Posted on 12/26/2004 3:42:44 PM PST by ultima ratio
Why? Did they misquote Christ in the consecration as well?
When you take a sip of water from a water fountain, do you pour it into your hands prior to drinking it?
I also find it amazing that the modernists will claim there was no word for 'many' in Aramaic (thus the NO consecration), yet the word 'take' in Aramaic was so developed and precise that they can state that Christ wanted people to receive Holy Communion in the paws. LOL!
I agree with your point about the common practice, sinkspur, but this quote does not prove what you want.
laubano, ... (1) to take, as in the hand, Mat. xiv. 9; hence (2) to claim, procure, Lu. xix. 12; (3) to take by force, seize, Mat. xxi. 35; (4) to take away, by violence or fraud, Mat. v. 40; (5) to choose, Ac. xv. 14; (6) to receive, accept, obtain, Jn. xvi. 24; Ja. iii. 1; Rev. xviii. 4; ... (George Berry, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, p. 59)
Ping.
I'd like to see a source for this. In one of my theology classes at Loyola U in New Orleans back in the 70s a priest claimed that not only did the early Christians take the Host in their hands they would shove it in their pockets, walk homw with it and consume it later. He left the Church in the 80s, it was too conservative for him.
There is nothing remotely resembling a relation between Bugnini's concoction and the earliest Masses. The only thing the Novus Ordo resembles is the Lutheran Liturgy--which was his whole point.
It is thought that they used to take home bread that was blessed but not consecrated. The Orthodox still do this. The altar bread (called prosphora, in the Orthodox Church) is blessed, but then only part of it is consecrated. After the Liturgy, the "extra" blessed bread is distributed, and the people take it home or eat it while they stand around after the Liturgy. People who could not get to the Liturgy for some reason were always happy to receive the bread brought home by a neighbor or relative, and the blessed bread was treated with respect. It was not supposed to be fed to animals, for example.
So this priest using his foggy knowledge of early practices to justify casual mishandling of the Eucharist was way off base. Many of VatII's worst practices - not that they were necessarily designed to be bad, but they certainly became so through use - were defended by their proponents on the basis that they were supposedly done in the "Early Church."
The "Early Church" was used by Protestants from the very beginning to justify everything they did, even though little is known with certainty about early practices. But most important, basing everything on the "Early Church" jumps over the millenia of development of doctrine and practice and says that it doesn't matter anymore or that it was erroneous, a position held both by Protestants and by many of the "reformers" of VatII.
Likoudis now equates the Pope with the Christ.
These are examples of the Neo-Catholic Dead End.
I saw another example of the neo-Catholic dead end in the catechism my parish adopted. (Blest Are We.)..A great catechism for training Lutheran children.
There's always hope for EWTN...there's talk that Mother Angelica did her best to just keep the Evangelicals in the Chruch! They really don't get much airtime though...you can see their Mass..they are just chomping at the bit to celbrate the Tridentine...but the Bishop in that area is a paramour of Raj Mahoney.
In the meantime (around 1500 AD) an evil heresy sprung up that denied the Real Presense and promoted communion in the hand.
Now switch to 2005. Why promote communion in the hand?...doing what millions of heretics do (adherents to the Lutheran heresy)...the Church has always tightened stuff up to deal with heresy..(ref. filioque)
This claim to be with the "early Church" is really a maneuver to be in harmony with the heretics of 1500 ... the Protestants..Communion in the hand is absolutely tied to disbelief in the Real Presense...why do it?..you might personally believe it but the practice has very real connotations and a context. When Protestant see you do this they think "Ah, he believes as we do."..
so this "Early Church maneuver" is just cover for doing what Luther tried to do...only now we're 500 years after Luther and stuck with a liturgy that absoluetly takes it cues from a Lutheran worship service.
Christ's body in hand...a Protestant (not Christian) practice.
You make an important point. As we recede from apostolic times further and further, there is more and more need to shore up belief by practices which affirm the faith. The wrecking of Catholic Tradition by the Holy See was particularly damaging in modern times--and inexcusable.
"He (Wojtyla) has rewritten everything, revised everything (even things such as the Rosary), and left his personal stamp on everything."
Above everything else this impression will be the most significant aspect of his reign. The Cult of Wojtyla has overshadowed the work of the Church and is a convenient device used by radicals pushing the Vatican II revolution and conservatives now resigned to it. Whatever the Pope may say about traditional teaching, his actions and novelties have encouraged others to follow suit.
"who is blind like My servant" -- God.
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
Thanks for your response. I know Monsignor Knox talks about this sort of "justification" based on an appeal to the early Church in his book Enthusiasm but, I wasn't sure where the idea about shoving the Host in your pockets and taking it home came from.
In discussing Roman Catholic Hebrew-Greek-Latin-English Biblical translations, a Catholic translator like St. Jerome should be referenced, instead of a rarely mentioned ( spell: o-b-s-c-u-r-e ) Protestant writer who's 'contribution' was published in the late 1890's - much after the real pro's - Thomas Linacre, John Colet and William Tyndale did all the heavy lifting.
See:
( Ecumenical Catholic) Bible Translations Guide
Perhaps you aren't a Catholic. At least this would explain your looking to a Protestant translator to define 'take'.
It should be expected that a Protestant translator would put a calculated Protestant definition on how the Holy Eucharist - unleavened bread literally changed into the Body of Christ Jesus - is to be received according to Sacred Tradition, during a Roman Catholic Holy Mass.
Thanks for your well intentioned participation in any case.
Quite frankly, that is the thing that has most disturbed me about him. I doubt that there has ever been a time when the focus of the Church was so much on the Pope.
There have certainly been other times when people have wanted the Pope to act (usually in political situations, but also in doctrinal disputes) and he hasn't; there have been other Popes who have seemed a little weak on discipline. But the Church has survived all of these things.
However, the odd thing now is that JPII has become the point of reference for everything in the Church. People's orthodoxy is no longer judged by their adherence to traditional Catholic doctrine, but by the degree of their adherence to the Pope, not as an institution, but as a person. To question anything he has written, said, or done is unthinkable; and it seems to me that all Catholic writings now must be preceded or followed by protestations of affection for the Pope.
I must say I have been puzzled by some of his actions, and more so by some of his inaction, but I don't regard him as intending to destroy the Church, the way some traditionalists do. But I find this cult of personality profoundly disturbing, and I wonder what will happen when he dies.
So did St. John Bosco:
St. John Bosco referred to the pope as "God on earth" and asserted: "Jesus has put the pope on the same level as God."
After Pius IX's proclamation of infallibility, references to the Pope as "supreme ruler of the world" were common. One journal even wrote: "When the pope meditates, it is God who thinks in him."
To act as if JPII is cultivating some sort of papal cult is to ignore the recent past, with Papal coronations, the grand processionals with the flabelli and sedia gestatoria, and the sanctification of every utterance made by Popes, in light of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.
Try Pius IX. He jammed through the doctrine of Papal infallibility over the objections of large numbers of Catholic bishops, including 23 of the 26 American bishops. And, he saw infallibility as applying to much more than doctrinal proclamations:
The historian Ferdinand Gregorovius noted in his diary, "The pope recently got the urge to try out his infallibility....While out on a walk he called to a paralytic: `Get up and walk.' The poor devil gave it a try and collapsed, which put God's vicegerent very much out of sorts. The anecdote has already been mentioned in the newspapers. I really believe that he's insane."
The source for the above is Hasler, AB. How the Pope Became Infallible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981.
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.