The Dispensation of the Most Holy Sacrament

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.

In order that someone legitimately dispense the Eucharist, the power of order and the power of jurisdiction are required.

I. The power of order. Considered with respect to the power of order:

1. Only a priest is the ordinary minister of the dispensation of the Holy Eucharist (canon 845, § 1), that is, by virtue of his ordination he is deputed to dispense it principally, not secondarily, as a deacon is. For: 1. to the one alone to whom it belongs to confect the Holy Eucharist, to him alone it belongs to dispense it principally; 2. Tradition is added, which the Council of Trent attests in these words: "It was always the custom in the Church of God that the laity receive Communion from priests; ... this custom, as descending from Apostolic Tradition, must with right and merit be retained"¹ (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 82, a. 3).

2. A deacon is the extraordinary minister of the dispensation of the Holy Eucharist (canon 845, § 2), that is, by virtue of his ordination he is deputed to dispense it only secondarily, that is, dependently upon the permission of the local Ordinary or the pastor, which cannot be granted except for a grave cause (cited canon). Hence a deacon is rightly called only an extraordinary minister. That a deacon is truly an extraordinary minister is clear from Tradition² (cf. St. Thomas, loc. cit., ad 1). It is said:

a) Dependently upon the permission of the local Ordinary or the pastor. To these is equivalent a quasi-pastor, but not the rector of a church or a religious superior as such.

b) Permission cannot be granted except for a grave cause, for example if the priest were impeded in his ministry and, unless the deacon dispensed the Holy Eucharist, its dispensation would be delayed longer than is fitting (St. Alphonsus, VI, 237, question 1).³ If a grave cause is present and the pastor cannot conveniently be approached, permission is legitimately presumed (canon 845, § 2). But a deacon who illicitly dispenses the Holy Eucharist sins gravely; likewise the local Ordinary and the pastor who grant permission without a just cause, since in a grave matter they violate the hierarchical order (St. Alphonsus, VI, 234). Nevertheless the deacon does not become irregular, since, being a minister, even if only an extraordinary one, he does not entirely usurp an order not his own (cf. canon 985, 1).

¹ Session 13, chapter 8.

² St. Justin Martyr, Apology I, chapters 65, 67, Migne 6, 427-430; Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 38; it occurs among the ancient statutes of the Church, in Hefele, loc. cit., vol. 2, part 1, p. 166; Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, chapter 13, Funk ed. 1906, p. 519.

³ Cf. S.R.C., 25 February 1777, n. 2504.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁶ 10 August 1841.

⁷ Gaude in the cited place of St. Alphonsus.

Something must be said about the time, place, and mode of distributing the Holy Eucharist, and about the mode of carrying it to the sick.

I. Ordinary Communion; under this name also comes Communion of devotion to be received by a sick person.

1. Ordinary Communion can be distributed on all days (canon 867, § 1), except Friday of Holy Week, on which it is permitted only to carry Sacred Viaticum to the sick (canon 867, § 2). Viaticum is understood as it was explained above (n. 164); therefore Communion cannot be ministered on Friday of Holy Week to a sick person to whom Viaticum so understood has already previously been conferred. Nevertheless, Easter Communion could be given to one who can receive it conveniently enough only on Friday of Holy Week, for the law of communicating at Easter prevails over the liturgical law of not distributing Holy Communion on the aforesaid Friday.

2. Ordinary Communion can be distributed only at those hours at which the sacrifice of Mass can be offered, and likewise at other hours if a reasonable cause suggests it (canon 867, § 4). A reasonable cause for ministering Communion earlier or later than is permitted in itself is present, for example, if a sick person cannot observe the fast until one hour before dawn, or if someone, prevented from receiving Communion earlier, has remained fasting beyond one hour after noon. For the rest, note:

a) The faculty of distributing Communion at the hours at which Mass can be celebrated is to be taken in a broad sense, so that at whatever time, whether by common law or by privilege, it is permitted to celebrate, Communion also can be distributed. Hence it can be distributed in the oratory of a religious or pious house, where according to canon 821, § 3 Mass can already be begun at midnight; this is clear from the cited canon itself. Likewise it can be distributed in a conventual or parochial Mass (canons 821, § 1; 867, § 4; 863).

b) An indult of anticipating Mass can, with sufficient probability, also be extended to the distribution of Communion, even if in fact Mass is not anticipated.

c) On Holy Thursday the Holy Eucharist seems able to be distributed only before and during the solemn Mass; both because after the solemn Mass another Mass can no longer be celebrated, and because according to the rubric of the Missal only some species are to be reserved for the sick.

d) On Holy Saturday Holy Communion cannot be ministered to the faithful except during the solemnities of Masses or continuously and immediately after they have been completed (canon 867, § 3). Hence it is prohibited in churches where Mass is not celebrated. Moreover, considering the obvious sense of the canon, it seems to be required that the distribution of Communion be made jointly with Mass, so that it forms one thing with it. Yet this does not prevent there from being a reason excusing from the law, as if men, after having completed spiritual exercises, could not wait for the solemnities of Masses. Indeed, considering also the custom persisting in Rome, it can seem to someone that canon 867, § 3 speaks only of the place where the solemnities of Masses take place, but not, for example, of a separate chapel.¹

e) A celebrating priest is not permitted to distribute the Eucharist within Mass to faithful so distant that he himself loses the altar from view (canon 868). Therefore the interpretation of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 February 1874 (n. 3322), according to which it would suffice that the voice of the celebrant be heard, even if the altar were lost from view, seems to fall away. But the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (n. 2672), 7 December 1844 (n. 2885), 24 March 1860 (n. 3099, ad I), and 11 May 1878 (n. 3448, ad VIII), which agree with the Code, remain. Nevertheless others judge that the canon is not to be urged in this way.

3. It is not necessary that Communion be united with Mass, but it can also be distributed outside it. But if it is united with Mass, it must be done within Mass immediately after the Communion of the celebrant; and if Mass is celebrated privately, for a reasonable cause it can also be done immediately before and immediately after Mass (canon 846). These things also hold in a Mass for the dead.²

¹ Cf. Response of the President of the Commission for the Code, 10 July 1909 (Il Monitore Ecclesiastico 1922, p. 371; 1924, p. 21).

² Cf. Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 11. Cf. S.R.C., 19 December 1829, n. 2672, ad 1; 23 July 1868, n. 3177; 24 March 1860, n. 3099.

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

I. Ordinary Communion, under which name also comes Communion of devotion to be carried to the sick. Now: Holy Communion can be distributed wherever it is permitted to celebrate Mass, even in a private oratory, unless the local Ordinary, for just causes, has prohibited this in particular cases (canon 869). These things are also to be applied to Easter Communion. It is said wherever it is permitted to celebrate Mass. Hence permission granted either by the local Ordinary or by a major superior according to canon 822, § 4 - that is, of celebrating outside a church and oratory, but in a decent place, never however in a bedroom; which permission can be granted by the said persons, only for a just and reasonable cause, in some extraordinary case, and by way of an act - carries with it permission to distribute Communion in the same place. This is deduced from canon 869 joined with canon 822, § 4.

Hence the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, to question I: "Whether the faithful living in mountain villages, whenever the Holy Eucharist is carried to the sick, can be refreshed by the Holy Synaxis in a sacred place, or even, since it concerns so sacred a thing, in a decent and honorable place which exists on the route, since they cannot go to church on that day"; to that question, I say, it responded: "Affirmatively according to canon 869 joined with canon 822, § 4, that is, provided the local Ordinary grants this according to the norm of the cited prescription, namely for individual cases and by way of an act."¹ And to question II: "Whether Holy Communion and the sacrament of Confession can be administered to those who are in the house of the sick person"; it responded: "As regards Communion, provision has been made in the first response." Moreover, note:

1. In the proposed hypothesis it is not required that Mass in fact be celebrated, but the faculty of celebrating in some place suffices.

2. The power of granting the permission of celebrating of which we have spoken is ordinary, and therefore can be delegated by the local Ordinary and by a major superior.

Corollary. Missionaries who enjoy the faculty of celebrating outside sacred places can minister the Eucharist in a place where in fact they do not celebrate, but where they can celebrate. Likewise pastors who enjoy a faculty received from the Ordinary of permitting Mass to be celebrated outside sacred places can permit Holy Communion to be ministered, even though Mass is not celebrated. But a just cause, some extraordinary case, and that it be done by way of an act are always required.

¹ 5 January 1928 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1928, p. 79).

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

The mode or rite of distributing the Holy Eucharist is set forth in the Roman Missal¹ and in the Roman Ritual.² Specifically, note:

1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be given under the species of bread alone (canon 852); from this, as is taught sufficiently commonly, one cannot depart even for giving Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 245).

2. A priest of the Latin rite should distribute Communion with unleavened bread; a priest of an Eastern rite, with leavened bread, even to faithful of another rite. But where necessity urges and no priest of a different rite is present, it is permitted 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 (canon 851, §§ 1 and 2). Necessity urges sufficiently if on that day the faithful person could not receive Communion without grave inconvenience unless the priest gave him the species of another rite (cf. canon 866, § 1). Therefore it is required that a priest of the other rite be lacking and unable to be approached, and that the present priest be unable to consecrate bread of his own rite.

3. Sacred vestments and a light must be used, and the prayers assigned in the Ritual must be recited.³ Now it would be a grave sin to omit every sacred vestment. It is venial to use only a stole or only a surplice, or to minister without a light, or to omit the preceding and following prayers. Nevertheless it would be permitted to minister Communion without a sacred vestment and without a light both in a case of necessity and for another truly grave cause, for example if someone sacrilegiously received Viaticum and it must again be carried secretly and clandestinely; likewise in houses where something prevents the inhabitants from suspecting that Communion is being brought (St. Alphonsus, VI, 241).⁴

Not only one who distributes Communion within Mass, but also one who distributes it immediately before or immediately after, can do this in the vestments of Mass; this also holds of a Mass for the dead.⁵

4. The Holy Eucharist must be distributed with the thumb and index finger of the right hand. Nevertheless, it would be permitted to offer it with other fingers if otherwise the people or the dying person would be deprived of Communion. Any just cause does not seem to suffice, since the index finger and thumb are deputed by the rite of the Church for this ministry. But if danger of contagion is feared, the sacred species can be placed in a vessel or in a spoon with a little water, and thus brought to the mouth of the sick person. If the sick person, because of dryness of the mouth, cannot swallow the host, either let the species be given in the mode explained, or after Communion has been taken let a draught of wine or a very small drink of cold, fresh, and, if possible, icy water be given to the sick person (St. Alphonsus, VI, 244, 288).

5. It is not permitted to give "several Eucharistic forms or particles, nor larger ones, but the customary ones."⁶ Nevertheless, if a sufficient number of consecrated hosts is lacking, it is permitted to divide small hosts,⁷ but at most into two or three parts, unless there is a special reason for dividing even into more parts, for example if the priest rarely comes somewhere. Likewise, if someone otherwise would have to wait too long, it is permitted to remove a particle from the host of the Mass (St. Alphonsus, VI, 245).

¹ Order for Celebrating Mass, title X, n. 6.

² Title IV, chapter 2.

³ The Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 16 March 1929 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1929, p. 638), prescribed that besides the linen cloth extended before those communicating, a paten made of silver or gilded metal is to be used.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 9 December 1822 (Collectanea, n. 778).

⁵ S.R.C., 19 December 1829, n. 2672, ad 2; 23 July 1868, n. 3177.

⁶ Decree of Innocent XI, 12 February 1679.

⁷ S.R.C., 16 March 1833, n. 2704, ad 1.

As we said above (n. 164), public and private carrying are distinguished. Public carrying is set forth in the Roman Ritual.¹ In private carrying, according to canon 849, § 2, "reverence and decorum owed to so great a sacrament should be carefully provided for, with the norms prescribed by the Apostolic See being observed."

The norm is presented by the Roman Ritual in these words: "When, for a just and reasonable cause, Holy Communion is privately carried to the sick, the priest should at least always have a stole covered by his own clothes; he should place the pyx in a little bag or burse, which, suspended from his neck by cords, he should put in his bosom; and he should never proceed alone, but should be accompanied by at least one faithful person, in the absence of a cleric. But when he has arrived at the room of the sick person, the priest should also put on a surplice with the stole, if he has not already put it on."² For the rest, observe:

1. When the Holy Eucharist is carried openly, it is in itself forbidden to walk with covered head. But the prohibition seems to regard only public carrying. Moreover Ordinaries can - as it seems, now all - permit ministers, on account of cold or inclement weather, to use a small cap outside a city or town, even one so large that it covers the ears³ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 241). Indeed, if otherwise harm to the priest's health is to be feared, there is an excusing cause. Nothing also prevents an artificial covering from being used against rain or snow.

2. It is also permitted, scandal nevertheless being excluded, for a sufficiently grave cause, for example because of weather or distance, to carry the Eucharist on horseback,⁴ in a carriage (St. Alphonsus, VI, 243), likewise in an automobile, in a tram, or by railway. Likewise it is permitted in a case of necessity, namely lest someone be deprived of Viaticum, to run (St. Alphonsus, VI, 242), and likewise to use what is called a bicycle or motorcycle.⁵ Particular statutes, which here are milder and there stricter, should moreover be attended to. For the rest, local Ordinaries should take care "lest abuses creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially concerning the administration of the sacraments" (canon 336, § 2). Moreover, note:

a) If Viaticum is ministered, it is to be said: "Receive, brother (sister), the Viaticum of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, who may guard you from the malignant enemy and bring you to eternal life. Amen."⁶

b) If for a just cause the priest has taken with him only one host, then, after it has been given to the sick person, the pyx or little case can be washed in the house of the sick person and the ablution given to the sick person; then the pyx should be wiped with a purificator (St. Alphonsus, VI, 251).

¹ Title IV, chapter 4.

² Title IV, chapter 4, n. 29. By force of a special indult of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 8 February 1875, which was abrogated neither by the general decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 23 December 1912, ad III, nor by canon 847 (cf. canon 4), private carrying is licit in the ecclesiastical province of Utrecht (Supplementum ad Rituale Romanum pro usu cleri provinciae ecclesiasticae Ultraiectensis, n. 22).

³ Cf. In Coloniensi, S.R.C., 13 November 1862; In Oriolensi, 22 April 1871, n. 3246, ad I; Supplementum ad Rituale Romanum pro usu cleri Provinciae ecclesiasticae Ultraiectensis, n. 21.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 4, n. 13.

⁵ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 13 June 1919.

⁶ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 4, n. 19.

“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.

294. Principles. - I. Besides jurisdiction ¹, it is required that the Minister be free from every excommunication, interdict, and suspension from Sacred things; for otherwise he would sin gravely and contract irregularity.

¹ We have already observed above, in the note to n. 289, that the custom has prevailed that any priest celebrating Mass in any church can minister the Eucharist to those asking.

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, being guilty of mortal sin, he distributes Communion, although probably he does not commit as many sins as there are persons communicating in the same distribution of the Eucharist. - St. Ligorius, n. 30 and following. - Nevertheless very grave Theologians, for example Lugo, De Sacramentis, disp. 8, n. 155, and others cited by St. Ligorius, lib. 6, n. 35, excuse from grave sin.

III. It is required that the Minister distribute the Eucharist by the customary rite of the Church. Hence, generally speaking, the administration of this Sacrament must be omitted when it cannot be done in the manner prescribed by the Roman Ritual or by the custom of the place. - See St. Ligorius, n. 241 and following.

295. Resolves. - 1. The Minister of the Eucharist must treat this most august Sacrament with great reverence, in whose presence the venerating Powers tremble and the whole heavenly Court suppliantly adores. But it is not enough that the Priest touch the holy Eucharist worthily and devoutly and minister it to the faithful; for if he is the Parish Priest, or his assistant, it belongs to him to take care that it be preserved in an honorable place, or in a becoming tabernacle. A notable omission of the care due for this can easily become mortal. - Elbel, n. 76. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 81, and all others.

2. The Eucharist is not to be ministered except with a becoming habit, that is, with stole, surplice, and light.

3. According to the common opinion, he sins gravely who outside a case of necessity distributes Communion without any sacred vestment, because this is very indecent and against a grave precept of the Church. - St. Ligorius, n. 241. - Yet if only the stole is omitted, it seems to several and grave Theologians to be only venial, which seems sufficiently probable. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

4. It is reputed only venial to minister the Eucharist without light, or without the usual confession, Confiteor, etc., having been said beforehand. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 241. - Similarly, it is held only venial to transfer the Eucharist without sacred vestments from place to place, for example from one altar to another. - Reuter, n. 168. - Mazzotta.

296. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a Priest laboring under infirmity in thumb and index finger can minister the Eucharist with other fingers?

Resp. It seems it must be denied, at least more probably, a case of most grave necessity being excluded ². - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 244. - The reason is that although the whole hand is consecrated, nevertheless the index finger and thumb by the rite of the Church are specially destined for exercising this office.

² Here a most grave necessity seems to be required a little too severely. On this matter La Croix (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 480) writes thus: It is probable that a priest licitly distributes Communion with the latter fingers, if he cannot with the first because of gout of 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.

QUESTION 2. What must be done if the Host falls to the ground?

Resp. The place into which the holy Host has fallen must immediately be covered with some clean thing and afterwards washed. If it falls onto the cloth or little linen cloth by which the hands of the communicant are covered, the place must be marked and afterwards washed in the same way. Thus the Rubric, which nevertheless according to the common opinion does not oblige under grave obligation; yet it would oblige gravely to wash the place into which the sacred species of wine had fallen, since it is imbibed; nevertheless there is no need to burn them ³. - St. Ligorius, n. 250. - Lacroix, n. 484.

³ Those last words: There is no need to burn them, although taken from St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 250), do not cease to be obscure. For to what does the word them refer? Therefore more clearly in La Croix (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 484), whom St. Alphonsus alleges here: Pasqualigus adds that there is no need to burn that into which the sacred blood has fallen, but that it is enough to wash it.

QUESTION 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 the astonishment, disturbance, or offense of the people than to observe the Rubric, which obliges only under light obligation. - St. Ligorius, n. 250, and others commonly.

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

Resp. The woman herself must extract the Host and hand it to the Priest, from whom afterwards she is to receive it into her mouth. - Thus Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, sect. 2, n. 176. But the fingers of the woman are to be washed, and the ablution is to be thrown into the sacrarium. If the woman cannot easily extract the Host there, let her withdraw apart, for example into some chapel, or into the sacristy, etc.

297. • QUESTION 5. At what hour can Communion be dispensed?

Resp. Regularly it must be ministered at the hours at which it is permitted to celebrate Mass either from custom or from a special Indult. But commonly with St. Ligorius it is taught that it can be ministered at any hour of the day, except, however, the last part of the day, that is, toward night. The reason is that no prohibition exists concerning this matter. St. Ligorius, lib. VI, n. 259. - Nor does the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites given in the month of December 1816 stand in the way, permitting the administration of Communion from the time to the time in which Masses are celebrated in any Church on a day of great concourse. For that Decree is not exclusive, since the Sacred Congregation gave a response according to the petition, in which the matter was precisely about a day of great concourse for gaining a plenary Indulgence or Jubilee.

Here it must be added that, from a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the year 1641, Communion is not to be given in the Mass of the Nativity of the Lord which is celebrated at midnight. In St. Ligorius, ibid. Nevertheless the faculty of permitting this is sometimes conceded by privilege; and very recently it was conceded to some Bishops of France by this law, that no danger of scandal be present.

298. • QUESTION 6. Whether Communion can be given outside Mass?

Resp. Generally speaking, it is to be given, as far as can be done, after the Communion of the Priest. Thus from the Roman Ritual ⁴. Yet from received usage Communion can easily be given before or after Mass, or even at any other time at which Mass can be celebrated, as was said above. Indeed, where there is a great influx of communicants, it is expedient to defer Communion until the Sacrifice has been completed, lest those who are present at Mass be detained in Church longer than is fitting and be affected with weariness. Communion outside Mass is very easily to be conceded to the sick, children, old persons, and all those who, because of weakness of stomach, cannot prolong the fast ⁵. Thus St. Ligorius, n. 249, with others commonly after Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, sect. 2, n. 162. - Indeed because of present custom there now exists no precept of giving Communion only within Mass. - Thus Billuart, diss. 7, art. 4. - Nay rather, it must be held as certain that because of the custom which has prevailed everywhere, and which cannot be abrogated by Parish Priests, there exists no precept by force of which Communion must be distributed only within Mass. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 7, 1844, in Januensis.

⁴ The Roman Ritual does not treat of Communion to be ministered generally, but of Communion to be distributed by a priest celebrating Mass. And to this alone pertain those words: But the Communion of the people within Mass ought to be done immediately after the Communion of the celebrating priest (unless sometimes for a reasonable cause it is to be done after Mass), since the prayers which are said in Mass after Communion pertain not only to the priest, but also to other communicants. For otherwise the same Ritual prescribes in the prior place the manner which is to be observed outside Mass in imparting Communion.

⁵ Add also those, and these are almost all, who, pressed by domestic cares or business, unless they are dispatched as quickly as possible, would often be forced to be deprived of the sacred table.

299. • QUESTION 7. Whether Communion can be given with black vestments immediately before or after a Mass of the dead ⁶?

⁶ In the preceding edition of the year 1866 we observed that the Rev. Fr. Aloysius Marchesi, Priest of the Congregation of the Mission and Consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, very recently wrote an excellent Commentary on the argument of this and of the following question; in which, after the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation which are circulated had been brought forward and weighed with equal judgment and diligence, he judged that one must conclude: It is not against the rite, in Masses of the dead with black vestments, to minister Sacred Communion to the faithful, even from preconsecrated particles, by extracting the pyx from the repository. Communion can also be ministered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the dead; but when grave necessity is given (I would think, when otherwise the faithful would be forced to lack sacred Communion) even immediately 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 cannot be used unless in the case in which, on November 2, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is exposed for the public adoration of the faithful for the solemn prayer of the Forty Hours; but that the Sacred Congregation of Rites again responded to these things: Deferred.

Finally, on July 23 in the year 1868, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX confirmed the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued on June 27 of the same year, by which an end is imposed on these questions. This Decree indeed we are pleased to transcribe here, and the more willingly because it also exhibits a certain history of the whole controversy. It is as follows.

After the more recent liturgical laws enacted by the Supreme Pontiffs Pius V, Clement VIII, Paul V, and Urban VIII, a grave controversy blazed up among Doctors and Rubricists: "Whether in Masses of the dead the tabernacle can be opened for refreshing the Faithful with Eucharistic bread." The Sacred Congregation of Rites, asked the first time, in one of Albenga, July 24, 1863, responded to the fourth: "It is not against the rite to minister Communion in a Requiem Mass, or after it with black vestments, the blessing being omitted, if it is administered after Mass." But the controversy not yet being composed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites from time to time gave responses in particular cases, without ever coming to a general Decree. Meanwhile, from the opinions of some Doctors, both the opinion spread that the holy Eucharist could be ministered to the faithful only with particles consecrated in the Mass for the dead, and in some places the custom prevailed of celebrating Masses of the dead in violet vestments, so that not only within Mass, but also before or after the same, satisfaction might be given to the piety of the faithful desiring to be refreshed by the sacred Eucharist. Wherefore, Bishops especially very often asking the Sacred Congregation of Rites to establish by a general Decree what must be done in this matter, the same Sacred Congregation on April 12 of the year 1823, in one of Palermo, declared that this grave question should be considered particularly and officially. This again obtained in the year 1837, in one of Modena, where to the third doubt: "Whether the custom which still endures of communicating in Masses of the dead with preconsecrated particles can be permitted, or etc.," the response was: Deferred, and let the rescript in the case of Palermo, April 12, 1823, be observed. Nevertheless, because of the circumstances of times and things, this special inquiry of this difficult business was delayed even to our age; since in the meeting gathered on September 16 of the year 1865, when there was a question concerning the use of violet color in Masses of the dead at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is preserved, the response was given for the third time: "Deferred, and let it be proposed again together with another doubt, whether a Priest can open the ciborium for communicating the faithful with black vestments." Finally, with new prayers of sacred Prelates intervening on March 3 of the year 1866, in the Ordinary Assembly of the Sacred Congregation of Rites a Doubt was proposed, together with the opinion which another of the Consultors opened from office: "Whether a priest can open the ciborium for communicating the faithful in black vestments?" But the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Fathers responded: Deferred, and let another Consultor write, and also the Assessor, all things bearing on the matter being resumed; with regard especially to opportunity. These opinions having been printed and communicated, both of the Most Reverend Assessor and of another specially deputed from the Masters of Apostolic Ceremonies, the Sacred Congregation of Rites was assembled in Ordinary Meeting on this day at the Vatican; where the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Nicholas Clarelli-Paracciani, in the place and stead of the absent Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Constantine Patrizi, Prefect, proposed the same Doubt, and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Fathers set over the protection of sacred Rites, the matter having been maturely and accurately weighed also as to opportunity, responded: Affirmatively, or that in Masses of the dead, with black vestments, Sacred Communion can be ministered to the faithful, even from preconsecrated particles, by extracting the pyx from the tabernacle. Likewise Communion can be ministered in black vestments immediately after a Mass of the dead; but when reasonable cause being given, also immediately 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 cannot be used unless in the case in which, on November 2, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is exposed for the public adoration of the faithful for the solemn Prayer of the Forty Hours, as was guarded in the Decree of this Sacred Congregation on September 16 of the year 1801. And thus they decreed, and commanded that it be observed everywhere, if it should please Our Most Holy Lord, on June 27, 1868.

Then, a faithful report concerning the premises having been made by me, the Secretary, to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, His Holiness approved and confirmed the Decree of the Sacred Congregation on July 23 of the same year.

Resp. 1. It can be given after Mass if the Priest has not yet departed from the altar at which he celebrated; but then he does not give the blessing to those who communicated. - Thus from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, July 23, 1868.

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

QUESTION 8. Whether Communion can be given with black vestments WITHIN a Mass OF REQUIEM?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, both if Communion is given with Hosts alone consecrated in the same Mass, and if it is given from preconsecrated ones which are preserved in the tabernacle. Thus the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites cited above.

300. • QUESTION 9. Whether Communion can be given with violet vestments, even before or after Mass?

Resp. This question could long be controverted, especially because of the Response which was reported of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the cause of Orihuela (mistakenly in St. Alphonsus, lib. 6, n. 249, dub. 2, it is read Pritana) in the year 1670. But the aforesaid Decree of the Sacred Congregation also removed this doubt, by which it is established that in Masses of the dead violet vestments cannot be used, except in some Church on November 2, if the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is exposed for public adoration of the faithful for the solemn Prayer of the Forty Hours.

301. • QUESTION 10. How is Communion to be ministered outside Mass?

Resp. 1. If Communion is to be ministered immediately before or after Mass, one must act as in the Mass itself; but the priest, having returned to the altar, can say: O sacrum convivium, etc.; then he says: Domine exaudi, etc. - Dominus vobiscum, etc., with the Prayer for the time; finally, his fingers having been washed, and the sacred ciborium having been placed back in the tabernacle, he blesses those who communicated with the formula: The blessing of Almighty God, Father, etc., as in the Roman Ritual.

Resp. 2. If it is to be distributed at another time: 1. according to the Roman Ritual, two candles are to be lit. Yet if time presses and two candles cannot easily be lit, one will suffice. 2. The Priest, his hands washed, vested in surplice and stole of the color fitting the Office of that day, ministers, as above, and, having returned to the altar, proceeds with the rest, as above; then he gives the blessing with the right hand, but not with the pyx, except over the sick. But the versicles Domine exaudi, etc., Dominus vobiscum, etc., with the proper Prayer, are of precept. Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 24, 1842. - But prayers of this sort seem to have to be said in a voice at least moderately raised, since response is to be made to them by the minister.

302. • QUESTION 11. What must be done if a minister is lacking for the Priest: can a man about to communicate, or a woman, supply?

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

Resp. 2. A woman cannot supply, unless she is a Nun, who according to received custom answers within the cloister; then therefore the Priest himself must perform all things. Nor may you say that in necessity a woman can answer Mass, provided she stands at a distance; for in Mass the Priest alone could not answer all things. - Thus commonly. - Bouvier, On the Eucharist, c. 4, art. 2. - Gousset, n. 212.

QUESTION 12. Whether several particles, or one larger particle for the sake of devotion, etc., can be given to one communicant?

Resp. No. For this was expressly prohibited by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, approved by Innocent XI on February 12, 1679. But the words of the Decree, in Benedict XIV, are these: Let Bishops, Parish Priests, or Confessors admonish that several Eucharistic forms or particles are not to be given to anyone, nor larger ones, but the customary ones.

303. • QUESTION 13. Whether particles can be broken if they are lacking; and what must be done if some remain over, and there is no tabernacle in which they may be placed?

Resp. to the first: The answer is affirmative from the common opinion and general practice, provided that a just cause is present, for example if another Mass is lacking or the faithful cannot wait. Indeed, when it had been requested from the Sacred Congregation of Rites whether the Rule of the Parisian Ritual expressed thus can be followed entirely: If, when Communion is to be given, a sufficient number of Hosts has not been found, some Hosts can be divided into several particles which are distributed to individuals, the Sacred Congregation responded: Let the custom be observed of dividing consecrated ones, if necessity is present. March 16, 1833, in Veronensis. Nevertheless the Priest must then divide the Hosts only into two or at most three parts, because otherwise Communion could scarcely be given with due reverence. - Lacroix, n. 508.

Resp. to the second: 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; nor is it to be committed that several Hosts be ministered to the faithful. - See below, n. 315.

QUESTION 14. Whether, when smaller Hosts are lacking, a Priest can take away a part of the larger Host to be consumed by himself, in order to communicate the faithful?

Resp. 1. The answer is affirmative in the case of Viaticum to be carried to one dying, by reason of urgent necessity. - Thus all. - 2. The answer is affirmative also if there would be one or another faithful person about to communicate who otherwise would have to wait for Communion not without inconvenience. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 217.

— 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.

217. 1. The power of distributing. One minister of distribution is ordinary, another extraordinary.

The ordinary minister of distributing the Eucharist is the priest alone.

For the Council of Trent declared:²⁰² "It was always the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive Communion from priests, but that priests celebrating should communicate themselves."

The extraordinary minister of distributing the Eucharist is "the deacon, with the permission of the local Ordinary or of the pastor, to be granted for a grave cause, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed."²⁰³

Already in the primitive Church, deacons, by commission either of the bishop or of the priest, distributed the Eucharist by presenting the consecrated chalice and carrying the consecrated bread to the sick. Such power belongs to the deacon from his ordination itself, since he ought to assist the priest in all things pertaining to the Holy Eucharist. But the distribution of the Eucharist is among the principal duties of the priest.

According to the discipline now in force, a deacon cannot licitly distribute Communion except by legitimate delegation, which is customarily granted either by the local Ordinary, by the pastor or his substitute, or probably by a religious superior, by the rector of a clerical seminary, or by the rector of any church.^203a This delegation requires a grave cause, such as is present, for example, when a priest is prevented from distributing Communion because he is occupied with other necessary works, such as hearing Confessions, performing ecclesiastical functions, preaching a sermon, and so forth. In grave necessity, for example, of ministering Viaticum to a dying person, the deacon can presume this delegation; indeed, several authors rightly permit that, in the absence of a priest and deacon, not only a subdeacon or cleric, but even a layman, can licitly carry Viaticum to a dying person in extreme necessity. For Viaticum is commanded to be received by divine law and brings great assistance to the dying person, while merely ecclesiastical law (which did not yet exist in the first centuries of the Church) prohibits a layman from touching and distributing the Eucharist. Hence "where particular dexterity is required in communicating a sick person, a priest can entrust to a woman, for example, a Sister of Charity ministering to the sick person, that she give Viaticum with a spoon." Thus rightly Noldin and others.²⁰⁴ This case can occur, for example, if the sick person suffers from cancer of the throat, so that swallowing is exceedingly difficult. The reason why this manner is lawful is the same as that just stated. Viaticum obliges by divine law. No one is present who can administer it except a layman. Therefore this is lawful.

A deacon distributing Communion by legitimate delegation wears the stole crosswise. According to the Roman Ritual, tit. 4, c. 10, the deacon ministers Communion as does a priest. Even at the end of the distribution he can and ought to impart a blessing with his hand, as the Pontifical Commission declared on July 19, 1930 (Acta Ap. Sed. XXII, 365). In the administration of Viaticum, if a priest is lacking, the deacon can bless the sick person and the assistants with his hand or with the pyx.²⁰⁵

A deacon who without a grave cause and without due permission administers Communion seems to sin gravely, because he gravely violates both the right of the legitimate pastor and a grave precept of the Church; but he does not incur an irregularity, just as he likewise does not incur an irregularity if he illegitimately administers solemn Baptism, as was said above in n. 121.

²⁰² Session 13, c. 8 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 881).

²⁰³ Code of Canon Law, c. 845, § 2.

^203a Thus also Cappello, De sacr., n. 329.

²⁰⁴ De sacr., n. 124.

²⁰⁵ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 14, 1858 (Decr. auth., n. 3074); Code of Canon Law, c. 1274, § 2.

218. No one can administer the Eucharist to himself except in two cases, namely: a) a priest in his own Mass; b) in a case of necessity. In the absence of another priest and with scandal removed, a priest can probably administer Communion to himself even for the sake of devotion alone. Some say the same²⁰⁶ of a deacon; this, however, does not seem lawful today without special permission. But a layman cannot do this except because of the necessity of receiving Viaticum, namely, when a priest or deacon is lacking.²⁰⁷

2. Requisites for lawful distribution. For licitly distributing the Eucharist, the following are further required: a) due jurisdiction; b) due time; c) a due place; d) a due rite.

²⁰⁶ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 238.

²⁰⁷ St. Alphonsus, ibid., n. 237.

219. a) Due jurisdiction. Since the Eucharist is the spiritual food of the soul, while feeding the flock of Christ is the proper office of pastors, only those to whom the care of souls has been entrusted can distribute Holy Communion. Therefore, to distribute Communion is a parochial right. Thus at least according to the old law, which, however, has been somewhat diminished in the course of time. According to the discipline now in force, the following have been established:

α) Any priest can administer Holy Communion within Mass and also (if he celebrates privately) immediately before and immediately after it; and this even in a private oratory, unless the local Ordinary, for just causes, has prohibited it in particular cases.²⁰⁸ Therefore, even those who do not satisfy the precept of hearing Sunday Mass in a private oratory can receive Holy Communion there for the sake of devotion.

β) To carry Holy Communion by way of Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, to the sick belongs to the pastor²⁰⁹ and his delegate. There are, however, three exceptions: 1. In a case of necessity, when the pastor is lacking, those things hold which were said above in n. 217 concerning the extraordinary minister of distributing the Eucharist. 2. The right and duty of administering Viaticum to the diocesan bishop belongs to the dignitaries and canons of the chapter.²¹⁰ 3. In every clerical religious institute, superiors have the right and duty, either personally or through another, of administering Viaticum (and Extreme Unction), not only to sick professed religious, but also to novices and others remaining day and night in the religious house for the sake of service, education, hospitality, or ill health.²¹¹ In a house of nuns, the ordinary confessor or the one who takes his place has the same right and duty.²¹² In another, lay religious institute, this right and duty pertains to the pastor of the place or to a chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor.²¹³ To carry Communion privately to the sick for the sake of devotion is not a parochial right, and therefore any priest can do it.²¹⁴ The matter is otherwise with public carrying, which belongs to the pastor in his own parish.²¹⁵

²⁰⁸ Code of Canon Law, cc. 846 and 869.

²⁰⁹ Ibid., c. 850.

²¹⁰ Ibid., c. 397, n. 3.

²¹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 514, § 1. Cf. Pontifical Commission, June 16, 1931 (Acta Ap. Sed. XXIII, 353).

²¹² Code of Canon Law, c. 514, § 2.

²¹³ Ibid., § 3.

²¹⁴ Ibid., c. 849, § 1.

²¹⁵ Ibid., c. 462, n. 2, and c. 848, § 1.

220. Easter Communion had to be received by common law in the parish church, as was already said above. As a testimony of this law, religious were prohibited from administering Communion in their churches to laypersons who were not members of their household on Easter Day itself (and at Rome also on Holy Thursday). But by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on November 28, 1912, Pius X abrogated this law, wishing to render daily Communion easier. Therefore, religious can give Communion in their churches even on Easter Day, and the following can be held as a general rule: Except in the case of ministering Viaticum, according to the discipline of the Church now in force, any priest who licitly says Mass somewhere can also licitly distribute Communion to anyone.

221. b) Due time. α) As regards days, according to the present discipline of the Church, Communion as Viaticum can be distributed on all days, but other Communion can be given on those days on which it is lawful to consecrate the Eucharist. Hence it is lawful to distribute Communion on Holy Thursday, even in churches and oratories in which solemn Mass is not sung. It is expedient, however, that all receive Communion only before or within the solemn or conventual Mass. Likewise, it is lawful to distribute Communion on Holy Saturday, but only during the solemnities of the Masses or immediately after they have been completed;²¹⁶ and therefore not in churches or oratories where the solemnities of the Masses are not celebrated. It is not lawful to distribute Communion on Good Friday, because the Eucharist is not then consecrated. Nevertheless, in certain places a custom is already gaining force of giving Communion even on Good Friday, since this day is now in those regions a feast of precept.²¹⁷ But when such a custom does not exist, or if special permission has not been granted, Communion is not to be distributed at all on Good Friday except by way of Viaticum, which can licitly be given on all days and at all hours of the entire year.²¹⁸

β) As regards hours. When a just cause exists, the faithful who are fasting can receive Communion not only in the morning hours, but also in the afternoon, provided, however, that scandal or wonder among the people does not arise from it.²¹⁹ Therefore, the prohibition against celebrating Mass after midday does not extend so strictly to the distribution of Communion. At night it is lawful to administer Viaticum; but to distribute Communion for the sake of devotion is not lawful by common law except on the night of the Nativity of the Lord for all religious institutes, pious places, and seminaries of clerics where the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved, provided this is done with the doors closed. In churches or public oratories which serve for the public use of the faithful, it is not lawful on the night of the Nativity to distribute Communion to the faithful unless there is a reasonable cause for doing it, at least in the judgment of the Ordinary.²²⁰ Irreverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament, which can easily arise because of worldly festivities customarily celebrated on that night, must be avoided.

For the sick staying in houses where the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved, it is lawful to carry Communion even shortly after midnight if they cannot remain fasting. Before the decree of Pius X (December 7, 1906), a bishop, and indeed even a pastor, could give permission that Communion be carried at night to those sick persons who could not observe the fast any longer; but now the fast no longer binds them so strictly, as was explained above, and therefore Communion is not to be carried through the streets at night (except by way of Viaticum).

It is indeed fitting that the faithful receive Communion within Mass after the Communion of the priest, because thus there is a greater union with the sacrifice of the Mass. Today, however, the faithful can receive Communion both before and after Mass (even a Requiem Mass), and indeed at all daytime hours, as was said above. But a priest vested in the sacred vestments of the sacrifice is not to distribute Communion before or after a solemn, sung, or even conventual Mass;²²¹ therefore, the priest must distribute Communion either before he puts on the chasuble or after he has taken it off.

²¹⁶ Ibid., c. 867, § 3.

²¹⁷ In ancient times there was a fairly universal custom of receiving Communion even on Good Friday (cf. Martène, De antiq. Eccles. rit., l. 4, c. 23, n. 25). In our days such a custom, approved by the Holy See, exists in the parish of Delbrück in the Diocese of Paderborn, where on that day a particle of the true Cross is exposed for public veneration and people come from the entire region to receive the Eucharist.

²¹⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 867, § 5.

²¹⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 867, § 4, establishes: "Holy Communion is to be distributed only at those hours at which the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered, unless a reasonable cause counsels otherwise."

²²⁰ "Whether (by force of canon 867), without an Apostolic Indult, Holy Communion can be distributed to those requesting it at a Mass celebrated on the night of the Nativity of the Lord in parish and conventual churches, whenever, at least in the judgment of the Ordinary, a reasonable cause for doing it is present? Reply: Affirmative." Thus Cardinal Gasparri, President of the Pontifical Commission (cf. Monitore Ecclesiastico, 1922, p. 371).

²²¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 19, 1906 (Decr. auth., n. 4177, ad 3).

222. c) A suitable place for administering the Eucharist is every place in which it is lawful to celebrate Mass or to reserve the Most Holy Sacrament; nevertheless, for a just cause the Ordinary can in a particular case prohibit Communion in a private oratory²²² or permit it in another becoming place. But Viaticum and the Communion of bedridden sick persons can be distributed in any place when necessity requires it.

²²² Code of Canon Law, c. 869.

223. d) The due rite is to be observed in the administration of the Eucharist, as the Roman Ritual or another approved Ritual prescribes.²²³ According to the present discipline in force in the Latin Church, the principal statutes are these:

1. It is a grave sin of irreverence to distribute or carry the Eucharist in churches or oratories without any sacred vestment, unless necessity excuses. The sacred vestments to be worn are the surplice and stole,²²⁴ unless Communion is given at Mass or immediately before or after it, in which case Communion is administered in the vestments worn for Mass. Two candles are to be lighted, and the prayers before and after the distribution are to be said. St. Alphonsus thinks that this precept obliges only under venial sin.²²⁵ The prayers to be said after Communion has been distributed (outside Mass) are: the antiphon "O sacrum convivium" and the versicles "Panem de caelo," etc.; and the prayer with the longer conclusion. During Easter time, "Alleluia" is added, and a special prayer is said, likewise with the longer conclusion.²²⁶ When Communion has been given in black vestments, neither is "Alleluia" added to the prayers, nor is a blessing given.

2. The priest must administer the Eucharist with the thumb and index finger of the right hand. But Lehmkuhl rightly says:²²⁷ "If [the priest] has those fingers impeded, it is better to use others than to deprive the people or individual dying persons of Holy Communion." For although only the first fingers are anointed, nevertheless the whole hand is consecrated. St. Alphonsus²²⁸ maintains a more severe opinion in this matter, saying: "If someone had a thumb so infirm that he could not break the host with it, he could not indeed celebrate.... The general rule is: that which is an impediment to receiving an order impedes the exercise of the order after its reception." This rule seems too harsh, for the Church more readily bars someone from receiving an order than from exercising an order rightly received. Therefore, the first opinion seems safe in practice, provided that external decorum is preserved and scandal is avoided. If, however, these fingers suffer from a lasting disease, then permission to celebrate Mass is to be sought from the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

3. In the Latin rite it is not lawful to give the Eucharist to a layman under the species of wine,²²⁹ not even in the necessity of receiving Viaticum. Thus the common opinion.²³⁰ For the rest, such a necessity can almost never occur; for a sick person who can swallow wine can also take water in which a particle of a consecrated host has been immersed. In necessity it is lawful to give the host in this manner.²³¹

4. All the faithful, even for the sake of devotion, can receive Communion in a rite other than their own. When a priest of their own rite is lacking in a case of necessity, an Eastern priest can distribute to the faithful the Eucharist confected in unleavened bread, and conversely it is lawful for a Latin priest to give the Eucharist confected in leavened bread. "But each one shall preserve his own rite of ministering."²³²

5. It is not lawful to give laypersons a larger host, such as the priest employs at Mass, or even several small hosts. Thus Innocent XI established,²³³ who nevertheless prohibited this lest anyone foster a false devotion by thinking that he obtains greater graces if he consumes a larger host or several hosts. Hence nothing seems to prevent several hosts from being given to a lay communicant for a reasonable cause (for example, if the celebrating priest cannot consume all the particles which remain).²³⁴ For a reasonable cause it is lawful to divide small hosts into two or three parts, provided, however, that the parts thus divided are not too small; likewise, for a reasonable cause a celebrating priest can give to some communicant a particle of the larger host consecrated by him at Mass.

6. If in the distribution of Holy Communion any species has fallen to the ground, that place is to be covered and afterward washed. But the water of ablution is to be poured into the sacrarium. This law, however, does not bind under grave sin.²³⁵ Hence, for example, if a consecrated host has fallen into a man's beard, that beard is by no means to be washed and the water of ablution poured into the sacrarium. But when a host has fallen into a woman's garments and cannot easily and without scandal be extracted thence by the priest, the woman is to be led into the sacristy, so that she herself may seek the sacred species and give it to the priest. The woman must then wash the hand with which she touched the host. If someone vomits the host and cannot consume it again, the host is to be placed in a vessel of water in the tabernacle. But when the host has dissolved, the water is to be poured into the sacrarium. If a drop of consecrated Blood has fallen, those things prescribed in the Missal are to be observed.²³⁶

²²³ For the rites used in the ancient Church, see Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon, s.v. "Kommunion."

²²⁴ The color of this stole can always be white; it can, however, also conform to the color of the Office of that day. Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 12, 1836 (Decr. auth., n. 2740 ad XII). On the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, let the color be white or violet. Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 19, 1912, ad X.

²²⁵ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 241.

²²⁶ Thus from the Roman Ritual, tit. 4, c. 2 (typical edition). Therefore, the ancient custom seems to have been changed, and the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 30, 1892, ad 10 (Decr. auth., n. 3792), is to be interpreted according to the new text of the Ritual.

²²⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 187.

²²⁸ Loc. cit., n. 244.

²²⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 852.

²³⁰ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 245.

²³¹ Cf. ibid., n. 244.

²³² Cf. above, n. 214.

²³³ Decree Cum ad aures, February 12, 1679.

²³⁴ Cf. Benedict XIV, De sacrif. Miss., l. 3, c. 20, n. 1; Noldin, De sacr., n. 130.

²³⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 250.

²³⁶ De defect. Missae, tit. 10, nn. 12 ff.

224. 7. The Eucharist is to be carried to the sick openly and honorably, as the Roman Ritual, tit. 4, c. 4, prescribes, unless a just and reasonable cause counsels otherwise.²³⁷ With regard to the words "unless a just and reasonable cause is present," the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments declared that the judge of a just and reasonable cause is the Ordinary, but he is admonished "that, through rules too narrowly predetermined or general rules commanding public carrying, or through a reservation made to himself of granting permission in individual cases to carry the Sacrament of the Eucharist privately, sick persons not be impeded from the consolation even of daily Communion" (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, January 5, 1928: Acta Ap. Sed. XX, 81). Thus a bishop can permit the Holy Eucharist to be carried in a concealed manner to those sick faithful who wish to receive Communion several times for the sake of devotion (Benedict XIV, decree Inter omnigenas, February 2, 1744). "The priest shall always have the stole covered by his own garments; he shall enclose the pyx in a small bag or burse, which, suspended from his neck by cords, he shall place in his breast; and he shall never proceed alone, but shall be accompanied at least by a faithful person when a cleric is lacking" (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, December 23, 1912).²³⁸ For the rest, diocesan statutes are to be observed.

When the Eucharist is carried publicly to the house of a sick person, the priest must be vested in a surplice and stole and proceed with his head uncovered. Nevertheless, by an Apostolic indult it is not rarely permitted that the priest proceed with his head covered if the inclemency of the weather so requires. Thus, for example, on November 13, 1862, the Congregation of Rites gave the priests of Cologne permission "to proceed, especially in wintry weather, with the head covered by a woolen cap which, when necessity requires, can be of such size that it also covers the ears."²³⁹ In a case of necessity, namely, if danger to health is greatly feared (whether from the heat of the sun or from cold) and permission cannot be sought from the bishop, a priest, by employing epikeia, can carry the Eucharist to a sick person with his head covered, provided, however, that scandal is forestalled. Nothing prevents a priest carrying the Eucharist from wearing a wig (commonly Perücke) or even an artificial covering against rain or snow.²⁴⁰ For it would be more irreverent if the sacred vestments and the vessel itself containing the Holy Eucharist were made wet by rain or snow. For a reasonable cause, for example, because of the length of the journey, it is lawful to carry the Eucharist publicly while seated in some carriage or even on a horse, if danger of irreverence is absent. But it is not becoming that the Eucharist be carried while seated on a two-wheeled machine (commonly a velocipede), unless a grave necessity is present.

²³⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 847.

²³⁸ Acta Ap. Sed. IV, 725.

²³⁹ A similar privilege was granted for the Diocese of Orihuela (Alicante in Spain) on April 22, 1871 (Decr. auth., n. 3246).

²⁴⁰ Commonly Regenschirm (umbrella), parapluie (umbrella), ombrello (umbrella), umbrella.

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

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

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).

392. On the rite of dispensing holy communion. - A. As to time. 1° As to the day. According to can. 867:

"On all days it is licit to distribute the most holy Eucharist." But the things which follow in this canon no longer have force insofar as the decree Maxima Redemptionis of the S. C. of Rites, of Nov. 16, 1955, together with the Instruction annexed to it, contradicts them. According to these, one must now say:

a) On Friday in the Passion and Death of the Lord it is licit to distribute the most holy Eucharist to the faithful, but only during the solemn afternoon liturgical action. To the sick, however, who are in danger of death, also at another hour.

b) On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, holy Communion is to be distributed to the faithful only in the evening Mass or immediately after. Likewise on Holy Saturday only during the solemnities of the Masses of the Vigil or immediately after. The sick who are constituted in danger of death are excepted, however.

During the solemnities of Masses seems to be understood of the distribution which is connected with Mass and takes place after the communion of the priest; nevertheless some interpret this as after the singing of the Gloria; - immediately after Mass, i.e., without an interval after the celebration. Hence it is illicit to distribute holy Communion in a chapel where Mass is not celebrated, or in a church before Mass or a little after; and for doing otherwise not any cause whatever, although reasonable in itself, suffices, but perhaps grave inconvenience does.

As to the Eucharistic fast to be observed by those who on Thursday celebrate or communicate at the evening solemnities, or who on the day of Parasceve during the afternoon liturgical offices approach the Sacred Synaxis, the things established in the Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem, of March 19, 1957, are to be observed (cf. above n. 281). The Eucharistic fast is to be observed from three hours before the beginning of Mass for celebrating priests, before the communion of the Mass for the faithful. Nevertheless let them remember that the ecclesiastical fast is prolonged up to the hour of midnight.

2° As to the hour.

a. As regards the distribution of communion in the forenoon hours, the canon determines that communion can be distributed only at the hours at which the celebration of Mass is permitted (can. 867, 4). This by ecclesiastical law is henceforth from one hour before dawn up to one hour after midday, since can. 821 [the printed text has 812] has not been abrogated.

b) As regards the distribution of holy Communion in the afternoon hours, the indult conceded in the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus, number 15, has force. The faithful can freely approach the sacred table during the evening Mass and immediately before or immediately after. Moreover, a decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office concedes to Ordinaries of places the faculty of permitting the distribution of holy Communion in the afternoon hours (from at least the sixteenth hour) on the occasion of any religious ceremony whatever (as adoration of the most holy Sacrament, holy hour, etc.) if no afternoon Mass is celebrated there (C. S. O., March 21, 1960).

c) Besides, there can occur a reasonable cause of asking for and distributing holy Communion outside the hours assigned above under a. and b., because the clause "unless another reasonable cause should suggest otherwise" of canon 867, § 4 ("Holy communion is to be distributed only at those hours at which the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered, unless another reasonable cause should suggest otherwise") has not been formally abrogated. Nevertheless it can be applied more rarely, since, with the law of the Eucharistic fast mitigated, a reasonable cause will occur with greater difficulty. Moreover, the indults brought forward above tend to this, that they may foster assistance at the sacrifice of the Mass. This end would be frustrated if, without a proportionately grave cause, holy Communion were distributed at any hour to any petitioners whatever. In this way provision is also made lest pastors of souls be hindered by frequent petitions of the faithful from being able to satisfy the necessities of present-day apostolate.

d) Sacred Viaticum can be ministered at any hour of the day and night, at night however only when there is urgent necessity.

B. As to place, according to can. 869:

"Holy Communion can be distributed wherever it is licit to celebrate Mass, even in a private oratory, unless the Ordinary of the place, for just causes, has prohibited it in particular cases."

I say. Any Pastor, or priest having care of souls, is held by justice to administer the Eucharist to his subjects not only at Easter and in death, but also as often as they reasonably ask, with the cause of a legitimate impediment, however, excluded. But other priests are held only in a case of necessity or of death, and when the Pastor is lacking. The reason of the first is that it belongs to the Pastor by quasi-contract to provide not only that the faithful fulfill the precepts, but also that they not lack the supports which greatly benefit spiritual progress. But the reason of the second is that other priests are held only from charity. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 8.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1088, n. 10.

You Will Resolve. 1st. The Pastor sins as often as he denies administering the Eucharist, whether by himself or through another, to those reasonably asking for it; but the sin does not exceed venial if this is done rarely and there is not grave scandal or grave sorrow of the one asking. The reason is that then neither grave injury nor grave damage is inflicted, and if damage is present, it can easily be repaired.

2nd. A Pastor is not held to administer the Eucharist to the dying with danger to his life, for example, in time of plague, because it is not an absolutely necessary sacrament. A fortiori other priests not having care of souls are not held to this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 233.

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).

Question 1. Whether and what sin it is to administer the Eucharist without sacred vestments?

Resp. To administer the Eucharist without any sacred vestment, outside a case of necessity, according to the common opinion is a mortal sin, because this is very indecent and against a grave precept of the Church. Yet if only the stole is omitted, or only the surplice, it is reputed venial. Likewise it is venial to administer the Eucharist without a light or without the customary preceding confession, Confiteor, etc. Similarly, it is held to be only venial to transfer the Eucharist from place to place, for example, from one altar to another, without sacred vestments. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 241. - Reuter, n. 168.

Question 2. What is to be said about that manner of acting, quite common among us, namely of administering the Eucharist to the sick with a stole, but without a surplice and cassock?

Resp. Certainly it cannot be praised, both because it contradicts the Roman Ritual and because it savors of a certain irreverence. Nevertheless, it seems that it can be tolerated, at least so long as the Bishops are silent or do not prohibit it in their diocesan statutes, and provided from another source that priests strive to reconcile reverence with the sacred rite. The reason is taken from the moral impossibility of acting otherwise, at least everywhere and in every case. But now, throughout the whole world, Ordinaries can permit, for a just and reasonable cause, that to those affected by poor health, who cannot leave home and who seek holy communion out of devotion, especially when in some parish several ask for it or someone asks frequently, the Holy Eucharist be carried privately, or with the prescriptions of the Ritual not observed, from the church to the home, with at least the rite proposed by Benedict XIV in the Decree Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744, par. 23, being observed, namely: "The priest should always have the stole covered by his own garments; in a little sack or burse he should place the pyx, which, suspended 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 of the faithful in the absence of a cleric." - S. C. de disc. Sacr. 23 Dec. 1912.

Question 3. What stole is to be used in administering the Eucharist outside Mass?

Resp. "A stole always of white color, or of the color suitable to the office of that day (the black color, however, being changed into violet on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed)." - Cf. Rit. Rom. Tit. IV, c. 2, n. 1. On Feria VI of Greater Week the distribution of the Eucharist is altogether prohibited unless it is by way of Viaticum, which must always be given with a stole of white color.

Question 4. Can communion be given with black vestments, whether before, after, or within Mass, both from particles consecrated in that Mass itself and from preconsecrated ones?

Resp. Affirmatively, in all cases, as is established from the Decree of the S. R. C., confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, 23 Jul. 1868. - Note, however, 1st. that in the aforesaid case the blessing is not to be given. Note 2nd. that, according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation, in order that the Most Holy Eucharist can be distributed before Mass, a reasonable cause is required; but this can scarcely be lacking if there are any who then ask for communion. - Cf. Ballerini, note (c), p. 197.

Question 5. Could a priest at will and always give communion outside Mass?

Resp. If there is question of a priest who is not celebrating, certainly he can always dispense it, as often as there are those who reasonably ask; for no precept can be assigned by force of which communion must be distributed only within Mass. Nevertheless, care must be taken that the tabernacle not be opened at almost every moment in order to satisfy one or another person approaching inopportunely, for this would savor of a certain levity and would not be without irreverence. But if there is question of a priest who is celebrating, according to the Roman Ritual and generally speaking, communion should be distributed by him within Mass after the consumption of the chalice. But from Canon 846, §1, if the priest celebrates privately, with due regard for the prescription of Can. 869, communion can also be given before or after Mass. Indeed, where there is a great influx of communicants, it is expedient to defer communion to the end, lest those who assist at Mass be detained in church longer than is fitting. - Note also here the response given by the S. R. C. on 12 March 1836, according to which, if necessity is present, the custom can be tolerated that "a priest who approaches some altar to celebrate, or withdraws from it, thus vested in the sacred vestments of the sacrifice and holding the chalice before his hands, may in passing ascend to the altar in which the Most Holy Eucharist is present, so that there he may distribute holy communion to the faithful." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 249. Gardellini, n. 4777. Communion cannot be administered, even with a reasonable cause being given, by a priest vested in the sacred vestments of the sacrifice before or after a solemn or sung or even conventual Mass, as is permitted before or after a private Mass. S. C. R. 19 Jan. 1906.

Question 6. At what hour can communion be dispensed?

Resp. §4. Holy communion is to be distributed only at those hours at which the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered, unless another reasonable cause advises otherwise.

§5. Nevertheless, Holy Viaticum can be administered at any hour of the day or night (Can. 867).

On a day of great concourse for a plenary Indulgence or Jubilee, communion can be administered from the time to the time when Masses are celebrated in that church, either according to the form of the Rubric or according to the form of the Indult granted to the same church. - S. C. R. 11 Jun. 1904; 7 Sept. 1860.

Indeed, we think that very rare cases can occur in which it would be lawful to distribute communion toward sunset. By force of canon 867 §4, and without an Apostolic indult, Communion can be distributed in the Mass which is celebrated on the night of the Nativity of the Lord in parochial and conventual churches, whenever, at least in the judgment of the Ordinary, a reasonable cause for doing this is present.

Question 7. What must be done if a minister is lacking for the priest: can a man about to communicate or a woman supply?

Resp. Certainly any communicant, if he is a man, can serve the priest; or even the priest himself can supply, by saying the Confiteor and responding Amen. A woman, however, cannot supply, unless she is a Nun, who according to received custom responds within the cloister; then, therefore, the priest himself must perform all things. - Nor should you say that in necessity a woman can make the responses at Mass, provided she stands at a distance; for in Mass the priest alone could not easily respond to all things. - Cf. Bouvier, de Eucharistia, chap. 4, art. 2. - Gousset, n. 212.

Question 8. Can several particles be given to one communicant, or one larger one, for the sake of devotion, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, because this was expressly prohibited by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council approved by Innocent XI on 12 February 1679. But the words of the decree (in Benedict XIV) are these: "Let Bishops, Pastors, or confessors admonish that several Eucharistic forms or particles are to be handed to no one, nor larger ones, but the customary ones."

Question 9. Can particles be broken if they are lacking?

Resp. Affirmatively, from the common opinion of theologians and the general practice, provided a just cause is present, for example, if another Mass is lacking or the faithful cannot wait. Nevertheless, the priest then must divide the Hosts only into two, or at most three, parts, because otherwise communion could scarcely be given with due reverence. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 508.

Question 10. For communicating the faithful, if smaller Hosts are lacking, can the priest take away a part of the larger one to be consumed by himself?

Resp. Affirmatively, in the case of Viaticum to be brought to a dying person, by reason of urgent necessity. It must also be answered affirmatively outside the case of Viaticum, if only one or another of the faithful were about to receive communion and could not wait without inconvenience. - Note besides that the large Host which has been used for the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament must not, always excluding the case of great necessity, be divided into several parts in order to satisfy those about to communicate. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 217. - Instruct. Clem., § xxxi, n. 24.

Question 11. What must be done if (a) the Host falls to the ground, or (b) upon the face, beard, or garments of the communicant, or (c) into the bosom of a woman?

Resp. In the first case, the place into which the holy Host has fallen is immediately to be covered with some clean thing and afterward washed. If it falls onto the cloth or linen cloth by which the hands of the communicant are covered, the place is to be marked and afterward washed in the same way. Thus the Rubric, which nevertheless, according to the common opinion, does not oblige under grave sin; nevertheless, it would oblige gravely to wash the place into which the sacred species of wine had fallen, since it can easily be imbued with them; yet there is no need that that upon which they have fallen be burned. - But in the second case, 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 sin. - Finally, in the third case, the woman herself must draw out the Host and place it back in the ciborium or hand it to the priest, from whom afterward she may receive it into her mouth. But the woman's fingers are to be washed, and the ablution is to be poured into the piscina. If the woman cannot easily draw out the Host there, let her withdraw apart, for example, into some chapel or into the sacristy, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 250. - Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. Missae, n. 1, sect. 2. - O'Kane, nn. 653 and following.

Question 12. When on Holy Saturday can holy Communion be distributed to the faithful?

Resp. §3. On Holy Saturday, holy communion cannot be administered to the faithful except during the solemnities of Masses or continuously and immediately after they have been completed (Can. 867).

Question 13. To whom must holy Communion be administered first?

Resp. Communion must be administered to the minister of the sacrifice before others, even if more worthy, not by reason of preeminence but of ministry, Dec. Auth. n. 1074; and it can be administered within the presbytery and on the edge of the footpace of the Altar to a layman serving Mass, even if he is not clothed in clerical habit. (Ibid. n. 4271).

"By the name of minister of the altar or of the sacrifice of the Mass comes any cleric or layman serving Mass at the altar, who is to be preferred to the others in the distribution of the sacred Synaxis; with caution, however, that clerics be preferred to a serving layman, and to clerics of a minor order others constituted in a higher order, or persons who possess a superior liturgical dignity to be considered per se (as kings) or per accidens (as spouses in the Mass for blessing nuptials)." Thus S. R. C. 30 Jan. 1915.

Question 14. On what days is it lawful to distribute the Most Holy Eucharist?

Resp. §1. On all days it is lawful to distribute the Most Holy Eucharist.

§2. On Feria VI of Greater Week, however, it is lawful only to bring sacred Viaticum to the sick (Can. 867).

Question 15. What is expedient to be done with relation to communion on Feria V of Greater Week?

Resp. It is expedient that on Feria V of Greater Week all clerics, even priests who on that day abstain from offering the Sacrifice, be refreshed by the Most Holy Body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (Can. 862).

Question 16. In what place can Holy Communion be distributed?

Resp. Holy communion can be distributed wherever it is lawful to celebrate Mass, even in a private oratory, unless the local Ordinary, for just causes, has prohibited this in particular cases (Can. 869).¹

It is not lawful for a celebrating priest to distribute the Eucharist within Mass to faithful persons so distant that he himself loses the altar from view (Can. 868).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1148, n. 122.

This manner is described exactly in the Roman Ritual where it treats of the Communion of the Sick, and it certainly would have to be observed if the circumstances of time and places permitted. - Cf. O'Kane, nn. 764 and following.

Question 1. Whether and how, in this region, the dispositions of common law concerning the external pomp with which the Eucharist must be carried to the sick are to be observed?

Resp. Although we must take pains that in this matter we approach as much as possible the common discipline of the Church, nevertheless at present it is not possible, on account of the heretics and infidels among whom we live, to execute entirely the dispositions of common law.

§2. When holy communion is administered privately to the sick, reverence and decency owed to so great a sacrament are to be sedulously provided for, with the norms prescribed by the Apostolic See being observed (Can. 849).

Those things also are to be kept before the eyes which are read in the Encyclical Letter of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, given to the Archbishop of Baltimore on 25 Feb. 1859: "The Sacred Congregation willed that the individual Prelates should be stirred up, as by the tenor of the present letters they are stirred up, to guard the common discipline of the Church in this matter, so far as the circumstances of times and places, and also the account of introduced customs, may allow." But three things especially are to be attended to by priests, as is established from the cited documents: 1st. that, while they carry the Most Holy Sacrament, they avoid vain and useless conversations; 2nd. that they carry the holy Host upon the breast; 3rd. that this carrying be done only for the actual exercise of priestly ministry. - Cf. Second Plenary Council, n. 264; and Appendix n. 9. 297.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 107.

Question 2. Can a priest who is about to celebrate on Sundays in some house or station far from the church bring with him several particles, so that those who from the family and neighboring places are somewhat sick and weak may receive communion very early in the morning before Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems can be gathered with sufficient probability from the cited faculty communicated almost everywhere by our Bishops; for there is no reason why that word "to the sick" must be restricted to those who are gravely lying ill. The same seems possible to be done in paschal time, for those who are not properly sick, but nevertheless cannot go to church because of weakness. Note also that according to the tenor of the cited faculty, the priest can retain the Most Holy Eucharist with him through the night in the same room, without it being necessary to light a lamp before it; but then he must conduct himself with great reverence. Say the same if a priest, called to administer Viaticum to a sick person, finds him dead, and nevertheless is obliged to remain through the night at some private house.

Question 3. Can or must a priest who dwells among us in an exclusively or almost exclusively Catholic place carry the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick with that pomp which is prescribed in the Roman Ritual?

Resp. Negatively, as it seems to us; for some danger of irreverence, at least in the future, would always have to be feared.

Question 4. Is it lawful in time of plague to offer the Eucharist by means of some instrument?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably according to St. Alphonsus, because so great a necessity seems to excuse from the customary rite of the Church. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 244.

Question 5. What must be done by the Priest immediately after the sick person has received communion?

Resp. In the old edition of the Ritual there were the words: "Afterward let the Priest wash his fingers, saying nothing, and let the ablution be given to the sick person." Rit. Rom. Tit. IV, c. 4, n. 19. But now it is thus prescribed: "Afterward the Priest washes his fingers in a vessel prepared with water, saying nothing, and wipes them with the purificator: but the water of ablution is sent in due time into the sacrarium, or, if this is lacking, into the fire." - Cf. Rit. Rom. Tit. IV, c. 4, n. 22.

Question 6. Can the Eucharist be carried several times to sick persons who are not fasting, or by way of Viaticum?

Resp. Affirmatively. §3. While the danger of death endures, holy Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, may lawfully and fittingly be administered several times, on distinct days (Can. 864); indeed, even daily. Nor does it matter that they are not fasting, because in danger of death they are not held by the law of fasting. - Cf. Can. 858, §1.

Question 7. Must or can the Eucharist be given for Viaticum through a tube inserted into the esophagus or stomach of a sick person who cannot otherwise receive foods?

Resp. 1st. There is no obligation, since the manner is unusual and the effect doubtful.

Resp. 2nd. It seems to be lawful to administer thus. Such a communicant truly receives the sacred species by way of food, although he does not strictly eat; and the effect of the Sacrament is at least probable. Moreover, according to some, the essence of eating is had, which consists in the mere conveyance of food into the stomach. But here the Sacred Host is conveyed into the stomach. And there does not seem to be greater irreverence present in this manner of administering than where the Sacred Host is administered by means of a spoon. Cf. Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 1, nn. 114 and 115; disp. 12, n. 29. - Lehmkuhl, n. 143, note 1. - Genicot, n. 204. - Gury-Ferreres, n. 323.

Question 8. Must Viaticum be administered to children after the use of reason?

Resp. Affirmatively. It is a detestable abuse not to administer Viaticum to children after the use of reason, as Pius X declared in the Decree Quam singulari.

§2. In danger of death, in order that the Most Holy Eucharist can and must be administered to children, it is enough that they know how to discern the Body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it (Can. 854).

Question 9. Must Viaticum be administered to a dying neophyte?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he discerns spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host; otherwise negatively.

Question 10. Can soldiers called to battle (i soldati sul fronte) be admitted, with the things to be observed being observed, to the Eucharistic table by way of Viaticum?

Resp. Affirmatively, in view of the extraordinary circumstances of the present war (1914-15). - S. C. de Disp. Sacr. 11 Feb. 1915.