Receivng Communion on your Hand

[Ockham]

What part of “placing on hand over the other, making a throne for Christ” do you not understand?

I don’t understand why a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence would choose to receive God in his hand like a Protestant does. I don’t understand why a Catholic wouldn’t want to show the utmost reverence for his Saviour who humbled Himself on the Cross. I don’t know why you are the others ignore all the teachings on this subject from saints, popes, and theologians.

 

[diggerdomer]

Note that it says current practice.

Yes…so…your point is what?

 

[Ockham]

I do receive the way the Church prefers. In my case, that’s in the hand.

You are either completely obtuse to the facts I have presented or deliberately trying to wear this debate down to absurdity. The facts speak for themselves as does your distortion.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t understand why a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence would choose to receive God in his hand like a Protestant does. I don’t understand why a Catholic wouldn’t want to show the utmost reverence for his Saviour who humbled Himself on the Cross. I don’t know why you are the others ignore all the teachings on this subject from saints, popes, and theologians.

As a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence, I choose to receive in the hand, but it’s not because or like a Protestant does. It’s because that’s what many Catholics do. It’s a completely legitimate, valid, allowed practice in our Church. I am not ignoring any teachings.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are either completely obtuse to the facts I have presented or deliberately trying to wear this debate down to absurdity. The facts speak for themselves as does your distortion.

The fact is that in the U.S. (where I reside) the choice of how to receive communion, as approved by the Vatican, is left to the communicant. On the tongue or in the hand is acceptable.

How is that being obtuse to facts?

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t understand why a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence would choose to receive God in his hand like a Protestant does. I don’t understand why a Catholic wouldn’t want to show the utmost reverence for his Saviour who humbled Himself on the Cross. I don’t know why you are the others ignore all the teachings on this subject from saints, popes, and theologians.

Fortunately, your understanding is not a requirement for the valid sacramental reception of communion.

 

[Ockham]

As I just posted in the other thread on this topic, what do you have against showing the utmost reverence for God anyway? Why do you prefer to greet him as an equal?

 

[diggerdomer]

As I just posted in the other thread on this topic, what do you have against showing the utmost reverence for God anyway? Why do you prefer to greet him as an equal?

I have nothing against showing utmost reverence for God. I do not treat God as an equal.

Why do you have no reverence for what the Church teaches regarding norms for the reception of communion? Why do you have no reverence for those who choose differently than you do (and who do so while still completely following Church teaching)?

 

[franklinf]

Yes…so…your point is what?

Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
A point that I have never disputed. Read again what the Church says about this historical development.

Diggerdomer:
You never disputed it? Then why did you post (one example):

Quote:
The provenance of Communion in the hand
The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.”

My point is that what you posted is not an example of him disputing. He clearly said there was COTH and posted an article explaining why. Your example refers to the current practice of COTH ie the practice recently given an indult. Your example is referring to a completely different thing than what you accused him of disputing. Merely pointing that out.

 

[franklinf]

As a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence, I choose to receive in the hand, but it’s not because or like a Protestant does. It’s because that’s what many Catholics do. It’s a completely legitimate, valid, allowed practice in our Church. I am not ignoring any teachings.

But why? Why do you receive on the hand? It seems like you receive on the hand solely because it is allowed.

 

[otjm]

It’s pretty clear that our current Pope thinks that it should be COTT. For example, only those kneeling may receive Communion from him - and it must be on the tongue. Also, the reform of the reform, orchestrated by Pope Benedict the XVI calls for a return to COTT.

“They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.”
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

Ah, yes, the rumor that there is a document that has been handed to the Pope which is going to change all these things. The most recent statement by another Cardinal in Rome is that such thing does not exist. Guess we won’t know until something comes down from the Pope; in the meanwhile the silence is deafening.

Communion on the tongue is the norm for the Roman rite; it should be no surprise that the Pope fillows the norm; he also follows the norm in celebrating the OF, which is the norm - the Ordinary Form - instead of the EF.

And so we grasp at straws…

 

[otjm]

But why? Why do you receive on the hand? It seems like you receive on the hand solely because it is allowed.

Some people have explained why they receive in the hand; because of the words “Take and eat… take and drink” is more cloesly aligned to reception in the hand. As they have noted, the words are not “Open and be fed”. One takes, after it has been handed to them.

 

[diggerdomer]

But why? Why do you receive on the hand? It seems like you receive on the hand solely because it is allowed.

Because to me, Jesus said take and eat, and I feel more connected to Him and the Apostles by practicing, as possible, as they did. It’s more incarnational for me. The oft-cited patristic reference of “make of your hands a throne” also influences me.

And please note, in case it’s not already abundantly clear, I am not claiming one practice is better than the other across the boards. I am functioning under the Church in the U.S.A., where I live, in which the Roman Catholic norms allow, without preference, either method as desired by the communicant. I have nothing against the practice of communion on the tongue, nor those who prefer it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
A point that I have never disputed. Read again what the Church says about this historical development.

Diggerdomer:
You never disputed it? Then why did you post (one example):

Quote:
The provenance of Communion in the hand
The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.”

My point is that what you posted is not an example of him disputing. He clearly said there was COTH and posted an article explaining why. Your example refers to the current practice of COTH ie the practice recently given an indult. Your example is referring to a completely different thing than what you accused him of disputing. Merely pointing that out.

He posted this:

The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.”

As I read that, it’s a claim that communion in the hand is not an ancient (or more ancient) practice than communion on the tongue. Which is of course incorrect.

 

[franklinf]

He posted this:

As I read that, it’s a claim that communion in the hand is not an ancient (or more ancient) practice than communion on the tongue. Which is of course incorrect.

Gotcha.I read it as the current (ie subset of the total) practice traced back to the Protestant revolution. Hope this clears up what I meant better than my more long winded version.

 

[diggerdomer]

Gotcha.I read it as the current (ie subset of the total) practice traced back to the Protestant revolution. Hope this clears up what I meant better than my more long winded version.

Gotcha. Thanks!

 

[Ockham]

Communion in the Hand
Rethinking Communion in the Hand
By Jude A Huntz

HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW March 1997

Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence?

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true that one may receive “on the hand,” with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue.

Even as we begin, it might immediately be objected: Communion in the hand is fully approved by the Church, and it is disloyal and disrespectful and therefore not allowed even to begin this discussion. In answer to that objection, let us begin with the legal aspects of the question.

1. The legal status of the two methods
   It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult,” or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.

Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Communion: on the tongue. Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

It must be further noted that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive Communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more reverent.” One will search in vain for any encouragement of Communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful!

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behaviour but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, II)

In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which in each and every case accompanied the actual indult (L’instruction “Memoriale Domini”), the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

1. The fragments . . .
   If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind:

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. 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. [Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis).

The Roman Catechism put it this way:

Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc.

To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes.

For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: “What about the fragments?”

1. Clericalism?
   Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

 

[Ockham]

1. Some Scriptural considerations . . .
   In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows:

And [the Lord] said to me: . . . “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat “And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” - Vulgate]. And he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezek. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV).

It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened his mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven.

In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it . . . . But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “I will fill it,” not “fill it yourselves.”

Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

Again, it is certainly eminently scriptural to refrain from touching something as a sign of reverence (and not only scriptural, but even universally human). In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, it was absolutely forbidden to touch it, under pain of death. Even when it was “necessary” to do so, as it seemed to one unfortunate ark-bearer, it was still forbidden. And the fellow paid the supreme price for his temerity in reaching out to steady the ark: “When they came to the floor of Machon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and He struck him for his rashness and he died there before the ark of God” (II Sam. 6:6,7). We have greater than the Ark of the Covenant here.

1. The Last Supper
   But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

1. Take and eat . . .
   Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, “Take and eat”? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

 

[Ockham]

1. The provenance of Communion in the hand
   The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear.

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

 

[Ockham]

1. Was it universal?
   The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].” This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.

In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation”-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).

It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.

The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to “take and eat,” and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?

We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand.

So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give 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” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.

After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the apostles.
.