/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Do you think the Jesus fed the apostles during the last supper with a spoon or on the tongue?

>>635428

At the Last Supper, the Apostles received the Eucharist from Jesus literally with their hands. The Apostles continued this.

>>635430

Imagine how different things would be today if Jesus tossed the bread in the air so the apostles could catch it in their mouths.

>>635433

Why did I chuckle? This is so stupid.

>>635428

The most ancient form is in the hand.

This was however abandoned quickly because of abuses (people taking the eucharist with them, people wearing them as 'amulets', etc.) and because taking it on the tongue is more revering.

>>635430

>>635431

The apostles were the first priests, so them taking it by hand is different from lay people doing it.

>>635435

The hilarity is in the absurdity. Christ was teaching a solemn lesson, obviously, he wouldn't do something to lesson the severity of the impact.

Yet, if he had done this, the act of tossing the bread would be solemn to us. A person would, modernly, consider it to be absurd yet, Western Civilization would never think tossing the bread was anything but solemn if Christ had done it.

Of course, I've made it less funny by breaking it down but I chuckled too. It exposed the incongruity of our modern sensibilities against Christ being the source of truth.

It's healthy if we use the joke as a reminder to subjugate our social sensibilities to our Lord's will.

>>635428

>What is the oldest method of receiving communion?

It is recorded in the Bible in john 6:54-55

>Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

>For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

And in 1 corinthians 10:1-4

>MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

>And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

>And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

And the actual record in hebrews 5:13-14

>For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

>But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

>>635456

>>>>>>>><What is the oldest method of receiving communion?

And also why exactly is it more reverend ? And if that's so, why was holy Communion practised by hand for centuries before the habit was changed ? Did all people before disrespect Christ ?

>>635430

There's an assumption hidden in here, which is that we're equal to the Apostles. Gentle reminder that they were so immersed in the Spirit that pieces of garment they touched could heal injuries. Receiving on the hand is the more ancient form, but we should never presume to frame ourselves as fully equivalent to the Saints or the Apostles.

The practice of taking Communion by tongue arose in both the East and West as a way of preventing crumbs. Orthodox clergy commune by hand, and despite all the precautions accidents still happen. Accidents are even more likely to happen outside of the altar. If we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, the practice of receiving on the tongue arose for good reason.

There are those who selectively advocate some ancient practice be revived because it's how they did it in the early Church, but they usually don't advocate a return to the strict penitential system that they had in the early Church where habitual sins could get you excommunicated for years at a time. Those who joined the early Church did so at a time when doing so could easily result in their martyrdom, and they were held to a very high standard, and so there are practices that made sense in that context that do not work so well in the context of a Church in which many people, unfortunately, grow up in the Church with a much lower level of piety.

It's a known fact that receiving on the hand hasn't been good for the Catholics.

>In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect toward the eucharistic species have been reported, cases that are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful toward the Eucharist (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae 11.9)

Besides, Thomas Aquinas refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.

>..out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

The oldest communion is taking a simple bread and saying the words. But because it's so important we have surrounded this simple reunion with a lot of formalisms. These formalisms are a way to say how important and how deep is for us.

>>635472

>And also why exactly is it more reverend ?

First of all, we are not worthy to touch Him in the first place.

Second, it's much safer to give it on the tongue to avoid abuses as I already stated.

I've also heard of a few examples where the host was thrown away instead of eaten.

>>635487

>These formalisms are a way to say how important and how deep is for us.

This. Formalisms are for the performer, not the watcher.

It was originally received on the hand as many people mention, but it was also received with a (blessed) handkerchief covering the hand, or a sleeve pulled over the hand so that the skin itself didn't touch the Blessed Sacrament.

St Cyril of Jerusalem (assuming that this is an authentic passage of his) even goes as far as to say that once received in hand, the faithful should kiss the Host and rub it gently in their eyes.

It shouldn't really matter what's the 'oldest method', what should matter is the correct method.

Communion in the hand is spiritually damaging (undermining belief in the truth of transubstantiation) and irreverent for what Catholics and Orthodox believe to be the body of Christ

>>635837

Taking the blessed Eucharist in my hand has never made me doubt it.

>>635837

The Church says "both work". Are you smarter than the magisterium ?

>Communion in the hand is spiritually damaging (undermining belief in the truth of transubstantiation) and irreverent

That's some intense baiting. Have your (you) and now back with you to the corner of the internet you came from.

>>635837

who would win:

some autistic tradsperg on the internet

or

the entire magesterium of the Catholic Church, all the way from laity to the Pope

>>635665

>It was originally received on the hand as many people mention, but it was also received with a (blessed) handkerchief covering the hand, or a sleeve pulled over the hand so that the skin itself didn't touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I've heard that before, do you have a source on this?

I can provide images of the source for this later, but it originally used to be taken during a meal and the bread and wine were taken separately. The spoon was introduced later, to speed up the service and prevent issues (the book I read this in describes it as "dangers", I'm not certain what is meant by that) but at least we still use real bread and not wafers.