But it WAS a meal.

Matthew, 26, 20 - 23:
20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”
22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely you don’t mean me, Lord?”
23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.

Clearly, the Apostles WERE taking the bread and other victuals in their hands.

Now where did THAT come from? Who denigrated the sacrifice? Not me.

I only pointed out that they were eating a meal, and the wording of the gospel makes it clear that they were dipping into the bowl -- that is, taking in the hand.

If you read beyond verse 25, you will see that the Institution of the Holy Sacrifice and the priesthood comes after the initial meal. So what they were eating in verses 20-23 that you are citing is not Holy Communion.



"Denigrated" is an attack. I said you ignored it. There's a difference.
You keep calling it a meal. I call it both a sacrifice and a meal (as well as the apex of worship).

Again, it is not clear after verse 25 if the Apostles received the Holy Eucharist by hand, as opposed to what happened in verses 20-23. But to reiterate:

1. The Last Supper is the institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Priesthood (after the verses you cite). Therefore, it was not a mere meal at this point. Hence, its extraordinary character may have seen extraordinary rubrics/practices.

2. No one can say with 100% certainty that the Apostles were given Holy Communion in the hand, tongue, etc.

3. What the Apostles did doesn't matter as they are supposed to handle the Sacred Species with their hands anyway. The context about Communion in the Hand we were discussing was about reforming what lay people should do that shows better reverence towards our Lord and helps the faithful's perception of the sacred/true doctrine. We're not talking about how the ordained should handle the Sacred Species.

Okay, lets go beyond verse 25 -- all the way to:

Matthew 26:26: 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."

When Jesus says, "this is my body" I tend to believe Him.

Yes, that's exactly my point. The words of consecration are spoken at verse 26 and from that point forward It is now Holy Communion.

It was the First Communion. And they received it in the hand.

1. The food prior to verse 25 is not Holy Communion.

2. After verse 25 is Holy Communion.

3. There's nothing in the text that says they received in the hand - no can claim how they received with 100% certainty (that includes me).

4. If they received in the hand, it doesn't justify anything as we are talking about laity and not ordained priests who are supposed to handle the sacred species with their hands anyway.

To further bolster my fourth point, here is what I originally said along with your response:



When people say "Communion in the hand" they mean lay reception.
I further indicate this because I refer to the "indult" - which means it for laity.
Next, I keep repeating myself about how I (and others) are talking about lay reception.

Your original objection explicitly states that Communion in the Hand is fine because the Apostles did it.

Even if the scripture explicitly stated they received Holy Communion in the hand your objection is a moot point because we're talking about lay people not the ordained Apostles.

You would have to argue how lay people should be able to handle the Sacred Species like the ordained, not simply referring to scripture passages about ordained men which doesn't even say they received in the hand anyway.

Well, in the traditional rite a cleric assisting in choir would receive on the tongue, so I don't think "communion in the hand" means just lay reception. Of course given that the Apostles were also ordained at the Last Supper they could have been concelebrating.

But in any case to say simply that "the Apostles received in the hand" as though it were an absolute certainty is a bit silly. Centuries ago, Martin Luther believed that the Last Supper was offered at a round table and that the Apostles and Our Lord faced one another (and therefore the liturgy ought to be celebrated the same way). We now know that this probably wasn't the case; Our Lord and His Apostles were facing more or less the same direction.

Matthew 26:23 Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me."

He did not say, "The one who has stuck his tongue into the bowl with me will betray me."

And ... ?

Jesus Himself says they are receiving in the hand, not on the tongue.

I don't think I can stress enough that Matthew 26:23 is not describing the reception of Holy Communion

So where is the reception of Holy Communion described? Where in the Gospels are we told they received on the tongue?

Matthew 26:26-29, for example.


We're not. But that's not at all what I've claimed - I simply pointed out that we can't be certain.

Can you explain please

Our Lord had not even consecrated the bread and wine yet

Matthew 26, 26-27:

26 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.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

When Jesus said those words, the bread and wine were consecrated.

Yes, note that these verses come after Matthew 26:23

Don't let me put words in your mouth, but do you claim that He then told them to put out their tongues?

I don't claim anything except that we don't (and can't) know