Skip to main content

Communion in the hand - the floor is stained with His blood

+
JMJ


One of the glaring differences (there are many) between the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Masses is the manner of receiving Holy Communion.

I'll give you a hint - one shows a Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, the other Catholic.

It literally is that simple.

P^3

Courtesy of the Remnant: Commmunion-in-the-hand-the-floor-is-stained-with-his-blood




Communion in the Hand: The Floor Is Stained with His Blood

Written by  Miguel Ángel Yáñez, Spain Correspondent
Rate this item
(40 votes)
comunion en la mano 1920 X 800Translated for The Remnant by Carolina Santos

If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.” … Council of Trent

I have been observing discussions about the topic of “communion in the hand.”  In all of them I notice a set of arguments frequently made by the laity and the clergy alike, some justifying the reception of communion in the hand, others the administration of it, which shows that, despite their good intentions, they do not understand the true nature of the problem at hand.
Dear laity, we must stop thinking in this way:  what I like, what doesn’t offend me, what I think is normal, what Iconsider to be serious, what allows me to have devotion, what I believe, what I think, what read that someone said or did in some unknown century… that is to say, meme, and more me.

Dear priests who want to give communion in the hand and, also, those who don’t want to but do it anyway, you must stop arguing in this way:  I prefer communion in the hand, I believe that I should be obedient above all else, I don’t want any problems, I don’t think it’s that serious, I am not the one who makes this decision, think that if both the Pope and my bishop do it, then I should too… that is to say, meme, and more me.

No, dear laity and clergy, this perspective is completely wrong.  The problem is not youwhat you believe or don’t believe, the consequences for you if you do not give communion in the hand, what they might say to you, what many or few do, not even what the bishop or pope does.  No, no, and no.  I will stop now and say loudly:

The problem is not what is happening to you—the problem is what is happening to Him!

Your point of view is not important, nor is the hypothetical reason that you may or may not have; your good intentions, your desire for obedience; all these arguments collapse under their own weight when seen from His perspective and not from your own.

What is His problem with communion in the hand?

It is dogmatically defined in the Council of Trent that every particle of the Sacred Host is Jesus Christ in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

For this reason, the tiniest particle that might fall to the ground is exactly the same as if the whole Host fell.

And if particles fall to the ground, it is a dogmatic belief that it is the same Jesus Christ, His Body and His Blood, that are now on the ground.

For this reason, if we step on these particles we are stepping on Jesus Christ.  Yes, let me repeat myself:  We are stepping on Jesus Christ.  And we do it through our own fault, willingly, and complicity, not by an uncontrollable accident.

This article appears in the current print edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today and never miss another great Remnant article.

If we would contemplate just for a moment the Dantesque scene that is produced in our churches, we would be horrified.  Rodrigo García’s fantastic illustration provides us with but a glimpse.  Does it seem crude to you?  It is exactly what happens but we don’t see it.

It’s easy to understand the Love that is the Eucharist, the place where Jesus has shown Himself to be the most fragile, where He has risked being contemptibly stomped on in a second, silent and invisible Passion, but one no less cruel.  And it is easy to understand the respect and care with which we should treat the Eucharistic Jesus in His voluntary state of fragility and vulnerability, to which we are obligated in an absolute and inexcusable way, and without which we have no worth.  Our only obligation is to protect Him from everything and everyone, even at the cost of our honor or position.

Some might say that I exaggerate, that there can always be particles in one form or another, and that there may be some indeed; but the thing is that we cannot humanly control a microparticle that, for example, passes by our eyes unnoticed.  It’s a very different thing to say, however, that it falls through our fault, negligence, cowardice, etc.  It’s true that this can also happen when receiving on the knees and without a paten – another responsibility of the priest – but the possibility is infinitely less than if we submit the Host to the friction caused by contact with the hands.

In the many observations that I have made, I have to say that I have never managed to see – although surely there was someone unknown to me who did it, that is, the exception – that not a single communicant who received in the hand tried to remove any particles that might have remained, nor was there even any attempt to look for them.

Any priest who has given communion with a paten knows that even in the Traditional Mass,  there are always particles present; and in the same way, there are always particles that remain on the hand.  The mere act of placing the Host in the hand, and from the hand to the mouth in order to communicate, introduces an unavoidable detachment.  In practice this will mean hundreds of particles profaned and stomped on through our own fault.

All of this becomes even more painful if we think for a moment about how actively this practice is promoted, even forcing First Communicants to receive communion in the hand, as happened in my small town’s parish with the full knowledge, silence, and passivity of the Archbishop of Seville (1).

No priest is obligated to give communion in the hand, and the same canonical legislation that supports it (2), allows the priest to decide not to give it when there is a risk of profanation.  Perhaps there is no risk of profanation in which Jesus Christ falls to the ground and might be stepped on?  Perhaps there is, in this practice, no risk of profanation to the Sacred Host as has been seen recently in Pamplona?  Dear priest who, in good faith, has been giving communion in the hand, look at our illustration, meditate on it, and tell me:  Do you sincerely think that it is harmless to give communion in the hand, even if only to one single person?

No one, I repeat, no one should risk the possibility of the Body of Christ being stepped on and desecrated, and this is what’s done with a single communion in the hand.  Could a law be made requiring a child to expose his mother to the possibility of being stomped on, abused, and violated?  Even if there were such a law, who with the least amount of common sense could maintain that this person has the moral obligation to follow said law?... how much more is it when we are talking about Jesus Christ, our Lord and Creator.

I have no doubt that most of you who give or receive communion in the hand do not have this intention because you continue to see it from your own perspective, that of mememe.  Stop for a moment, reflect, and look at it from His point of view, trampled on the ground or profaned by undesirables, the Church filled with streams of Our Lord’s Blood, and I am sure that you will neither give nor receive in this way again.

If there have been thousands of martyrs that have died for not profaning an image, a holy book… are you going to tolerate the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the same Jesus Christ be profaned and stepped on before your eyes?

I’d rather die than have Our Lord on the ground because of my fault.Notes: 

[- Illustration by Rodrigo García for Adelante la Fe-The Remnant]
- I personally reported to the Archbishop of Seville, Monsignor Asenjo, that the children received, out of obligation, their First Communion in the hand while standing.  His response was that “I can do nothing.”  Poor children, used and manipulated by those who want to wreck the Faith, who should always remember the strong words of Our Lord against those who manipulate the little ones:  “it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea” (Mt 18:6)
- “If there exists danger of profanation, Communion should not be distributed to the faithful in the hand”  (Redemptionis Sacramentum 92).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...