Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windmill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
palmas85 said:
Yet another rationalization of the receiving in the hand practice being true to the erlay church and thus more deserving. So once again, I will delve into my bag of little known and les publicized secrets and hope as always that someone pays attention.

Yes, they did receive in the hand in the early church. No doubt, they did it. TA DA

They did it because the Host was taken home for consumption during the week. A small piece might be consumed at the altar or at the meeting place but the bulk was taken home, wrapped in white cloth usually so mice would not eat it and eaten during the week. What was received was normally a loaf, not an individual size portion for lack of a better word. The faithful brought bread, it was communally consecrated and then distributed to one and all. Gradually the faithful stopped bringing bread and gave cash instead and the Deacons would buy the bread. With an eye towards economy perhaps, portions being distributed got smaller and smaller.

Perhaps for that reason or maybe because of the many heresies floating around that denied the Real Presence, the Church went to having the faithful receive on the tongue in an effort to re-enforce in the minds of the faithful the reality of the Real Presence. Interesting huh?

So the early church had a valid reason for receiving in the hand. A valid, logical reason that made perfect sense… I do not think we have the same situation today. But if we ever do go back to bringing the Host home, I’ll make a killing with all the white cloth I’ve bought up for just that purpose.
Click to expand...
Palmas: Where is it stated that BECAUSE the Host was taken home, that was the reason for reception on the hand? I’m curious. Yes, I know in Middle Eastern culture, it’s not uncommon for a host to feed his guest with his own hand, but it seems to be stretching it a bit to say that BECAUSE they carried it home, it HAD to be in the hand. I would rather think that it’s almost a reflexive action that if someone hands you something to eat, you would take it with your hand (normally). Why can’t we just go to the simplest explanation, in the absence of documentation that clearly states otherwise? My understanding was simply that the Early Church (and the Church CAN change her disciplines) practiced reception in the hand SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DID.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The blog is a “traditionalist” blog. It is routinely cited on these forums by Catholics who self-identify as “traditionalists.” It provides the document in full. Look at the title, then take the title to the Vatican search engine if you have any doubts.
Click to expand...
you know I did this…Nothing turns up on the Vatican site…
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Palmas: Where is it stated that BECAUSE the Host was taken home, that was the reason for reception on the hand? I’m curious. Yes, I know in Middle Eastern culture, it’s not uncommon for a host to feed his guest with his own hand, but it seems to be stretching it a bit to say that BECAUSE they carried it home, it HAD to be in the hand. I would rather think that it’s almost a reflexive action that if someone hands you something to eat, you would take it with your hand (normally). Why can’t we just go to the simplest explanation, in the absence of documentation that clearly states otherwise? My understanding was simply that the Early Church (and the Church CAN change her disciplines) practiced reception in the hand SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DID.
Click to expand...
Hi Kirk.🙂 I know that you find it difficult to believe that possibly what you were taught is not 100% accurate. The early church did very little, in fact nothing that I know of as you say just because they did. No, things were highly structured, very ritualistic and had very specific meanings. For instance, they actually kicked out non Christians, physically threw them out of Mass because **only ** the baptized were permitted to be present for the consecration. Pretty uncharitable wouldn’t you say? No non baptized could even see it. That happened to be one of the jobs of the Deacons. The Eucharist was wrapped in white cloth because the body of Christ was wrapped in white cloth prior to burial. It was in fact a holdover from the Seder meal, but you can see the symbolism. In fact, every movement they made in their Mass had certain specific meanings, right down to where people sat in the assembly… They did nothing just because they did it. As far as reception, you really couldn’t carry the Host home with you unless you received it in your hands, could you? They didn’t receive, commune and then go pick up their loaf. No they received all at once and returned to their area after consuming a small piece at the altar…

I somehow knew you would want documentation:thumbsup: . The earliest I know about are Tertullian of Carthage and St Cyprian of Carthage, both of whom wrote of the practice of the congregation taking the consecrated Host home for consumption during the week… By the third century it was common practice that the Host was reserved in the homes of the faithful as well as the clergy… St Justin Martyr spoke of the Eucharist being delivered to those not attending for whatever reason, not only sickness, infirmity or incarceration but any valid reason. That distribution was normally made by the deacons. He did not however address the issue of of reservation in private homes. St Basil was another one of the early fathers who wrote of the practice. You can find some of the info in the book Mass of the Early Christians. For the rest of it you have to dig. A lot:thumbsup:

The practice was stopped for several reasons. People stopped bringing their own loaves, the Church started buying them and the portions distributed became progressively smaller and smaller, maybe an economic move. Quite a few people started to lose reverence for the Host and fueled by numerous heresies floating around, often stopped believing the Eucharist was the actual physical body and blood of Christ, but merely a symbol. A powerful symbol, but a symbol.

Some used the Eucharist as an amulet to ward of evil or sold them as protection against illness or as a magic charm.:eek: Many routinely carried a consecrated Host with them at all times for personal protection… Others used them in witchcraft rites, love potions, hexes, cures etc. Still others used them in satanic rituals and masses . There was also in some areas a belief that by feeding the Eucharist to farm animals it would improve their fertility or if crumpled and sprinkled on the ground during planting ensure a good harvest.

To combat these and numerous other abuses the Church went to receiving on the tongue sometime in the 8th or 9th century, depending on where you were. As you may surmise from the above it was not a popular move with the laity by and large…

We can’t always go with the simplest explanation, even though to modern sensibilities it might make sense, because the simplest explanation isn’t always right.
 
palmas85 said:
Hi Kirk.🙂 I know that you find it difficult to believe that possibly what you were taught is not 100% accurate. The early church did very little, in fact nothing that I know of as you say just because they did. No, things were highly structured, very ritualistic and had very specific meanings. For instance, they actually kicked out non Christians, physically threw them out of Mass because **only **the baptized were permitted to be present for the consecration. Pretty uncharitable wouldn’t you say? No non baptized could even see it. That happened to be one of the jobs of the Deacons. The Eucharist was wrapped in white cloth because the body of Christ was wrapped in white cloth prior to burial. It was in fact a holdover from the Seder meal, but you can see the symbolism. In fact, every movement they made in their Mass had certain specific meanings, right down to where people sat in the assembly… They did nothing just because they did it. As far as reception, you really couldn’t carry the Host home with you unless you received it in your hands, could you? They didn’t receive, commune and then go pick up their loaf. No they received all at once and returned to their area after consuming a small piece at the altar…
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, Palmas, with respect, this goes no distance at all in
the argument for or opposed to Communion in the hand. The historical fact is that the Church had communion in the hand for centuries. The best argument for communion on the tongue is the development of Eucharistic devotion. No one can argue with that. By the same token, no one can argue that those who receive in the hand may well be receiving with the same reverence as those who receive on the tongue AND no one can argue that the Church hasn’t permitted it as a legitimate practice. So we should all stop browbeating each other about it (should, but probably won’t).
 
palmas85 said:
I somehow knew you would want documentation:thumbsup: . The earliest I know about are Tertullian of Carthage and St Cyprian of Carthage, both of whom wrote of the practice of the congregation taking the consecrated Host home for consumption during the week… By the third century it was common practice that the Host was reserved in the homes of the faithful as well as the clergy… St Justin Martyr spoke of the Eucharist being delivered to those not attending for whatever reason, not only sickness, infirmity or incarceration but any valid reason. That distribution was normally made by the deacons. He did not however address the issue of of reservation in private homes. St Basil was another one of the early fathers who wrote of the practice. You can find some of the info in the book Mass of the Early Christians. For the rest of it you have to dig. A lot:thumbsup: Again, this has nothing to do with communion on the tongue vs. communion in the hand. It has to do with THIS practice. There is no evidence that this practice was the RATIONALE for communion in the hand and that if NOT for this practice, the early Church would have had communion on the tongue. At any rate, it is now a discipline allowed by the Church (most recently in Poland, as of the first week in January).
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karin
you know I did this…Nothing turns up on the Vatican site…

You can also look on Dr. Bombay’s blog. He seems rather dismayed that the Holy Father did this.
Click to expand...
The one on Dr. Bombay’s blog —I believe is the same one you brought up. I also checked the Vatican site—nothing there.
 
Walking_Home said:
The one on Dr. Bombay’s blog —I believe is the same one you brought up. I also checked the Vatican site—nothing there.
Click to expand...
So I’m guessing the “traditionalist” blog is wrong (I won’t say lying) and that document WASN’T issued by the Holy See? Do you think they drew it up themselves? Why would a “traditionalist” site do that? To make the Holy Father look bad to other, like-minded “traditionalists?”

Either they are telling the truth or not. It’s astonishing to me how quickly a “traditionalist” site is accepted on all sorts of other questions, but on this one, where the Holy Father has permitted something that “traditionalists” don’t like, it’s veracity seems to be called into question. Curiouser and curiouser.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
So I’m guessing the “traditionalist” blog is wrong (I won’t say lying) and that document WASN’T issued by the Holy See? Do you think they drew it up themselves? Why would a “traditionalist” site do that? To make the Holy Father look bad to other, like-minded “traditionalists?”

Either they are telling the truth or not. It’s astonishing to me how quickly a “traditionalist” site is accepted on all sorts of other questions, but on this one, where the Holy Father has permitted something that “traditionalists” don’t like, it’s veracity seems to be called into question. Curiouser and curiouser.
Click to expand...
For all I know—it could have been drawn up —but the Pope withdrew it. How that site got a hold of it I don’t know. There is nothing in the Vatican site.

You know JKirkLVNV—it is really getting tiring—to see you use quotes around the word traditionalists. Just the way you reflect that is degrading.
 
Walking_Home said:
For all I know—it could have been drawn up —but the Pope withdrew it. How that site got a hold of it I don’t know. There is nothing in the Vatican site.

You know JKirkLVNV—it is really getting tiring—to see you use quotes around the word traditionalists. Just the way you reflect that is degrading.
Click to expand...
I’ve explained that. I don’t regard the constant carping at the Church, the mini, arm-chair popery, the attempt to constrain the faithful where the Church has granted liberty, any of those things as being traditional. That’s why I use quotation marks. If the rock doesn’t have your name on it, don’t pick it up. If the shoe doesn’t fit, etc. I’m tired of the misuse of the term “modernism,” but that doesn’t seem to alter the fact that “traditionalists” are determined to continue to misuse it and misapply it. Get them to stop dumping on the NO and the Council and the Popes and I’ll drop the quotation marks. Their whole attitude is degrading to millions of faithful Catholics.
 
Walking_Home said:
For all I know—it could have been drawn up —but the Pope withdrew it. How that site got a hold of it I don’t know. There is nothing in the Vatican site.

You know JKirkLVNV—it is really getting tiring—to see you use quotes around the word traditionalists. Just the way you reflect that is degrading.
Click to expand...
And there’s lots on the Vatican site that isn’t available, for whatever reason. Go to the section on the curia, then down to Cardinal Arinze’s information. There are lots of documents from that congregation that I’ve seen on EWTN that you can’t locate on the Holy See site, at least not easily. If you’re looking in English, it seems that only documents relative to the English speaking church are available and not every single one of those.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And there’s lots on the Vatican site that isn’t available, for whatever reason. Go to the section on the curia, then down to Cardinal Arinze’s information. There are lots of documents from that congregation that I’ve seen on EWTN that you can’t locate on the Holy See site, at least not easily. If you’re looking in English, it seems that only documents relative to the English speaking church are available and not every single one of those.
Click to expand...
Well let us know if you find it.
 
Walking_Home said:
Well let us know if you find it.
Click to expand...
Judging from the mournful and/or sacrcastic tone of the “traditionalist” blogs, I’m satisfied that THEY believe that they are reporting the facts (ie, the document itself is not editorial, the blog’s comments ARE). I’m not looking any further. I believe that the Holy Father granted the requested Indult to Poland.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Judging from the mournful and/or sacrcastic tone of the “traditionalist” blogs, I’m satisfied that THEY believe that they are reporting the facts (ie, the document itself is not editorial, the blog’s comments ARE). I’m not looking any further. I believe that the Holy Father granted the requested Indult to Poland.
Click to expand...
Who knows—just because you believe it—doesn’t make it so.
Here is an idea—why don’t you call Poland.
 
AJV said:
He doesn’t need to. It’s on the Polish bishops’ website.
Click to expand...
Well then—if you say it is–I hope the people who clean the churches over there—do a good job of checking on the floor, pews, etc. for our Lord. Also the priests and/or EMHC are vigilent in keeping people from walking away with our Lord in hand.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You should bear that in mind when you offer your commentary on Msg. Perle’s letter.
Click to expand...
Yea–but Msgr. Perl’s letter says what it says.

Ps. You must be so proud–another country that has to keep a sharp eye out --as to what happens to our Lord. Must make you all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top