Article I: On the Required Power of Order in the Minister

A twofold minister of the Eucharist is distinguished: the minister consecrating and the minister dispensing.

1533. Principles. I. The CONSECRATING minister of the Eucharist is only a priest rightly ordained. This is established from the words of Christ, who said only to the Apostles and to their successors in the priesthood: "Do this in commemoration of Me."²⁰ Hence the Fourth Lateran Council²¹ defined thus: "No one can make this Sacrament of the Eucharist, except a priest who has been rightly ordained."

It is asked: Whether SEVERAL priests can consecrate the SAME matter at the same time?

Resp. Affirmatively, if they pronounce the words of the form at the same instant. It is common. "Conversely, if one of them completes the form before the others independently of the intention of the others, he then makes the Sacrament, so that the others would afterwards complete the form in vain. Hence, new priests, who consecrate with the Bishop, first ought to take care, as far as can be done, to complete the form together with the Bishop. Moreover, they ought to have the intention of consecrating only then when at the same time with the Bishop they complete the form; indeed, beyond this, in the consecration of the chalice they should also intend not to consecrate, if perhaps they themselves have not consecrated the bread."²²

1534. II. The ordinary minister of DISPENSING the Eucharist is the priest alone.²³ This is established from Trent, sess. 13, cap. 8, where it is said: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive Communion from priests; but that priests communicate themselves." The theological reason also advises the same; for since consecration is ordered to distribution, it ought to belong to him to distribute, to whom it belongs to consecrate. And this the universal practice of the Church confirms.

It is asked: Whether a priest can communicate himself OUTSIDE MASS?

Resp. "It is probable that, even outside danger of death, from a grave cause, scandal being removed, it is licit for a priest to take the sacred Host from the sacrarium, or brought to him by a deacon, and give it to himself, for example if in a long illness he had not communicated for a long time. Indeed Croix, Suarez, and others say that for the cause of devotion alone a priest can always communicate himself; because, scandal being removed, there is no irreverence, nor is it forbidden anywhere, unless another priest is present."²⁴

1535. III. A Deacon, by force of his Ordination, is the EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist, so that the dispensation of this Sacrament can be committed to him FROM A JUST CAUSE. This is established: 1. from the practice of the first centuries, in which deacons universally ministered the Eucharist, especially the divine Blood; 2. from various Councils, for example Nicaea I general, Carthage IV, etc.²⁵

We have said from a just cause; which is not only extreme necessity, as Habert and Tournely wish, but also grave or notable necessity, as if the pastor were occupied on a day of a great feast, or the number of those communicating were great. In extreme necessity, when a priest is absent, a deacon not only can, but IS HELD to minister Viaticum, even without express commission. But in other cases, if without the commission of the Bishop or pastor legitimately conceded, he dispenses the Eucharist, he sins gravely and incurs irregularity.¹

Note. Grave theologians assert with Suarez, although St. Thomas dissents, that a simple CLERIC, indeed even a LAYMAN, can in a case of extreme necessity, or in time of plague, furnish Viaticum to himself or to others. The reason is that then the divine precept of communicating presses, nor is any injury done to the Sacrament if, in such necessity, the Eucharist is ministered by a layman, as formerly the usage had obtained in the primitive Church. Nor does scandal obstruct; for such scandal or wonder can be forestalled if those standing by are admonished that this is permitted in such necessity. But neither can contrary custom be objected; since this case happens very rarely, this contrary custom cannot be proved.²