We are very pleased to share the final part of this essay by Zsolt Orbán: part one was published last week, and part two yesterday.
Elements supporting the above, which survive to this day in various liturgical traditions
1. The right palm held in the left handNaturally, on this point I do not assume that the hand position used in today’s ecclesiastical practice of communion in the hand is identical to that of antiquity, since the modern sacramental hand position – more precisely, the reception of the Eucharist by hand – differs substantially from the ancient sacrifice, despite the physical similarity of the hand positions.
The right palm, held in the left hand and turned upwards, is the traditional hand posture still found in today’s Orthodox tradition; however, this is naturally not used during the distribution of communion, but rather during blessings: for this is the hand posture for requesting a blessing – the gesture of the person asking for it.
2. The paten on the table
Among the textual sources, I mentioned above the letter of Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, in which the sacrificial rite is alluded to; I believe this rite can be reconstructed in this paper based on the evidence provided by the images. To support this, I cite as an example the liturgy of the Copts, the modern heirs of the Alexandrian liturgical tradition, in which several elements can be identified that refer to what is depicted in the material artefacts and can be traced back to the practice depicted.
In the Codex Rossanensis, at the moment after the delivery of the Holy Body, Christ does not hold the paten in His hand, but rather takes the particle from the paten resting on the altar. Just as the Copts do in the video clip above.
3. The left palm of the celebrant
Christ places the piece taken with His right hand into the apostle’s mouth, whilst, as seen in the scene from the Codex Rossanensis, he holds his left palm protectively beneath it. After the communion, he continues to hold his left palm upwards, with his fingers slightly bent – so that no crumbs would be lost. Just as Coptic priests do: the video shows the way the priest holds his left palm. This seems very reminiscent of Christ, as seen in the enlarged image from the Rossano Codex above.
4. The communion cloth alluding to the ancient use of the himation
The small cloth worn by the communicant in the Coptic video also seems to evoke the himation seen in the images above. I believe that the changes in dress over the past one and a half thousand years may in themselves explain the replacement of the himation – that is, the ancient outer garment – during the Eucharist: the need to use a cloth, arising from reverence for the Eucharist, may have been stronger than the absence resulting from the disappearance of the himation due to changes in dress. However, the natural process of classifying items associated with the liturgy as sacred may also have led to the emergence of a cloth specifically intended for this purpose in liturgical use.
A communion shawl with a similar function is also used in the Byzantine liturgy, as can be clearly seen in the last video.
Among Ethiopian Christians (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church), the himation – which has become entirely liturgical in purpose – has also been preserved under the name netela: both men and women wear it in church. This short video discusses how this shawl is worn and its spiritual significance:
5. The holy kiss
I have not found any trace of the kissing of the priest’s hand after communion in the various liturgical traditions, but in the Orthodox tradition there is another form of holy kiss that follows directly after Communion: after receiving the sacred species, the faithful kiss the base of the chalice. The holy kiss given to the base of the chalice, reminiscent of the himation, together with the use of a cloth identical to it in terms of its liturgical function:
Although this kiss differs from the presumed practice described in this text, in which a kiss might have been given to the right hand of the ministering priest, this may be explained by the change in the manner of communion under the two species compared to ancient practice. The distribution of the Body, placed in the Precious Blood, using a spoon – directly into the communicant’s mouth – eliminated the possibility of kissing the priest’s hand, as this could have endangered the contents of the chalice.
But the need to express the spiritual significance embodied in the kiss sought and found a place.
Concluding Remarks
The famous quote from Saint Basil (Letter 93) demonstrates that communion on the tongue was the normative mode of receiving the Eucharist in the Church from the beginning. Ecclesiastical practice deviated from this only under extraordinary circumstances, such as during times of persecution or a shortage of priests, and even then only temporarily (at the time the letter was written, around 372 AD, the practice of the lay faithful taking the Eucharist home was customary only in Alexandria). Despite this, the narrative of "communion in the hand" became dominant in the second half of the twentieth century, inextricably linked to the liturgical reform. The architects of the latter were enthusiastic proponents of this narrative (see, e.g., this article by Annibale Bugnini), which explains why today almost every scholarly textbook and popular publication treats it as a self-evident fact that communion on the tongue was unknown until the 8th or 9th century. Consequently, every written source is interpreted through the lens of this narrative. This, however, distorts the accurate understanding of historical reality and, by extension, hinders the return to correct ecclesiastical practice.
Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to finally re-examine the ancient sources allegedly proving the exclusivity or primacy of communion in the hand. They must thoroughly undertake the work that has been neglected for sixty years, researching actual ecclesiastical practice supported by the analysis of other available historical remains. Anyone who has examined in detail the ‘justifying’ textual interpretations and citations of Bugnini or the frequently cited Dom Ambrois Verheul OSB (La communion dans la main, in: Les questions liturgiques et paroissiales 50 (1969), pp. 115–122) can see their tendentious nature; thus, one can be confident that this narrative can be successfully refuted if the necessary time is dedicated to it.
In the preceding sections, I have addressed textual witnesses only partially; instead, I have attempted to reconstruct a probable ancient rite of communion based on the earliest surviving depictions of authentic liturgical scenes. Far from being contradicted, this reconstruction is rendered more plausible by even the most frequently cited textual sources of the ‘communion in the hand’ narrative, while elements preserved in various liturgical traditions support it in detail. I have done this in the hope of providing inspiration and insights to researchers, whose efforts are essential if a history of the concrete liturgical forms of receiving Holy Communion is to be compiled in accordance with historical reality.
