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.
1. The chalice bearer wipes the cup and turns the rim slightly for each recipient.
2. The alcohol and the acid in the wine kill most everything.
When I was an Episcopalian, they sort of made assurance doubly sure by using port wine, which is approximately 20 percent alcohol. (This is why you need to be careful with Thunderbird.) But Catholics can't do that, because the wine must be unadulterated, and the vintners get the kick into port by adding brandy or grain to it.
I too have noticed people turning away and walking quite some distance before casually conveying the Host to their mouths.
In the Episcopal church, we did not receive on the tongue, but we were taught to receive the Host in our cradled hands, and right there before rising to our feet (we always knelt unless infirm) bow our head over our hands and apply the tongue to the Host. We did not handle the Sacrament at all. If somebody wanted to receive by intinction they waited for the chalice-bearer, who would take the Host from them and dip it in the chalice. But never did anybody turn away with the Host still in their hand.
AFAIK, the chalice is offered to lay people in some places — probably at the discretion of the bishop. I believe this practice was encouraged after V II. For the record, here in Boston — and I go to daily Mass — I was at a Mass where the chalice was offered to the laity precisely once, and that at a daily Mass, with only a dozen or so people. I have a hazy recollection that it might have been permitted under special circumstances pre-V II, but I don’t know.
I think it tells you earlier practice is undocumented -- like so much of earlier practice.
You know, it was one of those moments in your life where it happened so quickly and she was so far away, that it was sort of surreal. I’m still beating myself up over not leaping over bleachers and trying to say something to her...
But, quite honestly, she passed only in an instant, at a distance, and it didn’t full register with me until she was long gone.
I think the chalice was permitted at weddings (for the bridal couple only).
That said, I think treating Communion as if it were the hors d’oeuvre table at a cocktail party is part of a larger phenomenon of cluelessness about the Eucharist, the altar, sacredness, etc. in general.
Yesterday I was standing in the Cathedral and I saw the 40’ish “liturgist” come out to show a deacon something she wanted him to do when he read, and she chose to do this leaning on the altar with her bosom on her arms as if she were in a bar. Then she turned to the side and propped herself up against the altar with one hand while she talked to him, and finally she turned around and leaned her back and her backside against the altar while they chatted. I was shocked and I actually e-mailed one of the priests to tell him about this; I don’t know if anybody will talk to her about it, because she has more power at the church than the priests do and the bishop is a very timid man who is probably also afraid of her. On top of that, she seems to be in charge of instructing younger or visiting clergy on what to do. I was really appalled.
I saw the Papa put it in the hand as well as on the tongue.
>>It’s on the cloth, not in the cup (thank goodness!)<<
Nope, those germs are on the lip. You wouldn’t take a drinking glass at home and wipe it with a dry cloth then expect it to be germ free. ESPECIALLY when lipstick is involved. Those germs stay in the grease and get spread all around.
The Eastern Rites are so much smarter with the straws!
I believe maryz’s answer is correct, and, if I may add for the record we Catholics believe that Jesus is fully present in the consecrated host and the precious blood separately, thus there isn’t a strict need to consume both the Body and the Blood to receive “full communion”. One can receive either/or and fully partake in the Sacrament.
>>2. The alcohol and the acid in the wine kill most everything. <<
No, really. Every time a person sips from that cup, it becomes a bit more deluted in the process. You have a seven percent alcohol in the wine to start. Not a large amount. Put into effect that “recipient A” comes to the cup with lipstick on, the EMHC slides a dry cloth around and turns the cup, speading grease along the rim. “Recipient B” then comes up with the flu and drinks. Again the EMHC then slides a dry cloth with flu virus onto the lipstick. Flu for all.
Remember, the lips touch the outside of that rim where the wine never touches.
You wouldn’t do this in your bathroom at home.
Such anxiety over a piece of bread? Odd.
If you examined the “consecrated host” under a microscope, or analyzed it in a lab, what would you find? Flesh or bread? Seriously.
And when Jesus offered the wine and bread to His disciples, did they not merely eat ... bread and wine? Or was His body literally, which He was living in at the moment, literally transubstantiated into the things He was offering His friends?
I guess “it is [not] finished,” after all.
So you’re going to fault people in the 4th century for thinking the same as well?
I agree let's tell the truth and reveal our actual motivations.
Oops, #52 was meant for someone else. Sorry!
So you’re going to fault people in the 4th century for thinking the same as well?
I also have read that the ceremony was done at table and that the bread was broken and eaten. I don't recall Jesus hand feeding them at the last supper. So my conclusion, is as the article said, the church did it to be more solemn, not to be traditional and true to the original practice.
No problem!
Yes. They were wrong.
And who are you to say so? By what authority?
By what authority? Scripture and reason and common sense. The bread and wine that Jesus gave to His friends wasn’t bloody flesh. It was ... bread. He was celebrating Passover with them, and gave them the Passover bread and wine, which represented His new covenant with them. It was not blood platelets and white blood cells and epidermis and dermis and such. That’s just silliness to think it is. You’re free to believe you’re sacrificing Jesus all over again, if you’d like. As for me, when Jesus said, “It is finished” on the cross, I believe Him. No more flesh and blood sacrifices are necessary, thank God.
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.