Part II Chapter II: Sacramental Effects of the Eucharist

Chapter II: Sacramental Effects

CHAPTER II SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS The only solemn definition regarding the sacramental effects of the Holy Eucharist is Canon 5, Session XIII, of the Tridentine Council, directed against Luther and Calvin. It runs as follows: “If anyone saith that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result therefrom, let him be anathema.” 1 This definition leaves no doubt that the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living; but it does not tell us precisely what are its effects. These are, however, briefly indicated in Sess. XIII, cap. 2, of the same Council,2 and in Eugene IV’s famous Decretum pro Armenis? A careful consideration of these indications enables us to group the effects of the Holy Eucharist around two central ideas, viz.: (1) Union with Christ by love, and (2) the spiritual nourishment of the soul. As a means of uniting the soul with Christ, 1 Sess. XIII, can. 5: “Si quis provenire, anathema sit.” (Denzin* dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum SS, ger-Bannwart, n. 887). Eucharistiae esse remissionetn pec- 2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875. catorum vel ex ea non alios effectus 8 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698. 318 SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 219 Holy Communion both sanctifies and heals. As a food, it produces in the soul effects similar to those produced by material food in the body. SECTION i FIRST AND PRINCIPAL EFFECT: UNION OF THE SOUL WITH CHRIST BY LOVE The first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is union of the soul with Christ by love.1 As the sacramental union with Christ which results from the bodily consumption of the Sacred Host is an application rather than an effect of the Sacrament, the principal effect must be sought in the spiritual and mystical union of the soul with Jesus through the theological virtue of love, which is kindled, nourished, and consummated by physical contact with the Sacred Body of the Lord, ex opere operato. The Holy Eucharist is “the Sacrament of Love ” par excellence. a) Christ Himself describes Holy Communion as a union of love resembling the Trinitarian Per ichor esis.2 Cf r. John VI, 57 sq. : “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in Him. … He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.” The Fathers speak of this mysterious process as a unification, a marvellous blending of the soul with the l ” Adunotio ad Christum.” 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine (Deer, pro Armenis, 1439; Den- Trinity, pp. 381 iqq.f and c

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS essence of the God-man.8 It consists neither in a natural synthesis analogous to that between soul and body, nor in a hypostatic union of the soul with the person of the Divine Logos, nor finally in a pantheistic deification of the communicant, but simply in a moral union which lies between the beatific vision, of which it is the exemplar and guarantee, and the earthly union effected by sanctifying grace. Being a theandric effect produced by physical contact with the glorified humanity of the Word, this Eucharistic union, — rightly called communio,4 — is far more intimate and profound than that effected invisibly by the Holy Ghost or by the reception of the other Sacraments.5 b) This Eucharistic union of the soul with Christ forms the bond of charity existing between ^ the faithful and constitutes them the “mystical Body” of Christ.6 St. Paul says : ” For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” 7 That is to^ say, as the individual soul becomes one with Christ through Holy Communion, so all who partake of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament are made one.y It is in this sense that St. Augustine writes : ” Our Lord Christ … consecrated the mystery of our peace and union in His table. Whoever receives the mystery of union and does not keep the bond of peace, does not receive the mystery for himself, but a testimony against himself .” 8 8 St, Cyril of Alex., In loo., IV, Kommunion, § 4 sqq., Ratisbon c 17. 1884. 4 V. supra, p. 2. e Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sew. XIII, » For a subtle discussion of this cap. 1 and 2. topic see Suarez, De Eucharistia, 7 x Cor. X, 17. disp. 64, sect 3; cfr. also Heim- 8 Serm. 272 ad Infant.: ” Domibucher, Dig Wirkungen dtr M. nus Christus . ■ . mysterium pacts SECTION 2 second effect: increase of sanctifying GRACE Since Holy Communion is both a union of the soul with Christ and a spiritual nourishment, it follows: (i) that the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, and consequently does not cause, but presupposes, the state of grace in the recipient; (2) that it merely increases sanctifying grace. It is as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal sin to receive this heavenly Food with profit, as it would be for a corpse to assimilate natural food and drink. This is an article of faith. As we have seen,9 the Council of Trent, in opposition to Luther and Calvin, expressly defined that the principal fruit of the Holy Eucharist is not the remission of sins. It further says : ” [Our Saviour] would also that this Sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same shall live by at unitatis nostra* in sua mensa sqq., Innsbruck 1894; Heinrich-Gutconsecravit. Qui accipit tnysterium berlet, Dogmat. Theologie, Vol. IX, unitatis et non tenet vinculum pp. 739 sqq.; A. Rademacher, Die parts, non accipit tnysterium pro UbernatUrlicke Lebensordnung nach se, sed testimonium contra se.” — der paulinischen und johanneischen Cfr. on this subject Alb. a Bulsano, Theologie, pp. 230 sqq., Freiburg Instit. Theoi Dogmat., ed. Gott- 1903. fried a Graun, Vol. II, pp. 705 9 V. supra, p. 218. 222 SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 223 Me/ ” 10 We will consider each of these truths separately. a) That Holy Communion does not establish sanctifying grace in the soul is clear from the fact that St. Paul demands a rigorous self-examination in order to avoid the heinous offence of being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord by “eating and drinking unworthily.” 11 a) It is true that in instituting the Holy Eucharist Christ said of the Chalice : ” This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” 12 But in speaking thus, He evidently had in view an effect of the Sacrifice, not of the Sacrament ; for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto remission of sins, but shed for that purpose. The Fathers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr,18 never ceased to admonish the faithful that a clear conscience is a necessary requisite of worthy Communion. Thus St. John Chrysostom says: “We must always be on our guard ; for no small punishment awaits those who communicate unworthily. Remember how indignant thou art against the betrayer of Jesus and against those who crucified Him. Beware, therefore, lest thou become guilty of His Body and Blood. They killed His most sacred Body, thou receivest Him, in spite of so many benefits, with a guilt-stained 80111.” 14 St. Augustine insists that no one should approach the Holy Table except he be lOSess. XIII, cap. 2: ” Sumi 11 x Cor. XI, 27 sqq. autem voluit sacramentum hoc tarn- 12 Mattb. XXVI, a8. quam spiritualem animarum cibum, i&Apol., I, n. 66. quo ahntur et confortentur viventes 14 Horn, in Mattfu, 82, XL 5* vitd illius, qui dixit: Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me,” 224 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT free from mortal sin. This was the guiding principle of the ancient penitential discipline. St. Cyprian, in his somewhat extravagant zeal for the rigorism of the primitive Church, bitterly deplores the “laxity” by which sinners were permitted in his day to approach the Holy Table without a long and severe penance.15 P) Theologians are wont to discuss the question whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist, like Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, is capable of regaining its effects after it has been sacrilegiously received.10 We may distinguish two cases. ( i ) A person who has confessed his sins in good faith, but without the necessary contrition, approaches the Holy Table in the state of mortal sin and, unconscious of the condition of his soul, imagines he receives worthily, whereas in reality he is excused from the crime of sacrilege only by his ignorance. Can such a one regain the fruits of his Communion later by an act of perfect contrition or a valid confession? (2) A person consciously goes to Communion in the state of mortal sin and thus adds a new sin to those he has already committed. Can such a sacrilegious Communion work its effects after the restoration of the soul’s proper moral condition has been effected? Suarez,17 De Lugo,18 and theologians generally answer both questions in the negative, on the ground that the Eucharist differs in this respect from the Sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul, first, because it i»Cfr. St Augustine, Tract, in loo., 26, xl xx: * Innocentiam ad altare apportare.* — St. Cyprian, Ep. 10 ad Presb.: ” Nondum poenitentid actd, nondum exomologeti factd, nondum manu eius ab episcopo et clero impositd Euckaristia tllis da#«r.— Cfr. Tepe, Inst. Theot., Vol. IV, pp. 277 sqq., Paris 1899. 16 On * revivisccnce ” see Pohle Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 156 sqq., 193 »qqIT De Euckaristia, disp. 63, sect. 8. 18 De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 9> sect. 6, n. 107 sqq. can be received repeatedly, and second, because it is not strictly necessary for salvation. It would, they say, be inconsistent to assume that a man who has communicated unworthily throughout life, should be able by a good confession on his deathbed to obtain the fruits of all his sacrilegious Communions. What if a communicant sacrilegiously approaching the Holy Table were to make an act of perfect contrition before the sacred species became chemically dissolved? According to the probable opinion of many theologians, the Holy Eucharist works its effects successively, not instantaneously, and hence it seems reasonable to assume that in such a case the Sacrament begins to take effect as soon as the obex gratiae is removed by perfect contrition.19 b) Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, its effect can consist in nothing else than an increase of sanctifying grace (iustificatio ^ secunda). This is expressly defined in the Decretum pro Armenis: “And because man by grace is incorporated with Christ and united with His members, it follows that grace is augmented in those who receive this Sacrament [of the — Eucharist] worthily.” 20 The reason is to be sought partly in the Church’s teaching regarding the efficacy of her Sacraments in general, and partly in the fact that the Eucharist is essentially io On the possibility of the justi- ” Et quoniam per gratiam homo fication per accident of a mortal Christ o incorporator et membris eius sinner through the Holy Eucharist, unitur, consequent est quod per hoc see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, sacramentum in sumentibus digne Vol. I, pp. 68 sqq. gratia augeatur” 20 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698: 226 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT a banquet which nourishes and sustains the soul by food and drink. Christ Himself assures us: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever.” 21 It is not so easy to discern in what precisely consists the ” sacramental grace ” of the Eucharist, i. e. that particular grace by which this Sacrament differs specifically from the others. We have seen that sanctifying grace and habitual charity are inseparably bound up, if not actually identical,22 with each other. Now all the Sacraments, when worthily received, augment sanctifying grace and consequently aid man in becoming mystically united with Christ. If the Holy Eucharist accomplishes nothing more than this, how does it differ from the remaining Sacraments? Suarez says that, whereas the other Sacraments produce certain special effects, for the sake of which they confer special helps and some increase of grace, the Holy Eucharist has for its primary and direct effect to nourish charity solely for its own perfection and a more intimate union with Christ.28 According to this theory, the special prerogative of the Holy Eucharist lies not merely in its essence and content, i. e. Christ Himself, but likewise in its special object and purpose of fanning the flame of actual love to greater ardor. It is this unique effect, which in its last analysis is identical with the union with Christ by love, that we 21 John VI, 59.— Cfr. Tertullian’s graphic expression: * Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo soginetur.* (De Resurrect. Camis, 8). 22 V. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 336 sqq., St Louis 1915. 23 Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 63, sect x, n. 3: ” Reliqua sacramenta vivorum non ordinantur per se primo et directe ad nutriendam caritatem propter so lam maiorem perfectionem eius maioremque unionem cum Christo, sed ordinantur ad speciales efFectus, propter quos conferunt specialia auxilia et aliquod augmentum gratia e: at vero hoc sacramentum per se primo ordinatur ad perHciendam unionem cum Christo.” SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 227 recognize as the so-called gratia sacramentalis of the Eucharist.24 c) Together with an increase of sanctifying grace the Holy Eucharist produces as its secondary effect a certain spiritual relish or delight ( delect atio spirit ualis ) . Just as food and drink delight and refresh the heart of man, so does this “Heavenly Bread,” which “contains within itself all sweetness,” refresh and delight the soul of the worthy recipient. This simile has been embodied in the Decretum pro ArmenisP The delight produced in the soul of the devout communicant must not, however, be confounded with emotional joy or sensible sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of special grace, the true nature of the delectatio spiritualis produced by the Holy Eucharist is manifested in a certain cheerful and perhaps even fervent willingness in all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the conscientious fulfilment of the duties of one’s state of life. Interior desolation and spiritual dryness are by no means a sign of inadequate preparation, and much less of an unworthy Communion. On the contrary, they are quite often trials by which God tests the souls of those whom He loves.26 If the communicant has fulfilled all the required conditions, he may rest assured that the Sacrament will work its effects in the manner explained by St. Thomas in the Third Part of the Summa: 24 V. No. x, supra. — Cfr. St terxalis cibus et pot us quoad vitam Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, agunt temporalem: sustentando, auart. 1 ; Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der gendo, reparando et dele dan do, sakath. Kirche, Vol. I, and ed., pp. cramentum hoc quoad vitam opera* 560 aqq. tur spiritualem.* 26 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698: 26 Cfr. Thomas a Kempis, Itnit. * Omnemque affectum, quern ma- Christi, IV, 12, 15. 228 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT . . through this Sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of grace and virtue bestowed, but man is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. V, 14 : ’ The charity of Christ presseth us/ Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this Sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the divine goodness.* 27 27 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. x, ad 21 Per hoc sacramentum, quantum est ex sut vxrtute, non solum habitus gratiae et virtutis confertur, scd etiam excitatur homo in actum secundum Mud (2 Cor. V, 14): Cant as Chnsli urget nos. Et inde est quod ex virtulc hums sacramenti anima spirituuliter reticitur per hoc, quod anima spiritualiter delectatur et quodammodo inebriatur dulcedxne bonitatis divinac.” — Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharis’ia, disp. 63, sect. 9; De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 12, sect. 4: Heinrich-Gutberlct. Dogmat. Theologie, VoL IX, pp 754 «qq. SECTION 3 THIRD EFFECT: THE BLOTTING OUT OF VENIAL SINS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE SOUL FROM MORTAL SINS The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, it is also a medicine. The Tridentine Council calls it “an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins.” 1 This twofold effect can be readily understood if viewed in the light of the two central ideas mentioned above, i. e. food and medicine. a) As material food, when used in the proper way, banishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man’s physical strength, so this immaterial food removes the lesser ailments of the soul and preserves it from spiritual death. The Holy Eucharist is a union based upon love, and as such removes with its purifying flame the stains which adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as a preventive of grievous sin. b) The Holy Eucharist preserves the soul from grievous sin by allaying concupiscence (concupiscentia, fomes peccati).2 1 . . antldotum, quo liberemur 2 Cfr. Catech. Roman,, Do Bu~ a culfis quotidianis [sell, venial thus] chanstia, qu. 40: * Carnis etiam et a mortaltbus praetervemur. libidinem cohibet ac reprtmW (Sets. XIII, cap. a). 229 230 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT This special effect of holy Communion is of great importance for the daily life of the faithful and in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Justly, therefore, do spiritual writers recommend frequent Communion as the most effective remedy for impurity, since its powerful influence is felt even after all other means have proved unavailing. Concupiscence is the chief source of mortal sin. Though St. Thomas seems to regard the allaying influence of the Holy Eucharist upon concupiscence rather as indirect,8 many of the Fathers hold that it is exercised directly by repressing inordinate desires and healing the soul.4 c) Whether the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive to the remission of the temporal punishments due to sin, is a disputed question. Most theologians hold with St. Thomas that the Sacrament of the Altar was not instituted as a means of satisfaction. It may safely be assumed, however, that the Eucharist produces an indirect effect in this regard by means of the acts of love which it involves. St. Thomas says: “Because union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment ; — not indeed of the entire punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.* 5 Nevertheless some theologians (like Ysambert and S Cfr. Sutntna TheoL, 3a, qu. 79, art. 6, ad 3: * Diminuit fomitem ex quadam consequentia, inquantum auget caritatem, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, augmentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis.* 4 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Horn, in loo., 46, n. 4: Si quis aestuat, hunc adtat fontem et ardonm ternperet; nam aestum fugat et adusta omnia refrigerat. — Other Patristic texts of similar tenor in Tepe, Inst. TheoL, Vol. IV, p. 386. 5 Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 79, art 5: * Sed quia unit as fit per caritatem, ex cuius fervore aliquis con* sequitur remissionem non solum cutpae, sed etiam poenae, inde est quod SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 231 Tepe6) teach that the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive to the remission of temporal punishments, and in particular that the punishments due to the venial sins forgiven by “^Holy Communion are wholly, or at least partially, remitted therein. As regards the effects of grace in behalf of others, it is evident that the purely personal fruits of Holy Communion,— e. g. the increase of sanctifying grace, delight of soul, etc., — can be applied only to the recipient. Aside from this it is generally held by Catholic divines that the prayers of petition made in the presence of the Eucharistic Lord are more readily heard by God, and that the fruits of Communion, as a means of satisfaction for sin, may be applied to others, and especially, per modum sufffagii, to the poor souls in purgatory. A book by Theophilus Renaud, in which the pious custom of offering up holy Communion for the departed was disparaged as superstitious, was put upon the Index.7 ex consequents per quondam con- sYsambert, Comment in S. comitanttam ad principalem effectum Theol., III, qu. 79, disp. i, art. 7.— homo consequitur remissionem poe- Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, p. 285. nae, non quidem totius, sed secun- 7 On the opinion of St. Thomas dum modum suae devotionis et see the Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, fervoris.” art. 7. SECTION 4 FOURTH EFFECT : THE PLEDGE OF MAN’S GLORIOUS RESURRECTION AND ETERNAL HAPPINESS “Eternal salvation” and “glorious resurrection” are correlative terms. Being an effective prophylactic against mortal sin,1 the Holy Eucharist is quite naturally, in the words of the Tridentine Council, “a pledge of our glory to come and everlasting happiness.” 2 The emphasis must be laid on the prerogative of our glorious resurrection, which involves eternal happiness. a) That the Holy Eucharist really and truly effects a glorious resurrection, is plain from Christ’s own words, as recorded in the Gospel of St. John : He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 8 St. Ignatius of Antioch expresses the common consent of the Fathers when he says : “Breaking bread,4 … is a means of immortality, an antidote against death.”5 l V. supra, pp. Jt9 tqq. 4 Apraw. 9 . . pignut futurae nostra* • ivrl 4&ppaK09 dBaraetau glorias et perpetual felicitatis.” AptI&otoi tov fi^l &To9aptlp> iEp(Sett. XIII, cap. a), ad Ephes., ao).— Other Patriatic a John VI, 55. textt supra, pp. 71 tq, 23? b) This fourth effect of holy Communion is shared by the body. Not, of course, as if the material body became the subject of immaterial grace. No; but by its contact with the Eucharistic species, and hence indirectly with the living Flesh of Christ,6 the human body becomes, as it were, kin to the glorified Body of our Lord and thereby acquires a moral right to the future resurrection. This right or claim may be compared to that of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be assumed into Heaven. The Mother of God, as the former abode of the Word made flesh, had a moral claim to be bodily taken up into Heaven; similarly the Christian who has received that same Sacred Body in holy Communion, and thereby become its abode, has a claim to rise bodily from the dead. The question has been raised, whether this is effected by a ” physical quality ” (Contenson 7) or by a ” germ of immortality” (Heimbucher 8) implanted in the body of the communicant. It would profit nothing to enter into so highly speculative a debate. We will merely note that those among the Fathers who speak in exaggerated terms of a ” conversion ” of human flesh into that of the God-man, evidently do not mean to assert more than a moral claim to the resurrection of the body. It was the desire for immortality that gave rise to certain religious practices resembling the Eucharist among pagan nations. The longing of the Greeks for ambrosia and nectar, the desire of the Iranians to be fed with haoma, and the craving of the ancient Hindus to partake of the food of their gods, which they called • Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, * Die Wirkungen der hi Kompp. 1 8a sq. munion, 9 43. Ratisbon 1884. 7 Theologia Mentis tt Cordis, XI, p. 2, diss. 3. 234 THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRAMENT soma, no doubt sprang from the natural appetite for divine power and deathlessness which is implanted in every human heart. But as all these notions, as well as the practices inspired by them, are based on Polytheism, they present but an extrinsic analogy with holy Communion.9 Readings: — J. B. Dalgairns, The Holy Communion, Dublin 1861 (often reprinted). — M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkungen der hi Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884. — C. Jos. Lohrum, Die sakramentalen Wirkungen der hi. Eucharistie, Mayence 1886. — Bodewig, Der Nutzen der hi. Kommunion, Mayence 1889. — J- Bellamy, Les Effets de la Communion, Paris 1900. — J» C. Hedley, The Holy Eucharist, pp. 107 sqq., London 1907. 9 On the question whether the Christian Eucharist owes anything to a pagan, or even Jewish, back* ground of Mystery Meals, and if so, what, see W. M. Groton, The Christian Eucharist and the Pagan Cults, New York 19x4. Dr. Groton (who is a Protestant) shows that there is no sufficient proof that the Eucharist borrowed anything whatsoever from alien cults and that it is overwhelmingly probable that this is not the case.