II. To the Initial Arguments

184. To the first argument for the opposite [n.157] Augustine well replies, To the Questions of Januarius 1.6, in Gratian Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.24, “That the Lord gave the Eucharist to the disciples after a meal is not a reason that those should receive as they did who have eaten. They are rebuked by the Apostle (I Corinthians 11.20-22).” And Augustine adds the cause why the Savior did it then, “For the Savior,” he says, “in order to commend more forcefully the greatness of this mystery, wished to fix it last in the hearts of his disciples. But in what order it should be taken thereafter he left for the disciples to teach, through whom he was going to make disposition for the Churches.”

185. The same point serves for the second argument [n.158]: because according to Augustine [n.184] the Apostle rebuked those who took the Eucharist after eating. And therefore the words “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” should not be understood to mean he should eat at home before he comes to church but after departure from the church, so that he not sate his hunger on the Eucharist (the way he says “another is drunk”). Rather, waiting for what will be necessary for him at home he should receive what is his own. And for this reason is the custom of the Latin Church praiseworthy, which dispenses the Eucharist to no one save in small quantity (so that it cannot be taken to get drunk) and very well sufficient for due reverence of the sacrament.

186. From this is plain that a man can eat soon after communion, because the sacred species are soon converted - which seems must be conceded here [Gratian Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.23].