Cardinal: Communion in the Hand Is From Satan – It Is Not God’s Will…

From Lifesitenews… 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.

Cardinal Robert Sarah

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,” he said.

The new book, by Don Federico Bortoli, was released in Italian under the title: ‘The distribution of Communion on the hand: a historical, juridical and pastoral survey’ [La distribuzione della comunione sulla mano. Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali].

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 communicating 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.

Angel of Peace at Fatima

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? 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. 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. 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! On the contrary, 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 ‘up to a certain point’.”

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. 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).

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 communicating 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.  [emphases added]. 
* Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Comment:

Surely, no Catholic reading the above could continue to participate in this Satanic attack on the Eucharist?  Indeed, could anyone who continues to receive Communion in the hand after reading the above, honestly claim to believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, truly present in every particle of the Sacred Species?

33 responses

  1. This is truth revealed and preached! The novus ordo has blinded clergy and laity into participating in this abuse. The disrespectful reception of the blessed sacrament is at the core of the crisis in the church! This condemnation is not new we only need to see the words of Pope John Paul II repeated many times on this abuse. This is were the battlefield is and were the crisis will be resolved.

  2. I just wish Cardinal Sarah would go the whole hog and say Catholics must return to the Mass of their Fathers, the Mass of the saints who would not recognise the novus ordo as anything but an Anglican service.

    I do welcome this latest statement against Communion in the hand, of course, but I honestly don’t think the majority of Catholics will pay the slightest attention to it, even if they get to know about it, which is not guaranteed. I can’t see many priests preaching about this, to be frank.

  3. I’m with Michaela in the “whole hog” department! Aside from the highly questionable reference to JPII and Mother Teresa as “two great saints,” and maybe even the pseudo-desperate choice of holding them up as models simply because they received the Blessed Sacrament as Catholics are supposed to do, this article gives some hope that there is still some clear spring of traditional faith and traditional thinking amongst the heavily polluted waters of Novus Ordo land. After all, when St. Bernadette (a REAL saint) starting scraping in the rock at Our Lady’s command, all she found at first was muddy water. Keep scraping, Your Eminence! (And while you’re at it, don’t forget to speak out against the betrayal of the Chinese faithful.)

    Meanwhile, back at the corrupt spinmeisters in the hierarchy, I’m sure this book and its introduction will be denounced as an attack on Vatican II….which would be the ideal time to point out that Communion in the hand is nowhere to be found in the documents of Vatican II.

  4. Here is a brief summary (excerpted) of how this sacrilege got started:

    An Indult Born Out of Disobedience

    The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world’s bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: “From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.” After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.

    Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence.

    http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.WpArM3xG2M8

    • RCA Victor. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is simply this. After watching this shambolic practice over the years, I am convinced that a majority of NO Priests no longer believe in Transubsubstantiation. If they did believe, then they could NOT countenance such a practice. I sometimes wonder if they never ever believed, but pretended to believe to go with the flow over the years, now they do not seem to care a toss.

      As a child we were taught to make the sign of the cross when passing by a church as the Blessed Sacrament was in the Tabernacle. We were taught not to talk to priest in the street, but just to salute him as he may be carrying the Blessed Sacrament to the dying.Sanctuary lamps were NEVER allowed to go out.

      At Benediction, the priest held the Monstrance with his hands wrapped in his vestments as a sign of reverence. People knelt on BOTH knees during Exposition.

      If a Consecrated Host was dropped, then there was a special ritual for retrieval.

      But for sure there is a group of people who firmly believe in the Blessed Sacrament and they are “Satanists”……easy to filch and be used in their profane ceremonies.

      • St Miguel,

        If the majority of NO priests no longer believe in Transubstantiation, wouldn’t that make their Masses invalid, since they are not performing the Consecration according to the intention of the Church? (Condition #2 for validity: the intent of the priest). http://ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

        When I was a little boy, my mother left the Church, but my aunt and uncle remained faithful, and it was my uncle who taught me to make the sign of the cross when passing a Church. Also a cemetery. As I told them much later in life, if it hadn’t been for them, I would never have returned to the Church.

        • Yes, the Cemetery sign of the cross and also when a hearse drove by, some people made the sign of the cross or crossed their forehead and the men would take off their hats. Locally I have seen rushed N.O. Masses, priests looking at their watches in the middle of the service,trying to move things on and Mass times changed in order for parishioners to get to football games.Unseemly Communion in the hand by so called Eucharistic Ministers. I refuse Communion in the hand and a N.O. Priest called ME ‘a dissenter’ and several times tried to ram the Consecrated Host in to my mouth as if to make a point!

          • St Miguel,

            I was once driving through an English town, where I lived at the time, chatting to my passenger, a friend who was visiting for a few days.

            Every time we passed a local cemetery, he blessed himself not once but twice.

            Eventually, trying to hide my exasperation at what I considered to be excessive piety – more accurately, piosity – I asked him why he kept crossing himself twice, to which he replied, face straight as a poker, probably because you don’t bless yourself at all! 😀

            Cheeky!

            • Ha ha!……the only time I see something like this is on a Canadian Detective series, Murdoch Mysteries on tv, which is set in 1900 in Toronto, where the Police, seeing a dead body, automatically Bless themselves.I am surprised that some UK viewers are not as yet “offended”!

    • RCA Victor,

      It’s totally scandalous that this has come in to corrupt the liturgy all because of disobedient bishops. I wonder if they’re feeling proud of themselves now that they can see the Church has gone into terminal decline, and this is one major reason for it.

      • Thank you Nicky, I’ve already started reading it and have it bookmarked. Thoroughly devastating, both in terms of the frauds perpetrated by the “reformers,” and in terms of the shallow spinelessness of the bishops.

  5. I definitely think the bishops should announce that Communion may only be received on the tongue because it is obviously not God’s will to have such sacrilegious handling of the Blessed Sacrament going on daily in our churches.

  6. Well it seems the German Bishops are now OK’ing Communion for non catholic spouses, according to Cardinal Reinhard Marx…so what was the point in making your First Communion?…..if I was a juror, looking at the evidence presented to me, it would appear to me that these Churchmen do NOT believe what I believe.Communion in the hand is in my mind nothing short of Sacrilege.

  7. It was a masterstroke of Cardinal Sarah to use the Angel at Fatima to drive home the importance of receiving on the tongue, however, I’m surprised that he gave the Chalice to two of the children.

    “Then the Angel appeared to us for the third time. He was holding a chalice in his hand. A Host was over it, from which fell some drops of Blood into the chalice. Leaving the chalice and Host suspended in mid-air, he prostrated himself on the ground, repeating this prayer three times: “‘Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore Thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the same Son Jesus Christ, present in the Tabernacles of the world, in reparation for all the sacrileges, outrages and indifferences by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.’” The Angel then arose, and holding the chal ice and the Host again, he gave the Host to Lucia, and the contents of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, while he said: . “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” He prostrated himself again on the ground and again repeated with the children three times the prayer: “Most Holy Trinity…” Then he disappeared. http://www.fatimacrusader.com/truestory/pdf/tspg5.pdf

    I notice he didn’t give Communion under both kinds, but I am surprised that he gave the Chalice at all. Is there an explanation for this?

    • Margaret Mary,

      Very good question, I never noticed that before. I wonder if it had something to do with the fact that it was only Jacinta and Francisco who received the Chalice, since both of them died young.

      • MM & RCA Victor,

        It IS a good question and, like you, RCA Victor, I’ve never noticed that before, either.

        At what I hope is an intelligent guess, I’d say that the Precious Blood would have to be consumed and so the Angel distributed the Sacred Species equally – the Host to one of the children and the Chalice to the other two. It is noteworthy that he did not give Communion under both kinds to the three children. They received EITHER the Host OR the Chalice.

        I agree, too, with RCA Victor that it may be significant that the Chalice was given to the two younger seers, who were to be taken to Heaven soon.

        Whatever, I think a key lesson for us today in this matter is that the children were not given Communion under both kinds. That confirms Cardinal Sarah’s point about the traditional means of receiving Communion being pleasing to God, while the modernist innovations are decidedly not.

        I hope this all makes sense. There is, after all, a first time for everything, remember! 😀

        • To add to my previous comment on the Angel giving one of the child seers the Host and the other two children the Chalice, this underlines the Church’s teaching that Christ is received, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire, under EITHER the Host OR the Chalice.

          I didn’t stress that in my original comment on this subject, to answer (I hope) Margaret Mary’s question, so, mea culpa for this omission.

          • RCA Victor & Editor,

            Thank you for your answers – they have answered my question, it makes perfect sense now, that the way Holy Communion was given to the children, confirms Catholic teaching on the Real Presence.

          • Editor,

            I agree. It completely debunks the modern, Protestant error that we somehow receive “more” Holy Communion if we receive under both kinds.

            • School children these days making their First Communion are taught how to hold their hands out in a certain fashion to ‘create a small throne for Our Lord’. As an aside, a while back while at a NO Mass, I was one of the last out to Communion. I refuse to go to a Eucharistic minister. I watched everyone and was amazed to notice that only one other person than me would not receive in the hand. This throws the priest off his routine and visibly annoys him! What is worse, is watching people in their 60’s 70’s and 80’s receiving in the hand. I cannot accept that the priest who in this case is mid 70’s actually believes that this is not sacrilege, or he is so Protestantised he no longer believes in the Blessed Sacrament. Did he EVER believe I wonder.

  8. Oh yes. John Paul II is a wonderful “saint.” So much so that he did nothing to ban Communion in the Hand, not even slowly phase it out – and he even gave Communion in the Hand himself. What a great super saint! He should be double-canonized due to the amount of sanctity flowing out of his ears.

    • Amos,

      be consoled in the knowledge that it is the considered opinion of Catholic Truth that Pope John Paul II was/is not a “canonisable” saint.

      We, of course, hope and pray that he is saved, but, whether he is in the Communion of Saints in Heaven, with all the other non-canonised saints or whether he remains in Purgatory, he is certainly not “canonisable”, having, as you indicate in just one (important) area of the life of the Church, presided over scandal after scandal and, by his own admission in the very last book he penned on earth, failed in that one crucial papal duty, disciplining dissenters.

      Chaos reigned during his pontificate and he did nothing to stem it. Tragically. So, as I indicated at the time of his canonisation, the only time we will every publish “St John Paul II” is when we are quoting someone else. You won’t see it in any original Catholic Truth article or comment.

      • Disciplining dissenters is a point….he did not excommunicate a single US Pro-abort politician who continued to go to Communion…one got a state funeral with multiple clergy attending!…BUT he excommunicated 4 SSPX bishops in a New York minute.(Which turned out to be an error and had to be reversed). The political elite have become emboldened and cock a snoot at Rome and are never reined in by their gutless prelates.

        Anyway,is it not the case that Canonisations are Infallible? Ergo Vat 2 is ‘canonised ‘and the three Popes will be canonised when Paul VI is made a Saint in October.So Rome will take no prisoners with anti- Vat 2 dissenters from that point on, surely.

        Pius XII would have wiped the floor with the pro-aborts, but he is marginalised these days and barely gets a mention.

        In my humble opinion the whole business is ‘Mission Creep’…the old boiling frog analogy.I watched a service on tv a while back and thought it was a NO service…..only after a while the penny dropped..it was an Anglican service.

        So you can hardly get an example as better in ‘who copied whom’….did we end up with a pseudo Anglican service or did the Anglican copy our NO service….I throw the towel in trying to keep up with this stuff.

        Had it not been for the SSPX, where oh where would be be?

  9. Here is a quote from Michael Davies’ excellent book recommended above by Nicky:

    “It will be noted here that the consecration of the priest’s hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host, something denied in such propaganda tracts as Take and Eat. The fact that the Protestant reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny the Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries [when Communion in the hand, under a different form, was practiced]. This practice, then, is totally unacceptable in Catholic worship, and can never become acceptable. Contemporary Protestants would certainly not change to the reception of Communion on the tongue to accommodate Catholics, and so, in the interests of a spurious ecumenism, Catholics are being made to accept what is specifically a Protestant practice in order to remove any remaining vestige of external respect for the Blessed Sacrament which those who consider it to be no more than bread would find offensive. This is something which should not surprise us — it is simply a logical continuation of the pattern which began with the destruction of the Mass of St. Pius V.”

    • RCA Victor,

      That’s a fantastic quote – Michael Davies has got it in one. You won’t find any Protestants receiving on the tongue. That’s the major clue as to the purpose of receiving in the hand. To reduce belief in the Real Presence, and boy, has it worked.

    • RCA Victor. Several years ago at my Mother’s funeral, which was a N.O. Requiem Mass, with a could not care less priest, who could not even be bothered to attend the graveside,sending a Deacon instead (who just happened to be my childhood friend from primary school,which helped a bit! ) and surrounded by lapsed Catholics and bitter (and I mean bitter) protestant family members, I got to pick the hymns.

      To REMIND all attending that this was a Catholic funeral and ALL were in the Presence of Our Lord in the Tabernacle…I picked this hymn, which reminded all present that the Blessed Sacrament was resident…the words reinforce this point admirably.

    • Theresa Rose,

      That’s a great cartoon, LOL!

      I agree, Gloria TV has provided a timely reminder for us that judgment is not on a case by case basis! LOL!

%d bloggers like this: