Eucharistic Communion

EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION. - It is the real participation, under the external appearances of bread and wine, in the sacrificial banquet, in which the faithful partakes of the body and blood of Christ.

I. EFFECTS

The effects of Eucharistic Communion are the individual and social union of the faithful with Christ with a view to the glorification of soul and body.

The individual union (incorporatio) is taught in a sublime manner by Jesus Christ in the discourse of the promise: the two mysteries of the Trinitarian life, namely the mutual immanence of the Father in the Son and the procession of the Son from the Father, are in some way repeated in the relations of Christ with the faithful: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him... As the Father, who has life in himself, has sent me and I live through the Father, so he who eats of me will live through me" (Jn. 6:55-57). This Trinitarian-Eucharistic motif will be masterfully developed by St. Hilary of Poitiers (d. 368) against the Arians. St. Paul speaks of a "κοινωνία" (1 Cor. 10:16), that is, of a union of the communicant with the body of Christ so profound as to suggest to St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria a parallel with the Incarnation, an idea later taken up by Thomassin (d. 1695) and by Leo XIII in the encyclical Mirae Caritatis (1902). Other Fathers, on the other hand, preferred to illustrate this mystery with comparisons drawn from nature: the marital union (St. Ephrem), the fusion of two liquefied elements (St. Cyril of Alexandria), physiological assimilation (St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine), the glowing of burning coal or of white-hot iron with fire (St. John Damascene, Theophylact), the kinship resulting from natural sonship (St. Cyril of Jerusalem: οὐκ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Cat. Myst., 4, 1; PG 33, 109). The idea underlying the biblical texts and the patristic analogies pleased the Scholastics and was accepted by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (Denz-U, n. 430) and by that of Florence (1439: Denz-U, n. 698: "Huius sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum").

The social union (concorporatio) is revealed in the classic Pauline text, 1 Cor. 10:17: "We all, though many, form one bread, one body, because we partake of one bread." This ecclesiological point is widely used by the Didaché, by St. Cyprian, by St. Hilary of Poitiers ("Christus... per sacramentum corporis sui in se universam Ecclesiam continens": In Ps. 125, 6; PL 9, 688), by St. John Chrysostom ("nobis corpus suum inseruit, ut unum quid simus corpus iunctum capiti": Hom. 46 in Io. n. 3; PG 59, 261), and above all by St. Augustine, who in the controversy with the Donatists showed them, with the aim of converting them, the very intimacy of the Eucharist, which they preserved, with the Church, which by their rebellion they were tearing apart: "The faithful know the body of Christ if they do not neglect to be its members. Let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to live from the body of Christ... O Sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity. Whoever wishes to live knows where to live, whence to draw life. Let him draw near and believe, let him be incorporated so that he may be given life. Let him not shrink from union with the other members, let him not be a rotten member, which must be cut off; let him not be crooked, of which one would be ashamed, but let him be beautiful, let him be perfect, let him be sound; let him adhere to the body, live of God and for God, now toil on earth in order to reign thereafter in heaven" (In Io., tr. 26, n. 13; PL 35, 1612). These words, vibrant with faith, if they did not touch the heart of the Donatists, moved the Christian Middle Ages, filled with hope the assembly of Trent, which from the Eucharist drew the auspices for the reunion of those in error to the bosom of the Church: "Finally the Holy Council with a fatherly heart admonishes, exhorts, beseeches, implores by the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each, as many as there are who glory in the name of Christian, may unite in peaceful harmony in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord" (Denz-U, n. 882).

The glorious resurrection (ius ad gloriam) is promised by Jesus Christ in the discourse of Capernaum: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day" (Jn. 6:54). This divine promise was particularly dear to the first Christians, compelled to live in a world that regarded the resurrection of the flesh as folly. St. Ignatius of Antioch extols the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death" (Eph. 20, 2), and St. Irenaeus combats the Gnostic errors precisely by showing the intimate connection that holds between the Eucharist and the future resurrection of bodies. In the catacombs the Eucharistic motif often recurs, because the nascent Church saw in the body of Christ the symbol and the cause of immortality. The liturgy for centuries has repeated the antiphon of St. Thomas: "O sacrum convivium in quo... futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur", and Leo XIII, echoing patristic thought, at the beginning of our century, again affirmed: "Corpus immortale Christi semen inserti immortalitatis, quod aliquando erumpet" (enc. Mirae Caritatis).

These effects are substantially common to all the Sacraments; it is therefore legitimate to ask in what sense they can then be attributed in a particular way to the Eucharist. This problem clearly presents itself to Christian thought only in the 16th century. Card. Mendoza (d. 1566), whose genuine teaching had until now been ignored, resolved it first. The Eucharist, he said, unlike the other Sacraments, produces a particular effect, which endures even when the species vanish, and is constituted by the communication to the soul and body of the faithful of the perfections with which the humanity of Jesus Christ was adorned by virtue of the hypostatic union. This special charism, to be identified with sacramental Grace, is a "donum quoddam christificum" that makes the soul of the communicant Christ-like, as sanctifying Grace makes the baptized person God-like. By virtue of this Christ-forming gift the communicant is united in a more perfect way than in the other Sacraments to Jesus Christ, whose perfections he shares and whose image he reflects, is joined more closely to the Mystical Body and possesses a more firmly grounded right to the glorious resurrection of his body.

This opinion, rightly understood, could only have met with assent; instead, having been set forth in a prolix form, with ambiguous expressions (unio naturalis) and in a work that was never printed, but which everyone claimed to know, it soon laid itself open to discussions that lasted two centuries, in which theologians of clear fame were involved, such as Luis de León, Diego de Tapia, Thomassin (in a favorable sense), Suárez, Vásquez, the Salmanticenses (in strong opposition), Card. Cienfuegos and Card. Belluga (with exaggerated amplifications). Mendoza's explanation, substantially true, is not complete because it does not illustrate the manner in which this Christ-forming gift of the Eucharist produces a more perfect union with the head and the members of the Mystical Body and a greater right to somatic resurrection.

It seems to us that this gap can be filled by considering the Christ-forming gift (to be identified with the sacramental Grace proper to the Eucharist) against the general background of the sacramental economy and in the light of the thought of St. Thomas, who, although he did not compose the synthesis, nevertheless laid its principles and scattered here and there its precious elements.

The sacramental economy is thus ordered: Baptism and Confirmation were instituted to begin the supernatural life, Penance and Extreme Unction to restore it after sin, Order and Matrimony to extend it to others, the Eucharist to bring it to its perfection. The Fathers indeed present the Eucharist to us as the final complement (τελετή τελετών; Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, ch. 3, § 1: PG 3, 324), and St. Thomas as the "consummatio vitae spiritualis" (Sum. Theol., 3ᵃ, q. 73, a. 3). As such it must complete the whole spiritual organism in its being (sanctifying grace), in its faculties (the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit), in its activity (actual grace) and in its fruits (good works). In fact the Eucharist, as is gathered from a body of dogmatic and theological documents: a) produces the most abundant habitual grace: Catechism of the Council of Trent (n. 228): "The Eucharist is the source, while the other Sacraments are the streams of Grace"; Leo XIII: "The wellspring of all spiritual goods is the august sacrament of the Eucharist" (encyclical Mirae Caritatis). St. Thomas had already taught that the Eucharist contains "quasi in summa et veluti in capitulo" (Sent., 4, d. 8, q. 2, a. 2, qc. 2, ad 4) all that is scattered throughout the other Sacraments; b) increases charity to the highest degree: "Sincera caritas," writes Leo XIII, "prosilit ardetque actuosa ex S.ma Eucharistia" (encyclical: Mirae Caritatis). St. Thomas, summarizing the thought of the Fathers, says verbatim: "By virtue of this Sacrament a certain transformation of man into Christ takes place through charity (per amorem), and this is the proper effect of this Sacrament" (Sent., 4, d. 12, q. 2, a. 2, sol. 1); c) arouses fervor through frequent promptings of actual grace: this is the common doctrine, thus expressed by the Angelic Doctor: "Per hoc sacramentum (caritas) excitatur in actum" (Sum. Theol., 3ᵃ, q. 79, a. 1, ad 2). The fervor of charity by its very nature destroys venial sins (a. 4, ad 1), causes temporal punishment to be remitted (a. 5), preserves from future sins by diminishing and calming the ardors of concupiscence (a. 6) and thwarting the snares of the devil, as Chrysostom teaches: "Ut leones ignem spirantes ab illa mensa recedamus diabolo terribiles effecti" (Hom. 46 in Io. 3: PG 59, 261); d) from this body of supernatural gifts there spring, as a natural consequence, more numerous and more perfect works meritorious of eternal life.

Now these effects (which taken together are truly a "donum christificum") constitute, as is easy to understand, the full incorporation into Christ, the most perfect union among the faithful, the highest right to the glorification of soul and body, whereby individual believers, as the whole Church, reach the acme of spiritual perfection, the maturity for the beatific vision: after the Eucharist nothing remains but glory. This doctrine is particularly suited to making understood the individual importance (the dignity of the human person in the light of his union with Christ) and the social importance (the harmony of the faithful, of families, of classes, of nations in this vinculum charitatis and in this symbolum unitatis) of the Eucharist.

Only one point remains to be clarified, namely in what manner the Eucharist can be called the special cause of the resurrection of the body. Mendoza and Contenson (d. 1674) held that the donum christificum was almost a physical germ divinely preserved in the mortal remains and that at the moment established by God, like a spark from under the ashes, it would rekindle life where death reigned. The Salmanticenses on the other hand are of the opinion that the sacramental grace of the Eucharist, inherent in the soul, will become, on the day of Judgment, an instrument in the hands of God to vivify bodies. M. De la Taille presents the most common and most certain doctrine. The Eucharist, by infusing into the soul the greatest supernatural gift, is the indirect cause of a more glorious resurrection. Indeed the soul has a transcendental ordination to the body: this tendency will have its fulfillment at the end of the world, when God will reunite bodies to their respective souls. At that moment the soul perfected by the Eucharist will communicate "per quandam redundantiam" its splendor to the body. Thus it is easy to understand that the body of those who drew from the Eucharist more perfect and more abundant grace will shine with a particular light among the other glorious bodies.

II. NECESSITY

Here another problem presents itself, namely whether the special effect of the Eucharist in its threefold ramification (incorporatio, concorporatio, ius ad gloriam) is necessary for obtaining eternal life. The answer depends on what has been said previously: the Eucharist is, as it were, the crowning, the consummatio, of the sacramental economy. Therefore the other Sacraments, being as it were beginnings, necessarily tend toward the Eucharist as toward their normal complement and end.

This logical conclusion is confirmed by St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 3a, q. 73, a. 3) and by the catechism of the Council of Trent (n. 228): "Eucharistia est omnium Sacramentorum finis." Once this principle is laid down, it is legitimate to conclude: the Sacraments produce their effects by way of efficiency only insofar as they are drawn, by a mysterious ordering, finaliter by the Eucharist. Now since it is established that Baptism in re or in voto is necessary by necessity of means for eternal life, it follows that the Eucharist, not insofar as it is received sacramentally, but insofar as it is the end of Baptism, is indispensable for the attainment of eternal life. To be saved, therefore, a dynamic tendency toward the perfect incorporation of the Eucharist is necessary: such a tendency is objectively inherent in Baptism received in re or in voto. Thus children who die with only the baptismus aquae are saved, just as an unbeliever is saved who, though not knowing Christianity, has the desire (baptismus flammatus) to do what God has established for human salvation, and therefore implicitly (votum implicitum) desires Baptism; in such a desire he necessarily tends toward the Eucharist, which is the complement of Baptism.

This doctrine, today very widespread, seems to be derived from St. Augustine according to the authoritative interpretation of his disciple, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, and from many texts of St. Thomas harmonized with one another (cf. Sent. 4, d. 4, q. 2, a. 2, q. 5, ad 2; Sum. Theol., 3a, q. 68, a. 2; q. 73, a. 3; q. 80, a. 3). Bibl. On the individual effects: G. Toniolo, L'Eucaristia e la società, Turin 1922; G. Gasque, L'Eucharistie et le Corps Mystique, Paris 1925; C. Petroccia, Universae fraternitatis causa, Montecassino 1926; M. De La Taille, Mysterium Fidei, 3rd ed., Paris 1931, pp. 476-616 (ample and masterly development, with personal positions); S. Simonis, De causalitate Eucharistica in Corpus Mysticum doctrina s. Bonaventurae, in Antonianum, 8 (1933), pp. 193-228; P. Berrocchi, Il simbolismo ecclesiologico dell'Eucaristia in s. Agostino, Bergamo 1937; F. Cuttas, Pain vivant, Paris 1937; F. Connell, The Sacrament of divine Charity, in Angelicum, 14 (1937), pp. 87-101; A. Piolanti, Il Corpo Mystico e le sue relazioni con l'Eucaristia in s. Alberto M., Rome 1939; H. De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum, L'Eucharistie et l'Eglise au moyen âge, Paris 1944; E. Bergh, La Sainte Communion. Sei effetti, Brussels 1946; E. Hugon, La Sainte Eucharistie, Italian trans. by G. S. Nivoli, Turin 1947, pp. 170-81; E. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, I, Milwaukee 1947, pp. 448-76; F. Cuttas, Communion: effetti, in DSp, II (1948), coll. 1118-1207.

On the nature of the effects: F. Mendoza, De naturali cum Christo unitate libri V, quos primum edidit prolegamenti criticitiae animadversionibus locupletavit A. Piolanti, Rome 1948; in the prolegomena the author's thought is summarized (developed in 400 pp. of text) and the controversy is outlined in its broad lines. For the explanation proposed cf. A. Piolanti, De Sacramentis, II, Rome 1945, pp. 192-96.

On the necessity of the Eucharist: F. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 40, sect. 2; Salmanticenses, De Eucharistia, disp. 3, dub. 1, § 9, n. 16; M. De la Taille, op. cit., pp. 586-612; E. Springer, De SS. Eucharistiae virtute atque necessitate, in Gregorianum, 9 (1928), pp. 118-38; 609-27; J. Filograssi, De S. Eucharistia, Rome 1947, pp. 334-54 (these authors attribute to the Eucharist an efficient causality with respect to the other Sacraments); R. Pizzorni, De necessitate medii Eucharistica secundum s. Thomam, in Divus Thomas, 52 (Piacenza 1949), pp. 3-40 (rich development of the Thomistic principles mentioned above). On Communion, the teaching of Pius XII in Mediator Dei, part 2, n. 3, in AAS, 39 (1947), pp. 562-68, is normative.

Antonio Piolanti

III. SUBJECT

Every living and baptized person is capable of receiving the Eucharist. The unbaptized would indeed receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but only materially, without any sacramental effect, since Baptism is the door, that is, the indispensable condition for being able to receive all the other Sacraments. For this reason the Church has never given Communion to its neophytes, not even to the most fervent. Against the practice, moreover, prevailing in certain places of placing a consecrated host in the mouth of the dead, as a kind of viaticum and seed or pledge of immortality, it intervened repeatedly, considering it an intolerable abuse (cf. Council of Hippo of 393, can. 4 [Mansi, III, col. 919]; Third Council of Carthage of 397, can. 5 [ibid., col. 895] and Fifth of 419, can. 22 [ibid., IV, col. 428]; Synod of Auxerre of 575, can. 12 [ibid., IX, col. 913]; Council in Trullo of 692, can. 83 [ibid., XI, col. 979]). Therefore the following can receive the Eucharist:

1. Baptized children, even if they have not yet reached the use of reason.

For a long time indeed, in the Church children were communicated immediately after Baptism, as happened for adults. The text of St. Cyprian is demonstrative, who, speaking of the children betrayed by their relatives in the persecution, puts into their mouths, in the presence of the divine Judge, the words: "We have done nothing wrong; nor did we abandon the food and the cup of the Lord, to turn of our own accord to profane defilements" (De lapsis, 9: PL, 4, 473; cf. also: id., Epist., 63 ad Caecilium, 8 [ibid., 380]; St. Augustine, Epist., 98, 4 [ibid., 33, 361]; id., Contra duas epist. Pelagianorum, I, II [ibid., 44, 576]; Constitut. Apostolicae, I, VIII, 13 [PG 1, 1109]; Canones Hippolyti, n. 112, in L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 3rd ed., Paris 1902, p. 533; Ordo Romanus XI, ed. M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge, II, Louvain 1948, pp. 446). And after this first Communion the children continued to communicate often, at first under the species of wine and then also under those of bread (cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, 25: PL 4, 485; St. Augustine, Sermo de verbis apostoli [I Tim., 1, 15], 6: ibid., 38, 944). On certain days, moreover, they were summoned outside the time of the services, to consume what remained of the consecrated bread, after the communion of the faithful (cf. Nicephorus, Hist. eccl., I, XVII, 25

[PG 147, 280]; Evagrius, Hist. eccl., I. IV, 36 [ibid. 86, 2769]. It even reached the point of thinking that Communion was for children, before the use of reason, absolutely necessary for salvation; which erroneous opinion, condemned by the Council of Trent (sess. XXI, cap. 4, can. 4; Denz-U, n. 937), nevertheless demonstrates the importance that from the earliest centuries was given to this nourishment of life which is the Eucharist, so as not to wish even children to be deprived of it.

In the East, the practice still endures today in certain places; in the West, on the other hand, it became ever more restricted until it disappeared in the 12th century. The manner of communicating generally consisted in dipping a finger in the consecrated wine and giving it to the child to suck.

The discipline in force, already fixed by the Fourth Lateran Council and by the Council of Trent (sess. XXI, cap. 4, can. 4) is thus expressed by the CIC: "To children, who owing to the weakness of their age do not yet have the knowledge and the taste of the Sacrament, Communion is not to be given. They can, however, receive it at the point of death, provided they know how to distinguish the body of Christ from common food and to adore it with reverence" (can. 854 §§ 1 and 2).

2. The demented who have never had the use of reason are to be treated like children, therefore they cannot receive Communion even as viaticum.

3. On the other hand, the other demented can receive it, even outside the danger of death, in moments of lucid interval; the possessed when they are in their right mind; epileptics and the delirious, outside moments of paroxysm; the semi-imbeciles and the deaf-mutes, when they possess sufficient discretion and know how to distinguish in some way the eucharistic bread from common bread; the dying deprived of their senses, provided one can suppose that they had previously desired it and are in the grace of God. Naturally it will always be necessary to take care that every danger of profanation be avoided.

IV. DISPOSITIONS

1. As regards understanding, it is required that the baptized person have reached the age of discretion, that is, the use of reason (CIC, can. 859 § 1), sufficient to commit a sin even only venial, and that he have a knowledge of Christian doctrine proportionate to his age and his capacity. He must therefore know the truths strictly necessary for eternal salvation and approach the sacred table with that respect which is consonant with his young years (ibid., can. 854 § 3).

2. As regards the soul, it is required: a) the state of grace. The Eucharist is not a Sacrament of the dead; it was not instituted to remit mortal sins (cf. Conc. Trid., sess. XIII, can. 5; Denz-U, 887), but to preserve and increase the supernatural life; it therefore presupposes in the one who receives it the possession of this life. "Let each one examine himself and so eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for whoever eats and drinks unworthily... eats and drinks his own condemnation" (I Cor. 11, 28-29). Whoever, consequently, is conscious of being in mortal sin must, before approaching Communion, confess; nor is it enough to premise an act of perfect contrition, except in the case where there is a necessity of communicating and confessors are lacking (Denz-U, 880 and 893). b) Immunity from excommunication (CIC, can. 2260 § 1) and from personal interdict (ibid., can. 2274 § 2).

3. As regards the body, the natural fast is required, that is, absolute abstinence from everything that has the character of food or drink. The discipline of the Church in this regard was different in the beginning. Since Jesus instituted the Eucharist and distributed Communion to the Apostles during the paschal banquet, it is easily understood that the first faithful repeated that rite under the same circumstances

(v. AGAPE). This is gathered for Jerusalem from Act. 2, 42, 46; for Corinth from I Cor. 11, 17-22; for Smyrna from the letter of St. Ignatius (ad Smyrnenses, 8: PG 5, 714). But the practice changed quite early, and by the 4th century the eucharistic fast became universal, save for some very rare exception, against which both bishops and councils did not fail to protest and to intervene (cf. H. Moureau, loc. cit., coll. 500-501). This fast required for Communion must be understood as from anything digestible and assimilable that comes from outside and is taken in the manner of drink or food. It is therefore not broken by a few drops swallowed as saliva (for example, in the hygiene of the teeth and mouth) or by aspiration (for example, the dust of the street, tobacco smoke). The fast is to be reckoned from midnight (considered according to solar or mean or legal or local or extraordinary time), until the moment of Communion. Various causes, however, may intervene that dispense from it: a probable danger of death (CIC, can. 858 § 1); the necessity of avoiding the profanation or the destruction of the sacred species (hatred of the wicked, bombardments, fire; the necessity of avoiding scandal or infamy); a particular indult, for example, of being able to take something liquid before Communion or to shorten the time of the fast, reducing it to a few hours.

4. As regards demeanor, an exterior decency is required, which takes account of proprieties; this imports, especially for women, correctness of dress and attire according to the norms of sound modesty.

V. PREPARATION AND THANKSGIVING

The Eucharist, like all the other Sacraments, acts of itself (ex opere operato) and produces in the one who receives it with the due dispositions an increase of sanctifying Grace, even if on the other hand his spiritual activity is weak. But the better the personal dispositions (the opus operantis) that are brought to it, the greater will be the effect produced. Hence the care to have a careful preparation precede Communion and to have a fitting thanksgiving follow it (cf. the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus of 17 Dec. 1905: Acta S. Sedis, 38 [1905-1906], p. 404). To this care, made of gratitude and of understanding for the divine gift that is received, Pius XII earnestly exhorts in the encyclical Mediator Dei of 20 Nov. 1947 (AAS, 39 [1947], pp. 521-595), recalling the action of the Church, which «has inserted into the liturgical books suitable prayers, enriched with indulgences, with which the sacred ministers can fittingly prepare themselves before celebrating and receiving communion and, once Holy Mass is completed, manifest their thanksgiving to God» (ibid., p. 567).

The method to be used is free, depending on the situation, on health, on circumstances and also on the preferences of each soul; ordinarily there are recommended, for the preparation, acts of faith, of humility, of love; and for the thanksgiving, acts of gratitude, of offering and especially of petition. The time to be spent on it can also vary; but, just as those who under the goad of haste and even of thoughtlessness reduce everything to not many minutes are reprehensible, so those who linger over it somewhat (commonly at least a quarter of an hour) are praiseworthy, following the counsel of the Imitation of Christ (IV, ch. 12): «Gather yourself in secret and enjoy your God, for you possess him whom the whole world will not be able to take from you»; which sums up a whole long Christian tradition, as it is gathered from the Holy Fathers and from ascetical writers down to our own days (cf., on the subject, M. Viller, Communion [pratique], in DSp, II, coll. 1207-34).

VI. THE FIRST EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION

1. History

The question concerning the age of first Communion arose when, over the course of the 12th century, the practice of giving Communion to children even before the use of reason became increasingly rare, to the point of explicit prohibition.

The reasons for this change, which was in a short time to become a disciplinary law for the Western Church, are not clearly known; perhaps disorders and irreverence, so easy in children, contributed to it; abuses and neglect on the part of those who should have watched over the distribution of Communion; the abolition, which occurred around that time, of Communion to the laity even under the species of wine, which would have appeared singular if it had continued, as was the general custom, for children. The fact is that at the beginning of the 13th century a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), in response to the decline in the practice of Confession and Communion, determined the number of times a Christian must confess and receive Communion each year: «Every faithful of either sex, when he has reached the years of discretion, must confess at least once a year and devoutly receive, at least at Easter, the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless, on the advice of his confessor, he judges that for some reasonable motive he must abstain from it for a time. Whoever refuses to do so shall be forbidden to enter the Church and deprived, at death, of ecclesiastical burial» (Denz-U, 437). The decree was rapidly disseminated, but since it did not determine what the years of discretion were, it also opened the way to controversies, which unfortunately lasted until the 20th century, with very great harm to souls (cf. the decree Quam singulari of 8 Aug. 1910). Starting, in fact, from an incorrect interpretation of the words «years of discretion» and of the clause «devoutly receive», and under the influence of certain reasons deduced from the penalties inflicted by the decree against the recalcitrant and from their applicability according to the general norms of law, people sought to distinguish two ages of discretion, one for Confession, the other for Communion; requiring, for the first, the age at which one can discern good from evil and therefore sin; for the second, instead, a greater age, at which knowledge of Christian doctrine was fuller and the disposition of the soul more mature. For this they set ten, twelve, fourteen years; Jansenism, later, exaggerating beyond all limit the necessity of a good preparation, sought to postpone it until eighteen and twenty years. That this interpretation of the decree was erroneous appears from several reasons: a) the Lateran Council makes no distinction whatever, but for the two precepts imposed it requires the same age. Therefore if for Confession the age of discretion is that at which one distinguishes good from evil, that is, the age at which the use of reason has been reached, the same must be said for Communion; b) thus, in fact, the principal interpreters and theologians of the 13th century understood it, for whom the age of discretion is equivalent to that of the use of reason (cf. Sum. Theol., 3rd part, q. 90, a. 9 d. 3m, where St. Thomas speaks of «aliqualis usus rationis» as sufficient for being admitted to Communion, and his commentators: P. Ledesma, In s. Thomam, 3rd part, q. 80, a. 9, dub. 6; G. Vázquez, In 3° part. s. Thomae, disp. 214, cap. 4, n. 43; for other ancient testimonies, L. Andrieux, op. cit., pp. 94-136). Thus the Council of Trent (sess. XXI, cap. 4; Denz-U, 933), referring to the Lateran Council, assigns no other reason for not giving Communion to children except this, that they cannot sin; whence it follows that, once the age at which this possibility exists (that is, the use of reason) has been reached, they must be able to receive Communion. The Catechismus romanus (part 2, De Sacram. Euchar., n. 63) speaks explicitly of the use of reason.

Nevertheless the thesis, which one might call preconceived, continued to prevail in practice, despite other explanations and condemnations by the Church. The harms that resulted were grave, because in this way the age of childhood, kept far from Christ, found itself deprived as it were of a vital sap, of a help as effective as any other for preserving itself intact in the struggle against the passions and the allurements of one's surroundings, and came to know vice even before receiving its preservative antidote.

2. The discipline in force

It was regulated by Pius X with the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari Christus amore, of 8 Aug. 1910 (Acta S. Sedis, 2 [1910], p. 582 ff.), which establishes the following points: a) the age of discretion for Confession and Communion is reached with the use of reason, which occurs at about 7 years; from this

At that time the annual obligation to receive the two Sacraments also falls upon children; b) for the first admission to them, full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not required (which will be acquired later), but rather knowledge of the principal mysteries of the faith and enough to distinguish the eucharistic bread from ordinary bread and to receive it with the devotion possible at that age; c) the judgment concerning these sufficient dispositions belongs to the confessor and to the parents or to those who take their place. To the parish priest, moreover, according to the CIC (can. 854 §§ 4 and 5) belongs the duty of watching, even by means of an examination if he deems it opportune, that children do not approach their first C. before having reached the use of reason and without sufficient preparation; as well as of ensuring that, when the use of reason and sufficient preparation have been reached, the children are nourished with this divine food.

VII. FREQUENT COMMUNION

1. The practice and its evolution

The use of frequent Communion (that is, several times a week or even daily) is already suggested by the very fact of the institution of the Eucharist and by the matter chosen for the consecration. Jesus Christ, in fact, spoke of "bread come down from heaven," of "bread of life," noting its analogies with the "manna of the desert" (Jo. 6, 59), so that the disciples could easily understand that, just as each day the body is nourished by bread and each day the Hebrews were nourished by the manna, so each day the soul can be nourished by the heavenly bread. And when he placed on the lips of the faithful, in the Pater, the petition for "our daily bread," this must be understood, with almost all the Fathers of the Church, not so much of material bread as rather of the Eucharistic Bread.

The early Christians understood this. For daily Communion there are no clear and decisive indications for the first two centuries; which does not mean that it did not exist at all; there are, on the other hand, indications for frequent Communion, especially on Sundays. It is known, in fact, that the faithful were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in prayer not only, but also in the fractio panis (Act. 2, 42; 20, 7; I Cor. 11, 2-34; Iud. 5, 12-13; Didaché, 14, 1; St. Justin, Apol., I, 67, 5; PG, 6, 430). With these citations agrees the letter of Pliny to Trajan (I. X, 97), which speaks of Christian gatherings on a fixed day (stato die) to celebrate their banquets. From the end of the 2nd century to the 5th, indications for daily Communion abound. Tertullian (De idol., 7; PL 1, 669) relates that Christians stretch out their hands every day, according to the rite of that time, to receive the Body of Christ; St. Cyprian attests for Africa: "qui in Christo sumus et Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus" (De orat. domin., 18; PL 4, 531). For Egypt there is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives salvetur, 23; PG 9, 628) and of Origen (In Genesim hom., X; PG 12, 218); for Asia Minor that of St. Basil (Epist., 93; PG 32, 484); for upper Italy of St. Ambrose (De benedict. patriarch., 9, 38; PL 14, 686); for Spain of St. Jerome (Epist., 71, 6; PL 22, 672), for Gaul of Cassian (De coenob. instit., VI, 8; PL 49, 277); for Rome, besides the indication of St. Jerome (Epist., 48, 15; PL 22, 506), there is the example of St. Melania the Younger, who "nunquam cibum corporalem accepit, nisi prius Corpus Domini communicasset" (M. Rampolla del Tindaro, S. Melania giuniore, senatrice romana, Rome 1905, p. 205). It must not be forgotten, however, that in practice differences soon appeared in the various Churches; St. Augustine notes how in some the faithful communicated every day, in others only on Saturday and Sunday, in others again only on Sunday (Epist., 54, 2; PL 36, 200). Even among the Christians of one and the same Church defections were noted; St. John Chrysostom, for example, laments that among his people not a few communicated once or at most twice a year, while others did so frequently (In epist. ad Hebr., hom. XVII, 4; PG 63, 131) and deplores that while the Holy Sacrifice was celebrated every day, Communion was nonetheless neglected (In epist. ad Ephes., hom. III, 4-5; PG 62, 28). At Milan St. Ambrose regrets that the indifference of the East shows itself also among his people (De Sacram., V, 24; PL 16, 452). A great decline in the frequency of Communion is noted especially beginning from the 9th century; and it would go on increasing, despite the example of the most fervent souls and the appeals of local councils, so much so that in the 12th century the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) found itself constrained "propter iniquitatis abundantiam, refrigerente caritate multorum" (Sum. Theol., 3, q. 80, a. 10, ad 5 m) to go to the extreme limit of indulgence, imposing the obligation of only one Communion a year, at Easter (cap. 21; Denz-U, 437), and sanctioning it with penalties. The fervent preaching of the Franciscans and Dominicans then established and consolidated the use of Communion on the three Easters of the year (Christmas, Resurrection, Pentecost); the great theologians and mystics (St. Bede the Venerable, St. Peter Damian, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Imitation of Christ, G. Savonarola) insist on a much greater frequency up to daily Communion; but the response they meet in the clergy, in directors of conscience, in Third Orders, in confraternities and consequently in the laity, is in general quite scant. One must go down to about the middle of the 16th century to observe a true awakening of Eucharistic life; and this is due both to the Council of Trent, undoubtedly a stimulus to frequent Communion (sess. XXII, cap. 6; Denz-U, 882, 944; Catech. Romanus, part 2, cap. 4, n. 63) and to the vigorous impulse given by the new religious Orders: Theatines, Barnabites, Capuchins, Jesuits, and by the small congregations of reformed priests, by Bonsignore Cacciaguerra with his companions of St. Jerome of Charity, by St. Philip Neri, by St. Charles Borromeo, who with word and pen fought the deeply rooted prejudices and the sophisms that cloaked themselves in respect for the Most Holy Sacrament, and stimulated a more intense Eucharistic practice. Not all, it is true, insisted on daily Communion; many (such as St. Francis de Sales, and the great theologians F. Toledo, J. Vázquez, F. Suárez, P. Laymann, J. de Lugo) without condemning it at all, indeed approving and recommending it in determined cases, maintained a more reserved attitude and contented themselves with promoting, as the ordinary norm, weekly Communion. The arrival of Jansenist doctrines, with their rigor and their narrowness, disturbed and upset this development, rich in fruits even extraordinary for souls; but though the episode was stormy (cf. the work of the major representative of Jansenism, A. Arnauld, De la fréquente Communion, Paris 1643, refuted by the Jesuit D. Petau, and condemned, in some of its assertions, by Alexander VIII [7 Dec. 1690; Denz-U, 1312-13]) and managed to extend its offshoots down to our own times, it retarded, but could not uproot the movement begun, all the more so since in the meantime various ecclesiastical documents encouraged and urged frequency of Communion (e.g., the reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the bishop of Brescia of 24 Jan. 1387: Analecta iuris pontif., 8th series, pp. 782-83; the decree Cum ad aures of 12 Feb. 1679 [Denz-U, n. 1147-50]).

2. Discipline in force

As uncertainties and hesitations persisted, however, especially regarding the dispositions necessary and sufficient for frequent and above all daily Communion, Pius X deemed it opportune to break off all delay and to settle once and for all the doctrine to be followed, by means of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 20 Dec. 1905, Sacra Tridentina Synodus (Denz-U, 1981-90).

The summary points of the decree are these: a) frequent and daily Communion is to be accessible to all, of whatever class and condition; b) the only conditions required are: the state of grace and a right intention, which means that one approaches Communion not out of habit or vanity or human respect, but to satisfy the pleasure of God and the good of one's own soul; c) since more perfect dispositions produce better fruit, care must be given to preparation and thanksgiving (v. above); d) the judge of frequency is the confessor; e) with this, every litigious dispute about the dispositions for frequent and daily Communion must henceforth cease (the CIC maintained these directives, recalling the desire of the Council of Trent (Denz-U, 944), that the faithful who assist at Mass participate more intimately in the Sacrifice by real union with the divine victim through Communion (can. 863; cf. also the encyclical Mediator Dei, part 2, point 3); which is to be recommended and promoted especially in seminaries and in all Christian colleges of education (decree, Sacra Trid. Synodus, n. 7), while always watching over full freedom in order to avoid sacrileges (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 8 Dec. 1932).

VIII. COMMUNION TO THE SICK

The sick (and by sickness here may also be understood old age or very weak health) who have been confined to bed or to their room for about a month, without hope of recovering so soon (that is, within three or four days), may, with the advice of their confessor, receive communion once or twice a week, even if they have first taken a medicine (solid or liquid) or something liquid (CIC, can. 858 § 2).

IX. THE QUESTION OF EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION UNDER BOTH OR ONLY ONE OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES

1. Communion under the two species

Jesus Christ had instituted the Eucharist under the two species of bread and wine, and under this form he had distributed it to the Apostles at the Last Supper. Hence the constant and almost universal practice of the Church, in the East and in the West, of giving Communion under the two species and to all the faithful.

The use, at least for Communion inside the churches, lasted until the 12th century; the testimonies we have of it are so clear and abundant that it was never called into doubt (cf. the texts, collected or mentioned, in J. Corblet, op. cit., I, p. 608 ff.; E. Dublanchy, op. cit., III, coll. 554-55). At first the faithful sipped a little consecrated wine from the celebrant's own chalice or from other equally consecrated chalices (ministerial chalice), either directly or by means of a straw; but as time went on, two new uses were introduced: a) the immixtio (mixture). The acolytes kept ready other vessels full of wine, intended for the faithful, which was not consecrated, and after the celebrant's Communion, they poured into them, from his calix sanctus, a few drops of the divine Blood. The mixture could still be called sanguis dominicus, although not consecrated, because the wine "commistus sanguine Domini, sanctificatur per quemdam modum" (Ordo Roman., I, II, n. 16: PL 78, 982). This use, which appears in the Ordines Romani as early as the 7th century (G. A. Jungmann, op. cit., II, p. 465), and was already known well before that in the East, preserved the symbolism of the Eucharist as Sacramentum unitatis et pacis, and at the same time obviated the great inconveniences to which, on account of diminished faith, Communion under the two species gave rise, namely the danger of spilling the Blood and its possible turning sour, should, after distribution to the people, a quantity of it still remain in the chalice. Later, once this use had declined, there remained that of sipping, after Communion, a little ordinary wine; the act was inspired by respect for the Eucharist, for fear that, in coughing, some particle of bread might escape from the mouth and be profaned (J. Schuster, Liber Sacrament., II, 4th ed., Turin 1944, p. 100). b) The intinctio, which consisted in dipping the bread in the consecrated wine, then distributing it to the faithful. Of this use, which is still practiced in the Eastern rites, only a faint trace remains in the Roman Mass; namely, the rite of breaking off a small piece of consecrated host and letting it fall into the chalice; but in antiquity it was much more widespread, especially for the symbolism attached to it, of indicating how in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not separated, but remain united, as in a living man. It served especially for communicating the sick under the two species.

The first mention of the intinctio is found in can. 2 of the Third Council of Braga (Mansi, XI, p. 155), which, however, condemns it as contrary to the Gospel account, according to which the bread and wine were distributed to the Apostles separately (only Judas had received the bread dipped in wine; whence the name of "Communio Iudaica: for the intinctio"). The Council of Clermont of 1096, presided over by Urban II, likewise condemns it (can. 28: Mansi, XX, p. 818); but with the limitation "nisi per necessitatem et cautelam", so that the intinctio could be practiced when the necessary precautions had been taken to avoid spilling the precious Blood. Paschal II (Epist., 535: PL 163, col. 442) admits the exception, on the other hand, only for children and the infirm, who "panem absorbere non possunt".

2. Communion under one species only

Although, until the 12th century, Communion under the two species was common, there is no lack of numerous examples, even in the earliest years of Christianity, of Communion under one species only: a) domestic Communion. In the first centuries Christians were accustomed to take the Eucharist to their own homes and to feed on it themselves. Now this carrying away of the Eucharist can be understood as referring to the species of bread alone; indeed it is often clearly alluded to; although there is no lack of examples showing that the species of wine were also carried away; b) Communion for the sick was often administered under the two species; but often also under one species only; indeed this second manner ended up becoming more common, because it was more convenient (J. Corblet, op. cit., I, p. 611, 631; E. Dublanchy, op. cit., III, coll. 557-58); c) to children, as soon as they were baptized, Communion was given only under the species of wine (St. Cyprian, De lapsis, 25: PL 4, 485); d) to children were given the remains of the consecrated bread left over from the Communion of the faithful (see above); e) the Masses of the presanctified (v.) celebrated in the East on all fasting days during Lent and in the West on Good Friday, presuppose the Communion of the celebrant, and, in various places, also of the faithful, under the species of bread alone; f) the very texts of the popes St. Gelasius I and St. Leo the Great (see below), adduced by the supporters of Communion under the two species (see below), demonstrate that the faithful communicated only under the species of bread, because, in fact, the Manichaeans also infiltrated among them, who would have nothing to do with the species of wine.

3. Toward the prescription of Communion under the species of bread alone

Already from the 11th century one sees Communion under the species of bread alone increasingly prevailing, and this not only to avoid any danger of profanation of the precious Blood, but also as a means of combating the erroneous interpretation of some, that Jesus Christ was not wholly present under each of the two species.

Indeed, around 1100 the abbot of St-Trond, Rodolph, writes: "Hic et tibi cautela fiat, ne presbyter aegris - aut sanis tribuat laicis de sanguine Christi - nam fundi posset leviter; simplexque putaret - quod non sub specie sit totus Iesus utraque" (J. Bona, Rerum liturgicarum, lib. II, cap. 18, § 1), cf. also Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, 13: PL 217, 866). St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 3ª, p. 80, a. 12) observes: "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur". To say when Communion under the species of bread alone became use had become universal or when, with the approval of the Church, it had acquired the force of law, it is not possible to say; but this was certainly already the case at the time of the Council of Constance (1414-18), when the Calixtines (v.) and the Hussites, allied with them, demanded, waving the motto "the chalice to the laity," to receive Communion under both kinds, because otherwise Jesus Christ was not received whole and the Communion was unlawful and sacrilegious. The error was solemnly condemned by the Council on 15 June 1415 (Denz-U, n. 626) and the condemnation was confirmed by Martin V, who then, in the bull against the errors of G. Hus (22 Feb. 1418), among the questions to be put to those suspected of following the new doctrines, also placed this one: "do you believe that the custom of communicating the laity only under the species of bread, observed by the universal Church... is to be preserved and cannot be reproved or changed...?" (Denz-U, n. 668). This demonstrates that by then the use of such Communion had the force of law, from which no one could depart without the authorization of the Church. The privilege granted to the Calixtines of Bohemia by the Council of Basel (1433) of the use of the chalice, under particular conditions, was never approved by any pope, and was then positively revoked in 1462 by the nuncio Fantini, under Pius II (Pastor, II, p. 167). Luther, approving the doctrinal stance of the Bohemians, had proposed that both kinds also be granted to the laity; but Leo X in the bull Exurge Domine of 15 June 1520 (Denz-U, n. 756) condemned it. The Council of Trent, finally, defined these points under the doctrinal aspect: a) there exists neither a divine precept nor any necessity for eternal salvation that obliges the laity and non-celebrating clerics to Communion under both kinds; b) the practice introduced by the Latin Church of giving the laity Communion under one kind only is founded upon just and reasonable motives (sess. XXI, cann. 1 and 2; Denz-U, nn. 934-35; cf. also n. 930). The same Council deferred to the Pope the decision whether to grant the pressing requests of Emperor Ferdinand I that the chalice be conceded to the laity in his states. Pius IV, in 1564, authorized certain German bishops to grant it in their dioceses, though under determined conditions; but the concession, which at first seemed very promising, did not take long to generate such inconveniences that it had to be withdrawn in 1571 for Bavaria, in 1584 for Austria, in 1621 for all the other states (Pastor, VII, p. 357 ff.; S. Ehses, op. cit., VIII, pp. 529-909).

The discipline currently in force is now fixed by the CIC, can. 852, which for the Latin Church determines that Communion be distributed only under the species of bread.

4. The groundlessness of the arguments of the Utraquists

a) In the discourse in which he promises the Eucharist, Jesus said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (Jn. 6, 54). But the double mention of flesh and blood, of eating and drinking, has no other purpose than to establish the reality of the eucharistic presence of the whole Christ, to make better understood that the Body and Blood form the perfect nourishment of the Christian. Now the presence of the whole Christ with his flesh and his blood is found under each of the species. Therefore whichever of the two one receives, one receives all Jesus Christ and fulfills his precept. To Communion, moreover, Jesus attaches, as its fruit, eternal life. Now this fruit is promised also to Communion under one kind only; indeed he said: "I am the bread of life;... this is the bread that came down from heaven, so that whoever eats of it may not die" (Jn. 6, 48-50). b) At the Last Supper Jesus, after the consecrated bread, handed the chalice to the Apostles, saying: "Drink of it, all of you" (Mt. 26, 27); and, when the Communion was finished, he added: "Do this in memory of me" (Lk. 22, 29). But the command to drink the chalice was not addressed to all Christians but to those present at the Last Supper; and the addition, "Do this in memory of me" expresses the power conferred on the Apostles and their successors to reproduce what he had done, offering, like him, the eucharistic sacrifice (Conc. Trid., sess. XXII, cap. 1 and can. 2; Denz-U, nn. 938 and 949). Now this sacrifice, referring to that of the Cross, requires by its nature the distinct consecration of the bread and the wine and, as an integration, the Communion of the celebrant under both kinds. But the Communion of the laity and of non-celebrating clerics does not belong either to the essence or to the integrity of the sacrifice. c) The words of St. Paul (I Cor. 11, 28): "Let each one examine himself and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup" concerns in the first place and principally the preparation necessary to make a worthy and fruitful Communion; the mention of the two species is only incidental, and does no more than note the existence of the then-current practice of communicating under both kinds; and it does not intend to lay down a precept to be valid always and for all. d) St. Leo the Great (Sermo 42 de quadragesima, 5: PL 54, 279) and St. Gelasius I (in Decr. Gratiani, part 3, dist. 2, De consacratione, cap. 12) ordered that from then on Communion be made under both kinds: "aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arcentur." But the prescription, as is clear from the text, concerned the Manichaeans, who rejected wine as a diabolical thing, and, wishing at the same time to be considered Catholics, mingled, so as not to reveal themselves, with the other faithful, who evidently at that time communicated only under the species of bread (cf. Benedict XIV, De Sacrificio Missae, sec. 1, n. 362).

5. The reasonableness of the practice introduced by the Latin Church

The motives that induced the Church to establish Communion under the species of bread alone are indicated by the Catechismus romanus (part 2, sec. 4, n. 66): the danger of spilling the precious Blood from the chalice onto the ground, a thing difficult to avoid when administering Communion to a numerous crowd of people; the scarcity of wine in many regions, on account of which it becomes very costly and difficult to obtain; the natural aversion of several either to wine or at least to having to drink it from the same chalice as others or with the same straw; the danger of infection that could derive from it; the danger that, since the Eucharist must always be ready for administration to the sick, the species of wine might turn sour, should they have to be kept too long; and finally (and this is the most important motive) to combat the heretical opinion that the consecrated bread contained only the body of Christ and the consecrated wine only the blood.

Painting by the Pollaiuolo (ca. 1460). - Staggia, parish church.

X. COMMUNION AT HOME

In the first three centuries of the Church, when presenting oneself to the priest and attending the divine offices was not always easy, especially in times of persecution, and on the other hand the even sudden arising of the danger of martyrdom required a greater divine strength to sustain human weakness, Christians were accustomed to carry the Eucharist into their own homes and to feed on it themselves. The first certain testimony is offered us by Tertullian, who, wishing to divert his wife from eventual second marriage with a pagan, in the event that he should precede her in the tomb, says to her: "Will your husband be able to ignore what you secretly taste before any other food? And if he knows that it is bread, will he not suspect that it is that of which so many rumors circulate? And even if he were ignorant of such calumnies, ... could he not suspect that, under the appearance of bread, you conceal some poison?" (Ad uxorem, II, 5: PL 1, 1296).

The Eucharist, taken from the priest, was wrapped in a white linen cloth (domenicale), enclosed in a small casket (arca, arcula) and deposited in a safe place in the house, surrounding it with sacred respect. Precisely concerning a Christian woman, St. Cyprian reports a prodigious event that befell her: "cum arcam suam, in qua Domini sanctorum fuit, manibus indignis temptasset aperire, inde igne surgente deterrita est" (De lapsis, 26: PL 4, 486). St. Basil attests it of the solitaries of the desert, of the faithful of Alexandria and of the other regions of Egypt (Epist. 93 ad Caesariam patriciam: PG 32, 485); St. Jerome, reproaching certain Christians who showed less respect for the Eucharist at home than in church, warns them: "An alius in publica, alius in domo Christus est? Quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet" (Epist. 48 ad Panumachium, 15: PL 22, 506). Thus placed in the hands of the faithful, the Eucharist was carried on journeys, as a pledge of protection (St. Ambrose, De ecclesia fratris sui Satyris, 1, 43: PL 16, 1304), or used as a remedy against illnesses (St. Augustine, Opus imperf. contra Iulianum, 3, 162: PL 45, 1315).

The practice of Communion at home, once the needs and conditions of the times had changed, began to decline in the 5th century. However, even in the Middle Ages some customs are found that are linked to the ancient eucharistic familiarity of the faithful. Monks, for example, traveled with the Eucharist suspended from the neck; priests did likewise, according to the statutes of St. Boniface (Hefele-Leclercq, III, 929, n. 4). Moreover, even in the 19th century, Pius IX, in his flight to Gaeta, carried the Eucharist with him in the same pyx already used in analogous circumstances by Pius VI.

XI. MINISTER OF EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION

1) The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest alone; the extraordinary minister is the deacon, when there exists a grave cause (for example, the priest is occupied elsewhere and the faithful would otherwise have to wait too long) and with the permission (which may also be presumed in case of necessity) of the Ordinary or of the parish priest (can. 845). 2) A cleric not yet a deacon, and even simple laypeople, in the absence of clerics, may give Communion to themselves and to others in order to preserve the Eucharist from profanation or from fire, asking permission, however, from the Ordinary, if they have the time and the means.

XII. PLACE

1) Communion may be distributed everywhere where Mass is celebrated, even in a private oratory, unless there is a particular prohibition by the Ordinary (can. 869). 2) It is desirable that the faithful receive communion during Mass, as a better and more intimate participation in the Holy Sacrifice (encyclical Mediator Dei, of 20 Nov. 1947: AAS, 39 (1947), p. 564). 3) Outside of Mass, Communion may be distributed only in churches, in public and semi-public oratories; also in private oratories, if they have the indult to reserve the Blessed Sacrament and there are no particular prohibitions (can. 1265 § 1), and in any decent and honorable place, with the permission of the Ordinary (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 5 Jan. 1928). 4) To the sick, except in the case of viaticum (v.), Communion may be brought privately by any priest (can. 849 § 1).

XIII. TIME

Communion may be distributed: 1) every day, except Good Friday, on which only Viaticum is permitted; and on Holy Saturday only during the solemn Mass or immediately after (can. 867 §§ 1-3). 2) Only during the hours in which Mass may be celebrated, unless some reasonable cause suggests otherwise (can. 867 § 4).

XIV. RITE

In ancient times the consecrated bread was placed in the hands of the faithful, presented open or crossed, and the faithful then communicated themselves.

St. Cyprian (De lapsis, 26: PL 4, 486) explains that the faithful, having received the bread on the open palm, must then close it, to open it again when, having returned to his place, he ate of it. Women did not receive the Eucharist on bare palms, but on palms covered with a white veil. The practice of placing the consecrated bread in the mouth is recorded as early as the 5th century; but it did not become universal until the 10th century. And to this perhaps is due the innovation of communicating kneeling, whereas previously it was done standing, preceded by a bow, as a sign of devotion. The formulas with which the act of distributing Communion was accompanied also varied greatly over the centuries. The priest, presenting the consecrated bread, said: Corpus Christi; later the formula changed from assertive to deprecative, e.g., Corpus Domini nostri I. C. custodiat animam tuam. The faithful always responded "Amen" to express the adherence of mind and heart. Today, in the Roman liturgy, the Amen is spoken by the priest himself, except in the pontifical Mass of the consecration of newly ordained priests.

The diversity of rite concerns not only the formulas used, but also the whole complex of the distribution of the Eucharist (unleavened or leavened bread; bread alone, or bread dipped in consecrated wine); therefore the CIC lays down: 1) every priest must distribute Communion in his own rite; 2) the faithful, however, even for devotion alone, may receive Communion in the different rites; 3) nevertheless the own rite remains recommended, also for the faithful, in the Easter Communion (can. 852).

For Communion to the dying, v. VIATICO.

For the Easter Communion, v. PASQUALE PRECETTO. - See plates V-VI.

Celestino Testore