Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 4: The Same Truth Is Proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
In the last place the same truth is to be proved by the testimonies of the Fathers: for this faith always flourished in the Church. And first, in the very time of the Apostles, Clement of Rome, Book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 13 (in another edition, chapter 20), bids that, the Communion being finished, what is left over of the body of the Lord be laid up by the Deacons with due reverence in the pastophorium. And what the pastophorium is, Jerome explains in his commentary on chapter 22 of Isaiah, where he says that pastophorium signifies the tabernacle, or chamber, where the Prefect of the temple dwells. Hence, then, the Apostles called that vessel in which the Sacrament to be preserved was laid up the pastophorion, because in that Sacrament truly is Christ, who is the true Prefect of the temple. And the works of Clement, although not received by all, yet Kemnitz cannot repudiate, since (as we shall see below) he uses the testimony of the same Clement against the Catholics.
After the year of the Lord 100, in the first age after the Apostles, Justin, in his second Apology near the end, writes that after the sacred rites were performed in the Church, the Eucharist was wont to be given to the Deacons to be carried to the absent brethren who for some cause had been hindered from being present at the celebration of the mysteries. In which place it cannot be doubted that the Deacons did not depart from the assembly of the Church before the whole action was finished: from which it most openly follows that after the whole action itself there was in the Eucharist the true Sacrament and the true body of Christ. For otherwise to what purpose that labor of carrying the Eucharist to the absent?
In the same age Irenaeus, in his letter to Pope Victor, which Eusebius reports, Book 5 of his history, chapter 21, testifies that it was the custom of that time for the Pope to send the Eucharist as a sign of peace and communion to other Bishops. But what, I ask, did he send, if the Eucharist is not except while it is eaten, or while the sacred Supper is performed?
After the year of the Lord 200, Tertullian, in Book 2 to his Wife, testifies that in his time Christians were wont to carry the Eucharist to their homes, that they might there receive it at a fitting time: “Will not your husband know,” he says, “what you secretly take before all food?”
In the same age Cyprian, in his sermon on the lapsed: “A certain woman,” he says, “when she had tried to open her chest, in which was the holy thing of the Lord, with unworthy hands, was frightened by fire rising thence.” But what, I ask, could be enclosed in that chest, if the Eucharist (for of it he speaks) outside the action of the Supper is neither the body of the Lord nor a Sacrament?
In the same age Dionysius of Alexandria, in his letter to Fabius, which the same Eusebius reports, Book 6 of his history, chapter 30, writes that a certain Serapion, being at the point of death, sent a boy to a Presbyter, that he might come to him with the Sacrament of the Eucharist: but the Presbyter, being then perhaps sick, could not come himself, but sent by the same boy a particle of the Eucharist. From which place it most openly appears that it was the custom to preserve the Eucharist for the sake of the sick: for that Presbyter did not then celebrate the sacred Supper, since he was sick, and perhaps it was an unseasonable hour.
In the same age St. Tarsicius the Martyr (as is written in the life of St. Stephen I the Pope, and in Bede in the Martyrology on the 15th of August), when he was carrying the Eucharist, and would not open it to the pagans asking what it was, was immediately killed by them, and yet by a divine miracle the Sacrament so disappeared that those sacrilegious men could never find it.
After the year of the Lord 300 there stands a notable testimony of the First Council of Nicaea, canon 11 (otherwise 18, or 20), where the Synod bids that in the absence of the Presbyters the Deacons administer the Eucharist. From which it is evidently gathered that the Eucharist was wont to be preserved in the Church, that it might be distributed at any time, even when the Supper is not celebrated. For that the Council speaks of a time when the sacred Supper is not celebrated is clear, because the Supper cannot be celebrated without Presbyters: for to the Deacons is not given the authority of offering, as we read in the same canon. And here it is to be observed that this part of the canon is not had in all editions, yet is had expressly in Rufinus, Book 10 of his history, chapter 6. And that the canons which Rufinus transcribed are the very true and authentic canons of the Council of Nicaea, St. Cyril too testifies in his letter to the Council of Carthage, which stands in tome 1 of the Councils in the acts of the African Council: which is to be observed on account of Kemnitz, who contends to call that canon into doubt.
In the same Nicene Council there stands canon 13, and that in all editions, in which the Fathers bid that, according to the ancient rule, at the point of death holy Communion be denied to no one: which canon was often afterward renewed in later Councils. And it is certain that the sick, being at the point of death, could not come to the Church: it is certain too that the whole action of the Supper could not be celebrated in the bedchambers of the several sick persons, and especially according to the opinion of the adversaries, who condemn private Masses; therefore it is necessary that the Eucharist be preserved consecrated for the sick, or certainly that, outside the action of the public Supper, which alone the adversaries acknowledge for the true Supper, the Eucharist be given to the sick.
In the same age Basil, in his letter to Caesaria the Patrician, testifies that the Anchorites, who could not conveniently frequent the churches often, were wont to carry the Eucharist with them into the desert: which letter, although not had in all copies, yet is everywhere cited even by Kemnitz himself.
In the same age Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration on Gorgonia, testifies that that holy woman at night in the church prostrated herself before the altar, and had in her sight a part of the Eucharist which she had perhaps preserved after the custom of that time. Which testimony too is most clear; for the sacred Supper was not then celebrated, since it was both nighttime and she alone had betaken herself into the temple to pray.
In the same age Ambrose, in his oration on the death of his brother Satyrus, chapter 7, writes that he, in danger of shipwreck, hung a particle of the Eucharist wrapped in a cloth about his neck, and, relying on that help, cast himself into the sea and escaped free to the shore.
Of this example Peter Martyr prates much in his book against Gardiner, objection 88. First he says that this is a fable narrated by Ambrose not so much as a Bishop or Theologian, as a Rhetorician. But that lie is refuted by Ambrose himself, who narrates that history in order thence to demonstrate the religion of Satyrus, and reports it as a most true thing and known to many.
Secondly, he reprehends Ambrose, and says that he cannot be excused for having praised that deed of Satyrus. But for the defense of Ambrose it is enough that he is Ambrose, and that fellow is an unhappy apostate.
Thirdly he says that thence are refuted the superstitions of this time. For now the Eucharist is kept under lock, and is not brought forth without pomp and lights; then it was permitted even to all Catechumens, such as Satyrus was. But now it is kept under lock on account of the abuses which have gradually arisen: but then, when the Christians were simpler, and had not yet begun to abuse the Sacraments for magic, they were more easily permitted; and yet not even then was it lawful for Catechumens to receive the Eucharist, or even to see it. Whence Ambrose in the same place says that Satyrus did not dare to see the Eucharist, and much less to receive it by mouth, but, lest he should lack all protection, bade a particle wrapped in a cloth be delivered to him by the faithful who were in the same ship and had the Eucharist with them. And that the external honor of the most holy Sacrament has grown, especially the internal devotion decreasing, can displease no one but the enemies of Christ and of religion.
Fourthly he says that Satyrus committed the crime of idolatry, in placing his hope in the Eucharist; and yet in the same place he immediately adds that perhaps God willed to adorn those remains of the Eucharist with a miracle, as once the bones of Elisha and the mantle of Elijah. But how do these things cohere, that God should have adorned the Eucharist with a miracle in favor of idolatry? Does idolatry perhaps please God, that He should have willed to confirm it even by miracles?
Fifthly he says that Satyrus perhaps got that particle of the Eucharist from somewhere by fraud. But Ambrose says that he received it from the Christians who were in the ship.
Sixthly he says that those remains were not a Sacrament, but only certain remains of bread, which outside the use of the Supper cannot be called Sacraments. But Ambrose in express words calls it a Sacrament: “From those,” he says, “whom he had known to be initiated, he begged that divine Sacrament of the faithful.”
After the year 400, St. John Chrysostom, in his first letter to Pope Innocent, which stands both among the works of the same Chrysostom, tome 5, and in Nicephorus, Book 13, chapter 19, writes that certain soldiers, entering the Sanctuary on the evening of Great Saturday, stirred up so great a tumult that even the most sacred blood of the Lord, which was in the Sanctuary, was spilled on their garments. And that this was not done while the sacred Supper was being celebrated, but outside that action, is clear from the same place: for there Chrysostom says that this was done when the women were already being prepared for Baptism. And so then Baptism was imminent, which is wont to be celebrated on the Paschal Saturday: and it is established that the mystery of the Eucharist is always celebrated after Baptism, not before or together with Baptism, namely that the neophytes may then for the first time be present at that holy mystery and receive the Eucharist. Wherefore that blood of the Lord which was in the Sanctuary was not then consecrated or distributed, but had been consecrated on some other day.
In the same age St. Jerome, in his letter to Rusticus, praises Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, because on account of voluntary poverty he was compelled to carry the body of Christ in a basket.
In the same age St. Cyril, in his letter to Calosyrius, says that those are mad who assert that the Eucharist, if it be kept to another day, loses its power: where he most openly reprehends that error of our adversaries.
After the year of the Lord 500, St. Benedict, as St. Gregory writes in his life, Book 2 of the Dialogues, chapter 24, when a certain deceased monk could not be buried, sent some to place the Eucharist upon the breast of the dead man, and this being done, he could be buried. And indeed the carrying of the Eucharist, when it was placed upon the breast of the dead man, was no action of the Lord's Supper, nor did St. Benedict then consecrate the Eucharist, since he was not a priest, but had it preserved in his church, after the custom of the whole Church. Where too is to be noted the lie of Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objection 38, in which place, to make this example odious, he writes that by the command of Benedict the Eucharist was cast into the mouth of the dead man: “Benedict,” says the Pseudo-martyr, “ordered the Eucharist to be put into the mouth of the deceased little woman”; which is an open lie. For these are the words of St. Benedict, as reported by St. Gregory: “Go and place this body of the Lord upon his breast with great reverence.” Nor is it to be believed that the body of the Lord was left in the tomb with the dead man, but only placed upon his breast while he was laid in the grave, and then immediately taken away. Unless perhaps Peter Martyr speaks of that which Gregory writes in the preceding chapter of two nuns: but in that too this most wretched Pseudo-martyr would lie; for Benedict did not order the Eucharist to be inserted into the mouths of those deceased women, but a sacrifice to be offered to the Lord for them.
In the same age certain monks of St. Gregory, sailing from Constantinople to Rome, carried the Eucharist with them in the ship, that in danger of shipwreck they might not depart without Communion. John the Deacon reports this in the life of St. Gregory, Book 2, chapter 33.
After the year of the Lord 600, in the Synod which is called the Quinisext, canon 52, those Fathers ordain that in Lent consecration be made only on Saturday and Sunday, and on the other days the people communicate from the presanctified. And so they kept the Eucharist consecrated at least six days, that is, from Sunday to the following Friday.
And these things from the Fathers can suffice: for the later times are plainly despised by the adversaries. And moreover there stand many decrees of Councils on this matter, as of Tours, Worms, Orleans; which see in Burchard, Book 5 of the Decree, and Ivo, part 2 of the Decree, and Gratian, on consecration, distinction 2.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Probatur eadem veritas testimoniis Patrum. \ Ultimo loco probanda est eadem veritas testimoniis Patrum : semper enim in Eccle¬ sia ista fides viguit. Ac primum ipso tem¬ pore Apostolorum, Clemens Romanus lib. viii. constit. cap. 13. in alia editione, cap. 20. jubet peracta Communione, quod super- rest de corpore Domini, reponi a Diaconis cum debita reverentia in pastophorio. Quid autem sit pastophorium, explicat Hierony¬ mus in eomment. cap. xxn. Isaia?, ubi dicit, pastophorium significare tabernaculum, seu thalamum, ubi templi Pra?positus habitat. Hinc igitur Apostoli vas illud, in quo Sacra¬ mentum asservandum recondebatur, pasto- phorion dixerunt, quod in eo Sacramento vere Christus sit, qui est verus templi Pra?- CAPUT IV. positus. Opera autem Clementis, etsi non ab omnibus recipiantur, tamen Kemnitius repu¬ diare non potest, quippe qui (ut infra vide¬ bimus) utitur ejusdem Clementis testimonio contra Catholicos. Post annum Domini 100. priuio speculo post Apostolos, Justinus in Apologia n. prope finem, scribit post sacra peracta in Ecclesia, dari consuevisse Eucharistiam Diaconis de¬ ferendam ad absentes fratres, qui aliqua de causa impediti fuerant, ne interessent cele¬ brationi mysteriorum. Quo loco dubitari non potest, quin Diaconi non ante discederent ex conventu Ecclesia}, quam tota actio finiretur: ex quo apertissime sequitur, post ipsam a- etionem totam, fuisse in Eucharistia verum Sacramentum, ac verum Christi corpus. Nam alioqui quorsum ille labor deferendi Eucharistiam ad absentes ? Eodem speculo I renonis in epist. ad Victo¬ rem Papam, quam refert Eusebius lib. v. liistor. cap. 21. testatur morem fuisse illius 1 emporis, ut Papa Eucharistiam mitteret in signum pacis, et communionis ad. alios Epi¬ scopos. At quid, qupcso, mittebat, si Eucha¬ ristia non est, nisi dum manducatur, vel dum peragitur sacra Ccena? Post annum Domini 200. Tertullianus in lib. ii. ad Uxorem, testatur consuevisse suo tempore deferre Christianos Eucharistiam ad suas domos, ut ibi eam opportuno tem¬ pore sumerent: «Non sciet, inquit, maritus, quid in occulto ante omnem cibum su¬ mas? » Eodem steculo Cyprianus in serm. de la¬ psis : « Mulier qmedam, inquit, cum arcam suam, in qua sanctum Domiui fuerat, indi¬ gnis manibus tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est. » At quid, obsecro, in illa arca includi potuit, si Eucharistia (de ea enim loquitur) extra actionem Ccena}, neque corpus Domini est, neque Sacramen¬ tum ? Eodem speculo Dionysius Alexandrinus in epist. adFahium, quam referi idem Eusebius lib. vi. hist. cap. 30, scribit, Serapionem quemdam in extremis agentem misisse pue¬ rum ad Presbyterum, ut ad se veniret cum Sacramento Eucharistiai : sed Presbyterum forte tunc aegrotantem non potuisse per se accedere, sed misisse, per cumdem puerum particulam Eucharistia?. Ex quo loco aper¬ tissime patet, morem fuisse asservandi Eu¬ charistiam propter aegrotos : neque enim presbyter ille tunc sacram Coe nam celebra- Tom. IV. 209 vit, quippe qui aegrotabat, et forte hora in¬ tempestiva erat. Eodem speculo S. Tharsicius Martyr (ut scribitur in vita S. Stcphani I. Pappe, et apud Pedani in Martyrologio dic 15. Augusti) cum Eucharistiam deferret, et paganis quaerenti¬ bus, quid illud esset, noluisse aperire, ab illis continuo necatus est, et tamen divino miraculo ita Sacramentum disparuit, ut nu inquam sacrilegi illi invenire illud po¬ tuerint. Post annum Domini 300. exstat insigne testimonium Concilii I Nicpeni, canon. 11. alias 18. filius 20. ubi jubet Synodus, ut in absentia Presbyterorum, Diaconi Euchari¬ stiam porrigant. Ex quo evidenter colligitur, Eucharistiam servari solitam in Ecclesia, ut distribui posset quovis tempore, etiam quando Coma non celebratur. Nam loqui Concilium de tempore, quo sacra Ccena non celebratur, perspicuum est, quia Ccena sine Presbyteris celebrari non potest : Diaconis enim non est data auctoritas offerendi, ut in eodem canone legimus. Est autem hic obser¬ vandum, istam partem canonis non haberi in omnibus editionibus, tamen haberi ex¬ presse apud ltufinum, lib. x. hist. cap. 0. Canones autem, quos Rufinus descripsit esse ipsos veros, et authenticos Nicpeni Concilii canones, testatur etiam S. Cyrillus in epist. ad Concilium Carthaginiense, qme exstat in tom. 1. Conciliorum in actis Concilii Africani : quod est observandum propter Kemnitium, qui in dubium revocare istum canoncm con¬ tendit. In eodem Nicpeno exstat canon. 13. et qui¬ dem in omnibus editionibus, in quo Patres jubent, ut secundum antiquam regulam in mortis articulo nemini denegetur sacra Communio : qui canon spcpo postea renova¬ tus fuit in Conciliis posterioribus. Certum autem est, pegrotos in articulo mortis exislen- tes ad Ecclesiam venire non potuisse : cer¬ tum est etiam non potuisse celebrari in cu¬ biculis singulorum pegrotanti uin totam actio¬ nem Ccena;, etprpescrtim secundum opinionem adversariorum, qui damnant Missas privatas; ergo ncccssc est, ut Eucharistia servaretur consecrata pro pegrotis, vel certe extra a- ctionem publica; C cerne, quam solam pro vera Ccena agnoscunt adversarii, Eucharistia pegrotis prpeberetur. Eodem speculo Rasilius in epist. ad Cposu- rium Patritiam, testatur, Anachoretas qui non poterant commode spepius Ecclesias fre- 11 y 210 LIBER IV. quentare, consuevisse Eucharistiam secum in eremum deferre : qua) epist. licet non ha¬ beatur in omnibus exemplaribus, tamen pas- sim citatur etiam ab ipso Kemnitio. Eodem saeculo Gregorius Nazianzenus in orat, in Gorgoniam testatur, sanctam illam foeminam nocturno tempore in Ecclesia ad altare procubuisse, et partem Eucharistiae, quam forte servaverat de more illius tempo¬ ris, in conspectu habuisse. Quod etiam te¬ stimonium clarissimum est; neque enim tunc sancta Gcena celebratur, cum et nocturnum tempus esset, et ipsa sola in templum ad orandum se recepisset. Eodem saeculo Ambrosius in orat, de obitu Satyri fratris sui, cap. 7. scribit, eum in ora¬ rio involutam Eucharistiae particulam sus¬ pendisse ad collum suum in periculo naufra¬ gii, et eo auxilio fretum se dejecisse in mare, ac liberum ad littus evasisse. De hoc exemplo multa garrit Petrus Mar¬ tyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 88. Primo dicit, hanc esse fabulam ab Ambrosio, non tam ut Episcopo, aut Theologo, quam ut Rhetore narratam. Sed refellitur menda¬ cium istud ab ipso Ambrosio, qui eam histo¬ riam narrat, ut inde religionem Satyri de¬ monstret, et ut rem verissimam, et multis notam refert. Secundo, reprehendit Ambrosium, ac dicit, eum excusari non posse, quod factum illud Satyri laudaverit. Sed ad Ambrosii de¬ fensionem, satis est illum esse Ambrosium, istum esse infelicem apostatam. Tertio dicit, inde refutari hujus temporis superstitiones. Nunc enim Eucharistia sub clavibus asservatur, nec sine pompa, et lu¬ minibus producitur ; tunc omnibus etiam Catechumenis, qualis erat Satyrus, permit¬ tebatur. At nunc sub clavibus servatur propter abusus, qui paulatim exorti sunt : tunc autem, cum simpliciores essent Chri¬ stiani, necdum coepissent ad magias abuti Sacramentis, facilius permittebantur, nec tamen etiam tunc licebat Catechumenis Eucharistiam sumere, aut etiam videre. Unde ibidem Ambrosius dicit, Satyrum non fuisse ausum Eucharistiam videre, et multo minus ore percipere, sed ne omni praesidio careret, j ussisse sibi a fidelibus, qui in eadem navi erant, et Eucharistiam secum habebant, particulam involutam orario sibi tradi. Quod autem creverit honor externus sanctissimi Sacramenti, praesertim devotione interna decrescente, nemini displicere potest, nisi hostibus Christi, et religionis. Quarto dicit , crimen idololatria) Satyrum commisisse, dum spem in Eucharistia posuit; et tamen ibidem continuo addit, fortasse Deum ornare voluisse reliquias illas Eucha¬ ristiae, miraculo, ut quondam ossa Elisei, et pallium Elia). At quomodo ista cohaerent, ut Deus miraculo ornaverit Eucharistiam in gratiam idololatriae ? num Deo fortasse placet idololatria, ut etiam miraculis confirmare vo¬ luerit ? Quinto dicit, Satyrum forte alicunde sul¬ furatum illam particulam Eucharistiae. At Ambrosius dicit, eum accepisse a Christianis, qui erant in navi. Sexto dicit, illas reliquias non fuisse Sa¬ cramentum, sed tantum reliquias quasdam panis, quae extra usum Ccenae Sacramenta dici non possunt. At Ambrosius disertis ver¬ bis vocat Sacramentum : « Quos, inquit, initiatos esse cognoverat, ab his divinum illud fidelium Sacramentum poposcit. » Post annum 400. S. Joannes Chrysostomus in epistola priore ad Innocentium Papam, quae exstat tum inter opera ejusdem Chry- sostomi, tom. v. apud NiCephorum lib. xm. cap. 19. scribit, milites quosdam ad vespe¬ ram magni Sabbati Sanctuarium ingressos tantum excitasse tumultum, ut etiam sacra¬ tissimus Domini sanguis, qui in Sanctuario erat, in eorum vestes effunderetur. Quod au¬ tem id gestum non fuerit, dum sacra Ccena celebraretur, sed extra illam actionem, patet ex eodem loco : ibi enim Chrysostomus dicit, hoc factum esse, cum mulieres jam praepa¬ rentur ad Baptismum. Itaque tum immine¬ bat Baptismus , qui in Sabbato Paschali celebrari solet: constat, autem mysterium Eucharistia) semper celebrari post Bapti¬ smum, non ante, vel simul cum Baptismo, nimirum, ut neophyti tunc primum sancto illi mysterio intersint, et Eucharistiam per¬ cipiant. Quare sanguis ille Dominicus, qui in Sanctuario erat, non tunc consecrabatur, aut distribuebatur, sed aliquo alio die conse¬ cratus fuerat. Eodem sseculo S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Rusticum, laudat Exuperium Tholosae Epi¬ scopum, quod ob inopiam voluntariam coge¬ retur Christi corpus in canistro portare. Eodem sseculo S. Cyrillus in epistol. ad Calosyrium, insanire dicit eos, qui asserunt, Eucharistiam, si in alterum diem servetur, vim suam amittere : ubi apertissime errorem CAPUT V. 211 istum nostrorum adversariorum reprehen¬ dit. Post annum Domini 500. S. Benedictus, ut in ejus vita scribit S. Gregorius, lib. ii. dialogorum cap. 24. cum defunctus quidam monachus sepeliri nequiret, misit aliquos, qui Eucharistiam super pectus mortui pone¬ rent, et eo facto sepeliri potuit. Et sane dela¬ tio Eucharistia) cum supra mortui pectus poneretur, non fuit ulla actio Ccense Domini¬ ca), neque S. Benedictus Eucharistiam tunc consecravit, quippe qui sacerdos non erat, sed habebat in Ecclesia sua asservatam, de more totius Ecclesiae. Ubi etiam notandum est mendacium Petri Martyris in lib. contra Gardinerum object. 38. quo in loco, ut hoc exemplum odiosum faciat, scribit jussu Be¬ nedicti, Eucharistiam in os mortui fuisse injectam : « Benedictus, inquit Pseudomar- tyr, jussit Eucharistiam in os inferi defunctae mulierculae») ; quod est apertum mendacium. Nam haec sunt verba S. Benedicti, referente S. Grcgorio : « Ite et hoc Dominicum corpus supra pectus ejus cum magna reverentia ponite. » Neque credendum est, relictum Dominicum corpus in sepulchro cum homine mortuo, sed tantum positum supra pectus ejus, dum collocaretur in tumulo, ac deinde continuo ablatum. Nisi forte loquatur Petrus Martyr de eo, quod scribit Gregorius cap. superiore de duabus sanctimonialibus : sed in eo etiam mentiretur iste miserrimus Pseudomartyr ; non enim Benedictus jussit inseri Eucharistiam in os earum defunctarum mulierum, sed pro illis Domino immolari. Eodem saeculo monachi quidam sancti Gregorii a Constantinopoli Romam navigan¬ tes, in navi secum Eucharistiam deferebant, ut in periculo naufragii non sine commu¬ nione discederent. Refert Joannes Diaconus in vita S. Gregorii lib. n. cap. 33. Post annum Domini 600. in Synodo, quae dicitur Quinisexta can. 52. statuunt Patres illi, ut in Quadragesima solum die Sabbati, et die Dominico consecratio fieret, aliis die¬ bus communicarent ex pracsanctificatis. Ita¬ que servabant Eucharistiam consecratam , ut minimum sex diebus, id est, a die Domi¬ nico usque ad sequentem feriam sextam. Atque haec ex Patribus satis esse possunt: Nam tempora posteriora ab adversariis pla¬ ne contemnuntur : Et praeterea exstant multa decreta Conciliorum de hac re, ut Turonensis , Wormatiensis, Aurelianensis ; qua) vide apud Burckardum lib. v. decreti, et Ivonem par. 2. decreti, et Gratianum de consecratione dist. 2.