Communion in the hand in the early Church

[pnewton]

7-8 posts before Lepanto jumped topics. That’s about twice what I gave it.

By the way, the link you gave is not an early church document.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Basil the Great had this to say:

All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time. (letter 93)

 

[Genesis315]

Also, I don’t have it with me at the moment, but I have a patristics book from the '30s that has footnotes to the St. Cyril passage to show that this practice was widespread. Other posters have mentioned examples already, but in addition St. John Damascene said we should place our hands in the shape of a cross and receive the Lord’s Body on it.

 

[Aragorn1]

Ahem!

I was a little surprised when I got on this morning and saw 22 replies to this thread. It turns out that posts 8-21 have strayed off-topic, which is exactly what I warned about in post 4. Please stick to the topic.

Thanks!

 

[MrS]

What exactly is underlying your motivation to personally handle the Blessed Sacrament?

Is it not enough to simply and reverently receive communion?

Doctrines… reverence…understanding… they all develope and mature.

Wish some Catholics could … but that would mean relying on Church history, development and maturing… not always an easy thing to do.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Then why isn’t it universally practiced? In many parts of the world communion in the hand is unthinkable.

So those parts of the world the indult won’t be approved/asked for.

It is no big deal really on that level just like it is no big deal if the MP does not lead to ‘universal’ practice of the EF of the Mass.

 

[Aragorn1]

Hang on to your mantillas and read this first, especially point #9.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

It’s an article from HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW magazine (a widely respected publication read mostly by priests).

Thanks for the link. It turns out I’ve read it already, though, and I take issue with some of the points the author makes, especially in Section #9. For example:

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

This does not preclude a reception of Communion in the hand, as the Eucharist is ultimately received into the mouth, even if initially taken in the hands. Furthermore, even if the Pope did refer here to Communion on the tongue, that doesn’t mean Communion in the hand was forbidden. It is altogether possible that both methods were permitted, as they are today.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

Same as above. It only establishes that Communion on the tongue was practiced, not that Communion in the hand was not.

So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

It seems to me that St. Basil refers to administering Communion to oneself, as opposed to receiving it in the hands by the hands of a priest. In any case, if this passage, together with Huntz’ own admission that “the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end”, proves anything, it proves that the hands of lay persons were at least permitted to touch the Sacred Species, and that such actions were not to be regarded as sacrilege, contra John Vennari and other Traditionalists.

There is more to [the St. Cyril text] than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.

If I’m not mistaken, I think the custom of blessing one’s eyes with the Eucharist was reffered to by several other Fathers. I won’t insist on this last point, however, as I do not have the sources available. (Anybody else?)

 

[scylla]

I am not sure why on needs to have a Christian reason as well as a Catholic reason for their choice of how to receive Holy Communion.

Can we not trust the HMC, who has provided us with these options and deemed them equally appropriate methods and equally revererent?

A Christian reason is a Catholic reason they are one and the same. Catholics are the original Christians the fullness of the Christian faith. I should have been more clear, as a Catholic they are synonymous for Catholics.
There are separated ecclesiastical communities that share some Christian elements, some here in the United States who have no idea that their faith traditions started just a bit ago.

I fully trust Holy Mother Church who in Her wisdom has allowed different practices, for many reasons. Sometimes prudence, sometimes pastoral, to curb abuse, many reasons.

I still seek the answer, why desire to receive in the hand? Is there a Christian reason which makes it superior to the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue. Please no antiquarianism, or human reasons, just give a Christian reason.
If there is none, that is ok, just be honest.

(Father Richard McBrien is honest enough to say that he rejects the structure of the Church and sees it as a power struggle)

Thanks,
Scylla

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I still seek the answer, why desire to receive in the hand? Is there a Christian reason which makes it superior to the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue. Please no antiquarianism, or human reasons, just give a Christian reason.
If there is none, that is ok, just be honest.

Thanks,
Scylla

Since I have not said it is superior I suppose I the wrong one to ask.

 

[Aragorn1]

Is there a Christian reason which makes it superior to the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue.

This is not the topic of the thread. The topic is not supposed to be contrasting Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue. We’re not supposed to be arguing over which is superior. The topic is simple: Was Communion in the hand practiced in the early Church, or was it not? What is the evidence for each position? Let’s look at objective historical facts and discuss them without emotion. Please stop hijacking this thread.

[Edit: Thanks to scylla for starting a new thread on the other topic. ]

 

[pnewton]

Let’s look at objective historical facts and discuss them without emotion. Please stop hijacking this thread.

I agree. Start a new thread for another topic and let this one die. It is not as if there is any question here to be answered.

 

[Aragorn1]

I agree. Start a new thread for another topic and let this one die. It is not as if there is any question here to be answered.

Not sure exactly what you mean… Why is there no question that can be answered here?

 

[pnewton]

Not sure exactly what you mean… Why is there no question that can be answered here?

Has one person questioned that there was communion in hand in the early Church? Does any one disagree?

 

[Aragorn1]

Has one person questioned that there was communion in hand in the early Church? Does any one disagree?

No one on this thread, so far (because most of the posts have been OT). However, a number of Traditionalists (and even some non-trads) have disputed the fact. On other CAF threads, for example, people have challenged the authenticity of the St. Cyril text. In an article by Jude Huntz that was linked to in a previous post on this thread, the author argued against the authenticity of the St. Cyril text and provided what he considered strong evidence for the practice of Communion on the tongue in the early Church, as well as condemnation of reception in the hand at the same time period. (I responded to some of his points above.) Then, of course, there are always radical Traditionalists (like John Vennari) who claim that Communion in the hand is a sacrilege and that it was never practiced by any Catholics until after Vatican II. (It is partly in order to respond to some Traditionalist friends of mine who share the above views that I am inquiring for information regarding Communion in the hand in the early Church.)

Have a nice day!

 

[Brendan]

Has one person questioned that there was communion in hand in the early Church? Does any one disagree?

No, but then again the Early Church also limited a person to one confession in a lifetime. The penitent confessed in front of the whole congregation, and did penance for years before being granted absolution.

So that fact that the Early Church had a particular Sacramental practice doesn’t mean that it is worthy of emmulation.

 

[MrS]

No, but then again the Early Church also limited a person to one confession in a lifetime. The penitent confessed in front of the whole congregation, and did penance for years before being granted absolution.

So that fact that the Early Church had a particular Sacramental practice doesn’t mean that it is worthy of emmulation.

… although… some Catholics still follow this practice…

 

[Aragorn1]

No, but then again the Early Church also limited a person to one confession in a lifetime. The penitent confessed in front of the whole congregation, and did penance for years before being granted absolution.

So that fact that the Early Church had a particular Sacramental practice doesn’t mean that it is worthy of emmulation.

Well, who said it is? This thread is for discussing the question of whether or not Communion was received in the hands in the early Church. The modern implications of the correct answer to that question are irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

I am probably not far from the truth in inferring from your post that you have assumed that the current topic was raised by myself in order to prove that Communion should always be received in the hands in order to imitate the early Christians. Such was not my intent: I myself prefer to receive on the tongue (indeed, I have received in the hands only once before in my lifetime, and that by accident).

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The easiest way, I think, to answer the question of Communion on the tongue vs. the hand is this:

Has Communion in the hand led to abuses, misunderstandings, and bad theology? Yes.

Has Communion on the tongue led to abuses, misunderstandings, and bad theology? No.

Therefore, Communion on the tongue is superior.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[MrS]

From the EWTN Document Library, this is an interesting resource of information…

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The easiest way, I think, to answer the question of Communion on the tongue vs. the hand is this:

Has Communion in the hand led to abuses, misunderstandings, and bad theology? Yes.

Has Communion on the tongue led to abuses, misunderstandings, and bad theology? No.

Therefore, Communion on the tongue is superior.

In Christ,
Rand

Flaw in this is that logic means the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.