Posted on 05/20/2014 3:37:05 PM PDT by NYer
While Pope Francis doesn't reject Communion in the hand (remember Rio?), it's nice to see the convention retrieved under Pope Benedict XVI continued in Rome: Communion on the tongue. Check it out:
Pope Francis on Reception of Holy Communion Kneeling and On The Tongue- Video
Now just imagine one of your lay "Eucharistic ministers" try that in your local AmChurch parish! Isn't this crazy? All hell would break loose, and you know it!
For a good discussion of the issue by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, author of Dominus Est – It Is the Lord! Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion(Newman House Press, 2009):
Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider on Communion in the Hand - Video
The Eponymous Flower
Friday, August 12, 2011
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.
|
| Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider |
Artwork isn’t reality. Mormon artwork depicts Jesus with four wives. In reality he never married. If a painter depicts Jesus putting bread on people’s tongues at the Last Supper, that doesn’t mean it happened that way.
I agree. It's much more scandalous when some "Catholic" in open defiance of the Church receives communion, than when a practicing Catholic receives communion in hand.
For the record, I usually receive communion in the mouth. I just find it silly when some Catholics try to argue its not valid to have communion in hand or a Mass in a language other than Latin, when we know communion on the tongue and masses in Latin did not become the "standard" until centuries after Jesus. It seems like some of these Catholics would claim the acts of the apostles themselves were "invalid". Trying to retroactively claim Jesus put bread on people's tongues while they were kneeling 2000 years ago to justify the current practice as the only way is as silly as the protestant churches that preach all alcohol is evil, so they try to retroactively claim Jesus distributed "grape juice" at the Last Supper when we know it didn't happen that way.
And speaking of "Extraordinary Ministers", I think a much more valid case could be made that THEY go against early Christianity and church tradition. Perhaps bishops should consider returning to the practice of having only bishops, priests and deacons distributing communion, and NOT use lay people unless its an absolute emergency. THAT would make Holy Communion much more reverent.
At that time, there was a tradition of the host placing the first morsel in the mouth of the guest.
I've heard that Arabs still preserve that tradition. And Israelis do it more casually, among friends and family anyway.
Congrats And God Bless!
“Congrats And God Bless!”
_______________________________________________
Thank you. Our church is about 300 years old. My bright young boy, now 3, was baptized there.
This is my bigger concern. I don't like the concept of Extraordinary ministers
I don't care for the concept either.
Wouldn't want Jesus getting into the wrong hands...
Did Christ put the bread in the mouths of the apostles?
...is the Eucharist at Mass supposed to be a recreation of the Last Suppper...?
Vatican II puts the Catholic position very clearly:
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
The Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. Christ commanded us to "Do this in rememberance of me." The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again — His death is once for all.
And speaking of “Extraordinary Ministers”, I think a much more valid case could be made that THEY go against early Christianity and church tradition
...actually the concept of Extraordinary ministers has a long and valued tradition in the Church, as they were employed to bring the Eucharist to those who could not attend the actual services...and such is their valuable function today as well...
...you object, no doubt, to the notion of making the extraordinary routine, as in scheduling EMC’s week to week to serve the various Masses for the purposes of speeding things up...and you would be correct in your objection...I would submit that it be incumbent upon those Catholics who are able to attend Mass to receive from the priest alone; if other priests are available, or deacons, than so much the better...after all, ordination is supposed to serve a purpose...
That is an obvious concern, if you use them at every mass, even if you have multiple priests there, then they’re not “extraordinary” ministers. They’re routine. The current practice obviously goes against church tradition.
As for distributing communion to those who cannot physically make it to Mass, I thought that’s what deacons were for. Lay Catholics can only baptize a person if its an emergency, so why not do the same with distributing communion? If a priest is not available, send a deacon to do a baptism or distribute communion. In an absolute emergency where someone needs a baptism or holy communion immediately and there are no clergy, only then can a lay person step in and perform this “extraordinary” task. You don’t see lay people show up every and be assigned the job of baptizing someone.
Vatican II puts the Catholic position very clearly:
...ah yes, Vatican II...being very careful to couch its language so as not to offend our separated brethren...my point to you is this...the Last Supper is only obliquely referenced in the Roman rite, as the ‘day before he suffered’, and to attempt to defend contemporary receipt of the Spotless Victim by how the meal in the Upper Room may
have been handled, misses the point...quite clearly, the Apostles had no idea that the dinner bread would have any other significance, how could they...? However, later generations of Christians did gain a sense of the sanctity of Christ’s actions, and infused the receipt of the Host with the reverence accordingly, to wit, kneeling, in the ultimate expression of holiness, and on the tongue, so that any contact with uncleansed hands would be minimized...it has been established that receipt in the hand was an early practice, however, such receipt generally required a covering of linen to go along with it, at least for women...so, if one wishes to defend contemporary receipt in the hand by virtue of earlier practice, then one must also advocate for the females in the parish to receive with a linen cloth covering their hands...good luck with that...
The Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. Christ commanded us to “Do this in rememberance of me.” The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again — His death is once for all.
...I’m curious as to why you posted the above...are you positing that I do not know this, or that I’m somehow in contention with this...?
...
If a priest is not available, send a deacon
...you are aware, I’m sure, that not every parish in the land has a deacon to do the tasks you suggest...
"Hello, is the office of the Archdiocese? We're wondering if you have any deacons available to bring communion to one of our parishioners in a hospital? Oh, that's great! Let me give you the address..."
I don't know you, Irish. (BTW, I am second generation Irish. County Cork. "The boys who licked the Black and Tan were the boys from County Cork")
The Real Presence is what separates Christ's Church from the Protestants. Most of my discussions on this site come down to this point. Most Protestants are literal in their belief of Scripture, except on what the meaning of the word "IS" is.
I really thought your post to me implied that Christ is somehow sacrificed again in the Mass.
Weird. I would have never thought that was the reason. What about an unclean tongue?
Mark 7: 5-7 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked [Jesus], "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
What about an unclean tongue?
...does the priest at Mass wash his hands with the Holy Water or his tongue...?
...or stated more baldly, do we go about our earthly and secular duties by manipulating common things with our digital extremities or our glossal appendage...hmm...?
...or more baldly yet, were we able to receive by osmosis, we should do so, but since we can’t, reverence dictates the least worldly process possible that still allows for consumption...
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.