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

[pnewton]

It was not allowed because it was the most ancient practice. It was allowed because of manifest disobedience.

This is an opinion I totally 100% reject, along with all your attempts at conversion of faithful Catholics to whatever agenda you have. I cannot help but think such divisive attempts to separate the Body of Christ into two camps does as much to dishonor the body of Christ as any specific way of receiving. I know what Cardinal Sarah is saying, and he is suggesting a return, that is, going to a place we are not here now, backwards, to a former method of receiving. If we do, then of course I will do what I am told, despite the lack of respect I feel by that method. I will adapt.

 

[OraLabora]

Good question…anybody?

Because God gave us free will. And some people misuse that will.

 

[dochawk]

I will look for a source.

I’ll be curious to see your results.

I’ve always assumed that the early church did this while figuring things out, and dropped it over issues like crumbs, and a growing realization of the nature of the Eucharist and respect for it.

The church clearly settled on the laity not handling the Eucharist rather early.

I’m also curious as to, within a century or two, kneeling became common: it certainly wasn’t at the beginning of the middle ages, and certainly was a thousand years later at the end. But that’s an error interval of about half the history of the church . . .
hawk

 

[Teek]

This is an opinion I totally 100% reject,

What do you make of Memoriale Domini, then? It has the vote count of the Bishops, the official statement of the Church that the practice would not change, and the request that all be faithful to the current law: communion on the tongue.

This is not an article that is an opinion piece, or some theory a person made up. This is the statement of the Pope that it would not change, unless there was disobedience.

“The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.” Memoriale Domini

The Bishops of the Church voted against Communion in the hand. Exceptions were permitted in the case that disobedience was widespread already. It is not an opinion.

 

[Teek]

Why get angry over something you have absolutely no control over?

I was not angry that it was allowed. I was angry that I was told I could not kneel, that it was disobedience and pride, when this was never what was said by Holy Mother Church.

 

[Teek]

“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." – Pope John Paul II responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.

 

[Teek]

“The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” – St. Basil the Great, 330-379 AD

 

[ConstantLearner]

It is very disconcerting to see some people pop the Host from hand to mouth, smile, quick wave or give the V peace sign to those in pews who’ve already just received, as the they go by. It also doesn’t seem appropriate for Eucharistic ministers to smile as they hand the Host to receivers. This is a solemn moment! We should be reverent and humble, Communion on the tongue is the acknowledgement “Lord I am not worthy…”

People who receive on the tongue sometimes do the same. Our reverence for the Lord has to come from the heart and the soul.

 

[pnewton]

What do you make of Memoriale Domini, then? It has the vote count of the Bishops, the official statement of the Church that the practice would not change, and the request that all be faithful to the current law: communion on the tongue.

That the manner of receiving communion did not change in 1969 universally. He had some places explore the practice and report back. Even in this very document, the procedure for this is laid out. the reason for permitting a change is also stated, in black and white.

The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.

The fact that the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object. Rather ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the Eucharist make him a part. He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of the Lord which he touches with his hands. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.

The Bishops of the Church voted against Communion in the hand. Exceptions were permitted in the case that disobedience was widespread already. It is not an opinion.

If it is not opinion, then quote the part of the document that says this, as I quoted the part that says otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

I was angry that I was told I could not kneel, that it was disobedience and pride, when this was never what was said by Holy Mother Church.

I understand being hurt by other judging you. But don’t you see how what you are doing here is at least similar? It is one thing to speak of what is best for oneself. My reason is largely cultural. The very reason some feel compelled to kneel, I feel compelled to approach with head bowed. I am reminded of the admonition of Jesus, “You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.” When we speak of the method of receiving, it is an external action. To the extent the external action reflects, or forms, the interior disposition, then it is either laudable, or prudent. However, to speak of one as being better than the other as a form of receiving is to look only at the surface, shallowly, and not see as God sees.

The best form to receive is the one where the person has a heart contrite, humble, and grateful.

 

[Teek]

quote the part of the document that says this, as I quoted the part that says otherwise.

From Memoriale Domini (bold emphasis added):

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
…

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

In cases of disobedience to the established prohibition against communion in the hands, they allowed the Bishop’s conference to request an exception.

 

[pnewton]

You really don’t see that you keep adding the word “disobedience?” You are also adding a causation not there. The document you presented give the guidelines that were followed in obedience. The number of this vote are irrelevant, as it was a world wide poll and may not apply to every nation equally.

 

[Teek]

I understand being hurt by other judging you. But don’t you see how what you are doing here is at least similar?

My feelings were not hurt by being judged.
I was lied to, and told kneeling was not allowed. For 11 years I did not kneel, only to find that the Church has consistently defended the right of the faithful who wish to kneel.

I am not in anyway deceiving people or lying, as was done to me!

I judge no one. I am examining a practice that was allowed in the United States because of disobedience, and the permission was obtained from the Holy See dishonestly.

These are facts, facts that many are not aware of. How is it divisive or judgmental to present truth?

to speak of one as being better than the other as a form of receiving is to look only at the surface, shallowly, and not see as God sees.

I would sincerely argue the contrary. Are you saying that the Church was wrong since the 300’s to prohibit communion in the hand to the laity? And just now, suddenly, in the allowance of exclusion to the standing law of the universal Church, communion in the hand is established as equal?

It is allowed. It has been set forth by the USSCB as preferred, but never by Holy Mother Church. Holy Mother Church expounded on communion on the tongue and the reasons it is preferred.

From the same document:

Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

 

[Teek]

The number of this vote are irrelevant, as it was a world wide poll and may not apply to every nation equally.

That was not a poll. The Holy Father found it significant.

“From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.”

You really don’t see that you keep adding the word “disobedience?”

Usage that is contrary to the law is disobedience to the law. If you would prefer, you could substitute “usage that is contrary to the law” in for all of the times I used the word “disobedience.” The meaning is the same.

 

[pnewton]

I would sincerely argue the contrary. Are you saying that the Church was wrong since the 300’s to prohibit communion in the hand to the laity?

No. I am saying that the interior disposition is more important that the exterior, so much more so at to make the latter pale in comparison.

I just do not see this issue at all as you do. I really think you are too dogmatic about what you consider facts. I respect your opinion as valid, but do not accept it as factual. There is too much “filling in of the blanks” for me. I really do not mind your opinion, and would desire all be able to exercise their faith as they think best. However, I cannot see promoting one’s own spirituality. Also, do not forget this document was written in 1969.

Dominican priests may well believe their spirituality to be the best, but they know not to try and gather converts of Franciscans. Nor do Franciscans try and convert Benedictines.

 

[Teek]

The number of this vote are irrelevant, as it was a world wide poll and may not apply to every nation equally.

For curiosity’s sake, I looked into the numbers, very casually. From Wikipedia (very, very casually!): “As of 2009 there were approximately 5,100 bishops total in the Latin and Eastern churches of the Catholic Church.“

The vote taken of the Bishops regarding communion in the hand in 1969 tallied the results, and in the three questions recorded from 2,036-2,165 votes.

Sloppily assuming the same number of Bishops in 1969 as in 2009, 2000/5100 is a significant representation.

 

[pnewton]

Sloppily assuming the same number of Bishops in 1969 as in 2009, 2000/5100 is a significant representation.

I get that. What I would be interested in would be rather the percentages would skew if seen by region or country. Think of how close the last presidential election was. Yet those in California would have preferred one candidate, and those in Texas another.

 

[Teek]

I’d like to see that, too. However, it is the Universal Church, and there are no political motivations here. It is the Holy Spirit.

 

[KATRINA_68]

Yes to reverence regardless of how we receive. At our Church, I have not seen irreverence from communicants receiving via the tongue. They are a small percentage in my Parish.

 

[OraLabora]

At the abbey where I go to Mass, I have not seen irreverence from either form of receiving, except once, many years ago, when a young man took the host with him back to his pew. One of the monks who had been giving communion chased him down and made him consume it on the spot. It does appear to have been sufficiently a problem that there is a prominent sign in the narthex requesting people to consume the host in the presence of the priest giving communion (on busy days, there are 4 lines manned by 4 priests), on the table where Mass booklets are handed out.

The vast majority of folks though, do receive reverently regardless of method and I have a pretty good view, as I sing with the monks and sit on the first pew at the aisle end; the priests, while they may have personal preference, have never refused to give communion on the tongue or on the tongue while kneeling, except during the H1N1 epidemic when they requested everyone receive in the hand, as had the archdiocese at the time.

While there are many visitors who come to the abbey out of curiosity because of the Gregorian chant, there is a large bunch of we regulars who turn up there because it is the most beautiful and reverent liturgy within a 150 km radius (at least on the Canadian side of the border, there are Benedictine women who also use Gregorian chant on the Vermont side), and necessarily we are among the “true believers” who are there Sunday after Sunday.