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 “…More
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 …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Arthur McGowan
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
De Profundis
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
![](https://seedus3932.gloriatv.net/storage1/d10gbk187dbpveg2snmimj9yacmlciklvfv7cyx.webp?crop=720.379.0.202&scale=on&secure=j546abM4lPa8MAPqu--u8w&expires=1721226668)
eticacasanova
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"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
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
eticacasanova
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
eticacasanova
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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
One more comment from eticacasanova
eticacasanova
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
www.lifenews.com/…/abortion-was-th…
Leo D. Lion
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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/More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ipsa conteret
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
Ipsa conteret
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
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!
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
![](https://seedus6826.gloriatv.net/storage1/pt603276189njenvd5u7zn7do2ms532tksz5rcn.webp?crop=2000.1236&scale=on&secure=jtAsNA_nW7RioFxFJuKRAA&expires=1721193419)
![](https://seedus2043.gloriatv.net/storage1/pq1d7tb5r269338ehfpnq3zubwbdo7co0jfx8zh.webp?crop=1000.618&scale=on&secure=3jo8gGrmjFnLR-vCXuiaCg&expires=1721190919)
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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 …More
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"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 …More
"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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
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, …More
"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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"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 …More
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
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
How about we just start the list for punishment with your 2 examples and Bishop Schneider's fine observation?
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
@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).More
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).
giveusthisday
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Gesù è con noi
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment