Ancient Christian practice of Communion of the Holy Mysteries, according to monuments of writing and art

The first moment from which the history of the rite of communion began is undoubtedly the last Easter supper celebrated by Christ the Savior in a spacious, decorated room in one of the Jerusalem houses. At this supper, He established the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the apostles were the first to receive His most pure body and blood. What do they tell us about this first communion of St. The Tain are the closest witnesses to this event in time - St. evangelists? They tell us that during the Easter meal, the Savior, undoubtedly reclining at a low table, “took bread and blessed it and broke it and, giving it to the disciples, said: Take, eat: this is My body. And taking the cup, and giving thanks, he gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you.” For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:26–28 cf. Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25). From these brief but quite clear evidence, it is not difficult to get an idea of ​​the method and form of communion that took place at the Last Supper. There is no doubt, first of all, that the Apostles partook of the body and blood of Christ under two separate types: first they received St. body, and then began to eat from the chalice of St. blood. As for, in particular, the way they received the Eucharistic bread, the evangelists’ reference to its distribution - διάδωσις - (of course with hands) makes us think that receiving it - ετάληψις - was taking it into the hands (χειροφηψία), and not directly into the mouth (στωμαφηψία). You can also get an idea of ​​the way the Apostles partook of the Holy Blood. In the words of the evangelists Matthew and Mark: “Taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them.” (Ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς) we are not talking about teaching the contents of the Holy Chalice. Blood, but only about the presentation of the cup itself. Therefore, one must think that the Apostles, having received St. from the hands of the Savior. cup, His Blessed Blood they partook of on their own, each in his own hands bringing the cup to his lips. Such was the Eucharistic form and method of communion at the Easter supper. They, undoubtedly, served as an unshakable basis for all subsequent practices of communion. The entire subsequent history of the development of the rite of communion speaks for this: despite its twenty-century span, we never encounter in it a radical change or transformation of these forms; all the shades and directions that it took in its development were always only to a greater or lesser extent a combination of them. To paint a picture of the ancient practice of communion that developed from the indicated basis - a practice not only in the strict sense of the church, but also a domestic, private practice that was widely used in ancient times - then to indicate the changes that this rite experienced in its development, until finally its form was finally established - we set it as our task. Let us dwell first of all on the period of the Apostles and their closest successors - the apostolic men. We find only a few and very short indications of the practice of communion that existed at that time. This is probably explained by the fact that both the very celebration of the Eucharist and the celebration of the communion that was part of it in apostolic times was still an extremely simple and uncomplicated liturgical action, with a very undeveloped ritual setting. But even on the basis of the few data contained in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, in the letters of the Apostle Paul and in the writings of the apostolic men, one can still form a more or less clear idea about this practice. From the book of Acts we learn, first of all, that the entire Eucharistic ritual, which included the consecration of the Eucharistic elements, their distribution to the faithful, and, finally, their eating, in apostolic times bore the general name of “breaking of bread.” The first Christians, we read here, “continued in the teaching of the apostles, in fellowship and in the breaking of bread,” “breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with joy and simplicity of heart.” (Acts 2:42–46). And elsewhere it is narrated that “the believers of Troas gathered to break bread” (20:7). Obviously, the breaking of bread in the eyes of the leading Christians was an action so important that they began to call the service itself, with the communion included in it, by its name. But the question arises: does not this expression (refraction) indicate that the first Christians received communion only under one type of Eucharistic bread? Although in the indicated places in the book of Acts there is no mention of the cup of blessing, however, based on the clear testimony of the Apostle Paul, it can be rightfully stated that believers at that time received communion under both types. “The cup of blessing that we bless, for example, the Apostle of Corinth asks, is it not a communion of the Blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a communion of the Body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Similar instructions can be found in the Apostle in other places, for example, in 1 Cor. 11:26–29 pp. Undoubtedly, the Apostle “considered both the Eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing to be equally open to all believers” (Sylvester Ep., Dogma. Theology. Part 5, p. 427). The expression in question - “breaking of bread” - is the same technical term, used as pars pro toto to designate the entire Eucharistic service, and continued to remain in the age of the apostolic men. This can be confirmed by evidence from their writings. Already in the earliest of the monuments of Christian writing, 1 we read: “on the day of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.” The same expression is also found in Ignatius the God-Bearer, who in his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 20) commands them to break bread frequently 2. But being known under the general name of “breaking of bread” - a name apparently indicating the eating of the Eucharistic bread alone, communion even now, after the Apostles, continued to be performed under both types. This is clearly evidenced by a number of passages from the same writings of the apostolic men. “I desire the bread of God,” writes Ignatius the God-Bearer, in his Epistle to the Romans (chapter 7), the bread of heaven, the bread of life—(bread) which is the flesh of the Lord Christ the Son of God. And I desire the drink of God, His blood, which is imperishable love and eternal life” 3. And in the letter to the Philadelphians (chapter 4) we read from him: “strive to have one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of His blood” 4 . Thus, both in the age of the apostles and in the age of the apostolic men, communion consisted in the fact that each of the believers ate part of the broken Eucharistic bread and part of the holy bread. wine from the cup of blessing. Some monuments of art also tell us that this form of communion existed at this time. Take, for example, the rediscovery of St. Priscilla's fresco image of "The Breaking of Bread". It is housed in a chamber known as the Capella Greca, and is dated by commentators to the first decade of the 2nd century. The content of the painting located here can be conveyed as follows: 6 participants in the dinner recline at a semicircular table, and on the right side of the table there is a 7th person - a bearded man breaking bread. Close to his feet there is a bowl, then two dishes: one with two fish, the other with five loaves, and, finally, 7 boxes filled with bread. According to commentators on this painting, Rossi and Wilpert 5, it contains an image of the breaking of the Eucharistic bread during a liturgical meeting. In the bearded man, according to these archaeologists, one must see the head of the meeting (προεσεώς), who broke bread, and in the cup depicted near the dish with fish is the Eucharistic chalice, the cup of blessing. Thus, the painting described is the best witness for the fact that at the beginning of the 2nd century Christians communed under both types. With her guidance, we can also form an idea of ​​the ritual atmosphere of the Eucharistic celebration of that time. This situation at the time described was distinguished by its extraordinary simplicity: the celebration of the Eucharist, and therefore communion, usually took place in a simply decorated upper room; believers were seated at a semicircular table; Eucharistic elements were brought here; here they were sanctified, and here the breaking of bread also took place. As for now the question about the distribution itself and the method of receiving the Eucharistic gifts by the leading Christians, we do not find a direct answer to it in written monuments. In all likelihood, believers received St. bread from the hands of the primate himself. The following testimony of Ignatius the God-Bearer makes us think so: “apart from the bishop, he says in his letter to the Smyrnans, no one did anything related to the church” 6 . If not a single liturgical act could take place without the participation of the bishop, then, of course, such an important action as the distribution of bread prayerfully consecrated and broken by the bishop should have belonged to the bishop himself, or “to the person to whom he will provide it” 7 . As for, further, the method of receiving Eucharistic bread and drinking from the cup of Eucharistic wine, then, one must think, it was an exact reproduction of the method of communion that took place at the Easter supper. From the middle of the 2nd century, the practice of communion began to expand noticeably. In addition to the strictly church-public communion that took place at liturgical meetings, a special type of private communion is now being formed - a certain order in the reception of St. Mystery, - certain demands are beginning to be made on the faithful of the Church, etc. In a word, when presenting the material we have collected, consisting of evidence of this practice from monuments of writing and art, it would be too difficult to adhere to a strictly chronological order, that is, to take the practice of each century separately and consider all its various manifestations for this century. In order to avoid possible repetitions with this method of presentation, we will adhere to the subject order. We will place all information about this practice in two sections. In the first section we will place information about the practice of church communion; this will include questions: about the time, place, order of communion, about the persons who performed communion, about the external behavior of Christians before and during the reception of St. Mystery, about the formula that was pronounced during the distribution of St. Gifts, about the singing of psalms and, finally, about the method of receiving St. Tain. In the second section we will consider the practice of private, home communion. Let us first dwell on the question of how often and on what days the ancient Christians began to receive St. Tain. Relevant written evidence tells us that they took communion at almost every liturgy. In the 9th Apostolic Canon 8, for example, we encounter the excommunication from church communion of all those who, while present at the liturgy, left the meeting without sufficient reason without receiving communion. Consequently, a whole series of paternal testimonies tell us about the almost everyday practice of communion. Many of the Church Fathers, explaining the 4th petition of the Lord's Prayer, understood the expression: “our daily bread” in a spiritual sense; they meant by it the body of Christ and at the same time pointed to the custom of Christians to approach St. Secrets daily. Yes, St. Cyprian says the following: “You call Christ our bread, because He is the bread of those who touch His body. We ask that this bread be given to us daily, so that we who remain in Christ and daily receive the Eucharist as food of salvation, being by some grave sin excommunicated from communion and deprived of heavenly bread, may not be separated from the body of Christ, Who Himself proclaims for our instruction: I am the bread of life.”9 The 49th rule of the Council of Laodicea 10 and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who lived shortly before this council, 11 speak about the almost daily communion of Christians in the 1st half of the 4th century. But already at the end of the 4th century and at the beginning of the 5th, this custom, at least in the East, begins to weaken. During the time of Chrysostom, believers began to meet who received Holy Communion. The Mysteries are quite rare, for example, only on the holidays of Epiphany and Easter. Calling such a custom a prejudice, Chrysostom exclaims: “The daily sacrifice is made in vain! It is in vain that we stand before the altar of the Lord. Nobody joins" 12. And in another place 13 Chrysostom says: “many receive communion once throughout the year, others twice, and others several times.” But if in the East daily communion began to lose its former strength at the end of the 4th century, then in the West it continued to exist during the 5th century, although, undoubtedly, it began to weaken noticeably here too. This, at least, is evidenced by the following testimonies of Western fathers and teachers of the Church. “I know,” says Jerome, that in Rome it is the custom of believers to receive the body of Christ at any time; I do not blame or approve of this: let everyone be aware of his own thoughts” 14. And in another place, to the question of Lucinius whether one should receive the Eucharist daily, Jerome, who advised to always preserve church traditions and customs of the ancestors, notes: “and the Eucharist can always be received without condemning us and without reproach of conscience” 15. And Blessed Augustine wrote about the practice of communion that existed in his time: “some partake of the body and blood of Christ daily, others receive it on certain days” 16. The same instruction is given to them in the following words 17: “the sacrament of communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in other places is prepared daily, in others with the omission of certain days, it is prepared at the Lord’s Table and is received from the Lord’s Table.” Ambrose of Milan also clearly hints at the custom of frequent communion. “If the (Eucharistic) bread,” he says, is given daily, then why do you accept it after a year? Every day, accept what is saving for you” 18. But already at the beginning of the 6th century, when for most Western Christians frequent communion became a burden, conciliar decrees were issued on the obligatory communion only on certain days of the year. The Council of Agathas (506) made, for example, the following decree (can. 18): laity (saeculares) who do not accept St. The Mysteries on the days of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost should not be considered Orthodox and should not be in communion with them” 19. And the 3rd Council of Tours (813) demanded that believers receive communion at least three times a year 20 . A similar prescription was repeated at the Council of Engamensis (Aengamensis) in 1009. 21 Finally, 4 The Lateran, under Pope Innocent III, decreed that believers should receive communion once a year 22. We have examined one half of the posed question about the time of communion in the ancient Church; Now let’s try to look at another one, in order to see on which days of the week the ancient Christians communed the most. The evidence of ancient Christian writing tells us, first of all, that all believers considered it their indispensable duty to take communion on the “days of the Lord” (Dies Dominici). This is what we read in St. Justin Martyr 23: “On the so-called Sunday, all believers living in cities or villages gather there. Here gifts are distributed, over which prayers of thanksgiving are performed and all those present partake of them.” And in the time following Justin, Dies Dominicus remained the most favorite day of communion, “as it is narrated in the works of Tertullian, Cyprian and other fathers” 24. That this custom was observed by the majority of Christians even at the end of the 4th century, for this we are told by the following words in what is attributed to St. Ambrose 25 words: omnes christiani omni Dominica debent offerre et communicare 25. At this time, Sunday even received the name “dies panis” 26. We also find instructions about constant communion on Sunday from other Church Fathers, for example. y Chrysostom 27, Basil the Great 28, Augustine 29, etc. The custom in question continued to exist for a very long time, especially among monastics. There is some evidence that speaks for its existence even in the 7th century. This is for example testimony of Theodore, Archbishop of Cantuarien 30, who wrote the following about the Greeks: “The Greeks receive communion on every Sunday, both clergy and people; those who miss 3 Sundays are excommunicated.” In the Western Church, according to him, on Sundays only those who wished received communion, and those who did not wish did not leave. In the 9th century, according to Magtene 31, this custom completely fell out of use in the Western Church. In addition to Sundays, believers in ancient times received communion on other days. According to Tertullian, such days were standing days: Wednesday and Friday. “Many,” he said, believe that during divine services during daytime standing one should not make a bloodless sacrifice under the pretext that communion interrupts and even stops standing. But isn’t anyone mistaken who thinks that the Eucharist can stop, rather than aggravate, our responsibilities, etc. 32 There is no doubt that only a certain part of Christian society avoided communion these days, while another part of Christians on Wednesday and Friday received Holy Communion. Secrets. Like Tertullian, Basil the Great argued that Wednesday and Friday were not only days of fasting, but also days appointed for communion. “We commune,” he said 33, 4 times during the week: on the Lord’s Day, on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.” But about the Alexandrian Church, the church historian Socrates notes the following 34: “in Alexandria on Wednesday and on the day called the heel (παρασκεβή), the scriptures are read and the teachers explain them, and then everything that happens in assemblies occurs, with the exception of the celebration of the sacraments” 35. He condemns this exception, because receiving the Eucharist on these days was the general custom of the rest of the churches 36. In addition to these days, in the ancient Church we see frequent communion on days dedicated to the memory of martyrs. This is spoken about, for example, by St. Cyprian of Carthage: “we always, as you know, make sacrifices for them, when only with annual remembrance do we celebrate the sufferings and days of the martyrs.” St. clearly testifies to this. Chrysostom “Look,” he says, how worthy of laughter is the fact that after such a meeting (in honor of the martyrs), after staying up all night, after listening to the divine scriptures, after participating in the divine sacraments and after spiritual deeds, men and wives in those days find themselves in taverns.” The same thing is clearly said about the communion of ancient Christians these days: Basil the Great 37 and Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop. Claremont 38 (late 5th century) 39 . Thus, the ancient Christians sanctified themselves by partaking of the body and blood of Christ on Sundays, on days of standing, on Saturdays and, finally, on the days of remembrance of martyrs. Having covered the question of the time of communion of ancient Christians, let us now move on to the question of the place of the distribution of St. gifts. The specific place in prayer meetings where the bread and wine brought by believers were consecrated was initially the dining table (τράπεζα), at which Christians reclined during the sacrament of the Eucharist. But one can think that already in the second century a special table began to be used for this purpose (called τράπεζα μυστηκή, ἁγία, πνευματική). “If, says Augusti 40, it does not have special significance, then the tradition that tells about St. Philippe that “cum sacerdotes et altaria ubique statuisset et construxisset, pro sacrificiis illis, quae fiebant in Daemonum altaribus, sacrosancte fuit in eis peragi sacram mysterii celebrationem”, then the existence of a special Eucharistic table, called θυσιαστήρια or altaria in the second century beyond any doubt." Around this Eucharistic table or throne, believers in the first centuries received St. gifts. As Siegel notes, “this was the most probable practice already in the time of Justin 41.” The existence of this custom in the 3rd century can be evidenced by one passage from a letter from Dionysius to Bishop. Alexandrian to the Roman bishop. Xistu 42. It shows that in the Alexandrian Church, women suffering from monthly purifications were forbidden to approach the throne (τῆ τραπέζῃ τῆ ἁγίῳ προεελθεῖν) and receive St. Secrets. There is no doubt that at any other time both women and, of course, men took communion near the throne. But already from the middle of the 4th century, access to the throne was prohibited for communicants. “Only those who are sanctified (τοῖς ἱερατικοῖς), we read in the 19th canon of the Council of Laodicea, are allowed to enter the altar and commune there” 43 . In order to more clearly emphasize this definition, in church buildings, from the middle of the 4th century, special railings or gratings (cancelli, κιγκλίδες ἔμπροσθεν τῶν θυρῶν) began to be introduced into use ἰστάμνοι) and curtains (καταπετάσματα), which now began to separate the place where the throne stood from the middle space of the church, where the worshipers were usually seated 44. Near these railings the laity now began to receive St. Secrets. An exception was made only for emperors, who could receive communion at the altar. “No one, says 69 rights. Trula Cathedral 45, of all those belonging to the category of laity, let him not be allowed to enter the interior of the priesthood. altar. But, according to some ancient legend, this is by no means forbidden to the power and dignity of the king when he desires to bring gifts to the Creator.” The practice of giving communion to the laity near the railings became the property of almost all churches. Its existence, for example, in the African Church is indicated by Blessed Augustine. “Those,” he says, who know that I know their sins, should not approach the sacrament, so as not to be driven out of the bars (ne de cancellis projiciantur) 46. An exception in this church was made only for converts (neophytes) out of reverence for the grace-filled rebirth that they had just received. We find evidence of such a practice in the same blessed. Augustine. Addressing the converts, he among other things tells them the following: I beseech you in the name of Him who was called upon you by this altar to which you have just approached (per illud altare ad quod accessistis) 47 . The practice of giving communion to believers outside the altar has also come into use in some churches in the West. The 17th canon of the 4th Council of Toledo (633) speaks for its existence in the Spanish Church. “Priests and deacons, we read here 48, must receive communion in the altar, clergy in the choir, and the people behind the choir.” That the same practice prevailed in the Church of Milan, the example of the Milan Bishop Ambrose, who had such a high concept of St. altar, which once blocked access to the Emperor Theodosius himself. “Ἀλουργίς γάρ βαςιλέας,” he said to the emperor, “οὐχ ἱερέας ποιεῖ” 49 . A completely different kind of practice existed in the Church of Gaul. Here the laity: men and women took communion near the throne. This at least opens from 4 rights. 2nd Council of Tours (567), where it is said that although the laity should listen to the service in that part of the Church that is separated from the choir of singers by a grille, however, for prayer and communion of St. According to ancient custom, they must enter the Holy of Holies. We find indications of the existence in the Gallic Church of such a practice, completely different from other churches, in Book 10. History of France by Gregory of Tours 50. Here is such a story. One day, Bishop Cotin of Auvergne excommunicated a certain Eulalius from communion for parricide. The latter, appearing on St. Julian into the church, fell at the feet of the bishop and began to beg him to allow him, innocently deprived of St. communion, begin the holy mysteries. The bishop allowed him to attend the liturgy along with other believers. “When, Gregory notes, the time for communion came and Eulalia approached the throne, the bishop said to him,” etc. As for the Church of Rome, according to the testimony of Chardon 51 (words of Bonac, Part I, Book 2, Chapter 17), this kind of practice existed here in ancient times: “he who celebrated the Eucharist (as now) received communion in front of the altar, priests on the sides of the altar, deacons behind the altar, subdeacons and clergy at the entrance to the altar or on the choir, the rest believers behind bars." But when receiving communion behind bars, ancient Roman Christians, says Chardon, received St. the secrets are not at the grate itself, but each in its own place 52. Having established a strict distinction between clergy and laity, and indicated to both their specific place for receiving the Holy Spirit. Tain, the Church also took care to establish a certain order in the distribution of St. Tain. The exact order of those approaching St. The sacrament is already indicated in the Apostolic Constitutions. “Let the bishop, it is said here 53, receive communion first, then the presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, ascetics, and among the women deaconesses, virgins, widows, then the children, and then all the people in order.” This order has become a common practice not only in the Eastern, but also in the Western Churches. To see this more clearly, let us compare the practice that existed in the 3rd century with the practice of the Greek Church in the 15th century. We find information about this latter from Simeon of Thessalonica 54. “According to him, the Bishop approaches the Mystical Sacrifice first, then the priests and deacons. After these, in front of the holy doors, there are others: subdeacons, and with them readers and singers. For this reason, those who have a monastic image receive communion, as having an advantage over the people; and behind them immediately in order are the laity: for they are not all equal.” It is not difficult to notice that the order described by Simeon of Thessaloniki is almost no different from the order that existed in the ancient Christian church. But it would be a mistake to think that this order remained unchanged all the time. If in the history of the Church there are no indications that the laity should receive communion before the clergy, then there are indications of a different kind, indicating a violation of the described order either when giving communion to clergy or when giving communion to the laity. An example of the first type of distortion of established practice is the custom, condemned by the Council of Nicea, by virtue of which in some churches deacons received communion before bishops. “It has become known, says the 18th 55th rule of this council, that some of the deacons touch the Eucharist before the bishops. This is wretched... let the deacons remain in their measure, knowing that they are servants of the bishop and lower presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist in order after the elders.” We no longer encounter such deviations from church practice in the history of the post-Nicene period. As for now the second kind of changes in the usual order that took place during the communion of the laity, their example is the practice of the Syrian Church (7th century). We find an indication of it in John Moschus in his Spiritual Meadow 56. “In the church,” he says, a custom has come into use for children to stand in front of the sanctuary during the liturgy and be the first after the clergy to receive Holy Communion. Tain." We examined the question of how often and in what places in church buildings the ancient Christians communed; They also saw that the ancient Christians approached the acceptance of St. The secrets are in a certain order; Now the question arises, from whom did they receive St. Mysteries, who was the distributor of the Eucharistic gifts? The first historical witness in whom we find the answer to this question is St. Justin Martyr. From his apology 57 we learn that in his time the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts was performed by the bishop, while their distribution was the duty of the deacons. “After the thanksgiving of the primate,” he says, and the proclamation of all the people, the so-called deacons among us give each of those present to partake of the bread, over which thanksgiving has been made, and wine and water.” But if in the age of Justin the congregation received communion through deacons, then in subsequent times this practice of communion changed somewhat. Already in the 3rd century, the distribution of consecrated gifts began to belong to the bishops, or presbyters; the deacons were given only the right to distribute the cup with mixed Eucharistic wine. Tertullian points to the first when he says that the sacrament of the Eucharist must be received from the hands of the presiding officers (nec de aliorum niani, quam praesidentium sumimus) 58 . Cyprian repeatedly mentions the latter. “When, we read from him 59, at the end of the Divine service, the deacon began to bring the cup to those present and, after the others had accepted it, it was her turn (one little one), she turned away her face,” etc. We also find an indication of the newly formed practice of distributing Eucharistic gifts in Lent. Apostolic 60. “The bishop, it says here, let him teach the offering; Let the deacon hold the cup." But despite this firmly established custom of distributing the Eucharistic bread through bishops, and the cup of wine through deacons, we still see in some churches the existence of the ancient practice of receiving communion through deacons alone. But the rights of deacons were now strictly limited. First of all, under the threat of defrocking, they were forbidden to teach the Eucharist to the presbyters (18 rights of the Council of Nicaea) 61; and then - at the 4th Council of Carthage (399) it was decided that deacons should never distribute St. gifts, without special need and without the command of the priest (diaconus, praesente presbytero, eucharistiam corporis Christi populo si necessitas cogat, jussus erogat) 62. Giving out St. The gifts, the clergy, usually pronounced a special formula, to which the believers responded with the word: Amen. In this custom one cannot help but see an imitation of the example of the Savior, Who, handing His disciples the Eucharistic bread and cup of wine, said: “Take, eat: this is My body,” and “Drink of it, all of you: this is My blood.” – The formula pronounced by the clergy did not always have the same form. Initially, as can be seen from the Apostolic Constitutions 63, it consisted of the words: “the body of Christ,” pronounced when the priest distributed consecrated bread, and the words: “the blood of Christ is the cup of life” - when distributing the cup of Eucharistic wine. But at the beginning of the 7th century, as can be seen from the biography of St. Gregory the Great (604), made by the deacon John 64, the formula of distribution took on a new form in the West, instead of the previous interrogative, rather the form of benevolence 65: Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Cristi servet animam tuam. In the 8th and 9th centuries, under Alcuin and Charlemagne, it was already approaching what is currently accepted in the West, consisting of the following words: Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat in vitam aothernam (formula of the times of Alcuin) or prosit tibi in remissionem peccator, et ad vitam aeternam (formula of the 9th century) 66. However, later dogmatic views once again exerted their influence on the Western form before it was finally established. During the dominance in the West of communion under the guise of bread, watered with wine, the following formula existed here: Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi sanguine suo inlinctum conservet animam tuam in vitam aeternam 67 . As for now the Eastern Church, in Alexandria, as can be seen from the liturgy of St. Mark, such a formula was the words: “Holy Body” and “Precious Blood of the Lord and God and our Savior” 68. One might think that a formula similar, if not in form, then in meaning, existed in other churches of the East. Taking St. Gifts, every communicant, both in the primary church and in subsequent times, had to pronounce the word: Amen. The existence of such a custom is indicated first of all by Tertullian 69 when in his treatise “on spectacles” he says: “Dear brothers, consider what we are doing? With lips that pronounced Amen during the service (in sanctum), we praise the gladiator in the amphitheater.” No less compelling evidence of the antiquity of this custom is the testimony of Cornelius, bishop. Rimsky, in his letter to Fabius of Antioch. Having said that Novat, while teaching St. Body, forced everyone to swear that he would never leave him, Cornelius further exclaims: “and the poor man, instead of accepting the bread to say: Amen, said: I will not pass over to Cornelius” 70. It is also commanded by the Apostolic decrees to respond to the clergyman’s formula with the word “Amen”. There is evidence of this dating back to a later time. Thus, Cyril of Jerusalem says 72: “receive the Body of Christ and immediately say Amen... Come also to the cup of Blood, saying Amen.” And Ambrose of Milan 73 notes: “The priest says to you: The Body of Christ, but you say Amen, that is, the truth.” We find the same evidence for the blessed one. Augustine 74 in his work against Faustus: “The blood of Christ, he says, causes a great cry (magnum vocem) on earth, since all peoples, after receiving it, exclaim: Amen.” Finally, the blessed one speaks clearly about this. Jerome and Pope Leo the Great. In the first we read 75: “with what consciousness will I approach the Eucharist and answer Amen when you doubt its value.” And the second 76: “Amen is proclaimed in vain by those who have anything against what they receive.” During communion of St. Sacrament, in the ancient Christian church there was usually singing of psalms that most corresponded to the idea of ​​the sacrament. So already in the Apostolic Constitutions 77 the singing of the 33rd Psalm is prescribed, beginning with the words: “I will bless the Lord at all times.” In this psalm, especially significant for this moment are the words: “taste and see that the Lord is good.” Cyril of Jerusalem also points to the singing of the same psalm when he says 78: “You hear a singer, with sweet singing, calling you to receive Holy Communion. Mystery, in the words: “taste and see that the Lord is good.” We then find evidence of the singing of the 33rd Psalm in Jerome 79: “Oh, if only we could, he exclaims, receive the Eucharist without condemnation and reproaches of conscience and listen to the singer proclaiming: taste and see that the Lord is good, and sing with him: “My heart will vomit out the good word” (44:1). We finally find an indication for the singing of these words in the liturgy of St. Jacob 80. Instead of Psalm 33, in some churches it was the custom to sing the words of Psalm 133: “Behold, whatever is good or whatever is good, let the brethren live together.” This is clearly evidenced by Tertullian 81 and Blessed. Augustine 82. In the Church of Alexandria, as can be seen from the ancient liturgy of St. Mark 83, during communion the singing of Psalm 41:1 et seq. took place: “In the same way the tree desires the springs of water.” Finally, in the age of Chrysostom 84, communion was accompanied by the singing of Psalm 144, and, mainly, the 15th verse of this psalm: “the eyes of all, Lord, trust in You, and You give them food in due season.” However, in the ancient liturgy known with his name, there is no indication of the singing of this psalm during communion 85 . Although Christ the Savior established the sacrament of the Eucharist in the evening, teaching His Body and Blood to the apostles after the Easter dinner, however, the Church from the earliest times considered it necessary, out of respect for the divine mysteries, to receive them before any food. We find an indication of such a custom for the first time in Tertullian. Addressing a Christian wife who had a pagan husband, Tertullian reasons as follows: “won’t he (the pagan husband) notice that you seem to be tasting something in secret before dinner. And when he finds out that this is nothing more than bread 86, then what can he think about you, in his ignorance” 87. A clear allusion to the custom of fasting before eating St. The Mysteries can be found at St. Cyprian. “The Lord,” he says in a letter to Cecilia, “not in the morning, but after supper, brought a cup dissolved in wine. So is it really possible for us to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord after supper, and offer the dissolved cup to those who should be present at the sacred rite? Christ had to offer a sacrifice at the end of the day in order to represent the west and evening of the world by the very time of the sacrifice. And we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning” 88. And Chrysostom says 89: “And if you fast before communion in order to somehow prove yourself worthy of communion, then after communion, when you should strengthen your abstinence, you will ruin everything.” Basil the Great (discussion about fasting) and Gregory the Theologian testify to the same thing. “Christ,” says the latter, mysteriously teaches Passover to his disciples in the upper room, after supper, and the day before suffering, and we celebrate it in houses of prayer, before supper, and after resurrection” 90. At the beginning of the 5th century, according to Augustine 91, this custom was already universal. "St. It was the will of the Spirit, he says, that in honor of this sacrament no other food should enter the mouth of a Christian before the Body of the Lord. That is why this ritual is supported by the whole world.” However, based on the testimony of Socrates Scholasticus (430), we must admit that at the time described there were still exceptions to this blessing. Augustine of general church practice. “The neighbors of the Alexandrians, writes this church historian, are the Egyptians and the inhabitants of Thebaid, although they hold meetings on Saturday, they do not receive the Mysteries, as is generally the case with Christians, but they make a sacrifice, and partake of the Mysteries after they have been satiated with all sorts of dishes - around the evening” 92 . An exception to general church practice was the widespread custom in some churches of receiving St. Secrets after supper. This custom existed, for example, in African churches. This is what we read in the 50th rule of the Council of Carthage 93: “let the holy sacrament of the altar be performed by people who have not eaten. Excluded from this is the one day in the year on which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.” There are some historical indications of the existence of this custom in the Gali Church. This is evidenced, for example, by the 6th rule of the Second Masonic Council (585) 94, which, although it forbade clergy to consume divine mysteries after eating food, however, following the example of the Council of Carthage, made an exception for Maundy Thursday. This custom continued to exist until the end of the 7th century, until finally it was finally abolished by the 6th Council of Trulla. “Following the apostolic and patristic traditions, we determine (say the Fathers of this council) that it is not appropriate to allow fasting (before communion) on Pentecost, on the Thursday of the last week, and thereby dishonor the entire Pentecost” 95. Let us now turn to the question of the position of the body in which ancient Christians usually approached Holy Communion. “To this question, says Bingham 96, the answer should be: sometimes they received communion standing, sometimes kneeling, but never receiving communion sitting.” That believers in the ancient Church were in the habit of receiving St. communion standing, this is indicated first of all by those words from the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, which were pronounced by the deacon before the beginning of the liturgy of the faithful: “forgiveness (directly) to the Lord with fear and trembling, standing, let us offer it” 97 . A number of testimonies from patristic writing also indicate the same practice of communion. So, for example, Dionysius of Alexandria, telling about one Christian who often approached St. communion, “presents him standing before the table” (τραπέζῃ παραστάντα) 98. And Cyril of Jerusalem, having given advice on how one should approach receiving St. Body of Christ, continues its speech with these words: “come also to the cup of Blood: not stretching out your hands, but bending down (κυπτων) 99 . Likewise, Chrysostom 100 depicts both the priest and the people standing before the altar. “More terrible than this altar or throne is He before Whom you stand, layman”; and a little lower: “and just as there is a priest here calling on the Holy Spirit, so you call on the Spirit, not in words, but in deed.” Finally, 101 blessings speak about the same thing. Augustine. “But has any of the faithful ever heard that a priest, standing before an altar built even in honor and veneration of St. martyr, said in his prayers: to you Paul, or Peter, or Cyprian I offer sacrifice.” – The practice in question of receiving communion “standing,” according to Bingham’s remark, took place mainly on those days on which prayers were offered by believers standing in church meetings; such days were: the days of the Lord and all the days of Pentecost. “On other days, says Bingham 102, especially on the days of standing in the church, another custom prevailed - offering prayers on one’s knees. One might think that this custom also took place during the communion of St. Tain, although there is no clear evidence of this.” An allusion to this custom of receiving St. The Mystery on the knees can be seen in the following words of Chrysostom 103: “let us approach St. The Mysteries with trepidation, to give thanks, to fall down, confessing one’s sins, to shed tears,” etc. But if the ancient Christians sometimes received communion “standing”, and sometimes on their knees, then they never received St. Tain sitting. There are no indications about this from ancient Christian writers. A deep sense of reverence for St. The mysteries encouraged some ancient Christians, mainly monastics, to approach them “barefoot.” But this custom of removing shoes before communion was local, existing only in some Western monasteries. Odon of Glyuniyskiy testifies to its existence 104. Of all the questions we have outlined about the ancient church practice of communion, it remains for us to consider the question of the method of receiving St. Tain. How did ancient Christians receive St. Body? Directly into the mouth, as now, or into the hands? What a way to receive St. The Mystery took place at the first supper, and in all likelihood, in the apostolic age? Likewise, we need to indicate the way the ancient Christians ate St. Blood. We will now begin to consider the ancient method of communion. Numerous testimonies of the fathers and teachers of both churches clearly testify to us that the Eucharistic bread was given into the hands of the leading Christians. Clement of Alexandria 105 already speaks about the existence of such a practice. In his “Stromata” we read: “having broken up the Eucharist, according to custom, some invite each of the people to take part of it themselves, because each person’s best judge of whether to proceed or withdraw is his conscience.” Undoubtedly, here we are talking about the acceptance of St. Bodies in arms. And Tertullian, rebelling against some Christians who were engaged in making idols and at the same time partaking of the Eucharist, says 106: “Isn’t it bitter to see how a Christian, leaving idols for a while, comes to our church; how he appears from the demon’s workshop into the house of God... He stretches out to the Body of the Lord the hands that recently created the bodies of demons.” And a little lower: “what hands deserve to be truncated, if not those that daily bring offense to the Body of Christ.” We also find a number of such instructions in Cyprian, Bishop. Carthage. “Before making amends for your sins, he says, confess your crime... (the fallen) violate His body and His blood, and thus, with their hands and lips, they now sin against the Lord more than when they rejected the Lord.” In the same work of his 107 we read: “the one lying threatens those standing, the wounded one threatens the uninjured, and the blasphemer is indignant at the priests of God because they do not suddenly allow him to receive the body of the Lord with unclean hands and to drink the blood of the Lord with unclean lips.” Finally, in his letter (48) to the Thebarites 108 we read: “Let us also arm the right hand with the spiritual sword, so that it bravely rejects vile sacrifices, so that, remembering the Eucharist, in which the Body of the Lord is taught, it embraces Him when it later receives from the Lord the reward of heavenly crowns.” Clear evidence of the practice of communing the Eucharistic bread with the hands is also found in Dionysius of Alexandria, who tells the following about himself. “I,” says Dionysius, did not dare to do this (to rebaptize someone who had been baptized from heretics), saying that I do not dare to again prepare the one who listened to the blessing of the gifts, began the meal, stretched out his hands to receive the Holy Spirit. food, accepted it and for a long time partook of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” 109. But we find a particularly detailed indication of this practice in St. Cyril of Jerusalem 110: “When approaching communion, he says, approaching not with outstretched hands, but making his left hand a throne with his right, as if he wants to receive the King, and, bending his palm, accept the body of Christ.” And Basil the Great 111 notes: “in the church, the priest teaches a portion and the recipient holds it with full right, thus bringing it to his lips with his own hand.” Likewise, Gregory the Theologian sheds light on the existence of the practice in question with his private remarks. “Julian, he notes, washes away the water of baptism with foul blood, replacing our mysterious accomplishment with his own vile, he performs a cleansing on his hands in order to cleanse them from the bloodless sacrifice, through which we become participants with Christ in suffering and divinity” 112. Repeated mention of the ancient Christians taking the Eucharistic bread into their hands is also contained in the conversations of Chrysostom. “When,” he says, in the 3rd conversation on the Epistle to the Ephesians 113, you appear before the judgment seat of Christ, you who dare to accept His body with unclean lips and hands... Tell me, he continues a little lower, would you dare to approach the sacrifice with unwashed hands? I don't think so. On the contrary, you would rather decide not to start at all than to start with unclean hands.” And in the 27th conversation on I Corinth. 114 we read. “Let everyone keep clean his hand, tongue and mouth, which served as a threshold for the entry of Christ.” He testifies to the same thing in the 6th conversation against the Jews. Condemning Christians who, during illness, asked the Jews for healing on their palms, he says 115: “How can you justify yourself before Christ? how to beg Him? How will you feel when you come to church after this? With what eyes will you look at the priest? With what hand will you touch the holy meal? – That the same practice of communion prevailed in the Western Church is evidenced by St. Ambrose of Milan. In his accusatory speech to Emperor Theodosius, he, among other things, says the following 116: “With what eyes will you look at the church of the common Lord of all? How can you stretch out your hands, from which the blood of those unjustly killed is still dripping? How will you receive the Most Holy Body of the Lord with these hands?” Eucharistic bread was served into the hands of believers in the 5th century. This is what the blessed one says. Theodoret 117: “St. The Apostle, by saying: He will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, makes it clear that just as Judas betrayed Him and the Jews mocked Him, so those who receive His all-holy Body with unclean hands and put it into unclean lips dishonor Him.” And blessed Augustine asks: “in cujus manibus eucharistiam ponebatis?” 118. Undoubtedly, the same practice of accepting St. he hints at bread in the following words: “with the same care we guard the Body of Christ and take care that nothing from it falls from our hands to the ground, with the same care we must take care that the word of God, when we think or say something, does not perish for our heart” 119. The practice noted by the fathers of the Eastern and Western Churches is common in the East and in later times. The Council of Trulla in 692 mentions it. Rule 101 of this council says the following 120: “If anyone wants to partake of the most pure Body during the Liturgy and be one with it through the sacrament, let him form his hands in the image of the cross and so let him approach, and let him receive the communion of grace.” The latest evidence of the ancient Eastern practice of taking the Eucharistic bread in one's hands is the instruction of John of Damascus 121 (8th century). In his “Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith” he says: “by folding our hands in the likeness of a cross, we receive the Body of the Crucified One.” Existing in the Eastern churches, the ancient practice of communion also dominated in the West in the 8th century. This is evidenced by the Venerable Bede † 735. Describing the death of the monk Tselnon, he conveys the following 122: “when Tselnon felt the approach of death and wished to receive Holy Communion. Mystery, - they brought him St. Eucharist; Having accepted it with his own hands, he took communion and thus prepared for his death.” Although the case noted by Bede falls at the end of the 7th century, however, according to Professor Petrovsky, it is also significant for the beginning of the 8th century, “since Bede would not have left changes in the practice of communion unnoticed if they had been present with him” 123. Later evidence of the existence of ancient practice is found in the statutes of St. Boniface († 754) 124 . Since only one sick person is prescribed to receive the Eucharist by mouth, one can think that the healthy received the Eucharist in Boniface’s hands. As we will see below, the Roman Church maintained the same practice in the subsequent period. Thus, in both the Eastern and Western Churches, the distribution of Eucharistic bread into hands was a common practice for as many as 8 centuries. So that with this method of receiving the Eucharistic bread there would be no carelessness or negligence, the Church of the earliest times began to demand from believers a particularly attentive attitude to the act of distribution. Already Tertullian says: “we take great care that nothing from our bread or cup falls to the ground” 125. Origen also notes the same: “you, accustomed to being present at the divine Sacraments, know what caution and reverence you display when, receiving the Body of the Lord, you try with all caution and reverence so that nothing falls from it, and so that nothing perishes from the sacred gift. For you consider yourself to be guilty, and rightly so, if anything falls from him through negligence.” Christians and St. Cyril of Jerusalem 127. “With caution,” he says, sanctifying your eyes with the touch of St. Bodies, take communion, being careful not to destroy anything from it. If you destroy something, then through this you will lose, as it were, your own member... That which is more precious than gold and expensive stones, you must protect so that not a single grain falls from you.” Taking careful care that nothing from the received part of the Eucharistic bread fell to the ground, the ancient Christians tried to express their respect for St. I also give gifts by the fact that I approached them with washed hands. We find frequent indications of this in patristic literature. Let us recall at least the above words of Chrysostom from the 3rd conversation on the letter to the Ephesians and the 27th conversation on the letter to the Jews. But the blessed one speaks especially clearly about this. Augustine: “All men, he says, 128 when they wish to receive communion, let them wash their hands.” Obviously, in ancient times ablutio manum was required not only from the elders who began to celebrate the Eucharist, but also from the people. When considering the question of the method of receiving the Eucharistic bread, one cannot pass in silence one peculiar custom that took place in some churches of the West. We are talking about the custom of distributing the Eucharistic bread to women not directly into their hands, but into a special oblong linen cloth called Dominicale. We find the first indication of its use in Bla. Augustine, in his 252 words “de Tempore”. Noting that men must begin to receive the Eucharistic bread with clean, washed hands, he continues his speech with the following words: “and all women must have a clean cloth (towel) in order to receive the Eucharist in it” 129. The existence of Dominicale is an undeniable truth around the time of Gregory the Great. This is revealed from the following definitions of the Antisiodorian Council 130 (578), - rights. 36: “it is not permissible for a woman to receive the Eucharist with a naked hand”; and right. 42: “everyone who approaches the reception of St. Tain, a woman must have her Dominicale; whoever does not have Dominicale should not receive communion until the next day.” This custom existed only in the West. The Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church do not mention him. Having examined the ancient way for believers to receive the Eucharistic bread, let us now move on to the question of the way they partook of the consecrated wine from the Eucharistic cup. The most ancient method, common to the churches of East and West, was to partake of the Eucharistic wine directly from the cup itself. We have a clear indication of such practice in the works of Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem and other Church Fathers. “When,” says St. Cyprian, the deacon began to bring the cup to those present and when it came to the girl’s turn, he, despite the resistance... poured it into her mouth” 131. Undoubtedly, Cyril of Jerusalem 132 testifies to the same thing when those approaching St. Chalice gives the following instruction: “after communion of the Body of Christ, approach the chalice of Blood, not stretching out your hands, but bending down... and by partaking of the Blood of Christ, you will be sanctified. And when the moisture is still on your lips, touching it with your hands, sanctify your forehead, eyes, and other senses.” This custom continued to exist in the future. In the Gali Church we meet him at the end of the 6th century. Gregory of Tours, who lived at that time, reproached the Arians for the fact that they had the habit of “giving communion to the laity from one cup, and from another to kings” 133. At a later time in the West, the custom arose of giving communion through a special kind of tube (calamus siphon), made of gold, silver, etc. With this method of receiving communion, one end of the tube was usually placed in the cup, and the other in the mouth. When this custom began to exist, it is impossible to determine, according to Martingy 134. A clear explanation and addition of the data about the ancient practice of communion that is found in written monuments can be found in the archaeological monuments of Christian art. These monuments shed especially bright light on the question of the form and method of communion of ancient Christians. Let us dwell, first of all, on the monuments of Christian art of the Catacomb period. Under the symbolic veil thrown over these monuments, it is not difficult to find, first of all, an indication that communion in the era of persecution was performed under two types: bread and wine. Let us dwell, for example, on the recently opened tomb of St. Callista. In one of its compartments, according to Rossi 135, two copies of an image of a fish swimming in the waves with a wicker basket on the ridge were found; At the top of the basket are depicted five round loaves, and in the middle, through the lattice wall, a red glass vessel is visible, probably with wine 136. According to the general opinion of archaeologists, the depiction of loaves on ancient monuments usually indicates the Eucharist. Here, a vessel with grape wine, another substance of the Eucharist, is attached to the loaves. Therefore, there is no doubt that the painting in question serves as a depiction of the Eucharist. From here it becomes clear that in the 3rd century bread and wine were used for the communion of believers. And that the same form of communion existed somewhat earlier, at the end of the 2nd century, for this we are told by one tombstone inscription belonging to Averky, Bishop of Hierapolis, a contemporary of Marcus Aurelius: “Faith, we read here, offered for food a great, pure Fish, Which the Immaculate Virgin conceived: Faith gave this Fish as food to the faithful, offering good wine along with bread" 137. In the monuments of the most ancient period of Christian art we find indications of the method of receiving the Eucharist. Here, for example, before us is one of the sacramental images in the already mentioned catacombs of St. Callista 138: a dining table around which 7 naked figures sit: with one hand they make some kind of gesture, the other is extended towards the table on which there are two large fish. In front of the table, parts of 7 baskets of bread also survived. If, according to Rossi and his school, this image symbolically denotes the Eucharist, the hands of those present reaching out to the table is the best indicator that in the 3rd century the faithful received the Eucharistic bread in their hands. We meet a similar group on a 5th century diptych belonging to the Milan Cathedral. The same method of receiving the Eucharistic bread is indicated by one interesting monument found in 1839 in Antun (France). This is a Greek metrical inscription, late 2nd or early 3rd century. “Son of the heavenly Fish, it is said here, take the honey food of the Savior of the saints: eat, drink, having the Fish in your hands” (ἰχθύν) 139. According to Wilpert 140 and Magtingy 141, this inscription is the best evidence that at the beginning of the 3rd century the Eucharistic bread was taught to believers in their hands. If we now move from the monuments of art of the Catacomb period to the monuments of the Byzantine period (VI, etc.), we will see that the ancient practice of communion in the form of bread distributed into hands and wine offered from a cup remained common in the Church even after the era of persecution. This is clearly evidenced by the long series of images of the Last Supper according to the liturgical translation, which began to exist in the 6th century. This includes images of the Eucharist in the Gospel of the Rossan Codex (6th century), in the Syrian Gospel of Ravbula (586), in the Parisian, Greek Four Gospels of the 11th century. (Par. Nat. Bibl. No. 74), in the Greek psalter of Lobkov (9th century), in the British psalter (1066), Athonopandocrator (9th century), Barberine (XI century) and other psalters, - in the frescoes of Nacresi (not earlier than the 8th century), in the mosaic of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral (X-XI centuries), Kiev-Mikhailovsky Monastery (XI-XII centuries) 142. In all of these depictions of the Last Supper, the Apostles are represented as approaching to receive the Eucharistic bread with outstretched hands. However, the very act of communion is depicted differently in these monuments. In some monuments the Savior is depicted holding: in his right hand a piece of Eucharistic bread, and in his left hand a chalice; A group of Apostles approaches Him, the first of whom, bowing, extends his hand to receive the Eucharist (Evangel. Rabbis). Meanwhile, in other monuments, the image of the supper is divided into two parts: in one, Jesus Christ teaches the 6 Apostles to St. bread, in the other - St. cup (in Evan. Rossansky, in the frescoes of Nekrezi, in the mosaic of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral). In some monuments, although the act of communion from the chalice is separated from the act of Christ distributing St. bread, however, the chalice is depicted as being in the hands of the Apostles themselves. When considering these monuments, the question arises: what value do they have in determining the duration of the ancient practice? Their value, according to prof. Pokrovsky 143, is not the same: while some of them reproduce practice that is contemporary to them, others depict past practice, which has already become obsolete. The latter type of monuments should include all images that appeared after the 9th century, for the eastern rite of communion at that time changed its ancient, original forms. In addition to monuments of Byzantine art, there are also a number of monuments of Western art. They clearly indicate to us that the ancient rite of communion, which dominated the West in the 8th century, continued to exist in a further period of time. These monuments include images of the Eucharist in the sacramentaries: Tours (9th century), Metz (855), the Göttingen University Library and Bamberg A. II, 52 (end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century), in the antiphonary No. 390–391 of the city of Gallen, in the evangelism of the Berlin Print Museum (mid-11th century) and on gold relief of an altar column in the city of Aachen (10th century) 144. The Savior is depicted here holding the Eucharistic bread in one hand, and St. in the other. cup. A characteristic feature of this is that Judas is the only one who usually stretches out his hand to receive the Eucharistic bread. The same liturgical character, the Last Supper, according to Prof. Pokrovsky, sometimes adopted in monuments of the 11th–13th centuries. 145. “Such,” he says, “is the enamel box published by Cahier, and the miniature of the hands. national bib., No. 9561 (fol. 164): Jesus Christ, standing behind the throne, gives the Apostles with his right hand the Holy. bread, with the left hand a cup (on the box there is a small jar).” Of particular importance to us is the first category of named monuments, as they reproduce the existing practice of communion. In the monuments of the 11th–13th centuries. the ancient way of receiving communion “is almost an anachronism. The 13th century represents for the Western Church the time of the introduction of new forms of communion that still exist in it” 146. From everything that has been said about the method of communion of ancient Christians, we must draw the conclusion that, starting from the end of the 2nd century and ending with the 8th in the East and the 11th in the West, Christians communed with the Flesh and Blood separately, and the Eucharistic bread was placed in their hands. But quite early, both in the East and in the West, simultaneously with the ancient practice, a new custom of distributing the Eucharistic bread not into the hands, but directly into the mouth, began to come into use. As for the West, traces of this custom can be seen as early as the middle of the 6th century. This is evidenced by Pope Gregory the Great, in his 3rd book of dialogues, where he notes that Pope Agapit ordered one lame and blind man to put the Body of the Lord in his mouth 147. True, this case was exceptional: it only says that the giving of the Eucharistic bread by mouth initially took place only during the communion of the sick. But already in the 9th century this method began to be practiced when giving communion to all believers. The Cathedral of Cordoba (839) testifies to its existence in the Spanish Church at the described time. He remarks about the local sect, the Casians, that they avoid receiving communion in churches, since St. bread is given by mouth 148. The same 9th century marks the beginning of a new practice in the Gallic Churches. This is what was decreed at the Council of Rouen (Rothomagensis), which was under Louis (tongue-tied): presbyter “nulli laico aut feminae Eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantùm in os ejus” 149. But this new practice, which arose in the West, probably did not last long. At least, this is what makes us think so because, apart from the above evidence of writing, there are no other indications of its existence. In monuments of art, this practice is reproduced only twice: in the Stuttgart psalter (10th century) and in the Gospel of St. Bernard, early 11th century. Judas is depicted here receiving the Eucharist directly into his mouth 150. In the East, this method of communion did not exist. The acceptance of the Body of Christ in the arms and the sharing of the Blood of Christ from the chalice was replaced here by their joint eating through a spoon. The question of the time from which the liar became the property of the Eastern Churches was resolved differently. Some, such as Nicephorus 151, Latinius 152, Arcudius 153, attributed its origin to the time of Chrysostom and Pope Innocent II (417). But we have already seen that Chrysostom himself, in his conversations (3rd on last. to the Ephesians, 24th and 27th to 1st Epistle to the Corinthians), and other contemporary writers of the Eastern and Western Church mention exclusively the distribution of the Eucharistic bread into hands. Therefore, there is no reason to connect the beginning of this custom with the name of John Chrysostom. We find the first evidence of the existence of a liar in John the Faster (595) 154. This is what we read in the interpretation attributed to him 155 on the liturgy: Τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς λαβίδος μεταλαμβάνειν τὴν τοῦ Ἠσαΐου λαβίδα σημαίνει, δὶ ἧς τὸν ἐξ' οὐρανοῦ ὑπεδέξατο ἄνθρακα. Communion through a spoon means the tongs of the prophet Isaiah, with which he brought fire from heaven. But, according to prof. Petrovsky, 156 this place can hardly be considered belonging to John the Faster, since, given the clear evidence of the existence of ancient practice in the 7th and 8th centuries, it becomes certain that communion through a spoon could not yet have taken place at the end of the 6th century. We find the first historically reliable evidence of the existence of a new practice of communion in Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and in the second canon of the Council of Prague (Brakar) in 675. Sophronius, speaking about the martyrs Cyrus and John, notes that they carried a cup filled with the Body and Blood of Christ. Citing this evidence, Prof. Petrovsky 157 makes this kind of remark: “as can be seen from the course of speech, the new practice was resorted to only in exceptional cases, in cases of initiation of the sick; the usual method of communion remained, therefore, the same.” Nor does the 2nd rule of the 3rd Brakar Council speak about the final approval of the new practice of communion. This is what we read in it: “the custom of teaching the people, instead of full communion, the drunken Eucharist (pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam) does not find confirmation in the Gospel, which mentions the separate distribution of bread and cup. We see that Christ did not teach the drenched bread to the other Apostles after the dipped piece was received by the traitor, and this piece was given to designate the traitor, and did not signify the establishment of the sacrament” 158. Obviously, at the time of this council, communion through a spoon was far from being a universal practice. This method came into general use, but earlier than the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century. The basis for such a statement can be, first of all, the text of the Barberine list of the liturgy of Basil the Great and the liturgy of John Chrysostom, placed in the collection of ancient liturgies. The antiquity of these lists by some (Bunsen, Gohar) 159 dates back to the 8th century, by others (Petrovsky) to the 9th century. This is what we read here 160: “After the people say: one is holy, one is Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father, the priest takes particles from the Holy Body and puts them into the holy cups.” The indication contained here of the inclusion of particles of the Holy Body serves as the best guarantee for the fact that one place in Krasnoseltsev’s “Interpretation of the Liturgy of St. Herman as amended in the 8th–10th centuries.” 161. In the Greek edition of this interpretation (no later than IX) 162 we find, among other things, the following expression: πίνομεν τό ποτήριον, ὡς σάρκα καὶ αἷμα (we drink the cup like the Body and Blood) 163. This expression contains a clear indication that the believers were communing at that time from a cup containing the Body and Blood of Christ, and, of course, they were communing from a spoon. But this new method of communion in the 9th century had not yet become the property of all the Eastern Churches without exception. Some historical evidence tells us that in the Church of Jerusalem even in the 11th century the ancient practice of communion remained dominant. A clear indication of this is found in the Messinian (984–5) 164 and Rossansky (no later than the end of the 11th century) 165 lists of the Jerusalem Liturgy of the Ap. Jacob. After the prayer read by the priest before communion, the following remark is placed in the indicated rite: “then the priest teaches to the clergy; when the deacons take the paten (on which, of course, the Body of Christ relied) and the cups to teach the people, the deacon who took the first paten says: “Lord, bless!” etc. 166. The 11th century writer, Humbert 167, testifies to the same thing. Having become in the X-XI centuries. a common occurrence throughout almost the entire East, communion through a spoon is beginning to penetrate into the West. In the middle of the 11th century, this custom was still treated unsympathetically. Here is what Humbert (11th century) wrote, for example, about this method of communion: “If you (Greeks) are in the habit of taking the bread of eternal life drunk in a cup from a spoon, then what are you contradicting? The Lord, after all, did not put bread into the cup of wine and did not say to the Apostles: Take, and eat from the spoon, for this is My Body. But He, as now, inviolably preserves the Roman Church, having taken St. He blessed the bread, and broke it and distributed it, saying: “Take, eat,” etc. 168. However, soon communion from a spoon begins to exist in the West. This custom arose here at the end of the same 11th century, and was first practiced when giving communion to the sick. This is clearly evidenced by the 28th canon of the Council of Claremont 169, which allowed teaching the Eucharist from a spoon only in cases of extreme need, for example, for fear of spilling the Holy Spirit. Blood when giving communion to the sick. In the same way, Pope Paschalis II, in the 32nd letter to Pontius 170, having noted that in accepting the Body and Blood of the Lord one should observe the Divine Tradition, however, in this case he made an exception for infants and the sick who cannot swallow St. bread. The Cathedral of Tours reacted even more favorably to this new type of communion. “Every presbyter, we read in one of his canons, must have a reliquary (pyxidem) or vessel in which he must carefully place the Body of Christ, intended for the guidance of those departing from the world. At the same time, St. the offering must be given to drink the Blood of Christ, so that the presbyter can say to the sick person: May the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ protect you for the remission of sins and eternal life" 171 . Some evidence cited by the liturgist Bonogo 172 also speaks for the spread of communion through the spoon in the West. Such, for example, is evidence from the ancient ritual of the missa, described by John, Bishop of Abrincaten, and from the ancient rules of the monastery of Cluniacen. Finally, this custom was defended by Ernulf, Bishop of Rochester (1115–1124) in one of his letters published by Dayerius 173. But the very method of communion was also condemned in the West. Many considered it an innovation and did not even want it to be allowed when giving communion to the sick and children. Bernold of Constantia 174 (1100) and the London Cathedral disapproved of him. At the latter, for example, the following was decided: inhibemus, ne quis quasi pro complemento communionis intinctam alicui eucharistiam tradat (san. XI) 175. Not having accepted the practice of the Eastern Church, but on the other hand, seeing the inconvenience of the ancient method of communion, which constantly threatened the shedding of Blood, the Western Church begins to develop the practice of giving communion to the laity only under one type of Body. The first indications of this practice date back to the 12th century. According to Bona, the new practice was supported at this time by: Abbot of Lutych, Rudolf (1100) and Robert Pulleyn 176. The latter argued, for example, the following: “it would be very good to teach the people only bread, because wine can always cause something to be spilled” 177 . According to prof. Petrovsky, the councils of Cologne (1179) and the province of Canterbury (1181) also spoke out for the new practice of communion 178 . But a whole series of other evidence dating back to the same 12th century tells us that the dominant practice at that time was still communion under both types. Let us point out, for example, the testimony of Peter Lombard (mid-12th century) 179 and Gratian (of the same century). “Some,” says the latter, being imbued with schismatic arrogance, contrary to the divine definition and apostolic institutions, teach to the people, instead of full communion, intinctam eucharistiam. That this is contrary to the Gospel and Apostolic teaching and contrary to church practice is revealed from the very source of truth, from which the divine sacraments, etc., originated.” 180. Condemning the method of communion through a spoon, Gratian, as we see, stands for the separate teaching of St. bread and wine. Defended by writers of the 12th century, communion under both types continued to exist in the West into the 13th century. So, for example, Albertus Magnus calls it the commandment of the Savior 181. The cathedrals of the 13th century also speak of its existence: Durham and Exeter 182. But with the existence of the ancient practice of communion in the thirteenth century, the new custom of giving communion to the laity under the mere sight of bread began to spread more and more. Thomas Aquinas, who was more or less sympathetic to this new custom, notes that it was already widespread “in many churches” 183. Bonaventure speaks no less clearly about the new practice. Advocating for the complete deprivation of the cup from the laity, he argued that the effect of receiving communion under one type of bread is the same as the effect of receiving communion under both types 184 . The prevalence of the new practice is also indicated by one of the resolutions (1261) of the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order 185. “Monks, it is said here, and the Balians (Laienbrüder) and monks of the order must not eat from the cup: this right belongs only to the presbyter.” At the end of the 13th century, communio sub una became a universal custom, so that the 14th-century writer Duns Scotus considered it to be something long-known 186. In the 15th century, the Council of Constance (1415) finally legitimized the new practice 187; the same is confirmed by the Council of Basel 188 (1431); a The Council of Trent 189 included it among the canons of the church. We examined the ancient Christian practice of receiving (in the proper sense) church communion. But in addition to this type of communion, home communion was widespread in the ancient Church. We will now begin to consider this private, home practice of communion. A whole series of historical evidence tells us, first of all, that in the ancient Church, at the end of the Eucharistic service, St. gifts were sent to those believers who, for good reasons, could not attend prayer meetings. According to Harnack, “the basis of this custom lay 190 in the idea of ​​society with which the ancient Church was imbued and animated in all its life activity, and which found its concrete expression, its mysterious stamp in the communion of the Eucharist. From among those Christians who did not commune with St. gifts at the liturgy, the Church paid special attention to the sick, to those in custody or in prison, and to the penitent if their life was in danger. We find the first historical evidence of this practice in Justin the Martyr. “After giving thanks to the primate, we read in his 1st apology 191, the so-called deacons among us give each of those present to partake of the bread on which thanksgiving was made and refer them to those who were absent”; and a little lower: “and there is a distribution to everyone and communion of the gifts over which thanksgiving is made, and they are sent to those who were not present through the deacons.” The ancient custom of giving communion to those who are absent is clearly evidenced by the acts of St. Lucian 192, presbyter of Antioch. After the story of how one day St. Lucian performed the sacrament of the Eucharist on his own chest (in the Mamertine prison), here the following remark is made: “and he himself became a participant in the sacrament, and sent it to those who were absent (aberant).” Transfer of St. Those who were absent were usually entrusted with the mysteries to deacons. But in case of special need, this was also entrusted to one of the lower clergy. We find clear confirmation of this in the legend of the martyrdom of Acoluthus Tarsicius 193. This confessor accepted the crown of martyrdom because he did not want to give St. to the pagans. the secrets that he carried, on behalf of the presbyter Dionysius, imprisoned in the Mamertine prison. Sometimes St. Even ordinary believers took communion. We find an indication of this in a letter from Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Fabius of Antioch 194. Here it is told about one Elder Serapion, who had fallen away and had not yet had time to repent, that he received the sacrament, during the illness of the presbyter, from the hands of his young grandson. During times of persecution, this method of transferring St. The Mystery was practiced quite often by the laity. It did not go out of use when giving communion to the sick for quite a long time and in subsequent times. It existed especially for a long time in the Western Church. Here we see it even in the 9th century. “It has come to our attention, we read in one of the definitions of the Reims (under Pope Nicholas 1st) Council, that some presbyters are so disrespectful to St. The secrets that St. The Body of the Lord is given to men and women to be taken to the sick." 195 Armed against such a “bold” custom, the council decreed “that each presbyter should administer communion to the sick personally.” But this custom continued to exist in the 10th century. This is evidenced by the fact that the Bishop of Verona, Raterius, in one of his letters 196 to the elders demanded that none of them “for the communion of the sick should not hand over the Eucharist to the people or women.” And only after the 10th century did the communion of the sick become an exclusive property: first of deacons and elders, then (from the 13th century) only of elders 197 . A clear expression of the idea of ​​the unity of all in Christ that animated early Christian society is another custom, practiced in the first centuries, of the exchange of Eucharistic gifts between churches. This exchange usually took place around the time of Easter. Clear evidence of its existence was left by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in his letter to Pope Victor 198. Pointing out the existence of disagreements in the Churches of Asia Minor regarding the celebration of Easter, Irenaeus notes that the refusal of some to celebrate it on Sunday did not yet entail excommunication. “On the contrary,” Irenaeus turns to Victor, those same presbyters who did not observe it and those who preceded you sent the Eucharist to the brothers who came from other dioceses that observed it.” However, very early this custom gave rise to some abuses, so that the Council of Laodicea found it necessary to abolish it. “On the holiday of Easter, we read in the 14th 199th rule of this council, do not send St. Mysteries to other parishes in the form of a blessing.” However, in some places it continued to exist for a long time even after the Council of Laodicea. This is evidenced, for example, by Blessed Augustine (Epist. 31): “Let the bread that we sent as a sign of respect for the recipient be a most fruitful blessing.” An indication of this custom is also found in Paulinus’ letter to Augustine: “we ask you to accept the bread that we sent you as a sign of unanimity.” (Er. 25) 200 . The custom of mutual exchange of St. Mysteries existed not only among entire Churches and bishops, but also among ordinary believers. It was especially common among monks. We find evidence of this in John Moschus 201. “An Orthodox ascetic, it is narrated in his “Spiritual Meadow,” asked a heretic (follower of the North) to send him a particle of the sacrament. He was delighted and immediately sent him what he requested, suspecting nothing. The Orthodox, having received a particle from the heretic, heated the vessel and put the particle into it, and it immediately disappeared into the heat of the flaming vessel.” But the communion of the Orthodox Church remained intact and unharmed. We have seen that in the ancient Church, everyone who was absent during the celebration of the liturgy, unless it depended on their fault, received the Holy Spirit. Secrets at home; Now we will dwell on the consideration of another custom, widespread in the era of persecution, by virtue of which “the believers who were present at the celebration of the commission of St. sacraments in the catacombs and other secret places, other consecrated parts of the Eucharistic bread received. They took them home with them and received communion here whenever there was a need to strengthen their faith and, for the most part, in moments of preparation for martyrdom” 202. We find clear evidence for the existence of this custom in the works of Tertullian and Cyprian. Tertullian, admonishing those who were perplexed about how to combine the public celebration of the liturgy and the communion of the Eucharist with the requirements during fasting days, wrote 203: “having received the Body of the Lord and preserved it, you will keep both inviolable: both the communion of the sacrifice and the fulfillment of duty” 204. Cyprian also testifies to the same thing when, in his work on the fallen, he tells us that “one woman, who attempted with unworthy hands to open her ark, in which the shrine of the Lord was kept, was frightened by the fire that came out of there.” An indication of the same custom is found in Cyprian and in his work: “On Spectacles,” where 205 he tells the following about one unworthy Christian: “rushing to the spectacle, upon leaving the church, and, as usual, still carrying the Eucharist with him, this infidel brought the Holy Body of Christ into the midst of the cold bodies of harlots.” Basil the Great also points out the wide distribution of this custom during times of persecution when, in his letter to Caesarius 206, he writes: “and it is not at all dangerous if someone during persecution, in the absence of a priest or servant, is forced to take the sacrament with his own hand. It would be unnecessary to prove this, because long-term custom confirms this by deeds.” The practice of home communion we are considering continued to exist long after the times of persecution. The same Basil the Great testifies to this. “All monks,” he says about his time, living in the deserts where there is no priest, keeping the sacrament in the house, give themselves communion... And in Alexandria and Egypt, he continues, every baptized layman has the sacrament in his house and receives communion by himself whenever he wants. And Gregory the Theologian, in his funeral homily for his sister, Gorgonia, writes that St. gifts 208. In the described time (5th century) St. They often took gifts with them on trips. This custom is indicated by St. Ambrose of Milan, telling about his brother Satyr that he received St. Eucharist from his companions on the ship 209. Blessed One also mentions the custom of home communion. Jerome 210. “I know,” he says, that in Rome it is the custom of believers to receive the Body of Christ at any time: this I do not blame or approve of. But I appeal to their conscience: why the next day after they indulge in the message and, in the words of Perseus, wash away the night in the river, why do they not dare to go to the martyrs? Why don't they want to go to church? Is not Christ the same in their house and in the house where the community of believers gathers?” However, we must note that the custom of home communion was not always approved by everyone. Origen already spoke out against him, in his interpretation of the 8th chapter of the book of Leviticus. “The bread that the Lord distributed to His disciples with the words: take, eat, He did not command them to save until the next day” 211. But the councils (Spain) especially strongly opposed this custom: Caesar-Augustan (381) and Toledo I (400). “If anyone dares not to use the accepted shrine of the Eucharist, let him be anathema forever,” we read in one of the definitions of the first council 212. The same was decided at the Council of Toledo: “if anyone does not consume the Eucharist received from the priest, let him be called a blasphemer” (Sacrilegus) 213. The reason for such a strict attitude towards the ancient custom was a number of abuses on the part of the Priscillianists, who used the church distribution of gifts in order to hide their wrongdoing and not partake of the Eucharist at all. But if the custom of home communion in Spain ceased already at the beginning of the 5th century, then in the rest of the Churches of the Christian world it continued to exist much longer. We find mention of him, for example, by Pope Gregory the Great, in the 3rd book of the Dialogues (cap. 36). “Every monk, says the pope, wherever he goes, must have the Eucharist with him” 214. We also find evidence of this custom in John Moschus, in his account of a miracle that took place in Seleucia under Bishop Dionysius (mid-6th century). “One Orthodox servant, says Moschus 215, received, according to the custom of the country, on Holy Thursday. gifts, wrapped them in clean linen and put them in his closet... Here they remained for a whole year. When the owner decided to set them on fire and opened the closet, he saw that all the saints. the particles grew stems and ears.” Anastasius the Librarian also points to the home practice of communion when he reports that one court nobleman (Philippines) was constantly in the house of St. Body of Christ 216. In the 10th century, Eastern monks even had a whole ceremony of home communion. This is what the Corinthian Archbishop Luke the Hermit prescribed: “if there is a chapel, then place the vessel containing the Eucharist on the altar, or, in its absence, on a particularly clean table: having unfolded the cloth, place holy particles on it, burn incense, sing psalms, the trisagion and the symbol; after this, having made three bows, as a sign of respect, accept the Body of Christ, saying: Amen” 217. This custom continued to exist at a later time. Considering the ancient practice of home communion, one cannot help but dwell on the question of methods of transferring and preserving St. gifts. Regarding first of all the transfer of St. Secrets, then for this purpose both clergy and ordinary believers used a special cloth, which was attached to the neck with a cord and was known under the name orarium (Ambrose of Milan) 218. Sometimes St. Communion was placed by believers in special vessels made of gold, silver, etc. 219. The poorer members of the Christian community to transfer St. The Tain used small willow receptacles and glass vessels. The latter is clearly evidenced by the blessed one. Jerome, saying: “there is no one richer than he who carries the Body of the Lord in a wicker basket (canistro vimineo), the blood in a glass vessel (vitro)” 220. In the catacombs you can find images that are like a translation of the words blessed. Jerome. We have already mentioned them. These are oblong lattices, on the top of which there are images of bread with a cross-shaped cut, and inside there is a vessel filled with red wine. And in the houses of St. the Eucharist was preserved in vessels, the value of which, of course, was determined by the material condition of their owners. St. Cyprian, in his essay “On the Fallen,” uses the general name “ark” (asra) 221 to designate this kind of vessels. But you can, according to Martigny 222, formulate a more precise concept about them from one round-shaped reliquary, with a dove on top, which was depicted in one chapel of the Vatican cemetery above the sarcophagus (Bottari, tav. XIX). This becomes all the more likely because on the other side of this chapel there are depicted: the figure of a praying woman and a large bunch of books. According to Martigny 223, “this double subject of painting is reminiscent of the custom of using two types of tabernacles in basilicas, one of which usually contained the Eucharist, and the other the sacred books.” Having examined the ancient practice of church and home communion, in conclusion we will mention one very original custom, which was the property of some Christian Churches. This is the custom of giving communion to the dead. The question arises: how could such a profanation of the sacrament of the Eucharist arise? In all likelihood, the origin of this custom was greatly facilitated: on the one hand, the desire to help the afterlife of the dead, and on the other, a deep, but not entirely conscious, reasonable belief in the power of this sacrament. The method of giving communion to the dead is not precisely known, but, based on the meaning of the conciliar definitions prohibiting it, one can think that St. Communion was given to the dead in their mouths. We find the first mention of this existence in the 26th rule of the Council of Carthage. “It is prescribed, we read in this rule, that the Eucharist should not be given to the bodies of the deceased. For it is written: take, eat, but the bodies of the deceased cannot receive or eat." 224 Communion of the dead was also practiced in the Gali Church, as evidenced by the 12th canon of the Antisiodorian Council (578), “to the dead, it is said here, it is not appropriate to give either the Eucharist or a fraternal kiss” 225. One might think that this custom was also widespread in the Eastern Churches. Some archaeologists, for example, Augusti, Bingham, find a hint of its existence in the following words of St. Chrysostom 226, directed against the Marcionites: “to whom, tell me, do the words of the Savior refer: if you do not eat My Flesh, nor drink My Blood, do not have life in you (John 6:53) - to the living or the dead?” It was especially widespread here in the 7th century, so the Council of Trullo (83 others) 227 found it necessary to once again repeat the resolution of the Council of Carthage. In the ancient Church there was another custom, very similar to the one just described, the custom of placing the consecrated elements, especially the Eucharistic bread, along with the body of the deceased in the coffin. This was especially often practiced during the burial of clergy, and served for the dead as an ultimum viaticum 228. Historical data on this issue are collected by Martene, in his “De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus” 229. It is known, we read from him, that St. Basil, during one mission, divided St. the bread into three parts, of which he communed with one, placed the other in a golden dove-shaped vessel over the throne, and finally left the third for burial with himself (conservavit consepeliri sibi). We also find an indication of the existence of this custom in St. Pope Gregory, in his 2nd book of “Dialogues” (cap. 24.). He tells us that Pope Benedict ordered the laying of St. secrets onto the chest of one monk and bury them with him. One might think that this custom was practiced for a long time even after St. Gregory, both in the West and in the East. A clear hint of its existence in the Eastern Church was preserved, for example, by the interpreter of church rules Balsamon (XIII century) 230. Having spoken about why the communion of the dead was prohibited by the councils, he notes: “and what is given to the bishops after their death into the hands of St. bread, and thus buried, this is done, I think, to drive away evil spirits, and so that those worthy of the great and apostolic promise may be guided to heaven.” Ivo (12th century) testifies to the later existence of this custom in the Western Church. He narrates that “when the body of St. Othmar, then together with him were transferred from his tomb and St. gifts" (Binghami, Oper. VI, 427.). By considering this custom, long practiced in the Church, we will finish our talk about the ancient Christian practice of receiving Holy Communion. secret Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων published. priest Solovyova. Moscow, 1886, pp. 104–105. Scriptures of the Apostolic Men, trans. Preobrazhensky. Moscow 1862 p. 386. I. Wilpert. Fractio panis. Die älteste Darstellung des euharistischen Opfers in der „Capella Greca“. Freiburg im Breisgau. 1895. pp. 32, 8–9. Scriptures of Apostolic Men, trans. Preobrazhensky, p. 421. Book of Rules. Ed. Moscow Synod. typogr. 1893 pp. 12–13; srv. 2 Ave. Carthage. Cathedral, ibid. p. 153. Cyprian. About the Lord's Prayer, part 2. Rus. Per. page 260. Euseb. Demonstr. evangel. Lib. 1 cap. X.p. Bingham has 37. Chrysostom 3rd conversation on last. Ephesus Rus. lane 1858 pp. 48–50. Chrysostom 17th conversation on the last. Hebrews Rus. lane p. 287. Blessed creations Jerome in Russian lane (Kyiv 1879) part 2. 46th letter to Pasymachius p. 38. 66th letter to Lucinius, part 2, p. 260. Augustin Epist. 118 ad. Jannuar. c. 2 y Augusti, Denkwürdgk. aus d. Christ. Archäol. B. VIII, p. 648. Augustin, in Evang. Johan. c. 6 y Smirnova “Pre-Consecrated Liturgist.” Art. 17. Ambiosius. De Sacrament, lib. Y. c. IV cm. y Binghami Vol. VI p. 580. Binghami, Operum. Vol. VI, 586. Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus T. 1, p. 154. Binghami Operum Vol. VI, 587 and Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus in 1, 154. Sochin. St. Justin the Philosopher, published. in Russian lane Preobrazhensky 1892. 1 Apol. Ch. 67. pp. 97–8. Chrisost. homil. V de resurr. in edit. latinis, y Binghami VI, 574. Chrysostom, Discourse 5 on I Tim. at Vetrinsky's. Memory Christ Antiquities, 3 volumes, p. 270. Vasily Vel. Creation in Russian lane Part VI. 89th Letter. Last ed. page 201. Augustin. Epist. 54 ad Jannuar y Smirnova, Research. o pre-sanctification liturgist 17. Creation Tertullian translated by Korneev SPB. 1847. Part II p. 42. About the prayer of Gdn. Ch. 14. sv. Migne, Patrolog. t. 1 (1. 5) p. 1181. Socrates. Church Histor. book 5, ch. 22 y Binghami'a, VI p. 576. Cyprian. Letter 31 to the clergy and people Russian. Per. Kyiv. I vol. pp. 114–115. Chrysost. homil. 59 de maptyr. t. V p. 779 y Bingham VI, 576 pp. Note. The following testimonies clearly speak about communion on Saturdays: 1) Socrates Church. Histor. lib V p. XXI; lib. VI p. VIII; 2) Cassian instit, lib. Ill s. II (y Ringham. VI, 577); 3) Basil the Great, 89 letter to Caesarea. Russian Part VI p. 20; 4) Chrysostom, 5 conversations. on 1 to Timof. y Vetrinsky 3 t. 270; 5) Timothy Alexander. in canon 13. For the answer, see the Rules book. (ed. 1893) p. 380; and finally 6) the testimony of Jerome (for the churches: Roman and Spanish) in letter 66 to Lucinius. Creation in Rus. IIer. part 2. page 260. Vasily V. letter to Caesarea R.P. part VI, 201. Bingham, Operum. Vol VI page 576. Rheinwald. Die Kirchliche Archäologie Tab. VI at the end. Augusti, Denkwürdigk. aus d. Christi. Archäologie VIII B. page 167. Siegel. Handbuch d. Christi. Kirchlichen alterthum B. 1 page 21. Eusebius. Church East. VII book. Chapter IX y Bingham. VI, 429. Augusti, VIII, 403 pp. coll. Siegel, 1, p. 21. Martine, De antiquis eccles. ritibus I vol. p. 153. and Migne, Theolog. Curs. Complete. t. 20, 257. Migne, Theolog. C.C.t. 20, 256. Sozomen, h. e. VII c. 24. Theodoret, h. e. 5 e. 18. y Augusti, Denkwürdigk VIII, 402–403. Chardon, Histoire du Sacr. D'Euch. Migne t. 20 Theol. C. S. p. 257. Chardon, Histoire du Sacr. D'Euch. Migne, Theolod. C.C.t. 20 pp. 256–7. Apost. Regulation VIII book. Chapter 13 Pys. lane Kazan 1864 p. 280. Simeon of Thessalonica. Talk about St. sacred rites and sacraments of the Church, ch. 67. Pis. Father Cer. relating to the interpretation of the Divine service. SPB 1856 vol. 2 pp. 140–141. John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow. Ed. Trinity-Ser. Laurel. 1896 Ch. 196 pp. 242. 1st Apology of Justia the Much. Ch. 65. Rus. translation Preobrazh. 1892 p. 97. Tertullian. De corona. milit. 3 cap. y Migne Patrol. t. (1. 5) p. 79. Creation Cyprian in Russian lane (About the Fallen) p. 161. Part II. Regulation Apostle (Kazan 1864) VIII, 13 p. 280. Binghami, Operum Vol. VI, p. 314. Apostle Sent. VIII, 13 (Russian lane 280). John. diacon. vit. Gregor, lib. II ap. Boham, liturg. lib. II c. XVII § III, cf. Binghami U.VI,485. Martigny, Dictionaire des Antiquités Chrétiennes 168. Siegel, Handbuch der christlicli-kircbl. Alterthumer, 1 B. 5. 12. Assembled. ancient liturgist B. 3. p. 44. St. Petersburg. ed. 1876. Tertullian. About the spectacles ch. 25. rus. lane Karneeva, part II, 155. Eusebius. Church East. Book VI Chapter 43 (Russian translation, p. 391). Apostle Regulation VIII, 13. Rus. lane 280. Kirill Ierus. 5 secrets. Chapters 21 and 22 R. p. (1824) 428 pp. Ambros. De Sacrament, lib. IV c. V y Binghami VI, 485. August. Contra fausti. lib. XII c. X. y Binghami IV. p. 485. No. epist. LXII ad. Theophil. y Binghami Vol. VI, 485. Leo Serm. VI de jeiunio septimi mensis, y Binghami, ibid. Apostolsk. Regulation VIII, 13. Kirill Jerusalem. 5th Mysteries. instructive Chapter 17 Hieronimi epist. XVIII. ad Lucin Boeticum, y Binghami, Vol. VI, 489. Collection of ancient liturgies. B. 1st page 191. Tertull. de seium. c. XIII. Binghami, Vol. VI, 489. Augustin. in psalm. CXXXIII p. 629. Binghami, Vol. VI, 489. Collection other lit. V. 3rd, p. 44. Chrysostom Conversation to the psalm. 144th, y Binghami V. VI, p. 490. Collection of ancient liturgist V. 2nd pp. 131–2. Here, of course, is part of the Eucharistic. bread, which the ancient believers used to bring with them from meetings to their homes, and eat it here. Tertullian. Message to my wife. Chapter V Per. Karneeva, part 2, page 219. Cyprian. Creation Part 1, p. 348 (Russian translation) 69 letter to Cecilia about the sacrament of the Lord's cup. Chrysostom 27 conversation at 1 Corfu. Per. Pet. Ak. part 2 page 101. Gregory the Theologian. Sl. 40. Per. Moscow Ak. 44, part 3, page 303. Augustin ep. 118 ad. Iannuar. y Augusti, Denkwürdigk. VII t. page 239. Church Histor. Socrates Schol. (SPB. 1850, 430 pp.) 5 books. Chapter 22 Book of Rules 200–201 pp. Martigny, Dictionnaire des Antiquités Chretienuès, pp. 170. Binghami, Vol. VI, p. 444. Apostle Resolution VIII, 12th chapter. (Pyc. trans. p. 267). Eusebius. Church East. VII book. Chapter IX 5th Epistle of Dionysius to the Bishop of Rome. Sixtus. Rus. lane pp. 406–7. Pouch. St. Kirill (R. transl. 1824 p. 468) 5 Secrets. Ch. 22. I. Zlatoust. 20 conversation on 2 Corinth. (trans. Pet. Ak.) p. 258. Blazh. Augustine. About the City of God book. 8, 27 ch. (in Russian translation Kiev 1882, part 4, p. 59). Chrysostom Conversation on Christmas Day. Rus. lane Pet. Academician 1896 2 volumes. 1, p. 398. Migne, Theolog. C. C. T. 20, p. 259. Chardon, Histoire de Sacrament d’Eucharistie. Clement Alex. Stromata 1, 1 Collection. D. Lit. V. 1st page 50. Tertullian, on idolatry, chapter VII. lane Karneeva. St. Petersburg. 47, art. 123 hours 1st. Cyprian. 0 fallen. Part 2 (Russian lane Kiev Ak.) 154 items 159 pages. Cyprian. 48 letter to Fivarit. Part 1, page 226. Eusebius. Church East. VII book. Chapter IX 5th last Dionisia Alexander. to Sixtus ep. Rimsk. Rus. lane 406–7. Pouch. St. Kirill Ierus. (Moscow 1824) 5 Tainov., pp. 467–9. Vasily V. Letter to Caesarea, Russian. trans., part VI, p. 202. Gregory the Theologian. The first will expose. word on Tsar Julian, Russian. lane, part 1, page 116, cf. Funeral Oration of Gorgonia, 1 part, p. 284; and also “Advice of Virgins,” Part V, p. 89. Chrysostom 3 conversation on last. to Ephesians, trans. Pet. Acad., pp. 49–50 Chrysostom 27 in Krf. Rus. transl., part 2, 101 pp. (1850). Chrysostom, Homil. contr. Jud. t. 1. p. 539, y Binghami VI t., 480 pp. Theodorite. Church East. Lib. V. c. 18 cm. Binghami, VI p. 479 srv. Vetrinsky 3rd century. page 236. Theodorite. Blazh. Creation in Russian lane, part 7, p. 249. Interpretations. on Chapter XI 27 page 1 last Corf. Augustin. Contr. litteras Petiliani 1. II c. XXIII, y Binghami, VI, 479. Augustin, Nomil. XXVI u L, y Binghami, VI, 469. Damascene. Accur. Exposition Ave. Vera 4 books. Chapter 23 Ed. Tuzova 1894, p. 223. Migne, Theolog. C. compl. T. 20 p. 260. Beda Veregabilis. Histor. engl. eccles. lib 4 c. 24. Christ. Thurs. 1900, March, 364 article gr. Petrovsky: “The history of the rite of communion in the East. and West. Cer." Harduin, Acta conciliorum IV, 24 y pp. Petrovsky. Tertullian. Migne Curs. Compl. t. II, de coronis militis. cap. 3, p. 80 (I, 5). Origeni, In Exod. homil. XIII n. 3. Migne t. 12 p.m. 391 (95) sr. y Binghami VI, 470. Cyril of Jerusalem, 5 secrets. instructive Chapter 21, Russian lane Moscow, 1824, 468 pp. Augustini, sermo 229 de Tempore, y Augusti, Denkwürdigk. VIII, 241 pp. (This speech is sometimes attributed to Caesar of Arelate). Suizeri, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus et Partibus Graecis, Tomus Alter, p. 1119 and Augusti, Denkwürdigk. VIII, 241. Cyprian, about the fallen. TV in pyc. lane, part II, 160. 5 Secrets. instructive Kiril. Jerus. Ch. 22, rus. lane 468. Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus. Lib, 1 cap. IV, art. X.p. 157. Martingy, Dictionaire d. Antiquites Chret. 263. Rossi, De titulis Chr. Carthageniensibus Spicilegium solesmensac 1858 g. t III, 565. Figure. cbrol. tab. 1 fig. 3. Srvn. “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1869 2 hours article by Berdnikov: “On symbolic signs and images on Christian monuments,” p. 350. “This painting,” says Prof. Pokrovsky, dates back to the 3rd century.” See essays on monuments of Orthodox iconography and art. V. 1st, p. 51. St. Petersburg. 1893. Berdnikov. O symbol. signs “Gir. Sob." 1869, II, 352. Ibid. 350 p. p. Pokrovsky. Essays on memory. V. I, 52–4 pp. Berdnikov. O symbol. sign. "Ave. Interview." 1869 II, p. 35. Wilpert. Fractio panis (1895) S. 63. Martingy. Dictionair. p. 168. Pokrovsky. Essays on iconographic monuments 1893, 11. 2nd, 169 pp. cf. his: “The Gospel in monuments of iconography, mainly Byzantine and Russian.” Proceedings VIII archaeologist. congress in Moscow. 1890 pp. 277 ff. Petrovsky. History of the rite of communion. 1900 March. 364 pp. Doppert. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft. Abendmahl, Christi, in der bildenden Kunst XVIII Century. 5. 349–52; 364–5. y Petrovsky. "Xp. Thu." 1900 March, p. 365. Pokrovsky. Evan. in memory icons Proceedings VIII ar. congress. 292 Art. Petrovsky. History of the rank of prioch. “Christ. Thu." 1900 March, p. 365. Petrovsky. “Chr. Thu." 1900 March, p. 360. Suizeri, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, t. II, p. 1120. Doppert. Abbildungen iu Repertoryüm fur Kunstwissenschaft B. 18, 5. 365–7; cm. y Petrovsky, ibid., p. 367. Martine. De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus 1 t. p. 156 and Migne, 77 t. Dialog, lib. III, c. III, y Petrovsky. Nikifor. Church East. book 13, ch. 7; y Dmitrevsky: Historical, dogma. and mysteries explained Liturg., p. 98. Latinus Latinius in Bingham, VI, 441. Arcudius in Bingham, VI, 441. Krasnoseltsev. Mixed. oh some. liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library. Kazan. 1885 p. 306. Petrovsky. “Chr. Thu." 1900 March, page 367. Ibid. from Maji Spicil. Rom. t. III. Miracul. XII, p. 175. Rheinwald. Die Kirchliche Archäologie. Berlin, 1830. § 117. s. 349. Collection ancient liturgies, c. II, p. 57. Ibid. V. II, p. 78 and 131. Krasnoseltsev. Information about some handwritten Vatican. Libraries. Kazan. 1855 pp. 323 et seq. Ibid. p. 374. “Ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ Θεὸς (we read here) τὸ ἴδων σῶμα ἔδωκε καὶ ἴδιον αἷμα ἐξέχεε καὶ ἐκέρασε τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, λέγων: τοῦτο ἐστὶ ? ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτίων (καὶ πίνομεν))”, etc. Collection of ancient liturgist Β. II, 143 pp. Will. Acta et scripta de controversiis ecclesiae gr. at., lat. p. 109., 1801 Petrovsky “Chronicle. Thu." 1900 March, p. 369. Binghami, Operum, Vol. VI, 443. Binghami, Operum, VI, 444–445. Petrovsky. "Xp. Thu." 1900, 369 pp. (March). Binghami, Operum VI, vol. p. 446. Bonâ. Rerum liturgicarum libri duo. Lib II. 18.1; y Petrovsk. 369. Siegel, Handbuch d. christ. Alterthümer. 1, 54. Siegel, Handbuch d. christ.–kirchl. Alterthümer. B. I, s. 54. Petrovsky. “Chr. Thu." 1900 March, p. 369. Gratian. De consecrate. distinct. II with VI; y Binghami VI, 442–3. Siegel. Handbuch d. christ. Alterthümer. 1, 54. Petrovsky. “Chr. Thu." 1900 March, p. 370. "Summa", III. 80, 12. and 76, 1–2; y Petrovsky and Siegel. Sylvester. “Dogme. Theology". Part IV, 491 pp. Harnack. Der christl. Gemeindegottesdieust im apostolischen und altkatolischen Zeitalter. Erlangen. 1854 282 pp. Justin Philosopher, 1 Apology, ch. 67, p. 99: based on the translation by Preobrazhensky, part 1. Martine. De antiquis. eccles. ritibus, I t. 249. Martine. I, 249; srv. Martigny, Dictionaire, 169. Eusebius. “Church. East." book VI, ch. 44; Russian trans., pp. 393–94. Décréta concilii Remensis ar. Reginonem, lib. I; de eccleaiasticis disciplinis, cap. 120.Martene 1, 250. Martine. De antiquis eccl. ritibus, t. 1, p. V, art. II, p. 250. Eusebius. “Church. History", V book. Chapter 24 "Book of Rules", page 166. Rheinwald. Die kirchliche Archäologie, page 344. “Spiritual Meadow”, John Moschus. Ed. Tr.-Serg. Lav., 1896. ch. 29. art. 38–39. Martigny, Dictionnaire, p. 168. Tertullian. De oratione, t. IV, Migne, Patrol, t. 1, 1181, (1.5). Cyprian. “Speech about the Fallen”, Russian. lane, part 2, 161. Right there. "About Spectacles"; Russian lane, part 2, 343. Creation Vasily Vel., in Russian. trans., part VI, letter 89 (ed. 49) pp. 219–220 Basil the Great. Letter to Caesarea (89); rus. transl., part VI, 220. (from 1849). Creation Grigor. Theologian, part 1, page 284. (Ed. 1849). Ambrosius. Orat. de obitu fratris; y Binghami, VI, 416. Creation bliss Jerome: 46 letter to Pammachius; rus. transl. II; Kyiv. 1879; page 38. Suizeri. Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, t. II. 1121; y Bingham, VI, 416. Suizeri. Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, t. 2. 1121; y Bingham. VI. 416. Martine. De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus; 1 t. 253. John Mosch. “Spiritual Meadow”, ch. 79; page 99. 1896 Bona. Rer. liturg. lib. II. c. XVII; § IV; y Bingham. VI, 416. Martine. De antiquis eccl. rit. 1. I, p. V, art. II, p. 250; y Martigny, 168. Martigny, Dictionnaire, 169. Blazh. Jerome. (101) Letter to Rusticus the monk; rus. translated; creativity Part 3. Kyiv. 1880. stb. 287. Cyprian. “About the Fallen”: Russian. lane, part 2, p. 161. Martigny, Dictionnaire, p. 169. Book of Rules. (Moscow 1893) p. 192. Augusti, Denkwürdigk. VIII, 231. Bingham. VI, 425. Chrysostom 40 conversation on 1 Corinth. Russian translation Pet. Ak. 1858, part 2, p. 368. Augusti, Denkwürd. VIII, 232. Martine, De antiquis eccles. ritibus. lib. 1 cap. V, art. V, p. 254. Rules of Apost. and the cathedral. with interpretation, ed. General Love. in 1876 Tolkov. Walsam. at 83 Trulsky Ave. page 706. You might be interested in: