Posted on 12/08/2016 3:48:32 AM PST by JosephJames
One error jumped out at me quickly... contrary to the article, Lutherans in fact DO believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though they call it consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation. To a Lutheran, it is still bread and wine, but infused with the true presence of Christ. Another difference to a Lutheran is that the true presence is ephemeral, so that the once holy-always holy nature of Catholic Eucharist, does not apply from the Lutheran viewpoint (i.e., after their use during communion, they remain just bread and wine).
Adjutorium nostri in nomine Domini, Qui fecit caelum et terram!
Whatever justification is used for receiving Communion in the hand, why don’t the “Eucharistic Ministers” wash their hands along with the priest before toughing the Host?
(I know the answer: They don’t believe in transubstantiation, and therefore the Divine Presence.)
Bttt
In order to paste all the formatting, you must copy and paste the SOURCE of the page you are copying.
In most parishes, they practice the Rite of Application of the Holy Hand Sanitizer. This is done in the sanctuary, very ostentatiously, to put the minds of the congregation at ease about germs.
Very funny...like Monty Python’s Holy Hand Grenade (of Antioch?).
But I don't believe the Early Church did it this way. Communion in the hand seems closest to His command, "Take this and eat" Christ did not tell us to receive His Body made bread. Take.
Too little, too late. Those of the laity who refused to accept Communion in the hand and knelt were REFUSED Communion in too many places. One image will stay in my mind forever - that of an old lady forced to take Communion in the hand and standing - returned to her pew, with tears running down my face.
That was as close to punching that despicable POS in robes. He later left the Church because he was a Communist.
You either put your faith in sixth century popes or in the way Jesus did it.
Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22.
Some quick notes:
Altho ^some^ Lutheran traditions use the term Eucharist, confessional Lutherans agree that the term should be rejected as it implies a “memorial” sacrament.
Consubstantiation is a modern term meant to obfuscate the real meaning of the Sacrament of the Altar.
Your use of the term “infused” is better described as ‘in, with and under the Elements (hat-tip, Martin Luther).
In the sense of the preservation of the Host, you are correct. At the end of the Lutheran Mass, the elements are simply bread and wine, yet, confessional Lutherans handle and dispose of the “left-over elements” with due reverence.
As to receiving in the hand or receiving on the tongue, we should consider the Verba that says, “Take and eat.”. It appears that the apostles received the Bread/Body in their hands. (Cletus prefers to receive lingually from the Celebrant).
Cletus - LCMS
:: why don’t the “Eucharistic Ministers” wash their hands along with the priest before toughing the Host ::
< snark > Do you think Jesus might catch a cold? < /snark >
Easiest way: right-click on the page and choose, “View Source”
Next, CTRL-A and copy. Then head to FR posting site and paste. Always choose PREVIEW before posting.
Who decides if the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ? The consensus of the majority of human beings? There are thousands of independent protestant groups in the USA, each with the same Bible, the same Jesus, but there are a great number of differences of interpretation about the same passages from the Bible! Where is the authority to give us the Truth that truly sets us free? My opinion? Your opinion? Is it all subjectivism and relativism and thus how can I be sure that I am following the right path that leads to eternal life since I am a subjective human being? Did Jesus Christ, Who is God, not know that there would be this problem, and did He not leave a solution for those with true humility and good will?
I have tried this. I also have this problem at other web sites as well. It is not consistent because when I post a reply such as this, the embedded links come out OK.
The article explains this:
In the very beginning of the Christian Church, Holy Communion was received in the hand. However, Bishop Schneider explains that as the early Church became increasingly “aware of the greatness of the moment of Holy Communion [She] searched to find a ritual expression that can bear witness in the most perfect manner to her faith, love, and respect.” By the sixth century, with greater understanding and adoration of the Sacrament, Holy Communion placed directly on the tongue became the NORM. Those who continued to distribute Communion in the hand were censured. The sect known as the Casiani was condemned in 839 for refusing to receive Communion on the tongue. The Synod of Rouen in 878 threatened to suspend sacred ministers if they distributed Communion in the hand.
Aware of the magnitude of the greatness of the moment of Holy Communion, the Church in its two thousand year old tradition has tried to find a ritual that could testify as perfectly as possible to her faith, to her love and to her respect. This occurred, when in the wake of an organic development, at least from the sixth century, the Church began to adopt the mode of distributing the holy Eucharistic species directly on the tongue. There is given testimony to this: the biography of Pope Gregory the Great and an indication of the same Gregorio related to Pope Agapito (Dialogues, III).
The early Church Fathers were concerned about safeguarding fragments of the Holy Eucharist (cf. Catechesi mistagogiche, 5,21). This was another reason for the institution of receiving Christ directly on the tongue in both the early Eastern and Western churches. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand posed the very real hazard that tiny particles, including those that were imperceptible to the human eye, could be dropped. St. Jerome expressed his concern about even a tiny fragment of the Holy Eucharist falling to the ground: “If anything should fall to the ground, there is danger.”
According to the Coptic Church, “there is no difference between the smaller and larger particles of the Eucharist, even those smallest ones which cannot be perceived with the naked eye; they deserve the same veneration and possess the same dignity as the whole Bread.”
You write: “Too little, too late.”
The history of the Israelites and the Church in the New Testament has always gone through the same cycle of slowly losing the faith, and then after the lose of God, and the great suffering due to the lose of God’s protection, a few converted to start all over again. This cycle was repeated seven times in the Book of Judges alone!
If everybody I know does not want to seek to discover and do the will of God with much prayer, that’s their eternal choice. That does not mean I have to follow them, even though it is not easy to go alone.
Pope John Paul II said to a group of pilgrims in Fulda, West Germany, in November 1980, speaking about the secrets of Fatima, that: “We have to be prepared to suffer, before long, great trials which will require of us the disposition to sacrifice even our life for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is still possible to diminish this trial (predicted at Fatima), but it is no longer possible to avert it, because only in this manner can the Church be effectively renewed. How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” (http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/fulda.asp).
“The Dream of St. John Bosco” of the two pillars indicates to us the great importance of staying very close to Jesus in the Eucharist (while it is still possible) with our Rosary in hand.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said: “The truth is the truth even if no one believes it; error is error even if everyone believes it.”
Hell or high water, the first thing I got to do is save my immortal soul. This is also the greatest thing I can do for other, true love, not false love as is so prevalent in the Church today.
Jesus did not explain everything. This is why He left us the Holy Spirit and his One Church.
But it still isn’t transubstantiation.
Trans = transfer
Substantiation = substance.
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.