§ 1. On the Dispositions Required on the Part of the Soul

1547. A) In one receiving the Most Holy Eucharist, besides faith and immunity from censures, there is required first of all the STATE OF GRACE; both because the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, which presupposes first grace in the subject, and because it is spiritual food, which cannot profit one spiritually dead.

The TRIDENTINE SYNOD speaks aptly to the matter:¹ "If it is not fitting," it says, "for anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of fear in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept must be recalled into memory: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; and this holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by priests upon whom it has fallen by office to celebrate, provided they do not lack the opportunity of a confessor: but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

But indeed these prescriptions of Trent ask for a fuller explanation for themselves. Whence let there be the following:

1548. Principles. I. No one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, can approach the Holy Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. For the Apostle says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread." But it is clear, from ecclesiastical custom, that confession itself is that necessary proving.²

There are indeed some, but these are few, who say that this precept is only ecclesiastical; but "the common and true opinion teaches that this PRECEPT is DIVINE. The reason is that, on the one hand, it is clear that from the precept of Christ proving must be premised, since the Apostle testifies that he received it from the Lord; on the other hand, from Trent it is clearly evident that this required proving is confession...; for the Council did not say that this precept of confession had been introduced by ecclesiastical custom, but that by it such a precept had been declared; whence confession is commanded from divine precept. - Nor is it opposed to this that it is called a precept of the Apostle, because in reality it is a precept of Christ promulgated through the Apostle."³

It is said 1. of mortal sin, because venial sins, however many they are, just as they do not deprive one of divine grace, so neither do they prohibit someone from approaching the sacred Table.⁴

It is said 2. conscious to himself, that is, morally certain concerning a grave sin committed, which has not been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance. - But in doubt whether it has been committed, St. Alphonsus teaches that the following distinction must be made: "If someone doubts whether he has sinned gravely or not, then he can licitly approach Communion without previous confession, whether the doubt is negative or positive, it sufficing for him, that he may more safely receive the fruit of the Sacrament, to premise contrition...; because the precept of prohibition does not begin to possess, except after the man is conscious of his sin. On the contrary, if someone is certain concerning a sin committed, then he cannot communicate unless he is certain that he has been proved through confession; because then the precept of prohibition certainly possesses in him."⁵

1549. It is asked: Whether if someone after confession REMEMBERS some mortal sin inculpably forgotten, he is held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion, most common among authors, affirms, because this seems more conformable to the words of Trent. "But the second opinion denies.... and, the intrinsic foundation having been considered, it seems altogether consonant with reason, and it seems very probable to others. The reason is that he who premised confession to Communion has already fulfilled the precept of confession, by force of which the forgotten sin has already been indirectly remitted, and the penitent already exists as proved.... For in Trent only this is prescribed, that the penitent approach Communion justified not by contrition alone, but also through confession; but here he has already been justified also through confession, and therefore is not held at once before Communion to confess again. But the practice of the faithful which is opposed is not to be held as a certain rule of obligation, but rather as a pious and laudable usage, which, for the rest, is to be counseled to all as often as some cause in opposition does not suggest something else."⁶

But neither is such a faithful person, according to the common opinion, held to elicit an act of contrition. For since he has been justified, no foundation appears from which contrition is required; not from precept, because this is nowhere found prescribed; not for deleting the sin, because this has already been deleted through the confession previously made.⁷

1550. II. It is licit to receive the Eucharist, with contrition alone premised without confession, when there is present a NECESSITY of celebrating or communicating, and OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR is lacking. Thus Trent, and the reason is that a positive precept does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

It is said 1. WHEN NECESSITY IS PRESENT; but by necessity is not understood great devotion, nor the poverty of the priest, unless the poverty were very grave; but urgent necessity is understood. Hence:

1. Danger of death excuses, namely when a host is to be consecrated for one dying; likewise, danger of infamy or scandal, for example if someone were already found at the rail of those communicating, and could not depart without being noticed by others. The same must be said if, Viaticum having been brought to the sick person, confession, because of shortness of time, could not be completed without danger of death or infamy. In which case the priest, having heard some sin, ought to absolve the dying person and offer him Communion, with the obligation imposed on him of completing confession if he recovers. Yet here it must be carefully noticed that scandal is then said to occur when occasion is given for detracting or rashly judging, but not when only occasion for wonder is given.

2. The obligation from office of celebrating excuses, so that the people may hear Mass, provided there is not another who may celebrate. - But one who is not held from office to provide that the people be present at Mass cannot celebrate, even if he himself or the people, on a feast day, would have to lack Mass. For the precept of confessing, which is divine, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. But whether, opportunity of a confessor being lacking, someone can communicate with contrition alone, so that he may satisfy the Paschal precept, is controverted: very commonly they affirm, from the fact that the Paschal precept is also divine; yet others deny, and say that the precept of Paschal Communion can be deferred until opportunity of a confessor is had. Each opinion is probable.

3. The necessity of completing a Sacrifice already begun excuses, for example if a priest, while celebrating, remembers a mortal sin. Yet here a distinction must be made. If he remembers the sin after consecration, the Mass is not to be interrupted so that he may confess, as St. Thomas teaches, and as is expressly had in the Rubric. But if he remembers before consecration, and especially before the Canon, he ought to confess if a confessor is present, and if he can effect this without note of infamy, for example in a solemn Mass, during the chant or during the sacred sermon. But if he cannot confess, and no danger of infamy is to be feared, he is more probably held to desist from Mass. Thus many, and this seems to be clear from the Rubric saying: "If before consecration the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin..., if scandal is not feared, he ought to abandon the Mass begun." We have said more probably, because it is not certain whether the Rubric by the word ought imposes a grave precept. For the rest, the Doctors well notice that in such a case it can scarcely happen that the note of infamy be avoided.⁸

It is said 2. AND OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR IS LACKING; but it is judged to be lacking, not, as some wish, if that one is absent to whom he is accustomed and would desire to confess, or to whom he would confess more devoutly or usefully; but if no suitable one is present, and one absent cannot be approached without great difficulty. - Moreover, this difficulty is to be estimated by considering both the weakness, age, and occupations of the person, and other circumstances, such as weather, shortness of time, distance, etc. Regularly, a distance of two hours excuses; and a much smaller distance, if the priest would be about to celebrate shortly.⁹

1551. It is asked: Whether one who has a RESERVED sin, in defect of a confessor endowed with faculty, is held to confess to a simple confessor, that he may communicate?

Resp. 1. If he has no other sin than the reserved one, from the common opinion, he is not held; so that, necessity urging, he can communicate with contrition. - Nevertheless, if he has only attrition, he is held to confess the venial sins which he has, or a mortal sin already confessed on another occasion, so that thus, at least indirectly, he may be absolved from the reserved one. And he can do this same thing, although he has contrition, so that he may receive the Eucharist more safely (cf. n. 1283, 3).

Resp. 2. If he has reserved and non-reserved sins, we say with the most common and more probable opinion that he is held to confession. The reason is that, since the divine precept of premising confession to Communion urges, confession ought to be made at least formally entire, if it cannot be made materially entire. But, in this second case, from an opinion truly probable, by itself it suffices for the penitent that he declare the non-reserved sins. We say by itself; because by accident he is sometimes held also to declare the reserved sins, so that the confessor can rightly judge concerning the disposition, for example if he is relapsed in reserved sins, or in a proximate occasion of sinning (cf. n. 1778).

1552. III. A priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession, is held to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is an ecclesiastical law openly expressed in Trent.

It is said 1. A priest; for, from the most common and more probable opinion, this precept of confessing as soon as possible does not oblige laymen. The reason is both that the Council names priests alone, and that the same reason does not run for laymen as for priests. For in priests the necessity of communicating without confession occurs more easily, and therefore they themselves would more easily, under the pretext of this necessity, celebrate with confession omitted.¹⁰

It is said 2. is held; because Trent does not express counsel, but precept. This is evident from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But whether this precept obliges a priest who remembers the sin after consecration is controverted. Others deny, because the Rubric, speaking of him, says only: let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing. "This opinion does not seem improbable, but the contrary is more common and perhaps more probable, because then the case supposed by the Council is already verified, namely that he now celebrates in sin and without confession; so much the more because in that phrase of the Rubric, of confessing, the word as soon as possible is easily understood, already expressed by the Rubric a little before."¹¹

It is said 3. as soon as possible, that is, within three days, according to the common interpretation of authors. For in ecclesiastical laws that phrase as soon as possible, or another similar word, must be understood morally, and therefore, as they commonly teach, it is extended to the space of three days. "Yet the authors notice that it can happen that a priest, by accident, is held from this precept to confess on the same day, and perhaps in the same hour, for example if he then had a confessor, whom he will afterwards lack for several days, or if tomorrow the same necessity of celebrating would urge, and he could not confess."¹²

1553. It is asked: Whether a priest is held to confess as soon as possible if, confession having been omitted, he celebrated SACRILEGIOUSLY?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If without necessity, or with opportunity of a confessor given, he celebrated, the most common and truer opinion denies that he is held. The reason is that the precept of Trent is ordained toward instilling fear in those who, under the pretext of necessity, defer confession; but not in those celebrating sacrilegiously, for whom this precept would very rarely be profitable. For those who, with the divine precept contemned, dare knowingly to celebrate in sin, will more easily contemn an ecclesiastical precept.

2. But if, necessity urging and opportunity of a confessor lacking, he celebrated not contrite, he is indeed held to confess as soon as possible; because the precept of Trent does not distinguish between a priest having or not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity.¹³

1554. B) Besides the state of grace, which is altogether necessary, there is required in one receiving the Holy Eucharist IMMUNITY FROM VENIAL SINS, and ACTUAL DEVOTION, namely so that a richer harvest of graces may be gathered from the reception of the Sacrament. - For the purer the soul is, the more closely it is joined with the Lord, who is Purity itself; and the greater devotion with which it is borne toward Him, the more lovingly it is treated by the Lover of souls and heaped with richer graces.

Moreover, that actual devotion is best promoted through acts of living faith, sincere humility, ardent desire, and burning charity.

And this is why the people are often to be admonished "with what PREPARATION, and with how great religion and piety of soul, and also humble bearing of body, they ought to approach so divine a Sacrament. Moreover, those communicating are to be warned that, the Sacrament having been received, they should not immediately depart from the church, or converse, or at once look around with wandering eyes...; but, with the devotion that is fitting, they should remain for some time in prayer, GIVING THANKS TO GOD for so singular a benefit, and also for the most holy Passion of the Lord, in memory of which this mystery is celebrated and received."¹

1555. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to approach the Eucharist WITH VENIAL SIN is a new venial sin?

Resp. 1. To approach with habitual venial sin probably is not a new sin. "The reason is both that it would rather be a defect of perfect reverence than a positive irreverence; and because the very will of receiving the Eucharist and its effect is a certain virtual detestation of venial sins, by which faults are removed, so that they by no means impede the fruit of the Sacrament."²

Resp. 2. To approach with an actual concomitant venial sin, for example because of vainglory, or with a purpose of lying afterwards, is a sin; because such a communicating person inflicts a positive injury on the Sacrament. Thus commonly and more truly, against some.³

Q. 2. Whether an actual venial sin IMPEDES the fruit of the Sacrament?

Resp. From the far more common opinion, it does not impede the principal effect, namely an increase of habitual grace; although it impedes some fruits, for example fervor of charity, and from this it is why several priests are observed who celebrate daily in grace, and nevertheless profit nothing. The reason is that venial sin does not fight with habitual grace, nor with any increase whatever of it, and therefore does not impede it (cf. n. 1548).

Q. 3. When does the Eucharist produce its effects in one receiving it who is rightly disposed?

Resp. 1. Grace is given in the very act of eating, namely when passage is made from the mouth into the stomach. Whence "the species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they entirely perish; because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the Sacrament be conferred"; just as it is not conferred if someone dies while he retains the host in his mouth.⁴

Resp. 2. It is very probable that, if the disposition of the subject becomes better, grace is always increased as long as the sacramental species endure in the stomach. "The reason is that this Sacrament was instituted after the manner of food; whence, just as food nourishes the body during the whole time in which it remains in the stomach, so likewise, whenever the Eucharist remains in the body, it nourishes the soul by increasing grace."⁵

Q. 4. What if a PRIEST should dispose himself during the consumption?

Resp. "If someone had consumed part of the wine or host while indisposed, and then disposed himself, he would still receive grace in the consumption of the other part; because even then the Eucharist has the power of conferring grace ex opere operato. Some also probably say that this would happen if he disposed himself before the species are consumed in the stomach."⁶