FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? (/showthread.php?tid=41300)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - nsper7 - 01-04-2011

It seems like one of a bigger debates among Catholics is whether 'communion in the hand' (along with the corollary of whether EMHCs are sacrilegious since they are handling the Host as well) is sacrilegious or not. Obviously, the hands that confect the Eucharist (the Priest or Bishop's hands) have to be properly consecrated, but where does it infallibly declare that it is sacrilegious for the laity to handle the Eucharist under proper circumstances (i.e. receiving in the hand; EMHCs dispensing the Hosts to communicants, etc.)?


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Stubborn - 01-05-2011

33. We observe at this point that Communion in the hand effectively diminishes belief in the Real Presence among Catholics.The principal evil of this practice, however, is that it dishonours the Eucharistic Lord, in placing Him in unconsecrated hands; in facilitating the removal of Hosts from the church for sacrilegious purposes, out of caprice or pure ignorance; and in allowing fragments of the Most Blessed Sacrament to drop or to be brushed off fingers, in which Christ exists totally and entirely (“Totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius parte…exsistit.” Council of Trent S.13 cap.3)


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/thorough-comparison-of-traditional.html


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Nic - 01-05-2011

The infallible DOGMATIC Council of Trent puts a lid on that real fast!  :tiphat: Stubborn.


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - lumine - 01-05-2011

(01-04-2011, 11:08 PM)nsper7 Wrote: It seems like one of a bigger debates among Catholics is whether 'communion in the hand' (along with the corollary of whether EMHCs are sacrilegious since they are handling the Host as well) is sacrilegious or not. Obviously, the hands that confect the Eucharist (the Priest or Bishop's hands) have to be properly consecrated, but where does it infallibly declare that it is sacrilegious for the laity to handle the Eucharist under proper circumstances (i.e. receiving in the hand; EMHCs dispensing the Hosts to communicants, etc.)?

It doesn't infallibly state that anywhere, other wise the Vatican couldn't issue indults to countries where the laity are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the hand.


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - lumine - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 12:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 33. We observe at this point that Communion in the hand effectively diminishes belief in the Real Presence among Catholics.The principal evil of this practice, however, is that it dishonours the Eucharistic Lord, in placing Him in unconsecrated hands; in facilitating the removal of Hosts from the church for sacrilegious purposes, out of caprice or pure ignorance; and in allowing fragments of the Most Blessed Sacrament to drop or to be brushed off fingers, in which Christ exists totally and entirely (“Totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius parte…exsistit.” Council of Trent S.13 cap.3)


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/thorough-comparison-of-traditional.html

If anything on our bodies could be considered less worthy than our hands it could be our mouths and tongues.


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Stubborn - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 02:55 PM)lumine Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 11:08 PM)nsper7 Wrote: It seems like one of a bigger debates among Catholics is whether 'communion in the hand' (along with the corollary of whether EMHCs are sacrilegious since they are handling the Host as well) is sacrilegious or not. Obviously, the hands that confect the Eucharist (the Priest or Bishop's hands) have to be properly consecrated, but where does it infallibly declare that it is sacrilegious for the laity to handle the Eucharist under proper circumstances (i.e. receiving in the hand; EMHCs dispensing the Hosts to communicants, etc.)?

It doesn't infallibly state that anywhere, other wise the Vatican couldn't issue indults to countries where the laity are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the hand.

It has always been a teaching of the pre-V2 Church that only consecrated fingers are to touch the consecrated Host. Some of the reasons for this I pasted above.

Our Lord said to eat His Body, not handle His Body. The opportunity for profaning the Sacred Body of Our Lord in many different ways is inherent with the unnecessary handling of It.   

Because NOers and some trads have accepted it as routine does not change what the church used to teach - that it was a sacrilege to touch the consecrated host.

As Mgr. Lefèbvre predicted, this ecumenism [of the NO] “will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith, but will cause countless Catholics to lose it, and will instil total confusion in the minds of many more who will no longer know what is true and what is false” (MD p. 273) .




Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Grasshopper - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 02:59 PM)lumine Wrote: If anything on our bodies could be considered less worthy than our hands it could be our mouths and tongues.

I don't have hard data to back this up, but I have read that, in general, there are more bacteria (and more harmful bacteria) on your hands than in your mouth. Maybe if you just got done washing your hands (with soap) they might be cleaner. But your hands touch nastier stuff than your mouth does.


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Vetus Ordo - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 03:10 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(01-05-2011, 02:59 PM)lumine Wrote: If anything on our bodies could be considered less worthy than our hands it could be our mouths and tongues.

I don't have hard data to back this up, but I have read that, in general, there are more bacteria (and more harmful bacteria) on your hands than in your mouth. Maybe if you just got done washing your hands (with soap) they might be cleaner. But your hands touch nastier stuff than your mouth does.

Also, your hands touch everything, your mouth doesn't.

More importantly yet, when receiving on the tongue, there's no risk of small particles of the Host being lost or trampled. It avoids sacrilege.


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Grasshopper - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 12:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 33. We observe at this point that Communion in the hand effectively diminishes belief in the Real Presence among Catholics.The principal evil of this practice, however, is that it dishonours the Eucharistic Lord, in placing Him in unconsecrated hands; in facilitating the removal of Hosts from the church for sacrilegious purposes, out of caprice or pure ignorance; and in allowing fragments of the Most Blessed Sacrament to drop or to be brushed off fingers, in which Christ exists totally and entirely (“Totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius parte…exsistit.” Council of Trent S.13 cap.3)

I don't see anything here that says it's sacrilegious, though -- just a number of reasons why it's a bad idea. I'm not disagreeing that it's a bad idea, just observing that it's not forbidden anywhere in the above quote. Is there more to it -- like something that says "if anyone ..., let him be anathema"?


Re: Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege? - Stubborn - 01-05-2011

(01-05-2011, 03:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(01-05-2011, 12:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 33. We observe at this point that Communion in the hand effectively diminishes belief in the Real Presence among Catholics.The principal evil of this practice, however, is that it dishonours the Eucharistic Lord, in placing Him in unconsecrated hands; in facilitating the removal of Hosts from the church for sacrilegious purposes, out of caprice or pure ignorance; and in allowing fragments of the Most Blessed Sacrament to drop or to be brushed off fingers, in which Christ exists totally and entirely (“Totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis ipsius parte…exsistit.” Council of Trent S.13 cap.3)

I don't see anything here that says it's sacrilegious, though -- just a number of reasons why it's a bad idea. I'm not disagreeing that it's a bad idea, just observing that it's not forbidden anywhere in the above quote. Is there more to it -- like something that says "if anyone ..., let him be anathema"?

Placing Him in unconsecrated hands is "dishonoring the Eucharistic Lord" and is a sacrilege. Facilitating the removal of Hosts from the church for sacrilegious purposes is a sacrilege. Allowing fragments of the Most Blessed Sacrament to drop or to be brushed off fingers is a sacrilege.