Communion in the hand in the early Church

[Aragorn1]

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

Since when has “the question of Communion on the tongue vs. the hand” needed answering on this thread?

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.

I agree with your conclusion but utterly reject the logic whereby you have arrived at it. In any case, the question is irrelevent to the topic of the thread.

 

[Aragorn1]

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

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

.

This too is irrelevent, as there is virtually no discussion of the early Church except for a short reference to the Council of Rouen.

For the trillionth time, people, PLEASE at least try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

 

[Aragorn1]

Must have missed the following post in my agitation at all the OT posts flooding this thread:

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.

Could you post a reference to the St. John Damascene passage please? Thanks, I’d really appreciate it.

 

[CradleCath]

=Mintaka;3285477]In the early times of the Church, people were allowed to take home enough Communion from Mass for each Christian household member to eat one piece every day for the rest of the week. There was a little boy who was martyred, while trying to protect the Lord’s Body that he was taking home. Christian homes had a special box/tabernacle to keep the Body in.

So they were probably eating these pieces by hand, unless the family members administered the Body to each other’s mouths with their hands. (I don’t remember hearing anything about folks using communion tongs or gloves or communion spoons that far back, though it’s possible.)

This custom eventually died out because of the obvious abuse potential. But some Eastern churchgoers still take home a special blessed bread, which was instituted to console Christians for the loss of keeping the Real Presence in their homes all week long.

I appreciate your post, but would like to see a link (or be given the name of the book, etc.) that documents your words. I, of course, know that Communion in the hand was a custom in early Catholicism, but had never heard that people were allowed to leave the Church with the Eucharist. Thank you.

 

[palmas85]

I appreciate your post, but would like to see a link (or be given the name of the book, etc.) that documents your words. I, of course, know that Communion in the hand was a custom in early Catholicism, but had never heard that people were allowed to leave the Church with the Eucharist. Thank you.

I don’t know the reference off the top of my head but it is documented in the book the Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina.

He has the refernces included in the book. It is a great read. Check it out:thumbsup:

 

[Aragorn1]

I appreciate your post, but would like to see a link (or be given the name of the book, etc.) that documents your words. I, of course, know that Communion in the hand was a custom in early Catholicism, but had never heard that people were allowed to leave the Church with the Eucharist. Thank you.

See Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers - Volume II (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, 1979), p. 5.

 

[thistle]

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).

That article contains at least one error. It claims that receiving in the hand is no longer allowed in the Philippines. That’s nonsense. It is not only allowed but in my local church and many others I have attended here the majority receive in the hand. I choose to receive on the tongue while my daughter receives on the hand.

Also do to my past banking employment I had to travel extensively in Asia and in all the countries where I attended Mass receiving on the hand was allowed. I have also just come back from visiting my mother in Scotland who is very ill and at Mass there too receiving on the hand is allowed.

In fact I was be extremely surprised if there is any country that currently does not allow receiving in the hand.

 

[CradleCath]

See Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers - Volume II

(The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, 1979), p. 5.

Thanks to all of you who sent posts with information about the ancient practice of allowing people to take the Eucharist from their Church & into their homes. This is new info for me & I do appreciate your help in learning about it.

 

[TMC]

Despite the article by Mr. Hunt posted above, it seems to me that it is pretty firmly established that Communion in the hand was the norm in the early Church. Usually one hears debate over when and why it stopped, not whether it was the norm. Hunt badly misstates St. Basil’s statement, suggesting Basil said communion in the hand was only allowed during persecution. But Basil said that self-communication without a priest is OK during persecution. This is what he said a few sentences later about the norm in the 4th Century:

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.

Here is the whole thing:

BASIL OF CAESAREA

 

[japhy]

In fact I was be extremely surprised if there is any country that currently does not allow receiving in the hand.

I would expect there are certainly countries that do not allow it. Poland was one such country until VERY recently – April 6th, 2006 to be precise.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

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

How so? The use of the English language in the Mass has also led to abuses (ad libing, ect.). The introduction of non-liturgical styles of music has led to abuses. As with Communion in the hand, those things all simply are practices which have allowed for abuses and some poor theology by certain individuals. Do you deny that? How does that mean that I am saying the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Since when has “the question of Communion on the tongue vs. the hand” needed answering on this thread?

Since it was posed.

I agree with your conclusion but utterly reject the logic whereby you have arrived at it. In any case, the question is irrelevent to the topic of the thread.

“Utterly reject”…ok. What is wrong with the logic I used? It is true that reception of Communion on the tongue did not create any liturgical abuses or bad theology about the nature of the Eucharist and that Communion in the hand has done that.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Eilish_Maura]

How so? The use of the English language in the Mass has also led to abuses (ad libing, ect.). The introduction of non-liturgical styles of music has led to abuses. As with Communion in the hand, those things all simply are practices which have allowed for abuses and some poor theology by certain individuals. Do you deny that? How does that mean that I am saying the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church?

In Christ,
Rand

Use of English was done deliberately to demean the Sacraments?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Use of English was done deliberately to demean the Sacraments?

When did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that or even insinuated it. What I said was that the use of English has led to abuses in the Mass, such as priests ad libing parts or changing the wording of the prayers. That happens all the time. I never said that it was intentional by the Vatican as the reason for having an English liturgy; I simply said that it is a fact that there have been abuses in the liturgy that have come about because it is in English. Once again, I never said anything about deliberately demeaning the Sacraments or the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. Don’t know where you got that from anything I said.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Aragorn1]

Since it was posed.

“Utterly reject”…ok. What is wrong with the logic I used? It is true that reception of Communion on the tongue did not create any liturgical abuses or bad theology about the nature of the Eucharist and that Communion in the hand has done that.

Rand Al’Thor, I will not respond to your points on this thread, because they are off-topic. The question of “Communion in the hand versus that on the tongue” was not posed at the start of the thread. The topic is whether Communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church.

If you want to discuss the points you have raised about Communion in the hand, please feel free to PM me.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

When did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that or even insinuated it. What I said was that the use of English has led to abuses in the Mass, such as priests ad libing parts or changing the wording of the prayers. That happens all the time. I never said that it was intentional by the Vatican as the reason for having an English liturgy; I simply said that it is a fact that there have been abuses in the liturgy that have come about because it is in English. Once again, I never said anything about deliberately demeaning the Sacraments or the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. Don’t know where you got that from anything I said.

In Christ,
Rand

If you did not mean it your analogy is meaningless, it is comparing apples vs oranges kind of argument.

 

[Aragorn1]

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?)

Aha! I have found it at last:

Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire.

Source [St. John Damascene (A.D. 645-749), *De Fide Orthodoxa, Book 4, Ch. 13 (A.D. 743).]

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

If you did not mean it your analogy is meaningless, it is comparing apples vs oranges kind of argument.

You have obviously missed the entire point I was making, though I thought it was very clear…I guess not.

Communion in the hand, while permitted in certain places and a valid practice, has led to some abuses. These abuses are the fault of the individuals who have committed them. It was not the intention of the Church to create abuses in this area. So, because there have been abuses because of the allowance of Communion in the hand, Communion on the tongue is a better way to administer the Sacrament.

My analogy to the English Mass was the same. By comparing it to the English Mass, I was showing how something can be valid and approved by the Vatican and still lead to abuses, again not being the intent of the Church. Like with the abuses that came from Communion in the hand, the blame lies with the individuals who have committed the abuses, not with the Church. Do you understand what I am saying? I am not saying that the Church intentionally instituted an English Mass to cause abuses. I was showing that while something can be valid, it is not always reverent. THAT was the point I was trying to make. Don’t know where you got the whole “gates of hell prevailing” thing from.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Aragorn1]

Rand Al’Thor (and Eilish Maura):

Please read (or re-read) posts 4, 24, 30, 37, 41, 42, and 55. And then, for heaven’s sake, try to stay on topic.

If you don’t want to stay on topic, then please find a thread on the topic you want to discuss. Choose any of the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217033
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216037
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216073
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=214786

 

[Eilish_Maura]

What evidence is there that the early Christians received Communion in their hands, besides the well-known passage written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem? Is St. Cyril’s passage authentic? Is there any other evidence?

Did you find the evidence you wished?

Well even if you did another poster shared this on another forum - I am using a different link because I like the way you find out who is the author of it

burgyetal.blogspot.com/2003/09/communion-in-hand-steve-skojec-has.html

a 1978 sermon of a well-known German theologian, who said:

  the second objection we wanted to consider was directed against the act of receiving Communion: kneeling--standing, hand--mouth. Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you all to exercise the same tolerance and not cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it. But you will ask: Is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always be so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well-founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. [Emphasis added.]

  If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion. We find a particularly fine passage in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, from the fourth century. In his catechetical homilies he tells the candidates for baptism what they should do at Communion. They should make a throne of their hands, laying the right upon the let to forma throne for the King, forming at the same time a cross. This symbolic gesture, so fine and so profound, is what concerns him: the hands of man form a cross, which becomes a throne, down into which the King inclines himself. The open, outstretched hand can thus become a sign of the way that a man offers himself to the Lord, opens hands for him, that they may become an instrument of his presence and a throne of his mercies in this world. Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church's efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk--and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness--in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him. [Emphasis added.]

Who is this theologian? Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then-Archbishop of Munich (the sermon from which this citation was taken was just recently published in a compilation of various essays by Ratzinger on the Eucharist in the text God Is Near Us at pp. 69-71).