Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/436

 ELEUTHEROPOLIS

380

ELEVATION

VAN DER Essex, Elude critique et litliraire sur les Vila; des Saints Merovingiens de iancienne Betgique (Louvain, 1907),

394-97. L. Van der Essen.

Eleutheropolis, a titular see in Palsestina Prima. The former name of this city seems to have been Beth Gabra, ''the house of the strong men", which later became Beit Djibrin, "the house of Gabriel". Ves- pasian slaughtered almost all its inhabitants, accord- ing to Josepbus, De Bell. Jud., IV., viii, 1, where its name is written Betaris. In A. D. 200 Septimius Severiis, on his Syrian journey changed its name to Eleutheropolis, and it soon became one of the most important cities of Judea. Its special era, which figures on its coins and in many inscriptions, began 1 Jan., A.D.200. (SeeEehosd'Orient, 1903,310sq.; 1904,215 sq.) Its first known bishop is Macrinus (32.5) ; five others are mentioned in the fourth and two in the sLxth cen- tury (Lequien, Or. Christ., Ill, 631). In 393, during the episcopate of Zebennus, the relics of the Prophets Habakuk and Micah were found at Ceila and Tell Za- kariya near Eleutheropolis (Sozom., H. E., VII, xxix). At Eleuthtitjpolis was born St. Epiphanius, the cele- brated bishop of Salamis in Cyprus; at Ad in the neighbourhood he establi-shed a monastery which is often mentioned in the polemics of St. Jerome with Rufinus and John, Bishop of Jerusalem. The city was, moreover, an important monastic centreat least till the coming of the Arabs. The latter beheaded (638) at Eleutheropolis fifty soldiers of the garrison of Gaza who had refused to apostatize. They were buried in a church built in their honour. (See Anal. BoUand., 1904, 289 sq., and Echos d'Orient, 1905, 40 sq.) The city was destroyed by the Jlussulmans in 796 in the ci\nl wars. The Crusaders erected there a fortress, in 1134, under Fulco of Anjou ; the Knights of St. John, to whom it was committed, restored at this time the beautiful Byzantine church at Sandahanna. The citadel was taken in 1187 by Saladin, conquered in 1191 by Richard Lion Heart, destroyed in 1264 by Sultan Bibars, and rebuilt in 1551 by the Turks. To- day Beit Djibrin is a village with about 1000 IMussul- man inhabitants, on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, in a fertile and very healthy region. The medieval fortress still stands, about 180 feet square; there are also remains of the walls, ruins of a cloister, and of a medieval church. In the neighbourhood are remark- able grottoes, which filled St. Jerome with wonder- ment. Some of these grottoes were used in early Christian times as places of worship; others bear Arabic inscriptions.

Relaxd, Palastim (Utrecht, 1714). 749-754; Smith. Diet, of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878) s. v. Bethograhis.

S. Vailhe.

Elevation, The. — 'ttliat we now know as par excellence the Elevation of the Mass is a rite of com- paratively recent introduction. The Oriental litur- gies, and notably the Byzantine, have indeed a showing of the consecrated Host to the people, with the words "Holy things to the holy", but this should rather be regarded as the counterpart of our "Ecee Agnus Dei" and as a preliminary to the Com- munion. Again, in the West, a lifting of the Host at the words "omnis honor et gloria", immedi- ately before the Pater Noster, has taken place ever since the ninth century or earlier. This may very probably be looked upon as originally an invitation to adore when the great consecratory prayer of the canon extending from the Preface to the Pater Noster (see Cabrol in "Diet. d'.\rcheologie", I, 1558) had been brought to a conclusion. But the showing of the Sacred Host (and still more of the Chalice) to the people after the utterance of the words of Insti- tution, " Hoc est corpus meum", is not known to have existed earlier than the clo.se of the twelfth century. Eudes de Sully, Bishop of Paris from 1190 to 1208, seems to have been the first to direct in his episcopal

statutes that after the consecratory words the Host should be "elevated so that it can be seen by all".

There has, however, been a good deal of confusion upon this point in the minds of some early liturgists, owing to the practice which prevailed of lifting the bread from the altar and holding it in the hands above the chalice while consecrating it. Some de- gree of lifting, at the words " accepit panem in sanc- tas ac venerabiles manus suas", was unavoidable, and many priests carried it so far that liturgical com- mentators spoke of their act as "elevare hostiam" (cf. Migne, P. L., CLXXVII, 370, and CLXXI, 1186), but a careful examination of the evidence proves that this was quite a different thing from showing the Host to the people. Moreover, the motive of this latter showing has generally been misconceived. It has often been held to be a protest against the heresy of Berengarius; but Berengarius died a century before, and the statements of writers at the beginning of the thirteenth century make the whole development plain. The great centre of intellectual life at that period was Paris, and we learn that at Paris a curious theological view was then being defended by such emi- nent scholars as the chancellor Peter Manducator and the professor Peter Cantor, that transubstantiation of the bread only took place when the priest at Mass had pronounced the words of consecration over bolh bread and wine (see, e. g., Giraldus Cambrensis, Works,

II, 124; Cssarius of Heisterbach, " Dialogus", IX, xxvii, and "Libri Miraculorum ", ed. Meister, pp. 16, 17). To quote the words of Peter of Poitiers " dicunt quidam .... quod nou facta est transubstantiatio panis in corpus donee prolata sint ha^c verba ' Hie est sanguis' " (Migne, P. L., CCXI, 1245; Pope Innocent

III, "Desacroaltaris mysterio", IV, 22, uses very simi- larlanguage). This view, as may readily be understood, aroused considerable opposition, and notably on the part of Bishop Eudes de Sully and Stephen Langton, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and cardinal. It seems clear that the theologians of this party, by way of protest against the teaching of Peter Cantor, adopted the custom of adoring the Host immediately after the words "Hoc est enim corpus meum" were spoken, and by a natural transition they encouraged the practice of showing it to the people for this purpose. The developments can be easily followed in the sjTiodal decrees of France, England, and other countries dur- ing the thirteenth century. We find mention of a little bell of warning in the early years of that century, and before the end of the same century it was enjoined in many dioceses of the Continent and in England that one of the great bells of the church should be tolled at the moment of the Elevation, in order that those at work in the fields might kneel down and adore.

It will be readily understood from the above expla- nation that there was not the same motive at first for insisting on the elevation of the Chalice as well as the Host. No one at that period doubted that by the time the words of Institution had been spoken over the wine, transubstantiation had been effected in both species. We find accordingly that the elevation of the Chalice was introduced much more slowly. It was not adopted at St. Alban's Abbey until 1429, and we may say that it is not practised liy the Carthusians even to this day. The elevation of the Host at Mass seems to have brought in its train a great idea of the special merit and virtue of looking upon the Body of Christ. Promises of an extravagant kind circulated freely among the people describing the privileges of him who had .seen his Maker at Mass. Sudden death could not befall him. He was secure from himger, infection, the danger of fire, etc. As a result, an extraordinary desire developed to see the Host vdien elevated at Mass, and this led to a variety of abuses which were rebuked by preachers and satirists. On the other hand, the same devout instinct midoubtedly fostered the intro- duction of processions of the Blessed Sacrament and