White Robed Monks of St. Benedict

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice

St Thomas Aquinas makes a clear distinction between what is given in the Eucharist, the living body of Christ, which implicitly means the whole Christ, since the risen Christ is whole, and how it is given, through the sacrament. The sacrament means the nature of how the body and blood are given. We could imagine that Christ might have found some other way to share with us his Body and Blood. We might have received it, through drinking water, or by sitting in a special chair which would be kept sacred. It is conceivable that we could have received Christ in this way. The effect would have been the same but the means would have been different, and so it would have been a different sacrament. The sacrament then means the way in which we receive Christ. We receive the body and blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine. This is the way in which he has chosen to offer us his body and blood. We can ponder the meaning of that particular way of receiving Christ. This is where the difference in receiving communion under one kind, only under the form of bread, and under both kinds, both under the form of bread and of wine lies. Both ways, we receive the whole Christ, since Christ is risen. To receive the body of Christ is to receive with it, his blood, soul and divinity. Yet in receive under both kinds, we receive with a different meaning, because we are receiving in a different sacramental way.

St Thomas also made a distinction between the Eucharist as Sacrament and as Sacrifice. The Eucharist alone of the sacraments is also a sacrifice. A sacrament is something that of its nature is received for Thomas. A sacrifice is something that of its nature is offered. We receive the other sacraments but we do not offer them. A Sacrifice is something which is make holy or whose holiness is perceived through its being offered. Because of this, the offering of the mass is valuable in itself so that it is not merely those who participate in the mass who receive value from it but all those who have faith in its value. The idea of sacrifice therefore goes with a Eucharistic culture which places great emphasis on having Mass said, even when there is no possibility of attending. Or else with a culture where Christians will attend Mass but will not necessarily receive communion. There is still some point to this since we do, priest and laity together, share in an offering of ourselves in communion with Christ in his Eucharist, which is not just for ourselves but the whole church.This is why the priest says in the mass

Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.
The people then respond:
'May the Lord receive this sacrifice at your hands for our good and the good of all the church'.

We show that the mass has value, even for those who do not receive. This includes all catholics throughout the world, and by extension to all humanity, which is called to be part of the Body of Christ. This is why we have intercessions in the mass, after the readings but before the Eucharist.

Yet there has also been more emphasis on the need to increase our sharing in the Eucharist by receiving Christ in it. Throughout this century there has been more emphasis on frequent communion. A key figure in this was Pius X who lowered the age for receiving communion and encouraged it, though even he stopped short of saying that daily communion should be a norm. This was in reaction to Jansenism, a heresy which sank its roots into the church. This so stressed the intrinsic sinfulness of people that it created a culture where refusing the sacraments, except when legally obliged to, was almost seen as a sign of holiness. Against this many saints took communion every day, with Catherine of Sienna being a notable example from the 14th Century. Yet Therese of Lisieux who lived into this century did not receive every day because she was forbidden to, by her confessor. Now that frequent communion has become normal with most people receiving at any mass they attend, certain difficulties have arisen. One is that in reality many people are receiving who shouldn't be. They might be in a state that at least externally contradicts the unity, which the sacraments demand. They might have been in a sacramental marriage but are now living with someone else, possibly married to them in the eyes of the state, but not the church. They might be living with someone without any marital commitment. And of course, there is the problem of Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church as defined by the church in its magisterium.

The emphasis on the Eucharist as sacrament, which is to be received as opposed to a sacrifice, which can be shared in to some extent merely by believing in its value, creates these problems. So the new Document of the Bishops on the Eucharist, One Bread One Body is very preoccupied with this problem. The positive side is that there is much more emphasis on the Eucharist as building up community. Yet the community has become something which is much more demanding. The Eucharist is now seen as in the words of the 2nd Vatican Council as "The Source and Culmination of the Whole of evangelisation". As a source, it gives us the grace to build community. As the culmination of our efforts, it demands that we are able to bring to the mass a community which is not perfect but which is not in some way rendered incapable of coming to perfection.