Response to One Peter Five on Communion

I was asked to comment on this article  from One Peter Five.

I think this is an example of people so ingrained in what they believe to be correct that they make weak arguments thinking they are rock solid.
They say communion on the hand is in stark contrast to scripture except there is no mention of communion reception. What they give is: if they touched the ark they died. If we are going to be consistent with typology Mary is the ark of the new covenant and no one died when she was touched. The manna is the old testament type of the Eucharist and it was holy enough to be put within the ark and yet the people not the priests picked it up off the ground. How is this supposed to prove communion on the tongue?  Actually if you look at scripture mk 14:22 same in Mt 26:26 "take and eat” g2983 lambano is used and is an active verb literally to get a hold of where g1209 is a passive verb more fitting to receive but was not used.

So in their patristic section they blatantly lied about the Council of Constantinople.The council said nothing about how to receive and the canons of Constantinople Trullo 10 years after said you were cut off if you tried to receive communion in any way other than in the hand. They mention a number of councils that I would love to read what they said but if they are going to blatantly lie about the one council I can read, I can just assume until otherwise shown wrong that these other council's claims are made up. An article on the Catholic Encyclopedia (Communion under both kinds) says these two councils excommunicated people if they tried to receive communion outside of a church which as you will see later in Basil's letter was only during persecution. There is a quote going around that Trent said communion on the tongue is an apostolic tradition. This quote is completely made up also but I see they didn’t use that. They give the quote from Leo “that which is taken by mouth is believed by faith” It may be but if you look at a pill bottle it says take one pill by mouth. That doesn’t imply someone else is putting it there. The mention of pope Sixtus saying people don’t touch the sacred vessels could just be the continuation of the temple tradition that only the priests touched the vessels. Early on people observed both the Sabbath and the Lord’s day and so old habits die hard. The biggest reason I don't see Sixtus' quote as communion on tongue is because Eusebius wrote in his Church History book 7 that people reach out their hands to receive the body of the Lord. Eusebius was an adviser to Constantine so he was in and around Rome supposedly where communion on the tongue should have been going on.

Thomas Aquinas' quote is late enough that that was the current practice. It is not a mention of what occurred in the past.

St Cyril's quote is brought into question. St John Damascene says exactly the same thing 300 years later so it is more likely that the quote is legitimate.

The quote from Basil I have shown that he is making a case that it is okay to take the Eucharist home to receive when in persecution and he gives the argument to make his readers feel better about it that "even in the church you take complete power over it and raise it to your lips."
The argument that the angels gave the Fatima children on the tongue doesn’t have a lot of strength considering on the tongue is all they knew and the angels aren’t going to go against church law to give it to them another way. It could be just as easily be canceled out by Jesus speaking to St Faustina while in the host form that he desired to rest in her hands.

When it comes to which form is apostolic there is more evidence for communion in the hand as apostolic than there is for the Assumption and they 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 (from England to Constantinople) and it starts out in one place (only in Rome). It took more than 400 years after pope Gregory mentions it in the 500s for it become more mainstream.

What the Church Fathers actually believed about how to receive communion. 

Other articles
https://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2019/08/communion-on-tongue-is-apostolic.html
https://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2014/08/response-to-rethinking-communion-in-hand.html

Communion on the Tongue is an Apostolic Tradition debunked once and for all.

If you search these terms the same list of “historical” references come up. This same list is shared all over social media and it's praises are sung that their “traditional” practice has historical backing. However it is blatantly false and you do not spend over 3000 hours in the Early Church Fathers like I have and let these people get away spreading lies. I will go through each quote (in bold) demonstrating this.

St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”

Yes pope Sixtus said this but it also is not talking about communion on the tongue or in the hand. It is likely he is continuing the old temple practice where only the Levitical priests could handle the temple vessels. The biggest reason I don't see Sixtus' quote as communion on tongue is because Eusebius wrote in his Church History book 7 that people reach out their hands to receive the body of the Lord. Eusebius was an adviser to Constantine so he was in and around Rome supposedly where communion on the tongue should have been going on. 

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.” St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

Here is Basil’s entire letter

Basil Letter 93

“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.”

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.

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 this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

An article on the Catholic Encyclopedia (Communion under both kinds) says the councils of Saragossa and Toledo excommunicated people if they tried to receive communion outside of a church which as you saw in Basil's letter was only during persecution. It is anyone’s guess since I am only aware that the Creed of Toledo is the only thing from the council in existence. Have yet to see anything from Rouen either.

6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

You can read this document, it is only 19 pages and not only is there no mention of how to receive communion there is no mention of the Eucharist at all. Most of the document is talking about the two wills. Not only is this egregiously false what is even worse is only 10 years later the Bishops met in Constantinople Trullo to write up the canons of the previous council since the Ecumenical Council did not write up canons.  It mentions when people come up to receive communion they are to cross their hands and if anyone brings a gold vessel to receive it, they shall be cut off. It specifically says they will be cut off if they receive in anything inanimate other than their hand. The only legitimate way to receive that they mention is in the hand. Here is the canon:

Constantinople Trullo 692 Canon 101

“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.” 

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)

St Thomas Aquinas did say this however he is not commenting on what has happened in history. He is talking about the current practice. The fact is that from England to Constantinople communion on the hand was the standard practice for a thousand years. You can read all the saints who practiced this here

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

The Council of Trent is available online. All you have to do is key word search the document for the terms communion, consecrated, hands, apostolic tradition. You will find that this council did not say this quote and neither did the catechism of the Council of Trent. This is a blatant lie by someone who has an agenda. I suspect that it originated from a sedevacantist who tried to use this as evidence that the current popes are false popes.