1 members (1 invisible),
372
guests, and
120
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,618
Members6,173
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!
It was St John Chrysostom, I believe, who first began to forbid the taking of Holy Communion by Christians home with them.
The practice of replacing Communion that was taken home with the Blessed Bread that were the left-overs from Communion must surely have begun sooner than the ninth century.
Certainly, Chrysostom's admonitions against taking Communion home could not have ended the practice everywhere and immediately.
I'm assuming that the change over from Communion to Blessed Bread occurred much like the break between East and West - the realization and grounding of it took time.
I just don't see how the early Christian practice of taking Communion home could have broken off for some centuries, only to have a version of it revived in the ninth century . . .
That just does not seem likely. And because taking antidoron home is only overtly mentioned in the 9th century, does not mean it did not exist as a well-entrenched practice much earlier.
Church historians tend sometimes to assume too much when they say, for example, that such and such a year is the first time that a prayer to the Virgin Mary is to be mentioned or found.
They then seem to assume that devotion to the Virgin Mary somehow 'arose' only at and from that time - when it reality such a mention could only be a benchmark for devotion that existed much earlier.
As I see it anyway!
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 147
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 147 |
Greetings in the Lord, Alex. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: (1) During the third century, in Africa at least, as we learn from Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the practice on the part of the faithful of bringing to their homes and reserving for private Communion a portion of the Eucharistic bread, would appear to have been universal. Tertullian refers to this private domestic Communion as a commonplace in Christian life, and makes it the basis of an argument, addressed to his wife against second marriage with an infidel in case of his own death: "Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes et si sciverit esse panem, non illum credet esse qui dicitur?" (Ad Uxor. c. v, P.L. I, 1296). There can be question here only of the species of bread, and the same is true of the two stories told by St. Cyprian: the one of a man who before Communion, had attended an idolatrous function, and on retiring from the altar and opening his hand in which he had taken and carried the Sacred Species, found nothing in it but ashes; the other of a woman who "cum arcam suam, in qua Domini sanctum fuit, manibus indignis tentasset aperire igne inde surgente deterrita est" (De Lapsis, 26, P.L., IV, 486). This custom owed its origin most probably to the dangers and uncertainties to which Christians were subject in times of persecution, but we have it on the authority of St. Basil (Ep. xciii, P.G., XXXII, 485) that in the fourth century, when the persecutions had ceased, it continued to be a general practice in Alexandria and Egypt; and on the authority of St. Jerome (Ep. xlviii, 15, P.L. XXII, 506) that it still existed at Rome towards the end of same century. It is impossible to say at what precise period the practice disappeared. The many obvious objections against it would seem to have led to its abolition in the West without the need of formal legislation. The third canon attributed to the Council of Saragossa (380) and the fourteenth canon of the Council of Toledo (400), excommunicating those who do not consume in the church the Eucharist received from the priest (Hefele, Conciliengesch., I, 744; II, 79), were directed against the Priscillianists (who refused to consume any portion of the Eucharistic bread in the church), and do not seem to have been intended to prohibit the practice of reserving a portion for private Communion at home. In the East the practice continued long after its disappearance in the West, and in the eighth century the faithful were able to avail themselves of it as a means of avoiding association with the Iconoclastic heretics (Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine, Paris, 1905, p. 339 sq.). It had already been adopted by the anchorites, as St. Basil (loc. cit.) tells us, and continued to be a feature of anchoretic life as late as the ninth century (see Theodore Studita (d. 826), Ep. i, 57, ii, 209, in P.G. XCIX, 1115, 1661). Domestic Communion [ newadvent.org] From the same Encyclopedia on the Antidoron: It may seem strange that the earliest historical reference to this custom should be found in the Western Church. It is mentioned in the 118th letter of St. Augustine to Januarius (now known as the 54th letter in the new order. See Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 200), and in the canons of a local council in Gaul in the seventh century. Originally it was a substitute, or solatium for such of the faithful as were not prepared to go to Communion or were unable to get to the Holy Sacrifice. If they could not partake of the body of Our Lord they had the consolation of partaking of the bread which had been blessed and from which the portions for consecration had been taken. In the Eastern Church mention of the antidoron began to appear about the ninth and tenth centuries. Germanius of Constantinople is the earliest Eastern author to mention it in his treatise, "The Explanation of the Liturgy", about the ninth century. Subsequent to him many writers of the separated Eastern Church (Balsamon, Colina, Pachemeros) have written on the custom of giving the antidoron. Antidoron [ newadvent.org] I realize, of course, that this source is date, and so welcome correction. In Christ, Fr Alvin Kimel+
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!
Yes, but these articles talk of antidoron in terms of its original use - as a kind of "spiritual Communion" for those who could not partake of the Eucharist.
That was certainly one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for this practice coming about. In those parts of the then still united Church where the practice of taking Communion home with one - antidoron took its place and the East still follows this practice.
Certainly, the danger of disrespect for Communion was an important factor in the eventual suppression of this practice.
St John Chrysostom mentions a number of "Eucharistic Miracles" that occurred as a sign of Divine displeasure at disrespect for Holy Communion and the articles mention some. Chrysostom once made mention of how the Communion he was distributing to the faithful sometimes turned as hard as a rock that made it impossible for certain individuals to swallow It upon receiving It in their mouths . . .
The Coptic Church of Alexandria, moreover, early developed the tradition of the "home chapel" where Communion could be reverently kept. My Ethiopian friends have such chapels in their homes where they retire to for prayer and they only pray there, with shoes removed etc.
The Byzantine tradition, as you know, has something similar in the "icon corner" which is a home chapel or shrine.
It is there that we keep our sacred objects, icons, prayerbooks, Relics, Holy Water, blessed candles and also a container for the Antidoron.
The Rite of receiving it is very much like that related to Holy Communion.
One partakes of it in the morning before breakfast and following morning prayers.
A special table is covered with white linen and one rolls up one corner up to one's neck to ensure no particle of the Blessed Bread is lost.
One may also partake of it at home in a communal context with the celebration of the "Dry Mass" or, as we call it, "Typika" when we do not attend Church for Divine Liturgy. Holy Water, taken three times, is also considered as being on the same level as taking Blessed Bread.
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Alex
|
|
|
|
|