There
are two distinct issues involved with the custom of Communion in the hand.
First, there is the historical question pertaining to the origins and
prevalence of Communion in the hand in early church, and then there is the
manner in which it was reintroduced in the 20th century in the Roman
Rite. In this article, I will deal specifically with the historical question
pertaining to the origins and prevalence of Communion in the hand.
According to William Smith and Samuel
Cheetham,[1]
There is abundant proof, besides that already adduced, that
the Eucharistic bread was in ancient times delivered into the hands of
communicants. Thus, Ambrose (in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. v. 17) asks Theodosius,
after the massacre of Thessalonica, how he could venture to receive the Lord's
Body with hands still dripping from the slaughter of the innocent; and
Augustine (c. Litt. Petiliani, ii. 23) speaks of a bishop in whose hands his
correspondent used to place the Eucharist, and receive it into his own hands
from him in turn; and Basil (Ep. 289) says that in the church the priest
delivers a portion of the Eucharist into the hand, and the communicant carries
it to his mouth with his own hand. Chrysostom (Hom. 20, ad Pop. Antioch. c. 7)
speaks of the need of having clean hands, considering what they may bear. The
narrative in Sozomen (H. E. viii. 5) of a transaction of Chrysostom's describes
a woman after receiving the bread into her hand bowing her head as if to pray,
and passing on the particle she had received to her maid-servant.
The 101st canon of the Trullan Council (an. 692) reprehends
a practice which had sprung up of providing receptacles of gold or other
precious material for the reception of the Eucharist. After insisting on the
truth, that man is more precious than fine gold, the canon proceeds: “if any
man desires to partake of the immaculate Body . . . let him draw near,
disposing his hands in the form of a cross, and so receive the communion of the
divine grace;” and priests who gave the Eucharist into such receptacles
(öoxeſa) were to be excommunicated. John of Damascus also (de Fid. Orthod. iv.
14) desires Christians to dispose their hands in the form of a cross to receive
the body of the Crucified. His contemporary Bede (Hist. Eccl. iv. 24) describes
Caedmon on his deathbed (about 680) as receiving the Eucharist into his hand.
As he mentions this without comment, it was no doubt the practice of his own
time also.
Before the end of the 6th century women were forbidden to
receive the Eucharist on the naked hand, and were compelled to receive it on a
napkin called dominicale. See the Council of Auxere, canons 36 and 42.
Caesarius of Arles, in a sermon printed as St. Augustine's (Serm. 252, de
Tempore), exhorts the women to have their hearts as clean as the napkin which
they brought to receive the Body of Christ. The Greek Fathers however say
nothing of any such practice, and the censure of the Trullan Council [can. 101]
would evidently apply as well to linen as to other materials.
How long the practice of giving the Eucharist into the hands
of lay persons continued in the Roman Church cannot be precisely determined.
Gregory the Great (Dialogus, iii. c. 3) asserts indeed that Pope Agapetus
(535–536) placed the Eucharist in the mouth of a certain dumb and lame person;
but from a case so peculiar nothing can be concluded, except that the express
mention of the sacrament being placed in the mouth of this person probably
indicates that the general practice was otherwise. At the time when the Ordo
Romanus VI was drawn up (9th century),[2]
the ancient practice had ceased at Rome, for the form of reception which was
not permitted to subdeacons was certainly not permitted to the laity. A council
held at Rouen (probably in the year 880) strictly prohibited presbyters from
placing the Eucharist in the hand of any lay person, male or female, commanding
them to place it in their mouths. This practice, which probably originated in a
desire to protect that which is holy from profane or superstitious uses,
gradually became the almost universal rule of the Church.
We find explicit reference to the custom
of administering Holy Communion in the hands without embarrassment, in
patristic authors such as
(5) St.
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264)[7]
(6) St.
Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258)[8]
(7) St.
Aphraates (c. 280 – 345)[9]
(8) St.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313 – 386)[10]
(9) St.
Basil the Great (c. 330 – 379)[11]
(10)
St. Ambrose (c. 340 – 397)[12]
(11)
St. John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407)[13]
(12)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 – 428)[14]
(13)
St. Augustine (c. 354 – 430)[15]
(16)
St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 470-542)[18]
(18)
St. Bede (c. 672 – 735)[20]
(19)
St. John of Damascus (c. 675 – 749)[21]
We also find the custom of Communion in the hand mentioned in the Synod
of Auxerre (578)[22] and
the Council in Trullo (692).[23]
As we see from the early and widespread testimony of the church fathers, the
custom of Communion in the hand was pretty much the universal norm of the early
church.
So when did the custom
of administering Communion on the tongue come into existence? Some have
suggested that it originated in the Upper Room (Jn 13:26). However, there are
at least two reasons to assume that this is not the case. First, we don’t find
any evidence that priests ever received Communion directly on the tongue.[24] But
we do find contrary evidence of this. For example, St. Augustine writes,
To
this we may add, that I refer to a man who lived with you, whose birthday you
were wont to celebrate with such large assemblies, with whom you joined in the
kiss of peace in the sacraments, in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to
whom in turn you extended your hands to receive it.[25]
Secondly, the custom of
sacramental intinction (dipping the Host in the consecrated wine) was strictly
prohibited in the early church (precisely because of its association with Judas).
The earliest evidence we have of sacramental intinction is found in the late
seventh century. The Third Council of Braga (675) indirectly alludes to the custom
in its condemnation: “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.”[26] Likewise,
the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675), which was held in the same year, also
prohibits intinction.[27]
Popes Urban II (1088 – 1099) and Pascal II (1099 – 1118) would also come to prohibit
sacramental intinction.[28] As
far as when the custom reached the East, there isn’t sufficient evidence to establish
an exact date. According
to Eastern Catholic liturgist Fr. Robert Taft,
Prior
to the eleventh century, sources for the rite of Constantinople continue
uniformly to reflect this old tradition of communion under both species
separately, and in the communicant’s uncovered hands. And when communion of the
two sacred species together, via intinction using a spoon, was eventually
introduced into Orthodox usage around the turn of the first millennium, it was
condemned as an unheard of innovation – which indeed it was. For the ancient
tradition – and here goes another cliché – was not communion under both
species, as one heard so often repeated, but communion under both species
separately... As late as the first half of the twelfth century, communion via a
spoon was apparently still viewed as an innovation in need of defense, if one
can trust the letter attributed to Constantinopolitan Patriarch Michael II
Kourkouas (1143-1146).[29]
So when did the custom
of Communion on the tongue (without reference to intinction) come into
existence? The earliest explicit evidence we have is from the late ninth century.
According to liturgist Fr. Josef A. Jungmann,
A
general prescription of the Council of Rouen (c. 878) reads as follows:
"Let not the Eucharist be put in the hand of any lay man or woman, but
only in the mouth." The change of custom is contemporaneous with the
transition from leavened to unleavened bread, and is probably related to it.
The delicate pieces of thin wafer almost invited this method of distribution,
since, unlike the pieces of unleavened bread formerly used, they easily adhered
to the moist tongue.[30]
As
far as when the custom reached Rome, the Ordo Romanus VI, which is dated between the 10th and
11th century,[31] states
that subdeacons received Communion on the tongue, implying the laity did
likewise.
Similarly, too, touching the days
of Stations,[33]
most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the
ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord's Body.
Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to
God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God's
altar? When the Lord's Body has been received and reserved each point is
secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of
duty. If the "Station" has received its name from the example of
military life — for we withal are God's military — of course no gladness or
sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the "stations" of the
soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more
carefully.
Tertullian is alluding
to the custom of receiving Communion at home, which implies that Communion was distrusted
in the hands.
2.
Hippolytus
of Rome (c. 170 – 235):[34]
And let us all take care that no
unbaptized person taste of the Eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, and that
none of it fall and be lost. For it is the body of
Christ to be eaten by them that believe and not to be thought lightly of. For
having blessed the cup in the Name of God you did receive it as the anti-type
of the Blood of Christ. Wherefore do not spill it, so that no alien spirit lick
it up, because you did despise it, and become guilty of the Blood of Christ as
one who despises the price with which he has been bought.
How carefully and respectfully you
receive the Lord’s body when it is distributed to you, for fear even a crumb
might fall and a little part of this consecrated treasure might be lost. You
would even blame yourself — and rightfully so — if a fragment were lost through
your negligence.
Pope
Paul VI’s encyclical on the Eucharist, Mysterium
Fidei (3 September 1965), says,
These
same bishops were severe in reproving any lack of due reverence that might
occur. We have evidence of this from the words of Novatian, whose testimony is
trustworthy in this matter; He felt that anybody deserved to be condemned who
"came out after Sunday service bringing the Eucharist with him, as was the
custom, . . . and carried the holy body of the Lord around with him,"
going off to places of amusement instead of going home. [37]
But I did not dare to do this; and
said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to
renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in
repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched
forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it,
and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach the partaking of the
saints with firm faith and good hope.
In his letter to Pope Sixtus,
Dionysius is seeking his counsel concerning a man who had been baptized in a
heretical sect, but who had long communed with the church.
6.
St.
Cyprian (d. 258):
Returning from the altars of the
devil, they draw near to the holy place of the Lord, with hands filthy and reeking
with smell, still almost breathing of the plague-bearing idol-meats.[39]
And because he may not at once
receive the body of the Lord in his polluted hands, the sacrilegious one is
angry with the priests.[40]
And when one, who himself was
defiled, dared with the rest to receive secretly a part of the sacrifice
celebrated by the priest; he could not eat nor handle the holy of the Lord, but
found in his hands when opened that he had a cinder.[41]
In approaching therefore, come not
with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a
throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King.
And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it,
Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the
Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for
whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own
members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold
them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and
suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a
crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
Then after you have partaken of the
Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth
your hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen,
hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.
Although there has been
some disagreement over the authorship of the Mystagogical Catechesis, it is
generally agreed that it was written sometime in the late fourth century,
either by St. Cyril himself or by his successor, Bishop John II (387-417).
According to Lutheran systematic theologian Kent J. Burreson,[43]
There
has been some debate as to whether MC is truly the work of Cyril or of his
successor, John (bishop 387-417). The case for John's authorship is based
primarily upon the manuscript attribution. None of the manuscripts attribute MC
to Cyril alone, while one manuscript attributes them to John alone and four
manuscripts to both bishops. Edward Yarnold, in two articles in the mid-1970s,
attempted to uphold the attribution of MC to Cyril. He argued that Ambrose's De
Sacramentis and De Mysteriis demonstrate that Ambrose was familiar with Cyril's
lectures and that MC must therefore be dated prior to Ambrose's two works in
390-391. He noted the striking differences between the Lenten Catecheses of
Cyril and MC: the lack of verbal echoes, the concept of faith in the Lenten
lectures which is missing from MC, and the author's indication in Lenten
Catechesis 18.33 that the post-baptismal catechesis will entail six or seven
lectures, the final lecture concerning "how you must behave in word and
deed." However, he argued that along with the striking dissimilarities,
there are striking similarities in style, in spirituality and in theology.
Furthermore, the theology does not reflect the Origenistic interests of John of
Jerusalem. Thus he concluded that MC were originally Cyril's work and were
later utilized and expanded by John.
The
arguments against Cyriline authorship in general, and also against an early
date for MC within Cyril's episcopate, depend upon the assumption that the
liturgical aspects of MC are too developed to have appeared so early. However,
in an era of theological ferment and rapid theological development, the
possibility of MC's developed liturgical features being present in Jerusalem by
the 360's is not beyond question…
Alexis Doval in his,
“Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses,” effectively argues
in favor for Cyriline authorship.
It is needless to point out that
for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his
own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense,
as long practice sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the
solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion
themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one
of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and
participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the
offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire,
is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And
even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it
with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.
It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received
from the priest at the same time.
The offense St. Basil
is alluding to is self-communication, not communion in the hand.
News of this lamentable calamity
reached Ambrosius. The emperor on his arrival at Milan wished according to practice
to enter the church. Ambrosius met him outside the outer porch and forbade him
to step over the sacred threshold. "You seem, sir, not to know," said
he, "the magnitude of the bloody deed that has been done. Your rage has
subsided, but your reason has not yet recognised the character of the deed.
Peradventure your Imperial power prevents your recognising the sin, and power
stands in the light of reason. We must however know how our nature passes away
and is subject to death; we must know the ancestral dust from which we sprang,
and to which we are swiftly returning. We must not because we are dazzled by
the sheen of the purple fail to see the weakness of the body that it robes. You
are a sovereign, Sir, of men of like nature with your own, and who are in truth
your fellow slaves; for there is one Lord and Sovereign of mankind, Creator of
the Universe. With what eyes then will you look on the temple of our common
Lord — with what feet will you tread that holy threshold, how will you stretch forth your
hands still dripping with the blood of unjust slaughter? How in such hands will
you receive the all holy Body of the Lord? How will you who in your
rage unrighteously poured forth so much blood lift to your lips the precious
Blood? Begone. Attempt not to add another crime to that which you have
committed. Submit to the restriction to which the God the Lord of all agrees
that you be sentenced. He will be your physician, He will give you
health."
Tell me, would you choose to come
to the Sacrifice with unwashed hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather
choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus
scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and
thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into
the soul it is dissolved entirely.
St. John Chrysostom
doesn’t distinguish between men and women in this passage. Everyone seems to
receive Holy Communion in their bare hands.
The communicant eats then the
consecrated bread placed by the priest in his right hand.
In giving the consecrated bread the priest says: "The body of
Christ," and in giving the consecrated wine he says: "The cup of
Christ," and the communicant answers "Amen." After some prayers
of thanksgivings, recited by all the congregation, the Communion service and
the liturgical prayers connected with it come to an end.
To this we may add, that I refer to
a man who lived with you, whose birthday you were wont to celebrate with such
large assemblies, with whom you joined in the kiss of peace in the sacraments,
in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your
hands to receive it . . .
Although this passage
pertains to priests, it undermines the notion that Jesus administered Communion
to his disciples on the tongue (which well could have been the case, but this
didn’t seem to translate into the practice of the church).
One
should consider how during the sacred mysteries we take the limbs of the
Spouse, kiss them, embrace them and apply them to our eyes.
Omnes viri,
quando communicare desiderant, lavant manus suas; et omnes mulieres nitida
exhibeant linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant
When they desire to communicate,
all men wash their hands, and all women show
their splendid garments when they receive the Body of Christ. What I am telling
you is not burdensome, brethern. Just as men wash their hands with water, so
they should cleanse their consciences with almsgiving. In the same way,
just as women show their splendid clothing when they receive the Body of
Christ, so they show a chaste body and a pure heart and receive Christ's
sacraments with a good conscience. I ask you, brethern, is there anyone who
wants to put his clothing in a chest that is full of dirt? Now if expensive
clothing is not put into a chest full of dirt, with what boldness is Christ's
Eucharist received into a soul which is stained with the filth of sins? Because
we have begun to speak in the most precise examples, I am also suggesting what
you already know very well.
The Latin term ‘exhibeant’
means bright, as in a white cloth.
The term ‘linteamen’ was a cloth equivalent to a handkerchief. “Linteolum: Any small line cloth; thence, espeically, a
naptikin or a handkerchief (Plaut. Ep. ii. 2.48. Pliny H. N. ix. 5. Apul. Apol.
pp. 490. 494.)”[51]
Upon
a certain day, a young boy that was a monk, loving his parents more than reason
would, went from the Abbey to their house, not craving the father's blessing
beforehand: and the same day that he came home unto them, he departed this
life. And being buried, his body, the next day after, was found cast out of the
grave; which they caused again to be put in, and again, the day following, they
found it as before. Then in great haste they went to the man of God, fell down
at his feet, and with many tears beseeched him that he would vouchsafe him that
was dead of his favour. To whom the man of God with his own hands
delivered the holy communion of our Lord's body, saying: "Go,
and lay with great reverence this our Lord's body upon his breast, and so bury
him": which when they had done, the dead corpse after that
remained quietly in the grave. By which you perceive, Peter, of what merit he
was with our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing the earth would not give entertainment
to his body, who departed this world out of Benedict's favour.
What need of the Eucharist? for you
are not yet appointed to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were
in good health." "Nevertheless," said he, "bring me the
Eucharist." Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were
all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or
grudge.
Wherefore with all fear and a pure
conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as
we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul
and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent
desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the
body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows
and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing,
that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly
consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and
deified by the participation in the divine fire.
Synod of Auxerre (578):
Canon
36. No woman may receive the holy Eucharist with uncovered hand.[55]
Canon
42. Every woman must at communion have her dominicale (i.e. either the cloth
for covering her hand, cf. c. 36, or a veil for the covering of her head. cf.
Du Cange, s.v. dominicalis).[56]
Council
in Trullo (692):
The great and divine Apostle Paul
with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of
Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving
Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is
fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the
participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a
participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer
himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form
of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as,
instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the
reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we
by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior
matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the
immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut
off as well as the one who brings them.[57]
According to Russian
liturgical specialist Nicholas Uspenskīĭ,
Balsamon
interprets this Canon as being aimed against an intolerable situation which
arose in Constantinople and was connected with the use of vessels. There was an
era when Christians made such receptacles and adorned them out of feeling of deep
reverence for the holy gifts. By the time of the Council in Trullo, however,
the vessels had become an object of boasting on the part of the rich over the
poor, who in their poverty received the holy body in their own hands.[58]
Theodore Balsamon
states:
At
first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the hand which
came in contact with base and unworthy things was not worthy to receive the
Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned to the injury of the soul,
so that those who did this when they came to receive with an arrogant and
insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor.[59]
[1] William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, “A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,” Volume I, (Boston, MA:
Little, Brown, and Co., 1875), 416-417.
[2]
Catholic liturgist August Croegaert dates the Ordo Romanus VI from the
10th to 11th century (cf. “The Mass: A Liturgical Commentary,” Volume 2 (London: Burns &
Oates, 1958), 279.)
[3] Tertullian, On prayer, 19; The
Chaplet, 3.
[4] Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic
Tradition 32:2-3
[5] Origen, Commentary on Exodus 35, 4-5.
[6] Novatian, On Shows; CSEL
III,(3) 8.
[7] Eusebius, HE, 7.9,4.
[8] Cyprian, Treatise 3 (Treatise on the Lapsed), 15, 22, 26.
[9] Aphraates, Homily 7, 8, ed. G
Bert (TU 3/4), 125.
[10] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:21-22.
[11] Basil, Letter 93.
[12] Ambrose, quoted in Theodoret of
Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, V. 17.
[13] John Chrysostom, Third Homily on Ephesians.
[14] Theodore of Mopsuesita, Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and
the Eucharist.
[15] Augustine, Against
Petilian the Donatist, 2.23.53
and Against the Letter of Parmenianus, 2.7.13
[17] Isaac of Antioch, Carmen XVII, ed. G. Bickel 1 (Giesen,
1877), 9.
[18] Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 227,
5.
[19] Gregory the Great, Dialogues, II, 24.
[20] Bede, Ecclesiastical History of England, IV, 24.
[21] John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV,
13.
[22] Council of Auxerre, can. 36
& 42.
[23] Council in Trullo, can. 101.
[24] The institution of the Eucharist
occurs after the ordination ceremony in John 13:1-17.
[26] William Herbert Freestone, “Alcuin Club Collections,” Volume 21 (The Sacrament Reserved), (London:
A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1917), 154.
[27] Ibid., 121.
[28] John
McClintock & James Strong, “Encyclopedia
of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,” Volume 4, (New
York: Harper & Brothers 1891), 629.
[29] Robert Taft, “Through Their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the
Byzantines Saw It,” (Berkeley, CA : InterOrthodox Press, 2005).
[30] Josef A Jungmann & Francis
Brunner, “The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its
Origins and Development (Missarum
Sollemnia),” (New York: Benziger, 1951), 381-382.
[31] August Croegaert, “The Mass: A Liturgical Commentary,”
Volume 2 (London: Burns & Oates, 1958), 279.
[32] Tertullian, On prayer, 19; The Chaplet, 3.
[33] “The word Statio seems to have
been used in more than one sense in the ancient church. A passage in the
Shepherd of Hermas, referred to above (B. iii. Sim. 5), appears to make it equal
to fast.” (cf. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers,” (Volume 3), (New York: Chalres Scribner's Sons, 1905), 687.
[34] Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 32:2-3
[35] Origen, Commentary on Exodus 35, 4-5.
[36] Novatian, On Shows; CSEL
III,(3) 8.
[38] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7.9,4.
[39] Cyprian, Treatise on the Lapsed, 15.
[40] Ibid. 22.
[41] Ibid. 26.
[42] Cyril, Catechetical Lectures 23:21-22
[43] Kent J. Burreson, The Anaphora of the Mystagogical Catecheses
of Cyril of Jerusalem, found in “Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic
Prayers,” edited by Paul Bradshaw (Liturgical Press, 2017), 131-32.
[44] Basil, Letter 93.
[45] Ambrose, quoted in Theodoret of
Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, V. 17.
[50]
The Fathers of the Church: St. Caesarius;
Sermons Volume III (187-238), translated by Sister Mary Mueller, O.S.F.
(Washington DC: CUA Press, 1973), 167.
[51] Anthony Rich, “A
Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities,” (London: Longmans, Green, &
Co., 1873), 387.
[52] Gregory the Great, Dialogues, II, 24.
[55] Karl Joseph von
Hefele, “A History of the Councils,” Volume IV (451 – 680),
translated
by William Clark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 414.
[56] Ibid.
[58] Nicholas
Uspenskīĭ, “Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church,” translated from the
Russian by Paul Lazor (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985),
118.
[59] “The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church,” translated
by Henry Robert Percival (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1900), 408.
:
No comments:
Post a Comment