Council of Trent on the Eucharist

[jhnsn1532]

Session 12 CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

I was watching a Lutheran minister on youtube and he referenced the above canon and stated that this is in contradiction to scripture verse: MAT 26:27
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them,
saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

What practice or belief was the council correcting with this canon? We believe venal sins are forgiven right?

 

[Vico]

Session 12 CANON V.

“… He wished that this sacrament be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt. 26:26], by which they may be nourished and strengthened,” and other fruits are mentioned also.

Denzinger, old numbering, Most Holy Sacrament:

875 Our Savior, therefore, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love for men, “making a remembrance of his wonderful works” [Ps. 110:4], and He commanded us in the consuming of it to cherish His “memory” [1 Cor. 11:24], and “to show forth his death until He come” to judge the world [1 Cor. 11:23]. But He wished that this sacrament be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt. 26:26], by which they may be nourished and strengthened [can. 5], living by the life of Him who said: “He who eateth me, the same also shall live by me” [John 6:58], and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished, furthermore, that this be a pledge of our future glory and of everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one “body” of which He Himself is the “head” [1 Cor. 11:23; Eph. 5:23], and to which He wished us to be united, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might “all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us” [cf. 1 Cor. 1:10].

887 Can. 5. If anyone says that the special fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that from it no other fruits are produced: let him be anathema [cf. 875].

 

[jhnsn1532]

Thanks for the reply, but I still don’t understand why canon 5 was worded to specifically call out remissions of sins. Why state it that way? What was practice or belief they were trying to correct?

 

[jhnsn1532]

Thanks for the help, so you think its trying to focus on other aspects of the sacrifice and not only the remission of sins as its primary purpose. I think in this session they were focused on transubstantiation.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the reply, but I still don’t understand why canon 5 was worded to specifically call out remissions of sins. Why state it that way? What was practice or belief they were trying to correct?

The reformers taught that the chief fruit of the Eucharist is the remission of sin. Per Catholic teaching this is not so since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living not of the dead. The fruits of the Eucharist are:

1. Union with Christ by love. (The principle fruit.) (A real union mystically constituted in the communion of saints. John 6:57; 1 Cor 10:17 )
2. An increase of sanctifying grace only for those already in a state of sanctifying grace. (Trent Session 13, Canon 5)
3. Blotting out of venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin. (Trent Session 13, Chapter 2)
4. Pledge of our glorious resurrection and eternal happiness. (Trent Session 13, Chapter 2)

 

[Dovekin]

Vico’s answer is nearly complete, and I do not say this in disagreement with him.

The canon sounds like it is talking about Baptism, like some were taking the Eucharist as being like Baptism. This would place severe limitations on the way the Eucharist is understood, making if a redundant action. I do not know that any Reformer took it that far, but I can see the danger in treating the Eucharist as simply repeating baptism, rather than the culmination of initiation.

Also, the Eucharist brings forgiveness for all sins, but we who participate are only forgiven “venial sins.” In the Eucharist, the death of Christ on the Cross is made present so that we may unite ourselves with it. And that death on the Cross is how all sin has been forgiven, once for all. However, those who are in mortal sin participate in the Eucharist “to their condemnation.” (1 Cor 11) Only nonmortal sins are forgiven, since those with mortal sin cannot properly receive the forgiveness being offered. Unless they are perfectly contrite, etc. All of the merciful grace Christ gained for us is present in the Eucharist though we may not be able to accept it.

This is not different from saying only our venial sins are forgiven, but we should affirm the breadth of the grace poured out for us.

 

[Gorgias]

The canon sounds like it is talking about Baptism, like some were taking the Eucharist as being like Baptism.

Hmm… that’s not the way I’m taking it.

Instead, the canon seems to be attempting to ward off a particular mischaracterization of the Sacrament: namely, that its purpose is the forgiveness of sins. If that were true, then it would have two significant implications:

• the sacrament of reconciliation would have no meaning, since forgiveness of sins would come from a sacrament instituted in the Gospels. it would no longer be necessary to go to confession (or, more to the point, to avoid receiving communion until after going to confession).
• the reception of the Eucharist would be seen as something in which to participate indiscriminately (after all, it forgives sins, so I should receive every week simply in order to be forgiven, right?)

Both of those would run afoul of Church teaching.

 

[fhansen]

The “principle fruit” of the Eucharist is partaking of/communion with Jesus, (‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’, John 15:5), whose blood was “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.

Sins are forgiven as we enter and continue in this vital relationship between man and God. Consider the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:33-34:

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

This knowledge of God is a new knowledge, an intimate one, that speaks of the direct communion with Him that must be realized first of all in man as we’re reconciled with Him through the work and blood of Christ. This communion is the establishment in man of what Adam forfeited with his act of disobedience; by denying God’s authority over himself Adam had shattered relationship with God for humanity. But through that relationship, which man was made for, God then does the work of restoring us, of accomplishing the righteousness in us that we cannot do on our own, by forgiving our sins and placing His righteousness/justice in us. Our part is now to accept the offer, to reverse Adam’s decision within ourselves as we come to recognize our need for God after all, our need to partake of Him first of all.

 

[jhnsn1532]

Interesting discussion thanks for the feedback.

 

[Bithynian]

Instead, the canon seems to be attempting to ward off a particular mischaracterization of the Sacrament: namely, that its purpose is the forgiveness of sins. If that were true, then it would have two significant implications:

I interpret the canon as referring to (and rejecting) two claims by the Reformers:

(1) Remissio peccatorum, here, refers specifically to the forgiveness of sins resultant from Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. The Reformers interpreted the notion of Mass being a sacrifice as requiring that the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary was somehow incomplete in respect to the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, each sacrifice of Mass was offering a partial forgiveness of sins that was yet to be fulfilled by Christ.

Essentially, the Reformers suggested that Catholics think that “Jesus couldn’t finish the job, so we have to do it for him”. From this arose the popular belief amongst generations of Protestants that Catholics blaspheme Christ during the Mass.

(2) “That other effects do not result therefrom” is a bit of a muddled English translation. The Latin is “vel ex ea non alios effectus provenire”, that is, “or that other effects do not result from the Eucharist”. The Tridentine Fathers are referring to a claim that the Eucharist is strictly symbolic, a memorial, nothing more.

This position, as far as I recall, was held by very few Reformers. Only Zwingli expounded this. The other major Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, held to some interpretation of the Real Presence (but not specifically transubstantiation).

 

[Todd_Easton]

Yes. This topic is discussed in a little more detail in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament,” in the part on “The effects of the holy Eucharist,” in the section on “The spiritual repast of the soul,” which says in part:

Here let it be remarked at the outset, that the Holy Eucharist does not per se constitute a person in the state of grace as do the sacraments of the dead (baptism and penance), but presupposes such a state. It is, therefore, one of the sacraments of the living. It is as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal sin to receive this Heavenly Bread with profit, as it is for a corpse to assimilate food and drink. Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. can. v), in opposition to Luther and Calvin, purposely defined, that the “chief fruit of the Eucharist does not consist in the forgiveness of sins”. For though Christ said of the Chalice: “This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28), He had in view an effect of the sacrifice, not of the sacrament; for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto remission of sins, but shed for that purpose. It is for this very reason that St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28) demands that rigorous “self-examination”, in order to avoid the heinous offense of being guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord by “eating and drinking unworthily”, and that the Fathers insist upon nothing so energetically as upon a pure and innocent conscience.

 

[Genesis315]

It is addressing Protestants’ who denied the sacrament of penance.

With regard to the verse at issue, the Mass itself is offered for the remission of sins in the same sense as Christ died for the remission of sins, since it is one and the same sacrifice. But neither absolve a sinner in and of themselves. The grace of absolution merited by Christ is applied in baptism and the sacrament of penance.

 

[Vico]

…
Essentially, the Reformers suggested that Catholics think that “Jesus couldn’t finish the job, so we have to do it for him”. From this arose the popular belief amongst generations of Protestants that Catholics blaspheme Christ during the Mass.
…

We are sharing in the work of Christ by uniting our sufferings to His (which is, however, sufficient for our redemption) in penance.

Col 1 (RSVCE)

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking [e] in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.

[e] what is lacking: Christ’s sufferings were, of course, sufficient for our redemption, but all of us may add ours to his, in order that the fruits of his redemption be applied to the souls of men.