The minister of the Eucharist

123. A twofold minister of the Eucharist is distinguished: the minister of consecration and the minister of distribution. In the minister of consecration, for valid consecration the power of order is required; but in the minister of distribution, for licitly distributing the Eucharist a twofold power is required: the power of order and of jurisdiction. That this twofold power in the minister of distribution is required only for licitly administering the Eucharist is clear; for validly it can be distributed by anyone.

124. On the minister of consecration. Priests alone are the ministers of consecrating the Eucharist; for to priests alone was conceded the power of consecrating by these words: Do this in commemoration of me,¹ which words were spoken to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood. And the Fourth Lateran Council defines: "This sacrament indeed no one can effect except a priest who has been duly ordained."² But this power, as cohering with the priestly character, belongs to every priest, even a heretic, schismatic, excommunicated person, suspended person, or one bound by another canonical impediment.

If several consecrate the same matter at the same time, which happens in the ordination of new priests, they should take care to finish the form at the same time. For if one finishes the form before the others and has the intention of consecrating independently of the others, he alone consecrates. Therefore it is customary to say to those being ordained new priests that they must take care either to finish the form together with the bishop, or to have the intention of not consecrating if they finish the form before the bishop.³ But this warning is superfluous. For since they are concelebrants, from the nature of the thing they have the intention of consecrating with the bishop, i.e., indeed of consecrating, but only with the bishop. They have this intention by the very fact that they wish to receive the order according to the rite of the holy Roman Church, and they need no other intention; indeed, so that anxieties and scruples may be kept away, another intention ought not to be advised to them.

¹ Luke 22, 19. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2, De sacrif. miss.; Code of Canon Law, Cn. 802.

² C. Firmiter 1, De summa Trinitate (I, 1).

³ Cf. Lugo, De eucharist., disp. 11, sect. 8.

125. On the minister of distribution. The minister of distributing the Eucharist is one kind ordinary, another extraordinary.

1. The ordinary minister of distributing the Eucharist is the priest alone. For by the same words by which the power of consecrating was given, the power of distributing was also granted, since Christ consecrating and distributing said: Do this in commemoration of me. Hence the Council of Trent affirms that it descends from apostolic tradition "that laypersons receive communion from priests, while priests celebrating communicate themselves."¹

2. The extraordinary minister of distributing the Eucharist, by delegation of the priest in a case of necessity, is the deacon. For deacons by force of ordination have the power of distributing holy communion; therefore already in the primitive Church, from the commission of bishops and presbyters, they distributed the Eucharist.

a. It seems to belong to the deacon from ordination that he can minister the Eucharist; for he is ordained to this, that he be the immediate minister of the priest in those things which pertain to the most holy Eucharist, and the chief of these is its distribution. Nevertheless, from the present practice of the Church, in order that a deacon may licitly minister it, the permission of the Ordinary of the place or of the pastor, to be granted from a grave cause, is required; this permission in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed.²

b. The cause need not be most grave, as if the sick person would otherwise die without Viaticum, but it suffices that it be grave or fitting, or that no priest be present who can conveniently distribute the Eucharist, as when the pastor is impeded by hearing confessions, giving a sermon, or other ecclesiastical functions which cannot conveniently be deferred. But in most grave necessity, namely when otherwise a dying person would die without Viaticum, the deacon can and must minister the sacrament even without express delegation.³

c. If the deacon distributes the Eucharist, he performs all things by the same rite and with the same words as the priest, except that he has the stole transverse and at the end does not bless the people. Therefore he can sign the communicant or himself with the sign of the cross at the Indulgentiam; he can bless the sick person and the people with the pyx (but not with the hand without the sacrament). For the minister of eucharistic benediction is the priest alone, nor can a deacon impart it except in the case in which he has carried Viaticum to the sick person.⁴

3. Indeed, in the gravest necessity of a dying person, when priest and deacon are absent, even a subdeacon or cleric, and, if it can be done without scandal, even a layperson, could carry and minister Viaticum to the dying person. Several authors probably permit this, and rightly indeed, since the divine precept of receiving the Eucharist at death prevails over the human precept which forbids that the most holy sacrament be touched or carried by a layperson. And this is to be conceded all the more easily because it is established that formerly laypersons took the most holy Eucharist into their hands and afterward carried it home with them to be received.⁵

a. It is known that in the Parisian persecution the Eucharist was carried by women to priests detained in prisons.

b. Where in communicating the sick person particular dexterity is required, the priest can commit to a woman, for instance to a sister of charity ministering to the sick person, that she offer Viaticum with a spoon.

4. One who is not a priest cannot licitly communicate himself except in a case of necessity; nor can a priest do so, with another priest present, except in Mass.

a. Both priest and deacon, when another priest is absent, can minister this sacrament to himself not only from necessity but also for the sake of devotion. For a priest and deacon are prohibited from communicating themselves only if another priest or deacon is present.

b. A layperson can in a case of necessity, namely if in danger of death no priest or deacon is present, minister Viaticum to himself. For the divine precept of communicating urges; therefore the ecclesiastical law, if any stands in the way, ceases in these circumstances.

¹ Sess. 13, c. 8.

² Cn. 845, 2.

³ Cf. Bucceroni, Casus consc., n. 117.

⁴ S. C. R., 14 Aug. 1858, n. 3074; Cn. 1274, 2.

⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 237; Burghaber, Casuum consc. centuriae tres, Centur. III, cas. 69.

126. On the power of jurisdiction. For licitly administering the Eucharist there is required, besides, jurisdiction, either ordinary or delegated; for feeding the flock of Christ is the proper right and office of pastors, and it is fed chiefly by the administration of the sacraments. Therefore he who without any faculty or jurisdiction distributes the Eucharist sins gravely, because he violates the right of the pastor in a grave matter; and clerics below the diaconate who without any faculty at all distribute the Eucharist contract, besides, irregularity because of abuse of sacred order.

Ordinary jurisdiction of distributing the Eucharist belongs: a. to bishops in their diocese; b. to pastors in their parish; c. to regular prelates with respect to their subjects, of whom they themselves are quasi-pastors.

1. The power of a priest. a. Within Mass any priest, and if he celebrates privately even immediately before and after Mass, can distribute holy communion both in a church or public oratory and in a private oratory, unless the Ordinary has prohibited distribution in a private oratory.¹

b. Even outside Mass any priest has this faculty, with the at least presumed permission of the rector of the church, if he is a stranger.²

This faculty is not to be presumed where there is question of communion to be received from obligation: concerning paschal communion or concerning holy Viaticum, nor if there is question of the first communion of children.

2. The right of the pastor. a. To carry holy communion publicly to the sick, even to non-parishioners, within his territory belongs to the pastor. Therefore other priests can do this only in a case of necessity or with the at least presumed permission of the pastor or Ordinary.³

b. To carry Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, to the sick belongs to the pastor.

Nevertheless, if a sick person had to be refreshed with Viaticum and the pastor, being absent, could not administer it, or, being present, unjustly refused to administer it, any priest, whether secular or regular, and in their absence even a deacon, could licitly carry Viaticum to the dying person from the reasonably presumed power of the pastor, or of the bishop, or of the Church. The canons minister the sacraments to a bishop lying ill.⁴

¹ Cn. 846, 869.

² Cn. 846.

³ Cn. 848.

⁴ Cn. 397, 3.

127. On the power delegated to regulars. 1. Regulars, by force of the privilege of the supreme pontiffs, can in their churches or oratories, both by themselves and through other priests, distribute the Eucharist to any of the faithful, even on the day of Easter; for the old law by which the administration of holy communion in their churches was prohibited to regulars on this day¹ has now been abrogated.²

a. On that day there had been prohibited not only the distribution of the Eucharist by which the faithful would satisfy the precept of annual communion, but also that which they received for the sake of devotion. The prohibition remains of receiving prescribed holy communion in churches of regulars, whether on Easter day or on any other day, unless by contrary custom the prohibition has been removed. But it is permitted to receive holy communion for the sake of devotion in non-parochial churches, especially those of regulars, on any day whatever, even on Easter day.

b. Religious can provide prescribed holy communion, both on Easter day and on other days, to all the faithful in those regions where the precept of receiving paschal holy communion in one's own parish has been derogated by contrary custom. Moreover, they can provide it to all those who participate in the privilege of exemption, such as, besides novices, familiars, i.e., those laypersons "who are of the family of the regulars and their continuous table-companions," among whom resident students are to be numbered.

2. a. "In every clerical religion the right and office belongs to superiors of ministering Viaticum and extreme unction to sick professed members, novices, and others staying day and night in the religious house by reason of service, or education, or hospitality, or ill health."

b. In houses of nuns the ordinary confessor, or the one who takes his place, has the same right and office.

c. In a lay religion this right and office belongs to the pastor of the place or to the chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor.³

Although it is not licit for regulars publicly to carry holy communion to the sick, because publicly carrying the Eucharist through the streets is a proper parochial right, nevertheless they can licitly give holy communion to them privately, as it is licit for priests (n. 132).

¹ S. C. C., 31 Jan. 1682.

² S. C. C., 28 Nov. 1912.

³ Cn. 514.

128. Renewal of the species. Consecrated hosts are to be renewed frequently,¹ i.e., every fifteen days or at least every month, unless the circumstances of place and time require more frequent renewal. Therefore on each occasion no more particles should be consecrated than will be consumed within the space of fifteen days or at most of one month. As regards renewal, the same holds also concerning the larger host exposed in the monstrance.

a. Considering the letter of the law, the particles are to be renewed every week;² nevertheless provincial councils have been approved at Rome which do not require anything except that renewal ordinarily be done every other week, and nowhere be delayed beyond a month. Namely, the species are to be renewed as often as is necessary according to the condition of places, so that every danger of corruption may be avoided. But with this rule observed the danger of corruption is sufficiently avoided, provided the hosts are not found in a humid or warm place. But if the place in which the hosts are reserved is very warm or humid, more frequent renewal, at least every week, is necessary, because it is established that in places of this kind the species already after a few days begin to become moldy.³

b. These statutes suppose that the hosts which are consecrated are fresh. Therefore he sins gravely who delays renewal for a long time (to two months, and, if the place is humid, to a month). Likewise, he sins gravely who consecrates hosts which are no longer fresh and delays their renewal beyond a month for a long time.

Article Second. On the Manner of Ministering the Eucharist

By the prescription of the Church the Eucharist must be administered: a. at the due time; b. in a fitting place; and c. according to the customary rite of the Church.

¹ Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 1, n. 7.

² S. C. R., 12 Sept. 1894, n. 3621.

³ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^3, p. 219.

129. The due time. 1. It is licit for no one to receive the most holy Eucharist several times on the same day, except the case of Viaticum for one who on the same day has already received holy communion from devotion¹ (n. 138).

2. The Eucharist can be distributed on all days except Friday of Holy Week, and in part also Holy Saturday,² and the night of the Nativity of the Lord,³ unless a privilege is present.

To religious institutes, pious places, and seminaries of clerics where the most holy Eucharist is habitually reserved, the privilege has been granted of distributing the Eucharist to those asking even on the night of the Nativity, together with the celebration of Masses.⁴

3. It is not licit to carry the Eucharist by night unless necessity urges.⁵

It is licit, if there is need, to carry the most holy sacrament by night to a sick person lying within the domestic walls of a monastery or seminary, etc., who cannot remain fasting longer without grave inconvenience; for the prohibition of the Ritual refers only to public carrying through the streets of the place.

The bishop, if there is need, can permit by dispensing that the Eucharist be carried by night through the streets to a sick person who has not communicated for a long time and cannot remain fasting longer. Indeed, unless a special prohibition stands in the way, the pastor himself can do this by his own authority; for there is a sufficient cause excusing from this prohibition, lest the faithful be deprived of holy communion for a long time.

If there is need: because now, from the privilege of the Church, holy communion can for the most part be ministered to the sick even when not fasting.

4. On Friday of Holy Week it is licit to carry only holy Viaticum to the sick, which can be administered on any day and at any hour, whether of day or of night.

5. On Holy Saturday holy communion cannot be administered to the faithful except during the solemnities of Masses or immediately after they have been completed.⁶

By these things there does not seem to have been removed the permission of receiving holy communion granted to those (for the most part workers) who perform spiritual exercises during Holy Week and bring them to an end on the morning of Holy Saturday itself.⁷

6. Holy communion is to be distributed only at those hours at which Masses can be celebrated, unless a reasonable cause suggests otherwise.

Therefore on days of great concourse, of plenary indulgence, of jubilee, of missions, and similar days, it is licit to minister holy communion to those fasting even one or another hour after noon; indeed, scandal being excluded, even in the evening.

7. That the Eucharist be distributed to communicants within Mass is very fitting both to the nature of the matter and to the will of the Church. But from custom, which has already long prevailed everywhere, it is licitly distributed also outside Mass and immediately before or after Mass.

¹ Cn. 857.

² Cn. 867.

³ S. C. R., 7 Dec. 1641, n. 78.

⁴ Holy Office, 1 Aug. 1907 and 26 Nov. 1908; Cn. 821, 3.

⁵ Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 10; Cn. 867, 4.

⁶ Cn. 867, 3.

⁷ Gury-Ferreres, II, n. 297.

130. A fitting place. The Eucharist can be distributed in a church and in all oratories in which the sacrifice of Mass can be offered, even in private oratories.¹

¹ S. C. R., 8 May 1907; Cn. 869.

131. On the prescribed rite. The Roman Ritual accurately describes the rite to be observed in distributing holy communion;¹ here it must be noted what sin is committed by one who departs from the liturgical prescriptions.

1. To distribute the Eucharist without any sacred vestment, unless necessity excuses, is a grave sin. To carry the Eucharist to another altar without a sacred vestment, to omit either the stole alone or the surplice alone, to administer it without a light, or to omit the prayers, either preceding or following, is venial.

When necessity urges it is licit to minister the Eucharist without a light and without a sacred vestment. For it is better that the external apparatus with which the most holy sacrament ought to be administered be omitted than that a dying person depart without Viaticum, all the more because scandal of the faithful ceases when the cause is known.

2. As regards the prayers which are contained in the Ritual after the distribution of holy communion, it must be noted that there is an obligation of saying the antiphon O sacred banquet with the verse and prayer, since the Ritual corrected and augmented by Pius X has: the priest, having returned to the altar, says.

3. To touch the host with the last fingers without cause is venial. Nevertheless, he who has the index finger and thumb of the right hand impeded can, from a grave cause (lest the faithful be deprived of communion or the dying of Viaticum), use other fingers in distributing communion; for although only the first fingers are anointed, nevertheless the whole hand is consecrated.²

4. The long-disputed cause concerning giving communion in black vestments the Holy See finally defined in this way: that from a reasonable cause it can be distributed both before and after a Mass of Requiem; and a reasonable cause is always judged to be present when holy communion is asked.³

But if holy communion is distributed in black vestments, the blessing at the end is to be omitted, and in paschal time the Alleluia is to be omitted; but the prayer fitting paschal time is to be said.⁴

5. It is not licit to give the faithful either the larger host, such as the priest receives in Mass, or several small hosts.⁵ But it is licit, if there is need, to divide hosts, but only into two or three parts. It is also licit, if necessary, for Viaticum or for communicating one or another person who cannot wait longer, to take a part from the priest's host. But the host which was used for exposition of the most holy sacrament ought not to be given divided into parts to communicants except in a case of necessity.

The famous Innocentian decree, in general words indeed, prohibits that several particles be handed to anyone. Nevertheless, from the circumstances which gave occasion to that decree, it is licit to infer that this is prohibited only to the extent that it would be done for fostering false devotion.⁶ Therefore nothing prevents several being handed to one from a reasonable cause, as if the priest celebrating could not consume all the particles which remain.⁷

6. If there is lacking someone to serve the priest, the one about to communicate himself, if he is a man, can recite the Confiteor and respond to the priest, or the priest himself can respond to himself to all things. If no man is present, the priest himself should say all things rather than that a woman (unless she is a nun within the cloister), even standing at a distance, answer anything in the church.

7. Concerning the order to be observed in distributing holy communion among those to be communicated, whether the distribution takes place within or outside Mass, it is established that the ministers of the altar or of the sacrifice, by reason of ministry, are to be preferred to others, although more worthy. This is to be understood of any minister, whether cleric or layman; nevertheless, clerics are to be preferred to a layman serving, and clerics constituted in major orders to clerics in minor orders.⁸

¹ Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 2.

² Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 490; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 896.

³ S. C. R., 27 June 1868, n. 3177.

⁴ S. C. R., 26 Nov. 1878, n. 3465.

⁵ Decree of Innocent XI Cum ad aures, 12 Feb. 1679; Holy Office, 17 May 1636.

⁶ Cf. Benedict XIV, De sacrif. miss., l. 3, c. 20, n. 1.

⁷ Cf. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 189.

⁸ Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 2; S. C. R., 13 July 1658, n. 1074; S. C. R., 30 Jan. 1915.

132. On communion of the sick. 1. Holy communion is to be carried to the sick publicly and honorifically, i.e., with the solemnities used which the Church prescribes.¹

The reverence due to the most holy sacrament and at the same time the statutes of the Church demand that the Eucharist be carried to the sick with uncovered head.

The Church is difficult in conceding a dispensation concerning this matter; nevertheless, if sometimes because of inclemency of the air danger to health is truly to be feared, the Holy See has permitted that the bishop according to his prudence concede the carrying of a small hat both in fields and in towns.² And if somewhere the dispensation of the bishop could not be obtained, the priest, rightly fearing danger to health either from the heat of the sun or from cold, could by epikeia take for himself that permission which was conceded to the priests of Cologne "of walking, especially in winter weather, with the head covered with a woolen small hat, which, if necessity requires, can be of such amplitude that it also covers the ears,"³ or that which the bishops of Birmingham and Moulins can indulge, that pastors in circumstances of this kind may be able to carry Viaticum with the head covered by a hat (Hut, Mutze).⁴

It is licit from a grave cause to carry the Eucharist on horseback or sitting in a carriage, just as also from grave necessity (e.g., in time of plague or if the sick person otherwise cannot swallow the host) it is licit to offer it by means of some instrument, for instance with a spoon together with wine or water.

2. From a just and reasonable cause it is licit for any priest to carry the Eucharist privately or secretly to the sick. But reverence and decency due to so great a sacrament should be consulted, the norms prescribed by the Apostolic See being observed.⁵

a. By common law this is now conceded, which formerly Ordinaries could permit. A cause for secretly carrying the most holy sacrament is certainly present both in places of heretics, where it cannot be carried without danger of irreverence, and in places of Catholics, if it cannot be carried without great inconvenience. In other circumstances it is committed to the prudence and conscience of the priest to judge concerning a sufficient cause.

b. The manner of carrying the most holy Sacrament is different in various regions, according to different external circumstances. Since not so long ago the Holy See conceded to Ordinaries the faculty of permitting that holy communion be carried secretly to sick persons who ask it from devotion, especially if in some parish several ask or someone asks frequently, the rite prescribed by Benedict XIV is to be observed,⁶ the same which the Roman Ritual also has (Appendix, p. 19). The priest is always to have a stole covered by his own garments; he is to place the pyx in a little sack or burse, which, suspended from the neck by cords, he is to place in his breast, and he is never to proceed alone, but is to be accompanied by at least one of the faithful in default of a cleric.⁷

c. But when the faculty was conceded to bishops in America of permitting priests to carry the most holy sacrament secretly to the sick, the Holy See wished that the bishops establish in their dioceses a common norm of carrying, in which these three things must be altogether observed: alpha. that priests carrying the most holy sacrament avoid useless conversations; beta. that they carry the consecrated host upon the breast; gamma. that the carrying take place only in a case of necessity and in the actual exercise of priestly ministry.⁸

3. If a sick person vomits the host received, so that the sacred species appear, these are carefully to be gathered in a clean vessel, carried to the church, and kept in a becoming place until they are wholly corrupted, so that they can be cast into the sacrarium without irreverence. But if the sacred species, entirely mixed with filth, cannot be discerned, whatever has been ejected is to be gathered with tow, and when these have been burned the ashes are to be cast into the sacrarium.

¹ Cn. 847; Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 6. This requires at least that, if it is carried manifestly, it be carried with at least one cleric or sacristan accompanying with a lighted lamp.

² S. C. R., 22 Apr. 1871, n. 3246.

³ S. C. R., 13 Nov. 1862. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., II, n. 140; D'Annibale, III, n. 407.

⁴ S. C. R., 23 May 1846, n. 2909; 12 Sept. 1857, n. 3057.

⁵ Cn. 849.

⁶ Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

⁷ S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912.

⁸ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 25 Feb. 1859. Cf. Sabetti, Compend. theol. mor., n. 691.

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.

By the word ministration we comprehend both the confection and the dispensation of the Eucharist. Hence:

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is required for the licit dispensation of the Eucharist? - Besides due faculty, it is required that the minister be free from every excommunication, interdict, and suspension from sacred things; otherwise he would sin gravely and would contract irregularity. - It is required that the minister be in the state of grace, because the most august and most holy Body of Christ must not be treated by impure hands. L. 30 seq. Cf. 353. - It is required that the minister distribute the Eucharist according to the accustomed rite of 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. - The burse with the corporal must always be used, on which the sacred pyx is to be placed as often as Communion is administered outside Mass, as is suggested in the Rubric of the Roman Ritual, which is preceptive. S. R. C., Feb. 27, 1847, n. 2932. - If outside Mass, or immediately before or after Mass, Communion is to be ministered only to nuns, and the choir is situated either behind the altar or at a distance from the altar, the priest places the ciborium at the little window of the choir, and there, turned toward the nuns, says the Misereatur, and Ecce Agnus Dei, etc. S. R. C., July 13, 1893, n. 3800. - L. 241 seq.; E. M.

You will resolve: Excluding the case of necessity, outside Mass, it is grave to minister the Eucharist without any sacred vestment, without surplice or alb, and without stole. For there is grave indecency and irreverence from this, and it is against a grave precept of the Church. But without light, without confession, indeed without stole or without surplice, it is a light sin. For the irreverence appears light. But if a minister is lacking, the priest himself can perform all things. Having returned to the altar he will be able to say: O sacred banquet, etc. Roman Ritual, Order of administering sacramental communion. But the versicles, Lord, hear, etc., The Lord be with you, etc., with the proper Prayer, are of precept. S. R. C., Aug. 30, 1892, ad 10, n. 3792. And they must be recited during the ablution and wiping of the fingers. S. R. C., Jan. 14, 1898, n. 3975, d. 3, q. 1. Similarly it is held only venial to transfer the Eucharist, without sacred vestments, from place to place, e.g., from altar to altar. Reuter n. 168; L. 241. - It is not licit without cause to hand over several particles, or larger ones, so that the devotion of the recipient may be satisfied; yet this is light. S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679; L. 245. If particles fail and necessity is present, e.g., if another Mass is lacking and the faithful cannot wait, consecrated particles can be divided into two or at most into three parts, because otherwise Communion could scarcely be given with due reverence. S. R. C., March 16, 1833, ad 1, n. 2740; La Croix 508. Indeed, when smaller hosts are lacking, the priest can take off part of the larger one to be consumed by himself, whether in the case of viaticum to be carried to a dying person, or if one or another of the faithful were about to communicate who otherwise would have to wait for Communion not without inconvenience. L. 217, 245. It is licit, in defect of smaller hosts, to consecrate several larger ones, and then distribute them divided into smaller parts. L. 245.

To the sick it is regularly to be carried manifestly and honorifically, always with a light preceding. Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm. Regularly, since certain circumstances are excepted, e.g., places of heretics, where it cannot be carried manifestly. Likewise sometimes even in places of Catholics, if otherwise holy viaticum cannot be carried to the sick person without some inconvenience. Yet this should not be done without permission of the bishop, where he can be consulted. S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1878, ad 7, n. 3438. - From Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, it is had how then the Most Holy Sacrament is to be carried. "Let the priest," he says, "always have the stole, covered by the garments; let him place the pyx in a small bag or burse, which, suspended from the neck by cords, he places in his bosom; and let him never proceed alone, but let him be accompanied by at least one faithful person, in default of a cleric." S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1880, ad 3, n. 3525. "Some think that if the habit cannot be had, or there is a storm, or a journey must be made, it will not be irreverence if the priest secretly carries the Eucharist in a pyx, or wrapped in a corporal, in his bosom. This more truly seems licit in places of heretics, where also from necessity, and secretly, with scandal removed, he will be able to offer it without stole and surplice." L. 241. - The Eucharist is not to be carried to the sick by night, unless the necessity of one dying presses; and in such a case it is licit to carry it even on Friday of Parasceve, but privately, even without lights, even without sacred vestments, even running, provided scandal is absent. But it is never licit to minister even to the dying under the species of wine, which is grave. - S. R. C. grants that, with the consent of the bishop, because of the distance of places, difficulty of roads, and roughness of ways, viaticum can be carried by the pastor on horseback, and, when it is carried openly, because of the inclemency of the weather, with the head covered, with at least one man accompanying, if it can be done, carrying a lit lantern. S. R. C., May 23, 1846, n. 2908; Sept. 12, 1857, ad 19, n. 3059; Apr. 22, 1871, n. 3246; Aug. 31, 1872, n. 3276. - The Eucharist is not to be carried to a sick person only for the sake of veneration, so that he may adore or kiss it, if he cannot receive it. For St. Pius V prohibited this, whose prohibition De Lugo recalls, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 11; L. 243, and it is had in the Roman Ritual, de Commun. infirm. - Trent sess. 13, c. 6, can. 7; L. 241, 242, 243; H. A. tr. 15, n. 12.

A priest, within Mass, in some hospital, can carry it to sick persons distant from the altar, accompanied by two carrying a candle, with pyx, without humeral veil, but under an umbrella. Yet if, approaching the bed of the sick person, he does not lose sight of the altar, he can then carry Communion to him within Mass.

It must be noted "that if a priest carries Communion to a sick person in a hospital, and remnants remain on the paten or chalice, the priest can consume them if he is still clothed in sacred vestments. But he will also be able well to give them to the sick person immediately after the particle handed to him, because then it is judged morally one Communion, as Tamburini, etc., rightly say, who testifies that use so bears, that after Communion of the sick person, the pyx is washed, and the ablution is handed to him." L. 251. From the Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm., the ablutions must be given to the sick person. Likewise from the same Roman Ritual, Order of administering sacramental communion: "let him [the priest] consume the ablution, if he has celebrated, or hand it to be consumed by those who then communicated, or at least cast it into the sacrarium." But if the sick person cannot or does not wish to consume the ablutions, as is established in the Roman Ritual, then the priest can throw them into the fire at the sick person's own home, or carry them with him to the church, so that he may cast them into the sacrarium.

He could also, foreseeing the difficulty of the matter, wash his fingers with the purificator, first moistened. "Ordinaries can permit that for those affected by ill health, who cannot leave the house and ask holy Communion from devotion, especially when several ask in some parish, or someone asks frequently, the Holy Eucharist be carried privately, or without observing the prescriptions of the Ritual, from the church to the house, from a just and reasonable cause, with at least the rite proposed by Benedict XIV in the Decree Inter omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744, § 23, preserved, namely: Let the priest always have the stole covered by his own garments; let him place the pyx in a small bag or burse, which, suspended from the neck by cords, he places in his bosom; and let him never proceed alone, but be accompanied by at least one faithful person, in default of a cleric." S. C. de Sacram., Dec. 23, 1912, ad 3.

As to nuns of papal enclosure who are sick, "in default of the confessor or chaplain, a third priest, even a regular, although without a companion, legitimately called with permission of the bishop, who for this permission to be granted in the name of the bishop himself can also habitually designate the abbess or superior, may carry holy Communion to the sick Religious who cannot come down to the grates of the church. But it is necessary that four religious women of mature age, if it can be done, accompany the priest from his entrance into the enclosure until his exit; and he must carry the sacred pyx containing some consecrated Particles, administer holy Communion, return, and replace the same sacred pyx, with the rubrics established by the Roman Ritual for Communion of the sick preserved." S. C. de Relig., Sept. 1, 1912, A. A. S. v., p. 625 seq. "Our Most Holy Lord Pius Pope X deigned to establish and declare: That in the indult of a private Oratory there is understood to be included the faculty of distributing holy Communion to all those Christian faithful who assist at the sacrifice of the Mass, saving parish rights. Anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding." S. R. C., May 8, 1907.

When can the Eucharist be ministered? - It can be ministered both outside Mass, and in Mass, both before and after Mass from a reasonable cause. Roman Ritual, Order of administering sacramental communion. Before or after a private Mass, not a solemn or sung Mass, or even a conventual Mass. S. R. C., Jan. 19, 1906, ad 3. But in Mass it can be ministered, whatever kind it may be; even of the dead, and in black vestments, whether within Mass, namely after the communion of the priest, even by extracting the pyx, or immediately before, from a just and reasonable cause, or immediately after, the blessing being omitted in either case, and in Paschal time Alleluia being omitted, although the Prayer and Versicles of the time must be said. Roman Ritual; S. R. C., June 27, 1868, General Decree n. 3177;

Nov. 26, 1878, n. 3465; Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. miss. l. 3, c. 18. It can be ministered on any day, except Friday of greater week, as is drawn from the Rubrics of the Missal on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, and from universal custom, and this is prohibited under grave obligation. It can be given in the solemn Mass of Holy Saturday and after Mass, S. R. C., March 22, 1806, n. 2561; Apr. 28, 1914. Nor likewise can it be given in the Mass of the Nativity of Our Lord which is celebrated at midnight, outside the case of privilege or legitimate custom. - Benedict XIV, De Sacrif. miss. l. 3, c. 18. Likewise it can be ministered at any hour at which Mass is celebrated; indeed, if a special cause is present, at any hour of the day. But toward evening it is not to be ministered unless a grave cause is present; but at night only in a case of necessity, both because of present-day custom and because scandal or rather wonder is to be avoided; which, as is clear, is not verified in Communities which reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in a domestic chapel, where it concerns Communion of the sick. L. 252, 349; Suarez d. 66, s. 5; Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. c. 18, n. 14; E. M.

If a special cause is present; unless a grave cause is present; for from the general rule one must stand by the Decree of S. R. C. "Whether only from time to time, when Mass is permitted to be celebrated, Communion is to be ministered to the Christian faithful according to Decree 2572, ad 23; or whether it is also licit to minister beyond the aforesaid time, namely until sunset? "Resp. In the affirmative to the first part; in the negative to the second." S. R. C., June 11, 1904; Sept. 7, 1816, n. 2572, ad 23.

From the indult which priests enrolled in the Eucharistic Priestly League have, it can be distributed from the first hour before dawn until sunset. It cannot be distributed within Mass only on the night of the Nativity, unless likewise an indult is had, which was granted to all religious Communities, seminaries of clerics, and pious houses having an oratory, with the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament. There can be celebrated there on the night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ three Masses, and Holy Communion can be distributed to all standing by, the doors being closed. Holy Office, Aug. 1, 1907. - It is not licit to distribute Communion at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, if other altars are not lacking in the church. Indeed neither is it licit to celebrate Mass at that altar without grave cause or indult. Cf. Ceremonial of Bishops l. 1, c. 12, n. 8, 9; S. R. C., Feb. 8, 1913.

Violet or white color is to be used in Communion administered outside Mass on the day of the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed. S. R. C., Apr. 19, 1912, ad 10. "A priest clothed in the sacred vestments of the Sacrifice cannot administer Holy Communion before or after solemn or sung Mass, or even conventual Mass, as is permitted before or after private Mass." S. R. C., Jan. 19, 1906, ad 3.

Holy Communion can be ministered to a layman serving Mass within the presbytery and at the edge of the footpace of the altar, even if he is not clothed in clerical habit. S. R. C., June 8, 1911.

Immediately after consecration, can Communion, from some just cause, be distributed to the people by another priest from particles consecrated in the Mass before the celebrant communicates? - Some affirm, because just as particles of this kind can not be consumed by the priest or by other communicants, although they are after the manner of one victim, provided the priest receives another part of the matter then consecrated, so they can be carried by another priest into another place for the use of the faithful even before the Communion of the priest, provided as much remains as suffices for the integrity of the sacrifice. Others deny it, because all the following prayers and blessings equally regard them, nor is it fitting that another participate in the sacrifice before the priest himself, who is principally offering. Thus also from S. R. C., May 11, 1878, ad 7, n. 3443. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4; Diana tr. 1, de Celebr. miss., r. 232, 233.

Can a priest laboring under infirmity in the thumb and index finger minister the Eucharist with other fingers? - It seems to be denied, at least more probably, apart from a case of very grave necessity. The reason is that, although the whole hand is consecrated, nevertheless the index finger and thumb from the rite of the Church are specially destined for exercising this function. L. 244. - La Croix writes thus concerning this matter, l. 6, p. 1, n. 480: "It is probable that a priest licitly distributes Communion with the later fingers, if he cannot with the first because of gout in the hand or another impediment, as Toletus, Arriaga, Leander, and others with Gobat have it... Because although only the first fingers are anointed, nevertheless the whole hand seems consecrated; hence Gobat infers that a priest who without cause touched the host with the last fingers would sin only venially." But St. Alphonsus 490 thinks it not improbable that Viaticum can be given to the dying by means of an instrument, e.g., a spoon, for example in time of plague.

What must be done if the host falls to the ground? - The place onto which the holy host falls must immediately be covered with some clean thing, and afterward washed. If it falls onto the cloth or little linen cloth by which the hands of the communicant are covered, the place is immediately to be marked with a pin, and afterward washed in the same way. Thus Rubr. de Defect. t. 10, n. 15, which however does not oblige under grave obligation according to the common opinion; yet it would oblige gravely to wash the place onto which the sacred species of wine had fallen, since it is imbibed by it; yet there is no need that that into which they fell be burned.

Rubr. n. 12: "If through negligence something of the Blood of Christ has fallen, if indeed upon the ground, or upon the table, let it be licked with the tongue, and let the place itself be scraped as much as is enough, and let the scraping be burned; but let the ash be placed in the sacrarium. But if it has fallen upon the stone of the altar, let the priest absorb the drop, and let the place be well washed, and let the ablution be cast into the sacrarium. If upon the linen of the altar and the drop has reached another linen; if even to a third, let the linens be washed three times, a chalice being placed beneath; and let the water of the ablution be cast into the sacrarium." And the same is said there if the Blood falls upon the corporal, vestments, or carpet. And n. 13: "But if it happens that the whole Blood is poured out after Consecration, if indeed something or a little remains, let that be consumed, and concerning the remaining poured-out Blood let it be done as was said. But if nothing at all has remained, let him again place wine and water, and consecrate from that place, In like manner after they had supped, yet first making the offering of the chalice, as above." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 7; L. 250; La Croix 484.

What must be done if the host falls onto the face, beard, or clothing of the one communicating? - In the aforesaid cases purification is to be omitted, because it is better to avoid the wonder, disturbance, or offense of the people than to observe the Rubric, which obliges only under light obligation. - L. 250.

What must be done if the host or its fragment falls into the bosom or within the clothing of a woman? - "It is fitting that not the priest, but the woman herself, seek the particle or fragment; and with her own hands place it into her mouth." Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. l. 3, c. 20, n. 7. But the fingers of the woman are to be washed, and the ablution cast into the piscina. If the woman cannot easily extract the host there, let her withdraw apart, e.g., into some chapel or into the sacristy.

What must be done if consecrated particles remain, and there is no tabernacle in which they may be placed? - They are to be consumed by the celebrant before purification and ablution, if this can easily be done, or if they are not in too great a quantity. Otherwise they would either have to be consumed by another priest soon to celebrate, or, if there is none, they would have to be carried to the nearest tabernacle with the accustomed rite; nor is it to be committed that several hosts be ministered to the faithful. But let the priest take care, insofar as circumstances permit, not to consecrate too great a quantity of particles. If an entire host of this kind remains after purification and ablution have already been consumed by the priest, and there is no other priest who may celebrate, nor is there a tabernacle, nor is there a way for it to be preserved honorably, then the priest, although not fasting, can consume it. Rubr. tit. 7, n. 3.

What must be done concerning fragments of hosts which are found? - If the priest finds fragments of his present sacrifice, he must consume them, even after ablution, whether they are small or large, because they regard the same sacrifice. Rubr. de Defect. t. 7, n. 2. But this must be observed not only immediately after Mass, but also if the priest is in the sacristy, yet still clothed in the sacred vestments. But if the priest has already taken off the sacred vestments, he must place the fragments in the tabernacle, if it is present, or reserve them for another priest about to celebrate that same morning. If neither can be done, let him consume them himself. - But if the remnants were consecrated in another Mass, they are not to be consumed after purification, but must be placed in a decent place. The reason is that the Rubric permits the priest not fasting to consume only those remnants which regard the same sacrifice. Yet if this cannot be done, and there is grave danger of irreverence, then let the priest consume them even after he has taken off the sacred vestments. - 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 gathering the fragment, will place it in the ciborium, or in a decent and safe place if the tabernacle is lacking, so that it may be consumed in the next Mass. But if a priest cannot be had, let the fragment be reverently gathered by the layman himself in paper or a clean little linen, by means of a pin, and let it be placed inside a corporal or in a decent vessel until the priest has come. L. 251; Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. l. 3, c. 17, n. 5, 6.

From the Decree of S. C. R., Feb. 19, 1909, in hospitals of lepers the priest can abstain from taking the purification, in order to avert danger of contagion, if perhaps particles left behind have touched the lips and saliva of lepers. Wherefore let a small vessel with water and tow or cotton be prepared upon the altar, into which small vessel the purification of the pyx to be performed in the usual manner is put, and let it, as soon as can be done, be cast into the sacrarium.

What must be done if, on the altar or elsewhere, a host certainly or doubtfully consecrated is found? - If the host is believed certainly consecrated, and from elsewhere seems clean and recently consecrated, it is to be placed with the others in the ciborium.

It can also be consumed by the celebrant before purification and ablution. Cf. n. 543. But if it is not clean, or if it was extracted from an unclean place, or is not recently consecrated, it is not to be mixed with the others, but the celebrant will be able to consume it before purification and ablution; but if he experiences excessive repugnance, he will place the host separately in the tabernacle in a clean vessel until it is corrupted, and when corrupted it is cast into the sacrarium. Rubr. de Defect. t. 7, n. 3; t. 1, n. 14. - If it is doubtfully consecrated, it is to be consumed by the priest in Mass before purification and ablution. It cannot be consumed before then; because, if it is not consecrated, the natural fast would be violated; nor afterward, because, if it is consecrated, it would be consumed by a priest not fasting. It can also be kept separately in the tabernacle, so that in another Mass it may be consecrated conditionally. But if it provokes excessive nausea, it is to be placed in the tabernacle separately until it has been corrupted, as was just said. Rubr. de Defect. t. 3, n. 4, 5; t. 7, n. 3; t. 10, n. 3.

What must be done if the priest or sick person has rejected the sacred species? - If the species appear whole, let them be reverently consumed, unless nausea occurs. For then they must be carefully separated and collected in a clean vessel, carried into the church, and kept in a safe and well-closed place until they are wholly corrupted, so that they can be cast into the piscina without irreverence. - If they cannot be discerned, as being wholly mixed with filth, the mouth of the sick person is indeed to be wiped; but whatever has been rejected is to be collected with tow; then, the tow having been burned, the ashes are to be cast into the piscina. Rubr. de Defect. t. 10, n. 14.

Can a priest ministering viaticum omit those words prescribed in the Ritual: Receive Viaticum, etc.? - Resp. Probably in the affirmative, if the sick person is going to receive Communion by way of viaticum with great sadness of soul. The reason is that for satisfying the precept, the intention of satisfying is not required. But although all things in the Ritual would fall under precept, this is in no way grave; but that reason of sorrow is sufficient for excusing from a light precept. L. 285.

What must the priest do if, coming to the sick person with the Most Holy Sacrament and hearing his Confession, he finds him indisposed? - First the confessor must strive, as best he can, to bring the penitent to a better mind. If the matter does not succeed, and, for example, the sick person does not promise either to break off the proximate occasion of sin, or a grave and certainly owed restitution, he certainly cannot be absolved, and he must earnestly be induced, once confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he is not yet willing to receive the Eucharist. But if he makes 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 is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, namely in order to keep the seal of Confession untouched. Gousset 237.

Where and how is the Eucharist to be reserved? - Resp. To the first: In any parish church or filial church of a parish, and in a cathedral, yet outside the major altar, the Eucharist must be kept, so that it can always be given to those opportunely asking. Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr. It can also be reserved by common law in churches of regulars emitting solemn vows, but not within the choir. S. R. C., Apr. 26, 1901. It is also permitted to be reserved "in churches of nuns living in enclosure... But it is not permitted in colleges constituted by the authority of the Ordinary alone, such as conservatories... The same Sacred Congregation decreed with respect to granges of regulars." L. 424, 428. But in other churches it cannot be reserved without special permission of the Pope. Benedict XIV, Const. Quamvis iusto, Apr. 30, 1749, § 14. Thus also the Sacred Congregations of the Council and of Bishops and Regulars established. Ferraris v. Eucharistia, a. 1, n. 45 ff.; L. 424. An indult for reserving the Eucharist is granted by S. C. de Sacram. "If in Oratories in which the Eucharist is reserved by special Indult, Mass cannot be celebrated daily, an Indult must be sought from the Apostolic See, which is accustomed to prescribe it at least once in any week." S. R. C., May 14, 1889, ad 2, n. 3706. And as regards public churches in which the Eucharist is reserved, access must be open for at least some hours of the day to the faithful wishing to visit the Most Holy Eucharist. S. R. C., Nov. 15, 1890, ad 1, n. 3739.

In cathedral churches the tabernacle ought not be on the major altar, because of the pontifical ceremonies which are done on it; but otherwise in other churches. S. C. EE. et RR., Feb. 10, 1579; Nov. 29, 1594; Roman Ritual.

Resp. To the second: The Eucharist is to be reserved on only one altar, and in a clean, blessed tabernacle, S. R. C., June 20, 1899, ad 4, n. 4035, placed in the middle of the altar, well closed, and in a fitting pyx placed upon a blessed corporal or pall, well closed, and covered with a white veil. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Sacrament is enclosed must be covered with a canopy of silk cloth, or of hemp, wool, or cotton. Let the color be white, or let it be changed according to times and feasts. Let it never be black, but if the time required this, let it be violet. Roman Ritual, de SS. sacr.; S. C. R., July 21, 1855, ad 10, n. 3035; Dec. 1, 1882, n. 3562. But the tabernacle inside must be adorned with a silk cloth; but if inside it is gilded, this suffices. S. R. C., Aug. 7, 1811, ad 7, n. 3254; June 5, 1889, n. 3709. - Nowhere is the Eucharist to be kept without a light, which must always burn. Roman Ritual, l.c.; Ferraris v. Eucharistia, a. 1, n. 45. Benedict XIV, Const. Accepimus, July 16, 1746; S. R. C., March 8, 1879, n. 3484; E. M.

The key of the tabernacle the priest, the rector of the church, must keep carefully with himself, or must preserve it in another safe place. S. C. EE. et RR., Feb. 9, 1751; S. R. C., Dec. 1, 1631, n. 579.

549 bis. Is exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament permitted, and what must especially be observed in it? - Public exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament in the monstrance cannot be done without permission of the bishop, even by Regulars. But private exposition, without its being drawn out from the tabernacle, and without the sacred host itself being seen in the pyx, is not prohibited; and Benediction can also be given with the pyx. - Regularly it is not licit either to celebrate Mass or to distribute Communion before the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed. - Yet the custom is tolerated of exposing the Most Holy Sacrament and celebrating Mass before it on the occasion of a novena, in which after the Gospel there is preaching of the word of God, provided however that a veil is placed before the Most Holy Eucharist while the sermon is had. S. R. C., May 10, 1890, ad 2, n. 3228.

In the solemn exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament and in Mass, within the ambit of the altar, candles of stearine cannot be used, not even besides the prescribed wax candles. S. R. C., July 30, 1910.

The bishop can, according to necessity, reduce to only twelve the candles which must burn continuously before the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed for perpetual adoration according to the track of the Institution 30, n. 24, of blessed memory Benedict XIV. S. R. C., Feb. 8, 1879, n. 3480.

It is not licit during private or public exposition to illuminate the inner part of the Ciborium with electric lamps placed in it, so that the sacred Pyx with the Most Holy Sacrament can be better seen by the faithful. S. R. C., July 28, 1911.

Immediately before Benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament it is not licit for prayers to be recited in the common idiom. S. R. C. n. 3530. Yet it is licit to use the public recitation of certain prayers in the common speech before the Most Holy Sacrament exposed (e.g., the honorable Amends), with the Ordinary consenting. S. C. n. 3157, and May 27, 1911.

By the edict of Clement XI, the faithful are prohibited from giving alms to the poor, who ought to be outside the church, ten canes distant from the door of the church, during the Exposition of the Forty Hours. Instr. Clem. § 28; Collect. S. R. C. vol. 4, p. 100 seq.

Can other sacred things be placed in the tabernacle? - Resp. In the negative. This is clear from the Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr. Hence neither Relics, nor Chrism, nor Oil of the sick, nor empty sacred vessels already purified can be placed in it. - Relics of Saints, and relics of the Most Holy Cross or of another instrument of the Lord's Passion cannot be placed upon the tabernacle in which the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved, so that the tabernacle itself serves as a base. S. R. C., March 12, 1836, ad 1, n. 3740. - Neither relics, nor images, nor a vase of flowers or anything similar may be placed and kept before the little door of the tabernacle. S. R. C., Sept. 6, 1845, n. 2906.

A dormitory above an oratory in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved, or Mass is celebrated, is not permitted. Yet, by special grace, it is permitted if a large umbrella, commonly a baldachin, is placed over the altar. S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1880, ad 2, n. 3525; May 11, 1641, n. 756; Jan. 24, 1908, ad 3.

Must the ciborium be consecrated and silver? - Resp. To the first: It need not necessarily be consecrated, but it suffices that it be blessed. This is clear from the Roman Ritual, in which the blessing of the pyx is noted among those things which do not need anointing with chrism. Likewise from the Roman Pontifical, where only the blessing of the pyx is had. - Hence it is altogether fitting that even the pyx, or ciborium, and the luna, or little sphere of the monstrance, and whatever containing vessel, and one immediately touching the Eucharist, and also the small vessel containing chrism, be blessed. But whether this is necessary, several and grave doctors, not improbably from St. Alphonsus, deny; and it is not necessary, they add, to place on the pyx a linen vessel blessed with the blessing of the corporal. The reason is that there is nowhere an expressed precept concerning this; nor does the Pontifical make us certain, since blessings are assigned there also for bells and cases of relics, which nevertheless are blessed not by precept, but only by fittingness. But others more probably from St. Alphonsus affirm that the pyx must be blessed by precept, because it is more conformable to the Rubric and to reason, and therefore in practice it is to be advised. L. 248, 383-385; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3; Rubr. Missal. t. 2, n. 3.

Resp. To the second: Nothing is established by common law. And indeed it would seem to have to be equated with the chalice and paten, which must be of gold or silver, or at least of tin, if the Church is very poor. But it cannot be of copper, nor of wood, or glass, etc. De Consecr., Dist. 1, c. 45. For the rest, if the sacred vessels are not of gold, they must be gilded inside. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, n. 3162, responded that a ciborium, or sacred pyx, of gilded copper can be permitted, likewise a monstrance (ostensorium) and lunula, which embraces the sacred host to be shown. Cf. 645; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 6; E. M.

Does one gravely sin who neglects to keep a light before the Most Holy Sacrament? - Resp. In the affirmative, of itself, if the time is notable. For it is a grave defect of due worship. Notable, i.e., if this happens for an entire day or for some entire nights. L. 248.

Whether olive oil is required for feeding the lamp of the church, or whether another oil from vegetables, e.g., from nuts, or from minerals, as petroleum, suffices? - Generally olive oil is to be used; but where it cannot be had, another oil from vegetables, insofar as circumstances allow, can be permitted by the bishop. S. R. C., July 9, 1864, n. 3121. Wherefore even petroleum, when necessity presses, can be permitted by the bishop. Indeed the lamp can also be fed from beeswax, at least in greatest part, which is used in the candles prescribed for the celebration of Mass. S. R. C., Nov. 27, 1908; Nov. 3, 1907.

And nothing prevents a composition of olive oil and beeswax from being used. S. R. C., Nov. 8, 1907.

Lights from gas upon altars, together with candles made from wax, for obtaining greater splendor, are prohibited. S. R. C., Nov. 29, 1901; May 16, 1902.

Electric light cannot be used for worship, but only for decently illuminating the church. - E. M.

Electric light cannot be placed on the altar with candles of wax, S. R. C., May 16, 1902, or in place of candles, S. R. C., Nov. 22, 1907, or in flower-bearing vases which are placed among the candlesticks on the altar, or around the tabernacle, S. R. C., Jan. 17, 1908, or in place of lamps which are prescribed before the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist or Sacred Relics or images of Saints. S. R. C., Nov. 22, 1907. "An abuse has prevailed, that around little shrines of Saints placed on the wall above the altar, and even on the steps themselves of the altar where candlesticks are placed, small electric lamps distinguished by various colors are arranged, which certainly is less fitting to the gravity and dignity proper to the sacred Liturgy and to the decorum of the House of God." S. R. C., June 25, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 353. "The doubt having been proposed: Whether electric light under the appearance of a candle, or in any other appearance, can be used on the table of the Altar near the Missal to illuminate it? It must be answered: If according to the decrees electric light is forbidden on the altar, a fortiori on the table of the same altar as is proposed in the case, on the day Feb. 15, 1911. Philip Di Fava, Substitute."

It is licit to encircle images of the Most Holy Heart of Jesus or of the Blessed Virgin Mary with electric lights, after the manner of a crown around the head, of the moon beneath the feet, or of solar rays at the sides; and to form fiery tongues on the heads of the Apostles with red lamps. S. R. C., Jan. 17, 1908.

Likewise, in lamps which hang from the vaults of the church, candles of wax can be substituted with fictitious electric candles. S. R. C., Jan. 17, 1908.

Whether, or when, must the ciborium be renewed? - The ciborium certainly must be renewed, the old consecrated particles not having been entirely consumed, lest the consecrated species be corrupted. Indeed it must be renewed frequently, Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr., every eight or at least fifteen days. And this is the more common practice, and indicated in Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1842, de Sacr. euch. § 4, although the Ceremonial of Bishops l. 1, c. 6 prescribes that renewal of particles be done every eighth day, and S. R. C., Sept. 12, 1884, ad 2, n. 3621, declared this to be observed. Trent sess. 14, c. 6, can. 7; Plenary Council of Latin America 347; E. M.

How must the ciborium be renewed? - The renewal of the ciborium is to be done in the sacrifice of the Mass itself. The celebrant, having consumed the most precious Blood, will consume the old hosts, although they are many. But the priest will cast the smaller particles found in the ciborium into the chalice, and, wine having been poured over them, will consume them. He can also pour wine into the ciborium for collecting the smallest particles. Yet the wine is not to be drunk from the ciborium, but poured back into the chalice. - If the priest from inadvertence had first consumed the ablution, he could still purify the ciborium and consume the remnants, because for reception it is morally reputed one. Thus La Croix 486, 487; Elbel 77; Tamburini, de Communione c. 2, n. 54. "But after the ablution," says St. Liguori, "it is not licit to consume particles of another sacrifice which are in the ciborium, in order to cleanse it, as Suarez, Lugo with the common opinion teach, although Tamburini says the contrary is probable, unless there is danger of irreverence." L. 288, 251; La Croix 501, 502. Cf. here 544.

Note: Particles to be consecrated must be fresh. It would be desirable that they not exceed fifteen days, or, at most, a month from the time when they were made. Carelessness in this matter can constitute grave sin. The custom of consecrating hosts made three months earlier in winter, or six months earlier in summer, is an enormous abuse altogether to be removed; priests cannot use such hosts. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1826, n. 2650.

1. 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."

2. "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.

3. "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.

4. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Aloysius, a priest, has already for a year been hearing the confessions of Stanislaus, a nine-year-old boy, commendable for keen intelligence and innocence of morals. Now Aloysius, after first obtaining the consent of the parents, leads him, duly imbued with the rudiments of faith and very desirous of receiving the Eucharist, to the parish priest, so that, after prior examination, he may admit him to first communion. Nevertheless the parish priest refuses because Stanislaus has not yet attained the legitimate age. For he has it as a custom not to admit boys to first communion unless they have at least reached twelve years, relying, as he himself says, both on the common practice of the other parish priests and also on the congruity of the matter itself, for which congruity he brings forward a twofold reason: namely, 1. because of the greater reverence for so great a sacrament; then 2. because of the more abundant fruit of the one receiving. But Aloysius, making little of the reasons brought forward by the parish priest, with the precept of Easter communion urging, administers the Eucharist to Stanislaus on Easter day itself. When the parish priest learns this, he has recourse to the bishop against Aloysius, as though Aloysius had usurped the privative right of parish priests. But the bishop, having been made more certain about the whole matter, proposes the case to be resolved by his vicar general.

Quaer. 1. What discretion is to be required in the present matter; and when do boys have this discretion? - 2. Whether admitting boys to first communion belongs exclusively to the parish priest? - 3. What is to be said of the Case?

R. To the first. The discretion required in the present matter is described thus in the Roman Catechism 57: namely, that the faithful "discern table from table, this sacred table from other profane tables, this heavenly bread from common bread. And this happens when we believe with certainty that the true Body and Blood of the Lord is present, whom the Angels adore in heaven, at whose nod the pillars of heaven tremble and fear, of whose glory heaven and earth are full. This, namely, is to discern the Body of the Lord, which the Apostle admonished." And the same Roman Catechism n. 62 says that it is not fitting to minister the Eucharist to boys not yet using reason, and it adds this reason: "For these neither know how to discern the sacred Eucharist from common and profane bread, nor can they bring piety of soul and religion to receiving it. And this also seems most alien from the institution of Christ the Lord. For he says, Take and eat; but it is sufficiently clear that infants are not suited to receive and eat." And the doctrine of the Sacred Congregations is the same; they require discretion by which one discerns spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 568.

Moreover, boys do not have this discretion immediately when they obtain the use of reason; for then they have the first discretion of good and evil, but they certainly do not have this more perfect discretion unless they first have obtained a more perfect use of reason and have been duly instructed in the matters of faith. When precisely, then, do they have this discretion? From the more common opinion of the doctors and from the general rule, boys are not obliged to communion before the ninth or tenth year of age; but beyond the twelfth year communion is not to be deferred for them. I. M. 560. Wherefore at this age, from the general rule, boys conveniently instructed certainly have the discretion required for communion. But this general rule certainly does not prevent boys in particular cases, by reason of a precocious development of the use of reason, and of better and more accurate instruction, from having, even before this age, sufficient discretion for receiving communion. And this age, as is clear, is varied in the aforesaid particular cases, according to the various circumstances.

To the second. In the first communion of boys, two things can be considered. The first is the communion itself; the other is that external ceremony which is customarily used in the first communion of boys. As regards the communion itself, two things can be attended to in it: one is admission to first communion, the other the place of first communion. Although admission to first communion can, in particular cases, pertain also to the parish priest, it certainly does not belong exclusively to the parish priest, nor does it belong to the parish priest per se and principally. For admission to first communion belongs per se to him to whom it belongs to judge concerning the sufficient instruction, and concerning the sufficient disposition of soul, of the boy for receiving first communion. And this judgment belongs per se and principally to the parents, to whom the education and due instruction of the boy belongs by force of paternal authority, and to the confessor, before whom the boy confesses his sins. And thus the judgment of Easter communion itself, whether someone ought to receive it or ought for a time to abstain from reception of this kind, belongs, from Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, to one's own priest, that is, to the confessor. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 6. seqq., I. M. 560.

But as regards the place, no place is prescribed by common Law for first communion. A place in communion is not found determined in the Law except only for Easter communion. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 7. seqq. Therefore, if boys make first communion during Easter time and so that they may satisfy the Easter precept, then certainly, speaking per se, that communion seems to be received in the parish church.

As regards the exterior ceremony of first communion and its solemn form, this indeed belongs to the parish priest by right and obligation together, because of the good of the parish itself, which he is bound to promote; but it is established by no general law that this exterior ceremony and solemn form belongs exclusively to the parish priest. Indeed, the contrary is positively established from the Declarations of the Sacred Congregations, since a public ceremony of this kind is asserted to be of exclusively parochial right only in those places where legitimate prescription and custom vindicates this for itself. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 560. And, if it does not belong to the parish priest by exclusive right to admit boys to first communion, and first communion is not per se to be received in the parish church, how can the exterior ceremony and solemnity, which accompanies the first communion of boys, belong to the parish priest by exclusive right?

To the third. The custom of the parish priest of not admitting to first communion unless the boys are twelve years old cannot be approved, and consequently, speaking per se, the common practice of the other parish priests cannot be approved. For if boys of this kind are duly disposed, already before this age, from the Lateran Council, C. Omnis utriusque sexus, they can and ought to approach the sacred synaxis; and if they are duly disposed, as is supposed, they will receive it with due reverence and with fitting fruit. From this it appears that the practice of the other parish priests invoked by the parish priest, and the twofold reason of congruity which he brings forward, have altogether no force.

But as regards Aloysius, in that he himself, Stanislaus's confessor, after first obtaining the parents' consent, admitted Stanislaus to first communion, he acted altogether rightly, following in this matter the doctrine of the Roman Catechism n. 63. But in that he himself privately gave communion to Stanislaus during Easter time, he also does not seem to be blameworthy; but then Stanislaus is bound to receive communion again in the parish church, since he is now bound by the precept of Easter communion in his own parish. Finally, because Aloysius gave communion to Stanislaus on Easter day itself, generally speaking, he seems blameworthy; since on Easter day it is commonly prohibited to distribute communion to the people in other churches besides parochial ones. I. M. 528. But in the Case there can be no difficulty concerning the exterior ceremony and solemn form; for this regards the first communion of several boys together. M. E. v. 10. p. 2. p. 22.

7. Leonard, a presbyter, returning from a journey with other friends, very fatigued, sits down at table at half past the eleventh hour of the night, so that he may be briefly refreshed. But while talking and eating with his friends, time flows by as quickly as possible, so that, astonished, he notices while drinking that midnight has already passed. Nevertheless, since on the following feast day he cannot omit Mass without offense to the people, he celebrates Mass without scruple.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Leonard, who cannot omit Mass except with scandal or offense of the people, can probably celebrate, because it is better to avoid the greater evil, or scandal of the people; for it is a lesser evil to celebrate Mass than for the whole people to be offended with scandal, and to be deprived of Mass on such a day. Thus grave theologians against others. See La-Croix n. 582." Thus Fr. Gury 294. 299. 300., I. M. 595.

Nevertheless, the following Decision of the Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874, must be attended to: "Whether, by reason of scandal or wonder, the second Mass after the first can ever be celebrated when the fast has already been broken? - R. Negatively." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 793., E. M. 595.

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

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

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

We must treat: 1. of the power of the Minister; 2. of the obligation of the same; 3. of the things required for ministering rightly; 4. of the manner of ministering the Holy Eucharist to the sick; 5. of the manner of preserving it.

The Minister of the Eucharist is twofold, namely one of consecration, another of dispensation.

288. Principles. - I. Every Priest, and only a Priest, 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 would succeed them in the priesthood: Do this in commemoration of me, Luke 22.19; therefore all and only Priests received this power from Christ; 2. from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 2, 3; 3. finally from the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church.

II. Only priests or presbyters are the ordinary Ministers of the dispensation of the Eucharist. This is clear: 1. from the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 8, where it is said: It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive Communion from Priests, but that celebrating Priests communicate themselves; 2. from the universal practice of the Church.

289. • III. Deacons, by force of their ordination, are extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, so that the dispensation of this Sacrament 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, for example the first general Council of Nicaea, the fourth of Carthage, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 237.

IV. By ordinary right only the Parish Priest, or his Superior, can dispense the Eucharist. For this jurisdiction is required, not indeed for the value of the act as in absolution, but for the due order of ministering. This is clear: 1. from the Councils, especially from the first of Carthage, can. 7, and from Milevis, can. 18, etc.; 2. from the universal practice of the Church. Hence he who without license at least presumed of the Parish Priest ministers the Eucharist violates his right in a grave matter, and therefore sins gravely. Nevertheless, when the Parish Priest grants to others license of celebrating in his Church, he is always judged also to grant license of ministering the Eucharist unless he expresses the contrary; this is also confirmed by common practice ¹. - St. Ligorius, n. 250 and following.

¹ Indeed custom has it that in whatever church a priest celebrates Mass, he can distribute the Eucharist to the faithful who desire to become participants of it.

Nevertheless license is not so easily to be presumed if it is a question of receiving the Eucharist from obligation. - See St. Ligorius, n. 235. Wherefore, as to Paschal Communion, custom must be observed ²; likewise, to minister Viaticum outside a case of necessity without the license of the Parish Priest is illicit.

² Elsewhere (vol. I, n. 480) it was noted that by law and by the universal practice of the Church Paschal Communion is to be received in each one's own parish. But if somewhere any different custom flourishes, this certainly supposes the consent of those who have the right of disposing concerning these things.

290. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether, in order that a Deacon may minister, the necessity must be extreme?

Resp. No, with the common opinion; but grave necessity suffices, namely when there is no Priest present who can conveniently minister the Eucharist. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 236. - Lugo. - But for this the commission of the Bishop or Parish Priest is required.

QUESTION 2. Whether, or in what circumstances, Religious can minister the Most Holy Eucharist?

Resp. 1. They can always minister the Eucharist in their own Churches, either by themselves or through other Priests, except on Easter day ³. Thus from the privileges of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Paul III and Paul IV.

³ At Rome Thursday in the Lord's Supper is also excepted.

Resp. 2. But they cannot minister the Eucharist: 1. in their own Churches on Easter day, as has just been said. Understand this if the discussion is about secular persons not serving the Monastery ⁴, even if they have already previously satisfied the precept of annual Communion in their own parish. Thus often the Sacred Congregation of the Council. Nevertheless some assert that there is a constant contrary custom, which builds up a right. - St. Ligorius, n. 240 ⁵. 2. In other Churches, unless with the license at least

⁴ Those serving, who can receive Paschal Communion in the churches of Regulars, are not to be understood as just any persons whatever, but those who are permanent table-companions of the Regulars and dwell in the monasteries, or, as the Synod of Trent has it (sess. 24, c. 11), who actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience.

⁵ Thus indeed St. Alphonsus (l.c.): Roncaglia (tr. 18, c. 4, q. 2, r. 2) and Wigandt (tr. 12, exam. 4, n. 48) assert that in this there is a constant contrary custom which supplies jurisdiction. But this assertion in reality is Roncaglia's alone; for Wigandt merely says that modern practice does not disapprove this. But Roncaglia indeed calls as witnesses of that undisciplined assertion Cardinal De Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 18, n. 50) and Fagundez (De III Praec. Eccl., lib. 1, c. 5, n. 9). But neither of these has anything about such a constant custom; each says only this one thing, that that prohibition, lest Regulars distribute the Eucharist on Easter day, can probably be understood only of Communion by which the faithful satisfy the Paschal precept, but not of Communion which is made from devotion. But I called the assertion undisciplined; for since those Doctors attribute to Regulars the faculty of distributing the Eucharist on Easter day as not contrary to pontifical Constitutions, those things which Doctors are accustomed to dispute about custom conferring jurisdiction pertain nothing here.

Besides, the aforesaid interpretation of the Apostolic Constitutions shows itself to be sufficiently improbable. For when the Supreme Pontiffs conceded to Regulars the privilege that, even in Paschal time, except however on Easter day, they could distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, it is manifest that there was not given to them a faculty by which on the remaining days besides Easter day the faithful receiving the Eucharist from Regulars would satisfy the Paschal precept; rather, it was permitted that they could receive Communion from devotion. Therefore the exception of Easter day pertains also to Communion to be received from mere devotion, and not to Communion by which the ecclesiastical precept is satisfied. And since the Sacred Congregation of the Council has already defined this question several times in this way (see the resolutions cited in Benedict XIV, De Synod., lib. 9, chap. 16, n. 3), these things ought not further to return into controversy.

** The VV. warn (p. 951, n. 94, with note 1) that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 240) only reports the judgment of others; but that his own opinion is to be taken from Homo apostolicus (tr. 12, n. 41), and thus the difficulty which Father Ballerini raises disappears.

Resp. 1. In the Note the difficulty was raised concerning the assertions of Roncaglia, and concerning St. Alphonsus it was merely noted that perhaps he had less to the point associated Wigandt with Roncaglia. But what is said in the Note concerning Roncaglia the VV. seem to have approved by their silence. Besides, whether the St. Doctor was merely reporting, or also thought that account should be taken of Roncaglia's assertions, was passed over altogether. Indeed the words of St. Alphonsus are these: Benedict XIV reports, De Synod., lib. 7, c. 42, that the Sacred Congregation declared that Regulars cannot on Easter day minister the Eucharist to those communicating from devotion. But Roncaglia and Wigandt assert that there is a constant contrary custom which supplies jurisdiction. Now this manner of speaking seems to belong to those who judge that the things reported in the first place are opposed by the things which they then add with the adversative particle but.

Resp. 2. As to what the VV. add, that the opinion of St. Alphonsus is to be drawn from Homo apostolicus, I, however, suspect that there will not be lacking those who think more tolerable the opinion which we have reported from the Moral work. The words of St. Alphonsus (Hom. Ap., tr. 12, n. 41) are of this sort: Indeed in Benedict XIV there is a Decree of the Sacred Congregation, July 9, 1644, and confirmed on June 11, 1650, by which it was established that Bishops can forbid Regulars to minister the Eucharist on Easter day to secular persons, even if they themselves had satisfied the precept of the Church. And although on June 31, 1687, the same Sacred Congregation, at the instance of the parish priests of Louvain, who contended that the Fathers of the Society of Jesus could not minister the Eucharist through the whole Paschal time, gave response that they could minister, except on Easter day, nevertheless it must be understood with the prohibition of the Bishop presupposed. But you would call this opinion especially entangled. For, with regard to the context, those last words of the St. Doctor, with the prohibition of the Bishop presupposed, insinuate that Regulars cannot minister the Eucharist on Easter day only because the prohibition of the Bishop stands in the way, as though, namely, Regulars by their own right, unless the Bishop prohibits it, can minister the Eucharist on that day. But this can be admitted by no reason. And indeed Benedict XIV himself (De Synod., lib. 9, c. 16, n. 3) expressly recalls that in the privilege for Regulars concerning ministering the Eucharist granted by Paul IV and St. Pius V, the day alone of Easter of the Lord's resurrection is expressly excepted. And below he adds that the Sacred Congregation has often judged that on the solemn day of Easter alone Regulars are absolutely prohibited from presenting the Eucharist in their own Churches to secular persons, etc. And again, ibid., n. 5: In the Apostolic privileges the faculty is given to Regulars of ministering the sacred Eucharist in their own Churches to secular persons, the day of Easter of the Resurrection of the Lord being expressly and by name excepted. Therefore, even setting aside the Bishop's prohibition, it is in no way permitted to Regulars to present the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day; for from the premises this is manifestly guarded by higher and more general law, namely Pontifical law. Indeed, if it is not lawful for Regulars to distribute the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day, both because the privileges granted to them concerning the administration of this Sacrament expressly except this day, and because the Apostolic Constitutions expressly forbid them the administration of the Eucharist through that day, and finally because through multiple Decrees of the Sacred Congregation the prohibition of this administration has been declared and repeatedly confirmed, it is certainly sufficiently clear that this very thing is not in any way to be repeated from some supposed prohibition of the Bishop.

But you will say: 1. Does not Benedict XIV (De Synod., l.c., n. 5) have these things: But there would be no place for complaint of the Regulars if the Bishop forbade them to dare to minister the sacred Eucharist to any of the seculars on the solemn day of the Resurrection? 2. Does not the Decree of the Sacred Congregation, July 9, 1644, say that Bishops can forbid the same Regulars that they administer the said Sacrament of the Eucharist to secular persons on Easter day?

Resp. I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence. Certainly no place would remain for the complaints of Regulars, since they ought to know that the administration of the Eucharist on that day is forbidden to them by so many Apostolic sanctions. Likewise the Bishop could certainly require and urge that what has been sanctioned by so many Apostolic Decrees be handed over to execution. But it does not follow from this that the administration of the Eucharist is lawful for Regulars if no prohibition of the Bishop has intervened.

291. Principles. - I. A Parish Priest, or any Priest having care of souls, is bound from justice to minister the Eucharist to his subjects not only at Easter and in death, but also whenever they reasonably ask, yet a legitimate cause of impediment being excluded. The reason is that it belongs to the Parish Priest from a quasi-contract to provide not only that the faithful fulfill the precepts, but also that they not lack helps which greatly profit spiritual progress. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 8.

II. Any Priest, whether secular or regular, is bound, when the Parish Priest is lacking, to minister the Eucharist to one about to die; otherwise in other cases. The reason of the first is that anyone from charity is bound to come to the aid of his neighbor placed in so great an extremity by this salutary and most efficacious remedy. The reason of the second is clear. For no obligation intervenes, whether from justice, since there is no contract, or from charity, since a case of necessity is not supposed to be present.

292. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the Parish Priest is bound also to seek out the sick who are not asking for the Eucharist, in order that he may minister it to them?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, at least if they are in grave danger of death. The reason is that it is the office of a good Pastor to take care that this so salutary remedy be supplied to his sheep constituted in so great a danger. It is besides gathered from Canon Law, title On the celebration of Masses.

QUESTION 2. Whether the Parish Priest is bound to minister the Eucharist to his subjects by himself?

Resp. No. For it suffices if he provides that whoever opportunely asks, or needs, is not deprived of the same. Therefore he can fulfill the obligation even through others. Nevertheless he must take care lest he seem idle and unconcerned if he habitually fulfills his duties through others.

QUESTION 3. Whether the Parish Priest sins gravely whenever he denies the Eucharist to one reasonably asking?

Resp. No. For if he rarely does this, for example toward one or another, scandal or grave sadness of the petitioner being excluded, he will sin only venially. The reason is that thus neither grave injury nor grave harm is inflicted, and if there is harm, it can easily be repaired. - Thus all. - Recall the things said on the Sacraments in general, n. 216.

QUESTION 4. Whether the Parish Priest is bound to minister the Eucharist even with danger of life, for example in time of plague or contagious disease?

Resp. No, very probably with St. Ligorius, n. 233. - See the things said, n. 214. Nevertheless certain persons affirm, relying on the doctrine of Benedict XIV, De Syn. dioec., lib. 13, c. 19.

293. • QUESTION 5. When is the Parish Priest judged to be excused from ministering the Eucharist to subjects asking?

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

“29. The doctrine of the Synod, in that part in which, undertaking to hand down the doctrine of faith concerning the rite of consecration, with scholastic questions concerning the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist set aside—from which it exhorts Pastors exercising the office of teaching to abstain—proposes only these two things: 1. that Christ after the consecration is truly, really, and substantially under the species; 2. that then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, only the species remaining; but entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or of the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith—insofar as, through an ill-advised and suspicious omission of this kind, knowledge is withdrawn both of an article pertaining to the faith and of the word consecrated by the Church for safeguarding its profession against heresies, and thus tends to induce forgetfulness of it, as though it concerned a merely scholastic question—is pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth concerning the dogma of transubstantiation, and favorable to heretics.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“...In this Church Jesus Christ Himself is both Priest and Sacrifice, whose Body and Blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, the bread having been transubstantiated into the Body and the wine into the Blood by divine power, so that, for perfecting the mystery of unity, we ourselves may receive from what is His that which He Himself received from what is ours. And assuredly no one can confect this Sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself granted to the Apostles and their successors.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“We firmly believe and confess that, however honorable, religious, holy, and prudent anyone may be, he cannot or ought not consecrate the Eucharist or confect the Sacrifice of the altar unless he is a priest regularly ordained by a visible and tangible Bishop. For this office three things, as we believe, are necessary: namely, a certain person, that is, a priest appointed by a Bishop, as we have said, properly to that office, and those solemn words which were expressed in the Canon by the Holy Fathers, and the faithful intention of the one pronouncing them. Therefore we firmly believe and confess that whoever, without a preceding episcopal ordination as we have said, believes and contends that he can offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is a heretic and a participant and associate in the perdition of Korah and his accomplices, and is to be separated from the whole Holy Roman Church.” Profession of faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

“In the administration of Holy Communion, the versicles and the prayer Deus qui nobis are of precept; but the blessing is always to be given, with the single exception of the case when it is given immediately before or after a Mass of the Dead, under the formula The blessing of God, etc.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 August 1892, Esztergom, response to 10.

“The prayers are to be said during the ablution and wiping of the fingers.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 January 1898.—In the administration of the Most Holy Eucharist during Easter time, before or after a Requiem Mass, the prayer and versicles of the season must be said, with the Alleluia omitted. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 November 1878, Siena.

“Whether the stole for administering the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass must always be of the color agreeing with the Office of that day, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, or whether it may also be white, as being most fitting for the Sacred Eucharist, as many Doctors judge?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 March 1836, Trent, response to 12.

“A priest returning to the altar after the Communion of the faithful must genuflect before he covers the sacred ciborium, and must genuflect again before, after the ciborium has been replaced in the tabernacle, he closes the little door of the tabernacle itself.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 December 1862, Rome.

“The Superior General of the Order of St. John of God humbly petitioned the Sacred Congregation of Rites that it deign to resolve the following doubts concerning the manner, in force in the hospitals of his Order, of carrying Holy Communion within Mass to the sick, namely: 1. After the Confiteor, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, and Domine non sum dignus have been recited at the altar, can it be permitted that the priest carry Holy Communion in the ciborium without a humeral veil to the sick, accompanied at least by 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. Can Holy Communion be carried in the aforesaid manner not only throughout the whole hospital, or at the part behind the altar, but also in certain rooms from which, although the altar cannot be seen, the voice of the priest celebrating is nevertheless heard? 3. Can it be permitted that, in place of the priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick, another person, even a layman, recite the prayers?—Response. To the first and second: There is nothing to prevent it, provided, however, that in carrying the Most Holy Sacrament an umbrella is employed without exception. To the third: There is nothing to prevent those present from reciting certain prayers while the Sacred Eucharist is being distributed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 February 1874, Order of St. John of God.

“Is it lawful for one celebrating in a private or religious house to carry Holy Communion before the purification, for the sake of devotion and not by way of Viaticum, to a sick person staying in the same house, although it is necessary to ascend to the upper part of the house and to pass through another corridor?—Response. It is not lawful, according to the decree in the case of Florence, 19 December 1829, response to 1; but if necessity presses, let it be done after Mass has been completed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Genoa.

“During the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the administration of Viaticum, especially in hospitals, is it lawful to withdraw from the altar as far as the bed of the sick, meanwhile reciting the psalm Miserere, as is customarily done outside Mass?—Response. Negative as regards the psalm Miserere. Moreover, it is to be noted that if the celebrant, for the administration of Viaticum within Mass, loses the altar from his sight, this administration is not lawful.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 December 1829, Florence, response to 1.

In carrying the Most Holy Sacrament, women cannot precede, carry the umbrella and torches, or ring the small bells. “If women wish to carry lights, let them follow the priest.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 December 1903.

“To the sick who are near death, of whatever condition they may be, even though they dwell in a sordid and vile place or hut, let the Viaticum of the Most Holy Eucharist be carried, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and for our salvation He shrank neither from the stable nor from the ignominy of the Cross.” Alexander VII, Constitution Sacrosancti, 18 January 1658.

“...As soon as the Sacred Congregation learned that, in certain dioceses of that region, the custom, or rather abuse, had gained strength whereby priests carried the Most Holy Sacrament with them from morning until evening solely because they might perhaps encounter some sick person, it judged that the Metropolitans were to be written to, so that it might declare that custom to be wholly abhorrent to the practice of the Church.... Issue such decrees by which the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament is restricted only to urgent causes and to the actual exercise of priestly ministry....” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 25 February 1853.

“But where the violence and iniquity of the Turks prevails, let the priest always keep his stole covered by his own clothing; let him enclose the ciborium in a small bag or burse, suspend it from his neck by cords, and place it within his bosom; and let him never proceed alone, but be accompanied by at least one of the faithful if a cleric is lacking.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter omnigenas, 2 February 1744.

“Sacred Viaticum can be carried to the sick without a stole in a case of necessity.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 September 1739, for China.

“...1. Whether it can be lawful for the missionaries of these regions to administer the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick secretly and without a light and stole when it cannot be administered otherwise? ... 2. Whether the Apostolic Vicar can permit the missionaries to 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 for the Most Holy Eucharist if it were lawful to administer it without surplice and stole.—Response. To the first: Affirmative, for it concerns a faculty already granted by the Supreme Pontiffs. To the second: Affirmative, and as regards those detained for a time, insofar as they request it, yet at the judgment and prudence of the Apostolic Vicar.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 9 December 1822 and 5 July 1854.

“Can it 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, may secretly receive it in their own hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be recognized and apprehended?—Response. Affirmative, provided that so great a Sacrament is exposed to no irreverence or other danger.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 July 1841.

“Whenever the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist can respectively be carried to the sick either publicly or secretly, it is to be carried. But if, either because of the prohibition of the magistrates or for another cause, danger of sacrilege and irreverence is feared, let celebration be permitted in a more nearly situated fitting place, and, if no fitting place is available, in the house of the sick person itself, provided that a fitting place is likewise available there.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 December 1668; C. 709, 718.

“A Pastor is not to be reproved who carries Holy Viaticum to a sick person on Friday in Parasceve, provided that privately and in a low, indeed in the lowest, voice he recites the customary psalms along the public ways, even if he says Gloria Patri, etc.; because in such a circumstance an action of this kind has nothing in common with the functions of the Church on this day. And it is to be considered that he carries it with a white stole and cope, when on the aforesaid Friday the color of the vestments is black for the functions of the Church. Therefore, if he carries it privately because of some necessity, he is not to be reproved if he dismisses the people without a blessing on Friday in Parasceve, because it ought not to be replaced in the public church.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 15 May 1745, Lucca.

“In carrying the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist for administering Sacred Viaticum publicly to the sick, but without a canopy, the abuse is not to be tolerated whereby the Pastor or minister proceeds along the way with his head covered, while the faithful nevertheless walk with heads uncovered.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1872, Toledo, response to 2.

“In view of the circumstances (the greatest difficulty of the places), the Sacred Congregation of Rites committed it to the Most Reverend Bishop that, according to his judgment and prudence, he may grant that the Pastor and administrators of this kind, in these circumstances, may carry Sacred Viaticum while riding and with the head covered by a hat, accompanied by at least one man, if it can be done, carrying a lighted lantern.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 May 1846, Bisignano.

“It is lawful to carry Viaticum without any pomp and in an almost private manner whenever it is to be administered to sick persons dwelling very far from the parish church and it is necessary to pass through pathless, distant, and inaccessible places; and let the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual be observed, and let the decree in the one case of Bisignano, 23 May 1846, be given.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 January 1878, Templen, response to 7.

“Whether the rule of the Parisian Ritual expressed thus can safely be followed: If, when Communion is to be given, a sufficient number of hosts has not been found, can some hosts be divided into several particles which are to be distributed to the individuals?—Response. Let the custom of dividing the consecrated hosts be observed if necessity is present.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1833, Verona, response to 1.

“Let Bishops, Pastors, or confessors admonish that no one is to be given several Eucharistic forms or particles, nor larger ones, but only the customary ones.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 February 1679.

“The carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament outside a church is not permitted except on the solemn occasion of a procession on the feast and throughout the octave of Corpus Christi, and likewise on the occasion of the sick and of the Forty Hours’ Prayer according to the decrees of the sacred canons; and in the aforesaid cases the clergy with a cross must always take part.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 June 1638, Sulmona.

"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.

"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.

"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.

— 1. "The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest alone" (c. 845, §1). For in itself it belongs to him who consecrates to dispense the consecrated thing. The priest is called the ordinary minister, insofar as the power of order received by him directly regards this ministration of the Most Holy Eucharist.

2. Yet licit administration requires some pastoral power, or jurisdiction, either proper or delegated, because to feed the sheep, which is done most especially through the sacraments, is proper to the pastor.

From the office itself, this dispensation belongs to Ordinaries, to Superiors of exempt clerical religions, and to those who are pastors or quasi-pastors; then to the confessor of nuns, or to him who takes his place, and to the chaplain of another lay religion (c. 514).

Delegation, however, is conceded by the immediate or mediate pastor, or can be conferred by the law itself. Indeed, because administration is always valid, the law grants the faculty also to him who reasonably presumes it.

3. By the law itself of the Code, the faculty is granted to every rector of a church, as we indirectly gather from c. 846, §2, which recognizes that rector as the author of the license of dispensing; then to every priest within Mass; indeed, when he is at the altar clothed with sacred ornaments, before and after his Mass, if this is private. Yet the prohibition of the local Ordinary is reserved, who for just causes and in particular cases can forbid the ministration in a private oratory (cc. 846, §1 and 869).

Therefore a bishop or local Ordinary could not by a general decree forbid Communion in private oratories; but just causes must be present for prohibiting Communion either in such an oratory, or on such a day, because of extraordinary circumstances.

The liturgical reason itself persuades that the Communion of the faithful can be joined with every celebration of Mass. About the Mass alone which, from the Code, can be sung in parish and collegiate churches on the night of the Nativity of the Lord, there used to be held a probable exception, which now can safely be denied, after the declaration given to the bishop of Tuguegarao, which appeared in Cultura social, Manila, April 1920, p. 225.

4. The same law of the Code grants the faculty of distributing Communion even outside Mass to a visiting priest, from the license, either formal or at least presumed, of the rector of the church. I say to a visiting priest: for priests attached to the church are judged to have this habitual license.

Already by the decree of November 28, 1912, of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (Per., VII, 70), by which Pius X removed the prohibition of ministering Holy Communion on Easter day in non-parochial churches, especially regular ones, and while the law of the Code is in force, not even during the paschal time can the Ordinary or pastor authoritatively inhibit Communion joined with Masses. Yet because nothing compels a priest to dispense Communion, Christian charity will sometimes counsel him to obey the pastor who desires to communicate the sheep by his own hand.

5. What in itself is lawful to every rector of a church is confirmed, in the churches of regulars, by pontifical privileges which, after the decree of Pius X just alleged, hold for every day of the year.

6. The custom by which, for example in the City, Communion on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord is reserved to parochial churches, since it is opposed to cc. 867 and 869, cannot be preserved unless it has been centenary, and the local Ordinary has judged that it cannot prudently be removed. Yet its observance is inculcated each year by His Eminence the Cardinal Vicar, in the letters concerning Lent.

— The "extraordinary minister is the deacon, with the license of the local Ordinary or of the pastor, to be conceded for a grave cause, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed" (c. 845, §2). Therefore not every priest, but only he who enjoys the ordinary power of dispensing the Eucharist (cf. n. 385, 2), can give this license to a deacon. In a church, therefore, that is non-parochial and merely secular, the license of the rector does not suffice. But if the pastor cannot conveniently be approached, his license can be presumed, provided a sufficiently urgent cause is added. A grave cause, however, must be judged similar to that which suffices for baptism to be conferred by a deacon (cf. n. 238). This will be, for example, if otherwise several faithful must wait long for the occasion of Communion: which word "long," with attention to the quality of the faithful and the very hour at which they ask, is to be weighed relatively. Augustine, on this canon, too severely requires the necessity of Viaticum or of paschal Communion in order that the license be presumed (cf. Cappello, I, 330).

A deacon unduly ministering Holy Communion, or a pastor unduly committing the matter to a deacon, in itself sins gravely, since they violate in a notable matter the rules of the hierarchy of order. Yet the deacon does not thereby become irregular, because he is the extraordinary minister of the Most Holy Eucharist, so that he does not usurp an order not his own (cf. Cappello, I, n. 332).

In a case of extreme necessity, or of a public reason, as if Catholics, especially priests, unjustly detained in prison and liable to graver penalties, must be refreshed by the sacred banquet, anyone, even a layperson, will be able, scandal being excluded, to communicate both others and himself (cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, July 21, 1841, Coll., n. 928). Then this prevails: the sacraments are for men. But, if it can be done, those laypersons or inferior clerics will have to conduct themselves according to the instructions of the Ordinary or pastor.

Laypersons or inferior clerics unduly ministering the Holy Eucharist become irregular, from c. 985, 7.

Where another priest is lacking, a priest will more easily be able, the wonder of the faithful being removed, to communicate himself, when he cannot perform sacred things, even from devotion alone. And rather than commit this to a deacon, let him communicate himself. Nor do we think this to be grave, if it has been done unduly.

— Concerning Communion to be carried to the sick, the Code has these things.

1. It is to be carried publicly, unless a just and reasonable cause suggests otherwise (c. 847).

2. The public carrying to the sick pertains, as a right and office, to the pastor of the territory, so that others cannot do this except in a case of necessity or with the license, at least presumed, of the pastor or Ordinary (c. 848).

3. Private carrying is permitted to any priest, with the permission, at least presumed, not now of the pastor alone, but of some priest to whom the custody of the Most Holy Eucharist has been committed. But the norms prescribed by the Holy See concerning the rite then to be used must be observed accurately.

4. Yet the carrying of Holy Communion in the manner of Viaticum is reserved to the pastor of the territory in which the sick person lies, unless it concerns a bishop, to whom the canons, according to the order of precedence, must minister the sacraments of the sick (c. 397, 3°); or a professed religious, novice, or another person who, because of service, education, hospitality, or infirm health, dwells day and night in the house of a clerical religion: for then it is the right and office of the religious Superiors (c. 514, §1); or a house of nuns, even where solemn vows have been suppressed: for then it pertains to the ordinary confessor, or to him who takes his place (c. 514, §2); or even another lay religion, for which the Ordinary has substituted a chaplain for the pastor (c. 514, §3).

But it is clear that the same ministration is lawful to another priest in a case of necessity, or with the license, at least presumed, of him whose right and office it is.

Concerning these norms, these few things must be observed:

a) A reasonable cause for carrying the Eucharist secretly to a sick person can be varied and from a diverse source: danger of public irreverence, in places of non-Catholics or in cities where not a few are contemners of religion; opposition of the family of the sick person, which fears, for example, lest, if it becomes known that there is a sick person in the house of business, it may be abandoned by customers or less frequented; the timidity of the sick person himself, and much more fear lest he come into suspicion of a previous sacrilege; inconveniences of too frequent public carrying; refusal of public carrying made by the pastor, as if he has determined, even with the Ordinary approving, that Holy Communion is to be carried openly to the sick only twice or three times in the week. For it is consonant with the present discipline that the use of daily Communion be preferred to public carrying by which the former is impeded. Moreover, the judge of a reasonable cause is not only the Ordinary or pastor, but also, and indeed in the first place, the confessor, spiritual father, indeed any priest to whom it is lawful to minister Holy Communion. Yet one must act prudently and peaceably; wherefore, unless the law of secrecy is an obstacle, priests should act according to the direction of their Superior. He, however, in turn must compose matters according to the norms of the Holy See; nor can he prefer the discipline of public carrying to such a degree that therefore the sick can now be refreshed by the sacred banquet only once or twice in the week.

b) Observe, concerning public carrying itself, that cases can occur where a license denied by the pastor is reasonably presumed by the will of the Ordinary.

c) When the Most Holy Eucharist is carried secretly, the license of any rector of a church or custodian of the Most Holy Eucharist suffices, because this administration is assimilated to administration which is done in a church. But the Ordinary cannot take away or restrict a faculty made by the law itself. Wherefore statutes are no longer to be consulted to see whether others besides pastors can use that faculty or not.

The norms of the Holy See are contained in the rite proposed by Benedict XIV: "The priest should always have the stole covered by his own garments; he should put the pyx away in a little bag or burse, which, hung from the neck by cords, he should place in his bosom; and he should never proceed alone, but should be accompanied by at least one faithful person, in default of a cleric." Yet the last rubric is neglected in more than one place, and not rarely in the City itself. This indeed is little to be praised; nevertheless no one ought, with some inconvenience, to depart from a received manner, if he is ready to obey Superiors who urge the law.

d) Viaticum, strictly accepted, is the Communion which in grave danger of death is to be made by divine and ecclesiastical precept. Accepted more broadly, it is the Communion which a sick person dangerously lying ill makes from devotion, especially not fasting (cc. 864 and 858). Lest, against the mind of the Code, we make more difficult the sacramental refreshment of those who have greater need of it, we understand the Viaticum whose ministration is reserved to the pastor or others of Viaticum strictly accepted, or prescribed. Wherefore it will be lawful for another priest to bring Communion to a sick person who is not fasting, after the pastor has ministered the necessary Viaticum. And because there is no obligation that, when danger arises, Viaticum be received immediately, we shall permit the same before that ministration, provided that at an opportune time the proper pastor is called for administering the sacraments which are called the last. And unless you concede this, it will happen very often, because of prejudices and fears of soul, that those lying dangerously ill remain long deprived, in their greater necessity, of so great a help of heavenly food.

N. B. By the Code the excommunication formerly imposed against regulars who, the due license having been omitted, ministered Viaticum to seculars has been removed.

— I. The ordinary minister, or he who has full power of order for this, is the priest. Licit dispensation of Communion pertains to the Ordinary, to pastors or quasi-pastors; to those whom they or the law itself delegate; and to those who reasonably presume the faculty. The law grants the faculty to every rector of a church; to every celebrant within Mass, indeed immediately before or after a private sacred action, if he is or has remained prepared for Mass.

The extraordinary minister is the deacon, with the license of the local Ordinary or pastor. The concession requires a grave cause, as if otherwise several faithful would have to wait long for the occasion of Communion; and in a case of necessity the faculty can legitimately be presumed.

In a case of extreme necessity, a layperson can communicate himself and others. It will be much more easily lawful for a priest to communicate himself by his own hand.

II. In itself the carrying to the sick must be public; and then it belongs to the pastor or Ordinary of the territory. Private carrying, the rite being observed, for a reasonable cause, which the priest himself can prudently judge, is permitted with the permission at least presumed of the priest who keeps the Most Holy Eucharist. Prescribed Viaticum, except in necessity or with license obtained, is reserved to the pastor; to the religious Superior for subjects and for those who dwell day and night in the house of a clerical religion; to the ordinary confessor or him who takes his place, for nuns; and to the chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor for other religious.

— I. At What Time. 1. On what day. Except Friday in Parasceve, on which only Viaticum may be carried to the sick, on all days it is lawful in the Latin Church to distribute the Most Holy Eucharist. On Holy Saturday, however, "Holy Communion cannot be ministered to the faithful except during the solemnities of Masses, or continuously and immediately after they have been completed" (c. 867, §§1-3).

The Viaticum which alone it is lawful to distribute on Friday of the Greater Week must be understood as prescribed Viaticum, or that which is received for the first time in danger of death, for example, by a priest who had celebrated the sacred function healthy and then was brought into danger of life; but not that which, while the danger continues, is laudably repeated. On Holy Saturday, because it is an aliturgical day, only that Communion is permitted which is joined with Mass by a continuous connection. Moreover, Communion seems sufficiently joined with the solemnities when, immediately after the sacred action, from the very altar where it was celebrated, it is carried to the sick enclosed under the same roof. Nor is the prohibition of other Communion so grave that a cause would not excuse from it such as, not so long ago before the Code, the Sacred Congregation of Rites itself approved. For it declared it lawful that, for men who had completed spiritual exercises and could not wait for the solemnities of Masses, Communion be dispensed on Holy Saturday quite early in the morning (Ferreres, La Communion frecuente y diaria, nn. 176-177).

2. At what hour. "Holy Communion is to be distributed only at those hours at which the sacrifice of Mass can be offered, unless another reasonable cause counsels otherwise" (c. 867, §4).

The canon, in this favorable matter of Holy Communion, can be understood in such a way that the privilege of anticipating Mass is extended to Communion. And such is the style of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. Moreover, a reasonable cause permits an exception, so that he who has remained fasting for a long time, even after midday, in order to receive it, should never be deprived of the sacred banquet. When the function of Thursday in the Supper of the Lord has been celebrated, Masses can no longer be said in the same church; in reality, from that hour the faculty of distributing Holy Communion there also seems to cease, especially since the sacred species must be removed. Yet a reasonable cause also suffices for derogating from this rule.

"Holy Viaticum can be ministered at any hour of the day or night" (c. 867, §5).

By this canon the prohibition of the Ritual, t. 4, c. 10, by which, except in necessity, nocturnal carrying of the Eucharist was prohibited, is removed. Since secret carrying is rather easily permitted, the very reason for the prohibition now no longer seems to subsist.

— II. In What Place. Wherever Mass can be celebrated, there also Holy Communion can be distributed, even in a private oratory, "unless the local Ordinary, for just causes, in particular cases, has prohibited this" (c. 869).

The power of the Ordinary to forbid dispensation of the Holy Eucharist is circumscribed by private oratory; nor would it be lawful for a bishop to prohibit Communion in private oratories by a general statute; but it is necessary that particular causes counsel that this be done in a particular case. Not even paschal Communion in itself is prohibited from being made in a private oratory, with the notification to be given to one's own pastor from c. 859, §3 being preserved.

— III. By What Rite. 1. A priest must always minister Holy Communion by his own rite, even to faithful of another rite. Yet, in urgent necessity, if a priest of a different rite is lacking, it is lawful for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to minister the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely, for a Latin or an Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread, to minister in leavened bread; but each must preserve his own rite of ministering (c. 851, §2).

Observe that the faculty is made not of consecrating a different species, but merely of ministering it. But necessity is not circumscribed by Viaticum. Therefore it will be had whenever a faithful person would be morally impeded from Communion on that day unless a priest ministered to him a species of a different rite. Suppose that in a place there is one church, which preserves leavened species. In the absence of a priest of the Eastern rite, a Latin priest will be able, by his own rite, to offer from the ciborium the leavened species to those who otherwise could not communicate. Yet he will not be able to do this if he has the opportunity of consecrating matter of his own rite.

2. In the Latin Church, dispensation under the species of wine is prohibited (c. 852), even, as they commonly understand, if the necessity of Viaticum cannot otherwise be provided for. Yet Cappello, I, n. 451, thinks that the divine precept of receiving Viaticum can be preferred to the ecclesiastical law, if no inconveniences are foreseen.

3. The communicant: a) is permitted to consult his own devotion, so that, for the sake of piety, he can receive a sacrament confected in another rite; b) is counseled to receive paschal Communion in his own rite; c) but the dying person must receive Viaticum in his own rite; yet, when necessity urges, he can receive it in any rite (c. 866). But the minister must follow his own rite in ministering.

— 4. In dispensing the Eucharist, the sacred minister, and in receiving it the faithful communicant, must exhibit to the most august sacrament the reverence which reason and the canons require, so that it is better to abstain from ministering the sacrament than to admit positive irreverence.

Therefore:

a) Within Mass it is not lawful for the celebrant to distribute the Eucharist to faithful so distant that he himself loses sight of the altar (c. 868).

Places so distant can be had even in a great basilica. Yet we saw the moderation admitted in hospitals at n. 321, 3;

b) He must put on sacred vestments and use a light. The omission of light is judged venial; nor is the omission of the stole alone or of the surplice alone thought grave, but certainly the omission of every sacred vestment is, unless necessity urges. But what must in itself be observed in secret carrying, we saw above, n. 387, d). Yet these rules do not oblige under mortal sin. Thus it is also reputed venial to omit sacred vestments and a light in carrying the Most Holy from one altar to another.

Outside Mass the color of the stole can be that of the day or white;

c) He must proceed with a moderate step. Scandal being set aside, however, several permit that the priest run. From necessity it is lawful to use a gentle horse, or a carriage, even an automobile. It does not seem becoming, unless it is excused by the necessity of Viaticum, that the priest use the instrument commonly called a bicycle or motorcycle. The Sacred Congregation, when asked about this matter, abstained from an absolute prohibition, but warned that this manner was unusual. Here attention must be paid to episcopal statutes;

d) The Most Holy Eucharist is to be carried publicly with head uncovered. Dispensation outside cities was permitted to bishops; within a city it is reserved to the Holy See. Yet in a case of true necessity, by epikeia, they allowed that the priest cover his head, unless he could provide in a better way. But the better way now is secret carrying;

e) Holy Communion is to be given by one's own hand, and indeed by thumb and index finger. To use other fingers seems venial; from which the reason of not depriving the dying person or several healthy persons, why not one?, of Holy Communion will excuse. Yet if another priest is present, let him distribute Communion with thumb and index finger rather than another with other fingers.

And if the sick person cannot receive or swallow the host otherwise, they permit that, not too frequently, a particle of the host be offered to him in a spoon, with wine or water, provided scandal and danger of falling to the ground are absent. Something similar can be done to avoid danger of contagion;

f) Neither a larger host nor several smaller ones at once can be handed to one communicant: to do this would be venial. But lest one or another wait long, part of the host of the sacrifice can be detached; larger hosts can be consecrated and distributed divided into smaller parts. Where there is need, the smaller hosts themselves can be divided into two, at most three, parts;

g) A minister is required under light obligation. If he is lacking, the priest can do all things by himself. Except for the responses, a woman cannot supply the minister; nor is it the custom that in church a woman recite the Confiteor. Yet a nun or sister in the cloister or in the room of the sick person is accustomed to recite the prayers;

h) The Confiteor with absolution is required under light obligation. The blessing at the end is also prescribed, unless you are clothed in black paraments. The other prayers of the Ritual also now seem to be prescribed. Cf. Ritual, 1913, and Cappello, I, n. 453;

i) A burse of a color similar to the stole is to be used, with a corporal: a pall does not suffice;

j) Communion cannot be ministered at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed. Wherefore, where there is only one altar, it will be better for a few moments to cover the Most Holy Sacrament with a veil, as is done while a sermon is held.

But it is tolerated that a priest clothed in vestments for Mass, when there is no easy supply of another priest, distribute Communion at another altar than that at which he has celebrated or is about to celebrate;

k) In itself, unless for a special cause the Ordinary has forbidden it in a domestic oratory, Communion can be distributed where it is lawful to celebrate (c. 869; cf. n. 421). And from there the Most Holy Eucharist can also be carried by any celebrant for "devotional" Communion to the sick who are lying in a room of a hospital or house;

l) As we have already said above, n. 401, various signs of honor are not strictly prescribed, but nevertheless are piously to be observed, such as laying aside weapons, gloves, etc.

— Concerning Defects. The rubrics of the Missal, ch. De defectibus in the Missal itself, are to be approached if something extraordinary happens. We shall note only these things.

If the species of bread has fallen, the host with the fragments being reverently collected, the place is to be marked, afterward to be washed with water to be poured into the sacrarium. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 250, thinks the washing is required under grave obligation if the place is trodden by feet. Yet if it is morally established that nothing of consecrated matter remains there, we judge this to have been said too severely. And a washing which would move wonder is to be omitted, as in the beard of a man. If some host has fallen into the lap of a woman, let her herself draw it out separately and reverently and restore it to the priest.

But if a drop of blood has fallen, let it be absorbed, if it can be done, and the linen is to be washed three times. But if it has penetrated all the way to stone or wood, these things must be scraped somewhat, the scrapings burned, and the place washed three times. At least some washing, to be poured into the sacrarium, must be done under grave obligation.

— 1. Viaticum can be given on every day; Holy Communion on days other than Friday in Parasceve; on Holy Saturday only during the solemnities of Masses or continuously and immediately after they have been completed.

2. At the same hours at which Mass is offered, Holy Communion can be dispensed; but a reasonable cause permits an exception.

3. Where Mass is celebrated, Communion can be given. Yet the local Ordinary can prohibit this in a private oratory, in particular cases.

4. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be dispensed by one's own rite. Yet in urgent necessity a priest will be able to take a species of another rite already consecrated and offer it, by his own rite, to one about to communicate. Except for Viaticum, one can receive Communion of another rite.

5. Reverence in ministering is to be provided for, and therefore the rules must be observed concerning distance from the altar for the celebrant, vestments, light, movement, uncovered head, use of one's own hand, form of the host, the minister, the prayers of the Ritual, etc. And in the Missal itself the rubrics De defectibus explain what is to be done in an extraordinary case.

The minister of the Eucharist must consecrate, distribute, and reserve it. Hence we divide this chapter into three articles: 1. on the consecration of the Eucharist; 2. on its distribution; 3. on its reservation.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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:

1. 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

2. 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

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).

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.

1539. The prescribed order regards both the due place, and the time, and the rite; concerning this, these things are to be held:

I. With respect to place. The Most Holy Eucharist can be dispensed to the faithful in all churches or public oratories, but not in private oratories, unless by express permission of the Ordinary.¹⁴ It can also be dispensed in a private house, if a sick person is to be communicated.

1540. II. With respect to time. The dispensation of the Most Holy Eucharist is permitted: 1. on any day whatever, except in time of local Interdict (cf. n. 1308, 2), and, unless Viaticum is in question, in the time from the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament on Thursday of Greater Week until the end of the solemn Mass on Holy Saturday;¹⁵ and also within this Mass, where custom flourishes. Thus S. R. C., September 23, 1837, in Brundusina.¹⁶

2. It is permitted at any hour of the day; but it is not permitted when it has now begun to grow dark or become much evening, unless a just cause is present. But at an untimely hour of night, that is, when many hours of the night have already elapsed, it is never licit, unless Viaticum must be carried in necessity.¹⁷ Yet in Communities where the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved in the domestic chapel, it can be ministered even during the time of night, when a just cause is present, for example if some sick person cannot prolong the fast.

It is asked: Whether it is licit to dispense Communion in the Mass of the Nativity of the Lord which is celebrated AT MIDNIGHT?

Resp. Negatively, unless from special privilege.¹⁸ This was conceded to some Bishops of France under this law, that no danger of scandal be present.¹⁹

1541. III. With respect to rite: 1. Communion, as far as can be done, is to be offered within Mass, namely after the Communion of the celebrant himself. The Roman Ritual brings forward the reason for this matter, saying: "since the prayers which are said after Communion look not only to the priest, but also to the others communicating."²⁰ Moreover, from a reasonable cause, it is to be offered also outside Mass, for example if those about to receive Holy Communion cannot conveniently wait, or if many are to communicate, lest those who do not communicate be affected by weariness. And in many places the usage has already prevailed of ministering Communion indifferently either within or outside Mass.²¹

2. A priest about to minister the Most Holy Eucharist should be vested in sacred vestments, namely outside Mass in surplice, or alb, and stole of a color suitable to the Office of that day; a deacon, if he ministers, should wear this transversely. Let candles burn, let the general confession be premised, and let the accustomed prayers be said, as is prescribed in the Ritual.

On these matters let it be noted: 1. If necessity demands it, Communion can be given by a priest vested in Mass vestments, who has celebrated or is about to celebrate Mass at another altar. Thus S. R. C., March 12, 1836, in Trident.²²

2. In offering sacred Communion, the priest must use only the thumb and index finger; for, although the whole hand is consecrated, nevertheless the thumb and index finger alone, from the rite of the Church, are deputed for this ministry. Yet authors commonly except a case of extreme or most grave necessity²³ (cf. n. 1544, q. 3 and 4).

3. If a minister serving the priest is lacking, the one about to communicate himself, if he is a man, can respond; but a woman indeed cannot do this, unless she is a nun within the cloister. Therefore let the priest supply, saying the Confiteor, responding Amen, etc.

4. In the Communion of Nuns, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, etc., are to be said facing the Nuns, not facing the people. But the priest ought to descend and return by the front steps of the altar, not by the side steps.²⁴ The practice received among Nuns of making the renewal of vows immediately before Communion is licit. S. R. C., September 12, 1857, in Taurinen.²⁵

5. Communion is first to be ministered to the serving ministers, not by reason of preeminence, but of ministry (S. R. C., July 13, 1658).²⁶

6. "According to the present discipline it is never licit, without dispensation of the Pontiff, even for furnishing Viaticum, to administer the Eucharist under each species, or in the species of wine alone; for the precept of Viaticum does not oblige when it cannot be received according to the rite of the Church."²⁷ It is similarly prohibited TO GIVE the one communicating several particles or one larger one: from Decree of the S. C. C., February 12, 1679.²⁸

7. Communion having been given outside Mass, "the priest, having returned to the altar, will be able to say: O sacrum convivium, etc.; soon he says: Domine exaudi, etc.; Dominus vobiscum, etc."; then the Prayer Deus qui nobis, etc., with the whole conclusion. In Paschal time the prayer Spiritum nobis, etc., is said with the shorter conclusion. After these things, the fingers having been washed, and the sacred Ciborium having been replaced in the tabernacle, let him bless with the hand, not with the pyx, unless after Viaticum, those who have communicated, with the formula: Benedictio Dei omnipotentis Patris, etc. Thus from the Roman Ritual, and from the Response of the S. R. C., September 24, 1842.²⁹

1542. Questions. Q. 1. What sin is it to OMIT the ceremonies prescribed in ministering Communion?

Resp. "To minister the Eucharist without light and the usual confession is commonly reputed only venial. But to minister without stole and surplice, authors commonly judge to be mortal from its kind; yet, only the stole having been omitted, it seems to several to be only venial. But to carry the Eucharist to another altar without sacred vestments, they commonly say, does not exceed venial sin."³⁰

Q. 2. Whether Holy Communion can be given WITH BLACK VESTMENTS or in Masses of the dead?

Resp. There was formerly a great controversy concerning this matter; but at present the case is finished; for on June 27, 1868, a general Decree was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and confirmed by Pius IX on July 23, by which it was declared: "That in Masses of the dead, with black vestments, sacred Communion can be ministered to the faithful, even from preconsecrated particles, by drawing the pyx from the tabernacle. Likewise, Communion can be ministered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the dead; and, a reasonable cause having been given, immediately also before the same Mass; yet in each case the blessing is to be omitted. But Masses of the dead are altogether to be celebrated in black vestments; so that violet ones cannot be employed, except in the case in which, on November 2, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is publicly exposed to the adoration of the faithful for the solemn Prayer of Forty Hours, as was provided in the Decree of this Sacred Congregation on September 16, 1801."³¹

Q. 3. What is to be done if SACRED PARTICLES for the Communion of the people are not found in sufficient number?

Resp. Let the custom be observed of dividing consecrated particles into smaller parts;³² yet not so small that they cannot be given honorably.³³

Q. 4. What is to be done in the case in which a host FALLS?

Resp. "First the place is to be covered, and afterwards washed, as the Rubrics prescribe; yet these do not oblige under grave obligation, and thus ordinarily the washing of a garment or beard can be omitted, to avoid disturbance of the people. But the place where the species of wine fall must always be washed, since they are imbibed, even if there is no need to burn them. If the host falls upon the breasts of a woman, the priest himself must not remove it, but the woman herself should draw it away with the hand and replace it in the ciborium."³⁴ Likewise, if it falls within the cloister of Nuns. But the fingers of the woman should be washed, and the ablution thrown into the sacrarium. If the woman cannot easily take the host there, let her withdraw separately, for example into some chapel, or into the sacristy, etc.³⁵

Q. 5. What is to be done if FRAGMENTS of hosts are found?

Resp. The Rubric of the Missal responds to this question in this manner: "If he notices after the consumption of the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, that some consecrated relics have been left, let him consume them, whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same Sacrifice." And this not only immediately after Mass, as is common, but also if the priest is in the sacristy, yet still clothed in the sacred vestments. It was said, still clothed; for if the priest has now taken off the sacred vestments, then the relics either are to be replaced in the tabernacle, if it is present, or are to be reserved for another priest about to celebrate on the same morning; otherwise, they are to be consumed by the same one who celebrated.¹

But if those fragments are relics of another Sacrifice, it is not licit to consume them, unless danger of irreverence is present; because the Rubric permits a priest who is not fasting only to consume relics which pertain to the same Sacrifice, since they complete it.²

Q. 6. What if an entire PARTICLE is found?

Resp. "But if an entire consecrated host has been left, he [the priest] should replace it in the tabernacle with the others; if this cannot be done, he should leave it, decently covered on the altar upon the corporal, for the following priest about to celebrate there, to be consumed together with the other which he is about to consecrate; or if neither of these things can be done, he should preserve it decently in the chalice itself or on the paten, until either it is replaced in the tabernacle, or consumed by another; but if he has no way in which it can be preserved honorably, he himself can consume it."³ Particles found outside the corporal, in doubt whether they are consecrated, are to be consumed after the ablution, and better with the same ablution.⁴

Note. If a layman finds a particle or fragment of a host, let him warn a priest as soon as possible, who will act according to the things said above. But if a priest cannot be had, let the fragment be reverently collected by the layman himself in paper or a clean linen cloth, by means of a small pin, and be placed within a corporal or in a decent vessel, until a priest arrives.⁵

1543. From the ROMAN RITUAL we note the following:

1. With respect to the obligation of ministering. "1. Viaticum of the most sacred Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ is to be procured for the sick at the opportune time with the highest zeal and diligence, lest perhaps it happen that they die deprived of so great a good by the negligence of the pastor... 2. Let the pastor exhort the sick person that he receive Holy Communion, even if he is not gravely sick, or danger of death is not imminent, especially if the solemnity of some feast suggests this, nor will he himself refuse to minister it... 3. But he will minister it as Viaticum when it is probable that he will not be able to receive it any more... 4. But let it not be carried to someone only for adoration, or for showing it, under the pretext of devotion or of any matter." Thus the Ritual.

2. With respect to the manner of carrying it. Let the pastor warn beforehand that in the room of the sick person all things be rightly arranged according to the prescriptions of the Ritual. Let lights be prepared, and a small vessel with water, with which the fingers are to be washed. Besides, let a clean linen cloth be placed before the breast of the one communicating, and other things for the adornment of the place, according to the ability of each.

Moreover, the Most Holy Eucharist is to be carried from the church to the private houses of the sick, in decent habit, with a clean veil laid over it, manifestly and honorably before the breast, with all reverence and fear, always with a light preceding. But the priest, clothed in surplice and stole of white color, and having first placed a decent oblong veil from each shoulder, should take the vessel with the Sacrament with both hands, and then go beneath the baldachin or umbrella, if it can be had, and proceed with uncovered head. Going, he says the Miserere, and other Psalms and Canticles; returning, Laudate Dominum de coelis, and other Psalms and Hymns; but these are only by way of counsel.

3. With respect to the rite of ministering. Let the prayers be recited, and let the rest be observed, as is prescribed in the Roman Ritual. According to the diversity of circumstances, let the return be solemn or private.

1544. Questions. Q. 1. Whether sometimes the Eucharist can be carried SECRETLY to the sick?

Resp. With the license of the Bishop this is licit in places of heretics, and also of Catholics, if it cannot be carried otherwise without proximate danger of irreverence.⁶ Concerning the manner of carrying the Eucharist secretly, these things are had in the Supplement to the Roman Ritual: "Where the force and wickedness of the Turks prevails, let the priest always have the stole covered by his own garments; let him hide the pyx in a small sack or burse, which, hung from his neck by little cords, he should place in his bosom; and let him never proceed alone, but let him be accompanied by at least one faithful person, in defect of a cleric." - From the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Inter omnigenas, § 25.

Q. 2. Whether it is licit for a priest carrying the Eucharist, in a case of NECESSITY, to run, ride, or proceed with covered head?

Resp. 1. To run in necessity probably is not against the reverence due; whence, when necessity urges, it will be licit.⁷ 2. It is licit to ride on a gentle horse, so that there is no danger of falling, if indeed a longer or more difficult journey must be undertaken; but it is never licit to give the pyx to be carried to a layman, however tired the priest may be, in which case the burse should rather be suspended from the neck.⁸ 3. It is licit sometimes, from Apostolic Indult, to go with covered head, nor is this conceded with great difficulty, on account of weather or infirmity; wherefore, when necessity urges, it could even be presumed. The Bishop can also probably dispense that Viaticum be carried with a hat on the head, when one must proceed for a long time through villas and villages.⁹

Q. 3. Whether it is licit, in a case of necessity, to minister Viaticum without LIGHT and SACRED VESTMENTS?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the more common and sufficiently probable opinion. "The reason is that it is not reasonably presumed that Christ, who instituted this Sacrament for the help of souls, and the Church, which is a kindly mother, wished the dying to be deprived of so great a good, lest the prescribed ceremonies be omitted."¹⁰

Q. 4. Whether it is licit, in time of plague, to offer the Eucharist with some INSTRUMENT?

Resp. Affirmatively and probably, for example with the particle placed in a spoon, as far as can be done, of silver, with wine or water; for necessity seems a sufficient cause why it is licit to depart from the usual rite of the Church. And similarly it can be offered with a spoon to a sick person who, because of dryness of mouth, would be unable to swallow the host.¹¹

Q. 5. Whether a priest ministering Viaticum can sometimes omit those words prescribed in the Ritual, RECEIVE VIATICUM, etc., substituting the common formula: THE BODY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, etc.?

Resp. Affirmatively and probably, in the case in which the sick person is judged likely to receive Viaticum with great sadness of soul; for the precept of pronouncing those words induces only a light obligation, from which any just cause well excuses, such as excessive disturbance of the sick person.¹²

Q. 6. What is to be done if the sick person VOMITS the host received?

Resp. If the sacred species appear, they must be carefully collected in a clean vessel, carried to the church, and kept in a safe and well-closed place, until they are altogether corrupted, so that they can be cast into the sacrarium without irreverence. - If they cannot be discerned, as being altogether mixed with filth, the mouth of the sick person is indeed to be wiped; but whatever was rejected should be collected with tow; then, the tow having been burned, the ashes are to be cast into the sacrarium.¹³

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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°.

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.

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

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."

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

S. Th. III, q. 82, a. 3 and 9.

336. Principle I. The priest alone is the ordinary minister of the dispensation of the holy Eucharist (can. 845, § 1). - It is certain.

It is proved: 1. From the words of Christ: Do this in commemoration of Me, directed to the apostles.

2. From apostolic tradition and the constant use of the Church, as is established from the Fathers: Clement of Rome, to the Corinthians, XL, 1-4; Didache X, 7; XV, 1; Ignatius, to the Smyrnaeans, VIII, 1-2; Justin, 1 apol., 65; Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 18; ep. to Victor, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. IV, 25; Cyprian, ep. 43 and 70; and from the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8; sess. 23, c. 1.

3. By reason, and indeed a threefold one: a) The priest consecrates in the person of Christ; but consecration of itself is ordered to distribution, whence Christ, just as He consecrated at the last supper, so also dispensed to others to be received; therefore just as consecration pertains to the priest, so also does dispensation. - b) The priest is constituted as a mediator between God and the people; whence just as it pertains to him to offer the gifts of the people to God, so also to hand over divine gifts to the people. - c) In reverence for the sacrament it has been established that it is not touched except by a consecrated or blessed thing; whence the corporal, chalice, and hands of the priest are consecrated; therefore others cannot touch it except in necessity, as for avoiding profanation of the sacrament.

337. Principle II. The deacon, as one near to the priestly order, participates in something of its office, and according to the current discipline is the extraordinary minister of dispensing communion (can. 845, § 2).

This is established from ancient and constant tradition, to which Justin, 1 apol., 65, 67; Cyprian, de laps. 25; Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13 and 28; Dionysius of Alexandria in H. E. VI, 44; Damasus, carm. 18; Basil, ep. 93; and the use of the Church testify. For formerly, as still today in the Greek Church, the deacon was the dispenser of the blood; but not of the body except in necessity, at the command of the bishop or presbyter, which still obtains at present. Whence according to can. 845, § 2, the "extraordinary minister is the deacon, with the permission of the local Ordinary or of the pastor, to be conceded for a grave cause, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed."

Therefore by commission either of the local Ordinary or of the pastor (but not of the regular Ordinary or of the simple rector of a church, as some gratuitously assert without positive foundation) a deacon can distribute communion, provided it is conceded from a reasonable cause sufficiently grave, as if the priest is absent or infirm, if there is no one who can conveniently administer, if on a great feast all the priests are very occupied with hearing confessions or with preaching, or sufficient priests are not present for the number of communicants, if no one is present except a censured priest publicly declared as such, etc.; - but in a case of necessity commission is not required but is legitimately presumed; indeed the deacon is bound to minister if there is a necessity of ministering Viaticum and every priest who can or will minister is lacking.

338. Question: If a minister is lacking, can it sometimes be licit to communicate oneself?

It is answered: 1. A priest or deacon can, when a minister is lacking, communicate himself in order to Viaticum. Indeed, according to several, especially more recent authors, even for the cause of devotion alone, provided scandal is not to be feared; but we would not dare to assert this, because on the one hand there is no necessity of receiving the sacrament, and on the other hand it cannot be received according to the mode of communicating now received and long established for centuries by the custom of the Church.

2. Whether another cleric or layman can, when necessity urges and a minister is lacking, minister Viaticum to himself, as was sometimes done in the primitive Church, is disputed. Several more recent authors affirm, because in the case the divine precept of communicating obliges, which urges more than the ecclesiastical custom prescribing the mode of communion. Nevertheless especially the older authors rightly deny it with St. Thomas, in IV d. 13, p. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, ad 3, because the divine precept ceases when it cannot be fulfilled with due reverence from the received custom established by the Church (n. 284), especially because the reception of this sacrament is not of necessity; - unless perhaps in the case in which a sinner could receive no other sacrament and doubted concerning the perfection of his contrition.

Concerning the opinion of the more recent authors, who in both cases think more benignly, it is more true to say that in this matter they rather desire a certain change of ecclesiastical custom than have demonstrated that the ancient custom has already been legitimately changed into a new one, of which matter they assign no positive foundation.

Let it be noted: 1) these things can nevertheless be done licitly from a dispensation or permission obtained;

2. outside the case of necessity, all those below the deacon solemnly ministering holy communion incur irregularity (can. 985, § 7);

3. a deacon ministering unduly does not incur it, because he does not usurp an order (ibid.).

339. Principle III. For licit dispensation there is also required in the minister jurisdiction or due permission. - The reason is, because it pertains to the pastor to feed the sheep and minister the sacraments; whence the power of jurisdiction is necessary, or the faculty or permission obtained from him who has such jurisdiction; so that one who ministered without any faculty or permission would sin gravely.

Hence they can dispense the Eucharist:

1. From ordinary or quasi-ordinary jurisdiction, besides the Supreme Pontiff, the local Ordinary; the pastor in his parish and those who are after the manner of pastors; superiors of a clerical religion not only with respect to professed members and novices, but also with respect to those who remain in the religious house day and night for the sake of service, education, hospitality, or infirm health, according to can. 514, § 1; the rector of a Seminary with respect to all who are in the seminary (can. 1368) and the rector of a church (can. 484, § 1).

2. From permission, all priests who have obtained it directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, by law or from a man; which all have both in the case of necessity and if they celebrate Mass: namely, they can minister communion within Mass, and if, besides a solemn or sung or conventual Mass, they celebrate privately, also immediately before and immediately after (can. 846, § 1); indeed even if they celebrate in a private oratory, unless the local Ordinary, for a just cause, has prohibited this in a particular case (can. 869).

Other prescriptions are added: 1. "Even outside Mass any priest has the same faculty from at least the presumed permission of the rector of the church, if he is a stranger," can. 846, § 2.

2. "The right and office of carrying holy communion publicly to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, pertains to the pastor within his territory. Other priests can do this only in a case of necessity, or with at least the presumed permission of the same pastor or Ordinary," can. 848.

3. "Any priest can carry communion privately to the sick, with at least the presumed leave of the priest to whom custody of the most holy Sacrament has been committed," can. 849, § 1.

4. "To carry holy communion by way of Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, to the sick pertains to the pastor," can. 850; nevertheless in a Seminary to the rector (can. 1368), in a clerical religion to the superiors (can. 514, § 1), who can also carry it outside the house to professed members and novices, either privately, or publicly with the permission of the pastor (Commission for Interpretation, June 16, 1931, ad 1), and in a house of nuns to the ordinary confessor or the one acting in his place (can. 514, § 2). In the sole case of necessity or with the permission of the pastor, other priests can minister Viaticum.

340. Observation. - Besides due permission, it is also required that the minister not be censured or impeded. And indeed:

1. if he is simply tolerated, he cannot minister spontaneously, but only if he is requested by the faithful, or there is present a cause excusing for avoiding grave scandal or infamy;

2. if he is censured by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, and a fortiori if he is to be avoided, he cannot minister except in danger of death, with other ministers lacking. Cf. can. 2261, § 1, 2 and 3.

But if he has acted otherwise, he will be irregular from delict (can. 985, n. 7).

I say. The power of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass belongs only to priests (Can. 802).

§1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is the priest alone.

§2. The extraordinary minister is the deacon, with the permission of the Ordinary of the place or of the pastor, to be granted for a grave cause, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed (Can. 845).

The reason of the first is that Christ, instituting this sacrament, said to all and only the Apostles reclining with Him, and therefore to all and only those who would be successors to them in the priesthood: "Do this in remembrance of Me." But the reason of the second is taken from the practice of the Church, for the Council of Trent says: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive communion from priests, but celebrating priests should communicate themselves." Finally, the reason of the third is drawn from the custom which obtained in the first centuries of the Church, when Deacons everywhere, by commission of Bishops or Presbyters, whether general or particular, administered the Eucharist. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 2; and sess. 13, chap. 8. - St. Alphonsus, n. 237.

You Will Resolve. 1st. §1. Any priest, within Mass and, if he celebrates privately, also immediately before and immediately after, can administer holy communion, with due regard for the prescription of can. 869.

§2. Even outside Mass, any priest possesses the same faculty by at least the presumed permission of the rector of the church, if he is a stranger (Can. 846).

2nd. Holy communion is to be brought publicly to the sick, unless a just and reasonable cause advises otherwise (Can. 847).¹

§1. The right and duty of bringing holy communion publicly to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, pertains to the pastor within his territory.

§2. Other priests may do this only in a case of necessity or with at least the presumed permission of the same pastor or Ordinary (Can. 848).

3rd. To bring holy communion to the sick by way of Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, pertains to the pastor according to the norm of can. 848, with due regard for the prescription of can. 397, n. 3 and can. 514, §§1-3 (Can. 850).

4th. §1. Any priest can bring communion privately to the sick, with at least the presumed permission of the priest to whom the custody of the Most Holy Sacrament has been entrusted (Can. 849).

5th. According to St. Alphonsus, devotion alone and the lack of another priest suffice for some priest to be able to administer the Eucharist to himself. Indeed, the opinion which permits even a layman to administer it both to himself and to another dying person, provided true necessity is present, seems not to be altogether improbable. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 237. - Lehmkuhl, n. 136.

6th. After the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, the law by which it is prohibited that on Easter Day, in non-parochial churches, especially regular churches, the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to the faithful even for a cause of devotion, is no longer to be observed. - Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 Nov. 1912.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1148, n. 121.

I say. Besides the state of grace and jurisdiction, in the sense explained above, for the licit dispensation of the Eucharist it is required that the Minister be free from every censure; otherwise he would sin gravely and would contract irregularity.

The Most Holy Eucharist is to be given under the species of bread alone (Can. 852).

§1. The priest is to distribute holy communion with unleavened or leavened bread, according to his own rite.

§2. But where necessity urges and no priest of a different rite is present, it is lawful for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to administer the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin or an Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread to administer in leavened bread; but each must preserve his own rite of administering (Can. 851).

§1. To all the faithful of whatever rite the faculty is given that, for a cause of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite.

§2. Nevertheless, it is to be advised that each of the faithful satisfy the precept of paschal communion in his own rite.

§3. Holy Viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite; but, when necessity urges, it is lawful to receive it in any rite (Can. 866).

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.

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.