Satanic Black Masses & The Scandal of Communion in the Hand…

Satanic Black Masses & The Scandal of Communion in the Hand…

Communion in handOklahoma 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. 

Comments (195)

  • Frankier


    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.

    August 16, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    • pew catholic

      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.

      August 16, 2014 at 4:30 pm
      • Petrus

        I suppose it’s like saying let’s be realistic – let’s make sure woman have safe access to abortion!

        Sent from my iPhone

        August 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm
      • Frankier


        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.

        August 16, 2014 at 5:56 pm
      • editor

        Pew Catholic,

        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? 😀

        August 16, 2014 at 9:19 pm
      • pew catholic

        Aw, thanks, Editor. I was beginning to feel quite persecuted for a moment, but my faith in CT is now restored. 🙂

        August 16, 2014 at 10:53 pm
      • editor

        Keep it restored, Pew Catholic, keep it restored. You know it makes sense 😀

        August 16, 2014 at 11:15 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    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.

    August 16, 2014 at 8:49 pm
    • Therese

      That is excellent news CC.

      I wish there were many more young people like you. You always cheer me up.

      August 16, 2014 at 9:27 pm
      • Petrus

        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

        August 16, 2014 at 9:37 pm
    • Frankier


      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.

      August 16, 2014 at 9:47 pm
      • Nicky

        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 1:50 pm
      • Frankier


        I could accept that.

        As you say, we are certainly in an emergency situation.

        August 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm
      • mikidiki

        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm
      • Nicky


        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?

        August 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm
      • Petrus

        That’s a good response Nicky. The priest Catholic Convert spoke to is certainly not one for making things up.

        Sent from my iPhone


        August 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        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
        ‘Boob tubes’
        Men in shorts
        Altar servers in mini-skirts
        Communion in the hand
        Modernist sermons
        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).

        August 17, 2014 at 3:58 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        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


        August 17, 2014 at 4:01 pm
  • mikidiki

    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.

    August 17, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    • Petrus

      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


      August 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm
      • mikidiki

        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?

        August 17, 2014 at 8:20 pm
      • Petrus

        “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!”

        August 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm
      • editor


        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 9:10 pm
      • Christina

        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?

        August 17, 2014 at 10:27 pm
      • editor


        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm
    • catholicconvert1


      [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.

      August 17, 2014 at 5:29 pm
      • mikidiki

        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 8:28 pm
      • Athanasius


        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 10:23 pm
      • mikidiki


        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 11:12 pm
      • Athanasius

        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.

        August 17, 2014 at 11:56 pm
      • mikidiki

        Once again, many thanks Athanasius.

        August 18, 2014 at 12:01 am
  • mikidiki

    Obviously while I was writing the above CC1 did post the results of his conversation with [the SSPX priest]. Thanks to him for it.

    August 17, 2014 at 4:50 pm
  • Christina

    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!

    August 17, 2014 at 11:03 pm
    • Athanasius


      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.

      August 18, 2014 at 12:19 am
    • Therese


      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.

      August 18, 2014 at 5:26 pm
  • mikidiki

    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!

    August 17, 2014 at 11:25 pm
  • editor

    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.

    Thank you.

    August 18, 2014 at 12:09 am
  • editor

    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.

    [CT Blogger]

    August 18, 2014 at 12:16 am
  • mikidiki

    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.

    August 18, 2014 at 12:52 am
  • Athanasius


    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.

    August 18, 2014 at 1:43 am
  • gabriel syme

    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.

    August 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
    • editor

      Gabriel Syme,

      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!

      August 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm
  • editor

    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
    January 2012

    August 19, 2014 at 2:56 pm
  • Perplexed

    Re. The shabby manner in which the Blessed Sacrament is often treated, how true it is that familiarity breeds contempt. Sad, but true.

    August 19, 2014 at 3:15 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      I do agree. It is dreadful to see how poorly the Blessed Sacrament is treated at times. It’s very sad.

      August 21, 2014 at 5:31 pm
  • randy

    The church should be dealing with the cardinals and bishops who covered up the sex abuse

    August 21, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      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.

      August 21, 2014 at 5:30 pm
  • editor

    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.

    Deo Gratias!

    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.

    Brian END.

    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.

    August 22, 2014 at 8:01 am
    • Confitebor Domino


      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!

      August 22, 2014 at 11:30 am
  • Santiago

    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.…/eucharist-at-center-of-lawsuit-over-oklahoma-black-.

    If this is true, it is absolutely shocking.

    August 23, 2014 at 6:50 am
    • Nicky

      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.

      August 23, 2014 at 8:27 am
      • Andrew Paterson

        Auto-da-fé springs to mind.

        August 23, 2014 at 10:20 am
      • Athanasius


        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.

        August 23, 2014 at 12:50 pm
      • Nicky


        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.

        August 23, 2014 at 3:19 pm
      • Athanasius


        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.

        August 23, 2014 at 3:52 pm
  • gabriel syme

    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.

    August 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm
    • Petrus

      Ie. He’s a thick nut!

      Sent from my iPhone

      August 23, 2014 at 9:53 pm
  • gabriel syme

    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 😉

    August 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    • Petrus

      Gabriel….I meant the daft Satanist was a thick nut! Of course I wasn’t referring to you.

      August 24, 2014 at 10:02 pm
  • gabriel syme

    Oh no worries Petrus – I didn’t think that!

    My own mistake just jumped out at me, when re-reading the post!

    August 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: