Necessity of Divine Precept

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

¹ John 6:54.

² Session 13, chapter 2.

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

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

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

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

² 8 August 1910.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

294. The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges all adults, the faithful immediately, unbelievers mediately, namely through Baptism which they are bound to receive; and indeed under grave obligation, because the Eucharist is a necessary means of perseverance (John VI, 54).

The precept obliges, not indeed daily, as is established from the decree of Innocent XI, February 12, 1679, but:

a) several times in life. For Christ instituted the Eucharist as spiritual food of the soul; but food must be received several times for restoring strength. But how often the Eucharist is to be received is left to be determined by the judgment of the Church; whence he who fulfills the ecclesiastical precept, by that very fact fulfills the divine;

b) especially in proximate danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, as is established from universal practice (Council of Nicaea I, c. 13). For the Eucharist was instituted as a means for persevering in grace and as Viaticum strengthening against the enemies of the soul. But never is the conservation of grace more necessary than at the end of life, in which temptations can also be graver. Whence not only those lying at the very end are bound, but those condemned to death, those about to sail and fight dangerously, those about to undergo a dangerous incision, and those women who regularly give birth with danger of death (can. 864, § 1).

Let it be noted: 1) those who on the same day have been refreshed by holy communion are not strictly held to communicate again when brought into the crisis of life, although it is very much to be advised: thus can. 864, § 2; and this also probably seems to have force concerning those who a few days before communicated from devotion;

2. he who after receiving Viaticum has sinned is not held to receive it again;

3. on the contrary, he who receives Viaticum sacrilegiously is still held, because by sacrilegious communion he has not satisfied the divine precept of communicating. Whence let him communicate on another day under pretext of devotion; but if danger of infamy and of imminent death is present, the sacrament can be carried secretly even by a religious confessor, but not on the same day;

4. per accidens, i.e., by reason of another precept, someone can be obliged to communion as often as a grave temptation must be overcome which otherwise cannot morally be overcome; in which case, rather rare, if it were omitted, there would not be a sin against the precept of communicating, but against the virtue against which the temptation would rise.