COMUNIONE EUCARISTICA

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

Summary:

I. Effects

II. Necessity

III. Subject

IV. Dispositions

V. Preparation and thanksgiving

VI. First Communion

VII. Frequent Communion

VIII. Communion of the sick

IX. The question of Communion under one or both species

X. Communion at home

XI. Minister of Communion

XII. Place

XIII. Time

XIV. Rite.

I. Effects

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

The individual union (incorporation) is taught in sublime fashion by Jesus Christ in the discourse of promise: the two mysteries of 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 relationship of Christ with the faithful: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him... As the Father who has life in himself has sent me and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me will live because of me” (Jn 6:55-57). This Trinitarian-Eucharistic motif was developed masterfully by St Hilary of Poitiers (d. 368) against the Arians. St Paul speaks of a “koinōnia” (1 Cor 10:16), that is, such a profound union of the communicant with the body of Christ 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 preferred to illustrate this mystery with comparisons drawn from nature: marital union (St Ephrem), the fusion of two liquefied elements (St Cyril of Alexandria), physiological assimilation (St Irenaeus and St Augustine), the penetration of burning coal or incandescent iron by fire (St John Damascene, Theophylact), the kinship resulting from natural filiation (St Cyril of Jerusalem: συσσωμον χαι συγχωμον 705 Χριστού: Cat. Myst., 4, 1; PG 33, 109). The underlying idea of the biblical texts and patristic analogies pleased the Scholastics and was accepted by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (Denz-U, no. 430) and that of Florence (1439: Denz-U, no. 698: “Huius sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum”).

The social union (concorporation) is revealed in the classic Pauline text, 1 Cor 10:17: “We, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” This ecclesiological insight is widely used by the Didache, 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 (“He has inserted His body into us, so that we are one body joined to the Head”: Hom. 46 in Io. n. 3; PG 59, 261), above all by St Augustine, who in the controversy with the Donatists showed, for the purpose of converting them, the intimate bond of the Eucharist—which they preserved—with the Church, which they were tearing apart by their rebellion: “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 by the body of Christ... O sign of unity, o bond of charity! Let whoever wishes to live know where to live, whence to draw life. Let them approach and believe, let them be incorporated so that they may be vivified. Let them not shrink from union with the other members, let them not be a rotten member that must be cut off; let them not be crooked, of which one would be ashamed, but let them be beautiful, perfect, healthy; let them adhere to the body, let them live for God and by God, now let them labour on earth so as to reign in heaven afterwards” (In Io., tr. 26, n. 13; PL 35, 1612). These words, vibrant with faith, if they did not touch the hearts of the Donatists, moved the Christian Middle Ages and filled the assembly of Trent with hope, which drew from the Eucharist the encouragement for the reunion of the erring to the bosom of the Church: “Finally, the Holy Council, with a fatherly heart, admonishes, exhorts, prays, and implores, by the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who glory in the Christian name may be united in peaceful harmony in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord” (Denz-U, no. 882).

The glorious resurrection (ius ad gloriam) is promised by Jesus Christ in the discourse at Capernaum: “Whoever 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 early Christians, who were forced to live in a world that deemed the resurrection of the flesh to be madness. St Ignatius of Antioch extols the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death” (Eph. 20,2), and St Irenaeus combats Gnostic errors precisely by showing the intimate bond that exists 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. For centuries the liturgy 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: “The immortal body of Christ sows the seed of immortality, which will one day burst forth” (encyclical Mirae Caritatis).

Now these effects—which together truly constitute a “donum christificum”—constitute, as is easily understood, full incorporation into Christ, the most perfect union among the faithful, the highest right to the glorification of soul and body, whereby individual believers, like the Church as a whole, attain the summit of spiritual perfection, the maturity for the beatific vision: after the Eucharist there remains only glory. This doctrine is particularly suited to make clear the individual importance (the dignity of the human person in the light of its union with Christ) and the social importance (the harmony of the faithful, of families, of classes, of nations in this bond of charity and in this symbol of unity) of the Eucharist.

One point remains to be clarified: in what way the Eucharist can be said to be 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 mortal remains and that, at the moment established by God, like a spark beneath 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, on the Day of Judgment, become an instrument in the hands of God to vivify the bodies. M. De la Taille presents the most common and most secure doctrine. The Eucharist, by infusing into the soul the greatest supernatural gift, is an indirect cause of a more glorious resurrection. Indeed the soul gives the body a transcendent order: this tendency will be fulfilled at the end of the world, when God will reunite bodies with their respective souls. At that moment the soul perfected by the Eucharist will communicate “per quamdam redundantiam” its splendor to the body. Thus it is easy to understand that the bodies of those who have drawn from the Eucharist a more perfect and abundant grace will shine with a particular light among the other glorious bodies.

II. Necessity

Here another problem arises: whether the special effect of the Eucharist in its threefold ramification (incorporation, concorporation, ius ad gloriam) is necessary for obtaining eternal life. The answer depends on what has been said previously: the Eucharist is like the crowning, the consummation of the sacramental economy. Thus the other sacraments, being like beginnings, necessarily tend toward the Eucharist as their normal complement and end.

This logical conclusion is confirmed by St Thomas Aquinas (Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 73, a. 3) and by the Catechism of the Council of Trent (n. 228): “Eucaristia est omnium Sacramentorum finis.” Once this principle is established, it is legitimate to conclude that the Sacraments produce their effect by way of efficiency only insofar as, through a mysterious ordering, they are directed *finaliter* toward the Eucharist. Now, since it is clear that Baptism, whether *in re* or *in voto*, is necessary *of necessity of means* for eternal life, it follows that the Eucharist, not insofar as it is sacramentally received, but insofar as it is the end of Baptism, is indispensable for the attainment of eternal life. Therefore, to be saved, there must be a dynamic tendency toward the perfect incorporation of the Eucharist; such a tendency is objectively inherent in Baptism received *in re* or *in voto*. Thus, children who die with only the baptism of water are saved, as is an unbeliever who, though ignorant of Christianity, has the desire (*baptismus flaminis*) to do what God has established for human salvation, and therefore implicitly (*votum implicitum*) desires Baptism; in this desire, he necessarily tends toward the Eucharist, which is the complement of Baptism.

This doctrine, now widely held, 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).

On the nature of the effects: F. Mendoza, *De naturali cum Christo unitate libri V*, which A. Piolanti first edited with critical prolegomena and annotations, Roma 1948: in the prolegomena the author’s thought is summarized (developed over 400 pages of text) and the controversy outlined in its broad lines. For the explanation proposed, cf. A. Piolanti, *De Sacramentis*, II, Roma 1945, pp. 192-96.

On the necessity of the Eucharist: F. Suárez, *De Eucharistia*, d. 40, sect. 2; Salmanticenses, *De Eucharistia*, disp. 3, dub. 1, § 3, n. 16; M. De la Taille, *op. cit.*, pp. 586-612; E. Springer, *De Eucharistiae virtute atque necessitate*, in *Gregorianum*, 9 (1928), pp. 118-38; 609-27; J. Filorossi, *De S.ma Eucharistia*, Roma 1947, pp. 334-34 (these authors attribute to the Eucharist an efficient causality with respect to the other Sacraments); R. Pizzoni, *De necessitate medii Eucharistiae secundum s. Thomam*, in *Divus Thomas*, 52 (Piacenza 1949), pp. 3-40 (a rich development of the above-mentioned Thomistic principles). On the Eucharist, the teaching of Pius XII in *Mediator Dei*, part 2, n. 3, in *AAS*, 39 (1947), pp. 562-68, is normative.

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 receiving all the other Sacraments. For this reason, the Church has never administered Communion to neophytes, not even the most fervent. Against the custom, still observed in some places, of placing a consecrated host in the mouth of the dead as a kind of viaticum and pledge or germ of immortality, the Church has repeatedly intervened, deeming it an intolerable abuse (cf. Council of Hippo, 393, can. 4 [Mansi, III, col. 919]; Third Council of Carthage, 397, can. 5 [ibid., col. 895] and Fifth Council of Carthage, 419, can. 22 [ibid., IV, col. 428]; Synod of Auxerre, 578, can. 12 [ibid., IX, col. 913]; Council in Trullo, 692, can. 83 [ibid., XI, col. 979]). Therefore, the following may receive the Eucharist:

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

For a long time in the Church, children were given Communion immediately after Baptism, just as adults were. A telling example is the text of St Cyprian, who, speaking of children betrayed by their relatives during persecution, places in their mouths, before the Judge, the words: “We have done nothing wrong; nor do we abandon the food and cup of the Lord, to turn instead to profane defilements” (*De lapsis*, 9: PL, 4, 473; cf. also: *Epist.*, 63 ad Caecilium, 8 [ibid., 380]; St Augustine, *Epist.*, 98, 4 [ibid., 336]; *Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum*, bk. II [ibid., 447, 576]; *Constitutiones Apostolicae*, bk. 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). After this first Communion, children continued to receive it often, first under the species of wine and later also under those of bread (cf. St Cyprian, *De lapsis*, 25: PL, 4, 485; St Augustine, *Sermo de verbis apostoli* [1 Tim 1:15], 6: ibid., 38, 944). On certain days, moreover, they were summoned outside the usual services to consume what remained of the consecrated bread after the Communion of the faithful (cf. Nicephorus, *Hist. eccl.*, bk. XVII, 25 [PG 147, 280]; Evagrius, *Hist. eccl.*, bk. IV, 36 [ibid., 86, 2769]). Indeed, it was even thought that Communion was absolutely necessary for the salvation of children before the age of reason; this erroneous opinion, condemned by the Council of Trent (sess. XXI, cap. 4, can. 4; Denz.-U., n. 937), nevertheless demonstrates the importance attached, from the earliest centuries, to this food of life, the Eucharist, which the Church did not wish even children to be deprived of.

In the East, this practice still persists in some places; in the West, however, it gradually diminished until it disappeared in the twelfth century. The manner of giving Communion generally consisted in dipping the finger into the consecrated wine and offering it to the child to suck.

The current discipline, already established by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent (sess. XXI, cap. 4, can. 4), is thus expressed in the *Codex Iuris Canonici*: “Children who, because of their tender age, do not yet have the knowledge or taste for the Sacrament are not to be given Communion. They may, however, receive it when in danger of death, provided they can distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and adore It with reverence” (can. 854 §§ 1 and 2).

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

3. The following may receive Communion, even outside danger of death: the mentally ill during moments of lucidity; the possessed when in their right mind; epileptics and the delirious outside of paroxysms; the semi-mute and the deaf-mute when they possess sufficient discretion and can in some way distinguish the Eucharistic bread from ordinary bread; the dying who are unconscious, provided it can be presumed that they had previously desired it and are in the state of grace. Naturally, the usual precautions must always be taken and every danger of profanation avoided.

### IV. DISPOSITIONS

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

2. **Regarding the soul**, the following are required:
a) The state of grace. The Eucharist is not a Sacrament for the dead; it was not instituted to remit mortal sins (cf. Council of Trent, sess. XIII, can. 5; Denz-U, 887), but to preserve and increase supernatural life; it therefore presupposes in the recipient the possession of this life. “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 11:28-29). Consequently, whoever is conscious of being in mortal sin must, before approaching the Eucharist, confess; nor is it sufficient to precede it with an act of perfect contrition, except in cases of necessity where one must receive Communion and confessors are lacking (Denz-U, 880 and 893).
b) Immunity from excommunication (CIC, can. 2260 § 1) and personal interdict (ibid., can. 2274 § 2).

3. **Regarding the body**, natural fasting is required, that is, absolute abstinence from anything that has the nature of food or drink. The Church’s discipline in this regard was initially different. Since Jesus instituted the Eucharist and distributed Communion to the Apostles during the Paschal banquet, it is easily understood that the first faithful repeated this rite under the same circumstances (v. AGAPE). This is evident for Jerusalem from Acts 2:42, 46; for Corinth from 1 Cor 11:17-22; for Smyrna from the letter of St. Ignatius (Ad Smyrnenses, 8: PG 5, 714). But the practice soon changed, and by the 4th century, Eucharistic fasting became universal, with rare exceptions against which bishops and councils did not fail to protest and intervene (cf. H. Moureau, loc. cit., cols. 500-501). This fasting required for Communion must be understood as abstinence from anything digestible and assimilable, taken externally in the form of drink or nourishment. It is not broken by a few drops swallowed as saliva (e.g., in dental or oral hygiene) or by inhalation (e.g., road dust, tobacco smoke). The fast is to be reckoned from midnight (considered according to solar, mean, legal, local, or extraordinary time) until the moment of Communion. However, various causes may intervene that grant dispensation: probable danger of death (CIC, can. 858 § 1); the necessity of avoiding the profanation or destruction of the sacred species (hatred of the wicked, bombings, fire); the necessity of avoiding scandal or infamy; a special indult, e.g., to take something liquid before Communion or to shorten the fasting period to a few hours.

4. **Regarding conduct**, decency of outward bearing, which takes into account propriety, is required; this is especially important for women, who must dress and adorn themselves according to the norms of sound modesty.

### V. PREPARATION AND THANKSGIVING

The Eucharist, like all other Sacraments, acts *ex opere operato* and produces in the recipient, provided he has the necessary dispositions, an increase of sanctifying grace, even if his spiritual activity is weak. However, the better the personal dispositions (the *opus operantis*) brought to it, the greater the effect produced. Hence the care to precede Communion with careful preparation and to follow it with suitable thanksgiving (cf. decree *Sacra Tridentina Synodus* of 17 Dec. 1905: *Acta S. Sedis*, 38 [1905-1906], p. 404). This care, marked by gratitude and understanding of the divine gift received, is strongly urged by Pius XII 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 sacred ministers can suitably prepare themselves before celebrating and receiving Communion and, after the Holy Mass, manifest their thanksgiving to God” (ibid., p. 567).

The method to be employed is free, dependent on the situation, health, circumstances, and even the preferences of each soul; ordinarily, acts of faith, humility, and love are recommended for preparation, and acts of gratitude, offering, and especially petition for thanksgiving. The time spent may vary; but just as those who, under the pressure of haste or even carelessness, reduce everything to a few minutes are to be reproved, so those who linger for some time (commonly at least a quarter of an hour) are to be praised, following the counsel of *The Imitation of Christ* (IV, ch. 12): “Retire into solitude and enjoy your God, for you possess Him whom the whole world cannot take from you,” which summarizes a long Christian tradition discernible from the Church Fathers and ascetical writers down to our own day (cf., on this subject, M. Viller, *Communion [pratique]*, in *DSP*, II, cols. 1207-34).

### VI. FIRST COMMUNION

1. **History**

The question concerning the age of First Communion arose when, during the course of the 12th century, the practice of giving Communion to children before the use of reason gradually disappeared, up to the point of clear prohibition.

The reasons for this change, which was soon to become a disciplinary law for the Western Church, are not clearly known; perhaps they included disorders and irreverences, so easy among children; abuses and negligence on the part of those responsible for distributing Communion; and the abolition, around that time, of Communion for the laity even under the species of wine, which would have seemed strange if 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) established, against the decline in the practice of Confession and Communion, the number of times a Christian must confess and receive Communion each year: “Every faithful of either sex, when he has reached the age of discretion, must confess at least once a year and receive devoutly, at least at Easter, the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless, with the advice of his confessor, he judges that he should abstain for a reasonable period. Whoever refuses to do so shall be forbidden to enter the church and, at death, shall be deprived of ecclesiastical burial” (Denz-U, 437). The decree spread rapidly, but since it did not specify what the “age of discretion” was, it also opened the way to controversies that unfortunately lasted until the 20th century, to the great detriment of souls (cf. decree *Quam singulari* of 8 Aug. 1910). For, starting from an incorrect interpretation of the words “age of discretion” and the phrase “receive devoutly,” and under the influence of certain arguments derived from the penalties imposed by the decree against the recalcitrant and their applicability under general norms of law,

It was desired to distinguish two ages of discretion: one for Confession, the other for Communion. For the former, the age at which one can discern good from evil and thus sin was required; for the latter, however, a greater age, at which knowledge of Christian doctrine would be more complete and the disposition of the soul more mature. For this, they established ten, twelve, or fourteen years; Jansenism, later, exaggerating beyond all limits the necessity of thorough preparation, sought to postpone it to eighteen or twenty years.

That this interpretation of the decree was erroneous appears from several reasons:
a) the Council of Lateran does not make any distinction, 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, i.e., that at which the use of reason is attained, the same must be said for Communion;
b) thus, in fact, the principal interpreters and theologians of the 13th century, for whom the age of discretion is equivalent to that of the use of reason (cf. Summa Theologiae, III, q. 90, a. 9 d. 3m, where St. Thomas speaks of «aliquis usus rationis» as sufficient to be admitted to Communion, and his commentators: P. Ledesma, In s. Thomam, III, q. 80, a. 9, dub. 6; G. Vázquez, In 3ª 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), recalling the Lateran Council, assigns no other reason for not giving Communion to children than that they cannot sin; whence it is deduced that, once the age at which this possibility exists (i.e., the use of reason) is reached, they must be able to receive Communion. The Roman Catechism (part 2, De Sacram. Euchar., n. 63) explicitly speaks of the use of reason.

Nevertheless, the thesis—which might be called preconceived—continued to prevail in practice, despite other explanations and condemnations by the Church. The damage that resulted was grave, for in this way the puerile age, kept distant from Christ, was deprived—as it were—of a vital sustenance, of an aid most efficacious for preserving itself intact in the struggle against the passions and the allurements of the environment, and it came to know vice before receiving the preservative antidote.

2. Current discipline

It has been regulated by Pius X with the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments *Quam singulari Christi amore* of 8 August 1910 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 2 [1910], pp. 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 around the age of seven; from this time, children also incur the annual obligation to receive both Sacraments; b) for first admission to them, full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine (which will be acquired later) is not required, but only that of the principal mysteries of the faith and sufficient knowledge to distinguish the Eucharistic bread from ordinary bread and to receive it with the devotion possible at that age; c) the judgment regarding these sufficient dispositions belongs to the confessor and to the parents or those who take their place. To the parish priest, moreover, according to the Code of Canon Law (can. 854 §§ 4 and 5), falls the duty of ensuring, even by means of an examination if he deems it opportune, that children do not approach their first Communion before having attained the use of reason and without sufficient preparation; and likewise to ensure that, once the use of reason and sufficient preparation are attained, children are nourished with this divine food.

VII. FREQUENT COMMUNION

I. Practice and its evolution

The practice of frequent Communion (i.e., several times a week or even daily) is already suggested by the very institution of the Eucharist and by the matter chosen for consecration. Jesus Christ, in fact, spoke of «bread come down from heaven» and of «bread of life»; emphasizing its analogies with the «manna of the desert» (Jn 6:59), so that the disciples could easily understand that, just as the body is nourished daily by bread and the Jews were nourished daily by manna, so too the soul can be nourished daily by the heavenly bread. And when He placed upon the lips of the faithful, in the Our Father, 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.

Early Christians understood this. For daily Communion (C.) there are no clear and decisive indications for the first two centuries; this does not mean that it did not exist at all, but rather that there are indications for frequent Communion, especially on Sundays. It is known, in fact, that the faithful were steadfast in the doctrine of the Apostles and in prayer, and also in the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:2-34; Jude 5:12-13; Didache, 14:1; St. Justin, Apol., 1:67; PG 6, 430). These citations are corroborated by Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Ep. X, 97), which speaks of Christian gatherings on a fixed day (stato die) to celebrate their banquets.

From the end of the 2nd to the 5th century, indications for daily Communion abound. Tertullian (De idol., 7: PL 1, 669) reports that Christians every day stretch out their hands, according to the rite of the 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 Origen (In Genesis hom., X: PG 12, 218); for Asia Minor that of St. Basil (Epist., 93: PG 32, 484); for Upper Italy that of St. Ambrose (De benedict. patriarch., 9: PL 14, 686); for Spain that of St. Jerome (Epist., 71: PL 22, 672); for Gaul that of Cassian (De coenob. instit., VI, 8: PL 49, 277); for Rome, in addition to the indication of St. Jerome (Epist., 48: PL 22, 506), there is the example of St. Melania the Younger, who “nunquam cibum corporalem accepit, nisi prius Corpus Domini communicasse” (M. Rampolla del Tindaro, S. Melania giunione, senatrice romana, Roma 1905, p. 205).

It must not be forgotten, however, that differences in practice soon manifested themselves in various Churches; St. Augustine notes how in some places the faithful communicated every day, in others only on Saturday and Sunday, and in still others only on Sunday (Epist., 54: PL 36, 200). Even among Christians of the same Church there were defections; St. John Chrysostom, for example, laments that among his people not a few communicated only 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 neglected (In epist. ad Ephes., hom. III, 4-5: PG 62, 28). At Milan, St. Ambrose laments that the indifference of the East had also shown itself among his people (De Sacram., V, 24: PL 16, 452).

A great decline in the frequency of Communion is especially noted from the 9th century onward; and it continued to increase, despite the example of the most fervent souls and the exhortations of local councils, so that in the 12th century the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) found itself compelled “propter iniquitatis abundantiam, refrigescere caritate multorum” (Sum. Theol., 3, q. 80, a. 10, ad 5m) to go to the extreme limit of indulgence by imposing the obligation of receiving Communion only once 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 practice of receiving Communion at the three Easters of the year (Nativity, 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) insisted on a much greater frequency, even to daily Communion; but the response they met with among the clergy, spiritual directors, tertiaries, confraternities, and consequently among the laity, was in general very poor. It was not until the mid-16th century that a true revival of Eucharistic life can be observed; this was due both to the Council of Trent, which undoubtedly stimulated frequent Communion (sess. XXII, cap. 6; Denz.-U., 882, 944; Catech. Romanus, pars 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 combated the deep-rooted prejudices and the sophisms that cloaked themselves in respect for the Most Holy Sacrament, and stimulated a more intense Eucharistic practice.

It is true that not all 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 in any way condemning it, approving and recommending it in certain cases, maintained a more reserved attitude and were content to promote weekly Communion as the ordinary norm. The advent of Jansenist doctrines, with their rigor and narrowness, disturbed and disrupted this development, fruitful though it was even in extraordinary ways for souls; but although the episode was stormy (cf. the work of the chief representative of Jansenism, A. Arnauld, De la fréquence de la 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 ramifications down to our own times, it delayed but could not quench the movement that had begun, especially since in the meantime various ecclesiastical documents encouraged and urged frequent Communion (e.g., the reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Brescia of 24 Jan. 1587: Analecta iuris pontif., 8th series, pp. 782-83; the decree Cum ad aures of 12 Feb. 1679 [Denz.-U., nos. 1147-50]).

3. Current discipline

Since uncertainties and hesitations persisted, especially regarding the dispositions necessary and sufficient for frequent and especially daily Communion, Pius X deemed it opportune to break every delay and definitively clarify 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 main points of the decree are as follows:
a) frequent and daily Communion is to be accessible to all, of any class and condition;
b) the only conditions required are: a state of grace and right intention, which means that one goes to Communion not out of habit or vanity or human respect, but to please God and for the good of one’s own soul;
c) since more perfect dispositions produce better fruit, care must be taken with preparation and thanksgiving (q.V. above);
d) the confessor is the judge of frequency;
e) with this, all contentious disputes about the dispositions for frequent and daily Communion should cease (the Code of Canon Law maintained these directives, recalling the desire of the Council of Trent [Denz.-U., 944] that the faithful who attend Mass should participate more intimately in the Sacrifice by a real union with the divine Victim through Communion [can. 863; cf. also the encyclical Mediator Dei, part 2, point 3]); this is to be recommended and promoted especially in seminaries and in all Christian educational institutions (decree, Sacra Trid. Synodus, n. 7), while always remaining vigilant for full freedom in order to avoid sacrileges (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 8 Dec. 1932).

VIII. Communion for the Sick

The sick (and by sickness here is meant also old age or very weak health) who have been confined to bed or to their room for a month, without hope of recovery in the near future (i.e., within three or four days), may, with the advice of the confessor, receive Communion once or twice a week, even after having taken medicine (solid or liquid) or something liquid (CIC, can. 858 § 2).

and went to be profaned (J. Schuster, *Liber Sacramenti*, II, 4th ed., Torino 1944, p. 100).

b) *Intinction*, which consisted in dipping the bread into the consecrated wine and then distributing it to the faithful. Of this practice, which is still observed in Eastern rites, only a faint trace remains in the Roman Mass: namely, the rite of breaking off a piece of the consecrated host and letting it fall into the chalice. But in antiquity, this practice was much more widespread, especially because of the symbolism attached to it, namely, to indicate how in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not separated but remain united, as in a living man. It was particularly used for communicating the sick under both kinds.

III. The first mention of *intinction* is found in canon 2 of the Third Council of Braga (Mansi, XI, p. 155), which, however, condemns it as contrary to the Gospel account, according to which bread and wine were distributed separately to the Apostles (only Judas had received the bread dipped in wine; hence the name “Communio Iudaica” for *intinction*). The Council of Clermont of 1096, presided over by Urban II, likewise condemns it (canon 28: Mansi, XX, p. 818), but with the limitation “nisi per necessitatem et cautelam,” so that *intinction* could be practiced when the necessary precautions were taken to avoid spilling the precious Blood. Paschal II (Epist., 535: PL 163, col. 412), however, admits the exception only for children and the sick, who “cannot swallow bread.”

2. *Communion under one kind.* — Although communion under both kinds was common until the twelfth century, there are numerous examples, even from the earliest years of Christianity, of communion under one kind alone:

a) *Domestic communion.* In the early centuries, Christians were accustomed to take the Eucharist home with them and partake of it themselves. Now, this taking of the Eucharist can be understood as referring only to the species of bread; indeed, this is often clearly indicated, although there are examples showing that the species of wine were also taken away;

b) communion to the sick was often administered under both kinds, but often also under one kind alone; indeed, this latter method eventually became more common because it was more convenient (J. Corbet, op. cit., I, p. 611, 631; E. Dubhanc, op. cit., III, cols. 557–58);

c) to newly baptized children, communion was given only under the species of wine (St. Cyprian, *De lapidis*, 25: PL 4, 485);

d) children were given the leftover pieces of consecrated bread from the communion of the faithful (v. above);

e) the Masses of the “presentified” (v.) celebrated daily in the East during fasting days in 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 Popes St. Gelasius I and St. Leo the Great (v. below), cited by the advocates of communion under both kinds (v. below), show that the faithful communicated only under the species of bread, for among them were also Manichees, who refused to have anything to do with the species of wine.

3. *Toward the prescription of communion under the species of bread alone.* — Already by the eleventh century, communion under the species of bread alone began to prevail more and more, not only to avoid any danger of profaning the precious Blood, but also as a means of combating the erroneous interpretation of some that Jesus Christ was not entirely present under each of the two species.

Thus, around the year 1100, Rodolphus, Abbot of St-Trond, writes: “Hic et tibi cautela fiat, ne presbyter aegris – aut sanis tribuat laicis de sanguine Christi – nam fundi poset 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 Aquinas (Sum. Theol., 3a, q. 80, a. 12) observes: “provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur.” It is not possible to determine when communion under the species of bread alone became universal usage or when, with the approval of the Church, it acquired the force of law; 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, under the slogan “the chalice to the laity,” to receive communion under both kinds, because otherwise Jesus Christ was not received whole and communion was illicit and sacrilegious. The error was solemnly condemned by the Council on 15 June 1415 (Denz.-U., no. 626), and the condemnation was confirmed by Martin V, who, in the bull against the errors of J. Hus (22 Feb. 1418), included among the questions to be put to those suspected of following the new doctrines also this one: “Do you believe that the custom of communicating the laity under the species of bread alone, observed by the universal Church... is to be preserved and cannot be reproved or changed?” (Denz.-U., no. 668). This shows 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) to use the chalice under certain conditions was never approved by any pope and was later 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 the laity also be granted both kinds; but Leo X condemned this in the bull *Exurge Domine* of 15 June 1520 (Denz.-U., no. 756).

The Council of Trent finally defined these points from a doctrinal standpoint: a) there is neither a divine precept nor any necessity for eternal salvation that obliges the laity and non-celebrating clergy to receive communion under both kinds; b) the practice introduced by the Latin Church of giving communion to the laity under one kind alone is founded on just and reasonable motives (sess. XXI, canons 1 and 2; Denz.-U., nos. 934–35; cf. also no. 930). The same Council left it to the Pope to decide whether to accede to the pressing requests of Emperor Ferdinand I that the chalice be granted to the laity in his states. Pius IV, in 1564, authorized certain German bishops to grant it in their dioceses, but under certain conditions; however, the concession, which at first seemed very promising, soon gave rise to such abuses that it had to be withdrawn in 1571 for Bavaria, in 1584 for Austria, and in 1621 for all other states (Pastor, VII, pp. 357 ff.; S. Ehses, op. cit., VIII, pp. 529–909).

The current discipline is now fixed by the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, canon 852, which for the Latin Church determines that communion is to be distributed only under the species of bread.

4. The unfounded 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 have no life in you” (Jn 6:54). But the double mention of flesh and blood, of eating and drinking, has no other purpose than to determine the reality of the Eucharistic presence of the whole Christ, to make it better understood that the Body and Blood constitute the perfect nourishment of the Christian. Now the presence of Christ whole and entire, with His flesh and His blood, is found under each of the species. Therefore, whichever of the two one receives, one receives the whole Jesus Christ and fulfills His precept. Moreover, to the Eucharist Jesus attaches, as its fruit, eternal life. Now this fruit is also promised to Communion under a single species; indeed He said: “I am the bread of life; this is the bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die” (Jn 6:48-50).

b) At the Last Supper, after the consecrated bread, Jesus offered the cup to the Apostles, saying: “Drink of it, all of you” (Mt 26:27); and after the Supper He added: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19). But the command to drink the cup was not directed to all Christians, but only to those present at the Last Supper; and the addition, “Do this in remembrance of me,” expresses the power conferred upon the Apostles and their successors to reproduce what He had done, offering, like Him, the Eucharistic sacrifice (Council of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 1 and canon 2; Denz.-U., nn. 938 and 949). Now this sacrifice, which refers to that of the Cross, by its very nature requires the distinct consecration of bread and wine and, as an integral part, the Communion of the celebrant under both species. 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 (1 Cor 11:28): “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup,” refer in the first place and principally to the necessary preparation for making a worthy and fruitful Communion; the mention of the two species is merely incidental and serves only to note the existence, at that time, of the custom of communicating under both species; it does not intend to lay down a precept to be observed always and by all.

d) St Leo the Great (Sermon 42 on Lent, 5: PL 54, 279) and St Gelasius I (in Decretum Gratiani, pars 3, dist. 2, De consecratione, cap. 12) ordained that Communion should henceforth be given under both species: “as a sacred complement.” Yet the practice of Communion in private houses, though it began to decline in the 5th century, persisted in some forms into the Middle Ages. Monks, for instance, traveled with the Eucharist suspended from their necks; priests, according to the statutes of St Boniface, likewise did so (Hefele-Leclercq, III, 929, n. 4). Indeed, even in the 19th century, Pius IX, during his flight to Gaeta, carried the Eucharist with him in the same ciborium that Pius VI had used in similar circumstances.

XII. MINISTER OF COMMUNION — 1) The ordinary minister of Communion is solely the priest; the deacon is an extraordinary minister when there is a grave cause (e.g., the priest is otherwise occupied and the faithful would otherwise have to wait too long) and with the permission (which may even be presumed in case of necessity) of the Ordinary or the parish priest (can. 845). 2) A cleric not yet a deacon and even simple lay persons, in the absence of clerics, may communicate themselves and others to preserve the Eucharist from profanation or fire, but they must ask the permission of the Ordinary if they have the time and means to do so.

XII. PLACE

1) Communion may be distributed everywhere Mass is celebrated, even in a private oratory, unless the Ordinary has issued a specific prohibition (can. 869). 2) It is desirable that the faithful receive Communion during Mass, as this constitutes the best and most intimate participation in the Holy Sacrifice (encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 Nov. 1947: AAS, 39 (1947), p. 564). 3) Outside of Mass, Communion may be distributed only in churches, public oratories, and semi-public oratories; also in private oratories that have the indult to reserve the Blessed Sacrament and where there are no specific prohibitions (can. 1265 § 1), and in any decent and honest place, with the permission of the Ordinary (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 5 Jan. 1928). 4) For the sick, except in the case of Viaticum (v.), Communion may be privately taken 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 afterward (can. 867 § 1-3). 2) Only during the hours when 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, either open or crossed, and the communicant would then receive it themselves. St. Cyprian (De lapsis, 26: PL 4, 486) explains that the faithful, having received the bread on the open palm, should then close it, reopening it when they returned to their place to consume II. Women did not receive Communion on bare palms but covered with a white veil. The practice of placing the consecrated bread directly in the mouth is recorded from the 5th century onward; however, it did not become universal until the 10th century. It is perhaps to this development that we owe the custom of receiving Communion while kneeling, whereas previously it was received standing, preceded by a bow as a sign of devotion. The gestures accompanying the distribution of Communion also varied greatly over the centuries. The priest, presenting the consecrated bread, would say: *Corpus Christi*; later, the formula changed from an assertive to a deprecative form, e.g., *Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiatur animam tuam*. The faithful would always respond *Amen* to express their mind and heart’s adherence. Today, in the Roman liturgy, the *Amen* is pronounced by the priest himself, except in the pontifical Mass of the ordination of new priests.

The diversity of rites does not pertain solely to the formulas used but also to the entire manner of distributing the Eucharist (unleavened or leavened bread; bread alone or bread dipped in the consecrated wine); for this reason, the *Code of Canon Law* stipulates: 1) every priest must distribute Communion according to his own rite; 2) however, the faithful, even out of devotion alone, may receive Communion in different rites; 3) it is nevertheless recommended that the faithful receive Communion in their own rite, particularly during Easter Communion (can. 852).

For Communion to the dying, see VIATICUM.

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