Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Second. On the Necessity of the Eucharist
136. Who ought to receive the Eucharist. 1. Reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation by necessity of means, neither in reality nor in vow. Certainly the Eucharist would be necessary by necessity of means if sanctifying grace could be acquired or preserved only through this sacrament; but the Eucharist is not the only means either for acquiring or for preserving sanctifying grace. Not the first, because it itself already supposes sanctifying grace; not the second, because, speaking absolutely, other means are at hand for preserving it: prayers, pious works, and other sacraments.
Therefore the constant doctrine of the Church, defined in the Council of Trent, is that little children attain eternal life even if they depart before they have received the Eucharist.1 The same must be affirmed concerning adults who are inculpably impeded from receiving the Eucharist.
Reception of the Eucharist is necessary for adults by necessity of divine precept. And indeed the words of Christ, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,2 do not signify necessity of means; therefore they contain at least a precept of receiving the most holy Eucharist.
It is also necessary by ecclesiastical precept, by which the faithful who have reached the years of discretion are obliged to receive the Eucharist every year at Easter.3
Reception of the Eucharist for adults is also a morally necessary means for preserving spiritual life. Although other means of preserving sanctifying grace are also at hand, nevertheless with great difficulty only will they overcome temptations and preserve themselves from sin for a long time who neglect to procure for themselves the more abundant aids of grace which, according to the will and institution of Christ, are given through holy communion (John 6, 54, 58).
2 John 6, 54.
3 Fourth Lateran Council, c. Omnis utriusque; Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 9; Cn. 859. Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 694 ss.
137. On the obligation of the divine precept. The divine precept of receiving holy communion obliges of itself and can oblige accidentally.
- Of itself it urges: a. at the time of death, as is established both from the perpetual practice of the Church, which established that the Eucharist is to be administered to the dying, so that the ancient law be observed, namely that the dying not be deprived of the final and necessary Viaticum;1 and from the unanimous doctrine of theologians, whose reason is this: the divine precept of receiving the Eucharist, existing certainly but without determination of time, then obliges when the Eucharist is most necessary. But there is no greater necessity of this sacrament than in death, where the faithful must wage the last struggle against the enemies of salvation, on the happy outcome of which blessed eternity depends.2
b. Sometimes in life, as is gathered from the fact that this sacrament has been instituted by way of spiritual food. Moreover, just as the life of the body cannot long be preserved without material food, so neither can the life of the soul long subsist without this food. Here, however, the difference between natural and spiritual food must be noted: for the former is the only means for preserving natural life; but spiritual life can also be preserved by other means (prayers, good works, other sacraments). Therefore of the former an absolute necessity is affirmed, but of the latter only a moral necessity and a necessity of precept.
How often this sacrament is to be received Christ himself did not determine, but left to the Church to determine, so that she herself, according to the diverse demand of times and devotion, might prescribe the frequency of reception. In the first centuries of the Church, charity and devotion then being fervent, the faithful frequently approached holy communion, so that there was no need of a positive precept of the Church. But because afterward, charity and devotion growing cold, the faithful began to neglect holy communion, the Church commanded that every year they receive it three times on the principal feasts: Nativity, Resurrection, and Pentecost. And when gradually the faithful did not even observe this, Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council commanded holy communion to be received at least once in the year. It can scarcely be affirmed that annual communion is the extreme limit beyond which the reception of this sacrament cannot be deferred without violation of the divine precept.3
- Accidentally there exists an obligation of receiving the Eucharist if someone suffers so grave and lasting a temptation that holy communion is necessary for overcoming it. This, however, will scarcely ever happen, since other means are at hand which suffice for this end, e.g., prayers, penances, flight of occasions, etc. And this indeed is true theoretically; but practically, especially in a man who labors under an evil habit, holy communion, and indeed more frequent communion, must be called morally necessary. For the other means by which he could free himself from vice are more difficult than that there be hope they will be used; therefore, if he does not flee to communion to be received frequently, he will never free himself from vice.
1 First General Council of Nicaea, can. 13.
2 Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 35.
3 Cf. Behringer-Hilgers, l.c., p. 148 s.
138. On the obligation of receiving Viaticum.1 In danger of death, from whatever cause it comes, whether internal or external, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion. The precept of Viaticum begins to oblige not only in the article of death, namely when death is near at hand and morally already certain, but also in danger of death, namely when it is probable that death will follow, because in circumstances of this kind it is frequently accustomed to happen, whether the danger to life then arises from an internal cause (illness) or from an external one.2
Therefore not only in grave illness, but also before a dangerous voyage or battle, when a contagious disease is raging, before a surgical operation joined with danger of life, before childbirth, especially if it is the first time or if the woman has been accustomed to give birth with danger, the obligation of receiving this sacrament urges. Communion is also to be given to those condemned to death, provided that they are rightly disposed, and the Church disapproved the contrary practice of some; for they are in the article of death, where the precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges. It is to be advised that the guilty person communicate on the very day of punishment, provided that it be at least one hour before capital punishment is inflicted.3
- Even if they had received holy communion on the same day, nevertheless it is very much to be advised that, when the danger of death comes on, they communicate again.4
Not only the question disputed among theologians, whether one falling into danger of death is bound to receive Viaticum if on the same day he received holy communion from devotion, but also the other question, whether one who a few days before received holy communion from devotion is bound to receive Viaticum, is solved by these things. The first indeed, because in the case of Viaticum it is licit to communicate twice on the same day, and because the sick are not obliged to receive it. But the other, because the precept of Viaticum does not urge at the end of life, or a little before death, where danger to life is not yet present, but in the very danger of death.
While the danger of death continues, Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, can and fittingly should be administered several times on distinct days.5
He who received Viaticum sacrilegiously has not satisfied the precept; therefore he is bound to receive it again if this can be done without danger of infamy. He who in danger of death did not communicate is not bound afterward to supply it; likewise he who after receiving Viaticum sinned mortally is not bound to communicate again.
A prudent confessor will have to judge whether a dying person who received Viaticum sacrilegiously and afterward confesses the sacrilege is to be admonished about the obligation of receiving it again. For if the admonition is foreseen as perhaps not going to be profitable, it will be more advisable to abstain from it. But if the dying person does not refuse to communicate again, Viaticum is to be carried the following day, using communion from devotion as a pretext so that his reputation may be consulted. But if from any cause whatever this could not be done, there is sufficient reason for carrying holy communion secretly, which even a regular confessor could do.
1 Cn. 864.
2 The article and danger of death are usually taken in the same sense. But those who distinguish between these two define with Suarez that the article is present "when death is near at hand and is morally certain and almost inevitable," but danger is present "when it is probable, doubtful, and frequently customary that in such a case death happen." Therefore danger of death is judged present in any dangerous illness, namely one which of itself can have a lethal outcome.
3 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 5 July 1841, decreed that to those condemned to death holy communion is not only to be given, but also to be given by way of Viaticum.
4 Cn. 864, 2.
5 Cn. 864, 3.