On Frequent Communion

A Scholastic Treatment

St. Thomas: 1Cor.C11.L7, ST.III.Q80.A10, Sent.IV.D12.Q3.A1.qa2, ST.III.Q79.A8; St. Alphonsus Liguori: Directions for Spiritual Souls With Regard to the Frequentation of the Sacraments, and An Apologetic Reply, on the Subject of Frequent Communion, to D. Cyprian Aristasio; Doronzo, De Eucharistia I, art. 38

State of the Question. We can distinguish between three concepts: validity, liceity, and fruitfulness:

α) To have a valid reception of the sacrament means that the bare fact of the confection of the sacrament occurs. In order for a valid sacrament, there simply must be the proper matter, form, minister, and intent.

β) To have a licit reception of the sacrament means that the laws surrounding the proper administration of the sacrament are followed in confecting the sacrament. This concept does not absolutely coincide with the concept of validity. A sacrament can be valid and not licit. Hence, e.g., in the Latin Church it is illicit to give the eucharist to infants, yet the validity of the sacrament is not touched.

γ) To have a fruitful reception of the sacrament means that the gracious effects of the sacrament are truly communicated to the recipient. This abstracts from the licit reception of the sacrament, but not from the valid reception of the sacrament. In certain cases, it is possible for someone to fruitfully receive the sacrament without following the external laws from the Church (e.g., an individual commits a mortal sin, yet doesn’t know of the positive precept of the Church to go to confession before the reception of the sacrament, hence they make an act of perfect contrition and receive the sacrament with devotion). Yet, in the strict sense, the fruitful reception of the sacrament is dependent upon the validity of the sacrament since the fruitful reception indicates precisely the fruitful effects communicated by the sacrament. Although, in a broad sense, we can even speak of the “fruitful effects” of an invalid sacrament that is putatively valid. In this case, it would be equivalent to an act of spiritual communion.

In this case, we are not concerned with the validity of the practice of frequent communion. In the case of the Eucharist, repetition provides no impediment to validity. Further, we are not speaking about the liceity of frequent communion, which is directly relevant to canonical and historical studies. Rather, we seek to concern ourselves with the fruitfulness of the frequent reception of the sacrament, so as to give the general principles/rules of theologians.

Objection. It seems that it is impossible to separate the liceity of the practice from its fruitfulness. For, the liceity of the practice concerns a universal law of the Church that is generally applicable to the faithful. Now, such universal laws of the Church that are generally applicable fall under the disciplinary infallibility of the Church. Hence, it is not possible that such a practice be anything but fruitful.

Response. I distinguish the major premise: generally applicable to the faithful unconditionally, denied, generally applicable to the faithful conditionally, i.e., with those proper dispositions explicitly and implicitly contained or tacitly assumed by the law, conceded. Further, I distinguish the minor premise, infallible as to the objective conformity with faith or morals and taken substantially, conceded, taken modally, denied.

This distinctions are explained in more detail in my article On the Infallibility of the Disciplinary Laws of the Church. NOTE: I am not at all commenting on the modal properties of the law concretely taken, but only abstract separability and distinction between the two in principle.

Lastly, fruitfulness can be taken in two ways. First, we can speak absolutely of the communication of the gifts of grace in the reception of the sacrament taken individually, i.e., “what are the dispositions sufficient for the communication of grace in this sacrament.” Second, we can speak relatively of the communication of greater gifts of grace taken collectively, i.e., “what is the most efficacious habitual practice for the communication of the greatest degree of grace in these sacraments.”

To illustrate this quantitatively (which only has a remote likeness to the communication of grace): let’s say that there was a man who had two options in relation to two masses. First, he could receive fruitfully at both masses with moderate preparation. Second, he could increase his fervor at the second mass by not receiving at the first mass so much so that his dispositions allow for an even greater reception of graces than both masses with moderate preparation taken together. In both cases, his reception of the sacrament would be fruitful in an absolute sense. Yet, relatively speaking, in the second case his reception would be more fruitful.

Hence, when speaking absolutely, the only disposition required for a fruitful reception of the sacrament is to be in a state of grace. Yet, relatively speaking, for a more fruitful reception of the sacrament, we treat other dispositions.

First Conclusion. For the fruitful reception of the sacrament, only the state of grace is required.

On the first point, theologians are divided. Cajetan, Peter de Soto, and Contenson teach that the state of grace does not suffice for the fruitful reception of the sacrament, but actual devotion is necessary. Although, more common is the opinion of others (Suarez, Vasquez, Lugo, John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, St. Alphonsus, etc.) that the state of grace suffices.

As St. Thomas teaches in ST.III.Q79.A8:

Venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For…the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.

In this section, St. Thomas is speaking of venial sin in the very act of communing. Hence, a fortiori for other ill-dispositions. Such is the argument given by St. Alphonsus in his defense of frequent communion.

The other dispositions (e.g., actual devotion) is necessary for an actual refreshment by the sacrament (i.e., the increase of the actual fervor of charity), but to be free from mortal sin, even while venially sinning, suffices that there be an increase of habitual grace and charity. The former is a more fruitful effect, while the latter is a merely fruitful effect.

It is in this way that other texts from St. Thomas are easily resolved (although, certain theologians argue for a change in his position), distinguishing between the habitual and actual effects of this sacrament:

Every perfection to be acquired is impeded by the removal of its proper disposition. But just as material dispositions are ordered to the perfection of form, so acts are ordered to the perfection of the end. And therefore since this sacrament perfects by uniting to the end, as was said above, in order for it to have its own effect fully in the one who receives it, there must be actual devotion present. And since sometimes actual devotion can be impeded without mortal sin, since various distractions impede it, and venial sins destroy the act of the virtues, this sacrament’s effect can be impeded without mortal sin so that someone does not receive the increase of grace; but neither would he have become guilty of mortal sin, but perhaps guilty of venial sin, by the fact that he approaches the sacrament without proper preparation. (Sent.IV.D12.Q2.A1.qa3)

This seems to follow from the teaching of the Council of Trent that the sacraments confer grace “on those who do not place an obstacle thereto,” (Sess. 7, can. 6) as theologians commonly argue.

In the language of theologians, for the habitual effects of the sacraments to take place, a mere negative and habitual disposition is required (i.e., freedom from mortal sin and presence of sanctifying grace). Yet, for the actual increase of the charity, a positive and actual disposition is required (i.e., actual devotion).

With all of this in mind, we can move on to the practical advice that is given by St. Thomas, which is generally represented in approved spiritual authors and by the Church.

Second Conclusion. For the more fruitful effect of the sacrament, the rule is to be followed that is laid down by St. Alphonsus, “there is no one to whom monthly communion may not be recommended: there are but few to whom weekly communion should be forbidden; and very few to whom daily communion ought to be allowed.”

NOTE. All spiritual writers and the ecclesiastical decrees on the matter teach that the permission of more frequent communion than the norm should be reserved to a spiritual director who is able to objectively discern whether you are properly disposed for more frequent communion. As St. Alphonsus says, “to regulate the frequency of your communions belongs not to you, but to your director.” The documents of the Church don’t merely counsel everyone in a state of grace to receive as frequently as possible without distinction (although, per se, this state suffices for the effect of the sacrament). Sacra Tridentina counsels the use of confessors to discern the prudence of the practice in individual cases: “That the practice of frequent and daily Communion may be carried out with greater prudence and more fruitful merit, the confessor’s advice should be asked.” Bl. Innocent XI’s decree is especially clear: “frequent communion should be left to the decision of confessors, who ought to prescribe what they judge to be most profitable to their penitents, from the purity of their conscience, and from the fruit which they receive from frequent communion.”

So that one does not become confused on this matter, it is necessary to again refer to the difference between the fruitful and more fruitful reception of the Sacrament.

As St. Alphonsus teaches, in the case of one who is free from mortal sin with some devotion for the sacrament, it is obviously sufficient for a fruitful reception of the sacrament. Yet, when St. Alphonsus gives his advice for confessors on whether they should allow communion more than once a week, he is giving advice for what is the more fruitful practice. St. Alphonsus simply states that “it appears to me that…it may be very reasonably asserted that, according to the common opinion of spiritual fathers, and according to the present practice of the church, all who are not conscious of mortal sin should be allowed to receive the holy Eucharist.” He uses this premise as an a fortiori argument to demonstrate that weekly communion is allowed for those free from mortal sin. Hence, while it is per se permitted (and fruitful) to receive at any time when free from mortal sin, it is the more fruitful practice to permit such habitually only to those who are disposed properly (as not to have the opposite effect in the long run).

Now, it is important to point out (in line with Sacra Tridentina) that there is no divine precept prohibiting a fruitful reception of the sacrament. Now, as a matter of ecclesiastical precept, Sacra Tridentina has forbidden confessors to forbid such reception to those who are free from mortal sin and approaching with the right intentions. Hence, the Spiritual Director is only in a position to counsel on this matter, rather than to command obedience. In the Motu Proprio, the distinction is made between what is expedient (i.e., to be “free from venial sins, at least from such as are fully deliberate, and from any affection thereto”) and what is sufficient (i.e., to be “free from mortal sin”).

Hence, the principles that will be drawn from Ss. Thomas and Alphonsus are counsels, not matters of precept, but any prudent and upright Catholic desiring perfection should pay attention to what is said. This is evident from a number of different reasons that become clear when carefully reading the treatment of the matter from traditional authors (especially in their recitation of various exceptions and extraordinary circumstances that could not apply if they were intending to recount strict precepts).

First, the general norm of the reception of Holy Communion, as evidenced by a multitude of Fathers, Theologians, and Spiritual Authors, is to receive once a week. This is against certain more rigorous authors who follow St. Francis de Sales.

In An Apologetic Reply, on the Subject of Frequent Communion, to D. Cyprian Aristasio, St. Alphonsus deals with a particular objection to his doctrine distinguishing between frequent (i.e., more than once a week) and weekly communion. According to St. Alphonsus (with most theologians and spiritual writers), we ought to distinguish between the detachment from deliberate sin sufficient for weekly communion and the detachment from sin sufficient for more frequent communion. In the former case, it suffices that there be a firm purpose to be free from mortal sin. In the second case, there must be a firm purpose to be free from venial sins as well. Yet, through a confusing text attributed to St. Augustine, some spiritual authors (including St. Francis de Sales) collapsed the two cases and demanded the same freedom from attachment to deliberate sin in those communing weekly as those communing more frequently. Yet, throughout this reply, St. Alphonsus corrects the record and shows that everyone in a state of grace ought to commune, outside of those extraordinary cases when a penitent should be forbidden communion for a just cause.

Second, as to a more frequent reception of communion, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus provide mutually beneficial treatments of the matter.

NOTE: On the issue of frequent communion, St. Alphonsus’ doctrine received particular approbation by the Church. It is noted in the Acts of St. Alphonsus’ Beatification that such a work was done at the request and with the express approval of Pope Clement XIII:

Returning to Rome, Alphonsus was embraced most affectionately by the Supreme Pontiff and honored with a three-hour audience. When, among the most weighty matters of the Church on which he was consulted by the Pontiff, he mentioned that the Book he had recently published on the utility of frequent Communion had been attacked, the Pontiff was inflamed with zeal, and showing that this most holy practice is very useful to souls, and confirming it by his own experience, commanded him to refute the adversary: as he shortly afterward did in Rome, and offered the published reply to the Pontiff himself. (Positio super Introductione Causae, Rome 1796, Informatio, n. 71)