The proper way to receive the Eucharist. Whoever first proposed and/or approved the Novus Ordo way simply considered the consecrated Host a mere wafer given out as a token of the Eucharist and not the Eucharist itself.
Cardinal Sarah: 'Widespread Communion in the hand
is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist'
ROME, February 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — The head of the Vatican department overseeing liturgy is summoning the Catholic faithful to return to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.
In the preface to a new book on the subject, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, writes:
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. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful. Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host.
The new book, by Don Federico Bortoli, is entitled
La distribuzione della comunione sulla mano. Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali (The distribution of Communion on the hand: A historical, juridical and pastoral survey).
Recalling the centenary of the Fatima apparitions, Sarah writes that the Angel of Peace who appeared to the three shepherd children in advance of the Blessed Virgin’s visit “shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ.” His Eminence then identifies the outrages by which Jesus is offended today in the Holy Eucharist, including “so-called ‘intercommunion.’”
Sarah goes on to consider how faith in the Real Presence “can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa,” and he proposes Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as two modern saints whom God has given us to imitate in their reverence and reception of the Holy Eucharist.
“Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand?,” the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship asks. The manner in which the Holy Eucharist is distributed and received, he writes, “is an important question on which the Church today must reflect.”
Here below, with the kind permission of La Nuova Bussola where the preface was first published, we offer our readers a LifeSiteNews translation of several key extracts from Cardinal Sarah’s text.
Providence, which disposes all thing wisely and sweetly, has offered us book The Distribution of Communion on the hand, by Federico Bortoli, just after having celebrated the centenary of the Fatima apparitions.
Before the apparition of the Virgin Mary, in the Spring of 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, and said to them: “Do not be afraid, I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” ... In the Spring of 1916, at the third apparition of the Angel, the children realized that the Angel, who was always the same one, held in his left hand a chalice over which a host was suspended... He gave the holy Host to Lucia, and the Blood of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, who remained on their knees, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” The Angel prostrated himself again on the ground, repeating the same prayer three times with Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.
The Angel of Peace therefore shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. The prayer of reparation dictated by the Angel, unfortunately, is anything but obsolete. But what are the outrages that Jesus receives in the holy Host, for which we need to make reparation?
o In the first place, there are the outrages against the Sacrament itself: the horrible profanations, of which some ex-Satanist converts have reported and offer gruesome descriptions.
- Sacrilegious Communions, not received in the state of God’s grace, or not professing the Catholic faith (I refer to certain forms of the so-called “intercommunion”), are also outrages.
o Secondly, all that could prevent the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, especially the errors sown in the minds of the faithful so that they no longer believe in the Eucharist, is an outrage to Our Lord.
- The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine.
Of course, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers.
And so we can understand that 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. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host.
This robbery attempt follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence.’ Many theologians persist in mocking or snubbing the term ‘transubstantiation’ despite the constant references of the Magisterium (…)
Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa.
o Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments.
- On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him!
Inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is only ‘up to a certain point’.”
o The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. (...) While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food. (…)
The liturgy is made up of many small rituals and gestures — each of them is capable of expressing these attitudes filled with love, filial respect and adoration toward God. That is precisely why it is appropriate to promote the beauty, fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church, that is, the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling. The greatness and nobility of man, as well as the highest expression of his love for his Creator, consists in kneeling before God. Jesus himself prayed on his knees in the presence of the Father. (…)
In this regard I would like to propose the example of two great saints of our time: St. John Paul II and St. Teresa of Calcutta.
o Karol Wojtyła’s entire life was marked by a profound respect for the Holy Eucharist... Despite being exhausted and without strength... he always knelt before the Blessed Sacrament. He was unable to kneel and stand up alone. He needed others to bend his knees and to get up. Until his last days, he wanted to offer us a great witness of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
Why are we so proud and insensitive to the signs that God himself offers us for our spiritual growth and our intimate relationship with Him? Why do not we kneel down to receive Holy Communion after the example of the saints? Is it really so humiliating to bow down and remain kneeling before the Lord Jesus Christ? And yet, “He, though being in the form of God, ...humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2: 6-8).
o St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, an exceptional religious who no one would dare regard as a traditionalist, fundamentalist or extremist, whose faith, holiness and total gift of self to God and the poor are known to all, had a respect and absolute worship of the divine Body of Jesus Christ. Certainly, she daily touched the “flesh” of Christ in the deteriorated and suffering bodies of the poorest of the poor. And yet, filled with wonder and respectful veneration, Mother Teresa refrained from touching the transubstantiated Body of Christ.
Instead, she adored him and contemplated him silently, she remained at length on her knees and prostrated herself before Jesus in the Eucharist. Moreover, she received Holy Communion in her mouth, like a little child who has humbly allowed herself to be fed by her God.
The saint was saddened and pained when she saw Christians receiving Holy Communion in their hands. In addition, she said that as far as she knew, all of her sisters received Communion only on the tongue. Is this not the exhortation that God himself addresses to us: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it”? (Ps 81:10).
Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue. The saints give us the example. They are the models to be imitated that God offers us!
But how could the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the hand become so common? The answer is given to us — and is supported by never-before-published documentation that is extraordinary in its quality and volume — by Don Bortoli. It was a process that was anything but clear, a transition from what the instruction Memoriale Domini granted, to what is such a widespread practice today...
Unfortunately, as with the Latin language, so also with a liturgical reform that should have been homogeneous with the previous rites, a special concession has become the picklock to force and empty the safe of the Church’s liturgical treasures. The Lord leads the just along ‘straight paths’ (cf. Wis. 10:10), not by subterfuge. Therefore, in addition to the theological motivations shown above, also the way in which the practice of Communion on the hand has spread appears to have been imposed not according to the ways of God.
May this book encourage those priests and faithful who, moved also by the example of Benedict XVI — who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist in the mouth and kneeling — wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter manner, which is far more suited to the Sacrament itself.
I hope there can be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this method. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ. I am very pleased to see so many young people who choose to receive our Lord so reverently on their knees and on their tongues.
May Fr. Bortoli’s work foster a general rethinking on the way Holy Communion is distributed. As I said at the beginning of this preface, we have just celebrated the centenary of Fatima and we are encouraged in waiting for the sure triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that, in the end, the truth about the liturgy will also triumph.
Ed Peters obviously wrote the ff piece unaware of Cardinal Sarah's essay. Of course, a canonist, his focus is on the general canonical indiscipline towards the Body and Blood of the Lord.
An important week for Eucharistic discipline – or lack thereof
On Bishop Paprocki, the German bishops, and Holy Communion
by Edward N. Peters
February 23, 2018
Three items on the discipline of holy Communion round out the week. Two are simple but diametrically opposed, a third is licit but ill-advised.
1. This is simply right. Bp. Thomas Paprocki of Springfield IL, no stranger to my readers, has reiterated that
Catholic Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, one of the Bloody 14 [14 Catholic senators who, with 37 other senators, voted against putting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to a Senate vote, in effect, killing any action for now on a law to ban late-term abortions] may not, in view of Durbin’s longstanding support for abortionism as seen in the light of Canon 915, be given holy Communion.
Paprocki’s statement is clear and, besides being canonically correct, is pastorally sensitive to the spiritual dangers into which Durbin has placed himself. May Paprocki’s prayers for Durbin’s return to his earlier respect for innocent human life bear fruit. As for Paprocki himself, no worries there — an accomplished amateur hockey player and goalie, he is used to taking hard shots while defending what is important.
2. This is simply wrong.
The German bishops as a whole (and not just an executive committee thereof)
have approved the administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics under the malleable conditions typical of these times. Think Malta.
The only mildly remarkable thing here is that this latest degradation of sacramental discipline has caused so few ripples in Catholic media. [Shows you how much so-called Catholic media is really in thrall to the world and its anti-Catholic animus (which is why they are also among the most fanatic of Bergoglidolators!]
But I suppose that no one really expected the German hierarchy to act other than to authorize disobedience to an inconvenient canon law, regardless of how unanimous the tradition behind that canon might be.
3.
This one is licit, strictly speaking, but such a bad idea that the canon allowing it probably needs to reformed. Once again, the German bishops are acting, but the law was convenient so it was respected.
Canon 844 §4 allows baptized non-Catholics to receive holy Communion if “grave necessity urges” the local bishop or (here) the conference of bishops to allow such reception, provided further only that those seeking holy Communion claim (as most can) to satisfy some practical and minimal credal criteria. Effectively, then, the canon expects the “grave necessity” requirement to keep the Communion rite at Mass from turning into a free samples line.
The problem, obviously, is about
when (besides, one might concede, at the time of death, an option already allowed under a different part of the canon)
is it ever gravely necessary for non-Catholics to receive holy Communion? Not, when might it be helpful or decorous or embarrassment-squelching to receive holy Communion, but
when is it necessary for them to receive, and gravely necessary to boot? I suggest,
Never. Even Catholics are required to receive holy Communion only once a year (c. 920) 920).
But, unless the canon is establishing a criterion that can never be satisfied,
what does the clause “grave necessity” mean? Apparently, pretty much whatever a bishop or (here) conference of bishops decides it means, including, as the Germans have decided, non-Catholic spouses who assert “serious spiritual distress” and a “longing to satisfy hunger for the Eucharist” — albeit, exactly the kind of healthy spiritual ferment that has occasioned countless baptized persons over the centuries to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. So much for that motivation.
Nevertheless this ruling falls narrowly within the law, I think, suggesting that maybe the law’s desire to legislate on an admittedly “hard case” has resulted in a bad law. As hard cases usually do. Other “hard cases” will doubtless follow. Just watch.
A last thought.
How the Germans ruling on non-Catholic spouses receiving holy Communion will combine with their recent provisions for divorced-and-remarried Catholics receiving holy Communion — well, it makes the head spin.
Earlier, there was this summary report on Fr Dwight Lonegenecker's reaction to the misdeed of the Bloody 14 ...
Priest calls for excommunication of
14 Catholic senators who voted against
a bill to ban late-term abortion
By LISA BOURNE
A Catholic priest is calling on bishops to excommunicate the 14 Catholic-identifying U.S. senators who voted two weeks ago against banning late-term abortions. He is also calling on priests to deny the Catholic pro-abortion senators Holy Communion.
“Today is the day for their bishops to issue a formal statement acknowledging that these men and women have publicly denied their Catholic faith, and if not formally, then have informally excommunicated themselves,” Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote in a recent blog post.
Many bishops often refuse to publicly correct pro-abortion politicians who say they are Catholic. Of these, a small number prefer to be more “pastoral,” handling the matter in private.
But Fr. Longenecker wasted no time on this premise, pointing out the reality of the infraction committed by public figures identifying themselves as Catholic when they publicly support abortion.
“Since their offense is public, it should be acknowledged publicly and their pastors should publicly rebuke them and deny them access to the sacraments,” he said, adding that if Church hierarchy does not do so, then Catholics should make their concerns known via the most effective channel — the collection basket.
“If the bishops and priests do not do this,” Fr. Longenecker added, “the faithful in their parishes and dioceses should rise up and blizzard them with letters, emails, and the one thing that will really make them sit up and take notice: withholding their contributions.”
Longenecker, pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary Parish in Greenville, S.C., wrote about the fact that 46 of 97 members of the U.S. Senate voted January 29 against ending debate on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and the result of that was the Senate not being allowed to vote on the bill, and the senators in effect voting against the ban.
The bill’s premise is based upon the scientifically established fact an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks.
One of two proposed bills up for a possible vote to coincide with the annual March for Life, it was not perfect, allowing exceptions for babies conceived in rape or incest. It was regarded by some as feel-good legislation timed for the annual March when pro-life advocates and media would be paying attention. Despite its shortcomings, the bill would have banned most late-term abortions, a brutal and inhumane practice.
“So fourteen Catholic senators voted for this barbaric, inhumane practice to still be legal in the United States and thereby assured its continuation,” Fr. Longenecker stated. He called on
Catholic media to publish their names and to “publish the horror that they have enabled by their vote.”
He also stated that “every Catholic college, university, institute of learning, newspaper, and website should publish the names of the Catholic senators who voted for late-term abortion, and circulate their names as widely as possible.”
He included links to the official vote roll call and public record of the senators’ identifying as Catholic, as well as a chart containing their district, diocese, and bishop.
Fr. Longenecker remained vocal on social media throughout the week about his call to name the 14 Catholic pro-abortion voting senators, making numerous posts.
“USCCB website acknowledged Monday’s Senate vote in favor of late-term abortion was ‘appalling’,” he tweeted Thursday, February 1,
“but fails to name and condemn Catholic senators who voted for dismemberment of unborn babies. That article now gone from website. Essentially — silence from the USCCB.”
The USCCB responded that its statement was still available on the conference website, but did not address the substance of Longenecker’s tweet.
“CRUX, National Catholic Reporter, and America Mag — leading Catholic online journals still all silent about Monday’s Senate vote and no comment on the Catholic senators who voted for late-term abortions,” he tweeted that same day. “Does silence indicate consent?”
“I expect the bishops of ‘The Fourteen’ will say, ‘It is better that I have a quiet word with them in private about this matter’,” Longenecker tweeted as well.
“No. Their vote was a formal, public action in favor of late term abortion. Public crime demands a public condemnation.”
He used the #namethefourteen hashtag in all his posts related to the defense of human life.
“Neonatologist says, ‘Babies at 20 weeks gestation do feel pain’,” he quoted with a link to an article from
The Federalist.
Longenecker also shared the Catholic World Report column on the matter by canon lawyer Ed Peters, wherein Peters termed the senators The Bloody 14.
One of his posts showed that North Dakota Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp — who is among the Catholic pro-abort 14 — also high-fived New York Democrat Chuck Schumer upon the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’s defeat.
Bishop David Kagan of Bismarck, N.D., took heat in October 2012 after a letter to the diocese’s parishes regarding the forthcoming election was leaked. The letter had discussed the non-negotiable issues of life and marriage, and asked Catholics to consider the Church’s teaching on those issues when voting. Some regarded the letter as telling people not to vote for Heitkamp, who was running for the Senate.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., had previously upheld the decision of one of his priests to deny Holy Communion to Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, one of the Catholic pro-abortion 14.
Providence, R.I., Bishop Thomas Tobin was critical of Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine during the 2016 election because of Kaine’s support for abortion, same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and women’s ordination. Tobin also publicly rebuked Democrat Cong. Patrick Kennedy for Kennedy’s support for abortion.
The names of the 14 Catholic senators who voted against the 20-week abortion ban are:
Maria Cantwell — Washington; Susan Collins — Maine; Dick Durbin — Illinois; Kirsten Gillibrand — New York; Heidi Heitkamp — North Dakota; Tim Kaine — Virginia; Patrick Leahy — Vermont; Ed Markey — Massachusetts; Catherine Cortez Masto — Nevada; Claire McCaskill — Missouri; Bob Menendez — New Jersey; Lisa Murkowski — Alaska; Patty Murray — Washington; Jack Reed — Rhode Island.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/02/2018 23:10]