Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

[spn82756]

For those who can not view this clip:

Most of the video is recounting the story of his experience as a youth, his emotions at the time and some history of the early church receiving on the hand. Nothing he said is in direct contradiction with the Holy Father. His testimonial and the history part ended eight minutes into the eleven minute video. Most of the remainder is a response to a “softball” question by Fr. Pacwa asking him to respond to those who say they are adults and can feed themselves. This attitude and this reason, the Bishop criticized.

I do not think the title even is completely accurate. The bishop did not criticize communion in the hand per se, but gave his emotions when the change occurred and countered one lame arguement against CITH. Mostly, he spoke of the reverence due the Holy Eucharist, specifically when receiving on the tongue and the need for greater caution at communion, as well as greater reverence.

I found the man to be gentle and uplifting, not critical at all, in what he said.

His speaking was very humble…but what struck me was that after 4 parishes…his family decided neither practiced reverent Communion. He and his family could have continued to receive on the tongue.

As a sidebar…I am one of a very small minority that receive on the tongue here at my parish. Even a family that genuflects before receiving receives in the hand. This includes the mother that always wears a mantilla. I consider them to be examples of great reverence.

 

[ProVobis]

But we need to remember that the Church allows …

I won’t argue with the word “allows” but “tolerates what was started as an abuse or defiance of a sacrilegious sin” would be better descriptive in my opinion.

Again, allowing ONLY IN CERTAIN REGIONS, which is determined by the synod of bishops, I believe? But can be restricted further. And I see nothing wrong in the 21st century that airwaves are used to persuade to restrict even further still, realizing of course there are many Catholics who have been conditioned only to receiving CITH.

However, I still hold to my position of its being a sacrilege to receive CITH if you intend to disrespect Christ or fragments of Christ by doing so.

 

[spn82756]

I won’t argue with the word “allows” but “tolerates what was started as an abuse or defiance of a sacrilegious sin” would be better descriptive in my opinion.

Again, allowing ONLY IN CERTAIN REGIONS, which is determined by the synod of bishops, I believe? But can be restricted further. And I see nothing wrong in the 21st century that airwaves are used to persuade to restrict even further still, realizing of course there are many Catholics who have been conditioned only to receiving CITH.

I still hold to my position of its being a sacrilege to receive CITH if you intend to disrespect Christ or fragments of Christ by doing so.

And what I have made bold we are in TOTAL agreement with. Of course I would hope that no one going to receive the Eucharist would do so to disrespect Christ. BTW…I was once an EMHC and am no longer. I feel the priest should be to one to give us the Eucharist. If I receive on the tongue…then I should not be giving to others…whether CITH or COTT. But we must keep in mind the response of Fr. Serpa. He is a part of Apostolic Succession…right?

 

[choy]

True but the distance from the ciborium to your mouth is a lot shorter and means fewer particles are discarded which hopefully are caught with the paten and the ciborium as well.

the fact is we should care for every small particle. you mean the one crumb falling on the floor from the hand of the priest is “less Jesus” than the dozens of crumbs falling from a lay person’s hand?

 

[spn82756]

the fact is we should care for every small particle. you mean the one crumb falling on the floor from the hand of the priest is “less Jesus” than the dozens of crumbs falling from a lay person’s hand?

I don’t think that is the spirit of Provobis’s comment at all.

 

[choy]

I don’t think that is the spirit of Provobis’s comment at all.

i think it is
the way i understand it is that what falls of the priest’s hands is few, therefore negligible
in any case, i’d rather let the person who made the statement clarify it

 

[spn82756]

i think it is
the way i understand it is that what falls of the priest’s hands is few, therefore negligible
in any case, i’d rather let the person who made the statement clarify it

You are correct…but this is a forum. Part of it is interpreting what each of us is saying and responding to that. I’m responding to what the two of you have said. And to quote him…

True but the distance from the ciborium to your mouth is a lot shorter and means fewer particles are discarded which hopefully are caught with the paten and the ciborium as well.

I think the implication is that reverence is warranted for every SACRED particle…crumb…or whatever you chose to call it. The choice of the word discarded may be an error. From the tone of other posts…he likely meant “dropped…lost…fallen…ETC”

 

[ProVobis]

the fact is we should care for every small particle. you mean the one crumb falling on the floor from the hand of the priest is “less Jesus” than the dozens of crumbs falling from a lay person’s hand?

This is getting ugly. I didn’t mean this to be a physics class. But there is only a minimal chance of discarded particles reaching the floor (or your clothes, for that matter) if the priests after he makes the sign of the cross with the consecrated host over the ciborium, he places it on your tongue (over an airspace distance of, what, 12 inches or so?) with a paten held underneath it all. I suppose this works for any minister of communion, though I don’t think extraordinary ministers do the sign of the cross with the host in the OF.