The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ


JULY 23, 2015


The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ

By Bishop Athanasius Schneider, March 14, 2012


The following passages are from the January 15, 2012 address of Bishop Athanasius Schneider to the Fourth Meeting on Catholic Unity sponsored by Réunicatho.

The address on the theme “The Extraordinary Form and the New Evangelization” was published in English translation this week on the English website of Paix Liturgique. The bishop contends, among other things, that the Novus Ordo Offertory prayers constitute the “third wound” of the Catholic liturgy.


…There is a certain number of concrete aspects of the currently prevailing liturgical practice in the ordinary rite that represent a veritable rupture with a constant and millennium-old liturgical practice.

By this I mean the five liturgical practices I shall mention shortly; they may be termed the five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ. These are wounds, for they amount to a violent break with the past since they deemphasize the sacrificial character (which is actually the central and essential character of the Mass) and put forward the notion of banquet. All of this diminishes the exterior signs of divine adoration, for it brings out the heavenly and eternal dimension of the mystery to a far lesser degree. Now the five wounds (except for the new Offertory prayers) are those that are not envisaged in the ordinary form of the rite of Mass but were brought into it through the practice of a deplorable fashion.


A) The first and most obvious wound is the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass in which the priest celebrates with his face turned towards the faithful, especially during the Eucharistic prayer and the consecration, the highest and most sacred moment of the worship that is God’s due.

This exterior form corresponds, by its very nature, more to the way in which one teaches a class or shares a meal. We are in a closed circle. And this form absolutely does not conform to the moment of the prayer, less yet to that of adoration. And yet Vatican II did not want this form by any means; nor has it ever been recommended by the Magisterium of the Popes since the Council.

Pope Benedict wrote in the preface to the first volume of his collected works: “The idea that the priest and the people in prayer must look at one another reciprocally was born only in the modern age and is completely foreign to ancient Christianity. In fact, the priest and the people do not address their prayer to one another, but together they address it to the one Lord. For this reason they look in the same direction in prayer: either towards the East as the cosmic symbol of the Lord’s return, or where this in not possible, towards an image of Christ in the apse, towards a cross, or simply upwards.”

The form of celebration in which all turn their gaze in the same direction (conversi ad orientem, ad Crucem, ad Dominum) is even mentioned in the rubrics of the new rite of the Mass (see Ordo Missae, 25, 133, 134). The so-called “versus populum” celebration certainly does not correspond to the idea of the Holy Liturgy as mentioned in the declaration of Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 8. 


B) The second wound is communion in the hand, which is now spread nearly throughout the entire world.

Not only was this manner of receiving communion in no way mentioned by the Vatican II Council Fathers, but it was in fact introduced by a certain number of bishops in disobedience to the Holy See and in spite of the negative majority vote by bishops in 1968.

Pope Paul VI legitimized it only later, reluctantly, and under specific conditions.

Pope Benedict XVI, since Corpus Christi 2008, distributes Communion to the faithful kneeling and on their tongue only, both in Rome and also in all the local churches he visits. He thus is showing the entire Church a clear example of practical Magisterium in a liturgical matter.

Since the qualified majority of the bishops refused Communion in the hand as something harmful three years after the Council, how much more the Council Fathers would have done so! 



C) The third wound is the new Offertory prayers.

They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal. In the more than thousand-year tradition of the Church in both East and West, the Offertory prayers have always been expressly oriented to the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross (see e.g. Paul Tirot, Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIème au XVIème siècle [Rome, 1985]).

There is no doubt that such an absolutely new creation contradicts the clear formulation of Vatican II that states: “Innovationes ne fiant… novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice crescant” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23). 


D) The fourth wound is the total disappearance of Latin in the huge majority of Eucharistic celebrations in the Ordinary Form in all Catholic countries.

This is a direct infraction against the decisions of Vatican II


E) The fifth wound is the exercise of the liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women as well as the exercise of these same services in lay clothing while entering into the choir during Holy Mass directly from the space reserved to the faithful.

This custom has never existed in the Church, or at least has never been welcome. It confers to the celebration of the Catholic Mass the exterior character of informality, the character and style of a rather profane assembly.

The second council of Nicaea, already in 787, forbad such practices when it lay down the following canon: “If someone is not ordained, it is not permitted for him to do the reading from the ambo during the holy liturgy” (can. 14).

This norm has been constantly followed in the Church. Only subdeacons and lectors were allowed to give the reading during the liturgy of the Mass. If lectors and acolytes are missing, men or boys in liturgical vestments may do so, not women, since the male sex symbolically represents the last link to minor orders from the point of view of the non-sacramental ordination of lectors and acolytes. The texts of Vatican II never mention the suppression of the minor orders and of the subdiaconate or the introduction of new ministries. In Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 28, the Council distinguishes “minister” from “fidelis” during the liturgical celebration, and it stipulates that each may do only what pertains to him by the nature of the liturgy.

Number 29 mentions the “ministrantes”, that is the altar servers who have not been ordained. In contrast to them, there are, in keeping with the juridical terms in use at that time, the “ministri,” that is to say those who have received an order, be it major or minor.


As concerns the new Offertory prayers, it would be desirable for the Holy See to replace them with the corresponding prayers of the extraordinary form, or at least to allow for the use of the latter ad libitum.

In this way the rupture between the two forms would be avoided not only externally but also internally.

Rupture in the liturgy is precisely what the Council Fathers did not what. The Council’s minutes attest to this, because throughout the two thousand years of the liturgy’s history, there has never been a liturgical rupture and, therefore, there never can be. On the other hand there must be continuity, just as it is fitting for the Magisterium to be in continuity.  

The five wounds of the Church’s liturgical body I have mentioned are crying out for healing. They represent a rupture that one may compare to the exile in Avignon. The situation of so sharp a break in an expression of the Church’s life is far from unimportant—back then the absence of the popes from Rome, today the visible break between the liturgy before and after the Council. This situation indeed cries out for healing.  

For this reason we need new saints today, one or several Saint Catherines of Sienna. We need the “vox populi fidelis” demanding the suppression of this liturgical rupture. The tragedy in all of this is that, today as back in the time of the Avignon exile, a great majority of the clergy, especially in its higher ranks, is content with this rupture.



1. Finally, we have a Novus Ordo bishop pointing out the obvious. The “ordinary” form must be removed for good! –Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. 


2. Everything that I have read about +Schneider leads me to conclude that:
A. There is hope for good Bishops and Cardinals from within the hierarchy.
B. I would recommend +Schneider for the red hat. –Tradical


3. I expect Bishop Schneider to be promoted to Antarctica now… –David


4. Over and over for decades they talk about the rupture that exists stating that it can never exist. They identify what is a rupture and what is not. They speak of reform and continuity but nothing comes of it in your parish.




Meanwhile folks hoping for change and continuity continue to leave the Church. We get “examples” from Rome about what Mass should look like and can witness the Holy Father’s preferences during his Pontificate. Where does that leave the millions of Catholics who want change and continuity in their parish? Watching Papal Mass on TV with no help in enforcing or requesting change in their parishes. The Church needs legislation and mandates to enact change. It goes hand in hand, example and legislation. The example method is fine and noble, but without the strong hand of a Father (legislation) it goes ignored in most of the world. Ad Orientem, being the most critical should be implemented “yesterday”, and this is the most visible, external rupture with the previous Missal. It has to be corrected. If we cannot start anywhere then what is the point of all this? This is what the regular guy in the pew thinks. People will always grumble, disagree, and leave because of change. It is never going to be otherwise. But trusting in the Church, that she is doing what is right for Her Faithful is the bottom line. If we continue to see the rupture tolerated and identified, then nothing concrete is done to mandate change, then all confidence in Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father evaporates into thin air. Credibility becomes a huge issue. Start already! –Gregorian Mass


5. I think one could also include the use of profane music in the liturgy, though perhaps this does not rise to the gravity of these five offences. Thank goodness more and more bishops and cardinals are fearlessly and boldly saying these things. They need to be heard, and sooner rather than later. –mwk3

“The Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ” according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

1. Mass versus populum (Mass facing the people).

2. Communion in the hand.

3. The Novus Ordo Offertory prayers.

4. Disappearance of Latin in the Ordinary Form.

5. Liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women and ministers in lay clothing.


Bishop Schneider celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass in Tallinn, Estonia


Who is Bishop Athanasius Schneider?

Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C. (born Anton Schneider on 7 April 1961) is a Roman Catholic bishop who is the auxiliary bishop of Maria Santissima, Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina. He is a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra.

Bishop Schneider defends the traditional form of receiving Holy Communion (kneeling, on the tongue) in Roman Catholic liturgy. This is the theme of his book Dominus est (It is the Lord!), published in Italian, and since translated into English, German, Estonian, Lithuanian, Polish, Hungarian and Chinese.

The book contains a foreword written by Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, then the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the current Archbishop of Colombo and Metropolitan head of the church in Sri Lanka.

Bishop Schneider encourages Catholics who truly believe they are receiving Christ in the Blessed Sacrament should kneel and receive Communion on their tongues: “The awareness of the greatness of the Eucharistic mystery is demonstrated in a special way by the manner in which the body of the Lord is distributed and received”.

At a theological conference in Rome in December 2010, Bishop Schneider proposed the need for “a new Syllabus” (recalling the 1864 Syllabus of Errors), in which papal teaching authority would correct erroneous interpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.


Categories: Liturgical Abuses

1 reply

  1. Much to the annoyance of some priests I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE our SAVIOUR in the form of the HOLY COMMUNION wafer directly on my tongue — Indeed sad that the reverence of kneeling when receiving our SAVIOUR has been done away with — it is however amusing to see the disgust on the face of the priest when he SHOVES / DUMPS the HOLY COMMUNION wafer on to my tongue — BUT my LORD I know I am respecting YOU !!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


The greatest site in all the land! Testimonies

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai – 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail:,

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church

Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai - 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail:,

%d bloggers like this: