Iâm sure the OP didnât mean to imply the pope was kneeling on his own tongue. Obviously he was kneeling on the tongue of the communicant. In other words, the pope gave communion in the personâs hand because the personâs tongue was pinned down by the pontiffâs knee. I hope that clarifies the image in your mindâŚAny physically impossible for one person to do
Actually, Msgr. Guido Marini, the Papal Master of Ceremonies, gave it:
Regarding the issue of kneeling, this is from Pope Benedictâs homily for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi that he preached in 2008, on the day he began distributing Holy Communion in this manner:
Thus, the explanations are both right there.
Hence, my position that it is a preferred methodâŚand subsequently can be reasonably described as methodologically superior. This is why I respectfully disagree with ElToroâs statement in the OP:
Not to belabor the point, ElToro, but I must clarify that I am speaking to superiority of method hereâŚNOT superiority of persons subscribing to a method. And respectfully, I think you might be having a hard time distinguishing that?
Indeed he did give reasons, in his latest book, âLight of the Worldâ. It is not just opinion.
YouIâm sure the OP didnât mean to imply the pope was kneeling on his own tongue. Obviously he was kneeling on the tongue of the communicant. In other words, the pope gave communion in the personâs hand because the personâs tongue was pinned down by the pontiffâs knee. I hope that clarifies the image in your mindâŚ
re wrong. if you read the title carefully, its obvious that the Communicant is kneeling on the Pope`s tongue; meaning that a liturgical abuse occurs, because the Pope is unable to say: âThe Body of Christ.â to each Communicant. 
t realise whats happening because that part of each frame is digitally erased.I think I can claim the distinction of being the only one who actually got down on the floor to see if he could really kneel on his own tongue. The result was⌠an unsuccess.
Wow. :tiphat: Thatâs a nice distinction. It probably was a painful experience.
Kneeling on the Popeâs tongue is an excommunicable offenseYoure wrong. if you read the title carefully, its obvious that the Communicant is kneeling on the Pope`s tongue; meaning that a liturgical abuse occurs, because the Pope is unable to say: âThe Body of Christ.â to each Communicant.
Television viewers dont realise whats happening because that part of each frame is digitally erased.
Actually he did lol many times including recently in his book âlight of the worldâ. Sounds to me like you are just comming on here to start fights
Kneeling on the Popeâs tongue is an excommunicable offense
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
I can place my foot in my mouth, and do so often.
Now that is reverent!I can place my foot in my mouth, and do so often.
For those who need assistance figuring out how to kneel on your tongue, hereâs an example:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AXsJ0CsxlKU/0.jpg
I donât usually like to assume. There is an old saying about that which I wont state it here.
Thanks, Constantine: i wasnKneeling on the Popeâs tongue is an excommunicable offense
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
t aware of any of that. What started out as a friendly non-controversial thread has taken a nasty turn. However, do you think there may be a distinction between "the Roman Pontiff" and "the Roman Pontiffs tongue"?LOL I am sure gravity mitigates the offense to a somewhat serious mishap and is therefore not excommunicalbe offense. One must intend after all to do harm. Now if you intended to slam down on the Roman Pontiffâs tongue using the aid of gravity, then I am sure you can be excommunicated.
If making assumptions is okay for you to do but you just donât like the word because of some unspecified adage, then how about this: It is charitable to infer the best of intentions in others whom you do not know personally. It is rash judgment and calumnious to publicly imply bad intentions in others whom you do not know personally.
The ânasty turnâ bit was tongue in cheek, as well, of course! (Pun intended!) Actually, i was referring to the deliberate misunderstanding by earlier posters, starting with Stylites @ #2.LOL I am sure gravity mitigates the offense to a somewhat serious mishap and is therefore not excommunicalbe offense. One must intend after all to do harm. Now if you intended to slam down on the Roman Pontiffâs tongue using the aid of gravity, then I am sure you can be excommunicated.
I think the thread has taken a hilarious turn which was needed, because it was getting pretty nasty as you said.
God bless.
Hi,The ânasty turnâ bit was tongue in cheek, as well, of course! (Pun intended!) Actually, i was referring to the deliberate misunderstanding by earlier posters, starting with Stylites @ #2.
There`s far too little humour on these forums; so if someome can derail a thread by turning it into comedy or an outright farce, then:*** great!***
Not long ago, during a sermon, the priest (FSSP) said straight out that a person without a sense of humour is in serious spiritual trouble. He mentioned Saint Philip Neri, and other saints who acted the fool and played tricks on people.