Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/219

 COMMUNION

177

COMMUNION

anchoretic life as late as the ninth century (see Theo- dore Studita (d. 826), Ep. i, 57, ii, 209, in P. G.. XCIX. 1115, 1661).

(2) That Communion of the sick under the species of bread alone was the ordinary usage at Alexandria in the middle of the third century is proved by the account of the deatli-bed Conuuunion of the old man Serapionastold by Eusobius (H. E., VI, xliv, in P. G., XX, 629), on the authority of Dionysius of jVlexandria (d. 264). It is recorded of St. Basil that he received Holy Communion several times on the day of his death, and under the species of bread alone, as may be inferred from the biographer's words (Vita Basilii, iv, P. G., XXIX. .315). We have it on the authority of Paulinus, secretary and biographer of St. Ambrose, that the saint on his death-bed received from St. Honoratus of Vercelli " Domini corpus, quo accepto, ubi glutivit, emisit spiritum, bonum viaticum secum ferens" (Vita Ambr., 47, P. L., XIV, 43). These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact that, in the early centuries, reservation of the Eucharist for the sick and dying, of which the Council of Nica-a (325) speaks (can. xiii) as " the ancient and canonical rule", was usual under one kind. The reservation of the species of wine for use as the Viaticum would have involved so many practical difficulties that, in the absence of clear evidence on the subject, we may feel sure that it was never the general practice. We are told by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 67, P. G., VI, 429) that on Sundays, after the celebration of the Sacrifice, the Eucharistic elements were received by all present and carried by the deacons to those absent. But this would have been jjossible only in small and compact communities, and that it was not a general custom and did not long survive may be inferred from the fact that no subsequent mention of it is to be found. St. Jerome (Ep. cxxv, 20, P. L., XXII, 1085) speaks of St. Exuperius of Toulouse, "qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro", but this example of a private devotional practice, which is also exceptional in its way, throws no light on the usage of Communion for the sick. It is recorded in the life of St. Mary of Eg>-pt (21 sq., P. L., LXXIII, 686) that the Abbot Zosimos brought Communion under both kinds to her solitary retreat in the desert, and in later times there are several examples of dying persons communicating sub ulrdque. But everything leads us to suppose that such Communions, as a rule, were administered in connexion with Mass, celebrated in the house of the sick person or in the immediate \'icinity; and this supposition is strongly confirmed by the well-known fact that the sick were sometimes carried to the church for the purpose of receiving both the Eucharist and Extreme Unction (see Chardon, Hist. Du Sacrem. de I'Eucharistie, c. v, Migne, Theol. Cursus Completus, XX, 282). It is to be noted, finally, that the sick who could not consume the Host were allowed to receive under the species of wine alone (Council of Toledo, 675, can. ii, Mansi, XI, 143-4).

(.3) It was the practice in the Early Church to give the Holy Eucharist to children even before they at- tained the use of reason. It is implied by St. Cvprian (De Lapsis, 25, P. L., IV, 484) that the chahce" alone was offered to them; and St. Augustine, in his inci- dental references to child-Communion, speaks of it as administered under either species (Ep. ccxvii, 5, P. L., XXXIII, 984 sq.), or under the species of wine alone (Opus Imp., II, 30, P. L., XLV, 1154). St. Paulinus of Nola, speaking of newly-baptized children, states that the priest "cruda salutiferis imbuit ora cibis" (Ep. xxxii, 5, P. L., LXI, 333), which is applicable only to the species of wine. In the East also, in some churches at least, children, especially suckling infants, conmiunicated under the species of wine alone (see Dom Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, I, xiv; Gasparri, Tract. Canon, de SS. Eucharistia, IV.— 12

II, n. 1121). There are examples, on the other hand, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, of Com- munion administered to children under the species of bread alone. Thus the Council of Macon (586) de- creed that the fragments of consecrated bread remain- ing over after the Sunday Communion were to be con- sumed by children (innocentefi) brought to the church for that purpose on the following Wednesday oi' Friday (Labbe-Cossart, VI, 675); and Evagrius (d. 594) tells us that a similar custom existed at Constan- tinople from ancient times (Hist. Eccl., IV, 36, P. G., LXXXVI. 2769).

(4) The Mass of the Presanctified, in which the essence of the sacrifice as such is wanting, admits of Communion only under the species of bread. The custom of celebrating in this manner was introduced in the East by the Council of Laodicea in the fourth century (can. xlix) and confirmed by the Second Council in Trullo in 692 (Hefele, op. cit., I, 772). It was the rule for all fast days during Lent, and the faith- ful were in the habit of receiving at it (Pargoire, op. cit., p. 341 sq.). This custom is still maintained in the East (Gasparri, op. cit., I, n. 68). In the West the Mass of the Presanctified, celebrated only on Good Friday, is mentioned in the Gelasian Sacramentary (P. L., LXXIV, 1105) and in later sources, and in the be- ginning the faithful used to commimicate at it. .\part from the Mass of the Presanctified the faithful were sometimes allowed to receive vnider the species of bread alone, even at the public Communion in the church. From an incident recorded by Sozomen (H. E., VIII. V, P. L., LXVII, 1528 sq.) as having occurred at Constantinople in the time of St. John Chrj'sostom, it would seem to follow that the recep- tion of the consecrated bread alone was sufficent to satisfy the requirements of the then existing disci- pline. The point of the story is, that the unconverted wife of a converted Macedonian heretic, being com- pelled by her husband to communicate in the Catholic Church, secretly substituted at the moment of recep- tion a piece of ordinarj' bread, which her servant had brought for the purpose, but was balked in her deceit- ful design by a miracle, which petrified the bread with the marks of her teeth iipon it. In the West, as is clear from St. Leo the Great (Serm. xlii, 5, P. L., LIV, 279 sq), the Manichseans at Rome, towards the middle of the fifth century, sometimes succeeded in communicating fraudulently in the Catholic Church: "ore indigno corpus Chri-sti accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostraehaurireomninodeclinant". This sacrikijii simulatio on the part of the heretics would have been impossible, unless it was customary at the time for at least some of the faithful to receive under one kind alone. That those detected in this simulatio are ordered by St. Leo to be excluded alto- gether from Communion, implies no reprobation on the merits of Communion under one kind ; and the same is true of the decree attributed by Gratian to Pope Gelasius, "aut Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur" (De Consec, D. II, c. xii, P. L., CLXXXVII, 1736). In the monastic rule attributed to St. Columbanus (d. 615) it is prescribed that novices and those not properlv instructed "ad calicem non accedant" (P. L., LXXX, 220). This also seems to imply the usage in some cases of Com- munion under one kind ; and, as a further instance of divergence in this direction from Communion strictly suh utrfiquc, may be mentioned the practice, intro- duced about this time, of substituting for consecrated wine, in tlieCommunion of the faithful, ordinary wine, into which a few drops of the coiLsecrated wine had been poured. According to the "Ordo Romanus Prinnis", which in its present form dates from the ninth century, this usage was followed at the pontifical Ma.ss in Ronie (see Mabillon, P. L., LXXVIII, 875, SS2, 90:{). It was ailopted also in several other churches (Dom Martene, op. cit., I, ix). Some theolo-