the New Schaff-Hersog En- Vol. XII. ilnstit., IV, 17, 47. 248 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT question and defined the Catholic teaching without regard to the noise created by the Utraquists. Its principal canon on the subject is this: “If anyone saith that by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.” 5 Only towards the end of the Session did the Council express its willingness to allow the use of the Chalice under certain conditions. Finally, in the last decree of its twenty-second Session, it referred the decision of the whole matter to the Pope. Pius IV, in 1564, authorized the bishops of Austria and Bavaria to permit the use of the Chalice in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled ; but the people were so slow to avail themselves of the privilege that it was soon after withdrawn. This was the end of Communion under both kinds within the pale of the Church.6 3. Catholic Doctrine and Disciplinary Variations. — It is impossible to prove from Scripture that the laity or non-celebrating priests are bound to receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds. Tradition shows that Communion under one kind has always been practiced within the Catholic Church. » Cone. Trident.. Sess. XXI, can. 1 : ” Si quis dixcrit, ex Dei praecepto vcl necessitate salutis omnes et singulos Chrlsti fideies utramque speciem SS. Eucharisttae sacramenti sumere debere, anathema sit.” (Dcnzingcr Bannwart, n. 934). e Cfr. Bossuet. Trait t de la Communion sous les Deux Especes, Paris 1682. a) The Utraquists based their contention principally on John VI, 54 : Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. The Tridentine Council explains this text as follows: “He who said: ‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you/ (John VI, 54), also said: ‘He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (verse 59) ; and He who said : ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life* (verse 55), also said: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world’ (verse 52) ; and, in fine, He who said : ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him* (verse 57), said nevertheless: ‘He that eateth this bread shall live forever’ (verse 59) ” 7 That Communion under one kind was customary in the Apostolic age may be deduced with great probability from Acts II, 42: “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” • b) A very strong argument can be construed from Tradition. a) In the early days the faithful were accustomed to take the Holy Eucharist home in a wooden receptacle r Sess. XXI, cap. x (DenzingerBannwart, n. 930). • Act. II, 42: ” Erant autem perStveranHs in doctrine Apostotorum et communication* fractionis pants (rff xXdffet rov &prov) t orationibus.” — On x Cor. XI, 27 tqq., v. supra, p. 94. On the text Matth. 250 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT (area lignea), in order that they might communicate themselves privately from time to time. Tertullian makes this custom the basis of an argument, addressed to his wife, against her marrying an infidel in case of his own death. His point is that it will be impossible for her to get the pagan husband’s permission to take holy Communion at home. “Will he not know,” says Tertullian, ” what you take secretly before all other food, and seeing it to be bread, will he not believe it to be that which it is said to be [i. e. the Body of Christ] ? ” 9 St. Basil is authority for the statement that, when the persecutions had ceased, in the fourth century, the custom of taking home a portion of the consecrated bread for private Communion continued to be general in Alexandria and Egypt.10 As far back as the third century Communion was given to the sick under one kind only. St. Denis tells of a child bringing Communion to an old man on his death-bed.11 Paulinus writes that St. Ambrose ” received the Lord’s Body and died after swallowing it, taking the good viaticum with him.”12 The Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675) permits the sick who cannot swallow the Sacred Host to receive Communion under the form of wine. Children also were generally given holy Communion under the species of wine alone, sometimes under the species of bread alone.18 The so-called Mass of the Presanctified, which is conXXVI, 27: * Bibite ex hoc omnes of which the Lutherans and Calvinists make so much, see Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, IV, 25. 9 Ad Uxorem, II, 5 (Migne, P. L., I, 1296) : ” Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes, et ft sciverit esse panem, non ilium esse credet, quid dicitur {scU. corpus Christi]’” 10 St Basil, Ep. 93 ad Casariam (Migne, P. G., XXXII, 483). 11 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist Eccles., VI, 44. 12 De Vita S. Ambrosii, n. 47. 18 Cfr. St Cyprian, De Lapsis, c, 35 (ed. Uartel, Vol. I, p. 355). COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND 251 fined to Good Friday in the West, in the East was and still is celebrated all through Lent, except on Saturdays, Sundays, and the Feast of the Annunciation. During this ceremony the officiating priest as well as the people, according to the ancient Roman Ordo, communicated under one kind, i. e. bread.14 0) An event which happened in the pontificate of Pope Gelasius has furnished a favorite argument to Protestant controversialists ever since Chemnitz. A recent writer refers to it as follows: “Depriving the laity of the Chalice, a practice which Pope Gelasius (+ 496) had declared to be sacrilegious, first began in the twelfth century and was later justified by scholastic subtleties.” 15 Under Pope Gelasius there lived in Rome many unconverted Manichaeans, who at public worship took only the Sacred Host and refused the Chalice. To unmask these hypocrites the Pontiff ordained that at public Communion all the faithful without exception should communicate under both kinds. Evidently, before this papal decree was issued, there was no law compelling the laity to take the Chalice, and Communion under the species of bread alone was the common practice.16 The usage inaugurated by Pope Gelasius prevailed up to the twelfth century, when the laity was gradually restricted to one kind.17 c) A theological argument for our thesis may be drawn from the totality of the Real Presence under either kind.18 14 Migne, P. L., LXXVIII, 954. 3a, qu. 80, art. ia. — On the whole IB Luthardt, Apologet. Vortrage, subject-matter of this subdivision Leipzig 1874. see Funk, ” Der Kommunionritus,” 16 Other examples in De Augu- in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlunstinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, gen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. and ed., pp. 677 sqq. 293 sqq., Paderborn 1897. IT Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 18 V, supra, pp. 93 sqq. 252 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT He who communicates under the species of bread alone, truly receives the Flesh and Blood of Christ, i. e. the living Christ whole and entire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and Humanity, and together with the whole Sacrament, all the graces necessary for salvation.19 It has been objected that the faithful, by being denied the Chalice, are defrauded of a part of the essential fruits of the Eucharist. The reception of the Precious Blood might produce a further increase of sanctifying grace if it were preceded by a new act of devotion and preparation. But whether it would produce this effect without any change in the disposition of the recipient, purely ex op ere operato, is disputed among theologians. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, Suarez, and many other eminent divines hold that the Chalice per se no more confers a larger measure of sanctifying grace than would the taking of two separate Hosts at the same Mass. De Lugo defends the contrary opinion.20 That the Church was moved by ” weighty and just reasons ” when she approved of the custom of communicating under one species, is expressly affirmed by the Council of Trent.21 These reasons are given by St. Thomas” as follows : ( I ) the difficulty of providing the requisite number of sacred vessels; (2) the danger of spilling the Precious Blood, save in very small and select congregations ; and (3) the danger of giving rise to false opinions. 19 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XXI, cap. 3: … quod ad fructum attinet, nulld grati& necessarid ad so lu tern eos defraudari, qui unam speciem solam accipiunt. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 93a) . 20 De Eucharistia, disp. xa, sect. 3. 21 Sess. XXI, can. a: “Si quis dixtrit, sanctam Ecclesiam cathoK* cam non iustis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut laicos atque etiam clericos non conhcientes sub pants tantummodo specie communicaret, out in eo errasse, anathema sit.’ (Dcnzinger Bannwart, n. 935). 22 Opusc, 27, De Sacramento AU taris, c. 29 (ed. M. de Maria, S. J., t III, p. 548, Tiferni Tiberini 1886). THE MINISTER 253 To these reasons Charlier de Gerson, the distinguished theologian who in the early fifteenth century was so prominent a figure at the Council of Constance, in a little dissertation which was read before the Fathers of the Council, added a number of others, to wit: The danger of soiling the sacred vessels; the inconvenience arising from long beards; the difficulty of keeping the Precious Blood reserved for the sick from fermenting and spoiling; the difficulty of providing vessels large enough to hold the quantity of Blood required at paschal time and other occasions when thousands of persons approach the Holy Table; the impossibility of obtaining wine in poor countries and of providing enough of it where it is very dear; the danger of the wine freezing in northern countries, etc.28 Father Sydney F. Smith, S. J., who discusses these reasons at some length in a recent brochure, adds: ” Also … the people, in these days particularly, might find it hard indeed to drink out of the same chalice as many others, some of whom might be conveying infection through the touch of their lips. Indeed, a correspondence in the columns of the Times and Church Times during the months of July and August, 191 1, has called public attention to the large number of Anglicans who stay away from their Communion for fear of drinking from a chalice which may have been touched by infected lips, or resort to strange and disedifying methods of avoiding the risk. This fear is doubtless exaggerated, but we cannot help feeling that it might spread among Catholics also in these days when so many have microbes on the brain, were we accustomed to receive under both 28 The passage from Gerson is der One Kind, pp. 18 sq., London translated and commented upon by 1911. S. F. Smith, S. J., Communion nn254 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT kinds.” 24 In conclusion the writer touches upon a point to which those who criticize the Catholic practice have probably not adverted : — ” Great care has to be taken in the provision of wine so as to secure that it is unadulterated. The wine merchant must be able to inspire trust of himself into the clergy, and the manufacturer into the wine merchant. This acts as a limitation of the wine supply, which, under the intense pressure which a reversion to the old system would involve, would probably cause a crisis.” 25 Readings: — Jak. Hoffmann, Geschichte der Laienkommunion bis sum Tridentinum, Spires 1891. — A. Kndpfler, Die Kelchbewegung in Bayern unter Herzog Albrecht V., 2nd ed., Munich 1887. — O’Kane, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, Dublin 1867. — ‘Dublanchy in the Diet de Thiol. Catholique, III, 552 sqq. — P. J. Toner in the Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, 175 sqq. — Sydney F. Smith, S. J., Communion under One Kind, London 191 1. 24 Smith, op. dt., p. 23. 25 Op. cit., pp. 23 sq. CHAPTER IV THE MINISTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST As we have already noted, the Eucharist is a permanent Sacrament, of which the consecration (confectio) and reception (susceptio) are separated from each other by an interval of time, and consequently there may be two ministers, viz.: ( i ) the minister of consecration and (2) the minister of distribution. 255 SECTION i THE MINISTER OF CONSECRATION I. Heretical Teachings vs. the Doctrine of the Church. — Aside from the Pepuzians, Collyridians, and Montanists of the early Christian era, who attributed priestly powers to women,1 and the medieval Albigensians and Waldenses, who held that every layman of upright disposition can consecrate,2 Martin Luther was the first to declare that every Christian is a priest and qualified, as the duly appointed representative of the faithful, to perform the Sacrament of the Eucharist.3 Against these errors the Church upheld the ancient Catholic teaching that none but regularly ordained priests possess the power of consecrating. The Fourth Lateran Council defined against the Albigenses : “No one but the priest, regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, can perform this Sacrament.” 4 The lCfr. Epiphan., De Haer., 49, 79. 4 Caput “Firmiter”; “Hoc ntf2 Cfr. the Professio fidei Walden que sacr amentum nemo potest tibus praescripta, reproduced by conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 424. ordinatus secundum cloves Ec3 He based this teacning on 1 clesiae” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. Pet. II, 5. 430). 256 THE MINISTER 257 Council of Trent, in opposition to the teaching of Luther, not only confirmed the existence of a special priesthood,5 but declared that “Christ instituted the Apostles priests and ordained that they and other priests should offer His own Body and Blood.” 6 It follows that no one can consecrate bread and wine who has not, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, received from the Church the power to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass. To consecrate and to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass are reciprocal terms. 2. Proof from Revelation. — To the category of sacerdotes belong only bishops (sacerdotes primi or dints) and priests (sacerdotes secundi ordinis). Deacons, subdeacons, and laymen (a fortiori women) are excluded. That priests alone have the power to consecrate cannot perhaps be proved conclusively from Holy Scripture, but a convincing argument is supplied by Tradition. a) An indirect argument may be construed from the Bible as follows: Only those can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, to whom He said : Do this for b Sets. XXIII, can. i. out non ordinasse, ut ipsi atiique sa• Sees. XXII, can. a: Si quis cerdotes overrent corpus et sandixerit, Hits verbis: ‘Hoc facite in guinem suum, anathema sit,” meant commemorotionem/ Christum (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 949) non instituisse Apostolos sacerdotes, 258 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT a commemoration of me.” Now this command was given by our Divine Saviour, not to the faithful in general, but to the Apostles and their successors, i. e. the regularly ordained bishops and priests of the Catholic Church. Consequently, only bishops and priests have the power to consecrate. It is evident that Tradition has understood our Lord’s mandate in this sense and in no other. * By the words ’ Do this in commemoration of me/ * says the Tridentine Council, ” Christ commanded them [His Apostles] and their successors in the priesthood to offer [His Body and Blood], even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.” 7 Since the power of consecration and that of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are essentially identical, we may cite in support of our thesis the statement of St. Paul: “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.” 8 If only regularly ordained priests can offer sacrifice, it follows that only regularly ordained priests have the power to consecrate. b) A careful study of Tradition reveals three facts: (i) Bishops and priests were always held to have the power of saying Mass and consecrating validly; (2) Deacons were never permitted to say Mass or to consecrate ; and (3) This prerogative was a fortiori denied to clerics in minor orders and to the laity. 7Sess. XXII, cap. 1: ” Et eisdem Iscil. Apostolis] eorumque suecessoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per haec verba: ‘Hoc facite in meant commemorationem,’ uti semper catholica Ecclesio int ell exit et docuit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938). 8Heb. VIII, 3: “Omnis enim pontifex ad offerendum munera et hostias constitutor.” THE MINISTER 59 a) As regards the first point, we know from the writings of St. Justin Martyr, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. John Chrysostom, and others,9 that bishops and priests always appeared as the properly qualified celebrants of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that the deacons assisted at this function, while the laity participated therein in a merely passive manner. In times of persecution priests often entered prisons under the pretext of paying a visit to the inmates, in order to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and to strengthen the future martyrs with the Viaticum. From the early days of the Church the bishop, in administering Holy Orders, employed a special formula to bestow upon the recipient the power of offering sacrifice and of consecrating. In the Latin Ordo this formula ran : * Accipe potestatem offerendi in Ecclesia sacrificium tarn pro vivis quam pro defunctis P) That deacons were always excluded from this function is evident from a decree of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325) forbidding priests to receive Communion at the hands of deacons, because it is ” against discipline and custom 99 that clerics who lack the power to offer should administer the Holy Eucharist to those who possess that power.10 The Luciferians, auiong whom there were no bishops or priests, were told by St. Jerome (+ 420) that for want of celebrants they had neither a sacrifice nor the Eucharist.11 • See the collection of Patristic offerunt [i. e. presbyteri] corpus texts in Billuart, De Eucharistio, Ckristi accipiant (oflre 6 kclmv diss. 7, art. x, and in De Augustinis, otfre ^ ovtrijdeia wapi&WK robs De Re Sacrament, Vol. I, 2nd ed.v ifrvolar fiij ixorra* rrpooQipoiv pp. 659 sqq. roU vpoffdf>4povoi 6id6pat rb cwfta 10 Nicaen. I, can. 18: * Nec rov Xpiffrov)* regula nec consuetudo trodit, ut ab 11 Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. as: his, qui potestatem non habent ” HUarius [the founder of the Luciofferendi [i. e. diaconi], illi qui ferian sect] quum diaconus de Ec> a6o THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT y) From what we have said it is clear that the Church has always denied to the laity the i>ower to consecrate. St. Epiphanius (+ 403) charges an ex-monk, Zachaeus, with committing a crime because, being a mere layman, he had attempted to say Mass.12 The Arians who had accused St. Athanasius (+ 373) of sacrilege because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated chalice had been demolished during a Mass celebrated by a certain Ischyfas, withdrew the charge when it was ascertained that Ischyras had been invalidly ordained by a pseudo-bishop.18 clesia recesserit, … neque Eucharts tiam con fi cere potest, episcepos et presbyteros non habens.” 12 Expos, Ftdei. c. 13: ” Quum esse! laic us, attmgere ac sacrificia celebrare nefario ac temerario ausu est aggressus.” is They had reluctantly to admit, “quum esset homo privates in prt» vata domo habitant, poculum mysticum habere non potuit.”— Against the contention of Hugo Grotius, that laymen, nay even women, can validly consecrate in case of necessity (De Coenae Administrattone, ubi Pastor es desunt, 1637) see Petavius, Diatribe de Potest ate Censecrandi. SECTION 2 THE MINISTER OF DISTRIBUTION The minister of distribution (minister distribuens) is he who gives the Sacred Species to the faithful. The Eucharist being a permanent Sacrament, any communicant who has the proper disposition can receive it validly, no matter from whose hands. Hence the question which concerns us here is one not of validity, but merely of the licitness of administration. i. The Priest as the Ordinary Dispenser of the Sacrament. — Aside from cases of necessity, when the laity were allowed to give themselves Holy Communion, the Church has always upheld it as an Apostolic rule that the Bread of Life should be dispensed only by the consecrated hand of the priest. That this exclusive prerogative of the priesthood is of divine right, theologians generally deduce from the mandate of Christ: “Do this for a commemoration of me.”1 The deduction is confirmed by the Tridentine Council, which defines: “As to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always a custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive the Communion from priests, but that priests, when celebrating, should com1 Cfr, Sttftrez, De Eucharvtia, difp. ?t, art I. 261 262 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT municate themselves, — which custom, as coming down from an Apostolic tradition, ought with justice and reason to be maintained.” 2 St. Thomas says that ” the dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because … he consecrates in the person of Christ,” and ” as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people ; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, only consecrated hands should touch it. .“8 2. The Deacon as the Extraordinary Dispenser of the Sacrament. — The deacon is by virtue of his order the extraordinary dispenser of the Sacrament of the Altar. This is evident from the primitive teaching and practice of the Church both in the East and in the West. The fact that the deacon is an extraordinary minister, shows that he administers the Sacrament not ex officio, but ex delegatione, i. e. with the permission of the bishop or priest. If he distributes Communion without such permission, he becomes irregular. 2 Seas. XIII, cap. 8: “In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdoUbus communionem acciperent, sac er dotes autem celebrantes seipsos commumcarent, qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolka descendens iure ac merito retineri debet.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 88 1). 8 Summa Theol.t 3a, qu. 82, art. 3v— On the further requisite of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or at least permission, see Suarez, De Eucharist ia, disp. 73, sect. a. THE MINISTER 263 In the early Church the deacons took the Holy Eucharist to those who were absent from divine service* and presented the Chalice to the laity during Mass.5 As late as the thirteenth century, deacons were allowed to administer the Chalice, but the Sacred Host only in cases of necessity, at the bidding of bishop or priest.6 That the functions of the deacon with respect to the Holy Eucharist were always regarded as extraordinary and dependent on the permission of bishop or priest, may be seen from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In this compilation of ecclesiastical laws, which was long accepted as the work of the Apostles, but is now known to have been made in Syria at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century,7 we read : ” The deacon … does not baptize, nor offer ; but when the bishop or priest has offered [the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], he [the deacon] gives to the people, not as a priest, but as one ministering to the priests.” 8 When Communion was no longer given to the laity under the species of wine, the deacon’s powers were restricted. According to a decision of the S. Congregation of Rites (Feb. 25, I777)i which is still in force, the deacon may administer Communion in case of necessity, and with the permission of his bishop or pastor, — which permission, however, may be presumed where the necessity is urgent. 4Cfr. Justin Martyr, ApoL, I, c. P. G., I, 1126): ” Diaconus … 67, non baptizat, non offert; ipse veto, 5Cfr. Cyprian, De Lap sis, n. 17, quum episcopus vel presbyter obtuag. lit, dat populo non tamquam sacerQSumma TheoL, 3a, qu. 82, art dos, sed tamquam mtnistrans sa3, ad 1: ”… ut [diaconus] dis- cerdotibus.” — In accordance with penset sanguine m, non autem cor- this is a decree attributed to the pus nisi in necessitate, tubente epi- so-called fourth Council of Carscopo vel prcsbytero.* thage, A. D. 398 (can. 38), which 7 Cfr. Bardenhewer Shahan, Pa- says: * Diaconus praesente prestrology, p. 350, Freiburg and St. bytero Eucharistiam corporis Chrtsti Louis 1908. populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus • Const, Aposl,, VIII, a8 (Migne, trogat,” CHAPTER V THE RECIPIENT QF THE HOLY EUCHARIST In dealing with the recipient of the Holy Eucharist we must carefully distinguish between the two conditions of objective capacity (capacitas, aptitudo) and subjective worthiness (dignitas). The former alone belongs to dogmatics; the latter falls within the purview of moral and ascetic theology. 264 i SECTION i OBJECTIVE CAPACITY We are here concerned solely with the sacramental reception of the Holy Eucharist, not with the purely physical act of eating and drinking the sacred species, which, per. se, may be done by persons lacking the necessary moral aptitude. On the necessity of having the right intention enough has been said in treating the subject of intention generally in a previous volume of this series.1 a) The first requisite of capacity or aptitude is that the recipient be a human being. Christ instituted His Sacraments, and especially the Eucharistic food of souls, for men only, to the exclusion of angels and irrational animals. The expression ” Bread of Angels,” which is so often applied to the Blessed Sacrament (it is taken from the Psalms) 2 is a mere metaphor to indicate that the angels feast spiritually upon the God-man in the Beatific Vision, where He is not concealed under the sacramental veil.8 l Pohle Preuss, The Sacraments, 3 Cfr. St. Thomas, Sumtna Theol., Vol. I, pp. iq6 sqq. 3a, qu. 8o, art. a. 2Ps. LXXVII. 2$: ” Panem angelorum manducavxt homo.” 265 266 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT b) The second requisite of capacity or aptitude for holy Communion is that the recipient be in the state of pilgrimage to the next life (in statu viatoris). We have already adverted to Rosmini’s untenable opinion that the Eucharist is miraculously supplied in the next world to children who have died without it.4 It would be equally absurd td give holy Communion to the dead, — a practice expressly forbidden by a council of Hippo in the fourth century, on the ground that corpses are no longer capable of eating.5 Strangely enough, this abuse of giving Communion to the dead proved difficult to eradicate, as appears from the energetic measures taken against it by later synods, e. g. that of Auxerre, of 578, and the Trullan Council of 692.® c) The third requisite is Baptism, which by its very concept is the “spiritual door” to all the means of grace administered by the Church. Were a Jew or a Mohammedan to receive the Sacred Host, he would experience none of the effects of the Sacrament ex opere operato, even though he had put himself into the state of sanctifying grace by an act of perfect contrition.7 The catechumens in the ancient Church were strictly excluded from the Table of the Lord.8 4 V. supra, pp. 236 sq. 5 Can. 4: “PlacuU ut cotporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non deter; dictum est [enim] a Domino: ’ Accipite et edite,’ cadavera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere.” eCfr. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 2nd ed., p. 585, Freiburg 1877. 7 Baptismus flaminis. — V. PohlePreuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 343 «qq. 8 On the capacity of baptized infants, v. supra, pp. 240 sq.; oil that of maniacs, idiots, mental defectives, etc., cfr. Familler, Pastoral-Psychiotrie, pp. 165 sqq., Freiburg 1898; see also St Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 9. SECTION 2 SUBJECTIVE WORTHINESS Basing its teaching on the Fathers, the Tridentine Council 1 distinguishes a threefold Communion : ( 1 ) Purely sacramental reception, that is, when the Eucharist is received in the state of mortal sin ; (2) Purely spiritual reception, which consists in a desire to receive the Holy Eucharist ; (3) Sacramental and spiritual reception by those who are in the state of grace and have the required disposition. It is only the last-mentioned kind of Communion that produces all the effects peculiar to the Sacrament. It alone can properly be called “worthy Communion.,, a) Hence the first and chief condition of subjective worthiness is the state of sanctifying grace (status gratiae sanctificantis). a) Whoever takes Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin, receives the Body and Blood of our Lord unworthily and commits a sacrilege. 1 Seas. XIII, cap. 8. 267 268 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT Faith alone (fides informis), i. e. faith without the dispositions that must accompany it to effect justification, is not sufficient for a worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. This was expressly defined by the Tridentine Council against the Protestant Reformers : ” If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema.” 2 The same Council commands that whoever is guilty of mortal sin must cleanse his soul in the Sacrament of Penance before approaching the Holy Table: “And lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily, … this holy Synod ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite soever they may think themselves.” 8 Unlike the law prescribing the state of grace for those who wish to communicate, the precept enjoining confession is not of divine right, but purely ecclesiastical. p) In estimating the guilt of unworthy Communion it is necessary to make a distinction. St. Thomas explains this with his wonted lucidity as follows : ” One sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, second, accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object; and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed, is greater. And since Christ’s Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the 2 Sess. XIII, can. xx: Si quis dixerit, so lam Udern esse suMcientem praeparationem ad sumendum SS. Eucharistiae sacramentum, anathema sit. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 893). 8 L. c . : ” Et ne tantum sacramentum indigne … sumatur, statuit atque declarat ipsa s. Synodus, Wis quos conscientia peccati mortalis gravat, quantumcunque etiam se contritos existiment, habitd copia confessoris, necessario praemittendam esse confessionem sacramentalem.” (Cfr. Sess. XIII, cap. 7). THE RECIPIENT 269 Sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity [such as the kiss of Judas or the crucifixion]. … In the third place come sins committed against the Sacraments, which belong to Christ’s humanity ; and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures.”* Unworthy Communion, being a sin against the greatest of the Sacraments, is no doubt a grave sacrilege ; but it is by no means the most grievous sin that can be committed. Sins com-» mitted against the Godhead of Christ and against His bodily humanity are objectively much more grievous. “This sin/’ says the Angelic Doctor, speaking of unworthy Communion, “is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the gravest of them all.”5 Regarding the matter from the subjective point of view, it is evident that the gravity of a sacrilegious Communion varies in proportion to the malice actuating the unworthy recipient. No doubt one who tramples the Sacred Host under foot commits a more grievous sin than he who simply communicates in the state of mortal sin. And he who approaches this Sacrament unworthily out of malice, is guilty of a far greater crime than he who does so merely from weakness or fear of his sin being discovered. b) The second requisite of worthy reception is that the recipient must, from the previous midiSumma Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. multis aliis gravius secundum suam 5. specxem, non tamen omnium gravis* * L. c.r * Hoc peccatum est simum.* 270 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT night, abstain from everything in the nature of food or drink (ieiunium naturale).6 This precept, which obliges under pain of mortal sin/ is traced by St. Augustine to an Apostolic ordinance,8 but this contention would be hard to prove. The reasons for the prohibition of food and drink before Communion are stated as follows by St. Thomas: ” First, … that it [the Blessed Sacrament] may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink ; secondly, because of its signification, i. e., to give us to understand that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacrament, and His charity, ought to be first of all established in our hearts… . Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from over-indulgence in food. …” 9 c) In addition to the fast the Church demands a certain preparation. She does not, however, hold that, without such preparation, Communion would fail to work its effects or be unworthy. The only absolutely necessary condition of subjective worthiness is the state of sanctifying grace. There is no law compelling the faithful, under pain of mortal sin, to approach the Holy Table with a certain definite measure of devotion or previous preparation. Nevertheless, reverence compels us, under pain of venial sin, not to receive our Lord and Saviour without sentiments of sincere devotion.10 6 Cfr. Cone. Constantiense, Den- 8 Ep. 54 ad Iauttor., c 6. zinger-Bannwart, n. 626. » Summa Tkeol., 3a, qu. 80, art 8. 7 For exceptions to this rule see 10 Cfr. Pe Lugo, De Euehariftia, the text-books of moral and pastoral disp. 14. sect a. 3. theology. THE RECIPIENT 271 To demand more than that would savor of undue rigorism. Pope Alexander VIII, Dec. 7, 1690, condemned the Jansenistic contention that no one should be admitted to the Holy Table who has not made ” full reparation ” for his sins, and who is not yet filled with the ” purest love of God.” 11 The question whether the effects of this Sacrament are impeded by venial sin, is answered by St. Thomas as follows : ” Venial sins can be regarded in two ways : first, as past, secondly, as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in the first sense do not in any way hinder the effect of this Sacrament… . Considered in the second sense, venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this Sacrament, but merely in part. For … the effect of this Sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness, which is indeed hindered if anyone approach this Sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.” 12 Readings: — St. Thomas, Sutntna Theol., 3a, qu. 82. — P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, § 35, Freiburg 1B93. — P. Morrisroe, art. ” Holy Communion,” in Vol. VII of the Catholic Encyclopedia, pp. 402 sq. — A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed.t pp. 217-249, London 1905. 11 V. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. of the Holy Eucharist the student 1312 sq. may further consult P. Schanz, 12 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, 8. — On the subject of the recipient 8 35, Freiburg 1893.