Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter weepixie71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

weepixie71

Guest
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:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
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.
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.
POPE 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.
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. 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)
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)
POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Any help would be nice.
 
You raise a very intersting point. I haven’t seen any documentation that shows that communin in the hand was the ordinary method of giving communion. Probably, it is to be assumed that the Apostles themselves may have received the Eucharist at the Last Supper with their own hands - but they were consecrated at that point, I would say.

I think there is a general assumption that since it was common to eat bread with one’s hands at the time (as it still is) that this was what the practice must have been, until there was sacrilege, and the practice was suppressed. However, I’ve never seen any evidence to support this assumption, other than lots of people saying it.
 
In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King . And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
  • Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lessons”, 23:21
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.
 
Thanks for the quote Eucharisted. Any timeframe reference for this? I’m not familiar with when the saint lived.
 
ok, thank you for you information. now all i have to do is ask the women why do you receive communion in the hand? when st cyril said this, apparently it was not said for women. at this time 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.
to this day if you attend a tridentine mass and they have a communion rail cover made of pure white linen, women place their hands under the cover.

is there any other saint out there that states its all right to receive Christ in the hand? I only see one and he seems to be contradictory to everyone else throughout the history of the Church before, during, and after, until vatican II. and even after vatican II popes have said they prefer you receive on the tongue.
 
Eucharisted said:
In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King . And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
  • Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lessons”, 23:21
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.
Click to expand...
Notice he said make the left hand a throne of the right/ hand. And he didn’t say touch it with your left hand. The Bishop mentions this in the video I linked to above.****
 
All this bickering leads me to ask one question:

Why, then, was the US granted this indult in the first place? If it is so sacrilegious and wrong, how could anyone allow this to happen?

I would personally like to receive on the tongue, but my tongue has a large cut down the middle of it (long story). I’m embarrassed to show it to people. Communion in the hand allows me to receive without having to worry about my embarrassment. In time I’ll get over it, but right now it’s a struggle.

I know that it is more important to worry about how I receive the Eucharist, but if Church authorities allow this, who am I to question that authority and indult?
 
damooster said:
All this bickering leads me to ask one question:

Why, then, was the US granted this indult in the first place? If it is so sacrilegious and wrong, how could anyone allow this to happen?

I would personally like to receive on the tongue, but my tongue has a large cut down the middle of it (long story). I’m embarrassed to show it to people. Communion in the hand allows me to receive without having to worry about my embarrassment. In time I’ll get over it, but right now it’s a struggle.

I know that it is more important to worry about how I receive the Eucharist, but if Church authorities allow this, who am I to question that authority and indult?
Click to expand...
It’s neither sacrilegious nor wrong. Both methods of reception are licit, valid, etc. Both methods are allowed by law (not indult) in the Unites States (universal law does not specify the method). Whether they are “reverential” or not depends on the individual.

Any reputable, scholarly history of the Eucharist will indicate that various methods of receiving communion have existed throughout time. Most will claim that communion on the tongue arose later, in the Middle Ages (ca. at the end of the first millenium or shortly after), but of course historical evidence is relatively sparse compared to what we might like (and practices were likely more diverse, overall, than what we currently experience). For example, consult Jungmann’s landmark study The Mass of the Roman Rite (published in 1948, in English, I think). Martimort, Cabie, Klauser, and Adam are other reputable scholars that also have works you could investigate for more information on the history of Eucharistic practices.
 
I really don’t want to get into this interminable (and now highly boring) argument, but it seems to me that the point is that “universal law” does not specify CITH. Let’s not play legal semantics: when taken down to it root, it means, for all practical purposes, it is an indult in the US and elsewhere. That does not change the fact that the practice is not universally accepted.
 
As a former Episcopalian there was a choice. If you went to a low church or broad church you probably received in the hand. If you went to a high church or anglo catholic church you would probably receive on the tongue. But the difference on receiving in the hand and which I feel is better if recewived in the hand like one of the above posters quoted, your left hand was placed under your right hand and you brought the host up to your mouth, therefore there was very little change of dropping it. It was like a throne in a sense.

I noticed that in the Catholic Church people just pick the host up by their fingers and place it in their mouths. I can see where this could cause someone to accidently drop the host.

I prefer directly on the tongue, but since the rule is either we must abide by the Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
ok let me get this right… st cyril lived between 315-386.

during his lifetime 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.
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.

is it possible that st cyril of jerusalem was explaining how to receive communion in the hand if you were under the conditions that st basil was concerned about? after all, it was rarely done and st cyril, i would assume, would want the Host received as reverently as possible. St. Basil the Great of Caesarea said clearly that communicating with one’s own hand is permitted only in times of persecution, or — as happened with the monks in the desert — when no priest or deacon was there to administer it. *“It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a *grave fault *for a person to communicate with his own hand *in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon".

this seems very plausable since they lived so close together. just a thought!!!
 
to this day if you attend a tridentine mass and they have a communion rail cover made of pure white linen, women place their hands under the cover.
Click to expand...
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.
is there any other saint out there that states its all right to receive Christ in the hand? I only see one and he seems to be contradictory to everyone else throughout the history of the Church before, during, and after, until vatican II. and even after vatican II popes have said they prefer you receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
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?
 
It is possible that receiving by hand was permitted in time of persecution, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. The OP was saying receiving in the hand was not an ancient practice. A quick look at Saint Cyril’s work shows that receiving Jesus by hand is indeed an ancient practice.

Also, you cannot use old rules to justify your opinions regarding how the Church ought to work. Know why? Because the Church has made new rules and has learned from the past, and she moves forward, not backwards. If you don’t move forward, you get pushed back by the wind. The Church is not in the business of getting pushed back, it continues forward to the harbor of Heaven. Don’t let yourself be pushed back by the wind over old rules.
 
malphono said:
I really don’t want to get into this interminable (and now highly boring) argument, but it seems to me that the point is that “universal law” does not specify CITH. Let’s not play legal semantics: when taken down to it root, it means, for all practical purposes, it is an indult in the US and elsewhere. That does not change the fact that the practice is not universally accepted.
Click to expand...
It’s one of MANY adaptations to the universal law that were approved as particular law for U.S. dioceses. You can read about it here: usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml

Note there’s no mention of “indult.” Everything approved as an adaptation by the referenced documents is approved in the same manner…so if one chooses to call communion in the hand an indult then one would also have to call all the other approved adaptations noted on the documentation presented on that link, indults.

The fact that the practice is not universally accepted does not make it an indult (if so, then kneeling during the majority of the Eucharistic prayer would also be an indult).

Universal law (i.e. the Latin original) does not require that communion be received on the tongue in the paragraph (160) that the U.S. bishops received approval for the noted adaptation.
 
FYI everyone

Communion in the hand was the normal way to recieve for the Church of the East
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top