I'm betting these guys put the bread in their mouths all on their own....
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...
>>I believe the Assyrian Church of the East practices communion in hand. I saw it in a YouTube video.<<
WOW! I think that’s pretty cool. I think that everyone who wants to receive in the hand should go to an Assyrian Church of the East.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
And what if a particular person doesn't feel the full presence of Christ in the act? Was the full presence of Christ still in the act?
At the last supper. Jesus broke the bread and passed it to his disciples who took it in their hands.
They also took the cup and each drank from it.
And the elements were not round wafers dipped into an ornate
chalice.
Every man grasps salvation for himself when he believes the promises of God and puts his faith in Christ.
Salvation is not dispensed to man by an officer of the church.
>>It appears that at least some ‘modern Catholics’ have also had their senses of humor removed... <<
Just because you think it’s funny, it’s not really humor.
This is humor....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRYZ9cBzMcg
Don’t give in on that point...this was a Jewish Passover meal.
The person serving the meal (in this case Jesus) did not go about feeding each individual one by one. That is preposterous.
I am not saying the practice is WRONG, but it certainly isn’t required. And it definitely isn’t how the Passover was celebrated. *If* Christ had done something that out of the ordinary, one would suspect the writers of the gospels would have noted the action.
The idea still lives on in even evangelical churches, that a pastor ought to lead or “bless” the elements before communion.
>>Why not? That’s kind of what a forum is about. We discuss things.
If you don’t mind I’ll bookmark this so I can share it with other FReepers who get upset when I “discuss” things. ;)
<<
As long as you keep it in context, I don’t mind. Discussion is not baiting or insulting though.
>>Why is there so much focus on the process of communion instead of why we have communion?<<
Don’t you know why? I think Catholics do.
It’s kosher for Catholics to receive communion in their parishes as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.
Where did you get that photo? I didn’t think they had cameras back then.
>>It’s kosher for Catholics to receive communion in their parishes as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.<<
I never said it wasn’t “Kosher”. I did say that ‘I’ think...
That means, ‘I’ think.
Beside the point: Fact is that taking by hand is less referential. Jung who grew up Calvinist once described Holy Communion by the Swiss Calvinist rite as spiritually “dry.” It ceases being a personal reception of the Lord and became a mere ceremony. It certainly was treated that way in the Cumberland Presbyterian church I attended when I was young.
I dunno - none of the synoptics saw fit to note that, as John states, the meal took place on the night before Passover.
Tat statement is meaningless in Catholic terms. The priest is not an “officer of the Church,” but “another Christ:. The hands that distribute the host come from a successful of living hands back to the hands of Christ himself. It is Christ himself who feeds us if we faithfully receive him.
It’s not only not fair to claim that Calvinism denies the presence of Christ in the sacrament, it is also not accurate. What the Calvinist denies is the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament (i.e., transubstantiation); he does not for a moment deny the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament.
I was just saying.
Well, when Jesus instituted communion as a remembrance, he also said that whoever dipped his bread in the wine at the same time he did would be his betrayer. That would imply that each disciple had their own bread in their own hands. That being said, it probably doesn’t matter as long as it gets done.
Thanks and not baiting at all. ;)
I don’t and would appreciate the education.
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.