Absolutely made my day. Thank you thank you for such clear teaching, so very needed. Bishop Schneider is a true shepherd. Even if he were the only one left his "voice" would help me keep the Faith no matter what.
Bishop Schneider came here to my lay community here in The Philippines last month where we say the TLM. He had a very inspirational sermon where he told us to bare up with being marginalized for now and God will restore the Latin Mass especially if we prayed hard enough! Such a Holy Man!
My admiration and respect for Archbishop Schneider is immense. Particularly, even when he is correcting others, he does so with charity. I remind myself of his example when I found myself feeling anger or outrage about current controversial events going on in the Church.
@@karlheven8328 er ist wahrhaftig ein Segen für die ganze Welt. Ich weiss nicht welche Staatsangehörigkeit er hat. Geboren ist er in Kirgisistan :) Und dann später mit seinen Eltern nach Deutschland gezogen
How can Catholics will low levels of catechesis recover what appears to have not been taught in the last 50 years or so the Faith? Must we go back to pre-Vatican documents to get a more realistic and truthful teaching?
I bought and I’m getting to know well The Catechism of The Council of Trent or better still Catechism of st Pious X what a difference of Clarity especially on the uncertain areas
With all due respect to His Excellency, the argument that "Psalm 42 wasn't said at every Mass before 1965, and the Last Gospel wasn't always said at every Mass before 1965, therefore abolishing them entirely in 1965 is entirely unproblematic" does not follow. Firstly, it was only the 1960 Code of Rubrics that tinkered with the opening rites of Mass (i.e. abolishing them entirely if something such as a blessing preceded it) and decreed the omission of the Last Gospel when something followed Mass, e.g. Absolution at the catafalque). Some things were begun by the Pius XII Holy Week "reforms" in 1955 in a limited way, that is true. But they became applied generally only in 1960. Secondly, the fact that Psalm 42 was not said in Passiontide or at Requiems doesn't mean or justify that therefore it should NEVER be said. It was omitted (or, as some may say, never introduced) on those occasions for particular reasons, in CONTRAST to the ordinary rite of Mass where it would always be found. The omission of something as an exception to a rule does not mean that the rule is superfluous.
It's not the same, I asisted many Novus Ordo Ad Orientum, the comunion given in the tongue, but it felt empty..And it was given by my friends of a Franciscan Community. those were the times I was far away of the Catholic Church, because I went through a dissagrable situation when I was 12 years old. When I rediscovered the Mass of the Ages, I understood what had happened and what I missed.
@@samiamnot8906 Then we still obey, since thats the teaching of the Catholic Church, and one of her most important traditions. Otherwise wouldn't we become essentially protestant?
@@Gabriel-h8m So my local bishop says it is good and right for people to eat a meal in the actual church after Mass, so people stand about talking loudly and eating and drinking in front of the tabernacle. If he says to join in is that what you would do?
@@samiamnot8906 No, and the reason I wouldn't is because that Bishop would be disobeying the living Magisterium of the Church (the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with him) who teach otherwise. If I or other Catholics were to join a Bishop (or anyone one else for that matter) in disobedience against that Magisterium, we would become just another branch of protestants, and be guilty of sin.
Communion on hand is Mark of the Beast together with Lay Minister and Blessing of Non-Communicants. It is the buying and selling in the Altar Rail or Communion Line. This is why Our Lady of Akita had a mark on her right hand while The Visionary had a mark on left hand which she said is due to communion on hand
@@Gabriel-h8m There are several prophetic manifestation as even Catholics know. You see this explained by Dr. Scott Hahn. God's Word is eternal and Omnipresent too. There is what we call Typology. For your discernment 🙏 The ultimate manifestation of the Book of Revelation is this Dragon - satan 1st Beast - Freemasons 2nd Beast - Vatican 2 Number - John 6:66 meaning apostasy willed by God we see this in Rev 13:7 Buy and Sell communion 1. on hand - except on tongue 2. on forehead - for non-communicants 3. lay ministers Image - Altar with Table which means Last Supper not Institution of Holy Eucharist - Meal not Sacrifice Image on Earth - Last Supper photo on dining tables Looking at earlier verses. We see the dragon tail swept through the stars (symbolises both church or kingdom of God and bishops or apostles). It made 1/3 of the church and bishops fell into sin. This has to do be betrayal. Then the dragon is going after the woman who is pregnant --- this is Vatican 1. She gave birth to SSPX and other underground churches. She was separated from the 1st born who was taken up to heaven. Here is the FSSP. Then she ran and took refuge. She set up "Places of Refuge" check that term in Catholic Prophecies. Those places of refuge are TLM churches. This is how Our Lady will crush the head of the serpent (satan's 2nd beast as Vatican 2) she will convert them into places of refuge (TLM). May God bless and guide us 🙏
further... SSPX and underground churches is called "Remnant" in Catholic Prophecies while Other TLM churches are called "Remnant Church" "Remnant Army" includes all prayer groups. Please read Catholic prophecies like that. Take for example when they say "microchip" it means "not proper communion" which is communion on hand and lay people touching sacred vessels and non-communicants approaching the altar rail for blessing on forehead. Why is this wrong? We see in Book of Revelation that it is about the purification of the "Bride of Christ" And the wedding consummation is the Holy Communion. The "Groom" has to enter the "Bride" on His own and directly enter. May God bless and guide us 🙏
@@Gabriel-h8m so why is communion on hand wrong, as well as lay ministers and non-communicants approaching the altar rail? Because the Book of Revelation is about the Bride of Lord Jesus which is the church. Her purification and glory. Holy Communion is the Wedding Consummation. The Groom has to enter the bride on his own and directly inside the bride. for your discernment 🙏 May God bless and guide us 🙏
@@NoryJaneChristine I guess what confuses me about your answer is, why are you saying that the 2nd Vatican council of the church is Satans 2nd beast? You seem to have a good understanding of the bible, so I'm wondering how you can reconcile that claim with the fact that Jesus said that his church would never fail?
So: is the conclusion then, that catholics are receiving a damaging Eucharist in every Novus Ordo Mass?! is that Bishop Schneider's message?! Converts from protestantism/evangelicalism being fervent Catholics now - as converts are - receiving a damaging Eucharist all the time?!!! Appreciate an answer... Thx for the video.
If we only realised who is He, hidden under the appearance of a fragile host, the Holy of Holies, Almighty God, we would never approach him standing and reaching out with our hand. Out of fear and loving reverence. Especially, as many eucharistic miracles shown, it is His wounded sacred heart we receive.
@dan_m7774 you should do more research and reading before judging who is obedient to Christ and who is not. Read church fathers, lives of saints. Even old testament, ark of the covenant, who could touch it? Here is more than the ark. Nearly 2000 years of church history.... they were all years of disobedience to Christ you say? I do not want to debate but I pray that our Lord Jesus will lead us on a straight path and keep us in his heart. In the end it is only between us and God. Let's focus on this relationship with Him. God bless you.
@@TeM203 The early church you received by hand. Christ was touched constantly in crowds. Remember the Apostles being dumfounded why Christ asked the crowd who touched him? Receiving on the tongue was a novelty introduced as a man made way of showing respect. The Ark was prohibited to touch, because God said not to touch. God did not say do not touch the bread. You are to obey the Church if they restrict how to receive you obey. If they allow various ways, then don't disobey by claiming otherwise. To do so is to disrespect God, thus making you unworthy to receive in any form.
@@dan_m7774 please Read The Catechism of St Pious X then also listen to Bishops other podcast about “ take” verb and it’s loosely translated form from Aramaic into English.
Without any foreknowledge of `tradition` (and change of tradition), I have always intuitively received the Blessed Sacrament not by taking It with my fingers and then to my mouth but I have always offered up the palm of my hand for It to be placed therein from where I myself elevate It and receive It directly upon my tongue. As a lover of God, I see this meathod as the most loving way of initiating `Holy Communion`. In other words, just as the earliest tradition did, I have continued this particular practise, seeing this as the most natural, reverent and intimate manner of receiving My Eucharistic Lord.
"When those holy hierarchs, preachers of Christ, and defenders * of the Gospel teachings and Orthodox traditions had received in themselves * the divine radiance of the Holy Spirit, * they proclaimed the supernatural * pronouncement openly * to be their conviction inspired by God, * namely the Creed, which is concise * yet defines the true faith sufficiently. * Clearly these enlightened and blessed men, receiving from on high * the revelation, declared to all * the decision taught by God." (Byzantine hymn for the Sunday of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Just one of many examples that's a very far cry from Bishop Schneider's frankly Modernistic reductionism of conciliar spiritual authority, which somehow posits the Holy Spirit as a great unknown with just a few disparate manifestations in Church history. In any other era, "2,000 bishops gathered in ecumenical council said X" would've very much been taken as "the Holy Spirit has expressed X," without some sort of "Well, did it meet some very rare conditions of negatively-protected dogma defined at such-and-such a level only distinguished in the 19th century"
Hopefully Bsp Schneider can address Michael Lofton's criticism of his latest book Credo, in which according to Lofton Bsp Schneide is redefining the word schism.
What is there to address? Bishop Schneider gives a definition that is not the same as the actual definition from canon law and the traditional theological loci, this is simply a fact.
@@samiamnot8906 yes he does: Schneider: “Who are schismatics? Those who received baptism, yet have been separated from the unity of the Catholic Church by refusing to recognize the Supreme Pontiff or have canonical communion with him and the other members of the Church (e.g., the Orthodox).” Canon law: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Schneider redefines from “refusal of submission” to “refusal of recognition”, which makes sense given he holds water for groups that are schismatic according to the Church and this redefinition would make those groups no longer schismatic.
@@austinkent8811 “Q. Who are schismatics? A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.” -Catechism of St Pius X. A lay catechism can have a definition that is not identical to canon law and still be true and efficacious for the one being taught.
Why does a random auxiliary bishop’s opinion matter? The Church says communion in the hand is allowed, case closed. To claim the Church has erred on this matter is no different than the Protestants who claim the Church erred by moving to exclusively communion on the tongue.
You need to learn when and why they allowed communion in the hand. Case is not closed. If you belive that Christ is king and that He is a real in The Communion then you would never ever want to touch Him with your unworthy hands..God bless you.
"...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." So said Saint Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica*, Part III, Q.82, Art. 3. His opinion carries more weight than any of us.
@@doortjem5739 I wouldn’t want to touch him with my even more unworthy mouth either, thankfully he offers himself to us in spite of our unworthiness. I don’t remember saint James giving an in depth treatise on the evil of our hands either.
@@PadraigTomas his opinion carries less weight than the official disciplines of the Roman pontiff, who has changed the discipline in force in St Thomas time. Also kind of awkward considering Eastern priests don’t have consecrated hands and never have, and Roman priests didn’t have consecrated hands until well into the Middle Ages, that ceremony isn’t even native to the Roman Rite, it’s a Gallican accretion:
Absolutely made my day. Thank you thank you for such clear teaching, so very needed. Bishop Schneider is a true shepherd. Even if he were the only one left his "voice" would help me keep the Faith no matter what.
Oh my God ! Bishop Schneider is amazing ! He is so caring for us... ❤❤
Don't use Our Lord's name in vain. I can't believe that here, in 13 days, nobody has corrected you. You need to be more careful.
That was fabulous bishop Schneider! We love you and need your spiritual teaching !
What a wonderful and illuminating interview with our beloved Bishop Schneider. Thank you Timothy. God’s blessing to you both.
Bishop Schneider , deo gratias🙏🏽
Bishop Schneider came here to my lay community here in The Philippines last month where we say the TLM. He had a very inspirational sermon where he told us to bare up with being marginalized for now and God will restore the Latin Mass especially if we prayed hard enough! Such a Holy Man!
Thank you for correct info.
Greetings from a faithful following family from the Netherlands!!!!!!!
Greetings from the Netherlands, too 😊
My admiration and respect for Archbishop Schneider is immense. Particularly, even when he is correcting others, he does so with charity. I remind myself of his example when I found myself feeling anger or outrage about current controversial events going on in the Church.
Excellent clarity from Bs Schneider. 🙏
Watching from Poland! 🇵🇱
God Bless Bishop Schneider! A true shepherd of the Church!
Thank you for this interview. This clears lots of confusions that I had in mind.
PRAY, PRAY, PRAY FOR THE TRUE CATHOLIC TLM OF OUR LORD, JESUS CHRIST !!!!
Watching from germany ❤️🔥🙏🏽🌹📿
Er ist der beste deutsche Bischof (in Kasachstan aber er ist deutsch)😊❤
@@karlheven8328 er ist wahrhaftig ein Segen für die ganze Welt.
Ich weiss nicht welche Staatsangehörigkeit er hat.
Geboren ist er in Kirgisistan :)
Und dann später mit seinen Eltern nach Deutschland gezogen
@@kadi1100 Ja, seine ganze Familie ist deutschen Blutes.
Thank you for this video .Great teachings,
“Even a blind man could see.”
How can Catholics will low levels of catechesis recover what appears to have not been taught in the last 50 years or so the Faith? Must we go back to pre-Vatican documents to get a more realistic and truthful teaching?
Read the Catechism of the Council of Trent
I bought and I’m getting to know well The Catechism of The Council of Trent or better still Catechism of st Pious X what a difference of Clarity especially on the uncertain areas
Hello Tim what is the name of the 12 volume catchesis series that the bishop mentioned
With all due respect to His Excellency, the argument that "Psalm 42 wasn't said at every Mass before 1965, and the Last Gospel wasn't always said at every Mass before 1965, therefore abolishing them entirely in 1965 is entirely unproblematic" does not follow.
Firstly, it was only the 1960 Code of Rubrics that tinkered with the opening rites of Mass (i.e. abolishing them entirely if something such as a blessing preceded it) and decreed the omission of the Last Gospel when something followed Mass, e.g. Absolution at the catafalque). Some things were begun by the Pius XII Holy Week "reforms" in 1955 in a limited way, that is true. But they became applied generally only in 1960.
Secondly, the fact that Psalm 42 was not said in Passiontide or at Requiems doesn't mean or justify that therefore it should NEVER be said. It was omitted (or, as some may say, never introduced) on those occasions for particular reasons, in CONTRAST to the ordinary rite of Mass where it would always be found. The omission of something as an exception to a rule does not mean that the rule is superfluous.
It's not the same, I asisted many Novus Ordo Ad Orientum, the comunion given in the tongue, but it felt empty..And it was given by my friends of a Franciscan Community.
those were the times I was far away of the Catholic Church, because I went through
a dissagrable situation when I was 12 years old. When I rediscovered the Mass of the
Ages, I understood what had happened and what I missed.
God’s will is for us to obey the bishop of whatever diocese we are in.
What if the bishop is a wolf?
@@samiamnot8906 Exactly . Deus benedicat tibi ✝️🛐🛐🛐
@@samiamnot8906 Then we still obey, since thats the teaching of the Catholic Church, and one of her most important traditions. Otherwise wouldn't we become essentially protestant?
@@Gabriel-h8m So my local bishop says it is good and right for people to eat a meal in the actual church after Mass, so people stand about talking loudly and eating and drinking in front of the tabernacle. If he says to join in is that what you would do?
@@samiamnot8906 No, and the reason I wouldn't is because that Bishop would be disobeying the living Magisterium of the Church (the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with him) who teach otherwise. If I or other Catholics were to join a Bishop (or anyone one else for that matter) in disobedience against that Magisterium, we would become just another branch of protestants, and be guilty of sin.
The guy that hands out Jesus in The Most Blessed Sacrament almosts drops it. He's a great guy but not even an extraordinary minister.
Gosh. Sounds like +Schneider isn't 100% on board the Vatican II Sunshine Bus. Can anyone let me have the number of the DDF?
How can one pray for the intentions of the pope when he is promoting heresy?😊
Communion on hand is Mark of the Beast together with Lay Minister and Blessing of Non-Communicants. It is the buying and selling in the Altar Rail or Communion Line.
This is why Our Lady of Akita had a mark on her right hand while The Visionary had a mark on left hand which she said is due to communion on hand
I’m really confused here, why is communion on the hand the mark of the beast? That sounds like Protestant language to me
@@Gabriel-h8m There are several prophetic manifestation as even Catholics know. You see this explained by Dr. Scott Hahn. God's Word is eternal and Omnipresent too. There is what we call Typology.
For your discernment 🙏
The ultimate manifestation of the Book of Revelation is this
Dragon - satan
1st Beast - Freemasons
2nd Beast - Vatican 2
Number - John 6:66
meaning apostasy willed by God
we see this in Rev 13:7
Buy and Sell communion
1. on hand - except on tongue
2. on forehead - for non-communicants
3. lay ministers
Image - Altar with Table which means Last Supper not Institution of Holy Eucharist - Meal not Sacrifice
Image on Earth - Last Supper photo on dining tables
Looking at earlier verses.
We see the dragon tail swept through the stars (symbolises both church or kingdom of God and bishops or apostles). It made 1/3 of the church and bishops fell into sin. This has to do be betrayal.
Then the dragon is going after the woman who is pregnant --- this is Vatican 1.
She gave birth to SSPX and other underground churches.
She was separated from the 1st born who was taken up to heaven. Here is the FSSP.
Then she ran and took refuge.
She set up "Places of Refuge" check that term in Catholic Prophecies.
Those places of refuge are TLM churches.
This is how Our Lady will crush the head of the serpent (satan's 2nd beast as Vatican 2)
she will convert them into places of refuge (TLM).
May God bless and guide us 🙏
further...
SSPX and underground churches is called "Remnant" in Catholic Prophecies
while Other TLM churches are called "Remnant Church"
"Remnant Army" includes all prayer groups.
Please read Catholic prophecies like that.
Take for example when they say "microchip" it means "not proper communion" which is communion on hand and lay people touching sacred vessels and non-communicants approaching the altar rail for blessing on forehead.
Why is this wrong?
We see in Book of Revelation that it is about the purification of the "Bride of Christ"
And the wedding consummation is the Holy Communion.
The "Groom" has to enter the "Bride" on His own and directly enter.
May God bless and guide us 🙏
@@Gabriel-h8m so why is communion on hand wrong, as well as lay ministers and non-communicants approaching the altar rail?
Because the Book of Revelation is about the Bride of Lord Jesus which is the church.
Her purification and glory.
Holy Communion is the Wedding Consummation.
The Groom has to enter the bride on his own and directly inside the bride.
for your discernment 🙏
May God bless and guide us 🙏
@@NoryJaneChristine I guess what confuses me about your answer is, why are you saying that the 2nd Vatican council of the church is Satans 2nd beast? You seem to have a good understanding of the bible, so I'm wondering how you can reconcile that claim with the fact that Jesus said that his church would never fail?
Pius XII's condemnation of "liturgical archeologism," or Benedict XVI's "once sacred, always sacred" principle? Pick one, can't have both
So: is the conclusion then, that catholics are receiving a damaging Eucharist in every Novus Ordo Mass?! is that Bishop Schneider's message?! Converts from protestantism/evangelicalism being fervent Catholics now - as converts are - receiving a damaging Eucharist all the time?!!! Appreciate an answer... Thx for the video.
If we only realised who is He, hidden under the appearance of a fragile host, the Holy of Holies, Almighty God, we would never approach him standing and reaching out with our hand. Out of fear and loving reverence. Especially, as many eucharistic miracles shown, it is His wounded sacred heart we receive.
He told us to reach out and take, then eat. It is unfortunate to obey Christ upsets people.
@dan_m7774 you should do more research and reading before judging who is obedient to Christ and who is not. Read church fathers, lives of saints. Even old testament, ark of the covenant, who could touch it? Here is more than the ark.
Nearly 2000 years of church history.... they were all years of disobedience to Christ you say?
I do not want to debate but I pray that our Lord Jesus will lead us on a straight path and keep us in his heart. In the end it is only between us and God. Let's focus on this relationship with Him.
God bless you.
@@TeM203 The early church you received by hand. Christ was touched constantly in crowds. Remember the Apostles being dumfounded why Christ asked the crowd who touched him?
Receiving on the tongue was a novelty introduced as a man made way of showing respect. The Ark was prohibited to touch, because God said not to touch. God did not say do not touch the bread. You are to obey the Church if they restrict how to receive you obey. If they allow various ways, then don't disobey by claiming otherwise. To do so is to disrespect God, thus making you unworthy to receive in any form.
@@dan_m7774 please Read The Catechism of St Pious X then also listen to Bishops other podcast about “ take” verb and it’s loosely translated form from Aramaic into English.
@@TeM203 Deus benedicat tibi
✝️🛐🛐🛐
Without any foreknowledge of `tradition` (and change of tradition), I have always intuitively received the Blessed Sacrament not by taking It with my fingers and then to my mouth but I have always offered up the palm of my hand for It to be placed therein from where I myself elevate It and receive It directly upon my tongue. As a lover of God, I see this meathod as the most loving way of initiating `Holy Communion`. In other words, just as the earliest tradition did, I have continued this particular practise, seeing this as the most natural, reverent and intimate manner of receiving My Eucharistic Lord.
Ruh roh, don't tell Kwasniewski that "saying the Secret and the Embolism out loud are not substantive changes!"
Is it still live
"When those holy hierarchs, preachers of Christ, and defenders * of the Gospel teachings and Orthodox traditions had received in themselves * the divine radiance of the Holy Spirit, * they proclaimed the supernatural * pronouncement openly * to be their conviction inspired by God, * namely the Creed, which is concise * yet defines the true faith sufficiently. * Clearly these enlightened and blessed men, receiving from on high * the revelation, declared to all * the decision taught by God."
(Byzantine hymn for the Sunday of the Fourth Ecumenical Council)
Just one of many examples that's a very far cry from Bishop Schneider's frankly Modernistic reductionism of conciliar spiritual authority, which somehow posits the Holy Spirit as a great unknown with just a few disparate manifestations in Church history. In any other era, "2,000 bishops gathered in ecumenical council said X" would've very much been taken as "the Holy Spirit has expressed X," without some sort of "Well, did it meet some very rare conditions of negatively-protected dogma defined at such-and-such a level only distinguished in the 19th century"
Hopefully Bsp Schneider can address Michael Lofton's criticism of his latest book Credo, in which according to Lofton Bsp Schneide is redefining the word schism.
What is there to address? Bishop Schneider gives a definition that is not the same as the actual definition from canon law and the traditional theological loci, this is simply a fact.
credo is an amazing catechism.
@@austinkent8811 No he doesn't, I just checked it. Pages 78/79, same definition as canon law.
@@samiamnot8906 yes he does:
Schneider:
“Who are schismatics?
Those who received baptism, yet have been separated from the unity of the Catholic Church by refusing to recognize the Supreme Pontiff or have canonical communion with him and the other members of the
Church (e.g., the Orthodox).”
Canon law: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Schneider redefines from “refusal of submission” to “refusal of recognition”, which makes sense given he holds water for groups that are schismatic according to the Church and this redefinition would make those groups no longer schismatic.
@@austinkent8811 “Q. Who are schismatics? A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.” -Catechism of St Pius X. A lay catechism can have a definition that is not identical to canon law and still be true and efficacious for the one being taught.
Problem; The Bishop cannot communicate with God.
Jesus is God`Son. Ask God for his Son`s birthdate.
;
:
Why does a random auxiliary bishop’s opinion matter? The Church says communion in the hand is allowed, case closed. To claim the Church has erred on this matter is no different than the Protestants who claim the Church erred by moving to exclusively communion on the tongue.
You need to learn when and why they allowed communion in the hand. Case is not closed. If you belive that Christ is king and that He is a real in The Communion then you would never ever want to touch Him with your unworthy hands..God bless you.
Austin. Consider attending the Canonized Latin Mass and moving away from the "made by committee in 4 years" Novus Ordo rite.
"...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."
So said Saint Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica*, Part III, Q.82, Art. 3.
His opinion carries more weight than any of us.
@@doortjem5739 I wouldn’t want to touch him with my even more unworthy mouth either, thankfully he offers himself to us in spite of our unworthiness. I don’t remember saint James giving an in depth treatise on the evil of our hands either.
@@PadraigTomas his opinion carries less weight than the official disciplines of the Roman pontiff, who has changed the discipline in force in St Thomas time.
Also kind of awkward considering Eastern priests don’t have consecrated hands and never have, and Roman priests didn’t have consecrated hands until well into the Middle Ages, that ceremony isn’t even native to the Roman Rite, it’s a Gallican accretion:
Absolutely you are to touch God. More exactly you are to Eat while doing it .
I want Communion in the hand! I am fed up with people wh0 want t0 FORCE EVERY0NE to receive the Host n the tongue 0NLY!
Want? A bit entitled, aren't we? The Lord is your Shepherd, you shall not want.
@@TeM203irony from those who only want the TLM and on the tongue
@@gracieobunny9916 nonsense
@@gracieobunny9916 The irony of sticking your tongue out at God 😃
When did the Church become a democracy? I want sounds very prideful. Maybe what you want is not what you need.