point — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Point I. On the Fast Required for Communion
- Principles. - I. From the precept of the Church, for Communion there is required the natural fast, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatsoever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, yet with certain cases excepted. This is clear 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from the Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.
II. For breaking that fast, according to the common opinion, three conditions are required, namely: I. That what is taken be taken from outside 1; because what does not come from outside, even if it is swallowed voluntarily, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from without. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. - St. Ligorius, n. 279. - Elbel, n. 91, etc.
1 Add: and be conveyed into the stomach.
II. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that according to common sense the natural fast is broken only in this way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of respiration or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting, although through respiration you have swallowed dust or a fly. - St. Thomas. - St. Ligorius, n. 280.
III. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach and apt for nutrition. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common way of conceiving, it is neither eating nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. - Thus commonly the Theologians with St. Thomas, part 3, q. 80, art. 8. - St. Ligorius, n. 281.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the passing through of remains of food which adhere between the teeth breaks the fast?
Resp. 1. No, if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. This is also clear from the Rubric of the Missal, On Defects, n. 3. - Thus all.
Resp. 2. If it is voluntary, it is controverted.
The first probable opinion denies it, because such remains are not taken by way of food, although deliberately, but by way of saliva. Thus St. Thomas, In 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3. See also Rubric, tit. 9, n. 3.
The second opinion affirms it, because a passing through of this kind, since it is done deliberately, seems to be a new eating. - Thus Roncaglia, etc. St. Ligorius, n. 279, says that this opinion is more probable 2.
2 Also for this second opinion those words from St. Thomas are usually alleged (3, q. 80, art. 8, ad 4): Yet remains of food remaining in the mouth, if they are swallowed accidentally, do not impede the reception of this sacrament, because they are not conveyed by way of food, but by way of saliva; and the same reason holds concerning remains of water or wine with which the mouth is washed, provided they are not conveyed in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. To these things Seraphinus Caponi writes: I would wish that he (St. Doctor) be rightly understood, and that there be most watchfully weighed that which he himself for this reason expressed very cautiously, namely the word mixed with saliva, and the word that it cannot be avoided.
Yet it must be admitted that it can be drawn otherwise from another place (In 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3), in which he employs a different principle: The fast of nature, says the Holy Doctor, is said by privation of the act of eating.... But eating is said from the taking of exterior food, although it is terminated at the conveyance of food into the belly, and further at nutrition; and therefore things which are carried on within, without the taking of exterior food, do not seem to loose the fast of nature, nor to impede reception of the Eucharist, such as the swallowing of saliva; and similarly it seems concerning those things which remain within the teeth, and also concerning eructations. Now the principle here assumed is this, that in order to loose the fast there must be the taking of exterior food; which he denies to be present in the passing through of those remains. But this holds, as is clear, whether they are conveyed accidentally or not accidentally. This sense is clear also from the objection which the Holy Doctor solves there. For it is of this kind: If some remains of food remain in the mouth, someone is not impeded from the reception of the body of Christ; because this could happen to a priest even while he is in the very celebration of the sacrament.... Therefore neither should food put into the mouth impede reception of this sacrament, if taken in a small quantity. Now if the Holy Doctor had thought that the fast is loosed through those remains voluntarily conveyed into the stomach, he should have answered at least by distinguishing the antecedent, namely whether accidentally, etc.
Moreover, St. Alphonsus notes (lib. 6, n. 279) that the rubrics of the Missal (On Defects, n. 3) do not conflict with this opinion, where it is said thus: If remains of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not impede Communion, since they are not swallowed by way of food, but by way of saliva.
Yet the same St. Alphonsus rightly warns that even Doctors who judge that the fast is not loosed by those remains voluntarily conveyed nevertheless give the counsel that they be spat out, as, for example, Suarez (disp. 66, sect. 4, v. Thirdly); then he adds that in this one must not act scrupulously, as Suarez wisely warns. Hence, he adds, I gladly follow the opinion of Lugo (disp. 15, n. 36), that remains separated from the teeth, which are sensibly perceived on the tongue, should indeed be spat out; but there is not an obligation of applying diligence to extract those remains from the teeth, even if it is foreseen that they will be swallowed if they are not extracted.... For otherwise this obligation would be exposed to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which the Church certainly is not presumed to have wished to oblige. Indeed Lugo (l.c.) adds: Nor ought we diligently to search for them once extracted from the teeth in the corners within the mouth, that they may be spat out; because to have ourselves omissively in these matters is not to eat, but to permit them to be conveyed with saliva or respiration. But those solicitous admonitions disclose sufficiently that this obligation of spitting out, whatever it may be, falls back into what Laymann (lib. 5, tr. 4, c. 7, n. 18) better calls decency. For you will not easily compose these things: on the one hand, that the fast is violated through those remains conveyed, and on the other, that almost no care is imposed lest they be conveyed. And since care at least to spit out what is sensibly perceived on the tongue can induce those innumerable scruples and anxieties, whether that thing in reality, or whether the whole thing, has been rejected; now help seems to have to be sought from the other opinion of St. Thomas, which, since it denies that the fast is loosed by those remains, exempts from any troublesome solicitude.
QUESTION 2. Whether little drops of water or broth tasted, mixed with saliva, break the fast if they are swallowed?
Resp. 1. No, if they are conveyed accidentally, beyond the intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of little drops which are involuntarily conveyed when washing the mouth. The reason is that they are not taken by way of nutrition. This is also clear from the Rubric of the Missal, On Defects, n. 3.
Resp. 2. Affirmatively, if they are swallowed deliberately. The reason is that then nothing is lacking for them to have the character of food or drink 3. - St. Ligorius, n. 279.
3 Understand these things concerning him who deliberately wishes to swallow those little drops. For although it cannot be avoided, as St. Thomas says (3, q. 84, art. 8, ad 4), that the little drops drawn in be mixed with saliva, and the Church, to use the words of Cardinal de Lugo (On the Eucharist, disp. 15, n. 34), did not wish through this precept to prohibit us from swallowing saliva; for it would be a very harsh precept and smelling of Judaic superstition if one had to convey absolutely nothing with saliva...; for the most anxious diligence would be needed in spitting out a thousand times the water received once for washing the mouth, lest something remain with the saliva; nevertheless, for this reason the mixture with saliva does not change the nature of the act, namely of drinking, when the mind is studiously borne not to swallowing saliva but to conveying broth or water. Therefore the same matter (little drops mixed with saliva), and the same act of conveying, with the same advertence on both sides, will break or not break the fast, according as from the two mixed elements the conveyance of this one or of that one is studiously intended.
- QUESTION 3. Whether powder of tobacco taken through the nostrils looses the fast?
Resp. No, even if something is sent into the stomach. The reason is that although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 280.
QUESTION 4. Whether smoke of tobacco or the like looses the fast?
Resp. No, with the more common and more probable opinion, because smoke of tobacco is neither food nor drink, nor is it taken by eating or drinking; otherwise we would have to say that those also break the fast who in a kitchen draw in the smoke of foods both by mouth and by nostrils. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily sent into the stomach. - Thus St. Ligorius, ibid. - The same seems to have to be said of the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in by way of tobacco smoke (in French: cigarette de Raspail).
- QUESTION 5. Whether he looses the fast who takes a leaf of tobacco, or an aromatic, so that he may crush it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm?
Resp. No, probably, even if beyond the intention some small amount of juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed; because if this is swallowed accidentally, it is conveyed not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is unbecoming; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault unless some reasonable cause intervenes. - St. Ligorius, ibid.
QUESTION 6. Whether he can communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, or on the day itself swallowed something?
Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that in the case it is not established that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not established that Communion is forbidden; for the fact of a violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. - St. Ligorius, however, n. 282, with others admits this only for a negative doubt 4.
4 Yet the reason added by the same St. Alphonsus equally proves the matter also in the case of a positive doubt, namely when there are probabilities on both sides. You are not bound, he says, to abstain from it (the Eucharist), as long as you are not certain, and so much the more if you have no probable reason that you have eaten; for then you remain in possession of your liberty. This is confirmed from lib. 1, n. 38, 39, to which place St. Alphonsus himself refers the reader. For here he distinguishes nothing between positive and negative doubt; and the reason added, that in that case the law prohibiting Communion does not seem certain and, as doubtful, does not oblige, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, as is clear, holds for both doubts.
** To confirm these things, as it seems, the VV. (p. 932, n. 97) bring forward those things which St. Alphonsus has thus in Homo apostolicus (tr. 15, n. 35): Yet doubt whether he swallowed something after midnight does not impede Communion, as we said, tr. 1, n. 19; because, as we proved there, this precept is not positive, that one approach Communion fasting, but is negative, lest one communicate after the breaking of the fast; wherefore, whenever it is not certain concerning the breaking of the fast, the prohibition no longer possesses, but the liberty of the one wishing to communicate does. Then from the Moral Work (lib. 1, n. 39) the same VV. transcribe those things which St. Alphonsus had brought forward to the same matter from Eusebius Amort, with these words: He can communicate, because the condition of the possessor is better, as long as presumptions so strong are not given to the contrary that the one acting more probably believes that the twelfth hour has already sounded. And from this we shall think it happened that the VV. changed the state of the question. For the Holy Doctor (lib. 6, n. 282) raises the question thus only about a negative doubt: But whether in a negative doubt, whether midnight has passed or not, someone can communicate. But they make the question thus (l.c.) about a positive doubt: Whether he can communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, etc.; and they silently passed over the doubt as it had been proposed by the Holy Doctor.
- QUESTION 7. Whether it is permitted to eat and drink immediately after Communion?
Resp. Formerly indeed after Communion the fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Yet from decency some delay ought to be observed between the reception of this Sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species still persevere in the stomach not yet plainly corrupted, unless nevertheless some reasonable cause is present for taking something immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault. - St. Ligorius, n. 287, and others commonly.
QUESTION 8. Whether it is illicit to spit after Communion?
Resp. No, per se, provided no fragment of the Host remains in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the path by which spittle flows together into the mouth is not the esophagus, or path of food and drink, but is the path of respiration. Yet all agree that it is fitting that communicants abstain from spitting for some interval of time. - St. Ligorius, n. 283.
QUESTION 9. When is it lawful to communicate someone not fasting?
Resp. One not fasting lawfully communicates: 1. in danger of death, from whatever cause it may arise; 2. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly treated, for example by heretics or impious persons; 3. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4. in the necessity of completing the Sacrifice or Communion, for example if, instead of the species of wine, the Priest has taken water, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 284 and following.
- QUESTION 10. Whether moral certitude of the danger of death is required, so that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting?
Resp. No, but a prudent doubt suffices, or probability of danger 5, especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed, Parish Priests and parents or relatives of the sick who, from negligence or vain fear, so prolong the administration of sacred Viaticum that the sick risk departing without the Eucharist, must be gravely rebuked. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 46.
5 You will find this same doctrine handed down in other words among the Doctors, who either take the article and danger of death for one and the same, or, supposing the distinction between these two which had pleased some, teach that this exception from the common law holds not only in the article, but also in the danger of death. For a distinction of this kind is such that the article is when death is proximately imminent and is morally certain and almost inevitable; but the danger is when there is probable doubt, and death is frequently accustomed to occur in such a case. See Suarez, In 3 P., tom. IV, disp. 26, sect. 4, n. 2. - Lugo, On Penance, disp. 18, n. 20. - Sanchez, In Decal., lib. 2, cap. 13, n. 1. Now St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 561) judges that such danger or probable doubt is present even in a dangerous disease, namely one which of itself is adequate for bringing danger of death. Therefore as soon as it is sufficiently established that someone has been seized by a disease of this kind, so that the Eucharist may be supplied to him even not fasting, there is no need to defer up to the point when no or slight hope of life is left, but immediately such a sick person can and ought to be considered exempt from the common law of the Church. And skillfully, after other Doctors, St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 3, at the end) warns that one must not proceed scrupulously in this, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. But the decree of the Council of Constance has itself thus: A sacrament of this kind ought not... to be received by the faithful when not fasting, except in a case of infirmity or of another necessity conceded or admitted by law or by the Church.
QUESTION 11. Whether it is ever lawful to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not lying dangerously ill 6, if the disease is long-lasting?
6 Extend this to those who, although they are not lying ill with disease, nevertheless cannot preserve the natural fast for some hours.
Resp. It must be denied, with attention to the present practice of the Church, unless the disease is of such a kind that of itself it can induce danger of death. Yet some Theologians sometimes permit this, if the disease is long-lasting and the sick person is never able to communicate wholly fasting, provided it is done rarely, for example a few times in the year. - Thus Elbel, n. 90. - But the most common opinion of Theologians contradicts this with Suarez, who asserts that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In reality the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense rarely and only for a grave cause. But then there seems to be sufficient reason why the Eucharist sometimes can be administered to a sick person after midnight. And indeed according to very learned Theologians interrogated at Rome, there is no doubt in the case of annual or Easter Communion, which is prescribed not by merely ecclesiastical right, but also by divine right, because a divine command is more excellent than a human one.
- QUESTION 12. Whether it is lawful to minister Communion again to a sick person not fasting who has already been fortified with Viaticum?
Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that this Sacrament is not given to the sick precisely for satisfying the precept, but as a defense against temptations which press more at the time of death. Wherefore this is lawful not only if a new danger recurs, but also if the same danger endures. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 285. - Recall what was said above, n. 308.
QUESTION 13. By how much time ought one Communion to be distant from another if the sick person communicates not fasting?
Resp. The more common opinion teaches that they ought to be distant by about eight days. But not improbably several with St. Ligorius say that a sick person accustomed to communicate more often from devotion can receive Communion without fasting twice in the week 7. But attention must be paid to the circumstances of places, persons, and particular statutes. Communion can more easily be conceded to sick religious, or to other pious persons living in a monastery, whether they are fasting or not, than to others; because then there is less preparation and less astonishment of the people, since the sacred Eucharist is not to be carried publicly through the streets.
7 That a custom of communicating frequently from devotion can be held as a sufficient reason why the Eucharist can be supplied more often to one not fasting can indeed be admitted. But that this should be so restricted to these persons that it must be denied to others who were not accustomed to communicate more often, even if they desire and request it, what reason, I ask, proves this?
** To this place the VV. (p. 932, n. 98) note that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 1) spoke more liberally and brought forward the opinions of Doctors who think that even daily Communion can be conceded to the sick, although not fasting. Then in the note appended, the same VV. refer the reader to Homo apostolicus (tr. 15, n. 47), where the Holy Doctor, after bringing forward other opinions, adds: Not improbably Laymann, Escobar, Roncaglia, and Hurtado confidently say that Viaticum can be repeated even on the following day, when the sick person was accustomed to communicate often and when moral danger of death is imminent; indeed Castropalao, Armilla, Tamburini, and Dicastillo admit universally that it can be repeated on any day. And these things indeed come most opportunely to be mentioned, so that the difficulties of certain persons either too timid or too morose may be met.
They then add, VV. (l.c. in note), 1. that from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus it in no way follows, as Ballerini seems to hint, that Viaticum is to be denied to others similarly disposed who previously had not been accustomed to communicate so often. And 2. soon they add: Father Ballerini will easily concede that it does not commonly happen that someone can suddenly be admitted to daily Communion.
Resp. To the first: Father Ballerini in no way said or hinted that from the words or doctrines either of Gury or of St. Alphonsus (concerning whom there was not even a word there) that conclusion follows, but judged the warning not inopportune, lest perhaps someone too timid or morose (which can happen not at all improbably) draw the same conclusion.
To the second. Resp. 1. In the note the discussion is not about daily Communion, but about Communion however more frequent according to the Response of Father Gury. 2. Whether it commonly happens that someone can suddenly be admitted to more frequent or daily Communion is an irrelevant question, since in the note it is merely signified that from a preceding rarer use of the Eucharist it does not follow that it cannot be given more frequently to one who is sick. 3. That consideration also, whether he can be admitted SUDDENLY, etc., is irrelevant. For certainly, generally as to others, whether they should be admitted sooner or later to more frequent Communion will seem to have to be defined by the trial of some time. But as to men laboring under so grave an infirmity that Communion is given to them not fasting by way of Viaticum, is there room for asking whether they communicate more frequently suddenly or not suddenly?