|
THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
or
Notes on the relation
between the grace of God
and the free will of man
by Rev. Fr. Daniel Meynen,
D.D.
Canon of Saint-Aubain,
Namur, Belgium
Translation from the French
by Antoine Valentim,
Montreal, Canada
© 2000-2006 - Daniel
Meynen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. God is almighty. This is
what we believe, this is what we proclaim each time we commemorate the
Victory of Christ over death: I believe in
God, the Father almighty. (Credo). Now, it is
undeniable - God himself wanted it to be so - that man, any man or
woman, remains entirely free with respect to divine omnipotence. If man
accepts the salvation that is offered to him by God, the omnipotence of
divine grace is successfully released into the soul of this man or
woman, in order to transform him or her into a new creature, a son or
daughter of the Father, an adopted child of God for all eternity. On
the other hand, if man refuses the salvation that God offers him, the
omnipotence of divine grace is held in check by the fundamental freedom
of the creature God had made in his image and likeness.
The
grace of God and the free will of man meet in order to unite themselves
together or to be repelled from each other, and at this meeting there
is something absolutely unique at stake for man: his eternal salvation.
This relation between the grace of God and the free will of man is thus
a relation of the highest importance. What is more, this relation is
imbued with the highest of all the mysteries of creation: the encounter
of the omnipotence of divine grace and the free will of man, an
encounter in which divine omnipotence can be thwarted by the free will
of a simple creature: man.
There
is no reason to ask if, whether in the sense of success or in that of
failure, this is possible: this relation is an absolute reality, but a
reality which surpasses us, for it is of the order of mystery. Thanks
to divine omnipotence, man can be saved. In spite of divine
omnipotence, man can lose and damn himself. This is the Mystery, a
mystery which we will try to encompass, in order to understand as much
of it as we can, while abandoning to the Wisdom of God everything that
will forever belong to the Being who, alone, is fully self-sufficient.
Science
knows only the general: that is, the certain knowledge of a law or rule
is never based upon a single and unique particular case. But this is
precisely what occurs in the relation between divine grace and the free
will of man: each relation of this kind is a personal and particular
relation between God and the man or woman to whom the grace of
salvation is offered. Thus, a priori, it would not be possible to
establish the law which governs this relation between God and man.
Nevertheless,
there is a reality called the Body of Christ which unites within it, in a manner that
is absolutely
perfect and one, all the elect of God, whoever they may be: this
reality is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Similarly,
according to this same relation of the Body of
Christ, there is a reality which, in the order
of divine grace, transcends everything: it is the Eucharist, the Body
of Christ, the sacrament of he who is the very author of grace.
Consequently, to study the relation between divine grace and the free
will of man, it is enough for us to consider the relation between the
Church, represented by the person of the priest, and the Eucharist, the
grace of graces.
An
objection may arise: the Eucharist is the sacrament of salvation par
excellence; how then can one see in this sacrament an explanation of
the rejection of the grace of God by man, who, in this way, damns
himself? The answer is simple, and unique: it is in the liturgical rite
of the breaking of the bread that we can perfectly study the relation
between divine grace and the free will of man. For, in the breaking of
the bread, a rite performed by the priest before communion, man
manifests a certain domination over God, in Christ, a domination which
leads to salvation through the obedience of faith, or to perdition
through impurity and sacrilege.
A
final objection that might be made is that the rite of the breaking of
the bread is a simple material, or corporeal, action, and thus it
cannot serve as proof of a purely spiritual relation such as that which
exists between the grace of God and the freedom of man. The answer to
this objection lies in man himself: man is a being in whom matter and
spirit, in accordance with the plan of God, are absolutely inseparable.
Only death can separate the soul from the body of a man or woman. Now,
death is not relevant to a discussion on grace and free will: for death
is that ultimate point before which - during terrestrial life - God
unceasingly invites man to freely accept his almighty grace.
What
is the breaking of the bread? How can this liturgical rite guide us in
the analysis of the interaction between the grace of God and the
freedom of man? Does the breaking of the bread give us an adequate
means through which we may understand, insofar as it is possible, how
the gift of divine grace is freely received by man? We shall answer all
these questions in this study, the very one we have begun today...
THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
2. What is the breaking of the bread? This
expression is dear to Saint Luke: «Cognoverunt eum in
fractione
panis.»
They recognized him in the breaking of the bread.
(Lk. 24:35: Meeting with the disciples of Emmaus - See also: Acts.
2:42, 46; 20:11) This rite of the fraction is found in all the accounts
of the institution of the Eucharist (Mt. 26:26 - Mk. 14:22 - Lk. 22:19
- 1 Cor. 11:24). This rite originates from a Jewish custom:
The Jews did not slice their bread, they broke it. Following this
custom, Our Lord, at the Last Supper, at the same time as he
consecrated the bread, he broke it in order to distribute it among his
Apostles. He commanded them to also break it, in
remembrance of him. (Dom Vandeur, The Holy
Mass, p. 259) So it seems that the expression breaking of the bread is the oldest
name for - and that which best characterizes - the action performed by
Christ at the Last Supper, an action which he ordered to be done again:
Do this in remembrance of me. (1 Cor. 11:24)
Not
wanting to divinize only a certain thing (the bread, as well as the
wine) by transforming it into his Body (and his Blood), Christ also
wanted to divinize a gesture, an action (the breaking) performed upon
that thing (the bread); a gesture which was already, in Jewish customs,
a quasi-ritual one. The breaking of the bread is thus an important rite
in the liturgy of the Eucharist, and therefore, it is an action that is
truly determinant for the entire life of the Church herself. We shall
see, among other things, what Saint Thomas Aquinas thinks concerning
the breaking of the bread. As elsewhere, we shall first quote the Latin
text that Saint Thomas wrote, by his own hand, in the 13th century. The
English translation will then follow. The thought of this great Doctor
of the Church will be extremely useful to us as we begin our study of
grace and free will. When it is almost complete, after many reflections
and reasonings, we shall present, as a corollary, the thought of Saint
Thomas Aquinas on the very Mystery of the Church, a corollary which
will have as its title:
The Sacrament of the Church in Saint Thomas Aquinas.
3. Is the breaking of the
bread an essential element of the Eucharistic celebration? No, but it
has its importance in the liturgical rite and Saint Thomas provides us
with the reason for this: «Fractio hostiae consecratae, et
quod
una sola pars mittatur in calicem, respicit corpus mysticum; sicut
admixtio quae significat populum, et ideo horum praetermissio non facit
imperfectionem sacrificii, ut propter hoc sit necesse aliquid reiterare
circa celebrationem hujus sacramenti.» The
breaking of the consecrated host, and the fact that only part of the
host is placed in the chalice, are things that relate to the Mystical
Body (of Christ); just as the addition of water (to the wine) signifies
the people (of God); and this is why the omission of these things does
not render the sacrifice imperfect and require the repetition of any
part of the celebration of this sacrament.
(Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 83, a. 6, ad 6)
From this text, we can see
that the breaking of the bread relates to the Mystical Body of Christ,
the Church. Let us also note what follows:
- by the consecration, the
sacrifice is already accomplished: «non facit imperfectionem
sacrificii»;
- the fraction of the host
is of the order of the sign: «sicut admixtio quae significat
populum»;
- the expression
«celebrationem hujus sacramenti» necessarily
includes both
the consecration and the communion of the priest: «Perfectio
hujus sacramenti non est in usu fidelium, sed in consecratione
materiae: et ideo nihil derogat perfectioni hujus sacramenti, si
populus sumat corpus sine sanguine, dummodo sacerdos consecrans sumat
utrumque.» The perfection of this
sacrament does not consist in its use by the faithful, but in the
consecration of the matter; and this is why the perfection of this
sacrament is in no way corrupted when the people (of God) take the body
without the blood, given that the consecrating priest receives both. (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.
80, a. 12, ad 2)
4. Let us see what else
Saint Thomas says about the breaking of the bread.
«Fractio hostiae tria
significat:
- primum quidem ipsam
divisionem corporis Christi, quae facta est in passione;
- secundo distinctionem
corporis mystici secundum diversos status;
- tertio distributionem
gratiarum procedentium ex passione Christi.»
The breaking of the host
signifies three things:
- first, the very division
of the Body of Christ, which took place during the Passion;
- second, the distinction
of the Mystical Body (of Christ) according to its diverse states;
- third, the distribution
of the graces obtained in virtue of the Passion of Christ.
(Saint Thomas, Summa
Theologica, IIIa, q. 83, a. 5, ad 7)
5. Let us now compare this
last text to that which Saint Thomas placed at the very beginning of
his treatise on the Eucharist (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.
73, a. 4), where he answers the question: «Utrum convenienter
hoc
sacramentum pluribus nominibus nominetur?»
Is it suitable to call this sacrament by various names?
«Respondeo dicendum,
quod hoc sacramentum habet triplicem significationem:
- unam quidem respectu
praeteriti, inquantum scilicet est commemorativum Dominicae passionis,
quae fuit verum sacrificium, ut supra dictum est (q. 48, art. 3); et
secundum hoc nominatur sacrificium;
- aliam autem
significationem habet respectu rei praesentis, scilicet ecclesiasticae
unitatis, cui homines aggregantur per hoc sacramentum; et secundum hoc
nominatur communio, vel sunaxis (Greek); (...)
- tertiam significationem
habet respectu futuri, inquantum scilicet hoc sacramentum est
praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, quae erit in patria; et secundum hoc
dicitur viaticum, quia hic praebet nobis viam illuc perveniendi
(...)»
I reply by saying that this
sacrament has a triple signification:
- first, with respect to
the past, inasmuch as this sacrament commemorates the Passion of the
Lord, which was a true sacrifice, as has already been said (q. 48, art.
3); and in this sense, this sacrament is called sacrifice;
- the second, with respect
to the present and actual reality, that is to say, ecclesiastical
unity, to which men are joined by this sacrament; and in this sense,
this sacrament is called communion, or synaxis
(...);
- the third, with respect
to the future, inasmuch as this sacrament prefigures the enjoyment of
God, which will take place in heaven; and in this sense, this sacrament
is called viaticum,
because it obtains for us the way to go to heaven...
6. One can thus easily see
that the rite or gesture of the breaking of the bread realizes,
simultaneously and concretely, though in a significative manner (it is
of the order of the sign), the three fundamental realities of the
Eucharist. The breaking of the bread is central in the rite of the
sacrament, as testify the accounts of the Evangelists: «Et
accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis...» And he took bread, and when he had given
thanks he broke it
and gave it to them... (Lk. 22:19) The fraction
takes place between the consecration and the communion: the fraction is
the act of the Church, united by the Holy Spirit, an act accomplished
in a present time understood as coming between, on the one hand, a
moment of the past, that of the consecration (which rendered present a
past act, that of the Passion of Christ), and on the other hand, a
moment of the future, that of communion (which anticipates in the
present the future event of eternal salvation in Jesus Christ).
7. From what has come
before, we can easily put forward the assertion that the breaking of
the bread is the sacramental sign of the epiclesis: the gesture of the
fraction manifests in the sacramental sign what celebrant has just said
in the prayer of the epiclesis, invoking the Holy Spirit, after the
consecration, in order that the faithful might fruitfully receive (the
principal fruit being unity) the Body and the Blood of Christ. This
gesture of the fraction is not essential, as Saint Thomas says: what is
essential is the prayer of the epiclesis itself. Now, this rite of the
fraction is important because it intimately links the sacrament itself
with the prayer of the Church; so it seems that this rite cannot
licitly be omitted, just like the mixing of the water with the wine at
the offertory. (see no. 3, the quotation of Saint Thomas:
«sicut
admixtio...»)
8. This relation between
the epiclesis and the breaking of the bread is attested to by several
ancient liturgies, especially Western ones (Gallican and Mozarabic), as
has been established by Dom Cagin: One finds
in antiphonaries, in the Mass for Christmas Day, or in that of the
Epiphany, or at Easter, or Pentecost, an antiphon under the rubric In fractione or Dum frangitur corpus or Ad Corpus Domini sumendum, etc.,
which is nothing other than an epiclesis, as Dom Cagin recognized, and
which must be noted here, for this antiphon is found especially in the
manuscripts of Italy... Here is the text in question:
Emitte angelum tuum Domine,
Et dignare sanctificando
mundare corda et corpora nostra ad percipiendum
Corpus et sanguinem tuum,
Nos frangimus, Domine.
Tu dignare benedicere,
Ut immaculatis manibus
illud tractemus.
O quam beatus venter ille
qui Christum meruit portare.
O quam pretiosa gemma et
margarita,
Quam lucis mundi illustrat
gratia,
O quam beati pedes illi qui
Christum meruerunt sustinere,
Cui angeli et archangeli
offerunt munera,
Sempiterno et excelso regi,
alleluia.
Send us your angel, Lord,
and deign to purify and
sanctify our hearts and bodies for the reception
of your Body and Blood,
which we break, Lord.
Deign to give us your
blessing,
so that we might touch it
with immaculate hands.
O how happy is the womb
that deserved to bear Christ,
o how precious is that
jewel, that pearl,
which the grace of the
light of the world enlightens,
O how happy are the feet
that deserved to bear Christ,
He to whom the angels and
archangels offered gifts,
that eternal and most high
King, alleluia.
Dom Cagin also
demonstrates, in this passage and elsewhere in his work, that the angelus referred to in the
epiclesis Emitte, and
in several other formulas, beginning with the Roman formula Supplices te (...) jube haec perferri per
manus sancti
angeli tui, is nothing other than a designation
of the Holy Spirit. (Te Deum, p. 221 -
Musical Paleography, vol. V, p. 90) (Dom Fernand Cabrol, in Dictionary
of Christian Archaeology and of Liturgy, Article
EPICLESIS, Columns 166 and 167)
9. As we have already seen,
Saint Thomas spoke to us about the breaking of the bread with
perspicacity, but one may find it regrettable that he did not, at the
same time, discuss the epiclesis, whether it be ante-consecratory or
post-consecratory. Certain analysts have already noted this lacuna: This question, in the terms in which it
poses itself to our
mind, was unknown to him. Therefore he was content to describe the
patristic doctrines of the Eucharistic virtue of the Holy Spirit, to
affirm its conciliation with the effectiveness of the words of Christ,
without insisting on anything more and without seeking to provide
fuller explanations. When one reads the few lines incidentally devoted
by the Angelic Doctor to this dogmatic proposition of tradition, one
deeply regrets that the prince of theological speculation did not apply
his genius to the development of this traditional data. He would not
have failed to throw a great light upon the entire question. (S. Salaville, in
Dictionary of Catholic Theology, Article
EPICLESIS, Columns 271 and 272)
10. So let us try to
develop the thought of the Holy Doctor a little. In no. 3, we quoted
this sentence: «perfectio hujus sacramenti non est in usu
fidelium, sed in consecratione materiae.» The
perfection of this sacrament does not consist in its use by the
faithful, but in the consecration of the matter.
(Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 80, a. 12, ad 2) The
commentators of Saint Thomas concluded from this that, for him, the
essence of the Eucharistic celebration is the consecration of the bread
and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. But, elsewhere in the Summa
Theologica, Saint Thomas teaches us that, if the consecration confers a
perfection to the sacrament of the Eucharist, the use of this same
sacrament - that is, Eucharistic communion - brings a greater (since it
is total) perfection to the sacrament: «Ad quamdam
perfectionem
sacramenti pertinet materiae consecratae usus, sicut operatio non est
prima, sed secunda perfectio rei, ideo per omnia ista verba (Accipite, et comedite) exprimitur
tota perfectio hujus sacramenti.» The
use of the consecrated matter confers a certain perfection on this
sacrament, just as the activity (of a thing) is not the first, but
rather the second perfection of that thing; this is why these words (Take and eat - cf. Mt. 26:26)
express all of the perfection of this sacrament. (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.
78, a. 1, ad 2)
11. Thus we have a first
perfection: consecration; and a second perfection: communion. Now, a
little further on, Saint Thomas teaches us that:
«duplex est res hujus
sacramenti (...):
- una quidem, quae est
significata, et contenta, scilicet ipse Christus;
- alia autem est
significata, et non contenta, scilicet corpus Christi mysticum, quod
est societas sanctorum.
Quicumque ergo sacramentum
sumit, ex hoc ipso significat se esse Christo unitum, et membris ejus
incorporatum; quod quidem fit per fidem formatam.»
The reality of this
sacrament is twofold (...):
- one, which is signified
and contained (in the sacrament), is Christ himself;
- the other is signified
and not contained (in the sacrament); it is the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is the society of saints.
So whoever takes (eats) the
sacrament signifies by that very fact that he is united to Christ and
that he is a member of Christ; this takes place through informed faith.
(Saint Thomas, Summa
Theologica, IIIa, q. 80, a. 4, corp.)
(Note: informed faith is
faith in its union with charity, that is, faith as it is when it
receives its form, and
thence its life, from charity. It is faith and charity, in a common
hope, which make a man or woman a member of the Mystical Body of
Christ.)
Moreover, Saint Thomas
specifies that the priest communicates of the Blood of Christ (and thus
also of the Body of Christ, the Body and Blood forming one sacrament)
in the name of all the faithful: «Sacerdos in persona omnium
sanguinem offert, et sumit.» The priest
offers and takes (drinks) the blood (and eats the body) in the name of
all. (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.
80, a.12, ad 3)
12. Thus it seems that the
thought of the Holy Doctor must be understood as follows:
- the first perfection of
the sacrament of the Eucharist is the realization of the sacramental
Body of Christ under the species of the bread and wine at the moment of
the consecration;
- the second perfection of
the sacrament of the Eucharist is the realization of the Mystical Body
of Christ, the Church, at the moment of the communion of the priest
(by realization, one
must understand here, in both a qualitative and quantitative way, the
growth or the building up of the Mystical Body of Christ).
13. For Saint Thomas, the
Mass certainly forms a whole; but in this whole, he notes these two
principal and essential moments: the consecration of the bread and
wine, and the communion of the celebrant. Besides, did he not compose
this admirable office of the Blessed Sacrament, in which one reads:
«O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur: recolitur
memoria
passionis ejus: mens impletur gratia: et futurae gloriae nobis pignus
datur, alleluia.» O sacred banquet in
which Christ is eaten: in which the memory of his passion is
celebrated, the soul is filled with grace, and the pledge of future
glory is given to us, alleluia. (Magnificat
Antiphon)?
14. To study the liturgical
rite of the breaking of the bread, as we are now doing, is to study the
epiclesis, of which the breaking of the bread is the sacramental sign.
We are now truly at the heart of the problem of the relation between
the grace of God and the free will of man. For, to seek to understand
the action of the epiclesis within the Eucharistic celebration is to
try to explain the unity that exists between the sacramental action,
which is an action of God, and the prayer of epiclesis, which is an
action of man. Certain texts by Saint Thomas Aquinas, like those we
quoted earlier, will be quite useful to us. But could Saint Thomas have
suspected the importance of the epiclesis in the celebration of the
Eucharist? Probably not. And here is the reason.
15. The epiclesis is a
prayer of the Church recited by the celebrant, a bishop or priest. Now,
this prayer has importance and effectiveness only because at Mass, when
the priest prays, Mary prays with him: The
mystery of the union of Mary Co-Redemptrix with the Redeemer continues.
The Priest thus communicates of the crucified Jesus's sentiments for
Mary and of Mary's sentiments for the crucified Jesus, he makes the
love of Christ for Mary his own, and he receives the love of Mary for
Christ, who is in him. Finally, and above all, in his sacerdotal
prayer, he presents the offering of the Co-Redemptrix as she unites
herself to the Redeemer in the supreme act of sacrifice. (R.P. Philippe, O.P., The Blessed
Virgin and the Priesthood, p. 63) The prayer of Mary is supremely effective.
It is the prayer
of a simple creature, but a creature who is the Queen of the universe
and Queen of all men; and it is the prayer of a creature who truly
merited in advance all that she asks of God.
(ibid, p. 86)
16. But one must note here
that only the prayer of Mary is thus supremely effective during the
Eucharistic celebration, for only Mary is the Immaculate Conception,
and her privilege is unique. Indeed, the Immaculate Conception of Mary
confers upon her the power to become the Mother of Christ and the
Mother of God, and thus she also becomes the Wife of the Holy Spirit,
that is, almighty in the Almighty.
17. Let us take another
look at what we have just said, with the addition of a few supportive
texts. On one hand, the prayer of Mary has effectiveness only because
she is the Mother of God: This maternity of
Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in
faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering
beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the
elect. (Council of Vatican II, Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 62)
18. On the other hand, the
divine maternity of Mary finds its necessary and indispensable support
in her Immaculate Conception: Adorned from the
first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique
holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God's command, by an
angel messenger as full of grace (cf. Lk. 1:28), and to the heavenly
messenger she replies: Behold the handmaid of
the Lord, be it
done unto me according to thy word. (Lk. 1:38)
Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became
the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's
salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted
herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her
Son, under him and with him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the
mystery of redemption. (Council of Vatican II,
Constitution Gentium Lumen, no. 56)
19. Consequently, we see
that the epiclesis has:
- for its remote
foundation, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary;
- for its immediate
foundation, the belief in the universal Mediation of the Mother of God.
20. Although the definition
of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, by Blessed Pope Pius IX,
goes back to the year 1854, belief in this doctrine is not new. But,
before its dogmatic definition, this doctrine had, in every age, both
supporters and adversaries, including in the 13th century, the time of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. Now, according to the commentators of Saint
Thomas, the latter seems not to have firmly believed in the Immaculate
Conception of Mary. Moreover, Saint Thomas says in his Summa
Theologica: «Beata Virgo contraxit quidem originale peccatum,
sed
ab eo fuit mundata, antequam ex utero nasceretur.» The Blessed Virgin did in fact contract
original sin, but
she was purified of it before her birth. (Saint
Thomas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2) However, Saint
Thomas can be excused for making this declaration, for he bases it on
his too great regard of the dignity of Christ (if one may speak in this
way) as he says at the beginning of the same article: «Si
nunquam
anima Beatae Virginis fuisset contagio originalis peccati inquinata,
hoc derogaret dignitati Christi, secundum quam est universalis omnium
Salvator.» If the soul of the Blessed
Virgin had never been attained by the contagion of original sin, it
would have derogated from the dignity of Christ, a dignity which
belongs to him due to his being the universal Savior of all [men]. (ibidem)
21. We do not wish to
perform a complete analysis of the thought of the Holy Doctor on the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but let us note nonetheless
that, in other writings, Saint Thomas seems favorable to the Immaculate
Conception of Mary... The commentators of Saint Thomas and those who
belong to his school do not agree on whether he was for or against the
Immaculate Conception. In addition, it would be extremely interesting
to study the thought of the theologians of the Thomist school and to
compare their personal opinions on the questions of the essence of the
Mass and of the Immaculate Conception.
22. In the same order of
ideas, let us note that, according to the commentators, Saint Thomas
Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure think that the essence of the Mass
resides in the consecration of the species of the bread and the wine.
Now, still according to the commentators, both are against the
Immaculate Conception of Mary. So it seems that these two questions are
closely linked to each other. Moreover, how can one attribute a certain
essential reality to the prayer of epiclesis and to Eucharistic
communion, and how can one thus provide an adequate solution to the
relation that exists between the grace of God and the free will of man,
without requiring the intervention of the - mysterious - action of that
absolutely unique being, Immaculate Mary?
23. Lastly, one may wonder
how it can be that the Virgin Mary could have some part in a
sacramental action - the Eucharistic celebration - when she is not a
priest. But would not the privilege of her Immaculate Conception be the
very foundation of her priesthood, a priesthood exercised through her
divine Maternity ever since the Incarnation, conjointly with and in
virtue of the unique priesthood of Christ? Her universal Mediation
would then be the constant realization of her priesthood, a maternal
priesthood, one that is intermediary between the ministerial priesthood
and the common priesthood of the faithful. Is she not at once both the
Mother of Christ and the Mother of the Church, Mediatrix between Christ
and men?
24. The priesthood of
Mary... We seem to have gotten quite far from the breaking of the
bread! But not as far as it seems! Is it not Saint Luke who relates to
us this central notion of the Eucharist, in his Gospel and in the Acts
of the Apostles? Now, tradition tells us that Saint Luke obtained much
of his information from Mary herself, she who kept
all these things, pondering them in her heart.
(Lk. 2:19) Who could even imagine that Mary did not keep and ponder at
length all that took place in the Cenacle at the Last Supper? And she
certainly did not fail to inform Saint Luke about it.
25. Now, the three synoptic
gospels do not say much concerning the Last Supper. They present it to
us in a manner similar to that of scholastic theologians: the
circumstances and state of the question, the matter and form of the
sacrament, and little else. On the other hand, Saint John, the
spiritual son of Mary (cf. Jn. 19:26), does not deem it necessary to
report what the synoptic gospels tell us: of the sacrament itself, he
says nothing, at least not in his account of the Last Supper;
elsewhere, on the other hand, he has much to say on this subject (see,
for example, Jn. 6:51-55).
26. Concerning the Last
Supper, Saint John recounts the final discourse of Jesus to his
disciples. Now, of what does Jesus speak? He sets forth to his
disciples the entire plan of love of his Father, the Church, and the
action of the Holy Spirit who would come after his departure - that is,
after his death on the Cross and his Ascension into Heaven. But Jesus
is not content with teaching. Jesus prays! He prays to his Father for
the Church; he prays for the unity of all believers (cf. Jn. 17:20-26).
This prayer forms the last part of his discourse.
27. So this is what Saint
John told us concerning the Last Supper: the prayer of epiclesis! Or
rather, this is what Mary had especially preserved and meditated upon
in her Immaculate Heart! This is what she transmitted to Saint John,
for it is this that reveals the entire mystery of the Eucharist, it is
this that reveals all of her maternal action, in the economy ofgrace,
the grace given to the men and women of the earth in her Son Jesus!
28. The prayer of
epiclesis, the breaking of the bread, is a revelation! A revelation
that leads to the Love who is God himself! So if we want to know and
love Jesus, let us go to him through the breaking
of the bread. Let us go to Jesus, through Mary,
in the Holy Spirit, in order to render to the Father all honor and
glory! «Cognoverunt eum in fractione panis.» They recognized him in the breaking of the
bread. (Lk. 24:35)
Chapter I
THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE
LITURGY
29. In this first chapter
devoted to the breaking of the bread, we will not develop the entire
history of this liturgical rite which, as time went by, underwent
numerous and multiple variations; we will simply content ourselves with
saying what we think on this subject, to the extent that the gift of
the Holy Spirit has allowed us to understand this. In sum, we shall
expose, clearly and with the greatest possible rigor, the thought and
the eternal plan of the Spirit of God with regard to this action of the
breaking of the bread, not through the language of God himself, which
does not belong to us, but rather through the intermediary of poor
human words coined over the course of the centuries. So we shall begin
by approaching the subject from the outside, by means of sensible
realities: this will be an analysis of the breaking of the bread in the
theology of the liturgy. Once that is done, we will then be able to
attain the interior of things, their spiritual side, and all of their
sublime profundity: this will be an analysis of the breaking of the
bread in the theology of grace. But between the exterior and interior
aspects of our subject matter, and in order to pass from one to the
other, we shall develop our analysis of the breaking of the bread in
the theology of man, for, according to the thought of Blaise Pascal,
man is the creature that is in a state of mediocrity or mediation
between the corporeal and the spiritual, a state outside of which he is
never fully himself.
30. The breaking of the
bread is a rite, that is, a ceremonial action, of the Eucharistic
liturgy. It consists in breaking the bread which has just been
consecrated into the Body of Christ with a view to the sacramental
communion which follows. Although it does not appear to be so, at least
at first sight, this liturgical action truly seems to be the greatest
in significance and the richest in symbolism of all the ceremonies of
the Mass. But as, over the course of the centuries, the rite of the
breaking of the bread knew many variations in the way it was
celebrated, it would be difficult or even impossible to distinguish
what is the true significance of this liturgical action if we did not
refer ourselves, as a sure and guaranteed starting point, to the
liturgy of the Mass, as it was restored to its primitive purity at the
request of the Second Council of the Vatican.
31. In the Eucharistic
liturgy, as it is celebrated today, the breaking of the consecrated
bread takes place during the singing of Agnus
Dei: «Sacerdos accipit hostiam,
eamque
super patenam frangit, et particulam immittit in calicem (...) Interim
a choro et a populo cantatur vel dicitur Agnus
Dei.» The priest
takes the host, breaks it over the paten, and places a small piece in
the chalice (...) Meanwhile, the choir and congregation sings or
recites Lamb of God. (Missale Romanum,
Institutio generalis, no. 113) This means that the priest's own action
of breaking the host takes place simultaneously with the action of the
faithful who sing or recite the invocation Agnus
Dei. In other words, the rite of the breaking
of the bread, accompanied by the chant Agnus
Dei, highlights two conjoint and simultaneous
actions: one, which is the action proper to the ministerial priesthood;
and the other, which is the action proper to the common priesthood of
the faithful. So we can say that, in this study on the breaking of the
bread, our proper and central objective will be the consideration of
the simultaneity and the conjunction which exists, in the celebration
of the Eucharist, between the action of the ministerial priesthood and
the action of the common priesthood of the faithful.
32. The breaking of the
bread is the action proper to the priest, an action which consists in
breaking, with the fingers, the consecrated Host into two or more
fragments: «Celebrans (...) accipit hostiam inter pollicem et
indicem dexterae manus, et cum illis ac pollice et indice sinistrae
manus eam super calicem tenens, reverenter frangit per
medium.» The celebrant takes the host
between the
thumb and index
finger of the right hand, and, holding it thus, above the chalice, with
the thumb and the index finger of the left hand, he respectfully breaks
it through the middle. (Missale Romanum, anno
1962, Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, Tit. X, no. 2) Conjointly
and simultaneously with the action proper to the priest, the chant or
invocation Agnus Dei
is the action proper to the faithful: «Dum fractio panis et
immixtio peraguntur, invocatio Agnus Dei a schola vel a cantore, populo
respondente, de more
cantatur, vel elata voce dicitur. Haec invocatio repeti potest quoties
necesse est ad fractionem panis comitandam. Ultima vice concluditur
verbis dona nobis pacem.»
During the breaking of the bread and the commingling, the Agnus Dei is as a rule sung by the
choir or cantor with the congregation responding; otherwise it is
recited aloud. This invocation may be repeated as often as necessary to
accompany the breaking of the bread. The final reprise concludes with
the words, grant us peace. (Missale Romanum,
Institutio generalis, no. 56, § e)
33. What must first be
highlighted is that the priest carries out the rite of the breaking of
the bread only after having completed the recitation of the Eucharistic
Prayer and after this last has been ratified by the faithful taking
part in the celebration. Now, one may say that the part of the Mass
which extends from the Amen which ratifies the Eucharistic Prayer to
the act of
sacramental communion is nothing other than a prolongation or an
extension of the Eucharistic Prayer: it is a development of the prayer
of epiclesis which constitutes the center of the Eucharistic Prayer. By
this very fact, all the prayers or invocations which follow the
Eucharistic Prayer have the value of the epiclesis and can be
assimilated to it. Thus, the invocation Agnus
Dei can be regarded as the epiclesis proper
to
the faithful, objectively similar to the epiclesis of the priest, but
recited by persons who are essentially different from the person of the
priest, and carried out at a time completely distinct from the time in
which the epiclesis of the priest is pronounced; so this is a practical
realization of the following principle: Though
they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the
common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical
priesthood are nonetheless interrelated.
(Council of Vatican II, Constitution Lumen
Gentium, no. 10)
34. To what we have just
said about the invocation Agnus Dei, one must also add that, as the epiclesis,
insofar as it is
a spiritual communion, is completed only through sacramental communion,
the epiclesis of the priest, or the Eucharistic Prayer, though it is
recited by the priest before the invocation Agnus
Dei recited by the faithful, coincides in
time
with this same invocation Agnus Dei, if one considers the specific spiritual
aspect of the
prayer: there is here a conjunction and simultaneity between the
ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful, since
both find their common end in the act of Eucharistic communion which
brings to a close the act of spiritual or epicletic communion.
Moreover, the epicletic character of the invocation Agnus Dei, as well as the
simultaneous and conjoint aspect of the relation between the
ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of faithful, is set
into greater relief by the breaking of the bread which takes place
during the Mass «sine populo» without
the people; indeed, it is the priest himself
who then recites the invocation Agnus Dei while carrying out the rite of the
fraction: «Dum
dicit Agnus Dei cum
ministro sacerdos frangit hostiam super patenam.» While he says the Agnus Dei with the server, the priest breaks the
eucharistic bread
over the paten. (Missale Romanum, Institutio
generalis, no. 226)
35. The breaking of the
bread, the action proper to the priest, is in a conjoint and
simultaneous relation with the chant Agnus Dei, the action proper to the faithful. As the
invocation or
the chant Agnus Dei
can be regarded as a true epiclesis in the full sense of the term, this
is the same as saying that the intimate relation between the
ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful is
fully manifested in the relation that exists between the breaking of
the bread and the epiclesis. As the latter relation is not something
new, but rather founded upon all liturgical tradition, it follows that
all of the significance and symbolism of the breaking of the bread is
in its relation to the epiclesis, and that, consequently, all of our
research on the relation between the ministerial priesthood and the
common priesthood of the faithful can be reduced to the sole
consideration of this proper and absolute relation between the breaking
of the bread and the epiclesis.
36. There is a relation
between the breaking of the bread and the epiclesis: the current
liturgy testifies to this. But what is essential to note here is that
all liturgical tradition is unanimous on this subject. As we have
already said this in our Introduction (see no. 8), this relation
between the epiclesis and the breaking of the bread is attested to by
several ancient liturgies, especially Western ones (Gallican and
Mozarabic), as has been established by Dom Cagin: One finds in antiphonaries, in the Mass
for Christmas Day,
or in that of the Epiphany, or at Easter, or Pentecost, an antiphon
under the rubric In fractione or Dum frangitur corpus or Ad Corpus Domini sumendum, etc., which is nothing other than an
epiclesis, as Dom
Cagin recognized, and which must be noted here, for this antiphon is
found especially in the manuscripts of Italy... Dom Cagin also
demonstrates, in this passage and elsewhere in his work, that the
angelus referred to in the epiclesis Emitte, and in several other
formulas, beginning with the Roman formula Supplices
te (...) jube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui, is nothing other than a designation of
the Holy Spirit. (Te Deum, p. 221 - Musical Paleography, vol. V, p. 90) (Dom Fernand
Cabrol, in Dictionary
of Christian Archaeology and of Liturgy, Article
EPICLESIS, Columns 166 and 167)
37. There is a conjoint and
simultaneous relation between the breaking of the bread and the
epiclesis. Now, the specificity of the rite of the breaking of the
bread lies intrinsically in the fact that the species of the bread, or
the appearance of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, is broken: it
consists in a certain destruction of the sacramental species. In
addition, it is certain that every epiclesis, no matter which, relates
to the two species of the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely the bread
and the wine, and this in a way that is absolutely one and
indissociable in virtue of the very notion of prayer, which is
essentially simple and one because it is spiritual. As a typical
example of an epiclesis, we shall cite Eucharistic Prayer no. 2 from
the Roman Missal: «Memores igitur mortis et resurrectionis
ejus,
tibi, Domine, panem vitae et calicem salutis offerimus, gratias agentes
quia nos dignos habuisti astare coram te et tibi ministrare. Et
supplices deprecamur ut Corporis et Sanguinis Christi participes a
Spiritu Sancto congregemur in unum.» In
memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this
life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy
to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the
body and blood of Christ be brought together in the unity by the Holy
Spirit. Thus, if there is a relation between
the breaking of the bread and the epiclesis, there must also
necessarily exist a relation between the epiclesis and the other
Eucharistic species (the wine) considered according to all of the
specificity of the breaking of the bread: that is, a relation between
the epiclesis and the species of the wine that is cut or even, in a
certain way, denatured.
38. If there is a relation
between the epiclesis and the species of the cut or denatured wine,
there is, however, no rite of the Mass in which the priest, between the
consecration and communion, carries out the denaturation of the
consecrated wine in a way similar to that in which he breaks the
consecrated bread in the rite of fraction. On the other hand, during
the offertory, the deacon (acting on behalf of the priest), or the
priest himself, adds a few drops of water to the wine before it is
poured into the chalice: «Ad offertorium (...) diaconus (...)
infundit vinum et parum aquae in calicem.» At the presentation of the gifts,... the
deacon... pours
wine and a little water into the chalice.
(Missale Romanum, Institutio generalis, no. 133). Now, since wine is a
liquid, only another liquid of the same polarity - that is, a liquid
which mixes in a homogeneous manner with the first liquid - can cut and
denature, or even destroy, the first liquid: and it is precisely so in
the case of water with respect to wine. Thus, the admixture of water to
the wine during the offertory of the Mass constitutes a rite whose
specificity is perfectly identical to that of the rite of the breaking
of the bread. By this very fact, because there is a conjoint and
simultaneous relation between the breaking of the bread and the
epiclesis, there exists parallel to this a conjoint and simultaneous
relation between the mixture of water into the wine and the epiclesis.
39. Conforming ourselves to
the liturgical usage and tradition of the Church, in which one
communicates of the Body of Christ before communicating of the Blood of
Christ, we deduced the existence of the relation between the wine cut
with water and the epiclesis by basing ourselves on the existence of
the relation between the breaking of the bread and the epiclesis. By
this very fact, it is absolutely clear that the existence of the rite
in which the species of the wine is cut with water rests entirely upon
the very existence of the rite of the breaking of the bread. As this
latter rite goes back all the way to the Lord himself, and thus to the
apostolic origins of the Church, it follows that the rite of the wine
cut with water must be regarded as an action which Christ the Lord
himself performed during the institution of the Eucharist, and that
this same rite has always been practiced in the Church in imitation of
her Head: «In praeparatione donorum, ad altare afferuntur
panis
et vinum cum aqua, ea nempe elementa, quae Christus in manus suas
accepit.» In the preparation of the
gifts, the bread and the wine with water are brought to the altar, that
is, the same elements that Christ used.
(Missale Romanum, Institutio generalis, no. 48)
40. Out of all the ancient
documents which report the existence of the rite of the wine cut with
water, let us quote the following passage of Saint Justin: There is brought to he who presides over
the assembly of
the brethren some bread and a cup of wine mixed with water. (Apology LXV, 3; in Louis Pautigny, Justin, pp. 138-139) Parallel to
Saint Justin, certain ancient anaphoras explicitly cite the example of
the Lord himself: Saint Justin testifies to
the use of water in the Eucharist in the second century. This testimony
is corroborated by that of certain anaphoras which specify, in the
account of the Institution: He mixed water
into the wine... This tradition concerning the
Last Supper of the Lord forms the basis for the quasi-universal usage. (A. G. Martimort,
«L'Église en
prière» The Church in Prayer, p. 382, 1965 edition)
41. Liturgically, within
the framework of the theology of the liturgy, the existence of the rite
of adding water to the wine rests entirely, though spiritually, upon
the existence of the rite of the breaking of the bread (see no. 39).
Now, still liturgically, the existence of the latter rite rests
entirely, though materially, or corporeally, upon the existence of the
first: in the celebration of the liturgy of the Mass, the mixture of
water into the wine precedes in time the breaking of the bread. Thus,
liturgically speaking, one must think and believe without hesitation
that the rite of the breaking of the bread, and that of the mixture of
water into the wine, exist together and indissociably, in a way that is
both corporeal and spiritual, that is, when these two rites are
considered in their conjoint and simultaneous relation to the prayer of
epiclesis. Therefore, one absolutely cannot deny that the sacrament of
the Eucharist, within the framework of the theology of the liturgy, in
the proper context of the relation between the breaking of the bread
and the epiclesis - this breaking of the bread being but one,
liturgically speaking, with the mixture of water into the wine - the
sacrament of the Eucharist, as we were saying, considered in a
epicletic way, that is, considered as communion, is not only spiritual,
as is every sacrament, but is also truly corporeal, in the material
reality of the species of the bread and wine. This is what we shall
retain from our first analysis.
THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
IN THE THEOLOGY OF MAN
42. Within the framework of
the theology of the liturgy, we have shown that there is a conjoint and
simultaneous relation between the breaking of the bread and the
epiclesis. Now, on the one hand, though the breaking of the bread could
be materially carried out by a machine like that which makes hosts by
cutting up bread, the breaking of the bread is, however, an action
consciously carried out by the priest, that is, an act commanded by the
will, dependent upon the intellect, or in other words it is a human
act. In addition, the epiclesis, although it is also an action
completely specific to the angelic creatures who, by means of prayer,
lift up to God all of their being, which is their spirit, the epiclesis
is here nevertheless an action proper to man, and is thus, like the
breaking of the bread, truly a human act; for the epiclesis is, in the
celebration of the Eucharist, a vocal prayer accomplished by both the
spirit and the body of man. Consequently, the relation between the
breaking of the bread and the epiclesis necessarily lies within the
scope of the theology of man considered in his fullness, that is,
considered always, and in an indissociable manner, according to his
body and his soul, and thus, according to his mediocrity, or his
intermediate position in all of creation (Mk. 16:15): this will be the topic of
this second
analysis.
43. The breaking of the
bread, as a human action, consists in breaking, with the fingers, the
consecrated Host, the Body of Christ (see no. 32). In this sense, the
rite or liturgical action of the breaking of the bread does not differ
from the act of Eucharistic communion, an act in which the consecrated
Bread is first crushed by the teeth of the communicant before being
digested and completely destroyed by the gastric juice in the stomach.
In other words, in the act of Eucharistic communion, the action of the
breaking of the bread achieves its absolute fullness in the total and
complete destruction of the sacrament itself. But, as the epiclesis is
a prayer, and as a prayer is nothing other than the privileged
expression of the virtue of hope, the epiclesis, considered as a human
action, also finds its absolute fullness in the act of Eucharistic
communion, which is not a communion in hope, that is, an epiclesis, but
rather a communion in reality, in the full sense of the term. Thus,
both the breaking of the bread and the epiclesis find their absolute
fullness in the act of Eucharistic communion. Now, as the Eucharist
truly seems to be a temporal and material food similar to that which
men eat at their meals; and as it is necessary to think and believe
that the sacramental species, of the corporeal order, are an essential
part of the sacrament of the Eucharist considered as communion (see no.
41); one must necessarily regard the act of Eucharistic communion as a
vital and nutritive act. By this very fact, it is an act which
necessarily concerns the whole man, that is, both his body and his soul
or spirit. It follows that, as the breaking of the bread is an action
which is, intrinsically, corporeal and material, and as the epiclesis
is an action which is, intrinsically, spiritual and vital; we can say
that, in the very act of Eucharistic communion, the action of the body
is properly the realization in fullness of the action of the breaking
of the bread; and that the action of the soul or spirit is properly the
realization in fullness of the action of the epiclesis. Lastly, since,
in a nutritive act, the body and the soul or spirit of man are united
by the simple principle of life; and since the body of man is the
external element of this being, as opposed to his soul or spirit, which
is the internal element of this same being; it is clear that the proper
action of the breaking of the bread is nothing other than the external
and corporeal manifestation of the proper action of the epiclesis
considered in its spiritual and interior reality: the breaking of the
bread can thus justifiably be considered as the sacramental sign of the
epiclesis, that is, as the manifestation of the epiclesis in the
sacrament of the Eucharist.
44. In the act of
Eucharistic communion, the breaking of the bread is the action of the
body of the man who communicates, and the epiclesis is the action of
the soul or spirit of this same man. Now, in any human act - and such
is the case here - the intention of the subject who performs this act,
that is, the spiritual action of the subject, is always first with
respect to the material act as such, which is properly the corporeal
action of the subject. It follows that, in the relation between the
breaking of the bread and the epiclesis, the latter must be considered
to be the action which explains the former - the breaking of the bread
- and gives it all its meaning. Thus, after having exposed and
described, in our first analysis, the typically material or corporeal
action of the breaking of the bread, in which it is but one with the
mixture of water into the wine, we shall study, in this second
analysis, the properly spiritual action of the epiclesis, not in itself
as we shall do in our third analysis, but rather in its relation to the
action of the breaking of the bread, and this, in order to be able to
establish with certainty and determine with precision in what consists
all of the sense and significance of this same action of breaking the
bread. In short, in this second analysis, we begin with the epiclesis:
this will provide us with the specific sense of the liturgical rite of
the breaking of the bread. Now, the epiclesis is a prayer, that is, a
properly spiritual action through which man addresses himself to God
and freely speaks to him in a familiar manner, as one speaks to a
friend. Thus it consists in the expression of a spiritual movement of
the soul towards God: on the one hand it is an entirely free movement,
and, by this very fact, one that engages the will of man; and on the
other hand it is an absolutely intellectual movement, since any word is
the fruit of the human intellect in which it is conceived.
Consequently, the epiclesis can be called the spiritual expression of a
movement of the entire human person towards God. But spiritual
communion in the form of the epiclesis is, intrinsically, a sacramental
communion in hope, a preparation for Eucharistic communion. Thus, the
epiclesis is nothing other than the spiritual expression of a movement
which prepares the human person for sacramental communion. Lastly, in
virtue of the relation between the breaking of the bread and the
epiclesis within the framework of Eucharistic communion, it follows
that the action of the breaking of the bread is itself also an action
preparatory to Eucharistic communion: the breaking of the bread is the
corporeal expression of a movement of the human person towards God
present in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Now, as Eucharistic
communion requires corporeal contact between the Eucharist and the
human person who communicates, and as this corporeal contact has
already taken place during the breaking of the bread, this same
corporeal action of the breaking of the bread is not, intrinsically,
the corporeal expression of the movement of the human person towards
the Eucharist, but rather the full and entire result of this same
movement. So, it is properly the action which, for the human person,
consists in placing the hand upon the sacrament of the Eucharist, which
is the corporeal expression of the movement of the human person towards
God who is present, a movement manifested spiritually by the prayer of
epiclesis. It is this movement which the Lord proclaimed in the
following way: I am the bread of life; he who
comes to me shall not hunger. (Jn. 6:35)
45. The prayer of epiclesis
is the spiritual expression of a movement of the human person going to
God present in the Eucharist. Now, on one hand, the epiclesis, as a
spiritual communion in the form of prayer, that is, as a communion in
hope, and not in reality, is, intrinsically, imperfect if one does not
consider it in the act of Eucharistic communion itself: the movement of
the human person towards God lacks perfection if this same human person
does not achieve his goal, which is God. In addition, as we study the
epiclesis in order to understand the meaning of the action of the
breaking of the bread, we must in the same way consider the epiclesis
within the framework of Eucharistic communion, which realizes in
perfection the act of the breaking of the bread, and not solely as the
explanation of the gestures of the human person who places his hands
upon the Eucharist in order to take it and break it, as we have just
seen (no. 44). Consequently, to fully explain the significance of the
act of the breaking of the bread, it is in the act of Eucharistic
communion that we must develop our analysis of the prayer of epiclesis:
for us it is a question of considering the action of the prayer of a
human person who communicates sacramentally of the Eucharist. Now, in
this precise act of Eucharistic communion, the human person cannot fail
to be conscious of the fact that the Eucharist which he eats or drinks
is, to all appearances, true food and true drink, temporal and
perishable, and this, in a way that is absolutely full and entire, in
virtue of the principle of life which governs the act of eating which
takes place here. By this very fact, the human person who communicates
of the Eucharist cannot be naturally conscious of the sacramental
presence of God, and thus, this same human person can necessarily be
conscious of this presence of God only by means of a supernatural
virtue. As faith is the proper virtue by which man knows any truth that
exceeds his intellect, that is, the virtue which makes it possible for
man to understand any supernatural truth (cf. Isaiah 7:9 according to
the LXX: If you do not believe, you will not
understand), thus, the spiritual movement of
the human person who goes to the Eucharist is an action which is
realized in faith and through faith, as the Lord himself confirms when
he says: I am the bread of life; he who comes
to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. (Jn. 6:35) This enables us to say that,
in the spiritual
movement of the human person towards the God of the Eucharist, a
movement that is considered in its result, which is Eucharistic
communion, there necessarily exists a contact of the same order as this
movement, that is, a spiritual contact, a contact that is properly the
supernatural virtue of faith, and which, consequently, allows the
supernatural union of God and the human person. Consequently, in virtue
of the relation between the breaking of the bread and the epiclesis, we
can come to the conclusion that the action of the breaking of the bread
is, by mode of contact and by means of the sense of touch acting at the
ends of the fingers of the hand, the corporeal expression of the
spiritual action of faith, through the intermediary of which the human
person, who, by means of the prayer of epiclesis, accomplishes his
spiritual movement towards God, brings into contact with the divinity
the cutting edge of his soul or spirit, that is, the very place where
this same virtue or spiritual contact of faith resides.
46. In our analysis of the
prayer of epiclesis, faith in the presence of God in the Eucharist
seems to us to possess a properly spiritual aspect in the epiclesis
itself, and a properly corporeal aspect in the act of the breaking of
the bread. This means that faith absolutely engages all of the human
person, body and soul. Consequently, the object of faith, in this case
the revelation of the fact that God is truly present in the Eucharist,
necessarily comes from outside the person who believes: this object of
faith is transmitted to the spirit or soul of this same person through
the intermediary of his body, which is provided with various senses and
organs. By this very fact, this object of faith is by no means an
internal production of the human spirit, by which the presence of God
in the Eucharist would be purely subjective and determined by the
person who believes; but, on the contrary, we are dealing here with an
application of the principle stated by Saint Paul: faith comes from preaching. (Rm.
10:17) Now, in the Eucharistic celebration, this object of faith
consists specifically in the words pronounced by the priest
«in
persona Christi» in the consecration of the bread and wine
into
the Body and Blood of Christ: This is my
Body... This is my Blood... From this and from
what has already been said, we can affirm that the movement of the
human person who goes to the Eucharist in and through faith comprises,
intrinsically, two actions, distinct and separate in time: the first,
which is accomplished during the consecration, consists in hearing, by
mode of intellect and by means of the virtue of faith, the revelation
and, by this very fact, the realization of the presence of God in the
Eucharist; the second, which is accomplished during Eucharistic
communion, consists in uniting oneself with the God of the Eucharist,
by mode of will and by means of the virtue of faith informed by charity
and expressed by the prayer of epiclesis. It is these two actions of
the faith, the second of which constitutes the act of faith itself,
that the Lord described with these words: Every
one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. (Jn. 6:45) As the Lord also declared: He who believes in me has eternal life (Jn. 6:47), one may also cite the summary
of this entire
movement of the believer towards Christ who is God: For this is the will of my Father, that
every one who sees
the Son and believes in him should have eternal life. (Jn. 6:40) However, in the act of
Eucharistic communion,
in which is accomplished the act of faith itself, the human person who
communicates of the Eucharist, as we had said previously (see no. 45),
necessarily becomes conscious that, to all appearances, the Eucharist
is a creature that serves to maintain temporal life, and that it is
not, or does not seem to be, God the creator who gives eternal life.
So, in Eucharistic communion, there is a struggle or combat, the good fight of the faith (1 Tim.
6:12), in which the human person who communicates of the Eucharist
firmly takes the side of the revelation he has received from God in
faith, and rejects, without however being able to destroy it, the
natural knowledge that his senses infallibly transmit to him. In this
combat, the supernatural, through faith, gains victory over the
natural, and thus truly seems supernatural, that is, dominating the
natural, without destroying it; in other words, the result of this
combat is nothing other than the victory of faith, as Saint John
teaches us: This is the victory that overcomes
the world: our faith. (1 Jn. 5:4) Lastly, as
any victory in combat is the result of the deployment and use of a
power or force, one can conclude that, in Eucharistic communion, the
human person who, through the prayer of epiclesis, goes towards the
Eucharist, is powerful and strong through his faith: he practices the
precept given by Saint Peter which recommends that Christians be firm in (your) faith. (1 P. 5:9)
Consequently, in virtue of the relation between the breaking of the
bread and the epiclesis, the profound and ultimate meaning of the act
of the breaking of the bread seems to be the expression of a corporeal
and tangible power or force, which manifests exteriorly the spiritual
and interior power of faith in breaking the sensible sign of the
sacrament of the Eucharist, however without destroying it completely,
since this destruction, by way of eating, belongs to sacramental
communion itself of which the breaking of the bread is but the
explanatory and preparatory liturgical rite.
47. Let us summarize our
analysis of the breaking of the bread in the theology of man by
defining three principles drawn from the conclusions we have just
established. First, in virtue of the conclusion that the signification
of the act of breaking the bread appears to us to be the expression of
a corporeal power by which the sensible sign of the sacrament of the
Eucharist is broken, we can set down as a principle that the exercise
of the priestly ministry in the act of Eucharistic communion, a
ministry which expresses itself through the liturgical rite of the
breaking of the bread, is more effective and powerful insofar as the
faithful are stronger and more courageous in the spiritual combat of
faith through which they overcome themselves and their natural
inclinations, that is, insofar as the faithful exercise more fully
their common priesthood expressed through the prayer of epiclesis; in
any human act, it is indeed the role of the spirit, the spiritual
intention, which determines in fullness the proper action of the body.
Secondly, in virtue of the conclusion that the act of the breaking of
the bread is the corporeal expression of faith through which the human
person communicates of the Eucharist by means of the prayer of
epiclesis, one can establish the following principle, which states that
the common priesthood of the faithful is entirely at the service of the
ministerial priesthood and absolutely cannot be exercised without it,
since the epiclesis, as spiritual communion and as the proper action of
the common priesthood of the faithful, is fully ordered to and
dependent upon Eucharistic communion, which is nothing other than the
fullness of the act of the breaking of the bread, which is properly the
action of the ministerial priesthood. Thirdly, in virtue of the
conclusion that the act of the breaking of the bread is the result of a
movement of the human person who places his hands upon the sacrament of
the Eucharist, a movement which corporeally expresses the spiritual
movement accomplished by means of the prayer of epiclesis, we can
define the principle which states that the ministerial priesthood,
which is exercised corporeally, and the common priesthood of the
faithful, which is exercised in a spiritual manner, are essentially
different from each other, just like the body and soul of the human
person. Finally, to condense what we have developed here, it is enough
to mention a simple practice of the Church, namely that it is properly
priests, whether they are of the first or second order (that is,
whether they are bishops or priests), who place their hand upon the
Eucharist and who take it to nourish themselves, according to the
command of the Lord: Take and eat... Drink,
all of you... (Mt. 26:26-27), while the
faithful, for their part, receive this sacrament from the hand of
ordained ministers (among whom it is necessary to include deacons, at
least according to a certain relation).
48. Throughout this
analysis of the breaking of the bread in the theology of man, we have
studied in detail the role of the epiclesis in the celebration of the
Eucharist, which has enabled us to see the profound and full meaning of
the liturgical action of the breaking of the bread. But if we look at
the Eucharistic celebration as a whole, we note that, as a means of
expressing the faith of the human person who spiritually communicates
of the Eucharist, the epiclesis relates both to the sacramental action
of the consecration and to that of communion, since, on the one hand,
spiritual communion is completed and crowned by sacramental communion,
and on the other hand, spiritual communion of the Eucharist can begin
only at the moment when this sacrament is realized and exists. By this
very fact, it is precisely during the time between the act of
consecration and that of communion that the epiclesis finds its
existence and action, the epiclesis thus being intermediate between
these two acts. But, as the epiclesis is an act of spiritual communion,
the epiclesis is essentially simple and one. Thus, one may say that the
epiclesis contains within itself, in an indissociable and unique manner
- that is, in a spiritual manner - the actions of consecration and
communion, one of which determines the beginning, and the other the
end, of the time during which the epiclesis is conceived and expressed.
Lastly, as the consecration and communion are the two sacramental
actions which give the Eucharist its full perfection, we can conclude
our analysis by saying that, in virtue of the relation between the
breaking of the bread and the epiclesis, all the essential action of
the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, contained
spiritually and interiorly in the epiclesis, is also expressed, in an
exterior and corporeal manner, by the liturgical rite of the breaking
of the bread, a rite which, in virtue of the same relation between the
breaking of the bread and the epiclesis, is - in a certain way -
necessary with respect to the celebration of the Eucharist. This is why
the first Christians, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
referred to the entire liturgy of the Eucharist simply as the breaking of the bread (Acts
2:42). In the same way, close to apostolic times, we find in the
Didache (IX, 1-4) a Eucharistic prayer, or a prayer of thanksgiving,
which perfectly clarifies the relation between the breaking of the
bread and the epiclesis, no matter whether we consider it according to
the first, the second, or the third analysis. However, we prefer to
quote it here, in our second analysis, for, in this Eucharistic prayer,
the consecrated bread is expressed in terms of the rite of the
fraction, and the consecrated wine is mentioned before the broken host,
which truly highlights the intermediate place of the epiclesis between
the act of consecration, which ends with the consecration of the wine,
and the act of communion, which begins with the eating of the Eucharist
under the appearance of bread. The following text is based on a French
translation (by François Besson) of the original Greek text
published by F. X. Funk in Patres Apostolici (Volume 1, pp. 20-22, 1901 edition):
1. Concerning the
thanksgiving, give thanks as follows:
2. First concerning the
cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your
servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant;
glory to you forever and ever.
3. And concerning broken
bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and the
knowledge that you have made known to us through Jesus your servant;
glory to you forever and ever.
4. As this broken bread had
been scattered upon the hills and, gathered together, had become one,
so, may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth
into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus
Christ forever and ever.
49. To conclude our second
analysis of the breaking of the bread, we would like to place before
the reader's eyes the testimony of a text which illustrates the ideas
we have just developed. More precisely, this text testifies to the
movement accomplished by the human person who goes to Christ in order
to corporeally touch him and to receive from him, by means of a
powerful faith, the healing of the body and the salvation of the soul.
The text consists in an episode from the life of Christ taken from the
Gospel of Saint Mark; speaking of Jesus, the evangelist tells us: A great crowd followed him and thronged
about him. And
there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who
had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she
had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports
about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his
garment. For she said, If I touch even his
garments, I shall be made well. And immediately
the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of
her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth
from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said,
Who touched my garments? And his disciples said
to him, You see the crowd pressing around you,
and yet you say, Who touched me? And he looked
around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had been
done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and
told him the whole truth. And he said to her, Daughter,
your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your
disease. (Mk. 5:24-34) This is what we shall retain from our second
analysis.
THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD
IN THE THEOLOGY OF GRACE
50. In our second analysis,
that of the breaking of the bread in the theology of man, we looked at
the corporeal and spiritual aspects of this liturgical rite, these two
aspects being united by the principle of life in the nutritive act of
Eucharistic communion. Now, though the spiritual aspect of the breaking
of the bread, an aspect which finds its expression in the prayer of
epiclesis, is always in relation to the corporeal aspect of this same
action, there nonetheless exists, in the spiritual aspect, an element
that is exclusively spiritual: namely, the intention, an element of
which we have already spoken (see no. 44), for the intention wishes for
and desires solely the object for which it hopes but does not yet
possess, and, in the case of the prayer of epiclesis, the intention is
that by which Christ-Eucharist is spiritually desired but not yet
possessed corporeally. On this subject, Saint Paul exhorts us in the
following way: For in this hope we were saved.
Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But
if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Rm. 8:24-25) Therefore, if we want to
analyze the
exclusively spiritual aspect of the breaking of the bread, it is in the
proper context of the intention that we must work. But, the intention
or the desire to possess Christ-Eucharist is nothing other than the
intention to receive from Christ, who is God, eternal life, according
to these words: He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life. (Jn. 6:54)
Moreover, it is necessary that God, for his part, have the intention or
desire to give his life in participation, which he does not do out of
any necessity - for this would be contrary to his nature - but rather
by grace or favor: that is, it is necessary, as a preliminary, for God,
by grace and benevolence, to have predestined to participation in his
own life the human person who wishes to possess Christ-Eucharist. This
is what Saint Paul admirably described, when he said:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed
us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even
as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be
his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to
the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the
Beloved. (Ep. 1:3-6) We have thus defined the
subject of our third analysis: the breaking of the bread in the
theology of grace.
51. The intention of the
human person who desires Christ-Eucharist is accomplished in dependence
on the action of divine grace, which is the expression of the intention
of God when he draws the person he wants into participation in his own
life. To illustrate this correlative dependence of the action of man
with respect to the action of God, texts from the Holy Scriptures
abound. First, let us quote, under the form of image and sign, a
passage from the Old Testament; it speaks of Queen Esther, a figure of
the Church and in particular of Mary, when she went to King Ahasuerus,
taking here the place of Christ, whose grace and favor she won: On the third day Esther put on her royal
robes and stood in
the inner court of the king's palace, opposite the king's hall. The
king was sitting on his royal throne inside the palace opposite the
entrance to the palace; and when the king saw Queen Esther standing in
the court, she found favor in his sight and he held out to Esther the
golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched
the top of the scepter. (Esther 5:1-2) Then, in
the New Testament, we find two sayings of the Lord himself, very
concise and beautiful sayings: No one can come
to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (...) No one can come to
me unless it is granted him by the Father. (Jn.
6:44, 65) But, to these scriptural texts, we must add something we have
already stated (see no. 50), namely, that the properly spiritual aspect
of the breaking of the bread consists in the intention of the human
person who desires to receive divine life in Eucharistic communion.
Now, this intention of possessing divine life is nothing other than the
result of a battle or competition, accomplished in faith, between this
same divine life and human life, the latter being the mode under which
is accomplished the participation of the human person in divine life:
it is what we have called, in accordance with Saint John, the victory
of faith (see no. 46). Thus, this intention to possess divine life is,
intrinsically and fully, the expression of the faith of the human
person who desires to unite himself with Christ-Eucharist. But, in
virtue of the necessary relation, which we have just mentioned, between
divine life and human life (which serves as a means to Eucharistic
communion), the human person who desires divine life must also, at the
same time, opt for human life and its maintenance by means of food: he
must desire to eat the Eucharistic food which is presented to him as a
common and ordinary food. Moreover, the eating of the Eucharist by the
human person, insofar as this eating is the obligatory means by which
divine life is obtained, is absolutely first in intention with respect
to the desire for divine life: Unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you. (Jn. 6:53) Thus, the result of the combat
of faith, which is the intention of having divine life, though it
appears to be the victory and the predominance of divine life over
human life, in reality it is but the establishment of a balance,
achieved through faith, between the desire for divine life and the
desire for human life: faith harmonizes these two intentions with each
other, intentions which necessarily must be those of the human person
who communicates of Christ-Eucharist.
52. This balance and
harmony, realized through faith, is very well highlighted by the
following words of the Lord, although faith itself is not mentioned: Among those born of women there has risen
no one greater
than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than he. (Mt. 11:11) However, with
regard to human life, the foundation of the act of Eucharistic
communion, as it concerns an act of spiritual eating - since it is
considered on the level of the intention - this same act of human life,
which is the intention to eat the Eucharist humanly, is necessarily, on
the one hand, preceded by at least one act of human life, and usually
several such acts, since, to nourish himself, the human person must
already have life in him; and on the other hand, this same act of human
life is followed by at least one act of human life, and usually more
than one, since all of the fruit of spiritual eating, or the intention
to nourish oneself, is gained in the corporeal eating through which the
human person maintains his life for the sake of future acts. This means
that the human life considered here is, intrinsically, composite and
triple - if not multiple - with respect to the acts of this same human
life. On the other hand, with regard to divine life, there is no doubt
that, as it is intrinsically eternal, it comprises, in all and for all,
but a single act of life: the divine life must always be regarded as
essentially simple and one. It follows, from all that has been said to
this point, that one must absolutely conclude that, as faith is an
intention of the human person who desires to unite himself with
Christ-Eucharist, the faith of this same human person harmonizes,
simply - because spiritually - at once and under the same relation of
the vital act, that which is essentially simple and one, on the one
hand, and that which is essentially composite and triple, if not
multiple, on the other hand. By this very fact, the faith of the human
person of which we speak here certainly cannot be a natural and human
faith, but rather exclusively a divine and mystical faith, since the
simple reconciliation and harmony between the one and the multiple are
of the order of the uncreated and divine mystery, and not of the order
of created and natural reason. Thus, in virtue of the action of divine
grace, insofar as it is an intention of God, upon which depends the
spiritual action by which the human person desires divine life (see no.
50), it is clear that it is the action of the divine grace of God which
makes it possible for the human person to reconcile and harmonize
simply, through his faith, the one and the triple, or the one and the
multiple. Lastly, it must be specified that, as everything that is
properly of the divine order enjoys the character of fullness, it can
only be through the action of a fullness of grace that the faith of the
human person, insofar as it is an intention of this same person,
reconciles and harmonizes mystically - though really and in all truth -
the one and the multiple. This is why only those who are blessed... with every spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3) are allowed to take part in
the Trinitarian
mystery in the vital act of Eucharistic communion: As the living Father sent me, and I live
for of the Father,
so he who eats me will live for of me. (Jn.
6:57)
53. It is in virtue of a
fullness of grace that the human person, through his faith, harmonizes
and balances his double intention to have human life and divine life in
communion with Christ-Eucharist. Now, given that the notion of fullness
characterizes the divine grace that is acting here, we must necessarily
consider the harmony and balance between divine life and human life,
realized by this same grace united to faith, to also be achieved in
fullness. Moreover, as this harmony or balance is nothing other than
the simultaneous conjunction of two disharmonies or imbalances, which
consist, on one hand, in a preponderance of human life over divine
life, and on the other, in a preponderance of divine life over human
life (see no. 51), the notion of fullness must be considered to
absolutely characterize both of these disharmonies. So, with regard to
the first disharmony, in which the human person desires human life
rather than divine life, one must affirm that, in virtue of the notion
of fullness, the human person fully desires human life, while fully
rejecting divine life. As the fullness of human life is the proper and
exclusive result of the act of generation or procreation, it follows
that the human person, according to this first disharmony in fullness,
has the intention and desire to procreate or to beget. Similarly, with
regard to the second disharmony, in which the human person desires
divine life rather than human life, one must say that, in virtue of the
notion of fullness, the human person fully desires divine life, while
fully rejecting human life. As above, given that human life in fullness
exclusively relates to the act of procreation or generation, it follows
that the human person, according to this second disharmony in fullness,
has the intention and desire to remain absolutely virgin and free of
any carnal contact, and this in a fully religious way, by mode of vow,
since this same human person fully desires divine life, which is fully
spiritual. Consequently, the human person who, in virtue of the
fullness of grace he (she) enjoys, has the desire or the intention,
manifested by his (her)faith, to take part in the divine life of
Christ-Eucharist, is necessarily he (she) who, simultaneously and under
the same relation, has the intention both to beget and to not beget.
54. From all that has been
said to this point, it is easy to conclude that the human person we are
dealing with here - that is, she who, in virtue of a fullness of grace,
desires to unite herself with Christ-Eucharist - is none other than
Mary, she who, while still in via and thus necessarily living in faith, is
nevertheless
already
full of grace (Lk. 1:28): she is the human
person concerning whom the divine intention had been formally declared
in time by an envoy of God (cf. Lk. 1:26), and not in eternity by the
Spirit of God, in whom all the elect are predestined. Mary is indeed
the human person who was able to conceive in her faith, together and
simultaneously, both the intention to conceive the humanity of the Son
of God in her womb (cf Lk. 1:35), and the intention to remain forever a
virgin (Lk. 1:27
- cf. Lk. 1:34), in order to thus receive divine life and eternal
happiness, as her cousin Elizabeth proclaimed: Blessed
is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken
to her from the Lord. (Lk. 1:45) But it is the
Lord himself who most beautifully lauded his divine Mother, when he
praised her virginity: that is, the realization, in fullness, of the
intention to have divine life, which is nothing other than
participation in the generation of the Son or Word of the Father in the
Holy Spirit: A woman in the crowd raised her
voice and said to him, Blessed is the womb
that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!
But he said, Blessed rather are those who hear
the word of God and keep it! (Lk. 11:27-28) Now, as the fullness of
grace that Mary enjoys is the expression of the divine mystery (see no.
52), Mary must necessarily be regarded as mysterious or mystical: she
is a mystical person. Moreover, on the one hand, as the fullness of
grace, by which the person of Mary is mysterious or mystical, is of the
purely spiritual order; and on the other hand, since, when Mary
conceives Christ in spirit, in virtue of her fullness of grace acting
correlatively with her faith, this same Christ does not yet exist in
her humanity, the conception or spiritual communion of Mary, which
ordinarily is accomplished after the act of the consecration of the
bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and before the act of
sacramental communion with Christ-Eucharist, necessarily cannot be
accomplished here except in the very act of the corporeal conception of
the humanity of Christ; thus, we must hold as certain that the mystery
of Mary is absolutely internal to the very act of the corporeal
conception of Christ-Man. In other words, as the Incarnation of the
Word, the Son of the Father, in the womb of his Mother Mary is nothing
other than the Mystery of Christ proper, the very Mystery of Mary is
completely dependent upon the Mystery of Christ: Mary is the human
person whom we shall call, in a way that is eternal - like Christ
himself - the mystical Person of Christ.
55. We shall consider the
spiritual mystery of Mary full of grace in the corporeal act of the human
generation of Christ.
Now, on the one hand, we have been able to establish the existence of
the corporeal act of the generation of Christ only by basing ourselves
on the spiritual act by which, in virtue of her fullness of grace, Mary
communicates of the Eucharist: with regard to human life, the act of
the generation of Christ must be considered spiritually from the point
of view of the notion of food, as it presents itself to us in the
sacrament of the Eucharist. On the other hand, based on the fact of the
hypostatic union of the two natures - divine and human - in Christ, we
must similarly consider, with regard to divine life, the act of the
generation of the Word by the Father from the point of view of the
notion of spiritual food, not as the generation of the Word is in
itself with respect to the Father who begets his Son, but rather as it
is with respect to Mary, who participates in it by her spiritual
communion in faith, a communion that intrinsically preceeds the
corporeal act of the human generation of Christ; this is why it is
written, concerning the Word of God: Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth
of God. (Deut. 8:3 - Mt. 4:4) Therefore, as for
what concerns both human life and divine life, the act of the
generation of Christ can be conceived spiritually by Mary only under
the mode of Eucharistic food. By this very fact, to consider the
spiritual mystery of Mary in the corporeal act of the generation of
Christ amounts to considering the spiritual communion of Mary with
Christ-Eucharist in the proper relation to the act of the breaking of
the bread, as a corporeal and material expression of the properly
spiritual prayer of the epiclesis (see no. 43), this act of the
breaking of the bread being necessarily considered here in fullness in
the act of Eucharistic communion. Now, within the framework of the
theology of grace, the properly spiritual action of the human person
who goes to Christ-Eucharist is, as we have seen, of the order of
intention, which is nothing other than the expression of the faith of
this same human person (see no. 51). Consequently, the properly
corporeal aspect of this spiritual action, considered as intention or
desire for Christ-Eucharist, lies fully in the material or corporeal
action which consists, for the human person, in placing the hand upon
Christ-Eucharist (see no. 44). But, as the final result of this
corporeal action with respect to Christ-Eucharist - this final result
being nothing other than an anticipation of sacramental and corporeal
communion - leads to an exterior manifestation of power and physical
force (see no. 46), it follows that this same corporeal action of the
human person who places his hand upon Christ-Eucharist is,
intrinsically, the corporeal and visible manifestation of his force or
power over this same Christ present under the Eucharistic appearances.
By this very fact, this corporeal action of the human person upon
Christ-Eucharist is the source and origin of an active power over
Christ himself: the active power of the human person over
Christ-Eucharist depends entirely on this corporeal action of the human
person. So, one must necessarily conclude that, in the present case of
the spiritual mystery of Mary full of grace, a mystery considered in the intimate
relation to its
properly corporeal aspect, which is the act of the generation of
Christ-Man, Mary - by the very fact that, in virtue of her fullness of
grace and her faith, she begets her Son - exercises over this same Son
a power, one that depends absolutely and entirely upon this same
properly corporeal act of the human generation of Christ, and which, in
virtue of this dependence, is a power in fullness, or an omnipotence,
since the act of generation is an act by which life is produced in
fullness by mode of principle.
56. In virtue of her
fullness of grace and her faith, Mary exerts a corporeal omnipotence
over Christ, her Son, whom she begets. On this subject, it is
interesting to note that, at the circumcision of her new-born child,
Mary clearly and publicly manifested this corporeal omnipotence
relating to the conception of Christ, an omnipotence whose fullness is
expressed by the imposition of the name of the Child, since a name is
the verbal expression of the entire person; and an omnipotence whose
corporeal aspect finds its realization in the application, in the
flesh, of the seal of the righteousness of
faith (Rm. 4:11), a sign that fully relates to
human procreation. Thus, Saint Luke tells us: And
at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus,
the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. (Lk. 2:21) Now, as this corporeal
omnipotence exerted by
Mary over Christ absolutely depends upon the act of the generation of
Christ (see no. 55), this same omnipotence, though specifically
corporeal, is nevertheless necessarily of a vital and human order, both
on the part of the human person who begets - that is, Mary - and on the
part of Christ-Man who is begotten; in other words, this omnipotence
exerted by Mary over Christ is, at once and indissociably, of the
corporeal and spiritual order, and this in virtue of the simple
principle of life which governs, intrinsically, the act of generation.
Consequently, to the corporeal omnipotence exerted by Mary over Christ
whom she begets corporeally, must indissociably be associated an
omnipotence, or a power in fullness, of a properly spiritual order, an
omnipotence necessarily relating to the conception of Christ in the
soul or spirit of Mary, just as the corporeal omnipotence exerted by
Mary over Christ relates - as we have just pointed out - to the act of
the corporeal conception of this same Christ (see no. 55). But we have
just established, above, that the spiritual conception of Christ in
Mary is, intrinsically, of the order of intention (see no. 53 and 54):
Mary, in virtue of her fullness of grace, spiritually conceives Christ
in an act of faith in the word of God announced by the Angel (cf Lk.
1:35). Thus, considered here in the act of the generation of Christ,
the spiritual conception of this same Christ in Mary - that is, the
spiritual mystery of Mary full of grace - can in no way be considered as an
intention as such, but
rather as a spiritual power in fullness: the spiritual conception of
Christ in Mary is nothing other than the passive power, of a properly
spiritual order and necessarily considered in fullness, which allows -
as a kind of intention - the act of the generation of Christ-Man by
Mary, passive power being that by which the corresponding act is
realized and exists. By this very fact, contrary to the corporeal
omnipotence exerted by Mary over Christ whom she begets - a corporeal
omnipotence which depends in every way on the act of the generation of
this same Christ - the spiritual omnipotence that is also and
indissociably exerted by Mary full of grace is, intrinsically, the omnipotence, or
the passive power
in fullness, upon which this same act of the generation of Christ
absolutely depends.
57. In virtue of what we
have established above (see no. 55 and 56), we must intrinsically
affirm that, by the fact that the spiritual mystery of Mary full of grace is considered in the
act of the generation of Christ-Man by Mary, his Mother, the latter
exerts over Christ, her Son, an omnipotence of the vital order which
is, in its properly corporeal aspect, the omnipotence that absolutely
depends upon the act of the generation of Christ, and in its properly
spiritual aspect, the power in fullness upon which this same act of the
generation of Christ absolutely depends. This means that the vital
omnipotence exerted by Mary over Christ is fully internal and
indissociable from the act of the generation of Christ, a vital
omnipotence thus considered, in a manner that is simple and one, in
terms of the principle of life which governs the act being considered
here, as passive power and as active power in fullness, or omnipotence
as such. Now, on the one hand, as the act of life, in which
indissociably resides the vital power by which this same act of life
exists, is an act of eternal life, since it is always beginning, and
since, by this very fact, it never ends; and on the other hand, as the
act of life, which we are considering here and in which the vital
omnipotence, exerted by Mary over Christ, remains and persists
indissociably, is properly and truly an act of temporal life; it
necessarily must be concluded that Mary exerts over Christ, in virtue
of her fullness of grace, the vital omnipotence of the divinity itself,
an omnipotence that is essentially composed - since it is considered in
the human person Mary's participation in it - of the simple union
between the passive power in fullness, of the spiritual order, and the
active omnipotence, of the corporeal order. In other words, Mary exerts
by grace the same
vital omnipotence that Christ, as God, exerts by
nature, since there is but a single divine
omnipotence: the Son is almighty by nature,
and the Mother only by grace. (Saint Alphonsus
Maria de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, ch. VI, § I)
58. To conclude this
analysis of the breaking of the bread in the theology of grace, let us
quote a few passages from the Holy Scriptures relating to the notions
established above. First, concerning the omnipotence of divine life in
its corporeal aspect, or active omnipotence, Saint Luke reports to us
the following words of the Angel addressed to Mary: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the
Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be
called holy, the Son of God. (Lk. 1:35)
Secondly, concerning the spiritual aspect of the omnipotence of divine
life, as passive power, Saint John tells us:
In the beginning was the Word (...) To all who received him, he gave
power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the
will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1: |