First Communion and the age of discretion

According to the general rule, children become subject to and bound to obey the positive laws of the Church when they reach the age of seven. However, before the new Code of Canon Law came into force it was usual to defer a child’s first Communion until he had reached the age of nine or twelve. The Code (Can. 859) interprets the phrase “‘ years of discretion,” used by the Lateran Council, to mean the same as to attain the use of reason, and so, now, children are bound to make their Easter Communion when they are seven years of age, unless, indeed, for some good reason it is judged advisable to abstain for a time. This obligation, as far as it affects those under the age of puberty, falls chiefly on those who have care of them—that is, on parents, guardians, confessors, teachers, and parish priests (Can. 860).

Canon 863 prescribes that the faithful are to be exhorted to receive Holy Communion frequently, and even daily, according to the rules laid down in the decrees of the Holy See, and that those who attend Mass should dispose themselves to receive Holy Communion not only spiritually, but sacramentally.

Daily Communion may not be refused to anyone who is in the state of grace and who has a right intention. There should be suitable preparation and thanksgiving, and that daily Communion may be practised with more prudence and with greater fruit, the advice of the confessor should be asked.

It is a disputed point whether one who is now in danger of death and who has within the last few days received Holy Communion is bound by divine precept to receive Viaticum. Although any good Catholic would certainly receive it again, yet the obligation to do so is not clear, because the previous Communion in all probability satisfies the divine law, . If one becomes dangerously ill on the day on which he has received Holy Communion out of devotion, it was similarly a disputed point whether he might, or was bound to, receive it again as Viaticum. Ordinarily, indeed, no one should receive Holy Communion twice on the same day, but in this case he may do so, though he is not bound to do so, for the Code only says that it is very much to be desired (Can. 864, sec. 2).

I. In order that the Holy Eucharist can be validly ministered to someone, it suffices that he be baptized and, if he has arrived at the years of discretion, that he have the intention of receiving the sacrament (nn. 38, 40).

II. In order that the Holy Eucharist be licitly ministered to someone, indeed, if he asks for it, that it ought to be ministered, it suffices that he be baptized and not prohibited by law. It will be clear from what is to be said about children, about the insane, about the unworthy, etc., to what extent someone is prohibited by law.

1. Children. As regards the Communion of children, the Code, though with certain additions, briefly repeats what is contained more fully in the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments Quam singulari.¹ Now:

a) The Eucharist is not to be ministered to children who, because of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament (canon 854).²

b) As regards the required knowledge, these things now hold:

First, in danger of death, in order that the Most Holy Eucharist can and ought to be ministered to children, it is enough that they know how to distinguish the Body of Christ from common food and to adore it reverently (canon 854, § 2). Although these requisites, if the family is religious, can be presumed, it is nevertheless better to make oneself more certain about them. Moreover, a child who has attained the use of reason, if his condition permits it, should commonly, at least as a precaution, be expressly taught, and indeed before Communion is ministered, the things which must be known by necessity of means.

Second, outside danger of death, a fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and a more accurate preparation is rightly required, namely that by which they themselves, according to their capacity, perceive at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and approach the Most Holy Eucharist devoutly according to the measure of their age (canon 854, § 3). "Therefore, to use the words of the decree cited above, not a perfect knowledge of matters of faith is required, since certain elements only are enough, that is, some knowledge." It is enough, therefore, that the child: 1. know the things to be known by necessity of means; 2. distinguish Eucharistic bread from common bread, and therefore know that under the host Christ, or the Infant Jesus, is present and that He is united with us through Communion. But in order that he sufficiently discern Eucharistic bread from common bread, he should moreover: 3. know that natural fasting and the state of grace are required for licit Communion. Finally, in order that he may understand what the state of grace involves and requires, 4. he should have some notion of mortal sin and of the means by which lost grace must be recovered, namely the sacrament of Penance. Observe, however, that that knowledge of the aforesaid things suffices which a child can have who enjoys some use of reason, or who begins to reason.³ Nor is it required that he hold in memory the formulas by which the aforesaid truths are presented in the Catechism. But if the required knowledge is present, the child can also approach the Most Holy Eucharist devoutly according to the measure of his age.

c) The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, and generally the prepubescent, falls also and especially upon those who ought to have care of him, that is, upon parents, guardians, the confessor, teachers, and the pastor (canon 860). Therefore the obligation rests upon the aforesaid persons of taking care that the child, after he has begun to reason, learn the necessary things to be known and, once knowledge has been acquired, fulfill the precepts in due time.

d) Judgment about the sufficient disposition of children for first Communion belongs to the priest hearing their confessions and to their parents or those who are in the place of parents (canon 854, § 4), for example teachers in a college.

e) But it is the office of the pastor to watch carefully, even through an examination if he has prudently judged it opportune, lest children approach the Sacred Synaxis before having attained 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 be refreshed by this divine food as soon as possible (canon 854, § 5). From these things do not deduce that the pastor can of himself subject children to an examination. He can do this if he has prudently judged it opportune; and that happens only when he has a positive reason for doubting about the requisites for Communion.

¹ 8 August 1910.

² Concerning the contrary custom formerly in force and even now persisting among the Greeks and Orientals, the cited decree Quam singulari speaks thus: The Church "from its very beginnings took care to bring little children near to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which it was accustomed to administer to them even as infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all Rituals up to the thirteenth century, was done in Baptism, and this custom obtained longer in some places; among the Greeks and Orientals it still perseveres. But to remove the danger that especially nursing infants might spit out the consecrated bread, the custom prevailed from the beginning of ministering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine alone. Nor were infants refreshed with the divine banquet only at Baptism, but afterward more often. For it was also the custom of certain churches to give the Eucharist to little children immediately after the clergy, and elsewhere, after the Communion of adults, to give them the remaining fragments. This custom then became obsolete in the Latin Church, and infants did not begin to become sharers of the sacred table unless they had some use of dawning reason and some knowledge of the august sacrament. This new discipline, already received by several particular synods, was confirmed by the solemn sanction of the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council, in the year 1215, by the promulgation of the famous canon XXI, by which sacramental Confession and Holy Communion are prescribed for the faithful after they have reached the age of reason."

³ Cf. the decree Quam singulari, 8 August 1910.

2. The insane are some perpetually insane, others not perpetually insane, others insane only about one or another point, and others semi-insane.

a) The perpetually insane. To these, since they are equated with little children, the Holy Eucharist cannot be ministered,¹ not even in danger of death. The reason for the prohibition is that they neither have, nor ever had, knowledge and taste of the Holy Eucharist.

b) The insane, but not perpetually so, the delirious, epileptics, the possessed, and those obsessed.

First, outside danger of death, the Eucharist cannot be ministered to the aforesaid while they are not in possession of themselves. "Nevertheless it will be permitted, if at some time they have lucid intervals and show devotion while they remain in that state, if there is no danger of unworthiness"² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 302).

Second, in danger of death it should not be given: 1. if it is sufficiently certain that they are constituted in sin and impenitent, for example if in the act of sin, or after a scandalous life, they have fallen into insanity, delirium, or deprivation of the senses; 2. if a danger of positive irreverence is present. In doubt whether such danger is present, that is, the danger that the sick person may expel the Sacred Host or move indecently during the ministration, it is useful to give him an unconsecrated particle before the Holy Eucharist; 3. if it is clear that they lack and have always lacked sufficient knowledge and devotion toward the Eucharist (St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 9; St. Alphonsus, VI, 302). Nevertheless imperfect knowledge suffices; likewise devotion broadly taken, or such that someone can be presumed to will to receive the Eucharist in danger of death. Outside the enumerated cases, according to the opinion of almost all authors, it is permitted to minister the Eucharist to them.³

For the rest, nothing can obstruct liceity except the defect of actual devotion in the one receiving or the prohibition of the Church. But since the sacraments are for human beings, the greatest good of the one receiving prevails over the reverence owed in itself (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). The Roman Ritual⁴ can be understood of ordinary circumstances, that is, abstracting from danger of death. But it is disputed whether there is an obligation of giving Viaticum to the aforesaid. Now with St. Thomas (III, q. 80, a. 9), St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), and most theologians, against some, it must be affirmed. For if it is permitted to give that greatest good to the dying person, there is also an obligation of giving it; all the more because the dying person must be said at least implicitly to ask for the sacrament, namely because his intention or profession of the Christian religion involves at least an implicit petition for Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). From these things it follows that the practice of not ministering Viaticum to the persons of whom we have spoken is truly an abuse.

c) Those insane only about one or another point can communicate at least sometimes, provided the insanity does not regard the substance of the Holy Eucharist. The reason is that at least it is doubtful whether human beings of this kind lack the faculty of placing human acts; and in doubt, favor must be shown to them.

d) The semi-insane and the elderly becoming childish again. Communion is to be given to these: 1. in danger of death; 2. at Easter (St. Alphonsus, VI, 303); 3. if they enjoy greater discretion, they can also communicate more often. These things also hold of those deaf and mute from birth, unless they have been specially instructed in some institute (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

¹ Cf. Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 1, n. 10.

² Roman Ritual, loc. cit.

³ Cf. Fourth Council of Carthage (cause 26, question 6, chapter Is qui poenitentiam); First Council of Orange (cause 26, question 6, chapter Qui recedunt); Decretals of Gregory IX (De poenitentiis et remissionibus, chapter Quod in te), and the Roman Catechism (De Eucharistia, n. 64).

⁴ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 10.

3. The unworthy are either publicly or occultly unworthy. Now:

a) The publicly unworthy are to be kept away from the Eucharist, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous, unless their repentance and amendment are clear and they have first made satisfaction for public scandal (canon 855, § 1). Besides those enumerated, all public sinners are to be counted among the publicly unworthy. Moreover, those who are indecently dressed seem able to be repelled, even if they cannot be said to be gravely guilty; but great prudence is needed in such a case. The publicly unworthy must be repelled whether they ask publicly or secretly, unless nevertheless the minister has positively known that they are repentant, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. See these things explained in the treatise on the sacraments in general, n. 28.

b) Occult sinners are to be repelled only when they ask secretly and the minister has positively known outside confession that they have not been amended; but not if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them over without scandal (canon 855, § 2).

4. Those suffering from a cough. To these, unless the cough is constant, Communion can be given. For the phlegm which is expelled by coughing comes not from the stomach and esophagus, but from the lungs or bronchi. Only then, if the sick person is suddenly afflicted by a very violent cough, is there danger that the sacred species may be ejected by the force of the cough.

5. Those suffering from frequent vomiting cannot communicate unless it is clear, for example from the declaration of those standing by, or more advisedly of a physician, that noteworthy danger is absent. Note, however, that often a particle of the host can be given to them without danger of vomiting.

6. As regards those who cannot take the species except in an artificial way, for example through a tube inserted into the esophagus or another part of the body, receive these points:

There is no obligation of communicating or of ministering in this way, not even in danger of death; both because it is doubtful whether such taking is sacramental (n. 171), and because the Holy Office, on 27 January 1886, concerning a similar case,¹ responded: "As it is explained, it is not expedient," which, considering the style of the Curia, seems to involve a prohibition; and on 27 November 1919, to a petition in which the faculty of taking the Holy Eucharist through a tube inserted into the stomach was asked, it responded: "Negative."² Nevertheless, considering the probability of sacramental taking together with the lack of a general prohibition, I would not condemn one who in danger of death communicated in this way.

The fact that someone uses an artificial esophagus does not prevent him from truly absorbing food, or passing it into the stomach through a vital act. Therefore such a person without doubt receives the Holy Eucharist sacramentally, and therefore can communicate just as others can.

Note. In doubt whether a dying person can swallow the species, those standing by should be asked whether he still takes food; or an experiment should be made by giving him some food or an unconsecrated host. In what way the Eucharist can be ministered if the dying or sick person cannot swallow the species because of dryness of the mouth, see n. 169.

¹ The case concerned a sick person for whom an opening for receiving food had been made below the chest; this case does not formally differ from the case of a tube inserted into the esophagus.

² In Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1921, p. 16.

“It has been established by no canonical law that Communion not be administered to children before the twelfth year.... Let Pastors remember that they cannot any longer deny to children whom they find rightly disposed that supersubstantial bread which is the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1851; A. S. S., vol. 22, p. 243.

“Whether the decrees of the Bishop of Annecy—by which the manner of admitting children to First Communion, the time at which this ought to take place, the age of twelve years, etc., were determined—are to be confirmed or invalidated in the case?—Response. In view of the circumstances of places and time, affirmative as to the first part, according to the qualification. The qualification is that the Bishop is not to prohibit Pastors from admitting to First Communion those children concerning whom it is certainly established that they have reached the age of discretion according to the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine Councils. The Most Holy One, however, in the audience of 23 July, commanded it to be declared that the words to First Communion are to be understood to the exclusion of First Communion in solemn form.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 July 1888.—The Cardinal Prefect transmitted this explanation to the Bishop: “The Pastor can give Holy Communion to a youth whom he believes instructed and who says that he has the discretion to understand what he is doing, but privately, without any solemnity and publicity; but when it concerns administering Holy Communion in a public and solemn form, according to the custom of the churches of France, the episcopal decree must be observed.”

— The reality or special grace of this sacrament, instituted for the refreshment of our soul, is the spiritual transformation of man into Christ, our life, through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites. That is, the effects which temporal food works for bodily life, this food works the same effects for spiritual life. For it sustains this life, both by increasing habitual grace and by exciting the fervor of charity; it increases it, insofar as it is directly and specially referred to perfecting charity, whence the wound of "egoism" is healed, and sanctifying grace and the other virtues receive an increase; it repairs: for by exciting fervent acts of charity ex opere operato, it takes away venial sins and the damages which they have brought upon us; it delights already through the very active love which it excites. Thus almost Cardinal Billot, De Euch.

— 1. General Rule. "Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion." By these words c. 853 establishes the right of a Christian to the spiritual refreshment of his soul, without a positive demonstration of his worthiness, so that only the publicly unworthy and manifestly infamous are to be kept away, if they ask publicly; but hidden ones only if they ask secretly from a minister who outside confession knows that they are not amended (cf. c. 855 and what was said n. 191-194).

Yet those also can be repelled who approach Holy Communion dressed less modestly or with that adornment which approved usage prohibits, especially if they have first been warned, at least by a general edict. These are not kept away as sinners, but as troublesome and uncivil petitioners; nor do they become infamous from a repulse whose reason is manifest.

— II. Communion of Children. Although baptized children receive this sacrament validly and fruitfully, nevertheless the present discipline of the Church, by which greater reverence for the sacrament is provided for, expressed in canon 854, establishes these several things concerning children:

1. Those are not to be admitted who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament;

2. Those constituted in danger of death can and must be admitted to Holy Communion who know how to distinguish the body of Christ from common food, and reverently to adore it;

3. Outside danger of death, that fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation is said to be required by which they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the Most Holy Eucharist;

4. The confessors of the children and their parents, or those who are in the place of parents, judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the children;

5. To the pastor a twofold office is assigned: a) of watching lest children approach the sacred synaxis before the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; which vigilance he can exercise even by examination, if he has prudently judged it opportune; b) of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed as soon as possible by this divine food.

That we may explain this canon somewhat, according to its importance, first it must be well held that by it the several norms of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Quam singulari, August 8, 1910, are confirmed entirely. Indeed the Code presents them in the same words. For art. 3 of the said decree sounds thus: "The knowledge of religion which is required in a child that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion is that by which he, according to his capacity, perceives 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 which his age bears." Only in this way do the norms of the Code differ from the norms of the decree, that the decree was issued for uprooting the error of those who delayed the Communion of children too much, and therefore had to insist on the facility with which children were to be admitted; while the Code also, as human nature is inclined to excesses, had to restrain or impede the contrary excesses of those who, not attending at all to the conditions placed in the decree, almost compel children indiscriminately to the sacred table. Wherefore, wishing to meet this indiscreet zeal, it places and vindicates more in recto the necessity of fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation in a healthy child.

Moreover it does three things for this end. In §1, proceeding negatively, with the Roman Ritual, from which that paragraph is taken, it keeps away children to whom knowledge and taste of the Most Holy Eucharist are lacking. Taste can be said either to be that hunger or sincere will by which they desire to receive Christ, and do not merely wish to please parents and imitate adults; or that devotion proportionate to age. For the condition of approach under the form of hunger was expressed by D. de Segur: He loves Jesus Christ and desires him; under the form of devotion it was rendered by St. Thomas: "When children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this sacrament." Now each passage has been praised in decrees of the Holy See.

Then §3 says positively that those are to be admitted who, according to their capacity, perceive the mysteries necessary by necessity of means, and approach devoutly according to their measure.

Finally, §5 indicates the regular time: the attained use of reason. For before this they are to be repelled; afterward children are to be led, or disposed as soon as possible. But from can. 88, seven years completed is presumed to be that time. As is clear, according to the cultivation of children, according to the very climate under which they live, exceptions can be more frequent or less frequent.

Wherefore, no less after the promulgated Code than after the decrees of Pius X, children who have not yet attained seven years can be admitted if they satisfy the conditions; but before the completed seventh year, they must dispel the contrary presumption, while after the seventh year, the presumption of capacity favors them.

Nothing is suggested concerning a general or subsequent solemn Communion of children: therefore the usage of the region will have to be considered; but that solemnity is greatly to be commended (Provincial Council of Mechlin, nn. 193 and 280).

Finally it can be asked how the judgment concerning the disposition of children, which is permitted to the confessor and parents, is to be combined with the office of vigilance of pastors.

In this way, unless we are mistaken. Concerning individual children, parents and confessors can judge, nor must they warn the pastor or approach him for consultation. At the same time a certain general inspection, as of the external forum, is committed to the pastor, of observing which children approach or omit Communion. Then, if he has some of those approaching under suspicion of ignorance, he can test them even by examination; but those later whom he thinks fit or to be disposed he will try to lead to Holy Communion. In each case, it is necessary that he have authority among parents ¹; yet a strict obligation of obeying him is not imposed by law. But the pastor cannot, relying on this can. 854, generally subordinate the first Communion of children in his parish to the condition of a previous examination. Nor will he repel from the sacred table a child who publicly but reverently asks for Holy Communion, because he doubts about his age or has himself demanded greater preparation. For such a child is not a public sinner or infamous. And public denial, especially if signs of impatience accompany it, will easily produce lasting or irreparable effects of timidity or aversion, even among other children who are witnesses of the matter. Yet it will be lawful for a pastor who doubts about a child to speak to him kindly and question him, and, if the case bears it, gently remove him from the sacred table.

¹ "The judgment of pastors concerning these children (whom because of a prudent doubt they have examined) must be stood by." Provincial Council of Mechlin, 1920, art. 188.

— III. Required State of Grace. The state of grace is required by divine precept. And he who is in mortal sin, under mortal sin, must confess before reception of the Eucharist, unless there is necessity of communicating and the opportunity of a confessor is lacking: the Church thus defined the proving which from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, is necessary, whether it merely declared the divine law, or completed it by its own authority. Cf. Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 7 with can. 11, and Code c. 856.

When the opportunity of a confessor is lacking was said above, n. 317, 2. But the necessity of communicating will scarcely be other than that of avoiding disgrace or infamy; and the almost sole case will be if you are already physically or morally at the Communion rail, and then remember a mortal sin committed after the last confession. Nor is he excused who rashly, conscious of evil disposition, has gone with his family to church intending to confess and communicate, and has not been absolved by the priest.

What shall we say about that wonder which, in more than one community, he will excite who, accustomed to communicate daily, on a certain day, especially if it has been more solemn, omits Communion?

Nor can we, from the general rule, grant Communion to him without confession first made. For either it concerns a very rare case, and then he has an easy opportunity of creating another impediment which he will narrate without shame, by breaking the fast; or it concerns a case not so rare. Then it was his part so to arrange his Communions that from the beginning he would be known as one not communicating daily. But if he neglected this, as a frail man he ought reasonably to have admitted the consequence of some suspicion, which nevertheless is not strictly infaming, since abstinence can also be attributed to scruples. But again consider the harms of a faculty conceded to laypersons, and even to youths, of approaching the sacred table after a mortal sin not remitted by absolution: how much it would derogate from the reverence of the Most Holy Eucharist, how much it would diminish horror of sin, how much it would take away from the effort to extirpate a depraved habit!

But this is the reason why, especially in colleges, there must be holy liberty not only of communicating but also of abstaining from use of the Holy Eucharist; why confessors should prudently direct penitents in a strictly daily approach to the sacred table, and dissuade it from him who easily falls into grave sin and is not prepared to contemn the wonder of bystanders; why also, as far as can be done, daily opportunity of a confessor should be provided for a community where the pious use of daily Communion is accustomed to flourish.

Some also permit Communion without confession to him who otherwise would be prohibited from fulfilling the precept of paschal Communion.

But the precept of confessing immediately after, when in necessity you have omitted confession, obliges only priests celebrating, and therefore not a priest or layperson who has merely received Holy Communion.

— Appendix X belongs to this section. IV. Required Fasting. 1. Historical matters. Cf. Appendix X.

2. The law in force. "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist": this is the general rule of c. 858, §1, whose exceptions we shall soon weigh.

Whatever has been taken from midnight onward in the manner of food or drink, even for a medicinal end, breaks the natural fast. Nor does smallness of matter excuse. Thus the concordant opinion of Catholics.

Moreover three conditions are necessary for breaking this fast:

1. That the thing have the ratio of food or drink;

2. That it be taken from without;

3. That it be taken "in the manner of eating or drinking" (St. Alphonsus, 6, 280). And here intention can have some efficacy;

4. That it be taken from midnight onward.

1. A thing is said to have the ratio of food or drink which is digestible, or in itself, for what happens accidentally because of the condition of the stomach is not to be considered, is altered in the stomach, broadly accepted. Wherefore what is chemically demonstrated to be in no way capable of being converted within into something else, but to pass through the body unchanged, for example paraffin, can be taken before Communion without fault. And even if it is altered, that also can be taken which in common estimation is not thought to have the ratio of food or drink. Thus says a truly probable opinion, since in a sacramental matter common estimation is accustomed to have very great force.

Hence the ratio of food or drink is not had, or is judged not to be had, by metal, though certainly by iron powder or the like, not rarely prescribed by physicians; glass; little stones; hairs; silk or woolen thread, though certainly linen thread does; well-cleaned little fruit-pits; and probably fingernails, a little piece of dry wood, unless it is edible like rhubarb (rabarbaro, rhubarbe), glycyrrhiza, or liquorice (regolizia, reglisse), paper, wax, earth, chalk, and perhaps straw. Yet many deny this (cf. St. Alphonsus, 6, 281, end).

2. Taking from without is lacking in him who swallows the remains of food from a meal completed the previous day by chance, or even deliberately, since the rubric does not distinguish cases; who swallows, even deliberately, blood flowing from the teeth, tongue, or an ulcer inside the mouth, or flowing inward from the nose; who puts aromatics or tobacco leaves in the mouth or tastes something, provided that he transmits nothing into the stomach. But he takes from without who before midnight receives sugar or glycyrrhiza into his mouth so that he may gradually swallow them: there is had there a continued eating, just as in him who, with midnight imminent, takes food into the mouth which after midnight he breaks up with the teeth.

3. The following is not taken in the manner of food or drink: a) what at the same time, by chance, is drawn into the mouth while breathing, whether it is dust, a fly, or a gnat; b) what by chance is drawn through the nose, for example tobacco powder; c) what is swallowed mixed with saliva together with it: thus the small water with which you have washed the mouth, a particle of the tobacco leaf which you have chewed, a few little drops of blood or a little skin taken from the exterior lips; d) what of water perhaps remains in the stomach, which you wished to wash by means of a gastric siphon, provided you have not externally anointed the siphon with oil or an edible ointment; e) the smoke of tobacco or another fumigation.

Vomiting after eating does not destroy this, either because there will not be complete evacuation, or because by the eating itself you have broken the fast.

Observe that the response about a thing mixed with saliva or drawn in on the occasion of breathing does not hold unless it has been mixed or drawn in apart from intention.

4. As we said in the earlier part, the time of midnight can be chosen either as the usual time, or the true or mean time of the place, or legal, or regional, or another extraordinary time (c. 33): and various clocks which are not established to be in error are admitted in themselves as good authorities, which make a probable opinion. And they agree that in receiving the sacred banquet it is lawful for you to be content with probability of fact.

Yet this probability is destroyed by a certain indication of the hour, which, for example, in the City is given at midday.

According as clocks announce by their sound the hour already completed, as most do, or the hour imminent, one must cease from eating from the first or from the last stroke. Yet what you have received in the mouth before the stroke of the clock you are permitted to swallow, because the Church does not seem to impose on you the rusticity of spitting it out; and without doubt clocks are not lacking which sound a tiny bit later, so that it is not established that the fast has been broken. Thus Lehmkuhl, II, 316.

— In a doubt, whether positive or negative, whether or not you have taken something after midnight, since Communion is a most favorable thing and it concerns the exclusion of an impediment, not the acquiring of a positive quality, it is lawful to communicate. But it is not therefore permitted to eat or drink at any hour of the night and then allege ignorance of the hour for communicating. The precept of the Church, as the very usage of the faithful demonstrates, does not bear this interpretation. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 15, n. 42. In order that, in the night, you deliberately and licitly take something with the purpose of communicating, it is necessary, at least when means are at hand, that you probably judge it is not midnight. Cf. what was said in tome I, n. 374.

Wherefore they commonly keep away from Communion him who, lying down in the evening, has placed something in his mouth against hoarseness, unless he is certain that he transmitted nothing after midnight. Yet if it was in his mind to absorb the whole while awake, or to spit out the remainder, and by chance he was seized by sleep, the benign opinion which permits Communion to one ignorant of the hour of transmission can be admitted, and seems to us preferable. It can also happen that the thing is found so entire that nothing except perhaps a very tiny thing mixed with saliva has been absorbed. Access to the sacred table will be freely open.

For evacuating scruples, the better counsel will be that the nostrils be anointed with some oily material by which slightly humid air may be inhaled.

— Exceptions to the Law of Fasting.

1. When danger of death urges (c. 858). Therefore not only the sick but also those who because of an extrinsic cause are exposed to death are excused from the law. But for these the danger of death must be urgent, so that they cannot conveniently wait for another day on which they may communicate fasting (Cappello, I, n. 514); while the sick, from c. 858 and the former interpretation of the Council of Constance, strictly need no excuse of inconvenience. And in doubt about danger of death, one must respond in favor of the faculty of communicating. Cf. Genicot, II, 202.

N. B. The formula: "Receive, Brother (or Sister), the Viaticum of the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed to be used in itself, but it can be omitted if it is to be feared that the sick person may be disturbed by it.

And while the danger of death perseveres, after Viaticum, which is of precept, has been received, and even before, the Communion of the sick person who is not fasting can be repeated several times, on distinct days, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, and therefore even daily (c. 864, §3).

2. Fear of death otherwise to be undergone, unless he is asked to do this in contempt of the precept or of religion, excuses the faithful person who communicates not fasting.

3. The Eucharist exposed to danger of profanation or loss can be received by one not fasting, even a layperson. Thus the canon itself excepts the necessity of providing for the reverence of the sacrament.

To this belongs the consumption of fragments after the ablution, in Mass. Therefore after the ablution, it is lawful for a priest, per accidens, for this is not to be done from a preconceived purpose, to receive smaller fragments pertaining to the same sacrifice, whether he is at the altar, or already in the sacristy, provided that he has not yet taken off the sacred vestments. Fragments of another sacrifice are not to be received after the ablution, unless danger of irreverence has been added; as if, after the last Mass, you discover very tiny particles which cannot, without danger, be carried to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle is lacking. Indeed, as is probable, a priest can purify a ciborium which he immediately needs, although distractedly he has already received the purification of the chalice, because this consumption is judged to be one with Holy Communion itself. Lehmkuhl, II, 192, 4, does not admit this if it concerns whole hosts. And indeed these in themselves can be preserved in the purified pyx itself. Palmieri, t. IV, n. 947, also inclines to the opinion of Tamburini, Exp. comm., §8, according to which a priest, as long as he is at the altar, can in strictness receive even fragments consecrated in another sacred action.

And by equal reason, "if a priest carries Communion to a sick person, in a hospital, and remains are left on the paten or in the chalice, the priest can receive them if he is still clothed in the sacred vestments for Mass. He can also give them immediately after the small host to the sick person, because it is judged one Communion." Cf. Roman Ritual, Order of administering Holy Communion.

N. B. The observance of the rubrics or an approved manner of acting liturgically must not be impeded by fear of a broken fast, because the Church, while it gives or approves these norms, tacitly dispenses, as far as is necessary, from the law of fasting. Thus the Sacred Congregation itself responded that salt placed in the mouth of a neophyte in the ceremonies of baptism does not obstruct Communion immediately following. Thus, that in a prior sacred action, while before the consumption of the blood fragments are gathered, small unconsecrated things are poured into the chalice and received together with the blood of Christ, this does not impede the following Mass of bination; and say the same about little unconsecrated drops which are mixed with the sacred blood. Thus he who on Friday in Parasceve, by drinking wine, has left part of the sacred host in the chalice, receives this with a safe conscience; and he who, in receiving the blood of Christ, has left a consecrated particle in the chalice, from the rubrics themselves of the Missal (De defectibus, X, 8), has the option of bringing it with his finger to the lip of the chalice, or of pouring in wine and receiving it. Thus finally when, according to received custom, after the species of bread has been received, wine to be drunk is given to children after first Communion or to newly ordained priests, they ought to be affected by no anxiety because they first swallowed liquid. For the manifest intention of the Church does not comprehend these things by its law of fasting. Some give this reason, that by the law it is forbidden that you receive anything before Communion, but by no means that together with Communion you receive something else. The reason given first seems to us more simple and adequate.

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

This faculty was first conceded by a decree of Pius X through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906, but then Communion twice in the week was not permitted except in houses where the Most Holy Eucharist was preserved, or Mass could be celebrated: outside such houses Communion was conceded only twice in the month; nor was solid medicine indulged.

This canon, since it derogates from a grave law, is to be interpreted strictly. Nevertheless usage has prevailed of benignly understanding the word "lying ill," so that even those sick persons who can carry themselves to church are permitted to use the faculty. Thus also Cappello, op. cit., I, 506.

But the other conditions are to be observed accurately. Therefore it is required:

1. That it concerns the truly sick. Such are those whose strength, whether by disease, by old age, or by weakness, has been truly broken, so that at least morally they can be called lying ill. There is no need of a grave or dangerous disease;

2. That they have already been lying ill, or laboring under infirmity, for a month. A month, from the Code, is a space of 30 days, which Rev. Fr. Cappello, loc. cit., understands morally of a space of 26 or 27 days. But in no way can it be admitted that the faculty be extended to those who are affected by a disease which is foreseen to be going to last at least thirty days. By an interpretation of this kind open force would be inflicted on the words, which are to be taken strictly;

3. That there be lacking certain hope of proximate recovery. Certain hope confers a certain moral certitude. Proximate recovery is that which will be obtained within a few days, three or four;

4. It is necessary that they act according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, such as every approved confessor is judged to be. In giving counsel, the spiritual dispositions of the soul are to be considered first; yet the confessor must also be solicitous that the conditions of the privilege have been fulfilled;

5. Communion is not permitted, after the fast has been broken, except once or twice in the week. It is not in the power of the confessor to permit more frequent Communion under any pretext. And this would be grave. Cf. also Cappello, I, n. 506, 4. Yet a probable opinion allows use of the privilege twice in the week to him who, on the other days, certainly with his own inconvenience, receives the sacrament fasting;

6. Only medicine, or something in the manner of drink, is permitted. Medicine can be solid, such as a little lozenge. Common sense will teach what has the ratio of medicine. It must have a direct order to healing some ailment. Therefore it cannot be confused with food which is used rather for strengthening the powers, although it can be said to have been taken in the manner of medicine. But in the manner of drink are also taken crushed solid fragments which float in a liquid. Hence already on September 7, 1897 the words "in the manner of drink" were so declared that it was lawful "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed with it, for example light little pellets of flour (semolino), bread grated into crumbs (pangrattato), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food."

The egg itself in its natural state, or not cooked or very lightly cooked, is said to be drunk. But a little lozenge or sugar is not drunk, but eaten, although dissolved by the heat of the mouth it is then swallowed. For the usage of common speech is that attention is paid to the manner in which it is received in the mouth: at that moment, and not afterward, the thing is said to have been taken. Wherefore, that an uncooked egg is said to be taken in the manner of drink, we easily admit with Rev. Fr. Cappello, I, n. 507; but we think one must respond otherwise about lozenges, sugar, etc., even if they are sent into the stomach completely dissolved by the heat of the mouth.

Now moral inability to observe the fast is not required. But unless some serious inconvenience is connected with observing the fast, the required counsel of communicating without the fast having been observed cannot be given by a prudent confessor.

N. B. It is sometimes conceded to bishops that they may be able to permit Communion to these sick persons three times in the week, after liquid or medicine has been taken. Moreover number 42 of the faculties of Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates allows that, even before the end of the month from which they have been lying ill, or even to sick persons not lying ill, they may concede Communion once in the week without the fast being observed as above. The faculties of Propaganda Fide give to bishops, Vicars, and Prefects Apostolic power to permit Communion to the sick lying ill, even before the end of the month, without the fast being observed, twice or three times in the week, indeed even daily if they are priests or religious.

— Dispensation Through the Sacred Congregation. To those who morally cannot observe the natural fast, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, or, for religious, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, grants Communion even daily, after anything has been taken in the manner of drink. The faculty to be executed is usually committed to the Ordinary of the petitioner, by the counsel of the confessor, and sometimes to the confessor himself. Thus far the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments does not permit solid medicine, but only what has the ratio of drink.

— Various Things to Be Noted. The strict prohibition is only of taking anything from midnight onward: but the reason of decency will counsel that a fitting interval be interposed from the last meal, unless an excusing cause is present. Wherefore not rarely in indults by which either Communion or nocturnal Mass is permitted, the condition of a reasonable interval of hours is attached.

And although no positive law forbids it, it is certainly counsel that you not take food before the species are prudently thought to have been consumed. To omit this without cause is held as venial irreverence by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 283.

But one must beware lest, after Holy Communion, the stomach at some point be compelled to cast out food together with the species.

But sputum, since it does not flow through the esophagus, can safely be expectorated, unless some fragment of the sacred host adheres to the teeth; on account of which cause it will be better to wait somewhat.

— V. No stain of the body in itself impedes reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, since it has no bearing on moral goodness. How much less the hidden stain of menstruation. Wherefore today we judge it consonant with the mind of the Holy See that not even counsel be given about omitting Communion during the time of menstruation.

— Concerning involuntary pollution, concerning voluntary pollution but expiated by confession, concerning the use of marriage, a universal rule cannot be handed down, but the matter is to be committed to a prudent confessor. He will attend to the utility of Holy Communion, to the reverence due to the Most Holy Eucharist, to the internal disposition of the communicant, who can approach either disturbed by carnal affection or, on the contrary, with a serene mind, and to the scandal which would be given by him who soon after sin committed with an accomplice should sit down at the sacred table. To those who are accustomed to communicate rarely, but not to those who communicate almost daily, the counsel can be given that on days of Holy Communion they not indulge in the carnal work. After a carnal sin has been committed, the very reason of reverence requires, in itself, some delay of Communion. Involuntary pollution is not a reason for dissuading Communion, unless the occupied imagination impedes devotion, or abstinence can contribute to the fervor of devotion. It is clear that a prudent confessor will not of his own accord speak either about the use of marriage or about menstruation.

— VI. The reason of reverence also requires that other signs of honor, although they are not strictly prescribed, be observed by communicants according to the custom of places and the ability which they have: for example, cleanliness of clothing, the custom of laying aside gloves and weapons, etc.

— What the Necessity of Communion Is. The more common opinion of theologians today, denying necessity of means, strongly vindicates only a necessity of precept of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. For first grace is infused in Baptism and restored through Penance, so that the Most Holy Eucharist, destined for nourishing our spiritual life, can be supplied by other nourishments of that life. Yet the food of our soul ordained by God is to be received sometimes in the manner of food; and this is demonstrated both by the divine ordination itself and by the words of the Lord: "Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), in which at least a grave precept must be read. The same theologians also commonly think that Viaticum must be received in danger of death by divine precept. Yet they do not bring forward a compelling reason for this precept. They derive the chief argument from the supreme spiritual necessity in which man is then placed, so that man could neglect that assistance only by gravely derogating from charity toward himself. Moreover it is sufficiently established that a precept not much defined is to be regulated by the Church. Hence they well understand and explain how the discipline concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use could vary and has varied.

Things are conceived in a sufficiently dissimilar way if, with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism and most ancient doctors, we profess that the Most Holy Eucharist is necessary by necessity of means, in reality or in desire, so that first grace itself, whether in Baptism or in Penance, is rather conferred from the desire of the Eucharist. This St. Thomas and also the Roman Catechism hand down in express words: "First grace is granted to no one unless they receive this sacrament itself by desire and vow" (2, 4, 51-52). And the reason is that the immolated flesh of Christ is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification: to which it is wholly necessary to adhere (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 608). Then there is a genuine use of the words of the Lord just alleged: for less than a precept, they render a condition without which not. And because "a desire would be vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity was present" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 11, c.), at once there appears the obligation of sometimes receiving the Most Holy Eucharist as food of the soul, so that we may have life in us. The question concerning the grave obligation of divine law of Viaticum is then solved quite conveniently, limited to him who in danger of death has had to be truly reconciled with God: for he must take care that before death he be refreshed by the Most Holy Eucharist, lest his desire be in itself fruitless.

Yet the explanation of the varied custom of the Church concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use then becomes less convenient. And a threefold way of solution can be entered upon. For either you contend that the rules most happily given by Pius X had always in themselves to be observed, but remained unknown until our progress in faith had detected them, which in a matter of use so universal and daily is scarcely credible; or you ascribe to obscurity brought in through heresy the cold severity about approach to the sacred table which everywhere prevailed for many centuries before Pius X; and that the Jansenian heresy had to be culpably and harmfully blamed, the pontifical documents on daily Communion signify not obscurely; or also here you place in the power of the Church the establishing of norms, according to the common good, concerning the first and necessary approach to the Most Holy Eucharist, just as the Church also establishes how recourse must be had to Penance, whose necessity of means is denied by no Catholic. And this explanation pleases us more. The Church could, because of better preparation of intellect and soul, in another epoch have delayed first Communion, while today there is a twofold cause why even before the age when the dangers of grave sin are accustomed to be greater, it has defined that one must approach the sacred table: that is, the invading neo-paganism whose attacks must be resisted strongly through supernatural life; and the diffusion of literary education, which brings it about that young people can sooner be refreshed with due devotion by the sacred banquet.

Now he who uses or abstains from the Most Holy Eucharist according to rules approved or commanded by the Church fulfills his desire of receiving the Eucharist in a reasonable manner: which is required for salvation and suffices.

Thus far concerning necessity in itself. Practically, besides, the more frequent use of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist becomes, not so rarely, a morally necessary means for overcoming temptations, when there is scarcely hope of obtaining such a use of other remedies as would suffice for carrying off that victory. Wherefore, although it does not seem opportune that this frequency be strictly imposed as per accidens necessary for many, because in strictness other means are at hand, and to the languid a remedy would be prescribed in vain which they would refuse or neglect to take, still by every reason, youths and many unmarried persons are to be brought, especially if they are given to softness, to strengthen themselves as frequently as they can by this sacred banquet.

— I. Communion Prescribed to the Healthy. "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, must once in the year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has thought he must abstain for a time from its reception" (c. 859, §1).

By this canon the precept already promulgated in the Lateran Council is confirmed, an opportune explanation being added.

1. And first, by the present discipline all are held by this precept who have arrived at the use of reason, even if they have not yet completed the age of seven years. This age of seven years supplies a certain presumption, which always yields to the truth. Having attained the use of reason, they will not have to communicate as soon as possible; but since from possession of the use of reason they are held by the common law, they do not seem able to defer Communion beyond the next Easter.

2. "Once in the year, at least at Easter": by these words it is shown that the precept is virtually twofold: of communicating once in the year, and of communicating at Easter, so that he who has not wished or has not been able to communicate at Easter is held by the obligation of annual Communion, unless already in the same civil year he has worthily received Holy Communion (cf. c. 859, §4). For although from the decree of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, the year seems to be computed from Easter to Easter, nevertheless some, among whom is Lugo himself, Euch., d. 16, n. 19, permit civil computation. But then it is necessary that the Christian be constant in that computation, and not wish so to join each that he is refreshed by the sacred banquet only once in two years, as if Communion is made at Easter 1922, and then only in 1924, also at Easter. The obligation of receiving Holy Communion as soon as possible after Easter is not had unless special law has defined the matter otherwise.

The paschal time for satisfying the ecclesiastical precept is vainly anticipated, unless by him who foresees that he will be impeded throughout the whole paschal time, and wishes to compute the year from the first of January.

3. One's own priest, that is, either the pastor or confessor, can give counsel of deferring Communion beyond the paschal time. Therefore they obtain the faculty of quasi-dispensing for a time in this precept, for the utility of the faithful person, reasonably understood. For the utility of the faithful person, I say, for counsel is not given except about a better thing. Therefore it is not a faculty of dispensing properly so called, for a cause almost excusing: they can concede only a spiritually useful dispensation. And scarcely any reason is conceived to be other than that which is gathered from present indisposition or lesser disposition, as if someone remains doubtful in faith.

But the time is defined by the utility itself. If faith must be restored, it could even be quite long.

Practically, however, this faculty is benignly accepted concerning a true dispensation, which, even outside the sacrament of Penance, is conceded by the confessor. Without a dispensation made, even a small delay is judged grave.

— The paschal time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday inclusive. Yet it is lawful for local Ordinaries, "if the circumstances of persons and places so require, to anticipate this time even for all their faithful, not however before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or to prorogue it, not however beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity" (c. 859, §2). This requirement will arise, for example, from received usage, or even from a lesser supply of confessors. For one must strive greatly that fitting time can be spent in hearing those who only once in the year, or rarely, are accustomed to use the sacraments, so that they may receive true refreshment of soul.

Therefore, in the manner of a synodal or particular law of that place, the paschal time can be enlarged by the bishop within the said limits. This law, according to general principles, will also benefit travelers.

— The Place of Paschal Communion. Now, what is notable, the precept of paschal Communion can be satisfied in any place. Yet the faithful are to be counseled that "each should satisfy it in his own parish; and those who have satisfied it in another parish should take care to make their own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept" (c. 859, §3).

The word "take care," placed absolutely, signifies a command, which however the context shows to be light. Nevertheless some already, for example Cappello, I, n. 475, make the matter one of counsel.

The words "in one's own parish" in themselves have a broader force than "in the parochial church," especially since they are opposed to satisfaction in another parish, which certainly, from §1 itself, where no place is defined for fulfilling the precept, is understood of every oratory of another parish. Therefore the legislator seems to intend this: that by Communion made in one's own domicile, a good example be given to the other inhabitants; and they will lack this edification if the sacraments are received outside the parish.

— The Office of Parents, etc. Prudently and most opportunely the Code warns that the obligation of the impubes also and especially "falls upon those who have care of them"; and it names parents, to whom the Christian instruction of children has been divinely committed; tutors, who must take the place of parents; the confessor, insofar as he is at the same time a spiritual father, or at least from charity must warn penitents concerning their obligation; teachers, both as neighbors bound by fraternal correction, and as delegated by parents; the pastor, as shepherd to whom, in c. 854, §5, this care has been specially mandated by law (c. 860).

— You will ask how, concerning the age at which children are to be admitted to first Communion, ecclesiastical discipline could vary so greatly.

Many explain the matter because the use of the Most Holy Eucharist does not have necessity of means; but the obligation of a grave precept immediately divine is not demonstrated before the age in which there are many dangers of mortal sin, such as the age of puberty is accustomed to be; and the determination of the beginning of the obligation, just as the determination of frequency, was left to the Church by its Spouse and Author. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 200 sqq. We have preferred to say that true necessity of means, in reality or in desire, does not prevent the Church from placing on real reception the conditions required by the common good. The means is then satisfied at least in desire. Cf. n. 402.

N. B. They report in the periodical Hostia, Jan.-Feb. 1921, a response of His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, from which the use of reason in cc. 854, 859, and 906 is to be understood as such as suffices for committing venial sin, and the capacity for mortal sin is not required. Thus indeed it will have to be said by those who think each capacity can be separated: which we see denied by St. Thomas in 1, 2, q. 89, art. 6.

— By express canon 861 we are warned that the precept of receiving Communion is by no means satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. How this is combined with the doctrine which denies that interior acts can be commanded by the Church, we saw in tome I, n. 254, b.

— Communion in the Mass of Ordination and on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. 1. In the Mass of ordination, those advanced to a major order must communicate.

2. The Code says it is expedient that on Thursday of the greater week all clerics, even priests who on that day abstain from offering the sacred sacrifice, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (c. 862). And in truth, by a general Communion of this kind, a pious representation of the Supper of the Lord is obtained.

By this counsel the obligation which some clerics can have from liturgical law, of receiving Communion from the bishop, is not removed.

— Frequency to Be Counseled to the Healthy. "Let the faithful be excited to be refreshed frequently, even daily, by the eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the Apostolic decrees; and let those assisting at Mass, being rightly disposed, communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist." Thus c. 863, which therefore: 1. wishes the frequent, indeed daily, use of the Most Holy Eucharist to be commended by priests; 2. inculcates that the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See be observed: among which the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, December 20, 1905, of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, holds the chief place. To that decree are added: the decree of May 30, 1905, conceding indulgences to prayer for the propagation of daily Communion; the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, February 14, 1906, dispensing from the condition of weekly confession as many as use quasi-daily Communion; the encyclical letter of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, April 10, 1907, concerning a triduan supplication to be celebrated yearly for spreading the use of daily Communion; the encyclical letter Editae saepe, May 26, 1910, on account of the secular solemnities of St. Charles Borromeo, in the second part ¹; 3. but especially confirms and authentically interprets c. 6, sess. XXII of the Council of Trent as a true desire: "The holy synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful present should communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice may come to them."

¹ All these are had in Per., II, 68-70; IV, 177; III, 80-84; V, 152-154. Cf. also the dissertation, II, 77-88.

— But the moral norms to be observed seem able to be brought together briefly in this way: a) the question concerning special dispositions required for communicating daily has been raised inopportunely. For that doubt takes its origin from diminution of piety and the Jansenian plague; it has had the effect of distancing from the sacred table; and pious and learned theologians have taught that "there is no precept of the Church concerning greater dispositions for daily Communion than for weekly or monthly Communion" (decree Sacra Trid. Syn., III, 3); b) the right mind necessary for eucharistic use is this: that a supernatural reason induce one to communicate, not however some human respect, which would impel one to Communion because others do this, because thus the custom of the house bears; or vanity, by which praise or fame of devotion or piety would be sought. Although a substantially pure intention can be mixed with some human consideration; c) that purity suffices by which one is immune from mortal sins. Nor are those few to be heard in any way who, contrary to what both the immediately preceding and immediately following words demonstrate, interpret the sentence n. IV, 3°, "it suffices nevertheless that they be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," as if there were required a purpose of fleeing every sin, even venial. The whole spirit, as it were, of the decree abhors this interpretation, by which flight from venial sin is said to be the fruit of daily Communion, far from being the prerequisite disposition; d) according to the powers, condition, and offices of the one receiving the sacred banquet, careful preparation and suitable thanksgiving are to be employed; e) for counsel, one's own confessor is to be approached, "so that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit" (Sacra Trid. Syn., IV, 5°).

Here also return the things already said concerning the necessity of taking care that everywhere it be intact for all to consult their own devotion, and to approach the Most Holy Eucharist or abstain from it, and that an easy opportunity of confession before Communion be supplied to all.

— Frequency Necessary or to Be Counseled to the Sick. 1. Concerning the sick who are not dangerously lying ill, the things said above, nn. 387, 396, return. In themselves no special rules about these are to be proposed. By the twofold canon concerning the secret carrying of the Most Holy Eucharist, and concerning the use of the Most Holy Eucharist after drink or medicine has been taken, the frequent refreshment of the sick has been rendered much easier. And because the sacraments are for men, so great a solace of the afflicted, which true and complete worship in itself accompanies, is to be preferred to the greater exterior honor which the Most Holy Eucharist before obtained from public carrying. Moreover it is necessary that we conform ourselves, our own persuasion having been laid aside, to the discipline which recent instructions of the Holy See favor.

2. Concerning those lying dangerously ill, or even concerning those who because of a cause foreign to disease are placed in danger of death, the Code, c. 864, decrees or permits these things: a) it sanctions or confirms the precept of receiving Holy Communion; b) the controversy which existed about this matter having been suppressed, it permits, indeed greatly counsels, that he who, free from danger, has received Communion, should communicate again on the same day, when brought into danger of life; c) but on distinct days it permits and says it is becoming that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor. Several times, and therefore even daily, if the confessor judges this expedient. And in itself daily eating of the heavenly bread is to be urged more for those who must be comforted by the proximate hope of heaven; d) by a most opportune warning, it forbids that Holy Viaticum be deferred too much; and it commits to the careful vigilance of those who have care of souls that the sick be refreshed by Viaticum while fully in possession of themselves (cc. 864, 865).

— Yet the sick can be prohibited from Communion by a certain or probable danger of exterior irreverence. The Roman Ritual, t. 4, c. 4, n. 4, warns that care must diligently be taken "lest Viaticum be given to those from whom, because of continual coughing or some other similar disease, some indecency with injury to so great a sacrament can be feared." Wherefore it is not lawful to give Communion to those who suffer from vomiting, unless a skilled man or experience has taught that serious danger of vomiting up the sacred species is absent. If a skilled man is lacking, an interval of some hours, for instance six, seems to be awaited. With those delirious, experience can be taken by first handing over an unconsecrated particle. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 292.

But the species rejected by vomiting, if they have remained incorrupt, are to be adored; and being again received, they again confer grace, since there is a new eating of the body of Christ. Lugo, Euch., 12, 53.

But if because of nausea they are not received, carefully separated, they are to be kept in a sacred place until, perfect corruption having occurred, they are thrown into the sacrarium. But that swifter corruption may occur, it does not seem prohibited to pour some quantity of water over the sacred species.

But if, although they do not appear, the species could be contained in the vomit, "let the vomit be burned and the ashes be sent into the sacrarium." Rubric, De defectibus missae, n. 14. How long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach, cf. immediately below.

A different reason of indecency arises a) from lack of exterior penance, in a scandalous sinner who has been seized by a sudden disease: conditional absolution indeed, and conditional Extreme Unction, can be given, and in themselves are to be given, but not the Most Holy Eucharist; b) from the infamous place where even a sick person excellently disposed lies: then at least open ministration is forbidden because of the reason of reverence.

— Sacramental grace is conferred from the first eating, even of the first part, since the whole sacrament consists in any eating.

But as long as Christ is present in him, there are some who think that the sacramental grace itself grows in the faithful person, provided he renders his actual disposition more perfect. An increase of disposition is required, because the sacraments give grace according to the disposition of the subject, and it concerns one reception of the sacrament morally. With disposition increased, grace seems to be increased, because the Most Holy Sacrament, in the manner of food, seems to profit more the more it is applied to the subject. But better disposition effects greater application. These things are admitted by many; yet we would not wish to call them certain. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, nn. 872-875.

Wherefore, in the same opinion, not only he who, having received part of the wine or host with evil disposition, then receives another part well disposed, but also he who disposes himself before the species are consumed, is thought to receive sacramental grace. What obstacle there is, however, we said in n. 208.

Nor is the devotion of him to be faulted who receives a larger matter to be consecrated, with the mind that the species may not be consumed so quickly in the stomach. Yet singularity must be abstained from, and we doubt concerning the sensible efficacy of the means, when it concerns the species of wine, after which has been received, moreover, the corruption of the species of bread is accelerated.

But what must not be doubted is that the intimate presence of the author of all grace brings this about, that the force of impetration ex opere operantis is greatly amplified through that time. Lehmkuhl, II, 151 and cf. 210.

But how long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach depends greatly on the "digestive" power, so that there are sick persons who reject them almost incorrupt after hours. Nor in a healthy man is the matter plainly established. Today they do not think a great distinction is to be made between a layperson who receives only a smaller host, and a priest, who indeed eats a larger one but together with the species of wine. For the consumption of a small host, they require at least half a quarter of an hour. Dr. van Olfers affirms that the species of wine always perish hardly as soon as they have been received into the stomach. Dr. Capellmann denies this, and therefore thinks that species which have been rejected within half an hour after Communion can never be thrown outside the sacrarium, even if no visible particles are discerned in them. Cf. Medicina pastoralis, pp. 124, 125, 4th Latin ed.

— What is it to eat? Nor is this fully established. Dr. van Olfers thinks that what is received into the mouth is already eaten. Yet for most, eating is the vital transmission of food into the stomach. Therefore eating has begun from the time when food or drink has passed that part of the throat from which ordinarily it can no longer be recalled. From that moment grace seems to be given, although some defer the conferral of grace until some part of the species has been received into the stomach. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, n. 872.

Hence they counsel that the species not be kept longer in the mouth, that is, not so long that they perish completely in the mouth, which according to several, while others contradict, happens quite quickly. Yet one may doubt about the force of the inference. For he is not thought to eat who spits out at once what he has taken into the mouth; but, in moral estimation, we indeed eat what, put into the mouth in a solid state, we swallow only after it has been dissolved and perhaps chemically changed.

— That greater grace is given in Communion under each species than under one alone is not improbable, although it is rather denied. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 12, s. 3.

— Concerning Spiritual Communion. Mere material reception by a non-baptized man, or by an adult communicating involuntarily, having been omitted, the Council of Trent itself, sess. XIII, De Euch., ch. 8, distinguished merely sacramental reception, which belongs to him who, capable, receives the sacrament indisposed or with the obstacle of sin; sacramental and spiritual reception at once, belonging to him who, rightly proved, approaches this divine table; and spiritual reception only of those "who, eating by desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith, which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility." Besides a common act of charity, this practice contains a special reason of cultivating the Most Holy Sacrament, and hence merits peculiar praise.

Moreover three things compose spiritual Communion: an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ; an act of charity or also, as the case may be, of contrition; and observe that in him who is conscious of mortal sin, an act of charity cannot be true unless it has passed into formal contrition; finally, an act of desire of receiving Christ sacramentally, if it could be done, and of intimately uniting oneself to Christ. Lest the desire be nugatory, it is necessary that something, at least in a broad sense, obstruct present sacramental use. Nor can he with an absolute will desire the sacrament or the fruit of the sacrament who, at least by the help of perfect contrition, has not acquired for himself the state of grace. With a conditioned will, not even a sinner is prohibited.

This devotion, so greatly commended, can be exercised very frequently. It is done especially usefully during the Communion of Mass: then the circumstances themselves foster apt dispositions, and he who, while he cannot in reality, communicates at least by affection, can hope for himself those more abundant fruits of the sacrifice which the holy Synod of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 6, affirms to remain in those who communicate sacramentally (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 194).

— 1. Strictly, no one communicates in favor of another, since no one eats for another, and the opus operatum of every sacrament benefits only the subject. But for another living person, one can offer Holy Communion in this way, that by the good and therefore meritorious and satisfactory act of approaching the sacred table he wishes to help him spiritually, or, after sacramental reception, to pour out prayers for him, which then are poured out with greater fervor and efficacy. But for the deceased one can communicate insofar as, by way of suffrage, he offers for him his own act operantis as impetratory and satisfactory, or applies to him the indulgences joined with Communion. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 7.

— I. The sacramental grace of the Most Holy Eucharist is for the refreshment of our soul, to be transformed into Christ through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites.

II. Conditions of Approach. 1. The baptized who are not unworthy and who approach decently have a right to this spiritual refreshment. Solicitude for the common good has led the Church to require of children, even in danger of death, that they distinguish the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it; but outside danger of death, that they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and, according to the measure of their age, approach devoutly. These children not only can, but also must, be admitted. They are held by the paschal precept; and when parents or tutors are negligent, the violation of that precept is imputed to them. Confessors, parents, or those who hold their place judge concerning the sufficient disposition of children, while the office of watching is committed to the pastor, lest the unprepared approach, and so that those disposed may communicate as soon as possible.

2. The state of grace is required by divine precept; and by at least ecclesiastical precept it must be procured through confession, unless, with a confessor lacking, necessity of communicating urges.

3. The natural fast is to be observed from midnight, so that from without nothing which has the ratio of food or drink is taken in the manner of eating or drinking, not of breathing or attraction through the nose. Intention, which generally changes nothing, is to be attended to where a thing is drawn in or mixed with saliva. The Missal, De defectibus, IX, 3, also tolerates a little drop of water which, in washing the mouth, apart from intention, has entered the throat and stomach. And in a positive doubt, or a negative doubt on each side, whether something has been taken from midnight onward, it will be lawful to communicate.

The law ceases for the sick who are in danger of death; indeed for the healthy who are placed in urgent danger of death; and for those who otherwise cannot protect the Most Holy Eucharist from danger of profanation or loss. To this belongs the consumption of fragments in Mass, after the ablution and in the sacristy, as long as the priest is clothed in the sacred vestments.

The Code (c. 858, §2) allows that by the prudent counsel of the confessor, those who for a month have been truly sick without certain hope that they will quickly, within three or four days, recover, communicate once or twice in the week, after they have taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink. Broader concessions are made through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or of Religious.

Neither a stain of the body, nor involuntary pollution, nor the use of marriage in itself impedes Communion. But external signs of honor in clothing, etc., are owed to the reverence of the sacrament.

III. Necessity of Communion. 1. From the words of Christ, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), there is gathered a divinely imposed necessity of receiving the Eucharist sometimes, not of precept alone, but also of means, in reality or in desire. Yet not a few admit only a necessity of precept. And the common opinion urges a necessity of divine law of receiving Viaticum in danger of death. This is more certain if life had to be resumed after mortal sin. Besides, the more frequent use of the sacrament becomes practically necessary for overcoming temptations.

2. From the precept of the Church, which according to reasons of the common good can define the beginning and frequency of the obligation, all who have attained the use of reason must once in the year, at least in paschal time, worthily receive Holy Communion. One's own pastor or confessor, because of the utility of the faithful person, can permit delay beyond the paschal time. That time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday; but local Ordinaries can, because of the utility of the flock, enlarge the time, so that it is extended from the fourth Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday.

The paschal precept can be fulfilled in any place: nevertheless Communion in one's own parish is counseled; he who has acted otherwise should take care to make his own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept.

3. Those promoted to major orders must receive Holy Communion in the Mass of ordination.

IV. Counsels. 1. Canon 862 desires that clerics, and also priests who on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord do not celebrate, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn Mass.

2. Canon 863 wishes priests to commend frequent, indeed daily, Communion to the faithful, especially in the Mass at which they are present. For the faithful, purity from mortal sin suffices, without necessity of special disposition. Yet the confessor is to be approached for counsel; he will be solicitous about preparation and thanksgiving, and will also take care that a frail penitent not begin to frequent the sacrament of the Eucharist in such a way that by some human fear he is placed in danger of communicating sacrilegiously. Nor do special rules bind the sick, except the care of exterior reverence, which can be impeded by lack of exterior penance in a scandalous sinner, by the infamous place where someone lies, and by bodily disease.

3. But it is to be desired that an occasion of Communion even daily be offered to the sick themselves. Holy Viaticum, which must be received by all in danger of death even extrinsic, is not to be deferred long, and can be received on the same day on which, while still free from danger, someone has already communicated.

V. 1. Spiritual Communion means the desire of worthy reception of the sacrament, and of spiritual refreshment, in him who is at least broadly impeded from the sacrament.

2. Although no one communicates for another, nevertheless someone can fruitfully help another living person by the good work of Communion, and apply to the dead the indulgence of Holy Communion.

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.

1315. - "As regards children," says the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,⁴ "who approach the Sacred Table for the first time, let it be permitted to apply to our matter the excellent words of the Fathers of Ravenna. It cannot be but that the manner in which one receives Holy Communion for the first time contributes much to the whole plan of Christian life, and indeed even to eternal salvation itself. Hence let all rulers of souls carefully see to disposing for it girls and boys whom by age and sufficient understanding of spiritual things they judge capable. Let them instruct them with special zeal, diligently inquire into their life, and admit to the Sacred Table those whom they understand to be already sufficiently instructed in the rudiments of Christian doctrine, and to be commended by probity of morals and piety, sending the rest away to another time, all human respect being set aside. But for three days before Communion, let them be prepared proximately for it both by pious exercises and especially by general Confession; but on the day itself, with the greatest solemnity, let them receive the Divine Bread, with the whole people looking on, and especially the parents, to whose care afterwards those souls, refreshed by the heavenly Banquet, will have to be commended by Pastors with the most fervent zeal of charity."¹

"But at what age children ought first to be refreshed with the Eucharistic Food has not been defined by the Church. St. Thomas, having used a general form of speaking, taught that this Sacrament can be conferred on them when they begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this Sacrament."² Therefore it will belong to pastors to inquire diligently concerning this matter, lest anyone either through carelessness be admitted too soon, or through severity be kept away longer than is fitting. But this general rule, which nevertheless admits its exceptions, seems safely able to be established, namely that, ordinarily speaking, no one ought to be made a sharer of the Bread of Angels before the tenth year, nor after the fourteenth year ought it to be denied to anyone otherwise worthy."³

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).

Question 3. What is the age of discretion?

Response. Pius X, by the Decree Quam singulari, 8 Aug. 1910, established the following norm concerning the first Communion of children to be observed everywhere. "I. The age of discretion, both for Confession and for Holy Communion, is that in which the child begins to reason, that is, about the seventh year, whether above it or even below it. From this time begins the obligation of satisfying both precepts, of Confession and of Communion. II. For first Confession and for first Communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. Yet the child afterward must gradually learn the whole catechism according to the measure of his intelligence. III. The knowledge of religion which is required in the 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 the eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age allows. IV. The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, chiefly falls upon those who must have care of him, that is, upon parents, upon the confessor, upon teachers, and upon the pastor. But to the father, or to those who take his place, and to the confessor, according to the Roman Catechism, it belongs to admit the child to first Communion. VII. The custom of not admitting children to confession, or of never absolving them, when they have arrived at the use of reason, is altogether to be disapproved." "In this," says the same Supreme Pontiff in the Letter to Cardinal Priest of the Holy Roman Church Fischer, 31 Dec. 1910, "we wish the Christian faithful to understand well that the matter is not so much that obedience be given to the precept of the Roman Pontiff, as that satisfaction be made to an office of this kind, which arises spontaneously from the very doctrine of the Gospel." - Cf. John vi. 54, where concerning the Eucharist.

To the proposed doubts ... namely:

I. Whether children who, although they have not yet completed the seventh year of age, nevertheless, on account of the age of discretion or use of reason, have already been admitted to first communion, are held by the twofold precept of confession at least once in the year, and of Communion once in the year, at least at Easter?

II. Whether canon 1252 has now begun to have the force of obliging everywhere, notwithstanding particular laws, etc.?

His Eminence Cardinal Petrus Gasparri, President of the Commission, responds:

"to I: affirmatively.

to II: affirmatively.

And the reason as regards the first doubt is evident: For although can. 12 states, 'By merely Ecclesiastical laws there are not bound ... those who, although they have attained the use of reason, have not yet completed the seventh year of age,' nevertheless it adds, 'unless something else is expressly provided in law.' But indeed in can. 859, § 1, and 906, it is expressly provided: 'Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, etc.'" 3 Jan. 1918.

Question 3. To whom does it pertain to admit children to first communion?

Resp. §4. Let the judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of children for first communion belong to the priest from confessions, and to their parents or to those who are in the place of parents.¹

§5. But it is the office of the Pastor to watch, even by examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune, lest children approach the sacred Synaxis before having attained 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 be refreshed as soon as possible with this divine food (Can. 854).

The obligation of the precept of receiving communion, which burdens the impubes, also and chiefly falls back upon those who must have care of them, that is, upon parents, guardians, the confessor, teachers, and the Pastor (Can. 860).

Parents gravely err who affirm that boys and little girls of seven years, with that knowledge which Canon 854 commemorates, cannot communicate well, but that they must wait until they have reached a greater age. These parents are strictly obliged humbly to subject themselves to the supreme authority of the Church, and to oppose no impediment to priests who, according to that authority, desire to lead children to the Sacred Eucharist. - Cf. Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar in the City, 15 Oct. 1910.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1105, n. 46.