EUCHARIST
5SS
EUCHARIST
and hence (indirectly) with the living Flesh of Christ,
it acquires a moral right to its future resvurection,
even ns the Blessed Mother of God, inasmuch as she
was the former abode of the '\^'o^d made flesh, ac-
quired a moral claim to her O'mi bodily assumption
into heaven. The further discussion as to whether
some "physical quality" (Contenson) or a "sort of
germ of immortality" (Heimbucher) is implanted in
the body of the commiuiicant, has no sufficient foim-
datiou in the teaching of the Fathers and may, there-
fore, be dismissed without any injury to dogma.
See Dalgairns, The Holy Communion, iis Philosophy, Theol- ogy and Practice (Dublin. 1S61, and many later editions); Heimbucher. Wirkungen derhl. Kommunion (Ratishon, 1SS4); LoHRCM. Die sakramentalen Wirkungen der Eucharistie (Mainz, 1SS6); Bell.\mt, Les effets de la Communion (Paris, 1900); Rademacher. Die iibemalurl. Lebensordnung nach der paulin- ischen und Johanneischen Theologie (Freiburg, 1903), 230 sqq.
(4) The Xecessity of the Holy Eucharist for Salvation. ■ — \Ve distinguish two kindsof necessity, (1) the neces- sity of means {necessitas medii) and (2) the necessity of "precept (necessitas praecepti). In the first sense a thing or action is necessary because without it a given end cannot be attained; the eye, e. g. is necessary for vision. The second sort of necessity is that which is imposed by the free will of a superior, e. g. the neces- sity of fasting. As regards Communion a further dis- tinction must be made between infants and adults. It is easy to prove that in the case of infants Holy Com- munion is not necessary to salvation, either as a means or as of precept. Since they have not as yet attained to the tise of reason, they are free from the obligation of positive laws; consequently, the only question is whether Communion is, like Baptism, necessarj' for them as a means of salvation. Now the CoimcU of Trent under pain of anathema, solemnly rejects such a necessity (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and declares that the custom of the primitive Church of giving Holy Communion to children was not based upon the er- roneous belief of its necessity to salvation, but upon the cuTumstances of the times (Sess. XXI, cap. iv). Since according to St. Paul's teaching (Rom., viii, 1) there is "no condemnation" for those who have been baptized, everi' child that dies in its baptismal inno- cence, even without Communion, must go straight to heaven. This latter position was that usually taken by the Fathers, with the exception of St. Augustine, who from the universal custom of the Communion of children drew the conclusion of its necessity for salva- tion (see Co.M.MUxiON of Children). On the other hand. Communion is prescribed for adults, not only by the law of the Church, but also by a Di\ine command (John, ^^, 50 sqq.), though for its absolute necessity as a means to salvation there is no more evidence than in the case of infants. For such a necessity could be es- tablished only on the supposition that Coram imion per se constituted a person in the state of grace or that this state could not be preserved without Communion. Neither supposition is correct. Not the first, for the simple reason that the Blessed Eucharist, being a sac- rament of the living, presupposes the state of sanctify- ing grace; not the second, because in case of necessity, such .as might arise, e. g., in a long sea-voyage, the Eu- charistie graces may be supplied by actual graces. It is only when viewed in this light that we can under- stand how the primitive Church, without going coun- ter to the Divine command, withheld the Eucharist from certain sinners even on their deathbeds. There Ls, however, a moral necessity on the part of adults to receive Holy Communion, as a means, for in.stance, of overcoming violent temptation, or as a viaticum for persons in danger of death. Eminent divines, like Suarez, claim that the Eucharist, if not ab.so- lutcly necessarj', is at least a relatively and morally ncces.sarj' means to salvation, in the sen.se that no adult can long sustain his spiritual, supernatural life who neglects on principle to approach Holy Comnnmion. This view Ls supported, not only by tlie solemn and
earnest words of Christ, when He promised the Eu-
charist, and by the very nature of the sacrament as
the spiritual food and medicine of our souls, but also
by the fact of the helplessness and perversity of human
nature and by the daily experience of confessors and
directors of souls.
Since Christ has left us no definite precept as to the frequency with which He desired us to receive Him in Holy Communion, it belongs to the Church to deter- mine the Divine command more accurately and pre- scribe what the limits of time shall be for the reception of the sacrament. In the course of centuries the Church's discipline in this respect has undergone con- siderable change. AMiereas the early Christians were accustomed to receive at every celebration of the Liturgy, which probably was not celebrated daily in all places, or were in the habit of Communicating pri- vately in their own homes every day of the week, a falhng-off in the frequency of Communion is noticeable since the fourth century. Even In his time Pope Fabian (23(5-250) made it obligatory to approach the Holy Table three times a year, viz. at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and this custom was still preva- lent in the sixth century [cf. Sjniod of .^.gde (506), c. xviii]. Although St. Augustine left daily Communion to the free choice of the individual, his admonition, in force even at the present day, was: Sic vive, tit quotidie possis sumere (De dono persev., c. xiv), i. e. "So Hve, that you may receive every day." From the tenth to the thirteenth ceutury. the practice of going to Com- munion more frequently during the year was rather rare among the laity and obtained only in cloistered communities. St. Bonaventure reluctantly allowed the lay brothers of his monaster^' to approach the Holy Table weekly, whereas the rule of the Canons of Chrodegang prescribed this practice. When the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215), held under Inno- cent III, mitigated the former severity of the Church's law to the extent that all Catholics of both sexes were to communicate at least once a year, and this during the paschal season, St. Thomas (III, Q. Ixxx, a. 10) ascribed this ordinance chiefly to the " reign of impiety and the growing cold of charity ". The precept of the yearly paschal Communion was solemnly reiterated by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. be). The mysti- cal theologians of the later Middle Ages, as Eckhart, Tauler, St. \'incent Ferrer. Savonarola, and later on St. Philip Neri, the Jesuit Order, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Alphonsus Liguori were zealous champions of frequent Communion; whereas the Jansenists, under the leadership of Antoine Arnauld (De la fr^quente communion. Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed them and demanded as a condition for every Communion the " most perfect penitential dispositions and the purest love of God". This rigorism was condemned by Pope Alexander VHI (7 Dec, 1690) ; the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. viii; Sess. XXII, cap. vi) and Innocent XI (12 Feb., 1679) had already emphasized the permissibility of even dally Communion. To root out the last vestiges of Jansenistic rigorism, Pius X is- sued a decree (24 Dec., 1905) wherein he allows and recommends daily Communion to the entire laity and requires but two conditions for its permissibility, namely, the state of grace and a right antl pious inten- tion. (Concerning the non-requirement of the twofold species as a means necessarj' to salvation see Comatun-
lON UNDER BOTH KlXDS.
See Hoffmann, Gc^cJiichte der Laienkommunion bis zum Tridentinum (Speyer, 1891); Behringer, Die hi. Kommunion in ihren Wirkungen und ihrer Heil.'inolwcndinkeU (Ratisbon, ISOS); Bastien, De freguenti quotidianaque Communiom (Rome. 1907).
(5) The Minister of the Eucharist. — The Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, and the confection (con- fectio) and reception (susceptio) thereof lieing sepa- rated from each other by anmtervalof time, the minis- ter may be and in fact is twofold: (a) the minister of consecration and (b) the minister of administration.
