The Apostles/Bishops and Consecrated Hands

[ethelzguy]

In another thread, a statement was made regarding the Apostles being Bishops and their hands being consecrated.

When did this happen?

When Jesus said “Peter, you are Rock”?

At the Last Supper?

When Jesus said “Recieve the Holy Spirit”?

At the Ascension?

On Pentecost?

Numerous possibilities. Is there a specific Church teaching as to when the Apostles became Bishops and their hands consecrated?

Thanks

 

[AJV]

The apos

 

[AJV]

I’m interested in the hands consecrated argument, since the Church teaches the the apostles were ordained at the words “Do this in remembrance of me”. Unless it is meant that by virtue of being priests, they had consecrated hands.

 

[scylla]

I am pretty sure this came about in recognition of Jesus being God and the Apostles\Bishops\Priests being His hands in the Liturgy, not on some passages in the Bible but on the fact that Jesus is God.

Since our faith is centered around Jesus being God those who serve Him pay honor to His Presence by being consecrated to the service of Him. To pay honor to Christ we set aside the hands of the Priest and Bishop for the task of serving as His hands, specifically in the Mass.

God Bless
Scylla

If I have made a mistake in my thinking feel free to correct me.

 

[EasterJoy]

Is there a specific Church teaching as to when the Apostles became Bishops and their hands consecrated?

The hands of the Apostles were recognized as being consecrated by evidence of the signs and wonders that came through them (Acts 5:1) Peter indicated that having been selected as one of the Twelve was what conferred the “office” of apostolic ministry. The Apostles discerned that selecting who would be added to their number was their perogative, with their dependence on the help of God being taken for granted (Acts 1:15-26).

How the specific ritual of ordination evolved, I do not know. Cut off a priest’s hands, though (God forbid!) and he’s still every inch a priest. The consecration of his hands at his ordination was emblematic of the everlasting consecration of the whole man.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…Not sure how the actual annointing of the hands w/ holy oil began…have an interesting view from St, Francis of Assisi though. It is a quote of St. Francis from Father Michael Scanlon’s book “The Holy Spirit”,Holy Desire [Franciscan University Press 1998] :

"…One time St. Francis kissed the hands of a priest who was believed to be keeping a mistress and said, ’ I do not really know whether these hands are stained…In any case, I do know that, even if they are, this in no way lessens the power and efficacy of the sacraments of God; those hands remain the channel whereby God’s graces and blessings stream down on people. That is why I kiss them out of respect for what they administer and out of respect for him who delegated his authority to them.’ "

 

[ethelzguy]

.’ "

A terrific post

Reminds me of a substitute teaching gig I had several years back, while a certain elected official was in the soup for an under the table relationship with an employee.

My class was going off on all kinds of rants and raves. I told them that while his actions may be repugnant, we should still respect the “office” even if we could not respect the “man”.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I don’t think there was any special consecration of hands in the early church, this is something that developed later during the history of the church in the liturgy of ordination.

The whole person was consecrated, not the hands in particular. We don’t read about Jesus using that sign. He did breathe on them as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins.

Why the special interest in the hands in particular being consecrated? I think some people like to use the idea that priests’ hands are consecrated to say the church is wrong in allowing communion in the hands. IMO, that is a specious argument.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

A terrific post

Reminds me of a substitute teaching gig I had several years back, while a certain elected official was in the soup for an under the table relationship with an employee.

My class was going off on all kinds of rants and raves. I told them that while his actions may be repugnant, we should still respect the “office” even if we could not respect the “man”.

The sisters in parish school taught us that you respect the priests for what they are not who they are.

 

[scylla]

This reminds me of a conversation with a Seventh Day Adventist friend of mine.

He was saying it was stupid to kiss the ring of a Bishop, then he went on to rant and rave about Priests, abuse and we don’t know where the hands have just been, etc…

I told him that I would still kiss the hand\ring of the Bishop and actually I just had a few weeks earlier in recognition of his consecration to Christ. (my Bishop might not be a strong Bishop but he is my Bishop) So I honor him by showing Christ respect through honoring the Bishop’s dedication to Christ.

I kiss the hand of Christ and pray for our Bishop and support him in his service to Christ. Since Catholics believe that Jesus is God anything or person dedicated to His service require special treatment. Regardless of the Priest’s personal holiness his service to Christ\Priesthood is what we honor and respect, when we pay respect to him. Holy Orders changes a person not just into a job but marks them for life.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t think there was any special consecration of hands in the early church, this is something that developed later during the history of the church in the liturgy of ordination.

The whole person was consecrated, not the hands in particular. We don’t read about Jesus using that sign. He did breathe on them as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins.

Why the special interest in the hands in particular being consecrated? I think some people like to use the idea that priests’ hands are consecrated to say the church is wrong in allowing communion in the hands. IMO, that is a specious argument.

That’s where I was coming from…this thread spawned from another thread where it was stated that the Apostles “hands were consecrated”, and I’m trying to determine just when this occured.

Thanks

 

[scylla]

I don’t think there was any special consecration of hands in the early church, this is something that developed later during the history of the church in the liturgy of ordination.

The whole person was consecrated, not the hands in particular. We don’t read about Jesus using that sign. He did breathe on them as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins.

Why the special interest in the hands in particular being consecrated? I think some people like to use the idea that priests’ hands are consecrated to say the church is wrong in allowing communion in the hands. IMO, that is a specious argument.

I agree the whole person was consecrated, this is why we respect the Priesthood regardless of the person’s holiness. He can be a crummy Priest but still is a Priest and we respect that consecration as a Priest. This is why I kneel when a Priest blesses me as it shows deference to Christ, who acts through the Priest. The man is just a man but Christ is God who works through him.

Now in regards to the special consecration that is given to hands that just highlights the importance and presence of Christ, in the Eucharist and the consecration of the Priest to serve Him. We show special respect to Christ in that way.

We should always put reverence for Christ first, this is why we honor the Priests hands. It is customary to do this by kissing his hand and recognizing the consecration of them to giving us the Bread of Life, Christ Himself. As Jesus is the center of our faith we developed our faith to respect and honor Christ.

This is why genuflecting when you enter the Church is not specified in the Bible, but it is the natural action to give to honor Christ reserved in the Tabernacle.

God Bless
Scylla

What do you mean by specious arguement? Can you explain?

 

[NeedImprovement]

The earlier. different ceremonies for ordination help narrow down the possibilities of the origin of the anointing of the priest’s hands during ordination. One type which included anointing of the hands was the Gallican Rite (earliest available info - middle or end of 8th century).

Here is an excerpt from the following link newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm :

"…In England the head also was anointed in ancient times. The anointing of the hands, which in ancient times was done with chrism, or oil and chrism, was not used by the Roman Church, said Nicholas I (A.D. 864), though it is generally found in all ancient ordinals. It probably became a general practice in the ninth century and seems to have been derived from the British Church (Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils and Eccl. Documents”,…

Maybe someone can hone right in on the source from there.

In the meantime, here’s a very brief snippet of the present “Rites of The Catholic Church” re ordination w/focus on the anointing of the hands:

• LITANY OF THE SAINTS …
• LAYING ON OF HANDS …
• PRAYER OF CONSECRATION …
• INVESTITURE WITH STOLE AND CHASUBLE …
• ANOINTING OF HANDS :

1. Next the bishop receives a linen gremial and anoints with chrism the palms of the new priest as he kneels before him. The bishop says: The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God.
2. While the new priest is being vested in stole and chasuble and the bishop is anointing his hands, the hymn **Veni, Creator Spiritus **or the following antiphon may be sung with Psalm 110.
   Christ the Lord, a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek, offered bread and wine.
   The antiphon is repeated after every two verses. Glory to the Father is not said. The psalm is interrupted and the antiphon repeated when the hands of the priest have been anointed…

 

[elzoro]

I don’t think there was any special consecration of hands in the early church, this is something that developed later during the history of the church in the liturgy of ordination.

The whole person was consecrated, not the hands in particular. We don’t read about Jesus using that sign. He did breathe on them as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins.

Why the special interest in the hands in particular being consecrated? I think some people like to use the idea that priests’ hands are consecrated to say the church is wrong in allowing communion in the hands. IMO, that is a specious argument.

That is wrong. The “some people” you are refering to is the Church. Check out this link! :catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion3.htm

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Originally Posted by Claire from DE forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I don’t think there was any special consecration of hands in the early church, this is something that developed later during the history of the church in the liturgy of ordination.

The whole person was consecrated, not the hands in particular. We don’t read about Jesus using that sign. He did breathe on them as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins.

Why the special interest in the hands in particular being consecrated? I think some people like to use the idea that priests’ hands are consecrated to say the church is wrong in allowing communion in the hands. IMO, that is a specious argument.
posted by elzoro: That is wrong. The “some people” you are refering to is the Church. Check out this link! :catholictradition.org/Euc…communion3.htm

No, the article on that site shows that the practice of receiving in the hands was done for many centuries. Then some of the faithful, in an excess of zeal, began touching the host and the precious to their faces or kissing the host. Of course this was an abuse and, to prevent that, the church ruled for communion on the tongue and under one form. In the present day, the church has ruled that communion in the hand is again permitted. What the church forbade, she can again allow. I follow the church.

The article ends:** “But what was rightly condemned in 1947 was wrongly imposed in 1977” **This is the author’s opinion of the church’s action. We can have an opinion as to whether that action was prudent, but for a faithful Catholic to call it ‘wrongly imposed’ is rebellious. And in fact it was not ‘imposed’ but merely permitted when the bishops request it, communion on the tongue us always allowed.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I agree the whole person was consecrated, this is why we respect the Priesthood regardless of the person’s holiness. He can be a crummy Priest but still is a Priest and we respect that consecration as a Priest. This is why I kneel when a Priest blesses me as it shows deference to Christ, who acts through the Priest. The man is just a man but Christ is God who works through him.

Now in regards to the special consecration that is given to hands that just highlights the importance and presence of Christ, in the Eucharist and the consecration of the Priest to serve Him. We show special respect to Christ in that way.

We should always put reverence for Christ first, this is why we honor the Priests hands. It is customary to do this by kissing his hand and recognizing the consecration of them to giving us the Bread of Life, Christ Himself. As Jesus is the center of our faith we developed our faith to respect and honor Christ.

This is why genuflecting when you enter the Church is not specified in the Bible, but it is the natural action to give to honor Christ reserved in the Tabernacle.

God Bless
Scylla
I grew up in Baltimore in the 1950’s, went to parochial school, etc. Kissing the priest’s hands was not a custom I ever heard of. We always asked for his blessing, especially newly ordained priests. So the hand kissing wasn’t a universal custom but a pious practice among some Catholics.

It was the custom to kiss the bishop’s ring because it was a symbol of his authority, which authority came from Jesus through the apostles. It was the authority we respected, not his hands.

What do you mean by specious arguement? Can you explain?

By a specious argument I mean it doesn’t address the real issue. Because the priest (and/or his hands) is anointed to consecrate the Eucharist doesn’t mean that Catholics should not receive it in their hands. We aren’t priests, we can’t offer mass in the same way the priest does (in persona Christi). But we do participate in the mass. It’s a matter of church discipline (regulations) how we receive communion.

Also, just because communion in the hand wasn’t allowed in the past doesn’t mean the church is wrong to do so now. Just because it is allowed now, doesn’t mean the church always has to allow it. The priest’s hands are no less holy either way. The Eucharist is to be received with great reverence either way. Maybe the people of today need to be convinced that our hands need to be holy, need to be hands in the service of the Lord.

 

[Conservative]

Dear Ethelzguy -
I’m thinking that the “consecrated” hands - became a ceremony we instituted FORMALLY years later in ordaining a priest.

However, Our Lord didn’t need ordination ceremonies. He was assigning to the world - the first priests who would change bread and wine into His Body and Blood - when He instructed them at the Last Supper to - “Do this in Memory of Me”.

Our Lord gave them further priestly powers as regards absolution and (I believe) such things as matters of Matrimony, etc. - when He said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (This couldn’t be more obvious.) But Our Lord also said - (and I don’t have exact quote) - what you shall declare bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven…what you shall declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. On this second quote, I’d appreciate someone posting the exact words.

However, in a quick look at the Bible, I found - at the end of “Mark” - Our Lord came to “the Eleven” - telling them to go out into the world preaching the Gospel and Baptizing.

 

[ethelzguy]

Dear Ethelzguy -
I’m thinking that the “consecrated” hands - became a ceremony we instituted FORMALLY years later in ordaining a priest.

However, Our Lord didn’t need ordination ceremonies. He was assigning to the world - the first priests who would change bread and wine into His Body and Blood - when He instructed them at the Last Supper to - “Do this in Memory of Me”.

Our Lord gave them further priestly powers as regards absolution and (I believe) such things as matters of Matrimony, etc. - when He said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (This couldn’t be more obvious.) But Our Lord also said - (and I don’t have exact quote) - what you shall declare bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven…what you shall declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. On this second quote, I’d appreciate someone posting the exact words.

However, in a quick look at the Bible, I found - at the end of “Mark” - Our Lord came to “the Eleven” - telling them to go out into the world preaching the Gospel and Baptizing.

Ok thanks! I brought this subject over from a different thread, where someone had made a “definitive” statement regarding consecrated hands and receiving Communion in the hand.

Thanks again

 

[scylla]

By a specious argument I mean it doesn’t address the real issue. Because the priest (and/or his hands) is anointed to consecrate the Eucharist doesn’t mean that Catholics should not receive it in their hands. We aren’t priests, we can’t offer mass in the same way the priest does (in persona Christi). But we do participate in the mass. It’s a matter of church discipline (regulations) how we receive communion…

I agree it is a matter of Church discipline. Thank you for answering my question.
I agree that it doesn’t logically follow the just because a Priest is annointed to consecrate the Eucharist doesn’t mean that Catholics should not receive it in their hands. I would believe that the reason for not receiving in the hands goes a lot deeper than that basic premise.
I would agree that it currently is possible to receive in the hands and if done respectfully can be done without disrespecting our Lord. I do not think it is a wise practice to be allowed but I am not a Bishop and I do not make the decision to allow it or not, so all I can do is promote believe in the Real Presence of Christ and our own response to God.

Also, just because communion in the hand wasn’t allowed in the past doesn’t mean the church is wrong to do so now. Just because it is allowed now, doesn’t mean the church always has to allow it. The priest’s hands are no less holy either way. The Eucharist is to be received with great reverence either way. Maybe the people of today need to be convinced that our hands need to be holy, need to be hands in the service of the Lord.

I agree that many times the person receiving can be more holy than the Priest. I don’t think people object as if it is a matter of holiness but as a recognition of the Priesthood instituted by Christ.

I think many times it is part of a gut reaction by people who see a constant attack on the Priesthood. For example in my parish there is a sister who administrates the Parish, and during Mass she likes to bless anyone who she can think of to bless. So she will announce a blessing then bless the…graduates, or the married couples or the choir, etc… The Priest will just sit there never invited to bless, waiting for it to end and she will raise her hand over the person and bless them.

So people see this sort of crazy thing and realize there is a movement to sort of diminish the Priesthood of Christ. Many people receive in the Hand respectfully and have no thought whatsoever in this sort of way and then there are the ones who ardently promote it as it is part of their desire to diminish the Priesthood. Every way possible to make the Priesthood just a job anyone can do, would enable them to further the thought that the Priesthood is nothing special. This is what people see and are reacting to, I don’t think it is really a thought of worthiness or holiness. Though some will use that reasoning to try and attack communion in the hand. We are all not worthy, but we ask Christ to make us worthy.

I agree that all of us need to be dedicated to service to Christ, especially the laity. But it seems many times these days we Catholics unfortunately only seem to want to do it at Mass. So we want to be the hands of Christ at Mass but not in the world. Where Vatican II encouraged us to go into the world and be Catholic.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I agree it is a matter of Church discipline. Thank you for answering my question.
I agree that it doesn’t logically follow the just because a Priest is annointed to consecrate the Eucharist doesn’t mean that Catholics should not receive it in their hands. I would believe that the reason for not receiving in the hands goes a lot deeper than that basic premise.
I would agree that it currently is possible to receive in the hands and if done respectfully can be done without disrespecting our Lord. I do not think it is a wise practice to be allowed but I am not a Bishop and I do not make the decision to allow it or not, so all I can do is promote believe in the Real Presence of Christ and our own response to God.

I agree that many times the person receiving can be more holy than the Priest. I don’t think people object as if it is a matter of holiness but as a recognition of the Priesthood instituted by Christ.

I think many times it is part of a gut reaction by people who see a constant attack on the Priesthood. For example in my parish there is a sister who administrates the Parish, and during Mass she likes to bless anyone who she can think of to bless. So she will announce a blessing then bless the…graduates, or the married couples or the choir, etc… The Priest will just sit there never invited to bless, waiting for it to end and she will raise her hand over the person and bless them.

So people see this sort of crazy thing and realize there is a movement to sort of diminish the Priesthood of Christ. Many people receive in the Hand respectfully and have no thought whatsoever in this sort of way and then there are the ones who ardently promote it as it is part of their desire to diminish the Priesthood. Every way possible to make the Priesthood just a job anyone can do, would enable them to further the thought that the Priesthood is nothing special. This is what people see and are reacting to, I don’t think it is really a thought of worthiness or holiness. Though some will use that reasoning to try and attack communion in the hand. We are all not worthy, but we ask Christ to make us worthy.

I agree that all of us need to be dedicated to service to Christ, especially the laity. But it seems many times these days we Catholics unfortunately only seem to want to do it at Mass. So we want to be the hands of Christ at Mass but not in the world. Where Vatican II encouraged us to go into the world and be Catholic.

God Bless
Scylla

I think I’m fortunate in that the priest in my parish, although fairly young and not pushy, has a good understanding that he is the pastor. He follows the rubrics. Although we do have two ministers of the cup, if the deacon and another priest are present they do it. He doesn’t do blessings at communion time because, as he told us, he isn’t supposed to. He blesses children and objects after mass. He even gave very specific instructions in a homily as to how to respectfully receive in the hand. That made a real impression on the children especially.

Having a sister or lay person as parish administrator is the bishop’s option. But the visiting priest is the priest and he should assert himself. What you described is terrible. Unfortunately, I also am acquainted with a couple sisters who are upset that women are not ordained (yet, as they would say). And there were some glaring abuses at mass at their monastery until the new chaplain got there. So now I understand why you and others in your situation are very sensitive to anything which would appear to diminish the priesthood.