Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/330

 FREQUENT

278

FREQUENT

sermons on the " Divinity of Jesus Christ " which have since been pubHshed in book form. He conducted tlie Advent and Lenten exercises at the Madeleine and afterwards at the churches of St-Rocli, Ste-Clotilde, St-Louis d'Antin, at Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, and St-Germain I'Auxerrois. His early discourses were published in 1869, in two volumes. Having been ap-

Eointed to the chair of sacred eloquence at the Sor- onne, he conducted a series of scholarly studies on the Apostolic Fathers and the Christian apologists. They fill ten volumes (4th ed., Paris, 1885). In 1867 Napoleon III invited liim to preach the Lenten ser- mons at the Tuileries, and these discourses have been published in a volume entitled " La Vie Chretienne". It was about this time that Renan's "Vie de Jesus" provoked such a storm of controversy. Mgr. Freppel pulilislied a reply to the work, his " Examen critique 'Ip la Vie de J^sus de M. Renan" (Paris, 1863), which was perhaps the best refutation of the theories ex- pounded by the French free-think- er. Pius IX, who was then making jjreparations for the Council of the Vatican, sum- moned the Abb6 Freppel to Rome to assist in the work of drawing up the schemata (drafts of decrees). The pope thus showed his appre- ciation of Frep- pel's learning and accomplishments, and appointed him to the Bishop- ric of Angers, rendered vacant by the death of Mgr. Angebault. He received the episcopal consecration at Rome, IS April, 1870. Later there was shown a dis- position to elevate him to the metropolitan See of Charab^ry; but he declined with the same modesty which, in 1SS5, caused him to implore those, who, with M. Jules Ferry, desired his elevation to the dignity of the cardinalate, to discontinue tlieir efforts on his be- half. LTpon his return from Rome he proved himself, by his defence of his country, as good a patriot as at the council he had shown himself an able theologian. In 1871, he accepted the candidature for one of the electoral divisions of Paris. He was defeated because of the ill will which the liberals had borne him since the council, at which, according to them, he had shown himself too ultramontane. In 1880, the electors of Finistere asked him to act as their representative; he was elected by a large majority to this position of trust. His first speech in t!ie French Chamber was a vigorous protest against the expulsion of the Jesuits. For eleven years the bishop-deputy {eveque depute) was the most attentively-heard orator in the Chamber, treating with equal authority the most diverse sub- jects, and such as would seem farthest removed from his ordinary stutlies. While he did not bring about the triumph of justice to the extent he desired, he defended it nobly though running violently counter to the prejudices of that assembly. He won even the esteem of his enemies, and M. Floquet was one day able to re-echo the plaudits not only of the Chamber but of the whole of France. His " QSuvres pol^miques " and his "Oratoires" have been collected in seventeen volumes (Paris, 1869-88). Almost all the great religious, political, and social questions which engaged men's minds at that time are here treated. Amongst his numerous other writings should be mentioned his

Gharles-Emile Freppel

work on the French Revolution (Paris, 1889), and "Bossuet et I'^loquence sacr^e au XVII'°"> siecle" (Paris, 1894).

KicARD. Mgr. Freppel (Paris, 1892) ; Idem. Les grands (vfouea {Paris, 1893); VEUiLLOTin/' C/niners. Dec, 1891. See also lives of Freppel by Lesur and Bournand (Paris, 1893), tJoRNUT (Paris, 1893), Tailliez (Paris, 1904).

Louis Lalande.

Frequent Cotmnunion. — Without specifying how often the faithful should communicate, Christ simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John, vi, etc.). The fact, however, that His Body and Blood were to be received under the appearances of bread and wine, the ordinary daily food and drink of His hearers, would point to the frequent and even daily reception of the Sacrament. The manna, too, with which He compared "the bread which He would give", was daily partaken of by the Israelites. Moreover, though the petition "give us this day our daily bread" does not primarily refer to the Eucharist, nevertheless it could not fail to lead men to believe that their souls, as well as their bodies, stood in need of daily nourishment. In this article we shall deal with (I) the history of the frequency of Holy Commimion, (II) the present practice as en- joined by Pius X.

I. HisTOKY. — In the early Church at Jerusalem the faithful received every day (Acts, ii, 46). Later on, however, we read that St. Paul remained at Troas for seven days, and it was only "on the first day of the week" that the faithful "assembled to break bread" (Acts, XX, 6-11; cf. I Cor., xvi, 2). According to the " Didache " the breaking of bread took place on " the Lord's day" (rara KvpiaKTjv, c. xiv). Pliny says that the Christians assembled "on a fixed day" (Ep. x); and St. Jastin, "on the day called Sunday" (tj toO ifKlov \eyoij.4vTi rfiiipq., ApoL, I, Ixvii, 3, 7). It is in Tertullian that we first read of the Liturgy being celebrated on any other day besides Sunday (De Orat., c. xi.x; De Corona, c. iii). Daily reception is men- tioned by St. Cyprian (De Orat. Domin., c. xviii in P. L., IV, 531); St. Jerome (Ep. ad Damasum); St. John Chrysostom (Hom., iii in Eph.) ; St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii, viii, 26, 28 in P. L., XV, 1461, 1462); and the author of the "De Sacramentis" (V, iv, 25; P. L., XVI, 452).

It should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (St. John Chrysos- tom, loc. cit.; Apostolic Canons, X; St. Gregory the Great, Dial. II, 23). They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home (St. Justin, loc. cit. ; Tertullian, "Ad Uxorem", II, v; Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xliv). This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church. On the other hand, we find that practice fell far short of precept, and that the faithful were frequently rebuked for so seldom receiv- ing the Holy Communion (see especially St. John chrysostom, loc. cit., and St. Ambro.se, loc. cit.). St. Augustine sums up the matter thus: "Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord everyday; others on certain days ; in some places there is no day on which the Sacrifice is not olTered ; in others on Saturday and Sunday only; in others on Sunday alone (Ep. liv in P. L., XX^^III, 200 sqq.). Whether it was advisable for the faithful, especially those living in matrimony, to receive daily, was a question on which the Fathers were not agreed. St. Jerome is aware of this custom at Rome, but he says: "Of this I neither approve nor disapprove; let each abound in his own sense" (Ep. xlviii in P. L., XXII, 505-6; Ep. Ixxi in P. L., XXII, 672). St. Augustine discu.sses the question at length, and comes to the conclusion, that there is much to be