Question Second. On Paschal Communion

694. On the precept itself. The Church commands that all the faithful having sufficient discretion should approach holy communion at least once a year, and indeed in Paschal time, in their own parish.¹

This precept is divine as regards the matter, but ecclesiastical as regards the determination of the time. In reality this precept contains two: one divine-ecclesiastical, namely the divine precept of eating the flesh of Christ, indeterminate as to time but so determined by the Church that holy communion must be taken at least once a year; the other merely ecclesiastical, concerning communion to be taken in Paschal time, because Paschal time is most fitting for fulfilling this precept on account of the memory, then recollected, of the institution of this sacrament and of the Lord's Passion.

¹ Cf. Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus; Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 9.

695. Its declaration. 1. The year within which holy communion must be taken, from universal custom approved by the Church, is computed from Easter to Easter,¹ so that the year begins from the end of one Paschal time and ends with the end of the following Paschal time.

Paschal time from the universal law of the Church embraces only fifteen days, from Palm Sunday up to and including Low Sunday.² Nevertheless bishops can prolong it; for an individual person indeed or for some village by force of quasi-ordinary power, but for the whole diocese from custom or, where this is not in force, from a special faculty of the Holy See. Pastors and confessors, when a legitimate impediment exists, can for an individual person defer Paschal communion for a time from the Lateran Council.

Therefore Paschal time, which in most places is prolonged beyond the Paschal fortnight, must be considered as a local privilege, enjoyed both by those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in the place itself, and by vagi and travelers who can licitly receive Paschal communion outside their own parish.

2. This precept also as to the determination of time is grave; therefore he who culpably defers holy communion beyond Paschal time, even to one day, of himself commits grave sin.

3. The determination of time is placed not for ending the obligation, but for urging observance.

a. The reason for this opinion, which more recent authors, especially after St. Alphonsus (l. 6, n. 297), establish almost unanimously, is taken from the words of the Lateran and Tridentine Councils: for since it is said that the faithful are held at least at Easter or at least in Paschal time, a twofold obligation is manifestly established, one primary of communicating once a year, the other secondary of doing this in Paschal time. To this is added that the Lateran Council obliges those who because of lack of disposition cannot communicate in Paschal time to take holy communion afterwards; but it would not do this if the obligation ceased with Paschal time.

b. Therefore he who did not communicate in Paschal time is held afterwards in the course of the year (up to the following Paschal time) to communicate; but it is not necessary that this be done as soon as possible: for since, as de Lugo notes, Paschal communion has become impossible, there remains only the precept of communicating once a year, which can be satisfied at any time of the year.³

4. This precept is not satisfied by sacrilegious communion, but only by worthy communion; for just as the divine precept can be satisfied only by worthy communion, so by the will of the Church the ecclesiastical precept also is satisfied only by worthy communion, as is established from proposition (55) condemned by Innocent XI.⁴

¹ Eugenius IV, const. Fide digna, July 8, 1440.

² Eugenius IV in the cited constitution.

³ Cf. Lugo, De euchar., disp. 16, n. 69.

⁴ Proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI: The precept of annual communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of God.

696. On the place of Paschal communion. 1. Paschal communion, from the precept of the Church, must be received in one's own parish.¹ This circumstance of place indeed obliges under grave obligation, because its end is grave, namely that the pastor may know his own sheep, and that they in turn may testify their subjection toward him. Therefore he who at Easter communicates in the cathedral church or in the church of regulars does not satisfy the precept, but is held to communicate again in the parish church.

a. If the precept of communicating in the parish church is called grave, by these words it is not affirmed that he already sins gravely who once takes Paschal communion in another church, but he who does so often.

b. He who in Paschal time communicated sacrilegiously in his own parish is indeed held to communicate again, but he is not held to communicate in the parish, because he has already satisfied the precept insofar as it prescribes the circumstance of place. He who in Paschal time communicated outside the parish church is of himself held afterwards to communicate in the parish, unless there was a legitimate impediment excusing him (for example, absence, infirmity) from going to the parish church. But he who did not communicate in Paschal time is held afterwards to do this in the parish church, because the precept also of communicating in one's own parish still urges, unless either the consent of the pastor or a legitimate impediment excuses.

c. He satisfies the precept who in Paschal time receives holy communion by way of viaticum from the pastor or his delegate: for by one action diverse precepts can be fulfilled if the end of each precept is satisfied; moreover also the end of the other precept, which is submission toward one's own pastor, can be obtained in this way, because viaticum is received from the hand of one's own pastor.

d. A sick person who received viaticum before Paschal time must communicate in Paschal time, because a precept cannot be fulfilled before it urges. But the reception of Paschal communion for a sick person of this kind can be deferred beyond Paschal time if need be: for the Church consents to delay where someone has been legitimately impeded.

2. Permission of receiving Paschal communion outside the parish in another church can be granted by the supreme pontiff, the bishop (vicar general), and the pastor: for all these are signified by the name of proper pastor.

Presumed permission also suffices, provided it is established with moral certitude that the pastor consents. This consent, whether of the pastor or of the bishop, can be presumed more easily in great cities at the present time, the greater the danger that many of the faithful may altogether abstain from sacred communion if they are forced either to go to the parish church or to seek from the pastor permission of communicating elsewhere.

3. From the precept of taking Paschal communion in the parish church are exempt:

a. Priests, who satisfy everywhere by the celebration of Mass.

b. Regulars of either sex and seculars who are of their household.

c. Travelers, who, since they cannot go to their own parish, can receive communion in the place where they are staying in Paschal time, nor are they bound to go to the pastor of that place, because the pastor of the place is not their pastor. Likewise vagi, who do not have their own parish.

d. All the faithful in those places in which a contrary custom (of 40 years) has been legitimately introduced, as in these our regions.

¹ This precept is not clearly contained either in the Lateran Council or in the Council of Trent, but, first introduced by custom, afterwards was strengthened by various decrees of the supreme pontiffs, especially Clement VIII, Clement X, and Benedict XIV (const. Magno cum animi, June 2, 1751). Cf. De synodo, l. 9, c. 16, n. 5.

697. On the first communion of children. The question until now controverted among theologians, namely at what age children are to be admitted to first communion, the Apostolic See itself settled by a new decree, and by the same decree reduced to unity the practice very diverse in different parts of the Church.¹

a. This decree is of the highest moment, since it gives an authentic interpretation both of the divine law concerning the holy Eucharist to be taken, and of the Lateran and Tridentine canon treating of this same matter.

b. The age of first communion to be taken from obligation until now varied in diverse places between the eighth and fourteenth year of age, so that before the determined year, for example the tenth, indeed sometimes (especially in Germany and France) before the fourteenth, first communion was not granted. In determining this age pastors for the most part took reasons not from the internal disposition of the children, but from external circumstances.

1. Rejecting the distinction between imperfect and more perfect use of reason, the Holy See establishes that children are to be admitted to first confession and communion at the same time, as soon as they have arrived at the years of discretion, which happens around the seventh year of age.

a. In the first centuries of the Church (almost up to the thirteenth century) holy communion was given even to infants themselves immediately after baptism had been received, and in some places also here and there through the course of infancy, and indeed under the species of wine. In later time it was given to them when they had attained the use of reason, and the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that all are held to receive the sacrament of penance and the Eucharist when they have arrived at the use of reason or the years of discretion. In the course of time it happened that they required one discretion for confession and another and more perfect one for holy communion, and therefore delayed holy communion to a maturer age.

b. They are not to be admitted to the most holy sacraments before they are sufficiently instructed. Nevertheless it is not required that they have acquired a perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine and of the sacraments which they receive; but it suffices that they understand according to their capacity the mysteries necessary by necessity of means, distinguish the Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, and approach holy communion with that devotion which their age bears: for their innocence compensates for a more perfect disposition. Afterwards they will gradually learn a more perfect knowledge of the catechism.

2. Judgment concerning the suitability of children for receiving holy communion, and their admission to first communion in private form, belongs to the parents and the confessor. Nevertheless first communion in solemn form in some regions (for example, in Germany, Austria, France, Belgium), from the particular law of the province or diocese or from custom, belongs to pastors, with exceptions preserved as regards regulars who devote effort to the education of youth.²

3. But if children are brought into danger of death, the pastor is bound, after suitable instruction has first been given, to provide holy viaticum for them, even if they have not yet been admitted to holy communion, provided signs of discretion appear in them. Since this can already happen before the completion of the seventh year, the pastor must prudently examine whether perhaps they are already capable of this sacrament: for in the article of death the divine precept of taking the holy Eucharist urges.³

Note. The reasons which gave occasion to this decree are chiefly these: a. Christ the Lord pursues little children with singular love and desires from his heart that they come to him; little children in turn are carried by inborn love and desire toward Jesus, their father and friend. b. It contributes very greatly to preserving innocence that children be nourished by spiritual food before sensual temptations arise, and be strengthened more often by the same at the time when they are exposed to the dangers of the world.

¹ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Aug. 10, 1910.

² Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, Mar. 14, 1908, asserts to regulars the right of admitting pupils to first communion in solemn form.

³ Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 7, c. 12, n. 3.