 |
| Hand Communion is a Calvinist Invention © Catholic Westminster, Flickr, CC |
(kreuz.net) Hand Communion could not be banned like a revolution.
This is what Msgr. Schneider (50) of Astana in Kazakhstan for the website 'gloria.tv' on the end of October.
Msgr Schneider is a sharp critic of hand Communion.
He recommends that the faithful can be led to kneeling Communion on the tongue with much patience and catechesis.
The Calvinist Form Leads to Calvinist Content
Msgr Schneider argued psychologically against the Calvinist practice of hand communion stemming from the sixteenth century.
One takes ordinarily with one's fingers what one wants in a commonplace way.
On the other hand, kneeling Communion on the tongue is a "complete gesture of sacrality, which expresses the sublime."
No mature person goes to a knee, to receive a meal.
Hand Communion promotes an erroneous understanding that the Host "is more bread, that one can take."
Above all children may no longer experience, because of the daily form of hand Communion, the sublimity and greatness of Holy Communion.
That Wasn't Hand Communion
Hand Communion has let the belief in real presence and in the transubstantiation of the bread disappear.
The traditional form of the Mass impresses this belief much better than in the New Eucharistic Celebration.
Msgr Schneider stressed that the ancient form of the reception of Communion was on the tongue.
The faithful merely received the Host on their hands.
BUT: They bent themselves down from below, in order to take the Communion with their tongue.
The transition to direct distribution of Communion in the mouth in the 6th and 7th centuries is something that was a logical consequence of a deepening Eucharistic understanding, according to Bishop Schneider.
Original, kreuz.net...
Related:
Hand Communion Must Go
Hand Communion is an Abuse
Bishop Says Should Receive Communion on the Tongue
A Case Against Communion on the Tongue
21 comments:
An interesting element regarding this may be found on http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/01/case-for-holy-communion-on-tongue-only.html
Cardinal Ratzinger notes that it was the practice of the Early Church.
He notes in God and the World "I wouldn't be fussy about it. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion" (pg 410)
"...we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church
could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion....
We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church's efforts directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery
of God that puts himself into our hands..."
Cardinal Ratzinger "God Is Near Us" Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001
I also recall but have not found it that he gave an answer as Pope in a Q & A session with Priests that was similar....
and he comments in the new book that he is not opposed to it. Even in the Vatican's official document of explanation as to how people will receive kneeling and on the tongue from the Pope it begins with saying:
"The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand."
What is important is Faith..Love and...Reverence
Did you actually read the article before you ran around to hunt down all these quotes?
Communion was never received on the hand. The hand was covered with a corporal after being purified and incensed. Then the communicant would bend down and put his tongue under the Host to receive it.
Pope Ratzinger knows this is the case, which is probably why he only gives Communion on the tongue while the communicant is kneeling.
I will go with Pope Benedict XVI's understanding and approach here. (as to why he has communicants receive in that manner one may read his own words in Light of the World).
And while I usually receive after the manner of the middle ages (on the tongue) what is important is not to make a fuss about which way but-- what he notes: "We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church's efforts directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery
of God that puts himself into our hands.."
Go with it if you want, it's either not correct or you're not reading it right.
Once again, it's a historical fact that no one received Communion in the Hand in the Ancient Church. The idea that Communion in the Hand has those origins is a complete fabrication.
Once again, facts are persistent things.
Look up the quotes yourself you do not trust my library...call Ignatius Press if you like...they can provide them to you. I go with Pope Benedict XVI
Then you're wrong. Communion in the hand is a Calvinist innovation. It was a practice which was encouraged by dissidents in the twenties and thirties.
In any event, I trust Bishop Schneider over your reading of what the Holy Father wrote.
Dear "anonymous":
I am curious about the expression you used, namely: "receive after the manner of the middle ages". Am I to understand that you accept without question that communion on the tongue only began then? If so I would respectfully recommend that you enlighten yourself on that point. The pamphlet "Communion in the Hand and Other Frauds" by the late Michael Davies would be a good place to start.
As for the term "the Middle Ages": while completely correct you might want to substitute "the ages of Faith" instead, for it was in those glorious Middle Ages when the Faith was at its strongest and civilization was being transformed.
Lastly, could I also suggest that we not look upon the Papacy in the same manner we look at the elections of politicians, in that what one politician says as law can be summarily changed by the next one who gets elected? The Papacy doesn't, or at least isn't supposed to work that way. The Popes who follow one another are not allowed to change things at their whim, rather they are obligated to pass along what was given by Christ Himself while He lived on earth. To say that "I will go with Pope Benedict XVI" on this or that point is bordering very close to papalotry. The current occupant of Peter's Chair has lots of opinions, not all of which can be reconciled with twenty centuries of Catholic teaching. Sadly but prudently we must be on guard these days about any pronouncements that emanate from Rome, particularly if they do not match or amplify previous teachings. The average Catholic is not expected to check his brain at the door every time a new Pope is elected. We were given common sense, after all. And if we know our faith well enough we can, even with limited intelligence, discern a false or misleading teaching coming from Rome or any other Church authority. We must remember that the Pope is infallible (on matters of faith and/or morals ONLY), and we must also remember that he is not impeccable.
Benedict's musings about Communion in the hand, therefore, are not helpful, nor are they historical. They are, however, as Tancred pointed out, misleading, and they are imbued with a very liberal mindset, once which he has yet to abandon since his election. We must pray for him daily.
I stick with Pope Benedict XVI's understanding and approach and scholarship (his library and intellect exceeds mine) Just thought to let readers know. Readers can see his works I quoted...even gave ya the page numbers :)
Pax tecum to all
My reading? Just get the book yourself...or give Ignatius Press call and they can read you the text...
Quote:
"I wouldn't be fussy about it. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion" ( God and the World pg 410)
"...we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church
could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion....
We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church's efforts directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery
of God that puts himself into our hands..."
Cardinal Ratzinger "God Is Near Us" Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001
And readers can see for themselves that Communion in the hand was never practiced in the Ancient Church, and that reverence to His Body and Blood DO matter.
Communion in the hand the way it is practiced in most Catholic churches throughout the world would have horrified the Fathers, and I suspect that the blind submission of your intellect to things which are clearly false is possibly sinful.
They can read again his quotes...AND his note of the importance of reverence in either way of receiving it..either in the hand (as was done until the 9th century) or on the Tongue....and I suggest your last sentence needs to be revised (blind submission..indeed!)
Pax tecum
Revised:
They can read again his quotes...AND his note of the importance of reverence in either way of receiving Holy Communion..either in the hand (as was done until the 9th century) or on the Tongue....and I suggest your last sentence needs to be revised (blind submission..indeed!)
Pax tecum
Communion in the hand was never done anywhere, that's a lie.
Unfortunately, there are at least three facts you have to deal with which you don't seem to be concerned about.
One: It's a Calvinist Innovation. The first proponent of Hand communion was John Calvin.
Two: It was initially proposed as a Liturgical abuse.
Three: The myth that there was Communion in the hand at any time is a pernicious fabrication.
Hummm....Pope Benedict is passing on a lie? Not. Sorry he is a great scholar and knows of what he speaks. May the Lord Bless you and yours.
If he's wrong, he's wrong. Off the cuff remarks in popular biographies and interviews are not dogmatic statements.
But before things progress too far, he'd better address Bishop Schneider who seems to disagree with him.
(Remember he was the head of the CDF..he was quite up on the issue)
I will take Pope Benedict XVI scholarship thanks. Pax Tecum
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
We seem to have discovered a new fallacy for the logic books- 'the argument from size of library.'
Do you have a latin for that? Argumentum bibliotecum tremendum?
Post a Comment