Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on

[billy15]

I think you’re putting words in Cardinal Sarah’s mouth. Where is he saying the Church has participated in a diabolical attack? Let’s read that portion again in context. For starters, here’s a link to the original text of the preface to this new book. The Cardinal says:

"Of course, Jesus suffers for the souls of the profaners, for which He has shed that Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence can not bring the potential effects into the souls of believers. And then one understands how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable way of receiving it; indeed the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: the target of satan is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. This attempted robbery follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence’. …

The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist unfolds is the attempt to remove from the heart of the faithful the sense of the sacred. The Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, already in 1980, with the Inaestimabile Donum Instruction, lamented a growing loss of sense of the sacred in the liturgy, which in the last decades unfortunately did not stop."

When reading in context, we see that the Cardinal is saying the devil is behind the “diabolical attack” in extinguishing faith in the Eucharist. He doesn’t say anything about the Church participating in such an attack, but that the devil will use whatever advantage he can get to get us away from our Lord. Cardinal Sarah, a bit later, talks about how much of “a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? Receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food.” He is on target here. When we pop the Eucharist in our mouth like a vitamin, without reverencing our Lord before receiving Him, are we really contemplating what It is that we are receiving? Is that a suitable way to receive our Lord? For sure, some of us who receive Him in the hand are doing so in a suitable way, but it is apparent that a lack of solemnity permeates through the Communion line much more so today than in earlier generations. This is what Cardinal Sarah is rightly lamenting, and notes that a deterioration of the faithful’s belief in the Real Presence is an attack by the devil. If we, the individual person give the devil in inch, he’ll take us for a mile.

 

[angel12]

Where is he saying the Church has participated in a diabolical attack?

He said (and I keep saying, according to the article, because I don’t completely trust this site),
“The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it.”

 

[DustThouArt]

Somewhat related to the conversation. And enlightening as to this battle:

I grew up Lutheran. I was admitted to Catholic Communion because I said publicly that I believed what the Catholic Church teaches.

I grew up Lutheran. It is of constant consternation and amazement to me that I have had to fight with Catholics over what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist. I have met Lutherans who believe more about the Eucharist than a few of my seminary profs. I am not exaggerating. As things re

wdtprs.com

 

[DustThouArt]

From Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

"Somebody asked for a Bible proof that the faithful should kneel and receive communion on the tongue. Here’s one: “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” Philippians 2:10-11

 

[pnewton]

“At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,”

The name of Jesus is not used in that part of the liturgy. Also, the response is “Amen,” not “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

I guess priests can proof-text as well as anyone.

 

[CilladeRoma]

But Cardinal Sarah knows that many who consume the Host in this way do not do so reverently, and it is to these people that he is speaking.

As an EMHC, I have seen my share of people receiving irreverently. Sometimes it is those who receive in the hand, and sometimes it is those who receive on the tongue. I cannot begin to tell you how many times my fingers have come in contact with someone’s tongue and/or teeth because they do not open wide enough, stick their tongue out far enough, or try to grab ahold of the host with their teeth. I find all of these things border on the irreverent side, as they are done, seemingly, because people are in a hurry.

That said, that is my experience. I see no issue with receiving either way. My issue is people saying that one way is objectively more reverent than the other, as that is just not true.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Did the Apostles receive communion with their hands?

 

[billy15]

OK, we’ve established that in your previous post. Did you read the rest of my post besides the small portion you quoted? He is not saying the Church has participated in a diabolical attack. Where does all diabolical activity come from? The devil. Could diabolical activity ever come from the Bride of Christ? No.

And I already understand you don’t trust Lifesite. That’s why I posted a link to the original article, which you can translate with Google, as it gives a pretty good translation. It also translates “fostering” as “favoring”.Here’s the link to the original preface again in case you missed it.

As an EMHC, I have seen my share of people receiving irreverently. Sometimes it is those who receive in the hand, and sometimes it is those who receive on the tongue. I cannot begin to tell you how many times my fingers have come in contact with someone’s tongue and/or teeth because they do not open wide enough, stick their tongue out far enough, or try to grab ahold of the host with their teeth. I find all of these things border on the irreverent side, as they are done, seemingly, because people are in a hurry.

Of course some can receive on the tongue irreverently. Either exteriorly or interiorly. However, just because you come into contact with someone’s tongue doesn’t mean they are in a hurry. It happens to me every now and then, and priests will tell you the same thing. Trying to grab ahold with their teeth does seem pretty odd though, I’ll give you that. That’s like trying to grab at it with your fingers and should be avoided.

Did the Apostles receive communion with their hands?

That’s a good question, and we don’t know. But Bishop Athanasius Schneider posits something very plausible in his book on the Eucharist regarding where this tradition developed, and it may have came from Jesus Himself:

“One can suppose that during the Last Supper Christ would have given the bread to each apostle directly in the mouth and not only to Judas Iscariot (see Jn 13:26-27). In fact, there existed a traditional practice in the Middle East of Jesus’ time that continues even to our own day, by which the head of the house feeds his guests with his own hand, placing a symbolic piece of bread into the mouths of the guests”. (p. 30)

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course some can receive on the tongue irreverently. Either exteriorly or interiorly. However, just because you come into contact with someone’s tongue doesn’t mean they are in a hurry. It happens to me every now and then, and priests will tell you the same thing. Trying to grab ahold with their teeth does seem pretty odd though, I’ll give you that. That’s like trying to grab at it with your fingers and should be avoided.

Ah, this receiving in the hand or tongue debate. I think point is made that reverence does not depend on which method but more on the internal disposition of understanding the Eucharist. Of course we can talk about it but it should not imply that one method is superior or inferior to the other. That could has negative effect on the unity of the Church.

 

[DustThouArt]

Interesting take on this for anyone interested.

On Communion in the Hand (Here, Mr. Ed Peters, Is Why Cardinal Sarah is Absolutely Right)

I’m going to start by saying that it seems generally like Ed Peters a good guy, an apparently faithful Catholic and conscientious canon lawyer[1]. His blog always has interesting and useful – and factual – stuff in response to the incredible cascade of insanity coming lately out of Rome and...

remnantnewspaper.com

 

[Raxus]

"In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the body of Christ, saying over it, “Amen.” So then, after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members (21). " - Cyril of Jerusalem, 386 AD

Those darn liberals back in 386 AD, what were they thinking? Good thing you’re gonna nip that innovation in the bud.

I know you and I don’t always agree on too much, but holy cow you sent it flying out of the park with this one. Good show.

 

[Luke6_37]

I know you and I don’t always agree on too much, but holy cow you sent it flying out of the park with this one. Good show.

Thanks. It’s nice not to be at odds all the time.

 

[Raxus]

Thanks. It’s nice not to be at odds all the time.

No argument here. Hope it’s been a good day for ya thusfar.