Communion in the Hand

This is a topic that needs no introduction. Communion in the hand is widely seen as the most egregious offense of the Novus Ordo Missae by traditionalists. I've heard more than one report of people who have overcome their mental hurdles about the Ordinary Form and see no problem with it except for the fact that Holy Communion is distributed in the hand, and they can't bring themselves to go into a church for fear of "stepping on Jesus" if there are Eucharistic particles on the floor. This is an admirable sentiment, and the hesitation about receiving in the hand is certainly understandable, but many traditionalists have little to no exposure about the context of this topic, which I believe may dispel these concerns. There are a few points that I found very helpful in my research when I started going to my local diocesan church, and I think these will likewise be helpful for those who are looking into this topic.

First, it should be made very clear: communion was received in the hand for many centuries in the early church. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says the following, under the entry for Genuflexion:

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. [...] St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Church History VII.9). 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 (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Gregory, Dial., I, III, c. iii).

We have ample evidence from the writings of the early Church fathers that support this. Here are just a few examples to make the point (taken from Dave Armstrong's very informative article Holy Communion in the Hand (Norm till 500-900 AD):

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. (St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21-22)

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. (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93: To the Patrician Cæsaria, concerning Communion)

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. (St. John Chrysostom [c. 349-407], Homily 3 on Ephesians)

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 . . . (St. Augustine [354-430], Against Petilian the Donatist book 2 ch 23 par 53)

Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One (St. John Damascene [676-749], An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13)

The evidence is quite clear that the Church does not see receiving communion in the hand as an intrinsic evil. Even the SSPX admits, "The placing of the host in the hand of a baptized person is not in itself an evil, since it was a fairly common practice in the early days of the Church." We need not fear that receiving Our Lord in this way dishonors Him or is a sacrilege. There certainly was legitimate reason to move toward receiving on the tongue as the norm, but that does not mean that the former mode was wrong in and of itself. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote, "[W]e know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not mean of course that it should always be so. [...] But, on the other hand, we have to say the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years." (from his book God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life, p 70)

Putting ourselves in the shoes of one who is trying to overcome their hesitations about this topic, we might now find ourselves in the position described earlier; that while one might acknowledge it is not an intrinsic evil after reading this evidence, one might still be hesitant about receiving in this way or even entering a church due to potential Eucharistic particles on the floor. I rush to affirm the truth that Our Lord is indeed present in every Eucharistic particle, and the logic surrounding this concern is certainly valid. However, we know that the bread and wine that are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ are visible signs of the sacrament, and that if something is not identifiable as a visible sign of what it is signifying (in the proper sense of the word; I don't mean to imply that the bread and wine only signify Christ), the Real Presence ceases to exist. This is directly from the Summa, question 76, article 6, response to objection 3: "The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them[.]"

A priest of the FSSP explains in this video that the sacramental species remains as long as they are identifiable as that particular matter. He states:

The idea that there may be particles on the floor should is valid. […] However, according to good sacramental theology, if something's not discernably bread, then the presence of Christ has ceased to be under it. So if there's a particle on the ground large enough for you be able to see and know, “That's bread,” that is the Body of Christ, certainly. If there is something that is so microscopically small it has ceased to signify bread, to look like bread, then Christ's body ceases to be under that sacramental species. Similar to how if I took a host and put it in water and dissolved or if I were to take the Precious Blood under the species of wine and pour so much water in it that it ceased to be wine, that would no longer be the consecrated species of our Lord's Blood Body Soul and Divinity.

We most certainly ought to be aware of our actions, such as where we step if an accident were to occur in the distribution of Communion. But we need not fear that we are stepping on microscopic particles that may or may not be there every time we enter a church. If a particle is invisible or indistinguishable from dust or other matter, such that we could not distinctly identify it as bread, the Real Presence is no longer there. And Aquinas himself would agree with this, as noted above.

We also should remember that for something to be sinful, one must have full consent of the will. Committing sacrilege by stepping on or otherwise abusing the Eucharist would only be a sacrilege if we directly intended to commit such an atrocity. If all we are intending to do is come to Church and worship, there is obviously no malicious intent there, and one would not be culpable.

When all is said and done, let us remember that Jesus has given Himself to us in a profound and inconceivable way, and He cares more about his gift of Himself to us than the manner in which we receive Him. One can receive in the hand reverently, and one can receive on the tongue irreverently. As Pope Benedict XVI further wrote, "Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk - and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness - in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him." (God Is Near Us, p 71) Whatever mode of receiving we choose, we can be at peace knowing that the Church would not permit anything that would directly harm Our Lord, and that the joy of receiving Him into our hearts should far outweigh the concern of how we receive Him from the priest.