Communion in the Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are some interesting articles on the subject at hand:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

This by Ben Douglass:
The laity received Communion in the hand quite frequently in the early Christian Church. St. Basil the Great, for example, witnesses to this practice. Some traditionalists have quoted a fragment from his 93rd Epistle where he says that “for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence” and concluded that he believed that it would be a “serious offence” were someone to take Communion in his own hand in time of peace. However, this interpretation does not hold water when the passage is read in context:

“It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. 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” (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93).

Other Fathers and Councils endorse Communion in the hand as well:

“In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21).

“Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Ephesians).

“Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God” (Quintsext Synod of Trullo, Canon CI).

“[Caedmon] accordingly went [to the house to which those that were sick, and like shortly to die, were carried], and conversing pleasantly in a joyful manner with the rest that were in the house before, when it was past midnight, he asked them, whether they had the Eucharist there? They answered, ‘What need of the Eucharist? for you are not likely to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were in perfect health.’ *‘However,’ said he, ‘bring me the Eucharist.’ Having received the same into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and without any enmity or rancour?” (St. Bede the Venerable, Ecclesiastical History of England, 4:24)

“Let us draw near to [the Eucharist] 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” (St. John Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa Book IV, ch. XIII).

Note that Ss. Cyril and John Damascus not only advise the laity to take Communion in the hand, but to touch the Body of Christ to their eyes as well. Surely this would be even more conducive to fragments than the modern practice. Hence, either it would be a sacrilege to attend Mass at St. John Damascus’ Church, or something is wrong with the logic of the Society of St. Pius X (N.B: There are also patristic witnesses to Communion on the tongue such as Pope St. Gregory the Great and the Synod of Rouen; Communion in the hand was not the universal practice of the early Church).
 
Note that St. Thomas explicitly says that “fine particles” of what used to be part of a consecrated host are not the Body of Christ.

“But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 77, Art. 4).
 
Note that St. Thomas explicitly says that “fine particles” of what used to be part of a consecrated host are not the Body of Christ.

“But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 77, Art. 4).
This is a very interesting point, in view of some objecting to communion in the hand on the grounds of fine particles dropping to the ground and ‘Jesus being trampled on’.
 
Note that St. Thomas explicitly says that “fine particles” of what used to be part of a consecrated host are not the Body of Christ.

“But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 77, Art. 4).
If that were true, why does the priest scrape the remaining particles of the host into the chalice and consume it? Why not just scrape them on to the floor?
 
i tend to believe that at the last supper Christ broke bread and gave it to his apostles in the hand…IMHO of course
 
i tend to believe that at the last supper Christ broke bread and gave it to his apostles in the hand…IMHO of course
👍

I know many take this topic with the utmost of sincerity, and I respect anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue.

All the talk about receiving in the hand being disrespectful is baloney. If Benedict thought that were the case, he’d issue a clarification petmitting only reception on the tongue and that would be that. 🤷
 
👍

I know many take this topic with the utmost of sincerity, and I respect anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue.

All the talk about receiving in the hand being disrespectful is baloney. If Benedict thought that were the case, he’d issue a clarification petmitting only reception on the tongue and that would be that. 🤷
Yet Benedict gives only kneeling, on the tongue, at this Masses. If he thought it was equal to receiving in the hand, why not allow it at his Masses?
 
i tend to believe that at the last supper Christ broke bread and gave it to his apostles in the hand…IMHO of course
The apostles were the first bishops. Peter had already been made the first pope. The sacrament wasn’t fully initiated until Christ died on the cross. “it will be shed”
 
Yet Benedict gives only kneeling, on the tongue, at this Masses. If he thought it was equal to receiving in the hand, why not allow it at his Masses?
Probably that is his perference. However it doesn’t mean receiving in the hand is wrong.
It’s a choice every Catholic is free to make.
 
Yet Benedict gives only kneeling, on the tongue, at this Masses. If he thought it was equal to receiving in the hand, why not allow it at his Masses?
He does allow it.

Whether he thinks one or the other is better, as a personal preference, is just that. His personal preferences are not binding on the universal Church.

If he thought as a matter of liturgical law or principle, or theological truth, or whatever, that one was preferable, he could (and imho should) make that clear as not just a personal preference but through his teaching authority. He has not done this.
 
If that were true, why does the priest scrape the remaining particles of the host into the chalice and consume it? Why not just scrape them on to the floor?
Because that would be a serious sin. St. Thomas perferred receiving the Host on the tongue. However, no matter how much care is put into collecting the particles, some residue will remain with either method.
That doesn’t mean receiving in the hand is wrong. Great care should be taken to collect the particles with either method.
 
Interesting. “Pro-Choice” Catholics are those who believe they can play or handle God. Both will argue that because it is legal it is right. We indeed live in a ‘tyranny of relativism’.
 
Interesting. “Pro-Choice” Catholics are those who believe they can play or handle God. Both will argue that because it is legal it is right. We indeed live in a ‘tyranny of relativism’.
That’s all rather cryptic, Ockham.

Could you explain what you mean?
 
Pro Choice (Abortionist) Abortion is ok because it is legal.

Pro Choice (Modernist) CITH is ok because it is legal.

The abortionist plays God by ending a life He created. The modernist takes God in his hands.
 
Pro Choice (Abortionist) Abortion is ok because it is legal.

Pro Choice (Modernist) CITH is ok because it is legal.

The abortionist plays God by ending a life He created. The modernist takes God in his hands.
Abortion is not legal per the Church. That is what makes it not ok, for Catholics at least, regardless of what secular laws say.

Communion in the hand is legal per the Church. That is what makes it ok for Catholics.

I’m sure there are other threads that we can continue the abortion conversation on if anyone wants to.
 
Pro Choice (Abortionist) Abortion is ok because it is legal.

Pro Choice (Modernist) CITH is ok because it is legal.

The abortionist plays God by ending a life He created. The modernist takes God in his hands.
It’s beyond cryptic…
 
Pro Choice (Abortionist) Abortion is ok because it is legal.

Pro Choice (Modernist) CITH is ok because it is legal.

The abortionist plays God by ending a life He created. The modernist takes God in his hands.
I fail to see how your premise leads to a logical conclusion. Receiving the Host in the hand makes one an abortionist?:confused:
 
Good grief. Both are examples of relativism. What’s cryptic about basic logic? No, receiving Communion in hand doesn’t make you an abortionist.

Digger just proved my point. There doesn’t exist any logical, philosopical or dogmatic reason to receive Communion in hand, but because it’s legal it’s ok in his mind.

Five hundred years ago it was legal to sell indulgences. How did that work out for the Church?
 
Digger just proved my point. There doesn’t exist any logical, philosopical or dogmatic reason to receive Communion in hand, but because it’s legal it’s ok in his mind.
No; I disagree with your point, I did not prove it.

Communion in the hand is logical, philosophically reasonable and dogmatically correct for Catholics because it’s what the Catholic Church teaches. Just like communion on the tongue.

And, well, yes…as a Catholic, if the Catholic Church tells me something is “legal” then I do think it’s ok for Catholics. I assume we’re talking “legal” in terms of the Catholic Church and its teachings, practices, etc., i.e. the area where the Church has the right and duty to teach authoritatively.

Or are you saying that whatever the Church teaches, that we don’t like or understand, we’re free to reject outright? In your mind, it’s not ok to receive communion in the hand, and therefore the Church is wrong. That’s the logical conclusion to your posting isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top