Bishop Athansius Schneider interviewed on EWTN about Holy Communion in the hand

[marthaferretti]

eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2011/04/bp-athanasius-schneider-on-communion-in.html

 

[corsair]

Yes, I watched it. Great interview! Interesting, when even the Bishops can’t agree. So much for universality. “Hold fast to the traditions which you have received”.

 

[PattiDay]

I saw that on Father Mitch, too. Many Catholics young and old long for the return of that reverential practice.

 

[JamestheOlder]

As has been taught and reminded…constantly, it seems…receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is the PREFERRED method for the universal Church, and is the ONLY method used by Pope Benedict XVI.

Nevertheless, receiving Communion in the hand, properly done, is consistent with the Early Church. There were many reasons for this, paramount that, when the loaf was broken, it was not fed to someone on the tongue, but taken by the hand…no disrespect intended. Remember, teensy-tiny “hosts” were not used then.

As to the “respect” issue, which sins the most…the hand or the tongue? As to “touching the consecrated host”, what, actually, is the difference? The priest, also a sinner, the deacon, also a sinner, the instituted acolyte, also a sinner, the eucharistic minister, also a sinner, ALL touch the consecrated host…what makes them any more worthy to do so than us, who hopefully receive already in a state of sanctifying grace.

This is way over-hyped…to the exclusion on the need to teach that the consecrated host is the TRUE Body and Blood of Christ. That is what is important.

 

[ANNE_2]

I saw that on Father Mitch, too. Many Catholics young and old long for the return of that reverential practice.

Everyone has the right to receive on the Tongue, if that is their wish. Start setting the example in your own Parish.
If the Priest gives you a difficult time, contact your Bishop.
The Vatican has forbidden any Priest or Bishop to give those who wish to receive on the Tongue a difficult time.

Some of the special changes asked for and received by the USCCB and the CCCB have not
been that great.
As we know recieving in the hand is an indult - receiving special permission.

Pope Benedict - -
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, I watched it. Great interview! Interesting, when even the Bishops can’t agree. So much for universality. “Hold fast to the traditions which you have received”.

This is a grave misunderstanding of what “universality” is.

I saw that on Father Mitch, too. Many Catholics young and old long for the return of that reverential practice.

There is nothing more reverential about receiving on the tongue than receiving in the hand.

 

[smad0142]

Maybe not more reverential Brother, but more childlike. Just like a babe who is weaning, so too do we approach God as little children. Not grabbing at the Food of Immortality, but mouth open, like a simple little baby, waiting to recieve the Lord.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Nevertheless, receiving Communion in the hand, properly done, is consistent with the Early Church. There were many reasons for this, paramount that, when the loaf was broken, it was not fed to someone on the tongue, but taken by the hand…no disrespect intended. Remember, teensy-tiny “hosts” were not used then.

Did you watch the interview? In he interview, the good Bishop explained how the current manner of receiving communion in the hand is not consistent with the Early Church. In fact, the novelty of receiving communion in the hand represents a rupture and a break with tradition.

Communion in the hand is an abuse that was eventually tolerated because the Holy See was unable to stop dissident Catholics from receiving in this manner. For more information, read this article:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

The Holy Father does not permit communion on the hand during his Masses. I hope he eventually bans communion in the hand.

 

[Dempsey1919]

There is nothing more reverential about receiving on the tongue than receiving in the hand.

For 1500 years the Roman Church thought differently. Remember, communion in the hand started as an abuse.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Father Z. provided evidence to prove that Communion in the hand results in particles of the Blessed Sacrament dropping to the floor.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/

 

[ANNE_2]

Don’t forget that when receiving Holy Communion while standing, we are required to show a special respect - bowing.

Many people do not do this.

" When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows
his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and
receives the Body of the Lord from the minister.
The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the
discretion of each communicant.
When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood. "
usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml

 

[ANNE_2]

As has been taught and reminded…constantly, it seems…receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is the PREFERRED method for the universal Church, and is the ONLY method used by Pope Benedict XVI.

Nevertheless, receiving Communion in the hand, properly done, is consistent with the Early Church. There were many reasons for this, paramount that, when the loaf was broken, it was not fed to someone on the tongue, but taken by the hand…no disrespect intended. Remember, teensy-tiny “hosts” were not used then.

As to the “respect” issue, which sins the most…the hand or the tongue? As to “touching the consecrated host”, what, actually, is the difference? The priest, also a sinner, the deacon, also a sinner, the instituted acolyte, also a sinner, the eucharistic minister, also a sinner, ALL touch the consecrated host…what makes them any more worthy to do so than us, who hopefully receive already in a state of sanctifying grace.

This is way over-hyped…to the exclusion on the need to teach that the consecrated host is the TRUE Body and Blood of Christ. That is what is important.

So you know better than Pope Benedict, Cardinal Raymond Burke and others ?
Reverance shown to Our Lord is over-hyped?

Didn’t you know that at Ordination, the Priest hands are consecrated, and he is acting as ‘Persona Christi’ during Mass?
Deacons hands are consecrated at ordination as well.
According to the USCCB, other Eucharistic ministers are not to be used except when there are large groups receiving communion.
All human beings are sinners, but that does not mean they are in the State of mortal sin when they receive Holy Communion.
Interestingly when you go to a Latin Mass (Tridentine/Traditional/extraordinary) only a Priest distributes Communion.

 

[At_Trent]

As has been taught and reminded…constantly, it seems…receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is the PREFERRED method for the universal Church, and is the ONLY method used by Pope Benedict XVI.

Nevertheless, receiving Communion in the hand, properly done, is consistent with the Early Church. There were many reasons for this, paramount that, when the loaf was broken, it was not fed to someone on the tongue, but taken by the hand…no disrespect intended. Remember, teensy-tiny “hosts” were not used then.

As to the “respect” issue, which sins the most…the hand or the tongue? As to “touching the consecrated host”, what, actually, is the difference? The priest, also a sinner, the deacon, also a sinner, the instituted acolyte, also a sinner, the eucharistic minister, also a sinner, ALL touch the consecrated host…what makes them any more worthy to do so than us, who hopefully receive already in a state of sanctifying grace.

This is way over-hyped…to the exclusion on the need to teach that the consecrated host is the TRUE Body and Blood of Christ. That is what is important.

Hi, if you watch the interview by the Good Bishop linked to in my sig, you will hear him explain exactly how CITH was done. You said CITH was fine if done the proper way, which after hearing H.E., you will see is not the way we do it now.

The sins of the tongue vs sins of the hand argument is pointless. We receive on our tongues regardless.

I agree though, belief in the Real Presence is the important thing.

 

[At_Trent]

This sins of the tongue vs sins of the hand argument is silly. We all receive on the tongue no matter how the Host is placed there.

The issue is handling the Host. Taking the Host in our hands doubles, if not more, the chance of losing precious particles of the Host. It also doubles the chance the Host is dropped.

Also in any discussion of CITH, it should be noted the practice of CITH was
-not introduced by Rome
-was voted against by the Bishops
-was continued after Rome said NO - read disobedience
-was eventually granted indult only after it was clear the disobedience was not going to stop

Also, the conditions for EMHC are what they are, and in many cases, not followed. I find it all very sad.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

So you know better than Pope Benedict, Cardinal Raymond Burke and others ?
Reverance shown to Our Lord is over-hyped?

Didn’t you know that at Ordination, the Priest hands are consecrated, and he is acting as ‘Persona Christi’ during Mass?
Deacons hands are consecrated at ordination as well.
According to the USCCB, other Eucharistic ministers are not to be used except when there are large groups receiving communion.
All human beings are sinners, but that does not mean they are in the State of mortal sin when they receive Holy Communion.
Interestingly when you go to a Latin Mass (Tridentine/Traditional/extraordinary) only a Priest distributes Communion.

Meaning no disrespect, but a deacon’s hands are not consecrated or anointed at his ordination, at least in the Latin rite.

 

[MarkThompson]

As to the “respect” issue, which sins the most…the hand or the tongue?

Maybe not more reverential Brother, but more childlike. Just like a babe who is weaning, so too do we approach God as little children. Not grabbing at the Food of Immortality, but mouth open, like a simple little baby, waiting to recieve the Lord.

I do really wish we could do away with a couple of nonsensical arguments on either side:

1. “I commit fewer sins with my hands, so I should receive the Host there.” Oh yeah? Well I commit hardly any sins at all with my feet; maybe I should be pinching the Host between my toes for maximum reverence.
2. A mix of “Receiving on the tongue is like being a baby fed by the Father,” “CITH is like grabbing potato chips with your grubby paws,” and other variations. Oh yeah? Well receiving on the tongue is also like a dog eagerly lapping up a doggy treat from its master’s fingers; and receiving in the hand is like a humble beggar imploring alms with open hands stretched out in supplication.

Can we just leave the pious metaphors behind for a change? The arguments for COTT are actually stronger once we abandon all the nonsense. FWIW, my view is that even if COTT is not in fact more reverent than CITH in an objective sense, it tends to inspire reverence in a sort of “lex orandi → lex credendi” fashion. So a person can admit, “Yes, the two forms are equally reverent when done with reverential intention,” and nonetheless prefer and promote reception on the tongue. The false dichotomy that always gets set up here – that either we confess that people who receive on the tongue are being more reverent and those who receive in the hand are in that measure irreverent, or else there can be no distinction or preference whatsoever between the two forms – is constantly a source of misunderstanding and recriminations.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Maybe not more reverential Brother, but more childlike. Just like a babe who is weaning, so too do we approach God as little children. Not grabbing at the Food of Immortality, but mouth open, like a simple little baby, waiting to recieve the Lord.

The Lord did say “Take and eat”.

Yes it can be viewed as more childlike but that does not necessarily mean it is more reverent. I have seen much childlike behavior that is in no way reverent.

Remember, communion in the hand started as an abuse.

And this means nothing as it is not an abuse today. The Church allows for it.

Didn’t you know that at Ordination, the Priest hands are consecrated, and he is acting as ‘Persona Christi’ during Mass?
Deacons hands are consecrated at ordination as well.

As pointed out, you are in error as a a the hands of a deacon are not consecrated.

A priest’s hands are consecrated for the consecration of the Eucharist, not for handling it.

Again, we have another thread about COTT being more reverent than CITH. Why not worry about what you do and leave others to what they do when what they do is allowed for by the Church.

Do you know better than the Church? The Church allows for Communion in the Hand if the bishop so decides for his diocese, who are you to dispute this with the bishop who is the authority within his diocese?

Just do a search on the forum, why keep bringing up the same old tired topic with the same old tired arguments?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Didn’t you know that at Ordination, the Priest hands are consecrated, and he is acting as ‘Persona Christi’ during Mass?
Deacons hands are consecrated at ordination as well.

I am in favor of restricting or eliminating the Communion-in-the-Hand indult, but this is a false argument. Priests hands are consecrated because they confect the Sacrament. Deacons hands are not consecrated.

Interestingly when you go to a Latin Mass (Tridentine/Traditional/extraordinary) only a Priest distributes Communion.

or Deacon.

 

[ANNE_2]

Thank you kindly for the correction.

Both COTT and COTH are permitted at this time in history.
“In the hands” by indult (special permission as requested by some Bishops conferences).
I don’t know what will be permitted in future.
Currently, it is a preferance, depending on how each individual believes he/she can give the best respect to our Lord.

When standing (rather than kneeling) bow head just before receiving - this is a requirement, and not an option.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html

 

[FCEGM]

An excerpt published in Osservatore Romano of Bishop Schneider’s book can be read here:

te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/…n-rite-of.html