Hello.
I’m being received into the Catholic Church shortly, but I’m having very grave difficulties with ‘communion in the hand’. I’d describe myself as a traditionalist & I’d attend the Tridentine Mass, increasingly strongly the SSPX, whom I have a great deal of sympathy for, but the nearest SSPX chapel is four hours drive away, the nearest Tridentine Mass is about three hours and two ferry trips away. Both of these are practically impossible as I can’t drive! The Novus Ordo parish, which I presently attend though of course do not receive, I am told, is a thoroughly reverent one as they go (no EMHC, no guitars, no liturgical abuses save communion in the hand).
I know the SSPX considers the Novus Ordo an objective sacrilege and a sin that ought to be confessed (vide their American website). I do not know about this - I’d have surely to fulfill the obligation on Sundays?, but I have grave difficulties with the practice of ‘communion in the hand’. I cannot shake a very strong suspicion it is sacrilegeous. I’ve asked; and been given what I am told is the official defence of the practice, that it was the practice of the Primitive Church, or more accurately of the Apostles. I cannot quiet my conscience in this regard - knowing I am having doubts about whether the Novus Ordo is a sacrilege (that is, they teach it is valid but displeasing to God) as the SSPX teach; and having grievous doubts about Communion in the Hand, what should I do? My instruction has been very orthodox, I’m very lucky, but I am still gravely, gravely concerned.
Communion in the hand is a licit and reverant way to receive communion and the OF (Ordinary Form of the Mass) is a licit and valid form of the Mass just as the EF is. Communion in the Hand is not sacrilegious, nor is it a liturgical abuse.
That’s essentially the end of discussion because the Magisterium of the Church has spoken so. The SSPX does not have
any authority to suggest otherwise because they do not have a canonical place in the Church. It’s a pretty simple answer in this case: the Church is right, and the SSPX is wrong.
Stick your tongue out. That is the correct way to do it - our blessed Lord’s body is too sacred to touch our unconsecrated hands (unless absolutely necessary).
This is not, and has never been, Catholic doctrine. Deacons are ordinary minister of Holy Communion (they distribute the Body as ordinary, not extraordinary, ministers) and their hands are
not consecrated.
I realize that some people have read this from the Summa, but there something important to realize: Angelic Doctor though he was, not everything that St. Thomas Aquinas ever uttered was sacred infallible doctrine. In this case he was simply mistaken; the Church never accepted this position as doctrine.
Yes you can tell. And of course not even a saint can touch it, you’re right. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)
And as I have said, this position was never accepted by the Church as doctrine, so your appeal is simply to a pious theological
opinion, nothing more. And one that was explicitly rejected at that.
Every fragment of the Host, no matter how minuscule, contains Jesus Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
How can we be sure that there are not particles of our Lord left on our hands after receiving? (This has been discussed on these forums in the past.)
It’s pretty simple actually: If you can’t see bread (the accidents of), then there’s no Jesus. A small spec that is indistinguishable from dust is not bread, it is dust, and thus not Jesus.
I am deeply ashamed for daring to question the Pope and for how I am thinking - although I was quoting the SSPX position on the NO being sacriligeous, which I have not firmly decided upon myself - the doubts and being tossed about by it are a bit of a torture for my conscience. I started my instruction with submission and I do try to be obedient, but as I read more and more I am wracked with doubt - simply, taking only one rather egregious example, how can the Church in 1961 be the same as that of Assisi? Would any of the Popes from Saint Peter to now have permitted pagans and heretics to ‘pray’ in a Catholic church?
Ok, we’ll move to being blunt.
The question is very, extremely simple: Do you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church on the foundation of the Pope
and promised to send the Holy Spirit to protect Her until the end of time? Or do you believe that Jesus was a liar, and would allow His Bride, founded on Peter as the visible Head of the Body (to stand in for, to be the Vicar for, the Invisible Head) to be led into heresy?
Where did Jesus ever say or where does Tradition ever say that the Holy Spirit would ever
deceive people by first appointing Peter as the foundation and then abandoning him and appointing some small group as the “real” Church? That’s not Jesus, that’s not Tradition, and that’s not Catholicism: that’s Protestantism (and I say that because you will see the exact same argument from Evangelicals. How ironic that the SSPX accuses the Church of borrowing from Protestantism when they’ve borrowed almost their entire M.O. from them). And that’s borderline Gnosticism.
Hadn’t heard that one before!