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.
So some thought experiments:
Say if there is a virus that spreads from saliva to hand and then to saliva with a 90% death rate, do you still insist communion by the tongue?
Say if all your parishioners have bad knees and would make their knees worse by kneeling, do you still insist on communion by kneeling?
Say if all your parishioners have Parkinson’s disease such that if they receive it on their hands they will drop it, do you still insist on communion on the hand?
So one must decide on what to do depending on so many factors including health, infections, piety and level of faith of parishioners etc.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
I am countering the ideal that the Church would allow something “diabolical”.
Click to expand...
That’s my concern here. If Cardinal Sarah had said he prefers COTT, or has seen irreverent reception on the hand, I don’t think many would disagree. But to say the Church is “fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it” (the Eucharist), and that COH is part of a “diabolical attack” is very concerning.
 
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," Philippians 2:10-11
 
Exactly. This is why such blanket statements such as those made upthread, are so unhealthy.
 
KMG said:
You’re hardly affording “respect”. You’re saying that reception on the tongue does not fulfill what Christ commanded.
Click to expand...
Jesus commanded. But He also founded a Church, under a supreme pontiff, with the power to bind and loose. « Take and eat » can be interpreted in many ways. For instance, we can « take » medication by mouth, sublingually, cutaneously or administered intravenously. Similarly, we can « take and eat » by going up and having the host administered on the tongue, or in the hand. For a very long time the discipline of the Church was to interpret this as being on the tongue while kneeling. Now the Church, through her power to bind and loose, has allowed another manner of « taking ».

When we are given an intravenous medication, we are doing so with direct or implied consent. That consent constitutes an acceptance, of taking into ourselves the medication regardless of how or by whom it is administered.

Similarly, the True Medicine of the Eucharist is an act of consent, of consenting to accept Christ in our lives and conforming our lives to His. Whether that « taking » is a physical act of lifting the Host to our mouth, or having it placed there by a priest, deacon or EMHC, we are « taking and eating ».

We owe the Church our obedience, again through her authority to bind and loose. Since she has now allowed both forms of communion, we are free to choose the method that spiritually best nourishes us. But to put down the other means constitutes an act of disobedience to the Church.

One can certainly say why one prefers one over the other. I have said that in my case, my tongue is just as « impure » as my hands, so one method does not strike me as superior to the other. In fact, where there is a communion rail I prefer to kneel and receive on the tongue. Kneeling is traditionally an act of worship. I’m agnostic tongue vs. hand, but with my arms scrunched against the rail, I find tongue less awkward. Standing, it’s the other way around: I find the hand less awkward. Less awkward means less risk of desecration. I won’t kneel where there’s no rail or prie-Dieu, as at my age and infirmities, I need something to grab onto to propel myself back up. So i make a pronounced bow, and receive in the hand instead. All these methods are allowed so I don’t sweat it, and when it comes to others, I mind my own beeswax and don’t profess to be able to read their hearts and their degree of reverence.
 
Last edited:
Cordelil said:
I am surprised that Cardinal Sarah still has a job at the Vatican. He is a conservative traditionalist type way out of step with Pope Francis…
Click to expand...
I am not surprised. It seems to me that the principle at work is diversity. At first blush, diversity might be seen as anti-traditional, but it is not. Pope Francis does not reject the old traditions and disciplines. Neither does he reject new ideas simply because they are new. Whatever works for the salvation of souls. Recall the old maxim, often mis-attributed to St. Augustine,
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
Click to expand...
And it’s not just Pope Francis, but the Catholic Church as well.

Looking at the other extreme, did you ever wonder why the Church tolerates people like Fr. James Martin and Cardinal Reinhard Marx in their advocacy of and concern for LGBT Catholics? It’s because they are among the few clergy who will consider and publicly discuss anything which is not expressly prohibited in order to save the souls of that neglected and alienated group. Some good Catholics cry “Heresy!” but if we look closely at what Fr. Martin and Cardinal Marx have written and said, we see that they are only attempting to determine the limits of what can rightly be done to bring LGBT people closer to faith and holiness. This is another example of the Church’s openness to things both old and new which work for good.
 
Last edited:
The initial portion of his remarks discuss something we all agree with–sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion, faithless/fruitless reception, satanic desecration of the Eucharist, a loss of faith in the “Real Presence”, etc., are all evils we should seek to remedy and avoid.

The “diabolical attack” is “sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it” and this attack has two tracks: “the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence’” and “the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful.” That’s the context and substance of the remark.

Clearly, he thinks reception on the tongue has benefits that can be lost if reception takes place in the hand. Nevertheless, I don’t think that if I sat down with him and asked “Your Eminence, do you think that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is diabolical” that there is any way he’d say “yes.”

Dan
 
Mark121359 said:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.WpMGOuSWy1s
Click to expand...
hmm . . . from it,
In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict speaks of a “story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frightening thin limbs, but, most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.”
Click to expand...
This seems unlikely, although I could be convinced otherwise.

At the time of the Desert Fathers, the West still had standing as the position of respect, and kneeling only as a petition of penitence. At that time, the West still complied with the canons of the ecumenical councils calling anathema on those who kneel on Sunday.

Thew west wouldn’t change (defy?) until the middle ages, when men started kneeling to earthly kings.

(the east still doesn’t kneel on Sunday at liturgy, although there are a couple of Sundays with prostrations.

hawk
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
So some thought experiments:
Say if there is a virus that spreads from saliva to hand and then to saliva with a 90% death rate, do you still insist communion by the tongue?
Click to expand...
You do know the grand total of confirmed cases of illness for Catholic and Orthodox communion from the chalice, don’t you?

hawk
 
No I don’t and it doesn’t matter. Because this is a thought experiment. Just because something has or has not happened in the past does not mean it will happen or not happen in future. My point was to illustrate that this is not a pure dogmatic/ quote the bible issue. It is also a pastoral issue.
 
NuclearReceptor said:
Why did they anathematize kneeling?
Click to expand...
Prior to kneeling to earthly kings, standing was the position of respect, and kneeling of penitence. It simply isn’t appropriate to adopt a position of penitence in liturgy on the day of Resurrection.

there has always been a spectrum of emphasis with Good Friday and Pascha. The West emphasizes Good Friday (the Sacrifice) more than the East,while the east emphasizes Pascha (Redemption) more than the West. Both value both, but the emphasis is different.

The change from leavened to unleavened bread by the West c 980 AD is a rough mark in the shift in emphasis in the West.

hawk
 
I like the way it is in my parish: if a parishioner wishes the wafer on the tongue, the priest puts it there; if he or she wants it in the hand, he puts it there. And we all stand. Those who cannot stand, sit in the front row, and Father brings Holy Communion to them. In our parish, it is more important that all who desire Christ in Holy Communion receive him rather than whether they are standing, kneeling, or sitting. The EMHCs do the same, and they bring the wine to those who cannot stand.
 
Hopefully though if someone prefers kneeling to receive they are allowed that right?
 
Communion rails are very important.

They represent that we are separated from God at this point in time, but that Christ breaches the gap through, well, Christ, shown in the Eucharist, and through the Sacraments of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top