It's for the same reason I'll never touch a consecrated host with my hands.
See my post #42.
Posted on 05/09/2018 3:36:10 PM PDT by ebb tide
Don Federico Bortoli is presently the pastor of the parish of Sant’Andrea Apostolo in Acquaviva in the Diocese of San Marino Montefeltro. He is also diocesan chancellor, judicial vicar, and ecclesiastical counselor for the Unione Cristiana Imprenditori Dirigenti (Christian Union of Entrepreneurs and Executives). He is the defender of the bond at the Flaminio Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Bologna. His book, published last February 22, La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano (The Distribution of Communion In the Hand), is his doctoral dissertation in Canon Law. We interviewed him on this important topic.
The key document relative to the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand is the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Memoriale Domini (29 May 1969) (henceforth M.D.), issued at the direction of Paul VI. Essentially, can you tell us how this document originated and what directives it contained?
The document originated because, in the years immediately following Vatican II, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand became widespread in many countries. This was obviously a liturgical abuse, which put its roots down in those countries where there were already doctrinal problems regarding the Holy Eucharist: Belgium, Holland, France, and Germany. The Holy See, not succeeding in stopping this abuse, decided to consult all the bishops on this question. This decision of Paul VI already allows us to understand the importance of the argument. I say this, because some would maintain that this whole question is only of marginal importance and unimportant.
And what resulted from this consultation?
The majority of bishops expressed their opposition to the introduction of this practice. M.D. acknowledged the outcome of the consultation and confirmed that the universal norm for receiving Communion is precisely that of receiving it directly on the tongue, giving profound reasons for it. At the same time, it consented that the bishops’ conferences of those places in which the abuse was already occurring would be able to request an indult for Communion in the hand, if the bishops were able to achieve a vote of a two-thirds majority in favor of requesting it.
M.D. thus confirmed that the two ways of receiving the Eucharist are not on the same level?
Absolutely. In my book, I examine the entire text of the Instruction, which when read clearly is understood to say that the traditional and universal discipline of the Church is that of Communion on the tongue, because “it is based on a centuries-old tradition, but especially because it expresses and signifies the reverent respect of the faithful towards the Holy Eucharist.” And furthermore, “it avoids the danger of profaning the Eucharistic species.” The document does not equate the two forms. Communion on the tongue is recommended and considered the most consonant way to receive the Eucharist, while Communion on the hand is permitted, provided that certain precautions are observed, such as checking to see if any fragments of the Host remain on the palm of the hand.
The other aspect of the Instruction that you emphasize in your book is the fact that the indult was not meant to be granted to whoever asked for it, but only to those bishops’ conferences in places where there were already verified abuses.
Exactly. The request was able to be made only in those situations in which there was already in existence the abuse of receiving Communion on the hand. Where this was not happening, the indult could not be requested. But what actually happened? At the beginning, they followed this criterion; then, almost every diocese requested and obtained the indult, also where there was no necessity for it. Cardinal Knox, who was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, also acceded to the demands of the other bishops’ conferences. It is a fact that the interpretation of M.D. by Cardinal Knox was not correct.
In your book, you note that in January 1977, Paul VI, through (secretary of state) Cardinal Villot, asked Cardinal Knox to give him an assessment of the situation relative to the granting of the indult, to the way it had been put into practice, and also to verify whether, following the granting of the indult, there had been verified abuses and profanations or if there had been a lessening of the devotion of the faithful toward the Holy Eucharist. But Cardinal Knox seemed to greatly minimize the actual problems.
The popes, first Paul VI and then John Paul II, had grasped the problem, also thanks to the reports of Cardinal Bafile (prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints from 1975 to 1980). Notwithstanding this, Cardinal Knox continued on his course. Paul VI did asked Cardinal Knox not to evaluate the suggestions of Cardinal Bafile, but to think about how to apply them concretely. These suggestions were essentially the suspension of the concession of the new indult – the necessity of remembering that the practice of Commuion in the hand is discouraged by the Church and that, where the indult was not granted, Communion in the hand constituted an abuse.
What actually happened, above all beginning with the article published in L’Osservatore Romano by Fr. Annibale Bugnini in 1973, which you mention, is that the new practice was considered to be better, more faithful to the ancient way of receiving the Eucharist.
The idea of M.D. was to make the abuse legal where it had not been successfully eliminated, but a catechesis was still required according to the text of the Instruction, a catechesis that would highlight the merits of the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue and the risks being run with the new practice, in primis the dispersion of the fragments of the Host. The catechesis was not supposed to promote Communion in the hand, but in some way to discourage it, without prohibiting it outright. Still today, Communion in the hand is spoken of as the best way, faithful to the early Church and faithful to the liturgical reform. A fundamental point of the book is to show that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not mention it at all. Nor does any of the successive documents speak of it, nor the new Roman Missal, but only Memoriale Domini, which establishes it in terms of an indult. Bugnini’s article certainly gave a direction, but this direction was extraneous to the texts of the Council.
After M.D., there were not other explicit documents. What then is the present disposition of the Church relative to the distribution of Communion?
One noteworthy example is the document, which I include in the appendix, of Bishop Bialasik, bishop of Oruro, which clearly affirms that Communion on the tongue is the universal law of the Church, as M.D. establishes. Thus, Communion on the tongue is the universal law, while Communion in the hand is an indult, an exception. The other fundamental reference, outside M.D., is Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, which speaks of the right of the faithful to receive Communion on the tongue and also kneeling.
Also in catechesis, above all that of children, there is a need to teach the proper way to receive the Eucharist, that is, on the tongue.
Exactly. It ought to clearly be said that the best way to receive the Eucharist is on the tongue, and if someone wants to receive Communion on the hand, to do so with the greatest attention possible. As a pastor, I clearly cannot prohibit it, but I can discourage it, explain the problems with it, and educate. But it must also be said that the same Redemptionis Sacramentum 91 establishes that “if there is danger of profanation, Holy Communion should not be distributed to the faithful in the hand.”
Another aspect you bring to light is the fact that the obtaining of the indult by a bishops’ conference does not thereby obligate any individual bishops to apply it.
This is another fundamental aspect. The obtaining of the indult on the part of a bishops’ conference does not thereby require its automatic application in each diocese. It is simply the presupposition, based on which a bishop can decide to apply the indult or not. In Italy, what actually happened was the opposite: it was thought that the indult given to the Italian Bishops’ Conference authorized the reception of Communion in the hand in all the dioceses of Italy. But it was not so. Each bishop can decide whether to apply it and in what way. The Bishop of Oruro, for example, issued a decree in January 2016 prohibiting the reception of Communion in the hand in the territory of his diocese. This could be done by each bishop. Also, if we apply logic, without a decree of each bishop declaring the desire to receive the indult obtained by the bishops’ conference, Communion in the hand is not licit. Also Bishop Laise, in Argentina, did not accept the indult. He was accused by other bishops of not being in communion with them; he, however, appealed the matter to the Holy See, which said he was within his rights as bishop.
Your book is so valuable because it includes previously unpublished material.
Without a doubt, the main and most important contribution of the book is that of making known the unpublished documentation of Fondo Ghiglione, where they describe the dynamics by which Communion in the hand was introduced. It includes letters sent among the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia and reports sent to the Holy See. Above all the largest part of these communications regards those written by Cardinal Domenico Bafile, who was first the nuncio to Germany – thus, he was in one of those places where the abuse was most precocious and took into account all of the problems connected with it – and then prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. In the book I examine his letters sent to Paul VI and John Paul II, which display his great concern over the spread of Communion in the hand and the problems connected with it. They also suggest concrete steps to put into action to address the problem.
The great concern of the cardinal is with the dispersion of the fragments of the host, which is almost inevitable with Communion in the hand, and then the fact of the way in which it encourages irreverence toward the Eucharist, as well as the weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
Both Paul VI and John Paul II gave ample credit to the reports of Cardinal Bafile. This is proven by the fact that Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24, 1980, where he explicitly spoke of “deplorable shortcomings of respect shown towards the Eucharistic species” linked to the practice of Communion in the hand. One month later, John Paul II made the serious and important decision to suspend the concession of new indults, seriously considering the hypothesis of not granting more in the future, even though later, beginning on April 3, 1985, the granting of indults recommenced.
Perhaps the possibility of granting indults was then an open door, even though Paul VI clearly expressed the teaching of the Church on the way to receive the Eucharist and even though he had indicated the limitations which were to be followed in the granting of such indults (which were then not respected).
In effect, the possibility of the indult was perhaps a weakness. There is one part of the book in which I speak of the role of ecclesiastical authority, where I seek to demonstrate – in hindsight – that the concession of the indult has in some way allowed us to arrive at the situation now evident to everyone. If there had simply been a reception of the position of the majority of bishops that was against the possibility of receiving Communion in the hand, perhaps things would have been different.
It is necessary to keep in mind the priority of protecting the Eucharist in the best way possible from the possibility of fragments and from other possible profanations, which are clearly facilitated by the newly permitted way of receiving Communion. John Paul II, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, taught that “there can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery” (n. 61). This affirmation is decisive.
Originally published at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino.
Thank you for the link. I do agree with Staples that Holy Communion on the tongue indicates more devotion and respect for the Blessed Sacrament.
I don’t know how old you are, but when I was altar boy, everyone received Holy Communion kneeling at an altar rail, on the tongue, with an altar boy holding a patent under the chin of each communicant to catch the host if it was dropped.
I distinctly remember the following sequence of events:
*Communion, on the tongue, while standing was introduced (altar rails were no longer used and no more altar boys with patens).
*Churches were wreckovated and in all, but a few, the altar rails were removed.
*Communion in the paw was illegally and illicity initiated in the Netherlands.
*Pope Paul VI granted a limited indult to those counties that had already been doing it.
*Cardinal Bernadin opened up Pandora’s box and now the practice is worldwide.
*Eucharistic Monsters were introduced.
I am fortunate enough to attend a Catholic Church with an altar rail (with veil), and altar boys with patens. Everyone receives kneeling at the rail, on the tongue - no exceptions except for the handicapped who can’t kneel.
I have seen, but only rarely, the Blessed Sacrament dropped on the floor at both novus ordo masses and TLM masses.
The way the dropped Blessed Sacrament was treated afterwards was vastly different. At the former, the host was immediately picked up and shoved in the EEM’s pants pocket; it’s quite a different treatment in the Traditional Latin Mass.
The Day the Host Dropped
On Communion in the Hand
by John Vennari
Posted at www.cfnews.org
It is a bedrock Catholic truth, taught by the Church since the time of the Apostles, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically that Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in every part of the Blessed Sacrament. The Council taught infallibly:
“If anyone denieth that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.”
This means that Our Lord is present even in the smallest particle of the Host, and in the smallest particle that may fall to the ground. Thus the reverence that we owe to the Blessed Sacrament demands that we take every precaution that no particle of the Host — not even the smallest — is left open for desecration in any way.
First of all, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)
This reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, and even for the smallest particles, was incorporated into the traditional Mass — the Old Latin Mass — which contained strict rubrics on this point:
1) From the moment the priest pronounces the words of the Consecration over the Sacred Host, the priest keeps his forefinger and thumb together on each hand. Whether he elevates the chalice, or turns the pages of the missal, or opens the tabernacle, his thumb and his forefinger on each hand are closed. The thumb and forefinger touch nothing but the Sacred Host;
2) During Holy Communion, the altar boy holds the paten under the chin of those receiving Communion, so that the slightest particle does not fall to the ground. This paten is cleaned into the chalice afterwards;
3) After Holy Communion is distributed, the priest scrapes the corporal (the small linen cloth on the altar) with the paten, and cleans it into the chalice so that if the slightest particle is left, it is collected and consumed by the priest;
4) Then, the priest washes his thumb and forefinger over the chalice with water and wine, and this water and wine is reverently consumed to insure that the smallest particle of the Sacred Host is not susceptible to desecration.
Communion in the hand and so-called Eucharist lay-ministers make a mockery of the Divine Truth that Our Lord is truly present in every particle of the Eucharist, and make a mockery of the holy rubrics used by the Church for centuries as a safeguard against desecration.
Because what happens with Communion in the hand?
The Host is placed in the hand, which is not consecrated. The communicant picks It up with his own fingers, which are not consecrated. The sacred particles fall to the ground, are stepped upon and desecrated.
Likewise with so-called Eucharistic lay-ministers, their hands are not consecrated; they should not be touching the Sacred Host. The sacred particles of the Host fall to the ground, are stepped upon and desecrated. The fingers of “lay-Eucharistic ministers” are not washed, so any particle remaining will also be desecrated.
No authority in the Church, not even the highest, can dispense a Catholic from the duty of preserving the necessary reverence owed to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Any Church leader who does so labors under the “diabolic disorientation of the upper hierarchy” warned against by Sister Lucy of Fatima, and is derelict in his duty.
Only forty-five years ago, Communion in the hand was unthinkable in Catholic churches. It was recognized for the sacrilege that it is. Only forty-five years ago, Eucharistic lay-ministers were unthinkable in Catholic churches. It was recognized for the sacrilege that it is.
But now, these abuses are permitted and promoted by a liberal hierarchy who — in this area and in many other areas — suddenly approve what the Church always rightly condemned. This “suddenly blessing what the Church always condemned” is the hallmark of the Vatican II reforms.
The truth, however, is that God does not change, and man’s duty of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament does not change, even if we have many leaders who in their destructive liberalization of the Catholic Church, seem to care little or nothing for the true reverence we owe to Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
Thus, anyone who receives Communion in the hand, or who receives Communion from a Eucharistic lay-minister, or who is a Eucharistic lay-minister himself or herself — in the objective order — is committing a sacrilege. It is a misuse of a holy thing. It is a mockery of what the Church has taught and practiced. It is a desecration of the greatest gift that God has given us: the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.
The Day the Host Dropped
The pre-Vatican II rubrics for when a Host is dropped, like the rubrics of the Latin liturgy, safeguarded the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament. The May 1949 American Ecclesiastical Review explained:
“This procedure requires that the spot on which the Sacred Host has fallen be purified, usually with a dampened purificator, and then scraped and the scrapings thrown into the sacrarium [small sink in sacristy that drains into ground under the church]. Authors, generally, in order to avoid delay in going on with the distribution of Holy Communion, interpret the fulfillment of the rubric to allow marking the spot on which the Sacred Host has fallen, either with a linen cloth or with the plate used with the cruets, the priest returning after Mass to purify the place in the manner prescribed in De defectibus.”
This strict procedure not only gives God the reverence that is His due, but profoundly impresses the spectator, as it impressed me at a young age.
The year was around 1965, I was a boy of about 7 years old. My father took me for Sunday Mass to the “Italian Parish”, Our Lady of Consolation in Philadelphia. The Mass was still in Latin, the sacred atmosphere still pervaded the church and the liturgy, though the first updrafts of change were in the wind.
During Communion time on this particular Sunday, the priest accidentally dropped a consecrated Host. We were sitting up front, and my father drew my attention to it.
The priest briefly interrupted the distribution of Communion to fetch a small white cloth which he placed over the Host on the floor. The distribution of Holy Communion resumed, with the priest and altar boy carefully stepping around the Veiled Guest.
My father purposely kept me after Mass so that I could see the purification rubric from the front pew.
All was done simply, quietly, for there was no talking in church whatsoever back then, in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.
The priest and the altar boy approached the spot near the altar rail inside the sanctuary, the spot covered with a white cloth. The priest then dropped to his knees, lifted the veil, retrieved the Sacred Species and consumed it with dignity and decorum. Slowly, reverently, still on his knees, he then cleaned and purified the section of the floor where the Host had dropped.
He took his time. There was no rush. An air of solemnity, holiness and adoration pervaded his every move.
I was fascinated and edified by the procedure. I remember thinking to myself, “truly, the Sacred Host is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” because the priest tended to It with awe-inspiring care and reverence.
It was the best catechism lesson on the Real Presence I ever had.
What do seven-year-olds now see? In modern parishes, under the lax rubrics of the New Mass, the priest simply picks up a dropped Host and moves on, as if he dropped some loose change. Particles are left to be stepped upon and desecrated. Before and after Mass, people prattle away in church as if they are socializing in the parish hall. Many modern priests and laity disregard their duty of silence before the Blessed Sacrament. They forget the stern warning of little Jacinta of Fatima, “Our Lady does not want people to talk in church”.
Where is this reverence and care for the Blessed Sacrament in the post-Conciliar Church with the introduction of Communion in the hand and the “anyone can handle it” attitude? How will our young people gain any understanding of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament when He receives cavalier treatment from clergymen? How can reverence for the Eucharist be instilled in the Catholic faithful when they see It given in the hand as common foodstuffs, and distributed by ill-trained lay people who should not be handling the Blessed Sacrament in the first place?
It is no mystery why so many Catholics have lost faith in the Sacred Mysteries. Too many of our priests have abandoned the outward devotion necessary: 1) to give proper reverence to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; 2) to teach the people through example that the highest reverence must be shown to Our Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the Blessed Sacrament.
Yet, the post-Conciliar catastrophe will not go on indefinitely. Someday the Church will once again be blessed with a hierarchy that gives Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament the reverence due to the King of Kings.
In the meantime, let us resist sacrilegious innovations such as Communion in the hand and lay-Eucharistic ministers, encourage others to resist them, and cling to the Latin Tridentine Mass wherein the rubrics that safeguard the reverence to the Blessed Sacrament are meticulously preserved.
The Need for Reparation
In 1916, a year before Our Lady’s visitations at Fatima, the “Angel of the Eucharist” appeared with Chalice and Host to the children. He administered the Sacred species to the three children saying, “Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Our Lord, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” The Angel left the chalice and the Host suspended in the air, and prostrated himself before It. The children imitated him. The Angel then prayed repeatedly this act of reparation:
“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.”
Let us commit to memory this prayer and say it throughout the day as often as possible. The “outrages, sacrileges and indifference” toward the Blessed Sacrament engendered by the Vatican II revolution are unprecedented, probably the worst in history. Sacrilege is so commonplace that it is no longer recognized as sacrilege. The need for reparation is colossal.
•
Postscript: In thinking about the proposed "Beatification" of Paul VI, we recall that we have him to "thank" for approval of Communion in the hand, which also recently (Nov. 2015) led to the enourmous sacrilege in Spain: "Over 200 consecrated hosts stolen, desecrated in Spain art exhibit"
• • •
Excerpt:
In the autumn of the same year, the children took their sheep to the same place where the first apparition took place. There in the blessed place of the Cabeço, they were reciting the prayer the Angel had taught them when above them an unknown light appeared. Lucy relates, "We got up again to see what was happening, and we saw the Angel again, who had in his left hand a Chalice over which was suspended a Host, from which some drops of Blood fell into the Chalice."
Leaving the Chalice and the Host suspended in the air, he prostrated himself down to the earth near the children and repeated three times this prayer:
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He, Himself is offended. And I draw upon the infinite merits of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that You might convert poor sinners.
Then, getting up, the Angel took the Chalice and Host. He gave Lucy the Sacred Host on the tongue. Then while giving the Precious Blood from the Chalice to Francisco and Jacinta, he said:
"Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God." Then, prostrating himself on the ground he repeated with the children three times the same prayer: Most Holy Trinity, etc., and disappeared.
This final apparition of the Angel was clearly the summit of the three, as the children were graced to see the Precious Blood of Our Lord fall from the Sacred Host into the Chalice, and then receive Holy Communion from the hands of the Angel.
I'm in my early 60's. I went to daily Mass as a child. Latin Mass. Altar boy. Received the Eucharist on my knees on the tongue.
I don't like most of what came from Vatican II. Turning the altar around still makes no sense to me. We should all be facing the same direction.
The one thing that makes sense to me though, is receiving the Eucharist in the hand. I believe that is the way Christ distributed the bread that became His body. He broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. (At the time they were not yet Priests. That came later, when He breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit) I don't believe he placed it on their tongue. Take and Eat. No, I was not there. But breaking the bread and sharing is throughout Scripture. As prefigured in the multiplication of the loaves. Take and Eat.
Either way is allowed by the Church. I agree it is more reverent to receive on the tongue on your knees. But I believe taking in the hand and eating is more aligned with Scripture.
We can disagree on this point. I don't understand why you won't take the chalice, when Christ told us to take and drink. But these are minor points.
Let us rejoice that Christ gave us His Body and Blood for our eternal life.
It's for the same reason I'll never touch a consecrated host with my hands.
See my post #42.
So how do you follow Christ's command? "Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." Mat 26:27
Christ commanded us to drink from the cup
If we agree, do you have a problem that over time the Church developed a greater understanding and respect of the True Presence and exercised greater reverence for It accordingly?
If you're that nostalgic for simulating the Last Supper, why not argue for priests consecrating loaves of bread and distributing It into hands of their parishioners while seated at a dinner table?
Kinky and Carmen used to do that with their NeoCats until a Catholic pope, Benedict XVI, slapped their filthy hands.
Liturgy: Benedict XVI Brings the Neocatechumenals Back to the Right Way
For the umpteenth time, Christ was talking to His first priests.
And I have received the Blood of Christ in Communion by intinction.
If you want to ignore the Church’s past teaching on consecrated hands and sacred vessels, I can’t help you anymore.
When did the apostles become priests?
The Angel of Fatima gave Lucia only the Consecrated Host, not the chalice. He gave only the sacred chalice with Christ's Blood to Francisco and Jacinta. None of the Fatima children received Holy Communion under both kinds.
Were the three children and the angel disobeying Christ's "command"? Communion Under Both Kinds?
When the Angel disappeared, along with the Chalice, Francisco asked his older cousin, Lucia, whether he and his sister had received Holy Communion since they did not receive a Host. Lucia affirmed that they did indeed receive Holy Communion. Lucia responded correctly since in either the Sacred Host or in the Precious Blood, Jesus is really and truly entirely Present. This confirms the centuries-old practice of receiving only the Consecrated Host at a Traditional Latin Mass. It confirms that our Eucharistic Lord is really and truly Present in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host alone. One does not have to “drink from the cup,” as they now say, in order to receive the Precious Blood of Christ, as it is contained in the Sacred Host.
Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53
Christ commands us to drink His blood. Not intinct.
except that is what Christ said we need to do. "Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
You started this useless dialogue when you stated we’re all “priests”, so that’s why we can receive Communion in the Paw.
You seem to have dropped that line of argument and are now questioning whether the apostles were priests at the Last Supper.
Can you please make up your mind?
Why did none of the Fatima children be administered, by an Angel of God, Holy Communion under both Kinds?
It is you, my brother in Christ, that is confused. And you refuse to answer simple questions,
Scripture says we are all the Royal Priesthood. Do you agree with Scripture, or deny it?
I asked a simple question - When did the apostles become priests? Please try to answer this question. I believe Christ established his priesthood when he gave then the power to forgive sins - John 20:23
I don't know. I was talking about Scripture
Just because you disagree with a dialogue about Scripture does not make it useless.
Christ sends out his twelve apostles, with the power of miracles. The lessons he gives them.
[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. Matthew, Chapter 10.
Any more questions?
Seriously, are you really a Catholic?
This thread was about the sacrilege of Holy Communion in the Paw and how it was illicitly introduced post VC II after respect for the Blessed Sacrament had organically developed over the years.
It was never about "scripture".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.