Clicks2.9K
en.news
48

Schneider: Coronavirus Is Punishment for Communion in the Hand

For the first time in Church history, public Mass was prohibited worldwide, Bishop Athanasius Schneider noticed during the live-streamed Rome Life Forum (May 22).

He calls the coronavirus only a “pretext” for infringing the rights of Christians. This created an "atmosphere of the catacombs" with priests celebrating Mass in secrecy for their faithful.

For Schneider it is "unbelievable" how bishops have converted into "rigid public officials” by banning public worship even before their government did.

The current situation could be understood as a “divine rebuke for the past fifty years of Eucharistic desecration and trivialisation” through Communion in the hand (1969) and the radical reform of the rite of Mass (1969/1970), Schneider analyses.

He gives many arguments against Communion in the hand:
• particles of the consecrated hosts are trampled upon by clergy and laity
• consecrated hosts are being stolen
• Communion in the hand is like taking common food
• Communion in the hand turned the Body of Christ for many faithful into "holy bread" or some "symbol."

Therefore, “now the Lord has intervened and deprived almost all the faithful of attending Holy Mass.”

Picture: Athanasius Schneider, © VoiceOfTheFamily.com, #newsJrnqnxijac

Arthur McGowan
Bergoglio, all his favored cardinals, and all but about ten American bishops give Communion to abortionists like Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, etc. ad infinitum. Every archbishop of Washington has given Communion to pro-aborts. Sacrilegious Communion is the source and summit of the liturgical life of the ape church.
De Profundis
We are beyond Communion on the hand. Communion in the prepacked plastic in Rome
eticacasanova
Saying that God doesn't punish the world for the sins Christians commit when they receive communion is like saying comunión and the Eucharist aren't the means to avert the wrath of God (sacrificium adorationis, propitiationis, actionis gratiarum et EXPIATIONIS). It is anti-christian, dumb, ignorant or the mix of two or more of the aforementioned. To quote ONE father to say communion in the hand …More
Saying that God doesn't punish the world for the sins Christians commit when they receive communion is like saying comunión and the Eucharist aren't the means to avert the wrath of God (sacrificium adorationis, propitiationis, actionis gratiarum et EXPIATIONIS). It is anti-christian, dumb, ignorant or the mix of two or more of the aforementioned. To quote ONE father to say communion in the hand is licit is an abuse of the authority argument. The fathers are THE FATHERS, but you find, FREQUENTLY, mistakes in their writings, for a reason Gilson points out: they are the ones that began the 12-15 centuries labor or shaping the dogma... The work of many generations of saints and geniuses, that was complete only in, you might say, the Councils of Florence and Trent, with the help of many heretics (convenit haeresses esse). The reasons for communio in ore are very clear, and no authority citation chages them. We have to stop sophistry... And, by the way, of course God chastises, and punishing is no injustice, it's just retribution, accompanied by mercy, because we deserve a thousand hells for our sins. If you can't comprehend that, you better shut your inferior (in knowledge and age) mouth, and start listenning to your superiors (in knowledge and age)... Ah, no, I know, you are here to disrupt... Lousy job at that, either...
Ultraviolet
"Saying that God doesn't punish the world for the sins Christians commit when they receive communion is like saying comunión and the Eucharist aren't the means to avert the wrath of God (sacrificium adorationis... "

First, that's a false comparison. Second, nobody here suggested either proposition. You're speaking in absolutes, the subject here is COVID.

"It is anti-christian, dumb, ignorant..…More
"Saying that God doesn't punish the world for the sins Christians commit when they receive communion is like saying comunión and the Eucharist aren't the means to avert the wrath of God (sacrificium adorationis... "

First, that's a false comparison. Second, nobody here suggested either proposition. You're speaking in absolutes, the subject here is COVID.

"It is anti-christian, dumb, ignorant..."

The way you lurk on GTV waiting for every chance to pounce is far MORE unchristian and your attacks are truly dumb. See my last point.

"The reasons for communio in ore are very clear,

I see you are determined to go on displaying your inability to read. Try to follow the discussion, imbecile. People here are discussing the historical provenance of communion in the hand. Not the reasons supporting communion on the tongue now. Your brainless jabber is irrelevant.

"and no authority citation chages them."

You really need to learn how scholarship works, I mean on ANY subject.

"We have to stop sophistry..."

You should begin with basic reading comprehension. Your English is terrible. Coupled with your malicious obsession in "proving me wrong", you end up launching these pointless and, inevitably, irrelevant attacks.

"of course God chastises..."

That's Scripture truth and nobody has claimed otherwise, you moron. What has NOT been proven is COVID is such a chastisement OR that it is a chastisement for how communion is received..

"...and start listenning to your superiors (in knowledge and age)...

A "superior in knowledge should at least know how to spell "listening" correctly. Clearly that category does not include you, @enemacasanova
eticacasanova
jajajaja
Ultraviolet
Here's your prize, amigo.. you earned it. :P
eticacasanova
Exacto, me saqué el troll frutero, contigo, ladilla sin medida; en eso consiste la cosa, en tu completa falta de medida. Pero, claro, Dios nos muestra así su predilección, mandándonos adversidades, no que tú seas una gran adversidad, sino que eres una gran ladilla, eso sí. Y, bueno, tú sabes que yo sé que tú sabes que yo sé. Que Dios te bendiga, te ilumine y te libere
eticacasanova
Por cierto, me da mucha risa que me corrijas cuando escrino 'communion', en inglés, porque, claro, esa palabra, como tantas, les viene del latín. En latín, 'communio-comunionis'; aunque, casi seguro, a través del frances, 'communion'. Nosotros la decimos así: 'comunión'. Cuando me corrijes, me da risa, pienso: "jaja, qué bien, no hallas qué hacer para ladillarme: sigue participando"..... …More
Por cierto, me da mucha risa que me corrijas cuando escrino 'communion', en inglés, porque, claro, esa palabra, como tantas, les viene del latín. En latín, 'communio-comunionis'; aunque, casi seguro, a través del frances, 'communion'. Nosotros la decimos así: 'comunión'. Cuando me corrijes, me da risa, pienso: "jaja, qué bien, no hallas qué hacer para ladillarme: sigue participando"..... Jajajajajajajaja
One more comment from eticacasanova
eticacasanova
Finalmente, es cómico cuando haces esas cosas, decirme anticristiano, ppr refutar tus anticristianadas. Dices que, así, me porto de manera no cristiana y me caes a insultos (no me ofenden, no te preocupes)..... Muy chistoso. Es bueno, es como un pasatiempo, esto de ver tus comentarios y tus fastidios. Ah y, otra cosa, no sé de dónde sacaste que este comentario mío en inglés, el de aquí arriba, …More
Finalmente, es cómico cuando haces esas cosas, decirme anticristiano, ppr refutar tus anticristianadas. Dices que, así, me porto de manera no cristiana y me caes a insultos (no me ofenden, no te preocupes)..... Muy chistoso. Es bueno, es como un pasatiempo, esto de ver tus comentarios y tus fastidios. Ah y, otra cosa, no sé de dónde sacaste que este comentario mío en inglés, el de aquí arriba, era contigo, ¿?
Ultraviolet
People like you are the reason I refuse to reply in Spanish. You seem to think hiding behind a "language barrier" is clever. It isn't and neither are you. But I've known that for a long time now. The barrier doesn't exist. Not for me, at least. ;-) Protip: you haven't "refuted" anything "anti-Christian" because I didn't write anything that even qualifies. You can't even follow the conversation …More
People like you are the reason I refuse to reply in Spanish. You seem to think hiding behind a "language barrier" is clever. It isn't and neither are you. But I've known that for a long time now. The barrier doesn't exist. Not for me, at least. ;-) Protip: you haven't "refuted" anything "anti-Christian" because I didn't write anything that even qualifies. You can't even follow the conversation in this language, so don't even bother trying to argue the point in Spanish.. And, no, don't flatter yourself. Refuting you doesn't "annoy" me at all.

You make easy mistakes, you're too stupid to even recognize them -as- mistakes which is something to be pitied -all the moreso for your malice. Except... I don't pity you. All you merit is contempt -as so much of GTV's "jajaja" community does.

You have to understand... you're not an intellectual challenge. Somebody like Philosopher or Dr. Bobus at least make me think because they know how to reason. You don't and it shows..

The best you can do is peck out a paragraph of mistakes and I correct them -usally while replying to people who actually do have something worth discussing. So I spent a few moments correcting you again.-including your spelling. That's the biggest "challenge" you can offer and you're proud of that? Seriously, man... you need to get over yourself.

I can't even fathom your enjoyment at being wrong all the time -especially for a "profesor". Then again,you've already admitted to being a troll.

To think, you were the one who wrote..."Ah, no, I know, you are here to disrupt... Lousy job at that, either"
eticacasanova
Uuuaaaahh!!! This time, I don't laugh, I yawn, so sleepy... This only teaches you: try to correct me again when I commit a typo, next time, I go in another language. You don't answer in SPANISH, in castellano, because you don't wanna expose yourself to shame, brotha, I ain't that stupid, yo, have some selfrespect and don't insult my intelligence, yo...
Ultraviolet
It's simple courtesy to follow the language of the post. If you wish to speak Spanish, comment on Spanish-language posts. The same is true for German or Polish language posts.

By now we both know I correct far more than just your "typos". You can't reason very well and that doesn't change no matter which language you write.

This issue of language is another example. If you reply to me only …More
It's simple courtesy to follow the language of the post. If you wish to speak Spanish, comment on Spanish-language posts. The same is true for German or Polish language posts.

By now we both know I correct far more than just your "typos". You can't reason very well and that doesn't change no matter which language you write.

This issue of language is another example. If you reply to me only in Spanish, I will be able to understand you but at the same time you will elminate all non-Spanish speakers from your audience.

Your post will appear as nothing but gibberish and the only thing people will bother reading is my reply. You see? Even here, even now, your attempts at being "clever" are self-defeating.

...and no, I would never insult your intelligence. That would be acknowledging you even have some intelligence to insult. ;-)
Our Lady of Sorrows
What about all the abortions worldwide "Abortion Was the Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2019, Killing 42 Million People"
www.lifenews.com/…/abortion-was-th…
Leo D. Lion
Remember that Satan really really hates God and we who are really really wanting to be with God.

Here is a link to the bible something similar in old testament
SparkNotes: Bible: The Old Testament: Job
www.sparknotes.com/lit/oldtestament/section11/
Our Lady of Sorrows
"Unmasking the lies around "Covid 19" Dr Kaufman www.youtube.com/watch
Ipsa conteret
Regardless of whether anything in the above video is true or not, the fact remains that the Lord has allowed all of this to happen - the Covid-19 event and its consequences are a chastisement from the Lord - and must be seen that way. Thus, the spiritual analysis of Bishop Schneider holds -- he is entirely correct. Thanks be to God for a good shepherd, who is willing to speak the truth to the …More
Regardless of whether anything in the above video is true or not, the fact remains that the Lord has allowed all of this to happen - the Covid-19 event and its consequences are a chastisement from the Lord - and must be seen that way. Thus, the spiritual analysis of Bishop Schneider holds -- he is entirely correct. Thanks be to God for a good shepherd, who is willing to speak the truth to the Church!
Ultraviolet
God allows evil to occur as necessary consequence from free will. However, chastisement is a deliberate act, i.e. one of punishment. That's the problem with blaming God for COVID-19, it makes Him the author or at least an accessory to every horror and injustice resulting from it. It's much easier to reconcile an an ever-loving, ever-merciful, ever-wise God allowing modern humanity to be …More
God allows evil to occur as necessary consequence from free will. However, chastisement is a deliberate act, i.e. one of punishment. That's the problem with blaming God for COVID-19, it makes Him the author or at least an accessory to every horror and injustice resulting from it. It's much easier to reconcile an an ever-loving, ever-merciful, ever-wise God allowing modern humanity to be stupid than it is for that same God to spitefully inflict viruses that punish the innocent and the guilty alike.
Ipsa conteret
My friend, have you never heard of the wrath of God? It is real. It is a function of His Perfect Justice.
Ultraviolet
DrMaria
During the time of the early and great doctors of the Church, communion in the hand by laity became greatly discouraged. By the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, communion on the tongue by the laity was the norm. Only the consecrated hands of priests should touch the Blessed Sacrament. Laity should not touch the Blessed Sacrament. In the words of St. Thomas: “. . . out of reverence towards this …More
During the time of the early and great doctors of the Church, communion in the hand by laity became greatly discouraged. By the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, communion on the tongue by the laity was the norm. Only the consecrated hands of priests should touch the Blessed Sacrament. Laity should not touch the Blessed Sacrament. In the words of St. Thomas: “. . . out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Tragically, Vatican II's aftermath introduced an aberration into the Church's perennial safeguarding of the Blessed Sacrament. Bishop Schneider's analysis is entirely correct. The many abuses brought about by this practice must be stopped by a papal decree. Starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling. This was the only way that he would distribute Holy Communion to the laity. Now, the next step needs to be taken - and the practice of communion in the hand needs to be forbidden everywhere. Until this happens, may the faithful, who love Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, make this change in their own Eucharistic practice - even if it means being with Our Lord in the practice of spiritual communion - only, rather than offending Him any longer by practicing communion in the hand!

Thank you, Bishop Schneider, for insisting on this change!
celia ann
However, Pachamamma was the straw that broke the camels back. God said "Thou shalt not have false Gods before me. Thou shalt not worship them or adore them" And this took place on Vatican grounds! The one true God will not be mocked.
Ultraviolet
God has certainly put up with Papal endorsement of Latin American nonsense on a couple of occasions before. ;-).
philosopher
The intellectual fashion in Catholic Universities and seminaries beginning in the 1960's and still in currency today is the denigration of the practices of the Church in medieval times and the exagerated praise of the Church in the early centuries as some how more pure in its practices. This is a false narrative and presentation. The early Church had just as many abuses such as communion in the …More
The intellectual fashion in Catholic Universities and seminaries beginning in the 1960's and still in currency today is the denigration of the practices of the Church in medieval times and the exagerated praise of the Church in the early centuries as some how more pure in its practices. This is a false narrative and presentation. The early Church had just as many abuses such as communion in the hand, and it's ranks filled with the mixed multitude of imperfect and impious Christians. Anyone who is willing to read Church history will discover that. Instead of resurrecting old geographically particular abuses, let our sensus catholicus lead us to what has always been universal praxis that flows from orthodoxy.
Ultraviolet
First, St. Cyril of Jerusalem did suggest a "proper" method of receiving communion in the hand. He died 386 AD so even if his instructions were the last thing he ever wrote, he missed the middle ages by nearly a century.

Second, there's no evidence shown communion in the hand was a "denigration of the practices of the Church". That would imply an earlier and presumably undenigrated form …More
First, St. Cyril of Jerusalem did suggest a "proper" method of receiving communion in the hand. He died 386 AD so even if his instructions were the last thing he ever wrote, he missed the middle ages by nearly a century.

Second, there's no evidence shown communion in the hand was a "denigration of the practices of the Church". That would imply an earlier and presumably undenigrated form of communion and none has been shown. Communion on the tongue became widespread by 900 AD.

...raising the question of how people were receiving communion for nearly a thousand years, particularly since Scripture does not mention any other recommended species.

Third, there's a bit of a straw-man happening here with the tirade about Catholic Universities and seminaries. Nobody here has advanced any such "exaggerated praise of the Church in the early centuries".

Fourth, if Catholic Universities, seminaries, or random commenters on GTV claim that communion in the hand was an older and based on the Last Supper, the oldest form of receiving communion, that isn't a "false narrative", it's historically supported fact. Such an unusual feature during dinner would have merited special mention from the Gospel writers.

Consequently the standards you're using for "purity" in the early Church are both unsupported and arbitrary. There is no mention of Christ administering communion on the tongue. If you wish to prove otherwise, be my guest. :D Nor have you shown the earliest Christians preferred a different method of reception.

There's a difference between trying to use ancient Church practices to justify today's lax standards (as the Novus Ordo like to) and credibly arguing the ancient Church itself was lax or its practices had "denigrated" from some supposedly still-earlier form.
philosopher
Interesting would you also, if you continue reading St. Cyril' s writing on reception of communion in the hand he goes on to say that the communicant rub the host on the eyes and ears. Very weird and definitely not universal. Most NO promoters of in the hand don't go on to quote the rest of St. Cyril's description but stop at receiving in the hand. Also do you deny that the majority of bishops …More
Interesting would you also, if you continue reading St. Cyril' s writing on reception of communion in the hand he goes on to say that the communicant rub the host on the eyes and ears. Very weird and definitely not universal. Most NO promoters of in the hand don't go on to quote the rest of St. Cyril's description but stop at receiving in the hand. Also do you deny that the majority of bishops in Europe and America considered it a liturgical abuse prior to 1969. Why did they, like bishop Schneider consider it such an abuse?
Ultraviolet
"Interesting would you also, if you continue reading St. Cyril' s writing on reception of communion in the hand he goes on to say that the communicant rub the host on the eyes and ears."

Was that an incomplete question? "would you (meaning me) also..." what? If I continue reading, yes, St. Cyril further elaborates some, as you call it "very weird" practices. However, there weren't all that …More
"Interesting would you also, if you continue reading St. Cyril' s writing on reception of communion in the hand he goes on to say that the communicant rub the host on the eyes and ears."

Was that an incomplete question? "would you (meaning me) also..." what? If I continue reading, yes, St. Cyril further elaborates some, as you call it "very weird" practices. However, there weren't all that many contemporaneous writers describing how communion was received. So there isn't any basis for saying what was or was not universal at that time.

"Most NO promoters of in the hand don't go on to quote the rest of St. Cyril's description but stop at receiving in the hand."

Good for them. I'm not Novus Ordo, nor am I a promoter of communion in the hand. We're all on the same page here, don't worry about that.:)

"Also do you deny that the majority of bishops in Europe and America considered it a liturgical abuse prior to 1969."

What Western bishops did or did not consider liturgical abuse in 1969 AD has no bearing on receiving communion in the hand back in 386 AD. I'm charitaby ignoring the implicit band-wagon fallacy or the appeal to authority, particularly in light of what those same bishops later accepted and later encouraged within the Church.

We're just quibbling which is cool beans, it keeps everybody sharp. But seriously... if you keep leaving yourself open like this a militant Novus Ordo type will hand you your teeth.

I'm thinking, in particular, of the now happily absent Crackers The Parrot.
philosopher
Agreed! We are both on the same team. But I think DrMaria actually made the best points in this thread. Pax et bonum.
Ultraviolet
Err... communion in the hand has been documented since at least the fourth century. No mention of Divine Chastisements back then, either. It was resumed in the 60s and pushed in the 70s and the Almighty has been really chill about the whole deal. Besides, a virus that most people recover from and one that affects people who aren't even Catholic, seems kinda... well... vague for God's …More
Err... communion in the hand has been documented since at least the fourth century. No mention of Divine Chastisements back then, either. It was resumed in the 60s and pushed in the 70s and the Almighty has been really chill about the whole deal. Besides, a virus that most people recover from and one that affects people who aren't even Catholic, seems kinda... well... vague for God's handiwork.
CatMuse
I think communion in the hand was quite a different affair then and not the casual act it is nowadays. It is very disrespectful now. I personally know quite a few people who have contempt for God's teachings some do not even believe and they receive Holy Communion.
Dr Bobus
Communion in the hand was never a universal practice in the Church. It is mentioned in only a few of the Fathers.
philosopher
If the 4th century Christians were imperfect sinners, like us then they did receive chastizements, documented or not.
Ultraviolet
"Communion in the hand was never a universal practice in the Church" -citation needed @Dr Bobus :)

"If the 4th century Christians were imperfect sinners, like us then they did receive chastizements." - In the context of this discussion, you haven't shown the corona virus even IS a chastisement, much less one connected with receiving communion in one manner or another. To prove the former you'…More
"Communion in the hand was never a universal practice in the Church" -citation needed @Dr Bobus :)

"If the 4th century Christians were imperfect sinners, like us then they did receive chastizements." - In the context of this discussion, you haven't shown the corona virus even IS a chastisement, much less one connected with receiving communion in one manner or another. To prove the former you'd have to show 1.) deliberate intent and evidence of direct causation from God. For the latter you'd have to show that in addition to 2.) a chain of causation between 1.) and communion in the hand.

Good luck with that.:) @philosopher
philosopher
@Ultraviolet, that's a nice fallacy of equivocation. Theology is not philosophy. There are numerous references to divine chastizement in the Bible and in those cases neither Job, Moses, King David, or any hero of the faith give logical proofs showing evidence of direct Divine causation.
Ultraviolet
Please don't use logical fallacies when they don't apply. ;-)

"There are numerous references to divine chastizement in the Bible and in those cases neither Job, Moses, King David, or any hero of the faith give logical proofs showing evidence of direct Divine causation."

We accept Scripture as inherently true. For example, no one was there to record God's first words, "Let there be light."

More
Please don't use logical fallacies when they don't apply. ;-)

"There are numerous references to divine chastizement in the Bible and in those cases neither Job, Moses, King David, or any hero of the faith give logical proofs showing evidence of direct Divine causation."

We accept Scripture as inherently true. For example, no one was there to record God's first words, "Let there be light."

However, your claims about the Corona virus as a chastisement from God are not from Scripture nor are you a recognized hero of the faith. :D --brb-- Red Bull reload.
Our Lady of Sorrows
That was a brilliant video, Holy Communion in the hand as per video is, totally different from how it is given today, not to mention the Eucharistic Ministers distributing it. It is nothing short of corruption and distortion, to try to justify Communion in the hand today, by quoting St Cyril's writings
DrMaria
Thank you, Sr. Monica, for posting this video! Excellent!
Dr Bobus
@Ultraviolet

You have it backwards. In so far as it had not existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof would be on those who argued for its introduction.

I have seen only two Fathers cited for its practice. The main one is Cyril of Jerusalem, but Basil has also been mentioned. Neither would be sufficient evidence of universal practice.

Which fact illustrates a serious error in contempo…More
@Ultraviolet

You have it backwards. In so far as it had not existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof would be on those who argued for its introduction.

I have seen only two Fathers cited for its practice. The main one is Cyril of Jerusalem, but Basil has also been mentioned. Neither would be sufficient evidence of universal practice.

Which fact illustrates a serious error in contemporary theology: Someone decides what he wants to promote, then finds a text or two among the thousands of pages of Patristic and Medieval thought that seems to justify his idea. This is not theology but rather ideology. Pere Sertillanges called it accidental research.
Ultraviolet
"In so far as it had not existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof would be on those who argued for its introduction."

False premise, No one here has shown that communion in the hand didn't exist for hundreds of years.

"I have seen only two Fathers cited for its practice. The main one is Cyril of Jerusalem, but Basil has also been mentioned."

Cyril of Jerusalem being the oldest -…More
"In so far as it had not existed for hundreds of years, the burden of proof would be on those who argued for its introduction."

False premise, No one here has shown that communion in the hand didn't exist for hundreds of years.

"I have seen only two Fathers cited for its practice. The main one is Cyril of Jerusalem, but Basil has also been mentioned."

Cyril of Jerusalem being the oldest -which is extremely relevant to the practice's historical authenticity. It also contradicts your earlier premise "In so far as it (communion in the hand) had not existed for hundreds of years..."

"Neither would be sufficient evidence of universal practice."


Even that's questionable. St. Cyril of Jerusalem specialized in catechetical lectures. Historically speaking, that's a primary source document from an author with impeccable credentials.

Since you're trying to argue to the contrary, like I said, "citation needed." ;-)

You need to support your claim "Communion in the hand was never a universal practice in the Church." For that, you need to show communion on the tongue was the universal rule. Specifically, you need to show communion on the tongue was the universal rule using equally accredited authors that pre-date Cyril of Jerusalem and cover the period between The Last Supper and Cyril's death in 386 AD.

"Which fact illustrates a serious error in contemporary theology: Someone decides what he wants to promote, then finds a text or two among the thousands of pages of Patristic and Medieval thought that seems to justify his idea."

A generality that doesn't apply here. Essentially, this is an extension of Philosopher's mistake.

First, nobody here is promoting communion in the hand. I'm simply discussing its existence as a valid means of reception in the early Church -before Communion On The Tongue did become universal. There is no New Testament evidence supporting communion on the tongue, or references to it happening at the Last Supper, either.

Second, St. Cyril of Jerusalem doesn't "seem" to support the idea in question, he explicitly advocated it. .
rhemes1582
Dear Dr. Bobus
How about we just start the list for punishment with your 2 examples and Bishop Schneider's fine observation?
DrMaria
Thank you, Bishop Schneider, for your willingness to tell the truth about what is going on! How grateful we are for your leadership at this time - when most shepherds are cowering in the corner - afraid to go against the party-line, even though it is the party-line that has been devastating the Church since Vatican II! May Our Lady continue to strengthen and protect you! You are a great blessing!…More
Thank you, Bishop Schneider, for your willingness to tell the truth about what is going on! How grateful we are for your leadership at this time - when most shepherds are cowering in the corner - afraid to go against the party-line, even though it is the party-line that has been devastating the Church since Vatican II! May Our Lady continue to strengthen and protect you! You are a great blessing! Speaking personally, I was so encouraged by your talk at the Rome Life Forum today!
frawley
I think that it is the irreverence of todays communion that is the problem. Communion in the hand can be very reverent. The priest when he consumes the Euchrist uses his hands but in a very different way. He cleanses his hands, holds the Euchrist very carefully, has the patten underneath to catch any particles and is at all times attentive and reverent.
DrMaria
Frawley, see my longer post above -- the hands of lay people are not consecrated to touch the Blessed Sacrament. This change should never have happened - it is, in itself, a desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, not to mention all the abuses that have occurred in the wake of this sacrilegious practice since Vatican II, as discussed by Bishop Schneider.
Dr Bobus
@DrMaria

It's a given that the change should not have happened, but it naturally followed from vernacular liturgy (also versus populum).

Let them continue to introduce more and more liberal Protestant gimmicks (cf Newton's third law).
Dr Bobus
Insofar as murder and homosexuality are both considered sins calling to heaven for vengeance, I would say that homosexual marriage and abortion would be the prime reasons
giveusthisday
I wouldn't think that would be ruled out; when the Blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima she said if people didn't lead good lives, pray, and offer reparation for the sins which outrage God, we would be chastised.
Dr Bobus
What would be ruled out?
Dana22
Gesù è con noi
It is a punishment for apostasy of the Sodomite sect.