Article — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Article I. On the Power of the Minister of the Eucharist
The Minister of the Eucharist is twofold, namely one of consecration, another of dispensation.
- Principles. - I. Every Priest, and only a Priest, is the Minister for confecting the Eucharist. This is clear: 1. from Scripture; for Christ, instituting the Sacrament, said to all and only the Apostles reclining with him, and therefore to all and only those who would succeed them in the priesthood: Do this in commemoration of me, Luke 22.19; therefore all and only Priests received this power from Christ; 2. from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 2, 3; 3. finally from the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church.
II. Only priests or presbyters are the ordinary Ministers of the dispensation of the Eucharist. This is clear: 1. from the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 8, where it is said: It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive Communion from Priests, but that celebrating Priests communicate themselves; 2. from the universal practice of the Church.
- III. Deacons, by force of their ordination, are extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, so that the dispensation of this Sacrament can be committed to them. This is clear: 1. from the practice of the earlier centuries, in which Deacons everywhere, from the commission of Bishops or Presbyters, whether general or particular, ministered the Eucharist; 2. from various Councils, for example the first general Council of Nicaea, the fourth of Carthage, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 237.
IV. By ordinary right only the Parish Priest, or his Superior, can dispense the Eucharist. For this jurisdiction is required, not indeed for the value of the act as in absolution, but for the due order of ministering. This is clear: 1. from the Councils, especially from the first of Carthage, can. 7, and from Milevis, can. 18, etc.; 2. from the universal practice of the Church. Hence he who without license at least presumed of the Parish Priest ministers the Eucharist violates his right in a grave matter, and therefore sins gravely. Nevertheless, when the Parish Priest grants to others license of celebrating in his Church, he is always judged also to grant license of ministering the Eucharist unless he expresses the contrary; this is also confirmed by common practice 1. - St. Ligorius, n. 250 and following.
1 Indeed custom has it that in whatever church a priest celebrates Mass, he can distribute the Eucharist to the faithful who desire to become participants of it.
Nevertheless license is not so easily to be presumed if it is a question of receiving the Eucharist from obligation. - See St. Ligorius, n. 235. Wherefore, as to Paschal Communion, custom must be observed 2; likewise, to minister Viaticum outside a case of necessity without the license of the Parish Priest is illicit.
2 Elsewhere (vol. I, n. 480) it was noted that by law and by the universal practice of the Church Paschal Communion is to be received in each one's own parish. But if somewhere any different custom flourishes, this certainly supposes the consent of those who have the right of disposing concerning these things.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether, in order that a Deacon may minister, the necessity must be extreme?
Resp. No, with the common opinion; but grave necessity suffices, namely when there is no Priest present who can conveniently minister the Eucharist. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 236. - Lugo. - But for this the commission of the Bishop or Parish Priest is required.
QUESTION 2. Whether, or in what circumstances, Religious can minister the Most Holy Eucharist?
Resp. 1. They can always minister the Eucharist in their own Churches, either by themselves or through other Priests, except on Easter day 3. Thus from the privileges of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Paul III and Paul IV.
3 At Rome Thursday in the Lord's Supper is also excepted.
Resp. 2. But they cannot minister the Eucharist: 1. in their own Churches on Easter day, as has just been said. Understand this if the discussion is about secular persons not serving the Monastery 4, even if they have already previously satisfied the precept of annual Communion in their own parish. Thus often the Sacred Congregation of the Council. Nevertheless some assert that there is a constant contrary custom, which builds up a right. - St. Ligorius, n. 240 5. 2. In other Churches, unless with the license at least
4 Those serving, who can receive Paschal Communion in the churches of Regulars, are not to be understood as just any persons whatever, but those who are permanent table-companions of the Regulars and dwell in the monasteries, or, as the Synod of Trent has it (sess. 24, c. 11), who actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience.
5 Thus indeed St. Alphonsus (l.c.): Roncaglia (tr. 18, c. 4, q. 2, r. 2) and Wigandt (tr. 12, exam. 4, n. 48) assert that in this there is a constant contrary custom which supplies jurisdiction. But this assertion in reality is Roncaglia's alone; for Wigandt merely says that modern practice does not disapprove this. But Roncaglia indeed calls as witnesses of that undisciplined assertion Cardinal De Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 18, n. 50) and Fagundez (De III Praec. Eccl., lib. 1, c. 5, n. 9). But neither of these has anything about such a constant custom; each says only this one thing, that that prohibition, lest Regulars distribute the Eucharist on Easter day, can probably be understood only of Communion by which the faithful satisfy the Paschal precept, but not of Communion which is made from devotion. But I called the assertion undisciplined; for since those Doctors attribute to Regulars the faculty of distributing the Eucharist on Easter day as not contrary to pontifical Constitutions, those things which Doctors are accustomed to dispute about custom conferring jurisdiction pertain nothing here.
Besides, the aforesaid interpretation of the Apostolic Constitutions shows itself to be sufficiently improbable. For when the Supreme Pontiffs conceded to Regulars the privilege that, even in Paschal time, except however on Easter day, they could distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, it is manifest that there was not given to them a faculty by which on the remaining days besides Easter day the faithful receiving the Eucharist from Regulars would satisfy the Paschal precept; rather, it was permitted that they could receive Communion from devotion. Therefore the exception of Easter day pertains also to Communion to be received from mere devotion, and not to Communion by which the ecclesiastical precept is satisfied. And since the Sacred Congregation of the Council has already defined this question several times in this way (see the resolutions cited in Benedict XIV, De Synod., lib. 9, chap. 16, n. 3), these things ought not further to return into controversy.
** The VV. warn (p. 951, n. 94, with note 1) that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 240) only reports the judgment of others; but that his own opinion is to be taken from Homo apostolicus (tr. 12, n. 41), and thus the difficulty which Father Ballerini raises disappears.
Resp. 1. In the Note the difficulty was raised concerning the assertions of Roncaglia, and concerning St. Alphonsus it was merely noted that perhaps he had less to the point associated Wigandt with Roncaglia. But what is said in the Note concerning Roncaglia the VV. seem to have approved by their silence. Besides, whether the St. Doctor was merely reporting, or also thought that account should be taken of Roncaglia's assertions, was passed over altogether. Indeed the words of St. Alphonsus are these: Benedict XIV reports, De Synod., lib. 7, c. 42, that the Sacred Congregation declared that Regulars cannot on Easter day minister the Eucharist to those communicating from devotion. But Roncaglia and Wigandt assert that there is a constant contrary custom which supplies jurisdiction. Now this manner of speaking seems to belong to those who judge that the things reported in the first place are opposed by the things which they then add with the adversative particle but.
Resp. 2. As to what the VV. add, that the opinion of St. Alphonsus is to be drawn from Homo apostolicus, I, however, suspect that there will not be lacking those who think more tolerable the opinion which we have reported from the Moral work. The words of St. Alphonsus (Hom. Ap., tr. 12, n. 41) are of this sort: Indeed in Benedict XIV there is a Decree of the Sacred Congregation, July 9, 1644, and confirmed on June 11, 1650, by which it was established that Bishops can forbid Regulars to minister the Eucharist on Easter day to secular persons, even if they themselves had satisfied the precept of the Church. And although on June 31, 1687, the same Sacred Congregation, at the instance of the parish priests of Louvain, who contended that the Fathers of the Society of Jesus could not minister the Eucharist through the whole Paschal time, gave response that they could minister, except on Easter day, nevertheless it must be understood with the prohibition of the Bishop presupposed. But you would call this opinion especially entangled. For, with regard to the context, those last words of the St. Doctor, with the prohibition of the Bishop presupposed, insinuate that Regulars cannot minister the Eucharist on Easter day only because the prohibition of the Bishop stands in the way, as though, namely, Regulars by their own right, unless the Bishop prohibits it, can minister the Eucharist on that day. But this can be admitted by no reason. And indeed Benedict XIV himself (De Synod., lib. 9, c. 16, n. 3) expressly recalls that in the privilege for Regulars concerning ministering the Eucharist granted by Paul IV and St. Pius V, the day alone of Easter of the Lord's resurrection is expressly excepted. And below he adds that the Sacred Congregation has often judged that on the solemn day of Easter alone Regulars are absolutely prohibited from presenting the Eucharist in their own Churches to secular persons, etc. And again, ibid., n. 5: In the Apostolic privileges the faculty is given to Regulars of ministering the sacred Eucharist in their own Churches to secular persons, the day of Easter of the Resurrection of the Lord being expressly and by name excepted. Therefore, even setting aside the Bishop's prohibition, it is in no way permitted to Regulars to present the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day; for from the premises this is manifestly guarded by higher and more general law, namely Pontifical law. Indeed, if it is not lawful for Regulars to distribute the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day, both because the privileges granted to them concerning the administration of this Sacrament expressly except this day, and because the Apostolic Constitutions expressly forbid them the administration of the Eucharist through that day, and finally because through multiple Decrees of the Sacred Congregation the prohibition of this administration has been declared and repeatedly confirmed, it is certainly sufficiently clear that this very thing is not in any way to be repeated from some supposed prohibition of the Bishop.
But you will say: 1. Does not Benedict XIV (De Synod., l.c., n. 5) have these things: But there would be no place for complaint of the Regulars if the Bishop forbade them to dare to minister the sacred Eucharist to any of the seculars on the solemn day of the Resurrection? 2. Does not the Decree of the Sacred Congregation, July 9, 1644, say that Bishops can forbid the same Regulars that they administer the said Sacrament of the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day?
Resp. I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence. Certainly no place would remain for the complaints of Regulars, since they ought to know that the administration of the Eucharist on that day is forbidden to them by so many Apostolic sanctions. Likewise the Bishop could certainly require and urge that what has been sanctioned by so many Apostolic Decrees be handed over to execution. But it does not follow from this that the administration of the Eucharist is lawful for Regulars if no prohibition of the Bishop has intervened.