The Holy Eucharist

THE Council of Trent teaches ‘“‘that in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant—that our Saviour himself always sitteth at the right. hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that nevertheless he be in many other places sacramentally present to us, in his own substance, by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we by the understanding, illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God; for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, he testified in express and clear words that he gave them his own very body and his own blood. And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the veritable body of our Lord and his veritable blood together with his soul and divinity are under the species of bread and wine.”¹ It does not belong to the province of moral theology to prove or to defend this dogma of our Faith. We accept the teaching of the Church that the holy Eucharist is a sacrament in which under the species of bread and wine we receive Jesus Christ, the spiritual food of our souls. It is not merely a sacrament while it is received by the communicant, or while it is consecrated by the priest in Mass.

It is a permanent sacrament, under which our Lord remains present as long as the sacred species remain unchanged. It gives sacramental grace to the soul while it is being swallowed as food, and the divine presence remains in the communicant until the species of bread and wine are corrupted.

Although in the consecration there is a twofold matter and form, yet these constitute only one sacrament, for the species of bread and wine together signify a complete spiritual repast, just as food and drink go to make one meal for the body.

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 1, 3.

The effects which the holy Eucharist produces in the soul are set forth by the Council of Trent: ‘‘ Our Saviour wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with his life who said, ‘ He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me’; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof he is the head, and to which he would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms amongst us.”¹ Besides being an antidote by which we are preserved from mortal sin, it is a very probable opinion that if the Eucharist is received by one in a state of mortal sin, of which he is not conscious and to which he is not attached, that sin will be forgiven. For the sacraments give grace to all who put no obstacle in their way, and such a communicant cannot be said to put an obstacle to the grace of the sacrament. But the entrance of grace expels all mortal sin from the soul. This is the teaching of St Thomas² and many other theologians.

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 2.

² Summa, 3, q. 79, a. 3.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter II. The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

THE remote matter of the Eucharist is twofold—wheaten bread and wine of the grape. Barley bread, or bread made from oats or rye, or any other kind of grain or vegetables or fruits, is invalid matter. The wheaten bread must be baked with water, not boiled, or mere dough. If baked with oil or milk or butter, it will be doubtful matter. The wine must be genuine juice of the grape, not made artificially; wine made from any other kind of fruit will be invalid matter. If the wine has become vinegar, it is changed: substantially, and will not serve for Mass; if it has only begun to get sour, it will be consecrated validly, but the priest who uses it sins grievously. There is some controversy as to whether frozen wine could be consecrated. The rubrics prescribe that if the precious blood is frozen after the consecration it should be liquefied again by putting warm cloths about the chalice and then consumed. It is clear, then, that freezing does not change the species substantially so as to render our Lord no longer present under them; it follows from this that freezing does not prevent the wine being consecrated.

Unfermented bread is used for the Eucharist in the Western Church, and fermented in the Oriental rites. Members of the two Churches are bound under grave precept to follow their respective rites, even if a Western priest were for a time in the East (Can. 816).

Because water came forth from the opened side of our Redeemer with his blood, the Church has commanded that in saying Mass a little water, not more than a fifth or at most a third part of the wine, should be mixed with the wine in the chalice. If the wine of a country is of a poor quality and difficult to keep, a little alcohol may be added to it to preserve it, but not so as to make more than 12 or 18 per cent. of the whole. No other matter may be added either to the flour or to the wine which are used for the Blessed Eucharist, and the greatest care should be taken both by bishops and priests to insure the use of only genuine matter in the confection of this sacrament.

The form of consecration for the bread is, “‘ For this is my body,” and for the chalice, “‘ For this is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Any change in these forms which would make the sense different would also make them invalid.

There is a controversy among theologians as to whether the whole of the above form for the consecration of the chalice is essential, or whether it would be sufficient for the validity of the consecration to say only, “‘ This is the chalice of my blood.” It is very probable that these words alone constitute the essential form for the consecration of the chalice, though, of course, the fuller form must always be used. For these words alone signify the real presence of our Lord; the rest are merely a further declaration or explanation of them. Besides, “ ‘This is my body ”’ constitutes the valid form for the consecration of the bread, and so, by analogy, ‘‘ This is the chalice of my blood ” should constitute the valid form for the consecration of the wine.

For the valid consecration of the Eucharist the priest must not only use the proper matter according to the institution of Christ, but that matter must be physically present, not fat distant from him, when he pronounces the form of consecration. This essential condition is required by the sense of the form, “This is my body,” which indicates that the matter to be consecrated is near the priest, so that it can be indicated by the demonstrative pronoun. Hence a priest in one room could not consecrate bread and wine in another, or behind his back, or, as it would seem, locked up in the tabernacle. Moreover, the matter must be determined by the intention of the priest; he would not consecrate a host which had been left on the altar for him to consecrate, but about which he knew nothing, and which he had no intention to consecrate. A difficulty sometimes arises when a priest has been asked to consecrate the ciborium which is placed on the altar by the sacristan, but which the priest afterward forgets to take and place on the corporal for consecration. What is intended for consecration should be placed on the corporal and on the altar-stone of sacrifice. Inasmuch as this was not done, and it would be wrong to intend to consecrate a ciborium which had not been placed on the corporal, it would seem at first sight that such a ciborium is not consecrated. It is, however, better to make a distinction. If the priest had intended to consecrate the ciborium and during Mass had noticed its presence, though he did not advert to its being off the corporal, it would certainly be consecrated. If, on the contrary, after being notified in the sacristy about consecrating the ciborium, he forgot all about it, and never adverted to its presence on the altar, the consecration will be doubtful; and hosts thus doubtfully consecrated should on no account be given as Communion to the faithful, but should be consecrated conditionally in another Mass, or if they are few in number they might be consumed by the priest before taking the ablutions.

Furthermore, for the lawful consecration of the matter, the hosts must be whole, clean, and of the usual size and shape; the chalice and ciborium must be uncovered, and the consecration must be in Mass as it is prescribed to be said and under both kinds. If the ciborium or chalice are by mistake left covered, the consecration will be valid, for all the conditions required for validity are fulfilled. Hosts to be consecrated should be on the corporal at the offertory when the victim is set aside for the sacrifice, but if this has not been done, they may be received up to the canon, or for grave reason even up to the consecration, but the oblation should be mentally supplied.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter III. The Minister of the Eucharist

ONLY a priest can say Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, and a priest is also the ordinary minister who distributes Holy Communion to others. If, however, the priest is occupied and is unable to give Holy Communion himself, he may delegate faculties to a deacon who is the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. In case of necessity, especially when there is danger of dying without receiving the Viaticum, and there is no priest or deacon to give it, a simple cleric, or even a lay person, may administer Holy Communion to himself or to another. It was not very unusual in the primitive Church for laymen to do this, but nowadays the occasion would seldom arise.

Any priest within Mass, and if he celebrates privately, also immediately before and immediately after Mass, can administer Holy Communion. . This may be done wherever he says Mass, even in a private oratory, unless for some good reason the local Ordinary forbids it in particular cases (Can. 846, 869).

It is the right and duty of the parish priest within his parish to carry Holy Communion publicly to the sick, even though they be not his parishioners. Other priests can only do this in case of necessity, or with at least the presumed leave of the parish priest or of the Ordinary (Can. 848).

To carry Viaticum to the sick, whether publicly or privately, also belongs exclusively to the parish priest. Any priest can carry Holy Communion to the sick privately (Can; 849).

All who have the cure of souls are bound to administer the Eucharist to their flock, not only when these are under an obligation to receive it, but whenever they reasonably ask for it. This obligation is grave, but it does not bind with proximate danger of death from catching disease or from some other cause, nor is a single refusal of the sacrament necessarily a grave sin, for the loss of it may easily be made up on another occasion. Priests who have not the cure of souls may sometimes be bound to administer Holy Communion, not out of justice, but out of charity.

For the lawful administration of Holy Communion the minister must be free from all censures which deprive him of the right to administer it; he must be in the state of grace, and he must follow the rubrics laid down by the Church in the Missal and Ritual.

According to Canon 867, Holy Communion may be administered on any day, but on Good Friday only as Viaticum to the sick. -On Holy Saturday Holy Communion may not be given to the faithful except in High Mass, or immediately after it and in continuation of it.

Holy Communion can only be administered at the times when Mass may be said, unless there be some reasonable cause for doing otherwise.

But Viaticum may be given at any time of the day or night.

The Blessed Sacrament should not be taken from the church except when it is carried to the sick, and then with all the marks of honour prescribed by the rubrics of the Ritual. However, in English-speaking countries the Holy Eucharist cannot be taken to the sick publicly, so it is carried in a small pyx enclosed in a bag specially made for the purpose, and suspended by a cord or chain from the priest’s neck. The priest should have on a stole underneath his coat.

If a consecrated host falls on the ground or on the Communion cloth, the place should be marked and afterward washed, and the water poured into the piscina. If the Precious Blood is spilled, the priest should suck it up as far as possible, and afterward the place should be well washed, scraped, and the water and scrapings poured into the piscina. If a consecrated host fall on the beard or clothes of a communicant, the place on which if fell need not be washed. If it falls on the breast or dress of a woman, she should take it reverently in her fingers and give it to the priest, who will then administer it to her as Communion.

If, while he is still vested, a priest discovers what seem to be particles consecrated in his Mass, the rubrics direct that he should consume them, even though no longer fasting; if he has put off the sacred vestments, or if the particles do not belong to his Mass, they should be reserved for another priest to consume after his own Communion, or placed in the tabernacle.

If the Blessed Sacrament is vomited by a sick man, the sacred species should be carefully separated and placed in a vessel in the tabernacle until they corrupt, when they should be thrown into the piscina. Corruption will more quickly take place, and any disagreeable odour will be avoided, if a little water be put into the vessel.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter IV. Reservation of the Eucharist

THE Ritual prescribes that the parish priest, or one who has the cure of souls, should take care that some consecrated particles, in sufficient number for the use of the sick and for the Communion of the rest of the faithful, should be always reserved in a clean, pyx of solid and decent material, well closed with its own lid, covered with a white veil, and as far as possible in an ornamented tabernacle kept locked with a key. This key should be in the keeping of the priest, not in that of the sacristan or other person. As a rule the pyx or ciborium is of silver, and gilded inside. There seems to be no strict law prescribing that it should be consecrated or even blessed, though there is a form for blessing it in the Ritual.

The Blessed Sacrament, then, must be thus reserved for the use of the faithful in all cathedrals, parish churches, and chapels of ease attached to parochial churches. Religious orders of men and women who take solemn vows have the privilege of reserving the holy Eucharist in their churches. It can only be reserved in other churches or oratories by special indult from the bishop, or from the Holy See in the case of strictly private oratories (Can. 1265).

The Ritual further prescribes that the tabernacle should be decently covered with a veil, that nothing else besides the Blessed Sacrament should be put in it, and that it should be placed on the high altar, or on another if this would conduce to greater reverence toward the holy Eucharist, so that it would be no obstacle to sacred functions or ecclesiastical offices. Several lamps, or at least one, should always be kept burning before it night and day. The lamps should be fed with olive oil, but if the church is very poor the bishop may allow vegetable or mineral oil to be used. Gas or electric lamps should not be tolerated. One lamp must be kept burning under pain of grievous sin.

The veil of the tabernacle should be white or in keeping with the colour of the day, but never black (Can. 1269-1271).

The particles taken for consecration should be fresh, not more than fifteen days or at most a month old, and they should be renewed every eight, or at most fifteen, days, though in this matter regard should be had to the dampness or dryness of the place and season (cf. Can. 1272).

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Ch. V, Article I. The Necessity of the Eucharist

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,

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Ch. V, Art. II, Section I. The Dispositions of the Soul

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.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Ch. V, Art. II, Section II. The Dispositions of the Body

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).

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter I. The Nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass

THE Council of Trent teaches that the Eucharist is not only a sacrament but is also a sacrifice, instituted by our Lord at the Last Supper to represent and perpetuate the memory of the sacrifice which he was about to offer on the Cross, and to apply its fruits to the souls of men. “ He therefore, our God and Lord, though he was about to offer himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that his priesthood was not to be extinguished by his death, in the last supper, in the night in which he was betrayed —that he might leave to his own beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit—declaring himself constituted a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec, he offered up to God the Father his own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and under the symbols of those same things he delivered (his own body and blood) to be received by his Apostles, whom he then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.”¹’4 A sacrifice is defined to be an offering of some visible object made to God by the performance of a sacred action on the part of a priest or publicly deputed minister, by which we confess the supreme lordship of God. A sacrifice, therefore, differs from an ordinary offering in that it is an act of public worship paid to God alone by a duly authorized minister, who, by slaying the victim or in some way changing it, proclaims the supreme dominion of God over all things.

The sacrifice of the Eucharist is called the Mass, and it may be offered for all the ends for which the various sacrifices of the Old Law were instituted by God. It is the supreme act of worship which we pay to God, and under this respect it is called latreutic; it is eucharistic, inasmuch as through it we render thanks to God for his graces and benefits; it is impetratory, inasmuch as it placates the anger of God, which has been roused against sin and the sinner; and it satisfies the justice of God and thus remits the punishment due to sin.

The introductory portion, up to the offertory, is called the Mass of Catechumens, the principal parts of the Mass being the offertory, the consecration, and the communion. There is much difference of opinion among divines as to what constitutes the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. Some place its essence in the communion, others in the consecration, others in the consecration together with the communion. More probably the consecration of both species, by which the death of Christ is mystically represented by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, contains the whole essence of the sacrifice. The question belongs rather to dogmatic than to moral theology.

¹ Trent, sess. xxii, c. I.

The Mass is a representation and a reproduction in an unbloody manner of the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross.

The principal minister, Jesus Christ, is the same; the victim is the same; the only difference is the manner of offering, as the Council of Trent teaches. A rightly ordained priest is the secondary minister, who in the name of Christ and of the Church offers the sacrifice to God. In so far as it is the action of Christ, the Mass produces its effect like the sacraments ex opere operato, and does not depend for its efficacy on the holiness or other dispositions of the priest. But it is also the action of the priest, and of the faithful in whose name he acts; and under this respect it produces its effect ex opere operantis.

All the faithful, by virtue of the Communion of saints, but especially those who assist at Mass, partake of its fruits and benefits. Those fruits are, as we have seen, latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory; so that in the Mass we have a most excellent means of fulfilling all the ends of religion. By it and through it we offer to God the highest act of worship which it is in our power to offer; we give him thanks for his continual benefits to us, we ask in the most efficacious manner for what we and others stand in need of, we propitiate his just anger, and make satisfaction for our sins.

The priest who celebrates performs an action in the highest degree pleasing to Almighty God and meritorious for himself. Moreover, just as prayer may be offered for a special intention, and as the sacrifices of the Old Law were offered for the needs of those who presented the victim, so the Mass also may be celebrated by the priest for some definite intention. The special or ministerial fruit of the Mass is thus applied by the priest according to the intention with which he offers it.

Apart from special prohibitions, the Mass may be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, and whom it can benefit. It may be offered for all the faithful living and dead. The Council of Trent defined that the souls in purgatory are helped by the sacrifices of the faithful, and it is at least theologically certain that the fruits of the Mass are to some extent, which is known to God, applied to them ex opere operato, when Mass is said for that intention. It may also be offered for the conversion of infidels, and in thanksgiving for all the graces and glory which God has bestowed on the blessed in heaven. The damned in hell can receive no benefit from our prayers or sacrifices. According to the new Code, Mass may be offered for anybody, living or dead, but only privately, and with precautions to avoid scandal for excommunicates, and, moreover, only for their conversion, if they are to be avoided as excommunicates (Can. 809; 2262, sec. 2, ii).

Infinite is the worth and dignity of the sacrifice of the Mass, for it is the same as the sacrifice on Calvary, which was capable of redeeming innumerable worlds. This is acknowledged by all theologians, but they are not agreed as to whether the actual fruit derived from a Mass is also infinite. Those fruits are, indeed, greater or less in proportion to the dispositions of the person to whom they are applied. But while St Alphonsus and others are of opinion that a Mass offered for any number of intentions will benefit each one as much as if it were offered for him alone, others hold that the fruit of a Mass is determinate in quantity, and that if it is offered for many each one receives less than he would do if it were offered for him alone. The latter seems the preferable opinion, as it explains better the practice of the Church according to which Mass is offered for individuals, living and dead. If the first opinion were correct, charity would require that every Mass should be offered for all who are in need, for no individual would be the loser; everyone would derive all the benefit from the Mass of which he was capable. This opinion, too, is more in keeping with the nature of the sacraments, of which the fruits seem to be limited in quantity. Otherwise there would be no use in administering several sacraments to a dying person when out of his senses, as is the practice of the Church. -Whichever opinion be true, it is against justice to offer only one Mass in satisfaction of the obligation of saying several, when several stipends have been received. Alexander VII condemned the following proposition: “It is not against justice to receive stipends for many Masses and to say only one. Neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise on oath to him who gives a stipend that I will not offer the Mass for anyone else.”

Nothing, however, prevents the priest from having a second intention, as it is called, even when he says Mass for a stipend. By this second intention the priest intends that if for any reason the Mass cannot benefit him for whom the first intention offers it, then the fruit may go to the second. Or, if in fact it be true that the fruit of a Mass is infinite, and capable of equally benefiting any number of persons, then the priest by his second intention desires that others should benefit by his Mass.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter II. The Application of Mass

THE application of a Mass is the intention with which the priest who says it wishes that it should accrue to the benefit of a certain person or persons. Such a special act is only required for the application of the ministerial or special fruit, as it is called; for the priest himself derives fruit from his Mass, as likewise do those who assist at it, and the faithful in general, without any special application.

As it belongs to one who prays to choose the intention for which he offers up his prayer, so the application of his Mass belongs to the priest. A superior may indeed prescribe the intention for which a Mass is to be offered, but he who celebrates the Mass must make the actual application. This should be done before the consecration is finished, for, according to the common opinion, the essence of the Mass consists in the consecration, and an action cannot receive its direction from an intention which is only formed after the action is accomplished. Probably, however, it will be sufficient if the intention is formed between the two consecrations.

It is not necessary that the intention by which Mass is applied should be actual or even virtual; it is sufficient if it be habitual, or made once for all and not afterward revoked.

When Mass is said for a stipend it is not necessary for the priest to know precisely what the intention is for which he is desired to say Mass; it is sufficient if he say Mass for the intention of the giver of the stipend. Clement VIII forbade priests to offer Mass for the first who should give a stipend for that purpose, and if no one actually intended to ask for a Mass when a priest celebrated with such an intention the Mass would not be applied.

A priest does not sin if he celebrates without any special intention, but it is always better to have one, as then the Mass will be more fruitful. When a priest celebrates for a stipend he may not divide the fruits of the Mass, applying the satisfactory or other fruit to the intention of the giver, and another The Application fruit to some other intention.

The whole fruit of the sacrifice must go to the giver of the stipend. When, however, a Mass is ordered by a superior in thanksgiving for some blessing, it will not be wrong to apply the other fruits for other intentions which in no way interfere with that prescribed by authority.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter III. The Obligation of Applying Mass

Priests may be bound to say Mass for a definite intention on various grounds. Those who hold a benefice are frequently obliged to say Mass, either every day or on certain fixed days, for the intentions prescribed by the founder of the benefice. The conventual Mass, which should be said every day in cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches, ought to be applied for the benefit of the souls of benefactors. The Council of Trent¹ declares that by divine precept it is enjoined on all who have the cure of souls to offer sacrifice for their flock. Bishops, therefore, and regular prelates, who have the full cure of souls, are bound by divine law to say Mass for those committed to their charge. Parish priests are of ecclesiastical institution, and they have not the full cure of souls committed to them. How far their duties extend depends on ecclesiastical law. That law obliges them as well as bishops to say Mass for their flock every Sunday and holy day of obligation, even on those feast-days of obligation which have been suppressed. This obligation is at the same time real and personal. It is real in the sense that if for any reason a bishop or parish priest cannot fulfil it on any particular day, he is under the obligation of providing that it should be fulfilled by some other priest. It is personal in the sense that they must as far as possible fulfil it in person; but if a parish priest be lawfully absent from his parish, he may either apply Mass for his people in the place where he is, or have one applied in his parish by the priest who takes his place (Can. 466, sec. 5).

Quasi-parish priests are bound to offer Mass for their people on the more solemn feasts mentioned in Canon 306.

¹ Sess. xxiii, c. 1, de Ref.

The ecclesiastical superiors of priests may issue a command that Mass be applied for some special intention. When this is done the command must, of course, be obeyed by all whom it concerns. The matter of such a precept is certainly grave, and so there will be a serious obligation of complying with it, if the superior intended to issue a strict precept. This, however, is not always or necessarily the case; and in particular instances, if there is question of determining the gravity of an obligation arising from such a precept, the intention of the superior who gave it will have to be examined according to the ordinary rules of interpretation.

A priest may bind himself by promise to say Mass for a particular intention, and then he will be bound to say it either in justice, or at least out of fidelity, just as he is bound to fulfil his other promises.

Finally, priests are bound in justice to say Mass for the intention of those from whom they have received a stipend for the purpose. The stipend is not the price of the Mass, for this cannot be bought and sold without committing the grave sin of simony. The stipend is given to provide for the support of the priest, who in return undertakes to say Mass for the giver of the stipend. In the early Church the faithful used to bring bread and wine to the priests, who selected from what was offered enough for the sacrifice, and reserved the rest for their support. This was found to be inconvenient, and in course of time the faithful who wished Mass to be offered for their intention contributed a sum of money for the support of the priest. This method, after all, is in substance what St Paul alludes to: “ Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar ?”¹ Simony may, indeed, be committed in transactions concerned with the Mass and stipends, but such sordid practices should not be presumed to be of ordinary occurrence (Can. 824).

Although a priest who accepts a stipend for a Mass does not sell the Mass, yet he enters into a strict contract with the giver of the stipend, and binds himself in justice to apply the Mass for his intention. He will, therefore, commit a grave sin against justice if he fail to fulfil his obligation, and he must restore the stipend which he received, but which he has no title to keep. Not only is the priest who has accepted a stipend bound in justice to say a Mass, but justice also requires that he should observe all the conditions of the contract into which he entered concerning the quality of the Mass, the place, and the time of celebration.

The law of the Church on the matter may be stated as follows: According to the received and approved custom and practice of the Church, it is lawful for any priest who says and applies Mass to receive an alms or stipend for it.

But whenever a priest says Mass more than once in the day, if he has applied one Mass by a title of justice, except on Christmas Day, he cannot receive a stipend for another Mass on the same day, but he may receive some compensation due for some extrinsic reason.

It is never allowed to apply Mass for the intention of someone who will offer a stipend and ask for the application of a Mass but has not yet done so, and retain a stipend given afterwards for a Mass said beforehand. Nor is it allowed to receive a stipend for a Mass which is due in justice and applied by another title. Nor to receive a double stipend for the application of the same Mass. Nor to receive one stipend for the mere celebration of Mass, and another for the application of the same Mass, unless it is certain that one stipend was offered for the mere celebration of the Mass without its application.

Those are called manual stipends which are offered for Masses by the faithful, as it were, out of hand, whether in order to satisfy their own devotion or to fulfil an obligation imposed on them by the will of a testator even in perpetuity.

The stipends of funded Masses are said to be like manual Masses which cannot be applied in the proper place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the laws of the foundation to which they belong, and so by law or by an indult of the Holy See they have to be given to other priests to be satisfied.

Other stipends which are received from the revenue of foundations are called funded or foundation Masses.

Let all appearance even of trading or trafficking with stipends for Mass be altogether avoided.

As many Masses must be said and applied as stipends were given and accepted, however small they were.

The obligation does not cease even though the stipends already received for Mass have been lost without any fault on the part of him who was burdened with their celebration.

If anyone offers a sum of money for Mass stipends without indicating the number of Masses which he wishes to be said, let the number be computed according to the tax of the place where he lived, unless it must be lawfully presumed that his intention was different.

It belongs to the local Ordinary to determine the manual stipend for Masses in his diocese by a decree made in diocesan synod as far as possible; nor is it lawful for a priest to exact a larger sum.

Where there is no formal decree of the Ordinary on the point, let the custom of the diocese be observed.

Religious, even though they be exempt, ought to abide by the local Ordinary’s decree or the custom of the diocese in the matter of the manual stipend of Masses.

A priest may receive a larger stipend for the application of Mass if it is offered voluntarily, and also a less, unless the local Ordinary has forbidden it.

It is presumed that the offerer of a stipend asked only for the application of Mass, but if he expressly stipulated that any circumstances should be observed in the celebration of Mass, the priest who accepts the stipend should comply with the desire expressed.

If the time for the celebration of Masses was expressly determined by the offerer of the stipend, the Masses must by all means be celebrated at that time.

If the offerer expressly determined no time for the celebration of manual Masses— (1) Masses offered for an urgent intention must be offered at the time required by the circumstances and as soon as possible.

(2) In other cases the Masses must be offered within a reasonable time in proportion to the greater or less number of Masses. The decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904, assigned one month from the time of receiving the stipend as the limit within which one Mass is to be said, six months as the limit for one hundred Masses, and a longer or shorter period for a greater or less number.

If the offerer expressly left the time of celebration to the judgement of the priest, the priest may say the Mass at what time he pleases, but no one is allowed to receive more stipends than he can satisfy in one year.

In churches in which, on account of the special devotion of the faithful, stipends for Mass are so abundant that all cannot be said there within the proper time, let the faithful be informed by a notice placed in an open and conspicuous place that the stipends offered will be satisfied either there, when it can be done conveniently, or elsewhere.

Let one who has Masses to be said by others distribute them as soon as may be, but the lawful time for their celebrating begins from the day on which the priest who has to say them received the same, unless the contrary is certain.

Those who have a number of Masses of which they can freely dispose may give them to priests on whom they can rely, provided that they know that they are unexceptionable, or are recommended by the testimony of their own Ordinary.

Those who have given Masses, which they have received from the faithful or which are entrusted to them, to others to be said by them, remain bound by their obligation until they receive notice that the stipends have been received and the obligation accepted.

One who sends manual stipends to others ought to send the whole sum which he has received, unless either the offerer expressly allows him to retain a portion, or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given out of personal considerations, In Masses which are like manual Masses, unless the intention of the founder forbids it, any excess may lawfully be retained, and it is sufficient to send only the manual stipend of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the large stipend takes the place of a part of the dowry of the benefice or pious foundation.

Each and all administrators of pious foundations or persons who are bound in any way to fulfil obligations of having Mass said, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, towards the end of each year must give the Masses which have not yet been said to their Ordinaries according to the method to be defined by them.

This period is to be interpreted in such a way that in the Masses like manual Masses the obligation of handing them over runs from the end of the year within which they ought to have been said; but in manual Masses after a year from the day of undertaking them, unless the offerer determined otherwise.

The right and the duty of seeing that Mass obligations be fulfilled belongs to the local Ordinary in secular churches; in the churches of religious it belongs to their superiors, Let rectors of churches and of other pious foundations, whether secular or religious, in which Mass stipends are wont to be received, have a special book in which they note the number of stipends for Mass received, the intention, the amount of the stipend, and the celebration of the Masses.

The Ordinaries are under the obligation at least every year of examining these books in person or by deputy.

Moreover, local Ordinaries and religious superiors who give Masses to their subjects or to others to be said should at once put down in order in a book the Masses which they have received with their stipends, and should take care, as far as they can, that the Masses be said as soon as possible.

Indeed, all priests, whether secular or religious, ought to note accurately what Mass intentions they have received and which they have satisfied (Can. 824-844).

¹ 1 Cor. ix. 13.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter IV. The Time for Saying Mass

By the common law of the Church Mass may only be said once in the day except on Christmas Day and on the day of the Commemoration of the Holy Souls (November 2), when a priest may say three Masses. Mass may be said on every day in the year, but on the three last days in Holy Week Low Mass is forbidden. On those days in cathedral, collegiate, and parish churches, High Mass should be sung as far as possible. In parish churches where High Mass cannot be sung, but three or four clerics can be got to serve, the ceremonies should be carried out according to the memorial of rites drawn up by command of Benedict XIII. In parish churches where not even this can be done, the bishop may give leave for a Low Mass on Holy Thursday, and he may also, for the convenience of the sick, allow a Low Mass to be said in other churches before the High Mass.

Mass may be said twice by a priest on the same day if the necessity of the people requires it. The bishop is the judge as to when it is necessary, as it will be if the people cannot all get to one Mass on account of the distance at which they live from the church, or because the church is too small to contain them all at once. Moreover, in missionary countries it is quite common for priests to have a special faculty of celebrating twice in the day on Sundays and holy days of obligation. The only cause recognized for the lawful use of this faculty is the necessity of the people, of which again the bishop is the judge, and it is expressly forbidden to take a stipend for the second Mass. The use of the faculty is not lawful when another priest can be got to say the Mass required by the necessity of the people.

According to the present discipline of the Church, Mass may not be begun before one hour before daybreak nor after one hour after midday (Can. 821, sec. 1). The necessity of the people or of the priest is a sufficient reason for celebrating somewhat earlier and later than the ordinary times, and regulars have privileges by which they may for just cause begin Mass much earlier and much later than the legal time.

His Holiness Pius X, by a decree of the Holy Office dated August 1, 1907, graciously permitted a priest in future to say three Masses or only one according to the rubrics on the night of the Nativity in all convents of nuns who have enclosure, and in other religious institutions, pious houses, and clerical seminaries, in which the Blessed Sacrament is habitually reserved. Holy Communion may be administered to all who ask for it at these Masses, and anyone who hears one or more of them satisfies the precept of hearing Mass on that day.¹

¹ Acta Sanctae Sedis, xl, p. 478; Can. 821, sec. 3.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter V. Where Mass may be Said

By ecclesiastical law Mass may regularly be said only in churches and oratories dedicated solely to the service of God, and therein on duly consecrated altars. If, however, there be no church in the place, or if it be in ruins, or if it be too small to hold the number of worshippers, Mass may be said in a tent or in the open air on a portable altar with the leave of the bishop, if time permits of this being asked.

A bishop can erect public oratories in which Mass may be said in religious institutions, in monasteries and convents, in seminaries, hospitals, prisons, and in the bishop’s own residence. bishops also enjoy a personal privilege of saying Mass on a portable altar even in private houses where they happen to be staying. The Council of Trent¹ forbade bishops to allow priests to say Mass in private houses, and in consequence of this law and of repeated answers of the Roman Congregations, it is now settled that bishops have no power to grant leave for purely domestic oratories in private houses (Can. 822).

The power to do this is now reserved to the Holy See.

If there is an oratory duly erected on board ship, Mass may be said there when circumstances permit. The Holy See also grants leave for Mass to be said on board ship on a portable altar even when there is no permanently erected oratory on board. A priest who has obtained and desires to use this privilege is bound to observe the conditions under which it is granted. Those conditions are that the ship is safe and at a distance from shore, that the sea is tranquil, and that another priest or a deacon is at hand to hold the chalice in case of danger when the ship rolls. Mass should not be said in the passengers’ berths unless everything has been arranged so as to show due reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

¹ Trent, sess. xxii, Decree on things to be observed in Mass.

If a church or public oratory has been polluted by the perpetration therein of certain crimes, it is forbidden to say Mass there until it has been reconciled. The crimes which pollute a church, provided that they are certain, notorious and committed in the church itself, are: homicide, the grave and injurious shedding of blood, the putting of the church to impious or sordid uses, the burial therein of an unbaptized ' person or of an excommunicated person after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence (Can. 1172). It is not allowed to celebrate the divine offices, to administer the sacraments, or to bury the dead in a polluted church before it has been reconciled.

If the church is only blessed it can be reconciled by its rector or by any priest with the presumed leave at least of the rector. one If the church is consecrated, its reconciliation belongs to the Ordinary of the place or to the higher superior if it is a church of exempt religious, or to a priest delegated by either of them. But in a case of grave and urgent necessity, the rector of a consecrated church can reconcile it and inform his Ordinary afterwards. The reconciliation of a blessed church can be done with common holy water. If the church is consecrated, the water should be specially blessed, but the priest who is deputed to reconcile the church can bless the water as well as the Ordinary (Can. 1176, 1177).

Private oratories are not polluted, even if any of the above crimes be committed in them, and so they do not need reconciliation.

Mass may not be said in a church or oratory which has lost its consecration. This happens when the greater part of it is destroyed at one and the same time, or when a new portion is added to it and what is added is greater than the old part. A church does not lose its consecration if the roof falls in or if the plastering of the walls is renewed. When a church loses its consecration it must be reconsecrated, or at least blessed, before Mass be again said in it.

When a church is polluted the altars in it are also polluted, but altars do not lose their consecration merely because the churches in which they are placed are desecrated. A fixed altar loses its consecration if the altar-stone is loosed from its foundation, and both fixed and portable altars lose their consecration if the tomb where the relics are placed is violated, or in consequence of a large fracture.

The sacred vessels and vestments lose their consecration when they are broken or torn so as to lose their shape, or when they are put to improper uses or exposed for public sale (Can. 1305). When the sacred vessels or vestments have lost their consecration, they must be mended and be reconsecrated before use.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. II, Chapter VI. Requisites for Saying Mass

Besides what we have seen in the last chapter, the Missal prescribes various other requisites for the due celebration of Mass. The following especially call for mention here: three altar-cloths, two wax candles, the ordinary priestly vestments, a server, a chalice and paten, clean corporal and purificator of linen, and a Missal. The altar linen and the vestments should be blessed by a bishop or by a priest with specially delegated faculties for the purpose.

The chalice and paten should be of silver, and gilded at least on the inside. They should also be consecrated by a bishop. The difficulty of procuring wholly wax candles was reported to the S.R.C., which answered, December 14, 1904, that bishops should as far as possible see that the two candles for Mass should at least have a greater proportion of beeswax than of other material, and that private priests need not anxiously inquire about the quality of the wax.

Of the vestments, at least the alb, chasuble, stole, and maniple are required under grave precept; the amice and the girdle, as also a pall, purificator, and crucifix, are required under a less serious obligation.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Treatise IV. On the Most Holy Eucharist · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Dissertation II. On the Most Holy Eucharist as It Is a Sacrament · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Part I. On the Most Holy Sacrament Considered in Itself

The server should be a Catholic and of the male sex, but if one cannot be procured, a woman may make responses from outside the altar rails (Can. 813).

…and 4 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 3 passages

Vol. II, Bk. III, Treatise IV. On the Most Holy Eucharist

(St. Thomas, III, qq. 73-83; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 189-424; Homo Apostolicus, tract 15).¹

The Most Holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now the foundation of the whole doctrine on this matter is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Hence we shall speak first about the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, then about the Most Holy Eucharist as it is a sacrament, finally about the Most Holy Eucharist as it is a sacrifice. These three things are set forth in these words of canon 801: In the Most Holy Eucharist, under the species of bread and wine, Christ the Lord is contained, offered, and received.

¹ Cf. Billuart, Tractatus de almo Eucharistiae sacramento (VI, vol. VI); Rath, De Eucharistia.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Dissertation II. On the Most Holy Eucharist as It Is a Sacrament

(St. Thomas, III, qq. 73-74; qq. 78-80; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 189-303; Homo Apostolicus, tract 15, nn. 1-58.)

We shall treat first of the Most Holy Sacrament considered in itself, then of its ministration, finally of the reception of the Most Holy Sacrament.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Part I. On the Most Holy Sacrament Considered in Itself

n. 135.

The Most Holy Eucharist is usually defined: The sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord for the spiritual refreshment of the soul.

This definition having been handed down, we shall speak first, briefly, about the existence, then about the essence, then about the effects, finally about the necessity of the Eucharist.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 20 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 5. The Quasi-integral…, Sacrifice

n. 2178.

Definition of Sacrifice

Definition of Sacrifice.—Sacrifice is the offering to God and a real changing of a sensible thing, made by a lawful minister, in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him.

(a) It is an offering or oblation; that is, one makes a gift directly to God Himself. Thus, sacrifice differs from contributions of the people made for the clergy or the church.

(b) It offers a sensible thing, that is, some object perceptible by the senses or hidden under sensible species; for sacrifice is an outward sign of the inner offering, by which the soul itself is subjected to God.

(c) It is made by a lawful minister, for sacrifice is a public act performed in the name of the community, and hence it may be offered only by those who represent the community. St. Paul declares that a high-priest is chosen from men to offer sacrifice, and that no one may take the honor to himself unless he is called as Aaron was (Heb., v. 4).

(d) It is made to God alone, since God alone is our First Beginning and Last End: “He who sacrifices to other gods besides the Lord shall be put to death” (Exod., xxii. 20). Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints means that sacrifice is offered God in thanksgiving for their merits or in petition that we may imitate their virtues. Oblations may be made to men, but sacrifice may be offered only to God.

(e) It is through a real change of the thing offered, which thus becomes the victim of sacrifice; for the supreme act of worship reserved to God acts upon the substance itself of an external thing to signify that the worshipper offers his own being to God. The change in the thing sacrificed consists in its being made sacred, or set apart as the central object in the supreme act of worship.

(f) It is made in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him; that is, it is an act whose direct and proper end is the exercise of the virtue of religion. Thus, sacrifice differs from acts of self-sacrifice such as continence, abstinence, martyrdom, even when they are offered in honor of God, for the direct and proper end of these acts is some other virtue than that of religion. The act of sacrifice may have no purpose except worship, but other virtuous acts have their own ends to make them praiseworthy, even when they are used as acts of worship.

n. 2179.

The Essentials of Sacrifice

The Essentials of Sacrifice.—(a) The outward sign may be said to consist of matter and form. The matter is some sensible thing used as victim, whether it be inanimate (e.g., the bread and wine of Melchisedech), or animate (e.g., the paschal lamb), or human (e.g., Our Lord in His passion). The form is some sensible action that makes the victim sacred by dedicating it to sacrificial oblation (e.g., the breaking of bread, the libation of wine, the offering of the slain lamb, the voluntary and visible acceptance of death by Our Lord). In the Mass Christ is sacrificed, not as existing under His own appearances, but as present under the sacramental species and offered through His representatives; and hence in the Mass the Victim is sensible by means of the species that signify and contain Him, while the dedication by the Supreme Priest is made sensible through the words of the ministering priest who acts for Christ.

(b) The inner thing that is signified in sacrifice is primarily the offering of self to God, in recognition that from Him we have our being and in Him is our happiness. But secondarily it signifies the fruits we derive from union with God (e.g., the benefits of redemption and salvation). Thus, the sacrificial death of Christ is also a symbol of man’s death to sin and life in God (I Peter, iv. 1).

n. 2180.

The Obligation of Sacrifice

The Obligation of Sacrifice.—(a) The internal or spiritual sacrifice is obligatory for all, since all are bound to offer God devotion of will, communion of mind, recognition of His supremacy. (b) The external sacrifice improperly so called, which consists in the practice of works of virtue, is obligatory for all in so far as commanded acts are concerned, but not when virtuous deeds are of supererogation. (c) The external sacrifice properly so called, which consists in an outward sign indicative of internal worship of God, is by natural law necessary, for reason itself shows to man that he is an inferior and dependent being, and so should acknowledge the superiority of God and his own submission by acts suitable to his nature as a being composed of body and soul, and for whom sensible things are signs of spiritual truths.

n. 2181.

Exemptions Based on the Natural Law

Exemptions Based on the Natural Law.—Though the external sacrifice strictly so called is obligatory from natural law, it is not a primary precept of nature, nor does nature determine its details.

(a) Hence, the fact of the obligation may be unknown to an individual, since (though reason indicates it) it is not evident and rests upon a number of premises from which it has to be reasoned out. Unlike the duty of honoring parents, which is immediately inferred from natural principles, the duty of offering sacrifice is only remotely inferred, and hence admits of invincible ignorance (see 320).

(b) The manner of fulfilling the obligation, since not defined by natural law, has to be determined by positive laws, or, in the absence of these, by suitability to the circumstances in which one lives. Before the positive divine law was given, there was no obligatory rite for sacrifice and the oblation was not entrusted to any special body of men, and hence we read that in the times of the patriarchs there was great freedom as to the ceremonies and the ministry employed in sacrifice. But under the Mosaic Law the manner of sacrificing was minutely prescribed and its office entrusted to the sons of Aaron, even to the exclusion of monarchs; while under the law of Christ there is but the one sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated in the Mass in an unbloody manner, and the ministers who have power to offer sacrifice are only the bishops and priests.

n. 2182.

Is Sacrifice Superior to All the Other Acts of Religion?—(a) Sacrifice is not superior to the internal act of religion, for devotion or the internal sacrifice is the soul that animates and moves the external rites (see 2149): “The multitude offered victims and praises and holocausts with a devout mind” (II Par., xxix. 31); “Obedience is better than sacrifice” (I Kings, xv. 22).

(b) Sacrifice is preeminent among the external acts of religion. Some acts of religion are optional (e.g., vows, oaths, adjurations), but sacrifice is a natural obligation. Some acts of religion are obligatory, but marks of respect similar to them may also be shown to creatures (e.g., customary offerings, praises), whereas no kind of sacrifice may be offered to a creature. Some acts of religion are reserved to God, but they have no rite that is peculiar to the worship of God and that may not be exercised by all (e.g., acts of adoration), whereas sacrifice has a service reserved to God and which only priests can perform. Sacraments are primarily for the welfare of man; sacrifice is primarily for the honor of God. Non-sacrificial acts of religion may be performed in the name of an individual (e.g., adoration), whereas sacrifice is in the name of the community; other acts of religion may signify dependence on God for temporal and corporal things (e.g., offering of first-fruits), but sacrifice signifies the dependence of the soul itself on God for existence and beatitude.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 1. The Duties of Memb…, Duties of Pastors

n. 2607.

Special Duties from Canon Law of Those Who Have Care of Souls

Special Duties from Canon Law of Those Who Have Care of Souls.—(a) Bishops have grave obligations of residing in their see or diocese (Canon 338), of attending to the instruction of their flock (Canons 1327, 336), of applying the Mass pro populo (Canon 339), of making a diocesan report (Canon 340), of confirming and of ordaining worthy candidates (Canon 785), of visiting their dioceses (Canon 343), of making the ad limina visit (Canons 340, 342), and of calling a diocesan synod at least every tenth year (Canon 356).

(b) Pastors must reside generally in their parish (Canon 465), and, if lawfully absent, they must make provision for the sick calls and other spiritual necessities of their flocks. They must preach the word of God on Sundays and holydays, and it would be a serious matter to neglect this duty for a considerable time (e.g., a whole month) without good reason (Canon 1344). It is also a serious obligation to attend to the necessary catechetical instruction of young and old (Canons 1330, 1332), to apply the Mass pro populo (Canon 466), and to administer the Sacraments (at least Baptism, Penance, Extreme Unction) to those in grave spiritual need (see 1167). Pastors are also obliged to know their flock, to visit the sick and dying, to correct abuses, to see that the customary administration of the Sacraments and the usual church functions are attended to, to watch over the schooling of the children, and to direct the temporalities and attend to the reports and records of the parish. The duties of chaplains of hospitals, institutions, soldiers, etc., are similar to those of pastors, but in particular cases the former are subject to special prescriptions or to local usage or to rules made by the Ordinary.

(c) Assistant pastors are subject in the care of souls to the instruction and direction of the parish-priest. Their particular duties are known from the diocesan statutes, the letters of the Ordinary, and the commission of the pastor. Regularly, they are bound to reside in the parish rectory and to assist the pastor or supply for him in all the parish work, the Mass pro populo excepted (Canon 476).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmation; the Eucharist; the Sacrifice of the Mass

n. 2688.

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism.—(a) Before Baptism.—Baptismal water should be blessed, added to or renewed, as the ritual regulations of one’s place require; the faithful should be frequently admonished in sermons of the serious duty of having their infants baptized as soon as possible (Canon 770); the people should also be told (especially midwives, physicians and surgeons) how lay Baptism is to be given validly (Canon 743).

(b) At the Time of Baptism.—Converts preparing for Baptism should be well instructed in the principal religious truths (viz, those contained in the Creed), and precepts (viz., the laws of the Decalogue and of the Church, see 914 sqq.), and prayers (viz, the Our Father, the acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition); and they should learn the nature and effects of Baptism. The parish-priest may delegate a deacon to baptize solemnly in his place, if there is a sufficient reason, as when he himself is impeded by sickness, absence, or occupation (Canon 741).

(c) After Baptism.—The pastor in virtue of his office has the responsibility of attending to the registration of baptisms in the proper book (Canon 777). The registration should be made without delay—that is, before the sponsors have departed, or immediately after the ceremony, or at least on the same day, if possible; the entry should be made accurately and legibly. The duty of keeping proper baptismal records is considered grave, since important evils would follow on their neglect.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Matter and Form of the Eucharist

n. 2700.

The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

The Matter and Form of the Eucharist.—Since the essence of a Sacrament is found in the outward sign, it is commonly held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the species of bread and wine as signifying the body and blood of the Saviour, which is really, truly and substantially contained under them.

(a) The matter of the first consecration is that which Christ used, namely, bread. The bread must be true bread in the strict and usual Scriptural sense of the word. Hence, for validity it is necessary that it be made from wheat flour (bread made from beans, peas or other legumes, bread made from non-wheaten cereals such as corn, oats, and probably also rye and barley, is not valid matter); that the flour be mixed with water (bread made from a notable quantity, i.e., about one-third of other liquid, such as milk, oil, wine, is invalid matter); further, that the mixture be sufficiently baked (dough or half-baked cakes are invalid matter). The bread must be entire and not substantially adulterated or changed; hence, bread from which all the gluten has been abstracted, bread to which a notable amount of foreign substance (such as sugar or non-wheaten flour) has been added, bread so old that it has corrupted, cannot be consecrated. Accidental qualities do not affect validity, and hence any kind of wheat may be used (hard, soft, red, or white). But the church law strictly requires that a priest observe the tradition of his own Church (i.e., among Latins the bread must be unleavened and the host round), and that all consecrated matter be new (i.e., not baked more than fourteen days, or, according to others, twenty or forty days), clean, and unbroken. The small particles for the laity should be about one inch in diameter, the large hosts about two or three inches; and all altar breads should be of moderate thickness.

(b) The matter of the second consecration is likewise that appointed by Christ at the Last Supper, namely, wine. Only wine strictly so called according to Scriptural and common usage is valid matter. Hence, the Eucharistic wine must be made from grapes, and consequently cherry wine, currant wine, peach wine, blackberry wine, cider, wild grape wine, artificial wine, etc., are insufficient; the grapes must be ripe, and verjuice is therefore invalid matter. The wine must also be entire, unadulterated, and uncorrupted; and hence wine from which all the alcohol has been removed, brandy or cognac (i.e., spirits distilled from wine), wine to which a notable quantity of water, tartaric acid, sugar, alcohol or other substance has been added, and wine which has become vinegar, are not fit matter for the Sacrament. Accidental qualities are of no importance to validity, and hence the wine may be red or white, dry or sweet; it may be made either from ripe or dry grapes (raisin wine); and the Church permits the fortification of weak wine by a process of heating that does not prevent fermentation, or by the addition when fermentation has begun to subside of grape or wine alcohol on condition that the final alcoholic strength does not exceed 12%, or in some cases, if the wine possessed so much, 17% or 18%. But the church law strictly requires for licit matter that wine be fermented, though must or new wine is permissible in case of necessity, if it have about 5% alcohol; that it be neither souring nor frozen, nor mixed with substances added for the sake of aroma, color or sweetness, nor with water poured in before Mass. The tradition and law of the Church, based on the example of Christ, make it a grave obligation that a few drops of water be added to the wine at the altar, but, if the water equals a third part of the wine, the matter becomes of doubtful sufficiency.

(c) The form is contained essentially in the words of consecration used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, namely, “Hoc est corpus meum” over the bread, and “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” over the wine. But a grave precept of the Church requires that all the other principal words of the consecration be pronounced (i.e., the “novi et aeterni testamenti, etc.,” the “Haec quotiescumque, etc.,” the “Qui pridie,” the “Simili modo”). The omission of the particle “enim” would be only venially sinful.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Minister of Consecration

n. 2701.

The Minister of Consecration

The Minister of Consecration.—(a) Qualifications.—Every priest and only a priest can consecrate validly, for only to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood were spoken the words of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” But only those priests can consecrate lawfully who have the faculty of celebrating Mass (see 2709).

(b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.—Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration. Small crumbs in the ciborium and small drops of wine on the inner side of the chalice are consecrated, unless excluded by the priest’s intention; but drops of wine on the outside of the chalice should be considered unconsecrated, since it is unlawful to consecrate what is not contained in the chalice.

Externally, bread and wine must be physically present to the priest, that is, so within his reach or range that according to human usage they can be correctly designated by the demonstrative pronoun “this” used in the form. Accordingly, they must be near the minister; how near cannot be mathematically defined, and authors variously assign about ten, twenty, thirty, forty and fifty paces as the extreme limit. Again, the bread and wine must not be separated from the minister by any dividing partition, such as a wall, or the altar, or perhaps even the closed door of the tabernacle, though a closed container (such as a covered ciborium or chalice) would not put the matter away from the minister’s presence. Finally, they must not be behind the minister’s back, and, even if they are before him but hidden (e.g., hosts under the corporal or chalice), the consecration is doubtful.

(c) Duties as regards Lawful Consecration.—Internally, there must be the state of grace, which the divine law prescribes, Further, one who is conscious of grave sin certainly committed and certainly unconfessed (unless inculpably omitted in confession) must go to confession beforehand, unless there be need to celebrate at once (e.g., because otherwise there will be no parochial Mass on a day of precept, or because grave scandal or defamation will result, or a dying person will be deprived of the Viaticum) and confession is impossible (i.e., there is no confessor present who has jurisdiction, or who can be resorted to without a serious inconvenience extrinsic to confession, and moreover it is very difficult on account of distance, health, weather, or other like reasons to go elsewhere to confession). Under these circumstances, he may make an act of perfect contrition and then proceed to celebrate. But one who has consecrated without confession because of such necessity must go to confession as soon as possible—i.e., within three days, or, if circumstances so require, earlier than that (e.g., if a confessor can be had the same day, but not again for a week) or later (e.g., if a confessor cannot be had for a week). These rules about confession are of grave obligation, from Church law at least (Canon 807). On account of disrespect, it seems that grave sin is committed when the celebrant is voluntarily and advertently distracted during consecration, but he should not repeat the form unless it is certain or very probable that something essential has been omitted. Externally, consecration must be made only during Mass, both species must be consecrated, a larger quantity must not be consecrated than can be conveniently used, the matter at the moment of consecration must rest on the corporal and above the stone of the altar, and a ciborium must be uncovered while its bread is being consecrated.

n. 2702.

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept.—Is the consecration valid when the minister inadvertently neglects some grave liturgical precept as to the matter or manner of consecration?

(a) Some authors reply in the negative, because they feel that no priest has the will to consecrate in a way forbidden by the Church under pain of grave sin. According to this opinion, then, if accidentally no water were placed in the chalice, or if the chalice were unconsecrated, or if the ciborium were left off the corporal, the consecration would be invalid.

(b) Other authors distinguish as follows: if the celebrant intended not to consecrate with a material breach of grave liturgical prescription, the consecration would be null; if the celebrant had only the intention to consecrate all valid matter before him, the consecration would be valid. This latter intention, it seems, should be formed by all priests once for all, since it ensures the validity of their consecrations and is not sinful, as it does not aim to violate the rubrics, but only to provide for exceptional cases when a rubric is unintentionally violated.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Minister of Communion

n. 2703.

The Minister of Communion

The Minister of Communion.—(a) Qualifications.—The ordinary minister of Communion is a priest, the extraordinary minister a deacon. Pastors and other priests to whose custody the Blessed Sacrament is entrusted have the right to give Communion, and others also who have express or presumed permission. The celebrant of Mass may give Communion during his Mass, and, if Mass is private, just before and just after it. A sick priest who is unable to say Mass may communicate himself, at least when there is no other minister at hand; and even a layman may, in the absence of a major cleric, give himself the Viaticum, or consume the Host to save it from profanation (Canons 845-850).

(b) Duties.—Internally, the minister is bound sub levi to be in the state of grace, and sub gravi to be free from censures (such as suspension) which forbid him the exercise of the ministry. Externally, he must observe the church laws on the manner, time and place for distribution of the Sacrament (Canons 851, 852, 867-869), and also the liturgical rules for Communion during and outside of Mass, for Communion of the sick and the dying, and for the avoidance of defects in giving Communion (Rituale Rom., Tit. IV; Missale Rom., de defectibus Missae).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Communicant

n. 2704.

The Recipient of the Eucharist

The Recipient of the Eucharist.—(a) Those Who May Receive Communion.—According to divine law, every living person who has received Baptism of water is capable of receiving the Eucharist, infants and the insane not excluded. Ecclesiastical law requires other conditions, which are justified by considerations of respect for the Blessed Sacrament or other good reason. Communion may not be given, first, to those who have not the use of reason (i.e., to infants and the perpetually insane), nor to those who are unable to understand the essential truths of religion and morality (i.e., to those who have always been deaf and dumb or blind, and who are uninstructed); for, on the one hand, the Sacrament is not necessary for these persons, and, on the other hand, there is great danger of irreverence if it be given them. Secondly, Communion may not be given to those who cannot receive without grave peril of unbecoming treatment of the Sacrament, as in the case of those who cough or vomit continually or frequently, or of those who are delirious, or unconscious, or insane, But if the danger is certainly slight (e.g., if the person can swallow an unconsecrated host without spitting it out), Communion may be given, at least the Viaticum or Easter Communion. Next those persons are denied Communion who cannot receive without scandal (e.g., those who are infamous, such as prostitutes or defamers, persons intoxicated or insufficiently dressed). Finally, no one may receive Communion who has already received it that day, lest the Sacrament become common and be taken without due preparation; but exception is made when it is necessary to communicate a second time in order to comply with the divine law of receiving Viaticum or of saving the Host from profanation (Canons 853-858).

(b) Those Who Must Receive Communion.—There is a divine precept that adults receive the Eucharist worthily (John, vi. 54). It obliges per se, when one is certainly or almost certainly in proximate danger of death, unless one has recently (that is, according to some, within a week’s time) received Communion; for this Sacrament is the wayfarer’s provision for his journey to eternity. It obliges also now and then during life, since the Eucharist is man’s spiritual nourishment for the journey of life. It obliges per accidens, when Communion is necessary to avoid grave sin, for charity to self obliges one to use the means without which serious spiritual harm cannot be escaped. The church law determines the details for the fulfillment of the divine precept. All the faithful who have reached the age of reason, even though they be under seven years, must fulfill the yearly Easter duty (see 2592, 2593). In reference to First Communion, the Church requires that children who are not in danger of death must have a mental and moral fitness, consisting in a knowledge of the chief mysteries of faith and a devotion towards the Eucharist such as is possible at their time of life. In reference to the last Communion, or Viaticum, the Code declares that it is obligatory, no matter what be the cause of the danger of death; it reminds us that the duty should not be put off too long; it recommends that the Viaticum be administered even to those who had communicated the same day before the danger of death arose, and that it be given on distinct days during the danger. For children who are in danger of death it suffices that they are able to distinguish the Eucharist from ordinary food and to adore it reverently (Canons 859-865, 854).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Worthy Communion

n. 2705.

Dispositions for Worthy Communion

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:

that natural water does not break the fast;
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;
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).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Custody and Worship of the Eucharist

n. 2708.

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament

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).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Sacrifice of the Mass; the Celebrant

n. 2709.

The Sacrifice of the Mass

The Sacrifice of the Mass.—In the Eucharist is contained not only a Sacrament which confers the grace of spiritual nutrition on its recipients, but also a sacrifice which offers to God Christ’s oblation as an act of adoration, thanksgiving, satisfaction and intercession. It is this sacrifice—which is one with the sacrifice of the cross, though offered unbloodily—that is known as the Mass. The chief persons who have duties in reference to the Mass are the celebrant and the assistants.

(a) The celebrant is the priest, who acts in the name and person of Christ. To say Mass validly one must have the power of Orders conferred in the presbyterate or priesthood, and must intend to consecrate (see 2701 b); to say Mass licitly one must be free from impediments which debar from Mass, such as suspension or irregularity. Strange priests who wish to say Mass are required to present a celebret or testimonial letter to the rector of the church (Canon 804), without prejudice, however, to their right to say Mass once or twice when they present themselves in clerical garb and sign the visiting priest’s book.

(b) The assistants are all those who hear Mass. Their duties were already explained in the question on the first precept of the Church (2576 sqq.). We shall confine ourselves here, therefore, to the duties of the celebrant.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Obligation of Saying Mass

n. 2710.

The Obligation of Saying Mass

The Obligation of Saying Mass.—(a) The Obligation by reason of Orders or Priesthood.—Divine law imposes on priests as a body a grave obligation of celebrating Mass with such frequency that the memory of Christ’s passion be kept alive, which is the purpose of the priesthood, according to the words: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” Divine law also imposes on each individual priest the obligation of saying Mass at frequent intervals (i.e., at least, it would seem, on the greater feasts and at dates not more than six months apart); for a priest is ordained primarily to give glory to God and to impart blessings to man by the Sacrifice of the Mass (Heb., v. 1). It seems, therefore, that a priest receives grace in vain or neglects the sacrifice (II Cor., vi. 1, II Mach., iv. 14) if he omits Mass on the most solemn occasions of the year when nearly all the faithful are accustomed to receive Communion, or if he omits it for such a notable period as more than six months. It seems that the sin is per se venial, as being opposed to fervor rather than to charity; but it may be mortal per accidens, as when serious scandal is given. There is no sin, however, if a priest has no opportunity to celebrate, or is lawfully impeded (e.g., on account of humility, scrupulosity, illness, or censure). The law of the Church recalls this obligation in Canon 805, and calls on bishops and religious superiors to exhort their subjects to say Mass at least on all Sundays and holydays. Daily Mass is quite customary today, and there might be serious scandal if without reason Mass were said only exceptionally.

(b) The Obligation by Reason of Special Offices or Duties.—Pastors are bound to say or provide Mass for their people on days of obligation as a duty of justice, and it seems on other days also as a duty of charity if there is a great need or demand and no reasonable impediment. There is an obligation of justice to celebrate Mass, if one has contracted to do so; an obligation of fidelity, if one has freely promised; an obligation of religion, if one has vowed; an obligation of obedience, if one has been lawfully commanded by one’s superior.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Dispositions for Celebration of Mass

n. 2711.

Dispositions for the Celebration of Mass

Dispositions for the Celebration of Mass.—(a) Dispositions of Soul.—The celebrant must be in the state of grace, and must go to confession before Mass if he has a serious sin on his conscience (see 2701 c). He must have the intention and attention which the validity of the consecration requires (2701 b), and the reverence and devotion which is due the prayers of the Mass (2153 sqq.), Voluntary and fully deliberate distractions entertained for a considerable time during the Canon seem to be seriously sinful. It is most suitable, though apparently not commanded by the Church, that Matins and Lauds be said before Mass. There is, however, a duty of religion and of charity to self to make a suitable preparation and thanksgiving; but negligence here is a light sin, unless there be contempt or serious scandal. Fifteen minutes or a half-hour is recommended by ascetical writers, and the prayers may be taken from those given in the Breviary and Missal, Internal prayer, however, is more important than external recitation (Canon 810).

(b) Dispositions of Body.—The Eucharistic or natural fast is of grave obligation for the celebration of Mass (Canon 808). The only excuses are necessity according to divine law or exemption by ecclesiastical law. Necessity occurs when one must complete the sacrifice (e.g., when after the Communion the priest notices that he consecrated one species invalidly), or must avoid scandal (e.g., when a priest remembers after going to the altar that he is not fasting), or must consecrate for the Viaticum (e.g., when there is no consecrated host for a dying person). Since the law is ecclesiastical, the Church could dispense for a grave reason (e.g., to enable a sickly priest to say Masses on Sunday at widely separated points of his missions). It is clear that the celebration of Mass calls for cleanness of body, suitableness of dress, neatness and rubrical correctness of vestments (Canon 811). The omission of a principal vestment (i.e., blessed alb, stole or chasuble) is a serious sin, except in grave necessity; the omission of minor vestments (e.g., amice) is a venial sin, unless there is a just reason. The color of the day is not gravely obligatory, except by reason of scandal, and a good reason makes it lawful to use another color.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Circumstances of Mass

n. 2712.

Gravity of Regulations Concerning Circumstances of Mass

Gravity of Regulations Concerning Circumstances of Mass.—Serious disrespect or serious scandal is caused by disregard of important regulations concerning the circumstances of the Mass. Hence, the following rules oblige under grave sin, though exceptions are permitted for cases of grave or very grave necessity.

(a) The Time of Mass.—Mass may not be said on Good Friday, nor private Masses on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday. Only one Mass may be said a day, except on Christmas Day and All Souls’ Day, and on other days when there is reason for bination or trination allowed by the Church. Ordinarily the hour for beginning Mass should not be earlier than one hour before dawn (i.e., in the latitude of New York from about 1:27 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., according to the season), nor later than one hour after noon. But the time is to be understood morally, and it is not a grave sin in being earlier or later than the times fixed, unless there is a difference of an entire hour (e.g., if one began Mass at 2:00 p.m.) and not just excuse or dispensation. The Holy See has extended to local Ordinaries the power to permit the daily celebration of Mass after noon, if the spiritual good of a considerable number of the faithful demands it (Sacram Communionem). The Holy See has also granted permission to Ordinaries to allow the celebration of an evening Mass on Palm Sunday accompanied by the blessing of palms and procession. On Holy Thursday the Mass of the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated at the most convenient hour, but not before 4:00 p.m. and not after 9:00 p.m.; Ordinaries may grant permission for one or even two low Masses (besides the principal Mass) to be celebrated in churches and public oratories, and for one in semi-public oratories within the same hours, 4:00-9:00 p.m. The proper hour for the Easter Vigil is that which permits the Mass of the Easter Vigil to be started around midnight. Permission may be granted to conduct the vigil at a time not before sunset (Dispositions and Regulations concerning the Holy Week Liturgy, Feb. 1, 1957, Sacred Congregation of Rites). One Christmas may be said at midnight. It is a serious sin to say Mass in less than a quarter of an hour, and a private Mass should not be prolonged beyond a half-hour.

(b) Place.—Mass may not be celebrated regularly except in a church or oratory that is at least blessed and is not polluted, execrated or interdicted. It must be said on an altar, and it would be a serious sin, except in grave or very grave necessity, to celebrate without at least one altar cloth or one lighted wax candle, or without a rubrical chalice, paten, or corporal (Canons 822, 823).

(c) Rites.—The principal rubrics of the Mass are gravely obligatory, for example, to use an acolyte unless excused by dispensation or necessity, to say each prayer of the Canon, and each part outside the Canon that occurs in every Mass (e.g., the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Gospel), to perform the main liturgical actions (e.g., the Offertory, the breaking of the host, the purification of the chalice). The secondary rubrics oblige under venial sin (see Canons 803, 812-819).

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Application of Mass

n. 2714.

Application of the Mass

Application of the Mass.—All the faithful, especially those who are present and also the celebrant himself, benefit by the Mass, but there is a special fruit reserved to those for whose intention the Mass is offered by the priest; for the Mass is a sacrifice of intercession, propitiation, and satisfaction, and since the priest acts in the person of Christ he may apply its benefits specially to some particular person or persons. In the following cases the celebrant is bound to make this application of the ministerial fruit of the Mass.

(a) In virtue of their office, pastors are seriously obliged to say Mass for their flocks. There is a natural obligation on account of the relationship between the pastor and the people, and there is also a divine obligation, inasmuch as the priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin (Heb., v, 1). The details of this duty, as to the time, place and person, are prescribed in Canons 306, 339, 466. There is a grave duty of saying for the people the number of Masses which the Church orders; but the non-observance of the circumstances is not a mortal sin, unless it happens frequently and without reason.

(b) In virtue of justice, a priest who has received a stipend is bound to apply the Mass for the intention of the donor, and to observe the conditions of the agreement (i.e., the time, place, and kind of Mass specified by the donor). The duty of application is a grave one, because the loss inflicted on the donor by non-application of the Mass to his intention is serious; the duty of observance of the accidental conditions, however, is not generally grave, but it becomes grave if its neglect inflicts serious harm (e.g., if the donor makes the date of the Mass a conditio sine qua non, or if the Mass must be said at once on account of an urgent and immediate necessity). Restitution is obligatory if the Mass is not applied, or if essential conditions are not complied with; it is obligatory sub gravi, if the stipend equals what is relatively grave matter in theft.

(c) In virtue of obedience, subjects are held to apply Masses for the intention of their prelates, secular or religious, though bishops are counselled to exact this most rarely. The obligation is grave or light according to the intention of the superior, but if the application is also due in justice to the giver of the stipend, there is a serious duty.

(d) In virtue of religion or fidelity, there is an obligation of application when a priest has vowed this to God, or freely promised it to man. The duty is grave or light according to the intention of the vower or promisor (see 2210, 2407). But if there is an onerous promise (e.g., in a society of priests whose members agree to say Mass for fellow-members who have died), the duty is one of justice. One Mass satisfies several free promises, if distinct Masses were not promised.

n. 2715.

Duties of the Priest as to the Application of Mass

Duties of the Priest as to the Application of Mass.—(a) For Whom May Mass Be Applied?—Mass may be offered for all objects not forbidden. From the divine law it is forbidden to offer Mass for those who are incapable of receiving its benefits (e.g., the demons, infants who died without Baptism, the Saints), or for intentions that are displeasing to God (e.g., for success in evil). From the ecclesiastical law certain restrictions are made on the application of Mass in order to safeguard reverence and prevent scandal. Thus, Mass may be said only privately (that is, without publicity or special liturgical solemnity) and prudently (that is, with avoidance of scandal, for example, by the declaration that Mass is said for the faithful departed with the purpose of aiding also a departed unbeliever, if this is pleasing to God) for the living and dead outside the Church, such as infidels, heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicated. Moreover, for a vitandus Mass may be applied only when the intention is his conversion (Canon 809).

(b) How Mass Must Be Applied.—The intention must be formed by the priest, since he represents Christ. But since his application does not produce but only bestows the fruits, it suffices that his applicatory intention be habitual and implicit, as when the celebrant has forgotten the intention formed before Mass, or applies according to the mind of his superior. The person or purpose to which Mass is applied must be at least implicitly determined, and the application must be made at least before the second consecration. If there are two conflicting intentions, the stronger prevails (2667), and, if it is doubtful which one was stronger, Mass should be next offered for the intention which God knows was not satisfied. It is unlawful to apply Mass by anticipation for the next person who will offer a stipend.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 180 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Eucharist

N. 276. - On Bread Made from Crushed Grains and Infused with Water

"In this region... a custom has arisen... of making bread from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, not however unto corruption. They press these grains with the hands, and, when the white matter has come forth, they make breads with hot iron, in the manner customary in Europe.... Whether the aforesaid making of bread for Mass is lawful? Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless let the Vicar Apostolic take care, if it can be done, that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made be not only crushed, but reduced into flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be exactly cleansed by sieve, and that bread be made from the same in the manner used in Europe." S. O. 23 June 1852.

On Wine Made from Raisins

"Whether it is lawful to celebrate with wine made from raisins? Resp. That it is lawful, provided that the liquid is discerned by color and taste to be true wine." S. C. de P. F. 23 July 1706.

N. 290. - Whether Regulars Can Minister Paschal Communion and Viaticum to Their Own Guests, Servants, Pupils, and Boarders

Cf. On the Sacrament of Penance, N. 563, 564.

N. 295. - On the Distribution of the Sacred Eucharist Outside Mass

"Whether the Stole for ministering the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass must always be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, or rather ought to be white, as very fitting for the Sacred Eucharist, as many Doctors judge? Resp. According to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, it ought to be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day." S. R. C. 12 March 1836.

"In the administration of the sacred Eucharist outside Mass, a stole of the color corresponding to the Office of that day is prescribed by the Rubric of the Roman Ritual. It is asked whether the stole of the color of the Office or of the Mass is to be employed 1. on Thursday of Great Week; 2. on vigils and ferias of the four times, or the Monday of Rogations (or on ferias of Lent, where Octaves have been conceded), which occur within a non-privileged Octave, if, according to the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal, the Office is celebrated of the Octave and the Mass of the Vigil or Feria? Resp. To each, let the Rubric of the Roman Ritual be observed, and where the custom of administering the Sacred Eucharist with a white stole to the Faithful fulfilling the Paschal precept is in force, it is to be tolerated." S. R. C. 11 Aug. 1877.

On the Administration of the Most Holy Eucharist in Paschal Time Before or After a Requiem Mass

The Prayer and Versicles of the season must be said, with Alleluia omitted. S. R. C. 26 Nov. 1878.

N. 295. 306. - On the Distribution of the Sacred Eucharist in a Sordid Place, and Without the Due Ceremonies by Reason of Necessity

"For the sick near death, of whatever condition they may be, although they dwell in a sordid and vile place or hut, let the Viaticum of the Most Holy Eucharist be brought, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and for our salvation he did not shrink from the stable or the ignominy of the Cross." Clement IX, Const. In Excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669.

"... As soon as the S. C. understood that in certain Dioceses of that region a custom, or rather abuse, had prevailed that Priests would carry the Most Holy Sacrament with them from morning until evening, for this cause only, that they might perhaps happen upon some sick person, it judged that it should be written to the Metropolitans, so that it would declare that custom to be altogether abhorrent from the practice of the Church... Issue such decrees, by which the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament may be restricted to urgent causes only, and to the actual exercise of the Priestly ministry...." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 25 Feb. 1853.

"But where the force and iniquity of the Turks prevails, let the Priest always have the stole covered with his own garments, let him conceal the pyx in a little bag or burse, which, suspended by cords from the neck, he should place in his breast, and let him never proceed alone, but let him be accompanied by at least one faithful person in default of a Cleric." Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

"That Sacred Viaticum can be carried to the sick without a stole in a case of necessity." S. C. de P. F. 20 Dec. 1739. Father Windsiller, Missionary in China.

"... 1. Whether it can be lawful for the Missionaries of these regions secretly, and without light and stole, to administer the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick, when otherwise it cannot be administered? ... 2. Whether the Vicar Apostolic can permit Missionaries that they carry and administer the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to Christians ... detained in prisons? ... It could easily be administered to them without danger of contempt of the Most Holy Eucharist, if it were lawful to administer it without surplice and stole. Resp. To the 1st affirmatively, for the matter concerns a faculty already conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs. To the 2nd affirmatively and as regards those detained for a time, insofar as they ask, yet according to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic." S. C. de P. F. 9 Dec. 1822; 5 July 1854.

"Whether it can be permitted, in this time of persecution, that Confessors of the faith condemned to death because of the faith, and to whom the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is brought in prison, can secretly receive it with their own hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be recognized and seized? Resp. Affirmatively, provided that so great a Sacrament is exposed to no danger of irreverence or other danger." S. C. de P. F. 10 Aug. 1841.

N. 297. - Whether Communion Can Be Ministered in the Mass of Holy Saturday

Resp. "Negatively, unless there is a custom." S. R. C. 22 Sept. 1837. But after Mass it is lawful, S. R. C. 7 Sept. 1850, or, if custom again bears this, after the Gloria has been sung. S. R. C. 13 Jan. 1882. Cf. Gardell. n. 4499; D'Annibale, N. 273, 274.

N. 301. - On the Double Genuflection in Ministering Holy Communion

"Is it to be genuflected by a priest returning to the altar after the communion of the faithful, before he covers the sacred pyx, and again to be genuflected before, the pyx having been placed back in the tabernacle, he closes the little door of the tabernacle itself?" S. R. C. 23 Dec. 1862. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 547.

N. 304. - On the Sacred Eucharist to Be Carried to the Sick During Mass Itself

"The General of the Order of St. John of God humbly asked from the S. R. C. that it deign to declare the following doubts concerning the manner of carrying Sacred Communion within Mass to the sick, in force in the hospitals of his Order, namely: 1. Whether, after the Confiteor, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, Domine non sum dignus have been recited at the altar, it can be permitted that the Priest with the Pyx, without humeral veil, carry Sacred Communion to the sick, accompanied by at least two persons carrying candles, and with an umbrella also employed, if it can be done, especially if the sick are distant from the altar? 2. Whether Sacred Communion can be carried in the above-mentioned manner not only in the whole hospital, whether from the posterior part of the altar, but also in some rooms, from which, although the altar is not seen, nevertheless the voice of the Priest celebrating is heard? 3. Whether it can be permitted that, in place of the Priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick, another, even a layman, recite the prayers? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, nothing stands in the way, provided however that in the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament an umbrella is altogether employed. To the 3rd, nothing stands in the way that those standing by recite some prayers while the Sacred Eucharist is distributed." S. R. C. 7 Feb. 1874.

n. ¶16.

"Whether it is lawful for one celebrating in a private or religious house to carry before purification Holy Communion, for the sake of devotion and not by way of Viaticum, to a sick person dwelling in the same house, although one must ascend to the upper part of the house and pass through another corridor? Resp. It is not lawful, according to the decree of 19 Dec. 1829; but if necessity urges, let Mass be finished." S. R. C. 17 Dec. 1844.

n. ¶17.

N. 306. - On the Distribution of the Most Holy Viaticum Without the Due Ceremonies by Reason of Necessity

Cf. N. 295.

n. ¶18.

N. 309. On the Exposition and Benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament, and on Preserving It

"Whether, for exposing the Sacred Host in an Ostensorium, it is lawful to use a lunula which consists of two little glass disks, surrounded and to be closed by a thin border or circle of gilded silver, so that the Sacred Host adheres underneath to the silver circle itself, but before and behind immediately touches the glass disks themselves, and through them is held upright? Resp. As it is set forth in the case, that it is not becoming to enclose the sacred species between glass plates whose surfaces immediately touch them." S. R. C. 4 Feb. 1871.

n. ¶19.

"Whenever from a private cause the Most Holy Eucharist will seem to be exposed, let it never be extracted from the tabernacle, but, with the pyx veiled, let it be placed in the open little door of the same tabernacle, with the assistance of some priest vested with stole and surplice, and with at least six wax lights. We command that the same be observed in churches of seculars." S. C. EE. and RR. 6 Dec. 1602, at Benedict XIV, Inst. 30, n. 21.

n. ¶20.

"1. Since from certain responses of the Most Holy Roman Congregations some think that the Sacred Pyx, with the little door of the Tabernacle opened, can be exposed to the piety of the faithful, but by no means extracted from it; but others judge that it can be brought out only so that with it the people may be blessed, as is customarily done on certain days in several Churches of Regulars; it is asked whether a custom of this kind can be admitted? 2. And insofar as negatively; can it be permitted, by force of custom, to those Congregations or Religious families which have been accustomed to do so also elsewhere? 3. Can it be conceded, to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, also to other Congregations asking for it? Resp. To the 1st, affirmatively. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first. To the 3rd, affirmatively." S. R. C. 16 Jan. 1886.

n. ¶21.

"Whether the Instruction for the Prayer of Forty Hours, first issued at Rome by order of Clement XI of happy memory, can and must be observed also outside the City? Resp. That the aforesaid Instruction does not oblige outside the City; nevertheless those are to be praised who strive to conform themselves to it, unless something else has been established by the Ordinaries of places." S. R. C. 12 July 1749.

n. ¶22.

"The Vicar Apostolic of Western Tongking... permitted that in diverse districts the Most Holy Sacrament be preserved, namely in particular rooms decently adorned, for the sick, with a lamp lit. For unless it were done so, a very great multitude of the sick would die without Viaticum. Hence he most humbly asks that Your Holiness will deign to approve this practice, in the aforesaid and similar case, for the tranquility of the conscience of the Orator. Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX kindly remitted the prayers to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic, with necessary and opportune faculties, while the circumstances endure, and with the things to be observed being observed." 22 Sept. 1850.

n. ¶23.

"But as regards the Benedictions desired by those faithful, and customarily given by ancient custom in some churches, either with a portable statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in solemnities of the same Virgin Mother of God, or in novenaries and other pious exercises instituted in her honor, as in the so-called Marian Month, etc., or likewise with a statue of the Infant Jesus, from the time of the Nativity of the Lord up to Epiphany, we judge that nothing plainly stands in the way that a custom of this kind can be tolerated by Your Amplitude." S. C. de P. F. 1 Apr. 1854.

n. ¶24.

The key of the Tabernacle is to be retained by Parish Priests, Rectors, Sacrists, or anyone else to whom the custody of the Tabernacle belongs, with himself, or in a safe place and closed by a key. And this is to be observed also by Regulars. S. C. EE. and RR. 9 Feb. 1751. Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Tabernaculum.

n. ¶25.

N. 311. 400. - On Petroleum, Gas, Electric Light in Church, and upon Altars

"Petroleum, or another Oil from vegetables, can by no means be employed for illuminating the Church; but only in a case of necessity from the prudence of Ordinaries." S. C. R. 20 March 1869. "Besides candles from wax, it cannot be tolerated that illumination from gas also be had (upon Altars); the aforesaid use (gas upon Altars) must be prohibited." S. C. R. 13 Apr. 1883. The same is to be said with stronger reason concerning electric light.

n. ¶26.

N. 320. - On the Dispositions Necessary for Receiving the Most Holy Viaticum

"To a sick person near death, who has been judged worthy of absolution of sins, the Most Holy Viaticum also is to be conceded." S. C. de P. F. 26 July 1845.

n. ¶27.

"Viaticum is not to be administered unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing the presence of Christ the Lord in the sacred Host." S. C. S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

n. ¶28.

N. 329. - On the Hour of Fasting Required for Communion

Cf. On the 6th Precept of the Church, N. 489.

n. ¶29.

On Fasting as Regards Those Recently Baptized

"With salt having been 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 be admitted to sacred Communion; indeed truly they ought to be: so altogether does the Church, in whose power it is to dispense in peculiar cases from the general law of the Eucharistic fast, introduced by herself for those who outside danger of death desire to receive sacred Communion, prescribe in the Roman Ritual, where it hands down the rite by which Baptism is to be conferred on adults." S. C. de P. F. 13 Feb. 1806.

n. ¶30.

N. 338. 341. - On the Faculty of Permitting More Frequent Communion to Nuns

"Nuns asking for sacred Communion daily will have to be admonished that they communicate on the days prescribed by the Institute of their Order. But if any shine forth by purity of mind and have grown so warm by fervor of spirit that they can seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by Superiors." S. C. C. 12 Feb. 1679. Cf. Collect. Const. etc. for the use of the Apostolic Workers, Paris, 1880, n. 367.

n. ¶31.

"Whether and by whose license nuns ought to receive the Eucharist who wish to receive it beyond the days established by the constitutions, or by the custom of the monastery, so that on those days all nuns communicate? Resp. By license of the ordinary confessor, and not of directors, with prior participation of the ordinary Prelate." S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 2, p. 181.

n. ¶32.

"As regards sacramental Communion, the Most Holy Lord commanded that the Constitutions of the Sisters... are to be reduced to conformity with common law, as established by Decrees of the Holy See.... Let the Superior alone have the faculty of prohibiting a Sister access to Sacramental Communion in the single case in which she, after the last Confession, has committed a somewhat grave and public defect with the astonishment of the other sisters, and this until the aforesaid Sister has again approached the Sacrament of Penance...." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 June 1876. Much less does the Chapter of the Monastery have the aforesaid faculty. S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. cited Collect., n. 368.

n. ¶33.

"... The aforesaid sisters and certain others, supported by the authority of ecclesiastical superiors, are all refreshed daily by the sacred Synaxis, although, according to the rules and decisions of very many Theologians, such and so great a grace ought to be reserved for certain persons only and in certain circumstances only. But since the above-praised pious sisters would be affected with much grief if they were to be deprived of so great a consolation, it is asked what must be done in the case? Resp. That the custom of nuns approaching daily to sacramental Communion is laudable. But it pertains to the Confessor to permit this to individuals according to the rules handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus de Ligorio." S. Poenit. 19 Nov. 1885. "That the custom is to be praised, and the use of frequently receiving the Most Holy Eucharist to be promoted, according to the disposition of the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 8." S. R. C. 2 Dec. 1885.

n. ¶34.

N. 349. - On the Application of Mass for Heretics and Infidels

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, N. 192.

n. ¶35.

N. 353. - A Mass of Requiem Applied for the Living

"1. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the alms, when they are wholly ignorant what his intention is, whether for the dead or not? 2. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating for the living? The S. C. R. rescripted to the 1st affirmatively, to the 2nd affirmatively, provided that he who gave the alms did not prescribe otherwise." S. C. de P. F. 13 Oct. 1856.

n. ¶36.

N. 361. - On the Mass for the People to Be Celebrated by Bishops

"We decree and declare that all and singular Bishops, increased by whatever dignity, even Cardinalitial, likewise Abbots having jurisdiction quasi-episcopal over Clergy and people with a separate territory, on Sundays and other feast days which are still observed by precept, and which have been removed from the number of feast days of precept, every excuse of smallness of revenues or any other exception removed, are bound to celebrate and apply Mass for the people committed to them.

n. ¶37.

And lest access lie open to any doubt, we declare that the same Bishops and Abbots will satisfy this office by the celebration and application of one Mass for the whole people committed to them, even if they rule two or more Dioceses and Abbeys equally principally united. We know indeed that Our Roman Congregations have decreed otherwise concerning parish priests managing two or more parochial churches equally principally united; in each of these it is necessary that individual Masses be celebrated on feast days and applied for the people. But one account belongs to parish priests, another to Bishops. For since to each parish priest a special and defined care of the people has been committed in each parish, on feast days the parish priest ought not only to celebrate for the people, but also to admit the people into the parochial temple, so that it may be present at the most holy sacrifice of Mass, and hear the word of God, and receive the Sacraments according to opportunity, and be cultivated by all those offices which are to be furnished especially on Sundays and other feasts. But these things cannot apply to Bishops, who are situated in a dissimilar condition and cause, since by no law today are they ordered on all feast days to perform the holy Sacrifice in the Cathedral church.

n. ¶38.

But although by no means necessary, nevertheless we judge it opportune to declare that those things which have been constituted above do not regard Bishops who are called Titular, and who, promoted to episcopal dignity, are therefore adorned by the Roman Pontiff with the title of Cathedral Churches which, once flourishing, now are destitute of Catholic Clergy and people, lest namely their ancient dignity and memory be utterly deleted. For since they themselves do not take possession of their sees, only when it has been received are Bishops bound to fulfill the duty of which we have spoken (S. C. Rit. in Marsor., 12 November 1831), and since neither Clergy nor people is entrusted to their rule, it is sufficiently established that, as they lack the use and exercise of the power received from episcopal consecration, so also they are by no means subject to the offices and burdens of episcopal care. But nevertheless, if account is had of episcopal equity and charity, it cannot but seem consonant that they also sometimes offer sacrifice, so that God may look upon the miserable condition of those Churches by whose title and name they themselves are honored. With this matter the things fit best which were said by Pius VI, Our Predecessor, in the consecration of the Bishop of Cyrene on 4 October in the year 1778 in the Ostian Basilica; namely, when enumerating the causes on account of which the Apostolic See is accustomed to confer Churches even occupied by infidels, he says, 'it is fitting that there exist someone upon whom it singularly falls, if not to rule that captive portion of the miserable flock, at least to pour out prayers and tears continually for the same to the Father of mercies.'" Leo XIII, Const. In suprema rei, Ides of June, 1882.

n. ¶39.

"20. Since a Bishop on feast days ought to apply for his sheep, it is asked whether, when the Bishop on these days celebrates pontifically, the canons ought to sing the conventual Mass for benefactors, and when? 22. Are Bishops bound to the application of Mass for their sheep after possession has been obtained, or as soon as they have been elected in consistory? 23. Are Capitular Vicars bound to this application of Mass when the See is Vacant? Resp. To 20. Let the Hebdomadary, or he to whom the burden of the conventual Mass belongs, celebrate that Mass read either before or after the pontifical Mass. To 22. After possession has been obtained. To 23. Negatively." S. R. C. 12 Nov. 1851, Gardell. n. 4669.

n. ¶40.

On the Mass for the People as Regards Apostolic Vicars, Missionaries, and the Eastern Church

"1. Whether apostolic Vicars and Missionaries, who in whatever way undertake care of souls in some determinate place, are bound indiscriminately from justice to apply Mass for the people on feast days? And insofar as affirmatively: 2. Upon which Apostolic Vicars and Missionaries does a burden of this kind fall? 3. Whether to those who are not bound from justice one must respond: it is fitting from charity, or: they are bound from charity, to apply Mass for the people? 4. Whether, the formula 'they are bound from charity' being approved, this ought to be understood of obligation under grave sin? Resp. To 1. Negatively, provided that the matter is not concerning places in which the Episcopal Sees and Parishes are already canonically erected, and to these the Apostolic Vicar and Missionary have been sent, so that they may act in the place of legitimate Pastors. To 2. Provision has been made in the first. To 3. The expression 'to be bound from charity' is to be avoided; but it is to be said 'to be fitting from charity,' and this in such a way that no signification of properly so called obligation appears. To 4. Provision has been made in the third." S. C. de P. F. 23 March 1863. Previously the S. C. had answered: "Missionaries are bound from charity." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 407.

…and 140 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 402 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Eucharist

The Council of Trent on the Eucharist, Session 13

“Chapter 1. On the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.—In the first place, the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually opposed: that our Savior Himself always sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to His natural manner of existing, and that, nevertheless, in many other places He is sacramentally present to us in His substance by that manner of existing which, although we can scarcely express it in words, we can nevertheless apprehend by thought illuminated by faith as possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and discoursed concerning this most holy Sacrament, most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable Sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified in express and clear words that He was giving them His own very Body and His Blood; and since those words, commemorated by the holy Evangelists and afterward repeated by St. Paul, bear that proper and most manifest meaning according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is indeed a most unworthy crime that they are twisted by certain contentious and depraved men into fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church. As the pillar and ground of truth, she has detested these fabrications devised by impious men as satanic, always acknowledging with a grateful and mindful spirit this most excellent benefit of Christ.

“Chapter 2. On the Reason for the Institution of This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love toward men, making a remembrance of His wonderful works; and in its reception He commanded us to cherish His memory and to proclaim His death until He Himself comes to judge the world. Moreover, He willed this Sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who said, He who eats me, he also shall live because of me, may be nourished and strengthened; and as an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins. Furthermore, He willed it to be a pledge of our future glory and perpetual felicity, and thus a symbol of that one body of which He Himself is the head, and to which He willed us to be bound, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, so that we all might say the same thing and there might be no schisms among us.

“Chapter 3. On the Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist over the Other Sacraments.—This indeed is common to the Most Holy Eucharist with the other Sacraments: that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace. But this excellent and singular thing is found in it: that the other Sacraments first possess the power of sanctifying when someone uses them, whereas in the Eucharist the Author of sanctity is present before its use. For the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord when He nevertheless truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body. And this faith has always been in the Church of God: that immediately after the consecration, the true Body of Our Lord and His true Blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; and the Body itself under the species of wine, the Blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, nevermore to die, are united with one another; and the Divinity, furthermore, by reason of its admirable hypostatic union with the Body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under every part of that species, and likewise whole under the species of wine and under its parts.

“Chapter 4. On Transubstantiation.—Since, however, Christ our Redeemer said that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has therefore always been the persuasion of the Church of God—and this holy Synod now declares it anew—that, by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This conversion has fittingly and properly been called transubstantiation by the holy Catholic Church.

“Chapter 5. On the Worship and Veneration to Be Shown to This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore no place for doubt is left that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should in veneration render to this Most Holy Sacrament the worship of latria which is due to the true God. For it is not, on that account, to be less adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received; for we believe that the same God is present in it whom the eternal Father, when bringing Him into the world, says: And let all the Angels of God adore Him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; whom, finally, Scripture testifies to have been adored by the Apostles in Galilee. The holy Synod furthermore declares that this custom was most piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God: that each year, on a certain particular and festive day, this transcendent and venerable Sacrament should be celebrated with singular veneration and solemnity, and that it should be carried reverently and honorably through the streets and public places in processions. For it is most just that certain sacred days should have been established, on which all Christians, with a certain singular and uncommon manifestation, may testify their grateful and mindful spirits toward their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and altogether divine a benefit, by which the victory and triumph of His death is represented. And thus indeed it was fitting that victorious truth should celebrate triumph over falsehood and heresy, so that its adversaries, placed in the sight of so great a splendor and amid so great a rejoicing of the universal Church, may either waste away, weakened and broken, or, affected with shame and confounded, may at length come to their senses.

“Chapter 6. On Reserving the Sacrament of the Sacred Eucharist and Carrying It to the Sick.—The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the sacred repository is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognized it. Moreover, that the Sacred Eucharist itself should be carried to the sick and that this practice should be diligently preserved in the churches, besides being joined with the greatest equity and reason, is also found to have been commanded in many Councils and was observed by the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore this holy Synod establishes that this salutary and necessary custom is wholly to be retained.

“Chapter 7. On the Preparation to Be Employed That One May Receive the Sacred Eucharist Worthily.—If it does not become 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 ought he take care not to approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, for one wishing to communicate, that precept of his is to be recalled to mind: Let a man prove himself. Ecclesiastical custom, however, declares that this proving 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 previous sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them. But if, with necessity pressing, a priest shall celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

“Chapter 8. On the Use of This Admirable Sacrament.—As regards its use, however, 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 spiritually only, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by a living faith which works through charity perceive its fruit and usefulness; while the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually. These, however, are those who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table. In sacramental reception, however, it was always the custom in the Church of God that the laity receive Communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves. This custom, as descending from Apostolic tradition, ought rightly and deservedly to be retained. Finally, with paternal affection the holy Synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that each and all who are reckoned by the Christian name should now at last unite and agree in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and, mindful of so great a majesty and of so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh for us to eat, that they should believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, such devotion and piety of spirit, and such worship, that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be for them truly the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind; so that, strengthened by its vigor, they may be able to pass from the journey of this miserable pilgrimage to the heavenly fatherland, there to eat without any veil the same Bread of Angels which they now eat beneath sacred veils.

“Since, however, it is not enough to state the truth unless errors are uncovered and refuted, it has pleased the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, so that all, the Catholic doctrine now having been recognized, may also understand what heresies must be guarded against and avoided by them.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall deny that, in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained, but shall say that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, only the species of bread and wine remaining—a conversion which the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall deny that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species and, separation having been made, under each single part of either species: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that, after the consecration has been completed, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist except only in its use while it is being received, but not before or after, and that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles which are reserved or remain after Communion: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say either that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that no other effects proceed from it: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, including external worship, and therefore is neither to be venerated with a particular festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the Holy Church, nor publicly set before the people that He may be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for the Sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacred repository, but that immediately after consecration it must necessarily be distributed to those present; or that it is not lawful for it to be carried honorably to the sick: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that Christ set forth in the Eucharist is eaten only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall deny that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of Holy Mother Church: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for a priest celebrating to communicate himself: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema. And, lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the holy Synod itself establishes and declares that those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may even think themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand if access to a confessor is available. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately assert the contrary, or even to defend it in public disputation, let him by that very fact be excommunicated.”

n. 496.

How Long Christ Remains Really Present in the Eucharist

“1. That if a consecrated host should fall or be cast into a sewer, mud, or some filthy place, then, while the species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—2. That if a consecrated host should be gnawed by a mouse or consumed by a brute animal, then, while the said species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—3. That if a consecrated host should be received by a just man or a sinner, then, while the species is being broken by the teeth, Christ is snatched up to heaven and does not pass into the stomach of man.”—Errors of John de Latone condemned by the Holy Office in the year 1371.

On the Matter of the Eucharist

“By Apostolic authority We prohibit anyone henceforth from attempting to sacrifice with dried lees of wine or with crumbs of bread.” Decree of Alexander III from the Bull of the year 1263 to the Bishop of Uppsala.

On Bread with Regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass

“In this region ... a custom has arisen ... of making bread from grains that have been bruised and soaked in water for some hours, though not to the point of corruption. They press these grains with their hands and, from the white matter that comes forth, make breads with a hot iron in the manner customary in Europe.... Is the aforesaid manner of making bread lawful for the Mass?—Response. Affirmative; nevertheless, if it can be done, let the Apostolic Vicar take care that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made not merely be crushed, but be reduced to flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be thoroughly purified by a sieve, and that the bread be made from it in the manner employed in Europe. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX approved the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers.” Holy Office, 25 June 1852, Apostolic Vicariate of Coimbatore.

“In this my Diocese of N. and in the neighboring dioceses, genuine fine flours have for many years been sold in large measure, which have often been used even in the formation of hosts for the Holy Mass. And many priests, in good faith or doubtful faith concerning the validity of the matter, celebrated the Divine Sacrifice with hosts made from such flours....

“Therefore I pray Your Most Reverend Eminence to be pleased to obtain for me from the Holy See a benign sanation for these my priests (also for Masses celebrated outside the diocese), and, subordinately, to obtain for them that they may discharge every burden of conscience by the celebration of a small number of Masses, which would be determined in a very mild proportion by the Ordinary in the individual cases.

“Response. The Most Holy One is to be supplicated that, insofar as there is need, he supply from the Treasury of the Church, with account taken, concerning the Masses to be celebrated, of those who celebrated in good faith and of those who celebrated in doubtful faith. The Most Holy One confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and benignly granted the requested favor.” Holy Office, 27 January 1897.

On Wine with Regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass

“Whether wine made from dried grapes (commonly called zibibbo) can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Let the decree of Friday, 22 July 1706, be given, namely: ‘It is lawful, provided that the liquid to be extracted from zibibbo, or dried grapes, is recognized from color, odor, and taste to be true wine.’” Holy Office, 7 May 1879.

“It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acidic taste owing to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine and which forms, with the excess tartaric acid, potassium bitartrate, which precipitates to the bottom of the cask. It was therefore asked whether this wine, thus treated, was lawful for the Mass.—Response. It is not expedient.” Holy Office, 9 May 1892.

“To guard against the danger of the corruption of wine, two remedies are proposed: 1. Let a small quantity of brandy be added to natural wine. 2. Let the wine be heated to sixty-five degrees. Are these remedies lawful in wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and which is to be preferred?—Response. The wine as set forth in the second place is to be preferred.” Holy Office, 8 May 1887.

“In several parts of Gaul, ... the white wine which serves for the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and feeble that it cannot be preserved for long unless a certain quantity of spirit of wine (spirito, alcohol) is mixed with it.—1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful? 2. And, if affirmative, what quantity of foreign matter of this kind is permitted to be added to the wine? 3. In the affirmative case, is it required that the spirit of wine be extracted from pure wine, or from the fruit of the vine?—Response. Provided that the spirit (alcohol) was extracted from the fruit of the vine, that the added alcoholic quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture is made when the wine is very new, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

“The sweet wine which is customarily employed for the Sacrifice of the Mass in Spain naturally contains spirit beyond the proportion of twelve percent. It is asked: 1. Whether the mixture of ten parts of spirit per hundred, which, as experience establishes, is altogether necessary for the preservation of the sweet wine, can be continued. 2. Whether wine thus made can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Negative in relation to the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 15 April 1891.

“Since it is difficult to buy unmixed wine in Europe, ... already for many years it has seemed safer and easier to the missionaries of this Vicariate to make wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass in this very region. The grapes, however, which are found in the northern parts of the Chinese Empire contain an exceedingly small quantity of sugar; from this it comes about that the wine pressed from them for the Sacrifice of the Mass has only the smallest portion of alcohol and therefore can scarcely be preserved incorrupt, especially in view of the prolonged and intense heats of summer, which are most favorable to corruption. The inconvenience is removed and wine is obtained which can be safely preserved and is not disagreeable to sight, taste, or smell, if ten pounds of cane sugar (that is, from the grass-like plant botanically called Saccharum officinarum and commonly called in French canne à sucre) are added to one hundred pounds of grapes immediately after they have been crushed, and this mass is then fermented in the customary manner. When it has ceased to boil, from one hundred pounds of the mass (containing nine pounds of sugar according to what has been set forth), sixty-seven pounds of wine are obtained, which, as it is lawful to conjecture from chemical calculation, contain in practice at most four and a half pounds (that is, about one-fifteenth part of the total weight) of alcohol generated from the sugar. In other words, by the aforesaid operation true wine from the vine is obtained, one hundred parts of which have six or seven parts of heterogeneous alcohol—that is, alcohol not produced from the vine—mixed with them. We have retained this practice the more willingly as it becomes more impossible for us from day to day to obtain spirit of wine (alcohol) generated from the vine. But now, since a certain doubt has arisen, it is humbly asked: 1. Whether this practice is safe for obtaining wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass. If negative: 2. Whether it is valid. 3. What if wine of this kind was employed in Masses owed in justice?

“Response. Spirit or alcohol which was extracted from the fruit of the vine is rather to be added to wine for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, is not to exceed the proportion of twelve percent. A mixture of this kind is to be made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside; and according to the mind: The mind is that, if the missionaries are unable to procure spirit of wine, they should obtain it themselves by distilling the wine of the country, or they should mix dried grapes with the grapes of the country, causing them to ferment together.” Holy Office, 25 June 1891.

“In Brazil it is exceedingly difficult to make true wine for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass ... unless it be made in that very region. Now, the grape in these places is so weak and watery that, in order to obtain tolerable wine, some sugar from the plant which we commonly call canna de assugar must be mixed with the must; and wine is also made in this manner, which priests commonly use in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. But now, the response of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition issued on 25 June 1891 having become known, doubts and anxieties of conscience have arisen.... Whether wine thus made can or cannot safely be employed for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

“Response. In place of sugar extracted from the sugarcane, commonly called canna de assugar, spirit of alcohol is rather to be added, provided that it was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that its quantity, added to that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent; a mixture of this kind is to be made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain sets forth that the sweet wines which are made in this region and are greatly desired by priests for the celebration of Mass already exceed twelve degrees of alcoholic strength after the first fermentation, which the wines of Marseilles do not reach even with the permitted addition of alcoholic liquid.—Nevertheless, in order that these generous and sweet wines, although endowed with greater strength than the wines of Marseilles, may safely be exported to foreign nations, they must possess eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength; otherwise, because of their very sweetness, they are liable to new fermentations and, during transport by sea, for the most part become sour. For this reason our wine merchants implore a favor similar to that which was granted to the petitions of the Bishop of Marseilles praised above, namely, the faculty of fortifying with spirit or alcohol extracted indeed from the fruit of the vine the wines, especially the sweet ones, so that those which naturally reach more or less fifteen degrees of alcoholic strength may rise to eighteen. For thus the corruption which they are accustomed to undergo from repeated fermentations is prevented, and they can be conveyed more safely to foreign nations which lack wine suitable for offering sacrifice becomingly.—Furthermore, as they say, in some regions of Spain there prevails a most ancient custom by which many priests make wine for themselves for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire or by drying the grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be warranted by the declaration of the Holy Office on 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from dried grapes. 1. Whether so much spirit or alcohol extracted from grapes may be added to the aforesaid wines, especially the sweet ones, for their preservation that they rise to about seventeen or eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength, without thereby ceasing to be suitable matter for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. 2. Whether it is lawful, for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation was condensed by evaporation with fire.

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, I. On the Nature and Effects of the Eucharist · Vol. III, On the Eucharist, II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist · Vol. III, On the Eucharist, III. On the Minister of the Eucharist

“Response. To the first: In view of the newly adduced matters, provided that in the proposed case the spirit was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that the alcoholic quantity to be added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, and that the mixture is made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—To the second: It is lawful, provided that a boiling of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and is in fact obtained.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

n. 504.

On Unleavened and Leavened Bread

“The Roman Church confects the Sacrament of the Eucharist from unleavened bread.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.

n. 504.

“The Body of Christ is truly confected in either unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and priests ought to confect the Body of the Lord in the one or the other, namely each according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern.” Council of Florence, Decree of Union with the Greeks, in the Bull of Eugene IV, Laetentur coeli; Profession of Faith for the Greeks prescribed by Gregory XIII; Profession of Faith for the Easterners prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

n. 505.

On Communion in Another Rite

“To all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See of receiving Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided that it is Catholic.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 18 August 1893; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 441. Cf. C. no. 1998 ff.

…and 362 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 166 passages

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, I. On the Nature and Effects of the Eucharist

What is the Eucharist? - It is the mystery of our Faith, by which, under the species of bread and wine consecrated through the words of the priest, Christ himself is offered, contained, and received. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 1, 3, 7; can. 1-4; sess. 22, c. 1, 6. It has the nature of sacrifice and of sacrament: of sacrifice while it is confected; of sacrament while it is confected, remains, and is received. Trent sess. 13, c. 4; sess. 22, c. 1; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 45; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 1, 4, 5; q. 75, 76, 77; q. 79, a. 5; L. 189, 190; E. M.

n. 496.

How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist? - He remains as long as the species remain whole; but he ceases to be under them as soon as the species are corrupted in such a way that, according to the estimation of men, they no longer seem to be bread and wine. But then, from the law established by God in the institution of this sacrament, there is substituted for the species the same matter which would succeed to corrupted bread and wine. - Wherefore the whole Christ remains present under the individual parts of the species when separation has been made. Trent sess. 13, c. 3. - "The species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they wholly perish, because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the sacrament be conferred, just as neither if you were to die while the host is still in the mouth." L. 226. For grace is given as soon as the eating is verified, which is the vital passage of food from the mouth into the stomach, according to the words of Christ: He who eats my flesh, and drinks, etc. But it is probable that grace is increased ex opere operato during the whole time in which the presence of Christ under the species perseveres, if the man then disposes himself more and more. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 77, a. 4, 5, 8; L. 225; La Croix 474; Lugo dist. 12, n. 40 ff.; E. M.

n. 497.

How long are the sacred species judged to remain whole after the reception of the sacrament? - Some say after a minute, others after five minutes, others after half a quarter of an hour, others still longer, after a quarter of an hour, after half an hour. Concerning this matter it does not seem that any general rule can be handed down. For a shorter or longer delay must chiefly be taken from the different digestive power of different men, and from other circumstances both internal and external. But it remains longer in a priest, who in Mass communicates under each species and with the larger host, than in a layman, who according to custom receives only a small host. L. 225.

n. 498.

Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament, or a double sacrament? - It is one sacrament in species, although there are several signs. For although there is a physical plurality of sign, nevertheless there is a moral unity; for the sacrament of the Eucharist, although composed of the physically distinct species of bread and wine, is nevertheless ordered to one spiritual refreshment in species as to the end and signified effect, just as material food and drink are ordered to one bodily refreshment. Thus in extreme unction there are several anointings, and nevertheless one sacrament is had, because those several anointings are ordered to one end and effect, namely to removing the remnants of sins. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 2; L. 191, 199. - But since under only one species someone receives the whole thing of the sacrament, or the whole Christ, just as he who receives the Eucharist under each species, it follows that the effect of the sacrament is of itself the same under one species as under each species, if the dispositions of those receiving are the same. Council of Trent sess. 21, c. 3; Suarez d. 63, s. 6, n. 9; Lugo d. 12, s. 3, n. 68.

n. 499.

What are the effects of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the soul? - The principal ones are the following, namely: 1. Spiritual nourishment or increase of sanctifying grace, which constitutes the proper and principal effect of the Eucharist of itself. For according to the words of Christ, John 6:56: My flesh is truly food, this sacrament was instituted as spiritual nourishment; and nourishment supposes life in him who receives it. Hence it comes about that through this nourishment the very life of the soul, which chiefly consists in sanctifying grace, is strengthened and increased. Trent sess. 14, c. 5; Lugo d. 1, n. 7. - 2. The attainment of eternal glory; for Christ promises this: If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever, John 6:51. Wherefore eternal glory will be conferred by this new title, that the glorious flesh of Christ has sanctified our body, if someone has persevered in the state of grace to the end. And by the helps which this sacrament confers, it wonderfully aids him to attain eternal life, which he will in reality attain who frequently, as is fitting, and devoutly eats this bread.

A most abundant bestowal of actual graces, which flow from habitual grace and infused habits. For "every effect which material food and drink produce as regards bodily life, by sustaining, increasing, repairing, and delighting, this sacrament works as regards spiritual life." Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Therefore this sacrament is a morally necessary means for preserving sanctifying grace. More abundant helps are therefore given in view of it for overcoming temptations and dangers of sinning. - 4. Weakening of bad habits and amendment of vices, especially of lust. For, as was just said, the proper effect of this spiritual food is spiritually to repair, sustain, increase, and delight the powers. Moreover, by this sacrament the flesh of Christ through the Eucharistic species is joined to the body and sanctifies it. - 5. Remission of venial sins, which is done ex opere operato. Trent sess. 13, c. 2, the Eucharist is called "an antidote by which we are freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins." But this remission of venial sins ex opere operato is together with the remission of venial sins ex opere operantis through supernatural acts, to which the sacrament excites us, of sorrow and charity. Roman Catechism. - 6. Remission of temporal punishment due to sin; not indeed of the whole, but according to the manner of devotion and fervor, as St. Thomas says, 3 p., q. 79, a. 5. And this remission of temporal punishment is ex opere operantis from acts of sorrow and charity, to which the sacrament excites us. For the Eucharist by force of the sacrament has only that effect for which it was instituted. But it was not instituted for making satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union with Christ and with his members. But this union is made through charity, from which there follows remission not only of guilt, but also of punishment, not indeed of the whole, but according to the manner of devotion and fervor. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5. Therefore this remission of temporal punishment ex opere operantis does not impede also the remission of temporal punishment ex opere operato indirectly, namely that which follows the remission of venial faults ex opere operato. - 7. Special union with Christ and his members, as is clear from John 6:57: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him. "The effect of this sacrament," says the Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, "which it works in the soul of one worthily receiving, is the uniting of man to Christ." And this union is had through grace, by which "man is incorporated into Christ and united to his members." Council of Florence, ibid. This intimate conjunction with Christ is also the proper and principal effect of this sacrament of itself, as is clear of itself from the very nature of this sacrament.

Preservation from future sins, both because, charity having been increased through this food, the soul becomes stronger against corrupt nature, and because it is an efficacious memorial of the Lord's Passion, by which the demons were conquered. L. 268, 269; H. A. 5. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 2; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79; q. 73, a. 4; q. 74, a. 1.

It is clear that the preceding effects of the Eucharist depend very greatly on one's own cooperation with grace. And therefore, in those who approach it indevoutly and rarely, those admirable effects often do not appear.

n. 500.

Can the Eucharist ever destroy mortal sin? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative, not indeed of itself, but accidentally and mediately through the infusion of grace, namely when someone, ignorant that he is living in the state of mortal sin, approaches the Eucharist in good faith and with attrition for sins committed beforehand. Then nothing prevents the sacrament from producing its effect. But it cannot produce the effect while mortal sin stands. Therefore it must indirectly remove that sin. L. 268; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 3.

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

116. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist · 117. On the Minister and Subject of the Eucharist

What is the remote matter of the Eucharist? - Bread and wine are the remote matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from the institution itself of this sacrament; for Christ in the Last Supper took bread and wine, and consecrated them into his Body and Blood. 2. From the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, cap. Firmiter, in Florence, Decree of Union, and in Trent sess. 13 in almost all chapters. 3. To all these is added the unanimous tradition of each Church, Latin and Greek. - Only wheaten bread and only wine from the vine are valid matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear from the cited Decree of Florence, where it is said: "The third is the sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine." The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agrees.

Only wheaten bread, namely that which from wheaten flour and natural water, even sea water, mixed and toasted or baked by fire, and uncorrupted in its species, is valid matter. But wheat is not any kind of grain whatever, but is the noblest kind of grain. But as there are various species of wine, so also there are various species of wheat. Matter altogether unsuitable is bread from barley, oats, starch. - Valid matter is bread made from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, but not however to the point of corruption, which grains are then pressed by hand and breads are made from the white matter coming forth, by hot iron, in the usual manner. Holy Office, June 25, 1852.

Wine from the vine, not another; natural wine from the vine, not made by chemical art. But the matter will be valid if the wine is frozen, or if must has then been pressed from grapes; but invalid if pressed from sour or unripe grapes. Rubr. Miss. De defect. t. 4, n. 1, 2. Likewise valid matter will be wine pressed from dried or desiccated grapes, unless they were cooked, or too much water is mixed in. Nothing prevents some quantity of spirit of wine, alcohol, extracted from the offspring of the vine, from being added for preserving weak wine, provided that this, with that which the wine already naturally contains, does not exceed the due proportion, namely 12 percent, or even 17-18 percent if the wines are generous, and the admixture is made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside. Likewise an admixture of sugar, unless it is excessive, does not take away the nature of wine. Wine, even from the vine, from which by art every spirit of wine, alcohol, is removed, is not valid and licit matter of consecration. Holy Office, June 1, 1910. - E. M. "Since the matter of this sacrament is determined by comparison to the use of the faithful absolutely; but the number of the faithful is indeterminate... it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is determined." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 2.

A very little water is to be mixed with the wine; and this is not by necessity of sacrament, but of ecclesiastical precept. The reason for the first is drawn from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; and from the Declaration of the Councils, especially of Florence, which declares the matter of the chalice "to be wine from the vine, with which a very little water must be mixed," and Trent sess. 22, c. 7. The reason for the second is drawn from the fact that Christ, in the institution of this sacrament, designated wine alone, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak only of precept, as Trent l.c. The doctrine of the Roman Catechism is added, which, after teaching that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: "Yet if it [water] is lacking, the sacrament can stand." This precept is grave; and "if this mixture has been omitted, and this is noticed before consecration, it is still to be done, otherwise not if after." L. 208. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74; L. 198; S. C. de P. F., Jan. 30, 1635; Collectanea n. 797; E. M.

n. 502.

Is bread made from rye or siligo valid matter? - Rye (segala) is a kind of grain, and is black, heavy, bitter. Wherefore it certainly seems invalid matter. Siligo (grano bianco) is a kind of very light and very white wheat, from which very excellent bread is made. Wherefore it certainly seems valid matter. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; Lugo d. 4, n. 3; La Croix 421; L. 200.

n. 503.

Is bread made from spelt or far valid matter? - In various regions there are given diverse species of true grain which come under the name of spelt. Whence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men. For every bread made from grain which is truly established to be wheat, although named otherwise, is certainly valid matter. But spelt has not the same signification in various regions and among various doctors. Spelt, from Forcellini, h.v., is a kind of grain which is thought the same as zea, which from the same Forcellini, h.v., is called a kind of grain similar to far. But far is called a kind of grain hardest of all, and now is distinguished from spelt, now is confused with it. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; 4 d. 11, q. 2, a. 2, q. 4.

n. 504.

Is both unleavened and leavened bread valid and licit matter of the Eucharist? - As regards validity, in the affirmative. The reason is that each is true bread, and is also simply so called in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. This is also clear from the definition of the Church. For thus Florence, Decree of Union: "We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread." - As regards liceity, Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened, each according to the rite of his Church. This is clear from the practice of each Church, and from Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: "And priests must confect the Body itself of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern." St. Pius V, Const. Providentia Romani Pontificis, a. 1565; Benedict XIV, Const. on the rites of the Greeks § 6; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; E. M.

n. 505.

Can a Latin in places of the Greeks celebrate in leavened bread, and a Greek in places of Latins in unleavened? - The doctors agree that if among Greeks there is found a Church of Latins in which the Latin rite is observed, a Latin priest must consecrate in unleavened bread, and so conversely. - If a Latin passes through Greece, or the contrary, and no Church of his own rite exists in that place, the doctors commonly and most probably teach that each can celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.

The reason is that each indeed can follow the custom of the region where he is found, yet is not bound to this. - Simple faithful also, as regards communion, must observe their own rite. But it is permitted to communicate in another rite when they cannot do so in their own rite without grave inconvenience, because of the distance of their church. - L. 203; Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis n. 10 ff.; Enc. Allatae sunt § 23; Const. Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam; Leo XIII, Bull Orientalium dignitas, Pr. Kal. Dec. 1894; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2017; E. M. "Ruthenian faithful in the Canadian region, in those places in which neither a church nor a priest of their own rite is had, will be able to conform themselves to the Latin rite, and the same faculty is granted to them also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience. - To all faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Ruthenian, in the Canadian region, the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite; and moreover, where necessity presses and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for a Ruthenian priest to minister the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin priest to minister in leavened bread; but each will observe his own rite in ministering. - Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite, and indeed from his own pastor. - Holy viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite." S. C. de P. F., Aug. 8, 1913, art. 24, 29, 30, 31.

The first article of the aforesaid Decree is also had in the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, for Ruthenians in the United States of North America, art. 21; but the others are not found. But in the Decree of S. C. de Prop. Fide, Aug. 17, 1914, for Greco-Ruthenians in the United States of North America, the first article of the same aforesaid Decree is not found; but the following articles of the same aforesaid Decree are found in art. 23, 24, 25.

But the general Apostolic Constitution of Pius X Tradita ab antiquis, Sept. 14, 1912, is had concerning the Most Holy Eucharist to be received in a mixed rite, in which the following things are established.

I. On The Celebration of Mass. "It is not licit for priests to perform sacred things in a mixed rite; therefore let each one confect and minister the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord according to the rite of his own Church."

II. On Ministering the Eucharist. "Where necessity presses, and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to minister the Eucharist consecrated in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin or Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread to minister in leavened bread; but each one will observe his own rite of ministering."

III. On Receiving the Eucharist. - "To all faithful of whatever rite the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic Sacrament confected in any rite."

IV. On Paschal Communion. - "Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite and indeed from his own pastor, to whom certainly he will remain attached in performing the other duties of religion."

V. On Viaticum. - "Holy Viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite."

VI. On Not Changing One's Native Rite. - "Each one will remain in his native rite, even if he has long held the custom of communicating in another rite; nor is the faculty of changing rite to be given to anyone unless just and legitimate causes support him, concerning which the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Faith for affairs of Orientals will judge. But among these causes there will not be numbered the custom, however long-standing, of communicating in another rite."

n. 506.

In a case of necessity for providing viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in leavened bread? - Some affirm, but the common and more probable opinion denies it. The reason is that the Church most gravely urges observation of the prescribed rite, which consequently in this case is to be preferred to the private utility of one's neighbor, to whom such a sacrament is not simply necessary, because of the common good, lest there be confusion of rites and so that their distinction be preserved. L. 203. Yet it would be licit and obligatory to consecrate in leavened bread in order to complete the sacrifice, if it could not be completed otherwise, e.g., if the priest noticed that he had consecrated corrupted matter and could not have another licit host.

n. 507.

Does a priest consecrating in wine becoming sour sin gravely? - Resp. In the affirmative, although that wine is still valid matter of the sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is admitted not only if the wine is close to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to become sour and corrupted, because then grave irreverence seems to be inflicted upon the sacrament. This is clear from the Rubrics, tit. 4, n. 2: "If the wine has begun to become sour or corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp, or is must then pressed from grapes, or water has not been mixed, or rose water or water of another distillation has been mixed, the sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely." "Yet probably, when other wine is lacking, it is licit without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to use wine becoming a little sour, or not notably acid." L. 207. Hence the rubric does not seem to be taken with such rigor that it comprehends all even the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine becoming sour. "But when grave necessity presses, it would be licit to use wine still notably becoming sour, provided it is certainly wine." L. 207. The same consequently must be said of bread growing moldy. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 1, 3. L. 206, 207; H. A., App. 3, Exam. ordinand. 98; Benedict XIV, Notification 77; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3, 5.

n. 508.

Is frozen wine valid matter? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is, 1. because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2. because from the Rubrics of the Missal, the species of frozen wine after consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then consumed, since it is a true sacrament. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 10, n. 11. Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retain the Blood of Christ. Therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially by freezing after consecration. Therefore neither before. Thus St. Liguori 207, where he says it is the truer opinion because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric. But concerning the denying opinion he says ibid.: "I think it has no solid probability." - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; Lugo d. 4, n. 14.

n. 509.

What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice? - A very small quantity of water suffices, as Florence says. Probably water can be poured in up to the eighth part of the wine, indeed up to the fifth part according to Lugo d. 4, n. 38. Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last opinion is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine if it is generous. Generally it is to be advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added. But one drop of water suffices, provided it is sensible. - L. 210; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 8; q. 77, a. 8; E. M.

n. 510.

What about the proximate matter, or the use of the matter required in the consecration itself? - For valid consecration besides suitable matter there is required:

That the matter to be consecrated be physically present; because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, this, here, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that which would not be present would be demonstrated as present. 2. That through the intention of the minister it be determined in the individual; because just as the minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Yet actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices. L. 211-214. - For licit consecration there is required that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially as determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal. Hence it is necessary: 1. That the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament. 2. That it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone, according to Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. sect. 2, n. 139. 3. That the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered. 4. That it be done at the time of the Canon prescribed by the Rubric. Trent sess. 22, c. 4, 5, 8; L. 218, 219; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1 ad 4; q. 83, a. 3, 4, 5. 5. It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species. Likewise it is certain and common among all that it is not licit even at the point of death to consecrate one species for giving viaticum to the sick person. For the consecration of the Eucharist has the nature of sacrifice, and Christ instituted the sacrifice to be offered under each species. L. 195, 196. 6. From precept in the Latin Church the bread to be consecrated must be round in shape and whole. It is also licit to celebrate privately with a smaller host, such as is given to laymen, when no other can be had and scandal is absent; indeed, if a cause presses, even publicly on a feast day, because there is no precept nor is there certainty of a custom obliging under precept, and even from a cause of devotion, if scandal is absent. But it is not licit to take the small one and leave the larger, unless the priest in the same Mass also consecrated that one, because he must communicate from his own sacrifice. Wherefore a pastor acts badly who, about to renew the Eucharist, himself consumes a host consecrated by another and places in the tabernacle, or pyx, one consecrated by himself. L. 205; Diana tr. 1, de Celebrat. missar., r. 234.

n. 511.

You will resolve: Hosts placed upon the corporal at the beginning of Mass are validly consecrated, although the celebrant actually no longer attends to them; likewise hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered. For all are consecrated after the manner of one. Likewise wine in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever is validly consecrated; because for true presence of the matter it suffices that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.

The consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, when there are several placed either by himself or by another; the reason is that the priest certainly intends to consecrate whatever is present and decently consecrable. Whence if the celebrant notices after consecration that two hosts are joined together, let him consume each as consecrated. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him put one back, and after Mass let him himself or another consume it as blessed bread. - The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to be consecrated to the altar, or before the sacrifice has been warned about hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another so that they may be consecrated, even if while he consecrates he does not expressly remember them in that way, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.

Hosts would not be consecrated if, unknown to the priest, they had been placed even on the corporal, because the priest, being wholly unaware, did not have a general intention of consecrating them, and therefore neither can an intention virtually persevere which did not exist. If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able licitly to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. Rubr. de Defect. t. 7, n. 1, 2, 4; L. 212, 215, 216, 217; Elbel 35, 36, 48.

n. 512.

Can hosts to be consecrated be brought once the Canon has begun? - Theologians and skilled rubricists commonly deny it. Yet several doctors of great weight permit it from a very grave cause. Thus Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. missae l. 3, c. 18, n. 5: "The common opinion is, and one confirmed by the consent of very many, that particles cannot be consecrated when the canon has begun to be recited, even if it were a question of consecrating a particle which would have to be brought for viaticum to a sick person.

For in that case, some small particle could be taken from the host of the Mass and reserved for the sick person... Anyone easily understands that the order of Mass is perverted if particles to be consecrated are received after the preface has begun. Moreover, if this is to be done, it must not be done without a legitimate cause, of which kind it would be if a great multitude prepared to receive the Eucharist would lack the sacrament." St. Liguori seems to subscribe to this doctrine: "If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, Aversa adds before the preface has begun, Diana, etc., teach that they are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally. And this even if the canon has begun, as Tamburini, etc. At least when many would remain without communion," Busembaum and St. Alphonsus l.c. But it is certain that they can never be admitted after the consecration of the bread.

n. 513.

What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host? - Scandal and reasonable cause being excluded, it is only venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. Yet if some fracture or stain is detected in the host after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared, because already by the oblation it has in some way been dedicated and sanctified to God. The same must be said proportionately of turbid wine. L. 204; La Croix 422.

n. 514.

Can doubtful matter ever be consecrated? - Never altogether, not even for avoiding death, is it licit to consecrate doubtful matter, namely because of the danger of material idolatry; and besides, if only one species is doubtful, because of the integrity of the sacrifice. But when this has been consecrated, to despise it or expose it to adoration, each is grave; but after the consummation, before purification, it will have to be consumed. And the same must be said if you doubt whether you have consecrated matter otherwise suitable; but this, if it can again be rightly consecrated conditionally, is to be consecrated again. St. Thomas q. 74, a. 3 ad 3; Rubr. de Defect. t. 3.

n. 515.

What must be done if unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated? - "If unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated, the whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest may intend to consecrate the unconsecrated; or rather let him consecrate the whole heap conditionally, if they are not consecrated. And this rather must be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts, true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word this be verified; whence all the hosts must be consecrated conditionally, so that they may be validly consecrated." L. 216. - Lugo d. 4, n. 136; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 77, a. 8.

n. 516.

Is a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated? - It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that there was already a positive will of consecrating that ciborium at the beginning of Mass, nor was that will retracted. Therefore it persevered virtually at the time of consecration. The second opinion denies. The reason is that that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it. - The second opinion is called by St. Alphonsus 217 common and more probable, namely because it could not have been consecrated without mortal sin, from the presumed intention of the celebrant. Thus indeed, if this was at some time certain for him, that he did not wish to do anything in celebrating Mass which could not be done without mortal sin. Otherwise one would have to say that he also does not consecrate who ignorantly celebrates with a chalice not consecrated or a corporal not blessed.

And indeed, excluding this preceding general will of not consecrating in such a case, that presumed will is nothing, since in reality it is not present because of ignorance of the thing, but on the contrary the will of consecrating the present matter is truly present. Since the matter is not without doubt, especially because of the extrinsic authority of the doctors, "in practice those particles are to be consumed after the Blood." L. ib. Rubr. de Defect. t. 3, n. 4, 5, speaking of a priest who consecrated a host either corrupted or not wheaten, prescribes that "if he has not consumed it, let him consume it after the reception of the Body and Blood." "But particles found outside the corporal, in doubt whether they are consecrated, are to be consumed even after the ablution." L. 251. - But there can be no doubt about the consecration if someone, not attending to the ciborium outside the corporal, had an actual intention of consecrating it together with the larger host. And the same consequently must be said of virtual intention, if, seeing the ciborium, he had the positive will of consecrating it.

n. 517.

Is a ciborium judged consecrated if it was indeed placed on the corporal, but through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of consecration? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is 1. because hosts certainly can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium. Cf. 511. 2. because the priest has the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is upon the corporal, and is honorably consecrable, and is had after the manner of a continuum.

n. 518.

Are drops of wine externally adhering to the chalice judged consecrated? - Drops externally adhering are never judged consecrated. The reason is that the intention of the priest is of consecrating that one thing which is consecrable within the chalice itself. L. 215.

n. 519.

Are drops of wine consecrated which are in the chalice separated, when the priest intended nothing concerning them? - Some deny, others affirm, and finally others affirm concerning near drops and deny concerning remote ones. More probably drops altogether separated from the greater quantity are in no way judged consecrated. The reason is that it does not seem to be the intention of the Church, and therefore neither of the priest, to consecrate anything except wine which after the manner of one drinkable thing is found gathered in the chalice. - "La Croix says it is expedient that the priest intend to consecrate them, lest there be wine in the chalice which is not consecrated. But it seems better to me," says St. Alphonsus, "to intend this concerning drops near the bottom, but not concerning remote ones." L. H. A. Ex. ordin. 99. "Gavantus orders them to be wiped away, which custom approves. Yet Tamburini teaches that one who omits this does not sin, indeed that it is not expedient if you notice them when, the chalice having been uncovered, you are now about to consecrate, and the people await the elevation. But after consecration they are in no way to be wiped away." L. 219. If the separated drops are near the whole mass, they can easily be united to it by tilting the chalice a little. L. 215.

n. 520.

Is consecration of one species without the other valid? - No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by chance and contrary to intention. But whether a priest consecrates validly who has a positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, the doctors commonly affirm. The reason is that in every sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter with the intention of doing what the Church does, the sacrament is perfected. L. 196; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 6; Lugo d. 19, n. 102, 104; Suarez d. 43, s. 2; Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians.

n. 521.

What is the form of the Eucharist; what is its power? - The form in the consecration of the Body is: For this is my Body; but of the Blood: For this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament. - But by the power of the words themselves the whole substance of the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood: yet in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread, and the whole under the species of wine. "Also under any part whatever of the consecrated host and of the consecrated wine, after separation has been made, the whole Christ is present." Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - Wherefore the words must signify the transubstantiation of the present thing in an instant. In an instant, that is, not in successive becoming, but in completed being; namely the form signifies not what is being done, but what has been done: This is, Here is. - Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 1, 3, 4; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78; q. 75, a. 7; E. M.

n. 522.

You will resolve: The consecration is valid, but illicit, if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; This chalice, This drink is my Blood; Here is my Blood; for it is the same thing, since those words, This is the chalice, etc., are said by metonymy; or if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; or if the particle enim is omitted. Likewise if he pronounces Colpus for Corpus; meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc. - But he cannot be excused from sin who does not use due diligence for rightly pronouncing the words of consecration.

The consecration will be invalid if you say: Hic adverbially is my Body; This Body is mine; This Blood is mine, where Body and Blood stand on the part of the subject, not of the predicate; That is my Body; Behold my Body; This my Body; This bread is my Body; Let this become, This becomes, Let this be my Body. - The consecration is doubtful if you say: That is my Body; This is my Flesh; for although flesh in Sacred Letters also signifies body, nevertheless commonly and from its own proper signification it imports only a part of the body. - The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and significatively at the same time, but not only historically; namely the words of Christ are to be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence the form is invalid if someone says: This is the Body of Christ. Yet a scruple is not to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing what Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1, 2; L. 220, 221.

n. 523.

Is omission of the word enim in the form of consecration grave? - The first opinion probably denies it, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - The second opinion affirms. The reason is that in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever. L. 220; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2 ad 5.

n. 524.

Are those preceding words required as essential in the consecration: Who the day before he suffered, etc.; In like manner, etc.? - Resp. In the negative with the common opinion, which St. Liguori 222, Lugo d. 11, s. 3, etc. hold. The reason is that these words are pronounced only historically, and seem to have no sacramental efficacy, nor are they necessary so that the priest pronounce the words of consecration in the person of Christ, which depends only on the intention of the priest. Nor indeed are they counted in the Florentine Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where the form of the Eucharist is explicitly handed down. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2, 3.

n. 525.

In the consecration of the chalice, are only these words, This is the chalice of my Blood, of the essence of the form? - The first opinion affirms. The reason is 1. because the words of consecration of the bread are these: This is my Body. Nor indeed are the other words, which shall be given up for you, essential.

Therefore, by parity, the words of consecration of the wine are only these other words: This is my Blood, or other equivalent words; 2. because those words alone of themselves express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Thus more commonly and more probably. The second opinion denies it, because the later words, which for you, etc., designate the power of the Blood poured out in the Passion, which operates in this Sacrament. Moreover, by these words it is explicitly signified that the Eucharistic sacrifice is representative of the sacrifice of the Cross. This is confirmed from Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where those words are counted in the form of words in the consecration of the Eucharist. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 3; Rubr. Missal. de Defect. tit. 5, n. 1.

St. Alphonsus 223 says that the opinion of the Angelic Doctor is very doubtful. Cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25, and he adds: "For the rest, each opinion is speculatively probable; but in practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice, and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he would certainly have to repeat the form integrally under condition." Thus indeed in the Rubrics de Defect. t. 10, n. 3 it is prescribed, where it is said: "If he [the priest] has died, the form of the Blood having been half-pronounced, then another is to continue the Mass, and over the same chalice let him repeat the entire form (understand conditionally, if perhaps he has already said the words: This is the Chalice of my Blood) from that place: In like manner, etc.; or he could pronounce the entire form over another prepared chalice, and consume the Host of the first priest and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice left half-consecrated."

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, III. On the Minister of the Eucharist

n. 526.

Who is the minister of consecration and dispensation? - Every priest and only a priest, although he is bad, is the minister for confecting the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from Scripture; for Christ, instituting the sacrament, said to all and only the Apostles reclining with him, and therefore to all and only those who were going to succeed them in the priesthood: Do this in memory of me, Luke 22:19. Therefore all and only priests received this power from Christ. 2. From Trent sess. 22, c. 2, 3; Florence, Decree for the Armenians. 3. Finally from universal and perpetual tradition. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 1, 5. - Only priests or presbyters are ordinary ministers of the dispensation of the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from Trent sess. 13, c. 8, where it is said: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive communion from priests, but priests celebrating communicate themselves." 2. From the universal practice of the Church. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3. - Deacons, by force of their ordination, are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, so that its dispensation can be committed to them. This is clear 1. from the practice of the earlier centuries, in which deacons everywhere, from the commission of bishops or presbyters, whether general or particular, ministered the Eucharist. 2. From various Councils, e.g., the first general Council of Nicaea, the fourth of Carthage, etc. L. 237; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3 ad 1, ad 3; Trent sess. 14, c. 10.

By ordinary law only the pastor, or his superior, can dispense the Eucharist. For for this there is required jurisdiction, ordinary, or delegated, or at least reasonably presumed, or a privilege, or custom, not indeed for the validity of the act, as in absolution, but for the due order of ministering. It belongs to pastors to feed, which is done chiefly through the sacraments. This is besides clear from the Councils, especially from Carthage I, can. 7, and from Milevis can. 18, Clement 1, de Privil., etc., and from the universal practice of the Church. Hence he who ministers the Eucharist without at least presumed permission of the pastor violates his right in a grave matter, and therefore sins gravely. - When the pastor grants others permission to celebrate in his church, he is always judged to grant also permission of ministering the Eucharist, unless he expresses the contrary; which is confirmed by common practice. Indeed custom has it that in whatever church a priest celebrates Mass, he can distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, which responds to the desire of Trent sess. 22, c. 6. - Yet permission is not so easily to be presumed if it concerns reception of the Eucharist from obligation. Wherefore as regards Paschal Communion, from Law and the universal practice of the Church, this is to be received in each one's own parish; likewise, to minister viaticum outside the case of necessity without permission of the pastor is illicit. Yet reasonably presumed permission suffices in each case. Cf. vol. 1, n. 1562. "It is also probable outside the article of death, from a grave cause and with scandal removed, that it is licit for a priest to take the sacred host from the tabernacle, or, brought by a deacon, to give it to himself, e.g., if in a long illness he had not communicated for a long time... Indeed Croix 471, etc., say that from the cause of devotion alone, a priest can always communicate himself, because, scandal being removed, there is no irreverence, nor is it forbidden anywhere, unless another priest is present." L. 238. - Lugo d. 18, n. 19, 36; L. 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 239; E. M.

n. 527.

In order that a deacon may minister, must the necessity be extreme? In extreme necessity is it licit even for a layman to minister the Eucharist?

Resp. To the first: In the negative with the common opinion; but grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister the Eucharist. But for this a commission of the bishop or pastor is required. S. R. C., Feb. 25, 1777, n. 2504; L. 236. "But in extreme necessity, namely if another priest is absent, a deacon can and is bound to minister viaticum, even without the commission of the pastor; thus likewise the common doctors. And the same runs in the administration of baptism." L. 805. - But a deacon solemnly ministering the Eucharist without the required commission, according to St. Alphonsus 234, incurs irregularity, which however others deny. Cf. 419, 423; Lugo d. 18, n. 7, 72; Suarez d. 72, s. 1, n. 8; La Croix 472; L. l. 7, n. 346.

A deacon carrying viaticum to a sick person, when a presbyter is lacking and with permission of the Apostolic Vicar, can make the sprinkling of blessed water, say the Misereatur, the Indulgence, sign the sick person, say Dominus vobiscum with the Prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Sacrament. S. R. C., Aug. 14, 1858; E. M.

A deacon can carry the Eucharist from one altar to another, even with priests present. S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1906.

Resp. To the second: In extreme necessity it is licit not only for a deacon but also for a layman, scandal being excluded, to communicate both others and himself. L. 237. - When such a necessity occurs, e.g., in time of plague, it can well be permitted by the judgment of the bishop even to laymen to minister the Eucharist. S. C. de P. F., July 11, 1841, n. 728; L. 237. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3; 4 d., q. 1, a. 3; E. M.

n. 528.

Whether, and in what circumstances, can religious minister the Most Holy Eucharist? - They can always minister the Eucharist in their own churches either by themselves or through other priests, with Easter day previously excepted. This is clear from the privileges of the Supreme Pontiffs. At Rome, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord was also excepted. - For the law by which it is prohibited that on Easter day in non-parish churches, especially regular churches, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to the faithful even for the cause of devotion, is no longer to be observed. S. C. C., Nov. 27, 1912. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 9, c. 16, n. 3; Const. Magno cum § 22; Lugo d. 16, n. 62; d. 18, n. 50; L. 249. - In other churches they cannot minister the Eucharist except with at least presumed permission of the pastors or superiors; nor viaticum to seculars except with express permission of the pastors, except in a case of necessity. Cf. 526, 1197. - "Regulars licitly give the Eucharist... if the sick person has satisfied the precept concerning viaticum, with the intention of fulfilling it; because administration of the Eucharist is forbidden to regulars only when the precept of communion obliges.

Yet never, without permission of the bishop or pastor, is it licit for religious publicly to carry the Eucharist through the streets, since this derogates from the right of pastors obtained by custom; therefore in that case, in the oratory of the sick person, or another honorable place of the house (if legitimate faculty is had), sacred action having been privately done, the Eucharist is to be given." L. 239, 240; Elbel 57; La Croix 624, 626; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 9, c. 15, 16. Cf. here 536.

n. 529.

What about the obligation of dispensing the Eucharist? - A pastor, or any priest having care of souls, is bound from justice to minister the Eucharist to subjects, not only at Easter and in danger of death, but also as often as they reasonably ask, nevertheless excluding the cause of a legitimate impediment. The reason is that it belongs to the pastor from quasi-contract to provide, not only that the faithful fulfill precepts, but also that they not lack helps which greatly profit spiritual progress. Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr., de Commun. infirm.; L. H. A. 8. - Any priest whatever, whether secular or regular, is bound, the pastor lacking, to minister the Eucharist to one about to die; otherwise in other cases. The first reason is that anyone is bound from charity to aid his neighbor constituted in so great an extremity through this salutary and most efficacious remedy. The second reason is that no obligation intervenes, either from justice, since there is no contract, or from charity, since it is not supposed that a case of necessity is present.

n. 530.

Is the pastor also bound to seek out the sick, not asking the Eucharist, so that he may minister it to them? - Resp. In the affirmative, at least if they are in grave danger of death. The reason is that it is the office of a good shepherd to care that means so useful and efficacious be supplied to sheep constituted in so great a danger. It is also gathered from the Roman Ritual, de Comm. pasch., de Comm. infirm., and from C. Presbyter 1, de Celebr. miss. And by a particular reason he is also bound to prepare children for receiving the Eucharist and to minister it to them.

n. 531.

Is the pastor bound to minister the Eucharist to subjects by himself? - Resp. In the negative. For it suffices that he provide lest one asking for that sacrament opportunely, or gravely needing it, lack it. Therefore ordinarily he can fulfill his obligation even through others. From the Roman Ritual, de Comm. pasch., on Easter day he himself, unless legitimately impeded, will minister this sacrament by himself.

n. 532.

Does the pastor sin gravely as often as he denies the Eucharist to one reasonably asking? - Resp. In the negative; for if he does this rarely, e.g., toward one or another, scandal being excluded, and without grave sadness of those asking, he will sin only venially. The reason is that in these rare and particular cases there does not result grave injury, nor grave harm to the faithful asking, or if harm is present, it is easily repairable.

n. 533.

Is the pastor bound to minister the Eucharist even with danger to life, e.g., in time of plague or contagious disease? - Resp. St. Liguori 233 very probably denies this with others. Yet several affirm, relying on the doctrine of Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 19. - The same must be said of extreme unction. For neither the Eucharist nor extreme unction are sacraments of absolute necessity. L. 728. Cf. 362.

n. 534.

When is the pastor judged excused from ministering the Eucharist to subjects asking from mere devotion? - He is legitimately excused: 1. When the subjects, because of various circumstances, do not ask reasonably, e.g., if they ask before Mass with inconvenience of others. 2. If the pastor himself is impeded because of illness or other necessary occupations. - Yet in this one must act cautiously, because from a denial of this kind the faithful can easily take scandal, and indeed, with due trust in the pastor having been lost, be kept from receiving the sacraments more often.

…and 126 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 202 passages

116. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

Donatus, a new priest, celebrating his first Mass, confected the Eucharist from bread indeed of wheat, baked by pure fire, but kneaded with rose-water; and from wine expressed from sour grapes, or not mature grapes, to which nevertheless sugar had been mixed, so that it altogether had the flavor of sweet wine.

Quaer. Whether Donatus consecrated validly?

R. As regards the bread kneaded with rose-water, the matter is doubtful, and therefore this species was doubtfully consecrated. In Rubr. de Defect. § 3. n. 2 it is said: "If it is made (the bread) from rose-water, or from another distillation, it is doubtful whether it is confected." But as regards the wine expressed from sour grapes or not mature grapes, from Rubr. de Defect. § 4. n. 1., the matter is altogether invalid, and therefore the sacrament was not confected. But the sugar mixed in could indeed have simulated the taste of wine, but could not make true wine.

"It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acid taste, due to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine, and which forms with the excess tartaric acid a potassium bitartrate that precipitates to the bottom of the cask. Meanwhile it was asked whether this wine so treated was lawful for Mass.

R. "It is not expedient." S. O. 9 May 1892. M. E. v. 7. p. 2. p. 204.

Paul, a missionary among Easterners, asks whether he can give communion to Easterners in his own Church of the Latin rite, and whether he can give them communion in unleavened bread.

Peter, likewise a missionary among Easterners, asks whether Latins can receive communion in the Churches of the Easterners, and whether they can receive communion in leavened bread.

Quaer. What answer is to be given to each missionary?

R. In the Letter of S. C. de P. F., 30 Apr. 1862, to the Apostolic Delegate of Egypt, these things are contained as regards the proposed questions: "The second doubt concerns the reception of the sacraments which the Easterners make in the Latin Churches, namely of penance and of the Eucharist... Regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting to distinguish the Easterners who, according to their own rite, use unleavened bread, from those who use leavened. For the former there is no prohibition, nor can the Eastern bishops forbid their own subjects to receive the Eucharist from Latin missionaries in their churches, it being well understood in cases in which parochial right does not enter. But for the others, that is, for those who, in Eucharistic matter, use leavened bread, it must first be noted that they also can receive holy communion in Latin churches, provided they receive it according to their own rite, and from national priests, as Benedict XIV teaches in the Encyclical Allatae sunt, at numbers 33, 35, 36. Indeed, sometimes this is a necessity for those places where the Easterners do not have churches of their own rite. But it is another thing if the users of leavened bread wished to receive communion from the Latins in unleavened bread. Two rules have been established for the users of leavened bread: the first is that they cannot at their own choice communicate in unleavened bread when they have the opportunity of doing so in their own rite; the second is that when there occurs the difficulty of communicating in leavened bread, they can do so also in unleavened bread, not only in the article of death and to fulfill the Easter precept, but also in other cases, as is established in the pastoral instruction of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam.

"In the third doubt the Latins are treated, that is, the users of unleavened bread. These can communicate in the Eastern churches in their own rite from priests who use unleavened bread, but they cannot without pontifical dispensation communicate in leavened bread, even though there should occur the difficulty of communicating in unleavened bread. The maxim is found established in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of Benedict XIV, n. 12 of § VI, where it is said absolutely that Latin laypeople are altogether prohibited and forbidden to receive communion from Greek presbyters under the species of leavened bread. Consistently, the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda have always prohibited the users of unleavened bread from communicating in leavened bread; and only in the cases in which there occurred the total lack of priests of their own rite, and of those of another rite in which consecration is made in unleavened bread, have they implored for them the pontifical dispensation, which, however, has not been granted except for the two cases of true necessity, namely of Viaticum and of the Easter precept." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 735. I. M. 505.

But very recently, by the Decree of the same S. C. de P. F., 18 Aug. 1893, Monitore Ecclesiastico Conversano v. 8. p. 2., p. 79., "to all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church and priest of their own rite, the faculty is granted in the future by the Holy See of receiving Most Holy Communion, not only in the article of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic."

And in Blessed Leo XIII, Orientalium dignitas, the day before the Kalends of December 1894, these things are contained: "Where there is lacking a priest of their own rite to whom the Eastern Patriarch may entrust the spiritual administration of his own people, there let a parish priest of another rite undertake their care, one who uses the same species as they themselves, unleavened or leavened, for consecrating; those are to be preferred who use them in the Eastern rite. - But let the faithful have the faculty of communicating in either rite, not only in those places where no church nor priest of their own proper rite is available, as was decreed by the Sacred Council for propagating the Christian name on 18 Aug. 1893, but also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience; concerning this let the judgment belong to the Ordinaries. And let this remain fixed: that one who has communicated by another rite or on another day is not therefore to be judged to have changed rite, but in all other duties continues to remain attached to his own parish priest...

"For a woman of the Latin rite who has married a man of the Eastern rite, as also for an Eastern woman who has married a Latin, it will be intact that, on entering or during the marriage, she may pass over to the rite of the husband; but when the marriage has been dissolved, there will be free power of resuming her own rite."

From these Documents the solution to be given to each missionary is clearly evident.

A Latin priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words which precede the consecration, who on the day before, etc. But a Greek priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words, which shall be given for you.

Quaer. Whether each consecration was valid?

R. Affirmatively. There are not lacking those who hold that those words who on the day before, etc., although they are not part of the form, nevertheless are necessarily required for the validity of the form. But this opinion, as Lugo says, d. 11. n. 39., is rejected by all. The altogether convincing reason is that the Fathers and Councils say that this sacrament is confected by the words of Christ, and not by others. But those words who on the day before, etc., are not the words of Christ, but of the Evangelist. Cf. Conc. Flor. Decr. pro Iacob. E. M. 521.

But although the Greeks add to the form of consecration of the bread those words, which shall be given for you, nevertheless these do not belong to the essence of the form. For, as the Roman Catechism says, n. 19., "we are taught by the holy Evangelists Matthew and Luke, and likewise by the Apostle, that this is the form: This is my Body. For it is written: While they were dining, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my Body. Since this form of consecration was indeed observed by Christ the Lord, the Catholic Church has perpetually used it." - Lugo d. 11. s. 3., D'Annib. 241. 387., I. M. 521. 524.

Laelius the sacristan warned Narcissus the priest, who was soon to celebrate, that he should wish to consecrate the small host already placed upon the altar. But at the time of the oblation, since he had not found the small host upon the altar, he made the oblation in the usual manner of the larger host, and consecrated it. But then, folding the Corporal, he found the small host, which had been placed under the Corporal.

Quaer. Whether the aforesaid small host was consecrated?

R. It seems that that small host was not consecrated. The reason is that, since Narcissus sought it upon the altar and did not find it, he seems already not to have had the intention of consecrating another host than the larger host. Wherefore he implicitly retracted the intention he had previously had. Moreover, those words, this and here, signify matter that is certain, present, and placed nearby. Wherefore, just as the consecration would be invalid if the matter were placed far away, for example, if it were more than 50 paces away, so also it would be invalid if the matter were not placed in sight, for example, if it were placed in a pyx kept in the tabernacle. Hence the consecration is also not valid if the host is placed under the corporal. - I. M. 510.

"For consecration it is required," says Castropal. punct. 6. num. 5., "that the matter to be consecrated be present to you, so that you can point it out by the pronoun this or here, and perceive it by sense; otherwise it will not be present to you in a moral and human manner. It does not stand in the way of this presence that it is contained in some vessel or linen cloth; for by reason of the container the content is present to you. It would be otherwise if bread or wine were placed behind a wall or a linen cloth, because then by no sense can you point out that matter. And it is the same if the bread exists under a cloth, or in the tabernacle, because it does not exist there as in a container which can be perceived by sense. Thus Suar., Vazq., Bonac., Aegid. de Coninch., Paul. Laymann." La-Croix l. 6. p. 1. n. 443. 444., D'Annib. p. 3. n. 388.

n. 7.

Aloysius, lying ill with a grave disease, after sacramental confession had been completed, received Viaticum. As soon as the sacred host had descended into the stomach, Aloysius is seized by a sudden and unexpected vomiting, and casts out the sacred host, which appears intact. The physician is consulted, who declares the matter altogether accidental, and says that Aloysius can receive Viaticum again without any new danger of vomiting. Wherefore Aloysius and his parents ask the parish priest to be willing to minister the Most Holy Viaticum again after lunch.

n. 7.

Quaer. Whether the parish priest can minister the sacred Viaticum again in the Case?

n. 7.

R. Negatively. For it is contrary to the practice of the Church to minister sacred Viaticum twice in a day, and while the same danger of death remains, to the sick person. For Aloysius, notwithstanding the vomiting, truly received Viaticum. For it was altogether verified that he ate the Body of Christ. Wherefore he also received sacramental grace. I. M. 496. For the use of this sacrament is had in the eating of the Body of Christ; when this eating has been verified, the fruit of the sacrament is received, according to Christ's clear promise of grace to be given: He who eats the bread shall live forever. But eating in this sacrament must certainly be understood as in other foods, which certainly, in a human manner, are said to have been eaten not when they are only in the mouth or in the throat, but when they have already descended into the stomach, and are already judged to have been irrevocably swallowed. Cf. Lugo d. 12. s. 2.

117. On the Minister and Subject of the Eucharist

Xaverius, a parish priest, very occupied at Easter time in hearing confessions, commits communion to be distributed to the people to Stephen the deacon. For otherwise he himself would have to distribute it, not without inconvenience to the parishioners, whose confessions he would often have to defer to another day, since no other priest is present in that parish.

Quaer. Whether rightly?

R. Togni, Instruct. etc. p. 1. c. 6., seems to deny it. For although generally he first says that a deacon can administer the Eucharist by delegation in a case of necessity, nevertheless afterward he raises the question: "Can a deacon dispense the Eucharist when a presbyter is present?" And he answers: "By no means; for this is forbidden to him by Can. 15 of the Second Council of Arles and Can. 38 of the Fourth Council of Carthage." Likewise he raises the question: "Are the sick to be refreshed with the Eucharist by a deacon?" And he answers: "Negatively, except in a case of necessity, namely, if a priest is lacking and the sick man is in danger of life."

But these things are against the common doctrine; and therefore the proposed question must be answered: Affirmatively. For a deacon can, in grave necessity and by commission, distribute communion to the people, according to the common opinion of the doctors. I. M. 527. Pavone aptly has these things, Spicilegio, dissert. 9. num. 208: "The deacon can touch the Eucharist when, serving the priest, he either exposes it in the Ostensorium, or replaces the particles in the pyx, or in need administers it to the people. The words of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 399, Can. 35, related Dist. 93. C. Praesente 18, are: Diaconus, praesente presbytero, eucharistiam... populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus eroget, 'Let the deacon, in the presence of the presbyter, if necessity compels, distribute the Eucharist to the people when ordered.' And earlier, in canon 14 of the Council of Nicaea, it was established concerning deacons that si non fuerit in praesenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter, tunc ipsi proferant, 'if neither bishop nor presbyter is present, then they themselves may bring it forth.' This canon is thus reported by Rufinus, priest of Aquileia: Si vero presbyter nullus sit in praesenti, tunc demum etiam ipsis licere dividere, 'But if no presbyter is present, then at last it is lawful also for them to distribute.' Conc. Nic. I. A.D. 325, apud Labbé in amplis. collect. Gelasius I spoke in the same way when writing to the Bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily: deacons, he said, Sacri Corporis prorogationem sub conspectu Pontificis seu presbyteri, nisi his absentibus, ius non habeant exercendi, 'do not have the right of exercising the distribution of the Sacred Body in the sight of the Pontiff or presbyter, unless these are absent.' Labbé ibid. a. 492. Epist. 9. c. 8. Therefore, when the priest is present, the deacon, besides necessity, needs his commission in order to dispense the Eucharist; but when he is not present, necessity alone is enough. Then the priest can give him such a commission when he himself is impeded. Colet, speaking of the deacon, who cannot indiscriminately, says: ut quilibet sacerdos, sed tantum, vel absente sacerdote, vel, eo quidem praesente sed iustas ob necessitates, sacram synaxim dispensare potest, 'as any priest can, but only when the priest is absent, or when he is indeed present but because of just necessities, can he dispense the sacred synaxis.' Th. Mor. c. 5. de Min. euch. art. 2. And this, he continues to say, is lawful even in places where it has never before been practiced; because, since such commission was always given to deacons in the first centuries in the East and in the West, although this custom has ceased because of the multitude of priests, nevertheless when need occurs in the present time, the same commission can be given; potest enim Ecclesia quidquid olim potuit, 'for the Church can do whatever it once could.' And in order not to cause scandal to the people, who have not yet seen communion administered by deacons, it is necessary to instruct them that this is lawful. But what is the necessity that makes it lawful? When there is no commission of the priest, the only case of necessity would be the administration of Viaticum, which cannot be deferred until a priest comes; because although, as we have seen, the Council of Nicaea and Pope Gelasius permitted this without necessity, for the absence of the priest alone, nevertheless today, because of the change of discipline, all the sacred doctors restrict it to the said necessity. But when the said commission is present, the just cause is, as Suarez writes, quod sacerdos sit debilis vel infirmus, 'that the priest be weak or ill,' de Sacr. euch. d. 72. s. 1.; and according to the opinion of Leander adopted by Amort: Si sacerdos sit debilis, infirmus, aut aliis exercitiis impeditus, aut si non possit communicare tot homines, et non sit alius sacerdos, qui id velit vel commode possit efficere, 'If the priest is weak, ill, or impeded by other exercises, or if he cannot communicate so many people, and there is no other priest who would wish or could conveniently accomplish this.' Th. Mor. disp. 5. de Euch. § 6. quaest. unic. § 3. For example, says Cavalieri, si sacerdos sit occupatus in audiendis confessionibus, 'if the priest is occupied in hearing confessions.' To. 4. decr. 13. c. 4. n. 6."

Lugo, de Sacr. euch. d. 18. n. 27., says: "It is doubted secondly: whether in fact a priest can now commit to a deacon that he minister the Eucharist. The answer is that he can in necessity, which is not restricted to the sole case of giving Viaticum to a dying person, but extends more broadly, as if the priest is impeded and cannot distribute the Eucharist to the people." Cf. also ibid. n. 2. seqq.

St. Alph., l. 6. n. 237. q. 1., says: "There is no doubt that a deacon can minister the Eucharist in necessity... They commonly say that grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister... In extreme necessity, when the priest is absent, the deacon will be able and will be bound to minister Viaticum, even without commission... When the deacon ministers the Eucharist, he ought to be clothed with surplice and transverse stole."

"Several times it has been asked of us whether a deacon can lawfully expose the Eucharist, not indeed by serving the priest, which is already known to be lawful, but by himself alone, as principal. This doubt is not read among the Moralists, but there is a very valid reason for resolving that it is not permitted to him to do this, except in the case in which every priest is lacking. For Diaconum enim oportet ministrare ad altare, 'it belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar,' says the Roman Pontifical; and later: Comministri et cooperatores estis Corporis et Sanguinis Domini, 'You are co-ministers and co-operators of the Body and Blood of the Lord.' Therefore, when priests are present, it belongs to them to act as principals, and to the deacons to assist them and to perform the part of co-ministers and co-operators. But in the absence of priests, they can indeed supply, and expose the Venerable Sacrament with their express or tacit commission. Thus, both when they expose it and when they administer it in communion, they ought to wear the stole hanging from the left shoulder and bound under the right. When communion is finished, they cannot give the usual blessing to the people, as the doctors warn; and if, when a priest is lacking, they make the exposition, they will not be able to bless the people with the Sacrament." Pavone, Spicilegio, diss. 9. c. 1. n. 209.

But the following Decision of S. R. C. is present:

"Can a deacon who, by mandate of his vicar, carries sacred Viaticum to the sick, make sprinklings of holy water, say Misereatur, Indulgentiam, sign the sick person or himself, say Dominus vobiscum with the prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Most Holy Sacrament?

R. If a presbyter is lacking, and with the concurrent license of the apostolic vicar, affirmatively in all." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1853. n. 3074.

"Can a bishop by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. In churches or public chapels which do not enjoy a parochial title, even if they serve the utilities of the parish; 2. In public chapels of pious Communities, that is, those whose door opens onto a public street, or into an area communicating with a public street, and which are opened to all inhabitants; 3. In chapels or interior oratories of pious Communities, when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense explained, as, for example, in seminaries.

R. An indult from the Holy See must be implored as regards all the requests." S. R. C. 8 March 1879. n. 3484., I. M. 549.

Sebastian, a parish priest, denies the Eucharist to all whom he himself judges to be of rather rude understanding. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively, "unless they are altogether incapable of this mystery." Clement IX, C. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669. But they will be capable where they discern spiritual food from bodily food. And this has place even if it is a question of ministering Viaticum, as is drawn from the following Decision of S. I. C.

"Whether Viaticum is to be administered to those neophytes who, in the article of death, having been baptized by Christians, are ignorant.

…and 162 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 3 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist

Venerable, wonderful, and supremely adorable is the Most Holy Eucharist; for it is, as it were, a compendium of all the mysteries which the divine wisdom and the infinite goodness and mercy of God devised and perfected for the salvation and sanctification of men, according to that saying of Psalm 110.4, 5: The merciful and compassionate Lord has made a memorial of his wonders; he has given food to those who fear him.

Hence St. Augustine exclaims, tract 26 on John: O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity! He who wishes to live has whence he may live. Let him approach, let him be incorporated, that he may be vivified.

The Eucharist can be considered either as Sacrament or as Sacrifice. Hence the present Treatise has two parts.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 20 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Ch. II, Section 4: The Holy Eucharist

The Holy Eucharist is entitled to an important place in Moral Theology because it has been instituted as the spiritual food of the soul, as a means to avoid everyday sins, and as a pledge of eternal glory.¹ Christ instituted this Sacrament for the twofold purpose of transforming and ennobling human nature, and enabling men to advance on the way to righteousness and become intimately united with God. As Communion the Holy Eucharist is both the efficient cause and sign of a real and mystic union with Jesus Christ ² —"the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being one in Christ." ³ "From the Eucharist the martyrs drew their strength, the virgins their zeal, the saints their courage." ⁴ The nature and effects of this Sacrament give rise to the following obligations.

¹ John VI, 50 sqq.—St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes., 20, 2) calls the Holy Eucharist "the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Christ." (Funk, Patres Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 230). —Rit. Rom., De S. Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 2, n. 6: "O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is recalled, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

² Cfr. John VI, 54; 1 Cor. X, 16 sq.—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 218 sqq.; M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkung der hi. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.

³ "The Sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which consists in this, that many are one in Christ." (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 82, art. 2, ad 2). —St. Augustine 123 exclaims: "O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!" (TV. in loa., 26, n. 13). In another place (ibid., n. 14) he calls the Eucharist "panis concordiae." Again he says: "The martyrs are strong, the martyrs are steadfast; but bread strengthens the heart of man, the bread which came down from heaven." (Serm., 333, c. i; Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 1464). —Cfr. K. Adam, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Augustin, Paderborn 1908.

⁴ Don Bosco.

THE DUTY OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION. —Holy Communion is not necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate medii), but a divine precept imposes upon all who have attained the use of reason the duty of receiving the Eucharist if possible (necessitas praecepti).⁵

⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; John VI, 4 1 Cor. XI, 26. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 2, can. 9; Sess. XXI, c. 4, can. 4 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875, 891, 933, 937)- —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 3; qu. 80, art. 11. 5 "The most perfect and most necessary provision for the journey."

This duty is based on the same general reasons as that of receiving Confirmation, plus the additional one that Holy Communion is a food without which the supernatural life of the soul must needs grow weak or cease altogether. There can be no doubt that the divine precept of receiving the Holy Eucharist as viaticum 6 (when there is danger of death from whatever cause) obliges under pain of mortal sin, for Christ expressly declared: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." ⁷

⁷ John VI, 54. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 864, § 1. —Conc. Nicaen. I., can. 13 (Hefele, Concilicngeschichte, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 417). —Conc. Trident-, Sess. XIII, c. 8. —On the ancient custom of receiving Communion as viaticum see A. Struckmann, Die Gegenwan Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, Vienna 1905, pp. 210 sqq.

The duty with which we are concerned is inculcated by the well-known ecclesiastical precept which commands all the faithful who have attained the use of reason to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during Easter time. This law, passed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran,⁸ was at first purely disciplinary, but received dogmatic character at the Council of Trent.⁹ The paschal precept must be regarded as an authentic interpretation of the divine command to eat the Body and Blood of the Lord. Needless to say, it can be fulfilled only by a worthy Communion.¹⁰ If for some reason the precept is not complied with during the paschal season, it remains binding for the remainder of the ecclesiastical year, and if one foresees that he will be unable to perform his Easter duty within or after the prescribed time, he should try to attend to it in advance.¹¹

⁸ Conc. Lat. IV. (A. D. 1215), c. 21 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437).

⁹ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 9. —Cfr. J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Moralis, Vol. II, n. 218 sq. —The new Codex Iuris Can. states the law of paschal Communion in the usual terms of our catechisms, but adds (can. 859, § 1): "unless perhaps, on the advice of his own priest and for some reasonable cause, he judges that its reception should be postponed for a time."

¹⁰ This has been indirectly defined by Innocent XI when he condemned the proposition: "The precept of annual Communion is fulfilled by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord." (Prop. Damnat., n. 55; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1205). The new Codex Iuris Can. expressly says (can. 861): “The precept of receiving Communion is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious Communion.”

¹¹ Cfr. Koch-Preuss, Handbook of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 179. —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., 1. VI, n. 297 sqq.

The place for making the Easter Communion is the parish church. One who makes it elsewhere, under the new Code of Canon Law, is admonished to inform his pastor of the fact.¹²

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 859, § 3: "The faithful are to be advised that each fulfill this precept of paschal Communion in his own parish; and those who fulfill it in another parish are to take care to notify their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled." —On the history of this procept see A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, St. Louis 1915, pp. 210 sqq.

II. PREPARATION FOR COMMUNION. —The nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that it must be received with the greatest possible purity of soul and body. i. PREPARATION OF THE SOUL. —In order to receive Holy Communion worthily, the soul must be free from mortal sin.¹³ Therefore, if one is conscious of a mortal sin, he must worthily receive the Sacrament of Penance before approaching the Holy Table. If he must communicate, and confession is impossible, he should at least make an act of perfect contrition. Mortal sins forgotten in a worthy confession should, if a good opportunity offers, be confessed before approaching the Holy Table. There is, however, no strict obligation to do so, and if one has no opportunity to confess, it will suffice to mention such sins in the next confession. To receive the Holy Eucharist while conscious of mortal sin is a very grievous sin, and the greatest of sacrileges, though, contrary to the opinion of many, by no means the most grievous sin a man can commit.¹⁴

¹³ Cfr. 1 Cor. XI, 27 sqq.; Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 7, can. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 880, 893); Sess. XXII, De Observ. et Evitand. in Celebrat. Missae. —Cfr. Prop, Dantnat. ab Alexandra VII., n. 38 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138).

¹⁴ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 80, art. 5; Pohle- Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 268 sq. —On the participation of Judas in the Last Supper see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 81, art. 2; J. Belser, Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens des Herrn, Freiburg 1903, pp. 162 sqq.

As an immediate preparation for Holy Communion, acts of faith, hope, charity, adoration, desire, devotion, and humility should be elicited. All these acts may profitably be directed to Christ's sacrificial death on the cross.¹⁵ A part of the preparation for Communion in the wider sense is the thanksgiving following its reception. This is a very important and effective means of preserving the graces obtained and of making them fruitful for the spiritual life. The thanksgiving after Communion should consist mainly in acts of adoration, humility, gratitude, love, and self-oblation,¹⁶ and should contain some special petitions and resolutions.

¹⁵ Cfr. Luke XXII, 19; 1 Cor. XI, 26; Rit. Rom., De Euch. Sacr., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 4; F. S. Renz, Die Geschichte des Messopferbegriffes, Vol. I, pp. 115 sqq.

¹⁶ Cfr. P. Lejeune, Avant et après la Communion, Paris 1901.

PREPARATION OF THE BODY. —On the part of the body the worthy reception of the Eucharist requires: a) Cleanliness and a decent habiliment. Neglect of these requisites betrays a moral defect and is a violation of the respect due to the Sacrament and to Jesus Christ, who is present therein. Holy Communion must not, however, be denied to those who suffer from diseases which ordinarily involve physical uncleanness, e. g., leprosy, smallpox, eczema, etc. The married are advised (though not commanded) to abstain from carnal intercourse immediately before and after Communion. ¹⁷ "Neither legitimate cohabitation nor a flow of blood nor seminal pollutions during sleep but only impious and illicit conduct can violate nature or expel the Holy Ghost/' ¹⁸ b) A second bodily requisite for the worthy reception of Communion is that the recipient be fasting. The Eucharistic fast, known as ieiunium naturale, consists in complete abstention from food and drink and everything that is ordinarily taken after the manner of food and drink (per modum cibi et potus) after midnight (post mediam noctem).¹⁹™ This law binds under pain of mortal sin and admits of no parvitas materiae. The term midnight is to be understood physically, not morally, but we are allowed to follow either standard or sidereal time.

¹⁷ Cfr. 1 Cor. VII. 5 sq.; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 56; Innocent XI's Decree "Quum ad Aures," Feb. 12, 1679 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147); Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 5; Pseudo- Augustine, Append. Serm., 292 (at. 244 De Temp.), n. 3 (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 2298).

¹⁸ Constit. Apost., VI, c. 27 (ed. Funk, Vol. I, p. 371); cfr. Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie, pp. 207 sqq.; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 64, art. 3.

¹⁹ St. Augustine, Epist., 54 (a/. 118), n. 8: "It pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other foods; for this is why that custom is observed throughout the whole world." (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 203). Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 9, n. 1-4; Rit. Rom., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 3. —St. Thomas says (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 8, ad 5): "The Roman Church begins the day at midnight. Therefore, if anyone takes anything after midnight by way of food or drink, he cannot receive this Sacrament on the same day; but he can if it was before midnight." —The new Codex Iuris Can. reinforces the old law as follows (can. 858, § 1): "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist unless danger of death is urgent or there is a necessity of preventing irreverence toward the Sacrament."

The Eucharistic fast does not, however, bind those who are in danger of death, i. e., who suffer from a disease in which the Holy Eucharist is given as viaticum (which may be done repeatedly in the course of the same illness²⁰20). Nor does it bind when there is danger of a profanation of the Sacrament by unbelievers, or of scandal or infamy, or when a priest is compelled to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass after the Consecration, either because he has "consecrated" and consumed water instead of wine (in which case he is obliged to reconsecrate and consume both species) or, for good reason, the wine only, or because he is overcome by sudden illness or death. It is of precept to complete a Mass once it has proceeded beyond the consecration of the bread, and in case of necessity it may be done by one who is no longer fasting. If the priest who finishes a Mass in place of another has not yet said Mass himself, he is not allowed to say another Mass, etiam ablutione non sumpta, unless he has the privilege of binating.²¹

²⁰ See the decision of the Holy Office of Sept. 7, 1897, and that of the S. Congregation of the Council, of Dec. 7, 1906. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 858, § 2; 864, § 3.

²¹ Missale Rom., De Defect, in Celebr. Missae, tit. 10, n. 5. —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mort, 1. VI, n. 287 sqq.

The Eucharistic fast, finally, is not binding on in- valids or on those who have been legitimately dispensed by the Pope. Invalids may receive Communion once or twice a week even if they are obliged to take some liquid food.²¹

²¹ Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 858, § 2.

III. FREQUENT COMMUNION. —By frequent Communion (communio frequens) is understood the reception of the Holy Eucharist daily or at least several times a week. i. There can be no doubt that frequent Communion agrees perfectly with the teaching and practice of the Church. St. Augustine says that, unless a man's sins are so great as to merit excommuniation, he should not deprive himself of the daily medicine of the Body of Christ.²² The Council of Trent "admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches... that all and each of those who bear the Christian name... would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of [Christ's] Body and Blood with such constancy and firm- ness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship, as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread/' ²³ which, according to the same holy Synod, is "an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins/' "the spiritual food of our souls/' by which we are "fed and strength ²⁴ ened."

²² St. Augustine, Epist., 54 (al. ii 8), n. 4: "If sins are not so great that anyone is judged worthy of excommunication, he ought not separate himself from the daily medicine of the Lord’s body. Yet let each one do what, according to his faith, he piously believes should be done. For one, out of reverence, does not dare to receive daily, while another, out of reverence, does not dare to omit it on any day. This food desires only that it not be despised, just as the manna desired not to be loathed." (Migne, Pair. Lat., XXXIII, 201 sq.)—IDEM, Serm., 227 (al. 83 De Diversis): "You, the newly born, ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, and what you ought to receive every day." (P. L., XXXVIII, 1099). —Pseudo-Augustine, Append, Serm., 84 (al. 28 De Verbis Domini), n. 3: "Receive daily what may benefit you daily; live so that you may deserve to receive daily. He who does not deserve to receive daily does not deserve to receive after a year." (P. L., XXXIX, 1908 sq.). —The latter passage appears verbatim also in Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacram., 1. V, n. 25 (P. L., XVI, 452).

²³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 8; Sess. XXII. c. 6 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 882, 944). —Cfr. the decree of Innocent XI, "Quum ad cures" (Denzinger-Bannwart. n. 1147 sqq. ); St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. 10; Lejeune, La Pratique de la Sainte Commitnion, Paris 1900; F. X. Godts, C.SS. R., Exagcrations Historiques et TMologiques concernant la Communion Quotidienne, Roulers and Bruxelles, 1904; Ch. Madridius. —J. P. Bock, De Frequenti Usu S. Eucharistiae Sacramenti, Vienna 1909.

²⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, c. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 875). — Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 4, qu. 69; F. Meffert, Der hl. Alfons, pp. 253 sqq.

Since frequent Communion is so ardently desired by Jesus Christ and His Church, the way to the altar railing should be open to all the faithful without distinction of rank, class or condition. No one should be turned away who is in the state of grace and approaches the table of the Lord with a right intention. The right intention demanded by the Church consists in the desire to receive the Eucharist, not as a matter of habit, or out of vainglory or human respect, or for some other earthly motive, but for the purpose of pleasing God, of becoming more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for one's weaknesses and defects.²⁵

²⁵ Decree of the S. Congr. of the Council, Dec. 20, 1905, "Sacra Tri- dentina Synodus." The best English commentary on this decree is, The Decree on Daily Communion, by J. B. Ferreres, S.J., translated by H. Jimenez, S.J., London 1909.

The frequent reception of Holy Communion quite naturally entails certain demands upon the recipient.

While it would be presumptuous to set up absolute rules, we may safely say that a) It is fitting that he who receives Communion daily be free from conscious attachment to (venial) sin and strive earnestly and sincerely after perfection. However, though it is highly desirable that daily and frequent communicants be free from venial sins, at least from those which are entirely voluntary, and also from all attachment to sin, it is sufficient if they avoid mortal sins and harbor the earnest intention to sin no more, for with such a purpose they will inevitably be weaned more and more from sin. b) How often each one may go to Communion is a question to be decided by the confessor.²⁶ In admitting children to their first Communion, the parents and the confessor should be consulted, but the final decision rests with the pastor.²⁷

²⁶ Innocent XI's Decree "Quum ad aures" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147): "Frequent approach to receive the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors who examine the secrets of the heart; from purity of conscience, the fruit of frequency, and progress in piety, they ought to prescribe to laymen engaged in business and to married persons whatever they foresee will benefit their salvation." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1147). —Cfr. Leo Kill's Decree "Quemadmodum omnium rerum hutnanarum," Dec. 17, 1890.

²⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 854, 5 5-

In regard to frequent Communion two extremes must be avoided: (i) Jansenistic rigorism, which demands a high state of perfection, and (2) laxism, which regards the frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist as an infallible mark of predestination.²⁸

²⁸ Prop. Damnat. ab Alex. Vlll., Dec. 7, 1690, prop. 22: "Those are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receive Communion before they have done fitting penance for their offenses." —Prop. 23: "Likewise those in whom there is not yet a most pure love of God, free from every admixture, are to be kept from Holy Communion." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1313)- —Prop. Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 56: "Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live like pagans, is a sign of predestination." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n- 1206).

n. ¶16.

Since the promulgation of the decree " Sancta Tridentina Synodus/' Dec. 20, 1905, it is forbidden to engage in " contentious controversies " concerning the dispositions required for frequent and daily Communion.²⁹

²⁹ Decree "Sancta Tridentina Synodus," art. 9; Ferreres, The Decree on Daily Communion, p. 33.

n. ¶17.

4. Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament

—The duty of adoring Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is fulfilled, broadly speaking, by participating in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, which is the acme and centre of our religion. The custom of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in common on Sundays is as old as Christianity itself.³⁰ The duty of attending Mass on Sundays and holydays was enforced by ecclesiastical synods since the sixth century.³¹ Under the present discipline this duty can be complied with in any church or in any public or semi-public oratory.³² Pastors are bound to offer the Holy Sacrifice on every Sunday and holyday of obligation for the people under their charge.

³⁰ Cfr. Justin Martyr, Apolog., I, 65 sq.; Pliny, Epist.. X, 97; Tertullian, De Fuga, c. 14.

³¹ Conc. Agath., A. D. 506, can. 47; cfr. the Decretum Gratiani, dist. i, can. 64, De Consecratione (Friedberg' s ed., Leipsic 1879, col. 1312).

³² Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 280 sqq. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, Deer, de Observandis; Sess. XXIII, c. 1, De Ref. —Codex Iuris Cano- nlci, can. 859, § 3.—Instruct™ Pa- Storalis Eystettenstis, 5th ed., Freiburg 1902, pp. 20 sqq.

n. ¶18.

Though the second commandment of the Church merely establishes the general duty of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation, particular individuals, because of special needs, may be bound to hear Mass more frequently.

n. ¶19.

Belief in the Real Presence of Christ and the signification and value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as well as the oft-expressed desire of the Church, ought to induce every faithful Catholic to attend Mass whenever possible and to communicate sacramentally, or at least spiritually, by eliciting an ardent desire to be united with Christ and to be made worthy of the graces of Communion.³³ Special opportunities for worshipping our Eucharistic Lord are furnished by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the exposition of the Sacred Host during the Forty Hours' Devotion, the so-called Holy Hour, the Corpus Christi procession, and other celebrations.

³³ Conc. Trident.. Sess. XIII, c. 8; Sess. XXII, c. 6 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 882, 944). —St. Thornas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 80, art. i, ad 3.

n. ¶20.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 80, art. l-n. —H. Noldin. S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 115 sqq. —P. Gasparri, Tract. Can. de SS. Eucharistia, 2 vols., Paris 1890. —Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 2nd ed., pp. 346 sqq. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 265 sqq., pp. 136 sqq. —M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkung der hi. Kommunion, Ratisbon 1884.—Labouré, L’Eucharistie Centre de la Vie Chretienne, Paris 1899. —Leo XIII, Encyclical "Mirae Caritatis" May 28, 1902. —Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 801-869. —J. Gerber, S.J., La Sainte Eucharistie, Paris 1925 (a resume of the moral theology of the Holy Eucharist as a sacrament and as a sacrifice.)

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Bk. II, Treatise IV: On the Most Holy Eucharist

(cc. 801-869)

Reason of the order. - Having mentioned, in c. 801, the threefold benefit of his presence, his sacrifice, and communion, by which Christ gives himself to us in the most holy eucharist, the Code treats, in the prior chapter, of the sacrifice of the Mass, then, in the other, of the sacrament of the most holy eucharist. Moral theologians indeed were accustomed to explain the eucharistic argument in the inverse order. Yet the order of the Code seems more logical, since in the very sacrifice of the Mass the sacrament is confected, and it is of itself more fitting to treat the cause before the effect. Therefore let there be:

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Pt. II, Treatise IV. On The Eucharist

n. ¶26.

Prefatory note. Among all the sacraments the Eucharist is the most worthy. And truly the Church of God has nothing holier, nothing more worthy, nothing more salutary than this sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. For while the other sacraments give or increase grace, the Eucharist furnishes to us the very Author of grace, who willed to be our spiritual nourishment and perennial sacrifice. Moreover, the other sacraments are transient actions; the Eucharist, however, does not consist in use alone, but is something permanent. Therefore, it is customary to distinguish the sacrament in fieri, that is, the consecration, and in facto esse, that is, the real presence of Christ under the species. The Eucharist can be considered under a twofold aspect: namely, as a sacrament insofar as it is received, and as a sacrifice insofar as it is offered.¹

Accordingly, almost all theologians divide the treatise on the Eucharist into two sections: namely, on the Eucharist as it is a sacrament, and on the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice. Dogmatic theologians are accustomed first to set forth the proof and explanation of the real existence of Christ under the Eucharistic species. We presuppose this real existence and transubstantiation and, accordingly, begin immediately with the Eucharist as it is a sacrament; afterward we shall treat of the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice.

Innumerable theologians have written concerning the most august sacrament of the Eucharist. Besides St. Thomas, who is not undeservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist, and who not only explained this mystery most profoundly but also celebrated it with the most beautiful liturgical Office of the feast of Corpus Christi, the following may be consulted: St. Bonaventure, St. Alphonsus, Drouven, Billuart, Chr. Pesch, Gihr, Schanz, and, especially for the canonical part, Gasparri, De eucharistia, 2 vols., Parisiis 1897; Many, Praelect. de Missa, Parisiis 1903. The Roman Catechism, especially in this matter, is of great authority and utility.

¹ St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 5.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 168 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Treatise IV: On the Most Holy Eucharist

n. ¶1508.

"Of all the sacred mysteries which our Lord and Savior commended to us as most certain instruments of grace, there is none which can be compared with the most holy Sacrament of the EUCHARIST,"¹⁵ in which He "as it were poured out the riches of His divine love toward men, making a memorial of His wonders."¹⁶

But why this most august Sacrament was instituted, the Roman Catechism brings forward two chief causes, saying: "The one is that it should be the heavenly FOOD of our soul, by which we might be able to guard and preserve spiritual life; the other, that the Church might have a PERPETUAL SACRIFICE, by which our sins would be expiated, and the heavenly Father, often gravely offended by our crimes, would be brought from wrath to mercy, from the severity of just punishment to clemency."¹⁷

From this it is clear that this treatise is aptly divided into two dissertations: the former of which will treat of the Eucharist insofar as it is a Sacrament, the latter insofar as it is a Sacrifice.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Dissertation I: On the Most Holy Eucharist Insofar as It Is a Sacrament

In this dissertation one must treat: 1. of the nature of the Eucharist; 2. of the Minister; 3. of the Subject; 4. of the reservation and worship of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Chapter I: On the Nature of the Eucharist

We shall investigate the nature of the Eucharist in a twofold article. Speech will be in the first on its notion and effect; in the second on its constituents, that is, on its matter and form.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Article I: On the Notion and Effect of the Eucharist

n. ¶1509.

DEFINITION. The Eucharist, that is, good grace, is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, divinely instituted for the spiritual refreshment of the soul.¹⁸

It is said 1. is a Sacrament; "for in it there are external signs and signs subject to the senses; it then has the signification and efficacy of grace; moreover, concerning the institution of Christ neither the Evangelists¹⁹ nor the Apostle²⁰ leave a place for doubting."²¹

It is said 2. of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine: for the Tridentine Synod teaches that "in the nourishing Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is contained truly, really, and substantially, under the species of those sensible things."²²

It is said 3. divinely instituted for the spiritual refreshment of the soul: by which words the principal effect of this Sacrament is expressed. For "just as earthly bread nourishes the body, so heavenly bread nourishes the soul, and makes it grow in divine love."²³

n. ¶1510.

Since, therefore, the Most Holy EUCHARIST consists both of the body of Christ and of the species under which the body of Christ lies hidden, if it is asked in what precisely the essence of this Sacrament is situated, St. Alphonsus responds: "There are several opinions, but two more received. Some say the essence of the Eucharist consists directly in the species of bread and wine; and that the body of Christ pertains to the Sacrament only obliquely, that is, as something extrinsically connoted. Others say that it consists directly equally in the species and in the body of Christ. Each opinion is probable."²⁴

But if it is asked IN WHAT MANNER the Body of Christ begins to become present, it must be said that it becomes present neither by production from nothing, nor by being brought from heaven, but "by the conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion has fittingly and properly been called TRANSUBSTANTIATION by the holy Catholic Church."²⁵

n. ¶1511.

Principles. I. The whole CHRIST under each species, and under any part of each species, is REALLY PRESENT. The first part of the proposition is of faith; likewise the second, if it is understood of separated parts of the species.²⁶ But if it is understood of continuous parts, before separation has been made, it is certain, and altogether to be held.²⁷

The COUNCIL OF TRENT speaks thus aptly to the matter: "This faith has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after consecration, the true body of Our Lord and His true blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, by force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, no longer to die, are joined among themselves; moreover the divinity, on account of that admirable hypostatic union of it with the body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both: for whole and entire Christ exists under the species of bread, and under any part of that species; likewise whole under the species of wine, and under its parts."²⁸

Therefore Christ EXISTS in the Sacrament in a singular and altogether ineffable MANNER, which St. Thomas thus expresses: "The Body of Christ is in this Sacrament by way of substance, that is, by the manner in which substance is under dimensions... But it is manifest that the nature of substance is whole under any part of the dimensions under which it is contained, just as under any part of air there is the whole nature of air, and under any part of bread there is the whole nature of bread. And this indifferently, whether the dimensions are actually divided, as when air is divided or bread is cut, or even are actually undivided, but divisible in potency."²⁹

And hence it is why some teach that the whole specific notion of this Sacrament is saved in the species of bread or wine alone, taken separately. This opinion is indeed probable; but the opposite is more probable, since only through each species is signified a BANQUET or refreshment of food and drink, in which the specific notion or essence of this Sacrament consists.³⁰

It is asked: Whence is the NUMERICAL UNITY of this Sacrament taken?

Resp. Some say it is taken from the unity of the body of Christ; others from the physical continuation of the parts themselves of the species; finally others, and more probably, from the moral conjunction which the species have while they are proposed or taken after the manner of one thing. Whence, if diverse consecrated species, or several parts of the same species, are proposed at the same time and on the same altar, or ministered to the same person, there will be one Sacrament; but if the same species are divided, and proposed on diverse altars, or ministered to diverse persons, or to the same person at diverse turns morally distinct, there will be diverse Sacraments.³¹

n. ¶1512.

II. The Eucharist is a PERMANENT Sacrament. "That excellent and singular thing is found in it, that the remaining Sacraments then first have the power of sanctifying when someone uses them; but in the Eucharist the Author Himself of sanctity is before use; for the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless He Himself truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body."³²

Q. When does the body of Christ CEASE to be under the species?

Resp. It ceases when so great a change of the species has been made as would have had to be made in order that the substance of bread and wine in unconsecrated species would be corrupted.³³

Hence: 1. If a little consecrated wine is mixed with other wine, at least of the same species, as happens in the first ablution, Christ does not cease to be there. If the wine is very diverse, it is disputed whether from the mixing of the species such a change arises as would suffice to destroy the substance of consecrated wine. Yet, in this doubt, it must be held that the species are not corrupted. But if to consecrated wine there is mixed a liquid of another species, for example water, in so great a quantity that the accidents of wine are corrupted, namely in such a way that the substance of wine, if it were present, could not be conserved, Christ ceases to be present under those species.¹

The species, in one receiving the Sacrament, are consumed sooner or later according to the greater or lesser digestive power. Yet commonly, in a healthy man, the species are judged to be corrupted at least after a quarter hour from Communion, even in a priest.² Otherwise in a sick person, who even after an hour can reject the species plainly incorrupt.
"Species rejected by vomiting, if they are such that under them bread or wine can exist, are truly to be adored; and if they are again taken, they again confer grace, as Cardinal de Lugo teaches."³

n. ¶1513.

III. The EFFECT of the Eucharist is the NOURISHMENT of souls through the perfection of charity. The Most Holy Eucharist indeed has this in common with the other Sacraments of the living, that it confers an INCREASE OF GRACE, but not first grace except per accidens, as was said above, n. 1395. But its proper effect is that this increase of grace imports the refreshment of the soul, namely for fostering charity and perfecting UNION with Christ, as He Himself promised in John 6:57, saying: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

But since this nourishing Sacrament has the notion of FOOD, "therefore, every effect which material food and drink makes with respect to bodily life, namely that it sustains, increases, repairs, and delights, this whole thing this Sacrament does with respect to spiritual life." Thus St. Thomas.⁴

Therefore the principal EFFECTS of the Eucharist in the SOUL, besides the increase of grace, are the following:⁵

REMISSION OF VENIAL SINS (it repairs); for this Sacrament, according to Trent,⁶ "is an antidote by which we are freed from venial faults and preserved from mortal sins." "But the Salmanticenses think with others that Communion of itself destroys venial sins from the work worked, through the very infusion of grace by which the soul is refreshed. But Tournely says better that the Sacrament destroys venial sins not immediately of itself, but by means of an act of charity which it excites in the soul."⁷ And in the same way it remits temporal punishment due for sins.
PRESERVATION FROM MORTAL SINS (it sustains); as is established from the praised words of Trent. But the Eucharist preserves us from death of the soul through the help of sacramental grace, by which devotion is excited, temptations are more strongly resisted, demons are put to flight, etc. Indeed, grave authors assert that from the reception of the Eucharist the soul is fortified by such external protection that God does not permit it to be living in occasions in which it would fall into sin.⁸
INCREASE OF VIRTUES (it increases); for just as the body through natural food is not only conserved, but also grows, so similarly the soul through supernatural food, that is, the Eucharist, is not only sustained, but also strengthened and enriched with a supply of graces, by which the exercise of all virtues, especially charity, is promoted more and more.
SPIRITUAL SWEETNESS (it delights); and this effect indeed is infallible, unless it is impeded on account of the fault of the recipient. But this sweetness consists in a certain cheerfulness of the will for accomplishing all things which are known to be pleasing and acceptable to God (cf. n. 536).
ATTAINMENT OF GLORY, according to that of Christ (John 6:59): "He who eats this bread will live forever." "By the grace of this Sacrament, namely, the faithful, while they pass this life, enjoy the highest peace and tranquillity of conscience; then, recreated by its power, not otherwise than Elias, who by the strength of the hearth-baked bread walked even to the mountain of God Horeb, when the time of departing from life has come, ascend to eternal glory and beatitude."⁹

n. ¶1514.

Nor do the effects of the Eucharist extend to the soul alone, but also to the BODY itself, as the Fathers teach. But they are the following:

THE QUIETING OF CONCUPISCENCE and of the tinder of sin. But the Eucharist works this quieting partly by putting demons to flight, lest they excite species of a shameful object, partly by repressing the powers of the humors, mitigating ardor, etc.¹⁰
The future RESURRECTION AND GLORY of the body, on account of a special title, namely because of the union of our bodies with the life-giving flesh of Christ, which is the cause of our resurrection, as Christ promised, saying in John 6:55: "I will raise him up on the last day."

It is asked: Whether the Eucharist, insofar as it is a Sacrament, can profit OTHERS than those receiving?

Resp. 1. It cannot profit DIRECTLY and from the work worked; because it was instituted by way of food; but food does not profit except the one taking it. 2. It can profit INDIRECTLY and from the work of the worker, both the living by way of impetration, and the departed by way of satisfaction and suffrage, if namely the one communicating offers this act of religion to God in their favor. Add that the prayers which accompany or follow Communion are more acceptable to God than those which are poured forth at another time. Whence the Congregation of the INDEX, under Innocent X, condemned the book of Theophilus Raynaud, who attacked the custom of communicating for the departed.¹¹ See the dogmatic authors.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 1. On the Matter of the Eucharist

n. ¶1515.

"Just as in the other Sacraments there is a twofold matter, namely proximate and remote, so also here, but in an inverted order: for in the others, the remote matter is a permanent thing; but the proximate is its use, which passes away; here, however, the remote passes away, and the proximate remains, namely the species of bread and wine."¹² And since, for practice, one must treat only of the remote, that is, of that which, through consecration, passes into the body and blood of Christ, we shall treat: 1. of the remote matter in general; 2. of the matter of bread; 3. of the matter of wine; 4. of the conditions required for consecration on the part of the matter.

I. On the Remote Matter in General

n. ¶1516.

Principles. I. The matter of the Eucharist is BREAD and WINE. It is of faith, from the definitions of the Council of Florence,¹³ Lateran IV,¹⁴ and Trent.¹⁵ The reason is that Christ, in instituting this Sacrament, employed bread and wine, and commanded His Apostles to do the same.¹⁶

n. ¶1517.

II. Each matter, namely bread and wine, is REQUIRED for making the Sacrament LICITLY. "It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species, as St. Thomas teaches¹⁷ with others commonly... Whence it is common and certain among all that it is not licit, even in the article of death, to consecrate one species in order to offer Viaticum to the sick person."¹⁸

But that this precept is not only ecclesiastical, but also divine, "is clear from Trent, sess. 22, cap. 1, where it is said that Christ commanded priests to offer His body in no other way than under each species. Behold the words of the Council: 'Christ offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the symbols of the same things, note, handed them to the Apostles that they might receive them, and to the same and their successors in the priesthood commanded that they offer, by these words: Do this in commemoration of Me; as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.'"¹⁹

But whether the Supreme Pontiff can DISPENSE so that it is licit to consecrate in only one species is controverted. Commonly, however, authors deny, both because the Church cannot change the divine institution in the manner of making the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice to God, and because it is not improbable that outside sacrifice a Sacrament is not made; whence the affirming opinion cannot be brought down into practice, and "the Church never dispensed in this precept, nor ever will dispense."²⁰

n. ¶1518.

It is asked: Whether the consecration of one species without the other is VALID?

Resp. 1. No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by accident, for example if someone through error had consecrated water for wine. 2. But if a priest should have the positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, it is disputed. "Lugo denies, because, as he says, the notion of Sacrament cannot be divided from the notion of sacrifice... But others commonly affirm, because in every Sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter, with due intention, he perfects the Sacrament. This opinion is indeed very probable; but the opposite does not seem improbable."²¹

II. On the Matter of Bread

n. ¶1519.

Principles. I. The VALID matter of the Eucharist for the first consecration is only WHEATEN and USUAL BREAD; such namely as, in the moral judgment of men, is judged to be only that which is mixed from wheat flour and natural water, and cooked or baked by fire, and incorrupt in its species: because this alone is simply called BREAD. It is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said concerning the Eucharist: "whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine"; and from the Rubrics of the Missal, where one reads: "If the bread is not wheaten, the Sacrament is not made."²²

It is the same for the value of the Sacrament whether the bread is unleavened or leavened. Yet from the precept of the Church, which obliges under grave obligation, Latins are held to use unleavened bread, Greeks leavened.²³

Hence: 1. By defect of wheat flour, INVALID matter is bread from rice, oats, millet, and similar grains: for these differ in species from wheat, according to common estimation. DOUBTFUL matter would be bread from spelt; likewise from rye. The admixture of a foreign substance in notable quantity, for example in equal or almost equal quantity, renders the matter invalid.

By defect of natural water, INVALID matter is bread kneaded from oil, butter, milk, eggs, sugar, or another liquid; because it would not be usual bread. The admixture of artificial water renders the matter at least doubtful.
By defect of preparation, INVALID would be raw wheaten dough, hardened by the heat of the sun, or not cooked after the manner of bread, but fried or boiled after the manner of a cake.²⁴

n. ¶1520.

II. Matter, although valid, is ILLICIT if it is not fitting and made according to the prescription of the Church. Now:

Bread would not be fitting if, for example, some grains or drops of another species were mixed with the wheat and water, even if the wheat and water greatly predominated. Likewise, moldy bread, which already tends toward corruption, would be unfitting or illicit. "This would be," says St. Alphonsus,²⁵ "if the taste were changed in some way, and then it would be mortal to use it." Therefore one must watch carefully that hosts and particles be fresh, made within one month at the most. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites condemns, as an enormous abuse, the custom of consecrating hosts which had been made three or four months before.²⁶ Nor must they only be fresh, but also whole and clean. Yet "scandal being excluded, it is only venial, without a reasonable cause, to consecrate a broken or stained host; unless the fracture or stain were enormous; for then it would be mortal. Yet if the fracture is discovered after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared."²⁷
With respect to the FIGURE of the bread, among Latins a round host is required, larger for the celebrant, on which the sign of the cross is expressed, as is the constant custom of the Church.²⁸ If a larger host is lacking, the priest can probably, even for the sake of devotion, consecrate a smaller one, provided scandal is avoided: which can be avoided if, for example, the people are admonished concerning the lack of a larger host. Indeed, authors are not lacking who teach that a priest is HELD to consecrate in a smaller host if, from precept, the people would have to attend Mass, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person. But it is never licit for a priest, the larger host being set aside, for example for exposing in the monstrance, to take a smaller one, unless he has also consecrated this in the same Mass; because he must communicate from his own Sacrifice.²⁹

n. ¶1521.

It is asked: Whether a Latin can ever celebrate in LEAVENED bread, or a Greek in UNLEAVENED.

Resp. 1. In places where a church of one's own rite is had, this is absolutely prohibited, and indeed under penalty of perpetual suspension from Divinis;¹ even if Viaticum had to be given to a dying person: because in this case reverence toward so great a Sacrament is to be preferred to the utility of neighbor, for whom such a Sacrament is not simply necessary.²

Resp. 2. But in places where a church of one's own rite is not had, for example if a Greek passes through places of Latins, or a Latin through the territories of Greeks, it is licit to celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.³

III. On the Matter of Wine

n. ¶1522.

Principles. I. Valid matter of the second consecration is only WINE FROM THE VINE, and indeed USUAL wine. This is established from Matthew 26:29: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, etc."; and from the Florentine Decree already cited, which the constant practice of the Church confirms.

Hence, the following is not apt matter for valid consecration:

"Strong drink, and any liquid from mulberries, pomegranates, apples, etc., whether it is called wine or not. 2. Verjuice, or omphacium, that is, juice expressed from immature grapes; because it is not wine, but on the way to wine, whose nature it has not yet put on. 3. Vinegar, which is wine substantially corrupted; whence, if the priest after consecration prudently doubts whether it was vinegar or wine, the consecration is to be repeated, but under condition, on account of the doubt. 4. Grapes, or wine contained within grapes, or imbibed in a morsel of bread; because it is not so much drink as food. 5. Sapa, or boiled-down must, that is, must cooked down to a half or third part; because it is no longer wine, nor drink, but food. 6. Lora, that is, water poured over pressed grapes. 7. Spirit of wine, since it is not properly wine."⁴

n. ¶1523.

II. Valid but ILLICIT matter is true wine, VITIATED in some way, or MIXED. The reason is that it is against the reverence owed to the Sacrament. Whence exotic wine must be employed cautiously, because it is very often mixed with foreign substances and therefore illicit; indeed, not rarely one finds that which is altogether artificial, and consequently invalid.

Hence, consecration is indeed valid, but illicit: 1. in must, and indeed under mortal sin, according to Suarez, at least outside necessity; for although it is substantially wine, nevertheless it is not perfect wine, nor pure, as being not yet ripened nor separated from the lees. 2. In wine so moderately mixed with other liquids or aromatics that it indeed retains the nature of wine. But if the mixing is immoderate, the matter will be doubtful. 3. In wine becoming sour: as is established from the Rubric, where it is said: "If the wine has begun to become sour or to be corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp..., the Sacrament is made, but the one making it sins gravely." Yet when other wine is lacking, it is licit to use wine only slightly becoming sour; for the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with so great rigor that it includes even the very first degrees of sharpness. 4. In frozen wine; whence it is gravely prohibited to consecrate it unless it has been liquefied. But in the case in which the priest had illicitly consecrated frozen wine, it must be held as truly consecrated, nor could he licitly consecrate another wine; for from the Rubric it is clearly evident that the consecration is valid; and the reason is that, although frozen wine is not actually drinkable, nevertheless it is drinkable from its nature.⁵

To the QUESTION: "Whether it is licit to celebrate with wine made from dried grapes?" the S. C. DE PROPAG. FIDE, July 23, 1706, responded: "It is licit, provided the liquid is recognized from color and taste to be true wine."⁶

n. ¶1524.

III. WATER is to be mixed ceremonially with the wine to be consecrated; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but by force of a precept gravely obliging. Let Trent be heard:⁷ "Then the Holy Synod admonishes that it has been prescribed by the Church to priests that they mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice: both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done thus, and also because from His side water came forth together with blood: which sacrament is recalled by this mixing; and since in the Apocalypse of Blessed John waters are called peoples, the union of the faithful people themselves with Christ the Head is represented."

But the water ought to be natural: "but he who would mix rose water or another artificial water, even in necessity, although he would validly consecrate, nevertheless would sin mortally."⁸ With respect to quantity, one drop suffices, provided it is sensible; but it is required, even if the wine is very strong, that it never exceed its third part. Indeed, if the wine is not very strong, this quantity is already held by many as excessive; wherefore it is advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten drops.⁹ Hence, if he pours in too much water, some wine must again be added.

But the mixing is to be done in the chalice itself and within the Sacred itself; for otherwise it would not suffice for the signification of the sacrament, and it would be a grave omission of the Rubrics. Hence, in the case in which it had been omitted, it must be supplied, if the omission is discovered before the consecration of the chalice; otherwise, if it is discovered after consecration.¹⁰

It is certain, although it is not of faith, that that mixed water is converted into the Blood of Christ. Thus St. Thomas,¹¹ who denies that the opposite opinion can be defended. But how this conversion is made, whether immediately or mediately, namely through a prior conversion of the water into wine, is affirmed on each side probably.¹²

IV. On the Conditions Required for Consecration on the Part of the Matter

n. ¶1525.

Principles. I. For VALID consecration, besides apt matter, it is required that this matter be PRESENT and DETERMINATE.

It is required 1. that the matter be morally and sensibly PRESENT to the consecrating priest. The reason is taken from the institution of Christ and from the demonstrative words of the form; likewise from the notion of Sacrifice, which requires a present victim. But for moral presence it suffices that the thing can be seen or touched, whether in itself or in another.

Hence: 1. Matter so small that it cannot be perceived by sense, or very remote, for example at a hundred paces, or placed behind the back, or enclosed in the tabernacle, is invalidly consecrated; because it is not judged morally present to the priest. 2. A blind man, or one existing in darkness, validly consecrates if he is otherwise morally certain concerning the presence of the matter. Likewise, the wine in a covered chalice, hosts in a closed ciborium, or lying hidden in a heap under others, or under a pall, veil, etc., are validly consecrated. Moreover, here it must be noted that the practice of those is commonly disapproved who move their mouth close, that they may breathe their breath into the chalice and bread.¹³

It is required 2. that the matter be CERTAIN and DETERMINATE in the individual through the intention of the one consecrating. And this opinion indeed is common, both because the pronouns This and This require this, and because actions are concerning singulars, which must be certain and determinate.¹⁴ But a virtual intention suffices, as was said above (n. 1413).

Hence: 1. "He would invalidly consecrate who wished only to consecrate a third or half part of a host, or, from many, for example twenty present, only four or five, designating none; because there is no reason why one should be consecrated more than another. Likewise, a host is not consecrated which, the priest being unaware, is placed either on the corporal, yet separated from the heap, or beneath it. The reason is that it is not determined in the mind of the priest, whose will is not borne toward the unknown."¹⁵

But consecration is valid if the priest consecrates several hosts in a heap, although he is in error concerning their number: the reason is that he is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Whence, if after consecration he notices two hosts joined together at once, let him take each as consecrated, according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices it, let him set one aside and after Mass either he himself or another take it as blessed bread. Likewise, consecration is valid if he himself has brought several particles to the altar to be consecrated, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another to be consecrated by him, or before the Sacrifice has been admonished concerning those to be consecrated already placed on the altar; for then, even if within the act of consecration he does not remember them so expressly, or even does not uncover them at the oblation, nevertheless he consecrates all, provided they are present on the corporal; because the intention had with respect to them virtually perseveres.¹⁶

n. ¶1526.

II. "For LICIT consecration of matter there is required: 1. That there not be a greater quantity than can be consumed at a suitable time, because there would be danger lest the species rot. 2. That the celebrant not depart from the usage of the Church, especially prescribed in the Missal."¹⁷ Concerning this, these things especially are to be held:

The matter to be consecrated is to be placed upon the corporal and sacred stone: this obligation presses under grave obligation.¹⁸
The hosts which are to be consecrated in Mass for the Communion of the faithful are to be placed upon the corporal or upon the paten, or in some chalice or in a pyx. This pyx is then to be opened at the first oblation and at the consecration, so that the celebrant may direct his intention also to offering and consecrating those.¹⁹ Yet to consecrate in a closed pyx does not seem gravely unbecoming.²⁰
"If a little after the oblation has been made, small hosts are brought for communicating the people, these are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally." If, the Canon already having been begun, they are brought, one must distinguish: in the case in which several would remain without Communion, it is licit to consecrate; but in the case in which only one would remain, it is not licit; to him, however, for a just cause, a part of the large host should be offered. Moreover, a cause would be sufficiently just if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person.²¹

n. ¶1527.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether a ciborium is to be judged consecrated which, from forgetfulness, has been left outside the CORPORAL or SACRED STONE?

Resp. 1. If the celebrant intends with actual intention to consecrate, not noticing that the ciborium is located outside the corporal, it is certainly consecrated, since it is really present, and the intention of the priest is borne absolutely toward it, although, if the defect were known, this would not be done.²²

Resp. 2. Likewise, the consecration is certain if the ciborium is placed indeed outside the stone, but ON THE CORPORAL extended over the stone, even if thought does not recur concerning the ciborium to be consecrated. For in this case it is already morally found on the stone; whence the consecration is valid from the virtual intention of consecrating whatever apt matter is placed on the corporal.²³

Resp. 3. If the ciborium remains OUTSIDE THE CORPORAL, without the priest thinking of consecrating it, it is controverted: "The first opinion, which various authors hold as probable, affirms; because, as they say, the will of consecrating was already present and was not retracted. Yet the second opinion, common and more probable, denies. The reason is that, since the intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, you are not presumed to have had that intention. But because the first opinion does not seem improbable, the matter remains doubtful." Therefore those particles thus doubtfully consecrated are either to be consumed after the precious Blood and ablution, but before the purification, since the remains of the Blood are certainly the Sacrament, while concerning those hosts it is doubted whether they are the Sacrament; or, if a just cause is had, they are to be consecrated in another Mass, under condition. Moreover, the cause would be just if those particles were in too great a quantity, so that they could not easily be consumed, or if, at a suitable time, other particles could not be had.²⁴

Q. 2. Whether hosts are judged consecrated if the ciborium indeed was placed on the corporal, but at the time of consecration, from forgetfulness, remained CLOSED?

Resp. Affirmatively; for: 1. the matter was sufficiently present in the closed pyx; 2. intention was not lacking, since the one previously had was not retracted by the aforesaid forgetfulness.²⁵ But the intention which any good priest has, of violating no precept of the Church, in no way includes the intention of not consecrating whenever, while he does not notice, some defect occurs.

Q. 3. What is to be done by the priest if, by some accident, unconsecrated hosts are MIXED with consecrated ones?

Resp. The whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest either intends to consecrate the unconsecrated ones, or, according to others, consecrates the whole heap under condition, if they are not consecrated. "And this rather must be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts,

true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word This be verified; whence all the hosts ought to be consecrated under condition, that they may be validly consecrated."¹

Q. 4. Whether DROPS OF WINE adhering to the chalice are judged consecrated, if the priest has intended nothing concerning them?

Resp. 1. Drops adhering exteriorly to the chalice are not consecrated, because the intention of consecrating them cannot be presumed, since it would be gravely illicit. 2. More probably neither are drops adhering interiorly consecrated, because the intention of the Church seems to be, and therefore that of the priest ought to be, to consecrate that which is in the chalice by way of one continuous thing. Whence, for guarding against every anxiety, the priest will do well if, once for all, he determines the intention. But it is expedient that he intend to consecrate separated drops, but only those which are nearest the bottom, not those remote. Similarly, "the priest ought to consecrate crumbs adhering to hosts, but not those separated on the paten or corporal. Nor does it obstruct that, by taking them, the fast would be injured; for then the irreverence of the Sacrament seems more to be guarded against than injury of the fast. But if crumbs are in the ciborium, let him also intend to consecrate them, since danger of losing them is absent."²

n. ¶1528.

Q. 5. What is to be done by the celebrant if he has noticed some DEFECT concerning the matter, whether of bread or of wine?

Resp. From the Rubric of the Missal these things are to be held:

I. With respect to a defect of BREAD: 1. "If the celebrant before consecration has noticed that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten: that host having been removed, let him place another, and the oblation having been made, at least conceived in the mind, let him proceed from that place where he ceased."

"If he has noticed this after consecration, even after the reception of that host, another having been placed, let him make the oblation as above, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words: Who the day before He suffered; and the former, if he has not received it, let him receive after the reception of the Body and Blood, or let him give it to be received by others, or let him reverently preserve it somewhere. But if he has received it, nevertheless let him receive that which he consecrated: because the precept concerning the perfection of the Sacrament is of greater moment than that it be received by those fasting."
"But if this happens after the reception of the blood, new bread, and wine with water, must again be put; and the oblation having first been made as above, the priest should consecrate, beginning from those words: Who the day before: and immediately receive each, and proceed with the Mass, lest the Sacrament remain imperfect, and so that due order may be preserved."
"If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, as by wind, or by miracle, or having been taken by some animal, and cannot be found; then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place: Who the day before He suffered, its oblation having first been made, as above."³

II. With respect to a defect of WINE: 1. "If the celebrant BEFORE the consecration of the blood, although after the consecration of the Body, notices that either wine, or water, or each is not in the chalice, or that the wine is corrupted, he ought immediately to put wine with water; and the oblation having been made as above, to consecrate, beginning from those words: In like manner, etc."

"If after the words of consecration he notices that wine had not been put, but water: the water having been placed in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice, and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words: In like manner, etc."
"If he notices this after reception of the Body or of water of this kind, let him put another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer each, and consecrate and receive, although he is not fasting. Or if Mass is celebrated in a public place, where several are present, to avoid scandal, he will be able to put wine with water, and the oblation having been made as above, consecrate, and immediately receive, and proceed with the rest."⁴

The same is to be done if after reception, with foundation, it is doubted whether the liquid drunk was pure or corrupted wine; but among the doctors it is not agreed whether the words of consecration are to be pronounced absolutely or conditionally. "I think," says St. Alphonsus, "that another certain wine is not to be consecrated again absolutely, because then the same danger would press of making a second mutilated Sacrifice, if perhaps the prior matter was truly apt; I say therefore that this second consecration ought to be made under condition, namely if the prior matter was not consecrated; for the danger of not leaving the Sacrifice mutilated will be a just cause of repeating the consecration under the aforesaid condition."⁵

"If it happens that all the Blood is spilled after consecration, if indeed something, or a little, remained, let that be received, and concerning the rest of the spilled Blood let it be done as was said in the preceding Rubric" of the Missal. "But if absolutely nothing remained, let him again put wine and water, and consecrate from that place, In like manner, yet the oblation of the chalice having first been made, as above."⁶

It must be noted: "If the matter which would have to be put, by reason of the defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had; if this is before the consecration of the body, one must not proceed further: if after the consecration of the body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is discovered, the other already consecrated; then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet in such a way that the words and signs are omitted which pertain to the lacking species. But if by waiting for some time, for example for an hour, it can be had, one must wait, lest the Sacrifice remain imperfect."⁷

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On the Form of the Eucharist

n. ¶1529.

The FORM of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the very words by which Christ the Lord made this Sacrament. For in the name and in the person of Christ the priest speaks and operates in making the Sacred.

Principles. I. The form prescribed for the consecration of BREAD is taken from St. Matthew the Evangelist, and consists in these words: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. The word for is placed according to the custom of the Roman Church derived from Blessed Peter; but it is inserted that the form may cohere with the preceding words.

In this form, the essential words are: "This is My body"; for they signify completely and import the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ. Hence, the word for does not pertain to the essence, and therefore its omission is judged to be only venial. "But not improbably Concina and Roncaglia condemn this as mortal; and in truth, in a matter of so great moment, any change deliberately placed does not seem light."⁸ And the same must be said concerning the same word in the following form.

n. ¶1530.

II. For the consecration of the CHALICE the following form is assigned: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. All these words are taken either from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, or from Apostolic tradition, as St. Thomas teaches.⁹

The essential words are more probably these alone: "This is the chalice of My Blood," since they perfectly express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Nor, however, does the other opinion lack probability, which teaches that the other words also, as expressing the power of the passion of Christ, are essential, excepting only these: eternal and mystery of faith, which are included virtually in the others. Hence a priest would certainly sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are contained in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he ought indeed to repeat, under condition, the whole form.¹⁰

n. ¶1531.

III. "The form of the Eucharist ought to be pronounced RECITATIVELY AND SIGNIFICATIVELY, that is, by referring the words of Christ and applying them to the present matter, so that it may be transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ."¹¹ Thus all with St. Thomas.

IV. A change of words which imports no change of sense does not render the consecration invalid. This is established from the rubric of the Missal: "But if someone should diminish or change something from the form of consecration, and the words would not signify the same, he would not make the Sacrament. But if he added something which would not change the signification, he would indeed make it, but would sin most gravely."¹² Nor similarly does faulty pronunciation impede the consecration from being valid. "The reason is that words have been so constituted that, if sometimes they are pronounced with a fault, they signify the same thing; for it suffices that the words of the form convey the sense intended by Christ; otherwise, if they conveyed another sense."¹³

From these things you resolve: 1. Consecration is valid but GRAVELY ILLICIT if it is said: This food is my body, this chalice is my blood; colpus for corpus, meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix, sanguis for sanguinis, etc. Whence, he cannot be excused from venial sin who does not employ due diligence for pronouncing the words of consecration rightly.¹⁴

Consecration is invalid if it is said: This for my body, omitting is.¹⁵ Likewise, if it is said: Here, adverbially, is my body; this body is mine; or this blood is mine; because these words do not have the sense by which that is signified which they ought to effect. Likewise, if it is said: That is my body; that is my blood; for the sense of the form is changed, as is clear of itself.¹⁶
Consecration is doubtful if it is said: This is my flesh; this thing is my body; this is my blood.¹⁷

n. ¶1532.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether in consecration these words are to be held as essential: WHO THE DAY BEFORE, etc.; IN LIKE MANNER, etc.?

Resp. The common and most probable opinion denies, and it is proved: 1. from the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, where it is said that consecration is made by no other than the words of Christ, which are only these: This is the body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.; 2. from the rubric of the Missal, which teaches that the words required by necessity of the Sacrament are the words of the form, namely This is My body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.¹⁸

Q. 2. What is to be done by the celebrant if he DOES NOT REMEMBER that he has pronounced all the words of consecration?

Resp. From the rubric of the Missal these things are to be held: "If the celebrant does not remember that he has said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not therefore to be troubled. Yet if it is certain to him that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the Sacrament, let him resume the form. But if he very probably doubts that he has omitted something essential, let him repeat the form, at least under a tacit condition."¹⁹

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Chapter II: On the Minister of the Eucharist

The minister of the Eucharist ought to be rendered FIT for his office through the power of Order, to have jurisdiction, and to observe the order prescribed by the Church. Hence there will be a threefold article: 1. on the power of Order required in the minister; 2. on the required jurisdiction; 3. on the order to be observed.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. II, Article I: On the Required Power of Order in the Minister

A twofold minister of the Eucharist is distinguished: the minister consecrating and the minister dispensing.

n. ¶1533.

Principles. I. The CONSECRATING minister of the Eucharist is only a priest rightly ordained. This is established from the words of Christ, who said only to the Apostles and to their successors in the priesthood: "Do this in commemoration of Me."²⁰ Hence the Fourth Lateran Council²¹ defined thus: "No one can make this Sacrament of the Eucharist, except a priest who has been rightly ordained."

It is asked: Whether SEVERAL priests can consecrate the SAME matter at the same time?

Resp. Affirmatively, if they pronounce the words of the form at the same instant. It is common. "Conversely, if one of them completes the form before the others independently of the intention of the others, he then makes the Sacrament, so that the others would afterwards complete the form in vain. Hence, new priests, who consecrate with the Bishop, first ought to take care, as far as can be done, to complete the form together with the Bishop. Moreover, they ought to have the intention of consecrating only then when at the same time with the Bishop they complete the form; indeed, beyond this, in the consecration of the chalice they should also intend not to consecrate, if perhaps they themselves have not consecrated the bread."²²

n. ¶1534.

II. The ordinary minister of DISPENSING the Eucharist is the priest alone.²³ This is established from Trent, sess. 13, cap. 8, where it is said: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive Communion from priests; but that priests communicate themselves." The theological reason also advises the same; for since consecration is ordered to distribution, it ought to belong to him to distribute, to whom it belongs to consecrate. And this the universal practice of the Church confirms.

It is asked: Whether a priest can communicate himself OUTSIDE MASS?

Resp. "It is probable that, even outside danger of death, from a grave cause, scandal being removed, it is licit for a priest to take the sacred Host from the sacrarium, or brought to him by a deacon, and give it to himself, for example if in a long illness he had not communicated for a long time. Indeed Croix, Suarez, and others say that for the cause of devotion alone a priest can always communicate himself; because, scandal being removed, there is no irreverence, nor is it forbidden anywhere, unless another priest is present."²⁴

n. ¶1535.

III. A Deacon, by force of his Ordination, is the EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist, so that the dispensation of this Sacrament can be committed to him FROM A JUST CAUSE. This is established: 1. from the practice of the first centuries, in which deacons universally ministered the Eucharist, especially the divine Blood; 2. from various Councils, for example Nicaea I general, Carthage IV, etc.²⁵

We have said from a just cause; which is not only extreme necessity, as Habert and Tournely wish, but also grave or notable necessity, as if the pastor were occupied on a day of a great feast, or the number of those communicating were great. In extreme necessity, when a priest is absent, a deacon not only can, but IS HELD to minister Viaticum, even without express commission. But in other cases, if without the commission of the Bishop or pastor legitimately conceded, he dispenses the Eucharist, he sins gravely and incurs irregularity.¹

Note. Grave theologians assert with Suarez, although St. Thomas dissents, that a simple CLERIC, indeed even a LAYMAN, can in a case of extreme necessity, or in time of plague, furnish Viaticum to himself or to others. The reason is that then the divine precept of communicating presses, nor is any injury done to the Sacrament if, in such necessity, the Eucharist is ministered by a layman, as formerly the usage had obtained in the primitive Church. Nor does scandal obstruct; for such scandal or wonder can be forestalled if those standing by are admonished that this is permitted in such necessity. But neither can contrary custom be objected; since this case happens very rarely, this contrary custom cannot be proved.²

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. II, Article II: On the Required Jurisdiction

n. ¶1536.

Principles. I. ORDINARY jurisdiction of dispensing the Eucharist belongs only to pastors of souls, namely to Bishops in their diocese, pastors in their parish, regular Prelates in their Religion. The reason is that it is proper to pastors to feed, which is done chiefly through the Sacraments.³ Hence, he who dispenses the Eucharist without due permission sins mortally, because he injures the jurisdiction of the legitimate pastor in a grave matter; unless he can reasonably presume his consent.⁴ Wherefore this must be noted: if faculty of celebrating is conceded to someone, by that very fact faculty of ministering the Eucharist is also conceded: for thus common usage bears. But indeed, the consent of the pastor is not easily to be presumed if Communion to be received from obligation is in question.⁵

Moreover, in a case of necessity, namely "if a sick person is to be fortified with sacred Viaticum, and his proper pastor is absent, or being present cannot carry the Eucharist; any other priest, whether regular or secular, and this one lacking, even a deacon, can confer it on him; because then the will of the Bishop or Pope is presumed, even if the pastor refuses, but unjustly."⁶

n. ¶1537.

II. From privilege, REGULARS can in their churches, by themselves or by other priests celebrating there, dispense Communion to any of Christ's faithful, excepting only Easter Communion and Viaticum.⁷ Concerning this, these things have been established:

Regulars are prohibited on Easter day⁸ and in some places, for example Rome, also on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, to dispense Communion to the faithful in their churches, excepting only those to whom it has been conceded to satisfy the Easter precept in these churches (cf. n. 1571). But if in some place contrary custom has been introduced, they can, on Easter day, offer Communion to all the faithful, since custom furnishes jurisdiction.⁹
Regulars cannot minister Viaticum except to those who enjoy the privilege of exemption: such are Religious both professed and novices; likewise servants of monasteries, "who actually serve, reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience."¹⁰ "But Religious presuming to minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist by way of Viaticum to clerics or laymen, outside a case of necessity, without the permission of the pastor," incur excommunication reserved to the Pope (cf. n. 1341).¹¹

n. ¶1538.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit for Regulars to carry the Eucharist to the sick, for Communion from DEVOTION?

Resp. "Never, without the permission of the Bishop or pastor, is it licit for Religious publicly to carry the Eucharist through streets, since this derogates from the right of pastors obtained by custom." But indeed, on the occasion of a Mass which the Religious legitimately celebrates in the house of the sick person, he can licitly offer Communion to him.¹²

Q. 2. What, for the minister, is the OBLIGATION of ministering the Eucharist?

Resp. Pastors of souls and their coadjutors, or others delegated by them, are held, from justice, to minister Communion not only to the dying, but also to the healthy, whenever they have been reasonably and opportunely required.¹³ When the pastor is lacking, any other priest is held to this from charity, and indeed under grave obligation, if the ministering of Viaticum is in question (cf. n. 2271).

Note. Besides power and jurisdiction, the state of grace and exemption from censure are also required, as was said above (n. 1416).

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. II, Article III: On the Order to Be Observed in the Administration of the Eucharist

There are two matters concerning which one must treat here, namely: 1. concerning the manner of administering sacred Communion in general; 2. concerning the order to be observed in administering sacred Viaticum.

…and 128 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 86 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist can be considered either as Sacrament, or as Sacrifice. Hence there is a twofold part of the present Treatise.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARIST AS SACRAMENT

We must treat: 1° of the nature and efficacy; 2° of the matter and form; 3° of the Minister; 4° of the subject of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER I: ON THE NATURE AND EFFICACY OF THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist is defined: The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual refreshment of souls. It is established from Trent.¹

n. ¶1278.

1278. Questions. - Query 1° How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist?

Resp. He remains as long as the species remain entire; but he ceases to be present under them immediately when the species are so corrupted that, according to the estimation of men, they no longer seem to be bread and wine. - Then, by the law established by God in the institution of this Sacrament, there is substituted for the species the same matter which would succeed to the corrupted bread and wine.²

Query 2° How long are the sacred species thought to remain entire, i.e. not corrupted, after the taking of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is not established. The mechanical dissolution of the species is carefully to be distinguished from their corruption or chemical change. The former is not considered here, since it does not remove the real presence. The latter is a little slower or quicker according to the different digestive power of different men and the different circumstances of the same man, both internal (for example, the condition of the stomach) and external (for example, the temperature of the sky). Hence an absolutely universal answer can scarcely be handed down. Capellmann the physician¹ thinks that with those things which are vomited before a half-hour has elapsed after Communion, even of lay persons, the same thing should be done which the Church prescribes must be done with species not yet corrupted. But this certainly must be done when the species are still discerned, although several hours after Communion have elapsed.

Query 3° What are the effects of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the soul?

Resp. The principal ones are the following, namely: 1° an increase of sanctifying grace, which constitutes the principal effect of the Eucharist. For, according to the words of Christ:² My flesh is truly food, this Sacrament was instituted as spiritual nourishment; and nourishment supposes life in him who receives it; hence it comes to pass that through this nourishment the very life of the soul, which consists chiefly in sanctifying grace, is strengthened and increased; 2° the obtaining of eternal glory; for Christ promises this: If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever;³ 3° a most abundant bestowal of actual graces, which flow from habitual grace and infused habits;

4° weakening of evil habits and amendment of vices, especially of lust; 5° remission of venial sins: this is established from Trent,¹ where the Eucharist is called an antidote, by which we are freed from daily faults, and are preserved from mortal sins; 6° remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; not indeed of all of it, but according to the mode of devotion and fervor, as St. Thomas says;² 7° special union with Christ and with his members, as is clear from John:³ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him; 8° preservation from future sins, both because, charity being increased through this food, the soul becomes stronger against corrupt nature, and because it is an efficacious memory of the Lord's Passion, through which the demons have been conquered.⁴

Query 4° Can the Eucharist ever blot out mortal sin?

Resp. More probably affirmatively. See n. 1208, Q. 2°.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER II: ON THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE EUCHARIST

We must treat: 1° of the matter; 2° of the form of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE MATTER OF THE EUCHARIST

I. On The Remote Matter.

n. ¶1279.

1279. Principles. - I. Bread and wine are the remote matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established: 1° from the institution itself of this Sacrament; for Christ in the Last Supper took bread and wine, and consecrated them into his Body and Blood; 2° from the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, chapter Firmiter;⁵ in the Council of Florence, in the Decree of union; and in Trent, Session 13, in almost all the chapters. - To all these is added the unanimous tradition of both Churches, Latin and Greek.

II. Only wheaten bread, and only wine from the vine, whether foreign or native, white or red,¹ are valid matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree cited above, where it is said: The third is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is WHEATEN BREAD AND WINE FROM THE VINE. - The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agree.

Bread must be made with water; hence bread kneaded with another liquid, for example with milk, butter, etc., is not apt matter, or at least is very doubtful.²

Must may be employed in general only when necessity makes it lawful; but juice from grapes altogether unripe is unfit matter.³

Generally, however, a slight admixture of unfit matter does not dissolve the species.⁴

III. A very small quantity of water must be mixed with the wine, and this not by necessity of the Sacrament, but by ecclesiastical precept.

The first proposition is drawn: 1° from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; 2° from the Declaration of the Councils, and especially of Florence - which declares that the matter of the chalice is wine from the vine, with which a very small quantity of water must be mixed - and of Trent.⁵

The second proposition is drawn from this, that Christ, in the institution of this Sacrament, designated only wine, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak of precept alone, as Trent does in the cited place; there is added the doctrine of the Catechism of the same Council, which, after it taught that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: Yet if this (water) is lacking, the Sacrament can stand.

n. ¶1280.

1280. Questions. - Query 1° Is bread made from rye or secale valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. Some affirm, because rye, they say, seems to be of the same species as wheat, although it is of different quality. - But others, much more commonly and more probably, deny; because rye bread is of a different species. Therefore in practice this matter is prohibited under grave obligation.⁶ (5) p. 417.

Query 2° Is bread made from far or spelt (in English: spelt) valid matter?

Resp. It is likewise controverted as concerning rye. Hence that matter also is to be held as doubtful, and therefore as gravely illicit.¹ - Nevertheless one must note that in various regions there are given different species of true wheat, which come under the name of spelt. Hence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men.

Query 3° Is bread, both unleavened and leavened, valid and lawful matter of the Eucharist?

Resp. 1° As regards validity, affirmatively. The reason is because each is true bread, and is also called simply bread in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. It is also established from the definition of the Church. For thus the Council of Florence in the Decree of union: We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread.

Resp. 2° As regards lawfulness, Latins are held under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened bread, each according to the rite of his own Church. It is established: 1° from the practice of each Church; 2° from the Council of Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: And priests must confect the very Body of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern. - But a Latin priest, passing through the regions of the Greeks, in which no church of his own rite is present, can consecrate in leavened bread; likewise conversely.²

Query 4° Does a priest consecrating in wine turning sour sin gravely?

Resp. Affirmatively, although that wine is still valid matter of the Sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is committed, not only if the wine is near to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to turn sour and be corrupted, because even so grave irreverence seems to be brought upon the Sacrament. - It is established from the Rubric, tit. 4, n. 2, where it is said thus: If the wine has begun to turn sour, or to be corrupted, or has become somewhat sharp, ... the Sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely.

Nevertheless Gobat, Sporer, and Lacroix probably say that, if other wine is lacking, it is lawful without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to employ wine turning a little sour, or not notably acid; and Sporer and Mazzotta add that, in urgent necessity, it is lawful to use wine even notably turning sour, provided that it is certainly wine. - Hence the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with such rigor that it comprehends even all the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine turning sour.¹

Query 5° Is frozen wine valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. More probably affirmatively, although it is illicit. The reason is: 1° because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2° because from the Rubric of the Missal the species of frozen wine after Consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then taken, inasmuch as it is a true Sacrament (Rubr. de defect. § 10, n. 11). Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retains the Blood of Christ; therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially through freezing after Consecration; therefore neither before it. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² where he says that it is the truer sentence because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric.

Query 6° What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice?

Resp. A very small quantity of water suffices, as the Council of Florence says above, n. 1279. Probably water can be poured in up to an eighth part of the wine, indeed up to a fifth part according to Lugo.³ Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last sentence is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine, if it is generous. Generally one must counsel that the priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added.⁴

II. On The Proximate Matter, Or On The Use Of The Matter Required In The Consecration.

n. ¶1281.

1281. Principles. - I. For valid Consecration, besides apt matter, it is required: 1° that the matter to be consecrated be physically present; because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, this, here, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that which was not present would be demonstrated as present; 2° that it be determined in the individual by the intention of the Minister; because just as the Minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Nevertheless actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices.¹

II. For lawful Consecration it is required: 1° that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially that determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal: hence first of all it is necessary that the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean, on account of the reverence due to so great a Sacrament; likewise, from the prescription or use of the Latin Church, that the host be of round, thin, whole, and fresh form. Cf. St. Alphonsus;² 2° that it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone; 3° that the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered; 4° that it be done at the time prescribed by the Rubric of the Canon.³

n. ¶1282.

1282. Resolves. - 1° Hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered, are validly consecrated. Likewise wine is validly consecrated in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever; because it suffices for the true presence of the matter that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.⁴

2° The Consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, although there are several placed either by him or by another; the reason is because the priest is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Hence if the celebrant notices after Consecration that two Hosts are joined together, let him take each as consecrated according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before Consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him set one aside, and after Mass let him or another consume it as blessed bread. But if in some case unconsecrated hosts are mixed with consecrated ones, the whole mass is to be consecrated under condition, if they are not consecrated.⁵

3° The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to the altar to be consecrated, or before the Sacrifice he has been warned concerning hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or he has noticed that they are brought by another that they may be consecrated, even if, while he consecrates, he does not so expressly remember them, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided that they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.¹

4° Hosts would not be consecrated, if the priest did not know of them, even placed on the corporal, but separated from the heap, because the wholly unaware priest did not have the intention of consecrating them.²

5° If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able lawfully to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. "And this, even if the Canon has been begun, ... when several would remain without Communion." ... But if only one remained, rather a part of the large Host is to be given to him, "or a smaller Host is to be divided. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time," or if he is a grave or noble person, or, among us, a person of principal standing.³

6° It is never lawful to consecrate only one species. Nevertheless such a Consecration is more probably valid, even if the priest had a positive intention of not consecrating the other species.⁴

n. ¶1283.

1283. Questions. - Query 1° Is a ciborium left outside the corporal or the stone through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated?

Resp. There is no difficulty if there is question of a ciborium placed indeed outside the stone, but nevertheless on the corporal, and with this extended over the stone; for in this case it is morally found on the stone. Otherwise it is controverted. The first sentence, probable, affirms, because the will of consecrating had at the beginning of Mass was not retracted.

The second sentence, common and more probable according to St. Alphonsus, denies. The reason is because that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and was not necessary for the Sacrifice, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it.

But since it is illicit to administer Sacraments with doubtful matter, in practice that ciborium will have to be consecrated again under condition in another Mass, if the particles cannot easily be consumed. Otherwise they must be consumed after each Communion and ablution - because the remains of the Blood are certainly a Sacrament, but those hosts in the ciborium are only doubtful - and before purification. I said: must; because while they can be consumed, a sufficient cause is lacking for consecrating them under condition.¹

Query 2° Is a ciborium placed indeed on the corporal, but which through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of Consecration, judged consecrated?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° because certainly hosts can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium, as was said above; 2° because the priest is always judged to have the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is above the corporal, is honestly consecrable, and is held by way of one continuous whole.

Query 3° Are drops of wine adhering to the chalice, whether exteriorly or interiorly, judged consecrated?

Resp. 1° Drops adhering exteriorly are never judged consecrated. The reason is because the intention of the priest is deservedly presumed to be to consecrate that one thing which is lawfully consecrable; but those little drops would be consecrated illicitly and irreverently, and without any utility. Therefore ... Thus all.

Resp. 2° More probably, neither are drops adhering interiorly judged consecrated, when they are altogether separated from the greater quantity, or are not next to the bottom. The reason is because it seems to be the intention of the Church, and therefore of the priest, not to consecrate except wine which is drinkable by way of one whole, and is found gathered together in the chalice.³

Query 4° What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host?

Resp. Scandal being excluded, and without a reasonable cause, it is venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. But if some fracture or even notable stain is discovered in the host after the oblation, outside the case in which scandal of the people is feared, such a host will lawfully be consecrated, because through the oblation it has already been in some way dedicated and sanctified to God.⁴

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE II: ON THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a twofold distinct matter, so also there is a twofold form of Consecration, one of bread and the other of wine.

n. ¶1284.

1284. Principles. - I. The form for the Consecration of bread consists in these words: For this is my Body. But these words, or equivalent ones, are altogether essential to the form, if you except the word for.

It is established: 1° from the universal practice of the Church, and from her precept in the Roman Missal; 2° from the Council of Florence in the Decree of union, and from Trent;¹ 3° from the divine institution itself; for Christ transubstantiated bread into his Body by pronouncing the aforesaid words.

II. The form for the Consecration of wine is this: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of Faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

It is established likewise: 1° from the practice and prescription of the Church; 2° from the various Evangelists, who, although they do not report altogether the same words, nevertheless agree perfectly as regards this sense.

n. ¶1285.

1285. Resolves. - 1° Valid, but illicit, is the Consecration if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; this chalice is my Blood. - Likewise if you pronounce: Colpui for Corpus; meus for meum; es for est; calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc.²

2° The Consecration will be invalid if you say: Here (adverbially) is my Body; This Body is mine; or Here is my Blood: because these words do not have a sense by which they signify that which they ought to effect.³

3° The Consecration is doubtful if you say: This is my Flesh: which, nevertheless, Laymann thinks to be valid.⁴

4° The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and at the same time significatively, but not merely historically: namely, the words of Christ are to be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Nevertheless no scruple is to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing what Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - Elbel,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

n. ¶1286.

1286. Questions. - Query 1° Is the omission of the word for in the form of Consecration grave?

Resp. It is controverted. The first sentence denies, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ in the Consecration of the bread, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - Thus Busembaum.³

The second sentence affirms, and St. Alphonsus⁴ says that this is not improbable. The reason is because in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever.

Query 2° In Consecration are required, as essential, those antecedent words: Who the day before he suffered, etc. ... In like manner, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, with the common sentence, which St. Alphonsus holds as most probable. The reason is because these words are pronounced only historically, and do not seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless he does not dare to say that the opposite sentence is improbable, all the more because, if because of a doubtful Consecration the form must be repeated, according to the Rubrics one must begin from the words: Who the day before, and In like manner.⁵ (v) p. 401.

Query 3° In the Consecration of the chalice are these words alone: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD ... of the essence of the form?

Resp. The affirmative sentence is more common than the negative, but each is speculatively probable on account of the reasons which are to be seen among the Dogmaticians or at St. Alphonsus.⁶ But in practice it is certain that it would be grave sin if all the words which are had in the Consecration of the chalice were not pronounced, and, if perhaps only the first words were said, the whole form must be repeated.

Query 4° Is the form valid if it is said: HOC ENIM CORPUS MEUM, by understanding EST, as in the Latin language this frequently is customarily done?

Resp. Negatively. For although in continuous speech the substantive verb is can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case this cannot be done; both because continuous speech is not had, and especially because in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertory sense, as in common speech, but also a force effecting transubstantiation.¹

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER III: ON THE MINISTER OF THE EUCHARIST

It must be treated 1° of the power of the Minister; 2° of his obligation; 3° of the requisites for ministering rightly; 4° of the manner of ministering the Holy Eucharist to the sick; 5° of the manner of reserving it.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. III, ARTICLE I: ON THE POWER OF THE MINISTER OF THE EUCHARIST

The Minister of the Eucharist is twofold, namely one of Consecration, the other of distribution.

n. ¶1287.

1287. Principles. - I. Every priest, and only a priest, is the Minister of confecting the Eucharist. It is established 1° from Scripture: for Christ, instituting the Sacrament, said to all and only the Apostles reclining with him, and therefore to all and only those who were to succeed them in the priesthood: Do this in commemoration of me;² therefore all and only priests received this power from Christ; 2° from Trent;³ 3° finally from the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church.

II. Priests alone, or presbyters, are the ordinary Ministers of the distribution of the Eucharist. It is established 1° from Trent,⁴ where it is said: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive Communion from priests, but priests celebrating should communicate themselves"; 2° from the universal practice of the Church.

III. Deacons, by force of their ordination, are extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, so that the distribution of this Sacrament can be committed to them from a sufficient cause; which commission, at least tacit, is certainly altogether necessary for the lawfulness of this act outside the case of extreme necessity, and indeed for public and solemn administration. It is established 1° from the practice of the first centuries, in which deacons everywhere, by commission of Bishops or presbyters, whether general or particular, ministered the Eucharist; 2° from various Councils, e.g. Nicaea I, general, Carthage IV, etc.¹

IV. By ordinary right the Pastor alone, or his Superior, can distribute the Eucharist. For jurisdiction is required for this, not indeed for the validity of the act, as in absolution, but for due order in ministering. It is established 1° from the Councils, especially Carthage I,² and Milevis,³ etc.; ... 2° from the universal practice of the Church. Hence he who without the license, at least presumed, of the Pastor ministers the Eucharist, violates his right in a grave matter, and therefore sins gravely. Nevertheless, when the Pastor grants to others license of celebrating in his Church, he is always judged to grant license also of ministering the Eucharist, unless he express the contrary; this also is confirmed by common practice.⁴

Nevertheless license is not so easily to be presumed, if there is question of receiving the Eucharist from obligation.⁵ Wherefore as regards Paschal Communion, custom will have to be observed; likewise to minister Viaticum outside the case of necessity without the license of the Pastor is illicit.

But the First Communion of children is not of parochial right. Nevertheless diocesan statutes will have to be observed, or also legitimate custom, if perhaps somewhere it has the force of law.⁶

The aforesaid dispositions of common law concerning parochial rights do not pertain to us, except insofar as the statute of the Bishop or prudence prescribes them. See n. 1138.

n. ¶1288.

1288. Questions. - Query 1° In order that a deacon may minister, must the necessity be extreme?

Resp. Negatively, with the common sentence; but grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister the Eucharist. And in extreme necessity, when a priest is absent, he is held to minister Viaticum.¹

Query 2° Whether, or in what circumstances, Religious can minister the most holy Eucharist?

Resp. See n. 1200. E). F).

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. III, ARTICLE II: ON THE OBLIGATION OF DISTRIBUTING THE EUCHARIST

n. ¶1289.

1289. Principles. - I. The Pastor, or any priest having care of souls, is held from justice to minister the Eucharist to his subjects not only at Easter and in death, but also as often as they reasonably ask, excluding, however, a legitimate cause of impediment. The reason is because it pertains to the Pastor, from a quasi-contract, to provide not only that the faithful fulfill the precepts, but also that they not lack the helps which very much profit spiritual advancement.²

II. Any priest, whether secular or regular, is held, if the Pastor is lacking, to minister the Eucharist to one about to die; otherwise in other cases. The reason of the first is because anyone from charity is held to succor his neighbor placed in so great an extremity by this salutary and most efficacious remedy. The reason of the second is clear.

III. To one dying, especially not yet confessed, Viaticum must be brought, even if therefore the people would have to lack Mass of precept, as is clear.

n. ¶1290.

1290. Questions. - Query 1° Is the Pastor held also to investigate sick persons not asking for the Eucharist, that he may minister it to them?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least if they are in grave danger of death. The reason is because it is the office of a good Pastor to take care that to his sheep, placed in so great a danger, so salutary a remedy be supplied. It is gathered besides from Canon Law.³

Query 2° Is the Pastor held to minister the Eucharist to his subjects by himself?

Resp. Negatively. For it suffices if he provide that whoever opportunely asks or needs it not be defrauded of it. Therefore he can fulfill the obligation even through others. Nevertheless he must take care lest he seem idle and careless, if he habitually fulfills his offices through others.

Query 3° Does the Pastor sin gravely as often as he denies the Eucharist to one reasonably asking?

Resp. Negatively; for if he does this rarely, e.g. toward one or another, scandal or grave sadness of the asker being excluded, he will sin only venially. The reason is because neither grave injury nor grave damage is thus inflicted, and, if damage is present, it can easily be repaired. - Thus all. - Recall what was said n. 1227. 2°.

Query 4° Is the Pastor held to minister the Eucharist even with danger of life, e.g. in time of plague or contagious disease?

Resp. Negatively, very probably with St. Alphonsus.¹ - See what was said n. 1227. q. 2°. Resp. 2°.

Query 5° When is the Pastor judged to be excused from ministering the Eucharist to subjects asking?

Resp. He is legitimately excused, 1° when the subjects, on account of some circumstances, do not ask reasonably, e.g. if they ask before Mass when they can easily wait, etc.; 2° if the Pastor himself is impeded by infirmity or other necessary occupations, etc. - Nevertheless one must act cautiously, because in these matters the faithful can easily take scandal and be kept from receiving the Sacraments more often. - Thus all.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. III, ARTICLE III: ON THE REQUISITES FOR THE LAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

n. ¶1291.

1291. Principles. - I. Besides jurisdiction (cf. n. 1287. IV.), it is required that the Minister be free from every excommunication, interdict, and suspension from Sacred Orders; for otherwise he would sin gravely and contract irregularity.

II. It is required that the Minister be in the state of grace, because the most august and most holy Body of Christ ought not to be handled by impure hands. Hence the priest sins as often as, guilty of mortal sin and not contrite, he distributes Communion, although probably he does not commit as many sins as there are persons communicating in the same distribution of the Eucharist.¹ - Cf. n. 219.

III. It is required that the Minister distribute the Eucharist according to the rite customary in the Church. Hence, generally speaking, the administration of this Sacrament is to be omitted when it cannot be done in the manner prescribed by the Roman Ritual or by the custom of the place.²

n. ¶1292.

1292. Resolves. - 1° The Eucharist is not to be ministered except with decent habit, that is, with stole, surplice, and light.

2° According to the common sentence, he sins gravely who, outside the case of necessity, distributes Communion without any sacred vestment; because this is very indecent and contrary to a grave precept of the Church.³ - If, however, only the stole is omitted, it seems to several and grave Theologians to be only venial, which seems sufficiently probable.⁴

3° It is reputed only venial to minister the Eucharist without light, or without the usual confession premised, the Confiteor, etc.⁵ - Similarly it is held only venial to transfer the Eucharist without sacred vestments from place to place, e.g. from one altar to another. - Reuter,⁶ Mazzotta.

n. ¶1293.

1293. Questions. - Query 1° Can a priest laboring under an infirmity in the thumb and forefinger minister the Eucharist with other fingers?⁷

Resp. It seems one must deny, at least more probably, excluding the case of gravest necessity.⁷ - The reason is because, although the whole hand is consecrated, nevertheless the forefinger and thumb from the rite of the Church are specially destined for exercising this office.

Query 2° What must be done if the Host falls to the ground?

Resp. The place onto which the holy Host fell is immediately to be covered with some clean thing, and afterwards washed. If it falls onto the cloth, or small linen, with which the hands of the communicant are covered, the place is to be marked and afterwards washed in like manner. Thus the Rubric, which nevertheless, according to the common sentence, does not oblige under grave sin; nevertheless it would oblige gravely to wash the place onto which the sacred species of wine had fallen, since this is absorbed; yet there is no need to burn them, i.e. the object onto which they fell.¹

Query 3° What must be done if the Host falls onto the face, beard, or garments of the communicant?

Resp. In the aforesaid cases purification is to be omitted; because it is better to avoid wonder, disturbance, or offense of the people, than to observe the Rubric, which obliges only under light sin.²

Query 4° What must be done if the Host falls into the bosom or within the garments of a woman?

Resp. The woman herself must draw out the Host, and she herself must bring it to her mouth with her own hands. Thus Benedict XIV.³ But the fingers of the woman are to be washed, and the ablution is to be cast into the piscina. If the woman cannot easily draw out the Host there, let her withdraw apart, e.g. into some chapel, or into the sacristy, etc.

n. ¶1294.

1294. Query 5° At what hour can Communion be distributed?

Resp. Regularly it ought to be ministered at the hours at which Mass, whether from custom or from a particular Indult, may be celebrated. But commonly with St. Alphonsus it is taught that it can be ministered at any hour of the day, except nevertheless the extreme part of the day, i.e. toward night. The reason is because there exists no prohibition concerning this matter.⁴ Nor does there stand in the way the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites given in Dec. 1816, permitting the administration of Communion from time to time at which Masses are celebrated in any church on a day of great concourse. For that Decree is not exclusive, since the Sacred Congregation gave the response according to the petition, in which there was question precisely of a day of great concourse for gaining a plenary Indulgence or Jubilee.

It must be added here that, from a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of the year 1641, Communion is not to be given (unless by force of privilege) in the Mass of the Nativity of the Lord, which is celebrated at midnight. At St. Alphonsus,⁵ and at Gardellini n. 1319.

Query 6° At what time and place can Communion not be given?

Resp. to the 1st. In the time of local interdict, and in the time from the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament on Thursday of the Greater Week until the solemn Mass on Holy Saturday, within which, as today is certain, all the faithful are permitted to receive the Sacred Eucharist.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Outside Churches or public oratories. But in private ones it can be given by license of the Bishop,² and, among us, wherever Mass is celebrated.

But at the altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, it is not to be distributed (S. R. C. 12 Nov. 1831), unless because of the lack of another altar (S. R. C. 26 Sept. 1868).

n. ¶1295.

1295. Query 7° Can Communion be given outside Mass?

Resp. It is to be given, generally speaking, insofar as it can be done, after the Communion of the Priest. Thus from the Roman Ritual. Yet by received usage Communion can easily be given before or after Mass, or even at any other time at which, as was said above (n. 1294. q. 5°), it can be ministered. Indeed, where there is a great influx of communicants, it is expedient to defer Communion until the Sacrifice has been completed, lest those who assist at Mass be detained in Church longer than is fitting and be affected with tedium. - Nay rather, it must be held as certain that, on account of the custom which has prevailed everywhere, and which cannot be abrogated by Pastors, there exists no precept by force of which Communion must be distributed only within Mass. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites.³

Query 8° Can Communion be given with black vestments immediately before or after Masses of the dead?

Resp. 1° After Mass it can be given, if the priest has not yet withdrawn from the altar on which he celebrated; but then he does not give the blessing to those who have communicated. - Thus from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, 23 July 1868.

Resp. 2° According to the same Decree, Communion can also be given before Mass, if a reasonable cause is present, the blessing nevertheless being omitted. But a reasonable cause is never lacking if some then ask Communion. For very often it happens that among those asking some are present who otherwise either would depart without Communion, or, by remaining longer, would necessarily undergo no light inconvenience, whether in domestic matters or in business to be transacted.

Query 9° Can Communion be given with black vestments within a Mass of Requiem?

Resp. Affirmatively, both if Communion is given with only Hosts consecrated in the same Mass, and if it is given from preconsecrated Hosts which are reserved in the tabernacle. Thus the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites cited above.

n. ¶1296.

1296. Query 10° Can Communion be given with violet vestments, even before or after Masses of the dead?

Resp. On this question there could long be controversy, especially on account of a Response which was reported from the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the year 1670. But now there is no doubt, after the aforesaid decree of the Sacred Congregation, by which it is established that in Masses of the dead violet vestments cannot be used unless in some Church, on November 2. The Eucharistic Sacrament is publicly exposed for the solemn Prayer of Forty Hours.

Query 11° How is Communion to be ministered outside Mass?

Resp. 1° If Communion is to be ministered immediately before or after Mass, it must be done as in Mass itself; but the priest, standing at the altar, can say: O sacred banquet, etc. Vers. Bread, etc. (in Paschal time is added: Alleluia); then he says: Lord, hear, etc., The Lord be with you, etc., with the Prayer: O God, who, etc. (in Paschal time: Pour forth upon us, etc.); finally, with his fingers washed and the Sacred Ciborium replaced in the tabernacle, he blesses those who communicated with the formula: The blessing of almighty God, Father, etc. - Roman Ritual and Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 Sept. 1842.⁶ p. 417.

Resp. 2° If it is distributed at another time, two candles are to be lit according to the Roman Ritual. But if time urges and two candles cannot easily be lit, one will suffice; 2° the priest, with hands washed, vested in surplice and stole of the color suitable to the Office of that day, ministers, as above, and having returned to the altar he proceeds with the remainder as above; finally he gives the blessing with the hand raised, but not with the pyx, except over the sick.

But the versicles Lord, hear, etc., The Lord be with you, etc., with the proper Prayer, according to some, as connected with the antiphon O Sacred, etc., can be omitted; according to others they are of precept, as is the antiphon itself.¹ - But such prayers seem to be said with a voice at least moderately raised, since they must be answered by the minister. (z) p. 417.

n. ¶1297.

1297. Query 12° What must be done if the minister is lacking for the priest: can a man about to communicate, or a woman, supply?

Resp. 1° Certainly any man about to communicate, if he is a man, can serve the priest; or even the priest himself can supply, by saying the Confiteor and answering Amen.

Resp. 2° A woman cannot supply, unless she is a Nun who, according to received custom, answers within the cloister; then the priest himself must by himself perform everything. Nor do you say that in necessity a woman can respond at Mass, provided she stands at a distance; for in Mass the priest alone can answer everything. - Thus commonly, Bouvier,² Gousset.³

Query 13° Can several particles be given to one communicant, or one larger one by cutting it, etc.?

Resp. Negatively. For this was expressly prohibited by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, approved by Innocent XI on 12 February 1679. The words, as Benedict XIV³ reports, are these: "Bishops, Pastors, or confessors should warn that several forms of the Eucharist, or particles, are to be handed to no one, nor larger ones, but the customary ones."

Query 14° Can particles be broken if they are deficient; and what must be done if there is no tabernacle in which they can be replaced?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, from the common sentence and general practice, provided there is a just cause, e.g. if Masses or the faithful cannot wait. Indeed, when the question had been proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, "Whether it is safe to follow the Rule of the Parisian Ritual, thus expressed: If, when Communion is to be given, a sufficient number of Hosts has not been found, can some Host be divided into several particles, which are distributed to individuals?" the Sacred Congregation responded: "Let the custom of dividing consecrated ones be observed, if necessity is present." On 16 March 1833, n. 4707. Nevertheless the priest then must divide Hosts only into two or at most three parts, because otherwise Communion could scarcely be given with due reverence. - Lacroix.¹ Cf. what was said n. 1282. 5°.

Resp. to the 2nd. They are to be consumed by the celebrant before the ablutions, if this can easily be done. Otherwise they would have to be carried to the nearest tabernacle with the customary rite; and it must not be done that several Hosts be ministered to the faithful.

Query 15° For communicating the faithful, when smaller Hosts are lacking, can the priest detach a part of the larger one to be consumed by himself?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively in the case of carrying Viaticum to one dying, by reason of urgent necessity. - Thus all. - 2° Affirmatively also if one or another of the faithful were about to communicate, who otherwise would have to wait for Communion not without inconvenience.² Cf. what was said n. 1282. 5°.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. III, ARTICLE IV: ON THE MANNER OF MINISTERING THE EUCHARIST TO THE SICK

n. ¶1298.

1298. The Roman Ritual Establishes The Following. - I. Let the Pastor admonish that the sick person's room be cleansed, and in it a table be prepared covered with a clean cloth, on which the Most Holy Sacrament may decently be set down. Let two candles at least be prepared, two small vessels, one with wine, the other with water, so that either may serve the priest for washing the fingers, and the sick person for swallowing the Sacred Host after Communion (therefore it suffices to prepare either one); besides, a clean linen is to be placed before the breast of the communicant. Often a vessel of holy water is added, as often as it is not accustomed to be carried with the Most Holy Sacrament.

II. The Eucharist must be carried from the Church to the private homes of the sick with decent habit, a clean veil placed over it, manifestly and honorably, with all reverence, always with light and with a little bell being continually rung before it. But the priest, vested in surplice and stole, and first having placed from both shoulders a becoming oblong veil, should receive with both hands the vessel with the Most Holy Sacrament, to be carried before the breast, and then should go under the baldachin, or umbrella, if it can be had, and proceed with uncovered head. But in going he says the Miserere and other Psalms, and in returning Praise the Lord from the heavens, and other Psalms and Hymns, but these are only of counsel.

III. The priest, entering the room of the sick person, says: Peace be to this house, Resp.: And to all dwelling in it. Then he adores the Most Holy Sacrament placed upon the table; he sprinkles the sick person and the room with holy water, saying: Thou shalt sprinkle me, etc., and the other prayers placed in the Roman Ritual. Afterwards, the sick person having been questioned and exhorted, he gives the Most Holy Eucharist in the usual manner. But if there is question of Viaticum, he does not say: The Body of the Lord, etc.; but: Receive, brother, the viaticum of the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., as in the Ritual. (y) p. 401.

IV. When death is imminent, most of the prayers, or even all, are omitted. The priest, with fingers washed, and the prayers completed, if particles remain, blesses the sick person with the ciborium, saying nothing. From the Roman Ritual the ablutions must be given to the sick person, but if he is unwilling or unable to take them, they are cast into the fire in the sick person's own house, or, which is more fitting, into the Sacrarium. (x) p. 401. - The priest, having returned to the Church, with the ciborium placed upon the altar, recites the versicle and prayer concerning the Most Holy Sacrament, and with the Sacrament makes the Sign of the Cross over the people, saying nothing.

n. ¶1299.

1299. Questions. - Query 1° Can the Eucharist be carried to the sick at night?

Resp. Negatively. For this is expressly prohibited, except in a case of necessity. For thus the Roman Ritual: "But at night this Sacrament must not be carried, unless necessity urges." But when necessity urges, it is to be carried at any hour of the night; but without noise and sound of the little bell. But the cited words of the Ritual do not regard Communities which reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in a domestic Chapel, because the danger of irreverence, on account of which the law was passed, is then absent.

Query 2° Can the Eucharist be carried to the sick secretly?

Resp. Negatively, generally speaking. It is established from the Roman Ritual, where it is said: "This Holy Sacrament must be carried manifestly and honorably." Nevertheless some circumstances are excepted, e.g. places of heretics, where it cannot be carried manifestly. Likewise sometimes even in Catholic places, if otherwise Holy Viaticum (but not Communion from devotion²) cannot be carried to the sick person without some inconvenience, for example because impious relatives absolutely do not wish any religious ceremony to be celebrated in their house, although they tolerate that the priest approach the sick person. Nevertheless this must not be done without license of the Bishop, where he can be consulted.

Query 3° Can a priest, when necessity urges, minister Viaticum without any sacred vestment?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because it is not to be presumed that the Church, which is so benign a mother, wished those rites to be observed in the administration of Viaticum with detriment to the dying. For the Sacraments have been instituted primarily for the salvation of souls.²

Query 4° When necessity urges, in carrying Viaticum is it lawful to run?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably. The reason is because urgent necessity of carrying Viaticum to one dying can excuse from greater decency in walking.³

Query 5° Is it lawful in time of plague to offer the Eucharist by some instrument, for instance in a spoon, on a paten, or in another clean vessel?

Resp. Affirmatively, not improbably, because so great a necessity seems to excuse from the customary rite of the Church.⁴

Query 6° Is it lawful to carry the Eucharist with the head covered on the way?

Resp. Negatively, on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament, except nevertheless in the singular case of necessity - of a brief infirmity, not however a lasting one - and provided that another priest cannot be had. - Likewise if a legitimate custom on account of a most grave cause, e.g. on account of excessively cold air, prevails somewhere. Therefore in carrying the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick, whether this is done by day or by night, neither on the pretext of any infirmity nor on any other pretext can the biretta or even a small cap be used.¹

Wherefore a priest laboring under a cold or another infirmity must abstain from carrying the Most Holy Sacrament, or commit that office to another, or nevertheless proceed with uncovered head, unless the use of the little cap has been granted to him.² Yet the use of the little cap is not granted with so much difficulty on a journey; with more difficulty within a city or town. According to several, the Bishop can grant license of carrying a little cap on a journey; but the faculty of using a little cap through a city or town is of Apostolic right.³ The Holy See granted a dispensation from that law for the diocese of Cologne, especially in winter weather, on 3 Nov. 1862. - St. Alphonsus has this: "Pasqual probably says that the Bishop can dispense that Viaticum be carried with a little cap on the head, when one must proceed far and through villages."⁴

Query 7° Can a priest carry the Holy Eucharist riding on a horse?

Resp. Affirmatively, if it must be carried to a sick person far distant, or through a difficult road, or if there is danger in delay. But the horse must be gentle, so that danger of falling and irreverence is absent. But it is never lawful to give the pyx to be carried by a layman, however much the priest may be tired; but then he must carry it in a burse hung from the neck. It is established from the Roman Ritual on the Eucharist, and also from a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. And beforehand, "that Viaticum, on account of distance of places, difficulty of journeys, roughness of roads, can be carried by the Pastor while riding," the Sacred Congregation of Rites "grants," nevertheless with the consent of the Bishop.⁶

Query 8° Can the Eucharist be carried several times to the sick who are not fasting, or by way of Viaticum?

Resp. Affirmatively, and not only if a new danger of death recurs, but also if the same one perseveres. - Thus the common and true sentence, says St. Alphonsus.⁷ It is confirmed by the authority of Benedict XIV, who, in the work On the Synod,⁸ testifies that no Theologian of any name denies this sentence; and he adds,¹ "The Bishop should suggest to Pastors that Viaticum can and ought to be administered again and a third time in the same infirmity, especially if the sick person requests it; and, if he wishes, he should decree a penalty against Pastors who decline to carry the Eucharist again and a third time to sick persons devoutly asking, under false pretexts." But Communion in this case, according to Scavini,² is to be given with the usual formula: May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve, etc. "Likewise in this case," says de Herdt,³ "Have mercy and Indulgence are said in the plural: your, your sins."

Query 9° Can the Eucharist be carried frequently to the bedridden?

Resp. Affirmatively, of itself. Nevertheless this depends on the circumstances, namely on their particular disposition and necessity. Indeed, not improbably, "a sick person accustomed to communicate more often from devotion" will be able "already on another day immediately after Viaticum ... to receive Communion not fasting. And Pal. and Arm. and Dic. apud Croix admit this on individual days, and Tamb. thinks it probable."⁴ The Pastor must, as far as it is in him, exhort the sick to frequent Communion. - Gousset.⁵

Query 10° What must a priest do if, coming to a sick person with the Most Holy Sacrament, and hearing his Confession, he finds him indisposed?

Resp. First of all the confessor must labor, as best he can, to bring the penitent to better fruit. If the matter does not succeed, and e.g. the sick person does not promise either to break off the proximate occasion of sin, or to make a grave and certainly owed restitution, he surely cannot be absolved. But what of Communion? The penitent must be earnestly induced that, the Confession having been completed, he declare publicly that he does not yet wish to receive the Holy Eucharist. But if he gives this declaration, the difficulty now vanishes; for it is clear that the Eucharist is not to be ministered to him. But if he refuses to declare this, and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist must be ministered to him, although he is indisposed, or an agreement must be made with him that you say over him "The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., without offering the Body.⁶

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. III, ARTICLE V: ON THE MANNER OF RESERVING THE HOLY EUCHARIST

n. ¶1300.

1300. - I. "The most ancient custom," says the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,¹ "of reserving the Sacred Eucharist in churches, as altogether salutary and necessary to be retained, the Council of Trent decreed.² It must be preserved in the Cathedral church and in any parish church, so that it can be carried to the sick when occasion is given. But in many other churches or chapels it can be preserved either by law," as in the churches of Regulars strictly so called, and of those who communicate with them in privileges, as also of Nuns who emit solemn vows and live in enclosure, "or by Pontifical indult," as in the chapels of the other religious communities of the Province of Baltimore and Philadelphia (25 July 1858), at the prayers of the Fathers of the Ninth Provincial Council of Baltimore (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore³), and in certain other dioceses.

II. "The Most Holy Sacrament is to be reserved in only one place of any church in which it can, is accustomed, or ought to be kept."⁴ But it is to be kept over a corporal in a tabernacle decently adorned, locked with a key,⁵ which key must always be kept by the priest who has care of the church or chapel.⁶ "The tabernacle covered decently with a conopaeum," the Ritual wills.⁷ (8) p. 417. The custom of "placing upon it Sacred Relics (even of the Most Holy Cross, or Instruments of the Lord's Passion), and painted images, so that the tabernacle serves as a base," while the Most Holy is reserved in it, the Congregation of Rites disapproved,⁸ and decreed that neither can "vases of flowers, or anything similar, be retained before the little door."⁹ "The tabernacle regularly ought to be wooden, gilded outside, but covered decently within with some silken cloth."¹⁰ In it let the Sacred Eucharist be preserved in a pyx, or ciborium, "of solid and decent material; and with its own lid well closed, covered with a white veil."¹ "Vessels of the Holy Oils, Relics, or anything else,"² it is not lawful to place in it. But "the abuse which has crept in somewhere, of living or sleeping in that part of a religious house which is situated above the altar, is not to be tolerated further, but is altogether to be eliminated."³

III. "Before the Most Holy let a lamp always be kept burning, nourished with olive oil," which, where it "cannot be had," is remitted "to the prudence of the Bishops, that" it be nourished "from other oils, vegetable insofar as it can be done."⁴ Therefore petroleum the Bishop cannot permit outside necessity; nor without true necessity is one to use the privilege (p. LXXII. n. 24), "of retaining it without light," if any has been granted. (w) p. 402.

IV. "The Roman Ritual commands that particles of the Most Holy Eucharist be frequently renewed; and the Ceremonial of Bishops prescribes that this be done at least once a week.⁵ This rule, which the Sacred Congregation of Rites not only often confirmed,⁶ but declared to oblige 'strictly and rigorously,'⁷ we seriously inculcate to be faithfully observed by all priests. 'Where the priest has consecrated new hosts, let him first distribute, or consume, the old ones,'⁸ but by no means preserve them in the tabernacle. Let him take care besides that the particles to be consecrated be fresh."

V. "The solemn Exposition and Benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament," decree the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,⁹ "the customary rite being strictly observed, in all churches of our jurisdiction and in the chapels of monasteries and religious communities, at least whenever it can be done with due solemnity, on each Lord's Day of the whole year, and on feasts of precept, or also on feasts of the first and second class not of precept, can be given once only in the day. But through the Octave of Corpus Christi it will be lawful that it be done solemnly both in solemn Mass and in Vespers, Benediction being given again. It will be lawful besides to give solemn Benediction twice in the week during the time of Lent, likewise on each day in the time of Sacred Missions, on the feast of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, and wherever the devotion of Forty Hours is made; and on other days designated by the Ordinary. But if the Holy See has granted something further to some religious Order or Society, we will that that remain altogether inviolate. But outside such privilege, of which certain document should be shown to the Ordinary, we will that Benediction not be given or Exposition be made, except, as above, by express leave of the Ordinary, the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites also being preserved in all things in this matter."

n. ¶1301.

1301. Questions. - Query 1° Does he sin gravely who neglects to preserve a light before the Most Holy Sacrament?

Resp. Affirmatively, of itself, if the time is notable. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.¹ Indeed several say that the time is notable if this is done for a whole day or some whole nights. Thus Busembaum, whose words St. Alphonsus reports and implicitly approves.²

Query 2° What must be done concerning fragments of Hosts which are found?

Resp. 1° If the priest finds fragments of his present Sacrifice, he must consume them, even after the ablutions, whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same Sacrifice. Thus from the Rubric of the Missal.³ But this is to be observed not only immediately after Mass, but also if the priest is in the sacristy, still nevertheless vested in the sacred vestments. - Thus commonly St. Alphonsus,⁴ after Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass.⁵

But if the priest has already been divested of the sacred vestments, he must replace the fragments in the tabernacle, if it is present, or reserve them for another priest about to celebrate on the same morning. If neither can be done, let him consume them himself.⁶

Resp. 2° But if the remains were consecrated in another Mass, they are not to be consumed after the ablutions, but must be placed in a decent place. The reason is because the Rubric permits a priest not fasting only to consume those remains which pertain to the same Sacrifice. If nevertheless this cannot be done, and grave danger of irreverence is present, then the priest should consume them. - Thus commonly.¹

Resp. 3° If a layman finds fragments, let him warn a priest as soon as possible, if one is nearby, or summon him, if he can be found. But the priest, reverently collecting the fragment, will replace it 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 paper or a clean little linen, by means of a little thorn, and be placed within the corporal, or in a decent vessel, until the priest arrives.

Query 3° What must be done if a Host certainly or doubtfully consecrated is found on the altar, or elsewhere?

Resp. 1° If the Host is believed certainly consecrated, and otherwise seems clean and recently consecrated, it is to be replaced 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 can consume it before the ablution; but if he experiences too great a repugnance, he will place the Host separately in the tabernacle in a clean vessel, until it is corrupted, and, corrupted, it is cast into the sacrarium. Thus from the Rubric of the Missal.²

Resp. 2° If it is doubtfully consecrated, it is to be consumed by the priest in Mass after the ablution, but before the purification, because the remains of the Blood are certainly a Sacrament, but that host doubtfully;³ but if it provokes too great nausea for him, it is to be placed separately in the tabernacle, until it has been corrupted, as was just said.

Query 4° What must be done if a sick person has rejected the sacred species?

Resp. 1° If they appear, they must be carefully 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 cast into the sacrarium without irreverence.

Resp. 2° If they cannot be discerned, as being altogether mixed with impurities, the mouth indeed of the sick person is to be cleansed; but whatever has been rejected is to be collected with tow; then, the tow having been burned, the ashes are to be thrown into the sacrarium. Reuter,¹ Gousset.² Cf. nevertheless n. 1278. q. 2°.

Query 5° How is the ciborium to be renewed?

Resp. The renewal of the ciborium is to be made in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. The celebrant, the most Precious Blood having been consumed, consumes the old Hosts, although they are many; but he can consume 20 or 30 Hosts thus, according to Elbel;³ 60 or even more (Lacroix⁴). But it will rarely happen that there are more, because not more should be consecrated than seems sufficient. But if at some time a much greater quantity of Hosts had to be consumed, the priest can consume them divided among several Masses, or even several priests celebrating successively can consume them.

But the smaller particles found in the ciborium the priest will cast into the chalice, and, wine having been poured over them, he will consume them, and will place the new Hosts in the entirely empty ciborium. He can also pour wine into the ciborium for collecting the smallest particles. Nevertheless the wine will not be drunk from the ciborium, but poured back into the chalice. - Lacroix.⁵

If the priest by 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. - Thus Lacroix,⁶ Elbel,⁷ Tamburini, on Communion.⁸ But St. Alphonsus otherwise here, n. q. 2°. Resp. 2°.

Particles to be consecrated ought to be fresh. Negligence of Pastors and others in this matter can constitute grave sin. - Gardellini. - The custom of consecrating Hosts made three months before in winter, or six months before in summer, is an enormous abuse altogether to be removed. But if the Pastor, his Vicars, or other priests seem to tolerate an abuse of this kind, they cannot use those Hosts. - Sacred Congregation of Rites.⁹

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, LITTLE APPENDIX: ON THE MA…, AND ON THE METHOD OF RESERVING IT

Among the faculties of Form I, which are customarily communicated to our priests by the Bishops, the 24th (p. LXXII.) reads: "Of carrying the Most Holy Sacrament secretly to the sick without light, and of retaining it without the same for the same sick, in a decent place nevertheless, if there is danger of sacrilege from heretics or infidels."

Lest in the use of this faculty abuses creep in or even persevere, the things which follow are to be well noted by priests.

A. As regards the manner of ministering the Eucharist to the sick.

n. ¶1302.

1302. - 1° The faculty is given for the case in which "there is danger of sacrilege from heretics or infidels." This danger must be said to be present scarcely not everywhere among us. Nevertheless in this region also there are certain wholly Catholic places in the country, in which, when the sick person is not far distant from the churches, that danger is in no way to be feared; in which case the Eucharist will have to be carried in the manner prescribed by the Church. The Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, given on 25 Feb. 1859 to our Bishops, not obscurely suggests this; in it, among other things, these things are read: "The Sacred Congregation further willed that the individual Prelates be urged, as by the tenor of the present letters they are urged, to keep the common discipline of the Church in this matter, as far as circumstances of time and places, and also the account of introduced customs, allow."²

2° "While they carry the Most Holy, let them avoid vain and useless conversations; rather let them give themselves to pious contemplation or prayers."³ In agreement with this admonition of the Plenary Council, pastors will repeatedly teach the people what is to be prepared in the house of the sick person, and that, while they are companions to the priest carrying the Eucharist to the sick person, they abstain from every useless conversation. "But on a journey," says Kenrick,⁴ "which requires several days" (which nevertheless today is more rarely necessary than formerly), "and where some persons met on the way occur, one cannot abstain from conversation; although speech is to be had sparingly and cautiously and with the utility of the hearers. For he sins gravely who, carrying so great a Sacrament, mingles idle conversations."

3° "The carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament is restricted to urgent causes only, and to the actual exercise of the priestly ministry."¹ But what is an urgent cause will have to be judged from the circumstances of place, time, and others.² Meanwhile it is certain that it is not lawful for a priest to carry the Most Holy Sacrament with himself from morning until evening for the sole cause that perhaps he could come upon some sick person.³

4° "A strict obligation is imposed on priests always in these cases of carrying the Holy Host upon the breast."⁴ "Never, unless in extreme necessity, should they touch either the Host itself or the sacred vessel in which it is preserved, unless they are vested at least in a stole. When they draw the Most Holy from the tabernacle in the church, let them always be vested in surplice and stole. Ministering the Sacred Eucharist to the sick, let them most diligently observe the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual, insofar as the circumstances of things permit."⁵

5° What was said above n. 1299. q. 4° and 7° concerning a priest carrying the Eucharist while riding or running will be lawful for Missionaries carrying it privately and secretly from a lighter cause.⁶

B. On the manner of reserving the Holy Eucharist.

n. ¶1303.

1303. - In rural churches, near which no priest resides, it is not lawful to reserve the Holy Eucharist, and it is to be consumed by the priest before he departs. Resolve the same concerning a single priest residing near a church, but departing beyond eight days (after which namely the sacred species are to be renewed), or not residing so near it that in case of fire he could remove the Most Holy Sacrament from it in time, or prevent other irreverences.⁷

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER IV: ON THE SUBJECT OF THE EUCHARIST

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

…and 46 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 13 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy Eucharist

Introduction.

S. Th. III, q. 73, a. 4 and 6.

n. 197.

197. The third sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist. - For just as first in Baptism we must be reborn unto spiritual and divine life, then in it be strengthened through Confirmation and, as it were, grow unto perfect age, so through the whole of life we must be nourished in divine life, which is done through the Holy Eucharist.

198. The Eucharist is the most perfect sacrament of all, as was declared above, n. 101, so that the other sacraments are ordered to it as to an end. Hence by excellence it is called the most holy, venerable sacrament, sacrament of sacraments, or simply the Most Holy; likewise gift, holy gifts, tremendous mysteries, etc.; and therefore it has also been accustomed to be called by many names. For the dignity and perfection of this sacrament is so great that it cannot be expressed by one name, whence they have attempted to express it by several words. For:

A. Every sacrament is a sign commemorative of the Passion of Christ, demonstrative of grace, and prognostic of future glory. Now the Eucharist, 1. as a sign commemorative of the Passion of Christ, is called sacrifice, victim, sacrament of our price, new testament, memorial of redemption, holocaust of salvation, etc.; 2. as demonstrative of the union of the soul with Christ and of the members of the Church among themselves, is called communion, synaxis, mystery of peace and unity, sacrament of love, etc.; 3. as prognostic of the enjoyment of God in the fatherland, is called viaticum, because here it furnishes us the way of arriving there; likewise pledge of eternal inheritance. - Generally it is called Eucharist, i.e. good grace, because Christ in its very institution gave thanks, and it is the best act of thanksgiving offered daily to God, and because it is good grace by excellence, since it contains Christ as the fountain of all grace, charity, and eternal life.¹ This name is the principal and most ancient.²

¹ Whence St. Bonaventure, De inst. novit.: "this sacrament is the memorial of His whole love and, as it were, a certain compendium of all His benefits."

² Thus already in the Didache and in St. Justin.

B. Likewise, just as in every sacrament, so also in the Eucharist three things are distinguished: sacrament only, or the external sign, which only signifies and is not signified; reality and sacrament, which is signified and at the same time signifies; reality only, or the effect of grace, which is signified and does not signify. The sacrament only is the consecrated species of bread and wine, or the species informed by the words of consecration, which signify the body and blood of Christ present under the aspect of food and drink; the reality and sacrament are the body and blood of Christ, whose presence is signified by the species and which signify the spiritual refreshment of the soul; the reality is the spiritual refreshment itself of the soul through divine grace.³ Now, 1. by reason of the external sign which is the sacrament only, it is called bread of life, holy bread, bread of angels, supersubstantial bread, bread which descended from heaven, - wine generating virgins, chalice of blessing, mystical eulogy or blessing and consecration; 2. by reason of the contained reality which at the same time is sacrament: body, flesh, blood of Christ, sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, holy things, holy of holies, holy thing of the Lord, the good itself (τὸ ἀγαθόν), the perfect itself (τὸ τέλειον); 3. by reason of the effects which are the reality of the sacrament: sacrament of grace, saving grace, life, food of souls, nourishment of eternal life, sustenance, medicine and drink of immortality, etc.

³ Very well known are the words of Innocent III, Decr. l. 3, tit. 41, c. 6: "It is useful to distinguish among three things which are distinct in this sacrament, namely the sensible form, the truth of the body, and the special power. The form is of bread and wine, the truth of flesh and blood, the power of unity and charity. The first is sacrament and not reality, the second is sacrament and reality, the third is reality and not sacrament."

C. Finally, by reason of the circumstances in which it was instituted or is ministered, the Eucharist is called sacred supper, supper of the Lord, table of the Lord, heavenly table, mystical table, sacred banquet, agapae, metalepsis (i.e. assumption), sacrament of the altar, divine feasts, breaking of bread.

It is also called mystery of faith, because it is the greatest mystery to be held by faith alone, and because in one compendium the Eucharist at the same time embraces the principal divine mysteries.

199. The manifold excellence of the Eucharist was also foretold by various figures. - For:

As to that which is sacrament only, the chief figure was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine (Gen. XIV, 18); also the loaves of firstfruits (Lev. XXIII, 10) and of proposition (XXIV, 5), and the multiplication of loaves done by Christ (John VI; Mark VI and VIII).

As to Christ suffering, who is contained in the sacrament and thus is reality and sacrament, the figures are all the sacrifices of the Old Law, chiefly the sacrifice of expiation (Lev. XVI) and the blood of the testament (Ex. XXIV, 8).

As to the effect or reality of the sacrament, its principal figure was manna, which had in itself every delight and sweetness of taste (Ex. XVI, 13; Num. XI, 7); likewise the tree of life (Gen. II, 9), the hearth-cake of Elias (Judg. VII, 13; III Kings XIX, 6, 8), the jar of meal which was not exhausted (III Kings XVII, 16).

But the principal figure is the Paschal Lamb, which prefigured it as to these three things: as to the first, because it was eaten with unleavened bread; as to the second, because it was immolated by the whole people of Israel at the time of Passover, which is the figure of the immolation of Christ on the cross; as to the third, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were protected from the devastating Angel and led out of Egyptian servitude.

n. 200.

200. There is a twofold aspect of the Eucharist, because it is at once sacrament and sacrifice. - The Eucharist can be considered either with respect to men, whom it sanctifies, and under this aspect it is a sacrament, or with respect to God, whom it honors, or to His worship, and thus it is a sacrifice. Whence the treatise is divided into two sections, of which one treats of the sacrament itself, the other of the sacrifice, in which its minister and rite also will be discussed.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 13 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Ch. II, Question VI: Concerning the Sick and the Dying

n. ¶2450.

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.

n. ¶2451.

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.

n. ¶2452.

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.

n. ¶2453.

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.

n. ¶2454.

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.

n. ¶2478.

How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

n. ¶2479.

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

n. ¶2480.

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

n. ¶2481.

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.

n. ¶2482.

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.

n. ¶2483.

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."

n. ¶2484.

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.

n. ¶2493.

Viaticum, Extreme Unction, and the apostolic blessing are to be administered to children, provided they have sufficient discretion.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 1 passage

Vol. II, Treatise XIV. On the Eucharist

Diss. III, Chapter I — The notion of the Eucharist, and its matter and form · Diss. III, Chapter II — Certain questions which are wont to be raised concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist · Diss. III, Chapter III — On the minister of the Eucharist, and on those to whom it ought to be administered · Diss. III, Chapter IV — On the necessity of this Sacrament and its effects · Diss. III, Chapter V — On the dispositions for the Eucharist, and on frequent Communion. Several opinions of certain men are refuted

In the most holy Eucharist, under the species of bread and wine, Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered, and received (Can. 801).

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 107 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Diss. III, Chapter I — The notion of the Eucharist, and its matter and form

I. QUESTION I. What is the Eucharist? ANSWER. Various acceptations being omitted, it is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ really contained under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, instituted by Christ himself. The body and blood are at once the thing and the sacrament, which are signified by the consecrated species; and moreover they signify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. Whence it is plain that the Eucharist is a sacrament, since to it belongs the character of a sensible sign divinely instituted, and it has annexed the promise of grace and the divine mandate of observing that sign: which three things are proved from divine Scripture to belong to the Eucharist. Bread and wine are the sensible sign: Matthew 26, Jesus took bread, and so forth. To those observing this sign grace is promised: John 6, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. There is the mandate of using that sign: Do this for a commemoration of me. Luke 22.

II. QUESTION II. Are wheaten bread alone and wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, because this is the matter instituted by Christ. Jesus took bread, and so forth, Matthew 26. And of the matter of the chalice he adds there: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, and so forth. There is added the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church. Any quantity of the matter is apt for consecration. That quantity nevertheless the priest ought to consecrate which he shall prudently have recognized as suited to the use of the faithful.

III. This matter must be present to the consecrating priest. This presence is moral, not physical. Wherefore the practice of certain priests is to be disapproved who are wont to move their mouth and lips to the bread and the chalice, and to breathe into the chalice itself. Such a presence is required as that it can be demonstrated by saying This is, or Here is. Some raise innumerable questions upon this presence, all of which as useless and arbitrary I pass over. They dispute also whether bread confected of almonds, chestnuts, beans, lentils, spelt, or barley be matter of consecration. And the common opinion denies it. Concerning siligo they dispute on either side. But a distinction must be made. If siligo be taken with Pliny for a kind of white grain, or for selected wheat, then it is a matter apt for consecration; but if it be taken for rye, commonly segala, it is an inept matter, and cannot be consecrated.

IV. QUESTION III. Ought the bread to be consecrated to be unleavened or leavened? ANSWER. The Council of Florence in the Decree of Union laid down these things: We define that in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread the body of Christ is truly effected. That the Eucharist is validly confected in unleavened bread is established by the example of Christ the Lord, to which is added the perpetual tradition of the Church. That it is validly confected also in leavened bread is plain, because the Latin Church has never protested against the rite of the Greek Church consecrating in leavened bread. Neither ought the Latins to consecrate in leavened nor the Greeks in unleavened bread; but both Greek and Latin priests are bound to observe the rite of their own Church, as so many decrees enjoin, and most recently Benedict XIV, happily reigning, in the Constitution upon the Rites of the Greeks published in the year 1742, confirmed.

V. QUESTION IV. Is wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, as is plain from the evangelical text already adduced and from the perennial tradition of the Church. So great a quantity of wine ought the priest of the Latin Church to consecrate as he can take according to the custom of his own Church. Wine of the vine alone therefore — whether white or black, whether sweet or harsh — is the matter of the consecration of the chalice. It is fitting nevertheless that the wine be white, for the avoiding of the stains which black or red wine leaves in the purificator, which present an unseemliness. Frozen wine is not an apt matter, because it cannot be drunk. Wherefore it ought to be liquefied, if it should become frozen in the chalice.

VI. QUESTION V. Is water to be mingled with the wine in the consecration of the chalice? ANSWER. Luther reputed this mixture a human figment; but by the perpetual tradition of the Church it is established that water was always mingled with the wine. The Third Council of Carthage in the year 397, canon 24, and the Quinisext or Trullan Synod in the year 692, testify that this rite descended from the Apostles. There are added the testimonies of all the Fathers, and at last Trent, session 22, chapter 4, canon 9, confirmed all the earlier decrees. This admixture is necessary with the necessity of ecclesiastical precept, not of the sacrament. The water to be mingled must be natural. A small quantity also is to be mingled. That this water is by force of the consecration converted into the blood of Christ all Catholics hold. But theologians dispute whether this small quantity of water be first converted into wine and afterwards into blood. Some maintain that it is immediately converted into blood. The more common opinion defends that it is first converted into wine. And this second opinion the Tridentine Catechism adopted, part 2, On the Eucharist, § 17. Reason also favours it, because water is in no way matter, even partial, of the chalice. And therefore, that the conversion may be easier, a little water is enjoined to be mingled. Neither opinion nevertheless pertains to faith.

VII. Theologians dispute whether one species can be consecrated without the other, urgent necessity pressing, by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. Diana with some others affirms it. It is certain that one species can validly be consecrated without the other. But it is disputed whether it be sometimes lawful, urgent necessity pressing, to do this. St. Thomas denies it, III, q. 74, art. 1, to whom the graver theologians subscribe. And this doctrine Trent seems to confirm, session 22, chapter 1. For the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted after the manner of a spiritual banquet, and as a sacrifice. Further, this sacrifice cannot be immolated under one species alone, since it is the commemoration of the bloody Sacrifice, in which the blood was separated from the body.

n. VIII.

VIII. QUESTION VI. Are these dominical words alone — "This is my body" — essential to the consecration of the eucharistic bread? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is certain, and defined in the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Instruction of the Armenians, and in Trent, session 13, chapter 3, where it is laid down that the consecration is made by the words of Christ. But Christ uttered these words: This is my body. Hence it follows that the words who the day before he suffered, and so forth, do not pertain to the essence of the consecration, because the aforesaid words are not dominical, that is, Christ did not utter them, but they are the Evangelists'.

n. IX.

IX. QUESTION VII. Are these words alone — "This is the chalice of my blood," or "This is my blood" — of the essence of the consecration of the chalice? Or do the others also which follow — "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins" — pertain to the essence of the consecration? ANSWER. Theologians dispute on either side, even Thomists. The more probable opinion to me is that these words alone — This is my blood, or, what comes back to the same, This is the chalice of my blood — constitute the essential form of the consecration of the chalice. For as these words alone — This is my body — constitute the essential form of the bread, so the other aforesaid words effect the essential form of the chalice. Since indeed these words alone express and effect the conversion of the wine into blood, just as the former signify the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ. But these words are not uttered by the priest historically, as the Protestants contend, but assertively and significatively.

n. X.

X. The particle for Christ did not use, as some contend; but it was added by the Church. Authors dispute whether he would sin mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. The more probable opinion teaches that he sins mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. Since although in itself it be something slight, nevertheless in the sacramental form it is of great moment. More gravely would he sin who should omit that particle out of contempt, whether formal or interpretative.

Diss. III, Chapter II — Certain questions which are wont to be raised concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I. Many are the errors of the heretics against this Sacrament, from which a Catholic ought to beware. Passing over the Capharnaites, Manichees, Marcionites, Phantasiasts, Messalians, and Enthusiasts, who denied the flesh of Christ, the first who thought ill of the Eucharist in the ninth century was John Scotus Erigena; in the eleventh century Berengarius, whose doctrine was proscribed in the year 1050 in the Roman Council. Berengarius offered a retractation of his error to Gregory VII. Having many times relapsed into his errors, and many times retracted them, he died a Catholic in the year 1088. There succeeded the Petrobrusians, the Henricians, and the Albigenses, who attempted to take away the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of the midst. Among the innovators nearer to us the first was Carlstadt, who in the year 1524 denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Him Zwingli followed, who blurted out in this same year that the Eucharist is a mere figure of the body of Christ. Zwingli's doctrine Bucer embraced; but that he might decline the odium of Luther, who keenly maintained the real presence, he studied to temper it with various emollients.

II. Calvin, more fraudulent than the Arians and all cunning men, now recedes from Bucer whom he cultivates as his master, now adheres to him and to Zwingli, now refutes both, now inclines to the Lutherans; now with crafty artifice he feigns to maintain the doctrine of the Catholic Church; at last, the mask being laid aside, he detests the Catholic dogma.

III. Those errors the Council of Trent, session 13, canon 1, condemned in these words: If anyone shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema. This canon Trent drew from the perpetual tradition of the Church.

IV. Luther with us demands the heresy of the Calvinists, because they deny the true, real, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he contends at the same time that together with the substance of the body of Christ the substance of the bread remains. Hence his followers were called Impanators or Panists. This error Trent condemned, session 13, chapter 4, and confirmed the perpetual dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: But since Christ our Redeemer said that that was truly his body which he offered under the species of bread, therefore it has always been the persuasion in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now again declares it, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood: which conversion is fittingly and properly called by the holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation.

V. The Catholic dogma being in few words set forth, Trent expounds the manner in which Christ exists in this Sacrament. By force of these words, This is my body, the body of Christ is directly placed. By these other words, This is my blood, the blood of Christ is directly placed. But by force of concomitance all those things are placed which are united to the body of Christ; and because the body is united to the blood, the soul, and the divinity — nay, the body itself subsists by the subsistence of the Word — therefore where the body of Christ is, with it all these things are. And thus in the Eucharist by concomitance the soul, the substance of the Word, and the divinity are in this Sacrament in a special manner, as Trent, session 13, chapter 3, plainly sets forth.

VI. QUESTION I. Is Christ whole in every part of the species? ANSWER. If the parts be separated, that the whole Christ exists in each Trent defined, session 13, canon 3. But theologians dispute whether before the separation of the host the whole body of Christ is in the whole host, and whole in every part. The affirmative opinion St. Thomas defends, III, q. 76, art. 6. The body of Christ is not in this Sacrament as in a place, because it is there in a sacramental manner. But this manner escapes the edge of our talent.

VII. QUESTION II. Can the accidents, or sacramental species, be corrupted and nourish? ANSWER. It is certain that after the consecration the accidents remain which affected the bread and wine. And it is established by experience that they can be corrupted after the consecration, just as before. How much time is required for the corruption in the stomach of one receiving the Sacrament nothing certain can be laid down. That not even half an hour is required all affirm. In one they are corrupted more quickly, in another more slowly. Wherefore for at least a quarter of an hour a priest ought to recollect himself after celebration, in reverence of so great a Sacrament.

n. VIII.

VIII. QUESTION III. Is Christ in the Eucharist to be adored with the worship of latria? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and the truth was defined, session 13, canon 3, by Trent. Religiously also and holily is the Eucharist kept in the churches, and, whatever the Protestants may prate, it is piously and holily exposed to the public adoration of the faithful.

Diss. III, Chapter III — On the minister of the Eucharist, and on those to whom it ought to be administered

I. QUESTION I. Is a priest alone the ordinary minister of dispensing the Eucharist? ANSWER. Bishops and priests are the ordinary ministers of administering the Eucharist, as St. Thomas proves, III, q. 82, art. 3, and Trent confirms, session 13, chapter 8. The extraordinary ministers are deacons, in each Church, the Eastern and the Western. In the early centuries deacons dispensed the chalice of the Lord's Blood, even necessity being removed. According to the present discipline of the Church, only for a just cause can bishops and priests commit to deacons that they administer the Eucharist. It is not lawful, however, for clerics inferior to deacons, and much less for laymen, to administer communion either to themselves or to others in the Latin Church, because several canons forbid it. In a case of extreme necessity a priest can communicate himself, and likewise a deacon. Nay, many contend that for the sake of devotion alone priests and deacons can communicate themselves, if a fit minister be lacking. But the discipline of today is to be regarded.

II. QUESTION II. Is a parish priest bound in time of plague to communicate his parishioners with danger to his life? ANSWER. All having the care of souls — the Pope, archbishops, bishops, parish priests, rectors, superiors — are bound in time of plague or epidemic to administer to their subjects the Sacrament of the Eucharist with danger to life. They dispute whether the aforesaid ministers can at such a time administer the Eucharist to the sick with a silver spoon. Some affirm, others deny. The circumstances are to be regarded, and it must be deliberated at the bishop's judgment. Then instruments can lawfully be used chiefly when a scarcity of ministers presses. Superiors who in these cases should greatly fear the danger of death would betray themselves not as shepherds but as hirelings.

III. In the urgent article of death it is lawful to seek the Eucharist from an excommunicated, schismatic, or heretical priest, many theologians teach, provided scandal and contempt of religion be absent. Gravely do priests sin who administer the Eucharist without surplice and stole, as the common and true opinion teaches. Let the rites of the Church therefore be most exactly observed in the administering of this most august Sacrament.

IV. QUESTION III. Is the Eucharist to be administered to little ones? ANSWER. It is certain that formerly in each Church, the Eastern and the Western, the Eucharist was administered to little ones together with Baptism; which discipline even now obtains in the Eastern Church. Five centuries ago this discipline was abrogated in the Latin Church. Each discipline Trent commends, session 21, chapter 4.

V. That holy communion was denied to the possessed, who were vexed by a long-lasting disturbance from the malign spirit, is gathered from canon 29 of the Council of Elvira: at the term of life it was granted to them. Several examples relate that the possessed were healed by the force of this Sacrament. Of these and of the demented St. Thomas speaks at large, III, q. 80, art. 9. That this Sacrament is not to be administered to those demented from birth, but that it is to be administered to those who before they fell into dementia gave signs of penitence and are constituted in the last danger, they commonly teach. But as regards this, the circumstances are to be regarded, nor can a general rule be prescribed.

VI. To those to be punished with the extreme penalty the Eucharist is not to be denied, as was formerly done in Spain, whose custom Dominic Soto disapproves. The discipline which now obtains is to be observed.

VII. QUESTION IV. Is the Eucharist to be granted to public sinners? ANSWER. St. Thomas observes, III, q. 80, art. 6, that in a twofold manner a sinner is called public. First, by the confession of the offender himself, by the deposition of a third party, and by the sentence of a public judgment; and he is called public by the publicity of law. Second, by the evidence of the fact, as are usurers, plunderers, mimes, women mimes, actors, and dancers. That the Eucharist is to be denied to public sinners asking for it all confess. For ministers are instituted as prudent dispensers of the mysteries of God. To these it was said, Matthew 7: Give not that which is holy to dogs. To a public sinner secretly amended the Eucharist is to be denied if he ask publicly, until he take away the public scandal. To a hidden sinner asking the Eucharist publicly it is to be granted, when it cannot be denied without his infamy. If he ask secretly, it ought to be denied. If nevertheless the sin be known from confession, the Eucharist cannot be denied; and the opposite opinion Innocent XI condemned. If a sinner public in this place go elsewhere where he is hidden, the Eucharist ought not to be denied him, as the opinion more probable to me defends.

n. VIII.

VIII. QUESTION V. Can a priest, on account of fear of death or of notable infamy to himself, administer the Eucharist to a public sinner? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is to me false. For it is not lawful to give what is holy to dogs, even for the sake of avoiding death. Nor less false is the opinion teaching that a priest can hold out an unconsecrated host to a hidden sinner. Since, says St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 6, that priest makes those commit idolatry who believe the host to be consecrated. No less does a priest sin who, for the avoiding of a sinner's infamy, simulates that he puts the host into his mouth. This lying simulation, whether of the Eucharist or of Penance, is sacrilegious and full of scandal.

Diss. III, Chapter IV — On the necessity of this Sacrament and its effects

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.

Diss. III, Chapter V — On the dispositions for the Eucharist, and on frequent Communion. Several opinions of certain men are refuted

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.”

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 1. Adulterated Matter · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 2. Fasting Communion · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 3. The Fast Broken · Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 4. Doubtful Dispositions

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.

…and 67 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 167 passages

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 1. Adulterated Matter

Sylvius, a priest, hears that the adulteration of foods has gone so far as to corrupt the wheat and wine that serve the altar. For in order that the flour from which the hosts are made may be as white as possible, the genuine wheat having been removed, alum is mixed in; and from a small quantity of genuine wine, by means of water and chemical art, a fourfold quantity is made. With such matter Sylvius celebrated Mass for almost a year, and often for a stipend. Having taken suitable means so that henceforth at least he may have the due matter, he asks what he must do with regard to the past. Hence it is asked:

What is the matter of the Most Holy Eucharist?

Is consecration under one species valid, or ever lawful?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

What is the matter of the Holy Eucharist?

The remote matter of the Eucharist is twofold, wheaten bread and wine of the grape.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 82.

Is consecration under one species valid, and is it lawful?

It is certainly never lawful. Consecration of one species is certainly valid when there is the intention of consecrating both species, but the consecration does not take effect, because, for example, the host is not wheaten bread or what is in the chalice is not wine of the grape. Even if a priest pronounces the words of consecration over one species with the intention of consecrating it alone, the consecration will be valid, but it does not constitute the Sacrifice of the Mass, since Mass consists essentially of the consecration under both species.

The case. The taking away of the germ from the grains of wheat and the addition of a little alum for the sake of greater whiteness would not change the wheat substantially, and so hosts made of such wheat would still be valid matter for the Eucharist, but it should not be employed. The sophisticated wine, however, was not wine of the grape, and it was not valid matter for Mass. The consecration under one species was nevertheless valid, and perhaps sufficient for the application of the fruits of Mass to the intentions of those who gave the stipends. Ballerini says that in such cases priests have recourse to the Holy See to know what should be done, but he admits that probably all obligations resting on the priest by reason of accepting the stipends have been fulfilled by the consecrations under one kind.¹

1 Ballerini, Opus Morale, tract, x, sec. iv, n. 230.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 2. Fasting Communion

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:

To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

What did the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Dec. 7, 1906, concede?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

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.

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.

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.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 3. The Fast Broken

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:

What is required for that eating by which the fast prescribed before Holy Communion is broken?

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?

Can intention cause a fast to be broken that otherwise is not broken?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

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.

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

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.

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.

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 4. Doubtful Dispositions

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:

What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

How and concerning whom is that Tridentine phrase “Let him confess as soon as possible” (Session XIII, chapter 7) to be understood?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

Vol. I, Case III: Low Mass on Holy Thursday · Vol. I, Case V: Saying Mass in Fermented Bread · Vol. I, Case IX: Communion of a Newly Baptized Convert

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.

…and 127 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 548 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. I, Case III: Low Mass on Holy Thursday

We were asked, last year, shortly before Holy Week, by the pastor of a small country parish, whether it would be lawful for him to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday for the accommodation of his people, when it was practically impossible for him to carry out any of the other ceremonies of Holy Thursday or to say the Mass of the presanctified on Good Friday, or to perform any of the sacred rites of Easter Saturday. His people, he said, could not attend any other church on that day on account of the distance, nor would they understand why he did not say Mass on Holy Thursday, even though he could not hold services on Good Friday or Holy Saturday. His people were very anxious to hear Mass on that day above all others, and to receive Holy Communion, as it was the august anniversary of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, and he was very anxious to satisfy their desires, if it were at all lawful for him to do so.

Answer. Gasparri, tract. can. de Smo. Euch. n. 67, says: "The general principle that obtains in the Church to-day is, that Mass may be celebrated on any day in the year." “This discipline is in force today: namely, the general principle is that Mass can be celebrated on any day.” However, the Latin Rite excepts from this general rule, the three last days of Holy Week, viz., Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday. But even as regards these three days, there is a great difference between Holy Thursday and the other two days. Holy Thursday has its own proper Mass, and is not a "dies aliturgicus," Indeed, formerly, three Masses were celebrated on Holy Thursday; one for reconciling penitents to the Church, the other for the consecration of the oils, and a third one in memory of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. It is a very ancient custom in the Church, that the clergy abstain from saying Mass on Holy Thursday, and assist at this third Mass. And thus the custom was gradually introduced, that on Holy Thursday a solemn Mass was celebrated, and all low Masses were forbidden. This is now the general rule for the whole Church; private Masses, or low Masses, are prohibited on Holy Thursday. But this rule again is not so absolute that it suffers no exceptions. “Moreover, that private Masses are prohibited on Thursday of Holy Week is the general rule; it is not, however, so absolute that private Masses may never be celebrated on this day for the convenience of the faithful.” (Ibid. n. 75.)

Among the exceptions, now, that writers on the sacred liturgy enumerate, when it is lawful to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday, we find the very case as stated in the beginning of this article.

In the year 1821, the following "Dubium" was laid before the Congregation of Rites:

May the custom be tolerated that obtains in some parishes, especially in the country, of celebrating a low Mass on Holy Thursday, when the other sacred rites, prescribed to be performed on that day and on Good Friday, can not be carried out, owing to the lack of clergy; or is the custom to be abolished?

“Whether the custom prevailing in some parishes, especially rural ones, of having the pastor celebrate a LOW MASS on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, although because of a lack of clerics the other prescribed ecclesiastical functions cannot be performed on that day and the following day, is to be tolerated; or rather is to be abolished?”

The Sacred Congregation of Rites made reply, on June 28, 1821, as follows:

"Yes (the custom may be tolerated of saying a low Mass on Holy Thursday, even when it is impossible to carry out any of the other ceremonies) with certain restrictions; namely, that the Ordinary of the diocese endeavor to have the sacred rites and ceremonies of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday carried out according to the small Ritual of Benedict XIII. published in 1725, in all parishes where at least three or four clergy can be had; as regards other parishes, where there are no clergy, the Ordinary may permit for the accommodation of the people, that pastors, having first obtained permission each year, celebrate a low Mass on Holy Thursday, provided the low Mass be said at an earlier hour than the Mass in the cathedral or in the parent church."

“The same Sacred Congregation, after the matter had been diligently discussed and the consultor’s opinion heard, judged that the answer should be: Affirmative, and according to the intention. The intention is that the local Ordinaries, with regard to parishes in which three, or at least four, clerics can be had, should endeavor to have the sacred functions performed on Thursday and Friday and on Saturday of Holy Week, the form of the small Ritual issued by command of Benedict XIII of holy memory in the year 1725 being observed; but with regard to other parishes which lack clerics, they may grant, for the convenience of the people, that pastors (permission being requested every year) may celebrate a low Mass on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper before the conventual Mass begins in the cathedral or mother church. And the matter is referred to the Lord Secretary to confer with His Holiness.”

This reply of the Sacred Congregation of Rites was approved and confirmed by Pius VII., on July 31, 1821.

If we enquire farther, as to the reason of the present discipline of the Church, which forbids low Masses on Holy Thursday, we find that it is owing not to the liturgical quality of the day, because Holy Thursday has its own proper Mass, but to the reverence due to the most sublime mystery of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. This reverence is emphasized by the priests abstaining from celebrating the divine mysteries, and receiving Holy Communion, after the manner of the laity, from the hands of the bishop or parish priest, who says the Mass. For thus they recall more vividly the scene of the Last Supper, when the disciples received the body and blood of our divine Saviour under the species of bread and wine, from the hands of the Saviour Himself.

"For as our divine Saviour," says Benedict XIV., "first partook of the divine mysteries Himself, and then gave to His apostles, so it is becoming that the priest having first received the Holy Eucharist himself, should thereupon distribute it to the other clergy, who are attached to the church where the holy sacrifice is offered" (in Inst. 38).

Since, however, there are many small country churches, where it is impossible to carry out the other rites and ceremonies of Holy Week, Benedict XIII. had a small ritual^* compiled for the use of poor parishes, which enables them to have very simple services on Holy Thursday and Good Friday and Holy Saturday. And this seems to have been the opinion of Benedict XIV., for when he was Archbishop of Bologna, he ordained “but if, apart from the PASTOR IN HIS OWN PARISH, any priest.... should have dared to celebrate Mass privately on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday of Holy Week, we shall punish him severely, etc.”

^* Appeared in English under the title: "The Ceremonies of Holy Week in Churches with Only One Priest." (Wagner, New York.)

Again the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked: “Whether on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper one private Mass, besides the solemn Mass, may be celebrated in a church (not in a private hospital chapel, but in a public church) for the sick,” answered on March 27, 1773: “at the discretion of the Bishop.”

Again the Sacred Congregation was asked: “Whether it is lawful on the aforesaid Thursday to sing Mass without the consecration of another host and without a procession.” The reply was: “Affirmative, according to the decree of Pope Pius VII, provided at least that the bishop’s permission has been obtained.” D'Annibale, III., 402. not. 20, remarks that in many places the bishop's permission is not asked.

n. ¶16.

Fr. Schneider, S.J., interprets the words of the Congregation of Rites in the decree of June 28, 1821, "paroeciae quae clericis destituuntur" in this wise: "By parishes without clergy are meant not only parish churches, but other churches that rank lower than parish churches, but which have a priest attached to them, chapels in hospitals, in prisons, churches or chapels of small convents, of men or women, if they be cloistered and have their own priest and have the permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament." (Manuale Sacerdotum, p. 532.)

n. ¶17.

To this Gasparri (de S S mo. Eucharistia, vol. I. n. 81) adds that in practice, a low Mass without any other ceremony, on Holy Thursday, may be said in the chapels of nuns who are in no sense cloistered, if it be inconvenient for them to go to the parish church, v. g., Sisters of Charity.

n. ¶18.

To sum up, therefore, we say that in churches where there is only one priest, he is obliged to follow the small Ritual of Benedict XIII., if he wishes to hold services on the three last days of Holy Week. But if this is impossible, and he desires only to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday, and to consecrate only one host and to have no procession of the Blessed Sacrament, then he is, generally speaking, obliged to get his bishop's permission for this, each year.

Vol. I, Case V: Saying Mass in Fermented Bread

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE V, page 29.—This case must be corrected in as far as the New Code, in Canons 816, 819 and 823, 2°, absolutely demands that the priest wherever he celebrates Holy Mass must use the kind of altar breads his respective rite prescribes (Can. 816) and use the language of his own rite (Can. 819) and though he may say Mass on an altar consecrated according to another rite whenever he cannot find a church of his own rite he may not say Mass with the antimensia of the Greeks. The antimensia of the Orientals are something like our corporals in the corners of which are deposited relics of the saints and they are used on altars that are not consecrated. In the Greek and other Oriental rites only one altar in each church is consecrated.

Titius, a priest of the Latin rite, while traveling in the Orient with some friends, who are lay persons, also of the Latin rite, has occasion to say Mass, now in a Greek church, now in a Latin church, and again in a church of some other Oriental rite, and to give Holy Communion to his friends. In whatever church he says Mass, he uses the kind of altar breads they give him, whether fermented or unfermented, and he gives his friends Holy Communion in the same kind. He claims that Leo XIII. abrogated the older discipline, which restricted a Latin priest to the use of unfermented bread in saying Mass, thus leaving a Latin priest free to say Mass in a Greek church "in fermentato," and a Greek priest to say Mass in a Latin church, "in azymo." Titius, on his return to America, had occasion to go to his mission-church on Sunday to say Mass for his people, but by some mischance, he forgot to take along any altar breads. The distance to the home church was too great to permit sending there for altar bread and as Titius was already accustomed to say Mass with fermented bread, he sent to one of the neighbors for a piece of bread and said Mass with it, because, he said, the prohibition to do so was only a law of Church discipline, which did not bind in the circumstances in which he found himself. On this occasion, he also gave Holy Communion to the faithful "in fermentato." What is to be thought of Titius' "modus agendi"?

Answer. In the Oriental Church, the Armenians and the Maronites use unfermented bread, or azym, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the Greeks, the Melchites, the Chaldeans, the Syrians and the Copts use fermented bread. The use of fermented bread by these several rites of the Oriental Church, dates back to the beginning of Christianity. The Latin Church uses only unfermented bread, or azym, although before the IX. or X. century, the use of fermented bread for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was not unknown in the Latin Church. The Council of Florence, in the decree for the union of the Greeks, allowed the Greeks to retain their ancient custom of consecrating in fermented bread, because there is no express command of Our Divine Lord to the contrary, viz., that the Holy Eucharist should be celebrated in azym. At the same time that the Council of Florence permitted the Greeks to continue to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in fermented bread, the Council issued a decree commanding both the Oriental and the Latin Church to adhere each to its respective rite in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This ruling of the Council of Florence (1440) was reaffirmed by St. Pius V. (1566) and later still by Benedict XIV. (1742).

Benedict XIV. says: "Since it was ordained by the General Council of Florence that each and every priest should celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the rite of his Church, if the Latin Church, then in azym, if the Greek Church, then in fermented; and since it has been forbidden by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, for a Latin priest to use the Greek rite, or a Greek priest the Latin rite, we do now strictly forbid, under pain of permanent suspension, Greek priests to celebrate Mass and other divine offices or to cause them to be celebrated according to the Latin rite, and Latin priests according to the Greek rite, under any pretext whatsoever of having obtained faculties from the Apostolic See or its legates, or even from the Grand Penitentiary, for Greeks to use the Latin rite or for Latins to use the Greek" (Const. "Etsi pastoralis," vi.).

This precept of the Church, commanding priests of different rites to conform to their own rite in all things pertaining to the celebration of the divine mysteries, has always been very strictly interpreted by the theologians. St. Alphonsus, vi., n. 204, maintains that it is the common teaching of theologians that a Latin priest would not be allowed to celebrate in fermented bread, even to give a dying person viaticum, neither would a Greek priest be allowed to celebrate in azym. The only case in which this would be lawful, would be to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But now there arises the question: Suppose a Latin priest is traveling through a country where the Greek rite prevails, how is he to say Mass? What rite shall he use? Is he at liberty to use the Greek rite, if it suits his convenience? Theologians do not agree as to what such a priest may do or must do under the circumstances. Some theologians think that the priest ought to observe the rite of the country through which he travels; thus a Latin priest ought to say Mass with fermented bread, if he be traveling through the country of the Greeks, and a Greek priest ought to say Mass with azym if he happened to be journeying through the country of the Latins (cf. Ledesma iv. p. 1).

Others, as St. Alphonsus, think that a priest on his travels may use either rite, according as it suits his convenience. And this view of the matter, the holy doctor calls communis et probabilissima (vi. n. 204). Others again think that a Latin priest, passing through a country of the Greek rite, ought to celebrate Mass in azym, if there be a Latin Church within reach; otherwise he may say Mass in fermented bread. Gasparri, de Euch. II. n. 805, thinks that it is never allowed for a Latin priest to say Mass with fermented bread: “The true opinion is that a Latin priest traveling through regions of the Greeks and celebrating in a Greek church, and a Greek priest traveling through regions of the Latins and celebrating in a Latin church, not only can, but also can—the Latin with fermented bread and the Greek with unleavened bread—offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. For this is inferred not obscurely from the pontifical constitutions that deal with this matter.”

We prefer to follow the opinion of those who maintain that a priest, on his travels, may say Mass either with azym or with fermented bread, if he says Mass in a church of another rite than his own, and there be no church of his own rite in the place, because the pontifical constitutions, issued in regard to this matter, apply only to priests having a domicile or permanent dwelling in a country of another rite. Thus v. g. Noldin S.J., de Euch. 106, b. says: “A priest on a journey can, in places where a church of his own rite is lacking, consecrate at will either in unleavened or in fermented bread. Nor does the cited Benedictine constitution stand in the way, since it deals only with those priests who have a domicile in a place of another rite.”

In answer, therefore, to the question whether Titius did right in saying Mass in a church of the Greek or Latin rite and using fermented or unfermented bread, as it suited his convenience, we would say that Titius ought to have gone to a church of the Latin rite, whenever it was possible to do so, and to have said Mass in azym. But whenever he found himself in a place where there was no church of his own rite, he was at liberty to say Mass in a Greek church and to use fermented or unfermented bread, whichever he preferred.

To the second question, namely, whether it was lawful to say Mass at his mission church, after his return from his travels, in fermented bread, because he had no azym, we answer it was unlawful. There is no theologian who would justify him in that. The precept to hear Mass on Sunday is less binding than the precept to says Mass in one's own rite, in one's own country. As we said above, not even to administer holy Viaticum, would this be allowed (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 121, Gasparri, de Euch. n. 804).

St. Alphonsus, VI. n. 204, writes:

“It is asked, secondly: In a case of necessity, in order to provide Viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in fermented bread? Mayor and Tanner answer affirmatively, because, as they say, the divine precept of receiving Viaticum ought to prevail over the human precept of celebrating in unleavened bread. But the common and more probable opinion, held by Navarra, Contensou, Tournely, Antoine, Suarez, Soto, Ledesma, Diana, Lacroix, Layman, Tamburini, and Bonacina, answers negatively.”

Regarding the Communion of the faithful of the different rites, the discipline to be followed now is contained in a decree of Leo XIII., 1893:

“To all the faithful of whatsoever rite, whether Latin or Oriental, living in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See to receive Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic.”

A year later, in 1894, the same Pontiff, Leo XIII., extended this privilege to all the faithful who could not attend a church of their own rite, without serious inconvenience on account of the distance, of receiving Holy Communion in a church of another rite, in azym or fermented according to the rite of the church attended, provided said church be in communion with the Holy See. The lay people, therefore, who traveled with Titius in the Orient, ought to have gone to a Latin church for Holy Communion, if there was one in the place. Otherwise they might receive in any church, provided it were Catholic.

Vol. I, Case IX: Communion of a Newly Baptized Convert

A young Hebrew, Baruch, makes the acquaintance of Bertha, a Catholic girl, and offers to marry her. She refuses unless he agrees to embrace the Catholic faith. He is willing, and after receiving instructions he becomes actually convinced of the truth of the Catholic belief and is desirous of being baptized, this to be followed by marriage with Bertha. The baptism takes place on the eve of the marriage. Both wish to receive Holy Communion on their wedding-day. To the officiating priest, however, Communion without previous Confession appears a novelty not to be countenanced, and he demands Confession from Baruch. As the newly baptized convert can not think of a sin since his just received baptism, the priest makes him confess some sins of his former life, and then gives him absolution.

What is to be said about this case?

Answer.

A conversion on account of marriage is to be treated with the greatest precaution, and while the applicant wishing to become a "convert for such reason must not be refused, he should be carefully examined. Even a worldly reason may lead to true conversion.

A candidate for baptism must, before receiving this sacrament, confess to the Catholic faith; he must also awaken contrition for his sins, and must affirm his resolution and give promise to lead a true Christian life, but he does not have to confess his sins. Upon true repentance these are forgiven him in the sacrament of Baptism and do not need absolution by the priest.

An adult, who receives baptism after being sufficiently instructed, should in accordance with old established practice of the Church receive Holy Communion immediately, without Confession.