Ways of receiving; the necessity of Communion

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.

The reception of the Eucharist can be distinguished as threefold, namely material, sacramental, and spiritual.¹

I. Material reception is that by which it is so received that the sacrament is not applied to the one receiving, in other words, so that the sacrament does not become a title of grace applied to him. It is received materially: 1. by one not baptized; 2. by a baptized adult who lacks intention.

II. Sacramental reception is had when the sacrament is applied to the one receiving, or when it becomes a title of grace applied to the one receiving. Sacramental reception is twofold, namely sacramental only, and sacramental and spiritual, according as it is received with or without an obstacle to the effect, that is, to the grace to be received.

As regards the requisites for sacramental reception, receive these points:

1. For sacramental reception, eating is certainly required, whether true or equivalent. This is drawn from these words of Christ: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you";² "Take and eat; this is my body";³ "... drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."⁴

2. For sacramental reception, the passage of food into the stomach is certainly required. For if this is lacking, according to common estimation no one is said to eat.

3. It is disputed whether or not a vital passage into the stomach through the esophagus, whether natural or artificial, is required, or whether passage into the stomach by means of a tube inserted into the esophagus or into another part of the body suffices. Some judge that passage by means of a tube suffices, because there is at least equivalent eating. Others admit the contrary, because, considering the obvious sense of the words of Christ, there seems to be required an act which truly is, or at least according to common estimation is called, eating. Now one who is fed by means of a tube is not said to eat, but to be nourished artificially.

III. Spiritual reception is the desire or vow, conceived from faith and charity, of receiving the Eucharist really.⁵ Now spiritual Communion produces ex opere operantis fruits very similar to those which real Communion effects ex opere operato. Hence the Council of Trent declares that those communicate spiritually "who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness."⁶ But in order that someone may acquire the aforesaid fruits, let him elicit an act of faith, charity or perfect contrition, and desire toward Christ in the Eucharist. One who is only attrite concerning a mortal sin perhaps committed, by desiring Communion indeed performs a good work, but does not communicate spiritually, and therefore does not receive the special fruits annexed to spiritual Communion.

In the following, the discussion will be only about sacramental Communion.

¹ "As regards use, the Council of Trent speaks thus: 'Our fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this holy sacrament. For they taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others only spiritually, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness; and thirdly, others both sacramentally and spiritually; and these are those who first so prove and prepare themselves that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table'" (Session 13, chapter 8).

² John 6:54.

³ Matthew 26:26.

⁴ Matthew 26:27-28.

⁵ Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 8.

⁶ Loc. cit.

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.

190. Note. A twofold reception of the Eucharist is customarily distinguished: one sacramental, the other spiritual. Sacramental reception is the eating or drinking of the Eucharistic species. Spiritual reception is the desire for sacramental reception when the latter is in fact impossible because of reasons standing in the way. All ascetical authors earnestly commend the exercise of spiritual Communion as very fruitful ex opere operantis through charity. This exercise is fittingly performed by eliciting the following acts: 1. an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; 2. fervent thanksgiving for the institution of this sacrament; 3. contrition for all sins committed; 4. an ardent desire for union with the Eucharistic Christ. In what follows we shall no longer speak of spiritual Communion, but of sacramental Communion, in the reception of which dispositions both of soul and of body are required; these are to be treated separately.

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.

297. Principle IV. The Eucharist is not necessary under both species for all the faithful. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 1 and can. 1, against the Hussites, Luther, Calvin, and the schismatic Orientals; thus after the Council of Constance, sess. 13, which established that laymen should communicate under the species of bread alone.

This is established from the universal practice of the Church: although in the earlier centuries this was diverse, nevertheless the species of bread alone was rather often preserved, as for the infirm, in time of persecution, for monks in solitudes; indeed in public assemblies communion was sometimes distributed under only one species; likewise in the Mass of the Presanctified, which is celebrated on Good Friday, but among the Greeks several times in the week during the whole time of Lent. On the contrary, sometimes the species of wine alone was administered, as to infants after Baptism, or, when necessity urged, even to the infirm.

Nor do the words of Christ, John VI, 54, stand in the way: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. - For 1. the particle and, although of itself it is copulative, nevertheless is often taken disjunctively in the Scriptures, for example Exod. XXI, 15, where in Hebrew there is and for or; and Acts III, 6, where Peter said to the lame man whom he healed: "Gold and silver I have not," where, says Benedict XIV, he wished that word to signify that he had neither gold nor silver. 2. But in the words of Christ it must be taken for or; for, as the Council of Trent argues, sess. 21, c. 1: He who said: "Unless you eat..." also said: "If anyone eats of this bread he shall live forever." And He who said: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life," also said: "The bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world." And finally He who said: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him," nevertheless said: "He who eats this bread shall live forever." 3. That the particle and in the words which are objected must be taken disjunctively, besides the sentence brought forward: He who eats My flesh shall live forever, which would be false if it were taken copulatively, Paul manifestly teaches, I Cor. XI, 27: "Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

298. Principle V. If communion is considered on the part of the sacrament, it is fitting that body and blood be received; but if it is considered on the part of those receiving, who ought to receive with the greatest reverence and caution, the Church has judged it better that it not be received under both species.

The first is established from the fact that the perfection of the sacrament consists in both species (n. 207), and therefore because it pertains to the priest to perfect this sacrament, in no way ought he to receive the body without the blood.

The second is clear from the Council of Trent, which asserts, sess. 21, c. 3 and can. 2, that the Church has acted thus on account of grave and just causes. The causes can be numbered:

1. Lest the blood of Christ be poured upon the ground, especially in a great concourse of communicants.

2. Since the holy Eucharist ought to be at hand for the sick, it is to be feared lest, if the species of wine were preserved longer, it would grow sour.

3. That uniformity be preserved in this sacrament of unity: for there are many abstainers who abhor wine; there are others who are repelled at drinking from the same chalice after dirty, foul-smelling persons, etc.

4. In many regions there is the greatest scarcity of wine.

5. For overturning a twofold heresy: one which denied that the whole Christ is contained under either species; the other of the Hussites, which the Protestants adopted, which condemned as guilty of sacrilege those who received only one species.

The change in the manner of communicating was made by custom, which was approved by the Church. Among the Greeks and certain Orientals, communion under both species is still in use during Mass.

299. Corollary. - From the fact that the Eucharist is not necessary under both species, it must be concluded with the Council of Trent, c. 3, that "those who receive one species alone are deprived of no grace necessary for salvation."

But the Eucharist under one species not only deprives the faithful of no grace necessary for salvation; but per se it produces the same grace as under the twofold species, as was said in n. 207. Per accidens, however, it can produce greater grace, namely, either because the species last longer, or on account of the greater devotion of him who receives the holy blood.

The increase of habitual grace is infused at the very moment of receiving the bread; nevertheless the other species is not useless, namely on account of the greater signification of the passion.

300. Observation. - In certain cases it is licit for laymen to receive the species of wine:

1. If there is danger lest it be profaned.

2. If, after the priest has died after receiving the body, there is not another priest present who may consume the remaining species of wine.

3. If the priest refuses to lick up spilled blood.

4. From privilege.

Not, however, in the Latin Church, for receiving Viaticum (can. 852), as theologians commonly teach conformably to what was said in n. 284.