The manner of administering the
Blessed Sacrament falls in the category of ecclesiastical discipline and not
divine law, so Communion in the hand cannot be evil per se. It is inconceivable
that the church could have implemented an evil practice universally for at
least nine centuries in the West and eleven centuries in the East. Such a view
would undoubtedly fall under the condemnation of the Council of Trent: “If
any one says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the
Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to
impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”[1]
Now some might argue that although Communion in the
hand is not evil per se, it is extrinsically less reverent than reception on
the tongue. Aside from the issue of profanation, there is nothing intrinsically
superior about the tongue. The point of contention is the posture of reception,
such as standing versus kneeling. I would grant that kneeling is extrinsically
more reverent than standing, supposing that it isn’t connected with any other
acts of devotion such as bowing or kneeling before the reception of the Blessed
Sacrament. However, the current liturgical rubrics for the Roman Rite specifically
mandates that each “communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a
gesture of reverence.”[2]
This is in accord with ancient liturgical custom of prostrating oneself before
the Blessed Sacrament prior to reception. For example, St. Augustine writes,
And
because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for
our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped… and
not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping…
Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually
understood.[3]
If we wish to argue effectively against the custom
of communion in the hand, there are essentially two approaches we can take.
First, we can note that Communion on the tongue greatly reduces profanation of
the Blessed Sacrament. And secondly, we can note the historical context in
which the custom of Holy Communion in the hand was reintroduced. When
discussing the topic of Communion in the hand, we shouldn’t look at it as an
isolated incident, but rather in the context of a series of liturgical changes
that took place in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which were not
called for by the council itself (e.g., versus populum, altar girls, etc.). According to Gregory DiPippo,
It
is a thoroughy well-documented fact that Communion in the hands was revived in
the 1960s not from any desire to return to the custom of Apostolic times, but
as a calculated act of rebellion against the law and discipline of the Church,
and the authority of the Papacy; Paul VI himself acknowledged this in the
decree by which he permitted Communion in the hands. As such, it could not be
seen or received as anything other than a scandal and an act of
desacralization, which is why, when the bishops of the world were asked in 1969
about whether it was a good idea, they overwhelmingly responded in the
negative.
In
the decree Memoriale Domini, Paul VI noted that “the vast majority of
bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if
it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual
culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.” We cannot simply erase
that aspect of the history of how Communion in the hand came back into use. We
cannot simply pretend that the dangers which Paul VI himself identified in the
new practice, “a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of
profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine”, are not now omnipresent in the
Church.[4]
He
continues,
The partial similarity between the reforms introduced into
the Roman Rite after Vatican II, and customs attested to in ancient sources are
now long dead, and are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The reformers and
rebels did not look at the practices of the ancient Church, and decide to
introduce into the Roman Rite the fullness of what is good and beautiful in
them. They decided ahead of time what they were going to change (often on the
basis of specious or historically false pretexts, or their own personal
ideological interests), and then rooted around in various sources to find a justification
for what they had already decided to change. This procedure was stupid and
dishonest, and even members of the Consilium itself such as Cardinal Antonelli,
Monsignor Aimé-Georges Martimort and Fr. Bouyer, expressed grave
dissatisfaction with the results to which it led.[5]
The liturgical (de)formers
were undoubtedly violating the law of the church by distributing Communion in
the hand. The custom itself had long been prohibited by the Western Church. We find
an explicit prohibition against the custom in the 9th century Council
of Rouen (c. 878), and the 10th – 11th century, Ordo
Romanus VI, which prohibits subdeacons from
receiving Communion in the hand, implying a general prohibition for the laity
as well.
If the contrary usage, namely, of
placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in
order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s
often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the
duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make
this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or
false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and
that any other improprieties be carefully removed.
Likewise, Bishop Romeo Blanchette of Joliet, writes,
I said, we are now going to
discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we
have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do
that would be to ask the ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the
contrary usage prevails. The ordinary should know, he is the shepherd of the
diocese. He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey, and
his laity have been asked to obey, so if anybody knows whether the contrary
usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that
the first step—finding out whether or not the usage prevails—could be verified,
and if it were verified, then we could go on with the rest of the agenda. But
if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second
step? That was my motion.[6]
However, according to
pseudo-traditionalist Michael Davies,
The clear meaning of Memoriale Domini is that the abuse was only to be tolerated where
Communion in the hand had become established by May 1969. However, the Vatican
gave way and agreed to approve it wherever and whenever the practice might
become established. Once again, it is typical of the “Conciliar Church” that no
criteria were provided for deciding what was meant by “established”. Did it
mean just one priest giving Communion in the hand to one person in the whole of
the U.S.A.? Did it mean 50% of the parishes in every diocese?
As I already stated, Communion in
the hand is not against divine law, so it is not inherently an abuse. Something
is only an abuse because it violates the law of the legislator (i.e., the
pope). Since the pope granted permission wholesale without much concern for
whether the custom had actually been established,
the argument really becomes a moot point.
In his article on the reintroduction
of Communion in the hand, Fr. Richard Heilman, also argues,
In
1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner
two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand.
The following year – which coincided with the end of Bernardin’s term as
president – brought one final attempt. Bernadin appointed Archbishop Quinn, who
became Bernardin’s immediate successor as NCCB president, to be the chief
lobbyist for Communion in the hand. During the proceedings a brave bishop requested
a survey of the bishops be taken – this survey would ask each bishop whether or
not Communion in the hand was widely practiced in his diocese, for without the
practice’s current wide-use the first condition of the indult would not be
satisfied.
Of
course, everyone knew that Communion in the hand was not a previously
established practice in the United States.
Though
his request was seconded and supported in writing by five other bishops,
Bernardin had the motion dismissed as “out of order.” The bishops then voted
... only to once more fall short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did
not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee
votes” from any bishop he could find – including retired bishops who no longer
administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the
two-thirds majority.[7]
Contrary
to Fr. Richard Heilman, there is nothing unlawful about gathering absentee
votes for bishops’ conference, since this is a common practice.
Here
on, I would like to challenge some of the bad arguments adduced against the custom
of Communion in the hand.
1)
Was a hand cloth used when receiving
Holy Communion?
Some traditionalists have argued
that the custom of Communion in the hand was different in the early church than
it is today. For example, Michael Davies writes,
It is worth noting that the practice being imposed by our
contemporary liturgical commissars is not that described by St. Cyril, or
described for that matter in standard works of reference. Women did not receive
the Host directly into their bare hands, but were compelled to cover them with
a cloth called the dominica, brought
with them for the purpose. The innovators cannot, thus, even claim to be
reviving an ancient Catholic custom. They are imposing upon the often
unsuspecting faithful a manner of receiving Communion invented by the 16th
century Protestant Reformers.[8]
The term ‘dominica’ in Latin is
translated as the Lord’s day. The hand linen that was used in the early church
was called a dominicale. The dominicale was used exclusively by women and the
practice itself doesn’t seem to have been a universal norm since we only find
it mentioned in the Synod
of Auxerre[9]
and the sermon of Caesarius of Arles.[10] However, it is undeniable that men received Holy Communion with
their bare hands as evidenced by the writings of Ss. John Chrysostomand Caesarius.
John Chrysostom:
[11]
Tell me, would you choose to come
to the Sacrifice with unwashed hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather
choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus
scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and
thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into
the soul it is dissolved entirely.
St.
Caesarius of Arles:[12]
Omnes viri,
quando communicare desiderant, lavant manus suas; et omnes mulieres nitida
exhibeant linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant
When they desire to communicate,
all men wash their hands, and all women show their bright (i.e white)
handkerchief when they receive the Body of Christ.
The Latin term ‘exhibeant’
means bright, as in a white cloth.
The term ‘linteamen’ was a cloth equivalent to a handkerchief.[13]
According
to the Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities,
A fair linen cloth used by
females at the time of the reception of the Eucharist. So far all the
authorities are agreed, but it is a controverted point whether it was a white
veil worn over the head, or a napkin which females received the Eucharist,
which they were forbidden to touch with the naked hand. The latter view is that
which has the greatest currency, and can reckon among its supporters such
weighty liturgical authorities as Cardinal Bona (Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 17);
Habert (Archie-rat., part. x. obs. viii.); Mabillon (de Liturg. Gall. lib. i.
c. v. r. xxv.); Macer (Hierolez., sub voc.); Voss. (Thes. Theol. de Symbol.
Coen. Dom.), and others. It is chiefly based on two canons of the Council of
Auxerre, A.D. 578, one (can. 36) forbidding women to receive the Eucharist with
the bare hand; the other (can. 42) enacting that every woman when she
communicates should have her dominicalis or else postpone her communion. These
two canons are interpreted to refer to the same subject, and the dominicalis
has been thus identified with the fail linen cloth with which the hand was to
be covered at the time of communion. This custom is expressly mentioned in a
sermon printed among Augustine's, but erroneously ascribed to him, in which we
read, "omnes quando communicare desiderant lavent manus, et omnes mulieres
nitida exhibeant linteamenta ut Corpus Christi accipiant." It will be
observed that nowhere is this napkin expressly called dominicale.
The other view – that the
dominicale was a head-covering, a veil (1 Cor 11:13) is strongly supported by
Ducange (sub voce); Labbe (ad Council Autissiod); and Baluzius (Not. in
Gratian. caus. xxxiii. quaest. iii. c. 19), and is accepted by our own Biagham
(bk. xv. ch. v. # 7). The passage from an ancient MS. Penitential given by
Ducange, forbidding a woman to communicate if she has not her
"dominicale" on her head, "si mulier communicans dominicale suum
super caput suum non habuerit, &c.," is express for this view if it be
correctly quoted. The canons cited by Baluzius (apud Bingham, l.c.) from the
Council of Macon, "in which the dominicale is expressly styled the veil
which the women wore upon their heads at the communion," do not appear in
the acts of either the first or second Council of that name. This, however
appears the more probable view.[14]
2) Why not also restore those devotional acts
usually associated with Communion in the hand?
Michael Davies[15]
and Peter Kwasniewski[16]
cite the fact that some of the church fathers, alongside receiving Holy
Communion in the hand, also performed certain devotional acts such as touching
their eyes and forehead with the Eucharist (e.g., Aphraates,[17]
Cyril of Jerusalem,[18]
John Chrysostom,[19] Theodoret of Cyrus,[20]
Isaac of Antioch,[21]
and John of Damascus[22]).
They argue that if we are to retrieve the custom of Communion in the Hand, why
not also retrieve the devotional acts usually associated with the adoration of
the sacrament?
To this argument I respond, these devotional acts seem
to be specific to certain regions in the East, and were by no means universal.
We don’t find such practices mentioned in any of the Western Fathers or in Eastern
Fathers such as Origen of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, or Basil the
Great.
3) Did Communion on the Tongue exist
simultaneously alongside Communion in the Hand?
Some traditionalists have suggested that the custom
of administering Communion on the tongue existed simultaneously alongside
Communion in the hand. Here, I would like to respond some of the passages
typically cited in support of this thesis.
a)
In the Decretum of Yves of Chartres, bishop Yves cites
a quote purportedly by Pope Sixtus I (d. c. 115):[23]
Latin: A
nobis et reliquis episcopis, ceterisque Domini sacerdotibus statutum est, ut
sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur
hominibus.
English:
We have established [in agreement with the]
bishops and priests that the sacred vessels are not to be handled by any other
than the men consecrated by the Lord to handle them.
This quote is derived from the Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals, which are 9th century forgeries attributed to the early
church fathers. The rationale for citing this passage is that if the laity were
forbidden from handling the sacred vessels, then they should likewise be prohibited
from touching the consecrated host, which is infinitely holier than the sacred
vessels. Although this could serve as a rationale for changing the practice, it
doesn’t address the historical question of the custom used in the early church.
b) Eusebius
provides us this quote from St. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 190 – 265):
But as I had commanded that persons
at the point of death, if they requested it, and especially if they had asked
for it previously, should receive remission, that they might depart with a good
hope, he gave the boy a small portion of the Eucharist, telling him to soak it
and let the drops fall into the old man's mouth. The boy returned with it, and
as he drew near, before he entered, Serapion again arousing, said, 'You have
come, my child, and the presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he
directed, and let me depart.' Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into
his mouth. And when he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up
the ghost.[24]
This
is an example of clinical communion, meaning, the Host was dipped in unconsecrated
water or wine to make it easier to digest. This does not indicate the general
norm of the church. According to William Herbert Freestone,
From
very early times there was in use the practice of steeping the Host in some
unconsecrated liquid in order to render more easy its consumption. This
practice was confined to cases of clinical communion in which the recipient was
wholly or partly unconscious, or in the extremity of weakness. Since there was
no intention to do more than administer the consecrated Bread by itself in a
form that could be easily swallowed, we may distinguish this sort of intinction
by the term "non-sacramental." It would be a matter of indifference
whether the liquid employed to steep the Host were water or wine or a mixture
of both. In this manner, as we gather from the testimony of Dionysus of
Alexandria (preserved by Eusebius), it was customary to communicate persons in
extremis in the third century. Moreover, so long as the ancient tradition of
using the single species of Bread for viaticum continued in general use, this
form of intinction would doubtless be employed whenever necessary.[25]
c) Pope
St. Eutychian (275-283):[26]
Latin: Nullus praesumat tradere
communionem laico aut feminae, ad deferendum infirmo.
English:
Let no laymen or women presume to carry communion to the sick.
This quote says nothing about communion in the
hand, but simply prohibits laymen from taking communion to the sick.
d) The
3rd Canon of the Council of Saragossa (379-81) and the 14th
Canon of the Council of Toledo (400) excommunicated anyone who received Holy
Communion in the hand.
According to Anglican liturgical
historian, Paul Bradshaw,[27]
these canons tried to prevent the sacrament from being taken home, and didn’t
address the question of the manner of administration of the Blessed Sacrament.
e)
In his 91st sermon, Pope Leo I writes: “For
that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith.”[28]
The Latin reads, “Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur” (Serm.
91.3).
According to Catholic liturgical historian Matias Augé,
To present this text as a witness
in favor of communion on the tongue is possible only if one makes a superficial
interpretation of the Latin text. The expression ore sumitur and similar ones
are frequent in the ancient and modern liturgical texts: already in the
Veronese Sacramentary, the oldest document of the Roman liturgy, we find the
classic prayer after communion that is expressed in these terms: Quod ore
sumpsimus, domine, quaesumus, mente capiamus… It is established that ore sumere
simply means “to receive [the Sacrament],” which, naturally, is received through
the mouth and therefore does not affirm in itself any rite in particular; even
receiving the host in the hand, it then is necessarily carried to the mouth!
Therefore, the affirmation in question can be contemporary to the usage of
communion on the hand and, in any case, does not prove that Pope Leo the Great
distributed communion on the tongue.[29]
f)
In
his Dialogues, Gregory the Great (c.
540 – 604) cites an instance where Pope Agapitus (535 – 536) distributed
Communion the tongue.
Not long after, about business
concerning the Goths, the most blessed man Agapitus, Bishop of this holy church
of Rome (in which by God's providence I do now serve), went to the Emperor
Justinian. And, as he was travelling through Greece, a dumb and lame man was
brought unto him for help. The holy man carefully demanded of his kinsfolk,
that brought him thither and stood there weeping, whether they did believe that
it was in his power to cure him: who answered, that they did firmly hope that
he might help him in the virtue of God by the authority of St. Peter: upon
which words forthwith the venerable man fell to his prayers, and beginning
solemn mass, he offered sacrifice in the sight of almighty God: which being
ended, he came from the altar, took the lame man by the hand, and straightways,
in the presence and sight of all the people, he restored him to the use of his
legs: and after he had put our Lord's body into his mouth, that
tongue, which long time before had not spoken, was loosed. At which
miracle all did wonder, and began to weep for joy: and forthwith both fear and
reverence possessed their minds, beholding what Agapitus could do in the power
of our Lord, by the help of St. Peter.[30]
This passage doesn’t
give us any indication as to the prevalence of distributing Holy Communion on
the tongue, since the man in question was "dumb and lame." In another
passage, with equally unique circumstances, Gregory alludes to the practice of
communion in the hand.
Upon a certain day, a young boy that
was a monk, loving his parents more than reason would, went from the Abbey to
their house, not craving the father's blessing beforehand: and the same day
that he came home unto them, he departed this life. And being buried, his body,
the next day after, was found cast out of the grave; which they caused again to
be put in, and again, the day following, they found it as before. Then in great
haste they went to the man of God, fell down at his feet, and with many tears
beseeched him that he would vouchsafe him that was dead of his favour. To
whom the man of God with his own hands delivered the holy communion of our
Lord's body, saying: "Go, and lay with great reverence this our
Lord's body upon his breast, and so bury him": which when they had
done, the dead corpse after that remained quietly in the grave. By which you
perceive, Peter, of what merit he was with our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing the
earth would not give entertainment to his body, who departed this world out of
Benedict's favour.[31]
g) The
earliest account we have of the life of Pope St. Gregory the Great was written by
an anonymous monk of the Whitby monastery (c. 713). He recounts an incident known
as the miracle of the unbelieving matron of
Rome,
Latin: Quod vir Domini videns, clausit manum suam
contra os eius, et nolens ei dare sanctum corpus Domini, posuit super altare,
eiusque vestimento ut sibi placuit abscondit. Missa vero peracta, sibi advocans
interrogavit cur subrideret quando communicare debuit.[32]
English: When the man of God saw this, he
closed his hand as it reached her mouth, not wishing to give her the holy Body
of the Lord; then he placed it on the altar and decided to hide it with his
vestment.[33]
The same incident is
recounted in the Life of St. Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon (c. 720 – 799) [34]
and the Life of Pope St. Gregory by John Hymenoides (d. c. 881). The Vita
Sancti Gregorii
by the anonymous English monk contains several stories of dubious authenticity (e.g., Gregory’s
prayer for Trajan), which raises questions about the authenticity of the
miracle of unbelieving matron. Unless it can be established beyond reasonable
doubt that this incident occurred, it shouldn’t be used as conclusive evidence
that this was the Roman custom.
h) The
Synod of Rouen (650) condemned Communion in the hand to safeguard against
sacrilege.
Most scholars actually
place the council in the year 878 A.D., so it certainly doesn’t constitute as
early evidence. According to Fr. Josef A. Jungmann,
A
general prescription of the Council of Rouen (c. 878) reads as follows:
"Let not the Eucharist be put in the hand of any lay man or woman, but
only in the mouth." The change of custom is contemporaneous with the
transition from leavened to unleavened bread, and is probably related to it.
The delicate pieces of thin wafer almost invited this method of distribution,
since, unlike the pieces of unleavened bread formerly used, they easily adhered
to the moist tongue.[35]
i)
The 6th Ecumenical Council
(680-681) forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
The Sixth Ecumenical
Council did not discuss the custom of communion in the hand, however, the
Council in Trullo (692) did. As a matter of fact, not only did the Council in
Trullo not prohibit Communion in the hand, it did the exact opposite:
Wherefore,
if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of
the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging
his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace.[36]
j)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
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.[37]
In baptism, the whole
person is consecrated to God, which would include both hands and tongue. The
hands are not less worthy to touch the Eucharist than the tongue is. As the
Council in Trullo states, “But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of
gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these
receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring
inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God.”
Some have argued that the
Tridentine baptismal rite included the blessing of the mouth with salt, in anticipation
of the Eucharist.
The Catechism of Trent states:
To the exorcism are added other
ceremonies, each of which, being mystical, has its own clear signification.
When, for instance, salt is put into the mouth of the person to be baptised,
this evidently means that, by the doctrines of faith and by the gift of grace,
he shall be delivered from the corruption of sin, shall experience a relish for
good works, and shall be delighted with the food of divine wisdom.[38]
According
to Catholic Professor of Liturgy Peter McGrail, the blessing and giving of salt was done away with in the
revised Roman Rite.[39]
This
practice is also found in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary, which according M.
Bradford Bedingfield reflects a sixth century Roman practice, although extant
only in eighth century Frankish texts.[40] However,
there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest that the blessing of the mouth was
always a part of the baptismal rite, nor is there any evidence that it existed
in the Eastern baptismal rite.
If
this custom predates the seventh century then there is no inherent conflict
between blessing the mouth and receiving Holy Communion in the hand
since the two would have existed simultaneously.
k) The
Council of Trent (1545-1565):
Now as to the reception of the
sacrament, it has always been 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.[41]
This statement is about
the priest being the ordinary minister of Holy Communion; it says nothing about
communion in the hand although it would have undoubtedly been the practice of
the universal church by this point.
[1] Trent, Session 22, canon 7.
[2] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 160.
[3] Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 98 [99].
[4] Found in the comment section of
the article, “The Continual Spectre of
False Antiquarianism,” by Peter Kwasniewski. http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/11/the-continual-spectre-of-false.htm
[5] Ibid.
[6] National
Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12,
1977.
[7] https://www.romancatholicman.com/truth-communion-hand-standing/
[8] Michael Davies, Communion in the Hand and Other Frauds.
[9] Canon 36. No woman may receive
the holy Eucharist with uncovered hand.
Canon
42. Every woman must at communion have her dominicale (i.e. either the cloth
for covering her hand, cf. c. 36, or a veil for the covering of her head. cf.
Du Cange, s.v. dominicalis).
[10] Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 227,
5.
[12]
The Fathers of the Church: St. Caesarius;
Sermons Volume III (187-238), translated by Sister Mary Mueller, O.S.F.
(Washington DC: CUA Press, 1973), 167.
[13] Anthony Rich, “A
Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities,” (London: Longmans, Green, &
Co., 1873), 387.
[14] William Smith & Samuel Cheetham, “A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities” (Volume I) (London: John
Murray, 1875), 572.
[15] Michael Davies, Communion in the Hand and Other Frauds.
[16] Peter Kwasniewski, Debunking the myth that today’s Communion in
the hand revives an ancient custom.
[17] Aphraates, Hom. 7, 8, ed. G Bert
(TU 3/4), 125,
[18] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:21-22.
[19]
John Chrysostom, In diem natalem DNIC
7 (PG 49:361-62).
[21] Isaac of Antioch, Carmen XVII, ed. G. Bickel 1 (Giesen,
1877), 9.
[22] John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV,
13.
[23] Patrologiae Cursus Completus
(Tomus CLXI) S. Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus, Decretum II, Caput 70, p. 175.
Sacra
vasa non ab aliis quam a consecratis Domino hominibus esse traclanda. Sixtus a
Petro papa vi in primo decretorum suorum: Omnibus in Christo dilectis
fratribus. (De const., dist. 1, c. In sancta hac apost.) A nobis et reliquis
episcopis, ceterisque Domini sacerdotibus statutum est, ut sacra vasa non ab
aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus. Indignum enim
valde est, ut sacra Domini vasa, quecunque sint, humanis usibus serviant, et ab
aliis quam a Domino famulantibus eique dicatis tractentur viris, ne pro talibus
presumptionibus iratus Dominus plagam imponat populo suo.
[24] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.44
[25] William
Herbert Freestone, “Alcuin Club
Collections,” Volume 21 (The Sacrament Reserved), (London: A.R. Mowbray
& Co., 1917), 144.
[26] Eutichian, Exhortatio ad presbyteros:
PL 5, 165.
[27]
Paul Bradshaw, “Reconstructing Early
Christian Worship,” (London: SPCK, 2009).
[28] Leo, Sermon 91.3.
[29] Translated
from Italian by Franciso Schulte, OSB. Original: “A proposito della communione
sulla mano,” Ecclesia Orans 8 (1991),
293-304.
[30] Gregory the Great, Dialogues, III, 3.
[31] Gregory the Great, Dialogues, II, 24.
[32] Francis Aidan Gasquet, “A
life of Pope St. Gregory the Great,” by an anonymous monk of Whitby
monastery (Westminster: Art & Book Co., 1904), 24.
[33] “The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby,"
translated by Bertram Colgrave (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 107.
[34] According
to Catholic historian, Hartmann Grisar, the incident as recounted by Paul the
Deacon is a later interpolation. (cf. Hartmann Grisar, Paulus Diaconus,
Vita beatissimi Gregorii papae urbis
Romane, ed. H. Hrisar, ZKTh 11 (1887)).
[35] Josef A Jungmann and Francis A
Brunner, “The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its
Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia),” (New York: Benziger, 1951),
381-382.
[36] Council in Trullo, can. 101.
[37] Thomas Aquinas, ST. III, 82, 3, Rep. Obj. 8.
[38] Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, translated by
John A. McHugh & Charles J Callan (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1947), 194.
[39] Peter McGrail, “The Rite of Christian Initiation: Adult
Rituals and Roman Catholic Ecclesiology,” (London: Taylor & Francis,
2016), 126.
[40] M. Bradford Bedingfield, “The Dramatic Liturgy of Anglo-Saxon England,”
(Woodbridge Uk: Boydell Press, 2002), 173.
[41] Trent, Session 13, chapter 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment