Communion on hand: Catholic or Orthodox or Church of the East

  • Thread starter Thread starter Medical_Student
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Medical_Student

Guest
Do any Churches practice this? Not including the Romans.

Curious, as I am a fan of communion on hands (over mouth), though I won’t get into that.
 
Well it’s not possible for any Byzantine Churches because after the bread and wine are consecrated the Body is mixed with the Precious Blood and dispensed with a spoon. I do believe the same applies for any of the Oriental Churches. I can’t speak for the Church of the East or any of the St Thomas Christians.
 
Do any Churches practice this? Not including the Romans.

Curious, as I am a fan of communion on hands (over mouth), though I won’t get into that.
Communion at hand was discontinued by st. John Chrysostom in the 4th century, after he learned about a woman who took the host out for witchcraft.
 
“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.”

-St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, lived ~315 - 386 A.D.
 
“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.”

-St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, lived ~315 - 386 A.D.
Yes, everyone agrees that it was practiced in the early Church, but it was largely discontinued to reduce the risk of abuse and sacrilege, as already mentioned above.
 
Do any Churches practice this? Not including the Romans.

Curious, as I am a fan of communion on hands (over mouth), though I won’t get into that.
Lutherans typically receive kneeling at the altar/communion rail - left hand over right. We generally receive the chalice, some (if sick for example) hold the body for intinction.

Because each person is surrounded by two other lay people , and there’s about five other people distributing and (priest, deacons,servers) watching the proceedings - it’s almost impossible to get away with any eucharistic abuse.
 
It’s one of 3 standard options for Church of the East, Chaldean Catholics and Syro-Malabar Catholics. If the priest opts to distribute in this manner, there will be an additional person holding the chalice near the priest, the Body is never intincted and then placed in the receivers hands
 
It’s one of 3 standard options for Church of the East, Chaldean Catholics and Syro-Malabar Catholics. If the priest opts to distribute in this manner, there will be an additional person holding the chalice near the priest, the Body is never intincted and then placed in the receivers hands
Hey SyroMalankara,

I am not sure if you were referring to liturgical prescriptions or actual practices, but intinction is relatively commonly done in the Syro Malabar Church from my experience. However, I do agree that receiving in the hand is the proper form according to the Mesopotamian tradition.
 
Hey SyroMalankara,

I am not sure if you were referring to liturgical prescriptions or actual practices, but intinction is relatively commonly done in the Syro Malabar Church from my experience. However, I do agree that receiving in the hand is the proper form according to the Mesopotamian tradition.
I mean that the Body is never intincted in the Blood, and then placed into anyone’s hand - at least should not be
 
I mean that the Body is never intincted in the Blood, and then placed into anyone’s hand - at least should not be
Sorry, I didn’t read your post fully. But a slight digression, I am not sure if you have seen these “intinctorium” style servers which allow the priest to hold both the Bread and Body, without another person required to hold the chalice.

images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ocepekpottery.com%2Fcomimages%2Fintinctionserver1a.jpg&f=1
 
I’ve seen these, they are nice for a priest without any deacons. However, we should have deacons, and subdeacons. The deacon has the liturgical duty to hold the chalice, so let’s have more of them and less of these… however, in the absence of a deacon [there should never be 😉 ] this is helpful!

However, let’s stick to gold and jewels and trash the breakable clay material!
http://www.matthewfsheehan.net/medi...78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/9/2919_32.jpg
 
I’ve seen these, they are nice for a priest without any deacons. However, we should have deacons, and subdeacons. The deacon has the liturgical duty to hold the chalice, so let’s have more of them and less of these… however, in the absence of a deacon [there should never be 😉 ] this is helpful!

However, let’s stick to gold and jewels and trash the breakable clay material!
http://www.matthewfsheehan.net/medi...78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/9/2919_32.jpg
I agree with you brother, on both points. Sadly, there are fewer Syro Malabar deacons than people participating in this thread, so…😦

(Please nobody mention “transitional deacons”, thanks.)
 
Well it’s not possible for any Byzantine Churches because after the bread and wine are consecrated the Body is mixed with the Precious Blood and dispensed with a spoon.
I know a Byzantine priest who, when doing the Anaphora of St. James, imitates the practice I’ve seen in some videos of Assyrian liturgies in which the communicant sticks their hands over the censer and then receives in their hands.
 
Do any other Churches follow self-intinction besides the East Syriacs (perhaps even only the SMC) ? As in, after receiving the host, the individual dips it themselves into the chalice. Being a Syro Malabar Catholic, this is how I’ve received the Eucharist my entire life. Also why do some other Churches find issue with self-intinction? I remember earlier I had taken part in a thread where Latin Catholics stated that some Syro Malabar members of their parish (I’m assuming because there was no SM church/mission in the region) would self-intinct. The OP asked what to do in such a situation and other posters strongly asserted that the server must cover the chalice with their hand and ask the patron not to do so. Out of curiosity, what is the rationale against self-intinction?
 
Out of curiosity, what is the rationale against self-intinction?
On a practical level, the risk of dropping blood or the body should be quite apparent. When the priest intincts he can be holding the body over the chalice the entire time and, ideally, the chalice over a veil two servers are holding (I don’t even like it - I’ve seen some Syriac Orthodox churches and Byzantines do this - where the communicant holds the veil; if they’re careless passing it around, anything they catch falls on the floor anyway). Additionally, if someone is careless they dip so far they dip their fingers into the chalice, which is a sanitation issue if the whole church is dipping their hands (where who knows where they’ve all been) into the chalice.

On a theological level, at least in the West Syriac Churches, the body is called the gmurto (coal). Isaiah certainly didn’t grab the coal from the altar in Isaiah himself. The analogy is meant to illustrate it is of heavenly origin being dispensed to humans and it should be treated with the upmost care and reverence, handled by holy hands set aside to handle holy things. There was an almost universal development, save the East Syriac Churches, away from the individual communicants handling the body and blood themselves for whatever reason (I’m inclined to think the practical reasons might be the primary cause of that though).

I don’t quite understand why Latin are so vehemently against self-intinction, though, aside from their own custom and they must assume you’re not Catholic if you self-intinct since they generally associate it with Protestants. They already handle the body with their hands so I don’t see what theological argument that could make against it. Though if I was in a Latin church I would follow their ritual, just like if I was in an East Syriac church.
 


I don’t quite understand why Latin are so vehemently against self-intinction, though, aside from their own custom and they must assume you’re not Catholic if you self-intinct since they generally associate it with Protestants. They already handle the body with their hands so I don’t see what theological argument that could make against it. Though if I was in a Latin church I would follow their ritual, just like if I was in an East Syriac church.
Seems to me it might well be related to the general prohibition against self-communion by the laity. And of course that is not a strictly Latin Church thing, but is common to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top