The Eucharistic Storms: Communion in the hand and the marginalizing of the Real Presence

"ITS ABOUT TIME a book on Communion in the hand be written with such zeal for the Holy Sacrament. There is no denying that the foundation of the modern day crisis in the Church is the widespread contempt toward the Holy Eucharist, fostered largely by the practice of Communion in the hand. Thanks to this illicit practice a sense of "Eucharistic atheism" prevails throughout the Church. It has truly caused the Church in our time to forget God and laugh at the Sacred Mysteries.

"But it has also provided satanists with free access to come into the church and steal the Host during Mass, so that they take it back to their covens where it is stomped and abused in the ritualistic Black Mass to satan. For this reason satanists introduced Communion in the Hand in the late sixties, and then used the rebellious "Rhine bishops" to execute their plan after Vatican II. Satan's infiltration of the hierarchy (Third Secret) is what led to the change of religion we have seen in our time, and is what is preventing the clergy from abolishing Communion in the Hand today. A spirit of fear holds the hierarchy fast. Under the illusion of divine guidance the clergy are being led by temptation. According to the testimony of ex-satanists, Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, so why is the hierarchy assisting them? Even if everything else in the Mass is done right, Communion in the Hand will continue to cheapen the Faith and advance the apostasy that is already so widespread. The Church will never be restored to orthodoxy unless this practice is stopped! The quickest and easiest way is to restore the old Mass which forbids Communion in the hand."

Source: David Martin

Check out The Eucharistic Storms: Communion in the hand and the marginalizing of the Real Presence and check out my prior post on the topic: Mission Restore Eucharistic Reverence.

Read more >>

St. Maximilian Kolbe on Ecumenism

"There is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s Ecumenism which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy" (Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe)

Read more >>

Paul VI: "Liberal Cardinal Elected Pope"

Sometimes a caption says it all: Newspaper from 1963 on Pope Paul VI's election: "Liberal Cardinal Elected new Pope."

Read more >>

Six Components of Liberal Catholicism that Seek to Destroy the Church: Part 3: Separation of Church and State

To recap, Eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote an enlightening article in the American Ecclesiastical Review (1958) titled “The Components of Liberal Catholicism”. Despite its appearance before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton appropriately presented, as in prophetic fashion, the coming attack on the Church from within. Msgr. Fenton summarizes liberal Catholicism into six main categories which together pose the greatest threat to the Church in our modern times: 

1. Religious Indifferentism
2. False concepts of human freedom
3. Advocacy of the separation of Church and state
4. Minimism
5. Subjectivism
6. The evolution of at least some dogmatic teachings of the Church.

We often hear the phrase "separation of Church and State" spoken of with words of elation.  On the contrary, a Catholic must understand that the separation of Church and State is a modern assault on the Dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingship which we all universally celebrate.  Perhaps no other modern idea is so falsely praised as is this erroneous one.

We can learn much by reading the noble words of Cardinal Pie:

"The main error, the capital crime of this century is the pretension of withdrawing public society from the government and the law of God... The principle laid at the basis of the whole modern social structure is atheism of the law and of the institutions. Let it be disguised under the names of abstention, neutrality, incompetence or even equal protection, let us even go to the length of denying it by some legislative dispositions for details or by accidental and secondary acts: the principle of the emancipation of the human society from the religious order remains at the bottom of things; it is the essence of what is called the new era." (Cardinal Pie, Pastoral Works, vol. VII, pp. 3, 100)

"The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time has not come for governments to last." (Cardinal Pie, meeting with Emperor Napoleon III)

"Jesus Christ has been constituted the King of kings. Yes, and the true glory, the true nobility of kings, ever since the preaching of the Gospel, is to be the lieutenants of Jesus Christ on earth. Would per chance the kings have been less great since the cross glitters on top of their diadems? Would the throne have been less famous, less secure since kingship is an emanation, a participation of the kingship of Jesus Christ?

"Jesus Christ has been constituted king, and the true dignity, the true liberty, the true emancipation of modern nations is to have the right to be governed in a Christian manner. Would per chance the nations have been falling from their glory? Would their fate have been less noble, less happy since the scepters to which they obey are bound to submit to the scepter of Jesus? Let us repeat it, my brethren: Christianity does not reach its full development, its full maturity, where it does not take on a social character. Such is what Bossuet expressed in this way : 'Christ does not reign if his Church is not mistress, if the peoples cease to pay to Jesus Christ, to his doctrine, to his law, a national homage.' When the Christianity of a country is reduced to the bare proportions of the domestic life, when Christianity is no longer the soul of public life, of public power, of public institutions, then Jesus Christ deals with this country in the manner he is there dealt with. He continues to give his grace and his blessings to the individuals who serve him, but he abandons the institutions, the powers which do not serve him; and the institutions, the kings, the nations become like shifting sand in the desert, they fall away like the autumn leaves which are gone with the wind." (Cardinal Pie, Works, vol. II, pp.259–60)

The Social and Political Doctrine of the Church (i.e. Doctrine of the Two Swords) was well understood by Catholic princes. The Union between Church and State, between the Priesthood and the Empire, was never stronger than during the Carolingian Dynasty, the second Frankish ruling dynasty (751-987 A.D.), founded by Pepin the Short, but named after his son, Charlemagne (Charles the Great). This Union and cooperation between the Church and Christian Princes continued during the Ottonian Saxon Dynasty (936-1024 A.D.), ruled successively by Otto Ist, Otto II, Otto III, and (Saint) Henry II. Pope Leo III restored the Western Roman Empire, when he crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor on Christmas Day, in 800 A.D. In 962 A.D, Pope John XII restored the Roman Empire again, when he crowned Otto Ist Emperor. The actual term “Holy Roman Empire” dates from 1254 A.D.

The Doctrine of the Two Swords teaches us that Christ, being both God and man, is King of
the Universe, and as such, His Kingship, which includes both individual souls, as well the whole of society, should be officially recognized by all nations. Accordingly, His Spouse, Holy Mother Church, is Queen, while the Sovereign Pontiff exercises that Kingship on His behalf. He does so in two ways:]

1. He exercises a Direct Power in the Spiritual Field, by means of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy(bishops and priests);

2. He may apply an Indirect Power in the Temporal Field, which is entrusted to laypeople, particularly to the natural leaders of men, such as emperors, kings, knights, heads of state, political leaders, magistrates, chiefs of tribes, heads of families. The Hierarchy doctrinally guides these natural leaders but will admonish them, and even condemn them, if necessary, as they did to erring princes in past ages. By this Authority, and because Catholic leaders once respected this Indirect Power, past popes were able to depose the two above-mentioned German Roman Emperors. This power was last used by Pope St Pius V, when he excommunicated Queen Elizabeth Ist, thereby relieving the English of all allegiance to her.

Bishop Williamson declares similar sentiments on the necessity of the primacy of the Catholic religion.  We conclude with these words from January 14, 2012:

Number CCXXXV (235)		14 January 2012
STATE  RELIGION III
To claim that States need not profess or protect the Catholic religion is a classic liberal error, and one of the major errors of Vatican II. Liberalism said, so to speak, “Let us not attack Catholicism head on, but let us divide and rule. Let us divide the individual   man from society by pretending that man is not a social animal, and then we can pretend that religion is purely an individual affair. This will enable us to take over society, and once we have made it liberal, we can turn it back on the individual as a mighty weapon to liberalize him too, because of course man is a social animal !   If any individual then wants not to be liberal, he will have great difficulty in resisting his society that we have liberalized.”  Not so ?  Look around !  Then let us answer   three more objections to the doctrine that, for the salvation of souls, every State should be Catholic. Your Excellency, Our Lord himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mt. XXII, 21). Here Our Lord   is clearly separating Church from State. Therefore no State should get involved in Catholicism or any other religion Answer, no, Our Lord is not here separating Church from State !  He is making the common sense distinction   between what the individual owes to the State (taxes, etc.) and what he owes to God (worship). Our Lord is absolutely not saying that the temporal State owes nothing to the eternal God. In fact the State, as being the collective temporal authority of a collection of human beings, owes to God in its acts of authority what they owe to him as social beings, namely the social observance of his natural law, and to that Church which natural reason on its own can see to be true, as much social recognition and promotion as will not get in the way of the salvation of souls. But discerning which is the true religion is something for the individual to do. How then can the State as State be obliged in principle to be Catholic ? Answer, the State is nothing but the moral (i.e. non-material) association in a political body of a greater or lesser number of physical (i.e. material) human beings. But every one of these human beings, merely by the upright use of his natural reason, whether or not he has the supernatural virtue of the Faith, is capable of discerning that God exists, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Catholic Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. If then any given State does not discern which is the true religion, that is not because its citizens cannot discern, but because for a variety of reasons they will not, or do not want to do so, by making an upright use of their God-given reason. In fact they can discern, and before God they will all bear a greater or lesser responsibility, perfectly measured by him according to their circumstances, for failing to do so. But, your Excellency, if you insist on every State’s obligation to be Catholic, you are merely going to make a lot of martyrs for evil.  It is for the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls that every State should be Catholic. To men therefore too ignorant or corrupt for this truth to do anything but alienate them, one may, without minimising the principle, hesitate to proclaim it, but that does not make it any less true. True principles are no less true for sometimes requiring in practice a measure of prudence in the way they are to be told. Surely readers of this “Commentary” can be told the whole   truth ! Kyrie eleison.

Read more >>

Six Components of Liberal Catholicism that Seek to Destroy the Church: Part 2

In a continuation of Six Components of Liberal Catholicism that Seek to Destroy the Church: Part 1, where I discussed the grave errors present in religious indifferentism, I wish to explore the false concepts of human freedom.

To recap, Eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote an enlightening article in the American Ecclesiastical Review (1958) titled “The Components of Liberal Catholicism”. Despite its appearance before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton appropriately presented, as in prophetic fashion, the coming attack on the Church from within. Msgr. Fenton summarizes liberal Catholicism into six main categories which together pose the greatest threat to the Church in our modern times:

1. Religious Indifferentism
2. False concepts of human freedom
3. Advocacy of the separation of Church and state
4. Minimism
5. Subjectivism
6. The evolution of at least some dogmatic teachings of the Church.

To start our discussion, I wish to excerpt from Professor Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue.  In this text, which I reviewed in a separate blog post, MacIntyre specifically addresses the false concepts of human freedom.  At the very core of MacIntyre's book is the notion that the Enlightenment project of justifying the existence of morality outside of a teleological context (whether that be for the end of justice, for the end of observing God's revealed Law, etc) has failed.

MacIntryre places emphasis in his text on the false notions of human freedom which are similarly condemned by Msgr. Fenton. MacIntyre write:

[T]hose rights which are alleged to belong to human beings as such and which are cited as a reason for holding that people ought not to be interfered with in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. . . . the rights which are spoken of in the eighteenth century as natural rights or as the rights of man. . . . there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and unicorns.

The best reason for asserting so bluntly that there are no such rights is indeed of precisely the same type as the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no witches and the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no unicorns: every attempt to give good reasons for believing that there are such rights has failed (69).

In short, he does not believe any such rights exist for the mere fact that we are "humans" and he attacks that any such rights can truly be "self evident".

But, even if this were true, how is this an issue of grave importance to Catholics?  Does it not seem to be only a philosophical or a political debate?

On the contrary, these issues are of paramount importance to Catholics. 

"These principles emanate from the spirit of French revolution and its complete revolt against God, Church and the Catholic social order through which man replaced God as the sole arbiter of what is good and true. Vennari does a good job explaining the underlying ideology of the French revolution, namely naturalism, with its denial of revelation, supernatural life and its victorious attempt to drive Our Lord Jesus Christ from the life of the society" (Catholic Family News)

In fact, many of the six components of liberal Catholicism have their roots in the Enlightenment.  Let's revisit religious indifferentism to see their connection with Enlightenment principles.

The heretic Martin Luther remarked, “No one must be constrained. Liberty is the very essence of faith.”  Such a statement, which has rooted itself in Western Democracies in our Post-Enlightenment society, is nothing other than a grave evil.   His Holiness Pope Gregory XVI's words in Mirari Vos serve as a guide for our times and a warning to turn away from liberty of conscience:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion… ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’…

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. 

Some would say that the cause of discord in the Church originated at the 2nd Vatican Council. While I do feel that the Council was one of the most debilitating assaults to the traditional faith, our world has been suffering from a pernicious cancer induced during the Enlightenment. The philosophers of the enlightened led to the French Revolution and the essential collapse of Catholicism in what was once regarded the most Catholic nation in the world. Since that time we have seen mankind exalted and the faith and piety of many vanish.  And as the Faith was toppled in France and outlawed, they replaced Catholicism with a humanism that praised human freedom and these so called "rights".  There was no longer speak or original sin, salvation, redemption, reparation, Faith, etc.  Now there is only "rights" and "privileges". 

Our Blessed Lady’s appearance in Fatima (1917) illustrates the revolution in the hearts of mankind long before the Council. And, recall Our Lady’s similar appearance in La Salette (1846). Our world has been rebelling against authority, against traditional manners of dress and practices of sexuality, etc, etc for generations. And it was this modernism that was so forcefully condemned by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X. Unfortunately, modernism – the true cause of our problems – has been misunderstood. We are certainly – and should not be – opposed to advances in technologies and ways of life that improve our living. However, modernism the heresy is the movement in Roman Catholic thought that sought to interpret the teachings of the Church in the light of philosophic and scientific conceptions prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Unfortunately, modernism entered the ranks of some prominent members of the clergy in the 1950s and 1960s leading to the collapse of interior piety and reverence as well as the exterior visibility of our internal faith (e.g. genuflections, public processions, etc). It was precisely this school of thought of modernism that individuals present at the Council sought to fight – people like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Unfortunately, the members of the clergy who consented to the enlightenment philosophies have worked exceedingly hard to tarnish the name and reputation of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre and any Catholics who wish to attend the Mass of the Saints. Have you noticed that of all priests canonized as of this point, none of them said the Novus Ordo Mass...

And so we arrive back at human freedoms.  If we accept these, we put ourselves in opposition to the Holy Church and its teachings of sin, redemption, and salvation.  No Catholic can believe in inherent rights to "life, liberty, and property" that are divorced from God.  For liberty is no right at all.  As St. Thomas Aquinas affirms in Q. 47, Article 2 of the Summa, inequalities (yes - inequalities) are things from God.

When Origen wished to refute those who said that the distinction of things arose from the contrary principles of good and evil, he said that in the beginning all things were created equal by God. For he asserted that God first created only the rational creatures and all equal; and that inequality arose in them from free-will, some being turned to God more and some less, and others turned more and others less away from God. And so those rational creatures which were turned to God by free-will, were promoted to the order of angels according to the diversity of merits. And those who were turned away from God were bound down to bodies according to the diversity of their sin; and he said this was the cause of the creation and diversity of bodies. But according to this opinion, it would follow that the universality of bodily creatures would not be the effect of the goodness of God as communicated to creatures, but it would be for the sake of the punishment of sin, which is contrary to what is said: "God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good" (Genesis 1:31). And, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 3): "What can be more foolish than to say that the divine Architect provided this one sun for the one world, not to be an ornament to its beauty, nor for the benefit of corporeal things, but that it happened through the sin of one soul; so that, if a hundred souls had sinned, there would be a hundred suns in the world?"

Therefore it must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality. This may be explained as follows. A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only. And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction. Hence we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species. Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material. Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity. Hence in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these one species is more perfect than others. Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality. For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.

All things, aside from sin, come from God - equalities and inequalities, rain and shine (cf. Matthew 5:45 ), light and darkness.  Should we ascribe to the modern notion that all peoples possess the same rights, duties, privileges, and entitlements, then we place ourselves in opposition to Almighty God and His Holy Church.

Read more >>

Liberal Catholicism Condemned

"Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary" (Pope Pius IX)

Read more >>

Apostacy: Masons Honored in a Catholic Church

As shockingly reported by the SSPX. How long can this silent apostacy go on? Kyrie eleison!

First reported on August 28 by the Brazilian web-forum, FRATRESINUNUM, a “Day of the Mason” was observed on August 20 at the church of Nossa Senhora da Conceicao (Our Lady of Conception) in the Brazilian town of Belo Jardim in the diocese of Pesqueira-Pernambuco.

The event consisted of Mass (per the Novus Ordo Missae) with Masons processing into the church in full Freemasonic regalia of ribbons, collars and aprons, and bearing tools of their “craft”, the compass, hammer and square.

In addition to being granted an official place of honor in the church during Mass, they were also allowed to speak from the altar and present their tools as memorial gifts to the celebrant, Fr. Geraldo Magela de Silva. Even worse though, these Freemasons – were also given Communion.

All of this is a direct violation of the Church’s law concerning Freemasons, as expounded first by Pope Clement XII In Eminenti Apostolatus in 1738 and most famously by Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus in 1884, which Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Holy Father) reiterated with Pope John Paul II’s approval in 1983:

Therefore the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion

The first condemnation against Freemasonry given by Pope Clement XII per In Eminenti (1738) was repeated and even extended by Benedict XIV (1751), Pius VII (1821), Leo XII in Quo Graviora (1826), Pius VIII (1829), Gregory XVI (1832), Pius IX (Qui Pluribus in 1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1873), and of course, Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus (1884) and Custodi di Quella Fede (1890). Later, the 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that Catholics who joined a Masonic organization incurred a penalty of ipso facto excommunication. It is also noteworthy that in a response dated February 17, 1981, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith also reiterated the 1917 Code’s penalty.  

When will more people realize the prophetic character of (St.) Archbishop Lefebvre?

They talk to us of obedience. We wish to and we try to obey more and more every day the Church of all time founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God and Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity but we refuse to obey Masonry with its promotion of liturgical reform resulting in the “naturalization of the Incarnation.” The effects of the liturgical reforms are every day more clear and obvious to all. The ecumenical Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters. One cannot nourish oneself indifferently with truth and error because error with its evil tendencies will triumph over the more austere and demanding truth...  Source

Recommended Reading - Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons

Read more >>

Bishop Mueller: Enemy of the Catholic Faith

It is shameful that the new Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is a heretic who explicitly attacks the Church and Her faithful ministers.  His Excellency Bishop Fellay responds to this question on the topic of Bishop Mueller:

DICI: What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay: It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like as if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).

For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

Source: DICI

Read more >>

Liberty of Conscience: A Grave Evil and Sin

The heretic Martin Luther remarked, “No one must be constrained. Liberty is the very essence of faith.”  Such a statement, which has rooted itself in Western Democracies in our Post-Enlightenment society, is nothing other than a grave evil.

His Holiness Pope Gregory XVI's words in Mirari Vos serve as a guide for our times and a warning to turn away from liberty of conscience:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion… ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’…

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. 

Image Source: Pope Gregory XVI Visiting the Church of San Benedetto at Subiaco by Jean-François Montessuy (French, 1804–1876)

Read more >>

Cardinal Brandmuller: "Not all of Vatican II is binding"

A good read to start the day:

Here we have yet another prelate re-emphasizing the fact that the texts of the Second Vatican Council are not binding. Though these admissions would have been welcome even earlier, the growing number of such statements shows that perhaps the wind is starting to blow in a different direction. One can imagine how much differently the 1970’s and 1980’s may have been if one did not have to pretend that Vatican II contained the same doctrinal content as Nicea or Trent.

The 16 texts of Vatican II are titled in different ways. Here are a few examples among the most controversial texts: Some are called: Dogmatic Constitution (Lumen Gentium), Decree (Unitatis Redintegratio) Declaration (Dignitatis Humane; Nostra Aetate), and Pastoral Constitution (Gaudium et Spes.)Obviously they do not have the same value and the same level of importance. For instance, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium speaks about the nature and definition of the Church whereas its equivalent, Gaudium et Spes, speaks of the Church in its relation with the present world.

Continue Reading

Read more >>

Silencing Liberal Nuns is a Matter of Duty, not Oppression

This was written in response to an article in the Chicago Tribune.  Since this op-ed piece was not published, I'm publishing it here.

In response to Ms. Schmich’s article, “After Vatican Scolds Group, Nuns’ Silence is Strategy,” I have to object to the very spirit of the article.  Nuns do not define Catholic doctrine and neither do the archbishops or Cardinals of the Church.  The Catholic Faith is not a democracy – it is handed down and preserved by Tradition for over 2,000 years.  Ms. Schmich seems to imply that the nuns are fighting with the men who “run the Church” in a quest to fight against old laws in an attempt to serve Christ.

This is utter garbage.  Nuns, priests, and laypeople are all called to defend and rise up to protect the timeless and unchanging Catholic Faith.  If anyone – nun, priest, bishop, layperson – teaches that which the Church forbids, then that person has placed themselves outside of the state of grace and outside of the Catholic Church, which we believe to be the only Church through which mankind can be saved.

Ms. Schmich seems to think this is a matter of democracy.  This is not.  This is a matter of fighting off a new era where heresies are welcomed and embraced now by even nuns and priests.  Faithful Catholics will not be silent.  We will fight on for the Church and for Christ, who is the True Head of the Visible Church on earth.

Read more >>

Bishop Williamson: No Catholicism, No Peace

Read more >>

Should Traditional Catholics Attend the Novus Ordo?

In recent news, Catholics may have seen that the Institute of Christ the King encourages concelebration in the Novus Ordo with bishops (source).  In Msgr. Rifan's scandalous defense of concelebration, he says, "I do not see why we should, if it were asked of us, reject this sign (concelebrating- sign of communion with the bishop)" (note: this is an English translation of the Spanish text)

This is just one example to show you that the Institute and by far the vast majority of other non-SSPX orders are attached to the Tridentine Mass for a feeling of nostalgia or "preference." This is not what makes someone a Traditional Catholic.

A traditional Catholic knows that a Catholic can not attend a Novus Ordo, or go to a Novus Ordo ordained priest, or support religious liberty, ecumenism, or collegiality. Why is this?  Because in so doing, they are denying the Traditional dogmas and authority of the Universal Church on ecumenism, religious liberty, and even on the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  In the Novus Ordo, unlike the traditional Roman Rite (and other Traditional Rites), the word propitiatory does not appear in the beginning of the Novus Ordo Roman Missal's doctrinal exposition.

The very nature of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, while not necessarily invalid (but questionable in many instances), bear in them the theology of the New Rite and the Post Vatican II Church.  To frequent these Sacraments is to mix the good, true, and beautiful with that which is present in the New Sacraments: novelty.  By receiving the Novus Ordo Sacraments, you profess your Communion in and with the beliefs of the Novus Ordo Church, even those beliefs that are flawed.

His Grace Bishop Williamson comments in his "Eleison Comments" #241 in February 2012 the following:

For instance a Protestant may believe in God, he may even believe in the divinity of the man Jesus of Nazareth, but if he does not believe in the Real Presence of God, body, blood, soul and divinity, beneath the appearances of bread and wine after their consecration at Mass, then he has a profoundly different and deficient concept of the love of Jesus Christ and of the God in whom he believes. Can one then say that the true Protestant and the true Catholic believe in the same God ? Vatican II says one can, and on the basis of supposedly more or less shared beliefs between Catholics and all non-Catholics, it builds its ecumenism. On the contrary Dr Schüler illustrates by a series of comparisons that what may look like the same belief, when it forms part of two different creeds, is not really the same at all. Here is one illustration: oxygen molecules mixed with nitrogen are the selfsame molecules as when compounded with hydrogen, but they are as different in the two cases as the air we breathe (O + 4N) from the water we drink (H20)!

Even a number of priests offering the Traditional Sacraments (e.g. the FSSP) were ordained in the Novus Ordo ordination rite.  And many priests (non SSPX that is) that happen to have received traditional ordinations, received them from bishops who were themselves ordained to the episcopacy in the Novus Ordo.

Oil and water do not mix just as theological novelties and the unerring, immutable, eternal Truths of the Catholic Faith.

Just to summarize, this particular issue is one of great complexity and no one post can do justice to the situation to explain it fully in terms of its philosophical, theological, and societal implications.  I merely wish to raise the question that very few Traditionalist raise, namely, whether or not Traditional Catholics should (or can) attend the Novus Ordo.

The following segment of What We Have Lost...And the Road to Restoration helps to give a concise overview of the depths of the problem.

I would invite all of you to also read Why You Should Not Attend the Novus Ordo. This particular document helps go in more detail with the problems inherent in the Novus Ordo.  An additional resource is the Society's page: Is the New Mass Legit? As said by His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre, "The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism...it bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith"

The Ministry (Order) of the Lector

History of Lector


The Order of the Lector has been around since ancient times and this has served as an important function since the time of the Early Christians.  As explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

A lector (reader) in the West is a clerk having the second of the four minor orders. In all Eastern Churches also, readers are ordained to a minor order preparatory to the diaconate. The primary reason for a special class of readers was the need of some persons sufficiently educated to be able to read the books in church, for the Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading the Sacred Books publicly. The first mention of a Christian liturgical reader is by Justin Martyr (d. about 165) in I Apol., lxvii, 3, 4. 

For centuries the Order of Lector was a minor Order, an office to which a man on the path to ordination to the priesthood was ordained.  In the Traditional Roman Rite, it is the second minor order (Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus).

In this image, we can see the dignity in which the Traditional Order of Lector is conferred.
The seminarian upon receiving the Order of Lector would hear: "May you believe with all you heart and accomplish in your actions that which your lips read... As you stand erect to read, you ought also to give good example and practice a height degree of virtue than those who listen to you."

The duty of the lector is (and was) to chant the Epistle when Mass is sung without a deacon and subdeacon.  This of course can only take place in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Now enter the Novus Ordo and the unprecedented changes to the Sacraments.

In 1972, Pope Paul VI drastically altered the Minor Orders, essentially wiping them away and destroying much of the tradition of the Church.  Indeed, one may attribute to this action the very words from Paul VI, "...the smoke of satan has entered the Church."  Pope Paul VI’s motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam (1972) stated, "What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries."  He would also state that "their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution."

Why does this matter?

As explained in a scholarly article entitled Doubtfulness of New Catholic Ordination Rite, I wish to quote from one of the latter parts of the article: "The attack on the priesthood was also accomplished in ways that are practical and demonstrative. The conciliar revolution sought to make the priest a mere leader of the congregation, by bringing him down to the people’s level in various ways, including but not limited to:

A.) The use of lay Eucharistic ministers, to make this priestly role one that anyone can fulfill;  B.) The use of lay lectors for the same reason; C.) The practice of communion in the hand,to remove the distinction between the priest’s consecrated hands and the hands of laymen;  D.) The practice of general absolution, to eliminate the priest’s role as judge in the sacrament of  penance"

This does not even look like this belongs in a Catholic Church!
Women are now Lectors in the Novus Ordo!

Anyone that has attended a Novus Ordo Mass has likely seen women reading the readings for Mass, which is problematic enough for reasons above.  But now, in a direction violation of Sacred Teachings of the Church, the Synod of Bishops in 2008 went so far as to advise Pope Benedict XVI to allow women to receive the new "ministry" of Lector!  This is a stepping stone to having women-priests within the Novus Ordo Church. 

How long will Catholics continue to accept the Novus Ordo changes and regularly attend them, when in fact, they are subscribing to the Protestant practices of Luther, Kramer, and the other so-called Reformers.

My advice is relatively simple, find a Traditional Mass with priests ordained through a lineage of traditionally ordained bishops.  This is now the only way to be certain of a priest's proper and valid ordination.  What times we live in - how very troubling to the True Church and to our Lord.  Yet so many falsely follow along with neoprotestanism in the so-called name of "obedience" when in fact we must be obedient to the Commandments and teachings of God, as revealed throughout two millennia in His Church, rather than follow the whims and novelties of the New Church leaders.

Read more >>

HHS Mandate NOT About Religious Liberty

This was written in response to an article in the Chicago Tribune.  Since this op-ed piece was not published, I'm publishing it here.

In response to Mr. Rex Huppke’s Article, “Contraception Debate Neglects Catholics at odds with Doctrine,” (published February 19, 2012) I have to object to several points of the article. As a traditional Roman Catholic, I must first point out the error in Mr. Fogarty’s words when he says, “Jesus gets in trouble for…breaking a lot of the rules of the Jewish church.”

As one familiar with the Scriptures should recall, Christ did not violate the laws of the Jewish religion. However, for some Jewish leaders concerned with only the letter of the law – instead of the spirit of the law – the Lord appeared to be in violation. In truth, since Christ is God, one can know that it is philosophically impossible for God to violate His own laws. And secondly, for Catholics familiar with the Scriptures, Christ showed how His actions were not in violation of the Law but instead a reflection of the true meaning of the law.

On to the more serious issue at hand, Mr. Huppke writes, “At the heart of this argument are issues of religious liberty…” This is again not quite right. While many are making this an argument for religious liberty, the actual argument is far more important for Catholics. Those Catholics who observe the Traditional Catholic Faith simply reject the notion of religious liberty all together.

The Church teaches that Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the King of all peoples, all places, and all time. For many people, this doctrine stops there. Yet, if Christ is indeed king of all, then all peoples and nations should act in conformity with His divine law, even if they are not Catholics. One need only see how the moral code of many societies (e.g. forbidding killing, stealing, prostitution, etc) is a reflection of the Divine Law which also forbids such practices. To say that any nation has the right to violate Divine Law is a violation of the doctrine of Christ’s Kingship.

If Christ is King (which all Catholics are bound as a matter of dogma to believe), then all Catholics must respond to the HHS controversy by not seeking to stand up for religious liberty. Rather, these same Catholics should be fighting against the HHS mandate for the reason that it offends God, who is our Supreme King, Redeemer, and our ultimate Judge.

In the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "How many of these missionaries sent by the Church during the course of centuries have been massacred, massacred because they said that Our Lord Jesus Christ should be the King of people, King of society?"

Read more >>

Bishop Williamson on Liberalism as a Disease

His Excellency Bishop Williamson again writes a powerful & bluntly truthful article on the evils of liberalism in our modern world, highlighting the contradictions rampant in it. No further commentary is needed for this excellent column.

ACCURSED LIBERALS

Liberalism is a frightful disease, consigning to eternal Hell millions upon millions of souls. It “liberates” the mind from objective truth and the heart (will and affections) from objective good. The subject reigns supreme. It is man in the place of God, with man allowing to God only as much importance as man chooses to allow him, and that is normally not much. Almighty God is put on a leash, so to speak, like an obedient little puppy dog ! In fact the “God” of the liberals is a mockery of the true God. But “God is not mocked” (Gal.VI, 7). Liberals are punished in this life by becoming false crusaders, true tyrants, and effeminate men.

A classic example of the false crusader is provided by the revolutionary priests in Latin America, according to Archbishop Lefebvre. He used to say that priests losing the Faith under the influence of the modernizing movement in the Church made the most terrible of revolutionaries, because to the false crusade of Communism they would bring all the force of the true crusade for the salvation of souls, for which they had been trained, but which they no longer believed in.

The true crusade being for God, for Jesus Christ, for eternal salvation, then when it is no longer believed in, it leaves a correspondingly huge gap in people’s lives, which they attempt to fill by crusading for anything and everything : for a ban on tobacco (but freedom for marihuana and heroin); for a ban on capital punishment (but freedom to execute efficacious right-wingers); for a ban on tyrants (but freedom to bomb any country into “democracy”); for the sacredness of man ( but freedom to abort the human baby in the womb) – the list can go on and on. The contradictions just highlighted are perfectly consistent in the liberals’ crusade for a total new world order to replace the Christian world order. They pretend they are not fighting Christ, but the pretence is wearing thin.

Liberals also become, logically, true tyrants. Since they have “liberated” themselves from any God or Truth or Law above them, then there remains only the authority of their own minds and wills to impose on their fellow human beings whatever it may be. For example, having lost all sense of any Tradition limiting his authority, Paul VI forced upon the Catholic Church in 1969 his New Order of Mass, to fit the New World Order, regardless of the fact that only two years before a significant number of bishops had rejected a substantially similar experimental rite of Mass. What did he care for the opinions of anyone beneath him, unless they were liberals like himself ? They did not know what was good for them. He did.

Logically again, liberals become effeminate, because they cannot help taking everything personally. Yet any sane opposition to their authoritarianism is based on that Truth or Law above all human beings which the liberals are flouting. That is how Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the liberalism of Paul VI, but Paul VI could only think that the Archbishop wanted to take his place as Pope. He was incapable of understanding that there was a far higher Authority than his own, on which the Archbishop in all tranquillity was leaning. Who needs to worry that the Lord God will ever fail ?

Sacred Heart of Jesus, grant us to deserve the good leaders who can come only from you

Kyrie eleison.

Read more >>

Six Components of Liberal Catholicism that Seek to Destroy the Church: Part 1

Eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote an enlightening article in the American Ecclesiastical Review (1958) titled “The Components of Liberal Catholicism”. Despite its apparance before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton appropriately presented, as in prophetic fasion, the coming attack on the Church from within. Msgr. Fenton summarizes liberal Catholicism into six main categories which together pose the greatest threat to the Church in our modern times:

1. Religious Indifferentism
2. False concepts of human freedom
3. Advocacy of the separation of Church and state
4. Minimism
5. Subjectivism
6. The evolution of at least some dogmatic teachings of the Church.

Starting with this post, I will explore each of these areas and highlight why these principles, although present in our world, are sinister and not of God.  Blessed Pope Pius IX went so far to say, "Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church." And our Lord Himself has said that the lukewarm (e.g. liberal Catholics) are more egregious to him even than hardened sinners, as they do Him the greatest injustice to Him (e.g. Revelations 3:16)

Through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, our Blessed Lord has provided us with the means to reach Heaven
RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

A fundamental error with modernism and those who adhere to it (i.e. liberal Catholics), is that they refuse to embrace extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside of the Church there is no salvation"). Pope Innocent III declared at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." His Holiness Innocent III unequivocally declared that all men must belong to the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Period. Subsequently, Pope Boniface VIII made the matter even more clear when in 1302 he unequivocally declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302.) Read those words carefully: absolutely necessary.

And these remarks are not the only ones pronounced by the Holy Catholic Church. As I've written previously in Can Non Catholics be saved?, The Church continues to teach that outside of the Church there is no salvation. Period. Oh, then but what about the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) and the statements of Paul VI and his successors? Some might object and say that the Church has changed its position. But this can not be so. Liberal Catholics fail to understand that the Church is unchanging in matters of Faith and Doctrine. If it is true that in the past salvation was possible only for Catholics and if this is not true now, then the Faith has changed. But the Faith can not change. "Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." If the Church changed this matter it would be a liar and, as the Bride of Christ, it would seem that Christ Himself has lied to those in times past.

So then, what are we to do? Has the Church changed? Has the Faith changed? And, if so, then Christ is not unchanging. Stop. The simple answer is that the Church in Her glory and perfect Truth has not changed. Salvation is still only possible to those within the barque of Peter. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) in paragraph 1260, states, "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." But herein enters the problem with the 2nd Edition of the Catechism - unlike the unequivocal teachings of the Holy Fathers of times past, the teachings in the Catechism are vague and unclear. Just what does the Catechism mean by "ignorant of the Gospel" and what is "seeking truth"? Some would argue that all men seek the truth since all men by their nature are inclined to know the Truth. Therefore, it would seem that all men are saved since the Catechism states that all men who seek the truth are saved. What is worse and most dangerous for the Church and the salvation of mankind is that clergy are lured into this argument and accept it without evaluating the soundness of the premises in the argument.

Let's look at what do we mean by "Truth" and "ignorance." What is the truth (Quid est veritas?). We, if we are grounded in sound catechesis, we will declare that Jesus Christ is the sole way, Truth, and life (cf. John 14:6). And what is "ignorance." The Church has clarified this to describe "invincible ignorance," which unlike "ignorance" has a rather precise meaning.

Invincible ignorance refers to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Gospel message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Blessed Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863). The term, however, is far older than that. St. Thomas Aquinas uses the term "invincible ignorance" in his Summa Theologica, which has been a foundation for the Thomistic Philosophy on which the Church's teachings are based. In short, invincible ignorance only applies to those who, through no fault of their own, were ignorant that the Church existed - people who were ignorant of the fact that there was a Jesus Christ.

Yet, in our modern era, with missionaries preaching around the world and with a globalization of the world, people in diverse places have been connected through technology in ways never before possible. People around the world have the ability to read this blog now with only an Internet connection. What does this mean? It means that with access to such a wide variety of information, it is highly unlikely that many people even exist who are invincibly ignorant and have never heard of our Lord or the Church.

It was Archbishop Sheen that said, "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe it to be." Some would counter that because these millions are ignorant of what the Church really is that they can still be saved. Rather, now that we have clarified invincible ignorance, we can assert that these people - though ignorant - are not invincibly ignorant because they have access to the Gospel.

In fact the Church has always and continues to profess that these souls of the invincibly ignorant are spiritually united to the Church so, nonetheless, they are still saved through the Church. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Those who teach this doctrine false - both clergy and laity - do great harm for souls and possibly have prevented souls from converting, thus rejecting salvation. This error of liberal Catholics must be countered. It must be faught. This false teaching is one of the six principles that seek to undermine the Church and is none other than an attack by the devil, which has polluted the minds of even ordained members of the Church. Let us with charity fight this error of our times that is undoubtedly leading souls straight to hell.

Further complicating the matter, in our times even the Holy Father of recent memory (John Paul II) caused great scandal to the Faithful with his aapperance at Assisi and many of his statements, where he seemed to indicate, at least through example, that those of other faiths can be saved. While I will not at this time examine this error (that is for Part 3), it nonetheless only illustrates how deep this error has sunk into seminaries over the past century so that now even members of the hierarchy of the Church seemingly sin against what the timeless Church has always taught.

To support religious indifferentism, in essense, violates the First Commandment since, by such support, we deny that there is One God, through whom salvation alone comes.


True Inculturation: Kenya, 1937
True incultration is the answer. We do not force our Lord and the Faith to conform to our cultures.  Rather, we all conform to our Lord Jesus Christ.

TAKE AWAY

While I do not unequivocally endorse all of the statements by Michal Semin, Director of St. Joseph Institute (Prague), I do agree with his statements concerning this issue when he states, "Many traditionally-minded Catholics are loosing, due to their mental or emotional embracement of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which to a certain degree liberalizes the use of the 1962 Missal, their awareness about the doctrinal nature of the crisis in which we are living today. Even if the motu proprio would provide a healing in the field of Catholic liturgy, which is debatable, one cannot forget that lex credendic precedes lex orandi. The main battlefield is in the field of doctrine, not liturgy..."

Read more >>

Oath Against Modernism

Today, September 1, 2010, is the 100th Anniversary of the Oath Against Modernism issued from the Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius X "Sacrorum Antistitum" on 1 September 1910. I post the Oath Against Modernism here asking all clerics, teachers, catechists, etc to renew their commitment to the immutable teachings of Catholic Tradition...

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I _____________________________firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Read more >>

Father Michael Pfleger of the Archdiocese of Chicago: Supports Barack Obama

Catholic Priest Has Only Glowing Praise for Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Marriage Candidate Barack Obama

By Cassidy Bugos

CHICAGO, January 18, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic priest Father Michael Pfleger of the Archdiocese of Chicago wants people to know that pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Senator Barack Obama "is the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy."

Father Pfleger says he has known Obama for 20 years. "I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own," he said.

As an Illinois Senator Obama had the unstinting approval of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his dependable support of pro-abortion legislation. Now, after a short two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has earned 100% ratings from pro-abortion groups across the board, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Organization for Women.

In 2002 he voted against a bill to protect or offer medical care to babies that survive botched abortions. Prior to that he opposed an Illinois State ban on partial-birth abortion, and refused his vote to a bill mandating internet pornography filters in schools.

In 2006, Obama cast his vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment. "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said the day he voted against defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

But Father Pfleger is just concerned for Obama's "vulnerability."

"When anybody comes with that much hope, whether it's a Bobby Kennedy or whether it's a Martin Luther King Jr., they do become vulnerable. They become vulnerable because they tell the country and the world that we can be better and we don't have to accept what is. And unfortunately, we live in a world where not everybody wants it to be different."

Although Father Pfleger says he is pro-life, he has a long history of inviting outspoken pro-abortion advocates into his pulpit – this despite the fact that the Chicago Archdiocese has a longstanding policy explicitly forbidding the use of Church property, under any circumstances, by pro-abortion advocates.

Yet in January 2003 singer Harry Belafonte was invited by Pfleger to speak at a Sunday Mass, where he criticized Bush for being pro-life and threatening a "woman's right to abortion." [His website reveals that he has invited many people with heretical views to speak at this parish, or as well calls it, a "faith community" http://www.saintsabina.org]

Pfleger has also hosted Muslim firebrand Louis Farrakhan, a known ridiculer of the Pope who has condemned Judaism as "a gutter religion."

Nor is this the first time Father Pfleger has been outspoken in his support of pro-abortion politicians. In February 2003 he invited pro-abortion Presidential candidate and Pentecostal minister Rev. Al Sharpton to speak during Mass.

For Sharpton, that was the first time he had spoken in a Catholic church.

"The comfort," he told the Chicago Sun-Times after the event, "is that Father Pfleger is a different kind of a Catholic priest."

Different indeed.

Read more >>

Mission: Restore Eucharistic Reverence

Preface: All Scripture quotations are from the Douay-Rheims Bible, the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

This post has been edited and written since the original version had erroneous information. The comments relating to the debate have been deleted; only comments on the general practice of Eucharistic Reverence remain. If anyone would like to debate the opinions expressed in this post, the comment box is again open. However, I implore all commenters to first read the comment policy and hear these words: "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8)

I am certain that this post will undoubtedly be controversial again; however, I write this post simply to help restore needed reverence to our Eucharistic Lord. For that reason, I support whatever the Holy Catholic Church infallibly teaches, but I am free to disagree with any non-infallible practices. The fight to restore Eucharistic Reverence has caused debates, arguments, and even violence at various times in history. Jesus even referred to himself as a cause of division (Matthew 10:34), and because of the division, his servants will undoubtedly suffer persecution (Matthew 10:22). I pray that this post will help discourage the practice of Communion in the Hand, encourage reception of the Eucharist on the Tongue, and help discourage the practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

According to the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, one of the greatest mystics in the history of the Church, irreverence to Jesus in the Eucharist will cause Him great pain:

"My heavenly Bridegroom said to me, pointing round me as He spoke; 'See far more evil that befalls Me every day at the hands of many throughout the world.' And as I looked about me into the distance, many things came before my soul which were indeed still more dreadful than that sacrifice of children; for I saw Jesus Himself cruelly sacrificed on the Altar by unworthy and sinful celebrations of the Holy Mysteries. I saw how the blessed Host lay on the altar before unworthy degenerate priests like a living Child Jesus, whom they cut and terribly mutilated with the paten. Their sacrifice, though an efficacious celebration of the Holy Mysteries, appeared like a cruel murder" ("The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary", Chapter 1: Our Lady's Ancestors; the Vision of the Feast of Our Lady's Conception, page 68)

First and foremost, for non-Catholics reading this post, please first read my post on The Eucharist to understand its significance. As affirmed at various points in history, at several Councils (ex. Council of Trent's Thirteenth Session; Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium 7), in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ex. CCC 1373-1374, 1413), in the words of countless saints, and in the words of Christ Himself (Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25), the Eucharist - Holy Communion - is truly the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. It is not a metaphoric representation of Jesus - the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. Consequently, the Eucharist deserves the greatest degree of worship.

Topics

1. Communion in the Hand
2. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
3. Altar Rails

Communion in the Hand
 

Simply said, Communion in the Hand is a sacrilege. Through Communion in the Hand, it is far easier for particles of the Eucharist to fall to the ground. Such particles are still completely Christ (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Canon 4)!

It remains true that the Church has allowed Communion in the Hand at various points in history including during the early Church. For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem said, "When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches. Mystagog, V.1)

However, it seems probable that few people in our modern world would receive Our Lord in the hand with such care and devotion to refer to it as making a "throne". Communion on the Tongue ensures that no particle is lost. Communion on the Tongue is allowed universally while Communion in the Hand is allowed only by indult. Clearly, Communion in the Hand is not an infallible dogma of the Faith. As Fr. Tim Finigan appropriately states:

There is a much-quoted text of Cyril of Jerusalem (d.387) speaking of the left hand as a throne for the right etc. (Mystagogical catechesis 5.21; PG 33.1125) This is often used as a justification for communion in the hand. The contemporary evidence of the correction of abuses shows that the text could equally be seen as an indication of the obvious need for a change in practice to ensure reverence. The insistence on Communion on the tongue was a natural next step.

According to J Bona in a 3-volume work entitled Rerum Liturgicarum (1747 AD) Communion in the hand most likely ceased before Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604). Even though Communion in the hand may have been allowed at some points in the early Church, it is not appropriate for our current era when irreverence and a lack of belief in the Real Presence is spreading.  Spain forbid it completely in the 400s and said that anyone who would stand and receive would receive excommunication. 

According to a Gallup Poll of 519 American Catholics, 18 years or older, conducted from December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, only 30% believe that they receive in Holy Communion the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ! This is shocking! By receiving Holy Communion on the Tongue, non-Catholics see Catholics professing the Faith in a unique and truly profound manner. Such a manner ensures that observers as well as Catholic understand they are not receiving ordinary bread.

According to statistics from the article Index of Catholicism's Decline, by Pat Buchanan, who cites Kenneth C. Jones's Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, a shocking number - 70% - of Catholics between the ages of 18-44 do not believe in the Real Presence! We must work to increase belief and devotion to our Eucharistic Lord!! The same statistics illustrate annulments increased from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002. Also, teaching nuns, ordinations, seminarians, and Catholic marriages all declined. Let us work to counter these alarming statistics.

Following Vatican II, the introduction of Communion in the Hand began as an abuse. I agree with Fr. Tim Finigan that the introduction of Communion in the Hand was a mistake. As stated by Fr. Tim Finigan at The Hermeneutic of Continunity:

At the same time, in many parts of the world, especially in "Masses for special groups", there was a more or less open defiance of this instruction. As a result, Pope Paul VI gradually gave permission to one Bishops' Conference after another for the introduction of the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. Permission was granted in England on 6 March 1976. One widely used justification of the permission was that it would take away the scandal of disobedience. This did not work - people continued to be disobedient to other liturgical norms, witness the series of condemnations of liturgical abuses that have been published since then.

Even the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that Communion on the tongue may never be denied. No one may ever force you to receive Holy Communion in the hand. If a priest tries to force you or refuses to give you Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling, leave and make an Act of Spiritual Communion [learn how here].

Below are the words of several saints and Church figures on the practice of Communion in the Hand. I pray that if you have been receiving Communion in the Hand, you will begin to receive our Lord exclusively on the tongue.

St. Thomas Aquinas: "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but when it is consecrated" - Summa, Pt III Q, Q2 Art. 3

Holy Scripture: In the Old Testament, it is recorded that only Levite priests were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenent (1 Chronicles 13:2), and when a non-Levite priest touched the Ark of the Covenent he was struck dead (1 Chronicles 13:9). Today the Holy Eucharist is the Holy of Holiess, and only those who have been consecrated to touch the Eucharist (Summa, Pt III Q, Q2 Art. 3) should touch it.

Pope Paul VI: Memoriale Domini, a 1969 document, recognized that communion on the tongue was conducive to faith, reverence and humility. Specifically, the document states, "With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant." In the same document it is also written, "To preserve and defend the reverence, dignity and holiness due to the greatest treasure in the Church, only kneeling, not standing, to receive Holy Communion, always on the tongue, was allowed." Thus, the document not only allows Communion on the Hand but also Communion in the Hand. However, due to irreverence and a disbelief in the Real Presence in recent times as well as the common error of receiving Our Lord simply "out of habit", I urge fellow Catholics to receive the Eucharist joyfully on the tongue. Below is my final excerpt from the document:

A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Pope John II: He only gave Holy Communion on tongue during private Masses in the Vatican. Concelebrating priests were told to do the same. Pope John Paul II said, "I do not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this... ... here, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!" (Sermon, March 1, 1989, Church of SS. Nome Di Maria)

When the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d'Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, Pope John Paul II placed the host in her mouth. (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997 pg 24). He did likewise for a canon lawyer who was present at the 1981 Papal Mass in Chicago.

Pope John Paul II wrote, "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation." (Dominicae Cenae, 1980, end of paragraph 11). Thus, Pope John Paul II is acknowledging laypeople may touch the Holy Eucharist in a situation of "just need" but only after "adequate preparation". Yet, he does start by affirming that the distribution of Holy Communion is reserved principally to the ordained. However, as I discuss below under the topic of extraordinary ministers, there is usually not a "just need" to warrant the use of extraordinary ministers.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J.: Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.” (November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference, Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.)

Dietrich von Hildebrand: "Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil who wanders about seeking whom he may devour'? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses to the consecrated host will not take place?" (Communion in the hand should be rejected)

Blessed Mother Teresa: Blessed Mother Teresa said, "Further it is the custom in our Society, and my known wish, that the Sisters receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which to my knowledge they are doing everywhere" (Mother Theresa, India 1995; Athi Thoothan Editor, Aquinas, p. 13, Vol 2, No 1 March 2000).

"Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her -- don't know why -- 'Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?' She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

"Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"

(Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City, a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church. Note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Blessed Mother Teresa)

Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis of Argentina: He warns that, "with Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful." (Communion in the Hand: Document and History). He also has reportedly said, “It would be to deceive the faithful to make them think that receiving Communion in the hand would identify them more with the spirit of the primitive Church”

Pope Pius XII:

“In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration. For they alone, in answer to an inward supernatural call, have entered the august ministry, where they are assigned to service in the sanctuary and become, as it were, the instruments God uses to communicate supernatural life from on high to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Add to this, as We have noted above, the fact that they alone have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ [Roman Pontifical, Ordination of a priest: anointing of hands].” (Mediator Dei, #43)

Council of Saragozza (380 AD) and of Toledo (400 AD): Declared that the Eucharist host must be consumed before the communicant left the Church. It was a practice in the early Church to have Holy Communion taken to the sick, but the practice was corrected because of the abuses that resulted from it. Similarly, abuses are occuring to the Holy Eucharist.

Council of Rouen (650 AD): "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths"

Council of Constantinople (695 AD): The council prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themelves. It decreed an excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Council of Trent: "To priests alone have been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest" (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

Fr. Robert Altier:

"In the first reading today Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Colossians, talks about how, in Christ, is hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This is because He is almighty God; He is the Creator of the universe; He is the Savior of the world; He is God, absolute and perfect. Saint Paul says at the beginning of the reading that he makes up in his flesh for what is lacking in the
suffering of Christ, for the sake of Christ's body, the Church.

"In Christ, now, there is no suffering, but only in the Mystical Body. But there is one place, which I would like to address this morning, where I believe that Our Lord is truly grieved. I want to challenge you in that area: That is, the manner by which we receive Holy Communion.

"The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand.

"The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand.

"Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.

"Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully.

"What I always tell people is that you can look forward to the Day of Judgment and ask yourself how you intend to approach Our Lord, because He is your Judge. The same Lord you approach in Holy Communion is the same One you will approach on the Day of Judgment. Do you assume that you will put your hand out to Our Blessed Lord on the Day of Judgment?

"Is your view of judgment that you will shake Our Lord's hand and tell Him how wonderful it is to see Him? Or is your view that you will do great reverence to Our Blessed Lord? My view is that I will be flat on my face - not shaking His hand.

"We do not put out our hand to God. Scripture says that God holds us in the palm of His hand. We should not be holding God in the palm of ours. He created us; He made us in His image and likeness. He is the Creator; we are the creature. We must approach Him with the greatest reverence, the greatest respect.

"If we simply look at the fruit that has been borne by Holy Communion being taken in the hand, it is not good: the loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, the familiarity.

"Thankfully it is not happening here, but go to most churches and ask yourself if you see people praying before Mass or if they are chatting, goofing around, and talking.

"We have lost the reverence for the Real Presence because Jesus is just "our buddy" when we put our hand out to Him; He is not our God when we do that. So we need to be very careful.

"But beyond that, we can look also at what has happened spiritually to the people of God. Since we have been receiving Communion in the hand, we have lost sight of the idea of going to Confession, of our own sinfulness, of the reverence we must have for Our Lord. We have made Communion so easy a thing and so nonchalant a thing that people have lost that sense of reverence, of awe, and of respect in the Presence of Our Lord.

"I challenge you to think very seriously about this issue. The bishops, like I say, have allowed it; it is not a sin if you receive Holy Communion in the hand. In some places in the early Church they did that; Saint Justin talks about it. But the Church stopped it because of the abuses against the Blessed Sacrament that were occurring. I ask you to really pray about that.

"Look at Jesus in the Eucharist and ask yourself, "Do I really, truly believe that this is God? That this is my Creator and my Redeemer? How, then, do I desire to approach Him?" I really believe, if you pray that through, that there is only one conclusion to which you can come.

"Then, I beg you, do not remain silent about it. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Bring that word to others because all those good people out there, I do not think that they are willfully trying to do anything that would grieve Our Lord; they are doing what they have been told to do.

"But again, look at what has happened in the last forty years of this particular practice and ask yourself if the fruit it has borne has been good. Obviously, you love Our Lord: You are here at daily Mass; you are here every morning. The love of Our Lord is evident in you. Bring that love of Jesus out from here. The love that is in your heart, proclaim it to others and ask them in the same way to consider their actions toward Our Lord.

"Let us bring the reverence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament back so that we can give Him fitting worship and praise because He is God, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained."

The Beauty and Spirituality of the Traditional Latin Mass by David Joyce, Latin Mass Society of England and Wales:

"...when the faithful themselves receive Communion, they receive It kneeling at the altar rail, and directly onto their tongue. This is very significant. Receiving Communion whilst kneeling means that the faithful line up in a row before the sanctuary, and thus have time to prepare themselves for this most sacred of events: coming into spiritual and substantial union with Christ Himself. The communicant kneels down, and whilst he waits for the priest to make his way around, he can settle himself, concentrate on the upcoming Communion with our Lord praying intensely. When it is his turn, the priest says the prayer: "May the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul until life everlasting. Amen". This means, besides the beauty and the significance of the words themselves, that the priest says the word "Amen" so that the communicant need not invoke his voice to receive the King of Kings, allowing a constant stream of prayer and thanksgiving to flow from soul to Saviour. The communicant simply needs to expose his tongue, and his side of the proceedings is complete. Upon receiving Christ, he can continue praying for a little while, and only then does he need to return to his seat, leaving room for the next communicant. Moreover, having the priest come over to the communicant signifies that Christ comes to us, feeds us with His own divine life, whilst we wait kneeling and unmoving like little children totally dependent on His love, mercy and compassion. This is the message of the Gospel: to become like little children, submitting our wills to His and depending totally on Him for everything. We cannot even feed ourselves without Christ's help, and the action of Communion in the traditional manner demonstrates this in a very vivid manner."

For more on this topic, I would like to highly recommend "Dominus Est - It is the Lord" by His Excellency Athanasius Schneider on this very topic.


Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

Connected with the topic of Communion in the Hand is the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. While I used to serve in this "ministry" I am glad to have resigned after receiving a few emails from readers and reading the above writings. It remains clear that only the hands of the priest or deacon are consecrated to touch the Holy Eucharist (St. Thomas Aquinas).

Traditionally, lay people including altar servers were also forbidden to touch the sacred vessels including the Chalice. If they had to touch the paten they would hold it with a purificator. This has a historical basis at least as far back as the order of Pope St. Soter all the way back around 170 AD.

Likewise, they were only to carry the Chalice by touching the chalice veil covering it. They could absolutely never touch the precious metal of the Chalice. It is still a pious practice and one that I support.

For the most part, the practice of extraordinary ministers has grown into a liturgical abuse. As stated in INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST, "Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at Eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion (99). They may also exercise this function at Eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion" (100). A similar statement can be found in GIRM 162.

However, nearly all Catholic churches see an "army" of extraordinary ministers at Sunday Mass when they are gravely unnecessary. As in the pre-Vatican II era, the priest today could easily distribute Holy Communion to a large congregation. The additional time in the distribution of Holy Communion would be beneficial for the Faithful since they could kneel longer in contemplation and thanksgiving for receiving the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The sanctuary remains the location of the Holy of Holies - God himself. Too often people wearing jeans, shorts, or even strap-less shirts are allowed into the sanctuary nowadays. The loss of reverence to the Eucharistic Lord is at an all-time high. Only ordained ministers and altar servers should enter the Sanctuary.

I never encourage the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and I hope that the ministry will eventually be ended by the Church. Already many of these people incorrectly refer to themselves as "Eucharistic ministers," “Special ministers of Holy Communion,” and “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist” in violation of paragraphs 154-156 of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Please, if you are an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, I suggest that you resign from the ministry as I previously did. In the writings of many of the saints, it is clear that the practice of the laity touching the Eucharist with their hands should never be encouraged unless necessity requires it.

Altar Rails
 
Before I discuss the use of altar rails, I would first like to encourage the practice of genuflection. Most people still genuflect, however, few people bow their head at the necessary times during prayer at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I strongly encourage my readers to look at my post On Genuflecting and Bowing for more information.

Concerning Communion Rails, Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis 2000, the most recent document by the Vatican on the matter, states that there is no requirement in liturgical law necessitating the removal of altar rails from historic churches and nothing prohibiting their erection in new ones. Fr. Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, states: "...no document explicitly mandates or even suggests that the removal of altar rails is required by the liturgical reform".

For those reasons I hope and pray that more churches bring back altar rails. Following Vatican II, many churches destroyed beautiful marble, hand-carved altar rails. Altar rails are gravely important because they allow more of the Faithful to receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling. Thankfully Catholic Church and chapels that offer the Tridentine Latin Mass are some of the places where the use of altar rails has been retained.

Future Updates

If you have any comments or suggestions on this post, I highly welcome comments below. I am going to add this post in my sidebar links and keep it as a reference. I will certainly edit this in the future with more topics that coincide with the Mission to Restore Eucharistic Reverence.

Again, I pray that this post will not be a source of controversy and discord but one filled with ideas on how to encourage Eucharistic Reverence.

Read more >>