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

Is the object of Catholic, Jewish and Islamic worship the same God? - Updated

+ JMJ Do Jews and Muslims worship the same God as the Catholics? This question is raised often in the context of the statements made in the Second Vatican Council concerning these two religions. Namely: In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.( Lumen Gentium 16) The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, (Nostra Aetate 3) Nostra Aetate 3 - Footnote: 5. Cf St. Gregory VII,  letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania  (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Should Traditional Catholics Fear Donum Veritatis? Part B (Long Rambling Answer)

 + JMJ   Tradical's Rambling Thoughts I think this comes down to three questions: Is the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) valid?  Is it licit?  What does Donum Veritatis have to do with it? The first question is easy to answer: With the usual conditions the NOM is valid.  ( See this link ) The second question is a little trickier: Is the NOM licit?  Does it mean that it is a duly promulgated law of the Catholic Church? Short answer - probably in the formal / knowable sense. There's was a lot of arguments about this, focusing on whether or not it was a good law, but none of them really seemed to provide a definitive answer. The definitive answer will probably be given in a hundred years or so.😎 Does it mean that it doesn't contradict Church Teaching? Short answer - as promulgated it doesn't.  Likewise there's been a lot of argument about this as well.  I have yet to see someone identify a passage from the promulgated copy of the NOM that EXPLICITLY...

A Look Back: A short history of the SSPX

 + JMJ  I started a timeline a while back but never finished it.  Fortunately, here's one that brings us up to 1994!!! P^3 http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-1.htm   A short history of the SSPX A presentation given by Fr. Ramon Angles in Kansas City, MO, on the 25th Anniversary of the founding of the SSPX and reprinted from the January 1996 issue of The Angelus . Part 1 The history of the Society of St. Pius X begins, of course, in the mind of God. But do not believe that its temporal origin is to be found solely at the time of the post-conciliar crisis. The Society of St. Pius X was made possible ...