"
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact
that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why
the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake
of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
reproves and corrects.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact
that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why
the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake
of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
reproves and corrects.
Summa Theologica
"
[*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say,
priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same
lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou
betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss! " And thus it appears that the
fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was
most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than
fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every
sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God
than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a
cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he
sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual
uncleanness, upon his soul.
On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and
had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in
Joan. ), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which
all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be,
not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
I answer that, As stated in the [4647]FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; [4648]SS,
Q[73], A[3], one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways:
first of all essentially, secondly 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 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: hence it is written (Mat. 12:32):
"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be
forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come. "
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.
Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part.
for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is
lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the
same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this,
the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual
contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in
others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their
sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of
sin.
So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many
others, yet it is not the greatest of all.
Reply to Objection 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to
the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is
committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the
crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of
all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species,
while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly,
because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this
does not.
Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body
is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin,
because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to
the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this
resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to
fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the
charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the
more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of
fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because
thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a
hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament.
However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance
to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a
man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be
utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament
of the Church's unity, as stated above ([4649]Q[61], A[2]). Hence the
unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the
believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who
is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be
truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the
holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and
this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who
receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it
unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence
the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says,
"not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it
from other food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's
presence in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the
mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the
sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would
intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's
body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is
capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament
than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use
of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the
mire to be trodden upon.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking
it?
Objection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to
the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for
the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But
(Mat. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to
dogs. " Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this
sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal
or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks
for it.
Objection 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it
seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an
unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by
receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to
be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be
exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him.
Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those
suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in
the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in
monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren have
to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate
Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community;
and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these words:
'May the body of Christ prove thee today. '" And further on: "If any
evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for each charge he must say
Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act
imputed. " But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush
of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine
says (De Verbis. Dom. ; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body
is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.
On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have
eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder
the fat ones of the earth," i. e. sinners, "from eating at the table of
the Lord. "
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are
secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as
public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men
by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion
ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence
Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider
that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who
continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I
thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other
Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty,
nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be
defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion. "
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should
not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from
the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may
not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1
Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc. , Augustine's
gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he
has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some
ecclesiastical or lay tribunal. " Nevertheless a priest who has
knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn
all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they
have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church;
because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be
refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence
in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation
is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort,
or to apostates, after their conversion to God. "
Reply to Objection 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs,
that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be
published, but are to be left to the Divine judgment.
Reply to Objection 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin
mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed,
nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is
worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than
that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit
mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine
says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is a most dangerous exchange, for us
to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil. " But the secret
sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord's table
unworthily.
Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a
consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is
concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant,
commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as
Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he
first adore it. " Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss. , Ch. De
Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the
Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he
receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has
presumed to simulate it. "
Reply to Objection 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary
enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows:
"The Sacred Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any
person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to
our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means
of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private
and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of
the sons of men. " And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De
Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there
seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without
sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of
death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of
salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be given to
anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from
receiving this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from
receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from
receiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss
happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that "the
same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to
the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to distinguish
the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with the result
that usually follows such motions; and there is as little sin in this
as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things. "
Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this
sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of
the English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from
lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own
judgment, as to whether they should enter the church and receive the
mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought
not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed through
the fire unscorched. "
From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be
without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ.
Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
Objection 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with
them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements
which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet
which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as,
for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her
periods, or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to
Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems that
neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving
this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the
sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that
seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance,
or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial; and if
occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and
confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to be prevented
from receiving this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater
than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the
Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account
debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much
less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream
against the Sixth Commandment.
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the
seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening. " But
for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore,
it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred
from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the
aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a
man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they
do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this
sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in
themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause,
they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause, therefore, must
be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause,
viz. the deception of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was
stated in the [4650]FP, Q[111], A[3], through the apparition of which,
these movements occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an
internal spiritual cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times
they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or
weakness of nature, or even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every
one of these three causes can be without sin at all, or else with
venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial
sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament,
so as to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but
should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity.
For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not
striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a
venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the
demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we read
in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a
certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to
receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was no fault
on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on
that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin
whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of
lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and
delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet
defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of
Augustine (OBJ[1]). At other times such thoughts come of concupiscence
and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin:
otherwise it will be a venial sin.
In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it
arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal
loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the
abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also
can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the
Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with sin, as
when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can be either
venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the
case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to consent, rather
than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory,
writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi), says that one
ought to refrain from Communion when this arises from evil thoughts,
but not when it arises from excess of food or drink, especially if
necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its cause
whether such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of
this sacrament.
At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts.
The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily defilement, with
which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach
the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any sacred object, wash
their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long
standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the
kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which follows after
the aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean
imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency,
can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi):
"As when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity
compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest
at hand. "
Reply to Objection 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal
sin, from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may
be hindered through other causes, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for
instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of
paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this
sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question
which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the
defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account
Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on
Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of
Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives
carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven
be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in conjugal
embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time
when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to indulge
in carnal acts. " But since this is to be understood in the sense of
decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to
be left to his own judgment. " "But if," as Gregory says (Regist. xi),
"it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then
such a one should be forbidden to approach this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to
Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons
were termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law
understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual
or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving
sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments;
but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid
movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving
of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is
written (Dt. 23:10): "If there be among you any man, that is defiled in
a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and he shall not
return before he be washed with water in the evening. "
Reply to Objection 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by
contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not
taken away, nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.
Reply to Objection 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily
uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, on account of
its intense delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a
cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to
its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not
hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was
instituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our
Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Lk. 22:20,
and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this
sacrament after receiving other food.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come
together to eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if
any man be hungry, let him eat at home": and thus it seems that after
eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.
Objection 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can.
xxix): "Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who
are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the
Lord's Supper is celebrated. " Therefore, at least on that day, one may
receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
Objection 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other
food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food
continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes
away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament.
Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving
this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly
after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the
morning when the food it not digested. But it would savor more of
moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards
receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is
occasionally a longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that
such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament.
Objection 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament
after receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink after
receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar. , Ep. liv): "It has
pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the
Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods. "
I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in
two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant
to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above [4651](A[4]):
secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man is
prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink, for
three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar. , Ep. liv),
"out of respect for this sacrament," so that it 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, according to Mat. 6:33: "Seek first the
kingdom of God. " Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and
intemperance, which sometimes arise from over-indulging in food, as the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is
drunk. "
Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they
should be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be any
doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because
necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de Consecratione:
"Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die
without Communion.
"
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact
that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why
the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake
of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to
commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the
hearts and memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave no
command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the
apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the
churches. "
Reply to Objection 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss:
"If any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of
his food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread,
without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards. "
Reply to Objection 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with
the former custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on
that day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's
supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp. ad
Januar. , Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for
Christ's body to be received before breaking the fast.
Reply to Objection 4: As stated in the [4652]SS, Q[147], A[6], ad 2,
there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, which
implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of food or
drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons
given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this sacrament
after taking water, or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter
how small the quantity be. Nor does it matter whether it nourishes or
not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things, provided it be
taken by way of food or drink. But the remains of food left in the
mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this
sacrament, because they are swallowed not by way of food but by way of
saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable remains of the water or
wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in
great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting
the body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in the
objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken
rather as an alterative.
Reply to Objection 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth
of a Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely
of all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never
afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same
day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to
different systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some
at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church
begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by
way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament
on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight.
Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is concerned, whether he has
slept after taking food or drink, or whether he has digested it; but it
does matter as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of
sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed, one
becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment
of receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the
sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes
before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was ordained
that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after.
Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this
sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the Postcommunion
prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say
their own private prayers.
However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was
made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in
the morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth
hour, and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they shall fast
until evening. " For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less
frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred
mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be easily
observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought
not to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should
approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination,
according to 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat
of that bread, and drink of the chalice. " But this is not possible for
those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be
given to them.
Objection 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are
the possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept
from even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.
iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who have
not the use of reason.
Objection 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are
children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given to
children. Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of
the use of reason.
On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13);
and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things
that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently,
since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given to them.
I answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First,
when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not to
see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this
sacrament, it is not to be denied them.
In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason.
Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so
from birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them,
because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards the
sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if
when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this
sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death; unless
danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the
acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and the same is to
be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the
sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who has been sent for
comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes
delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear witness, and let him
receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be thought that he is
going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and
let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth. "
Reply to Objection 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion
towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in
others.
Reply to Objection 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are
not yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since
it thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to
baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same
reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian
says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the most Holy Communion to have
ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by unclean
spirits. "
Reply to Objection 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children
as of the insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently,
the sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain
Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that
Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not
understanding that Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of
adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord
saying (Jn. 6:54), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine
writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), "then every
one of the faithful becomes a partaker," i. e. spiritually, "of the body
and blood of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in
Baptism. " But when children once begin to have some use of reason so as
to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament, then it can be
given to them.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?
Objection 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament
daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also does
this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only
once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins," according to 1
Pet. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament
daily.
Objection 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But
the Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was
said above (Q[73], A[9]) was eaten only once in the year; while the
Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this
sacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive
this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.
Objection 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament
as containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from
receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying
(Mat. 8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my
roof"; also Peter, for saying (Lk. 5:8), "Depart from me, for I am a
sinful man, O Lord. " Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to
receive this sacrament daily.
Objection 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this
sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more
praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one
were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the custom
of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive
it daily.
Objection 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the
welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires
Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et
Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive the
sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of
his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he ought
to refrain from receiving for a time. " Consequently, it is not
praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. xxviii): "This is
our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the use
of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself,
the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is
profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence
Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it
is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it
often: I need a frequent remedy. " The second thing to be considered is
on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this
sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone
finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to
receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that
it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it
daily. " But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on
account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which
they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament
every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves
properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I
neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist. "
Reply to Objection 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to
Christ's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore,
as Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But a
man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He receives
Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written
(Heb. 10:14): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified. " Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ's
health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every
day.
And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as
a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be reborn
spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan. ),
commenting on Jn. 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when he is grown
old? " But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food
is taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament
every day. Hence it is that our Lord (Lk. 11:3), teaches us to pray,
"Give us this day our daily bread": in explaining which words Augustine
observes (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. xxviii): "If you receive it," i. e. this
sacrament, every day, "every day is today for thee, and Christ rises
again every day in thee, for when Christ riseth it is today. "
Reply to Objection 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament
chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it
was partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on
this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of
Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is
given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in this
respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to the
people in the desert.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear
associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called
filial fear, as was said in the [4653]FS, Q[67], A[4], ad 2; [4654]SS,
Q[19], AA[9],11,12; because the desire of receiving arises from love,
while the humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently, each
of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to
receiving it daily, and as to refraining from it sometimes. Hence
Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist should not be
received daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do
as according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus and the
Centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the
Lord with joy, whereas the other said: 'Lord I am not worthy that Thou
shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our Saviour, though
not in the same way. " But love and hope, whereunto the Scriptures
constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had
said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered:
"Fear not. "
Reply to Objection 4: Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this
day our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several
times daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion
is set forth.
Reply to Objection 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the
various ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion
of the Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the
faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i):
"When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish
to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have
ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds. " Later on, when the fervor
of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave
permission "that all should communicate, if not more frequently, at
least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and
Christmas. " Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii)
declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is
set forth in the Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when
"iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (Mat. 24:12), Pope Innocent
III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at least once a
year," namely, "at Easter. " However, in De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the
faithful are counseled "to communicate on all Sundays. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?
Objection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from
Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Mat. 8:8):
"Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; and he
who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be
compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A[10], ad 3). Therefore,
since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be
lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life
long.
Objection 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is
not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity
for salvation, as was stated above ([4655]Q[73], A[3]). Therefore it is
permissible to abstain from Communion altogether.
Objection 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence
Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let all
communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered by
grievous crimes. " Consequently, if those who are not in the state of
sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better off
than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even
for the godly to refrain from Communion.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. "
I answer that, As stated above [4656](A[1]), there are two ways of
receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it
is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually, because
this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q[73], A[3],
ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for
receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A[1], ad 3, A[2]).
Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this
sacrament.
Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity
presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to
receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept, but
also by virtue of the Lord's command (Lk. 22:19): "Do this in memory of
Me. " But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for
fulfilling Christ's command.
Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not
obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good. " Consequently,
humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from
Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the
Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.
Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as
Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the
Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are
of necessity with regard to adults.
Reply to Objection 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from
receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that
account; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on
that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as
Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of their
priest," are excused.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?
Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without
the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have
learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred
body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what
superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive
the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament
altogether. " Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ
without His blood.
Objection 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the
blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated
above ([4657]Q[73], A[2];[4658] Q[76], A[2], ad 1). Consequently, if
the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament,
which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De
Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot
happen without a great sacrilege. "
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our
Lord's Passion, as stated above ([4659]Q[73], AA[4],5;[4660] Q[74],
A[1]), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is
expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated
above ([4661]Q[74], A[1]), the blood is offered for the health of the
soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather
than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to
take Christ's body without His blood.
On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of
Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.
I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this
sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of
the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the
body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the
sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty
both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to
receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are
called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a
mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for,
if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the
multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old,
young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe
due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent
custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the
reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.
Reply to Objection 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as
they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the
entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo,
"What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is
known to have a share? "
Reply to Objection 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in
the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And
hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament;
if the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the
priest who consecrates receive both.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very
consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be
consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the
people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all;
and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above
([4662]Q[76], A[2]).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR
ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at
its institution; under which heading there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
(2) Whether He gave it to Judas?
(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible
or impassible?
(4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this
sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days
He lay dead?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and
blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings
or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred
Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own
body or drank His own blood.
[*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say,
priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same
lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou
betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss! " And thus it appears that the
fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was
most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than
fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every
sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God
than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a
cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he
sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual
uncleanness, upon his soul.
On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and
had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in
Joan. ), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which
all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be,
not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
I answer that, As stated in the [4647]FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; [4648]SS,
Q[73], A[3], one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways:
first of all essentially, secondly 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 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: hence it is written (Mat. 12:32):
"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be
forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come. "
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.
Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part.
for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is
lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the
same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this,
the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual
contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in
others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their
sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of
sin.
So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many
others, yet it is not the greatest of all.
Reply to Objection 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to
the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is
committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the
crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of
all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species,
while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly,
because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this
does not.
Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body
is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin,
because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to
the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this
resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to
fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the
charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the
more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of
fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because
thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a
hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament.
However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance
to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a
man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be
utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament
of the Church's unity, as stated above ([4649]Q[61], A[2]). Hence the
unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the
believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who
is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be
truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the
holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and
this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who
receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it
unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence
the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says,
"not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it
from other food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's
presence in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the
mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the
sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would
intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's
body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is
capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament
than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use
of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the
mire to be trodden upon.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking
it?
Objection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to
the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for
the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But
(Mat. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to
dogs. " Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this
sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal
or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks
for it.
Objection 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it
seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an
unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by
receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to
be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be
exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him.
Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those
suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in
the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in
monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren have
to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate
Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community;
and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these words:
'May the body of Christ prove thee today. '" And further on: "If any
evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for each charge he must say
Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act
imputed. " But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush
of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine
says (De Verbis. Dom. ; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body
is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.
On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have
eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder
the fat ones of the earth," i. e. sinners, "from eating at the table of
the Lord. "
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are
secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as
public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men
by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion
ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence
Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider
that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who
continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I
thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other
Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty,
nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be
defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion. "
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should
not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from
the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may
not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1
Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc. , Augustine's
gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he
has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some
ecclesiastical or lay tribunal. " Nevertheless a priest who has
knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn
all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they
have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church;
because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be
refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence
in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation
is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort,
or to apostates, after their conversion to God. "
Reply to Objection 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs,
that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be
published, but are to be left to the Divine judgment.
Reply to Objection 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin
mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed,
nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is
worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than
that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit
mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine
says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is a most dangerous exchange, for us
to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil. " But the secret
sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord's table
unworthily.
Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a
consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is
concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant,
commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as
Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he
first adore it. " Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss. , Ch. De
Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the
Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he
receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has
presumed to simulate it. "
Reply to Objection 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary
enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows:
"The Sacred Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any
person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to
our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means
of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private
and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of
the sons of men. " And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De
Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there
seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without
sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of
death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of
salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be given to
anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from
receiving this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from
receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from
receiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss
happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that "the
same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to
the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to distinguish
the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with the result
that usually follows such motions; and there is as little sin in this
as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things. "
Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this
sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of
the English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from
lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own
judgment, as to whether they should enter the church and receive the
mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought
not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed through
the fire unscorched. "
From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be
without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ.
Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
Objection 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with
them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements
which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet
which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as,
for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her
periods, or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to
Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems that
neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving
this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the
sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that
seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance,
or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial; and if
occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and
confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to be prevented
from receiving this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater
than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the
Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account
debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much
less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream
against the Sixth Commandment.
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the
seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening. " But
for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore,
it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred
from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the
aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a
man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they
do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this
sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in
themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause,
they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause, therefore, must
be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause,
viz. the deception of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was
stated in the [4650]FP, Q[111], A[3], through the apparition of which,
these movements occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an
internal spiritual cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times
they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or
weakness of nature, or even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every
one of these three causes can be without sin at all, or else with
venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial
sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament,
so as to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but
should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity.
For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not
striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a
venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the
demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we read
in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a
certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to
receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was no fault
on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on
that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin
whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of
lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and
delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet
defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of
Augustine (OBJ[1]). At other times such thoughts come of concupiscence
and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin:
otherwise it will be a venial sin.
In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it
arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal
loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the
abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also
can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the
Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with sin, as
when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can be either
venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the
case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to consent, rather
than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory,
writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi), says that one
ought to refrain from Communion when this arises from evil thoughts,
but not when it arises from excess of food or drink, especially if
necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its cause
whether such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of
this sacrament.
At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts.
The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily defilement, with
which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach
the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any sacred object, wash
their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long
standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the
kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which follows after
the aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean
imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency,
can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi):
"As when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity
compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest
at hand. "
Reply to Objection 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal
sin, from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may
be hindered through other causes, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for
instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of
paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this
sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question
which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the
defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account
Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on
Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of
Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives
carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven
be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in conjugal
embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time
when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to indulge
in carnal acts. " But since this is to be understood in the sense of
decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to
be left to his own judgment. " "But if," as Gregory says (Regist. xi),
"it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then
such a one should be forbidden to approach this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to
Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons
were termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law
understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual
or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving
sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments;
but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid
movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving
of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is
written (Dt. 23:10): "If there be among you any man, that is defiled in
a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and he shall not
return before he be washed with water in the evening. "
Reply to Objection 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by
contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not
taken away, nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.
Reply to Objection 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily
uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, on account of
its intense delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a
cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to
its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not
hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was
instituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our
Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Lk. 22:20,
and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this
sacrament after receiving other food.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come
together to eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if
any man be hungry, let him eat at home": and thus it seems that after
eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.
Objection 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can.
xxix): "Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who
are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the
Lord's Supper is celebrated. " Therefore, at least on that day, one may
receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
Objection 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other
food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food
continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes
away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament.
Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving
this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly
after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the
morning when the food it not digested. But it would savor more of
moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards
receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is
occasionally a longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that
such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament.
Objection 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament
after receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink after
receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar. , Ep. liv): "It has
pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the
Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods. "
I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in
two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant
to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above [4651](A[4]):
secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man is
prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink, for
three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar. , Ep. liv),
"out of respect for this sacrament," so that it 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, according to Mat. 6:33: "Seek first the
kingdom of God. " Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and
intemperance, which sometimes arise from over-indulging in food, as the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is
drunk. "
Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they
should be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be any
doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because
necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de Consecratione:
"Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die
without Communion.
"
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact
that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why
the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake
of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to
commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the
hearts and memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave no
command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the
apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the
churches. "
Reply to Objection 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss:
"If any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of
his food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread,
without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards. "
Reply to Objection 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with
the former custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on
that day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's
supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp. ad
Januar. , Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for
Christ's body to be received before breaking the fast.
Reply to Objection 4: As stated in the [4652]SS, Q[147], A[6], ad 2,
there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, which
implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of food or
drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons
given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this sacrament
after taking water, or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter
how small the quantity be. Nor does it matter whether it nourishes or
not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things, provided it be
taken by way of food or drink. But the remains of food left in the
mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this
sacrament, because they are swallowed not by way of food but by way of
saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable remains of the water or
wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in
great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting
the body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in the
objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken
rather as an alterative.
Reply to Objection 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth
of a Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely
of all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never
afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same
day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to
different systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some
at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church
begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by
way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament
on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight.
Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is concerned, whether he has
slept after taking food or drink, or whether he has digested it; but it
does matter as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of
sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed, one
becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment
of receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the
sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes
before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was ordained
that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after.
Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this
sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the Postcommunion
prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say
their own private prayers.
However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was
made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in
the morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth
hour, and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they shall fast
until evening. " For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less
frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred
mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be easily
observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought
not to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should
approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination,
according to 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat
of that bread, and drink of the chalice. " But this is not possible for
those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be
given to them.
Objection 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are
the possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept
from even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.
iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who have
not the use of reason.
Objection 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are
children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given to
children. Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of
the use of reason.
On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13);
and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things
that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently,
since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given to them.
I answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First,
when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not to
see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this
sacrament, it is not to be denied them.
In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason.
Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so
from birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them,
because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards the
sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if
when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this
sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death; unless
danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the
acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and the same is to
be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the
sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who has been sent for
comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes
delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear witness, and let him
receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be thought that he is
going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and
let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth. "
Reply to Objection 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion
towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in
others.
Reply to Objection 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are
not yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since
it thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to
baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same
reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian
says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the most Holy Communion to have
ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by unclean
spirits. "
Reply to Objection 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children
as of the insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently,
the sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain
Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that
Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not
understanding that Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of
adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord
saying (Jn. 6:54), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine
writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), "then every
one of the faithful becomes a partaker," i. e. spiritually, "of the body
and blood of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in
Baptism. " But when children once begin to have some use of reason so as
to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament, then it can be
given to them.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?
Objection 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament
daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also does
this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only
once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins," according to 1
Pet. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament
daily.
Objection 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But
the Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was
said above (Q[73], A[9]) was eaten only once in the year; while the
Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this
sacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive
this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.
Objection 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament
as containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from
receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying
(Mat. 8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my
roof"; also Peter, for saying (Lk. 5:8), "Depart from me, for I am a
sinful man, O Lord. " Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to
receive this sacrament daily.
Objection 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this
sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more
praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one
were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the custom
of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive
it daily.
Objection 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the
welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires
Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et
Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive the
sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of
his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he ought
to refrain from receiving for a time. " Consequently, it is not
praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. xxviii): "This is
our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the use
of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself,
the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is
profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence
Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it
is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it
often: I need a frequent remedy. " The second thing to be considered is
on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this
sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone
finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to
receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that
it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it
daily. " But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on
account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which
they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament
every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves
properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I
neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist. "
Reply to Objection 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to
Christ's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore,
as Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But a
man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He receives
Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written
(Heb. 10:14): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified. " Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ's
health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every
day.
And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as
a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be reborn
spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan. ),
commenting on Jn. 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when he is grown
old? " But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food
is taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament
every day. Hence it is that our Lord (Lk. 11:3), teaches us to pray,
"Give us this day our daily bread": in explaining which words Augustine
observes (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. xxviii): "If you receive it," i. e. this
sacrament, every day, "every day is today for thee, and Christ rises
again every day in thee, for when Christ riseth it is today. "
Reply to Objection 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament
chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it
was partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on
this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of
Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is
given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in this
respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to the
people in the desert.
Reply to Objection 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear
associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called
filial fear, as was said in the [4653]FS, Q[67], A[4], ad 2; [4654]SS,
Q[19], AA[9],11,12; because the desire of receiving arises from love,
while the humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently, each
of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to
receiving it daily, and as to refraining from it sometimes. Hence
Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist should not be
received daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do
as according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus and the
Centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the
Lord with joy, whereas the other said: 'Lord I am not worthy that Thou
shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our Saviour, though
not in the same way. " But love and hope, whereunto the Scriptures
constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had
said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered:
"Fear not. "
Reply to Objection 4: Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this
day our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several
times daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion
is set forth.
Reply to Objection 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the
various ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion
of the Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the
faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i):
"When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish
to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have
ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds. " Later on, when the fervor
of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave
permission "that all should communicate, if not more frequently, at
least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and
Christmas. " Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii)
declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is
set forth in the Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when
"iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (Mat. 24:12), Pope Innocent
III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at least once a
year," namely, "at Easter. " However, in De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the
faithful are counseled "to communicate on all Sundays. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?
Objection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from
Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Mat. 8:8):
"Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; and he
who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be
compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A[10], ad 3). Therefore,
since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be
lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life
long.
Objection 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is
not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity
for salvation, as was stated above ([4655]Q[73], A[3]). Therefore it is
permissible to abstain from Communion altogether.
Objection 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence
Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let all
communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered by
grievous crimes. " Consequently, if those who are not in the state of
sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better off
than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even
for the godly to refrain from Communion.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. "
I answer that, As stated above [4656](A[1]), there are two ways of
receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it
is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually, because
this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q[73], A[3],
ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for
receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A[1], ad 3, A[2]).
Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this
sacrament.
Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity
presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to
receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept, but
also by virtue of the Lord's command (Lk. 22:19): "Do this in memory of
Me. " But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for
fulfilling Christ's command.
Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not
obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good. " Consequently,
humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from
Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the
Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.
Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as
Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the
Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are
of necessity with regard to adults.
Reply to Objection 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from
receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that
account; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on
that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as
Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of their
priest," are excused.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?
Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without
the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have
learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred
body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what
superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive
the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament
altogether. " Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ
without His blood.
Objection 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the
blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated
above ([4657]Q[73], A[2];[4658] Q[76], A[2], ad 1). Consequently, if
the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament,
which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De
Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot
happen without a great sacrilege. "
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our
Lord's Passion, as stated above ([4659]Q[73], AA[4],5;[4660] Q[74],
A[1]), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is
expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated
above ([4661]Q[74], A[1]), the blood is offered for the health of the
soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather
than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to
take Christ's body without His blood.
On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of
Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.
I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this
sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of
the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the
body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the
sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty
both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to
receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are
called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a
mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for,
if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the
multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old,
young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe
due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent
custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the
reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.
Reply to Objection 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as
they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the
entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo,
"What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is
known to have a share? "
Reply to Objection 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in
the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And
hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament;
if the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the
priest who consecrates receive both.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very
consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be
consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the
people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all;
and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above
([4662]Q[76], A[2]).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR
ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at
its institution; under which heading there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
(2) Whether He gave it to Judas?
(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible
or impassible?
(4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this
sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days
He lay dead?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and
blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings
or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred
Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own
body or drank His own blood.
