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.
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.
Summa Theologica
11:29: "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily," etc. : "We hold that there are two ways of eating,
the one sacramental, and the other spiritual. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the receiving
of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and we
have already spoken of both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of
receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake of its
effect. Now, as was stated above ([4635]Q[79], AA[3],8), it sometimes
happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this
sacrament; and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect one.
Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so
sacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received without its
effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the
effect of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with
Christ through faith and charity.
Reply to Objection 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism
and the other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while
others receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However,
there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are
accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament
is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is
accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both
uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the
other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the
sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which
is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament,
rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the
spiritual use.
Reply to Objection 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual
eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is
included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure
the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the
imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is
divided in contrast with the perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4636]Q[73], A[3]), the effect
of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in
desire, though not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized
with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before
being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this
sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this
happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the
sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat
spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these
sacraments since they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were "baptized
in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual
food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink. " Nevertheless sacramental
eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the
sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the
desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism ([4637]Q[69] , A[4], ad 2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this
sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25:
"Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of
Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels. " But it would not be so
unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels
eat Christ spiritually.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) says: By "this
meat and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His
body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones. " But
not only men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship.
Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm.
cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself
declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in
Me, and I in him. '" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the
holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him.
Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men
only, but also for the angels.
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) says: "Eat the bread"
of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar. " But angels do
not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something
therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.
I answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under
His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently
there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself
exists under His proper species, and in this way the angels eat Christ
spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of
perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is the bread we hope for
in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united with Him here.
In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the
sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while
desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat
Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does not
fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed
on Christ spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this
sacrament spiritually.
Reply to Objection 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is
ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as
the angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence
it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under this
sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels
enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the "bread of
angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly and
principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly
it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of
His mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the
sacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen
"through a glass" and "in a dark manner. " And therefore, properly
speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this
sacrament spiritually.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to
their present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest
vision. Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad
2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?
Objection 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ
sacramentally. For Augustine says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae
(cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and
belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe in Him, this
it is, to eat the living bread. " But the sinner does not believe in
Him; because he has not living faith, to which it belongs to believe
"in God," as stated above in the [4638]SS, Q[2], A[2]; [4639]SS, Q[4],
A[5]. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament, which is the
living bread.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament
of charity," as stated above ([4640]Q[78], A[3], ad 6). But as
unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do
not seem to be capable of eating this sacrament, since in the
sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith. " Therefore, for
like reason, the sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally.
Objection 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the
irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man
when he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to
senseless beasts, and made like to them. " But an irrational animal,
such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it
cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for
the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), commenting on the
words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive
from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself. '" But only sinners die by receiving.
Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the
just only.
I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying
that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that
directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be
under the sacramental species.
But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this
sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last,
Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above
([4641]Q[76], A[6], ad 3;[4642] Q[77], A[8]). But the species last so
long as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as
was stated above ([4643]Q[77], A[4]). Now it is clear that the
substance of bread taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but
it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body
remains just as long under the sacramental species when taken by
sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not merely the
just, can eat Christ's body.
Reply to Objection 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be
understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners.
Consequently, it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the
above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction
between corporeal and spiritual eating.
Reply to Objection 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental
species, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he
would eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the
verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb on the
part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat
sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, but
as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to
receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith regarding
the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the
consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to be
under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so
long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were
to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding
Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without
detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not
touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its
sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's body would
cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but
this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as stated above.
None the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the
body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable of using it as a
sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body "accidentally," and not
sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated
were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental
difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set
down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual eating.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?
Objection 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving
Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity
under the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not
sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay,
rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Lk. 7 of
the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Mat. 14:36) that "as
many as touched the hem of His garment were healed. " Therefore, they do
not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual
medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery,
according to Mat. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician. "
Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore
this sacrament can be received by them without sin.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts,
since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii),
the greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse. " Now no one sins
except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving this
sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and
touch, so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by
receiving the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it,
which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to
be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating
this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is
unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by
receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it
would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1
Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not
hereby justified. " Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament,
does not appear to be guilty of sin.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. " Now the
gloss says on this passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in
sin, or who handles it irreverently. " Therefore, if anyone, while in
mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning
mortally.
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a
sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a
twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above ([4644]Q[73], A[6]):
one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the
other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body,
which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this
sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and
incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no
one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever
receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this
sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the
sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He
did not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union
with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And
therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did not
incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving
this sacrament.
Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin;
consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But
as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the
Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him
was defective, according to Jn. 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am not
yet ascended to My Father," i. e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains
(Tract. cxxi in Joan. ). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith
regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of
sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from
fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish
condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines,
given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a
medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to
them who are quit of sin.
Reply to Objection 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the
soul's virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they
were principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use
of them, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud
of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament
is concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object
thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan. ): "Many receive
Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to
beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good
thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in
the Apostle's case, "good was wrought through evil well received,"
namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but
only its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance
of Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above
([4645]Q[76], A[7]). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental
species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently,
no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received
Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not
to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius
(Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be allowed to share in the
eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but
likewise really.
Reply to Objection 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin
can come about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either
because through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse
him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for
example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication
not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his
conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28):
"Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink
of the chalice. " And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives
Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the
very ignorance is a sin on his part.
Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance,
when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite:
and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ,
because a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite. It
suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for
instance, if he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid them in
the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that what
he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses,
for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he believed to be his wife
whereas she was not, he is not to be called a sinner on that account;
in the same way if he has utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition
suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter ([4646]XP,
Q[2], A[3], ad 2); hence he is no longer to be called a sinner.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest
of all sins?
Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with
consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the
chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the
blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be
punished as though he slew Christ. " But the sin of them who slew Christ
seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man
approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the
gravest.
Objection 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou
to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar? "
[*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.
drinketh unworthily," etc. : "We hold that there are two ways of eating,
the one sacramental, and the other spiritual. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the receiving
of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and we
have already spoken of both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of
receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake of its
effect. Now, as was stated above ([4635]Q[79], AA[3],8), it sometimes
happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this
sacrament; and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect one.
Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so
sacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received without its
effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the
effect of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with
Christ through faith and charity.
Reply to Objection 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism
and the other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while
others receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However,
there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are
accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament
is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is
accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both
uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the
other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the
sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which
is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament,
rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the
spiritual use.
Reply to Objection 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual
eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is
included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure
the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the
imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is
divided in contrast with the perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4636]Q[73], A[3]), the effect
of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in
desire, though not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized
with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before
being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this
sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this
happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the
sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat
spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these
sacraments since they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were "baptized
in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual
food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink. " Nevertheless sacramental
eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the
sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the
desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism ([4637]Q[69] , A[4], ad 2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this
sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25:
"Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of
Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels. " But it would not be so
unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels
eat Christ spiritually.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) says: By "this
meat and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His
body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones. " But
not only men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship.
Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm.
cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself
declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in
Me, and I in him. '" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the
holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him.
Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men
only, but also for the angels.
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) says: "Eat the bread"
of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar. " But angels do
not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something
therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.
I answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under
His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently
there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself
exists under His proper species, and in this way the angels eat Christ
spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of
perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is the bread we hope for
in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united with Him here.
In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the
sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while
desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat
Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does not
fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed
on Christ spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this
sacrament spiritually.
Reply to Objection 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is
ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as
the angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence
it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under this
sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels
enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the "bread of
angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly and
principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly
it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of
His mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the
sacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen
"through a glass" and "in a dark manner. " And therefore, properly
speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this
sacrament spiritually.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to
their present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest
vision. Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad
2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?
Objection 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ
sacramentally. For Augustine says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae
(cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and
belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe in Him, this
it is, to eat the living bread. " But the sinner does not believe in
Him; because he has not living faith, to which it belongs to believe
"in God," as stated above in the [4638]SS, Q[2], A[2]; [4639]SS, Q[4],
A[5]. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament, which is the
living bread.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament
of charity," as stated above ([4640]Q[78], A[3], ad 6). But as
unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do
not seem to be capable of eating this sacrament, since in the
sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith. " Therefore, for
like reason, the sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally.
Objection 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the
irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man
when he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to
senseless beasts, and made like to them. " But an irrational animal,
such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it
cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for
the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), commenting on the
words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive
from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself. '" But only sinners die by receiving.
Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the
just only.
I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying
that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that
directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be
under the sacramental species.
But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this
sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last,
Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above
([4641]Q[76], A[6], ad 3;[4642] Q[77], A[8]). But the species last so
long as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as
was stated above ([4643]Q[77], A[4]). Now it is clear that the
substance of bread taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but
it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body
remains just as long under the sacramental species when taken by
sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not merely the
just, can eat Christ's body.
Reply to Objection 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be
understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners.
Consequently, it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the
above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction
between corporeal and spiritual eating.
Reply to Objection 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental
species, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he
would eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the
verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb on the
part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat
sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, but
as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to
receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith regarding
the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the
consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to be
under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so
long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were
to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding
Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without
detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not
touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its
sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's body would
cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but
this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as stated above.
None the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the
body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable of using it as a
sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body "accidentally," and not
sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated
were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental
difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set
down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual eating.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?
Objection 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving
Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity
under the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not
sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay,
rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Lk. 7 of
the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Mat. 14:36) that "as
many as touched the hem of His garment were healed. " Therefore, they do
not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual
medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery,
according to Mat. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician. "
Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore
this sacrament can be received by them without sin.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts,
since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii),
the greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse. " Now no one sins
except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving this
sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and
touch, so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by
receiving the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it,
which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to
be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating
this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is
unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by
receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it
would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1
Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not
hereby justified. " Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament,
does not appear to be guilty of sin.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. " Now the
gloss says on this passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in
sin, or who handles it irreverently. " Therefore, if anyone, while in
mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning
mortally.
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a
sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a
twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above ([4644]Q[73], A[6]):
one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the
other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body,
which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this
sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and
incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no
one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever
receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this
sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the
sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
Reply to Objection 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He
did not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union
with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And
therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did not
incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving
this sacrament.
Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin;
consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But
as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the
Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him
was defective, according to Jn. 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am not
yet ascended to My Father," i. e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains
(Tract. cxxi in Joan. ). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith
regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of
sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from
fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish
condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines,
given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a
medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to
them who are quit of sin.
Reply to Objection 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the
soul's virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they
were principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use
of them, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud
of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament
is concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object
thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan. ): "Many receive
Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to
beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good
thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in
the Apostle's case, "good was wrought through evil well received,"
namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but
only its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance
of Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above
([4645]Q[76], A[7]). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental
species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently,
no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received
Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not
to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius
(Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be allowed to share in the
eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but
likewise really.
Reply to Objection 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin
can come about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either
because through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse
him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for
example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication
not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his
conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28):
"Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink
of the chalice. " And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives
Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the
very ignorance is a sin on his part.
Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance,
when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite:
and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ,
because a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite. It
suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for
instance, if he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid them in
the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that what
he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses,
for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he believed to be his wife
whereas she was not, he is not to be called a sinner on that account;
in the same way if he has utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition
suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter ([4646]XP,
Q[2], A[3], ad 2); hence he is no longer to be called a sinner.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest
of all sins?
Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with
consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the
chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the
blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be
punished as though he slew Christ. " But the sin of them who slew Christ
seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man
approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the
gravest.
Objection 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou
to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar? "
[*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.
