Satanic Black Masses & The Scandal of Communion in the Hand…editor
Oklahoma City, Okla., Aug 8, 2014 / 04:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The purported use of a consecrated Host at a planned satanic black mass at an Oklahoma City civic center would be a “terrible sacrilege” that requires a prayerful response, the local archbishop emphasized. Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City in an Aug. 4 message lamented that the city-run Civic Center Music Hall was selling tickets for the event “as if it were merely some sort of dark entertainment.” Rather, he said, the ritual was “deadly serious” and “a blasphemous and obscene inversion of the Catholic Mass.” “Using a consecrated Host obtained illicitly from a Catholic church and desecrating it in the vilest ways imaginable, the practitioners offer it in sacrifice to Satan. This terrible sacrilege is a deliberate attack on the Catholic Mass as well as the foundational beliefs of all Christians,” the archbishop continued.
The occult group Dakhma of Angra Mainyu has scheduled a black mass at the Oklahoma City Civic Center Music Hall Sept. 21. A black mass is a sacrilegious ceremony that invokes Satan and mocks the Mass, involving the desecration of the Eucharist, generally by stealing a consecrated Host from a Catholic church and using it in a profane sexual ritual. The event organizer Adam Daniels said the purported Eucharistic Host was “mailed to us by (a) friend.” “That is all I’m going to say about how it was attained,” he told the Catholic news site Aleteia Aug. 6. “As far as I know, the host mailed to me is consecrated,” he said. Daniels added that the event was intended “to educate the public about my religion.”
Attendance at the event is restricted to those ages 16 and over. The sponsoring group has said the event is modified to comply with laws regarding “nudity, public urination, and other sex acts.” Daniels had attempted to hold a mock exorcism at the same music hall in 2010 as part of a different Satanist group. However, the group expelled him after learning he was a convicted sex offender. In July, an official with the city music hall defended the decision, citing the hall’s neutrality policy. She told CNA that as long as no laws were broken during the event itself, the city hall was not concerned with whether laws may be broken in obtaining a consecrated host ahead of time. She said that similar events scheduled in previous years had poor or no attendance.
Archbishop Coakley said that there are no indications the city intends to prevent the event from taking place. He encouraged Oklahomans to contact the office of Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett. “I am especially concerned about the dark powers that this Satanic worship invites into our community and the spiritual danger that this poses to all who are involved in it, directly or indirectly,” the archbishop said. “Since it seems this event will not be cancelled, I am calling on all Catholics of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to counteract this challenge to faith and decency through prayer and penance.”
The archbishop has asked that every parish add the well-known prayer to St. Michael the Archangel at the end of every Mass from Aug. 6, the Feast of the Transfiguration, through Sept. 29, the Feast of the Archangels. He has also asked each parish to hold a Holy Hour with Benediction from Aug. 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, through Sept. 21. The archbishop will hold a Holy Hour, an outdoor Eucharistic Procession and Benediction at Oklahoma City’s St. Francis of Assisi Church at 3 p.m. Sept. 21, the same day the satanic event is scheduled to take place. “We will pray to avert this sacrilege and publicly manifest our faith in the Lord and our loving gratitude for the gift of the Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of our lives,” Archbishop Coakley said. Tulsa’s Bishop Edward Slattery and Bishop Carl A. Kemme of Wichita, Kan., have also called on the faithful to respond to the threatened desecration with their prayers.
For its part, the occult group sponsoring the black mass has organized rituals it believes will counter Catholic prayers. A controversy over another purported black mass took place in May 2014, when the Harvard Extension School’s Cultural Studies Club had planned to host a similar event on the Harvard University campus. However, that event was “postponed indefinitely” by the club amid outcry among students and member of the local community. The event reportedly took place off-campus with a small group of individuals instead. Source
The Archbishop is correct. A black Mass is ” deadly serious” and “a blasphemous and obscene inversion of the Catholic Mass.” “Using a consecrated Host obtained illicitly from a Catholic church and desecrating it in the vilest ways imaginable, the practitioners offer it in sacrifice to Satan. This terrible sacrilege is a deliberate attack on the Catholic Mass as well as the foundational beliefs of all Christians,” the archbishop continued.
What the Archbishop seems to forget, however, is that by permitting Communion in the hand, he is complicit in this obscenity. The very fact that it is possible for anyone with a mind to, to “obtain [the Blessed Sacrament] illicitly from a Catholic Church”, the very fact that this may happen even once, should be sufficient to ban Communion in the hand with immediate effect. Thus, every priest, bishop and pope who permits this liturgical abuse, will be held accountable for the blasphemies which accompany it.
And in case it passes you by, take note of the mischievous photo used by Catholic News Agency – a young girl receiving Holy Communion, on the tongue, wearing a mantilla. Yip. Just like you see at any parish novus ordo Mass today … NOT. Is this a deliberate ploy to prevent readers joining up the dots and realising that the widespread liturgical abuse of Communion in the hand places the Blessed Sacrament in great danger of being blasphemed, including (but not exclusively) through being stolen for use in Satanic rituals? How can any Catholic participate in such a scandal?
Finally, let’s honour the archbishop’s plea to offer the St Michael prayer daily for the intention of averting this planned blasphemy. Beginning right now… Holy Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast down in to Hell, Satan, and all wicked spirits, who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.
Perhaps Pope Francis will act in this matter? Let us pray that he does.
Since the introduction of Communion in the hand Hosts have been found in all manner of places – under pews, between pages of hymn books, amongst the money for votive candles etc etc. Who knows how many have been used in Satanic rituals? Do priests do anything about it? Do the bishops? Er, No!
But there’s another issue here that the bulk of the Catholic blogosphere has chosen to ignore, namely this – why aren’t Satanists entitled to religious liberty when apparently every other false religion under the sun is.
Of course, I’m not saying that Satanists should be free to perform their foul rituals I’m simply pointing out that their freedom to do so is surely the logical terminus of the absurd doctrine of religious liberty.
Hardly anyone seems to have wakened up to this inconsistency (except Louis Tofari here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/885-religious-liberty-for-all-except-satanists ).
A very good point indeed. Hypocrisy springs to mind.
I don’t think it’s a question of not “wakening up” to the inconsistency re religious liberty, or choosing to ignore it. The subject of Satanic rituals is simply not something that is “in your face” every day as is the scandalous recognition of false religions under the heading of “religious liberty”. Having said that, in fact, it’s a point I’ve heard made in conversations when the subject arises, and I’m sure it’s been made on our blog at some point over the years – our readers don’t miss much!
Indeed, in our fairly frequent threads on the liturgy, including Communion in the hand, we have pointed out over and over again that there is a very real danger of Hosts being stolen for use at Black Masses. Hosts are sold openly on the streets of Rome or so a priest in Rome told us some years ago. We’re not, in any case, too keen to make too much of the “religious liberty” link, by adding Satanism to the list of false religions because there are sure to be some Catholic numpties who will say “it’s their choice” 😯
I am horrified by this. Well done to Catholic Truth for pointing out this hypocrisy. Yes, the bishops are right to condemn this outrageous event, but it is hypocritical of them because they allow the Sacred Host to be dished out at every Mass.
It is a bit of a joke to think satanists must believe in the Real Presence when so many of the Catholic clergy and laity have their doubts.
I don’t think it’s a case of Satanists believing in the Real Presence. They are mocking Catholic belief in the Real Presence and offering the Host to Satan in their mockery.
I think subconsciously they must think there is something sacred or they would be just as happy with an unconsecrated host.
To be honest, are they any worse than Catholics who openly support abortion, “gay” relationships and euthenasia and still take communion?
Well, Madame Editor,
if you think satanists do not believe in the Real Presence, think again.
Here’s an excerpt from a conversation between a young priest and a former satanist on this very subject (for full article see link at the end of this post):
“The poor guy probably felt like he was being interrogated by the CIA by this point, but knowing that I might never have this opportunity again, I asked Nicolas one final question. I told him that I had also heard that those who were very deep in Satanism could actually tell whether a communion host had been consecrated or not. For example, they will not steal communion bread from Protestant communion meals, nor will they steal unblessed communion bread for desecration at these “Black Masses.” It would not work because some of the Satanists would immediately recognize that it was just ordinary bread. They would be able to tell that Jesus Christ was not sacramentally present there.
I asked Nicolas whether this also was true. He again replied that it is, and he told us that he could do this himself before his conversion from Satanism. A chill went down my spine. If someone were to put ten identical communion hosts in front of him, nine unconsecrated and one consecrated, he would have been able to point directly and immediately to the host that had been consecrated. I asked him in amazement, “But how were you able to know?!?” He looked at me and the words he spoke are forever burned in my memory: “Because of the hate,” he said. “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.”
I didn’t know that. It’s amazing but makes perfect theological (or should that be “diabolical”) sense. Thank you for that – chilling.
One hospital I worked in many years ago, there was a nurse who it was claimed was a Satanist. It shocked me at the time and still does. Recently in talking to someone who had retired from the ambulance service, spoke of a nurse in that same hospital of hissing if a Priest passed her on his way to see a patient, and he had the Consecrated Host with him.
Was it the same nurse I had heard of? Quite likely.
Prior to Vatican II, if a Consecrated Host had somehow fell onto the floor, the was an important ceremony in dealing with this matter.
It is even crazier that whilst Satanists believe in the Devil, many Christians have rejected his existence as myth!
Brilliant point. Spot on.
This letter appeared in, I think the Fatima Crusader about one such sale of a Consecrated Host which is shocking to say the least.
I agree Mikidiki that it is crazy Satanists believing in the Devil, while many Christians think he is a myth. I wonder how many have read the book The Devil: Does he exist? And what does he do? By Father Delaporte, of the Society of Mercy. Originally published in English in 1871. Reprinted in 1978.
ISBN: 089555-173-X – There is a possibility of being obtained from Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.
Address given as P.O. Box 424, Rockford,Illinois61105.
As to Pope Francis in this matter, I hope that it is not a “Who am I to judge”.
I have always considered it a tremendous privilege to be able to receive Communion in my hand and I receive Him with the greatest of respect and gratitude.
It is unfortunate that not everyone is as respectful as your good self. In a Novus Ordo Parish of my acquaintance some communicants carry the Host with them to the next Eucharistic Minister and dunk the host in the Precious Blood before consuming both! That this happens is common knowledge and no-one apparently turns a hair, not even the Parish Priest..
Yes, Magdalene, but it is a privilege of the ordained to hold the sacred Host in the hand. Your privilege is to receive Him as a little child would, with the greatest humility and adoration.
You don’t know and will never know what passes between me and Our Lord prior to and on receiving Him in Holy Communion. What makes you think that I don’t receive him with the greatest humility and adoration? Our Lord knows what is in my mind and heart!
Magdalene: Indeed one only knows about another person what that person chooses to reveal. In the post upon which I was commenting you revealed that you receive Our Lord ‘with the greatest respect and gratitude’. You did not say with ‘humility and adoration’, and I felt obliged to comment on the inadequacy ot such sentiments before Almighty God. I feel the greatest respect and gratitude towards quite a number of mere mortals, many of them on this blog. I note that you still fail to see and engage with the main point at issue on this thread
What more do you want of me – haven’t you had your ‘pound of flesh’? I have endured hostility and condemnation from Petrus and Therese and after sharing with Mikidiki my experience on first receiving in the hand, ridicule by Editor. Why are some bloggers on this website so unkind? Surely that cannot be inspired by a heart and mind centred on Our Lord? I admit, they have succeeded in hurting me, I feel it keenly, but their ridicule and attempts at humiliation cannot ever take from me the experience I was granted or diminish my love for Our Lord.
Petrus even threw “diabolical disorientation, false humility, etc” and other degrading statements at me. As will be obvious, I’m certainly no scholar, but I thought Satan’s purpose was to draw us away from God? If so, he spectacularly failed with me – I was/am driven towards Him!!
I do mourn the passing of the Latin Mass, it was/is beautiful and nothing else compares. For quite some time I had been thinking of returning but, no longer, if some of the bloggers here are typical of SSPX Mass-goers.
Please ignore what some bloggers regard as robust debate engendered by a depth of love of Our Lord apparently alien to the likes of you and I. We are deemed to be looking for a fight if we have the audacity to consider such comments to be both hostile and ill advised.
If, after prayer and meditation, you do decide to attend a SSPX chapel I am certain you will be welcomed with open arms. In the meantime you are in attendance at a valid Mass and are receiving Holy Communion with reverence and humility. Have another chat to your priest and discuss matters with him again. Best wishes, you are in my prayers.
I have to confess that I am doing my best NOT to engage in “robust debate” with either Magdalene or yourself, since you appear to be particularly sensitive souls, if (apparently) less than charitable in your interpretation of what is, in fact, nothing more that straight talking.
Personally, I don’t have the time to dance around sensitive feelings. If I were so easily “hurt” in debate, I would avoid them like the plague.
No need to respond to this. I’ll be away from my computer most of the day and since it seems the bloggers here, myself included, can’t say the right thing for saying the wrong thing, I know this comment will be taken as yet more evidence of my “hostility” and “condemnation”.
Sorry about that.
It is most perceptive of you to state that I would take your comment as further evidence of hostility and condemnation. Indeed I do.
Your accusation that I am both over sensitive and less than charitable is confirmation of your failure to put a point of view without including in it an objectionable personal remark.
And that after seeking to avoid engaging in robust debate — wow!
What some assert as “straight talking”, others may regard as inappropriate rudeness. I am careful not to overstep the boundaries of common courtesy: unfortunately, others are self evidently not as considerate.
I am not ‘sorry about that’!
I said that you APPEAR to be very sensitive, and you again prove me right but listen, I’m really tired of your persistent niggling. I have neither the time nor the energy to enter into these unpleasant exchanges.
If you don’t like my “tone and style” or if I say something you don’t like – tough. I’m not dancing around worrying about every word. So far, your entire contribution to this blog has been to keep telling us how awful it is for you that you are not near a traditional Mass etc etc and then you attack us for making suggestions to try to help you. You misinterpret just about everything we say. We have all expressed empathy with both you and Magdalene so your claim that we are hostile to either or both of you is bogus – and utterly uncharitable.
Personally, I’ve had enough. YOU are the one who has failed to comment without being objectionable and I am thoroughly tired of it.
Reply to this if you must have the last word but I’ve no intention of wasting my precious time answering your grievances, real or imagined. I’m so tempted to say “grow up” but don’t worry, I won’t as that really would be uncharitable.
Now, if I reply to you again, it will be to comment on an issue relating to the topic. I’m not interested in what you think of me, or the other bloggers. We want to discuss topic-related issues, not provide an Oprah Winfrey support system for hurt feelings.
Throughout this exchange between you and others, myself included, against every valid reason produced as to why Catholics should not receive the Blessed Sacrament in their hands, you have only brought the subject back to you and your personal feelings. And now you respond to Christina the same way, saying that you feel persecuted by bloggers here. The truth is, however, that you are attempting to defend the indefensible on the basis of nothing other than flimsy human emotion.
No one here as far as I can see has treated you with hostility and condemnation, even if some of the comments have been robustly to the point. The fact remains that Communion in the hand is an appalling practice, forbidden by the Church for 1500 years.
It was illicitly re-introduced and spread throughout the Church after Vatican II, not in the way the early Christians practiced it but in the completely irreverent way practiced by Reformation Protestants in order to highlight their unbelief in the Real Presence. The practice causes a collective millions of particles, each one the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Blessed Lord, to be trodden under foot every week at masses throughout the world and has resulted in numerous consecrated hosts being discarded in public places, under pews, in children’s pockets, etc. It has also resulted in a wave of sacrilegious so-called art on the Internet, where you can find designs made up of multitudes of consecrated hosts courtesy of Communion in the hand. I could go on and on but I fear it would be a waste of time.
If what I and others have described and suggested to you is not sufficient to cause you to doubt this “experience” you say you had when you received in the hand for the first time, then we had best leave the matter, as you say, between you and God. But be assured, the rest of us here will continue, please God, to receive Our Saviour on our knees and on our tongue from the consecrated hands of the priest.
Others may do as they will; it is a common argument today, for example, that Catholics are adults now, no longer required to kneel and receive like children in the way the Church has always deemed appropriate. To these, Our Lord responds: “unless you become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” I urge you again to reflect.
I’m afraid your furious reaction to those who disagree with you here on the matter of Communion in the hand, belies your claims to any kind of genuine “spiritual experience”. That’s not a “hostile” remark, incidentally, – it’s a statement of fact.
I did not “ridicule” you at all. I merely pointed out that the great saints and mystics warn us against seeking or relying on “experience” as a basis for our spiritual lives. The Devil knows how to play tricks with us, and it is just not possible that God would reward, with an authentic spiritual “experience”, our participation in what is, in fact, a sacrilege.
There is nothing “hostile” about this comment. It is straightforward plain speaking but there is no “hostility” towards you – although I am absolutely “hostile” to the practice of Communion in the hand.
Nor have I “condemned” you. I have condemned the practice of Communion in the hand. It is crucial to be able to distinguish between personal remarks and the statement of objective facts in any debate, whether oral or written as I have said more than once on this blog. For your own peace of mind, I urge you to study the difference. That way, you won’t misinterpret points of view, based on the Tradition of the Church and the writings of the great saints and mystics, as personally “hostile” and “condemnatory” towards you.
You say that your “experience” can’t be from Satan because you are “driven towards [God]”
That’s not true. When a supporter of the Medjugorje hoax put it to the local Bishop that the queues for confession in that parish were evidence of the truth of the apparitions, the Bishop replied that therefore Our Lady must be appearing in every parish in the diocese, since there were healthy queues for confession in every one of them. Same applies to you. If, by some special grace, you have great “feelings” after Communion, it’s nothing to do with receiving in the hand. That’s a fallacy.
Sorry to be so blunt – although again, not “hostile” – because I am sure you are well meaning, but you are also determined to stick to your own opinion, based on your personal feelings, and that is not good. It would be truly uncharitable of us here to leave you thinking that “oh well that’s OK then. God must be pleased that you are receiving in the hand or He wouldn’t give you a religious experience of some kind”.
Sorry… But, God doesn’t DO “experience” where Catholic Tradition should be – that would be a contradiction.
As for your closing paragraph about not attending SSPX Masses if [we] are typical of SSPX Mass-goers. Well, if you are looking for any church where the parishioners are perfect, I’d avoid SSPX chapels like the plague. We’re all sinners. But we kneel for Communion and receive on the tongue, and no modernist innovation is to be found anywhere. That should be the main thing, Magdalene, not whether or not you approve of us, as people. But, I suspect that you will do what your feelings dictate in this matter, as with Communion in the hand. That’s a pity, because you are thereby missing out on the most important religious experience of all – the knowledge that, however dry as dust your soul may “feel”, you are spiritually safe because you are doing the will of God by offering Him true worship in the traditionally Catholic manner.
In case you interpret any of the above as personally “hostile” or “condemnatory” allow me to apologise in advance. No offence intended.
Yes, it is a tremendous privilege to touch the Blessed Sacrament, but it is a privilege reserved to the ordained. NOT to you and not to me. The very thought of endangering the Sacred Species should be sufficient for any truly Catholic soul to want to see an end to this particular liturgical abuse.
While I do not for one second doubt your good intentions, I urge you to desist immediately from receiving the Blessed Sacrament in your hands. This practice was illicitly introduced into the Church by Cardinal Suenens of Belgium and was spread by dissenting bishops all over the world. It goes against everything the Church has taught for almost 2000 years concerning the reverence and adoration Catholics should show towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
Just to give you an idea of the serious nature of this horrific innovation, imagine yourself meeting Queen Elizabeth. How would you greet her? Would you curtsy or would you throw your arms around her and give her a big hug? I rather think you would curtsy out of respect for her majesty’s high office, as would be expected.
Now, if that’s how we would act with an earthly monarch, and correctly so, why do we think it ok to touch with our hands the King of kings and Lord of lords? Would we take hold of Our Saviour if He suddenly appeared before us or would we drop to our knees in adoration?
Remember this, the only recorded incidents in the Gospels of people laying hands on Our Lord are of those who persecuted and crucified Him. There is not a single incident reported of a believer touching His sacred person. On the contrary, all who went to ask favours of Our Lord humbled themselves at His feet. Please never receive Holy Communion in your hands.
Superb. I can’t see how anyone reading your comment here, could continue to receive Communion in the hand.
I’ve been receiving Holy Communion in my hand for years and don’t share your horror of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in that manner – as I said, its a great privilege and I am filled with awe on every single occasion at actually being able to do so.
As regards it being a privilege only for the ordained – what about all those priests whose hands are tarnished due to their abuse of those poor young souls in their care and our own Cardinal O’Brien whose lifestyle was at odds with his priestly status? Why was it considered acceptable for them to continue to consecrate the bread and wine and handle the Blessed Sacrament? Some of those priests were known by their Bishops to have been abusers and yet they were moved on from parish to parish and permitted to celebrate Mass!!
Apart from that, I dislike having another communicant’s saliva passed via the priest’s fingers to my tongue!
Your justification for receiving Holy Communion in the hand is fairly typical. It smacks of pride. Even after Athanasius wrote that outstanding post, you still do not have the humility to recognise what you are doing is very, very wrong.
As for your comment about saliva being passed, this has to be the weakest argument against receiving on the tongue. The bottom line is, unfortunately , you do not have the humility to kneel down and receive your Creator worthily.
You are quite wrong to state that I lack humility or am guilty of pride. You don’t know me or my personality. However, what you think of me is immaterial – only Our Lord’s opinion matters! I consider Holy Communion in the hand to be a very precious gift and I am reluctant to relinquish that. I do indeed kneel down to receive Holy Communion when I attend the Cathedral in Edinburgh.
I don’t think my concern about saliva being passed is a weak argument at all – cross infection can easily occur. I do drink from the chalice but don’t actually like the idea of the communal chalice for the same reason.
“I am reluctant”
What did you think of Pope Benedict refusing to give Communion in the hand?
You are determined to accuse me of ‘Pride’. You are so wrong……..I love Our Lord with all my heart and I am aware that the words “I am not worthy to receive you” apply to me. I believe many of us who receive in the hand approach as I do, with love, humility and gratitude. I have been receiving in the hand for many years and if Our Lord was offended by this, why did he grant me and my family so many graces over the years? Why did he listen to my prayers when my husband was so seriously ill with cancer and allow him to live for several more years? There are many instances of answered prayer I could relate but I think they would be lost on you.
I am not going to engage any further with you. You have a lot to learn in life.
I don’t doubt your love for Our Lord. I do have trouble following your logic, however. Do you believe that Our Lord ceases to love us when we do wrong (especially when we aren’t aware we are doing wrong)?
It’s obvious that the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand greatly increases the risk of consecrated hosts being used in black masses, and yet your reason for continuing the practice is because you find receiving on the tongue distasteful. I can’t for the life of me understand that.
Let me try to put this another way. It is the teaching of the Church that even the tiniest fragment of the sacred host is the full body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. That being our belief as Catholics, how can you and all the other in-the-hand communicants justify a practice that results in collective millions of particles of the Blessed Sacrament being trodden under foot? Have you not seen the experiment that was done with an unconsecrated host on a black glove showing the amount of small particles left on the hand from just one host?
No one can say they truly love Our Lord and yet continue with this very unCatholic and unsafe practice, condemned by the Church for centuries. I don’t think you fully comprehend what the Blessed Sacrament is. If you did then I feel certain you would rather die than touch the sacred host with unconsecrated hands.
As for your objection re consecrated hands on the grounds of abuser priests, I think it is very sad that you should oppose the teaching of all the Fathers and saints of the Church concerning the Blessed Sacrament on the basis of such a flimsy argument. The saliva argument is also a nonsense, I’m afraid, especially now that your fellow liberals are drinking from the chalice, another condemned practice!
The slim possibility of transference of a little saliva as a result of receiving Holy Communion in the Traditional manner is, for me, not an issue. It certainly did not prevent Catholics receiving in this manner for 1500 years and is therefore no excuse for handling the Lord.
This Communion in the hand business is what the Protestants did at the Reformation. Were you aware of this? What you do now is precisely what they did. For my part, I’ll follow the Catholic Tradition, not the Protestant one.
Do you take the wine cupped in your hand also to avoid the saliva on the chalice?
I am still trying to work out how you can get another communicant`s saliva
from the fingers of a priest who is handing out communion on everyone`s hands.
You can get another communicant’s saliva from a priest’s fingers if everyone is receiving on the tongue!!
I can honestly say that I have never known a priest’s fingers to touch my tongue when placing the Sacred Host on it.
In any case, you admit to receiving from the Chalice – where it’s an absolute certainty you’ll get a bit of someone else’s saliva – so this issue can’t be the real reason why you won’t receive on the tongue, can it?
You are fortunate then ……..many years ago, when I did receive on the tongue, priests’ fingers frequently touched my tongue.
I drink from the Chalice because that is the only way to be able to receive the Precious Blood. However, I don’t like the communal Chalice for hygiene reasons..
I’m afraid I fail to see your logic. You are not required to receive the Chalice – and yet you are able to overcome your hygiene scruples to do so!
I’m sorry, but it seems clear that these hygiene scruples are NOT the real reason you refuse to receive the Host on the tongue.
Receiving from the chalice is NOT the only way to receive the Precious Blood. Each host contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Sent from my iPhone
How can everyone receive on the tongue if you receive in your hand?
I wouldn’t mind visiting your church to see something rarely seen in any other church in Britain.
I don’t think there is any point in replying to you as you seem to deliberately misunderstand me.
Let’s just leave it there.
I`m sorry if you feel I am deliberately misunderstanding you. You are wrong about that but I think you may be romancing a wee bit with your remarks about everyone receiving on the tongue.
If you visited any of the churches I attend Mass in you would find that only about 1% of the communicants receive on the tongue so I think there would be more chance of saliva being on the priest`s feet than on his hands.
I may be wrong but I don`t think God dishes out his blessings only to those he deems to be doing everything right. If that was the case I don`t think I would have received many blessings in life.
What about those priests “whose hands are tarnished….”? They must meet their Maker some day, when they must answer for their actions, as must we all. Others’ sins do not justify ours. Again, I fail to see your logic.
I think you fail to see a lot of things.
No doubt about that Magdalene, but I’m not failing to see where you’re coming from on this particular topic.
what about all those priests whose hands are tarnished due to their abuse of those poor young souls in their care and our own Cardinal O’Brien whose lifestyle was at odds with his priestly status? Why was it considered acceptable for them to continue to consecrate the bread and wine and handle the Blessed Sacrament?
But Magdalene, this is just equivocation – you are right that some clergy have handled the Eucharist whilst unworthy / tarnished, but that doesn’t establish a new rule for everyone to do so.
We should be seeking to raise the bar, not lower it.
Just my 2p.
It would be, it goes without saying, appalling were a consecrated Host to be used in a satanic mass.
However, the article as quoted says nothing at all to indicate that the Host was obtained by someone taking Communion in the hand.
In fact, Mr Daniels appears to have no evidence that it was not just a wafer that that was mailed to him, which would appear to be the most likely scenario.
Why on earth would you say that an unconsecrated Host would be “the most likely scenario”? With the Blessed Sacrament being handed out day and daily in modernist parishes, and popped into the handbags and pockets of the lay people shockingly permitted to take Holy Communion to the sick of the parish – and too bad if they want Confession first. By far and away, the most likely scenario is that someone has taken Communion in the hand and left the building without anyone either noticing or taking action. I did hear recently about one priest who stopped someone before they reached the front door, because he’d noticed that she had not consumed the Host. This is a real and present danger. No question about it.
In recent years, visitors to Catholic churches in at least one town that I know of in the south of England, were confronted with notices alerting them to the problem of Hosts being stolen for use in Satanic Masses. For a time, for this reason, Communion in the hand was not given in at least one parish that I know of in that town. It’s a fact. It’s a self-evident danger. Hosts, as I have already said, are openly on sale on the streets of Rome. The priest has responsibility for the safety of the Blessed Sacrament at all times. The very possibility of such a theft should be sufficient for any priest worthy of the name, to prohibit this sacrilegious practice without delay.
I’m just amazed that anyone would, apparently, be satisfied to diminish the seriousness of this blasphemy on the grounds that maybe the Host wasn’t really consecrated. After all, an unconsecrated Host would be of no use whatsoever to the cuckoo brains organising this diabolical event. Defeats their whole blasphemous purpose.
There have been, as others have pointed out, Hosts found lying under pews after Mass in various parishes across the UK and I have no doubt, across the world. I’ve seen, personally, the most disgraceful behaviour among youngsters in particular, taking the Blessed Sacrament in their hands and then grinning from ear to ear, handling it as they walk back to their seat, then chewing and chatting. Self-evidently they haven’t a clue about Who it is they have just received.
Communion in the hand is a Protestant tradition, completely contrary to Catholic belief in the Real Presence. It just astonishes me that any Catholic, especially those with some awareness of the gravity of the crisis in the Church in our times, would continue to be complicit in perpetuating what is, without doubt, a most serious liturgical abuse.
I can’t see where I was “satisfied to diminish the seriousness of this blasphemy”.
All I was saying was that even Mr Daniels appears not to know whether he has a consecrated Host or just a wafer, nor how it was obtained.
I would have thought this completely uncontroversial and it reallly is a little difficult to understand the tone of the reply.
I apologise if the tone of my reply offended you but my “tone” reflects my amazement at your apparent (I stress “apparent”) confidence in the safety of the Blessed Sacrament these days, despite the widespread practice of Communion in the hand. As I think I have explained clearly enough already, it is only too easy for these blasphemers to get hold of the Blessed Sacrament, thanks to the carelessness of the clergy giving Holy Communion in the hand.
The fact that this black Mass has been widely advertised (this is not a unique event, remember) suggests that Mr Daniels has every confidence in his source. As I have already said, it would defeat his purpose to have an unconsecrated Host.
I’m only too happy to accept your implicit assurance that you are not in any way diminishing the seriousness of this blasphemy and I repeat my apology for any misunderstanding on my part,
The fact that this black Mass has been widely advertised (this is not a unique event, remember) suggests that Mr Daniels has every confidence in his source. As I have already said, it would defeat his purpose to have an unconsecrated Host.
Of course no satanist would ever LIE about how he obtained the host.
Black masses are not new. They existed long before Communion in the hand was permitted. and if that practice ceased tomorrow, satanists would either obtain a host by other means or lie that the piece of bread they were using was consecrated. I am not diminishing the horror of black masses, merely being realistic about the availability of hosts.
The fact remains that because of Communion in the hand it is now incredibly easy for satanlsts to obtain consecrated hosts. That, in itself, is more than sufficient reason to stop the practice. You talk as if it’s easy to obtain a consecrated host “by other means” than reception of the Blessed Sacrament. It’s possible, no doubt, but it certainly wouldn’t be easy.
The fact that Catholics are prepared, because of their own personal preference, to continue the practice of Communion in the hand, and thereby considerably increasing the risk that satanists can obtain consecrated hosts, is appalling and deeply shameful.
I think it would be just as easy for a satanist to go to any Mass anywhere, receive Communion on the tongue, and then remove it from their mouth to secrete it from the Church. It’s not significantly more difficult than if the Host is placed in their hand, and I guess it is what they did before Communion in the hand was permitted.
This is really a very silly comment and it smacks of “grasping at straws”. If you receive Communion on the tongue the host starts to dissolve almost immediately. By the time you walked back to the pew, or to the back of the Church, I don’t think there would be enough left to scrape off to then send in an envelope for use at a Satanic Mass. Get real.
Sent from my iPhone
There is a tendency on this forum to blame EVERYTHING that is wrong in the Church and the world on changes in Church practices that have occurred over the last fifty years. This is dangerous. Evil has existed in the world since the Garden of Eden and I guess there has been satanism almost as long. If we assume that everything that is wrong in the world is due to the second Vatican Council and events since, we are in danger of ignoring the real reasons for the existence of evil. As evil pre-dates the Council and the re-introduction of Communion on the hand there is no possibility of a causal relationship.
I don’t entirely agree about how quickly the Host dissolves, but I suppose it varies from person to person, so no point arguing about that. I think a determined satanist could probably keep it dry enough for long enough to make it useable for his evil purpose.
No-one, as far as I can see, has suggested that there is a causal relationship between black masses and Communion in the hand. What has been stated is that Communion in the hand has greatly facilitated black masses. A satanist does not need to be determined to obtain a consecrated host these days. He or she just has to go into any church and go down to the communion rail to receive.
Knowing this for a FACT, how can you possibly defend the practice of Communion in the hand?
You must admit that it is infinitely easier to obtain a host through Communion in the hand?
By the way, having taught in a variety of Catholic schools, I can recall several incidents of pupils being caught with the host at playtime. In fact, I remember one pupil took a host and put it in a toilet bin. Horrendous stuff.
Sent from my iPhone
Lest your casual remark about the “re-introduction” of Communion in the hand pass unnoticed, may I remind you that Communion in the hand was not formally “re-introduced” (unlikely since it was banned to prevent precisely the kind of liturgical abuses we are witnessing today) but was brought into use in disobedience to the norm: “Communion in the hand [was] introduced illegally as an act of calculated rebellion against the authority of the Holy See and a tradition of more than a thousand years.” (Michael Davies: Pope Paul’s New Mass, p.21.)
Some good news. The Governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, has come out in opposition to this foul event:
“This ‘Black Mass’ is a disgusting mockery of the Catholic faith, and it should be equally repellent to Catholics and non-Catholics alike,” said Fallin. “It may be protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean we can’t condemn it in the strongest terms possible for the moral outrage which it is. It is shocking and disgusting that a group of New York City ‘satanists’ would travel all the way to Oklahoma to peddle their filth here. I pray they realize how hurtful their actions are and cancel this event.” Source Zenit
Hopefully the Governor’s statement will force a rethink from the host venue.
Henry VIII, whilst nearing the end of his disastrous life, was urged by his counsellors to receive the Blessed Sacrament from a sitting position as he had a huge and suppurating abscess on his leg and found movement painful. He refused, saying that even if he were able to crawl under the earth to receive it would still not show sufficient recognition and honour to Our Lord. How strange that one of the the prime causes of the Reformation had more of a sense of what is due to the Blessed Sacrament than the majority of modern-day Catholics. Inspired and encouraged by the clergy,of course.
That is an interesting story but I am confused as to how, in the absence of Catholic priests, the Blessed Sacrament would have been available to him?
The schismatic priests who acknowledged Henry VIII as Head of the Church , were still validly ordained Catholic priests. Henry VIII did not deny the Real Presence of Christ, neither did his schismatic priests.
It should be said that Henry VIII was the principle cause of the English Reformation which was very different from the Reformation in Europe. Henry hated Martin Luther with a passion and tried to stamp out any Lutheran influences in his schismatic Anglican Church.
Why do you think there were no Catholic priests? The fact that the majority were too afraid to go against the king (who, by the way, always considered himself to be a Catholic), doesn’t mean that they lost the power to consecrate hosts.
Obviously I must concede to your greater depth of knowledge.
However, out of interest, I feel obliged to mention a few facts.
On July 11th,1533 Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn was declared null by Pope Clement VII. On August 30th, 1535 Pope Paul III issued a Bull Of Excommunication suspended, as it turned out, until it was enforced on December 17th 1538. Henry VIII died in 1547.
Thus, although he may have considered himself to be a Catholic, he was unable validly to receive Holy Communion whether he believed in the Real Presence or not. Priests in his Court would have had full knowledge of this and would in fact only be going through the motions!
Well, probably not. The priests in his court were schismatic and accepted the King’s authority on spiritual matters so the excommunication would have meant very little to them.
Sent from my iPhone
I admit I have no factual basis for my assumptions about the priests populating Henry’s Court, and I wonder what facts you can bring to bear to support your “probably not” comment? What is factual is that, subsequent to his excommunication, he was no longer able validly to receive The Eucharist.
Perhaps you are able to supply details or links?
I must admit I’m lost. What kind of facts are you looking for? We know the vast majority of priests were schismatics at the time, but they were still Catholic priests with the power to consecrate. The state of Henry’s soul and his worthiness to receive are irrelevant to this discusssion. Therese’s point was that even a disaster of a man like Henry had proper respect as to how he should receive the Blessed Sacrament.
Sent from my iPhone
I simply asked what facts you could present to support your “probably not” comment which I assume implies that the priests were not coerced but voluntarily rejected the Papal Excommunication and regarded the still ‘Catholic’ King as the Head of the Church in England.
This reminds me of the time when a male Anglican vicar’s response to my wife stating that she was a Catholic was a dismissive snarl and the rebuke, ” I am the Catholic, you are a Roman Catholic!”
You’re quite right to state that Henry had no right receive the Blessed Sacrament – unfortunately for him he refused to accept that. The fact that he was excommunicated didn’t stop him from attending Mass and receiving the Sacraments, as he made himself the head of the Church so what he said, went!
I mentioned the above incident merely to prove that even so reprehensible a person as Henry VIII recognised and accepted the honour that was due to the Blessed Sacrament.
I recently discussed the reception of communion with a relative who always receives in the hand, yet is old enough to remember when receiving “properly” was the norm everywhere.
I asked what kind of mental gymnastics she – and the wider Catholic community – must have gone through to switch practice in such a stark manner. She was not able to give a satisfactory answer and so I feel that likely most people just glibly switched over without a 2nd thought or any reflection whatsoever.
When I asked did she feel that handling the Eucharist was appropriate, she responded – I felt in a somewhat patronising manner – that the Apostles handled the bread and wine given to them by Our Lord at the last supper. (I can just imagine the kind of “right on” priest who must have fed her this line). I said that I thought it was very arrogant to presume to equate ourselves with the Apostles. I also said that the widespread negative effects of this practice are very clear through any number of surveys regarding belief in the real presence.
I wasn’t really sure how to classify this “Apostles” response at first, but Petrus nailed it above in one of his posts – “Pride”. That’s exactly what it is – Pride. An exceptionally high regard for oneself, which is typical of a “man centered” religion being more about the adherents and their whims, than it is about God.
(I do not mean to be criticial of my relative, I of course love her dearly, but I dislike some of her attitudes towards the faith she claims to profess. Needless to say, she has little use for the moral teachings of the Church either).
This pride is everywhere. Once a priest, whom I had a very high regard for, remarked that he disliked issuing communion on the tongue as he felt it “icky”. I remember thinking how muddled must he have been, to allow his personal sensibilities to overtake his responsibility as a priest to respect and safeguard the Eucharist.
Its strange: people will shake hands with, or kiss, others in greeting or farewell – even strangers or people they barely know – yet when it comes to Our Lord in the Eucharist, suddenly everyone is OCD about cleanliness or contact with others.
As it happens, I have found that traditional priests are adept at lightly placing the Eucharist on the tongue, without personally touching the communicants tongue. It is testament to the great concentration and seriousness they exhibit when carrying out this function. In contrast, modern priests seem to regard issuing communion as a chore, given the unnecessary battalions of Eucharistic Ministers* they employ at most masses.
(* again, this wholly un-needed role is mainly about lay people wanting to feel important – though I don’t doubt some people are sincere in their motives).
This argument that the Apostles handled Holy Communion is the most popular Modernist argument out there, but the answer is quite simply that the Apostles were ordained priests. That’s what happened at the Last Supper – they were ordained priests, and that is why it was perfectly in order for them to “handle” the Blessed Sacrament.
Handling the Blessed Sacrament has, in fact, made lay people very arrogant. Ask any of the (few) priests who has tried to dispense with the services of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. They know their rights!
Many thanks for that informative reply Editor!
You pose a good question Gabriel Syme. My experience won’t really provide an answer, but it might give some insight.
Thank God I received a first class Catholic education, and from my earliest years I was taught that to touch the sacred Host was a sacrilege, and therefore mortally sinful. I seem to remember that once the Host was accidentally dropped by the priest as he administered it, and there was a big to-do in the sanctuary as he picked it up and carefully ensured that no trace or fragments remained on the ground.
Then, quite suddenly it seemed, when I was a mother and an experienced teacher myself, my parish priest announced that ‘the Church’ had mandated that henceforth we were to receive Communion in the right hand, making a ‘little throne’ behind It with the left.
The immediate horror that I felt,bothered my conscience. After all ‘the Church’ commanded my obedience. The Pope, the bishops and my own parish priest commanded my obedience. I, like all Catholics in those serene times, was used to being obedient, and so I did my best to suppress my feelings that this was terribly wrong and to chide myself for entertaining the notion that this could be so, and, like everyone else, I simply gave in. Or maybe not quite like everyone else. The young, my teenage pupils, mostly thought that all this change was wonderful. Communion in the hand, guitars and bongo drums at Mass, new pop hymns, wow! Also, although this sounds somewhat elitist, not all the parishioners had had my advantages and there were many pious souls who did what they were told without the soul-searching that was my lot as a fully qualified Catholic teacher with doctrine certificates galore.
I had to deal with the consequences of suddenly discovering that what had been a sacrilege and a mortal sin one day was commanded by ‘the Church’ to be done on the next (I’m aware now that this was a lie, but there was no way for me to know it then). My own faith dwindled to mere attendance at Mass and the NO did its deadly work all around me as the churches emptied, the Legion of Mary, Children of Mary, Sunday night’s 6.00pm ‘Rosary, Sermon and Benediction’, plain-song choir, and huge Confession queues on Saturdays all disappeared from my own and neighbouring parishes.
It wasn’t until I accidentally heard that there was an ‘old-fashioned’ Mass in a nearby town on a Sunday that I went there and rediscovered my faith and Michael Davies, and the rest is history.
It is often remarked that those old enough to have known the old Mass and Communion on the tongue are among the worst offenders in NO-land. The reason is their deadly, uncritical, original obedience, the gradual sheeplike acceptance of every novelty and the consequent loss of a sense of the sacred in Catholic churches. The middle-aged in the congregation were the teenagers who thought it all wonderful, and were, I suppose, the ones who have most eagerly taken on the bossy jobs in the parishes.
I congratulate you on a very perceptive and expressive commentary relating the pre Vat2 Church to its aftermath.
However, I do wish you had not introduced words such as “deadly”, “uncritical”, and “sheeplike acceptance”.
The plain fact is that we, the laity, were instructed on the necessity of obedience and the acceptance of the new ways. We were shown how to receive Holy Communion in the hand, our altar rails were removed, our altars were modified, crucifixes were removed, Masses of General Absolution were introduced, the Confessional was replaced by two arm chairs in a room —- how on earth were we able to stem the tide? The TLM was effectively banned, the NO was the only place left. Did anyone emerge as a leader in trying to stop the rot? And when he did, he was excommunicated!
Where were we to go?
And where are we, outside of reasonable commuting distance to a SSPX chapel, now supposed to go to fulfil our obligations to Our Lord and to our Faith?
In a strange way I detect an air of condemnatory smugness towards those of us unfortunate enough not to be blessed with a SSPX chapel whereas what we actually need is prayerful support.
I hope you haven’t detected an air condemnatory smugness from this quarter – nothing could be further from the truth. I understand perfectly what you are saying, as well as agreeing with your congratulations on Christina’s excellent commentary. You are both right – our sheeplike acceptance was almost uncritical (at least in any meaningful way), but we were used to doing as we were told because we trusted our Pope, our bishops and our priests. I can vividly recall telling one of my mother’s friends that she couldn’t possibly go to an SSPX Mass because she would become a heretic! God forgive me in my ignorance. The flip side of that little story was that when my mother and began to attend an SSPX Mass at a local hotel (after the scales fell from our eyes – thanks to Michael Davies), this lady treated us as fallen away Catholics! Thank God she has now also seen the light.
For me the turning point was when I read how the great and good in the Catholic Church treated Cardinal Ottaviani at the Council. I knew then what kind of people we were dealing with, and read everything I could about the machinations and instigators of the “breath of fresh air” which has almost succeeded in destroying the Church. It has certainly destroyed the Faith of many.
Be assured that you have my prayers in your exile. We must all remember that God will not be mocked forever.
Your prayers on behalf of those of us ‘in exile’ are more than generous and most welcome — goodness knows we need them, since the errors and offences current in NO Masses are, to those of us steeped in the ‘old Faith’, almost totally disheartening.
Mikidiki and Therese,
Thank you both for your kind words. Re the words that you found offensive, Mikidiki, they are of course spoken from hindsight – as Therese has said, in those days obedience to our ‘priests and lawful superiors’, was, as we learned from our Catechisms, absolutely essential in the Catholic life. The great majority of us, including many priests (who had also made a vow of obedience), did not realise how we were being betrayed by the highest in the Church. But I did later blame myself for my blindness in those faithless years, and for the effect it had on my children. When I found that a not inconsiderable number had seen through the smoke-screen and had thereby preserved the faith along with the liturgy, I wondered why I hadn’t seen through it as well.
I am truly sorry if anything I said sounded smug and condemnatory – I certainly don’t feel that way. It was providential that on the same day that I went to that ‘old-fashioned Mass’ I met a former colleague who would have none of it, and had been a founder-member of the LMS right at the beginning. Thanks to that organisation I was always able to get to an Indult Mass in England, even if sometimes only by a round trip of over 100 miles. I know that you had Una Voce in Scotland, but I don’t think it was ever able to achieve as much in Scotland as the LMS did in England.
I think it’s utterly disgraceful that after Summorum Pontificum so many are still in exile. I too will add you to my lengthening prayer list, Mikidiki.
As I wrote to Therese I write to you — thank you, your prayers will certainly help to raise my spirits. Blessings be upon us all.
Christina, thank you for a great post. Now, Michael Davies, was unknown to me, but I am adding that to my to do list for reading this weekend.
Yet another reason for reading Catholic Truth: sharing knowledge.
What a judgemental lot were are. No one and I do mean no one may judge what is in the heart of any person receiving communion. Whether received directly on the tongue or in the hand. Only God sees the heart of each individual and no one else!!! The only part of the practise of receiving communion in the hand that communicants should be reminded of is to place the sacred host on their tongues before turning away from from the priest to return to their place for thanksgiving. A sacred host may be removed from the mouth just as easily after reception if a person is so minded to do so!!!
There appears to be an unnecessary hysterical paranoia expressed about where the sacred host ends up. The vast majority of Catholics receive with respect and devotion. I would suggest that those complaining should spend less time watching what others are doing and how they are receiving the host and spend more time ensuring that their own reception is worthy of the act they are taking part in. Whether an individual receives in the hand or in the mouth the respect toward the Blessed Sacrament is not reduced by that individual because of the way in which they receive The backbiting bitching and judgemental attitude of others, and yes I do mean judgemental attitude DOES reduce the respect and worship due to the BS in their attitude towards others. If someone chooses to receive in the hand that is their choice, it does not mean that they are any less reverent. If someone chooses to receive on the tongue, that is their choice. It does not mean they are any less reverent. Let’s put charity and respect back into this ‘non debate’ and remember exactly what it is we do when receiving the BS in which ever way we choose
The vast majority of Catholics receive with respect and devotion
Goodness, Domchas, are you deaf and blind? Or are you just a very, very saintly person immune to all distractions? I wish I were. Anyway, instead of reading the posts of all these, in your opinion, backbiting, bitching, judgemental bloggers, here’s a bit of judgemental attitude for you expressed by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan in a recent interview:
….There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments….. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. this is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet!
And this is happening on a large scale. This has to be, for a person with faith and love for God, a very serious phenomenon.
We cannot continue as if Jesus as God does not exist, as though only the bread exists….the modern practice of receiving Communion in the hand contributes gradually to the loss of the Catholic Faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation.
(Where have I heard all that about ‘choice’ before? Quite the modernist mantra methinks.)
Bishop Schneider didn’t say the last bracketed paragraph. That was I.
You are the very last person who should accuse others of being judgemental. I find it illuminating of your mindset that you consider those who are concerned about the Blessed Sacrament being used in black masses as hysterical paranoia.
Thank you for your suggestion: here’s mine. Try practising what you preach and show some charity and respect to other people.
As usual, Domchas is full of venom towards the bloggers here but he’s very wrong about this being a “non-debate”. I had a call earlier this morning from a reader to say that this thread has “gone viral” across the Internet and Facebook. So, just because Domchas doesn’t see the issues, doesn’t mean others don’t. Evidently they do – big time and with bells on…
Editor, the only venom which is portrayed on this site is usually by yourself and one or two others who seem to think you have something worth saying. (Ed: shucks, thanks to you, too 😀 )
Editor: the rest of this comment, which began with “You are…” was deleted due to nasty personal remarks (to put it mildly)
Therese, You find that you are illuminated as to my mindset. (Ed: it’s not difficult, really. Take my word for it 😀 )That’s very interesting. (Ed: yes, isn’t it?)
Editor: rest of this comment removed, due to nasty personal remarks.
You are a card!
I’m removing the rest of my response to D/C before it can contain any nasty personal remarks…..
Well Therese, the pay’s rubbish and hours are awful. I have to get something out of this “ministry” 😀 If only a few laughs!
Your comments appear to emanate much more from a guilty conscience than from reasoned objective thought. Perhaps you are a priest who places the Blessed Sacrament at risk of irreverence and sacrilege by putting it in people’s hands. If so, then I can well understand your heated remarks. My question to you is: And what of the particles that remain on those hands after reception? You must know what each and every tiny fragment represents, so how can you rationalise Communion in the hand under any circumstances?
Ok that’s two questions, but very important ones that you appear to have skipped past when you posted your comments.
Never mind the old “you are being judgmental” chestnut, that one wore thin a long time ago. Time for straight answers to straight questions, we are talking about no less than the Real and true Presence of Our Lord in every particle of the Blessed Sacrament here.
Oh and by the way, no one here as far as I can see has judged the soul of anyone who receives in the hand. What they have done is put the promoters and defenders of this appalling practice on the spot by pointing out the great harm it does generally to belief in the Real Presence. Please, then, do not attempt to turn the genuine disgust of faithful Catholics at this illicit, disgraceful and irreverent practice into some kind of judgmental attitude against the many poor victims who have been conned into participating in the proud laying of hands on their Blessed Lord.
I just makes absolutely no sense for a person to object to Communion on the tongue on the grounds of hygiene, only to admit they receive from the chalice! No logic in that whatsoever.
If a person reads this blog article, along with the excellent post from Athanasius (and others), and still defends this sacrilege, we can surely suspect that they do not truly believe in the Real Presence.
I agree. I don’t think it is possible to believe in the Real Presence and still take Communion in the hand, especially after reading the comments on this blog. I took Communion in the hand years ago and I still feel very guilty about it. If I’d had known all the facts, I just wouldn’t have received that way.
Sorry, but you are wrong. I truly believe in the Real Presence and I receive Holy Communion in the hand.
If I didn’t believe in the Real Presence I wouldn’t go forward for Communion.
I just don’t know how you could do it, especially now that you know it was started illicitly. Shocking.
Sent from my iPhone
I try very hard not to judge, ridicule or demean anyone who disagrees with me. It is for Our Lord to judge and He alone,
First of all let me say that I admire your resilience in the face of quite hostile comments: but I do offer the opinion that it may be time for you to change and for you to abandon receiving Holy Communion in the hand.
Ever since the closing days of Vatican 2, or perhaps even before, I have been compelled to worship in NO parishes where the old ways were dispensed with at lightning speed under the obligation of obedience to higher authorities.
As a consequence my family and myself, and all fellow parishioners, fell in with the new Modernism — there was no rebellion, we were loyal, faithful Catholics who, we have since discovered, were deliberately betrayed by Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and priests.
But now that we have been shown the light we need to resume as many of the old ways as possible, and thereby give example to others in the flock who may be seeking a lead from fellow parishioners.
It is only in the last few months that I have transferred to receiving the Sacred Host in my mouth. I believe in my parish I am alone in so doing. But I do know that others are looking on and I trust that they may decide to copy me.
Why not acknowledge that it is time to change? I know you will feel the benefits. Standing up for your views is in many ways admirable, but not now that you know the facts. Please.
There have been no hostile comments, only passionate defences of the Blessed Sacrament against the sacrilege of a Communion in the hand. Sometimes it’s worth being forthright. When Christ entered the temple and found it a market place he drove the traders out with a whip. I dread to think what Our Lord makes of modern Catholic parishes.
As long as we remain charitable it is sometimes worth the other person taking offence. I would rather offend a person than allow Our Lord to be offended.
Sent from my iPhone
I believe, in my innocence, that there is an important difference between an instructive exhortation and an offensive remark. I also believe, possibly mistakenly, it is not possible to remain charitable whilst knowingly, for whatever high minded reason, causing offence to another.
As regards your denial that there have been hostile comments it may prove illuminating to cast your attention back to the following quotations from posts by your good self:-
1. August 14th at 10.48a.m
You begin with “This is really a very silly comment and it smacks of grasping at straws” and you end with “Get real”
2. August 14th at 8.03a.m
probably to Magdalene
“We can surely suspect that they do not truly believe in the Real Presence.”
3. August 13th at 5.28p.m.
“Your justification for receiving Holy Communion in the hand …… smacks of pride.”
4. August 14th at 9.42a.m
“I must admit that I’m lost.”
This is where you fail to support your prior inferences that schismatic priests, of their own volition, rather than through coercion and fear, supported Henry as Head of the Church in England.
It therefore seems fitting that you have led the rebuttal of my reference to “hostile comments.”
Having objectively read your response to Petrus, I have to say in all charity that you seem to be very easily offended. His comments were a little passionate perhaps, but not offensive by any stretch of the imagination.
A word to the wise on that score. The Catholic Church would be in better shape today if the Popes, prelates and priests since Vatican II were a little less touchy about giving offense and a little more apostolic in teaching the truth – yes, with passion! Our Lord did not shy away from giving offense when souls were at stake. Many Catholics today are lost to that kind of holy zeal.
Petrus was right to comment as he did to Eileenanne, but I’m afraid a good many more than she will have to “get real” if the Church is to recover from the frightful crisis it has been undergoing since Catholics gave up the offensive (pardon the pun) and became door mats for charity’ sake!
Beautifully put! I’ve heard from some young (and not so young )people reading the blog – this thread in particular, that they have found your post edifying and very helpful. The account of your experience of the post Vatican II Church and the concise but clear explanations you offered struck a chord with them! Thank you. 😀
Sorry, Editor! I started to say, this topic has been attracting a lot of interest. Thank you for posting it!
Thank you! I’m very pleased that this thread has been so popular. I take that to suggest that (I hope) more and more people are re-thinking their position on it.
I really appreciate you taking the time to write – it really is a well written post with a very considerate tone.
I share my thoughts with you in the hope that you may understand how I arrived at this position. I received on the tongue, as we were taught to do, for years but the first time I received in the hand was a profound spiritual experience which I shall never forget. Its almost as though my Faith came alive at that moment and I was infused with a powerful feeling of love towards Our Lord. Over the years I have prayed about this and asked Our Lord for His guidance and found the courage to discuss it with more than one priest.
I appreciate your advice, so kindly given, but I believe receiving Holy Communion in the hand is the most wonderful gift which I shall cherish and honour all my life.
God Bless you and your family.
This is the saddest post I have ever read on the blog. Satan’s masterstroke is to lead Catholics astray under false obedience but also false devotion and piety. To claim the a sacrilege is a spiritual experience is truly diabolical.
Your words don’t sound as though they come from God,.
St Matthew 18:15 – 18:17
You base your rejection of Church teaching up to Vatican II – all the Fathers, saints, Popes and Councils – on how YOU felt when you first received Communion in the hand.
Maybe that profound spiritual experience you had was not from God, has that ever occurred to you? Remember, St. Paul warned that the devil sometimes appears disguised as an angel of light. It seems impossible to me that God would reward an action with true spiritual joy that stands contrary to everything He has taught by His Church and by His saints. There is no contradiction in God, so I’m very suspicious of that experience you say you had, regardless of your personal disposition.
I think you should seriously reflect on placing your personal feelings and opinions before established Church teaching. I would also advise reflection on the fact that Communion in the hand was introduced into the Church by disobedience, definitely not the kind of behaviour that brings profound spiritual experiences in its wake!
This is the problem with post-Vatican II Catholicism, everybody doing whatever makes them feel good instead of doing what the Church has always done and taught. They call it liberation. I call it by its proper name – Rebellion. Besides that, your method of receiving in the hand is not remotely the same as the practice of the early Christians, it mirrors exactly the completely different practice introduced by the Reformation Protestants. Read what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has to say on that subject.
Sometimes it it imperative that we do judge actions: indeed as Catholics and followers of Jesus Christ, we are often obliged to do so. No-one likes to be put in the wrong, I know I find it a most painful experience, but in this instance it is my duty to Our Blessed Lord that compels me to write as I do; it would be shameful for me to keep silent on such a grave matter. I am not responsible for you feeling demeaned; I have never sought to demean you. As a fellow Catholic and sister in the faith I have only given you the reasons why receiving Holy Communion in the hand is wrong.
“I try very hard not to judge, ridicule or demean anyone who disagrees with me. It is for Our Lord to judge and He alone,”
“Your words don’t sound as though they come from God,”.
Well said and I am very pleased that you have not permitted yourself to be deterred from sticking to your opinion, by the remarks here about hostility and judgmentalism.
A personal remark goes like this: “you, [Name] are a nasty piece of work. You are ignorant. You are stupid…” That sort of thing. There’s plenty of room for robust discussion among adults, without falling into either of two extremes – on the one hand making nasty personal remarks and on the other being so sugary sweet and round about the houses that the point being made loses its impact. If there is one thing I detest, it’s having a serious conversation with someone who is persistently taking offence at every word, looking for innuendo etc. Gerragrip folks, is my instinctive response, I’m afraid, sorry about that etc etc….
To point out that the Devil works on us when we participate in sacrilege such as Communion in the hand, is not nasty or personal. It is a fact.
I remember a conversation with a priest in the north of England some years ago, a priest whom I had invited to partake of some pizza at my home for the purpose of meeting a friend of mine visiting for the weekend from Glasgow. He was a “middle of the road” type of priest, allowing the old rite Mass in his parish courtesy of the LMS, while going along to get along in just about every other aspect of the Faith. We had a robust discussion about Church matters at the time, but when I asked him if he agreed with my friend who had said that [referring to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy ommunion] “handling the Blessed Sacrament makes these people proud”, he immediately agreed. Without a split second’s hesitation, this priest (who had disagreed with us on just about everything else so far debated) replied “Yes. Definitely. It does”
He wasn’t being personal. He was stating a fact.
I note someone up there says she had a “religious experience” following reception of Communion in the hand. But that connection – between receiving Holy Communion in the hand and a spiritual “experience” is on a par with the claims of conversions at the hoax “shrine” of Medjugorje. In other words, there is no connection at all, or at least if there is any connection, is doesn’t come from God. What, someone (like myself) who has never had any such “experience” is to draw the conclusion that perhaps if I break with Catholic Tradition and accept the Protestant custom of receiving in the hand, God will reward me with some kind of nice “experience”? Come on, folks. Thinking caps on!
For one thing, the great saints and mystics of the Church warn us against seeking sensible consolation (what is today described as “religious experience”) and that is for a number of reasons, including this one: that not all such “experiences” come from God. It is through our senses that the Devil gets us most easily. So, forget “experience” as a reason to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Nothing personal. This is already a lengthy comment – were I to keep interjecting “with all due respect” …. “no offence intended…” Blah blah – it’d end up being longer than the M8 😀
I agree with every word you say. I dislike this aspect of modern Catholicism where everything has to feel good. Feelings don’t matter. I will be honest, sometimes when I go to Mass, or say my prayers , I feel absolutely nothing. Our priest preached a few weeks ago about this type of aridity and noted that one saint endured this for 15 years! Lovey dovey feelings do not make us saints.
I remember at my grandmother’s Anglican funeral, the female minister was very nice and spoke very well. The music was lovely. I felt comforted by her words. However, I did not take part in the funeral. I attended passively and prayed for the female minister’s conversion. Feelings count for nothing – what matters is our intellect and Catholic sense. I get the impression that many modern Catholics abandon these and seek “religious experiences” which make them feel good, usually by exalting themselves. The religion of man usurps the religion of God. This is what I mean when I say a little more humility would go a long way.
Sent from my iPhone
Looking at the writings of saints, one gets the impression that the dark night of the soul is more common than religious ecstasy. The dryness of prayer is generally considered, it seems to me, a more reliable guide to being on the true path than any feeling of warm satisfaction.
Thanks for that Andrew.
Sent from my iPhone
The following sprang to mind; “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]” . A quote from General Sir Charles Napier.
I am at a loss. Are all Catholic bishops utterly supine? Is it now a job requirement, something to be tested as part of the examination of their vocation to the priesthood? Surely a few decent Catholic boys could be got together, equipped with baseball bats (it is the US!), and could go round to visit the event just before the start, and persuade them of the error of their ways?
The Church Militant is becoming the Church Passive. Turning the other cheek is only of merit where it does not conflict with the need to demonstrate and defend the truth and to lead by example. To accept things is to lead our children astray. It is not enough to deplore.
Very well said.
I agree entirely with you.
Since we only have two cheeks I don`t believe, rightly or wrongly, that we are expected to keep turning them to the point of dizziness.
When I was a young man, living in a mining area in Ayrshire, there was never ever any chance of our church being vandalised. The simple reason being that the local bigots knew there were too many fit young men, and not so young, willing to take up the cudgels to defend it.
If anyone had dared to use the Blessed Sacrament for devilish pursuits it wouldn`t have got beyond the planning stage. The turning of the cheek would have been for another day.
More often than not the threat of violence is enough for these cowards to have a re-think.
I know I was probably wrong but my philosophy in life was always to make sure that my family
would never ever look on me as a cowering old poosie nancy.
The introduction of Communion in the hand has led to a lessening of respect for the Blessed Sacrament and even a loss of faith in the Real Presence. I remember a priest telling me about a priest in Ireland who, not long after moving to a new parish, was doing a house visit and was shocked to see a host pinned on the wall. When he asked about it he was told that it was memento from Pope John Paul’s Mass in Dublin. The priest immediately removed the host and consumed it there and then much to the anger of the lady of the house. I’ve heard of people at these Papal Masses asking for for two, three or more hosts when they have gone for communion.
I thought this extract from a blog about Communion in the hand at WDPRS very interesting.
“It is now, against the priest’s conscience to give on the hand. He fears for the desecration of Our Lord.
In discussing this with another priest, … I was told that there is a clause (somewhere) about a priest allowed to insist on Communion on the tongue if it is against his conscience.”
It seems there is a lot of risk in giving Communion in the hand. I think it should be stopped immediately. I’m just amazed more priests are not stopping it on conscience grounds.
The Editor posted on August 15th at 11.33p.m “A personal remark goes like this ….. You are stupid.” Would that remark be more or less offensive than “This is a really silly comment”? Oh, you might say, voicing merely your personal opinion, the latter is only passionately robust.
So that is alright then?
Then you continue in the same vein by asserting, unfairly in your ignorance of me, “I have to say in all charity that you seem to be easily offended.”
Strangely enough, I do not find that charitable, and do indeed find it objectionable. It is therefore apparent that my imagination stretches further than yours though you, by implication, may have more Christ like attributes than I can ever ascribe to.
The difference is that you, me, any of us may well make “very silly comments” – but that doesn’t mean we are “stupid”.
I find comments picking up on perceived offensive remarks, very distracting. I think it’s fairly easy to see the difference between a nasty personal remark and an observation in debate. I cannot imagine taking offence if someone accused me of making a “silly comment”. Modernists think it’s “silly” (and worse) to defend what Christians have believed since the first century, so naturally they will have unpleasant words to share about much of what is posted on this blog. To say that this argument is “silly” or “pointless” or “disingenuous” or whatever, is not “personal”. It’s directing nastiness towards the PERSON that is “personal”. I may well make a silly comment, use a daft analogy. Fair enough if someone wishes to point that out. Call me “stupid” however, and that plonker will feel the full force of my awful wrath at its worst!
I think it’s wiser in discussion, whether oral or written, to focus entirely on the issue, and not get side-tracked by reading offensiveness into what others have written because, more often than not, no offence is intended. It is distracting and time/energy-consuming to have to keep pointing this out. Perhaps easier all round if we all assume the best in one another and avoid appearing to be looking for excuses to “pick fights”. None of us really wants to do that, I’m sure, so let’s try to avoid either taking or giving offence by focusing on the topic. In this case, the topic is far too important to worry too much about hurt feelings – as long as there is no nastiness in comments, that may be a side effect of making a point which must be made, in true charity, I’m thinking, for example, of the blogger who argued that the fact that (she believes) she had a spiritual experience made it acceptable for her to receive Communion in the hand. If her feelings have been hurt by any of our responses, that’s a pity, but it can’t be helped because there’s really no nice way of saying “you’re wrong – with bells on”.
I hope this is clear enough and not offensive… NOT my intention!
“The Editor posted on August 15th at 11.33p.m “A personal remark goes like this ….. You are stupid.” Would that remark be more or less offensive than “This is a really silly comment”?”
The latter is clearly less offensive, and should be considered so, since it judges comment and not commentator. We all make silly comments from time to time and there’s nothing wrong with someone observing the fact. That observation only becomes offensive if and when the observer gets personal, attributing a particular silly comment to a more general absence of intelligence in the commentator.
Semantics aside, though, the practice of Communion in the hand is appalling and unjustifiable. It is truly repugnant to the Catholic sense of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and demonstrably detrimental to faith in the Real Presence. Offensiveness doesn’t get any more pronounced than this horrible innovation because it is Our Saviour who is greatly offended by it.
One hour later, you say almost exactly the same thing as moi, only in many fewer words and better.
I’m deeply offended!
It’s I who am offended by your stealing my thoughts one hour before I even expressed them on the blog. You may read here a few colourful metaphors as I suggest changing your username to Uri Geller!
Seriously, though, I think the point has been made and, as you say, we need to get back to discussing the matter in hand (no pun intended). I certainly hope Mikidiki and Magdalene agree.
How about “Your words don’t sound as though they come from God,”? Is that alright?
I’d say let’s not keep this particular pot boiling. “your words” is in the same category as “silly comments”, not a nasty personal remark, so let’s move on from here and pick up on the key point, made by Athanasius in his most recent comment, that “offensiveness doesn’t get any more pronounced than this horrible innovation (of Communion in the hand) because it is our Saviour who is greatly offended by it.”
Who told You our Saviour is greatly offended? Have you had an spiritual experience in which this was made clear to you. Perhaps when receiving our Savoiur on the tongue!!!!
There is no especial spiritual experience necessary to know that Our Lord is offended by Communion in the hand. All that’s required is the Catholic Faith and a knowledge of the teaching of the Church and her saints these past 1500 years.
Maybe this is too obvious, but how about if an adult altar server, or indeed any good person, were asked to stand near the priest and WATCH each communicant consume the Host received in the hand, tactfully challenging them if they turned away too soon? People would know that they were under scrutiny and would become more careful. And surely they would understand why.
Come to think of it, it would be a good role for the Extraordinary Ministers.
Have you read this thread? Have you read the excellent comments and links provided about the history of Communion in the hand ?
As I said earlier, anyone who defends this practice is defending sacrilege. This offends me infinitely more than any words could ever offend me. Don’t expect me to back down when the dignity of the Blessed Sacrament is at risk.
Sent from my iPhone
If priests and prelates of the Church ever recovered sufficient grace to have that kind of concern again for the integrity of the Blessed Sacrament then they would surely abolish the practice of Communion in the hand altogether.
Would there be someone also to inspect their hands going out the door to ensure there wasn`t the tiniest portion of the Blessed Sacrament still on their hands? No matter how miniscule, it is still the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
Wow! The proverbial ton of bricks! Look, you guys, I’m just being realistic. At the moment Communion in the hand is with us – until such time as it is banned. All I was doing was suggesting a way in present circumstances of making it more difficult for Satanists, or any other evil-doers, to get hold of a consecrated Host.
I suppose it’s like saying let’s be realistic – let’s make sure woman have safe access to abortion!
Sent from my iPhone
Communion on the tongue is also still with us.
That is the best way in present circumstances of making it more difficult for undesirables to get hold of a consecrated host.
I can`t see communion in the hand being banned in the foreseeable future so the simple way to get rid of it is for everyone to take it on the tongue.
I get it – I appreciate your good intentions even if the rest of these no-good smart alec CT bloggers don’t. Ignore them. They’re plunging down the pay scale for their cheek to you, my favourite Edinburgh blogger (with the exception of Vianney of course…)
Thing is, PC, since the current rules are supposed to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament and they are not enforced (nobody is supposed to receive the Host and walk away, they are supposed to consume there and then), it’s highly unlikely that anyone would bother their faithless little heads applying a new rule. Am I right, or am I right? Given these two options, which will you choose? 😀
Aw, thanks, Editor. I was beginning to feel quite persecuted for a moment, but my faith in CT is now restored. 🙂
Keep it restored, Pew Catholic, keep it restored. You know it makes sense 😀
I have excellent news for you good people. I have, after a lengthy telephone conversation with [an SSPX priest] found that Mass is said at 12.15pm on Saturdays [in that chapel] and I am going to attend those, as it is easier to attend on a Saturday than a Sunday. I’ve taken this decision for a variety of reasons namely: Holy Mass is celebrated with true faith and reverence, faithful doctrine is preached and most importantly, Holy Communion is distributed correctly, viz. on the tongue and kneeling.
At the NO parish which I currently endure, I witness people receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the hand, giving it a quick gaze and popping it in the mouth like a mint. I even saw one old guy brush his palm on his trouser-leg after. An Opus Dei friend (they are strict about Communion in the mouth and kneeling) railed against the new and obscene method, and about how he had found Hosts on the floor under pews, and had to get the Priest to consume them. That is Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. When you go into Church, you genuflect, when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed you kneel, but when you actually get to consume Our Lord’s saving Body, you stand and receive it in the hand. Totally contradictory. I suggest to all those, no doubt well-intentioned people, who receive in the hand, stop genuflecting upon entering Church or kneeling during exposition to achieve a degree of misguided consistency.
I discussed this with an aunt, another convert, and tried to persuade her to receive in the mouth, informing her about how it started, why it is wrong (loose particles etc), the Real Presence, but she just kept saying, robot style, ‘I prefer it in the hand’. Key word here is ‘I’. Self centered pride, as Petrus rightly said. I have a low tolerance rate for this. I just switch off and sing a hymn in Latin under my breath, such as ‘O Salutaris Hostia’ or ‘Tantum Ergo’. If they won’t honour Our Lord, I will. Unfortunately, my Church doesn’t have any kneelers or a rail, so I can’t kneel, but at the Opus Dei centre where I recently stayed whilst teaching English to Spanish teenagers, I knelt to receive The Lord, as I did at the Jesuit Church of the Holy Name. People, swallow your misguided pride, love Jesus, love His Body and worship Him in HUMBLE ADORATION.
That is excellent news CC.
I wish there were many more young people like you. You always cheer me up.
Well said, Therese. I join you in congratulating Catholic Convert. He’s been on the right track from day 1 and his strong desire to please God is heart warming.
Sent from my iPhone
I am not trying to pick faults but does the Saturday morning Mass fulfil your
As for those who receive in the hand, my experience is that not too many of them bother about genuflecting or kneeling if they attend exposition anyway.
I suppose as long as he does something to make the Sunday holy, since he is obviously not being helped by his local novus ordo, I’d say it was OK to attend the Latin Mass on Saturdays, since there isn’t one near enough for Sunday. As I say, as long as he does something to mark the Sabbath, say extra spiritual reading or something, that would be allowed. We are in an emergency situation, and the highest law is the salvation of souls, so I can’t see that God would be offended, and that’s the bottom line.
I could accept that.
As you say, we are certainly in an emergency situation.
I do not think that your ingenious proposal holds validity. Of course, I may be wrong, since in these times of the ‘make it up as we go along Church’, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a considerate and compliant priest could grant a dispensation.
The views of the more informed posters might help.
I am going by the fact that I have read on this blog often that we cannot be obliged to attend the novus ordo if in conscience we believe it is dangerous to our soul. In that case, it seems obvious to me that it would be acceptable to God to attend a traditional Mass on another day of the week, and still make Sunday special by spiritual reading and extra prayers etc.
I don’t think that’s making it up as we go along since Canon Law has always said that the faith is the highest purpose of the law, i.e. that a church law should not come before our duty to protect our faith. If attending a new Mass is damaging to the faith, we are not obliged to attend it.
Do you think it would be more pleasing to God just to keep on attending the kind of Masses Catholic Convert 1 describes, because it’s canon law to attend Mass on Sundays?
That’s a good response Nicky. The priest Catholic Convert spoke to is certainly not one for making things up.
Sent from my iPhone
I asked [the SSPX priest] about fulfilling the Sunday obligation, and he said that I could have a dispensation to attend the TLM on Saturdays, if the Novus Ordo is injurious to my mental state and spiritual wellbeing. He told me to attend his Mass monthly on Saturday, and a Diocesan TLM on the Saturday Vigil, as the Diocesan Priest is very orthodox. A blogger told me his sermons are excellent. She is SSPX aligned, and Father said this was OK. I cannot continue attending NO Masses, because of:
Modern happy clappy hymns
Girls in mini-skirts
Girls and Ladies in low cut tops and tight trousers
Men in shorts
Altar servers in mini-skirts
Communion in the hand
Implicit support for ‘gay rights’- today the Gospel was about Jesus healing the Canaanite woman’s daughter. So, the Priest sermonised about Jesus crossing boundaries. Long story short, he started on about how society must cross boundaries, as society did in opposing racial segregation, women’s right and finally acceptance of ‘gay people’ (his words), even though some ‘still don’t accept it’ (his words).
I’d stick to this proest’s advice. Congratulations on making some hard, but excellent decisions. God is certainly rewarding your fidelity.
Sent from my iPhone
On August 15th at 11.27p.m Athanasius posted:-
“This is the problem with post Vatican II Catholicism, everybody doing whatever makes them feel good instead of doing what the Church has always done and taught. They call it liberation, I call it by its proper name – Rebellion.”
This comment is little different from my phrase “the make it up as we go along Church” as perhaps reference to the words of Papa Francesco and the Hierarchy could affirm?
On August 16th at 8.49p.m Catholic Convert 1 stated that he had engaged in a long conversation with [an SSPX priest]. Thus he had discovered the existence of a Saturday lunchtime Mass which he intended to attend. Nowhere does he state that the priest assured him that attendance at this Mass would enable him to fulfil his Sunday obligation. It might help the discussion if CC1 could enlighten us since we do not know what the priest actually said, if anything, about Sunday obligations.
Personally, I have no alternative other than attendance at a NO parish, and personally I know that ‘lapsing’ would have an even greater detrimental effect on my Faith than my suffering the inevitable damage wrought by attendances over fifty or so years at the NO Mass, which I pray may be accepted by God as acts of penance.
It is becoming clear to me that personal opinions, whether expressed as fact or doctrine, have little value in determining the outcomes of topical debates. We really need a Canon lawyer to help out, not simply opinions from helpful posters.
This issue has been discussed many times on the blog. Ultimately we must all do what our conscience tells us in this matter, provided our conscience is informed.
I’ve found that once a person really studies the history of the New Mass their mind is made up for them, provided they are determined to find the truth.
The SSPX priests do not recommend attendance at the New Mass because it is a danger to the Faith. Anything that is a danger to the Faith, cannot be an obligation. Once you understand this and remove this obstacle, there really is no need for a Canon Lawyer.
Sent from my iPhone
The fact that the ‘issue’ has been discussed many times on the blog is irrelevant. You state that ultimately we must all do what our conscience tells us … provided our conscience is informed.
Was it not accepted that one obtained an informed conscience by obedience to, and acceptance of, Church teachings since otherwise individuals could act erroneously?
So, ignoring Mass on the Sabbath is permissible if I decide that attendance is against my conscience which has been informed by the constant references to the matter in the Catholic Truth blog? Little old me is thus empowered to make such a huge decision? Wow! And I can rely on the opinion of a SSPX priest so to do? Wow!
However, since it is a physical impossibility for me to travel the very long distance needed to attend a SSPX chapel, and the TLM is rarely celebrated near enough to me to facilitate my presence (and then only ever on occasional Thursdays) what if I decide to follow my (self monitored I.e informed) conscience and forego attending Mass all together? Would that be okay?
I have studied the Novus Ordo and although it is indeed bland and pseudo Protestant, it is deemed by my obedient Catholic conscience to be better than nothing. Would a SSPX priest still advise against attendance?
Finally, I have little doubt that many hundreds of priests would condemn the view expressed by the SSPX priest so where does that leave us?
“Was it not accepted that one obtained an informed conscience by obedience to, and acceptance of, Church teachings since otherwise individuals could act erroneously?”
This is absolutely correct. Spot on. Have a read at St Pius V’s Quo Primum and then come back to me. You have admitted that the Novus Ordo is “Pseudo Protestant”. Surely this tells you that it cannot be an obligation to attend anything that was written partly by Protestants and certainly with Protestants in mind?
The liturgy of the Catholic Church must be “approved and received”. The NO was not received – it was an entirely new creation. Remember, our first loyalty is to our Faith. The NO is a danger to the faith, as you have admitted. You are, therefore, betraying the Faith if you know how dangerous the NO is but still chose to attend it.
It’s not an easy decision. It takes time. However, the extra effort is worth it. I travel an hour on public transport as there is no Traditional Mass in my Diocese. There’s a man who travels four hours by train to get to a 9.45 am SSPX Mass. We each have our own individual circumstances, but some of our lives would be much easier if we simply said “The NO is better than nothing!”
When we say, on this blog, that Catholics are not obliged to attend the NO, it isn’t because some SSPX priest told us so. It is because this is authentic Catholic teaching on the obligation [to protect our Faith above all].
Some time later… I have removed a link which I included with the purpose of clarifying the issues for you but I’ve realised, belatedly, that at least one sedevacantist source is quoted, and I suspect the site itself is run by sedevacantists. It is against our policy to promote sedevacantist websites, so I really can’t go about the place in breach of our own rules. Hence, I have deleted the link I placed here earlier this evening. Apologies for any confusion caused.
Ed: My anti-virus ware has just told me that the site you have just highlighted is a malicious site, and has blocked it. Any idea whether or no this is so anyone?
I’m not getting any such message – that is worrying. However, there may be an innocent explanation for it. I really don’t know.
However, having checked out this article only a few minutes ago, I’m afraid it quotes at least one sedevacantist, so that is sufficient for me to apologise for posting the link – I’ve now removed it.
[An SSPX priest] told me that I could fulfil my Sunday obligation through a dispensation to attend on Saturday due to the negative Protestantising effect of the Novus Ordo. Whereabouts do you live exactly Mikidiki? Maybe you could travel once or twice a month, depending on your personal circumstances obviously, to a traditional Mass. You needn’t go to the SSPX, any orthodox Priest will suffice.
As Petrus said, you only need to look at the history of the Novus Ordo, and it’s effects on the faithful. I suggest that you read ‘Quo Primum’ by St. Pius V and the Ottavianni Intervention to gain an insight into the nature of the New Mass, if you have already done so. The fact that the concocter in chief of the New Mass, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason told me all I needed to know.
When [the SSPX priest] informed you that with a dispensation you could attend the Saturday lunchtime Mass, I am interested in how this will be effected. Will you have a written documented permission and is he, himself, authorised or empowered to provide it?
The requirements of the blog do not permit the broadcasting of private personal details so I am unable to declare my place of residence. I have commented further in my response (above) to Petrus.
The Modernists took Pius XII’s strictly limited Saturday Mass indult for those forced to work on Sundays and turned it into the new co-Sabbath day for Catholics with regular Saturday vigil Masses for all. I think what [the SSPX priest] has offered CC is more in line with the spirit of Pius XII than the aforementioned universal abuse of what Pius intended.
As regards your own situation, it is clear to me that you are not happy in your conscience with the prospect of leaving the Novus Ordo with no alternative Mass available to you for the fulfillment of the Sunday obligation. I really feel for you in that awful situation, a dilemma for many souls of good will.
My suggestion is to do what you are doing at the moment while sending up prayers to Our Lady for guidance and help, she will not fail to hear you.
Personally, I would have no hesitation in staying at home on a Sunday with rosary and missal at hand rather than endure the terrible things that go on in local parish churches with the New Mass. My conscience would not permit me to remain quiet while Catholics, priests included, treat the Blessed Sacrament with such casual disrespect. I simply could not stand it.
However, I am aware that I can only advise and not insist that others follow my example and the example of a growing number of scandalised Catholics who choose not to attend the Novus Ordo with its destructive innovations. God have mercy on those Church authorities who have so altered our holy faith that Catholics everywhere are now either nominal and indifferent or torn in conscience between fidelity to Tradition and obedience to their innovative and destructive liberal spirit.
Thank you most sincerely for your comment and your empathy with my situation. I shall indeed seek the guidance of Our Lady and a SSPX chapel might appear in my neighbourhood, or failing that, much more frequent and more appropriately timed TLMs.
I pray something positive happens for you soon, Mikidiki, and for so many others who see no possibility of escaping enforced liturgical banality for the sanctity of holy Tradition.
Once again, many thanks Athanasius.
Obviously while I was writing the above CC1 did post the results of his conversation with [the SSPX priest]. Thanks to him for it.
I have wrestled with the particular problem under discussion (attend the NO or not for the reasons cited) many times, and find that I cannot fully agree with Athanasius, Petrus, et al, although I fully understand and respect their very well-reasoned positions, stated over and over again on this blog. When the NO was imposed upon God’s faithful, a wonderful priest in Liverpool, who hated it every bit as much as I did, gave the advice that we should go to the Mass, sit at the back and read our old Mass Missals. Off and on over the years I have done this, but I have also had periods of not going to Mass if the NO is the only option. I think that the latter practice is wrong, simply because one of the six commandments of the Church binds Catholics to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation. The NO, dreadful though it is, is a valid Mass, because of the indefectibility of the Church. Therefore if it is the only Mass available to me, then I must suffer it. The argument about ‘danger to faith’ won’t do for me, as I am, thank God, sufficiently aware of the true teachings of the Church to recognise any heresies I might accidentally hear, and I am fully aware of the manifest deficienciies of the NO rite, and of the reasons for the abuses (such as Communion in the hand) that I see if I accidentally look around me. I know that there is an ever-present danger that the NO Mass might be invalid for one reason or another, but that is not for me to judge, and, in any case, I NEVER receive Communion at an NO Mass.
I know that my opinion will be opposed here, but I have thought about it long and hard, and my conscience lands me in this very uncomfortable position. Believe me, I wish I could have an honest change of heart before I am again forced (while on holiday) to attend Mass in Stranraer!
Some may argue that the indefectibility of the Church is preserved by a wide availability of the Traditional Mass in most countries, although some do not perhaps have access to one locally on a regular basis.
The indefectibility of the Church is also preserved by the fact that the New Mass is not per se invalid. If matter, form and intention are present then it is a valid Mass, despite indisputable evidence that it has had so negative an effect of the faith of Catholics by reason of the Protestant mask it otherwise wears.
I know one young man who travels hundreds of miles round trip every week to attend the old Mass rather than go to the Novus Ordo. Now that’s what I call heroic commitment, though I accept that not all can do this.
It’s a terrible dilemma for Catholic souls of good will. God grant an end to this unprecedented crisis of faith in the Church soon.
That was the position that the late, great Hamish Fraser took. If he couldn’t attend a Tridentine Mass he would attend the NO and read from his missal and pray the rosary. He said that he offered this this up as a penance. I think it is a very valid and acceptable offering to Our Blessed Lord in the extreme circumstances that we live in. Fortunately I don’t have to do this as I’m afraid my emotions do get the better of me on the odd occasion when I attend an NO Mass; I’m afraid anger is the predominant feeling, but I very much admire those who can stick it out and offer it up as a sacrifice. God bless you in this trial, and I’m sure Our Blessed Lady will be with you in your suffering.
Your post more than adequately sums up my own dilemma and situation. I do, however, receive Holy Communion but no longer in the hand. And the next step is to receive only from the priest rather than from the colloquially entitled ‘Eucharistic Ministers’.
Incidentally, since a recent post of mine, I have seen another parishioner receive on the tongue, so that makes at least two of us!
N O T I C E . . .
I noticed, rather late in the day, that Catholic Convert had quoted, by name, a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, who had advised him – in private conversation – in the matter of fulfilling his Sunday obligation when, in conscience, unable to attend the novus ordo.
I have now removed that priest’s name from Catholic Convert’s original comment and from all subsequent comments, replacing it with “An SSPX priest”.
Please be careful not to name any priests without their permission. It is unfair to quote someone, especially a priest, giving personal advice during a private conversation.
One of our bloggers has penned the following excellent letter to the Governor of the State of Oklahoma. Although electing to remain anonymous, we have the necessary permission to post it here for your information, interest and edification…
Dear Governor Fallin,
I read with grateful approval your recent comments condemning the “Black Mass” scheduled to take place in Oklahoma City’s Civic Center on September 21. You are to be praised indeed for the strength of your words in relation to this forthcoming outrage which has shocked and offended the entire Christian world.
As regards your further lament, however, that little or nothing can be done in law to prevent this disgusting event from proceeding, I think you are mistaken.
The First Amendment assures religious freedom in respect to conscience and personal religious opinion; it does not guarantee immunity from State and/or Federal intervention with regard to all religious actions.
For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1878), Chief Justice Waite wrote: “Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”
Black Masses violate this principle on both counts. In the first place, they represent a clear manifestation of hatred directed primarily at the Catholic religion and more broadly at all Christians. That the organisers of such hateful events require an illicitly obtained consecrated Eucharist from a Catholic church for the purpose of mockery is evidence enough of a violation of social duties.
That such hateful mockery subsequently results in the universal outrage of Christians and of all people of good will demonstrates that such events as these are subversive of good order and should not therefore enjoy the protection of law.
In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, the US Supreme Court appears to uphold Chief Justice Waite’s earlier findings. It held that the free exercise of religion is one of the “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the States. But it added that while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act is not absolute. In other words, true freedom in the exercise of religion is subject to rules forbidding anything which is explicitly degrading or repulsive to humanity.
Satanism is repulsive by reason of its adherents’ worship of one who is the declared enemy of both God and humanity. How, then, can US law extend protection to such a diabolical manifestation disguised as religion while at the same time US Presidents invoke God’s blessing on America and US currency declares “In God we trust?” I rather think the Founding Fathers would agree that such a contradiction makes nonsense of the US Constitution, turning freedom into a cloak for the malicious!
It is my sincere hope that you will find some merit in the few lines I have written and that they may help in some way to spur a re-think on what should and should not be granted the protection of law under the US Constitution.
There certainly has to be some kind of debate at the legal level, not just in the US but in all nations whose laws proceeded from the sound moral principles of Christianity. Surely, there is something very seriously amiss when Satan and his followers suddenly find their hateful agenda, subversive of the common good of society, protected by law. The world is watching Oklahoma City at this time for all the wrong reasons.
I pray your dear City finds a way to reject this demonic assault with the same vehement disgust that you have already displayed by your admirable words. It is my wish that God will indeed bless America at this crucial time.
Having watched the You Tube Video of the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider on several occasions, I regret to say that I am troubled by his apparently uncritical support of Papa Francesco, the very one who could end the practice of Holy Communion in the hand immediately, but doesn’t.
It just goes to show that even the best of men in the Church can fail in their duty through this mistaken notion that the Pope is beyond correction. St. Paul gave the example of how subordinates should behave when Popes behave in a manner that causes scandal, but it seems that very few have St. Paul’s wisdom and zeal these days. To his credit, though, Bishop Schneider has predicted a coming schism in the Church, so it seems he does recognise a real danger under Pope Francis.
I remember once seeing a young woman (at a Novus Ordo) kneel when she reached the front of the communion line.
How admirable I thought, to do that whilst most people blithely receive in the modern lax fashion.
But I had spoken too soon – as she quickly got back up again and proceeded to receive in the hand.
I mean, what the blazes? Talk about confused.
At least the priest didn’t react adversely to her somewhat confused attempt at reverence.
The only other time I’ve seen someone kneel at a Novus Ordo, the priest – a Jesuit (no surprises) – physically recoiled in horror, as if the person (another young woman) had just relieved herself on the floor on front of him.
I think that young woman was probably genuflecting – they’re supposed to make some show of reverence, physically, before receiving in the hand. Very few do and even so, big deal. Should not be receiving in the hand, end of.
As for the reaction of clergy – I know of one teenage girl who knelt for Communion (in her parish in England) some years ago, only to be (1) told by the priest to stand up (which she did not do – no false obedience or wrong understanding of clergy authority there, even at 18 years of age) and (2) ridiculed outside the church in front of her peers.
I’d loved to have had a word with HIM. But that word would have been unprintable!
Athanasius has given me permission to republish an article on Communion in the hand which he had published in the Scottish Catholic Observer some time ago. It’s difficult to imagine how any priest reading this article could continue to be complicit in this scandal:
Published in Scottish Catholic Observer – January 2012
Reviewing Communion in the hand
By Martin Blackshaw
“Why, for God’s sake, should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.”
These words of Dietrich von Hildebrand were published in a November 18, 1973 article entitled ‘Communion in the hand should be Rejected.’
To demonstrate the stature of the one who wrote the article it suffices to recall the tribute of Pius XII, who called von Hildebrand a “20th century doctor of the Church.” Popes Paul VI and John Paul II later paid their own compliments to this German Catholic philosopher and theologian.
In the years since von Hildebrand’s article was published, reports of the Blessed Sacrament having being found under church pews or lying in the street have become commonplace in many countries, as have reliable observations of a general loss of Eucharistic faith among priests and faithful.
One U.S. gallop poll in recent years recorded just 30% of U.S. Catholics now believing in Our Lord’s True Presence. The other 70% had either various shades of Protestant belief or no belief at all.
These findings would appear to confirm what the ‘Servant of God’ Fr. John Hardon S.J., had already bluntly asserted: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Pope John Paul II was already lamenting the trend in his April 1980 ‘Instruction’ Inaestamabile Donum, when he wrote of “…frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world…an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred…lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament.”
The Pontiff was to write of these abuses again in Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) and Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004), deploring their multiplication and asking: “How can we not express profound grief at all this?”
In 2005, Cardinal Francis Arinze also spoke out noting that the practice of Communion in the hand had even facilitated easy access to the Blessed Sacrament for blasphemers, who subsequently abused the consecrated host in satanic rituals and displayed all manner of sacrileges against it on the Internet.
A few years later, Peruvian Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne and Italian Cardinal Carlo Caffarra banned Communion in the hand from their respective dioceses of Lima and Bologna, citing overwhelming evidence of irreverence, profanation and sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament as their reason for acting.
Then, in 2008, the truth about this practice began to emerge. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, at that time Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote: “It is now time to evaluate carefully the practice of Communion in the hand and if necessary to abandon what was never actually called for in the Vatican II document, Sacrosanctum Consilium.”
The Archbishop wrote these words in his Preface to Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book Dominus Est, which scholarly work, by an expert in Patristics (Fathers of the Church), challenges the authenticity of this modern practice.
It is Bishop Schneider’s contention that what has been sold to the Catholic faithful as a return to the Eucharistic discipline of the early Christians is historically untenable.
The discipline of the early Christian Church, insists Mgr. Schneider, forbade both the placing of the Blessed Sacrament in the left hand and the touching of it by the faithful with their fingers. Rather, the faithful were obliged to bow reverently and consume the sacred host directly from the palm of the right hand, taking care to repeat the action to ensure that no consecrated particle remained. Additionally, women were required to cover the right hand with a white cloth.
Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina, in his book ‘Communion in the hand – Documents and history,’ concurs with the findings of Bishop Schneider, declaring: “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.”
Bishop Laise, now retired, also refused to permit Communion in the hand in his diocese, as has his successor.
Also in 2008, Mgr. Guido Marini, Master of Pontifical Ceremonies, in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, responding to the question of whether the Pope intended to make Communion on the tongue while kneeling mandatory at his Papal Masses, said:
“I really think so. In this regard it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an indult from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those Bishops’ Conferences which requested it. The method adopted by Benedict XVI tends to underscore the force of the norm valid for the whole Church.”
One year later, On July 22, 2009, Cardinal Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, speaking to Life Site News, said: “It is the mission of this Congregation to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”
These statements clarify three very essential points for Catholics today:
1. Communion in the hand was not initiated by Vatican II or the Conciliar Popes.
2. Communion in the hand is “an indult” from the universal law of the Church, which remains that of kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
3. Communion in the hand is not the traditional practice of the Church’s liturgy.
The truth is that Communion in the hand was introduced illicitly into the Church in the mid 1960s. Pope Paul VI lamented this fact in his May 1969 ‘Instruction’ Memoriale Domini, stating: “in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See…”
In the same document the Pope upholds the Traditional practice, declaring: “the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful… The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.”
While it is true that Paul VI in Memoriale Domini provided for an indult under strict conditions for those countries were the “contrary usage” had then come to prevail, it is clear from the wording of the document that this provision was restricted to those countries alone. At the time, these were Germany, Holland, Belgium and France.
The intention of the Pontiff was evidently to isolate the novelty of the “contrary usage,” which he prophetically warned carries with it “… the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
How the indult thereafter came to spread into many other countries is best explained by Bishop Laise, who writes: “These initiatives frequently could not be suppressed because they had spread too widely. With his great kindness and prudence, the Holy Father has frequently ceded, and many times he has done so against his will.”
He then adds: “If the legislation did not change [that Communion on the tongue is the lawful practice], the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [of the practice of Communion in the hand] is that the Bishops did not listen to the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed.” [MD] (16).
That law of 1500 years has not been abrogated or superseded. This is the message Pope Benedict XVI is sending to the Church today. It is the message par excellence of St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote: “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)
In this Year of Faith, then, I hope every priest will weigh seriously the matter of Communion in the hand, which today is sadly more reminiscent of the practice introduced by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century than that of the early Christians.
More importantly, I urge the Bishops to follow the Holy Father’s example of humble love for Our Eucharistic Lord by discouraging this “contrary usage” with its clear and proven dangers to faith and reverence.
To these I beg urgent reflection on this closing observation of Bishop Laise: “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…. Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”
© Martin Blackshaw
Re. The shabby manner in which the Blessed Sacrament is often treated, how true it is that familiarity breeds contempt. Sad, but true.
I do agree. It is dreadful to see how poorly the Blessed Sacrament is treated at times. It’s very sad.
The church should be dealing with the cardinals and bishops who covered up the sex abuse
I think that is happening. Cardinals and bishops are being brought to book for abuse where they are guilty. The Church is more vigilant about dealing with sex abuse than any other religious or secular organisation.
I have received the following email from an organisation called Catholic Vote (who run petitions). I must have voted in one of their polls because I now receive regular emails from them. This latest bears good news:
Dear CV Friend,
The Consecrated Host is back in the hands of Archbishop Coakley and the Catholic Church.
Additionally, the Satanists have agreed to sign a statement saying that they will not use a Consecrated Host in a black mass – if it happens.
Talk about a great victory!
I work in politics. There are many important battles on Capitol Hill, in our federal courts, and at the ballot box.
But I’ll be totally honest: This victory is perhaps the most important one of them all!
The Satanists thought they had us against the ropes. It’s a public forum and we couldn’t stop them from performing their “ceremony.” They even went so far as to brag about having a Consecrated Host!
But that’s where they crossed the line.
Our friend, attorney Michael Caspino, sprung into action. Lifted by the prayers of Catholics all across the country – and with the support of Archbishop Coakley — Caspino fought back against the Satanists in court.
And we won. We won for Jesus.
The Satanists might still hold a black mass, but promised that they won’t do so with a Consecrated Host. So let’s continue praying to Saint Michael, in thanksgiving for his powerful intercession.
Note: there was a Zenit report yesterday, sent to me by the reader who emailed a letter to Archbishop Coakley last week, saying that the Archbishop had filed a law suit to have the stolen Host returned, so who knows, our reader’s letter may have helped him decide to do that. Whatever, it’s great news that the Satanists have not been able to effect their evil planned blasphemy.
That’s wonderful news if it’s correct.
But I have to be honest – Satanists don’t feature prominently on my People to Trust list!
According to the following, it was a Catholic Priest who is a Satanist who provided the consecrated Host for the intended black mass in Oklahoma.
If this is true, it is absolutely shocking.
That link won’t open for me, but if it is true that it was a Catholic priest who is a Satanist and provided the Host, then that is totally shocking. He should be immediately laicised.
Auto-da-fé springs to mind.
It doesn’t shock me at all. It would be yet further proof that certain wicked men infiltrated Catholic seminaries for unholy purposes. But, then, there was Judas Iscariot among the twelve!
I’m not sure that the Church could have forced the hand back of that consecrated host if a rebel priest had provided it, so I’m not entirely convinced by this new story. At any rate, laicising such an evil priest would only reduce him to the lay state, it would not remove his priestly power to consecrate.
I hope you mean you are not surprised at all because we should all be shocked at a priest being a Satanist.
BTW, I was impressed with your article on Communion in the hand. Also couldn’t believe that they would publish it in the Scottish Catholic Observer. Well done.
Yes, I did of course mean that I was not surprised. It is naturally shocking to hear of any priest giving himself over to the service of Satan.
Thank you for your kind comment re my article on Communion in the hand. I thank God for the grace to have written it. Sadly, the editor of the SCO saw fit to publish an opposing article the following week by a professor Haldane which completely undermined the good I was trying to do. As far as I remember, there were one or two subsequent letters in the letters page taking issue with what I had written but overall the response to the piece from parish priests and the faithful was silence and indifference. I can only hope it made some kind of impression on souls known only to God.
It looks like the news about the Host being returned is true; the Oklahoma press reported it:
The idiots who had acquired it seem to allude they have another – but it looks like cheap bluster to save face (they claims it dates from 1666 AD – right). The lunatic behind the tawdry black mass scheme stated:
“I, Dastur Adam Daniels, returned this consecrated host to Arch-Bishop [sic] Paul Coakley. The reason for this return is based solely on the fact I refuse to waste thousands of dollars fighting over a nasty cookie that some man said a prayer over. The Black Mass of Oklahoma will continue as planned with the original host that has been used since 1666, course [sic] black bread. We will moved [sic] forward using the Concentration [sic] found in Black Mass. Nothing has changed and we will still move forward with worshiping the Devil and blaspheming Gawd [sic] in the public square.”
It is interesting to note that the statement has just 6 lines but manages to feature no less than five spelling/grammatical errors. I think that is indicative.
Ie. He’s a thick nut!
Sent from my iPhone
Haha – I see that in the way my post has come out on wordpress, the quotation has 7 lines, not the 6 I said when highlighting the mistakes in it. (Thus making me look like an idiot too!) It was definitely just 6 at the source! 😉
I suppose that’s what I get for being judgemental of those misguided people 😉
Gabriel….I meant the daft Satanist was a thick nut! Of course I wasn’t referring to you.
Oh no worries Petrus – I didn’t think that!
My own mistake just jumped out at me, when re-reading the post!
Comments are closed.