Communion in the hand in the early Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aragorn1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you find the evidence you wished?
Click to expand...
Yes, I found enough. And thanks for the link!

(In case you’re curious, the reason why I asked the question in first place is because I’m writing a paper arguing that Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege - contra certain Traditionalists. [Nothing professional or anything, just a bit of amateur apologetics. It’s my new hobby! :D] So I decided to take on John Vennari and co. from Catholic Family News: see here and here to see what I mean.)

And that also explains my (perhaps excessive) zeal for keeping everyone on this thread on-topic (I can’t stand it when a discussion goes off on a tangent…). I’d like to apologize to everyone to whom I may have sounded impatient or rude.
 
Aragorn1 said:
In case you’re curious, the reason why I asked the question in first place is because I’m writing a paper arguing that Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege - contra certain Traditionalists.
Click to expand...
(Just for the record, I am not a “Traditionalist”, but am of the “Reform of the Reform” variety, who would prefer to see Mass celebrated as the Roman Missal describes it and as the Fathers of the Council desired to see it reformed.)

I would deny that the Communion in the hand is a sacrilege ipso facto. Clearly, it was practiced in the early Church, and as Ratzinger said some 30 years ago, “we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years”. However, as he also wrote, “what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly”. As the Church’s knowledge and understanding of the Most Blessed Sacrament deepened, She began to adopt a more worthy mode of reception for Holy Communion, and not all at once: certain districts of the Church started receiving on the tongue before others.

However, ruling it out as a sacrilege (in and of itself) is only half the battle – although that may be the half of the battle you wish to fight. Speaking in a church is not sacrilege in and of itself… speaking blasphemies in a church is a sacrilege. The second half of the battle is to examine how the practice is done today, and how it was introduced, and why it was introduced. I’ve seen no woman receive the Host on a cloth, as was the practice. I’ve seen no one touch the host to their sensory organs to bless them, nor bless themselves with the dew of the Precious Blood on their lips. Why? Because those practices were stopped centuries, probably because while they had a nice intent, they were not the safest and smartest practices, and could lead to profanation more easily.

Rather, today, people receive into their hand and consume the Host as if it were normal food. Are they taught about careful and reverent reception? Did they receive the catechesis that Pope Paul VI expected them to receive?

Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege, but I would say that the way most people receive in the hand is.
 
Trying to get the practice stopped will amount to dodging the real need in the church - proper catechesis of everyone.

And is is appropriate to claim/insinuate/imply that many/most are committing sacrilege ??
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Trying to get the practice stopped will amount to dodging the real need in the church - proper catechesis of everyone.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion. I don’t think communion in the hand is a “real need in the church”.

And in some cases, the catechesis needed is more than just how to receive in the hand properly, it’s also catechesis informing them about receiving on the tongue and about the Real Presence.
Eilish_Maura said:
And is is appropriate to claim/insinuate/imply that many/most are committing sacrilege ??
Click to expand...
That’s my opinion. I see people eat the Host like popcorn. I see people wipe their hands on their pants; I see people receive from the Chalice and then wipe their lips with the back of their arm. Where’s the respect there?

When I have seen people receive in the hand, I often (maybe about half the time) see behavior I think needs correcting.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Where did I say that the real need in the church is communion in the hand?
Click to expand...
You didn’t, but I used your expression in relation to the practice, not the catechesis. I’m not stupid; the rest of the first comment I posted dealt with the catechesis, the “real need in the church”.

But I don’t think Communion in the hand is a necessity. Teach people how to receive in the hand properly, sure, but don’t teach them that it’s a necessity.
 
japhy said:
You didn’t, but I used your expression in relation to the practice, not the catechesis. I’m not stupid; the rest of the first comment I posted dealt with the catechesis, the “real need in the church”.

But I don’t think Communion in the hand is a necessity. Teach people how to receive in the hand properly, sure, but don’t teach them that it’s a necessity.
Click to expand...
While I feel the same no one has said it is a necessity nor that it should be taught as a necessity. I don’t understand introducing it at this point.
 
Groan I knew I never should have made that off-hand allusion to the question of whether Communion in the hand is a sacrilege, which is now digressing into another tangential debate. :o

HOWEVER… Since this is such a juicy topic, and since it ties in directly with the paper I’m writing, I simply cannot resist it altogether. Please check your PMs, japhy! 😉 I respectfully await your reply.
 
What could be earlier Church than Matthew 26:26 when Our Lord blessed and broke the bread,"and gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” I think it is quite likely that Jesus broke the bread and passed it right and left to those at table who then passed it one to another until all were served. Matthew does not say the Lord did otherwise. Rather than focusing on the accidentals, I have come to think it more important to be interiorly as reverent as I would be if I were there, in the upper room, at table with Christ. I suppose, reception of the sacred host on the tongue came about later in response to various abuses but I cannot see anything intrinsically wrong with reverently taking and eating.
 
At the risk of seeming to be an ultratraditionalist let me point out that the Jesus said “Take and eat.” He did NOT say “Stick your tongue out while I put this in your mouth.” Taking Eucharist in the hand is more traditional than on the tongue. It’s just a simple historical fact.

Matthew
 
There are also practical matters. As any priest or eucharistic minister can tell you, some people, who receive the host on the tongue, inadvertantly move in such a way as to contact the finger or thumb of the priest or minister. There is at least some potential for a health problem. Think of flu season. I realize that this is a mundane concern but since the Ninth Century, we have come to know a great deal more about the role of germs and public health. I think there is charity involved in due care.
 
Bill40 said:
There are also practical matters. As any priest or eucharistic minister can tell you, some people, who receive the host on the tongue, inadvertantly move in such a way as to contact the finger or thumb of the priest or minister. There is at least some potential for a health problem. Think of flu season. I realize that this is a mundane concern but since the Ninth Century, we have come to know a great deal more about the role of germs and public health. I think there is charity involved in due care.
Click to expand...
Ohh don’t mention this over in a Trad area – they will tell you that you are a liar about anyone touching the priest/deacon/minister with his/her tongue!!!
 
Bill40 said:
There are also practical matters. As any priest or eucharistic minister can tell you, some people, who receive the host on the tongue, inadvertantly move in such a way as to contact the finger or thumb of the priest or minister. There is at least some potential for a health problem. Think of flu season. I realize that this is a mundane concern but since the Ninth Century, we have come to know a great deal more about the role of germs and public health. I think there is charity involved in due care.
Click to expand...
\

Interesting observation.

However, the priest does wash hands/fingers, and should keep the two fingers touching when not in use … until after communion.

The EMHC on the other hand MOST OFTEN simply takes the ciborium and starts distributing… no finger washing before or after. And yes I said most often… I have seen a few who expressed a more visible reverence for the particles, and for their own sanitation.

.
 
MrS said:
\

Interesting observation.

However, the priest does wash hands/fingers, and should keep the two fingers touching when not in use … until after communion.

The EMHC on the other hand MOST OFTEN simply takes the ciborium and starts distributing… no finger washing before or after. And yes I said most often… I have seen a few who expressed a more visible reverence for the particles, and for their own sanitation.

.
Click to expand...
The priest does not wash his hands/fingers after touching a person’s tongue.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
The priest does not wash his hands/fingers after touching a person’s tongue.
Click to expand...
You are speaking of an act…touching someone’s tongue…that is VERY rare & could only occur accidently. Spreading germs via a shared Chalice (when taking the Blood of Christ) is a common occurrence.
 
CradleCath said:
You are speaking of an act…touching someone’s tongue…that is VERY rare & could only occur accidently. Spreading germs via a shared Chalice (when taking the Blood of Christ) is a common occurrence.
Click to expand...
My comment was in response to the poster saying how the priest washes his hands.

When this does happen the priest does NOT go off to wash his hands again.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
The priest does not wash his hands/fingers after touching a person’s tongue.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct. He does not. It happens so rarely that I don’t think it is of any concern at all. The one time I saw it happen, in many years of serving, the Priest switched hands. Thats all.

But on the flip side, I often see the Blood being distributed without the chalice being wiped down between people or even rotated for that matter. So I would say of the two the probability of coming in contact with another persons saliva is probably greater when one is receiving under both species and the proper precautions are not carried out for whatever eason/
 
palmas85 said:
You are quite correct. He does not. It happens so rarely that I don’t think it is of any concern at all. The one time I saw it happen, in many years of serving, the Priest switched hands. Thats all.

/
Click to expand...
The reason I mentioned this was because the priest, while washing his fingertips/hands is saying, “Wash the iniquities…” This is a sign of reverence for what he is about to do… touch a piece of bread, consecrate it, and then be touching the Holy Eucharist. After communion, he again washes his fingertips as he purifies the chalice.

EMHC most often do NEITHER. … another sign or lack thereof in the level of reverence for the same Holy Eucharist.

There was just a weak attempt to derail the sign of reverence with washing off of someone’s “mouth germs” .

.
 
palmas85 said:
You are quite correct. He does not. It happens so rarely that I don’t think it is of any concern at all. The one time I saw it happen, in many years of serving, the Priest switched hands. Thats all.
Click to expand...
You can’t make the blanket statement that it happens rarely as there are no records kept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top