The Necessity of the Eucharist

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Sess. 21, can. 4.

² John 6, 54.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ First General Council of Nicaea, can. 13.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cn. 864.

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

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

⁴ Cn. 864, 2.

⁵ Cn. 864, 3.

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

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

¹ John vi 54.

² Sess. xxi, c. 1.

³ John vi 59.

⁴ Trent, sess. xxi, c. 2.

According to the general rule, children become subject to and bound to obey the positive laws of the Church when they reach the age of seven. However, before the new Code of Canon Law came into force it was usual to defer a child’s first Communion until he had reached the age of nine or twelve. The Code (Can. 859) interprets the phrase “‘ years of discretion,” used by the Lateran Council, to mean the same as to attain the use of reason, and so, now, children are bound to make their Easter Communion when they are seven years of age, unless, indeed, for some good reason it is judged advisable to abstain for a time. This obligation, as far as it affects those under the age of puberty, falls chiefly on those who have care of them—that is, on parents, guardians, confessors, teachers, and parish priests (Can. 860).

Canon 863 prescribes that the faithful are to be exhorted to receive Holy Communion frequently, and even daily, according to the rules laid down in the decrees of the Holy See, and that those who attend Mass should dispose themselves to receive Holy Communion not only spiritually, but sacramentally.

Daily Communion may not be refused to anyone who is in the state of grace and who has a right intention. There should be suitable preparation and thanksgiving, and that daily Communion may be practised with more prudence and with greater fruit, the advice of the confessor should be asked.

It is a disputed point whether one who is now in danger of death and who has within the last few days received Holy Communion is bound by divine precept to receive Viaticum. Although any good Catholic would certainly receive it again, yet the obligation to do so is not clear, because the previous Communion in all probability satisfies the divine law, . If one becomes dangerously ill on the day on which he has received Holy Communion out of devotion, it was similarly a disputed point whether he might, or was bound to, receive it again as Viaticum. Ordinarily, indeed, no one should receive Holy Communion twice on the same day, but in this case he may do so, though he is not bound to do so, for the Code only says that it is very much to be desired (Can. 864, sec. 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass? - It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, or in such a way that the sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the host already consecrated, or carry it away with him while fleeing. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him immediately consume both species, if he can; or if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed very quickly in a nearby place. - Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass accidentally, unless for a just cause before the oblation, for example, because of a sermon after the Gospel, because proclamations of banns are to be made. S. R. C., March 23, 1881, n. 3529.

Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass except for a grave cause before the Canon, for example: 1. To receive a procession, in honor of an arriving Prince, or a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. And if the oblation has not been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole sacred rite. 2. If the priest remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, or not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided the Mass can be left without scandal or disgrace. - 3. If the church is polluted or one to be avoided arrives. - But it is not lawful to interrupt Mass once the Canon has begun, unless for a graver cause; and after the consecration has been completed, unless for a most grave cause, e.g., if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not lawful to administer other sacraments between the consecration and communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar. S. R. C., Dec. 19, 1829, ad 1, n. 2672. Cf. S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1844, n. 2885; Feb. 7, 1874, n. 3322; May 11, 1878, ad 8, n. 3446. "Most theologians... permit a priest to interrupt Mass in order to administer extreme unction to a sick person near death to whom no other sacrament could be conferred." Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 6, n. 5; L. 728. - If Mass has been interrupted, if the celebrant returns shortly, it is to be resumed by him from the place where it was interrupted; but if after an hour, and the consecration had not yet been made, it must again be begun from the beginning. And if another priest completes the Mass begun by another after at least one consecration has been performed, he cannot then celebrate another Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1823, n. 2630. - L. 352, 353, 355; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 83, a. 6, ad 1; Rubr. Miss., De defect.

4. Viaticum is lawful in danger or in the article of death, but not in favor of one specially interdicted unless he first makes satisfaction, or, if he cannot, furnishes security, or, if he cannot even do this, swears that he will make satisfaction. In this case the Most Holy Sacrament can and must be carried to the house of the sick person with the customary solemnity, with clerics accompanying, candles lit, and bells rung. Once the Sacrament has been carried, it is also lawful for the priest to show it to the people for adoration and to bless them with it; for these things are not prohibited by interdict, except in the sacrifice of Mass. But in order that the most holy Eucharist can be ministered to those existing in the article of death, it has been granted, as we have already said, to renew it once in any week by celebrating the sacrifice of Mass. C. Quod in te 11, de Poen. et rem.; C. Permittimus 57, de Sent. exc.; C. Alma, ibid., in VI; Sacred Consistorial Congregation, December 10, 1913; Laymann, part 4, chap. 2, n. 1; Schmalzgrueber, n. 354.

XIV. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum without the license of the parish priest.

Religious: novices of any order or congregation are not judged such here. Nor are religious of those congregations comprehended in which only simple vows are emitted. The reason is that in penal matters the law is to be interpreted strictly. For the same reason neither are religious of those orders comprehended in which solemn vows are indeed emitted, yet they themselves have emitted only simple vows. But under this name are comprehended all solemnly professed religious, although they themselves are parish priests. For these are held strictly by common law as true religious, but by no means others, although they emitted simple vows in a Religion in which solemn vows are emitted. This was positively declared by special privilege concerning Scholastics of the Society of Jesus. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 745, ed. 1885; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 2, second excommunication; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 4, disp. 44, nn. 2, 3.

Presuming: therefore excommunication ceases if you falsely thought that a case of necessity was present, or that the license of the parish priest was not lacking; for if you thought thus, you did not presume. To clerics and lay persons. Yet Religious can from Trent, sess. 24, chap. 11, de Ref., minister the last sacraments to clerics and lay persons who "actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience." Nor indeed is excommunication incurred if they ministered to regulars. Outside the case of necessity, namely as often as danger of death is present and the parish priest cannot or will not minister the sacraments to the sick person. Or the Eucharist as Viaticum: therefore there is no censure if not as Viaticum, but to one who has already received Viaticum, they have ministered it again from devotion; this also is not prohibited, unless one must go along public ways.

Without the license of the parish priest, at least presumed. Of the parish priest, namely one who has care of souls, or who takes his place, by whatever name he is called, and of whom the sick person is a subject by domicile or quasi-domicile. Therefore pilgrims and vagi are excluded. Clementine 1, de Privil.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 9, part 5.

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

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

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

“It has been established by no canonical law that Communion not be administered to children before the twelfth year.... Let Pastors remember that they cannot any longer deny to children whom they find rightly disposed that supersubstantial bread which is the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1851; A. S. S., vol. 22, p. 243.

“Whether the decrees of the Bishop of Annecy—by which the manner of admitting children to First Communion, the time at which this ought to take place, the age of twelve years, etc., were determined—are to be confirmed or invalidated in the case?—Response. In view of the circumstances of places and time, affirmative as to the first part, according to the qualification. The qualification is that the Bishop is not to prohibit Pastors from admitting to First Communion those children concerning whom it is certainly established that they have reached the age of discretion according to the decrees of the Fourth Lateran and Tridentine Councils. The Most Holy One, however, in the audience of 23 July, commanded it to be declared that the words to First Communion are to be understood to the exclusion of First Communion in solemn form.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 July 1888.—The Cardinal Prefect transmitted this explanation to the Bishop: “The Pastor can give Holy Communion to a youth whom he believes instructed and who says that he has the discretion to understand what he is doing, but privately, without any solemnity and publicity; but when it concerns administering Holy Communion in a public and solemn form, according to the custom of the churches of France, the episcopal decree must be observed.”

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

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

— The reality or special grace of this sacrament, instituted for the refreshment of our soul, is the spiritual transformation of man into Christ, our life, through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites. That is, the effects which temporal food works for bodily life, this food works the same effects for spiritual life. For it sustains this life, both by increasing habitual grace and by exciting the fervor of charity; it increases it, insofar as it is directly and specially referred to perfecting charity, whence the wound of "egoism" is healed, and sanctifying grace and the other virtues receive an increase; it repairs: for by exciting fervent acts of charity ex opere operato, it takes away venial sins and the damages which they have brought upon us; it delights already through the very active love which it excites. Thus almost Cardinal Billot, De Euch.

— 1. General Rule. "Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion." By these words c. 853 establishes the right of a Christian to the spiritual refreshment of his soul, without a positive demonstration of his worthiness, so that only the publicly unworthy and manifestly infamous are to be kept away, if they ask publicly; but hidden ones only if they ask secretly from a minister who outside confession knows that they are not amended (cf. c. 855 and what was said n. 191-194).

Yet those also can be repelled who approach Holy Communion dressed less modestly or with that adornment which approved usage prohibits, especially if they have first been warned, at least by a general edict. These are not kept away as sinners, but as troublesome and uncivil petitioners; nor do they become infamous from a repulse whose reason is manifest.

— II. Communion of Children. Although baptized children receive this sacrament validly and fruitfully, nevertheless the present discipline of the Church, by which greater reverence for the sacrament is provided for, expressed in canon 854, establishes these several things concerning children:

1. Those are not to be admitted who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament;

2. Those constituted in danger of death can and must be admitted to Holy Communion who know how to distinguish the body of Christ from common food, and reverently to adore it;

3. Outside danger of death, that fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation is said to be required by which they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the Most Holy Eucharist;

4. The confessors of the children and their parents, or those who are in the place of parents, judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the children;

5. To the pastor a twofold office is assigned: a) of watching lest children approach the sacred synaxis before the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; which vigilance he can exercise even by examination, if he has prudently judged it opportune; b) of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed as soon as possible by this divine food.

That we may explain this canon somewhat, according to its importance, first it must be well held that by it the several norms of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Quam singulari, August 8, 1910, are confirmed entirely. Indeed the Code presents them in the same words. For art. 3 of the said decree sounds thus: "The knowledge of religion which is required in a child that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion is that by which he, according to his capacity, perceives the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age bears." Only in this way do the norms of the Code differ from the norms of the decree, that the decree was issued for uprooting the error of those who delayed the Communion of children too much, and therefore had to insist on the facility with which children were to be admitted; while the Code also, as human nature is inclined to excesses, had to restrain or impede the contrary excesses of those who, not attending at all to the conditions placed in the decree, almost compel children indiscriminately to the sacred table. Wherefore, wishing to meet this indiscreet zeal, it places and vindicates more in recto the necessity of fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation in a healthy child.

Moreover it does three things for this end. In §1, proceeding negatively, with the Roman Ritual, from which that paragraph is taken, it keeps away children to whom knowledge and taste of the Most Holy Eucharist are lacking. Taste can be said either to be that hunger or sincere will by which they desire to receive Christ, and do not merely wish to please parents and imitate adults; or that devotion proportionate to age. For the condition of approach under the form of hunger was expressed by D. de Segur: He loves Jesus Christ and desires him; under the form of devotion it was rendered by St. Thomas: "When children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this sacrament." Now each passage has been praised in decrees of the Holy See.

Then §3 says positively that those are to be admitted who, according to their capacity, perceive the mysteries necessary by necessity of means, and approach devoutly according to their measure.

Finally, §5 indicates the regular time: the attained use of reason. For before this they are to be repelled; afterward children are to be led, or disposed as soon as possible. But from can. 88, seven years completed is presumed to be that time. As is clear, according to the cultivation of children, according to the very climate under which they live, exceptions can be more frequent or less frequent.

Wherefore, no less after the promulgated Code than after the decrees of Pius X, children who have not yet attained seven years can be admitted if they satisfy the conditions; but before the completed seventh year, they must dispel the contrary presumption, while after the seventh year, the presumption of capacity favors them.

Nothing is suggested concerning a general or subsequent solemn Communion of children: therefore the usage of the region will have to be considered; but that solemnity is greatly to be commended (Provincial Council of Mechlin, nn. 193 and 280).

Finally it can be asked how the judgment concerning the disposition of children, which is permitted to the confessor and parents, is to be combined with the office of vigilance of pastors.

In this way, unless we are mistaken. Concerning individual children, parents and confessors can judge, nor must they warn the pastor or approach him for consultation. At the same time a certain general inspection, as of the external forum, is committed to the pastor, of observing which children approach or omit Communion. Then, if he has some of those approaching under suspicion of ignorance, he can test them even by examination; but those later whom he thinks fit or to be disposed he will try to lead to Holy Communion. In each case, it is necessary that he have authority among parents ¹; yet a strict obligation of obeying him is not imposed by law. But the pastor cannot, relying on this can. 854, generally subordinate the first Communion of children in his parish to the condition of a previous examination. Nor will he repel from the sacred table a child who publicly but reverently asks for Holy Communion, because he doubts about his age or has himself demanded greater preparation. For such a child is not a public sinner or infamous. And public denial, especially if signs of impatience accompany it, will easily produce lasting or irreparable effects of timidity or aversion, even among other children who are witnesses of the matter. Yet it will be lawful for a pastor who doubts about a child to speak to him kindly and question him, and, if the case bears it, gently remove him from the sacred table.

¹ "The judgment of pastors concerning these children (whom because of a prudent doubt they have examined) must be stood by." Provincial Council of Mechlin, 1920, art. 188.

— III. Required State of Grace. The state of grace is required by divine precept. And he who is in mortal sin, under mortal sin, must confess before reception of the Eucharist, unless there is necessity of communicating and the opportunity of a confessor is lacking: the Church thus defined the proving which from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, is necessary, whether it merely declared the divine law, or completed it by its own authority. Cf. Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 7 with can. 11, and Code c. 856.

When the opportunity of a confessor is lacking was said above, n. 317, 2. But the necessity of communicating will scarcely be other than that of avoiding disgrace or infamy; and the almost sole case will be if you are already physically or morally at the Communion rail, and then remember a mortal sin committed after the last confession. Nor is he excused who rashly, conscious of evil disposition, has gone with his family to church intending to confess and communicate, and has not been absolved by the priest.

What shall we say about that wonder which, in more than one community, he will excite who, accustomed to communicate daily, on a certain day, especially if it has been more solemn, omits Communion?

Nor can we, from the general rule, grant Communion to him without confession first made. For either it concerns a very rare case, and then he has an easy opportunity of creating another impediment which he will narrate without shame, by breaking the fast; or it concerns a case not so rare. Then it was his part so to arrange his Communions that from the beginning he would be known as one not communicating daily. But if he neglected this, as a frail man he ought reasonably to have admitted the consequence of some suspicion, which nevertheless is not strictly infaming, since abstinence can also be attributed to scruples. But again consider the harms of a faculty conceded to laypersons, and even to youths, of approaching the sacred table after a mortal sin not remitted by absolution: how much it would derogate from the reverence of the Most Holy Eucharist, how much it would diminish horror of sin, how much it would take away from the effort to extirpate a depraved habit!

But this is the reason why, especially in colleges, there must be holy liberty not only of communicating but also of abstaining from use of the Holy Eucharist; why confessors should prudently direct penitents in a strictly daily approach to the sacred table, and dissuade it from him who easily falls into grave sin and is not prepared to contemn the wonder of bystanders; why also, as far as can be done, daily opportunity of a confessor should be provided for a community where the pious use of daily Communion is accustomed to flourish.

Some also permit Communion without confession to him who otherwise would be prohibited from fulfilling the precept of paschal Communion.

But the precept of confessing immediately after, when in necessity you have omitted confession, obliges only priests celebrating, and therefore not a priest or layperson who has merely received Holy Communion.

— Appendix X belongs to this section. IV. Required Fasting. 1. Historical matters. Cf. Appendix X.

2. The law in force. "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist": this is the general rule of c. 858, §1, whose exceptions we shall soon weigh.

Whatever has been taken from midnight onward in the manner of food or drink, even for a medicinal end, breaks the natural fast. Nor does smallness of matter excuse. Thus the concordant opinion of Catholics.

Moreover three conditions are necessary for breaking this fast:

1. That the thing have the ratio of food or drink;

2. That it be taken from without;

3. That it be taken "in the manner of eating or drinking" (St. Alphonsus, 6, 280). And here intention can have some efficacy;

4. That it be taken from midnight onward.

1. A thing is said to have the ratio of food or drink which is digestible, or in itself, for what happens accidentally because of the condition of the stomach is not to be considered, is altered in the stomach, broadly accepted. Wherefore what is chemically demonstrated to be in no way capable of being converted within into something else, but to pass through the body unchanged, for example paraffin, can be taken before Communion without fault. And even if it is altered, that also can be taken which in common estimation is not thought to have the ratio of food or drink. Thus says a truly probable opinion, since in a sacramental matter common estimation is accustomed to have very great force.

Hence the ratio of food or drink is not had, or is judged not to be had, by metal, though certainly by iron powder or the like, not rarely prescribed by physicians; glass; little stones; hairs; silk or woolen thread, though certainly linen thread does; well-cleaned little fruit-pits; and probably fingernails, a little piece of dry wood, unless it is edible like rhubarb (rabarbaro, rhubarbe), glycyrrhiza, or liquorice (regolizia, reglisse), paper, wax, earth, chalk, and perhaps straw. Yet many deny this (cf. St. Alphonsus, 6, 281, end).

2. Taking from without is lacking in him who swallows the remains of food from a meal completed the previous day by chance, or even deliberately, since the rubric does not distinguish cases; who swallows, even deliberately, blood flowing from the teeth, tongue, or an ulcer inside the mouth, or flowing inward from the nose; who puts aromatics or tobacco leaves in the mouth or tastes something, provided that he transmits nothing into the stomach. But he takes from without who before midnight receives sugar or glycyrrhiza into his mouth so that he may gradually swallow them: there is had there a continued eating, just as in him who, with midnight imminent, takes food into the mouth which after midnight he breaks up with the teeth.

3. The following is not taken in the manner of food or drink: a) what at the same time, by chance, is drawn into the mouth while breathing, whether it is dust, a fly, or a gnat; b) what by chance is drawn through the nose, for example tobacco powder; c) what is swallowed mixed with saliva together with it: thus the small water with which you have washed the mouth, a particle of the tobacco leaf which you have chewed, a few little drops of blood or a little skin taken from the exterior lips; d) what of water perhaps remains in the stomach, which you wished to wash by means of a gastric siphon, provided you have not externally anointed the siphon with oil or an edible ointment; e) the smoke of tobacco or another fumigation.

Vomiting after eating does not destroy this, either because there will not be complete evacuation, or because by the eating itself you have broken the fast.

Observe that the response about a thing mixed with saliva or drawn in on the occasion of breathing does not hold unless it has been mixed or drawn in apart from intention.

4. As we said in the earlier part, the time of midnight can be chosen either as the usual time, or the true or mean time of the place, or legal, or regional, or another extraordinary time (c. 33): and various clocks which are not established to be in error are admitted in themselves as good authorities, which make a probable opinion. And they agree that in receiving the sacred banquet it is lawful for you to be content with probability of fact.

Yet this probability is destroyed by a certain indication of the hour, which, for example, in the City is given at midday.

According as clocks announce by their sound the hour already completed, as most do, or the hour imminent, one must cease from eating from the first or from the last stroke. Yet what you have received in the mouth before the stroke of the clock you are permitted to swallow, because the Church does not seem to impose on you the rusticity of spitting it out; and without doubt clocks are not lacking which sound a tiny bit later, so that it is not established that the fast has been broken. Thus Lehmkuhl, II, 316.

— In a doubt, whether positive or negative, whether or not you have taken something after midnight, since Communion is a most favorable thing and it concerns the exclusion of an impediment, not the acquiring of a positive quality, it is lawful to communicate. But it is not therefore permitted to eat or drink at any hour of the night and then allege ignorance of the hour for communicating. The precept of the Church, as the very usage of the faithful demonstrates, does not bear this interpretation. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 15, n. 42. In order that, in the night, you deliberately and licitly take something with the purpose of communicating, it is necessary, at least when means are at hand, that you probably judge it is not midnight. Cf. what was said in tome I, n. 374.

Wherefore they commonly keep away from Communion him who, lying down in the evening, has placed something in his mouth against hoarseness, unless he is certain that he transmitted nothing after midnight. Yet if it was in his mind to absorb the whole while awake, or to spit out the remainder, and by chance he was seized by sleep, the benign opinion which permits Communion to one ignorant of the hour of transmission can be admitted, and seems to us preferable. It can also happen that the thing is found so entire that nothing except perhaps a very tiny thing mixed with saliva has been absorbed. Access to the sacred table will be freely open.

For evacuating scruples, the better counsel will be that the nostrils be anointed with some oily material by which slightly humid air may be inhaled.

— Exceptions to the Law of Fasting.

1. When danger of death urges (c. 858). Therefore not only the sick but also those who because of an extrinsic cause are exposed to death are excused from the law. But for these the danger of death must be urgent, so that they cannot conveniently wait for another day on which they may communicate fasting (Cappello, I, n. 514); while the sick, from c. 858 and the former interpretation of the Council of Constance, strictly need no excuse of inconvenience. And in doubt about danger of death, one must respond in favor of the faculty of communicating. Cf. Genicot, II, 202.

N. B. The formula: "Receive, Brother (or Sister), the Viaticum of the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed to be used in itself, but it can be omitted if it is to be feared that the sick person may be disturbed by it.

And while the danger of death perseveres, after Viaticum, which is of precept, has been received, and even before, the Communion of the sick person who is not fasting can be repeated several times, on distinct days, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, and therefore even daily (c. 864, §3).

2. Fear of death otherwise to be undergone, unless he is asked to do this in contempt of the precept or of religion, excuses the faithful person who communicates not fasting.

3. The Eucharist exposed to danger of profanation or loss can be received by one not fasting, even a layperson. Thus the canon itself excepts the necessity of providing for the reverence of the sacrament.

To this belongs the consumption of fragments after the ablution, in Mass. Therefore after the ablution, it is lawful for a priest, per accidens, for this is not to be done from a preconceived purpose, to receive smaller fragments pertaining to the same sacrifice, whether he is at the altar, or already in the sacristy, provided that he has not yet taken off the sacred vestments. Fragments of another sacrifice are not to be received after the ablution, unless danger of irreverence has been added; as if, after the last Mass, you discover very tiny particles which cannot, without danger, be carried to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle is lacking. Indeed, as is probable, a priest can purify a ciborium which he immediately needs, although distractedly he has already received the purification of the chalice, because this consumption is judged to be one with Holy Communion itself. Lehmkuhl, II, 192, 4, does not admit this if it concerns whole hosts. And indeed these in themselves can be preserved in the purified pyx itself. Palmieri, t. IV, n. 947, also inclines to the opinion of Tamburini, Exp. comm., §8, according to which a priest, as long as he is at the altar, can in strictness receive even fragments consecrated in another sacred action.

And by equal reason, "if a priest carries Communion to a sick person, in a hospital, and remains are left on the paten or in the chalice, the priest can receive them if he is still clothed in the sacred vestments for Mass. He can also give them immediately after the small host to the sick person, because it is judged one Communion." Cf. Roman Ritual, Order of administering Holy Communion.

N. B. The observance of the rubrics or an approved manner of acting liturgically must not be impeded by fear of a broken fast, because the Church, while it gives or approves these norms, tacitly dispenses, as far as is necessary, from the law of fasting. Thus the Sacred Congregation itself responded that salt placed in the mouth of a neophyte in the ceremonies of baptism does not obstruct Communion immediately following. Thus, that in a prior sacred action, while before the consumption of the blood fragments are gathered, small unconsecrated things are poured into the chalice and received together with the blood of Christ, this does not impede the following Mass of bination; and say the same about little unconsecrated drops which are mixed with the sacred blood. Thus he who on Friday in Parasceve, by drinking wine, has left part of the sacred host in the chalice, receives this with a safe conscience; and he who, in receiving the blood of Christ, has left a consecrated particle in the chalice, from the rubrics themselves of the Missal (De defectibus, X, 8), has the option of bringing it with his finger to the lip of the chalice, or of pouring in wine and receiving it. Thus finally when, according to received custom, after the species of bread has been received, wine to be drunk is given to children after first Communion or to newly ordained priests, they ought to be affected by no anxiety because they first swallowed liquid. For the manifest intention of the Church does not comprehend these things by its law of fasting. Some give this reason, that by the law it is forbidden that you receive anything before Communion, but by no means that together with Communion you receive something else. The reason given first seems to us more simple and adequate.

— Dispensation by Law. "The sick who have already been lying ill for a month without certain hope that they will quickly recover can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink" (c. 858, §2).

This faculty was first conceded by a decree of Pius X through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906, but then Communion twice in the week was not permitted except in houses where the Most Holy Eucharist was preserved, or Mass could be celebrated: outside such houses Communion was conceded only twice in the month; nor was solid medicine indulged.

This canon, since it derogates from a grave law, is to be interpreted strictly. Nevertheless usage has prevailed of benignly understanding the word "lying ill," so that even those sick persons who can carry themselves to church are permitted to use the faculty. Thus also Cappello, op. cit., I, 506.

But the other conditions are to be observed accurately. Therefore it is required:

1. That it concerns the truly sick. Such are those whose strength, whether by disease, by old age, or by weakness, has been truly broken, so that at least morally they can be called lying ill. There is no need of a grave or dangerous disease;

2. That they have already been lying ill, or laboring under infirmity, for a month. A month, from the Code, is a space of 30 days, which Rev. Fr. Cappello, loc. cit., understands morally of a space of 26 or 27 days. But in no way can it be admitted that the faculty be extended to those who are affected by a disease which is foreseen to be going to last at least thirty days. By an interpretation of this kind open force would be inflicted on the words, which are to be taken strictly;

3. That there be lacking certain hope of proximate recovery. Certain hope confers a certain moral certitude. Proximate recovery is that which will be obtained within a few days, three or four;

4. It is necessary that they act according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, such as every approved confessor is judged to be. In giving counsel, the spiritual dispositions of the soul are to be considered first; yet the confessor must also be solicitous that the conditions of the privilege have been fulfilled;

5. Communion is not permitted, after the fast has been broken, except once or twice in the week. It is not in the power of the confessor to permit more frequent Communion under any pretext. And this would be grave. Cf. also Cappello, I, n. 506, 4. Yet a probable opinion allows use of the privilege twice in the week to him who, on the other days, certainly with his own inconvenience, receives the sacrament fasting;

6. Only medicine, or something in the manner of drink, is permitted. Medicine can be solid, such as a little lozenge. Common sense will teach what has the ratio of medicine. It must have a direct order to healing some ailment. Therefore it cannot be confused with food which is used rather for strengthening the powers, although it can be said to have been taken in the manner of medicine. But in the manner of drink are also taken crushed solid fragments which float in a liquid. Hence already on September 7, 1897 the words "in the manner of drink" were so declared that it was lawful "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed with it, for example light little pellets of flour (semolino), bread grated into crumbs (pangrattato), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food."

The egg itself in its natural state, or not cooked or very lightly cooked, is said to be drunk. But a little lozenge or sugar is not drunk, but eaten, although dissolved by the heat of the mouth it is then swallowed. For the usage of common speech is that attention is paid to the manner in which it is received in the mouth: at that moment, and not afterward, the thing is said to have been taken. Wherefore, that an uncooked egg is said to be taken in the manner of drink, we easily admit with Rev. Fr. Cappello, I, n. 507; but we think one must respond otherwise about lozenges, sugar, etc., even if they are sent into the stomach completely dissolved by the heat of the mouth.

Now moral inability to observe the fast is not required. But unless some serious inconvenience is connected with observing the fast, the required counsel of communicating without the fast having been observed cannot be given by a prudent confessor.

N. B. It is sometimes conceded to bishops that they may be able to permit Communion to these sick persons three times in the week, after liquid or medicine has been taken. Moreover number 42 of the faculties of Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates allows that, even before the end of the month from which they have been lying ill, or even to sick persons not lying ill, they may concede Communion once in the week without the fast being observed as above. The faculties of Propaganda Fide give to bishops, Vicars, and Prefects Apostolic power to permit Communion to the sick lying ill, even before the end of the month, without the fast being observed, twice or three times in the week, indeed even daily if they are priests or religious.

— Dispensation Through the Sacred Congregation. To those who morally cannot observe the natural fast, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, or, for religious, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, grants Communion even daily, after anything has been taken in the manner of drink. The faculty to be executed is usually committed to the Ordinary of the petitioner, by the counsel of the confessor, and sometimes to the confessor himself. Thus far the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments does not permit solid medicine, but only what has the ratio of drink.

— Various Things to Be Noted. The strict prohibition is only of taking anything from midnight onward: but the reason of decency will counsel that a fitting interval be interposed from the last meal, unless an excusing cause is present. Wherefore not rarely in indults by which either Communion or nocturnal Mass is permitted, the condition of a reasonable interval of hours is attached.

And although no positive law forbids it, it is certainly counsel that you not take food before the species are prudently thought to have been consumed. To omit this without cause is held as venial irreverence by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 283.

But one must beware lest, after Holy Communion, the stomach at some point be compelled to cast out food together with the species.

But sputum, since it does not flow through the esophagus, can safely be expectorated, unless some fragment of the sacred host adheres to the teeth; on account of which cause it will be better to wait somewhat.

— V. No stain of the body in itself impedes reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, since it has no bearing on moral goodness. How much less the hidden stain of menstruation. Wherefore today we judge it consonant with the mind of the Holy See that not even counsel be given about omitting Communion during the time of menstruation.

— Concerning involuntary pollution, concerning voluntary pollution but expiated by confession, concerning the use of marriage, a universal rule cannot be handed down, but the matter is to be committed to a prudent confessor. He will attend to the utility of Holy Communion, to the reverence due to the Most Holy Eucharist, to the internal disposition of the communicant, who can approach either disturbed by carnal affection or, on the contrary, with a serene mind, and to the scandal which would be given by him who soon after sin committed with an accomplice should sit down at the sacred table. To those who are accustomed to communicate rarely, but not to those who communicate almost daily, the counsel can be given that on days of Holy Communion they not indulge in the carnal work. After a carnal sin has been committed, the very reason of reverence requires, in itself, some delay of Communion. Involuntary pollution is not a reason for dissuading Communion, unless the occupied imagination impedes devotion, or abstinence can contribute to the fervor of devotion. It is clear that a prudent confessor will not of his own accord speak either about the use of marriage or about menstruation.

— VI. The reason of reverence also requires that other signs of honor, although they are not strictly prescribed, be observed by communicants according to the custom of places and the ability which they have: for example, cleanliness of clothing, the custom of laying aside gloves and weapons, etc.

— What the Necessity of Communion Is. The more common opinion of theologians today, denying necessity of means, strongly vindicates only a necessity of precept of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. For first grace is infused in Baptism and restored through Penance, so that the Most Holy Eucharist, destined for nourishing our spiritual life, can be supplied by other nourishments of that life. Yet the food of our soul ordained by God is to be received sometimes in the manner of food; and this is demonstrated both by the divine ordination itself and by the words of the Lord: "Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), in which at least a grave precept must be read. The same theologians also commonly think that Viaticum must be received in danger of death by divine precept. Yet they do not bring forward a compelling reason for this precept. They derive the chief argument from the supreme spiritual necessity in which man is then placed, so that man could neglect that assistance only by gravely derogating from charity toward himself. Moreover it is sufficiently established that a precept not much defined is to be regulated by the Church. Hence they well understand and explain how the discipline concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use could vary and has varied.

Things are conceived in a sufficiently dissimilar way if, with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism and most ancient doctors, we profess that the Most Holy Eucharist is necessary by necessity of means, in reality or in desire, so that first grace itself, whether in Baptism or in Penance, is rather conferred from the desire of the Eucharist. This St. Thomas and also the Roman Catechism hand down in express words: "First grace is granted to no one unless they receive this sacrament itself by desire and vow" (2, 4, 51-52). And the reason is that the immolated flesh of Christ is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification: to which it is wholly necessary to adhere (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 608). Then there is a genuine use of the words of the Lord just alleged: for less than a precept, they render a condition without which not. And because "a desire would be vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity was present" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 11, c.), at once there appears the obligation of sometimes receiving the Most Holy Eucharist as food of the soul, so that we may have life in us. The question concerning the grave obligation of divine law of Viaticum is then solved quite conveniently, limited to him who in danger of death has had to be truly reconciled with God: for he must take care that before death he be refreshed by the Most Holy Eucharist, lest his desire be in itself fruitless.

Yet the explanation of the varied custom of the Church concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use then becomes less convenient. And a threefold way of solution can be entered upon. For either you contend that the rules most happily given by Pius X had always in themselves to be observed, but remained unknown until our progress in faith had detected them, which in a matter of use so universal and daily is scarcely credible; or you ascribe to obscurity brought in through heresy the cold severity about approach to the sacred table which everywhere prevailed for many centuries before Pius X; and that the Jansenian heresy had to be culpably and harmfully blamed, the pontifical documents on daily Communion signify not obscurely; or also here you place in the power of the Church the establishing of norms, according to the common good, concerning the first and necessary approach to the Most Holy Eucharist, just as the Church also establishes how recourse must be had to Penance, whose necessity of means is denied by no Catholic. And this explanation pleases us more. The Church could, because of better preparation of intellect and soul, in another epoch have delayed first Communion, while today there is a twofold cause why even before the age when the dangers of grave sin are accustomed to be greater, it has defined that one must approach the sacred table: that is, the invading neo-paganism whose attacks must be resisted strongly through supernatural life; and the diffusion of literary education, which brings it about that young people can sooner be refreshed with due devotion by the sacred banquet.

Now he who uses or abstains from the Most Holy Eucharist according to rules approved or commanded by the Church fulfills his desire of receiving the Eucharist in a reasonable manner: which is required for salvation and suffices.

Thus far concerning necessity in itself. Practically, besides, the more frequent use of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist becomes, not so rarely, a morally necessary means for overcoming temptations, when there is scarcely hope of obtaining such a use of other remedies as would suffice for carrying off that victory. Wherefore, although it does not seem opportune that this frequency be strictly imposed as per accidens necessary for many, because in strictness other means are at hand, and to the languid a remedy would be prescribed in vain which they would refuse or neglect to take, still by every reason, youths and many unmarried persons are to be brought, especially if they are given to softness, to strengthen themselves as frequently as they can by this sacred banquet.

— I. Communion Prescribed to the Healthy. "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, must once in the year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has thought he must abstain for a time from its reception" (c. 859, §1).

By this canon the precept already promulgated in the Lateran Council is confirmed, an opportune explanation being added.

1. And first, by the present discipline all are held by this precept who have arrived at the use of reason, even if they have not yet completed the age of seven years. This age of seven years supplies a certain presumption, which always yields to the truth. Having attained the use of reason, they will not have to communicate as soon as possible; but since from possession of the use of reason they are held by the common law, they do not seem able to defer Communion beyond the next Easter.

2. "Once in the year, at least at Easter": by these words it is shown that the precept is virtually twofold: of communicating once in the year, and of communicating at Easter, so that he who has not wished or has not been able to communicate at Easter is held by the obligation of annual Communion, unless already in the same civil year he has worthily received Holy Communion (cf. c. 859, §4). For although from the decree of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, the year seems to be computed from Easter to Easter, nevertheless some, among whom is Lugo himself, Euch., d. 16, n. 19, permit civil computation. But then it is necessary that the Christian be constant in that computation, and not wish so to join each that he is refreshed by the sacred banquet only once in two years, as if Communion is made at Easter 1922, and then only in 1924, also at Easter. The obligation of receiving Holy Communion as soon as possible after Easter is not had unless special law has defined the matter otherwise.

The paschal time for satisfying the ecclesiastical precept is vainly anticipated, unless by him who foresees that he will be impeded throughout the whole paschal time, and wishes to compute the year from the first of January.

3. One's own priest, that is, either the pastor or confessor, can give counsel of deferring Communion beyond the paschal time. Therefore they obtain the faculty of quasi-dispensing for a time in this precept, for the utility of the faithful person, reasonably understood. For the utility of the faithful person, I say, for counsel is not given except about a better thing. Therefore it is not a faculty of dispensing properly so called, for a cause almost excusing: they can concede only a spiritually useful dispensation. And scarcely any reason is conceived to be other than that which is gathered from present indisposition or lesser disposition, as if someone remains doubtful in faith.

But the time is defined by the utility itself. If faith must be restored, it could even be quite long.

Practically, however, this faculty is benignly accepted concerning a true dispensation, which, even outside the sacrament of Penance, is conceded by the confessor. Without a dispensation made, even a small delay is judged grave.

— The paschal time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday inclusive. Yet it is lawful for local Ordinaries, "if the circumstances of persons and places so require, to anticipate this time even for all their faithful, not however before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or to prorogue it, not however beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity" (c. 859, §2). This requirement will arise, for example, from received usage, or even from a lesser supply of confessors. For one must strive greatly that fitting time can be spent in hearing those who only once in the year, or rarely, are accustomed to use the sacraments, so that they may receive true refreshment of soul.

Therefore, in the manner of a synodal or particular law of that place, the paschal time can be enlarged by the bishop within the said limits. This law, according to general principles, will also benefit travelers.

— The Place of Paschal Communion. Now, what is notable, the precept of paschal Communion can be satisfied in any place. Yet the faithful are to be counseled that "each should satisfy it in his own parish; and those who have satisfied it in another parish should take care to make their own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept" (c. 859, §3).

The word "take care," placed absolutely, signifies a command, which however the context shows to be light. Nevertheless some already, for example Cappello, I, n. 475, make the matter one of counsel.

The words "in one's own parish" in themselves have a broader force than "in the parochial church," especially since they are opposed to satisfaction in another parish, which certainly, from §1 itself, where no place is defined for fulfilling the precept, is understood of every oratory of another parish. Therefore the legislator seems to intend this: that by Communion made in one's own domicile, a good example be given to the other inhabitants; and they will lack this edification if the sacraments are received outside the parish.

— The Office of Parents, etc. Prudently and most opportunely the Code warns that the obligation of the impubes also and especially "falls upon those who have care of them"; and it names parents, to whom the Christian instruction of children has been divinely committed; tutors, who must take the place of parents; the confessor, insofar as he is at the same time a spiritual father, or at least from charity must warn penitents concerning their obligation; teachers, both as neighbors bound by fraternal correction, and as delegated by parents; the pastor, as shepherd to whom, in c. 854, §5, this care has been specially mandated by law (c. 860).

— You will ask how, concerning the age at which children are to be admitted to first Communion, ecclesiastical discipline could vary so greatly.

Many explain the matter because the use of the Most Holy Eucharist does not have necessity of means; but the obligation of a grave precept immediately divine is not demonstrated before the age in which there are many dangers of mortal sin, such as the age of puberty is accustomed to be; and the determination of the beginning of the obligation, just as the determination of frequency, was left to the Church by its Spouse and Author. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 200 sqq. We have preferred to say that true necessity of means, in reality or in desire, does not prevent the Church from placing on real reception the conditions required by the common good. The means is then satisfied at least in desire. Cf. n. 402.

N. B. They report in the periodical Hostia, Jan.-Feb. 1921, a response of His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, from which the use of reason in cc. 854, 859, and 906 is to be understood as such as suffices for committing venial sin, and the capacity for mortal sin is not required. Thus indeed it will have to be said by those who think each capacity can be separated: which we see denied by St. Thomas in 1, 2, q. 89, art. 6.

— By express canon 861 we are warned that the precept of receiving Communion is by no means satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. How this is combined with the doctrine which denies that interior acts can be commanded by the Church, we saw in tome I, n. 254, b.

— Communion in the Mass of Ordination and on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. 1. In the Mass of ordination, those advanced to a major order must communicate.

2. The Code says it is expedient that on Thursday of the greater week all clerics, even priests who on that day abstain from offering the sacred sacrifice, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (c. 862). And in truth, by a general Communion of this kind, a pious representation of the Supper of the Lord is obtained.

By this counsel the obligation which some clerics can have from liturgical law, of receiving Communion from the bishop, is not removed.

— Frequency to Be Counseled to the Healthy. "Let the faithful be excited to be refreshed frequently, even daily, by the eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the Apostolic decrees; and let those assisting at Mass, being rightly disposed, communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist." Thus c. 863, which therefore: 1. wishes the frequent, indeed daily, use of the Most Holy Eucharist to be commended by priests; 2. inculcates that the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See be observed: among which the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, December 20, 1905, of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, holds the chief place. To that decree are added: the decree of May 30, 1905, conceding indulgences to prayer for the propagation of daily Communion; the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, February 14, 1906, dispensing from the condition of weekly confession as many as use quasi-daily Communion; the encyclical letter of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, April 10, 1907, concerning a triduan supplication to be celebrated yearly for spreading the use of daily Communion; the encyclical letter Editae saepe, May 26, 1910, on account of the secular solemnities of St. Charles Borromeo, in the second part ¹; 3. but especially confirms and authentically interprets c. 6, sess. XXII of the Council of Trent as a true desire: "The holy synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful present should communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice may come to them."

¹ All these are had in Per., II, 68-70; IV, 177; III, 80-84; V, 152-154. Cf. also the dissertation, II, 77-88.

— But the moral norms to be observed seem able to be brought together briefly in this way: a) the question concerning special dispositions required for communicating daily has been raised inopportunely. For that doubt takes its origin from diminution of piety and the Jansenian plague; it has had the effect of distancing from the sacred table; and pious and learned theologians have taught that "there is no precept of the Church concerning greater dispositions for daily Communion than for weekly or monthly Communion" (decree Sacra Trid. Syn., III, 3); b) the right mind necessary for eucharistic use is this: that a supernatural reason induce one to communicate, not however some human respect, which would impel one to Communion because others do this, because thus the custom of the house bears; or vanity, by which praise or fame of devotion or piety would be sought. Although a substantially pure intention can be mixed with some human consideration; c) that purity suffices by which one is immune from mortal sins. Nor are those few to be heard in any way who, contrary to what both the immediately preceding and immediately following words demonstrate, interpret the sentence n. IV, 3°, "it suffices nevertheless that they be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," as if there were required a purpose of fleeing every sin, even venial. The whole spirit, as it were, of the decree abhors this interpretation, by which flight from venial sin is said to be the fruit of daily Communion, far from being the prerequisite disposition; d) according to the powers, condition, and offices of the one receiving the sacred banquet, careful preparation and suitable thanksgiving are to be employed; e) for counsel, one's own confessor is to be approached, "so that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit" (Sacra Trid. Syn., IV, 5°).

Here also return the things already said concerning the necessity of taking care that everywhere it be intact for all to consult their own devotion, and to approach the Most Holy Eucharist or abstain from it, and that an easy opportunity of confession before Communion be supplied to all.

— Frequency Necessary or to Be Counseled to the Sick. 1. Concerning the sick who are not dangerously lying ill, the things said above, nn. 387, 396, return. In themselves no special rules about these are to be proposed. By the twofold canon concerning the secret carrying of the Most Holy Eucharist, and concerning the use of the Most Holy Eucharist after drink or medicine has been taken, the frequent refreshment of the sick has been rendered much easier. And because the sacraments are for men, so great a solace of the afflicted, which true and complete worship in itself accompanies, is to be preferred to the greater exterior honor which the Most Holy Eucharist before obtained from public carrying. Moreover it is necessary that we conform ourselves, our own persuasion having been laid aside, to the discipline which recent instructions of the Holy See favor.

2. Concerning those lying dangerously ill, or even concerning those who because of a cause foreign to disease are placed in danger of death, the Code, c. 864, decrees or permits these things: a) it sanctions or confirms the precept of receiving Holy Communion; b) the controversy which existed about this matter having been suppressed, it permits, indeed greatly counsels, that he who, free from danger, has received Communion, should communicate again on the same day, when brought into danger of life; c) but on distinct days it permits and says it is becoming that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor. Several times, and therefore even daily, if the confessor judges this expedient. And in itself daily eating of the heavenly bread is to be urged more for those who must be comforted by the proximate hope of heaven; d) by a most opportune warning, it forbids that Holy Viaticum be deferred too much; and it commits to the careful vigilance of those who have care of souls that the sick be refreshed by Viaticum while fully in possession of themselves (cc. 864, 865).

— Yet the sick can be prohibited from Communion by a certain or probable danger of exterior irreverence. The Roman Ritual, t. 4, c. 4, n. 4, warns that care must diligently be taken "lest Viaticum be given to those from whom, because of continual coughing or some other similar disease, some indecency with injury to so great a sacrament can be feared." Wherefore it is not lawful to give Communion to those who suffer from vomiting, unless a skilled man or experience has taught that serious danger of vomiting up the sacred species is absent. If a skilled man is lacking, an interval of some hours, for instance six, seems to be awaited. With those delirious, experience can be taken by first handing over an unconsecrated particle. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 292.

But the species rejected by vomiting, if they have remained incorrupt, are to be adored; and being again received, they again confer grace, since there is a new eating of the body of Christ. Lugo, Euch., 12, 53.

But if because of nausea they are not received, carefully separated, they are to be kept in a sacred place until, perfect corruption having occurred, they are thrown into the sacrarium. But that swifter corruption may occur, it does not seem prohibited to pour some quantity of water over the sacred species.

But if, although they do not appear, the species could be contained in the vomit, "let the vomit be burned and the ashes be sent into the sacrarium." Rubric, De defectibus missae, n. 14. How long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach, cf. immediately below.

A different reason of indecency arises a) from lack of exterior penance, in a scandalous sinner who has been seized by a sudden disease: conditional absolution indeed, and conditional Extreme Unction, can be given, and in themselves are to be given, but not the Most Holy Eucharist; b) from the infamous place where even a sick person excellently disposed lies: then at least open ministration is forbidden because of the reason of reverence.

— Sacramental grace is conferred from the first eating, even of the first part, since the whole sacrament consists in any eating.

But as long as Christ is present in him, there are some who think that the sacramental grace itself grows in the faithful person, provided he renders his actual disposition more perfect. An increase of disposition is required, because the sacraments give grace according to the disposition of the subject, and it concerns one reception of the sacrament morally. With disposition increased, grace seems to be increased, because the Most Holy Sacrament, in the manner of food, seems to profit more the more it is applied to the subject. But better disposition effects greater application. These things are admitted by many; yet we would not wish to call them certain. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, nn. 872-875.

Wherefore, in the same opinion, not only he who, having received part of the wine or host with evil disposition, then receives another part well disposed, but also he who disposes himself before the species are consumed, is thought to receive sacramental grace. What obstacle there is, however, we said in n. 208.

Nor is the devotion of him to be faulted who receives a larger matter to be consecrated, with the mind that the species may not be consumed so quickly in the stomach. Yet singularity must be abstained from, and we doubt concerning the sensible efficacy of the means, when it concerns the species of wine, after which has been received, moreover, the corruption of the species of bread is accelerated.

But what must not be doubted is that the intimate presence of the author of all grace brings this about, that the force of impetration ex opere operantis is greatly amplified through that time. Lehmkuhl, II, 151 and cf. 210.

But how long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach depends greatly on the "digestive" power, so that there are sick persons who reject them almost incorrupt after hours. Nor in a healthy man is the matter plainly established. Today they do not think a great distinction is to be made between a layperson who receives only a smaller host, and a priest, who indeed eats a larger one but together with the species of wine. For the consumption of a small host, they require at least half a quarter of an hour. Dr. van Olfers affirms that the species of wine always perish hardly as soon as they have been received into the stomach. Dr. Capellmann denies this, and therefore thinks that species which have been rejected within half an hour after Communion can never be thrown outside the sacrarium, even if no visible particles are discerned in them. Cf. Medicina pastoralis, pp. 124, 125, 4th Latin ed.

— What is it to eat? Nor is this fully established. Dr. van Olfers thinks that what is received into the mouth is already eaten. Yet for most, eating is the vital transmission of food into the stomach. Therefore eating has begun from the time when food or drink has passed that part of the throat from which ordinarily it can no longer be recalled. From that moment grace seems to be given, although some defer the conferral of grace until some part of the species has been received into the stomach. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, n. 872.

Hence they counsel that the species not be kept longer in the mouth, that is, not so long that they perish completely in the mouth, which according to several, while others contradict, happens quite quickly. Yet one may doubt about the force of the inference. For he is not thought to eat who spits out at once what he has taken into the mouth; but, in moral estimation, we indeed eat what, put into the mouth in a solid state, we swallow only after it has been dissolved and perhaps chemically changed.

— That greater grace is given in Communion under each species than under one alone is not improbable, although it is rather denied. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 12, s. 3.

— Concerning Spiritual Communion. Mere material reception by a non-baptized man, or by an adult communicating involuntarily, having been omitted, the Council of Trent itself, sess. XIII, De Euch., ch. 8, distinguished merely sacramental reception, which belongs to him who, capable, receives the sacrament indisposed or with the obstacle of sin; sacramental and spiritual reception at once, belonging to him who, rightly proved, approaches this divine table; and spiritual reception only of those "who, eating by desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith, which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility." Besides a common act of charity, this practice contains a special reason of cultivating the Most Holy Sacrament, and hence merits peculiar praise.

Moreover three things compose spiritual Communion: an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ; an act of charity or also, as the case may be, of contrition; and observe that in him who is conscious of mortal sin, an act of charity cannot be true unless it has passed into formal contrition; finally, an act of desire of receiving Christ sacramentally, if it could be done, and of intimately uniting oneself to Christ. Lest the desire be nugatory, it is necessary that something, at least in a broad sense, obstruct present sacramental use. Nor can he with an absolute will desire the sacrament or the fruit of the sacrament who, at least by the help of perfect contrition, has not acquired for himself the state of grace. With a conditioned will, not even a sinner is prohibited.

This devotion, so greatly commended, can be exercised very frequently. It is done especially usefully during the Communion of Mass: then the circumstances themselves foster apt dispositions, and he who, while he cannot in reality, communicates at least by affection, can hope for himself those more abundant fruits of the sacrifice which the holy Synod of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 6, affirms to remain in those who communicate sacramentally (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 194).

— 1. Strictly, no one communicates in favor of another, since no one eats for another, and the opus operatum of every sacrament benefits only the subject. But for another living person, one can offer Holy Communion in this way, that by the good and therefore meritorious and satisfactory act of approaching the sacred table he wishes to help him spiritually, or, after sacramental reception, to pour out prayers for him, which then are poured out with greater fervor and efficacy. But for the deceased one can communicate insofar as, by way of suffrage, he offers for him his own act operantis as impetratory and satisfactory, or applies to him the indulgences joined with Communion. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 7.

— I. The sacramental grace of the Most Holy Eucharist is for the refreshment of our soul, to be transformed into Christ through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites.

II. Conditions of Approach. 1. The baptized who are not unworthy and who approach decently have a right to this spiritual refreshment. Solicitude for the common good has led the Church to require of children, even in danger of death, that they distinguish the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it; but outside danger of death, that they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and, according to the measure of their age, approach devoutly. These children not only can, but also must, be admitted. They are held by the paschal precept; and when parents or tutors are negligent, the violation of that precept is imputed to them. Confessors, parents, or those who hold their place judge concerning the sufficient disposition of children, while the office of watching is committed to the pastor, lest the unprepared approach, and so that those disposed may communicate as soon as possible.

2. The state of grace is required by divine precept; and by at least ecclesiastical precept it must be procured through confession, unless, with a confessor lacking, necessity of communicating urges.

3. The natural fast is to be observed from midnight, so that from without nothing which has the ratio of food or drink is taken in the manner of eating or drinking, not of breathing or attraction through the nose. Intention, which generally changes nothing, is to be attended to where a thing is drawn in or mixed with saliva. The Missal, De defectibus, IX, 3, also tolerates a little drop of water which, in washing the mouth, apart from intention, has entered the throat and stomach. And in a positive doubt, or a negative doubt on each side, whether something has been taken from midnight onward, it will be lawful to communicate.

The law ceases for the sick who are in danger of death; indeed for the healthy who are placed in urgent danger of death; and for those who otherwise cannot protect the Most Holy Eucharist from danger of profanation or loss. To this belongs the consumption of fragments in Mass, after the ablution and in the sacristy, as long as the priest is clothed in the sacred vestments.

The Code (c. 858, §2) allows that by the prudent counsel of the confessor, those who for a month have been truly sick without certain hope that they will quickly, within three or four days, recover, communicate once or twice in the week, after they have taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink. Broader concessions are made through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or of Religious.

Neither a stain of the body, nor involuntary pollution, nor the use of marriage in itself impedes Communion. But external signs of honor in clothing, etc., are owed to the reverence of the sacrament.

III. Necessity of Communion. 1. From the words of Christ, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), there is gathered a divinely imposed necessity of receiving the Eucharist sometimes, not of precept alone, but also of means, in reality or in desire. Yet not a few admit only a necessity of precept. And the common opinion urges a necessity of divine law of receiving Viaticum in danger of death. This is more certain if life had to be resumed after mortal sin. Besides, the more frequent use of the sacrament becomes practically necessary for overcoming temptations.

2. From the precept of the Church, which according to reasons of the common good can define the beginning and frequency of the obligation, all who have attained the use of reason must once in the year, at least in paschal time, worthily receive Holy Communion. One's own pastor or confessor, because of the utility of the faithful person, can permit delay beyond the paschal time. That time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday; but local Ordinaries can, because of the utility of the flock, enlarge the time, so that it is extended from the fourth Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday.

The paschal precept can be fulfilled in any place: nevertheless Communion in one's own parish is counseled; he who has acted otherwise should take care to make his own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept.

3. Those promoted to major orders must receive Holy Communion in the Mass of ordination.

IV. Counsels. 1. Canon 862 desires that clerics, and also priests who on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord do not celebrate, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn Mass.

2. Canon 863 wishes priests to commend frequent, indeed daily, Communion to the faithful, especially in the Mass at which they are present. For the faithful, purity from mortal sin suffices, without necessity of special disposition. Yet the confessor is to be approached for counsel; he will be solicitous about preparation and thanksgiving, and will also take care that a frail penitent not begin to frequent the sacrament of the Eucharist in such a way that by some human fear he is placed in danger of communicating sacrilegiously. Nor do special rules bind the sick, except the care of exterior reverence, which can be impeded by lack of exterior penance in a scandalous sinner, by the infamous place where someone lies, and by bodily disease.

3. But it is to be desired that an occasion of Communion even daily be offered to the sick themselves. Holy Viaticum, which must be received by all in danger of death even extrinsic, is not to be deferred long, and can be received on the same day on which, while still free from danger, someone has already communicated.

V. 1. Spiritual Communion means the desire of worthy reception of the sacrament, and of spiritual refreshment, in him who is at least broadly impeded from the sacrament.

2. Although no one communicates for another, nevertheless someone can fruitfully help another living person by the good work of Communion, and apply to the dead the indulgence of Holy Communion.

— 1. In What Places the Holy Eucharist Must or Can Be Reserved. Canon 1265, §1 prescribes the general conditions of custody, so that, if these are lacking, the obligation ceases or the license is taken away. Therefore it is necessary that a priest have care of it, such as the rector of a church is judged to have by the office itself; and that regularly, at least once in the week, Mass be celebrated in the sacred place. These things being posited:

2. Custody of the Most Holy Eucharist is prescribed in a cathedral church, in the principal church of a quasi-diocese, in any parochial or quasi-parochial church, in a church annexed to a house of exempt religious, whether of men or of women. As quasi-parochial seem able to be had subsidiary churches which in remote parts of a parish are governed by some cooperating vicar or prefect who is accustomed to perform parochial functions in it.

3. It is permitted, with the license of the local Ordinary added, in a collegiate church and in the principal oratory, whether public or semi-public, both of a pious or religious house, and of an ecclesiastical college which is governed by secular clerics or by religious.

4. Elsewhere an apostolic indult is needed. Yet to a church or public oratory the Ordinary can concede this license from a just cause and by way of an act (c. 1265, §§1 and 2).

Observe, therefore, that no faculty is given by the Code for reserving the Eucharist in the principal oratory of a monastery or even of a regular house. But that this may be done licitly, it is necessary that there be either an apostolic indult, or immemorial custom, which Benedict XIV, Constitution Quamvis iusto, said was necessary, or a positive faculty of the local Ordinary, which now, from c. 1266, §1, 2°, he can concede even habitually to every religious or pious house.

5. "It is lawful for no one to keep the Most Holy Eucharist with himself or to carry it with himself on a journey" (c. 1265, §3).

For no one, not even missionaries in a region of infidels. An exception requires such a cause as excuses from a grave prohibition, for example, to provide for the safety of the Most Holy Eucharist in some calamity or persecution. The Holy See is less opposed to reservation in the house of a pastor or priest, if at some time the Most Holy Eucharist cannot be reserved decently in a church (cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, August 23, 1852, Collect., I, 751).

— In One Oratory. Every contrary privilege having been revoked, the Most Holy Eucharist cannot be reserved except in the church or in the principal oratory of a religious or pious house; nor among nuns within the choir or the enclosures of the monastery (c. 1267).

The authentic declaration of June 2-3, 1918, of the Commission for the Interpretation of the Code being considered, the force of this canon comes to this:

a) Whether by privilege, or by faculty of the local Ordinary, the Most Holy Eucharist can be reserved in the principal oratory of a religious community, pious house, or ecclesiastical college;

b) If, besides the principal oratory, a religious or pious house has an annexed church, which the community does not use for fulfilling its ordinary exercises of piety, that church can also enjoy its own right, if it has any, for example because it is annexed to a house of exempt religious, of reserving the Most Holy Eucharist. For individual religious families, common law, any contrary privilege having been suppressed, has ratified nothing more;

c) But if several distinct families occupy the same material building, to each an oratory with custody of the Most Holy Eucharist can belong, whether from privilege or from the license of the bishop. Thus, without doubt, the community of a seminary and the community of Sisters who perform their work in the seminary are distinct and separate families. On the contrary, novices, because of their separation from the professed, are not for that reason judged to pertain to a formally distinct house ¹. It would have to be said otherwise if they inhabited distinct buildings, although contiguous, even if there was one Superior of each house, like a pastor who is placed over two parishes. But in a college the boarders quite easily constitute a community formally diverse from the religious one, as if the religious are partly assigned to other ministries. Wherefore in the oratory in which the boarders are accustomed to assemble for performing their exercises of piety, the Most Holy Eucharist seems able to be reserved, whether by privilege of the religion or by license of the local Ordinary, the right of preserving the same in the oratory of the religious remaining unharmed. Moreover temporary indults for reserving the Most Holy Eucharist in a second oratory, whether from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or from the Sacred Congregation of Religious, according to the quality of the petitioners, are conceded without great difficulty (cf. Per., IX, p. 154).

¹ Yet in Monitore ecclesiastico, 1918, p. 240, note, a more benign response was given.

— Access of the Faithful. "Churches in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved, especially parochial ones, should be open to the faithful daily, for at least some hours" (c. 1266).

This warning is most opportune, whether you consider its argument, since a church is destined for the faithful and custody of the Most Holy Eucharist is permitted for the convenience of adorers, or the habits of sacristans, who with too much haste are accustomed to close many churches. How much better it is, with inner gates arranged near the door, to permit free access to the church throughout the whole day to devout persons, without necessity of special vigilance.

— In One Altar. "The Most Holy Eucharist cannot be kept continuously or habitually except on one altar only of the same church" (c. 1268, §1).

Care must also be taken that the noblest place, and therefore regularly the main altar, be reserved for the Most Holy Sacrament. An exception is permitted, indeed counseled, in cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches, where choral functions would be impeded by the cult of the Most Holy Eucharist; but even there the rectors of churches must take care that the altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved be adorned before all others, "so that by its very furnishing it may move the piety and devotion of the faithful more" (c. 1268).

— Concerning the Tabernacle. "The Most Holy Eucharist must be reserved in an immovable tabernacle, placed in the middle part of the altar."

"The tabernacle should be skillfully constructed, solidly closed on every side, decently adorned according to the norm of the liturgical laws, and empty of every other thing" (c. 1269, §§1 and 2).

Therefore the tabernacle in itself cannot be at the side in a wall, nor in a little tower, even a most elegant one, near the altar, yet with the right of immemorial custom preserved. Nor is a portable or movable tabernacle admitted in itself. It must be so empty that not even the holy oils can be reserved in the tabernacle, lest any confusion of cult be feared. But the liturgical laws wish that inwardly it be clothed with a silk cloth, unless however it is gilded, and that it be blessed (Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 20, 1899 ad IV, Decr. auth., n. 4035). Besides, it must be covered with a canopy of either white color or a color suited to the office, the black color excluded, for which violet is used. Nor is the law dispensed because the tabernacle is made of silver, gold, or another precious material (Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 7, 1880, Decr. auth., n. 3520). Yet sometimes the very form of the tabernacle, and examples had in the City itself, for example in the Vatican Basilica, do not permit use of a canopy. At least then, if there is supply, let the canopy be supplied by a large little cloth hanging from above, a baldachin, by which the altar is protected: this, writes Palmieri, t. 4, n. 906, can hold the place of a canopy. Above the tabernacle, besides the image of Christ crucified, nothing, not even relics of the holy cross, can be placed as upon a base.

— Exceptions to the General Law. 1. The Ordinary, by way of an act and from a just cause, can concede license of reserving the Most Holy in a church or public oratory where by common law it cannot be reserved.

Yet very useful would be a broader general faculty, not circumscribed by public oratory, given to the Ordinary, so that, for example, during the days of spiritual exercises, he could permit custody of the Most Holy Eucharist in the house where they are being given. But generally this will be a pious house, in which habitual reservation also can be had from the license of the local Ordinary.

2. Nocturnal reservation, because of a grave cause approved by the local Ordinary, in a safer and decent place, upon a corporal, with a lamp lit, is not reproved (c. 1269, §3).

3. The law of the unity of the altar is not violated by the fact that on certain days, for example feast days, for a few hours the Most Holy Eucharist is also reserved at another altar, so that Holy Communion can be distributed more conveniently.

— The Manner of Reserving. 1. Any little vessel containing the Most Holy Eucharist is to be placed upon a blessed corporal or pall ¹. 2. The pyx must be well closed with its own lid and covered with a white veil. And it is to be purified whenever the sacred species are renewed; nor are recent species to be mixed with older ones. 3. The little lunette is to be made in such a way that it can easily be purified, and so that the gilded circle itself, not however the glass plates, touches the sacred species (Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 4, 1871, but it is lacking in Decr. auth.). 4. Before the tabernacle "at least one lamp should shine continuously day and night, to be fed with olive oil or beeswax; but where olive oil cannot be had, it is permitted to the prudence of the local Ordinary that it be changed for other oils, as far as can be done, vegetable oils" (c. 1271).

To neglect that light for 24 hours, or for some whole nights, is judged mortal.

Not once only has the Sacred Congregation of Rites forbidden illumination from "gas" or "electricity" above the altar or within the tabernacle; it prohibited stearine candles themselves (bougies), but wished that candles "be all of wax, as many as are used above the table of the altar or in any way overhanging it" (Sacred Congregation of Rites, general decree, April 3, 1821, Decr. auth., n. 2613). Yet during the recent war, the Supreme Pontiff permitted the very use of electric light for the lamp and Mass to the judgment of bishops. And the use of electric light around altars is spreading in the City itself. Wherefore attention will have to be paid to recent responses, if any new ones are made.

5. "The key of the tabernacle... must be guarded most diligently, the conscience of the priest who has care of the church or oratory being gravely burdened" (c. 1269, §4).

Therefore the Code no longer prescribes what the Sacred Congregation of Rites attempted to urge more strictly, that the key be kept by the priest himself, but the most diligent custody of it is committed to his care.

¹ Yet in administering Holy Communion, the pall cannot be placed upon the altar in place of the corporal (Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 17, 1847).

— Concerning Exposition of the Most Holy Eucharist. Exposition is distinguished as private, which is done with the pyx: and this can be done for any cause, without the license of the Ordinary; and public, or with the monstrance. This "can be done on the feast day of Corpus Christi and within the octave in all churches during the solemnities of Masses and at Vespers; but at other times only from a just and grave cause, especially a public one, and with the license of the local Ordinary, even if the church belongs to an exempt religion" (c. 1274, §1).

And at the same time we are warned in §2 that the minister of exposition or reposition is a priest or deacon; but of Benediction, only a priest; yet in the case in which, furnished with due license of the Ordinary or pastor, a deacon has carried Viaticum to a sick person, Benediction with the pyx can be imparted by the deacon himself.

The rubric forbids that the pyx which is exposed be drawn outside the tabernacle. Therefore in churches where the sacred pyx is proposed on a certain throne, we shall call the exposition private and at the same time irregular.

The Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 14, 1861 (Decr. auth., n. 3104), denied that the custom of exposing the Most Holy Sacrament without the license of the bishop could be preserved. Yet tacit consent suffices, such as can support accustomed expositions.

And Wernz, III, 553, note 235, thinks it probable that exposition for a regular community alone can be done from the license of its own exempt Prelate.

Observe also that public exposition can be permitted by the local Ordinary even for a non-public cause. But a public cause in general is spiritual utility, greater devotion of the people, for example, lest they spend the whole day or a great part of a feast day in profane things; but in particular, the solemnity of a feast, especially the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ; difficult causes of peace and of public necessity or utility.

Both in public and in private exposition, according to the usage of places, at least six wax candles must burn on the altar. In the Clementine Instruction at least 20 are required.

During public exposition, there can be on the altar no relics or images of saints, except of adoring angels; but the cross, according to the custom of places, can remain or be removed. Nor can statues or images of saints be placed before the altar of exposition.

— Concerning Mass with Exposition. Except on the feast day of Corpus Christi and within the octave, at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed no Mass in itself can be said, without necessity or grave cause or special indult. Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 17, 1919, A. A. S., XI (1919), p. 246, by which the earlier decrees are confirmed. Yet Gardellini in Instr. Clem., §12, n. 6, and the Sacred Congregation of Rites itself, May 22, 1883, apud N. R. Th., XV, 138, warn that contrary custom should not be removed if it is immemorial, or if the faithful would be affected with grief because of its suppression.

205. Existence of the obligation. Principle 1. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary to no one by necessity of means.

This proposition is of defined faith against several Greeks and Calvinists. For the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that Eucharistic Communion is necessary for little children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, let him be anathema."¹⁵⁵ But what is defined here for little children holds also for adults. For by necessity of means nothing is necessary for salvation except sanctifying grace and those things which God has prescribed as absolutely necessary. But sanctifying grace is not given by the Eucharist; rather, it is presupposed as already given, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Moreover, it cannot be proved that God absolutely prescribed the actual reception of the Eucharist, as, for example, He prescribed actual faith for adults. Hence, without any doubt, one would be saved, for example, an adult pagan, who, rightly disposed, received Baptism and, after receiving it, died suddenly before he could receive the Eucharist.

¹⁵⁵ Session 21, can. 4 (Denz., n. 937).

206. Principle 2. The reception of the Eucharist in desire (in voto), at least implicit, is necessary by necessity of means, so that without it salvation cannot be obtained.

Thus St. Thomas¹⁵⁶ seems to teach: "Through Baptism a man is ordered to the Eucharist; and therefore, from the very fact that children are baptized, they are ordered to the Eucharist through the Church; and thus, just as they believe through the faith of the Church, so through the faith of the Church they desire the Eucharist." The Angelic Doctor elsewhere¹⁵⁷ confirms this doctrine, saying: "This sacrament [of the Eucharist] of itself has the power of conferring grace; nor does anyone have grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire for it, either through himself, as adults, or through the desire of the Church, as little children." The reason for this doctrine is that the Eucharist is: a) the immolated Flesh of Christ, which is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification; b) the end of all the sacraments, since they tend toward union with Christ, which union is greatest in the Eucharist; c) a necessary means for persevering in the state of sanctifying grace. The desire to receive the Eucharist must be explicit in an adult who knows the Eucharist and the precept of Christ: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."¹⁵⁸ But in infants an implicit desire suffices, just as implicit faith also suffices in them.

¹⁵⁶ S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 3. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 192), John Nicolussi, Die Notwendigkeit der Eucharistie (Bozen, 1917), and the Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 41, think in the same manner. But Cajetan (Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 12; q. 1, a. 6) and many moderns, such as Bucceroni, Génicot, Pesch, Cappello, etc., teach the contrary.

¹⁵⁷ Q. 79, a. 1 ad 1; cf. also q. 80, a. 11.

¹⁵⁸ John 6:54.

207. Principle 3. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary for all who have the use of reason by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical.

a) The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist is manifestly gathered both from the words cited above, "Unless you eat...," and from the words of Christ uttered after the institution of the Eucharist: "Do this in commemoration of Me."¹⁵⁹ St. Paul indeed applies these words not only to priests, but also to all the faithful.¹⁶⁰ The Council of Trent¹⁶¹ acknowledges this divine precept: "But the Savior wished this sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who says, 'He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me,' may be nourished and strengthened." St. Thomas¹⁶² says: "It is manifest that a man is bound to receive this sacrament not only from the statute of the Church, but from the command of the Lord."

¹⁵⁹ Luke 22:19.

¹⁶⁰ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

¹⁶¹ Session 13, c. 2 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 875).

¹⁶² S. theol., loc. cit.

208. Time of the obligation. If it is now asked when this divine precept binds, nothing else can be said except that it binds: 1. sometimes in life after the use of reason has been attained; 2. most probably also at the point of death.¹⁶³

1. That the Eucharist must be received by divine law sometimes in life is altogether certain and is manifestly gathered from the texts of Sacred Scripture cited above. Christ did not determine how many times in life the Eucharist is to be received, but left this to be determined by the Church.

2. That Viaticum is to be received at the point of death by divine law can be known from the universal practice of the Church. Reason is added. For if the Eucharistic food ought ever to strengthen the soul, certainly it ought at the point of death. Nor does it stand in the way that in ancient times the Eucharist was sometimes denied even at the point of death to certain great sinners and to those condemned to death. For such a usage never existed in the universal Church, but only in certain places. But when bishops or provincial councils established something similar, especially through the excommunication called "anathema maranatha," they nevertheless customarily added, "unless he shall repent."¹⁶⁴

The point of death at which Holy Communion is to be received as Viaticum ought not to be understood in a strict sense, namely, when death is now inevitably imminent, but more broadly for any grave danger of death. Thus Viaticum ought to be given, for example, before a dangerous surgical operation; during a raging plague, if the danger of contagion and death is very imminent; to soldiers before battle; before childbirth which is extraordinarily dangerous; to those condemned to death before execution, etc. It is expedient that Viaticum be given to those condemned persons at least one hour before death, so that at the execution the Eucharistic species may already be dissolved.

When someone has received Viaticum sacrilegiously, he has not satisfied the divine precept; therefore, he must receive the Holy Eucharist again, at least if this can be done without infamy. It belongs to a prudent confessor to judge what is to be done in a case of sacrilegious Viaticum. Before all else, the dying person must worthily receive sacramental absolution; then care is to be taken that he receive Communion again on the following day. Nevertheless, lest wonder arise, the dying person can request Communion for the sake of devotion. But if for a reasonable cause not even this can be done, there seems to be a sufficient reason for carrying Viaticum secretly, which even a religious confessor can do, lest he disclose the sick person's sacrilege. Thus Noldin¹⁶⁵ and Aertnys.¹⁶⁶ I think, however, that this last course is rarely expedient, because the matter would easily be discovered, the seal of confession would be endangered, and other inconveniences would arise.

¹⁶³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 290 and 295.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Synod of Rheims, A.D. 900 (in Hardouin VI, 1, 467); Billuart, De euchar., diss. 6, a. 3, dico 6.

¹⁶⁵ De sacr., n. 137.

¹⁶⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 91, q. 9.

209. You ask: Since, according to the most probable opinion, Viaticum must be received by divine precept, is one who received Communion out of devotion a short time before or even on the same day bound to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him? For example, is a priest who said Mass in the morning and, having been struck by apoplexy in the afternoon, is in danger of death, bound to receive Viaticum?

That Viaticum can be received in such a case is today beyond doubt and is manifestly gathered from the Code of Canon Law, cc. 857 and 864, § 2; for the reason which some authors oppose, that no one can receive Communion twice in one day, is futile. Do not so many priests who celebrate two Masses on every Sunday and feast day receive Communion twice in one day? But that Viaticum must be received in such a case cannot be proved either from divine or from ecclesiastical law. Certainly, every adult is bound under grave sin to receive Viaticum at the point of death; but one who received Holy Communion a short time before seems to have had the interpretative intention of receiving Viaticum, since everyone is presumed to wish to fulfill a grave precept which he could fulfill through his act. And this is safe in practice, at least if the person received Holy Communion during an illness which, having suddenly grown worse, brings on the point of death. Nevertheless, repeated reception of the Holy Eucharist is strongly to be counseled, as it is most efficacious for overcoming the dangers of the final agony.¹⁶⁷

Therefore, in practice it seems that the matter should be stated briefly thus: One who worthily received Communion within the preceding week is not strictly bound, when danger of death is imminent, to receive the Holy Eucharist again as Viaticum; but one who received Communion even on the same day is strongly advised to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him.¹⁶⁸

¹⁶⁷ Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2.

¹⁶⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 258, doubts 2 and 3.

210. b) The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist.

The reception of the Eucharist is also prescribed and determined by ecclesiastical law. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) established that "every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone at least once a year ... reverently receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter."¹⁶⁹ The Council of Trent defined the same: "If anyone denies that each and every one of Christ's faithful of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to receive Communion every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of holy Mother Church, let him be anathema."¹⁷⁰ The Code of Canon Law, c. 859, prescribes the same.

¹⁶⁹ Denz., n. 437.

¹⁷⁰ Session 13, can. 9 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 891).

211. First Communion is to be received after a person has arrived at the years of discretion, but not before.¹⁷¹ When the sufficient use of reason required for this sacrament begins cannot be mathematically defined, since it depends upon the maturity of intellect and the instruction received by each person. As a general rule, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor can be held: "When children now begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred upon them."¹⁷² These words are indeed cited and approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910,¹⁷³ which further declared that the age of discretion required for Confession and Communion is the same. "But the knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may suitably prepare himself for First Communion, is that by which he perceives, according to his capacity, the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion of which his age is capable."¹⁷⁴

Bishops of each region are generally accustomed to determine at what age children may be admitted to First Communion; nevertheless, to judge whether a particular child is sufficiently disposed to receive Holy Communion belongs to the parents (and those who take their place) and to the confessor.¹⁷⁵ "But it is the duty of the pastor to watch (even by an examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune) that children do not approach the sacred banquet before attaining the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; and likewise to take care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible." Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 5. In northern regions, the suitable age for receiving solemn First Communion has been fixed by some bishops as the ninth year; but in southern regions a younger age can suffice.

It is to be noted that the right of admitting children to First Communion is by no means a parochial right.¹⁷⁶ Therefore, any confessor can privately admit a child to First Communion. Nevertheless, it is strongly to be counseled that children ordinarily be admitted to First Communion either by the pastor or by him to whom their religious instruction has been entrusted. But if a child before the time established for First Communion falls into danger of death, there is a grave obligation to give Communion by way of Viaticum to that child who has sufficient use of reason, after a brief instruction has first been given.¹⁷⁷

¹⁷¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 1.

¹⁷² S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 9 ad 3. The Angelic Doctor says: it can be conferred; but he does not say: it must be conferred. Hence some speak incorrectly when they say: Immediately after attaining the use of reason, everyone must by divine law receive the Most Holy Eucharist.

¹⁷³ Acta Ap. Sedis II, 581 (Denz., nn. 2137–2144).

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., n. 3 (Denz., n. 2139), and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 3.

¹⁷⁵ Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 49, and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908 (Analecta ecclesiastica XVI [1908], 142); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments cited above (Denz., n. 2144); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 2.

212. Easter Communion is prescribed partly by divine law and partly by ecclesiastical law: by divine law, insofar as it includes the Lord's precept of receiving the Eucharist sometimes; but by ecclesiastical law, insofar as the time of this reception is determined.

Concerning the ecclesiastical precept of Easter Communion, it is useful to note the following briefly:

1. The Easter season extends from Palm Sunday through Low Sunday; nevertheless, it can be extended generally by local Ordinaries for their territory from the Fourth Sunday of Lent through the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.¹⁷⁸ Pastors and confessors can, when a legitimate impediment exists, prolong the Easter season for an individual person.¹⁷⁹ Since the prolongation of the Easter season in force in most regions is a local privilege, all those having a quasi-domicile, or vagrants, or travelers, who licitly receive Communion outside their own parish, participate in this privilege, even if it is not in force in the place of their domicile.

One who without a grave cause delays Communion even by one day beyond the Easter season sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which teaches that this precept does not admit parvity of matter.¹⁸⁰ One who did not receive Communion during the Easter season is afterward bound to approach the sacred table as soon as possible and cannot wait until the following Easter season. Thus the more probable opinion. For the Easter precept was imposed not to terminate but to urge the obligation of receiving Communion. Hence the Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 4, establishes: "The precept of Easter Communion still urges if anyone for any cause has not fulfilled it within the prescribed time."

Easter Communion is not satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. This is certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI,¹⁸¹ and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 861.

2. The place of Easter Communion is one's own parish.

Thus it is from various decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs.¹⁸² The end of this law is twofold, namely: a) that the pastor may be able to know his own sheep; and b) that the faithful may profess their subjection toward him. This circumstance of place indeed no longer binds strictly; nevertheless, the faithful are to be advised that each fulfill the Easter precept in his own parish; and those who have fulfilled it in another parish should take care to inform their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled.¹⁸³ Easter Communion can licitly be received in any oratory or church situated within the boundaries of the parish.

One who during the Easter season has received Viaticum from the pastor or his delegate is considered to have satisfied the precept of annual Communion.

¹⁷⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 2.

¹⁷⁹ Thus from the Fourth Lateran Council (Denz., n. 437) and from c. 859, § 1.

¹⁸⁰ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 1452; Noldin, De praecept., n. 695; Marc, Inst. mor. II, n. 1570.

¹⁸¹ Denz., n. 1205.

¹⁸² For example, Benedict XIV, constitution Magno cum animi, § 21, June 2, 1751.

¹⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 3.

213. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the obligation or counsel of receiving Easter Communion in the parish church:

a) A priest, who satisfies it everywhere through the celebration of Mass.¹⁸⁴

b) Religious of either sex and the members of their household who share their table, who can receive Communion in their own chapels. The same holds for men or women living in common without vows.

c) Soldiers, prisoners, students residing in colleges, and others who by particular law or legitimate custom can satisfy the precept in their own chapels.

d) Travelers absent from their own parish during the Easter season, and likewise vagrants, can receive Easter Communion in any church or oratory.¹⁸⁵

¹⁸⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 300.

¹⁸⁵ Ibid.

214. Scholion. On Communion under both species. In the Latin rite Communion is to be given entirely under the species of bread alone.¹⁸⁶ Communion under both species is necessary only for him who celebrates Mass. The contrary is taught by the Hussites (especially those who were called Utraquists or Calixtines), Luther, Calvin, and the Eastern schismatics. For in the ancient Church Communion was often given under one species only; especially the faithful who carried the Eucharist into their own homes did this under the species of consecrated bread. The Eucharist was given to infants under the species of wine alone.¹⁸⁷ From the most ancient times, on Friday in Parasceve, in the Mass of the Presanctified, the priest received Communion under one species. Therefore, the Council of Trent rightly defined: "If anyone says that, by the precept of God or by necessity of salvation, each and every one of Christ's faithful ought to receive both species of the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema."¹⁸⁸

The reasons why the Church introduced the discipline of Communion for the laity under one species, namely bread, are, for example: the danger of spilling if the chalice is distributed to a great multitude; the danger of contagion if someone drinks from a chalice from which another infected with a contagious disease has drunk; a natural aversion to drinking with others from the same chalice; the difficulty of obtaining pure wine in certain regions; and so forth. These reasons are altogether sufficient for the laity to receive the Eucharist under the species of bread alone, in which they receive the whole Christ in an equally perfect manner as if they received Communion under both species.

But Communion under both species is permitted to the united Easterners. Leo XIII¹⁸⁹ permitted that even laymen of the Latin rite could receive Communion according to the rite of the Easterners in those places where, because of the remoteness of the distance, they cannot without grave inconvenience go to a church of their own rite.¹⁹⁰ Pius X further extended this permission, establishing that even for the sake of devotion all the faithful of any rite may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite.¹⁹¹

¹⁸⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 852.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, c. 25 (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 500).

¹⁸⁸ Session 21, can. 1 on Communion (Denz., n. 934).

¹⁸⁹ Constitution Orientalium dignitas, November 30, 1894.

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. I, 432 ff., concerning Communion under both species.

¹⁹¹ Constitution Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Ap. Sedis IV, 616). Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 27, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sedis VIII, 106); Code of Canon Law, c. 851, § 2.

S. Th. III, q. 73, a. 3; q. 80, a. 11 and 12.

291. Principle I. The sacrament of the Eucharist in reality is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means for justification and salvation. - It is of faith with respect to little children from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 4 and can. 4, against certain Greeks and Calvinists; it is certain with respect to adults.

For the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living; whence without it grace making one pleasing can be had, which suffices for obtaining salvation, since it is given through Baptism and recovered through Penance. Therefore the Eucharist is not necessary as these sacraments are, and therefore the Church has denied it to certain persons. Cf. Rom. VIII, 1; Gal. III, 27; Tit. III, 5; and St. Augustine, l. 1 de pecc. mer. et rem. XIX, 25.

Nevertheless the effect of the Eucharist is necessary, namely union with Christ and His mystical body, which is obtained inchoatively through the grace of Baptism.

Therefore the Eucharist is not necessary by necessity of means with respect to real reception, but with respect to the reality signified by it.

292. Principle II. The sacrament of the Eucharist is in a certain way necessary by necessity of means in vow or in purpose; not indeed as of a means necessary in reality, but as of an end contained in the volition of the means. - This is the opinion of St. Thomas and of the ancients, upon which the most recent authors again insist more.

It is proved: 1. The vow of the sacrament is not required as of a means necessary in reality: for in this mode only that is necessary which is necessary in reality, when in fact it cannot be received.

2. The vow of the Eucharist is required as of the font and end of all the sacraments. This follows from the doctrine of St. Thomas,¹ according to which the other sacraments do not confer grace except by looking to the Eucharist as the end of all the sacraments, and in virtue of the Eucharist which from itself has the power of infusing grace (n. 101). This being posited, it is licit to argue thus:

¹ Q. 65, a. 3; q. 79, a. 1, ad 1; q. 73, a. 3.

Every thing is inclined to its end, and every beginning is for the sake of consummation. The Eucharist is the end and consummation of all the sacraments. Whence he who receives Baptism, through grace which begins union with Christ, is inclined to the perfection and consummation of this union which is had in the Eucharist. And he who receives Baptism or wills to receive it, ought to will and at least implicitly wills the Eucharist as its end and consummation. This intention the Church supplies in children.

293. Principle III. The Eucharist, according to the ordinary Providence of God, is for adults a morally necessary means for persevering for a long time, and is also necessary by necessity of divine precept. - It is certain.

This is established from the very words of Christ, John VI, 54: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have abiding life in you.² Moreover He imposed that precept in express words, saying, Luke XXII, 19: Do this in commemoration of Me. This the Council of Trent acknowledges, sess. 13, c. 2 (Council of Nicaea I, c. 12-13).

² There is not perfect parity with the similar words which Christ spoke concerning Baptism, John III, 5: Unless one be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit. For "these words: Unless you eat, are directed in the second person to adults capable of a precept, and thus for them they import necessity of precept; but these words: Unless one be reborn, are said generally and concerning all in the third person. The other disparity is that Baptism is instituted as rebirth necessary by necessity of means for salvation. But the Eucharist is instituted as spiritual food, which either is not necessary for preserving life for some time, as is clear in bodily food; or if it is necessary, since it is spiritual, it suffices that it be received spiritually (q. 73, a. 3, ad 2). For this is the difference between bodily and spiritual food, that bodily food is converted into the substance of him who is nourished, and therefore it cannot profit man for the conservation of life unless it is really received; but spiritual food converts man into itself...: but someone can be changed into Christ, and incorporated into Him, by vow of mind and acts of virtues, especially of charity, without real reception of this sacrament." Billuart, diss. 6, a. 1, § 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the faculties of Form I, which are customarily communicated to our priests by the Bishops, the 24th (p. LXXII.) reads: "Of carrying the Most Holy Sacrament secretly to the sick without light, and of retaining it without the same for the same sick, in a decent place nevertheless, if there is danger of sacrilege from heretics or infidels."

Lest in the use of this faculty abuses creep in or even persevere, the things which follow are to be well noted by priests.

1302. - 1° The faculty is given for the case in which "there is danger of sacrilege from heretics or infidels." This danger must be said to be present scarcely not everywhere among us. Nevertheless in this region also there are certain wholly Catholic places in the country, in which, when the sick person is not far distant from the churches, that danger is in no way to be feared; in which case the Eucharist will have to be carried in the manner prescribed by the Church. The Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, given on 25 Feb. 1859 to our Bishops, not obscurely suggests this; in it, among other things, these things are read: "The Sacred Congregation further willed that the individual Prelates be urged, as by the tenor of the present letters they are urged, to keep the common discipline of the Church in this matter, as far as circumstances of time and places, and also the account of introduced customs, allow."²

2° "While they carry the Most Holy, let them avoid vain and useless conversations; rather let them give themselves to pious contemplation or prayers."³ In agreement with this admonition of the Plenary Council, pastors will repeatedly teach the people what is to be prepared in the house of the sick person, and that, while they are companions to the priest carrying the Eucharist to the sick person, they abstain from every useless conversation. "But on a journey," says Kenrick,⁴ "which requires several days" (which nevertheless today is more rarely necessary than formerly), "and where some persons met on the way occur, one cannot abstain from conversation; although speech is to be had sparingly and cautiously and with the utility of the hearers. For he sins gravely who, carrying so great a Sacrament, mingles idle conversations."

3° "The carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament is restricted to urgent causes only, and to the actual exercise of the priestly ministry."¹ But what is an urgent cause will have to be judged from the circumstances of place, time, and others.² Meanwhile it is certain that it is not lawful for a priest to carry the Most Holy Sacrament with himself from morning until evening for the sole cause that perhaps he could come upon some sick person.³

4° "A strict obligation is imposed on priests always in these cases of carrying the Holy Host upon the breast."⁴ "Never, unless in extreme necessity, should they touch either the Host itself or the sacred vessel in which it is preserved, unless they are vested at least in a stole. When they draw the Most Holy from the tabernacle in the church, let them always be vested in surplice and stole. Ministering the Sacred Eucharist to the sick, let them most diligently observe the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual, insofar as the circumstances of things permit."⁵

5° What was said above n. 1299. q. 4° and 7° concerning a priest carrying the Eucharist while riding or running will be lawful for Missionaries carrying it privately and secretly from a lighter cause.⁶

1303. - In rural churches, near which no priest resides, it is not lawful to reserve the Holy Eucharist, and it is to be consumed by the priest before he departs. Resolve the same concerning a single priest residing near a church, but departing beyond eight days (after which namely the sacred species are to be renewed), or not residing so near it that in case of fire he could remove the Most Holy Sacrament from it in time, or prevent other irreverences.⁷

1315. - "As regards children," says the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,⁴ "who approach the Sacred Table for the first time, let it be permitted to apply to our matter the excellent words of the Fathers of Ravenna. It cannot be but that the manner in which one receives Holy Communion for the first time contributes much to the whole plan of Christian life, and indeed even to eternal salvation itself. Hence let all rulers of souls carefully see to disposing for it girls and boys whom by age and sufficient understanding of spiritual things they judge capable. Let them instruct them with special zeal, diligently inquire into their life, and admit to the Sacred Table those whom they understand to be already sufficiently instructed in the rudiments of Christian doctrine, and to be commended by probity of morals and piety, sending the rest away to another time, all human respect being set aside. But for three days before Communion, let them be prepared proximately for it both by pious exercises and especially by general Confession; but on the day itself, with the greatest solemnity, let them receive the Divine Bread, with the whole people looking on, and especially the parents, to whose care afterwards those souls, refreshed by the heavenly Banquet, will have to be commended by Pastors with the most fervent zeal of charity."¹

"But at what age children ought first to be refreshed with the Eucharistic Food has not been defined by the Church. St. Thomas, having used a general form of speaking, taught that this Sacrament can be conferred on them when they begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this Sacrament."² Therefore it will belong to pastors to inquire diligently concerning this matter, lest anyone either through carelessness be admitted too soon, or through severity be kept away longer than is fitting. But this general rule, which nevertheless admits its exceptions, seems safely able to be established, namely that, ordinarily speaking, no one ought to be made a sharer of the Bread of Angels before the tenth year, nor after the fourteenth year ought it to be denied to anyone otherwise worthy."³

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

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

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

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

Moreover, even outside the danger of death, so that sick persons can swallow the host or particles adhering to the mouth, after the host there can be given an ablution of water or wine, although this is swallowed before the host; for the violation of the fast at least morally does not precede communion, indeed the law of fasting prescribes only that nothing be taken before the reception of the Sacrament, and this is fulfilled.

5. How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

b) If he certainly remains indisposed, because, for example, he does not wish to leave the proximate occasion, or does not wish to promise grave and certainly owed restitution, it is not licit to absolve him.

c) As regards communion, he is earnestly to be induced, after confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he no longer wishes to receive the Eucharist.

d) If he refuses to declare this and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, lest the seal of confession be violated."

To avoid this danger, it will be better that in hospitals or clinical houses the priest, or the sister appointed for caring for the sick, not prepare all things for ministering Holy Communion on his or her own motion, but only after the sick person, having confessed, asks for it; but when the priest is asked, let him uniformly say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

3. Viaticum, Extreme Unction, and the apostolic blessing are to be administered to children, provided they have sufficient discretion.

I say. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary for no one by necessity of means unto salvation; but for adult faithful it is necessary by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical, although not under both species, except for priests alone in the act of celebrating Mass. The reason of the first is taken from the universal practice of the Church, according to which communion is given neither to little children nor to adults hindered by infirmity, for example, to those prone to vomiting, the frenzied, etc. The reason of the second is drawn from the words of Christ, John vi, 54: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you." But the reason of the third and fourth is had from the Council of Trent, where indeed the precept is imposed of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter, but at the same time anathema is pronounced upon those who assert that it is necessary for all and each of the Christian faithful to receive it under both species. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 9; and sess. 21, can. 1 and following. - St. Alphonsus, n. 295. - De Augustinis, part. 2, art. 6.

Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion (Can. 853).

It is lawful for no one to receive the Most Holy Eucharist who has already received it on the same day, except in the cases concerning which in can. 858, §1 (Can. 857).

Question 1. At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?

Resp. Of itself, it obliges both often in life and in the article, or proximate danger, of death. The reason is that the Eucharist was instituted not only by way of spiritual food, by which the soul may be nourished and strengthened; but food must be taken often; and also as Viaticum strengthening against the enemies of salvation.

§1. In danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion (Can. 864).

Let Holy Viaticum not be delayed too much for the sick; and let those who exercise care of souls watch diligently that the sick, while fully masters of themselves, are refreshed by it (Can. 865).

The precept of receiving communion is not satisfied by sacrilegious communion (Can. 861).

Christ Himself, however, did not determine how often in life one must approach this sacrament, but left it to the Church to determine. - I said of itself; for accidentally it can oblige even more often in a year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 295.

Question 2. When can or must children communicate?

Resp. §1. The Eucharist is not to be administered to children who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament.

§3. Outside danger of death, fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and more accurate preparation are deservedly required, namely that by which they may perceive, according to their capacity, at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means unto salvation, and may devoutly approach the Most Holy Eucharist, according to the measure of their age (Can. 854). - Cf. S. C. de Sacramentis, decree 8 Aug. 1910, nn. II, III, VIII. - Above 691, Q. 8.

Question 3. To whom does it pertain to admit children to first communion?

Resp. §4. Let the judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of children for first communion belong to the priest from confessions, and to their parents or to those who are in the place of parents.¹

§5. But it is the office of the Pastor to watch, even by examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune, lest children approach the sacred Synaxis before having attained the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; and likewise to take care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed as soon as possible with this divine food (Can. 854).

The obligation of the precept of receiving communion, which burdens the impubes, also and chiefly falls back upon those who must have care of them, that is, upon parents, guardians, the confessor, teachers, and the Pastor (Can. 860).

Parents gravely err who affirm that boys and little girls of seven years, with that knowledge which Canon 854 commemorates, cannot communicate well, but that they must wait until they have reached a greater age. These parents are strictly obliged humbly to subject themselves to the supreme authority of the Church, and to oppose no impediment to priests who, according to that authority, desire to lead children to the Sacred Eucharist. - Cf. Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar in the City, 15 Oct. 1910.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1105, n. 46.

Question 4. Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when the danger of death is pressing, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems; for this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death for battling spiritual enemies; therefore it is not fulfilled by communion made before the illness. Nevertheless, many deny this, because the precept of communion has already been fulfilled substantially. St. Alphonsus says this opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death happens naturally, because through that brief preceding time it already morally began to be imminent, although it was unknown. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 285. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 49.

Question 5. Is one who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?

Resp. §2. Even if they have been refreshed by holy communion on the same day, nevertheless it is greatly to be advised that, when they have been brought into danger of life, they communicate again (Can. 864).

Question 6. Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger that the sacred species may be rejected together with phlegm is generally absent; and the reason is that the way through which spit is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, that is, the way through which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the windpipe, through which respiration extends even to the lungs. Yet if the cough is so constant that it prevents the host from being able to be transmitted into the stomach, then communion will have to be abstained from. Thus the Roman Ritual. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 292.

Question 7. Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from continual vomiting?

Resp. Certainly it cannot be given in doubt whether the sick person is about to vomit the sacred particle, because then the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of irreverence. Therefore the whole question is practical and is reduced to assigning the best rule for knowing whether a danger of this kind is present. Now the first rule is to ask the physician, if one is present; the second is to test whether the sick person can retain the particle, by giving him some food or drink, and especially some unconsecrated particle; the third is to see whether the sick person has been free from vomiting for six hours. But this last rule must be applied with discretion, and it must be examined whether the cause of vomiting is some irregular irritation of the stomach or rather regular and periodic. If the first, six hours suffice, indeed even four or three, so that it can prudently be judged that the stomach is settled; if the other, they do not suffice, and it must be investigated how often that periodic vomiting recurs. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 291. - Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, pp. 157 and following.

Question 8. In danger of death, can or must communion be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, those deprived of the senses, the obsessed, and finally epileptics?

Resp. As regards the insane. - If they have been perpetually insane, according to the Roman Ritual communion must never be given to them. But if they often have lucid intervals and have manifested a desire of communicating, communion can be given to them, indeed must be given, with the danger of irreverence excluded. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 9. - St. Alphonsus, n. 302.

As regards the half-witted. - Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; nevertheless it can be given to them more rarely or more frequently according as the prudent confessor shall have judged. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 218.

As regards the delirious. - Communion can be given to them if they are able to communicate, with danger of irreverence excluded; some think it is a good practice if an unconsecrated particle is first given to the sick person, and thus it appears whether he can communicate decently. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 292.

As regards those deprived of the senses. - They indeed are dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not thereby dispensed from the obligation of administering the Eucharist to them, if he has known that they were disposed before the loss of reason. For the sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if there is danger of irreverence or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the host. - Cf. Gousset, n. 232.

As regards the obsessed. - A distinction must be made: communion is to be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be conceded. Indeed, it is expedient that such persons communicate rather often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons.

As regards epileptics. - Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303.

Question 9. Can communion be given to those condemned capitally?

Resp. Affirmatively. Not only can it be given, but it must be given, as is clear from canon 864, §1. In danger of death, from whatever cause it proceeds, the faithful are held by the precept of receiving holy communion. St. Alphonsus adds that then the precept of fasting does not oblige, nor is it necessary to communicate on the same day of death, although this is laudably done; provided, however, that communion precedes the execution by an hour, so that danger of irreverence is absent. Cf. St. Alphonsus, de quinto praec. Decal., n. 379. - Benedict XIV, de Synod. diaec., lib. 7, cap. 11. - Gousset, n. 230.

I. The divine mandate I shall set forth in few words. It is of faith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist received in fact is not necessary with the necessity of means, as Trent defined, session 21, canon 4. Theologians dispute whether at least it be necessary in desire with the necessity of means. Turnely denies it, if the discourse be, he says, of a desire properly so called. The disagreement is rather about the word than about the thing. The more probable opinion is that which St. Thomas teaches out of Augustine, III, q. 73, art. 3: that the Eucharist is necessary in a desire not explicit but implicit. The Eucharist is the end of all the sacraments, which joins us to Christ with a stricter bond, and makes us his members in a peculiar manner. Therefore when a man receives Baptism, he has at least an implicit desire of receiving the Eucharist.

II. QUESTION I. Is the Eucharist necessary by force of a divine precept? ANSWER. All commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 11, and it is proved by Christ's words: Unless you eat the flesh, and so forth; and this was defined by the Council of Trent, session 13. Which precept binds all adults. Since the divine mandate is absolute and universal. Therefore it comprehends all. But this precept presses especially when the article of death is urgent. That the custom of carrying the Eucharist to the sick is most ancient Trent asserts, session 13, chapter 6.

III. QUESTION II. Is one who communicated a little before he fell into danger of death bound to take the sacred Viaticum again? ANSWER. The more probable and more common opinion affirms it. He nevertheless who on the same day communicated out of devotion, if he fall into danger of death, is not bound on the same day to take the Viaticum, because it is the custom of the Church that the Eucharist be not taken twice on the same day. But if anyone, kindled with fervour, being constituted in extreme straits should ask the sacred Viaticum, that he might more securely consult his own salvation, I for my part would administer it to him, although formerly I was doubtful.

IV. He who has once taken the Viaticum, if afterwards he fall into sin, is not bound on the same or on the next day to take the Viaticum. But if he survive several days — say eight or ten — it can be administered to him again.

V. QUESTION III. Does this divine precept oblige more than once? ANSWER. All affirm it. A general rule cannot be prescribed. The Church for the community of the faithful has laid down that communion is to be made once in the year. Each of the faithful, conscious of his own infirmity and fervour, and a prudent confessor who directs his conscience, can determine the frequency of that sacred medicine.

VI. QUESTION IV. Does this divine precept oblige that the Eucharist be taken under both species? ANSWER. The discipline of the Church is to be distinguished from the obligation of the precept. In the Latin Church up to the twelfth century, and in the Greek even now, the discipline obtains of communicating under both species, even as regards laymen. In the fourteenth century certain Bohemians dared to carp at the discipline of the Latin Church, and were called Calixtines, whose audacity the Council of Constance repressed in the year 1415, and laid down that the introduced discipline was to be observed; and at last the Council of Trent, session 21, canon 1, defined that communion under both species is not necessary to laymen, or to those not sacrificing, either with the necessity of the sacrament or with the necessity of a divine precept. For John says, chapter 6: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. The tradition of the Church also supports it. See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 9.

VII. QUESTION V. What are the effects of the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the increase of grace. Second, an intimate conjunction with Christ and with the brethren. Third, the delight of the spirit and an inward sweetness of heart. Fourth, spiritual strength against the temptations of the demon, the prestiges of the world, and the enticements of sins. Fifth, the remission of venial sins. Sixth, the remission of punishment. Seventh, the repression of the senses and appetites. Eighth, the seed of immortality and of resurrection. Ninth, final perseverance, upon which eternal life follows.