Case XXIV: Frequent Communion

Dear Editor:

I am greatly puzzled by a certain recent occurrence in parochial life and have decided to seek advice from the Homiletic. The case is as follows: During a retreat for first Communion I gave an instruction on frequent Communion to the children. On the day when the little lovers of Christ came to the altar rail, I took advantage of the occasion to exhort them as well as their parents and others who were present to frequent and even daily Communion. I was gratified at the result. All that week fully one-half of the children communicated daily, and many of the parishioners followed their example. Now, here is the bothering part: The pastor saw the children dressed in their white garb on Friday and Saturday morning at the rail. Upon inquiry he heard of my Sunday instruction. He sent for me and read me a lecture which stunned me. I was forbidden to mention the subject of frequent Communion till further notice. In vain I pleaded the decree of our Holy Father. I was told my duty was to obey my pastor. His arguments were about Confession and routine, etc. Now, what am I to do? It would be easy to obey him, but would I be doing the right thing? Thanking you, etc, Yours in Christ, Father N.

Answer.—Our friend seems to be overtroubled about the matter. It is easy to know what to do, since it is not difficult to know the right thing. We are obliged to obey the voice of God and not that of man. Without doubt the instructions of a pastor are to be obeyed by an assistant, otherwise there would be no harmony, no unity, without which there would be no hope of success in any field of labor, particularly in the vineyard of the Lord. But there is no obligation to obey the commands of the head of the parish when his orders are in direct contradiction to the commands of his and our superiors. When our bishop, or the Holy Father, gives us specific commands which impose on us duties at once clear and feasible, then we are bound to obey these commands, our pastor or anyone else to the contrary notwithstanding. In the matter of frequent Communion, Pius X. has not left us free to do as we like. He has obliged all having the direction of souls to lead them frequently, yea, daily, to the Sacrament of the altar. I insist he has not left us free, he has placed on our shoulders an obligation which cannot conscientiously be shirked by any priest, be he bishop or pastor or curate. This position is clear from a study of the attitude of the present reigning Pontiff with regard to the blessed Sacrament. Pius X. has proposed to himself as the object of his special endeavor “to restore all things in Christ.” It would seem from a cursory survey of his line of action that his method is to awaken love for Christ in the hearts of His children. We find him a staunch advocate of devotion to Christ in the blessed Sacrament, and particularly of frequent Communion.

Let us refer here to some of his decrees, etc., on this matter:

May 30, 1905.—Pius X. indulgenced a “Prayer for the spread of the pious practice of daily Communion.”

June 4, 1905.—The Holy Father decided to close the Eucharistic Congress at Rome in person. The following passage is taken from his allocution: “I beg and beseech of you all that you recommend the faithful to receive the Divine Sacrament. And I address myself in a special manner to you, my dear sons, who are priests, in order that Jesus, the richest Treasure of paradise, the greatest Good ever possessed by poor, forlorn humanity, may not be abandoned in so injurious and thankless a manner.”

December 20, 1905.—Decree concerning the frequent and daily reception of the holy Eucharist. This is the first in importance. It opens with a rapid historical sketch; then, in eight short paragraphs, we have some perfectly clear rules, or answers; and, as a conclusion, an absolute forbiddance of contentious disputes concerning the dispositions required for the frequent and daily Communion. Articles 1 and 2 are to be adhered to strictly:

“1, Frequent and daily Communion, as a thing most earnestly desired by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all the faithful of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention can lawfully be hindered therefrom.

“2, A right intention consists in this: That he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine, or vainglory, or human respect, but for the purpose of pleasing God, of being more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for his weaknesses and defects.”

February 14, 1906.—Those who receive Communion at least five times in the week are able to gain plenary indulgences, even though they go to Confession only once a fortnight, or once a month, or even less often—for the decree puts no limit.

August 10, 1906.—The brief Romanorum Pontificum approves and enriches with indulgences and extraordinary privileges the Priests’ Eucharistic League (Lega Sacerdotale Eucharistica), instituted for the special object of “bringing the faithful to the practise of frequent daily reception of the holy Eucharist.”

By a favor without precedent, confessors enrolled in this league can impart to those of their penitents who are accustomed to communicate daily, or nearly so, a plenary indulgence once a week.

August 16, 1906.—Cardinal V. Vannutelli, delegated by the Pope, declared at Tournai that the great papal act was “the fruit, the victory, the triumph of the Eucharistic Congresses,” and that it should serve as a guide in all their undertakings.

September 15, 1906.—The decree of December 20, 1905, is to be applied not only to grown-up people, or to the youth of either sex, but to children besides, once they have made their first Communion according to the rules of the Roman Catechism. That Catechism allows them to make it as soon as they have sufficient discretion. Every contrary practice that may anywhere prevail is condemned.

December 7, 1906.—Sick people who have been laid up for a month, without any sure prospect of speedy convalescence, are allowed to receive the holy Eucharist, although they have taken some nourishment since midnight per modum potus; and that once or twice a week, if the blessed Sacrament be kept in the house; if not, once or twice a month. (It has been explained that such things as chocolate, tapioca, semolina, soup containing bread-crumbs, are covered by the expression per modum potus.)

March 25, 1907.—The preceding decree is extended to those who, though seriously ill, are obliged, or able, to leave their beds at times during the day.

April 10, 1907.—Bishops are desired to have celebrated yearly in their cathedrals a special Triduum, for the object of exhorting the faithful to frequent Communion. In parish churches one day of religious exercises may be regarded as sufficient. Special indulgences granted.

May 8, 1907.—General leave given to distribute holy Communion in private oratories to all those who attend Mass—“saving parochial rights’—which means except in the case of the Easter Communion and Viaticum.

July 14, 1907—A brief once more appointing Cardinal V. Vannutelli Papal Legate to the Congress of Metz, which was wholly dedicated to the subject of holy Communion. “Here,” says the brief, “we surely have the shortest way towards procuring the salvation of each person in particular, as well as of society.” And the Cardinal, in closing the Congress, congratulated it upon having been the “faithful, docile and unfaltering echo of the decree on daily Communion.”

Conclusion.—Thus has his Holiness Pope Pius X. in the past four years of his Pontificate heaped act upon act to make the Catholic world understand that—to quote the letter addressed to the Legate for the occasion of the Metz Congress—“the center of Christian life, and, so to say, the soul of the Church, is found in the Eucharist.”

According to the decree, then, of December, 1905, wherein the Supreme Ruler of the Church—the Ruler of bishops and pastors and curates as well as of the faithful—expresses his will, the faithful, including the children, are to be brought to the practise of frequent and even daily Communion. Are we not right in saying that such a manifestation of will, made with such insistence on the part of the supreme legislator, is nothing more nor less than the manifestation of the will of Christ himself? And are we not, therefore, obliged to obey it? It is true that the decree is not an infallible one, but it is an authoritative one. Those who have studied the theological tracts on the constitution of the Church know full well that they owe a ready obedience to such decrees. No pastor is allowed to follow ad libitum his own views on the matter. This decree is both doctrinal and disciplinary. This is the view set forth by Cardinal Vannutelli, one of the signers of the decree. As this, matter is well developed in a brochure, entitled “The Eucharistic Triduum,” by Pére Lintelo, S.J. (translated by Pére Zulueta, S.J.), we here quote from it: “This decree is both a doctrinal and disciplinary one.” Consequently, it regulates something in the sphere of doctrine, and enjoins something in the sphere of action or practise.

(a) IN THE SPHERE OF DOCTRINE, the decree affirms certain truths, and, by the very fact of doing so, indirectly imposes a duty— that of mentally accepting the truths affirmed. It does not indeed bind individual Catholics actually to practise frequent or daily Communion, under pain of sin. It ought not to be necessary to emphasize so great a truth. But human nature is ever liable to extremes. Thus the decree itself records the grotesque exaggerations in the past on the part of some who, justly alarmed at the evil fruits of anti-Eucharistic Jansenism, fell into the opposite extreme of representing daily Communion as a divine precept. But, on the other hand, this tendency to exaggerate is by no means confined to advocates of the “salutary practise.” It also reveals itself in those who, fighting shy, on one pretext or another, of the Pope’s pressing invitations to the Holy Table, take refuge in the fanciful plea that priests who earnestly promote daily Communion in obedience to Article VI. of the decree, are equivalently foisting a new precept on the faithful. On the same principle, the zealous parish priest who actively promotes public night prayers in his church, or daily recitation in common of the Rosary in families, is. creating a new precept. And, certainly, the rule of monthly Communion, so strongly impressed upon children of Mary and members of guilds, ought, on the same grounds, to be regarded as tantamount to a precept.

There is a lack of proportion in all this. The truth lies between the two extremes. Neither the decree nor its promoter contemplates the use of daily Communion as an obligation. But the Papal pronouncement does, of its very nature, oblige us—ecclesiastics and laity—to give real interior assent of the mind to the teaching and principles of Eucharistic practise which it lays down, and consequently to abandon, as false, all spiritual theories which conflict with that teaching and with those principles, or which render either nugatory. As our author puts it: “If infallibility has not spoken, authority, at all events, has.” It is unnecessary, in a work intended for priests, to deal with that too common delusion that infallible utterances are the only ones which claim the inward and conscientious submission of Catholics.

(b) IN THE SPHERE OF ACTION, too, the decree imposes several things. In Article V. confessors are told to beware of hindering any one (ne quemquam avertant) from even daily reception of the Eucharist who receives in the state of grace and with a right intention. According to Article VI., priests—é. e., “parish priests, confessors, and preachers, in accordance with the approved teaching of the Roman Catechism” (Part II., cap. 4, n. 60)—are frequently and with much zeal to exhort the faithful to this devout and salutary practise. In Article VII. the practise is ordered to be promoted “especially” in “Religious Orders and Congregations of all kinds ‘ in ecclesiastical seminaries, and in Christian establishments, of whatever kind, for the training of youth.” Further, after the publication of the decree writers are ordered to abstain “from contentious controversies concerning the dispositions requisite for frequent and daily Communion.” In the concluding sentence of the decree His Holiness is stated as having “further ordered” that “local ordinaries and regular prelates,” in their reports concerning the state of their respective dioceses or institutes, should inform the Holy See concerning the execution of the matters therein determined. Here, then, we have not a few duties imposed by the said decree. We may sum up the matter thus: While the actual use of frequent and daily Communion is not enjoined, many other things are ordered for bringing about as widespread an, adoption of that practise as possible among all classes of the faithful.

Yet, with regard even to actual practise, the decree, while giving no command, contains something far more pressing than a mere spiritual suggestion. It gives an urgent counsel—since repeated many times by the Holy See in various forms—to all the faithful, children communicants included, as the Answer of September 15, 1906, puts beyond all cavil. This, then, is no mere refinement of piety, to be indulged in by such as have a taste for it.

Importance AND AUTHORITY OF THE DOCUMENT

“As the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on Daily Communion has been solemnly promulgated by the command of the Sovereign Pontiff, it becomes, therefore, a legislative Act passed by the universal legislator, and the whole Church is bound to obey it... all teaching opposed to what it declares to be that of the Church regarding the practise of daily Communion must be withdrawn, and be silent henceforth; every custom or practise opposed to what it ordains must cease” (Tesniére, “Commentary,” p. 16).

Here are some declarations made by Cardinal Vannutelli, the dignitary who signed the decree, and Papal Legate, in his opening speech at the Eucharistic Congress at Tournai, August 16, 1906:

“It is competent authority that speaks concerning frequent access to the Holy Table... This great pontifical Act, so maturely considered, and so seasonably promulgated, is at one and the same time both doctrinal and disciplinary.”

Under these circumstances, theologians declare that Catholics are bound in conscience to yield to the decree “an interior assent of the mind, even though the decree have not the character of a final judgment that it is of its own nature unalterable... To refuse that assent would be to sin by rashness (Choupin, S.J., “Valeur des décisions du Saint-Siege”). If infallibility has not spoken, authority, at least, has.

The Cardinal, moreover, boldly proclaimed the duty of everyone:

“All of you, illustrious members of the Episcopate, civil magistrates, presidents of organizations, priests, religious, laity—Catholics here present—you have all fully understood, as I am glad to bear witness, the duty incumbent upon this Congress—the first assembled since the decree was issued. That duty can be no other than gratefully to take action upon the same, to welcome it with reverence, to hail it with enthusiasm, and make it henceforward the watchword to be woven upon our banner for a beneficent propaganda, and to serve as a symbol of the perfect union which should reign in future amongst all Catholics.

“The decree of December 20 (1905) is, in truth, like a rainbow appearing in the firmament of the Church as a sign that the squall has blown over, and that the Heart of Jesus—the Heart of the King of Peace in the Eucharist—resumes His undivided empire over souls, even as, in nature, after a storm, the sun once more freely diffuses light and heat.”

There ought, then, to be no obscurity upon the question of the duty of priests with regard to daily Communion.

To Priests

1. Tuer Duty.—‘Parish priests are bound, in virtue of their pastoral office, to exhort the faithful frequently to take as much care to nourish their souls daily with this Sacrament as they deem it necessary to bestow upon securing material bread for the nourishment of their bodies. For it is evident that the soul has no less need of food than the body. And it will be extremely useful for winning over their hearers if preachers recall to their minds the immense, and wholly divine, benefits which flow from holy Communion. Let them discourse, in particular, upon that miraculous and prophetical bread—the manna—with which the Israelites were obliged to nourish themselves each day, and give authorities from the writings of the fathers—those powerful advocates of frequent reception of this Sacrament. For it was not St. Augustine alone who expressed the sentiment: ‘Since you sin daily partake daily of the antidote to sin.’ If anyone will examine into the matter he will find that it conveys the mind of all of those fathers who have treated of holy Communion” (Roman Catechism, Part II, chap, iv. nm. 54).

This passage from the Catechism of the Council of Trent is referred to in several documents of Pius X. relating to daily Communion.

Let us add the following words taken from the same Catechism, n. 39: “There is, in fact, no class of the faithful to whom the knowledge of all that can be said of the wonderful power and fruits of this Sacrament is not easily accessible and at the same time most necessary.”

2. Is Every Pastor Bound To Procure DAILY COMMUNION AMONGST HIS FLOCK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE?—“The inability to communicate under which many of the faithful labor, if it be involuntary, is a misfortune—a distressing poverty which should move the compassion and zeal of pastors to diminish the same to the best of their power. If it be voluntary, and due to contempt for the Divine Bread and indifference to salvation, it is an evil to be combated without respite, and with a zeal that should become the more intense in proportion to the outrage inflicted by such contempt upon the Heart of Him whose loving designs the priest professes to forward. A universal aloofness from daily Communion can never be viewed as a good state of things, nor even calmly acquiesced in. At best, it can be borne as being, it is true, a lesser misfortune or evil than profanation of the Sacred Bread; yet one that is to be pursued without a truce by means of illuminating instruction, zealous exhortation, and even by warnings as to the sad effects which follow from it. It is a case of recalling the command of St. Paul to Timothy: ‘Preach the good word, be instant in season and out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine’ Tim. iv, 2” (Tesniére, “Pratique,” p. 49). °

The difficulties raised about the burden of Confession have no value since the Pope has provided for this in his decrees. Nor need we consider the danger of routine further than to say that if we put any stress on this point we would all become pagans in the religious world and good-for-nothings in the civic realm. The objecting pastor would have to give up his daily Mass, his daily office, etc., upon the same score, viz., danger of routine. To conclude, we say that the pastor transgressed his jurisdiction and the curate should hear and obey the voice of the supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ.