Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Early Church Fathers on Receiving Communion in the Hand

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set called Ante Nicene, Nicene, Post Nicene Fathers. I compiled 255 pages of quotes showing that the Early Church was always and completely Catholic. All of these quotes can be verified and found from the source which is free online.

Cyprian of Carthage Treatise 3 par 26 (200-270 ad)
And another woman, when she tried with unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the holy (body) of the Lord, was deterred by fire rising from it from daring to touch it. And when one, who himself was defiled, dared with the rest to receive secretly a part of the sacrifice celebrated by the priest; he could not eat nor handle the holy of the Lord, but found in his hands when opened that he had a cinder. Thus by the experience of one it was shown that the Lord withdraws when He is denied
Acts of Thomas (240 ad)
And there was a certain young man who had done a nefarious deed; and having come to the apostle, he took the bread of the Eucharist into his mouth, and his two hands immediately withered, so that he could no longer bring them to his mouth.
Eusebius Church History Book 7 (265-340 ad)
But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 23.21-22 (315-386 ad)
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.
Basil Letter 93 (329-379 ad)
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
John Chrysostom Homily 3 on Ephesians (347-407 ad)
Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen 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.

Augustine Against Petilian the Donatist book 2 ch 23 par 53 (354-430 ad)
To this we may add, that I refer to a man who lived with you, whose birthday you were wont to celebrate with such large assemblies, with whom you joined in the kiss of peace in the sacraments, in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your hands to receive it from his ministerin
Augustine Against Petilian the Donatist book 2 par 88(354-430 ad)
And although the men are not one who take in hand the sacrament of God worthily or unworthily, yet that which is taken in hand, whether worthily or unworthily, is the same; so that it does not become better or worse in itself, but only turns to the life or death of those who handle it in either case
Council of Constantinople Trullo Canon 101 (692 ad)
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. 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. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them. 
Venerable Bede Ecclesiastical History of England Book 4 ch 24 (672-735 ad)
"What need of the Eucharist? for you are not yet appointed to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were in good health." "Nevertheless," said he, "bring me the Eucharist." Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or grudge.
John Damascene An Exposition of the Faith Book 4 Ch 13 (676-749 ad)
Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross s let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal




Diary of St Faustina par 160
I heard these words from the Host: I desired to rest in your hands, not only in your heart.
How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr James Meagher ch HOW CHRIST OFFERED THE BREAD AND WINE. Pg 413
Taking in his hands this half of the Aphikoman, he breaks off a particle, and eats it in memory of the paschal lamb they had just eaten. Then he breaks off a particle for each guest and lays it in the left palm of each. This was the way the celebrant of the Mass in the early Church gave Communion.
(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Genuflexion")
That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned.The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century
"Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia," general editor: Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999; "Eucharistic Liturgy," p. 338; this article written by Robin M. Jensen and J. Patout Burns)
 "Distribution of the bread and wine took place at the chancel rail, where the people came forward to stand and receive from the hands of the bishop and/or deacons. Bread was placed into the joined hands with the words, 'The Body of Christ,' to which the recipient responded: 'Amen' . . . The cup was offered to each by another minister, with a similar exchange."
Fr. John Higgins
"For the first thousand years of the Church, Communion was given in the hand only. John Calvin's influence on the Church, along with the Gnostics preached that the human body was evil and that humans were basically evil and that Communion was only for the holy Clergy. This heresy was condemned, so the Jansenists, who followed a lot of Calvin's heresies, said "You aren't good enough to touch the Body of Christ with your hand, only with your tongue!" as if the tongue is holier than the hand. When someone is Baptized or Confirmed their entire being is Baptized or Confirmed, not just their tongue. They are anointed and consecrated to Christ, their entire body, mind and spirit." 

19 comments:

Brian said...

There isn't a lot on that subject in the early church because you were either Catholic or a heretic. There is a lot of mention of baptism being necessary for salvation. http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-baptism.html

Anthony said...

http://catholicquotations.blogspot.ca/2008/07/greater-part-of-men-choose-to-be-damned.html

Stephen Peterson said...

1. The ancient practice of receiving Communion is not even comparable the contemporary practice of Communion in the Hand, which is a modernist innovation. The ancient practice treated the Sacred Body with extreme reverence, the communicant kneeling and lowering his head to his hands to receive the Sacred Body, unlike the contemporary practice where we all queue for a free handout.

2. Attempting to restore a practice that has not been observed in centuries simply because it’s older is call “archeologism”. It is a failure to respect that tradition is a gradual development of belief and practice over the centuries. Any practice, such as Communion on the Tongue, which has survived for more than a couple of centuries quite likely had a very good reason for surviving so long. We need to understand it well before we try to replace it with something older.

Stephen Peterson said...

1. The ancient practice of receiving Communion is not even comparable the contemporary practice of Communion in the Hand, which is a modernist innovation. The ancient practice treated the Sacred Body with extreme reverence, the communicant kneeling and lowering his head to the Sacred Body, unlike the contemporary practice where we all queue for a free handout.

2. Attempting to restore a practice that has not been observed in centuries similar because it’s older is call “archeologism”. It is a failure to respect that tradition is a gradual development of belief and practice over the centuries. Any practice, such as Communion on the Tongue, which has survived for more than a couple of centuries quite likely had a very good reason for surviving so long. We need to understand it well before we try to replace it with something older.

Brian said...

Stephen it's not that you don't have points it is that you know what people told you instead of reading the quotes. I give you every reference to communion on the hand and they do not say they bowed their head to their hand to receive. You do see however Basil in letter 93 say the opposite "when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand." Since communion on the hand has been around now for several decades by your own reasoning we shouldn't go back to communion on the tongue because it is older. We have to recognize that tradition is gradual as you say so you should be happy about it right?

Anthony said...

Brian, If one reads in context; it is plain that St. Basil referred to receiving in the hand in times of persecution:

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Brian said...

Anthony I suggest you read the context again on Basil. I recognize your line of references and how you said only in times of persecution. This is the same wrong list that you see everywhere so it is good you spoke up so I can correct you. Basil does not say only in times of persecution. Basil uses the word only 296 times and never in reference to communion. Basil says it is permitted take communion in the hand without a priest in times of persecution. Basil then clarifies the situation that he is talking about by talking about people taking the Eucharist home. This means he is referring to self communication at home with no priest around. Now this makes sense since apparently on the tongue is faster there is really no reason for communion on the hand in times of persecution but taking communion home during persecution makes total sense. Basil then goes on to say EVEN when in a church (presumable not in persecution since in times of persecution they wouldn’t have gone to church if a church even was standing during persecution) the person takes communion takes complete power over it and lifts it to his lips.
Please point me to the source document that says Saragossa and Rouen excommunicated people. It is not in the Post Nicene Fathers. My opinion is that it is completely made up because the same source you got for saying this also says 6th ecumenical Council of Constantinople 680-681 excommunicated people also. This council is in the Fathers and it said no such thing. Not only did the council not talk about how to receive communion but it makes no mention of the Eucharist at all. On top of that in the council of Constantinople Trullo 692 the only valid method of receiving communion that they mention was in the HAND. A crushing blow to the people who keep repeating this stuff. Taylor Marshal repeated all of these mistakes in a recent episode and I wrote him challenging him on his honor to retract his mistakes but I received no reply from him.

I would agree with Trent that only priests give Holy Communion but it doesn’t talk about how Holy communion was received which in fact the apostolic tradition was in the Hand.

Anthony said...

Brian, you said, "Basil then clarifies the situation that he is talking about people taking the Eucharist home." - Yes, because in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated (during times of presection). This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith. So "self communication at home with no priest around", was precisely allowed because of the danger off imminent death during those times of persecution. So I'm not arguing with that contention at all.

You said, "on the tongue is faster there is really no reason for communion in the hand in times of persecution" - Uh, yes there is, when 'death comes knocking on your door' and there's no priest standing next to you to give you Holy Communion; it's sure a lot faster then! lol In those days, prisoners would not have access to the priest, so they would also sneak the Holy Eucharist to the prisoners through the bars at night.

You said, "presumable not in persecution since in times of persecution they wouldn’t have gone to church" - yet this is not actually true. They would go to Church, or if unable to go to Church, the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated.; in order to be able to bring the Holy Eucharist home with them, in case of death during times of persecution.

Secondly, the fact that the Council of Trent stated, "with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." --clearly implies that only the ordained were allowed to touch the Sacred Host; and that it was an Apostolic Tradition.

I'll have to look into Saragossa and Rouen further, and get back to you on that ay another time.

The East broke with the Apostolic discipline of priestly celibacy at the Council of Trullo. So I wouldn't rely on Trullo as being faithful to Tradition.

There is no concrete evidence whatsoever, that the apostolic tradition was "in the Hand". That is pure speculation; I'm not saying this didn't happen; yet the early Church was persecuted and 'underground' for the first 300 years. (times of persecution).


Brian said...

Anthony so based on what you said my understanding of Basil is correct. The objection that Basil’s “only in persecution” was referring to people taking the Eucharist home without a priest. Your second paragraph doesn’t change the circumstances from the first. Your point that they had to go to church in order to bring the Eucharist home does not jive with what Basil says. At the end of the letter he mentions a person receiving communion in the hand and consuming it from a priest (outside of the only in persecution criteria and no priest around). So if the original objection was communion in the hand was only in times of persecution with no priest then it is clearly out of context because Basil allows consuming communion in the hand, in a church and from a priest. Apart from Eusebius all of the saints who mention communion in the hand are after Roman persecution. I’m not sure but some could have been under Arian persecution but not all of them over the world.

You can believe whatever you want about Trullo it is just another example of the widespread practice of communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue has 4 references and they are all from Pope Gregory in the 6th century. Yes I know about Leo but from his phraseology I argue that it is questionable. Yes I know it would be hard to prove 100% that communion in the hand is apostolic tradition but from all those pieces I find it fits pretty well.

Concerning the interpretation of Trent: it doesn’t matter because I checked and it didn’t say what you quoted. I word searched the document for apostolic tradition = one result not talking about hands. I searched consecrated hands = 0 results. I searched consecrated = 4 results not talking about hands. Neither did the catechism of the Council of Trent bring up results.

Anthony said...

No, your understanding of St. Basil was, and still is, incorrect, but now I understand completely as to why you thought it was speaking about reaching Communion in the hand, in church. Let's go through it line by line.

St. Basil says,

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence"

Unless read very carefully, and in context with the entire Letter, one could easily assume St. Basil was speaking about receiving Holy Communion in the hand, in Church, while reading the last sentences of his Letter. But I don't believe that to be the case. He doesn't even mention "communion in hand" in the last part go the Letter (the words are not there). And the context is still referring to times of persecution and also areas where there is a scarcity of priests. That's the entire context of the Letter.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out the last part about receiving in Church because of what you claimed it says, as I read it through your paradigm, and not based on the context of the entire Letter; Then I saw it! It reads,

"And even in the church, when the priest [gives the portion], [the recipient] [takes it] [with complete power over it], and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand."

This doesn't mean receiving Communion in the hand, in Church, and then placing it in your mouth in front of the priest. This refers to the recipient receiving the allotted portion or portions from the priest , and taking the Eucharist home. That is what is meant by, "[takes it] [with] [complete power over it]", meaning that the recipient is competelty and utterly responsible for the Eucharist with their very life, and after having taken the portion from the priest to bring home (as is evident from the previous sentences) they would then of course self communicate. Hence the phrase, ....."and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand."

That's why the very last line of the Letter reads,

"It has the same validity whether [one portion] [or several portions] [are received] [from the priest] [at the same time]."

Why would several portions be placed in the hand of the recipient by the priest in Church at the same time? This is a reference to the fact that whether the priest gives only one portion, or several portions to take home, each portion is the Eucharist. That's why it doesn't mention "communion in hand" as Basil did at the beginning of the Letter; because he's not actually referring to "communion in the hand" in Church in front of a priest but rather the priest giving the allowed portion or portions to be brought home.

What do you mean my point that they had to go to church in order to bring the Eucharist home does not jive with what Basil says? How could the laity in Egypt and Alexandria receive in their homes by their own hand then? Where did they get the allotted portions of the Eucharist from?

The entire context of the Letter is that to receive Communion by one's own hand is only permitted in times of either persecution, o, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. That's the context.

Are you now telling me that St. Basil contradicts his own teaching from one sentence to another?

Believe whatever I want about Trullo? It's not what I believe, Trullo was just another example of the East breaking with Apostolic Tradition.

You know from all those pieces it fits pretty well? So far you haven't given me anything aside from a misinterpretation of what St. Basil stated, and a Council that broke with the Apostolic Tradition.

Brian said...

Anthony I am trying to follow your case here but you just said that the last part of the letter doesn’t say communion in the hand. He doesn’t need to say communion in the hand. You don’t have to say dollar to mean money. After the priest says the offering he gives it to the people. He doesn’t have to say communion. I think you are stretching what Basil says quite a bit. Basil says the person receives it 1, takes power over it 2, lifts it to his lips 3 boom, boom, boom rapid succession. You say he receives it, takes power over it, takes it home, then lifts it to his lips. You see what you did there. You stuck a whole phrase in there Basil didn’t say and changed the timeline from seconds to days or months. This doesn’t make sense. It is also not the way Basil has phrased it before. Before when he was talking about people receiving at home he just simply says they received at home. For all we know the person may bow their head to their hand and receive like some people think was the way the early church did it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Concerning your protion comment I can kind of see that there but I can also see that it is church teaching that whether we receive a large piece of bread or a spec of bread that it is the whole Christ. I can also see that if I was the priest I would have the Mass and communion to the people there then afterward give extra to go home. You don’t want people fumbling our Lord around giving them multiple pieces while they are trying to receive at Mass.

No I am not saying Basil is contradicting himself. This is how I see the entire letter with me paraphrasing. People are leery of taking the Eucharist home so Basil writes that it is not a serious offense since the desert fathers did it. He continues his arguments to make them feel better and by the end he says EVEN in the church people receive the Eucharist in their hands so it okay to take it home during persecution to give it to yourself. That makes the entire letter work. It doesn’t add phrases to what he said and it makes the rest of the Church fathers who also teach communion in the hand make sense.

From my jive comment I was referring to your reasoning for Basil mentioning receiving in the church. You said they were there to get the Eucharist to go home. The text says they were receiving and consuming the Eucharist there with the priest.

Concerning Trullo. Canon 19 says prelates of the church should teach doctrine on the Lord’s day. Are you going to say how dare them you heretic council you? You don’t get to pick and choose what you like.

Yes communion in the hand fits very well. You have Eusibieus, Cyril, Augustine, Chrysostom, John Damascene, Bede and Basil 4 doctors of the Church teaching it from England to Constantinople. There is more evidence for communion in the hand as apostolic than there is for the Assumption and you don’t doubt that. There is an argument I have used in apologetics to show an apostolic doctrine from a heresy. I take the Eucharist for example you find it being taught everywhere from Irenaus in France to Cyprian in Africa to Cyril in Jerusalem. Heresy starts out with a person in one place and it spreads some but you don’t find it being taught everywhere. This is an analogy and I am not saying any way of receiving communion is a heresy I am using this analogy to show this is how communion on the tongue shows up. It is not taught everywhere like in the hand is and it starts out in one place. I know you will disagree with that but there isn’t solid evidence showing otherwise and if Basil did mean what you say (I don’t think so but I can be wrong) you still have 8 other quotes to explain away.

Anthony said...

I'm just curious as to why you didn't post what I sent in response to your posting of April 9th? - I know you received my response, based on your comments in you last posting of April 10th.

I took the time to write out a carefully written, detailed analysis, regarding St. Basil's Letter, based on the context. Is there some special reason you didn't want people to see it? Could it be because my argument (in the case of St. Basil) was a little too compelling? If not, then why didn't you post my response? I find that very odd.

It's your blog of course, and you have control over it; but I think it's very unfair; I've been nothing but cordial (never attacked you personally), despite our disagreement over St. Basil.

Secondly, if the Council of Trullo is one of your supports, why don't you post it on your blog with the others?

Thirdly, the document attributed to St. Cyril is questioned as to its authenticity by many. Some believe it to be the the work of his successor. It is after all quite odd when you consider what it actually says.

Fourth, I wasn't questioning the comments by the others, although I haven't studied the others in their full context in detail. I was merely speaking in regards to St. Basil's quote. I've been focused on discussing St. Basil's quote the entire time.

I'm not going to bother taking the time to respond when you reuse to post what I've written. It's unfair and uncharitable, not to mention dishonest.

Brian said...

Anthony I am sorry I didn’t realize your post wasn’t published. If I wanted to be unfair I would have deleted all posts that were not in my favor. I am very busy and I usually hit the publish button from the email notification. I had to go to my blogger dashboard to see what you were talking about and there was a post waiting to be moderated and it is visible now. You flatter yourself about it being to compelling. As I wrote I find it to not make sense. I acknowledged where I can see your point about the portions but like I said I see his letter as a list of arguments to convince people it is okay to take communion home during persecution. Just like I can make a list of arguments for the Real Presence, I can mention Eucharistic miracles and what Satanist believe and it can appear to be jumping around but they are all pointing to proving the subject.

You will find the council of Trullo above right between Augustine and Bede. I think that shows that you didn’t even read the blog post.

You will find that St John Damascene says just about the same thing as Cyril.

Anthony said...

You're mistaken Brian, as I did read your blogpost. I read every line that you write. I was merely asking why the Canon of Trullo was not included among your list in your blog initially, since you always referred to it to in our discussions.

Secondly, I want to get your opinion. The sentence which reads,

"For when once the priest has [completed the offering], [and given it], [the recipient], [participating in it] [each time] [as entire], is bound to believe that [he properly] [takes and receives it] [from the giver]."

Would you claim that this refers to the participant receiving in the hand at that moment? Since the sentence reads, "[the recipient], [participating in it] [each time] [as entire].....[he properly] [takes and receives it] [from the giver]."?




Brian said...

Anthony. The quote from Trullo has been there for a month or so. I found that I missed it when I went back to the councils of Constantinople trying to find where it said that the council was excommunicating people for communion in the hand. For the line in Basil I can see that it could be mentioning communion in the hand because it says takes and receives instead of just receives alone. I could also see probably your point that he is referring to “the offering” as a past event and from that point onward it is the Body of Christ.

Anthony said...

Brian, actually my point was that when St. Basil says,

"For when once the priest has [completed the offering], [and given it], [the recipient], [participating in it] [each time] [as entire], is bound to believe that [he properly] [takes and receives it] [from the giver]."......


....he is actually NOT referring to the receiver taking with the hand and receiving in mouth at that moment; even though it sounds like it. Right?

However, you can know it's NOT referring to this, by reading it with the preceding conjunctive sentence which reads,

"...each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. FOR WHEN once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver."









Brian said...

Anthony. I see what you are saying but I think the reason why he is saying it is because he is making another argument for why it is okay to take the Eucharist home. If the person is thinking that the Body of Christ goes away a day or so after the offering Basil argues once the offering is made they are bound to believe it is the Body of Christ.

Toss said...

While Communion in the hand is valid and certainly not sacrilegious, it is still a form of antiquarianism. It is objectively inferior to other forms of reception such as intinction and tongue reception because inferior in communicating the doctrine of the Real Presence and instilling the sense of the sacred of what is happening.

Plus, communion in the hand returned by way of abuse. Certain areas started to distribute Holy Communion in the hand in the 1960s in defiance of the Vatican. Pope Paul VI eventually caved and issued indults.

Joe said...

I did not know Basil, Letter 93, till I saw people refer to it as condemning communion in the hand. But in fact it not only takes that for granted but adds the Christians can take the Eucharist home and receive it from their own hand rather than from the priest's. 'It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.'

What is most striking is that Basil tells us that Christians kept the Eucharist in their homes.