Can you please back this up? This seems contradictory to the practice of especially of EF & tradionally minded OF priests. Why have a paten? Why purify the vessels? Why hold the finder and thumb together if the crumbs are not our Lord? This seems ridiculous to me, for, how can you say that some how a part is no longer in substance equal to what it was as a whole?The Catholic Church has from the beginning allowed the faithful to receive Jesus in their hands or on their tongues. As far as crumbs being Jesus, the Church has learned that the crumbs are not Jesus, since the accidents of the bread and wine remain the same. But the crumbs were considered to be Jesus in Cyril’s time.
I would be careful of some of these sites because they are innacurate and weaken, instead of stregnthen, the case for Communion on the tongue by foolish arguments and doctored sources.I here this all the time. There was Communion in the hand before the receiving on the tongue. The thing is I can’t seem to find proof of this. I’ve looked and looked and looked. I am finding a lot of this:
Spurious and undocumented.POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
Faulty. He actually supports it. Do a Google search for the full text of Letter 93.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. Also I believe he was speaking more so for the cloistered monks in a desert.
Also faulty.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.
No such thing. His one reference which is used to support this is from a homily in which he says “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith”. This can apply to any method of reception of CommunionPOPE 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.
This is mostly true: it did restrict Communion, but not as the present discipline - the higher clergy (from subdeacons onward) could receive in the hand.SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
Again, incorrect. The 6th Ecumencial Council says nothing about it. The Council of Trullo,regarded as part of the 6th Council by the separated Eastern Churches, but not by us, does have decrees regarding Communion - but again, quite the opposite - they support it, and prescribe excommunication for those who do not receive in the hand, but instead in a dish.SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
TrueST. 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)
Somewhat innacurate quote. The words of Trent are that it is an Apostolic tradition that priests should communicate themselves and laymen receive from a priest. The canon is against self-communicating (still forbidden) not Communion in the hand.COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
This was the interpretation of the earlier scholars and widely propagated (still is) but was a misreading of the texts. The *dominica *is actually the veil worn by the women - they were to approach the Sacrament with covered heads.women did not receive the Host directly into their bare hands, but were compelled to cover them with a cloth called the dominica, brought with them for the purpose.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5232809&postcount=3Can you please back this up? This seems contradictory to the practice of especially of EF & tradionally minded OF priests. Why have a paten? Why purify the vessels? Why hold the finder and thumb together if the crumbs are not our Lord? This seems ridiculous to me, for, how can you say that some how a part is no longer in substance equal to what it was as a whole?
I think perhaps the confusion was that you did not specify that it is particles which are not visible to the eye? I’m not sure, because it is not my first language, but do not “crumbs” usually mean visible particles?
Please take this to the crumb thread.I think perhaps the confusion was that you did not specify that it is particles which are not visible to the eye? I’m not sure, because it is not my first language, but do not “crumbs” usually mean visible particles?
i admit i do not know my church history very well… hence the question. our catholic schools do not teach our history very well. at least mine didnt.I would be careful of some of these sites because they are innacurate and weaken, instead of stregnthen, the case for Communion on the tongue by foolish arguments and doctored source.
This is mostly true: it did restrict Communion, but not as the present discipline - the higher clergy (from subdeacons onward) could receive in the hand.
Again, incorrect. The 6th Ecumencial Council says nothing about it. The Council of Trullo,regarded as part of the 6th Council by the separated Eastern Churches, but not by us, does have decrees regarding Communion - but again, quite the opposite - they support it, and prescribe excommunication for those who do not receive in the hand, but instead in a dish.
True
Somewhat innacurate quote. The words of Trent are that it is an Apostolic tradition that priests should communicate themselves and laymen receive from a priest. The canon is against self-communicating (still forbidden) not Communion in the hand.
.
its not about how many saints… although ill wager ill find a lot more to say communion on the tongue is more proper just because the tridentine mass went on so long. im not interested in that. all im saying is im having an extremely hard time finding info on communion in the hand. the who what when where why and how of it all. I DONT WANT A DEBATE ON IF IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. just facts.Actually, ALL the communicants, regardless of sex, are supposed to lift up the houselling cloth (to give it its proper name). It has nothing to do with hiding women’s hands, but to provide an extra layer of protection should a host drop.
In the liturgies of Holy Apostles Addai and Mari, still used by the Assyrian Church of the East, there has always been communion in the hand.
The Byzantine Liturgy of St. James, according to tradition dictated to St. James by Our Lord Himself, calls for communion in the hand, if the rubrics are strictly interpreted.
Question: How many saints does it take to say something to make it acceptable?
This answer never provides actual Church documents, can you supply them for me. I understand that difference between ACCIDENTS not SUBSTANCES and that our obligation to show reverence to the chance that a particle exists would be absurd. But if the host or wine is changed in its substance into the body of Christ than its entire substance would be transformed, including crumbs.
I have tried several sources but have been unable to confirm this.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.
i
This was a provincial council called to refute the Priscillian heresy. I have been unable to find out what it meant about those who took The Holy Eucharist without really receiving it. That however would not translate into not receiving Communion in the hand. As for the Synod of Toledo, which one do you refer to as there were 18. The first of those also was to condemn the Priscillian heresy.The names of twelve Bishops only are mentioned. " On ’ October 4, the Bishops, Fitadius [S. Phcebadi- us] [S.] Delphin [of Bourdeaux] &c. sitting in the Sacristy at Saragossa, all said, ’ Let the sentence be recited ;’ Lucius, Bishop, read." The Canons all bear upon the Priscillianists.1 The Bishops anathematise women, who, on pretence of learning or teaching, assembled with the husbands of others : those who fasted on the Lord’s day and in the Christmas season, as denying the Incarnation, and on the Lord’s Day, reverencing the sun ; private assemblies, on account of the immoralities ; and those who took the Holy Eucharist without really receiving It. They also forbad clerks to become mere monks out of vanity, or unauthorised persons to take the name of Doctor, or virgins to take the veil before forty, or Bishops to receive those excommunicated by other Bishops. Lucius, having recited each canon, all the Bishops expressed their assent. " All the Bishops said ’ We agree."’
Are you so sure about that?The Catholic Church has from the beginning allowed the faithful to receive Jesus in their hands or on their tongues. As far as crumbs being Jesus, the Church has learned that the crumbs are not Jesus, since the accidents of the bread and wine remain the same. But the crumbs were considered to be Jesus in Cyril’s time.
This also holds, in my opinion, to reason. What consequence is size when we are talking about the substance of a thing? If we are talking about a host, or a single molecule, if the substance is Christ it is Christ.Are you so sure about that?
The Council of Trent defined:
“Si quis negaverit, in venerabili sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie et sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri: an. s.” (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1653)
“If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:
“Neque vero illud praetermittendum, non solum in utraque specie, sed in quavis utriusque speciei particula totum Christum contineri” (Roman Catechism II, 4, 34)
“Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species.”
“Non minorem vero cautionem pastores adhibeant oportet in eo etiam mysterio explicando, quomodo Christi Domini corpus vel in minimi panis particula totum contineatur.” (Roman Catechism II, 4, 41)
“No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“Christus est totus integer sub unaquaque specierum et totus integer in earum partibus, ita ut panis fractio Christum non dividat.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1377)
“Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”
Pretty much settles it.Are you so sure about that?
The Council of Trent defined:
“Si quis negaverit, in venerabili sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie et sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri: an. s.” (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1653)
“If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:
“Neque vero illud praetermittendum, non solum in utraque specie, sed in quavis utriusque speciei particula totum Christum contineri” (Roman Catechism II, 4, 34)
“Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species.”
“Non minorem vero cautionem pastores adhibeant oportet in eo etiam mysterio explicando, quomodo Christi Domini corpus vel in minimi panis particula totum contineatur.” (Roman Catechism II, 4, 41)
“No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“Christus est totus integer sub unaquaque specierum et totus integer in earum partibus, ita ut panis fractio Christum non dividat.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1377)
“Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”
And that’s the Key. What started as an abuse has now become the defacto standard.Communion in the Hand was not intended by the Vatican II council, and was approved as an economia, a concession to bad praxis for the sake of retaining the faithful.
Bingo.And that’s the Key. What started as an abuse has now become the defacto standard.
Keep in mind that the Substance of the Body of Christ exists only UNDER the accidents, including appearace, of bread.What consequence is size when we are talking about the substance of a thing? If we are talking about a host, or a single molecule, if the substance is Christ it is Christ.