Clicks686

Newly ordained Father Ismael Garcia Sainz distributes Communion during Mass

Cardinal Cupich ordained seven priests for the Archdiocese of Chicago at St. John Brebeuf Church in Niles June 29, the solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Peter4God
@Jmy1975 here is the effects of your vatii B.S the watering down of the faith and the doing away with tradition ie; the receiving of the BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST PRESENT IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT on the tongue the way it always has been not treating it like a wafer such as you protestant friends whos communion isn't valid anyway. Adding of "B.S special ministers the adding …More
@Jmy1975 here is the effects of your vatii B.S the watering down of the faith and the doing away with tradition ie; the receiving of the BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST PRESENT IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT on the tongue the way it always has been not treating it like a wafer such as you protestant friends whos communion isn't valid anyway. Adding of "B.S special ministers the adding of alter girls the changing of the liturgy this is just some of your, vatii B.S not to mention the pro sodomitic lgbtqi dogs once the church was distablised by your modernist nutjobs

youtu.be/BDOFFV0LpLI
Jmy1975
@Peter4God actually I have more reverence for Jesus Christ in the Host than you do. I am thoroughly Catholic and understand the dogma. It is not a sin to receive communion by hand. Idk why you think I'm a fan of LGBTQ but it's probably just the hate you have in your heart.
Peter4God
Your own words condemn you if you reverence Jesus in the Host you wouldn't accept The Host to be administered as a wafer your a liar a hypocrite you'd be perfect for the Judasian order; worshiping Jesus in the way that the individual wants not in the way Jesus wants because in the end only the individuals interpretation of The Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist matters …More
Your own words condemn you if you reverence Jesus in the Host you wouldn't accept The Host to be administered as a wafer your a liar a hypocrite you'd be perfect for the Judasian order; worshiping Jesus in the way that the individual wants not in the way Jesus wants because in the end only the individuals interpretation of The Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist matters not that of the church. As far as the hate in my heart you're right, the hatered for the lgbtqia that I have is for that lifestyle which obviously doesn't bother you or you wouldn't have defended it by calling me out. Well I can tell you now it bothered God so much that he destroyed the towns that practiced it. It also bothered the apostles so much that they themselves condemned them. But according to you it's Ok. Just goes to show that your modernist B.S has no direction it goes in every which way but the right. You mentioned you could've been a protestant personally your already there you just dont know it. TRUE MODERNIST NUT JOB just like Martin Luther
Peter4God
@Jmy1975 so what your saying is regardless of how much more respectful it maybe, it is better for the individual to receive Jesus in the hand where some species of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ remain in the palm of the hand of the individual so that the individual can brush them of as he or she walks back to the pew. Talk about inconsistance in your logic your all over the …More
@Jmy1975 so what your saying is regardless of how much more respectful it maybe, it is better for the individual to receive Jesus in the hand where some species of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ remain in the palm of the hand of the individual so that the individual can brush them of as he or she walks back to the pew. Talk about inconsistance in your logic your all over the place just so you can justify error no different than your hero Martin Luther. How can being absolved of ones sins be the same as Holy Orders if thats the case after you go to confession which really you have no need of, like us sinners, you should be able to consecrate the Eucharist yourself being as holy as you are, that you are more holy and knowledgeable and reverential than the past 2000 years of catholic church history. @Jmy we have catholic church history on our side you have 50-60 years at best of irreverential errors on yours, do you really want to up hold the belief that communion in the hand is just as reverential as on the tongue this coming from the same group of people who have shown their true colours in support those like pro homosexuals Fr. James Martin, Cardinal Wuerl, Cupich, Dolan, not to mention the disgraced Theodore McCarrick, not to forget our current beloved dictator who welcomes sodomites and lgbtqia people in the vatican "private audience" saying God allows all religions, stating, "adultry is only a sin if you enjoy" @Jmy in a pigs eye the last 50-60 years are the same as the 1950 years before it, your theological compass is so out of whack that there is no truth to it
Jmy1975
I never said I was against on the tongue. I have said a paten could be used with By the hand. I have said particles get dropped on the tongue too, I've seen it and I've said that the what's in the heart matters more than outward displays, all true.

If you love Jesus Christ you'll be reverent. This idea that you're going to hell with reception by hand is insane.

You can call me part of this worl…More
I never said I was against on the tongue. I have said a paten could be used with By the hand. I have said particles get dropped on the tongue too, I've seen it and I've said that the what's in the heart matters more than outward displays, all true.

If you love Jesus Christ you'll be reverent. This idea that you're going to hell with reception by hand is insane.

You can call me part of this world all you want and I can say you seem very much like Judas who was all about the appearance of piety. That's not fair is it? Off you go.
Ultraviolet
"I have said a paten could be used with By the hand."

Now who's being disingenous? . ;-)

It could be, but it isn't. Inb4 some obscure cherry-picked example of the paten being used with communion in the hand.

In overwhelming, near-universal general Novus Ordo practice, the paten isn't used at all. The paten isn't used because communion in the hand is inherently less reverential and inherent…More
"I have said a paten could be used with By the hand."

Now who's being disingenous? . ;-)

It could be, but it isn't. Inb4 some obscure cherry-picked example of the paten being used with communion in the hand.

In overwhelming, near-universal general Novus Ordo practice, the paten isn't used at all. The paten isn't used because communion in the hand is inherently less reverential and inherently less mindful of the Real Presence.

What you said earlier is true. "Communion in the hand isn't sacriligous". But that should be clarified with, "in principle". However, in the modern age, the practice naturally facilitates sacrilege, both through accident and through over-familiarity. The Eucharist gets handed out anywhere, anytime, by anyone who wants to be a pretend-priest.

From a sacrament administered only by the priest, only on the tongue, always ever-mindful of Christ's Real Presence, the Novus Ordo Eucharist is casually handed out like cookies at a day-care by volunteer church ladies.

The reverence simply isn't there which is almost certainly why those "demons" who conjured up the liturgical reforms of Vatican Council II re-instituted the practice in the first place in conjunction with all their other great ideas.

"I have said particles get dropped on the tongue too, I've seen it"

Particles get dropped on the tongue? Guess where they go? Exactly where they should. :D

"I have seen it,"

You Fallacy Is:
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

"and I've said that the what's in the heart matters more than outward displays, all true."

Not all true at all. Argumentum ad Nauseam, though.

That line of reasoning justifies any form of irreverence and blasphemy.

Early Christians gladly went to their deaths before they'd submit to "outward displays" that would contradict "what's in the heart". Sure, they could pay lip-service to the official, compulsory pagan religion of the Roman Empire but they knew better.

Novus Ordo defenders will be using that same argument when statues of the Blessed Mother are torn down and replaced with Pachamama. We can still pray to Her. "what's in the heart matters more than outward displays."

Yeah, no.
Peter4God
At @Jmy1975 again I never cursed at you but you seem to think it's ok, to do it to others, so who's being childish. You responded to what I wrote and then you block me again. Obviously you blocking me has nothing to do with what I said, of which in that, there was nothing wrong, but more to do with the fact that your responses are so out of touch with reality that you can't justify your own …More
At @Jmy1975 again I never cursed at you but you seem to think it's ok, to do it to others, so who's being childish. You responded to what I wrote and then you block me again. Obviously you blocking me has nothing to do with what I said, of which in that, there was nothing wrong, but more to do with the fact that your responses are so out of touch with reality that you can't justify your own responses. You definitely are a Vatican II type thinking person. By that, I mean that your thought processes are no different to that of the church you are both governed by the world. Hence you both are in error.
Jmy1975
I am not in error. And if I was of the world I wouldn't be focusing so much on the idea of sin, repentance, and forgiveness which only comes from Jesus,

My reality is basic Christian logic: we are all unclean. We are allowed to consume Jesus if we are forgiven of our sins. We can't consecrate Jesus, nor are we able to handle the host in any way except reception. But we are allowed to consume …More
I am not in error. And if I was of the world I wouldn't be focusing so much on the idea of sin, repentance, and forgiveness which only comes from Jesus,

My reality is basic Christian logic: we are all unclean. We are allowed to consume Jesus if we are forgiven of our sins. We can't consecrate Jesus, nor are we able to handle the host in any way except reception. But we are allowed to consume the host. If one part of us is not worthy, our whole body and spirit are unworthy.

This isn't V2 nutters, it's basic Christian logic. I believe in the sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ.

Your question about my marital status was inappropriate because you could've made the same point without an open question that, predictably allowed jerks to comment.
Peter4God
There is nothing that says we the parishoners are allowed to handle the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist before consuming it, it's VATICANII BULLSHIT TO THINK SO
Peter4God
This is why certain people should keep there B.S thoughts to themselves because others will be wrongly accused and shunned and blovked who had no part in it and if @Jmy1975 were to see this he would also acknowledge that I had no part in it myself.

The purpose to the question of was this; a husband would not permit another man to touch his wife nor would a wife permit another woman to touch …More
This is why certain people should keep there B.S thoughts to themselves because others will be wrongly accused and shunned and blovked who had no part in it and if @Jmy1975 were to see this he would also acknowledge that I had no part in it myself.

The purpose to the question of was this; a husband would not permit another man to touch his wife nor would a wife permit another woman to touch her husband.

If a wife permitted another man to touch her, or if a husband permitted another woman to touch him, both would be inappropriate even if they had there conscent. Now swap the word husband or wife, with the word priest. God gave authority for a priest to touch the Blessed Sacrament; the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and for the priest to do so his hands needed to be consecrated. But now today a Priest can play the part of the adulterers, and thus allowing anyone that have no authority to touch the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The second thought is this; when Jesus rose from the dead, Mary Magdalena was the first one to see Him; according to the Bible a woman of great faith, as she reached out to touch Him, Jesus said to her not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Compare that to what happened with St Thomas, who was an apostle and comparing the two responses one could say that, Mary Magdalena had a greater faith than St Thomas and yet it is only with Jesus' authority that St Thomas could touch Him. And until Jesus appears in person as he did during the time of the apostles then The Eucharist is The Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and only people with authority have the right to touch him.
Jmy1975
@Peter4God How many people did Jesus physically touch on earth with his miracles? And how many people touched Him? Quite a bit. Was he not still God? Of course He was.

And how can we touch Jesus with our mouths and not our hands? By your b.s. logic we cannot touch Jesus at all. Didn't Jesus rail against inner sin, the sins of the heart?

Who is worthy?

The answer lies in confession and repent…More
@Peter4God How many people did Jesus physically touch on earth with his miracles? And how many people touched Him? Quite a bit. Was he not still God? Of course He was.

And how can we touch Jesus with our mouths and not our hands? By your b.s. logic we cannot touch Jesus at all. Didn't Jesus rail against inner sin, the sins of the heart?

Who is worthy?

The answer lies in confession and repentance. We are permitted to receive Jesus when we are forgiven by Him of our sins. This is why it is not and can never be a sin to receive communion by hand.

*And maybe Mary Magdalen had to go to confession first before touching Jesus.

You can call me a b.s.-er all you want, but I have basic Christian dogma on my side.

How many of you really great Catholics like you and UV receive Jesus on the tongue and then continue your sinful lives?

Receiving communion on the hand isn't a sin. And I just proved it. Again.
Peter4God
Then why tel Mary Magdalena for her not to touch him it doesn't fit the narrative
Peter4God
A question for Jmy1975 of its not that personal a question are you married?
Holy Cannoli
A better question (subject to debate):
How many times has this insufferable creature been divorced???
🤪 🤪 🥴 🥴
Ultraviolet
Remind me never to get on your bad side, Holy Cannoli :) Like the old proveb says, when a quiet dog bites, it goes for the throat first. I'll freely admit I've taken personal shots at GTV users myself... on occasion... from time to time... ;-) But that was just vicious. :D

Peter4God, based on the times he posts, I would speculate he isn't married -regardless of the answer he chooses to …More
Remind me never to get on your bad side, Holy Cannoli :) Like the old proveb says, when a quiet dog bites, it goes for the throat first. I'll freely admit I've taken personal shots at GTV users myself... on occasion... from time to time... ;-) But that was just vicious. :D

Peter4God, based on the times he posts, I would speculate he isn't married -regardless of the answer he chooses to give. I'd also like to make it clear I'm not mocking the guy for his marital state. Or that I have any personal interest in it.

Btw... you need to use the "@" feature if you'd like GTV to send him a notificaton he's being mentioned like so @Jmy1975

Now @Jmy1975 will notice I mentioned him, That ought to get his attention!

The two of us are close pals on GTV, regular BFFs, so so he'll scoot right over to see why I brought up his name and perhaps you'll get your answer. :)
mccallansteve
He sets a very bad example by doing this. Cupish must have been proud of him, though
Roberto 55
His other job is probably a work in microbiology lab(level4) and he forgot remove this "double" masks...or maybe he is just stupid.
Peter4God
Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they jystify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of weak Popes …More
Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they jystify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of weak Popes and erroneous Bishops to accept an error because it supports your erroneous interpretation does not make it right it is still an error
Peter4God
@Jmy1975

Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they justify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of …More
@Jmy1975

Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they justify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of weak Popes and erroneous Bishops to accept an error because it supports your erroneous interpretation does not make it right it is still an error.
Jmy1975
@Peter4God if you can find the dogma that states communion in the hand is sacrilegious I'd love to see it.
Peter4God
@Jmy I can ask you the same question can you find dogma that justifies the receiving of The Holy Eucharist; the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord in the hand is just as reverential if not more so than on the tongue, no you can't.

The first reason why ONLY A PRIEST should handle the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is because there is no others means of salvation thus it shows …More
@Jmy I can ask you the same question can you find dogma that justifies the receiving of The Holy Eucharist; the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord in the hand is just as reverential if not more so than on the tongue, no you can't.

The first reason why ONLY A PRIEST should handle the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is because there is no others means of salvation thus it shows the necessity of a Priest while giving as much glory and reversnce to God as we can The second reason is the Priests hands, yes as much as it pains me to say even the bad ones their hands are consecrated yours aren't mine aren't so to have unconsecrated hands touch the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus shows very little if any respect and more important still reverence
Rafał_Ovile
Jmy1975 you continuously adhere to pertinacious error and remain in grave sin in regards to distribution of Communion on the tongue through the hands of any lay person on demand. This is against Church law since the whole distribution act, from chalice to mouth, is to be done regularly by ordained priest with consecrated hands. Only in real extra ordinary situations, i.e. death of priest, an …More
Jmy1975 you continuously adhere to pertinacious error and remain in grave sin in regards to distribution of Communion on the tongue through the hands of any lay person on demand. This is against Church law since the whole distribution act, from chalice to mouth, is to be done regularly by ordained priest with consecrated hands. Only in real extra ordinary situations, i.e. death of priest, an extra ordinary lay minister may distribute but always after an adequate preparation. In the communion on demand through any layman distributing to himself from hand to one's own mouth the above requirements are not satisfied, therefore null and void.
"But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation." pp John Paul II
Jmy1975
@Rafał_Ovile I don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting what I have said or not. But what I have said, again, is that receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious. Is not error. Is not a grave sin. Receiving is different than lay people distributing.
Rafał_Ovile
Jmy1975 you are misrepresenting the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to proper reverence of the Most Holy Sacrament by profaning Holy Communion through shared distribution of Holy Communion. The complete act of distribution from beginning when regular minister grasps the HC from chalice to the end when finally HC is placed on the tongue of recipient should only be the consecrated priest's sole …More
Jmy1975 you are misrepresenting the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to proper reverence of the Most Holy Sacrament by profaning Holy Communion through shared distribution of Holy Communion. The complete act of distribution from beginning when regular minister grasps the HC from chalice to the end when finally HC is placed on the tongue of recipient should only be the consecrated priest's sole and regular function in accordance with papal Magisterium. If you place HC from your unconsecrated hands in your mouth then you illegally partake in the consecrated minister's function of distribution in the final stage because he is binded to be the privilaged minister in the whole act and not share any part of the act. Moreover, from one's hands, as there is no patena neither chalice under the chin, the particles are dropping on the floor (see scientific tests below) to have the Body and Blood of Christ being finally stepped on the floor etc.. This is one of the most serious crimes in canon law to drop species of Holy Body and Blood in any place!!! Every courteous human being eats a meal with utensils instead of using hands!!! In every Holy Communion there is GOD therefore it is sacrilegious (not allowed) for any unprepared layman to consume God with own hands!
Peter4God
I have been rightly told, to put the @ symbol in front of your name or GTV will not pass on the message so to ensure that you get message/question here it is again.

A question for @Jmy1975 if it's not that personal a question, are you married?
Jmy1975
Communion in hand isn't a sacrilege. Irreverence and faithlessness as pictured is.
Don Reto Nay
The problem with communion in the hand are the particles. One cannot distribute communion in the hand without throwing particles on the floor (I know it from my own experience). So it is a sacrilege.
tbswv
Unconsecrated hands should never touch the Blessed Sacrament. If these "eucharistic ministers" really believed in the Real Presence they would know that.
Jmy1975
@Don Reto Nay , @tbswv , particles will drop and have dropped with on-the-tongue communion. That's why there is a paten. Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body? This is maddening. When we are forgiven of our sins, we may receive communion. If we are full of reverence and love we will not mishandle the host. Hands or tongue, the way you receive it …More
@Don Reto Nay , @tbswv , particles will drop and have dropped with on-the-tongue communion. That's why there is a paten. Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body? This is maddening. When we are forgiven of our sins, we may receive communion. If we are full of reverence and love we will not mishandle the host. Hands or tongue, the way you receive it irrelevant If you're doing it for rote.

So no, the sacrilege is receiving communion in a state of rebellion against God. And I'll add that the demons that came up with Vatican II grew up receiving communion on the tongue. As did Luther.

Stop the madness.
ľubica
ľubica
Jmy Cardinal Sarah knows better
lanuovabq.it/it/bisogna-ripensa…
Jmy1975
@l'ubica if Jesus forgives you of your sins in confession and you receive Him in hand, full of reverence , you're not going to hell. It's impossible. Nowhere has the Church taught that you'll be led to hell or go astray. Indeed, Martin Luther received communion on the tongue, distributed it on the tongue. Are you saying he's in better shape than a devout Catholic who received it in her hand?

More
@l'ubica if Jesus forgives you of your sins in confession and you receive Him in hand, full of reverence , you're not going to hell. It's impossible. Nowhere has the Church taught that you'll be led to hell or go astray. Indeed, Martin Luther received communion on the tongue, distributed it on the tongue. Are you saying he's in better shape than a devout Catholic who received it in her hand?

Madness. You're mad.
Jmy1975
@I'ubica would this be the same Cardinal Sarah who thinks Pope Francis is the real pope and therefore validates his real sacrilege?
ľubica
Jmy, the documents speak clearly
Jmy1975
So? I'm not against it on the tongue. I'm against you saying you're going to hell if you receive it in your hands. What matters is your intent when receiving it. Sorry you can't understand this.
Roberto 55
To Jmy1975 - Practice of the Church is giving Holy Eucharist on the tongue and it is definitely more than thousand years. Modernist approach is sacrilegious, if you know about particles of Eucharist=Jesus, are dropping on the floor in the church and you receiving Holy Comunion on your hand you participate on this sacrilege. It doesn't matter if you confess your sins before, cause you are sinning …More
To Jmy1975 - Practice of the Church is giving Holy Eucharist on the tongue and it is definitely more than thousand years. Modernist approach is sacrilegious, if you know about particles of Eucharist=Jesus, are dropping on the floor in the church and you receiving Holy Comunion on your hand you participate on this sacrilege. It doesn't matter if you confess your sins before, cause you are sinning during communion...
Regarding ML-he was augustinian monk (catholic) so he didn't change his customs. The question is if he did believe in real presence?
and usually catholic (I mean real catholic) is receiving Holy Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue. What is better shape?
Jmy1975
@Roberto 55 There are particle problems with on the tongue too thats why there's is a plate. Sorry, it is not a sin to receive with the hands. And, if you receive on the tongue and then go out and commit adultery you're not better off. And if you're a priest and distribute on the tongue and then commit a sin you're not better off. As I speak the "Church" is getting ready to remove communion …More
@Roberto 55 There are particle problems with on the tongue too thats why there's is a plate. Sorry, it is not a sin to receive with the hands. And, if you receive on the tongue and then go out and commit adultery you're not better off. And if you're a priest and distribute on the tongue and then commit a sin you're not better off. As I speak the "Church" is getting ready to remove communion entirely and you're upset about how it is received.

Again: it isn't sacrilegious to receive communion on the hand. What matters is your reverence, your heart. If hands are "unclean" so is your mouth.
Roberto 55
If,If,If, too many ifs and nothing has to do with the problem.
There is no problem w. particles if you are receiving on your tongue and particles on the "plate" are carefully moved into the chalice and consumate by priest.
Receiving of Holy Eucharist has only this condition: " you must be clear of so called mortal sins and have an intention and faith that you are receiving Jesus.
What's happen …More
If,If,If, too many ifs and nothing has to do with the problem.
There is no problem w. particles if you are receiving on your tongue and particles on the "plate" are carefully moved into the chalice and consumate by priest.
Receiving of Holy Eucharist has only this condition: " you must be clear of so called mortal sins and have an intention and faith that you are receiving Jesus.
What's happen after has nothing to do w. present! We are people, so we are also sinners...
Jmy1975
@Roberto 55 You just made my point: receiving Jesus has ONLY this condition: be cleared of mortal sins and have an intention and faith that you are receiving Jesus.

Think about that. As I've said, repeatedly, it's what is in your heart.

Plate/paten/dish, don't be a smarta$$. You're not as smart as you think.

It's not sacrilegious to receive communion on the hand.
F M Shyanguya
Questions to ask:

1) Can the Church authoritatively and validly allow communion in the hand?

2) And is the allowance valid even if the intentions of those pushing for the change was to increase the ways to outrage Our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament?

Another approach:

Right now the Bishops have dispensed the faithful from Sunday Obligation. God is not being publicly worshipped by all who can …More
Questions to ask:

1) Can the Church authoritatively and validly allow communion in the hand?

2) And is the allowance valid even if the intentions of those pushing for the change was to increase the ways to outrage Our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament?

Another approach:

Right now the Bishops have dispensed the faithful from Sunday Obligation. God is not being publicly worshipped by all who can as he has commanded. To whom will this be charged against?

People err by being scrupulous or by one side wanting to force on to the other what the Church within her power has allowed.
Ultraviolet
"Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body?" -Jmy1975

If you want to get really picky, that's probably a fallacy of composition. One could argue only the outside of the body is unclean and (spiritually speaking) the inside is clean. Since hand-washing, even ritual hand-washing, is NOT a part of the Novus Ordo liturgy for parishioners, it's indisputab…More
"Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body?" -Jmy1975

If you want to get really picky, that's probably a fallacy of composition. One could argue only the outside of the body is unclean and (spiritually speaking) the inside is clean. Since hand-washing, even ritual hand-washing, is NOT a part of the Novus Ordo liturgy for parishioners, it's indisputable that in a spiritual sense the outside of the body, notably one's hands ARE unclean.

This is true also in a very temporal sense.

Take a moment to think of every single thing you touched from the moment you left home to the moment you pick up the Eucharist when Mrs. Extraordinary-Every-Mass-Minister drops it (reverently, we'll assume) into your hands. You're touching everything everyone else has been touching starting with the handle on the Church door, the pews, the Missals, and everything else. Man... your mitts are filthy!

Things were probably just as bad, if not worse, in previous centuries. It might be a surprise, but Communion On The Tongue does have an entirely temporal basis for being both more sanitary and more reverential.

"If we are full of reverence and love we will not mishandle the host."

Accidents happen. The more steps between the moment of Consecration, and reception, the greater the probability for such an event to occur.

At the risk of being snide (something I take such efforts to avoid) this is a good time mention when we are full of reverence and love, we remember to properly capitalizing the word "Host". ;-)

I'm citing both the official Style Guide of the Liturgical Press (7th ed.) and the Archiocese of St. Louis Glossary of Catholic Terms and Style Guide

As for the issue of "doing it for rote", well, the entire Novus Ordo liturgy is naturally conducive to a casual, "rote" mentality.

This was, I suspect, intentional, and the results are everywhere in view.

The "casualization" of the Mass, which inevitably DOES lead to the entire experience turning into something by rote starts literally from the moment when Mass is scheduled.

Originally, going to Mass on the Sabbath meant just that. For "Trad Inc.," as one writer called them, it still does.

Sunday Mass is on Sunday, not "Saturday counts as Sunday". Yes, it can be inconvenient, but planning their weekend around Sunday morning means "Trad Inc." has a conscious awareness of the importance of Mass and NOT doing it by rote.

They're worshipping God on His chosen day, not fitting God in to their weekend-schedule sometime between shopping/ dinner/ or a visit to Chunky's Cinema-Pub.

Casualizing the time one goes to Mass also naturally leads to undermining Eucharistic discipline, the fasting required under Canon Law 919.1-3

Then there are the cultural results of the "new Mass," notably how people dress for Mass. Let's both skip the cherry-picked examples, okay?

Most Novus Ordo parishioners do not dress up for Mass. They dress casually without too much thought about where they're going -again, that leads naturally to doing something by rote..

Most Novus Ordo parish men do not wear suitcoats or ties. Most Novus Ordo women do not wear a mantilla. By contrast, "Trad inc." parishioners respectively do. Again, that forces a conscious awareness of what they're doing. It's just the opposite of doing something by rote. They're dressing "up" just like they would for any other special event. Traditional Mass means dressing traditionally for Mass.

It's a sad reflection of contemporary Catholic culture, that nww parishioners need to have that explicitly spelled out for them.

I know this reply is dragging on, (a glaring contrast to my usual one or two word replies) so I'll refrain from comparing and contrasting each aspect of the Novus Ordo Liturgy with the Traditional one.

TL;DR Participating in the Traditional Latin Mass "for rote" hasn't been an option since Vatican Council II and over half a century of active suppression that continues to this day.

"And I'll add that the demons that came up with Vatican II grew up receiving communion on the tongue."

You really shouldn't have added that, Jimmy.

Those demons were subverted by the heresy of Modernism. When you state those "that came up with Vatican II" are demons, then by extension, you've indicted their reform of the Liturgy as the work of demons.

...that covers a lot of ground, including their motives for changing how the Eucharist is distributed.

Ooops. ;-)
Jmy1975
@Ultraviolet that's a lot of words to say you don't understand my point. And sorry, the demons that came up with V2 weren't victims, especially since Jesus' teaching doesn't change. They knew better.

Also, my name isn't James, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jim-Bob or anything else you call me by. It's Michael.

Have a good night kiddo!
Ultraviolet
Your "point" tends to change each time it gets disproven. Jmy1975

"You don't understand my point" is a variation of "I never said..." We've been down this road before, you and I.

"And sorry, the demons that came up with V2 weren't victims,"

When I said, "Those demons were subverted by the heresy of Modernism." -you forget that subversion requires consent and agreement. ;-)

"They knew …More
Your "point" tends to change each time it gets disproven. Jmy1975

"You don't understand my point" is a variation of "I never said..." We've been down this road before, you and I.

"And sorry, the demons that came up with V2 weren't victims,"

When I said, "Those demons were subverted by the heresy of Modernism." -you forget that subversion requires consent and agreement. ;-)

"They knew better."

I fully agree with you.

However, it's nearly impossible to prove their intent was malign (requires entirely too much circumstantial evidence for my debating tastes), but since we're both in agreement on the point, then this isn't an issue.

Since we're in agreement, apply your reasoning further.

Demons are, by their very nature, the enemies of God. They seek to lead humanity into error.

If Vatican Council II was the work of demons, and you claim it was, then all the reforms stemming from Vatican Council II are also the work of demons.

All of it...

--"the widespread use of vernacular languages in the Mass instead of Latin, the subtle disuse of ornate clerical regalia, the revision of Eucharistic (liturgical) prayers, the abbreviation of the liturgical calendar, the ability to celebrate the Mass versus populum (with the officiant facing the congregation), as well as ad orientem (facing the "East" and the Crucifix), and modern aesthetic changes encompassing contemporary Catholic liturgical music and artwork."--

That's literally the whole of contemporary Catholic liturgy and culture. You can't claim Vatican II is "the work of demons" without indicting the Novus Ordo liturgical reforms.

"Also, my name isn't James, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jim-Bob or anything else you call me by. It's Michael."

People routinely address each other by their names. I abbreviate them and others do as well, typing UV when they don't feel like typing the whole thing out.

Since you've raised the issue, my name isn't "kiddo", either.

Yet somehow I suspect I'll continue to see this form of address in use. ;-)
Roberto 55
Hey Jmy1975. What do you thing it is, when you step on small particle of Eucharist, which is on the floor of some church?
Don Reto Nay
Jmy1975: I have seen particles dropping on the floor while distributing Communion in the hand, I have never seen it while distributing Communion on the tongue. So, it's not the same.
Jmy1975
@Ultraviolet my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious. That if one part of us in communion is deemed unclean, i.e. our hands, then the rest of us have to be. Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,

but you're a nitpicking psycho, so you did your thing.

Subversion doesn't require consent. It requires ignorance. …More
@Ultraviolet my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious. That if one part of us in communion is deemed unclean, i.e. our hands, then the rest of us have to be. Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,

but you're a nitpicking psycho, so you did your thing.

Subversion doesn't require consent. It requires ignorance. But there's no way you can call the folks who established V2 ignorant, again they had the Truth. Everything else, including modernism, which was already forcefully denounced decades before by the pope. So it was willful.

My name is Michael.
Jmy1975
@Roberto 55 I've had to go to N.O. masses my entire life, I've never seen parts of the host on the floor. I did see a guy take it on the tongue and it almost fall out of his mouth.

Communion on the hand isn't a sacrilege.
Ultraviolet
"my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious."

Since I was quoting you directly in my previous reply, a claim that your point remains the same is debatable, Jmy1975

"Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,"

...actually, from your context, you were discussing spiritual uncleanliness. As shown by your question …More
"my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious."

Since I was quoting you directly in my previous reply, a claim that your point remains the same is debatable, Jmy1975

"Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,"

...actually, from your context, you were discussing spiritual uncleanliness. As shown by your question "if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body?"

Consecration is a spiritual act.

Likewise, "When we are forgiven of our sins..." That refers to a sacramental act, something spiritual.

Church history shows that morality (i.e what is considered sinful) has changed over the years. Not always for the better, either. If creatures like Cardinal Marx and Fr. James Martin have their way, that morality will change even further.

"but you're a nitpicking psycho, so you did your thing."

...namely correcting your errors, as that other nit-picking psycho Roberto55 did regarding the paten.

Since English isn't his first language, that's a 2x Win for him. :D I was, believe it or not, making a half-hearted attempt at Christian charity so I passed on it.

"Subversion doesn't require consent. It requires ignorance."

Absolutely it requires consent, else no subversion can occur. To subvert something is to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith.

If one is subverted (passive tense, as I originally used the verb) then one IS perverted or corrupted by an undermining of morals,s allegiance, or faith.

One must consent to getting perverted or corrupted, otherwise subversion can not take place. Perversion or corruption are forms of change. There has to be consent for that change to take place.

Christians in the past gladly went to their deaths before conceding even a minor change to what they knew to be true.

Modernism subverted a number of Church leaders. They were exposed to corruption and they chose not only to adopt those heresies but also to promote them. They grew up with the True Church and they chose to change it.

Even a Pope foresaw the dangers of modernism and bitterly inveighed against it.

Those "demons" did have guidance away from such errors. They chose, in their pride to ignore that guidance. Thus, they consented to their subversion and the blame for their doing so is entirely on them.

"But there's no way you can call the folks who established V2 ignorant, again they had the Truth."

Well... *sigh* Now you're making a common mistake of impugning motive absent proof.

Officially, according to their own extensive writings, the folks who established V2 did so entirely for noble-sounding, seemingly positive reasons.

They weren't sitting around cackling like cartoon villains, rubbing their hands in glee at how they would undermine the Church. At least not officially.

Instead, they wanted to make the Church more relevant to the modern age, the liturgical reforms were going to make the Church more "accessible" to (increasingly dumbed-down) lay-people.

The Church needed to repsond to the enormous changes in society that were happening (courtesy of other modernists and worse). The reformers were promising a groundswell of new Catholics, etc.

Now on paper, those are all laudable goals. As such, Vatican Council II's architect can point to their goals and say, THIS is what we wanted to achieve.

As for the outcome...

It's just pure coincidence that what they proposed ended up perfectly designed to secularize the Church and Her Sacraments in nearly every way possible. It's just happenstance their policies had exactly the opposite effect of what they promised would happen.

It's alllllll a big mistake. That's assuming you could even get a consensus among Vatican Council II's leaders that it even WAS a mistake. BXVI still hasn't admitted it and probably never will.

There's the problem... proving that it was intentionally malign, what you describe as "willful".

We may "know" (as in believe strongly) their intent was malign, but proving that is another matter.

Showing they should have known better given the warnings of no one less than a post could show negligence, but not intentional harm.

Using a very simple example, proving a motive of harmful intent, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

In a GTV context, this is how our pal FM Shanky-Wanky beat his prostitution bust.

His attorney was able to argue (on appeal) the prosecution failed to prove his intent when he showed up with cash, condoms and lube when replying to a sleazy online ad.

There's the genius of his attorney. Having the cash doesn't prove the intent for which it was to be used.

After all, he might have had the cash for something entirely unrelated to paying for a hooker that night. Perhaps he was planning later in the evening to buy drugs from his favourite dealer or place a few bets on a back-alley dog-fight.

This is why proving intent is such a difficult thing, even when it's seemingly self-evident.

Ultimately at this point, proving the original intent of Vatican II's architects becomes more difficult and more irrelevant with each passing decade.

The long-term results of Vatican Council II speak for themselves -even when weighed against the optimistic "good intentions" of its original promoters.

You should give the Traditional Latin Mass a shot. I won't lie to you, it takes some getting used to. You really should study the Mass before going the first time and even then, for the first few times, it's better to go to a "Low" Mass, just to get a sense of it.

There's a ton of YouTube and some very good books out there designed for Catholics who are new to it.

If you don't like it at one parish, try it at a different one.

These days, many priests are taking up the Traditional Latin Mass to expand their parish's offerings

I can't prove their intent, but it may be to bolster flagging attendance numbers by appealing to a demographic known for being zealous, financially well-off and... generous... to The Church, notably their local parish..

What an irony that is after 50+ years of Vatican Council II. Let's bring more people in by going back to the way things were. :D

Anyway, the experience/ formal training/ dedication of the celebrant makes a noticeable difference.

I'm happy to say you've got plenty of options, more than I do in fact.

www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

www.latinmasstimes.com/Ohio

You guys even have dedicated Latin Mass community website for your state.

columbuslatinmass.org

I'll be probably much later tonight...
Rafał_Ovile
Jmy1975 you disregard basic science (see below) like the sect of jehowa's witnesses. Communion on the tongue through the hands of any layman distributing to oneself on demand is against Church law as mentioned above and praxis contrary to dogmatized canons at the Council of Trent.
Table 1 : quantity of particles remaining on hands

photo 1: visible particles 10 times magnifying

photo 2: particl…More
Jmy1975 you disregard basic science (see below) like the sect of jehowa's witnesses. Communion on the tongue through the hands of any layman distributing to oneself on demand is against Church law as mentioned above and praxis contrary to dogmatized canons at the Council of Trent.
Table 1 : quantity of particles remaining on hands

photo 1: visible particles 10 times magnifying

photo 2: particles from hosts reamaining on gloves

ps You have not replied on private chat: "Provide me with 2 papal magisterial documents one from before 1958 and the other after 1958 in which any layman is allowed (including) to minister (distribute) Holy Communion to mouth."
Jmy1975
@Rafał_Ovile who said I was for Eucharistic ministers? Not me. Again, receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious.
Jmy1975
@Ultraviolet Spiritual uncleanliness and being immoral are the same thing.

Idc.
Rafał_Ovile
Jmy1975 science and Magisterium proves you wrong and you are unable to cite any documents to support your claim . There is no such act as "Communion on the hand" as a recipient could then misuse it , i.e. place it in a purse, pocket etc. Therefore the act of distribution of every Holy Communion is only in the mouth and on the tongue for immediate consumption purpose only in the most perfect (…More
Jmy1975 science and Magisterium proves you wrong and you are unable to cite any documents to support your claim . There is no such act as "Communion on the hand" as a recipient could then misuse it , i.e. place it in a purse, pocket etc. Therefore the act of distribution of every Holy Communion is only in the mouth and on the tongue for immediate consumption purpose only in the most perfect (through consecrated minister on tongue and kneeling) way so as to eliminate any possible loss of particles. This terminology was purposely used by heretics (especially Episcopal collegial bodies) to pressure Vatican to open the backdoor for universal engagement of all laypeople in distribution of HC, as well as misuse and profane the Eucharist. With end to completely destroy reverence of the Most Holy Sacrament, the value of Holy Orders (consecrated priesthood) and to undermine faith in the Real Presence in the Church what unfortunately has already occurred....
Ultraviolet
You should care. @Jmy1975 For people who are capable of recognizing these distinctions, and I'm giving you the credit that you can, they matter very much in how they impact our spiritual life.

Morality (and its opposite) immorality are standards set by society. Spiritual uncleanliness is the state of our soul as it's measured against standards set by God and clarified by The Church.

More
You should care. @Jmy1975 For people who are capable of recognizing these distinctions, and I'm giving you the credit that you can, they matter very much in how they impact our spiritual life.

Morality (and its opposite) immorality are standards set by society. Spiritual uncleanliness is the state of our soul as it's measured against standards set by God and clarified by The Church.

There was a time, even within living memory for some, when interracial marriage -notably between Caucasians and Negroes- was not only immoral but a criminal act. Laws change, morality changes. Today it's considered a sign of "progressive" enlightenment, being colour-blind to race. "Love Is Love, etc..."

To my knowledge, The Church never made such a condemnation. If a man and a woman were both Catholic, The Church gave Her blessing on their desire for matrimony.

So there's an example of something being "immoral" yet according to The Church certainly NOT "spiritually unclean".

Today we see just the opposite.

Riffing my earlier paragraph... there was a time, even within living memory for some, when homosexuality (much less homosexual marriage) was not only immoral but a criminal act. Laws change, morality changes. Today both are considered a sign of "progressive" enlightenment, being blind to gender. "Love Is Love, etc..."

The Church has always held homosexuality to be an abomination and those indulging in it to be spiritually unclean.

This is what monstrosities with in the Church like Fr. James Martin (SJ) wish to change. He seeks to somehow "re-write" the Bible and the last umpteen centuries of Church teachings so homosexuality is NOT considered "spiritually unclean" at all. He's counting, I think, on secular society to accomplish a similar goal for morality and there is precedent for his hope.

Therefore, morality may be determined by the whims of society, but spiritual uncleanliness is determined using a much higher standard.

Have fun with Rafal, btw. I'm almost tempted to start writing amicus curiae just for the sheer amusement of it. I mean...

Did you see any citations for those graphs and bad black and white photos? I didn't.

Or "the Magisterium" of the Church? C'mon... shooting that one down is TOO easy. Like so:
www.praytellblog.com/…/john-paul-ii-an…

'course for a winner like Rafal, The Magisterium began and ended whenever he pretends it did.

You should have an easy time with him.
Jmy1975
@Ultraviolet I don't care abt your comments. Your "distinctions" are dreck. For example, it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality, and morality, real morality comes from God. And it is the same thing as spiritual cleanliness.

By the way, morality ultimately cannot come from society. That's basic Christian dogma.

Only an idiot or a very sad human being with a superiorit…More
@Ultraviolet I don't care abt your comments. Your "distinctions" are dreck. For example, it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality, and morality, real morality comes from God. And it is the same thing as spiritual cleanliness.

By the way, morality ultimately cannot come from society. That's basic Christian dogma.

Only an idiot or a very sad human being with a superiority complex could ever think I was talking about anything else.

I have a deeper understanding of what words actually mean, and I am sincere. You are a nitpicking psychopath who needs therapy. You add nothing to any discussion except superficial emotion and overrated displays of your intellect.

You're disingenuous and vain.

I'll end this by saying this truism, again: receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious. It simply cannot be.

And we are done.
Ultraviolet
" I don't care abt your comments."

...thus explaining yet another reply to them.

"Your "distinctions" are dreck."

...which doesn't explain why they invariably prompt you to further qualify your previous statements. "Context" seems to be your new fall-back...

"it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality"

No it isn't. You made a declaraitve statement with zero distinctio…More
" I don't care abt your comments."

...thus explaining yet another reply to them.

"Your "distinctions" are dreck."

...which doesn't explain why they invariably prompt you to further qualify your previous statements. "Context" seems to be your new fall-back...

"it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality"

No it isn't. You made a declaraitve statement with zero distinction between the secular and the spiritual. There is no associative -context- Being wrong doesn't give you "context". It just means you're wrong -and you almost certainly recognize it.

That's the problem. You're trying to retroactively invent context to cover your mistake. .

...and, here's the part you'll really enjoy. I was expecting you'd go this route and planned for it. ;-)

"real morality comes from God."

You're venturing into Sola Scriptura Territory.

"Real morality" or so-called "Christian morality" exists through interpretation of God's word and that's where the problems appear

Consider the shifting and at-times contradictory standards of "Christian morality" connected with slavery.

Christ Himself praised a centurion for his faith when asking for a cure on behalf of his slave. Luke 7: 1-10.

Christ praised the centurion's faith yet He didn't use the incident as a teaching opportunity to denounce slavery or servitude. He could have, the opportunity was right there, yet He didn't.

Likewise, St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters and masters how to treat their slaves, Eph. 6:5-11; Col. 3:22-4:1.

Paul himself insists he preached "the whole counsel of God" Acts 20:27.

Yet at the same time, the institution of slavery contradicts what Christ teaches in Matthew 19:19: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." After all, it's impossible to love your neighbor and simultaneously use force to deny his freedom while imposing your will upon him.

Both sides of the argument on the "Christian morality" of slavery have Scriptural support -even if they confine themselves only to discussing Christ alone. ;-)

By contrast, spiritual uncleanliness is far more simple. It arises from being in a state of sin. Something is either sinful or it is not.

"Only an idiot or a very sad human being with a superiority complex could ever think I was talking about anything else."

No True Scottsman Fallacy. Sheesh.

"I have a deeper understanding of what words actually mean, and I am sincere."

:D :D :D

Stuff like this is why replying to you is such an endless source of entertainment.

You're forced to keep qualifying what you orignally said, backing up again and again and then you'll drop a winner like that.

It's gorgeous.

Then there's your sincerity. :P

You???

You'll be sincere when you admit to being argumentative, egotistical and arrogant. Unlike you, I readily admit to such characteristics and my arrogance is well founded.

"You are a nitpicking psychopath who needs therapy."

You're resorting to your "psychiatry" gimmick again. The appearance of this is always a good sign, especially combined with the name-calling.

When you're losing the game, you go back to the same pages in your play-book.

"You add nothing to any discussion except superficial emotion and overrated displays of your intellect."

Worth noting my last display of that intellect was beating your opponent in one sentence with one citation, something you had failed to do.

"You're disingenuous and vain."

You're confusing being snide and flippant with being disingenous. As you should have learned by now, I'm ruthlessly direct, especially when error presents itself. ;-)

As for your unkind accusation of vanity. Yes. I am. Exceedingly sp and these little spats only fuel it, btw.

"I'll end this by saying this truism, again: receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious."

By truism, you probably should qualify only in the sense of logic, in it states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms. It certainly isn't a conventional truism in the sense of being self-evidently correct.

I suspect you intended to use the word in that sense, but... well.. you do have trouble "context". :D

You've repeated that "truism" to me, to others, often enough and as Rafal correctly notes (as much as it pains me to admit it) you haven't supplied any factual support for your view.

...save the repeating of it,

Rafal should have pointed that out if he'd been clever enough to slam the door on his debate with you, which he isn't.

"And we are done."

Until the next reply. Because, you know, you don't care abt my comments. ;-)
Saintsmarching7
Communion in the hand is a Sacrilege. Face mask😞
Ultraviolet
Sadly, the Church insists otherwise. :/
F M Shyanguya
Ugh!
Ultraviolet
*sigh* So... at least the Church as seven new priests... and... they distributed Communion themselves, so... *sigh^