Do you partake of the precious blood?

[ConstantineTG]

Think of it in a theological way. There is a reason the Church received the Body of Christ on the tongue and not on the hands throughout the centuries. Look at what Popes and Saints have to say about it.

The Eucharist has been received on the hands at different points of history in the various Rites of the Church.

 

[LovingMass]

Because I feel communion is a timeless supper shared with Jesus and the apostles during which Jesus offers us His body and blood, I prefer to not bypass the Chalice whenever the privilege is available. If my allergies are flaring, through, and my cough could alarm other communicants, I sadly do not partake in the Cup of the Blood.

 

[brian24]

A few things I have found after doing a bit of reading up.

According to the Catechism:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

The quote on “the sign of communion …” comes from GIRM 240 (2003):

1. Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller light shines on the sign of the eucharistic banquet. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.[68]

To me it has always just made sense that if possible, I partake in both. When I was younger I didn’t drink wine, but nowadays, I just love drinking from the cup. There are days when I pray early in the morning (before mass) and thank the Lord for yet another day able to receive him in his fullness. Sometimes I will actually get the taste of the Eucharist (Host and wine together) in my mouth. Oh what a wonderful feeling!

 

[callmeChris]

The Eucharist has been received on the hands at different points of history in the various Rites of the Church.

but today more than ever with alot of abuses and all that communion on the tongue is highly stressed and recommended

 

[MartyrForJesus]

The Eucharist has been received on the hands at different points of history in the various Rites of the Church.

Within the comments to the post, it was noted that there is evidence for “Holy Communion in the hand” in the writings of the early Church. Whenever I hear this argument, it bothers me because it does not provide the context for this situation in the early Church. It is true that Holy Communion in the hand did in fact happen. However, when we read the Patristic passages in context we discover the reason for why Holy Communion in the hand was tolerated. It was only allowed during times of Church persecution.

Let it be noted at the outset that St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great are early witnesses to Communion on the Tongue as the normative. However, Saint Basil admits that Communion on the hand did happen. Saint Basil explicitly explains that Communion in the Hand was only allowed under certain circumstances {my notes are in red - like Fr Z does}:

“If {“if” denotes a conditional clause} one feels he should in times of persecution, in the absence of a priest or deacon, receive Communion by his own hand, there should be no need to point out that this certainly shows no grave immoderation {that’s pretty serious}; for long custom allows this in such cases {notices how he writes “in such cases” - that’s the key}. In fact, all solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, reserving Communion in their dwellings, receive It from their own hands.”
So then, Saint Basil says that Communion in the hand is allowed:

1. under times of persecution where no priest is present
2. for hermits and ascetics in the wilderness who do not have priests
   He says that that Communion in the hand under any other circumstance is “grave immoderation.” Thus, the laity were allowed to hold and touch the Holy Eucharist with their hands in exceptional cases. This practice, says St Basil was not, however, the norm.

Let us now turn to the most controversial quote regarding Holy Communion in the hand. It comes from one of the five mystagogical (i.e. post-Easter) lectures ascribed to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in about the year AD 350. We currently have 18 undoubted lectures from Saint Cyril given to his catechumens in preparation for Holy Baptism at Easter. Now then, there are an additional five mystagogical lectures allegedly given by Cyril to this same group of people - now his audience has been baptized, confirmed, and has received the Holy Eucharist. So the manuscripts preserving Saint Cyril’s catechesis go like this:

18 Lectures for Catechumens preparing to become Christians
Easter initiation of this Catechumens
5 Follow-Up Lectures for these Newly Baptized Christians

Now the five follow-up lectures are highly debated and may not be authentic. In other words, they may have may been added by someone other than Saint Cyril. In fact, there exist manuscripts that do not attribute these five lectures to Saint Cyril. Hence, it is not entirely responsible to quote these last five lectures as a valid authority. The five later lectures are questionable.

Anyway, here’s the classic “Communion in the Hand” passage from the fifth follow-up mystagogical lecture attributed to Saint Cyril:

“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” (Catechesis mystagogica V, xxi-xxii, Migne Patrologia Graeca 33)
This is the passage on which the Patristic argument for Communion in the Hand stands or falls. Whereas there is this ONE alleged quote from St Cyril (the one just above from the disputed Catechesis mystagogica), there are many undoubted quotes by other Fathers that affirm Communion on the tongue (both “great” Popes Saint Leo the Great and Saint Gregory the Great) explicitly witness to Communion on the tongue. So why take the dubious quote when there are others to go by?

I want to add one more argument against the alleged Saint Cyril of Jerusalem passage listed above. The “make your hand a throne” passage goes on to say that the faithful should touch the Holy Body of Christ to their eyes before consuming it. Then it also says that the faithful should touch their lips still moist with the precious Blood of Christ and touch the Blood to their eyes.

Even if this passage is authentic (and I don’t think that it is), then Communion in the Hand should also include touching both the Holy Body and the Holy Blood to our eyes. Yet who wants to argue for this custom?!

I think that every Catholic would find this abhorrent. It is an aberration from holy tradition.

So then, it seems that the early Church administered Holy Communion on the tongue with the exception of the absence of a priest in times of persecution. If a priest were absent, then the faithful might not need to receive on the tongue.

Let me just add that I am by no means a Patristic expert and I’m very open to being corrected. I’m even more interested in any passages in the Church Fathers that support Communion in the hand as normative. So far, I’ve not encountered any such passages. The only evidence given is the quote quote from Saint Cyril about making your hand into a throne - and from what has been argued above, that argument is not convincing.

ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor Marshall

• cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

but today more than ever with alot of abuses and all that communion on the tongue is highly stressed and recommended

Still, there is no dogmatic teaching that only “consecrated hands” can touch the Host. For one thing, Deacons do not have consecrated hands.

 

[callmeChris]

Still, there is no dogmatic teaching that only “consecrated hands” can touch the Host. For one thing, Deacons do not have consecrated hands.

"The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a Consecrated Priest. No
other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity.” -St. Thomas Aquinas (Read “Inestimabile Donum”)

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, 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.” - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica

In case of extreme nesesity the Deacon ONLY the Deacon should be allowed to touch and administer the host, as he is the Priests ‘‘assistant’’

 

[ConstantineTG]

"The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a Consecrated Priest. No
other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity.” -St. Thomas Aquinas (Read “Inestimabile Donum”)

This has been debunked so many times. Not everything St. Aquinas taught is a doctrine of the Church. Again, Deacons have always touched the host.

"
“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, 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.” - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica

In case of extreme nesesity the Deacon ONLY the Deacon should be allowed to touch and administer the host, as he is the Priests ‘‘assistant’’

Er, wrong. The deacon is not the assistant of the priest. Deacons are servants of the Bishop. Priests are assistants of the bishop.

The priests hands are consecrated for consecrating the Eucharist, not for just merely touching it.