Holy Communion - Eastern Liturgies

Excerpted from Syrian Christians, A Brief History of the Catholic Church of St. George in Milwaukee, Wis. And a Sketch of the Eastern Church, by Exarch Anthony J. Aneed, Milwaukee, 1919.

Note: the following passages from Father Anthony Aneed's 1919 book explain many of the differences between the various rites of the Catholic Church. Because the book was originally written nearly eight decades ago, it may seem somewhat dated, since there have been many changes in the outward practice of the church. None-the-less Fr. Aneed's words explore the traditional rituals of the Eastern Catholic Churches and allow the layman to better understand our practices and faith.

In the early days of the Christian Church's existence the people were accustomed to communicate every time they assisted at Mass; and many would do this frequently on the same day, if they assisted at more Masses than one and were still fasting. St. Jerome says in the Epist. I to Pammachius that this praiseworthy custom prevailed throughout Spain and at Rome in the Fourth century. By degrees, however, the practice went so much into desuetude that St. John Chrysostom, who died in the early part of the Fifth century, bitterly complained of it to his people. "In vain," said he, when Bishop of Constantinople, "is there a daily obligation when there is no one present to communicate." Notwithstanding all attempts to check it, coldness in this respect went on increasing from day to day and from year to year, until the Church found it necessary to enact laws requiring all to approach Holy communion at least on Sundays and festivals. We see a statute of the Capitulary of Charlemagne l. v., No. 182) strictly enjoining the practice. In course of time still greater latitude was given, for it was only required that a person should communicate at three special periods of the year, viz., on Christmas day, Easter Sunday and Penticost. The decree specifying these three occasions was promulgated by the Council of Tours in the Ninth century, during the pontificate of Pope Leo III. The Council of Agatho, held some time before, ordained that those who did not approach the Blessed Eucharist on these three occasions should not be look on as Catholics at all (Romsee, p. 309). This practice continued until about the Thirteenth century, when the fourth Council of Lateran, A.D. 1215, held under the auspices of Pope Innocent III., solemnly declared and decreed under pain of excommunication that all the faithful who reached the years of discretion should confess their sins at least once a year and approach Holy Communion within the Paschal time. This solemn injunction was confirmed and renewed by the Council of Trent, which said in its twenty-second session that it desired that the faithful should communicate not only once a year, but every time they assisted at Mass, if their consciences were pure and guiltless before God. Practical Catholics now, as a general rule, approach Holy Communion the first Sunday of every month, and on every intermediate festival of note. Many have the pious practice of going once a week; and it is not infrequent, thank God! To meet tri-weekly communicants.

Up to the Twelfth century Holy Communion was administered to the faithful under both kinds, as we see from numerous testimonies (Kozma, p. 236; Romsee, p. 311). After this time it began to be restricted to the celebrant, but the restriction did not become a universal law of the Church until the Council of Constance, in A. D. 1414, declared it such. We shall see what prompted this declaration.

It is worth observing that whenever any of the Church's adversaries taught as a matter of dogma what she herself only considered a matter of discipline, to confound their impiety she either dropped the practice altogether or strenuously exerted herself in an entirely opposite direction. The Ebionites, for example, held that the Holy Eucharist could be confected with no other kind of bread but unleavened, or azymes; to confound these the Church allowed for some time the use of leavened bread also. The Armenians maintained that it was wholly unlawful to mix even the smallest drop of water with the wine used for consecration; the Church said that it was not so and that rather than grant dispensation in this respect to this people, she would suffer the entire body of them to separate from her communion; still, she looked upon the observation as entirely disciplinary. The Church approved of masses at which only the priest communicated, and granted full faculties to priests to celebrate them at pleasure. This brings us to the question under consideration. John Huss held such fanatical views about the necessity of Communion under both kinds that the whole land was disturbed by his teaching. According to him, the Church could not dispense with the obligation of receiving both species, for Communion under one kind was no Communion at all, and all who received it that way were damned. Huss was supported in these views by his disciples, Jerome of Prague, Jacobellus of Misnia, and Peter of Dresden. To confound these heretics, and for other very wise reasons, the Council of Constance, assembled in A. D. 1414, declared that Communion under one species was as true a participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord, as if both species were received; and that all who held differently were to be anathematized as heretics. A decree was then issued by the said Council abrogating Communion under the species of wine; and from this dates our present discipline in this respect (Kozma, p. 236). But the practice of receiving under both kinds, even after this decree, was enjoyed, as a particular favor of the Holy See, by certain persons and in a few particular places. It was granted, for instance, first, to the kings of France on the day of their coronation, and also at the point of death; second, it was allowed to the deacon and subdeacon of Papal High Mass; third, the deacon and subdeacon of the Monastery of St. Dionysius, near Paris, communicated under both kinds on Sundays and festivals, as did also the monks of Cluny (Romsee, p. 306).

Four principal reasons, not including the heresy of John Huss and his followers, induced the Church to abandon Communion under the species of wine: first, he great danger the Precious Blood was exposed to in communicated so many; second, the scarcity of wine in certain regions, and the difficulty in procuring genuine wine in northern climates; third, the nausea that this spieces creates in some people; fourth, the great difficulty of reserving the Holy Eucharist under this kind in warm climates, where the tendency to acidify is very great.

Some of the ablest commentators see in the "breaking of bread from house to house," and in other similar expressions of the New Testament, Communion under one species only; and it is admitted by all the in this way did the two disciples communicate who our Lord met on the way to Emmaus on Easter Sunday after his Resurrection, for, as the narrative has it, "they knew him in the breaking of bread." Communion under one kind has been common ever since the days of the apostles, especially in case of sick persons and of those who lived in a great distance from the church; and we shall see a little further that the Orientals have practiced such Communion from time immemorial.

In early times the words used by the priest in giving Holy Communion were, for the species of bread, "Corpus Christi" "the body of Christ" - to which the receiver answered, "Amen"; and for the species of wine, "Sanguis Christi poculum Saluti" - "The Blood of Christ, the cup of Salvation" - to which "Amen" was also answered. About the time of Pope Gregory the Great (Sixth century) the form had changed into "Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi conservet animam tuam" - "May the Body or our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul" - to which the receiver would respond, as before "Amen." With Alcuin, preceptor of Charlemagne, we find the form, "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve you unto life everlasting."

According to the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the celebrant of the Mass communicates first, under the following form of words, "The blessed and most Holy Body of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ is communicated to me, N., priest, for the remission of my sins and life everlasting." When receiving the chalice he says: "I, N., priest, partake of the pure and Holy Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, for the remission of my sins and life everlasting." When communicating the deacon the priest says: "N., the holy deacon, is made partaker of the precious, holy and spotless Body of our Lord and God and Savour Jesus Christ, for the mission of his sins and life everlasting." In giving the Precious Blood to the deacon the form is the same as when the priest receives.

Dismissal in the Eastern Church. - The forms used in the Eastern Church vary with the different liturgies. In some places the dismissal is. "Go to peace"; in others, "Let us depart in peace"; and in a number of places, "Let us go in peace of Christ." In the Liturgy of St. James the expression is, "In the peace of Christ let us depart." In most of the Oriental churches a long prayer is sometimes read, called the prayer of dismissal, after which all the people leave the church. According to the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, this prayer is worded as follows, "The grace of thy lips, shining forth like a torch, illuminated the world, enriched the universe with the treasures of liberality, and manifested to us the height of humility; but do thou, our instructor, by thy words, Father John Chrysostom, intercede to the Word, Christ our God, that our souls may be saved."