Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article III. The Obligation of Receiving the Eucharist
205. Existence of the obligation. Principle 1. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary to no one by necessity of means.
This proposition is of defined faith against several Greeks and Calvinists. For the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that Eucharistic Communion is necessary for little children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, let him be anathema."155 But what is defined here for little children holds also for adults. For by necessity of means nothing is necessary for salvation except sanctifying grace and those things which God has prescribed as absolutely necessary. But sanctifying grace is not given by the Eucharist; rather, it is presupposed as already given, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Moreover, it cannot be proved that God absolutely prescribed the actual reception of the Eucharist, as, for example, He prescribed actual faith for adults. Hence, without any doubt, one would be saved, for example, an adult pagan, who, rightly disposed, received Baptism and, after receiving it, died suddenly before he could receive the Eucharist.
206. Principle 2. The reception of the Eucharist in desire (in voto), at least implicit, is necessary by necessity of means, so that without it salvation cannot be obtained.
Thus St. Thomas156 seems to teach: "Through Baptism a man is ordered to the Eucharist; and therefore, from the very fact that children are baptized, they are ordered to the Eucharist through the Church; and thus, just as they believe through the faith of the Church, so through the faith of the Church they desire the Eucharist." The Angelic Doctor elsewhere157 confirms this doctrine, saying: "This sacrament [of the Eucharist] of itself has the power of conferring grace; nor does anyone have grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire for it, either through himself, as adults, or through the desire of the Church, as little children." The reason for this doctrine is that the Eucharist is: a) the immolated Flesh of Christ, which is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification; b) the end of all the sacraments, since they tend toward union with Christ, which union is greatest in the Eucharist; c) a necessary means for persevering in the state of sanctifying grace. The desire to receive the Eucharist must be explicit in an adult who knows the Eucharist and the precept of Christ: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."158 But in infants an implicit desire suffices, just as implicit faith also suffices in them.
156 S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 3. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 192), John Nicolussi, Die Notwendigkeit der Eucharistie (Bozen, 1917), and the Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 41, think in the same manner. But Cajetan (Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 12; q. 1, a. 6) and many moderns, such as Bucceroni, Génicot, Pesch, Cappello, etc., teach the contrary.
157 Q. 79, a. 1 ad 1; cf. also q. 80, a. 11.
158 John 6:54.
207. Principle 3. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary for all who have the use of reason by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical.
a) The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist is manifestly gathered both from the words cited above, "Unless you eat...," and from the words of Christ uttered after the institution of the Eucharist: "Do this in commemoration of Me."159 St. Paul indeed applies these words not only to priests, but also to all the faithful.160 The Council of Trent161 acknowledges this divine precept: "But the Savior wished this sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who says, 'He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me,' may be nourished and strengthened." St. Thomas162 says: "It is manifest that a man is bound to receive this sacrament not only from the statute of the Church, but from the command of the Lord."
159 Luke 22:19.
160 1 Corinthians 11:26.
161 Session 13, c. 2 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 875).
162 S. theol., loc. cit.
208. Time of the obligation. If it is now asked when this divine precept binds, nothing else can be said except that it binds: 1. sometimes in life after the use of reason has been attained; 2. most probably also at the point of death.163
That the Eucharist must be received by divine law sometimes in life is altogether certain and is manifestly gathered from the texts of Sacred Scripture cited above. Christ did not determine how many times in life the Eucharist is to be received, but left this to be determined by the Church.
That Viaticum is to be received at the point of death by divine law can be known from the universal practice of the Church. Reason is added. For if the Eucharistic food ought ever to strengthen the soul, certainly it ought at the point of death. Nor does it stand in the way that in ancient times the Eucharist was sometimes denied even at the point of death to certain great sinners and to those condemned to death. For such a usage never existed in the universal Church, but only in certain places. But when bishops or provincial councils established something similar, especially through the excommunication called "anathema maranatha," they nevertheless customarily added, "unless he shall repent."164
The point of death at which Holy Communion is to be received as Viaticum ought not to be understood in a strict sense, namely, when death is now inevitably imminent, but more broadly for any grave danger of death. Thus Viaticum ought to be given, for example, before a dangerous surgical operation; during a raging plague, if the danger of contagion and death is very imminent; to soldiers before battle; before childbirth which is extraordinarily dangerous; to those condemned to death before execution, etc. It is expedient that Viaticum be given to those condemned persons at least one hour before death, so that at the execution the Eucharistic species may already be dissolved.
When someone has received Viaticum sacrilegiously, he has not satisfied the divine precept; therefore, he must receive the Holy Eucharist again, at least if this can be done without infamy. It belongs to a prudent confessor to judge what is to be done in a case of sacrilegious Viaticum. Before all else, the dying person must worthily receive sacramental absolution; then care is to be taken that he receive Communion again on the following day. Nevertheless, lest wonder arise, the dying person can request Communion for the sake of devotion. But if for a reasonable cause not even this can be done, there seems to be a sufficient reason for carrying Viaticum secretly, which even a religious confessor can do, lest he disclose the sick person's sacrilege. Thus Noldin165 and Aertnys.166 I think, however, that this last course is rarely expedient, because the matter would easily be discovered, the seal of confession would be endangered, and other inconveniences would arise.
163 Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 290 and 295.
164 Cf. Synod of Rheims, A.D. 900 (in Hardouin VI, 1, 467); Billuart, De euchar., diss. 6, a. 3, dico 6.
165 De sacr., n. 137.
166 Theol. mor. II, n. 91, q. 9.
209. You ask: Since, according to the most probable opinion, Viaticum must be received by divine precept, is one who received Communion out of devotion a short time before or even on the same day bound to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him? For example, is a priest who said Mass in the morning and, having been struck by apoplexy in the afternoon, is in danger of death, bound to receive Viaticum?
That Viaticum can be received in such a case is today beyond doubt and is manifestly gathered from the Code of Canon Law, cc. 857 and 864, § 2; for the reason which some authors oppose, that no one can receive Communion twice in one day, is futile. Do not so many priests who celebrate two Masses on every Sunday and feast day receive Communion twice in one day? But that Viaticum must be received in such a case cannot be proved either from divine or from ecclesiastical law. Certainly, every adult is bound under grave sin to receive Viaticum at the point of death; but one who received Holy Communion a short time before seems to have had the interpretative intention of receiving Viaticum, since everyone is presumed to wish to fulfill a grave precept which he could fulfill through his act. And this is safe in practice, at least if the person received Holy Communion during an illness which, having suddenly grown worse, brings on the point of death. Nevertheless, repeated reception of the Holy Eucharist is strongly to be counseled, as it is most efficacious for overcoming the dangers of the final agony.167
Therefore, in practice it seems that the matter should be stated briefly thus: One who worthily received Communion within the preceding week is not strictly bound, when danger of death is imminent, to receive the Holy Eucharist again as Viaticum; but one who received Communion even on the same day is strongly advised to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him.168
167 Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2.
168 Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 258, doubts 2 and 3.
210. b) The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist.
The reception of the Eucharist is also prescribed and determined by ecclesiastical law. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) established that "every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone at least once a year ... reverently receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter."169 The Council of Trent defined the same: "If anyone denies that each and every one of Christ's faithful of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to receive Communion every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of holy Mother Church, let him be anathema."170 The Code of Canon Law, c. 859, prescribes the same.
169 Denz., n. 437.
211. First Communion is to be received after a person has arrived at the years of discretion, but not before.171 When the sufficient use of reason required for this sacrament begins cannot be mathematically defined, since it depends upon the maturity of intellect and the instruction received by each person. As a general rule, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor can be held: "When children now begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred upon them."172 These words are indeed cited and approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910,173 which further declared that the age of discretion required for Confession and Communion is the same. "But the knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may suitably prepare himself for First Communion, is that by which he perceives, according to his capacity, the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion of which his age is capable."174
Bishops of each region are generally accustomed to determine at what age children may be admitted to First Communion; nevertheless, to judge whether a particular child is sufficiently disposed to receive Holy Communion belongs to the parents (and those who take their place) and to the confessor.175 "But it is the duty of the pastor to watch (even by an examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune) that children do not approach the sacred banquet before attaining the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; and likewise to take care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible." Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 5. In northern regions, the suitable age for receiving solemn First Communion has been fixed by some bishops as the ninth year; but in southern regions a younger age can suffice.
It is to be noted that the right of admitting children to First Communion is by no means a parochial right.176 Therefore, any confessor can privately admit a child to First Communion. Nevertheless, it is strongly to be counseled that children ordinarily be admitted to First Communion either by the pastor or by him to whom their religious instruction has been entrusted. But if a child before the time established for First Communion falls into danger of death, there is a grave obligation to give Communion by way of Viaticum to that child who has sufficient use of reason, after a brief instruction has first been given.177
171 Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 1.
172 S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 9 ad 3. The Angelic Doctor says: it can be conferred; but he does not say: it must be conferred. Hence some speak incorrectly when they say: Immediately after attaining the use of reason, everyone must by divine law receive the Most Holy Eucharist.
173 Acta Ap. Sedis II, 581 (Denz., nn. 2137–2144).
174 Ibid., n. 3 (Denz., n. 2139), and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 3.
175 Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 49, and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.
176 Cf. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908 (Analecta ecclesiastica XVI [1908], 142); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.
177 Cf. decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments cited above (Denz., n. 2144); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 2.
212. Easter Communion is prescribed partly by divine law and partly by ecclesiastical law: by divine law, insofar as it includes the Lord's precept of receiving the Eucharist sometimes; but by ecclesiastical law, insofar as the time of this reception is determined.
Concerning the ecclesiastical precept of Easter Communion, it is useful to note the following briefly:
1. The Easter season extends from Palm Sunday through Low Sunday; nevertheless, it can be extended generally by local Ordinaries for their territory from the Fourth Sunday of Lent through the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.178 Pastors and confessors can, when a legitimate impediment exists, prolong the Easter season for an individual person.179 Since the prolongation of the Easter season in force in most regions is a local privilege, all those having a quasi-domicile, or vagrants, or travelers, who licitly receive Communion outside their own parish, participate in this privilege, even if it is not in force in the place of their domicile.
One who without a grave cause delays Communion even by one day beyond the Easter season sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which teaches that this precept does not admit parvity of matter.180 One who did not receive Communion during the Easter season is afterward bound to approach the sacred table as soon as possible and cannot wait until the following Easter season. Thus the more probable opinion. For the Easter precept was imposed not to terminate but to urge the obligation of receiving Communion. Hence the Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 4, establishes: "The precept of Easter Communion still urges if anyone for any cause has not fulfilled it within the prescribed time."
Easter Communion is not satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. This is certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI,181 and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 861.
2. The place of Easter Communion is one's own parish.
Thus it is from various decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs.182 The end of this law is twofold, namely: a) that the pastor may be able to know his own sheep; and b) that the faithful may profess their subjection toward him. This circumstance of place indeed no longer binds strictly; nevertheless, the faithful are to be advised that each fulfill the Easter precept in his own parish; and those who have fulfilled it in another parish should take care to inform their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled.183 Easter Communion can licitly be received in any oratory or church situated within the boundaries of the parish.
One who during the Easter season has received Viaticum from the pastor or his delegate is considered to have satisfied the precept of annual Communion.
178 Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 2.
179 Thus from the Fourth Lateran Council (Denz., n. 437) and from c. 859, § 1.
180 Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 1452; Noldin, De praecept., n. 695; Marc, Inst. mor. II, n. 1570.
181 Denz., n. 1205.
182 For example, Benedict XIV, constitution Magno cum animi, § 21, June 2, 1751.
183 Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 3.
213. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the obligation or counsel of receiving Easter Communion in the parish church:
a) A priest, who satisfies it everywhere through the celebration of Mass.184
b) Religious of either sex and the members of their household who share their table, who can receive Communion in their own chapels. The same holds for men or women living in common without vows.
c) Soldiers, prisoners, students residing in colleges, and others who by particular law or legitimate custom can satisfy the precept in their own chapels.
d) Travelers absent from their own parish during the Easter season, and likewise vagrants, can receive Easter Communion in any church or oratory.185
184 St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 300.
185 Ibid.
214. Scholion. On Communion under both species. In the Latin rite Communion is to be given entirely under the species of bread alone.186 Communion under both species is necessary only for him who celebrates Mass. The contrary is taught by the Hussites (especially those who were called Utraquists or Calixtines), Luther, Calvin, and the Eastern schismatics. For in the ancient Church Communion was often given under one species only; especially the faithful who carried the Eucharist into their own homes did this under the species of consecrated bread. The Eucharist was given to infants under the species of wine alone.187 From the most ancient times, on Friday in Parasceve, in the Mass of the Presanctified, the priest received Communion under one species. Therefore, the Council of Trent rightly defined: "If anyone says that, by the precept of God or by necessity of salvation, each and every one of Christ's faithful ought to receive both species of the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema."188
The reasons why the Church introduced the discipline of Communion for the laity under one species, namely bread, are, for example: the danger of spilling if the chalice is distributed to a great multitude; the danger of contagion if someone drinks from a chalice from which another infected with a contagious disease has drunk; a natural aversion to drinking with others from the same chalice; the difficulty of obtaining pure wine in certain regions; and so forth. These reasons are altogether sufficient for the laity to receive the Eucharist under the species of bread alone, in which they receive the whole Christ in an equally perfect manner as if they received Communion under both species.
But Communion under both species is permitted to the united Easterners. Leo XIII189 permitted that even laymen of the Latin rite could receive Communion according to the rite of the Easterners in those places where, because of the remoteness of the distance, they cannot without grave inconvenience go to a church of their own rite.190 Pius X further extended this permission, establishing that even for the sake of devotion all the faithful of any rite may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite.191
186 Code of Canon Law, c. 852.
187 Cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, c. 25 (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 500).
188 Session 21, can. 1 on Communion (Denz., n. 934).
189 Constitution Orientalium dignitas, November 30, 1894.
190 Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. I, 432 ff., concerning Communion under both species.
191 Constitution Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Ap. Sedis IV, 616). Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 27, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sedis VIII, 106); Code of Canon Law, c. 851, § 2.