Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/220

 COMMUNION

178

COMMUNION

gians of the period held with Amalarius of Metz (d. 837) (De Eccl. off., I, 15, P. L., CV, 1032) that in this case the common wine received a certain consecration by the infusion of the consecrated drops; but the majority, including St. Bernard (Ep. Ixix, 2, P. L., CLXXXII, 181), denied that there was any consecra- tion in the proper sense, or that the reception of tliis chalice was strictly speaking the reception of the Precious Blood.

(5) The practice of the intinctio panis, mentioned above, which is the last disciplinary variation to be noticed during this period, was already forbidden by the Council of Braga in 675 (Mansi, XI, 155), but, as appears from the "Micrologus" (xix, P. L., CLI, 989 sq.), was reintroduced in the eleventh century. It was condemned once more by the Council of Clermont (1095) under the presidency of Urban II, but with the limitation "nisi per necessitatem et per cautelam" (Mansi, XX, 818). The exception "per cautelam" allows the intinctio when it might be necessarj- as a precaution against the spilling of the Precious Blood, but the later prohibition of Paschal II (Ep. 535, P. L., CLXIII, 442) makes an exception only "in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt". Notwithstanding these prohibitions the practice sur- vived in many places, as we learn from Robert PuUejTi (d. 1146; Sent. VIII, iii, P. L., CLXXXVI, 964), who condemns it. Its prohibition is renewed as late as 1175 by a Council of London or Westminster (Hefele, op. cit., V, 688). There is no evidence of the intinctio in the East during the first ten centuries, but its existence in the eleventh century is one of the groimds of reproach advanced by Cardinal Humbert (d. 1061) against the Greeks (Adv. Grsec. calumnias,. 33, P. L., CXLIII, 957 sq.). According to Dom Martene (d. 1739) the practice still existed in the East in his own time (op. cit., I. 13); while the custom of pouring some drops of the Precious Blood on the consecrated bread, which was then dried by heating and reserved during a whole year for the Communion of the sick, may be considered as a kind of intinctio. This latter custom was prohibited by Benedict XIV for the Italo- Greeks in 1752, but the usage, where it existed among them, of receiving the Host on a spoon with some drops of the Precious Blood, was allowed to be re- tained (Gasparri. op. cit., II, 1177).

It is abundantly clear from this brief survey of dis- ciplinary variations during the first twelve centuries that the Church never regarded Communion under both kinds as a matter of Divine precept.

Since the Twel/th Century. — The final suppression of the intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observa- tur", he says, "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. Ixxx, a. 12). TheCouncil of Lambeth (1281) directs that the consecrated wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine distributed to the faithful (Mansi. XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal, or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long before the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was the acknowl- edgment of Christ's integral presence imder either kind. This concession, which had never been ap- proved by any pope, was |)ositively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German

emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions should be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were ful- filled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif., II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub vtrdque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utrdquc (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.). The only surviving example of this pri\'ilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.

III. Theological Specul.4.tion. — The definition of the Coimcil of Trent, to the effect that the com- municant imder one kind is deprived of no grace neces- sary for salvation (see I), was intended merely to negative the LTtraquist contention, and is not to be understood as implj-ing that Communion under one kind involves incompleteness of sacramental causal- ity or a ciu-tailment of sacramental grace. The coun- cil had no thought of deciding this point, which had been held to be an open question by theologians since the twelfth century and has continued to be treated as such down to om- own day. Without attempting to sketch the history of the discussion, we will state here very briefly the ultimate form which the question has assumed and the opposing answers that have been given.

It is a recognized principle in sacramental theology that the sacraments cause what they signify, and the present discussion turns upon the interpretation of this principle in reference to the Holy Eucharist. Does the principle mean, not merely that the external rites are intended to signify, in a sufficiently distinc- tive way, the special graces they were instituted to confer, but that their efficacy in the production of grace is measiu-ed by the degree of clearness (where degrees are admissible) with which the sacramental signification is expressed? In the Eucharist grace is symbolized as a spiritual refection or aliment, after the analogy of corporal nourishment ; and this signifi- cation is admittedly expressed with greater clearness in the distinct reception of both species than in Com- munion under one kind. Are we to hold, therefore, that Commimion sub utrcique, being a more perfect symbol of a complete refection, confers a fuller degree of sacramental grace than Communion under one kind, or in other words, that by Divine institution there is a twofold causality or two distinct lines of causality in the Eucharist, corresponding to the two modes of reception, and that both lines of causality are required for the complete production of its fruits? A minority of the great theologians have answered this question in the affirmative, e. g. Vasquez (in III, Q. Ixxx, a. 12, disp.ccxv, c.ii),DeLugo (DeSac. Euch., disp. xii, iii, 68 sq.), the Salmanticenses (De Euch. Sac, disp. X, 52 sq.). Arguing on the lines indicated, these theologians hold that per se Communion under both kinds confers more grace than Communion imder one kind, and admit that the modern discipline of the Church witlnlraws this opportunity of more abimdant grace from the faithful. But in doing so it inflicts, they maintain, no notable spiritual privation, with- holding no grace that is even remotely necessary for salvation; while, indirectly, the many advantages resulting from this discipline, particularly the in- creased reverence for the sacrament which it secures and the ailditional opportunities for frequent Com- munion which it provides, more than make up for whatever loss is involved.

The majority of theologians, however, rightly deny