Posted on 04/23/2008 7:45:48 AM PDT by NYer
Apr. 22, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The American magazine Catholic Response has published an English translation of a provocative article, originally published in the official Vatican newspaper, calling for an end to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.
The article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L'Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling. Only ordained ministers were allowed to touch the consecrated Host with their hands.
By the 6th century, Bishop Schneider writes, the Church had formed a consensus that Communion should be received on the tongue, of reverence for the Eucharistic Lord. Pope Gregory the Great chastised priests who resisted that consensus, and it was become an "almost universal practice" in the early Church, the author says.
Kneeling to receive Communion was also a pattern established early in Church history, Bishop Schneider reports. That posture, too, was seen as a means of expressing reverence for Jesus in the Eucharist, and "the most typical gesture of adoration is the biblical one of kneeling."
By administering Communion on the tongue, priests were able to foster greater devotion to the Eucharist; Bishop Schneider remarks that that form is "an impressive sign of the profession of faith the in the Real Presence."
He adds the argument that this form of distributing Communion can prevent accidents. The author cites St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who exhorted priests to use extra caution "so that no even a crumb of the Lord's Body could fall to the ground."
The article published in L'Osservatore Romano, and now translated in Catholic Response, summarizes the more complete argument that Bishop Schneider put forward in his book, Dominus Est. That book, released in Italy earlier this year, drew special notice for two reasons. It was published by the official Vatican press, and a preface was contributed by Archbishop Macolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who said it was "high time to review" the policy of allowing laymen to receive Communion in the hand.
Can't think of any other such "atrocities" now . . . except "mute point" -- which shows up far too often, even on FR!
Mute point!!!
GRRRRRRRR!!!
I hate that almost as much a “nucular” and “Boeings”.
Read further down in 1 Corinthians 11: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” vs. 29
Now, go back and read John Chapter 6. Jesus was very clear when He said:
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” vs. 51
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” vs. 53b
“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” vs. 54
“For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” vs. 55
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” vs. 56
“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” vs. 57
“This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” vs. 58
“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” vs. 60
“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” vs. 66
Frightening? Not really. (Old Reggie wants to know if the DNA matched ... in a sense, dear friend, it did. Same blood type as that on the Shroud of Turin but that's another discussion).
So, let's turn to Scripture. What did Jesus say?
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
John 6:51-56
There are only 2 possible responses - either Jesus was lying or He was telling the truth. According to John 14:6, Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life. . If He is the Truth, then He was not lying.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
So, what did the first christians believe? Let's turn to the writings of the Early Church Fathers for a response.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
We all agree that the Real Presence is a difficult concept for anyone to accept, much less believe. It takes an act of faith much like the monk in the referenced post. Ultimately, we have our Lord's promise that this is so. And He does not lie.
I refer you to my posts #76 and #104.
Then why would they use sterilization procedures anywhere?
Your pediatrician should go a day without washing his hands, never using a rubber glove, sharing cups with his patients and hey, forget that autoclave! Don’t need it, the equipment shares the same room with someone.
Then he should give his opinion again. The right opinion. The one he learned in medical school and my kids learned on Barney. Never share a cup.
Not surgery or medical procedures! There IS a difference!
You know, the medical literature is now saying that it's not such a good idea to super-sterilize everything in normal daily life. It tends to produce super-germs. Plus, you do better if you get SOME exposure to germs, because it helps your body develop resistance. This is especially true of kids.
You remember the old saying, "Everybody's got to eat their peck of dirt?" It really seems like there's something in it.
My grandmother was a bacteriologist at the Medical College of Georgia (Augusta) during the 1918 'flu pandemic. She was always a bug about germs, and we practically washed the skin off our hands when we stayed at her house. But we understood why she felt that way -- anybody would after watching so many patients die and being unable to help them!
Though would that reduce the chance though of ingesting other’s saliva? Can the communicant be sure of how others drink?
Maybe it’s just me but I can’t help but visualize Jesus in Heaven, shaking his head and thinking, “...there they go again...please my children, focus on my teachings.”
I haven't regretted it one bit.
Catholics are so good at rationalizing! Trust me, I’m relaxed but I know the basics.
This is basic stuff, my girls learned it on Barney as they did, cover your mouth when you sneeze.
This might help.
Honestly, anyone in a high immigrant area like myself (Slovak Catholic Church), would be risking tons using a communal cup. Blood of Christ or not.
Sterilize is not wiping with a dry cloth. And developing resistance involves refraining from cleaning the shopping cart handle with a clorox wipe, NOT drinking from someone elses cup.
And Jesus is not a puzzle. One receives him whole either in the host or in a drop of wine. There is no reason for both. Except to give a whole bunch of people time on the altar.
There is a reason why priests announce that there will be no distribution of Precious Blood during cold and flu season.
How would one suppose Christ delivered the bread to his disciples?
OK, I did.
I need to alter my statement. “A huge amount of time, bandwidth and argument um infinitum is being exhausted on irrelevant minutia.
In that case, the risk is so great that any possible cross-contamination should be avoided.
That's like being around a hospital (a terrible place to get stuff. My dad got hospital staph when he went in to be treated for prostate cancer. He never caught anything from the communion cup. Of course, my folks live in a community of 1500 people. Small germ pool.)
We're just a typical suburban parish.
Matthew 13:
[10] Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"
[11] And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
[12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
[13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
[14] With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: `You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
Repeat:
"I suggest you ask a knowledgeable Jew how the bread was broken and passed at Passover."
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.