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.
ConstantLearner said:
No, I’m not against kneeling. I’m only saying people who can’t kneel should not be excluded from reception of communion, and the Church should realize that. Cardinal Sarah, with all due respect, and I do respect him, should realize that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that Cardinal Sarah wants to exclude people who cannot kneel from Communion! Where did he say THAT? That doesn’t sound like him at all. I will be shocked if he actually said that. Maybe it is fake news or something? That would be dreadful.

I don’t think people who cannot kneel have ever been excluded from Communion. That would have decimated the number of people eligible to receive Viaticum!
 
Teek said:
Because of the many, many, MANY times the Church condemned it,
Click to expand...
But the Church does not condemn it now. As is her right.

I am always amazed at people who set themselves up as better than the Church.
 
Teek said:
Because of the many, many, MANY times the Church condemned it, and reasserted that condemnation, beginning in the 300’s and not wavering until the 1960’s due to widespread disobedience to the universal prohibition against receiving in the hands.
Click to expand...
What year should we freeze Truth as being taught by the Church? 1960? 1500? This point is irrelevant as the Church does allow communion in the hand. It is evidence which should overwhelm all other speculation on motives by a Catholic layperson.

Are there not enough sinners to convert that you guys are fishing in the aquarium?
 
Last edited:
Teek said:
Rome has spoken, and has not established the practices as equal.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html
Click to expand...
The article does not elevate one over the other. It only explains why Pope Benedict was going to do things the way he did. Nothing in the article says one is better than the other, that is, unequal. The more ancient way, the probable original way, was changed to teach, which is why a lot of changes happen, like communion under one species.
 
pnewton said:
The article does not elevate one over the other. It only explains why Pope Benedict was going to do things the way he did.
Click to expand...
It “explains why Pope Benedict was going to do things the way he did,” which was to distribute Communion on the tongue to those who are kneeling. It explained why he thought it so important that he would only distribute Communion on the tongue to the faithful who are kneeling. It explained how nothing that is not consecrated is to touch the Eucharist, and how kneeling is the posture of Adoration best suited to reception of the Eucharist.
pnewton said:
Nothing in the article says one is better than the other, that is, unequal.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how that is a rational assessment.
 
paperwight said:
You are forgetting that when someone kneels, their legs and feet are sticking out behind the rest of their body.

Why should a person who is fighting to maintain independence and not ‘give in’ as many older people see it, have to behave as if hey are more incapacitated than they are, just because the one wanting to kneel can’t wait until the end of the line?
Click to expand...
When someone kneels, their feet only stick out a little bit. It is only if someone is really close that they might just clip your feet slightly as you kneel. It is not that much different than if someone genuflects before receiving and then stands to receive.

Should there not be a small distance between one person and the other when a person steps forward to receive at the end of the line (regardless of how a person receives)? Eighteen inches would be plenty. Should people really be receiving (regardless of whatever way they receive) with the next person in the line stood right behind them without a noticeable gap?

Would it not be a good discipline to stop while the person in front of you steps forward to receive to allow them just a little space for what is such an important and intimate moment? We seem to have no problem doing this in queues to bank counters, post offices and ATM machines, we even do it in supermarket queues.
 
Last edited:
twf - You are very fortunate to have such a diocese and parish - sometimes I am the only person attending Mass, to receive Communion on the tongue - regrettably due to arthritis problems I no longer kneel.
 
godisgood77 said:
I believe it to be low minded to insist on one external posture vs another. The internal disposition of the communicant is the more important topic. Obsessing over one’s subjective preference to kneel and forcing others to your preference… put frankly, stinks.
Click to expand...
You might want to take that up with Pope Francis, then. He will only distribute on the tongue to the faithful who are kneeling. If they put out their hands, he gestures to his mouth and if they aquiesque he gives them the Eucharist.

Oh, and Pope Benedict XVI.

They were not low minded. They insisted or still insist, and they “forced” others to their “preference.”

Talking about the pros or cons of either side of the issue forces no one to do anything but think.
 
godisgood77 said:
The internal disposition of the communicant is the more important topic.
Click to expand...
It is certainly the more important topic!

That doesn’t make the rest of it unimportant. It is all vitally important because it is the Lord.
 
Last edited:
The reason for this is not at all what you think it is.
The main reason for this is two-fold.
One, for “sign value”. The other, more important reason, is so that people who receive from the Pope cannot not consume the host then keep it for a souvenir or try to sell it on E-bay.
It has nothing to do with either of them thinking it is “better”.
 
“Sign value” is a phrase the liturgical establishment likes to toss around to defend novelties.
 
I tried to look it up so I could understand what the poster above meant—that the Pope would only distribute the Eucharist on the tongue to the faithful who are kneeling as “sign value.”

Is this it? “The term sign value denotes and describes the value accorded to an object because of the prestige (social status) that it imparts upon the possessor, rather than the material value and utility derived from the function and the primary use of the object.” (Wikipedia)

I sure hope not, because it would be categorically false to say that the Pope would do anything with regard to the Eucharist as “sign value!”

He does that to make a point? He doesn’t do it because the reality is that he believes the Eucharist deserves reverence and adoration, but to make people think it does?

Way off. Way, way off!
 
CilladeRoma said:
Don’t patronize me. You are wrong. It is not possible for a Protestant today, who was born and raised in their own faith to be a heretic.

Maybe, you should learn the meaning of words before you throw them around
Click to expand...
They are material heretics, not formal heretics. They don’t carry the guilt of heresy, but they do follow heretical beliefs.
 
You don’t make a lot of friends running around telling people they are heretics.
Even the Church no longer uses this terminology, refering to our Protestant brothers and sisters as “separated brethren”.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to use such a loaded term, that even the Church no longer uses, unless it is out of a sense of pride as if to say “I am more Catholic than even the Pope, because I call them what they are.” :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top