Communion in the Hand?

[baddog]

As I have pointed out, repeatedly, although almost always ignored by the Communion in the hand crowd, receiving in the hand in the early Church made perfect sense. It was a logical, practical and useful practice that worked quite well for a while due to the circumstances…

You’re points were answered if you bothered to read my posts. Your argument is weak.

 

[palmas85]

As I have pointed out, repeatedly, although almost always ignored by the Communion in the hand crowd, receiving in the hand in the early Church made perfect sense. It was a logical, practical and useful practice that worked quite well for a while due to the circumstances…

You’re points were answered if you bothered to read my posts. Your argument is weak.

Really? That’s strange. I think the same about yours. At least I have the facts on my side.

What do you have?

 

[malphono]

Really? That’s strange. I think the same about yours. At least I have the facts on my side.

What do you have?

 

[Ockham]

The disagreement we have with the manner of receiving Jesus, will never be fully settled until the Holy Father, and the Bishops speak **very clearly **with one voice. Until then, it is our duty as children to pray earnestly for them, that guided by the Holy Spirit, they will speak as one!
Then it will be our duty to accept what they say, in obedience, as children to their parents.

The Holy Fathers have spoke very clearly. We are indeed disobedient children.

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

 

[LilyM]

The Holy Fathers have spoke very clearly. We are indeed disobedient children.

They spoke equally clearly when they granted indults for CITH - and when they went further and THEMSELVES distributed Communion in the Hand - how are we disobedient when we are doing what they not only permit, but receive Communion by a method that they themselves have used?

 

[Little_Dove]

Dear Ockham,
And the Bishops in union with Him? As the children, are we free to disobey the Bishops, our Fathers?

God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary

 

[baddog]

The Holy Fathers have spoke very clearly. We are indeed disobedient children.

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

“One of the most common ‘traditionalist’ quotes against communion in the hand is one that circulates on a pamphlet where they claim that St. Basil the Great said that outside of persecution it was never proper to receive by hand. They cite from his Epistle 93 and obviously have not read the Epistle except to prooftext a single line from the work. (Unless they are blatantly deceptive in citing the source of course.) The reason it is doubtful that they bothered to read it is because the great Cappadocian Doctor of the Church says the exact opposite of what ‘traditionalists’ claim he said. Further still, this is outside of the times of persecution (approximately 378 AD) when the Arian crisis was winding down:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. 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.
Since St. Basil says the exact opposite of what ‘traditionalists’ try to make him say, he cannot be cited as a witness for their arguments against hand reception.”

I. Shawn McElhinney

 

[Ockham]

Dear Ockham,
And the Bishops in union with Him? As the children, are we free to disobey the Bishops, our Fathers?

God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary

Popes outrank bishops.

 

[Ockham]

They spoke equally clearly when they granted indults for CITH - and when they went further and THEMSELVES distributed Communion in the Hand - how are we disobedient when we are doing what they not only permit, but receive Communion by a method that they themselves have used?

German bishops used to sell indulgences. Were those who spoke against this practice disobedient? If bishops started telling us the Real Presence doesn’t exist at Holy Communion, would we be disobedient in disputing them? Check the dogma and then decide.

 

[LilyM]

German bishops used to sell indulgences. Were those who spoke against this practice disobedient? If bishops started telling us the Real Presence doesn’t exist at Holy Communion, would we be disobedient in disputing them? Check the dogma and then decide.

Apples and oranges - the Pope didn’t explicitly give 99%+ of the world’s Bishops written permission to sell indulgences, unlike CITH. The Popes didn’t personally openly sell indulgences (as far as I know), unlike CITH.

Discipline is not dogma, and method of reception is a disciplinary matter. No reference to particular methods of reception is dogma either, but is discipline, hence the Pope’s ability to grant indults, which he wouldn’t do in matters of dogma! He wouldn’t, for example, give a diocese an indult to allow its parishioners to use artificial ABC, or to allow ordinations of women and so on, because these issues ARE matters of dogma and cannot be dispensed or indulged.

Councils and Popes do make declarations on disciplinary matters as well as matters of faith and morals - doesn’t make them dogma, doesn’t mean these disciplines cannot be changed.

 

[diggerdomer]

Examples?

Examples of what?

Others like you who apparently ignore the parts of current Church teaching you don’t like or agree with?

Please, let us know what kind of examples you’re looking for.

Simply posting “Examples?” is, imho, extremely unhelpful for furthering dialogue. Though my perception is (and forgive me if I’m wrong) that you’re not really interested in dialogue.

By the way, I shared with you my “agenda”–to learn more about the Catholic faith.

What is your agenda? from everything I’ve read I can only infer that it’s to denigrate those of us who prefer communion in the hand, which is authorized by the same Church that authorizes you to receive it on the tongue, and so in effect you’re denigrating our Church.

thanks.

 

[Little_Dove]

Popes outrank bishops.

Dear Ockham,
So again, just using my family analogy, if your father disagrees with your mother, do you just say, well fathers outrank mothers, or do you pray with all your heart that they agree and then pass down that unified decision to the children. Children who in their deepest souls want harmony and unity in the family?
God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary

 

[baddog]

PART 1.

Self-styled ‘traditionalists’ are almost superstitious in their notions about what does and does not constitute reverence and what is and is not sacrilegious. They even go as far as to circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that communion in the hand was not an apostolic custom. This is probably because many groups favouring communion in the hand circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that it was universal in the early church to receive by hand. The most important point in this area as far as Communion in the Hand goes is this (and ‘traditionalists’ will have problems grasping this especially at first):

In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, “De lapsis”, xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii).
And for those who would claim that this was only during persecutions, then what of the following citations from the Fathers and Councils specifically speaking of communion reception by hand??? The first is from St. Basil the Great from around 378 AD:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. 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.

 

[baddog]

Part 2.

And from the generally very reliable Catholic Encyclopedia article on communion patens (lest anyone think this practice was only Eastern in orientation):
The word paten comes from a Latin form patina or patena, evidently imitated from the Greek patane. It seems from the beginning to have been used to denote a flat open vessel of the nature of a plate or dish. Such vessels in the first centuries were used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who in their own hands received each a portion from the patina… When towards the ninth century the zeal of the faithful regarding the frequent reception of Holy Communion very much declined, the system of consecrating the bread offered by the faithful and of distributing Communion from the patinæ seems gradually to have changed, and the use of the large and proportionately deep patinæ ministeriales fell into abeyance. It was probably about the same time that the custom grew up for the priest himself to use a paten at the altar to contain the sacred Host, and obviate the danger of scattered particles after the Fraction. This paten, however, was of much smaller size and resembled those with which we are now familiar.
Therefore, unless our early Christian brethren were committing sacrilege or being disrespectful to God, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the faithful touching the Body and Blood of Our Lord with their hands. Disrespect for the Eucharist cannot logically come from holding Our Lord in one’s hands or the early Christians were profoundly disrespectful since they not only held Our Lord in their hands but they took Him home also. Will self-styled ‘traditionalists’ now call the early Christians “sacrilegious” for their actions??? Was St. Basil the Great and St. Cyril of Jerusalem promoting irreverence of the Blessed Sacrament??? Was St. John Damascus “sacrilegious” or promoting “irreverence” when he noted the following in his writing “The Orthodox Faith” in the early 700’s:
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live.
Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. 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. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.
This is the problem that ‘traditionalists’ put themselves in when they make these kinds of ill-informed arguments. The problem that they have is a tendency towards the the sin of partiality (James 2:1, 2:9, 4:11-13) by elevating to the status of what is and is not “proper” their personal likes and dislikes. This attitude is wrong and another indication of the near caste system attitude taken by self-styled ‘traditionalists’ which is alien to the way the Church historically viewed not only herself but the relationship between clergy and laity.

I. Shawn McElhinney

 

[Ockham]

Examples of what?

All these examples of Church teaching you keep mentioning but never providing.

My agenda is protecting authentic dogma, not the hippy dippy post-Vatican II fluff we’ve been innodated with. If you believe in the Real Presence then what’s it doing in your hand?

 

[LilyM]

All these examples of Church teaching you keep mentioning but never providing.

My agenda is protecting authentic dogma, not the hippy dippy post-Vatican II fluff we’ve been innodated with. If you believe in the Real Presence then what’s it doing in your hand?

BECAUSE it’s His Real Presence - and because it’s human nature (and rightfully so) to touch those you love, and because I love Him! John Paul II is known, when in Adoration, to actually go up and wrap his arms around the Tabernacle or Monstrance.

I’m morally certain that when Our Lady saw Our Lord for the first time after His resurrection, she embraced Him, His ‘noli me tangere’ to Mary Magdalene notwithstanding. What mother who loved her child wouldn’t? And what son who loved his mother would deny her?

And I’m sure Thomas wasn’t the only person out of the 500 witnesses to touch Him to prove to themselves that He was really risen.

 

[Little_Dove]

I have to ask myself, do I really submit my will and intellect to the teachings of Christ as revealed through the Catholic Church? Or do I submit to the teaching of the Church because the teaching happens to be what I believe.

Hypothetically:

If tomorrow, the Church were to officially declare that Holy Communion must only be received kneeling, upon the tongue, would you submit to Her authority?

If tomorrow, the Church were to officially declare that Holy Communion must only be received, standing, upon the hands, would you submit to Her authority?

If you answer “yes” to both, there really is no further need of discussion, for you know that in your heart, your soul and your intellect, you are believing everything that our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed through the Catholic Church, and obeying with all your heart!

God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary

 

[diggerdomer]

All these examples of Church teaching you keep mentioning but never providing.

My agenda is protecting authentic dogma, not the hippy dippy post-Vatican II fluff we’ve been innodated with. If you believe in the Real Presence then what’s it doing in your hand?

How can we possibly take you seriously?

I keep providing an example of Church teaching by citing the GIRM. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse.

Do you agree, or not, that the GIRM is authentic Church teaching?

Please, for once, just answer a question that I sincerely ask. Please.

I can only assume by what you said that you consider the teachings of the Pope not be authentic Dogma. Is this correct? Pope Paul VI and every Pope since him has approved communion in the hand.

Again, please, just simply answer the question. For once.

Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Holy Fathers have spoke very clearly. We are indeed disobedient children.

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

All of these quotes do nothing to refute the FACT that current Church teaching allows communion in the hand. Nice try.

 

[baddog]

All of these quotes do nothing to refute the FACT that current Church teaching allows communion in the hand. Nice try.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

This one was definitely used out of context. I wouldn’t be surprised if the others are as well.