Touching the Host- Sacrilege?

  • Thread starter Thread starter paramedicgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paramedicgirl

Guest
From another thread -the subject came up of whether touching the host by lay people (this would encompass Communion in the hand) was ever considered a sacrilege by the Catholic Church.

Can anyone provide any information on this?
 
Clearly communion in the hand has taken place historically in the Church (St. Cyril of Jerusalm writes about it in his catechetical lectures), there are paintings showing communion being received in this fashion in the catecombs. St. Basil the Great says that as long as this is the custom there is nothing wrong with it (Letter XCIII: To the Patrician Coesaria, concerning Communion). Clearly since the Church permits this practice it cannot, by definition, be sacrilege.

Deacon Ed
 
It is considered sacrilige (but in this case is a social norm, not a doctrine) in some parts of the world- i.e. some parts of Latin America.
 
According to the Felician Sisters who taught at my grade school in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it is a sacrilege. The lesson was often reinforced to us by our parish priest.

Even as late as 1976, the Carmelite priests that my wife took instructions from considered it a sacrilege for unconsecrated hands to touch the Host. They were adamant that communion in the hand was a horrible abuse that would soon be set right by the Holy Father. Little did they know.
 
their teachings are not correct. it could be an abuse and illicit if it is not allowed by the church but, as deacon ed pointed out, it has been allowed by the magisterium before and is allowed in some rites today. like i said, if the magisterium doesn’t allow a discipline, it is an abuse and illicit.
 
What it amounted to was a form of hyper-reverence. There are still people who feel that it is wrong to receive in the hand, that it is a source of irreverence and is sacriligeous; and in that they are clearly out of sync with the Church.

There are others who wish to receive on the tongue and that is their right.
 
Didn’t the Apostles at the institution of the Eucharist (at the Last Supper) receive Jesus in their hands?
Although I receive the host on the tongue the argument that it is irreverent or sacrilegious to receive Jesus in the hand just does not stand up. That’s the way Jesus started it.
 
40.png
thistle:
Didn’t the Apostles at the institution of the Eucharist (at the Last Supper) receive Jesus in their hands?
Although I receive the host on the tongue the argument that it is irreverent or sacrilegious to receive Jesus in the hand just does not stand up. That’s the way Jesus started it.
Click to expand...
Thistle:

I prefer to receive our Lord on the Tongue, as I believe the symbolism involved in that act of being fed is better. That said, the Early Church had a custom whereby the Christian would take home a week’s worth of our Lord for the Family Alter and often more for any sick members of the Congregation.

The procedure was the head of the household (almost always the father) would take the collected body of our Lord home at the end of the service and place him in a locked recepticle (the “Ciborium”) on the family alter.

Every morning, the family would gather together for a “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified” during which enough of the consecrated hosts would be taken out of the “Ciborium” for the family, blessed (but not Sanctified) and dipped in common wine, and then placed on the tongues of the family.

This way, Christians could receive our Lord DAILY even though the community wasn’t able to get together for DAILY MASS.

When the Church was legalized, and Christians could LEGALLY assemble for Mass Daily, this practice was discontinued.

In order to discourage it, the Church began asking that we take our Lord on the tongue. Many Dioceses adopted the Practice of giving our Lord by Intinction in order to encourage the practice of taking our Lord on the tongue.

I know that the practice of taking our Lord in the hand was outlawed by the time of Trent, but I don’t remember who did it or when it was done.

I hope that makes at least some things clear.

In Christ, Michael
 
Pre-Sanctified liturgies are still used in the byzantine rite churches, such as the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches… during Lent on Wed. and Fridays.
It’s not done at home though, but at church. There are psalms and such sung and communion is given by the priest, but there is no “liturgy of the Eucharist” at these liturgies.
 
Thanks for all your replies. What I am still wondering, though, was it considered a sacrilege prior to the Church permitting Communion in the hand in recent years? Just looking for the proper history…
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
Thanks for all your replies. What I am still wondering, though, was it considered a sacrilege prior to the Church permitting Communion in the hand in recent years? Just looking for the proper history…
Click to expand...
not everything that is disobedient or illicit is a sacrilege. sometimes it’s just disobedient and illicit. communion in the hand is one of those things.

note that this article on sacrilege written long before permission for communion in the hand doesn’t mention it. of course, it doesn’t mention a lot of specifics but this would be an obvious one to mention in this article.
newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm

i myself don’t receive in the hand. i’m, personally, not comfortable with it.

here’s an article on the subject
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

looks like i’ll have to get a new keyboard. this one doesn’t seem to be drying out. shift seems to be gone for good. 😦
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
Thanks for all your replies. What I am still wondering, though, was it considered a sacrilege prior to the Church permitting Communion in the hand in recent years? Just looking for the proper history…
Click to expand...
paramedicgirl:

Only Mattters that reflect on or contradict the Doctrine or Dogma or the Church can be Sacreligious (Examples “Black Mass” & Desecration of the Virgin Mary.). Matters of Discipline or Practice can’t fall under that heading.

Whether one takes Communion in the hand or on the tongue is a Matter of Discipline, not a Matter of Doctrine. And, can, therefore, not be sacreligious.

Please understand, the Church had a PRACTICE which the Church saw was no longer needed. The Church, therefore discontinued the practice in favor of LEGAL DAILY MASS.

Some people still continued taking their week’s supply of our Lord home with them (old habits die hard). In order to stop this, the Church started requiring that Communion be received on the tongue only.

That didn’t make receiving on the hand a Sacrelige. It only made it illicit according to the Canons of the Church from sometime in the 10th Century until the 1960’s.

I hope that makes it clear.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
Thanks for all your replies. What I am still wondering, though, was it considered a sacrilege prior to the Church permitting Communion in the hand in recent years? Just looking for the proper history…
Click to expand...
Canon 2320 of the 1917 code imposed an “automatic excommunication” on those who intentionally cast the sacred species away as a sign of irreverence or denial of the doctrine of the “real presence” (I use this as shorthand only and mean to include the entire doctrine) or carried it away with a malicious purpose. This would have included taking the sacred species from the tabernacle for such purpose. The remission of the penalty was reserved to the Apostolic See, as it is in the case of the present canon 1367. Under the former code, the offender was branded with canonical infamy, and that designation carried certain other ecclesiastical penalties.

Inadvertently touching the sacred species, or even touching it to protect it against abuse, would not have constituted a sacrilegious action. The essence of the sacrilege then, as it is now, was malicious disrespect for the Lord.

Simply receiving it in the hand devoutly but contrary to any liturgical law in a given place and given time in history that prohibited the practice might have been illicit, but would not attain in law to the sacrilege and the penalty.

According to the piety and mentality of the faithful though, it would generally have been viewed as sacrilegious in recent history (i.e., probably from Trent on) until the change in the discipline following Vatican II. As an astute poster remarked earlier, though, discipline does not provide the subject mattter for sacrilege.
 
Thanks! I’ve learned quite a bit from you guys! The article on the red herring was long, but very informative. It’s good to know the Church history about Communion in the hand, as I like to be accurate when discussing issues with others.
 
Good to know all of this information. I prefer though to receive communion on the tongue. Personal preferrance.
When my marriage gets blessed, and I get confirmed,
then I will hopefully receive it on the tongue. Good post!
good information!
 
Whether it was a sacrilege according to Canon Law and all other rules and regulations, back in the forties and fifties we were taught in Catholic Schools by the good Sisters that for a lay person to touch the host or sacred vessels was forbidden and a serious sin. I don’t know if our priests at the time agreed with this viewpoint or not. I was taught by three different orders of Sisters and they all held to this belief. There were many pius things we were taught that I was happy to see go by the boards after Vatican II, not the least of which was that the “Prods” in the public school and the YMCA and YWCA were intent on stealing our souls. Learning that my Lutheran father had a chance of getting into heaven. Being able after almost forty years to understand the rosary enough to appreciate it. 🙂
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Whether it was a sacrilege according to Canon Law and all other rules and regulations, back in the forties and fifties we were taught in Catholic Schools by the good Sisters that for a lay person to touch the host or sacred vessels was forbidden and a serious sin. I don’t know if our priests at the time agreed with this viewpoint or not. I was taught by three different orders of Sisters and they all held to this belief.
Click to expand...
I have also heard this before, and that is why I am asking if the Church ever officially considered it a sacrilege when a lay person touched the Host. So far, I haven’t received any replies that it has. (Except of course, with intent to desecrate)
 
A woman I know swears that the nuns at her school taught her that wearing a bikini was a serious sin. The nuns may well have taught children that “touching the Host is a serious sin” but this is a simplification at best. Sacrilege requires evil intent. Once in the 1960s I was serving as an altar boy when the priest accidentally dropped the ciborium of Hosts, and it and they bounced off the edge of the altar towards the floor. I instinctively grabbed some of them in mid-air to stop them touching the floor. Afterwards I apologised to the priest for touching the Hosts, but he assured me I had committed no sin, as my intent was to respect the Sacrament, not dishonour it.
 
Deacon Ed:
Clearly communion in the hand has taken place historically in the Church (St. Cyril of Jerusalm writes about it in his catechetical lectures), there are paintings showing communion being received in this fashion in the catecombs. St. Basil the Great says that as long as this is the custom there is nothing wrong with it (Letter XCIII: To the Patrician Coesaria, concerning Communion). Clearly since the Church permits this practice it cannot, by definition, be sacrilege.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...

OTOH, can a practice not become a sacrilege, if there is a ruling by an authority in the Church with sufficient competence to legislate on such things, to this effect ? Can’t something be a sacrilege in one part or time of the Church Universal, and not another ?​

After all, something can acquire the character of a mortal sin. An example - appealing from the Pope to a General Council is a crime and a sin: and it is both, because that is what particular canons say it is; because a legislator (in this case, the Pope) has ruled that it is.

It used to be a mortal sin to eat certain foods at particular times in the Church’s year - but that has changed. So it was mortally sinful to eat a steak in Lent in 1950 - but not in 2000. Which means there were opportunities for damnation available in 1950, that are available no longer: which does seem pretty odd :cool: 🙂 ##

If that can happen - why can’t something not sacrilegious, acquire a sacrilegious character ?

ISTM that this excessively canonical approach is what one gets if one relies on laws as a motive for Christians to act - a legal approach doesn’t show why what it legislates for is important; it has no ability to emphasise the gracious & mysterious character of revelation in Christ. So it too readily gets worried over trivia. Law needs a sense of proprtion in those who apply it - without that, it becomes tyrannical, or silly, or inhumane. 😦 ##
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Whether it was a sacrilege according to Canon Law and all other rules and regulations, back in the forties and fifties we were taught in Catholic Schools by the good Sisters that for a lay person to touch the host or sacred vessels was forbidden and a serious sin. I don’t know if our priests at the time agreed with this viewpoint or not. I was taught by three different orders of Sisters and they all held to this belief. There were many pius things we were taught that I was happy to see go by the boards after Vatican II, not the least of which was that the “Prods” in the public school and the YMCA and YWCA were intent on stealing our souls. Learning that my Lutheran father had a chance of getting into heaven. Being able after almost forty years to understand the rosary enough to appreciate it. 🙂
Click to expand...
What was taught in the past, and even today, is not always what the Church Teaches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top