Posted on 11/21/2011 11:50:12 AM PST by Pyro7480
Auxiliary Bishop Says Communion In the Hand is a Calvinist Novelty
Not Even Martin Luther Would Have Done It
In the last century the Old Liberal Bishops promoted hand Communion. They used a historical lie toward this end.
(kreuz.net)Present day Communion in the Hand has no roots in the early Church.
This was stressed by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider (50) of Astana in Kazakhstan on the 19th on the radio station 'Radio Maria Südtirol'
Msgr Schneider is a Patristic expert.
Hand Communion was contrived "all new" from the Second Vatican Council -- the Auxiliary Bishop firmly said.
The antique Church had practiced a completely different form for the reception of Communion.
In that period the hand in which Communion was received was purified before and after.
Additionally, the faithful would take the Body of the Lord from their hand in a disposition of prayer with his tongue:
"If anything it was more of an oral reception of Communion than in the hand".
After Communion, the communicant had to lick their hands with their tongues, so that even the smallest particle should not be lost.
A Deacon supervised the purification.
The Auxiliary Bishop cotinued: "This concern and care stands in direct opposition to indifference and carelessness with which so called Communion in the hand is dispensed."
Women never held Communion simply on the flat of the hand.
They spread a white cloth, a manner of corporal over their hand.
Then, they would receive Communion directly to their mouth from the linen cloth.
"That is a tremendous contrast to the present form of Communion in the hand" -- insisted Msgr Schneider.
The ancient faithful never took Communion with their fingers: "the gesture of hand Communion was completely unknown in the Church."
The Antique Form of Giving Communion Was Impractical in the Final Analysis
In the course of the centuries the Church developed a form of giving Communion which "surely came from the Holy Ghost".
Msgr Schneider explained that the Eastern Church had already completed this step by the 5th Century, the West somewhat later.
The transition took place worldwide, organically, instinctively and peacefully.
The Auxiliary Bishop reports that Pope Gregory the Great († 604), gave Communion in on the tongue.
French and Spanish Synods of the 8th and 9th Centuries sanctioned against touching the Host with excommunication:
"If a Synod can make such a strict threat, this form will be forbidden in a short time."
Communion in the Hand Comes from the Calvinists
According to the Auxiliary Bishop, communion in the hand comes from the Dutch Calvinists of the 17th Century.
Calvinism denies the real presence of Christ in the Host.
One such communion in the hand wasn't even practiced by the Lutherans:
"The Lutherans have until quite recently, and till today in Scandinavian lands, preserved communion kneeling and on the tongue."
Link to original, kreuznet...
Catholic ping!
Gosh. I’d better not say anything about how Methodists take Communion or I might get burned at the stake...
AMEN to that!
What did Jesus do during the last supper? I doubt he placed the bread in their mouth.
So much is focused on tradition instead of scripture.
I believe the Assyrian Church of the East practices communion in hand. I saw it in a YouTube video.
You might have picked up in your reading of Scripture that the Twelve weren’t your usual followers of Jesus.
>>I doubt he placed the bread in their mouth.<<
Well, seeing as neither of us were there.....
It is not fiar to say that Calvinism denies the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. What is true is that begining with the Calvinists the belief in transubstaniation was altered. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying “Do this in remembrance of me”, which protestant do - feeling the full presence of Christ in the act.
It is not fiar to say that Calvinism denies the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. What is true is that begining with the Calvinists the belief in transubstaniation was altered. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying “Do this in remembrance of me”, which protestant do - feeling the full presence of Christ in the act.
True but please show me in scripture where it matters how the host is given?
I believe the important part is that it is done, not the actual ritual.
Maybe he did place it in the mouth. Scripture doesn’t say, unfortunately.
True so why be so focused on it if the Lord didn’t mention a specific procedure?
Scriptural support for “only the special people can touch the communion elements? Anyone?
>>I might get burned at the stake...<<
Because, of course, modern Catholics do that all the time.
Have you noticed that it’s actually 2011?
Jesus did it.
We dip and flip at our UMC - what do y’all do?
Hooah, Sarge.
Colonel, USAFR
>>True so why be so focused on it if the Lord didn’t mention a specific procedure?<<
Why not? That’s kind of what a forum is about. We discuss things.
Same.
>>I believe the Assyrian Church of the East practices communion in hand. I saw it in a YouTube video.<<
WOW! I think that’s pretty cool. I think that everyone who wants to receive in the hand should go to an Assyrian Church of the East.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
And what if a particular person doesn't feel the full presence of Christ in the act? Was the full presence of Christ still in the act?
At the last supper. Jesus broke the bread and passed it to his disciples who took it in their hands.
They also took the cup and each drank from it.
And the elements were not round wafers dipped into an ornate
chalice.
Every man grasps salvation for himself when he believes the promises of God and puts his faith in Christ.
Salvation is not dispensed to man by an officer of the church.
>>It appears that at least some ‘modern Catholics’ have also had their senses of humor removed... <<
Just because you think it’s funny, it’s not really humor.
This is humor....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRYZ9cBzMcg
Don’t give in on that point...this was a Jewish Passover meal.
The person serving the meal (in this case Jesus) did not go about feeding each individual one by one. That is preposterous.
I am not saying the practice is WRONG, but it certainly isn’t required. And it definitely isn’t how the Passover was celebrated. *If* Christ had done something that out of the ordinary, one would suspect the writers of the gospels would have noted the action.
The idea still lives on in even evangelical churches, that a pastor ought to lead or “bless” the elements before communion.
>>Why not? That’s kind of what a forum is about. We discuss things.
If you don’t mind I’ll bookmark this so I can share it with other FReepers who get upset when I “discuss” things. ;)
<<
As long as you keep it in context, I don’t mind. Discussion is not baiting or insulting though.
>>Why is there so much focus on the process of communion instead of why we have communion?<<
Don’t you know why? I think Catholics do.
It’s kosher for Catholics to receive communion in their parishes as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.
Where did you get that photo? I didn’t think they had cameras back then.
>>It’s kosher for Catholics to receive communion in their parishes as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.<<
I never said it wasn’t “Kosher”. I did say that ‘I’ think...
That means, ‘I’ think.
Beside the point: Fact is that taking by hand is less referential. Jung who grew up Calvinist once described Holy Communion by the Swiss Calvinist rite as spiritually “dry.” It ceases being a personal reception of the Lord and became a mere ceremony. It certainly was treated that way in the Cumberland Presbyterian church I attended when I was young.
I dunno - none of the synoptics saw fit to note that, as John states, the meal took place on the night before Passover.
Tat statement is meaningless in Catholic terms. The priest is not an “officer of the Church,” but “another Christ:. The hands that distribute the host come from a successful of living hands back to the hands of Christ himself. It is Christ himself who feeds us if we faithfully receive him.
It’s not only not fair to claim that Calvinism denies the presence of Christ in the sacrament, it is also not accurate. What the Calvinist denies is the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament (i.e., transubstantiation); he does not for a moment deny the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament.
I was just saying.
Well, when Jesus instituted communion as a remembrance, he also said that whoever dipped his bread in the wine at the same time he did would be his betrayer. That would imply that each disciple had their own bread in their own hands. That being said, it probably doesn’t matter as long as it gets done.
Thanks and not baiting at all. ;)
I don’t and would appreciate the education.
Is Virginia considerd the East?
Probably because receiving in the hand is deemed by some to be less reverent. This can be due to cultural understanding....or as a result of the long history of receiving only on the tongue. A bit of a case CAN be made for that. To my mind, however, it is much more important to make sure that we understand WHO it is that we receive. A person who understand that this is really and truly the Risen Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity naturally receives reverently, whether it touches the hand or the mouth first.
And, by the way, receiving in the hand took place in the early Church up until about the 10th century... if I recall correctly. St Cyril (see Early Church Fathers) even described how to receive ...teaching the people to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].”
Personally, I receive both ways. My own focus is NOT on how I receive but my attitude toward HE Whom I receive....before, during and after reception.
That is over simplified and will lead to error by both Catholics and non-Catholics.
"As an alter Christus, the priest is profoundly united to the Word of the Father who, in becoming incarnate took the form of a servant, he became a servant (Phil 2: 5-11). The priest is a servant of Christ, in the sense that his existence, configured to Christ ontologically, acquires an essentially relational character: he is in Christ, for Christ and with Christ, at the service of humankind. Because he belongs to Christ, the priest is radically at the service of all people: he is the minister of their salvation, their happiness and their authentic liberation, developing, in this gradual assumption of Christ's will, in prayer, in "being heart to heart" with him. Therefore this is the indispensable condition for every proclamation, which entails participation in the sacramental offering of the Eucharist and docile obedience to the Church." - Pope Benedict XVI 24 June 2009
During the administration of the Sacraments the priest acts "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ). Note that in neither of these cases in the priest an alter Jesu.
>>I don’t and would appreciate the education.<<
I apologize. I meant we know Why. :)
You've discovered how Methodists take Communion.
God bless Bishop Schneider!
^^
Amen!
I’ve been to many masses lately due to funerals. It often appears that tradition usurps scripture.
I agree. I also think that a person whose understanding is hazy can more easily be led to misunderstanding if the mode of reception is more like that of ordinary food.
Iraq/Iran is considered the East.
>>You caught us.
You’ve discovered how Methodists take Communion. <<
By pie?
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.