Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

[ljubim]

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.

I agree!

If it was CITH, these were ordained bishops worthy and prepared to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

If it was COTT, well we have a lot of logic to support this.

Casino Online Brazil 2024 | Jogos De Casino Online

The best online casino sites in Brazil in 2024. Our best specialists have created casino bonuses especially for you. TOP bonuses today, best casino sites, online casino and casino games just for you.

www.catholic-pages.com

1. The Last Supper
   But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

They reference this:[BIBLEDRB]John 13:26[/BIBLEDRB]
And I think Saint Ignatius said the final quote. Or Augustine. I cannot remember

Historically, both sides hold relatively equal merit. And neither invalidates the other method, of course, but reverence and care DO differentiate one from the other. (Not reverence throughout history, as in the first few centuries the FEW who practiced CITH washed their hands and checked them for fragments, rather than wiping them on their jeans.)

It’s not the mode itself, but the reverence and danger of losing fragments of the Blessed Sacrament, that is at stake here. (COTT clearly trumps the other, in the very least on the danger issue.)

I would like to add that yes, St. Cyril did guide us in the reverent way to receive in the hand, BUT the consensus of ALL of the saints of the time (St. Basil, Pope St. Leo, St. Thomas Aquinas… the list goes on INFINITELY.) is that communion is to be received on the tongue, except in grave circumstances such as a time of persecution.

Not to mention that the Cyril quote is disputed just as me previous Mother Teresa quote; many say it was truly his successor who said this. And since Cyril and Basil spoke at the very same time in history, not to mention the weight of the wisdom of other theologians, it is intellectually impossible to defend widespread, unneccessary CITH with St. Cyril’s quote.

 

[Canto]

but I recalled that Jesus gave communion in the hand to His disciples…

But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?

Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

 

[palmas85]

But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?

Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

I have been bringing the same fact up on these forums since I started here. I have also brought up repeatedly why the early Churches received in the hand . They, some of the more progressive among us, don’t want to hear these things and they refuse to listen to them. Sometimes I wonder where they developed the hatred and bitterness that so many of them obviously have for Communion on the tongue.

 

[ljubim]

I have been bringing the same fact up on these forums since I started here. I have also brought up repeatedly why the early Churches received in the hand . They, some of the more progressive among us, don’t want to hear these things and they refuse to listen to them. Sometimes I wonder where they developed the hatred and bitterness that so many of them obviously have for Communion on the tongue.

YES! A hatred of tradition and hard facts can come only from the devil, the prince of LIES.

 

[ljubim]

But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is, one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”

Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?

Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

Lol Canto, we typed at the same time and quoted the same quote! What are the chances?

 

[Canto]

Lol Canto, we typed at the same time and quoted the same quote! What are the chances?

btw love the video in your signature!

 

[ProVobis]

Sometimes I wonder where they developed the hatred and bitterness that so many of them obviously have for Communion on the tongue.

It’s learned. We are not born with hatred and bitterness. I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are a few who have hatred and bitterness for all traditional customs just because they are traditional customs. What’s really amazing is how much research people are willing to do to find some historical precedence for their position to attack traditionalists. Let’s face it, hatred and bitterness are powerful motivators, but, to be fair, it’s true on both sides.

 

[ljubim]

btw love the video in your signature!

Thanks Share it with as many people as you can! Visual aids are often more useful than our words. It doesn’t draw hatred as easily I think.

 

[Lormar]

Pro Vobis - I’m glad you acknowledge that it is on both sides. Few traditionals will admit to it. It took me decades to see it.

 

[ProVobis]

Pro Vobis - I’m glad you acknowledge that it is on both sides.

I take it that means I’ll never make it as a good politician?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree!

If it was CITH, these were ordained bishops worthy and prepared to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

If it was COTT, well we have a lot of logic to support this.

They reference this:[bibledrb]John 13:26[/bibledrb]
And I think Saint Ignatius said the final quote. Or Augustine. I cannot remember

Historically, both sides hold relatively equal merit. And neither invalidates the other method, of course, but reverence and care DO differentiate one from the other. (Not reverence throughout history, as in the first few centuries the FEW who practiced CITH washed their hands and checked them for fragments, rather than wiping them on their jeans).

It’s not the mode itself, but the reverence and danger of losing fragments of the Blessed Sacrament, that is at stake here. (COTT clearly trumps the other, in the very least on the danger issue.)

I would like to add that yes, St. Cyril did guide us in the reverent way to receive in the hand, BUT the consensus of ALL of the saints of the time (St. Basil, Pope St. Leo, St. Thomas Aquinas… the list goes on INFINITELY.) is that communion is to be received on the tongue, except in grave circumstances such as a time of persecution.

Not to mention that the Cyril quote is disputed just as me previous Mother Teresa quote; many say it was truly his successor who said this. And since Cyril and Basil spoke at the very same time in history, not to mention the weight of the wisdom of other theologians, it is intellectually impossible to defend widespread, unneccessary CITH with St. Cyril’s quote.

Again, we need to be careful. There is NO consensus (and the list is hardly “infinite”) that what the saints you quote said is what YOU and and some others say they meant.

Saint Basil’s admonition that only in times of persecution could one receive Communion by one’s own hand has also been interpreted to mean that one went and GOT the Blessed Sacrament and then consumed it,NOT that the priest or deacon could not or did not place it in one’s hand for consumption (which is NOT self-communion; self-communion is what the celebrant and con-celebrating priests do at the altar). And I doubt very much that Pope St. Leo’s words, quoted in the article you cite, necessarily implies, much less orders, communion on the tongue. “One recieves in the mouth what one believes by faith.” It is a STRETCH to say that that dictates a mode of reception. It seems to say that WHAT, or rather, WHO we consume is the One in whom we have believed by faith. It does NOT remotely seem to indicate “that which is place in our mouths.”

Again, I am sorry, but I have to tend to something else. I will attempt to respond at length latter, esp. to what you’ve cited. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s learned. We are not born with hatred and bitterness. I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are a few who have hatred and bitterness for all traditional customs just because they are traditional customs. What’s really amazing is how much research people are willing to do to find some historical precedence for their position to attack traditionalists. Let’s face it, hatred and bitterness are powerful motivators, but, to be fair, it’s true on both sides.

Now, ProVobis, I’m going to agree with you, going the other way, as it were (and I’ve got to be brief). I think a LOT of priests and nuns (esp. nuns) are infected with the “Spirit of Vatican II” and their loathing of all that is “pre-conciliar” is every bit as nasty, every bit as dismissive, and every bit as ill-educated and ill-informed as a great deal of the “traditionalist” invective that I have read in these fora.

Must go.

 

[ljubim]

Again, we need to be careful. There is NO consensus (and the list is hardly “infinite”) that what the saints you quote said is what YOU and and some others say they meant.

Saint Basil’s admonition that only in times of persecution could one receive Communion by one’s own hand has also been interpreted to mean that one went and GOT the Blessed Sacrament and then consumed it,NOT that the priest or deacon could not or did not place it in one’s hand for consumption (which is NOT self-communion; self-communion is what the celebrant and con-celebrating priests do at the altar). And I doubt very much that Pope St. Leo’s words, quoted in the article you cite, necessarily implies, much less orders, communion on the tongue. “One recieves in the mouth what one believes by faith.” It is a STRETCH to say that that dictates a mode of reception. It seems to say that WHAT, or rather, WHO we consume is the One in whom we have believed by faith. It does NOT remotely seem to indicate “that which is place in our mouths.”

Again, I am sorry, but I have to tend to something else. I will attempt to respond at length latter, esp. to what you’ve cited. Thank you for your understanding.

Umm ok? The evidence leans in one direction as to the mode of reception over time, and while we agree there is no consensus on the mode of reception of the Last Supper, neither side holds more historical merit, and is indeed irrelevant to our discussion about LAY reception of communion.

But I hope we can agree, at least, that CITH today is in the vast majority of cases NOT the same as CITH in the early Church.

 

[palmas85]

It’s learned. We are not born with hatred and bitterness. I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are a few who have hatred and bitterness for all traditional customs just because they are traditional customs. What’s really amazing is how much research people are willing to do to find some historical precedence for their position to attack traditionalists. Let’s face it, hatred and bitterness are powerful motivators, but, to be fair, it’s true on both sides.

It does exist on both sides. Of that there is no doubt. The difference is as I see it, Traditionalists have seen what unfettered progressive behavior has done to the faith. They see the ruin that was left behind in the wake of, well, unrestricted, for lack of a better word, reform. That is why they take such a trident posture these days. They saw, as I did, what acquiesance and acceptance of virtually everything did and don’t want to let it happen again.

What excuse can the progressives come up with? Don’t want to return to the bad old days?

 

[pnewton]

Disagreement does not equate to hate. If one thing I have noticed here in the last five years is that I disagree, and agree, with almost everyone about something. It is unfair to assign a sinful emotion based on a disagreement. There are some topics here, that if brought up, will result in differing points of view. That does not mean people hate anyone or anything. It is unrealistic to expect Polly Ann political correctness on such topics.

I am actual impressed at the civility of most dialogue.

 

[brotherhrolf]

It is on both sides and, yes, all of us need to be conscious of it. But I have never read any “hate” from either Pnewton or my friend JKirk. We have disagreed over the years but it has always been civil.

What should be known is that when Palmas and I were prepared to make our First Communion, the standard instruction was that we should NEVER EVER touch the host with our bare hands. If the host got lodged in the roof of our mouths, we were instructed to dislodge it with our tongues. I believe both of us were altar boys and both of us can verify the minute particles of the Eucharist which fell onto the paten. It should also be remembered that there was a second line of “defense” - the communion cloth which was draped over the communion rails.

I have never received in the hand and never intend to. I may not be able to kneel - OK. I am aghast some Sundays at the almost cavalier attitude I see some people exhibit upon receiving Our Lord in the hand. The apparent utter lack of understanding that one is receiving Our Lord sends shivers down my spine - as I imagine it does for many of us who were raised in the pre-Vatican II church or who have come to appreciate the traditions of our ancestors.

 

[spn82756]

The TLM does not.

Communion on the Tongue vs Communion in the Hand is a topic often discussed in traditional circles. Bishop Schneider does a very good job expressing why we should not be receiving Communion in the Hand. It is nice to have support from a Bishop like this every now and then. I believe he has also wriiten a book on this topic.

I used to receive in the hand and now do so only on the tongue. However…that said this bishop is preaching contrary to the pope. If there is an indult…then it cannot be wrong to receive in the hand. If the pope is the Vicar of Christ (as I believe) then he has the authority to determine that CITH is fine. To deny that is to say that the keys were not given to Peter and his successors.

Just my thoughts.

 

[ProVobis]

I used to receive in the hand and now do so only on the tongue. However…that said this bishop is preaching contrary to the pope. If there is an indult…then it cannot be wrong to receive in the hand. If the pope is the Vicar of Christ (as I believe) then he has the authority to determine that CITH is fine. To deny that is to say that the keys were not given to Peter and his successors.

Oh, c’mon. What kind of argument is that? He’s voicing an opinion, which in itself not disobedience. It is an opinion shared by many bishops, no doubt. CITH is not universally granted so that means it’s restricted. **It is not universally right and CITH is a sin where this forbidden. **It is an indult, as you say, and every bishop can withdraw any indult within his jurisdiction. That doesn’t mean he denies what the Vicar of Christ says if he recognizes that it is an indult. Bishops have certain privileges priests and you and I don’t have. But they are also held responsible for what goes on within their diocese; that can’t be an easy job.

 

[spn82756]

Oh, c’mon. What kind of argument is that? He’s voicing an opinion, which in itself not disobedience. It is an opinion shared by many bishops, no doubt. CITH is not universally granted so that means it’s restricted. **It is not universally right and CITH is a sin where this forbidden. **It is an indult, as you say, and every bishop can withdraw any indult within his jurisdiction. That doesn’t mean he denies what the Vicar of Christ says if he recognizes that it is an indult. Bishops have certain privileges priests and you and I don’t have. But they are also held responsible for what goes on within their diocese; that can’t be an easy job.

Hold on…it was not forbidden where he was talking about. He certainly does have jurisdiction to forbid it in his diocese. But what he doing is saying that it is irreverent.

From Fr Serpa…just a few days ago.

**Hi,

The priest’s fingers are consecrated—not in order to the TOUCH the Body of Christ, but in order to CHANGE bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In the early Church the host was placed in the hand of the faithful. There really isn’t anthing more sacred about the tongue in itself. I suspect that most people sin more often with their tongues than with any other part of their bodies.

If you prefer to receive on the tongue, fine. People who chose to receive on the tongue usually do so as an act of reverence. This is a very good thing. But we need to remember that the Church allows Communion on the hand through her Christ-given authority–and we cannot doubt that authority without doubting the One who gave it.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

**Also…please keep in mind that I no longer receive in the hand…but not because of what this Bishop said…but because of a previous thread I participated in. **

**

 

[pnewton]

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.

FYI - He also never said it was irreverant. He did describe that his mother and family viewed it with shock and horror in 1973 when they were first exposed to this in Germany. He was reporting a childhood experience.