Reception in the hand

[Eucharisted]

“Approaching, do not come with your palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making your left hand a seat for your right, and hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest you drop any of it.”
– Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; on the proper technique for receiving Holy Communion in the hand (circa A.D. 347)

In the ancient times, the Eucharist, when received, was touched to the person’s eyes, lips, and hands so as how to hallow them, before being consumed by the person. That was than and this is now. But because reception in the hands is the ancient form of receiving Jesus from the hands of the priest, who alone has the authority to give Jesus because Jesus gives Himself to the soul through the priest (the priest works in His Person), it is still practiced to this day, and until Mother Church tells her children to cease receiving Jesus in the hands, no Christian may say reception in the hand is incorrect; however, reception of the hand is not the norm, so a bishop may forbid it in his diocese.

 

[Canto]

Interesting post.

Had a squizz through the following article and it seems in the hand was for extrodinary circumstances or when the Eucharist had to be moved around before the toleration of the faith by Constantine and the building of churches.

…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…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.

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.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Eucharisted]

That article is disgusting! How dare they encourage disobedience to Mother Church!

My Jesus, forgive them their sin, lead them away from error, and enlighten all those souls who have been deceived by that article to the truth!

 

[Canto]

That article is disgusting! How dare they encourage disobedience to Mother Church!

My Jesus, forgive them their sin, lead them away from error, and enlighten all those souls who have been deceived by that article to the truth!

Not sure about part 8 of the article and some of it is over the top, but where do they encourage disobedience to our Holy Mother Church?

 

[Cluny]

<<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.>>

This is referring to getting the Reserved Gifts out of the Tabernacle, not communion in the hand as such.

 

[Layman]

Ah, posts pro CITH in the traditional Catholicism sub-forum. A bit like lobbing a hand-grenade at a wasp’s nest.

One instruction from a Bishop of Jerusalem in 347AD is used to justify inserting it into Roman Catholic dioceses 1500+ years later which had COTT, kneeling for hundreds of years.

And the practical or spiritual benefit to the congregation of so doing is …?

Let me help you:

• If you use the argument that “it’s just a discipline!”, to justify it’s revival and the removal of COTT, then you can’t turn around and say “you must obey without questioning!” when people question it. If COTT can come and go then so can CITH.
• If it’s “because it’s allowed by the Bishops” then that’s a tautology: “It’s allowed because it’s allowed”.
• If it’s “because internal reverence is more important than outer displays”, well that leads to a bit of a free-for-all in the Mass. What is the point of going to a public ritual where no-one can see your inner reverence? So we show it outwardly, by symbolic actions, dress and the fixtures of the church.
• If it’s because Eastern Catholics do it a) Which rites, exactly, nowadays and b) Why should we copy them after hundreds of years of COTT, kneeling, anyway?
• If you believe in the Real Presence of The Lord Your God in the Host, then, justify changing a Roman Catholic church from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. The Bishop goes up to the pulpit and announces: “My dear people, from tomorrow Communion in the hand, standing, with EMHCs, will be the norm in my diocese, because …” and fill in the blank.

 

[ncjohn]

Ah, posts pro CITH in the traditional Catholicism sub-forum. A bit like lobbing a hand-grenade at a wasp’s nest.

I have to totally agree with you that the placement of this thread in this suborum is wrong though I completely and 100% disagree with every argument you made after that, especially your statement that anyone at all has supported any idea of “removing COTT”. That one has a preference for one does not in any way indicate a desire to suppress the other, though it does seem to be the case from some who prefer COTT.

Perhaps a request can be made to remove this thread to another area where it would be more appropriate. It is certainly not a discussion of “traditional Catholicism” as understood here, however much of a longstanding Catholic tradition it may be.

 

[Eucharisted]

Not sure about part 8 of the article and some of it is over the top, but where do they encourage disobedience to our Holy Mother Church?

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand.

I don’t care how reasonably and licitly it is done, you do not discourage people from obeying their bishops. If the bishop says Communion in the hand is the norm, than that’s the norm.

 

[Canto]

Interesting tid bit…

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 custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ 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”?

Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

 

[Canto]

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand.

How about if the word discourage was changed to encourage… for example

The time has come to begin to do everything we resonably and licitly can to encourage the practice of singing the propers at the Mass.

 

[Layman]

How about if the word discourage was changed to encourage… for example

The time has come to begin to do everything we resonably and licitly can to encourage the practice of singing the propers at the Mass.

Well said. A better attitude. Encourage what is beneficial.