From Rorate Caeli (press for full article):
Op-Ed - Bishop Schneider: The Rite of Holy Communion in times of a pandemic
'The
ban on Communion in the mouth is unfounded compared to the great health
risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic. Such a ban
constitutes an abuse of authority.'
sound-bytes:
Communion in the hand is no more hygienic than Communion in the mouth. Indeed, it can be dangerous for contagion. From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands. Whether by shaking other people's hands or frequently touching objects, such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport, germs can quickly pass from hand to hand; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth. Also, germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days. According to a 2006 study, published in the journal "BMC Infectious Diseases", influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces, such as e.g. door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days.
Many people who come to church and then receive Holy Communion in their
hands have first touched door handles or handrails and grab bars in
public transport or other buildings. Thus, viruses are imprinted on the
palm and fingers of their hands. And then during Holy Mass with these
hands and fingers they are sometimes touching their nose or mouth. With
these hands and fingers they touch the consecrated host, thus impressing
the virus also on the host, thus transporting the viruses through the
host into their mouth.
Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ.
27 comments:
I appreciate Bishop Schneider's sense and sensibility.
That being said, he veers into dangerous piety with:
"Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ."
The ban has nothing whatsoever to do with a "lack of faith," and making such an accusation is scandalous. The "sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ" isn't altered one iota by the manner in which it is received. It seems that the good bishop may be making an appeal to the magical notion that one cannot get sick when receiving the Eucharist.
If that is his meaning, I call "Pious Piffle" on him.
"The "sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ" isn't altered one iota by the manner in which it is received"
Yes, but it can profane it and be perilous to the person receiving. That is the good Bishop's point.
"Many faithful of the Eastern churches are scandalized, when they see the lack of faith of bishops and priests of the Latin Rite, as they introduce the ban on receiving Communion in the mouth, a ban made ultimately for lack of faith in the sacred and Divine character of the Body and Blood of the Eucharistic Christ."
Where is "Yes, but it can profane it and be perilous to the person receiving. That is the good Bishop's point" in what Schneider said?
And then there is the matter of shaking hands at the sign of peace.
...not to mention the Holy Water font that everyone shares after opening doors, etc. on the way to and into the church...
Actually, the Eastern Churches are scandalized by what the Latin Church has done to its liturgy since Vatican II, as are many Catholics.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider came to prominence in 2008 when he published a monograph 'Dominus Est' in which he attacked the whole concept of Communion in the hand. Two years later he visited England and celebrated a Pontifical High Mass at Downside Abbey as part of a training course for priests wanting to learn the older form of Mass. I was part of the schola and was present at the lunch where Bishop Schneider addressed us.
In Kazakhstan he had good relations with both Moslem and Orthodox leaders, anthough the latter were initially more hostile to the Catholic Church than were the former. He recalled a senior imam saying 'We Moslems regard the Koran as the word of God, and would not dream of taking it in the left hand. Yet you believe what you are receiving is God himself, yet you take him in your left hand. How can you do this?'
Bishop Schneider presented a copy of 'Dominus Est' to Benedict XVI. Shortly afterwards the Pope started giving Communion on the tongue to kneeling communicants. There was a famous incident when the then Queen of Spain refused to kneel and stuck her hands out. Not an edifying spectacle.
A@4:42, Fr. Kavanaugh’s germ phobia that he projects on me has led him to ban the sign of peace at Mass even though our bishop has not suggested this.
He did the same last year by abolishing the common chalice even though there was no suggestion from the bishop to do so. I did not.
Finally sources say he is seen with Clorox wipes cleaning doorknobs, railings, hymnals and the like. He now blesses Clorox for the Holy Water fonts which will assure germ free hands too.
Breaking news: sources say the Frmjk also has individual cups of listerine that kills 99.9% of germs in the mouth with nearby spitunes so that he won’t spread germs if he is forced to distribute on the tongue and accidentally touches one.
"In Kazakhstan he had good relations with both Moslem and Orthodox leaders, anthough the latter were initially more hostile to the Catholic Church than were the former. He recalled a senior imam saying 'We Moslems regard the Koran as the word of God, and would not dream of taking it in the left hand. Yet you believe what you are receiving is God himself, yet you take him in your left hand. How can you do this?'"
Now we have to add another phobia to the list of those represented on this blog: Sinistrophiobia - the fear of left-handed people AND the bias against them and against the use of the left hand for a variety of things.
The Moslem leader, then Bishop Schneider, and now you, John Nolan, perpetuate the myth that there is something "sinister" with the left hand. (Yes, in reporting the incident and using it to promote your position, you join the crew.)
There is nothing evil, nothing less than holy, nothing subversive about using the left hand for anything, including holding the Qur'an or receiving holy communion.
When asked by the Moslem leader, "How can you do this?" Bishop Schneider should have responded, "My friend, there is nothing evil, nothing unclean, nothing inappropriate about using the left hand. While I appreciate your cultural bias against the left hand, I see both hands as creations of God and blessings."
No, Allan, I don't have a germ phobia. You've admitted here that you do, and the 7 people who read this blog regularly know that.
Allan, it's spittoon, not spitune.
Mike, I just knew you had one!
The director of the CDC briefed Congress that other virus in the same family as the COVID live on steel and copper surfaces an average of two hours with small standard deviation. They live much longer although with greater variation on porous surfaces such as paper, cardboard and cloth with times extending up to nine days. Although there is no known cases of the virus discovered in shipping containers or packaging it appears that our logistics systems may be our undoing.
One of the hallmarks of the NO is its lack of uniformity. I am skeptical that they will suddenly perform sanitary protocols in unison while distributing the host in the hand. From a systems engineering perspective having a single process executed scrupulously reduces error to a single event that can be controlled much more easily. I also notice a bit of form/factor in the time and motion efficiency of directly applying the host to the tongue that is already at the right height for the arm and hand of the priest. The communion in the hand seems, anecdotally, to be at a higher relative elevation due to the tendency of the communicant to elevate the hands in a display of reverence and politeness. From a production process perspective having the communicant positioned in a jig, i.e. kneeling belly to the altar rail, establishes a fixed position with less variation in the physical task. The applicant can position himself accurately to the work thus positioned in the jig, rapidly execute the task, and move to the next job. Besides the task of inserting himself correctly into the jig, the only performance standard for the communicant that would aide the overall objective would be to extend the tongue while looking skyward. An appropriately decorated apse with images and symbols will give visual focus that will steady the head of the communicant long enough to administer communion while reciting the blessing.
One of the things that struck me when returning to the Vetus Ordo was how the physical actions reminded me of medical sanitation protocols.
Fr MJK
If you take the trouble to read 'Dominus Est' you will realize that Bishop Schneider would find it inappropriate to receive Holy Communion in either hand - so telling him what he should have said is imposing on him an opinion (yours) with which he would fundamentally disagree. Also, the scant evidence we have concerning the practice in the early Church would indicate that the Sacrament was received in the palm of the right hand and conveyed directly to the mouth.
You are also aware that the symbolic significance of the right hand goes back to the Old Testament. 'Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis' (Ps 109). In the Gloria and Credo of the Mass Christ is seated 'at the right hand of the Father'. Service at the altar is always from the right, and I doubt that even you would bless with your left hand.
One other point - are we to read anything into the fact that you capitalize 'Qur'an' but use lower-case for 'Holy Communion'?
"Now we have to add another phobia to the list of those represented on this blog: Sinistrophiobia - the fear of left-handed people AND the bias against them and against the use of the left hand for a variety of things."
That's a ridiculous interpretation of John Nolan's comment. Obviously Mr Nolan was just relaying a story BP. Schneider told which actually demonstrate a 'sinistrophobia' in the religion of peace....
You really seem to hate this blog and blog owner.
Spelling was off on 'sinistrophobia.'
The Bishop has always said this in his various published works on the proper reception of the Blessed Sacrament. He also said the same at Holy Innocents in Manhattan when I attended a conference he gave there.
Yes, as an Italian I have a prejudice against left handed people. In Italian sinistra is the word for left from which we get our word sinister.
But speaking about that, I was at an Episcopal Church wedding with a female priestess, I know, I know, that's redundant, and she blessed the congregation with her left hand.
But that's not all, at Pope Francis' Ash Wednesday Mass, a priest helping to impose ashes did so with his left hand and holding the ashes with his right and he imposed them as we do in the USA on the forehead and in the Sign of the Cross, with his left hand!
I was scandalized to say the least. It has demonic overtone.
And then there is the matter of touching the germy hair of those who go up in the Communion line for their "participation trophy" blessing by those giving out the Host and then reaching in for a Host for the next communicant.
As why Muslims use the right hand for eating, etc., it's probably because the left hand is used for blowing one’s nose, cleaning oneself after using the toilet, etc.
John, What Bishop Schneider may or may not consider inappropriate is no concern of mine.
I wasn't commenting on "Dominus Est" but on the comments you cited at 6:48.
Yes, I am aware of the very ancient cultural bias against the left hand. But that's all it is - a cultural bias. It exists in our scriptures as it does in the scriptures of the Muslims. If Bishop Schneider shares that silly bias, shame on him. If I were a priest with only my left hand, I would, without hesitation, use it for blessing the people.
You can read a anything you want into the capitalization I use or don't use. I'm sure, in any case, we do not base our writing on the same style book.
As for "imposing" opinions on others, you do it all the time. So you protests in this case, ring very, very hollow.
Yes, it's a sad fact that 'cultural bias' exists in Scripture, not to mention those terribly culturally biased Church Fathers who have influenced our tradition. The worst offender, of course, is Jesus Christ, whose cultural bias in not appointing women as apostles has led to the lamentable situation whereby we don't have women priests. How silly of him!
Living in the 21st century we don't have any cultural baggage, and can't possibly be biased. However, we can satisfy our postmodern egos by virtue-signalling and denigrating the past.
John, let's not forget how patriarchal it is to refer to God as 'Father.'
Yes, when an otherwise intelligent person refuses to recognize cultural bias it is, indeed, a a sad day.
Now, if that otherwise intelligent person would like to explain why the use of the left hand is innately evil, or why our All-Knowing God would reveal to us through His inspired Scriptures that left-handedness is something to be shunned, the world would, I am sure, be thrilled.
Or, coming to his senses, he might just say, "Yes, anti-left handed bias is a silly cultural relic and should be ignored."
But, then, that just might be my bias...
It would be a bias. Why would God care about the difference in smell of incense and rotting flesh? Because one is meant as a respectful offering. To see the difference for yourself, the next time some gives you a gift they made for you tell them that you don’t think it is any different than some cheap, perfunctory offering but you understand that it is the best they could do. You would be thrown on the heap of false gods pretty quick.
Unfortunately for Fr MJK's rather pathetic attempts at argument, it has to be stated that:
1. No-one, Bishop Schneider included, has suggested that the use of the left hand is 'innately evil'.
2. No-one has suggested that left-handed people should be shunned.
3. If a priest has only the use of his left arm, his bishop may grant him a dipensation to use this for blessings; in the same way a priest who by reason of infirmity cannot stand, may be given permission to celebrate Mass seated.
4. The 'tu quoque' argument is hardly a defence, even when it's justified. However, unlike him, I have never attempted to impose my opinions on someone else, as in 'Bishop Schneider should have responded ...' as opposed to 'might have responded ...'
5. A cultural bias of three millennia cannot be dismissed as 'silly' except by a very silly (and shallow) individual.
"5. A cultural bias of three millennia cannot be dismissed as 'silly' except by a very silly (and shallow) individual."
Yes, a cultural bias, regardless of how long it has been a cultural bias, should be dismissed as silly. Only a shallow person, fearful of losing something, clings to cultural biases, regardless of their age.
For centuries, the moon was blamed for types of insanity. Hence, we have the word "lunacy." It was silly and, thank goodness, we have dismissed this erroneous cultural bias.
For centuries, it was thought that people of African origins had lower intelligence than Caucasians. It was silly and, thank goodness, we have dismissed this erroneous cultural bias.
For centuries, women were thought to be unable to lead at home, at work, in government because they tended, more than males to neuroticism. Hence, we have the word "hysterical," meaning "of the womb."
Yes, the notion that left-handedness of the use of the left hand is somehow diabolical, dangerous, or shady is a silly cultural bias that should be dismissed.
"However, unlike him, I have never attempted to impose my opinions on someone else, as in 'Bishop Schneider should have responded ...' as opposed to 'might have responded ...'"
John, you're doing it right there in that sentence, but you can't even see it. You're trying to impose on me what, in your opinion, I should have suggested regarding Bishop Schneider. I stand by what I wrote. Bishop Schneider should have gently corrected his Muslim interlocutor.
And you seek to impose your opinions on music, on word definitions, on the superior value of European culture all the time. Of course, you do not see this as an imposition at all. You think that the veracity of your opinions should be accepted by all as fact.
Fr MJK
Bollocks. I give my opinions. I don't suggest that you, or anyone else, accept them as fact. Sometimes, not to do so may be perverse, but being perverse is everyone's prerogative.
The problem with you is that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, or more accurately, regard your every opinion as fact.
What, in my opinion (imposed on you or him) did I suggest Bishop Scheider should have said? I did not suggest anything. I am in no position to tell anyone what he should have said, not even you when you spout arrant nonsense.
You are quite entitled to suggest that (in your opinion) Bishop Schneider could have come up with a reply which would accord with your point of view. The fact that he did not reply at all is hardly a cause of shame on his part. But you have the impertinence to lecture him on what he 'should have' (not 'could have') said.
The same impertinence comes out when you purport to know what I think.
One other point - who decides what is a 'cultural bias' which can simply be dismissed as 'silly'? Everyone is culturally conditioned, yourself included, although (in my opinion) your culture goes no deeper than current fashion.
John - When a person says "A is better than B" and you are a "philistine" for not accepting my opinion regarding A and B, that is somewhat more than a "suggestion." You do, indeed, seek to impose your opinions on others.
I understand the difference between fact and opinion very well. You seem to be confused, however. You have stated as fact that I don't know the difference between fact and opinion when, in fact, I do. You are wrong.
Stating that Bishop Schneider might have gently corrected his interlocutor is hardly impertinence. There's nothing rude or disrespectful in that. I was suggesting that he could have done a better job in that conversation, helping to advance the eradication of the silly notion that the left hand is less honorable than the right.
Do you think that blaming the moon for lunacy is fact, or was it a cultural bias based on ignorance, as most biases are? Do you think that Africans are, in fact, less intelligent, or was the a cultural bias? Do you think that women are less capable of leadership because they tend to be hysterical, or was that a cultural bias?
I think it is very, very easy to recognize cultural biases.
And what you may think of my culture isn't worth a Tinker's Dam.
Post a Comment