Communion By Hand
Self-Communicating ?

Written By

Various Authors

CREDITS

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

Contents:


1. Statements From Popes, Saints and Church Councils .
2. History of Communion by Hand.
3. Endnotes & Conclusion.

 Statements From Popes, Saints & Church Councils





St. Sixtus I (circa 115)


`` The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those
   consecrated to the Lord . " 


St. Basil the Great (330-379) 

``The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is 
     permitted only in times of persecution.`` 

The Council of Saragossa (380) 

Ex-Communicated anyone who dared continue recieving 
Holy Communion by hand.
 
This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.


The Synod of Rouen (650)

"Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman 
 but only in their mouths."


The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)

Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, 
threatening transgressors with Ex-Communication.


St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) 

"The Body of Christ must not be touched by anyone other than a 
consecrated priest.  No other person has the right to touch it, 
except in case of extreme necessity." 


The Council of Trent (1545-1565) 

"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his 
consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."


Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
 
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained."
	("Memoriale Domini")

Pope John-Paul II

“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).



Historical Considerations on Communion on the Hand
==================================================
By: Fr. McDonald

Here are some patristic and historical considerations on our theme,as well
as an additional aspect.


Was it Universal?

The history of communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the
Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of
course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it
continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy,
after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the
faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up to date sectors of the
Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth
century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

	A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the Faithful to
"make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy
Communion]". This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any
fragments which might remain in one's hands, since just as one wouldn't
let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when
it is a question of the Body of the Lord. 

	According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of
receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the the
Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the
approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed.
These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin,
judgment and punishment;  an over emphasis on the divinity of Christ which
was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of His sacred humanity;
an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a
loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is. 

	In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of
Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters,
Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to
gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent
practice of the "elevation"  —so the mainstream treatment of this period
continues— and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the
Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages,
a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of). 

	It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the
practice of communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of
the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the
communicant developed and —sad to say— was imposed. 

	The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom
whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least
discourage this practice of not allowing the Faithful to "take and eat",
and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the Apostles:
communion in the hand. 

	It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

	The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the
priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his
own hands), and the laity receiving It from him, is an Apostolic
Tradition.[1]

	A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and
from the writings of the Fathers, does not support the assertion that
communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually
supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of communion on the tongue.

	Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

	Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is
an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth
chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of communion in the mouth as the
current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith" [2].
The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if
this were a well established fact. 

	A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the
practice ( according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly
introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In
his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a
miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into
someone's mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope's manner
of giving Holy Communion. 

	These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How
can one reasonablely say that communion in the hand continued as the
official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving
communion on the tongue is a medieval invention? 

	We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the
Faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this
happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest
to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However,
during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and
when the Faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion
to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally
deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when
not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual
nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert,
where they would not have the services of a priest, and, would not want to
give up the practice of daily communion. 

	To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when
not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest
was available, one did not receive in one's hand. 

	So St. Basil(330-379)says clearly that to receive Communion by
one's own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the
case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to
give It.

	"It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave
fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of
persecution when there is no priest or deacon" (Letter 93, our emphasis). 

The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances,
outside of persecution, would be a grave fault [3]. The Saint based his
opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed
Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon,
gave themselves Communion. 

	In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologie
Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing
the practice of communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the
reasoning of St.  Basil that it was persecution that created the
alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all. 

	After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of communion
in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church
authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary
to the custom of the Apostles. 

	Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, "Do not put the
Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their
mouths."  The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not
one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from
giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the
Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an
excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the
presence of a bishop, priest or deacon. 

What about St. Cyril?

Of course, the promoters of "communion in the hand"  generally make little
mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make
constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived
in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil. 

	Dr. Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows:

	"Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on
presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right
hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand,
and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the
Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say:
Amen."  There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also
on to proposes the following: 

	"Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body... "When your
lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand
over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them." 
This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?)recommendation has
caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that
perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint's
successor who wrote it. 

	It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the
Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of
suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius,
St.  Jerome, and St. Augustine. 

	So, in favour of communion in the hand we have a text of dubious
origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable
witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the
mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last
the fifth century. 

Clericalism?

Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred
Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests were not
allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact,
other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving
Communion, not even a priest, could do so in the hand. And so, in the
traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were
assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy
Communion, he did not do so by his own hand: he received on the tongue
form another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop. The same is true
of the Pope himself. 

	When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August
of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and
was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue
according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church. 

	This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no
unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to
distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man,
woman and child into his own "eucharistic minister" and multiply the
handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments. Even
those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy
Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly. 


Endnotes
========

[1] sess. 13, c. 8: "Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was
always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the
communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should
communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical
tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained." In sacramentale
autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a Sacerdotibus
communionem acciperent; Sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos
communicarent:  qui mos, tamquam ex traditione Apostolica descendens,
jure, ac merito retinere debet. 

[2] "Hoc enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur." Serm. 91.3

[3] Just as if I were to say, "It is not a grave fault to miss mass on a
Sunday, if one has to take care of sick person." This implies (what we
already know) that when there is no such excusing cause, it would be a grave
fault.



VALID OBJECTIONS TO COMMUNION IN THE HAND


I.   The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current
practice of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to
the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was
the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will
deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case, that this was
formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the
sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a
denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and His Church, and of the
reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a
prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the hand began spreading
during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It
began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least
as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the
ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and
development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever
more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed
down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of
blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical=
authority. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme
authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of
Christ’s Faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in
Transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded
from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical
establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.
When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the
means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at
least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the
sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way,
ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the
practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and
disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about
some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a
different spirit was at work.

II. The Fragments... If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host
in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately
to mind: The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the
consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ
is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in
each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not
divide Christ.[Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my
emphasis). The Roman Catechism put it this way: Christ, whole and entire,
is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of
either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He
is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but
gives Himself whole and entire to each.... the body of our Lord is
contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.=20
Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these
fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the
number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are
clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc., etc. For
those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to
put an end to communion in the hand: “What about the Fragments?”

III. Who promotes communion in the hand? (This argument might be accused of
the logical fallacy of “guilt by association”. But that argument is not
necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and
their followers) who promote communion in the hand are the same persons
who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord
in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong
emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy
Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed,
they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say.
In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the
Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words
of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of “the idolatry of the intermediate
to the oblivion of the= ultimate”. Well, these are the promoters of
communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional
manner of reception. Why?

IV. “Communion in the hand” is a misnomer. To place the Sacred Host in the
hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy
Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is
happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his
hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his
own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means
the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate
extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even
dissolved. It has been suggested that this practice ought to be renamed as
“common manual self-communication”. 6. Communion in the hand is too casual.
What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our “culture”, it is
food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying
it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on
snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with
children, but not only withe them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to
associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

V. Its fruits... We must be rigorously honest with oursleves. Has this
practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence?
Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, graeter love, and a more abundant
fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking
the Lord’s Body nto our hanads? At least one fruit has manifestly not come
from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the
larger liturgicla reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to
this writer, at least, that communion in the hand must share part of the
blame forthe decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence. 

{n.b-- Over 70% of "Catholics" do not believe in the Real Presence
       This results in an automatic ex-communication }


VI. Was it universal? To show that communion in the hand was once a
universal practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is
habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to
receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable
patrologist could verify: this text is of dubious origin. In fact, it is
more likely from Bishop so and so, a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have
texts of Leo the Great... and Gregory the great... and St. Basil, as well
as...

VII. The Last Supper But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand
at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it
were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests,
or even, bishops. But we must not forget a traditional practice of
middle-eastern hospitality, which was practised in Jesus’ time and which is
still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a
symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence
of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave
it to Judas. Did He place this wet morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be
rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later
in the garden as “Friend”, the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And
if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own hand”.

VIII. Scriptural Considerations... In Holy Communion, we receive the
Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet
lesser manner than do we, it was as follows: And [the Lord] said to me: ...
“But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that
rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I
looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll
was in it ... And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you;
eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my
mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat [“And I opened my mouth, and He
caused me to eat that book” =97 Vulgate]. And he= said to me, “Son of man,
eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate
it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV). It
does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened
His mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word
as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come
down from Heaven. In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic,
Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the
Lord says to us,=20 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land
of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it ... But Israel I would
feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “Iwill fill
it,” not “fill it yourselves”. Now admittedly, this is not in itself a
proof. But it points us in a certain direction.


IX.  All of Mother Teresa’s sisters are united both in their many
hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of
reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue. And it has never been denied,
and implicity reaffirmed that Mother Teresa, when asked what worried her
most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”

Conclusion St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only
what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism,
the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion,
but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch
It. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own
hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active
participation in the ministry of the Eucharist” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).



Back To Main Page

Library Of Files