N
nocrazs
Guest
What ever happened to only consecrated hand are allowed to touch the most Blessed Sacrament? 
- Status
P
puzzleannie
Guest
it went out the window with de-sacralizing churches, the sanctuary, the tabernacle, and the rite of communion introduced by overzealous reformers who never read a Vatican II document in their lives.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
Really?? Are we to believe that most priests, bishops, and even the last 3 popes are “overzealous reformers who never read a Vatican II document in their lives?” I thought all three popes, and many of the bishops who were involved in WRITITNG these documents also began the practice stated by the OP!
J
JReducation
Guest
What ever happened to only consecrated hand are allowed to touch the most Blessed Sacrament?
That is not true. It is patently false.
St. Thomas Aquinas said this, but the Church never adopted it. In the Latin Church and in some of the Eastern Churches, deacons have always been Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. A deacon’s hands are not consecrated. The Church consecrates the hands of the priest so that he can consecrate bread and wine, which become the Body and Blood of the Lord. You will hear this expressly said in the Rite of Ordination of Presbyters.
Therefore, in 1983, Canon Law was ammended by Bl. John Paul II to allow non ordained men and women to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The ammendment is possible, because there is no doctrine or moral law and there never was one, that said that only consecrated hands could touch the consecrated host.
This was a discipline, not a doctrine or a moral law. The practice of Extraodinary Ministers of Holy Communion dates back to the early Church when monks and nuns in cloistered monasteries took Holy Communion to the sick in their religious houses. Many monasteries did not have a priest or a deacon. The term Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is a new term, but the practice is not new. It was not common in parishes. To the laity, it feels new. To religious who live in monasteries or friaries, it does not feel new.
In many religious communities of men the religious were given communion in the hand as early as 5th century and the custom changed by regions, not universally. You must remember that many monks and friars are not priests. In fact, very early in the history of the monastic movement and the mendicant movement (friars) the priests made up less than 1% of the religious men. Even in houses where there was a priest, the priest would give each friar or monk communion in the hand to avoid distinguishing himself from the lay members.
This whole idea of maintaining a distinction between priest and laity is a layman’s vision, not the vision of the Church. In the mind of the Church, the priest is set apart from the laity, not because he distributes Holy Communion, but because he presides at the mass, leading the people in offering the sacrifice. Even the proclamation of the Gospel is a ministry that he shares with the deacon along with the distribution of Holy Communion.
There is a difference between the Minister of the Eucharist, who must be a priest or bishop and the Minister of Holy Communion who must be a deacon, priest or bishop.
Unfortunately, our catechesis prior to the revised code of 1983 was not as good as we think. Many things were taught because this saint or that doctor said so, but some of these things were never adopted as Church law. This is one of those. Aquinas did say this. The Church disagreed with him and never adopted his position on the matter. In some places, acolyte also distributed communion to the sick. Acolytes are not clerics. They have always belonged to the lay state. Usually, they are male religious; therefore, they are not part of the laity. The Church distinguishes between the lay state and the laity. But that’s another subject. For the purpose of this question, it’s just important to know that the Catholic Church never embraced the notion that only consecrated hands could touch the Eucharist. If that were the case, deacons, acolytes, abbots, friars, monks and cloistered nuns would have been in big trouble.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
corsair
Guest
I’m siding with Puzzleannie on this issue. No ofense to others.
J
jam070406
Guest
Me too.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. If you take that position. They how to do you explain the deacon? His hands are not consecrated and he has always distributed Holy Communion.
How do you explain monks, nuns and friars who are not priests, but have always touched the Eucharist and their hands are no consecrated?
How do you explain catechists in mission countries who distributed Holy Communion to the faithful in mission stations where a deacon or a priest would only go once a month?
The fact that the practice of CITH and EMHC was made wider does not mean that it never existed. Therefore, we cannot say that it is the product of “desacralizing” anything. These practices existed for centuries.
What Puzzleannie is mistakenly saying is that the practice of others, besides the priest, touching the host is new. That’s not true. It is not new. It is more common today, but more common does not make something new.
We can agree or disagree on whether it should be more common, but we cannot teach a falsehood.
To say that only consecrated hands were allowed to touch the host is a falsehood. Deacons do not have consecrated hands, neither in the West or the East. Would you want to take away their right to touch the host?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Big_Feet
Guest
This is an incredible statement, and should be heard adhered to.
Thank you, Brother JR!
N
nickybr38
Guest
How come you guys are responding to comments that seem to have disappeared? I’m so confused. Haha. Feels like seeing only half a conversation.
Brother, thanks for your comments. There was some information there I hadn’t heard before (IE: Deacons).
Brother, thanks for your comments. There was some information there I hadn’t heard before (IE: Deacons).
B
Big_Feet
Guest
It looks like the moderator, or original posters deleted some comments that were made.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I didn’t think we could delete our own posts so it must have been a moderator. Interesting! I love a mystery…
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thread split? 
We have a short memory, don’t we? I mean humanity has a short memory, no?
We can’t even remember the names of anyone in our family past more than four generations back. We think natural childbirth, organic food, and home based businesses are inventions of our enlightened age when they are really as old as mankind.
-Tim-
We have a short memory, don’t we? I mean humanity has a short memory, no?
We can’t even remember the names of anyone in our family past more than four generations back. We think natural childbirth, organic food, and home based businesses are inventions of our enlightened age when they are really as old as mankind.
-Tim-
B
Big_Feet
Guest
ok… not sure where the other half of the thread went during the split, then…Thread split?
We have a short memory, don’t we? I mean humanity has a short memory, no?
We can’t even remember the names of anyone in our family past more than four generations back. We think natural childbirth, organic food, and home based businesses are inventions of our enlightened age when they are really as old as mankind.
-Tim-
and I didnt realize the moderators did this. I have only been active for the past month on these forums.
B
Boulder257
Guest
Well said brother.That is not true. It is patently false.
St. Thomas Aquinas said this, but the Church never adopted it. In the Latin Church and in some of the Eastern Churches, deacons have always been Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. A deacon’s hands are not consecrated. The Church consecrates the hands of the priest so that he can consecrate bread and wine, which become the Body and Blood of the Lord. You will hear this expressly said in the Rite of Ordination of Presbyters.
Therefore, in 1983, Canon Law was ammended by Bl. John Paul II to allow non ordained men and women to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The ammendment is possible, because there is no doctrine or moral law and there never was one, that said that only consecrated hands could touch the consecrated host.
This was a discipline, not a doctrine or a moral law. The practice of Extraodinary Ministers of Holy Communion dates back to the early Church when monks and nuns in cloistered monasteries took Holy Communion to the sick in their religious houses. Many monasteries did not have a priest or a deacon. The term Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is a new term, but the practice is not new. It was not common in parishes. To the laity, it feels new. To religious who live in monasteries or friaries, it does not feel new.
In many religious communities of men the religious were given communion in the hand as early as 5th century and the custom changed by regions, not universally. You must remember that many monks and friars are not priests. In fact, very early in the history of the monastic movement and the mendicant movement (friars) the priests made up less than 1% of the religious men. Even in houses where there was a priest, the priest would give each friar or monk communion in the hand to avoid distinguishing himself from the lay members.
This whole idea of maintaining a distinction between priest and laity is a layman’s vision, not the vision of the Church. In the mind of the Church, the priest is set apart from the laity, not because he distributes Holy Communion, but because he presides at the mass, leading the people in offering the sacrifice. Even the proclamation of the Gospel is a ministry that he shares with the deacon along with the distribution of Holy Communion.
There is a difference between the Minister of the Eucharist, who must be a priest or bishop and the Minister of Holy Communion who must be a deacon, priest or bishop.
Unfortunately, our catechesis prior to the revised code of 1983 was not as good as we think. Many things were taught because this saint or that doctor said so, but some of these things were never adopted as Church law. This is one of those. Aquinas did say this. The Church disagreed with him and never adopted his position on the matter. In some places, acolyte also distributed communion to the sick. Acolytes are not clerics. They have always belonged to the lay state. Usually, they are male religious; therefore, they are not part of the laity. The Church distinguishes between the lay state and the laity. But that’s another subject. For the purpose of this question, it’s just important to know that the Catholic Church never embraced the notion that only consecrated hands could touch the Eucharist. If that were the case, deacons, acolytes, abbots, friars, monks and cloistered nuns would have been in big trouble.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
nocrazs
Guest
No I haven’t deleted anything…
J
jam070406
Guest
I didn’t mean to offend or speak negatively of anyone. I thought I knew what the OP and other posters were referring to. Perhaps I didn’t and spoke in haste, without explaining. I apologize to anyone I offended. 
A
adrift
Guest
You can delete your post for about 20 minutes after posting then you may ask a moderator to delete it. It is best to pause and see a preview of your post before you hit the send button.I didn’t think we could delete our own posts so it must have been a moderator. Interesting! I love a mystery…
The question I have is how did we receive Holy Communion without touching? I don’t remember our tongues being blessed.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Brother JR; I respect and support everything you’ve written here. A Deacon’s hands may not be consecrated but he is a validly Ordained Minister of the Eucharist. The fact alone that he is ordained puts him humbly in direct service to the priest. Many people in the Church scattered about often put a Deacon on equal footing with a lay EMHC. That I find disturbing. He is not, he’s an ordained minister. People often choose to ignore that.That is not true. It is patently false.
St. Thomas Aquinas said this, but the Church never adopted it. In the Latin Church and in some of the Eastern Churches, deacons have always been Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. A deacon’s hands are not consecrated. The Church consecrates the hands of the priest so that he can consecrate bread and wine, which become the Body and Blood of the Lord. You will hear this expressly said in the Rite of Ordination of Presbyters.
Therefore, in 1983, Canon Law was amended by Bl. John Paul II to allow non ordained men and women to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The amendment is possible, because there is no doctrine or moral law and there never was one, that said that only consecrated hands could touch the consecrated host.
This was a discipline, not a doctrine or a moral law. The practice of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion dates back to the early Church when monks and nuns in cloistered monasteries took Holy Communion to the sick in their religious houses. Many monasteries did not have a priest or a deacon. The term Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is a new term, but the practice is not new. It was not common in parishes. To the laity, it feels new. To religious who live in monasteries or friaries, it does not feel new.
In many religious communities of men the religious were given communion in the hand as early as 5th century and the custom changed by regions, not universally. You must remember that many monks and friars are not priests. In fact, very early in the history of the monastic movement and the mendicant movement (friars) the priests made up less than 1% of the religious men. Even in houses where there was a priest, the priest would give each friar or monk communion in the hand to avoid distinguishing himself from the lay members.
This whole idea of maintaining a distinction between priest and laity is a layman’s vision, not the vision of the Church. In the mind of the Church, the priest is set apart from the laity, not because he distributes Holy Communion, but because he presides at the mass, leading the people in offering the sacrifice. Even the proclamation of the Gospel is a ministry that he shares with the deacon along with the distribution of Holy Communion.
There is a difference between the Minister of the Eucharist, who must be a priest or bishop and the Minister of Holy Communion who must be a deacon, priest or bishop.
Unfortunately, our catechesis prior to the revised code of 1983 was not as good as we think. Many things were taught because this saint or that doctor said so, but some of these things were never adopted as Church law. This is one of those. Aquinas did say this. The Church disagreed with him and never adopted his position on the matter. In some places, acolyte also distributed communion to the sick. Acolytes are not clerics. They have always belonged to the lay state. Usually, they are male religious; therefore, they are not part of the laity. The Church distinguishes between the lay state and the laity. But that’s another subject. For the purpose of this question, it’s just important to know that the Catholic Church never embraced the notion that only consecrated hands could touch the Eucharist. If that were the case, deacons, acolytes, abbots, friars, monks and cloistered nuns would have been in big trouble.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The saddest part I find since 1983 is something perhaps voiced in what puzzleannie says in the poster who quoted her. It’s the liturgical abuse that’s heartbreaking since 1983. Increasing lack of training and reverence by lay EMHC’s.
That’s where my critique respectfully stands. Today’s Mass is more about people than it rather should be Jesus Christ our Savior Sacrificed at Mass for the expiation of sins.
As a lay person I have to gather every fiber of strength at Mass when humbly going up the aisle to receive the Real Presence of Jesus miraculously inside the Eucharist. A sincere genuine Act of Faith…Yes I Believe Amen! I never feel worthy to receive my Lord. Anytime Me, Myself and I becomes complacent in my Faith in the Eucharist it is then I’ve lost my Faith.
I’m at a loss of words right now how I might articulate all this in better terms. Given all the ruddy distractions of the weakness of the flesh and of the world its a fight to believe.
I take nothing of this for granted.
Peace
Chris
B
Bob_Aliano
Guest
The OP was probably referring to the teaching I also received as a youngster in Catholic School; the laity are never, never, never to handle a consecrated host. Regardless of whether this is doctrine, mere teaching or some pipe dream of the brothers and nuns, it was taught and a great many of us retained that teaching along with the rest of our formation. I never heard a teacher say this is for real but you can disregard that part of your lesson, it’s just a joke. I also think the OP meant ordained rather than consecrated.
Deacons and sisters were mentioned as evidence of an early form of EMHC; the deacons are ordained as far as I know and I don’t remember ever seeing a nun handle the Eucharist.
I prefer to receive from the priest so when I attend an OF Mass I intentionally sit where I can get in that line for communion, it isn’t an issue at an EF Mass. I realize that receiving from an EMHC is valid but I’d rather not if at all possible and especially not from a female EMHC, my preference, my bias.
Deacons and sisters were mentioned as evidence of an early form of EMHC; the deacons are ordained as far as I know and I don’t remember ever seeing a nun handle the Eucharist.
I prefer to receive from the priest so when I attend an OF Mass I intentionally sit where I can get in that line for communion, it isn’t an issue at an EF Mass. I realize that receiving from an EMHC is valid but I’d rather not if at all possible and especially not from a female EMHC, my preference, my bias.
J
JReducation
Guest
What ever happened to only consecrated hand are allowed to touch the most Blessed Sacrament?
The point that you’re making is a legitimate topic for discussion, not here, because we have no right to make changes. It’s really a discussion for theologians, liturgists, bishops and the Vatican. That’s why I avoid discussion about the EMHC or CITH. I find it silly for a bunch of us to discuss something that no one has given us the authority to change or that those in authority are not interested in hearing from us on this subject. If someone were committing a sacrilege, then the hierarchy wants to know about it.
However, the OP’s question is about consecrated hands. The response to which I responded alleged that the this had stopped as a result of desacralizing this or that. That response was incorrect.
All ordained ministers, whether their hands are consecrated or not have the right to touch the Eucharist. That is not new. It looks new to Latin Catholics, because we stopped ordaining permanent deacons for several hundred years. As Timothy says, we forget our own grandparents’ names and then we claim that they never existed.
As to non-ordained men and women touching the Eucharist, that is not new either. It goes back to 6th century monasticism. It was later picked up by the Franciscans in the 13th century. Many of the friars were acolytes. An acolyte is not a cleric. However, these acolytes were often sent to take communion to the sick, because friaries only had one or two priests and no deacons. Monks and friars banned the permanent diaconate long before the Latin Church stopped the practice. To this day, they still do not ordain permanent deacons, except by indult from the major superior. Therefore, many friars are not clerics, but we do take communion to the sick and we do distribute communion at mass. We’ve done this for centuries. The laity does not know it, because friars all wear the same habit. People see our habit and assume that we’re priests.
This narrows things down to your concern. Is the EMHC being overused? A second question can be whether communion on the hand, for the laity, is a good idea. If you try to take it away from non-ordained religious, because the laity does not like it, the laity may find itself in a serious pickle with male religious. I wouldn’t go there. One has to know how to pick his battles.
I believe we can legitimately ask the hierarchy about EMHC and about CITH. We also have to be very humble and accept that we live in a Church that is governed by hierarchs, meaning priests. Those of us who are not priests, have no power in the Church. We have a passive voice, which is different from real power. We have to accept their response.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status