Reply to Objection 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be
understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners.
understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners.
Summa Theologica
Hence Chrysostom says (Hom.
xlvi in Joan.
):
"Like lions breathing forth fire, thus do we depart from that table,
being made terrible to the devil. "
Reply to Objection 1: The effect of this sacrament is received
according to man's condition: such is the case with every active cause
in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of
the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his
free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament
of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take
away from man the possibility of sinning.
Reply to Objection 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin,
according to Rom. 13:10: "The love of our neighbor worketh no evil":
but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after
possessing charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly
to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch
as it increases charity, because, as Augustine says ([4629]Q[83]), "the
increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence. " But it directly
strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients.
For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments, being
one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments
only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives
effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit
others than the recipients.
Objection 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment
of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin.
If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others
besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory
and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself,
through another receiving or offering this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is
likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides
the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he
receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one
mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many
receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it
does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient.
On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration
of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not
beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not
merely to them who receive it.
I answer that, As stated above [4630](A[3]), this sacrament is not only
a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a
sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is
represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Eph.
5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace
is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this
sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of
sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is
said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation
at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son,
be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace. "
But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of
sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is
said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants,
men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this
sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the
redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation. "
And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Mat. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20):
"Which for you," i. e. who receive it, "and for many," i. e. others,
"shall be shed unto remission of sins. "
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the
others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the
forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it
produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion
through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the
memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are
united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine
says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer Christ's
body except for them who are Christ's members? " Hence in the Canon of
the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the
Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according
to the measure of their devotion.
Reply to Objection 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament,
but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one
or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others.
In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one
mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is
only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts
than in one, since there is only one Christ present under all the hosts
and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from
the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the
oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and
therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is
multiplied.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?
Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered
by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), commenting on Jn.
6:52, "If any man eat of this bread," etc. , says: "Eat the heavenly
bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins, though they
be daily, let them not be deadly. " From this it is evident that venial
sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating. But
they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament.
Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism.
But, as stated above ([4631]Q[69], AA[9],10), only pretense checks the
effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because
according to Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from
the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore
neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any
cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken
away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of that
desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," i. e.
this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so
that we shall be inflamed and made godlike. " But the fire of our desire
or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity,
as was shown in the [4632]FS, Q[81], A[4]; [4633]SS, Q[24], A[10].
Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as
past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in
the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament.
For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach
devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in
the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this
sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above
[4634](A[1]), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the
obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual
refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone
approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins;
but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.
Reply to Objection 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual
venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and
therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in
its actual effect.
Reply to Objection 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is,
for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is
spiritual regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired,
which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which
has actual delight.
Reply to Objection 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which
are taken away by this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first
of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.
Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely,
sacramentally and spiritually?
(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?
(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?
(5) Of the degree of this sin;
(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that
approaches it?
(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this
sacrament?
(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?
(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?
(10) Whether it is to be received daily?
(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?
(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
Objection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of
eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as
Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man
be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc. , so also this
sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this
sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. " But there are no two distinct ways of receiving
Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought
this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on
account of the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction to
one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But
sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end.
Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with
spiritual eating.
Objection 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another
ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that
no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the
fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover,
sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating
could be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a
twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.
On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 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.
"Like lions breathing forth fire, thus do we depart from that table,
being made terrible to the devil. "
Reply to Objection 1: The effect of this sacrament is received
according to man's condition: such is the case with every active cause
in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of
the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his
free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament
of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take
away from man the possibility of sinning.
Reply to Objection 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin,
according to Rom. 13:10: "The love of our neighbor worketh no evil":
but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after
possessing charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly
to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch
as it increases charity, because, as Augustine says ([4629]Q[83]), "the
increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence. " But it directly
strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients.
For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments, being
one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments
only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives
effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit
others than the recipients.
Objection 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment
of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin.
If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others
besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory
and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself,
through another receiving or offering this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is
likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides
the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he
receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one
mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many
receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it
does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient.
On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration
of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not
beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not
merely to them who receive it.
I answer that, As stated above [4630](A[3]), this sacrament is not only
a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a
sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is
represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Eph.
5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace
is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this
sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of
sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is
said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation
at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son,
be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace. "
But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of
sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is
said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants,
men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this
sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the
redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation. "
And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Mat. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20):
"Which for you," i. e. who receive it, "and for many," i. e. others,
"shall be shed unto remission of sins. "
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the
others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the
forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it
produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion
through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the
memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are
united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine
says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer Christ's
body except for them who are Christ's members? " Hence in the Canon of
the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the
Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according
to the measure of their devotion.
Reply to Objection 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament,
but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one
or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others.
In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one
mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is
only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts
than in one, since there is only one Christ present under all the hosts
and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from
the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the
oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and
therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is
multiplied.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?
Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered
by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), commenting on Jn.
6:52, "If any man eat of this bread," etc. , says: "Eat the heavenly
bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins, though they
be daily, let them not be deadly. " From this it is evident that venial
sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating. But
they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament.
Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism.
But, as stated above ([4631]Q[69], AA[9],10), only pretense checks the
effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because
according to Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from
the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore
neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any
cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken
away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of that
desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," i. e.
this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so
that we shall be inflamed and made godlike. " But the fire of our desire
or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity,
as was shown in the [4632]FS, Q[81], A[4]; [4633]SS, Q[24], A[10].
Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as
past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in
the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament.
For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach
devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in
the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this
sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above
[4634](A[1]), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the
obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual
refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone
approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins;
but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.
Reply to Objection 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual
venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and
therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in
its actual effect.
Reply to Objection 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is,
for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is
spiritual regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired,
which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which
has actual delight.
Reply to Objection 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which
are taken away by this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first
of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.
Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely,
sacramentally and spiritually?
(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?
(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?
(5) Of the degree of this sin;
(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that
approaches it?
(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this
sacrament?
(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?
(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?
(10) Whether it is to be received daily?
(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?
(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
Objection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of
eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as
Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man
be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc. , so also this
sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this
sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. " But there are no two distinct ways of receiving
Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought
this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on
account of the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction to
one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But
sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end.
Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with
spiritual eating.
Objection 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another
ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that
no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the
fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover,
sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating
could be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a
twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.
On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 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.
