De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

In case you hadn't heard, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan has been visiting the UK. He is a hero to many British Catholics and especially popular for his work Dominus Est . Indeed,  Inside the Vatican Magazine online has named him as one of the “Top Ten” people of 2013 . Now, The Catholic Herald published an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider in its edition of 30 May 2014. The interview was conducted by freelance journalist Sarah Atkinson, who is also the editor of Mass of Ages . The interview published in the Catholic Herald was limited by space, but the full text of the interview, which has been approved by the bishop, has been published by the LMS here  and by Rorate Caeli here . It is so worthwhile, I am reproducing some of it here (with my own emphasis and comments). Please follow the link to the LMS site if you want to read the whole thing. One of the most important issues the Bi...

I think that the manner of reception of Holy Communion and the attitude to the Blessed Sacrament is very important. Since Vatican II, we have seen a marked emphasis on the meal aspect of the Eucharist at the expense of the Sacrificial aspect. Yet the Church teaches, and has always taught that the Eucharist is indeed a Sacrifice. Pope John Paul II referred to Jesus' institution of "the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His body and blood," which is, he said, not only a reminder but also "the sacramental re-presentation of the Lord's passion and death" ( Ecclesia de Eucharistia , 11). Perhaps the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist is uncomfortable for many of us. Of course, we have no experiential concept of sacrifice apart from the Eucharist itself. This action would be immediately recognised for what it is by anyone who knew what a sacrifice is: all the elements are there, altar, bound victim, the priest who offers the sacrifice. The sacrificial model com...

I spotted this excellent article by Catherine Bauer on Catholic Insight. It gives a brilliant synopsis of the history of the introduction of the reception of Communion in the hand as follows (emphasis mine): Since the practice of Communion in the hand has become the common observance in most countries, there has been, whether you like to admit it or not, a spike in Eucharistic abuse. Communion in the hand has given those who wish to do harm and those who are careless the opportunity to do what they want with the Body of Christ. Unfortunately, the situation described above is not uncommon. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Furthermore, Communion in the hand has the potential to promote or at least foster a disrespect for the Body of Christ. As Catholics, we believe this small Host does not represent Christ, but is Christ Himself. How can we, then, possibly touch the living presence of God with our bare, dirty, unconsecrated, and unworthy hands? How? How have we even considered t...

Further to my post here , I thought I should report a discussion which developed on Facebook and produced what I thought were some very important points. It is important I think, while expressing one's own valid preferences and expressions, not to give the impression that there is something wrong or disrespectful about a practice explicitly approved by the Church. Reception on the tongue and on the hand are both permitted and I have seen both practised with great devotion. I have also seen both practised carelessly, though I am sure unintentionally so. If the Church gives us a choice then people are entitled to make either choice without any judgment being made about their interior disposition. It is a matter for you if you make that choice and I do not doubt your devotion. To make a judgment about the heart of someone who receives in another way is not appropriate though. It's not a question of the letter of the law. Both practises are long established in the traditio...

Fr. Graham Smith Celebrating Holy Mass at Gethsemane. The manner in which Catholics receive the Blessed Sacrament seems to be a particular battle ground at the present time. It is understandable that devout Catholics may feel intimidated and indeed, affronted, by the suggestion that their regular practice in terms of the reception of the Eucharist is less than perfect. I want to make it clear from the start that this is not my intention here. Certainly I would hesitate to polarise the debate as being between good and bad Catholics in any way, I do not think it is a matter of traditionalists versus liberals, or devout versus, let us say, those with a more laissez-faire attitude toward faith. I have no doubt that many devout Catholics today receive in the hand. Rather, I would tend to portray the argument as one of personal devotion and understanding, which certainly describes my own journey from the hand to the tongue. It's one I would share and open up for honest discussion h...