The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent article. Thank you for posting! And Mr. Armstrong has a number of other articles on the same topic that are equally worth checking out.

I remember browsing through Fr. Robert Taft’s encyclopedic series on the history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and coming across a footnote about the Patristic sources proving Communion in the hand. The footnote ran for pages… PAGES. If I’d had any doubts before about the truth of this Patristic practices, I didn’t after reading that.

I think the wisdom of Mr. Armstrong is in asking whether the practice is prudent today. I personally have no opinion on whether or not it is. I’ve seen plenty of people reverently receive Communion in the hand, and I have personally irreverently received Communion on the tongue (I can’t judge the hearts of others as they approach). So, as Mr. Armstrong rightly points out, the dividing line isn’t in the method of reception, but in the disposition of the heart of the receiver.
 
It is clear to me that there is nothing per se wrong with communion in the hand and it certainly has historical precedent. People are able to reverently receive it in the hand and irreverently receive on the tongue. Likewise the Church has authority to change how the sacraments are administered. However, the Council of Trent gives the reasons that should motivate such a change (Session 21):
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.
Click to expand...
How was reverting to communion in the hand during the circumstances it was done intended to greater profit those who receive or lead to greater veneration? What was the reasoning?

Communion on the tongue developed into the norm in order to emphasize the special-ness of the Sacrament, just like the Sacrament could only be kept in special, set-aside vessels to emphasize its sacredness, so was it only touched with special set-aside hands. As St. Thomas notes in the Summa, “because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament” unless there is some necessity.

We still see the important value of using consecrated vessels. Using non-consecrated vessels without necessity would certainly send the message of diminished respect. So how was switching to non-consecrated hands meant to increase instead of diminish respect? Has belief in the Real Presence and reverence for the Sacrament and the Mass increased or decreased overall since this change?
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
Me: What about particles?
Click to expand...
According to the Church, there is a point at which “particles” are no longer the Eucharist. That is still not saying “Jesus doesn’t mind if his precious body lands on the floor and get stepped on.”

It’s also interesting how are some people are seeing “particles” everywhere and all time time – even on other peoples’ hands, which is quite the feat! The hosts my priest uses don’t fall apart like that.
 
To the Church it stops being the Body of Christ when it no longer has the properties of bread.
And I don’t look at other people for communion, that’s not the point. The point is that communion in the hand in actual fact opens the doors wide open to various forms of abuse, being dropped on the floor being just one of many.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
The teaching of the Church is that Our Lord is really, truly and substantially present under the smallest Particle of the Host and the tiniest Drop of the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Church teaches that. If I am wrong please direct me to the Church document.
St Thomas Aquinas certainly didn’t agree that the Real Presence remains in the tiniest particles.

"But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
 
Jimmy Akin has a great article on this topic: When The Real Presence Ceases – Jimmy Akin

Conclusion: If the particle is so small as to be indistinguishable from dust, it is no longer the Eucharist. If a particle is large enough to be recognized as bread, it is still the Eucharist. If a particle is large enough to be discernible, but small enough so as to be ambiguous, then it is doubtful whether or not the particle remains the Eucharist, and the proper care should still be taken.
 
not according to the article that was originally posted that i quoted from. the original most perfect and only way was supposed to be by the mouth only.
 
Receive as you see fit, but articles like this only seem to serve to justify one’s belief while condemning the belief of others…Nobody I know of purposely receives the Blessed Sacrament in a manner with any more or less reverence than someone else.

We can argue all you want about the difference between the norm (or “original and most perfect way”) and the acceptable, but both receiving by hand or on the tongue does not detract from the fact that we are receiving the body and blood of our Lord, and that he is really present.
 
Last edited:
I am sure you have documentation to back up your allegations? I would love to see the stats!
 
StudentMI said:
Communion in the hand is a point of roiling controversy in the modern Church.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see communion in the hand this as a roiling controversy in the Church. There is a small minority of clergy and Catholics that object. The vase majority don’t even know some people are upset by it.

In my view, not a top 100 issue for the Church
 
TheMortenBay said:
he point is that communion in the hand in actual fact opens the doors wide open to various forms of abuse, being dropped on the floor being just one of many.
Click to expand...
I served at the altar for many years and only witnessed a handful of times when the Eucharist was dropped… most often when the individual was receiving on the tongue.

On abuse… no door is opened wide by receiving in the hand.

On the topic of a particle falling… I think Jesus is pretty tough and can handle it.
 
This is one of those few issues where I don’t have a firm opinion. Both sides have a valid view.

In terms of “abuse” I’m far more worried about the fact that enormous numbers go to Communion, but very few to Confession. It’s odd that cith gets far more attention.

Cith during Covid is a reasonable precaution.

Hopefully children making their First Communion at least hear about the option of Cott, but it ought to get equal time. Cith is taught as the (only) norm.

My children learned nothing about the Real Presence during preparation. The DRE said “that is too sophisticated for children. We cover that in the upper grades.” But they never did. (,I did, as a parent).

I wish reforming religious ed got the same attention as cith.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Benedict XVI wrote something that has stuck with me. He said it was odd to refer to certain things like the Tridentine Mass as ‘old fashioned’ while simultaneously wanting to go back to the beginnings of the Church.
Click to expand...
As much as I respect the Pope Emeritus, I find it equally odd to refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as the Novus Ordo, since its been celebrated for nearly a half century…Whenever I hear, “Novus Ordo”, “Tridentine”, “TLM”, I go on the defensive…oddly, never here those calling themselves “Traditional Catholics” (whatever that means), use the term “Usus Antiquior”.

In my opinion those using the above adjectives instead of Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form are sewing division in the Church.
 
Last edited:
enoch1 said:
cith was permitted by V2…read the documents,
Click to expand...
Vatican II does not address this issue at all. But it does say there shouldn’t be any changes “unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23). This change came some years later.

How or why did the good of the Church require this method of dispensing the sacrament to be re-introduced?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top