Origins of Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter thursday63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think a lot of people are too reliant on Taylor Marshall for stuff like this, check out Dave Armstrong’s blog, biblical evidence for Catholicism on the history of it.
 
whatistrue said:
I guess that makes me rather unnatural then.
Click to expand...
I will take your word for it. My other point stands, if one breathes on the MHC while saying amen, it makes no difference if one’s intent is to receive in the hand or on the tongue after that point.
 
Not offended, sorry for my smart alec reply. I just think we all need to use some common sense on this issue these days.
It makes no sense to continue to receive on the tongue or to advocate that we should be able to.
It makes no sense to make exaggerated claims of the dangers of COTT because that just exacerbates the problem of the arguing. Which I am obviously not helping either by being a smart alec.
 
First instance of receiving by hand? Last Supper… and the early Church…

St. Cyril of Jerusalem encourages communicants to “make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King.”

Receiving by hand and receiving by mouth are both legit. One is not better than the other… It is likely more sanitary to receive by hand, but ultimately it comes down to your preferences.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the responses. The new question that has arisen is what was the thinking/reasoning for the Church to change to Communion on the tongue.
 
I think the OP is mostly looking for why and how it was reintroduced. Clearly there is historical precedent, but only the priest’s hands touching it was developed, just as we have developed special, consecrated vessels for the Eucharist: to increase reverence and understanding of the Eucharist as special.

It was reintroduced in Holland in the 1960s and spread to other countries after that as an abuse. It was generally not motivated by a desire for increase reverence, but by a misguided idea that it made one a mature Catholic or that communion on the tongue infantilized the laity (interestingly, it was not the laity who were calling for it).

The abuse ultimately became tolerated, and then sanctioned by the Holy See. The history of this process is summed up in this article (the article itself is about one Cardinal’s opinion on it):

 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
I think it’s questionable whether anybody really knows for certain how Communion was administered in the earliest period.
Click to expand...
One of the dirty little secrets of the history of Early Christianity is that we have remarkably little evidence of what the liturgy was like in the first few centuries, including the Eucharist. James Dunn, in volume 2 of “Christianity in the Making,” goes into some detail on all of the relevant evidence. There isn’t much. And of what we have doesn’t address how the Eucharist was taken.

Unlike the twenty first century, there isn’t any evidence that first or second century Christians spent much time worried about how the Eucharist should be taken.
 
BartholomewB said:
On the other hand, I think it’s questionable whether anybody really knows for certain how Communion was administered in the earliest period.
Click to expand...
“Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making “ the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King ” ( Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem , n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).*”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem born 315 AD. died @ 386
St John Chrysotom Archbishop of Constantinople, born 349 SD, Died 14 Sept. 407
 
Last edited:
Why attempt to disregard a legitimate question? Why we do things as a church matters very much. Just because something is “permissible” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question it.
 
Genesis315 said:
It was generally not motivated by a desire for increase reverence, but by a misguided idea that it made one a mature Catholic or that communion on the tongue infantilized the laity (interestingly, it was not the laity who were calling for it).
Click to expand...
That may be your opinion, but it is purely speculative and driven by those who abhor it.

Neither Communion in the Hand nor Communion On The Tongue are inherently more reverent. Reverence is a disposition, not a method of receiving the Eucharist.

There have been individuals in these forae who have said that people they observe are less reverent when receiving CITH; and when pushed, it is their opinion; they have not bothered to do any study of the matter other than what they have read on the internet, and project their opinion onto others’ practice.

I come from a parish which has had 24 hour adoration 363 days of the year; 3 priests, 2 deacons, 2 women professed religious and 2 seminarians (who ascertained that was not their vocation)… The vast majority of the people receive CITH. I defy anyone to tell me they - that community - are not reverent.

I wish people could leave this issue alone, as altogether too much of it is improper speculation. Contrary to some people’s opinion, the method of receiving is not more reverent one way of the other; it is the interior disposition of the one receiving which determines that. And if one approaches Communion lacking reverence, neither method is going to make that change; it takes a re-commitment to Christ to do that.

Opinions are a bit like a case of halitosis; everyone gets one now and then. And a whole lot of opinions, coupled with 2 or 3 dollars will get you a ride on the local transit.
How one receives is up to the individual, and that individual should keep their personal opinion about the matter to themselves.
 
Exactly. I sound like a scratched CD, but it is Who you receive not how you receive.

Reverence is in the human heart.
 
The origins matter quite a bit. It seems like you’d rather avoid the bad origins of this practice than face that this practice is not one of pious origins
 
otjm said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
On the other hand, I think it’s questionable whether anybody really knows for certain how Communion was administered in the earliest period.
Click to expand...
“Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making “ the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King ” ( Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem , n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).*”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem born 315 AD. died @ 386
St John Chrysotom Archbishop of Constantinople, born 349 SD, Died 14 Sept. 407
Click to expand...
To add to this, one important thing…

The left hand was not allowed to touch the Host. It was considered blasphemous for the left hand to touch the Host during St. Cyril’s time.

Also, the person receiving had to be bowing the whole time. They were not standing straight and Host also was not allowed to touch lay fingers. It was placed in the palm of the right hand and then the body was bowed over to hand to allow the Host to enter the mouth without the Host touching the fingers.

Think of your right hand being a spoon for the Host.
 
Zenit Article by Fr. Edward McNamar October 02, 2018

Just ignore the title of the article please, as the information it contains I think is relevant to this thread as it quotes from various official documents beginning in 1969, 1973 and 1980 + GIRM. These may help explain the instruction at the time.

"From the historical point of view, we can say that there is strong evidence that the practice existed in early centuries in some areas of the Church. It is not clear as to how widespread it was or if it was a regular practice. As with all historical practices, one must examine the context and circumstances which are usually not repeatable.

In this context, I think it is fair to say that the present practice of Communion in the hand is not a simple restoration of a historical custom but rather introduced a new practice in new circumstances which, while it has some historical justification, is essentially motivated by current pastoral concerns in some parts of the world."

Documentation: Approval of Communion in the Hand under Pope Paul VI
 
When our consumer culture confronts a pandemic and the need to obey the Bishop, it brings out the worst in us.

The origins are Jesus Christ! Got a prob with that?

Show any evidence - any - from tradition or scripture, that the 12 were kneeling and received on the tongue in the upper room.

Any at all.

And that first mass was in Aramaic.

Oh, and please consider lightening up just a bit, huh?
 
What does Aramaic have to do with this my friend? And all the Apostles were Priests, who were at the last supper, being consecrated Bishops. And whilst the early Church might have had Communion in the hand, do you feel comfortable and honest saying it’s for the same reasons the people of today do? Holy Mother Church made it a rule, both in the East, and West, for a good reason. Jesus should not be held by the laity unless very dire circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top