Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist

Life Site News ^ | February 22, 2018 | Diane Montagna

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Yes! It says right in Matthew 26:26 that Jesus broke the bread and put it individually on each disciples’ tongue.

No it does not. Not in English and not in Greek.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“As a recovering Catholic, now on the outside looking in, I often shake my head at the weird stuff I was brainwashed into thinking has any importance at all.”

+1

“I now know God directly, and my life has never been better. I have peace and joy.”

+1

I” don’t go to church, ever. Not needed.”

We *are* commanded to gather together for fellowship and worship.

[sparklite2]

That finicky old Satan really gets around.

[ebb tide]

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand, that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes:

The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence toward 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.16

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616

[painter]

Jesus broke the bread and put it individually on each disciples’ tongue

Not in my Bible.

While they were eating, Jesus took Bread, said the blessing broke it, and Giving it to his disciples said. "Take and eat; this is My Body", and Gave it to them.

[Campion]

His disciples weren’t laypeople at that point. Apostles are superior to bishops. Clerics, including bishops (and apostles, if any were living today) communicate themselves at every Mass. Laypeople should not.

[heterosupremacist]

From article: May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. In my Parish (70 years old) the Altar rails have been removed and they don't provide even one prie-dieu. A visiting priest refused to offer Communion to a woman who kneeled, saying that she "Chose to draw attention to herself, due to her false piety." We knew this woman, her husband, and her three children were all devout, dedicated, Catholics. Shocking, to say the least! The visiting priest was never invited back, but even some members of what we call the 'varsity' (old timers/traditionalists) now accept Communion in the hand from our priest, because they know it is his preference. He is a great priest, and a hero to many, but unfortunately he entered Seminary at the worst possible time...

[Iscool]

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand, that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes:

The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . .
Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.

And what religion is Aquinas involved with??? It's certainly not the church of the Bible...

1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So there you go...There is only one intermediary between God and man, and it certainly isn't a Catholic priest...

Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Here's the one man/priest who replaced ALL priests for all time...

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Unto God by HIM, not some Catholic priest...

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

There it is, across the plate, waist high...

There is no such thing as a Eucharistic sacrifice...There is no re-presentation of the Cross...

Aquinas and the Catholic religion is foreign to the Bible...It is foreign to the one, high priest and only mediator between God and man...Aquinas admits that as does your entire religion...

[Petrosius]

I remind everyone that this is marked as:

>>CATHOLIC CAUCUS<<

[morphing libertarian]

communion by hand is the original way. Let people have choice.

[Petrosius]

Perhaps, but a growing appreciation that the Eucharist is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ let to expressing this by receiving kneeling and on the tongue. The introduction of Communion standing and in the hand has taken away the awe that should accompany it and encouraged the idea that it is ordinary bread and wine. Why should anyone object to kneeling before God and humbly receiving Him on the tongue?

[morphing libertarian]

“growing appreciation” is not the example set by Christ at the last supper and the practice for centuries. His example is not up to vote or trends.

I don’t oppose communion on the tongue but the thread’s title is very hyperbolic and just inaccurate. that is my only point.

[heterosupremacist]

"...hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. I may be mistaken; but I always believed it was NOT the priests hands that were consecrated, but rather his fingers? [index and thumb]

[marshmallow]

Sarah reappears to fire another salvo. He's been largely silent since Francis rebuked him over Sarah's ad orientam appeal and then his congregation was gutted by Francis while leaving Sarah in charge.

It's clear that his silence is not the silence of one who is intimidated.

[kosciusko51]

You really should include the “Catholic caucus” in the title; it will reduce the number of non-caucus comments.

[steve86]

Thanks again for mentioning that title. I have not yet managed to procure it but noticed there is a six-part series on YouTube by the same name.

[Religion Moderator]

No it isn’t.

It’s an open thread.

[ebb tide]

It was the soon to be canonized Pope Paul VI who allowed this abuse of the Precious Body and Blood of Christ to flourish.

[Salvation]

Broke the caucus?

[Salvation]