The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

[CRM_Brother]

I believe that you are confusing the First Council of Saragossa (380) which dealt with the heresy of Priscilianism with the Second (592) and Third (691) Councils of Saragossa. These second two were concerned with procedural and disciplinary matters and were what the 6th-7th century time frame I was speaking of. There is a little scholarly misunderstanding as to which one of the two councils the threat of excommunication was made at. I tend to place it at the Second Council because the general norm of this time was to move away from Communion in the hand so as to distinguish themselves from the Arians who also used the practice.

As to the sacred vessels, you are correct. The early accounts of the mass had the priests and deacons distributing the Blessed Sacrament to the laity before they consumed it.

I wasn’t stating that the 6th century introduced communication on the tongue, just that it is the first written description of the practice which I have been able to unearth. The trend seemed to be in response to the Arian practices which followed the tribal gothic invasions. This would put the genesis for communion on the tongue around the end of the 4th to early 5th centuries.

 

[twf]

The Church Universal cannot promulgate a discipline contrary to divine law. The Spirit protects the Church. You can question the prudence of a discipline, but if it is part of the legitimate law of the universal Church (as opposed to the local church), it can’t violate divine law.

 

[twf]

Pretty sure the Assyrian Church of the East practices reception on the hand… and always has… since antiquity.

 

[otjm]

It may or may not have. The problem with trying to establish when exactly a means of receiving Communion started is that there was far, far less uniformity in liturgy than we have today; there were no colleges let along seminaries, and no advanced degrees in Liturgy - in short, not a whole lot was reported, and no doubt a significant amount of what was reported (written) has ceased to exist. Additionally, as there was not a uniform format for liturgy, it was not something which had uniform reporting.

Keep in mind that we did not have orders of professed women making wafer thin hosts for Masses; for a long time one could look at the host and clearly identify it as bread, likely one or more loaves to be broken and distributed. We also have enough information up to about the 6th century indicating reception in the hand that is quite clear. As to when people started receiving by the priest or possibly a deacon distributing it on the tongue, there just isn’t much if anything as to when.

As an aside, for a number of years I would go at least once a month to outr local Trappist abbey for Sunday Mass. they have one main host, made of rough (as, not refined) wheat about 6" in diameter and scored on the top so it can be broken into pieces of maybe 1 to 1.5" across. I would not be the least bit surprised to find that the loaf (if you can call something about 1/2 to 3/4" thick a loaf) is similar to what may have been used in the early Church. Additionally, there appears to be evidence that at least for some time, perhaps several centuries, the Roman rite may have used both leavened and unleavened bread; my experience of an Eastern Rite parish is they use leavened.

 

[glencor63]

Why do you feel Jesus needs protecting? Is he not God? If so, is he not capable of defending himself? Jesus wants us to worship him in spirit and truth. Turning the Eucharist into an object of worship is idolatry! Jesus instituted the Eucharist to give Grace, so that we might be strengthened spiritually and evangelize the world. He did not say to only receive the Eucharist on the tongue because I’m too precious to be touched. People literally touched Jesus in the Gospels and were not condemned or reproached. We are able to receive the body of Jesus in the hand and drink his blood because he has washed us clean from sin. There is no longer separation between us and God.

 

[JeffRFitz]

Thanks for the response. You clarified some things.

Just one note, Laodicea also restricted the handling of sacred vessels from even the order of deacons. We’ve come a long way. Cheers.

 

[commenter]

CathBoy1:

Canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz, has stated that obtaining votes from absent bishops absolutely invalidates the petition for an indult, making the indult non-void.

Well, he could have taken it up with the dicastery appropriate, and he would have lost. Not the first Canon lawyer to go down a rabbit hole

At any point in time a large minority of bishops are themselves canon lawyers. Some canon lawyers accompany a bishop at the meeting, as an aide. It’s likely some staff at USCCB, and the Apostolic Delagate, present at this meeting, are canon lawyers.

It’s odd that they all missed something, that this canonist picked up on. Was is his source of information in that 1969 process?

 

[hope]

The article bothered me on one point.
It states

This is proven by the fact that Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24, 1980, where he explicitly spoke of “deplorable shortcomings of respect shown towards the Eucharistic species” linked to the practice of Communion in the hand.

He states this as if he is quoting but no such quote exist.
What actually is stated is

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 behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist.

Maybe it doesn’t make much difference but I see a subtle difference.

 

[CathBoy1]

Maybe it doesn’t make much difference but I see a subtle difference.

There definitely is a subtle difference. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sarcelle]

So Communion in the hand is sacrilege but at the same time the Church has no problem with it.

So why is the Church tolerating sacrilege?

 

[CathBoy1]

It’s odd that they all missed something, that this canonist picked up on. Was is his source of information in that 1969 process?

I don’t think that all the bishops missed what had occurred, it just seems that Archbishop Joseph Bernardin had an agenda (I’m not saying he didn’t have good intentions or reasons just that he had an agenda to get this passed) which is evident in the fact that he continued to put forward a vote recommending communion in the hand, and after it was continuously voted down he went and received absentee votes this is all well-documented.
Absentee votes are illegal and shouldn’t have been counted, nonetheless they were and it was passed.

However one of the requirements of the indult was not met, namely it is required that it be a practice at the time (1969) in that area (USA), falling short of that requirement really voids the indult in and of itself.

 

[CradleRC58]

After my Parish was allowed to pray Mass again, our pastor decided to use the altar rail at the OF Mass. Communicants can receive on the hand or on the tongue. The rail is used to facilitate social distancing. 6 feet apart at the rail as well as 6 feet apart when in line waiting. It is going on 3 months now since Mass has resumed, and no one has complained for having to receive at the rail. There are a handful of people unable to kneel, but it is not an issue. They simply stand at the rail.

It’s not set in stone but moving forward, I’m pretty sure our Parish will continue to use the rail.

At weekday Mass I have already noticed a few regular attendees that used to receive in the hand now receiving on the tongue.

Deo gratias

Edit to add : you can view it here at noon Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday, at 4 p.m. on Saturday, at 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Sunday, and the EF at noon Sunday (all EST)

http://74.142.49.38:8001/view/viewer_index.shtml?id=2216

Open till about 15 minutes before the weekday Mass you will see the Most Blessed Sacrament exposed on the altar. From around 3:30 p.m. Saturday until 6 p.m. Sunday, the monstrance is moved to the Adoration Chapel.

 

[Hodos]

I didn’t say that the Bible 100% supports that the apostles received communion on the tongue, only that it doesn’t 100% disprove the possibility

That exactly what I said. I said you can’t rule out either one, but communion in the hand is definitely not an abuse given the text, and if anything there is more support in the text for communion in the hand than communion on the tongue.

I never once said CitH is, was and always will be an abuse, although I have noted that it opens the door to abuses and that the way in which some territories obtained the indult was indeed illicit (illegal use of absentee votes to obtain the indult).

Not sure how communion in the hand is anything akin to absentee ballots, but whatever. Suffice it to say I disagree.

 

[CathBoy1]

Not sure how communion in the hand is anything akin to absentee ballots, but whatever.

To get the indult for communion in the hand in the USA absentee votes were counted.
That doesn’t mean I was saying that it’s an abuse to receive communion in the hand, it’s a perfectly valid way to receive communion right now (in the USA) I was simply pointing out the fact that it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place (in the USA) due to absentee votes.

 

[Hodos]

That doesn’t mean I was saying that it’s an abuse to receive communion in the hand, it’s a perfectly valid way to receive communion right now (in the USA) I was simply pointing out the fact that it shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place (in the USA) due to absentee votes.

What the? Again, I go back to the question, why not? Upon what grounds? We already established that scripture doesn’t offer a prescription and that the Synoptic gospel account verbiage more closely resembles communion in the hand.

 

[hope]

So Communion in the hand is sacrilege but at the same time the Church has no problem with it.

He didn’t say that Communion in hand is sacrilege

As to why I am against CitH, it’s because since it was implemented: thefts have gone up, sacrilege has increased, belief was reduced, and I have personally witnessed Christ fall to the ground in small particles, unknown, to be stepped on by others. I have seen particles of the host, fully Christ, remain on the hands as people walked off.

My problem is that he provides no proof of what he claims. Like others I don’t see it.

 

[CathBoy1]

Again, I go back to the question, why not? Upon what grounds?

Upon the grounds that it wasn’t allowed before the indult that was drawn up in 1969 and the guidelines that were drawn up for its permission (Memoriale Domini) has certain criteria that must be met, which wasn’t met in the USA…

…namely, it must have been in wide practice at that time (1969), in that place (USA), the USA did not meet that criteria…

…furthermore it required a two thirds vote, which it failed to receive in the USA on three separate occasions, afterwards absentee votes were illegally used to beef up the numbers and secure the majority. This is all well documented and can be easily looked up and researched.

 

[Hodos]

Upon the grounds that it wasn’t allowed before the indult that was drawn up in 1969 and the guidelines that were drawn up for its permission (Memoriale Domini) has certain criteria that must be met, which wasn’t met in the USA…

Again, though, communion in the hand is not a new practice. Communion on the tongue is actually the newcomer to the party. CITH was re-established as a valid practice in the Church, not newly declared.

 

[puer.dei]

Has anyone posted the specific citations on CITH “must have been in wide practice at that time,” and absentee votes being illegal?

 

[paperwight]

Has anyone posted the specific citations on CITH “must have been in wide practice at that time,” and absentee votes being illegal?

Good question.

As a matter of interest, CITH wasn’t ‘in wide practice’ in the UK when it was introduced either.