It is indisputable that Communion in the hand was standard practice in the Church for the first 900 years. It is indisputable that Catholic teaching says that "fragments" lose their "the body of Christ" if they are unrecognizable.

Jesus said "take and eat' which is Communion in the hand. I prefer Jesus words over Bishop Schneider.

@chris griffin

Thanks for your reply.

If this issue had been resolved as simply as you wrote, then there would have been no outstanding battles against taking the Most Holy Eucharist in hands.

From what you have listed, only one point is indisputable - that in the early Church there was a practice of receiving Communion in the hands. But in this part it is necessary to make one amendment and one objection.

The amendment is that the custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth (not in the ninth or tenth) century.

The objection is the following: "The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity… it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device… obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity… This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise" (Pius XII, «Mediator Dei», 20.11.1947).

As for the argument about particles not perceived by vision, this, contrary to your statement, is by no means certain. If we turn to the “Summa Theologiae Moralis” (3, 102) by H. Noldin, we will see that the absence of the Body of Christ in such parts is only an assumption (since it is said: “at certum non est eas quoque manere consecratas”). And then it is assumed that they are still the Body and Blood of Christ (“quod si consecratae”), and the conclusion is made that in the latter case Christ does not require ministers to care for these imperceptible particles.

@ Denis Efimov… Denis, you are obviously a well-educated and well-spoken person and I appreciate that very much. I will try my best to reply in the same manner piece by piece. Please forgive me in advance if I don’t measure up.

You quoted…”obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity… Pius XII”
This refers to “liturgical” and “rites” which does not concern us here. Instead, we are concerned with “form” as in the form of the words of baptism “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" which we retain from antiquity and cannot be changed. This also applies in a similar way to the “form” of Communion as enunciated by Jesus as “take”.

You quoted…"If we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever" (Pius XI, «Studiorum Ducem», 29.06.1923).
Aquinas is the guy that said that early gestation unborn babies were vegetables and animals. Aquinas ignored the Bible and numerous earlier Saints in making this horrible abjectly false statement which haunts us till this day.

You quoted…"Do this in remembrance of me". Therefore, not only the second, but also the first words can be understood as referring only to priests.
This is simply speculation on your part. Jesus never restricted Communion in the hand, in fact he ordained it. Jesus never said that only priest could touch the Host, Jesus never said “put in in their mouths”.

You quoted…This word in Holy Scripture usually means “receive” as a spiritual action, and not as a bodily action in the sense of “take.”
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, [a]blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matt 26:26.
Jesus GAVE the bread to them, and they took it, he did not put it in their mouths. He never said to “put it in their mouths” which would be obviously unnatural and would have certainly been mentioned if that were so, but it is not because it is completely unreasonable.

I checked all 53 different Bibles on BibleGateway and ALL of them said TAKE which is proof that “receive’ is never mentioned because it is unreasonable and unnatural.

That is all for now. Thanks again for your participation on Gloria TV and on this particular topic. God Bless.

@chris griffin

The method of receiving Communion is not a form of Sacrament, which is the words you quoted about baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The method of acceptance is precisely the liturgical element, the restoration of which by the conciliar church is the very antiquarianism that Pope Pius XII condemned.

Regarding Holy Scripture, it is not surprising that all the English translations you have looked at translate "Take ye and eat" and "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" with different words (even though the Greek and Latin texts use the same word). But in translations of Scripture into some other languages, the same word is used in both places, which is closer in meaning to Latin and Greek.

As for St.Thomas Aquinas, we must not shift the problem from sick heads to healthy ones. The same degenerates who even cite Holy Scripture in defense of sodomy also cite St.Thomas in a vain attempt to defend their sins (abortion). In reality, regardless of the moment of animation of the embryo, St.Thomas stated twice in the Summa Theologica that killing any fetus in the womb is homicide. In this he follows St. Basil the Great ("The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed" - Letter 188, 2) and other Church Fathers.

@ Denis Efimov

Your first paragraph misses the point. My point is that Jesus specified ‘take” which cannot be turned into a battle of “form” verses “liturgy” or antiquarianism.

Your second paragraph refers to Biblical translations in other languages which clouds the issue, but we are sure of the English translation in this instance.

Your third paragraph admits that I am right about Aquinas and that you and Pope Pius were wrong.
I cannot find whereas you say “St.Thomas stated twice in the Summa Theologica that killing any fetus in the womb is homicide.” Would you point that out to me please.

Thank you.