The Sacrifice is for Communion. After Jesus offered Himself, He gave Himself to His Apostles; so the Mass that is not followed by Communion, is but imperfectly heard. The Church teaches us this when she desires, by the voice of the Council of Trent, that all who assist at the Mass should be sufficiently pure to receive each time the Holy Communion.
Assisting at Mass, Mary also communicated at it. She communicated, because the counsel of frequent Communion regarded her. She communicated, because her love drew her to the Holy Table with irresistible force. Above all, did she communicate in order to respond to the desires of Jesus Christ in Communion, to satisfy His longing to come to us. She communicated in order to please Jesus Christ in His views, in His designs. She went to Jesus for Jesus, and she sought for herself neither sweetness nor consolation. She wished but Him!
Let us for some moments reflect upon our authority for declaring that Mary communicated daily.
When did Mary begin to communicate? Was she deprived of that happiness on the day of the institution of the Holy Eucharist? Although her sex excluded her from the repast at which Jesus instituted the Christian priesthood, some writers of authority think that the Blessed Virgin received Holy Communion in a room adjoining the hall of the Last Supper. Thither she had retired, with the holy women, to eat the Pasch, and from it, by prophetic light, she followed all that went on in the Cenacle. United to her Son, of her own free will, she gave herself for the world at the same time that He offered Himself. She prayed for the Apostles, wept over the frightful fate of Judas, and compassioned the afflicted Heart of Jesus, whose immense love was repaid by our black ingratitude.
Drexelius transcribes the recital of Simeon Metaphrastes, who says: "In the same house in which the Saviour ate the Pasch with His Apostles, although in an other room, Mary remained with the other holy women, who had followed and served Jesus Christ in His Apostolic journeys. The Lord sent them the Eucharist by Saint Peter, rewarding them by that Gift for the good offices that He had received from them." "This is an opinion which can be sustained," adds Drexelius. "It is shared by Gerson, Barradius, Vega, and Walterius."
Special revelation confirm the above. Mary of Agreda says marvelous things of this first Sacramental Communion of the Virgin. If Jesus, as think Saint Jerome, Saint Thomas, and other Fathers cited by Suarez, communicated Himself on that day, we may understand that He would not willingly deprive His Mother of a happiness which she desired so ardently, having already, during the nine months sojourn that He made in her womb, tasted how sweet is the Lord; and if it be true that they who eat Him still hunger for Him, Mary, who had received Him so perfectly, and had entertained Him so worthily at the time of the Incarnation, must have been consumed with a languishing hunger for that first Communion which gave Him back to her again.
If, according to the opinion of Theophilus Renault given above, Jesus or the Apostles celebrated the Mass during the forty days that preceded the Ascension, no doubt Mary communicated at it. Nothing is opposed to that. The love of the Mother, the love of the Son, permits us, on the contrary, to look upon it as a certainty.
As to that last repast of friendship which Jesus made with His Apostles before quitting them to ascend into heaven, and which many interpreters think was a new celebration of the Eucharist, there is much stronger reason to believe that Mary received Holy Communion at it. It is with this view, no doubt, that Father Faber says: "During the ten days intervening between the Ascension and Pentecost, He remained in the reality of His sacramental Presence in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as in a repository."
Jesus sent His Holy Spirit. The Apostles celebrated Mass in the Cenacle the evening of Pentecost itself. That great day was crowned by the Communion of all the Faithful of the Church, the disciples, and the newly baptized. "When enemies are reconciled, they invite one another to festivals of peace. Ah, well! on this day Jesus Christ shows us that He has reconciled us to His Father by sending us the Spirit of Peace. This day ought to end in the inebriating joys of the Eucharistic Banquet."
Behold the Mother of the Church presenting herself at the altar, and receiving in ecstatic recollection, with love redoubled by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Body of her Divine Son! Be hold her surrounded by her children born today to the Faith, leading them by her example, inflaming them with the fire of her own love, to receive worthily the Gift of God, and to guard in a pure conscience the Mystery of the Faith! O Communion of Pentecost! O happy Christians, seated at the Banquet of Life by the side of the Mother of God!
The Church grew, her children multiplied, Communion is their daily nourishment. Their whole life is summed up in this word which we cannot too frequently meditate: They were persevering in the communion of the breaking of the bread.
The Fathers unanimously see in these words daily, or at least, very frequent Communion, and they all teach that It was in general use in the first age of Christianity.
The word, the breaking of bread, is much stronger in the Greek text than in the Latin version, says Cornelius. It means, "the breaking of this bread," of this Eucharistic and Divine Bread that we receive at the altar. The Syriac version, also, clearly says: "The breaking of the Eucharist."
The Acts speak of daily Communion: "And continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart."
Saint Paul speaks of it as a habit received and practiced daily. Alas! human misery, which so easily becomes familiar with what it repeats every day, soon introduced into the Eucharistic celebration abuses which necessitated the Apostle's stern reprimands to the Corinthians.
Pope Saint Clement and Saint Denis relate the same tradition. We may read their testimony in Suarez treatise on the Eucharist.
The custom had even become a sort of law, and Saint Anacletus, third successor of Saint Peter in the See of Rome, ordained that all who assist at Mass should communicate at it, threatening them who refused to do so with expulsion from the holy assembly; "for such is the order which we have received from the Apostles,. and which the Church of Rome practices: Sic enim et Apostoli statiiernnt et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia."
The Tenth Canon of the Apostolic Constitution says, also: "All the Faithful who enter into the assembly, hear there the reading of the Scripture, but do not remain to receive Communion, disturb the Church, and ought to be excommunicated."
"This does not undoubtedly prove," adds Suarez, "that there was a divine precept to communicate every time that one assisted at the Holy Sacrifice, but that such was the teaching of the Apostles and the custom of the primitive Church, which custom had its origin in the fervor and holiness of the early Faithful."
It is unnecessary to state that Tertullian, Saint Cyril, Saint Cyprian, Saint Ambrose, and Saint Augustine are formal and unanimous in witnessing to this fact of daily Communion in the first days of the Christian Faith. Fenelon, in his letter upon frequent Communion, has quoted a great number of their testimonies. We conclude with Suarez: "The first Faithful communicated every day. This is the unanimous opinion."
Certainly, if this can be said of the simple Faithful, what shall we say of Mary? Daily Communion is according to the intention of the Saviour. He makes us ask for it in the prayer that He Himself taught us. That which alone can keep us from it, and make us defer our approach to it, is sin or tepidity. "But when the conscience is pure, it is always time to approach." Could Mary be guilty of sin or tepidity? That thought would be blasphemy!
Mary always aimed at the most perfect, always entered perfectly into the intentions of Our Lord. Now, it is more perfect in itself, independently of different circumstances of persons, places, and times, and supposing the requisite conditions, to communicate every day than to abstain from time to time through devotion. This is the opinion of Saint Augustine, quoted by Suarez. The reasons are clear, says that theologian. They apply admirably to Mary, and prove that she must have communicated daily. We shall give them in a few words.
To communicate well is radically good of itself. To abstain from Holy Communion is good only per accidens, that is, abstaining in order to excite greater reverence, or to shun routine, or to repair some defect of disposition for it. But what is always good in itself ought to be preferred to what is good only by reason of some accompanying circumstance; consequently, it is better to communicate every day and without interruption. We must, then, admit that Mary did this. In her there was no human respect to be aroused, no imperfect disposition. Her fervor, far from cooling by frequent custom, increased, was fed as fire is fed by fire. Each Communion renewed and increased her dispositions, her hunger, her desires. Communion was for her a mystery of love ever ancient and ever new.
To communicate daily comes from the fervor of charity; to abstain comes from negligence or fear. But an act done through love is better than a work performed through fear. Then, Mary, communicated daily, for love was her only motive, her only constraint, her only intention. Mother of Love Incarnate, she was altogether transformed into love and love had banished fear from her heart.
There is, moreover, an advantage in communicating which exists not in abstaining, and that is, the fruit which the Sacrament produces by Its own virtue. Now, this fruit is immense and sure when the dispositions of the communicant are sufficient. Mary, who never neglected the least grace, and whom the Holy Spirit willed to sanctify by every means, ought for this very reason to embrace ardently the practice of daily Communion.
Again, in the desire to communicate in order to unite one's self to Jesus Christ and to glorify Him, is there not as much, and often more, merit, than in the desire of abstaining through respect? Yes, with out doubt. Then, this is another reason for Mary to receive daily the Body of her most dear Son.
If, for good reason, we sometimes abstain from Holy Communion, it is, above all, to conceive or preserve greater respect, greater devotion toward the Blessed Sacrament. But this devotion, this respect, can better be acquired, better preserved, by participating than by abstaining, supposing even moderate diligence in preparing one's self. Good habits help to perform well our repeated acts, and the strength derived from the Sacrament contributes thereto not a little. "Let us conclude, then," says Suarez, "that it is simply more perfect to communicate as frequently as possible than to abstain sometimes, even through devotion."
If the Faithful at large cannot apply this conclusion to themselves without great reserve, on account of the immense weight of misery that weighs us down, also because, unless we are blind, we know ourselves to be infinitely unworthy of such a favor, the same cannot be said of Mary. In her the disposition for Holy Communion was supreme. It had reached the highest degree of possibility in a creature. Only one person received Holy Communion in better dispositions than Mary, and that was Our Lord Himself at the Last Supper!
To get some notion, if that is possible, of Mary's admirable dispositions for Holy Communion, we must explain in a few words the beautiful teaching upon sanctifying grace and the state of charity. We shall quote from Saint Thomas and Suarez, which latter theologian clearly refers to it in his treatise on the Blessed Virgin.
Let us first remark that the great, the true disposition to communicate well, is love. It supplies for every other, and it is absolutely necessary if we desire to enter into the spirit of Holy Communion. Communion, in effect, is the supreme act of love. Its motive, its end, its means, all is love. In order, then, that there may be communion between Jesus Christ and us, a common union, there must be some bond of relation, some foundation, and that bond, that foundation, is love.
Now, let us hear what Suarez says of Mary's love. We cannot, indeed, even after that, measure the perfection of her dispositions; but amazed we may admire, and comprehend, in a degree, how ardent was Jesus desire to enter into Mary's breast, and what His joy to rest in that heart in which His love found so perfect a response.
In justifying us, God gives us habitual charity. To justification is joined a state of charity whose intensity varies and can increase indefinitely. To be justified, or to be clothed with charity, is the same, and these two things, sanctifying grace and charity, are so closely united, that many theologians do not distinguish one from the other. Saint Thomas and Suarez do distinguish them, but only as the sun is distinguished from its heat, light from color. According to them, sanctifying grace is the root, the principle of charity. Charity supposes it already in the soul, and comes forward only to put it into action. But the degree of charity corresponds always to the degree of intensity of sanctifying grace.
We shall, then, make use of these two terms indiscriminately. When we speak of grace, the state of grace, we shall mean also, charity, the state of charity, love, the state of habitual love, according to the language of Holy Scripture: Caritas diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum, qui effusus est in nobis.
We distinguish in Mary three sanctifications, that is, three grand infusions of sanctifying grace, which have elevated her to the sublime degree to which she is raised. They are like three magnificent dowries of this Spouse of the Most High.
The first took place in her Immaculate Conception. "There," says Suarez, from whom we quote, "Mary received a degree of the state of grace not only superior to every state received by any other creature at the first moment of life, but even more elevated than the last and highest grace, to which no angel had ever been raised." "And that," says Saint Lawrence Justinian, "because at that first moment, Mary was already more loved by God than any angel or any saint will ever be, even after a life of continual merit."
The second sanctification of Mary was granted her at the moment of the Incarnation of the Word in her womb. The Holy Spirit adorned her with His most admirable gifts, and the Word filled her with all the riches of the Divinity. At that moment Mary's grace was such that many have thought that she had no greater afterward. They supported their opinion on this conjecture that, in order to become the Mother of God, she ought to possess the highest degree of grace possible to any mere creature. Suarez regards this opinion as ill-founded, since, during all the rest of her life, Mary produced acts truly meritorious, which essentially led to an increase of the state of grace.
Lastly, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled Mary with His plenitude, and the Blessed Virgin's state of charity attained the proportion of an almost limitless ocean.
That was the gift of God. By her infused graces alone, Mary was raised to an order apart in the celestial hierarchy, and this was already a beautiful disposition for Communion, a glorious garment, indeed, for the union which she daily renewed with her God.
And yet that was little! Mary labored upon this foundation, already so rich. She increased, she even doubled, by every one of her meritorious acts, that foundation of charity which sh had received from the divine liberality.
"The Virgin," says Suarez, "merits an increase of sanctifying grace by each and every one of the human actions that she performed from the first instant of her sanctification. In her there was no indeliberate act, and with still greater reason, no bad act. All her actions are good, all meritorious, because she referred them often and entirely to God as to the end of her whole life and all her actions. Never was her will inadvertently distracted from God, and never did she desire to distract it from Him.
"Still more, Mary merited by her acts not only an increase, but a redoubling of her state of charity, because her acts were done through love, and according to the whole extent of the state of charity that she possessed at the moment in which she acted." It is the opinion of Suarez, shared by other good theologians, that an act done through love, and according to the whole intensity of the state of charity that we possess, acquires for the soul as many new degrees of charity as it had before. If the habit of charity of any soul corresponds, for example, to two degrees, and it acts according to all the strength of these two degrees, that last action raises its state to four degrees. A new act proceeding from these four degrees, doubles them, and raises them to eight degrees, and so on, every act doubling the sum of charity with which it is made.
"Now, from this principle," says Suarez, "I conclude that the Blessed Virgin very often doubled her state of charity, because she ever acted according to the full strength of grace and the divine impulse. She performed her acts with an intensity equal or superior to the habit of charity that she possessed, which fact doubled the sum possessed before the acts."
And those acts of the Virgin, who can count them? How many times did Mary thus multiply a foundation which, at the first hour of her existence, already surpassed all that an angel, even the most elevated in heaven, possesses in glory?
Let us again remark with Suarez something which touches most closely upon the Eucharistic and adoring life of Mary, and which will make us comprehend a little better her dispositions for Communion. The more Mary advanced in age, the more perfect were her acts, the greater also the sum of habitual grace that each one laid up for her. The reason for this is, that these acts at the end of her life were produced according to all the strength of a state already so many times doubled, and still doubling. In her last years, also, Mary could merit by a single act as many degrees of grace as she had acquired by all the acts of her past life, this last act proceeding from a foundation on which were accumulated all the merits of her admirable life.
"It is for this reason, then, that Mary's grace," says Suarez, "came to be almost without limit, prope inimensam." "It is ineffable," says Saint Anselm, "and she will be the astonishment of all ages. Thought and speech fail me when I wish to measure the immensity of her graces."
Happy impotence, which proves to us Mary's greatness! The less we are able to comprehend it, the greater it is. Its most beautiful eulogium is the amazement, the stupefaction of our silence before that abyss of greatness and glory!
Ah! all those graces, that ocean of charity, all those meritorious acts, were Mary's preparation for Communion. All her life she had increased and adorned magnificently the cenacle of her heart, in which Jesus was to eat the Pasch with her. Let us not be astonished at that. The sacramental Communion of her Son demanded not less perfect disposition than did the first Incarnation of the Word. It is on His part, as great an act of love. God, therefore, who always proposes to Himself the highest end in His works, ought to prepare Mary for Communion from the first instant of her life. "The highest end, in effect, to which Mary could be destined," says Blessed Bernardin, of Paris, "was to receive God into her womb by the Incarnation, and to be united to Him by Communion. The Incarnation and the Communion are the two terms to which Mary is destined. God could not form greater designs for Mary than to create her to bring forth His Son by the Incarnation as a mother, and to receive Him by Communion in quality of nourishment, as a member of His mystical Body. In this marvelous design, His power is exhausted, His wisdom cannot pass beyond."
We understand that the Lord, after having sanctified His temple, took pleasure in descending to it, and that His de lights were to dwell in it. Doubtless, He remained there long. Some grave authors assure us that He was always present therein under the Sacramental Species, miraculously preserved in their integrity from one Communion to another. This opinion is worthy of Jesus, worthy of Mary. It supposes a miracle, it is true. But can we be astonished at anything when there is question of this privileged creature in whom all is miraculous?
Speaking of the numberless miracles which God has wrought in Mary's regard, Suarez says that we must not suppose them, unless some reason of fitness or utility demands them. Now, this miracle of the conservation of the Sacred Species in the Virgin, is one of fitness and extreme utility.
The fitness of it rests in the love of Jesus for His Mother. He dwelt in her for nine months in His corporal Presence. Mary is a tabernacle, a sanctuary, so pure, so loving, so united to God, so separated from every distraction, from everything created, that Our Lord tastes in her the delights that He finds nowhere else. He receives in her more honor than in our sanctuaries, for the ciborium is living. It glorifies God not only by the richness of its material, but still more by the free acts, the acts of a merit almost infinite.
We know, moreover, that every means of grace had been employed to enrich Mary, that the Holy Spirit has neglected not one, and that all that we receive in measure, Mary receives in plenitude.
Now, the prolonged duration of the Sacramental Presence of Jesus in our breast is a powerful means of grace, a magnificent pledge of sanctification. This Presence is not of long duration, because Jesus wills to subordinate His sacramental life to the existence and the integrity of the accidents of bread and wine. But as long as it lasts, it is for us the source of great favors.
This is the beautiful teaching of Gabriel, Cajetan, Major Paludanus, Ruard, whose unanimous opinion Suarez quotes. "They affirm," he says, "that so long as Christ remains present under the Species in him who has worthily received, He acts upon him by the influences proper to sacramental grace, ex opere operate. Provided the good dispositions of the communicant increase during those blessed moments, sacramental grace increases also, by the very fact of the corporal Presence of Jesus Christ.
"And that appears very reasonable," adds Suarez. "First, this sacrament, which is a food, ought to produce Its effects in the manner of a nourishment. But material nourishment does not produce its salutary influences only at the moment in which we take it, but it nourishes and strengthens as long as it re mains in the stomach. Why should it not be the same with the divine nourishment of our soul?
Again, why should we say that Christ present in us, remains idle, as it were when He has the power to sanctify us more, supposing that we dispose ourselves more and more to receive His graces?
Can we say that the Sacrament, producing Its whole effect at the moment we receive It, the duration more or less prolonged of Jesus presence in us should be considered as a merely physical effect, incapable of conferring any supernatural influence?
"We cannot think so," answers Suarez. "On the contrary, we think that it is much more conformable to Our Saviour's manner of acting, more conformable to His goodness, more encouraging to our piety, to believe that the prolonged duration of His Sacramental Presence increases grace in us, if he who enjoys it increases in love, in desires, if he increases his capacity to receive. We cannot possibly see therein any inconvenience, any repugnance."
Now, in that case, Jesus Christ remains in us still as nourishment, which is the essence of the Sacrament. True, It is not any longer nourishment being actually eaten, but It is nourishment continuing its strengthening influence. It is, indeed, to that Presence that Jesus Christ has promised the grace proper to Holy Communion: "He that eats Me, the same also shall live by Me:" and, again: "He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in Him."
Suarez refutes the weak objections that could be made to this doctrine, and shows that it fully satisfies the Christian spirit, whether on the part of Jesus Christ, who, wherever present, ought there to act, or on the part of the Sacrament, which, producing Its effects as do natural causes, ought to operate as long as It remains united to a subject properly disposed. Above all, does it satisfy, if we consider the advantage that the soul can then derive. The moment which follows Communion is the most precious for us. It is more favorable to entire recollection than the instant itself in which we receive the Sacrament, for then a certain preoccupation almost necessarily attends the exterior action. But in the following moment, the mind can concentrate itself without distraction on the Well-Beloved, and lose itself in Him.
Saint Liguori rehearses all this with his ordinary piety and authority. We shall quote him in conclusion: "The soul, according to the opinion of several Doctors, Gonet, Suarez, and others, draws fruit so much the greater from her Communions as she occupies herself the more with good works during the time that the consecrated Species last; for this Sacrament having been instituted to serve as nourishment for the soul, the Council of Florence teaches that, as material nourishment is so much the more beneficial to the body as it remains longer in the stomach, so the longer the celestial nourishment remains in our soul, the more life does it impart to it, provided only that the communicant, by his good dispositions, always increases in sanctity. It is, then, not astonishing that during those moments, every good action acquires more value and merit, for the soul is then united to Jesus Christ more strictly than ever."
After the above, may we not say: If for Mary it was an advantage, however small, to retain the Sacred Species as long as possible, she received that favor from her Son? But He could do more, and remain in her from one Communion to an other, in order that she might incessantly be sanctified by the virtue proper to Holy Communion. Then He did it, and in her alone was realized the whole extent of these words of the Saviour. "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him," for He was in His Mother not only by the influence of His grace, but by His Sacramental Presence. And Mary, renewing at each instant of the day, her ejaculations of love, her inflamed desire, received at each instant the grace of a new Communion.
What shall we say of Mary's thanksgiving? We may understand its perfection from what we have hitherto said. A word which the Holy Spirit has said of the Virgin characterizes it perfectly: "Mary preserved all the words and all the actions of Jesus, meditating upon them and reflecting on them in her own heart." To preserve the Holy Communion, to renew It in her heart by desire, to develop It by meditation, to open that Treasure, to draw from It by love and prayer, that was, indeed, perfect thanksgiving, and such was Mary's.
From Communion to Communion, the Blessed Virgin reached at last the one that was to be the seal of her life. Her raptures of love exhausted her strength, and, swooning from the vehemence of her desires, the day came on which she could no longer go to her oratory, nor approach the Communion Table to receive the Living Bread which formed her strength and her only nourishment. The Apostle Saint John would have considered it an honor to take to her himself her God in Viaticum, as it is believed that they carried to her the Sacrament of the dying. But Jesus wished to render to His Mother that office of love in person. Cartegena, Gerson, and others relate and confirm the tradition, that the High Priest, Jesus Christ Himself, attended by the whole celestial court, descended to Mary's humble, little apartment, and communicated her with tenderness and love, worthy of such a Son and such a Mother.
And Mary having seen again the face of her most dear Son, having pressed Him once again to her heart, her soul burst the immaculate envelope which had retained it for seventy-two years in this land of exile, and soared up to the heavens, carried on the wings of the seraphim. "Many die in love, but Mary died of love!" She went to continue in heaven communion with her Son no longer veiled, but unveiled, glorious and triumphant.
From the height of heaven, Mary looks down with maternal tenderness, some times, alas! with anxiety, upon all who approach the Holy Table. She assists at every Communion made all over the world. She knows, by the light of God and by the duty of her charge of Mother of all Christians, the dispositions that we take thereto. Ah! how ardent are her desires to see us approaching in good dispositions! She offers us her help, her example, her virtues, her graces. Let us clothe ourselves with Mary, in order that Jesus, finding His Mother in our heart, may descend into it with real joy.
It now remains for us to consider Mary in the third duty of the Eucharistic life, namely, adoration, or visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not only Sacrifice and Communion, He is there still living and present among us without interruption. He is there to do us good, to receive our homage, and to bestow upon us favors. His Presence claims from us one more duty, and that is, to visit Him in the Blessed Sacrament. Here, again, Mary will be our loving and perfect model.
- from Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, by Saint Pierre-Julien Eymard