Chapter III — On the minister of the Eucharist, and on those to whom it ought to be administered

I. QUESTION I. Is a priest alone the ordinary minister of dispensing the Eucharist? ANSWER. Bishops and priests are the ordinary ministers of administering the Eucharist, as St. Thomas proves, III, q. 82, art. 3, and Trent confirms, session 13, chapter 8. The extraordinary ministers are deacons, in each Church, the Eastern and the Western. In the early centuries deacons dispensed the chalice of the Lord's Blood, even necessity being removed. According to the present discipline of the Church, only for a just cause can bishops and priests commit to deacons that they administer the Eucharist. It is not lawful, however, for clerics inferior to deacons, and much less for laymen, to administer communion either to themselves or to others in the Latin Church, because several canons forbid it. In a case of extreme necessity a priest can communicate himself, and likewise a deacon. Nay, many contend that for the sake of devotion alone priests and deacons can communicate themselves, if a fit minister be lacking. But the discipline of today is to be regarded.

II. QUESTION II. Is a parish priest bound in time of plague to communicate his parishioners with danger to his life? ANSWER. All having the care of souls — the Pope, archbishops, bishops, parish priests, rectors, superiors — are bound in time of plague or epidemic to administer to their subjects the Sacrament of the Eucharist with danger to life. They dispute whether the aforesaid ministers can at such a time administer the Eucharist to the sick with a silver spoon. Some affirm, others deny. The circumstances are to be regarded, and it must be deliberated at the bishop's judgment. Then instruments can lawfully be used chiefly when a scarcity of ministers presses. Superiors who in these cases should greatly fear the danger of death would betray themselves not as shepherds but as hirelings.

III. In the urgent article of death it is lawful to seek the Eucharist from an excommunicated, schismatic, or heretical priest, many theologians teach, provided scandal and contempt of religion be absent. Gravely do priests sin who administer the Eucharist without surplice and stole, as the common and true opinion teaches. Let the rites of the Church therefore be most exactly observed in the administering of this most august Sacrament.

IV. QUESTION III. Is the Eucharist to be administered to little ones? ANSWER. It is certain that formerly in each Church, the Eastern and the Western, the Eucharist was administered to little ones together with Baptism; which discipline even now obtains in the Eastern Church. Five centuries ago this discipline was abrogated in the Latin Church. Each discipline Trent commends, session 21, chapter 4.

V. That holy communion was denied to the possessed, who were vexed by a long-lasting disturbance from the malign spirit, is gathered from canon 29 of the Council of Elvira: at the term of life it was granted to them. Several examples relate that the possessed were healed by the force of this Sacrament. Of these and of the demented St. Thomas speaks at large, III, q. 80, art. 9. That this Sacrament is not to be administered to those demented from birth, but that it is to be administered to those who before they fell into dementia gave signs of penitence and are constituted in the last danger, they commonly teach. But as regards this, the circumstances are to be regarded, nor can a general rule be prescribed.

VI. To those to be punished with the extreme penalty the Eucharist is not to be denied, as was formerly done in Spain, whose custom Dominic Soto disapproves. The discipline which now obtains is to be observed.

VII. QUESTION IV. Is the Eucharist to be granted to public sinners? ANSWER. St. Thomas observes, III, q. 80, art. 6, that in a twofold manner a sinner is called public. First, by the confession of the offender himself, by the deposition of a third party, and by the sentence of a public judgment; and he is called public by the publicity of law. Second, by the evidence of the fact, as are usurers, plunderers, mimes, women mimes, actors, and dancers. That the Eucharist is to be denied to public sinners asking for it all confess. For ministers are instituted as prudent dispensers of the mysteries of God. To these it was said, Matthew 7: Give not that which is holy to dogs. To a public sinner secretly amended the Eucharist is to be denied if he ask publicly, until he take away the public scandal. To a hidden sinner asking the Eucharist publicly it is to be granted, when it cannot be denied without his infamy. If he ask secretly, it ought to be denied. If nevertheless the sin be known from confession, the Eucharist cannot be denied; and the opposite opinion Innocent XI condemned. If a sinner public in this place go elsewhere where he is hidden, the Eucharist ought not to be denied him, as the opinion more probable to me defends.

VIII. QUESTION V. Can a priest, on account of fear of death or of notable infamy to himself, administer the Eucharist to a public sinner? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is to me false. For it is not lawful to give what is holy to dogs, even for the sake of avoiding death. Nor less false is the opinion teaching that a priest can hold out an unconsecrated host to a hidden sinner. Since, says St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 6, that priest makes those commit idolatry who believe the host to be consecrated. No less does a priest sin who, for the avoiding of a sinner's infamy, simulates that he puts the host into his mouth. This lying simulation, whether of the Eucharist or of Penance, is sacrilegious and full of scandal.