Holy Communion

136. Who ought to receive the Eucharist. 1. Reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation by necessity of means, neither in reality nor in vow. Certainly the Eucharist would be necessary by necessity of means if sanctifying grace could be acquired or preserved only through this sacrament; but the Eucharist is not the only means either for acquiring or for preserving sanctifying grace. Not the first, because it itself already supposes sanctifying grace; not the second, because, speaking absolutely, other means are at hand for preserving it: prayers, pious works, and other sacraments.

Therefore the constant doctrine of the Church, defined in the Council of Trent, is that little children attain eternal life even if they depart before they have received the Eucharist.¹ The same must be affirmed concerning adults who are inculpably impeded from receiving the Eucharist.

2. Reception of the Eucharist is necessary for adults by necessity of divine precept. And indeed the words of Christ, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,² do not signify necessity of means; therefore they contain at least a precept of receiving the most holy Eucharist.

3. It is also necessary by ecclesiastical precept, by which the faithful who have reached the years of discretion are obliged to receive the Eucharist every year at Easter.³

4. Reception of the Eucharist for adults is also a morally necessary means for preserving spiritual life. Although other means of preserving sanctifying grace are also at hand, nevertheless with great difficulty only will they overcome temptations and preserve themselves from sin for a long time who neglect to procure for themselves the more abundant aids of grace which, according to the will and institution of Christ, are given through holy communion (John 6, 54, 58).

¹ Sess. 21, can. 4.

² John 6, 54.

³ Fourth Lateran Council, c. Omnis utriusque; Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 9; Cn. 859. Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 694 ss.

137. On the obligation of the divine precept. The divine precept of receiving holy communion obliges of itself and can oblige accidentally.

1. Of itself it urges: a. at the time of death, as is established both from the perpetual practice of the Church, which established that the Eucharist is to be administered to the dying, so that the ancient law be observed, namely that the dying not be deprived of the final and necessary Viaticum;¹ and from the unanimous doctrine of theologians, whose reason is this: the divine precept of receiving the Eucharist, existing certainly but without determination of time, then obliges when the Eucharist is most necessary. But there is no greater necessity of this sacrament than in death, where the faithful must wage the last struggle against the enemies of salvation, on the happy outcome of which blessed eternity depends.²

b. Sometimes in life, as is gathered from the fact that this sacrament has been instituted by way of spiritual food. Moreover, just as the life of the body cannot long be preserved without material food, so neither can the life of the soul long subsist without this food. Here, however, the difference between natural and spiritual food must be noted: for the former is the only means for preserving natural life; but spiritual life can also be preserved by other means (prayers, good works, other sacraments). Therefore of the former an absolute necessity is affirmed, but of the latter only a moral necessity and a necessity of precept.

How often this sacrament is to be received Christ himself did not determine, but left to the Church to determine, so that she herself, according to the diverse demand of times and devotion, might prescribe the frequency of reception. In the first centuries of the Church, charity and devotion then being fervent, the faithful frequently approached holy communion, so that there was no need of a positive precept of the Church. But because afterward, charity and devotion growing cold, the faithful began to neglect holy communion, the Church commanded that every year they receive it three times on the principal feasts: Nativity, Resurrection, and Pentecost. And when gradually the faithful did not even observe this, Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council commanded holy communion to be received at least once in the year. It can scarcely be affirmed that annual communion is the extreme limit beyond which the reception of this sacrament cannot be deferred without violation of the divine precept.³

2. Accidentally there exists an obligation of receiving the Eucharist if someone suffers so grave and lasting a temptation that holy communion is necessary for overcoming it. This, however, will scarcely ever happen, since other means are at hand which suffice for this end, e.g., prayers, penances, flight of occasions, etc. And this indeed is true theoretically; but practically, especially in a man who labors under an evil habit, holy communion, and indeed more frequent communion, must be called morally necessary. For the other means by which he could free himself from vice are more difficult than that there be hope they will be used; therefore, if he does not flee to communion to be received frequently, he will never free himself from vice.

¹ First General Council of Nicaea, can. 13.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 35.

³ Cf. Behringer-Hilgers, l.c., p. 148 s.

138. On the obligation of receiving Viaticum.¹ In danger of death, from whatever cause it comes, whether internal or external, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion. The precept of Viaticum begins to oblige not only in the article of death, namely when death is near at hand and morally already certain, but also in danger of death, namely when it is probable that death will follow, because in circumstances of this kind it is frequently accustomed to happen, whether the danger to life then arises from an internal cause (illness) or from an external one.²

Therefore not only in grave illness, but also before a dangerous voyage or battle, when a contagious disease is raging, before a surgical operation joined with danger of life, before childbirth, especially if it is the first time or if the woman has been accustomed to give birth with danger, the obligation of receiving this sacrament urges. Communion is also to be given to those condemned to death, provided that they are rightly disposed, and the Church disapproved the contrary practice of some; for they are in the article of death, where the precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges. It is to be advised that the guilty person communicate on the very day of punishment, provided that it be at least one hour before capital punishment is inflicted.³

2. Even if they had received holy communion on the same day, nevertheless it is very much to be advised that, when the danger of death comes on, they communicate again.⁴

Not only the question disputed among theologians, whether one falling into danger of death is bound to receive Viaticum if on the same day he received holy communion from devotion, but also the other question, whether one who a few days before received holy communion from devotion is bound to receive Viaticum, is solved by these things. The first indeed, because in the case of Viaticum it is licit to communicate twice on the same day, and because the sick are not obliged to receive it. But the other, because the precept of Viaticum does not urge at the end of life, or a little before death, where danger to life is not yet present, but in the very danger of death.

3. While the danger of death continues, Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, can and fittingly should be administered several times on distinct days.⁵

4. He who received Viaticum sacrilegiously has not satisfied the precept; therefore he is bound to receive it again if this can be done without danger of infamy. He who in danger of death did not communicate is not bound afterward to supply it; likewise he who after receiving Viaticum sinned mortally is not bound to communicate again.

A prudent confessor will have to judge whether a dying person who received Viaticum sacrilegiously and afterward confesses the sacrilege is to be admonished about the obligation of receiving it again. For if the admonition is foreseen as perhaps not going to be profitable, it will be more advisable to abstain from it. But if the dying person does not refuse to communicate again, Viaticum is to be carried the following day, using communion from devotion as a pretext so that his reputation may be consulted. But if from any cause whatever this could not be done, there is sufficient reason for carrying holy communion secretly, which even a regular confessor could do.

¹ Cn. 864.

² The article and danger of death are usually taken in the same sense. But those who distinguish between these two define with Suarez that the article is present "when death is near at hand and is morally certain and almost inevitable," but danger is present "when it is probable, doubtful, and frequently customary that in such a case death happen." Therefore danger of death is judged present in any dangerous illness, namely one which of itself can have a lethal outcome.

³ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 5 July 1841, decreed that to those condemned to death holy communion is not only to be given, but also to be given by way of Viaticum.

⁴ Cn. 864, 2.

⁵ Cn. 864, 3.

139. The required disposition. 1. For receiving the Eucharist with fruit there is required the state of grace, because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Therefore the Apostle admonishes: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice;¹ and from the declaration of the Council of Trent this proving consists in this, that he who approaches holy communion be conscious to himself of no mortal sin.²

a. A twofold disposition as regards the soul can be distinguished: substantial, which consists in immunity from mortal sin, and accidental, which consists in immunity from actual venial sin and in actual devotion with which the sacrament is received. On the former depends the very effect of this sacrament; on the latter depends the degree of the effects which holy communion can produce. The former is required under grave sin, the latter under venial sin; for he sins against the reverence due to so great a sacrament who approaches with actual venial sin or without any devotion and preparation.

Therefore for perceiving the effect of this sacrament no disposition besides the state of grace is required. Therefore he who approaches without actual devotion or with venial sins not yet remitted, indeed even he who in receiving the Eucharist commits a venial sin, does not lack the substantial fruit of this sacrament. For the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those not placing an obstacle; but the obstacle of this sacrament is nothing except grave sin. But the better the disposition is, the greater also is the fruit which is perceived from the sacrament.

b. Since there is an obligation of procuring actual devotion for oneself before holy communion, he commits a venial sin of irreverence not only who communicates with actual light sin, but also who communicates without actual devotion. Nevertheless the same measure of devotion is not required in all, but one fitting the condition and state of the communicant: greater, namely, in those who communicate more often and strive after perfection than in those who rarely communicate and are involved in secular business. Hence it can happen that the defect of particular devotion which in a layman is no sin is a venial sin in a priest or religious.³

¹ 1 Cor. 11, 28.

² Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7.

³ Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 1; Suarez, disp. 66, sect. 1.

140. 2. It does not suffice to repair, before communion, the state of grace lost through sin by perfect contrition; but by the prescription of the Church: a. he who is in the state of mortal sin, before communion, is bound under grave sin to premise sacramental confession, unless there is lacking the supply of a confessor and at the same time there urges the necessity of celebrating or communicating; nevertheless they should first elicit an act of perfect contrition; b. a priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession is bound to confess as soon as possible.¹

alpha. There are some who say that the precept of confessing before communion is divine: for by the precept of the Apostle, which he himself received from Christ the Lord, proving is to be premised before communion; but this proving, from the declaration of the Church, is sacramental confession. But this opinion, as lacking solid reason, is rejected by others.²

beta. If someone, after a confession made in good faith, remembers a mortal sin which he forgot to confess, confession before communion can be advised, but he cannot be obliged to it. For the Council commands confession to him who is conscious to himself of mortal sin not yet destroyed through confession; but in our case the communicant is not conscious to himself of sin not yet destroyed through confession, for the sin omitted in confession has already been indirectly remitted. Therefore neither is an act of contrition strictly required before communion in this case. Although, therefore, according to the most common opinion of the ancients, a sin omitted through forgetfulness must be declared in confession before communion, nevertheless, for the reason stated, the contrary opinion, which denies this obligation, has prevailed.

gamma. He who doubts concerning a grave sin committed, even if the doubt is truly probable, likewise cannot be obliged to confession before Mass or communion; for only he is conscious to himself of mortal sin who knows certainly that he has committed it. Nevertheless confession is to be advised, and even enjoined on him who does not know how to form his conscience, unless it is a question of a scrupulous person. But the communicant in this case must try to elicit perfect contrition before communion, lest he expose himself to the danger of frustrating the effect of the sacrament.³

delta. He who has applied a serious effort to eliciting perfect contrition can safely approach holy communion, even if he doubts whether in reality he has happened to elicit an act of it; for a doubt can scarcely exist unless negative and to be spurned.

epsilon. Practically, in a case of doubt concerning a grave sin committed, the penitent is to be directed from the presumption taken from those things which ordinarily happen to him in temptations of this kind. For if in temptations of this kind he is not accustomed to consent, it is to be presumed with moral certitude that consent was not present, and therefore holy communion is to be permitted without confession and contrition; but if he ordinarily consents, it is to be presumed that consent was also present this time, and therefore confession is to be urged.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7; Cn. 856, 807.

² 1 Cor. 11, 23 ss. Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, n. 69 ss.

³ There are not lacking authors who think that no obligation exists in this case of premising an act of perfect contrition, because this obligation is not certainly established. But since the obligation of forestalling the frustration of the effect of the sacrament is certain, the obligation is also certain of using the means necessary for this end, namely either perfect contrition or confession with attrition. For it is not asked whether it is licit or not to approach holy communion without contrition, but whether frustration of the effect of the sacrament is absolutely to be forestalled. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 150 (n. 208).

141. Declaration of this precept. A twofold condition is required so that it be licit to celebrate or communicate without confession having been premised: a. that the supply of a confessor be lacking; b. that the necessity of celebrating or communicating urge.

1. The supply of a confessor is lacking if no confessor is present, and one absent, with regard to the circumstances of the person (illness, necessary business) or of the journey (a distance of one hour), cannot be approached without great difficulty. But it is not said to be lacking if only one's own confessor is lacking, or if there is present only a familiar confessor, to whom you could confess only with great shame.

a. It is clear that there is no obligation of confessing if an approved confessor is indeed present, to whom, nevertheless, the penitent cannot confess without certain and grave harm to another, as if he cannot declare the sin without the confessor knowing the accomplice; or if the penitent has only a sin reserved to the bishop, and no confessor is present who has power over reserved cases.

b. It is certain that a cause external to confession and sufficiently grave excuses from this precept. All admit that danger of grave scandal and infamy constitutes a cause of this kind; it must be affirmed that shame alone arising from the fact that afterward you must converse or live with the confessor is not a cause of this kind. Nevertheless the opinion does not seem improbable that extraordinarily great and invincible shame, as if an uncle had to confess a shameful matter to his nephew, excuses from this precept.¹ This excuse, however, is not to be extended to the case in which a pastor would have to manifest a grave and shameful sin to a young vicar, unless the repugnance in the particular case is extraordinarily great.

2. The necessity of celebrating or communicating must be grave so that the priest can say Mass with only contrition premised and a layperson can receive communion; otherwise they must omit Mass or communion. Hence rarely will there be present a necessity of communicating in a layperson, more frequently in a priest a necessity of celebrating.

This necessity is judged present in a priest: alpha. if he is bound to celebrate by office, so that the faithful may hear Mass as prescribed, or so that funerals or nuptials may be had;² beta. if he cannot omit Mass without grave infamy or scandal of the people; gamma. if the priest, already clothed in vestments or with Mass already begun, commits mortal sin, or only then finally remembers a sin previously committed, and cannot confess without mark of infamy; delta. if a particle is to be consecrated so that Viaticum can be administered to a dying person. But the necessity of celebrating is not judged present if the priest was going to celebrate only from devotion, or for gaining an indulgence, or from the obligation of a benefice.

¹ Berardi proposes this opinion (Prax. conf.^3, III, n. 338), to which Genicot assents, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 193, and Casus consc., II, p. 214.

² To celebration due from office can also be numbered the case in which, because of a particular devotion, a frequent people comes together to hear Mass, even if not prescribed. Cf. Genicot, Casus consc., II, p. 213.

142. Concerning the precept imposed on priests alone of confessing as soon as possible if, urgent necessity requiring, they have celebrated without previous confession, these things must be noted:

a. It is a true precept¹ obliging under grave sin those who, urgent necessity requiring, have celebrated without confession, even sacrilegiously, provided that they have the supply of a confessor.

b. It does not oblige priests who, without necessity, celebrate in mortal sin without confession having been premised, because the Council speaks expressly of the priest who celebrates without confession when necessity urges.

Authors, who with almost common consent interpret the law in this way, note that the Council wished by this law to take care lest priests defer confession under pretext of the necessity of celebrating, but did not directly wish to take care against sacrilegious celebrations; for the law would have profited little for obtaining this end. And indeed a priest who knowingly dares to celebrate sacrilegiously will scarcely care for this ecclesiastical precept. Therefore those who have celebrated without necessity are not affected by this law.

c. The obligation of confessing as soon as possible is to be understood in such a way that confession be made at least within three days, since the term as soon as possible, as in other human laws, is rightly understood morally, i.e., of the space of three days. This obligation urges even if the priest after three days will not celebrate, but only after one or another week. Nevertheless on the second or third day of this three-day period he cannot celebrate without confession, unless again and again the necessity of celebrating and the lack of a confessor continue.

d. Accidentally, however, it can happen that the priest is obliged to confession even on the same day, namely if on that day there is an occasion of confessing and he himself wishes or ought to celebrate on the following day, or if he foresees that in the following days there will be no occasion of confessing.

Article Fourth. On the Disposition of the Body

The disposition of the body also is twofold: one essential, which consists in the natural fast; the other accidental, which consists in external reverence and must appear in decency of dress and cleanliness of body. The essential disposition is required under grave sin, the accidental under light sin.

This twofold disposition of body is taken from the Roman Missal, which, looking not only to the celebrant but also to communicants, treats in chapter IX De defectibus of the disposition of body and brings forward the following: defect of the natural fast and defect of cleanliness arising from pollution, even if the stain of the soul has been destroyed by confession; for it says: "unless something else seems good to the confessor."

¹ Cf. proposition 38 of Alexander VII: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."

143. With decent dress. The reverence due to this most worthy sacrament demands that communicants approach the sacred table reverently and devoutly in decent and clean dress. Hence:

a. The negligence and carelessness by which someone approaches holy communion in disordered, dirty, or torn garments is certainly venially sinful.

b. If the immodesty and indecency by which women sometimes approach the sacred table, with the breast not sufficiently covered and surrounded with vain ornament, should proceed so far that, having regard to the custom of regions, they offend chaste eyes and are a scandal to others, they would even sin gravely and would have to be kept from communion.

c. It is fitting that soldiers approach the sacred table after laying aside arms, but they are bound to this by no law.

d. Priests and deacons, by prescription of the Church, must approach holy communion clothed with a stole, if they communicate publicly.

144. With a clean body. Reverence toward the most holy sacrament also demands this: that communicants approach the sacred table with a clean body, i.e., without an external and removable stain and without filth. For although a stain of the body, whether external or hidden, does not of itself impede holy communion, since purity of the soul is not diminished by defilement of the body, nevertheless decency requires this cleanliness too.

a. If an external stain is present which is hoped to be removed shortly, it is fitting that holy communion be deferred for a short time. But if the stain is lasting, there is no reason that someone be deprived of holy communion on that account. Nevertheless a priest infected by a disease which excites horror can indeed celebrate, but privately, not publicly.

b. Women at the time of menstrual flow and of purification after childbirth, since these things happen without fault and do not outwardly appear, are not prohibited from receiving holy communion.

c. Involuntary pollution does not prohibit from Mass or from communion. Therefore of itself it is not necessary on that account to omit Mass or communion, especially if there is present a particular reason on that day of celebrating, e.g., in those who are accustomed to celebrate daily, or of communicating, e.g., in communities where on stated days all approach communion, or if an indulgence is to be gained, etc.¹

d. The marriage debt rendered on the preceding night with due end and manner in no way impedes holy communion. Indeed, if the debt is exercised for pleasure alone and therefore sinfully, it is not necessary that the married abstain from the sacred table, especially since in them there is ordinarily a reasonable cause either of approaching holy communion or of performing the conjugal act.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De euchar., disp. 15, sect. 1.

145. On the natural fast. 1. By the precept of the Church, obliging under grave sin, it is required that the one about to communicate observe the natural fast, i.e., abstinence from every food and drink, however minimal, from the preceding midnight. The foundation of this precept is decency and reverence toward the most holy sacrament; for it is plainly fitting that the Eucharist be received before every other food.

a. The natural fast before communion, which is also called sacramental, introduced at first through particular statutes and through custom, has been sanctioned by ecclesiastical law.¹

b. The sacramental fast requires that no other food or drink be received on that day, i.e., after midnight, before holy communion. But it does not require that the Eucharist be received into a stomach entirely empty or fasting, nor that the Eucharist be the first substance, but only that it be the first food (or drink) which on that day is received into the stomach.

c. That one who celebrates soon after midnight must abstain for some time from taking food or drink is prescribed by no law. Therefore, although of itself he can still eat or drink a little before midnight, nevertheless, apart from unforeseen cases, decency demands that he abstain from food and drink for several hours, about four, before Mass, lest sacred food be mixed with profane food taken a little before.²

d. He who positively doubts whether he has taken something of food or drink, and in like manner he who positively doubts whether what he took he took before or after midnight, can approach holy communion; for unless it is certainly established that the fast has been broken, he is not bound to abstain from holy communion.

e. The law of the sacramental fast, although it is an ecclesiastical law, nevertheless does not admit smallness of matter. Since the law was established from a motive of religion because of reverence toward Christ the Lord present in the Eucharist, he who violates it commits a sin of sacrilege.

f. The precept by which formerly the faithful after holy communion were bound to keep the fast until evening no longer is in force. Nevertheless natural decency demands that one abstain from food and drink for as long as the sacred species in the stomach are not yet corrupted. Therefore he who immediately after holy communion eats or drinks without a reasonable cause sins venially against the reverence of the most holy sacrament. But he is free from all fault who soon after communion spits, provided that no fragment of the host remains in the mouth or throat. For there is no danger of irreverence, since the way by which spittle flows into the mouth is not the way of food and drink.

¹ The Code of Canon Law contains an explicit precept concerning this matter. For the faithful, Cn. 858, 1: "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." For priests celebrating, Cn. 808: "It is not licit for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed." Indeed Cn. 2321 wills that the Ordinary suspend from sacred functions priests who have presumed to celebrate not fasting or twice on the same day. Since the law is ecclesiastical, it can be taken away by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff; but dispensation, which formerly is read as scarcely ever granted, today is more easily granted, but only to the sick who are not gravely bedridden, who cannot remain fasting, for communicating, not however to priests for celebrating.

² When the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII (26 Feb. 1885) granted the privilege of celebrating Masses in the church at Lourdes immediately after midnight, he added this condition, that the priests celebrating abstain from food and drink four hours before Mass.

146. 2. Midnight, from which the communicant must be fasting, begins from the first stroke of the clock indicating the twelfth hour. Therefore for one about to communicate, who while drinking hears the hour strike, it is not licit to finish the draught; nevertheless he is not bound to spit out what, while drinking, he still has in his mouth.

Some assign this reason for the matter: because the Church is not judged to wish to oblige to such rusticity; others perhaps more rightly: because in that place there will not be lacking approved clocks which have not yet indicated twelve.

The twelfth hour can be estimated from all the public clocks of the region ordinarily well directed, even if they mark a time diverse from the true time, namely either local mean time or legal mean time. Therefore it is licit to follow the latest clock, provided the error is not established and that clock does not ordinarily err.¹

The Church has permitted this because it does not require that the faithful in observing ecclesiastical precepts use a computation of time different from that which publicly directs the other affairs of men in individual places.² Therefore it is always licit to follow true time, but it is also licit to follow mean time, whether local or legal, according as the clocks of the region indicate the one or the other.

¹ Cn. 33.

² S. Poenitentiaria, 18 June 1873; 29 Nov. 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, VII, p. 399.

147. On the breaking of the fast. The natural fast is broken by eating or drinking, i.e., by the taking of any food or drink which is taken in the manner of food or drink.

a. For the notion of eating or drinking it makes no difference of itself whether something is taken deliberately or by accident and beyond intention; therefore he who in sleep drinks water, or who inadvertently swallows a leaf which he was rolling about in his mouth, is no longer fasting.

b. Therefore three things are required for the breaking of the fast: one of them pertains to the thing which is taken, namely that it be food or drink; the other two pertain to the manner in which the thing is taken, namely that it be taken by the mouth from outside, and that it be taken by eating or drinking and descend into the stomach by swallowing.

148. 1. In order that the fast be broken, it is required that that which is taken have the nature of food or drink. Now by the name of food is designated only and everything which, received into the stomach, can in some manner, even if not fully, be digested and converted into the substance of man; for what can in no way be altered in the stomach is not said to be eaten. But by the name of drink is signified every liquid (which does not at the same time nourish).

a. What can be digested, and what cannot, must be determined chiefly from the common estimation of men. Hence he who swallows iron, glass, wood, nails, hair, scraped-off fruit stones, threads of silk or wool, and similar things, does not break the fast; but he breaks it who swallows straw, wax, paper, medicinal powder, etc.

b. But if from the doctrine of chemists it should be established that some thing commonly considered digestible, as chalk, can in no way be altered in the stomach, that thing would not have the nature of food and drink, and therefore would not break the fast. Nevertheless a thing which in common estimation is not considered digestible must not on that account be reckoned among foods because chemists say that it is altered a little in the stomach.

149. 2. In order that that which is taken be taken by the mouth from outside and be swallowed: for the fast is broken by eating; but what is not taken by the mouth from outside, even if it is swallowed voluntarily, and likewise what is only put into the mouth, without being swallowed, is not said to be eaten.

a. Therefore he who swallows a humor flowing inwardly from the head, or blood flowing from the tongue, gums, or teeth, or tobacco powder drawn in by the nostrils, or a drop of water descending through the ears, does not injure the fast; but he injures it who sucks blood from the wound of a finger, who licks tears flowing from the eyes, blood from the exterior lips, etc., unless some small amount beyond intention descends into the stomach in the manner of saliva, etc.

b. He who, for washing out the stomach by means of some instrument, draws in water and again rejects it, remains fasting, even if a small part of the water remains in the stomach, because nothing is taken by swallowing in the manner of drink. Indeed also, as it seems, it is licit to put down into the stomach the tube of the instrument smeared with oil, without the fast being broken.¹

¹ Cf. Monitore eccles. (Roma, Direzione del Mon. eccl.), t. 9, p. 184.

150. 3. In order that that which is taken be taken by eating or drinking, or in the manner of food or drink, not in the manner of saliva or respiration: for what is taken in the manner of saliva or respiration, by the common judgment of men, is not eaten.

That is taken in the manner of saliva which is inseparably mixed with saliva and, with it, beyond intention (even if advertently), is passed into the stomach; that is taken by respiration which, flying through the air, is drawn in by breathing and beyond intention (even if advertently) descends into the stomach. But what is sent down with saliva in greater quantity, or what is deliberately taken with saliva, or drawn from the air and swallowed, breaks the fast. For although it makes no difference to the notion of eating whether a thing is taken by accident or deliberately, nevertheless, if something is taken purposely with saliva or by breathing, the intention causes the taking to be voluntary swallowing and to have the character of eating or drinking.

a. Therefore he who rinses his mouth and by accident swallows a little water mixed with saliva; he who keeps some aromatic thing in his mouth, deliberately swallowing nothing, even if something descends with the saliva; he who holds a tobacco leaf in his mouth and rubs it with his teeth, but deliberately does not swallow the juice, but spits it out, does not break the fast. Yet chewing of this sort, unless there is present a reasonable cause, e.g., of health or of purifying the breath, is not becoming before communion. In the same way, he who by breathing draws in vapors from food or drink present; he who draws tobacco smoke through the mouth; he who passes down a fly, dust, snow, rainwater drawn from the air, does not break the fast: for these things either do not have the nature of food, or are taken in the manner of respiration or saliva.

b. But he who voluntarily swallows even the smallest thing, with whatever intention this is done, who, for example, takes in the manner of medicine a single little drop or a single grain, ceases to be fasting and is excluded from communion; in like manner, he who, lying down in the evening, takes into his mouth a piece of sugar to soften hoarseness, if the whole has not been liquefied and swallowed before midnight, does not remain fasting.¹

c. Remnants of food which cling between the teeth do not break the fast, whether they are taken involuntarily or even voluntarily. This indeed is certain from the rubric of the Missal;² but in assigning the reason why those remnants do not hinder the fast, authors do not agree: according to some, because they are not taken from outside; and according to others, because they are taken in the manner of saliva. Perhaps better you would say with Lehmkuhl that this comes from the definition of the Church, which, in order to forestall anxieties and doubts in these matters which occur rather often and can with difficulty be guarded against, has itself interpreted the law more broadly.

d. That which is taken together with the sacred species does not break the fast, which the Church commands to be observed in a human manner. Therefore if someone in the first Mass on the day of the Nativity should have taken a fly or a small particle of wax which had fallen into the chalice, or drops of wine clinging inside the chalice, even though they were not consecrated, he can still celebrate another Mass. To the sick (even those not gravely bedridden) the sacred species can be offered with wine or water, just as the priest himself on Good Friday takes the particle of the consecrated host with wine, even if perhaps the water or wine descends into the stomach before the sacred species.

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pars 2, n. 467 ss.

² Missale rom., De defectibus IX, 3.

151. Causes excusing from the natural fast. The precept of the sacramental fast belongs to the gravest precepts of the Church; therefore, from the custom of the Church, which the Council of Constance reports, it ceases only in a case of infirmity or of another necessity granted or admitted by law or by the Church.¹ Moreover five cases of this sort are enumerated, four of which are indeed admitted by all, but concerning the fifth authors dispute.

When the individual cases in which the law of the sacramental fast ceases are considered, it will be clear that not just any grave inconvenience excuses from this law, but only the necessity of fulfilling a higher law, which cannot be fulfilled while the fast is observed.

Therefore the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting:

1. For completing the sacrifice: for the obligation of the divine precept concerning the completion of the sacrifice is greater than that of the ecclesiastical precept concerning the fast to be observed before communion. Therefore:

a. If a priest in the sacred action itself, after the consecration of one or both species, remembers that he is not fasting, he can and must communicate, not fasting, in order to complete the sacrifice; but if he remembers before consecration, he must withdraw from the altar, where this can be done without infamy and scandal.

b. If a priest performing the sacred action, after the consecration of one or both species, being overtaken by a sudden illness, cannot complete the sacrifice, then, in default of a fasting priest, it must be completed by another priest who is not fasting.

c. If a priest has poured water instead of wine into the chalice, and does not notice it until after the reception either of all or of part of the water, he must, in order to complete the sacrifice, consecrate again and receive the consecrated species.

d. If a priest, after the ablution has already been taken, finds a whole consecrated host or remnants of hosts, he can and must receive them, if another Mass is not to be said that day and if they cannot be placed in the ciborium or be kept decently in another way, because that reception is as it were the complement of the sacrifice and of the banquet performed.²

¹ Sess. 13.

² Missale rom., De defectibus VII, 2.

152. 2. For avoiding irreverence toward the most holy sacrament: for the natural law of reverence due to the sacrament is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law of the fast before communion.

Therefore, if there is imminent danger from fire, from the attack of enemies, from infidels or heretics by whom this sacrament would be treated injuriously, the consecrated hosts can and must be received by a priest who is not fasting and, if he is absent, even by a layman with his own hands; or a priest can offer them to laypersons who are not fasting. Cf. cn. 858.

153. 3. For avoiding public scandal: for the obligation of the natural law concerning the avoiding of scandal is greater than this precept of the Church.

a. Therefore, if a priest before consecration remembers that he is not fasting and cannot withdraw from the altar without infamy and scandal of the people, he can communicate though not fasting. The same also is to be conceded to a layman who, about to communicate, is already present at the altar and remembers that he is not fasting, namely where he cannot withdraw without disgrace and scandal.

b. If a pastor on a Sunday, whether by accident or by fault no longer fasting, cannot omit the sacred action without grave scandal and offense of the people or without his own grave infamy, he certainly could perform the sacred action even though not fasting. But this cause alone, namely lest the people on a feast of precept have to be deprived of Mass, does not excuse from the law of the fast, which is graver than the precept of hearing Mass.¹ In a case of this sort, however, other excusing causes often concur, especially scandal of the people, danger of infamy, and finally the danger that many, although an opportune occasion exists and although they could and ought to go elsewhere to hear Mass, will gravely neglect to do so. Besides, a priest who is not ill spoken of among the faithful will easily remove the danger of scandal and infamy by candidly declaring the cause for which he cannot celebrate. But if the faithful cannot go to a nearby church to hear Mass, it is helpful to institute another sacred function in place of the Mass.

c. Many authors concede that a newly ordained priest who has inadvertently broken the fast can celebrate his first Mass, if circumstances concur in which it cannot be deferred without very grave inconveniences, as if many relatives have come from elsewhere, if it is publicly known that the first Mass is to be celebrated today, but the breaking of the fast has remained hidden: for ordinarily the reason of scandal will excuse; but if no scandal is to be feared, it is licit in this case to use epikeia.²

¹ S. Officium, 2 Dec. 1874.

² Cf. Gobat, Experient., tr. 3, n. 411; Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 583; Genicot, Theol. mor. instit., II, n. 202.

154. 4. For receiving viaticum in danger of death: for the Council of Constance declares that the sick laboring under a grave illness joined with danger of death are exempt from the law of the fast to be observed before communion,¹ and the Roman Ritual has: Viaticum can be given to those shortly about to die when they are not fasting.² Therefore these, as exempt, are not bound to observe the fast, even though they could observe it without grave inconvenience.

a. This exemption, however, does not apply to those who are brought into danger of death not from illness but because of an external cause: for then both the Council and the Ritual speak only of the sick. Therefore those who are not sick, as soldiers before battle, persons condemned to death, etc., must observe the fast before viaticum. But if they cannot observe it without great inconvenience, viaticum can be given even to those not fasting.³

b. If it is doubtful whether the sick person is in probable danger of death or not, whether the disease is truly lethal or not, nevertheless viaticum can be administered to him though not fasting, both because the obligation of the fast is not certain, and because the Church is rightly presumed to wish in this case to favor the sick person, lest he be exposed to the danger of dying without viaticum. This holds especially when the sick person is far from the church, or the priest can no longer return to him; for then the danger is greater of dying without viaticum.

¹ Cf. sess. 13.

² Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 4; cf. cn. 858, from which the same is inferred.

³ S. C. de prop. fid., 21 July 1841.

155. 5. For administering viaticum. There are those who add this fifth case to the preceding: namely, if there is no consecrated host for viaticum, a priest who is not fasting can celebrate, even if he has already celebrated on that day. And this indeed is certain, if there is question of administering viaticum to himself; for he who is exempt from the fast so that he can communicate, is also exempt so that he can celebrate. But if there is question of administering viaticum to another, many authors concede it either absolutely or at least probably,¹ and not without reason: for the divine law, which commands the reception of viaticum, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law commanding the fast before celebration, especially since from this no relaxation of the law of the fast to be observed before communion is to be feared. Besides, St. Alphonsus, whose probable opinions the Church permits in practice, says that this opinion is probable.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 286.

156. How often holy communion can be ministered to a gravely sick person who is not fasting. Holy communion can be given more often to the sick dangerously bedridden, even when they are not fasting, not only if a new danger recurs, but also in the same danger; indeed nothing prevents it from being offered to them as often as they desire it for the consolation and help of the soul and the circumstances of persons and places permit, even if this were done daily.¹

a. For the Council of Constance declares the sick dangerously bedridden simply exempt from the law of the natural fast. And certainly the reason for exempting them is not only the obligation of receiving viaticum, but also the necessity of the soul, by which the sick especially at the time of death need the help and consolation of this sacrament. Therefore, if the sick person can remain fasting without inconvenience, he should be advised, out of reverence toward the most holy sacrament, to receive holy communion fasting; but he is not bound to this.

b. Therefore the Roman Ritual admonishes:² "But if the sick person, having received viaticum, lives some days . . . and wishes to communicate, the pastor will not be lacking to his pious desire." These words are to be understood of the reception of the most holy sacrament by one not fasting. Therefore all the provincial synods held in recent times exhort pastors to bring the Eucharist more often to the gravely sick, even if they cannot observe the natural fast.³ With these agrees cn. 864, 3 cited above (n. 138).

c. If holy communion is administered to the gravely bedridden sick, whether they have already been refreshed by viaticum or not yet, the ordinary form is used: The Body of our Lord, etc.

¹ Cf. Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1880, p. 717 ff.

² Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 3.

³ Cf. Collectio lacens., under the word Viaticum.

157. Whether it is licit to give communion to one who is not dangerously bedridden, but because of long-lasting illness cannot observe the fast, when he is not fasting. The Holy See has resolved this question, disputed up to now, in such a way that it is now established which sick persons, and how often, can receive holy communion when they are not fasting.¹ Namely, the sick who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope of soon recovering can receive holy communion once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink,² but with the counsel of the confessor employed in this matter.

a. The privilege conceded by this decree must be extended also to those who, because of the quality of the disease, cannot lie in bed, but are forced to remain outside the bed; likewise to those whom the disease permits to remain outside the bed during the day for a time.³

b. Besides these sick persons there are others who properly are not called sick, since they habitually remain outside bed, go out from the house, indeed come to church, and yet cannot observe the fast. To these the privilege conceded to the sick cannot be extended, lest under the pretext of infirmity the precept of the fast gradually be relaxed. In order that these also may be able to receive holy communion, either holy communion must be administered to them so early that up to that time they can observe the fast, or a dispensation from the sacramental fast must be sought, which in our time is more easily granted.⁴

c. If, however, in a sick person of this sort there is question not of communion from devotion, but of Easter communion to be received by precept, already some more recent theologians think it probable that in that case the law of the fast ceases: for the divine-ecclesiastical precept of communicating at Easter prevails over the merely ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast before communion. Nevertheless the scandal of the faithful must be guarded against.⁵

d. If someone bedridden from a non-grave illness cannot observe the natural fast and desires to receive holy communion more often in the week, the privilege cannot be extended beyond communion twice; but nothing prevents him from communicating twice in the week not fasting, and on other days fasting, if he observes the fast, although with difficulty.⁶

e. Priests can indeed use this privilege conceded to those not dangerously bedridden, when the required conditions are supposed, for communicating in the manner of laypeople, but not likewise for celebrating.

¹ S. C. C., 7 Dec. 1906. The resolution of the Sacred Congregation was somewhat modified by cn. 858, 2.

² The Holy Office, 7 Sept. 1897, declared: the words in the manner of drink are to be understood so that it is licit to take broth, coffee, and other liquid foods with which some substance has been mixed, e.g., flour (semolino, emoule), grated bread (pangrattato, pain rape), etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food.

³ S. C. C., 6 March 1907.

⁴ Formula for petitioning from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments a dispensation from the sacramental fast: Most Blessed Father, Stephen N. of the diocese N., although he does not lie in bed because of infirmity, nevertheless suffers from such weakness of stomach that it is morally impossible for him to observe the natural fast prescribed before holy communion. Therefore, humbly prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, he suppliantly asks the faculty of taking something in the manner of drink before he approaches to receive holy communion.

⁵ Of this opinion are Berardi, Examen conf., I, n. 764; D'Annibale, III, n. 411; Gasparri, De euchar., II, n. 1129; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 202; Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., n. 176; Gennari, Consultazioni, I, cons. 50, n. 6.

⁶ Cf. Monitore eccles., 1907, p. 472.

158. On frequent communion itself. 1. By the name frequent communion there is properly designated only communion which is received several times in the week or even daily. Therefore weekly communion is not properly and strictly called frequent.

The use of frequent communion took hold especially after the Council of Trent, and today it flourishes and is strong widely in the Church. Its most bitter enemies were the Jansenists, who, under a false pretext of religion, kept the faithful away from receiving sacred communion more frequently: for they demanded such purity and holiness of soul in the recipient that everyone had to consider himself unworthy of frequent communion.

2. According to the mind of the Church, frequent communion must be earnestly recommended to the faithful. Concerning the use of sacred communion the Church has established two things: first, that communion is to be received only once in the day (n. 129), then, that it is to be received at least once in the year. Within these limits she indeed commands nothing, but nevertheless she shows in every way that she greatly desires the faithful to approach sacred communion frequently, indeed even daily.

a. The Council of Trent desires "that in individual Masses the faithful present communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist";² and the Roman Catechism, edited by order of the Council of Trent, admonishes pastors to exhort the faithful often to receiving holy communion frequently.³ Hence it happened that the acts of the provincial council of Rouen, which decreed that in the future holy communion would be distributed only twice in the week, were reprobated at Rome, with this admonition added: it is opposed by the Council of Trent.

b. The very celebrated decree of Innocent XI, Cum ad aures (12 Feb. 1679), exhibits the Church's manner of thinking and speaking concerning this matter, so that Benedict XIV declared: if in a synod speech is instituted concerning the frequent or even daily use of the holy Eucharist, one must not depart from the path of this decree. Now this decree contains especially three things: alpha. it reprobates the prohibition of frequent communion made in some dioceses because of abuses which had crept in from daily communion; beta. it decrees that neither the state of merchants nor the conjugal state impedes frequent communion, which depends solely on the disposition of the soul; gamma. it establishes that judgment concerning the interior disposition, and therefore concerning the frequency of communion in a particular case, is to be left to the confessor.

c. Most clearly the Church opened her mind concerning frequent communion by the solemn decree Sacra tridentina synodus, issued by Pius X (20 Dec. 1905), by which not only frequent and daily communion is earnestly commended, but also easier conditions for receiving it are determined.

d. The Church draws this manner of thinking and acting from the words of Christ, who not obscurely manifests the desire that the faithful often eat the eucharistic bread,⁴ and from the end and effects of the Eucharist, concerning which St. Thomas argues thus: this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, as bodily food is taken daily, so it is laudable to receive this sacrament daily.⁵

Note. Therefore there act against the mind of the Church not only priests who indiscriminately deny frequent communion to all the faithful for this reason alone, that it is frequent, and pastors who neither distribute holy communion nor permit it to be distributed except on Sundays and feasts; but also confessors who, in the Jansenist manner, require for frequent communion such great purity of soul that they judge scarcely any penitent worthy of frequent communion. These are led by a false principle, namely that holy communion is the prize and reward of acquired virtue, whereas rather it is the means of acquiring virtue.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De eucharistia, disp. 17; Dalgairns, Die heilige Kommunion; ihre Philosophie, Theologie und Praxis (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1862); Segur, Die wochentliche Kommunion (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1880); Bastien, De frequenti quotidianaque communione (Rome, Desclee, 1907).

² Sess. 22, c. 6; sess. 13, c. 8. Cn. 863 agrees.

³ Pars II, c. 4, q. 58.

⁴ John 6:59.

⁵ Summa III, q. 80, a. 10, ad 1.

159. Required dispositions. 1. As to the required dispositions, all demand the state of grace; but concerning further disposition theologians disputed. Some demanded a greater purity of soul and actual devotion; others, on the contrary, thought that the state of grace suffices, while immunity from venial sins and actual devotion are indeed greatly to be desired, but are not required as necessary conditions.

2. The former opinion, which de Lugo especially defends,¹ and to which St. Alphonsus also adheres,² up to now had by far the greater part of theologians as patrons; few defended the second. Therefore also the practice which up to now was observed in the Church concerning frequent and daily communion was directed according to the norm of the former opinion.

a. They taught that a twofold disposition is required for frequent communion: that affection toward deliberate venial sins be removed, so that therefore they are at least not ordinarily committed; that a serious effort be employed for advancing in virtues and perfection; and that the greater the frequency of communion was, the more perfect this disposition ought to be. Wherefore, in order that someone be worthy of daily communion, they demanded that deliberate venial sin happen rarely, or that depraved inclinations for the most part already be overcome, and that there be present a serious effort of advancing in the way of perfection. From these points they inferred that daily communion must be denied to many and conceded to few.

b. This is their chief reason. The reverence due to Christ the Lord demands that those who communicate frequently do this only with great purity of soul and actual devotion, although from this many must lack the spiritual benefit received from frequent communion; just as, because of the same reverence of the sacrament, holy communion is not given to infants, although grace would be increased in them ex opere operato.

¹ De euchar., disp. 17.

² Praxis confessarii, n. 152.

160. 3. Now, however, the Holy See declares: for frequent, indeed even daily, communion no other disposition is required except that someone be in the state of grace and approach the sacred table with a right mind. Hence it is not only not licit to keep away from frequent and daily communion anyone who is endowed with this disposition, but the faithful are rather to be exhorted to it; especially in religious institutes of whatever kind, frequent and daily communion is to be promoted, with this disposition supposed.¹

a. The state of grace, according to the mind of the decree, is not required as habitual, which excludes relapses into mortal sin, but actual suffices, which consists in the simple existence of sanctifying grace, yet with a firm purpose of not committing mortal sin and a serious will of avoiding occasions and dangers. Therefore nothing prevents a penitent who is now first converted from a looser life from being admitted to frequent communion, provided a true and serious will of amending himself appears. Although, according to the mind of the Church, the state of grace suffices for frequent communion, nevertheless the cited decree admonishes and exhorts that, for receiving greater fruits, greater dispositions also be placed beforehand according to each one's strength and condition.

b. A right mind consists in this: that he who approaches the sacred table does not indulge habit or vanity or human reasons, but wishes to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects. He who follows the practice of others only because others do it, or pursues a practice long ago undertaken by himself without due reverence, acts badly; but he who follows the good example of others in this matter, or with due intention and reverence pursues a practice long ago begun by himself, does not act badly. If the pursuit of vain glory is the sole motive for approaching, the approach is morally bad; but if it is a partial motive, the approach is partly good and partly bad. The same is to be said of human reasons.

c. The faithful who are about to receive holy communion frequently or even daily should seek the counsel of a confessor. In order that his counsel be prudent, he, who must follow the norms of the cited decree in all things, should advert: alpha. that what before was designated as the necessary disposition of frequent communion is now rather the end to be intended and the fruit to be gathered from daily communion. "Although it is most expedient" - these are the words of the cited decree - "that those using frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection toward them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; with which sincere purpose of soul it cannot happen that those communicating daily are not gradually freed from venial sins also and from affection toward them." beta. In order that this effect be obtained, "care must be taken" - again these are the words of the decree - "that careful preparation for holy communion precede, and suitable thanksgiving follow thereafter, according to each one's strength, condition, and duties."

d. The reasons for this doctrine and practice are taken: alpha. From the ancient practice of the Church: for it can scarcely be denied that in the first times of the Church the faithful indiscriminately received holy communion frequently, indeed even daily, and yet in general they were not better and more perfect than the faithful of our time. beta. From the spiritual good of the faithful: as often as a man in the state of grace approaches holy communion, he at least partially receives its fruit ex opere operato, although he commits venial sins; and indeed a fruit of supreme value, namely an increase of sanctifying grace and charity; but a frequent and daily increase of grace and charity causes venial sins and imperfections gradually to be amended. gamma. From the principle: the sacraments are for the sake of men: for from this it must be inferred that Christ the Lord prefers the greater spiritual utility of the faithful to a more perfect disposition, and therefore for daily communion requires nothing else except that the communicant be in the state of grace and approach with a right mind. This opinion, which was that of the holy Fathers, the Church confirms by a recent decree.

e. Therefore frequent communion is not to be denied to those who sometimes fall into mortal sin, provided they detest it and seriously propose to amend; nor is it to be denied to those who have affection toward deliberate venial sins. But it must be denied to those who have affection toward mortal sins and therefore frequently fall into mortal sins; nevertheless those are to be excepted who fall from internal fragility or from vehement and extraordinary temptation and show a serious will of fighting against sin: for from frequent communion these draw greater strength for resisting temptations.²

4. In order that the use of daily communion might be propagated more day by day, to those who have the custom of communicating daily there has been conceded the privilege of gaining, without weekly confession, all indulgences for the gaining of which confession would be necessary.

To those who are accustomed to confess at least twice in the month, unless they are legitimately impeded, there has been conceded the privilege of gaining all occurring indulgences, for the gaining of which confession is prescribed (except the indulgences of the ordinary and extraordinary jubilee); the same privilege is conceded to those who have the practice of daily or quasi-daily communion without the obligation of confessing every week. Therefore they do not lose this privilege who abstain from communion once or twice during the week.³

5. Boys and girls are not to be kept away from frequent communion; indeed daily communion should be recommended to them already after they have received first communion, especially to those who are educated in boys' seminaries and other boarding schools, so that they may be imbued with Christ and His grace before passions arise in their hearts and begin to dominate.⁴

Nevertheless care must be taken: a. lest superiors, unless cautiously, tell someone in particular to approach holy communion more frequently, lest they foster hypocrisy and give occasion to sacrileges; b. lest boys and girls approach from mere habit, distracted and dissipated: for, given the lightness of childish age, there is danger lest the sacred food become cheap to them from daily use.⁵

¹ S. C. C., Sacra tridentina synodus, 20 Dec. 1905.

² Cf. Frassinetti, Compendio della teolog. morale, 9th ed. (Genova, Fassicomo, 1898), Dissertation X; M. C. Gennari, Sulla communione frequente, 2nd ed. (Napoli, Tipogr. degli artigian., 1900).

³ Cn. 931, 3; S. C. Indl., 14 Feb. 1906.

⁴ S. C. C., 15 Sept. 1906.

⁵ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

161. For practice. 1. Pastors and confessors should esteem frequent communion greatly, as a practice praised and commended by the Church, and should earnestly exhort the faithful to it. For the Church commands this, because frequent and even daily communion is strongly commended to the Christian faithful by the Lord Himself because of its excellent fruits.¹

2. Although great zeal in commending frequent and daily communion is rightly to be praised, nevertheless let them remember that one must never depart from the norm of prudence and truth. Hence:

a. In extolling the frequency of communion, let them not speak in such a way that they confuse counsel with precept. Annual communion is prescribed to all; more frequent communion to some (the young, habitual sinners), but daily communion, indeed frequent communion generally, is only commended.

b. At the same time let them inculcate the necessity of due preparation and thanksgiving, which also before and after daily communion must certainly be arranged according to the strength, opportunity, duties, and state of the communicants. For the rest, it is not necessary that the whole preparation and thanksgiving take place in the church itself, just as it is not necessary that the faithful, e.g., workers and students, use different clothing for communicating than they use on weekdays.

c. Let confessors see whether frequent and daily communion can be received by penitents without detriment to the obligations of state in servants, maidservants, mothers of families, etc., or without the loss of greater goods, such as peace and tranquility in families for wives, etc.

d. Where up to now not even monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly communion was in use, the pastor should first of all devote every effort to this, that the people approach the sacred table every month, without however being silent about more frequent, indeed daily, communion. For in every parish there are found faithful inclined to true piety and to a more frequent use of the sacraments. These, if they are suitably directed by a zealous and prudent confessor, can induce others to more frequent communion.

3. Unless duties of state or greater goods to be preserved stand in the way, the pastor and confessor must admit to frequent and daily communion all who are in the state of grace and intend to acquire for themselves the fruits of communion, whether they are women or men, unmarried or joined in matrimony, adults or children. Nor is he immune from sin who, when the required conditions are supposed, withdraws anyone from frequent communion or denies it to him.

4. If there is question of children whose parents are displeased by frequent communion in their children, the priest should exhort them to ask from their parents permission to communicate frequently and, if there is need, to obtain it for themselves by obedience, good morals, diligence, kindness, etc. Let the confessor continually exhort and instruct the same children to approach devoutly and to make preparation and thanksgiving well. Similarly, let wives see to it that, with their husbands consenting, they can communicate frequently.

5. Although weekly confession ordinarily seems to be recommended for those communicating frequently, nevertheless not rarely circumstances will be present which suggest less frequent confession. Such are, for example, lack of time either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent; the danger lest access to confession be made more difficult for those who most need it. Hence it can licitly happen that those communicating frequently or daily confess only every month. For pastors of souls should remember that a greater spiritual good is received from holy communion than from sacramental confession. Therefore, where both cannot be joined, it is better to omit confession rather than communion.

¹ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

THE holy Eucharist can be received only materially by one who is not baptized and who consequently is incapable of receiving the other sacraments; it is received spiritually by one who ardently desires to receive it with the proper dispositions; it is received sacramentally when it is really received by one who has been baptized. The sacramental reception of the Eucharist is not a necessary means of salvation, for it is a sacrament of the living and supposes the grace of God in the soul, and a soul in the state of grace has everything which is necessary for salvation. Divines dispute whether the Eucharist is a necessary means for preserving the life of grace in the soul. It is, indeed, the ordinary food of the Christian soul, as bread is the ordinary food of the body, but as there is other spiritual food which may be taken, and notably prayer, and this may supply for the want of the ordinary food, the better opinion holds that the Eucharist is not strictly necessary even for the preservation of the life of grace in the soul. However, it is certainly necessary by divine and ecclesiastical precept. The divine precept is manifest from the words of our Lord: ‘‘ Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.”¹ Not that these words imply that Communion under both kinds is of divine law, for he who receives the sacrament under one species receives the body and blood of Christ with his soul and divinity. Moreover, as the Council of Trent explains,² he who made use of those words also said, ‘‘ He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”³ The Church, therefore, for just and weighty reasons has forbidden Communion under both kinds, using the power given to her by Christ with reference to the dispensation of the sacraments, though she has no authority to change their substance.⁴

This divine precept must be fulfilled at least at the time of death, when it is of the greatest importance, and also sometimes during life. How often it must be received to satisfy the divine precept is uncertain, but the Church has determined the divine law by ordering all the faithful who have come to years of discretion to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, at Easter! Those, however, who desire to lead a good Catholic life, are by no means content with yearly Communion; they receive it once a month or still more frequently.

¹ John vi 54.

² Sess. xxi, c. 1.

³ John vi 59.

⁴ Trent, sess. xxi, c. 2.

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).

Holy Communion should not be given to those who have lost the use of reason, but if they have lucid intervals it may then be given if there be no danger of irreverence. To those who are in danger of death, and have lost the use of their senses, it may be given if they can swallow, and there is no danger of irreverence; and it should be given as Viaticum to criminals condemned to death if they are in the proper dispositions. Reverence forbids it to be given to those who are suffering from constant coughing, and to those who cannot retain any food on the stomach, unless they have been free from vomiting for six hours or so,

Besides having sufficient knowledge of what the Eucharist is, he who receives it should be in the state of grace and free from mortal sin. The presence in the soul of venial sin unrepented of is indeed a defect and an obstacle to the fullest outpouring of God’s grace, but it is not a new sin to receive Holy Communion with only venial sins on the soul. But it is a grievous sacrilege to receive the Eucharist while conscious of being in mortal sin, “‘ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” It is not sufficient for one who is conscious of mortal sin to recover the state of grace by making an act of perfect contrition before Communion; he is bound to go to confession. This is taught us by the Council of Trent:¹ ‘‘ Wherefore he who would communicate ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle, Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This, the Holy Synod hath decreed, is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if in an urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.” No one, then, who is conscious of mortal sin may go to Holy Communion without sacramental confession, unless he is under some necessity of receiving the Eucharist and there is no opportunity of going to confession.

There will be such necessity as is here contemplated if a priest has to say Mass for his people on a day of obligation, or to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person, or if Communion must be received to avoid scandal or to satisfy the Easter precept. There is no opportunity of going to confession if there is no priest present who can give absolution, and it would be a serious inconvenience to go to one at a distance. Even when in these circumstances a priest who is in sin has said Mass with contrition indeed, but without confession, he is commanded by the Council of Trent to go to confession as soon as possible afterward. This is a strict ecclesiastical law, but according to the mind of the Council it only binds priests, not laymen (Can. 807, 856).

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 7.

When one has been to confession with a view to going to Holy Communion, but forgot to mention some grievous sin which he afterward remembers, he is not obliged to repeat his confession before Communion; it will be sufficient if he mentions it in his next confession. The reason is because the forgotten sin was indirectly forgiven by the absolution which he received, and he has proved himself sufficiently according to the words of the Apostle.

Even if there be not sufficient time to make a full confession before Communion, still confession is obligatory, as it is also when the penitent has reserved cases, for now in case of necessity any confessor may absolve directly from reserved cases.

Although God looks to the soul and its dispositions rather than to externals, yet, as the Ritual says, those who communicate should approach the altar with humble deportment, and their dress and everything about them should show forth the reverence which they feel for the Blessed Sacrament. Reverence taught the first Christians that the holy Eucharist should be the first food taken in the day, so that fasting Communion very soon came to be a universal practice in the Church. St Augustine says that it was the custom throughout the whole world in his time, and he traces it back to the times of the Apostles.¹ The Council of Constance says: “This present council declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ instituted and gave this venerable sacrament to his disciples under both species of bread and wine after supper, yet notwithstanding, the laudable authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the Church has and keeps this observance that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper nor received by the faithful unless they be fasting, except in case of sickness or of some other necessity allowed and admitted by law and by the Church.”² The rubrics of the Missal³ contain the following: “ If anyone has not kept fast after midnight, though he has taken only water or other drink or food, even as medicine, and in however small a quantity, he cannot communicate or celebrate. If remnants of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not hinder Communion, since they are not taken as food, but with the saliva. The same holds good if in washing the mouth a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently ” (cf. Can. 858).

The law of the Church, then, with reference to fasting Communion is that the Eucharist may not be received by one who has not kept strict fast from all food and drink, even in the smallest quantity, since midnight. If Holy Communion is received shortly after midnight, there is no obligation to fast for some time before midnight, although reverence would dictate the advisability of such a course. The law of fasting has been made out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, so that violations of it are against the virtue of religion and sacrilegious.

To constitute a violation of the fast, what is taken must be of the nature of food or drink. Pebbles, wood, paper, hairs are not food, and if swallowed do not hinder Communion. The same is probably to be said of bits of the nails of the fingers, which some people have a habit of biting. The food or drink must also be taken as food or drink, not per modum respirationis, as is said, and must be from without, not from within the mouth. Taking snuff, or smoking, or inhaling a flake of snaw with the breath, do not, then, hinder Communion, nor the swallowing of blood from the gums or from inside the lips.

Midnight may be reckoned according to the time publicly observed in the place, or by the true time according to the sun, or by the mean time.

¹ Decretum Gratiani, c. 54, D. 2, de consec.

² Sess. xiii.

³ De def. ix.

The law which prescribes fasting Communion is a positive ecclesiastical law and admits of exception and excuse. Thus, when in danger of death, from whatever cause, one may receive Holy Communion not fasting. This may also be done if it is not possible to abstain from Communion without grave scandal or serious loss of reputation; or when the Blessed Sacrament is in danger of being profaned; or in order to complete the sacrifice of the Mass left unfinished by another priest from sudden illness; or probably in order to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person who otherwise would be deprived of it. The common opinion is that Mass may not be said by a priest not fasting merely in order that his people may hear Mass on a Sunday; but this reason, taken together with some other, might justify the action.

There used to be a controversy among divines as to whether one who is sick but not in danger of death, and yet cannot observe the fast before Communion, may be allowed sometimes to communicate not fasting. This controversy has been set at rest by the decree of Pius X, December 7, 1906, and by Canon 858, sec. 2. The law now allows those who have been sick in bed for a month, without a well-grounded hope of their speedy recovery, although they may have taken something by way of drink or medicine, to receive with the advice of their confessor Holy Communion once or twice in the week.

After receiving Viaticum a sick person who continues to live for some time afterward may receive Holy Communion again, practically as often as his devotion urges him thereto and the priest’s occupations will allow of its being brought to him. As long as he remains in danger of death, Holy Communion should be given as Viaticum, with the form, Accipe frater. No merely material uncleanness without moral fault, or mere bodily unsightliness, is a bar to Holy Communion, Married people are advised to abstain from marital intercourse before going to Holy Communion, but there is no strict obligation to do so.

Viaticum should be given to children in danger of death if they can distinguish it from ordinary food and pay it reverent adoration (Can. 854, sec. 2).

The necessity both of means and of precept must be examined, yet only of divine precept, because the ecclesiastical precept was discussed in vol. I, n. 1108.

I. The existence of a divine precept is clear first from Sacred Scripture. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you";¹ these words, if they do not exhibit necessity of means, at least exhibit a precept. Then, according to the Council of Trent, the Lord "commanded us in its reception to cherish His memory and to announce His death."² Finally, it is insinuated from the fact that Christ, by instituting the sacrament by way of food and drink, sufficiently hinted that its reception is commanded, just as the use of bodily food is commanded. Now that the precept is grave follows both from the gravity of the matter and from the most grave punishment by which it was sanctioned by Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295).

¹ John 6:54.

² Session 13, chapter 2.

II. The subject of the divine precept is adults who enjoy the use of reason, and indeed all of them. It is said:

1. Adults who enjoy the use of reason. Therefore little children are not bound, nor those who are equated with them, that is, the perpetually insane (cf. canon 88, § 3); this is clear already from the fact that the Church prohibits the Eucharist from being conceded to them (canon 854; Roman Ritual).¹

2. And indeed all of them, even: 1. unbelievers, insofar, namely, as they are bound to receive Baptism and, Baptism having been received, to communicate; 2. children. With respect to children this is first proved from the words of Christ cited above, which are pronounced without restriction and therefore must be judged to regard all who are capable of the precept. Then the ecclesiastical precept also binds children. But the Church only determines divine law. Then the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari² insinuates this, both by alleging reasons which militate equally for the divine precept and for the ecclesiastical, and by citing testimonies of authors who defend the divine precept. Pius X sufficiently signifies the same in his Letter to the Archbishop of Cologne.³ Finally no reason can be assigned why the divine-positive law would not comprehend children, since they are capable of law equally as other adults are.

¹ Title IV, chapter 1, nn. 10 and 11. In the Eastern Church the Eucharist has customarily been given to infants.

² 8 August 1910.

³ 31 December 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 3, p. 18).

III. The time at which it obliges. 1. The divine precept obliges per se: 1. several times during the course of life; 2. in danger of death. It is said:

a) Several times during the course of life. This is deduced from the fact that Christ, by instituting the Holy Eucharist by way of nourishment, sufficiently signifies that it must be received at least several times. Now the one who fulfills the ecclesiastical precept certainly satisfies the divine precept of communicating several times during the course of life (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295).

b) In danger of death. For if the Eucharist is to be received several times in life, it certainly must be received at that moment at which it is of the greatest interest, and is more difficult, to preserve and nourish the spiritual life. There are added the most ancient law and practice¹ of ministering the Eucharist to those constituted in danger of death, even with harm to the minister;² these introduce the suspicion that the Holy Eucharist must be received in danger of death by precept of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 291).

Now grave danger of death is understood; this is present either physically, as if someone is gravely ill; or, morally speaking, as if there is imminent execution of a capital sentence, a dangerous operation, battle, shipwreck, difficult childbirth, or a journey full of danger.

Moreover, the precept of communicating in grave danger which is physically present is to be understood so that as soon as someone is gravely ill, he can fulfill the precept, but when death is more imminent, he must fulfill it.

2. The divine precept obliges per accidens when the Eucharist is held as a morally necessary means of avoiding sins, namely insofar as other means are lacking or at least are not applied; concerning this, note that for the most part those who do not approach the Holy Eucharist attend neither to prayer nor to mortification. "But in that case... a man by omitting it would not sin against its precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295).

Question 1. Whether one is bound to communicate when danger of death is imminent, if he communicated a few days before when he was not yet constituted in danger.

Response. Several deny it, but with St. Alphonsus (VI, 285) it seems it must be affirmed, because according to what was said above the obligation seems attached to the danger of death itself, so that it cannot be satisfied before.

Question 2. Whether one is bound to communicate when danger of death is imminent, if he communicated the same day when he was not yet constituted in danger.

Response. Such a person certainly can communicate again on the same day; indeed this is urged for him by canon 864, § 2. For the rest, some judge that he is not bound, because the divine precept has already been satisfied, and there is no ecclesiastical precept. There is added the fact that canon 804, § 2 declares: Even if they have been refreshed by Holy Communion on the same day, nevertheless it is strongly to be urged that those brought into danger of life communicate again. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 285, doubt 3) we judge that he is bound, because according to the things said in the response to the first question he has not yet satisfied the divine precept. As regards canon 864, § 2, I respond that the Code abstracts from the interpretation of divine law, concerning which there is dispute among doctors; and therefore by the cited canon our question is not settled, but, while the dispute stands, the legislating Church, so far as depends on her part, proceeds only by urging. Therefore one who communicated in the morning is bound to communicate again if, for example, in the course of the day he was dangerously wounded or suddenly seized by illness.

It must be said otherwise if at the time of the prior Communion, even one received from devotion alone, grave danger was already present, although afterward it grows worse. In such a case one is neither bound nor able to communicate. He is not bound because he has already satisfied the divine precept. Nor can he, because in this hypothesis there is no reason why the prohibition of communicating twice should be judged not to urge. St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) also applies this doctrine to the case of apoplexy or something similar, because the illness is presumed already to have pre-existed. Here, however, note that in doubt whether grave danger was present at the time of Communion, its reception can be repeated.

Note. From ecclesiastical law I add these things: Holy Viaticum is not to be deferred too much for the sick; and those who have care of souls should carefully watch that the sick be refreshed by it while fully in possession of themselves (canon 865). Likewise, "while danger of death endures, Holy Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, may and fittingly should be administered several times on distinct days" (canon 864, § 3).

¹ Already the First Council of Nicaea, canon 13, calls that law ancient (Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Paris ed. 1907, vol. 1, p. 7, p. 593 and following).

² Nor does it stand in the way that Viaticum was once sometimes denied to some dying persons, for example those condemned to death; since this practice was not universal, was rather often disapproved by ecclesiastical authority, and rested on the opinion that the divine precept could not conveniently be fulfilled in such circumstances (Rath, De Eucharistia, n. 219). Indeed I would not even deny that such things, although pertaining to divine law, can be moderated by the Church because of the common good.

IV. The manner of fulfilling the divine precept; concerning this it suffices to note these things: there is no obligation of receiving the Eucharist under both species. This is of faith from the Council of Trent defining: "If anyone says that by the precept of God or by necessity of salvation all and each of Christ's faithful must receive each species of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema." Indeed in the Latin rite it is not even permitted to minister the Eucharist under the species of wine (canon 852). But it is clear that the precept is not satisfied by sacrilegious Communion. Let the confessor see, however, whether it is expedient to warn the dying penitent about the obligation of communicating again. If Viaticum is ministered again, let this be done on another day under the pretext of Communion from devotion; indeed if otherwise the dying person would be exposed to danger of infamy, there is sufficient reason for ministering Viaticum secretly and even without the pastor's knowledge. If there is danger in delay, let it be ministered on the same day on which Communion was sacrilegiously received.

II. The power of jurisdiction is likewise required, and this either ordinary or delegated; delegated, I say, either by law or by him who has ordinary power. Ordinary power belongs to all who exercise a pastoral office, such as the Ordinary, the pastor, all who in law come under the name of pastor, etc. These things having been noted in general, something must be said specifically about the dispensation of the Eucharist on the occasion of Mass or outside it, about carrying Communion to the sick, and about the dispensation of Viaticum.

1. Dispensation on the occasion of Mass or outside it. a) Any priest can minister Holy Communion within Mass and, if he celebrates privately, also immediately before and immediately after it (canon 846, § 1).

b) Even outside Mass any priest has the same faculty. Nevertheless, if the priest is a stranger, that is, not assigned to the church, the at least presumed permission of the rector of the church is required (canon 846, § 2).

2. Carrying Communion to the sick. First note that a twofold carrying is distinguished, public and private. It is public if it is done manifestly, with solemnity; otherwise it is called private.¹

a) Public carrying. First, public carrying is prescribed unless a just and reasonable cause suggests otherwise (canon 847).

Second, the right and office of carrying Holy Communion publicly to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, belongs to the pastor within his own territory (canon 848, § 1). Other priests can do this only in a case of necessity or with the at least presumed permission of the same pastor or of the Ordinary (canon 848, § 2). It is said only in a case of necessity, for example if the pastor and another to whom permission perhaps has been granted are impeded for too long.

b) Private carrying. First, private carrying is licit only when a just and reasonable cause suggests it (canon 847). But the judge of a just and reasonable cause is only the local Ordinary.² If, however, he has judged that such a cause is present, and has signified this either explicitly or tacitly, for example by not contradicting custom or common opinion,³ he cannot prevent it from being carried secretly. Now, when a just and reasonable cause has been posited and admitted by the Ordinary:

Second, any priest can carry Communion privately to the sick, with the at least presumed permission of the priest to whom custody of the Most Holy Sacrament has been committed (canon 849, § 1).

3. Dispensation of Viaticum. a) By the name Viaticum here is understood Communion which is considered, or, so to speak, is held in the external forum as fulfilling the precept of receiving the Holy Eucharist in danger of death, about which canon 864, § 1 speaks; but not that Communion which the sick person receives afterward, nor that which one constituted in danger of death previously received, although this Communion, speaking accurately, should be called fulfilling the precept.⁴

b) One who illegitimately administers Viaticum is judged to sin gravely, since he violates a grave right of the competent person.

c) As regards the persons who legitimately administer Viaticum, receive these points:

a) To carry Holy Communion by way of Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, belongs to the pastor within his own territory. Other priests can do this only in a case of necessity or with the at least presumed permission of the same pastor or Ordinary (canon 850 compared with 848).

b) Canons, according to the order of precedence, must minister the sacraments to a bedridden bishop (canon 397, 3).

c) Superiors in every clerical religious institute can and must, personally or through another, minister Eucharistic Viaticum and Extreme Unction to sick professed members, novices, and others dwelling day and night in the religious house for the sake of service, education, hospitality, or ill health (canon 514, § 1). These things also hold for conferring these sacraments outside the religious house, if it concerns professed religious or novices, yet with the right of the pastor preserved as regards the public carrying of the Holy Eucharist.⁵

d) In a house of nuns, the ordinary confessor, or the one who acts in his place, has the same right and office (canon 514, § 2). Under the name of nuns also come religious women whose vows by institute are solemn, but for some places by prescription of the Apostolic See are simple (canon 488, 7).

e) In another lay religious institute this right and office belongs to the local pastor or to the chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor (canon 514, § 3).

f) The rector of a seminary, not the pastor, or his delegate can minister Viaticum and Extreme Unction to all who are in the seminary and are gravely bedridden (canon 1368).

g) Particular law commonly permits those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in ecclesiastical colleges specially entrusted by the bishop to a director or rector, or approved by him, to be able to receive Viaticum and Extreme Unction from the rector himself or from his delegate. This right does not belong to the pastor if the particular law intends the said colleges to be withdrawn from the care of the pastor (cf. canon 464, § 2).

h) Finally, if priest and deacon are lacking, even a subdeacon, cleric, and layperson can with sufficient probability minister Viaticum, provided that scandal is absent or prevented. For the ecclesiastical prohibition is not judged to comprehend this case; all the more because in antiquity even laypeople brought the Eucharist home for the sake of communicating (St. Alphonsus, VI, 237, question 3). If the case concerns a dying priest or deacon, the layperson should only bring the ciborium, and the dying person himself, if he can, should give Viaticum to himself. Note besides that a priest is equivalently lacking if singular dexterity is required in communicating the dying person; hence at times it can be entrusted, for example to a sister, to give Viaticum, for instance, with a spoon. I add with St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) that in a case of supreme necessity, which can occur for example in time of plague, the bishop can commit the ministration of Viaticum to a layperson.

Corollary. Although in itself no one except the celebrating priest can minister Communion to himself, nevertheless this is permitted:

1. If the case concerns Viaticum, to a priest and deacon, if another priest and deacon are lacking; to an inferior cleric, if priest, deacon, and another inferior cleric are lacking; to a layperson, if priest, deacon, and inferior cleric are lacking. This doctrine is rightly admitted both because the divine precept of receiving Viaticum seems to prevail, and because "formerly lay faithful carried the Eucharist into their homes and communicated themselves with their own hands; and this indeed was permitted because of necessity" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 237, question 2). It is confirmed by a response of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide,⁶ which declared that in time of persecution it is permitted that confessors of the faith condemned to death, and to whom the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is brought in prison, may secretly receive it in their hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be known and seized, provided nevertheless that so great a sacrament is not exposed to any irreverence or other danger.⁷

2. If the case concerns Communion to be received only for the sake of devotion, a priest can with sufficient probability minister Communion to himself if another priest is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 238).

3. Where the necessity of preventing profanation of the Most Holy Sacrament is urgent, even laypeople can consume the species and distribute them to one another.

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 23 December 1912 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1912, p. 725, ad III).

² Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 5 January 1928.

³ The Ordinary should be easy in admitting a just and reasonable cause. Hence the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, in the decree of 5 January 1928, adds "with this mind, which is the following: If from common experience and opinion there is no inconvenience in the diocese or in some particular place for the private carrying of Holy Communion to the sick, Ordinaries must beware lest, by rules too strictly defined or general rules prescribing public carrying, or by a reservation made to themselves of giving permission in individual cases of carrying the sacrament of the Eucharist privately, the consolation of Communion, even daily Communion, be impeded for the sick." And in the annotations to the Decree, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis warns: Most Reverend local Ordinaries must carefully watch lest in a matter of such great importance the end intended by the Church be frustrated in any way. For no one is unaware that in our times Holy Communion, even daily Communion, is commended most highly to the Christian faithful. Now who, more than a sick person, is to be said to need the help and consolation of so great a sacrament for bearing the distresses of illness?

⁴ This Communion is also called Viaticum by the Code (canon 864, § 3).

⁵ Pontifical Commission, 16 June 1931, under I (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1931, p. 353).

⁶ 10 August 1841.

⁷ Gaude in the cited place of St. Alphonsus.

II. Viaticum can be ministered on any day, even Friday of Holy Week (canon 867, §§ 1 and 2), and at any hour of the day or night (canon 867, § 5).

II. Viaticum can be ministered in almost any place. In itself, indeed, it is unbecoming for Viaticum to be carried to a brothel; but if a penitent prostitute cannot in time be removed from such a house, it seems Viaticum can be ministered to her, provided scandal and the danger of positive irreverence are absent. Moreover, let the priest take care not to be deceived and not to suffer harm to his reputation; hence let him have as companion a safe man and indeed, if it can be done, a public minister.

The reception of the Eucharist can be distinguished as threefold, namely material, sacramental, and spiritual.¹

I. Material reception is that by which it is so received that the sacrament is not applied to the one receiving, in other words, so that the sacrament does not become a title of grace applied to him. It is received materially: 1. by one not baptized; 2. by a baptized adult who lacks intention.

II. Sacramental reception is had when the sacrament is applied to the one receiving, or when it becomes a title of grace applied to the one receiving. Sacramental reception is twofold, namely sacramental only, and sacramental and spiritual, according as it is received with or without an obstacle to the effect, that is, to the grace to be received.

As regards the requisites for sacramental reception, receive these points:

1. For sacramental reception, eating is certainly required, whether true or equivalent. This is drawn from these words of Christ: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you";² "Take and eat; this is my body";³ "... drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."⁴

2. For sacramental reception, the passage of food into the stomach is certainly required. For if this is lacking, according to common estimation no one is said to eat.

3. It is disputed whether or not a vital passage into the stomach through the esophagus, whether natural or artificial, is required, or whether passage into the stomach by means of a tube inserted into the esophagus or into another part of the body suffices. Some judge that passage by means of a tube suffices, because there is at least equivalent eating. Others admit the contrary, because, considering the obvious sense of the words of Christ, there seems to be required an act which truly is, or at least according to common estimation is called, eating. Now one who is fed by means of a tube is not said to eat, but to be nourished artificially.

III. Spiritual reception is the desire or vow, conceived from faith and charity, of receiving the Eucharist really.⁵ Now spiritual Communion produces ex opere operantis fruits very similar to those which real Communion effects ex opere operato. Hence the Council of Trent declares that those communicate spiritually "who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness."⁶ But in order that someone may acquire the aforesaid fruits, let him elicit an act of faith, charity or perfect contrition, and desire toward Christ in the Eucharist. One who is only attrite concerning a mortal sin perhaps committed, by desiring Communion indeed performs a good work, but does not communicate spiritually, and therefore does not receive the special fruits annexed to spiritual Communion.

In the following, the discussion will be only about sacramental Communion.

¹ "As regards use, the Council of Trent speaks thus: 'Our fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this holy sacrament. For they taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others only spiritually, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness; and thirdly, others both sacramentally and spiritually; and these are those who first so prove and prepare themselves that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table'" (Session 13, chapter 8).

² John 6:54.

³ Matthew 26:26.

⁴ Matthew 26:27-28.

⁵ Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 8.

⁶ Loc. cit.

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.

I. The state of grace. That the state of grace is required is clear from Sacred Scripture,¹ and from what was said about the sacraments in general, n. 43. In the same place it was likewise proved that broad moral certitude about the state of grace is required.

1. One who is conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound per se to recover lost grace through Confession. Per accidens he sometimes satisfies by an act of contrition, as will be explained under 4. That Confession is required per se is clear from the Council of Trent: "One who wishes to communicate must recall to memory that precept of his, that is, of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may seem to himself contrite, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental Confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this must perpetually be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom, by office, it is incumbent to celebrate, provided that a supply of a confessor is not lacking to them."² Canons 807 and 856 are added.

It is disputed, however, whether the precept of premising Confession is divine or ecclesiastical; likewise, if it is ecclesiastical, whether it was imposed by Paul or introduced by custom. Concerning this, note: 1. nothing can be deduced from the cited place of Trent, since from the history³ and acts⁴ of the Council it is clear that the Fathers adhered to different opinions and did not intend to reject any one. 2. It is difficult to admit that an obligation of this kind was imposed by Paul upon the whole Church, unless it is positively proved; but a solid argument is lacking. Hence the said precept seems either to be divine or to have been introduced by ecclesiastical custom; which is to be preferred, I do not know.

Nor should you object: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom declares that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession; therefore custom did not introduce the obligation of confessing. Response: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom does not declare that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession, but that proof through Confession is necessary; by this it is left undecided whether such proof was introduced by Christ, by Paul, or by ancient custom.

2. One who, all things considered, doubts whether after his last Confession he sinned gravely, is not bound to confess, but satisfies by an act of contrition. For the Council of Trent speaks only of one who is conscious of mortal sin; this cannot be said of one who doubts (St. Alphonsus, VI, 473). Nevertheless, if he does not confess, that he is bound to an act of contrition was proved in the treatise on the sacraments in general (n. 43). I said all things considered, because Confession is prescribed if from the circumstances it must be presumed that a grave sin was committed (De Sacramentis in genere, loc. cit.).

It is disputed whether before Communion one must confess again who, all things considered, doubts whether he has worthily confessed the sin committed. But according to the principles of St. Alphonsus it must be affirmed, because he doubtfully satisfied the law of worthy Confession. Nevertheless I again said all things considered; for if the doubt arises from doubt about the mode in which the Confession was made, for example whether it was instituted with true attrition or not, it can be presumed that it was rightly made (vol. I, n. 229).

3. One who confessed worthily, but forgot a mortal sin, with sufficient probability is not bound to confess again before he communicates. Most older theologians reject this doctrine, because the Council of Trent, which binds one who is conscious to himself of mortal sin to previous Confession, in the obvious sense speaks of the Confession of all mortal sins of which he is conscious to himself before Communion. But St. Alphonsus (VI, 257), and after him almost all more recent authors, hold as sufficiently probable that only a worthy previous Confession is prescribed, in other words, that it suffices that someone has been justified through Confession, or that sins have been remitted through Confession, whether directly, or, as in the case of a sin omitted through forgetfulness, indirectly. Considering the not-to-be-despised explanation of the Council of Trent and the authority of the authors, we hold this opinion as safe in practice.

4. One who per se is bound to Confession, per accidens is not bound to it, but satisfies by an act of perfect contrition, if both there is a necessity of communicating or celebrating, and the supply of a confessor is lacking (canons 807, 856).

a) The necessity of celebrating or communicating is understood as grave or urgent, as the Council of Trent, loc. cit., and the Code (cited canons) have it. Necessity is present:

First, if Communion or Mass cannot be omitted without infamy or scandal, as if a layperson has already approached the Communion rail; if a priest has already begun Mass, or has arrived at the altar, or is eagerly awaited by the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260). Necessity also seems to be present if someone, for example, goes to church with his family intending to communicate and is not absolved. As regards those who in colleges, etc., communicate daily, infamy does not seem to be a sufficient reason, nor one to be admitted by the confessor, because either they rarely sin, and then they can more easily allege another motive, for example a broken fast; or they sin more often, and then they are bound to arrange their Communions so that they are no longer known to communicate daily. Therefore the obligation of Confession is also to be urged more, especially in younger persons, lest the reverence due to the Eucharist be diminished, the horror of sin be lost, and the efforts to root out a depraved habit be lessened.⁵

Second, if Mass must be continued; namely: 1. if the consecration has already begun, the priest should not interrupt Mass in order to confess, but, having elicited an act of contrition, should continue it. 2. If the consecration has not yet begun, the same seems to be said of a priest who remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one, since the Missal states without distinction: "If in the very celebration of Mass the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin, let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."⁶ But the priest who "remembers that he is excommunicated or suspended, or that the place is interdicted... if scandal is not feared, ought to leave the Mass already begun."⁷ The reason of scandal, or infamy, will commonly excuse from leaving Mass, so that Mass should rather be continued, after an act of contrition has been elicited.

Third, if Viaticum must be consecrated for a dying person and another who may celebrate is lacking. Likewise if there is danger that the sacrament may be profaned and that danger cannot be averted in another equally safe way (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

Fourth, if there is, whether for a pastor or for an assistant, an obligation of celebrating by office, for example on a feast day so that the people may hear Mass, for funerals, or for blessing nuptials, and another who may celebrate in his place is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261). But there is not a necessity of celebrating or communicating which of itself is sufficiently grave if the priest suffers from the omission of Mass only the privation of the stipend; likewise if he must celebrate only from a vow, or from the precept of a superior, or so that he himself may hear Mass of precept, or so that another may satisfy the precept of Easter Communion. But with sufficient probability a necessity of celebrating per se sufficiently grave is present if otherwise the priest himself cannot satisfy the precept of Easter Communion; likewise, for a layperson, a necessity of communicating per se sufficiently grave is had if otherwise he cannot fulfill the precept of Easter Communion. The reason is that annual Communion obliges in some way from divine law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261).

b) The supply of a confessor is lacking:

First, if no one is present who can, and licitly can, and wills to hear Confession, and another cannot be approached without grave difficulty. But the difficulty which arises from the journey to be made can be increased on the one hand by infirmity, by the imminent time of celebrating, etc., and on the other hand lessened by the fact that the journey can be made by carriage, railway, etc. Abstracting from the aforesaid special circumstances, according to St. Alphonsus a journey of one and a half leagues excuses (VI, 264). Therefore the supply of a confessor is not lacking because the ordinary confessor cannot be had.

It is disputed whether or not the supply of a confessor is lacking if only a confessor is present, or can be approached, to whom someone cannot confess without extraordinary shame arising from an extraordinary circumstance; for example, if an uncle would have to confess a very shameful sin to his nephew. Some affirm, but it seems it must be entirely denied. For: 1. an intrinsic inconvenience does not excuse from law (De Legibus, vol. I, n. 169). But that extraordinary circumstance only causes the intrinsic inconvenience, namely shame, to become greater, not to become extrinsic. There is added that the more benign opinion gives occasion to laxity and weakens the law, since limits cannot be assigned. Finally, the aforesaid opinion was formerly commonly rejected, either explicitly or implicitly.

Objection. The law of premising Confession to Communion is probably only ecclesiastical. Hence it is permitted, at least by epikeia, to regard extraordinary shame as an excusing cause.

Response. Passing over the antecedent, I observe that the two latter arguments adduced by us also exclude epikeia.

Second, if no one is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated person to be avoided. Concerning the case in which someone has fallen into a reserved sin and the priest present per se lacks jurisdiction over it, see the treatise on Penance.

Third, if someone cannot confess to a confessor who is present or can be approached without grave harm extrinsic to Confession; harm, I say, whether to himself, to the confessor, or to a third party, as is more fully explained in the treatise on Penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 264).

¹ 1 Cor. 11:29.

² Session 13, chapter 7.

³ Pallavicini, cited work, book 12, chapter 2.

⁴ Theiner, cited work, vol. I, p. 488 and following.

⁵ Cf. Vermeersch, Epitome, 3rd ed., vol. II, n. 120.

⁶ On Defects, VIII, n. 4.

⁷ Roman Missal, loc. cit., n. 5.

II. Actual devotion. Although a voluntary defect of this devotion does not simply prevent the fruit of Communion, it nevertheless causes one to receive much slighter fruits. Moreover, one who at the time of Communion is voluntarily distracted commits a venial sin of irreverence. Likewise he also seems to commit a venial sin of irreverence who communicates either from a venially evil motive, for example from vainglory, or with an actual or virtual affection for venial sin. In such a case there seems to be a certain positive irreverence. It must be said otherwise of one who communicates with habitual venial sin, because there is rather a defect of perfect reverence than positive irreverence (St. Alphonsus, VI, 270).

Corollary I. Nocturnal pollution, in relation to Communion to be received on the following day, is to be judged thus: It never prohibits it under grave sin, provided the grave sin perhaps committed has been removed by Confession. For the rest:

1. If it occurred with grave sin, although remitted by Confession, "one should abstain from Communion and celebration unless something else seems good to the confessor."¹

2. If it occurred with venial sin or without sin, Communion is prohibited under venial sin by reason of the effects, namely if because of dishonorable fantasies it obstructs the required devotion. Yet it is prohibited only insofar as either one must abstain from Communion, or effort must be applied to removing the impediment² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 272).

Corollary II. Conjugal intercourse practically does not impede Communion; nor, for the most part, should spouses be positively advised to abstain from intercourse on the night before the day of Communion. To those asking, let it be said that it is licit, and at most let it be added that abstinence is a thing of greater perfection.

¹ Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 5.

² Cf. Missal, loc. cit.

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. In order that one may receive richer fruits, he should not omit remote and proximate preparation, and thanksgiving.

1. Preparation can be distinguished as twofold: remote and proximate. Remote preparation consists especially in purity of heart; proximate preparation, in acts of faith, hope, charity, etc., and "let it be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one."¹

2. Thanksgiving should likewise be carried out carefully, and not be finished in a few minutes. For the rest, it too, as the cited Decree has it, "should be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one" (cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 155).

Corollary. To eat or drink immediately after Communion is venial, unless a reasonable cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 283). To spit immediately after it has been cast into the stomach is unbecoming; if it were done with danger of ejecting a particle, it would be a sin.

¹ Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus, 20 December 1905.

Canon 863 admonishes that the faithful are to be stirred up to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread, according to the norms handed down in decrees of the Apostolic See. But the norms of which the cited canon speaks are contained in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus,¹ and in other documents to be cited insofar as needed.

¹ 20 December 1905.

I. Requisites for daily Communion. "Frequent and daily Communion, as being most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all Christ's faithful of whatever order or condition; so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it" (cited Decree, n. 1). "But a right mind consists in this, that one who approaches the sacred table does not indulge custom, vanity, or human reasons, but wills to satisfy God's good pleasure, to be united to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects" (n. 2). Now:

1. An intention which is predominantly supernatural suffices to this extent, that one who approaches with such an intention cannot be kept away from Communion.

2. It suffices that the good ends assigned be intended implicitly.

3. Custom, whether one's own or that of others, will in practice rather often be more the occasion than the principal reason. Vanity will be the principal reason if someone becomes conceited because of frequency of Communion and willingly speaks about it to others in the manner of little devotees.¹

¹ Instruction to the Bishops of Prussia, 8 December 1906.

II. The office of the confessor. 1. "In order that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by richer merit, it is fitting that the counsel of the confessor intervene" (n. 5). Therefore the confessor, especially if he is asked, enjoys the right of judging about the state and disposition of the penitent; indeed it is entirely fitting that his counsel be sought. I said it is fitting, because it is disputed whether the word it is fitting in this case involves a true obligation. With sufficient probability it is denied, and the counsel of the confessor is declared necessary only insofar as, by seeking it, one proceeds with greater prudence and greater merit can be hoped for. In a word: the word it is fitting probably signifies only the necessity of greater prudence and greater merit. Moreover, the confessor does not grant permission to communicate daily, but only declares that the requisites for permission are present; the permission itself, or the right, is conferred by the Church or by Christ. Finally, a penitent who is certain about the required disposition is not bound to acquiesce in a confessor turning him away from daily Communion, but can use the right granted to him. But these things are merely theoretical.

2. "Let confessors nevertheless beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5).

Question. Whether the practice of daily Communion can finally be forbidden to one who permanently, without any amendment, falls back into venial sins.

Response. Some deny, because according to number 3 of the decree, it suffices "that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," certainly gravely. Others affirm, because the decree itself in n. 3 declares that it cannot happen "that those communicating daily should not little by little free themselves from even venial sins and from their effect." Therefore a permanent defect of amendment is a sign of a defect of right intention in the past, and it introduces a vehement prejudice for the future,¹ unless special circumstances or signs remove the said prejudice. Hence the practice of daily Communion is finally to be forbidden unless there is now hope that the penitent will approach with a right intention. To the argument of the adversaries they respond that the words opposed from number 3 of the decree regard only the required state of grace, but by no means exclude the obligation of bringing a right intention in approaching Holy Communion. Yet one who adheres to this opinion should take care not to bring it into practice too hastily; moreover, let him stir the penitent to greater fervor, and as soon as a founded hope of bringing a right intention is present, let him cease from turning him away from daily Communion.

¹ This argument, however, is weakened somewhat by responding that the quoted words, which are not judged to pertain to the doctrinal part, are not to be urged too much.

III. The office of others. 1. The faithful are to be stirred up to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread, according to the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See; and those assisting at Mass, being duly disposed, should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist (canon 863). The cited Decree, n. 6, inculcates the same upon pastors, confessors, and preachers. Add the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council,¹ by which it is declared that "the frequency of Holy Communion is commended according to the first article of the Decree even to children, who, once admitted to the sacred table... must not be prohibited from frequent participation in it, but rather are to be exhorted to it; with the contrary practice in force in some places being reproved."

2. Frequent and daily Communion is also to be promoted as much as possible in seminaries of clerics, whose students long for service of the altar; likewise in other Christian schools of every kind² (cited Decree, n. 7). Religious superiors should promote among their subjects the frequent, even daily, reception of the Most Holy Body of Christ; and frequent, indeed even daily, access to the Most Holy Eucharist should be freely open to religious who are rightly disposed (canon 595, § 2). As regards religious, observe besides:

a) If there are religious institutes of either solemn or simple vows in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found to be assigned or ordered on certain days, these norms have only directive force (canon 595, § 4).

b) But if after the last sacramental Confession a religious has been a grave scandal to the community, or has committed a grave and external fault, the superior can prohibit him from approaching Holy Communion until he has again approached the sacrament of Penance (canon 595, § 3). The words scandal, and grave and external fault, are now to be taken at least in the theological sense. The prohibition falls away as soon as the subject has confessed.

Note. The law of reading the Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus annually in religious houses is no longer in force (cf. canon 6, 6).

¹ 15 September 1906 (Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 18, p. 346).

² Under the name of schools are comprehended "all pious institutes in which boys or girls are instructed and educated" (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XXI, p. 506).

IV. Daily Communion is commended to all by: 1. the desire of Christ and the Church, as is more fully explained in the prior part of the cited Decree; 2. the end and fruit of Communion. Concerning this observe that its end consists especially in this, "that Christ's faithful, united to God through the sacrament, may thence take strength to restrain lust, to wash away the slight faults which occur daily, and to prevent the graver sins to which human frailty is liable; but not principally that the honor and veneration of the Lord be consulted, nor that it be, as it were, wages or a reward of their virtues for those receiving" (cited Decree).

Corollary. The practice of persuading either the faithful or the members of some community to abstain from Communion on one or another day each week must be disapproved. For this practice cannot be reconciled with the cited decree and other ecclesiastical documents, which exhort daily Communion to be brought into practice and promoted, and prohibit the confessor "from turning anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5). Nor should members of a community be persuaded to abstain from daily Communion on the occasion of spiritual exercises.

The disposition of the body comprehends cleanliness of body, decency of dress, and the natural fast.

As regards cleanliness of body, it suffices to note these things:

1. Dirt adhering to the body and appearing should be washed away before the reception of the Eucharist.

2. Stains inherent in the body are commonly not attended to, unless they are apparent, notable, and removable. If there is hope that they will soon be removed, and Communion can conveniently be deferred, it is fitting to defer it. Nevertheless, a priest infected with a disease that brings horror should not celebrate publicly; he can celebrate secretly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275).

As regards decency of dress, observe that it depends much on the custom of places and the condition of persons. For the rest:

1. So far as can be done, one should not approach in torn and dirty clothes.

2. Women should avoid superfluous ornament and especially immodest or indecent dress. One who approached too immodestly would have to be kept away from Communion; but one must proceed with the greatest prudence.

3. It is fitting that soldiers approach with arms laid aside.

4. "If Communion is to be given to priests or others from the clergy, let it be given to them kneeling at the steps of the altar, or, if it can conveniently be done, let them be distinguished from the laity within the altar rail. But let priests communicate with a stole."¹ Deacons, if they approach Holy Communion privately, do so with a stole worn transversely over the cotta.² Those who acted otherwise would sin venially (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275-276).

As regards the natural fast, several things must be noted:

¹ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 4.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 July 1879, n. 3499, ad II.

I. The existence of the precept. The precept of the natural fast, introduced formerly by custom and confirmed by several councils,¹ was established by canon 858, § 1, in these words: "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or there is necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." It is a precept only of ecclesiastical law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

¹ Council of Hippo, year 393, canon 28; Council in Trullo, canon 29; Council of Constance, year 1415, session 13.

II. The object of the precept consists in this, that from midnight the communicant has transmitted nothing digestible and coming from outside into the stomach or another organ serving the digestion of foods, and retained it there. Therefore, in order that the natural fast be violated, it is required:

1. That something be taken after midnight. Now:

a) Midnight, according to canon 33, § 1, can be computed according to: 1. usual time; 2. local time, both true and mean; 3. legal time, both regional and other extraordinary time (vol. I, n. 167).

b) Midnight must be taken physically, not morally; but the completed hour is commonly indicated by the first stroke of the clock (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282), and sometimes by the last stroke.

Here it is customary to ask what one can do who, while eating or drinking, hears the first stroke of the clock; namely, whether someone can communicate even if he does not spit out what he has in his mouth. Several more recent authors affirm, because, they say, the Church is not judged to oblige one to such rusticity. But the Church does not oblige one to that, even if it commands: "If you swallow, it is not permitted for you to communicate." Hence if, considering the circumstances, you cannot spit out without rusticity, swallow it and abstain from Communion. Thus theoretically; for in practice it will scarcely be clear that the fast has been violated, because approved clocks will scarcely be lacking which indicate midnight somewhat later and which it is permitted to follow (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

What if someone passes from one place to another, in which a different time prevails; for example, someone eats at Maastricht at 11:30, then departs for Aachen and communicates there, although 11:30 at Maastricht is 12:30 at Aachen? I think he acts illicitly, because the time of the fast seems to be computed in order to the time at which Communion is received; but the time of Communion must be computed according to the time of the place in which someone communicates.

2. That something be taken which comes from outside. Hence the swallowing of saliva, or blood from the gums, or fluid flowing from a pustule which exists in the mouth, does not obstruct the fast; nor the skin of the lips, for these pertain to the interior parts of the mouth, whose extremities and curvature they are. It is otherwise if someone, for example, sucks blood from a wound on the finger, or tears flowing from the eyes. Nevertheless, it is not required that something be put into the mouth from outside after midnight, but it suffices that after midnight it be swallowed. Hence the fast is violated if someone at night puts sugar into his mouth to be dissolved and swallowed after midnight, even partly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).

3. That something be taken which has the character of food or drink. Certainly that which is not digestible does not pertain here (St. Alphonsus, VI, 281). Nor does that seem to pertain here which can only in some way be altered in the stomach and, according to common estimation, does not have the character of food, such as fingernails. For the rest, "it does not matter," says St. Thomas (III, q. 80, a. 8, ad 4), "whether something nourishes or does not nourish"; nor does it matter at all that the thing is taken by way of medicine.¹ Considering all these things, the following do not violate the fast, although some of the things to be enumerated, according to chemists, are not excluded from every alteration in the stomach: glass, hair, silk, wool, linen, a pebble of metal, little fruit-stones wholly cleansed, wood, straw, fingernails. The following violate it: bones, wax, chalk, metal dust, artificial silk.

4. That what is taken not be retained in the mouth, but transmitted into the stomach. If the thing taken is not passed into the stomach, there is neither eating nor drinking nor, as we suppose, nutrition. It is the same, however, whether food or drink is introduced into the stomach in a natural or artificial manner (n. 171). Considering this condition, one is not bound, unless perhaps by reason of danger, to abstain from Communion who vomits whole the food taken,² or washes the stomach by means of a tube and ejects the water. Nevertheless one should abstain from using a tube anointed with oil, because some oil will almost certainly remain. Moreover, he who is nourished by a clyster seems to violate the fast, because although foods are not received in the stomach, nevertheless nutrition takes place, so that Christ is no longer the first food of those communicating. The Holy Office,³ indeed, responded, when a priest sought the faculty of proceeding in this way: "The Most Holy Father is to be petitioned for the grace, according to the prayers"; and this grace was afterward granted by the Supreme Pontiff. But it seems to be a dispensation rather than a declaration.

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 1.

² But these things are merely theoretical, because it will not be sufficiently clear that everything has been vomited.

³ 23 April 1890.

III. Further determination of the object. Lest the ecclesiastical law smell of pharisaical superstition, certain, so to speak, exceptions are admitted. Namely, the following do not violate the fast:

1. One who by chance swallows remains of foods adhering to the teeth; this is clear from the Roman Missal.¹ The same is said with sufficient probability of one who does this voluntarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).²

2. One who by chance or voluntarily inhales the smoke of foods, tobacco, incense, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 2); likewise one who uses a medicine which sends the medicine into the bronchi under the form of vapor.

3. One who by chance or voluntarily swallows a very small quantity wholly joined with saliva, for example of water after someone has washed his mouth and spat out the water, or of the juice or very small particle of tobacco which remains inseparably mixed with the saliva when someone crushes tobacco with his teeth and spits out the phlegm. Nevertheless chewing of this kind is prohibited under venial sin because of irreverence, unless a just cause is present (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 3).

4. One who by chance swallows a sufficiently small quantity, for example a fly, dust, snow, rain, or a little drop of blood flowing from the nose (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). The fact that passage into the stomach is merely noticed does not impede Communion.

5. One who uses nasal tobacco and by chance passes something into the stomach (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). For the rest, it should be advised that the use of tobacco, both nasal and smoking, be omitted before Communion, although it is not prohibited.

The reason for all these things is that the law is to be taken in a human way, lest, as we have hinted, it smell of pharisaical superstition. There is added that otherwise it would give occasion to continual anxieties.

6. Finally, sometimes an exception is had from the disposition of the liturgy, namely if an adult is baptized, "with the salt," says the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide,³ "tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, even if it seems to break the fast, nevertheless there is still no doubt that after Baptism has been received they, the adults, can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed ought to be." Finally, the law does not regard the case in which the ablution is given to one licitly communicating, or together with the host a little water or wine, although something is swallowed before the sacred species (St. Alphonsus, VI, 288).

Corollary I. One who doubts whether he has violated the fast, in other words whether he has taken something, whether he took it after midnight, whether that which he took obstructs the fast, can communicate, because in a doubt of fact founding the law the condition of liberty is better. But in all the cases mentioned, the fact founding the law is doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282; I, 38, 39).

Corollary II. One who at night does not know what hour it is, and, without asking the hour, eats with the intention of afterward communicating, sins, because he rashly admits the danger of violating the law. Nevertheless after the fact, if the truth can no longer be investigated, it is permitted to him, the things to be posited being posited, to communicate.

¹ On Defects, title IX, n. 3.

² The Roman Missal, loc. cit., says thus: "If the remains of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not impede Communion, since they are swallowed not by way of food, but by way of saliva."

³ 13 February 1906.

IV. The gravity of the precept. The precept is grave from its whole genus, both as regards the time and as regards the thing to be taken. This is clear both from the consensus of all authors and from the ends of the precept.

"One end is mystical, namely that it may be signified that Christ is the first food of man. Other ends are that those communicating may be more disposed to devotion, and that every danger of the sacrament being vomited may be avoided; which danger indeed sometimes arises from the disordered use of food or drink. But the said ends are not obtained with sufficient certainty unless every use of food or drink before Communion is absolutely prohibited" (St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

V. The causes because of which it is permitted to communicate not fasting are:

1. Urgent danger of death (canon 858, § 1), namely such that Communion can be given by way of Viaticum; this was explained in n. 158. But danger of death exempts from the law of fasting, even if someone could observe it without inconvenience, since the cited canon speaks absolutely. And this holds as regards all, both as regards those for whom danger of death threatens from outside, for example from imminent battle or from the sentence of a judge, and as regards the gravely sick; for the canon does not distinguish.

Corollary I. A sick person constituted in danger, as long as the danger endures, can communicate as often as desired, or daily, not fasting, and this even if when healthy he had been accustomed to communicate rarely. The reason is that one constituted in danger of death is absolutely exempted from the law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 285; cf. canon 864, § 3).

Corollary II. Just as it is permitted for one constituted in danger to communicate not fasting, so also a priest can celebrate not fasting in order to give Viaticum to himself, because to celebrate is not more than to communicate. The same is permitted with sufficient probability in order to give Viaticum to another, because by divine precept, to which ecclesiastical law yields, he is bound to receive Viaticum; but the case is of little practical importance, because the Eucharist is usually reserved (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286).

2. Long infirmity. The sick, however, who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope that they will recover soon, can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink (canon 858, § 2).¹ As regards the interpretation of this canon, observe that it seems one must incline toward the more benign side, because it concerns a favor, and one universal and granted by way of derogation from the law, not by way of dispensation. These things having been noted, I explain briefly the faculty granted. Therefore, in order that someone may enjoy the privilege, it is required:

a) That he be sick, or affected by some illness. Nevertheless it suffices that someone be worn out by old age, because old age itself is judged to be a certain infirmity.

b) That he be bedridden. Yet this must be understood so that the privilege also belongs to the sick who, as the Sacred Congregation of the Council² responded, "cannot lie in bed, or can rise from it for some hours of the day." The same seems to be said of those who, suffering from a chronic disease, according to the different condition of the disease, now lie in bed, now perform some domestic tasks, yet cannot go out without notable inconvenience. But those are excluded who can attend to domestic cares and go out conveniently enough. For the word bedridden cannot sufficiently be applied to the aforesaid. Then the more benign interpretation can give occasion to scandal and to a looser application; namely, there is fear lest gradually several persons, with necessity as a pretext, will wish to communicate not fasting.

c) That he has been bedridden for a month. Therefore the sick person cannot use the privilege before he has lain ill for a month.

d) That, after he has lain ill for a month, there is absent certain hope, that is, moral certitude, of recovery to be attained soon, for example after three or four days.

e) That one proceed by the prudent counsel of the confessor. Nevertheless, the request for counsel and the approval of the confessor are not judged to be a condition which, if neglected, would cause the sick person to sin gravely by communicating not fasting. Indeed, I think that per se there is not even an obligation of seeking counsel, although it is especially fitting, and per accidens can even be necessary, namely so that there may be sufficient certainty about the required conditions. The confessor can give counsel both within and outside Confession; for no restriction occurs in the concession of the privilege. Yet let him proceed prudently, namely by seriously inquiring whether the required conditions are present. For the rest, observe:

First, when the explained conditions have been fulfilled, the sick can use the indult even if they would be able to observe the fast, since the canon requires nothing besides the explained conditions. There is added that the stricter opinion would give occasion to anxieties. They can communicate both at home and in church; yet the latter commonly cannot be done by the bedridden.

Second, by force of the concession "they can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink" (canon 858, § 2). Medicine can be taken even if it is solid, such as, for example, a pill. But it is required that the matter to be taken directly serve the curing of the illness, so that solid foods used to recover strength are excluded. Besides medicine it is permitted to take something by way of drink. Yet it is not required that what is taken have the character of drink, but it suffices that it be taken by way of drink, like liquid food. Therefore the response of the Holy Office³ can be applied, by which it is permitted "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed into it, for example light little pills of flour (semolino), grated bread reduced to crumbs (pangratto), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food." Chocolate can be added, but not sugar or solid chocolate, not even when they are not swallowed except after they have been dissolved in the mouth; for it is clear that the taking which occurs by mouth must be considered. Moreover, the sick person can also take some medicine or something by way of drink several times before Communion.

Third, nothing prevents one who can use the explained privilege and therefore communicates not fasting twice in a week from receiving Communion also on other days, after accepting the burden of the fast.

Question. Whether Easter Communion to be received excuses from the law of fasting in the case in which someone otherwise would be deprived of it, because on the one hand he cannot observe the fast without very grave inconvenience even if Communion were given very early, and on the other hand he cannot use the indult of which we have spoken.

Now several think this must be denied, because canon 858, § 1 declares that the fast must be observed unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament. But the cited canon cannot be so urged that other cases, for example infamy and scandal to be avoided, are excluded.⁴ Whether our case truly ought to be excluded is theoretically doubtful to me; but, with the doubt posited, in practice one can stand for the spiritual good of the person about to communicate and for the somewhat divine law of annual Communion, while the ecclesiastical law of the natural fast is set aside. Nevertheless scandal and abuses must be guarded against. Moreover, if the difficulty would vanish by deferring Communion, let the delay be made. Finally, in the proposed case it would also be permitted to minister the Holy Eucharist at night (canon 867, § 4).

3. Scandal, that is, the sin of one's neighbor, to be avoided; for example if Mass cannot be omitted without the danger of rash judgments or backbiting; likewise without the danger that several persons will omit, with grave sin, to assist at another Mass. Observe, however, that the sole reason that the people on a feast day would lack Mass does not suffice. Nevertheless it suffices with sufficient probability that otherwise a dying person could not receive Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286, 287). To avoiding scandal there is often added:

4. Infamy to be avoided. This reason is present if the priest is already at the altar, unless he is of known probity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 287); likewise if a layperson is already sitting at the Communion rail.

5. Irreverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament to be guarded against (canon 858, § 1), as if there is danger that the species may perish or be profaned.

6. The sacrifice to be completed. This reason can be present in three cases, namely: 1. if after the consecration the priest remembers that he is not fasting, he must continue Mass. 2. If after the consuming of the host or chalice he notices that the matter is invalid, he must consecrate and communicate again.⁵ 3. If after the consecration, even of bread alone, the priest dies or faints, and no fasting priest is present, a priest who is not fasting must complete the Mass from the place where the prior one stopped.⁶

Finally, partly because of moral union with the completed sacrifice, partly because of irreverence toward the sacrament to be avoided, it is permitted for one not fasting to consume particles of the consecrated species, as is explained in n. 274.

¹ Cf. Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 December 1906.

² 6 March 1907.

³ 7 September 1897.

⁴ The same once had to be said about ecclesiastical documents brought forward by adversaries, namely the Council of Constance, session 13, and the Constitution of Benedict XIV Quadam de more, 24 March 1756.

⁵ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, n. 5 and title IV, n. 5.

⁶ Roman Missal, On Defects, title X, n. 3.

VI. Dispensation, which can be obtained from the Holy See, and is granted through the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments if it concerns seculars, and through the Sacred Congregation of Religious if it concerns religious.¹ Moreover, Nuncios, Internuncios, and Apostolic Delegates can concede to the bedridden of whom canon 858, § 2 speaks that even before the end of the month they may communicate once a week, without observing the fast according to the norm of the cited canon. They can grant the same to sick persons not bedridden who labor under such a disease that, in the judgment of a physician, they cannot observe the fast without danger. Finally, the faculties of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant to bishops, vicars, and prefects apostolic the power "of granting to bedridden sick persons about whom there is no certain hope that they will recover soon, even before the end of the month from which they have been bedridden, that they may receive Holy Communion two or three times a week, and, if it concerns priests or religious, even daily, without observing the fast, that is, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink."²

¹ Thus the meeting of Cardinals, 7 December 1922 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1929, p. 39).

² Vermeersch, Commentarius de Formulis faciendis, n. 57.

VII. Epikeia is also admitted in this matter, but with the greatest difficulty, so that scarcely a case occurs in which Communion can be received by one not fasting from epikeia alone. It is disputed whether the case would be present if a newly ordained priest about to celebrate his first Mass had broken the fast, and very grave inconveniences would follow, considering the circumstances, if the Mass were not celebrated. In such a case, the reason of avoiding infamy will not easily be present, because such a man will rather be ridiculous than infamous. Sometimes the reason of scandal will not be entirely lacking. Observe, however, "that scandal is then said to exist when an occasion is given for detracting or judging rashly, but not when an occasion of mere wonder is given" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 257).

Dispositions for Worthy Communion.—(a) Dispositions of Soul.—The divine law requires the state of grace (I Cor., xi. 27 sqq.), and probably also the previous sacramental confession which the Church prescribes sub gravi for one who is conscious of serious sin not yet remitted through absolution. But he is excused from the duty of previous confession who cannot omit Communion now (e.g., because while at the rails he remembers a grave sin and cannot leave without being disgraced) and who is unable to go to confession (see 2701 c). The recipient must also have a knowledge of the Sacrament suited to his mental capacity, and he must desire it, at least habitually. Since the Sacraments are fruitful in proportion to the cooperation given them, and since the presence and visit of Christ deserves honor and recognition, Communion should be received devoutly, and should be preceded by a preparation and followed by a thanksgiving (Canons 856, 731). The faithful may receive in any Rite, but their own Rite is advised for Easter Communion and strongly urged for the Viaticum (Canon 866).

(b) Dispositions of Body.—The communicant must observe the Eucharistic fast and must conduct himself with external reverence.

By ecclesiastical law a person is bound to the fasting from midnight to receive the Holy Eucharist lawfully (Canons 808, 858). Despite the changes made by the Apostolic Constitution, Christus Dominus (Jan. 16, 1953) and the Motu Proprio, “Sacram Communionem” (Mar. 19, 1957), priests and the faithful who are able to do so are exhorted to observe this venerable and ancient form of Eucharistic fast before Mass or Holy Communion. The legislation of these two papal documents, intended to increase devotion to the Blessed Sacrament by fostering frequent Communion, decrees:

1. that natural water does not break the fast;

2. that the period for observing the Eucharist fast before Mass, at whatever hour it may be said (morning, afternoon, midnight), is three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages, and one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. The priest who is to celebrate computes his time from the beginning of Mass; the faithful, from the time of Communion;

3. that the sick, although not confined to bed, may consume non-alcoholic beverages and real and appropriate medicines, liquid or solid, without any restriction of time.

The Eucharistic fast is based on primitive tradition and is enjoined by the Church as a grave obligation that admits of no lightness of matter. The fast is violated by the smallest portion of food or alcoholic drink. Food is any solid which the physician considers digestible or alterable by the stomach, and hence the fast is not broken if wood, string, paper, hairs or fingernails are swallowed. But the food or drink must be eaten or drunk, that is, it must come from outside the mouth and be taken into the stomach in the way of consumption, and hence the fast is not broken by what comes from within the mouth (e.g., blood from the gums, food remaining in the teeth from the previous day) or by what is taken into the stomach in the way of saliva (e.g., the accidental remnants of a mouth wash or of a throat gargle, or spray, or of a chew of tobacco or gum, when one has spit out the contents as much as possible), or in the way of breathing (e.g., snuff, tobacco smoke inhaled, an insect or a raindrop blown into the mouth). A solid, like a caramel, however, which is dissolved in the mouth before it is swallowed, can not be considered as a liquid. The liquid of the Sacram Communionem must be a liquid before it enters the mouth. (See “Some Further Elucidations on Sacram Communionem” by Cardinal Ottaviani, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXXXVII, No, 2, August 1957, p. 74.)

The reasons that excuse from the Eucharist fast, in regard to solids or alcoholic beverages, in lay Communion, are, in case of the well, the good of the Sacrament (i.e., its preservation from profanation), or the good of self (e.g., avoidance of serious disgrace, as when one who is at the altar rail remembers only then that he is not fasting); in the case of the ill, the danger of death (the Viaticum may be received even daily after nourishment). The salt taken in Baptism does not break the fast, and one who has a papal indult, which is granted for sufficient reasons, may receive Communion when not fasting.

External reverence means that one should approach Communion with cleanliness of body, respectability of dress, and modesty of behavior. No one is unfitted for Communion because of inculpable unsightliness (e.g., a sick man who has irremovable scars or deformities, a poor man who cannot afford any but the simplest garb, a crippled person whose gait is awkward). But unwashed hands and face, dirty mouth or teeth, worn or torn dress, and the like, which one avoids elsewhere as unsuited for human company, should be avoided when receiving the Eucharist. Women immodestly dressed should be refused Communion, if otherwise scandal will result (Canon 858).

Frequent Communion.—What dispositions are required for frequent Communion (i.e., Communion made several times a week) and daily communion?

(a) The necessary dispositions are the same as for rare Communion, namely, the state of grace and a right intention. Right intention means positively that one have in view the ends that Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament, namely, that by means of Communion one may please Him, may be more closely united to Him, and may receive a remedy for one’s defects and infirmities. Those who receive devoutly have these purposes at least implicitly, which suffices; but it would be a serious sin wilfully to exclude all these ends. Right intention means negatively that one must not frequent Communion merely from routine, or from vanity, or from purely human motives, such as pecuniary profit or advantage. If the true ends are not excluded, these improper motives do not exceed a venial sin.

(b) Useful, but not necessary, dispositions are freedom from venial sins, especially such as are deliberate, and freedom from affection for venial sins.

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.—Having considered the duties owed to the consecration and communion of the Eucharist, we shall conclude by mentioning those that are owed to the Sacrament in its permanency or to Christ dwelling in the tabernacle.

(a) The Duty of Custody.—The Blessed Sacrament must be reserved in cathedral, abbatial, parochial, and religious churches; and it may be reserved with due permission of the Ordinary in collegiate churches and in certain public oratories; but there must be someone in charge, and it is not allowed to reserve the Eucharist in private homes or to carry it about when travelling. Churches which have the Blessed Sacrament should be open at least a few hours daily to the faithful. It is not lawful to reserve the Sacrament habitually on more than one altar of the church, and that altar should be the one that is most honorable or most suited for worship, and it should be suitably decorated. The tabernacle should be as precious as possible and be carefully guarded, and the Hosts should be reserved inside in a solid pyx or ciborium. Before the tabernacle should burn day and night a sanctuary lamp fed by olive or other oil (Canons 1265-1271).

(b) The Duty of Renewal of the Hosts.—The consecrated species kept for Communion and adoration should be frequently renewed, lest they be corrupted. It would be a serious sin of irreverence to neglect this duty for over one or two months, or even for a shorter time if the danger of corruption is great on account of local conditions, such as dampness (Canon 1272).

(c) The Duty of Worship.—Pastors and others in charge of religious instruction should encourage devotion to the Eucharist, and especially the practice of assistance at Mass even on weekdays and of visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Benediction may be given frequently, and at least once a year there should be held in every parish church the Devotion of the Forty Hours, or at least some more solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for a number of hours (Canons 1273-1275).

Who is the subject of the Eucharist? - Only a baptized man can receive the Eucharist sacramentally, because only the baptized person is capable of the sacraments. Hence an unbeliever receiving the Eucharist would indeed receive it truly, but only materially, not sacramentally. But a man baptized yet indisposed receives sacramentally indeed, but not spiritually, or receives without fruit. But the baptized person disposed receives both sacramentally and spiritually, or with fruit. Trent sess. 13, c. 8, can. 8.

What is the obligation of receiving the Eucharist? - It is certain that the Eucharist is not necessary, by necessity of means, for obtaining first justification, as regards actual reception. But whether it is necessary at least in desire, by necessity of means, is disputed. As regards practice, however, the matter has no difficulty. For in the opinion of all, at least a virtual and implicit desire suffices. "Adults have such a desire when they receive the sacraments of Baptism or Penance; but little children have the desire, not from their own will, but from the implicit will of the Church." L. 192. Likewise it is disputed whether, in reality or in desire, it is a necessary means for adults for preserving spiritual life. Suarez and others deny this, because other means are not lacking. The Salmanticenses and others affirm it, because the life of the soul cannot be preserved without spiritual food; and therefore it is necessary at least in desire, and indeed explicitly in one who notices the necessity of this sacrament. Hence they hold that one is not excused from sin, even if he receives the Eucharist once a year, if he knows that such rare Communion is not sufficient for him to persevere, having regard to his own weakness. L. 192.

The reception of the Eucharist is necessary for adult faithful by necessity of divine precept obliging both at the article of death, by way of Viaticum, and also more often during life. This is proved both from Sacred Scripture, and from the Council of Nicaea can. 13, and Trent sess. 13, ch. 6, can. 9, and from the practice of the Church, and because the Eucharist was instituted by way of food, the use of which is more often necessary. L. 285, 290; Suarez disp. 69, sect. 3; Lugo disp. 16, n. 27. "Sometimes accidentally a man is held by this divine precept to communicate perhaps even more often in the year, if he judged this necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Suarez, however, says that this can happen most rarely, since other remedies, prayers, penances, etc., can suffice for this. But in that case, in which Communion would be necessary, a man by omitting it would not sin against that precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation. For the rest, it is certain among all that, speaking per se, each person satisfies this precept by communicating once in the year." L. 295. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from the grave precept of the Church once in the year, at least at Easter, unless perhaps by the counsel of one's own priest, for some reasonable cause, one has judged that abstaining from such reception is necessary. Lateran Council IV, c. Omnis, de Poenit. et remiss.; Trent sess. 13, can. 9.

The reception of the Eucharist under both species is not only not necessary for laymen, but is even prohibited; and this also in the necessity of receiving Viaticum. For both the reverence due to this sacrament, since especially in the case of death there is danger of spilling; and also that the error of heretics may be rooted out, who say that the whole Christ is not contained under each species, or that the use of the chalice is necessary, and that the Church erred by administering one species without the other, are sufficient motives for the Church to prohibit this with such rigor. Hence not even a drop of the consecrated chalice can be given to a dying man who cannot receive the species of bread for Viaticum and could receive a drop of the Blood; because in a matter of such importance a door is not to be opened to other liberties, even if that man should die without Viaticum. Trent sess. 21, chs. 1, 2, 3, cans. 1, 2, 3; sess. 22, Decr. super petit. conc. Calc.; Roman Catechism, p. 2, nn. 65, 66; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10; Suarez disp. 71, sect. 3; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 3; q. 74, a. 1 ad 3; q. 80, a. 11, 12; E. M.

Resolutions: Every faithful person in danger of life, which he foresees, is bound under mortal sin to communicate. L. 291. - One who after receiving Viaticum has sinned mortally is not bound to communicate again. L. 293. - One who did not communicate in danger of death is not bound afterward to make it up. L. 293.

When can, or must, children be communicated? - "For the greater reverence of this sacrament, the Latin Church rightly prohibited giving it to little children." L. 301. And this holds even in danger of death for such little children who are still without the use of reason, both because the same danger of irreverence is present, and because such is the usage of the Roman Church. And one who acted otherwise would sin gravely. L. 301; Trent sess. 21, ch. 4, can. 4.

But whether children, as soon as they have the use of reason, can and must communicate, was a disputed matter among earlier theologians. "The first opinion affirms... But the second opinion, very common and more probable, denies that they are bound... Of those, however, who defend this opinion, some say that such infants are neither bound nor able to communicate; but others say that they are not bound, yet are always able, provided they know how to discern this heavenly food from profane food. Commonly the doctors say that, regularly speaking, children are not obliged to Communion before the ninth or tenth year; nor is Communion to be deferred for them beyond the twelfth." L. 301. Certainly received custom has so interpreted this precept that children are not immediately bound by it before they have a more perfect use of reason, so that they may receive the Eucharist with greater reverence and fruit. "But when children already begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred on them." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9 ad 3; 4 Dist. 9, q. 1, a. 5, q. 4. "But at what age," says the Roman Catechism, On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, n. 63, "the sacred mysteries should be given to children, no one will be able to determine better than the father and the priest to whom they confess their sins. For it belongs to them to examine and to inquire of the children whether they have received some knowledge and taste of this admirable sacrament." And this pertains also to pastors, as regards children who are presented to them by their parents. Therefore it is not an exclusive right of the pastor to admit children to first Communion. This was never counted among the exclusive rights of the pastor. - Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi minime, Feb. 7, 1844, § 4; E. M.

This matter at present is already beyond all controversy from the Decree of the S. Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari, Aug. 8, 1910. The prescriptions of that Decree have already been reported in the first part of vol. 2, n. 1270 bis.

Is someone bound to receive sacred Viaticum when danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion? - It seems that this must be affirmed, at least more probably. The reason is that this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, presses in danger of death, so that we may be fortified by this divine aid against spiritual enemies.

Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness, because although someone fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he did not fulfill it at the time when he was bound. L. 285. Yet many deny this with Lugo disp. 15, n. 39. Their reason is that the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. St. Alphonsus, l. c., concerning this denying opinion says: "The more common opinion denies it, even if Communion preceded by about eight days; Laymann holds this, Lugo with the common opinion, as Roncaglia asserts, with Concina, Angelo, Filiucius, Tamburini, Henry, Molfesius, Suarez, who with Soto and Paludanus holds it if Communion was received three days before; and Palaus and the Salmanticenses think it probable.... This opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death happens naturally, because during that brief preceding time it had already begun morally to be imminent, although it was unknown." Indeed some cited by Busembaum think that, at least, it is not mortal to omit Communion, provided you received it at Easter. But St. Liguori by no means acquiesces in this opinion, and rightly, 291, 297 at the end of the paragraph beginning Dicit.

Is one who communicated in the morning from devotion bound, or able, when danger of death presses, to receive Viaticum? - The first opinion affirms that he is bound, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it was not yet pressing at the time when Communion was received, therefore could not be fulfilled by that reception. The second opinion says that he is not bound, but can communicate: 1. not bound, because the time in which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2. able, because although strictly he does not seem to be bound, nevertheless he is not therefore prohibited, since favors are to be enlarged. - The third opinion contends that he is neither bound nor able to communicate. The reason is that since the precept obliges according to the intention of the Church, the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in one day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted.

Benedict XIV thinks all three of these opinions probable, saying thus: "In so great a disagreement of the opinions of the doctors, it will be open to the pastor to embrace that opinion which has more pleased him." De Synodo, l. 7, c. 11. - St. Alphonsus, 285, and Quaestiones reformatae 66, says more probably that one must distinguish between natural and violent illness, because in the latter case "one did not receive Viaticum while placed in the article of death; but otherwise, if one already placed in illness communicated in the morning from devotion."

Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough? - Resp. In the affirmative, because the danger that the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is generally absent. And the reason is that the way through which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, that is, the way through which food and drink are passed into the stomach, but is the trachea, through which breathing extends even to the lungs. If, however, the cough is so continual that it prevents the sacred host from being passed into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. Roman Ritual. But when a sick person suffers from constant vomiting, regularly he cannot communicate, unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. In doubt, however, whether the sick person is going to vomit up the sacred particle, it must not be given to him. L. 291, 292.

In danger of death, is Communion to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred synaxis? - Resp. In the negative, if they have not yet obtained the use of reason. The reason is that this is against the present discipline of the Church. - In the affirmative as regards children who are possessed of reason and who have some notion of this sacrament. Indeed not only can Communion be given to him, but it also must be. The reason is that, on the one hand, children placed in such danger are bound by divine precept to communicate; and, on the other, the usefulness of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12; L. 301; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9.

In danger of death, is Communion to be given to the insane, the semi-fatuous, the delirious, and those deprived of the senses? - As regards the insane, if they have been perpetually insane, or phrenetic, Communion is never to be given to them. Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr. If they have lucid intervals and have manifested a desire of communicating, Communion can be given to them; indeed it also must be, excluding the danger of irreverence. Roman Ritual, ib.; St.

Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9; Roman Catechism 64; L. 302. - As regards semi-fatuous persons, Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating presses. L. 303. Nevertheless, if a semi-fatuous person shows a desire for Communion and approaches it with due exterior devotion, so that there is no irreverence, Communion can be permitted to him more frequently. Cf. Roman Ritual ibid.; John Sanchez, Disputationes Selectae 26, n. 5; St. Thomas l. c. - As regards the delirious, Communion can be given to them if they have manifested a desire for Communion, and if they are able to communicate, excluding danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

L. 292. - As regards those deprived of the senses, they are certainly dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But the pastor is not therefore dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were prepared. For the sacraments work ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Yet except the case in which there is danger of irreverence, or if it is feared that they will not be able to swallow the host. Gousset 232.

Is Communion to be given to deaf-mutes, the possessed, and epileptics? - Resp. As regards deaf-mutes, in the affirmative, if from signs it is clear that they have some discretion and are sufficiently instructed. If they enjoy not just any discretion and instruction, but some sufficient discretion and instruction, they will be able to communicate more often. L. 303; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9; cf. 385. As regards the possessed, a distinction must be made: Communion must be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons. As regards epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, because of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. L. 303.

Can Communion be given to those condemned to death? - Resp. In the affirmative. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that "that custom is to be followed which is known to exist respectively in each place," De Synodo, l. 7, c. 11. But he calls the usage of ministering the Eucharist to them more conformable to Christian piety, and says it is to be introduced where it is not, and he brings forward the testimony of St. Pius V on this matter. Gousset 230. Communion is then ministered by way of Viaticum. S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 21, 1841; E. M.

What dispositions of soul are required? - For receiving the Eucharist the state of grace is required, at least prudently estimated. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:28: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of the Chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. - It is not sufficient that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that Confession of mortal sins be first made and sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity of celebrating or communicating, and when the availability of a confessor is lacking. Trent sess. 13, ch. 7, can. 11. - In a priest celebrating, however, the state of grace is required both insofar as he is the subject receiving the Eucharist and insofar as he is the minister confecting it. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 4, 5; q. 82, a. 5, 7. Besides the state of grace, it is required that someone at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, and have some devotion. - L. 256, 257; E. M.

When is the aforesaid necessity considered to exist as regards making Confession? - The necessity by which, if a confessor is lacking, after only contrition has been first made, someone could celebrate and receive the Eucharist is judged to exist in the following cases: 1. In danger of death, i.e., that a host may be consecrated for one dying. 2. If the sacrifice or Communion cannot be omitted without grave infamy or scandal. 3.

If a pastor must celebrate by office, and cannot through another, so that the people may hear Mass; nor can he omit the celebration without infamy or scandal, L. 261; and according to Suarez and others, even if he could abstain without infamy. Cf. Lugo disp. 14, p. 114; Suarez disp. 66, sect. 4. 4. If the precept concerning annual Communion presses, or if a priest cannot hear the prescribed Mass unless he celebrates. Thus many; but far more commonly and truly others deny it. As regards hearing Mass, St. Alphonsus 261 says that others better contradict this; but as regards Communion he says that each opinion is probable. 5. If a priest after the consecration commits a mortal sin, or remembers one committed before. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 2. But if this occurs before the consecration, and especially before the canon, he must confess, if he can without the mark of infamy, and therefore he can also interrupt the Mass. Indeed many more probably add that he is also bound to abandon the Mass if he cannot confess; and this is prescribed in the Rubrics de Defectibus, tit. 8, n. 5, if scandal is not feared. St. Thomas l. c. But, ordinarily speaking, danger of scandal is present, and in that case the mark of infamy will scarcely be able to be avoided. 6. If at the Communion rail you remember that you forgot to confess, and you cannot withdraw without mark or grave scandal. L. 260, 263.

When is the availability of a confessor considered lacking? - It is considered lacking: 1. If no confessor is present, and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty. 2. If no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or one who is unwilling or unable to hear Confessions, or to whom you cannot confess without grave harm to yourself or another. - Nevertheless, in these cases perfect contrition is required. - But the availability of a confessor is not considered lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather, any approved confessor whatever must be lacking. L. 264.

What distance is required for a priest to be considered lacking? - It cannot be determined rigorously, but depends on the circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others a league and a half or a league and a quarter; others only one league. But besides the reason of the journey, other reasons often press, e.g., illness or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from Confession, even if the confessor is fifty paces away. L. 264.

Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in Confession, bound to confess it before Communion? - Resp. Certainly in the negative, if the penitent is already sitting at the sacred table, or if a grave cause for communicating is present, so that he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is that even if there were a precept of Confession, it would not press with such great inconvenience. - If the penitent can confess without inconvenience or omit Communion, it is controverted: more probably he is neither bound to confess nor to abstain from Communion, because a sin involuntarily omitted certainly has been remitted, though only indirectly; and therefore it in no way obstructs Communion being received. Nor should you say that the precept of Trent urges confessing before Communion; for since the penitent has already been duly confessed and justified by the sacrament of Penance, he has been sufficiently proved even according to the mind of Trent. Thus Gousset 249 and others against Lugo and others, who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. St. Liguori comes closer to the former opinion, yet judges that the second should be advised in practice, provided some cause does not counsel otherwise. H. A. 23; L. 257.

Is a priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated, conscious of mortal sin, without Confession, on account of an urgent necessity, bound to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. As regards the priest, in the affirmative. For so expressly Trent sess. 13, ch. 7, and prop. 38 condemned by Alexander VII. As regards the layman, more probably in the negative. The reason is that Trent speaks only of priests celebrating under urgent necessity. Therefore it does not touch priests who merely communicate. But there is doubt whether it touches one who celebrates on Good Friday, or one who completes the Mass of another who failed after the consecration, because the case is extraordinary, and Trent must be understood strictly of him who truly himself celebrates, i.e., consecrates and communicates. La Croix 539. - But it is very commonly asserted that it does not touch the priest who celebrates sacrilegiously when no necessity presses and the availability of a confessor is not lacking, for whom the law would rather be harmful, and a certain occasion of a new sin, without hope of fruit. "But Lugo rightly notes that if a priest from necessity, with contrition omitted, celebrated, he would indeed be bound to confess as soon as possible, because the precept of Trent by no means distinguishes between a priest having contrition and not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity." L. 266, 268; Lugo disp. 14, nn. 138, 139, 150; Suarez disp. 66, sect. 7; E. M.

How is that precept imposed on priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood? - More probably it suffices that the priest confess within three days, because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word quamprimum can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar one, by common interpretation is extended to a space of three days. Nevertheless such a priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was not excused from Confession except because of the instant necessity. Hence, if the same necessity of celebrating presses on the following day, and he can confess, he cannot put Confession off to another day. - L. 266.

Note: Some said that the particle quamprimum was to be understood as soon as such a priest has celebrated. "But this opinion is altogether improbable, because then he would be bound to Confession by reason of the celebration itself; but Trent, apart from celebration, imposes the precept of confessing as soon as possible." L. 266; E. M.

Is a priest celebrating after Confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, bound to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. In the negative, if he remembers the sin after celebration, because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - In the negative also, more probably, if he remembers the sin before celebration, because since he first made Confession, although he forgot some grave sin, in reality he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous Confession. St. Liguori says this opinion is probable, 266. Likewise in the negative if he remembers the sin or committed the sin after Mass was begun. For the Council speaks of a priest celebrating, under urgent necessity, without previous confession. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 8, n. 4; Lugo disp. 14, nn. 145, 146; L. 267.

Is one bound to confess who, because of narrowness of time, cannot confess everything; or who has even reserved sins for absolving all of which the confessor does not have faculty? - Resp. In the affirmative, since when Confession materially integral cannot be made, formally integral Confession suffices, and therefore, since Confession is still possible, one is bound to it. Many and grave doctors, however, deny that there is an obligation of Confession if someone has reserved and non-reserved sins, and St. Alphonsus judges their opinion probable, 265. But all agree that such an obligation of Confession is not present if someone has only reserved sins for absolving which the confessor does not have faculty. Cf. 802.

What if the penitent has a reserved excommunication? - "Suarez, Lugo, Coninck rightly judge that he can well receive the Eucharist when scandal or the mark of infamy presses. The reason is that the precept of the Church prohibiting excommunicated persons from receiving the sacraments does not oblige when the natural precept of avoiding scandal concurs, or it does not oblige with such great inconvenience of enduring infamy." L. 265. - But can he confess to one who does not have faculty over the excommunication? According to St. Alphonsus, the first probable opinion denies it; wherefore he can communicate, with contrition having first been made, although he has other non-reserved sins. For he cannot confess, "since he is bound by excommunication, which forbids him from receiving the sacrament of Penance." L. ib. But the second and more probable opinion affirms it. The reason is that in that case of necessity "excommunication, just as it does not deprive him of receiving the Eucharist, so also does not deprive him of receiving Penance, which must be received when it can be, so that the divine precept of first making Confession before Communion may be observed." L. ib.; Ithur. Cas. 52, nn. 24, 25. Cf. 802.

Do actual or virtual affections toward venial sins, or actual concomitant venial sins, e.g., voluntary distractions, impede the whole fruit of Communion? And what about frequency of Communion? - Resp. To the first, in the negative. Thus more commonly. The reason is that all the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those placing no obstacle. But the obstacle to the sacrament of the Eucharist is only consciousness of grave sin. Yet, although actual venial sins, or an actual affection toward them, do not remove the whole fruit of Communion, they nevertheless partly impede it. For "the effect of this sacrament is not only the attaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness, which indeed is impeded if someone approaches this sacrament distracted in mind by venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or charity is not taken away." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 8, 4, 5. Actual venial sins, or an actual affection toward them; "for it can happen that someone, after many venial sins committed, approaches this sacrament devoutly and obtains fully the effect of this sacrament." St. Thomas ib.; Decree of Innocent XI, 1679; L. Praxis 148 seqq.; Trent sess. 7, can. 6; sess. 13, ch. 7; Suarez disp. 63, sect. 3; Lugo disp. 14, sect. 3; L. 270.

Resp. To the second. By frequent Communion can be understood Communion several times in the year, monthly, weekly, several times in the week, daily. Now the Angelic Doctor has this: "Concerning the use of this sacrament two things can be considered: one indeed on the part of the sacrament itself, whose power is salutary for men, and therefore it is useful to receive it daily, so that a man may daily receive its fruit.... In another way it can be considered on the part of the one receiving, in whom it is required that he approach this sacrament with great devotion and reverence. And therefore, if someone finds himself daily prepared for this, it is laudable that he receive it daily.... But because often in many men many impediments to this devotion occur, because of indisposition of body or of soul, it is not useful for all men to approach this sacrament daily, but as often as a man finds himself prepared for it.... This sacrament is spiritual food; hence just as bodily food is received daily, so also it is laudable to receive this sacrament daily.... And therefore each pertains to reverence for this sacrament, both that it be received daily and that one sometimes abstain.... Yet love and hope, to which Scripture always provokes us, are preferred to fear." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 10. And 4 Sent., dist. 12, q. 3, a. 1, q. 2: "If someone knew experimentally that from daily reception the fervor of love increased and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily; but if he felt that through daily frequency reverence was diminished and fervor was not much increased, such a one ought sometimes to abstain, so that afterward he might approach with greater reverence and devotion." Therefore no determined rule can be established in this matter, but "it can be taken solely from the particular state, devotion, and charity of each one." Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12, n. 7. According to the Decree of Innocent XI, for frequent Communion the criterion must be taken from a threefold head: from purity of soul, from the devotion with which one approaches it, and from the fruit which one receives from it. Trent sess. 13, ch. 8; sess. 21, ch. 2; sess. 22, ch. 6; Lugo disp. 17; Suarez disp. 69, sect. 4; La Croix 655 seqq.; L. Praxis 148 seqq.; E. M.

To counsel frequent Communion pertains to the confessor, also as regards religious and nuns, with attention to the dispositions of each penitent, and with no regard had to any prohibition of more frequent Communion which perhaps is found in the rules of nuns and religious. Trent sess. 23, ch. 18 de R.; Innocent XI, Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679; S. C. EE. et RR., Dec. 17, 1890; Aug. 17, 1891.

Now S. C. C., Dec. 16, 1905, Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, established and declared: "1. Frequent and daily Communion, as most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, is open to all the Christian faithful of whatever order or condition, so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred Table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it." "2. But a right mind consists in this: that one who approaches the sacred table indulge neither usage, nor vanity, nor human reasons, but wish to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined more closely to Him by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects." "3. Although it is most expedient that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, it nevertheless suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; and with this sincere purpose of soul, it cannot happen that those communicating daily should not gradually free themselves from even venial sins and from affection for them."

Wherefore, "if the penitent, notwithstanding frequent or daily Communion, makes no progress, but keeps the will clinging to venial sins, the frequency of Communion is to be diminished; for it is a sign that the penitent lacks a right mind." Aertnys, ed. 8, n. 95. And this is much more to be said if he continues always to sin gravely as before, without any amendment appearing in him. "4. Since the Sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect the greater dispositions are applied in receiving them, therefore care must be taken that diligent preparation precede sacred Communion, and suitable thanksgiving follow from it, according to each one's strength, condition, and duties."

In the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 8, these things are contained concerning the admirable use of this sacrament: "As regards use, however, our Fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this holy sacrament. For they taught that some receive it only sacramentally, as sinners; others only spiritually, namely those who, eating that proposed heavenly bread by desire, with a living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness; but a third class receive it both sacramentally and spiritually; and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table.... With paternal affection the holy synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that... mindful of so great a majesty and so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh to us to eat, they believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with that constancy and firmness of faith, that devotion of soul, that piety and worship, and that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and it may truly be for them life of the soul and perpetual health of mind." Roman Catechism p. 2, c. 4, q. 47. "5. In order that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit, the counsel of the Confessor ought to intervene. Yet Confessors should beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind." "6. Since it is clear that from frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is increased, spiritual life is more abundantly nourished, the soul is more richly furnished with virtues, and a firmer pledge of eternal happiness is given to the receiver, therefore pastors, confessors, and preachers, according to the approved doctrine of the Roman Catechism (Part II, c. 60), should exhort the Christian people to this so pious and so salutary use by frequent admonitions and with much zeal."

The Roman Catechism l. c. premises these things: "But whether monthly, or weekly, or daily, it is more expedient, no certain rule can be prescribed to all. Nevertheless that most certain norm of St. Augustine: Live so that you may be able to receive daily." "7. Frequent and daily Communion should be promoted especially in religious Institutes of every kind; for which, however, the Decree Quemadmodum of the 17th day of December 1890, issued by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, remains firm. It should also be promoted as much as possible in clerical Seminaries, whose students aspire to the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian schools of every kind."

In the praised Decree Quemadmodum these things are contained: "V. But as regards permission or prohibition to approach the Sacred Synaxis, His Holiness decrees that permissions or prohibitions of this kind pertain only to the ordinary or extraordinary Confessor, and that superiors have no authority to insert themselves in this matter, except in the case in which one of their subjects, after the last sacramental confession, has been a scandal to the community or has committed a grave external fault, until he has again approached the sacrament of Penance. "VI. Hence all are warned that they should take care diligently to prepare themselves for the Sacred Synaxis and to approach it on the days established in their own rules; and whenever, because of the fervor and spiritual progress of someone, the confessor shall have judged it expedient that he approach more frequently, this can be permitted to him by the confessor himself. But one who has obtained permission from the confessor for more frequent and even daily Communion is bound to inform the superior of this; but if the superior judges that he has just and grave causes against more frequent Communions of this kind, he is bound to manifest them to the confessor, whose judgment must altogether be acquiesced in." "8. If there are any Institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found assigned to certain days and ordered on them, these norms are to be regarded as merely directive, not as preceptive. But the prescribed number of Communions must be held as something minimum for the piety of Religious. Therefore a more frequent or daily approach to the eucharistic table must always be freely open to them, according to the norms handed down above in this Decree. But so that all religious of each sex may duly know the dispositions of this Decree, the moderators of each house shall take care that it be read every year in the vernacular language in common within the Octave of the feast of Corpus Christi." "9. Finally, after this Decree has been promulgated, all ecclesiastical writers should abstain from every contentious disputation concerning the dispositions for frequent and daily Communion."

His Holiness further commanded that local Ordinaries and Regular Prelates "inform the Holy See about the execution of those things which have been established in the preceding Decree in their reports concerning the state of the Diocese or Institute."

The preceding Decree on frequent Communion is obligatory as regards the nine prescriptions which are contained in it. - For exciting daily Communion and devotion toward the Most Holy Eucharist, the institution of three-day supplications is highly commended to bishops, which are to be celebrated in cathedral churches and also parochial churches within the octave of the solemnity of Corpus Christi or at another time. And they will always be carried out on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. S. C. Indulg., Apr. 10, 1907. "Children who, according to the norms in the Roman Catechism ch. 4, n. 63, have once been admitted to the sacred table, must not be prohibited from frequent participation in it, but rather they should be exhorted to this, the contrary practice, in force somewhere, being reproved." S. C. C., Sept. 15, 1906.

What disposition of body is required for receiving the Eucharist? - By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for Communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. This is clear: 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from various Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.

For breaking that fast, three conditions are required according to the common opinion: 1. That what is taken be taken from outside and passed into the stomach, because what does not come from outside, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from outside. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. 2. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that, according to the common sense of men, the natural fast is broken only in that way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of breathing or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting even if by breathing you swallow dust or a fly. 3. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common mode of conceiving, it is not eating, nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. L. 279-281; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; 4 dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3; E. M.

Does swallowing remnants of food which cling between the teeth break the fast? - Resp. In the negative, if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. This is also clear from the Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 9, n. 3. - If it is voluntary, it is controverted. The first probable opinion denies it, because such remnants are not taken by way of food, although deliberately, but by way of saliva. St. Thomas 4, dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3: "Eating," he says, "is principally said from the taking of exterior food, although it is terminated at the passage of food into the belly, and further at nutrition; and therefore things which are done interiorly without the taking of exterior food do not seem to dissolve the fast of nature, nor to impede the reception of the Eucharist, as the swallowing of saliva; and similarly it seems concerning those things which remain within the teeth, and also concerning eructations." Cf. also Rubr. tit. 9, n. 3. The second opinion affirms it, because swallowing of this kind, since it is done intentionally, seems to be a new eating. St. Liguori says this opinion is more probable, 279. - Lugo disp. 15, n. 36.

Do little drops of water or broth tasted, mixed with saliva, break the fast if they are swallowed? - Resp. In the negative, if they are passed down by chance, beyond intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of little drops which are involuntarily passed down while washing the mouth. The reason is that they are not taken by way of nutrition.

This is also clear from the Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 9, n. 3; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 4. St. Alphonsus 279 says: "It is doubtful if they are swallowed intentionally. Coninck and Henry, cited by Croix 566, think that they do not break the fast, provided they are mixed with saliva; and Lugo and Tamburini seem to think the same, when they say that since it is not drinking to swallow saliva, therefore one does not violate the fast by passing down these little drops by way of saliva; but it must altogether be affirmed with the common opinion....

And the same Doctor Thomas teaches this, l. c., where after he said that remnants of food do not break the fast if they are accidentally swallowed, he said that the same reason applies to remnants of water or wine with which the mouth is washed.... This is confirmed from the Rubrics l. c., where it is thus held: the same must be said, namely that the fast is not broken, if while washing the mouth little drops of water are swallowed beyond intention. Therefore, if intentionally, it is broken. The same must be said if someone before midnight put sugar in his mouth, and after midnight passed down something. The reason is that this is not a remnant of eating from the preceding day, but a continued eating.... Thus also he would break the fast if someone sucked blood from a finger, or tears flowing from the eyes. But otherwise it must be said if someone swallows blood flowing from the head or gums, or pus issuing from a pustule of the mouth, even intentionally. The reason is that whatever comes from within is not truly eaten and does not dissolve the fast."

Does snuff taken through the nostrils dissolve the fast? - Resp. In the negative, even if something is transmitted into the stomach. The reason is that although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating. L. 280; St. Thomas l. c.

Does tobacco smoke or something similar dissolve the fast? - Resp. In the negative, because tobacco smoke is neither food nor drink; nor is it taken by eating or drinking. Otherwise we would have to say that those also break the fast who, in the kitchen, draw in the smoke of foods both through the mouth and through the nostrils. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily introduced into the stomach. The same seems to be said concerning the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in after the manner of tobacco smoke. L. l. c.; St. Thomas l. c.

Does one dissolve the fast who takes a tobacco leaf, or a spice, so that he may crush it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm? - Resp. Probably in the negative, even if some small amount of juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed beyond intention, because if this is swallowed by chance, it is passed down not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is indecent; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, unless some reasonable cause intervenes. "The same must be said of one who would swallow dust, or rain, a flake of snow, a gnat, or a fly; for if this happened by chance through breathing, it would certainly not dissolve the fast, because such an action is not eating, but breathing." L. 280; St. Thomas l. c.; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 9.

Does eating hairs, nails, wood, paper, little stones, and similar things impede Communion? - The first opinion universally denies it, because all these things do not have the character of food, or at least in usage are not held as edible; and Busembaum thinks it probable. The second opinion universally affirms it, because it does not matter whether something nourishes or does not nourish, provided it is taken by way of food. The third, common opinion affirms it if digestible things are eaten, such as paper or wax; but denies it if the things are altogether indigestible, such as woolen or silken threads. For indigestible things do not have the character of food; and the Church forbids the Eucharist to be received after food or drink. Council of Toledo VII, can. 2; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 4; L. 281.

Can one communicate who doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, or swallowed something on the very day? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is that in the case it is not clear that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not clear that Communion is forbidden; for the fact of the violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. L. 282, l. 1, nn. 38, 39.

Midnight can be computed according to true time, or mean time, or legal time.

Among several disagreeing clocks, is it licit for someone to follow the latest one for receiving Communion? - Most commonly they affirm it, provided its error is not clear, and it is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err. L. 282.

Can one communicate who swallows food after the first stroke of the clock, but before the last? - The Salmanticenses and others affirm it, because, as they say, the last stroke morally completes the same hour, so that all the strokes are counted as one. But Lugo and others better and more commonly deny it. The reason is that at the first stroke of the hour midnight is already completed. The first stroke of the clock announces the following hour, and therefore the preceding is understood already to have passed. L. 282.

Is it licit to eat and drink immediately after Communion? - Formerly indeed after Communion fasting was prescribed until Sext. De Consecrat., Dist. 2, cap. 23. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, from fittingness, some delay must be observed between reception of this sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species have not yet plainly been corrupted in the stomach, unless some reasonable cause for taking something immediately is present; otherwise such eating is not excused from venial fault because of irreverence. Since thanksgiving after Communion is customarily made for a quarter hour, or for twenty minutes, after such a space of time has now passed, food and drink can licitly be taken. The species then regularly have already been corrupted. - L. 225, 283; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 5, 6.

Is it illicit to spit after Communion? - Resp. In the negative per se, provided no fragment of the host remains in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the way through which spittle flows into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of breathing. Yet all agree that it is suitable for communicants to abstain from spitting for some interval of time. L. 283.

When is it licit for someone not fasting to communicate? - One not fasting licitly communicates: 1. in danger of death, from whatever cause it comes; 2. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly treated, e.g., by heretics or impious men; 3. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4. in necessity of completing the sacrifice or Communion, e.g., if for the species of wine the priest has taken water, etc., "because necessity has no law." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; L. 284, 285; Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm.

Note: "If a priest remembers after the consecration that he is not fasting, it is certain that he is not bound, nor able, to abandon the Mass, since the divine precept of completing the sacrifice outweighs the ecclesiastical precept of communicating fasting.... But if he remembers the dissolved fast before the consecration, and especially before the canon, he certainly must desist from the Mass, if he can without the mark of infamy or scandal, as they also commonly say... from St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 2.... St. Bonaventure judges, and Soto and others think it probable, that because of this reason of scandal one must never desist from a Mass begun, because it could almost never be omitted without scandal. On the contrary, Concina says that scandal can rarely occur in this. I think it better to say that scandal can always be feared, unless the celebrant is of known, or at least presumed, probity." L. 287.

"If for the species of wine the priest took water, if he notices this while he has it in his mouth, it is not to be spit out, because of the danger of ejecting a fragment of the host and of irreverence, but is to be swallowed.... If a part of the host after the ablution has been taken adheres to the chalice or palate, more fittingly it is moved by a new ablution, i.e., purification, than by the finger, although the Missal also permits it to be drawn with the finger to the lip of the chalice and received before the ablution; in this way also those are excused who, from devotion, retaining the host in the mouth for a long time, by chance first take something of the ablution; nevertheless this is not licit voluntarily, unless good faith and holy simplicity excuse." L. 288.

"It is licit to give a sick person a smallest particle together with ablution, if because of dryness he cannot swallow it.... An ablution of water or wine is also licitly given to a healthy person, so that he can swallow fragments of the particle which have adhered to the mouth... because Communion is not morally judged to have preceded... then that whole from the ablution and particles is taken by one reception....

And therefore on Good Friday the Church instituted that the particle consecrated on the preceding day be received together with wine; and in the Rubrics of the Missal tit. 10, n. 8, it is said: if the particle adheres to the chalice, wine can be poured in and it can be received; and Lugo and the Salmanticenses add that wine can be poured in again until the particle is received." L. ib. "That because of fear of death it is licit to celebrate after food, contempt excluded, several doctors admit." L. 289. For in such necessity there is no irreverence, and there is a legitimate excuse for not observing the precept of the fast.

Can a priest, for ministering Viaticum, celebrate not fasting? - Resp. The first opinion affirms it. The reason is that the divine precept of Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of fasting. The second opinion denies it. The reason is that since this sacrament is not of such necessity, the reverence due to the sacrament, on account of which fasting is prescribed, is to be preferred. "I think the first opinion probable," says St. Alphonsus 286, "but this second seems to me more probable, unless the dying person could not be fortified by the sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for in that case the Eucharist will be able to be a sacrament of necessity, so that from attrite he may become contrite. But otherwise it must be said if a priest, when he was near death, had to celebrate in order to give Viaticum to himself, because then he could well celebrate not fasting, so that he might satisfy the precept of Viaticum; for then in the same person the ecclesiastical and divine precepts concur, and the divine must be preferred: thus commonly." If it is known that the priest is not fasting, practically it will indeed be difficult, because of scandal, to follow the first opinion.

Can a priest who is not fasting celebrate so that the people may hear Mass and satisfy the precept? - The sole reason of taking care that the people hear Mass does not suffice, according to the common opinion, for celebrating when the fast has been violated, because it is preferable that the people be deprived of Mass than that the priest celebrate not fasting. If another grave reason is added, namely public scandal which could not easily be impeded, e.g., by warning the people that from some accident the priest is no longer fasting, celebration of Mass would be licit. Nevertheless, practically one must attend lest perhaps greater scandal result from this, for example if it is not hidden that the priest is not fasting, or if afterward it is learned. La Croix 582 seq.; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 411; E. M.

Is moral certainty of danger of death required so that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting? - In the negative, but a founded doubt, or probability of danger, suffices, especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed pastors and parents or relatives of the sick are gravely to be rebuked who, through neglect or vain fear, delay the administration of sacred Viaticum with the danger that these persons may die without the Eucharist. L. H. A. 46. And St. Alphonsus 285 shrewdly warns that in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. "The sick," says St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8, "are to be communicated immediately, even after food, if there is doubt of danger for them, lest they die without Communion." Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm.

From the S. C. de Prop. Fide, Feb. 20, 1801, n. 361, a missionary can minister Viaticum to a sick person suffering from hectic fever, who will still live several months, but at that time when that sick person is near death the missionary will not be present.

Only a baptized man can receive the Eucharist sacramentally; because only the baptized is capable of the Sacraments. Hence an infidel receiving the Eucharist would indeed receive it truly, but only materially, not sacramentally. But a baptized man who is indisposed does indeed receive sacramentally, but not spiritually, that is, he receives, but without fruit. But a baptized man who is disposed receives both sacramentally and spiritually, or with fruit. - Thus the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8.

We must treat 1. of the obligation of receiving the Eucharist; 2. of the disposition required for receiving it worthily.

345. Spiritual Communion is called a pious desire of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist when it cannot be received in reality. Hence for it there is required: 1. an act of Faith, by which the one about to communicate spiritually sets before himself Christ truly present in the Eucharist; 2. an act of the mind, by which he imagines to himself in his mind that he is now approaching the sacred table and receiving the Host from the hand of the Priest ¹; 3. an act of desire, by which he longs to receive Christ in the Sacrament and to be united with Him with his whole heart. This Communion was very much among the delights of the Saints, and is commended by the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8. It is very useful to the pious faithful. For if God rewards a pious desire for any virtue, how much more the desire of possessing Him Himself! Therefore it must be diligently insinuated and most vehemently commended by Confessors to their faithful penitents. Spiritual Communion can be made at every time and in every place, both morning and evening. Yet the more opportune time is the time of Mass itself, namely when the Priest communicates; for then, since the most august Sacrament is exhibited to the eyes and represented more vividly to the mind, it will more ardently inflame hearts with divine love. - Scavini, etc.

¹ This imaginative representation is by no means necessary. For the chief part of this very useful and most sweet practice consists in this: that someone, turning over in his mind both those things which moved the immense charity of our Lord to prepare this heavenly banquet for us, and those things which invite and impel us to participate in it, should burst forth into an ardent desire of enjoying this table; and, dwelling upon an affection of this kind together with acts of faith, humility, and love, should ask with great confidence the most abundant benignity of the Lord and Savior that He deign mercifully to bestow even now that abundance of graces which He is accustomed to impart when, by His presence, He invisibly visits our soul. For otherwise imaginative representations do not come easily to all; and if perhaps they are languid, those affections also will languish and miserably wither in which the chief, indeed the whole, fruit of this pious exercise consists.

5. Robertinus, a confessor, very rarely permits communion to his penitents outside Easter time; because, he says, penitents very rarely have that necessary preparation or devotion by which one ought to approach sacred communion. But he permits frequent communion to scarcely anyone, since there is scarcely anyone who is free not only from mortal sins, but even from venial sins.

Quaer. What is to be said about Robertinus's manner of acting?

R. Robertinus's manner of acting is altogether to be disapproved. The necessary preparation by which one can approach sacred communion is indeed that, and no other, concerning which the Apostle says: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

The Council of Trent, sess. 13. cap. 7., says concerning this necessary preparation of the soul: Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept, namely of the Apostle, must be recalled: But let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession having first been made. But in cap. 8 immediately following, it exhorts the faithful to receive that supersubstantial bread frequently. And finally, sess. 22, de Sacr. missae, cap. 6, it speaks thus: The holy Synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.

Therefore, if from these judgments of the Tridentine Fathers taken together we search out their mind thoroughly, we shall certainly have this as explored: that those indeed are to be removed altogether from the Eucharistic table who, oppressed by consciousness of mortal sin, are judged unworthy of so great and so singular a gift of God. Wherefore, if from indications of sorrow and from amendment of new life the confessor does not doubt that sacramental absolution can be imparted to his penitents, neither ought he to hesitate that the same are now sufficiently disposed for eating the Lord's bread. Nor indeed can such penitents, thus disposed and prepared, be repelled from sacred communion indiscriminately and without grave cause, namely, if they have been held worthy of the benefit of sacramental absolution. Indiscriminately and without grave cause; for, for those who are accustomed to commit grave sins, and who, since they have contracted disordered habits and are careless of their own salvation, easily slip afterward into graver crimes to be committed, the salutary remedy of medicinal severity can sometimes be applied.

Moreover, from the cited texts of Trent it is clear that the Tridentine Fathers persuade the faithful to frequent use of the Eucharist; indeed, that they desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by become participants from the Eucharistic table. But it would be altogether useless to exhort the faithful to frequent communion; and the daily communion of the same faithful could not only not be desired, but not even hoped for, if those alone were refreshed by the Eucharistic bread who were free from every stain even of lighter fault. Wherefore all those who are not yet free from venial sins are not indiscriminately to be barred from frequent communion.

If confessors diligently weigh these things, they will certainly see that the custom of those is not to be praised who, in order to permit communion to their penitents, demand, because of the dignity of the sacrament of the Eucharist, certain singular and scarcely to be hoped-for dispositions, and far greater ones than those which suffice for obtaining absolution in the sacrament of penance. - And as regards granting frequent communion, certainly greater devotion of the faithful is to be stirred up; they are to be more sharply inflamed to detestation of past crimes; and those inclined to venial sins are to be efficaciously stirred up to detestation also of these; then a certain hunger, as it were, and vehement desire for Eucharistic food is to be stirred up, so that with the greatest reverence and piety they can receive it. But just as the strength of the body is sustained by food itself, so the languor and infirmity of the soul is driven away and strengthened by this spiritual food by which we are fed. Whence Augustine says in Serm. de verb. Apost.: Daily you sin, daily receive. And if anyone attends diligently, he will discover that the opinion of all the Fathers who have written concerning this matter was the same. Catech. Roman. n. 60., Instr. S. C. de P. F. 19 Apr. 1784., Collectan. n. 719., Ferrar. Supp. v. Communio, Gennari Sulla Comun. freq. I. M. 579.

8. Ferdinand, a missionary, doubts whether he can minister sacred communion by way of Viaticum to Francis when he is not fasting, concerning whose illness it is doubted whether it is mortal or not.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Ferdinand can minister Viaticum; for while that doubt stands, although Francis is not in the article of death, nevertheless he is in danger of death. For there is danger of death when there is a probable doubt, and death is often accustomed to happen in such a Case. But if the doubt is merely negative, because namely neither could a physician be questioned about the gravity of the disease, nor is the sick man himself or the missionary capable of forming a judgment, then Viaticum is still to be administered, and one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 285. dub. 3. in fine., I. M. 596. Indeed, often it cannot be established whether the disease is truly lethal or not; and then the Church, a pious mother, is rightly presumed to wish in such a doubt to favor the sick person, especially since daily experience establishes that many sick persons, beyond everyone's expectation, die without Viaticum. This has force especially when the sick person is far distant from the church, or when, in mission places, the missionary cannot return again to the sick person, because then he is exposed to the greater danger of dying without being refreshed by the sacraments. G. 306., Lig. H. A. 46.

“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.”

“15. The error is great of those who approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this: that they have confessed, that they are not conscious to themselves of any mortal sin, and that they have sent their prayers and preparations before them; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will obtain grace there, this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“22. Those are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receive Communion before they have performed a worthy penance for their offenses.—23. Likewise, those in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God, free from every admixture, are to be restrained from Holy Communion.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII. Cf. C. 719, 722.

“38. The command of Trent, made to a priest who sacrifices from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.—39. That expression as soon as possible is understood as: when the priest shall confess at his own time.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

70. 5. Frequent reception of the sacraments.² The aforesaid means become much more efficacious if the sacraments are received frequently and devoutly, especially penance and the Eucharist. (a) For as often as we seriously look into the recesses of conscience, and candidly open to the spiritual physician not only external sins, but also internal thoughts more or less shameful which tend to lust, as well as the dangerous occasions which we voluntarily approach, or in which, compelled by a certain necessity, we dwell - first indeed we conceive a greater horror of all such foulnesses; then we receive opportune counsels concerning fleeing occasions and the means of overcoming temptations; and, sacramental grace acceding, we are made more strenuous for despising the enticements of the flesh.

² Lacordaire speaks excellently concerning the means which the Catholic religion supplies for cultivating chastity, Conf. de N. Dame, 22nd and 23rd.

(b) Nor is holy communion less efficacious; for there our flesh is sanctified by the flesh of Christ, and, when we frequently receive the author of purity Himself, does it not shame us to hand over the very members of Christ to luxury? "Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of a harlot? God forbid."¹ Besides, nothing protects us more from sensual love than the chaste love of Christ: therefore when we are lovingly joined to the Lord in the sacrament of the altar, earthly pleasures indeed become distasteful; and our heart, preoccupied by the love of God, is less solicitous about unlawful loves.

¹ 1 Pet. 4:8.

Therefore let Christians attend to these words of Paul:² "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the passion of desire, like the Gentiles who know not God."

² 1 Thess. 4:3-5.

Civil law in various regions punishes with penalties certain delicts against good morals, especially when they are public, or perpetrated by force, or against justice. From the French Penal Code we have excerpted the following articles:

Art. 330. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Any person who shall have committed a public outrage against modesty shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to two years, and by a fine of 16 francs to 200 francs.³

³ In order that the outrage against modesty be deemed public, it suffices that it has been or could have been perceived, whether it was committed in an open place, or in a private place in the presence of a witness. - This article was completed by the law of March 16, 1898: "Whoever shall have committed the delict of outrage against good morals shall be punished by imprisonment from one month to two years and by a fine of 100 to 5000 francs: - by the sale or placing on sale, the offering, exhibition, posting, or distribution, on the public way or in public places, of writings, printed matter other than a book, posters, drawings, engravings, paintings, emblems, objects, or images which are obscene or contrary to good morals; - by the sale or offering, even non-public, to a minor, of the same writings, printed matter, posters, etc.; - by their distribution at home, by their delivery under wrapper and under unsealed envelope at the door..., by unauthorized songs publicly uttered, by public announcements or correspondence contrary to good morals."

331. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Every assault against modesty, consummated or attempted without violence upon the person of a child of either sex, under the age of thirteen years, shall be punished by reclusion.

The assault against modesty committed by any ascendant upon the person of a minor shall be punished by the same penalty, even if he is more than thirteen years of age, but not emancipated by marriage.¹

¹ The attempt foreseen by article 331 has its own character and is not subject to the general rule of article 2 of the Penal Code; the assault is committed as soon as it has been attempted. Therefore it is not necessary to establish, as in ordinary cases, that the attempt failed to have its effect only by a circumstance independent of the will of its author. - Cass., Aug. 4, 1853.

332. Whoever shall have committed the crime of rape shall be punished by hard labor for a term.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the maximum of the penalty of hard labor for a term.

Whoever shall have committed an assault against modesty, consummated or attempted with violence against individuals of either sex, shall be punished by reclusion.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the penalty of hard labor for a term.

333. (Law of May 13, 1863.) If the guilty persons are ascendants of the person upon whom the assault was committed, if they are of the class of those who have authority over him, if they are his teachers or his hired servants, or hired servants of the persons designated above, if they are public officials or ministers of a cult, or if the guilty person, whoever he may be, was aided in his crime by one or several persons, the penalty shall be that of hard labor for a term, in the case foreseen by paragraph 1 of article 331, and hard labor for life, in the cases foreseen by the preceding article.²

² The designation made by this article of certain persons upon whom their quality impresses the character of authority is only enumerative and does not exclude the application of the law to special and unforeseen facts from which authority can result. - Cass., Aug. 9, 1867. - Article 333 extends to those who have authority over the victim, without distinguishing between permanent authority and discontinuous authority. - Cass., Aug. 27, 1857.

334. Whoever shall have made an attempt against morals, by habitually exciting, favoring, or facilitating the debauchery or corruption of the youth of either sex below the age of twenty-one years, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to two years, and by a fine of fifty francs to five hundred francs.

If the prostitution or corruption was excited, favored, or facilitated by their father, mother, tutor, or other persons charged with their supervision, the penalty shall be from two years to five years of imprisonment, and from three hundred to one thousand francs of fine.¹

¹ Article 334 is inapplicable to him who, in exciting minors to debauchery, has no other end than to satisfy his own passions, without making himself an intermediary agent of corruption. - Cass., assembled chambers, March 24, 1853; May 1, 1854; March 15, 1860; Aug. 21, 1863. - Although article 334 must be understood in this sense, that it reaches only him who has employed himself as an intermediary agent of corruption in the interest of the passions of another, nevertheless there is complicity in this delict on the part of him who, to satisfy his own libertinage, has, by one of the means set forth in article 60, provoked the intervention of procuring. - Cass., Nov. 10, 1860. - And it is not necessary, in order that complicity exist in such a case, that the provocation in question have been habitual: habit, which forms one of the elements of the delict of excitation to debauchery, is not required to constitute complicity in the terms of article 60.

335. Those guilty of the delict mentioned in the preceding article shall be interdicted from every tutelage or curatorship, and from every participation in family councils; namely, the individuals to whom the first paragraph of that article applies, for at least two years and at most five years, and those of whom it is spoken in the second paragraph, for at least ten years and at most twenty years.

If the delict was committed by the father or the mother, the guilty person shall moreover be deprived of the rights and advantages accorded to him over the person and goods of the child by the Civil Code, book I, title IX, On Paternal Power.

In all cases, the guilty persons may moreover be placed, by the decision or judgment, under the surveillance of the high police, observing, for the duration of the surveillance, what has just been established for the duration of the interdiction mentioned in the present article.

336. The adultery of the wife may be denounced only by the husband; this faculty itself shall cease if he is in the case foreseen by article 339.²

² The public ministry cannot prosecute the delict of adultery except upon the complaint of the husband, and he can charge a third party, by special power, to denounce the adultery in his name and follow the action. - Cass., Nov. 23, 1855.

337. The woman convicted of adultery shall undergo the penalty of imprisonment for at least three months and at most two years.

The husband shall remain master of stopping the effect of this condemnation, by consenting to take back his wife.

338. The accomplice of the adulterous woman shall be punished by imprisonment for the same space of time, and, moreover, by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The only proofs which may be admitted against the accused of complicity shall be, besides the manifest delict, those resulting from letters or other written pieces written by the accused.

339. The husband who shall have kept a concubine in the conjugal home, and who shall have been convicted upon the complaint of the wife, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The Belgian Penal Code contains analogous provisions, art. 372-391, and moreover penalties against the abduction of minors, especially girls below the completed age of sixteen years (368-371).

An international arrangement was concluded at Paris, on May 18, 1904, between France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland, in view of assuring effective protection against "the white-slave traffic," that is, against the recruitment of women and girls for debauchery abroad, and to facilitate the repatriation of the victims of this shameful traffic. The text was published by the Journal Officiel of February 19, 1905. Cf. Questions actuelles, t. 77, March 4, 1905, pp. 286-287.

I. Concerning the rite of Holy Communion. From the beginning one must distinguish Communion in a church (domestic or public) and Communion made at home, outside any sacred rite at which persons were assisting.

1. In a church. In the first centuries the faithful joined their Communion with the Communion of the celebrant. The rite of the fourth century (of which several parts are more ancient) is described thus in book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions (ed. Funk, 1905, I, 512, 518) and in the fifth mystagogical catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The celebrant or deacon says: "Holy things for the holy"; the people respond: "One Holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ." The bishop communicates himself. Then those who are to communicate approach, the clerics in hierarchical order, and the faithful. The minister places the host in the right hand of the communicant, under which the left is placed. He pronounces these words only: "The Body of Christ." Then the deacon presents the chalice, saying: "The Blood of Christ, the chalice of life." To each formula the communicant responds: "Amen." During Communion, Psalm 33 is sung, "I will bless the Lord at all times," in which is read: "Taste and see that the Lord is sweet."

In Gaul, from various councils of the seventh century, we gather that the usage was that women received the sacred host in a linen cloth. From the ninth century the usage of communicating oneself becomes rare.

Until the Middle Ages, one who was to communicate received the Eucharist standing.

Around the seventh or eighth century, for drinking the sacred Blood, they began to use the tube which even now, in the solemn papal Mass, the deacon and subdeacon use.

In place of the formula "The Body of Christ," already in the three preceding centuries, especially in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, optative formulas occur, similar to that which is used today in the Roman rite.

At the beginning, for example with St. Justin, the deacon distributed Communion under both species; then from the fourth century, only the chalice.

Communion outside Mass had the Mendicant Orders as its chief authors, lest the faithful be detained longer in church. Hence there was introduced the proper rite of administering Holy Communion, which chiefly imitated the method of ministering Viaticum at the close of the Middle Ages.

To infants Communion was given under the species of wine alone.

Then the custom of dipping the consecrated bread into consecrated wine, and of mixing a little consecrated wine with a great quantity of unconsecrated wine, prepared, with the fear of profanation also acceding, the suppression of the chalice in the Roman rite for non-celebrants. Already in the thirteenth century the usage of Communion under the species of bread alone had become general. Finally, Communion at home under both species was forbidden to Latin non-celebrants by the Council of Constance (1415) against the Hussites.

2. Communion outside the church. In the age of Tertullian (Ad uxorem, book 1, c. 5) and St. Cyprian, the faithful consumed at home the consecrated species of bread which they had brought with them from the church. This usage was chiefly that of monks, and in the East it remained up to the ninth century. Communion was carried to the sick under the species of bread. Eusebius narrates for us a very ancient fact (Hist. eccl., book 6, c. 44) concerning Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264-265), who ordered that a boy carry to the dying Serapion a particle of the host to be consumed with a little water.

To carry Communion to the absent was per se the office of the deacon. But during persecutions, laymen themselves carried Holy Communion to confessors. For a long time thereafter (ninth, tenth, eleventh centuries), laymen were able to carry Communion to those dangerously ill. This was also permitted in the twelfth century by the Council of London in a case of necessity (Mansi, XXI, p. 511).

Concerning penitents themselves the First Council of Nicaea (325) established, according to a law which it calls ancient, that in the crisis of death they should not be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum.

From the fourth to the eighth century the Church had several times to resist the custom of communicating the dead.

II. The subject of Communion. 1. From the beginning it was required that a man be baptized and without sin (Didache, c. 9, 14; St. Justin, Apol., c. 66). From at least the fourth century he had to be fasting (Canons of Hippolytus 150, 151, 205; cf. Leclercq, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, nn. 2682, 2683, 2727, etc.).

Little children, in the first age of the Church, were by no means excluded from the sacred table (cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, c. 25, P. L., 4, 484). Communion was for a long time customarily administered to them immediately after Baptism and Confirmation. Nor did this custom wholly vanish, except after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) prescribed Paschal Communion for only those faithful who had attained the age of discretion. Then the Council of Trent, in chapter 4 and canon 4, denied the necessity of Communion for infants. Finally, on August 8, 1910, by a decree of the S. C. of the Sacraments, the age of first Communion was more defined.

III. The frequency of Communion. In the first centuries the faithful were accustomed both to assist together at the sacred rite and to communicate. But Mass was not celebrated daily; yet they were also refreshed at home by the sacred banquet.

The usage of daily Communion is shown especially in the African and Egyptian Church at that time. This usage gained greater force in the fourth century, though not in such a way that bishops and faithful were wholly of one mind on the matter. Already from the fourth century complaints began to be made about diminished fervor. Soon most of the faithful communicated only on the more principal feasts. And moved by a certain kind of reverence, the monks of the Middle Ages rarely used the sacred banquet. Several councils, for example the Council of Agde (506), required that at least three times in the year (at the Nativity of the Lord, at Easter, and at Pentecost) one approach the sacred table. The Fourth Lateran Council was content with one annual Communion.

From the sixteenth century, by the authority of the Council of Trent and the pious efforts of St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales, and religious orders, such as the Society of Jesus, a more frequent usage was restored; its laws and conditions, after the Jansenist plague was overcome, Pius X authentically defined in the decree Sacra Tridentina.

IV. Feast, Procession, Exposition, Prayer of Forty Hours.

1. The feast at Liege, after the revelations of St. Juliana of Cornillon, instituted in the year 1246, became universal by the decree of Urban IV, after the miracle of Bolsena. St. Thomas can be called the redactor of the most pious Bull Transiturus.

2. The first solemn processions were celebrated not long after the feast was instituted. They were already being held at Cologne before the year 1279. Concerning these, the first general Bull, Ineffabili, was given in the year 1429 by Martin V.

3. In the year 1304, the Ordinary of Strasbourg declared that it was lawful that, at first vespers, Matins, and the Mass of Corpus Christi, the Most Holy Sacrament be placed on the altar. Soon the usage of exposition was propagated and had to be constrained within prudent limits.

4. Already before the sixteenth century there existed an adoration of Forty Hours before the sepulcher of Christ, in which the Redeemer was thought to have remained for forty hours. The custom, transferred from the sepulcher to the Most Holy Sacrament, was approved by Paul III in the year 1539. Clement XI composed its ceremonial in the year 1705.

E. de M., A. I.

Since this chapter contains such ample matter, we divide it into four articles: 1. on the person of the subject; 2. on the dispositions required; 3. on the obligation of receiving the Eucharist; 4. on frequent Communion.

186. Principle. The subject capable of receiving the Eucharist with fruit is every living baptized human being, provided that he does not voluntarily place an obstacle to grace through mortal sin.

It is said, 1. every living baptized human being, for a dead man cannot receive any sacrament. Hence several Councils⁸⁸ prohibited the dead from receiving the Eucharist in the mouth and being buried thus. But without prior valid Baptism no sacrament can be received, as is evident from what was said above.

It is said, 2. provided that a man does not voluntarily place an obstacle to grace through mortal sin. For the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living and, according to what was said above in n. 42, can never revive if it was received with consciousness of mortal sin or even without attrition for it.

From what has been said, it follows that the following are capable of the Eucharist:

⁸⁸ Carthage, A.D. 397, can. 6 (Mansi 3, 881); Hippo, A.D. 393, can. 4; Council in Trullo, A.D. 692, can. 83.

187. 1. Infants.

Because of the words of Christ expressed generally and without limitation: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you,"⁸⁹ Communion was given to infants in the Latin Church until the twelfth century and is given in the Eastern Church even to the present day; hence they successively receive three sacraments, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. In the thirteenth century St. Thomas⁹⁰ taught simply that the Eucharist was not to be given to children before they begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament. The same was established by the Fourth Lateran Council,⁹¹ the Council of Trent,⁹² and the Code of Canon Law, c. 854, §§ 1 and 2: "The Eucharist is not to be administered to children who, because of the weakness of their age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament; in danger of death, in order that the Most Holy Eucharist may and ought to be administered to children, it is sufficient that they know how to distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and reverently adore It." The age of those to be admitted to first Eucharistic Communion will be discussed again below in n. 211. But the words of Christ cited above are customarily explained either of the desire for sacramental Communion or of spiritual communion with the Mystical Body of Christ.⁹³

⁸⁹ John 6:54.

⁹⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 9 ad 3.

⁹¹ Can. 21 (Denz., n. 437).

⁹² Session 13, can. 9 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 891).

⁹³ Cf. S. theol., loc. cit., and q. 73, a. 3.

188. 2. The insane.

Nevertheless, according to the discipline in force, Communion is not given to those who have been perpetually insane, because they are equated with infants⁹⁴ and because otherwise the sacrament is exposed to the danger of irreverence, while sufficient provision is made for their salvation through Baptism and conditional absolution. But to those who have not been perpetually insane, the Eucharist can be given at the point of death, provided that an interpretative intention may be presumed from their previous life and the sacrament is not exposed to irreverence. But in order to test whether such an insane person can communicate without irreverence, an unconsecrated host should first be given to him; if he swallows it properly, a consecrated host can also be given to him. Concerning this matter St. Thomas⁹⁵ teaches: "If previously, when [the insane] were in possession of their mind, devotion toward this sacrament appeared in them, this sacrament ought to be given to them at the point of death, unless perhaps there is fear of the danger of vomiting or spitting it out." Moreover, it happens not rarely that those who were insane during life have lucid intervals as death approaches and thus are able to receive Viaticum. In practice, it is sometimes rather difficult to discern whether a man is perfectly insane or rather feeble-minded. Such a man can then receive Viaticum if this can be done without grave danger of irreverence. But outside the point of death, it is better to deny him Communion.

Dying persons deprived of their senses or delirious persons are nearly equated with the insane; they can and ought to receive Viaticum if this is possible without irreverence. To test this possibility, it is useful first to give them a small unconsecrated particle, as was just said concerning the insane. Moreover, it is necessary that from their previous Christian life an intention here and now to receive Viaticum can rightly be presumed in them. Hence a dying person deprived of his senses who previously led a life that was scarcely Christian can indeed be absolved conditionally and receive Extreme Unction; but it is better that Communion not be given to him.

⁹⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 88, § 3.

⁹⁵ S. theol., loc. cit., and q. 80, a. 9.

189. 3. The feeble-minded,⁹⁶ old persons becoming childlike again, deaf-mutes, etc., can and ought to receive the Eucharist at the point of death, provided that there is no danger of irreverence. Indeed, it is preferable that they communicate sometimes during the year, provided that they can in some measure distinguish the Eucharistic Bread from ordinary bread.

Certain ancient and modern authors speak more harshly concerning deaf-mutes. Certainly, if they have no use of reason at all, they are to be treated like the perpetually insane, concerning whom it was said above; but now they are customarily instructed in special schools and arrive at sufficient instruction, and therefore they can receive the Eucharist like other men.

Scholion. On those who labor under a continual cough or vomiting. Such sick persons are excluded from Communion only if there is a grave danger of vomiting the Communion received. Whether such a danger is truly present can be judged if the vomiting has already ceased for some hours or if an unconsecrated particle previously given was not vomited. If a serious doubt remains, a consecrated host is not to be given to such a sick person. Otherwise, irreverence would easily follow.

⁹⁶ German: Geistesschwache (the mentally weak).

In this chapter four things come to be weighed: 1. Who can receive the Most Holy Eucharist? 2. What dispositions are required for this? 3. What and how great is the obligation of receiving the Eucharist? 4. What is to be thought concerning frequent Communion?

1545. Principles. I. The CAPABLE subject of receiving the Eucharist with fruit is every baptized human being, provided that through mortal sin he does not place an obstacle to grace. - For it was instituted for all Christians; therefore it can profit all rightly disposed persons, according to the words of Christ (John 6:55): "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."

II. From the present discipline of the Church, the Eucharist OUGHT NOT to be conceded to those who cannot discern this heavenly food from profane food. This is universal practice, and it is clear from the Roman Ritual.

Hence: 1. Baptized children, still lacking the use of reason, although in the reception of the Sacrament they would truly receive an increase of grace, nevertheless, on account of greater reverence, are prohibited from its reception, even at the article of death.¹⁴

2. It is likewise altogether to be denied to those perpetually insane. But to other insane persons, who have not always lacked the use of reason and have lived piously, it is to be given IN THE ARTICLE OF DEATH, unless danger of vomiting or spitting out is present. Thus St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism with the Council of Carthage.¹⁵ "The reason is that, on the one hand, such a one is presumed interpretatively to ask Communion; on the other, the Eucharist can still be necessary for him, namely if he fell into insanity while existing in mortal sin, concerning which he had only attrition. Yet the Doctors except if it is certainly presumed that such a one fell into insanity altogether impenitent." - To these same persons, OUTSIDE THE ARTICLE OF DEATH, it is not licit to give Communion. "Yet it will be licit to do so, likewise to the frenzied, if at some time they have lucid intervals and show devotion, while they remain in that state, if no danger of indignity is present." Thus the Roman Ritual.¹⁶

1546. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the Eucharist is to be conceded to the half-witted, deaf-mutes, epileptics, and those possessed?

Resp. 1. To the HALF-WITTED, provided they are able to discern this heavenly food from profane food, Communion is to be given, in the article of death and at the time of precept; indeed even more frequently, if they possess greater discretion. - The same applies to OLD PEOPLE who, as is said, become children again.

2. To DEAF-MUTES from birth, according to the same norm, Communion is to be given, provided it is clear from signs that they have discretion. But from present-day experiments it is clear that deaf-mutes not instructed according to more recent methods can scarcely have knowledge of religion and of the mysteries. - But those who have been instructed in present-day institutes can communicate no otherwise than other faithful. - On the contrary, to those mute, deaf, and at the same time blind from birth, Communion is altogether to be denied.

3. To EPILEPTICS Communion is to be denied only during the paroxysm.

4. To those POSSESSED BY A DEMON it is likewise to be denied when they are not masters of themselves. - For the rest, authors rightly say that it is to be conceded to them several times in the year, according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons.¹⁷

Q. 2. Whether Holy Communion is to be conceded to those CONDEMNED TO DEATH?

Resp. Affirmatively, provided through sacramental confession they are disposed for it; for, from the prescription of the Council of Nicaea, the Eucharist is to be given to all who have come to the end of life. Indeed, the guilty person can communicate, not fasting, after the manner of Viaticum, because then he is truly in the article of death. And St. Alphonsus adds: he can laudably communicate on the very day of death, provided Communion precedes the execution by an hour¹⁸ (cf. n. 731).

NB. Who are to be kept from Holy Communion as unworthy, see n. 1426 and 1427 seq.

For receiving the Eucharist, certain dispositions are required, both on the part of the soul and on the part of the body.

1547. A) In one receiving the Most Holy Eucharist, besides faith and immunity from censures, there is required first of all the STATE OF GRACE; both because the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, which presupposes first grace in the subject, and because it is spiritual food, which cannot profit one spiritually dead.

The TRIDENTINE SYNOD speaks aptly to the matter:¹ "If it is not fitting," it says, "for anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of fear in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept must be recalled into memory: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; and this holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by priests upon whom it has fallen by office to celebrate, provided they do not lack the opportunity of a confessor: but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

But indeed these prescriptions of Trent ask for a fuller explanation for themselves. Whence let there be the following:

1548. Principles. I. No one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, can approach the Holy Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. For the Apostle says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread." But it is clear, from ecclesiastical custom, that confession itself is that necessary proving.²

There are indeed some, but these are few, who say that this precept is only ecclesiastical; but "the common and true opinion teaches that this PRECEPT is DIVINE. The reason is that, on the one hand, it is clear that from the precept of Christ proving must be premised, since the Apostle testifies that he received it from the Lord; on the other hand, from Trent it is clearly evident that this required proving is confession...; for the Council did not say that this precept of confession had been introduced by ecclesiastical custom, but that by it such a precept had been declared; whence confession is commanded from divine precept. - Nor is it opposed to this that it is called a precept of the Apostle, because in reality it is a precept of Christ promulgated through the Apostle."³

It is said 1. of mortal sin, because venial sins, however many they are, just as they do not deprive one of divine grace, so neither do they prohibit someone from approaching the sacred Table.⁴

It is said 2. conscious to himself, that is, morally certain concerning a grave sin committed, which has not been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance. - But in doubt whether it has been committed, St. Alphonsus teaches that the following distinction must be made: "If someone doubts whether he has sinned gravely or not, then he can licitly approach Communion without previous confession, whether the doubt is negative or positive, it sufficing for him, that he may more safely receive the fruit of the Sacrament, to premise contrition...; because the precept of prohibition does not begin to possess, except after the man is conscious of his sin. On the contrary, if someone is certain concerning a sin committed, then he cannot communicate unless he is certain that he has been proved through confession; because then the precept of prohibition certainly possesses in him."⁵

1549. It is asked: Whether if someone after confession REMEMBERS some mortal sin inculpably forgotten, he is held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion, most common among authors, affirms, because this seems more conformable to the words of Trent. "But the second opinion denies.... and, the intrinsic foundation having been considered, it seems altogether consonant with reason, and it seems very probable to others. The reason is that he who premised confession to Communion has already fulfilled the precept of confession, by force of which the forgotten sin has already been indirectly remitted, and the penitent already exists as proved.... For in Trent only this is prescribed, that the penitent approach Communion justified not by contrition alone, but also through confession; but here he has already been justified also through confession, and therefore is not held at once before Communion to confess again. But the practice of the faithful which is opposed is not to be held as a certain rule of obligation, but rather as a pious and laudable usage, which, for the rest, is to be counseled to all as often as some cause in opposition does not suggest something else."⁶

But neither is such a faithful person, according to the common opinion, held to elicit an act of contrition. For since he has been justified, no foundation appears from which contrition is required; not from precept, because this is nowhere found prescribed; not for deleting the sin, because this has already been deleted through the confession previously made.⁷

1550. II. It is licit to receive the Eucharist, with contrition alone premised without confession, when there is present a NECESSITY of celebrating or communicating, and OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR is lacking. Thus Trent, and the reason is that a positive precept does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

It is said 1. WHEN NECESSITY IS PRESENT; but by necessity is not understood great devotion, nor the poverty of the priest, unless the poverty were very grave; but urgent necessity is understood. Hence:

1. Danger of death excuses, namely when a host is to be consecrated for one dying; likewise, danger of infamy or scandal, for example if someone were already found at the rail of those communicating, and could not depart without being noticed by others. The same must be said if, Viaticum having been brought to the sick person, confession, because of shortness of time, could not be completed without danger of death or infamy. In which case the priest, having heard some sin, ought to absolve the dying person and offer him Communion, with the obligation imposed on him of completing confession if he recovers. Yet here it must be carefully noticed that scandal is then said to occur when occasion is given for detracting or rashly judging, but not when only occasion for wonder is given.

2. The obligation from office of celebrating excuses, so that the people may hear Mass, provided there is not another who may celebrate. - But one who is not held from office to provide that the people be present at Mass cannot celebrate, even if he himself or the people, on a feast day, would have to lack Mass. For the precept of confessing, which is divine, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. But whether, opportunity of a confessor being lacking, someone can communicate with contrition alone, so that he may satisfy the Paschal precept, is controverted: very commonly they affirm, from the fact that the Paschal precept is also divine; yet others deny, and say that the precept of Paschal Communion can be deferred until opportunity of a confessor is had. Each opinion is probable.

3. The necessity of completing a Sacrifice already begun excuses, for example if a priest, while celebrating, remembers a mortal sin. Yet here a distinction must be made. If he remembers the sin after consecration, the Mass is not to be interrupted so that he may confess, as St. Thomas teaches, and as is expressly had in the Rubric. But if he remembers before consecration, and especially before the Canon, he ought to confess if a confessor is present, and if he can effect this without note of infamy, for example in a solemn Mass, during the chant or during the sacred sermon. But if he cannot confess, and no danger of infamy is to be feared, he is more probably held to desist from Mass. Thus many, and this seems to be clear from the Rubric saying: "If before consecration the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin..., if scandal is not feared, he ought to abandon the Mass begun." We have said more probably, because it is not certain whether the Rubric by the word ought imposes a grave precept. For the rest, the Doctors well notice that in such a case it can scarcely happen that the note of infamy be avoided.⁸

It is said 2. AND OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR IS LACKING; but it is judged to be lacking, not, as some wish, if that one is absent to whom he is accustomed and would desire to confess, or to whom he would confess more devoutly or usefully; but if no suitable one is present, and one absent cannot be approached without great difficulty. - Moreover, this difficulty is to be estimated by considering both the weakness, age, and occupations of the person, and other circumstances, such as weather, shortness of time, distance, etc. Regularly, a distance of two hours excuses; and a much smaller distance, if the priest would be about to celebrate shortly.⁹

1551. It is asked: Whether one who has a RESERVED sin, in defect of a confessor endowed with faculty, is held to confess to a simple confessor, that he may communicate?

Resp. 1. If he has no other sin than the reserved one, from the common opinion, he is not held; so that, necessity urging, he can communicate with contrition. - Nevertheless, if he has only attrition, he is held to confess the venial sins which he has, or a mortal sin already confessed on another occasion, so that thus, at least indirectly, he may be absolved from the reserved one. And he can do this same thing, although he has contrition, so that he may receive the Eucharist more safely (cf. n. 1283, 3).

Resp. 2. If he has reserved and non-reserved sins, we say with the most common and more probable opinion that he is held to confession. The reason is that, since the divine precept of premising confession to Communion urges, confession ought to be made at least formally entire, if it cannot be made materially entire. But, in this second case, from an opinion truly probable, by itself it suffices for the penitent that he declare the non-reserved sins. We say by itself; because by accident he is sometimes held also to declare the reserved sins, so that the confessor can rightly judge concerning the disposition, for example if he is relapsed in reserved sins, or in a proximate occasion of sinning (cf. n. 1778).

1552. III. A priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession, is held to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is an ecclesiastical law openly expressed in Trent.

It is said 1. A priest; for, from the most common and more probable opinion, this precept of confessing as soon as possible does not oblige laymen. The reason is both that the Council names priests alone, and that the same reason does not run for laymen as for priests. For in priests the necessity of communicating without confession occurs more easily, and therefore they themselves would more easily, under the pretext of this necessity, celebrate with confession omitted.¹⁰

It is said 2. is held; because Trent does not express counsel, but precept. This is evident from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But whether this precept obliges a priest who remembers the sin after consecration is controverted. Others deny, because the Rubric, speaking of him, says only: let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing. "This opinion does not seem improbable, but the contrary is more common and perhaps more probable, because then the case supposed by the Council is already verified, namely that he now celebrates in sin and without confession; so much the more because in that phrase of the Rubric, of confessing, the word as soon as possible is easily understood, already expressed by the Rubric a little before."¹¹

It is said 3. as soon as possible, that is, within three days, according to the common interpretation of authors. For in ecclesiastical laws that phrase as soon as possible, or another similar word, must be understood morally, and therefore, as they commonly teach, it is extended to the space of three days. "Yet the authors notice that it can happen that a priest, by accident, is held from this precept to confess on the same day, and perhaps in the same hour, for example if he then had a confessor, whom he will afterwards lack for several days, or if tomorrow the same necessity of celebrating would urge, and he could not confess."¹²

1553. It is asked: Whether a priest is held to confess as soon as possible if, confession having been omitted, he celebrated SACRILEGIOUSLY?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If without necessity, or with opportunity of a confessor given, he celebrated, the most common and truer opinion denies that he is held. The reason is that the precept of Trent is ordained toward instilling fear in those who, under the pretext of necessity, defer confession; but not in those celebrating sacrilegiously, for whom this precept would very rarely be profitable. For those who, with the divine precept contemned, dare knowingly to celebrate in sin, will more easily contemn an ecclesiastical precept.

2. But if, necessity urging and opportunity of a confessor lacking, he celebrated not contrite, he is indeed held to confess as soon as possible; because the precept of Trent does not distinguish between a priest having or not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity.¹³

1554. B) Besides the state of grace, which is altogether necessary, there is required in one receiving the Holy Eucharist IMMUNITY FROM VENIAL SINS, and ACTUAL DEVOTION, namely so that a richer harvest of graces may be gathered from the reception of the Sacrament. - For the purer the soul is, the more closely it is joined with the Lord, who is Purity itself; and the greater devotion with which it is borne toward Him, the more lovingly it is treated by the Lover of souls and heaped with richer graces.

Moreover, that actual devotion is best promoted through acts of living faith, sincere humility, ardent desire, and burning charity.

And this is why the people are often to be admonished "with what PREPARATION, and with how great religion and piety of soul, and also humble bearing of body, they ought to approach so divine a Sacrament. Moreover, those communicating are to be warned that, the Sacrament having been received, they should not immediately depart from the church, or converse, or at once look around with wandering eyes...; but, with the devotion that is fitting, they should remain for some time in prayer, GIVING THANKS TO GOD for so singular a benefit, and also for the most holy Passion of the Lord, in memory of which this mystery is celebrated and received."¹

1555. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to approach the Eucharist WITH VENIAL SIN is a new venial sin?

Resp. 1. To approach with habitual venial sin probably is not a new sin. "The reason is both that it would rather be a defect of perfect reverence than a positive irreverence; and because the very will of receiving the Eucharist and its effect is a certain virtual detestation of venial sins, by which faults are removed, so that they by no means impede the fruit of the Sacrament."²

Resp. 2. To approach with an actual concomitant venial sin, for example because of vainglory, or with a purpose of lying afterwards, is a sin; because such a communicating person inflicts a positive injury on the Sacrament. Thus commonly and more truly, against some.³

Q. 2. Whether an actual venial sin IMPEDES the fruit of the Sacrament?

Resp. From the far more common opinion, it does not impede the principal effect, namely an increase of habitual grace; although it impedes some fruits, for example fervor of charity, and from this it is why several priests are observed who celebrate daily in grace, and nevertheless profit nothing. The reason is that venial sin does not fight with habitual grace, nor with any increase whatever of it, and therefore does not impede it (cf. n. 1548).

Q. 3. When does the Eucharist produce its effects in one receiving it who is rightly disposed?

Resp. 1. Grace is given in the very act of eating, namely when passage is made from the mouth into the stomach. Whence "the species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they entirely perish; because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the Sacrament be conferred"; just as it is not conferred if someone dies while he retains the host in his mouth.⁴

Resp. 2. It is very probable that, if the disposition of the subject becomes better, grace is always increased as long as the sacramental species endure in the stomach. "The reason is that this Sacrament was instituted after the manner of food; whence, just as food nourishes the body during the whole time in which it remains in the stomach, so likewise, whenever the Eucharist remains in the body, it nourishes the soul by increasing grace."⁵

Q. 4. What if a PRIEST should dispose himself during the consumption?

Resp. "If someone had consumed part of the wine or host while indisposed, and then disposed himself, he would still receive grace in the consumption of the other part; because even then the Eucharist has the power of conferring grace ex opere operato. Some also probably say that this would happen if he disposed himself before the species are consumed in the stomach."⁶

On the part of the body, two things are required: 1. fasting; 2. cleanliness and decent habit.

First we shall speak concerning the obligation of fasting, then concerning the causes excusing from it.

1556. Principles. I. For the licit consumption of the Eucharist NATURAL FASTING is required, namely that the one about to communicate has consumed nothing of food or drink from midnight. - This is clear both from universal custom, which has constantly flourished from the time of the Apostles to the present, and from various Councils, especially from Constance.⁷ But this precept was sanctioned on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament, and on account of its signification, "namely that it may be given to be understood that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacrament, and His charity ought first to be founded in our hearts."⁸

But although this precept is not of divine law, but only of ecclesiastical law, nevertheless it does not admit smallness of matter: "because the precept is not now of approaching the Eucharist fasting, but of not approaching after food or drink; but he who communicates after any very small part whatever already communicates after food or drink. Thus all."⁹

1557. II. For breaking the natural fast THREE things are required: 1. that what is consumed come from outside; 2. that it have the nature of food or drink; 3. that it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. - Thus authors commonly.¹⁰

It is required 1. That what is consumed come from outside; for, as St. Thomas observes, what comes from within is not eaten, and therefore does not harm the natural fast. - Hence, he can communicate who has swallowed saliva, or phlegm, or blood flowing from the interior head or gums, even if he has swallowed it purposely. - But indeed he cannot communicate who at night placed sugar in his mouth, and after midnight swallowed some; nor he who swallowed blood flowing from the fingers, or tears flowing from the eyes; nor he who, having fallen or been thrown into a river, swallowed water.¹¹

It is required 2. That it have the nature of food or drink; for according to the more common and more probable opinion, only digestible things break the fast, but not indigestible things. Hence: hair, metals, crystal, nails, silk or woolen threads, little fruit-stones altogether cleaned, because they are not digested, do not have the nature of food. - The contrary must be said of paper, straw, linen threads, medicinal powder, wax, earth or chalk, etc., which, altered in the stomach, can be converted into the substance of a human being.¹²

It is required 3. That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore every digestible thing which is deliberately transmitted into the stomach breaks the fast, although it is transmitted in an unaccustomed manner, for example through the nostrils; because such an action is morally equivalent to drinking or eating. But that which is drawn in unintentionally, after the manner of breathing or saliva, does not break the fast. - Hence, the fast is not broken if someone, breathing, accidentally draws in flies, water, snow, etc.; but it is broken if someone draws in such things purposely. Likewise, it is not broken by tobacco taken through the nostrils, nor by the smoke of tobacco, or by juice of camphor, nor by tobacco rubbed with the teeth; provided the juice is spat out, and if anything is swallowed beyond intention, it is mixed with saliva and passes as such, not as food. But although chewing of this kind does not impede Communion, nevertheless it is indecent, nor is it easily excused from venial sin.¹³

1558. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to swallow REMAINS OF FOOD left in the mouth, or DROPS OF WATER mixed with saliva, breaks the fast?

Resp. The first opinion, not improbable, denies simply, whether this happens accidentally or purposely. The reason is both that the passing down of such remains is not to be regarded as a new eating, but as part of the preceding eating; and because they are consumed not after the manner of food, but after the manner of saliva. And the Rubric of the Missal indeed seems to favor this opinion. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, says that the fast is broken if they are swallowed purposely, but not if accidentally. The reason is that the passing down of remains of this kind, when it happens by design, seems to be a new eating. Yet no obligation is given of applying diligence to extracting those remains from the teeth; "for otherwise this obligation would be liable to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which certainly the Church is not presumed to have wished to oblige."¹⁴ Hence also the fast is not broken, according to the Rubric, "if, in washing the mouth, a drop of water is swallowed beyond intention"; provided it does not pass down in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. And the same must be said of the remains of wine, or of broth, which someone has tasted.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether it is licit, immediately after the Eucharist has been received, to consume an ABLUTION, by which the particle may be swallowed more easily?

Resp. Affirmatively, where such a custom flourishes, or necessity requires it, for example if someone suffers extreme dryness of mouth. But in this case, "although the ablution is swallowed before the host or fragments of the host, nevertheless this does not obstruct the fast. The reason is that the violation is not judged morally to have preceded Communion; for the precept of the fast is that nothing be consumed before the reception of the Eucharist; but when the Eucharist is consumed together at the same time with the ablution, then that whole thing from the ablution and particles is consumed by one single consumption; whence it is well verified that the violation of the fast did not precede Communion."¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether one who dined before midnight can communicate A LITTLE AFTER, and while the food has not yet been digested?

Resp. This is not prohibited by reason of the fast, since this is truly observed; wherefore, a just cause being present, it can be done.¹⁷

Q. 4. How is the time of MIDNIGHT to be computed?

Resp. It is to be computed physically, not morally. Now, at the first stroke of the hour, midnight is completed; wherefore he cannot communicate who swallows food after the first stroke, but before the last.¹⁸ But the time is rightly determined from public clocks; for, in designating time, the Church follows that rule which publicly directs all human business in individual places.¹⁹ Yet it is licit, at one's choice, to follow true or mean time; indeed the time of another meridian, for example of the metropolis, if the public clocks of the place mark it.²⁰

Q. 5. Whether IN DOUBT whether he has broken the fast, someone can communicate?

Resp. Affirmatively. For the law of fasting is prohibitive, namely forbidding that someone communicate after food has been consumed; wherefore the fact of the broken fast must be proved, that someone may be prohibited from communicating. And as long as the breaking is not established, liberty of communicating possesses. This reason applies both for the case in which you doubt whether you consumed something of food or drink, and for the case in which, certain of the consumption, you doubt whether you consumed it after midnight (cf. n. 49, 2).

Hence the Doctors very commonly affirm that, among several discordant clocks, it is licit to follow the last, for receiving Communion; provided the error is not established, or the clock is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err.²¹ The reason is that individual good clocks generate a probable opinion, and therefore a positive doubt.

Q. 6. Whether it is licit to eat or drink IMMEDIATELY after Communion?

Resp. Formerly fasting after Communion until Sext was prescribed; but this precept has now long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, to eat and drink without cause, while the sacred species still endure in the stomach, where they are judged to endure for a quarter of an hour in priests, is not excused from venial sin. Thus commonly. It was said without cause; because any just cause excuses, for example if the sign for table were given for a Religious.²²

Q. 7. Whether it is licit to SPIT OUT immediately after Communion?

Resp. "All agree that it is indeed fitting that those communicating abstain from spitting out for some interval of time, and the Ritual agrees. - Yet authors say there is no sin in spitting out after Communion, if no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth."²³

1559. The law of the Eucharistic fast, since it is positive and ecclesiastical, sometimes admits an exception, but on account of most grave causes, which can stand either on the part of the Sacrament or on the part of man. The CASES in which the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting are numbered as FOUR:

I. When the Sacrifice must be completed. This can happen in many ways, namely: 1. If the priest notices that he took water for wine, etc.; in which case he ought again to consecrate either each species, or at least the wine, as was said above (n. 1528, II).

2. If it happens that the priest fails after consecration; in which case another priest, even one not fasting, is held to complete the Sacrifice. 3. If the priest, after the consecration even of one species, remembers that he is not fasting, he is held to finish the Mass. It was said after consecration; for if he remembers before it, he is held to desist, as often as this can be done without scandal or infamy. - 4. If the priest, after the ablution has been consumed, notices some relics of the same Sacrifice, he ought to consume them, as we have said (n. 1542, q. 4).¹

II. When grave irreverence against the Sacrament is to be avoided; for example if there is danger that the sacred Host may perish, or be corrupted, or be badly handled by infidels or heretics; because the precept of preventing such irreverence prevails over the precept of fasting, as they commonly teach. - Whence, if a priest is then absent, a layman can consume the sacred Host; indeed, in such a case, a priest can offer sacred particles to laymen who are not fasting.²

III. When danger of infamy or scandal is to be avoided, which would arise from the omission of Mass or Communion; for in this case the natural precept urges, which prevails over the ecclesiastical precept. Now, the case would be if a priest celebrating in public remembered before consecration that he was not fasting, and could not depart without scandal. - Similarly, if on a Sunday or feast day Mass had to be celebrated for the people, and the pastor, not fasting, had no other fasting priest to celebrate. Yet it is supposed in this last case that no one knows the pastor is not fasting; otherwise a greater scandal would arise, at least among the simple, from the celebration than from the omission of Mass.³

IV. When the article or danger of death is imminent, from whatever cause the danger proceeds, whether from natural illness, or from the sentence of a judge (cf. n. 1565). - It is also licit for one not fasting to celebrate in order to avoid danger of death, provided this is not demanded in contempt of the Church.⁴

And here a fifth case can be added, from a response given by the S. C. de Prop. Fide to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin (February 13, 1806), which has itself thus: "Salt having been tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, still there is no doubt that, Baptism having been received, they can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed must be."⁵

1560. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and HOW OFTEN in the same infirmity it is licit for a sick person not fasting to REPEAT Communion after the manner of Viaticum?

Resp. 1. "It is not doubted by the Doctors that Viaticum can be received several times, even during the same infirmity, since this Sacrament ought to be received not only for satisfaction of the precept, but also for strength against temptations, which in death are stronger and more dangerous. And this not only if a new danger supervenes, but also if the same danger endures. Thus commonly."⁶ And Benedict XIV⁷ exhorts Bishops that they even "decree a penalty against pastors who, when the sick devoutly ask, refuse to carry the Eucharist again and a third time on false pretexts."

Resp. 2. The common opinion is that an interval of eight days, or even six, must be interposed between Communions. Nevertheless, others not improbably teach that Viaticum can already be repeated on the following day, in the case in which the sick person had been accustomed to frequent Communion and danger of death was imminent. Indeed several authors universally admit that Communion can be offered on any day if circumstances suggest it.⁸ Thus in monasteries, and where less apparatus is required, it can more easily be conceded. - Particular statutes in this matter are also to be attended to.

Q. 2. Whether a priest can CELEBRATE not fasting, in order to minister Viaticum?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the priest himself, near death, ought to celebrate in order to give himself Viaticum; for then in the same person an ecclesiastical and a divine precept concur, but the latter is to be preferred. Thus commonly.

Resp. 2. If Viaticum is to be given to another, it is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms, because the divine precept of giving and receiving Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast. - But the second opinion, common and perhaps more probable, denies; because the precept of not celebrating after the consumption of food is also divine as to its substance, namely by reason of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament. But the precept of ministering Viaticum ceases when it cannot be ministered rightly. - Yet otherwise, if the dying person could not be fortified by the Sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for the Eucharist, in this case, will be able to be a Sacrament of necessity, so that he may become contrite from attrite.⁹

Q. 3. Whether sometimes, OUTSIDE DANGER OF DEATH, it is licit to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, who cannot observe the fast, if indeed the illness is going to be long-lasting?

Resp. The common opinion denies, which common practice also confirms, since the Pontiff alone has power to dispense in this most grave law.¹⁰ - Hence, if such a case occurs, the Eucharist, with license of the Bishop, is to be carried at night, so that thus the sick person, immediately after midnight, can communicate fasting. But if this cannot be done, recourse must be had to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation¹¹ (cf. n. 1881, end).

1561. Principles. I. "No stain of the body BY ITSELF impedes the reception of the Eucharist, since it does little toward moral goodness or malice; yet sometimes BY ACCIDENT it can impede, on account of the effects which follow."¹² - For before all else it is required that one about to receive the Eucharist be immune from every venereal filth. Concerning this matter the following things are to be noted:

1. On account of voluntary pollution which occurred on the same day, even if it has been expiated through the Sacrament of Penance, one must abstain from Communion under venial sin, just as also from celebration, unless a just cause excuses, "as will seem to the prudent confessor," as the Rubric of the Missal speaks.¹³ But on account of involuntary pollution one is not to abstain, unless perhaps from the commotion of the body disturbance of the mind still endures; for to approach with disturbance of this kind is commonly not excused from venial sin, unless some just cause is present, or unless the person strives, as much as he can, to quiet the disturbed mind, and applies diligence that he may approach devoutly, as all reasonably teach.¹⁴

2. The conjugal act, by itself, does not impede worthy Communion, if the debt was asked or rendered from a good end, for example for obtaining offspring, or for avoiding incontinence. But if it was rendered or asked for the sake of pleasure alone, or if disturbance remains in the mind from it, etc., one must abstain on that day under venial sin, on account of decency. Yet any reasonable cause excuses.¹⁵ - To a spouse asking whether he is held to render on the day of Communion, St. Alphonsus proposes this RULE: If he communicates frequently, he ought to render, lest by his devotion he burden his consort, and lest justice or charity be injured; but if he communicates only on the principal feasts, let him invite the spouse to continence, in honor of the Sacrament; if the other resists, let him render, and nevertheless communicate, provided he is otherwise disposed.¹⁶

3. Those having notable external uncleanness, which can easily be removed, should deservedly abstain until they have been cleaned. Yet if it is hidden, or perpetual and involuntary, as leprosy, flow of blood, scabies, it does not impede Communion. - But to a priest who is leprous, or laboring under a horrible disease, it is permitted to celebrate privately, since in the Law it is prohibited only "on account of the scandal and abomination of the people."¹⁷

1562. II. By natural law, an EXTERIOR HABIT and COMPOSITION of the body are required, which exhibit internal reverence and devotion of the soul. - The reason is evident; for to this most august Sacrament not only internal but also external veneration is due, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible manner.¹⁸

Hence: 1. Women ought to approach Holy Communion in holy adornment, redolent of modesty. If any should present themselves very indecently at the sacred Table, for example with the breast uncovered, Communion would have to be denied to them, yet with due precautions, so far as can be done, to prevent scandals.¹⁹ 2. It is fitting that armed persons approach with weapons laid aside. The soldiers of St. John are excepted, who bear arms as a sign of Religion to be defended.²⁰ 3. Priests communicating in the manner of laymen should communicate with a stole. Thus the Rubric, which seems to prescribe this under venial sin.²¹

1563. Principles. I. The real reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation by NECESSITY OF MEANS. - The proposition is of faith, if it concerns children; but if it concerns adults, it is common and certain. The reason is that the Eucharist by itself does not confer, but supposes first grace; but this gives a right to heavenly glory; whence one who dies with it, even without the Eucharist having been received, certainly obtains eternal salvation.

It is said real reception; because reception in desire, according to the more probable opinion, is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, both for adults and for little children. It is proved: 1. From the words of the Lord (John 6:54): "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you will not have life in you." 2. From reason, "because the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, which are certainly necessary by necessity of means, at least in desire, for obtaining first grace, do not confer grace except with regard to the Eucharist, as to the end of all the Sacraments.... But adults have such a desire when they receive the Sacraments of Baptism or Penance; for their will of fulfilling all precepts includes at least implicitly this precept also of the Eucharist. But little children have the desire, not from their own will, but from the implicit will of the Church, which is applied to children, just as the will of receiving Baptism is applied."²²

It is asked: Whether the Eucharist, in reality or in desire, is a necessary means FOR ADULTS for preserving spiritual life?

Resp. Some deny, "saying that other means are present for this. But more commonly and more truly others affirm with St. Thomas.²³ The reason is that just as the life of the body cannot be preserved for long without material food, so neither can the life of the soul without this spiritual food, at least in desire, and indeed explicit desire, in one who notices the necessity of this Sacrament."²⁴

1564. II. The consumption of the Eucharist is necessary for adult faithful by necessity of PRECEPT, both divine and ecclesiastical. The divine precept is proved from the words of Christ: "Unless you eat," etc.; but the ecclesiastical precept from the Fourth Lateran Council, whose words we shall relate below (n. 1568).

Moreover, from the DIVINE precept, we are held to receive the Eucharist not only in danger of death, but also several times in life. But how often we are held to this has not been declared by Christ the Lord, but He Himself left the matter to be determined by His Church; whence each one, speaking by itself, satisfies the divine precept by satisfying the ecclesiastical precept. - We say speaking by itself; for "sometimes, by accident, a man is held from the divine precept to communicate perhaps even several times in the year, if he judged this necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Yet Suarez says this can happen very rarely, since other remedies can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. But in that case in which Communion were necessary, a man, by omitting it, would not sin against its precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation"²⁵ (cf. n. 1579, Rule I, It is said 2).

These things having been said concerning the necessity of the Eucharist in general, it remains that we treat separately of the twofold Communion which each one is held to receive, that is, concerning Communion in the article of death or Viaticum, and concerning Paschal Communion.

1565. Principles. I. The DIVINE precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges especially in the ARTICLE or in the DANGER of death. It is clear from the Council of Nicaea, can. 13, in which it is established that with those who are thought to be departing from life the ancient law is to be observed, namely that they not be deprived of the last and necessary Viaticum.²⁶ The reason a priori can easily be given, because from the institution of this Sacrament as nourishment is gathered the obligation of consuming it when it is judged necessary; but never can the necessity of this food be greater than in that article upon which eternity ultimately depends, and in which the last struggle with the enemy is imminent, for deciding the whole matter.²⁷

"It was said in danger; because for receiving Viaticum it is not necessary nor laudable to wait for the time when no further hope of life remains; but it suffices that probable danger of death be present."¹

Hence: 1. "Each faithful person, in danger of life, which he foresees or deservedly fears, for example in a grave illness, before battle, or childbirth, especially a first one, before navigation, etc., is held under mortal sin to communicate."² Thus commonly.

2. One who did not communicate in danger of death is not afterwards held to supply. Similarly, one who after Viaticum has been consumed sinned mortally is not held to communicate again; confession alone then suffices.³

1566. II. Sick persons who CANNOT receive it with due reverence are excepted from the law of Viaticum. The Ritual also admonishes: "It must diligently be cared for that Viaticum not be given to those from whom, whether on account of frenzy, or on account of continual cough, and another similar illness, some indecency with injury to so great a Sacrament can be feared." The reason is that it does not concern a Sacrament of every sort of necessity, and therefore provision must be made rather for reverence toward the Sacrament than for the utility of the sick person.⁴

Therefore: 1. In danger of vomiting, Viaticum is not to be given. Whence, if the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate unless he has been free from it at least for six hours. But if the vomiting proceeds from the food itself, an unconsecrated particle can be given to him for the sake of experiment; and then, if he retains this, a consecrated particle. In doubt, it is better to abstain.⁵

2. A cough, unless it is continual or so frequent that the sick person cannot pass down the particle, does not impede Communion; because there is one way, namely the throat, by which food is passed down, and another, namely the windpipe, from which phlegm and breaths are ejected.⁶

3. To the delirious who were duly prepared before the failing of the mind, Viaticum can and ought to be given, if they are able to communicate, danger of irreverence having been excluded. But the best practice is that also to sick persons of this kind there first be given an unconsecrated particle, for testing whether from this they can decently consume the Eucharist.⁷ (See n. 1546.)

1567. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one who A FEW DAYS BEFORE communicated from devotion is HELD, danger of death supervening, to receive Viaticum?

Resp. It is controverted. - "The more common opinion denies, even if he communicated eight days before, because he has already satisfied the end of the precept. This opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because then, at the time of the Communion received, danger had already begun morally to be imminent. But the second and more probable opinion affirms, because this precept, which is divine, obliges precisely when the danger of death actually urges; and just as a debt cannot be satisfied before it is contracted, so neither can a precept be fulfilled before it begins to oblige. Nor is it valid to say that through that Communion the end of the precept has already been satisfied; because if this sufficed, it would also suffice for fulfilling the Paschal precept that someone communicate on the day preceding Palm Sunday; but this cannot be said."⁸

Q. 2. Whether one who communicated IN THE MORNING from devotion OUGHT or CAN receive Viaticum, danger of death supervening?

Resp. Three opinions are present. The first says that he is held, that he may satisfy the precept. - The second says he is not held, but can. - The third says he is neither held nor can, since the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice on the same day. Benedict XIV says that the pastor can embrace whichever of these opinions he prefers; whence he holds all three as probable. For the rest, among these, the more probable seems to be the opinion which distinguishes thus: in a violent illness, for example if someone has been struck by a wound, or has fallen from a height, he can communicate, indeed he is held according to the things said in the preceding question; because here he truly did not receive Viaticum while constituted in the article of death. But otherwise, in a natural illness, when someone, already placed in sickness, has communicated in the morning; because then the danger of death was already present, although unknown. And the same must be said if the illness was sudden, say apoplexy, or something similar; for illnesses of this kind are judged already to have previously existed disposed in their causes, although they are unknown.⁹

Note. "To a sick person unto death, who has been judged worthy of absolution from sins, the Most Holy Viaticum also is to be conceded." Thus the S. C. DE PROP. FIDE to the Vicar Apostolic of Pondicherry, July 26, 1845.¹⁰

1568. From the DIVINE precept, as we have said (n. 1564), we are held to receive the Eucharist several times in life. "The reason is that just as it is necessary to take earthly food several times for preserving bodily life, so heavenly food for preserving spiritual life."¹¹ But from the ECCLESIASTICAL precept the time and manner of this obligation are more closely determined, as is had in the Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council, which sounds thus: "Every faithful of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins at least once in the year to his own priest... receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucharist; unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judge that for a time one must abstain from reception of this kind; otherwise, living, let him be kept from entering the church, and dying, let him lack Christian burial." It is confirmed from Trent, sess. 13, can. 9.

In these words of the Council are contained three obligations, and these grave: the first regards the frequency of receiving the Sacrament; the second the time of reception, and the third the place of reception. Wherefore let there be the following:

1569. Principles. I. Each faithful person is held AT LEAST ONCE IN THE YEAR to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. - But he who communicates sacrilegiously does not satisfy the precept, as is clear from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of annual Communion is satisfied by sacrilegious eating of the Lord." Therefore one who communicated unworthily is afterwards held to satisfy, no otherwise than one who omitted Communion altogether.¹²

It is asked: How is the year of the obligation of this annual Communion to be computed?

Resp. "Some judge that it is to be computed from January to December. But from the common opinion of the Doctors, and from custom received everywhere, the time is computed from Easter to Easter, because this is judged to be the ecclesiastical year. But the Paschal time begins from Palm Sunday, and ends on Low Sunday, from the declaration of Eugene IV in the Bull Fidei digna, in the year 1440. Yet from custom, necessity, or privilege, more time is conceded."¹³

1570. II. The annual Communion prescribed to Christ's faithful is to be performed IN PASCHAL TIME. This time, according to the more common and more probable opinion, is assigned by the Church not for ending, but for urging on the obligation of the divine precept; wherefore one who omitted Communion at Easter is held to communicate as soon as possible, from both the ecclesiastical and the divine precept.¹⁴

But Paschal time is to be computed strictly, so that any delay, even of one day, by itself is judged grave.¹⁵ Yet this obligation by no means urges the confessor to absolve the indisposed more quickly than is just. But the faithful are held to remove impediments. Hence "the excommunicated and those detained in prisons, when they can, are held to procure absolution or liberty, by which they can satisfy the Paschal precept"¹⁶ (cf. n. 225).

It is asked: Whether one who cannot communicate in Paschal time is held to ANTICIPATE?

Resp. 1. "It is certain that, Paschal time having begun, if someone foresees himself about to be impeded from Communion, he is held to receive it immediately, as they commonly teach."¹⁷ 2. Before Paschal time has begun, he is not held to anticipate, because, according to the common opinion, "before that time the obligation has not yet been contracted; and if someone anticipates, he does not satisfy the precept; and this is so much so that if someone, on account of a foreseen impediment, anticipated, and afterwards the impediment ceased, he would still be held to communicate at Easter."¹⁸

1571. III. "Anyone is held to receive Paschal Communion IN HIS OWN PARISH from his pastor, or his delegate, unless he is exempted by his license, custom, or privilege." This is clear from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and declarations of the Roman Congregations,¹⁹ and from the practice of the universal Church. The reason of the law is that the pastor may know the sheep committed to his care.

It is said 1. in his own parish, that is, in the parish of his domicile or quasi-domicile (cf. n. 203). - Hence, he does not satisfy who communicates in the cathedral church, since this cannot despoil parochial churches of their rights. - But he satisfies who anywhere receives Communion from the hand of his own pastor, because the pastor is judged to know his sheep everywhere. Similarly, one who has received Viaticum in Paschal time from the hand of his own pastor has satisfied each precept.

It is said 2. unless he is exempted by license of the pastor; "because, with the consent of the Supreme Pontiff, or of the Bishop or Ordinary, or his Vicar General, or the pastor, for all these are understood under the name of pastor, the Doctors concede that by communicating outside the parish, the precept is satisfied." Yet PRESUMED or interpretative license suffices, provided consent can morally certainly be supposed. And if the pastor is, or is presumed to be, unwilling unreasonably, the consent of the Bishop or Pontiff can licitly be presumed. But it is not licit for a pastor to concede to his parishioners a general license that they satisfy the Paschal precept in another church, since he cannot dispense universally in the law of the Church. Thus the S. C. Conc., September 7, 1615.

It is said 3. by custom: by this reason priests satisfy wherever they celebrate. Understand, if they celebrate; for otherwise they are held to communicate in the parish, as laymen. Likewise, pilgrims and vagi are exempted, who either do not have a parish, or are so absent from it that they cannot conveniently return to it. Therefore they can communicate in any church whatever, unless, as the Ritual bears, in some place a custom flourishes of remitting them to the cathedral church.²⁰ - And the same must be said of soldiers, if they are not at station, nor have domicile or quasi-domicile in the city.

It is said 4. or by privilege: for to Regulars privilege has been conceded, that their familiars can satisfy in their churches; provided they actually serve, reside within the enclosures of the monastery, and live under the obedience of the Prelates, as is had in Trent (cf. n. 2186).²¹

It was asked: "Whether male and female secular servants of Nuns, living in dwellings situated in the courts of monasteries surrounded by a wall, and which are contiguous to the monasteries and have a gate which is closed, are held to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Paschal time from the pastors in whose parishes the monastery and dwellings are situated? - And the S. C. C., September 19, 1722, responded: Affirmatively and no more... by which word no more, it is declared that all the Cardinals were unanimous, and that no question about the same matter, clear enough, is to be had in the future." Thus Benedict XIV.²²

1572. It is asked: To what is he held who DID NOT SATISFY the Paschal precept in his own parish?

Resp. 1. One who communicated in his own parish, but, on account of unworthy reception, did not satisfy, is indeed held to communicate as soon as possible, but can do this in any church; because he is already sufficiently recognized by the pastor.²³ 2. One who in good faith communicated in another church does not seem to be obligated under grave sin to repeat Communion in his own parish church; because the pastor is reasonably presumed not to urge his right in this way, at least toward those who receive the Sacraments more rarely. 3. One who omitted Communion, or in bad faith communicated in another church, is held to communicate as soon as possible in his own church; because his own dishonesty excuses no one from the law. Yet, Paschal time having now elapsed, the consent of the pastor can more easily be presumed, so that satisfaction be made in another church.²⁴

It must be noted that the penalty decreed against transgressors of the law is not incurred except after the sentence of a judge²⁵ (cf. n. 1387, 4).

1573. IV. Every faithful of either sex is held by the Paschal precept, after he has arrived AT THE YEARS OF DISCRETION. - But at what age children are judged to have this discretion must be weighed in this place. Hence the following:

Questions. Q. 1. Whether CHILDREN, as soon as they have the use of reason, are held to communicate?

Resp. Negatively, from the most common and more probable opinion. "The reason is that the common usage of the Church thus interprets the obligation of this precept, both that children may receive the Eucharist with greater reverence and fruit, and lest they themselves be easily exposed to danger of transgression. And although they are obligated to confession, nevertheless they are not for that reason held to receive the Eucharist, which is of greater excellence and not of so great necessity. Nor does the canon of the Lateran Council obstruct, where it is said that every faithful, after he has reached the years of discretion, is held not only to confession but also to Communion; for the years of discretion are to be understood respectively according to the reason of the matter, namely when someone has reached the years of discretion for confession, let him confess; when he has reached the years of discretion for Communion, let him communicate."¹

But to children constituted in DANGER OF DEATH, provided they are able in some way to discern between profane and heavenly food, Communion not only can be given, but also ought to be, as authors very commonly teach.² "The reason is that, on the one hand, children constituted in such danger are held from the divine precept to communicate; on the other, the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition."³

Q. 2. When are children judged OBLIGATED to communicate?

Resp. "The Doctors commonly say that, REGULARLY speaking, children are not obligated to Communion before the ninth or tenth year"; the Council of Albi in the year 1850 thinks the same⁴; "nor is Communion to be deferred for them beyond the twelfth or at least beyond the fourteenth year.... It was said REGULARLY; for, as authors notice, children who before such an age are seen to be more perspicacious can be obligated sooner. Whence Roncaglia rightly reprehends pastors who indiscriminately do not admit to Communion except children constituted in a certain age. - But it must be noted that, although children in the tenth year can be admitted to Communion, nevertheless they themselves are not held to it, but only then when they have been warned by the pastor or parents."⁵

Q. 3. To WHOM does it pertain to institute an examination and bring judgment concerning the capacity of the child?

Resp. "1. With respect to AGE and DISPOSITION OF SOUL, it pertains to parents and the confessor to decide the matter. For thus the Roman Catechism:⁶ 'At what age the sacred mysteries are to be given to children, no one will be able to determine better than the father and the priest to whom they confess their sins; for it pertains to them to explore and ask from the children whether they have received some knowledge of this admirable Sacrament and have a taste for it.'

"2. With respect to EXAMINATION concerning Christian doctrine, nothing particular is established by common law. Therefore it pertains to the confessor to attend whether the child has sufficient doctrine. But by particular law, established by Bishops in many places, children to be admitted to first Communion must be examined by the pastor himself, or his delegates, concerning doctrine and maturity of judgment."⁷

1574. Concerning the FIRST COMMUNION of children it is useful to add the following things from the Council of Bordeaux, celebrated in the year 1850:⁸

"Since on the first approach to the sacred Synaxis the course of the whole life, and therefore eternal salvation itself, often depends, we beseech in the Lord every rector of souls, that they expend the greatest possible diligence in disposing little ones for first Communion.... Let them demand, as far as can be done, that the children be present assiduously at catechism for two years; let them instruct them with particular diligence, question them frequently, and not admit them unless it is altogether clear concerning their sufficient knowledge.

Then: "Let them stir them up in every way to prepare a dwelling for God, which is a great work; and, for the sake of discerning who are preparing themselves with a great heart and willing soul, let them diligently inquire concerning the manner of acting of each one, and let them themselves watch over them attentively; at least once in the month, let them receive them at the sacred tribunal, or care that they be received, and the more frequently as the time of Communion becomes more imminent.

"Before Communion, let them receive a general confession of the whole life, taking care lest, through fear of repulsion, some sin be concealed. But three days before Communion, let them proximately prepare them by pious exercises, and on the day itself let them take care that the greatest solemnity be applied, and that the baptismal vows be renewed."

FROM THE SYNOD OF TURIN we add: "But if an adolescent, already having attained the thirteenth year, cannot approach his proper pastor, the confessor will perform an excellent work of charity if he teaches him in catechesis and promotes him to Communion; but let him exhort him that he make his pastor more certain concerning this matter."⁹

1575. The pious mother Church, by strict precept, obliges only to Paschal Communion. "And yet let not the faithful have it as enough that they, obeying the authority of this decree, receive the Body of the Lord only once each year; but let them judge that Communion of the Eucharist is to be repeated more often. But whether it is more expedient to do this each month, or each week, or each day, a certain rule cannot be prescribed for all";¹⁰ but a varied NORM must be established according to the variety of persons. - But how one must proceed in this will be taught by the following:

1576. Principles. I. The frequency of Communion is so to be defined that provision is made both for the REVERENCE due to so great a Sacrament and for the UTILITY of the one receiving. The reason of the FIRST is that, on account of the excellence of the Sacrament, "it is required that the one receiving approach with great devotion and reverence...; but because many impediments of this devotion often occur in many human beings, because of indisposition of body or of soul, it is not useful for all men to approach this Sacrament daily, but as often as a man has found himself prepared for it."¹¹ Whence proposition 5, which said: "Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live like Gentiles, is a mark of predestination," was deservedly condemned by Innocent XI. They ought rather to have said, St. Alphonsus observes,¹² "it is a mark of reprobation." The reason of the SECOND is that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted primarily by Our Lord for the spiritual refreshment of souls; nor is there doubt that the most loving Redeemer wishes this food to be offered to all His sheep: to the well, that they may have life more abundantly; and to the languid, that they may recover.

Wherefore the TRIDENTINE SYNOD desires that Christ's faithful so live¹³ "that they can frequently receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may truly be for them the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind." And this 23rd proposition of Baius was condemned by Alexander VIII: "Similarly, those are to be kept from Communion in whom the most pure love of God, free from every mixture, is not yet present."

1577. II. The richer the fruit that comes from Communion for the one receiving, the MORE FREQUENTLY it is to be conceded; and, to whatever degree the fruit decreases, to that degree the frequency is to be LESSENED, not so that Communion is altogether omitted, but so that preparation and devotion may increase. Concerning this matter Innocent XI speaks thus:¹⁴ "Frequent access to receiving the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors..., who, from purity of consciences, and from the fruit of frequency, and from progress toward piety, ought to prescribe to them, namely penitents, what they foresee will be profitable for their salvation." St. Thomas teaches the same,¹⁵ writing: "If someone knew by experience that from daily consumption the fervor of love was increased, and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily."

But one must beware lest, under the pretext of reverence, the Sacrament be deserted; for "although to abstain from Communion on some day is also a virtue, nevertheless, says Fr. Granada in his Treatise on Communion, it is the common opinion of the Doctors that it is better to approach Communion daily on account of love, than to abstain on account of reverence."¹⁶

Only a baptized man can receive the Eucharist sacramentally; because only the baptized is capable of the Sacraments. Hence an unbeliever receiving the Eucharist would indeed receive it truly, but only materially, not however sacramentally. But a baptized man who is indisposed receives indeed sacramentally, but not spiritually, i.e. he receives, but without fruit. But a baptized man who is disposed receives both sacramentally and spiritually, or with fruit. - Trent.¹

It must be treated 1° of the obligation of receiving the Eucharist; 2° of the disposition required for receiving it worthily.

1304. Principles. - I. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary neither for children nor for adults by necessity of means unto salvation. It is established 1° from the universal practice of the Church, which gives Communion neither to little children, nor to adults impeded by infirmity, e.g. those prone to vomiting, the delirious, etc.; 2° from the definition of the Church at least as regards little children, Trent.²

II. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary by necessity of divine precept. It is drawn from the words of Christ: Unless you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you.³ But whether, and by what necessity of means, it is necessary, see above n. 1207. III. 1°.

III. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from a precept of the Church. It is proved from the Fourth Lateran Council,⁴ where it is said: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, should confess at least once in the year, ... receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, he should judge that he must abstain from such reception for some reasonable cause." It is established also from Trent.¹

IV. The reception of the Eucharist is not necessary under both species, except for priests alone in the act of the celebration of Mass. It is proved from Trent.² It is established also from the universal practice of the Church, although in earlier centuries it was different.

1305. Questions. - Query 1° At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?

Resp. 1° It obliges of itself in the article or proximate danger of death, and indeed under grave sin. The reason is because the Eucharist was instituted as a viaticum strengthening against the enemies of salvation.³

Resp. 2° It obliges of itself also several times in life. It is established from the fact that the Eucharist was instituted by way of spiritual food, by which the soul is nourished and strengthened; but food must be taken several times. It is also drawn from Sacred Scripture cited above, and also from the Councils just mentioned. Nevertheless Christ did not determine how often this Sacrament is to be approached, but left this to be established by his Church. But the Church established annual Communion in Paschal time. Hence by Communion received once in the year at that time, both the divine and ecclesiastical precept are satisfied.⁴

Resp. 3° This precept obliges accidentally sometimes, and perhaps even several times in the year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Nevertheless this, says Suarez, happens most rarely, since other means can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. But he who in that case neglected Communion would not sin against this precept, but against the virtue against which he is tempted.⁵

Query 2° Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is because this precept, by interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death, that we may be fortified against spiritual enemies by this divine help. Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness; because, although someone has fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he has not fulfilled it at the time at which he was held.

Nevertheless several deny with Lugo.¹ Their reason is because the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. - St. Alphonsus says that this sentence is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because through that brief preceding time it has already morally begun to be imminent, although it had been unknown.²

Query 3° Is he who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?

Resp. There is a fourfold sentence.

The first affirms that he is held, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it was not yet urging at the time at which Communion was received, therefore could not be fulfilled by that reception.

The second says that he is not held, but can communicate: 1° indeed he is not held, because the time at which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2° he can, because although strictly he does not seem to be held, nevertheless he is not for that reason prohibited; since favors are to be enlarged.

The third contends that he is neither held, nor can communicate. The reason is because the precept obliges from the intention of the Church, and the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in a day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted.

The fourth, which to St. Alphonsus³ seems more probable, distinguishes between a natural illness, as sudden apoplexy is also reputed, and a violent one, for example from a wound, or if someone has fallen from a height. In the latter case he is held to communicate, because in truth he did not receive Viaticum as constituted in the article of death.³

Query 4° Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger lest the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is for the most part absent. And the reason is because the way through which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, i.e. the way through which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the rough artery, through which respiration extends even to the lungs. If nevertheless the cough is so continual that it impedes the host from being conveyed into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. - Thus the Roman Ritual. (w) p. 402.

But when the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate, unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. But in doubt whether the sick person will vomit back the sacred particle, it must not be given to him.² (A) p. 402.

Query 5° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred Synaxis?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they have not yet obtained the use of reason. The reason is because this is against the present discipline of the Church.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively as regards children who are possessed of reason. Indeed not only can Communion be given to them, but it also ought to be. The reason is because, on the one hand, children constituted in such danger are held from divine precept to communicate, even if the precept of Paschal Communion did not yet oblige them; and on the other hand the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Therefore Pastors gravely err who do not wish to administer Viaticum to children of this kind.³

Query 6° Is Viaticum to be given to those recently converted to the faith?

Resp. Affirmatively, "if they have the faith by which Baptism can be ministered to them, together with some knowledge" of the Eucharist; ... otherwise, if Baptism is ministered to them when they have not been sufficiently instructed, or are doubtfully disposed, so that, insofar as it can be done, provision may be made for them.⁴

Query 7° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, and those destitute of the senses?

Resp. 1° As regards the insane: 1) If they have been perpetually insane, Communion is never to be given to them. Thus from the Roman Ritual on the Eucharist. - 2) If they sometimes have lucid intervals, and have manifested the desire of communicating, at least implicitly, Communion can be given to them; indeed it ought to be, danger of irreverence being excluded.⁵ (B) p. 402.

Resp. 2° As regards the half-witted: Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating urges.¹ (I) p. 403.

Resp. 3° As regards the delirious: Communion can be given to them if they can communicate, danger of irreverence being excluded. But the best practice is that beforehand a non-consecrated particle be given to the sick person, and thus it appear whether he can communicate decently.² (A) p. 403.

Resp. 4° As regards those destitute of the senses: they certainly do not sin when they do not receive Communion, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not for that reason dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were disposed. For the Sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if danger of irreverence is present, or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the Host. - Thus commonly. - Gousset.³ (A) p. 403.

Query 8° Is Communion to be given to the deaf-mute, the possessed, and epileptics?

Resp. 1° As regards the deaf-mute: Affirmatively, if from signs it is established that they have discretion and are sufficiently instructed. But if they enjoy not merely some discretion, but sufficient discretion, they will be able to communicate more often.⁴

Resp. 2° As regards the possessed, one must distinguish: Communion is to be denied to them when they are not in control of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for warding off demons.⁵

Resp. 3° As regards epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied.⁶ (E) p. 403.

Note. - To those who are deaf-mute and at the same time blind from birth, Communion is to be denied.⁷

Query 9° Ought Communion to be given to those condemned to death?

Resp. Affirmatively. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that "that custom is to be followed which is known respectively to exist in each place";¹ but he calls the usage of ministering the Most Holy Eucharist to them "more conformable to Christian piety." But St. Alphonsus teaches absolutely that it is to be given to them, as they are constituted in the article of death; nevertheless Communion should precede the execution by one hour. And indeed it can be given to one not fasting;² for it is administered by way of Viaticum, as is clear from the Response of the particular Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide concerning Chinese matters, 5 July 1841.

1306. Principles. - I. For receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, besides immunity from excommunication (n. 1676) and interdict (n. 1696. q. 1°. q. 2°), there is required the state of grace, at least prudently judged to be present. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle:¹ But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of the Chalice. For he who, etc.

II. It does not suffice that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that Confession of mortal sins be premised and Sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity, namely either when the supply of a confessor is lacking and Communion cannot be omitted without grave note or suspicion, or when it must be celebrated by a priest so that the people may assist at Mass on a feast day. - Trent.² See St. Alphonsus.³

1307. - Questions. Query 1° When is the supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking: 1° If no confessor is present, and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty.

2° If no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or another. Nevertheless in these cases perfect contrition is required. But the supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather any approved confessor must be lacking.¹

But a cause excusing from Confession occurs most rarely for laymen. It can indeed more easily be present as regards priests; but one must surely beware lest, deterred by a vain pretext or by shame and embarrassment, they imagine for themselves a chimerical impossibility.

Query 2° What distance is required, that the priest may be judged to be lacking?

Resp. It cannot be determined rigorously, but depends on circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others one league with a half or a quarter; others one league only. But besides the reason of journey, other reasons often urge, e.g. infirmity or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from Confession, even if the confessor is distant only 50 paces.²

Query 3° Is he who remembers a mortal sin which from inculpable forgetfulness he did not declare in Confession held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. 1° Certainly not, if the penitent is already at the Sacred Table, or a grave cause of communicating is present, and he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is because, even if the precept of Confession were present, it would not urge with so great an inconvenience. - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If the penitent can confess or omit Communion without inconvenience, it is controverted: very probably he is neither held to confess, nor to abstain from Communion; because the sin omitted involuntarily has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly; and therefore it in no way stands in the way of Communion to be received. Nor should you say that the precept of Trent of confessing before Communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been rightly confessed and justified through the Sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved, even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. - St. Alphonsus³ and others, against others who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. - St. Alphonsus inclines more to the former sentence, nevertheless he judges that the second is to be advised in practice, provided that some cause does not counsel otherwise.

Query 4° Is a priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated conscious of mortal sin, without Confession, because of urgent necessity, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° As regards the priest, affirmatively. For thus expressly Trent:² "But if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous Confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

Resp. 2° As regards the layman, negatively, more probably. The reason is because Trent speaks only of priests, as is clear from the text. - Thus most commonly, says St. Alphonsus.³

Query 5° How is that precept imposed on priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because, since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar word, by common interpretation is extended to the space of three days.⁴ - Nevertheless the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was not excused from Confession except on account of present necessity. Hence, if the same necessity of celebrating on the following day urges, and he can confess, he cannot defer Confession to another day.

Query 6° Is a priest celebrating after Confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he remembers the sin after celebration; because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 2° Negatively, very probably, even if he remembers the sin before celebration; because since he has premised Confession, although he forgot some grave sin, nevertheless he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous Confession. St. Alphonsus¹ calls this sentence very probable, after Lacroix and others against Suarez, Lugo, etc.

Query 7° Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity does not urge, or, if it does urge, when the supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the precept of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who defer Confession under pretext of necessity, not however into those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of profit; for those who, having contemned the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would surely more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Thus most commonly and more truly, St. Alphonsus.²

Query 8° Does affection to some venial sin impede the whole fruit of Communion?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the will can well experience pious movements toward God and the Sacrament, although it retains some lightly disordered affection toward a particular thing; therefore one communicating with such an affection is not deprived of every fruit of the Eucharist.³

A twofold disposition is required on the part of the body, namely 1° fasting; 2° decency.

1308. - Principles. I. From the precept of the Church, for Communion there is required natural fasting, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however minimal, which by way of food, drink, or medicine is conveyed into the stomach, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. It is established 1° from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2° from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church;³ 3° from the Councils and especially from Constance.⁴

II. For breaking that fast, according to the common sentence three conditions are required, namely 1° That what is taken be taken from without and be conveyed into the stomach: for what does not come from without, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, or what is not conveyed into the stomach, but e.g. sticks in the throat, is not said to be eaten; for things which are eaten come from without and are destined for the stomach. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc. does not break the fast.¹

2° That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is because according to common sense the natural fast is broken only in this way. Hence whatever is drawn by way of respiration or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting, although through respiration you swallow dust or a fly, by accident, namely, and not on purpose.²

3° That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach and apt for nutrition. The reason is because otherwise, according to the common mode of understanding, there is not eating nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, etc. - Thus commonly the Theologians with St. Thomas,³ St. Alphonsus.⁴

III. From the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, dated 18 June 1873, it must be gathered that as regards the moment at which the obligation begins of the natural fast, the ecclesiastical fast, the divine office, etc., one must stand by public clocks, or those designated by the Magistrate for indicating noon; and this even if they do not mark true time, but only mean time, or the mean time not of one's own meridian, but of another, e.g. of the metropolis.⁵

Addendum and Corrigendum. - What is said in this place is to be understood according to the following response of the Sacred Penitentiary. "Whether, where clocks accommodated to mean time are used, one must stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: The faithful, in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, can follow mean time, but are not bound to do so. - On 29 Nov. 1882."

1309. Questions. - Query 1° Does the swallowing of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth break the fast?

Resp. 1° Negatively if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.⁶ - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If it is voluntary, it is controverted.

The first sentence, which to St. Alphonsus² does not seem improbable, denies; because such remnants are morally reputed parts of the eating of the preceding day, and not of a new one, and they are not taken by way of food, although on purpose, but by way of saliva. - See the Rubric.¹

The second sentence affirms; because such a swallowing, since it is done deliberately, seems to be a new eating. - Thus Roncaglia, etc. St. Alphonsus² says that this sentence is more common and more probable, and altogether to be counseled; nevertheless he warns that one must not act scrupulously in this, so that it suffices to spit out those remnants which are sensibly perceived on the tongue, and there is no obligation to employ diligence to draw them out from the teeth, even if otherwise they are foreseen to be swallowed.

Query 2° Do little drops of water or broth tasted and mixed with saliva break the fast if they are swallowed?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they are swallowed accidentally beyond intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of the little drops which are involuntarily swallowed while washing the mouth. The reason is because they are not taken by way of nutrition. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.³

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if they are swallowed on purpose. The reason is because then nothing is lacking so that they have the character of food or drink.⁴

Query 3° Does tobacco powder taken through the nostrils dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, even if something is transmitted into the stomach. The reason is because, although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating, unless it is done on purpose.⁵

Query 4° Does tobacco smoke or similar smoke dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, because in the common estimation of men tobacco smoke is neither food nor drink, nor is it taken by eating or drinking. On account of the same reason it must be said that those do not break the fast who draw in through both mouth and nostrils the smoke of foods in a kitchen. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily sent into the stomach.⁶ - The same seems to be said concerning the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in by way of tobacco smoke (in French: cigarette de Raspail).

Query 5° Does he dissolve the fast who takes a leaf of tobacco, or a spice, in order to bruise it with the teeth and spit out phlegm?

Resp. Negatively, probably, even if a little of the juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed, nevertheless beyond intention; because, if this is swallowed accidentally, it is conveyed not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is indecent; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, unless some reasonable cause intervenes.¹

Query 6° Can he communicate who doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on the same day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear from what was said n. 67. 1°. a). Except if presumptions to the contrary are so strong that the one acting believes more probably that twelve o'clock has already sounded.²

Query 7° Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after Communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after Communion the fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Nevertheless from decency some delay must be observed between the reception of this Sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species, not yet wholly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless nevertheless there is some reasonable cause of taking something immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault.³

Query 8° Is it illicit to spit after Communion?

Resp. Negatively, of itself, provided that no fragment of the Host has remained in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species; since the way through which spittle flows together into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of respiration. Nevertheless all agree that it is fitting that those who have communicated abstain from spitting for some interval of time.⁴

Query 9° When is it lawful to communicate someone not fasting?

Resp. One not fasting communicates lawfully 1° in danger of death, from whatever cause it comes; 2° in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly handled, e.g. by heretics, impious persons; 3° in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4° in necessity of completing the Sacrifice or Communion, e.g. if the priest has taken water for the species of wine, etc.¹ (9) p. 417.

Query 10° Is moral certainty of danger of death required, that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting?

Resp. Negatively, but a prudent doubt suffices, or probability of danger (for probability of the article of death is not required, if with some it is pleasing to distinguish danger from article), especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed Pastors and parents or relatives of the sick are to be gravely reproved, who from carelessness or vain fear so prolong the administration of Sacred Viaticum that the sick are in danger of dying without the Eucharist.² But if the sick person could easily receive Viaticum fasting on the following day, he would be held to wait. Nevertheless in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since the Council of Constance simply excepts the dangerously sick from the law of fasting.³

Query 11° Is it ever lawful to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not dangerously bedridden, if the illness is long-lasting?

Resp. It must be denied, given the present practice of the Church, unless the illness is of such a kind that of itself it can induce danger of death. Nevertheless some Theologians permit this at times, if the illness is long-lasting, and the sick person can never communicate altogether fasting, provided it be done rarely, e.g. some times in the year. - Thus Elbel.⁴ But the most common sentence of Theologians with Suarez contradicts, who asserts that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In fact, the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense rarely and only from a grave cause, nevertheless even with private persons (as I myself know from a particular case), and not only, as formerly almost, with public persons or from a public cause, that they may communicate once, three times, or even several times in the year. But then there is a sufficient reason why sometimes the Eucharist can be administered to a sick person after midnight. The reason why this can be done only by dispensation of the Pope is that otherwise this law of the Church would be too much relaxed. See, if you please, Benedict XIV, the Brief Quodam de more, dated 24 March 1756, handing down the history of this law.

1310. Principles. - I. By natural law that exterior habit and that composition of body are required which exhibit the internal reverence and devotion of the soul. The reason is clear: for not only internal, but also external veneration is due to this most august Sacrament, since Christ himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible way.

II. No stain whatever of the body of itself impedes Communion, since the Eucharist is only food of the soul, nor is purity diminished by stains of the body, which contribute nothing to moral goodness or malice.¹ - Nevertheless the decency and reverence due to so great a Sacrament require that, if dirt appearing externally can be removed, it be diligently removed.

III. There is no obligation of abstaining from Communion on account of hidden stains of the body, or even those appearing externally, but indelible.² - If nevertheless external stains, here and now indelible, are very notable and ought to cease shortly, it will be becoming, where it can conveniently be done, to defer Communion. But when they last longer, there is no reason why someone should be deprived of heavenly nourishment. - Thus commonly.

1311. Resolves. - 1° Women ought to approach holy Communion in holy ornament, redolent of modesty; if some should present themselves to the Sacred Table very indecently (see n. 1233. 19), Communion would have to be denied to them, with due cautions nevertheless for preventing scandals as far as can be done.

2° Leprosy, flow of blood, and similar things, which happen without fault of the sufferer, of themselves do not prohibit from Communion, because those blemishes do not stand in the way of devotion, which is the disposition required for Communion.³ - After a voluntary pollution had shortly before, to approach holy Communion, although someone is contrite and confessed, they say is venial, unless scandal or another just cause demands Communion; the same holds after one venially evil, or even involuntary, if it leaves disturbance in the mind. They except if the one about to communicate endeavors to repel this as much as he can, or some just cause of necessity or devotion is present.¹ - Concerning Communion after conjugal intercourse it will be said n. 1646. 7°.

3° A priest infected with leprosy, or another infirmity exciting horror, can celebrate, but not in public; for thus it is established from Canon Law.²

4° It is fitting from decency and Christian humility that soldiers about to communicate approach the Sacred Table with arms laid aside. Nevertheless they are obliged to this by no law.³ - The same should be said of laymen wearing gloves. "But priests," says the Roman Ritual, "should communicate with stole."

1314. - Spiritual Communion is called the pious desire of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when it cannot really be received. This Communion was very much in delight among the Saints, and is commended by Trent.³ It is very useful to pious faithful. For if God rewards the pious desire of any virtue whatever, how much more the desire of possessing himself! Therefore it is to be carefully suggested by confessors to the faithful, their penitents, and most vehemently commended. Spiritual Communion can be made at every time and in every place, both in the morning and in the evening. Nevertheless the more opportune time is the time of Mass itself, when namely the priest communicates; for then, since the most august Sacrament is shown to the eyes and represented more vividly to the mind, it will inflame hearts more ardently with divine love.

S. Th. III, q. 80.

268. The use or reception of the Eucharist is its eating and drinking, which is not complete while the food or drink is in the mouth, but only when it is passed from the mouth into the stomach, or, according to others, arrives there.

Whence 1) one who holds the species in his mouth to be dissolved there, or immediately draws them out of his mouth, does not eat or communicate, nor does he receive the fruit of the sacrament.

2. On the contrary, one who swallows them and afterwards vomits does communicate.

3. One who in an artificial way, through a tube applied to the stomach or belly, should transfuse the sacrament, which he cannot receive in the natural way, does not seem to communicate, because, although the sacrament could nourish, nevertheless it would not be received by way of eating, at least according to the estimation of men; moreover the manner is judged not expedient (Holy Office, January 27, 1886; November 27, 1919).

4. On the contrary, one who should receive it in his mouth in the natural way but should pass it into the stomach through an artificial esophagus.

In the very act of eating, namely when the reception is complete, the sacrament causes habitual grace in those who place no obstacle; if an obstacle is present and afterwards is removed, it is very probable that grace is then conferred, provided the species have not been consumed. But once given, it does not seem to be increased further by force of the sacrament, because the eating has been finished; nevertheless, as our disposition is born or grows, the sacrament probably causes or increases the fervor of charity during the whole time in which it remains in us, just as food, as long as it is present, actually refreshes and strengthens.

Hence the devotion of a priest is not to be blamed who takes much wine for the consecration so that the sacrament may persevere longer in him; nevertheless Innocent XI condemned the abuse (S.C.C., February 12, 1679) of giving communicants several particles at once or larger ones than usual, if it were done for fostering a certain unsound devotion.

269. The sacrament of the Eucharist can be received in a threefold way according to the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8, conformably to the doctrine of St. Thomas, a. 1:

1. sacramentally only, when it is received really and validly but without the fruit of grace because of an obstacle: then that which is reality and sacrament is received;

2. spiritually only, when by a just man it is received by affection and desire alone, from which some fruit of the sacrament comes from the work of the one operating: then the reality of the sacrament alone is received;

3. sacramentally and spiritually at the same time, when the sacrament is really received with fruit from the work worked: then the reality and sacrament together with the reality are received.

If the sacrament were received invalidly, for example by an unbaptized adult, or by one unaware, or by an animal, it would be material eating only, but not sacramental nor spiritual.

It remains to speak of the dispositions, both of soul and of body, required for communion, and of its frequency and necessity.

IV. Concerning Viaticum. - To those deprived of the senses Viaticum A) is to be denied: 1. to sinners, even ordinary and hidden sinners, unless they have given certain signs of penance; 2. likewise to those whose disposition is unknown; 3. to the insane and the half-witted, unless previously they had at least the implicit intention of communicating. The general reason is that on the one hand the Sacrament is not necessary, and on the other hand reverence toward so great a Sacrament must be set before the conjectural utility of the faithful.

B) On the contrary it is to be granted to those who certainly are in the state of grace, provided nevertheless that every danger of irreverence toward the Sacrament is absent, which can arise from those who are furious, or who are going to vomit the Sacrament, or who are not able to swallow it. In a case of vomiting, Holy Communion is not to be given unless vomiting has ceased for several hours; a physician should be consulted, otherwise an experiment can be tried by giving a very little bread, and, if the sick person retains it for a sufficiently long time, a consecrated particle can also be given. But if a grave doubt remains, that great Sacrament, since it is not necessary, is rather to be denied than exposed to such irreverence.

It should be noted, however, that coughing is not to be confused with vomiting, because sputum does not come from the stomach; hence from coughing there is no danger for the sacrament, unless it is assiduous.

But if there is doubt concerning the capacity of swallowing, by way of experiment something liquid is administered to the sick person, and if this can be swallowed, the sacred Host or at least a particle can be conferred on him in a small quantity of water or wine by means of a spoon.

Moreover, even outside the danger of death, so that sick persons can swallow the host or particles adhering to the mouth, after the host there can be given an ablution of water or wine, although this is swallowed before the host; for the violation of the fast at least morally does not precede communion, indeed the law of fasting prescribes only that nothing be taken before the reception of the Sacrament, and this is fulfilled.

5. How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

b) If he certainly remains indisposed, because, for example, he does not wish to leave the proximate occasion, or does not wish to promise grave and certainly owed restitution, it is not licit to absolve him.

c) As regards communion, he is earnestly to be induced, after confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he no longer wishes to receive the Eucharist.

d) If he refuses to declare this and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, lest the seal of confession be violated."

To avoid this danger, it will be better that in hospitals or clinical houses the priest, or the sister appointed for caring for the sick, not prepare all things for ministering Holy Communion on his or her own motion, but only after the sick person, having confessed, asks for it; but when the priest is asked, let him uniformly say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

3. Viaticum, Extreme Unction, and the apostolic blessing are to be administered to children, provided they have sufficient discretion.

B. As regards communion, conformably to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 Dec. 1905:

1. For communion, even frequent and daily communion, strictly only two things are required: the state of grace and right intention, by which, namely, one does not indulge custom or vanity or human motives, e.g., empty rivalry, desire of gaining the benevolence of superiors, or sensible sweetness rather than solid piety, but intends to please God, or wishes to be joined more closely to Him by charity, or to meet his own infirmities and defects. For Communion is not the reward of virtue or merit, but a means for acquiring virtue; nor was it instituted before all things for honoring God, but for the utility of men.

2. Yet that communion may be more devout, it is especially expedient that even fully deliberate venial sins be absent, and especially affection toward them; all the more because if this actually perseveres, it impedes the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor or the actual exercise and sweetness of charity. Nevertheless this is not strictly required; indeed, if a pious, right, and sincere intention is present, it cannot happen that those communicating frequently do not free themselves from venial sins and affection toward them.

3. Since the sacraments of the New Law produce a greater effect in proportion to greater dispositions, it must altogether be cared for that careful preparation precede and thanksgiving follow, according to each one's strength, duties, and condition. For one very fervent communion can produce much more fruit than several ordinary ones, or many tepid ones.

4. In frequenting Holy Communion, for the sake of greater prudence and fruit, it is necessary that the counsel of the confessor intervene; not indeed that he may keep away those who have a right intention, but that he may render them more certain concerning right disposition; and stimulate all to a more fervent disposition and greater purity; and also sometimes prohibit those whose right disposition is held suspect, namely so that they may be taught to approach more fervently. Such are those who after many communions do not care about venial sins, but commit them altogether deliberately and with the same frequency as recidivists, and indulge very much, for example, vices of the tongue, or lead a worldly or tepid life.

5. Careful preparation will have to be procured, both remote and proximate. Remote, by which they are habitually preserved in purity, day by day free themselves more from every fault and defect, and burn with a greater desire for Holy Communion; proximate, which consists in diverse affections: living faith, great confidence in Christ, ardent desire, humble contrition even concerning venial sins, profound reverence, and especially perfect unitive charity, which namely more aptly disposes to the proper effect of the sacrament.

6. Thanksgiving should consist in most fervent acts: a vivid and, insofar as can be done, persevering love by which we desire that Jesus be loved more by us and by all creatures; profound adoration; full oblation and handing over of self; subjection of the intellect through faith and of the will through charity; submission of all powers to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ; pious gratitude; humble petition; and through the day an enduring remembrance of so great a benefit.

But care seems to have to be applied to thanksgiving all the more because, while the species remain, the sacrament continues to produce fruit ex opere operato, not indeed an increase of habitual grace, but the fervor and sweetness of charity, unless by distraction, neglect, or inordinate affection we place an obstacle.

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.

I say. §1. The Most Holy Eucharist, provided there is someone who has care of it and a priest regularly celebrates Mass at least once a week in the sacred place:

1st. Must be kept in a cathedral church, in the principal church of an Abbey or Prelature nullius, of an Apostolic Vicariate and Prefecture, in any parochial or quasi-parochial church, and in a church annexed to the house of exempt religious, whether of men or of women;

2nd. Can be kept, with the permission of the Ordinary of the place, in a collegiate church and in the principal oratory, whether public or semi-public, both of a pious or religious house and of an ecclesiastical college which is governed by secular clerics or by religious.

§2. In order that it can be kept in other churches or oratories, an apostolic indult is necessary; the local Ordinary can grant this permission only to a church or public oratory, from a just cause and by way of act.

§3. It is lawful for no one to retain the Most Holy Eucharist with himself or to carry it with himself on a journey (Can. 1265).

§1. The Most Holy Eucharist must be preserved in an immovable tabernacle placed in the middle part of the altar.

§2. Let the tabernacle be skillfully constructed, solidly closed on every side, decently adorned according to the norm of liturgical laws, empty of every other thing, and so sedulously guarded that the danger of any sacrilegious profanation may be warded off.

§3. With some grave cause advising it, approved by the Ordinary of the place, it is not forbidden for the Most Holy Eucharist to be reserved at night-time outside the altar, yet upon a corporal, in a safer and decent place, with the prescription of can. 1271 being observed.

§4. The key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved must be guarded most diligently, with the conscience of the priest who has care of the church or oratory being gravely burdened (Can. 1269).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 104.

Question 1. Must the ciborium be silver and consecrated?

Resp. By common law indeed it is not established that it must be silver; nevertheless it would seem to be equated with the chalice and paten, which must be of gold or silver or at least of tin, if the church is very poor. But it cannot be of bronze, nor of wood or glass, etc. Besides, if sacred vessels are not of gold, they must always be gilded within. But as regards consecration, this certainly is not required for the ciborium; rather, blessing suffices, for in the Roman Ritual the blessing of the pyx is noted among those things which do not need an anointing of chrism. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 370 and 383.

Question 2. Does one sin gravely who neglects to keep a light before the Most Holy Sacrament?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the time is notable.

Before the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved, at least one lamp is to shine continually day and night (Can. 1271).

The law itself is indeed grave, and violated in a notable space of time it induces liability of grave fault; but an entire day is reputed by many authors to be a notable time.

Question 3. Is olive oil required for nourishing the lamp of the church?

Resp. The lamp, according to canon 1271, is to be nourished with olive oil or beeswax; but where olive oil cannot be had, it is permitted to the prudence of the local Ordinary that it be changed to other oils, vegetable ones as far as can be done.

"As regards electric light, the summary of the Decrees is this: Electric light is forbidden, not only together with candles of wax upon altars (4097), but also in place of candles or lamps which are prescribed before the Most Holy Sacrament or the Relics of the Saints. For other places of the church and other cases, electric illumination is permitted according to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, provided that in all things the gravity which the sanctity of the place and the dignity of the Sacred Liturgy demand is preserved. (3859, 4206, and 4210 ad 1.) Nor is it lawful, at the time of private or public exposition, to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in that interior part itself, so that the Most Holy Eucharist may be better seen by the faithful." - S. C. R. 24 Jun. 1914.

Note here that this lamp, according to most authors, with whom the practice of many churches accords, must not be placed in a lateral part, but in the middle before the altar at which the Eucharist is reserved. This same thing seems to be required by the Rubric of the Roman Ritual and by some decrees of the S. R. C., without, however, their being able by force of the words to induce absolute certainty in this matter. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 267. - Gardellini, n. 3525. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. I, p. 38. - De Herdt, vol. 3, n. 182.

Question 4. What is to be said about the obligation of using the conopaeum?

Resp. It is certain 1st. that it is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, and that this prescription is to be observed; for when the doubt was proposed: "Whether the Tabernacle must be covered with a conopaeum, as the Ritual bears," the S. R. C. of 21 July 1855 responded: "Affirmatively." - It is certain 2nd. that a contrary custom already existing in the Diocese of Santiago of Chile was reproved by the same S. R. C. on 28 Apr. 1866, which responded similarly on 1 Jul. 1904. - Nevertheless, they who among us do not use the conopaeum do not seem to be condemned of sin, so long as the Bishops are silent and the contrary practice is so universal. - Note, however, that the conopaeum can be woven of silk, wool, cotton, or hemp, and although it is more praiseworthy that its color be varied for the various offices and feasts, nevertheless the white color can always be retained. Cf. De Herdt, vol. 3, n. 180. - O'Kane, n. 160. - Lehmkuhl, n. 132, III, note 7.

Question 5. What must be done with fragments of hosts, if any are found?

Resp. 1st. If a priest finds fragments of his present sacrifice, he must consume them, even after the ablutions, whether they are small or large, because they belong to the same sacrifice. But this must be observed not only immediately after Mass, but also if the priest is in the sacristy, still, however, clothed in the sacred vestments. But if the priest has already put off the sacred vestments, he must place the fragments back in the tabernacle, if one is present, or reserve them for another priest who will celebrate the same morning. If neither can be done, let him consume them himself. But if the remains were consecrated in another Mass, they are not to be consumed after the ablutions, but must be placed back in a decent place. The reason is that the Rubric of the Missal permits a priest who is not fasting to consume only those remains which belong to the same sacrifice. Yet if this cannot be done and a grave danger of irreverence is present, then let the priest consume them. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 251. - Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Missae. Rubric of the Missal, tit. 7, n. 2.

Resp. 2nd. But if a layman finds fragments, let him admonish a priest as soon as possible if any is nearby, or call him if he can be found. But the priest, reverently collecting the fragment, is to place it back in the ciborium or in a decent and safe place, if the tabernacle is lacking, so that it can be consumed in the next Mass. But if a priest cannot be had, let the fragment be collected reverently by the layman himself in clean paper or a clean linen cloth, by means of a little needle, and be placed within a corporal or in a decent vessel until the priest comes.

Question 6. What must be done if a host certainly or doubtfully consecrated is found on the altar or elsewhere?

Resp. If the host is believed to be certainly consecrated and otherwise seems clean and recently consecrated, it is to be placed back with the others in the ciborium. It can also be consumed by the celebrant before the ablutions. But if it is not clean, or if it has been drawn from a place not clean, or is not recently consecrated, it is not to be mixed with the others; but the celebrant will be able to consume it before the ablution. But if he experiences too great repugnance, let him place the host apart in the tabernacle in a clean vessel until it is corrupted, and, once corrupted, let it be cast into the sacrarium. But if it is doubtfully consecrated, it is to be consumed by the priest in Mass after the ablution and before the purification; but if it provokes too great nausea for him, it is to be placed back in the tabernacle, apart, until it has been corrupted, as has just been said. - Cf. the Rubric of the Missal, tit. 7, de defectibus.

Question 7. What must be done if a sick person has rejected the sacred species?

Resp. If they appear, they must be diligently collected in a clean vessel, carried to the church, and preserved in a safe and well-closed place until they are altogether corrupted, so that they can be thrown into the sacrarium without irreverence. But if they cannot be discerned, as being altogether mixed with filth, the mouth of the sick person must indeed be wiped; but whatever has been rejected is to be collected with tow; then, after the tow has been burned, the ashes are to be thrown into the sacrarium. - Cf. Reuter, n. 169. - Gousset, n. 232.

Question 8. Whether and how often must the consecrated particles be renewed?

Resp. Let consecrated Hosts ... both be fresh and be renewed frequently, so that there may be no danger of corruption, with the instructions of the Ordinary being observed. Cf. Can. 1272. This renewal is to be done at least once a week according to the Ceremonial of Bishops. "This rule," say the Baltimore Fathers, "which the Sacred Congregation of Rites has not only confirmed more often, but truly has declared to oblige strictly and rigorously, we seriously inculcate to all priests as to be observed faithfully." Moreover, they add after the Roman Ritual: "Where a priest has consecrated new hosts, let him distribute or consume the old ones first, and by no means keep them in the tabernacle. Let him take care besides that the particles to be consecrated are fresh." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 268. - O'Kane, nn. 620 and 621.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1088, n. 11.

Question 9. How must the ciborium be purified in renewing the particles?

Resp. The renewal of the ciborium is to be done in the Mass itself, in the following manner: the celebrant, after consuming the Most Precious Blood, will consume the old hosts, even if they are many; but he can consume 20 or 30 hosts thus. Rarely, however, will it happen that there are more, because there should not be consecrated except as much as seems sufficient. But if at some time a much greater quantity of hosts would have to be consumed, the priest can consume them separately in several Masses, or even several priests celebrating successively can consume them. But the smaller particles found in the ciborium he will cast into the chalice, and, with wine poured over them, will consume them, and he will deposit the new hosts in a wholly empty ciborium. He can also pour wine into the ciborium in order to collect the smallest particles. The wine, however, must not be drunk from the ciborium, but poured back into the chalice. Cf. Lacroix, nn. 501 and following. - O'Kane, n. 622.

If the priest through inadvertence had first consumed the ablution, he could still purify the ciborium and consume the remains, because for the consumption it is morally reputed one. Cf. Lacroix, n. 502. - Elbel, n. 77. - Tamburini, de Communione, chap. 2, n. 34.

On account of the danger of contagion which in hospitals of lepers comes from consuming the purification of the sacred pyx, the S. C. R. on 19 Feb. 1909 granted a special manner for these places. "Let there be prepared upon the altar a small vessel with water and tow or cotton, into which small vessel the purification of the pyx, to be performed in the usual manner, is to be put, and that, as soon as it can be done, is to be cast into the sacrarium." Thus the Sacred Congregation responded to the Superior General of the C. SS. Redemptoris.

I say. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary for no one by necessity of means unto salvation; but for adult faithful it is necessary by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical, although not under both species, except for priests alone in the act of celebrating Mass. The reason of the first is taken from the universal practice of the Church, according to which communion is given neither to little children nor to adults hindered by infirmity, for example, to those prone to vomiting, the frenzied, etc. The reason of the second is drawn from the words of Christ, John vi, 54: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you." But the reason of the third and fourth is had from the Council of Trent, where indeed the precept is imposed of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter, but at the same time anathema is pronounced upon those who assert that it is necessary for all and each of the Christian faithful to receive it under both species. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 9; and sess. 21, can. 1 and following. - St. Alphonsus, n. 295. - De Augustinis, part. 2, art. 6.

Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion (Can. 853).

It is lawful for no one to receive the Most Holy Eucharist who has already received it on the same day, except in the cases concerning which in can. 858, §1 (Can. 857).

Question 1. At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?

Resp. Of itself, it obliges both often in life and in the article, or proximate danger, of death. The reason is that the Eucharist was instituted not only by way of spiritual food, by which the soul may be nourished and strengthened; but food must be taken often; and also as Viaticum strengthening against the enemies of salvation.

§1. In danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion (Can. 864).

Let Holy Viaticum not be delayed too much for the sick; and let those who exercise care of souls watch diligently that the sick, while fully masters of themselves, are refreshed by it (Can. 865).

The precept of receiving communion is not satisfied by sacrilegious communion (Can. 861).

Christ Himself, however, did not determine how often in life one must approach this sacrament, but left it to the Church to determine. - I said of itself; for accidentally it can oblige even more often in a year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 295.

Question 2. When can or must children communicate?

Resp. §1. The Eucharist is not to be administered to children who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament.

§3. Outside danger of death, fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and more accurate preparation are deservedly required, namely that by which they may perceive, according to their capacity, at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means unto salvation, and may devoutly approach the Most Holy Eucharist, according to the measure of their age (Can. 854). - Cf. S. C. de Sacramentis, decree 8 Aug. 1910, nn. II, III, VIII. - Above 691, Q. 8.

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.

Question 4. Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when the danger of death is pressing, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems; for this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death for battling spiritual enemies; therefore it is not fulfilled by communion made before the illness. Nevertheless, many deny this, because the precept of communion has already been fulfilled substantially. St. Alphonsus says this opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death happens naturally, because through that brief preceding time it already morally began to be imminent, although it was unknown. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 285. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 49.

Question 5. Is one who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?

Resp. §2. Even if they have been refreshed by holy communion on the same day, nevertheless it is greatly to be advised that, when they have been brought into danger of life, they communicate again (Can. 864).

Question 6. Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger that the sacred species may be rejected together with phlegm is generally absent; and the reason is that the way through which spit is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, that is, the way through which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the windpipe, through which respiration extends even to the lungs. Yet if the cough is so constant that it prevents the host from being able to be transmitted into the stomach, then communion will have to be abstained from. Thus the Roman Ritual. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 292.

Question 7. Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from continual vomiting?

Resp. Certainly it cannot be given in doubt whether the sick person is about to vomit the sacred particle, because then the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of irreverence. Therefore the whole question is practical and is reduced to assigning the best rule for knowing whether a danger of this kind is present. Now the first rule is to ask the physician, if one is present; the second is to test whether the sick person can retain the particle, by giving him some food or drink, and especially some unconsecrated particle; the third is to see whether the sick person has been free from vomiting for six hours. But this last rule must be applied with discretion, and it must be examined whether the cause of vomiting is some irregular irritation of the stomach or rather regular and periodic. If the first, six hours suffice, indeed even four or three, so that it can prudently be judged that the stomach is settled; if the other, they do not suffice, and it must be investigated how often that periodic vomiting recurs. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 291. - Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, pp. 157 and following.

Question 8. In danger of death, can or must communion be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, those deprived of the senses, the obsessed, and finally epileptics?

Resp. As regards the insane. - If they have been perpetually insane, according to the Roman Ritual communion must never be given to them. But if they often have lucid intervals and have manifested a desire of communicating, communion can be given to them, indeed must be given, with the danger of irreverence excluded. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 9. - St. Alphonsus, n. 302.

As regards the half-witted. - Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; nevertheless it can be given to them more rarely or more frequently according as the prudent confessor shall have judged. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 218.

As regards the delirious. - Communion can be given to them if they are able to communicate, with danger of irreverence excluded; some think it is a good practice if an unconsecrated particle is first given to the sick person, and thus it appears whether he can communicate decently. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 292.

As regards those deprived of the senses. - They indeed are dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not thereby dispensed from the obligation of administering the Eucharist to them, if he has known that they were disposed before the loss of reason. For the sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if there is danger of irreverence or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the host. - Cf. Gousset, n. 232.

As regards the obsessed. - A distinction must be made: communion is to be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be conceded. Indeed, it is expedient that such persons communicate rather often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons.

As regards epileptics. - Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303.

Question 9. Can communion be given to those condemned capitally?

Resp. Affirmatively. Not only can it be given, but it must be given, as is clear from canon 864, §1. In danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion. St. Alphonsus adds that then the precept of fasting does not oblige, nor is it necessary to communicate on the same day of death, although this is laudably done; provided, however, that communion precedes the execution by an hour, so that danger of irreverence is absent. Cf. St. Alphonsus, de quinto praec. Decal., n. 379. - Benedict XIV, de Synod. diaec., lib. 7, cap. 11. - Gousset, n. 230.

I say. For receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, not only is the state of grace required, but also that this state be obtained by the faithful through the sacrament of Penance, except, however, in a case of necessity: namely, when on the one hand supply of a confessor is lacking and on the other communion cannot be omitted without grave disgrace or suspicion, or when a priest must celebrate so that the faithful may assist at Mass on a feast day; for then perfect contrition suffices. The reason of the first is that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and therefore, according to the Apostle, he who receives it unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. But the reason of the second is taken from a positive precept, which rests upon the excellent dignity of this sacrament. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 256 and following.

Let no one whom consciousness of mortal sin burdens, however much he may think himself contrite, approach holy communion without previous sacramental confession; but if necessity urges and supply of a confessor is lacking to him, let him first elicit an act of perfect contrition (Can. 856).

But concerning a priest, Canon 807 establishes thus:

Let a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may think himself contrite, not dare to celebrate Mass without previous sacramental confession; but if, with supply of a confessor lacking and necessity urging, yet with an act of perfect contrition elicited, he shall have celebrated, let him confess as soon as possible.

Question 1. When is supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking 1st. if no confessor is present and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty; 2nd. if no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or to another. But supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if he to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather, every approved confessor must be lacking. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 264.

Question 2. Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in confession, held to confess it before communion?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that a sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly, and therefore it in no way stands in the way of communion to be received. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, in practice not only must a penitent of this kind be received kindly if he returns, and be absolved again, but it is also to be advised that he confess that sin at once, if he conveniently can. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 257; and Hom. Ap., n. 23. - Gousset, n. 249.

Question 3. Is a priest who has celebrated on account of urgent necessity, or a layman who has communicated conscious of mortal sin, with an act of contrition indeed having been premised, but without previous confession, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards the priest, from the precept of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7, where it is read: "But if, necessity urging, a priest shall have celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible." - Cf. Can. 807. - Nor can the word let him confess be understood as if it were counsel, because prop. 38 was condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent, made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But as regards the layman one must respond negatively, because the Council speaks only of priests. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 262.

Question 4. How is that precept imposed upon priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word or another similar one, by common interpretation, is extended to the space of three days. Nevertheless, the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was excused from confession only on account of pressing necessity. Hence if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day and he can confess, he cannot remit confession to another day. But if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day, indeed also on the third day or even the fourth, etc., and through those days themselves supply of a confessor is not present, the priest will be able to celebrate no otherwise than before. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 222.

Question 5. Is a priest celebrating after confession, in which he has inculpably forgotten some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively, whether he remembers the sin after celebration or before celebration, because in neither case can he properly be said to celebrate with consciousness of mortal sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 267.

Question 6. Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity is not urging, or if this urges, when supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that the precept of the Council of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who, under pretext of necessity, defer confession, but not to those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of use; for those who, with contempt of the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would certainly more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266.

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1108, n. 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1149, n. 123.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 4. Is it illicit to spit after communion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1114, n. 62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st. Each year devote themselves to spiritual exercises;

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

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

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

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

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

THIS fasting means abstinence from any eatable thing by way of food, drink, or medicine, even if modest, de consecr. dist. 1. cap. Sacramenta. Required indeed for such receiving is matter that can be altered in the stomach, as Lugo teaches de Euch. disp. 15. sect. 2. num. 28. If, however, per accidens it be not alterable, he violates it. Required also is the form, which is the vital passage into the stomach; for this gives that matter the being of food. From the varied consideration, surely, of this matter and form arise various opinions on the breaking of the natural fast.

So also they say that noxious things are taken even by way of medicine, as poison. Many comprehend under this whatever is passed outside through the mouth; others deny it.

THEY ASK, then, first, whether if the remains of the food of the preceding day, sticking to the teeth, be voluntarily swallowed, they impede communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE assert Vasquez in 3. part. tract. 3. dub. 11. cap. 4. num. 30, Filliucius tom. 1. tract. 4. cap. 8. num. 236, Nungus 3. part. Tom. 1. quaest. 80. art. 8, Paludanus in 4. dist. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. concl. 2. It seems to St. Thomas 3. part. quaest. 80. art. 8. ad 4. Layman inclines so lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6. num. 18.

YET I hold the opposite, as probable, with Suarez 3. part. tract. 3. disput. 68. sect. 4, Henriquez lib. 8. cap. 50, Ioan. de Cruz in direct. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Mosseius in sum. tom. 1. tract. 3. cap. 10. num. 13, Pitigianensis 4. Tom. 1. dist. 18. quaest. 3. art. 3, Camerata de sacram. tract. 4. cap. 10. dub. 19, Rodriquez in sum. Tom. 1. cap. 103. num. 3, Coninch. de sacram. quaest. 80. art. 8. num. 47, Diana part. 3. Tract. 4. resol. 57 — where, however, he says they should be persuaded to spit them out. The reason is, because they fall not by way of food, but of saliva.

HE ADDS, if anyone draw in a little water through the nostrils, which fall into the stomach, it does not impede him from communion, because it has not been passed by way of food or drink. And he teaches, if anything be drawn in by way of respiration, even if it can nourish or alter, as a fly. So also Fagundez de praecep. Eccles. praecep. 3. cap. 5. num. 14, and others. Bassaeus adds V. Communio: if one swallow blood falling from the head, drops of rain, or any particle of broth passed in unnoticed in the preliminary tasting.

THEY ASK secondly, whether if one swallow paper, chalk, a little piece of wood, or something similar eatable, they break the natural fast and impede the most holy communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE many bring forward, cited by Diana p. p. 34 Tract. 14. de celebr. miss. resol. 51, and Parte 4. tract. 4. resol. 104. So Henriquez lib. 8 cap. 49, and in the gloss, line O., Nungus tract. 1. in 1. part. quaest. 50. art. 8, Villalobos tom. 1. tract. 7. diffic. 39, Reginaldus tract. 2. lib. 29 cap. 6. num. 118, Naldus V. Euch. num. 10, Layman lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6, Scortia de sacrificio Missae, lib. 2. cap. 7.

ABOUT Tobacco, if taken in the mouth it be swallowed, the same teach, Diana part. 5. tract. 13. resol. 1, and others.

AND indeed this opinion is to me the more probable, although they hold the opposite as more probable: Sum. Corona part. 4. cap. 4. num. 65, Ioan. de la Cruz p. 2 de Euch. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Ludovicus de S. Iuan: sum. part. 1. Tract. de Euch. cap. 23. concl. 4, Diana loco cit., and part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 38, who concedes the same of the remainder of yesterday's food, with Tabiena V. commun. §. 42, Tannerus tract. 4. disp. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 4. num. 79, Sanchez select. disp. 41. num. 23, Pasqualig. decis. 312, Ioan. Cruz quaest. 5. dub. 4, Baunius punct. cit. tract. 10. quaest. 22 — namely, that if it be swallowed, it does not impede communion.

I. The divine mandate I shall set forth in few words. It is of faith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist received in fact is not necessary with the necessity of means, as Trent defined, session 21, canon 4. Theologians dispute whether at least it be necessary in desire with the necessity of means. Turnely denies it, if the discourse be, he says, of a desire properly so called. The disagreement is rather about the word than about the thing. The more probable opinion is that which St. Thomas teaches out of Augustine, III, q. 73, art. 3: that the Eucharist is necessary in a desire not explicit but implicit. The Eucharist is the end of all the sacraments, which joins us to Christ with a stricter bond, and makes us his members in a peculiar manner. Therefore when a man receives Baptism, he has at least an implicit desire of receiving the Eucharist.

II. QUESTION I. Is the Eucharist necessary by force of a divine precept? ANSWER. All commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 11, and it is proved by Christ's words: Unless you eat the flesh, and so forth; and this was defined by the Council of Trent, session 13. Which precept binds all adults. Since the divine mandate is absolute and universal. Therefore it comprehends all. But this precept presses especially when the article of death is urgent. That the custom of carrying the Eucharist to the sick is most ancient Trent asserts, session 13, chapter 6.

III. QUESTION II. Is one who communicated a little before he fell into danger of death bound to take the sacred Viaticum again? ANSWER. The more probable and more common opinion affirms it. He nevertheless who on the same day communicated out of devotion, if he fall into danger of death, is not bound on the same day to take the Viaticum, because it is the custom of the Church that the Eucharist be not taken twice on the same day. But if anyone, kindled with fervour, being constituted in extreme straits should ask the sacred Viaticum, that he might more securely consult his own salvation, I for my part would administer it to him, although formerly I was doubtful.

IV. He who has once taken the Viaticum, if afterwards he fall into sin, is not bound on the same or on the next day to take the Viaticum. But if he survive several days — say eight or ten — it can be administered to him again.

V. QUESTION III. Does this divine precept oblige more than once? ANSWER. All affirm it. A general rule cannot be prescribed. The Church for the community of the faithful has laid down that communion is to be made once in the year. Each of the faithful, conscious of his own infirmity and fervour, and a prudent confessor who directs his conscience, can determine the frequency of that sacred medicine.

VI. QUESTION IV. Does this divine precept oblige that the Eucharist be taken under both species? ANSWER. The discipline of the Church is to be distinguished from the obligation of the precept. In the Latin Church up to the twelfth century, and in the Greek even now, the discipline obtains of communicating under both species, even as regards laymen. In the fourteenth century certain Bohemians dared to carp at the discipline of the Latin Church, and were called Calixtines, whose audacity the Council of Constance repressed in the year 1415, and laid down that the introduced discipline was to be observed; and at last the Council of Trent, session 21, canon 1, defined that communion under both species is not necessary to laymen, or to those not sacrificing, either with the necessity of the sacrament or with the necessity of a divine precept. For John says, chapter 6: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. The tradition of the Church also supports it. See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 9.

VII. QUESTION V. What are the effects of the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the increase of grace. Second, an intimate conjunction with Christ and with the brethren. Third, the delight of the spirit and an inward sweetness of heart. Fourth, spiritual strength against the temptations of the demon, the prestiges of the world, and the enticements of sins. Fifth, the remission of venial sins. Sixth, the remission of punishment. Seventh, the repression of the senses and appetites. Eighth, the seed of immortality and of resurrection. Ninth, final perseverance, upon which eternal life follows.

I. There is a twofold kind of dispositions. The first removes impediments, namely mortal sins; the other adorns the soul with virtues. Of the first at present. The innovators require faith alone for a disposition; but their error Trent proscribed, session 13, canon 5. The first disposition is cleanness from mortal fault. He who after absolution remembers that he committed some crime which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not confess, ought before communion to confess it, as the common and true opinion teaches. There are not lacking theologians, and indeed of great name, who require immunity from affection to venial sins, that the fruits of the Eucharist may be perceived. Others teach that affection to venial sins diminishes indeed the fervour, but does not hinder the fruits of the Eucharist. This disagreement ought to stir us up to detest venial crimes themselves, since according to all they diminish the fervour of charity.

II. QUESTION I. Is the precept of sending confession before, on the part of one who is in mortal sin, divine or human? ANSWER. Many contend that it is merely human. Theologians commonly affirm that it is divine, declared by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, saying: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice; and again, Holy things are to be handled holily.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be thought of the interpretation of some upon the Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible? ANSWER. If a priest, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated in mortal sin being contrite, Trent commands that he confess as soon as possible. Not a few began after their manner to dispute whether this be a precept or a counsel. Some affirmed it to be merely a counsel; but their opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 38: The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.

IV. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the interpretation of Frs. La Croix, Viva, and others upon the aforesaid decree of Trent? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4, writes here: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sayrus, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizzari, and Leander teach — in this almost all agree, says Moya, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept, if he has the opportunity of a confessor and has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion teaches. … But Trent speaks of him who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was an opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore then he is not bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is more probable.” Hence the same opinion Fr. Viva defends in his Treatise on Proposition 38 of Alexander VII, no. 12, and in his Course of Theology, question 7, no. 3.

V. Trent commands that a priest who, urgent necessity pressing and destitute of the opportunity of a confessor, celebrated in mortal sin, confess as soon as possible: since by natural and divine law holy things are to be handled holily. But he who, no necessity urging, having the opportunity of a confessor, out of mere malice celebrates in mortal sin, confession being neglected — he, say the cited probabilists, is not bound to confess as soon as possible, because in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion says. Unless this be an unheard-of paradox, I confess that I know nothing. The precept of Trent declares natural and divine law, that holy things are to be handled holily, and defines that if, urgent necessity pressing and the opportunity of a confessor being lacking, a priest cannot confess before the celebration of Mass, he confess as soon as possible. This Tridentine precept, as I have said, is a declaration of natural and divine law. Therefore if a priest is bound to confess as soon as possible who, compelled by necessity, for the avoiding of scandal and that he might succour the faithful people, celebrated in mortal sin, by a far and by the very greatest right is that priest bound to confess as soon as possible who, pressed by no necessity but out of mere malice, celebrated in mortal sin. And this is so evident that a common sense void of prejudices suffices for perceiving this truth. Further, if in a truth so clear prejudices bewitch even pious and learned authors themselves, what is to be expected in questions ambiguous and entangled with a coil of difficulties?

VI. QUESTION IV. What of the contrition which Fr. Tamburini teaches is to be sent before by a layman conscious of mortal sin, urgent necessity pressing? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56, writes the following opinion: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty. For it is enough if he elicit it (contrition) immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking or eating is substantially made when we swallow or transmit the food, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate — therefore I think it MOST PROBABLE that it is enough that the act of contrition be made while the most holy host is held in the mouth. So de Lugo, and Hurtado, and others.”

VII. While we set forth these and like opinions, now to be derided, now to be deplored, outcries against us are redoubled. But I beseech and adjure even the prudent probabilists themselves to determine whether it is to be permitted that these unheard-of paradoxes be read by Christian readers without a previous warning by which they may beware of them. What? The most holy Host of Christ in the mouth, and the devil reigning in the heart? In the same man God and the devil? Shall a wicked man receive the Sacrament in his mouth before he transmits the host into his stomach, and then elicit an act of contrition — because while it is in the mouth the taking is inchoate, and when we transmit it the eating is substantially made? Who can bear without tears that these things are proposed and persuaded to the Christian people as most probable, not to say probable, documents of morals? Tamburini teaches with the other probabilists that even imperfect contrition itself, formed by charity merely inchoate, is so difficult that he brands with the note of Rigorism the opinion requiring contrition of this kind; and now he reckons it so easy that between the taking of the host inchoatively and the swallowing consummatively he judges that not an imperfect but a perfect contrition can be elicited. It is enough to have described the deplorable figments of those opinions: for they do not deserve to be confuted at greater length.

VIII. QUESTION V. What is to be said of the opinion of Frs. Vásquez and Leander asserting that a priest sinning mortally in the very celebration of Mass is not bound to confess as soon as possible? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 1, proposes this question in these words: “Whether a priest who in the very act of sacrificing remembers a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, before he approached to celebrate the sacrifice … but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or remembers one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, Sayrus, Diana.”

IX. What law can stand, such interpretations being admitted? He who in the very celebration of Mass perpetrates a mortal crime is not bound to confess as soon as possible? That paradox is unheard-of by me. Nor less lax is the other opinion of Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, no. 63, and of Leander, question 8, who teach that a layman standing at the table of communion can receive the Eucharist without sending before the confession of a mortal sin which he remembers, even if he could withdraw without scandal: because, says Leander, since the sacred action has been in a manner begun, he ought not out of reverence for the Eucharist to withdraw from that divine table. So teach and resolve the cases of the times the Doctors of the times. But in very truth the Gospel of Christ cries out — or rather Christ by the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 5: If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering (N.B.) before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. What say the cited casuists to this? Here the discourse is not of the taking of the most sacred body of Christ, but of the offering of a gift. The discourse is not of a mortal sin of the offerer, but of anger and indignation against another brother. Oh how far distant is the Theology of Christ from the theology of those casuists! Tamburini and Leander teach that one is not to withdraw from the sacred table, even if no scandal be feared; others more cautious teach that then one is not to withdraw when scandal is feared. But that scandal which the casuists exaggerate Christ teaches in the praised text is to be contemned. Do not we all approach the tribunal of Penance? Is the sacrament of Penance to be passed over, lest men say that we are guilty of crimes? That a Christian man or woman withdraw from the sacred table exhibits not scandal but an argument of uprightness. For bystanders infer: that man remembered some fault, or became doubtful, and was unwilling with a perplexed conscience to receive the most sacred body of Christ. Therefore the scandal which many casuists obtrude is chimerical. So many priests, so many Christian men and women bring in the most grave scandal by their frequent celebrations and communions, from which they exhibit no fruit and no reformation of morals. So many forward women, shameless and stripped of modesty, who continually sport with their little lovers, who frequent dances, theatres, games, and comedies, and at the same time approach the altars, who attempt to join Christ with Belial and light with darkness — these bring in the most grave scandal to the Christian people. This is the scandal in the taking away of which we must be wholly engaged.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Tamburini teaching that a case can be given in which one communicating in mortal sin does not commit a new sin? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71, that he may open a way for himself to making sacrilege honourable, animates his reader with these words: So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin. But lest my adversaries after their manner should be able to impose upon the unskilled, as though I reported the opinions of the casuists truncated, I shall transcribe in just so many words Tamburini's decision, which is of this kind.

XI. “For from the things said above it is established that a priest who, Mass having been begun in good faith, remembers himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or experiences that act to be exceedingly difficult for himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, and it is most difficult to leave the sacrifice begun on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with a conscience of this kind of mortal sin, and with that sorrow which he can then elicit, he pursue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, Hurtado, de Lugo. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so closely as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to withdraw from a sacred rite begun. But then a priest of this kind will not acquire grace; yet nevertheless he will not sin.”

XII. It is a truth of faith that God does not command impossible things, as Trent defined, session 6, chapter 11. If the cited authors assert that the precept of contrition is impossible, they teach Lutheranism and Jansenism. If they grant that the precept is possible, then those who do not fulfil it sin. Therefore false and full of scandal is the doctrine of Tamburini and of the others asserting that a case is given in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.

XIII. Fr. Tamburini proceeds in the same place, no. 73: And the same will hold of a layman who, now about to receive the sacred synaxis before the cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, should remember a mortal sin, and could not be contrite: so there; for the reason is the same. LET THE SCRUPULOUS AND THOSE TIMOROUS OF MIND NOTE THIS DOCTRINE. Here the doctrine, which Fr. Viva himself adopts, is not to be refuted with words, but to be deplored with tears.

XIV. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the other dispositions necessary for the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the natural fast prescribed by the statute of the Church is necessary; and this discipline has a most ancient origin. The very many disputations which some raise I pass over. The sick, urgent danger of death pressing, can communicate not fasting, as also a priest on account of the necessity of completing a sacrifice left imperfect by another seized by death or by some other unexpected chance.

XV. QUESTION VIII. Is it lawful to approach the Eucharist after conjugal intercourse? ANSWER. Several councils and the Fathers commonly persuade that for a day before communion spouses observe continence. Very many testimonies being omitted, I shall bring forward one or another. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, says: Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. Like things St. Peter teaches, Epistle 1, chapter 3. The Tridentine Catechism, part 2, chapter 4, § 58, says: The dignity of so great a Sacrament demands that those who are joined in matrimony abstain some days from the company of their wives, admonished by the example of David, who, being about to receive the loaves of proposition from the priest, professed that he and his young men had been pure from wives for three days. Extremes in the adornment of the body are also to be avoided. Squalor is unbecoming and savours of irreverence. An honourable cleanliness ought to shine in the garment, in the countenance, and in the hands. But those women are altogether to be kept from holy communion who with bared bosom, and with vain garments displaying luxury, pride, and worldly pomps, do not blush to approach so great a Sacrament. Their odours, powders, and counterfeited beauty exhale from afar the stench and filth of their souls.

XVI. QUESTION IX. What is to be said of frequent communion? ANSWER. There came forth in the year 1745 at Paris a book entitled The Spirit of Jesus Christ and of the Church upon Frequent Communion. This work, published by Fr. Pichon, several most learned bishops proscribed by their letters, and the Roman See condemned it. To refute its lax paradoxes in this compendium is not expedient. Extremes in this matter, as in the rest, are to be declined. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 6, says: The holy Synod indeed would wish that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by a spiritual affection but also by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. Would that the morals of Christians were such that the wishes of that Council could be committed to execution.

XVII. Lax paradoxes in this matter also some have taught, as is plain from the following proscribed theses. Venerable Innocent XI condemned the following, no. 56: Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live in the manner of the heathen, is a mark of predestination.

XVIII. Into another extreme others have fallen, whose error Alexander VIII condemned, no. 22: They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving communion before they have done condign penance for their offences.

XIX. Similarly: They are to be kept from holy communion in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God and free from every admixture.

XX. The rules of frequent communion Innocent XI prescribed in his decree Cum ad aures, which you can read in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 11, as also several testimonies of the holy Fathers for a full instruction in this matter, which you can read in the place cited; there you will find the clearest arguments against sacrilegious communions.

Titius, a missionary priest in England, wishes to know whether he may bring Holy Communion to Mary, a parishioner who is not fasting, who suffers from consumption and must take milk every two hours by the physician’s prescription, although she is not confined to bed. Sometimes, feeling better, Mary comes to Mass at nine o’clock in the morning and would then like to receive Holy Communion even though not fasting, if this is permitted. Titius himself also, being old and sometimes suffering from influenza and its aftereffects, is compelled to abstain from saying Mass for two or three months. He could, however, sometimes celebrate Mass if it were lawful to take extract of meat or something of this kind beforehand; concerning this he doubts and asks to be instructed. Hence it is asked:

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

2. What did the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Dec. 7, 1906, concede?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

This law forbids those to receive Holy Communion who have taken any food or drink whatever after midnight. Those who are dangerously ill are excepted from the obligation of this law.

2. What mitigation was permitted by the decree S. C. C., Dec. 7th, 1906?

The dispositive portion of the decree is as follows: “ The infirm who have been lying in bed for a month without a certain hope of soon recovering may, by the counsel of the confessor, receive Holy Communion once or twice in a week, if it is about the infirm who dwell in pious houses where the Holy Sacrament is kept, or who enjoy the privilege of celebrating Mass in the domestic oratory; once or twice in a month for others, even if they have drunk something in the manner of a drink or tea.” By a subsequent decree dated March 6th, 1907, it was explained that the term decumbunt comprised those “although afflicted with grave illness and, in the physician’s judgment, unable to observe the natural fast, nevertheless cannot remain in bed or can rise from it for some hours of the day.”

The conditions therefore required for the application of this decree are: (a) The person should have been seriously ill for a month, and there should be no reasonable hope of recovery within a short time, say, a month. (b) With the advice of the confessor Holy Communion may be received once or twice a week if the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the house where the sick person lies, in other cases once or twice a month, (c) Though something liquid has been taken after midnight, e.g., tea, chocolate, soup, even if an egg has been broken up in it.

3. The case. From what has been said it is clear that Titius may take Holy Communion to Mary even though she has taken milk every two hours after midnight.

The decree is not applicable to those who can and do go to Church not fasting, according to the interpretation put upon the decree at Rome, and followed by approved authors. “ It appears that the Holy Eucharist must be brought to the chamber,” says Génicot, (II, n. 202. ed. 6a).

The mitigation of the law is granted to the faithful who wish to communicate, not to priests who wish to say Mass.

Titius, a priest who alone serves a certain Mission, suffering from a cough, is accustomed to put a lozenge into his mouth so that he may sleep at night. One night, awakened as the clock struck twelve, without intending it he swallowed some of the lozenge that still remained in his mouth. He begins to doubt whether in the morning it is lawful to celebrate the Mass which the people are bound by precept to hear (for it was Sunday), or whether he ought to dismiss them without Mass. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for that eating by which the fast prescribed before Holy Communion is broken?

2. Can smallness of matter, either with regard to the food taken or with regard to the time after twelve o’clock, be admitted in this law of fasting?

3. Can intention cause a fast to be broken that otherwise is not broken?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for a violation of the fast prescribed before Holy Communion?

What is taken must have the nature of food or drink or medicine; it must be from without the mouth; and it must be taken in the way food is usually taken, not e.g., by respiration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

2. Is lightness of matter allowed in this law either in what is taken or in the time?

No, the law admits of no lightness of matter, for the prohibition does not fall on the food or time, but on the receiving of Holy Communion after taking the least food or drink after midnight.¹

3. Can the intention cause the fast to be broken when otherwise it would not be broken?

According to the rubric of the Missal (De Def., IX, 3) if a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently while washing the mouth it does not hinder Holy Communion. And theologians apply the same rule to a drop of rain, or soup mixed with the saliva and swallowed inadvertently. In these cases the common opinion, which St. Alphonsus says is certainly to be held, maintains that if this is done intentionally the fast is broken.²

2 Theol. Mor., lib. vi, 279.

4. The case. Midnight is past after the first stroke of twelve. Titius therefore after twelve swallowed a piece of the pastille which still remained in his mouth. In doing this he broke his fast even though he did it unintentionally, for the sucking of the pastille must be regarded as a continuous action of eating which did not finish until after twelve.³

3 Ibid.

If the necessity for the people to hear Mass is the only reason why Titius should say it, he should abstain from saying it, and explain the reason to the people. He may have prayers and give them a sermon. If he has reason to fear scandal or grumbling on account of his acting in this way he may say Mass, according to a sound opinion.⁴

4 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 111.

Philip confesses on Saturday evening with the intention of receiving Communion on the following day. That night, however, while conversing familiarly with friends, he spoke about the secret crime of a certain third person. Afterwards he doubted vehemently whether perhaps by doing this he had committed a mortal sin. Still doubtful, on the next morning he went to church with the intention of confessing his doubt before Mass to the priest who alone served the church. When, however, he reached the church, behold, the priest had already begun Mass. Philip was unwilling to omit Holy Communion, and he had no other confessor to whom he could confess. In such great straits he thought that he could approach Holy Communion with the others during Mass, which he did. On the following Saturday, however, agitated by scruples, he came again to confession, declared what he had done, and asked what he ought to have done. Hence it is asked:

1. What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

2. How and concerning whom is that Tridentine phrase “Let him confess as soon as possible” (Session XIII, chapter 7) to be understood?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

The dispositions of soul required for Holy Communion are the state of grace and a good and upright intention.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 106 ff.

2. How and of whom is the precept of the Council of Trent to be understood: “ Let him confess as soon as possible ” (Sess. XIII, c. 7)?

This is a grave precept imposed by the Council on those priests who though conscious of mortal sin and sorry for it did not go to confession before saying Mass on account of not having a confessor to whom they could confess.²

2 Ibid., p. 107.

3. The case. Philip was in doubt whether he was in the state of grace or not, because he was not sure that he had not committed a mortal sin of detraction since his last confession. As he was in doubt, he was not conscious of mortal sin, and only those who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to go to confession before Holy Communion. However, as the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and does not of itself certainly confer grace on a soul deprived of the supernatural life of God’s grace, those who receive it are bound to have moral certainty of their freedom from mortal sin in order that the sacrament may be fruitful. Therefore, one who doubts whether he is in the state of grace, although he is not bound to go to confession, yet he is bound to elicit an act of contrition so that thereby he may make sure, morally speaking, of being in the state of grace. Philip, therefore, should have done this, though he did not sin in omitting it, because he was in good faith.

Caius, a missionary Rector in England, sinned at night with the maidservant. Obliged to celebrate Mass the next morning, since he was unwilling to confess to the young priest who was his curate, inasmuch as the curate would suffer scandal and might suspect who the accomplice was, and since no other priest lived within three miles, he elicited an act of contrition and celebrated Mass. Afterwards, however, he was tormented by scruples when he considered that he could have confessed to the curate without making any mention, or making only some mention under general terms, of the sin with the maidservant, or at least could have gone by tramway to another priest without grave inconvenience. Hence it is asked:

1. What integrity is required in confession, and by what law?

2. Must the integrity of confession be procured even by revealing the sin of an accomplice?

3. What obligation rests upon a priest who, burdened by mortal sin, has celebrated with contrition alone because of the lack of a confessor?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of integrity is required in confession and by what law?

Applied correction from Woywod’s opening insert: Case IV, page 34.—The New Code in Canon 867 settles this question concerning the giving of Holy Communion on Holy Saturday. This Canon states that Holy Communion may not be given on Holy Saturday except during the Holy Mass or immediately after it but at no other time.

In a certain parish church in a large city it has been the practise for many years to distribute holy Communion to the faithful during the solemn Mass on holy Saturday. Some priests maintain that this practise is forbidden by the Church, while others contend that it is lawful. Both sides appeal to authorities in support of their contention. What seems to you to be the truth of the matter? Is it lawful to give holy Communion to the faithful on holy Saturday?. Answer: It may be asked whether it be lawful to give holy Communion to any and all of the faithful who present themselves during the Mass on holy Saturday, and whether it be lawful to give holy Communion to the faithful after the Mass on that day. And finally, in case the Mass were postponed until a late hour on holy Saturday, would it be permitted to give holy Communion before the Mass, even very early, holy Saturday morning?

First, as to the lawfulness of giving holy Communion during the Mass or after the Mass on holy Saturday. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether it be lawful or not. Pope Benedict XIV maintained that it was not lawful (cf. De sacrificio Missae, l, sé, ch. 18). In our own day Cardinal Gasparri, one of the greatest living canonists, maintains that it is not lawful, except where there exists an immemorial custom. On the other hand, there are eminent authors who claim that it is lawful to give holy Communion to any and all of the faithful on holy Saturday. Let us examine a little more minutely these conflicting opinions. It is certainly forbidden to distribute holy Communion on Good

Friday, except as viaticum, because Good Friday is a non-liturgical day (dies aliturgicus), on which it is forbidden to say Mass or to give holy Communion. Now, some authors, as Cardinal Gasparri, extend the prohibition to holy Saturday also. “A similar prohibition (as on Good Friday), but less grave, exists for Holy Saturday; namely, according to the ancient discipline, Holy Communion was not distributed to the faithful on Holy Saturday, since this day was aliturgical and the faithful were accustomed to communicate only during Mass. This discipline must be observed even today” (Gasparri, De s. Euch., n. 1090).

That is to say, according to Cardinal Gasparri, the faithful did not communicate until the Mass on holy Saturday, which was not celebrated until the night between holy Saturday and Easter Sunday; because holy Saturday, like Good Friday, being a non-liturgical day, it was forbidden to say Mass or to give holy Communion on that day. The Mass that is now celebrated holy Saturday morning, really belongs to Easter Sunday morning, but has been gradually advanced, until now it is celebrated holy Saturday morning. Now it is maintained that when the Mass that originally was celebrated in the night between holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, was advanced to holy Saturday morning, the character of the day, which is non-liturgical, was not changed, and therefore the faithful may not receive holy Communion on holy Saturday. Although the Mass was advanced, the holy Communion was not advanced, and its distribution therefore on that day is not permitted. An exception, of course, is made for those places where a custom has grown up of giving holy Communion. But where the custom does not exist from time immemorial, the practise is forbidden. Gasparri cites the reply of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 22, 1837, to prove that while holy Communion is allowed in such places where the custom exists of distributing it on holy Saturday, still as a rule it is forbidden:

“The doubt having been proposed, 2, since the prayers both preceding and following the Communion of the Mass of Holy Saturday speak in the plural, it is therefore asked whether it is lawful in the same Mass, after the celebrant’s Communion, to administer the Eucharist to the faithful, and especially with particles consecrated in the same Mass”; the Sacred Congregation of Rites replied: “To 2: No, unless a custom exists.” But to this it must be answered that in the latest edition of the authentic decrees of the Congregation of Rites, this particular decree is omitted.

On March 22, 1806, the Congregation of Rites being asked: “Whether it is lawful on Holy Saturday during the solemnities of Mass to distribute the Holy Eucharist to the faithful, and whether by that reception of Holy Communion the Easter precept is fulfilled”; the Sacred Congregation of Rites replied: “Yes to both.” While this answer of the Congregation of Rites would seem to decide the question in favor of Communion on holy Saturday, in reality it does not, because an immemorial custom of distributing holy Communion to the faithful on holy Saturday existed in the diocese to which this decree was issued. However, the decree does seem to favor the opinion that it is lawful to give holy Communion to the faithful on holy Saturday, because, although issued in reply to a request for information from a place where the custom existed of giving holy Communion on holy Saturday, nevertheless the decree abscinds altogether from the fact that such a custom existed.

In former times, when the Mass that is now said on holy Saturday morning was said in the night between holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, it is certain that the faithful received holy Communion in it. The Roman ordo I, which gives the rites followed in or about the time of Pope Gregory the Great, A. D. 600, says: “Regarding little children it is provided that after they have been baptized (on holy Saturday) they shall take no food nor shall they be nursed until they have received the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and every day during Easter week, they shall go to Mass and their parents shall make the offering for them, and they shall all communicate.” “But concerning little children it must be provided that, after they have been baptized, they receive no food and are not nursed before they receive the Sacrament of the Body of Christ; and on every day of Easter week they are to go to Mass, and their parents are to make the offering for them, and all are to communicate” (Mabillon, Musaeum italicum, tom. ii, p. 28).

As the Mass was gradually advanced until it is now said on holy Saturday morning, it seems but reasonable to conclude that the Communion of the faithful, which took place in it, was advanced also and that at present it is lawful to give holy Communion to the faithful in the Mass or after it on holy Saturday, since it is lawful to say Mass at all on that day, and since the holy Communion is not forbidden by any positive law or decree of the Sacred Congregation.

As we have just stated, Gasparri and others deny that the Communion of the faithful was advanced with the Mass on holy Saturday, and maintain that holy Saturday is still a non-liturgical day, dies aliturgicus, as far as holy Communion is concerned, but there seems to be no positive evidence available in support of their contention.,

In the sacramentary of Pope Gelasius, which dates back to the end of the fifth century, the Rite of the Mass for holy Saturday is explained. The prayers of the Mass of holy Saturday, as therein contained, presuppose that hosts were offered by the neophytes and that the faithful communicated. The secreta of the Mass explicitly supposes that hosts had been offered by the reborn and that the faithful had communicated. And the post-communio of the Mass says: “Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God, that, filled with the divine gift, we may be renewed both by the sacred mysteries and in our conduct.”

In the Mass for holy Saturday, as contained in the Roman Missal, the secreta supposes that offerings of hosts have been made by the faithful; and it must reasonably be supposed that these hosts were offered in order that they might be consecrated and received in holy Communion. The post-communio of this Mass supposes others besides the celebrant of the Mass had been filled with the paschal Sacraments.

Against Benedict XIV, who says that the custom of not receiving holy Communion on holy Saturday is common throughout the Church, it is maintained that the custom is not general. There are many cities and dioceses where the custom of receiving holy Communion on holy Saturday has been established from time immemorial, “as every year I see it done here in the city of Paris,” says Father Many, S.S., Professor of Canon Law at S. Sulpice, Paris (Praelectiones de Missa, p. 315).

Many authors, as Merati, Cavalieri, St. Alfonsus, etc., say that where there is question of acts within the discretion of the agent, that is to say of acts that may be performed or omitted as one pleases, the omission of the act, even if continued for a long time, does not establish a custom against the act, unless the act was discontinued expressly for the purpose and with the intention of creating an obligation to discontinue the act. Such an intention is never taken for granted, but must be proven to have existed. To prove it, however, is extremely difficult.

“When there is question of merely optional acts, that is, acts which may be performed or omitted at will, as is Communion on Holy Saturday, the omission of the acts, even when prolonged for a long time, does not establish a custom unless they are omitted with the intention of introducing an obligation, which is difficult to prove and is never presumed” (ibid., p. 316. Reiffenstuhl, in tit. De consuetudine, n. 129-130).

Therefore, although it may be true that there exists in many places a custom of not receiving holy Communion on holy Saturday, nevertheless we are not warranted in attaching to such a custom a binding force, neither in the places where the custom does not exist, nor even for the districts where it does exist.

O’Kane, in his treatise on the rubrics, p. 290, considering the various decrees of the Congregation of Rites on this matter, endeavors to reconcile their apparent contradictions by saying that holy Communion may be freely administered on holy Saturday after Mass, but not during Mass, unless there be a custom in favor of it. It can not, however, he continues, be administered before Mass, as the permission does not extend to this, and the rubrics of the missal clearly suppose that before Mass there are no particles consecrated, except those reserved for the sick. Nor is the ciborium brought back to the tabernacle until after the Mass.

With this latter statement, that holy Communion should not be given before the Mass on holy Saturday, we fully agree. No authority justifies such a practise, and, furthermore, it is not in keeping with the rubrics of the Mass for the day.

Father Noldin, S.J., says:

“It is lawful, however, on this day to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful, even to satisfy the Easter precept, both during the solemn Mass and outside it, but not before the ringing of the bells; for after the Gloria has been sung, the prohibition against distributing Holy Communion to the faithful ceases” (De Euch., n. 202).

This is not altogether correct, because the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of March 22, 1806, to which he appeals for his assertion that Communion may be given during the Mass and after it, on holy Saturday, was issued to a parish where the custom existed for a long time, and the second decree of the Congregation of Rites, July 28, 1821, which he cites says nothing about holy Communion on holy Saturday.

To sum up, therefore, we think that it is not permitted to give holy Communion to the faithful before the Mass on holy Saturday. There is no doubt but that holy Saturday was formerly a nonliturgical day on which it was forbidden to say Mass or to communicate the faithful. The Mass, however, of holy Saturday night, being advanced to holy Saturday morning, is the only reason for advancing the Communion of the faithful that was given in it. It would seem to follow, therefore, that the Communion should not be advanced to an earlier hour than the Mass itself. This is also in keeping with the rubrics of the Mass of holy Saturday, and there is no decree of the Congregation of Rites authorizing it.

But the same cannot be said against distributing holy Communion to the faithful during the Mass, or after it. No decree of the Sacred Congregation positively forbids it. It is clearly permitted wherever the custom prevails of giving it. In fact the decree of March 22, 1806, may be construed, and by some is construed, so as to permit it, whether the custom exist or not. Therefore, in practise we consider it lawful to give holy Communion during the Mass, and after the Mass, on holy Saturday, but not before it.

A parish priest was called up early in the morning on Holy Saturday and told that a strange gentleman wanted to go to confession. He hurried to the church and heard the confession, and then, seeing no one else about, prepared to go home again. The stranger, however, who was certainly not well acquainted with the rubrics of Holy Saturday, went up and asked the priest to give him Holy Communion. The latter, being well versed in all the rules of the rubric, knew that on Holy Saturday Communion may be given only after the High Mass (S. R. C. die 7 Sept., 1850), or during it, after the celebrant's Communion (S. R. S. die 22 Mart., 1806, die 23 Sept., 1837). (Canon 867 of the new Code states that on Holy Saturday Holy Communion cannot be given except at the Holy Mass or immediately afterwards.)

He drew the stranger's attention to these regulations and said he could not give Communion before ten o'clock. The man replied that he was obliged to leave by the next train, and if he could not receive Communion at once, it was very doubtful whether he would be able to do so at all that Easter.

The priest soon made up his mind. On the one hand was the strict obligation of Easter Communion, that is quoad substantiam a divine command, and a general law of the Church, and on the other the decisions of the Congregations. He went into the sacristy to put on his rochet and stole, in order to give the stranger Communion, but meanwhile an old woman went up to the Communion rail and knelt beside the man. She knew well enough that it was not the custom in that church to give Holy Communion on Holy Saturday. What was the priest to do?

Simply to pass her by and behave as if she were not there would be a very delicate matter. People would be apt to think that the priest was willing to give Communion to the elegant stranger but not to the poor old woman. It would not do to admonish her, for both the place and the occasion were much too sacred. To give an explanation to the people who might be present and to the old woman, to draw their attention to the rules of the Church, and to state the reasons urged by the stranger in support of his request for Holy Communion,—all this would be a quite unusual proceeding, and not one to be recommended.

We must of course respect the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, but like any other laws they may per epikiam lose their binding force. The reasons enumerated above, to which one or two might be added, make an epikia at least probable.

The priest ought therefore to give Holy Communion to the woman, but take care to give subsequently a thorough explanation so as to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.