Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

[bpbasilphx]

\Or you can take the advice of a Holy Saint: "Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” Quoted from Fr. George William Rutler about Mother Teresa.\

**Mother Teresa denied that she ever said this.

Did you know that?

And why is your tongue more worthy to hold the Lord than your hand?**

 

[palmas85]

\Or you can take the advice of a Holy Saint: "Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” Quoted from Fr. George William Rutler about Mother Teresa.\

**Mother Teresa denied that she ever said this.

Did you know that?

And why is your tongue more worthy to hold the Lord than your hand?**

For someone who is not even a member of the Roman Church, you seem to take a great deal of delight in hanging around this forum in particular. I do wonder exactly what your motives are at times…

 

[brotherhrolf]

\Or you can take the advice of a Holy Saint: "Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” Quoted from Fr. George William Rutler about Mother Teresa.\

**Mother Teresa denied that she ever said this.

Did you know that?

And why is your tongue more worthy to hold the Lord than your hand?**

Bishop, you are not a pre-Vatican II Latin Rite Roman Catholic. We were taught from second grade on that one does not profane the Holy Eucharist. I don’t care what goes on in the Eastern rite churches or the Orthodox. That is what I was taught. I am 58 years old and I have never received the Holy Eucharist in the hand.

Want to be even more technical, good bishop? I attended the Eastern Orthodox Holy Saturday liturgy with a classmate who is Orthodox many, many moons ago. I did not understand the Orthodox practice of offering unconsecrated bread as “communion”. I still don’t understand that.

I freaked out because I was not in a state of grace. I would not, could not, and will not receive the Eucharist unworthily.

I was an altar boy for too many years. Have paten will travel. I know from personal experience just how many fragments of the Holy Eucharist were caught with the paten.
And then there was the second line of “defense” - the communion rail cloth.

If y’all wan’t to receive in the hand, more power to you. It is not what we did before Vatican II.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
And why is your tongue more worthy to hold the Lord than your hand?

Rather than reducing it to a question of different members of the body, perhaps a better grasp could be obtained by widening the scope. It needs to be understood from the perspective of *expression of reverence * and from the perspective of, what in fact, Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is : *intimate union of the faithful with our Blessed Lord *in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I think it’s more meant to focus on reverential expression and conduciveness to intimacy rather than worthiness.

Pope Paul VI, in his Encyclical- **Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion **;The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969 , said it this way:

"…This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

The Holy Spirit guides the Church through the Apostolic See . If someone is in disagreement with the above excerpt, I suppose they’ll have to take it up with Him.

Kudos to ljubim

…
:newidea: How about a paten!

…

and to brotherhrolf

… Have paten will travel. …

You both made an important point but also gave me a much needed smile at the same time.

Thanks, and God Bless

 

[pnewton]

For someone who is not even a member of the Roman Church, you seem to take a great deal of delight in hanging around this forum in particular. I do wonder exactly what your motives are at times…

As communion is not received in the hand at the TLM, perhaps he has the same motivation that brings those who avoid any Mass from the current missal to discuss* that* liturgy. I can understand the desire to dispel something that is rumor and urban legend, as well as the desire to see a practice considered irreverent rescinded.

What is not in question, though, is what this bishop is saying, not what Mother Theresa did or did not say. It is not like this will ever be confirmed or repudiated.

 

[George14]

I just discovered this thread and haven’t read all the pages of posts, but I recalled that Jesus gave communion in the hand to His disciples… I don’t think we are to obsess over this; the familiarity of Our Lord’s interaction with his friends was informal, approachable - PEACE BE TO YOU the ever present first words. There is a certain sense in which obsessive formality constitutes a kind of “flattery” of God, and if that *replaces *the essential meaning of communion and worship, which is Union - fusion, as it were, we lose out on the deeper desire of Our Lord’s gift to us. Love is gift of SELF, and Jesus wants us to become one with him. Excessive deference can insert a kind of barrier of impersonalization, where trust and fa-miliarity is more desirable.

I’m not sure I make sense with this, but it’s my take on it. And not for a moment do I intend to “give permission” to casual or presumptive “in your face” irreverence…

 

[Layman]

Changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, from a priest to standing, in the hand, from a laywoman makes no sense at all.

There’s a contradiction here: Mass is supposed to be a sacred and mysterious rite but mundane elements have been added since the 60’s: CITH, lay lectors, the vernacular, EHMCs, altar rails removed, bare churches, priest facing the congregation, folky music etc.

Then people wonder why those attending behave casually. Answer: they’re being cued that it’s more of a friendly, communal meal, rather than an awesome rite of sacrifice.

You can’t have it both ways; an awe-inspiring rite but with kids drawings in the sanctuary and Mrs. Goodlady reading the epistle.

I feel sorry for priests who are struggling with attendance figures, their congregants behaviour and maybe their vocation as a result. May this mass-delusion end soon.

Sorry if this bores long-standing members of the forum.

 

[ProVobis]

What is not in question, though, is what this bishop is saying

Yes, what the bishop says is important, but I’ll bet the bishop is also influenced by the current desires of his congregation before making decisions too.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please do not judge me. I’ve seen what I have seen. Also this is a very emotional issue for me, it greatly troubles me when people disrespect Our Lord, and because this happens so often these days I feel like I’m sometimes always on the defensive. So forgive me if I sound confrontational.

Can you provide evidence that Mother Teresa didn’t say this?(Do you doubt simply because you don’t agree?) I would very much appreciate it. God bless.

A) I’m not judging you. I’m assessing what you’ve said, what you’ve written. I have never, in my 21 years as a Catholic, witnessed a priest of Jesus Christ or any other minister of Holy Communion fling the Most Blessed Sacrament. When you use the word “fling,” it begs to be explained. I believe it is a mere rhetorical device, used to induce an emotional response.

B) This may be an emotional issue for you, but your argument should be based on fact and reason, from which the Faith can never be divorced. It is an emotional issue for me when people try to force the consciences of others where the Church has allowed liberty and latitude (ie, you may choose to receive on the tongue, they may choose to receive in the hand).

C) Because the Church allows this practice, it follows that it is NOT disrespect to Our Blessed Lord. The Church’s disciplines are protected, AT THE LEAST, by a negative infallibility, ie, they are unable, of themselves, to lead the faithful into impiety or, if you prefer, disrespect. They may be prudentially unwise, but they are NOT profane.

D) Again, if you want to argue that reception on the tongue, as an outward sign, demonstrates more fully the reverence due the Holy One in the Blessed Sacrament or that it demonstrates more fully the Church’s developed understanding of the Nature of the Most Blessed Sacrament (ie, so does kneeling for reception, for that matter), you won’t get a rebuttal from me.

 

[DOShea]

Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t hear the Bishop give one reason why other than he was brought up in a way that suggested it wasn’t respectful (doesn’t mean it is), his mother didn’t like it (doesn’t mean it’s bad because she didn’t). He also made a confusing statement, saying communion was changed from hand to tongue in the 5th century, and that we shouldn’t change backward to the 5th century because of… I forget the exact words, something like “the law of progress.” What is THAT? Why did they change it in the first place if change wasn’t acceptable ever?

I don’t think anyone, this Bishop included, has the ability to discern any person’s inner feelings toward the Eucharist, and lacking that ability, it is only someone’s guess as to whether or not there is reverence and respect for the Sacrament when they receive it, no matter how they receive it. CITH does not relate to lack of respect automatically.

If these different ways are both accepted by the Church, why not leave it to the individual or the circumstance/rite to determine which is acceptable? Why does there have to be such division over what someone else is doing, particularly when it is authorized?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

For someone who is not even a member of the Roman Church, you seem to take a great deal of delight in hanging around this forum in particular. I do wonder exactly what your motives are at times…

Truth?

 

[ProVobis]

Christ doesn’t fail at all. My point is that this cannot be an issue of other than discipline (contrary to the argument drawn from the assertion that the practice leads to the heresy of consubstantiation) because IF it were a matter of faith and morals, then possibly the Apostles and their Disciples and the Early Church were all in error and we know that cannot be.

*O tempora, O mores. *

Faith can be expanded, morals can be influenced and affected by the environment. I didn’t say CITH will lead to the heresy of consubstantiation in all cases but for someone who doesn’t know any better in today’s environment, he or she can develop can develop a mindset where, because he feeds himself the same way as he consumes communion, he will probably be nourished the same way as well. Consubstantiation means the unconsecrated host will still remain bread after consecration. Transubstantiation means the consecrated host will only have the accidents of bread. This is not a semantical difference. It is a real difference in theology but most will probably dismiss it as not too important and they couldn’t be more wrong and we as Catholics need to understand it **and practice it. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, from a priest to standing, in the hand, from a laywoman makes no sense at all.

There’s a contradiction here: Mass is supposed to be a sacred and mysterious rite but mundane elements have been added since the 60’s: CITH, lay lectors, the vernacular, EHMCs, altar rails removed, bare churches, priest facing the congregation, folky music etc.

Then people wonder why those attending behave casually. Answer: they’re being cued that it’s more of a friendly, communal meal, rather than an awesome rite of sacrifice.

You can’t have it both ways; an awe-inspiring rite but with kids drawings in the sanctuary and Mrs. Goodlady reading the epistle.

I feel sorry for priests who are struggling with attendance figures, their congregants behaviour and maybe their vocation as a result. May this mass-delusion end soon.

Sorry if this bores long-standing members of the forum.

While I disagree with you on the issue of the vernacular, you’re quite right. “Tone” sets tone. The restoration of the Communion rails and a reversion back to Communion on the tongue WOULD go a long way to repairing this.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

O tempora, O mores.

Faith can be expanded, morals can be influenced and affected by the environment. I didn’t say CITH will lead to the heresy of consubstantiation in all cases but for someone who doesn’t know any better in today’s environment, he or she can develop can develop a mindset where, because he feeds himself the same way as he consumes communion, he will probably be nourished the same way as well. Consubstantiation means the unconsecrated host will still remain bread after consecration. Transubstantion means the consecrated host will only have the accidents of bread. This is not a semantical difference. It is a real difference in theology but most will probably dismiss it as not too important and they couldn’t be more wrong and we as Catholics need to understand it **and practice it. **

But that wasn’t the thrust of your post, in which you also tried to tie the MODE of reception to infallibility (which, at most, would be the negative infallibility that protects the faithful from acts of impiety sanctioned by the Church…which she is incapable of sanctioning anyway). “Mindset” is a different argument and if you read my immediate past post, you’ll find I agree with you.

 

[ProVobis]

But that wasn’t the thrust of your post, in which you also tried to tie the MODE of reception to infallibility (which, at most, would be the negative infallibility that protects the faithful from acts of impiety sanctioned by the Church…which she is incapable of sanctioning anyway). “Mindset” is a different argument and if you read my immediate past post, you’ll find I agree with you.

I admit I was trying to tie it into trying to avoid a heretical mindset but as long as we are in agreement on something, I’m not going to push that idea any further. We can discuss the issues of infallibility at some more appropriate time.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I just discovered this thread and haven’t read all the pages of posts, but I recalled that Jesus gave communion in the hand to His disciples…

Wow, that’s news to me. He instituted the sacrament on Holy Thursday and at the last supper his apostles, His Bishops, took the Sacrament in their hands. He did not give them “communion in the hand”.

 

[neiacatholic]

Absolutely Jesus gave his disciples communion in the hand.

In fact I would assume they took the body of Christ and fragmented it themselves and I would guess they were not too concerned about any crumbs.

And as far as profane or not profane.

I have met many people who receive communion on the tongue whose mouths are plenty profane.

We have far greater crises in the world and the Catholic Church than to worry about whether it is proper to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

Both are acceptable by the Catholic Church in US.

 

[ProVobis]

In fact I would assume they took the body of Christ and fragmented it themselves and I would guess they were not too concerned about any crumbs.

You can’t assume that.

I have met many people who receive communion on the tongue whose mouths are plenty profane.

You can’t assume that they didn’t go to confession either.

We have far greater crises in the world and the Catholic Church than to worry about whether it is proper to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

True if you don’t care about your spiritual life.

 

[pnewton]

He instituted the sacrament on Holy Thursday and at the last supper his apostles, His Bishops, took the Sacrament in their hands.

Absolutely Jesus gave his disciples communion in the hand.

Fortunately, we had Leonardo on hand to paint a picture and resolve this issue. He sat down and passed the bread.

Seriously, how can we debate the mechanics of that evening. The video was lost in 70 AD when Jerusalem fell. Best not to use that as an example one way or another.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wow, that’s news to me. He instituted the sacrament on Holy Thursday and at the last supper his apostles, His Bishops, took the Sacrament in their hands. He did not give them “communion in the hand”.

You’ve taken an assumption and worked backwards to support it. The argument is that the Apostles, being ordained, COULD take the Sacrament into their hands, but no one else could. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the Apostles, bishops indeed, took the Sacrament into their hands (I’ve heard “traditionalists” argue that Our Lord placed it on their tongues and that’s where COTT came from, so which is it?), there is no hard and fast evidence as to HOW Our Blessed Lord administered that first Holy Communion, and there is absolutely no evidence that the early Church (Apostolic and Patristic) had the understanding that only the ordained could touch the Blessed Sacrament.