Jacinta of Garabandel travelled to meet Mother Teresa who at that time was extremely ill and confined to a bed. During their meeting, Jacinta touched a Crucifix to Mother that had been touched by Our Lady. Later it was found that Mother was no longer ill! Jacinta also had a vision foretelling "Communion in the hand" in 1961 that she says filled her with fear! There are a couple of YOUTUBE links …More
Jacinta of Garabandel travelled to meet Mother Teresa who at that time was extremely ill and confined to a bed. During their meeting, Jacinta touched a Crucifix to Mother that had been touched by Our Lady. Later it was found that Mother was no longer ill!
Jacinta also had a vision foretelling "Communion in the hand" in 1961 that she says filled her with fear!
There are a couple of YOUTUBE links that won't upload for some reason, so I will post them directly below this
apostoladodegarabandal.com
Meeting with Jacinta González :: Apostolado-de-garabandal
Thursday, Sept 19 th in Houma, Louisiana, USA, at the presentation on Garabandal and the visit of Jacinta. A little background history. Fr Paul …
Christ is God and the apostles were like Cardinals. Ordained ministers touching it with hands is one thing, the laity doing so is not necessary and not advisable on many fronts. Between lost particles and sacrilege practice of stealing hosts or leaving it in song books become rampant. This practice of Communion in the hand has had devastating effects on the faith in the true presence. It is still …More
Christ is God and the apostles were like Cardinals. Ordained ministers touching it with hands is one thing, the laity doing so is not necessary and not advisable on many fronts. Between lost particles and sacrilege practice of stealing hosts or leaving it in song books become rampant. This practice of Communion in the hand has had devastating effects on the faith in the true presence. It is still Church law today to receive on the tongue and is only abandoned because of a universal indult. This indult must be rescinded as soon as possible.
Communion in the hand was specified by Christ himself… “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Matt 26:26
Stop misrepresenting Our Lord’s words to fit your agenda. How does the Church interpret His words? That is what is important. (and remember this took place after He instituted the priesthood)
Jesus straightforward words are what is eternal and inviolable. Communion on the tongue is an invention of man. Jesus never restricted Communion in the hand to only clerics.
But Matt 26:26 does not describe how Christ gave it to His apostles. "...gave it to His disciples" could mean giving it on the tongue and "take and eat" could mean willing willing reception. Pic related. (The Communion Of The Apostles, van Gent 13th cent.)
The “how” is perfectly described as ‘I give it to you and you take it” as a natural and expected human act of reaching out to receive the bread. Jesus inserting into the Apostles mouth is completely unsupported in the Bible, counter intuitive and unreasonable.
" ‘I give it to you and you take it” is not what Matt 26:26 said @chris griffin So you're re-writing the Gospel and re-interpreting it after you've finished. *sigh*
I already quoted Jesus and then I rephrased his words to show his intent as to how which you brought up. Ultraviolet Try to follow along, I know you can do it. Enough with the painting that shows your appeal to authority of paintings.More
I already quoted Jesus and then I rephrased his words to show his intent as to how which you brought up.
Again, your quote doesn't show how Jesus gave it to His disciples. When you "rephrased his words" (it's His, btw),, then you're not showing His intent. You're showing your intent since they're your words and not His. "to show his intent as to how which you brought up." Here's the funny part. Your rephrasing still doesn't show that. In the Gospel of Chris Griffin, Christ now says, "‘I give it to …More
Again, your quote doesn't show how Jesus gave it to His disciples. When you "rephrased his words" (it's His, btw),, then you're not showing His intent. You're showing your intent since they're your words and not His.
"to show his intent as to how which you brought up."
Here's the funny part. Your rephrasing still doesn't show that. In the Gospel of Chris Griffin, Christ now says, "‘I give it to you and you take it".
It still doesn't show the Apostles took it with their hands. People routinely consume portions of food at meals without handling what they're eating... soup, for example. ;-)
"Jesus inserting into the Apostles mouth is completely unsupported in the Bible"
As is the Apostles picking the up the first Eucharist with their hands. If it was supported, you wouldn't need to "rephrase" Matthew. ...and even now your reprhasing still doesn't do that.
"that shows your appeal to authority of paintings."
Lolno. I didn't make any appeal to the paintings which is why I never referred to them while refuting you. So there hasn't been any "appeal to authority" based on the paintings. Your debating coach must be rolling in his grave.
I posted them because I knew you'd eventually claim communion on the tongue at the Last Supper was "counter intuitive and unreasonable." It isn't and I'm not the first to recognize that.
When I anticipate your argument, I don't need "to follow along" because I'm waiting for you to catch up. ;-)
@Ultraviolet Your debate points are spurious. You refuse to acknowledge and debate that Communion in the Hand is the normal, natural and expected interpretation of Jesus words. Instead, you compare it to soup which is laughable. The reason you included two different paintings which fruitlessly try to prove your point is an appeal to traditional painters’ authority without addressing the crux of …More
@Ultraviolet Your debate points are spurious. You refuse to acknowledge and debate that Communion in the Hand is the normal, natural and expected interpretation of Jesus words. Instead, you compare it to soup which is laughable.
The reason you included two different paintings which fruitlessly try to prove your point is an appeal to traditional painters’ authority without addressing the crux of Jesus words.
I rephrased His Biblical words to come down to your level of understanding. Jesus stuffing bread into 12 Apostles mouth is unsupported by any Doctor of the Catholic Church and is your fanciful self-justification to say the least.
"Your debate points are spurious."@chris griffin Saying it isn't the same as showing it, something you guys routinely forget. ;-) "You refuse to acknowledge and debate that Communion in the Hand is the normal, natural and expected interpretation of Jesus words." See my last point. I AM debating the point. So far, the best you've been able to do defend your position is re-write the Gospels into …More
Saying it isn't the same as showing it, something you guys routinely forget. ;-)
"You refuse to acknowledge and debate that Communion in the Hand is the normal, natural and expected interpretation of Jesus words."
See my last point. I AM debating the point. So far, the best you've been able to do defend your position is re-write the Gospels into something they didn't say. I'm also noting that you haven't shown any support for your claims that Communion in the hand is either "normal, or natural, or expected".
When you finally try to do so, this is what's waiting for you... ;-) Pic related.
The irony is your notions of "normal" are a product of Vatican Council II ideology which, in terms of Church history, is a recent innovation. "Instead, you compare it to soup which is laughable." Wrong. I'm not comparing the Eucharist to soup and misrepresting my point is both foolish and crass. Not all food eaten at meals was handled with one's fingers, even in ancient times. Soup is an example …More
The irony is your notions of "normal" are a product of Vatican Council II ideology which, in terms of Church history, is a recent innovation.
"Instead, you compare it to soup which is laughable."
Wrong. I'm not comparing the Eucharist to soup and misrepresting my point is both foolish and crass. Not all food eaten at meals was handled with one's fingers, even in ancient times. Soup is an example of that. So your assumption of "normal" (even in Christ's time) fails.
"which fruitlessly try to prove your point is an appeal to traditional painters’ authority"
Wrong again. I've already contradicted this claim of yours, so why do you bother repeating it? Your Fallacy Is: Argument From Repetition.
"without addressing the crux of Jesus words."
I already did address your quote and showed why the assumption you derive isn't supported. Your response was to re-write "the crux of Jesus words"into something else because they don't support your claim.
"I rephrased His Biblical words to come down to your level of understanding."
When you're failing on facts and failing on logic, being patronizing won't save you. ;-)
"Jesus stuffing bread into 12 Apostles mouth is unsupported by any Doctor of the Catholic Church..."
Since you've raised this point, quote the Doctors of the Catholic Church who argue He was handed out "bread" like it was any other appetizer or side-dish during The Last Supper.
