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.
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.
This is so silly. Jesus didn’t place the bread on the tongues of His disciples! He tore off a piece and passed to the the disciple next to Him.
This is yet another reason I could never be Catholic, the endless silly rules and rituals that have no connection the the early Church.
Ed