Adrian Milag: Bishop, why is Eucharistic reverence, particularly receiving on the tongue while kneeling, so vital for our faith today?
Bishop Schneider: It is so logical, so evident, so natural. When you look, if anyone would see our Lord with his eyes, his glory, what would he do? He would fall down. He would not stand. No. You see this with the apostles, with the women on the resurrection day, the day when they saw the risen Lord, they fell down and kissed His feet.
And the angels read the Apocalypse, there in heaven, the angels make even a prostration. And the elders adore the Lamb. And we weak, sinful people here on earth, we dare to say we stand. No, you cannot dare it.
When you really believe who is in the little host, not what, but who is in the little consecrated host, you cannot stand. You will fall down. You make yourself small and little before this unspeakable love of God in the Eucharist.
It is a necessity when you have faith. If you would know the gift and the greatness of the Holy Host, the Eucharist, you cannot stand. And then also to open your mouth, to let yourself be fed like a child. The Lord said, if you will not become like a child, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.
Children let themselves be fed by their mothers. This is such a loving gesture. Why do you not let yourself be fed by Jesus and open your mouth like a child?
And this is the surest way, like the publican who stood and said, I am not worthy. Like the publican who knelt behind in the temple and said, be merciful to me, and struck his breast. And who was standing? The Pharisee.
This is the standing position of the Pharisees, not the kneeling position. It is not the attitude of the Pharisees at all. It is the attitude of sinners, of the centurion, of the publican, of Mary Magdalene, and we are all sinners.
Adrian Milag: Yeah, Bishop, for those who are advocating receiving Communion in the hand, they always use this argument that the Lord gave the Last Supper by hand, not by mouth.
Bishop Schneider: It is not true. Why? Please give the demonstrations that prove it. There are no photographs. We have no description and no photographs of the Last Supper. So this is only a fanciful supposition. There is no reason why our Lord should have given it to the hand? Why is it not written? Nothing is written.
It is probably more likely that He gave the Holy Eucharist directly into the mouth, because this was a common custom among the Jewish people, and still today among Arab people.
And in our country also, when there is a meal, the father, or the head of the family, in this case, Jesus was the father of the family. He has the privilege, as a sign of love and respect for his children or his guests, even to take a piece of food and place it directly into the mouth of the guest.
I experienced this gesture once. I was once invited to my country by Oriental people to a meal, and the host said to me, as a sign of my honor and affection for you, please open your mouth. And he took a small piece and placed it in my mouth like Communion.
So you see, this was common in Jewish culture. So it is more probable that Our Lord gave Himself as a sign of love to the Apostles by placing it into the mouth, more probable than the other way, because the other way is a modern fantasy, a complete invention of modern customs, not of Oriental customs at that time, and still today in some Oriental countries. So this is not an argument at all.
Adrian Milag: Thank you for that, Bishop.
Bishop Schneider: I will add, even if it were so, the Apostles were already priests, even bishops. He made them bishops, and they had holy hands. They were not lay people. It is a dogma of faith that in the moment when the Lord said, “Do this in memory of me”, He constituted and ordained them bishops. And then He gave Holy Communion to them. Probably, he cleaned their mouths, but even if it was in the hand, they were already ordained and not lay people.