Origins of Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter thursday63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the time of the early church fathers it was placed in the hand. For first 200 years or so after Christs death there werent even any churchs so masses were celebrated in peoples homes and the presbyters would give the worshippers enough of the Eucharist last a week to use daily at home until the next sabbath.
 
Not a claim. Fact.

When the Church was Young : Voices of the early Fathers by Marcellino D’Ambrosio
 
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I am not accusing those who do so today of being irreverent. Just those who broke the original discipline. When the Church’s rule was on the tongue for the sake of reverence, and priests deliberately directed people to do otherwise, it was not motivated by increased reverence, but by other inappropriate motivations. It would be like if a priest decided to use a plastic cup for a chalice nowadays (without some grave necessity). However, if somehow that became the norm and priests were taught that it was acceptable–then clearly it would not necessarily be a sign of irreverence when a particular priest followed what he was taught in a spirit of reverence.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

ETA:. Why do people on thus forum seem to take offense at being asked for a reference? Is there some wording I am missing? I have tried to do so with no indication at all of being argumentative and trying to be polite. Never works.
 
Last edited:
If you were to ask something like Thats interesting, i hadnt heard of that, is there somewhere i can read about that? It would go over well… However saying whats the source of your claim automatically impliess disbelief and implies the statement is false
 
The apostles were themselves priests so the question didn’t arise at the last supper
 
Yes. It was. And, I’ve only been to one latin Mass in my life… I did say it there, too, as I didn’t know it wasn’t meant to be.
… … …
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately there are a great many people on this forum who make blithe assertions which they cannot back up because they are in fact assumptions.
 
phil19034 said:
It was considered blasphemous for the left hand to touch the Host during St. Cyril’s time.
Click to expand...
I have never seen that, neither in St. Cyril’s writings, nor in the writings of any of his contemporaries. This claim needs documentation; otherwise, it can be studiously ignored.

D
 
As a friend of mine is wont to say:

Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence!
 
That does have the ring of truth. Until modern times it was part of etiquette when using the bathroom to always clean oneself with your left hand. Hence why people always shake with right hand. Not too much of a stretch to see why receiving with left hand could be considered blasphemous. Also honored position is always to the right so there is that too. Also during baptism you renounce satan to your left ( west) and recite the creed to your right (east).
 
Last edited:
Most of what we know of that time is guesses and hypothesis. If you required documentation of everything wed be almost totally ignorant of history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top