Cardinal Sarah: return to Communion directly on the tongue while kneeling

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, but we have no problem when you say reception on the tongue doesn’t fulfill Christ’s command? Which is what you said:

“If anything, I am doing exactly what Jesus said, “take and eat”. These are 2 separate actions, and not accomplished when the host is placed on my tongue.”
 
I am using the words Jesus did. I am not saying that the Church does not have the right to make changes, and she did, for a very long time. And now, she has allowed the practice of receiving in the hand again, in part, because of what Jesus’ words were.

The only person on this thread who is saying something is better is you. I have repeatedly said I don’t care how others receive. I am just happy that the Church has restored to ability for me to “take and eat”. If that bothers you, it is on you, not me.
 
Last edited:
Again, you insist that reception in the hand fulfills what Christ commanded, as opposed to reception on the tongue.

Because people receiving on the tongue, I guess, aren’t “taking” the host…they’re refusing it; rejecting it; doing whatever to it besides taking it.

All those centuries reception in the hand was banned, I guess people were barred from doing what Jesus asked.

What nonsense.
 
Do you not read?

In my studies, one of the things I learned was that CITH was restored, in part, because of the words of Jesus, “take and eat”.

I am not saying that one who receives on the tongue is not following Jesus’ command. They are doing what the Church allows, and they believe to be the correct way to receive for them. Why can’t you allow others the same courtesy?
 
“If anything, I am doing exactly what Jesus said, “take and eat”. These are 2 separate actions, and not accomplished when the host is placed on my tongue.”

“I am not saying that one who receives on the tongue is not following Jesus’ command.”

Talk about inconsistent arguments.

Oh yes, I can read. Oh yes, I can comprehend. Oh yes, you CLEARLY indicated that those who receive on the tongue are not fulfilling Christ’s command.
 
Last edited:
I will try one more time.

The Church allows both now.
A whole thread could be made on why CITH as a practice stopped. The bottom line is, it was restored, in part, because of the words Jesus used. That does not mean that one way is better than the other, or that one fills a command or not.

This thread is about a Cardinal and others who are calling something the Church allows, and goes back to the very beginning of our faith, diabolical. It’s about people who want to say that their way is objectively better, because it has been done exclusively for so long. They want to ascribe nefarious motive to anyone who doesn’t do what they do and call into question the faith of others. If that is not diabolical, I don’t know what is.

Look, KMG, think what you want. I don’t give a rodent’s behind how you receive. I am not calling into question your faith in the Real Presence. I would kind ask that you afford me and all others who disagree with you the same respect we afford you.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
Oh yes, I can read. Oh yes, I can comprehend. Oh yes, you CLEARLY indicated that those who receive on the tongue are not fulfilling Christ’s command.
Click to expand...
CilladeRoma said no such thing. It’s really sad to see someone (Catholic?) get so upset over a posting of the words of Christ.
 
I am not a fool. She clearly stated reception on the tongue does not fulfill the command of Christ.
 
“If anything, I am doing exactly what Jesus said, “take and eat”. These are 2 separate actions, and not accomplished when the host is placed on my tongue.”

Emphasis added.
 
Jesus teaches us to pray to God the Father with the “our father”.
So I follow Jesus command to pray this prayer when I pray to God.
Hence if I pray some other way I’m not following Jesus’ command???

“If p then q” does NOT imply “if not p then not q”.
That’s a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
I am not a fool. She clearly stated reception on the tongue does not fulfill the command of Christ.
Click to expand...
She clearly said no such thing. You want so badly to see an attack, that you are making one up.
 
“If anything, I am doing exactly what Jesus said, “take and eat”. These are 2 separate actions, and not accomplished when the host is placed on my tongue.”

She stated that Christ’s commands are not accomplished via reception on the tongue. Again, I am not an idiot. I can read.
 
KMG said:
She stated that Christ’s commands are not accomplished via reception on the tongue. Again, I am not an idiot. I can read.
Click to expand...
She said no such thing. She was referring to this particular “command” not “commands”. If someone is Coeliac and can only take the Precious Blood, I don’t think she is suggesting that person is not following Christ’s commands.
So you are trying to shift the debate here. She was saying “take and eat” is not accomplished by communion on tongue. So you have to debate how communion on the tongue accomplishes take and eat. No one here including her doubts that communion on the tongue follows Christ’s commandS in general.
 
Sophistry. Pure sophistry. She had a point to make. It can be summed up as follows: “Communion on the tongue doesn’t fulfill Christ’s commands, in the hand does.”
 
And just for your reference I think take and eat can be accomplished by communion on the tongue. I’m just pointing out a point of order for logic and fair debate.

Using the tongue to take the communion. I think that can be classified as taking. Because eating is swallowing. Hence still two separate actions. Take the communion by receiving it on tongue and eating it by swallowing.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
Sophistry. Pure sophistry. She had a point to make. It can be summed up as follows: “Communion on the tongue doesn’t fulfill Christ’s commands, in the hand does.”
Click to expand...
Well you continue hitting the straw man, but I’ve tried to hit the real man above.
 
KMG said:
Again, you insist that reception in the hand fulfills what Christ commanded, as opposed to reception on the tongue.
Click to expand...
You are making an unqualified assumption. Using Jesus’ words ‘take and eat’ as a basis for reception in the hand, does not diminish on the tongue; it says nothing about communion on the tongue. That is not what was meant… you are reading in to the comment.

And by the way… what do you say about reception in the hand being a demonic attack?
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
If anything, I am doing exactly what Jesus said, “take and eat”. These are 2 separate actions, and not accomplished when the host is placed on my tongue.
Click to expand...
To be fair I don’t think receiving communion on the hand fulfils take and eat any more than receiving it on the tongue.
I can’t imagine Jesus handing out bread individually to each Apostle with their hands in receiving mode at the Last supper.
I’m imagining that Jesus said his blessings on the bread to become his body and the Apostles came and “took” it. To really do a “take and eat” in today’s Mass would be to lay out the communion on a table and us going up and take it with our hands. If you argue that receiving it on your palm is “taking” then I can make an argument that receiving on the tongue is also “taking”.

The fact of the matter is that this is never going to be a dogmatic issue as the Church has allowed both and cannot erred in dogmatic issue. Hence it is probably a pastoral issue. So one should decide what to do based on what is pastorally appropriate provided it does not violate dogma. Quoting Jesus from this passage I don’t think really helps to resolve this issue.
 
Last edited:
I did not mean for this to become such a contentious debate.

I am studying Sacramental theology. In a discussion about manners of reception and this topic came up. Never did I mean to imply that it was better and more in line with what Jesus wanted. If that is what people get from my words, I apologise and will try to be more careful in the future.
I am countering the ideal that the Church would allow something “diabolical”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top