Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/661

 EUCHARIST

589

EUCHARIST

(a) In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyr- idians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers even to women (of. Epiphanius, De hier., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigcnses and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teach- ing, that "no one but the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament". Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a "universal priesthood" (cf. I Peter, ii, 5), that every layman was qualified, as the appointed rep- resentative of the faithful, to consecrate the Sacra- ment of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent opposed this teaching of Luther, and not only confirmed anew the existence of a "special priesthood" (Sess. XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively declared that "Christ or- dained the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this decision it was also declared that the power of consecrating and that of offering the Holy Sacrifice are identical. Both ideas are mutually reciprocal. To the category of "priests" (sacerdos, iepeis) belong, ac- cording to the teaching of the Church, only bishops and priests; deacons, subdeacons, and those in minor orders are excluded from this dignity.

Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly conse- crate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in no other. We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most an- cient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who appeared as the properly constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated pas- sively therein. When in the fourth century the abuse crept in of priests receiving Holy Communion at the hands of deacons, the First Council of Nicaea (325) is- sued a strict prohibition to the effect, that " they who offer the Holy Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands of those who have no such power of offering", because such a practice is contrary to "rule and custom". The sect of the Luciferians was founded by an apostate deacon named Hilary, and possessed neither bishops nor priests; wherefore St. Jerome concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants they no longer retained the Eu- charist. It is clear that the Church has always denied the laity the power to consecrate. When the Arians accused St. Athanasius (d. 373) of sacrilege, because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated Chalice had been destroyed during the Mass which was being cele- brated by a certain Ischares, they had to withdraw their charges as wholly untenable when it was proved that Ischares had been invalidly ordained by a pseudo- bishop name<l CoUuthos and, therefore, could neither validly consecrate nor offer the Holy Sacrifice.

(b) The dogmatic interest which attaches to the minister of administration or distribution is not so great, for the reason that the Eucharist bein^ a per- manent sacrament, any communicant having the proper dispositions could receive it validly, whether he did so from the hantl of a priest, or layman, or woman. Hence the (juestion is concerned, not with the validity, but with the liceity of administration. In this matter the Church alone has the right to decide, and her regulations regarding the Communion rite may vary according to the circumstances of the times.

In general it is of Divine right, that the laity should aa a rule receive only from the consecrated hand of the priest (cf. Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. viii). The practice of the laity giving themselves Holy Communion was formerly, and is to-day, allowed only in case of neces- sity. In ancient Christian times it was customary for the faithful to take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes and Communicate privately, a practice (Ter- tullian. Ad uxor., II, v), to which, even as late as the fourth century, St. Basil makes reference (Ep. xciii, ad Cssariam). Up to the ninth century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the right hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth; women, from the fourth century on- ward, were required in this ceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right hand. The Precious Blood was in early times received directly from the Chalice, but in Rome the practice, after the eighth century, was to receive it through a small tube {fistula); at present this is observed only in the pope's Mass. The latter method of drinking the Chalice spread to other locali- ties, in particular to the Cistercian monasteries, where the practice was partially continued into the eigh- teenth century.

Whereas the priest is both by Divine and ecclesias- tical right the ordinary dispenser (minister ordinarius) of the sacrament, the deacon is by virtue of his order the extraordinary minister [minister extraordinarius), yet he may not administer the sacrament except ex delcgatione, i. e. with the permission of the bishop or priest. As has already been mentioned above, the deacons were accustomed in the Early Church to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who were absent from Divine service, as well as to present the Chalice to the laity during the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries (cf. Cyprian, De lapsis, nn. 17, 25), and this practice was observed until Communion under both kinds was dis- continued. In St. Thomas's time (III, Q. Ixx.xii, a. 3), the deacons were allowed to administer only the Chalice to the laity, and in case of necessity the Sacred Host also, at the bidding of the bishop or priest. After the Communion of the laity under the .species of wine had been abolished, the deacon's powers were more and more restricted. According to a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (25 Feb., 1777), still in force, the deacon is to administer Holy Communion only in case of necessity and with the approval of his bishop or his pastor. (Cf. Funk, " Der Kommunion- ritus" in his " Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen ", Paderborn, 1897, I, pp. 293 sqq.; see also "Theol. praktische Quartalsehrift ", Linz, 190G, LIX, 95 sqq.)

(0) The Recipient of the Eucharist. — The two condi- tions of objective capacity (capacitas, aptitudo) and subjective worthiness (dignilas) must be carefully dis- tinguished. Only the former is of dogmatic interest, while the latter is treated in moral theology (see Com- munion and Communion of the Sick). The first requisite of aptitude or capacity is that the recipient be a "human being", since it was for mankind only that Christ in.stituted this Eucharistic food of souls and commanded its reception. This condition ex- cludes not only irrational animals, but angels also; for neither pos.sess himian souls, which alone can be nour- ished by this food unto eternal life. The expression "Bread of Angels" (Ps.lxxvii, 25) is a mere metaphor, which indicates that in the Beatific Vision where He is not concealed under the sacramental veils, the angels spiritually fea.st upon the God-man, this same pro.spect lieing held out to those who shall gloriously rise on the Last Day. The second re((uisite, the inmiediate de- duction from the first, is that the recipient be still in the "state of pilgrimage" to the next life (stnlus via- toris), since it is only in the present life that man can validly Communicate. Exaggerating the Eucharist's necessity as a means to salvation, liosmini advanced the untenable opinion that at the moment of death