§ II. On the Dispositions of the Body or on Fasting

I say. By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatsoever, however very small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases, however, excepted.

§1. He who from midnight has not observed the natural fast cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament (Can. 858).

And concerning a priest let canon 808 be heard: - It is not lawful for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed.

This is established both from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; both from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; and also from Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13. But in order that that fast be broken, according to the common opinion, three conditions are required, namely 1st. that what is taken have the nature of food or drink; 2nd. that it be taken from outside and conveyed into the stomach; 3rd. that it be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that if one of these conditions is lacking, eating is not properly had, according to the common sense and estimation of men. Hence iron, glass, wood, etc., or blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., or a fly, snow, water, etc., taken by way of respiration or of saliva, do not break the fast. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 8; and St. Alphonsus, n. 281.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1108, n. 51.

You Will Resolve. 1st. The conveyance of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth, whether involuntary or voluntary, does not break the fast, because it is not done from outside. This is also established from the Rubric of the Missal, tit. 9, n. 3. - Cf. St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 279. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 225.

2nd. Little drops of water which, while the teeth are washed, are mixed with saliva and swallowed beside the intention, do not break the fast, because they are not taken by way of nutrition. - I said beside the intention; for if they are conveyed by deliberate purpose, nothing is lacking for them to have the nature of food or drink. - Cf. Rubr. Miss., de defectibus, n. 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 279.

3rd. Neither powder of tobacco taken through the nostrils nor its smoke, or that of another similar thing, breathed in, dissolve the fast, because they do not have the nature of food, or at least are not taken by way of food or drink. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 280.

4th. Indeed, at least probably, he sufficiently preserves the fast who takes a tobacco leaf or aromatic substance in order to grind it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm, even if, beside his intention, he swallows some juice inseparably mixed with saliva. The reason is that chewing of this kind of itself tends to eject humors, and if by chance something is swallowed, this is done by way of saliva. - Yet all agree that this chewing before communion is indecent, whence it does not seem excused from venial fault unless some just cause intervenes. - All likewise must agree that the fast is certainly broken if this chewing is done in such a way that the juice of the leaves is extracted and swallowed deliberately. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 280.

5th. "With salt tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after receiving Baptism, they can, indeed truly must, be admitted to holy communion." S. C. de Prop. Fide, 16 Feb. 1806. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 25, p. 437.

6th. He remains fasting who is nourished by an enema, as sometimes happens today to the sick, and probably also he who, for washing the stomach, by the aid of some tube, draws in water and again rejects it. Nevertheless, it is agreed among all that it is illicit to insert into the esophagus a tube smeared with oil or glycerin.

7th. Neither gargling nor spraying breaks the fast. One using them should carefully spit out lest he swallow anything. Besides, it is taken by way of saliva. Tasting foods, customarily done by cooks, likewise does not violate the fast. Cf. Many, De Missa, p. 335.

8th. A priest who is about to celebrate immediately after midnight does not violate the law if a little before that hour he takes some food or drink. It is to be advised that for several hours, on account of reverence, he abstain from food and drink. Leo XIII, granting the faculty to the Church of Lourdes that Mass be said immediately after midnight, placed the condition that the celebrant abstain from food and drink for four hours before Mass. 26 Feb. 1885. The same can, not without praise, be advised also to the people about to communicate in the Mass to be celebrated at midnight. - Cf. Bulot, n. 357.

9th. Among diverse disagreeing clocks, it is lawful to follow the latest, which, however, does not habitually err.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1149, n. 123.

Question 1. Must someone stand by the recent manner of computing time among us, so that he may be said to preserve the natural fast?

Resp. §1. In calculating the hours of the day, one must stand by the common usage of the place; but in the private celebration of Mass, in the private recitation of the canonical hours, in receiving holy communion, and in observing the law of fast or abstinence, although another reckoning may be the usual reckoning of the place, someone can follow the time of the place, or local time, whether true or mean, or legal time, whether regional or another extraordinary time (Can. 33).

Question 2. Can one communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on that very day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably; and the reason is that in the case it is not established that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not established that communion is forbidden; for the fact of the violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 282; and de conscientia dubia, n. 39. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 226.

Question 3. Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after communion a fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has already long since been abrogated. - Nevertheless, from decency, some delay must be observed between the reception of this sacrament and other foods, at least so long as the consecrated species, not yet plainly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless, however, some reasonable cause is present for taking some food immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

Question 4. Is it illicit to spit after communion?

Resp. Negatively, of itself, provided no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the way through which spit flows into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of respiration. Nevertheless, all agree that it is fitting that communicants abstain from spitting for some interval of time. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

Question 5. When is it lawful for someone not fasting to communicate?

Resp. One not fasting communicates licitly 1st. in danger of death, from whatever cause it may come; 2nd. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be treated badly, for example, by heretics or impious persons; 3rd. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the sacrifice or communion; 4th. in the necessity of completing the sacrifice or communion, for example, if instead of the species of wine the priest has taken water, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 284 and following.

Question 6. Is moral certitude of the danger of death required in order that Viaticum can be administered to one not fasting?

Resp. Negatively; rather, a prudent doubt or probability of danger suffices, especially when it must be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed, Pastors and parents or relatives of the sick who, from negligence or vain fear, so prolong the administration of sacred Viaticum that the sick are in danger of departing without the Eucharist, must be gravely rebuked. Indeed St. Alphonsus says that in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, simply the sick are excepted from the law of fasting. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 46; and lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 3. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 227.

Question 7. Is it lawful to give communion to a sick person laboring under a long-lasting illness, and who can neither observe the fast nor lies dangerously ill?

Resp. Affirmatively. §2. The sick, however, who have already been lying ill for a month without certain hope that they will quickly recover, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink (Can. 858).

Now from the interpretation of the S. R. and U. Inq. on 7 Sept. 1897, when it is said by way of drink, it is also signified that it is permitted to take broth, coffee, and other liquid foods with which some substance is mixed, as for example flour, grated bread, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food. In interpreting this canon we must be cautious so that we avoid the double rock of excessive severity or excessive benignity. There are those who say that eggs are not to be numbered among those things which are permitted; but if it is sucked, or if an egg is lightly cooked and runs, it is not established why it could not be permitted. In the canon there is no question of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass, but of receiving communion. Indeed, a nun who on other days would remain fasting, but only with grave inconvenience, which certainly is not very dangerous, would not have to be barred from the privilege; but she can communicate on those two days by force of the privilege, and on the others because she has taken no food.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1114, n. 62.

Question 8. Is it lawful for a priest not fasting, say one who has already celebrated before, to say Mass for communicating a sick person who otherwise would be deprived of Viaticum?

Resp. It is controverted; but the affirmative is altogether probable and safe, because the divine precept of Viaticum prevails over the ecclesiastical precept concerning fasting; indeed, some distinguished supporters of the negative opinion admit the probability of this opinion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 286. - Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 170.

Let the faithful be stirred up so that frequently, even daily, they may be refreshed by the Eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See; and so that those assisting at Mass, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, being duly disposed, may communicate (Can. 863).

S. C. de Sacramentis, 8 Aug. 1910, nn. V, VI. But what those norms and dispositions are is nowhere more clearly declared than in the decree of the S. C. of the Council, 20 Dec. 1905, which it is useful to place here; the notes of the Code appeal to it often.

"1st. Frequent and daily Communion, as being most greatly desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, is open to all the Christian faithful of whatever order or condition; so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the Sacred Table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it.

2nd. But a right mind consists in this: that he who approaches the Sacred Table does not indulge custom, or vanity, or human reasons, but wishes to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined more closely to Him by charity, and to meet his infirmities and defects by that divine medicine.

3rd. Although it is most greatly expedient that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; with which sincere purpose of soul, it cannot happen that those communicating daily do not by degrees disentangle themselves from sins even venial, and from affection for them.

4th. But since the Sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect in proportion as greater dispositions are employed in receiving them, therefore care must be taken that diligent preparation precede holy Communion, and suitable thanksgiving follow afterward, according to the strength, condition, and duties of each one.

5th. In order that frequent and daily Communion may be made with greater prudence and increased with richer merit, it is fitting that the counsel of the Confessor intervene. Let Confessors take care, however, that they not turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind.

6th. But since it is clear that from frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is increased, the spiritual life is nourished more richly, the soul is more abundantly furnished with virtues, and a pledge of eternal felicity is given more firmly to the one receiving, therefore Pastors, confessors, and preachers, according to the approved doctrine of the Roman Catechism (Part II, chap. 4, n. 60), should exhort the Christian people to this so pious and so salutary use by frequent admonitions and with much zeal.

7th. Frequent and daily Communion is to be promoted especially in religious Institutes of every kind; for which, however, the decree Quemadmodum of the day 17 of the month of December 1890, issued by the S. Congr. of Bishops and Regulars, is to remain firm. It is also to be promoted as much as possible in clerical Seminaries, whose students long for the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian youth institutions of every kind.

8th. If there are any Institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found fixed and commanded on certain days, these norms are to be considered merely directive, not preceptive. But the prescribed number of Communions must be held as a certain minimum for the piety of Religious. Therefore more frequent or daily access to the Eucharistic table must always be freely open to them, according to the norms handed down above in this decree. But so that all Religious of either sex may be able duly to know the dispositions of this decree, the superiors of individual houses will take care that it be read in common every year in the vernacular language within the Octave of the feast of the Body of Christ.

9th. Finally, after this Decree has been promulgated, let all ecclesiastical writers abstain from any contentious disputation concerning the dispositions for frequent and daily communion.

But when all these things had been reported to the Most Holy Our Lord Pope Pius X by the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation in the audience of the day 17 of the month of December 1905, His Holiness held this decree of the Eminent Fathers ratified, confirmed it, and ordered it to be published, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary. He commanded besides that it be sent to all local Ordinaries and Regular Prelates, so that they may respectively communicate it with their Seminaries, Pastors, religious Institutes, and priests, and may inform the Holy See concerning the execution of those things which are established in it, in their reports on the state of the diocese or institute. Given at Rome, on the day 20 December 1905."

The Sacred Congregation of the Council on 15 Sept. 1906 established: "That the frequency of Holy Communion is to be commended according to the first article of the decree (Sacra Tridentina Synodus) also to children who, once admitted to the sacred table according to the norms in the Roman Catechism, chap. 4, n. 63, must not be prohibited from its frequent participation, but rather they are to be exhorted to it, with the contrary practice in force somewhere being reproved." "It must be cared for with all zeal by those having care of children that after first communion those same children approach the sacred table often, and, if it can be done, even daily, according as Christ Jesus and Mother Church desire." S. Cong. de Disc. Sacr. 8 Aug. 1910. The same Supreme Pontiff granted to those who are accustomed in the state of grace and with a right and pious mind daily to receive the Holy Things from the altar, although once or again in the week they abstain from Communion, that they may obtain all and each of the Indulgences without the obligation of that weekly confession which otherwise would exist as necessary for acquiring the Indulgences occurring at that time.

From these Decrees it is clear that the mind and desire of Christ and of the Church is that daily Communion be also the daily banquet of all the Christian faithful, indeed also of children immediately after first communion has been received. Two conditions are required: the state of grace and a right mind. It would indeed be best if someone approached entangled in no affection for venial sins, but this is not required.

Nor are those asserting the contrary to be heard. For those who demand absence from venial sins and from affection for them as a requisite clearly contradict the Decree: "It suffices that they be free from mortal faults"; but if the other opinion were true, it would not suffice that they be free from mortal faults, but it would be required that they be free from venial faults. If that absence were a certain prerequisite, it would not be said to be an effect, as it were, normal: "it cannot happen that those communicating daily do not by degrees disentangle themselves from sins even venial, and from affection for them." If anyone, in order to preserve himself in the state of grace, communicates daily, he certainly does an excellent work by retaining himself in this way in the friendship of God. We judge that those who are in the state of grace, but are led by a mind not right, can easily be instructed, so that it may also be lawful for them to communicate daily. We confessors do not have the right of demanding conditions more perfect than those which the Church demands. Certainly care must be taken that diligent preparation precede and suitable thanksgiving follow. But it must be noted that these are to be furnished, as the Decree says, "according to the strength, condition, and duties" of each one, and indeed in order "for greater" fruit according to greater dispositions. Suppose some worker who can devote no time to communion except the time of Mass; for him this will be sufficient, for he acts according to his strength. The counsel of the confessor is not the same as permission; it is required, not absolutely, but if someone wishes "to receive with greater prudence and richer merit." It is clear that a grave obligation is imposed upon pastors, confessors, preachers, and superiors of religious institutes, seminaries, and youth institutions of promoting this most salutary use. Pastors obedient to the Supreme Pastor, attending solely to the will of Christ and of the Church, will often, indeed daily, lead their flock to these pastures, the banquet of the Eucharist, and will be blessed.

Question. What can and must Superiors of religious furnish concerning communion?

Resp. §1. Let Superiors take care that all religious:

1st. Each year devote themselves to spiritual exercises;

2nd. If not legitimately impeded, daily be present at the Sacrifice, devote themselves to mental prayer, and diligently apply themselves to other offices of piety which are prescribed by the rules and constitutions;

3rd. Approach the sacrament of penance at least once a week.

§2. Let Superiors promote among their subjects frequent, even daily, reception of the Most Holy Body of Christ; and let frequent, indeed even daily, access to the Most Holy Eucharist be freely open to religious duly disposed.

§3. But if after the last sacramental confession a religious shall have been a grave scandal to the community or committed a grave and external fault, until he has again approached the sacrament of penance, the Superior can prohibit him from approaching holy communion.

§4. If there are any religions, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, communions are found fixed or commanded on certain days, these norms have only directive force (Can. 595).