Communion in the hand - does it really matter?

[Classik]

Check this out...relating it strictly to the thread title

 

[Wrg1405]

I read the link but I must admit that I'm a little confused. Couldn't figure out whether they were saying we can't take communions with our hands or not or whether it doesn't matter.

 

[GodsGrace]

Check this out...relating it strictly to the thread title

Interesting.
I used to converse with the Church Militant.
He's Catholic.
Believe me, he's doesn't like the idea of receiving Communion in the hand.
He would like you to go to the altar, kneel, receive, and get up when it's almost dissolved or swallowed.

He's not called the Church Militant for nothing.

If one believes that the actual body and blood of Jesus are in that wafer, then I'd have to agree with him. The wafer, in that case, should not be moved around too much. There is always the danger of it falling to the floor. There's a procedure for this, but when it happens everybody kind of freezes and doesn't know exactly what to do. I've seen this happen at least twice. The priest is supposed to pick it up and place it in his mouth.

So, does it matter? Apparently not since the RCC allows the host to be placed in someone's hands. This did not happen until Vatican II was in place in 1965. But many in the RCC object to this and will receive Communion only on the tongue.

My personal opinion is that it should not be placed in the hand. A decision should be made: if if IS the body and blood of Christ, it should be treated as such.

W
(a former Catholic)

 

[Wrg1405]

Interesting.
I used to converse with the Church Militant.
He's Catholic.
Believe me, he's doesn't like the idea of receiving Communion in the hand.
He would like you to go to the altar, kneel, receive, and get up when it's almost dissolved or swallowed.

He's not called the Church Militant for nothing.

If one believes that the actual body and blood of Jesus are in that wafer, then I'd have to agree with him. The wafer, in that case, should not be moved around too much. There is always the danger of it falling to the floor. There's a procedure for this, but when it happens everybody kind of freezes and doesn't know exactly what to do. I've seen this happen at least twice. The priest is supposed to pick it up and place it in his mouth.

So, does it matter? Apparently not since the RCC allows the host to be placed in someone's hands. This did not happen until Vatican II was in place in 1965. But many in the RCC object to this and will receive Communion only on the tongue.

My personal opinion is that it should not be placed in the hand. A decision should be made: if if IS the body and blood of Christ, it should be treated as such.

W
(a former Catholic)

On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood of Christ. This change is known as Transubstantiation and Christ's presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.

I'm not Catholic but went to Catholic school. I remember once when the wafer fell on the floor the person administering became very agitated and fearful. They commanded that everyone move away from the wafer and drew a circle around it. No one was to go near it. Communion carried on and I have no idea what happened to the wafer.

Personally I'm not a beleiver in transubstantiation.

Jesus gave thanks, broke the bread and gave it to the disciples and said "This is my body given for you do this in remembrance of me" this is where we get the Lords supper from.

How did he give it to the disciples? We are not told how but i assume that he broke the bread with his hands.
So in a sense he knew he was going to be crucified but didn't give bits of his own flesh and some of his own blood.

Jesus said "I'm the bread of life whoever comes to me will never be hungry" is that not symbolic?

Anyway I think the issue is not how we take communion but why we take it and what it really means. Jesus warns us when we come before the alter that if we have unforgivness in our heart we are to put it right, Paul in Corinthians talks about the consequences of not taking the Lords supper seriously. It's a heart issue.

Just to add and I don't wish to upset anyone and come across as being rude but I would not want someone place a piece of bread or a wafer in my mouth.

 

[GodsGrace]

On consecration, the bread and the wine change completely into the actual body and blood of Christ. This change is known as Transubstantiation and Christ's presence in the elements is called the Real Presence.

I'm not Catholic but went to Catholic school. I remember once when the wafer fell on the floor the person administering became very agitated and fearful. They commanded that everyone move away from the wafer and drew a circle around it. No one was to go near it. Communion carried on and I have no idea what happened to the wafer.

Personally I'm not a beleiver in transubstantiation.

Jesus gave thanks, broke the bread and gave it to the disciples and said "This is my body given for you do this in remembrance of me" this is where we get the Lords supper from.

How did he give it to the disciples? We are not told how but i assume that he broke the bread with his hands.
So in a sense he knew he was going to be crucified but didn't give bits of his own flesh and some of his own blood.

Jesus said "I'm the bread of life whoever comes to me will never be hungry" is that not symbolic?

Anyway I think the issue is not how we take communion but why we take it and what it really means. Jesus warns us when we come before the alter that if we have unforgivness in our heart we are to put it right, Paul in Corinthians talks about the consequences of not taking the Lords supper seriously. It's a heart issue.

Just to add and I don't wish to upset anyone and come across as being rude but I would not want someone place a piece of bread or a wafer in my mouth.

You bring up a very important theological concept and one which I've used at different times but it doesn't go over well with Catholics. You said:

he broke the bread with his hands. So in a sense he knew he was going to be crucified but didn't give bits of his own flesh and some of his own blood.

This is a very good argument for not believing in transubstantiation. He also said to do this in remembrance of Him and He had not died yet. So it would become effective after His death. That would be the other side of the argument.

I like something someone here said regarding this (Rollo). He said that he cannot believe that every day a priest calls God down from heaven so He could enter into a wafer. I like that.

I'd just like to add that there is not a clear consensus as to when the first Mass occurred. Some will tell you at the Last Supper. I believe the first Mass happened when Jesus ate with the two disciples of His in the story of the Road to Emmaus; when Jesus broke the bread and at that instant they recognized Him.
Luke 24:13-35
Luke 24:30-31


W

 

[GodsGrace]

P.S.
So the priest just let the wafer lay on the floor? See what I mean. 7 years of seminary and then when it happens they freeze. Communion is no. 1 for Catholics, everything revolves around that. Confession is no. 2.
And how about the real presence in the monstrance? Jesus is everywhere and is always present - but He's MORE present at an adoration where the monstrance is present. Explain that to a kid !

W

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I was quite surprised when I heard that the RCC believes that the bread, or broken bits of cracker or preformed flat "host" or what ever is used at the particular place of worship, is actually Christ. And that the juice or wine is really His blood.

I don't understand the biblical backing for this and I always understood that the bread and wine was a symbol, an emblem or whatever you want to call it.

The last supper was designed to keep the people in touch with the arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection event. To keep it fresh on their mind. "In Remembrance" of Him.

I'm not here to criticize or ridicule. I just had not been aware of it, don't see the biblical backing and or the necessity of it actually being Christ.

As a result of my belief, I see no reason as to why you cannot take it in your hand.

 

[Wrg1405]

You bring up a very important theological concept and one which I've used at different times but it doesn't go over well with Catholics. You said:

he broke the bread with his hands. So in a sense he knew he was going to be crucified but didn't give bits of his own flesh and some of his own blood.

This is a very good argument for not believing in transubstantiation. He also said to do this in remembrance of Him and He had not died yet. So it would become effective after His death. That would be the other side of the argument.

I like something someone here said regarding this (Rollo). He said that he cannot believe that every day a priest calls God down from heaven so He could enter into a wafer. I like that.

I'd just like to add that there is not a clear consensus as to when the first Mass occurred. Some will tell you at the Last Supper. I believe the first Mass happened when Jesus ate with the two disciples of His in the story of the Road to Emmaus; when Jesus broke the bread and at that instant they recognized Him.
Luke 24:13-35
Luke 24:30-31


W

I like what Rollo said as well. To me Jesus was crucified once and does not have to come into a wafer for people to see him, be with him and accept him.

The disciples had no idea what Jesus was going on about. He had not yet died and if you read the lovely amazing prayer, prayed by Jesus in John it is obvious they had no idea. Yet we find that Jesus said that he had to go so the Holy Spiirt must come to convict the world of its sin, which is the sin of unbelief in him. So to me when a person is convicted of unbelief and beleives in Jesus that's what counts.

Regarding your bible verses "He took bread blessed it and gave it to them and their eyes were open and they knew him and then he vanished" It doesn't mention "Take eat of my body" it says that when Jesus broke bread and gave it to them thier eyes were opened and they knew him.

To me as I have said what really matters is why we take communion and our heart issue.

I could argue all day about this as could could you. My wife and I have a couple of friends who are Catholic. They are lovely genuine people and believe in Jesus.

Three years ago my foster parents died within a few months of each other. It really disrupted my our lives. In fact I was down in Cornwall on my sons 16th birthday, also sat by my foster mums bedside waiting for her to die and at the same time talking a call form out auditors. Whilst I was talking I thought she died and was coping with that whilst not trying to freak out the poor guy on the end of the phone.

Anyway I say this and it saddens me. Whilst this was going on people in our church knew about it along with our Catholic friends. I never heard from anyone in our church whilst down there.

When I got back the catholic friends came over. They bought me a candle. This candle they bought back from Ireland a four day round trip. They went to a place in Ireland where you could light a candle and pray. They did this for me. When they came to see me and explained what they had done I was so so moved. They spent goodness knows how much money doing this.

Whilst I do not agree with certain Catholic doctrine along with some evangelical doctrine, if a belief in Christ exudes love then it's a road to walk on.

So whilst I don't beleive in substantiation but if a person beleives in Jesus and his claims then I'll walk with them.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was quite surprised when I heard that the RCC believes that the bread, or broken bits of cracker or preformed flat "host" or what ever is used at the particular place of worship, is actually Christ. And that the juice or wine is really His blood.

I don't understand the biblical backing for this and I always understood that the bread and wine was a symbol, an emblem or whatever you want to call it.

The last supper was designed to keep the people in touch with the arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection event. To keep it fresh on their mind. "In Remembrance" of Him.

I'm not here to criticize or ridicule. I just had not been aware of it, don't see the biblical backing and or the necessity of it actually being Christ.

As a result of my belief, I see no reason as to why you cannot take it in your hand.

They get it from John 6 just like we do. Except it's taken literally because it seems as though Jesus is speaking literally.

John 6:54 , he who eats my flesh:
If you check the Greek you'll find that "eats" means literally to gnaw. This has always seemed strange to me that Jesus would use that particular word, but I also don't see how He could have meant it literally.

W

 

[dianegcook]

Does it matter? I don't think so, but we always pass it while sitting in the pews...

"Bread of life"
John 6:35
I am the bread of life...

 

[GodsGrace]

Does it matter? I don't think so, but we always pass it while sitting in the pews...

"Bread of life"
John 6:35
I am the bread of life...

In the Nazarene church the Pastor made us stand in reverence. I like that.
Also, in a couple of independent churches I was visiting.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I like what Rollo said as well. To me Jesus was crucified once and does not have to come into a wafer for people to see him, be with him and accept him.

The disciples had no idea what Jesus was going on about. He had not yet died and if you read the lovely amazing prayer, prayed by Jesus in John it is obvious they had no idea. Yet we find that Jesus said that he had to go so the Holy Spiirt must come to convict the world of its sin, which is the sin of unbelief in him. So to me when a person is convicted of unbelief and beleives in Jesus that's what counts.

Regarding your bible verses "He took bread blessed it and gave it to them and their eyes were open and they knew him and then he vanished" It doesn't mention "Take eat of my body" it says that when Jesus broke bread and gave it to them thier eyes were opened and they knew him.

To me as I have said what really matters is why we take communion and our heart issue.

I could argue all day about this as could could you. My wife and I have a couple of friends who are Catholic. They are lovely genuine people and believe in Jesus.

Three years ago my foster parents died within a few months of each other. It really disrupted my our lives. In fact I was down in Cornwall on my sons 16th birthday, also sat by my foster mums bedside waiting for her to die and at the same time talking a call form out auditors. Whilst I was talking I thought she died and was coping with that whilst not trying to freak out the poor guy on the end of the phone.

Anyway I say this and it saddens me. Whilst this was going on people in our church knew about it along with our Catholic friends. I never heard from anyone in our church whilst down there.

When I got back the catholic friends came over. They bought me a candle. This candle they bought back from Ireland a four day round trip. They went to a place in Ireland where you could light a candle and pray. They did this for me. When they came to see me and explained what they had done I was so so moved. They spent goodness knows how much money doing this.

Whilst I do not agree with certain Catholic doctrine along with some evangelical doctrine, if a belief in Christ exudes love then it's a road to walk on.

So whilst I don't beleive in substantiation but if a person beleives in Jesus and his claims then I'll walk with them.

I thought I answered this...

Wrg, wanted to say that I know many Catholics that practice the Christian faith even though they do follow a lot of CHURCH rules that bind but that's all they know. They are also good people as shown by your story above.

Also, I've found, in my own personal experience, that church members will not call you in case of some emergency, unless they know you personally. This is how it is and must be accepted.

That place the couple went to in Ireland where you can pray is an interesting place. I've never been there but I know about it. Check it out on the web.

W

 

[Classik]

Maybe we should wash our hands before taking communion. The use of chopsticks and other eating tools may not be necessary

 

[Wrg1405]

thought I answered this...

??

 

[GodsGrace]

??

No problem.
I thought it was a double post. It wasn't.

W

 

[OzSpen]

They get it from John 6 just like we do. Except it's taken literally because it seems as though Jesus is speaking literally.

John 6:54 , he who eats my flesh:
If you check the Greek you'll find that "eats" means literally to gnaw. This has always seemed strange to me that Jesus would use that particular word, but I also don't see how He could have meant it literally.

W

Wondering,

I recently wrote an article on my homepage dealing with this verse, Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (John 6:53-54)

This is not meant to be taken literally, but is a metaphor, and I show the reasons in context.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

I recently wrote an article on my homepage dealing with this verse, Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (John 6:53-54)

This is not meant to be taken literally, but is a metaphor, and I show the reasons in context.

Oz

I'll be very happy to read it.
Also because another argument that is made by Catholics is verse
John 6:66

They'll say that many of the disciples withdrew and left Jesus exactly because they understood Him to be speaking literally and the saying was too much for them to accept John 6:60.

Will get back to you.

W

 

[OzSpen]

I'll be very happy to read it.
Also because another argument that is made by Catholics is verse
John 6:66

They'll say that many of the disciples withdrew and left Jesus exactly because they understood Him to be speaking literally and the saying was too much for them to accept John 6:60.

Will get back to you.

W

Wondering,

To my article, Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (John 6:53-54, 60, 66), today I added a new section towards the end of the article on:
E. John 6:60, 66: Why did many of Jesus’ disciples desert him?

Blessings,
Oz