COMMUNION
175
COMMUNION
cording to the general law of the Church. Many coun-
tries, at the present day. in which this solemn and
public conveyance of the Blessed Sacrament is not pos-
sible, have obtained an Apostolic indult in virtue of
which the Sacred Species may be carried privately and
without any pomp or external ceremonial (Second Plen.
t'ounc. of Bait., n. 264), but it must always be enclosed
in a silver box or pyx, which should be securely fast-
ened around the person. Other cases of exception
arc also recognized (Ben. XIV, "Inter Unigenas").
Whilst carrj-ing the Blessed Sacrament in this private
manner, the priest need not wear any sacred vestment,
but in the actual administration he should wear at
least a stole, soutane, and surplice (Cong, of Rites, n.
2().50). The sick chamber should be neatly and
chastely arranged. Near the bed there ought to be a
table covered with a white cloth, with a crucifix, two
candles, small vessel of clean water. Holy Water and
sprinkler, and communion-card. It only remains to
say that the form used in gi\'ing Communion in pri-
vate houses should be the usual one, the Accipe
jrater or soror, etc. being restricted to the administra-
tion of the Viaticum.
Ril. Rom., De Com. Inf., Tit. IV, Cap. iv; Catalani, Com- mintarium in Hit. Rom. {Rome, 1850). I; Baruffaldi, Rit. Rom., Com. Inf. (Florence, 1847); O'Kane, Noles on Rubrics of Rom. Ril. (Dublin, 1867); Van Der Stiffen, De Adm. .'<ncr. (Mechlin, 1902); Gasparri, Trad. Can. de Euch. (Paris, 1900), IT; Lehmkohl, Comp. Theol. Mor. (Freiburg, 1896), II; GiHR. L'Eueharistie.
P.\TRICK MORRISROE.
Communion under Both Kinds. — Communion
under one kind is the reception of the Sacrament of
the Eucharist under the species or appearance of bread
alone, or of wine alone; Communion under two or
both kinds, the distinct reception under the two or
both species, sub utrdque specie, at the same time. In
the present article we shall treat the subject under the
following heads: I. Catholic Doctrine and Modern
Discipline; II. History of Disciplinary Variations;
III. Theological Speculation.
I. CATHOLIC Doctrine and Modern Discipline. — (1) Under this head the following points are to be noted; (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the Communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not, therefore, be omitted without vio- lating the sacrificial precept of Christ: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII. c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. i). (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified himianity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salvd eorum substantid, i. e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Di- vine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it ex- pedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protection of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence "although the usage of Com- munion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [nh initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost uni- versally |(<j(is.«'me] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the .adminis- tration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of com-
municating under one kind, and decreed it to have the
force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed
but by the C'hurch's own authority" (Trent, Sess.
XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under
both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the
chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any
but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Coun-
cil of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the
sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi,
54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced
in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of
the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of
a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under
both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of
withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious
mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the
Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had
asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however,
the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on
the strength principally of John, vi, 54; and the
Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415)
had already condemned their position and affirmed the
binding force of the existing discipline in terms prac-
tically identical with those of Trent (see decree ap-
proved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion,
n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council in-
troduced any new legislation on the subject; both
were content with declaring that the existing custom
had already acquired the force of law. A few priv-
ileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of ex-
press dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed
below (II).
(2) Regarding the merits of the TJtraquist contro- versy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not Divinely determined — the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the twofold purpose to be at- tained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best se- cures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the incon- venience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers ; the difficulty of reservation for Com- munion outside of Mass; the not unreasonable objec- tion, on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Commu- nion in the case of a great many otherwise well-dis- posed people; these and similar "weighty and just reasons" against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Com- munion sub utrdque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, "Drink ye all of this" (Matt., xxvi, 27), and its equiv- alent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i. e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ's action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipi- ents, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances con- nected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (v. g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of un- leavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the
