Beware of Bishop Schneider

[Anastasia]

It is pity to see how people waste energy on endlessness discussions about a communion on a tongue as the only proper form in the times when Communion as such is not being given to the faithful and this is the real issue.

The truth is that many use any situation to discredit Holy Communion in all possible ways. For example, since we (Orthodox) believe that it is impossible to become infected via communion (via a priest or a fellow parishioner – yes, via communion – no) there are now public “discussions” in Russia which mock communion because some monks, nuns, priests, and laity got infected. But those people at the same time also mock those who do not go to churches now out of a fear of an infection and say “where is your faith?”

This is written to give an example how literally anything can be used to profane communion. As for what is more reverent – I think, for the Roman Catholic way of having communion the kneeling is essential. If you kneel then it is act f reverence no matter how you receive.

[Aloysius]

it's always sad to see fights over such things.  thing is, there are probably some people for whom kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a matter of pridefulness, but we can't assume that of everyone--for many it is a significant aspect of their spiritual experience.  kneeling to receive is obviously something that makes them feel more reverence and helps them, but receiving on the tongue I see many people have less clear of an idea as to what makes it special for some people compared to the hand.  for me, the argument one sees among many traditionalists about microscopic particles spreading around from the hand, I find that ridiculous.  as I see it, if there are no apparent accidents of bread, then there's no real presence, and I just don't think we should count something than needs a microscope or UV light detectors to see as something that qualifies as the "accidents" of bread--the Lord transubstantiates into the accidents of bread that are apparent to our human senses, at least that's how I understand it.

however, the spirituality of humbly receiving the Lord like a child receiving food from a loving Father, well that's something that's very special to people and we just shouldn't deride them for it.  and if they're anxious that this option--which is so central to their spirituality--might be taken away, well that's understandable.  argue against them if you will, but do so with empathy and don't assume they have bad holier-than-thou motivations, even if their opinion is that everyone should receive on the tongue.  perhaps the public, visible, loud voices of such positions, like some suggest of the person in that twitter thread, might be more likely the kind who are caught up in doing it for some kind of political motivations of making a statement.  I don't assume to know his intentions, he may very well be very motivated only by the devotional side of it, but even if we allow for the possibility that he himself is such a person, we still should be careful because there are plenty of people out there who are not like, who just find receiving in the tongue an important aspect of their devotional life, who will feel quite attacked by such assumptions of intentions.

it is very true that there are historical precedents for receiving in the hand.  it is equally true that just because something is older doesn't mean we should do it, that's called antiquarianism and it's not a valid principle, 'tradition' is respecting what is tried and true over many ages, not just doing things that are older just because they are older.  the spirituality of receiving on the tongue is important and special to many people... and it becoming this kind of nasty point of contention is just wrong on all sides (and I know the polemics of ppl who are against communion in the hand fuels a lot of that contention).

every effort should be made to make sure those who want to receive on the tongue are able to do so; I can understand some think the conditions of the pandemic might be a situation to temporarily suspend that option (though I am of the mind that there does not seem to be any more likelihood of transmission when receiving on the tongue than receiving in the hand, but what can you do, people have this mindset at it won't easily be shaken)... but of course people are anxious that this would not just be temporary as there are forces in the church that want to forbid them from this devotion, sadly.  and of course even if it's temporary it would cause them distress.  it'd be like if someone told a person they could no longer hold the rosary beads when praying on their rosary but would now have to count on their fingers; imagine that such a thing was done and even that there was some seemingly legitimate reason for it, even.  yes, of course it's the prayers that are important, not the physical beads.  but could you blame anyone for being distressed by such a change in their devotion?  for wanting to resist it?  that's what this is like, and I just hate this whole discourse of divisiveness around it.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

thing is, there are probably some people for whom kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a matter of pridefulness, but we can't assume that of everyone--for many it is a significant aspect of their spiritual experience. 

Agreed. If it's done humbly it's all good. I watched Bishop Barron's Mass and Joey (young guy in charge of Barron's Word On Fire media) received/receives on the tounge kneeling. I follow him on IG and he's definitely not a spiritually prideful person on there. And he doesn't say people who receive in the hand are wrong ect

 

52 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

however, the spirituality of humbly receiving the Lord like a child receiving food from a loving Father, well that's something that's very special to people and we just shouldn't deride them for it.  and if they're anxious that this option--which is so central to their spirituality--might be taken away, well that's understandable.  argue against them if you will, but do so with empathy and don't assume they have bad holier-than-thou motivations, even if their opinion is that everyone should receive on the tongue

The problem I think is with the demonic image Dan put up equating it to the Church and leaders. Also let's not pretend that his buddy Taylor doesn't talk massive s*** about people who don't receive on the tounge kneeling. Almost all trads I encounter are like this. There way or the highway. They don't care what the Church says. If you don't receive on the tounge and go to Latin Mass you're a modernist heretic.

 

52 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

we still should be careful because there are plenty of people out there who are not like, who just find receiving in the tongue an important aspect of their devotional life, who will feel quite attacked by such assumptions of intentions.

It's important for these people to speak up against the fanatics. At least when the fanatics are being unreasonable.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Delivery said:

I watched Bishop Barron's Mass and Joey (young guy in charge of Barron's Word On Fire media) received/receives on the tounge kneeling. I follow him on IG and he's definitely not a spiritually prideful person on there. And he doesn't say people who receive in the hand are wrong ect

 

[Anastasia]

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

kneeling to receive is obviously something that makes them feel more reverence and helps them, but receiving on the tongue I see many people have less clear of an idea as to what makes it special for some people compared to the hand. 

Perhaps it is a sense of not touching something because it is so sacred? I am used to receiving via a spoon held by a priest, with a deacon holding the cloth under the Chalice, between it and me. The implication: "I do not dare to touch it". The prayers read before communion refer to it as "fire" and it is. Hence, when the Host was placed into my palm I was terrified. I just could not make myself pick it up with my other hand, it felt irreverent somehow. 

My only concern about communion in a hand as such is the Host being dropped, broken, or desecrated.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Anastasia

[Lea]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Perhaps it is a sense of not touching something because it is so sacred? 

My only concern about communion in a hand as such is the Host being dropped, broken, or desecrated.

I never really understood why I shouldn't touch a host I am going to eat a second later. Plus receiving on the hand makes a point in "actively receiving" the grace. The Lord gives Himself into our hands, and we have to react. 

But maybe that's because as an altar servant I am completely used to be around the liturgical vessels - as much as someone possibly can get "used" to this, I guess. 

 

[Guest]

[Anastasia]

Delivery,

Thanks for posting! I haven't listen to it yet but I can, even before listening, state my own opinion here re the thesis above. I am convinced that, although covid-19 was not "made" to prosecute the Church there are definitely forces which use the virus-thing to achieve their own agendas (economical, spiritual, etc). Among them, I am sure, there is an agenda to shut the Church up/to make it invisible. 

That's said, I am also going to say something that most Church members cannot stand: the enemies of the Church do not need to do much, the Church via its timidity and agreement with its "non-essential" status (out of its desire to be liked) sinks herself quite efficiently (and this is very painful to see).

I am very curious now to hear what the Bishop said.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Anastasia

[Anastasia]

I disagree with the first third of the Bishop’s discourse, about the reasons for this chastisement (abortions, disrespect for communion). We (Orthodox) are very, very reverend towards communion yet we have the same chastisement. He also said nothing about child sexual abuse, a definite reason for punishment – yet again, we do not have that in our Church yet we suffer deprivation.

In my opinion, this virus is not a punishment by God for what was done, it is something that reveals the rot inside the Church to an unprecedented degree. Church does not give communion to the dying – well, how far can we fall? I would call it “the loss of a sense of Christ inside the Church”. The major crime of the Church is that it agreed with its status as “non-essential”, for the sake of being liked by this world. It is nothing else but giving Christ (the absolute value) up for the sake of the world’s value.

How can I put it? In Australia, as I see it, the Churches were given a choice, to be “nice” or to say “no, we have Christ, we are essential – He makes us essential” (no matter what would come out of that). That would be a witness of the reality of Our Lord to us. The Churches failed to witness Him. If they failed, they are not worthy to have Him.

I am with the Bishop Schneider when he says about the abuse of power by the Bishops when they prohibit their priests to celebrate Mass for parishioners.

I also agree with him that we have an implicit or “soft” prosecution - but I would clarify that it is being done by the hands of the Church (Bishops, priests, parishioners who do not demand and rebel), and this is a major horror, for me. It is unprecedented.

In Russia Eastern Orthodox have riots against closing the churches; priests and some Bishops disobey those orders, so as their parishioners. In Australia there is nothing.

I also agree with him re: apocalyptic sign of stopping Masses and Liturgies. Our Saints predicted that as well so it corresponds to the message of Fatima (I thought about Fatima when I saw the Pope walking by himself in Rome).

Perhaps you would be interested in reading the Orthodox response to “shut up” in Australia. It is a letter of our Bishop Andrei and it is very measured and very Orthodox, scroll down for English text:

On the shutdown of churches

https://auroca.org/на-закрытие-храмов-on-the-shutdown-of-churches/

 

[KnightofChrist]

Death and illness is a result of original sin and God has certainly allowed the COVID-19 pandemic. Doesn't mean this is a direct punishment or chastisement. But it is remarkable that, for the most part, the virus doesn't target children, the group most targeted by the wickedness of the western world. 

Do I believe it is direct punishment from God? No. Do I believe it is not direct punishment from God? No. I'm not God, so I'm not sure. I'm sure we, as a wicked and perverted society, deserve it and far worse.

 

[Guest]

On 4/17/2020 at 10:08 PM, Delivery said:

I actually hope to attend Latin Mass sometime. And then maybe again and again.

 

I take that back. I probably plan on never going. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Guest

[chrysostom]

3 hours ago, Delivery said:

I take that back. I probably plan on never going.

Ah, I remember that article. Firmly in the "they looked at me wrong" school of journalism.

I don't get why you're tossing comments like that and hit-piece journalism and screenshots of vitriolic comment threads around. Inasmuch as this is a small community of Catholics (and Orthodox - hello there Anastasia) all trying to get along in their faith, I don't think it's helpful to import the bad parts of the internet in. Ms. Ballinger Fletcher argues elsewhere, and implies heavily here, that the TLM shouldn't even exist - and therefore that those sorts of communities should be wiped out. As it is, they're on the margins already. It just feels like a foot in the face, for no reason.

I'm not really offended, this is just the internet. It's just tiring.

Edited May 2, 2020 by chrysostom

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Ah, I remember that article. Firmly in the "they looked at me wrong" school of journalism.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/latin-mass-becomes-cult-toxic-tradition

Edited May 2, 2020 by Guest

[chrysostom]

21 minutes ago, Delivery said:

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/latin-mass-becomes-cult-toxic-tradition

I know, I've read it before.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

I know, I've read it before.

Sounds like it. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Guest