@celia ann Since you know what's coming, use your left hand for the sign of peace, or just wave. :)

Good point @Sp . . A "sign of peace" doesn't mean you have to touch anyone.

I moved to a new city and the practice here is that they literally make the sign of peace like hippies or President Nixon...lots of them extend their arms and wave their two fingers all over the place...can't stand it...

1

More

• Report
• Change comment
• Remove comment

1. Every Bible in the world in 3 Gospel passages says that Jesus “gave” the bread and said ‘take and eat”. No Bible in the world ever said “receive” or that Jesus put the bread on their tongues.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matt 26:26
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. Mark 14:22
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. Luke 22:19
2. Jesus never said and no Bible in the world says that touching the bread with their hands was for the Apostles only or Bishops only.
3. The Eucharist was received in the hand for the first nine centuries of Christianity. Pope Benedict XVI confirms this in his book God Is Near Us. He reminds us that communion in the hand was the original form of receiving communion.
Communion in the hand is the practice of Communion specified by Jesus himself.

"Communion in the hand is the practice of Communion specified by Jesus himself."
Jesus did no such thing. Please quote Him where He tells the Apostles to take and eat with their hands.
" Every Bible in the world in 3 Gospel passages says that Jesus “gave” the bread and said ‘take and eat”. "
But those same passages do not describe how Christ gave it to His apostles or how. they took it. For example, "gave" the bread could mean giving it on the tongue while "take and eat" could mean taking it on the tongue, that is... the willing reception and consumption. Pic related. (The Communion Of The Apostles, van Gent 13th cent.)

@chris griffin Right on. Does anyone believe he took the bread at the last supper and had each apostle present himself to take it on the tongue? If all were seated at the last supper it seems to me he took the loaf, broke it in half, and passed it down the table.

2

More

• Report
• Change comment
• Remove comment

Mathathias Maccabeus Ultraviolet –
Thank you for your replies and you are certainly entitled to your opinions but just so everyone else reading understands…
Communion on the Tongue is not Sacred Tradition and not Catholic doctrine. No Bible or theologian in the world translates “gave”, “take and eat” as meaning Jesus put the bread directly on their tongue or they “received” the bread directly on the tongue. If Communion on the tongue was so important then Jesus would have made that clear for all eternity which he did not.
Nowhere in the New Testament is TONGUE Communion mentioned.
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention that the ordained are the only ones allowed to touch Communion. We all touch Communion with our hands and/or with our mouth.
Yes, Jesus gave it to them and they took it with their hands as normally happens when someone gives you something. Nothing and nobody have any factual support for the claim that Jesus deposited the bread on their tongues.
The paintings Ultraviolet posted is sheer imagination. It has no more authority than I do.
Sola Scripture has nothing to do with upholding the infallible and inspired words of Jesus, that is a strawman argument.
Clearly and without doubt Communion in the Hand WAS the practice of the early Church. Anyone can argue the historical timing of and circumstances of some change but the fact remains that it was the early Church practice.
Communion on the tongue is an invention of men sometime a long time ago.
Jesus said what he said in order to specify the normative mode of Communion in the same way as he specified the words of Baptism.
Thank you.

Wichita Knight, do you believe walking up to Priest and sticking your hand out, putting the consecrated host in your mouth is just as reverent as kneeling down, opening your mouth, and receiving Jesus from the consecrated hands of a Priest, is showing the same reverence and devotion for the Blessed Sacrament?

Mathathias Maccabeus
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not agree with you. The “supposed” “Sacred Tradition” that you proffer fails completely. It is never mentioned in the section on the Eucharist 1332-1419. No mention, no quotes, no references to your so-called Sacred tradition because it does not exist and you cannot prove it does.
In fact the CCC lends credence to my view that the bread was broken then distributed as part of the Jewish meal, “distributed the bread” and gave it to them, not put it in their mouth…
1329 The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,144 above all at the Last Supper.
and…
1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."
Again, communion on the tongue is not, not, not Sacred Tradition.
Protestants and Arians are a sideshow in this subject and are not indicative of a Biblical or Church teaching.
The “indult” is an example of error in practice, it should be normalized.
The Catholic Answers organization says it is Catholic teaching that the Host is no longer the Body and Blood when the Bread is no longer recognizable as a Host. Particles are not the Body and Blood or else they would be in the air conditioning ducts and all over the floor in every church.
The Bishop is a blasphemer just like you. He said of valid Catholic Communion in the Hand that “God can never bless grabbing communion and from it “no good can come – not even for the health” meaning that valid Communion cannot be a blessing and cannot result in good which denies the very nature of valid Communion. You previously said of valid Communion in the Hand is “God forsaken” which means God has forsaken valid Communion.

"Communion on the Tongue is not Sacred Tradition and not Catholic doctrine." @chris griffin
Contradicted by untold centuries of Communion on the tongue.
"No Bible or theologian in the world translates "gave", "take and eat" as meaning Jesus put the bread directly on their tongue or they "received" the bread directly on the tongue.
Likewise, no Bible mentions the word "hands", either!
"If Communion on the tongue was so important then Jesus would have made that clear for all eternity which he did not."
It's "He", Chris. We capitalize the pronoun when referring to Our Lord Jesus.
Your premise fails because, as we know, the Gospel writers did not set down all of Christ's life and often took things for granted. For example, historically, today we have no clear understanding of exactly how Crucifixions were done back then. At the time of the Gospels, they were so common, the evangelists simply didn't bother to set it down.
"Nowhere in the New Testament is TONGUE Communion mentioned."
Nowhere in the New Testament is HAND Communion mentioned either.
"Yes, Jesus gave it to them and they took it with their hands as normally happens when someone gives you something."
However, what Jesus gave them wasn't just any old piece of food, i.e. this wasn't something that "normally happens". The Last Supper wasn't any old supper.
"Nothing and nobody have any factual support for the claim that Jesus deposited the bread on their tongues."
The same is true for the claim Jesus deposited the "bread" on their hands. Because it wasn't "bread" anymore. Novus Ordo irreverence betrays itself in your choice of terms.
"The paintings Ultraviolet posted is sheer imagination. It has no more authority than I do."
True, but the same applies for any depiction of The Last Supper.
"Communion on the tongue is an invention of men sometime a long time ago."
Unsupported premise.
"Jesus said what he said in order to specify the normative mode of Communion in the same way as he specified the words of Baptism."
But what He said didn't specify any normative mode at all. You keep conflating your interpretation with actual Scripture.

Ultraviolet
This is your chance to stand for truth or to stand for blasphemy…
Communion in the Hand is legal and licit in the USA according to the official indult of the Catholic Church.
Therefore I contend it is plain that the Bishop and Mathathias Maccabeus have committed blasphemy by saying thus...
Bishop…He said of valid Catholic Communion in the Hand “God can never bless grabbing communion and from it “no good can come – not even for the health” meaning that this valid Communion can NEVER be a blessing and cannot result in good which denies the Catholic teaching on the efficacy and nature of valid Communion.
The other guy…this valid Communion in the Hand is “God forsaken” which means God has forsaken this valid Communion.
Are these two statements blasphemy or not? Your answer please and remember silence is complicit.

"This is your chance to stand for truth or to stand for blasphemy…"@chris griffin
That kind of rhetoric doesn't work on me, sorry. Also, this and this...

Ultraviolet I knew you would not have the courage to give an honest answer, that is why I posed it to you.

That is an honest answer @chris griffin It's one based on sound reasoning, not your hysterical hand-waving and foaming at the mouth. Your running argument with @Mathathias Maccabeus is your own business. He hasn't retained me as his defense counsel or his debating coach.

On a related point this is flat out nonsense: "Your answer please and remember silence is complicit."
Silence does not automatically imply complicity or consent, a point explicitly reaffirmed as a principle of law by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ultraviolet
I presented you with two clear quotes that are blatantly blasphemous…
1. Bishop…He said of valid Catholic Communion in the Hand “God can never bless grabbing communion and from it “no good can come – not even for the health” meaning that this valid Communion can NEVER be a blessing and cannot result in good which denies the Catholic teaching on the efficacy and nature of valid Communion.
2. The other guy…this valid Communion in the Hand is “God forsaken” which means God has forsaken this valid Communion.
You replied with two ridiculous copies of items (that have absolutely no relevance to the quotes presented to you) based on your personal biased mindset without addressing the crux of the matter.
You absurd Supreme Court reference is a demonstration of your uncatholic mode of thinking instead of thinking about the Catholic Church.
You insults of me reflects your uncatholic heart.
You, who has a reputation for being a stickler and strict about Catholic teaching have become hypocritical.
You are complicit in blasphemy, to wit: (from the Catholic Church not the Supreme Court)
CCC 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so
It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity Pope John Paul II, Reconciliation and Penance (1984), no. 16
As I said, "This is your chance to stand for truth or to stand for blasphemy” but I knew you would fail to uphold the truth. Now the whole world knows it.

"I presented you with two clear quotes that are blatantly blasphemous..."
There's your first mistake, @Chris griffith I'm not paying attention to the specifics of your debate with Matty... what you said, what he said, what you said he said, which might not be what he actually said, and so on.
I told you this already. Matty hasn't retained me as his defense counsel or his debating coach. Those aspects of your debate are with him.
"You replied with two ridiculous copies of items (that have absolutely no relevance to the quotes presented to you) based on your personal biased mindset without addressing the crux of the matter.
Wrong. I replied by pointing out logical fallacies you displayed and a legal cite that contradicts your claim on the complicity of silence. I'm replying NOW by correcting your false narrative of what I did.
"You absurd Supreme Court reference is a demonstration of your uncatholic mode of thinking instead of thinking about the Catholic Church."
You know something, Chris? Dudes like you are why I'm so uncharitable. This is why I tear into people like you without a second's hesitation. Every time I try the nice approach, this is what I get....
"your uncatholic heart..."
"your personal biased mindset..."
"your uncatholic mode of thinking".
There's no call for any of that. I haven't insulted you at all. But just look at the kind of ruthless, horribly uncharitable abuse you dish out without the slightest reluctance.
Fair enough. The fact is I've been holding back from telling you exactly what fool you truly are, even as a supposed "Catholic".
Like so much of the Novus Ordo, you're a joke... a ridiculous mondernist parody of what the Catholic Church was and remains in spite of you.
You Novus Ordo took an "indult" a special exception granted to recieve Communion in this grotesque manner and turned it into a birthright, even to the extent of suppressing the established method of receiving Our Lord.
You Novus Ordo are like the Cuckoo who lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. The Cuckoo is the Novus Ordo addition to the nest. It hatches and then promptly kills the other chicks. From a "pretty-please, can we have just this ONE special exception under limited circumstancse", you've done what all left-wing idiots do... you rail-roaded the exception into the rule.
Now it's all but unthinkable for a Catholic to receive Communion on the tongue at a Novus Ordo parish. Many if not most of your priests (to say nothing of your also de facto "extraordinary" ministers) simply refuse to administer Communion in the traditional manner at all, which is contrary to the teachings of The Church. But that hasn't stopped the Cuckoo Catholics. You are what you are and you'll go on doing what you have done. It's your nature even if there isn't a damned thing that's "Catholic" about it.
The lunantics have taken over the asylum. Your willingness to lecture traditionalist Catholics on a basic facet of the Mass, one that didn't even change during Vatican Council II, is a damning indictement of your "uncatholic heart" and the monstrous sense of self-entitlement shared by the Novus Ordo itself.
You're a lost cause and this is why I'm letting Matty waste his time with you. What you're doing might be technically licit but it's yet another example of the secularized attitude toward our faith that has turned the Novus Ordo into a sickness, a cancer in the heart of The Chuch.
I'm not going to bust my chops like he is and I'm not paying attention to your squabbling for a basic reason:
Nothing you say will lead Catholics away from the faith. You're not a schismatic or a sedevancantist. You're just badly misguided. The fools who follow you are already a write-off and the younger generation has recognized the Novus Ordo for the mistake it is and abandoned it.
Your modernist churches are geriatric wards with a few elderly patients quietly dying of outright boredom. All the "puppet Masses" and "circus Masses" and "cance Masses" can't hide the basic spiritual sterilty in this form of the Mass itself.
In contrast, traditionalist parishes sound like day-cares. The pews are jammed with young Catholic families and their children, the way all churches once were before your enlightened approach to the Mass was imposed. We are the future of the Catholic Church. You are a nothing more than a brief historical footnote in Church history and even the Pope recognizes it, to his frustration and fury.

Your modernist position on Communion is bad enough by itself. But now you presume to play the pious Pharisee while coughing out nothing except one fallacy after another. Christopher, the truth is based on reason and The Catholic Church is organized by law. Your asinine, mindless histrionics have no place in either. Trying to defend your position with that approach is serious mistake, particularly with me.
One last thing... Your "truth" doesn't become so just because YOU say it is and you're a moron for even suggesting anything that stupid. pic related. Yes, now I'm insulting you and that's because you get what you gave.

Ultraviolet I have substantiated everything I have said. You are complicit in blasphemy of Holy Communion which is a mortal sin. You are a fool and a vindictive moron and you will pay the price.

Not involving myself in a debate you lost against @Mathathias Maccabeus doesn't make me complicit in anything, you vapid pratt. I receive Communion on the tongue, which is the de facto method approved by The Church. You can take your Novus Ordo indult, roll it tightly and go stick it.
People like you are living proof of why it was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. From pretty-please give us an exception, now ditzy dipsticks like you are trying to justify it with Scripture that doesn't even support it.

I'm glad Jesus wasn't serving soup or you Novus Ordo chuckleheads would be insisting we should consume that with our hands if He didn't mention using spoons.
...and, yeah, your half-witted excuse of a rebuttal stinks worse than Lazarus did in his tomb. pic related.