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...
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?
>>It often appears that tradition usurps scripture.<<
Well, it’s how you see it. Catholics know that it’s not usurping, but a rich experience giving glory to God.
>>Is Virginia considerd the East?<<
It depends on where you’re standing.
I agree with you on that point. I also happen to think that the approval for reception in the hand unfortunately took place when several of the clergy were either ignorantly or disobediently following their own interpretations of Vatican II.
How so?
“”The priest is not an “officer of the Church,” but “another Christ:.””
The word would be heteros—another of a different kind. Like the heteros gospel in Galations.
The word could also be the Greek word we transliterate, “Antichrist.” In the sense of, ‘Instead of Christ.”
So referring to a man as, “Another Christ.” is inimical to the teachings of the New Testament.
I was referring to what “officer of the Church” means to evangelicals For them there is no special priesthood. The “minister,”is a functionary of the Church, pure and simple. If he has a calling from the Holy Spirit than he has a special charism, so to speak, but it is not owing to the Church but to God. The Congregation, also aided by the Spirit, only recognizes that charism. They ordain him more or less as the bishope ordains a priest, but the “office” is essentially different from that of the priest.
It appears there are some people so caught up in the ritual that they have forgotten the real meaning and purpose.
A child who receives First Communion like a baby bird receiving food from his parent immediately knows how intimate a thing he/she is doing.
Yes it does.
At least we don’t take it from our hand...
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.