William
Herbert Freestone, “Alcuin Club Collections,” Volume 21 (The Sacrament
Reserved), (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1917), 120-143.
By following the common custom of
reckoning the first six centuries together as an age by itself, it has been
possible to sum up the evidence of that period, and to come to some tentative
conclusions as to the origin and prevalence of official reservation of the
Eucharist. This will help to carry us through the two hundred years of
transition between the days of Gregory the Great and those of Charlemagne.
The seventh and the eighth centuries
form the first half of the period that we have now to consider. This period,
the early Middle Ages, is made up of two clearly-marked divisions of
approximately equal length: the first is characterized by the ebb in learning
and culture that succeeded the high-tide of the Fathers; the second, by the
recovery that followed for a while the Carolingian reforms. We will take the
evidence of these two divisions separately.
(a) The first division (c. A.D.
6oo–8oo) is, as regards our subject, an age of obscurity. It is still necessary
to depend as largely upon supposition here as in the period that has just been
discussed, for of direct evidence there is great scarcity. If the
considerations proposed at the end of the last chapter have any value, we start
with something approaching a conviction that official reservation for clinical
communion in the one species of Bread was coming into common use, at any rate
in certain localities. It does not seem possible to avoid the conclusion that a
method which was so natural a development of the private custom, and had so
many points of convenience to recommend it, must have been widely employed. We
have found plentiful evidence for the existence of private reservation by the
clergy and the religious during this period. Official the supply and
ministration of the sacrament are restricted to, and regularized by, the normal
ecclesiastical authorities.
Nevertheless, the only direct
reference to official reservation appears to be contained in a canon of the
Sixteenth Council of Toledo (A.D. 693). This council turned its attention to a
number of careless habits that had grown up among the clergy in connection with
the bread used in the mass. In the canon dealing with these abuses allusion is
made incidentally, but unmistakeably, to the practice of reserving the
Eucharist. Whether it was reserved for the use of the sick, or for one of those
liturgical ceremonies which have been described in Part I of this work, is open
to question. The sense of the relevant passage in the canon is as follows:
No bread shall be prepared for use at the altar other than
such as is whole and wheaten, and this shall be made with care. Nor shall it be
too large, but of moderate size, according to ecclesiastical custom; so that
whatever remains over may be kept for reservation in a small receptacle (ad
conservandum modico loculo . . . conserventur) without risk of harm; or else,
in case it seem necessary, may be consumed without inconvenience.
For whatever purpose it was intended
to be used, it will be noticed that the Bread alone is mentioned as being
reserved; and this, so far as it goes, bears out the conclusions reached at the
end of the last chapter as to the usage of the preceding period. Some little
light is thrown upon the question by the canons of two other councils of this
age, which dealt with the ministration of the Eucharist, and issued rulings
that touch, though only indirectly, upon the matter of our inquiry. First, an
earlier (Eleventh) Council of Toledo (A.D. 67 5) than that to which we have
just referred concerned itself with the subject of clinical communion by
publishing an explanation of a canon promulgated by the First Council held in
the same city nearly three hundred years before (A.D. 4oo). This canon has been
noticed in a former place as ordering the expulsion of those who did not
immediately consume the sacrament they received at the open communion. Now the
later council was at pains to make quite clear the real reason for this
regulation—that it was aimed against sacrilege, and was not intended to apply
to the case of the sick and others who had difficulty in swallowing the Host.
After referring to the physical weakness of persons in extreme sickness, the
canon goes on to remark that in many cases “those who earnestly desire the viaticum
of Holy Communion reject the Eucharist brought to them by the priest; not
because they act in unbelief, but because they cannot swallow the Eucharist
that is given them, apart from a draught from the chalice of the Lord.”
The interest of this passage is
apparent. First, because the common use of the sole species of Bread is
implied; and, secondly, because it is recognized that there are cases in which
a draught from the chalice must, for physical reasons, accompany the delivery
of the Host. But exactly what is meant by the dominici calicis haustum is not
obvious. The Eucharist brought to them by the priest must, from the context, be
taken to signify the Host alone; for it is this that the dying person cannot
consume by itself. To suppose that the phrase eucharistiam collatam sibi a
sacerdote includes the consecrated Wine would be to give to the term
eucharistia two different meanings in two consecutive sentences. Moreover,
against such an interpretation of the passage we have to consider not only the
inconvenience and risk attached to carrying forth the chalice and its contents
to any great distance from the church, but also the fact that whatever precise
information can up to this point be adduced is practically all on the side of
reservation in the one kind. How, then, is the reference to the chalice to be
explained There are two alternatives from which a choice may be made. We may
suppose that when the council issued this canon it had in mind the substitution
of communion at a private celebration, in or adjoining the sick-room, for the
regular method of administering viaticum. Such celebrations, though unusual,
were, as we have seen, by no means unknown; and they may have been allowed
when, for the reasons stated in the canon, the use of the chalice was
necessary. But this interpretation hardly suits the phrase, “the Eucharist
brought by the priest’’; and if the substitution of a private celebration for
the use of the reserved sacrament was intended, it is less clearly expressed
than might have been expected.
It is possible, on the other hand,
to understand that the draught accompanying the delivery of the Host (in this
case reserved) was of unconsecrated liquid; and if this were the sense of the
passage, it seems necessary to explain the use of the expression calix
dominicus by the theory that contact or admixture of the eucharistic Bread with
unconsecrated wine hallowed the contents of the vessel employed. For the
existence of this theory at so early a date we have no certain evidence, though
it had a very general vogue for a time after the eighth century.
While it must be admitted that no
really satisfactory sense of the passage can be determined, it is none the less
fairly evident that the use of the reserved species of Bread is regarded as
normal in the administration of clinical Communion.
It is reasonable to suppose,
however, that there was some diversity of practice. All manner of strange
usages in connection with the Eucharist were to be found within the limits of
Spain alone. The Third Council of Braga, sitting in the same year (A.D. 675) as
the Eleventh Council of Toledo, published a canon concerning certain abuses of
this sort, and included among them the use of intincted Hosts for communicating
the people. The prohibition of intinction was based upon the fact that
according to the Gospel account of the institution of the Eucharist the
disciples received the Bread and the Wine separately, and to the traitor alone
was given a sop, intinctum panem (St. John xiii. 26, Vulg.).
In the absence of any special
statement to the contrary, this prohibition would doubtless be held to apply to
clinical communions as well as to communion at the mass; yet, if it be rightly
assigned to the First Council of Lestines (A.D. 743), a canon put forth in
Belgium in the following century possibly prescribes the use of some sort of
intinction where the invalid is unconscious.
The liturgical sources of this age
do not greatly help in our inquiry. The Leonine Sacramentary provides no form
for the communion of the sick. In the Gelasian Sacra mentary, edited by Wilson,
and assigned by him to the seventh century or the early part of the eighth,
there is contained a series of prayers which accompany the celebration of mass
in a private house,” but there is no mention of sickness made in them, nor is
any formula of administration provided. Sickly infants are to be communicated
immediately after baptism, apparently with the eucharistic Bread, but the
language of the rubric is ambiguous. As to the Gallican rites, the Bobbio
Sacramentary gives a similar missa in domo cuiuslibet; the texts of the others
are imperfect. No doubt the very simplicity of the rite of administration of
the reserved Eucharist may account for the fact that no special directions on
this point are to be found in the early sacramentaries. It would only be
necessary to use, with whatever modification was necessary, the formulae
employed at the delivery of the elements at the public service; and these were
assumed to be so familiar that documents of the period do not insert them even
in the text of the Liturgy.
Of some importance too is the
frequent occurrence at this time of forms for hallowing the chrismal. As this
vessel is named among the ornaments of a church, it seems fair to maintain that
a receptacle for use in official reservation is intended. From a comparison of
the benediction of a chrismal in the Missale Francorum, and the benediction of
a turris in the Missale Vesontiomense, it appears that the two receptacles are
equivalent, and that both were used in official reservation for some purpose or
other, that may include the necessities of the sick.
From the numerous biographical
notices of the period we derive again but little aid toward solving the
problems which we have set ourselves to consider. The evidence at our disposal
gives no warrant for any very definite assertions concerning the manner and
form in which the sacrament was administered.
In the story of Caedmon’s end the
use of the Host alone is plainly implied, and we gather that it was customary
to reserve the Eucharist in the hospital where he died. He conversed with the
inmates of the hospital in a pleasant manner for some time, “until it was past
midnight, and then he asked whether they had the Eucharist in the house. ‘What
need is there of the Eucharist?’ they answered, “for you are not likely to die:
you talk as merrily as if you were in the best of health.” “However, he
replied, ‘bring me the Eucharist.’ So he received it into his hand, and asked
if they were all in charity with him. . . . ‘Then, fortifying himself with the
heavenly viaticum, he prepared to enter upon another life.’”
It is rarely, however, that so
detailed a picture is drawn as that which Bede has given us in his account of
Caedmon’s death. Most descriptions of clinical communion seem to presuppose the
use of the reserved sacrament, but positive information as to the mode of
administering it is exceedingly scanty. Mention of the two species is, indeed,
frequent; but we possess no means of ascertaining the real value of such
phrases—that is to say, how far expressions of this sort correspond with actual
practice. Moreover, where there is reason to believe that both the Bread and
the Wine were actually employed, we are still left to surmise in what form they
were administered, whether conjointly or separately. A few instances will
suffice to illustrate these remarks.
We meet, of course, with the term
viaticum (with or without further specification) scattered through the
literature of the time; as, for example, in the story of St. Hild, who according
to Bede received after midnight, “the viaticum of the most holy communion.”
Bede often uses the expression, “the
Body and Blood of the Lord.’’ He tells of St. Cuthbert that he was asked to
send a priest with the corporis et sanguinis domimici sacramenta to the dying
wife of an official at the court of King Egfrid; and, when the saint’s own end
was upon him, he also received the Body and Blood.
In language similar to this the same
author describes the last communion of St. Chad and of Benedict Biscop. The use
of the two species seems to be implied again in the Life of St. Eloy of Noyon
(+ A.D. 659), which was compiled by his contemporary, St. Ouen; and in the
biographies of St. Ansbert of Rouen (+ A.D. 695), of St. Vaast of Arras (+ A.
D. 540), and in the eighth-century Life of St. Vincentian, and elsewhere
besides.
How was the invalid actually
communicated in these cases Doubtless, as most of these people died in
monasteries, we may believe that, in some instances at least, they were
houselled directly from the altar, either during or immediately after one of
the regular masses, or from one that was celebrated for the express purpose of
providing viaticum. Such expedients, as we have already noticed, were not
unusual in religious houses.
Bede’s story of the child who died
in the monastery at Selsey is a case in point. It has already been mentioned in
another place; but here we may remark, first, that there was no use of the
reserved sacrament on this occasion, and secondly, that whereas the child is
bidden in his vision to ask for “viaticum of the Lord’s Body and Blood,” the
abbot is represented as sending to him from the mass in the monastic church a “fragment
(particulam) of the Lord’s oblation.”? It is hazardous to use these two
phrases, as some have done, in argument for the prevalence at this period of
conjoint administration of the two species. “viaticum dominici corporis et
sanguinis” and similar expressions are probably only common phrases of the
time, meaning merely the last communion, without reference to the form in which
it was given.
If we turn to the pages of Jonas of
Bobbio, who wrote the Lives of St. Columban and the early abbots of Bobbio, we
find that he constantly uses language which implies the use of the Host alone
as viaticum. A typical passage is to be found, e.g. in his story of the death
of another Columban, a companion of the saint who bore the name, where he
relates that the dying man received as viaticum the Body of Christ. And once
more, in reference to the last communion of a monk named Agibodus, he makes
mention only of the one element. Other examples from this writer, showing his
frequent use of similar phrases, are subjoined below. The impression left by
the perusal of these passages is that Jonas was probably familiar with the form
of clinical communion in which the Bread only was employed; and we might adduce
in support of this conclusion that passage in the additions to the rule drawn
up by its founder for the monastery at Bobbio, wherein participation in the
chalice at any time seems to be forbidden to uninstructed novices.
We may therefore sum up the two
centuries, c. A.D. 600–8oo, by saying that the sacrament was officially
reserved for the needs of sick and dying: that, in some places, at least, the
ancient method of extra-liturgical communion in the one species of Bread persisted,
although it is likely that wherever intinction was favorably regarded by
diocesan or other authority this practice might affect the mode in which the
Eucharist was reserved and administered.
(b) The second division of our
present period opens with the story of Charlemagne’s reforms in Church and
State. Of all the ecclesiastical reforms made at this period none were more
important than the revision of the Church’s service-books which led to the
adoption of the so-called Gregorian Sacramentary in preference to any of the
rites, Roman or Gallican, previously in use.
Between the years A.D. 784 and A.D.
791 Pope Hadrian sent to Charlemagne the famous document that has had so
permanent an influence upon all subsequent liturgical developments in the West.
But those who were charged with the
revision and reform of the service-books were not content to accept this new
sacramentary in its original condition. Where it seemed to lack, they supplied
the deficiency from material contained in the local rites. Thus it came about
that there was almost immediately associated with copies of the “Gregorian”
sacramentary a varying amount of material from Gallican and from other Roman
sources.
Among the things which Adrian’s
original lacked appears to have been an office for clinical communion.
The Carolingian ritualists,
therefore, inserted services for the sick and dying from rites with which they
were already familiar; possibly from the revised Gelasian books which preceded
the use of the “Gregorian” sacramentaries.
One of the earliest examples of
these mixed sacra mentaries was that of St. Remi of Reims, if (as was claimed)
it was written in the last few years of the eighth century. It is unfortunately
no longer in existence, for it perished by fire when the Abbey Library was
burnt out in 1774. Ménard, however, before this date had examined it, and
printed in his edition of the Gregorianum the ordo ad visitandum infirmum
provided in the manuscript.
It contains many points of interest.
In the first place it presents a very early example of a set of rubrical
directions which hereafter occur with great frequency in early mediaeval orders
for the communion of the sick.
After instructions for unction and
reconciliation there follows: “Let him (i.e. the officiant) communicate the sick
person, saying: ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to life
eternal. The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem thee to life eternal. The
peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the communion of the saints be with thee and
with us to eternal life. Amen.’”3 Then, comes a prayer, and subjoined to it is
this rubric: “And for seven days, or if need be for longer, the patient shall
be anointed and houselled; as the Apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost speaking
through him, directs: si in peccatis fuerit, dimittentur ei. Moreover the
ministers of holy Church are to take care that the daily offices be said in his
presence—that is to say, Mattins, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and
Compline. And if the bishop be present, he shall give a blessing; if not, the
priests present shall say one of the following prayers apiece.” Here the words
of delivery suggest the separate administration of both species.
But if the sick man is very weak and
near to death, the whole rite of unction, of reconciliation, and of communion,
is reduced to a minimum, and another formula of administration is provided. “The
Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve (custodial) thy soul to
eternal life.” It is noteworthy that, in contrast with the words of
administration prescribed in the former office, the two words corpus and
sanguis are here joined together, and grammatically form the subject of a
singular verb (custodial). It would be too much to assert that this must
necessarily mean that the Bread and Wine are given conjointly, but in view of
the circumstances for which this rubric provides that seems to be a reasonable
conclusion. For the difficulty in swallowing so often experienced by the dying
would be obviated by the use of a Host dipped into the contents of the chalice
immediately before delivery. If the use of intinction is intended, the language
of the rubric itself gives us no information as to which variety of the
practice shall be used. The use of a reserved Host previously intincted, and
used for hallowing an unconse crated draught, would suit the conditions
indicated and be in keeping with the custom of the time. This form of words of
delivery, with unimportant variations, is characteristic of a great number of
the “Gregorian” sacramentaries.
The constant supply of the reserved
Eucharist appears to be definitely ordered for the first time in the Capitula
Ecclesiastica issued by a council that met at Aix-la-Chapelle somewhere between
A.D. 8 Io–813, wherein it was enacted, “That the priest shall always keep the sacrament
in readiness, so that if anyone be overtaken by sickness or a child should be
ill, he may give them communion immediately, and none may die unhouselled.”
This injunction reappeared in
language almost or quite identical in such documents as the diocesan
capitularies of several prelates of this age; for example, in those of Rudolph
of Bourges (+ A.D. 866) and of Walter of Orleans (+ A.D. 891); and it was
included by Ansegisus, abbot of Fontanelle (+ A.D. 833), and by Regino, abbot
of Prüm (+ A.D. 915), in their collections of canons. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary we should be compelled to believe that reservation of
the single species was intended.
It is during the ninth century, too,
that we begin to meet with inquiries, made on episcopal or archidiaconal
visitations, as to whether the parish priest provides the reserved sacrament
for the communion of the sick, and whether he keeps it in a suitable vessel.
Bishop Hincmar of Reims (+ A.D. 858) used to ask on these occasions “Whether he
(the priest) has a pyx wherein the sacred oblation may be decently reserved for
the viaticum of the sick.” A similar inquiry leaves it doubtful whether the pyx
was constantly kept above the altar or to be suspended over it.
The regular renewal of the reserved
Eucharist is often dealt with. Ecclesiastical authorities appoint a definite
term, sometimes of three, more often of seven, occasionally of fourteen days,
at the conclusion of which the Host in the pyx was to be consumed and a
newly-consecrated one to be put in its place. Penances of varying degrees of
severity are allotted in the penitentials for failure to observe these
requirements.
But by far the most interesting
injunction of the period is a canon of uncertain date and origin preserved by
Regino of Prüm.
Let every priest have a pyx or other vessel worthy of so
great a sacrament, in which the Body of the Lord may be carefully stored for
the viaticum of those who leave this world. And this sacred oblation ought to
be intincted in the Blood of Christ, in order that the priest may be able to
say with truth, ‘The Body and Blood of the Lord avail thee.’ And let it always
be kept locked up on (or above) the altar, on account of mice or wicked men;
and let it be changed every third day; that is to say, the reserved Host shall
be consumed by the priest, and another, consecrated on the same day, shall be
substituted for it, lest by being kept too long it become mouldy, which God
forbid.
This is the one definite statement
that we have as to the use at this period of an intincted Host for reservation;
and it seems to explain much that would otherwise be ambiguous, including the
often incomplete and abrupt directions in many orders for the visitation of the
sick.
The prohibition of intinction by the
Council of Braga was evidently transitory and local in its effect, and probably
had no immediate influence upon the practice of the Church in Gaul and
elsewhere. By the tenth century intinction had come to be a common way in which
communion was given to the people at the mass. The injunction quoted above shows
that the sacrament was also in a conjoint form of reservation, and in this form
was spoken of as the corpus dominicum as well as in terms that express the
presence of both elements.
It is thus that we may explain the
rubric contained in the order for communion of the sick in the Leofric Missal.
The order is part of the original tenth-century sacramentary that forms the
bulk of the missal, and the rubric contains elements of the usual “Gregorian”,
sort, ordering the recitation of the daily offices on behalf of the sick
person. But the minister of viaticum is bidden to dip the Host in wine or
water, and to say as he does so, or as he communicates the invalid with the
saturated sacrament: “May the commixture and consecration of the Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ be to us and to all who receive for the remission of
all sins and for eternal life.” We may suppose that the Host which is intended
for use has been previously prepared in the way prescribed by Regino’s canon,
and that the immersion in wine or water is to facilitate the swallowing of the
sacrament. Still another method of preparing and storing intincted Hosts for
viaticum is suggested elsewhere. Instead of a pyx, a chalice seems to have been
used sometimes for the purpose of reserving the conjoint species. We are told,
in the ninth-century Life of the Alsatian Abbess Odilia (+ A.D. 720) that her
companions feared that she had died unhouselled, and that she was restored to
life in answer to their prayers. Then she asked for the chalice wherein the
sacrament—”the Body and Blood of the Lord”—was kept, and so made her communion.”
There is no hint in the narrative that she sent at mass time for the Eucharist,
and the natural sense of the passage is that the sacrament was reserved
conjointly in both kinds in a chalice.
Here brief note may be taken of the
Celtic Orders, collected by Warren, since it seems safe to place them all
within the limits of the period. According to Duchesne they are essentially
Roman in origin, that is to say “Gregorian” with varying admixture of Gallican
details. The orm prescribed in the “Stowe Missal” closely resembles those that
are found in the early group of mixed sacramen taries represented by that of
Noyon. The fragment preserved in the Book of Deer has a vernacular rubric, “Hisund
dubar sacorſaice dau,” i.e. “Here give him the sacrifice.” In these and in the
fragments written in the Books of Moling and of Dimma mention is made of the
two species, either in the words of delivery or in prayers associated with the
act of communion. The order in the Book of Moling uses the formula, “The Body
with the Blood of our Lord,” etc., and all seem to assume the use of the
sacrament conjointly administered. It seems highly probable too that it was
reserved in an intincted state.
Hitherto we have followed in this
section the evidence provided mainly by ecclesiastical legislation and
liturgical documents. For the purpose of illustrating these injunctions and
directions we may select from the abundant historical and biographical sources
of the period a few instances in which allusion is made to viaticum. The
fidelity with which the rubrics found in sacramentaries of the St. Remi type
were carried out in practice is seen in the story of how St. Rembert of Hamburg
(+ A.D. 888) was prepared for his end. A contemporary but unknown hand has
preserved his history. “On the seventh day preceding his death they began to
administer to him the unction with holy oil, and also the communion of the Body
and Blood of the Lord; until the day of his soul’s departure from the body he
daily received this salutary remedy.”
More often the narratives are less
detailed, but mention of two species is frequent. For example, St. Peter
Urseolus (+ c. A.D. 997), who had once been Duke of Venice and Dalmatia, but
spent his later years in the monastery of St. Michael, at Coxano in Catalania,
made his last commu nion thus: “Knowing beforehand the time of his departure,
he called the brethren with the father (i.e. the abbot) of the monastery, and
said good-bye to them, and gave them the kiss of peace. Then he received the
Body and Blood of the Lord, and blessing and absolution (absolutio piatica),
and was laid in ashes and sackcloth” to await the end. This one instance must
serve as a specimen of many similar passages. Again, reference is made to both
species in a canon issued by the ninth-century Synod of Pavia (Regia Ticina),
which laid down that penitents under public discipline were not to receive
unction unless they had been granted reconciliation, and so were fit to receive
the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.
In many biographies, such as that of
Charlemagne, the accounts of the passing are very meagre; it is merely stated
that the dying were accorded unction and viaticum.” More interesting, perhaps,
are some scattered passages which seem to imply the use of the one species of
bread.
The capitular of Isaac, bishop of
Langres (+ A.D. 880), contains a reference to the “sacrosanctum corpus,”
without any mention of the other species. “If anyone be over taken by sickness,
let him not end his life without commu nion, nor let him lack unction with the
sacred oil : rather, when he sees death approach, his soul shall be commended
to God by the priest, with prayers and the most holy Body.”
So again the ninth-century author of
the Life of St. Walfrid (+ A.D. 765) says that the saint kissed the brethren
one by one and blessed them; and then bade the Body of the Lord be brought, and
so made his communion. Such expressions may refer to the use of intincted
Hosts, for in the canon quoted by Regino, “corpus dominicum” is used for the
sacrament in conjoint form. But the same canon suggests (by insisting upon the
correspondence of actual practice with the formula employed) that the words, “The
Body and Plood of our Lord avail thee,” were sometimes used to accompany the
delivery of a non-intincted Host. This is important. For unless the allusion is
to mere disregard of existing practice on the part of individual priests, the
canon seems to be aimed against the perpetuation of the usage that was in vogue
before the introduction of intinction, where the Bread alone was held to
suffice in clinical communions.
The conclusions to which this review
of the first ten centuries lead are briefly these. The definite directions as
to constant reservation that first appear in the era of Carolingian reform do
not introduce a new or unfamiliar practice. They merely insist upon due
observance being maintained of existing custom, and appear to have given
sanction in certain areas to modifications of the primitive type of official
reservation. The most important of these modifications was the substitution of
an intincted for a simple Host.
