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

[CilladeRoma]

The same as how receiving both species is a fuller sign. By kneeling and receiving on the tongue not only is the Holy Father ensuring consumption, he is using archetypal imagery to reinforce the belief in the Real Presence. It is much more for the people watching the Mass, than for those participating.
Both men have stated that neither of them have any problem with the average Catholic, in the average parish receiving in the hand.
And, FWIW, if Pope Benedict (or Francis, for that matter) wanted COTT & kneeling to be the standard, all it would have taken is a stroke of a pen. But that hasn’t happened yet. Hmmmm…

 

[Teek]

COTT & kneeling to be the standard, all it would have taken is a stroke of a pen

It was not necessary for them to do so, because kneeling and receiving the Lord on the tongue is already the standard for the universal chirch. In the hands and kneeling is the exception to the standard granted to those who were established in disobedience to the Tradition of the Church. There is no need to declare what is already in effect.

 

[Teek]

From Memoriale Domini:

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

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.

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.

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

The document goes on to say that bishops could request an exception of there is sufficient reason and 2/3 of the Bishops in the council’s region were in favor of change. The US never had a 2/3 majority vote in favor. They were 2/3 AGAINST.

 

[CilladeRoma]

So, the Church rewarded those who were disobedient with exactly what they wanted?
Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

If the Church had a problem with CITH, you don’t think they would have stopped it by now? It’s been 3 Pope’s, please give it a rest. It’s allowed. Period. End of discussion.

 

[Mark121359]

Library : Holy Communion in the Hand? | Catholic Culture

 

[Teek]

So, the Church rewarded those who were disobedient with exactly what they wanted?

Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

YES! I do realize how crazy it is!

Which is why I am holding the position that I hold. It is awful, and yet it is the truth. Please look into it. I have not invented anything.

From Memoriale Domini:
…
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.
…

Bishop Blanchette, 1977 (Just after Cardinal Bernardin requested the exception without a majority vote):

“What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient, and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline, then we’re very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all.” (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

 

[PeterT]

If you could see Jesus standing before you on the altar as you approached, would you not fall to your knees? Not to look all pious, but because there He is! It is the Lord! King of the Universe, Author of Life! In spite of knowing people will judge you for it as someone trying to look pious, you still might actually BE that pious!

Honestly, if I saw our Lord Jesus, incarnate, standing there, my first reaction would be to run up to him and hug him and cry with great joy and thanksgiving, because there’s no one who has loved me more and taken better care of me than Jesus, my lord and savior.

 

[DeniseNY]

Ater over 300 mostly repetitive posts, is this even still a discussion or just folks wanting to be right?

 

[pnewton]

. 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.

The reason stated in the letter was.

: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

I take this to mean that he wishes to avoid dropping of particles at his papal Masses, and that he is doing it to teach the Real Presence. It obviously cannot mean that receiving on the hand is wrong, or else he would have been the worst of popes, acting in his own interest and refusing to intervene on behalf of the Lord Jesus throughout the world.

It quotes St. Aquinas, yet the Church has upheld that the laity may receive in the hand, as was the most ancient practice. This idea that nothing may touch the Holy Eucharist during the process of receiving is illogical, as it is necessary that the host touch the hand or the tongue. It cannot teleport to the stomach and somehow never interact with the body.

 

[pnewton]

Ater over 300 mostly repetitive posts, is this even still a discussion or just folks wanting to be right?

As long as those trying to convert Catholics who are already faithful to their personal form of faithfulness, I will continue to repeat myself.

 

[pnewton]

There is no need to declare what is already in effect.

There is not need to because communion in the hand is perfectly fine and allowable. If it was as bad as some make out, there most definitely would be a need for intervention.

 

[KATRINA_68]

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…”

 

[pnewton]

This issue is Galatians all over again. People coming to trouble the faithful with a need to be more than the Church requires. So with Paul I will say, “Who has bewitched you?” This is a perfect example of Christian freedom trying to be restricted by modern day Judaizers.

 

[TheOldColonel]

That’s clearly how the apostles recieved communion.

 

[godisgood77]

That doesn’t make the rest of it unimportant. It is all vitally important because it is the Lord.

Just low minded to insist on your preference that’s all.

Just returned from Mass where my family and I received the Eurcharist very reverently in our hands while standing … a 100% valid way of doing so.

Have a beautiful day everyone! God is good

 

[godisgood77]

If you could see Jesus standing before you on the altar as you approached, would you not fall to your knees?

Just like Peter T… I’d go for an embrace. I believe He would return the embrace not shrink away and extend his hand to be kissed.

 

[Mi_Rose]

I smile before and after I receive Communion. I have just received Jesus truly and completely present.

 

[Teek]

It obviously cannot mean that receiving on the hand is wrong,

You said it did not put one forward as better than the other. I replied to that. I did not say that one is wrong, or that the letter Stated one is wrong.

It quotes St. Aquinas, yet the Church has upheld that the laity may receive in the hand, as was the most ancient practice. This idea that nothing may touch the Holy Eucharist during the process of receiving is illogical,

And yet, it was the Tradition of the Church from at least the 300’s until NOW. It is still the rule of the Church, it has not been changed, except in areas in which disobedience was widespread and so the Bishop’s council of that region requested an exclusion. Please see the above content from Memoriale Domini. Or look into it.

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

You are not disagreeing with me and my opinion. I am stating fact. You said the document put forth from the Vatican is incorrect and illogical. I cannot agree with that.

 

[Mark121359]

Just low minded to insist on your preference that’s all.

No. Teek is not “insisting.”(read definition of that word below) He’s merely suggesting, and doing nothing more than expounding upon what the good Cardinal Sarah has already spoken about. I believe that the root of your frustration lies with the good Cardinal.

in·sist
/inˈsist/
verb
verb: insist; 3rd person present: insists; past tense: insisted; past participle: insisted; gerund or present participle: insisting

demand something forcefully, not accepting refusal.
“she insisted on carrying her own bag”

synonyms: demand, command, require, dictate; More
urge, exhort

“she insisted that they pay up”

\•demand forcefully to have something.
“he insisted on answers to his allegations”

 

[Teek]

This issue is Galatians all over again.

Who here, on either side, is denying Christ crucified? Or following another Gospel? Everyone here, to my best knowledge, is deeply committed to Christ.

We are all free to present the reasons for which we follow the procedure we use to approach the Eucharist, in charity.

“Who has bewitched you?” This is a perfect example of Christian freedom trying to be restricted by modern day Judaizers.

Then you have misunderstood. This is about the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments saying that one way of receiving communion is more worthy of the Lord than the other. People have presented their understanding both for and against what he has said. He is not a modern day Judaizer! Neither is anyone that agrees with his reasoning.

Show me where the Church has changed the law that communion is received on the tongue by the faithful. Show me where it has been withdrawn as the rule of the universal Church. Yes, we were granted an exception from that rule because of disobedience to the law, but the law itself is in full effect for the universal Church.

This is also not “judaizing.” This is the historical truth.

This isn’t about judging people. It is about what has actually occurred. If I am incorrect, please show me where. Did the Church change the law? Not just grant us an exception, which is not in dispute, but did it change the universal norm of the Church?