Intinction

John McClintock & James Strong, “Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,” Volume 4, (New York: Harper & Brothers 1891), 629.

Intinction is a name for one of the three modes in which the sacrament is administered to the laity of the Eastern Church (comp. Neale, Introd, East. Church,p.525), viz., by breaking the consecrated bread into the consecrated wine, and giving to each communicant the two elements together in a spoon, to prevent the possibility of a loss of either element. Some Greek liturgical writers assert that the practice of intinction was introduced by Chrysostom himself (which Neale approves), but the traditional evidence adduced docs nut well support this assertion; and the fact, which seems to be pretty well established, that the two elements were of old administered by two persons, and not by one only, as is done at present, makes it doubtful whether their admixture for communion was ever the ordinary practice. Bona (Rerum Liturg. II, xviii, 3), however, says that it was forbidden by Julius I (A.D. 337-352), whose decree, as given by Gratian (Distinct, ii, c. 7), speaks of it as a practice not warranted by the Gospel, in which Christ is represented as giving first his body and then his blood to the apostles; and, if this decree is authentic, it goes to prove that the practice was known during Chrysostom's time. The third Council of Braga (A.D. 675) decreed against it in their first canon in the identical words used by Julius I:

Illud, quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc probation ex evangclio testimonium recipit, ubi apostolis corpus suum et sanguinem comraendavit; seorsum enim panis et seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem aliis Christum non praebuisse legimus excepto illo tantum discipulo, quem proditorm ostenderet.

Micrologus (c. xix) asserts that the practice contradicted the primitive canon of the Roman liturgy, but this certainly cannot go to prove the time of its introduction into the Eastern Church. In the 11th century it was forbidden by pope Urban II (A.D. 1088-1099), except in cases of necessity; and his successor, Pascal II, forbade it altogether, and ordered in cases where difficulty of swallowing the solid element occurred, to administer the fluid element alone. Bona, however, quotes from Ivo of Chartres about this time a canon of a Council of Tours, in which priests are ordered to keep the reserved oblation "intincta in sanguine Christi, ut veracitcr Presbyter possit dicere infirmo, Corpus, et Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam."

The Convocation of Canterbury (A.D. 1175) expressed itself opposed to the practice of intinction in the following plain language: "Inhibemus ne quis quasi pro complemento communionis intinctam alicui Eucharistiam tradat." But from the word complementum the practice forbidden seems to have been as much the consumption of the super abundant elements by the laity as that of intinction. There can be no doubt, however, that the Western Church always stood committed against the practice, though some think that traces of it can be found, e. g. in the ancient Irish Visitation Office, written about the 8th century, and which was published by Sir William Bentham(comp. Hart, Eccles. Records, Introd. xiv).

///

William Herbert Freestone, “Alcuin Club Collections,” Volume 21 (The Sacrament Reserved), (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1917), 152-165

The Controversy About Intinction

               The use from earliest times of the eucharistic Bread alone in private reservation, and the high probability that under this sole kind the sacrament was also at first officially reserved, lead us to recognize, that the belief, which later found expression as the doctrine of concomitance, was ever implicit in certain uses of the Eucharist sanctioned by the Church.[1] But, until this doctrine had been definitely formulated by theologians, and had met with general acceptance,[2] there was room for the introduction of intinction, either of the “sacramental” or of the “consecratory” sort. Each of these modes of administration avoided any real or fancied inconveniences attached to the use of the chalice, and yet secured what was always considered the perfect and primitive ideal—the employment of both species. It was especially in clinical communion that the use of one or the other variety of intinction recommended itself by certain inherent advantages such as have already been discussed; and there is some evidence to show that during the ninth century definite attempts were made to bring the communion of the sick into closer conformity with the contemporary manner of communicating the people at mass. This was achieved sometimes by the reservation of intincted Hosts for piaticum, sometimes by “consecratory” intinction at the bedside.

               We shall probably not be wrong in reckoning these modifications of ancient usage as a result of the Carolingian reforms—for, at that period, eucharistic theology began to acquire an importance to which it had never before attained.[3]

               We have now to take note of the continuous witness for the use of intinction during the eleventh century, and at the same time see how a further phase of eucharistic controversy threw into confusion all existing custom in connection with the communion of the laity, and, in suppressing intinction, brought about an undesigned return to primitive tradition in the ministration of the Eucharist to the sick.

               Widespread as the custom had become both at open and at clinical communion, intinction began again to find opponents even before the close of the tenth century. This is plain from the writings of Abbo of Fleury (+ 1004), who, at that time, thought it necessary to apologize for the practice. “The example of Christ is quoted against it,” he says, “Who delivered a piece of steeped bread to Judas the traitor, into whom Satan entered after the sop. Yes, but as one who knows all hidden things, He gave it, that He might thereby expose the lost disciple ; whereas we, who are conscious of our own sins, offer the Eucharist to the brethren, not with this purpose but in commemoration of Christ.”[4]

               The old objection—that the intincted Host recalled the sop given to Judas—was strongly revived ; and, stated in the terms employed by the Council of Braga, it gained the more acceptance because it appeared as a decree of the fourth-century Pope Julius I, and as such passed into Canon Law.[5]

               In the eleventh century other factors came in to militate against the use of intinction. The strained relations existing between East and West were leading controversialists hitherto ignored, or at least regarded as unimportant, in order to emphasize the growing antagonism. For example, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist having become fairly general in the West by the end of the ninth century, this was later elevated into a serious matter of disagreement between the Greeks and Latins by partisans on both sides.[6] Similarly, when Cardinal Humbert, bishop of Silva Candida, and papal legate, was busy collecting pretexts for abuse of the Easterns, he condemned intinction and the delivery of the sacrament in a spoon as undesirable customs that traversed the commands given at the institution of the Eucharist. He asserts that in the West the Bread and the Wine are administered separately.[7] This statement, which denies the existence of intinction among the Latins, is hard to reconcile with the facts of the case, for undoubtedly the practice was in full vigour in many parts of the West at this time. But his remarks serve to show how the custom would soon cease to be viewed as a matter of indifference when the absence of intinction could be cited in controversy with the Greeks. This consideration would therefore help to account for the growing disfavour with which the practice came to be regarded in the West. Yet this was after all a minor point. In any case intinction stood condemned as soon as ever the implications of concomitance were worked out. Moreover, toward the end of the eleventh and during the early part of the succeeding century teachers like Hildebert of Tours and Anselm were asserting the doctrine in plainer terms than had ever been used before; while in certain localities zealous ecclesiastics were ready to carry the implication of this teaching to practical conclusions.

               For some time, however, intinction did not lack sup porters and apologists. Bishop John of Avranches, for example, while forbidding the clergy to receive intincted Hosts, defended the practice of communicating the people in this manner.[8] That is to say, he approved of the common Gallican usage of the preceding century, such as is described in the Codex Ratoldi, [9] in which the bishop is ordered to communicate the clergy above the rank of subdeacon with the separate species, while the subdeacons (and, by inference, all subordinate orders and lay folk) receive an intincted Host.[10] His defence of intinction is, as usual, made to rest upon an exaggerated fear of risk in administering the chalice to the laity. Anxiety on this score and the desire to avoid other forms of involuntary irreverence (which had already been the cause of several modifications in the administration of the chalice) were reinforced by the steadily growing acceptance of transubstantiation as the doctrine of the Church.[11]

               It was obviously open to an opponent of intinction to retort that the better way was to omit the second species altogether from the lay folks' houselling, since all were agreed that reception in the one kind was enough to pro cure the benefits of communion.[12] This argument, indeed, finally prevailed. But a worthy champion for intinction was found in the person of Ernulph, Bishop of Rochester. Early in the twelfth century he wrote a defense of the practice in reply to a correspondent who had asked him the reason why the communion was commonly delivered in a conjoint manner. Ernulph admits that the custom then in daily use was of comparatively recent growth, but he justifies it in a very able fashion. He draws attention to the fact that in instituting the sacraments our Saviour commands what we are to do, but leaves the manner of doing it to the discretion of the Church. No one is scandalized because customs and ceremonies have developed in connection with baptism; and the divine command to baptize contains no regulations about triple or simple immersion. As to the mere fact of mingling the two sacred species of the Eucharist, a priest does this whenever he performs the commixture, and no exception can be taken, therefore, to the act in itself. Then, of course, there is the objection that the conjoint sacrament resembles the sop given to the traitor. But, if this is allowed to have weight, we must be consistent and not only never use sops at our meals, but also abolish the kiss of peace; because by a kiss Judas betrayed his Lord. Everyone knows that men's beards and moustaches are apt to be a cause of unintentional irreverence at communion when the chalice is used; and it is not to be expected that a priest should housel some of his flock in one way and some in another. Intinction seems to be a natural and reverent way of delivering the sacrament. If it is still further urged that a (papal) decree can be quoted against it, there are other cases of such decrees being overruled by the practice of the Church. The section of Ernulph's letter dealing with these points is subjoined at length below, for it is written with independence of judgement and practical wisdom beyond the common.[13]

               Intinction was usual elsewhere than in England. 

               William of Champeaux (+ 1121), Bishop of Chàlonssur Marne, and a friend of St. Bernard, also discusses the question; and, while fully admitting the sufficiency of communion in the one kind, was impatient of the objection commonly urged against intinction. “As to reception of the Eucharist,” he says, “there is a certain diversity of practice, based upon various reasons, but it is really all one and the same thing. Reception of the intincted Bread has been forbidden on a frivolous pretext; namely, on account of the intincted morsel which the Lord delivered to Judas in order to expose him." Then he goes on to show that although the separate reception of the two species serves to bring to mind the manner of our Lord's offering of Himself; yet Christ in His entirety is received under either species. This, he says, is clear from the fact that infants are communicated, immediately after baptism, from the chalice alone.[14]

               But, in spite of all that might be said in its favor by isolated theologians, Intinction was doomed. Anselm was the dominant figure of the time, and under his guidance England led the way in applying the practical implications of concomitance. Robert Pullen (+1150), an eager parti san of the dominant theory, asked rhetorically, “Who will dare to join together that which the Lord preferred to minister apart.”[15] The final blow was dealt to intinction in this country in 1175, when a Synod sitting at West minster forbade the practice altogether; still on the supposition that an early Pope was the author of the prohibition to which reference has so often been made in this chapter.[16]

               Now, as intinction was falling into disrepute and at last came to be forbidden, it is clear that appeal might be made to earlier precedent for the restoration of the communion of the people in both species separately. To lodge such an appeal would be to ignore the real causes for which intinction had encountered disapproval; yet, in point of fact, it was actually made. Echoes of the controversy are found in the work of Micrologus, who is probably to be identified with Bernold of Constance (+ 1100).[17] He argues from the Ordines Romani against intinction, but at the same time he adduces against communion in the sole kind of Bread that prohibition which was supposed to have been put forth in the fifth century by Pope Gelasius against the Manichees.[18] His remarks apply to the communion at the mass, from which the old regular custom of separate delivery to the laity had never wholly disappeared, even in those parts of the Western Church where intinction had become the prevailing fashion. 

               The ruling of the Council of Claremont (1095) was in favor of separate administration, and the use of the con joint sacrament was confined to cases of necessity, or where some risk was involved in the use of the chalice.[19] The same policy was approved by Pope Paschal about the same time. 

               It is possible to cite writers of this period, including some of the most prominent theologians of the day, who appear to regard separate delivery of the elements to the laity as the rule at the public communion. Ivo of Chartres (+ c. 1115) includes the Gelasian injunction in his Decretal,[20] and elsewhere speaks as though the reception of the two distinct species by the laity were usual.[21] Lanfranc, writing after 1063, says that “the Flesh of the Lord is that which we receive in the sacrament hidden under the form of bread, and that is His Blood which we drink under the appearance and taste of wine.”[22] He may not have had in mind the communion of the people, but Rupert of Deutz (+ 1135) is certainly speaking of the faithful generally when he says that the Bread and Wine placed by the priest in their mouths is consumed and passes away.[23] Honorius of Autun (+ after 1130) is even more explicit: “the people who have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ and washed in the water of Baptism, communicate in Christ by feeding upon this Food and by drinking this Wine.”[24] Elsewhere he refers to the deacon's privilege of distributing in the church the sacred Blood.[25] St. Bernard, writing against the early Albigenses, alludes to the existence of evil priests who none the less, by virtue of their office, distribute the Body and Blood of the Lord to good and bad alike. Lower down in the same treatise he speaks of the Blood of the Lord being set before us in the appearance of wine, and being tasted and drunk under this form.[26] The list might be extended, but here are names enough to show that, in spite of the growth of other customs, the primitive manner of communicating at mass either survived in many places or was reassumed after intinction had begun to pass out of use. At the most, however, this perpetuation of, or reversion to, separate administration of the elements to the laity was only a temporary phase. 

               For, apart from the main factor in this matter, i.e. the dominance of concomitance, the atmosphere of the time was in every respect favourable to the develop ment of the discipline by which the sacrament of the chalice was withdrawn entirely from the communion of the people. The carefulness in regard to the material of the Eucharist that the penitentials had fostered was magnified, under the influence of those opinions that had issued victorious from the Berengarian controversy, into extreme scrupulosity concerning the remotest risk of mishap. The lines of Rudolph of St. Trond express perfectly the mind of his age: 

               “Every where let this precaution be had ; that the priest to lay-folk, sick and whole, deliver not the Blood of Christ. For it might lightly be spilled; and the simple would think that Jesus in His fullness is not in each kind.”

               Therefore we find Papal authority, in the person of Innocent III, deciding in the early years of the thirteenth century that intinction must cease,[27] and that henceforth statements that contradict the doctrine of concomitance will be regarded as heretical.[28]

---

[1] The term was coined by St. Thomas, but the formulation of the doctrine begins with Eutychius of Constantinople (f A.D. 582) in the East and Isidore of Seville (f A.D. 636) in the West. (See Darwell Stone, History of the Doctrine of the Holy Euchariſt, i. pp. 140, 198.)

In our period Hildebert of Tours (t 1 133) is prominent as a teacher of this doctrine; Te Cena Domini : “in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum, verum deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum.” (P.L. clxxi. 535.) Witmund of Averia, pupil of Lanfranc and opponent of Berengar, treats of an allied question : “eucharistiae sacrae perceptio non in quantitate sed in virtute consistit . . . tota hostia est corpus Christi ut nihilominus unaquaeque particula separata sit totum corpus Christi.” (P.L. cxlix. 1434 f.) Anselm (Ep. iv. 1 o') is careful to combat the opinion of certain divines that either species conveys a special gift : “mon tamen intelligendum est quod in sanguinis perceptione solam animam, non etiam corpus ; vel in acceptione corporis solum corpus non etiam animam suscipiamus; sed in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum, deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum suscipiamus.” (P.L. clix. 255.) Other theologians, e.g. Peter Lombard and Albertus Magnus, while asserting the sufficiency of communio ſub una ſpecie, admit the greater perfection, at least in symbol, of reception in both kinds. cf. also William of Champeaux, as quoted below, p. 159.

[2] It was not until the Council of Trent that concomitance was actually defined as de fide. Even at Constance (1415) the withdrawal of the chalice from the laity was treated only as a point of ecclesiastical discipline : “quod nullus presbyter sub poena excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis et vini.” (Sessio xiii. in Hard. Concil. viii. 382.)

[3] For the eucharistic controversy initiated by Paschasius Radbert, see Gore, TXissertations, pp. 236 ft.

[4] Collectio Canon. ad Hugon. (43) de communione : “attamen Christi exemplum occurit, qui Judae proditori intinctum panem porrexit, de quo scriptum est, quia post bucellam introlvit in eum Satanas. Sed ille, ut secretorum non ignarus, ad ostensionem perditi discipuli panem porrexit : nos vero peccatorum nostrorum conscii, non ad ostensionem, sed ob commemorationem Christi, eucharistiam praebeamus fratri.” (Mabillon, ‘Uet. Analecta. (vol. iv. of D'Achery, Spicileg. p. 146).)

[5] The “decree” (in Canon Law, Decret. III. ii. 7) is really a patch work, of which the chief constituents were drawn from the first canon of the Third Council of Braga (A.D. 713) and from one promulged by the Fourth Council of Orleans (A.D. 541). No reference to intinction occurs in the latter source. In part of the text subjoined the principal extracts from the authentic canon of Braga are indicated by italics:  (7). “ . . . auditimus . . . allos quoque intinctam eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigere, quos (Quosdam) etiam expressum vinum in ſacramento dominici calicis offerre ; alios vero pannum lineum in musto intinctum per totum annum reservare, et in tempore sacrificii partem eius aqua lavare et sic offerre ; quod quam sit evangelicae et apostolicae doctrinae contrarium et consuetudini ecclesiasticae adversum . . . Illud zero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt euchariſtiam populis mec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt ubi apoſtolis corpus suum commendarit et sanguinem. Seorſum enim panis, et seorum calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem aliis Christum praebuisse non legimus, excepto illo (illi) tantum discipulo, quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti Äuius institutionem signaret. . . .” (Bruns., ii. 97.)

[6] See Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist (Alcuin Club Tracts xi), pp. 18 f. Neither the question of leavened and unleavened bread, nor the question of intinction was raised by Ratram in his Contra Graecorum Oppoſita. (P.L. cxxi. 223–346.)

[7] Adv. Graecorum calumnias. 32 : “deinde quod sanctum panem vitae aeternae in calicem intritum cum cochleari sumere consuestis. . . . Neque enim ipse dominus panem in calice vini intrivit et sic apostolis dedit, dicens: accipite et cum cochleari comedite ; hoc est corpus meum. Sed, sicut sancta Romana ecclesia usque nunc observat, panem integrum bene dixit et fractum singulis particulatim distribuit, dicens: accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum. Quibus, postguam coenatum est, calicem porrexit dicens: bibite ex ed omnes. . . .” c. 33 : “siquidem tenues oblatas ex simula praeparatas integras et sanas sacris altaribus nos quoque super pomimus, et ex ipsis post consecrationem fractis cum populo communicamur. Et tunc demum calice meri et liquidi cruoris potamur: quandoquidem nemini discipulorum nisi Judae proditori intinctum panem a domino por rectum invenimus, significante quod eum esset traditurus; pari modo etiam residuum dominicae oblationis reponimus.” (P.L. cxliii. 951, 952.)

[8] De officiis eccles.: “non autem intincto pane, sed juxta definitionem Toletani (ſic) concilii seorsum corpore seorsum sanguine, sacerdos com communicate, with the exception of the people, whom the dipped bread, it is not the authority, but in extreme necessity he of the fear of spilling the blood of Christ, is permitted to communicate with him. " (Pl Ps. 37.)

[9] Ménard, Rock St. "The priests and deacons to share with the kiss of peace, yet dry cereal; And SUBDEACON mixed meal." PI Lxxvii. 265. Custom varied from place to place, monastic usage frequently differed from those followed in secular churches. See Smend (kekh pendung) pp. 21 ft and footnotes.

[10] cf. Consuetud. Antic. Cluniacens. Monaat. 2. 30: "quotguot own body sacrum gives every blood before dipping." (DAchery, Spirileg. I, 678; Marténe, Ant. Man Kit. 2. IV. 15.)

[11] The term “transubstantiatio’’ occurs first in the writings of St. Peter Damian (1 1071), if the treatise, Expositio canon missae, be really his (cc. 7, 14, 16; in P.L. cxlv. 883, 888, 889). See Darwell Stone, Toctrine of Holy Eucharist, I. pp. 259, 260. It is also used by Hildebert of Tours (Serm. xciii; in P.L. clxxi. 776), and the verb transubstantiare by Stephen of Autun (t 1139) in his work De Sacramento altaris (cc. 13, 14; in P.L. clxxii. 1291, 1293). Both noun and verb are generally used from the twelfth century. The Lateran Council of 12 15, in authorizing the term and its implications, only set the seal to opinions that had for some time been current and powerful.

[12] Certain divines of the period, e.g. Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, and Albertus Magnus, while asserting the sufficiency of the communio sub una ſpecie, admitted the “greater perfection,” at least in symbolism, of the fuller form of communion. See Scudamore, N.E., pp. 718 fl., for quotations.

[13] Epist. II ad Lambertum : “Prima ergo posita est percunctatio de sacra mento altaris ; ita proposita, ut quaeratur, cur hodierna ecclesiae consuetudo alio et pene contrario ritu censeat porrigi corpus dominicum quam a domino in coena discipulis suis fuerit distributum. Id enim quotidianus ecclesiae praetendit usus, ut tribuatur hostia sanguine intincta, cum a domino prius corpus, deinde sanguis porrectus fuisse memoretur. Quem etiam morem ecclesiae ex decretis Julii papae nitimini improbare, quibus idem papa dominicum commendat ordinem et apostolica confidentia ecclesiasticam arguit dispositionem, adjiciens intinctam panis buccellam dominum proditori suo contulisse. . . . De cuius dubietatis ambiguitate quod intelligimus, quod a nostris doctoribus accepimus, edicere parati SuImuS.

Redemptor noster veniens in mundum quia propter hominum salutem inter homines apparuit, quaeque reparationi infirmitatis humanae commoda seu necessaria fore praevidit, sicut oportere vidit in sapientia sua ita ab hominibus fieri et esse voluit in ecclesia sua. Haec eis cum quibus conver sari dignatus est, verbo vel exemplo insinuavit, quae facienda erant docens, certum quo facienda erant modo praefigere omittens. Hinc esse videtur quod ait, hoc facite im meam commemorationem. Non ait, hoc modo facite. Et, ite baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Non ait, hoc modo baptizate, non ait semel mergite aut tertio mergite. Non äit, scrutinium facite, chrisma sacrate. Qua in re insinuasse videtur quae praecepta sunt non fieri non licere ; pro ratione vero necessitatis vel honestatis alio et alio modo fieri licere. . . . Qui ergo quaerit cur non accipiantur exemplo dominico singulatim, quae de altari sumuntur nova consuetudine simul mixta, simili ratione quaerere potest, cur non sumantur in simili loco aut de simili mensa vel in simili forma, aut cur etiam aliud sumatur, videlicet aqua, quae a domino non legitur in coena csse porrecta. Si vero ea necessariis causis intelligit rationabiliter esse parta ac reperta, noverit et ea de quibus quaeritur, et cur aliter fiant quam a domino facta sunt inquiritur, ratione non inferiori esse comparata. Porro cur miratur quispiam quod sacramenta porriguntur simul mixta ? Nonne indesinenter in dominici corporis et sanguinis consecratione, diviso corpore in tres partes, una a sacerdote, videlicet quae ab ipso sumenda est, in calice reservatur, sanguini admiscetur, sanguine infunditur, cum sanguine sumitur ? Quis sacerdotem peccare dicat dum in quotidiano tanti mysterii officio carnem cum sanguinis suscipit admixtione ? Si ergo bonum est sumere hostiam sanguine infusam, malum erit sumere hostiam sanguine intinctam ? Quod qui malum non esse agnoverit, desinet mirari, cum ratione factum esse cognoverit. Arguitur iste mos ex eo quod buccellae intinctae a domino traditori suo porrectae similitudinem videtur habere. Id si diligenter inspiciatur, nihil dignum reprehensione continere videbitur. Si enim exteriora pensentur nemo dicet justum hominem edere non debere panem intinctum in sua coena, quia id proditor manducavit Judas in dominica coena. Aut nemo ideo non dabit osculum pacis, quia Judas osculo dedit signum proditionis ? Simili modo quid nobis obstat accipere corpus domini dominico sanguine intinctum, licet Judas accepit buccellam de manu domini dominico vino intinctam. Si autem interiora cogitemus, propter aliud ille, propter aliud nos. Ille in suae signum nequitiae, in signum doli et proditionis, quam mente gerebat, de manu domini buccellam intinctam intinctus fraude suscepit. Nos carnem domini intinguimus in sanguine domimi, non ut designemus malitiam esse in cordibus nostris, sed me accipientes, sive porrigentes, peccemus non habita forte competenti cautela in labiis et manibus nostris. Evenit enim frequenter ut barbati et prolixos habentes gramos, dum poenlum inter epulas sumunt prius liquore pilos inficiant, quam ori liquorem infundant. Ii si accesserint ad altare liquorem sanctum bibituri, quo modo periculum devitare poterunt inter accipiendum, quomodo uterque, accipiens videlicet et porrigens, effugient grande peccatum ? Praeterea si imberbes et sine granis, aut mulieres, ad sumendam communionem sanctam conveniant, quis sacerdotum poterit tam provide ministrare, tam caute calicem domini distribuere, ut multis eum singulatim dividat, dividens sic in ora eorum fundat, ut infundens nihil effundat ? Saepe enim dum sibi soli calicem infundere disponit, negligentia aut imprudentia faciente effusionis periculum incurrit ; quanto facilius in multitudine posito sacerdoti, multis diversarum formarum ministranti, con tingere potest, unde graviter offendat, unde eum asperam poenitentiam agere oporteat?

Ne ergo polluamus sanguinem mostrae redemptionis, ne tamquam impietatis manibus effundamus poculum humanae salutis, a religiosis viris provide actum est, ut dominici portiuncula corporis non sicca, sicut dominum egisse novimus, porrigatur, sed domini infusa sanguine fidelibus tribuatur. Quo pacto evenit, ut secundum salvatoris praeceptum eius carnem edat, sanguinem bibat, periculum evadat, quem in tanta re offendere oppido formidat. Id enim solidum edimus, id liquidum bibimus, quod simul separatimve ore sumptum per guttum trajicimus : in qua distributione nemo ut dictum est formidare debet, quod buccella panis intincta proditori domini a domino similiter est porrecta. Nom enim ea operatio congruam habet similitudinem, quae causae habet dissimilitudinem. Unde Julii papae decreta quamquam rationabiliter data perfuere, apud aliquos modernos hac in parte quievere, ecclesiae praevaluit consuetudo, quae pondere rationis antecellit eminentiore. Nec mirum, rationabilem usum tantis actum necessariis causis Julii decretis anteponi, cum legamus et ipsis quotidianis actionibus frequentari videamus, caeterorum instituta pontificum propter similes, aut inferioris, ut videtur, generis causas discretiore prudentia esse mutata. Telesphorus papa in decretis suis missarum officia qua hora celebranda sint, his verbis absolvit. Nocte sancta mativitatis domini missas celebrent, etc. Reliquis temporibus missarum celebrationes ante horam diei tertiam minime sunt celebrandae, quia eadem hora et dominus crucifixus et super apostolos Spiritus Sanctus descendisse legitur.' Quod cujus decretum quam pauci servavere, quam multi abjecere, testatur ecclesiastici frequentia servitii ; testatur ipsa pro fidelibus vivis ac defunctis sacerdotalis oratio et domini corporis et sanguinis quotidiana immolatio, testatur nec non pro se ac suis sive id fieri petens, seu praesentiam suam exhibens popularis multitudo. Intellexerunt enim satius esse, multis horis multas fieri oblationes quam usque ad horam tertiam pluribus omissis paucarum oblationum fieri dilationes. Similiter Victor papa in decretis suis docet baptismum faciendum esse in pascha, sic dicens: eodem tempore, id est paschae, baptismus est celebrandus catholicis. Si tamen mortis periculum ingruerit, gentiles ad fidem venientes quocumque loco, vel tempore bap tizentur,''' etc. (D'Achery, op. cit. III. pp. 47 1, 472.)

[14] De sacramento altaris: “De perceptione eucharistiae diversi quidem usus sunt secundum aliquas causas, sed res eadem. Quod enim panis intinctus prohibitus est accipi, ex frivola causa fuit, scilicet pro buccella intincta, quam dominus Iudae ad distinctionem porrexit : tamen cum fide bonum est. Item quod utraque species per se accipitur, eo fit, ut memoria corporis quod in cruce visibiliter pependit, et memoria sanguinis qui cum aqua de latere fluxit, arctius teneatur, et quasi praesentetur. Tamen sciendum, quod qui alteram speciem accipit, totum Christum accipit. Non enim accipitur Christus membratim vel paullatim, sed totus, vel in utraque specie, vel in altera. Unde et infantulis mox baptizatis solus calix datur, quia pane uti non possunt, et in calice totum Christum accipiunt. Dandus autem est calix eis, quia sicut non potest ad vitam quis ingredi sine baptismo, ita nec sine hoc vitali viatico. . . . Quod ergo dicitur utramque speciem opportere accipi, haeresis plane est. Quamvis enim utraque sacramenta ibi sint secundum fractionem et odorem et colorem et saporem ; tamen in utraque specie totus est Christus, qui post resurrectionem quidem ex toto est invisibilis, impassibilis, indivisibilis ; ita ut nec sanguis sine carne, nec caro sine sanguine, nec utrumque sine anima humana, nec tota humana matura sine Verbo Dei sibi personaliter counito. Et ideo licet in alterutra specie totus sumatur ; tamen pro causa praedicta sacramentum utriusque speciei ab ecclesia immutabiliter retinetur. Sunt enim in ecclesia sacramenta quae mutari licet, sunt quae non licet ; ut de aqua baptismi, de his speciebus, de oleo consecrationis. . . .'' (P.L. clxiii. io39.)

[15] Sentent. viii. c. 3 : “Qualiter a laicis Eucharistia sumi deberet, sponsae suae commisit judicio, cuius consilio et usu pulchre fit, ut Caro Christi laicis distribuatur. Nimirum periculose fieret, ut Sanguis sub liquida specie multitudini fidelium in ecclesia divideretur, longe peri culosius infirmatis per parochiam deferretur. Nam quia Caro absºlue Sanguine non est, nec Sanguis alibi est nisi in Carne, quisquis alteru trum sumit, neutrum insumptum derelinquit. Quod si bene credit, mon tamen se bene credere ostendit, quisquis dum Carnem tribuit, Sanguine intingit, quasi aut Caro Sanguine careat, aut Sanguis extra Carnem existat. Libere utique et secure fatendum est, alterum absgue altero sumi non posse; dubiumque non est, quin si cui, ut facilius in sumatur, pervalde infirmato Sanguis infunditur, satisfactum sit com munioni. Nam panem intinctum quis audeat porrigere, cum Dominus per se panem, per se calicem porrexerit Quis audeat conjungere, quae Dominus maluit separata ministrare — Sed dices: absque exemplo Domini cur non praebeam intinctum, cum tu praebere non dubites alterum sine altero Dispensatio ecclesiae, ne quid inconvenientis subori atur utrumque circumferre non consuevit, eademque ratione vitans effusionem, intingere pertimescit. Intinctus panis intinctae inquina taeque mentis viro tradebatur Iudae. Nihil tale taliterque fidelibus exhibeatur. Tamen pleraque per loca panis intinctus porrigitur, qua tenus, ut aiunt, et iuxta evangelium utrumque distribuatur et res ita securius atque expeditius transagitur. Verum et Christus aliter fecit, et id mutari auctoritas Romana obnixe interdicit.” (P.L. clxxxvi. 963, 964.)

[16] Can. 16: “Inhibemus me quis quasi pro complemento communionis intinctam alicui Eucharistiam tradat. Nam intinctum panem aliis Chris tum praebuisse non legimus excepto illi tantum discipulo, quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderit, non quae Sacramenti huius institutionem signaret.” (Hard. vi, pt. 2, 1638.)

[17] de eccles. observat. 29 : “de vitanda intinctione : non est autem authenticum quod quidam Corpus Domini intinguunt et intinctum pro complemento communionis populo distribuunt. Nam Ordo Romanus contradicit, quia et in Parasceve vinum non consecratum cum dominica ora tione et dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plene possit communicare. Quod utique superflue praecipere si intinctum dominicum a priore die Corpus servaretur et intinctum populo ad com municandum sufficere videretur. Julius quoque papa in ordine trige simus sextus, episcopis Aegypti scribens, huiusmodi intinctionem penitus prohibet, et seorsum panem, seorsum calicem, juxta dominicam institu tionem sumenda docet. Unde et beatus Gelasius Papa . . . scribens quibusdam episcopis, excommunicari illos praecipit, quicumque sumpto Corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent.” (Hittorp, op. cit. p. 742.)

[18] Can. 28: “Ne aliquis communicet de altari nisi Corpus separatim et Sanguinem similiter nisi per necessitatem et cautelam.” (Hard. vi, pt. 2, 1719.)

[19] See the passage quoted below, p. 170.

[20]   Decret. II, de Corpore et Sang. Dom. 89. (P.L. clzi. 182.)

[21] Serm. I. (de sacramentis neophytorum) : “unde etiam, si eius est valetudinis, sacramentis unitatis, id est Christi Corpore et Sanguine, con firmatur.” (P.L. clxii. 512.) Again, “Ipsi qui sumimus communionem sancti panis et calicis unum Christi Corpus efficimur.” (P.L. cxlix. 1434.)

[22] de Corpore et Sanguine Domini : “caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, et Sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie ac sapore potamus.” (P.L. cl. 423.)

[23] de officiis divinis. II. 9: “cum in ora fidelium sacerdos distribuit, panis et vinum adsumitur et transit.” (P.L. clxx. 4o f.)

[24] Gemma animae I. 33: “quia populus Sanguine Christi redemptus per aquam baptismatis ablutus per pastum huius cibi et per potum huius vini Christo communicatur.” (P.L. clxxii. 555 f.) 

[25] op. cit. 180: “ diaconorum officium est in ecclesia Sanguinem Domini distribuere.” (P.L. clxxii. 599.) 

[26] adv. Catharos. Serm. I 1 : “Dominus tolerat malos sacerdotes et sinit eos potestatem habere in ecclesia et distribuere Corpus et Sanguinem suum tam bonis quam malis . . . Sanguis dominicus in specie vini nobis praesentatur et in sapore vini gustatur et hauritur.” (P.L. cxcv. 88 f.) 

“Hic et ibi cautela fiat ne presbyter aegris aut sanis tribuat laicis de Sanguine Christi. Nam fundi posset leviter; simplexque putaret Quod non sub specie sit totus Jesus utraque.” (P.L. clxxiii. 193 f.)

Contrast, however, instructions issued under Richard Marsh, Bishop of Durham, in a Synod c. 1220 : “Instruere insuper debetis laicos quoties communicant quod de veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi nullo modo dubitent. Nam hoc accipiunt, procul dubio, sub panis specie, quod pro nobis pependit in cruce. Hoc accipiunt in calice quod effusum est de Christi latere. Hoc bibunt, dicit Augustinus, credentes quod prius fuderunt saevientes.” (Wilkins, Concil. i. 578.)

[27] de sacro altar. myst. vi. 1 3: “Quia vero Christus buccellam intinctam Judae porrexit. Unde constitutum estab ecclesia ut Eucharistia non detur intincta.” (P.L. ccxvii. 866.)

[28] ibid.: “Constitutum est nihilominus et pro haeresi exstirpanda quae dogmatizavit Christum sub neutra specie totum existere sed sub utraque simul existere totum.” (P.L. loc. cit.)