Chapter V — On the dispositions for the Eucharist, and on frequent Communion. Several opinions of certain men are refuted

I. There is a twofold kind of dispositions. The first removes impediments, namely mortal sins; the other adorns the soul with virtues. Of the first at present. The innovators require faith alone for a disposition; but their error Trent proscribed, session 13, canon 5. The first disposition is cleanness from mortal fault. He who after absolution remembers that he committed some crime which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not confess, ought before communion to confess it, as the common and true opinion teaches. There are not lacking theologians, and indeed of great name, who require immunity from affection to venial sins, that the fruits of the Eucharist may be perceived. Others teach that affection to venial sins diminishes indeed the fervour, but does not hinder the fruits of the Eucharist. This disagreement ought to stir us up to detest venial crimes themselves, since according to all they diminish the fervour of charity.

II. QUESTION I. Is the precept of sending confession before, on the part of one who is in mortal sin, divine or human? ANSWER. Many contend that it is merely human. Theologians commonly affirm that it is divine, declared by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, saying: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice; and again, Holy things are to be handled holily.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be thought of the interpretation of some upon the Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible? ANSWER. If a priest, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated in mortal sin being contrite, Trent commands that he confess as soon as possible. Not a few began after their manner to dispute whether this be a precept or a counsel. Some affirmed it to be merely a counsel; but their opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 38: The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.

IV. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the interpretation of Frs. La Croix, Viva, and others upon the aforesaid decree of Trent? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4, writes here: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sayrus, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizzari, and Leander teach — in this almost all agree, says Moya, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept, if he has the opportunity of a confessor and has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion teaches. … But Trent speaks of him who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was an opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore then he is not bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is more probable.” Hence the same opinion Fr. Viva defends in his Treatise on Proposition 38 of Alexander VII, no. 12, and in his Course of Theology, question 7, no. 3.

V. Trent commands that a priest who, urgent necessity pressing and destitute of the opportunity of a confessor, celebrated in mortal sin, confess as soon as possible: since by natural and divine law holy things are to be handled holily. But he who, no necessity urging, having the opportunity of a confessor, out of mere malice celebrates in mortal sin, confession being neglected — he, say the cited probabilists, is not bound to confess as soon as possible, because in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion says. Unless this be an unheard-of paradox, I confess that I know nothing. The precept of Trent declares natural and divine law, that holy things are to be handled holily, and defines that if, urgent necessity pressing and the opportunity of a confessor being lacking, a priest cannot confess before the celebration of Mass, he confess as soon as possible. This Tridentine precept, as I have said, is a declaration of natural and divine law. Therefore if a priest is bound to confess as soon as possible who, compelled by necessity, for the avoiding of scandal and that he might succour the faithful people, celebrated in mortal sin, by a far and by the very greatest right is that priest bound to confess as soon as possible who, pressed by no necessity but out of mere malice, celebrated in mortal sin. And this is so evident that a common sense void of prejudices suffices for perceiving this truth. Further, if in a truth so clear prejudices bewitch even pious and learned authors themselves, what is to be expected in questions ambiguous and entangled with a coil of difficulties?

VI. QUESTION IV. What of the contrition which Fr. Tamburini teaches is to be sent before by a layman conscious of mortal sin, urgent necessity pressing? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56, writes the following opinion: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty. For it is enough if he elicit it (contrition) immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking or eating is substantially made when we swallow or transmit the food, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate — therefore I think it MOST PROBABLE that it is enough that the act of contrition be made while the most holy host is held in the mouth. So de Lugo, and Hurtado, and others.”

VII. While we set forth these and like opinions, now to be derided, now to be deplored, outcries against us are redoubled. But I beseech and adjure even the prudent probabilists themselves to determine whether it is to be permitted that these unheard-of paradoxes be read by Christian readers without a previous warning by which they may beware of them. What? The most holy Host of Christ in the mouth, and the devil reigning in the heart? In the same man God and the devil? Shall a wicked man receive the Sacrament in his mouth before he transmits the host into his stomach, and then elicit an act of contrition — because while it is in the mouth the taking is inchoate, and when we transmit it the eating is substantially made? Who can bear without tears that these things are proposed and persuaded to the Christian people as most probable, not to say probable, documents of morals? Tamburini teaches with the other probabilists that even imperfect contrition itself, formed by charity merely inchoate, is so difficult that he brands with the note of Rigorism the opinion requiring contrition of this kind; and now he reckons it so easy that between the taking of the host inchoatively and the swallowing consummatively he judges that not an imperfect but a perfect contrition can be elicited. It is enough to have described the deplorable figments of those opinions: for they do not deserve to be confuted at greater length.

VIII. QUESTION V. What is to be said of the opinion of Frs. Vásquez and Leander asserting that a priest sinning mortally in the very celebration of Mass is not bound to confess as soon as possible? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 1, proposes this question in these words: “Whether a priest who in the very act of sacrificing remembers a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, before he approached to celebrate the sacrifice … but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or remembers one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, Sayrus, Diana.”

IX. What law can stand, such interpretations being admitted? He who in the very celebration of Mass perpetrates a mortal crime is not bound to confess as soon as possible? That paradox is unheard-of by me. Nor less lax is the other opinion of Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, no. 63, and of Leander, question 8, who teach that a layman standing at the table of communion can receive the Eucharist without sending before the confession of a mortal sin which he remembers, even if he could withdraw without scandal: because, says Leander, since the sacred action has been in a manner begun, he ought not out of reverence for the Eucharist to withdraw from that divine table. So teach and resolve the cases of the times the Doctors of the times. But in very truth the Gospel of Christ cries out — or rather Christ by the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 5: If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering (N.B.) before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. What say the cited casuists to this? Here the discourse is not of the taking of the most sacred body of Christ, but of the offering of a gift. The discourse is not of a mortal sin of the offerer, but of anger and indignation against another brother. Oh how far distant is the Theology of Christ from the theology of those casuists! Tamburini and Leander teach that one is not to withdraw from the sacred table, even if no scandal be feared; others more cautious teach that then one is not to withdraw when scandal is feared. But that scandal which the casuists exaggerate Christ teaches in the praised text is to be contemned. Do not we all approach the tribunal of Penance? Is the sacrament of Penance to be passed over, lest men say that we are guilty of crimes? That a Christian man or woman withdraw from the sacred table exhibits not scandal but an argument of uprightness. For bystanders infer: that man remembered some fault, or became doubtful, and was unwilling with a perplexed conscience to receive the most sacred body of Christ. Therefore the scandal which many casuists obtrude is chimerical. So many priests, so many Christian men and women bring in the most grave scandal by their frequent celebrations and communions, from which they exhibit no fruit and no reformation of morals. So many forward women, shameless and stripped of modesty, who continually sport with their little lovers, who frequent dances, theatres, games, and comedies, and at the same time approach the altars, who attempt to join Christ with Belial and light with darkness — these bring in the most grave scandal to the Christian people. This is the scandal in the taking away of which we must be wholly engaged.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Tamburini teaching that a case can be given in which one communicating in mortal sin does not commit a new sin? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71, that he may open a way for himself to making sacrilege honourable, animates his reader with these words: So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin. But lest my adversaries after their manner should be able to impose upon the unskilled, as though I reported the opinions of the casuists truncated, I shall transcribe in just so many words Tamburini's decision, which is of this kind.

XI. “For from the things said above it is established that a priest who, Mass having been begun in good faith, remembers himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or experiences that act to be exceedingly difficult for himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, and it is most difficult to leave the sacrifice begun on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with a conscience of this kind of mortal sin, and with that sorrow which he can then elicit, he pursue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, Hurtado, de Lugo. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so closely as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to withdraw from a sacred rite begun. But then a priest of this kind will not acquire grace; yet nevertheless he will not sin.”

XII. It is a truth of faith that God does not command impossible things, as Trent defined, session 6, chapter 11. If the cited authors assert that the precept of contrition is impossible, they teach Lutheranism and Jansenism. If they grant that the precept is possible, then those who do not fulfil it sin. Therefore false and full of scandal is the doctrine of Tamburini and of the others asserting that a case is given in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.

XIII. Fr. Tamburini proceeds in the same place, no. 73: And the same will hold of a layman who, now about to receive the sacred synaxis before the cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, should remember a mortal sin, and could not be contrite: so there; for the reason is the same. LET THE SCRUPULOUS AND THOSE TIMOROUS OF MIND NOTE THIS DOCTRINE. Here the doctrine, which Fr. Viva himself adopts, is not to be refuted with words, but to be deplored with tears.

XIV. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the other dispositions necessary for the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the natural fast prescribed by the statute of the Church is necessary; and this discipline has a most ancient origin. The very many disputations which some raise I pass over. The sick, urgent danger of death pressing, can communicate not fasting, as also a priest on account of the necessity of completing a sacrifice left imperfect by another seized by death or by some other unexpected chance.

XV. QUESTION VIII. Is it lawful to approach the Eucharist after conjugal intercourse? ANSWER. Several councils and the Fathers commonly persuade that for a day before communion spouses observe continence. Very many testimonies being omitted, I shall bring forward one or another. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, says: Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. Like things St. Peter teaches, Epistle 1, chapter 3. The Tridentine Catechism, part 2, chapter 4, § 58, says: The dignity of so great a Sacrament demands that those who are joined in matrimony abstain some days from the company of their wives, admonished by the example of David, who, being about to receive the loaves of proposition from the priest, professed that he and his young men had been pure from wives for three days. Extremes in the adornment of the body are also to be avoided. Squalor is unbecoming and savours of irreverence. An honourable cleanliness ought to shine in the garment, in the countenance, and in the hands. But those women are altogether to be kept from holy communion who with bared bosom, and with vain garments displaying luxury, pride, and worldly pomps, do not blush to approach so great a Sacrament. Their odours, powders, and counterfeited beauty exhale from afar the stench and filth of their souls.

XVI. QUESTION IX. What is to be said of frequent communion? ANSWER. There came forth in the year 1745 at Paris a book entitled The Spirit of Jesus Christ and of the Church upon Frequent Communion. This work, published by Fr. Pichon, several most learned bishops proscribed by their letters, and the Roman See condemned it. To refute its lax paradoxes in this compendium is not expedient. Extremes in this matter, as in the rest, are to be declined. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 6, says: The holy Synod indeed would wish that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by a spiritual affection but also by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. Would that the morals of Christians were such that the wishes of that Council could be committed to execution.

XVII. Lax paradoxes in this matter also some have taught, as is plain from the following proscribed theses. Venerable Innocent XI condemned the following, no. 56: Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live in the manner of the heathen, is a mark of predestination.

XVIII. Into another extreme others have fallen, whose error Alexander VIII condemned, no. 22: They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving communion before they have done condign penance for their offences.

XIX. Similarly: They are to be kept from holy communion in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God and free from every admixture.

XX. The rules of frequent communion Innocent XI prescribed in his decree Cum ad aures, which you can read in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 11, as also several testimonies of the holy Fathers for a full instruction in this matter, which you can read in the place cited; there you will find the clearest arguments against sacrilegious communions.