Article III. On the Things Required for the Licit Dispensation of the Holy Eucharist

294. Principles. - I. Besides jurisdiction ¹, it is required that the Minister be free from every excommunication, interdict, and suspension from Sacred things; for otherwise he would sin gravely and contract irregularity.

¹ We have already observed above, in the note to n. 289, that the custom has prevailed that any priest celebrating Mass in any church can minister the Eucharist to those asking.

II. It is required that the Minister be in the state of grace, because the most august and most holy Body of Christ ought not to be handled by impure hands. Hence the Priest sins as often as, being guilty of mortal sin, he distributes Communion, although probably he does not commit as many sins as there are persons communicating in the same distribution of the Eucharist. - St. Ligorius, n. 30 and following. - Nevertheless very grave Theologians, for example Lugo, De Sacramentis, disp. 8, n. 155, and others cited by St. Ligorius, lib. 6, n. 35, excuse from grave sin.

III. It is required that the Minister distribute the Eucharist by the customary rite of the Church. Hence, generally speaking, the administration of this Sacrament must be omitted when it cannot be done in the manner prescribed by the Roman Ritual or by the custom of the place. - See St. Ligorius, n. 241 and following.

295. Resolves. - 1. The Minister of the Eucharist must treat this most august Sacrament with great reverence, in whose presence the venerating Powers tremble and the whole heavenly Court suppliantly adores. But it is not enough that the Priest touch the holy Eucharist worthily and devoutly and minister it to the faithful; for if he is the Parish Priest, or his assistant, it belongs to him to take care that it be preserved in an honorable place, or in a becoming tabernacle. A notable omission of the care due for this can easily become mortal. - Elbel, n. 76. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 81, and all others.

2. The Eucharist is not to be ministered except with a becoming habit, that is, with stole, surplice, and light.

3. According to the common opinion, he sins gravely who outside a case of necessity distributes Communion without any sacred vestment, because this is very indecent and against a grave precept of the Church. - St. Ligorius, n. 241. - Yet if only the stole is omitted, it seems to several and grave Theologians to be only venial, which seems sufficiently probable. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

4. It is reputed only venial to minister the Eucharist without light, or without the usual confession, Confiteor, etc., having been said beforehand. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 241. - Similarly, it is held only venial to transfer the Eucharist without sacred vestments from place to place, for example from one altar to another. - Reuter, n. 168. - Mazzotta.

296. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a Priest laboring under infirmity in thumb and index finger can minister the Eucharist with other fingers?

Resp. It seems it must be denied, at least more probably, a case of most grave necessity being excluded ². - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 244. - The reason is that although the whole hand is consecrated, nevertheless the index finger and thumb by the rite of the Church are specially destined for exercising this office.

² Here a most grave necessity seems to be required a little too severely. On this matter La Croix (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 480) writes thus: It is probable that a priest licitly distributes Communion with the latter fingers, if he cannot with the first because of gout of the hand or another impediment, as Toletus, Arriaga, Leander, and others with Gobat have it.... Because although only the first fingers are anointed, nevertheless the whole hand seems consecrated; hence Gobat infers that a priest who without cause touched the host with the last fingers would sin only venially.

QUESTION 2. What must be done if the Host falls to the ground?

Resp. The place into which the holy Host has fallen must immediately be covered with some clean thing and afterwards washed. If it falls onto the cloth or little linen cloth by which the hands of the communicant are covered, the place must be marked and afterwards washed in the same way. Thus the Rubric, which nevertheless according to the common opinion does not oblige under grave obligation; yet it would oblige gravely to wash the place into which the sacred species of wine had fallen, since it is imbibed; nevertheless there is no need to burn them ³. - St. Ligorius, n. 250. - Lacroix, n. 484.

³ Those last words: There is no need to burn them, although taken from St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 250), do not cease to be obscure. For to what does the word them refer? Therefore more clearly in La Croix (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 484), whom St. Alphonsus alleges here: Pasqualigus adds that there is no need to burn that into which the sacred blood has fallen, but that it is enough to wash it.

QUESTION 3. What must be done if the Host falls onto the face, beard, or garments of the communicant?

Resp. In the aforesaid cases purification is to be omitted, because it is better to avoid the astonishment, disturbance, or offense of the people than to observe the Rubric, which obliges only under light obligation. - St. Ligorius, n. 250, and others commonly.

QUESTION 4. What must be done if the Host falls into the bosom or within the garments of a woman?

Resp. The woman herself must extract the Host and hand it to the Priest, from whom afterwards she is to receive it into her mouth. - Thus Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, sect. 2, n. 176. But the fingers of the woman are to be washed, and the ablution is to be thrown into the sacrarium. If the woman cannot easily extract the Host there, let her withdraw apart, for example into some chapel, or into the sacristy, etc.

297. • QUESTION 5. At what hour can Communion be dispensed?

Resp. Regularly it must be ministered at the hours at which it is permitted to celebrate Mass either from custom or from a special Indult. But commonly with St. Ligorius it is taught that it can be ministered at any hour of the day, except, however, the last part of the day, that is, toward night. The reason is that no prohibition exists concerning this matter. St. Ligorius, lib. VI, n. 259. - Nor does the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites given in the month of December 1816 stand in the way, permitting the administration of Communion from the time to the time in which Masses are celebrated in any Church on a day of great concourse. For that Decree is not exclusive, since the Sacred Congregation gave a response according to the petition, in which the matter was precisely about a day of great concourse for gaining a plenary Indulgence or Jubilee.

Here it must be added that, from a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the year 1641, Communion is not to be given in the Mass of the Nativity of the Lord which is celebrated at midnight. In St. Ligorius, ibid. Nevertheless the faculty of permitting this is sometimes conceded by privilege; and very recently it was conceded to some Bishops of France by this law, that no danger of scandal be present.

298. • QUESTION 6. Whether Communion can be given outside Mass?

Resp. Generally speaking, it is to be given, as far as can be done, after the Communion of the Priest. Thus from the Roman Ritual ⁴. Yet from received usage Communion can easily be given before or after Mass, or even at any other time at which Mass can be celebrated, as was said above. Indeed, where there is a great influx of communicants, it is expedient to defer Communion until the Sacrifice has been completed, lest those who are present at Mass be detained in Church longer than is fitting and be affected with weariness. Communion outside Mass is very easily to be conceded to the sick, children, old persons, and all those who, because of weakness of stomach, cannot prolong the fast ⁵. Thus St. Ligorius, n. 249, with others commonly after Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, sect. 2, n. 162. - Indeed because of present custom there now exists no precept of giving Communion only within Mass. - Thus Billuart, diss. 7, art. 4. - Nay rather, it must be held as certain that because of the custom which has prevailed everywhere, and which cannot be abrogated by Parish Priests, there exists no precept by force of which Communion must be distributed only within Mass. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 7, 1844, in Januensis.

⁴ The Roman Ritual does not treat of Communion to be ministered generally, but of Communion to be distributed by a priest celebrating Mass. And to this alone pertain those words: But the Communion of the people within Mass ought to be done immediately after the Communion of the celebrating priest (unless sometimes for a reasonable cause it is to be done after Mass), since the prayers which are said in Mass after Communion pertain not only to the priest, but also to other communicants. For otherwise the same Ritual prescribes in the prior place the manner which is to be observed outside Mass in imparting Communion.

⁵ Add also those, and these are almost all, who, pressed by domestic cares or business, unless they are dispatched as quickly as possible, would often be forced to be deprived of the sacred table.

299. • QUESTION 7. Whether Communion can be given with black vestments immediately before or after a Mass of the dead ⁶?

⁶ In the preceding edition of the year 1866 we observed that the Rev. Fr. Aloysius Marchesi, Priest of the Congregation of the Mission and Consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, very recently wrote an excellent Commentary on the argument of this and of the following question; in which, after the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation which are circulated had been brought forward and weighed with equal judgment and diligence, he judged that one must conclude: It is not against the rite, in Masses of the dead with black vestments, to minister Sacred Communion to the faithful, even from preconsecrated particles, by extracting the pyx from the repository. Communion can also be ministered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the dead; but when grave necessity is given (I would think, when otherwise the faithful would be forced to lack sacred Communion) even immediately before the same Mass; yet in each case the blessing is to be omitted. But Masses of the dead are altogether to be celebrated in black vestments, so that violet cannot be used unless in the case in which, on November 2, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is exposed for the public adoration of the faithful for the solemn prayer of the Forty Hours; but that the Sacred Congregation of Rites again responded to these things: Deferred.

Finally, on July 23 in the year 1868, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX confirmed the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued on June 27 of the same year, by which an end is imposed on these questions. This Decree indeed we are pleased to transcribe here, and the more willingly because it also exhibits a certain history of the whole controversy. It is as follows.

After the more recent liturgical laws enacted by the Supreme Pontiffs Pius V, Clement VIII, Paul V, and Urban VIII, a grave controversy blazed up among Doctors and Rubricists: "Whether in Masses of the dead the tabernacle can be opened for refreshing the Faithful with Eucharistic bread." The Sacred Congregation of Rites, asked the first time, in one of Albenga, July 24, 1863, responded to the fourth: "It is not against the rite to minister Communion in a Requiem Mass, or after it with black vestments, the blessing being omitted, if it is administered after Mass." But the controversy not yet being composed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites from time to time gave responses in particular cases, without ever coming to a general Decree. Meanwhile, from the opinions of some Doctors, both the opinion spread that the holy Eucharist could be ministered to the faithful only with particles consecrated in the Mass for the dead, and in some places the custom prevailed of celebrating Masses of the dead in violet vestments, so that not only within Mass, but also before or after the same, satisfaction might be given to the piety of the faithful desiring to be refreshed by the sacred Eucharist. Wherefore, Bishops especially very often asking the Sacred Congregation of Rites to establish by a general Decree what must be done in this matter, the same Sacred Congregation on April 12 of the year 1823, in one of Palermo, declared that this grave question should be considered particularly and officially. This again obtained in the year 1837, in one of Modena, where to the third doubt: "Whether the custom which still endures of communicating in Masses of the dead with preconsecrated particles can be permitted, or etc.," the response was: Deferred, and let the rescript in the case of Palermo, April 12, 1823, be observed. Nevertheless, because of the circumstances of times and things, this special inquiry of this difficult business was delayed even to our age; since in the meeting gathered on September 16 of the year 1865, when there was a question concerning the use of violet color in Masses of the dead at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is preserved, the response was given for the third time: "Deferred, and let it be proposed again together with another doubt, whether a Priest can open the ciborium for communicating the faithful with black vestments." Finally, with new prayers of sacred Prelates intervening on March 3 of the year 1866, in the Ordinary Assembly of the Sacred Congregation of Rites a Doubt was proposed, together with the opinion which another of the Consultors opened from office: "Whether a priest can open the ciborium for communicating the faithful in black vestments?" But the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Fathers responded: Deferred, and let another Consultor write, and also the Assessor, all things bearing on the matter being resumed; with regard especially to opportunity. These opinions having been printed and communicated, both of the Most Reverend Assessor and of another specially deputed from the Masters of Apostolic Ceremonies, the Sacred Congregation of Rites was assembled in Ordinary Meeting on this day at the Vatican; where the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Nicholas Clarelli-Paracciani, in the place and stead of the absent Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Constantine Patrizi, Prefect, proposed the same Doubt, and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Fathers set over the protection of sacred Rites, the matter having been maturely and accurately weighed also as to opportunity, responded: Affirmatively, or that in Masses of the dead, with black vestments, Sacred Communion can be ministered to the faithful, even from preconsecrated particles, by extracting the pyx from the tabernacle. Likewise Communion can be ministered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the dead; but when reasonable cause being given, also immediately before the same Mass; yet in each case the blessing is to be omitted. But Masses of the dead are altogether to be celebrated in black vestments, so that violet cannot be used unless in the case in which, on November 2, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is exposed for the public adoration of the faithful for the solemn Prayer of the Forty Hours, as was guarded in the Decree of this Sacred Congregation on September 16 of the year 1801. And thus they decreed, and commanded that it be observed everywhere, if it should please Our Most Holy Lord, on June 27, 1868.

Then, a faithful report concerning the premises having been made by me, the Secretary, to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, His Holiness approved and confirmed the Decree of the Sacred Congregation on July 23 of the same year.

Resp. 1. It can be given after Mass if the Priest has not yet departed from the altar at which he celebrated; but then he does not give the blessing to those who communicated. - Thus from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, July 23, 1868.

Resp. 2. According to the same Decree, Communion can also be given before Mass if there is a reasonable cause, yet the blessing being omitted. But a reasonable cause is never lacking if there are some who then ask for Communion. For very often it happens that among those asking there are certain persons who otherwise would either depart without Communion, or, by staying longer, would necessarily undergo no light inconvenience either in domestic matters or in conducting business.

QUESTION 8. Whether Communion can be given with black vestments WITHIN a Mass OF REQUIEM?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, both if Communion is given with Hosts alone consecrated in the same Mass, and if it is given from preconsecrated ones which are preserved in the tabernacle. Thus the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites cited above.

300. • QUESTION 9. Whether Communion can be given with violet vestments, even before or after Mass?

Resp. This question could long be controverted, especially because of the Response which was reported of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the cause of Orihuela (mistakenly in St. Alphonsus, lib. 6, n. 249, dub. 2, it is read Pritana) in the year 1670. But the aforesaid Decree of the Sacred Congregation also removed this doubt, by which it is established that in Masses of the dead violet vestments cannot be used, except in some Church on November 2, if the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is exposed for public adoration of the faithful for the solemn Prayer of the Forty Hours.

301. • QUESTION 10. How is Communion to be ministered outside Mass?

Resp. 1. If Communion is to be ministered immediately before or after Mass, one must act as in the Mass itself; but the priest, having returned to the altar, can say: O sacrum convivium, etc.; then he says: Domine exaudi, etc. - Dominus vobiscum, etc., with the Prayer for the time; finally, his fingers having been washed, and the sacred ciborium having been placed back in the tabernacle, he blesses those who communicated with the formula: The blessing of Almighty God, Father, etc., as in the Roman Ritual.

Resp. 2. If it is to be distributed at another time: 1. according to the Roman Ritual, two candles are to be lit. Yet if time presses and two candles cannot easily be lit, one will suffice. 2. The Priest, his hands washed, vested in surplice and stole of the color fitting the Office of that day, ministers, as above, and, having returned to the altar, proceeds with the rest, as above; then he gives the blessing with the right hand, but not with the pyx, except over the sick. But the versicles Domine exaudi, etc., Dominus vobiscum, etc., with the proper Prayer, are of precept. Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 24, 1842. - But prayers of this sort seem to have to be said in a voice at least moderately raised, since response is to be made to them by the minister.

302. • QUESTION 11. What must be done if a minister is lacking for the Priest: can a man about to communicate, or a woman, supply?

Resp. 1. Certainly any person about to communicate, if he is a man, can serve the Priest; or even the Priest himself can supply, by saying the Confiteor and responding Amen.

Resp. 2. A woman cannot supply, unless she is a Nun, who according to received custom answers within the cloister; then therefore the Priest himself must perform all things. Nor may you say that in necessity a woman can answer Mass, provided she stands at a distance; for in Mass the Priest alone could not answer all things. - Thus commonly. - Bouvier, On the Eucharist, c. 4, art. 2. - Gousset, n. 212.

QUESTION 12. Whether several particles, or one larger particle for the sake of devotion, etc., can be given to one communicant?

Resp. No. For this was expressly prohibited by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, approved by Innocent XI on February 12, 1679. But the words of the Decree, in Benedict XIV, are these: Let Bishops, Parish Priests, or Confessors admonish that several Eucharistic forms or particles are not to be given to anyone, nor larger ones, but the customary ones.

303. • QUESTION 13. Whether particles can be broken if they are lacking; and what must be done if some remain over, and there is no tabernacle in which they may be placed?

Resp. to the first: The answer is affirmative from the common opinion and general practice, provided that a just cause is present, for example if another Mass is lacking or the faithful cannot wait. Indeed, when it had been requested from the Sacred Congregation of Rites whether the Rule of the Parisian Ritual expressed thus can be followed entirely: If, when Communion is to be given, a sufficient number of Hosts has not been found, some Hosts can be divided into several particles which are distributed to individuals, the Sacred Congregation responded: Let the custom be observed of dividing consecrated ones, if necessity is present. March 16, 1833, in Veronensis. Nevertheless the Priest must then divide the Hosts only into two or at most three parts, because otherwise Communion could scarcely be given with due reverence. - Lacroix, n. 508.

Resp. to the second: They are to be consumed by the celebrant before the ablutions, if this can easily be done. Otherwise they would have to be carried to the nearest tabernacle with the customary rite; nor is it to be committed that several Hosts be ministered to the faithful. - See below, n. 315.

QUESTION 14. Whether, when smaller Hosts are lacking, a Priest can take away a part of the larger Host to be consumed by himself, in order to communicate the faithful?

Resp. 1. The answer is affirmative in the case of Viaticum to be carried to one dying, by reason of urgent necessity. - Thus all. - 2. The answer is affirmative also if there would be one or another faithful person about to communicate who otherwise would have to wait for Communion not without inconvenience. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 217.