|
Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ
without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr.
ii): "We have learned that some persons after taking only a portion
of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I
know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them
either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the
sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body
of Christ without His blood.
Objection 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of
the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated
above (Question 73, Article 2; Question 76, Article 2, ad
1). Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will
be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence
Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), "because the dividing
of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great sacrilege."
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our
Lord's Passion, as stated above (Question 73, Articles
4,5; Question 74, Article 1), and is received for the health
of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the
body; moreover, as stated above (Question 74, Article 1), the
blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought
to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. Therefore,
such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's body
without His blood.
On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of
Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.
I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of
this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the
part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for
both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the
sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's
duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no
account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are
called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a
mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood,
for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because
the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are
old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to
observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a
prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the
reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.
Reply to Objection 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who,
as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the
entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of
Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the
sacrificer is known to have a share?"
Reply to Objection 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie
in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter.
And hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this
sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided
that the priest who consecrates receive both.
Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the
very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be
consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the
people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of
all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown
above (Question 76, Article 2).
|
|