117. On the Minister and Subject of the Eucharist

1. Xaverius, a parish priest, very occupied at Easter time in hearing confessions, commits communion to be distributed to the people to Stephen the deacon. For otherwise he himself would have to distribute it, not without inconvenience to the parishioners, whose confessions he would often have to defer to another day, since no other priest is present in that parish.

Quaer. Whether rightly?

R. Togni, Instruct. etc. p. 1. c. 6., seems to deny it. For although generally he first says that a deacon can administer the Eucharist by delegation in a case of necessity, nevertheless afterward he raises the question: "Can a deacon dispense the Eucharist when a presbyter is present?" And he answers: "By no means; for this is forbidden to him by Can. 15 of the Second Council of Arles and Can. 38 of the Fourth Council of Carthage." Likewise he raises the question: "Are the sick to be refreshed with the Eucharist by a deacon?" And he answers: "Negatively, except in a case of necessity, namely, if a priest is lacking and the sick man is in danger of life."

But these things are against the common doctrine; and therefore the proposed question must be answered: Affirmatively. For a deacon can, in grave necessity and by commission, distribute communion to the people, according to the common opinion of the doctors. I. M. 527. Pavone aptly has these things, Spicilegio, dissert. 9. num. 208: "The deacon can touch the Eucharist when, serving the priest, he either exposes it in the Ostensorium, or replaces the particles in the pyx, or in need administers it to the people. The words of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 399, Can. 35, related Dist. 93. C. Praesente 18, are: Diaconus, praesente presbytero, eucharistiam... populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus eroget, 'Let the deacon, in the presence of the presbyter, if necessity compels, distribute the Eucharist to the people when ordered.' And earlier, in canon 14 of the Council of Nicaea, it was established concerning deacons that si non fuerit in praesenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter, tunc ipsi proferant, 'if neither bishop nor presbyter is present, then they themselves may bring it forth.' This canon is thus reported by Rufinus, priest of Aquileia: Si vero presbyter nullus sit in praesenti, tunc demum etiam ipsis licere dividere, 'But if no presbyter is present, then at last it is lawful also for them to distribute.' Conc. Nic. I. A.D. 325, apud Labbé in amplis. collect. Gelasius I spoke in the same way when writing to the Bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily: deacons, he said, Sacri Corporis prorogationem sub conspectu Pontificis seu presbyteri, nisi his absentibus, ius non habeant exercendi, 'do not have the right of exercising the distribution of the Sacred Body in the sight of the Pontiff or presbyter, unless these are absent.' Labbé ibid. a. 492. Epist. 9. c. 8. Therefore, when the priest is present, the deacon, besides necessity, needs his commission in order to dispense the Eucharist; but when he is not present, necessity alone is enough. Then the priest can give him such a commission when he himself is impeded. Colet, speaking of the deacon, who cannot indiscriminately, says: ut quilibet sacerdos, sed tantum, vel absente sacerdote, vel, eo quidem praesente sed iustas ob necessitates, sacram synaxim dispensare potest, 'as any priest can, but only when the priest is absent, or when he is indeed present but because of just necessities, can he dispense the sacred synaxis.' Th. Mor. c. 5. de Min. euch. art. 2. And this, he continues to say, is lawful even in places where it has never before been practiced; because, since such commission was always given to deacons in the first centuries in the East and in the West, although this custom has ceased because of the multitude of priests, nevertheless when need occurs in the present time, the same commission can be given; potest enim Ecclesia quidquid olim potuit, 'for the Church can do whatever it once could.' And in order not to cause scandal to the people, who have not yet seen communion administered by deacons, it is necessary to instruct them that this is lawful. But what is the necessity that makes it lawful? When there is no commission of the priest, the only case of necessity would be the administration of Viaticum, which cannot be deferred until a priest comes; because although, as we have seen, the Council of Nicaea and Pope Gelasius permitted this without necessity, for the absence of the priest alone, nevertheless today, because of the change of discipline, all the sacred doctors restrict it to the said necessity. But when the said commission is present, the just cause is, as Suarez writes, quod sacerdos sit debilis vel infirmus, 'that the priest be weak or ill,' de Sacr. euch. d. 72. s. 1.; and according to the opinion of Leander adopted by Amort: Si sacerdos sit debilis, infirmus, aut aliis exercitiis impeditus, aut si non possit communicare tot homines, et non sit alius sacerdos, qui id velit vel commode possit efficere, 'If the priest is weak, ill, or impeded by other exercises, or if he cannot communicate so many people, and there is no other priest who would wish or could conveniently accomplish this.' Th. Mor. disp. 5. de Euch. § 6. quaest. unic. § 3. For example, says Cavalieri, si sacerdos sit occupatus in audiendis confessionibus, 'if the priest is occupied in hearing confessions.' To. 4. decr. 13. c. 4. n. 6."

Lugo, de Sacr. euch. d. 18. n. 27., says: "It is doubted secondly: whether in fact a priest can now commit to a deacon that he minister the Eucharist. The answer is that he can in necessity, which is not restricted to the sole case of giving Viaticum to a dying person, but extends more broadly, as if the priest is impeded and cannot distribute the Eucharist to the people." Cf. also ibid. n. 2. seqq.

St. Alph., l. 6. n. 237. q. 1., says: "There is no doubt that a deacon can minister the Eucharist in necessity... They commonly say that grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister... In extreme necessity, when the priest is absent, the deacon will be able and will be bound to minister Viaticum, even without commission... When the deacon ministers the Eucharist, he ought to be clothed with surplice and transverse stole."

2. "Several times it has been asked of us whether a deacon can lawfully expose the Eucharist, not indeed by serving the priest, which is already known to be lawful, but by himself alone, as principal. This doubt is not read among the Moralists, but there is a very valid reason for resolving that it is not permitted to him to do this, except in the case in which every priest is lacking. For Diaconum enim oportet ministrare ad altare, 'it belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar,' says the Roman Pontifical; and later: Comministri et cooperatores estis Corporis et Sanguinis Domini, 'You are co-ministers and co-operators of the Body and Blood of the Lord.' Therefore, when priests are present, it belongs to them to act as principals, and to the deacons to assist them and to perform the part of co-ministers and co-operators. But in the absence of priests, they can indeed supply, and expose the Venerable Sacrament with their express or tacit commission. Thus, both when they expose it and when they administer it in communion, they ought to wear the stole hanging from the left shoulder and bound under the right. When communion is finished, they cannot give the usual blessing to the people, as the doctors warn; and if, when a priest is lacking, they make the exposition, they will not be able to bless the people with the Sacrament." Pavone, Spicilegio, diss. 9. c. 1. n. 209.

But the following Decision of S. R. C. is present:

"Can a deacon who, by mandate of his vicar, carries sacred Viaticum to the sick, make sprinklings of holy water, say Misereatur, Indulgentiam, sign the sick person or himself, say Dominus vobiscum with the prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Most Holy Sacrament?

R. If a presbyter is lacking, and with the concurrent license of the apostolic vicar, affirmatively in all." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1853. n. 3074.

3. "Can a bishop by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. In churches or public chapels which do not enjoy a parochial title, even if they serve the utilities of the parish; 2. In public chapels of pious Communities, that is, those whose door opens onto a public street, or into an area communicating with a public street, and which are opened to all inhabitants; 3. In chapels or interior oratories of pious Communities, when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense explained, as, for example, in seminaries.

R. An indult from the Holy See must be implored as regards all the requests." S. R. C. 8 March 1879. n. 3484., I. M. 549.

4. Sebastian, a parish priest, denies the Eucharist to all whom he himself judges to be of rather rude understanding. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively, "unless they are altogether incapable of this mystery." Clement IX, C. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669. But they will be capable where they discern spiritual food from bodily food. And this has place even if it is a question of ministering Viaticum, as is drawn from the following Decision of S. I. C.

"Whether Viaticum is to be administered to those neophytes who, in the article of death, having been baptized by Christians, are ignorant.

R. Viaticum is not to be administered to these neophytes unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host." S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

5. Robertinus, a confessor, very rarely permits communion to his penitents outside Easter time; because, he says, penitents very rarely have that necessary preparation or devotion by which one ought to approach sacred communion. But he permits frequent communion to scarcely anyone, since there is scarcely anyone who is free not only from mortal sins, but even from venial sins.

Quaer. What is to be said about Robertinus's manner of acting?

R. Robertinus's manner of acting is altogether to be disapproved. The necessary preparation by which one can approach sacred communion is indeed that, and no other, concerning which the Apostle says: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

The Council of Trent, sess. 13. cap. 7., says concerning this necessary preparation of the soul: Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept, namely of the Apostle, must be recalled: But let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession having first been made. But in cap. 8 immediately following, it exhorts the faithful to receive that supersubstantial bread frequently. And finally, sess. 22, de Sacr. missae, cap. 6, it speaks thus: The holy Synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.

Therefore, if from these judgments of the Tridentine Fathers taken together we search out their mind thoroughly, we shall certainly have this as explored: that those indeed are to be removed altogether from the Eucharistic table who, oppressed by consciousness of mortal sin, are judged unworthy of so great and so singular a gift of God. Wherefore, if from indications of sorrow and from amendment of new life the confessor does not doubt that sacramental absolution can be imparted to his penitents, neither ought he to hesitate that the same are now sufficiently disposed for eating the Lord's bread. Nor indeed can such penitents, thus disposed and prepared, be repelled from sacred communion indiscriminately and without grave cause, namely, if they have been held worthy of the benefit of sacramental absolution. Indiscriminately and without grave cause; for, for those who are accustomed to commit grave sins, and who, since they have contracted disordered habits and are careless of their own salvation, easily slip afterward into graver crimes to be committed, the salutary remedy of medicinal severity can sometimes be applied.

Moreover, from the cited texts of Trent it is clear that the Tridentine Fathers persuade the faithful to frequent use of the Eucharist; indeed, that they desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by become participants from the Eucharistic table. But it would be altogether useless to exhort the faithful to frequent communion; and the daily communion of the same faithful could not only not be desired, but not even hoped for, if those alone were refreshed by the Eucharistic bread who were free from every stain even of lighter fault. Wherefore all those who are not yet free from venial sins are not indiscriminately to be barred from frequent communion.

If confessors diligently weigh these things, they will certainly see that the custom of those is not to be praised who, in order to permit communion to their penitents, demand, because of the dignity of the sacrament of the Eucharist, certain singular and scarcely to be hoped-for dispositions, and far greater ones than those which suffice for obtaining absolution in the sacrament of penance. - And as regards granting frequent communion, certainly greater devotion of the faithful is to be stirred up; they are to be more sharply inflamed to detestation of past crimes; and those inclined to venial sins are to be efficaciously stirred up to detestation also of these; then a certain hunger, as it were, and vehement desire for Eucharistic food is to be stirred up, so that with the greatest reverence and piety they can receive it. But just as the strength of the body is sustained by food itself, so the languor and infirmity of the soul is driven away and strengthened by this spiritual food by which we are fed. Whence Augustine says in Serm. de verb. Apost.: Daily you sin, daily receive. And if anyone attends diligently, he will discover that the opinion of all the Fathers who have written concerning this matter was the same. Catech. Roman. n. 60., Instr. S. C. de P. F. 19 Apr. 1784., Collectan. n. 719., Ferrar. Supp. v. Communio, Gennari Sulla Comun. freq. I. M. 579.

6. Aloysius, a priest, has already for a year been hearing the confessions of Stanislaus, a nine-year-old boy, commendable for keen intelligence and innocence of morals. Now Aloysius, after first obtaining the consent of the parents, leads him, duly imbued with the rudiments of faith and very desirous of receiving the Eucharist, to the parish priest, so that, after prior examination, he may admit him to first communion. Nevertheless the parish priest refuses because Stanislaus has not yet attained the legitimate age. For he has it as a custom not to admit boys to first communion unless they have at least reached twelve years, relying, as he himself says, both on the common practice of the other parish priests and also on the congruity of the matter itself, for which congruity he brings forward a twofold reason: namely, 1. because of the greater reverence for so great a sacrament; then 2. because of the more abundant fruit of the one receiving. But Aloysius, making little of the reasons brought forward by the parish priest, with the precept of Easter communion urging, administers the Eucharist to Stanislaus on Easter day itself. When the parish priest learns this, he has recourse to the bishop against Aloysius, as though Aloysius had usurped the privative right of parish priests. But the bishop, having been made more certain about the whole matter, proposes the case to be resolved by his vicar general.

Quaer. 1. What discretion is to be required in the present matter; and when do boys have this discretion? - 2. Whether admitting boys to first communion belongs exclusively to the parish priest? - 3. What is to be said of the Case?

R. To the first. The discretion required in the present matter is described thus in the Roman Catechism 57: namely, that the faithful "discern table from table, this sacred table from other profane tables, this heavenly bread from common bread. And this happens when we believe with certainty that the true Body and Blood of the Lord is present, whom the Angels adore in heaven, at whose nod the pillars of heaven tremble and fear, of whose glory heaven and earth are full. This, namely, is to discern the Body of the Lord, which the Apostle admonished." And the same Roman Catechism n. 62 says that it is not fitting to minister the Eucharist to boys not yet using reason, and it adds this reason: "For these neither know how to discern the sacred Eucharist from common and profane bread, nor can they bring piety of soul and religion to receiving it. And this also seems most alien from the institution of Christ the Lord. For he says, Take and eat; but it is sufficiently clear that infants are not suited to receive and eat." And the doctrine of the Sacred Congregations is the same; they require discretion by which one discerns spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 568.

Moreover, boys do not have this discretion immediately when they obtain the use of reason; for then they have the first discretion of good and evil, but they certainly do not have this more perfect discretion unless they first have obtained a more perfect use of reason and have been duly instructed in the matters of faith. When precisely, then, do they have this discretion? From the more common opinion of the doctors and from the general rule, boys are not obliged to communion before the ninth or tenth year of age; but beyond the twelfth year communion is not to be deferred for them. I. M. 560. Wherefore at this age, from the general rule, boys conveniently instructed certainly have the discretion required for communion. But this general rule certainly does not prevent boys in particular cases, by reason of a precocious development of the use of reason, and of better and more accurate instruction, from having, even before this age, sufficient discretion for receiving communion. And this age, as is clear, is varied in the aforesaid particular cases, according to the various circumstances.

To the second. In the first communion of boys, two things can be considered. The first is the communion itself; the other is that external ceremony which is customarily used in the first communion of boys. As regards the communion itself, two things can be attended to in it: one is admission to first communion, the other the place of first communion. Although admission to first communion can, in particular cases, pertain also to the parish priest, it certainly does not belong exclusively to the parish priest, nor does it belong to the parish priest per se and principally. For admission to first communion belongs per se to him to whom it belongs to judge concerning the sufficient instruction, and concerning the sufficient disposition of soul, of the boy for receiving first communion. And this judgment belongs per se and principally to the parents, to whom the education and due instruction of the boy belongs by force of paternal authority, and to the confessor, before whom the boy confesses his sins. And thus the judgment of Easter communion itself, whether someone ought to receive it or ought for a time to abstain from reception of this kind, belongs, from Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, to one's own priest, that is, to the confessor. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 6. seqq., I. M. 560.

But as regards the place, no place is prescribed by common Law for first communion. A place in communion is not found determined in the Law except only for Easter communion. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 7. seqq. Therefore, if boys make first communion during Easter time and so that they may satisfy the Easter precept, then certainly, speaking per se, that communion seems to be received in the parish church.

As regards the exterior ceremony of first communion and its solemn form, this indeed belongs to the parish priest by right and obligation together, because of the good of the parish itself, which he is bound to promote; but it is established by no general law that this exterior ceremony and solemn form belongs exclusively to the parish priest. Indeed, the contrary is positively established from the Declarations of the Sacred Congregations, since a public ceremony of this kind is asserted to be of exclusively parochial right only in those places where legitimate prescription and custom vindicates this for itself. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 560. And, if it does not belong to the parish priest by exclusive right to admit boys to first communion, and first communion is not per se to be received in the parish church, how can the exterior ceremony and solemnity, which accompanies the first communion of boys, belong to the parish priest by exclusive right?

To the third. The custom of the parish priest of not admitting to first communion unless the boys are twelve years old cannot be approved, and consequently, speaking per se, the common practice of the other parish priests cannot be approved. For if boys of this kind are duly disposed, already before this age, from the Lateran Council, C. Omnis utriusque sexus, they can and ought to approach the sacred synaxis; and if they are duly disposed, as is supposed, they will receive it with due reverence and with fitting fruit. From this it appears that the practice of the other parish priests invoked by the parish priest, and the twofold reason of congruity which he brings forward, have altogether no force.

But as regards Aloysius, in that he himself, Stanislaus's confessor, after first obtaining the parents' consent, admitted Stanislaus to first communion, he acted altogether rightly, following in this matter the doctrine of the Roman Catechism n. 63. But in that he himself privately gave communion to Stanislaus during Easter time, he also does not seem to be blameworthy; but then Stanislaus is bound to receive communion again in the parish church, since he is now bound by the precept of Easter communion in his own parish. Finally, because Aloysius gave communion to Stanislaus on Easter day itself, generally speaking, he seems blameworthy; since on Easter day it is commonly prohibited to distribute communion to the people in other churches besides parochial ones. I. M. 528. But in the Case there can be no difficulty concerning the exterior ceremony and solemn form; for this regards the first communion of several boys together. M. E. v. 10. p. 2. p. 22.

7. Leonard, a presbyter, returning from a journey with other friends, very fatigued, sits down at table at half past the eleventh hour of the night, so that he may be briefly refreshed. But while talking and eating with his friends, time flows by as quickly as possible, so that, astonished, he notices while drinking that midnight has already passed. Nevertheless, since on the following feast day he cannot omit Mass without offense to the people, he celebrates Mass without scruple.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Leonard, who cannot omit Mass except with scandal or offense of the people, can probably celebrate, because it is better to avoid the greater evil, or scandal of the people; for it is a lesser evil to celebrate Mass than for the whole people to be offended with scandal, and to be deprived of Mass on such a day. Thus grave theologians against others. See La-Croix n. 582." Thus Fr. Gury 294. 299. 300., I. M. 595.

Nevertheless, the following Decision of the Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874, must be attended to: "Whether, by reason of scandal or wonder, the second Mass after the first can ever be celebrated when the fast has already been broken? - R. Negatively." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 793., E. M. 595.

8. Ferdinand, a missionary, doubts whether he can minister sacred communion by way of Viaticum to Francis when he is not fasting, concerning whose illness it is doubted whether it is mortal or not.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Ferdinand can minister Viaticum; for while that doubt stands, although Francis is not in the article of death, nevertheless he is in danger of death. For there is danger of death when there is a probable doubt, and death is often accustomed to happen in such a Case. But if the doubt is merely negative, because namely neither could a physician be questioned about the gravity of the disease, nor is the sick man himself or the missionary capable of forming a judgment, then Viaticum is still to be administered, and one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 285. dub. 3. in fine., I. M. 596. Indeed, often it cannot be established whether the disease is truly lethal or not; and then the Church, a pious mother, is rightly presumed to wish in such a doubt to favor the sick person, especially since daily experience establishes that many sick persons, beyond everyone's expectation, die without Viaticum. This has force especially when the sick person is far distant from the church, or when, in mission places, the missionary cannot return again to the sick person, because then he is exposed to the greater danger of dying without being refreshed by the sacraments. G. 306., Lig. H. A. 46.