And I really can't tell from the photo:
.Posted on 11/21/2011 11:50:12 AM PST by Pyro7480
Auxiliary Bishop Says Communion In the Hand is a Calvinist Novelty
Not Even Martin Luther Would Have Done It
In the last century the Old Liberal Bishops promoted hand Communion. They used a historical lie toward this end.
(kreuz.net)Present day Communion in the Hand has no roots in the early Church.
This was stressed by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider (50) of Astana in Kazakhstan on the 19th on the radio station 'Radio Maria Südtirol'
Msgr Schneider is a Patristic expert.
Hand Communion was contrived "all new" from the Second Vatican Council -- the Auxiliary Bishop firmly said.
The antique Church had practiced a completely different form for the reception of Communion.
In that period the hand in which Communion was received was purified before and after.
Additionally, the faithful would take the Body of the Lord from their hand in a disposition of prayer with his tongue:
"If anything it was more of an oral reception of Communion than in the hand".
After Communion, the communicant had to lick their hands with their tongues, so that even the smallest particle should not be lost.
A Deacon supervised the purification.
The Auxiliary Bishop cotinued: "This concern and care stands in direct opposition to indifference and carelessness with which so called Communion in the hand is dispensed."
Women never held Communion simply on the flat of the hand.
They spread a white cloth, a manner of corporal over their hand.
Then, they would receive Communion directly to their mouth from the linen cloth.
"That is a tremendous contrast to the present form of Communion in the hand" -- insisted Msgr Schneider.
The ancient faithful never took Communion with their fingers: "the gesture of hand Communion was completely unknown in the Church."
The Antique Form of Giving Communion Was Impractical in the Final Analysis
In the course of the centuries the Church developed a form of giving Communion which "surely came from the Holy Ghost".
Msgr Schneider explained that the Eastern Church had already completed this step by the 5th Century, the West somewhat later.
The transition took place worldwide, organically, instinctively and peacefully.
The Auxiliary Bishop reports that Pope Gregory the Great († 604), gave Communion in on the tongue.
French and Spanish Synods of the 8th and 9th Centuries sanctioned against touching the Host with excommunication:
"If a Synod can make such a strict threat, this form will be forbidden in a short time."
Communion in the Hand Comes from the Calvinists
According to the Auxiliary Bishop, communion in the hand comes from the Dutch Calvinists of the 17th Century.
Calvinism denies the real presence of Christ in the Host.
One such communion in the hand wasn't even practiced by the Lutherans:
"The Lutherans have until quite recently, and till today in Scandinavian lands, preserved communion kneeling and on the tongue."
Link to original, kreuznet...
And I really can't tell from the photo:
. Not necessarily. I'm an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, and I've given the Body of Christ to communicants in both ways. There are some who receive in the hand who seem oblivious to the great Gift they have, but most receive in a very reverent manner.
The unusual event of the foot washing is recorded only in the last Gospel written—which means that unless the first three writers had consulted with John and asked him to cover for them when he got around to writing his Gospel then they were content to omit mentioning at least some of the unusual occurrences. As John writes his Gospel with a view to bringing out theological truths and not a Ripley’s Believe-it-or-not I don’t think one may state with any confidence that he exhaustively lists all unusual practices.
All that said, given that the last Supper is, among other things, an ordination Mass with the apostles as ordinandi, I don’t think that whatever happened to the apostles here is normative for the faithful in all of the details.
IOW, there is no biblical evidence Jesus fed them by hand like is done in modern Catholic practice. I agree.
LOL!
AND there is no evidence for any other way either.
Private revelation can be an “ify” area.
Those who are wise pray for the gift of discernment and work on seeking Christ’s will in the present moment.
...which means, in the real world, we take the standard practice of the time and culture to be the norm. Which means they put the bread in their own mouths.
Happens a lot. You don’t see renderings of a long-haired Jesus until the Gothic period. Short hair was the fashion of Jesus time as evidenced by the many renderings of daily life and common people of the time. During the Gothic period during Europe’s early development, long hair was considered the mark of royalty so now everyone thinks Jesus had long hair.
I think you may. Interesting take on Passover and Last Supper here: http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/jesus-of-nazareth/excerpts.htm#last-supper
Nevertheless, no evidence exists Jesus went around feeding the disciples one by one. :-)
Scripture is silent on this detail.
I haven't. When/where has this happened?
Monarchy:
Catholic Prophecy [Why some Catholics anticipate the return of Monarchy]
I see a prediction of coming monarchy, but no "calling for" it.
"A LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR MONARCHY" - no mention of Catholicism in this post.
CatholicTV calls for "Benevolent Dictatorship"?!
"This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement".
Inquisition: Catholicism’s Top 10 – Part 1 (things that make the Catholic Church great)
If one reads the whole of #9, one sees that the author calls not for "the bloodthirsty tribunals of myth" but for identification of de facto heretics in the clergy.
Nor was there any evidence in any of those links for the claimed "increasing number".
Every time the subject of the last supper comes up during an exorcism, the demons (while forced to tell the truth under the rite of exorcism) state that Jesus placed the bread directly on the tongues of the apostles.
I am not quite sure how you know what standard practice was in the culture when the Son of God in the flesh gives his body, blood, soul, and divinity to you the night before He dies. It strikes me as a one-time event where the rules of standard practice do not come into play. You have not answered the argument the omission of the washing of the feet from the synoptics destroys the argument that the evangelists would note any unusual practice. Three-quarters omitted this—who is to say that John included everything. He, in turn, leaves out the institution narrative, which was probably not standard supper language at the time. Yes, the synoptics include it, but only by faith in nothing in particular can one hold that the four Gospels were meant to be, among other things, an exhaustive sacramentary.
What brings you to FR today, and to posting on this thread in particular?
I think it is obvious we both agree there is no biblical evidence for the practice Catholics now perform. We can choose to believe the common sense belief that the normal dinner practice was followed or we can choose to believe a non-common sense belief.
I’ll side with the former.
Not as obvious as the fact that there is no Biblical evidence to support any contention that all evidence must be Biblical.
Well, I’ll concede normal cultural practice as understood historically ought to be allowed unless there is good reason not to admit the same. :)
But at least we can agree there is no biblical evidence Jesus hand-fed his apostles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.