Sacrilege: Does God Really Care?

Sacrilege: Does God Really Care?

The Remnant video (above) where Michael Matt, Editor, discusses the shocking display of sacrilege at the papal Mass in the Philippines, is no longer available. Below however, is a video record of the scandal…

Comments invited…   

Comments (224)

  • Summa

    Yes, I watched this and felt that Michael Matt looked utterly dejected.
    God suffers still. But is this not an indication of the reprobate? Predestination implies that those elect by God’s predilection will convey their destiny.

    January 24, 2015 at 1:39 am
  • editor


    It seems self-evident that God is offended by sacrilege – otherwise it wouldn’t BE sacrilege! However, if there is no problem with Communion in the hand, then I can’t see why anyone would think there is any big deal about what happened in the Philippines. What’s the difference between handling the Blessed Sacrament oneself, and handing it on to someone else to handle? There’s really no logic in objecting to the latter unless one objects to the former.

    Sixupman emailed me this link this morning – scroll to see yet more “logic” of Communion in the hand – priestless parishes. I actually witnessed the “self-help” system in Dublin at a novus ordo Mass on a visit some years ago. Horrendous. What a mess. There were actually some women in the congregation wearing mantillas. The confusion is just endless.

    How any priest can continue to justify this sacrilege, beats me.

    January 24, 2015 at 11:29 am
  • Christina

    Predestination implies that those elect by God’s predilection will convey their destiny.

    Summa, What you have to say is always well worth reading, but I don’t understand your last bit here. For the sake of my slow wittednesss, could you explain what you mean, especially by ‘..will convey their destiny’ (preferably in words of one syllable!).

    This video is inexpressibly sad to me. More than dejection, it speaks to me of despair. Michael Matt’s tone throughout suggests that the fight has gone out of him, and I find this very worrying. His final words “The Modernist chickens are coming home to roost, and that’s just all there is to it………….. the great spirit of Vatican II chugs along into the deepest and darkest winter”.

    Despair is understandable, but what these dreadful blasphemies call for is anger – the self-same anger that Christ showed as he drove the moneylenders out of the temple.

    During the years when I suffered, through circumstances (and ignorance) the NO Mass, I dreaded the distribution of Holy Communion. I know that one cannot judge the souls of others, and a priest said as much to me when I commented that it seemed to me that faith in the Real Presence was dead in those among his congregation who displayed the most casual behaviour as they received Communion in the hand. Nevertheless, the signs could not be overlooked – the chatting as they approached and left the altar, the broad grins of children returning after having drunk from the chalice, the sitting down and resuming the chatting without any appearance of saying a prayer……And now these signs are plain for all to see as they are enacted on the world stage.

    I hope that bloggers here won’t just say “Pray”. It goes without saying that prayer is all-important. But where is the anger?

    Expressions of outrage are all over the traditionalist world, but who in the mainstream, where blasphemies are omnipresent and unrecognised for what they are, hears the outrage? They are uncatechised and ignorant of the true Catholic faith and the lying apostates ‘at the top’, with all their useful idiots in the ‘Catholic’ press and on the media claiming to be ‘faithful Catholics’, ensure that they remain so.

    I’m as depressed as Michael Matt sounds, and also tempted think, and say “Does God really care?”, but I’m also furious, and I don’t like feeling impotent in the face of mass blasphemy and public demonstrations of the loss of the Catholic faith. Michael Matt says that these public Masses must stop, but who outside the traditionalist world will hear, let alone listen to him?

    Coincidentally, on the news we daily witness Muslim murderous reactions to blasphemy against a false prophet who invented a false religion and a false deity. Where do we see legitimate Catholic anger at blasphemiy against our Lord Jesus Christ?

    End of rant, but please, has anyone even the glimmering of an idea about what can be done (as well as praying) to get anger expressed outside the traditionalist sheepfold?

    January 24, 2015 at 12:09 pm
    • editor


      Terrific post. Well said.

      As to what can be done – I’ve said for a while that, but for two things, I’d be doing my utmost to get a group together to go to Rome to protest along the lines of “je suis Catholic!” but am prevented from doing so at the present time because…

      1) due to family illness right now I am unable to travel beyond the local shops for necessary groceries, Sunday Mass being the exception.

      2) Catholic Truth is very small fry. We are not as well known or influential as The Remnant and the other American groups, so we would struggle to fill a mini bus of protesters.

      However, that sort of militant “in your – i.e. the papal – face” activity is really over due and I would exhort anyone of influence to organise something like that asap. There has been little through to no reporting of the massive concern among “traditional leaning” Catholics about this pontiff, and that’s about the only way to get it – something that allows them to report about “militant/rebel/conservative” whatever types opposing this wonderful Pope, which in turn allows the more discerning among the population to look at him again, with a more critical, objective mind.

      You are spot on about the anger – “despair” is an indulgence and pointless. I haven’t actually watched the video right through myself due to pressure of trying to finish the February edition, but I have seen Michael in depressed mood before – it must be a natural tendency for him but it is … er… depressing for us that someone of his influence should be tempted by it.

      Letters to the Pope, pointless as it may seem, plus increasingly outspoken comments from us all in the presence of priests and “useful idiot” category Catholics whether ordained or lay, might help.

      And before anyone says “you first…” when a priest said to me, only this week, on the telephone, that he still doesn’t know what to make of Pope Francis, I told him that – if that really is the case – then he doesn’t know the Faith. Anyone with genuinely Catholic Faith has known for a long time, if not from the minute he appeared on the balcony minus the mozzetta – symbol of papal authority – that “Holy Father Francis” is a cause of major concern, to put it mildly.

      If he ever rings again, I’ll let you know 😀

      January 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm
    • jobstears


      I agree with you so completely, that I could have written the post myself (minus the request to Summa :D) .

      I find that the lack of even the most basic knowledge of the Faith and sloth (I have never properly appreciated why this has been called a deadly sin) are an unbeatable combination. Where do you start when the person does not want to start, because he sees no need to do anything?

      I think we have to start with education (and replacing Protestantized bishops). It sounds simple, but it is not, as I’m sure we all know from experience. When you tell someone, no matter how tactfully or kindly, receiving Holy Communion in the hand is wrong, that Confession is necessary no matter how “good” you may be, that cohabitation/contraception is a sin,- they simply walk away. I will keep trying but when the local priest does not tell the person the same thing- guess who is wrong????

      I don’t think public protests do anything, sorry Editor! The Vatican knows traditional Catholics are growing in number, and that these Catholics know their Faith despite the attempts to keep them in blissful ignorance. Maybe they will be worried enough to do something? We can hope and pray. Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.

      January 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm
      • Laura


        I have to say I agree with you on everything especially these two points. (1) that “where do you start when the person does not want to start, because he sees no need to do anything?” and (2) public protests don’t really do anything, they don’t work. A million people marched to protest at the Iraq war (London) but it still went ahead.

        January 24, 2015 at 11:33 pm
    • Summa

      Hi Christina
      Please accept my apologies for being vague. I think I wrote that whilst irate in a soliloquy type rant.

      I’m not sure if I can fulfill the one syllable request but here goes.

      What I meant was, that when looking at the absolute disgraceful sacrilege on display as a manifestation of both our times and of our leadership of the Church, we can mournfully accept that we are witnessing the march of the reprobates.

      I use the word march, because they are headed in the wrong direction. On the other hand, as the Angelic Doctor points out, the elect/chosen make God’s predilection (God’s love for some over others) manifest because of their predestination, not the other way around.

      In everyday terms what this means, is that those who for instance hold fast to Tradition like St Athanasius or Ed. 🙂 do so because they are of the elect – you are seeing a manifestation of God’s will. It is not because of their decision to hold fast to Tradition that they will become part of the elect: that has already been predetermined by God.

      A tell tale sign if you are chosen would be that you are doing the right thing. As the Doctors of the Church, like St Alphonsus de Liguori would tell you, when you panic and wonder if you are one of the elect or one of the reprobate, just act as if you are one of the elect and trust in God’s Love and Providence.

      We can never be sure, but as a comforting thought, think of how unlikely it is that a reprobate would be holding fast to tradition in these times, whilst being berated by all and sundry for doing so from within the Church, whilst honouring our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ by acknowledging the true presence of Him in the Eucharist and simultaneously adoring His Glorious Mother Our Blessed Virgin who intercedes for us when we deserve the wrath of God?

      Just keep doing what your doing!

      Anyway to return to the video: I see nothing there that shows reverence to Our Lord. I see souls going the wrong way.

      Apologies for the vagueness.

      January 24, 2015 at 10:41 pm
  • damselofthefaith

    We say we have the real thing, the true thing, the Blessed Sacrament, but the Church does not act like it believes that. So how, pray tell, will we convince anyone that the Catholic Church is the True Church when we treat God like “dorito chips”?

    It’s an abominable sacrilege. Our Lord Jesus Christ is most merciful to put up with us all these many decades…

    January 24, 2015 at 2:10 pm
  • bededog

    I have never seen anything more diabolical than the treatment of our Blessed Lord in the Remnant film. The Pope must know that this is happening. When I remember the reverance with which the Blessed Sacrement was treated – I remember one time when the priest giving out Holy Communion let a host fall on the floor – and even the sacristan was not allowed to touch the spot; the priest washed the spot himself and then continued with the mass. I find it very hard to understand how all that reverance has just dissipated.

    January 24, 2015 at 4:43 pm
    • editor


      I didn’t see it, but one of my Great-Nephews, who serves at our local SSPX Mass, told me (not long ago) about an occasion when the Blessed Sacrament fell to the floor during distribution. My nephew (12) was obviously impressed with the care taken by the priest – he described the incident to me in detail, wide-eyed and obviously impressed. Were he to see that video, I have no doubt that, even at his young age, he would be appalled. Thank God for Our Lady’s promise in the 17th century, that her Son would send a prelate to restore the priesthood in our times – enter Archbishop Lefebvre!

      January 24, 2015 at 5:27 pm
      • Petrus


        I, too, was struck by the incident involving the fallen Host. The lady was told immediately not to pick it up. The priest picked it up and put a white cloth over the spot. After Mass, the area is cleansed with Holy Water whilst the priest prays. All of these things continually reinforce the belief in the Real Presence.

        January 24, 2015 at 6:33 pm
  • Athanasius

    How any Pope, bishop or priest can countenance standing communicants and lay people handling the Blessed Sacrament, with all the demonstrable abominations associated with those illicitly-introduced abuses, is beyond me. I can see nothing but the pride of Lucifer in these hellish innovations. I will never accept that those who permit these things to go on have a true grasp of, much less love for, the Real Presence of Our Lord. They certainly lack the humility of the saints, that’s for sure.

    It is a sobering thought that the Gospels recount only Our Lord’s enemies as having laid hands on Him. In every case where He was approached for a favour or for mercy, the petitioner/penitent is always described as having fallen down before Him in adoration.

    I remember one objection being put forward as an excuse for the introduction of Communion in the hand. It was this: “But we are no longer children, we are adult in our faith”. Well, to that folly Our Lord answers “Unless you become as little children, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Little children do not feed themselves!

    It’s high time the hierarchy of the Church put a stop to these disgraceful innovations and did some serious penance for so faithless a neglect of the Divine Presence.

    January 24, 2015 at 10:30 pm
    • Laura


      “adult faith” is the usual excuse for Communion in the hand. As you say, it is no excuse. We have to become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. How can they not see that?

      January 24, 2015 at 11:34 pm
  • Athanasius

    I had the following article published in the SCO exactly two years ago. The response I received was a contrary article in the next issue and a couple of negative letters in the letters page. There was not a single letter from a parish priest or lay person supporting what I had written. That’s how tragic the situation now is. Anyway, apologies to anyone who considers this article to be a little too long for a blog comment.

    Reviewing Communion in the hand

    “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.” END.

    January 24, 2015 at 10:50 pm
    • Laura


      Don’t apologise! Your article isn’t long enough! It’s really very good. I can believe that nobody wrote in to support you though because as a result of this very abuse, the faith of so many has been weakened or lost altogether. The hierarchy and priests are going to be punished terribly for their laxity in allowing and encouraging this.

      January 24, 2015 at 11:36 pm
      • Athanasius


        Thank you!

        It is a terrifying point you make that the hierarchy and priests are going to be punished for their laxity unless they repent of it and make good the damage they have done. It is bad enough to witness laxity and neglect towards the Blessed Sacrament in some of the faithful. But to witness it in Our Lord’s own consecrated souls is a scandal beyond words.

        January 25, 2015 at 12:40 am
    • Summa

      Athanasius. God has given you a great gift in defending the Faith. That is a very well written article.

      On a sillier note: You see what I’m missing by not reading the SCO? 😉

      January 24, 2015 at 11:55 pm
      • Athanasius


        Many thanks for your kind comment.

        On your “sillier note,” however, believe me when I say that you’re not missing much by not reading the SCO. I hate to say that but it’s true.

        January 25, 2015 at 12:42 am
    • editor


      Many thanks for posting your article (again! Not a dig, just letting you know I remember it well!)

      It’s an excellent piece and I think you ought to copy it at every opportunity. If that doesn’t hit some of the clergy between the eyes, who read this blog, nothing will.

      Thanks again.

      January 25, 2015 at 12:47 am
    • jobstears


      Thank you for posting that article. We can never be reminded enough that until priests and bishops finally decide to end this abomination, we have to make reparation for the “irreverence, profanation and sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament”. Besides, I don’t think I had a chance to print out this article :).

      January 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm
      • Athanasius

        Editor & Jobstears,

        Thank you both. I should point out that I made a mistake when I said the article was published two years ago. It was actually three years ago. Tempus Fugit!!

        January 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm
      • Petrus


        I remember that article well. Didn’t an article either follow your article or preceed in which the author almost denied the Real Presence? In fact, someone thing tells me it was Archbishop Conti!

        January 25, 2015 at 4:03 pm
      • Athanasius


        Yes, an article did follow mine, exactly one week later. It was written by Professor John Haldane and although it didn’t deny the Real Presence, it sure undermined it.

        I remember being told by the SCO editor that it was all a coincidence; that Professor Haldane had been commissioned to write his article some time before mine was even submitted. The problem with that excuse was that Professor Haldane’s piece began with reference to my article. He actually named me and then went on to offer his liberal alternative to what I had written. So much for coincidence! It was a weird experience.

        January 25, 2015 at 5:44 pm
      • Petrus

        Is this the one that constantly said “real presence” without capital letters?

        Poor old Archbishop Conti! My mistake !

        January 25, 2015 at 6:16 pm
    • bededog

      What a wonderful article, Athanasius. It is spot on. I’m sorry that more people could not see that.

      January 25, 2015 at 9:53 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    Cette façon de communier est tout simplement scandaleuse

    January 24, 2015 at 11:09 pm
    • editor

      Exactement, Lionel ! Exactement !

      January 25, 2015 at 12:48 am
  • Laura

    It is, as Lionel says, quite simply scandalous, Communion in the hand. No wonder Father Gruner keeps quoting that only Our Lady can save us now. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

    January 24, 2015 at 11:38 pm
    • Summa

      Laura, I do not fear for the Church. It cannot fail. Even if the Church means secret Masses in remote glens and bogs.

      I just abhor the sacrilege. I bemoan the irreverence, not just with Communion, but with attire. I am saddened by demeanour when in the Lord’s presence in a Church, whether or not a service is happening.

      I had a disagreement recently with someone embalmed in liberalism and modernism and he could not see that wearing board-shorts and flip-flops to Mass was a disgrace. He basically accused me of being a Pharisee.

      I then asked him if he would dress so, if he was invited to the White House by invitation of his President, to which I got a ‘but that’s different’ answer.

      When we go to Chapel, we come into the real presence of Christ The King.

      The little red lamp should remind us.

      January 25, 2015 at 12:06 am
      • editor


        “Even if the Church means secret Masses in remote glens and bogs.”

        Easy for you to say – you live in blankety blank Australia! 😀

        January 25, 2015 at 12:45 am
      • Summa

        ‘Tis true. Just wanted to fit in 😉

        January 25, 2015 at 1:50 am
      • Laura


        I know that the Church cannot fail so I do not fear for the Church in that way. However, the Church can appear to fail and that’s what is happening now because of this pope and the scandals such as Communion in the hand which have led to a loss of faith in the Real Presence. That has led in turn to Catholics doing immoral things like contraception, homosexuality etc and thinking they are doing no wrong.

        January 25, 2015 at 11:48 pm
      • Summa

        Yes, I agree with you Laura, wholeheartedly. I meant not to appear to talk at you, but merely using what you had said to make a comment in general.

        January 26, 2015 at 12:35 am
    • jobstears


      I agree, only Our Lady can save us now. In Her apparitions to Sr. Mariana in Ecuador, Our Lady spoke of the sins of heresy, blasphemy and impurity which would plague the Church. I mention this now, because the novena to Our Lady of Good Success began yesterday.

      January 25, 2015 at 1:55 pm
  • editor

    I’ve just discovered that the Communion in the hand video has been replaced by another one, headed “Breaking News”. I tested that this isn’t a blip by going into YouTube and copying the original link but it hasn’t appeared here. This means I can’t use The Remnant videos again. Pity. I have, however, put another video record of the scandal at the top of the page.

    January 25, 2015 at 11:53 pm
  • liberanos

    Disgraceful video. Very telling there are no young people and few men….and they wonder why! Protestant in the extreme.

    January 26, 2015 at 7:26 am
  • Summa

    Go on Michael Matt. Pretty evil stuff emanating from ‘Advanced’ societies eh?

    January 26, 2015 at 8:32 am
    • editor


      I emailed Michael Matt to tell him his video on the Mass had been replaced with another one, and he replied to send me the YouTube link – but I’d already tried that and it didn’t work. Oddly, it was another Remnant video which appeared again. I tried the link Michael sent and it was the same problem. So, I don’t know what has caused that. Anyway, we still have the shocking scenes of the sacrilege, so that will suffice for our purposes.

      January 26, 2015 at 8:54 am
  • Common Sense

    The Video shows countless people desiring to receive Jesus in Holy Communion, and their fellow Catholics assisting them because of the difficult logistics in planning for Holy Mass for six million people. Should we not delight in the sheer numbers seeking Jesus and the fact that they assisted one another in a gathering where so many came to take part in an historical act of worship?

    January 26, 2015 at 9:51 am
    • Summa

      Common Sense
      Do you understand the meaning of the word irreverence or mundane?
      Your post is a poor apology for the disturbing lack of respect for the ACTUAL body of Christ shown in the video.

      January 26, 2015 at 10:06 am
    • Margaret Mary

      I disapprove of these Masses with huge unmanageable crowds. That was a disgrace. It is worrying that you think nothing of the disrespect shown to the Blessed Sacrament.

      January 26, 2015 at 11:08 am
    • Athanasius

      Common sense,

      You are assuming that those countless people actually know (or care) about the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Their behaviour would appear to suggest that they don’t.

      We read in the Gospels that the multitudes pressed upon Our Lord with a desire to hear Him and be cured of their various diseases, etc. But there is no account of Our Saviour being trodden underfoot by a frantic mob, as was the case at these Masses. I understand that in the process of passing the Blessed Sacrament around from hand to hand, many hosts found their way into the mud.

      And then there were the tens of millions of sacred particles falling from hands to the ground, each particle being the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord according to Church teaching. Yes, love of Jesus indeed!

      I still remember accounts of people receiving Holy Communion in a similarly disgraceful manner during the Mass of John Paul II at Bellahouston Park (Glasgow) in the early 1980’s. It was very important apparently for people to say they had received Communion at the Pope’s Mass, so important in fact that some were standing in the Communion queues eating their lunch. There is no excuse whatsoever for these abominations, especially the excuse that it’s all because they love Jesus.

      We are witnessing in our time widespread sacrilege, indifference and irreverence towards Our Lord in His True Presence. Some of it due to ignorance (in cases of young Catholics), much of it culpable on the part of older Catholics who know better, or should know better. Now we know the reason why the Angel of Portugal taught that prayer of reparation to the Blessed Sacrament to the three shepherd children at Fatima! It was in anticipation of what was to happen post Vatican II.

      January 26, 2015 at 11:30 am
  • Frankier

    Common Sense

    So you think it is acceptable to receive Holy Communion in the way that it was dished out at the Pope’s Mass.

    I wonder what you think of my plan. I have the notion to phone my parish priest and ask him to get the driver of the bus that passes both our doors to take a host and throw it out the window as it passes by my house where I could find it after the snow goes away.

    Although, God forgive me, I may be joking, it is no more outlandish than what has happened in the Phillipines.

    Anyone who is so desperate to receive Holy Communion can find it on 365 days of the year.

    January 26, 2015 at 10:58 am
    • Common Sense

      Those six million people travelled long distances, queued for hours, and remained positive in the poorest of weather, not only to receive Jesus in Holy Communion, but to celebrate Holy Mass with the Successor of St Peter, and thus express their loyalty to Christ and his Church, in a way they could not do on any other day, in any other year. They are to be admired not ridiculed and persecuted.

      January 26, 2015 at 12:19 pm
      • editor

        Common Sense,

        It actually DEFIES common sense that these people who are intent on taking the Popes all over the world (instead of keeping him in the Vatican to sort out the crisis in the Church) think that it is possible to have Mass and the distribution of Holy Communion for over six million people, without desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

        Goodness, priests tell stories of finding Hosts on their church floors after Mass, when there is apparently reasonable control at the distribution, so it is inevitable that there will be Hosts falling and being trampled underfoot in a field or stadium: you don’t need much more than common sense (no giant brain required here) to anticipate that this will be the case.

        The fact that the powers-that-be don’t appear to give a toss about that, and care only about having camera shots of thousands to millions of people – presumably for the sake of the useful idiots who will take this as a sign of a thriving Church (if only) – is but one more nail in the coffin of the Modernist “renewal” which has all but destroyed the Church, humanly speaking.

        If those people grabbing Communion really did love Our Lord they would be educating themselves in the Faith and would be more than a little aware of the crisis state of the Church at this time. Their religion is nothing more than superficial emotionalism. Nothing more, and possibly, even, much less. There is no substance to their alleged Faith for they clearly do not understand Who it is that they grab.

        January 26, 2015 at 12:46 pm
      • Frankier


        I wonder why the word oxymoron springs to mind.

        It may have been the Pope who was there but there is a higher authority in all the tabernacles of the world 364 days of the year desperate for a visit from people to show their loyalty to Him and His Church but, except for a devout few, without luck.

        Last year especially, we were kept reminded of the terrible slaughter in the fields of The Somme during WW1.

        I would suggest that there was a worse slaughter where the Sacred Hosts and their particles were trampled underfoot at this Mass.

        January 26, 2015 at 1:29 pm
      • Common Sense

        The video clip doesn’t show one host dropping to the floor. Muck raking, and witnessing to a Higher Authority are two difference activities. I would say those at The Celebration did the later, and those seeking to create division and confusion, on scant evidence, are doing the former.

        Further, no one with even the simplest grasp of theology, would exalt time before the tabernacle as something of more importance, and greater value, than being actually present at The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.

        January 26, 2015 at 2:02 pm
      • jobstears

        Common Sense,

        The video clip doesn’t show one Host dropping to the floor- are you by any chance, justifying the undignified and casual manner in which Our Lord was being handed down the through the crowd?

        Do you really believe that particles of the Sacred Host did not fall to the ground? I’m sorry, but I don’t see how anyone with simplest grasp of theology could even venture to justify the blatant abuse of the Sacrament on the grounds that the crowds had travelled miles and remained positive despite the bad weather. Didn’t Our Lord require the 5,000+ people whom He fed, to be respectfully seated, before His Apostles distributed the food? It seems to me this shows proper respect – for material food. How much more ought we to respect the Body of Our Lord offered willingly for us at the cost of the most atrocious suffering? It was horrifying to see hands waving in the air to take the Host and pass it along like a token of good will or something.

        Have you heard or been at one of the celebrated Youth Day Masses where Hosts have been found in boxes alongside condoms, food wrappers and trash? It has happened, and this inexcusable abuse will continue to happen unless Catholics are brought to their senses.

        I am not ridiculing the crowds at the Papal Mass, I do not for a minute, doubt their sincerity; this is not about them. I am talking about the negligence of the Pope and the bishops. To allow the Body of Our Lord to be treated so casually, more like a reward or a right, is an utter disgrace, it is despicable..

        January 26, 2015 at 3:46 pm
      • Common Sense

        This wasn’t a Youth Mass, and anyone who searched the rubbish for such evidence needs help.

        In terms of particles, I think the Church has clear teaching about matter i.e particles that are not recognisable as parts of The Sacred Host, and there is no need to be too scrupulous about it.

        The greater sin is constantly standing in judgement of others, and by default claiming to be wiser than The Pope.

        January 26, 2015 at 4:37 pm
      • jobstears

        Nobody searched the rubbish for such evidence, the Hosts were found by the cleaning crew.

        I think judging the intention/ disposition of a soul is a sin, commenting on observable behavior is not. To treat the Sacred Host like a wafer, grabbing at it unceremoniously should outrage Catholic sensibilities.

        I don’t think I said or implied that I was wiser than the Pope, but I do know this: when I say something, I don’t need a damage-control crew to ‘interpret’ what I’ve said.

        January 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm
      • editor


        “I don’t think I said or implied that I was wiser than the Pope, but I do know this: when I say something, I don’t need a damage-control crew to ‘interpret’ what I’ve said”

        Game, set and match! You’re in terrific form today!

        January 26, 2015 at 6:30 pm
      • jobstears



        January 26, 2015 at 6:35 pm
      • Common Sense

        On the contrary, only those who don’t read verbatim what The Pope says, but rely on media reports, especially inflammatory, need further clarification. Listen to Peter, and not self selected media choices.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:21 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        And it hasn’t crossed your mind to ask why Pope Francis more than any other Pope goes looking for this hostile media to feed it personally with all the ammunition it requires to undermine the Church and the faith of Catholics?

        In fact he went much further than that when he invited a notorious atheistic journalist to come and interview him, with the obvious result and the usual rush by others to clarify. This is a Jesuit Pope we’re talking about, not a junior cleric. His Holiness knows exactly what he’s doing when he sets the cats among the pigeons.

        It genuinely grieves me to say that his interventions with the media are more patter than peter, and very dangerous patter at that! The Papacy didn’t begin with Francis, thank God!

        January 26, 2015 at 9:30 pm
      • Common Sense

        Athanasius, I quote Pope Benedict in dialogue with an atheist Journalist: “Distinguished Professor, my critique of your book is, in part, tough. However, frankness is a part of dialogue. Only thus can knowledge grow. You have been very frank and so you will accept that I am, too. In any case, however, I consider it very positive that you, in confronting my Introduction to Christianity, have sought such an open dialogue with the faith of the Catholic Church and that, despite its contrasts, at the centre of it all, convergences are not completely lacking.”

        Dialogue is at the heart of the Mission of The Church.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:56 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        There was no need to search the garbage. What others have said here about the particles falling to the ground from all those hands is evidence enough of a scandal unprecedented in the Catholic Church.

        Your remark about particles not being the Real Presence is, I’m afraid, garbage!

        The teaching of the Church in this regard is perfectly clear and unchanged, which is that each and every particle of a consecrated host, even the tiniest, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. That means millions, if not billions, of particles, each being the Real Presence, were trodden carelessly and needlessly underfoot at that Mass. No need to go searching the garbage for further evidence of a crime.

        Do not try, then, to justify that horrendous event in Philippines as all done for the love of the Lord. Catholics are not groupies who simply must have a piece of the man. This is Our Lord we’re talking about, not Elvis! Who ever heard of like events as this in the Church pre-Vatican II, the committing of sacrilege for the love of Jesus. Come on, get a grip. Lucifer was the one made happiest at that Philippines event!

        How anyone with the remotest sense of the Catholic Faith can attempt to justify what happened at that Mass is beyond me. The teaching of the Church is absolutely clear; no ifs, buts or maybes. That event was a scandal of monstrous proportions, full stop!

        January 26, 2015 at 9:15 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church says Jesus is present in The Blessed Sacrament in so far as it is recognisable as Bread and Wine, and therefore many scholars would disagree with you. See 1377 of The Catechism of The Catholic Church, and the work of eminent people who have commented on it.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:58 pm
      • Spiritus

        Jesus is NEVER present in the Blessed Sacrament as “Bread and Wine”. Consubstantiation is a Protestant belief. As Catholics we believe that at the moment of consecration: “this is my body” “This is my Blood”, Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, despite what our senses may tell us.

        January 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm
      • Common Sense

        Unless the Church has got it wrong: sight, touch and taste are deceived, and The Sacred elements have the appearance of bread and wine.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:15 pm
      • editor


        “Didn’t Our Lord require the 5,000+ people whom He fed, to be respectfully seated, before His Apostles distributed the food?”

        Excellent point. Folk who behaved so wildly in any restaurant would soon be shown the door.

        January 26, 2015 at 5:36 pm
      • Common Sense

        No he, because they were tired and hungry, suggested they sit down. It was nothing about decorum, but very much about compassion.

        If you wish to pursue you strange analogy, are you saying people should receive Holy Communion sitting down, and waiters move amongst them?

        January 26, 2015 at 7:07 pm
      • jobstears

        CS, in those days, i believe, it was customary for people to eat reclining. So, Our Lord had the people sit! It was proper and expected.

        And no, I do not believe people should receive Holy Communion sitting down, because the proper way to receive Holy Communion is- kneeling, not sitting or standing.

        January 27, 2015 at 1:55 am
      • Common Sense

        The only point I was making is that, out of compassion he told them to sit, and it was absolutely nothing to do with decorum or etiquette. Compassion alone.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:23 am
      • Spiritus

        “are you saying people should receive Holy Communion sitting down,”

        No. The Blessed Sacrament is ideally received kneeling and on the tongue.

        January 27, 2015 at 2:57 pm
      • Petrus

        I wonder how many of those who just had to receive Holy Communion at the Pope’s Mass really understand what it is to receive Our Lord worthily. I have to say that I do not believe how anyone who truly believes in the Real Presence could ever touch the Sacred Host. Anyway, no amount of good intentions could ever justify such sacrilege.

        January 26, 2015 at 4:21 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think the Jesus, and his Church, would counsel you not to seek to judge the disposition, or knowledge, of others. Only God knows how you stand in his eyes. something you can’t know of yourself.

        January 26, 2015 at 4:33 pm
      • Therese


        You’re another one who believes that what you think is what Christ and His Church thinks. You ignore Church teaching throughout the ages on the proper disposition and behaviour in receiving the Blessed Sacrament; you don’t show any understanding of the gravity of the sacrilege and the outrageous disrespect shown to Our Blessed Lord; all this is insignificant in your eyes. You save your outrage for those who protest at the insult to God.

        It’s true that “Only God knows how you stand in His eyes.” You should think on that very seriously, and if it is lack of knowledge on your part which has caused you seek to defend the indefensible, the remedy is to learn more about the Faith and the reverence and respect which is due to Our Lord in the Sacrament. It is impossible to be too reverential in that regard.

        January 26, 2015 at 5:34 pm
      • editor


        “It’s true that “Only God knows how you stand in His eyes.” You should think on that very seriously, and if it is lack of knowledge on your part which has caused you seek to defend the indefensible, the remedy is to learn more about the Faith…”

        Nail – totally – on head! Spot on, yet again…

        January 26, 2015 at 6:32 pm
      • Common Sense

        You are on dangerous ground if you, as an individual, seek to judge where Christ stops speaking, and the Church, erroneously in your view, takes over. Didn’t Jesus found The Church for a specific purpose, and appoint, Peter, and his successors, for the purpose of handing on the faith, and safeguarding it, and more especially appoint Peter, and his successors, to “affirm the faith of his brothers? If you think not, you are clearly in the wrong Church.

        I am not defending the indefensible. You are passing judgement, on others, on the basis of scant evidence, and primarily on the basis you think Holy Communion in the hand is sinful. It isn’t. And Lay People can, and do, with the mandate of The Church, distribute Holy Communion. What happened in Manila was exceptional in many respects.

        Delight in the fact a nation, in large measure, affirmed it faith, and expressed it is in Communion with Rome.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:01 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Our Lord did not ever expect us to go around acting as if our IQ was on a par with the average house plant. He said: “By their fruits ye shall know them,” by which He meant we may judge faith by how people act.

        So while you are correct to state that none of us can judge the disposition of other’s souls, it is a duty incumbent upon us to judge their actions as either compatible with the faith or not. In this case, the clear evidence is of loss of Eucharistic Faith on a grand scale. God alone will judge the culpability of individual souls for that. We just note the obvious and comment on the general scandal of it all, with perhaps a few extra questions in regard to those who certainly should know better – the pope, the bishops and the priests who allowed that scandal to take place.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:36 pm
      • Common Sense

        On the contrary, we are not gifted to judge the actions of others. We see external things. God, sees all things.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:52 pm
      • Athanasius

        That will be Hitler and Stalin off the hook, then? I suppose the State should just close down all the courts and prisons on those wise words? What utter rubbish!

        January 27, 2015 at 9:44 am
      • Common Sense

        There is a different between convicted people on evidence, in a Tribunal or Court of Law, follow due process, and making a judgement on the internal disposition of someone. Only God can judge in the second sense,

        February 2, 2015 at 6:38 am
      • Spiritus


        We may indeed judge all actions as either good actions or bad actions. what we are not permitted to judge, however, is the reasoning behind those actions, ie the individual disposition of a particular person. THAT is what belongs to God alone.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:07 pm
      • Common Sense

        So six million attended Holy Mass in one place, on one day, because they don’t have faith in The Eucharist? An odd statement, unless your IQ is on apr with an…

        January 28, 2015 at 7:36 pm
      • Petrus

        You will note, (lack of) Common Sense, that I passed no judgement. I merely wondered.

        However, i stand by what I said. Part of receiving Holy Communion worthily is to receive Him properly. I do wonder if those who receive Our Lord in the hand make a worthy Communion.

        January 26, 2015 at 5:47 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church, as a whole, does not share your concern. I think wiser counsel thankfully prevails. There is I think little difference between wondering, and passing a judgement. People are better occupied wondering about the things of heaven than “wondering” about the lives of others, in a wholly negative way.

        January 26, 2015 at 6:53 pm
      • Petrus

        Common Sense

        “The Church” is always one. So your “as a whole” is nonsensical. In fact, it was this false understanding of what constitutes “The Church” that led to Communion in the Hand. The Church never, ever sanctioned this as a positive. In fact, it was introduced illicitly by disobedient prelates. When Pope Paul VI realised that this disobedience had spread like wildfire he permitted Communion in the hand as a dispensation. That remains to this day. It is not and never has been the norm.

        Put it this way, anyone who participates in this sacrilege is either ignorant, proud or faithless. The best case scenario is that they are ignorant. At least the ignorant can be instructed.

        However, those who go out of their way to defend or promote Communion in the hand is almost certainly lacking in the Faith. Anyone who truly believes in the Real Presence would never man handle the Sacred Host.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:09 pm
      • Common Sense

        The G.I.R.M, which is at the beginning of The Roman Missal, has the force of Law in The Church, and it clearly states “If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host 161. slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it”

        The “permission” is almost Universal, and definitely appiies in The UK, The USA and many other countries, particularly in Western Europe.

        I think many know The Law better than you.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:47 pm
      • Petrus

        Common Sense

        What you say adds nothing to the discussion. An indult is required for the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, hence the reference to “where this is allowed”.

        If you “know the law” so well you will know that an indult can never be the norm. Therefore, the normal way for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion is on the tongue.

        I think you need to engage your brain a little here. Pope Paul VI allowed this because he wasn’t strong enough to stamp out the disobedience of certain European prelates. If my memory serves me correctly it was the Dutch prelates who promoted this sacrilege with gusto. How can an innovation be a moral good if it was introduced in disobedience?

        Let me challenge you. Was the Church wrong to insist on Holy Communion on the tongue prior to the 1970s? What good has come of introducing Holy Communion in the hand?

        January 26, 2015 at 7:59 pm
      • Common Sense

        Petrus, throughout the world, and in every Missal there are “indults” that do not apply universally. You are on dangerous ground, if you wish to argue such Indults are wrong. The reason why they exist is that some things, whilst they are not appropriate in every country, or culture, are not sinful, or wrong.

        The Hail Mary is recited as part of The Prayers of the Faithful solely in England, as The Dowry of Mary. To follow your own logic, it is not Universal, and,therefore, praying to Mary during must, in your view, be sinful, wrong, and the work of the Devil. No true Traditionalist would say that.

        January 26, 2015 at 8:07 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        You clearly don’t know the law, that’s quite obvious. If you go back and read my article again you will find more accurate quotes on the Eucharistic law from Church sources more eminently qualified than yourself.

        But what you really need to do is study the teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, Councils and Popes in this very serious matter, whose teaching is consistent throughout the centuries and has only been actively contradicted in these grave times of apostasy. It is without question that the Church’s law (still binding to this present day) is that unconsecrated hands should not touch the Blessed Sacrament. Modern Churchmen have no authority to change this perennial universal law of the Church.

        Aside from that, what passes today for an early Church practice is in fact the practice introduced by the Protestants at the Reformation. There is not the remotest similarity between the very early Christian method of receiving in the hand with what happens today. That should worry any true Catholic very much!

        January 26, 2015 at 9:51 pm
      • Common Sense

        My previous reply, should of course, say “praying to Mary during Mass”.

        January 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        We Catholics do not say “praying to Mary”. We call her the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady, the Holy Mother, etc. I have only ever heard Protestants and Modernist Catholics call her Mary.

        Would you go around calling your earthly mother by her first name? No? Well, the same respect should be shown to your Heavenly Mother.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:54 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think in many Documents, and statements, and homilies The Church speaks of Mary, but often, but not always, adds the titles, you speak of. They are too many to reference.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:48 pm
      • Athanasius

        Then don’t reference them all, just give as a few of the more salient examples.

        January 27, 2015 at 9:46 am
      • Common Sense

        Just one example: Pope Francis, January 1st, Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God: Mary has always been present in the hearts, the piety and above all the pilgrimage of faith of the Christian people. “The Church journeys through time… and on this journey she proceeds along the path already trodden by the Virgin Mary” (Redemptoris Mater, 2). Our journey of faith is the same as that of Mary, and so we feel that she is particularly close to us. As far as faith, the hinge of the Christian life, is concerned, the Mother of God shared our condition. She had to take the same path as ourselves, a path which is sometimes difficult and obscure. She had to advance in the “pilgrimage of faith” (Lumen Gentium, 58).

        January 27, 2015 at 11:53 am
      • Therese


        Now you speak for the Church, as a whole! You make it clear that you do not have anywhere near sufficient concern for the respect – let alone reverence- due to the Blessed Sacrament. If you knew the Catholic Faith you would be deeply ashamed and remorseful. Clearly you have no idea, so don’t speak for the Church: you don’t know it well enough to have an opinion.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:12 pm
      • Common Sense

        As, to the best of my knowledge, we have never met, or worshipped in the same building, you are on dangerous, and foolishly chosen ground, to pass judgement on any personal acts of piety, or devotion, on my part.

        As for who speaks for The Church I know, that, as such, it isn’t me, and you might be humble enough to admit it isn’t you.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm
      • Therese

        Then don’t write as if you are speaking for the Church! I can speak for what the Church teaches. We don’t need to meet for me to know that you don’t have a sufficient understanding of what is due to the Blessed Sacrament. Your own words testify to that, and don’t try to muddy the waters by suggesting that I am judging any “personal acts of piety or devotion” on your part. I know nothing of them. I DO know that you are unconcerned about the ghastly irreverence which was shown in the video above, because you have said so.

        January 26, 2015 at 7:53 pm
      • Common Sense

        Therese, the system won’t allow me to reply below your name. However, you write: “We don’t need to meet for me to know that you don’t have a sufficient understanding of what is due to the Blessed Sacrament. ”

        As you do not know how often I am present at Holy Mass, or pray before the Blessed Sacrament, or what is in my heart, or mind, you are on dangerous ground indeed, Indeed, sin, on your part, may become an issue here, if you persist writing as you do.

        It strikes me in the letter of St James, that he writes at length about the wicked tongue, and how it can, as such, prove fatal. How then, is touching the same Jesus with our hands, more dangerous, or unworthy, that it being put on our tongue, which is one of the most dangerous, and deadly, weapons there is?

        January 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        “It strikes me in the letter of St James, that he writes at length about the wicked tongue, and how it can, as such, prove fatal. How then, is touching the same Jesus with our hands, more dangerous, or unworthy, that it being put on our tongue, which is one of the most dangerous, and deadly, weapons there is?”

        Everyone who receives in the hand, has to place the Host on the tongue, so this thing about St James, the wicked tongue and Communion in the hand being presumably better, doesn’t work, sorry.

        January 26, 2015 at 8:08 pm
      • Common Sense

        Margaret Mary, on the contrary it does work. If the tongue, which can do such sinful work, can receive Jesus then to worry about the hand, which doesn’t concern St James one bit, seems pretty pointless.

        January 26, 2015 at 8:13 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        And you might be even more humble and admit that it’s not the Modernists either. The Church had a 2000-year teaching authority before the pastoral Vatican II happened. Perhaps you should acknowledge that instead of hiding behind the old chestnut “I was only obeying orders”.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:59 pm
      • Spiritus


        “The Church, as a whole, does not share your concern”

        Unfortunately true!

        January 27, 2015 at 3:09 pm
      • Spiritus

        Allow me to clarify on my post of 3:09pm. I have just read Petrus’ comment on “The Church is one”, etc.
        It is modern cardinals, bishops, priests, and unfortunately even Popes who seem either unable or unwilling to address abuses of the Blessed Sacrament, which include the use of lay ministers and communion in the hand.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:14 pm
      • Common Sense

        The use of Lay People as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is not an abuse. It is lawfully mandated,

        Likewise, in many developing countries people would be denied much if catechists did not do such tasks, and more.

        What The Church lawfully permits can never be an abuse. Holy Communion under Both Kinds, and Holy Communion in the hand are a restoration of ancient practices.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:18 pm
      • Frankier


        Could you point out the part where I exalted time before the tabernacle as being something of more importance and greater value than being actually present at The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass?
        How you came to that conclusion God only knows.

        I did try to point out though that it is more important to visit Our Blessed Lord in the tabernacle on any day, bar one, of the year than be in a crowd just to be able to tell everyone you had seen the Pope.

        As for the video showing not one host dropping to the floor while being catapulted among a group of people: do you really believe that was the case where an alleged 6-7 million people were in attendance?

        Anyway, as has been pointed out, the most minute particle of host is the Body and Blood of Our Lord so you must have some eyesight if you are able to back up your words.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:58 pm
      • Common Sense

        I do not believe I have once commented on anything you have written, and therefore, you can hardly attack me for writing about something you say you have not written, as, until now, I have not read any of your comments, or responded to them.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      • Frankier


        “I have not read any of your comments, or responded to them”.

        Could you check your answer of 26 January 2015 at 2.02pm in reply to my comments of 26 January at 1.29pm and come back with an explanation?

        January 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
      • Common Sense

        I said I do not believe that I have, that is knowingly so. I am confident most of my answers to any person address the tone of this site, rather than them specifically.

        Almost certainly, most regulars here oppose Holy Communion in the hand etc, and seem to be not overly fond of any Bishop especially the current Pope.

        I repeat, too your name has not registered with me, and apart from this current exchange I have no recollection of any specific comment from you.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:41 pm
      • editor


        Take a look at this extract from the encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII…

        The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.

        This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well.

        We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times. # 59. END OF EXTRACT.

        Temerity? Daring? Reflect…

        January 27, 2015 at 12:55 pm
      • Common Sense

        ” or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof “. This sums up what Pope Benedict did with Summorum Pontificum;

        I am surprised to see you agree that his decision was out of step with existing laws, and practices.

        January 27, 2015 at 1:28 pm
  • Therese


    If you consider the video to be “scant” evidence of blasphemy then I doubt you would consider any evidence at all. No-one with the even the simplest grasp of the True Presence would defend this sacrilegious practice. You have a very strange view of how to show respect and reverence to the Blessed Sacrament if you defend this. It is certainly NOT a Catholic view.

    January 26, 2015 at 3:34 pm
    • Therese


      As there is no reply button to your post, I’m replying to your latest post here.

      “As you do not know how often I am present at Holy Mass, or pray before the Blessed Sacrament, or what is in my heart, or mind, you are on dangerous ground indeed, Indeed, sin, on your part, may become an issue here, if you persist writing as you do.”

      How often you are at Mass, pray before the Blessed Sacrament, or whatever is in your heart and mind, is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You have defended the indefensible treatment of the Blessed Sacrament; that, by your own words, is irrefutable. You’re rather fond of using the term “dangerous ground”. I can only advise you most solemnly to watch where you are placing your feet. Again, you assume God’s prerogative and warn me that I may be sinning by reprimanding you for your defence of grave irreverence. Your moniker is a misnomer.

      Don’t try to play the victim here, CS. You came here to judge the posters as “muck rakers”; now you’re throwing your hands up in horror at being judged – but you don’t acknowledge on what you are being judged, ie, your own words. No, you misdirect and allege that you are being judged unfairly because you frequently attend Holy Mass and make visits to the Blessed Sacrament and I don’t know what’s in your heart. I don’t, but I do know what you’ve written.

      January 26, 2015 at 8:59 pm
      • Common Sense

        I am not defending the indefensible.

        The arguments presented here are that: 1. The Pope is no more than a player in a media circus. 2. Large outdoor gatherings of The Faithful are wrong. 3. Holy Communion in the Hand is sinful.

        You only have to listen to The Pope, and his fellow Bishops, and see how these events are a Work of The Holy Spirit, and read actual Church Documents, especially G.I.R.M., to see how wrong you are.

        I rely on Holy scripture, Official Church Teaching, and Universal Norms. I am on safe ground, as I merely repeat Church Teaching, and Tradition.

        Not one opinion I have expressed is “my own”!

        January 26, 2015 at 9:05 pm
      • Therese

        You have seen people handing out the Blessed Sacrament as if they were distributing pieces of bread, and you aren’t even vaguely shocked — indeed, you defend such a practice. You yourself quoted the following:

        The G.I.R.M, which is at the beginning of The Roman Missal, has the force of Law in The Church, and it clearly states “If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host 161. slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant…

        The PRIEST was not distributing Holy Communion to each of the communicants in the video clip above, so I fail to see why you quoted the above.

        It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand has facilitated such an intolerable lack of respect for the sacred.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:38 pm
      • Common Sense

        People can receive Holy Communion on the tongue, whilst kneeling, and yet be nearer The Devil than God. Your argument is nonsense.

        January 26, 2015 at 9:48 pm
      • Therese

        Indeed, just as people can attend Holy Mass and visit the Blessed Sacrament every day and be nearer to the Devil than God. Your point is utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand, and is yet another misdirection from the point of this discussion.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:00 pm
      • Common Sense

        On the contrary, you are saying people handling The Blessed Sacrament is a sacrilege. I am saying many sacrileges may be committed by those
        who outwardly appear to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, whilst kneeling.

        Speaking of David, we are told people look at appearances, but God looks at the heart. David, failed the tests set by humans, but excelled in the eyes of God.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:07 pm
      • Therese

        “I am saying many sacrileges may be committed by those who outwardly appear to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, whilst kneeling.”

        Oh for goodness sake. We all know that human beings are capable of evil, that’s no revelation. Of course many sacrileges “may” be committed by those who outwardly appear reverent. Again, and hopefully for the last time, the point of this discussion is that the sacrileges committed at the papal Mass were NOT committed in secret; they were open, for all to see, and the reason they occurred was because of the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand.

        Nobody knows what’s in someone else’s mind and heart when receiving the Blessed Sacrament, but we CAN, and SHOULD do all we are able to do to ensure that we are not complicit in assisting in sacrilege. We assist in sacrilege by providing the means for others to disrespect and dishonour the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

        Can I make myself any clearer?

        January 26, 2015 at 10:31 pm
      • Common Sense

        But touching The Blessed Sacrament is not necessarily sacrilegious, and having travelled for miles, and endured poor weather, with the limitations caused by dealing with large numbers, are you really saying Jesus would turn people away?

        Thankfully, The Church thinks jesus sees things differently to you.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:40 pm
      • Therese

        So you do defend the sacrileges captured in the video?

        P.S. You’re speaking for the Church again – you really shouldn’t you know, unless and until you know what the Church teaches.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:50 pm
      • Athanasius

        Not always sacrilegious but always irreverent and completely Protestant as it is practiced today.

        January 27, 2015 at 9:49 am
      • Common Sense

        Believe me, any right minded person, who actually listens to Christ and His Church, would have no problem in seeing what you are saying, and be able to contrast it with that which is actually taught by The Pope and The Magisterium, and the contrast couldn’t be greater. Thankfully, should a person would listen to The Church and not you.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:58 pm
      • Common Sense

        Correction: Thankfully, such a person would listen to Christ and His Church and not you.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:59 pm
      • Therese

        Believe you? No thanks. I believe the Church’s teaching, handed down through the ages. Nothing I have written is against Church teaching. Unfortunately I can’t same the same for you.

        January 26, 2015 at 11:15 pm
      • Athanasius

        The Pope and the Magisterium have never taught that Communion in the hand is either good or desirable. Quite the contrary, in fact.

        It is you who say it is good and desirable on the pretext that the Pope and the Magisterium have said so. You are very greatly mistaken, not to mention ignorant of what the Popes and the Magisterium have taught in this matter.

        You have ignored every piece of Traditional Magisterial evidence set forth here on this blog by others, not least the many examples highlighted in the article I posted earlier on this thread. No serious Catholic would ignore such compelling evidence. But then, no serious Catholic would knowingly treat Our Lord with the disrespect of standing in His Presence and laying hands on Him. That’s what Protestants do who don’t believe in the Real Presence.

        January 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Hidden sacrileges are not our business, God sees them and knows about them. Obvious sacrileges are our business, and that’s what we’re commenting on right now.

        Also, there is far less chance of sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament when people kneel and receive on their tongues than when they stand and pass the Blessed Sacrament around like confetti. You need to start using that Common Sense and stop making false arguments to distract from the point.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:28 am
      • Spiritus


        “People can receive Holy Communion on the tongue, whilst kneeling, and yet be nearer The Devil than God.”

        That is quite true: however kneeling is considered to be a more reverent posture, and was the universal practice in the Church before the second Vatican Council reforms took effect.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:31 pm
      • Common Sense

        That is the same Council of which Pope Benedict wrote of it, and its documents: the documents need ….. “to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”

        His book, as Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Spirit of the Liturgy” offered a positive critique of the revised Liturgy

        No truly Traditional and faithful Catholic would reject one word of The Council.

        Scholars dispute as to how long kneeling has been the norm, at any point during The Holy Mass, and no -one says it was once Universal, and some deny it happened in The Early Church.

        Our near neighbours in Ireland have different rules too, and that are both close, and in Europe.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:48 pm
      • Spiritus

        The Second Vatican Council was pastoral and thus none of its decisions are binding on Catholics.

        “No truly Traditional and faithful Catholic would reject one word of The Council.”

        Yes, they would, if its teaching conflicted with what was previously held as true by the Church. Truth is absolute, not relative, and does not adapt itself to the spirit of the age.

        January 27, 2015 at 5:04 pm
      • Common Sense

        Every Pope since it began upheld its teaching. It reaffirmed existing Doctrine, it did not redefine anything,

        If it is part of Tradition it cannot contradict itself, or what came before.

        January 27, 2015 at 5:29 pm
      • Petrus

        Is that right? The decree on ecumenism directly contradicted what previous popes wrote.

        January 27, 2015 at 6:11 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Council provided the correct context for true Ecumenism. Prior to that much that was said, and done, was questionable.

        January 27, 2015 at 6:19 pm
      • Petrus

        This is the most revealing of all your posts. The Holy Ghost got it wrong and it took “Good Pope John”, Pope Paul VI and the German bishops to put things right.

        January 27, 2015 at 6:25 pm
      • Alex F

        If prior to Vatican 2 much that was said and done was questionable, then there is no reason to doubt that much of what is said and done now is also questionable.

        January 27, 2015 at 9:45 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        When I listen to Pope Francis and the bishops, not all, but most, it does not occur to me that these events are the work of the Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary, in fact. I am reminded of the words of Pope Paul VI, who lamented post-Vatican II that: “Through some fissure in the walls, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and set her on a path of auto destruction

        A pentecostal Protestant may well agree with you that the outburst of human emotion at these events we speak of is a clear sign of the Holy Spirit at work. But if you read the saints on the discernment of spirits you will actually see that, as St. Paul warns, they can often represent the work of a different spirit: “The devil often appears disguised as an angel of light”.

        Your reliance on Holy Scripture adds nothing to the present debate, since it does not address the subject of correct Eucharistic reception. The official teaching of the Church does address the matter very authoritatively over a period of 2000 years, but you ignore it in favour of the statements of modern Churchmen. That does not constitute obedience to Church teaching!

        You say you express Church teaching and Tradition rather than your own opinion. That’s partially true. You follow and repeat the opinions of Modernist clergymen, which are at odds with Church teaching and Tradition.

        It seems to me, Common Sense, that you should start revising your understanding of what it means to be a faithful Catholic and do some research on what the Church actually teaches and has always taught. There is no excuse for the kind of ignorance you are expressing here, as if Pope’s and prelates had the authority from God to alter the Catholic Faith at whim instead of handing it down unsullied, as the Popes did faithfully throughout history up to Vatican II. You need to educate yourself and waken up to what’s going on in the Church in our time.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:22 pm
      • Common Sense

        Blessed Pope Paul was speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre when he expressed that opinion. The Church is still struggling with the damage he caused. the Pope was right, of course. He wanted to protect The Second Vatican Council, which he, and his successors, have said is part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:31 pm
      • Therese

        “Blessed Pope Paul was speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre when he expressed that opinion.”

        Your ignorance is truly staggering.

        Provide proof for this utterly mind blowing claim, and once you have failed to do so, have the humility to offer profuse apologies.

        January 26, 2015 at 10:41 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        That is a calumny against Archbishop Lefebvre. Read the statement Paul VI made and the context he made it in and you will clearly recognise that Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t even on his mind.

        At any rate, when Paul VI made the statement in the early to mid 1970s Archbishop Lefebvre was running his international seminary at Econe with full Papal approval. You need to be very careful about what you say.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:32 am
      • Common Sense

        It is statement made by Blessed Pope John which you chose to quote, but quote out of context.

        No one, anywhere, can deny who said it, about whom, and in what context, even if they profoundly disagree with it. No serious scholar of that period would deny that he was talking about the Archbishop and his ilk.

        I contextualised a quote you chose to casually introduce when you, yourself, overlooked who the comment was about.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:18 am
  • Frankier

    C Sense.

    C, if you went into any public library or museum in this day and age and tried to handle an old rusted piece of iron or the remains of the last breakfast, I won`t say supper, of a long-gone Viking Warrior, you wouldn`t get near them with your bare hands and yet you see nothing wrong in that disgusting video.

    January 26, 2015 at 10:30 pm
    • Common Sense

      The tongue, not the hand, was singled out by St James as a deadly weapon. He never mentioned the hands. And yet we consume Jesus by placing him upon this that endangers our soul. The hand, if St James is write, is probably the least worthy part of our bodies. But no matter, the whole of us was redeemed by Jesus, and St Paul says one part of the body cannot say to another, we don’t need you.

      How many have knelt to receive Jesus, on the tongue, when their minds and hearts are defiled and far from God.

      Either all of our body , is a temple to God’s glory or some of is. Both cannot be true.

      January 26, 2015 at 10:37 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        “The tongue, not the hand, was singled out by St James as a deadly weapon. He never mentioned the hands.”

        I don’t recall any notorious stranglers ever using that one as a defence in court. Totally childish argument!

        January 27, 2015 at 12:33 am
      • Common Sense

        On the contrary, if the tongue is, in moral terms, such a dangerous weapon it is hardly a better place for the sacred Host than the hand. Indeed, as you know, an ancient text says we should use one hand to make a throne for The Sacred Host before we put it into our mouth. Either way, eating usually requires use of both hands and tongue, and St James speak of the tongue as the greater weapon of destruction.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:21 am
      • Petrus

        The Church must have been wrong for 1500 years, eh?

        January 27, 2015 at 8:30 am
      • Common Sense

        As I noted here, most reputable Catholic Scholars say Holy communion in the hand was the norm centuries ago.

        Likewise, eating and drinking, usually requires use of hands and the mouth. Jesus said “take and eat”. Unlike, his suggestion we leave the dead to bury the dead, much of what Jesus said can be taken literally.

        St James, of course, wrote more than 1500 years ago. His writing is part of Holy Scripture, at least in my Holy Bible.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:42 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        So the evil tongue now receives the Blessed Sacrament from the evil hands, which means it touches two evil parts of the body instead of just one. That sounds like a great improvement (not)!!!

        January 27, 2015 at 10:07 am
  • Therese

    “The tongue, not the hand, was singled out by St James as a deadly weapon. He never mentioned the hands.”

    Ah, but St James was naturally not familiar with the keyboard. How many have quoted the scriptures, in print, and yet their hearts have been far from God?

    Stop changing the subject.

    January 26, 2015 at 10:47 pm
    • Common Sense

      I have not changed the subject. You claim touching The Blessed Sacrament with the hands is always a sacrilege. The Church doesn’t..

      January 26, 2015 at 10:51 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        It may not always be done with sacrilegious intent but it leads to sacrilege on a grand scale and is certainly the most proud and irreverent practice for Catholics. I question any Catholic lay person who touches the Blessed Sacrament, there’s something seriously wrong with their faith.

        It was for 1500 years absolutely forbidden by the Church, at one point under pain of excommunication, but mostly under pain of mortal sin. Then, suddenly, a few bishops introduce it illegally into the Church forcing popes to try to legislate to stem the widespread abuse (they were ignored anyway), and you think that’s Church teaching. How truly ignorant of real Church teaching you are.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:39 am
  • Therese

    You read what you want to read, not what is written. I have never said that touching the Blessed Sacrament with the hands is always a sacrilege. There are very serious and particular circumstances when this may be permitted.

    You repeated failure to address the seriousness of the topic under discussion is very telling. You either agree that passing the Blessed Sacrament around as if it were a piece of bread is acceptable, or you do not. What you have written up to now does more than suggest that you do think it’s OK. You are wrong. It is not reverent. It is not respectful. It shows little or no understanding of the Real Presence. It is NOT Catholic behaviour. It is utterly repugnant and a grave offence to God, and, if done with full knowledge of the sacrilege committed, it places the soul in the gravest jeopardy. It is a scandal of the first magnitude that Catholics have been so badly taught that they are unable to grasp this truth instantly.

    January 26, 2015 at 11:09 pm
  • editor


    Here’s what the Vatican says on the subject: note, in particular, # 94, which explicitly prohibits the handing of the Host from one to another by the laity.

    Redemptionis Sacramentum

    On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
    regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

    From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004

    [90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

    [91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

    [92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

    [93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

    [94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice. Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

    You were saying?

    January 26, 2015 at 11:21 pm
    • Common Sense

      I was well aware of all that. However, I think even liturgical rules have to be read in the light of the teaching of Jesus. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: ” What happened was not pre-planned, and came about through very exceptional, and truly delightful, circumstances. Six million, and more, came together to celebrate Holy Mass, with The Successor of Peter. I believe your own interpretation of the rules would mean we cannot have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, but The Church says we can. Most writing here are scandalised by lay people touching The Sacred Host, and, yet again, Church Teaching says Lay people can. Jesus has given clear teaching as to, how, we can deal with exceptional circumstances. And to The Pharisees of his day, who Pope Francis believes now haunt the church with their presence, Jesus reminded them how David, and his followers, in exceptional circumstances di what only a priest should do.

      It is a cliché, I know, but sometimes, people really need to ask themselves What Would Jesus Do or, to put it another way, has Jesus given us a teaching we can apply to this exceptional circumstance: six million, and more, in one place for Holy Mass.

      January 27, 2015 at 8:00 am
  • editor


    What about this – straight from Pope John Paul II himself… (he also refers, in this same letter, to concerns about whole congregations going up for Communion at every Mass… but I thought that was a tad judgmental of him so I didn’t copy that…)


    In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

    But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

    To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

    What was that? Sorry? I got it wrong? No problem, CS. We all make misteaks… 😀

    January 26, 2015 at 11:29 pm
    • Common Sense

      One of your regular commentators says we always say B.V.M., when we say Mary, and, therefore, can I remind you that he is Saint Pope John Paul.

      He was, of course, writing about abuses that were becoming the norm, and not about extraordinary events. Please see my What Would Jesus Do? post. Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, The G.I.R. M. puts into Universal Law Holy Communion in the Hand where it has been approved in particular regions.

      Pope Francis has, rightly, lamented the fact that modern day Pharisaic people stalk the Church.

      January 27, 2015 at 8:07 am
      • Petrus

        I’ve heard it all now….

        I was educated by Salesians and no one ever complained when we referred to “Don Bosco’. Get real.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:19 am
      • Petrus

        A desperate man with no answers defending sacrilege!

        January 27, 2015 at 8:31 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        It was the primary sin of the Pharisees to twist Our Lord’s words and to accuse Him rather than themselves of wrong doing.

        Communion in the hand is not now, nor will it ever be, the Universal law of the Church, indults notwithstanding. This is the clear teaching of the Popes, particularly Paul VI.

        So who, in your opinion, fits better Pope Francis’ profile of a Catholic Pharisee in this matter, you or us? It sure looks like you from where I’m standing.

        January 28, 2015 at 2:51 pm
  • Christina

    CS May I remind you that at the beginning of this thread the rightness or wrongness of Communion in the hand was not the point at issue, but you have clearly enjoyed arguing all around that point while failing (in spite of several requests) to address it directly. So I would ask you to thoughtfully and meditatively read St. Thomas Aquinas’s Adoro te devote or a translation – the hymn ‘O Godhead hid, devoutly I adore Thee’, is, I think, the best – and then answer the question: Do you not think it an unspeakably shocking to see consecrated hosts being passed from hand to hand in a crowded Mass? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice – please.

    I have some, admittedly second-hand, but nontheless reliable, knowledge of the Filipino people. in character they are a beautiful, kindly and very devout race, and, as you said, always eager to help one another. However I also know that since Vatican II they have been woefully catechised and thus betrayed by their priests (those same priests who were seen on another video, photographing the celebrity Pope instead of attending to the holy Mass at which they were present). It is not ‘judging’ the dispositions or souls of those present at that huge open-air Mass to guess that faith in the Real Presence has been weakened or lost, as polls indicate it has in America. What is done in innocence or ignorance is not sin.

    However, this is a blog contributed to mainly by well-catechised and faithful Catholics plus the odd troll. If you are one of the former you should be shocked by that video down to the bottom of your Catholic soul; if one of the latter you should go away and play somewhere else.

    January 27, 2015 at 12:19 am
    • Common Sense

      Can I remind you that one of your regulars has re-posted an article, in full, an article he wrote 3 years ago, on the subject of Holy Communion in the Hand etc, and was commended by The Editor for doing so. (The article is factually, and historically, incorrect but is liked by certain types.) Further, most posts are about people touching the Sacred Host for whatever reason.

      Many I remind you that every Pope, since Saint Pope John XXlll, has said The second Vatican Council is a central part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church, and we had a “Year of Faith”, promulgated by that great man Pope Benedict, just to mark its beginning 51 years ago?

      I don’t have to give yes or no answers, to your questions, as I have said the Holy Mass in Manila was a brilliant, exceptional, event that should be praised and commended and not denigrated by self professed “loyal” Catholics.

      January 27, 2015 at 8:14 am
    • Common Sense

      Your regular poster, Athanasius said Catholics never just say “Mary” but they do, including various Saints and Popes (some are now both!) That is the point I was making.

      I also, know, that many who post here doubt that he 1. Should have been canonised and 2. Some here still doubt he is a Saint.

      As a regular contributor, you should be aware of what some who write here think. It may be you are one of those who thinks 1 or 2.

      January 27, 2015 at 8:28 am
      • Dr John Dowden

        Common Sense,

        As a long-term, if somewhat occasional, contributor it may be worth confirming to a recent arrival that, in virtue of the Magisterium invested in her, the editor of Catholic Truth does not accept the decrees on the sanctity of John Paul II or John XXIII. Such decrees are (so far as I know) the only actual occasion on which bishops of Rome routinely invoke “infallibility” but, no matter, John Paul the Great (as he is universally known in Central and Eastern Europe) is not, for the purposes of this blog, “Saint”.

        It is as good an example as any of what a well-informed Italian commentator sees as the Lefebvrists cutting themselves off from the mainstream (

        On the other hand, given that this is the week of prayer for Christian Unity, it is progress when even the most extreme of the extreme see that over-centralization of decision-making is not the way forward.

        January 27, 2015 at 10:37 am
      • editor


        I am not alone in questioning the nature of the canonisations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII.

        Here’s an extract from an excellent Remnant article on the subject:

        “For all of the persuasiveness of the canonical, theological, and doctrinal arguments regarding whether the upcoming canonizations are infallible, they all seem to make one fundamental assumption: that Pope Francis understands the concept of Sainthood in accord with the Tradition of the Church and will intend to confer such Sainthood on April 27, 2014. But is this a safe assumption to make?

        Consider the following statement of Pope Francis, given during his interview with Andrea Tornielli on December 10, 2013:

        …I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today; you just need to read the newspapers. Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptized in. We need to take these facts into consideration.

        Thus Francis seems very open to the possibility of the beatification and potential canonization of a Lutheran pastor. Francis may have been referring here to the case of Lutheran pastor Karl Friedrich Stellbrink. Stellbrink and three Catholic priests were beheaded in quick succession as a result of speaking out against the Nazi regime in Germany. The causes of beatification for the three Catholic priests went forward under Benedict in 2011, but not for Stellbrink. This created a rift in German Lutheran relations… Click here to read the entire article – recommended.

        Since key elements were missing in these canonisation processes – notably the mandatory Devil’s Advocate (dispensed with by Pope John Paul II) then it seems clear that a future pontiff will have to pronounce on these events. In the meantime, I’m not buying any statues, medals or screaming from the rooftops about any fast track saints, including Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII. And if they really are saints in heaven, they won’t mind – they’ll understand my desire to be faithful to Catholic Tradition 😀

        January 27, 2015 at 10:51 am
      • jobstears


        “And if they really are saints in heaven, they won’t mind – they’ll understand my desire to be faithful to Catholic Tradition.”


        January 27, 2015 at 2:12 pm
      • Common Sense

        If they are canonised they are Saints. That is Catholic Tradition. There is no two ways about it. Rome has spoken. The case is closed.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:13 pm
      • jobstears


        “If they are canonised they are saints”. So, if you knew the tried and true process of canonization was altered by removing significant checks and safeguards, you would not be curious to ask why?

        If tomorrow, Pope Francis wants to canonize non Catholics, and changes the canonization process to make this possible, would that be acceptable to you?

        January 27, 2015 at 9:30 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Pope has the power to do that!

        January 27, 2015 at 9:33 pm
      • jobstears

        The papacy is not his to do with as he pleases. He has to abide by the rules, not make them up as he goes along.

        January 28, 2015 at 3:00 pm
      • Common Sense

        However, as Supreme Pontiff he can change many rules, as he feels he is inspired to do so.

        January 28, 2015 at 7:44 pm
  • Christina

    Editor, 11.21 and 11.29 – I think that was game, set and match to you!

    January 27, 2015 at 12:30 am
    • Petrus

      I think it’s clear to one and all that Common Sense does not believe in the Real Presence. We would have an easier time debating with a bona fide Protestant!

      January 27, 2015 at 6:48 am
      • Petrus

        Common Sense

        Let me ask you again:

        Was the Church wrong to insist on Holy Communion on the tongue prior to the 1970s? What good has come of introducing Holy Communion in the hand?

        Not only does Communion in the hand attack the Catholic belief in the Real Presence, it also seeks to diminish the position of the priest. Everyone can touch the Blessed Sacrament, not just the ordained priest! In these Communist and Masonic days, it is unthinkable to respect, or have reverence for, authority figures. Actually, Communion in the hand embodies the sin of Lucifer – great pride.

        We’ve had not one justification for this abuse from Common Sense, only desperate ramblings of a deluded soul defending the indefensible. Satan’s masterstroke has indeed been creating disobedience in the name of obedience!

        January 27, 2015 at 7:07 am
      • Common Sense

        Catholic Scholars agree that in centuries past, and in the early Church, people did receive in the hand.

        Further, as you have read some actual Church teaching at some time, you might know, that as a reaction to things said at the time of The Reformation, Holy Communion under both kinds was stopped, but today we are taught to receive Holy Communion under both kinds is “a more perfect sign”, and is greatly encouraged.

        Likewise, The Permanent Diaconate has been restored.

        As, Blessed Pope Paul once wrote, in a different context, echoing Jesus himself. The Church must always draw on her store of things old and new


        January 27, 2015 at 8:35 am
      • Athanasius

        Communion under both kinds was never the Catholic practice, it was introduced in its present form by Anglicans at the Reformation who said that one did not receive Communion unless under both kinds. The Church condemned and fully resisted that error until the post-Vatican II period when it was decided for ecumenical reasons to permit it for the sake of Protestant sensibilities. It has nothing whatever to do with Tradition or things old and new in the Catholic context. Like Communion in the hand, it has its origin in Protestantism and is therefore repugnant to Catholics, not to mention extremely unhygienic.

        January 27, 2015 at 10:14 am
      • Common Sense

        I may be wrong, but from the earliest times including, and past the 5th Century, lay people would not seek to denigrate current Church practice, or seek to besmirch the hierarchy, without the possibility of excommunication. It is strange what bits of “tradition” you hold dear. But, of course, it the post Conciliar that has given you the freedoms you now seem to want to exercise.

        January 27, 2015 at 4:17 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        That’s because never before has the Church witnessed the Faith being undermined in so grave a manner by almost the entire hierarchy. Even the Arian heresy of the 4th century, which affected the entire Eastern Church, doesn’t come close to what happened after Vatican II.

        You should be more concerned about those Churchmen who denigrate and undermine the Faith they are supposed to protect and hand down unsullied. Bad shepherds do more damage than bad sheep. Maybe you should re-think your priorities.

        Besides, you besmirched the good name of Archbishop Lefebvre earlier and have still not made a public apology for your offence. You do know that your false statement about the Archbishop was calumny, a very serious sin?

        January 27, 2015 at 10:49 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church is clear Holy Communion is a more perfect sign, and strangely mirrors the First Mass, and is written about, at length by St Paul. Just when did Tradition begin, and when was The Anglican Church founded. I may be wrong Tradition began with Jesus, and the Anglican Church in the 16th Century.

        January 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Not “in centuries past, and in the early Church…” Only in the early Church, and the practice was not what you and others do now, which is the Protestant Reformer model.

        In the early Church it was forbidden to place the Blessed Sacrament in the left hand, or for the host to touch the fingers. Lay people had to bow and scoop up the host from their right hand using the tongue and then repeat the action to ensure no particles were left on the hand. Women had to wear a white cloth on the right hand and all had to wash their hands in water before receiving.

        But even with all these precautions the Church finally outlawed the practice in the 5th century as too likely to cause indifference and sacrilege. By that time the Church had sufficient priests to be able to banish forever a practice that had only been permitted because the Church was small in size and the times were times of persecution. After that, the Church grew stronger in her condemnations of the practice of Communion in the hand.

        As I said earlier, it was banned for all Catholics under pain of mortal sin and at one point excommunication.

        You simply cannot justify this practice, CS.

        January 27, 2015 at 10:47 am
      • editor


        Well said – I wonder if CS has seen this interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider?

        January 27, 2015 at 10:58 am
      • Common Sense

        Other members of The Episcopate would offer a different analysis, and I am sure is now reigning gloriously as The Supreme Pontiff, and Successor of St Peter.

        It is foolish to “champion” the views of one Bishop. Even The SSPX regret the statements of an holocaust denier.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:27 pm
      • jobstears


        Thank you for that outstanding post! Christians in the early Church received the Eucharist in the hand, this has been cited time and again as justification for its widespread practice today. But why is there never any mention of how it is the early Christians actually received the Sacred Host – in hands that had been washed and without fingers touching the Sacred Species? Until now, I didn’t know this :'( So, thank you!

        January 27, 2015 at 4:10 pm
      • pew catholic

        Why did women have to wear a white cloth on the right hand? Just curious.

        January 27, 2015 at 9:04 pm
      • Athanasius

        Pew Catholic,

        It’s a fair question for which I have no answer. I don’t know of any historical record that explains this. But even if women had not been required to place a white cloth over their right hand, the requirement not to touch the Blessed Sacrament with the fingers was still in place for all.

        Happily, the entire practice was eventually seen as too open to abuse and carelessness, and so the Church in her wisdom forbade it altogether. Then Vatican II happened, authority was lost and Cardinal Suenens of Belgium re-introduced the forbidden practice without Papal knowledge or consent. The disobedience soon spread to the extent that the Pope could no longer control it and was forced to concede more and more indults.

        If only more Catholics understood by what dishonest means this horrible practice was forced on their parishes, and not the ancient Christian practice but the Protestant Reformation model, which is absolutely diabolical in origin and intent.

        January 27, 2015 at 10:41 pm
      • Frankier


        “Catholic Scholars agree that in centuries past, and in the early Church, people did receive in the hand”. So does this justify the present day shambles?

        What about the old saying that some of these scholarly people are so fond of using at times – “you don`t look back in life”?

        I am not a Catholic Scholar but even I can tell you that in the not so distant past, probably just before you were born, people did receive on the tongue, kneeling and with no wine, so why not use that as a reason to revert to receiving again on the tongue?

        If the drinking laws in Scotland get reduced to zero tolerance it might be Nicola Sturgeon rather than the Pope who decides if reception under both forms continue. It may be that people will have to revert to the habits of “centuries past, and in the early Church” by walking to Mass or even riding on a donkey.

        January 27, 2015 at 11:07 am
      • Common Sense

        A Church in which Tradition is central will clearly constantly look back and forward. Echoing Jesus call that we always draw on our store of thins old, and new.

        Long before you were born, centuries in fact, Holy Communion under both kinds – which is a “more perfect sign – and Holy Communion in the hand was the norm. You have a strange view of Tradition. You appear to say that if you like something it is ok, but if not, no matter how ancient the practice, it is wrong.

        January 27, 2015 at 12:00 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        You’re not grasping this at all, are you?

        It is not we who say that Communion in the hand is wrong, it’s the entire magisterium of the Church right up to and including Pope Benedict XVI. All have stated that Catholics should adhere to the Tradition of the Church and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If they have been forced, as they have, to legislate indults for disobedient bishops that doesn’t give you the right to go along. You have a duty to be faithful to the wishes expressed by the Holy See, not make excuses for abuses!

        That Pope Francis hasn’t spoken in tune with his predecessors alters nothing. It seems to me that you reverence more the human person of the Pope your divine Lord. In your case there’s no excuse for ignorance.

        January 27, 2015 at 3:03 pm
      • Confitebor Domino

        Common Sense

        Here are some more ancient traditions (in no particular order):

        1. Public penance
        2. Congregation stands throughout service (no seats)
        3. Women are to be silent in church
        4. All non-Catholics (including catechumens) removed from church for the Mass of the Faithful
        5. Women to cover their heads in church (still the law, by the way)
        6. Fasting and abstinence every day in Lent
        7. Mass only in the morning (and very early morning at that)

        How many of these are you petitioning the Holy Father to restore?

        The truth is that it’s not traditionalists who “say that if you like something it is ok, but if not, no matter how ancient the practice, it is wrong”. Rather it’s people like you – and those responsible for the NOM – who do this, whilst you practice what I think of as a sort of ‘liturgical palaeontology’.

        January 27, 2015 at 8:43 pm
      • Therese

        Confitebor Domino

        I didn’t think CS would answer your post, as s/he has difficulty in answering yes/no questions, but it’s a masterstroke to to include the points you mention.

        January 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm
      • Common Sense

        You missed out Listening to The Pope, and The College of Bishops, A much older Tradition than most of the others. On most of the issues you mention Rome has clearly spoken, and the Church distinguishes between Church Law and Divine Law, and much of what you mention is Church Law, which can change, and things based on a particular time and culture, and not eternal truths,

        Holy Mass, of course, was celebrated in the morning because of the fasting from Midnight the night before, and for no other reason. But of course everyone here still fasts from Midnight the night before. Yeah right, Guv!

        January 28, 2015 at 7:42 pm
      • Confitebor Domino

        The very early Church celebrated the Holy Sacrifice at dawn because that was presumed to be the time of Our Blessed Lord’s resurrection – we don’t know for sure what the fasting rules were at that stage.

        I’m sure many of those posting here do still observe the Eucharistic fast from midnight, but not all because many don’t have access to Holy Mass until afternoon or evening. The current law requires only a one hour fast.

        January 28, 2015 at 8:58 pm
      • Alex F

        According to the Didache the faithful were encouraged to fast every Wednesday and Friday. There’s no mention of the Communion fast, but if Mass could only be celebrated early in the morning, then it probably didn’t matter so much. Until recently, all Catholics were supposed to fast every day except Sunday during Lent and quite a few other days too. I always understood that the rules on fasting are the absolute minimum that the Church requires. In reality, much more is expected. In the Eastern churches things are still a lot more strict than in the West. I don’t think that does any harm. It would be praiseworthy to follow the pre-Vatican 2 fasting norms because at least that is a fast. It’s virtually impossible to break the modern Communion fast unless you are actually eating during Mass.

        January 28, 2015 at 11:09 pm
      • Athanasius

        Alex F,

        They were eating during Pope John Paul’s Mass at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow in 1982. Some of them were still chewing in the queue for Holy Communion. Incredible, but true!

        January 28, 2015 at 11:12 pm
      • Alex F

        Nothing would surprise me these days. 🙁

        January 28, 2015 at 11:22 pm
      • Common Sense

        C.D. I have only just read this. You should yourself note what you said and take it to heart:”The current law requires only a one hour fast.”. The Law changes, and The Pope has the power to change it. Why not grasp that fact, and stop arguing on the basis of a false notion of what tradition is?

        February 2, 2015 at 6:45 am
      • Spiritus

        I canot understand why communion under both SPECIES is “a more perfect sign”, given that both the Body and Blood of Our Lord are each fully “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of Jesus Christ. What can be more perfect than that?

        January 30, 2015 at 4:46 pm
      • Athanasius


        You’re absolutely correct to say that the reception of either species is the reception of Our Lord’s full body, blood, soul and divinity. There is absolutely no diminution in the Real Presence for those who receive under one rather than both kinds, and the Church has always condemned propositions to the contrary.

        Those who have introduced this practice of both kinds for lay people in our time have done so for one reason only – to further confuse the ordained priesthood with the priesthood of the people.

        By permitting the people to receive in a manner previously reserved to priests alone, who received under both kinds in imitation of Our Lord and His ordained Disciples, these innovators play the part of the Reformation Protestants in that they subtly insinuate by the change that there is no difference between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the people.

        Very gradually with extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, Communion in the hand, lay people doing readings, etc., we can see how they have chipped away at the sacred nature of the priesthood to the point where priestless services are beginning to take place here and there with worrying regularity.

        It has all been very carefully (diabolically) thought out and introduced with a view to eventually eradicating the Catholic priesthood. And the real tragedy of it is that the priests themselves are obediently participating in their own demise.

        January 30, 2015 at 5:58 pm
      • Common Sense

        Jesus said eat my Body, drink my blood, and offered people both at the first Holy Mass. St Paul emphasises the early Church practice. Surely, Tradition begins with Jesus and The Early Church?

        January 30, 2015 at 7:29 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        It has been pointed out on the blog lots of times that the first people to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus were the first priests, not lay people. That’s why you are right, that tradition began with Jesus and the first priests.

        January 30, 2015 at 7:50 pm
      • Alex F

        I think it is better to have Communion under both species. That is what the command was, even though we receive Jesus’ entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under just one, so strictly speaking it’s not completely necessary for both. I am sure that was the practice in the mediaeval church, but then there were far fewer people going to communion at every mass because you weren’t allowed to go as often as you can today, and I do believe you couldn’t go to communion every day until Pius X, so barely a century ago.
        There would be the logistical problem of giving communion and the chalace to everyone, but mist Sunday masses would have had a deacon and sub deacon so they could have helped. The orthodox and eastern Catholics have always had communion under both kind but that is different. They use leavened bread, and mix it into the blood and the priest administers it using a spoon into the person mouth.

        January 30, 2015 at 7:54 pm
      • Athanasius

        Alex F,

        Like Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, there are very, very strict and limited times when Communicating under both kinds is permitted. It should, according to the Church’s Indult instructions, be extremely rare in a parish. If that’s not the case in the average parish today then it is because once again the Popes have been disobeyed.

        So the question is not really one of whether or not it is licit to have Communion under both Kinds, which the Council of Trent answered in the negative, special Indults notwithstanding. Rather it is whether or not the practice at parish and diocesan level today is in accord with Church teaching which says it should be a very rare occurrence. On that question, the answer is absolutely in the negative. This practice is being carried on all over the place against the wishes of the Pope and the Church. The rest is really academic.

        Priests should stop administering the precious blood to the laity and the laity should stop supporting episcopal dissent from Papal teaching by refusing to communicate in this generally forbidden manner.

        January 30, 2015 at 11:03 pm
      • editor

        Alex F,

        The command to which you refer, as MM has already pointed out, was addressed by Christ to His first priests. NOT to the laity. And although it was the practice in the early church to permit Communion in the hand (with restrictions – not the free for all which we witness today), as the Church’s comprehension of the reality of the Sacred Species grew and developed, the Church ended the practise of the laity receiving in the hand, where it had been permitted. If you read the writings of Michael Davies on this, you will find them a gold mine of information about Catholic Tradition. Try Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies – great chapter on the subject in there.

        I have only one warning about that book. Michael (RIP) dedicated it to “the memory of Bernadette Keenan, the most saintly person I have ever met.” He’d not yet met me, at that time, remember. So, just bear that in mind 😀

        January 31, 2015 at 12:22 am
      • Common Sense

        Alex F

        In G.I.R.M. , in the latest Missal, and other recent editions, The Church says, as happened at The Last Supper, and as is recorded in other parts of The New Testament, i.e Holy Scripture, receiving Holy Communion under both kinds is a more perfect sign, and more faithful to what Jesus taught.

        That, however, doesn’t alter that the fact that to receive Jesus under one kind, is to receive him whole, and entire, but our sacramental life relies on, and is underpinned by, Signs and Symbols.

        February 3, 2015 at 7:04 am
      • Alex F

        Athanasius and Editor,
        Thank you for that. I’ve read some of Michael Davies’ work in the past so I’ll look that up, because I’m trying to learn more about this.
        I can see what you’re saying about Communion under both kinds being brought in by modernists to blur the line between the priests and the laity, much the same way the Protestant reformers did- the whole “priesthood of the laity” type of thing. If that’s the reason it has been brought in I wouldn’t take part in that.
        However, I’m just wondering why it wasn’t allowed in principle and how far back the practice of just having the host goes because from what I’ve read it does not seem to have been the practice throughout the West for all of the Church’s history, and it has never been the practice in the East. If Jesus was only speaking to the apostles who were priests at the last supper, how do we know that it was his intention for only priests to receive the blood and not the lay people when he didn’t actually say that? Under that interpretation, how do we know Jesus intended for lay people to receive communion at all, when from what we read in the Gospels, he didn’t seem to make any real differentiation.

        January 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm
      • editor

        Alex F,

        I’m very conscious that I’ve been away from my computer all day and now have to be brief, so I copied an article by a priest that I think will be helpful – more on that in a minute, when I’ll post the entire article and link to source.

        Firstly, yes, Michael Davies exposes the way Communion under both kinds has been used by the revolutionaries to further their ecumenical liturgy – and he goes so far as to say that – having outlined the similarities between the novus ordo Mass and the Protestant liturgy (Cranmer) that it is correct to describe the novus ordo as “an ecumenical liturgy”. You will find his book Pope Paul’s New Mass very instructive on the subject.

        Your key question, however, is the “how do we know what Jesus actually intended” given that His command to “eat and drink” was delivered to His first priests. You ask “how do we know that it was his intention for only priests to receive the Precious Blood and not the lay people when he didn’t actually say that?”

        We know, Alex, because of Our Lord’s promise that His Father will send the Holy Spirit “in My name, [to] teach you all things and bring all things to y our mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John 14:26).

        As St John tells us in his Gospel, not everything that Jesus said and did is written down – if it were, “the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25)

        In other words, we know, Alex, because we believe – i.e. we know – that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, and that through infallibly binding papal statements and dogmatic Councils, God’s will on these matters is revealed to us.

        Pope John XXIII made an express point of saying that the most recent Council of the Church, Vatican II, was NOT a dogmatic Council and – apart from when it repeated previously infallibly defined teachings – it was not of the same binding character and force as previous Councils. Logically, therefore, the documents and practices issuing from Vatican II must be scrutinised for their fidelity (or lack of it) to Catholic Tradition. Senior churchmen (including Pope Benedict XVI) have acknowledged the limited pastoral nature of Vatican II.

        Therefore, on this matter, we look to the Council of Trent to discover the mind of the Church on Communion under both kinds, that is, if we wish to know God’s will in the matter. Here’s the article I mentioned at the top with link to source at the end. I have to finish with this, Alex, but if you are still not convinced, please say so and I’ll try again. I’m very trying, or so I keep being told 😀

        A Priest [who describes himself as ‘traditional’] writes…

        “There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).”

        As of right now, the permission to the reception of the Precious Blood of Jesus by the laity in the Novus Ordo Mass, is only an indult. An indult is an exception, a privilege, that can be taken away at any time so deemed necessary. It is not a right.
        When one travels all over the world, Catholics in most countries only receive the Holy Host. That is because these countries never ever received permission (indult) to also give the Chalice to the people. Most American Catholics will be very surprised to find out that, when attending Holy Mass at the Vatican, you will only receive the Holy Host.

        Byzantine Catholics do receive the consecrated bread dipped into the consecrated wine which is usually poured into the mouth of the communicant from a small dipper.

        Even though it is correct to say “receive the Body of Jesus (Host) or receive the Blood of Jesus (Chalice), I am trying to avoid using these words because it tends to separate Jesus into His Body and His Blood. That is impossible to do because as the council of Trent clearly stated, (again what Catholics have always believed), Jesus is totally present in either the Host or the Chalice. If one were to receive only the Precious Blood, Jesus is totally present. If one were to receive only the Host, Jesus is totally present.

        We have enough worries on protecting the Holy Host from being dropped and its fragments being walked on. It is very easy to have an accident with the Precious Blood spilling. I have seen it spelt many times on the floor.

        Another grave reason for receiving Jesus only in the Holy Host, is that it is very hard to purify the Chalices that the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion administer it in. They rotate the chalice as they administer it and purify it after each person receives from it. So the Precious Blood is all around the inside surface of the chalice.
        In the Holy Latin Mass the priest only drinks the Precious Blood from the chalice from the side of the chalice above the cross so that he after that he can purify chalice precisely where the Precious Blood flowed when he consumed it. In the first ablution, the priest holds the chalice in a certain way to be sure that the altar boy will pour wine exactly over where the Precious Blood had been consumed in the chalice. Then the priest, with paten under his chin, consumes the wine from the same spot of the chalice. There is then a second ablution of wine and water to be sure that every molecule of the Precious Blood is consumed before the chalice is purified by an purificator.
        sacrament3In the Novus Ordo mass, the chalice is only purified with water one time. I would purify the chalice with plenty of water. But what I found out was that after rinsing it out with water, when I went to dry it with the purificator, there would be red wine stain on the purificator from the molecules of the Precious Blood that still adhered to the Chalice even after being rinsed with water. Using wine to purify is much more effective. Then wine and water.

        We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics and to be able to kneel and receive Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Host. Even the bishop and other priests at the Holy Latin Mass are thankful to receive only the Holy Host. They do not receive the chalice. At an ordination, the new priests does partake from the chalice. Source

        February 1, 2015 at 11:45 pm
      • Alex F

        Thank you for posting that Editor,

        I can see the practical reasons for giving just the host, but I the article doesn’t really answer the question as to why it would be wrong in principle to have the chalice. But I can definitely see where you’re coming from.

        February 2, 2015 at 7:56 pm
      • editor

        Alex F,

        The key principle which has always underpinned Catholic teaching on Communion under one kind, is that only the ordained priest should receive under both kinds, following the example of Our Lord at the Last Supper/first Mass. Protestant belief that we are all priests, that there is no need for ordained priests, is reflected in their practice of distributing symbolic bread AND wine.

        You may find the extract on the subject in this letter written by a priest for a Protestant audience, of much interest – I certainly did…

        However, I don’t think we can dismiss, as if of secondary importance, the practical reasons against Communion under both kinds. The safety of the Blessed Sacrament is paramount. Stories of lay people, whether Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion or sacristans, tossing the remains in the chalice down the sacristy sink, are shocking. Similarly, to watch (as I’ve done myself) a batch of females chattering away as they purify the chalices at the end of the novus ordo Mass, as if they were clearing up at the nearest bar after a busy weekend, is painful, to say the least.

        All in all, if we value Catholic Tradition sufficiently to want to be faithful to it, we will readily accept that the indult for Communion under both kinds, sought by those intent on protestantising the Mass and through the new Mass the Catholic laity, is not a good thing… to put it mildly.

        February 3, 2015 at 12:07 am
      • Common Sense

        Alex F

        In The Orthodox Churches not only do people receive Holy Communion under both kinds, a infant does at Baptism.

        It is difficult to claim that that is because people wanted to cease to make a distinction a priest or lay person, or that it is any down to a Protestant influence. Protestants didn’t exist when most Orthodox Traditions were established!

        February 3, 2015 at 8:04 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Where’s your common sense? Jesus offered both at the first Mass to His ordained priests, not to lay people.

        St. Paul does not emphasise the early Church practice. Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei calls returning to early Church practices a grave error.

        Stop making things up to justify soft shoe Protestantism!

        January 30, 2015 at 10:36 pm
      • Common Sense

        I know of no scholar who would say only The 12 were in The Upper Room!

        February 2, 2015 at 6:36 am
      • editor


        “Scholars” have no authority to teach and they are divided among themselves about everything from how many women were present at the Last Supper to how did that Muslim woman get there?


        February 3, 2015 at 12:15 am
      • Dr John Dowden


        Prior to the 1970s does not, necessarily, mean prior to the 1370s. Just because something existed last century in Western Europe and its colonies, does not actually mean that it much older in time than Pius X or perhaps Pius V, or that it ever extended in place outside the western rites.

        It is fascinating to see how far people can miss the real point. On any historical view, the means of communicating at the Divine Liturgy have varied enormously in different places and different times. The English Use (a tradition valued by the Bishop Emeritus of Rome and which, with the Ordinariate, has given Scotland its first married Roman-Catholic priest in recent times) has no problem with communion in the hand, and is following one strand of ancient tradition.

        But the more serious departure from catholic and orthodox tradition is that this vast number appears to have been communicated using the species of bread alone. The Eastern churches are clear that communion is to be given in both kinds and the reformed churches have long-since gone back to that tradition – it is clear, for example, that in the Scottish Sarum rite before 1400, ordinary people were not denied the cup. So, from the point of view of respecting the ancient traditions of the church, the major problem is that both scripture and tradition are clear that communion should be given under the species of bread and wine. Those sections of the western church (and their former colonies) which fail to do so are not even respecting the obvious meaning of the Latin rites: “bibite” is both a plural and an imperative.
        [Ed: this comment reveals a failure to understand Catholic Tradition – Dowden, being a Protestant of the Anglican persuasion, continually makes the mistake of forgetting that Christ founded only one Church, the Catholic Church, not thousands of churches].

        In the week of prayer for Christian Unity it makes a whole lot of sense to think about how the Orthodox understand tradition before lamenting the abandonment of Tridentine customs which are far from universal, defective and not particularly old.
        [Ed: the Orthodox “tradition” is only a little older than the rest of the Protestant tradition and we really have nothing to learn from schismatics, thank you very much, when it comes to our liturgy, i.e. our holy Mass.]

        January 27, 2015 at 10:43 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        It should be pointed out to you that Dowden is an Anglican with a novel understanding of history. Beware!

        January 27, 2015 at 10:56 am
      • Therese


        Yes, quite clear. Tragic.


        January 27, 2015 at 10:07 am
  • Athanasius

    Common Sense,

    A little further back you insisted that Pope Paul VI’ comment about the “smoke of Satan” was directed at Archbishop Lefebvre. How you came to that conclusion still has me scratching my head. Still, you were adamant that this was the context of the words.

    Right, here’s a segment of an interview with Cardinal Noè in 2008 in which His Eminence speaks precisely on this subject. I hope subsequently to see your admission of error posted here and your regret at having insistently calumniated the good name Archbishop Lefebvre.

    I should point out that the Cardinal being interviewed was a very close ally of Pope Paul VI and is speaking here in relation to his conversations with that Pope. Here’s the important part of the interview:

    Interviewer “Paul VI’s denunciation of the presence of the smoke of Satan in the Church is unforgettable. Still today, that discourse seems to be incredibly relevant.”

    Cardinal Noè “I am in a position to reveal, for the first time, what Paul VI desired to denounce with that statement. Here it is. Papa Montini, for Satan, meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly (mal celebrando) Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”

    Communion in the hand was one of those distortions, which is obvious from the pride of Satan that turned kneeling adorers into standing equals!

    You can read more on that interview here:

    January 27, 2015 at 10:30 am
  • Alex F

    I don’t think the main issue here is Communion in the hand. Even if it is allowed by the Church (although I don’t think it should be) the way Communion is distributed in that video does seem very disrespectful and would lead one to ask if they believe that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament. That’s not to say that the people were deliberately being disrespectful to Our Lord. He knows the intentions of their hearts, and as Commonsense says, many will have gone to great efforts to have been there. Surely they will receive graces from their sacrifices.

    Given that a similar thing happened in Rio, and the logistical problems of giving Communion to several million people, it may be better to encourage the lay people to make a spiritual communion. Jesus is every bit as much present in the tabernacle in their local parish, so they will gain nothing extra from having gone to communion at a pope’s Mass, and they will still get graces from the spiritual communion. I can see why they wanted to go to Communion at the pope’s mass, but if they understood the faith on this matter, they would see that it wasn’t necessary.

    I’m not an expert on the liturgical practices of the early church, but Protestants (including Anglicans) don’t believe that Jesus is present in the holy Eucharist, so it seems obvious that their practices will reflect what they believe- that it is just bread. So I don’t think it makes sense for Catholics to imitate them, when they believe they are receiving two different things. The Orthodox, on the other hand, do believe pretty much the same as the Catholics, and they don’t have Communion on the hand either. It should reflect what you believe in.

    January 27, 2015 at 6:59 pm
    • Athanasius

      Alex F,

      While I agree in general with your wise observation concerning the distribution of Holy Communion at these rally Masses, I respectfully disagree entirely with your assertion that Communion in the hand is not the main issue.

      It is absolutely the main issue because it fundamentally underlies these atrocities committed against the Blessed Sacrament. And not just the latest example being discussed here but countless other such terrible crimes, all of which could not have taken place had Communion on the tongue remained the norm, as the Popes have insisted.

      To give just one example. A French art student was able to gather several hundreds of consecrated hosts by means of Communion in the hand, from which he “created an art pattern” of sacred hosts, each pinned one over the other. You would be truly appalled if you knew what I know, and I have researched this abusive practice very deeply.

      January 27, 2015 at 10:59 pm
      • Alex F

        I agree with you on Communion in the hand. Unfortunately, though it’s allowed at present, and is even the de facto rule in some places, with the priest reacting like you might be carrying ebola when you try to take communion on the tongue!

        I was referring to the video when I say it wasn’t the issue here. It’s possible to receive Communion in the hand with a certain reverence and decorum, even though I agree it shouldn’t be allowed as it’s much better to receive on the tongue. But the free-for-all in the video was very disrespectful and not just because of communion in the hand.

        January 28, 2015 at 1:04 am
      • Athanasius

        Alex F,

        Yes, we are living in very tragic times for the Church, there’s no doubt about it.

        Pope Pius XII recognised what was about to come upon the Church when he spoke the following words: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy, her theology and her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. A day will come when the civilised world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” (Mgr. Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire, p. 52-53).

        How prophetic were these words in light of what we see happening in the Church today?

        But it wasn’t just Pius XII who seemed to sense what was coming. Pope Gregory XVI in his 1832 Encyclical Mirari Vos also lamented the reformation mindset that was gaining ground in the Church. He wrote: “To use the words of the Fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a “foundation may be laid of a new human institution,” and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing “may become a human Church…”

        It is no coincidence that the Church’s natural preoccupation with the dignity of God prior to Vatican II has, since Vatican II, become an unnatural preoccupation with “the dignity of the human person”. Almost every innovation, from the new Mass to Communion in the hand, is rooted in this inversion of priorities.

        Well did St. Pius X condemn Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and warn that it’s chief error is to divinise man. “Pride,” said he, “sits in the Modernist mind as in its own house”. The problem with pride is that it blinds its victims to truth.

        January 28, 2015 at 2:53 am
      • Alex F

        That’s very true. A lot of the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament we see today would be avoided if we still had Communion on the tongue, and kneeling down would be even better still. It’s just more devout and recognizes our place before Jesus our Redeemer. Thank you for posting those quotes.

        January 28, 2015 at 11:20 pm
  • Nolite Timere

    This seems to be indicative of a bigger issue, it seems that reception of communion has now become the norm without due regard to the proper dispositions to actually receive. Many believe that the reception of communion is necessary every time you attend Mass and now most Mass attenders without thinking march forward to receive as if it was their right.

    In the example provided it would be much better if communion was only received by the Pope himself and maybe other clergy concelebrating. If need be a small group of laity could also receive.

    It is completely inappropriate for communion to be distributed in the manner of this video, I’m not even sure how you would produce/store 6 million hosts, or have enough sacred vessels for this. It’s about time people realised that frequent reception of communion is praiseworthy and ultimately a good thing it is not a necessity, attendance at Mass in itself suffices.

    Common Sense

    Surely you are not telling me that just because something is licit (Communion in the hand/ extraordinary ministers etc etc) it is necessarily good?


    If you refuse to accept the Canonisation of 2 Saints, which was defined as an infallible action then surely that pushes you over the edge towards formal Schism?

    January 27, 2015 at 8:56 pm
    • editor

      Nolite Timere,

      Welcome back – and well said! An excellent post! But what happened to your lovely avatar? Remember, avatars are linked to the email address you used to set it up.

      Turning now to your question about the canonisations …

      We ran two threads on this at the time of the canonisations and thoroughly explored all the issues – I’m sure you would have paid a visit if not contributed, but you may have forgotten. Anyway, a couple of key points made by me (and others, I am sure) in those debates, follow…

      According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, no definitive and binding statement on the infallibility of canonizations has been made by the Church. I cannot think of any document on this subject – probably because it’s never been an issue before. We can expect one in the future, no doubt about it. We have always accepted the infallibility of canonisations based on the opinions of theologians including those we respect as “Church Fathers”.

      However, a key fact to bear in mind is this: no theologian has the authority to teach in the name of the Magisterium.

      The work of theologians is not to teach; their work is to speculate, enquire, deliberate on questions of theology, and those who did so in the past and who concluded that canonisations were infallible – that is, the pope enjoyed the assistance of the Holy Spirit when considering a Cause – did so because the process in place at that time was so strict that they believed we could enjoy certainty that the candidate was worthy of being “raised to the altars”. A key element in that process was the Devil’s Advocate – dispensed with by Pope John Paul II – read about the central importance of the Devil’s Advocate here.

      Undoubtedly, future theologians will study the question again – watch this space!

      In fact, I have noticed that very few people refer to “Saint” John Paul II or John XXIII. Very few. I think there may be a kind of instinctive dislike of the unseemly haste to canonise these two popes and to beatify Pope Paul VI and not just among those of us dubbed “traditionalists”. I think it’s more general than that.

      Anyway, it’s definitely NOT verging on schism to reject these canonisations. I’m not saying the two popes are not in Heaven – I don’t know. However, I do know that neither of them is worthy of Catholic veneration of the kind traditionally associated with devotion to the saints. Just as I would argue that a father of a large family who neglected them, who was a negligent father, was not worthy of canonisation even if he ran soup kitchens, gave all his money to the poor, and travelled the world encouraging folk to support Celtic FC. If he did not attend to his elementary duties of state as a parent, then he most certainly is not a candidate for canonisation, Catholic Truth reader or not. The two popes of popular acclaim, all but destroyed the Church, humanly speaking – the last thing they deserve is to be venerated as heroes of the Faith.

      The “new” canonisations – like the new everything else we’ve had to suffer these past fifty years – will, I have no doubt, in future be seen as part and parcel of this unique and terrible crisis in the Church. That’s why no-one should be scandalised (unduly) by them.

      I hope I have answered your question, Nolite Timere, and that you will agree with my ever so humble assertion that I am not a schismatic; however, that might change: check back when they canonise Pope Francis 😀

      January 28, 2015 at 1:07 am
      • Common Sense

        One reason why some people may not always refer to them as the Saints they are is because their canonisations were so recent, and they lived in the lifetime of so many alive, and their “names” are so familiar. However,, as you state above, some do not accept they are saints and, therefore, do not do so, and that may put those people in schism.

        January 28, 2015 at 6:33 am
      • editor


        From the Catholic Encyclopaedia…

        “… no definitive and binding statement on the infallibility of canonizations has been made by the Church.”

        It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to specify on what grounds someone is excommunicated (in schism) because they do not accept the two canonisations (and possibly others in the fast-track category of recent years.)


        January 28, 2015 at 11:39 am
    • Common Sense

      If you think The Church Jesus founded would render licit something that is not good, and that some things, of necessity and for good reason, can change you are probably in the wrong Church. For example, The Rite of Mass has, clearly, changed more than once, and Latin was not always the official language of The Church.

      January 28, 2015 at 6:25 am
      • Petrus

        Common Sense

        Have you ever studied the liturgy? You said the Rite of Mass has changed more than once. This is incorrect. There have been minor changes to the Mass, usually always adding something in, but the Rite of Mass contained within the 1962 missal stretches back to at least St Gregory the Great, and most liturgical scholars agree that the Roman Rite of Mass stretches back even further into antiquity.

        Only once in the history of the Church was continuity and organic development ruptured – 1969. What was the motive for this rupture? To bring about a second Protestant reformation. Indeed, six Protestant ministers helped to write the New Mass and Fr Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Consilium charged with writing a New Mass stated quite openly:

        “We must strip from our Catholic prayer books and from the Catholic Liturgy everything that can be a shadow of a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” [L’Osservatore Romano, 19/3/65]

        Fr. Joseph Gélineau S.J., a Council peritus and liberal apologist for the new liturgy, states in his book “Demain la Liturgie” (1976 MD p.77-8): “To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of theMass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

        If you look at the main innovations, sacrileges and abominations which are now common place in the New Mass you will notice that Vatican II did not sanction any of them. I speak of a New Mass, abandonment of Latin, Communion in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and altar girls. You won’t find any mention of these things in the documents of Vatican II. What happened after the Council was ambiguous documents were hijacked by the Modernist enemies of Tradition. Couple this with an extremely weak pope and the result is an ecclesiastical coup d’etat.

        How anyone could I ignore these things, never mind promote them, is beyond me. As for me, I will cling to Tradition rather than embrace innovation. Innovation that leads to the abandonment of vocations, falling Mass attendance and ultimately loss of Faith. If we cling to the Faith of our fathers we cannot go wrong.

        January 28, 2015 at 8:22 am
      • Common Sense

        So Gregory the Great was a contemporary of Jesus and The Apostles. History isn’t your strong point, is it?

        February 2, 2015 at 6:34 am
      • editor


        Pope Paul VI said that he had intended the novus ordo Mass to be an option, not a replacement of the old Mass.

        Please reflect on where the true disobedience lies, then, when so many (majority of ) Catholics think the new Mass replaced the old?

        January 28, 2015 at 11:41 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        You’re wrong! Latin has always been the language of the Church.

        And please do not confuse the Church with Churchmen, the latter being fallible and prone to error when they make changes. You really don’t understand a thing about Church teaching. All you’re doing here is making things up to suit your mindset, not an uncommon trait in Modernists.

        January 28, 2015 at 2:29 pm
  • damselofthefaith

    Frankly, I find it absurd that this sacrilege has to be ARGUED, as is happening here.

    This is the God of the Universe, Our Lord Jesus Christ, being passed around like candy and trampled underfoot and this sacrilege is being JUSTIFIED and DEFENDED?!

    Folks, this will have to be accounted for on the Day of Judgment. Do not forget that. God is not mocked. Those Bishops who rebelled against the Blessed Sacrament ultimately, by opening the door to Communion in the hand are responsible for this.

    We say we have the real thing. We say we have the Real Presence, but our conduct doesn’t say so. To those who receive Holy Communion in the hand, do you not realize that you are imitating the Protestants? If you believe it’s just bread, then you treat it accordingly. But, if you believe that is your Creator and God, why are you not kneeling in humble adoration and being fed like a child?

    January 28, 2015 at 3:49 am
    • Athanasius


      You are so right!

      There has been more than sufficient evidence provided by the bloggers here to make any genuinely objective Catholic think twice about Communion in the hand. Yet, this Common Sense person is making up every kind of excuse in its defence, even in the face of that horrendous video.

      That’s why I’m now of the opinion that this particular person is either not very bright or not fully Catholic. Innocent ignorance I can happily deal with. But belligerent, arrogant and determined ignorance is something altogether different. St. Peter himself could come to this person with the truth and still he would argue the point. I say we’ve done our duty and that the time has come to just leave the matter in God’s hands.

      January 28, 2015 at 2:41 pm
  • Common Sense

    I gather a multitude of learned people have subjected your scholarship to peer review, when you have published, and have found it wanting. No serious scholar would say that Latin was the language of The Early Church. Are you saying The New Testament, written in anything but Latin was written by other than The Apostles, and their co-workers?

    February 2, 2015 at 6:48 am
    • editor


      You are being mischievous. You must know that Athanasius means to say that Latin is the language which has the been in use longest, in the Church. Maybe this, from the Vatican website, will convince you – although I can’t be sure they’ve had it “peer reviewed”… would their “peers” be Justin Welby or the nearest Imam?

      “Undoubtedly, Latin is the language that has the most longevity in the Roman Liturgy: It has been in use for over sixteen centuries, that is to say, from the time when the official liturgical language of the Church went from Greek to Latin – a change completed under Pope Damasus (+384). The official liturgical books of the Roman Rite are still published in Latin today (editio typica).” Source

      February 3, 2015 at 12:20 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: