Article IV: On the Necessity of Communion

S. Th. III, q. 73, a. 3; q. 80, a. 11 and 12.

291. Principle I. The sacrament of the Eucharist in reality is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means for justification and salvation. - It is of faith with respect to little children from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 4 and can. 4, against certain Greeks and Calvinists; it is certain with respect to adults.

For the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living; whence without it grace making one pleasing can be had, which suffices for obtaining salvation, since it is given through Baptism and recovered through Penance. Therefore the Eucharist is not necessary as these sacraments are, and therefore the Church has denied it to certain persons. Cf. Rom. VIII, 1; Gal. III, 27; Tit. III, 5; and St. Augustine, l. 1 de pecc. mer. et rem. XIX, 25.

Nevertheless the effect of the Eucharist is necessary, namely union with Christ and His mystical body, which is obtained inchoatively through the grace of Baptism.

Therefore the Eucharist is not necessary by necessity of means with respect to real reception, but with respect to the reality signified by it.

292. Principle II. The sacrament of the Eucharist is in a certain way necessary by necessity of means in vow or in purpose; not indeed as of a means necessary in reality, but as of an end contained in the volition of the means. - This is the opinion of St. Thomas and of the ancients, upon which the most recent authors again insist more.

It is proved: 1. The vow of the sacrament is not required as of a means necessary in reality: for in this mode only that is necessary which is necessary in reality, when in fact it cannot be received.

2. The vow of the Eucharist is required as of the font and end of all the sacraments. This follows from the doctrine of St. Thomas,¹ according to which the other sacraments do not confer grace except by looking to the Eucharist as the end of all the sacraments, and in virtue of the Eucharist which from itself has the power of infusing grace (n. 101). This being posited, it is licit to argue thus:

¹ Q. 65, a. 3; q. 79, a. 1, ad 1; q. 73, a. 3.

Every thing is inclined to its end, and every beginning is for the sake of consummation. The Eucharist is the end and consummation of all the sacraments. Whence he who receives Baptism, through grace which begins union with Christ, is inclined to the perfection and consummation of this union which is had in the Eucharist. And he who receives Baptism or wills to receive it, ought to will and at least implicitly wills the Eucharist as its end and consummation. This intention the Church supplies in children.

293. Principle III. The Eucharist, according to the ordinary Providence of God, is for adults a morally necessary means for persevering for a long time, and is also necessary by necessity of divine precept. - It is certain.

This is established from the very words of Christ, John VI, 54: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have abiding life in you.² Moreover He imposed that precept in express words, saying, Luke XXII, 19: Do this in commemoration of Me. This the Council of Trent acknowledges, sess. 13, c. 2 (Council of Nicaea I, c. 12-13).

² There is not perfect parity with the similar words which Christ spoke concerning Baptism, John III, 5: Unless one be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. For "these words: Unless you eat, are directed in the second person to adults capable of a precept, and thus for them they import necessity of precept; but these words: Unless one be reborn, are said generally and concerning all in the third person. The other disparity is that Baptism is instituted as rebirth necessary by necessity of means for salvation. But the Eucharist is instituted as spiritual food, which either is not necessary for preserving life for some time, as is clear in bodily food; or if it is necessary, since it is spiritual, it suffices that it be received spiritually (q. 73, a. 3, ad 2). For this is the difference between bodily and spiritual food, that bodily food is converted into the substance of him who is nourished, and therefore it cannot profit man for the conservation of life unless it is really received; but spiritual food converts man into itself...: but someone can be changed into Christ, and incorporated into Him, by vow of mind and acts of virtues, especially of charity, without real reception of this sacrament." Billuart, diss. 6, a. 1, § 1.

294. The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges all adults, the faithful immediately, unbelievers mediately, namely through Baptism which they are bound to receive; and indeed under grave obligation, because the Eucharist is a necessary means of perseverance (John VI, 54).

The precept obliges, not indeed daily, as is established from the decree of Innocent XI, February 12, 1679, but:

a) several times in life. For Christ instituted the Eucharist as spiritual food of the soul; but food must be received several times for restoring strength. But how often the Eucharist is to be received is left to be determined by the judgment of the Church; whence he who fulfills the ecclesiastical precept, by that very fact fulfills the divine;

b) especially in proximate danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, as is established from universal practice (Council of Nicaea I, c. 13). For the Eucharist was instituted as a means for persevering in grace and as Viaticum strengthening against the enemies of the soul. But never is the conservation of grace more necessary than at the end of life, in which temptations can also be graver. Whence not only those lying at the very end are bound, but those condemned to death, those about to sail and fight dangerously, those about to undergo a dangerous incision, and those women who regularly give birth with danger of death (can. 864, § 1).

Let it be noted: 1) those who on the same day have been refreshed by holy communion are not strictly held to communicate again when brought into the crisis of life, although it is very much to be advised: thus can. 864, § 2; and this also probably seems to have force concerning those who a few days before communicated from devotion;

2. he who after receiving Viaticum has sinned is not held to receive it again;

3. on the contrary, he who receives Viaticum sacrilegiously is still held, because by sacrilegious communion he has not satisfied the divine precept of communicating. Whence let him communicate on another day under pretext of devotion; but if danger of infamy and of imminent death is present, the sacrament can be carried secretly even by a religious confessor, but not on the same day;

4. per accidens, i.e., by reason of another precept, someone can be obliged to communion as often as a grave temptation must be overcome which otherwise cannot morally be overcome; in which case, rather rare, if it were omitted, there would not be a sin against the precept of communicating, but against the virtue against which the temptation would rise.

295. The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist. - The Church, for various times and in various ways, has determined the divine precept. From the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, it was established what is still announced in the Code of Law, can. 859, § 1: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, i.e., at the use of reason, ought once in the year, at least at Easter, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist; unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that for a time he must abstain from its reception." This precept obliges under grave obligation.

It is said: 1) Every faithful person of either sex, namely every baptized person, with no one excepted, whether layman or priest, whether just or sinner, even excommunicated, whether healthy or infirm, although some delay could sometimes be granted to this latter.

2. After he has arrived at the years of discretion, or at sufficient use of reason by which he can sufficiently discern good and evil, and tend to the last end and turn himself away from it and be capable of committing mortal sin, as we know from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 4 de ref. (n. 275), and from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari, August 8, 1910. This, in our times and in our regions, is accustomed to happen around the seventh year, as we find declared in the same decree.

3. Ought to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely devoutly and with due dispositions, as is clear both from the end of the precept and from the fact that the Lateran Council explicitly added the word: reverently.

4. Once in the year: that is principally prescribed, that the sacrament be received once in the year; which year, from the authentic declaration of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, is not to be computed from the first of January, nor from the last communion, but from Easter to Easter.

5. At least at Easter: that is secondarily prescribed, that communion at least be made in the time of Easter, although the Church desires that it be received more often. The Paschal time runs from Palm Sunday up to Low Sunday.³ But local Ordinaries can for a just cause, i.e., if the circumstances of persons and places so require, anticipate this time even for all their faithful, but not before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or postpone it, but not beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity (can. 859, § 2); which privilege, if it is local, pilgrims staying there can use. But the pastor cannot anticipate the time, not even in a particular case, because the time of the precept has not yet begun, but only postpone it, as is explicitly said.

³ The Church opportunely chose Paschal time: a) because at that time Christ instituted this sacrament; b) because communion is the memorial of the passion which happened around Easter; c) because the faithful are better disposed by the Lenten fast for communicating worthily.

6. Unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that for a time he must abstain from its reception. The proper priest is the pastor (and a fortiori the local Ordinary), who for a reasonable cause can defer to another time, for example if a woman after childbirth has not yet come to church, if someone must undertake a journey from which he will shortly return, if someone is sick and can shortly go to church, if he needs fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine or better preparation. Likewise the confessor, who in the internal forum holds the place of the proper priest, but in confession and on account of a cause of conscience only.

Let it be noted: a) He who before the seventh year has the use of reason or sufficient discretion is held to communion (can. 859, § 1), yet not to be made at once but within the year.

b) The precept of receiving communion is not satisfied through sacrilegious communion (can. 861), as was already certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI.

c) The precept of Paschal communion still urges, if someone, for whatever cause, has not fulfilled it in the prescribed time (can. 859, § 4). Although the secondary precept of communicating at Easter can no longer be fulfilled, the principal precept of communicating once in the year does not cease to be fulfilled. And indeed as soon as possible, as is safer lest it be handed over to oblivion, and as is suggested by the word: urges; although according to some it suffices that it be done before the following Easter.

d) He who foresees that he will be impeded during the whole Paschal time is not held to anticipate it. Indeed not even by anticipating does he satisfy, because the time of obligation has not begun; unless, however, he has obtained permission of anticipating from the local Ordinary.

e) He who, after Easter has begun, foresees an impediment for the last days, is held to communicate as soon as possible.

f) He who omitted communion at Easter, whether he omitted it from sin, or inculpably, is still held to communicate: and indeed if he has been dispensed to defer, he is held at the time which was assigned to him; otherwise during the year, at least before the future Paschal time.

g) By the Fourth Lateran Council it had been prescribed that Paschal communion be received from one's own priest, i.e., from the pastor or his delegate, and therefore in the parish church. But now can. 859, § 3 says: "It is to be advised to the faithful that each satisfy this precept in his own parish. And those who have satisfied it in another should take care to make their own pastor more certain of the fulfilled precept." Yet this is not to be extended to priests, who even before satisfied anywhere, by celebrating.

296. Observations. - 1. "While the danger of death endures, holy Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, can and fittingly should be administered several times, on distinct days," can. 864, § 3.

2. "Holy Viaticum should not be deferred too much for the infirm; and those who have care of souls should diligently watch that the infirm be refreshed by it while fully masters of themselves," can. 865. This obligation is grave from its genus.

3. "The obligation of the precept of receiving communion, which burdens the not yet pubescent, falls also and chiefly upon those who ought to have care of them, i.e., upon parents, tutors, confessor, instructors, and pastor," can. 860. The obligation is evidently grave.

4. The first communion of children in solemn form, which flourishes in some regions, is per se reserved to the pastor, and to those institutes which give work to educating youths boarded there (S.C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908).

297. Principle IV. The Eucharist is not necessary under both species for all the faithful. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1 and can. 1, against the Hussites, Luther, Calvin, and the schismatic Orientals; thus after the Council of Constance, sess. 13, which established that laymen should communicate under the species of bread alone.

This is established from the universal practice of the Church: although in the earlier centuries this was diverse, nevertheless the species of bread alone was rather often preserved, as for the infirm, in time of persecution, for monks in solitudes; indeed in public assemblies communion was sometimes distributed under only one species; likewise in the Mass of the Presanctified, which is celebrated on Good Friday, but among the Greeks several times in the week during the whole time of Lent. On the contrary, sometimes the species of wine alone was administered, as to infants after Baptism, or, when necessity urged, even to the infirm.

Nor do the words of Christ, John VI, 54, stand in the way: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. - For 1. the particle and, although of itself it is copulative, nevertheless is often taken disjunctively in the Scriptures, for example Exod. XXI, 15, where in Hebrew there is and for or; and Acts III, 6, where Peter said to the lame man whom he healed: "Gold and silver I have not," where, says Benedict XIV, he wished that word to signify that he had neither gold nor silver. 2. But in the words of Christ it must be taken for or; for, as the Council of Trent argues, sess. 21, c. 1: He who said: "Unless you eat..." also said: "If anyone eats of this bread he shall live forever." And He who said: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life," also said: "The bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world." And finally He who said: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him," nevertheless said: "He who eats this bread shall live forever." 3. That the particle and in the words which are objected must be taken disjunctively, besides the sentence brought forward: He who eats My flesh shall live forever, which would be false if it were taken copulatively, Paul manifestly teaches, I Cor. XI, 27: "Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

298. Principle V. If communion is considered on the part of the sacrament, it is fitting that body and blood be received; but if it is considered on the part of those receiving, who ought to receive with the greatest reverence and caution, the Church has judged it better that it not be received under both species.

The first is established from the fact that the perfection of the sacrament consists in both species (n. 207), and therefore because it pertains to the priest to perfect this sacrament, in no way ought he to receive the body without the blood.

The second is clear from the Council of Trent, which asserts, sess. 21, c. 3 and can. 2, that the Church has acted thus on account of grave and just causes. The causes can be numbered:

1. Lest the blood of Christ be poured upon the ground, especially in a great concourse of communicants.

2. Since the holy Eucharist ought to be at hand for the sick, it is to be feared lest, if the species of wine were preserved longer, it would grow sour.

3. That uniformity be preserved in this sacrament of unity: for there are many abstainers who abhor wine; there are others who are repelled at drinking from the same chalice after dirty, foul-smelling persons, etc.

4. In many regions there is the greatest scarcity of wine.

5. For overturning a twofold heresy: one which denied that the whole Christ is contained under either species; the other of the Hussites, which the Protestants adopted, which condemned as guilty of sacrilege those who received only one species.

The change in the manner of communicating was made by custom, which was approved by the Church. Among the Greeks and certain Orientals, communion under both species is still in use during Mass.

299. Corollary. - From the fact that the Eucharist is not necessary under both species, it must be concluded with the Council of Trent, c. 3, that "those who receive one species alone are deprived of no grace necessary for salvation."

But the Eucharist under one species not only deprives the faithful of no grace necessary for salvation; but per se it produces the same grace as under the twofold species, as was said in n. 207. Per accidens, however, it can produce greater grace, namely, either because the species last longer, or on account of the greater devotion of him who receives the holy blood.

The increase of habitual grace is infused at the very moment of receiving the bread; nevertheless the other species is not useless, namely on account of the greater signification of the passion.

300. Observation. - In certain cases it is licit for laymen to receive the species of wine:

1. If there is danger lest it be profaned.

2. If, after the priest has died after receiving the body, there is not another priest present who may consume the remaining species of wine.

3. If the priest refuses to lick up spilled blood.

4. From privilege.

Not, however, in the Latin Church, for receiving Viaticum (can. 852), as theologians commonly teach conformably to what was said in n. 284.