Thursday, February 22, 2018


Cardinal Sarah: Receive Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue to be on the Side of the Archangel Michael rather than Lucifer

 Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist, Savannah, Georgia:

Praytell's Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB  hopes Pope Francis will swat and kill like a nasty fly the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith because Cardinal Sarah is sober and believes that things Fr. Ruff says that Vatican II mandated  were not in fact mandated, such as standing to receive Holy Communion and in the hand and a return to kneeling and receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue isn't the end of the world, but a victory of sorts for Christ and His Church.

It continues to amaze me that the 1970's ugliness of the left in the Catholic Church continues to this day, but I predict, as clairvoyant as I am, that victory will be Christ's not  liberal Catholicism which will end up in the dung heap of history as liberal Protestantism has.

Here's a portion of Cardinal Sarah's desire printed in a preface of a book:

W]e can understand how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable manner of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the heart of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated host.
Why do we insist on communicating standing in the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God?

[Receiving kneeling and on the tongue] is much more suited to the sacrament itself. I hope there can be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this manner. 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.
*          *          *          *          *


TJM said...

Cardinal Sarah makes excellent points while ankle-biter and fake liberal, Ruff, is just blowing hot air and nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Good to see that Cardinal Sarah will not be silenced for fear of what a bunch of thugs and bullies could do to him.

Adam Michael said...

This is a video of Assyrian Christians of the Assyrian Church of the East receiving Holy Communion in their traditional manner (in the hand from clergy) at a recent episcopal consecration:

Gerry Davila said...

Ad multos annos!

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

This kneeling vs. standing for Holy Communion brings to mind a memory. Once back in the 1990's I was teaching a 4th grade CCD class when the very liberal Director of Religious Education stopped in to observe. Our chapter that day was on the Eucharist, and I was in the process of giving the kids a little background about the olden days, and what the communion rail is, and why we see these in some churches, and what they were for, describing how we used to kneel along the rail to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

Suddenly the DRE went nearly apoplectic, and got all red in the face, and burst out, to me and my class, something on the order of THE BISHOPS HAVE MANDATED RECEPTION OF THE EUCHARIST IN THE HAND!!!!! The kids looked over at her like she was nutty (smart kids!) and she seemed to realize her outburst was somewhat inappropriate. I covered for her by explaining, yes, we now receive the Eucharist standing and in the hand, and went on by demonstrating the proper way to receive in the hand. She left the room shortly afterwards.

But every time this topic comes up I remember this incident. I guess to the progressives, even the mention of kneeling for Holy Communion to little children was a huge no-no. So I expect Cardinal Sarah is not going to get much support from that quarter on this one.

Gee, I wish Cardinal Sarah was Pope..... :-)

God bless.

John Nolan said...

Ruff is living proof that being a monk doesn't prevent one from being a nasty piece of work. Think Martin Luther. As for the 'liturgist' Rita, I used to think she was more silly than malicious, but now I'm not so sure.

I imagine the two dissenting commentators will shortly be barred from the site. Liberal orthodoxy is beyond criticism.

Joseph Johnson said...

I have had similar experiences. However, I am always ready to remind that, in this country, we have the OPTION of receiving Communion in the hand (not mandated) but that reception on the tongue is the worldwide default norm for receiving Communion.

TJM said...


You just described a typical church "liberal." They peddle hatred and division and project what they are doing to others who disagree with them.

rcg said...

Why is this hard? Frankly, if Vatican II is so obtuse that no one can tell what it contains then it is a piece of crap and should be disregarded. If it does make the requirement to stand, tear out altar rails, etc. then simply show it. If it makes those travesties optional, then show that and do what ever the Parish Council can afford (may God have mercy on their souls).

As a practice and as a pious display it seems that a priest and bishop would welcome it as much as hemp shirts on earth day. What offense to anyone (don’t forget to include the Lord, Our God) by kneeling?

Victor said...

Adam Michael:
Not sure why you give the youtube video reference to that Assyrian ecclesial community, as they are not in communion with the Holy See. The part of that community that became in communion with the Holy See is now called the Chaldean Catholic Church, and they pretty well do the typical Novus Ordo thing including the ad populum Mass.

It may interest some that at our large TLM church there is a lady who crawls on her knees to receive the Lord on her tongue at the communion rail. Some find that strange, but it is a more frequent practice in Africa, and is acceptable. If all Catholics truly realised that the Host is God, the Creator and Sustainer of all, perhaps they would do that too. But can you imagine someone doing that at a typical rich suburban Novus Ordo church, however? The person would likely be denied communion if not thrown out.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Vatican II" gets unwarranted blame.

The Fathers of that Council eschewed the rhetorical style of many previous Councils which relied heavily on anathemas and adopted the older panygeric style that had been employed in the early centuries by many of the Church Fathers.

Fr. John O'Malley, SJ, writes, "Vatican II, however, largely eschewed Scholastic language. It thus moved from the dialectic of winning and argument [what we might call a 'zero-sum game strategy' in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other] to the dialogue of finding common ground. It moved from abstract metaphysics to interpersonal "how to be." It moved from grand conceptual schemes or "summae" with hundreds of logically interconnected parts to the humble acceptance of mystery." ("What Happened at Vatican II, pg 46)

Panygeric holds up an ideal and encourages striving for that end. Instead of "This is who we are not" the style is "This is who we are and you can be this, too." It does not water down dogmas; rather it presents them without condemning those who may not accept them.

O'Malley writes that the goal of this style is to win internal assent and is an instrument of persuasion, not coercion. He notes that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural speech are excellent examples of the style.

The implementation of the Council was left, intentionally, to the Church, and that can be a somewhat messy adventure.

I think the Vat II Fathers chose the style because their goal - the renewal of the Church and the conversion of the world - was their primary aim. In the "Modern World" old anathema-talk just didn't work.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Let me share a success story on this front, which others might easily imitate.

Several months ago, a parishioner -- who is part of a group that supports an all-night vigil before the Blessed Sacrament once a month -- came to me with a suggestion. For the Saturday morning Mass -- which concludes the vigil -- would I be willing to place a couple of kneelers out, so that those who wished, could receive Holy Communion kneeling?

After a little thought, I decided, why not?

So we placed them right where people would otherwise be receiving the Eucharist standing; and then, during the homily, I explained what I'd done. More importantly, I explained that no one had to do anything differently; those who chose to stand, could still do so; while those who wanted to kneel, might do so much more conveniently and safely.

It was a huge hit. The vast majority of people chose to kneel, and those who did not, were not inconvenienced. On the contrary, several of them had the kneelers handy to steady themselves.

So we did it again on a couple of first Saturdays. And then I decided, why not do it every Saturday? That's what we're doing. Who knows, but that this will spread to other days?

This was a completely pain-free way to foster receiving the Eucharist both kneeling and on the tongue. Well, except for the added task of hauling them out and putting them back. Maybe I should just leave them there all the time?

TJM said...


LOL - Vatican Disaster II was an unmitigated failure, unless the goal was to destroy the Faith. The conversions have been poring in since then, yes sir ree!!

Father Fox, you are da man!!

Adam Michael said...


I posted the video link to demonstrate that reception of Holy Communion in the hand is a traditional, historical Christian practice. It is unfortunate that one has to reference liturgies outside communion with Rome on a Catholic blog in order to demonstrate a traditional practice, but as you noted, the Catholic equivalent of the Assyrian Church has modernized its traditional liturgy.

Anonymous said...

Adam Michael:

Notice in the video that the way in which the Eucharist is received in the hand is like (from what I read somewhere)the waay it was received in the early Church.
It was with more reverence. The communicant brought the cupped hand with the host to the mouth. This is different from the way people receive and consume it in most Churches today.

Adam Michael said...


It is somewhat more reverent. However, I do not think the Assyrian form of the reception of Holy Communion is substantially different than other types of Communion in the hand. Thus, the same judgments that are made about Communion in the hand in the Catholic Church (i.e. massive loss of particles, demeaning of the sacerdotal priesthood, distortion of ancient liturgical practice, etc.) would logically have to also be made about the Assyrian practice. If these judgments are accurate, the ancient ritual usage of Christianity (at least in this region) promoted abuse, which calls into question the legitimacy of the historic Church as a faithful follower of Christ and safeguarder of his mysteries.

One is on a more solid footing in questioning the traditional credentials of Holy Communion distributed by laypeople, the diminishment of the pre-Communion fast, exceptional administration of sacraments to those perceived as material schismatics and heretics, and yes, the reversal of liturgical developments to promote ecumenism.

John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh

There is an hour-long lecture by John O'Malley SJ on YouTube on Pope Francis and Vatican II. I took the trouble to watch it and found it (shall we say) an example of special pleading. This is not, of course, to suggest that those who oppose his interpretation are not guilty of the same fault.

I imagine that those who agree with his point of view would find his arguments convincing, and those who disagree with it would not. This is not surprising - we are not swayed by argument, but are looking for arguments which reinforce our prejudices.

Vatican II did not lead to a renewal of the Church. That much is obvious. To what extent can it be blamed for the current state of affairs? That is a matter of conjecture. If a precipitous decline was going to happen anyway, then one can absolve the Council of any responsibility and dismiss any connection (post hoc ergo propter hoc). But this makes the Council at best irrelevant.

Another argument would maintain that without the Council things would be even worse. The problem with this sort of conjecture is that it cannot draw on any evidence to support it, and it becomes an exercise in wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

"which calls into question the legitimacy of the historic Church as a faithful follower of Christ and safeguarder of his mysteries."


If there was reception in the hand in the very early Church, what are you saying?
Am I given to understand that you are calling into question the legitimacy of the historic Church as a faithful follower of Christ, both East and West? This is how I am understanding your statement. I won't go there myself. God doesn't abandon what he

Adam Michael said...


Maybe I should have been more specific. I am condemning rather the arguments against Communion in the hand since I believe that these arguments logically result in one attributing official liturgical abuse to the ancient Church - a conclusion, which is unthinkable.