The Reception of the Most Holy Sacrament

133. Who can receive the Eucharist. 1. Every baptized man, by divine law, is a subject capable of the Eucharist to be sacramentally received, even an infant and one perpetually insane. This is established both from the fact that this sacrament, in order to produce an effect ex opere operato, requires no acts of the recipient, and from the ancient discipline of the Church, by which the Eucharist was given even to infants.

Theologians distinguish several modes of receiving the Eucharist.¹ It is received really if the most holy sacrament is in reality received; it is received spiritually if the most holy sacrament is received only by vow and desire. Real reception is either material, if the Eucharist is received by one who is not capable of this sacrament, or sacramental, if it is received by one who is capable of the effects of this sacrament. Sacramental reception is either sacramental only, if it takes place without due disposition and therefore without fruit, or sacramental-spiritual, if it takes place with due disposition and therefore with the effect of sanctifying grace. Sacramental reception only can take place sacrilegiously or neutrally, or without sacrilege and without fruit, according as the recipient is conscious of the defect of disposition or does not notice that defect.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8.

134. 2. From the present discipline of the Church, introduced for just causes, it is not licit to give the Eucharist except to those who have already arrived at the use of reason, as is established from universal custom and from the Roman Ritual.¹

a. Therefore it is not licit to concede the Eucharist to infants and those perpetually insane.

The reason on account of which the Eucharist is now not conceded to infants, otherwise than was done in antiquity, is both reverence toward this most worthy sacrament, and because it is not necessary for infants. For it has the nature of spiritual food, which restores the weakened powers of the soul; but little children do not need spiritual restoration, since their powers are weakened by neither internal nor external temptations.²

b. The deaf and mute from birth who have never received any instruction are ordinarily equated with infants; therefore neither absolution nor holy communion is conceded to them. This is to be said a fortiori of those deaf-mute and at the same time blind from birth.

For although the deaf and mute are not without the use of reason, nevertheless, since because of the defect of hearing intellectual knowledge cannot be explained and developed, from the testimony of experts confirmed by manifold experience they lack discretion between good and evil and knowledge of those truths which are necessary to be known by necessity of means. Nor can these truths be explained to them by natural signs, since because of a defect of notions they do not understand the signs themselves. But those things which the deaf and mute perform externally, if, e.g., they sign themselves with the sign of the cross, bend the knees, raise the hands in the manner of those praying, desire to approach holy communion, etc., they do merely in imitation of others, without in any way understanding the signification of the things which they outwardly imitate. Therefore, as regards knowledge of religious truths, they are to be equated with infants and the perpetually insane, to whom the sacraments are not administered. Perhaps at most it could be conceded that in death even the deaf and mute who could not be instructed be excited, as far as can be done, to sorrow by the sign of the cross, striking of the breast, and signs of this kind, and then be absolved under condition and anointed with extreme unction.

¹ Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 11; Cn. 854.

² Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 4, can. 4.

135. 3. Holy communion is not to be conceded except to those who are going to receive it without danger of irreverence. Nevertheless, since the sacraments are for men, it is not necessary that every danger, even slight, of irreverence be excluded so that holy communion can be given, especially to the sick.

a. Those who suffer from cough can receive the Eucharist, and in death even must, provided that they have enough quiet to be able to receive the sacred host; for danger of irreverence is present only if they are affected by an attack of coughing while they receive the sacred host. But once the host has been received, that danger is for the most part absent, because phlegm is cast forth by one way and food from the stomach by another.

b. Those who suffer from continual vomiting can receive the Eucharist, and in death must, if for one or another hour they have not vomited, and a test has been made by means of a non-consecrated particle. For in these circumstances there is the hope, which is required as probable, that a little after communion vomiting will not follow. If it can be done, a physician is to be consulted; when the cause of the vomiting is known, he will be able to judge whether the danger has already ceased. But in doubt whether the sick person is going to vomit the sacred host, it is not to be given to him.¹

c. The Eucharist can be given in death to the delirious if they have lucid intervals and irreverence is not to be feared. Therefore, as far as is enough, a test should first be made once or again whether they receive and swallow a non-consecrated particle decently.

d. Those destitute of their senses (Bewusstlose), e.g., because of apoplexy, fever, or agony, indeed are not bound to receive Viaticum, because they are not capable of obligation; but it is asked whether the pastor can or even must administer holy communion to them. In order that holy communion can be administered to them, two things are required: the first is that they have the intention of receiving it, which is supposed in all who have lived as Christians; the other is that it be sufficiently established that no danger of irreverence is present, because they conduct themselves indecently or repel or spit out the sacred host. But holy communion ought not to be given to them, and although it can absolutely be given to them, nevertheless usage rarely has it that the Eucharist be given to those destitute of their senses. This usage perhaps has prevailed because in sick persons of this kind danger of irreverence is rarely absent, and because they can be sufficiently helped by other sacraments (absolution and extreme unction). But it is in no way given to those who are deprived of their senses in the act of sin, although because of the slight probability of conversion conditional absolution and extreme unction are given to them.

e. To the insane (Irrsinnige) who after the use of reason have fallen into insanity, in death (and only in death) the Eucharist can be given, provided that their intention is reasonably presumed, they are in the prudently presumed state of grace, and they can communicate without irreverence. Whether an insane person is going to communicate decently can be known by experiment, namely by first offering one or another non-consecrated host and afterward, if he swallows it, a consecrated one. Ordinarily, however, as usage bears, holy communion is not given to them.

alpha. One who in the state of mortal sin, for which he was attrite, falls into insanity can attain eternal salvation much better and more securely through extreme unction than through holy communion (n. 7). Moreover, usage does not have it that holy communion be given to them, both because they cannot receive it with devotion and because danger of irreverence and scandal of the faithful is rarely absent.

beta. Intention and the state of grace are presumed from the fact that before insanity someone lived piously and as a Christian, made confession, etc.

In this matter, as the doctrine of ascetics, so the practice of pastors is diverse. By divine law no one doubts that the Eucharist can be given to the insane under the conditions listed, but the question is whether the Church has prohibited this. But the words of the Ritual, "It is not licit to communicate the insane,"² some understand absolutely of any communion; others, however, of any other communion except Viaticum. Having regard to this disagreement of authors, it is said above that communion can be given to them.

f. To the half-witted (Halbblodsinnige, Geistesschwache) and to old men becoming children again, who have the use of reason to this extent, that they can discern between spiritual and profane food, the Eucharist is to be given, but more rarely than to others, i.e., at least when it is prescribed: in the article of death and at Easter; indeed also sometimes during the year, according to the greater or lesser degree of discretion which they use. Nor is one to proceed scrupulously in this matter, since holy communion will certainly profit them and danger of irreverence does not exist.³

¹ Cf. Capellmann, Medicina past., p. 121.

² Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 10.

³ Cf. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 190.

We shall speak first about the notion and division of the reception of the Eucharist, then about the person receiving, and then about the mode of receiving it.

S. Th. III, q. 80.

268. The use or reception of the Eucharist is its eating and drinking, which is not complete while the food or drink is in the mouth, but only when it is passed from the mouth into the stomach, or, according to others, arrives there.

Whence 1) one who holds the species in his mouth to be dissolved there, or immediately draws them out of his mouth, does not eat or communicate, nor does he receive the fruit of the sacrament.

2. On the contrary, one who swallows them and afterwards vomits does communicate.

3. One who in an artificial way, through a tube applied to the stomach or belly, should transfuse the sacrament, which he cannot receive in the natural way, does not seem to communicate, because, although the sacrament could nourish, nevertheless it would not be received by way of eating, at least according to the estimation of men; moreover the manner is judged not expedient (Holy Office, January 27, 1886; November 27, 1919).

4. On the contrary, one who should receive it in his mouth in the natural way but should pass it into the stomach through an artificial esophagus.

In the very act of eating, namely when the reception is complete, the sacrament causes habitual grace in those who place no obstacle; if an obstacle is present and afterwards is removed, it is very probable that grace is then conferred, provided the species have not been consumed. But once given, it does not seem to be increased further by force of the sacrament, because the eating has been finished; nevertheless, as our disposition is born or grows, the sacrament probably causes or increases the fervor of charity during the whole time in which it remains in us, just as food, as long as it is present, actually refreshes and strengthens.

Hence the devotion of a priest is not to be blamed who takes much wine for the consecration so that the sacrament may persevere longer in him; nevertheless Innocent XI condemned the abuse (S.C.C., February 12, 1679) of giving communicants several particles at once or larger ones than usual, if it were done for fostering a certain unsound devotion.

269. The sacrament of the Eucharist can be received in a threefold way according to the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8, conformably to the doctrine of St. Thomas, a. 1:

1. sacramentally only, when it is received really and validly but without the fruit of grace because of an obstacle: then that which is reality and sacrament is received;

2. spiritually only, when by a just man it is received by affection and desire alone, from which some fruit of the sacrament comes from the work of the one operating: then the reality of the sacrament alone is received;

3. sacramentally and spiritually at the same time, when the sacrament is really received with fruit from the work worked: then the reality and sacrament together with the reality are received.

If the sacrament were received invalidly, for example by an unbaptized adult, or by one unaware, or by an animal, it would be material eating only, but not sacramental nor spiritual.

It remains to speak of the dispositions, both of soul and of body, required for communion, and of its frequency and necessity.